Ontario has lost its way on the environment: new report from the Commissioner

We are losing momentum on dealing with environmental issues in Ontario. That’s the main conclusion of the Ontario Environmental Commissioner’s 2010/2011 Annual Report, released today (http://www.eco.on.ca/).

“I have 30 years of environmental protection experience and I'm nervous about our situation,” Commissioner Gord Miller said at a Queen’s Park press conference this morning.

Waterkeeper Mark Mattson agrees. “The report shows that we need to remember what we are fighting for. It is easy to lose your path, to lose sight of your purpose. In our case, it is a swimmable, drinkable, fishable future.”

Here are the main points from the Commissioner’s reports:

• Lobbying is a problem

• Environment departments are underfunded

• Great Lakes need better protection

• Ontario is failing to protect the lakes from aquaculture

• Ontario’s enforcement programs are weak

• “Modernization” of the environmental approvals process leaves the public in the cold, needs diligent enforcement

• The Open for Business omnibus bill obstructed public participation

Here are key excerpts from the Commissioner’s report, with links to Waterkeeper’s research on these issues:

Lobbying is a problem

“There are others who are public relations professionals and are deliberately confusing the issues to serve the agenda of one or another vested interest. These people understand the policy process and are adept at resetting the discussion back to the recognition and analysis stage. Their job is to stop society from engaging solutions. And, regrettably and increasingly, we let them.” (p. v)

Lobbying works, just not for you

Environment departments are underfunded

“Only approximately three-quarters of one cent of every tax dollar to be spent on government operations in 2010/2011 were allocated to the environment and natural resources.” (p. 81)

“For the fiscal year ending march 31, 2011, the Ontario government’s total planned operating budget was approximately $119 billion, a 72 per cent increase since 1992/1993. during that same period, however, MNR’s operating budget declined by 22 per cent and MOE’s budget dropped by 45 per cent (in 2009 constant dollars).” (p. 81)

Great Lakes need better protection

“Chronic underfunding has been a key weakness of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, with the dollars committed disproportionate to the scale of the challenges.” (p. 8 ) The ECO notes that Ontario gives $10-million per year towards a $3.5 billion restoration project while the U.S. has committed $2.2-billion over five year.

The ECO also calls for “mandatory targets for protecting the great lakes as a drinking water source.” (p 10 - 11)

The ECO calls for “A designated “champion” for the Great Lakes at a senior level within the Ministry of the Environment to improve both public outreach and knowledge brokering. In addition, such a facilitator might better integrate and leverage the Great Lakes work currently scattered among several divisions within MOE.” (p. 12)

Canada fights against environmental protection across the border

Asian carp barrier to be shut down, canal poisoned tonight

CNSC hearing reveals cracks in radioactive waste “plan”

Lake of Shame: Ontario’s pollution problem

Don’t dump cargo into our Great Lakes

An Open Letter to Great Lakes Leaders:

State of the Lakes report reveals troubling trends

“Unambiguous accountability” called key to Great Lakes success

Ontario: Are we compromising our Great Lakes waters commitment?

Ontario is failing to protect the lakes from aquaculture

“The ECO has had longstanding concerns over the province’s oversight of cage aquaculture operations – the farming of fish in floating net cages in open water. Ontario is the only jurisdiction to permit cage aquaculture in the great lakes. There are nine cage aquaculture operations located on Crown land lake beds in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay … The ECO finds it unacceptable that MNR moved its resources away from policy development in order to renew cage aquaculture licences, resulting in Ontarians having to wait several more years for the policy to be released and implemented. ” (p. 32)

“The ECO is troubled that MOE relies on voluntary compliance where environmental impacts were observed, despite its ability to issue orders” (p. 33)

Ontario’s enforcement programs are weak

“MOE only inspects about 5 per cent of all regulated facilities (not even including those facilities operating without approvals) each year, meaning that regulated facilities can go, on average, twenty years between inspections” (p. 89)

“Modernization” of the environmental approvals process leaves the public in the cold, needs diligent enforcement

ECO raises concerns that the new approvals process is “a step backward in terms of public participation.The absence of any opportunity for public involvement in individual registrations provides yet one more reason why MOE – on behalf of the public – must very strictly administer and enforce the requirements under the registration process.” (p. 90)

“The nature of the registration system calls for a stronger, more visible MOE inspection program. The reliance on proponents to self-assess the suitability of their activities and monitor their own compliance with the regulatory requirements demands a higher level of ministry oversight. Yet MOE has not produced any procedures for fulfilling this new inspection responsibility, nor even identified which ministry branch will be responsible for this task, or how it will be funded.” (p. 89)

“The registration process eliminates MOE’s proactive review of the individual activities (including a review of any unique features and factors) and instead relies on generic requirements set out in regulation to control the prescribed activities. While this approach may be appropriate for activities that are truly low-risk, simple and standard, this approach can seriously weaken environmental protection if inappropriately applied to the types of activities that merit individual review. Accordingly, the content of future regulations that will prescribe activities is of critical importance.” (Appendix p. 72)

“The absence of an individual review of the prescribed activities … makes it very unlikely that the registration process will include any consideration of cumulative effects.”  (Appendix p. 72)

“While individual registrations will be made publicly available, they will not be posted on the Environmental Registry for notice and comment, nor will they be subject to appeals by third parties….These rights will no longer exist for the individual activities subject to the registration process.” (Appendix p. 72)

Why did Ontario kill public participation rights?

Risk-based decision-making: whose risks, whose benefits?

Ontario marks Earth Day by eliminating environmental protections

Streamlining industrial projects

The Open for Business omnibus bill obstructed public participation


“The ECO has long expressed concerns about the use of omnibus legislation to reform environmental laws. As far back as 1996, the ECO recommended that omnibus-style legislation only be used for housekeeping matters. nevertheless, the Ontario government has continued to use omnibus bills to make substantive changes to the province’s environmental laws, and the ECO has continued to identify problems with this approach. At best, using omnibus legislation to amend environmental laws complicates the EBR process. At worst, it can obstruct the public’s right to participate in environmental decision making. Environmentally significant decisions must be made in a transparent and accountable manner. ” (p. 137)

How low can we go? Canada’s environmental descent

Help us protect your water. Please donate to Lake Ontario Waterkeeper.