The Endangered Species Act,…

The Endangered Species Act, 2007 (“ESA”) was originally enacted in 1971 to protect and support the recovery of Species At Risk (“SAR”) as a result of development and loss of biodiversity. The proposed amendments to legislation included in Bill 5 present the notion that environmental, and specifically SAR protections, can be disregarded for the purpose of economic growth in Ontario. This removes as-of-right protection and enacts the ability to consider economic and social growth as more important, as long as the activities do not result in the species no longer existing in the Province as a whole (extirpation).

Further, the proposed Species Conservation Act, 2025, removes reference to recovery of SAR populations that have declined or are in decline, and instead promotes conservation of the at-risk or reduced populations currently present. Staff of the City of Waterloo are concerned that the protection of the status quo rather than recovery is likely to lead to continued decline.

One of the most significant changes is the revised definition of habitat. Currently, habitat is considered to be that which provides the full range of habitats for essential lifecycle processes. The new definition will be limited to overwintering and breeding habitats, and residences. Removal of movement, migration, foraging habitat from consideration is likely to lead to isolated populations, lack of genetic diversity, and population decline resulting from an inability of individuals to move between seasonal habitats (i.e. between breeding and overwintering habitats, or access to foraging areas). The removal of harassment of species from prohibited activities will have impacts on species distribution and indicates that indirect impacts to SAR will no longer be assessed.

The proposed definitions of habitat also omit consideration of critical lifecycle processes for at-risk plant species. The proposed definition of plant habitat presents a shift from inclusion of habitat for seedling dispersal and maintenance of hydrological conditions required for continued survival to a focus only on the critical root zone, which does not support sustainable maintenance of the habitat the plant requires nor the ability of the at-risk population to reproduce or recover.

The proposed shift from the current ESA permitting approach to a registration-first approach will result in a proponent-led process with less Provincial review by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, and therefore less oversight. Almost all activities that required a permit to negatively impact SAR or their habitat would only require registration and therefore rely on effective assessments by consultants and/or proponents without review by any public agency to ensure accuracy of assessments, consideration of alternatives, and effectiveness of mitigation options.

Proposed amendments also include the establishment of a framework for setting clear expectations and rules for proponents to follow, that are focused on those activities that are most likely to have a direct negative impact on species. It is unclear whether indirect, cumulative impacts, or habitat fragmentation will be considered fully through the new registration process.

Granting the Province the discretion to add or remove species from the Protected Species in Ontario List is concerning and has the potential to result in a significant shift away from the current dependence exclusively on scientific studies or assessment reports through the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (“COSSARO”). A key purpose of the ESA is to identify SAR based on the best available scientific information and it is uncertain how this will be achieved under the revised legislation.

Further to the above Province-wide changes, enacting the proposed Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 gives the province the ability to designate “special economic zones”, where environmental protections and municipal regulations can be suspended or overridden. The creation of zones in which environmental features and functions are disregarded in order to provide economic benefit disregards the multitude of benefits that a sustainable environment provides, which include benefits to human health and sustainable natural resources, in favor of economic considerations. It reflects a reaction to the tariffs recently placed on Canada as referenced within Bill 5, by prioritizing rapid development and resource extraction through suspension of protections, rather than a more long-term consideration of economical and environmental climate.

Staff at the City of Waterloo believe that sustainable and responsible development is possible and does not require areas of blanket dismissal of both provincial and municipal environmental regulations within special economic zones. We believe in the continued importance of supporting SAR recovery, which includes protection of all habitat types required for critical lifecycle processes, generation of Provincial recovery strategies, and prohibition of harassment of SAR. Staff believe it is important that the Province recognize the benefits to society, human health and the economy that are provided by integral natural features, habitats, and biodiversity so that legislative framework can enable sustainable development for the long term. We recommend that the original purpose of the ESA to protect and support the recovery of SAR be maintained. We believe that not only is it possible to unleash the economy while doing so, but in fact essential to the maintenance of healthy environments, natural resources, and a sustainable society.