London environmentalists say Ontario's mining push puts endangered species at risk

Environmentalists in London and across the province say the Ontario government's push to cut so-called red tape to speed up the development of mining and construction projects could have dire consequences for endangered species.

Particularly concerning aspects of this push are moves that, according to researcher and environmental activist Brendon Samuels, weaken environmental protections in the name of short-term economic gain.

"Yes, we are in the trade war, and yes, there are major economic implications. We also need to develop certain industries and housing," said Samuels, who recently completed his PhD in biology from Western University. 

"But, protecting the environment and protecting species from going extinct, according to the government's own legal mandate, is not contrary to any of those objectives."

Premier Doug Ford's government announced Bill 5 last Thursday, promising the bill would speed up the development of mines and increase the province's ability to quickly approve other projects in the name of bolstering Ontario against economic threats from the United States.

Its main function is allowing the province to designate areas of interest as "special economic zones" that enjoy quick project approvals and aren't subject to the same rules and regulations as other areas. One such zone is the Ring of Fire, a massive area in northern Ontario said to be replete with critical minerals.

Ford said other big projects could receive similar designations, including his plan to build a massive transit and traffic tunnel under Highway 401.

On top of allowing the designation of these special zones, the bill would repeal the Endangered Species Act, and replace it with the Species Conservation Act, which environmental groups like Ecojustice and Wilderness Committee claim weakens protections for species at risk.

Neither of those moves sits right with Samuels.

"We're being told that, once again, we have to remove red tape because we're in a crisis, and so that necessitates us removing protections for the environment. That's not true," Samuels said.

Near the top of his list of concerns is a belief that the Species Conservation Act will be more lenient than protections currently in place, especially with how it defines an animal habitat.

The new law would narrow the definition to only include the dwelling of an animal and that space's immediate vicinity.

"What [that's] saying is, 'We're only going to protect this species in a tiny bubble, and that's it,' but we know from many decades of studying species at risk that they move around. It doesn't align with science," Samuels said.

The change in that definition concerns Scott Gillingwater as well.