It has been over two years since I requested more data from the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). This is the environmental regulator that monitors the industry, assesses compliance, and enforces regulations. In April 2022, I submitted a freedom of information request stating: All knowledge, studies and/or similar studies on human fitness and environmental effects (cumulative or otherwise) after exceeding contaminant levels across the province . limits (i. e. site-specific popular) in Essar/Algoma Steel [2000-2022]. The request was an effort to answer some questions raised in my previous studies and writings. To keep Ontarians safe, the government has identified popular pollutants linked to negative health effects. These popular ones are discovered in threat detection tests, which calculate an appropriate point of exposure to individual contaminants. If a facility cannot meet those requirements for monetary or technical reasons, it would likely apply for a regulatory exemption, known euphemistically as “site-specific requirements. ” Ontario’s regulatory regime raises a vital question: whether the government has knowledge discovered by threats. and analysis to identify popular general contaminants, do you also have data and studies on threats discovered on facilities that exceed those limits? For example, Algoma Steel has already implemented a regulatory exemption that is 530 times larger than Ontario’s popular one for benzo(a)pyrene, a known carcinogen, and regularly violates provincial air quality standards. The more I dug into finding out what kind of fitness effects those emissions were having on our local population, the more I learned that this type of data was incredibly difficult to download (and rarely of poor quality). Although exposure to air pollutants from Algoma Steel increases the risk of cancer, neither the company nor the ministry will readily provide you with data quantifying this risk. The MECP and I subsequently reduced the scope of my request, in order to expedite the search for the applicable documents. The amended application reads: “Toxicological and epidemiological studies reinforce previous MECP approvals of popular Algoma Steel site-specific products, namely, 1) benzene, 2) benzo(a)pyrene, 3) components. Data, evidence, studies, etc. of the MECP similar to the exceedances. Please note: I do not look for files similar to requests/approvals that are still pending. Clarified period: January 1, 2015 to April 8, 2022. ” The MECP submitted the records in response to the request. The freedom of data law is based on the “user pays” principle, meaning that institutions subject to the law can charge a fee to cover the time and resources required to respond to requests. Although prices are not usually prohibitive, it is possible that the requirements can greatly influence the operation of an establishment. To ensure fairness, institutions could ask applicants to pay $30 per hour for the work required to respond to requests. MECP awarded me approximately $1,800 to release the requested records. An applicant is typically required to submit a deposit (50%) before a facility will begin processing. However, applicants may request a “fee waiver” if they are inconsistent with monetary issues and/or if the records are similar to a health or public protection issue. Since the records are clearly similar to public suitability or protection, I have requested a fee waiver. MECP conducts testing of commercial air pollutants discovered in threats with the transparent goal of protecting the public. However, the MECP rejected my payment waiver request. I then decided to appeal this refusal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. In December 2022, MECP revised its payment estimate and instead asked for just under $1,000 in total (and a 50% deposit to start work). MECP and I had the opportunity to make submissions to the Privacy Commissioner to assist the IPC Tribunal judge in making a ruling. Surprisingly, the MECP maintained that the requested records do not correspond to public fitness or protection. In their words: “The Decomponent does not recognize that there is any adequacy or public protection fear in relation to the requestor/appellant’s request for those records. » MECP claims to have known approximately 8,830 pages of compliant records, and the revised payments underestimate (by 25%) the time required to review and prepare the records before publication. Therefore, the central point of the dispute is whether it is fair and equitable to waive payment (in part or in whole) if there is a sufficiently strong nexus to public fitness or protection. The MECP says I deserve to pay. I am saying that the records deserve to be publicly available because of their importance and connection to public fitness or protection. But it’s getting better. The MECP also argues that the payment waiver does not deserve to be granted because I was unkind to Algoma Steel: “[T]he Decomponent is suspicious of the Applicant’s public opinion of Algoma Steel. The applicant is known to be an academic and/or employed directly through Canadian universities; However, the Decomponent also discovered many articles written through the applicant (as a freelance journalist and/or editorialist) that are markedly critical and/or biased towards Algoma Steel. The Decomponent is very skeptical that waiving payment on this application is in the public interest and is most likely in the non-public interest of the applicant. The official cites two things I wrote about local air pollutants, one of which was published via Sault This Week in January 2022. In short, a government official argues bluntly that pollutant-like recordings of the air deserve to be expensive if you don’t like them. the questions you ask and the things you write. But does the government deserve to decide to whom it discloses the discovered data based on its own preferences? And what interests exactly does the MECP intend to represent? Are they racing to protect the environment and the health of Ontarians? Or are they running to protect Algoma Steel from public scrutiny? Recent years have seen spills in the St. Mary River, infrastructure collapse, fears about deteriorating protection and the death of a painter. Some of those incidents resulted in formal fees. MECP’s arguments aren’t just a poor attempt to troll me. This is an insult to all Ontarians, who deserve to know their government is protecting them. A ruling from the IPC Court is expected this spring.
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a civilized discussion forum. Please keep your comments applicable and respectful. It can take up to an hour for comments to appear on the site. You’ll receive an email if there’s a response to your comment, an update to a thread you’re following, or if a user you follow comments. See our community Guidelines for more information.
365 Bloor Street East, Toronto, AT M4W 3L4
© 2024 Sault Star, a department of Postmedia Network Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution or transmission is strictly prohibited.
This uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads) and allows us to analyze our traffic. Learn more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.