ORA also objects to Ontario ratepayers and/or taxpayers having to subsidize electricity pricing and capital expenditures for industry and private corporations. This Strategy focuses only on the economic benefits of doubling the harvest, without looking at the trade-offs or balancing that with equal measures to maintain a healthy environment. This is the only way to maintain the claim of sustainable forest management in Ontario.
These proposals are bad for communities and great for the waterpower industry. The proposed changes do not improve or strengthen the delivery of the government’s mandate to stakeholders and the public, instead it places the protection of the environment, safety and best interests of communities in the hands of the for-profit waterpower industry and individual waterpower facility owners. The proposed changes may cut red tape but at the same time they compromise safeguards that protect public health and wellbeing, safety and the environment.
With the warming temperatures and extreme rain and drought events that climate change is predicted to bring with increasing frequency and intensity as time passes, decision makers and legislators bear a responsibility to strengthen freshwater protection and resiliency – not weaken it. If this proposal moves forward it will be a precipitous turning point for our future with freshwater in Ontario and beyond.
You will find ORA’s submissions regarding Bill 132 here.
Check out ORA’s speech to the Standing Committee on General Government: Continue reading
With climate change impacts bearing down on us, decision makers have a responsibility to ensure the resiliency of our freshwater resources. If this proposal moves forward it will be a precipitous turning point for our future with freshwater in Ontario and beyond.
These ARA amendments are likely to intensify rather than reduce divisive land use conflicts involving new or expanded aggregate operations.
As a basic, the province must have a comprehensive approach to watershed management through flood mapping, mitigation and hazard planning and protection, including services such as wetland protection, climate change adaptation and resilience, biodiversity health and land use planning. In other words, we must be beefing up our public safety and environmental protection efforts, rather than gutting and streamlining key policy and legislation, as well as funding for our regulators.
Since this project was first proposed, a large percentage of the community of Bala Falls have been opposed to it. Citizens have lobbied, marched, picketed, petitioned and railed against this abomination being built in the heart of their town. Immediately downstream of the dam is a favourite public swimming and picnic area that draws local residents and tourists from far and wide. This project will pose a public safety risk; however, there is no Public Safety Plan – it wasn’t included in the initial Environmental Report, nor was it adequately addressed. It was unacceptable in 2012, and it’s still unacceptable – it should never have been approved in the first place.
It is difficult to place any trust in the promises of this Plan when this government’s recent actions are reflecting something very different. Key policy and legislation were recently proposed in Bills 57 and 66 that would remove the position of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, bypass the Clean Water Actand several other important Acts, repeal the Toxic Reduction Act,and streamline the Endangered Species Act to support its “Open for Business” mandate. How is the government doing its part to “help our urban and rural communities and landscapes become more sustainable and resilient” when at the same time key legislation is being repealed, streamlined or bypassed?
We all had a HUGE VICTORY yesterday!! “Thank you” for taking part in ORA’s campaign to Speak Out Against Schedule 10 of Bill 66. The Ontario government reported that they will be removing Schedule 10 from Bill 66. A BIG THANKS to you and many other people, organizations and municipalities that rallied together to speak out against this regressive Bill.Continue reading
ORA submits that Schedule 5 of Bill 66 is a regressive, unwarranted and potentially risky proposal that is inconsistent with the public interest and does not adequately safeguard the health and safety of Ontarians. Does the MECP really want to set the stage for another Grassy Narrows mercury disaster? Instead, the MECP should be focusing on improving the TRA and its regulations to better protect communities.