ERO # 019-6928 Proposed…

ERO # 019-6928
Proposed Regulation Amendment to the
Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990

Streamlining environmental permissions for stormwater management under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry

Like the ancillary proposed amendments to the EPA, this proposal is fraught with assumptions and weasel words. Why should we the taxpayers want to allow businesses and infrastructure projects to be undertaken with haste? How is this haste of benefit to the community?

First of all, the stated intention to continue “Ministry Review and Approval” is vague and unclear. How? By what mechanism? While you make the EASR process explicit in your regulations, you dismiss potential harms with generalities like “review” and “ ministry approval”. These procedures absolutely must be explicitly and fully outlined if the public is to be assured of the intentions around protections.

Second, allowing proponents to make the determination that their own industrial activity is not a significant drinking water threat is not acceptable. This is a ridiculous notion. We cannot trust industry to make such a crucial assessment given their own self interest. Industry has not demonstrated its capacity for such responsibility.

Third, even when industry consults with “qualified persons” to make such judgements, there is an inherent conflict of interest. Consultants are hired by the proponent; they tailor their assessment to what the client wants. The only acceptable determination of any significant drinking water threat, for the security and safety of the Ontario public, is one made by a third party arms length agency. Please restore the Conservation Authorities, or provide impartial MECP staff to make such an important assessment. Anything less is reckless, and MECP risks another Walkerton tragedy.

Further, the proposal makes no mention of how stormwater management should be considered for the potential of fine particle infiltration from an aggregate extraction site into wetlands and water courses. There needs to be, again, third party impartial assessment of such potential, so that wetlands, watercourses and lakes are not “killed” by fine particle infiltration that shuts down photosynthesis.

As well, stormwater run off must take into account infiltration by bacteria and other foreign substances into wetlands and watercourses that support fish and wildlife. Consultation must take place with the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where a recreational fishery may be impacted by stormwater run off.

Another missing element: the proposal makes no mention of climate change. With the increasing instance of extreme weather events causing unprecedented rainfall, contingency plans must be in effect to add a further layer of protection for adjacent wetlands, watercourses, and lands. The regulation must make explicit requirements around such contingency design.

We cannot be assured that MECP has the staff and procedures to guarantee adequate oversight of storm water run off. Self registration and the immediate next step to on-site industrial activity makes no sense without oversight. The proposal clearly states the need to designate “complex water taking” activities. Who would make this designation and how? This would by definition take time and careful site study, as well as oversight. This process is not made explicit.

In addition, without public, municipal and indigenous consultation, a thorough understanding of site complexities will not be possible. We have seen how technical studies have lacked comprehensive and fully detailed assessment of site anomalies, challenges and complexities. We can gain much valuable insight and knowledge of site complexities by listening to those who are well acquainted with the locale.

While the Ministry may retain the ABILITY to inspect, the proposal does not explicitly REQUIRE such inspections. We cannot trust that the requirements for reporting and other compliance with the regulations will be undertaken. What are the penalties should that not happen? Where industry already pays fines for damage to watercourses and wetlands as part of their overall budget, why should the public be convinced that they will change their ways and fully comply? Should not an industry with a track record of infractions be barred from any EASR permitting in future, since they have already demonstrated a disregard for regulation and oversight? It would seem that allowing such bad actors to self-regulate is a poor decision.

We have already seen, with the Greenbelt and municipal boundary backtracking, that this government has attempted to convince Ontario citizens of a solution to the housing need that is not well thought out. Decades of planning have been ignored. Demographic studies have been ignored. Housing needs have to address planning for creative and appropriate housing within urban boundaries, and take into account the vast number of single family dwellings that will come onto the market as the Baby Boom Generation ages out of home ownership into other forms of housing. THAT is the housing that should be under consideration, NOT the development of greenfields for housing where no infrastructure exists. Similarly, aggregate development needs to be undertaken in already licenced pits and quarries, where more than adequate reserves exist.

We cannot trust that the shortcuts proposed here will create the needed housing supply, boost the province’s economy, or support wide ranging job creation. We CAN be sure that you have not taken into account the impact on local economies where other small businesses and farms may be negatively impacted. We CAN be sure that you have not taken into account the health and well being of Ontarians. We CAN be sure that your proposal is in the service of the development sector — both housing and aggregate. We CAN understand that industry is eager to cut costs and get their projects up and running faster to maximize their corporate profits.

This haste is of little benefit to taxpayers; we want our taxes to support regulation of such industry, not to enable its incursion into environmentally sensitive areas, and not to enable the industry’s potential to cause unknown harms to human health and well being. The taxpayers of Ontario should not be required to subsidize corporate profits at the expense of our own health and well being, at the expense of the natural environment, and at the expense of our future.

Do not advance these proposed amendments to EPA policy. They are fundamentally flawed, biased toward industry, and ultimately pose a threat to the health and well being of people and the natural world.