The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario will provide a briefing about the Aggregate Resources Act to the Standing Committee on General Government on Monday May 7, 2012 at 2 p.m.

The Standing Committee on General Government is reviewing the Aggregate Resources Act and will report its observations and recommendations with respect to strengthening the Act to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

In developing such recommendations, the Committee’s focus shall include, but not be limited to, the following areas:

• The Act’s consultation process
• How siting, operations, and rehabilitation are addressed in the Act
• Best practices and new developments in the industry
• Fees / Royalties
• Aggregate resource development and protection, including conservation/recycling

Click here to read the ECO has said about the Aggregate Resources Actin past reports

2009/2010 Annual Report: Sand Excavation: When a “Pit” is not a “Pit”

2008/09 Annual Report: The Swiss Cheese Syndrome: Pits and Quarries Come in Clusters

April 2007 Special Report: Doing Less With Less: Oversight of Sand and Gravel Extraction

2006/07 Annual Report: Preserving Natural Areas, or Extracting Aggregates Wherever They Lie?

2006/07 Annual Report: Aggregate Resources Procedures Manual

January 2006: the ECO convened 30 stakeholders to an Aggregates Round Table

2005/2006 Annual Report: Ontario’s Sand and Gravel Extraction Policy: Overdue for Review

2005/2006 Annual Report: Aggregate Rehabilitation Issues and Fees

Green City Clean Waters

When you hear “Philadelphia”, what comes to mind? Their hockey team, maybe? Or the historic cracked Liberty Bell? You might be surprised to learn that this venerable eastern U.S. city – founded in 1682; home to six million – is in the news as North America’s green model on managing storm water.

Since many older Ontario cities struggle with chronic stormwater pollution, we would be smart to look closely at the landmark agreement signed days ago between the City of Philadelphia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Green infrastructure is at the heart of a $2 billion plan to manage the city’s stormwater runoff. With the EPA’s blessing and technical support, the city will address its aging infrastructure of pipes and concrete – not by perpetuating grey technology, but by shifting to green approaches such as porous pavements, rain gardens, grassy swales and green roofs. As this inspiring three-minute video shows, Philadelphia has embarked on a 25-year plan to capture at least the first inch of each storm through green solutions. One example of how the city is overturning conventional approaches: the city bills landowners for stormwater based on the amount of impervious surface area. Private landowners who reduce impervious surfaces can receive almost 100% rebates on their stormwater bill.

Green Infrastructure is a concept that is right for our times, and my latest Annual Report encouraged Ontario ministries to embrace it. It is a tool that can help us prepare for the twin challenges of a rapidly growing urban population and a less predictable future climate, marked by more extreme weather events and higher flooding risks. Green infrastructure can provide cost-effective approaches in many settings and at many scales.

The Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI) has a key role to play in making green infrastructure a mainstream approach in Ontario. In June 2011, the ministry released a Long-term Infrastructure Plan for Ontario called Building Together. I am pleased that this new plan does at least contain language encouraging municipalities to use green infrastructure. But MOI could also leverage the greening of many provincial projects: MOI was charged with oversight of close to $16 billion worth of infrastructure projects in 2010/2011 alone. There are compelling arguments for MOI to seize the huge potential embodied in green infrastructure, and to translate the encouraging green words of Building Together into pilot projects, measurable targets and goals.

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.”

For years, discussions on climate change have focused primarily on carbon dioxide. As the most prevalent greenhouse gas, it lingers in the atmosphere for centuries, trapping heat. Recently, however, scientists have been highlighting the significant role played by other, shorter-lived pollutants such as methane and black carbon (or soot). While these gases don’t remain in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, they nevertheless have a high global warming potential (GWP). In my most recent Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report, I discussed this as the “tyranny of the near term”; the concept that what we do – or don’t do – about a warming planet over the next few decades will ultimately determine our fate. The near-term challenge arises because the global warming potential of carbon dioxide is one (1), regardless of whether the time horizon is 20, 100 or 500 years. In comparison, the GWP of methane is 72 over a 20-year period, and the GWP of black carbon soot is a whopping 1,600 over the same time frame. In addition, soot is a particular problem in the northern hemisphere because when it lands on ice or snow it increases the absorption of sunlight and thus hastens the warming (and melting) process. While the residency time in the atmosphere for each of these pollutants is much shorter than for carbon dioxide (12 years for methane and only days or weeks for black carbon), the near-term release of these gases poses a much more significant threat than the equivalent release of carbon dioxide

With this preamble for context, I note with some optimism today’s announcement by Hillary Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, that the U.S., along with Canada and four other countries, has launched a program through the United Nations Environment Programme to reduce the release of methane and black carbon, as well as hydrofluorocarbons, worldwide. It has been estimated that these gases have an outsized impact on climate change; accounting for 30 to 40 per cent of global warming. While many of the initiatives will focus on activities that should be undertaken in the developing world, such as replacing traditional cooking stoves with more efficient models, there are several measures that can be taken here at home. As I pointed out in my report, increased attention could be given to reducing emissions from diesel engines, equipment and locomotives – the main sources of black carbon in the province. As well, one of the main sources of methane in the province is due to the decomposition of organic materials in landfills. While steps have been taken to capture these emissions, I raised several questions in my report about the efficacy of such measures and would reiterate that the best control method is to divert organic waste from landfills altogether. Given that the lens is now focused on these gases internationally, I would suggest it is time for the province to similarly sharpen its sights.

Looking for ways to save money, lessen the wear and tear on your car, help reduce traffic congestion, and contribute to cleaner air? Why not consider setting up or joining a carpool?

There are 5.6 million commuters in Ontario and 71 per cent use a personal vehicle to travel to work. Depending on the type of vehicle you drive, and the amount you drive it, the Canadian Automobile Association has estimated that owning and operating a vehicle can range from $8,000 to $15,000 each year. As well, emissions from passenger vehicles contribute to smog, and are a key source of greenhouse gases. As I reported in my 2011 Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report, personal vehicles account for about 57 per cent of Ontario’s transportation emissions. Given the future growth predictions for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, strong efforts will be needed to help stabilize and, ideally, reduce these emissions.

Fortunately, there are organizations out there that can help you reduce your costs and emissions. One of them is Smart Commute, a program of Metrolinx and the municipalities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. This week is Carpool Week, an annual event designed to encourage sharing a vehicle, cutting your costs and helping the environment. Check it out at http://www.smartcommute.ca/en/whats-happening/carpool-week

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.

Award winners (left to right): Gerry Chaput, Chris Papatolis, Kyle Perdue, Graham DeRose, Shawn Smith, Carol Layton, Tom Hewitt, Tony Loong, Lou Politano

Today, staff at the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) received the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s (ECO) 2011 Recognition Award for using two environmentally beneficial innovations: bioretention cells and rubber modified asphalt (RMA). The innovations are used at the carpool lot in Beamsville, Ontario, located at the Queen Elizabeth Way and Ontario Street Interchange.

This project earned MTO the ECO Recognition Award for its benefits on stormwater management, waste diversion and the promotion of carpooling.

“This is the second year in a row that MTO received this award,” said Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. “The ministry provided a good example for municipalities, agencies and the public sector for use in future road planning and construction. I look forward to seeing more such innovative efforts to conserve our environment from other ministries.”

The bioretention cells mimic the natural hydrologic cycle. It infiltrates, filters, evaporates and detains sediments that flow from the pavement of the parking lot (runoff), while treating pollution at its source. Bioretention also acts as habitat for wildlife, improves air quality and reduces the urban heat island effect. Approximately 4,000 cubic meters of runoff is filtered through the system each year, equivalent to two Olympic sized swimming pools.

RMA is made from scrap rubber tires, ground and conventional hot mix asphalt. About 4 tonnes of scrap rubber tires were used for the Ontario Street carpool lot, preventing 624 tires from ending up in the landfill. The use of RMA in this project will help further develop the technology so scrap tires can be diverted from landfills and less virgin natural resources will be used in future paving projects.

Each year, the ECO invites ministries to submit programs and projects for special recognition. The ECO’s Recognition Award acknowledges those ministries that best meet the goals of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) or use the best internal EBR practices. In 2011, five ministries responded to the ECO’s call for nominations, submitting 15 projects for consideration. An arm’s-length panel reviewed the submissions.

For a list of past recipients of the ECO’s Recognition Award, visit http://www.ecoissues.ca/index.php/The_Environmental_Commissioner%E2%80%99s_Recognition_Award_2011

View Larger Map

November, a month where conversations tend to lament the long lost days of summer, has seen a remarkable number of conversations about a similarly depressing topic: overcrowded transportation infrastructure in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area (GTHA).  At the beginning of the month, the Canadian Urban Transit Association held its fall conference. Sponsored by TTC and Metrolinx, the title was Public Transit: Investing in Quality of Life. This was followed up with Toronto Talks Mobility, a session organized by the Pembina Institute, Councillor Joe Mihevc and the University of Toronto’s Cities Centre. Coming up later this month is a “Mobility Pricing Stakeholder Forum” sponsored by Transport Futures.  These conversations are driven by projections that the GTHA will add close to 3 million new people in the next 20 years. Given current car ownership trends, this will result in an additional 1 million automobiles trying to access roads that are already hopelessly congested.   But isn’t the GTHA already at “peak car” with traffic congestion rates among the worst in North America? And aren’t vehicles already the largest sources of greenhouse gases in Ontario (see chart below)? Can we afford to put all these additional vehicles on the road, you ask? Good question.

The message emerging from these conversations is that we need to get serious about moving people out of their cars and onto mass transit. But with the GTHA’s public transit system in its own state of chronic underfunding, significant investment – $80 billion dollars was the amount being tossed around at the Toronto Talks Mobility session – is required to make it a viable alternative.  That is a huge sum of money for cash strapped governments in a time of fiscal austerity, and so innovative funding mechanisms will be required. Metrolinx is required to release an investment strategy to find the money by no later than 2013; why the delay? Let’s get this strategy released for public discussion sooner so that it can influence and inform transit planning and decision-making in 2012. The longer we wait, the greater the chance that we’ll continue to make planning decisions that will lock-in our commuting patterns for decades to come.

While I have pointed to the potential for road pricing to bridge the funding gap in both my 2010 and 2011 annual greenhouse gas progress reports and in a recent blog, most decision-makers in the region are reluctant to entertain it as a possibility. Most of the speakers at the Toronto Talks Mobility session danced around the issue of road pricing. Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion did suggest, however, that road tolls and related road pricing will have to be evaluated as a funding option. She stressed repeatedly that this will be tough to sell to the commuting public, especially those traveling to work in single-occupancy vehicles. She conceded however, that if the monies were put towards funding rapid transit – and only rapid transit – this would be an easier sell.  The elephant in the room is making its presence known.

Image taken from U.S Fish and Wildlife Service National Digital Library

Canada’s Environment Minister, the Honourable Peter Kent, announced today that polar bears will be designated a species of special concern under the federal Species at Risk Act.  ”Canada is home to two-thirds of the world’s polar bear population and we have a unique conservation responsibility to effectively care for them,” said Minister Kent.  I sincerely agree with his statement.

Our province of Ontario is home to the southernmost population of polar bears in the world – a species that is widely recognized as suffering the most immediate impacts of climate change. Scientists warn that there is a high probability that Ontario’s population of about 1,000 polar bears will be gone from the province within 45 years due to decreases in sea ice in Hudson Bay, which constitute an integral part of their habitat.

Polar bears were listed as a threatened species under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act in September 2009; this designation constitutes a higher risk level and even more of an imperative for action than the federal listing announced today.

Our provincial law obligates the Minister of Natural Resources to ensure the preparation of a completed recovery strategy within two years of the species’ listing.    Right now, only a draft recovery strategy for polar bears exists – without a finalized strategy, the process of planning for conservation action is at a standstill.  It is critical that the Ontario government properly follow the Endangered Species Act process, a topic I discussed in my 2009 Special Report.

At the next step in the process, the Ontario government is meant to lay out all the options and we begin the public dialogue which likely involves making some difficult decisions.  It’s here where we can weigh socio-economic considerations and even make moral choices.  But if we don’t even get to that stage, the public is deprived of a transparent and accountable process.  That’s the core purpose of our Environment Bill of Rights and my job as Environmental Commissioner to warn when it’s off track.

What’s lost if this process isn’t followed is public confidence in how our laws are meant to work.  Also, in this case, we haven’t been given the chance to publicly debate what we’re going to do about an iconic and imperilled species, which may be gone from the Ontario that our grandchildren will inherit.  I hope we get back on track quickly.

The Australian Senate passed its carbon tax legislation this past Tuesday as a key component of its Clean Energy Legislation Package. It’s the first stage in the country’s plan to reduce carbon emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050. It will fix a tax of A$23 ($24 CDN) per tonne on the country’s top 500 emitters starting in July 2012 with a plan to transition to a cap-and-trade system from July 2015 onward. Industries including mining, airlines, steel and power generation are covered. After July 2015, companies in these industries will need a permit for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit.

As the title of the legislative package suggests, the Australian government has linked the emergence of a clean energy economy with the establishment of a price on carbon. I’ve taken a similar position in my most recent Greenhouse Gas Progress Report as well as in a recent blog. For one thing, pricing pollution is one surefire way to ensure a more level playing field so that renewable energy can compete in the marketplace.

South Africa is also considering legislation to place a tax on carbon emissions. Meanwhile, the Ontario government has indicated it won’t move on pricing carbon until at least 2013. While Ontario continues to delay, other jurisdictions are taking a leadership role while kick-starting their green economies. If Ontario wants to accelerate the growth in green energy and a low-carbon economy, putting a price on carbon will need to happen sooner rather than later.