Latest news with #TheTrillium
Canada Standard
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Canada Standard
Ontario Legislation Could Override Local Green Standards, Stall Climate Progress
A new Ontario bill could set back green building efforts and mark "the beginning of the end of urban planning" in the province, gutting city-led climate policies as extreme weather risks are rising, warn critics. Bill 17, the proposed Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, would override bylaws like Toronto's Green Standard by "clarifying" that municipalities do not have jurisdiction to set green construction standards. Climate advocates say the measure would stall progress on municipal climate goals while burdening homeowners with higher energy and retrofit costs down the line. The Doug Ford government says the bill will bring regulatory consistency across Ontario, speed up construction, and reduce housing costs. But the provincial building code lacks many of the green features cities like Toronto require, writes The Canadian Press. The Toronto Green Standard, for example, mandates stormwater retention features to reduce flood risk during heavy rainfall, minimum tree canopy coverage to combat extreme heat, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new residential parking spaces. The Ford government eliminated that last requirement from its own code shortly after coming to power. The bill follows a legal challenge filed last year by the Residential Construction Council of Ontario-an association of builders-to block Toronto from enforcing standards beyond those set out in the Ontario Building Code. The council was incensed by Toronto's green standards, which aim to improve air quality, transportation, energy usage, water efficiency, and waste diversion with a checklist of requirements for developers of new buildings, reports The Trillium. "These include everything from bicycle parking and pedestrian walkways to energy efficiency targets, trash compaction guidelines, and tree-planting quotas." View our latest digests Bill 17 will gut green building standards implemented in several other cities across Ontario, warn environmental advocates. The bill as it is now written will "set back green building efforts by 15 years," said Bryan Purcell, vice-president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund (TAF), citing the period of time the Toronto Green Standard has been in place. "As buildings are the largest source of carbon emissions in most cities, it would make it impossible for cities to reach their climate targets," Purcell told The Energy Mix . The bill could lock nearly all new buildings into using gas as a primary fuel source, which would saddle home and building owners with higher energy costs while undercutting the economics of green building technology and services. "And it would create huge costs down the road, as retrofitting buildings to get off gas or enable electric vehicle charging is five to 10 times more expensive than building it right to begin with," he added. Other environmental organizations have also warned against the bill. In one recent post, the Toronto Environmental Alliance said the legislation would completely undermine municipal planning authority, leaving cities with few tools to adapt regulations to local conditions. Environmental Defence says the bill claims to address construction challenges, but focuses on "scapegoating municipal policies" instead of fixing the root issues-namely, provincial restrictions against mid-rise developments, which have caused a shortage of family-sized homes. "McMansion" rebuilds and sprawl are further problems, it adds. The Ontario government says its action to block municipal building bylaws is only a "clarification" to existing legislation-in particular, Section 8 of the Building Code Act , the legal foundation of the province's building code-which regulates how building permits are issued. But TAF argues that a city has the right to set green building standards unless they conflict with provincial rules. Purcell points to section 35(1), which he says "is generally interpreted to mean that if a building code requirement actively conflicts with a municipal bylaw, then the building code requirement takes precedence." That section authorizes local municipalities to pass bylaws "respecting the protection or conservation of the environment" in accordance with the provincial codes. A later subsection even specifies that 35(1) gives municipalities power to require green roofs on buildings, but does not address other green standards. By not stating the specific role of municipalities in setting building codes, the Building Code Act creates a grey area that could be interpreted to align with Purcell's reading. But it could also support the government's interpretation. Section 8 states that a building official must issue a permit for a building that meets the requirements of the Building Code Act except in a few prescribed circumstances. The list of exceptions does not include a carve-out for buildings that fail to meet municipal requirements. Municipalities are also considered "creatures of the provinces," and have "no constitutional protection whatsoever against provincial laws that change their structures, functions, and financial resources without their consent," writes the Centre for Excellence on the Canadian Federation. The wider concern is that Bill 17 will amount to a dramatic shift in authority for cities, and not just to manage their building regulations and address climate change. Purcell warns that Bill 17 would "be the beginning of the end of urban planning in Ontario" by instigating legal challenges to existing bylaws across the province, beyond the green building standards. "It could create a wild west type of development environment, where anything can be built anywhere and consultants working for developers approve their own submissions." Source: The Energy Mix
Canada Standard
22-05-2025
- Business
- Canada Standard
Ontario Budget Misses the Mark on Climate, Affordability, Equity, Critics Say
Ontario frames its latest budget as a response to the turbulent trade climate driven by U.S. tariffs, but some experts say it comes up short on funding for people and the environment. Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy calls it a "plan to protect Ontario" with provisions to help workers and businesses facing tariffs, to "unleash the economy" with support for manufacturing, to lower costs for families, and to deliver better services. His fiscal outlook recalls past crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and rising interest rates, but warns the province "now faces one of its greatest challenges" in the form of U.S. tariffs. Ontario says the ensuing economic certainty threatens to undermine 2024's "solid gains" in job growth and GDP. The government forecasts a $6-billion deficit for 2024-25, growing to $14.6 billion next year, and $7.8 billion in 2026-27 before returning to a slim projected surplus by 2027-28. But critics say the budget is short-sighted for handing out benefits to businesses-without spelling out how those measures will benefit people-while neglecting support for everyday Ontarians and the environment, with long-term consequences to come. In some ways, the budget is notable for what it didn't include, writes Brian Lewis in The Trillium. Climate change almost isn't mentioned, except in reference to green bonds, and poverty is unaddressed despite rising affordability challenges. It includes $6.46 billion for taxpayer-funded subsidies feeding "electricity cost relief programs," but critics have noted those serve wealthy households and sustain high electricity use when consumption cuts would better serve the grid. The Narwhal reports Ontario budgeted support for "new pipelines connecting Alberta oil to new refineries" and $92 million toward electric vehicle charging infrastructure. But it reduced its "meagre" emergency preparedness funding-just one month after nearly a million Ontarians lost power due to an ice storm. The government also decreased its budget for emergency forest firefighting-a move that troubled John Vanthof, MPP for the northern riding of Timiskaming Cochrane, reports Timmins Today. Vanthof said that though firefighting budgets fluctuate, "the base budget shouldn't," as there is a consistent need "to have enough planes, enough staff, and enough resources ready." "Cutting that base is dangerous for Northern Ontario," Vanthof said. Bethlenfalvy said the government has a contingency fund to cover such things, but it doesn't appear in the budget. Ontario allocated funds for mining and the supply chains for critical minerals that are often located on First Nations territories, but the word "reconciliation" only appears in the budget twice, said the Chiefs of Ontario. The budget repeats the word "mineral" 63 times, and refers to the mineral-rich Ring of Fire 16 times. The chiefs welcomed the potential to increase mining capacity among First Nations, but also said they remain disappointed to see "no tangible commitments made into other key sectors for First Nations, such as mental health services, child and family services, and environmental initiatives." They also raised concerns that recently tabled legislation, Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, "will run roughshod over First Nations rights." While the latest budget contains some wins for the clean economy, it falls short of ensuring long-term affordability by weakening green building standards in its haste to spur more housing development, says Clean Energy Canada. writes that the proposed Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, could undermine municipal green building rules. The Atmospheric Fund similarly warns that the bill will limit "cities' abilities to plan for growth," risking long-term impacts on affordability "by exposing homeowners, tenants, and building owners to spiraling energy costs and the increasing impacts of extreme weather and climate change." The budget continues a long-term trend of underinvesting in line items for the everyday living of Ontario residents, like health and education, write Ricardo Tranjan and Ryan Romard for Policy Options. "Despite the serious challenges of the past years, Ontario remains the province that spends the least on its people, on a per-capita basis." Source: The Energy Mix
Global News
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Global News
Dresden locals, First Nations take landfill fight to Queen's Park
Local residents and a First Nation brought their fight against a large landfill to Queen's Park, where they accused the premier of trampling over the community's concerns to fast-track a project backed by his donors. The chair of a local advocacy group says the community feels betrayed by the decision to cancel an environmental assessment for the landfill just north of Dresden, a small rural farming community in southwestern Ontario. Stefan Premdas, the head of the group, questioned how the project got singled out in a controversial omnibus bill introduced by Premier Doug Ford's government. The Liberals have asked the integrity commissioner to look into whether the government gave the project preferential treatment because it's backed by lucrative Progressive Conservative donors. Ford says he doesn't know the developer and didn't look at who owned the project. Story continues below advertisement He says Ontario sends about 40 per cent of its waste to the United States and President Donald Trump could turn it away if trade disputes were to escalate. 'It takes one phone call from President Trump to say cut us off, and then what do we do? We have to be prepared. It's an existing site, we need to expand it,' Ford told reporters on Tuesday. York1, the company behind the project, is seeking to revive a small dormant landfill and expand it to service waste from across the province. Municipal officials have suggested the company is relying on outdated approvals, granted decades ago, to try to bypass a full environmental assessment of a project that would turn an area less than a kilometre north of Dresden into one of Ontario's busiest waste sites. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The company did not respond to a request for comment. Details of the developers' donations and lobbying efforts were first reported by The Trillium, a Queen's Park-based news outlet, and were cited by the Liberals in their letter to the integrity commissioner. The Trillium reported that executives at the companies and their family members had donated about $200,000 to the PCs since 2018. The Canadian Press has corroborated some of those political contributions recorded in a public Elections Ontario database. Story continues below advertisement Under the developer's proposal, a small landfill dating back to the 1960s that holds 40,000 cubic metres could expand to a total of 1.6 million cubic metres, enough to fill almost 650 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Officials have said the company also wants to establish waste processing stations to receive up to 6,000 tonnes of waste per day, even though existing permits for the property dating back to 1998 only allow for a tiny fraction of that amount. Locals fear any leaching from the landfill could be disastrous for the area waterways and endangered species, and balk at the site's proximity to homes and schools. The property is also surrounded by prime agricultural land and the water around the site streams into the Sydenham River, home to some endangered species, including the spiny softshell turtle. An environmental assessment would have had to consider alternative designs or locations for the project. Chief Leela Thomas of Walpole Island First Nation, whose reserve is just downstream of the project, says the government's backtracking not only threatens local biodiversity, but violates 'the spirit and intent' of Ontario's commitment to environmental protections. 'What message is the government sending when it is willing to trade away clean water, community safety, and climate resilience for the convenience of avoiding proper review and consent?' she said. Story continues below advertisement The province initially announced in March 2024 it would pursue an environmental assessment for the project, citing community concerns. Shortly after that, the premier called a byelection in the local riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, where the successful PC candidate Steve Pinsonneault campaigned against the expansion. Then, in a surprise move, the government proposed to cancel that assessment as part of the omnibus Bill 5 introduced last month. Pinsonneault's office has not responded to a request for comment. NDP Leader Marit Stiles claimed the government never intended to keep its promise to Dresden residents. 'This government will always promise anything and everything during an election, and then they turn around and break their promise,' she said.
Winnipeg Free Press
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Dresden locals, First Nations take landfill fight to Queen's Park
TORONTO – Local residents and a First Nation brought their fight against a large landfill to Queen's Park, where they accused the premier of trampling over the community's concerns to fast-track a project backed by his donors. The chair of a local advocacy group says the community feels betrayed by the decision to cancel an environmental assessment for the landfill just north of Dresden, a small rural farming community in southwestern Ontario. Stefan Premdas, the head of the group, questioned how the project got singled out in a controversial omnibus bill introduced by Premier Doug Ford's government. The Liberals have asked the integrity commissioner to look into whether the government gave the project preferential treatment because it's backed by lucrative Progressive Conservative donors. Ford says he doesn't know the developer and didn't look at who owned the project. He says Ontario sends about 40 per cent of its waste to the United States and President Donald Trump could turn it away if trade disputes were to escalate. 'It takes one phone call from President Trump to say cut us off, and then what do we do? We have to be prepared. It's an existing site, we need to expand it,' Ford told reporters on Tuesday. York1, the company behind the project, is seeking to revive a small dormant landfill and expand it to service waste from across the province. Municipal officials have suggested the company is relying on outdated approvals, granted decades ago, to try to bypass a full environmental assessment of a project that would turn an area less than a kilometre north of Dresden into one of Ontario's busiest waste sites. The company did not respond to a request for comment. Details of the developers' donations and lobbying efforts were first reported by The Trillium, a Queen's Park-based news outlet, and were cited by the Liberals in their letter to the integrity commissioner. The Trillium reported that executives at the companies and their family members had donated about $200,000 to the PCs since 2018. The Canadian Press has corroborated some of those political contributions recorded in a public Elections Ontario database. Under the developer's proposal, a small landfill dating back to the 1960s that holds 40,000 cubic metres could expand to a total of 1.6 million cubic metres, enough to fill almost 650 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Officials have said the company also wants to establish waste processing stations to receive up to 6,000 tonnes of waste per day, even though existing permits for the property dating back to 1998 only allow for a tiny fraction of that amount. Locals fear any leaching from the landfill could be disastrous for the area waterways and endangered species, and balk at the site's proximity to homes and schools. The property is also surrounded by prime agricultural land and the water around the site streams into the Sydenham River, home to some endangered species, including the spiny softshell turtle. An environmental assessment would have had to consider alternative designs or locations for the project. Chief Leela Thomas of Walpole Island First Nation, whose reserve is just downstream of the project, says the government's backtracking not only threatens local biodiversity, but violates 'the spirit and intent' of Ontario's commitment to environmental protections. 'What message is the government sending when it is willing to trade away clean water, community safety, and climate resilience for the convenience of avoiding proper review and consent?' she said. The province initially announced in March 2024 it would pursue an environmental assessment for the project, citing community concerns. Shortly after that, the premier called a byelection in the local riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, where the successful PC candidate Steve Pinsonneault campaigned against the expansion. Winnipeg Jets Game Days On Winnipeg Jets game days, hockey writers Mike McIntyre and Ken Wiebe send news, notes and quotes from the morning skate, as well as injury updates and lineup decisions. Arrives a few hours prior to puck drop. Then, in a surprise move, the government proposed to cancel that assessment as part of the omnibus Bill 5 introduced last month. Pinsonneault's office has not responded to a request for comment. NDP Leader Marit Stiles claimed the government never intended to keep its promise to Dresden residents. 'This government will always promise anything and everything during an election, and then they turn around and break their promise,' she said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 13, 2025.
Global News
12-05-2025
- Business
- Global News
After Ontario backtracks on landfill study, Liberals seek probe into donor links
The Ontario Liberals are asking the integrity commissioner to investigate the province's decision to backtrack on an environmental assessment of a massive landfill expansion project backed by Progressive Conservative donors. The Liberals want the integrity commissioner to look at whether Premier Doug Ford's government gave the project special treatment because its developers are lucrative donors to his party. The government is opting to cancel the assessment it had previously ordered for the project in Dresden, a rural farming community in southwestern Ontario, as part of a controversial omnibus bill making its way through the legislature. The government ordered the assessment last summer, citing the community's concerns about the proposed landfill expansion, just weeks before it called a byelection in the local riding where the PC candidate campaigned against the expansion. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Environment Minister Todd McCarthy now says the province can't afford to keep shipping a large share of its waste to the United States, suggesting Ontario is facing a landfill capacity 'crisis.' Story continues below advertisement The Liberals fired back by suggesting the government was leveraging the U.S. trade war to push through policies to benefit insiders at the expense of transparency and accountability to local residents. York1, the company behind the project, is seeking to revive a dormant landfill about a kilometre north of Dresden and expand it by more than 30-fold to service waste from across the province. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Details of the developers' donations and lobbying efforts were first reported by The Trillium, a Queen's Park-based news outlet, and were cited by the Liberals in their letter to the integrity commissioner. The Trillium reported executives at the companies and their family members had donated about $200,000 to the PCs since 2018. The Canadian Press has corroborated some of those political contributions recorded in a public Elections Ontario database. The integrity commissioner confirmed it was reviewing the Liberal request.
