After reviewing the Project documentation, the issues raised by the requesters, and the outstanding concerns of technical staff, the MECP has determined that the project has not met the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects.
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.
In closing, risky development decisions made in one or more jurisdictions could have significant negative cumulative impacts on our air, land and/or water, as well as the Great Lakes and many other highly valued ecosystems. Being “Open-for-Business” is a good thing, unless it is at the expense of public health and safety or the environment. Do we really want to risk another Walkerton or Grassy Narrows disaster? That is precisely what the province is fostering with Bill 66.
The Government of Ontario is proposing Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018. It is unacceptable that key environmental protection and legislation that protects the public is under attack.
Schedule 5 of Bill 66 would repeal the Toxics Reduction Act and two regulations. The purpose of the TRA is to prevent pollution and protect human health and the environment by reducing the use and creation of toxic substances and informing Ontarians about toxic substances.
Schedule 10 of this Bill would enable municipalities to simply pass an “open-for-business planning by-law” under the Planning Act, to exempt local development from the application of key components of several important provincial laws, plans and policies, including the:
• Clean Water Act, 2006, Section 39
• Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015, Section 20
• Greenbelt Act, 2005, Section 7
• Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, Section 6, and
• Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2003, Section 7
This disturbing proposal would allow the killing of 50 cormorants per day from March 15 until December 31 each year, which would potentially mean the killing of more than 14,000 birds per hunter, per killing season. Additionally, both members of a nesting pair are required for nesting success; therefore, the killing of either the male or female during the nesting season would result in their chicks starving to death. The government also proposes to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to allow killed cormorants to be left to spoil, but suggests that if this proposal proceeds it may be accompanied by regulations to require retrieval and disposal of the carcasses. This entire proposal is unacceptable, irresponsible and unjustified, and presents an increased risk to cottagers and recreational boaters and fishermen.
By Frederick Schueler and Aleta Karstad at ORA’s 2018 Annual General Meeting.Lessons-from-Rivers-ora-2018-ilovepdf-compressed-2
Our organizations recommend choosing Alternative 3 – the Full Removal of Springbank Dam and the naturalization of this section of the Thames River. We submit that full dam removal and naturalization are the preferred solutions from an environmental perspective and would likely prove to be the most cost-effective over the long-term when Life-cycle costs and available provincial and federal funding are considered.
While we strongly support maximizing consultation opportunities, we also support timely action to address long understood but neglected problems with CEPA, a law that has not been significantly amended in two decades.
It is important to first state that although the Cap and Trade program was not perfect, it brought significant revenue into the provincial coffers, and funded important innovation, efficiencies and low-carbon programs. The few cents added to our gas fill-up was hardly noticeable. That being said, this is a great opportunity for the Province to come up with an effective Greenhouse Gas reduction strategy that will not just reduce carbon and result in cleaner air, but at the same time create well-paying jobs.
The full Capital and Life Cycle Costs of Rebuilding Riverside Dam were not realistically represented in the ESR and could well end up costing the taxpayers more than double what was presented to the public and City Council. A Rebuilt dam would be considered a new dam, not a repair or expansion of an existing weir, with an assessed High Hazard Potential, and is located within the City of Cambridge in a location that could place multiple residences and businesses at risk in the event of severe flooding or a dam breach. ORA and Partners submit that this Project goes far beyond the screening process provided by a Schedule B, Class EA. Consequently, we submit that this is a major project that should fall into a higher level of assessment.