Ford government’s ‘red tape’ disproportionately restricts environment

The Ford government’s aggressive push to cut regulation, known as “red tape,” has come under increased scrutiny, with environmental advocates warning of serious harm to the public interest, wildlife and the environment.

Critics say “cutting red tape” is a pretext designed to weaken environmental protections and benefit developers and big industrial emitters.

“Environmental protection is not ‘red tape,’” said Tony Morris, director of environmental policy and campaigns at Ontario Nature. “The barrage of regulatory and policy changes being implemented by this government is devastating to the long-term health and well-being of Ontarians and our biodiversity. These changes are taking the province in the wrong direction at a crucial time to redefine the relationship between people and the natural world.”

The Ford government has introduced several bills aimed at reducing barriers to development, most recently House Bill 185, known as the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act.

The Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Parks recorded 48 of the 215 changes to environmental regulations, more than any other ministry in this effort.

In response to the recent CBC News At the request of the Government, a summary of the savings in money and time resulting from these regulations has been provided.

The Ford government’s response suggests that cutting red tape is essential to economic growth and will save Ontario developers $400 million a year.

It also claimed the cost of complying with provincial regulations has been cut by $1.2 billion annually, saving people 1.5 million hours of paperwork. Among the biggest savings, the government says businesses are saving $209 million annually by reducing the cost of complying with dozens of environmental regulations.

But Katie Krelove, a campaigner with the Wilderness Committee of Ontario, said the approach is “extremely shortsighted and economically perverse, for the government to add up savings for large developers by eliminating protections without considering the costs to public health, safety and infrastructure.”

“Environmental regulations and protections are based on the scientific and public recognition that healthy ecosystems provide services of enormous public value — forests and wetlands purify air and water, prevent flooding and keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere,” Krelove said. Krelove said it’s not clear whether the cuts have effectively increased housing construction, particularly for the types of housing people want and can afford.

The government says major industrial emitters will save $107 million this year from lower compliance costs under Ontario’s emissions program compared with the federal program, with total savings of $1.1 billion by 2030.

Keith Brooks, program director at Environmental Defense, called the Ford government’s deregulation efforts a “step backward” in the face of the increasingly severe impacts of climate change.

“Ontario has no plan to meet its climate goals,” Brooks said. “All indicators suggest that Ontario’s emissions will go up, not down, because of a series of policies to increase the use of gas for electricity and home heating, put more cars on the road and generally increase the use of fossil fuels.”

He stressed that Ontario’s emissions standard is weaker than the federal government’s and allows large emitters to largely avoid paying for their carbon emissions. “The province basically brags about being more lenient on large industrial emitters than the federal government. That’s where the savings are,” he said.

The Ford government has also proposed changes to protections for the walnut tree as part of an amendment to Ontario’s Threatened Species Act, shortening habitat protection for the endangered field minnow from 20 years to 10, potentially allowing development in areas where the fish live for less than a decade. The government also says temporarily suspending protections for black ash under the Threatened Species Act has resulted in savings of more than $10 million.

Morris of Ontario Nature said: National Observer of Canada that the Ford government justified these changes by claiming they were necessary to solve the housing crisis — a justification it rejects. “Pushing forward with an agenda of urban sprawl will not solve the housing crisis, and will only exacerbate the biodiversity and climate crises while displacing valuable Ontario farmland. Economically, urban sprawl is also incredibly inefficient and does not pay for itself.”

Morris said one of the most controversial legislative changes is Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, which has already caused more than 156 hectares of wetlands in 17 municipalities to lose their provincially significant wetland (PSW) status, reducing their protection.

The government has proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act, which Morris describes as “drastically weakened by exemptions, amendments and poor implementation”.

As part of the Get It Done Act, the Ford government announced it will shorten the time it takes to conduct environmental impact assessments for key projects such as highways, rail lines and electricity transmission lines, including Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass.

Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defense, said these changes are not just about the environment but also about public well-being, pointing out that they will lead to increased urban sprawl, longer commute times, higher property taxes and greater environmental degradation, which will disproportionately affect low-income communities.

“Formerly protected, provincially significant wetlands can now have roads and homes on them, threatening water filtration and purification, flood mitigation and wildlife habitat,” he said. “Developers can now seek approval for new subdivisions on agricultural land far outside cities and towns, which will increase property taxes to provide roads, water, sewer, emergency and school services, and threaten the viability of agricultural communities and the food they produce.”

Supporters of this idea argue that many changes in laws and regulations have been introduced in a hurry, without involving many effective actions beyond the required entries in the Environmental Register.

“There has been a lack of transparency, as with almost everything this government does,” said Abdullah Mir, a member of Stop Sprawl Durham. “They expect us to give them the numbers and they expect us not to question them or believe them. There should be more transparency and an accurate account of how we use these red tape measures to the public.”

Mir said that while reducing bureaucracy is a laudable idea, there is concern that the government is using it mainly as a “fake” to remove useful regulations that actually protect public interests.