I enjoy the managed forest…

I enjoy the managed forest environment for recreation and peace of mind, and as a way of life for economic support. I work in northwestern Ontario in the forestry sector. This is my back yard, the place that I value and love, my home.

My first comment is a general comment with regards to species habitat protections. Often in recovery documents or information describing threats to species at risk (SAR) I read that harvesting or forest operations are a threat to habitat. Harvesting and forest operation in Ontario are implemented per provincial policy to emulate natural disturbance and to protect SAR through the requirements of ESA Reg 242/08 Sec. 22.1. Harvesting and the strong renewal programs that are implemented per the legal requirements are actually habitat management tools and do not ‘destroy’ or ‘damage’ habitat. Harvesting and renewal, or natural disturbance such as fire, ensures habitat sustainability over the long-term. The natural environment is not static – ever. The CFSA for our Crown Forests manages the forest landscape through the policy for boreal landscapes over the long term providing for sustainability. I would encourage writers of recovery policies and descriptions on threats to start correctly stating that forestry operations implementing provincial policy, which includes the requirements for SAR protection per Reg 242/08, on Crown Land are a tool to deliver long term forest health.

My comments related to Additional Changes Relating to issuing permits, and to Agreement and Regulatory Exemptions are as follows:

Sec. 55 of the Act provides for the creation of exemptions. Regulation 242/08 Sec 22.1 outlines the regulation ‘exemption’ for forestry on Crown Land. This ‘exemption’ binds forestry practices to implement protections for species at risk as outlined in the Reg- those practices have their basis per the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. My experience working in forestry I have put into practice the requirements of this regulation and found it effective protection for SAR and their habitat and efficient in terms of a well-established process under the FMP planning process. This regulation should be made permanent to allow forestry to continue to protect SAR under the CFSA. I do not support ‘harmonization’ options under Sec. 18 of the Act. The CFSA provides the forest management planning process consider all environmental, social and economic values on Crown Land. All species, not just SAR are provided protections - a key benefit over the ESA. The CFSA is in its 25th year of effective implementation.

I believe it is impossible to effectively balance all environmental values as well as social and economical values through any harmonization option. The ESA has a single species focus, with no good ability to manage multiple species, not just SAR, with opposing needs at a landscape scale. The CFSA is implemented through a wide body of policy and guidelines MNRF has written to implement forest operations to provide for the sustainability of the forest environment, of which only a part is SAR. Sustainability is though managing a landbase for all values- environmental, economic and social - not just SAR.

I believe SAR are NOT more important than non-at-risk species, or people’s livelihood and our communities or other forest environmental values. The ESA is robbing the people of Ontario, and in my opinion, robbing other wildlife species that are not at-risk, from sustainability by putting only SAR first. This is due to the ESA single species focus which cannot be the framework to manage a landscape.

In northwestern Ontario, my home, forestry is a significant contributor to good paying jobs that support our communities. Supporting permanent ‘exemption’ to forestry to continue to work under the CFSA with no harmonization under Sec. 18, means the MOECP does not have to re-invent the wheel so to speak by creating a different process and more red tape; it means that Ontario, particularly NW Ontario, will stay OPEN FOR BUSINESS supporting this government’s priority. The CFSA is a much more robust process to sustainability, to implement SAR protections, than the ESA is for the Crown Managed Forest.

A further comment on changes to permits and agreements. The idea of a landscape agreement- as I said above the Crown Forest landscape should continue to solely be managed per the CFSA. Other ‘landscapes’ then this proposed change could apply to are private land. Likely at scales not really ‘landscape’ level. The purpose in the proposal is ‘to benefit one or more species’ is not going to work. Often one species benefits to the detriment of another, and the ESA only permits ‘benefit’ and equally rates all species at risk with no priority order. Landscape include all species, not just SAR, with no assessment of detriment to species not currently at risk.

As for further Sec. 18 of the Act proposed changes – to repeat myself – forestry should be permanently exempt through regulation as the activities are approved under another act, the CFSA.
Point G under changes to permits ect. – to remove the Minister to consult an expert, I agree with this proposed change that no expert need be consulted; however, I do not agree that the Minister alone should have sole power – I believe the Minister of MNRF and the Minister responsible for Mining should be required to be consulted. “Single silo’s” in government are not good especially when those ministers are responsible for other acts that could be operated under by regulation for the protection of SAR.

My comments for the proposed changes to COSSARO are as follows:

The proposed changes to COSSARO I support as proposed with two considerations: 1) Proposed change D – to allow Minister to require COSSARO to reconsider classification – my concern is that the Minister set a time frame of reconsideration within 12 months for example. 2) F – the proposal to broaden COSSARO member qualifications – yes I support this, but COSSARO should also have representatives from social sectors like First Nations, as well as the economic sector like Forestry, and northern Ontario municipal representative. A wide set of voices is required as the Government values ‘traditional’ knowledge, as well as science. A last note about COSSARO proposed changes – E – proposal to require COSSARO to consider other factors etc before classifying- I fully support this and it a long overdue positive change. Species found data deficient should not be listed, policy should not be based on a guess or worse on fear.

My comments for the proposed changed under “Defining and implementing species and habitat protections” are as follows:

I support in principle the proposed changes under “Defining and implementing species and habitat protections” with the following exception. Point D in this section, I do not agree the Minister should be given power solely to make species-specific habitat regulation. I believe it should be 3 Ministers at least (and ministries- eg MNRF and the one responsible for mining) required to provide input and joint decision making power. It is not good to operate in a single ‘silo’. This is because supporting the ability to regulate to work under different acts, these acts are likely in other ministry jurisdictions.

I support the proposed changes to extend the timeline for development of recovery strategies, and to extend other timelines as noted in the proposal – I think this will ensure they are done right. By done right I mean completed specific to Ontario. I do not support simply adopting federal documents as Ontario’s own as has sadly been the practice. I support that the proposed change to clarify the recovery strategy is advice to government and that policy defined in the Government Response Statement; but the Government Response Statement should specifically include social and economic analysis of the impact of implementation and the final policy decision balance the three pillars of sustainability (social, economic and environmental).

My comments related to proposed regulatory charge and agency are as follows:

On the topic of “Creation of Regulatory Charge and Agency” – I do not agree that this should extend to those operating under the Regulations. This type of system works well for private land, small infrastructure developments on private land and area south of the forest area of the undertaking. Forestry already provides stumpage payments and other payments and should not be burdened with additional charges when operations are conducted under the CFSA. Keeping this proposed charge and agency out of the scope of Crown Forest will ensure Ontario remains OPEN FOR BUISNESS.

Also, I find it interesting that in the description of the section “Creation of Regulatory Charge and Agency” proposed changes, it justifies the proposed charges and agency by saying “This new approach will give greater certainty to business and better enable positive outcomes for species at risk compared to the current piece-meal industry led-approach” Wow, this description of a ‘piece-meal’ approach admits the current ESA and implementing overall benefit permits does not work, if what is being implemented is judged as ‘piece-meal’. Charges applicable to a sub-set of species will not fix ‘piece-meal’. The entire concept of overall benefit permits needs to be revised, as simply adding a ‘tax’ won’t fix it. Under the Regulations – where forestry operates under the CFSA, forestry implements a ridge policy framework to provide a comprehensive program for environmental, social and economic protections for our forest environment – there is nothing ‘piece-meal’ about it. It is a process that does not require charges or adjustment.

In an effort to reduce red-tape, creating another over-paid board-governed provincial agency is not useful and is cost prohibitive to the people of Ontario. I think these charge and agency proposed changes need further thought and review.

My comments on proposed changes related to Enforcement are as follows:

On the topic of enforcement: Enforcement powers and offense provisions existing in the ESA should NOT be applied to activities conducted under the regulations where the regulations permit work under another act. For example the CFSA already has enforcement and offense provision; do not duplicate enforcement and offense provisions that is not efficient and would hinder the goal of being OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

The protection order powers at the Minister’s discretion should not be solely at the MOECP’s discretion. The MNRF and the one responsible for mining should be jointly hold ‘discretion’. I do not believe that power should be held in ‘one silo’.

Thank you for consideration of my comments.