Please consider these…

Please consider these comments with regard to the new Environmental Impact Assessment Policy proposed by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) via notice 019-1804. The new policy is a complement to the proposed exemption to the Environmental Assessment Act, proposed under the same ERO notice. Separate comments, some of which are reiterated below, have been submitted with regard to the proposed exemption.

These comments address four points:

• shortcomings in the background information provided in the ERO posting;
• shortcomings in the consultation processes proposed in the new policy;
• shortcomings in the screening criteria proposed in the new policy; and
• shortcomings in the dispute resolution process.

First, I am concerned that respondents can not provide fully informed comments to this ERO posting. Four of the five ‘Related Links’ that address provincial parks and conservation reserves planning do not work, as indicated below. They either do not connect to anything, or the .pdf file that is supposed to be attached to the link does not open.

• Ontario’s Protected Areas Planning Manual – Link does not work
• Guideline to Involvement During Protected Area Management Planning – Link does not work • Guideline to Management Planning for Protected Areas in the Context of Ecological Integrity – Link works
• Examining Protected Area Management Direction Guideline – Link does not work
• Adjusting Protected Area Management Direction Guideline – Link does not work.

In addition, the links related to the current Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act take readers to information about exceptions to the Class EA (e.g., Minister’s Declaration Orders), but the Class EA itself does not seem to be included in the background information.

The broken links should be repaired; the existing Class EA should be added to the background information; and the consultation period should be extended to compensate for these problems.

Second, the new policy does not include certain necessary directives linked to the appropriate mitigation of negative effects on the natural, social, economic and cultural environments. If not corrected, these shortcomings may result in ongoing issues for the Province of Ontario, landowners, and those who use Crown land.

To be adequate, the directives related to consultation should:

• include provisions for consultation with Indigenous communities whose traditional lands are in the area of interest, and appropriate accommodation for any concerns expressed by the communities;
• consider of the needs of the Province with regard to the greater public good (i.e., access routes, utility corridors, economic opportunities, etc.) and not just the interests of the protected area, and does this before engaging third parties in the consultation;
• address the concerns of third parties with fiduciary interests that may be affected by the decision (e.g., access constraints that may affect owners of cottages, or of mining rights issued under the Province’s Mining Act); and
• take the concerns of third parties without fiduciary interests into account, if those interests may be affected by the decision (e.g., access constraints that may limit hunters and fishers from reaching areas of Crown land outside of the park or conservation reserve).

The Project Evaluation and Consultation processes listed on Page 8, and in Figure B, must be expanded to include partner ministries in at least categories B, C, and D. The partner ministries consulted must include the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (ENDM), as both ministries have responsibility for Crown lands and Crown resources.

Decisions made with regard to projects in protected areas may affect areas outside of the protected areas, where the Province may have made commitments to third parties under legislation such as the Public Lands Act (MNRF) and the Mining Act (ENDM).

It may seem self-evident that consultation with partner ministries would be done, but experience has shown that it is often overlooked, sometimes with negative consequences. Staff must be reminded to do this consultation. Note, too, that the consultation with partner ministries should be done before proposed projects are made public. Consulting with partner ministries before Indigenous communities or the public at large will ensure that there is an agreed-upon ‘provincial position’ before any project proposals are released.

The proposed policy indicates on Page 9 that consultation may be done via various means. Those means include direct communication via letter mail or email; on-site notices posted at key locations; meetings, open houses or public information centres; local newspapers; or websites or social media. Only the first method of consultation – direct communication – is relevant when parties that may be affected do not live in the immediate area of the park or conservation reserve where the project is planned.

In the past, direct notices have been sent to the owners of surface rights in the affected area, but direct notices have not been sent to the owners of mining rights. Both groups of owners must receive equal treatment, comparable to what is done through forest management planning processes. The owners of mining rights do not commonly live near their claims, whether in the same community or the same province, and are not aware of on-site notices, open houses, or notices in local newspapers.

Third, the Screening Criteria listed in Table 2 on pages 33 and 34 of the proposed new policy need to be expanded to ensure that the full spectrum of potential impacts is considered. For example, under the heading “Land Use, Resource Management Considerations”, consideration of “Non-renewable resources (e.g., aggregates, oil or gas. agricultural land)” could be expanded to read “Non-renewable resources (e.g., aggregates, minerals, oil or gas. agricultural land)”.

Also, another category should be added under “Social and Economic Considerations” to assess possible impacts on “opportunities for new resources industries”. These industries could include forestry, aggregate or mineral extraction from areas of high mineral potential, and agriculture. The category would assess different values than the one already in the table that looks at existing “local, regional or provincial economies or businesses”.

And finally, the provisions related to the ‘requests for reconsideration’, as proposed in the new policy are ridiculous. As written, concerned parties should contact the appropriate Ontario Parks Zone as soon as possible, after a project is proposed. Yet, it appears that the Ministry can proceed with its planning process – and project.

A decision to reconsider that project will be made by the Director of Ontario Parks, who would not be an impartial adjudicator. The appeal should either go to the Minister or to an impartial party such as the Mining and Lands Commissioner. And, the decision to reconsider a project would not be made until after a ‘notice of completion’ is issued.

If the notice of completion is with regard to the planning process, then opponents can have some hope that the decision can be overturned. If, however, the notice of completion is with regard to the project itself, then opponents can have little hope that the decision will be overturned, and the project undone.

The stage at which the ‘notice of completion’ is issued needs to be made clear. If the ‘notice of completion’ is not issued until after the project has been done, then the reconsideration process needs to be revised so that opponents have a legitimate opportunity to influence whether, or how, the project is actually undertaken.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed new Environmental Impact Assessment Policy. I trust that you and your colleagues will take these comments under consideration and make appropriate changes as a result.