Monday, October 25, 2010

I continue to try and understand

I have not done a thorough review of all the acts related to lands and resources, but my cursory overview of the Forest and Range Act alone is leading me to see there will be some very unclear lines of responsibility with the new ministry structure.

If I look at the Forest and Range Act, there are some very specific roles raised within that act.   Specifically the role of regional managers and district managers within the act calls for them to set the annual allowable cut which is an issue of timber supply and therefore part of the role of the new Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands.  At the same time these same regional managers and district managers spend more time making operational decisions that clearly fall under the new Minister of Natural Resource Operations.  In both cases they are statutory decision makers.

As far as I can tell, front line people in forestry for the government will be reporting to managers that will be in a different ministry from them.  The only other option would be for the managers to be in two ministries at the same time.    I am not going to try and figure out where a government Registered Professional Foresters will end up if they deal with AAC and with cutting plans.

I am trying to understand which ministry the Chief Forester is part of and I can not work it out because of the nature of the role within the Forest and Range Act.  The Forest and Range Act was not written contemplating the roles outlined in the act would be carried out by two different ministries.  I am not certain, but I think there are some weird legal limbos now because of the new structure, I am looking at two situations and need to talk to some people on the ground and see what they think is happening.

I have more issues with these changes and I will likely post more about it later or tomorrow when I get some more clarity on what has happened, if that is possible.   The more I look at it the more this feels like the worst decision made by the Liberal government.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Coming from the power energy side of the equation - I must disagree somewhat with the assessment that the reorganization is short on sense.

MNRO seems to be the right place to put all the IPP functions together.

On the other hand EAO remains with MoE and that may not be so wrong. The typical entitlement and public-power leftard will cry foul otherwise.

In the old system, IPPs had to deal with a variety of ministries, each with their own structures and hierarchies.

The largest issue facing IPPs is First Nation claims which have put a halt to this industry resulting in attrition. I hope the new MNRO, having inherited this function, understands the severity and utmost senselessness/irrationality of this issue facing the productive resource industry in the province.