1. From the Municipal Class…

1. From the Municipal Class EA document point of view more steps would be beneficial to be added in the explanation of a Part II Order request. The way the document reads currently is that a person could/only has one choice of elevating of any project (A, A+, B or C) to an Individual Project. While that is true from a legal sense, a member of the public would not know that for example, an A+ project within a Master Plan could be elevated to a Schedule B or a C, before it would require attention deemed appropriate for an individual project. We recognize that this document would be a guide for multiple Class EA documents, but we feel introducing an explanation of a gradation system would make this clearer and avoid confusion with the public.

2. Also, additional information should be provided which clarifies Master Planning approaches, i.e. only individual projects can be appealed, not entire Master Plans with a Class EA process, and which projects would this apply to.

3. Mediation – we applaud that this step is recognized as a valid part of the process. The question that we feel should be explored is who would be paying for the mediation process and in what circumstances?

4. There should be a process/wording in place as to how the existence of this document will be made known to the public, per project. Specific wording/web page with graphics and easy to understand language in a short/brochure format would be helpful for implementation from a proponents’ perspective/communication if the proponents are the responsible party for dissemination of this communication.

5. We would like to suggest a consideration that a small fee could be charged, to ensure that the appellant is serious about the appeal, and that we can in part recover costs involved with maintenance of the MEA – MCEA mother document, and the work involved with its renewals. This brings up another topic, in that, if MEA is continuing to be a volunteer organization and therefore charges for release of updated MCEA documents, making it not readily available to members of the public, and making the entire MCEA process not as transparent to the public as it should be. This fee may help alleviate those costs and help in the transition of the MCEA Mother document to go from for a for-fee document to a free resource – available also in the future perhaps on the Ontario e-laws website?

6. Consideration of the removal of Schedule A projects from the EA list, making it therefore not appealable altogether in the future, e.g. sidewalk construction within existing right of ways and many others.

7. Provision of clear direction to proponents and the public on how exactly the existence of the form that will be available on July 1, 2018 for Part II Order submissions will be communicated to all and whose responsibility it will be – MOECC, proponents, or both?

8. Consideration to include road widening projects within an existing ROW in an urban setting to be classified as a Schedule A project.