Accessibility and Access Keys [0]
Toronto , Ontario – Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Environmental Defence and Canadian Environmental Law Association (“CELA) wish to congratulate the Ontario government for giving 3 rd and final reading to Bill 133, known as “The Spills Bill”. The new legislation will become an important tool to combat the chronic non-compliance with Ontario ’s pollution laws by large industrial facilities.
Corporate polluters have had little to fear up until now. Prosecutions have been rare, drawn out, and often result in slight reprimands, miniscule monetary fines or outright dismissals for technical reasons. Polluters will now face environmental penalties of up to $100,000 per day for hazardous spills without the risk, time and expense of court proceedings. The fines and penalties for prosecutions have also been increased.
“We are pleased that the government is keeping its promise of laying the groundwork for cracking down on major industrial polluters,” says Robert Wright, Managing Lawyer for Sierra Legal. “The Spills Bill follows good common sense: polluters who want to stop paying will have to stop polluting.”
Rick Smith, the Executive Director of Environmental Defence, is also pleased with this new direction. “ Ontario for years has been internationally recognized as a pollution delinquent. It’s about time we stopped bowing to industrial interests defending the toxic status quo .” “The ‘Spills Bill’ ensures greater protection for Ontario ’s environment,” says CELA’s Executive Director Paul Muldoon. “It will help to ensure that dilution is not the solution for putting toxins into our water, and our air and soil will be better protected as well.”
The large number of hazardous spills into the St. Clair River in 2004 helped spur Bill 133. In March 2005, Sierra Legal released information documenting that in 2002 and 2003 there were more than 2,100 documented pollution violations by industry across Ontario , including more than 2,000 water pollution violations and 102 illegal spills into water. The data (obtained through Freedom of Information requests) also revealed that in 2003 alone the volume of illegal spills into water totalled more than 5,000,000 litres.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Environment reported a 13% increase in spills by large companies that discharge directly to surface water from 2003 to 2004. The average volume of liquid industrial spills increase by 250% and the average weight of solid industrial spills increased by about 400% in that same period.
For further information, please contact:
Robert Wright, Managing Lawyer, Sierra Legal (416) 368-7533 ext. 31
Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence (416) 323-9521 ext. 225, 647-280 9521 (cell)
Paul Muldoon (Executive Director) or Ramani Nadarajah (Counsel), CELA (416) 960-2284 ext. 219 or ext. 217
Bill 133, the Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005, became law on June 13, 2005. Bill 133, which is intended to encourage spills prevention and get “tough on polluters”, was introduced last fall after widely publicized spills into the St. Clair River occurred from industrial facilities near Sarnia.
The MOE has indicated that the regulations will target industrial facilities already subject to the Municipal/Industrial Standard for Abatement regulations (that is, approximately 140 facilities in the petroleum refining, iron and steel, pulp and paper, metal mining, metal casting, organic chemical, industrial minerals, inorganic chemical and electric power generating sectors).
Key provisions of Bill 133 impose a new environmental penalties regime, expand directors’ and officers’ duties, reduce the adverse effect threshold, increase fines and require regulated industries to implement spill prevention and contingency plans.
Penalties can require payment of as much as $100,000 per day and will be assessed by the MOE and not by the courts. These penalties may be imposed by the MOE in addition to quasi-criminal prosecutions in the courts for the same unlawful discharge. The penalties regime also imposes liability regardless of fault. In other words, the regime is one of absolute liability and allows for the imposition of a penalty even if the corporation took all reasonable care to prevent the discharge. Due diligence will not be a defence and will only be considered to determine the amount of the penalty. Bill 133 also puts the onus on the corporation to
prove that the discharge did not have the potential to harm the environment.
Bill 133 provides a new definition of “deemed impairment” in the Ontario Water Resources Act so as to align it more closely with the threshold in the federal Fisheries Act. For example, the quality of water will now be deemed to be impaired if a scientific test indicates that the discharged material is toxic. This means that the Crown will not have to prove that the discharged material actually impaired the quality of the water into which it was discharged.
Two other important amendments that Ottawa Riverkeeper applauds are that the Ministry will now be required to publish annual and five-year reports and the Ministry will now publish every agreement made to reduce or cancel an Environmental Penalty on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry. Together, these amendments will help to ensure transparency and efficacy of Environmental Penalties.
For more information on Bill 133, click here.