Stop The Kettle Island Bridge

Why an Ontario Environmental Assessment is important

As presented in an earlier posting (Ontario has opted out of the Environmental Assessment), Ontario has opted out of the Environmental Assessment process for the Interprovincial Crossings Project, and it is important for us to raise concerns with our provincial politicians to lobby them to opt back in.

The following information was prepared by Judy Lishman, a member of the Manor Park Bridge Committee. Judy describes the significance of Ontario’s decision.  Thanks to Judy for her contribution.
————————-
The following is a list of some of the impacts on communities, and public concerns about Phase 1 which have been ignored by the consultants and which would be subject to review and approval by the MOE if the ONT. EA Act were in place.

• Phase 1 concludes that there would be no air quality impacts in the Kettle Island corridor even though this is the most heavily populated corridor and the residences are closer to the proposed truck route than in any other corridor.
• Phase 1 concludes that there would be no increase in vibration effects on residences in corridor 5. As a result of the closure of the base in November 2009, buses are now travelling on the Aviation Parkway. Houses adjacent to the Parkway rattle when the bus passes. Three thousand trucks a day would surely have an impact.
• Phase I did not evaluate the safety risk of hazardous materials being transported through built up communities and past a hospital.
• The weight given to noise impacts on residents in the evaluation of the corridors was a meagre 2%.
• The fundamental reason for this study as far as Ontario is concerned is to remove the trucks from a built up community. The answer is not to put them through another built up community.
• Phase 1 evaluation heavily weighted transportation and cost. The public overwhelmingly favoured heavily weighting the natural and human environment when choosing a corridor. The public was ignored.
• Phase 1 stated that the recommended corridor is “the least useful interprovincial crossing for transit”.
• There was no evaluation done and no consideration given to the impacts on the Montfort Hospital of a 4 lane truck route adjacent to the hospital.
• There was no factor for public safety.
• Many technical problems with Phase 1, which significantly affected the outcome, were identified and brought by the public to the attention of the consultants who ignored them and were able to do so because Ontario had opted out of the Environmental Assessment.

————————-
The three study partners/proponents for The Interprovincial Crossings Study, as outlined in the Terms of Reference, are the NCC and the two provincial transportation ministries: MTO and MTQ. Each of these partners is subject only to its own environmental legislation. Because this is a joint project, the Terms of Reference state that the “three study partners have agreed to follow the strictest application of the various EA (Environmental Assessment) approval processes” through a harmonized process. There are harmonization agreements between the federal government and each province which outline the process for harmonized EA projects.

The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act is triggered at the beginning of a study when the Terms of Reference are submitted by a proponent, in this case the MTO (Ministry of Transportation of Ontario), to the MOE (Ministry of the Environment) for approval by the minister. The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act is in effect until the construction is completed. The Act outlines a process for review and approvals. It also gives citizens protection through the right to consult about and to appeal any of the decisions made.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) for a Screening Study is not triggered until a site specific project, in this case the bridge corridor, has been selected. Consequently, if the Ontario EA Act is not in effect the selection of the corridor on the Ontario side will not be subject to any environmental legislation. Furthermore, under the CEAA, public consultation is discretionary and there is no public appeal process.

The NCC is claiming that the CEAA has been triggered for Phase 2A of the study, but one of the lawyers responsible for writing the Act has said that the Act has not been triggered because there is no provision under the Act for the study of three corridors. The project manager at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which is responsible for administering the application of the CEAA has agreed that the review of the three corridors under study will not meet the standards set out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The NCC project coordinator claims that since the process is following environmental guidelines that it doesn’t matter if the Ontario Act is in effect. This is not true. Ontario is not acting in compliance with the Terms of Reference to conduct a harmonized EA process. The MTO along with the MOE, opted out of Phase 1 at the very beginning. This action allowed the consultants to avoid accountability through a review and approval process and denied citizens their right to protection and appeal as provided by the Ontario EA Act. Without the Ontario EA Act no one will review or correct any of the serious errors made in Phase 1 and Phase 2B will proceed based on faulty data and conclusions.

Those of us who are following this study closely were unaware, until after the end of Phase 1, that we all, as Ontario citizens, are being denied our rights under the law. If the Minister of the Environment decides to dispense with the requirements imposed by the EA Act he must make a declaration with written reasons, give adequate notice to the public, and ensure that the public has an opportunity to comment. None of this has been done. I wrote to Minister Gerretsen and asked why the proper process has not been followed. The reply I received did not address this question.

At the end of Phase 1 Ontario agreed, on the advice of the consultant, that the CEAA would be the only legislation in effect. This agreement was predicated on the NCC being the sole proponent, which it is not since Quebec is still a proponent. Furthermore, at the time, there was a recommendation from the consultants that only one corridor be carried foreward for detailed evaluation This recommendation was rejected as a result of subsequent letters from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec stating that three corridors should be carried to Phase 2. This is significant because, as noted above, the CEAA legislation is not triggered until one corridor has been selected. Hence, the study partners are continuing to falsely assure the Ontario public that their rights are protected by calling this an Environmental Assessment Study when it is not because the evaluation and selection of the corridor is not subject to any environmental legislation. Furthermore, Ontario has given up decision making authority for this project to the NCC. Quebec has not.

The public’s concerns about Phase 1 were not heeded because the consultants knew they were not accountable to any EA process. If Ontario does not opt back into a harmonized process, the evaluation and selection of the bridge corridor will once again not be subject to any environmental review or approval and once again the public will be denied their right to protection and appeal. It is therefore imperative that the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act apply to this study through a harmonized process, as defined by the Terms of Reference. By agreeing to be a proponent as originally intended, Ontario will regain decision making authority, the Ontario EA Act will apply, the consultants’work will be subject to review and approval and the citizens of Ontario will have the protection guaranteed by the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

Requests to the Ontario Government to opt back into the EA process have so far been refused.
————————-

What can you do?

ASAP, email our Ontario politicians, requesting that Ontario opts back in to the Environmental Assessment for the Interprovincial Crossings study.

To Premier McGuinty mcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Cc: Minister of Transportation Wynne minister@mto.gov.on.ca
Cc: Minister of the Environment Gerretsen minister.moe@ontario.ca
Cc: Our MPP Madeleine Meilleur mmeilleur.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Share on Facebook