Here is a strong opposition…

Here is a strong opposition response to the Ontario proposal:

RE: ERO Posting – Proposed Changes to Requirements for Waste Disposal Sites (Service Area and Fill Rate Amendments)
Submitted in Strong Opposition

I write to formally and strongly oppose Ontario’s proposal to remove the Environmental Screening Process (ESP) requirement for service area and fill rate changes at waste disposal sites, to exempt related Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) amendments from posting on the Environmental Registry of Ontario, and to eliminate third-party appeal rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993. This proposal is presented as routine administrative streamlining, but in substance it strips communities — particularly those most vulnerable — of meaningful participation, environmental protection, and legal recourse. It does so in the face of a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating serious health harms to people living near waste disposal facilities.

1. The Health Evidence Is Clear and Cannot Be Dismissed
The Government of Ontario asserts that changes to service area and fill rate “typically have limited or no environmental impacts.” This claim is not supported by the weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
A 2021 systematic review published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Mancini et al.), which surveyed studies from 2005 to 2020, found that there was evidence of an increased risk of adverse birth and neonatal outcomes for residents near municipal solid waste sites, as well as evidence of increased risk of mortality, respiratory diseases, and negative mental health effects associated with residing near landfills. 
Research published in Environmental Health Perspectives (Vrijheid, 2000) reviewed multiple epidemiological studies and concluded that increases in risk of adverse health effects — including low birth weight, birth defects, and certain types of cancers — have been reported near individual landfill sites and in some multisite studies.  The same review documented elevated rates of self-reported fatigue, headaches, and sleepiness among nearby residents.
Studies have quantified these risks with alarming specificity. A 1998 New York State Department of Health study examining 38 landfills found that women living near sites leaking methane gas were four times more likely to contract bladder cancer or leukemia.  A UK government-funded study further found that babies born to women living within 1.25 miles of a landfill may experience problems with their central nervous systems and abdominal walls, as well as other anomalies. 
The EUROHAZ-CON study of hazardous waste landfill sites across five European countries found a 33% increase in the risk of congenital abnormalities in infants born to mothers living within 3 km of landfill sites. 
Air pollution pathways from waste sites are well documented. Air pollutants from waste sites, such as hydrogen sulfide emissions, can harm the respiratory system, leading not only to lung disease such as asthma but also to less obvious non-respiratory illnesses such as diabetes through exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls originating from hazardous waste sites. Groundwater contamination by landfill sites can also affect health outcomes. 
Expanding a waste site’s service area means more waste volume being transported to and deposited at that facility. Increasing fill rates means that waste accumulates faster. Both changes directly and foreseeably increase community exposure to these documented hazards. The claim that such changes carry “limited or no environmental impacts” is not scientifically defensible.

2. The Proposal Harms the Most Vulnerable Communities
Waste disposal facilities are not randomly distributed across society. Decades of research in environmental justice demonstrate a consistent and troubling pattern: landfills and waste treatment sites are disproportionately sited in, and expanded into, communities that are low-income, racialized, and Indigenous.
Landfills disproportionately fill space in low-income communities and communities of color, while financial profits sit with the waste management industry and landfill owners. Community members lose land value and the political power of impacted communities is further reduced. 
Communities housing waste facilities report increased rates of asthma, cancer, delayed cognitive development, and other illnesses. At least 76 studies have consistently shown that minorities and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks. 
This pattern is particularly acute for Indigenous Peoples. Research published in Environmental Health (Whyte et al.) noted that hazardous waste siting, including incinerators and landfills, seriously affects Indigenous communities because such polluting infrastructures are often placed on their lands, either because tenure status is unclear or because poverty has induced them to accept such facilities.  A peer-reviewed commentary in Environmental Health Perspectives confirmed that Indigenous communities in North America face disproportionate health burdens and environmental health risks, and that the system of environmental law is insufficient to protect them from environmental contamination. 
By eliminating public posting on the ERO and removing third-party appeal rights under the EBR, this proposal removes the very tools by which these communities — who already bear the greatest burden — can access information and contest decisions that will affect their health.

3. Removing Public Posting and Appeal Rights Is Fundamentally Undemocratic
The Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 was enacted precisely because Ontarians recognized that residents deserve notice of, and the ability to respond to, decisions that affect the environment in which they live. Exempting ECA amendments for service area and fill rate changes from ERO posting eliminates transparency. Removing third-party appeal rights eliminates accountability.
The proposal states that “environmental review, notification to adjacent landowners and potentially impacted Indigenous communities” will continue through the ECA process. However, notification is not the same as participation, and internal ministry review is not the same as independent public scrutiny. The EBR’s appeal mechanism exists specifically because government review processes — conducted by the same ministry that approves the applications — can be insufficient to protect community interests against the economic interests of large waste operators.
The removal of this oversight is not a technical simplification. It is the elimination of a meaningful check on industry power at the expense of community health.

4. The “Red Tape” Framing Is Misleading
The proposal characterizes the current two-step process (ESP under the EAA and ECA amendment) as duplicative red tape. In fact, the ESP serves a distinct and important function: it requires proponents to identify and assess environmental effects, determine mitigation measures before proceeding, and engage Indigenous communities and members of the public in a structured process. These are not administrative formalities — they are substantive protections.
Emissions of harmful particulate matter, mercury, and lead from waste facilities lead to higher rates of asthma, respiratory disease, and cardiovascular disease. Water contamination from landfill leaching and runoff impacts local waterways, water sources, and community recreational areas.  The ESP is the process that requires these impacts to be assessed and mitigated in advance. Eliminating it in favour of a ministry-internal ECA review removes the precautionary principle from a policy domain where precaution is essential.

5. Recommendations
The Ministry should:
1. Withdraw this proposal in its current form and conduct a full, evidence-based assessment of cumulative health impacts on communities near existing waste disposal sites before any amendments are made.
2. Retain the Environmental Screening Process requirement, or replace it with an equivalent process that guarantees independent environmental assessment, community engagement, and Indigenous consultation before service area expansion or fill rate increases are approved.
3. Maintain ERO posting and third-party appeal rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights for all ECA amendments affecting waste disposal operations.
4. Commission independent health impact assessments of communities currently located near waste disposal sites proposed for expansion, with particular attention to low-income and Indigenous communities.
5. Apply an environmental justice lens to all waste siting and expansion decisions, consistent with Ontario’s obligations under UNDRIP and the principles of meaningful Indigenous consultation.

Conclusion
The body of scientific and epidemiological evidence is unambiguous: proximity to waste disposal sites is associated with elevated rates of cancer, birth defects, respiratory illness, and adverse mental health outcomes, with those risks falling hardest on communities that are already marginalized. This proposal would allow waste operators to expand their geographic reach and increase the rate at which waste enters communities — faster and with less scrutiny than ever before — while simultaneously eliminating the public’s ability to learn about and challenge those decisions. That is not red tape reduction. It is the removal of health and environmental protections from people who need them most.
I urge the Ministry to reject this proposal.

Submitted during the 45-day public comment period.