|
|
|
| The Conservation Council of Ontario |
Missing Values 2000:
Summary
"Missing Values 2000" reviews the business plans of thirteen ministries that are required by the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) to consider the environment "whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made in the ministry". Much like the current government’s Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act, the EBR binds governments to a responsible course of action.
The 100 page report is a detailed examination of the current ministry plans. It follows on the annual reports of the former Environmental Commissioner, Eva Ligeti, who was also critical of the lack of environmental planning by the government.
Nine of the thirteen ministries reviewed failed to give adequate consideration to the environment. The remaining four received a caution. Overall, Missing Values identifies nearly 150 statements that have the potential to affect the health of the environment, including:
In some cases, the ministries’ commitments are laughable. For example, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade commits to participate in climate change negotiations as part of its commitment to reduce red tape and barriers to economic growth; and the Ministry of Transportation measures the reliability of the transportation system by the percentage of people who live close to a highway.
In other cases the omissions are tragic. In the introduction, the author notes that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has only recently reintroduced environmental commitments into its business plan, and that in 1998 it had changed its revised its Statement of Environmental Values to remove any direct reference to environmental issues. When viewed with the ministry’s pro-development approach to rural areas, it is of little surprise the ministry was ill-prepared to handle the Walkerton crisis.
"Clearly, the lack of provincial leadership on the environment has allowed for situations like Walkerton, Adams Mine, and the development of the Oak Ridges Moraine to occur", concludes the report's author, Chris Winter. "This government is facing several environmental crises that are largely the result of bad planning."
The report documents how the government’s environmental problems run deep within all ministries, and that they are a result of the government’s overriding emphasis on economic growth and less government. "This is not just the Ministry of the Environment’s problem", said Winter, "it’s a government-wide problem and it reflects the failure of the Management Board of Cabinet to ensure that all ministries consider the environment in their activities."
Other significant environmental failures noted in the report include:
Waste Reduction (linked to Adams Mine)
(p. 48) The Ministry of the Environment failed to meet the long-standing Year 2000 target for waste reduction (50% of solid waste based on 1987 levels. The ministry quotes a 40% per capita reduction and has dropped the Year 2000 target date. Taking into account a 25% increase in population, the total reduction is closer to 25%. The ministry has no significant efforts in place to support recycling or environmentally-preferable disposal options.
Health and the Environment (smog, cancer, and increased health care costs)
(pp. 51-5) The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, with a budget 140 times the size of the Ministry of Environment, fails to recognize environmental causes of major health problems such as cancer and asthma.
Transportation (leading to sprawl, smog, climate change, and increased gas dependency)
(p 84-9) The Ministry of Transportation devotes over 90% of its budget to cars and highways. There is no direct consideration of public transit, rail, or trip reduction. Hence, the Ministry of Transportation will be a major cause of increased urban sprawl, the loss of agricultural and natural areas, declining air quality, increased greenhouse gases, and long-term dependence on cars and gasoline for public transportation.
Food Security (genetic engineering, healthy nutrition and the loss of farmland)
(p 38) The Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology is giving $10 million to food biotechnology centres without adequate consideration by the government of the environmental, ethical, or health concerns associated with genetic engineering.
(p 19) The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) does not include any commitment to review environmental concerns with food biotechnology nor does it include any support for the production and marketing of organic foods.
(p 20) OMAFRA is not involved in the protection of prime agricultural land. Instead, it promotes rural development and is contributing to urban sprawl and an increased dependence on imported food.
Natural Areas (increased development and the loss of ecological value)
(p 65-9) The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has no performance measures for the protection of natural areas and farmland, and it provides little leadership in provincial land use planning.(p 73) The Ministry of Natural Resources seeks to enshrine "heritage hunting and fishing rights" through a poorly defined Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act. The commitment calls into question the government’s commitment to ecological integrity and the land claims and heritage of First Nations.
(p 80) The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will allow mineral exploration and development in parks if the deregulated area is replaced by an area at least as large. No mention is made of protecting the quality and ecological integrity of the protected areas.
The report concludes with recommendations for improved government planning, including the establishment of a "Green Blue Review Commission" to parallel the Red Tape Review Commission and to show that the government will give the environment the same priority as it has given to economic growth. "Not a chance they’ll do it", says Winter, "but it shows how far the government needs to go to restore a healthy balance between economic growth, a healthy environment, and healthy communities."
<