Browsing the archives for the Relationship tag.

MNR Proposal Abdicates Responsibility for SAR

Green Reality, South March Highlands

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)’s current regime for managing approvals for permits affecting Species-At-Risk (SAR) is already flawed and the proposed changes described in the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBBR 011-7696). make the situation worse – not better.

The current regime is based on providing a process for approving an activity that might harm SAR, or SAR habitat, that is based on an emphasis that mitigates impacts.

  • This is based on a false presumption that mitigation is always possible.
  • Most permit applications are granted if the mitigation for the SAR in question is relocated to a different ecosystem (i.e. moved, transplanted, or seeds replanted).

The existing Approvals process completely ignores the ecosystem implications of a permit by focusing too narrowly on the SAR in question and not on its relationship to the ecosystem it resides in and contributes to.

No vegetation or wildlife (or humans) exist in isolation of other living things.  Each has an impact on the other and within a natural ecosystem, these impacts are beneficial, balanced, and necessary for the whole – otherwise the ecosystem would be different.  Ecosystem change is usually caused by a dis-balance caused by an external event such as human activity, disease, fire, flood, or invasive species.

Instead of (a) requiring a burden of proof that mitigation is possible and (b) ensuring that broader ecosystem effects are included in this process, this proposal makes matters worse by continuing the MNR’s policy of ecosystem piecemealing via regulation.

The breadth of exemptions in the proposal is unreasonably broad because it includes all already approved or planned activities that might damage habitat.

  1. Encompassing all activities is unreasonable in scope.
  2. The proposal does not take into account the fact that approvals (such as a PTTW or CoA) have been granted in the past by agencies without regard to impact on SAR.  These agencies granted their approvals under the expectation that the MNR would fulfill any SAR-related approvals. If the MNR abdicates responsibility, then there is no consideration for SAR under any prior approval granted by any provincial ministry.
  3. The definition is so vague as to allow virtually any activity to quality – for example proposed plans of subdivision approval that have not yet been approved under the Planning Act.  This would remove what little protection exists for all 22 SAR documented in the South March Highlands.

The MNR’s rationale for grandfathering so many activities & exemptions is so dubious as to completely lack credibility.  How will the grandfathering and creation of so many exempt activities that damage habitat contribute to the overall benefit of SAR?

While it is apparent that the MNR seeks to shrink its job in the face of insufficient funding by McGuinty, the creation of so many exemptions will create an unsustainable workload for the MNR to manage the enforcement of compliance with.  Any alleged violation would require considerably further substantiation and validation of prior approvals by other agencies.  In my view, not performing such validation would constitute environmental negligence on the part of the MNR.

The proposed exemptions would also create two classes of SAR (existing and new) which has no reasonable basis in the Crown’s primary obligation to protect all SAR.  This also creates a legal liability for the province in view of recent Federal Court ruling on the fiduciary obligation of the Crown to provide such protection.  Protection of critical habitat is a duty – not a government discretion.

The Federal Court ruling sets a precedent that all levels of government must follow.  In Ontario, this duty is also enshrined in the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The proposed changes amount to abdication, not modernization, and should be opposed.   The Coalition to Protect the South March Highlands, Carolinian Canada CoalitionOntario Nature, and the David Suzuki Foundation have already expressed their opposition to this.

If you also oppose this, please make an individual posting to the EBBR.  Type in the 011-7696 Registry Number in the search box.  Search for and select the proposed change to bring up a description of it.  From there it takes less than 5 minutes to click on the Submit Comment button on the right side of the screen and to fill out the form or to cut and paste your comment.

Feel free to use any or all of the above via cut-and-paste if you wish.

No Comments

Sacred Fire at Queen’s Park

South March Highlands

We are gathered here in unity of common purpose and with a spirit that has a common Voice:

  • We speak on behalf of the Great Forest that cannot speak for herself.
  • We speak for the Life in that Forest and for all the Lives that are touched by it.
  • We speak for the South March Highlands and all the Forests like her across Ontario and across Canada.

When people form coalitions so that they can speak louder it is a sign that their government isn’t listening.

When people take their government to court it is a sign that their right to fair government was violated.

When people take to the streets in protest it is a sign that their government is failing them.

  • We have done all of these things and yet still the Forest cries in pain because the government does nothing.
  • How is it possible for any responsible government to knowingly allow the destruction of the most bio-diverse area in their city and in their National Capital?

The true measure of a Leader is how they react to something that is so obviously wrong.

  • Do they hide behind the mistakes of others, or do they assume responsibility?
  • Do they pass the buck, or do they work to resolve the wrong?
  • Do they have the vision to work towards a better outcome?

These are the questions that we ask the Government of Ontario today.

But we must also challenge ourselves too because our governments are just a reflection of ourselves.

The true measure of a Person is taken when they are confronted with something that is so obviously wrong.

The wrong that is being perpetuated in the South March Highlands causes us to question our very relationship with the Land.

  • Do we care about Mother Earth and our relationship with the environment?
  • Do we ignore what is going on, or do we speak out against it?
  • Do we allow the destruction to occur, or do we work to prevent it?

We speak not only for this Great Forest, but also for the new Voice of Canada.

  • A voice that says that the protection and preservation of native heritage is important because the First Canadians can teach us many things about this Land.
  • A voice that says that we too are an integral part of this natural ecosystem.  We do not walk on it, we exist within it and we are only alive because of it.
  • A voice that says that our society must return to a “sustainable relationship” with all living beings – regardless of colour, creed, and culture, and with respect for all species of life.
  • A voice that says that greed is no substitute for responsibility.
  • A voice that says Leadership means taking responsibility to resolve problems through meaningful consultation with ALL stakeholders.
  • A voice that cries out for Leadership to protect our wild heritage because it is that very heritage that defines us as Canadians.
  • A voice that says that we have lost too many great Forests and that it is now time to draw the line.

If we cannot save the South March Highlands,

  • a land with over 20 species-at-risk in it,
  • a land that contains immense cultural heritage,
  • a land that is integral to the ecology of our National Capital,
  • a land that is Sacred to the descendants of the Anishinabe people,

what Hope is there for any other forest or natural place?

The time to act is NOW!

It’s NOT TOO LATE to DO THE RIGHT THING and we ask our Premier do the right thing!

Paul Renaud

Feb 13, 2011

No Comments


/* ADDED Google Analytics */