Comments submitted by:…

Comments submitted by:
Michael G. Farlow, President, Transition to Less Waste (TTLW) and Suzanne
Crellin, on behalf of Transition to Less Waste (TTLW)
Regarding ERO Proposals:
019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 – “Environmental Permissions
Modernization”
October 30, 2023
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 2
Delivered via email: minister.mecp@ontario.ca, permissions.modernization@ontario.ca
October 30, 2023
Re: Transition To Less Waste’s Comments on ERO Postings 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963,
019-6951
Dear Hon. Andrea Khanjin, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks,
Transition to Less Waste (TTLW) is an Ontario based non-profit that seeks to protect and
improve the environment within the province. Our organization promotes the principles of a
conserver society, and key concepts from the international Transition Movement including the
reduction of waste-to-disposal, prudent use of finite resources, and protection and
improvement of land, air and water resources. We believe that it is in the public interest to
safeguard and enhance Ontario’s environment.
Transition to Less Waste’s Request
Transition to Less Waste, first and foremost, is requesting that the Minister and Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks, withdraw the package of proposals the Ministry has
posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario numbered 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963 and
019-6951. These proposals, if implemented, have the potential to cause serious adverse effects
and negative impacts in communities around Ontario. They would lead to further concealment
of permissions related information from the public, and would curtail the rights of Ontarians to
participate in public consultation – rights that are enshrined within Ontario’s Environmental Bill
of Rights.
Public Unease
The MECP’s proposals were posted to the Environmental Registry of Ontario website on August
31, 2023. Transition to Less Waste and other stakeholder organizations, municipalities,
Indigenous communities, and additional interested persons across Ontario had just read a
troubling Auditor General’s report1 on the province’s plans to remove protections for Greenbelt
Plan and Area lands2 in order to allow development. Ontario’s Auditor General, Bonnie Lysyk,
found the Ministry of Housing’s selection of sites to be removed from the Greenbelt was
“biased and lacked transparency”. Another faultfinding report from Ontario’s independent
1 Lysyk, Bonnie. Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. “Special Report on Changes to the Greenbelt”. August
2023. www.auditor.on.ca. 2 McIntosh, Emma; Javed, Noor; Kennedy, Brendan. The Narwhal. Six developers bought Greenbelt land after Ford
came to power. Now, they stand to profit. https://thenarwhal.ca/ford-ontario-greenbelt-cuts-developers/,
Accessed November, 2022.
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 3
Integrity Commissioner followed3 on August 30, 2023, calling the process “flawed” and “unfair”
and noted [then-Minister Clark’s] “lack of oversight led to the unfortunate results I set out in
this report”. Less than two weeks later, it was announced that the Ontario Provincial Police had
referred investigation of the matter to the RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations
(SSI) unit4
. On September 21, the premier stated that the land swap plan was a “mistake”5, and
announced a reversal6.
The day after the people of Ontario read the results of the Integrity Commissioner’s report on
the Greenbelt, the MECP posted the grouping of four “Environmental Permissions
Modernization” proposals to the ERO.
We now have four proposals before us, with a mere 60-day comment period, that would force
the public to assume potential risks to local economies, the environment, and public health and
safety.
In many ways our concerns with sweeping Greenbelt lands changes and the new MECP
proposals, overlap. Concerns with the removal of processes Ontarians have relied on to prevent
urban sprawl, the building over of wetlands, and the spoilage of community drinking water
resources. We’re feeling collective apprehension over proposals that would allow the removal
of significant drinking water threat management information from our local source-water
protection plans. We are concerned about the growth of MECP reliance on computer-driven
approvals processes, where there is a lack of built-in human scientific and technical review
from the MECP; and where public consultation opportunities under the Environmental Bill of
Rights would be withdrawn from the Public of Ontario.
Tens of thousands of Ontarians pushed back against the Greenbelt land swap and have made
their opinions regarding land use and protection of our environment abundantly clear. They
have called for protection of wetlands, lakes, rivers, sources of drinking water, woodlands,
fertile farm soil and the beautiful natural systems and places that make up our province.
Our organization is concerned that chronic underfunding of the MECP by the Government of
Ontario, and subsequent staffing reductions, may have contributed to what we perceive as a
drop in ministerial service levels; leading to the perpetuation of systems that require less
3 Wake, J. David; K.C. Office of the Integrity Commissioner. “Report of J. David Wake, K.C., Integrity Commissioner,
Re: The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Member of Provincial Parliament
for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes”. August 30, 2023. www.oico.on.ca. 4 Sarfraz, A.B. The National Observer. RCMP sensitive crimes unit investigating Greenbelt land swap scandal.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/10/10/news/rcmp-sensitive-crimes-…land-swap-scandal. Accessed 23 October 2023. 5 Rocca, Ryan. Global News. ‘It was a mistake’: Doug Ford says government will reverse Greenbelt land swap
decision. https://globalnews.ca/news/9977003/doug-ford-reverses-greenbelt-land-sw…. Accessed September
2023.
6 Cecco, Leyland. The Guardian. Ontario premier reverses plans to build on green belt after ministers quit.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/21/ontario-premier-toronto-g….
Accessed September 2023.
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 4
human input.
The proposals would remove many permissions processes from hands-on review and
management. There is also the appearance of hurriedness expressed, to make activity
permissions easier and faster to acquire, for the MECP “clients”. During the webinars held by
the MECP regarding the proposals, the MECP referenced confusion among “the regulated
community” about permit and permissions obligations. We posit that the solution to this
confusion is to provide more education on ECA and permit requirements for the businesses and
industries involved – instead of moving additional sectors and activities to the more hands-off
approach permit-by-rule and EASR registrations these proposals suggest to employ.
The proposed removal of layers of oversight and public consultation opportunities demonstrate
a lack of understanding of the MECP’s role in protecting the environment, and public wellbeing, and the importance of democratic decision making. TTLW is requesting that the
Government of Ontario fully fund the MECP and restore the independent office of the
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario as a non-partisan resource for Ontario’s Legislature,
public, and provincial ministries.
Made in Ontario Environment Plan
TTLW reviewed the Government of Ontario’s Made in Ontario Environment Plan and found it
troublingly deficient in tangible plans to protect crucial elements of Ontario’s environment and
eco-systems for long-term and Traditional use and enjoyment by residents. Ontario is Canada’s
most populous province by far, with approximately 13.5 million of Canada’s 35 million
residents7 according to Statistics Canada.
Ontario’s water resources continue to be diminished through pollution and a usage rate that
causes rivers to run dry, drains wetlands, destroys and fragments habits, impacts species at risk,
and far outpaces aquifer replenishment8. We are already witness to impacts of a lack of
provincial protection for our water and air. From the Walkerton “Tainted Drinking Water”
tragedy9, to impacts on First Nations10 and other community water supplies, to the cases of
illness and deaths each year caused by contaminated water11 and air pollution12. Ontario has a
problem with unchecked industrial pollution, including that caused by landfills and incineration,
transportation, manufacturing, aggregate extraction and mining, and the fossil fuels sector.
7 Statistics Canada. “Census Profile”. 2016 Census. 2016.
8 Gleeson, Tom; Befus, Kevin; Jasechko, Scott; Luijendijk, Elco; Cardenas, M. “The global volume and distribution of
modern groundwater.” Nature Geoscience. www.nature.com. 16 November, 2015. 9 O’Connor, Dennis. “The Walkerton Inquiry Report Parts 1 and 2.” Ministry of the Attorney General.
www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca. May, 2002. 10 Levasseur, Joanne; Marcoux, Jacques. Bad water: ‘Third World’ conditions on First Nations in Canada. CBC News.
www.cbc.com. 15 October, 2015. 11 Edge, Tom; Byrne, James; Johnson, Roger; Robertson, Will; Stevenson, Roselynn. Environment Canada. “Threats
to Sources of Drinking Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Health in Canada”. www.ec.gc.ca. 12 Ontario Medical Association. “The Illness Costs of Air Pollution: 2005-2026 Health & Economic Damage
Estimates”. www.oma.org. June 2005.
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 5
The regulatory atmosphere would ideally encourage development of more environmentally
sustainable ways of doing business. Carrying out complex activities with higher risk to the
environment or public health should involve more layers of MECP control, direction and
supervision. Absolute limits for contaminants should be established and enforced.
Transition to Less Waste believes that true modernization of policies and regulations that may
impact the environment or public wellness in Ontario should put public health and the
protection of ecosystems ahead of private corporate profits. The Future Oxford Sustainability
Plan13, created in Oxford County with the input of many stakeholders, offers an example of a
process system where a Multi-Criteria Assessment Tool places a lens of environmental
sustainability over all decision making. The plan includes 70 actions for achieving community
goals and targets, and can be accessed online through the Future Oxford website. This type of
process system is scalable and prioritizes the consideration of long-term environmental
sustainability and protection of public health.
TTLW advocates for a move away from waste-to-disposal, and opposes incineration of waste
and the use of cement and manufacturing kilns as makeshift industrial and hazardous waste
disposal units. We are concerned that a move towards EASR registration for the transportation
of riskier waste types does not incentivize an overall reduction in the production of waste, and
instead makes it faster and easier for proponents to sign up on the EASR to transport hazardous
waste types for disposal to land and air.
Protection of Ontario’s air, land and water is greatly hampered by a lack of compliance
enforcement by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. We are requesting
that Ontario plan for an increase in the budget for the MECP, with a greater portion of that
budget earmarked for the hiring and training of provincial officers and investigative staff that
will carry out monitoring, audits and public engagement activities, and whom have the power
to carry out compliance enforcement.
Statement of Environmental Values
The MECP has a Statement of Environmental Values14 that notes the intentions of the
Environmental Bill of Rights, and includes the following:
Ministry vision, mandate and business
13 Future Oxford. “Future Oxford Community Sustainability Plan”.
www.futureoxford.ca/General/SustainabilityPlan/index.htm. 2015.
14 MECP, former Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. “Statement of Environmental Values”.
https://ero.ontario.ca/page/sevs/statement-environmental-values-ministr…
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 6
The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s vision is an Ontario with clean and safe
air, land and water that contributes to healthy communities, ecological protection, and
environmentally sustainable development for present and future generations.
Throughout the proposal documents, the purposes of the policy and regulatory changes are
framed as ways to:
• reduce burden
• reduce unnecessary burden
• reduce regulatory burden for businesses
• allowing more projects to start without the need for ministry review
• advancing provincial priorities
• reduce delays
• start work immediately
During an MECP webinar regarding the proposals, participants were told “we are happy to
move forward and happy to find an improved way of delivering on our mandate that we have
here at the Ministry”. – MECP Webinar, October 12, 2023.
TTLW requests that a copy of the Province of Ontario’s mandate letter to the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks be made available to our organization and other
interested parties.
Environmental Bill of Rights
Through Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), Ontarians have been provided with the
ability to receive notice of activities that may affect the environment, and to participate in the
decision-making processes the province undertakes. The purposes of the EBR, the rights given
to Ontarians, and the reasons why this public participation is significant, are included within the
Act:
15Environmental Bill of Rights, 2003
2 (1) The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to protect, conserve and, where reasonable, restore the integrity of the environment by
the means provided in this Act;
(b) to provide sustainability of the environment by the means provided in this Act; and
(c) to protect the right to a healthful environment by the means provided in this Act. 1993,
c. 28, s. 2 (1).
15 “Environmental Bill of Rights, 1003, S.O. 1993, c.28”. www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/93e28
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 7
Same
(2) The purposes set out in subsection (1) include the following:
1. The prevention, reduction and elimination of the use, generation and release of pollutants
that are an unreasonable threat to the integrity of the environment.
2. The protection and conservation of biological, ecological and genetic diversity.
3. The protection and conservation of natural resources, including plant life, animal life and
ecological systems.
4. The encouragement of the wise management of our natural resources, including plant
life, animal life and ecological systems.
5. The identification, protection and conservation of ecologically sensitive areas or
processes. 1993, c. 28, s. 2 (2).
Same
(3) In order to fulfil the purposes set out in subsections (1) and (2), this Act provides,
(a) means by which residents of Ontario may participate in the making of environmentally
significant decisions by the Government of Ontario;
(b) increased accountability of the Government of Ontario for its environmental decisionmaking;
(c) increased access to the courts by residents of Ontario for the protection of the
environment; and
(d) enhanced protection for employees who take action in respect of environmental
harm. 1993, c. 28, s. 2 (3).
The EBR system is designed to give the public information on proposals which may affect the
environment, with the understanding that as a whole, the residents of Ontario require a
healthy environment, and that our ecologically diverse ecosystems should be protected,
conserved and restored. The Act allows the residents of Ontario to oversee environmental
decision making, and reminds the Government of Ontario that they are accountable not to
corporate “clients”, or “the regulated community”, but to every person who relies on safe and
abundant community water resources, healthy soils, vibrant ecosystems, and clean air, in order
to live and thrive.
Intention and Limitations of the EASR
Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks uses a discretion-based risk
assessment method in order to allow certain categories of environmental permissions to be
given via the online registration and permitting system called the Environmental Activity and
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 8
Sector Registry (EASR).
The MECP describes the EASR16 as:
[I]ntended for activities or sectors that:
• pose minimal risk to the environment and human health when regulated and required to
follow specific rules
• use equipment and processes that are standard to the industry or sector with known
environmental impacts
When developing EASR regulations, the MECP “must build a strong case, supported by science,
that the activity or sector meets the EASR criteria”.
Descriptions within the MECP’s Environmental Registry info pages describe further screening
that is supposed to be undertaken while considering EASR suitability for sectors or activities:
• the size, location and prevalence of the activity or sector
• the media (e.g., air, land, or water) impacted by the activity or sector and the risks to the
environment if emissions from the activity or sector are not promptly controlled
• the complexity of the activity or sector (i.e., does this sector use highly complex and site
specific processes and/or pollution control measures or are the processes simple and
commonly used?)
• the compliance performance of the activity or sector regarding current environmental
standards
During the webinars held by the MECP in support of these proposals, attendees’ queries to the
Ministry reps were met with responses that appeared to confirm that the Ministry had not
completed desktop or on-the-ground auditing of activities and sectors already added to the
EASR.
While the Ministry’s own documents describe the EASR as being a vehicle for permitting the
execution of low-risk activities, webinars carried out by the MECP in support of the concurrent
proposals countered this narrative.
When asked during the October 12, 2023 MECP webinar on the Waste Management Systems
EASR Expansion Proposal, about the EASR being developed for lower risk activities, the MECP
responded with: “It’s true in the early days, which was over a decade ago, we began with some
of the lower risk activities. It is evolving, and, as you’ve seen through the eight EASRs that you
heard about today, it’s evolved, and it continues to evolve. And so EASR is no longer limited to
just low risk activities. We are looking at leveraging the system and the methodology to allow
more activities to go through. And that’s actually part of the fourth permission modernization
16 “Environmental registration”. www.ontario.ca
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 9
proposal that’s out there, where we’re looking at expanding and improving the EASR system. So,
happy to hear input on that… Just a reminder for those of you who might not be familiar with all
four proposals that are out there, there’s this waste management expansion proposal, there’s
one out there for stormwater management, there is one regarding expanding the water taking
EASR, which currently exists and has been in place for five years, and we are proposing this
expansion of the permit-by-rule concept. So, happy to hear any input that you have, as you can
see here today, I’m not sure if it was clear, this waste management proposal is one of those
rules-based type, so it’s very explicit requirements that they would have to adhere to and those
would all be included in the regulation, and be required as part of the registration activities. But
moving forward, there’s lots of opportunities to find different ways to manage those things in
continuing to ensure that we’re protecting the environment and human health. So again, happy
to hear and happy to discuss more… but [unintelligible] I just want to reinforce that they are no
longer limited to low risk activities.”
The Question-and-Answer period following the MECP’s webinar, held on September 19, 2023
included the question: “With no posting on the Environmental Registry, would that limit public
consultation for new items on EASR?” The following response was given by the MECP: “The
question was referring to the individual EASR registrations I believe. That is true that they, the
individual registrations are not consulted on individually. However, the proposed EASR eligibility
and operating requirements are consulted on broadly through the Environmental Registry of
Ontario and the regulatory registry as well, which is a part of the efforts that we’re going
through in the coming weeks. So, as I said, again, any potential candidates for an EASR are
consulted on and the requirements they would need to follow to ensure that the impacts are
managed, appropriately, are consulted on through those mechanisms. And once an EASR
registration is completed, you can actually access information related to that EASR through
Access Environment, which will have all of the particulars associated with that registration and
is in some cases some additional information depending on the particular activity that’s being
registered. So, I hope that helps to clarify”.
This response confirmed that once additional sectors and activities are allowed to register via
the EASR, the public will no longer be able to comment on proposals for those activities
through the ERO website, under the Environment Bill of Rights.
A webinar held October 19, 2023 for the slide deck entitled Waste Management Systems EASR
Expansion Proposal, ERO POSTING #019-6963, a response to a question appeared to confirm
that the MECP’s next action on the topics would be the posting of a Decision on the ERO
website. A question on whether there would be any further consultation after review and
consideration of comments was met with the response: “After the ministry reviews the
comments, we will definitely be doing a Decision posting”.
TTLW does not believe the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks has met their own
“strong case” threshold, nor have they provided scientific rationale for moving riskier activities
from the Environmental Compliance Approval and Permit realm to the EASR regulation system.
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 10
Insurance and Risks
Ontario’s insurance industry is already being stressed by ballooning climate related costs,
leading to increased costs for individual Ontario policy holders17. Given that fact, the MECP
should be doing everything in their power to address costly risks to our environment.
The insurance industry and public infrastructure costs of global warming are already at
catastrophic levels, and will become worse if we do not act on climate change urgently.
“Canadian insurers are now facing claims on natural catastrophes – floods, forest fires and
other extreme weather events – of approximately $1-billion annually, according to the
Insurance Bureau of Canada. This amount has grown from $400-million annually in previous
decades. Claims are expected to continue to increase, as is damage to personal property and
public assets. This aggregate number does not include smaller events that are not considered
catastrophic (an event with total claims less than $25-million), so the full impact of climate
change on Canadian insurers and clients is likely understated.
Similarly, there has been a related dramatic rise in government funding and liabilities owing to
flood damage and other catastrophic events. In Canada, annual liabilities of the Disaster
Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) – managed by the federal and provincial
governments – have risen steadily. These costs increased from around $100-million annually
two decades ago to $500-million in 2009-10; they reached a current high of $2-billion in 2013-
14. The Parliamentary Budget Office projected that annual DFAA liabilities would average $902-
million over five years, of which $673-million would be for floods. Based on recent and repeated
flooding, those estimates may prove to be conservative.18” – Glen Hodgson
Ontario’s successive Environmental Commissioners were at the forefront of warning the
Ontario Legislative Assembly and Ontario’s citizens that urgent action on climate change is
needed to avoid the further financial burden and loss of life that will come with inaction. The
MECP’s “Environmental Permissions Modernization” proposals ask the public to assume
additional environmental and financial risks by seeking to remove the requirements for carriers
of PCB and Biomedical wastes to provide financial assurances to the province. With Ontario also
seeking to privatize many sectors of healthcare in the province, the choice and oversight of
carriers would further slip from the realm of public accountability.
Existing sectors and activities that require financial assurance, require the regulated party to
provide it to the director before they begin their activity, in case there is a spill or incident. This
requires coordination between the MECP’s approvals branch and legal, financial,
environmental, and economic assessment branches, before an ECA regulated activity can begin.
17 Rosanes, Mark. Insurance Business. How climate change is impacting home insurance rates in Canada.
https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/ca/news/property-insurance/how-cli…insurance-rates-in-canada-320723.aspx. 28 December 2021.
18 Hodgson, Glen. Globe and Mail. The costs of climate change are rising.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-the-costs-o…
TTLW Comments on MECP Proposals 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 11
The ministry requires an Irrevocable Letter of Credit or similar for waste management system
carriers.
“The ministry is considering the removal of existing financial assurance requirements that
currently apply to PCB and Biomedical waste haulers. We want to explore whether or not we
can instead rely on coverage provided by insurance policy [sic] that has an amount set aside for
liability resulting from spills.” – October 19, 2021 Waste Systems EASR webinar statement.
In the absence of financial assurances, an increased cost burden would be shifted to
municipalities to cover contaminant clean up and mitigation costs, and personal insurance
policy holders around the province would have to compensate for potential payouts to cover
corporate pollution and contaminant accident and incident costs. A true polluter pays based
system would ensure that proponents of higher risk activities provide financial assurance, so
that Ontario municipalities, ratepayers, and personal policy holders do not have to shoulder the
burden of costs when incidents occur.
Instead of moving away from being able to use financial assurances as a compliance tool, the
MECP should be seeking to add the requirement for financial assurance to additional waste
types being trucked across our province on an increasingly frequent basis.
A 2000 article on insurance issues with regard to Walkerton referred to the tragedy’s financial
costs as “a risk management nightmare19”. In 2001, CBC News reported on the judicial inquiry
findings that the Walkerton tainted drinking water tragedy “had an economic impact of at least
$155 million20”. In 2011, CityNews reported21 that “The Ontario government has paid out more
than $72 million in compensation to victims of Walkerton’s tainted water tragedy and their
families. […] A total of 10,189 claims were made, with 9,275 qualifying for compensation.”
The Office of the Auditor General of Ontario released a Hazardous Spills 2020/21 Audit22, noting
in the summary of their report:
• The responsibility for protecting Ontario’s air, land and water falls to the Environment
Ministry.
• Under the Environmental Protection Act and related regulations, the Environment
Ministry is responsible for ensuring that companies have plans in place to prevent and
respond to hazardous spills, reduce their risk of spilling and comply with related
legislation and rules.
19 Blakeney, William. Canadian Underwriter. Walkerton: a risk management nightmare.
https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/features/walkerton-a-risk-management…. September 2000. 20 CBC. Economic toll high in Walkerton water disaster. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/economic-toll-high-inwalkerton-water-disaster-1.289892. 26 November 2001. 21 CityNews. Ontario pays $72 million to victims of Walkerton tainted water tragedy in 2000. May 2011. 22 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. “Hazardous Spills 2020/21 Audit”.
https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/news/21_summaries/2021_summary_ENV…. 2021.

*** * PLEASE NOTE: REST OF COMMENT ON ATTACHED PDF *****