Discussion Paper:…

Discussion Paper: Modernizing Ontario’s EA Program ERO number 013-5101

1) Better alignment between the level of assessment and the level of environmental risk associated with a project. This section of the discussion paper explains that, in Ontario, most public sector projects (even minor projects) require an Environmental Assessment whereas, unlike some other jurisdictions, many significant private sector projects do not require an Environmental Assessment. The idea of creating a clearly defined list of the types of major projects (both public and private sector), that must complete an environmental assessment is discussed.
a. Analysis – MEA supports this concept of better alignment between the level of assessment and the level of environmental risk associated with a project. MEA intents to reorganize the project descriptions used in Appendix 1 of the MCEA to determine the schedule of a project and refer to project impacts instead of project construction details.
b. Comments to Submit - MEA recognizes that moving towards a project list approach would introduce consistency across sectors into the process, however MEA has a number of concerns with this approach. Firstly, the MCEA is a self-driven, flexible process that allows 400+ different municipalities with wide ranging levels of expertise and expectations related to EA all to share this one flexible process. We are concerned that a section in the EA Act could interfere this flexible approach. Also, we are concerned that a section in the EA Act that includes private sector projects would not be self-driven and would require an authorization (from MECP?) at the end of the process. This would require creating a new bureaucracy. Secondly, we are concerned that a new project list might capture municipal projects outside the roads, water, stormwater, wastewater, transit and solid waste management departments that have historically been largely considered exempt from EA requirements. Any new approach to determining EA requirements should continue the longstanding exemption for all but the highest risk projects in these other departments. Thirdly, MEA suggests that a road/driveway built by the private sector on an industrial site or in a park by a municipality would not have the same impacts (traffic, noise) as a municipal road/provincial highway and should not require a similar EA process. MEA would need to clearly understand the details of a project list approach and hear how the above concerns can be addressed before we could support moving towards the project list approach. However, if certain private sector projects are to be required to undertake environmental assessments, MEA has no concerns with mandating that the private sector follow the EA process defined in an existing Class EA. For example, if an industry undertook construction a wastewater treatment facility and was subject to the Act then they could follow the MCEA process for construction a wastewater treatment facility. Also, if projects are to be identified in the Act, it would be important that the Act only refer to the list within the Class EA so that the list could be readily modified with an amendment to the Class EA rather than a change to the Act. Nevertheless, there could be some merit in changing the basis of the EA Act so that instead of the current “the Act applies to all projects unless the project has been specifically exempted” to “the Act only applies to the specific projects listed in the Act”. Answers to specific questions follow.
What kind of projects should require environmental assessment in Ontario? MEA agrees that municipal projects should be classified based on environmental risk and then subjected to an appropriate level of assessment as described in the MCEA manual. MEA has not really considered EA requirements for other government or private sector projects but note that private sector projects generally occur on private property that is subject to planning/zoning restrictions. The zoning restrictions already determine which uses are appropriate for the site and set out the required setback and buffering to other uses. An EA assessment would likely duplicate or conflict with the zoning provisions. Also, private business often relies on confidentiality during site investigation and acquisition. A public EA process could not proceed without consultation. If EA requirements were to be expanded to include new types of projects, municipalities would no doubt want to be included in the process as a commenting agency or some other role.
Are there some types of projects where a streamlined assessment process is appropriate? Municipal road, water, stormwater, wastewater and transit projects should all be streamlined and assessed base on environmental risk. This can best be accomplished by amending the current project descriptions used in Appendix 1 of the MCEA and replacing arbitrary criteria like project cost with environmental risk based criteria for triggers used to determine the level of assessment. MEA is currently preparing an amendment to the project descriptions in all of the Schedules that would simplify the descriptions, introduce the use of environmental risk triggers and re-classify projects when appropriate. With this amendment, virtually all municipal road, water, wastewater and transit projects would be appropriately aligned so that low risk projects are exempt (Schedule A and A+), medium risk projects (Schedule B) are subjected to a limited EA process and higher risk projects (Schedule C) are subjected to a more rigorous EA process.
What do you think about moving towards a project list approach? What do you think about a tiered approach similar to Manitoba’s program? (Note: See discussion paper or following link for more information).
As we understand the question, moving to a project list approach would mean replacing the existing Class EAs (or at least the project lists component) in Ontario with a new section of the EA Act. In this new section, projects from all sectors, both public and private, (all of the project lists from the existing Class EAs) would be listed and classified. If this is to be done, it would be important that the Act only refer to the list within the Class EA so that the list could be readily modified with an amendment to the Class EA rather than a change to the Act. Would the Act also include a description of the level of assessment required for each class of project so proponents would simply refer to the Act for EA direction and Class EAs would not be required? Or would a proponent still refer to their Class EA? As an example, we assume roads would be listed in the Act and classified but it would not matter if the road was a municipal road or an MTO road, the classification of EA process would be the same regardless of proponent. While this would introduce consistency across sectors into the process, MEA has a number of concerns with this approach. Firstly, if all roads are classified the same would the assessment process also be the same? The MCEA is a self-driven, flexible process that allows 400+ different municipalities with wide ranging levels of expertise and expectations related to EA all to share this one flexible process. We are concerned that mandating a fixed assessment process would not maintain this flexible approach. Also, we are concerned that a project list that includes private sector projects would not be self-driven and would require an authorization (from MECP?) at the end of the process. This would require creating a new bureaucracy. Secondly, we are concerned that a new project list might capture municipal projects outside the roads, water, stormwater, wastewater, transit and solid waste management departments that have historically been largely considered exempt from EA requirements. Any new approach to determining EA requirements should continue the longstanding exemption for all but the highest risk projects in these other departments. Thirdly, MEA suggests that a road/driveway built by the private sector on an industrial site or in a park by a municipality would not have the same impacts (traffic, noise) as a municipal road/provincial highway and should not require a similar EA process. However, if certain private sector projects are to be required to undertake environmental assessments, MEA has no concerns with mandating that the private sector follow the EA process defined in an existing Class EA. For example, if an industry undertook construction a wastewater treatment facility and was subject to the Act then they could follow the MCEA process for construction a wastewater treatment facility. Nevertheless, there could be some merit in changing the basis of the EA Act so that instead of the current “the Act applies to all projects unless the project has been specifically exempted” to “the Act only applies to the specific projects listed in the Act”
Within the project list approach, how can screening criteria be incorporated? MEA has embedded screening criteria into project descriptions (doing X work with Y circumstances) that are used to determine the class of EA.

Do you have any examples of specific criteria that should be used to identify projects for the list? (e.g. can you provide specific locations, types of projects, sizes of projects that should be considered) We believe the projects proposed in our amendment to Appendix 1 of the MCEA appropriately capture and classify municipal projects.

2) Eliminating duplication between environmental assessment and other planning and approvals. This section of the discussion paper explains that there could be duplication and overlap between the EA process and other legislation such as the Federal EA. The primary issue that relates to MCEA is duplication with Planning Act applications. Although less common, another issue is the application of two Class EAs. Examples are work on municipal roads that also involve a provincial highway can trigger both the MCEA and MTO’s Class EA process and work to construct a municipal project that involves acquiring property from the province can trigger both the MCEA and IO’s Class EA process relate to property disposal.
a. Analysis - For many years MEA has been calling for better alignment particularly with the Planning Act. Eliminating the duplication of effort would reduce costs and time for both municipalities and developers. It would also reduce ‘consultation confusion’ so the public is not consulted multiple times on the same project. Much of the duplication of effort can be reduced by appropriately worded project descriptions in Appendix 1 and then classifying the project as Schedule A if another process (for example a Planning Act or an ECA approval) has already dealt sufficiently with the project. With the exception of work at water or wastewater treatment facilities, MCEA projects that are specifically defined and included in a Planning Act approval should then be considered exempt (Schedule A). However, if these projects are not specifically defined (for example, provide a second connection to the water system or construct a road where the detailed location for the works are not shown) in the Planning Act application then the Developer should undertake a MCEA process to determine the location etc for these works. Also, there needs to be a process whereby the requirements of multiple Class EAs can be addressed in one process.
b. Comments to Submit - MEA strongly supports eliminating duplication between environmental assessment and other planning and approvals specifically the Planning Act and the ECA process. Eliminating the duplication of effort would reduce costs and time for both municipalities and developers. It would also reduce ‘consultation confusion’ so the public is not consulted multiple times on the same project. Much of the duplication of effort can be reduced by appropriately worded project descriptions in Appendix 1 and then classifying the project as Schedule A if another process (for example a Planning Act or an ECA approval) has already dealt sufficiently with the project. With the exception of work at water or wastewater treatment facilities, MCEA projects that are specifically defined and included in a Planning Act approval should then be considered exempt (Schedule A). However, if these projects are not specifically defined (for example, provide a second connection to the water system or construct a road where the detailed location for the works are not shown) in the Planning Act application then the Developer should undertake a MCEA process to determine the location etc for these works. Although less common, another issue is the application of two Class EAs. Examples are work on municipal roads that also involve a provincial highway can trigger both the MCEA and MTO’s Class EA process and work to construct a municipal project that involves acquiring property from the province can trigger both the MCEA and IO’s Class EA process relate to property disposal. Answers to specific questions follow.
Can you identify any other examples of provincial processes that could be better integrated? Projects that also require Planning Act approval and/or an ECA approval should be better integrated. MEA intents to accomplish better integration by reorganizing the project descriptions in Appendix 1 of the MCEA.
What other actions can the ministry take to eliminate duplicative or redundant processes or approvals? Projects that are specifically included and considered in a Planning Act approval should be deemed as Schedule A (exempt) projects. Projects where technical evaluation and approval by MECP is appropriate but there are no other provincial issues should also be deemed as Schedule A (exempt) projects as the ECA process will address provincial concerns.
Can you identify specific examples of duplication or redundancy between EA and other MECP or non-MECP provincial processes? How can these better integrated? In an actual example, Halton had a large area approved for growth with a series of Planning Act approvals. The arterial road to service this growth was clearly defined, considered in detail and included within these Planning Act approvals. But, because it was an arterial road instead of a local road, the MCEA required a Schedule C MCEA process even though there were no alternative that could be considered – the Planning Act approvals already defined the road.

3 Find efficiencies in the environmental assessment process and related planning and approvals process to shorten the timelines from start to finish. This section of the discussion paper explains that environmental assessments can be lengthy and frustrating processes to navigate. Coordination of multiple provincial planning and approvals; complex processes; and delays can create confusion and uncertain timelines. Some ideas that could improve the process include:
• Add timelines for reviews from all government agencies involved to ensure that they do not unnecessarily hold up projects.
• Allow applicants to initiate and streamline certain permit and approval applications during the environmental assessment process to speed up the overall timelines for projects.
• Take action to better coordinate ongoing assessment requirements to allow similar work completed in one process to be used for other processes.
The discussion paper asks “What advantages and disadvantages do you see with the ministry’s environmental assessment process being the one-window for other approval/permit processes?” The discussion paper also states that delays in the environmental assessment process can occur when applicants do not have a clear understanding of the ministry’s expectations for technical studies and consultation and asks should MECP consider building on the Transit Project Regulation model to create new opportunities for other types of projects to receive priority reviews with strict timelines? MECP also poses the specific questions that are discussed in the analysis;
a. Analysis - For many years MEA has been calling for improvements and shorter timelines for the MCEA process. Introducing timelines for reviews from all government agencies, allowing applicants to initiate and streamline certain permit and approval applications during the environmental assessment process and allowing similar work completed in one process to be used for other processes are all worthy ideas that should be implemented. Clarifying the ministry’s expectations for technical studies and consultation, particularly related to climate change and indigenous consultation, would be very helpful. There could also be advantages to building on the Transit Project Regulation model to create new opportunities for other types of projects to receive priority reviews with strict timelines. However, we are unsure if there is merit in considering the EA process to be the one-window approval process for the project. Using the discussion paper’s example, EA approval to construct a SWM pond is like conceptual approval of the project. After the EA is approved, the proponent then puts the effort into the detailed studies and design. MEA would not want to force the proponent to fund and complete all the detailed work if there was some chance that the fundamental project would not be approved.
b. Comments to Submit - MEA’s offers strong support for any improvements that would shorten the timelines for MEA approval. Specifically MEA supports introducing timelines for reviews from all government agencies, allowing applicants to initiate and streamline certain permit and approval applications during the environmental assessment process and allowing similar work completed in one process to be used for other processes. Clarifying the ministry’s expectations for technical studies and consultation, particularly related to climate change and indigenous consultation, would be very helpful. There could also be advantages to building on the Transit Project Regulation model to create new opportunities for other types of projects to receive priority reviews with strict timelines. However, we are unsure if there is merit in considering the EA process to be the one-window approval process for the project. MEA would be pleased to continue working with MECP to develop detailed improvements to the EA process that would create efficiencies. Answers to specific questions follow.
What could a coordinated one-window approach look like for Ontario projects? The EA process does broadly assess a project’s environmental, social and financial implications and hence creates a one-window look at all impacts of the project. However, the EA process should not be used as an enforcement tool for other Ministries or Agencies
Can you identify any areas in the environmental assessment process that could be better streamlined with the municipal planning process or with other provincial processes? There needs to be better streamlining with the Planning Act as described above. Also, MEA has heard a number of complaints related to heritage bridge projects. To illustrate the issue with an example, a proponent needs to rehabilitate a deteriorated bridge to repair structural deficiencies. The bridge is more than 40 years old and has a unique steel railing but this railing does not meet current code requirements. Although this is just a bridge repair project, as a 40 year old structure with a unique railing the project is elevated to a Schedule B MCEA process. A heritage expert is then engaged to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) and then most likely a Heritage Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA) which may recommend retaining the unique railing. However, in the end, safety and code requirements trump the historical recommendation and the railing is replaced likely with a sympathetic compromise railing that satisfies the public’s expectations and meets codes. The proponent and the bridge engineer knew this would be the outcome before the project even began so the cost, effort and time to have formal documentation that the railing should be retained, in some manner, and to complete a Schedule B MCEA really added no value to the project.

What advantages and disadvantages do you see with the ministry’s environmental assessment process being the one-window for other approval/permit processes? MEA does not want the MCEA process to become the enforcement tool for other provincial legislation. Also, we are unsure if there is merit in considering the EA process to be the one-window approval process for the project. Using the discussion paper’s example, EA approval to construct a SWM pond is like conceptual approval of the project. After the EA is approved, the proponent then puts the effort into the detailed studies and design. MEA would not want to force the proponent to fund and complete all the detailed work if there was some chance that the fundamental project would not be approved.

What areas of the environmental assessment program could benefit from clearer guidance from the ministry? Proponents often ask MEA for guidance related to Indigenous Consultation and Climate Change. The Ministry’s August 2016 draft guide does not do a good job explaining how climate change should be considered in a MCEA project.

What other actions can we take to reduce delays and provide certainty on timelines for environmental assessment? Impose deadlines for responses from review agencies.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a sector-based terms of reference? No Comment,

Are there other ways we could improve our review timelines? Ensure review is focused on the issues identified.

How can we better guide and inform proponents of the ministry’s expectations for EA studies and documentation? Organize training sessions that show real life examples of adequate information. Also, it is important that the Ministry’s expectations be set at the minimum that is sufficient and adequate to address the issue. The goal is to “find efficiencies” and “shorten the timelines from start to finish” - a deluxe version of studies and documentation should not be expected on every project.

4) Go digital by permitting online submissions - In this section of the discussion paper the creation of a centralized digital location for applicants and the ministry to provide interested persons with information about environmental assessments is proposed.

a. Analysis – The idea of a central registry for all Class EA projects has been discussed before. The MCEA is different from all other Class EAs in that there are 444 different proponents that each hire numerous consultants and these all share the same Class EA with no central authority that can direct the proponents. Also, for a municipal project, residents expect to find the information related to any municipal project on the municipality’s web site. It is common to build an entirely separate web site for significant MCEA projects. These project web sites are used to disseminate information but can also be used to gather feedback through surveys and discussion groups. A centralize web portal could not be used by 444 different proponents for complex functions like gathering feedback. Any central digital location for EAs should not create a duplication of effort. Perhaps the centralized digital location could allow for the proponent to simply provide a link to the EA project information. But who would be responsible to monitor to ensure at the links are kept current? If a central registry of all EA information is to be established, it would be worthwhile for this registry to make all of the information contained in an EA (for example all of the natural environment inventory) available so it could be used by others for other projects in the area. However, this would only be of value if the information would be accepted.
b. Comments to Submit – MEA see some merit in a simple listing of current EAs as it would assist MEA with understanding MCEA trends but otherwise, MEA sees little value to a centralize registry. One potential value of a central registry of all EA information would be if this registry contained all of the information in an EA (for example all of the natural environment inventory) and it was available so it could be used by others for other projects in the area. However, this would only be of value if the information would be accepted. The MCEA is different from all other Class EAs in that there are 444 different proponents that each hire numerous consultants and these all share the same Class EA with no central authority that can direct the proponents. Also, for a municipal project, residents expect to find the information related to any municipal project on the municipality’s web site. It is common to build an entirely separate web site for significant MCEA projects. These project web sites are used to disseminate information but can also be used to gather feedback through surveys and discussion groups. A centralize web portal could not be used by 444 different proponents for complex functions like gathering feedback. Any central digital location for EAs should not create a duplication of effort. Perhaps the centralized digital location could allow for the proponent to simply provide a link to the EA project information. But who would monitor to ensure at the links are kept current? Answers to specific questions follow.
How would you like to be consulted on environmental assessment projects? We assume this question is aimed at the public. MEA suggests that the public would like to be provided with relevant, brief information that highlights potential key impacts for residents and allows for easy access to more detailed information.
Would an online environmental assessment registry be helpful for you in submitting an environmental assessment or accessing environmental assessment information? A simple listing of current EA would be of interesting to assist MEA with understanding MCEA trends but otherwise, MEA sees little value to a centralize registry. MCEA projects are not submitted – the notice of completion is circulated and anyone with interest is able to view the documentation online. The documentation files are often too large to actually submit – they need to be downloaded by interested parties.
What type(s) of environmental assessment project information would you like to access online? The latest Indigenous Consultation requirements would be helpful if available on line.

Are there any existing online tools that would be appropriate to use for environmental assessment information? No Comment.
How do you want to ensure that EA information is broadly available? All proponents should include electronic means as part of their communication plan.