approved May 2, 2001 by Order In Council]
following are excerpts from the above captioned report completed by the
Provincial Ministry of the Environment May 2, 2001 completed under the
Provincial Minister of the Environment as permitted under an agreement from the
Federal Government and subject to the continuing provisions of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (Federal jurisdiction) as administered by
the Federal Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister, the Federal Fish
Habitat Management Board, Environment Canada and its Minister and the Canadian
Coast Guard [under Fisheries and Oceans] which covers all navigable waterways
including the navigable portions of the mouths of all rivers as under the Act
and impact thereon at 100 feet above the high water (tide) mark. This
includes the respective mouths of the Rouge and Highland Creek rivers.
An Environmental Assessment for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project
Notice: I received
three submissions before the expiration date. [One of which was from the
NANCY-GRIFFON FOUNDATION regarding their proposal called King’s Harbour Marine
Park for the restoration/regeneration of the olde village harbour and to permit
the replacement of the navigable portion of the mouth of the Rouge River filled
in by the Grand Trunk Railway by means of re-opening the Adams Creek into a
navigable bay of water for said King’s Harbour Marine Park].
reasons for giving approval are: [as extracted]
This section is fairly standard and deals with Definitions and some
further clarifications and a very specific reminder that whatever the Province
decides, its decisions and actions and those made by Provincial authorities
including the Toronto Regional Conservation
[And here we begin to see what will happen in the future] The Project will be
implemented in two phases over 5
to 10 years as outlined in Chapter 8.2 These modifications [inclusive of
provisions under Section 7.8] will not alter the main Plan components for
the waterfront. [In addition] There are a number of reasons modifications [large
and small] may be required. [Deals with timing, funding and additional
assessment approvals to allow various extensions].
[Deals with the standard host of minor modifications to the plan and that] Such
modifications may originate from a refinement to the original Concept Plan and
the undertaking of the project during the detailed design stage or from later
proposed modifications. [Refer 7.4 and 7.8 as below]
Any persons may request the Proponent [TRCA who will administer the land once
formed] to process a proposed modification under the process set out for significant
or major modification in conditions. [deals with the standard environmental
process of plan amendment and public hearings].
AND MAJOR MODIFICATIONS [a natural
extension to the above]
A significant or major modification to the Concept Plan and the undertaking is a
modification which has an influence on the local environment and where the
environment effects that will cause or that might reasonably be expected to
caused to the environment taking into account mitigation and remedial actions
[regeneration and revitalization] and the advantages to the environment of
the undertaking. [*]
the balance of this section deals with the standard review and implementation
process by the proponent. [TRCA and interested parties thereto].
[This section is of particular interest to all parties in that it deals with
parking for vehicles and the flow of vehicular traffic. Keeping in mind that
more than adequate parking is allowed by the greatly expanded GO station and the
elimination of much of this traffic by the GO and metro transportation. In
addition, with Lawrence and Port Union now four lane metro arterials much of the
traffic is routed out of the affected neighbourhoods] Before proceeding with the
undertaking, TRCA shall provide to the satisfaction of the City of Toronto a
statement as to how automobile parking demand anticipated to be generated by the
waterfront improvement will be satisfied…after each of the…implementation
phases of the undertaking.
The Proponent shall advise the Director in writing how it has complied with the
environmental assessment and these [following] conditions:
Dated the 2nd day of May, 2001 at TORONTO.
Signed: Elizabeth Witmer
of the Environment.
The reader having viewed the above should note that this document is
rather lengthy as environmental reviews are, and if they should wish to see the
full text are welcome to contact the TRCA or the Ministry of the Environment.
In addition the reader should note that Bluffers Park started as a
shoreline abatement exercise and was never intended in the initial environmental
study to be what it eventually became, a 50 acre park with four marinas with
private memberships essentially blocking off much of the waterfront access. The
land was never there and was a total fabrication. Its is condemned by the
Toronto fire department as a fire trap, and on occasion the access road built
through a 1950 garbage dump filled with plastic garbage bags has been known to
collapse. [Twice to date].
Consider this then, the olde Port Union harbour facility is being
regenerated to restore both the land that was there in 1832 and had been there
since the Wisconcian glacier put it there 10 thousand years ago, but the sailing
harbour will replace the open mouth of the Rouge River which was filled in
during the 1860 by the Grand Trunk Railroad. Its original proposal provided for
multiple bridge spans to protect the existing water way and the harbour. However
Toronto merchants wanted to do away with small merchant centers and bring it all
With the change of David Crombie’s Waterfront Regeneration Trust [who
by the way supported us] to Robert Fung’s Waterfront Revitalization Committee
with essentially the same mandate, they out of the goodness of their heart want
$17 billion for the “Toronto” waterfront, while Etobicoke and Scarborough
share $25 million for their. [That’s less than a fifth of one percent].
I don’t think so. Toronto is about to eat our lunch again.
Lastly, consider that above and the mysterious second phase at
Port Union. We’ve seen it before at Bluffers. It will happen again and this
time it will be based on historical records and the provisions with the
Having said this and providing the key sections of the Environmental
Assessment, I ask you to consider it and the supportive comments by the
Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in his support for the Project
and the return of the King’s Harbour. This harbour will also provide
for the total restoration of the original fish habitat  and
will be 8 times better in terms of shoreline habitat that the original TRCA
We at the Foundation have been working on your behalf for last 25 years and have provided this web site as your voice for the return of “a marvelous new amenity”.