DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplement 1997

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Open Doors – Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Supplement to the 1997 Annual Report The Environmental Bill of Rights requires that the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario include a summary of the information gathered in the review of the implementation of the legislation and how ministries comply with the act. In addition, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario must provide a list of all proposals posted on the Environmental Registry for which decisions had not been posted by December 31, 1997. This Supplement provides the following information, intended to complement the main body of the 1997 Annual Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Appendix A: Posted Acts and Regulations Appendix B: 1997 Policy Postings Appendix C: Unposted Decisions Appendix D: Selected 1997 Exceptions Appendix E: Environmental Monitoring Programs Appendix F: Selected Ontario Voluntary Agreements Appendix G: Applications for Reviews and Investigations Appendix H: Ministry Compliance with 1996 Recommendations Appendix I: Technical Supplement Section 1: List of Policies, Acts and Regulations Section 2: List of Instruments Section 3: Education Outreach Appendix A: Posted Acts and Regulations ONTARIO MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND RURAL AFFAIRS (OMAFRA) (MCCR) Bill 146, Farming and Food Production Protection Act, Standard adopted under the Gasoline Handling Act: 1997 (AC7E0001.P) Diking and Secondary Containment for Aboveground Tanks (RL6E0003.D) Proposal posted 28-Jan-97 Decision not posted Proposal posted 28-Nov-96 • Provides broader protection to farmers against complaints from neigh- Decision posted 9-May-97 bours than the Farm Practices Protection Act 1988 (FPPA) which it • Double-walled aboveground gasoline storage tanks will no longer be replaces required to be surrounded by an earth dike (single-wall tanks will still • Expands list of nuisances that farmers are permitted to cause as a require dikes). result of normal farm practices from noise odour and dust to Environmental Implications and Public Participation include flies smoke vibration light. • The TSSA reports that the use of double-walled tanks to contain • No municipal by law can restrict a normal farm practice potential spills may decrease the risk of leaks secondary contain- ment through double-walled tanks instead of dikes has been Environmental Implications and Public Participation approved by the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, an organiza- • If a farm practice is determined to be a "normal" practice by the tion that performs tests on equipment and certifies it for safety and Normal Farm Practices Protection Board neighbours cannot succeed standardized manufacturing. in stopping the practice through a court order. • Under the new FPPA as under the old FPPA environmental protection ECO Commentary legislation is still paramount "normal" farm practices are not protect • Documentation on SEV consideration provided by the TSSA showed ed practices if they contravene environmental regulations permits or that the TSSA applied MCCR's SEV carefully in making this decision. statutory provisions. • The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board will have to be applied to Standard adopted under the Gasoline Handling Act: before a complainant can sue in court for harm to a public resource Forest Management Activities (RL7E0001.P) or public nuisance (under the EBR) or for nuisance under common law. Proposal posted 3-Jan-97 Decision not yet posted ECO Commentary • A discussion paper posted on the Registry in January 1997 proposed • Prescribes standards for the handling of gasoline in the forest indus- changes to the act; public consultation on the proposal led to Bill try including provisions for the use of mobile refuelling equipment. 146. • Some companies will be required to make equipment upgrades and • The ECO commends the early posting of the discussion paper thus provide additional training to their employees by early to mid-1998. maximizing the opportunity for public participation. However to satisfy Environmental Implications and Public Participation the EBR requirement to notify the public of proposals for environmen- • The standards should ensure a minimum level of care in the handling tally significant acts the proposal should have been posted a second of gasoline and the prevention of spills and other accidents. time for public comment once the full text of the bill was drafted. ECO Commentary • The ECO will review this law when it is finalized. • The standards came into force in Nov. 1997, but a decision notice was not posted in 1997. • MCCR or the TSSA should ensure that decision notices are posted in a timely manner. 1997 Supplement 1 Fuel Oil Regulation and Fuel Oil Code, made under the ENVIRONMENT (MOE) Energy Act (RL7E0002.P) Amendments to Regulation 271/91 (Gasoline Volatility), Proposal posted 31-Jan-97 made under the Environmental Protection Act (RA7E0003.E) Decision not yet posted Exception notice posted 25 Feb-97 • Provides new standards for underground petroleum tanks. • Revised summertime gasoline volatility requirement from 72 kilopas- • New tanks will have to be built to higher standards (including double cals (kPa) to 62 kPa in southern Ontario. walls) and large existing single-wall tanks will have to be replaced with double-wall tanks. Environmental Implications and Public Participation • Lower gasoline volatility could lower smog levels slightly. Environmental Implications and Public Participation • Leaking underground storage tanks are a serious environmental prob- • Smog levels are high in southern Ontario during the summer. lem; double walled tanks leak less often. • An exception notice for equivalent public participation was posted by ECO Commentary MOE. • The ECO commends MCCR for using the Registry to facilitate public ECO Commentary comment on this important regulation; MCCR was not required by the • Consultation was solicited through a program coordinated by the EBR to post the Fuel Oil Regulation for public comment (because the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME); as well, Energy Act is not prescribed). the amendment was discussed in REP, the large package of proposed • A decision notice was not posted on this proposal in 1997; the ECO reforms put forward through the MOE Regulatory Review process will review this when the decision notice is posted. (which was posted on the Registry). • Consultation by the CCME, while commendable, is not equivalent to EBR consultation with the Ontario public. O.Reg 156/97 (Certification of Petroleum Equipment Mechanics), made under the Gasoline Handling Act • This proposal should have been posted on the Registry separately, not just as part of a large package of reforms. (RL7E0003.P) Proposal posted 7 Apr 97 Decision not yet posted Bill 107, Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act, 1997 (AA7E0001.D) • The regulation creates a certification system for petroleum equipment mechanics operators of licensed service stations and marinas will be Proposal posted 20-Jan-97 required to have equipment installed, serviced, and maintained by Decision posted 29-Jul 97 certified persons. • Authorizes the transfer of water and sewage works owned by the Environmental Implications and Public Participation Ontario Clean Water Agency to municipalities • Certification will ensure minimum standards of knowledge among operators and maintainers of petroleum equipment in retail facilities • Municipal councils, and in unorganized areas, the Ministry of which could reduce leaks and accidents. Such events can cause seri- Municipal Affairs and Housing, are given enforcement responsibility ous environmental harm and create a risk to the public. for the sewage system provisions of the Environmental Protection Act. ECO Commentary Environmental Implications and Public Participation • The regulation came in force in July 1997, but no decision notice was • Septics provisions have not been proclaimed and are superseded by posted in 1997. provisions in Bill 152, the Services Improvement Act, that transfer responsibility for septic systems from MOE to municipalities. • The regulation was filed May 2 1997, five days before the 30-day comment period had ended. • It is unclear what environmental impact the transfer of water and sewage works to municipalities will bring about. • MCCR or the TSSA should ensure that decision notices are posted in a timely manner and that they do not act contrary to the EBR by final- • Impacts cannot be accurately predicted, because they will depend on izing decisions before the end of the publicized comment period. the choices of individual municipalities after transfers of works. ECO Commentary • MOE decision notice was informative and provided a good summary of the comments that had been made to the ministry and the ministry's responses. Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2 Bill 57, Environmental Approvals Improvement Act, 1997 insignificant (financial or administrative in nature), there was no need to consider the ministry's SEV. This is an environmentally significant (AA6E0001.D) act which should have undergone SEV consideration. Proposal posted 3-Jun-96 • No SARs were posted on the Registry in 1997 but a posting outlining Decision posted 7-Aug-97 "proposal concepts" for 14 regulations was posted in early February 1998. • Amends the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). • The ECO will review the regulations when they are posted. • Eliminates the Environmental Compensation
Recommended publications
  • An Assessment of the Groundwater Resources of Northern Ontario

    An Assessment of the Groundwater Resources of Northern Ontario

    Hydrogeology of Ontario Series (Report 2) AN ASSESSMENT OF THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES OF NORTHERN ONTARIO AREAS DRAINING INTO HUDSON BAY, JAMES BAY AND UPPER OTTAWA RIVER BY S. N. SINGER AND C. K. CHENG ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND REPORTING BRANCH MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT TORONTO ONTARIO 2002 KK PREFACE This report provides a regional assessment of the groundwater resources of areas draining into Hudson Bay, James Bay, and the Upper Ottawa River in northern Ontario in terms of the geologic conditions under which the groundwater flow systems operate. A hydrologic budget approach was used to assess precipitation, streamflow, baseflow, and potential and actual evapotranspiration in seven major basins in the study area on a monthly, annual and long-term basis. The report is intended to provide basic information that can be used for the wise management of the groundwater resources in the study area. Toronto, July 2002. DISCLAIMER The Ontario Ministry of the Environment does not make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the ministry. KKK TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. INTRODUCTION 7 2.1 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA 7 2.2 IMPORTANCE OF SCALE IN HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDIES 7 2.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY 8 2.4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 8 2.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 9 2.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 13 3.
  • Geology of the Big Trout Lake Area

    Geology of the Big Trout Lake Area

    THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”).
  • Kenora—Rainy River 35

    Kenora—Rainy River 35

    Hudson Bay FORT SEVERN 89 POLAR BEAR Provincial Park PEAWANUCK ke La e rc ie P SEVERN RIVER Provincial Park SACHIGO LAKE 2 SACHIGO LAKE 1 BEARSKIN LAKE WAPEKEKA 2 S ach KITCHENUHMAYKOOSIB AAK 84 (BIG TROUT LAKE) igo Lake FAWN RIVER Provincial Park WAPEKEKA 1 Big Trout Lake KASABONIKA LAKE OPASQUIA Provincial Park WAWAKAPEWIN MUSKRAT DAM LAKE WINISK RIVER Provincial Park WEBEQUIE TIMMINS--JAMES BAY SANDY LAKE 88 KINGFISHER LAKE 1 Lake Sandy KEE-WAY-WIN WEAGAMOW LAKE 87 WUNNUMIN 1 WUNNUMIN 2 NIBINAMIK DEER LAKE DISTRICT OF KENORA, UNORGANIZED M is s is a L a k NORTH SPIRIT LAKE KENORA--RAINY RIVER e PIPESTONE RIVER Provincial Park LANSDOWNE HOUSE OTOSKWIN-ATTAWAPISKAT RIVER Provincial Park NESKANTAGA MACDOWELL LAKE POPLAR HILL PIKANGIKUM 14 MARTEN FALLS 65 Y W H 8 0 CAT LAKE 8 FORT HOPE 64 ALBANY RIVER Provincial Park TOWNSHIP OF PICKLE LAKE Y W H 9 9 5 WOODLAND CARIBOU Provincial Park OSNABURGH 63B Trout Lake D R R O SLATE FALLS S S TROUT LAKE Provincial Park E G U N MUNICIPALITY OF RED LAKE D AY R TH B SOU MISHKEEGOGAMANG Y W H DISTRICT OF COCHRANE, UNORGANIZED 8 61 OGOKI RIVER Provincial Park LITTLE CURRENT RIVER Provincial Park 1 WABAKIMI Provincial Park 0 5 PAKWASH Provincial Park H W Y ST. RAPHAEL LAKE Provincial Park SEDGMAN LAKE Provincial Park TOWNSHIP OF EAR FHAWLY LS 657 804 HWY D L R AL 643 HWY DF IN W WHITESAND Provincial Park WEST ENGLISH RIVER Provincial Park WABAUSKANG 21 OJIBWAY NATION OF SAUGEEN Lac Seul 5 16 HW WHITESAND 5 Y AROLAND 83 Y N 2 4 HW 5 58 H W LAC SEUL (KEJICK BAY) WINDIGO BAY Provincial Park Y LAC SEUL (WHITEFISH
  • 2014 Ontario Hunting Regulations Summary

    2014 Ontario Hunting Regulations Summary

    Table of Contents Table Table of Contents Important Messages for Hunters ......................................................4-6 Maps Map 1 – Southwestern (includes WMUs 79 to 95) ................ 8-9 Map 2 – Southeastern (includes WMUs 46 to 78) ............. 10-11 Map 3 – Northern (includes WMUs 1 to 45) ......................12-13 • How to Use this Summary 2014 Hunting Licence Information .............................................14-21 The Ontario Hunter Education Program .........................................22 How to Use General Regulations ..................................................................... 23-30 this Summary Firearms, Methods of Hunting, Crown Lands, Hunting in Provincial Parks, Conservation Officers, Fish and This is a summary of information Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 dealing with hunting licences and Wild Turkey Regulations...............................................................31-33 hunting laws. This summary is neither Moose Regulations ....................................................................... 34-52 a legal document nor a complete collection of the current regulations. Elk Regulations ............................................................................. 53-59 It is meant to be a convenient reference Deer Regulations .......................................................................... 60-74 only. For complete details, see: Black Bear Regulations ................................................................ 75-78 a) the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997,
  • Wild Rivers: James Bay and Hudson Bay

    Wild Rivers: James Bay and Hudson Bay

    Indian and Affaires indiennes Northern Affairs et du Nord Wild Rivers: Parks Canada Pares Canada James Bay and Hudson Bay Published by Parks Canada under authority of the Hon. Warren Allmand, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa, 1977 QS-7042-000-EE-AI Les releves de la serie «Les rivieres sauvages» sont egalement publies en francais. Canada Canada metric metrique Wild Rivers: James Bay and Hudson Bay Wild Rivers Survey, Planning Division, Parks Canada, Ottawa, 1977 2 Casting a line in the Rupert River, Quebec. 3 'It is difficult to find in life any event which so effectually condenses intense nervous sensation into the shortest possible space of time as does the work of shooting, or running an im­ mense rapid. There is no toil, no heart breaking labour about it, but as much coolness, dexterity, and skill as man can throw into the work of hand, eye and head; knowledge of when to strike and how to do it; knowledge of water and rock, and of the one hundred com­ binations which rock and water can assume — for these two things, rock and water, taken in the abstract, fail as completely to convey any idea of their fierce embracings in the throes of a rapid as the fire burning quietly in a drawing-room fireplace fails to convey the idea of a house wrapped and sheeted in flames." Sir William Francis Butler (1872) 4 ©Minister of Supply and Services Now available in the Wild Rivers Metric symbols used in this book Canada 1977 series: mm-millimetre(s) Available by mail from Printing and A Iberta m-metre(s) Publishing, Supply and Services Quebec North Shore km-kilometre(s) Canada, Ottawa, K1A0S9, or through Saskatchewan km/h—kilometres per hour your bookseller.
  • Big Trout Lake, N

    Big Trout Lake, N

    A 5,000 year old human burial at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Big Trout Lake, n. Ontario. Scott Hamilton Dept. of Anthropology Introduction Continuous Far northern Ontario was fully deglaciated only about ca. 8,000 years ago, Lakehead University Permafrost Manitoba H.R.B. L. Saskatchewan Manitoba In the spring of 2004, human skeletal remains were discovered along The early Holocene occupants McConnell whereupon much of the Hudson Bay Lowland (north of white dashed line) was Hudson Bay the north shore of Big Trout Lake at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Discontinuous of northern Ontario confronted innundated by the Tyrrell Sea. The Big Trout Lake region is within the northern El Molto Permafrost (K.I.), (formerly known as Big Trout Lake F.N.) (Fig 1, 2). They were a persisting glacial environment. Alberta limits of the Precambrian Shield, but is a comparatively low relief area dotted Dept. of Anthropology As the glaciers disappeared, the initially exposed when a shoreline gravel ridge was quarried for local Big Trout Lake with many lakes and muskegs. No detailed Pleistocene thematic mapping is University of Western Ontario road construction. Subsequent surface erosion revealed bones that Far North pioneer tundra vegetation likely available to aid in documenting the early Holocene landscape, and how it attracted herd animals such as Big Trout Lake might have been used for human occupation. The accidental discovery of were discovered and excavated by Mr. Terry Childforever. Chief Donny Laurentide Ice Sheet caribou. In turn, Plano hunters multiple early Holocene human burials on well-drained but subtle local uplands Morris contacted the senior author to evaluate the nature and historical Lake Ontario were attracted northward in Agassiz (eskers, gravel ridges) is strongly suggestive of the importance of such features significance of the finds prior to their reburial in the community.
  • Running Head: LAND-BASED FOOD INTIATIVES in TWO RURAL and REMOTE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

    Running Head: LAND-BASED FOOD INTIATIVES in TWO RURAL and REMOTE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

    Running head: LAND-BASED FOOD INTIATIVES IN TWO RURAL AND REMOTE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES Land-Based Food Initiatives in Two Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities By Michael Leibovitch Randazzo B.Arts. (Hons.), Psychology 2013 Supervisor. Dr. Michael Robidoux Committee Member: Dr. Alexandra Arellano Committee Member: Dr. Alexander Dumas THESIS Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Human Kinetics School of Human Kinetics University of Ottawa ©Michael Leibovitch Randazzo, Ottawa, Canada, 2017 LAND-BASED FOOD INITIATIVES IN TWO RRI ii Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to describe the harvesting and dietary practices of two rural and remote Indigenous communities. The ethnographic methods of participant observations and semi-structured interviews availed an abundance of rich and detailed data that allowed for a clear understanding of the barriers these two communities face when accessing food. This is an articled-based thesis containing three parts. Part one is composed of a literature review that describes the barriers that have contributed to food insecurity problems in Indigenous communities. It finishes with a chapter dedicated to why the postcolonial perspective was chosen to best understand the historical forces that caused food insecurity in Indigenous communities and justify my position as a non-indigenous researcher in the field of Indigenous health. The second part of the thesis is made up of two articles. Article one will describe the current situation of food access challenges and responses in Canada, more specifically in two rural and remote First Nations communities. The article illustrates how both First Nations are experiencing challenges obtaining healthy food from the market and from the land.
  • 2015 Ontario Hunting Regulations Summary

    2015 Ontario Hunting Regulations Summary

    Fall 2015 – Spring 2016 2015 Hunting Regulations Summary Draw Deadlines Moose Draw: June 1 Elk Draw: June 10 Antlerless Deer Draw: June 30 Controlled Deer Draw: August 31 New Moose Season Information - Page 4 Report Resource Abuse Please call 1-877-847-7667 ontario.ca/hunting IT’S IN YOUR IT’S IN YOUR NATURE.® Let’s face it, hunting isn’t just something you do. It’s who you are. At Cabela’s, we feel the same way. That’s why it’s in our nature to support you with thousands of experts, more than 50 years of experience and every last bit of expertise, so you can treasure this passion for the rest of your days. CABELAS.CA • 800.265.6245 HUNTING SEASON is fast approaching If you are hunting big game in Ontario, you can use the following draw application methods: n Online n ServiceOntario* ontario.ca/outdoorscard BIG GAME DRAWS n Licence Issuers* n Telephone 1-800-288-1155 Contact the Outdoors Card Centre with any questions at 1-800-387-7011. *For a list of participating ServiceOntario centres and local licence issuers, visit ontario.ca The elk draw is only available at participating ServiceOntario locations. ontario.ca/outdoorscard Has your Outdoors Card expired? More than 400,000 Ontario-resident fishing and hunting Outdoors Cards expired on December 31, 2014 If your Outdoors Card has expired, renew it today: n Online: ontario.ca/outdoorscard n By phone: 1-800-288-1155 n In person: at a licence issuer ontario.ca/outdoorscard BLEED Table of Contents Table Table of Contents Important Messages for Hunters ......................................................4-6 Maps Map 1 – Southwestern (includes WMUs 79 to 95) ...............