On page 12 of the discussion…

On page 12 of the discussion report there is a chart with Part II Orders by the Numbers from 2012 to 2017 indicating that only one Part II Order was granted. This proposal is not named but it was the plan for the highly controversial Parkway in Peterborough and where the then MOE received 88 requests for an EA Part II Order; a much higher number than usual. This project received much media attention and fortunately some members of the public found out what an EA Part II Order is and how to request such an order.

99.9999% of the public have no idea what an EA Part II Order is and that they have a right to request such an order. It is guaranteed the majority of the public and even many organizations are not even aware of this posting on the EBR. This is a huge problem if members of the public are not aware they can voice concerns and seek a more detailed assessment of the environmental, cultural, and social impact of the project.

The statistics chart also indicates that of the 172 decisions, 106 requests were denied without conditions, and only 65 with conditions. The problem with the EA Part II Order request process is that concerned individuals and organizations, if they do discover they do have the opportunity to make an EA Part II Order request, do not have the same financial access to experts/consultants to provide evidence that a bump-up is warranted.

In 2005 EA Part II requests were submitted regarding a water diversion plan using an underground water source to supply a huge development to be built on rural lands next to a slots casino. Few requests were submitted because the public was unaware at that time they could participate in such a process. The requests were refused with a few conditions attached by the Minister. Fortunately that water diversion plan fell through but resurfaced with an even riskier plan in 2009 that directly threatened a municipal water supply. This time, a public awareness campaign was launched by concerned residents resulting in the record number of EA Part II Order requests.

In 2009-2010, the then MOE received a record number of requests (153) for an EA Part II regarding a complex water diversion project for a huge development that threatened an existing municipal water supply for the village of Millbrook– an aquifer located within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

While MOE staff at that time privately agreed the mega-water diversion plan was a deeply flawed and potentially dangerous plan, they stated their hands were tied by the bureaucratic process and reliance on ‘consultant’ reports that supported the project. Many big environmental consultants merely help to tick off the necessary environmental boxes needed to ascertain the required approvals that meet the required legislation. More often than not, these consultant reports are lacking in true positive outcomes for the environment and public health. Consultants try to justify what they are doing by including recommendations in their reports to the client, but are fully aware that these are rarely implemented.

In essence, if the proponent provided all the requisite material, backed by consultants reports, there was not much the MOE could do except apply conditions. Fortunately intense public pressure combined with much media coverage and expert evidence volunteered by concerned hydrologists resulted in the proponent withdrawing the water diversion plan before a decision on the many Part II EA orders submitted was made. Otherwise, this huge diversion project would have been undertaken to the detriment of the public health and safety as well as posing a great risks to the environment.

And that is part of the problem… concerned residents, municipalities, and/or organizations lack the financial means to provide expert evidence that would help the MOECC understand the issue better with an all-rounded perspective.

The discussion report also states that: “ some projects that are currently considered as medium-risk could more appropriately be considered as low-risk. For example, disposition of lands by the province under the Public Works Class Environmental Assessment are considered medium risk. These dispositions are not likely to result in negative environmental effects, so we are moving to exempt these dispositions from environmental assessment requirements....”

It is dangerous for the government to dismiss even requiring Class EAs for lands owned by the government; there are no guarantees they are ‘medium risk’. Case in point - the former site of the Millbrook Correctional facility. The 2012 Class EA report by Infrastructure Ontario identified the presence of multiple contaminants – VOCs (volatile organic compounds).
The Class EA report stated: “The presence of lead in paint, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), mercury and other designated substances have been identified on the property. Contaminants of concern on the site include petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC), xylenes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), naphthalene, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), zinc, cyanide, total chromium, and mercury. The lagoon area contains soil contaminated with chromium, lead, cyanide, zinc, and PCBs. While an estimated 1,000 to 1,500 m3 of contaminated soil will be removed from the lagoon area, there is no intent to remediate soils in other APEC areas.”

Because the a full clean-up was not to be undertaken, several members of the public filed EA Part II Order requests. The requests were dismissed with the condition that 4 monitoring wells be installed instead.

As of 2019, there are now 20 monitoring wells. It is disturbing to note the 2012 Infrastructure Ontario Class EA did not list tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in the list of contaminants in the decommissioning report; a contaminant now the primary focus of post-decommissioning monitoring in relation to its proximity to the Millbrook municipal water supply. IO is continuing to monitor the situation which may become more complicated since massive housing developments will result in a significant drawdown of the aquifer that is the municipal water supply. It is unknown how that drawdown might influence the flow of the dangerous contaminant that poses a threat. It is unknown if or how the significant drawdown of the Millbrook aquifer will affect these contaminants due to the complex and not fully understood hydrogeology of the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Does doing away with the Class EAs mean that IO will no longer be required to monitor the contamination threat to the Millbrook municipal supply? Does this mean that IO can sell off the contaminated land with impunity? How many other government owned properties are also problematic? Doing away with Class EAS may put the health and safety of the public at risk.

Thus as indicated on the Infrastructure Ontario website, https://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Public-Work-Class-Environmental-As…
the following process should remain:

IO provides clear and concise environmental compliance oversight and support as part of the ongoing management of our portfolio of properties.

Environmental assessment is a planning and decision-making process that we follow for projects that will be undertaken on government property. This process, described in the Ministry of Infrastructure Public Work Class Environmental Assessment, sets out how the Ministry of Infrastructure proposes to meet requirements of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act.

As required by this process, we take into account the potential effects of these projects on the environment and when required, consult a variety of stakeholders to identify and resolve issues of concern before making an informed decision about when and if these projects may proceed.

An environmental assessment report may be required for a project that follows this planning process. The report describes the project, summarizes the findings of the planning process and stakeholder consultation, and explains plans to lessen and/or monitor potential negative effects on the environment..

The plan to 'streamline; the EA Part II Order process will result in less public participation. Exempting government lands from environmental assessment requirements could cause irreparable harm. The EA Part II Order process needs to be strengthened not weakened.