Use of Information Notices
In cases where ministries are not required to post a proposal notice on the Environmental Registry for public comment, they may still provide a public service by posting an “information notice” under section 6 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR). These notices keep Ontarians informed of important environmental developments.
Ministries should use an information notice only when they are not required to post a regular notice for public comment. Significant differences exist between regular proposal notices posted on the Registry and information notices. With regular proposal notices, a ministry is required to consider public comments and post a decision notice explaining the effect of comments on the ministry’s decision. The ECO then reviews the extent to which the minister considered those comments when he or she made the final decision. Each ministry must also consider its Statement of Environmental Values in the decision-making process. Moreover, third party appeal rights are only available for instruments if they are posted as regular proposal notices. Overall, regular proposal postings provide greater public accountability and transparency than information notices.
The ECO reviews whether or not ministries use information notices appropriately and considers whether notices are clear and complete. During the 2010/2011 reporting year, seven ministries posted a total of 114 information notices. However, for the purposes of reporting on year-to-year trends, the ECO does not include previously posted notices (as ministries often post updates on information notices) or notices that relate to forest management plans. In 2010/2011, ministries updated 25 previously posted notices and posted 11 new notices relating to forest management plans. Accordingly, prescribed ministries posted 78 new information notices in 2010/2011. (Refer to Section 2 of the Supplement to this Annual Report for a discussion of the appropriate use of information notices and for a complete list of information notices posted on the Environmental Registry in 2010/2011.)
| Table 8.4.1 Number of New Information Notices, 2010/2011 | |
| Ministry | Notices |
|---|---|
| Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs | 1 |
| Energy | 1 |
| Environment | 20 |
| Municipal Affairs and Housing | 16 |
| Natural Resources | 32 |
| Northern Development, Mines and Forestry | 5 |
| Transportation | 3 |
Appropriate Use of Information Notices
During this reporting period, several ministries used information notices to inform the public about initiatives that are legally excepted from the EBR requirement to post regular proposal and decision notices. For example, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) posted a notice informing the public of the results and recommendations of a major study on aggregate resources in Ontario. MNR committed to appropriate postings on the Environmental Registry for any future government response.
Inappropriate Use of Information Notices
On several occasions, ministries used information notices inappropriately during this reporting period, stating that the initiatives were not subject to the EBR for a variety of reasons. For example, MNR posted its proposed approach to regulate habitat for Woodland Caribou (forest-dwelling boreal population) under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 as an information notice, although it was clearly a government proposal subject to regular notice requirements under the EBR. The ECO is extremely disappointed that MNR failed to meet its legal responsibilities under the EBR, particularly as habitat protection for this species at risk has been an issue of heated public debate. In failing to post a proposal notice, the ministry circumvented its EBR obligations to consider its Statement of Environmental Values and explain to the public how comments were considered. Further, as information notices are not subject to the ECO scrutiny a regular proposal notice affords, MNR further undermined public accountability and transparency. The ECO strongly urges MNR to adhere to its legal requirements under the EBR and post all environmentally significant proposals properly.
Ministry Decisions that were Not Prescribed
In 2010/2011 various ministries made extra efforts to inform the public by voluntarily posting environmentally significant decisions as information notices because they fall under acts, regulations or instruments that are not prescribed under the EBR. In April 2010, for example, MOE posted a notice informing the public about its intention to amend O. Reg. 455/09 made under the newly passed Toxics Reduction Act, 2009. The Act was not prescribed under the EBR until July 1, 2010. The ECO commends MOE for this action, but urges the ministry to post a notice explaining how the ministry considered the comments it received in finalizing the amendments to the regulation. This example reinforces the need for ministries to prescribe new environmentally significant laws under the EBR as quickly as possible.
For a more detailed review, please refer to Section 2 of the Supplement to this Annual Report. For ministry comments, please see Appendix C.
| Previous section: Reviews of Unposted Decisions |
| Next section: Use of Exception Notices |
| This is an article from the 2010/11 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2011. "Use of Information Notices." Engaging Solutions, ECO Annual Report, 2010/11. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 141-143.
