The costs of hiding environmental information

For citizens and NGOs who want to challenge environmental decisions, the biggest obstacle is usually obtaining information about the potential environmental effects of a decision or project. In the 1990s, the Ontario government passed the Environmental Bill of Rights which was supposed to make access to environmental information easier. As a result of this Act, we now have a public registry where potential decisions that may adversely affect the environment are posted for review by the public. Quebec, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories also have similar legislation, and a federal Environmental Bill of Rights was tabled, but not passed in the House of Commons in June 2010.

Decades into the Environmental Bill of Rights experiment, getting information about potentially environmentally damaging activities is still extremely difficult. Citizen suit or appeal provisions under the Environmental Bill of Rights and other statutes remain difficult to use because the public does not have access to the proof required to make their case. By the time most groups gain access to government records on environmental decisions, the damage they seek to prevent has already occurred.

Why does it take so long to gain access? Some years ago in B.C., there was a finding that government discriminated against environmental groups requesting information in comparison to other groups. They were charged higher fees and their requests were delayed longer. It is not certain whether this is also the case in Ontario, but the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, an independent body which oversees the Environmental Bill of Rights, audited how the Ontario government handled information requests in 2001 and found that unreasonable practices causing unnecessary delays and higher costs were common and systemic.

In Ontario, ministries subject to the Environmental Bill of Rights routinely ignore the requirement to disclose compliance approval applications upon request, or interpret those requirements very narrowly. Details of potentially destructive applications are not posted in the registry.

In an age of electronic documents, you would expect that ministries like Transportation, Environment and Natural Resources would have online databases containing approvals, environmental assessments and other materials. However, it is still the case that a member of the public may have to make an appointment and go to Toronto to view documents in a binder that cover the details of applications many kilometres away. In other cases, access is denied and a freedom of information request is required even for information covered by the Environmental Bill of Rights. More general access to information laws like the Ontario Freedom of Information and Privacy Act results in a lengthy and time-consuming process which often takes years.

For activists, these obstacles are not insurmountable but a lot of advance planning is required to address environmental issues and access information. Keeping up with correspondence from information requests, tracking down documents and appealing is time consuming and often costly.

Federal and provincial governments are currently promoting the benefits of streamlining environmental decisions, but largely ignoring the benefits of streamlining public access to information related to those same decisions for environmental groups. As environmental approvals are sped up, the pace at which information on harmful projects becomes available will lag farther and farther behind.

Note: Pro Bono provides legal information designed to educate and entertain readers. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. While efforts are made to ensure the legal information provided through these columns is useful, we strongly recommend you consult a lawyer for assistance with your particular situation to obtain accurate advice.

Submit requests for future Pro Bono topics to probono@rabble.ca. Read past Pro Bono columns here.

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story...

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.

If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.

We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.

Make a donation.Become a monthly supporter.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.