Latest news with #EnvironmentalDefence
Time of India
13-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Canada battles toxic waste crisis as Alberta moves to pump oilsands tailings underground amid health and cost concerns
Alberta is proposing a solution to its mounting oilsands pollution . A panel of public and industry experts, led by Alberta MLA Tany Yao, recommends that companies inject toxic tailings like dirty water, sand, clay, and leftover bitumen deep underground rather than letting them pile up on the surface. Canada's booming oilsands industry has left behind massive lakes of toxic tailings for decades, now totalling over 1.4 trillion litres. These waste ponds have long leaked into ecosystems, threatening Indigenous communities and raising health alarms. Despite past regulations, no company has ever fully cleaned one up, leaving billions in cleanup costs and few solutions. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Infertile Man Visits Orphanage And Hears, 'Hi Daddy.' Then He Realizes His Late Wife's Cruel Lies Crowdy Fan Undo Oilsands pollution is caused by the extraction and processing of bitumen, a form of crude oil found in sands. The oilsands in Alberta are Canada's single-largest source of industrial waste by volume The plan of pumping toxic oilsands is part of an expanding toolkit, a strategy that critics say comes late to a crisis decades in the making. Live Events Canada's tailings ponds, which cover some 270 km², reflect a broader issue: cleanup liability has ballooned to C$130 billion, yet companies have posted barely C$1.4 billion in reclamation security. Also read : Thousands demand an independent Alberta Health risks Legions of studies and lived testimonies like those from Fort Chipewyan, where cancer rates are roughly double Alberta's average, highlight the human cost. Ottawa committed C$12 million in 2024 to a 10-year Indigenous-led health study to evaluate links between oilsands development and illnesses. Simultaneously, Ottawa is reviewing naphthenic acids for classification as federally 'toxic' under CEPA, an assessment due by mid-2025, which could trigger stricter regulation of tailings. Why underground? The committee calls injection 'practical,' emphasising it could ease the surface load while long-term fixes take shape. Deep beneath impermeable rock layers, the risk of leaking into rivers is minimized but not eliminated. Environmental scientist Aliénor Rougeot of Environmental Defence praised the attention but urged caution: 'I don't know that we are at a stage where we could safely inject anything down there,' she told The Canadian Press. Installation hurdles and costs The report warns that large scale underground disposal will require new infrastructure like pipelines, wells, regulatory approvals, and consultation, making it long and expensive. It suggests regulated volume limits to ensure safety. Oilsands tailings carry a toxic mix with around 75 per cent water, g25 per cent sand, plus residual bitumen, dissolved salts, heavy metals (like arsenic and chromium), naphthenic acids, phenols, PAHs, and trace hydrocarbons. These compounds have tainted the Athabasca River in past spills and caused visible fish deformities and bird deaths. Suncor admitted leaking 1,600 m³ per day into the river in 2012. A 2018 joint investigation estimated Alberta's cleanup liability, mostly tailings, at C$130 billion, with only C$1.4 billion secured by companies. The committee also urges sharing recycled wastewater among sites to cut freshwater usage and reduce tailings production. Alberta's Water Management Framework already limits Athabasca River withdrawals to 1.3 percent of low flow levels, but critics say more is needed. What's next? Now Alberta has six months to evaluate these five suggestions, including the underground injection plan, with a formal tailings management strategy due by late 2025. For oil workers, pipeline contractors, and Indigenous people, the decisions in the next half-year will define the region's future.
Hamilton Spectator
06-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Ford government proposes major rollback of Blue Box recycling rules
The Ford government has quietly proposed major changes to Ontario's Blue Box recycling program — changes advocates say will increase pollution, reduce accountability for waste producers and place more costs on renters and municipalities. The new rules would delay key recycling targets by five years, giving producers until 2031 to meet recovery goals for materials like paper, plastic, metal, glass and beverage containers. Those targets had been set to take effect in 2026. The proposed changes would eliminate rules requiring producers to collect packaging waste from apartments, long-term care homes, retirement homes and schools without municipal pickup. Beverage companies would no longer be responsible for containers consumed outside the home. The plan would also allow producers to burn non-recyclable plastic in incinerators or cement kilns and still count it as recycling. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks says the changes are intended to manage 'higher than expected cost growth' and ensure a 'stable and sustainable' blue box system during the province's transition to full producer responsibility. The government would allow producers up to 15 per cent of recycling targets to be met by burning non-recyclable plastic waste in incinerators or cement kilns. Under the province's Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, producers — including brand owners, retailers and importers — are required to manage recycling programs for packaging and single-use items. The current changes would weaken the 2021 regulations that aimed to shift this responsibility away from municipalities and onto the companies that create waste. Critics say the proposal marks a dramatic reversal of more than a decade of progress on waste reduction and recycling in the province. Karen Wirsig, senior program manager at Environmental Defence, said the changes would increase plastic pollution, promote incineration and burden communities with more garbage, all while letting major producers — like grocery chains and beverage companies — off the hook. 'The government is betraying Ontarians by seeking to reverse requirements that would have reduced single-use and unrecyclable plastics and to delay enforcement of these — now weakened — rules for another five years,' Wirsig said. The Ford government's proposal comes just a day after it passed the controversial Bill 5 , which also fast-tracks large waste facility approval under the claim that Ontario is facing a landfill crisis. 'From the moves this week, it is clear that the premier and the government think more garbage, more dumps and more waste-burners are good for Ontario,' Wirsig said, calling it a coordinated shift toward deregulation that benefits producers and the waste industry at the expense of environmental health and ordinary Ontarians. The government also proposes slashing the recycling target for flexible plastic packaging, such as food wrappers and plastic bags, from 25 per cent to just five per cent. The ministry says industry stakeholders argue these materials are costly, hard to recycle and often contaminate other recyclables. Komal Habib, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo and expert in industrial ecology, said delaying recovery targets by five years is excessive and risks weakening Ontario's circular economy goals. 'It's too long of a transition time to allow producers to plan and make investments for collection and recycling activities,' Habib said. On the decision to exclude multi-residential buildings and public spaces from producer collection responsibilities, Habib said it could have serious consequences. These sites produce a growing share of urban waste, especially in cities like Toronto and Waterloo — leaving them out of the system could hamper progress toward circular economy goals. Ontario is still dumping billions of bottles and cans, while other provinces profit from a deposit-return recycling system. Despite 81 per cent of Ontarians supporting such a system, last year the Ford government scrapped the non-alcoholic drink container deposit-return program, citing cost concerns 'for small businesses and families,' without providing any estimates. Big retailers and consumer brands have been lobbying the Ford government to weaken Ontario's Blue Box rules, claiming recycling costs are too high. Last year, in a joint letter , several Ontario municipal organizations raised concerns about industry lobbying for changes to the province's Blue Box Regulation, warning it could undermine the goals of extended producer responsibility and shift costs back onto municipalities. Ontario NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns said the Ford government's decision to delay recycling targets and loosen producer obligations is a clear example of corporate influence overriding public interest. He argued that big companies have had more than a decade to develop less wasteful packaging but failed to act. Tabuns said the idea behind extended producer responsibility was to force innovation by making polluters pay, but the changes signal a retreat from that principle. He added that the government's decision to allow incineration to count toward recycling targets would worsen climate emissions and increase toxic pollution. Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the government is effectively dismantling a system that was meant to make waste producers accountable and encourage less packaging waste. Instead, he warned, the rollback will lead to more garbage, higher costs for taxpayers and missed opportunities to build a circular economy. Ontario should be moving toward strict producer responsibility, zero waste targets, and greater inclusion of commercial and multi-residential buildings in recycling programs, not backing away from them, he said. A more effective approach would be to reduce the delay to no more than two years and push producers to invest in infrastructure, Habib suggested. She also urged the government to fund academic research to evaluate whether current recovery targets are realistic and sustainable. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
National Observer
06-06-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Ford government proposes major rollback of Blue Box recycling rules
The Ford government has quietly proposed major changes to Ontario's Blue Box recycling program — changes advocates say will increase pollution, reduce accountability for waste producers and place more costs on renters and municipalities. The new rules would delay key recycling targets by five years, giving producers until 2031 to meet recovery goals for materials like paper, plastic, metal, glass and beverage containers. Those targets had been set to take effect in 2026. The proposed changes would eliminate rules requiring producers to collect packaging waste from apartments, long-term care homes, retirement homes and schools without municipal pickup. Beverage companies would no longer be responsible for containers consumed outside the home. The plan would also allow producers to burn non-recyclable plastic in incinerators or cement kilns and still count it as recycling. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks says the changes are intended to manage 'higher than expected cost growth' and ensure a 'stable and sustainable' blue box system during the province's transition to full producer responsibility. The government would allow producers up to 15 per cent of recycling targets to be met by burning non-recyclable plastic waste in incinerators or cement kilns. Under the province's Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, producers — including brand owners, retailers and importers — are required to manage recycling programs for packaging and single-use items. The current changes would weaken the 2021 regulations that aimed to shift this responsibility away from municipalities and onto the companies that create waste. Critics say the proposal marks a dramatic reversal of more than a decade of progress on waste reduction and recycling in the province. Big retailers and consumer brands have been lobbying the Ford government to weaken Ontario's Blue Box rules, claiming recycling costs are too high. Karen Wirsig, senior program manager at Environmental Defence, said the changes would increase plastic pollution, promote incineration and burden communities with more garbage, all while letting major producers — like grocery chains and beverage companies — off the hook. 'The government is betraying Ontarians by seeking to reverse requirements that would have reduced single-use and unrecyclable plastics and to delay enforcement of these — now weakened — rules for another five years,' Wirsig said. The Ford government's proposal comes just a day after it passed the controversial Bill 5, which also fast-tracks large waste facility approval under the claim that Ontario is facing a landfill crisis. 'From the moves this week, it is clear that the premier and the government think more garbage, more dumps and more waste-burners are good for Ontario,' Wirsig said, calling it a coordinated shift toward deregulation that benefits producers and the waste industry at the expense of environmental health and ordinary Ontarians. The government also proposes slashing the recycling target for flexible plastic packaging, such as food wrappers and plastic bags, from 25 per cent to just five per cent. The ministry says industry stakeholders argue these materials are costly, hard to recycle and often contaminate other recyclables. Komal Habib, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo and expert in industrial ecology, said delaying recovery targets by five years is excessive and risks weakening Ontario's circular economy goals. 'It's too long of a transition time to allow producers to plan and make investments for collection and recycling activities,' Habib said. On the decision to exclude multi-residential buildings and public spaces from producer collection responsibilities, Habib said it could have serious consequences. These sites produce a growing share of urban waste, especially in cities like Toronto and Waterloo — leaving them out of the system could hamper progress toward circular economy goals. Ontario is still dumping billions of bottles and cans, while other provinces profit from a deposit-return recycling system. Despite 81 per cent of Ontarians supporting such a system, last year the Ford government scrapped the non-alcoholic drink container deposit-return program, citing cost concerns 'for small businesses and families,' without providing any estimates. Opposition slams industry influence Big retailers and consumer brands have been lobbying the Ford government to weaken Ontario's Blue Box rules, claiming recycling costs are too high. Last year, in a joint letter, several Ontario municipal organizations raised concerns about industry lobbying for changes to the province's Blue Box Regulation, warning it could undermine the goals of extended producer responsibility and shift costs back onto municipalities. Ontario NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns said the Ford government's decision to delay recycling targets and loosen producer obligations is a clear example of corporate influence overriding public interest. He argued that big companies have had more than a decade to develop less wasteful packaging but failed to act. Tabuns said the idea behind extended producer responsibility was to force innovation by making polluters pay, but the changes signal a retreat from that principle. He added that the government's decision to allow incineration to count toward recycling targets would worsen climate emissions and increase toxic pollution. Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the government is effectively dismantling a system that was meant to make waste producers accountable and encourage less packaging waste. Instead, he warned, the rollback will lead to more garbage, higher costs for taxpayers and missed opportunities to build a circular economy. Ontario should be moving toward strict producer responsibility, zero waste targets, and greater inclusion of commercial and multi-residential buildings in recycling programs, not backing away from them, he said. A more effective approach would be to reduce the delay to no more than two years and push producers to invest in infrastructure, Habib suggested. She also urged the government to fund academic research to evaluate whether current recovery targets are realistic and sustainable.
CBC
30-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
Some Ontario grocery stores question selling booze over empties deposit program
Social Sharing Very few Ontario grocery stores that are required to accept empty alcohol containers are doing so, leaving the future of the deposit return program in question as The Beer Store closes locations across the province. Only about 70 grocery stores — ones that are more than five kilometres away from a Beer Store — have been required to take empties since last fall but only four are complying, says The Beer Store, which operates the deposit return system. On Jan. 1, 2026, all grocery stores selling beer and wine — more than 1,000 are licensed, according to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario — will have to accept bottle returns as part of Premier Doug Ford's move to speed up the availability of alcohol. The Ministry of Finance says 13 of the grocery stores are complying and the rest of them with current obligations are "expected to join over the coming months." But Jan. 1 is also when The Beer Store is allowed under Ford's alcohol agreement to close an unlimited number of stores, and with so few grocery stores already participating and others threatening to hand back their licences rather than participate in the deposit return program as currently structured, the program that saw 1.6 billion containers returned last year could be in jeopardy. Karen Wirsig, a senior program manager at Environmental Defence, a Canadian environmental advocacy group, said the program allows for beer bottles to be reused, ensures the effective recycling of most alcohol packaging and keeps millions of tonnes of material out of landfills. "As The Beer Stores keep closing, that will kill the Ontario deposit return program," she said. "If you don't make returns convenient for people, they won't do it." WATCH | Ford's push to expand alcohol sales early to cost Ontario $612M, budget watchdog says: Ontario's booze expansion rollout could cost taxpayers $1.4B, FAO says 4 months ago Duration 3:49 John Nock, president of the union representing The Beer Store employees, said there should be some enforcement to ensure the grocery stores get deposit return systems up and running so consumers can get their 10 or 20 cents per container. "If they're allowed to sell alcohol ... they should take returns," he said. "Why are [we], the public, paying a deposit to the government that we can never get back? Or we've got to drive a half an hour [to the nearest Beer Store] to get our $2 or $3 back." Grocery store associations sent letter to Ford Grocery stores have for months voiced their concerns with the program, from sanitation issues and space constraints to a sheer cost effectiveness calculation. Earlier this month associations representing both small and large grocers wrote a joint letter to the premier warning they will stop selling alcohol if the program isn't improved. "Unless urgent changes are made to build fairer economics and to move away from a mandatory return-to-retail recycling system, our grocery members have advised that their stores will start the process of reviewing their future participation, potentially exiting the category all together," wrote the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. Adding insult to injury, they say, is a move by the government in its budget to increase a wholesale alcohol discount from 10 to 15 per cent for bars, restaurants and convenience stores — who do not have to accept empties — but not grocery stores, who do. "It's inexplicable," said Gary Sands, senior vice-president of public policy and advocacy with the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. "If anything, what they should have been doing is saying, 'In light of the fact that we've dumped all the recycling on you guys, we're going to increase your allowance and we'll leave the others as it is.' Instead, it's the reverse." It puts grocery stores at a competitive disadvantage, Sands said. "[Ford] promised us that when he rolled out the new system, there would be no winners and losers," he said. "He's broken that promise." The big grocery chains, through the Retail Council of Canada, are echoing those concerns. Loblaws is testing a return-to-retail system at one location and is finding it's "ludicrously expensive," said Sebastian Prins, director of government relations for the retail council. "It's tightening already tight margins," he said. "Our folks just want to be able to kind of compete on a level playing field." The AGCO has started sending grocers some "compliance letters," Prins said, but the language is fairly soft for the time being. WATCH | Ontario to spend hundreds of millions to boost alcohol sector in 2025 budget: Ford's budget promises to bolster Ontario-made alcohol, lower prices 15 days ago Duration 2:14 There are many steps the government could take to help enable grocers to offer return systems, Prins said, such as looking at removing the deposit from beer cans and leaving those to the blue box system. "Even something as simple as the government saying, 'We are going to convene major grocers and The Beer Store in a room to talk about is there a cheaper mouse trap that can be built here' — even that would be seen as forward progress," he said. "They've kind of got all their levers pushed to zero." The Beer Store processes 1.6B containers annually Ford's previous plan was to get beer, wine and ready-to-drink cocktails in convenience stores and all grocery stores by 2026, but in May of 2024 he announced that would instead happen that year. An "early implementation agreement" with The Beer Store involves the province paying the company up to $225 million to help it keep stores open and workers employed. The province's financial accountability officer said there will also be a $215-million cost as a result of lower tax revenues as grocery, big box and convenience stores are not subject to beer, wine and spirit taxes. As well, the FAO said there will be $172 million in lower net income to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. While there will be a $1.1 billion increase in wholesale LCBO revenue, there will also be an approximately $812 million decline in LCBO retail revenue, a $192 million cost to give wholesale discounts to new retailers, $150 million in service rebates to brewers, $105 million in higher operating expenses, and $22 million in higher recycling fees. Under the agreement, The Beer Store has to keep at least 300 stores open up to the end of this year, but starting in 2026 there is no minimum number. Ozzie Ahmed, vice-president of retail for The Beer Store, said in a statement that the stewardship of alcohol containers is an important part of retailer responsibility. "Annually The Beer Store processes about 1.6 billion alcohol containers, more than we sell in our own network of stores," Ahmed wrote.
Global News
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Global News
Municipal climate plans under threat by new Ontario housing bill, critics say
A major piece of Toronto's climate plan appears to be in the Ontario government's crosshairs, critics warn, as the province advances a bill that could strip municipalities of their power to set green building standards. More than a dozen Ontario municipalities have followed Toronto's lead by pushing developers to design more energy efficient buildings with lower greenhouse-gas emissions, beyond what's required by the provincial building code's minimum standards. Now Premier Doug Ford's government, with backing from some developers, may be ready to turf those municipal green standards as part of its stated effort to fast-track home construction. A spokesperson for Ontario's housing minister says changes under Bill 17, introduced this month, would 'clarify' that municipalities don't have the authority to 'require their own unique standards that supersedes the Ontario building code.' 'This will help standardize construction requirements and provide consistency, setting the same set of rules for everyone in Ontario, leading to faster approvals and reduced costs,' wrote Alexandra Sanita, press secretary for Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Rob Flack. Story continues below advertisement Climate advocate Keith Brooks says the move appears to target municipal green standards. It could saddle home and building owners with higher heating and cooling costs, expand Ontario's reliance on natural gas and put cities at greater flood risk, he said. 'It's not only that they're abdicating their responsibility to address climate change, but they are stopping other levels of government from doing what they can to fight climate change as well,' said Brooks, a programs director with Environmental Defence, an environmental advocacy group. Buildings account for more than half of Toronto's greenhouse-gas output, in large part from natural gas heating. The 15-year-old green standard has been touted by the city as a way to make it more resilient to climate change and cut back on emissions. The standard requires developers, for example, to ensure their new builds can retain a certain amount of stormwater to prevent flooding during extreme rainfall and have enough tree canopy to help stave off extreme heat. It also requires buildings to meet annual emissions targets, pushing developers to consider low-carbon heating options such as heat pumps over natural gas. New residential parking units must also be fitted for electric-vehicle charging under the standard, a requirement Ford's government scrapped from the provincial building code shortly after it came to power. Yet, the municipal standards have drawn the ire of some developer industry associations who suggest it's adding to costs during a housing crisis. The Residential Construction Council of Ontario sued Toronto over the standards last year in a case still before the courts. Story continues below advertisement The group's president welcomed the bill as signalling the end of municipal green standards in Ontario. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'To my mind, that's the intent of it,' said Richard Lyall, president of RESCON. He said the standards were a 'knee-jerk reaction to climate activism' and muddied the approvals process for developers who build across municipalities with different standards. 'This really doesn't make any sense, and the cost is exorbitant, and the market is already unable to bear those costs,' Lyall said. 'There's a duplication, too. If one level of government is responsible for the building code and things green, then do you really need other levels of government jumping in and saying, well, we're going to do this, too?' But advocates argue cities must be provided leeway to require design standards beyond the minimum requirements set out in the provincial building code. Ontario's auditor general found in 2020 that the provincial government had turned down proposed changes to the building code that could have improved energy efficiency by 20 per cent. Bryan Purcell, who helped design Toronto's green standard, also says the pace of the city's housing construction suggests the standard has not hampered it. More broadly, there's nothing to suggest cities in Ontario with a green standard are slower to develop than those without, he said. Story continues below advertisement The broad wording of the bill has left municipalities scrambling to figure out its possible impacts, Purcell said. 'That's one of the reasons cities are really scratching their heads,' said Purcell, vice-president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund, a non-profit climate agency whose board of directors is appointed by Toronto city councillors. 'Does it suddenly mean bylaws around construction noise, vibration, dust control, are suddenly in question?' In Toronto, Mayor Olivia Chow directed staff to study the bill and report back to a meeting of the executive committee next month. 'We are currently evaluating the proposed changes to building standards, including impacts to the Toronto Green Standard, and are seeking further details from the province on these changes,' she said in a statement. More than a dozen other Ontario municipalities have used Toronto as a model to come up with their own green standards. While Toronto, Halton Hills and Whitby are among those with mandatory standards, most are voluntary. Whitby Mayor Elizabeth Roy said homes built to the city's green standard helped to drive down heating and hydro costs for homeowners without slowing down development approvals. 'We declared a climate emergency. And if we can do better, let's move to do better,' she said. Story continues below advertisement A spokesperson for Halton Hills said the town's preliminary review suggests elements of its green standard would be impacted by the bill. Without a policy to drive developers to low-carbon heating options, natural gas providers could end up benefiting from the bill, climate advocates say. Because gas connections costs are covered by ratepayers over decades and not up front, developers have an incentive to choose gas over heat pumps, even if it can end up costing homeowners more in the long run and emit more carbon. Vancouver and Montreal are among the North American cities moving to ban gas for heating and water in new builds. It would not be the first time the Ford government has intervened to the benefit of natural gas providers in Ontario. Last year, the government overruled Ontario's energy regulator on a decision that would have prevented Enbridge from passing off the cost of connecting new homes to ratepayers. The Ontario Energy Board had ruled developers must shoulder the costs instead. Enbridge's long-term plan had failed to consider the risks of the transition away from fossil fuels, the ruling said. The transition could cause Enbridge to eventually hike rates for its remaining customers, which in turn could cause more people to leave, setting off a self-reinforcing series of escalating price hikes or 'utility death spiral,' the ruling said. Story continues below advertisement The government said it needed to be overturned because it would drive up housing costs. But Purcell said the government's decision reflects a 'misunderstanding of how to ensure energy affordability.' 'It's about five times more expensive to retrofit these homes and buildings later to get them off of fossil fuels or minimize their fossil-fuel use than it is to design them that way from the get-go,' he said. 'We want efficient buildings. We want clean energy. We want healthy buildings. And all these things go together, especially when you build them in from an early design stage.' Purcell hasn't ruled out the possibility the government could change course. It happened in 2023 when Ontario walked back parts of a previous housing bill that critics said could undermine municipal green standards. In a letter to municipalities at the time, the former housing minister said it was not the government's intention and it 'recognized the important work being done by municipalities through green standards to encourage green-friendly development and is committed to supporting these efforts.' Steve Clark resigned later that year due to controversy over the government's now-reversed decision to open up parts of the protected Greenbelt for development.
