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)

The NDP at a Crossroads: Status Quo Browns Vs. Progressive Greens

New Democrats are gathering in Edmonton this weekend to decide the fate of their leader, Tom Mulcair.  Also on the agenda will be consideration of whether the Party will adopt the Leap Manifesto as a way forward.  Both the leadership vote and Leap represent a potential turning point in the history of the New Democratic Party.

Let me address the Leap Manifesto first.  Despite a number of NDP EDA’s having passed resolutions urging the Party to adopt the Leap Manifesto as, well, not exactly policy, but something akin to a bold direction to guide the future of the Party (see: “Push for NDP to embrace, debate Leap Manifesto intensifies ahead ofconvention,” the Canadian Press, April 4, 2016), the chances of the NDP uncritically embracing Leap are slim.  Simply put, the Leap Manifesto represents a too-bold departure for New Democrats to make in one fell swoop.  While it may be that over time, the NDP opts to adopt many of the tenets of Leap, the fact is that the NDP is just too conservative an organization to position itself in the same space occupied by Leap.

NDP - Taking a Leap

More likely, New Democrats will vote to study Leap – perhaps form a committee, to report back to the convention in 2018, possibly with recommendations of adopting some of the Manifesto’s positions and action items.  While this at first sounds like a sensible, considered approach to addressing Leap – as well as sounding like a measure to placate those New Democrats who believe Leap to be the way of the future – it would completely miss the mark and once again show that the New Democratic Party simply doesn’t understand the urgency of the climate crisis.

Leap isn’t a buffet – something that diners can pick and choose from.  Greens understand this – and certainly the NDP’s buffet approach to climate action has always been one of my Party’s biggest issues with the NDP.  With Leap, you’re either all in, or you’re not in.  You’re either a part of the solution, or you’re a part of the problem.  The good works that one might do by selecting low-cal alt energy menu options are easily off set by the chocolate cake of pipeline development, to mix several metaphors.

The NDP can’t afford to go anti-pipeline at this time – not with Rachel Notley’s Alberta government acting as a Canadian environmental champion (credit where it’s due: Notley has done more in a few months than most Canadian governments have done with years or decades worth of time – but that doesn’t mean that what Alberta is doing is what’s needed for Canada at this time – she and the NDP still have not gone nearly far enough).  Don’t look for New Democrats in leadership positions to start talking about leaving fossil fuels in the ground (remember what happened to Linda McQuaig, running in the media capital of Canada – Toronto Centre – during the 2015 federal election?  She had the audacity to state the obvious – and that was pretty much the last that anyone heard of Linda McQuaig throughout the election. See: “NDP candidate under firefor saying ‘oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground’ to meet climatetargets,” the National Post, August 9, 2015).

Tom Mulcair for a Brown Future

Certainly, Tom Mulcair isn’t going to change his oily spots and overnight become the champion of a low carbon future.  Throughout the 2015 election, Mulcair went out of his way to avoid answering questions about the future of bitumen pipelines like Trans Mountain and Energy East.  His avoidance of taking any position certainly seemed to pay off for the NDP – especially in British Columbia, where New Democrats were elected in every Vancouver Island riding save one – ridings which were all targeted by the Green Party.  Mulcair’s lack of position on pipelines allowed his candidates on the west coast to preach conservation, while candidates in Ontario and New Brunswick pitched the need for secure energy to flow from the tar sands.

(The Liberals, in contrast, were quite clear about their support for pipelines – besides Northern Gateway, they hadn’t seen a pipeline they didn’t like – their straightforward support of Trans Mountain and Energy East earned Trudeau accolades from environmental and anti-pipeline groups. Why? Because Trudeau. See: “If the Green Party Can’t Count on Environmentalists…” Sudbury Steve May, October 15, 2015)

New Democrats in Edmonton looking to Leap as a signpost for the future are almost certainly going to be voting against Mulcair in their party’s leadership review.  Mulcair represents the past – in rather many ways – for the NDP.  There’s really little argument for keeping him on as leader, no matter one’s opinions on Leap or climate change.  From a purely strategic point of view, the only possible reason for keeping Mulcair around at this time would be so that he can continue to lead the Party while the NDP spends the next two years finding and developing a new set of leaders to take on Trudeau in 2019.  Putting Yesterday’s Man (Mulcair) up against Trudeau four years hence will surely only further doom New Democrats to irrelevancy.

Trudeau is No Progressive

If Trudeau outflanked the NDP on the left in 2015 (and given my own dislike and disbelief in the notion of left-right politics, I’m certainly not going to endorse this frame as so many others have done – and continue to do), it had a lot more to do with Trudeau and the Liberals than it did Mulcair.  The NDP ran a competent campaign – they had a plan, and they largely stuck to it and implemented it throughout the campaign.  Things didn’t really start going off the rails for the NDP until the Liberals had gathered enough steam to displace the NDP as the government-in-waiting in the minds of voters.  I chalk that one up more to Trudeau’s charisma than to any utterings on niqabs that Mulcair made.  The Liberals also ran a good campaign, and were better positioned to capitalize on their leader’s strengths.  I understand that the niqab and deficits are features that the pundits have pointed to as reasons for the Liberals victory and the NDP’s defeat – but really, 2015 was about two things: getting rid of Harper, and winning a popularity contest.  And that’s why today we have Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rather than Prime Minister Mulcair.

And it’s too bad, really.  I’m no fan of Tom Mulcair, but the NDP would have made a much more competent government than Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, who, after just a few months in power, have already started backsliding on a slew of promises they made to get elected in 2015 (see:  “Liberalsrisk losing the public trust,” Lawrence Martin, the Globe & Mail, April 5, 2016).  Oh sure, the Liberals have been all sound and fury on the climate crisis, but do those paying attention really think that Justin Trudeau is going to take Canada to where it needs to go – especially if Rachel Notley can’t even bootstrap Alberta?  (see: “PM putters along while climate crisisdeepens,” Steve May, the Sudbury Star, March 12, 2014). Trudeau continues to run around talking up “responsible pipeline development” as if that were a thing (see: “Trudeau supports pipelines, but wants responsible energyproduction,” The Hill, March 31, 2016). What Trudeau is already doing is exactly what New Democrats feared he would do - run on the left, and govern from the right.  It's actually worse, in my opinion - Trudeau ran for the future, but he's behaving like a dinosaur (see: "Paris Changed Everything. So Why Are We Still Talking Pipelines?" David Suzuki, the Huffington Post, January 27, 2016).

I can’t believe that Mulcair, at least, would have gone out of his way to antagonize a significant portion of his base who, despite the NDP’s lack of seriousness on climate change, continue to have confidence that the NDP is the only party that can actually demonstrate leadership on the issue.

For those members of the NDP who are concerned about the climate crisis, if you are a delegate in Edmonton this weekend, it’s clear that you just can’t support Mulcair and the other browns that have been running your party for so long – stealing your future and that of your children out from under you.

What's At Stake

And for those reading this blogpost who must now be thinking that I, the author, am representing a narrow view-point in absence of economic or political realities, I’d like to just take a moment and remind you about what’s actually at stake here.  As I’ve written time and time again, what’s important to me is the need to hold the line of global warming at just 2 degrees Celsius in order to avoid tipping points which will trigger positive feedback loops and lead to potentially catastrophic global warming.  Warming beyond 2 degrees C will put our economy, our civic institutions, our livelihoods and our very lives at risk.  It’s not a world that I want to live in – and it’s certainly not a world that I want to pass along to my children.  My generation will have a lot to answer for when future generations look back on our reckless, wasteful ways.  I don’t want to have to face my own children and tell them that I’m sorry, I understood the urgency of the crisis, but I refused to do enough to make a difference.  And that’s why I’m a member of the Green Party today – because it’s the only party on the Canadian political landscape that truly understands the urgency of the crisis – and has some semblance of a plan for our nation to work its way through it, while simultaneously creating a prosperous and flexible society that we’ll need to thrive in a century of change of uncertainty.

A Green Party Member's (Unsolicited) Advice to Green New Democrats

I strongly suggest that if you are a New Democrat and continue to support your Party and your leader to take Canada in the direction that Mulcair and Jack Layton before him wanted to go, you’re not doing enough, and in fact you are a part of the problem, and are impeding the solution.  And that’s why I sincerely hope that this weekend New Democrats will make the choice to support the Leap Manifesto, and dump their leader in favour of a process which will identify a better one – one equipped to lead a revitalized and rejuvenated political enterprise into the next decade, and hopefully those decades beyond.  Sure, I’m a partisan, but I have a much stronger commitment to my family and my planet than I do my Party.  An NDP that does the right thing will be an asset for Canada in a way that today’s NDP simply isn’t.  You can’t put your efforts and energies into a political party that refuses to accept the science of climate change, that refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuels will need to be left in the ground, that refuses to take a position on pipelines and other new fossil fuel infrastructure – you can’t work to elect “those people” and claim to take the climate crisis seriously. And that’s what the NDP and its supporters did in 2015. 

I, for one, sincerely hope that 2015 was the last election in Canada fought under this antiquated notion of “progress”.  If the NDP really wants to be a progressive political party, they’ve got to start by focusing on the climate crisis – and the Leap Manifesto is certainly a vehicle which provides that laser-like focus.  But there remain too many browns entrenched in positions of power and influence in the NDP, on all sides of the political spectrum.  Forward-thinking seems to have taken a back-seat to the NDP’s quest for power, at the expense of an engaged membership.

Fight for the Future

Of course, that’s just my take.  But New Democrats, take heart – I’ve not given up on you completely. This weekend, you’ll have a chance to make a difference.  You’ll have a chance to tell your Party’s leadership that the future is important, and that to get to the future that you need to go to, the NDP has to embrace progress by dumping Tom Mulcair, renouncing pro-fossil policies, and moving towards the vision contained in the Leap Manifesto.  If you do these things, you can begin the process of turning your Party into a vehicle equipped to take on the challenges of the 21^st Century.

But if your Party fails to follow suit, you ought to know that there are other vehicles out there which are already working towards these same goals.  The Green Party has supported the Leap Manifesto since Day 1.  Yes, we’ve got our problems – but they’re not insurmountable.  And with your help, we can probably figure out some workable solutions.  At least Greens are heading in the right direction.  If brown New Democrats continue to control your Party, I strongly suggest that you take a look at the Green Party – because frankly, you’re not going to get another pivotal opportunity like the one you have this weekend to influence the future should your Party opt to maintain the status quo.

We’re running out of time. After this weekend, the way forward should become clearer. 

(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)

Is the Province of Ontario Funding the Destruction of Species at Risk Habitat?

Is the Province of Ontario funding the destruction of species at risk habitat? The answer is "Yes" - and the Province is urging the federal government to join in, and fund its 1/3 share of the destruction of the habitat of blanding's turtles and whippoorwills - both threatened species which fall under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, according to the Province of Ontario.

This is all happening in my community, the City of Greater Sudbury, through a contentious road-building project known as the Maley Drive Extension.  This road project has been on the City's books for over 20 years.  It was first subject to a Class Environmental Assessment in 1995, which looked at alternatives to building a new road (including light rail) to address what was then identified as growing concerns over congestion in the City.  Ultimately, the 1995 Class EA identified a favoured corridor for the Maley project - one which wasn't at that time impacted by the presence of species at risk.

In 2008, the City undertook an Addendum to the 1995 EA.  Again, field work in the proposed road corridor was undertaken, and while new tributaries to Junction Creek were discovered, the EA Addendum again did not identify the presence of species at risk in the proposed road corridor.

A few weeks ago, the public had its first opportunity to provide input specifically on the Maley Drive Extension project since June, 1994.  Immediately prior to the oral public input meeting, the City revealed the presence of species at risk in a location just to the west of the existing Barrydowne/Maley Drive intersection - smack dab in the middle of where the new Maley road is intended to be built.

The Need to Explore Alternatives to Destroying Species at Risk Habitat

According to the facts (of which there are few), the City is currently working with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to obtain an Overall Benefit Permit (to alter or destroy the habitat of species at risk) in order to allow the Maley Drive Extension project to proceed.  Apparently, the City of Greater Sudbury has known about the presence of these species at risk in the Maley corridor since 2013 (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).

The City appears to have leapt to the conclusion that an Overall Benefit Permit is desirable for the Maley Drive Extension project, rather than first looking at and assessing alternatives for the project, including different solutions to tackle the so-called "congestion" problem (a "problem" other cities in Ontario would probably pay money to have), such as investing in transit, alternative transportation and the use of traffic demand management to achieve desired outcomes, or even just at different routes for the new road which would avoid the habitat of species at risk or have less of an impact.

The City really ought to have undertaken a new Environmental Assessment, once the presence of species at risk became known to municipal staff.  That approach, or providing a new addendum, is what's recommended by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change in its "Code of Practice for Preparing, Reviewing and Using Class Environmental Assessments in Ontario, 2014" (see Section 6.2.10, Changing a Project After a Planning Process is Complete - which indicates that where a lapse of time between EA completion and project construction has occurred, and the environmental circumstances have changed, the results of the project review should be documented).  In this case, the 1995 EA included provisions for lapsing after 5 years.  The 2008 Addendum, prepared in part as a response to the lapsing of the 1995 EA (and in part due to the changing scope of the project) does not appear to have included a lapsing provision.  That might be important, because the Code of Practice refers specifically to lapsing, along with changed environmental circumstances.  The discovery of species at risk in the corridor by the City of Greater Sudbury in 2013 or thereabouts is clearly a "changed environmental circumstance", but if the 2008 EA Addendum has not lapsed, it may be that no further assessment of the project is actually required - even though the EA is woefully out of date, and species at risk were ultimately discovered years later, after two environmental assessments had been conducted.

We might soon find out what the Minister of Environment and Climate Changes thinks about the City's approach, however, as several concerned citizens have written to the Minister, urging him to require a new environmental assessment - one which looks at alternatives, and is based on up-to-date socio-economic and environmental conditions (see the letter beginning on page 79 of 104 of the City's public consultation summary for one example).

Maley Drive - Premature

Without alternatives having been considered by the City, it seems premature to me that the Ministry of Natural Resources would entertain an overall benefit permit - which is kind of a last resort approach to "managing" species at risk habitat which may be impacted by an infrastructure project. At the very least, the City should be looking at re-routing Maley Drive away from the species at risk habitat.  However, ultimately, that's the Minister's call.  We'll see if the overall benefit permit is issued in accordance with the City's timeline (by September, 2016).

The City's Business Case Report refers to two "assessments" of the habitat which were undertaken in 2013 and 2014.  I've asked the City for copies of these assessments (the 1995 Environmental Assessment and the 2008 Addendum have been available to the public on the City's website for some time now), but I've been told that these two assessments aren't available to the public, because of sensitive information about species at risk.  At this time, it remains unclear to me whether these two "assessments" were conducted in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment process, or whether they are just technical documents used in support of an overall benefit permit.  Given that they're not publicly available from the City, they are more likely the latter than the former, because Class Environmental Assessments are supposed to be public undertakings.

Did the Province Know about Species at Risk and Still Choose to Fund Maley?

What's also unclear is whether the Province was aware that they are intending to publicly fund the destruction of species at risk habitat in contravention of their own Endangered Species legislation.  At this time, it's my understanding that that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry hasn't issued an overall benefit permit to authorize the destruction/alteration of species at risk habitat.  But that hasn't stopped the Minister of Finance from announcing in three budgets (2014, 2015 and 2016) that the Province will specifically fund the Maley Drive Extension to the tune of $26.7 million - or one third of the estimated $80.1 million costs of Phase 1 of the project (see: "Province offers Sudbury a plum budget," the Sudbury Star, May 2, 2014).

Did the province of Ontario know back in May, 2014, that the Maley Drive corridor which they committed to funding will obliterate the habitat of species at risk?  Or was the City of Greater Sudbury keeping this information secret from the province?  Either way, something isn't right here.  The City knew about the presence of species at risk at least since 2013.  The City claims that its been working with the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to obtain an overall benefit permit for the Maley project.  What's not clear is when the MNRF was notified of the presence of species at risk in the corridor - or if, after being notified, the Minister of Natural Resources would have shared this information with his colleague, the Minister of Finance.

What also makes little sense is once the Province became aware of the presence of species at risk in the Maley corridor, why did it continue to specifically identify the Maley Drive project as one to be funded in three consecutive budgets?  At the very least, the Province would have had to have been aware of this situation in 2016 - the City of Greater Sudbury made the information about the species at risk available to the public on February 19, 2016 - several days ahead of the February 25th budget announcement.  And of course, if the MNRF was earlier made aware through internal communications about species at risk - well, the province would have had this information available to inform budget decisions before February, 2016 - and quite possibly before the 2015 or 2014 budget commitments to Maley as well.

A Serious Commitment to Species at Risk?

I understand that there is a process in place to allow for the destruction of the habitat of species at risk through the issuance of an overall benefit permit.  But why would the Province choose to fund a road which it knew was going to destroy habitat before the requirements for a permit's issuance were fulfilled by the City?

Doesn't the Province take its own Endangered Species legislation seriously?  Anybody following the Maley Drive debacle could easily conclude that the answer is "no".  Why throw $26.7 million at a road that hasn't received all necessary provincial approvals related to species at risk? Or one that has an up-to-date Class Environmental Assessment, for that matter.

Of course, it could be that the Province was unaware of the presence of species at risk - and might have only found out about it for the first time just days in advance of the 2016 budget announcement. The City's Business Case Report is unhelpful with regards to the timing of the overall benefit permit process, except to say that it expects one to be issued by September, 2016.  It doesn't actually indicate that the City engaged the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry - it says only that the approval process has been "ongoing" - which might simply mean that the City is taking its time filling out the paperwork to apply for a permit.

By now, though, it must be clear to the Province that there are species at risk in the corridor.  The Province should be doing everything that it can to ensure that the habitat of those species at risk is not negatively impacted by the new road project.  The Province should be demanding a new environmental assessment of the City before any money is flowed for this project.

The Liberal Record on Species at Risk

And what about the federal government? Well, they've not yet made a decision to pony up their one-third funding for Phase 1, so we'll have to wait and see whether Justin Trudeau's new Liberal government wants to be complicit in the destruction of species at risk habitat.  Judging by the press releases from Nickel Belt MP Marc Serre, though, I wouldn't bet on the feds sticking up for species at risk over giving the City the funds it needs to build Maley Drive (see: "Marc Serre, MP for Nickel Belt Urges Council to Help Him Move the Maley Extension Forward," Liberal.ca, March 15, 2016).  Serre must be well aware of the presence of species at risk habitat, although no mention is made of it in his press release.

So, one might conclude that Liberals at both the provincial and federal level of government are content to ignore the provincial Endangered Species Act, and move forward with the destruction of the habitat of species at risk.  Some might find that offensive - maybe even immoral.  I know that I do.  We're talking about the habitat of two threatened species here - species which the Endangered Species Act indicate should have the highest level of protection.  I get that the Province has developed a process to allow for habitat destruction in certain circumstances - but the idea behind the use of overall benefit permits is that they will be a last resort - used only after all other alternatives have been exhausted.

The City of Greater Sudbury hasn't looked at alternatives to Maley Drive since 1995.  Granting the City a permit to destroy the habitat of blanding's turtle and whippoorwill based on an assessment of alternatives more than two decades old would simply be egregious - and offer further evidence that Premier Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government just isn't taking the plight of threatened and endangered species seriously.

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

Maley Drive & Species At Risk - More Work Necessary Before Habitat Destroyed

The following text represents my most recent submission to the City of Greater Sudbury regarding the Maley Drive Extension - Phase 1 project.

-----

Thank you for providing an extended opportunity for the public to provide submissions on the proposed Maley Drive Extension Phase 1 project, as new information was presented to the public after the close of the written submission period prior to the March 1^st public input meeting.  Interestingly, some of this information was not “new” at all, in the sense that the City has been well aware of it for some time now, but had not previously shared it with the public or Council.  Here I am referring to Section 10.2 of the Business Case Report which references the presence of species at risk in a location west of the existing Barrydowne/Maley Drive intersection – and right in the midst of the proposed corridor.  The City must have had this information available since at least 2013, as the Business Case Report refers to two “assessments” conducted by the City in support of Overall Benefit Permits with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

As I have already commented extensively on the Maley Drive Phase 1 Project as part of my earlier submission to Council, I will focus here exclusively on the matter related to species at risk.  As you know, the 1995 Class Environmental Assessment that was prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan did not identify the presence of species at risk. It was this EA which the then Region of Sudbury relied on to select the best transportation alternative to address issues that it had identified at that time.  That best alternative is the one that remains on the table today as part of the Maley Drive Extension, Phases 1 and 2.  It is the alternative which Council is being asked to support at the upcoming Council meeting of March 22^nd, 2016.

In 2008, the 1995 Environmental Assessment was supplemented by an Addendum.  It did not identify the presence of species at risk in the Maley corridor.  It also did not review any proposed alternatives to the location of the proposed corridor, as that was beyond its mandate. 

Clearly, since 1995 and 2008, with the more recent discovery of the presence of species at risk in the corridor, the environmental circumstances impacting the Maley Drive project have changed.  As you know, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change’s Code of Practice identifies the need for a new assessment at times where the environmental conditions for the project have changed.  At present, there has been no new Environmental Assessment undertaken by the City which evaluates transportation alternatives which do not negatively impact the existing habitat of species at risk.  Until such an undertaking is conducted, it is premature to determine that the proposed Maley Drive corridor represents the best transportation option.

I strongly urge the City of Greater Sudbury to commence a new Environmental Assessment which identifies the transportation issue under consideration, and alternatives to address that issue based on up-to-date socio-economic and environmental circumstances, including the presence of species at risk habitat.  The City should also look at other transportation options, including the provision of better transit services, along with the use of transportation demand management, to address its long-term transportation needs.

I also understand that despite my urging, this isn’t likely to happen.  I understand too that the City is in the process of working with the Ministry of Natural Resources to obtain an Overall Benefit Permit to allow the Maley Drive Phase 1 project to proceed, as per the recommendations of the 1995 Environmental Assessment, and subsequent decisions of Council.   I also understand that the portion of the proposed corridor which will impact the species at risk habitat will not be the first section of the Phase 1 project to proceed, so other elements of the Phase Project can be constructed even without an Overall Benefit Permit. 

Proceeding in this manner poses significant risk to the City.  What will happen if the Ministry of Natural Resources doesn’t issue an Overall Benefit Permit?  The City will have built half of a road – one which doesn’t connect to the Maley Drive/Barrydowne intersection.  Sensible planning for this project should at the very least mean that all necessary approvals from senior levels of government are in place prior to committing to the undertaking.  I understand that previous Councils resolved to pursue this project – but at the time that those Resolutions were made, there was no discussion about the need of an Overall Benefit Permit from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, because the species at risk habitat had not been identified in either the 1995 Environmental Assessment or the 2008 Addendum.

Until such a time that the anticipated impacts of the new road on the existing species at risk habitat have been assessed through an appropriate process, and should it then be determined that the best alternative is one which will negatively impact the habitat and an Overall Benefit Permit is issued, it is premature for the City to move ahead with this project, and exposing itself to the financial risk of not being able to complete the project as planned and budgeted.

Please step back and engage in the appropriate level of assessment necessary to move forward with appropriate transportation options to meet the City’s future needs, while not negatively impacting species at risk as per the Endangered Species Act.  Please undertake a new Environmental Assessment before proceeding with any aspect of the Maley Drive Phase 1 project. 

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

Trudeau Sending Few Real Signals to Climate Concerned Canadians

Prime Minister Trudeau headed off to Washington this past week to talk climate change with U.S. President Barack Obama.  After a disappointing meeting with disagreeable First Minister’s in Vancouver, Canadians concerned about the climate crisis were hoping that Trudeau and Obama might send a signal about the need for urgent action.  Instead, after dining on Colorado lamb and Alaskan halibut prepared by White House chefs who aren’t fans of the 100-mile diet, it was clear Trudeau is content to putter along while the climate crisis deepens (see: “Canadian whisky on the menu for White House State dinner,” PBS NewsHour, March 9, 2016).

Gone are the days when the media questioned the validity of climate science.  With reports declaring February 2016 the warmest month in recorded history, and 2015 the hottest year, Canadians are growing increasingly aware of the seriousness of the climate crisis (see: “February may have been warmest month, but we do not know for sure – despite reports to the contrary,” Discover Magazine, March 3, 2016 and “NASA – NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015,” NASA, January 20, 2016 and “February continues streak of record low Arctic sea ice extent,” Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis, March 2, 2016).  Across the nation, the conversation has shifted to what can we do about it - and who is going to step up and lead.

For a short while, Trudeau looked to be that leader. In a brilliant election campaign, he promised to develop a Canadian framework to combat climate change within 90 days of the Paris climate summit. Many seeking real climate action threw their lot in with Trudeau. And Trudeau didn’t disappoint, as he stormed the Paris conference and urged the international community to follow Canada and commit to just 1.5 degrees of warming – a half degree less than nations agreed to in Copenhagen in 2009 (see: “Canada endorses tougher 1.5 degree limit to global warming,” MacLean’s, December 7, 2016).
However, since Paris, it seems Trudeau has lost his sense of urgency to take action. Faced with an opportunity to build meaningful emissions assessments into the National Energy Board’s pipeline approval process, he opted instead to simply study downstream impacts after the NEB makes a recommendation to cabinet (see: “Justin Trudeau’s pipeline gambit could salvage Energy East,” the Toronto Star, January 31, 2016).

Yet, after 10 years of climate idleness from the Harper Conservatives, many environmental leaders continue to give Trudeau a temporary pass, hoping that he will send some sort of signal that they he really does gets the need for urgent action.

There were no signals sent from Washington this week. Trudeau and Obama stood together on the White House lawn, mostly announcing initiatives they’ve already announced (see: “U.S. – Canada Joint Statement on Climate, Energy, and Arctic Leadership,” the White House, March 10, 2016).  New is a combined commitment to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas industries by 40-45%. While this is a welcome move, it came as no surprise after Alberta, home to a majority of Canada’s oil and gas sector, announced a similar initiative last November (see: “Alberta deserves credit for new U.S. – Canada methane deal, Premier Notley says,” the Edmonton Sun, March 10, 2016).

Trudeau and Obama again recommitted to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies - even though in November, Trudeau reaffirmed Stephen Harper’s commitment to subsidize British Columbia’s dirty LNG industry (see: “Liberals promise to keep LNG tax breaks,” the Vancouver Sun, November 23, 2015). The Canada-U.S. joint statement made reference to confronting challenges in Arctic regions from climate change, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for future oil and gas exploration opportunities arising from shrinking Arctic ice coverage.

Disappointing for many was what Trudeau and Obama refused to acknowledge: that in a carbon constrained world there would be little need for new fossil fuel infrastructure, like pipelines and oil drilling platforms (see: “Paris changed everything, so why are we still talking pipelines?” David Suzuki, January 28, 2016).   A serious plan to confront climate change might have signalled the need to protect fragile Arctic communities and ecosystems from unnecessary fossil fuel exploration and development.   But that didn’t happen.

Despite the hype and optimism generated in Paris, it now seems remote that Trudeau is going to take the steps necessary to provide national leadership and set Canada on a course towards meaningfully reducing our carbon emissions.  With Trudeau’s deference to feisty Premiers in Vancouver over a national carbon pricing plan, followed by a Washington trip that yielded announcements about new opportunities for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, can it be too much longer before the environmental community that sang his pre-election praises abandons ship?

(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)

Originally published in the Sudbury Star as "Trudeau putters along as climate crisis deepens," March 12, 2016 (print) and "Sudbury column: PM putters along as climate crisis deepens," online.

UPDATE (March 16, 2016) - For those not as cynical as myself about last week's joint announcement from President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau, please see how the bromance is working out for the Arctic, just one week later: "U.S. government proposes new drilling leases in Beaufort and Chukchi seas," CBC, March 16, 2016.  Looks to me like "business as usual".