Hi Kathleen, The government…

Hi Kathleen,

The government has noted that habitat loss is the most dangerous thing for the SAR. It has committed to recovery efforts that will focus on maintaining habitat and improving habitat connectivity. (Of course the proponent would prefer option 3, but what do government SAR experts prefer?) Any decision posted here will need to be very clear as to the conditions and how they will maintain and restore habitat for the snake and connectivity between the highly isolated populations in the area. It seems like a lot to ask, but if the government permits development it must also keep its commitments to the people of Ontario. This is exactly the time to take the promised actions.

In addition:
Please please please take a look yourself and have your SAR team take a look at the ERO template for these proposals. Here’s why I ask:

The EBR section 20 says that the regulation will "Classify a type of proposal for an instrument as a Class I type of proposal if it has not been classified as a Class II or III type of proposal in steps 7 to 9."

The EBR says in section 22, "The minister shall do everything in his or her power to give notice to the public of a Class I, II or III proposal for an instrument under consideration in his or her ministry at least thirty days before a decision is made whether or not to implement the proposal."

Under the assumption that proposals to harm SARs and/or their habitat are always environmentally significant (!), Class I proposals are the default if the proposal is not Class II or III. You’ll see that the other classes of proposals require MORE consultation, if you just keep reading further into section 22 (and to section 26).

The EBR regulation referring to the ESA (section 1.3) indicates directly when a proposal is Class I. If the proposal does not meet all the criteria, take for example this particular proposal affecting a vertebrate animal, then it is definitely not Class I. This does NOT mean that there is no requirement to consult. Indeed, the proposal must therefore be Class II or III, no? There are only 3 choices. The way I read it, the fourth choice of “none of the above” is only possible if the proposal is not environmentally significant under the EBR (there’s a form for that).

This particular proposal is not only going to permit activities that are otherwise prohibited by the ESA (and the ES list includes animals), it also proposes to go directly against promised actions in the government response statement. Even if it was possible to be otherwise, there is no doubt that this proposal is environmentally significant. Protecting and recovering species IS a shared responsibility.. but if you think industry cares about snakes, you're crazy. If you think that ANYONE other than the government can force industry to take actions that mitigate snake habitat destruction, you're deluded (ok, maybe extreme public opinion). But anyway, I can reasonably guess that you, as someone who probably knows many people still run over snakes and turtles on purpose, don't actually think these things. But the "government" does – it says so! In this case, and for every other permit and agreement, you and the SAR team processing these applications/proposals ARE the government.

As a public servant with responsibilities to SARs and the public good, it should strike you as totally strange that it is imperative for the government to consult on a proposal only if the SAR is NOT an animal. That's just illogical. Also, the fact that an SAR is an animal does not provide grounds for exception under the EBR section 22 (i.e., harm against an SAR animal is not environmentally insignificant). In short, the section "Why consultation isn't required: We are not required to consult on this permit proposal as it relates to an animal and therefore does not meet the required criteria set out in subsection 1.3 (6) of the Ontario Regulation 681/94 under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993." is completely non-sensical. It becomes obvious if you just take the time to read and interpret the laws and regulations involved here beyond the one section referenced here.

Again, can you, your manager, your team, a lawyer...please take a look at this? People might be wondering how many proposals is the government not "voluntarily" posting? I think there is definite risk of another lawsuit here in MECP’s interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations.

Thanks for taking the time to consider this comment.