EA: THE RULES STATE THE PROPONENT IS IN CHARGE

What I understood yesterday at the NDACT meeting in Honeywood is in all EA's the proponents are in charge of the "process".

Meaning Highland/aka Baupost will direct the "process"

Which does NOT provide any comfort.

We are to believe these people?

TRUTHINESS
Truthiness: The quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.
Origin: Stephen Colbert, "The Colbert Report," 2005

TRUTH OR TRUTHINESS-YOU DECIDE
June 2009:
At an NDACT meeting Michael Daniher, then the spokesperson for Highlands, stated the demolished houses had been condemned. The only person who issues demolition orders is the Chief Building Official for the County of Dufferin who stated in a June 22, 2009 email: “None of these properties you are asking about have been as you say "condemned" by the County of Dufferin Building Department. “

January 14, 2012:
When asked why Highlands demolished the farmsteads, Public Relations guru Hill and Knowlton employee Lindsay Broadhead said it was because many of the properties were of “low quality” and that the company  converted the space to farmland. (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/14/mega-quarry-melancthon-ontario-highland_n_1197770.html  )

So between June 2009 and January 14, 2012 what changed?  The houses were condemned or of low quality or you needed the land to farm?  And notice she said MANY of the houses were of low quality, not ALL, just MANY.  So why take downt the rest?  If Highlands was going to farm the land then why are there no crops growing where homesteads and barns once stood?  And what happened to all septic systems attached to these houses/barns?  Were they just bulldozed into the land you intend to farm?

June 2009:
Michael Daniher, spokesperson for Highlands, made a public statement at an NDACT meeting that Highlands would be taking down structures in LESS than double digits.

January 14, 2012:
They have demolished over 30 now

So from 2009 to 2012 what changed?  Besides the loss of 30 homesteads.

January 27, 2011:
Daniher said: The proposed quarry will not and cannot have the impact alleged by NDACT. Quarries are highly regulated, and a water management plan must be contained in the application." (http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2011-01-27/Front_Page/NDACT_speaker_Pope_opposes_solar_wind_farms.html  )

December 12, 2011:
TeamHighland Highland Companies @ @TeamHeadwaters @nomegaquarry: We're committed in all of our operations - farming and quarrying - to having no adverse effect on water

So which is it?  Can't have the alleged impact (which means there WILL be an impact) or to having no adverse impact on water?  And frankly saying "we're committed in all of our operation ...to having no adverse impact on water" is exactly like saying I am committed to losing 50 pounds this year.  Doesn't mean it is going to happen, just that I committed to trying.

January 2009:
At meeting held in Honeywood, at which NDACT was organized, an individual named Michael Daniher stood up and identified himself as a spokesperson for the Highland Companies (would not confirm when asked if he was a lawyer-which he is) and stated in front of about 300 witnesses that Highlands intention was to farm the land NOT to develop aggregate.  A ratepayer stood up and stated the MOE, MNR and MMAH had confirmed with her that Highlands had in fact been in discussions with these ministries about a quarry.

Less than 3 days later:
In a phone interview Tuesday, Michael Daniher of the Toronto consulting firm of Special Situations Inc. — representing The Highlands Companies Inc. — said the group has never attempted to hide the fact that it will continue farming while looking beyond for other opportunities such as wind and bedrock resources. Mr. Daniher would not confirm that the group has already discussed aggregate extraction with the Province, but he did say it had discussed a number of issues with a number of ministries.”” (Orangeville Citizen, January 22, 2009 author Wes Keller)

So unless you catch them lying....they will not own up.  And when they do own up, as you see it is NOT their fault, everyone else just misunderstood.

January 14, 2012:
“At the time of purchase they [company representatives] were keeping all options open and they were always very clear to people when questions were asked,” says Lindsay Broadhead, of the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton Canada, which speaks for Highlands. (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/14/mega-quarry-melancthon-ontario-highland_n_1197770.html?)

December 30, 2011
“To the extent they asked us, we said we were going to do farming; and we said there are other alternatives; and the question is, how much more did they ask?” says Izhakoff . At the time the land was purchased, the company could not even be assured a quarry was feasible, he adds. ( http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1108875--anatomy-of-a-quarry-fight )

Catch the wording-"to the extent they asked".  Not true.  Daniher was asked at the January 2009 meeting about gravel extracation and denied it. 

Spring/Summer 2011
Mr. Daniher asserted in an interview on Dale Goldhawk's show that Highlands stone is 90% for use in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and 10% in the Barrie area and that Owen Sound and export are scare tactics of opponents.

November 14, 2011
TeamHighland Highland Companies tweeted:
Ontario needs aggregate. 100% of the aggregate extracted from the Melancthon Quarry will be used in Ontario / Greater Golden Horseshoe.

So which is it-100% or 90% to the GTA

So, with Highlands in charge of the EA Process, god help us all and thanks to NDACT for standing on guard for us.

From the NDACT site:
http://www.ndact.com/index.php/the-mega-quarry-application-process/the-evironmental-assessment-process/350-environmental-assessments-in-ontario