Tag Archives: Friends of the Earth Canada

Help save Ontario’s endangered species

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada.Ontario’s Endangered Species Act is a key law that protects the province’s endangered wildlife and habitat. The law is one of the best in the country. When corporations plan a project that affects species at risk, they must obtain a permit. The industry or developer must come up with a plan that protects endangered species. The company must comply with the terms of the permit, and the environmental impacts are monitored.

The Endangered Species Act is now endangered by recent proposals by the province. Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has proposed granting blanket exemptions for industrial activities. The exemptions would apply to mining, logging, quarries, suburban housing developments, hydroelectric dams and other types of projects.

What will be the long-term impact on Ontario’s endangered species?

The Ministry’s proposals would allow for broad exemptions for many industrial activities. If the proposals are approved, the province will not monitor the impacts of many industrial projects. With “voluntary” measures, we could lose endangered species.

Are you disturbed by MNR’s proposals? We certainly are. We hope you will take a moment to speak out for Ontario’s endangered species. Make sure your opinion is counted. We don’t want exemptions for industries and developers. We want Ontario to protect endangered wildlife and plants. Don’t delay — we have less than a week to comment.

To register your comments, visit Ontario’s Environmental Registry:

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE4MDY5&statusId=MTc2NzEx&language=en

To make sure your comments are counted, be sure to include the EBR Registry Number 011-7696. The comment period has been extended to January 25, 2013.

Beatrice Olivastri

Climate change and farmers’ livelihoods

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada.Farmers across Canada have been dealing with changing weather patterns in recent years. From droughts and floods in the Prairies to storms and blights in the Maritimes, people who rely on the land to make a living are suddenly being forced to adapt.

Over the past few months one of our volunteer researchers, Bryan Dale, has been looking into these issues. So far, his investigation has proven to be very revealing, as farmers from across the country have shared diverse and troubling stories about how climate change is affecting them.

In Ontario, for example, apple farmers are struggling through one of the worst growing years in recent memory. Due to an unusually long period of warm weather in March, followed by a spring frost, the buds of most apple trees were killed off, leaving farmers with 15 to 20 per cent of their usual yield. Producers in the southwest of the province have reported that this may be the worst climatic event they’ve experienced since 1945.

On coastal areas of British Columbia apple farmers have also experienced problems, but for a different reason. In that region, a severe infestation of tent caterpillars devastated crops and forced farmers to cancel a long-standing apple festival. As in Ontario, they are left hoping that these types of extreme circumstances will not develop into a pattern that would be repeated with any frequency.

Yet this may be just what is in store for farmers. According to a researcher with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Quebec, scientists are developing a range of models to predict how anticipated fluctuations in weather patterns and infestations by pests may affect various crops. While some vegetables may benefit from our changing climate, there is certainly many that will suffer, compelling agricultural producers to change both how and what they grow.

It is already clear that many farmers are paying the price of having to adapt. Apart from crop yields that have plummeted due to extreme weather events, most producers have noticed that the seasons are changing. According to one organic grower, “Due to weather volatility, we are seeing a lot of farmers add greenhouses and hoop-houses to their operations, to help create more stable environments. Certainly, the Maritime farmers are seeing strong storms from hurricanes. Blight and fusarium are also quite common now.”

Friends of the Earth will continue to look further into these issues, including by exploring how small-scale and organic farmers may be disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of increasingly severe and frequent climatic events. We will also examine whether existing government compensation programs may be insufficient to help farmers adapt as they need to. Throughout, our research will consider the political or legal recourses these farmers may have, and how we can support them.

If trends such as those witnessed this year are to continue, agricultural producers will certainly need the support. Whether it is livestock farmers who do not have enough hay to feed their animals due to drought, or maple syrup farmers who are dealing with a noticeable decline in the quality of their product, across Canada people are wondering what is in store.

And, of course, consumers need to be concerned about these trends as well. As the bumper stickers say, farmers feed cities.

Beatrice Olivastri

Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa. Photo: Mike Buckthought.

Supreme Court decision leaves taxpayers with the bill for cleaning up AbitibiBowater’s pollution

For immediate release

(Ottawa, December 7, 2012) The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision today in Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. et al., which addresses the legal obligations of insolvent companies with respect to contaminated sites.

Friends of the Earth, represented by legal counsel from Ecojustice and Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, intervened in the case to argue that the law requires that insolvent corporations retain their environmental obligations through a restructuring and must not burden taxpayers with the costs of cleaning up contaminated sites.

The Supreme Court decided that remediation orders, which required AbitibiBowater (now Resolute Forest Products) to clean up after years of pollution, are equivalent to private financial claims under insolvency law. The end result is that taxpayers will bear much of the financial and environmental costs associated with cleaning up Abitibi’s industrial sites.

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth observed, “The Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to affirm the correct application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle in insolvency proceedings. The Court’s decision effectively limits a polluter’s liability to what it can pay as part of a compromise it designed, not out of the billions (in this case) in profit going forward.”

This ground-breaking case represents the first time Canada’s insolvency law has confronted the polluter pays principle — in this case, for historic contamination by AbitibiBowater’s mining, shipping, and pulp and paper operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The company filed for insolvency protection in 2009, leaving a toxic legacy of heavy metals and other hazardous chemicals.

When companies fail, the typical result is that communities and governments must deal with pollution clean-up costs. Friends of the Earth believes that corporations must be made to disclose the clean-up costs for their contamination — historic and continuing — in financial reports on an ongoing basis. “They should not be allowed to pass the buck on to taxpayers, leaving a toxic burden for communities when a plant shuts down,” says Olivastri.

“The Supreme Court has delivered a clear message: if the federal and provincial governments are not proactively issuing remediation orders, then taxpayers risk being left with the cleanup costs after companies file for insolvency protection. Remediation orders must be issued and acted upon before a company goes under,” says Ecojustice lawyer Will Amos.

“In the context of a natural resource economy, protecting the environment also means protecting future resource-based industry,” says Graham Phoenix of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. “To draw an analogy to the environmental law principle of intergenerational equity: the businesses of today must be good stewards of the environment for the businesses of tomorrow. If not, we are ensuring not only a legacy of environmental contamination but also a stagnant economic future.”

“This decision proves that federal insolvency laws require significant reform so that they don’t serve to protect companies and investors at the expense of taxpayers and environmental protection. The Companies Creditors Arrangement Act must be amended by Parliament so that taxpayers are not left holding the bag when companies go insolvent,” says Hugh Wilkins of Ecojustice. “Polluter pays is about corporate liability. The fundamental objective of the polluter pays principle is to ensure the polluter internalizes the environmental costs of business. Taxpayers should not be left with clean-up costs for toxic legacies from abandoned mines and mills.”

- 30 -

The polluter pays principle is among the most important environmental law concepts in Canada. It is the basic idea behind clean-up orders, penalties and cost recovery decisions. Implementing polluter pays involves polluters taking responsibility for remedying contamination for which they are responsible and imposes on them the direct and immediate costs of pollution. As pioneers advocating for this principle to be put into practice, Friends of the Earth, represented by legal counsel at Ecojustice, intervened in one of the earliest, precedent-setting polluter pay cases in Canada — Imperial Oil Ltd v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment) — in 2003.

Background information:

Media release, November 16, 2011
Friends of the Earth, Ecojustice ask Supreme Court to respect polluter pays principle

http://foecanada.org/en/2011/11/respect-polluter-pays-principle/

Supreme Court of Canada Decision
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12749/index.do

Friends of the Earth Factum
http://foecanada.org/en/files/2012/12/factum-intervener-foe-canada-abitibibowater.pdf

Background / chronology — Polluter Pays: Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc.
http://foecanada.org/en/2012/12/polluter-pays-newfoundland-and-labrador-abitibibowater/

For more information, contact:

Beatrice Olivastri
Friends of the Earth Canada
Email: beatrice [at] foecanada.org
Tel: (613) 241-0085 ext. 26

William Amos
Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic
Email: wamos [at] ecojustice.ca
Tel: (613) 562-5800 ext. 3378

R. Graham Phoenix
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Email: gphoenix [at] fasken.com
Tel: (416) 865-4511

Hugh S. Wilkins
Ecojustice Canada
Email: hwilkins [at] ecojustice.ca
Tel: (416) 368-7533 ext. 534

Friends of the Earth Canada is the Canadian member of Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network campaigning on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues. foecanada.org

Ecojustice is a non-profit charitable organization dedicated to defending Canadians’ right to a healthy environment. We defend Canada’s environment through law. We have one planet and we believe it is our collective responsibility to take care of it. www.ecojustice.ca

Cour suprême du Canada, Ottawa. Photo : Mike Buckthought.

La décision de la Cour suprême laisse aux contribuables la facture de nettoyage de la pollution d’AbitibiBowater

Pour diffusion immédiate

(Ottawa, le 7 décembre 2012) La Cour suprême du Canada a rendu aujourd’hui sa décision dans la cause Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador c. AbitibiBowater Inc. et al., qui porte sur les obligations légales des entreprises insolvables à l’égard de sites contaminés.

Les Ami(e)s de la Terre, représenté par des avocats d’Écojustice et de Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, est intervenu dans cette affaire en faisant valoir que la loi exige que les sociétés insolvables conservent leurs obligations environnementales au-delà d’une restructuration et qu’elles ne transfèrent pas aux contribuables le fardeau des coûts de nettoyage de sites contaminés.

La Cour suprême a décidé que les ordonnances de remise en état, qui exigent d’AbitibiBowater (maintenant « Produits forestiers Résolu ») de nettoyer ses sites après des années de pollution, équivalent à des créances privées en vertu du droit de l’insolvabilité. Le résultat final est que les contribuables devront écoper de la majeure partie des coûts financiers et environnementaux associés au nettoyage des sites industriels d’AbitibiBowater.

Selon Beatrice Olivastri, présidente-directrice générale des Ami(e)s de la Terre, « La Cour suprême vient de rater une occasion importante de valider la bonne application du principe du “pollueur-payeur” dans les procédures d’insolvabilité. La décision de la Cour pour effet de limiter la responsabilité d’un pollueur à ce que celui-ci accepte de payer dans le cadre d’un compromis qu’il a conçu, plutôt qu’à partir des milliards de dollars de profit (dans ce cas) qu’il va encaisser en allant de l’avant. »

Cette cause crée un précédent : c’est la première fois où le droit canadien de l’insolvabilité au Canada est confronté au principe du pollueur-payeur — dans ce cas-ci au sujet d’une contamination historique de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador par les activités d’exploitation minière, d’expédition et de fabrication de papier de l’entreprise AbitibiBowater. La société a demandé la protection des tribunaux en vertu des lois sur l’insolvabilité en 2009, laissant dans l’environnement un héritage toxique de métaux lourds et autres produits chimiques dangereux.

Lorsque les entreprises échouent, le résultat habituel est que les communautés et les gouvernements doivent assumer les coûts de nettoyage de leur pollution. Les Ami(e)s de la Terre estiment que les entreprises doivent être forcées à divulguer sur une base continue les coûts de dépollution pour leur contamination — historique et continue — dans leurs rapports financiers annuels. « Elles ne devraient pas être autorisées à se décharger de cette responsabilité sur les contribuables, ce qui laisse un fardeau toxique aux communautés quand une usine ferme ses portes », ajoute Madame Olivastri.

« La Cour suprême vient de livrer un message clair : si les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux ne se montrent pas proactifs dans l’émission d’ordonnances d’assainissement, puis les contribuables risquent d’écoper des coûts de nettoyage dès qu’une entreprise réclame la protection des lois sur l’insolvabilité. Ces ordonnances d’assainissement doivent être émises et exécutées avant qu’une entreprise déclare faillite », explique l’avocat d’Écojustice Will Amos.

« Dans le contexte d’une économie des ressources naturelles, la protection de l’environnement signifie aussi protéger l’avenir des industries axées sur les ressources », ajoute Graham Phoenix de Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. « Pour faire une analogie avec le principe de l’équité intergénérationnelle en droit de l’environnement, les entreprises d’aujourd’hui doivent être de bons intendants de l’environnement en pensant aux entreprises de demain. Sinon, nous faisons en sorte de garantir non seulement un héritage de contamination de l’environnement mais aussi un avenir de stagnation économique. »

« Cette décision prouve que les lois fédérales sur l’insolvabilité exigent une réforme importante de sorte qu’elles ne servent pas à protéger les entreprises et les investisseurs au détriment des contribuables et de la protection de l’environnement. La Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies doit être modifiée par le Parlement afin que les contribuables n’aient pas à payer les pots cassés lorsque des entreprises deviennent insolvables », explique Hugh Wilkins, d’Écojustice. « Le principe du pollueur-payeur est sur la responsabilité des entreprises. L’objectif fondamental du principe pollueur-payeur est fondé sur la responsabilité corporative. L’objectif fondamental de ce principe est de s’assurer que le pollueur internalise les coûts environnementaux de l’entreprise. Les contribuables ne devraient pas se retrouver avec les coûts de dépollution liés aux legs toxiques des mines et des usines abandonnées. »

- 30 -

Le principe du pollueur-payeur est l’un des concepts les plus importants du droit de l’environnement au Canada. C’est l’idée de base qui sous-tend les ordonnances de nettoyage, les sanctions et les décisions de recouvrement des coûts. La mise en œuvre de ce principe implique que les pollueurs assument la responsabilité de remédier à toute contamination dont ils sont responsables et leur impose les coûts directs et immédiats de la pollution. En tant que pionniers plaidant pour que ce principe soit mis en pratique, Les Ami(e)s de la Terre, représentés par un avocat d’Écojustice, sont intervenus dans l’une des toutes premières causes de pollueur-payeur à avoir fait précédent au Canada — Cie pétrolière Impériale ltée c. Québec (Ministre de l’Environnement), en 2003.

Informations générales :

Communiqué de presse, le 16 novembre 2011
« Friends of the Earth, Ecojustice ask Supreme Court to respect polluter pays principle »

http://foecanada.org/en/2011/11/respect-polluter-pays-principle/

La décision de la Cour suprême du Canada
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/12749/index.do

Le mémoire déposé par Les Ami(e)s de la Terre
http://foecanada.org/en/files/2012/12/factum-intervener-foe-canada-abitibibowater.pdf

Contexte / chronologie — pollueur-payeur: Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador c.
AbitibiBowater Inc.

http://foecanada.org/en/2012/12/polluter-pays-newfoundland-and-labrador-abitibibowater/

Pour plus de renseignements :

Beatrice Olivastri
Les Ami(e)s de la Terre Canada
Courriel : beatrice [at] foecanada.org
Tél : (613) 241-0085 poste 26

William Amos
Clinique de droit environnemental d’Écojustice
Courriel : wamos [at] ecojustice.ca
Tél : (613) 562-5800 poste 3378

R. Graham Phoenix
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Courriel : gphoenix [at] fasken.com
Tél : (416) 865-4511

Hugh S. Wilkins
Écojustice Canada
Courriel : hwilkins [at] ecojustice.ca
Tél : (416) 368-7533 ext. 534

Les Ami(e)s de la Terre Canada est le membre canadien de Les Amis de la Terre International, le plus grand réseau écologiste mondial, qui mène campagne sur les questions environnementales et sociales contemporaines les plus urgentes. foecanada.org

Écojustice est une organisation à but non lucratif vouée à la défense du droit des Canadiens et des Canadiennes à un environnement sain. Nous défendons au moyen du droit l’environnement au Canada. Nous n’avons qu’une planète et nous croyons qu’il relève de notre responsabilité collective d’en prendre soin. www.ecojustice.ca

Polluter Pays: Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc.

AbitibiBowater mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, Newfoundland and Labrador. Photo: William Munoz. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.

AbitibiBowater mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, Newfoundland and Labrador. Photo: William Munoz. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.

On December 7, the Supreme Court of Canada is expected to announce a decision on the case of Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. et al (now known as Resolute Forest Products).

This ground-breaking legal case represents the first time Canada’s insolvency law has dealt with the polluter pays principle — in this case, for historic contamination by AbitibiBowater’s mining, shipping and pulp and paper operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The company filed for insolvency protection in 2008, leaving a toxic legacy of heavy metals and other hazardous chemicals.

AbitibiBowater’s sites in Newfoundland and Labrador. OpenStreetMap, Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

AbitibiBowater’s sites in Newfoundland and Labrador. OpenStreetMap, Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

Friends of the Earth, represented by Ecojustice, intervened to argue that insolvent corporations must fulfill their environmental obligations and not pass the full cost of environmental cleanups on to taxpayers.

The polluter pays principle is among the most important environmental law concepts in Canada. It is the basic idea behind clean-up orders, penalties and cost recovery decisions. Implementing polluter pays involves polluters taking responsibility for remedying contamination for which they are responsible and imposes on them the direct and immediate costs of pollution.

As pioneers advocating for this principle to be put into practice, Friends of the Earth represented by legal counsel at Ecojustice, intervened in one of the earliest, precedent-setting polluter pay cases in Canada — Imperial Oil Ltd v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment) — in 2003.

Chronology

Key dates in the lead up to the December 7, 2012 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

Date Event
December 4, 2008

AbitibiBowater announces that it will close its paper mill in Grand Falls-Windsor at the end of March 2009.1

1 “AbitibiBowater may take legal action over N.L. expropriation of assets,” CBC News, December 17, 2008.

December 16, 2008

Newfoundland and Labrador legislature passes legislation to expropriate AbitibiBowater’s assets. The legislation allows AbitibiBowater to continue operating the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor until the end of March, 2009.2

Abitibi-Consolidated’s timber licenses and water use rights were cancelled, and these rights reverted to the Crown. The Act also expropriated the company’s land, assets, and easements, including transmission lines, poles and associated facilities. Assets that were expropriated included the Millertown Dam, Bishop’s Falls Power House, Buchans Dam, Goodyears Dam, Grand Falls Power Plant, and control structures. The Act included a provision addressing the company’s environmental contamination: “Nothing in this Act affects the liability of Abitibi-Consolidated related to undertakings made by it in relation to environmental remediation.” 3

2 “AbitibiBowater may take legal action over N.L. expropriation of assets,” CBC News, December 17, 2008.

3 Abitibi-Consolidated Rights and Assets Act, December 16, 2008.

December 19, 2008

AbitibiBowater sends a letter to Premier Danny Williams, warning that it will file a trade complaint if the province proceeds with the expropriation of its assets.4

4 “Abitibi says Newfoundland expropriation illegal,” Reuters, December 19, 2008.

March 28, 2009

AbitibiBowater shuts its Grand Falls-Windsor paper mill, and 800 workers lose their jobs.5

5 “AbitibiBowater workers finish final shifts at N.L. paper mill,” CBC News, March 27, 2009.

April 16, 2009

AbitibiBowater files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of U.S. bankruptcy legislation in a Delaware court. The company says it will file for bankruptcy protection in a Canadian court the following day.6

6 “AbitibiBowater files for bankruptcy protection,” CBC News, April 16, 2009.

February 25, 2010

AbitibiBowater files a complaint under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over the expropriation of its Newfoundland assets by the provincial government. It seeks $500 million in compensation, alleging that the expropriation was unfair and discriminatory.7

7 Bertrand Marotte, “AbitibiBowater fights Danny Williams with NAFTA challenge,“ Globe and Mail, February 25, 2010.

August 24, 2010

NAFTA settlement announced. The federal government will pay a $130-million settlement, and AbitibiBowater will withdraw its claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).8 9

8 Daniel MacEachern, “Feds to pay AbitibiBowater $130M over expropriation,” The Telegram, August 25, 2010.

9 “Feds to pay AbitibiBowater $130 million over Newfoundland expropriation,” Toronto Star/Canadian Press, August 24, 2010.

November 25, 2010

The Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear Newfoundland and Labrador’s appeal of a ruling that favoured AbitibiBowater. The province wants AbitibiBowater to pay for the environmental cleanup costs at five sites.10

10 “AbitibiBowater appeal heads to Supreme Court,” CBC News, November 25, 2010.

November 16, 2011

Friends of the Earth, represented by Ecojustice, appears before the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that insolvent corporations cannot shift the cost of cleaning up environmental contamination to the taxpayer.11 12 13

11 “Friends of the Earth, Ecojustice ask Supreme Court to respect polluter pays principle,” Friends of the Earth Canada/Ecojustice, November 16, 2011.

12 Webcast of the hearing on November 16, 2011, Supreme Court of Canada.

13 Supreme Court of Canada case information: Factums.

December 7, 2012

The Supreme Court of Canada will deliver its judgment in the appeal in the case of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. et al.14

14 “Judgment to be Rendered in Appeal,” Supreme Court of Canada, December 3, 2012.

Solar panels in Eastern Ontario. Photo: Mike Buckthought. Photo taken with a solar-powered camera.

Ontario opinion poll shows solid support for green energy, strong opposition to WTO ruling

Opinion poll released as solar industry meets at convention in Toronto

Ottawa, December 3, 2012 — A new opinion poll commissioned by Friends of the Earth Canada shows overwhelming support for green energy in Ontario, and strong opposition to the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s meddling in buy local programs that create thousands of green jobs for Ontarians.

The survey conducted by Oraclepoll Research found that 83% of Ontarians believe it is important to have more renewable, green energy in Ontario to deal with climate change and help reduce record levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Only 11% of respondents believe that it is not important to take action.

The survey also found that there is strong opposition to the WTO’s recent challenge of Ontario’s buy local green energy policies. Almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents feel that the WTO should not be able to override Ontario’s plans to encourage investment in green energy, while only 27% believe that it should.

“This opinion poll shows that there is overwhelming support for green energy in Ontario. This strong support should translate into action — governments should encourage the transition to solar and wind power to help reduce record levels of greenhouse gases,” says Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada.

“Almost three-quarters of Ontarians believe that the WTO should not be able to override Ontario’s plans to create green jobs for people in Ontario. We urge the provincial and federal governments to challenge the WTO’s ruling. Canadians should be allowed to support our own green energy manufacturers, and not be forced to rely on solar panels imported from other countries,” says Olivastri.

- 30 -

For more information

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada, (613) 241-0085 x26, (613) 724-8690 (cell), beatrice [at] foecanada.org, foecanada.org

The Oraclepoll Research survey was commissioned by Friends of the Earth Canada and conducted on November 21–23, 2012. A total of 1,000 people were surveyed, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%, 19/20 times. For more details visit Friends of the Earth’s website at foecanada.org.


Read the results of the Ontario green energy opinion poll.

Sign the online letter — voice your support for green energy in Ontario.


Friends of the Earth Canada is the Canadian member of Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network campaigning on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues.

Results of the Ontario green energy opinion poll

November 2012
Ontario omnibus survey report

By: Oraclepoll Research
For: Friends of the Earth / Les Ami(e)s de la Terre
November 24, 2012

Methodology and logistics

Study sample

  • This report represents the findings from an omnibus survey of 1,000 voting age residents (18 years of age or older) in Ontario.
  • The results provided in this report were from questions commissioned by Friends of Earth.
  • Interviews were conducted between the days of November 21st to November 23rd 2012.
  • The results presented in this report may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.

Confidence

  • The margin of error for this 1,000-person survey is +/- 3.1%, 19/20 times.

Survey method

  • The survey was conducted using computer-assisted techniques of telephone interviewing (CATI) and random number selection. A total of 20% of all interviews were monitored and the management of Oraclepoll Research Limited supervised 100%.

Logistics

  • Initial calls were made between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Subsequent callbacks of no-answers and busy numbers were made on a (staggered) daily rotating basis up to 5 times (from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.) until contact was made. In addition, telephone interview appointments were attempted with those respondents unable to complete the survey at the time of contact.

Executive summary

Friends of Earth respondents were first asked the following question

“How important do you feel it is to have more renewable, green energy in Ontario to deal with climate change and help reduce the record levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Please use a scale from one not at all important to five very important.”

Opinion poll results. The survey conducted by Oraclepoll Research found that 83% of Ontarians believe it is important to have more green energy in Ontario to deal with climate change. Only 11% of respondents believe that it is not important to take action.

The survey conducted by Oraclepoll Research found that 83% of Ontarians believe it is important to have more green energy in Ontario to deal with climate change. Only 11% of respondents believe that it is not important to take action.

A high 83% of Ontarians are of the opinion that it is important or very important to have green renewable energy compared to a very low 11% that do not, while 7% had a neutral view (neither important nor unimportant).

A second question was then asked about the WTO and Ontario’s green energy plan.

“Should international bodies like the World Trade Organization be able to over-ride Ontario’s plan to encourage investment in renewable, green energy and local jobs for people in Ontario?”

Almost three-quarters of those surveyed or 73% feel that the World Trade Organization should not be able to override Ontario’s plans to encourage investment in green renewable energy while only 27% are of the opinion that it should.

Results by question

How important do you feel it is to have more renewable, green energy in Ontario to deal with climate change and help reduce the record levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Please use a scale from one not at all important to five very important.

Response Valid percent
Not at all important 5%
Not important 6%
Neither important nor not important 7%
Important 14%
Very important 69%
Total 100%

Should international bodies like the World Trade Organization be able to over-ride Ontario’s plan to encourage investment in renewable, green energy and local jobs for people in Ontario?

Response Valid percent
Yes 27%
No 73%
Total 100%

Reporting disease in fish a crime? Proposed B.C. law condemned by Friends of the Earth Canada

New legislation to muzzle journalists and scientists may have serious implications for food health and safety and freedom of speech

(Ottawa, May 30, 2012) With the anticipated passage of Bill 37 (2012 Animal Health Act) tomorrow, British Columbia Minister of Agriculture Don McRae will be responsible for new and punitive legislation with heavy fines and imprisonment for people reporting diseased animals and fish. One provision of the pending legislation would make it illegal for journalists or scientists to report on animal illnesses at fish farms or other agricultural operations.

This comes as the embattled British Columbia open net-pen fish farms face repeated culls after disease and virus outbreaks. The industry itself reports that in at least one instance these culled fish (which have grown to market size) are on their way to grocery stores.

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada, observed, “There’s a war on fish across Canada. In Ottawa, Prime Minister Harper is gutting the Fisheries Act and its important protection and conservation attributes in order to fast track megaprojects. In the East, fish farm salmon are being culled due to a salmon influenza. In the West, now reporting disease in fish will be punished to protect industry profits.”

BC’s Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham makes critical points on the proposed Bill 37 (see letter to Minister McRae).

Olivastri continued, “Premier Clark of British Columbia needs to take steps to build consumer confidence in farmed fish rather than setting up legal hidey-holes for diseased fish owners.”

FoE Canada would counsel sober second thought to BC politicians — don’t forsake health and safety and freedom of speech for industry profits.

Olivastri concluded, “I suggest Minister McRae, in the interest of accuracy and transparency, change the name of Bill 37 from the Animal Health Act to the Act to Muzzle Alexandra Morton and British Columbia Citizens Concerned about Wild Salmon.”

- 30 -

For more information, please contact:

Beatrice Olivastri, Chief Executive Officer, Friends of the Earth Canada
613 241-0085 x26, 613 724-8690 (cell)

Copy of letter from Elizabeth Denham, Information and Privacy Commissioner to Minister McCrae.

Friends of the Earth Canada is the Canadian member of Friends of the Earth, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network campaigning on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues.

Oh Canada — you’re not free to cut and run from Kyoto

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada.By my calculation, by the time Canada’s withdrawal kicks in one year from now, we will have had commitments under the Kyoto Protocol for five years less 19 days.

Professor Nigel Bankes from the Faculty of Law at University of Calgary reviews law pertaining to withdrawal from an international environmental agreement in his blog. He cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and its Article 71 that provides that where treaty relations come to an end the termination of those relations:
(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.

Prof. Bankes says that while Article 71 of the VCLT makes it clear that in withdrawing Canada can avoid prospective obligations under the Protocol but that it cannot avoid obligations that have already accrued. So who might assess those obligations?

Enter the UNFCCC Compliance Mechanism, designed to strengthen the Protocol’s environmental integrity, support the carbon market’s credibility and ensure transparency of accounting by Parties. Its Enforcement Branch has the responsibility to determine consequences for Parties not meeting their commitments. It can only consider questions raised by another Party or its expert review teams.

Some thinking has it that compliance can only be assessed after all the reporting is delivered — likely a year after the 2012 end date of the first commitment period. But why wait to assess Canada and clarify accrued obligations? Is there one stalwart Party, an outraged developing country, perhaps, that would stand up to refer Canada to the enforcement committee p.d.q.?

I, for one, see moral and legal reasons why Canada has accrued obligations. I’d like to know what they are and how Canada will address them. The UNFCCC Enforcement Branch should not wait for post 2012 review but step up its review forthwith.

Beatrice Olivastri

FoE Canada releases “Plug and Play” model regulation to help Canada reduce greenhouse gas pollution

For immediate release

Friends of the Earth donates its services to help Canada in its time of embarrassment

(Ottawa, December 8, 2011) With Canada’s international environmental reputation at rock bottom at the Durban climate negotiations, Friends of the Earth Canada has decided to donate its services to help Canada.

“Canada’s Minister of the Environment showing up in Durban without domestic regulations in place is shocking,” said Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada. “So we’ve prepared a model regulation, Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances Causing Global Warming, that mirrors exactly what our government needs to finally regulate greenhouse gas pollution from the largest emitters in Canada.”

Friends of the Earth has provided an efficient, actionable model regulation in exactly the format needed to plug it into the regulatory process. The model regulation targets reporting factories and plants to the National Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory because they operate stationary facilities which are the largest emitters of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. The required reductions would be accomplished in stages and based on data reported by the approximately 800 emitters themselves.

In Copenhagen, Canada lowered its commitment to a target of 17% of greenhouse gases by 2020 using a 2005 baseline. The model regulation, Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances Causing Global Warming, shows the government how to meet this target and schedule using mandatory information reported by factories and facilities in Canada since 2004.

While Friends of the Earth believes dramatic emission reductions are necessary to save the world from catastrophic warming, it is pragmatic about what is possible today in Canada. “Some businesses may be ready to meet these minimalistic targets,” said Olivastri, “but none are going to do even this until regulations are put in place. It is appalling that Canada doesn’t have these rules in place.”

The Notice of Intent and the model regulation, Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances causing Global Warming Regulation can be viewed at www.foecanada.org.

In Canada, regulations are a form of law with binding legal effect. The first steps in Canada’s regulatory process are developing a regulatory proposal for an enabling Act, review by the central agency and pre-publication.

- 30 -

For further information, contact:

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth (613) 241-0085 x26 or (613) 724-8690

Friends of the Earth Canda is the Canadian member of Friends of the Earth International, the world’s largest grassroots environmental network campaigning on today’s most urgent environmental and social issues.


Backgrounder — December 8, 2011

The model regulation Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances Causing Global Warming issued by Friends of the Earth Canada has these advantages:

  • it is “Plug and Play,” written in a format that can be immediately used;
  • it is direct;
  • it targets the greenhouse gases identified in the Kyoto Protocol — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs);
  • it is fully consistent with — and will achieve — the reductions committed to by the Government of Canada at the Copenhagen and Cancún meetings of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol — namely 17% from 2005 levels, by December 31, 2021;
  • it is based on data provided by the companies that report to the National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory;
  • therefore, it targets those companies whose facilities are considered by the Government of Canada to be the highest emitters of greenhouse gases;
  • it phases in, at three levels, the reductions from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2021, so that the regulated companies can space out their costs to achieve the 17% reduction from 2005 levels by December 31, 2021;
  • it requires the regulated companies to install continuous emissions monitoring systems of their choice for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, provided that the systems meet performance criteria for precision and accuracy to be set by the scientific experts of Environment Canada;
  • it leaves to those companies the choice of technology to achieve the required reductions;
  • it covers reductions of greenhouse gases in the various types of emissions by those companies — e.g. emissions from stationary combustion emissions, from industrial processes, etc.; and
  • it requires the regulated companies to report their achieved reductions only three times — no later than February 28, 2015, February 28, 2018, February 28, 2022 — hence keeping reporting to the minimum that would allow the Government of Canada to track progress by the regulated companies.

The model regulation Reduction of Releases of Toxic Substances Causing Global Warming leaves to the scientific experts of Environment Canada the selection or development of methods of calculation for the greenhouse gases.

Friends of the Earth Canada believes that applying this Model Regulation is the essential step that Canada must take, at the federal level, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet its lowered public commitments stated at the Copenhagen and Cancún meetings of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

Note: The model regulation does not address emission reduction by new facilities.