Attention: Hon. Andrea…

Attention: Hon. Andrea Khanjin,
Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
College Park 5th Floor
777 Bay St.
Toronto, ON
M7A 2J3

Delivered via email: minister.mecp@ontario.ca, permissions.modernization@ontario.ca and on the ERO
As Comments on ERO Numbers 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 – "Environmental Permissions Modernization"

October 30, 2023

RE: OEAC Comments on “Environmental Permissions Modernization” EROs

Dear Hon. Andrea Khanjin, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks,

The Oxford Environmental Action Committee (OEAC) is a non-profit organization based in Oxford County, Ontario. We promote responsible and environmentally sustainable land use planning, use of the precautionary principle in decision making, the safeguarding of Ontario’s environment, and the protection and enhancement of public health and wellbeing. In situations where proposals introduce uncertainty or potential risks to the environment or public health and safety, we advise decision makers to apply the precautionary principle.

Our organization is asking that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) withdraw their proposals listed under Environmental Registry of Ontario numbers 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963 and 019-6951. Carrying out these proposals would reduce the ability of Ontario’s residents to participate in decision making under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The OEAC opposes creation of a new regulation to allow some stormwater management works to be registered on the EASR or exempt some residential stormwater management works.
We do not believe regulations are burdens. Businesses should be able to comply with regulations that are for the benefit of the environment and public health in Ontario.

The MECP must ensure that the residents of Ontario are able to comment on proposals that may impact the environment, under the Environmental Bill of Rights. Ontario’s citizens have made clear through public participation opportunities that they are engaged, and concerned with any proposal that may harm the environment or public health. Permit-by-rule and Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) permissions do not offer the public the ability to comment or access the courts in the same way an Environmental Compliance Approval or PTTW posted to the ERO does.

Permit-by-rule and EASR frameworks also limit MECP pollution prevention by making the answer to every successfully filled out registration the equivalent of an automatic “yes”. Ontarians cannot afford the health and financial risks of a system that allows virtually every EASR, water taking, discharge, waste transportation or pollution permission to be granted. The MECP does not have the resources to oversee compliance for unreviewed undertakings and activities; the environment is already suffering and public health costs and community-level adverse effects and impacts are already at unacceptable levels.

The MECP should not permit biomedical and PCB waste types to be transported within the province without financial assurance, as it drives up personal insurance policy costs and tax bills for Ontarians. Municipalities should not be footing the bill when waste management systems spills happen.

Homes should not be built on wetlands, and intensive water takings and foundation drains should not be allowed without a permit to take water and a review of cumulative impacts to the watershed. Urban sprawl should be curtailed in Ontario, and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s recommendations to build missing middle housing and medium and gentle density neighbourhoods should be applied.

The OEAC opposes the move of any aggregate operation aspects to an EASR or permit-by-rule system, as the environmental degradation caused by pits and quarries in Ontario is well documented, and they can adversely impact the environment and public health by releasing PM10 and PM2.5, as well as additional contaminants captured under NPRI, MISA and other regulations and ECAs.

Canada’s Federal Pollution Release Inventory shares the following from their Pits and Quarries Reporting Guide :

Sources of NPRI substance emissions
The following operations/factors are the most common sources of NPRI substance emissions in pits and quarries operations:
1. Overburden removal
2. Boring/blast hole drilling
3. Blasting
4. Blasting explosives
5. Crushing
6. Screening
7. Pulverizing
8. Material handling
9. Wind erosion of stockpile surfaces
10. Drying (sand and gravel processing)
11. Generator equipment (power output up to 600 Hp)
12. Diesel Generator equipment (power output > 600 Hp)
13. Combustion of fuels in external combustion equipment
14. Unpaved road dust
15. Grading activities

The OEAC opposes the move to a single permit system for businesses in Ontario, as it would be an oversimplification of complex emission, contaminant, pollution and water taking permissions and would potentially involve multiple branches of the MECP as well as other ministries, such as the MNRF, MOT, etc.

The OEAC supports municipalities in Ontario determining their own standards above and beyond Ontario’s minimum stormwater management requirements. We believe that Conservation Authorities should have their funding and activity levels restored, so that they can better function in a manner that helps to protect and enhance Ontario’s environment.

A review of the proposals raises many questions, including:
1. Would the MECP have the authority to turn down permissions for an activity where the proponent met online registration and EASR regulatory requirements?

2. Does the MECP have on-the-ground audit results of the harmful impacts current EASR activities are causing on water, land, air, species, human health, and eco-systems?

3. Has the MECP ever refused to issue a permission for a proponent who met Environmental Registry and Activities Sector (EASR) registrant and regulatory requirements (for activities that have already been moved to the EASR system)?

4. Why does the MECP not have safety or manifest data available on existing EASR registered waste types being hauled in Ontario?

5. Why does the MECP not have any on-the-ground compliance monitoring data available for activities already registered through the EASR system?

6. Will the Ministry be making their mandate available for public review?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposals. For the health of Ontarians present and future, the OEAC is asking for the proposals to not be implemented. Our organization encourages better funding for the MECP, so that it can carry out the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and carry out the EBR as it was intended – to provide the public with a means to participate meaningfully in consideration of matters that may impact the environment and public health in Ontario.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Crellin
President, Oxford Environmental Action Committee, (OEAC)
on behalf of the Oxford Environmental Action Committee

These comments are submitted in good faith, and in the public interest, for ERO numbers 019-6928, 019-6853, 019-6963, 019-6951 – Environmental Permissions Modernization, in accordance with the Environmental Bill of Rights.