We have blogged previously about
Bill 66, the re-(re)introduction of the proposed Great
Lakes Protection Act. This is the third time that the Ontario
government has introduced a Bill of this nature to the Legislature.
Previous versions of the proposed act (specifically, Bill 100,
introduced in June 2012, and Bill 6, introduced in February 2013)
died on the order paper.
The proposed act would, among other things, purportedly
Help fight climate change, reduce harmful algal blooms, and
protect wetlands and other coastal areas.
Monitor and report on the health of the lakes.
Bring people together to take action on priority issues.
Build on Ontario's leadership in protecting the Great
Lakes, including our Great Lakes Strategy and partnerships with
Canada, Quebec, U.S.A., and the Great Lakes states.
The proposed legislation has, in general, been warmly received
by environmental groups. However, some concerns have
been expressed about certain aspects of the Bill,
particularly a provision that would allow Cabinet to create,
through regulation, exemptions for "any person or class of
person from any provision of [the] Act or regulations,"
subject to any established conditions or restrictions.
The Standing Committee on General Government intended
to held public hearings today and tomorrow on the Bill
(September 23-24). For anyone interested in commenting on the
Bill and who will not be appearing before the committee, written
being accepted by the Clerk of the Committee until tomorrow,
September 24th at 6 p.m.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Ontario's Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change continues to roll out its Climate Change Action Plan with its proposed GHG guide for projects that are subject to the province's Environmental Assessment Act.
The Imperial Oil refinery pled guilty to one offence for discharging a contaminant, coker stabilizer, thermocracked gas, into the natural environment causing an adverse effect and was fined $650,000...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).