I am writing to you today in…

I am writing to you today in opposition of ERO# 019-6951, ERO# 019-6853 and ERO# 019-6928.
The proposed changes are quite concerning, from adding more candidates for rule based EASR’s, to eliminating public input, removing peer review and replacing regulations with codes of practise. The government is proposing an approach of project checklists for approvals and self regulation by proponents. In a time when the natural environment needs a voice more then ever! Ontario wants to allow such projects to take precedent over everything else. Faster is not always better. We have seen time and time again, developers cutting corners to achieve timely results at optimum profit and the environment pays the price – when we will learn!? I truly, do not believe it is better to ask for forgiveness then ask for permission – the interest of Ontarians need to be put first!
Streamlining Ontario’s Permit by Rule Framework – my key takeaway in reviewing this proposal is the loosening or removal of environmental permissions. Ontario needs to consider the environment first and foremost when considering critical infrastructure problems. If there is no clean water to drink or unpolluted air to breathe, then what does anything matter?
Allowing projects driven by corporations whose only objective is the bottom line, profit at all costs, is not the correct approach that Ontario should be pursuing. There is always a winner and a loser with less scrutiny by governments and most always, it is the taxpayer and environment shouldering the loss.
Technical assessments should be a mandatory requirement for sector specific projects and these requirements should be held to a higher standard now and in the future versus going in the proposed opposite direction.
Ministry reviews are crucial and need to be maintained or increased. Who benefits the most when these reviews are no longer required? The current review process is the only thing keeping projects and developers from obtaining a ‘Free Pass’. Trust me, take my word for it, everything should be okay. I filled out your form, so please give me my permit. Who’s accountable for the damage this creates?
Projects in different areas can have completely different outcomes and need to be considered thoroughly on an individual basis. What works here, does not always work somewhere else.
Why are aggregate operations being used as an example for assessed EASR’s? You want to make it easier and faster for them to obtain permits? The aggregate industry is currently licensed for 13 times more material than is required right now. Why should we even be considering this sector for assessed EASR’s?
Aggregate operations, including stormwater and aggregate wash water would not be good candidates for an assessed EASR. They need to continue to follow the sector specific rules and remain to be ‘Peer Reviewed” before licenses are granted.
Using the approach that it may be too costly for some sectors to follow the current process of QP Assessments is also concerning. Pre-planning is key and should be not taken lightly. Any money spent in the planning process is always a good long-term investment.
If lightening fast development is the end game of this proposal. I can only imagine the flood of applications the Ministry will receive from developers, having their projects approved immediately without further review and the obviously opportunity it allows for cutting corners.
Exploring the following 3 changes to permit by rule framework.
1. Develop a single permit-by-rule regulation – How has the one size fits all approach worked in the past!? These sectors are so vastly different. How can you ever lump all of it together and expect a favourable outcome?
2. Move prescribed rules governing activities into ‘codes of practise’ outside regulation – Will these codes of practise be subject to enforceable penalties or just a loose set of guidelines that are expected to be followed without consequence?
When I se the words “Minimum Requirements” for all permit-by-rule activities, I have definite concerns! Who again, benefits most by achieving this?
The only way to discourage Bad Development is to keep the current framework in place (Or make it even more regulated). Ontario should not be seen as a province putting profit over people. Good development, always comes at a higher cost and those willing to pay it know it is worth the investment in the end.
3. Allow a single registration for a facility – What happens when corporations explore the operations of different sectors as part of their activities on a single registration form? Could a fish packing plant and an oil refinery operate under the same single registration?
The whole concept of let them build without restrictions and worry about consequences later is utterly ridiculous!
Required technical studies involving projects in Ontario is also a problem. Proponents pay professionals to achieve minimal environmental impact results and per review is the only current mechanism for keeping them honest – removing it would be disastrous. In my recent personal experience reviewing technical studies involving a proposed ARA license application. I was astounded to read the results they achieved and the pertinent information they missed or completely ignored. There were over 200 letters of concern written to the ARA in opposition, many exposing critical shortcomings that are currently under per review. Without public input and per review, the proposed developments would have went through without questions and would have been dire to the entire community and the applicants employees.
What common sense do these new changes make in regards to loosening and making it easier for such approvals to become fast-tracked. Anything good worth having, always takes a little more time and effort, but is definitely well worth the wait!
Although self registration may save time and money for the developer/business. The standard environmental protective requirements are too easily manipulated or mitigated away when a problem occurs. How can every project with completely different affects on the environment become standardized?
What is the ministries current rate of inspection with regards to the different sectors and facilities they operate?
Streamlining permissions for water taking for construction site dewatering and foundation drains needs to be considered with extreme caution. An unlimited amount of groundwater, free for the taking is not a good idea! The existing limit of 400 000 litres per day is still high in my opinion but is better than the unlimited alternative. An application should show reason why higher volumetric limits are required.
As a hunter & fisherman in Ontario, there are daily limits and licences required to partake. I wonder how this approach would work in regards to hunting and fishing – unlimited fish and wildlife, free for the taking? Sounds like trouble.
Removing the local conservation authorities from the approval process is also a mistake – they are called local for a reason. They have the greater knowledge of the area needed when making these decisions. Are you able to see the Ottawa River from Toronto?
Removing the volumetric limit is “not expected” to change the effect of this type of water taking on the environment. So, unlimited amounts of water can be taken everyday from all corners of Ontario and there won’t be any effects? I highly doubt that! Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?
You state that all regulations requirements will remain in place, but are you not proposing to eliminate these regulations with “codes of practise”?
In regards to qualified persons preparing technical data and environmental compliance, I have numerous concerns. As stated earlier, my unqualified eyes uncovered numerous flaws, missing information and contradictions in technical reports prepared by QP’s in current application on my road, still active. So how do you expect us to trust they won’t do the same, if not more with no supervision, public input or accountability? They were unaware of a highly vulnerable uranium deposit on and within the proposed pit. Unaware of the Endangered Blanding’s Turtles on and within the proposed pit. Public input brought this to the experts and ministries attention. QP’s were dumbfounded when this information came to light. Another QP, misread the groundwater table by 20m. Missed by both the ministry and QP, but brought forth by public input. As stated earlier, Public Input and Peer Review are PARAMOUNT in ensuring projects meet all requirements.
All of these amendments are designed to support More Homes, Build faster Action Plan. We already have everything we need to accomplish this lofty goal, so I find it very hard to believe that Ministry permissions and the time it takes to complete them is the only thing standing in the way of achieving this goal. How does the ministry define the difference between a simple and complex water taking application when a new proposal calls for “unlimited amounts”?
What does the ministry define as a “temporary water taking permit”? The life of the project or a set period of time before a renewal is required?
The water taking process may be able to be amended in very low risk activities, but anything over 50 000 litres a day MUST still be required to meet all compliance levels and should be reviewed on a case per case basis.
Public notification, consultation and oversight MUST remain as part of the approval and planning process.
Self Registration and QP sign offs should not be a replacement for ministry review. The QP checks a box, signs a name and you are approved does not sound like a logical approach and frankly, I am not sure why this would even be entertained. These QP’s are paid by the proponent and therefore, have the proponent’s best interest at heart, not the communities, land or environment. This I’ve seen first hand. 3rd party review MUST be kept in place, an unbiased review is the only way to ensure an outcome that majority can live with. Allowing the sectors to go unpoliced and rely strictly on the honour system is beyond flawed thinking and shows very little consideration for the environment or the citizens of Ontario.
In recent months, I have been introduced to the process through 2 ARA applications where I live. After reviewing each study word for word and at length, I was continually amazed at the discrepancies, missing information, mistakes and contradictions the reports had. Traffic, Hydrogeology, Acoustics, Natural Environment, Archeological – every single one was weak in their research and obviously written in favour of the applicant and that is with the current requirements and accountability system. Can you imagine what they’d be capable of if no one was watching!?
In closing, these amendments require careful and thorough consideration as the consequences that may lay ahead should these proposals be adopted and allowed to move forward could be unimaginable for the Ontario residents, our land, waterways and water sources.