Re: Hydro One’s Draft Environmental Study Report

Supply to York Region Class EA Transmission Line Study

On October 21, 2004 Hydro One released the draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the proposed expansion of electricity transmission capacity to serve the Regional Municipality of York. Further to my request in the legislature today, I am requesting that you direct Hydro One to withdraw that report today on the basis that the process undertaken by Hydro One in its preparation was flawed and does not to comply with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment process.

You have received a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Tom Parkinson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Hydro One, dated October 27, 2004. That letter, signed by the Mayor of Markham outlines in part the failure of Hydro One to follow the process required by the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission facilities. Mayor Cousens states that Hydro One has failed to:

• Notify and deal properly with the Town of Markham and the other municipalities involved. When information was provided by Hydro One, it was frequently misleading or inaccurate.

• Define a study area encompassing the location of possible facilities required by options under consideration. As a result of public input, and only as a result of that input, Hydro One expanded its review to include additional options affecting other municipalities. No public consultations have occurred in these areas, thereby precluding their consideration.

• Fairly consider alternatives. The draft ESR released last week demonstrated Hydro One only gave lip service to any routes other than the two initially considered; the Hydro One “screening criteria” was so biased as to ensure that all other options were discarded.

• Adequately assess environmental impacts, choosing instead to improperly equate least environmental impact with the shortest route.

• Consult meaningfully with the public. As a result of public concerns, Hydro One established a “Public Advisory Group Meeting” scheduled for July 19 th . That meeting was completely ineffective in engaging the public in a consultative and interactive process.

In addition to the above, I draw your attention to your response to my question, which was initially put to the Minister of Education on this issue concerning the potential health risk:

First, you as Minister were not aware that the public review period was extended to 60 days from the normal 30-day period. While I appreciate that you did correct the record on this point, I am concerned that you did not have this information at the time the matter was dealt with in the legislature, and confirms that you have limited knowledge of this file.

Second, you referred to the community’s right to request a “bump up” to a full environmental assessment. Hydro One has not fulfilled its responsibilities in ensuring that the health concerns relating to EMF could be fully understood by the community in order to provide an informed comment.

Third, you contend in your response that it would be “inappropriate for any minister of the crown to interfere in this type of process” and that the Integrity Commissioner has ruled on numerous occasions about the inappropriateness of that.” Minister, I remind you that the process to which we are referring is a “public review period” during which it is not only appropriate for a minister to comment, but I contend that a minister has a responsibility to comment if the minister is aware of information that may directly affect the stakeholders of his or her ministry. In this case, the minister has been confronted on numerous occasions by concerned parents of the St. Monica Catholic Elementary School with requests to advocate on behalf of their children, only to have those requests deflected. Surely, if the Minister of Education has been made aware of potential health risks to children and staff at a school, he has a responsibility to request that these issues are fully addressed.

I draw your attention to the protocol for Agency Consultation set out in the Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Project section A.6.2.2 which states clearly that “the purpose of agency consultation is inform and receive input from all government agencies with jurisdiction or a program interest related to a particular electricity project. This may include federal and provincial ministries and municipalities.” Contrary to your defence of your colleague, the Minister of Education, it is clear that he has a responsibility to provide his comments. To that end I would ask that you provide in writing the rulings of the Integrity Commission to which you refer.

Finally, you should act to have this report withdrawn on the basis that Hydro One is proceeding with this process on the premise that it has abrogated its responsibilities to the York Regional Council. Hydro One has no authority to transfer that responsibility to the Region of York, and I submit that if Hydro One is not prepared to assume its responsibilities in this process, the process should be terminated.

Sincerely,

Frank Klees

Oak Ridges MPP