Dear Mr. Helfinger, Mr…

Dear Mr. Helfinger, Mr. Martin and Ms. Asgarali,

Re: Bill 132 Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019 ERO #019-0774 and associated proposals: ERO #019-0481 and #019-0750).

The following submission applies to the above mentioned Environmental Registry of Ontario notices. I am very concerned with Bill 132 and the impact the proposed changes will have on the environment and human health.

My comments focus on changes proposed in Schedules 9, 14 and 16 of Bill 132.

Bill 132, introducing wide-ranging changes without any prior notice or consultation, erodes society’s role in public policy making. The large number of changes and limited debate time implies the Government of Ontario has little regard for public input. The Bill proposes changes that could have significant environmental and human health consequences. Further consultation is required with environmental stakeholders and health officials. Consequently I ask the government to repeal Schedules 9, 14 and 16 from Bill 132 and to initiate a more meaningfully and adequate public consultation.
The following comments relate to the potential impacts of proposed changes to the administrative monetary penalties framework, the Pesticides Act and associated regulations, and to the Aggregate Resources Act.

I strongly support the expansion of administrative monetary penalties to additional statues but it is impossible to say whether the enabling regulations will achieve the goals described in ERO notice #019-01750.
The proposed change to introduce maximum per-contravention fines rather than daily maximum fines represents a weakening of the framework.
I ask that per diem penalties be preserved in the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and Nutrient Management Act and introduced into the Pesticides Act and Safe Drinking Water Act.

The revocation of the reverse onus clause in Bill 132 is very worrisome. The reverse onus clause assures that an AMP will be a swift and inexpensive tool for the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to use. By revoking this clause, Bill 132 will undermine AMPs as a compliance tool, make the Environmental Review Tribunal more expensive, and limit accountability of polluters. I ask that this clause 8 of Schedule 9 be stricken from Bill 132 and the reverse onus clause remain intact in the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The proposed amendments to the Pesticides Act in Schedule 9 of Bill 132 and proposed amendments to the Pesticide Regulation (O. Reg. 63/09. General)
weaken the current precautionary regulatory approach that has protected citizens and ecosystems from harmful pesticides. I ask the government to repeal Schedule 9 from Bill 132 until environmental and public health risks are addressed.

Schedule 14 of Bill 132 proposes to repeal section 34 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This would eliminate the Ontario government’s ability to ensure that new chemicals do not pose undue risk or harm to workers and communities and would leave workers in Ontario more vulnerable to the potential harmful effects of new chemicals. I ask that you reconsider and reverse this decision.

Bill 132 proposes to legislate changes to aggregate extraction previously included in a September 2019 Environmental Registry of Ontario notice. The Bill and the legislative amendments were proposed even before the public comment period was closed! This is a disgraceful and disrespectful manoeuvre and demonstrates a complete dismissal of public input. Additionally, the proposed changes present significant hazards to my community in Waterloo Region where 80% of our drinking water comes from wells. The legislative amendments weaken municipalities’ powers to protect groundwater, and remove key mitigation measures designed to diminish the environmental risks of aggregate production.
Municipalities’ role in protecting groundwater should be maintained. Municipal governments understand local needs best and therefore should be supported, not restricted, in their efforts to deliver safe drinking water to citizens and preserving future water resources. Section 3 of Schedule 16 must be removed from Bill 132 and municipalities must maintain their ability to issue zoning-bylaws for depth of extraction.

Proposed amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act will also allow proponents of aggregate resource extraction projects to “self-file” amendments to their approved site plans for “routine activities”. The difficulty arises when deciding what constitutes a “routine activity” and since those details are not provided, this is very concerning. Site plan changes should continue to require Ministerial approval. I ask that amendments to section 18(2) not be enacted.

Schedule 16 also proposes to remove the haulage routes and proposed truck traffic to aggregate sites in a Minister’s or Local Appeal Planning Tribunal (LPAT) decision from a licence application. Traffic is a major issue near aggregate extraction sites and heavy trucks can cause major and costly damage to municipal roads.
In addition, Schedule 16 proposes to make it easier for aggregate site boundaries to be expanded to include adjoining road allowances.
I propose that truck traffic and haulage routes remain a consideration in site approval decisions, as is maintaining oversight in site boundary modifications.

The changes proposed in Bill 132, Schedule 16 have been made by completely ignoring environmental concerns. Proposals all favour the aggregate industry and do not appear to come from a Government for the People! It became very clear in the recent Federal election that “Ordinary People” have major concerns for the environment. Our Provincial Government should understand that message and act accordingly!