Ms. Garcia-Wright, Ms. Sarah Raetsen, Mr. Glen Murray, Mr. Eric Boysen:
At the ERT (Fairfield vs MOE) in Smithville on September 9 Vic Schroter stated: “We trust the proponent to give correct information.” If this is the case, what is the purpose of regulations? What is the purpose of the REA review team at the MOE? This is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. There is definitely a conflict of interest if the proponent is allowed to carry out the project as they see fit. How can the public have any assurance that the MOE is even looking at the documents for the renewable energy process?
The NRWC project has many errors in it –errors such as receptors being located where a transport truck is parked. This is just one of many errors.
For the NRWC project, has the MNR verified the existence or absence of natural features? If not, then the project needs to be rejected.
The tribunal chair at the recent ERT identified training gaps with the environmental assessor that authored the Natural Heritage Assessment report for the HAF Wind Energy project. The MOE and the MNR must ensure that there are no gaps in the NRWC project. Many gaps have been provided to you in the past. Evidence must be provided to the public ensuring that there are no gaps in the NRWC project. The public now has little or no confidence in the renewable energy process.
For the NRWC project, the public has never seen a guaranteed sound power level. This is another mistake. The public needs to see the guaranteed sound power level provided by the manufacturer.
There was a lot of evidence given at the Fairfield vs MOE Environment Review Tribunal – evidence indicating that the MOE and MNR are not doing a proper job of protecting the public and the environment. This is not how the government should serve the people in our community. All REA projects need to be rejected or at the very least put on hold until all the gaps have been cleared up.
Can you please reply to this e-mail?