The two main pesticide regulations in Saskatchewan, the Pesticide Control Products Act and the Pesticide Control Products Regulations make no mention of cosmetic pesticides, nor has either law been meaningfully revised in the past 10 years.

Click here to learn more about our regular environmental updates.

The changes to the approvals process should make Ontario business’ lives a bit easier, but it also imposes much more serious responsibilities on the shoulders of corporate directors. The fines that you may face, should you not respect your permits, are substantial and much easier to apply – so beware. With high turnover at many companies, some neglect their permits, stored away in a filing cabinet, as Dianne mentions in the interview, this is a very dangerous practice. Time to dust off the permits and get a crash course in the new system, take a look at the video below to get started and we will be covering these changes in detail at NimonikApp.ca (get a free account today!).

Dianne wrote up a great post on the changes which can be found on her blog, envirolaw.com, here.

You can download the full Corporate Profile Report here.

TarSands Watch
Polaris Institute

While we primarily service industry, it is more important than ever to ensure industry is acting responsibly and transparently. With millions of barrels of oil pouring into the gulf, we need to ensure our government aires not the side of caution, something I fear we have not done in the TarSands.

Tarsands production consumption of natural resources

Pembina goes on to estimate that the increased tar sands production made possible by a new half-million barrels per day pipeline from the tar sands would: consume the amount of natural gas consumed by 1.3 million Canadian households each year; disturb 11.5 square kilometers of Boreal forest; consume 200 million barrels of processing water; and create over 4 billion litres of toxic tailings of which 455 million litres will leak into Alberta’s watersheds.157

Spills and leaks in the pipeline

Spills, leaks and ruptures that have occurred on Enbridge pipelines over the past ten years. Between 1999 and 2008, across all of Enbridge’s operations there were 610 spills that released close to 132,000 barrels (21 million litres) of
hydrocarbons into the environment.1 This amounts to approximately half of the oil that spilled from the oil tanker the Exxon Valdez after it struck a rock in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1988.

The regulations would apply to anyone using an average volume of water equal to or exceeding 75 cubic meters per day, calculated on a monthly basis with fees determined based on annual usage. The regulations will come into force in 2011. The fees are generally set at $0.0025 per cubic meter used, although certain activities are charged a significantly higher rate of $0.07 per cubic meter used. The more modest fee is intended for industries that return most the water used back to the ecosystem. The chemical products and beverage industry (including water bottlers) will be the hardest hit.

A 60-day comment period was opened on the date of publication of the notice. Any interested person or parties are invited to submit their comments during this time.

To see the proposed regulations (in French only), click here.

Next, we need a deeper change that places more responsibility and flexibility in the interpretation of the law, making it more human.

1. Tell us about Ontario’s “Proposed Framework for Modernizing Environmental Approvals”.  What’s the intent behind it?

2. Practically, what will it mean for businesses? How do you expect the proposed framework to change the rules for businesses required to get permits?

3. Can we expect that business will have to renew their approvals more regularly for high risk activities? How is that any different than from the way things are being run today?

4. You noted on your blog that the MOE is proposing changes that would allow it to hold parent companies responsible for cleanup and costs of their subsidiaries where financial assurance was absent or inadequate. Is this feasible?

Here is some background info, which I would read if you haven’t already:

http://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2010/03/moving-forward-to-modernize-environmental-approvals.html

http://envirolaw.com/approvals-reform-closer/

http://envirolaw.com/financial-assurance-sting-tail-approval-reform/

Final Transcript:

Jonathan Brun: Today I am with Dianne Saxe, a top environmental lawyer based in Toronto and we’re going to be discussing the proposed framework for modernizing the approvals system in Ontario, so Dianne, I was hoping you could give us a really quick overview of your firm and what you work in.

Dianne Saxe: Thank you Jonathan. We’re a small environmental law firm in Ontario, in Toronto as you said. I’m an environmental law specialist and I’ve been an energy and environmental lawyer for more than 30 years. Half of that for government, and half for private practice. I’ve dealt with approvals on both sides of the government fence over that period of time and if anyone wants more details about us, they’re on our web site at envirolaw.com.

Jonathan Brun: That’s right, yeah. You have, I’d say, the top environmental law blog in the country, easily, so it’s definitely worth a look for everybody watching the video.

Dianne Saxe: Thank you.

Jonathan Brun: So, I guess we’ll dive right into the questions, and the first one would be – If you could quickly tell us about Ontario’s proposed framework for modernizing environmental approvals. What’s the intent behind it? What’s the government trying to accomplish with this proposed framework?

Dianne Saxe: The key thing to try to understand about the approvals framework is that it hasn’t changed much in 40 years, and in that time everything else has changed. In 1971 when the Ministry of the Environment first began issuing approvals, basically, no one in private industry knew or cared anything about environmental protection. That wasn’t their job, so the only people who had expertise on pollution control, and particularly air pollution control, which is what a lot of this is about, were in the Ministry of the Environment. And so, the law was set up to say that no one could do anything having to do with pollution without a Ministry permit, and the Ministry people checked all the engineering because other people didn’t know very much. That’s 40 years ago. It hasn’t been like that for a long time. So, for at least 20 years, those of us who work in the field have known we need to change the system. It is not time effective. It’s not cost effective. It hinders innovation. It makes it hard to be an innovative company in Ontario. The current approval system is a huge economic and environmental drag. It needs to be changed, and the key things that are changing in the new system are to distinguish between low risk and high risk activities. The Ministry issues about 6,000 approvals a year, and the statistics vary, but about half of them don’t require Ministry engineering. The 37th time somebody applies for a paint booth, the Ministry already knows the rules they’re going to put on somebody who wants to put in a new paint booth, so they’re just going to publish them. You want to build a paint booth, you have to do these things, same as everybody else who wants to build a paint booth. So, the application process is going to be very short. If you comply with the requirements, you have your approval the day you file your application.

Jonathan Brun: Oh, ok.

Dianne Saxe: Now, on the other hand, to make sure people take these rules seriously and have to comply with them, one of the changes is going to be something called the “Accountable Person.”

Jonathan Brun: Ok.

Dianne Saxe: So, up until now, the emphasis has been on what’s called the “Qualified Person,” which is your consultant, having to certify various things. But now, the senior person in the company is going to be the Accountable Person, and they are going to have to certify every year that the company is complying with its permit.

Jonathan Brun: Ok, will they be more liable under the proposed system then they are currently today?

Dianne Saxe: Yes, that’s the point.

Jonathan Brun: Uh huh.

Dianne Saxe: The plant manager/the senior person is going to be personally accountable because they’re going to have to sign this certificate and send it to the government, and if you provide false information to the government, that’s a very serious offense. You can go to jail for it. So, the senior individual is going to have a more personal interest in whether the permit is being complied with.

Jonathan Brun: Does the framework also require companies to renew their permits more frequently? I’m talking about the high risk items, not so much the generic ones that will be dealt with by more [INAUDIBLE], but the high risk ones. Will the permits be required to be renewed more frequently, or is the time not really a factor in the proposed framework?

Dianne Saxe: No, you’re absolutely right. One of the proposals is that permits should be renewed more frequently. Now, this is back to the future again: In 1971, when the Ministry first started issuing permits, their idea was that they should reissue permits on a frequent basis to make sure people were up to date, and they just couldn’t do it. They didn’t have the staff, they didn’t have the resources, and they stopped doing it. So, even today you’ll find people who are still operating under old permits. So, yes, one of the ideas is that by reducing the number of permits they issue, they can go back to requiring regular updates, and even if the government isn’t requiring the regular updates, the Accountable Person is going to have to file something every year saying “Yes, we are in compliance.”

Jonathan Brun: Is there a plan in the framework to make the request more digital and less paper-based to allow them to allocate more resources to renewing the permits more frequently and to increase liability? Are they planning to really go 100% digital?

Dianne Saxe: That’s the plan. Now, we’re not supposed to say “e-health” [INAUDIBLE] that we’re thinking about this. It’s some of the same problems and there is some/all of the same reasons. Yes, it has to be digital. Everyone will be able to see everyone’s certificate of approval which has never happened before.

Jonathan Brun: It remains to be seen if the government can pull it off, but I mean it would be fantastic and I think it would set a president for other jurisdictions in Canada to follow suit because it would certainly be great to see this across the country.

Dianne Saxe: Absolutely. Now, one other thing that’s being done in the approval system that’s important is the question of financial assurance. Financial assurance is money that a company puts up during its operations to guarantee that there’s money available for clean up if there’s a problem, either at the end of their life or if there is an accident. We’ve had this system for decades and it has never worked very well. In fact, the Ministry of the Environment admitted a few months ago in a hearing that of the 30 times in their entire existence where they’ve called on financial assurance, never once did they have it. (laughter) Sometimes they’re off by $60,000,000. So, that ends up coming out of the taxpayer or it ends up with things not getting cleaned up. So, they have admitted, or they were forced to admit in this hearing, that they need to fix this and they have signaled in the approvals reform process that they’re going to fix it, and by fixing it, that means there’s going to be more financial assurance required, but they may also be a little more flexible on how you can provide it. Final piece of this is the question of “What if the company goes bust and hasn’t left enough financial assurance?” which has happened quite often, the [INAUDIBLE] chemical case being the one where they were $60,000,000 off. But, the Ministry is now proposing is that parent companies will be liable if a subsidiary goes bust without having provided sufficient financial assurance.

Jonathan Brun: The framework is open for comments until April 16th and we mentioned earlier that they’re hoping to get the whole system in place in the next two and a half years, so do you have any sense of their timeline over the next 6 to 8 months in terms of implementing some of their proposed changes?

Dianne Saxe: I think they’re going to be very aggressive. To get all this done in the time provided is a sprint that starts now. The Ministry has promised that we’re going to start seeing certificates of approval online this month, and more and more signs of electronic transparency in the near future. So, whether we’re going to actually have legislation passed this fall, I don’t know, but I don’t think they’re going to get everything in place by 2012 unless they start moving with legislation quite quickly.

Jonathan Brun: Ok, great. Well, I think that pretty much sums up the main issues dealing with the proposed changes to the approval system in Ontario. I was wondering if you had any additional comments on the proposed framework or anything else going on. Ontario is by far the most aggressive in terms of new environmental legislation. So, we could talk for hours, but I was wondering if you had any other comments about the Ontario environmental legislative scene?

Dianne Saxe: Well, the bottom line of the approvals change is that it’s very important. We need it badly. The transition’s going to be tough, but we should be better off at the other side.

Jonathan Brun: Great. Well, thank you Dianne. I’ve been speaking with Dianne Saxe, who is a top environmental lawyer based in Toronto. Definitely check out her blog at envirolaw.com, and we hope to be able to follow this and other environmental changes in Ontario with you on an ongoing basis. It’s been a real pleasure, and thanks for taking the time to speak with us today.

Dianne Saxe: Oh, my pleasure. Thank you, Jonathan.

Jonathan Brun: Take care.

WJTP5FMPD2VV

1. What is the principal aim of the amendments to the Mining Act?

The government has stated that the purpose of the amendments is to bring Ontario’s mining legislation into harmony with the values of a modern Ontario. This is an attempt to match up the rules governing Ontario’s vibrant, economically important mining industry with the changes that have taken place in wider society.

That’s a pretty big job. And the job is still ongoing, because the government is still in the process of preparing the regulations to go along with the legislation. In addition, a key companion piece of legislation called the Far North Act, which  is intended to supplement the changes to the Mining Act has yet to be passed by Ontario’s legislature.

2. What are some of the most important changes?

As with all major change to important legislation, the devil is going to be in the details. However, with the changes to the Mining Act, we can break down the major areas of change into 5 topics:

1. The withdrawal of Crown-held mineral rights from staking in Southern Ontario.
2. Modernization of the staking process by a phased move from what is called ground staking to map staking.
3. The adoption of a system of exploration plans and exploration  permits, so that there is improved government awareness and in some cases scrutiny over exploration plans by mining companies.
4. A legislated requirement for mining companies to consult with Aboriginal Peoples in respect of exploration activities on their traditional lands.
5. The introduction of Community Based Land Use Plans in Northern Ontario. The new Mining Act has a prohibition on exploration in areas it is inconsistent with an existing land use plan. Going further, the new mining act has a prohibition on new mine openings unless a community based land use plan has been implemented in the area of the proposed mine. It should be noted that there are expected to be some exceptions to these restrictions which will be set out in the legislation or the regulations.

3. Can you explain a little about consultation with Aboriginal communities?

Its important for mining companies to know that a duty to consult exists right now. This is a constitutional requirement for the Crown – meaning government – to consult with First Nations when there is going to be resource development on their lands.

The key catalyst was a series of Supreme Court decisions going back to 2004.  Not long after those decisions were released, we saw a number of conflicts play out in the public sphere between Aboriginal communities in Ontario and mining companies that were seeking to carry out exploration activities.

With the amendments in to the Mining Act, the Ontario government is clearly trying to find a way to avoid these conflicts in the future. They’ve set up a system of legislated consultation, which requires mining companies to advise First Nations in advance of their activities. In some cases there may also be a requirement to obtain the consent of a First Nation before development can take place.

4. How are these changes being received by mining companies, aboriginals and other affected parties?

I don’t think there is a great deal of hostility directed at the basic purpose of the changes to the Mining Act. There is understanding that the rules around mining had to evolve with the times, but at the same time the economic importance of the mining industry can’t be ignored.

Certainly, cottagers in southern Ontario are going to be happy that mining companies can no longer stake claims on the lands surrounding their vacation properties.

I think it is also fair to say that in terms of actually moving ahead with changes, there has not been unanimous acceptance of the details in the new legislation. And I expect that as the regulations are released over the next two years, we will see more opposition to the details of implementation.

In particular, there has been concerns expressed by some Aboriginal groups that the changes don’t go far enough to protect their legal rights. That could be a problem going forward if there isn’t widespread acceptance of the framework for Aboriginal consultation.

5. What steps should mining companies be taking to minimize the impact of these amendments and ensure they remain compliant?

There are going to be several areas of concern:

1. First, obviously companies are going to want to have comfort that they are complying with the new legislative regime. Prospectors and mining companies should get comfortable with the changes in the new legislation, and the regulations as they are developed. For example, the change from traditional ground staking to internet based map staking is going to involve a real cultural shift in the mining exploration business in Ontario.
2. They should understand where they are situated relative to the new division between southern and northern Ontario. There are different rules and restrictions depending on where you are situated.
3. If there are First Nations communities near your mining claims, or near to areas that you’re thinking about staking, you should be aware of the basic principles of how consultation works, and how it could affect your operations through the different phases of exploration and development work.
4. If you’re in the Far North, you should understand the issues involved in preparing a community land use plan.

5. Do you have any other comments on the Mining Act or the general environmental regulatory framework in Ontario?

I think its important to note that this process of revising the Mining Act is still ongoing. Proactive mining companies with concerns about how the changes are going to impact their business should consider getting involved in the process to have a role in how the new Mining Act is implemented.

Morris Popowich is an associate in the Securities, Business Law and Energy groups at Macleod Dixon LLP. His practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and environmental regulatory and transactional matters.

Macleod Dixon LLP is a global law firm with offices in Canada (Calgary and Toronto) and 4 emerging markets with a natural resource based economy: Venezuela, Brazil, Russian Federation and Kazakhstan. Nine lawyers from Macleod Dixon were ranked as leading practitioners by Who’s Who Legal, Mining 2010 – the highest number of any Canadian-based law firm.

Not only do fish die, but there are numerous reports of hazardous waste leading to civil strife. There are numerous reports (and another) that nuclear waste was dumped off the coast of Somalia, leading to a die off of fish. The fisherman, having little other choice, turned to piracy.

From Al Jazeera News,

Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a “frightening activity” that has been going on for more than decade.

“Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there,” he said.

“European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a tonne, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a tonne.

Not only does hazardous waste kill marine life and ecosystems, it can destroy human societies as well.

1. Attaining the targets and
2. Verification of claims that targets were met.

For example, most countries signed onto Kyoto, but pretty much none have reached the goals set out under the document. In fact, Europe has had carbon emissions increase, so what does this say about the power of these “binding” agreements. If no one enforces the application of an agreement, there isn’t really an agreement in place. The US team seems to be pushing very hard on transparency in China and in general. My guess is that they feel that without transparency and accountability there will be a lot of fudging of the emissions numbers. Making predictions is a dangerous business, but my sense is that the only way to get countries to respect an international greenhouse gas treaty is to impose import tariffs on products from places who fail to comply. We shall see.

We think this addition to Google Scholar will empower the average citizen by helping everyone learn more about the laws that govern us all. To understand how an opinion has influenced other decisions, you can explore citing and related cases using the Cited by and Related articles links on search result pages. As you read an opinion, you can follow citations to the opinions to which it refers. You can also see how individual cases have been quoted or discussed in other opinions and in articles from law journals.

See for example, the citations for the famous Roe v. Wade case. Very happy to see this technology come for american laws as there is no US equivalent to our amazing CanLii.

“This string of successful lawsuits means that the Government of Canada can no longer turn a blind eye to disappearing species by claiming it can’t identify critical habitat,” said Gwen Barlee of the Wilderness Committee. “This is a whale of a judgement: a ruling about a homely minnow will actually protect BC’s endangered humpback and killer whales.”

Ontario Gets Even Tougher On Hazardous and General Waste Manufacturers, trucking companies and disposal sites handling waste must ensure that they don’t harm human health and safety or the environment. If they don’t, they could see life through an iron curtain.

- By Isaac Rudik at Compliance Solutions Canada, a Nimonik partner

When it comes to insisting that businesses properly store and dispose of hazardous and other wastes, Ontario’s Ministry of Environment isn’t fooling around.

Ian Herd, apparently the sole owner of a numbered Ontario corporation, failed to properly clean up soil-contaminated property he purchased near St. Catherine’s after being ordered to do so by the Ministry of Environment. MOE, not only took him to court to enforce the order but then prosecuted him criminally when he kept ignoring the directive. It resulted in Herd being sentenced to six months jail time. It took the province more than three years to nail him but the ministry’s investigators chased after Herd with the tenacity of a nasty terrier sniffing a meaty bone.

Hazardous waste covers a broad range of materials from manufacturing residues such as acids, contaminated sludge and complex chemicals to biomedical wastes from hospitals, used photo finishing chemicals and unused cleaning products from homes along with discarded batteries. They require special handling to reduce harming both human health and the environment. Continue reading…