
Toronto Zoo warns of extinctions if Ontario mining bill becomes law
TORONTO - Species could go extinct if Ontario passes a controversial mining bill that is set to transform its approach to endangered species and the environment, the Toronto Zoo warned the province.
Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, would strike a blow to the recovery of several species the institution has been trying to save, said Dolf DeJong, the zoo's CEO, at a committee hearing at Queen's Park on Thursday.
If and when the bill becomes law, DeJong wants the province to step up with funding so it can dramatically increase its biobank with Ontario species that could die off as a result of the legislation.
'We're concerned this act will result in the erosion of biodiversity and the loss of species at risk,' DeJong said.
'This bill, if passed, could undo decades of conservation efforts and threaten some of Ontario's most vulnerable species, species your Toronto Zoo works directly for.'
The zoo is concerned that this bill, combined with the rollback of environmental protections under U.S. President Donald Trump, further threaten endangered species.
'I think we all understand that endangered species don't recognize political boundaries, and these policy changes makes their survival on both sides of the border more questionable,' DeJong said.
The zoo has an ongoing program to help the recovery of the Blanding's turtle with the help of Parks Canada. The animal is considered threatened in Ontario and, by the province's own definition, is 'likely to become endangered if steps are not taken to address factors threatening it.'
'Together with Parks Canada, your Toronto Zoo has helped release more than 700 individuals into Rouge National Urban Park,' DeJong said.
'And while they may not move quickly, these turtles travel up to six kilometres a year around the watershed as they move between nesting, feeding and hibernation sites.'
Anything that would disrupt that habitat would be catastrophic for the Blanding's turtle, he said.
The province's omnibus bill seeks to speed up the approval of mining projects through a variety of measures. It includes eventually repealing the Endangered Species Act, removing significant habitat protections and doing away with requirements to create recovery strategies for at-risk species.
The definition of habitat would change from the entire area needed for a species to survive, to just its nest or den and the area immediately surrounding it. The province is also giving itself greater power over an independent, science-based committee to add and remove species from a protected list.
And the bill also proposes to give the government power to create so-called 'special economic zones' where it can suspend provincial and municipal laws, including environmental laws, on certain projects. Premier Doug Ford said the province will designate the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario as the first such zone, a move that has sparked anger and protest from First Nations living there.
They would also allow companies to start developing a project that could destroy habitat or kill at-risk species without first getting a permit. Instead, the government is proposing to move to a not-yet-defined 'registration-first approach' for all projects
But Ford also mused non-mining projects such as his idea of a massive transit and traffic tunnel under Highway 401 could also receive the designation along with other major infrastructure projects.
'If the government decides to move forward as written, we have one ask, establish an insurance policy for these species and their well-being,' DeJong said. 'This government needs to commit to funding to create an Ontario wildlife biobank at your Toronto Zoo, our reproductive science team can play a critical role, working with partners across all walks of life to ensure we have a backup plan for future generations.'
The zoo currently has about 100 animal species in its biobank, largely from animals in its own collection and other accredited zoos across the country.
A few years ago the zoo began working with non-governmental organizations and scientists to explore the idea of collecting samples from the wild for its growing repository, said Gabriela Mastromonaco, the institution's chief science officer.
The zoo has worked with Parks Canada and the University of Saskatchewan over the past 10 years on its wood bison conservation program. The zoo's biobank is a collection of living cells, not DNA, that can be used to procreate the species, Mastromonaco said.
The zoo collected sperm and eggs from wood bison populations, which are susceptible to disease, across the province
'We can disinfect them, we can make the embryos, we can store them as clean material, and then we can use surrogate herds like Toronto Zoo's and the one at the University of Saskatchewan to make the calves clean — disinfected calves — to repopulate the wild with the right genetics,' Mastromonaco said.
From that technique, the zoo was able to help create 15 bison that now live there. They are still working on reintroduction programs for the bison, but they've had success with other animals like the dusky gopher frog, which they artificially inseminated before releasing the resulting tadpoles back into the wild.
But the zoo is worried the new law, when passed, will ramp up the loss of species.
'We have to protect against outright genetic loss and the potential for genetic erosion where the populations are getting smaller and smaller,' Mastromonaco said.
The province maintains the proposed law will balance environmental concerns with economic ones.
'We're always going to be very conscious of making sure that we take care of the environment,' Ford said Friday when asked about the blowback on the bill.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 23, 2025.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Doug Ford's Bill 5 is now law in Ontario. Here's what happens next
Now that Ontario's controversial Bill 5 is law, all eyes are on what Premier Doug Ford does with the new powers it gives his government. Bill 5, also called the Protecting Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, empowers the government (among other things) to create special economic zones, where cabinet can exempt companies or projects from having to comply with any provincial law, provincial regulation or municipal bylaw. Ford pitches Bill 5 as a way of shoring up Ontario's economy in the face of Donald Trump's tariffs by speeding up major infrastructure and resource projects. Ford's officials insist the government won't exempt any company in a special economic zone from Ontario's minimum wage rules or other labour laws. But the wide-open way the legislation is written would allow cabinet to hand out exemptions from any law, whether labour, environmental or operational. Asked this week which laws he's considering overriding with Bill 5 — and whether any laws are off the table for such exemptions — Ford offered no specifics. WATCH | Your quick guide to Bill 5: "I just want to speed up the process," he said during a news conference on Thursday, moments after Bill 5 received Royal Assent, making it law. Ford then talked of how long it takes for a mine to get into production, an issue that is actually tackled in a different part of Bill 5: revisions to the Mining Act designed to shorten Ontario's approval process to two years from the current four years. Pressed again on which laws he would exempt companies from in the special economic zones, Ford said every situation is different. Ford wants to move 'as quickly as possible' "Let's see what companies come to the table, and depending on how quickly we can get opportunities and jobs, we'll reveal them," Ford said. Ford wants Ontario's first special economic zone to be the Ring of Fire mineral deposit, some 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, in the heart of Treaty 9 territory. The area is said to be full of so-called critical minerals, such as cobalt, lithium and nickel, in high demand for the tech industry. The premier said on Thursday that he wants to make the Ring of Fire a special economic zone "as quickly as possible" but has also said he won't do so without consulting with First Nations Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce says the province is already "consulting meaningfully" with First Nations and will continue to do so over the coming months. "We're all going to be part of this endeavour to really listen to those voices and help build a common vision for responsible resource development that unlocks the bounty of the resource, to change the lives of northerners and to ensure Indigenous share in that bounty," Lecce said alongside Ford at Thursday's news conference inside Queen's Park. The skepticism from many First Nations leaders is palpable. The Chiefs of Ontario invited Ford to attend their annual assembly June 17 to 19 and sent Ford a message that his attendance would mark the start of consultations on Bill 5. "This legislation, introduced without prior consultation with First Nations rights holders, raises serious concerns due to its far-reaching implications on inherent Treaty rights and community obligations to the land, waters, and wildlife," says the invitation letter from Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict. The Chiefs of Ontario, the umbrella group representing more than 130 First Nations across the province, are warning of "resistance, on the ground, and in the courts" against Bill 5. WATCH | What the 'duty to consult' First Nations means for governments: One thing to watch for in the months to come is whether the provincial government's push to fast-track the Ring of Fire is replicated by the federal government. Ford put the Ring of Fire at the top of his list presented to Prime Minister Mark Carney for consideration as a potential nation-building project. Ford calls Carney 'Santa Claus' Carney asked all the premiers to come to last Monday's First Ministers Meeting in Saskatoon with their ideas of projects that would be "in the national interest," either by helping to diversify the Canadian economy or to reach new export markets. It's now up to Carney to decide which projects merit federal backing, whether through fast-track approvals or funding. Ford described Carney as Santa Claus for this approach. But to make the metaphor accurate, it means Ford and his fellow premiers have merely written their letters to Santa Claus, and they now have to wait until Christmas comes to find out whether Santa brings them what they asked for. The other items on Ford's list are also projects that could be designated special economic zones: new nuclear power plants, a new deep-sea port on James Bay, Ford's vision of a tunnel under Highway 401 through Toronto, and an expansion of the GO Transit network. If Carney endorses any of these, you can expect the Ford government will use its Bill 5 powers to speed up the process of moving that project from endorsement to reality. On Friday, Carney's Liberals tabled a bill in the House of Commons called the One Canadian Economy Act, designed in part to speed up the approval process of major infrastructure projects, a goal similar to Ontario's Bill 5. One line in the text of Bill 5 says its purpose is making Ontario "the best place in the G7 to invest, create jobs and do business." Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade Minister Vic Fedeli, whose chief role is attracting companies to the province, says investors around the world are hoarding capital in hopes of some economic certainty. Will Bill 5 attract investment? "That capital that's building up needs to unleash, and we want them to know that when they come to Ontario, it can be unleashed very quickly here," Fedeli said at the news conference alongside Ford and Lecce. Having Bill 5 powers on the books means Ontario could try to entice investors to set up shop in a special economic zone, but officials won't say whether that incentive is now being dangled at any particular companies. More questions remain on how exactly the government will use other powers it obtained through Bill 5, such as the power to ignore the independent scientific committee that determines whether a species is endangered or threatened in Ontario. You can expect a backlash from conservation groups whenever the government uses that power, for instance by scrapping measures that would protect the habitat of a species at risk. What's unknown is when, where and with what species the government will take such a step. Another 'watch this space' related to Bill 5: what happens with the expansion of a landfill on the edge of the southwestern Ontario town of Dresden, which the legislation exempts from having to go through a comprehensive environmental assessment. Local residents say they're not giving up their efforts to halt the project, while the company behind is welcoming the opportunity of "moving forward with our plan."
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.