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

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.

1. What do you do? What is this all about?
2. Are you part of the Ministry of the Environment?
3. How many people are in your office?
4. Are these books on your rack free?
5. You say we can comment on proposed government decisions. How do you ensure the ministries consider our comments?
6. There is a litter problem in our neighbourhood park. My mom and I have to pick up garbage there every two weeks. How do I stop this littering problem?
7. I am a high school teacher. What are some great resources for my students?

1. What do you do? What is this all about?
Required by a law called the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR), the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) is an independent officer appointed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. His role is comparable to the Auditor General, the Ombudsman, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in that he is non-partisan and is an arms-length officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The ECO oversees 13 Ontario ministries’decision making as those decisions relate to the environment.The ECO monitors and reports on the 13 ministries’ compliance with the EBR, the government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and its actions towards achieving greater energy conservation at all three levels of government. The current Commissioner is Gord Miller, who is in his third 5-year term.The EBR allows residents of Ontario to participate in environmental decision making in three main ways:

• The Environmental Registry: The Registry is a website database where the government is required to post for public notice information about proposals, decisions and policy changes that affect the environment. You have the right to comment on these proposals and the ministries must explain the effect your comments had when making their final decision.
• Application for an Investigation: Any two residents of Ontario who believe that a prescribed Act, regulation or instrument has been contravened may apply to the Environmental Commissioner for an investigation of the alleged contravention by the appropriate ministry.
• Application for Review: Any two residents of Ontario who believe that an existing policy, Act, regulation or instrument of Ontario should be amended, repealed or revoked in order to protect the environment may apply to the Environmental Commissioner for a review of the policy, Act, regulation or instrument by the appropriate ministry. Any two residents of Ontario may also request a new policy, Act regulation or instrument in order to protect the environment.

2. Are you part of the Ministry of the Environment?
No, the ECO is not a part of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. In fact, the Ministry of the Environment is one of 13 ministries, prescribed under the EBR, which the ECO oversees.

3. How many people are in your office?
There are 24 staff in our office including the Commissioner.

4. Are these books on your rack free?
Yes. The ECO releases three annual reports each year: the Annual Report, the Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report and the Annual Energy Conservation Progress report. The ECO also releases special reports as he sees fit. In 2012, the ECO released two special reports:  Biodiversity: A Nation’s Commitment, an Obligation for Ontario and Ready for Change? An assessment of Ontario’s climate change adaptation strategy.All of the ECO’s publications are available free of charge to the public. There are a limited number of paper reports and USBs (containing PDF versions of our reports) available. EPUB and PDF reports are always available for download on our website.

5. You say we can comment on proposed government decisions. How do you ensure the ministries consider our comments?
A minister who gives notice of a proposal on the Registry must consider the comments in reaching a decision. It is the ECO’s role to ensure ministries prescribed under the EBR comply with these rules by way of monitoring the Registry and reviewing all comments.

6. There is a litter problem in our neighbourhood park. My mom and I have to pick up garbage there every two weeks. How do I stop this littering problem?
Congratulations on helping to preserve the environment through your individual action. Litter and waste management are a municipal issue so you want to contact your local councillor and/or your local Public Works department to see what can be done.

7. I am a high school teacher. What are some great resources for my students?
You might start by looking through our Annual reports, Energy Conservation reports or Greenhouse Gas reports which are available on our website. There are many articles that relate to your curriculum. Sample articles from the 2010/11 Annual Report are:
Snapping Turtles: To Hunt or Protect?
What a Waste: Failing to Engage Waste Reduction Solutions
Less and Less: Budgets for MOE and MNR not Meeting Needs
Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracking
Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

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.

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.”

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)

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.

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.

A key message emerging from Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (“Climate Ready”) is that Ontario’s public infrastructure is vulnerable to changing climate conditions and extreme weather events.   Infrastructure investment in sectors such as water, energy and transportation creates long-lived networks that enable economic prosperity for present and future generations. But the infrastructure we build can also hinder future generations if it is built to cope with climate and weather conditions that no longer exist. For example, an August 2005 rain storm in Toronto – rivaled only by Hurricane Hazel for the intensity of precipitation – overwhelmed stormwater infrastructure in a northern part of the city and wiped out a section of Finch Avenue. The costs of that storm exceeded $500 million, making it the most expensive disaster in Ontario’s history.  With Ontario’s climate beginning to show the effects of the build-up of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere such events will happen more frequently and could be just as costly unless we start planning now.  Many years of underinvestment have left significant portions of public infrastructure, for services such as water and electricity, near the end of their useful life.  This is fortunate, in a perverse way, because it provides the Ontario government with an opportunity to reinvest now to make critical systems more resilient to present and future conditions.  The Ontario government’s 10-year infrastructure plan recognizes the need to build adaptation into public infrastructure planning, which is a good first step.

As I note, however, in my recent preliminary assessment of the government’s climate change adaptation strategy (“Ready for Change?”) – key areas of public infrastructure – notably the provincial electricity grid – are not receiving adequate attention despite the fact that they are inherently vulnerable to a changing climate.

The idea that investment in infrastructure now yields greater payoffs than delayed action holds true on the climate change mitigation (i.e. GHG reduction) front as well.  The International Energy Agency (IEA) provides a stark reminder of this fact in its World Energy Outlook 2011.  Devoting an entire section to climate change, the IEA showed that unless we change the carbon footprint of our infrastructure going forward, a global average temperature increase somewhere between 3.5°C to 6°C by 2100 can be anticipated.  This is far beyond the range for which Ontario is planning, and would most certainly result in a severe reduction in living standards across the province.  This is because infrastructure built now will last for decades and thus “lock-in” emissions long into the future.

The IEA calculated the amount of GHG emissions that could be emitted over the next several decades while still having a likely chance of meeting the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature rise to less than 2°C. This is the carbon budget that needs to be managed in order to avoid the most dire predictions, such as extreme sea level rise and mass extinctions. Shockingly, the IEA found that existing and planned capital stock (power generation, buildings, transportation and industry) will emit 80 per cent of that budget and that, without a clear economic signal to direct development towards a low-carbon path the entire carbon budget will be eaten up in just five years.  As we wait to embark on a low-carbon pathway for reasons of economic expediency, fossil-fuel infrastructure continues to be built and planned. Within Ontario, the Long-term Energy Plan calls for several new natural gas power plants over the next 20 years. It is precisely this type of fossil-fuel infrastructure that will need to be mothballed early (or undergo costly retrofits to capture the GHGs emitted) if we hope to keep the planet within its budget. Given the capital expense that goes into such infrastructure, it is unlikely that governments would be willing to make such politically unpalatable moves.

The IEA information illustrates the critical link between climate adaptation and mitigation.  As Ontario moves forward, we need to plan so that our children can live within the atmospheric budget using infrastructure networks that can cope with an uncertain future climate.  If we fail to accept this challenge we risk condemning our children to live in a less prosperous world.  Policy options exist to avoid this fate, including: aggressive energy efficiency; investment in renewable energy; a focus on climate resilience in the building code; and a move towards comprehensive carbon pricing to direct investment towards the low-carbon path. There is no time to wait.

This event will examine the impacts of climate change on Canada’s freshwater resources. The panelists will explore the importance of scientific research and monitoring in understanding the state of freshwater resources and in managing them sustainably, as well as the linkages between water use and the natural resource sectors in Canada.

Click here to register (Registration is required )

Other speakers:
Scott Vaughan, Federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development,
David McLaughlin, President and CEO of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy.

The event will be moderated by:
Jeffrey Simpson, National Affairs Columnist at the Globe and Mail, and co-author of Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge

Date and Time: Tuesday, March 13, 2012.
Reception from 8:30am-9:30am.
Panel Discussion from 9:30am-11:30am.

Location: Vivian and David Campbell Conference Facility
Map: http://www.munkschool.utoronto.ca/location/

To register, visit: http://www.munk.utoronto.ca/EventDetails.aspx?eventid=11797 (Registration Required)

Webcast of the panel discussion will begin at 9:30 am (EST) at http://www.powi.ca