May 17, 2025 We are…

May 17, 2025

We are submitting comments on behalf of the Ontario Chapter of The Wildlife Society (OCTWS) and the Canadian Section of The Wildlife Society (CSTWS), which are part of a larger international organization (TWS) of more than 10,000 wildlife professionals and students from across North America. Within Canada, our Chapter and Section, along with five provincial chapters and six student chapters, have more than 500 members employed by government organizations, non-government organizations, industry, professional consultants and universities. Many of our members are world-renowned experts in conservation and wildlife habitat management, including wetland conservation, fisheries management and endangered species.

As representatives of the OCTWS and CSTWS, we would like to express our comments and concerns regarding the proposed Bill 5 and the repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in Ontario. These concerns are summarized below and are supported by the link provided to our TWS Issue Statement Conservation Policy for At-Risk Species in Canada.

1. Arguments that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is too slow and complex
While we recognize there have been issues with the ESA, we are aware of modifications to the Act that streamlined its application. We also believe that more could be done to make this piece of legislation more effective rather than repealing the Act outright.

2. The need for science-based decision-making and proposed ability for the government to remove species from the protected list
Retaining the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) “as an independent science-based committee” but allowing the government to remove species from the protected species list without input or approval from COSSARO is neither an independent nor science-based approach to wildlife management. We are concerned by the proposed ability of the Government of Ontario to add and remove species from the list of protected species without a prior assessment by a group of independent experts. Whether a species requires protection or not depends on many factors, including the size of its population, the rate at which this population changes, existing threats, and habitat availability. The government’s proposal does not provide any substantive rationale why it could disregard these factors despite potential consequences to listed species. The government also proposes to remove species from the protected list deemed problematic in certain areas of development, regardless of science-informed decision making that would consider the status of the species, its role in the broader ecosystem, and its corresponding federal status under the federal Species at Risk Act . In addition, the proposed removal of the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee further erodes government accountability and independent evaluation, external comments and scientific research. There is no clear guidance on when or how the government would ask for guidance in a registration-first process.

3. New definition of “habitat”
Redefining “habitat” under the proposed Species Conservation Act is is much too narrow. Wildlife species rely on a broader suite of ecological conditions beyond the physical location of a nest or den. These conditions include but are not limited to: foraging areas, shelter, movement corridors, the broader landscape context that enables reproductive success, predator avoidance and seasonal migrations. By limiting the legal definition of “habitat” only to the immediate vicinity of a fixed feature, the proposed change disregards the functional integrity of ecosystems and the spatial needs of species at risk. Such a reductionist approach undermines the science-based foundation of species recovery planning and jeopardizes long-term conservation outcomes. We disagree with the proposed redefinition of "habitat" to include only the specific wildlife feature (e.g., den, nest) and its immediate surroundings. This narrow interpretation is ecologically unfounded and inconsistent with well-established principles of wildlife biology and habitat conservation.

Furthermore, by allowing the removal of habitat adjacent to the immediate root zone of any listed vascular plants will lead to the death of that plant. Vascular plants rely on their surrounding ecosystems for nutrients, moisture, and interactions with other species (e.g., pollinators). For example, species such as American ginseng require the rich soil and shaded environment that is created in a deciduous sugar maple forest and would not survive if that surrounding environment were removed. Another example would be wetland plants that require specific soil moisture, which would die from changes to drainage or elimination of surrounding habitat.

4. Removal of the term “harassment”
An additional concern is the proposed removal of “harassment” as a regulatory consideration. Exclusion of this term would significantly weaken protections for species at risk, particularly those that are highly sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance. Harassment, in the ecological context, includes a wide range of human activities that may not involve direct physical harm but nonetheless disrupt essential behaviors such as nesting, foraging or rearing young. Infrastructure development and industrial activities often generate persistent stressors, such as noise, vibration, light or proximity, which can lead to nest abandonment, increased mortality, or reduced reproductive success. These indirect effects are well documented in the scientific literature and are critical considerations in the effective management of sensitive species. Maintaining a clear and enforceable definition of harassment is essential to uphold a precautionary, science-based approach to species protection. Its removal would create a substantial gap in the legislative framework, allowing activities that pose real and demonstrable risks to proceed without mitigation or oversight.

5. Using a registration-first approach
Switching from requiring permits to a registration process for most development projects is of major concern. While registering may hasten the authorization process for new developments, it also means that developers, either willingly or accidentally, will be able to damage habitats until the government intervenes. This a posteriori approach opens the door to further degradation of protected species habitats in Ontario. While the Act states that the government will still have requirements to “protect species”, there is no clear mechanism or criteria triggering this protection, especially given the proposal allowing the government to remove species from the protected list.

6. The creation of the Special Economic Zones Act
The creation of the Special Economic Zones Act is perhaps one of the most concerning parts of Bill 5. This Act would give the Ontario government sweeping authority to create zones exempt from any provincial or municipal law or by-law without any limits on the location or size of the area in question. It also would allow the government to award the development to a “trusted proponent” or “designated project”, without any criteria for the proponent or the project would be. Of even greater concern is that this Act would allow the government to by-pass new environmental legislation and remove the ability for environmental organizations and First Nation communities to challenge projects in court. Such legislation has been successfully challenged in court previously, creating development delays. This aspect of Bill 5 also compromises conservation in favour of development without consideration of environmental impact, environmental sensitivity of an area, species present in the area, consultation requirements and existing laws or by-laws municipalities.

7. Removal of aquatic species and migratory birds from the proposed Species Conservation Act
Relying on federal legislation for any extirpated, endangered and threatened migratory birds and aquatic species is not sufficient. There are gaps at the federal level which would leave species in Ontario at risk. Under the proposed Special Economic Zones Act, Ontario could override any federal legislation regarding species protection and could not be challenged in court. This provincial override is not supported when existing federal legislation supersedes provincial legislation.

8. Removing the requirements for recovery plans and documents
The removal of regulatory obligations for the Ontario government to develop recovery strategies and management plans for protected species is also problematic. We recognize the need to put resources towards species that need them the most. However, the proposed shift in focus to funding voluntary action is too drastic. It assumes that voluntary actions are sufficient to protect the province's protected species, but it is unknown whether this would occur even with additional funding. Notably, organizations that act voluntarily lack the government’s current ability to designate habitat as protected and might struggle to coordinate to protect species that are declining but widely distributed. We urge the government to seek a legal framework that allows direct collaboration with voluntary actors to protect habitats and species, rather than simply providing guidance and funding. History shows that we can recover species when we have appropriate plans, government engagement and partnerships in place.

9. The Species Conservation Act
The proposal claims that once the SCA is enacted, the government “will have discretion on what species are protected” and that there will be a “general prohibition for activities that would result in a species no longer living in the wild in Ontario”. There is no clear definition of “general prohibition” within the Act. This proposal also allows the proponent to argue that they met the protection objective by following government regulations, which may not be sufficient for species survival. For example, if a development project protected a turtle nesting site but destroyed the habitat for hibernating, rearing and feeding, thereby leading to that turtle population’s extinction, the proponent could argue that it still followed provincial guidelines in protecting its nesting site. In addition, the lack of species protection under the Species Conservation Act would permit the proponent to kill and harm a species at risk as long as the project is registered, if there were not proper protections in place during that registration.

In summary, we feel that Bill 5:
1. Does not “balance” conservation and the economy and puts species at even greater risk.
2. Disregards independent, scientific research and constitutional rights for First Nation consultation and ignores Indigenous Traditional Knowledge and appropriate consultation.
3. Would lead to destruction of critical habitat and result in increased species extirpations and extinctions (an example being important caribou calving and migration areas in the Ring of Fire).
4. Enables proponents to harass a species, whether intentionally or unintentionally, thus leading to increased stressors on that species in that area.
5. Compromises oversight by removing the current permitting process and lacks clarity on which regulations the government would place on activities that could harm a species. Therefore, there would be no oversight for harmful activities and no opportunities for First Nation consultation, which could contradict Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982.
6. Removes the obligation to create species recovery strategies which results in a loss of the requirement to monitor populations of species at risk. This gap would also lead to even greater knowledge gaps, because research and monitoring requirements will cease.

We ask that the government of Ontario re-consider its repeal of the Endangered Species Act and cancel Bill 5. Species conservation is complex in nature. We know that despite the various legislation and protections that are in place, more species are becoming at risk annually. The Word Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report Canada 2020 states that species at risk in Canada are facing “an average” of five threats. These threats increase the complexity for species protection, conservation and restoration, and they speak to the need for more conservation protection and management, not less. The report also states that increased efforts to protect biodiversity and climate change are needed as part of species protection. Additionally, in a recent poll, Nature Canada determined that 84% of poll respondents want “stronger government action” to help protect wildlife.

There is strong public support for species conservation in Ontario. We encourage the government of Ontario to prioritize approaches that allow for streamlined project assessments while also upholding the precautionary principle and being accountable for responsible wildlife management.