David McRobert
David S. McRobert is an Ontario environmental lawyer, author and university lecturer. Between October 1994 and June 2010, he was In-House Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario and was involved in the establishment of the office. Before that McRobert was a senior policy advisor in the Waste Reduction Office in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. From 1989 to 1991 he coordinated research and advocacy on waste management and global warming at Pollution Probe. He also has worked for the Workplace Health and Safety Agency in Toronto, the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Attorney General.
Supervisors: Eric Tucker, Osgoode Hall Law School
Supervisors: Eric Tucker, Osgoode Hall Law School
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (37)
Uploads
Papers by David McRobert
In this article, David McRobert and Angela Dittrich examine whether Part 6 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) adequately regulates the animate products of biotechnology. Canadian environmental groups have advocated reforms to Part 6 since the early 2000s. Part 6 of CEPA has been neglected by government officials and ENGOs relative to other sections of CEPA, but biotechnology poses some of the most unpredictable, long-term risks to the environment, vulnerable populations and community health. The process for considering new genetically modified (GM) organisms needs to be more transparent, and the approvals timeline should be lengthened allowing for substantial public involvement, a full assessment of risks, and seeking the necessary consent of Indigenous peoples while upholding Indigenous rights.
Parts of this analysis were undertaken prior to the tabling of Bill C-28, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act on April 13, 2021 (First Reading). Links to Bill C-28 and background materials are provided in the endnotes. In concluding sections of this article the authors briefly examine the extent to which Bill C-28, as proposed, could address some of the challenges set out in the analysis below. In early 2022, the Canadian federal govt. tabled Bill S-5 in the Senate. The new bill is substantially based on Bill C-28 tabled in April 2021.
In this article, David McRobert and Angela Dittrich examine various regulatory reforms to strength the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) that Canadian environmental groups, public health advocates, occupational health experts and Indigenous organizations have advocated since the mid 2000s. This article focuses on reforms to protect vulnerable individuals and communities from toxic substances. Parts of this analysis were undertaken in early 2021 prior to the tabling of Bill C-28, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act on April 13, 2021 (First Reading). Links to Bill C-28 and background materials are provided in the endnotes below. In the concluding section of this article the authors examine the extent to which Bill C-28, as proposed, could address some of the challenges set out in the analysis below. In February 2022, the federal government tabled Bill S-5 in the Senate of Canada. It is substantially based on Bill C-28 tabled in April 2021.
Land use planning must protect the ecological integrity of Ontario’s Northern Boreal Forest and help to provide a sustainable future for Indigenous and northern communities.
In 1997, the Ontario government undertook work with dozens of affected communities and stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples, on its Ontario’s Living Legacy (OLL) strategy for the Area of the Undertaking (AOU) in the southern portion of the boreal forest. Released in 1999 the OLL strategy was an incomplete attempt to reconcile the interests of environmental protection, industry and other land uses and highlighted the limitations of the Public Lands Act.
After the repeal of the FNA, it seems plausible there will be no systematic legal framework for comprehensive land use planning process for northern Ontario. This part of the province is a unique and fragile environment. This brief examines the need for a higher level of planning to protect this special environment from several viewpoints, including forest management, Indigenous rights and community land use planning for the north. Ontario’s approach to mining in the province, including the mineral development strategies and policies and the Mining Act, are also reviewed.
Based on the findings of this review, our position is that a new planning approach is needed for the north to address the realities of the 21st century. Unlike southern Ontario, where detailed legislation, such as the Planning Act, provides clear planning guidance for the organized municipalities and privately owned lands of the south, there is no equivalent land use planning system for the mostly Crown-owned lands and unorganized territories of the north
In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly approved the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). As a declaration, it is not binding in the manner of a conventional treaty or convention. In any case, in Canada treaties require implementation by legislation to be brought into force as domestic law. However, some UN declarations – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example – have become a persuasive and pervasive standard. As scholars on international law often observe, “soft law” often has a tendency to become “hard law” over time.
A key feature of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the concept of free, prior and informed consent. For example, Article 32 provides:
"States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources."
Free, prior and informed consent is not a formally defined term in the Declaration. However, it can reasonably be understood – and certainly is understood by First Nations and Métis (collectively, “Indigenous”) leaders – to include the following elements: consent that is given by fully informed Indigenous peoples affected; without coercion, intimidation or manipulation; before activities affecting them begin; and based on their own decision making processes.
The complex interplay between aboriginal interests to resource development in Ontario will continue to be affected by statutory and regulatory change, case law developments and evolving international standards even if the Far North Act is repealed. We urge that key UNDRIP principles be addressed and incorporated into the initial design of the revised FNA land use planning and resource disposition (LUPARD) program. If not, experience suggests that these issues will very likely be raised on a project-by-project basis by affected Indigenous peoples, resulting in delay and uncertainty. In addition, if these key principles are not ultimately addressed sufficiently, litigation may result, reducing (not creating) business certainty.
While the Crown is ultimately responsible for the adequacy of the aboriginal consultation in respect of any project, it is the project proponent that usually bears the practical consequences of any allegations of inadequate consultation. The consequences, of course, are project delay and uncertainty created by an aboriginal group contesting the issuance of a specific approval on the basis of inadequate consultation.
We thank you for considering this submission and the important matters it identifies. We reiterate that it is essential that the decision-making with respect to Ontario’s Far North occurs in an efficient and effective manner and appropriately furthers all the relevant interests.
Say it ain't so, Jean. You visited First Nations reserves and worked with Indigenous peoples in Canada's north for years. His department, Indian Affairs, published reports and was required to seek allocations from the federal Dept. of Finance. You worked closely with Pierre Trudeau when he was Minister of Justice as his Parliamentary Assistant in the mid 1960s.
The media covered the issue. e.g. See the attached report in the Weekend Magazine published by the Toronto Star in 1965 and written by Ian Adams.
There is a discussion on the third page about the disturbing conditions at a Residential School near Kenora. The author of this report went on to write about The Tragedy of Charlie Wenjack a couple of years later, a story that was popularized by Tragically Hip singer Gord Downie in a TV program and a touching CD before Downie's death in Oct. 2017.
Is Chretien claiming his staff didn't read media reports and brief ministers? Is he claiming he never read any reports? Is he claiming no Briefing Notes were prepared for the House of Commons and Cabinet? Balderdash.
Recommendation to Environment and Climate Change Canada
To the extent that the proposed federal ban on certain single-use plastics (SUPs) promotes a shift to products that rely on PFAS, key objectives of the ban could be undermined and further unexpected health and environmental effects may ensue. Aside from wider issues of persistence and potential toxic effects of the large group of PFAS chemicals, the negative effects on utility, value and safety of compost made of food-contact papers containing PFAS are significant. We urge the Canadian federal government to consider how substitution of PFAS-laden products for single-use plastics could result in adverse short-, medium-, and long-term health and environmental outcomes. We further recommend that all food-contact materials sold in Canada require PFAS-free certification.
The narrative to date has been multi-layered. Given widespread uncertainty about how the pandemic would proceed, an initial run on many consumer goods led to shortages and hoarding and a steep rise in global plastic consumption and waste generation. Concern over surface transmission of the virus from handling also resulted in a rapid shift from reusables to a reliance on disposable products in many sectors. SUP consumption is estimated to have increased by 200-300 per cent between February and June 2020, while recycling rates declined relative to pre-COVID-19 rates and littering on lands and waters have increased. By mid July 2020, waste management service providers estimated that North American households were generating up to 50 per cent more waste by volume than they did pre-COVID-19.
This increase can be attributed to numerous factors including: 1) a massive increase in reliance on disposable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) leading to an unfortunate increase in litter and plastic pollution; 2) a sharp rise in the e-commerce industry as consumers felt safer staying at home and having goods and food delivered to them; and 3) an increase in consumer pick-up services at curbside by retailers and other service providers.
On the positive side, there were drastic reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in many nations including Canada as a result of the reduced commuter traffic and manufacturer operations. In addition, Canadians came together and sewed reusable cloth masks to alleviate pressure on commercial, scarce PPE supplies. Mask wearing along with proper hand washing showed that education and emphasis on hygiene can promote greater reuse of products. However, these efforts seem meager in light of the challenges posed by historical and ongoing damage microplastics are causing to the oceans. In October 2020, Australian researchers studying the extent of plastic pollution in deep sea sediments estimated conservatively that at least 14 million tonnes of microplastics reside on oceans based on their core sampling work. These historical accumulations are a reminder of the environmental damage and contamination impacts of resource extraction, refining, chemical synthesis, manufacturing, packaging, filling (of packaging such as bottles), transportation related to plastics use.
The pandemic also has shown that socio-technical, educational, and legal mechanisms need to be instituted to support reduction and reuse of plastics and other reusable products (e.g. dishes, bottles, glasses and cutlery) by industry and consumers. For example, the restaurant and food industries should be initially incentivized and eventually required to reuse plastics and other reusable products made of stainless steel, glass and ceramics (for containers, bottles and eating ware such as dishes, glasses and cutlery). Benefits of reuse for businesses include: cutting costs, adapting to individual needs, optimizing operations, building brand loyalty, improving user experience, and gathering intelligence on user preferences and system performance. Moreover, a complete assessment of the environmental damage and contamination impacts of the industrial emissions related to resource extraction, refining, chemical synthesis, manufacturing, etc. associated with the increased plastics use during the pandemic will be required once the outbreak ends.
New Brunswick is in the latter category and the NB government has recently announced it will legislate EPR for packaging. Ontario is moving to transition the current framework to full EPR but with a transition that will take up to 6 years. Moreover, there are strong indications in a February 2019 discussion paper released by the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) that Ontario intends to facilitate alternative treatment methods for low value plastics currently collected in curbside programs such as its Blue Box Program (BBP).
Federal Departments Responsible for Reply: Environment Canada, Department of Finance Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Petition: 333 Issue(s): Climate change, federal-provincial relations, governance
Petitioner(s): David McRobert, Legal Consultant; William E. Johnston, M.A., LL.B. et al.
In replacing Ontario’s three year-old legal regime to reduce climate emissions, the government enacted CTCA after limited EBR public consultation and without express regulatory powers for the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In implementing Ontario’s climate plan and making decisions under the CTCA, we recommend that the Minister and other ministries take steps to improve public participation, clarify targets, and independent reporting, and fully apply their Statement of Environmental Values.
Finally, we recommend that the government take steps to reassure investors that it will uphold the rule of law, access to justice, and provide stable future investment opportunities in Ontario.
Considerable concern has been raised about the decision to disband the office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario or ECO and transfer much of its mandate to the Auditor General of Ontario (AGO). Environmental organizations (ENGOs) such as Ontario Nature, the Federation of Ontario Cottagers Association (FOCA) and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) organized petitions and letter writing campaigns urging the government not to enact the part of Bill 57 related to the ECO. At least 8,000 to 10,000 of Ontarians have signed petitions and letters protesting the provisions in Schedule 15. These groups have written the Premier to express their strong opposition to the decision to disband the office of the ECO and transfer much of its mandate to the Auditor General. They also have urged the Premier to listen to the voices of Ontarians and take action to ensure the independent role of the ECO is restored in its entirety. This Question and Answer document various facets of the closure of the ECO.
In this article, David McRobert and Angela Dittrich examine whether Part 6 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) adequately regulates the animate products of biotechnology. Canadian environmental groups have advocated reforms to Part 6 since the early 2000s. Part 6 of CEPA has been neglected by government officials and ENGOs relative to other sections of CEPA, but biotechnology poses some of the most unpredictable, long-term risks to the environment, vulnerable populations and community health. The process for considering new genetically modified (GM) organisms needs to be more transparent, and the approvals timeline should be lengthened allowing for substantial public involvement, a full assessment of risks, and seeking the necessary consent of Indigenous peoples while upholding Indigenous rights.
Parts of this analysis were undertaken prior to the tabling of Bill C-28, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act on April 13, 2021 (First Reading). Links to Bill C-28 and background materials are provided in the endnotes. In concluding sections of this article the authors briefly examine the extent to which Bill C-28, as proposed, could address some of the challenges set out in the analysis below. In early 2022, the Canadian federal govt. tabled Bill S-5 in the Senate. The new bill is substantially based on Bill C-28 tabled in April 2021.
In this article, David McRobert and Angela Dittrich examine various regulatory reforms to strength the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) that Canadian environmental groups, public health advocates, occupational health experts and Indigenous organizations have advocated since the mid 2000s. This article focuses on reforms to protect vulnerable individuals and communities from toxic substances. Parts of this analysis were undertaken in early 2021 prior to the tabling of Bill C-28, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act on April 13, 2021 (First Reading). Links to Bill C-28 and background materials are provided in the endnotes below. In the concluding section of this article the authors examine the extent to which Bill C-28, as proposed, could address some of the challenges set out in the analysis below. In February 2022, the federal government tabled Bill S-5 in the Senate of Canada. It is substantially based on Bill C-28 tabled in April 2021.
Land use planning must protect the ecological integrity of Ontario’s Northern Boreal Forest and help to provide a sustainable future for Indigenous and northern communities.
In 1997, the Ontario government undertook work with dozens of affected communities and stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples, on its Ontario’s Living Legacy (OLL) strategy for the Area of the Undertaking (AOU) in the southern portion of the boreal forest. Released in 1999 the OLL strategy was an incomplete attempt to reconcile the interests of environmental protection, industry and other land uses and highlighted the limitations of the Public Lands Act.
After the repeal of the FNA, it seems plausible there will be no systematic legal framework for comprehensive land use planning process for northern Ontario. This part of the province is a unique and fragile environment. This brief examines the need for a higher level of planning to protect this special environment from several viewpoints, including forest management, Indigenous rights and community land use planning for the north. Ontario’s approach to mining in the province, including the mineral development strategies and policies and the Mining Act, are also reviewed.
Based on the findings of this review, our position is that a new planning approach is needed for the north to address the realities of the 21st century. Unlike southern Ontario, where detailed legislation, such as the Planning Act, provides clear planning guidance for the organized municipalities and privately owned lands of the south, there is no equivalent land use planning system for the mostly Crown-owned lands and unorganized territories of the north
In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly approved the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). As a declaration, it is not binding in the manner of a conventional treaty or convention. In any case, in Canada treaties require implementation by legislation to be brought into force as domestic law. However, some UN declarations – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example – have become a persuasive and pervasive standard. As scholars on international law often observe, “soft law” often has a tendency to become “hard law” over time.
A key feature of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the concept of free, prior and informed consent. For example, Article 32 provides:
"States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources."
Free, prior and informed consent is not a formally defined term in the Declaration. However, it can reasonably be understood – and certainly is understood by First Nations and Métis (collectively, “Indigenous”) leaders – to include the following elements: consent that is given by fully informed Indigenous peoples affected; without coercion, intimidation or manipulation; before activities affecting them begin; and based on their own decision making processes.
The complex interplay between aboriginal interests to resource development in Ontario will continue to be affected by statutory and regulatory change, case law developments and evolving international standards even if the Far North Act is repealed. We urge that key UNDRIP principles be addressed and incorporated into the initial design of the revised FNA land use planning and resource disposition (LUPARD) program. If not, experience suggests that these issues will very likely be raised on a project-by-project basis by affected Indigenous peoples, resulting in delay and uncertainty. In addition, if these key principles are not ultimately addressed sufficiently, litigation may result, reducing (not creating) business certainty.
While the Crown is ultimately responsible for the adequacy of the aboriginal consultation in respect of any project, it is the project proponent that usually bears the practical consequences of any allegations of inadequate consultation. The consequences, of course, are project delay and uncertainty created by an aboriginal group contesting the issuance of a specific approval on the basis of inadequate consultation.
We thank you for considering this submission and the important matters it identifies. We reiterate that it is essential that the decision-making with respect to Ontario’s Far North occurs in an efficient and effective manner and appropriately furthers all the relevant interests.
Say it ain't so, Jean. You visited First Nations reserves and worked with Indigenous peoples in Canada's north for years. His department, Indian Affairs, published reports and was required to seek allocations from the federal Dept. of Finance. You worked closely with Pierre Trudeau when he was Minister of Justice as his Parliamentary Assistant in the mid 1960s.
The media covered the issue. e.g. See the attached report in the Weekend Magazine published by the Toronto Star in 1965 and written by Ian Adams.
There is a discussion on the third page about the disturbing conditions at a Residential School near Kenora. The author of this report went on to write about The Tragedy of Charlie Wenjack a couple of years later, a story that was popularized by Tragically Hip singer Gord Downie in a TV program and a touching CD before Downie's death in Oct. 2017.
Is Chretien claiming his staff didn't read media reports and brief ministers? Is he claiming he never read any reports? Is he claiming no Briefing Notes were prepared for the House of Commons and Cabinet? Balderdash.
Recommendation to Environment and Climate Change Canada
To the extent that the proposed federal ban on certain single-use plastics (SUPs) promotes a shift to products that rely on PFAS, key objectives of the ban could be undermined and further unexpected health and environmental effects may ensue. Aside from wider issues of persistence and potential toxic effects of the large group of PFAS chemicals, the negative effects on utility, value and safety of compost made of food-contact papers containing PFAS are significant. We urge the Canadian federal government to consider how substitution of PFAS-laden products for single-use plastics could result in adverse short-, medium-, and long-term health and environmental outcomes. We further recommend that all food-contact materials sold in Canada require PFAS-free certification.
The narrative to date has been multi-layered. Given widespread uncertainty about how the pandemic would proceed, an initial run on many consumer goods led to shortages and hoarding and a steep rise in global plastic consumption and waste generation. Concern over surface transmission of the virus from handling also resulted in a rapid shift from reusables to a reliance on disposable products in many sectors. SUP consumption is estimated to have increased by 200-300 per cent between February and June 2020, while recycling rates declined relative to pre-COVID-19 rates and littering on lands and waters have increased. By mid July 2020, waste management service providers estimated that North American households were generating up to 50 per cent more waste by volume than they did pre-COVID-19.
This increase can be attributed to numerous factors including: 1) a massive increase in reliance on disposable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) leading to an unfortunate increase in litter and plastic pollution; 2) a sharp rise in the e-commerce industry as consumers felt safer staying at home and having goods and food delivered to them; and 3) an increase in consumer pick-up services at curbside by retailers and other service providers.
On the positive side, there were drastic reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in many nations including Canada as a result of the reduced commuter traffic and manufacturer operations. In addition, Canadians came together and sewed reusable cloth masks to alleviate pressure on commercial, scarce PPE supplies. Mask wearing along with proper hand washing showed that education and emphasis on hygiene can promote greater reuse of products. However, these efforts seem meager in light of the challenges posed by historical and ongoing damage microplastics are causing to the oceans. In October 2020, Australian researchers studying the extent of plastic pollution in deep sea sediments estimated conservatively that at least 14 million tonnes of microplastics reside on oceans based on their core sampling work. These historical accumulations are a reminder of the environmental damage and contamination impacts of resource extraction, refining, chemical synthesis, manufacturing, packaging, filling (of packaging such as bottles), transportation related to plastics use.
The pandemic also has shown that socio-technical, educational, and legal mechanisms need to be instituted to support reduction and reuse of plastics and other reusable products (e.g. dishes, bottles, glasses and cutlery) by industry and consumers. For example, the restaurant and food industries should be initially incentivized and eventually required to reuse plastics and other reusable products made of stainless steel, glass and ceramics (for containers, bottles and eating ware such as dishes, glasses and cutlery). Benefits of reuse for businesses include: cutting costs, adapting to individual needs, optimizing operations, building brand loyalty, improving user experience, and gathering intelligence on user preferences and system performance. Moreover, a complete assessment of the environmental damage and contamination impacts of the industrial emissions related to resource extraction, refining, chemical synthesis, manufacturing, etc. associated with the increased plastics use during the pandemic will be required once the outbreak ends.
New Brunswick is in the latter category and the NB government has recently announced it will legislate EPR for packaging. Ontario is moving to transition the current framework to full EPR but with a transition that will take up to 6 years. Moreover, there are strong indications in a February 2019 discussion paper released by the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) that Ontario intends to facilitate alternative treatment methods for low value plastics currently collected in curbside programs such as its Blue Box Program (BBP).
Federal Departments Responsible for Reply: Environment Canada, Department of Finance Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Petition: 333 Issue(s): Climate change, federal-provincial relations, governance
Petitioner(s): David McRobert, Legal Consultant; William E. Johnston, M.A., LL.B. et al.
In replacing Ontario’s three year-old legal regime to reduce climate emissions, the government enacted CTCA after limited EBR public consultation and without express regulatory powers for the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In implementing Ontario’s climate plan and making decisions under the CTCA, we recommend that the Minister and other ministries take steps to improve public participation, clarify targets, and independent reporting, and fully apply their Statement of Environmental Values.
Finally, we recommend that the government take steps to reassure investors that it will uphold the rule of law, access to justice, and provide stable future investment opportunities in Ontario.
Considerable concern has been raised about the decision to disband the office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario or ECO and transfer much of its mandate to the Auditor General of Ontario (AGO). Environmental organizations (ENGOs) such as Ontario Nature, the Federation of Ontario Cottagers Association (FOCA) and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) organized petitions and letter writing campaigns urging the government not to enact the part of Bill 57 related to the ECO. At least 8,000 to 10,000 of Ontarians have signed petitions and letters protesting the provisions in Schedule 15. These groups have written the Premier to express their strong opposition to the decision to disband the office of the ECO and transfer much of its mandate to the Auditor General. They also have urged the Premier to listen to the voices of Ontarians and take action to ensure the independent role of the ECO is restored in its entirety. This Question and Answer document various facets of the closure of the ECO.
The object of the presentation is to analyse changes in public policy related to waste diversion in the past 25 years. To conserve time the focus of this presentation is on Ontario examples. The presentation notes that legal change is not the same as social change; we must change hearts and minds as well as laws otherwise the reforms do not take hold. Similarly, good laws start with good meta-policies that are coherent and durable- must be integrated.
As a result, the sovereignty concept has acquired several layers of meaning, some of which will be explored in this book. Public discussion in Canada has largely, and legitimately, focused on policy questions that flow from sovereignty, from Canada’s right to exercise authority over that of any other state over vast areas of Arctic lands and waters. Thus I will address the central questions raised in the past such as: what is the status of Arctic lands and waters? Which states have defined Ottawa’s jurisdiction over the area in the past? How has Canada dealt with these challenges in the past? How well equipped is Canada to deal with such challenges in the future? What does circumpolarity imply for Canadian sovereignty?
These questions usually encompass matters of international law, diplomacy, technological developments, defense, and economics. In addition I would suggest that Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic cannot be understood in isolation from the concerns of aboriginal people and historical developments. Consequently this paper will examine all of the above areas in relation to Arctic sovereignty, which will provide a framework for understanding the significance of the North to the Canadian identity and the ramifications of this identity for future developments in the North.
This brief addresses numerous aspects of the current regime governing cemetery and bereavement operations. However, our focus is on potential use of conservation burial reserves (CBRs) as a means to address neglected or abandoned cemeteries and potential other additional cemetery closure order application requirements, raise funds, provide consumers with a wider range of choices at more affordable prices, increase greenspace in communities for its many physical and mental health benefits, and simultaneously promote conservation of lands for wildlife and plants in urban and rural areas in Ontario.
David McRobert is an environmental lawyer based in southern Ontario, and Adjunct Professor. David served for sixteen years as In-House Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. In the past 11 years, he has worked with numerous clients on a range of topics including environmental defence work, wireless radiation safety, air pollution, water pollution and chemical sensitivity. David has a B.Sc. in Biology and a Masters in Environmental Studies in Biological Conservation from York U. He graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School, undertook graduate law studies and was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1990. David taught law to undergraduate and graduate students at York University, Osgoode Hall Law School, the University of Toronto and Humber College between 1988 and 2012. He has published more than 30 books and reports and dozens of journal articles and articles. Book titles include Risky Business: A Guide to the Use, Handling and Transportation of Asbestos (2012) and My Municipal Recycling System Made Me Fat and Sick (2012).
Angela Dittrich begins her second year as a Masters in Environmental Studies and law (MES/JD) student at York University and Osgoode Hall Law School in Sept. 2021. She also is completing a Business and the Environment graduate diploma from the Schulich School of Business. Angela has a B.Sc. in Integrated Science from McMaster University. Her current research analyzes extended producer responsibility (EPR) approaches across North American jurisdictions with a focus on environmental impacts, economic impacts, and metrics used to determine program efficacy.
Prior to the announcement of the proposed changes to the TRA, users of the TRP’s website could search for and access information from Ontario facilities that use, create, release, dispose and recycle and learn more about these substances and how facilities are taking action to reduce their creation and use to protect the environment. As of January 26th, these search functions no longer appear to be available. Thus, it appears that significant transparency features of TRP’s website could be lost after the TRA is repealed.
At the time the 2018 Fiscal Update was released, the federal financial picture was considerably rosier. As the 2018 Fall Update indicates, economic growth in Canada has been strong in the past five years — perhaps the strongest in the G7 nations. Moreover, unemployment is at a 40-year low; capacity utilization is back to pre-recession levels; profits are up; wages are growing faster than they have since the global economic meltdown in 2008-2009
This change was made without providing an opportunity for public comment on this regulatory change through Ontario's EBR. On October 31, 2018 the Ontario government enacted the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 (the “CTCA”) and repealed the previous law.
This article provides a brief analysis of the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018, some of its weaknesses, and our recommendations for its implementation in 2019 and beyond. We also discuss some of the flaws and limitations in public consultation process that was used in developing the CTCA and the lack of compliance on the part of the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks and the ministry (MECP) with the Environmental Bill of Rights (“EBR”).
Since contraventions of environmental laws and occupational health and safety (OHS) laws often are intimately linked in many workplace and community settings, environmental lawyers often have a strong interest in occupational health and safety issues. Some of the most powerful laws and regulations related to OHS matters have important benefits and positive impacts on adjacent communities and the families of workers. For example, asbestos control regulations have reduced health risks to families of workers who handle asbestos by ensuring they bring less of it home.
International and Canadian studies indicate that occupational health and safety injuries/illnesses are more common among waste management and recycling workers than the rest of the workforce.
In March 2000, the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management reported that the injury rates for municipal solid waste (MSW) workers in Florida and Denmark were six to seven times greater than those for the general workforce. In addition, the Florida researchers found MSW collection to be one of the most hazardous occupations. According to Danish research highlighted by the Florida study, MSW workers in Denmark face a 50% higher illness rate, with infectious diseases being six times that of other workers. Refuse collectors working in the US were identified as having the most dangerous jobs in the country between 1992 and 1997, according to a study published by U.S. Bureau of Labour in 1999. The 1999 US study indicated 39 fatalities to refuse collectors, as well as 17 to truck drivers and six to labourers in the five year period between 1992 and 1997.
Worker injury rates arising from recycling and waste management sectors have been increasing steadily in Ontario since the introduction of Blue Box programs in the 1980s. By the late 1980s, data collected by the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board (renamed the Worker Safety and Insurance Board in the mid 1990s) garbage workers collecting municipal wastes, compostables and recyclables pay a very high price for their service to our communities. They sustain serious and repeated back injuries among other shocks, especially as they age, partly due to people overloading their garbage and recycling containers.
I wrote my LLM Thesis on Labour Relations Law, Technological Change and Sustainability at Osgoode between 1987 and 1993. I saw a freight train coming barreling down the global train tracks straight at Ontario's and Canada's manufacturing sector and mineral extraction sectors. I argued that it was necessary in the 1990s to start job sharing and other adjustment strategies because there would be less work.
The same concepts arguably apply to the hollowing out of the European economies that has been underway for decades as capital has shifted labour to developing nations with lax and even non-existent labour, occupational, environmental, consumer protection laws etc., weak health care systems. minimalist educational systems and no social justice structures. The trend already was very apparent in the 1960s and 1970s and expanded at a great rate in the wake of global free trade agreements that eclipsed GATT and the WTO in their power and scope.
These agreements have led to social unrest and serious anxiety, as reflected in the recent Brexit vote.
Regrettably my arguments were not well received although some folks in the Bob Rae cabinet agreed with the concepts of job sharing and redistribution of wealth, especially in the face of the 1991-1994 recession. How about Wynne-Trudeau days in 2017 for all civil servants in the broad public sector? This would open up opportunities for youth and encourage boomers and their children to begin to live to less, a necessary transition if we are serious about addressing climate change and other social and environmental ills. I would say it is time.
Diesel systems have been widely implemented in remote communities due to their technical simplicity and general reliability in normal operating circumstances. The technical benefits of diesel generation come at considerable operational and environmental costs, which ultimately prevents consistent electricity supply. According to some estimates, remote communities consume more than 215 million litres of diesel annually, resulting in extremely high costs (ranging from $0.30 to $2.60/kWh). During the coldest days in winter, First Nations in northwestern Ontario are sometimes forced to close their schools and public buildings, due to diesel shortages, equipment breakdowns or other problems. Lack of energy access is not simply an issue of keeping the heat running and lights on, it is an impediment to economic development, hindering access to clean water, constraining access to education, cultural activities and community facilities and health services. This draft paper examines the role of renewable energy systems and fuel cells could play in supplying reliable energy to northern Ontario and some of the legal, policy and institutional changes needed to do this.