Comprehensive and…

Comprehensive and transparent public consultation is a time-tested obligation that our provincial representatives have been entrusted to uphold as a duty to Ontarians, simply because this has proven to be an essential and sustaining component of our democracy.

Omnibus bills severely curtail public participation in environmental decision-making and has resulted in the irresponsibe elimination of crucial protective measures embedded in very significant environmental laws. The recent steamrolled changes to the province’s Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act and other environmental laws has left our Ontario environment extremely vulnerable to time sensitive ill-conceived errors in planning, as well as innumerable exploitive actions. The current provincial government in Ontario must recognize the true purpose of Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights, which gives the public the right to participate meaningfully in environmental decision-making about any changes to our environment in Ontario.

The approval of projects such as the Bradford Bypass is inconsistent with Ontario’s climate change commitments and creates harmful land use patterns which contribute to water pollution and sprawl. The impacts of Bradford Bypass should be re-evaluated in terms of impacts to the Lake Simcoe Watershed, health impacts, harm to drinking water resources, farmland, archaeological resources and sprawl. In light of the COVID-19 health crisis and its long-lasting effects the shift in transportation patterns towards more individuals working from home should require a re-evaluation of the Bradford Bypass due to the potential long lasting reduced vehicular travel demand.

The details of the route, interchanges, number of lanes, locations of commuter parking lots and other important aspects of the project will likely change. Similarly impacts such as stormwater and groundwater impacts may change significantly given the evolving growth and environmental context of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The need for the project has almost certainly changed, and the policy context for the project has completely changed since 2005.

It seems that the only purpose of the exemption is to prevent the use of mechanisms in the Act that would allow Aboriginal peoples to request a part II order. The fundamental purpose of the exemption seems to deprive First Nations of their rights to information, consultation and appeal of any aspect of the Bradford Bypass and any changes to the project which were not included in the original EA. Otherwise no exemption would be required. The other evidence that the true purpose of this posting is to deprive First Nations of their rights to information and objection is the fact that – according to the posting - MTO would still be required to complete Transportation Environmental Study Reports and Design and Construction Reports – therefore the only aspects of Condition 4 which MTO is being relieved of are the ones involving public consultation and First Nation appeal rights to request a Part II Order, and the frustration of the legally binding nature of the previously imposed conditions.

There are very valid concerns over the stormwater and groundwater impacts, compliance and effects monitoring, impacts to archaeological resources and the overall land use and sprawl impacts of this project. A stage III archaeological assessment is required and the Ministry must not exempt MTO from the legally binding condition to complete stage III archaeological surveys. Archaeological resources in the area are very significant and this condition is important. There are archaeological sites in the Bradford Bypass right of way which date back thousands of years. The important archaeological sites that would be destroyed by the Bradford Bypass include but are not limited to:
• Two 10,000-year-old Indigenous sites
• The 6,000-year-old lower landing site which includes both Indigenous artifacts from a historic meeting place at “the landing”.
• An early woodland site
Sites relating to the original survey of Yonge street.

A stormwater management plan must be prepared. This condition is significant because the proposed highway would entail significant additional stormwater pollution which could adversely impact Lake Simcoe and its watershed. The decision to make these conditions unenforceable and exempt the undertaking from the Act which requires them is unacceptable.

That the Ministry feels it is necessary to deprive the public of its right to information and updated plans as well as rights of appeal does not inspire confidence in MTO’s project nor the potential for consultation to address environmental and planning concerns.

The current provincial government claims that the proposed regulation would allow the province “to focus resources on more significant, complex infrastructure projects.” The suggestion that a four-lane new 16-kilometre highway through the Greenbelt, across class I agricultural lands with river crossings in a sensitive watershed – one that was approved before most of the applicable provincial policies were in place – is not significant or complex is absurd. The proposed regulation is not sensible or practical, nor are the environmental impacts well-understood.