Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments for exploring changes to streamline the permit-by-rule framework. The following comments/questions are a compilation of comments from Quinte Source Protection staff, Source Protection Committee (SPC) members, and the SPC Chair.

Overall, we are very concerned with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP) proposal to expand the permit by rule regime to include waste management systems; stormwater management; and water-taking for construction sites dewater activities and foundation drains.

Our general concern lies in the fact the MECP will no longer undertake an up-front detailed review of applications related to the specified activities, thereby weakening regulatory oversight. The specified activities, which have the potential to cause significant adverse impacts to the natural environment and human health will no longer be subject to either government or public scrutiny prior to commencing operation in Ontario. The hallmarks of any sound approval and permitting system are processes and procedures which are transparent, systematic, rigorously prepared, reviewed and implemented, proactive, science-based, monitored for compliance, staffed appropriately, and achieve the Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) of the Ministry. The SEV states that when the Ministry “… considers the development of Acts, regulation and policies, it will consider the cumulative impacts on the environment, the interdependence of air, land water and living organisms; and the relationships among the environment, the economy and society.” The Permit-By-Rule Process proposed by the regulatory changes requires self-registration on the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry. No reference is made to the above-mentioned hallmarks nor will an EASR necessarily achieve the intent or content of the MECP SEV but, more importantly, no compliance process or penalties for non-compliance are provided.

This concern is compounded in source protection vulnerable areas where many of these ‘low risk’ activities are considered significant drinking water threats to the municipal drinking water. These proposed amendments are very reminiscent of the lack of Ministerial oversight that led to the Walkerton Tragedy. The parallels are concerning and cannot be ignored under the Ministry’s vision of Maintaining core work that provides strong environmental protections to safeguard our air, land, water and climate for all Ontarians today and in the future.

It is unclear whether there will be any assurances the proponent has registered correctly or not. Quinte has many examples of proposed development where the same Professional Engineer argued both sides of an argument: first on behalf of a municipality and then later argue the contradicting side on behalf of a developer. For these reasons, we request MECP to include a level of assurance that the information registered is being reviewed for accuracy by MECP staff, prior to construction. If the MECP capacity is an issue, perhaps having the local Source Protection Authority determine/review the threat level when proposed in vulnerable areas can be used.

Under the Clean Water Act, significant drinking water threats can occur in intake protection zones and wellhead protection zones with a vulnerability score of 8 or higher. We suggest that the EASR not be allowed in vulnerable areas with a score of 8 or higher. This approach will ensure MECP is fulfilling their responsibilities to implement policies in source protection plans.

Another concern is that the proposed work may require additional measures to manage the threat as prescribed by a policy in the local source protection (SPP) that may not be known to the Licensed Engineering Professional (LEP) that could result in the approved work being prohibited in the SPP. Likewise we note that the work that will place extra operating and maintenance costs when the work is assumed by the municipality, then requiring additional protections. We recognize that a concern of the proponent for the work is likely to want quick resolution of the issues. This being said, the LEP should be required to consult with the impacted municipalities and the local source protection authority should be provided with limited time to review the proposed work. We note the municipality should be able to deny the proposal if it considers the proposal to not be in the best interest of the municipal residents.

Thank you again for providing the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendment for exploring changes to streamline the permit-by-rule framework. For all of the above reasons, we request MECP not proceed with the proposal until all the concerns addressed by Ontarians and all consultation requirements are met. If you have any questions or concerns about these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me