Ontarians may have invented the Blue Box, but our current linear, make-use-dispose economy makes it impossible for recycling alone to solve our growing waste problem. Currently, less than seven per cent of Ontario’s waste is recycled through the Blue Box, and 1 the province sends over 8 million tonnes (70 per cent)2 of trash to landfills and incinerators every year.
The ORA strongly objects to any approach that eliminates the opportunity for public and Indigenous consultation and input regarding any sewage and stormwater infrastructure projects, especially any expansions or upgrades when they could have a negative environmental impact on the riverine environment and communities.
Finally, the West Credit River is a headwaters tributary of the Credit River and is considered the crown jewel of coldwater brook trout fisheries in Ontario. This fishery significantly adds to the economic and social fabric of the province, with Ontario fisheries contributing a total of approximately $2.5 billion annually to the provincial economy. MNRF’s own documents predict that climate change will reduce the number of watersheds in Ontario with brook trout by 50% by 2050.
Removing the regulatory baseline for 113 of Ontario’s most heavily polluting facilities in nine environmentally damaging sectors is the wrong approach if the Government of Ontario’s goal is to hold polluters accountable, as it has stated on several occasions. In order to achieve that goal, the MISA regulations should be updated and expanded to new facilities operating in Ontario across the nine industrial sectors.
While abandoning the historically thoughtful context of a normal PPS review is ill-advised at any time, it is irresponsible to tilt the PPS toward an excessive empowerment of development-as-usual at a time of a changing climate, threats to biodiversity, regional ecological integrity, and the gathering momentum of the sixth mass extinction.
ORA submits that Schedule 5 of Bill 66 is a regressive, unwarranted and potentially risky proposal that is inconsistent with the public interest and does not adequately safeguard the health and safety of Ontarians. Does the MECP really want to set the stage for another Grassy Narrows mercury disaster? Instead, the MECP should be focusing on improving the TRA and its regulations to better protect communities.
The government’s proposed P2 Plans on triclosan are inadequate to address its continued use in consumer products and presence in the environment. Rather, the government’s proposal will ensure the on-going use of triclosan in consumer products. Unless there is a prohibition of triclosan in personal care products and other consumer products, the substance will continue to be released into the aquatic environment, including the Great Lakes and waterbodies across Canada, creating unnecessary risks to aquatic and terrestrial species. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested data demonstrating that consumer products containing antimicrobial ingredients are effective in their stated purpose – to prevent infections. The FDA did not receive such data and therefore passed its final decision to prohibit the use of triclosan and triclocarban along with 18 other antimicrobial chemicals in consumer antiseptic wash products that are rinsed off after use, including hand washes and body washes, starting in September 2017.20 The State of Minnesota passed a regulation to prohibit the use of triclosan in sanitizing or hand and body cleansing products starting in January 1, 2017.21 If regulatory measures to prohibit the use of triclosan in consumer products are not taken in Canada, it may become a dumping ground for products containing triclosan and other antimicrobial chemicals that are subject to these regulations. Continue reading
While the focus of this submission is on urban stormwater in the draft plans and regulation, we have included observations and recommendations related to complementary freshwater and natural heritage issues and other policy needs and opportunities. Ontario needs to transform the way rain is managed on the urban landscape and one important step forward is changing our land use planning framework to address stormwater management.
The VRS clearly recognizes the serious concerns of the SLCSG, however; we urge caution in the City’s approach to mitigating the algae issue. VRS agrees that action must be taken by the City of Sudbury to resolve the long-standing issue of algae blooms once and for all; however, we differ in the recommended approach.