Comment for: Proposed…

Comment for: Proposed interim changes to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and a proposal for the Species Conservation Act, 2025 (ERO Number 025-0380)
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0380

I am writing to express that I strongly object to Ontario’s proposed interim amendments to the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), and the proposal for the new Species Conservation Act, 2025. The proposed changes not only pose a serious threat to the protection of at-risk species and their habitats, but directly oppose the wishes of Ontarians, who are amongst the most supportive of immediate government action to halt the biodiversity crisis.

As a professional wildlife biologist and consultant to many First Nations in Ontario, it is my responsibility to advise government against conduct that will threaten our province’s unique wildlife species and habitats. In my own experiences navigating the ESA authorization process, I acknowledge that is has become slow, cumbersome, and at times, unpredictable. However, these issues lie mainly in the administration of the Act, not the legislation itself. In fact, your government played a significant role in creating the problems you now wish to solve (i.e., “slow and complex permitting process causing unnecessary delays and costs”) by significantly reducing the number of staff responsible for administering authorizations. Repealing the ESA is not an appropriate response to this, and Ontario needs to be accountable for addressing this in a way that balances progress on critical economic development projects with the continued protection of Ontario’s unique biodiversity: through process and administration improvements.

Overall, I am deeply concerned by the following proposal details:
• Species Classification and Listing: Removal of the mandatory listing of species at risk and addition of Ministerial discretion on which assessed species will be included on the official list of protected species. This moves away from making unbiased decisions based on the best available western science and Indigenous Knowledge, with processes that favour the preferences of those with the most resources and influence.
• Redefining Protections: Reducing protected habitat to a “dwelling place” only and removing the prohibition on “harassing” protected species. This demonstrates either a lack of understanding of, or a blatant disregard for, Ontario’s diverse species and how they rely on different habitats to carry out critical life processes, and whose survivorship is influenced by indirect threats. Protecting an immediate dwelling is like avoiding a person’s house but demolishing the rest of their neighbourhood including grocery stores, hospitals, and roadways and expecting them to survive.
• Recovery Plans and Documents: Removal of the requirement to develop recovery strategies, management plans, response statements, and species progress reports. Collectively, this eliminates important planning and accountability frameworks and will result in even less consistency and clarity for proponents with respect to developing species protection plans.
• Registration-first Approach: Replacing the ESA permit application process with a “registration-first approach”, removing important opportunities and obligations for oversight from qualified MECP staff and free, prior, and informed consent from affected Indigenous groups. Based on my experience, Indigenous groups will never provide consent for companies to put shovels in the ground before they are fully satisfied that our most vulnerable species and their habitats will be considered and protected to a reasonable extent. This will result in further delays for proponents navigating through project planning and approvals processes and provide even less consistency than what is currently in place.
• New Species Conservation Fund: While the proposal to increase funding for voluntary species at risk protection initiatives is welcomed, it must be paired with strong mechanisms for habitat avoidance and protection, not used as a consolation prize for their removal. Habitat restoration activities are expensive and can be unsuccessful despite best efforts, and this is why they are further down the mitigation hierarchy chain. In addition, applied research into species is most helpful for developing science-based recommendations for their protection. Why fund this if there will be little to no opportunity to apply the findings?
• Removal of “Recovery” goals from the Species Conservation Act, 2025: Shifting legislation goals toward maintaining the status quo (i.e., protection only) of species populations, habitat availability and conditions is simply not acceptable in a biodiversity crisis.
I am also deeply concerned by the rapid rate at which Bill 5 is proceeding through the Ontario legislature, including the advancements that have been made prior to the closure of the 30-day Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) public comment period. With the public comment period closing May 17 and Bill 5 advancing to the Standing Committee on the Interior shortly thereafter on May 22, I seriously question Ontario’s ability to fully review and consider public input in a fulsome manner. This represents a clear disregard for our public participation rights legislated under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993. Your government has developed a track record of doing what is in its own best interests despite public opposition. This is highly undemocratic and a habitat that must immediately change.

In conclusion, I recognize that there is a need to ensure that authorizations under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 do not substantially interfere with critical economic development progress in Ontario. However, this cannot come at the expense of Ontario’s unique biodiversity, species, and habitats. Bill 5 and this proposal purports to “protect” Ontario, but in my view as a biologist and constituent, it will only destroy what I love most about our province. I strongly oppose this bill and urge your government to reconsider this proposal.