STORM Toolbox: Why Comment on the Environmental Registry When the System Is Stacked Against You?

Ontario’s Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) is currently the primary way the public shapes environmentally significant laws, regulations and policies. Under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), ministries are required to post proposals, consult for at least 30 days, consider the comments, and explain how feedback influenced their decisions. On paper, that sounds like a meaningful democratic process. In practice, the system is deeply compromised. The Auditor General’s 2024 performance audit on the operation of the EBR found that ministries have repeatedly failed to follow the law. Some bills were passed before consultation periods ended, while ministries “inaccurately claimed to have considered all public comments.” Eighteen percent of proposal notices audited left out key information about environmental implications, and 13 percent of decision notices did not explain whether or how public input affected the outcome, even though that explanation is required by the EBR.

So why bother commenting at all? Or if you do comment, how do you make your input as powerful as possible?

This guide answers both questions: first by providing an honest assessment of what can be achieved through the ERO, and then by outlining how to write comments that still matter.

Where the ERO Fails in 2025 

It helps to start with clear expectations:

The ERO does not guarantee ministries will follow the rules.The Auditor General has documented “cases almost every year” where ministries did not meet their consultation obligations. In 2023/24 alone, Ontarians were denied their EBR right to be consulted on three environmentally significant laws.

It does not ensure your comments are seriously considered. Ministries could not show they considered public comments in several cases, including quarry and mining approvals. The audit found that thousands of comments can be submitted with no clear documentation that they affected the final decision.

It does not always provide honest or complete information. Nearly one in five proposal notices lacked key information needed for the public to understand environmental impacts. Some notices described proposals as having “no impacts on the environment” while in reality enabling more fossil fuel infrastructure and greenhouse gas emissions.

It is being used as a PR platform. The audit found ministries using boilerplate promotional language such as “Ontario needs more housing, and we need it now… These visionary changes will place Ontario at the forefront of housing policy in North America” across multiple notices, including those not primarily about housing. This turns the Registry into a marketing channel for government priorities instead of a neutral information tool.

Some major laws sidestep EBR rights altogether. Because the Ministry of Finance is not “prescribed” under the EBR, Ontarians had no right to be consulted about the Protecting Against Carbon Taxes Act, 2024, even though it restricts future carbon pricing and has clear environmental implications.

Taken together, this means you should not expect your ERO comment, by itself, to stop a harmful bill or regulation, especially under a government that is explicitly trying to “build faster” and has shown a willingness to ignore or bypass the EBR.

Why Commenting Still Matters

You know that phrase well by now: No truth, no justice. Even in a weakened system, ERO comments still do several important things:

They create a public, time-stamped record. Every substantive comment becomes part of the official file. That record can later be used by the Auditor General, opposition parties, litigants, journalists and future governments to show that warnings were given and ignored.

They help expose procedural failures. When ministries pass laws before consultation closes, omit key information, or fail to explain how comments were considered, those defects are easier to prove if people actually submitted detailed comments.

They feed into other EBR tools. The EBR also provides for applications for review, investigation, and for leave to appeal certain instruments. These tools are under-used. There were only two new applications for review and two for investigation across all ministries in 2023/24, with mixed results. Strong Registry comments can support those later steps.

They signal political risk. Large volumes of well-argued comments make it harder for governments to claim that there was no meaningful opposition or that impacts were not understood. Even if a decision goes ahead, it can shape future reversals. This is particularly effective when dealing with retail politicians.

Think of ERO comments less as a direct vote on a proposal, and more as laying down evidence for future audits, court cases, election campaigns and legislative reviews. With every well-reasoned comment you are helping organizations like STORM if and when we have the opportunity to escalate these issues.

What Makes a Comment Powerful?

If you want your ERO submission to be something a lawyer, tribunal, journalist or auditor can actually use later, structure it like evidence, not just opinion.

Here are core elements to include:

Identify the posting clearly. Put the ERO number, title of the proposal, ministry and the date in your first lines. This makes it easy to tie your comment to a specific notice and timeline.

Name who you are and what perspective you bring. Say whether you are commenting as an individual resident, a scientist, a farmer, a community group or a coalition. If relevant, briefly note your experience or expertise.

Anchor your comment in the law and policy. Cite the Environmental Bill of Rights, the relevant statute or regulation, and any planning or conservation policies (for example, Niagara Escarpment Plan, Greenbelt Plan, ORMCP) that are affected. The more precise you are, including sections and clauses, the more usable your comment becomes in legal and oversight processes.

Call out missing or misleading information. Use the Auditor General’s findings as a template for what to look for. For example:

• Are potential negative impacts missing or downplayed?

• Is there promotional or political language instead of neutral explanation?

• Are key documents such as maps, technical studies or draft regulations not linked?

When you see these gaps, say so explicitly and state that the consultation is not “fully informed” as required by the EBR.

Describe concrete environmental impacts. Move beyond general statements like “this is bad for the environment.” Point to specific harms: loss of wetlands, increased truck traffic and air pollution, groundwater risks, climate emissions, species at risk, cumulative impacts on a watershed, and so on. If you have local examples or data, include them.

Connect process to impact. Where the process is flawed, such as rushed timelines, missing information, or exemption from the EBR, make the link to how this undermines public rights and increases environmental risk. This is exactly the pattern the Auditor General has criticized in relation to bills like the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act and changes to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

State what should happen instead. Always end with clear asks: withdraw the proposal; extend the comment period; publish full technical studies; re-post with balanced information on environmental risks; hold in-person hearings in affected communities; or commit to a full EBR-compliant review at a later date.

Keep emotion, but avoid personal attacks. Strong language about impacts is fine. This is about your air, water, land and communities. But calling individual officials names, making threats, or spreading unprovable allegations makes it easier for ministries to discount the comment later.

Beyond Commenting: Using the EBR More Strategically

If you have capacity, treat ERO commenting as one piece of a broader strategy:

• Pair ERO submissions with media work, public letters and social media campaigns that highlight procedural failures and missing information.

• Where the stakes are high enough, consider applications for review or investigation, using your ERO comment as part of the supporting record.

• Share your submissions with local councils, conservation authorities and community groups, so that the same arguments show up in multiple venues, not just the Registry.

• Track patterns. Repeated use of promotional language, missing decision notices, or laws passed before consultation ends are all evidence that can feed into future audits and legal challenges.

  
  

A Way Forward

The Environmental Registry is not functioning as the robust public participation tool envisioned in 1993. Ministries have treated it as a box-checking exercise at best and a promotional platform for pre-decided agendas at worst.

Given that reality, the goal is to use the ERO tactically. Commenting on ERO postings is about building a detailed, undeniable record that the public understood the stakes, raised clear objections, and pointed out legal and scientific flaws that the government chose to ignore.

If we are honest about those limits, we can give people a reason to keep engaging. Not because the system is working as advertised, but because their comments are creating a public record that identifies and documents the current failures in our planning systems.