I entirely oppose the…

I entirely oppose the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act (2007).

For nearly 20 years, Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been a cornerstone of environmental protection. It requires that species at risk — and the habitats they rely on — be protected from harm. But Bill 5 would repeal the ESA and replace it with a weaker, hollowed-out Species Conservation Act that does not transparently outline how protections and enforcement will happen. Leaving these vital protections ambiguous will guarantee that harm and destruction take place.

The Bill would remove “recovery” or ensuring the species is able to survive, with a stable population as a goal. The new Act is so narrow that it would virtually ensure continued decline, extinction, or extirpation.

Bill 5, if passed, would provide Cabinet the power to decide which species deserve protection, effectively making protection a political choice, not a scientific one. Cabinet does not have the experience, knowledge or objectivity to make decisions about wild lives and habitats.

The new law would define animal “habitat” to mean only the nest, den, or immediate area around it — not the forests, wetlands or feeding grounds they need to survive. Cabinet is allowed to further narrow that definition. This would leave species that are already in decline due to habitat loss, without the basic things they need to survive. The remaining landscape could resemble a moonscape without regulation. Even “harassment” of at-risk wildlife would be unregulated.

Right now, developers must apply for permits when projects threaten species or their habitat. These are reviewed by environmental experts and come with requirements to reduce harm.

Under Bill 5, that process is replaced by an online registration form. Once a company clicks “submit,” they’re free to start building. This includes killing species and destroying the remaining protected areas like dens. No review, no obligation to consider safer alternatives. It’s a developer’s dream and an environmental nightmare.

This process leaves no clear path to accommodating the constitutional rights of Indigenous people or protecting biodiversity. The registry is not required to be public.

Unlike Bill 5, most other registration processes impose conditions for routine activities. This process does not, and it is for species and their habitats that are unique. While some permitting powers remain, it is not clear if they will be applied, and those powers are weak.

Bill 5 represents a major step backwards in environmental protection and biodiversity efforts. We have a responsibility to uphold values that respect all living beings and create a world where life can thrive, not only in an "economic" way that benefits very few people.