The Honourable John Wilkinson
Minister of the Environment
77 Wellesley Street West
11th Floor, Ferguson Block
Toronto, ON M7A 2T5
Additional Facts Regarding the Proposed Bala Falls Hydro-electric Generating Station – Request for Minister’s Review of Director’s Decision that an Individual Environmental Assessment is Not Required
April 18, 2010
Dear Honourable John Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment:
Further to my letter of April 13, 2011, I would like to add the following.
The Director’s decision is inconsistent with the Ministry of the Environment’s Statement of Environmental Values, including principles to adopt an ecosystem approach to environmental protection and resource management, and consider the cumulative effects on the environment.
To quote the Ministry web site:
The Ministry of the Environment is committed to applying the purposes of the Environmental Bill of Rights when decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made in the Ministry. As it develops Acts, regulations and policies, the Ministry will apply the following principles:
- The Ministry adopts an ecosystem approach to environmental protection and resource management. This approach views the ecosystem as composed of air, land, water and living organisms, including humans, and the interactions among them.
- The Ministry considers the cumulative effects on the environment; the interdependence of air, land, water and living organisms; and the relationships among the environment, the economy and society.
- The Ministry considers the effects of its decisions on current and future generations, consistent with sustainable development principles.
- The Ministry uses a precautionary, science-based approach in its decision-making to protect human health and the environment.
- The Ministry’s environmental protection strategy will place priority on preventing pollution and minimizing the creation of pollutants that can adversely affect the environment.
- The Ministry endeavours to have the perpetrator of pollution pay for the cost of clean up and rehabilitation consistent with the polluter pays principle.
- In the event that significant environmental harm is caused, the Ministry will work to ensure that the environment is rehabilitated to the extent feasible.
- Planning and management for environmental protection should strive for continuous improvement and effectiveness through adaptive management.
- The Ministry supports and promotes a range of tools that encourage environmental protection and sustainability (e.g. stewardship, outreach, education).
- The Ministry will encourage increased transparency, timely reporting and enhanced ongoing engagement with the public as part of environmental decision making.
The Director did not apply the Ministry’s principles. Quoting the Ministry’s principles, The Ministry adopts an ecosystem approach to environmental protection and resource management. This approach views the ecosystem as composed of air, land, water and living organisms, including humans, and the interactions among them. The Proponent and Director only refer to fish spawning beds in particular, Walleye. Basic biological science recognizes fish are only part of an ecosystem.
The Director failed to use “a precautionary, science based approach in its decision making to protect human health and environment, and considers the cumulative effects on the environment; the interdependence of air, land, water and living organisms; and the relationships among the environment, the economy and society”. This decision fails with the incomplete consideration of the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem, as well the social environment of the community in that the Proponents “Economic Impact Study” fails on many fronts. These failures are well documented in the Peer Review document commissioned by the Township of Muskoka Lakes. Please reference this analysis of the Proponents “Economic Impact Study” sent to you by our elected Municipal representatives.
On the last principle listed above, “The Ministry will encourage increased transparency, timely reporting and enhanced ongoing engagement with the public as part of environmental decision making.” Although a transparent public process was professed to be adhered to, the Director failed to promote transparency and engagement of the public as part of the decision making in a meaningful fashion as demonstrated by a number of facts:
- There remain a great number of unanswered questions as demonstrated by the numerous of appeals from individuals, community groups, and the Municipal Government.
- While the Director insisted on a representative of the Proponent be present if any member of the public, or the municipal government, met with the Ministry’s staff, the same was not true for the Proponent. The Proponent was free to meet with the Ministry staff at any time and influence them at their pleasure.
- It would appear the advantages held by the Proponents of this and similar projects results in a statistically impossible “batting 1000” when it comes to rejection of elevation requests. It is to be noted that as of March 2011, the Ministry of the Environment has received elevation requests for fifty (50) electricity projects. For the Bala Falls proposal there were 105 requests for the project to be elevated to an individual environmental assessment. To date, absolutely none of these fifty (50) requests have resulted in an elevation or “bump up” of a project to an individual EA. All have been rejected. Proponents 50/Citizens 0. Batting 1000. This warrants further investigation.
A recent paper discussing the cumulative effects of hydraulic plants on aquatic life discusses the whole ecosystem approach to environmental protection. I shall quote this excellent paper written by Rob MacGregor (MNR retired) and a number of other eminent scientists (Tim Haxton, Lorne Greig, John M. Casselman, John M. Dettmers, William A. Allen, David G. Oliver, Larry McDermott):
“Ginawaydaganuc, the Algonquin law of interconnectedness which is documented in the Welcoming and Sharing Wampum Belt carried by Elder Dr. William Commanda, outlines responsibilities to each other and to the earth. It requires consideration of the cumulative effects of actions on the entire web of life, a consideration which reflects the Algonquin definition of sustainability, notions of reconciliation and respect jointly of human rights and environmental protection (Wilson 2008; McDermott and Wilson 2010). Meanwhile public awareness of cumulative effects is increasing. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario documented one case where a public appeal to a proposed development used an argument that the development was inconsistent with the Ministry of Environment’s Statement of Environmental Values, including principles to adopt an ecosystem approach to environmental protection and resource management, and to consider the cumulative effects on the environment (ECO 2010)
A recent Divisional Court ruling in Ontario requires the province to take an ecosystem approach and consider cumulative effects in permitting and other approvals processes (Ontario Superior Court 2008). Appropriate changes to approvals processes that effectively address cumulative effects seem timely, consistent with Canada`s (Environment Canada 1995) and Ontario`s Biodiversity Strategies (Ontario Government 2005) and would demonstrate that Canada and Ontario are serious about the intent of their species at risk legislation (Canada 2002; Ontario Government 2007).
The recent push for more renewable energy (e.g., recent implementation of Ontario’s Green Energy Act; Ontario Government 2009) has encouraged and led to many more proposals for new and upgraded hydro-electric facilities in Ontario’s watersheds. As in the past, when previous facilities were installed, there is a big rush to move the approvals along quickly, and calls for cumulative effects assessment may be unwelcome by some. We can very well imagine the conflicting situation that government staff are faced with when attempting to implement Ontario’s new Endangered Species Act and Biodiversity Strategy, while at the same time experiencing pressure and a sense of urgency in implementing the Green Energy Act and associated policies.
We can only hope that sufficient measures will be in place this time to ensure mitigation of the collateral ecological effects with full consideration of the cumulative effects of existing and projected additional installations (Greig et al. 2006). Ontario can ill-afford, and it is simply unacceptable, to continue trading off ecological and biodiversity benefits for power production in the same manner as the past if the province is steadfast in its commitment to biodiversity. Solutions are required to maintain and/or restore all benefits on a sustainable basis. Such solutions will need to pay closer attention to, and respect the Ginawaydaganuk principle. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has set the expectation clearly, saying that the true measure of success is not whether a recovery strategy has been developed or the government has said what actions it will take, but rather, whether a species is on the right path to being de-listed (ECO 2010).”
The Directors decision is inconsistent with the Ministry of the Environment’s Statement of Environmental Values.
I would like to mention again the Tuesday April 12th Toronto Star article entitled “Ontario Power Prices Go Below Zero” points out the huge surplus of generating capacity we have in Ontario. The last thing we need is more generation, particularly generation contracts locking the people of Ontario into buying highly subsidized power. There is no urgency now, or in the near future, to bulldoze ahead with this project. The disturbing legacy of anger, hatred, and animosity due to the loss of this heritage site will be remembered by the community and those who cottage and vacation in the Bala area for many generations.
I am appealing to you to review the Director’s decision for this project.
I ask for your acknowledgement that you have received this message successfully. Thank you for your work on this important matter.
<signed>