This proposal to gut the…

This proposal to gut the Endangered Species Act is infuriating, irresponsibly and callous - coming as it does at the same time that the UN has declared that we are facing an existential crisis related to the a mass extinction event on Earth, it is stunning to me that this government continually finds new and appalling ways to be out of touch with reality. And that is quite an achievement seeing as what this government has done in the past 10 months, such as cancelling tree planting programs in the middle of an extreme but "new normal" spring flood season; cutting the forest fire fighting budget just before the "new normal" forest fire season begins; cancelling and then fighting climate change action just when the world has 11 years to reduce our carbon emissions or face catastrophic consequences. This government is doing exactly the wrong things at a pivotal time in human history, shirking its duties to its citizens while claiming to be making everything better. History will judge this government harshly - offering buck-a-beer and casinos when the planet is facing a crisis. This is not leadership and this is NOT for the people.

This proposal further illustrates the extraordinary extent to which this government's policies are entirely divorced from science and logic. As I read the proposed changes to Ontario's "best in class legislation", I tried really hard to see how these changes would actually strengthen the purpose of the statute - the protection of nonhuman species in Ontario from extinction - and I could find nothing. Rather, this proposal is another example of this government's "race-to-the-bottom" approach to legislating and regulating, well, everything. Why lead if you can just gut existing programs and ensure our extraordinary province becomes as mediocre as our neighbours? Especially when you can take credit for past governments' achievements (like the coal phase-out!) when it suits you to justify not leading anymore?

Moreover, this proposal is another excellent example of this government's deft use of "double-speak". George Orwell would be flattered, if he weren't appalled. How exactly would "de-coupling" automatic protections for listed species and increasing Ministerial discretion for listing such species actually result in greater protection? Where does science actually fit into these decisions when Ministerial discretion is strengthened and development is prioritized? How does increasing Ministerial discretion result in an arms'-length decision-making process? Ministerial discretion in the existing Act is the primary reason why, in the 10 years since the statute has been in place, we now have MORE endangered species and species-at-risk in Ontario, not fewer. It defies all sense and logic that giving the Minister even more power to over-ride the protections in the Act and facilitate development of precious habitat would be of any benefit to at-risk and endangered species in this province. The purported objectives of this proposal are in no-way supported by the actual proposed changes. The attempts by this government to disguise its intentions to bolster development by dismantling protection for at-risk species is disgusting - be honest and transparent about who and what these proposed changes are really for and then see how the public reacts.

This proposal also demonstrates how little this government understands science. Plants and animals cannot be moved around this province like human populations. Natural systems are not just large zoos that can be re-located on a whim when they get in the way. The landscape in southern Ontario is so highly fragmented and degraded that it will not make a jot of difference to an at-risk species, particularly not for less mobile species like mammals, reptiles and amphibians, if you destroy their habitat in one place and "build a new one" somewhere else (are you serious??? Do you really think that humans can just replace natural processes and areas so easily?). Destroying natural habitat for development is not equivalent to expropriating a house for a highway - you cannot just build a new marsh or forest somewhere and expect animal and plant populations to be ok. Humans are not nearly as sophisticated as natural processes and we actually don't understand natural systems nearly as well as we think we do. We are forever causing unintended effects due to our arrogance and hubris and we consistently underestimate the extraordinary ways that even the most humble creatures are connected to the larger systems that sustain us (see the attached video about what happened to Yellowstone National Park when wolves were re-introduced).

Similarly, it makes absolutely no sense to say that because a species is found outside the province we can ignore its status inside our borders. Ontario's border is a human creation - it only makes sense politically (sort of) but it makes no sense at all in terms of hydrology, watersheds, ecology, ecosystems, plant and animal distributions or climate. Plants and animals need space, they need genetically diverse populations, they often need to move. Nature is not and cannot survive like a zoo. If Ontario decides not protect endangered species because they are seemingly alright somewhere else, that does not mean that the species is somehow safe from extinction. (How does this government even propose to monitor out-of-province populations and efforts for species protection? And will there be any assessment of legislation and political changes in other jurisdictions so that we can be assured that these species will be taken care of elsewhere? Any plans to re-adjust our approach if other jurisdictions take a similar leave-it-to-others approach of looking after the nonhuman world?? This is how extinction happens - everyone thinks someone else will take care of the problem, everyone believes that what they do doesn't cause the problem.) This government has acknowledged that the ESA was one of the best pieces of legislation of its kind - our race-to-mediocrity will simply ensure that species will be extirpated from Ontario and elsewhere. Extirpation is simply extinction at the local level. If you extirpate populations across entire areas, that leads to the extinction of the species. Extinction is permanent - once a species is wiped off the planet, it cannot come back - millions of years of evolution, interdependence and interaction eliminated in the blink of a geological eye. The cavalier attitude of this government's proposal to something so serious and permanent is shocking.

Finally, this proposal confirms how completely out-of-step this government is with reality. Just last week the United Nations released a report that laid out in painful detail how humans are driving over 1,000,000 species towards extinction. Reports are also documenting the global collapse of insect populations and of life within the oceans. 96% of the mass of living things on this planet is made up of humans and our livestock, only 4% is EVERYTHING else; 70% of bird populations on Earth are poultry, mostly chickens. Think about that - we are displacing all other life on the planet; we are wiping out insects, once the most abundant animals on Earth; and we are destroying the oceans, areas so large that we know the moon better than we know what is under the world's seas. If anyone in this government actually believes that we can live on a planet or in a province that is devoid of almost all life except for humans, our livestock and our food plants, they need to go back to school...oh wait, you're cutting high school classes as well. Cunning plan.

The UN report was compiled by 450 scientists over 3 years - this government does not know better. And it cannot possibly claim that Ontario somehow doesn't count in this tally of mass global extinction when 90% of ecosystems in southern Ontario have already been either degraded or destroyed (and this government also wants to "bulldoze" and harvest its way through some of the largest and most pristine ecosystems left in the world by repealing the Far North Act!!). Extinction and ecosystem degradation is our problem, too - we are also to blame and we cannot escape the impacts.

The ESA needs to be strengthened by limiting or eliminating Ministerial discretion in at least two ways: 1) the listing of at-risk species should be a science-based decision that is completely removed from politics, not at the discretion of a Minister; and 2) the discretion of the Minister to depart from the provisions of the statute and approve projects and development that will harm at-risk species must be curtailed. If the government is not prepared to make these changes, then the current ESA should be left alone, not weakened like the government is proposing. I wholeheartedly oppose any proposed changes to the legislation that would make it even easier to undermine the ecological systems and services in this province for the sake of short-term (and short-sighted) development and extraction.