conservation

Saturday December 17, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday December 17, 2022

Why is COP15 important?

The definition of “biodiversity” is: “The variety of life in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem.” Biodiversity encompasses all aspects of life — genes, species and ecosystems — and it is currently in imminent danger. That means we are too.

December 10, 2022

The COP15 UN biodiversity conference runs from Dec. 7 to 19 in Montreal with 196 counties trying to agree on a plan to stop biodiversity loss and help restore nature because our fate as the human race is inextricably linked to the rest of nature. The plan is to protect at least 30 per cent of our lands and oceans by 2030 and the biodiversity that we depend on to survive.

Elizabeth Mrema, UN biodiversity head, has described the conference as “calling for ambitious outcomes.”

“Clearly the world is crying out for change, watching our governments seek to heal our relationships with nature,” she says.

The 2022 WWF Living Planet Report warned that global wildlife populations declined by 70 per cent from 1970 to 2022. This accelerating loss of nature has already impacted human well-being and economies. Healthy ecosystems also play indispensable roles in tackling climate change, and the loss of biodiversity weakens our resilience to that change. We are stripping our planet so aggressively and unsustainably that the resources we depend on will soon be extinct.

The 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework’s four goals focus on conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, fair benefit-sharing, and “resource mobilization” (more funding). The targets cover expanding protected areas (like the Greenbelt that Premier Ford will destroy with his outdated Bill 23 legislation), reducing pollution to ensure food production is healthy and sustainable and phasing out billions of dollars of public subsidies that harm nature. That’s why Bill 23 is a direct contradiction to COP15 and needs to be repealed.

November 23, 2022

Bill 23 will harm the Greenbelt, create more biodiversity loss, increase urban sprawl and emissions that will also affect Peterborough. It will also pollute prime agricultural land that was protected for growing local food and poison the soil and crops that grows there.

So, when Dave Smith says that Bill 23 will not affect Peterborough, he is wrong because this legislation will harm our environment and human health by allowing municipalities to move away from environmental protection and build big carbon footprint housing developments on protected land near protected waterways, wetlands and forests.

It’s hard work to balance the environment with the economy. That’s why we need politicians and governments who can do both because they are both connected to each other. By passing Bill 23, the Ford government has shown it doesn’t know how to make this connection work for the common good. It’s a fine balance, but a balance crucial to the health and survival of our biodiverse human race. (The Peterborough Examiner) 

From sketch to finish, see the current way Graeme completes an editorial cartoon using an iPencil, the Procreate app, and a couple of cheats on an iPad Pro … These sped up clips are posted to encourage others to be creative, to take advantage of the technology many of us already have and to use it to produce satire. Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comforted.

 

Wednesday November 9, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday November 9, 2022

Pushing back against Doug Ford’s heavy hand

October 22, 2022

Premier Doug Ford and his government backed down dramatically on their unconstitutional dealings with education unions, specifically, CUPE. Is there any chance Ford will similarly back down on his government’s decision to override the will of Hamilton city council to freeze the city’s urban boundary?

It would be nice to argue yes, but it would also be fanciful. Ford didn’t back down from the education fight for any ethical or moral reason. It wasn’t because he wanted to keep kids in schools or wanted a fair deal for Ontario’s lowest paid education workers.

Rather, he backed down entirely out of fear. He saw the public opinion polling that showed most Ontarians blamed his government for the standoff, not the union. He heard the threats of wider-spread job action in support of CUPE. Faced with a protracted labour war, recognizing that the optics don’t favour his government, Ford did a dramatic reversal.

December 11, 2018

Good for CUPE and other unions lined up in support. But the grim reality is Hamilton city council does not have a similarly big stick. Municipalities are creatures of the province, and there is no real appeal of a decision taken directly by Queen’s Park and dropped on a local government.

Nor is there much people can do when a government so blatantly reverses itself on environmental policy, which it did last Friday with the decision to allow development on Greenbelt lands.

Four years ago, Ford said: “The people have spoken. I’m going to listen to them, they don’t want me to touch the Greenbelt, we won’t touch the Greenbelt.”

May 12, 2022

That was after he was recorded telling development friends that he would free up Greenbelt land so they could build more urban sprawl. His response was that now historic promise, which now lies in pieces on the ground.

The plan is to take 15 pieces of Greenbelt land, totalling 7,400 acres, and make them available for development in places like Hamilton, Toronto, Grimsby, Pickering and Ajax. But it’s all good, says the government, because we will add another 9,400 acres back in from somewhere else.

What many people don’t yet know is that most of that replacement land, river valleys and the like, is already covered under other environmental protection policies. So it can’t be developed anyway, and the net environmental impact will be more development and on previously protected lands.

November 12, 2021

That’s the sort of sleight of hand practised by Ford and friends. And up against it, there’s a limit to what a local government, like Hamilton’s, can do.

That doesn’t mean city council shouldn’t try, only that our expectations should be tempered. Re-elected Coun. John-Paul Danko put it this way to Spec journalists: “I think we need to turn over every stone, as it were, to find ways to resist this kind of growth that is not in the best interest of our city.”

An example, cited by Danko, could be delaying servicing previously protected lands with essential infrastructure. You can’t build houses where there are no roads and sewers. Another tactic might be expediting intensification in existing neighbourhoods, suggested Environmental Defence lawyer Phil Pothen.

These and other ideas are worth exploring, and will challenge our new city council. But based on the overall reaction to the province’s stomping all over local democracy, they are worth discussing and implementing where it makes sense. The good news is that we’re hardly alone as other municipalities are also feeling betrayed and will be weighing their options.

November 13, 2020

Given that, it makes sense for municipalities of a similar mind to come together, perhaps under the auspices of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Individually, there might be little they can do to slow down the government’s “pave paradise” mentality. But collectively, who knows?

What is the alternative? Roll over and accept the government’s ideologically-driven development agenda? Allow conservation and wetland protection to suffer as conservation authorities are neutered? Watch farmland disappear under expensive urban sprawl, which ultimately costs local taxpayers because greenfield development doesn’t pay for itself? Those options are even more unappealing. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

From sketch to finish, see the current way Graeme completes an editorial cartoon using an iPencil, the Procreate app, and a couple of cheats on an iPad Pro … These sped up clips are posted to encourage others to be creative, to take advantage of the technology many of us already have and to use it to produce satire. Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comforted.

 

Tuesday November 8, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 8, 2022

Doug Ford uses a big principle for small politics

There is no real substantive reason why the Premier of Ontario can’t testify before the inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act, but, as a Federal Court judge has ruled, he has a “lawful excuse.”

November 4, 2022

Doug Ford has found that he can indeed use an important, constitutionally entrenched principle to serve small political goals.

Mr. Ford and his Deputy Premier, Sylvia Jones, had claimed parliamentary privilege, the venerable precept that ensures the work of legislatures isn’t sidetracked by lawsuits and legal proceedings, to avoid a day of testimony this Thursday – on a day when the Ontario legislature isn’t even sitting.

He has won in court, so now he won’t have to explain why he felt Ontario’s policing laws, and Ontario’s police, weren’t enough to handle February’s truckers’ convoy protests and blockades of border crossings and city streets, or testify about those events, which took place mostly in his province.

Justice Simon Fothergill’s ruling made clear that Mr. Ford won in court because parliamentary privilege protects MPPs from having to testify before courts and inquiries – whether or not testifying would actually impede the work of the Premier, or the legislature.

February 5, 2022

In the end, Justice Fothergill acknowledged the breadth of parliamentary privilege. It isn’t some tiny technicality. It’s a principle of parliamentary independence from the courts that comes from Westminster and is entrenched in Canada’s Constitution.

But the key issue is still that Mr. Ford and Ms. Jones didn’t have to hide behind that privilege. Parliamentarians often waive it. The Premier used this big principle as a legal loophole to protect himself.

If you’re keeping score, you might notice that Mr. Ford has made a habit of invoking big constitutionally recognized mechanisms to deal with political challenges. He pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights in back-to-work legislation for support workers in Ontario schools. He backtracked on that Monday. Just because you can invoke big principles to further small politics, it doesn’t mean you should.

February 19, 2022

It is true, as Mr. Ford has argued, that the Emergencies Act inquiry revolves around a federal government decision. What’s at issue is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to invoke the act on Feb. 14 to respond to the convoy protests. That legislation, 

which allowed the authorities to employ extraordinary powers including freezing bank accounts, is only to be used when no other law will do. The inquiry must determine whether that threshold was met.

But to get there, the commission has to figure out whether normal policing – under the jurisdiction of the province – should have been enough. Mr. Ford felt it wasn’t. (The Globe & Mail) 

 

Thursday December 10, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 10, 2020

Doug Ford takes an axe to greenbelt protections

First, Doug Ford big-footed environmental protections and local authority. Then he went home early, adjourning the legislature until February. Not a bad day’s work for Ford and friends.

November 13, 2020

Under the cover of COVID-19, the government is hacking and slashing the network of regulations and oversight that for years helped balance the preservation of Ontario’s environment with the interests of voracious development.

Think back to before Ford became leader of the not-progressive conservative party. He was recorded telling a roomful of his development industry friends that he would ensure Ontario’s cherished greenbelt would be opened to allow development.

In case you’ve forgotten, the outcry was immediate and very loud. So much so that Ford had to publicly retract his pledge, and reassure Ontarians that he would respect their will on the greenbelt.

But Ford never said he wouldn’t use a back door to accomplish the same objectives. This week, he demonstrated that he has done exactly that.

May 3, 2018

Schedule 6 may sound innocuous, but it is anything but. Passed this week as part of the government’s Bill 229 — a pandemic recovery bill for heaven’s sake — it neuters all of Ontario’s conservation authorities. Their mandate is now dramatically narrower, and a government minister will have the power to veto conservation authority decisions. 

Ontarians have been able to rely on conservation authorities for years to effectively manage and protect rivers, tributaries, wetlands, forests and local drinking water. CAs are not perfect, but they generally work, and they represent local and regional interests. No longer. 

In another alarming change, the Conservation Authorities Act has been amended to allow the provincial minister complete control over issuing permits, with or without input from CAs. And there is no appealing the decisions.

December 11, 2018

Not satisfied with hobbling conservation authorities, the government is also making increased use of Ministerial Zoning Orders. MZOs allow the provincial minister to override planning and zoning decisions, regardless of local government or public input. Again, the decisions cannot be appealed.

This destruction of local control has not gone unnoticed. Conservation authorities, mayors, the Association of Ontario Municipalities, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the World Wildlife Fund (Canada), Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence of Ontario have all spoken out strongly against the government’s centralization of control. Countless letters to the editor, columns and editorials have condemned the changes.

The government’s response was to double down and push the changes through, hidden deep in pandemic recovery omnibus legislation. 

All this is part of a disturbing big picture. Remember the Ontario Municipal Board, which provided a flawed method of appealing local planning decisions? The government replaced it with the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) a developer-friendly organization that almost always rules on the side of unfettered development.

Then came MZOs, being used increasingly to authorize zoning and planning changes in the absence of local due process and input. Then came the gutting of conservation areas, with their crucial oversight, including of Ontario’s drinking water.

Does anyone else see a theme here? Ever since Doug Ford blew up Toronto city council to suit his personal whims, it has been clear he is not remotely interested in local decision-making authority. He wants Ontario open for business, regardless of environmental impact. And he’s getting his wish. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday November 13, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 13, 2020

Don’t give free rein to Ontario’s developers

Doug Ford is moving quickly but quietly to give Ontario’s developers the upper hand over Ontario’s environment.

November 22, 2019

For proof of this ominous change, check out how Premier Ford’s provincial government is stripping away the powers of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities when it comes to approving new development in many of the province’s most vital natural areas.

Since mid-20th century, conservation authorities have been responsible not only for controlling floods but for protecting and restoring the land, water and natural habitats in this province. They’ve done a superb job, too, even if many developers consider them nothing more than red tape that slows or stops a money-making venture.

But in defiance of this long-held mandate, the Progressive Conservatives last week unveiled legislation that would curtail the conservation authorities’ ability to act as environmental guardians. And as if it was hoping the public wouldn’t notice what it was doing, the government slipped its proposals into its fat, omnibus budget bill.

The public, however, should take notice. What we’re witnessing is a direct threat to responsible environmental and land-use planning.

The new legislation would end the conservation authorities’ role in offering an informed response to development applications and how those applications might impact sensitive natural environments. More power to decide the fate of a proposed development, however controversial, would be handed to the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

If, where it still had jurisdiction, a conservation authority refused to issue a permit or imposed conditions for a development, a disgruntled developer could appeal directly to the natural resources minister or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Until now, someone appealing a permit denial would have to go directly to the local conservation authority’s executive.

December 11, 2018

What the Ford government is doing is politicizing environmental and land-use planning. At the very least, its proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act raise the possibility a developer with a friend in government could one day win approval for a project over well-founded, local opposition.

This shouldn’t happen but the government intends to go even further. The province doesn’t want watershed management and conservation to remain core conservation authority programs, for which municipalities would have to pay. Instead, they would become voluntary programs a municipality could choose to support — or not. 

The Ford government seems to have a grudge against conservation authorities. Last year, it slashed its funding for the authorities by 50 per cent while telling them flood control must become their core mandate. Those shrunken budgets have made it harder for conservation authorities to plant trees, restore forests, and prevent soil erosion and water pollution, all jobs that make for a healthier environment.

May 3, 2018

If the new legislation passes, Ontario’s river valleys, flood plains, wetlands, Great Lakes shorelines — indeed, its water supplies — would be vulnerable to degradation in even more ways. It is also worth noting that the same government is increasingly resorting to ministerial zoning orders which allow it to permit development while bypassing the municipal planning process, environmental assessments and meaningful public consultation.

If Ford truly believes the current process for approving development is too cumbersome, he could streamline the rules, perhaps even imposing tighter deadlines for municipal governments and conservation authorities to respond to a project proposal.

But the interests of the economy, development and money have to be balanced with the interests of our environment. And where they can’t, the interests of the environment should prevail. Ontario should, as the song says, be “a place to grow.” But it should be place to grow for healthy environments, not just developers’ bank accounts. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

Reddit: The MacKay political cartoon in today’s Hamilton Spectator couldn’t be better