The laws of our province are…

The laws of our province are put in place to protect the interests of the province and its citizens. Laws that don’t protect the immediate interests of individuals, such as their ability to make money, are even more important to ensure because they protect aspects that aren’t inherently spoken for by individuals. We, as a society, aim to protect those that are less powerful and we typically don’t question this when it comes to minority groups, but we are quick to want to push aside laws that protect the environment: an important part of wealth and well-being of the citizens of Ontario. We should not be surprised that there are costs to maintaining a healthy environment.
The political cycle dictates the scale of our considerations. The political mandate speaks to the next 2, 3 or 4 years and on that scale short-term economic problems always win; they are always the more immediate problem whereas incremental erosion of environmental conditions, and protection, may not be felt for many years.
It is important to consider the nature of the packaging of these changes. When given the black and white choice of jobs vs the environment, or sovereignty vs American expansion, the choice is easy. However, these are merely ways of packaging the proposal to achieve the preferred outcome. These aren’t the only options on the table. The issue is not black and white, and protecting the environment is also in the best interest of the citizens of Ontario.
Social and economic considerations are already taken into account with the ESA. They are taken into account when the government drafts its supporting documents, by consulting stakeholders. That process is also posted through the Environmental Registry, which receives consultation from all stakeholders in Ontario. Schedule 8 of Bill 229 already exempts industry from the ESA. Furthermore, actions through the Overall Benefit Permit process permit activities that harm Species at Risk, which means the social/economic importance of the project is recognized and the project can go ahead as long as mitigation and compensation is provided. That mitigation and compensation is not only supplied to the species, but to the people of Ontario.

Species Classification: In the proposed change, it is suggested that the government will have the ability to add species to the list. Let’s face it, that is not the purpose of the change. Plain and simple, the government wishes to remove species from the list that might hold up projects, and fits perfectly with a government that sees the environment as an impediment. The government must not retain the ability to add and remove species as they see fit.

Redefining Protections: The amendment states that an issue with the current ESA is that the term “habitat” is uncertain. Within the current ESA, there are provisions to provide a specific habitat definition that means the term “habitat” does not have to be ‘uncertain’. I would argue that the uncertainty exists because for most species the government has not adopted a specific Category 1-3 habitat definition. Doing so would solve the problem of uncertainty. If the current Category 1-3 definitions are too broad, the government could reconsider their approach to those rather than removing the need to protect habitat altogether. Species cannot exist without habitat; it is not as though we can provide meaningful protection to species without protecting what they need to survive. This amendment is antithetical to conservation and will have crippling impacts that will last for a considerable period of time even if they are corrected in the future.

Recovery Plans and Documents: As written, the changes are too vague to provide a meaningful comment on. The obvious approach is that if a species is considered at risk then that is the rationale that dictates that a plan is needed. The suggestion is that some species, at risk of going extinct, do not require attention, which is a small step removed from ignoring their situation completely.

SCAA: What will become of the money paid into the fund for conservation?

Compliance Monitoring: Given that this is the most important component of the ESA – having laws that are not enforced are useless – this requires more information in order to assess what the proposed changes actually are. Is the stakeholder collaborating in the process? Are aspects of the Overall Benefit Permit still in place. I assume not since habitat is a critical priority of the OBP.