I believe the complete…

I believe the complete overhaul of the EAA and royal assent of Bill 197 was done in bad faith and is a way to fast-track development by weakening environmental protections and preventing public participation. My Environmental Rights to view, comment and understand decisions by shutting off the Environmental Registry of Ontario is unacceptable, unlawful and despicable.

The Provincial Government of Ontario states in the Environmental Plan for Ontario that one of the three guiding principals is “Trust and Transparency”.

The overhaul of the environmental assessment act and changes to other legislation is one way for there to be less transparency and less public input in important environmental matters. The short list of projects that require Environmental Assessment and everything else gets “streamlined” does not seem to be backed by science, evidence-based decision making or any other rational. The projects list does not follow any of the relevant environmental decision-making approaches set out in the Statement of Enviro Values (SEV). Everything being streamlined or having no Environmental Assessment seems to be just bad for the overall environment and the health of the people of Ontario.

The proposed list says it will evaluate projects based on “magnitude”, “duration”, “extent of impacts” these are not found in the actual act and are therefore open for interpretation. Can you please define them and how they are being used? Please clarify how certain projects were determined to not undergo an EAA.

The Minister of the Environment Yurek said to Parliament on July 21st, 2020. That the legislature will “aligns us with the rest of the country and other provinces”.
The federal list under the Impact Assessment Act includes 61 projects types. The Ontario list only includes 13. Why is there a large discrepancy and what is the rational for not including more projects. At very least the reason for removing them. The Project list could align us with the federal regulations.
The Minister of the Environment Yurek commented that the legislature is out of date and isn’t backed by science. But this list is not backed by science and doesn’t include the complex effects of innovative projects and our modern understanding of conservation and protection.

The Minister of the Environment Yurek said to Parliament on July 21st, 2020 that “we are focusing all our efforts on the medium- and high-risk projects”. Environmental assessments for Mines and Mining operations are large scale, high risk, and will forever damage the natural environment, wildlife, and watersystems. These types of projects must be included in the list. This list does not include many medium and high risk projects, such as sewage treatment, quarries, refineries, smelters, hydro.
Additionally, the effects of many small or “low-impact” projects can still have an accumulated negative and prohibitive effect on the natural ecosystem, nature, wildlife, water, ground, and air systems. Something deemed “low risk” may have the greatest risk to You, Me, or significant ecological areas.

Please be accountable to the environment and the people of Ontario. The natural world is the ultimately the most important thing we have. Not only for monetary gain but for the health, happiness, and prosperity of all. This is an important thing to get right and not just rush through it without having a proper rational.

The proposed project list is incomplete, inadequate and unacceptable. It simply does not include enough projects types or a sound rational for the protection of the natural environment.