The proposed changes to the…

The proposed changes to the Ontario Endangered Species Act continue to gut the effectiveness and even the existence of the Act.

The 2013 changes under Premier Wynne exempted large industries; this was a terrible decision. It was not supported by any science.

The 2019 changes under Premier Ford will compound that mistake.

The ESA is often criticized for getting in the way of business. That is why it exists in the first place. Not to be obstructionist as is often stated. It is to ensure any business cannot act with impunity on environmental matters and externalize or communize costs while privatizing profits. What is often demonized as ‘red tape’ is a check and balance.

The notion of a compensation fund might seem attractive but as is obvious a species at risk is already at a low population viability; if more individuals are removed, paying into the fund to do more research or compensation/mitigation banking is moot because there is a real risk that removals will cause the species to go extinct. This is probably one of the intentions. Species now extinct? No need to list them or worry anymore about impacts on development. Problem solved in terms of business concerns; problem exacerbated in terms of environmental degradation.

The proposal to focus on habitat or landscape level protections could be legitimate except there is no serious intent to fund and complete the needed data collection that is ‘made in Ontario’ required by other changes to the Act. What will happen is that a government simply rules out protection because there are no data; there are no data because the Government will not fund any data collection. This is a careworn strategy; ignorance is not only bliss, it is also great at regulatory capture. What it is not great at is ensuring species at risk may survive and thrive – rather ironic, given the intent of the ESA. It is also clear that this strategy of ignorance is a feature and not a bug.

The demand for expanded participation in the now-clearly named ‘advisory’ COSSARO would be welcome except it is not clear what criteria would be used to select members. There are vague references to ecologists (which are already on COSSARO – and those should be population and other sub-specialities of ecologists). The demand for non-experts to have a seat at the COSSARO table to examine economic implications of listing SAR. That is not acceptable. The very point of the Act is to protect species. Period.

One can still examine the indirect impacts of several ESA listed species to individual farmers is still part of the compensation payouts administered by OMAFRA (recently amended). And It would be very useful to systematically examine how the ESA and development interests affect one another and to find best win-win approaches. But the proposed changes are one-way: they ignore that the issue is that business and development cannot take priority above all else. The language used (Open for Business) clearly indicates that privilege is indeed the intent. Financially, this will not lead to economic prosperity either.

As the recent IUCN report notes, biodiversity and ecosystem services losses far outpace any incremental or marginal financial gain by building yet another strip-mall, for example. Given the retail and employment lands shift that has left brownfields and greyfields aplenty (and already serviced by infrastructure), it would make far more sense economically to leave greenfields protected - the species protected – and advance Ontario’s already extensive knowledge economy at redevelopment of those grey and brownfields. It means no enormous new costs to underserviced areas; no new taxes at the municipal level to pay for those developments but there will be new revenue from redevelopment (a large benefit to cost ratio even within the short term). The economic arguments for changing the ESA simply make little sense in terms of prosperity. Couple that with the recent experiences of what happens when human caused climate changes enlarges floodplains and shows the consequences of removing wetlands and forests, then one can see a scenario where those areas become undesirable and uninsurable.

Further, the notion of considering delisting or waitlisting species that are less endangered in nearby provinces or states is not supported by science at all. One can argue that recovery plans for species at their current northern range limit or species that have disjunct populations because they are endemic would be minimal. But they still should have legal protection because the genotypes within those populations will be rare and represent a genetic reservoir – especially important with human caused climate change moving the possible range of species northward.

With these changes to the ESA, one immediate consequence will be that no environmental organization or likely even independent scientists will ever work again with such organizations. There will be no win-win explorations for the foreseeable future. If that seems desirable to some, consider that it means a social and political backlash that probably will take time but when it does, revenge is the likely outcome. I don’t advocate that at all. But human nature is rather predictable, and history is replete with examples of failing to heed the warning of ‘being careful what you wish for’. It also means the battles will erode the environmental and economic situations over time. As much as some politicians bray at ‘social licence’, this is a very real driver for a lot of businesses, especially those that cater to ecotourism or recreation. Financial and insurance institutions also pay attention to that concept, not least of which because there is now physical and then stakeholder/consumer financial risk to them within jurisdictions that ignore the impacts on biodiversity or climate.

A most serious problem is allowing the Minister veto power. As a political appointee, the Minister – regardless of who they are, or which party is in power – is rarely qualified by training and education to be able to make decisions based on science. This is the reason an independent scientific advisor was previously required in making any decision to overrule COSSARO.

Clearly, the intent is to subvert the entire process even further than it was under the previous government and subordinate it to a political or even ideological position. This makes a mockery of the rule of law. While proponents of the changes likely cheer this on now, consider if an election delivers a different outcome and that Minister goes much further than COSSARO in favouring protection for endangered species.

Given the recent indication of the current government to effectively immunize itself from most legal action, there would be little avenue to challenge such a decision. Again, right now that probably seems like a wonderful notion; it is not only undemocratic (it is anything but For the People) but leaves another weapon that the current government’s ideological opponents could wield after a new election.

No government should have absolute power. Government by fiat and wilful destruction of the environment will lead to a deeper crisis. This is not a future that Ontario should consider but is hurtling towards. One suspects these critiques will not find favor in the end. If not, Ontario will find itself at an economic and ecological disadvantage that in the latter case will be devastating.