Schedule 2: Endangered…

Across all schedules of Bill 5 – Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025 – there is a notable and concerning absence of any explicit reference to consultation with First Nations. This does not reflect the Ontario Crown’s legal duty to consult and accommodate under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, nor does it align with the spirit of reconciliation.

SCHEDULE 2: ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
These amendments represent a significant threat to biodiversity, diminish the role of science in conservation, erode First Nations rights, and shift the government’s environmental responsibilities to proponents and developers.

This section outlines our specific concerns:
1. Loss of environmental protections and oversight
2. Weakening permitting and compliance mechanism
3. Erosion of science-based conservation
4. Redefinition of critical habitat protections
5. Transfer of government responsibility to industry

Issue 1: Loss of Environmental Protections and Oversight
The repeal of Section 17 of the ESA is deeply concerning, as it removes strict preconditions for granting exemptions and replaces them with unconditional allowances. This change would enable Ontario to issue exemptions without requiring habitat restoration or conservation agreements, effectively prioritizing industrial development over environmental protection.
Additionally, Schedule 2 reduces the effectiveness of species-at-risk management plans and recovery strategies by eliminating enforceable conservation measures. The absence of concrete accountability measures to First Nations undermines previous commitments and signals a departure from meaningful biodiversity protection.

Issue 2: Weakening of Permitting and Compliance Mechanisms
The removal of the requirement for environmental permitting under the new section 17 poses a major threat to responsible development and meaningful oversight. Permits are essential tools that ensure proponent activities are reviewed and that mitigation strategies are in place. Replacing permitting with simple notification through registration eliminates formal checks and balances, reduces transparency, and restricts the opportunity for consultation with First Nations.
Permits are also critical notification tools for First Nations to understand and respond to developments that may affect traditional hunting, harvesting, and land use rights. The elimination of this process violates section 35 of the Constitution Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Without these mechanisms, First Nations peoples are likely to be denied their right to consultation, accommodation, and equal participation in environmental decision-making.

Issue 3: Erosion of Science-Based Conservation
The downgrading of the role of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) signals a retreat from evidence-based conservation. The removal of scientific guidance from the ESA weakens Ontario’s ability to respond to changing species populations and reduces the use of current data to inform decision-making. By treating COSEWIC’s input as symbolic rather than directive, the proposal ignores the need for updated, objective assessments of species status. This will result in slower or ineffective responses to threats and could lead to undocumented losses of species in the province, particularly when government or industry desires drive delisting decisions.

Issue 4: Redefinition and Reduction of Critical Habitat Protections
The redefinition of "habitat" is deeply concerning as it is now narrow and ecologically unsound. Limiting protection to only areas where a species is physically found (such as root zones, nests, or dens) disregards essential lifecycle needs like breeding, foraging, and migration. It ignores established ecological science, such as that found in the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), which defines critical habitat as any area necessary for the survival and recovery of listed species. Moreover, the proposed change fails to account for data gaps that exist for many species, making comprehensive habitat protection impossible under the new definitions. Recovery requires protecting full ecosystems, including areas species may return to in the future. Habitat loss is one of the leading threats to biodiversity, and this proposed definition fails to address that reality.

Issue 5: Transfer of Responsibility from Government to Industry
The government’s shift of conservation responsibilities to developers and municipalities is unacceptable. While the proposal claims that industry is confused by current environmental regulations, in our experience, proponents understand what is required to meet basic standards. Rather than reducing oversight, Ontario should strengthen it by reinstating the technical review powers of bodies like Conservation Authorities and employing trained professionals to guide compliance and enforce protective standards.
Voluntary, proponent-led conservation efforts, particularly those not grounded in restoration, are unlikely to achieve meaningful protection outcomes. The government has a duty to its citizens—not industry—and must take responsibility for upholding environmental and constitutional obligations.

SCHEDULE 10: SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT
This proposed legislation represents a departure from science-based conservation and a dangerous prioritization of short-term economic gains over the long-term health of ecosystems, biodiversity, and First Nations rights.

Key issues:
1. Lack of consultation with First Nations
2. Unilateral government authority and over-concentration of power
3. Removes species recovery as an objective from Ontario’s endangered species framework
4. The permitting process

Issue 1: Lack of Consultation
Even more troubling is the erosion of public oversight and First Nations rights. Bill 5 sidelines First Nations communities by eliminating requirements for meaningful consultation; a key principle in upholding the constitutional rights of First Nations.

Issue 2: Unilateral Government Authority
One of the most alarming aspects of the proposed legislation is the politicization of species protection. Schedule 10 would allow the Ontario Cabinet—not scientific experts—to determine which species deserve legal protection. This fundamentally undermines science-based decision-making and allows for subjective political and economic interests to override conservation priorities. Furthermore, Schedule 10 grants sweeping new powers to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, allowing species classifications and permit conditions to change at the government’s discretion.

Issue 3: Removal of Species Recovery as Objective
Bill 5 undermines species recovery. Most critically, Schedule 10 removes the fundamental objective of species recovery from Ontario’s endangered species framework. Under current law, conservation efforts aim not only to prevent extinction but to ensure that species can recover to healthy, stable populations. Schedule 10 narrows this focus to such an extent that continued population decline, local extirpation, or even extinction could become acceptable outcomes under the bill.

Issue 4: The Permitting Process
The permitting process, a critical safeguard for species at risk, is also being gutted. Currently, developers must apply for permits when projects threaten species or their habitats. These applications are reviewed by environmental experts and come with conditions aimed at minimizing damage. Schedule 10 replaces this system with an online registration form. Once a developer submits, they are immediately authorized to begin work—regardless of the environmental consequences. This includes destroying critical habitats like dens, nesting areas, and breeding grounds, with no requirement for review or safer alternatives. Bill 5 imposes no meaningful conditions or safeguards for routine activities that impact rare or at-risk species. While some limited permitting powers remain, it is unclear whether they will be used effectively, and even if they are, they offer only weak protections. Furthermore, the new registry system does not have to be made public, removing transparency and accountability from the process entirely.

In conclusion, Schedule 10 poses an unprecedented threat to Ontario’s biodiversity and undermines the rights of First Nations.