Ford government's 'red tape' cuts disproportionately target environment

The Ford government’s aggressive push to reduce regulations, called “red tape cuts,” has come under intense scrutiny, with environmental advocates warning of significant harm to the public interest, wildlife and environment.

Critics argue that “red tape cuts” are a pretext to weaken environmental protections and benefit developers and major industrial emitters.

“Environmental protection is not ‘red tape,’” said Tony Morris, conservation policy and campaigns director at Ontario Nature. “The onslaught of environmental regulatory and policy changes by this government are devastating for 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 for redefining the relationship between humans and the natural world.”

The Ford government has introduced several pieces of legislation to reduce barriers to development, most recently Bill 185, known as the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act.

The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks has seen 48 out of 215 changes affecting environmental regulations, more than any other ministry, as part of these efforts.

In response to a recent CBC News request, the government provided a breakdown of money and time savings from these regulations.

The Ford government’s response suggests its red tape cuts are essential for economic growth, and claims savings for Ontario developers of $400 million annually.

It also claimed the cost of complying with provincial regulations was cut by $1.2 billion a year, saving people 1.5 million hours of administrative paperwork. Among the biggest savings, the government claims that companies save $209 million annually by reducing the costs of complying with dozens of environmental protection regulations.

But Katie Krelove, Ontario campaigner at Wilderness Committee, said this view is “incredibly short-sighted and economically perverse for this government to add up the savings to big developers of scrapping protections while not accounting for the costs to public health, safety and infrastructure.”

“Environmental regulations and protections are based on scientific and social recognition that healthy ecosystems provide services with immense public value--forests and wetlands clean air and water, prevent flooding and keep carbon out of the atmosphere,” said Krelove. Krelove said it's unclear whether the cuts have effectively boosted housing construction, particularly for the types of dwellings people want and can afford.

The government claims major industrial emitters will save $107 million this year due to lower compliance costs under Ontario's emissions program compared to the federal equivalent, with cumulative savings reaching $1.1 billion by 2030.

Keith Brooks, program director at Environmental Defence,called Ford government's deregulatory actions “a step backward” amid increasingly severe climate change impacts.

“Ontario doesn’t have a plan to meet its climate targets,” Brooks said. “All indicators suggest that emissions in this province will rise, rather than fall, due to a number of moves to increase the use of gas for electricity and home heating, to put more cars on the road, and generally increase the use of fossil fuels.”

He emphasized that Ontario’s Emissions Performance Standard is weaker than the federal government’s and allows large emitters to largely avoid paying for carbon pollution. “The province is basically boasting that it is going easier on large industrial emitters than the federal government. That’s what these savings are,” he said.

The Ford government also proposed changes to protections for the butternut tree as part of amendments to Ontario's Endangered Species Act; reducing habitat protection for the endangered redside dace minnow from 20 to 10 years, potentially allowing development in areas inhabited by the fish for less than a decade; and the government claims that the temporary suspension of protection for the Black Ash under the Endangered Species Act resulted in more than $10 million in savings.

Morris, of Ontario Nature, told Canada's National Observer that the Ford government justified these changes by claiming they are necessary to address the housing crisis — a justification he rejects.“Pushing a sprawl agenda will not solve the housing crisis, and will only exacerbate the biodiversity and climate crises while paving over Ontario’s precious farmland. Economically, 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 resulted in over 156 hectares of wetlands across 17 municipalities losing Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) designation, shrinking 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 cuts to provincial environmental assessment times for key projects like highways, railways, and electricity transmission lines, including Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass.

Tim Gray, executive director at Environmental Defence, said these changes are not only an environmental concern but also a public welfare issue, emphasizing that they would lead to increased urban sprawl, longer commute times, higher property taxes, and greater environmental degradation, disproportionately affecting low-income communities.

“Formerly protected Provincially Significant Wetlands can now have roads and houses built in them, which threatens water filtration and cleaning, flood mitigation and wildlife habitat,” he said. “Developers can now seek approval for new subdivisions on farmland far outside of towns and cities which will increase property taxes to provide roads, water, sewers and emergency and school services and also threaten the viability of farm communities and the food they produce."

Advocates say many of the legislative and regulatory changes have been rushed with little effective engagement beyond the required postings on the Environmental Registry.

“There has not been sufficient transparency as with almost everything this government does." said Abdullah Mir, member of Stop Sprawl Durham. “They expect to give us numbers and expect us to not question them and believe them. There should be more transparency and an accurate accounting presented to the public of exactly how we benefit from these red tape reduction measures.”

Mir said while reducing actual red tape is a commendable idea, there is concern that the government is using this largely as a “guise” to remove useful regulations that actually protect the public interest.