First, it was enlightening to be provided with a clear definition of small and large hydro facilities in the Hydroelectric Program Development and Assessment webinar, as well as a total amount of power generated by these categories. You informed that the definition of small hydro would have a scope of installed capacity of 10 MW and under, with 30 companies representing 50 facilities generating a total of 120 to 150 MW, and large hydro having a scope of installed capacity of over 10 MW, with 3 companies representing 22 facilities producing a total of 1,000 MW.
The increased number of small hydro facilities making such a small contribution to our electricity grid impacts on multiple Ontario riverine ecosystems, whereas the 22 facilities producing 1,000 MW of power on presumably fewer rivers has a much lower trade-off value. Additionally, larger rivers have a greater capacity to buffer some of the worse effects of hydroelectric.
The Agency has deemed the Project to be within federal jurisdiction and required it to undergo a federal Impact Assessment, and yet Agnico Eagle (AE) is planning to move forward with their advanced exploration as soon as weather permits. ORA objects to the Project moving forward with any advanced exploration activities that would result in any damage to the environment.
AE boasts about setting the “gold standard”, “for over 60 years Agnico Eagle has been attracting investment to Canada, from those who seek a mining company committed to make mining work better for communities, shareholders and the planet”. ORA submits that Stakeholders expect AE to set the “gold standard” on this Project by undertaking the most environmentally and socially rigorous, advanced and responsible project “for communities, shareholders and the planet”.  Agnico Eagle Twitter Posting, 22 November 2021
ORA comments requesting a federal review under the Impact Assessment Act, 2 October 2021.
Upper Beaver Gold Project – IAAC Portal.
Canada has committed to ending plastic waste by 2030.i Reaching this goal will require ambitious actions that address the full life cycle of plastic.
Canada is a major—and growing—producer of plastics and the world’s second highest user of plastic on a per person basis.ii Production, use and disposal of plastics is an increasing contributor to climate change and habitat degradation. It also imposes disproportionate harm on those living next to production and disposal facilities, often low-income and Black, Indigenous and People of Colour communities.
We, the undersigned, therefore call on the Government of Canada to commit immediately to implement the following actions on an urgent basis:
It is challenging to understand the logic of a November 2021 CBC article that reports, “The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund are two environmental groups that oppose new hydro dams because they can block fish migration, harm water quality, damage surrounding ecosystems and release methane and CO2. But they say adding turbines to non-powered dams can be part of a shift toward low-impact hydro projects that can support expansion of solar and wind power.” Whether it’s a new dam or an older retrofitted dam, they will result in the same negative impacts and produce the same amount of methane for 70 to 100 years or more.
When these unregulated projects come home to roost, and the environmental impacts begin to damage or destroy highly valued public interests, such as our lakes and rivers, endangered species, our drinking water, and the economy, the government will pay a very high price. Unfortunately, the damage that will result from these irresponsible and negligent actions will not easily be undone, and in many cases will not be resolved in our lifetimes.
If the government wants to incorporate “one-project, one review”, then it must be a robust EA process with fulsome public and Indigenous consultation, or it may find the process much longer than it might have intended.
Is it really renewable energy when it degrades the environment and impacts on communities in a negative way?
There are 241 hydroelectric dams in Ontario, and only 3 facilities have provided any form of fish passage.
The effects of dams and waterpower facilities on fisheries have been well documented over the past century, and include the loss or serious decline of many iconic fish species, which are resources of importance to Ontario’s economy, biodiversity, and natural and cultural heritage.
We are 63 environmental, farm and community organizations, many of which supported the February 3, 2021 designation request for a federal impact assessment of the Bradford Bypass highway (400-404 extension link) under the Impact Assessment Act. We are writing to indicate our support for the November 9, 2021 designation request made by three local community groups: Forbid Roads Over Green Spaces, Stop the Bradford Bypass and Concerned Citizens of King Township. Like them, we believe the proposed highway will result in adverse social and environmental impacts within federal jurisdiction.
The ORA offers strong support for polluters being held accountable; however, that isn’t what’s happening here. Rather than strengthening enforcement tools that hold polluters accountable, this government is systematically and persistently dismantling, weakening or bypassing all environmental policy and legislation that was designed to protect the environment and deter those industries, corporations or individuals who would pollute and/or destroy the environment.
These ERO postings consistently mislead the public, especially in the top several paragraphs and titles, which contain misleading introductions to the proposed policy the government is proposing. In fact, you can always count on these “modernization” policy changes to be a further attack on environmental policy and legislation. It is even more despicable that these attacks have largely been carried out during the government’s declared COVID Emergency, where no public consultation is required, and what consultation that does take place is meaningless when the main objective is to cut red tape and remove any roadblocks to development and pollution, in spite of the public’s strong recommendations to protect the environment.
After careful consideration of the information provided by the Town of Erin, federal authorities, provincial ministries, the local conservation authority, the concerns expressed in your letter, other known public concerns, and advice from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency), I decided that the Project does not warrant designation pursuant to Subsection 9(1) of the IAA.
The Coalition for the West Credit River, of which the Belfountain Community Organization is a member, wish to inform Mayor Alan Alls and Council (the “Town”) that the questions asked in our 18 February 2021 correspondence were either not addressed at all or not satisfactorily addressed in the final Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the proposed Erin Wastewater Treatment Plant (Erin WWTP).
The Coalition reached out in good faith to the Mayor, in the hopes that he would answer our questions, and perhaps resolve some of our concerns and make it unnecessary to take this matter to the federal level for a review under the IAA. However, it has become crystal clear that the Mayor was not acting in good faith when we were informed by the Town’s lawyer, Quinto Annibale, in his 10 March 2021 email to me, that “all of the questions and issues which were raised and answered during the Part 2 Order request made to the Minister of the Environment Conservation and Parks pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act. As you know the Minister considered each of these issues and refused to grant the Order. Since you participated in the Part 2 order request, my client sees very little useful purpose in answering the same questions again and therefore will not be responding to the detailed questions contained in your February 18, 2021 correspondence”.