[All] Fw: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre

Wed Sep 1 00:09:22 EDT 2010

--- On Wed, 9/1/10, Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com> wrote:

From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
Subject: Fw: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre
To: Bezan.J at parl.gc.ca, Bigras.B at parl.gc.ca, McGuinty.D at parl.gc.ca, Armstrong.S at parl.gc.ca, Ouellet.C at parl.gc.ca, warawm7 at parl.gc.ca, Calkins.B at parl.gc.ca, Scarpaleggia.F at parl.gc.ca, Watson.J at parl.gc.ca, Duncan.L at parl.gc.ca, Trudeau.J at parl.gc.ca, Woodworth.S at parl.gc.ca
Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 12:04 AM

Dear Ministers
I strongly believe this data may be of value to the Federal Committee reviewing the Tar Sands Fresh Water issues. 

Below is a correspondence I sent to the Prime Minster followed by the 
response I received from his office. Reasonably I understand that 
aggregates are managed by the provinces but water is a cross 
jurisdictional issue. If fish are federally protected, than it stands to
 reason that water should be too. It's a cross jurisdictional resource which passes through provincial and national boundaries.

The State of Aggregate Resource in Ontario Study (SAROS) recently published by 
the MNR, shows a strong industry bias that only values the worth of 
aggregate as an extractable resource without placing a natural capital 
value on the function of aggregates left in place. Aggregates play a key roll to municipal water supplies but there is no regard to maintaining flow 
and flow rates to either surface or groundwater features because 
the review was isolated to the mandate of the MNR as 
promotor and regulator of crown land resources. The Study did not include the 
participation of the MOE, Ministry of Agriculture or Ministry of 
Fisheries therefore it negates the implications of aggregate extraction to other existing economic systems outside of the MNR's jurisdiction such as agriculture.  

To view the complete version of the SAROS report with reviews of the report as provided by Gravel Watch visit this link:
http://www.gravelwatch.org/saros.htm

>From what I have observed, engineering firms stand to profit if the EIS studies are insufficient and lead to expensive remediation projects or the need for water pipelines. There is money in destruction and those firms know how to craft the results they want by skewing test times, methodologies etc. The raw data as provided by these firms should be carefully scrutinized. 
I believe if we establish a reasonable, federally enforceable criteria for Environmental Impact Studies and monitoring programs, it can go along way to preventing risks. Test times, methodologies, systems of measurements could all be standardized for the sake of clarity and due
 diligence and we need a reasonable statue of limitations on the age of data used.
In our area I've seen EIS reports by Stantec that have excluded the last ten years worth of temperature readings (regarding Capital Paving quarry in West Montross), studies that have ignored wetlands, spring thaw water levels, the absence of reasonable benthic data and the fact that projects would exceed MOE levels for chloride. (West side Lands: Waterloo ON) 

In Waterloo Region we are currently facing an imminent
 threat to our municipal groundwater supply as aggregate proposals and development encroach upon our primary recharge areas and within the capture zone of the 
Grand River.  To view the aggregate maps and the attempts by our 
municipal council to curb the potential destruction of our aquifers by 
aggregates, please visit here:

http://waterloomoraineact.com/aggregate.htm

According reports by the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Grand River supports the same gross national revenue as the province of Nova Scotia. The Grand is a Heritage River that recharges Lake Erie. Should aggregates disrupt the flow and flow rates to Erie many communities would be at risk along the way from either floods, drought or fluxing contamination levels. A proposed pipeline to Erie would open the door to far greater toxicological risks.  
Stantec was hired to do reports on our municipal wells after Walkerton in the Region of Waterloo.  They get the remediation contracts when things go bad (the Greenbrook Wells) and currently they are doing the feasibility study for a Lake Erie pipeline. This firm is hired by the conservation authority to do the Laurel Creek Watershed review and
 later hired by developers to build upon these same lands. I took them to the Ontario Municipal Board to challenge their work in regards to three subdivision proposals known as the West Side Lands in Waterloo and won concessions to secure new tests after they signed off on the fact their work was insufficient. In spite of the Board ruling, construction by Stantec began just months after before the testing took place as approved by City Staff. There is no enforcement for OMB rulings outside the courts and after spending $27,000 to secure the OMB ruling, I had no money left to seek compliance.
Stantec sponsors the Grand River Conservation Authority who is delegated with the task of reviewing Stantec's EIS studies during planning processes. Stantec is deeply involved with the Lake Erie Source Water Protection Committee and they are major sponsors of the University of Waterloo. How can we as citizens reasonably protect
 our water supply when this single firm has such an overwhelming monopoly on water management issues in our area. How can we protect the moraine from those who could profit from it's destruction? 
We need a way to assure reasonable science prevails.
Thank you kindly for your time.

Louisette Lanteigne

700 Star Flower Ave.

Waterloo Ontario

N2V 2L2

--- On Tue, 8/31/10, Prime Minister/Premier ministre <pm at pm.gc.ca> wrote:

From: Prime Minister/Premier ministre <pm at pm.gc.ca>
Subject: Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre
To: "Louisette Lanteigne" <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 3:10 PM

Dear Ms. Lanteigne:

On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail.

While you may be assured that careful consideration has been given to the situation you have described, the matter you have raised does not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. You would be best advised, therefore, to pursue your enquiries with the appropriate provincial authority.

I regret that I am unable to provide you
 with a more favourable response.

P. Monteith
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
Agent de correspondance
de la haute direction
pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre

>>>   From : Louisette Lanteigne  butterflybluelu at rogers.com      Received : 06  Jul  2010 11:35:05 AM   >>>

>>>   Subject :    >>>>

Dear Hon. Prime Minister and Ministers.
The SAROS report, State of Aggregate Resources in Ontario Study, was published as a comprehensive summery report on the Ontario MNR 
website but the six individual papers that this document was based was not released to the public so I used Freedom of Information to secure their release. 

So far only the first of the six
 papers is on 
line and it is titled Aggregate Consumption and Demand in Ontario. The link of the 
page is here however it might not work as a link.

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@aggregates/documents/document/stdprod_067712.pdf

If 
you have problems viewing the link provided do a GOOGLE search for the term:

Saros

 Paper 1, Aggregate Consumption and Demand.

(Please note: If you do a 
Rogers Yahoo search for the term SAROS Paper 1 - Aggregate Consumption 
and Demand you will not find 
it. I know the Google link works.)

In

 my view this first paper clearly undervalues the following:

-water 
conservation as a means to offset 
need for 'new' supplies. (this report is pipeline oriented)
-the 
value of
 aggregates for the natural capital function they serve ie: 
hydrogeology
-the value of aggregates for farmlands, top soil 
and agricultural water resources
-the importance of maintaining 
natural 
topography to maintain flow and flow rates to surface and groundwater 
resources
-groundwater impacts, 
contamination risks, disturbances in cross jurisdictional flow and flow 
rates etc.
-protection of biodiversity, fisheries etc.
-protection
 of the Great Lakes water volumes, water quality etc.

The absence of such 
information included in the above list poses a direct risk to municipal 
water supplies if we persue aggregate interests without regard to these 
variables. As a result I have shared this document with members of 
the Lake Erie Source Water Protection Committee for their consideration 
as well as the Grand 
River Conservation Authority's board of 
directors, Regional Staff and
 various provincial and federal ministries for their consideration. (MNR, MOE, Min. of 
Agriculture and MMAH).

In my view it is dangerous to isolate aggregate interests from the needs of other ministries. One cannot scientifically separate aggregates from it's function in providing groundwater and surface water resources. We must take reasonable measures to maintain current economic systems, public health, long 
term food and water security and our agricultural industries. We cannot 
let this provincial document color the long term view of aggregate management in Ontario if it does not reflect a 
balanced approach to meet long term provincial and federal objectives. 

The root problem is the MNR is both the 
promoter and protector of our crown land resources and we need to 
secure objectivity and facilitate dialog with other ministries in order to mitigate risk and assure 
compliance to fulfill the goals and objectives
 of provincial and federal legislation.

As it is currently structured, each 
ministry works in isolation to one another and with this type of 
fracturing of services and responsibilities, we're missing the big 
picture risks. We can't allow the actions of one ministry to circumvent 
the goals and objectives of another and when it comes to this particular
 report, the economic, sociological and health and environmental implications are enormous. 
Please make sure there is a
 proper ministry review of the SAROS report and all six supporting 
documents to be reviewed by VARIOUS ministries for their input before 
the provincial MNR endorses this document in full. Unless that is done, our water 
supplies and communities dependent on it are at immediate risk. The Grand River supports the same gross national revenue as the province of Nova Scotia (Source: GRCA). It is a matter of national economic
 interest.

Please

 note the MOE was not part of the discussion regarding the formation of 
this report.

Thank you kindly for your time.

Louisette 
Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ontario
N2V 2L2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100831/17788f59/attachment.html>