January 19, 2020 RE:…

January 19, 2020

RE: Comments on Proposed amendments to General Regulation 334 under the Environmental Assessment Act to remove Regulatory Duplication of Forest Management requirements in Ontario ERO 019-0961

Comment 1 - Significant change to forest management with virtually no consultation outside of financially vested interests.

Consultation has been ad hoc, disconnected and left out most stakeholders.

Disconnected: There are six documents that are interrelated that are posted for review on ERO. There were others that came due at the end of last year. Current docs:

Proposed amendments to General Regulation 334 under the Environmental Assessment Act to remove Regulatory Duplication of Forest Management requirements in Ontario ERO 019-0961
Proposed revisions to the Forest Manuals regulated under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act ERO 019-0715
Proposed revisions to Ontario’s Independent Forest Audit Regulation under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act ERO 019-1006
Discussion paper: Developing strategic direction for managing forest pests in Ontario ERO 019-1005
Proposed changes to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994 ERO 019-1020
Ontario’s Forest Sector Strategy (Draft) ERO number 019-0880

Because all of the six items are interrelated and are addressed in the opening sections of the CFSA, please consider this letter as applicable to all six of the open ERO documents. The documents are all connected with the Forest Strategy, which appears to be the overarching framework. This is not explained.

Few stakeholders groups were included outside of forest products companies in the Forest Strategy. It is unethical to disregard the groups that created the original and successful legislation. The original consultation (Comprehensive Forest Policy Framework. Report Diversity: Forests People Communities, 1993. ISBN O-7778-1397-1) had the direct input of over 3000 Ontarians. Does it seem balanced that this can be rewritten by a small number of vested interest companies?

Is consultation complete as long as it meets the legal minimum of time, rather than by an actual interest in opinion? Consultation was not limited for either the CFSA or ironically the EBR in the early 1990s.

Ad hoc: Docs were posted to the ERO in an ad hoc fashion, and at random times, regardless of the strong connection. Prime example is that the six documents are also connected to changes in the Endangered Species Act (10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act: Discussion Paper ERO 013-4143) which is now closed.

This ad hoc disconnected schedule of change is worthy of a court challenge. I hope someone does so.

The legal and policy framework was carefully built 25 years ago. The government is doing damage to the forest sector with this narrow loose ad hoc approach to forest policy.
Comment 2: Declaration Order Not Necessary
As stated in ERO 019-0961 - “Since the original declaration order was approved in 2003, MNRF has developed an overarching forest policy framework, which outlines how forests are to be managed in Ontario. The current declaration order results in duplication of many of the existing forest policies and forest manuals.”

This is misstated. The policy framework was developed in order to comply with the Declaration Order. It was in place within the time frame dictated by the Class EA, in order to carry on forestry. It was not the other way around as this statement implies. Without compliance to the Declaration Order, forestry could not be conducted. Please correct this statement.

More importantly, catch 22 at the end of this submission:
“Declaration Order MNR-75 currently contains 61 conditions….The planning conditions in this declaration order have all been met and incorporated into MNRF’s existing manuals, policies, procedures or guidelines.MNRF’s implementation of conditions with respecting monitoring and reporting have also contributed to the development of its forest management policy framework. Accordingly, the conditions would no longer be imposed under the EA Act.”

The 61 conditions outline the complete framework. It has many mundane statements, for example Section 16: “The Forest Management Planning Manual shall include requirements for the development and documentation of Area of Concern prescriptions for Planned Operations for the activities of Harvest, Renewal and Maintenance and Area of Concern conditions on planned Access operations in a Forest Management Plan.”

This section goes on to describe all of the requirements for the protection of values. It has been there for 25 years, to make sure MNRF keeps legislation up to date. It is the heart of a CLASS APPROVAL. It gives the public comfort that there is oversight.

If you dismiss the need for a Class EA Declaration Order, does this mean all forestry operations on crown land are subject to individual EAs? The absence of a Class EA implies this. The corollary is that if there is no longer a class approval in place, any member of the public can easily challenge the decision of a single government forester. This was the whole point of a class EA.

Does this mean foresters can conduct “a la cart” forestry, as in the pre EA days without a challenge from the public? Reminder of the ill advised forestry done in the past. How does MNRF now control a new Scots Pine planting program, as long as it is approved by a single MNRF staff person (note not necessarily a RPF or RPFT).

Performance standards are set by whom? Internal MNRF managers? Based on what? Regional standards?

COMMENT 3 - UNILATERAL DECLARATION - FOREST POLICY now Complete.
How has MNRF been deemed to have “MET ALL THE CONDITIONS?” SInce the MOECP has recently applied the 61 conditions, was there a tribunal to decide the conditions are now met? Where in your submission is this explained?

For the last 25 years, there has been a declaration order describing the requirements of the Class EA. Now suddenly, the government unilaterally declares compliance? The Declaration Orders over the last 25 years have provided the independent benchmark for compliance. All of the aspects of forest planning were covered by the Declaration Order.

As time moves forward, can MNRF arbitrarily and unilaterally change the Manuals? (The perfunctory process for this ERO submission does not constitute consultation). Is the ERO now the mechanism? What is the mechanism for changing the manuals? How does the public participate in changes?

Conclusion

There are far too many unanswered questions to consider this ERO submission as acceptable.

We the undersigned request that the acceptance of these proposed changes, and the forest strategy (Ontario’s Forest Sector Strategy (Draft) ERO number 019-0880), be postponed until more comprehensive consultation can be undertaken. This needs to include open public meetings around the province to explain, among other things, the government approach to the changes (which are confusing even to experienced people) and also to provide detail as to what they are proposing and what the implications are.

Sincerely,

Tom Clark
Jeremy Williams
Chris Wedeles