Ontario's Environmental Assessment Process is Failing Species At Risk in Sudbury

The environmental assessments process ensures that governments and public bodies consider potential environmental effects before an infrastructure project begins.

-From the Government of Ontario, “Environmental Assessments”

We here in Ontario and Canada like to believe that when it comes to considering the impacts that new public infrastructure projects will have on the natural environment, that we have a process in place that will take a close and critical look at all things “environmental” before a new project is greenlighted by the government.  I know that I used to believe this.  After all, don’t we have legislation that requires environmental assessments be undertaken in advance of decisions being made for infrastructure projects?

Well, at least with regards to certain environmental features – those which are deserving of our highest levels of attention and protection – Ontario’s environmental assessment process appears to be a monumental failure – or worse: a sick joke.

Maley Drive

It’s 2016. Here in Greater Sudbury, we are about to start building a highway through the critical habitat of two at risk species – whip-poor-will and blanding’s turtle – without an environmental assessment ever having been undertaken to look at impacts or alternatives.  Although these two species of animal should be afforded the highest level of protection as offered through the province’s Endangered Species Act, what we’re getting instead is the shameful abdication of responsibility from all levels of government in the face of what some are calling an “economic development initiative”.

I’ve had the chance to speak about this issue to my friends and family, and to those I interact with on social media.  Most often, the response I get is, “I don’t believe you when you say that they’re going to build a new highway through species at risk habitat without an environmental assessment.  All new highways need to have EA’s”.  I then take some time to explain why that is both true and not true in the case of Greater Sudbury’s Maley Drive Extension.

It is true that the Maley Drive Extension project has had a Class Environmental Assessment.  It was undertaken in 1995.  There was an addendum to that assessment made in 2008.  Neither the Class Environmental Assessment or the addendum looked at impacts from the highway on species at risk habitat, because at the time that technical experts went looking for that habitat, they didn’t find any.  It may be that the habitat was not present in 1995 or 2008, or it may be that the species at risk occupying that habitat were missed by the assessment.

It wasn’t until 2013 that there appears to have been any evidence that species at risk were located along the highway route selected through the 1995 EA process (selected in part as a result of there being no significant natural heritage features along the route).  Members of the public have had to infer the 2013 date from references made by the City of Greater Sudbury to certain other studies being undertaken – studies which the City has refused to share with the public.  However, it is now fairly clear that the highway is proposed to go through the wetland habitat of blanding’s turtle and the upland habitat of whip-poor-will – and likely through a provincially significant wetland that despite being along the proposed Maley route for over 20 years has never had the benefit of a formal wetland evaluation.

A New Environmental Assessment?

After I explain this to my friends, family and social media contacts, there is still usually a degree of disbelief that follows.  “Surely they’ve got to do a new Environmental Assessment now that they’ve found threatened species habitat in the middle of the highway corridor?”  I then take some more time to explain how this can both be true and not true.

Yes, it is true that in the case of the Maley Drive Extension project, the City of Greater Sudbury, which is responsible for undertaking the environmental assessment, should be preparing an addendum to the 1995 Class Environmental Assessment now that it has the knowledge that there are species at risk living along the proposed corridor.

However, there is no mechanism in place which actually compels the City to do this.

And that’s what makes the Environmental Assessment process a complete farce.

The Class EA process is supposed to work like this (I’ll use a potential new highway as an example).  The City identifies a problem – say, our roads are too congested.  It identifies what it believes to be a decent solution – say, I think we should build a new highway.  Then, through a public environmental assessment process, the City lays out a number of alternatives to address the problem, including a “do nothing” alternative.  Some of these alternatives might involve looking at other ways of moving people and goods. Public input is gathered. Technical studies are produced. Numbers are crunched.  And ultimately a complete record is prepared, recommending the new highway that the City wanted to build in the first place (perhaps that’s a more systemic flaw in the process – one we’ll leave for another day).

Citizens have the opportunity to request a more thorough evaluation from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, should they disagree with the findings of the report, or the data on which those findings were based.  The public has 30 days to review all of the materials, and lodge a formal request for evaluation – a “bump up” request.

After the 30 days have expired, and if no requests are received by the Minister, the Minster accepts the findings, and the project is a go.

However, if the scope or scale of the project changes, or if the time from which the Class Environmental Assessment was completed to the time that the project starts to get built was deemed to be too long, usually the City will prepare an Addendum – but there doesn’t actually seem to be a requirement that this occurs.

For Greater Sudbury’s Maley Drive, back in 2006, the City determined that both the scale of the project had changed (originally, the highway was to be 2-lanes, but the City now wanted 4-lanes) and the time frame for the approval had “lapsed” (the original EA was prepared in 1995).  The Addendum was completed in 2008.

Are Politics Interfering with Doing the Right Thing?

Despite the 8 years that have now passed between the preparation of the Addendum to the 1995 EA, and despite the now known presence of species at risk in the corridor, the City has refused to admit that there has been any action which warrants revisiting these old assessments.  What's preventing the City from preparing another Addendum, as they did in 2006-08?  Or better yet, what's preventing a complete new undertaking - one which assesses alternatives to the new highway and/or alternate routing for the road?

Between 2006 and March, 2016, the City undertook to engage senior levels of government to help finance the Maley Drive Extension project.  As part of that effort, the Maley Project was ultimately divided into two phases.  Shortly after Sudbury’s NDP MPP, Joe Cimino, resigned his seat at Queen’s Park in 2014, the Liberal government publicly announced that it would provide one-third funding for the Phase 1 Maley project.  The Liberals went on to win a by-election in Sudbury shortly after this announcement was made, with former federal NDP MP Glenn Thibeault becoming Sudbury’s representative in Toronto.

Thibeault’s resignation from the federal level of government led to another by-election being called in Sudbury in the spring of 2015.  Ultimately, this by-election was called off and was replaced by the federal general election, in August 2015.  However, the by-election gave the federal Conservative government reason to steer clear of announcing funding for Maley Drive between May of 2015 and up until they were booted from office in October.  New Democrats in Sudbury and the Nickel Belt were replaced by Liberals in both ridings. 

In April, 2016, Justin Trudeau came to town and announced that his new federal government was going to commit one-third funding to Maley Drive, partnering with the Province and the City to build this new “green” highway for the purposes of economic development.  There was much rejoicing at Tom Davies Square that day.

Taking No Responsibility: Minister of Environment and Climate Change

But there were some in the City who were less than thrilled that the City appeared never to have considered the highway’s impacts on species at risk – and were not happy with the fact that senior levels of government were agreeing to pony up two-thirds of the cost of the new highway in absence of an environmental assessment which looked at species at risk.

Writing to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Maley Drive super-critic John Lindsay outlined a rationale for the Minister to intervene (see Mr. Lindsay’s submission to the Minister, which begins on page 79).  Essentially, Lindsay indicated that the City wasn’t doing its job – a jobs which he reminded the Minister was one that was shared by the Province – the job of protecting precious species at risk habitat.

Recently, the Minister (through the Director of the MOECC’s Northern Region) responded to Mr. Lindsay and other concerned citizens, indicating that the Minister has no authority to require a new environmental assessment, and reminded Mr. Lindsay that the Class EA process is a municipal process.   Hands were washed and the buck was passed.  Almost as if species at risk don’t really matter to the Province of Ontario.

The Director of the MOECC’s Northern Region at least took the time to indicate that should there be a “significant changes” in the Maley Drive project’s environmental setting, that the EA process requires the City to prepare an addendum.  However, the Director failed to identify in just who it would be to determine what a “significant change” in “environmental setting” really means.

Discovering Species At Risk is Not a Significant Change in Environmental Setting

Apparently, as far as the City of Greater Sudbury is concerned, a “significant change” in “environmental setting” is not the discovery that two species at risk are living in the proposed corridor, despite the technical findings of 2 past assessments.  The mere presence of these animals who should be receiving the full protection of the province’s Endangered Species Act really isn’t a big deal for the City – not enough of a deal for the City to look at undertaking an another addendum to its 22 year old Environmental Assessment.

My friends and family at this point usually ask, “For real?” to which I reply, “For real.”

I go on to explain that the Endangered Species Act actually gives an out to those who are thinking about harming and destroying species at risk habitat.  It’s not in the legislation.  But the province adopted regulations a few years ago to allow developers and infrastructure proponents like the City of Greater Sudbury to go through a permit process.  Essentially, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry can issue a permit to allow for the destruction of species at risk habitat. 

Biodiversity Offsetting

Now, these permits will often have conditions attached, including conditions which require biodiversity offsetting.  In the case of Greater Sudbury and Maley Drive, the City is currently working with the MNRF to determine where the City can replace the habitat that it’s going to destroy by building Maley Drive, as the MNRF appears to have identified the need for biodiversity offsetting as a condition for an Overall Benefit Permit.

Of course, biodiversity offsetting is controversial (see: "Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice," Joseph W. Bull, K. Blake Suttle, Ascelin Gordon, Navinder J. Singh and J.E. Millner-Gulland, Flora & Fauna International, 2013).  Humans don’t have a great track record of re-creating the habitat of threatened and endangered species.  Sometimes we do a pretty good job.  Other times, we don’t.   

Protecting our Green and Re-Greened Places

And sometimes our efforts to bring wildlife back to places where it once flourished should be applauded and celebrated.  Certainly that’s something that we here in Greater Sudbury have learned through our land reclamation and regreening initiatives.  In the case of the Junction Creek watershed, the efforts of Greater Sudburians and the Junction Creek Stewardship Committee have likely re-vitalized the watershed so that today it can again support and sustain species that left the area, due to pollution. 

Now that the creek is being cleaned up, animals like blanding’s turtle have returned.  Only to have their wetland home paved over by a new highway, in the name of economic development.  How’s that for all of the hard work so many have put into regreening our City?

The Facts of the Matter

Well, don’t despair.  That turtle habitat that is about to be ripped up will mean new habitat for blanding’s turtles elsehwere. Here in Ontario, however, the biodiversity offsetting process through the MNRF’s Overall Benefit Permit is one which the public has no involvement in – unlike the Class Environmental Assessment process.  With this in mind, let’s review the facts of this case:

• The City of Greater Sudbury found two species at risk living in the middle of the proposed Maley Drive corridor in 2013.
• The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change suggests that when “significant change” to the “environmental setting” of a project happens, the City should undertake an addendum to the original EA.
• The City of Greater Sudbury refuses to revisit the EA process.  The Minister of Environment and Climate Change refuses to get involved.
• There is no mechanism in place to force the City to do its job.
• Both the provincial and federal Liberal governments have agreed to fund the Maley Drive Extension, knowing that species at risk habitat will be destroyed in the process.The City is working with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to obtain a secretive Overall Benefit Permit that will see habitat destroyed in one location replaced with new habitat elsewhere – through a controversial process known as biodiversity offsetting.

It's 2016

It continues to amaze me that a lot of good work goes into protecting numerous natural heritage features from the negative impacts of incompatible development, often through the creation of buffers between the development significant wildlife habitat.  The Province of Ontario does a pretty good job of protecting alvars and provincially significant wetlands where they have been evaluated.  And features like deer wintering areas and moose aquatic feeding yards are often afforded very high levels of protection by ensuring that new development won’t negatively impact these sensitive features. 

But when it comes to the very plant and animal species that the province should be holding to a higher standard – species at risk due to habitat loss from development – we have in this Province a process which permits the harm and outright obliteration of their habitat, premised on the controversial notion that we can replace that habitat elsewhere through a biodiversity offsetting process.

What we’re left with is in 2016, you can build a new highway through the habitat of species at risk without first undertaking an environmental assessment which looks at alternatives to destroying that habitat.

And that’s a sick joke we’re playing on the very species our governments should be protecting.

(Opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

FYI, I’ve been working with a number of community members to start a new organization in our City which will look to make headway on the need to protect our at risk plant and animal communities.  You can follow Biodiversity At Risk – Sudbury on Twitter: @BAR_Sudbury, and join on Facebook.  

Contrary to Sudbury Star Point of View Opinion, the Leap Manifesto Will Help Create the Jobs that Will Fuel Northern Prosperity

My letter to the editor of the Sudbury Star, from Thursday, April 13, 2016 (update: published online and in print, Friday, April 29, 2016).

Re: “PoV: Leap Manifesto a threat to Sudbury, NDP”, April 13, 2016.

Rarely have I read an editorial as disconnected from reality as the Point of View piece, “Leap Manifesto a threat to Sudbury, NDP,” published April 13, 2016. The Leap Manifesto poses no risk to the mining industry which helped build our local economy, and which will help transform Northern Ontario's Ring of Fire into a 21st century mineral extractive enterprise. Leap offers a way forward for the Ring of Fire, where development has come to a grinding halt under Liberal and Conservative governments at the provincial and federal levels.
The Star's editor contends that Leap's goal is to shut down mining. Nothing could be further from the truth. The editor quotes directly from the Manifesto to bolster his case, but the quotes are selective. Missing is the piece of the Manifesto that refers to how mining and resource extraction must take place in a low-carbon future: by first obtaining a social license from people who make their homes in the areas impacted by the enterprise. 
One of the reasons that so little headway has been made with the Ring of Fire, and with other resource extractive projects elsewhere in the nation, has been due to local opposition to disconnected governments and multinational corporations which continue to believe that they can largely ignore the people who live in the areas impacted by their operations. This approach may have worked in the past – especially where marginalized people have been unable to pursue justice for themselves and their families. Indigenous peoples in particular have for too long been shut out of a decision-making process which directly effects their well-being.
The Leap Manifesto acknowledges the new reality, and seeks to establish a framework for socially and environmentally responsible resource projects which will create the jobs that fuel our collective prosperity. Rather than a threat, Leap is a recipe for success – one which will work much better for governments than the current approach, often blocked by our Courts, which largely continues to ignore the rights and needs of communities impacted by resource activities.
The Green Party of Canada has supported the Leap Manifesto since it was unveiled by prominent Canadians during the last federal election campaign. Our own policy framework, Vision Green, has long embodied many of the sensible principles put forward by Leap. Greens from Northern Ontario, including Laurentian University Professor of Economics Dr. David Robinson, were involved in the creation of policy to guide development in the Ring of Fire, based on the need for a social license.
Although I've long been a member of the Green Party, I was thrilled to hear that grassroots New Democrats adopted a resolution at their convention in Edmonton to begin discussing the use of Leap as a framework for future policy development. I've long believed that a progressive NDP that bases its policies on social and climate justice would be a benefit to Canada. Since all of our families will be impacted by changes to our economy and climate brought about by global warming, making the switch to a low-carbon economy based on the use of evidence and inclusive public policy is something which can – and must – transcend partisan politics. The Leap Manifesto embodies an approach which all of those concerned about the future of our families, prosperity and planet can claim as common ground.
-Steve May is an Executive member of the Nickel Belt Greens
What Leap says: 

"There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future. The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard. That applies equally to oil and gas pipelines; fracking in New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia; increased tanker traffic off our coasts; and to Canadian owned mining projects the world over."

(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

Ontario's Cap and Trade Scheme a Mixed Bag

Ontario is about to implement a Cap and Trade scheme, which will finally put a price on carbon pollution. Under Ontario’s plan, large emitters (those that produce more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon annually) will be forced to participate in a carbon market and pay for allocations equal to their emissions. Over time, the number of allocations available will decrease, causing the cost of allocations to rise, and providing industry with incentives to innovate and use less fossil fuel. This emissions reducing cap and trade scheme represents a signature piece in Premier Kathleen Wynne’s climate change strategy.

Earlier this week, Greater Sudbury’s EarthCare hosted an expert panel discussion on the expected impacts of Cap and Trade on Northern Ontario’s economy. While the overall design of Ontario’s cap and trade scheme won’t be released until later this year, the message delivered to business and industry was clear: if you want to continue to emit greenhouse gases, you will shortly be paying for the privilege of polluting our atmosphere.

For the first few years, free allocations will be given to large emitters in sectors where and local industry could be exposed to higher costs that make them less competitive than their international competition. These free allocations may be good for Northern Ontario’s trade exposed resource extractive industries, but ultimately the practice of giving away allocations may result in downward pressure on the price of carbon.

Getting the price right is critical to the success of any carbon pricing program. In British Columbia, the only Canadian province to level a direct tax on carbon pollution, the per tonne cost of carbon is currently set at $30. Ontario, through its participation in the Western Climate Initiative with Quebec and California, anticipates that its carbon pollution price will start off at around $17 per tonne, but ultimately the price will be subject to what the market decides an allocation is worth.

When Europe initially experimented with a cap and trade carbon market, the issuance of free allocations to big emitters led to a collapse of the market, with 2011 prices falling from around $30 per tonne to just over $7 per tonne by 2013 (see:“ETS, RIP?” The Economist, April 20, 2013). With only marginal costs for large emitters to continue polluting, Europe’s success at reducing emissions through cap and trade was significantly compromised.

Keep in mind, to change consumer behaviour, some have identified that the price of carbon would need to be set somewhere between $80 and $220 per tonne (see:“Estimated social cost of carbon not accurate, Stanford scientists say,” Stanford News, January 12, 2015). Ontario’s initial carbon price is expected to increase the cost of a litre of gasoline by just $4.3 cents – an amount that consumers can expect gas to rise by on the Friday of a long weekend. With gasoline prices at the lowest they've been a decade, increases due to cap and trade will likely accomplish little in terms of reducing emissions.

Ontario plans to invest revenues raised from cap and trade into low carbon research and development, transportation, and building and energy infrastructure which promotes climate resiliency. Northern Ontario, which has generally lacked from these sorts of investments in our communities, should be a net winner from the province's cap and trade winfall. With longer and colder winters to contend with, the needs of the north can’t be ignored by Queen’s Park. Rather than promising to build more roads, we should expect the province to start talking up inter-city public transportation options like rail and bus services, along with improved transit options within communities. Ultimately, reducing emissions through transit and energy efficiency investments will leave northern communities better positioned to thrive in the coming low-carbon economy.

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

Originally published in the Sudbury Star as, "Sudbury Column: Ontario's cap and trade scheme a mixed bag," Saturday, April 9, 2016, in print and online (without hyperlinks).

Irreconcilable Differences: For the NDP, "Schism" Is The Word

Is a schism within the NDP imminent?  Some pundits are predicting that the writing may be on the wall for New Democrats, given that grassroots members of the NDP adopted a resolution at their convention this past weekend to begin a process at the riding level of incorporating the Leap Manifesto into policy.  This move has generated an overwhelming amount of criticism from both pundits and politicians, many of whom occupy senior positions of leadership in the Party, including Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley, ("Thoughtless and tone deaf: Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley on Leap Manifesto," NationalNewsWatch.com, April 11, 2016) and B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan ("Leap Manifesto 'makes no sense' for B.C., NDP leader John Horgan says," the Globe & Mail, April 11, 2016).

Others believe that there can be a way forward where the NDP might look at adopting some of the principles of Leap – better policies to close the gap between the rich and the rest of us, maybe even call for a Guaranteed Livable Income and more aggressive targets for greenhouse gas emissions – while continuing to tout the expansion of the Alberta tar sands and B.C. LNG enterprise.  It’s the mushy middle ground that Prime Minister Trudeau is trying to occupy – but ultimately, I believe that tack is doomed to fail.  

Many pundits continue to view NDP factionalism through a left vs. right lense - and while that might be part of the equation, it's far from the best point of understanding what's really driving the wedge (stake?) through the heart of the Party.

Progressive Greens vs. Status Quo Browns

Let’s face it – the schism between progressive greens and status quo browns has been coming for some time now (see: "As NDP Old Guard Takes Over, Division Between "browns" and "greens" Starting to Show," Sudbury Steve May, April 3, 2014).  Those currents have been operating below the surface in the NDP for years. They almost emerged during the B.C. general election in 2013, which had B.C. NDP Leader Adrian Dix flip-flop on pipelines part-way through the campaign, with the hopes that taking a firmer position on pipes and tankers would steal some of the Green Party of B.C.’s thunder.  Dix’s flip-flop might have accomplished that, as the Greens took only one seat – but many pundits viewed this change of heart on pipelines and the economy as being the single biggest factor in the loss of the election to Christy Clark’s Liberals.

The fact is, when browns try to behave like greens, no one really takes them seriously.  Tom Mulcair tried to straddle that line during the federal election – tried to take no firm position on pipelines, which have been perceived to be problematic in Quebec, while essential in Alberta, Saskatchewan and parts of B.C.  But the 2015 federal election proved to be about something else entirely (getting rid of Stephen Harper), so the green vs. brown tension was able to lay low for a while beneath the political currents flowing across the national scene.

Leap Manifesto As Rallying Point

It’s only thanks to Leap now that these tensions have finally boiled over, emerging into the mainstream public political discourse.  The Leap Manifesto, written in part by Avi Lewis, son of former Ontario NDP Leader and current elder statesman of the New Democratic Party, Stephen Lewis, based on ideas put forward by author Naomi Klein – Avi Lewis’ spouse – has become a clear rallying point since a group of prominent Canadians (both Lewises, Klein, Maude Barlow and David Suzuki among them) released the document during the marathon 2015 election campaign.  For Tom Mulcair’s NDP, Leap arrived with a thud – largely ignored by New Democratic operatives, the media, and ultimately, by voters.

But with the NDP’s dreams of forming government having gone down in flames to a Liberal Party promising just about everything under the sun to voters, led by a charismatic Justin Trudeau, it shouldn’t be surprising that Leap started resonating with a disgruntled grassroots.  Or at least, with a certain element of that grassroots – members who have for too long chaffed under the notion that their party had moved too far to the centre – so far, in fact, that the NDP had become a part of the problem, and no longer offered solutions.

Sincerity vs. Hypocrisy

It can only be true that many who supported the NDP under Jack Layton in 2011 abandoned the Party for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in 2015. The NDP’s move to right under Mulcair probably had something to do with it, although perhaps not as much as Trudeau’s promising the world to voters did. Whatever the reasons, in 2015, Mulcair’s NDP had a heck of a hard time defining itself to the point that voters who otherwise might have supported the party, lost confidence and opted instead for the Liberals.  And sure, that wasn’t all about pipelines, or the tar sands, or income inequality – it was about something much deeper: sincerity.  Voters simply decided that Mulcair’s NDP just wasn’t being sincere.

The lurch to the right left a power vacuum on the left, and the Leap Manifesto formed a rallying point for those who wanted to reclaim sincerity within their Party.  NDP Leapers understand that it is the height of hypocrisy to champion both an urgent transition to a low carbon economy while continuing to invest in fossil fuel projects, like the pipelines needed to transport bitumen from an expanding tar sands, for example. And yet the NDP took no position on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline or Energy East, despite many within their Party who have been speaking out about these pipeline projects (some of whom ran for office in 2015 under the orange banner).

Unburnable Carbon

Height of hypocrisy?  Doesn’t that seem a bit, I don’t know, out of touch?  Why can’t we do both, as Tom Mulcair and Rachel Notley would have Canadians believe (and Justin Trudeau, Kathleen Wynne and Phillippe Couillard for that matter – there are a lot of big names on the Canadian political scene who are now pushing this approach)?  Actually, the idea that we can’t do both isn’t a political one – it’s based on science.  We know that if we are going to meet our global commitments to hold the line of warming at 2 degress Celsius (the commitments we made in Copenhagen in 2009, and reaffirmed recently in Paris in 2015 – along with the promise to do better), that we’re going to have to leave the lion’s share of known fossil resources in the ground as unburnable carbon (see: "Oil sands must remain largely unexploited to meet climate target, study finds," the Globe & Mail, January 7, 2015). 

Head-in-the-Sand Public Policy

This inconvenient – well, let’s face it – this very difficult fact informs a number of political policy documents, including the Leap Manifesto and the Green Party of Canada’s Vision Green (a policy direction document that has been around a lot longer than Leap – at least since 2007 – but one which has failed to resonate with Canadians).  And it’s true, I believe: the public doesn’t really want to confront difficult facts when they perceive decisions based on those facts will negatively impact them.  Since politicians are reluctant to even talk about the impacts of acting on evidence, we continue to go around in a fog of delusion, pretending (hoping? praying?) that the future will work out in accordance with how we might want it to, rather than how it probably will. 

Worse than that, though, politicians and the pundits who write/talk/interview them are reluctant to give any credence at all to counter-narratives like Leap which seek to undermine the foggy status quo.  Look no further than at Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, who wasn’t so much engaging in an act of realpoltik but rather of sabotage when she described Leap as being “naïve, ill-informed and tone deaf”.  That the mainstream media echoed these concerns (and did a lot worse in some cases) shouldn’t surprise anybody.  The status quo is, after all, at stake.  It’s time to bash the hell out of the dissenters.

And the bashing has continued apace.  And the bashing will continue.

Schism Finally Out in the Open

There’s really no good way out of this for the NDP.  But I think a lot of New Democrats are happy now that their factionalism is all out in the open at last.  Leapers know that it’s not just the future of the New Democratic Party that’s at stake, but the future of the planet.  And to paraphrase former NDP MP Libby Davies, New Democrats might not always do the popular thing, but doing the right thing will be confirmed by the tide of history.  In this case, the only morally right thing to do is to start an honest conversation with New Democrats – and indeed with Canadians – about why aggressively switching off of fossil fuels while considering social equity is not only a good idea, but an essential one, based on evidence and science – while pointing out that what the browns are pedaling is based on misplaced faith at best – but maybe also the perpetuation of the status quo for monied elites and international corporations.  Just whose interests does John Q. New Democrat think the NDP should be looking out for anyway?

Unfortunately, that way leads to a schism. Unfortunately, it’s one that’s liable to be necessary.  Unfortunately, it’s one which isn’t likely to come quickly, but rather one which will gather momentum like a slow-moving train wreck.  And that’s all quite unfortunate.

Irreconcilable Differences

But the fact is, there isn’t any space for a compromise here.  Leap, which understands the science of climate change, says we either go all in on a low-carbon future, or we fry (paraphrasing again). That’s not to say that Rachel Notley wants the world to fry. It is, however, to suggest that through her failure to understand the basics of climate science (or at least to publicly acknowledge those basics, or develop policy based on science), Notley and other status quo NDP browns like her are an impediment to progress, and since they’re not going to climb out of the way, they’re going to need to be forced out.

I fully expect the transformational revolution started by Leap to continue igniting New Democrats at the riding level throughout the nation.  I expect provincial parties will be debating Leap before too long – and in some cases, without the sort of even modest success that the grassroots progressive green faction experienced in Edmonton on the weekend.  No matter – as with any revolution, there will be progress, as well as backsliding. 

What’s clear, though, is the ultimate outcome – and it’s one based on economics.  Simply put, the future is renewable, and fossil fuels are done.  The sooner the browns give up the fight, the better off we’ll all be.  But if the browns continue to fight for a future that’s not going to happen, it will create unnecessary delays which will continue to put the planet at risk.  Unfortunately (sorry for the over-use of that word today!), if there’s one thing about the status quo that we’ve learned from history, it’s that it rarely goes down without a fight.

Thing is, the browns might actually win this fight for the future within the NDP.  The next leader of the Party will be chosen by one of the factions.  The browns represent the elites of the Party – those in leadership roles, those from labour, those from business. They’ve got the money, and they’re probably better organized.  They’ve also got mainstream media support (or whatever tentative support the mainstream media might offer the NDP – which historically has been little or none – but I would expect Rex Murphy to come to Rachel Notley’s defence if she was battling with Avi or Naomi Klein).  The deck may be stacked against a progressive green victory within the NDP.

Power to the People - Power of the People

But the grassroots have the numbers – numbers which overwhelm the Party establishment.  Numbers which can’t be ignored.  Numbers which are likely to be bolstered on a riding-by-riding basis, as EDA's role out local Leap discussion forums. Numbers which might ultimately triumph – as long as the system isn’t gamed from within (and I don’t really think the New Democrats would do that in the same way that the Democratic Party is currently doing with Presidential nomination candidate Bernie Sanders, by the way – largely because of the ‘one member one vote’ the NDP adopted in 2013).

What might happen if the Party establishment is turned on its head?  Can we expect Rachel Notley and other browns to hang around?  We might get some idea over the next couple of years, by paying close attention to what happens south of the border – not just with the Democratic Party, but also with the Republicans. Both parties have candidates who are running on platforms of overthrowing political elites.  Should both Trump and Sanders fail to win their party’s nomination, where will they go? What will their supporters do?

Battleground B.C.

Of course, we’re likely to have an example here in Canada, too, before the NDP reconvenes 2 years from now to debate Leap-motivated policies.  In 2017, British Columbians head to the polls.  B.C. will be the first ground which NDP Leapers will try to stake out – and frankly, try to take over.  Many progressive greens in the BC NDP have been less than enthusiastic with BC NDP Leader John Horgan’s performance, which has included support for LNG and other fossil projects (see: "By backing LNG, Horgan NDP lost election before it began," Rafe Mair, CommonsenseCanadian, March 8, 2016).  This week, Horgan came out against Leap (although not as equivocally as Notley), signalling just where he stands in the green vs. brown divide.

I fully expect internecine warfare to erupt in the BC NDP, with Leap as rallying point for progressives.  Can the BC NDP expect to head into the 2017 election (just a little over a year away) with a mushy-middle fossil fuel platform?  Sure, that might be good politics for the interior – but what of Vancouver and the Island – areas where a mushy middle approach might leave New Democratic candidates vulnerable to a provincial Green Party that continues to poll well?

And then there’s the question of sincerity, and it’s flip side, the one of hypocrisy. Can the BC NDP demonstrate their commitment to fighting climate change while championing LNG? I don’t think they can – and I’m far from the only one. 

It’s quite possible that the factionalism will end up with a new Leader taking the NDP into the 2017 election.  Horgan has aligned himself with those who are standing in the way of the future.  If he doesn’t go, will NDP Leapers follow him to the polls?

They might head to the polls, but it’s probably reasonable to think that they might just cast their ballots for another party that has long championed social democracy and the principles of Leap.  Yes, if Horgan doesn’t go, it’s quite possible that we might see a few more capital-G Greens elected in BC next year.

The Beginning of a Transformational Realignment of Canada's Political Scene

Whatever unfolds in BC is going to resonate now throughout the NDP on the federal stage.  What happened this past weekend in Edmonton was a big deal – it will likely lead to a new political alignment in Canada.  It’s a realignment that’s been needed for a long time now.  I, for one, am happy to see grassroots New Democrats take on the elites within their own party, in the interests of their children and my children, and in the interests of the planet.

(Opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

To Grassroots NDP Leapers: Welcome to Blockadia

Let me start this blog post by congratulating grassroots members of the NDP for attending their recent convention in Edmonton, and having the courage to make significant changes within their party in the interests of democracy and the planet.  Although I am not and have never been a New Democrat, I know that these sorts of changes are never easy to make.  I have, however, always believed that a strong New Democratic Party is a benefit to Canada, and although I have in the past been very critical of the NDP in this blog, largely that has been because I’ve always expected more from grassroots members in terms of how they move their party and its policies on the critical issues of our time – especially climate change.

What I saw from the NDP this past weekend was a clear desire to take action.  By adopting a resolution to have further discussions at the riding level related to the Leap Manifesto, the NDP have suddenly shifted the national dialogue around the need to leave fossil fuels in the ground.  While the watered-down policy might not go far enough for my liking (I would have preferred an outright adoption of Leap as Party policy), there really can be no denying that thanks to NDP grassroots members who supported Leap on the weekend, the tenor of national discussion has already begun to change.

Moving the Low-Carbon Economy Into Mainstream Political Discourse

Not that consumers of mainstream media would know it. For the past two days, pundits and pols have been blasting grassroots New Democrats for their support of Leap.  The idea that Alberta can’t continue to expand the tar sands, or that B.C. won’t be able to develop its liquefied natural gas (LNG) resources apparently seems preposterous to those who write for the Globe & Mail ("Can the NDP ever be taken seriously as a national government?", Gerald Caplan, the Globe & Mail, April 11, 2016), the National Post ("With its Jack Layton-esque centrism in tatters, radical Leap Manifesto will doom NDP," Michael Den Tandt, the National Post, April 10, 2016), the CBC ("The Leap Manifesto and the NDP," Rex Murphy, CBC Television, April 11, 2016 - posted April 12, 2016) and even the Toronto Star ("Has the NDP become redundant?" Richard Gwyn, the Toronto Star, April 12, 2016).  

That’s to be expected.  When you take on the monied elites, that’s what you’re going to get.  But even I am surprised at the vehemence and hostility directed towards NDP Leapers from those in the media – and frankly from the elites within your own Party, like Alberta Premier Rachel Notley ("Thoughtless and tone deaf: Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley on Leap Manifesto," NationalNewsWatch.com, April 11, 2016) B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan ("Leap Manifesto 'makes no sense' for B.C., NDP leader John Horgan says," the Globe & Mail, April 11, 2016) and former Ontario NDP Leader Howard Hampton ("What is the future of the federal NDP?" Up North, CBC Radio, April 11, 2016).  What you, NDP Leapers, managed to accomplish this past weekend was to put Canadian civil society on notice that green social democratic ideas can no longer be excluded from public discourse.

Of course, green ideas haven’t been excluded from public discourse – just that discourse found in the mainstream media.  They’ve always proliferated via social media, and will continue to do so. Although no one kept track of who voted for what this past weekend, I’d wager that many millennials – which, as a demographic group, seem to be less tied to the narrow opinions professed by the majority of mainstream media pundits – likely led the charge for Leap.  Although there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that elder NDP statesman Stephen Lewis’ chastisement of the “brown” faction in his awesome speech to conventioneers likely had a role in providing the courage to shift the ground from underneath your Party.

Work To Do

I know that you’re not quite there yet, New Democrats – there’s still a lot of work to do at the EDA level to move your party forward on climate change, resource development and how Canada will position itself for a low carbon future – but by agreeing to discuss Leap, you’ve taken a huge step, whether you think you have or not.  Those who embrace the fossilized status quo have already framed you as out of touch with the social, environmental and (especially) economic realities of our times.  Like it or not, you’re now on the outside of the mainstream.  That might be a comfortable place for many who have self-identified as “socialists” in the past – but I suspect that many Leapers have signed on because of your concerns for climate change.  You may have become frustrated with your party’s direction to continue to put forward ideas that prosperity has to be fueled by fossil development and building pipelines to expand the tar sands.

Progressive Greens vs. Status Quo Browns

Well, everything is out in the open now – and whether you realize it or not, you’ve aligned yourself with one faction of a quiet schism within your own Party.  You’ve stood up for the greens in your party, and you’ve now publicly declared your opposition to the browns who want to take Canada in a different direction.  Some of you might still be under the impression that a happy middle ground can be found to bridge the gap between your factions.

No. That’s not going to happen.  You’re here now. 

Welcome to Blockadia.

The cold, hard reality is this: you’re either for the status quo, or you’re for the changes that we need to make to embrace the low-carbon economy and stave off the very worst social, economic and environmental impacts of anthropogenic global warming.  The desire to expand the tar sands enterprise (and other fossil projects) is irreconcilably at odds with keeping warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.  The science shows us the way forward – that we must leave the majority of fossil fuels in the ground.

Irreconcilable Differences

Some, like the Globe and Mail’s Lawrence Martin, are comparing this “debate” to the Waffle movement of the early 1970s (see: “NDP’sLeap is the Waffle reborn,” Lawrence Martin, the Globe & Mail, April 12, 2016), and predicting that, essentially, like the Waffle, this Leap nonsense too shall pass, and the NDP will be put back on a more “mainstream” trajectory.  Martin’s read of the current situation shows just how out of touch he and other pundits are about the future that you have boldly proclaimed that you want your Party to embrace.

Make no mistake – you’ve joined a global movement – one which will sweep away the vestiges of the fossil fuel status quo.  It will.  It must – as we’ve no choice but to do so, if we are going to have any hope of salvaging some semblance of our global civilization from the centuries-long crisis that we’ve plunged the planet into. By standing up to the elites and demanding a better future for yourselves, your children and grandchildren, you are firing what will be amongst the first salvos which ultimately begin to transform our economy, our environment and our planet.  That the mainstream pundits all appear to be blinded by the past should be no never-mind to you.  Stay your course with the knowledge that the future is on your side. 

And for those in your Party who might not be sold on the Leap, I’m sure you’ll do what you can to show them all of the good, noble, moral and economically sound reasons for taking on the status quo and moving Canada aggressively towards a low-carbon future.  Many will come around to joining you. 

Moving Forward with the Program

As for those that don’t?  Well, you created the precedent this past weekend to guide those decisions.  Sweep them away. They will only hold you back from the hard work that you need to undertake to convince a wider audience of the need for action – especially in the face of the mainstream which sometimes appears to exist only to bolster the monied elitism of the status quo.  You see what happened in the United Kingdom with Jeremy Corbynn.  You look south of the border now and see how the elites in the mainstream have ignored the messages offered by Bernie Sanders.  You need really look no further than here in Canada to see firsthand how the elites have continued to ignore the Green Party – my Party – as a serious contributor to public discourse on issues of economics, social democracy and a low carbon future. Heck, we've had our own version of the ideas contained in Leap available online for the past decade in the form of Vision Green - but no one has paid it much attention.

I understand that there will be those within your own Party to urge for a go-slow approach on Leap, lest you tear asunder the coalition you’ve built between browns and greens. That’s poor advice in the face of the climate crisis – we simply don’t have the time, according to Stephen Lewis and many others who are in the know about the severity of the impending crisis. Take control of your party at all levels – and be prepared to fearlessly oust those who refuse to come around to standing up for the planet and who instead want to champion the monied elites.

Do in Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia – and yes, in Alberta – what you are doing federally.  Put Leap on the agenda of your provincial parties.  Talk to elected MP’s, MLA’s/MPP’s at all levels.  Lobby them if they’re not already on-side.  If they continue to stand against the progressive interests of the planet in favour of the parochial interests of the elites, even if they do so in the name of jobs or the little guy (an argument that you know to be false), find them and label them and move on from them.  When the day of reckoning comes, write them off, while embracing elected officials who stand for the planet.

The Leadership Question

You’ll be electing a leader in the near future.  The importance of this decision cannot be under-stated. Again, you’ve taken a side on an issue over which there can be no reconciliation. If your Party elects a brown that endorses expanding fossil resources, even while simultaneously trumpeting how this kind of development can fuel the low-carbon economy, it will be clear that your Party has abandoned the principles that you recently fought for in Edmonton. 

What Rachel Notley and others like her want Canadians to believe is that we can both expand the tar sands while reducing emissions.  You just dumped Tom Mulcair in part because he couldn’t sell that vision to Canadians from the perspective of the New Democratic Party (although admittedly we did elect a Liberal government that ran on the same platform). The fact is that Notley’s beliefs are not based on science and evidence – the very science and evidence that has brought you here, now, embracing Leap.   Sure, Notley and Trudeau (and Mulcair before them) tell a pretty good fairy-tale – one that the mainstream media recently decided to pick up after the Conservative’s disastrous departure from government (remember how the pundits used to talk about any cuts to emissions being disastrous for the economy?), but it’s a fairy story nonetheless.  We can’t burn our way into prosperity – not with the Sword of Damocles that is the climate crisis hanging over our heads.

Fighting for the Future

Should New Democrats opt for a brown leader in the future - one who refuses to tell Canadians that we've got to leave the oil and natural gas in the ground - to grassroots New Democrats who believe that Leap is the way forward, I say this - Elizabeth May and the Green Party supported Leap from the day that it was announced. I know that you might have heard that the Green Party isn't a "progressive" party, but the truth is the truth is often the first casualty in partisan political warfare. Those who have taken a close look at the Greens have made the unbiased claims that when it comes to being progressive, there's little difference between our two parties (see: "Greens deserve 'progressive' votes as much as anyone," Michael Laxer, rabble.ca, June 30, 2015). I don't agree, clearly - I think the NDP still has to come along way on climate justice issues - but your party took a very bold step in that direction this past weekend. If your party fails to live up to your expectations, you know where you and your friends might be able to go in order to work towards the future that Leap knows we need if we are to succeed as a nation the deeper we get into the 21st Century.

New Democrats: Welcome to Blockadia.  I, for one, am glad that you’re here.  And I look forward to building on this relationship as time goes by.

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

Sudbury's Maley Drive: A Case Study in the Erosion of Species at Risk Protection in Ontario

Yesterday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came to town to announce that the federal government will be contributing one third of the estimated funding needed for the City of Greater Sudbury to complete Phase 1 of the Maley Drive Extension project.  The feds' $26.7 million contribution will be added to the commitment made by the Province of Ontario just before the Sudbury by-election, and to the City's one-third share, of which the City currently has a little less than half. All together, Phase 1 of Maley Drive is expected to cost $80.1 million.


Phase 2 of the project may cost anywhere between $50 and $70 million, ans is currently without funding.


The Maley Drive Saga

The History of Maley Drive is lengthy, and documented elsewhere (for a decent, if biased account, see: "No Social License for Maley Drive, Phase 1," Sudbury Steve May, January 27, 2016).  With this depth of history behind the project, it's little wonder that many Sudburians are eager to see the road move forward, even at a time when only modest growth is being projected by the City over the next 20 years (just 10,500 people - see "Taking a Closer Look at Maley Drive, Part 3 - Expectations for Growth," Sudbury Steve May, November 12, 2015, and more specifically see: "Growth Outlook to 2036, City of Greater Sudbury," Hemson Consulting Ltd., May 2013).

But what's changed recently has been the discovery that species at risk - specifically, blanding's turtles and whippoorwills, are now making their home in the wetland complex through which Maley Drive will be built.  The Junction Creek Stewardship Committee, a local organization that has been working for years to restore Junction Creek and its tributaries, bringing the watershed back to life after being poisoned by decades of mining and smelting in the area, discovered blanding's turtles living in the watershed a few years ago.  Interestingly, the Junction Creek Stewardship Committee's turtle survey was funded in part by the Province of Ontario (see: "Province shells out funds for turtle research," Northern Life, July 18, 2013).

What's Going On?

That’s interesting because the province of Ontario is one of 3 governmental partners that will fund the destruction of blanding’s turtle habitat.  It’s not clear to me that the province was initially aware of the presence of species at risk habitat when it signed on to fund Maley Drive back in 2014 (see: "Is the Province of Ontario Funding the Destruction of Species at Risk Habitat?" Sudbury Steve May, March 21, 2016).  I’ve been trying to find out more information about who knew what and when about the presence of species at risk habitat in the Maley corridor, but at the present time, the information available to the public is scarce.

After requesting copies of studies pertaining to species at risk referred to in the City of Greater Sudbury’s recent Business Case Report in support of the Maley Drive Extension Phase 1 project (see page 24 of 29 of the "Maley Drive Extension - Phase 1 Business Case Report", City of Greater Sudbury, February 19, 2016 - specifically, Section 10.2 of the Report), I’ve been told by City Staff that they are not going to be made available to the public because they contain sensitive information about species at risk.  Recently, I filed a Freedom of Information request for correspondence between the City and provincial ministries related to species at risk and the Overall Benefit Permit to harm habitat that the City of Greater Sudbury is now seeking to obtain from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.  Yesterday, I received a response from the City that the documents I’m looking for will cost me almost $800 to obtain.

Maley Drive and the Environmental Assessment Process To Date

Typically, new road developments like the Maley Drive Extension project have to go through a Class Environmental Assessment before they proceed.  A Class EA was undertaken for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Maley extension project back in 1995.  That EA did not identify the existence of species at risk in the study area, although it did identify a wetland in the middle of the preferred corridor for Maley.  It was the 1995 EA which ultimately recommended that Maley corridor as being the best of several alternative routes for Maley.  Had that study determined that species at risk were inhabiting the wetland, it’s entirely reasonable to believe that an alternative route might have been selected.

In 2008, an update to the 1995 Class EA was undertaken, because the Maley project had been expanded, and the vintage of the earlier EA was past expiration.  This addendum to the 1995 Class EA also failed to identify the presence of species at risk habitat in the wetland through which Maley will traverse. 

Species at Risk in the Junction Creek Watershed

Look, it very well may be that the species at risk were not physically present in the wetland in 1995 or 2008.  Junction Creek should be an urban treasure in our community, but for too long it’s been treated as little more than an open sewer. The Junction Creek Stewardship Committee has been doing some awesome work in its efforts to restore the creek’s watershed.  They've been re-introducing brook trout into the creek, as well as organizing annual clean-up events.  And they’ve been asking for the public to help them out by reporting sightings of rare fauna, like blanding’s turtles.

The restoration of the Junction Creen watershed has been a part of a larger renaturalization effort to re-green the Sudbury basin.  Decades of dirty mining practices have left visual scars on our landscape, as well as more insidious poisons in our soil.  You may have heard about the “moonscape” that used to be Sudbury – black rocks barren of trees and vegetation, thanks to low-level atmospheric pollution from mining and smelting.

In the 1970s, the community embarked on a serious effort to heal the landscape – bringing blasted and barren areas back to life through tree planting and other restoration projects.  The seeds planted in the 1970s have yielded more than just the new trees that now dominate our landscape - stewardship organizations abound in the City, with mandates to protect and restore degraded lakes and river systems.  The Junction Creek Stewardship Committee is probably the most prominent, given that its mandate impacts an urban watershed that is home to about 50,000 people – a quarter of the City’s population.

A New Environmental Assessment for Maley

In response to a recent public consultation process regarding Maley Drive, the Junction Creek Stewardship Committee wrote an eye-opening letter to the City of Greater Sudbury, urging the City to undertake a new environmental assessment for the project (see the March 18, 2016 letter beginning on page 26). These concerns were echoed by other Sudburians, including prominent Maley Drive critic and Co-Chair of Sudbury’s Friendly to Seniors organization, John Lindsay, who wrote to the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and Natural Resources and Forestry, urging them to put a halt to the Overall Benefit Permit process and require the City of Greater Sudbury to undertake a new environmental assessment (see Mr. Lindsay’s submission, which begins on page 79).

Lindsay’s contention is that since the environmental circumstances have changed from the time of the two previous environmental assessment undertakings, due to the presence of species at risk in the study area, that a new environmental assessment based on up-to-date information should now be undertaken, in order to provide a better picture of the anticipated environmental impacts that the Maley project will have on all existing features, including the species at risk.  That seems like a sensible approach – one which appears to be supported by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change’s Code of  “Code of Practice” for“Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario”, which indicates in Section 6.2.10, “Changing a Project After the Planning Process is Complete”, in the “Lapse of Time” subsection that,

“There may be instances where a proponent may not implement a project for some time (for example, five years) after the project planning process is complete. The end of the project planning process in this context is defined as either the end of the review period after the Notice of Completion is issued (no Part II Order requests), or the Minister or delegate denies a Part II Order request. The proponent should provide in the class environmental assessment a procedure for proponents to follow in these cases. When a lapse of time has occurred (exact time should be defined in the class environmental assessment), the proponent must review the project to ensure that no changes are required. Changes could be required to the project because, for example, the environmental conditions have changed, and the impact management measures are no longer valued. There could also be new government policies or standards or new engineering technologies.  The results of the review of the project should be documented.” (pages 84 & 85, “Code of Practice: Class Environmental Assessments”)

Maley Drive: Broader Implications for Biodiversity in Ontario

What has become apparent is that the City of Greater Sudbury, in co-ordination with the Province of Ontario and now the Government of Canada, is intending to build a new road project through the critical wetland habitat of two species at risk (blanding’s turtle and whippoorwill) without first having undertaken an environmental assessment which looked at alternatives to the location of the road.  That this can be happening in 2016 simply defies belief.

And yet, here in Ontario, it may very well be that the destruction of species at risk habitat in favour of a new road can proceed – as long as the right permits are in place from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.  An Environmental Assessment of the road project that looks at impacts on species at risk may not actually be a necessary starting point.  As long as the permit is in place, a project is good to go.

The implications of this approach to managing species at risk are simply huge. Rather than going through a public environmental assessment process which looks at anticipated impacts and potential alternatives to those impacts, the precedent will be set for decision-makers to simply skip directly to the Overall Benefit Permit process (a process which happens behind closed doors and does not involve the public), which will further erode the habitat protections offered to species at risk through the Province’s Endangered Species Act.

With both the provincial and federal levels of government willing to pony up tens of millions of dollars of funding to make Maley a reality, can the ultimate outcome of how this process unfolds be in doubt?  That’s not just a rhetorical question – it’s part of a plea to province-wide organizations which are concerned about the health of species at risk in Ontario, like the CPAWS Wildlands League, which has been challenging the government of Ontario to live up to its commitment to protect species at risk as per provincial legislation.  The Wildlands League will be appearing before the Ontario Court of Appeal with regards to a lower court ruling on Ontario Regulation 176/13, which sets up the Overall Benefit Permit process that allows the habitat of species at risk to be destroyed, despite the clear provisions of the Endangered Species Act – legislation which is supposed to protect species at risk from harm.

Elsewhere in Ontario, the issuance of Overall Benefit Permits to destroy the habitat of blanding’s turtles have already been discussed in court cases.  In Prince Edward County, local environmental organizations opposed an industrial wind farm on Ostrander Point where a number of service roads would be constructed through turtle habitat (see: “Ontario court of appeal says endangered turtlestrump windfarms,” the Financial Post, April 20, 2015).  While this matter remains on-going, it does provide those concerned about the province’s role in protecting species at risk with some degree of optimism that ultimately the notion of “doing the right thing” might prevail.

Protecting Species at Risk: Politicians Not Doing The Right Thing

And what is the “right thing” to do with Sudbury’s Maley Drive?  One might think that it would be to have all necessary environmental approvals in place before deciding to barge ahead with funding commitments from senior levels of government.  As I indicated before, at the time of the provincial funding commitment, it may have been unclear to Wynne Liberal government that the Maley corridor had re-occupied by blanding’s turtles.  But since the existence has come to light (which may have happened as early as March, 2015), what actions has the government taken?

At yesterday’s federal funding announcement, Sudbury MPP Glenn Thibeault was present to support his fellow Liberal MP’s and the Prime Minister.  The message was clear: Liberals at all levels of government are delivering Maley Drive to the citizens of Greater Sudbury!

The message was very clear: Liberals at all levels of government simply don’t give a damn about species at risk, and are determined to plow this road through one of the Sudbury basin’s larger wetland complexes (which has still not been evaluated by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to determine significance), and bringing harm and destruction to the habitat of threatened species.

A Renewed Effort to Re-Green, Biodiversity At Risk - Sudbury

Sudburians who pride themselves on our decades-long project of regreening our community are no doubt feeling that our international image has been tarnished by the reckless acts of our municipal, provincial and federal governments.  Our Mayor and municipal Council has brought shame to our City by endorsing this project.  Elected officials who have been outspoken Maley supporters, including Sudbury MP Paul Lefebvre, Nickel Belt MP Marc Serre and Sudbury MPP Glenn Thibeault also share the blame of putting road building ahead of their responsibility to protect species at risk.  And finally, the Prime Minister, who must have been briefed on the presence of species at risk before yesterday’s funding announcement, will certainly wear the decision to proceed with Maley Drive as a priority over looking after the interests of endangered animals.

It’s 2016. It’s well past the time that we as a society took our obligation to protect our natural heritage seriously – especially those species whom humanity has placed at risk of extinction.  But it looks like not everyone agrees.  That’s why I’ve been working with a number of community members to start a new organization in our City which will look to make headway on the need to protect our at risk plant and animal communities.  You can follow Biodiversity At Risk – Sudbury on Twitter: @BAR_Sudbury, and join on Facebook.  You’ll be hearing more from this group over the coming months.  Please contact me directly if you have an interest in lending your voice and any other resources that you can spare to this worthwhile initiative. I can be reached at: Sudbury_Steve@hotmail.com

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)