Saturday, November 17, 2012
Apparently Canada needs more jets...
about $65 Billion worth.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
What do you have to do to get an environmental assessment?
Helen Cutts Vice-President,
Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Thank you very much.
My
name is Helen Cutts. I'm the vice-president of policy development at
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. It's my pleasure to be
with you this
afternoon. My opening remarks will not take 10 minutes. That will give
us more time for questions.
Division
21 in part 4 of the budget implementation act makes a minor technical
amendment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, or CEAA
2012,
as it's known in the short form.
In order to provide some context for members of the committee with respect to the amendments proposed by Bill C-45,
I will briefly describe the main features of the CEAA 2012.
This new act was brought into force in July shortly after Bill C-38 received
royal assent.
These
recent changes to federal environmental assessment are part of the
responsible resource development plan. The objectives of this plan are
to provide
for more predictable and timely reviews, to reduce duplication for
project reviews, to strengthen environmental protection, and to enhance
consultations with aboriginal groups.
CEAA
2012 focuses on major projects. “Designated projects” is the term used
in the legislation. Designated projects are identified in the project
list regulations.
The Minister of the Environment may also require the environmental
assessment of a project not on the list. This scheme replaces the “all
in unless excluded” approach of the former act.
Responsibility
for environmental assessment has also been consolidated with the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission
and the National Energy Board. This replaces an approach that saw the
act implemented by 40 to 50 federal authorities each year.
There
are additional mechanisms for federal-provincial cooperation. A
provincial environmental assessment may substitute for the federal
process. At the
end of the environmental assessment, the Minister of the Environment
makes a decision, informed by the provincial report. Before approving
substitution, the minister must be satisfied that the core requirements
of CEAA 2012 will be met.
The
Governor in Council may also declare a provincial environmental
assessment to be equivalent, exempting the designated project from
application of the
act. The conditions for substitution must be met in this case as well.
The
Governor in Council must also be satisfied that the province will make a
determination as to whether the designated project is likely to cause
significant
adverse environmental effects. It will ensure implementation of
mitigation measures and a follow-up program.
There
are now legislative timelines for environmental assessments: 365 days
for an assessment by our agency; 24 months for an assessment by a review
panel.
The
minister may extend timelines by three months. Additional extensions
may be granted by the Governor in Council. There is authority for
regional environmental
assessments that move beyond a project-specific focus. These are
intended to assist with the assessment of cumulative environmental
effects.
Finally, unlike the former act, CEAA 2012 includes enforcement provisions.
The amendments proposed by Bill C-45 are
intended to address minor inconsistencies in the text of CEAA 2012 that
have come to our attention over the past four months of implementation.
Clauses
425 to 427, as well as clauses 429 and 431, are intended to ensure
concordance between the French and English versions of the act.
Clause
428 corrects an oversight with respect to conditions that can be put in
a decision statement. At the end of an environmental assessment, a
decision
statement is provided to the proponent of a project. This statement
sets out the conclusion as to whether the project is likely to cause
significant adverse environmental effects. It also sets out conditions
that are binding on the proponent; these are mitigation
measures and requirements for a follow-up program.
The
amendment proposes broader language with respect to the conditions to
ensure that a decision statement can include administrative requirements
such
as reporting on the implementation of mitigation and follow-up.
Clause
430 clarifies that the obligation for federal authorities to ensure
their action with respect to projects on federal lands do not cause
significant
adverse environmental effects is limited to the environmental effects
caused by the components of the project that are situated on federal
lands.
Finally,
clause 432 proposes to close a loophole in the transition provisions.
Currently, there is potential for a project to be exempted under the
transition
provisions even though it would have required an environmental
assessment under the former act and would normally be subject to the new
act. Where a proponent of a project was advised under the former act
that an environmental assessment was not likely required,
the transition provisions in CEAA 2012 exempt it from application of
the new process.
This
exemption would hold, even though a trigger under the former act—that
is, a federal decision about a project—might subsequently be identified.
The
proposed amendment would subject a designated project, exempted under
current provisions, to the requirements of the act if it is determined
prior to January 1, 2014, that the project requires a federal decision
that would have resulted in an environmental
assessment under the former act. This amendment would ensure equitable
treatment of similar designated projects under two different legislative
schemes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Useful Links
- Mount Gox - Bitcoin exchange
- Reggie Middleton's Rapier Analysis
- Ontario Rivers Alliance
- Geodesic Dome Construction
- Canadian Disaster Preparedness
- Globe and Mail
- Chris' The Weekly Telegram
- Michael Rupert of CollapseNet
- Max Keiser
- Nicole Foss Blog - the automatic earth
- Peak Moment Discussions
- Scotia Mocatta Bullion Store
- Dimitry Orlov - Peak Moment Discussions
- Jims's ISFCR Blog
- Jenny Right Side Blog
- Scott Sorensen
Alternative Energy Sites I like
The Queen is not amused!
The Ashlu river: it could happen to you
Whitewater Ontario
Whitewater Ontario - Mission Statement
It is Whitewater Ontario’s mission to support the whitewater paddling community through the promotion, development and growth of the sport in its various disciplines.
We accomplish this through the development of events, resources, clubs, and programs for personal and athletic development, regardless of skill level or focus, to ensure a high standard of safety and competency;
We advocate safe and environmentally responsible access and use of Ontario’s rivers.
Whitewater Ontario is the sport governing body in the province, and represents provincial interests within the national body Whitewater Canada and the Canadian Canoe Association
http://www.whitewaterontario.ca/page/mission.asp
Kipawa, Tabaret, and Opemican
Kipawa Dam: After
Where is the Kipawa
Kipawa Dam
Tabaret is a Bad Idea
About the Kipawa
The best thing paddlers can do to help the cause of the Kipawa:
1. attend the rally and bring others including non paddlers to attend and buy beer and have fun
2. write your MP /MNA and raise the issue and post your objections -1 letter = 200 who didn't write
3. Write Thierry Vandal the CEO of Hydro Quebec strongly opposing the 132 MW standard decrying the use of "diversion" as the most environmentally inappropriate method of power production
4. Write Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec protesting that either the algonquin or the tabaret project will eliminate all other values on the Kipawa River by turning it into a dry gulch.
5. See if you can get other allied groups interested by showing your own interest, ie the Sierra Defense Fund, Earthwild, MEC, and so on.
6. Demand further consultation
7. Currently we are at the point where we need to sway public opinion and raise awareness.
However, if all else fails, don't get mad, simply disrupt, foment, and protest . The Monkey Wrench Gang.
Have you read Edward Abbey?
Important Addresses
CEO,Hydro Québec, 75 boul René Levesque, Montreal, P.Q., H2Z 1A4Caille.andre@hydro.qc.ca
The best thing paddlers can do to help the cause of the Kipawa:
1. attend the rally and bring others including non paddlers to attend and buy beer and have fun
2. write your MP /MNA and raise the issue and post your objections -1 letter = 200 who didn't write
3. Write Thierry Vandal the CEO of Hydro Quebec strongly opposing the 132 MW standard decrying the use of "diversion" as the most environmentally inappropriate method of power production
4. Write Jean Charest, Premier of Quebec protesting that either the algonquin or the tabaret project will eliminate all other values on the Kipawa River by turning it into a dry gulch.
5. See if you can get other allied groups interested by showing your own interest, ie the Sierra Defense Fund, Earthwild, MEC, and so on.
6. Demand further consultation
7. Currently we are at the point where we need to sway public opinion and raise awareness.
However, if all else fails, don't get mad, simply disrupt, foment, and protest . The Monkey Wrench Gang.
Have you read Edward Abbey?
Important Addresses
CEO,Hydro Québec, 75 boul René Levesque, Montreal, P.Q., H2Z 1A4Caille.andre@hydro.qc.ca
Tabaret is a Bad Idea (Part Two)
Les Amis de la Riviere Kipawa is poised to use an application to the Federal Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to ensure the Minster does what he is supposed to do, protect the public's right to navigate the water control structure at Laniel, Quebec using the Navigable Waters Protection Act. (see http://www.kipawariver.ca/)
In the now gutted Navigable Waters Protection Act lay the means by which the Minister of Transport could keep the public right of passage down our great Canadian Heritage, our rivers and streams which are threatened especially by resource corporations and power brokers such as Hydro Quebec.
These powerful entities continue to petition that 'this' river or 'that' stream is not navigable and therefore not protectable.
I don't say that dams and bridges should not be built, only that if they are, historical navigation rights should be considered and preserved by making reasonable accommodations for recreational boaters.
It is the Minister of Transport, in exercising the right to allow or disallow work on or over a navigable waterway is what keeps boats and recreational boaters plying our waterways.
To many recent cases launched in the Federal Court concerning the Navigable Waters Protection Act, most recently the case of the Humber Environment Group of Cornerbrook Newfoundland versus the Cornerbrook Pulp and Paper Company indicates that the important oversight is not being faithfully performed. Have we really come to the point now where we must say "such and such a stream is one foot deep, possessing so many cubic feet per second flow and so on?" The answer to this is... YES!
The honourable Mr. Justice John A. O'Keefe, ruled that it had not been shown that the river was navigable. How convenient was that to the Minister? But either the Minister of Transport acts to protect our rivers and streams as a public right or he does not and that means rivers and streams currently enjoyed by kayakers and canoists.
Enough of the cheating, and double-talk. Canadians! our rivers and streams are our own, lets urge the Minister of Transport and the our government to protect them.
Peter Karwacki
In the now gutted Navigable Waters Protection Act lay the means by which the Minister of Transport could keep the public right of passage down our great Canadian Heritage, our rivers and streams which are threatened especially by resource corporations and power brokers such as Hydro Quebec.
These powerful entities continue to petition that 'this' river or 'that' stream is not navigable and therefore not protectable.
I don't say that dams and bridges should not be built, only that if they are, historical navigation rights should be considered and preserved by making reasonable accommodations for recreational boaters.
It is the Minister of Transport, in exercising the right to allow or disallow work on or over a navigable waterway is what keeps boats and recreational boaters plying our waterways.
To many recent cases launched in the Federal Court concerning the Navigable Waters Protection Act, most recently the case of the Humber Environment Group of Cornerbrook Newfoundland versus the Cornerbrook Pulp and Paper Company indicates that the important oversight is not being faithfully performed. Have we really come to the point now where we must say "such and such a stream is one foot deep, possessing so many cubic feet per second flow and so on?" The answer to this is... YES!
The honourable Mr. Justice John A. O'Keefe, ruled that it had not been shown that the river was navigable. How convenient was that to the Minister? But either the Minister of Transport acts to protect our rivers and streams as a public right or he does not and that means rivers and streams currently enjoyed by kayakers and canoists.
Enough of the cheating, and double-talk. Canadians! our rivers and streams are our own, lets urge the Minister of Transport and the our government to protect them.
Peter Karwacki
Tabaret is a Bad Idea (Part Three)
10 Reasons WhyTabaret is a Bad Idea1) Tabaret is too big. The station is designed to useevery drop of water available in the Kipawawatershed, but will run at only 44 percent capacity.We believe the Tabaret station is designed to usewater diverted from the Dumoine River into theKipawa watershed in the future.
2) The Tabaret project will eliminate the aquaticecosystem of the Kipawa River.The Tabaret project plan involves the diversion of a16-km section of the Kipawa River from its naturalstreambed into a new man-made outflow from LakeKipawa.
3) Tabaret will leave a large industrial footprint on thelandscape that will impact existing tourismoperations and eliminate future tourism potential.
4) The Tabaret project is an aggressive single-purposedevelopment, designed to maximize powergeneration at the expense of all other uses.
5) River-diversion, such as the Tabaret project, takinglarge amounts of water out of a river’s naturalstreambed and moving it to another place, is verydestructive to the natural environment.
6) The Kipawa River has been designated a protectedgreenspace in the region with severe limitations ondevelopment. This designation recognizes theecological, historical and natural heritage value ofthe river and the importance of protecting it.Tabaret will eliminate that value.
7) If necessary, there are other, smarter and morereasonable options for producing hydro power onthe Kipawa watershed. It is possible to build a lowimpactgenerating station on the Kipawa river, andmanage it as a “run-of-the-river” station, makinguse of natural flows while maintaining other values,with minimal impact on the environment.
8) The Kipawa watershed is a rich natural resource forthe Temiscaming Region, resonably close to largeurban areas, with huge untapped potential fortourism and recreation development in the future.Tabaret will severely reduce this potential.
9) Tabaret provides zero long-term economic benefitfor the region through employment. The plan is forthe station to be completely automated andremotely operated.
10) The Kipawa River is 12,000 years old. The riverwas here thousands of years before any peoplecame to the region. The Tabaret project will change all that.
Problems on a local River?
- There is more to do as well but you have to do your research and above all, don't give up.
- IN the meantime prepared a document itemizing the history of navigation of this spot and its recreational value. Use the Kipawa river history of navigation as a guide: see www.kipawariver.ca
- Under the Ministry of Environment guidelines you have a set period of time to petition the change under the environmental bill of rights, you may have limited time to take this action. But it involves going to court for a judicial review of the decision.
- 4. contact the ministry of natural resources officials and do the same thing.
- 3. contact the ministry of the environment and determine if they approved the project
- 2. determine if the dam was a legal dam, approved under the navigable waters protection act.
- 1. research the decision and timing of it to determine if an environmental assessment was done.