Role of Oversight and Public…

Role of Oversight and Public Interest Considerations
Natural Heritage Assessments and EEMPs for renewable energy projects frequently attract significant public interest. Local interest groups, including Indigenous communities, are often involved and, in some cases, have pursued legal action due to environmental impact concerns.
MNR oversight plays an important role in ensuring that assessment guidelines are followed and that environmental impacts are identified and addressed consistently. Without awareness of Natural Heritage Assessments (NHA) and Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (EEMP) fieldwork, MNR will be unable to respond effectively to public inquiries or concerns, including those raised by local Indigenous communities, resulting in reputational risk and reduced transparency.
Removal of MNR oversight may also be perceived as the government not adequately managing natural resources or giving special treatment to the renewable energy sector, creating concerns about fairness and accountability.

Technical Risks and Quality Concerns
There is significant variability in the quality of NHAs and EEMPs. There is no formal accreditation system for biology- or ecology based work, and the majority of NHAs submitted likely do not fully comply with MNR guidelines. Inaccurate or incomplete identification of natural heritage features can result in insufficient protection of those features and potential long term loss of ecological values.
NHA and EEMP reviews result in the inclusion of conditions in REAs that support appropriate mitigation measures and enable effective compliance and enforcement by MECP. Removal of oversight would limit the ability to impose those conditions and reduce the effectiveness of compliance mechanisms.
Compliance, Enforcement, and Business Risks
A lack of upfront oversight is likely to increase downstream compliance requirements for MECP. Retroactive compliance is particularly challenging once land conditions have changed, and compliance resources are limited. A more defined and resource intensive compliance process should be required.
There is also potential harm to proponents if natural heritage values are impacted due to poor quality NHA work, leading to enforcement actions, reputational damage, or project delays. Transitioning between the current approach and the proposed future state could also disadvantage proponents already undertaking work under the existing framework.

Alignment with Broader Regulatory and Policy Frameworks
Removing MNR’s role in NHA and EEMP confirmation does not align with oversight approaches in other land use planning and resource management regimes, including:
• Aggregate Resources Act
• Forest management planning
• Planning Act processes
• Environmental Assessment processes

This change may be perceived as favoring the energy sector over other industries, placing those industries at a disadvantage.

Further, eliminating MNR involvement removes the opportunity to identify information gaps, mitigate impacts, and support informed decisions on Crown resource management. This would be inconsistent with MNR responsibilities under Crown land disposition policy (PL 4.02.01), as well as provincial commitments under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) and the Statement of Environmental Values (SEV).

Crown Land Management Implications
Without awareness of NHA work, there is a significant risk that Crown land occupation approvals could be issued without adequate assessment of sustainable resource management, contrary to MNR’s application review and land disposition policies. This is particularly concerning given the limited availability of natural heritage mapping in northern regions, where proponents often rely heavily on local or incomplete information during initial NHA phases.
Municipal approvals of natural heritage features may also be based on outdated or inaccurate information, further increasing risk if MNR review is absent.

Government Oversight and Transition Considerations
While some degree of modernization is appropriate, it is recommended that government oversight of NHAs and EEMPs be retained to ensure fairness across industries and to support provincial commitments. Given significant changes to ministry mandates since the REA regulation and MNR guides were developed (including shifts in Species at Risk and parks responsibilities), consideration could be given to transferring certain oversight functions to MECP rather than eliminating them entirely.

Summary of Key Risks
• Increased risk of inconsistent and lower quality NHAs and EEMPs
• Reduced ability to impose effective mitigation and compliance conditions
• Greater downstream compliance burden on MECP
• Misalignment with Crown land management policies and other regulatory regimes
• Potential perception of preferential treatment of the energy sector
• Reduced public confidence and increased legal and reputational risk