Ontario’s 2012 budget attempts to adapt to a new economic reality.  This reality is defined by slower economic growth than experienced in the past as the labour force ages and traditionally strong industrial sectors, such as manufacturing and forestry, wrestle with globalization and the surge in the Canadian dollar. This new economic reality must also be viewed within a context of the interconnected energy and climate challenges that are becoming more severe as conventional oil reserves are depleted and greenhouse gas emissions are pumped into our atmosphere in ever greater quantities.  Dwindling global fossil fuel resources are one of several factors contributing to rising gasoline prices (note that Ontario motorists spent a record $17.6 billion buying gasoline in 2011) and intensifying climate change impacts from the use of fossil fuels are manifesting themselves in the form of hotter weather and more erratic and intense precipitation and wind patterns.

Maria Van Der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency, addressed the climate and energy challenge at a recent conference of the world’s energy ministers in London England: “the current state of affairs is unacceptable precisely because we have a responsibility and a golden opportunity to act. Energy-related CO₂ emissions are at historic highs, and under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO₂ emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would be likely to send global temperatures at least 6C higher within this century.”  Unfortunately Ontario’s 2012 budget fails to address the long-term challenge of transitioning to a low carbon, climate-resilient economy.  The Drummond Report released earlier this year chastised the government for the lack of a long-term perspective in the budget-making process, but apparently no-one was listening when it came to the serious risks posed by climate change and fossil resource depletion.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  We only need to look east of the Ottawa River to see a provincial government that is leading in the transition towards a low-carbon future and reflecting this within its budget process.

Quebec, while admittedly blessed with extensive low-carbon hydroelectric resources that aid in this transition, faces fiscal challenges that are perhaps worse than Ontario.  Its debt-to-GDP ratio is around 50 per cent compared to Ontario’s 35 per cent, and its population is relatively older which means a smaller labour force and higher healthcare costs. But in spite of these fiscal challenges, Quebec’s 2012 budget doubled down on low-carbon investment.  This money is coming directly from carbon pricing revenues that will escalate to $425 million/year by 2015-2016 as the province’s cap-and-trade program is extended to cover transportation and residential fuels.  And, while the Ontario government falters in implementing its formerly ambitious Climate Change Action Plan, in February 2012 the Quebec government launched a formal public consultation on a new Climate Change Action Plan (only available in French) that will help it achieve its 2020 target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent over 1990 levels.  I hope that the Ontario government can follow the Quebec lead and overcome this current period of policy stagnation to demonstrate a long-term perspective on climate mitigation that sets us on a path towards resilience and prosperity in an uncertain future.

Last Tuesday, the Government of Ontario presented its proposed budget.  The Minister of Finance, the Honourable Dwight Duncan, tabled for first reading in the legislature Bill 55 – Strong Action for Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2012.  This budget bill is effectively the mother-of-all pieces of omnibus legislation.

Bill 55 amends 69 different statutes in its schedules.  For example, many environmentally significant laws that are administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources are proposed to be amended.  These laws include the Endangered Species Act, the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Public Lands Act, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.  Laws such as these are prescribed under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR).

Normally, when the government proposes to amend legislation that is prescribed under the EBR, it would post a proposal notice on the Environmental Registry and solicit public comments for a minimum of 30 days.  The government then considers the public comments and makes a decision.  These steps help make for a transparent and accountable process.

However, budgets bills are specifically exempt from the posting and public consultation requirements of the EBR.  Moreover, the Ministry of Finance is not prescribed under the EBR either.  As a result, the public does not have the same opportunities to contribute to decision making when a number of environmentally significant laws are changed in a budget bill.

I wrote about a very similar situation in my last Annual Report regard the use of omnibus legislation: “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.”

Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, is hosting a Roundtable today at the University of Guelph starting at 8:30 a.m. Entitled “Soil Carbon and Ecological Services: New Opportunities for Ontario Farmers?” the goal of this by-invitation-only event is to initiate a province-wide dialogue on this important issue.

As pointed out in The Roots of Sustainability: Engaging the Soil Carbon Solution in the ECO’s 2010-11 Annual Report, earth’s atmosphere contains too much carbon and our soils contain too little. Farmers can do a lot to change this situation by adopting agricultural methods that sequester carbon, as opposed to let it oxidize into CO₂. This not only mitigates climate change, but also provides a host of other benefits, such as reduced soil erosion, flood protection, cleaner water, and enhanced biodiversity.

The Commissioner’s Roundtable hopes to create more discussion about how society can partner with farmers to share the costs and risk of transition to a richer soil carbon farming future.

The Commissioner will be live tweeting and recording these speeches at this round table.

Follow @Ont_ECO or #ecosoils to learn more.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to for updates of these speeches.

Below is a list of speakers

Click here to download the biographies of these speakers.

8:45 – 9:30 Dr. Paul Voroney (University of Guelph)

8:45 – 9:30 Adam Hayes and Anne Verhallen (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs)

10:30 – 11:15 Doug Weatherbee (SoilDoctor.org)

10:30 – 11:15 Dr. Johannes Lehmann (Cornell University)

1:30-2:15 Ian Campbell (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)

1:30-2:15 Karen Haugen-Kozyra (The Prasino Group)

3:15-3:30 Don McCabe (Ontario Federation of Agriculture)

Over the past week, two federal environmental issues, both of which have the potential to have major implications for Ontario, have sparked my attention.

First, on Wednesday, the federal Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development presented a report – the Statutory Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Protecting the Environment, Managing our Resources – to Parliament as part of a seven-year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).

The Committee provided 20 recommendations aimed at “improving the efficiency” of the CEAA process. The proposed changes – such as deferring more to the provincial environmental assessment (EA) processes, reducing the number of projects and approvals that would trigger a federal EA, and imposing mandatory review timelines – are all intended to ensure that big development projects won’t be delayed and economic opportunities won’t be lost.

The proposed changes to CEAA, if implemented, could have some implications for Ontario’s EA process (and the other provinces as well).

But the news that really caught my attention was the recent rumours that the federal government is thinking about making changes to the Fisheries Act to eliminate the protection of fish habitat.

Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act currently states that “no person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.”   This is a powerful provision not only for protecting fish (including marine animals such as whales and polar bears) and their aquatic habitat, but also for protecting our lakes, rivers and coastal waters more generally.

Media sources are reporting that the habitat protection provision could be replaced with a weaker provision that prohibits only harm to “a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value.”   The conjecture is that the federal government is contemplating this amendment because a section 35 authorization too easily triggers an expensive and time-consuming review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.  So, amending the provision would enable development projects to proceed faster and more easily.

As the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, I’m particularly interested in what these rumoured changes could mean for Ontario. The federal Fisheries Act is the primary legislation for protecting fish and fish habitat across Canada. Ontario has no comparable provision; we rely solely on the federal provision and our shared authority to protect fish habitat.  While several provincial agencies have responsibility for reviewing, permitting and enforcing activities that may impact fish habitat, two federal/provincial protocols – the Fish Habitat Referral Protocol for Ontario (2009) and the Inter-Jurisdictional Compliance Protocol for Fish Habitat and Associated Water Quality (2007) – clearly establish that the federal agencies, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Environment Canada, have the ultimate responsibility for authorizing and enforcing the fish habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act.

For example, conservation authorities in Ontario, through agreements with DFO, conduct reviews of proposed projects that may result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (“HADD”) of fish habitat under section 35 of the Fisheries Act, and help with the development of mitigation and/or habitat compensation plans (including project relocation, redesign, habitat conservation, restoration and enhancement) pursuant to DFO’s “no net loss” principle.  However, in the end, applicants must obtain final authorization from DFO.

If the fish habitat provision in the Fisheries Act were to be removed, there would be dramatically less statutory protection of fish habitat in Ontario.  And without the agreements with DFO, and the corresponding funding, conservation authorities’ role in considering fish habitat when reviewing development proposals could be lost.

Several sources are contending that these Fisheries Act changes could even be included in the next federal omnibus budget bill.  But, so far, there has been no confirmation of these rumours.  Federal Fisheries Minister, Keith Ashfield, has indicated that government is looking at changes to the Fisheries Act, but has stated that “there has been no decision made with regard to this issue.”

These potential changes to CEAA and the Fisheries Actcould significantly affect environmental protection in Ontario. I will be watching these developments very closely.

Today marks the first day of Canada Water Week.  This year, the theme is “Discover Your Water Footprint,” helping Canadians explore how much water we use, both in direct ways (showering, flushing the toilet, watering the lawn, etc.), but also in indirect ways – considering the enormous amounts of water that go into growing our food and producing our goods.

Ontarians are among the biggest consumers of water in the world.  For household water use alone, the average Ontarian consumes about 270 litres of water per day, roughly twice as much as the average European.  When you factor in all the other uses of water – for agriculture, electricity production, manufacturing goods – and divide it in on a per capita basis, the average Ontarian indirectly uses thousands of litres of water per day.

Many Ontarians put little value on conserving water; we assume our reserves are limitless. Yet, our excessive water use can have major environmental impacts.  Large water withdrawals can disrupt local hydrological systems by reducing water levels and stream flows, depleting aquifers and altering aquatic habitat.  Furthermore, after we finish using water, the wastewater returns to watersheds in a degraded state, impairing the water quality in lakes and rivers.

There is a lot of room for Ontarians – across all sectors – to reduce water use.  And as a key tool for encouraging water conservation, I have long argued (in my recent report and many times before) that government needs to support more appropriate water pricing.  Ontarians’ excessive consumption of water can be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that our water is grossly underpriced.

Treating and delivering clean water right to our taps is expensive.  Yet, most Ontario municipalities charge users just a small fraction of the true cost of the water and wastewater services, covering most of the cost through property taxes instead.  Such a system of spreading the cost across all taxpayers, rather than charging water users the actual cost of consumption, is perverse.  Extensive data demonstrates that water and wastewater users who are charged an appropriate volume-based rate will reduce their water use.  And while some Ontario municipalities have been revisiting their water and sewer rates recently, municipal councils generally face tough political and public opposition to raising water and sewer rates to their full costs.  For this reason, I have repeatedly urged the provincial government to support municipalities in implementing full-cost pricing by making it a mandatory legal requirement (see my 2008 review of the Financial Plans Regulation and my more recent review of the Water Opportunities Act, 2010).

For industrial water takers, the cost incentive for conservation is even lower.  In Ontario, anyone who takes more than 50,000 litres of water/day needs a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).  Permits are issued for activities such as electricity generation, manufacturing, drinking water supply, agriculture, and quarry de-watering.  In 2007, MOE implemented a water taking charge for a small subset of industrial water users to recover a portion of the ministry’s costs for administering water management programs.  However, at the low, low rate of just $3.71 per million litres of water (picture a cube 10 meters x 10 meters x 10 meters), this charge nowhere near covers MOE’s actual program costs, nor has it created an economic incentive for conservation or better management of Ontario’s waters.

When I reviewed these charges in 2008, I recommended that MOE develop a more substantial and comprehensive water taking charge that applies to more industrial and commercial water takers and that is proportionate to the government’s full administrative cost for operating its water management programs.  Despite the fact that the 2007 implementation of the water taking charge was called “phase one”, almost five years later, no expansion or increase of the charge has been proposed.

The call for full cost pricing of water takings was recently echoed in the Drummond report, which similarly noted that: “More costs could be recovered if the commercial and industrial water users who create the need for water management programs pay for their use of water. The charge would also create a financial incentive for companies to use water more efficiently.”  With major provincial budget cuts looming, economic tools like this seem like a clear solution for both funding essential government programs and encouraging conservation.

Part 3: Truth in Pricing

In Part 1 and Part 2 in this blog series, I argued that Ontario’s electricity system is a dizzying and intricate mix of direct and indirect subsidies. These subsidies exist because Ontario’s electricity policy has sought ways to deal with issues of equity, reliability and the legacy of past policies.  On the assumption that people want to pay as little as possible to maintain this balancing act, the policy has been deferring payment of the bills and shaping prices while seeking appropriate technologies to respond to broader social concerns.  In this final post, I question whether an obsession with low prices is serving us well in terms of building an electricity system that promotes environmental benefits, supports a resilient society and recognizes how vital the electricity infrastructure is to the function of our daily lives.

Over the years, there’s been one electricity pricing policy fix after another, as different governments have attempted the intricate balance, until the end result has begun to resemble a bit of a Rube Goldberg machine.  A recent article describes this complexity and how the cost waves from these various price and infrastructure policy changes are beginning to pile up on each other, sometimes interfering with the intent of earlier policies.  With the FIT review underway, we have the latest add-on to the elaborate pricing mechanism we have built.  The key question is what price are we willing to pay for renewable energy, given its potential benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the improvement in energy security, and the creation of green jobs?

In answering, let’s begin by recognizing that direct and indirect subsidies have become, at least in Ontario, an essential requirement for almost all forms of electricity generation.  Let’s also turn down the hyperbole and rhetoric on FIT prices.  Critics of FIT should admit that they can’t oppose subsidies per se since almost every generator receives them.  What they may be expressing is buyer’s remorse as a result of the arguably high level of subsidies in the current FIT price schedule. FIT applicants would probably temper this view with several reminders, such as: the looseness of the term “high”, the unrealistically low prices that FIT critics quote for newly constructed conventional generation, and the fact that the OPA uses the same basic methodology to set FIT prices that the OEB uses to regulate heritage generation, allowing investors to recover costs and earn a reasonable return on investment.  Effectively, the critics are saying either the OPA was snookered on the deal or was pressured to overpay by a government that wanted to quickly implement its flagship green energy legislation.

During the FIT review, suggestions for modifying the FIT have been offered that I believe likely include: lowering the price to reflect declining equipment costs, paying prices that reflect the different costs of power at peak times when demand is high, recognizing that low or zero carbon emissions are produced by FIT generators, and limiting FIT to small scale projects so that the majority of generation is procured through competitive tenders.  Government policy makers, conducting the review, are sharpening their pencils and will decide among these and other suggestions received during consultations.

To conclude, I’d like to make a few suggestions for raising price literacy in the FIT post-review period.  First, let’s explain the mechanics of pricing and how subsidies operate.  Second, let’s do more to explain that the cost of power varies daily, weekly and seasonally.  The government made a commendably bold decision to introduce smart meters and time-of-use (TOU) pricing. However, so far the educational approach has been like the instructions one receives with an IKEA purchase – a few diagrams at the time of the semi-annual price update, with consumers left to figure out the rest on their own.  In my 2010 energy report, I stressed the need to collect data on the impact of TOU, so that the OEB could set its prices in a way that would encourage more conservation.  Even one summer’s worth of data from two of the large utilities (Hydro One and Toronto Hydro) that have activated TOU would be revealing.  The analysis of this data would help utilities build price literacy among their customers.

In addition to explaining subsidized prices and dynamic pricing, I also believe we must seriously consider reframing the entire dialogue.  The energy narrative can no longer revolve around the message of cheaper prices.  The discussion has to embrace rising prices.  Should we perhaps even begin to brand electricity as a premium fuel?  Think about it before dismissing the suggestion, or treating it as heresy.  Our past policies mitigated price pressures by taking on debt and deferring new investment.  From 1993 to 2002, prices were frozen slightly below the actual cost of producing power, and from late 2002 until early 2004 prices were capped at 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. A similar policy reappeared last year with the Clean Energy Benefit which provides most ratepayers with a 10% reduction on their bills. The effects of those questionable pricing policies on revenue needed for infrastructure now makes it more difficult to undertake the necessary work to decarbonize the electricity sector. I worry that we’ll repeat past mistakes if we continue to educate Ontarians that they are entitled to low electricity prices.

Is it time to stop talking about electricity as a cheap, fungible, bulk commodity that we buy without even checking the price? What if consumers were instead encouraged to think of it as a premium product worth paying for the value-added, as we do for additive-free food, first-class train travel or high-definition television?  Electricity is a “refined energy source” created from other primary energy sources like hydrocarbons, uranium, moving water and wind. It makes all the gadgets of our modern life work in a manner that renders the value invisible to us. Many of the electronic products in our homes and businesses that are now second nature to us didn’t exist a generation ago. DVD players, tablets, flat panel televisions, the Internet, server farms, smart thermostats are now integral to our daily routines. There is a growing electrical intensification of our lives due to what Daniel Yergin calls “gadgiwatts.”

Is it time to start an information strategy that doesn’t selectively demonize subsidies, promotes price literacy and markets electricity as the high-value energy source that it is?  If we do this, we might also receive a collateral benefit that allows conservation to shine a little brighter.  If not, we may continue to oscillate from shock to trance in our attitude to energy prices.

A recent study published in Nature Climate Change by University of Victoria climate scientists Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart is being seized upon by fossil fuel advocates as proof that the oil sands (or more technically the bituminous sands) are not as bad for the environment as previously thought.  The study calculates the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions that would occur if the world’s entire reserves of oil, gas, and coal were consumed.  Its unsurprising finding that burning all proven reserves of coal or gas would release more CO₂ than burning all the proven oil reserves in the bituminous sands of Alberta is touted as proof that the industry has been unfairly targeted by activists and regulators in the U.S. and E.U.

The more nuanced analysis found in the paper (but ignored in mainstream press) starts by looking at how much the climate can warm before we can expect to start experiencing catastrophic impacts such as sea level rise, agricultural failure and ecosystem collapse.  Climate scientists have pegged this number at 2°C above pre-industrial times, or about 1.2°C above today’s temperature, a figure which has been accepted by the international community as a target in ongoing negotiations.  In order to have a shot of limiting temperature rise to 2°C and thus potentially stabilizing the climate, total cumulative global CO₂ emissions over the next several centuries must remain below 2.2 trillion tonnes. This is the ‘atmospheric budget’ that, because CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for a long time, must be shared amongst present and future generations.  If this amount is apportioned equally across the world’s population today (ignoring for a moment that pesky moral imperative of leaving space for future generations), allowable per capita emissions of CO₂ are on the order of 312 T over an individual’s lifetime.

The average Ontarian emits somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 T/yr which means that his/her entire budget is used up within 20 years.  So, just as we run deficits on the fiscal front, compromising the ability of future Ontarians to access quality health care and education, we are running massive deficits on the carbon front that threaten to destroy the very ecosystems upon which we depend for existence. This is the critical message that is missing from debate.

In order to have a shot of avoiding a catastrophic ‘carbon downgrade’ in living standards, the global community needs to immediately begin the transition towards renewable energy sources and aggressive energy conservation, ultimately reaching near zero emissions sometime this century. Within this context it is clear that massive investments in long-lived fossil energy infrastructure (be it upstream in coal-fired power plants and pipelines or downstream in the form of new highways or airports) are not consistent with the goal of avoiding dangerous interference with the climate system. The Ontario government has embarked on the path towards a lower carbon economy with its phase-out of coal-fuelled power plants from the provincial electricity grid which largely removes the dirtiest fossil fuel from the energy mix.  But Ontario is still heavily dependent on oil and natural gas.  While there is a policy framework for natural gas conservation, programs lack adequate funding and so easy opportunities for demand reduction have not been seized. With respect to oil consumption, the province lacks any policy framework for efficiency or conservation despite the fact that oil represents 40% of final energy demand. The ECO has recommended in the past that the government develop a comprehensive energy conservation strategy that encompasses all major energy sources used in Ontario.  Such a strategy will need to address the risks posed by climate change.

People are talking about “huge, ravenous invaders”, and “potential catastrophe”… is it a Godzilla Movie?  No, it’s the Asian Carp, and this fish truly does present a grave threat to the Great Lakes.  Our Great Lakes are already being pummeled by a barrage of pressures, as I have sketched out in my newest Annual Report. The lakes have goopy algal mats fouling many shorelines; their waters are polluted by combined sewer overflows in urban areas and by agricultural runoff in rural areas.  Soon they may have Asian carp too, gobbling up the food of native species, dramatically altering Great Lakes ecosystems and wreaking havoc with both commercial and recreational fisheries.

To control one means of entry for this invasive species, I have suggested that the Ministry of Natural Resources consider tightening its rules on fish importation, and prohibit outright the possession of Asian carp, dead or alive. The seizure of six tonnes of live Asian Carp by Canadian border officials just this past month is sobering.  But another key risk is that this species will swim into the Great Lakes through the link of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.  Now a new study by the Great Lakes Commission and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative argues for protecting the Great Lakes from this avenue of invasion, and proposes a plan for separating the waterways.  It would be very expensive, yes; but consider the alternatives.

In Southern Ontario, we’re very fortunate to have approximately 560,800 hectares of wetlands. These important natural heritage features are home to a wealth of species such as fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and insects – including many species at risk.  Wetlands also act as filters to clean our drinking water by absorbing excess nutrients like phosphorus. They also act like natural pieces of our infrastructure in protecting properties from flooding as they soak up and slowly release stormwater runoff.

Despite their ecological and hydrological importance, the protection of wetlands in Ontario is often at odds with urbanization, agriculture, and other types of development.  Since pre-settlement time, we have lost 72 per cent or 1.4 million hectares of the wetlands in southern Ontario. Historically, wetlands were viewed as wastelands and were drained for other land uses such as crops, livestock pastures and urban development.  Unfortunately not much has changed today.  In 2010, Ducks Unlimited Canada released a report, Southern Ontario Wetland Conversion Analysis, which showed that wetland loss is continuing at an alarming rate.

While there are some policies in Ontario aimed at protecting wetlands, there are many loopholes that need to be fixed.  For example, the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) restricts development and site alteration in provincially significant wetlands designated by the Ministry of Natural Resources.  Unfortunately, this protection only applies to wetlands that have been evaluated and designated, and many remain unevaluated.  Even if a wetland is designated as provincially significant, the Provincial Policy Statement allows municipal drains and infrastructure like wastewater and water systems, highways, and roads to be built within its boundaries.  Local conservation authorities also regulate development and site alteration in and around wetlands, regardless of their significance, to protect life and property from flooding and erosion hazards.  Unfortunately, provincial funding to conservation authorities has not increased since the 1990s, which severely constraints their ability to maintain existing levels of flood protection and to deal with emerging threats like climate change.

Today is World Wetlands Day – the date on which the international Ramsar Convention on Wetlands was signed in 1971.  The treaty is a framework for countries to conserve and plan for the “wise use” of all the wetlands in their territories and designated Wetlands of International Importance.  Canada is a signatory to this convention and eight Wetlands of International Importance are located in Ontario. Aichi Biodiversity Target 5 under the International Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Canada is also a signatory,  calls upon governments to reduce the rate of loss of all natural habitats at least in half and where feasible, close to zero by 2020. In my recent special report, Biodiversity: A Nation’s Commitment, an Obligation for Ontario, I identified that the constitutional responsibility for meeting the Aichi Biodiversity targets lies with Ontario and the other provincial governments.  Today, and every day, we should remember how valuable Ontario’s wetlands are.  The provincial government should ensure that the small fraction of wetlands that remain in southern Ontario are conserved and protected and that the rate of loss is reduced or eliminated altogether.

The government of Canada has announced the end of the ecoENERGY home retrofit program, effective immediately, citing fiscal constraints. The popular program (which was previously matched by the Ontario government) helped homeowners cover part of the cost of energy efficiency retrofits such as a more efficient furnace or improved insulation.

As part of my statutory role in reviewing conservation initiatives in Ontario, I have previously reviewed the results of the home retrofit program. In its first three years, the program raised awareness of conservation among homeowners, with more than 150 000 Ontario households undertaking at least one energy efficiency action through the program and reducing their energy bills. Most retrofits led to a reduced use of natural gas for space heating, therefore the program also had an impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, I did note that the bulk of Ontario’s buildings had yet to be retrofitted (the program had reached only 4% of Ontario’s housing stock), and that the Ontario government’s lack of analysis as to the benefits of the program made it vulnerable to cancellation.

While disappointing, the federal government’s action is not surprising given the hints of restraint from Ottawa and Queen’s Park: a daily shock doctrine to prime taxpayers for release of the governments’ spring budgets. The Ontario government had already withdrawn its contribution to the home retrofit program, as well as cancelling energy conservation programs in other sectors. In this time of fiscal deficits, there will be pressure for further cuts, despite the very small percentage of public spending devoted to the environment (for example, the combined budgets of the Ministries of the Environment and Natural Resources accounted for less than 1% of Ontario’s budget in 2010/11). The former Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure also accounted for less than 1% of the Budget (and a fair portion of this was money spent on infrastructure as opposed to energy programs).

I expect more environmental programs to come under threat in the near future, regardless of the long-term consequences. As I have said previously, at some stage we will reach a tipping point. Beyond this threshold, we will lose meaningful policy and program capacity in these ministries for the sake of spending reductions that can really have no substantive impact on the deficit.