Endangered Species Act raises concerns
Article content
Ontario’s Endangered Species Act not only discriminates against rural property owners but is seriously impacting the region’s agriculture and forestry industries.
That was the key message stakeholders from various business sectors and landowner associations delivered during a workshop on the province’s wide sweeping endangered species legislation hosted last week by the County of Renfrew.
Gathering in the council chambers at the county’s administration building in Pembroke were representatives from the sand and gravel, agriculture, tourism, property development and forestry sectors.
First introduced by Queen’s Park in 2007, Renfrew County director of property and development Paul Moreau said it is time to rethink the purpose of the legislation, originally intended to protect certain species at risk.
“We’re starting to see some of the economic ripple effects of it and now we are starting to hear what some of the costs are,” he said. “We have a strong case for, at least, some amendments to the legislation.”
A report released in January brought the legislation back to the forefront.
In January, the the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) released a report from the Endangered Species Act panel containing recommendations on improving the implementation of the act. Among them, the panel suggested the MNR should undertake a comprehensive review of its Habitat Protection Policy to allow for greater habitat protection. It also recommended the ministry adopt a strategic risk-based approach to the transitioning of protected species, while acknowledging permits previously obtained for projects or activities.
With more anticipated changes, Moreau said there is an opportunity for stakeholders to submit concrete facts and figures in order to seek revisions to the act.
“It’s not going to go away but at least we can develop some regulations under the legislation that are more workable,” he said.
One positive move is the stated exemption of the forestry industry from the act under the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights. Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke MPP John Yakabuski said that, without the exemption, the act will have “catastrophic results” on the industry.
“I’ve been saying for years that the impact of this was going to be tremendously negative right across Ontario,” he explained. “Hopefully we derive a unified message to the government that this was not a good idea. The process is very tilted against farmers, developers and foresters.”
However, farmers and foresters across the county have already been significantly impacted, according to Lauretta Rice, with the National Farmers Union. She told the workshop that up to 200 farmers will be adversely affected by the act. In order to establish buffering from wetlands, nesting areas and habitats, some farmers will face $9,000 in one-time costs with maintenance costs of $4,200 annually.
“The legislation appears not to impact certain areas throughout Ontario as those species at risk do not now inhabit areas of intensive development and intensive agriculture. It is a fact that in some cases these species have relocated naturally,” explained Rice, adding they face a heavy stick of fines as high as $250,000 from the act. “Farmers and rural property owners for decades have been volunteer stewards of the endangered species in this area.”
In some cases, however, many species will not survive if they lose these industries. Gerald Rollins, with the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, said the act should include incentives to encourage stewardship and compensation for those farmers adversely affected. He added environmental groups have had to sit down with farmers as they must stay in business so some species can survive.
“Grassland species will not survive without agriculture because agriculture provides habitat in terms of hayfields,” he explained.
Developers stated that species such as the Bobolink, a small New World blackbird, and the Woodland Turtle are holding up two residential projects in the area, a proposed 1,000-home subdivision west of Pembroke and a 99-lot development off Portage Road in Petawawa. The act could also hold up large-scale industrial projects such as a graphite mine near Bissette Creek. Don Baxter, president of Northern Graphite, said his company has already spent $2 million on developing the project, which could be the second-only graphite mine in North America and will create 70 local jobs. However, a barn swallow nesting ground located in an abandoned building on the site could delay operations, he said. The problem for the company is that the Ministry of Mines wants the buildings torn down, however, the Endangered Species Act does not permit it, said Baxter.
Other counties in eastern Ontario have suffered under the act. In Lanark County, for example, there have been $1 million in economic opportunities, according to Tom Richardson, with Mazinaw-Lanark Forest SFL. The consensus around the table was that the act was drawn up as a one-size fits all solution that is not workable, said Renfrew County Warden Peter Emon.
“We’re hearing that this legislation isn’t 100 per cent fit for this area,” he said. “Any legislation that assumes that all regions of the province are exactly the same and can be treated the same is wrong-headed and likely to fail.”
Out of the workshop, Emon said he hopes they devise a communication strategy that will not be seen as pitting rural against urban dwellers, but Ontario citizens talking to other citizens about the real concerns and devastating consequences that surround the act.
Sean Chase is a Daily Observer multimedia journalist