|
May
2001 Newsletter
"The
reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" - Red
Hill Valley
Dear
Friend of Red Hill Valley,
The
expressway is NOT inevitable. Far from it. Contrary to some
media reports, last week's surprising court decision did
not "back the expressway". It only said that a
federal environmental assessment of the project is not required.
Specifically, the judge decided that "the CEAA (Canadian
Environmental Asssessment Act) does not apply to the completion
of the Red Hill Creek Expressway" and "that no
review is required under the CEAA". There seems to
be good reason to believe that this decision will be appealed,
and perhaps overturned. The federal government has 30 days
in which to launch this appeal. You should IMMEDIATELY write
and urge them to do so!
We
know from our own experience that letters to the federal
government DO have an effect. Here are the addresses of
the three federal Ministers we are asking you to write to:
- The
Honourable David Anderson
Minister of the Environment
10 Rue Wellington Street, 28th floor
Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3
email <Anderson.D@parl.gc.ca>
fax 613-952-1458 tel. 613-996-2358
The Honourable Anne McLellan
Minister of Justice
284 Rue Wellington Street, 4th floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
email <McLellan.A@parl.gc.ca>
fax 613-996-4516 tel. 613-992-4524
The Honourable Herb Dhaliwal
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
200 Kent Street, Suite 1570
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6
email <Dhaliwal.H@parl.gc.ca>
fax 613-995-2962 tel. 613-995-7052
You
should ask them to ensure that a federal appeal takes place
because it is very obvious to you that a full environmental
assessment of the proposed expressway is necessary. You
can then give your personal reasons why you think this project
must be re-examined, what impacts it will have on the environment,
etc. It is not necessary to go into any details about the
actual court decision (see below). Its central conclusion
was that no assessment should take place. That is obviously
wrong.
Please
write immediately! The federal decision may be made as early
as this week, and must be made by May 18. Sending a copy
of your letter or email to your MP is also helpful. Letters
to Ministers and Members of Parliament don't require a stamp.
THE
COURT RULING
The
court ruled that the expressway is exempted from CEAA under
a grandfathering' clause in the Act. The clause states:
"Where the construction or operation of a physical
work ... was initiated before June 22, 1984, this Act shall
not apply in respect of the issuance or renewal of a licence,
permit, approval...."
The
judge decided that the term "construction" used
in the Act "includes a whole series of events such
as acquiring and clearing land, imposing building restrictions,
and securing funding and approvals, all dedicated to, and
prerequisites to, the actual physical step of construction",
and accepted the Region's evidence that such things did
occur prior to 1984.
It
should be noted that the Provincial environmental assessment
(Joint Board) hearings hadn't even begun by June 22, 1984.
Indeed, as late as 1997, the Region was still seeking (and
eventually obtaining) an exemption for the expressway from
the provincial environmental assessment act.
The
assessment in this case was triggered by a need for a fisheries
permit, and CEAA requires that fisheries officials conduct
an assessment before deciding whether to issue such a permit.
The Region applied for the permit in July 1998 shortly after
it released information on its plans to relocate 6.5 kilometres
of Red Hill Creek. This appears to have made it impossible
for the federal government to initiate an assessment much
before this time, but the court has ruled that an assessment
would have had to taken place more than 14 years earlier.
Because
the decision ruled that the assessment act doesn't apply
to the expressway, rulings were not made on many other issues
of contention. Friends' lawyers are examining the decision
carefully to confirm my interpretation.
The
pro-expressway forces are telling the federal government
not to appeal the decision. They are obviously worried.
We should make sure the federal government hears our voice.
We
also need to tell everyone we know the truth about the situation,
and squash the revived claims that the expressway is a "done
deal".
IF
THERE IS NO APPEAL
Even
if there is no appeal of the court decision, the expressway
is far from certain because of the extreme financial crisis
facing Hamilton City Council. The draft budget was hastily
ordered re-written last week to include the expressway,
but it still leaves no doubt that senior staff believe it
is a big unaffordable mistake.
Addressing
the expressway specifically they warn: "Given the City's
extensive infrastructure requirements, issuing an additional
$61.5 million in external debt for one project is cause
for concern for our credit rating agencies." The interest
on this new debt pushes the total hit on taxpayers over
$100 million in this decade alone, and that doesn't count
the operation and maintenance costs. At the same time, the
draft budget says there is no money for any of the following:
St. Joseph's Hospital, the Hamilton public hospital system,
the regional Cancer Centre, the Mountain Police Station,
the four-pad arena and $50 million in additional proposed
projects -- everything from fixing the elevators at City
Hall and replacing failed roofs on City buildings, to even
finding $15,000 for bicycle lanes or $10,000 for planting
trees in parks.
We'll
provide more details in the next newsletter. In the meantime,
we are still urging you to participate in the valley cleanup
on Saturday, May 5th (9 to noon). Meet in the parking lot
on Mud Street, at Rosedale Arena, Red Hill Bowl or Hillcrest
School.
|
