May 16, 2025 RE: ERO# 025…

May 16, 2025

RE: ERO# 025-0380 Proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025

On behalf of WWF-Canada, we offer the following comments on the proposed changes of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), put forward in Schedule 2 of Bill 5, an omnibus bill tabled on April 17, 2025. Further, we offer comments on the new Species Conservation Act, 2025, put forward in Schedule 10 of this same bill.

Bill 5 threatens Ontario’s biodiversity by significantly weakening protections for species at risk and increasing pressures on ecologically sensitive areas. The proposed repeal of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and its replacement with the Species Conservation Act (SCA), 2025 shifts the focus from science-based conservation to discretionary, development-oriented decision-making.

WWF-Canada is deeply concerned with the Government of Ontario’s proposed changes to the ESA. WWF’s recent Living Planet Report found that populations of vertebrate species globally have declined by an average of 73% since 1970, highlighting that wildlife around the world are in trouble. In Canada, populations of at-risk species of global importance have declined by an average 42 per cent over the same time.

Wildlife in Ontario are also experiencing these losses and need additional resources, including improved legislation and funding, to help protect and recover at risk populations. In fact, Ontario is a hot-spot for biodiversity, with the southern region of Ontario being home to one-third of Canada’s species at risk. A 2025 study led by WWF-Canada and the University of British Columbia, currently under peer review, found that if no changes are made to how we address key threats to species in the Lake-Simcoe Rideau ecoregion in Southern Ontario, we are likely to lose most of these species by 2050 (Camaclang et al., 2025 In review). This research found that without new investments or policies, 130 of 133 (98%) species included in the study will not have self-sustaining populations into 2050.

We also found that an investment of $113 million per year over the next 27 years could ensure survival of 100 out of 133 (75%) species in the study. This includes specific investments in nature-based climate solutions such as habitat protection, restoration, and management. This is a less than one tenth of a percent of Ontario’s 2024 budget.

We offer the following points of concern on the proposed changes:

1. Erosion of Science-Based Protections:
Bill 5 diminishes the role of scientific assessments in species protection. The new SCA allows the government to make discretionary decisions on species listings, potentially sidelining scientific bodies like the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) and Indigenous Knowledge holders. This shift raises concerns about the objectivity and transparency of species protection measures.

Additionally, the new Species Conservation Act has dropped recovering species populations as a goal and now includes a mandate to focus on social and economic considerations, including sustainable economic growth. However, protecting nature is a smart economic investment as these ecosystems provide us with countless benefits such as improved human health and well-being, creating jobs, improving water quality, and protection against climate change.

2. Impacts to Indigenous Rights
Many of the species at risk in Ontario also hold cultural significance for Indigenous people, who are likely to be affected by the watering down of protections for species at risk. There are also specific implications for Indigenous People’s rights including in Subsection 9 (5), where it is proposed that this be repealed so that the Minister no longer has ability to provide for exemption for the prohibition against possession or transportation of a species at risk for the scientific or educational purposes or traditional, cultural, religions or ceremonial purposes. Additionally, Section 19 of the ESA is proposed to be repealed, meaning there would no longer be an obligation for the Minister to enter into agreements with Indigenous government, including to authorize activities that may otherwise be prohibited by the ESA.

3. Weakened Habitat Safeguards:
The definition of “habitat” is drastically narrowed, as under the new legislation habitat is defined as the immediate area that the animal currently occupies. However, this is extremely limiting, as wildlife typically require large, varied, and connected habitats to survive. The new definition excludes areas where species could potentially be reintroduced or where they may be experiencing natural range shifts due to climate change, thereby limiting conservation efforts. This is particularly troubling considering that the top threat to most species at risk is habitat loss and degradation.

4. “Register-First, Assess-Later” Approach:
Developers can proceed with activities impacting species at risk by simply registering their projects, without prior environmental assessments or permits. Instead of seeking permits and assessing risk or harm to the species, this promotes allowing activities first. In the case of many species at risk in this province who live in small, isolated populations, allowing activities to occur before an assessment is done could mean that a species or population could be eliminated.

5. Establishment of Special Economic Zones:
The bill introduces zones where the government can exempt projects from environmental laws that have been put in place over decades to help protect people and the planet from harmful development practices, raising concerns about unchecked development in sensitive ecosystems. This could lead to unchecked industrial activities in ecologically sensitive areas, further endangering species at risk.

Note that WWF-Canada has also provided detailed comments on this issue and will be submitting comments for ERO# 025-0391: Special Economic Zones Act, 2025.

6. Diminished Enforcement and Oversight:
The SCA reduces the powers of enforcement officers, eliminating the ability to issue stop orders and weakening compliance mechanisms. This reduction in enforcement power is seen as a step back in ensuring compliance with species protection regulations.

7. Disbanding of the Independent Oversight Agency: The agency responsible for overseeing species protection is to be wound up, with its functions absorbed into the government, potentially reducing transparency and accountability.

Overall, nature is an essential pillar of a healthy, functioning economy and community, and we rely on nature for the health and well-being of Ontarians. The habitats these species rely on also benefit humans, sequestering carbon, filtering our air and water, growing food, and providing places for tourism and recreation.
On behalf of WWF-Canada, we urge you to withdraw the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act immediately. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sincerely,

James Snider
Vice President, Science Knowledge and Innovation, WWF-Canada