[All] Fwd: Ontario Waterkeeper RE ECO Annual Report

[Carole Clinch]

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2010-2011 Report available here:

Download the full
report<http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports-Annual/2010_11/Final-English-Bookmarked-2010-AR.pdf>(.pdf)
Download the Supplement to the Annual
Report<http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports-Annual/2010_11/FINAL-Supplement-2010-2011.pdf>(.pdf)
Download the Commissioner's Remarks to the
Legislature<http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports-Annual/2010_11/Engaging-Solutions-remarks.pdf>(.pdf)

**

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/<http://bit.ly/taEQdZ>
).

“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<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2011/04/26/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<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2011/02/15/canada-fights-against-environmental-protection-across-the-boarder/>
Asian carp barrier to be shut down, canal poisoned
tonight<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2009/12/02/asian-carp-barrier-to-be-shut-down-canal-poisoned-tonight/>
CNSC hearing reveals cracks in radioactive waste
“plan”<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2009/09/01/cnsc-hearing-reveals-cracks-in-radioactive-waste-%e2%80%9cplan%e2%80%9d/>
Lake of Shame: Ontario’s pollution
problem<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2011/07/12/lake-of-shame-ontario%e2%80%99s-pollution-problem/>
Don’t dump cargo into our Great
Lakes<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2008/08/19/dont-dump-cargo-into-our-great-lakes/>
An Open Letter to Great Lakes
Leaders:<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2007/07/10/an-open-letter-to-great-lakes-leaders/>
State of the Lakes report reveals troubling
trends<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2007/06/12/state-of-the-lakes-report-reveals-troubling-trends/>
“Unambiguous accountability” called key to Great Lakes
success<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2007/02/19/unambiguous-accountability-called-key-to-great-lakes-success/>
Ontario: Are we compromising our Great Lakes waters
commitment?<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2007/02/13/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 observe d, 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 se lf-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?<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2010/10/27/why-did-ontario-kill-public-participation-rights/>
Risk-based decision-making: whose risks, whose
benefits?<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2010/05/18/risk-based-decision-making-whose-risks-whose-benefits/>
Ontario marks Earth Day by eliminating environmental
protections<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2010/04/21/ontario-celebrates-earth-day-by-eliminating-environmental-protections/>
Streamlining industrial
projects<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2008/07/18/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<http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2007/12/17/how-low-can-we-go-canadas-environmental-descent/>
------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20111129/83835d06/attachment.html>