Great Lakes protection bill a ‘possible conflict’ with NMA says ag industry spokesman

What’s in Bill 66

Bill strengthened

Agricultural representation on the Guardians Council

More information needed on qualitative and quantitative targets

by SUSAN MANN

The Ontario government’s Great Lakes protection bill introduced in the provincial legislature Wednesday has the potential to conflict with the province’s nutrient management legislation, says an Ontario Federation of Agriculture spokesman.

Past president Mark Wales says the Great Lakes protection bill will supersede a decision under the Planning Act, local municipal bylaws, municipal official plans and provincial laws governing agriculture. That means the Great Lakes protection bill, if it’s passed, will take priority if there’s a conflict.  

“This (bill) will have priority and one of the concerns for agriculture is the possible conflict with the Nutrient Management Act,” he says, adding the Great Lakes protection bill will override nutrient management legislation along with other laws that farmers must work under, including the Clean Water Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

Wales says the agricultural sector must ensure stricter rules governing farmers’ operations aren’t introduced as part of the Great Lakes protection bill.

“We support the government’s initiatives to help clean up the Great Lakes plus the St. Lawrence River,” he adds. “We live here, we use the water and we want to make sure that everything that can be done reasonably is done” to clean and protect the lakes.

But “we have to continue to be able to farm and we have to do it in a sustainable manner,” he notes.

This is the third time the government has introduced a bill to protect the Great Lakes. The first time was in 2012 but that version died after former premier Dalton McGuinty prorogued the Ontario legislature when he quit as the Liberal Party’s leader.

The government reintroduced the bill in 2013 but it too died when the provincial election was called.

Wales says he thinks the new bill has more emphasis on climate change.

But the bill still follows “along from the Great Lakes Strategy document that they (the government) released in 2012 and that really lays the groundwork for what they want to do, and of course the bill is referring back to that strategy a lot.”

What’s in Bill 66
Like its 2013 predecessor, bill 66 calls for the establishment of a Great Lakes Guardians’ Council, described as a forum to identify action priorities, funding measures, partnerships and to facilitate information sharing.

It also requires the minister of the environment to be the point person for maintaining the provincial Great Lakes Strategy.

However, the new bill goes into greater detail about the strategy’s content, such as requiring it to have performance measures “by which progress in achieving the purposes of this Act can be assessed,” and to tap into six principles when decisions are made. Among the principles listed:

• Adopting ecosystem and precautionary approaches;
• Recognizing the importance of collaboration between all of the groups that might be involved in working towards the legislation’s goals.

The new bill leaves the room for the environment minister and the minister of natural resources to introduce targets relating to the lakes and the St. Lawrence River Basin.

It requires initiatives to be “geographically-focused” and gives the environment minister the authority to direct a public body to develop and approve an initiative proposal.

Like its predecessor, the new bill also requires municipalities to harmonize their official plans with the legislation and notes that in cases where there are conflicts with other legislation or regulation, “the provision that provides the greatest protection to the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin prevails.”

Penalties for not complying with the new legislation remain the same and range from a maximum fine of $25,000 for an individual “for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues” and $50,000 for a repeated offence. For corporations, the maximum fine for a first offence will be $50,000 and will rise to a maximum of $100,000 for subsequent offences.

Another fresh feature in the newest bill is a call for ensuring the monitoring and reporting of ecological conditions including harmful pollutants, water quality and impacts of climate change. The minister is tasked with establishing at least one target to assist with algae bloom reduction within two years after the legislation comes into effect.

It also calls for the minister to prepare a report at least once every three years to describe the progress, results, initiatives, priorities as well as new and emerging threats.

The new proposed bill puts greater emphasis on public consultation than its predecessor, requiring the environment minister to consult with “as he or she considers advisable,” a number of interest groups before development begins on a geographic-focused initiative proposal. Representatives from agriculture are among those listed as recommended to consult.

Bill strengthened
Ministry of Environment and Climate Change spokesperson Kate Jordan says by email the new bill “has been strengthened to fight climate change, reduce algal blooms, protect wetland and other coastal areas, monitor and report on the health of the lakes and bring people together to take action on priority issues.”

Jordan says the three lakes mentioned in the previous 2013 bill considered to be in decline are: Huron, Erie and Ontario. But each of the lakes “is under stress from a number of factors, including harmful pollutants, urban growth, rising levels of phosphorus, hardened shorelines and invasive species.”

During the past 15 years, “changes in the Great Lakes have revealed disruptions in the food chain and increasing algal blooms,” she says. “Climate change is also challenging the ability of the Great Lakes to be resilient to the problems that can arise from severe weather and changes in the thaw-and-freeze cycle.”

The lakes need to be protected and ones that are in decline must be restored to good health, she explains, adding that’s why the government reintroduced the protection legislation.

Agricultural representation on the Guardians Council
Jordan says the agricultural sector would be invited to participate in the Great Lakes Guardians Council.

Wales says agriculture definitely must be represented on the Council “since we own 80 per cent of the privately-held land in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin watershed.”

Moreover, the government says in its release more than 95 per cent of Ontario’s agricultural land is in the Great Lakes basin.

Wales adds “you always have to worry about if a Council like that will set policy but I don’t see that in the (bill).”

One idea Wales has previously suggested to the environment ministry is to have four councils rather than just one. The councils would be for each of the four Great Lakes within Canada’s jurisdiction – Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior.

Four councils would be better because “people who are very strong on the issues on one lake don’t necessarily understand the issues on another lake,” he notes.

More information needed on qualitative and quantitative targets
Wales says the bill enables qualitative and quantitative targets to be set. But the industry needs to know more about these.

Qualitative targets “would refer to setting, possibly, phosphorus or nitrate-loading targets (for farmers) or bacterial targets for municipalities,” he says.

Jordan says the proposed legislation includes tools to implement actions for addressing all sources of phosphorus, including contributions from farms.

But “if the province were to pursue any initiative that affected the agricultural sector it would discuss those impacts with the sector before moving forward.” BF