Wind farm noise makes people sick say Irish doctors: change noise regulations

17 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Here is a story from the Irish Examiner, fitting on St Patrick’s Day.

By Conall Ó Fátharta
Irish Examiner Reporter

Leading doctors have called on the Government to reduce the noise levels of wind turbines — which they claim are four times that recommended by World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines.

The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association also said the set-back distance of 500m is not enough, that it should be increased to at least 1,500m.

Visiting Research Professor at Queen’s University, Alun Evans and lead clinical consultant at Waterford Regional Hospital Prof Graham Roberts have both expressed concerns over the current noise levels and distance of turbines from homes.

Environment Minister Alan Kelly is currently reviewing the wind energy planning guidelines and the group is calling for both issues to be examined closely in the interest of public health.

The association has called for the introduction of a maximum noise level of 30 decibels as recommended by the WHO and for the set-back distance from inhabited houses to at least 1,500m from the current 500m.

Prof Evans said the construction of wind turbines in Ireland “is being sanctioned too close to human habitation”.

“Because of its impulsive, intrusive, and sometimes incessant nature, the noise generated by wind turbines is particularly likely to disturb sleep,” he said.

“The young and the elderly are particularly at risk. Children who are sleep-deprived are more likely to become obese, predisposing them to diabetes and heart disease in adulthood. As memory is reinforced during sleep, they also exhibit impaired learning.”

Prof Evans said adults who are sleep-deprived are at risk of a ranges of diseases, particularly “heart attacks, heart failure, and stroke, and to cognitive dysfunction and mental problems”.

Prof Evans, attached to the Centre for Public Health at Queen’s, said the Government should exercise a duty of care towards its citizens and exercise the ‘precautionary principle’ which is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty.

“It can achieve this by raising turbine set-back to at least 1500m, in accordance with a growing international consensus,” said Prof Evans.

In a statement, the Department of the Environment said that in December 2013 it published draft revisions to the noise, set-back distance, and shadow-flicker aspects of the 2006 Wind Energy Development Guidelines.

These draft revisions proposed: 1. The setting of a more stringent day and night noise limit of 40 decibels for future wind energy developments; 2. A mandatory minimum setback of 500m* between a wind turbine and the nearest dwelling for amenity considerations; 3. The complete elimination of shadow flicker between wind turbines and neighbouring dwellings.

A public consultation process was initiated on these proposed revisions to the guidelines, which ran until February 21, 2014.

“The department received submissions from 7,500 organisations and members of the public during this period. In this regard, account has to be taken of the extensive response to the public consultation in framing the final guidelines,” the department said in the statement.

“However, it is the department’s intention that the revisions to the 2006 Wind Energy Development Guidelines will be finalised in the near future and will address many of the issues raised in that bill.”

*Editor’s note: Ontario’s wind turbine noise regulations, which are based on geography and wind power lobby group instruction, not science, work out to 550 meter setbacks. Health Canada’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health study revealed that problems exist at 55 meters, with 25% of people exposed to the turbine noise and low frequency noise being distressed; 16.5% were distressed at 1 km. The Health Canada research results suggest that a setback should be a minimum of 1300 meters, which means Ontario’s existing noise regulations are completely inadequate to protect health.

Ontario Ministry of Environment fails to protect endangered species in West Grey

17 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

The endangered Redside Dace: wildlife doesn’t matter when Big Wind comes along

(C) Metro Toronto Zoo

In an interesting juxtaposition of events, the Metro Toronto Zoo has a program to protect a little fish in Ontario, the endangered Redside Dace, by conserving its habitat in the Toronto area Rouge River, but the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment are doing nothing whatever to protect the same fish in West Grey, where U.S.-based wind power developer NextEra is already at work on a wind power project.

The Ministry of the Environment actually has a taxpayer-funded “Recovery Strategy” for the little fish, which apparently doesn’t include standing up to a wind power developer.

But Ontario citizens are not letting this go: a West Grey community group called D.A.C.E.S. or, Dufferin Area Citizens for Endangered Species, are going to court this week to request a Judicial Review of the power project approval process which, they say, acknowledges the existence of the Endangered Species habitat, but which is allowing the power project to go ahead anyway.

Does legislation in Ontario mean nothing against Big Wind?

How can something that is (falsely) promoted as being “good” for the environment, be allowed to proceed when there is clear danger to the natural environment?

For more information on this project, on the court fight, and to donate to the struggle to protect Ontario’s environment against the Ministry of the Environment and Big Wind, go to: howgreenisthis.org

If you are in the area, or know someone who is, think about showing your support this Thursday morning: Brampton Courthouse, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton. Court begins at 10 a.m.

 

 

New wind power contracting process released

13 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The long-awaited resource documents for the new Request for Proposal (RFP) process for Large Renewable Procurement (LRP) were released this week.

Wind Concerns Ontario is again undertaking a review of the documents (the basic LRP/RFP is 100 pages long) but the following are changes from draft documents released last fall:

  • the number of required public meetings is now one, not two (this was a request from the wind power industry)
  • the requirement for consent from abutting landowners has been dropped to 75% from 100%

The point system for community engagement is also now known. The points  for Rated Criteria are 80 points for community engagement and 20 for aboriginal interest.  There are two levels of possible support from the Project Community – a Municipal support resolution or a Municipal Agreement. If there is an agreement but no support resolution, the proponent could get 40 of the 80 points.  Failing that,  they could claim 30 points if they have support from 75% of the landowners for abutting properties to the project and the connection line.

Deadline for submissions is September 1, then proposals will be evaluated and successful proponents notified November-December, 2015.

Ontario communities should know within the next few weeks whether a wind power developer plans to submit a proposal for a utility-scale wind power development.

The Government of Ontario has still never performed a cost-benefit analysis or impact study for large-scale wind power development, or of its renewable energy policy in general, despite the advice of two Auditors General to do so.

Eastern Ontario has a “green light” for renewable power generation projects. Already, EDP Renewables has announced plans to develop more turbines in South Dundas and North Stormont. The company that previously put a proposal forward to do a 20-megawatt wind power project in North Gower-Richmond did not qualify for the 2015 contracting process, but 41 companies did qualify. In a recent edition of the Ontario Farmer, a North Gower area farm owner said he though wind power was a waste of money but that if he were offered money he would put them on his property (though not where he lives).

Ottawa Wind Concerns remains active in monitoring any proposals that might come forward, and we continue to have a law firm on retainer.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Follow us on Twitter @northgowerwind

Wind farm jobs temporary says Watertown area legislator: support for project overstated

13 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

Watertown Daily Times, March 12, 2015

When it came to proclaiming widespread support for another Galloo Island wind farm project, a member of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators believes that Donald C. Alexander counted his chickens before they hatched.

Mr. Alexander, chief executive officer of the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency, said in a story Friday in the Watertown Daily Times that a wind farm being proposed by the Albany-based Hudson Energy Development LLC shouldn’t be as controversial as the previous project pursued by Upstate NY Power Corp. of West Seneca. A payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement proposed by Upstate NY Power Corp. was approved unanimously in 2010 by the town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor Central School District. But it narrowly made it through the county legislature by an 8-7 vote after a protracted and contentious debate.

The latest plan calls for an underwater transmission line rather than an overland line, an idea that made the previous project so objectionable. No land line should make the project more amenable to opponents, Mr. Alexander claimed.

County Legislator Scott A. Gray, however, believes Mr. Alexander has painted too rosy a picture. He said there doesn’t appear to be sufficient support on the legislature for a PILOT agreement this time around.

“Mr. Gray said Donald C. Alexander has misrepresented support for a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement planned by Hudson Energy Development LLC of Albany without giving the Board of Legislators time to learn about the 32-turbine, 106-megawatt proposal,” according to a story Monday in the Watertown Daily Times. “Given the number of legislators who probably would oppose a PILOT, Mr. Gray said, he believes Mr. Alexander has publicly misrepresented the level of support expected for the project.”

“Basically, he’s blatantly trying to back us into a corner by positioning this like it shouldn’t be a problem and is going to be approved by all of the taxing jurisdictions,” said Mr. Gray, who also sits on the JCIDA board. “So if something happens and it fails at our board, we accept the blame for killing the project.”

A PILOT for this project would result in Hudson paying less than a third of what it would without the agreement. The three taxing jurisdictions would give up $2.22 million a year for 20 years – a total of $44.4 million. For a proposed wind farm that provides essentially no local jobs, this doesn’t make sense.

No long-term economic benefit

About the only jobs it would create are those for the construction workers contracted to prepare the site and build the wind turbines. While those jobs are attractive, they disappear after the construction is completed. Relatively few people — and they would be highly skilled, outside contractors well-versed in high-tech turbine maintenance — would be required to maintain the turbines, so there would be virtually no long-term economic benefit for the region.

Mr. Alexander also dismisses concerns about a landscape dotted with towering turbines, which he described as the “size of a thimble.” Each proposed turbine is taller than those on Wolfe Island, which are visible from Thompson Park in the city.

This curious characterization of the turbines led Paul J. Warneck, director of Jefferson County Real Property Tax Services, to observe:

“I think for Don Alexander to minimize the impact as it relates to the south end of Cape Vincent, town of Lyme and town of Henderson is a mistake and ill conceived. There’s no doubt in my mind, depending on how they light these towers, that they’ll be seen from that distance. The supporters who believe you’re not going to see them are just totally misleading the public. When you’re fishing on Galloo Island, you can plainly see the Wolfe Island turbines — and they’re about 15 miles away.”

PILOTs should be reserved for projects that contribute ongoing benefits to the local economy. The loss in property taxes can be mitigated by the increase in permanent employment opportunities. More people with good-paying jobs will spend their discretionary income in the area.

If Hudson Energy wishes to construct a wind farm on Galloo Island, it must compensate all Jefferson County residents by being required to pay its full share of property taxes. Questions over why taxpayers should underwrite a project that provides no permanent jobs and whether it would create a visible impact on the pristine nature of the eastern basin of Lake Ontario make this proposal a poor candidate for any PILOT agreement.

….

See original article for comments: “Wind not wanted in this area.”

Developer says more wind turbines coming to North Stormont, South Dundas

10 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Cornwall News Watch, March 9, 2015

More wind farm plans for S. Dundas, N. Stormont

Posted on March 9, 2015 by in News, North Dundas, North Glengarry, North Stormont, South Dundas, South Glengarry, South Stormont // 1 Comment

South Dundas Mayor Evonne Delegarde, left, shakes the hand of EDP Renewables Project Manager Ken Little. The company announced $2.7 million in compensation to Dundas and SD&G for road damage during the construction of the South Branch Wind Farm. (Cornwall Newswatch/Bill Kingston)

MORRISBURG – While announcing a settlement for road damage in Dundas county, the company behind a 10 turbine, 30 megawatt wind farm in Brinston is looking to expand.

During a ceremony at the South Dundas Municipal Center Monday afternoon, EDP Renewables paid Dundas and the United Counties of SD&G nearly $2.7 million for road wear when they put up the South Branch Wind Farm near Brinston.

The process started in June 2013 when North Dundas, South Dundas and the United Counties signed road use agreements with EDP.

Following an engineer’s evaluation, EDP agreed to pay South Dundas $868,500, North Dundas $118,590 and the United Counties $1,697,386.

Compensation a ‘drop in the bucket’

While the Municipality of South Dundas appreciates the money, Public Works Manager Chris Bazinet says the compensation is “just a drop in the bucket” given the cost of the roads and maintaining infrastructure.

While the money can be used at the municipal governments’ discretion, South Dundas Deputy Mayor Jim Locke says the county money is earmarked for South Dundas county roads.

With the damage compensation out of the way, EDP Renewables Project Manager Ken Little says they are looking at options in South Dundas and North Stormont.

Little says the next rollout of wind farms will be a competitive bid process run by the province but it will not fall under the Ontario feed-in-tariff (FIT) model.

He says they have already approached some farms about optioning land, primarily in the area east of South Branch Road in South Dundas.

“(It’s) still an early stage project. But we’re working with the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) to understand what the capacity, availability is in all of Eastern Ontario. So, it’s at a stage where no proponents necessarily know the amount of capacity available for a project to connect to the circuit,” Little said.

He believes a screening process will be completed in May, which will give the public a better idea of the size of project.

Roughly 30-50 wind turbines had been planned for North Stormont but Little suspects the development with South Dundas would be smaller than that.

Bids on the project would be due in September and proposed wind farms would go online in 2018-2019.

………………………………………..

Editor’s note #1: WHY does the wind power developer’s payment of funds owing due to road damage rate a “ceremony”?

Editor’s note #2: The South Branch Wind Opposition Group in South Dundas has disbanded; for more information or assistance, please contact Ottawa Wind Concerns at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com or Wind Concerns Ontario at windconcerns@gmail.com

Hydro One billing mess: not fixed after a year

10 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

In today’s Ottawa Citizen is a story on a $25,000 bill sent by Hydro One to an Eastern Ontario family. This problem is not going away…

As if skyrocketing power rates, due in part to “renewables” like wind, wasn’t enough, billing system woes continue at Ontario’s power monopoly Hydro One, despite promises to fix the situation. Here is an update from Parker Gallant.

A year ago, on March 7, 2014, the Ontario government undertook what the Toronto Star referred to as a “shake up” following “an over-billing fiasco and a scathing Auditor General’s report.” The former referred to Hydro One’s mess after implementation of their new billing system, and the latter referred to “nepotism” along with high wages and benefits at OPG.  The government appointed Sandra Pupatello (runner-up to Kathleen Wynne in the Liberal leadership race) to right the wrongs as the new Chair of Hydro One.   She was quick off the mark stating, “We are going to fix it” (the billing problems).

It’s not fixed but hopefully, Ms. Pupatello is enjoying her $150K stipend for acting as the Chair of Hydro One while retaining her position as Chief Executive of the Windsor Essex Economic Development Corporation which pays her about the same amount.

The same can be said for the spokespeople* at Hydro One who appear in several short videos on their website apologizing for the billing mess.  On the same page is a letter dated October 14, 2014 from Hydro One’s CEO, Carm Marcello addressed to the Ombudsman, Andre Marin.  In the letter he tells the Ombudsman he will shortly announce he is setting up a “Customer Service Advisory Panel” that consists of perhaps only one actual Hydro One customer, former Chief of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation,  Randall Kahgee!  Marcello also informs the auditor he plans to issue a draft “Customer Commitment” document!

Eighteen months after complaints started and eight months after the Ombudsman announced he was investigating Hydro One’s billing mess, the CEO suddenly became enlightened!  The CEO of Hydro One, the provincially owned monopoly electricity distributor to 1.2 million ratepayers, with a 134-page Conditions of Service agreement, suddenly noticed they had tens of thousands of billing problems!

If you venture into their “frequently asked questions” (FAQ) page about the Ombudsman’s investigation they state: “approximately 3 per cent of our customers have received estimated bills for too long and about another 2 per cent have gone for more than 90 days without receiving a bill.”

If one does quick math on the 3% plus the 2% you will quickly surmise 5% of Hydro One’s customers have billing problems.  Five per cent (5 %) of 1.2 million ratepayers represents sixty thousand (60,000) ratepayers.  While there is no admission of screw-ups in the videos or in Marcelo’s letter; reading the answers to the FAQ sure makes one suspicious Hydro One is trying to hide something!

Here are a few examples. I invite the reader to judge Hydro One’s ability to obfuscate.

1.What are the Hydro One billing issues I’ve been hearing about?  The move to the new system was required to improve customer service while replacing outdated and unsupportable technology.

2.What is Hydro One doing to fix this issue?  We are manually reading over 11,000 two-tiered meters to correct bills that have been estimated.

3.Why do I keep receiving an estimated bill when I have a Smart Meter?  The reason you have an estimated bill is that the meter is not communicating properly with our network.

4.Why is my bill so high? Unfortunately some customers have experienced inaccurate estimates. (So why does the answer to Q. 6 state:  “billing issues you may have heard about in the media are not related to meter accuracy.”)

5.Will I get a bill for an actual reading soon? Right now Hydro One is manually reading over 11,000 two-tiered meters for customers who have been billed on estimates. If your meter is part of this program, you should receive an actual bill soon.  (So, 60,000 bills messed up and only 11,000 meters being read!)   

6. Is the accuracy of Hydro One’s meters causing the billing issues?  Secondary tests are completed by Hydro One as they arrive from the manufacturer and then again we have sample testing of meters once they are ‘in service’.

7.Why has my meter been changed twice?  There have been some cases where the meter is not communicating properly with our network.

8.I use baseboard heating in my home. What can I do to conserve energy?  For homes that are heated with electricity, those heating costs make up to 60 per cent of your bill.

None of the answers admit to the screw-up with the new Customer Information System (CIS), nor to the purchase of “uncommunicative” smart meters. There is also no indication that any employee lost their job because of  these mishaps!

A full year has gone by, and the billing mishaps continue despite the promise by Ms. Pupatello to “fix it.”  The energy portfolio continues to be mismanaged without any consequences.   If an error of this magnitude occurred at a privately owned company, shareholders would demand action— but that’s not how things work at the provincially owned monopoly that is Hydro One!

© Parker Gallant, March10

* Average annual salary of the four Hydro One spokespeople on the letter and videos from the 2013 “Sunshine List” is $315,323. Lowest is $151,405 and highest is $724,917.  Hydro bills to these four are like buying a cup of “Timmies” coffee!

Editor’s note: The billing mess continues, as Parker says. In today’s Ottawa Citizen is a story of a couple who were billed $25,000 in error. A Hydro One “customer care specialist” is reviewing their account. The Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario has received 9,800 complaints about Hydro One, the Citizen reports, the most complaints ever received about a single organization.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Health Canada brochure “misleading” Wind Concerns Ontario tells Minister of Health

10 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Health, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A letter is heading for the Brooke Claxton Building at Tunney's Pasture

Health Canada headquarters at Tunney’s Pasture–not in touch with the reality in Ontario, says Wind Concerns Ontario

Wind Concerns Ontario has sent a letter to the federal Minister of Health, Rona Ambrose, expressing concern about the mailing of a promotional brochure connected to the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health study. The study results were released in a summary (no peer review, no actual report or paper) last November, but the brochure was not sent out until February 2015, by Canada Post Unaddressed Admail. The timing is unusual, coming so long after the study results release, and coinciding with Ontario’s new procurement process for large renewable power projects. It is also very unusual for a research team to create and release a brochure. That brochure is misleading, Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson said in the letter to the Minister. “It’s not true, as the brochure says, that there are no health effects from the wind turbine noise and infrasound–there are, and the study summary says that.  It says 16.5 percent of people studied who live within 1 km of a turbine were experiencing distress,” Wilson said. Wind Concerns Ontario met with Health Canada/Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety staff the day after the study results were released, and advised that the draft brochure not be released. “We told them that the disclaimer on the brochure, which explained that the study results were ‘preliminary’ and unreviewed, was not prominent enough,” Wilson said. “We also asked why they weren’t going back into the study communities in person, as is normal practice for scientific research teams, rather than sending a brochure.” Wind Concerns said that the study summary, and now the brochure, strain the credibility of Health Canada and the federal government in Ontario. “The fact is, the conclusion being promoted in the brochure from this study–that there are no health effects–does not coalesce with the real-life experience in Ontario communities,” Wilson said. “The people of Ontario were hoping that their federal health department would pull out all the stops to find a reason for the many, many reported health problems related to wind turbine noise—instead, they got short shrift in this study, and now an unnecessary and misleading, taxpayer-funded promotional brochure that functionally supports the wind power development industry.”

North Bay area wind farm exposes Ontario policy problems

05 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It wasn’t enough that the Government of Ontario, by encouraging and supporting development of high-impact wind power generation projects in rural Ontario destroyed small-town and rural communities, now its “green energy” policy has set First Nations against each other.

In a proposal for a 150-megawatt wind “farm” in the Mattawa area, near North Bay, Quebec-based Innergex and Ontario has not only placed a power development in a scenic area valued for tourism and wildlife preservation, it is also endangering North Bay’s airport operation and attendant economic growth—part of which just happens to be a NORAD base. (Transport Canada? Will THIS wind power project get a rise out of you?)

Ontario’s new Large Renewable Procurement process is expected to encourage power development on Crown land and in partnerships with First Nations. When it comes to Mattawa, however, the First Nation participating for profits doesn’t even live anywhere near there.

A news conference will be held tomorrow by the First Nations who do, and who have been involved in negotiations with the government over rights for years. Should be very interesting.

Here’s the story from North Bay-Nipissing.

Prowind hires lobbyist

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Wind Concerns Ontario yesterday posted a list of the lobbyists who had registered with the provincial registry on behalf of wind power developers. Germany-based Prowind, which has an office apparently in Hamilton, Ontario, is among them, with Sussex Strategy Group representing them.

Sussex has a number of Big Wind clients, and is famous for the leaked strategy document in which it recommended that wind power developers align themselves with organizations associated with health care, in order to support the “clean” “green” and environmentally healthy perceptions about wind power. The consultants advised their wind power clients to “confuse” the issue by changing focus from high energy prices to job creation and clean air.

Prowind’s project in Ottawa is currently inactive and the company did not qualify as an applicant to the new Large Renewable Procurement process; however, as we learned listening in on an industry-focused webinar recently, an unqualified applicant can partner up with a company who did qualify (begging the question, what was the point of THAT?).

Prowind is currently trying to raise funding for its project near Woodstock Ontario by a community investment fund.

***

NOTE: Ottawa Wind Concerns was active in creating a plebescite via legal petition to Ottawa City Council in 2013, which resulted in a motion of support for the community in its opposition to the wind power project. The community group remains active, with a legal team on retainer.

Natural Resources Canada funds study of “large penetration” for wind power in Canada

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Check out the video and photos below!

Looking to put chicken coops right across Canada?

Reprinted from Wind Concerns Ontario

Industry association “lead proponent” in Natural Resources Canada study

Last week, in researching his series on the Canadian Wind Energy Association’s campaign to influence Ontario citizen attitudes toward wind power, and recommendations for the lobby group’s “Ontario campaign,” Parker Gallant discovered via the Ontario Lobbyist Registry that CanWEA disclosed publicly it has received funding  of $663,000 from the federal government.

The funding is presumably for CanWEA’s role as lead proponent of a $1.7-million Natural Resources Canada project called the Pan-Canadian Wind Integration Study,  “that will evaluate how large penetration of wind energy could be integrated on the provincially run Canadian electric grid and show the challenges and opportunities in doing so. “

In the first paragraph of the NRCan page on this study, which names CanWEA as the lead proponent, is a significant error. CanWEA’s mandate is most decidedly NOT “to promote the responsible and sustainable growth of wind energy in Canada.” CanWEA itself says its mission is “to ensure Canada fully realizes its abundant wind energy potential on behalf of its members.”

In other words, as any specialized industry group does, CanWEA’s goal is to represent and promote the interests of its members.

It is not an environmental organization.

Why, we ask, is an industry group, with some very well-financed members, that states outright its goal is to act in the best interests of its members, receiving government financing to further its members’ fortunes?

A question for your Member of Parliament. And the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Finance (Joe.Oliver@fin.gc.ca ).