Serious harm: Report from Environmental Review Tribunal

ERTRick Conroy, Wellington Times
It is not at all clear the hall at Demorestville is nearly big enough to accommodate the residents seeking to defend Ostrander Point when the Ministry of Environment’s Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) gets under way next month.

Close to a hundred folks crowded into Picton’s Town Hall for a preliminary hearing on Friday in a room with fewer than 60 chairs. Even as a sturdy winter storm settled into the County, cancelling school buses and closing businesses, the room continued to fill.

Most had come hoping the panel might overturn the Ministry of Environment’s decision to approve Gilead Power Corporation’s plans to erect nine industrial wind turbines on Crown land at Ostrander Point. Most, but not all.

Many were forced to stand during the first two hours of dreary wrangling and dry explanations of procedures by a cast of lawyers that included the tribunal member, three laywers from McCarthy Tétrault for Gilead Power, two lawyers representing the MOE and one lawyer for both the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) and the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC).

Likely the most critical explanation centred on the hurdle PECFN and APPEC must clear in order to overturn the MOE director’s approval of the project. Read article

33 thoughts on “Serious harm: Report from Environmental Review Tribunal

  1. The corruption of this government seems to go on and on. We are losing everything we have deemed sacred for generations- our homes, our wetlands, our wildlife, scenic roadways, cultural heritage landscapes and vistas. Who are these new aliens with no respect for any life, human or animal, heritage and the land? All for what I ask? How can any educated engineer or ministry employee, paid to protect all of this, authorize industrial wind turbines and actually say after pages of studies and reports that there are no impacts on our rural way of life and especially in such pristine ecological paradises such as Ostrander Point? What do they drink? Tainted Toronto water?

  2. It is almost impossible to find anyone who isn’t complicit in this windscam at some level. Justice always seems to be just out of reach, but we can’t give up!

      • Warning: Get puke bucket!
        A sustainable community respects Earth’s finite resources and natural systems. How we care for the earth, the air, the water, how we use energy, and how we organize our community are key ingredients in assuring a plentiful, vibrant future for our children. As trustees for Earth’s well-being, our duty of care is to ensure that future generations will inherit a bountiful environmentally healthy world.
        http://www.countysustainability.ca/

        Hello David ‘what’s his name’ – Ugh!

    • ZOOMINFO
      http://www.zoominfo.com
      Use People Search: Enter, Renia TYminski
      Porvides a Toronto address for the County Sustainability Group.
      So how come? A PE County organization with a Toronto address.
      440 Passmore Ave., Toronto,ON

      • Oh yeah – PEC
        Too much Vodka.
        I think they’re dancing on they’re heads.

      • Sorry – my spelling is off.
        I didn’t say I didn’t like Vodka.
        Hahahahahaha……………

      • Hey Barbara,
        You’ll remember:
        SWITCH did the ‘sustainability plan’ in Chatham-Kent.
        They’ve smudged the name.
        Nasty bunch………….ugh!

    • So the term sustainabitlity like green energy is supposed to be sacrosanct? With tasteless engineering companies directing us in patronizing fashion that they know more than the rest of us? We can still smell the stench of corruption.

  3. Fight fire with fire!

    This is an abuse of the concept of sustainability, just like the ‘Green’ in the GEA is just a selling term to make a bad plan sound good. It’s greenwashing of the worst kind. I would strongly suggest that people familiarize themselves the UNs Rio Principals http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163. The next time one of these faux greenies uses the term, challenge them on it. The GEA violates Principal 1, 10 and 15. ( I doubt most of them are familiar with them as its just a fashionable ‘feel-good’ term for them them to bandy about). At the recent openhouse by NRWC in Grimsby, the proponent’s consultant extolled the virtues of sustainable development, I challenged her by asking her if she could honestly say that the current IWT plan conforms with the Principal’s She sheepishly agreed that it couldn’t. At least she was honest

    • You are so right on, Andre. Where, how and why did we get so far from the original meaning of the principals? The opportunistic have jumped on this with the FIT plans in place and brainwashed the gullible by calling it green and sustainable. Unbelievable.

      • The real perversion here is:

        “Tribunal member Robert Wright said the onus is upon lawyer Eric Gillespie to show the IWT development will cause serious harm to human health; or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.”

        and at the same time there is this greenwash group called the “County Sustainability Group” supporting the project.

        Both either don’t understand the concept of sustainability or lying through their teeth. Regardless, it’s gross disservice and abuse of the concept. According to the UNEP’s Rio Principals on sustainability, the tribunal is in violation, among others, of:

        “Principle 15

        In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

        The key word here is ‘threat’ which is implied or may happen. That is the true sustainability threshold, not must cause damage. There is more that ample evidence of ‘threats’ from IWTs to human health and the environment.

      • Hey Andre,
        Rio Declaration on Environment and Development – is Agenda 21
        Ugh!
        Pass it on!

      • I suggest you read more carefully –
        “Principle 15

        In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

        Ugh!

      • Further to my comment:
        If you want to know what Smart Growth is –
        read Agenda 21

        I wonder what McGuinty’s legacy will be – probably nothing.
        Ugh!

      • FT:
        I take it from series of Ughs that don’t approve of Agenda 21. It would be helpful if you could expand upon your position a bit more.

      • Hey Andre,
        Firstly,
        – before I become helpful………..
        Your comment surprises me.
        Are you saying – you approve of Agenda 21?
        ……or, are you confused?

      • I’m not asking for help as kind as it is for you to offer. I simply ask that you clarify position or make your argument beyond ‘Ugh’

      • Andre,
        you say,
        ‘I would strongly suggest that people familiarize themselves the UNs Rio Principals’
        Why do you ‘strongly suggest’ this?

        Then I said,
        ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development – is Agenda 21’

        My argument is this:
        Put simply………….
        Why should the U.N. have planning/development authority –
        that calls for a – ‘one size fits all’ – ‘sustainability plan’ – in Ontario?
        Is it because the Liberals decided – the planet needed saving?
        Ugh! X2

      • FT:
        First, as a a point of clarification, the Rio Principals and Agenda 21 are actually two separate documents, although both came out of the same conference in 1992, and the latter is based on the principals and is a far more exhaustive document that very few people will read, including many of those who consider themselves to be promoting sustainable development. It is not a planning document but a guidance document. It’s because a full understanding of it that it is poorly understood by many, that it has been ‘cherry-picked’ by some to promote ‘their’ agendas creating the notion that it is under the supporting banner of the UN for credibility to their cause. (which is why I stated it is that the tribunal’s position and the County Sustainability are a perversion) What some ideologues and others do not understand, or ignore, is that the concept is based on balancing environmental, social and economic interests. It’s the economic one that gets ignored the most. The economic aspects of the agenda promote entrepreneurship, economic self-reliance and financial responsibility, (at the individual and state level). Deficit spending and national debt are contrary to Agenda 21 and to the basic concept of sustainability, not to mention are basic conservative and libertarian values. On this point, McGuinty failed miserably. I actually wish McGuinty and the liberals had a real sustainability plan and we wouldn’t be in the financial mess we are in now.

        The above should, in part, begin to answer your question. The reason I strongly suggest that people familiarize themselves with it to keep these ideologues in check and use it against them. Hence the fight fire with fire reference. The GEA violates both the Principals and Agenda 21 on a number of levels. The wind promoters, self-proclaimed greenies, watermelon groups like the County Sustainability Group (collectivist useful idiots) who play to people’s ignorance and sediment, not mention those self-righteous elitist wanna-be aristocrats who call themselves liberal and are anything but have selected only parts that serve their interests. It’s time to set the record straight and put the GEA on a reality check.

      • Hey Andre,
        You sound like a sympathizer – to the cause.
        …….spreading the propaganda’ with a ‘milder tone’.
        I loved the added touch – making it sound as though it were in line
        with Conservative values.
        Bashing McGuinty – was the cherry on top.

        Note:
        What’s @ risk is our ‘Freedom’ – and, some of us………….
        have noticed.

        p.s. No Andre – you did not answer my question – not even in part.

      • FT:

        I agree with you that our individual freedoms are facing assaults on many levels, but a little less paranoia and more thinking might help your cause.
        “To know one’s self and to one’s opponent is to assure a hundred victories…” Sun Tze

      • “To know one’s self and to [know] one’s opponent is to assure a hundred victories…” Sun Tze [ or … Tszu]

        Andre — I corrected the quote for you. If You must quote Sun Tszu — do so correctly or I will start posting the quotes in the original (archaic) Chinese… 😉

        Anyway — if you can quote my favorite general incorrectly — I can quote my mother — correctly.

        She used to say:

        Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you!

        And that’s what I say too….

      • FT

        With apologies. So many translations of the general, yet so few people who speak ancient Chinese. And far be it from me to argue with one’s mother.
        But as Frank Herbert wrote in ‘Dune’ “Fear is the mind killer”

      • Speaking of paranoia: be careful what you say, the Nature Conservancy of Canada is watching, listening, waiting …

  4. The Green energy Act set the law up so that those being harmed have to prove they are being harmed. Same with wildlife and the environment. The fix was put into this law to begin with.

    • Because it’s being driven by those self-righteous elitist wanna-be aristocrats who think they know whats better for us ant the individual is expendable.

    • Sole purpose of GEA was to strip population
      of democratic right to interfere with the
      propagation of the green energy scam.

      • I agree with Andre, Madasabat and Barbara. There are 2 kinds of believers in sustainability. The originals which included many Greenpeace members did not want the extremes we are seeing today. The gullible have been brainwashed to believe that wind turbines = green energy because they have forgotten about the other aspects of sustainability. Even former leaders of the Greenpeace movement realized this and dropped away from that organization. Another aspect besides the harm to health, the wildlife, the costs to impoverish the people is the our heritage. They are using engineers to determine the impact on heritage also and they have no concern unless it happens to be an architectural conservancy group. Heritage has 2 components: built heritage (buildings, locations of battles, etc.) and cultural heritage landscapes. The County needs to make a by-law to protect all the landscape, including scenic roadways and waterways, around Prince Edward County. They have the power to do that now to designate the land for that purpose so that it is protected when they get some power back from the province. It might have helped in the process against the Ostrander development, but they can spin any lies they want if they are the ones doing the assessment report and they are paid to bend with the developers. It could be used as an argument in the appeal.

Comments are closed.