[All] Response from Council member Janecki

Sun Dec 9 01:42:47 EST 2012

Hi folks

I asked Mr. Janecki to explain who stated to him that "do nothing" was not on the table in regards to Strasburg Road. This is what he sent to me along with the original correspondence I provided to asking him this question.

Lulu

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Zyg.Janecki at kitchener.ca" <Zyg.Janecki at kitchener.ca>
To: butterflybluelu at rogers.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 4:01:13 PM
Subject: RE: A do nothing approach for Strasburg is do-able and appropriate

Hi Louisette:

Thank you for your email and your lengthy comments.

In reply to your question, nobody stated it nor informed me of that approach.  I know that usually when an Environmental Assessment is conducted on a variety of construction projects, at times, the “Do nothing” is an alternative.  This was not mentioned nor provided in this EA.  The reason is that the road is designated as a proposed roadway in the City’s Official Plan to go somewhere on that general alignment in the OP but the OP does not state that it should not be built.  Therefore, it must be built and the “Do Nothing” is NOT an alternative.

Regards,

Zyg

Councillor Zyg Janecki
Ward 8
Office of the Mayor and Council
200 King St W, Kitchener N2G 4G7
City Hall 519-741-2796
Cell 226-750-3053
zyg.janecki at kitchener.ca

From:Louisette Lanteigne [mailto:butterflybluelu at rogers.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 2:37 AM
To: Scott Davey; Berry Vrbanovic; John Gazzola; Yvonne Fernandes; Kelly Galloway-Sealock; Paul Singh; Bil Ioannidis; Zyg Janecki; Frank Etherington; Dan Glenn-Graham; Carl Zehr
Subject: A do nothing approach for Strasburg is do-able and appropriate

Hello Mr. Janecki. 

I was reading the following article written by the KW record;
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/849792--city-goes-back-to-drawing-board-on-strasburg-road-extension

The article states: “None of the alternatives say, ‘Don’t build the road.’ That is not on the table as an option,” Janecki said.

I'd be very interested to know who specifically stated this to you Mr, Janecki, that there is no option to take a do nothing approach. If you can provide specific names  I would greatly appreciate this. 
Over the last 10 years I have been gathering information regarding Waterloo Regional public processes regarding policy compliance issues and relaying it to ministry officials at the provincial and federal levels as well as to various NGO groups and law and policy agencies for review. My work has been the subject of several masters thesis at the University of Waterloo, the University of Wilfrid Laurier and the University of Guelph as well as Environment Canada and Ontario Nature. I would like to know exactly who is telling you that there is no option of a "do nothing" approach because it conflicts what what I know to be true. 

When it comes to the Endangered Species Act 2007 the most current version of the law applies. This legislation cannot be "grandfathered" to an older, less protective version. The government deals with these matters as an immediate threat so current law always stands. This information was confirmed to me by Senior MNR policy advisor Gail Jackson on October 6, 2011. 

If the City or developers will knowingly encroach upon known habitat areas, they have to utilize Endangered Species Act section 17 2 c)  to request permission from the MNR ministry to allow for the potential destruction of specimens during construction. In layman's terms, they need permission to kill or disrupt habitat. No land augmentations at all can take place in these areas without this permit. That is how the law is designed.

Recently the Species At Risk Act was revised. The revision now affords new legal protection to even more animals in our region. Wood Thrush is now Threatened. Eastern Ribbon Snake is now Threatened. Here is the list of all the newly protected species.  http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/rpts/Detailed_Species_Assessments_e.html

The law demands that there be a net benefit for the species. If one is killed, they must be replaced by two or more live specimens per kill and they must expand on the delineated protected habitat area to assure the improved survival rates of the remaining specimens in the area. The provincial and federal government are bound by international treaty to meet their obligations to protect biodiversity and this law is to assure their responsibility towards conservation efforts are reasonably met.

The process to secure a kill permit must pass through several review agencies. Having spoken directly with signing officers for this process I know for a fact these applications can take up to seven years before a permit is issued. It  must be signed three times by various review agencies including  MNR staff, the deputy minister, the MNR ministers and others. Prior to the issuance of permit the request be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry for public comment. All alternative designs submitted by city planners, developers and  the public will  be reviewed at this phase and the decision that best balances needs of the threatened/endangered species and planning needs can be implemented. If there is no reasonable way to secure a net benefit of the species, the request will be denied.  

A do nothing approach is a very real depending on the circumstances of the proposed recovery plans and roadway options. I know this from personal experience.  I helped stop a quarry pit in Mount Nemo due to Jefferson Salamanders. I also secured concessions to protect Jefferson habitat at the OMB regarding the West Side Lands. I worked with Neil Taylor in regards to Doon South's Jefferson Salamander issues. I'm working on the issues of Hidden Valley's Jeffersons. I helped stop the mega quarry for the Bobolink and Henslow Sparrow.  I am currently working to stop a raceway for Bobolinks in Fort Erie and right now, the land owners recently said that deal is dead. They're not selling their properties. I'm also working to protect Blandings Turtles in Brant County from a harmful quarry project. 

The fact is, these animals are indicator species of a very specific kind of environment. It's either A1 farmland or it's primary recharge. It's often both. My objective in fighting these battles is to protect what remains of our area's food and water resources as well as the robust economic systems dependent on it because in the end, those lands are worth gold, particularly in a world facing climate change.  Rare species legislation is a tool I use because in reality, I am an economic activist working to protect and preserve natural capital resources for the long term. 

The value of that land in it's natural state is worth more money and long term jobs than any other kind of property and that knowledge has been around since the age of the bible. I suggest you go to Deuteronomy section 11 vs 10 to 21. Even in the time of Moses they knew that lands like this were designed for prosperity, that if they were destroyed there would be climate changes and famine. From God to Moses the warning came to protect moraines for farmlands. It is still common sense logic even to this day.  Thank heavens our area was home to Mennonites who lived and honoured these words. Their dedication to faith blessed us with the farmlands and groundwater recharge areas that we still have today. It is the backbone of our entire society and economy.  I suggest we give priority to protecting and preserving these lands in the name of God and for the sake of generations to come. 

Some might think that a reference to God may somehow conflict with political values. If that is so then I will provide this simple piece of legislation to remind us all of the worth:  

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 
1982, c. 11 (U.K.), Schedule B
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Here is another passage taken from the same Act: 
Legal Rights
Marginal note:Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

It is reasonable to state that food and water resources are fundamental to securing the right to life, liberty and security of the person. We have no right to deprive anyone, including future generation of these key resources.  To allow development on such lands, particularly in the age of climate change, clearly violates rule of law and the supremacy of God. 

Thank you kindly for your time. 

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20121208/76a07113/attachment.html>