I am frequently struck by the seeming inability of the ministries I oversee to understand the minimal public consultation system set out in the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR).
Here is how it works. When specified ministries are considering making a decision that has environmentally significant implications, they post a “proposal notice” on the online Environmental Registry that describes the nature of the decision. All proposal notices must be posted for a period of at least 30 days. The proposal invites members of the public to submit comments or concerns relating to the proposal. Once the comment period ends, the ministry is required to consider the submitted comments during its deliberations. When a final decision is made, a “decision notice” is posted on the Registry describing what was decided and how the comments were taken into consideration. As Commissioner, I receive and review the comments in my Annual Reports to the Legislature, to assess the decision and ensure that the EBR was complied with. It seems straightforward enough and it’s required by law for certain decisions.
But frequently, this process is not followed. In some cases, the ministries receive applications for various permits or licences, and engage in elaborate conversations and negotiations with proponents without posting proposals to notify the public as to what is going on. Only after the ministry has reached a final internal decision on the matter with all necessary internal approvals, do they post a “proposal notice” on the Registry. The public is left to comment on a fait accompli that it cannot usefully influence or inform. To add to the public insult, it is in these situations that the ministry complains that the Registry requirement unnecessarily delays government decision making. In other cases, the ministry posts a proposal, perhaps at the appropriate stage, receives comments, and then never bothers posting a decision notice, even though the decision is made and implemented. In such situations, the public never knows what happened or how its concerns were addressed, if at all. Again, there is an implicit public insult. I always cite these ministries in my Reports to the Legislature for their inappropriate postings, but the improprieties continue year after year.
The problem seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the fundamental nature and importance of public consultation. The ministry staff involved don’t seem to grasp that the public is a party to the decision making, and that the public’s participation actually improves the quality of the decision. People out there actually have knowledge and wisdom that is relevant and valuable to the decision-making process. At best, such participation can make the ministry’s job easier and more successful. At a minimum, including the public in the deliberation in a meaningful way will defuse possible misunderstandings and anxiety. The public most often doesn’t make any comment on posted decisions; but knowing what is going on, and that it can provide input if it wants to, creates and improves public confidence in the ministry’s decision making generally.
There was a time, years ago, when government ministries made decisions for the good of the province without public participation, because they thought they “knew best.” And, maybe they did. These are not those times. These are times when government action relating to the environment can have serious and widespread consequences. And these are times when people want and expect to be informed of and engaged in such decision making. Frustrating these desires is ill conceived, unwise and contrary to the law.
Gord Miller
commissioner@eco.on.ca
Email This Post
I have had two encounters in recent years where obviously this process has not been followed, one with the wind turbine project on Wolfe Island and more recently with a situation with the Hendrick’s quarry owned by Doornekamp near Wilton. There seems to be another issue in so far as exactly who is responsible for these issues and thus a lot of buck passing takes place. One Wolfe Island there had been talk of a wind turbine project for many years. People were asked to give there input by the Township for a project at the very west end of the island consisting of 23 smaller turbines. In the end, more than 80 were to be errected and these would be the taller turbines and would cover the whole west end of the Island. This was not what people had voiced an opinion on but were told at this point it was too late. Consequently, we ended up closing and selling our B&B that was our dream home for a considerable loss and moved to Wilton Ontario.
As luck would have it, the house we chose was about 1 and 1/2 km from a quarry across a ravine. We were told this would be closing in the next 5 years so we thought we could put up with it especially since nothing seemed to be happening there anyway. Next thing we know there is an issue with an illegal asphalt plant operating there which took 3 years to close down. Now there is an issue with noise. The Township says it is under the Ministry’s jurisdiction and the Ministry says noise violations fall under the Township’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the quarry is looking at expanding and it appears has been given the right to expand already without any input from the village. Now the Township is in negotiations with the quarry but, when I asked who was responsible for noise violations I was told by the Township that it is the Ministry. Also the outcome of these negoitiations may or may not be available to the general public.
Basically, my impression is that individuals’ no longer have any voice as to what happens around them as long as the corporations can throw enough money to the governing bodies. This company has been taken to court in the past and, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t even respected the courts decision but has been allowed to continue and expand. (They changed the watercourse behind the police station in Odessa and were legislated to correct this but I cannot find it noted anywhere that this correction was ever done).
Sorry for the rant but it seems we have more government agencies that have little or no power to control businesses.
Thankyou for listening;
Paul Monroe
[Reply]
Paul, I completely agree and understand your concern about the intent of community consultation and the disappointing outcome in Loyalist Township. Many are very disappointed with Mayor Lowry and his decision to step away from transparency and base such decision making on trust in HAL owner.
Keep using your voice…. The community voice and the environment committee has more influence and impact. We are still living in the township but moved away from the quarry and it’s management who had little regard for their neighbors,community and environment. We will make another donation so the community can hire more legal advisors to ensure the elected leaders take the time for meaningful and not perfunctory consultation.
[Reply]