Location: Ministry Home > News > Minister's Speeches > Speech

Remarks prepared for

The Honourable Laurel Broten
Minister of the Environment

Proposed Improvements to Environmental Assessment
Stakeholder Luncheon

June 6, 2006

(Check against delivery)

Thank you, Beth (Dr. Beth Savan, chair of EA advisory panel) for that introduction. And thank you everyone, for joining me today.

When I look around the room, I see many familiar faces from a variety of different sectors. Many of you bring a mix of experience, both professional and personal, with the EA process.

But, I am certain that everyone here has this in common: you believe that the review of the EA process was much needed, and long overdue. And I’m sure you all agree that the current EA process can be slow, confusing and costly to proponents and participants.

More must and can be done to make the EA process work better and faster while it protects the environment.

That’s why I am pleased to be here today to let you know that our government is taking action to improve Ontario’s Environmental Assessment process.

I understand that this action has been long-anticipated. So, allow me to be brief in my opening remarks before I get into the details of our vision.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the expertise and wisdom of the EA Advisory Panel and the transit, energy and waste sector tables.

The range of recommendations made, from pragmatic solutions to policy-based ideas, demonstrate that when you bring the right people to the table, the result is bound to be thoughtful, thorough and driven by passion. And no wonder. The EA process is a tool that helps protect the environment like no other tool that the government applies.

The Act and its processes allow government to decide whether, where and how projects should be built in Ontario, while safeguarding our land, water and air, our citizens, as well as our socio-economic condition.

We know the fundamental principles of EA are sound. The process is designed to look at potential environmental impacts, identify issues and protect the environment before projects are built. That will not change.
When we formed the Advisory Panel on EA, we certainly set out an ambitious task.

I want to say to everyone involved in that process, that you have met this task. We couldn’t have made it this far without your hard work, and your commitment to making this important process even better.

And we will need to continue to rely on your expertise. The directions I am announcing today will be the subject of further consultation and discussions with stakeholders.

Let me get into the specifics.

Everyone that uses the EA process needs a clearer understanding of their roles and the rules that apply. We also need to make EA information more accessible and transparent.

Codes of practice will provide proponents and the public with ministry expectations on the level of consultation required for EAs, the content of EA documentation and the tools available to resolve issues in the EA process.

It is critical that proponents and people who participate in the EA process understand from the outset what’s expected of them, so that they can be better prepared before starting into the process.

Codes of practice will be developed for the key EA processes:

• Terms of Reference
• Public consultation
• Mediation
• Preparation of Individual EAs
• Class EAs
• Federal-Provincial Coordination Agreement

We’ll be providing EA training and education to help better navigate the process and provide increased transparency by making information on projects available through an EA website.

For the thousands of projects that go through the Class EA process each year, we are working with all proponents of Class EAs to ensure that their projects undergo an appropriate level of assessment.

We have already been working with MMAH to remove “speed-bumps” from the EA process, and there could be other similar opportunities.

When it comes to EA improvements, my priority is environmental protection. A slower process does not mean a better process for the environment. We need a process that gets to faster “yeses” for environmentally sound projects that are necessary and constructive — and “no” more quickly to projects that are not environmentally responsible or viable.

We will work with ministries such as Municipal Affairs, Public Infrastructure Renewal, Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources to integrate EA with other planning processes to reduce duplication and increase efficiencies.

We’ll also be working with our counterparts at the federal level to continue to integrate our EA processes and reduce overlap.

We all recognize that decisions in the EA process can be more efficient. We will start by looking to make sure our own house is in order in this regard. We will review our Deadlines Regulation and shorten government decision-making timelines.

We will develop protocols with our ministry and agency partners to ensure a consistent, efficient approach is applied to government reviews.

We will also set expectations on proponent timelines and ask them to provide schedules and adhere to them so that people in communities have a sense of where projects are at in the process and how long they may take.

We will introduce a facilitation function to assist and advise stakeholders on EA matters. The facilitator will provide advice and use a range of tools, from mediation to guidance to peer review assistance, to help proponents and community groups better navigate the EA process.

Finally, we will also increase transparency and start to de-politicize the process by delegating the decision-making authority on bump-up requests on Class EAs to the Director. This will also help create greater efficiency in the system by reducing the time it takes for ministerial decisions.

With respect to sector specific improvements, we looked carefully at the range of suggestions made. Clearly, there is desire to see improvements that allow environmentally beneficial projects, projects that also support our key infrastructure areas, to benefit from a more efficient process.

With respect to transit, we need a shorter process for these environmentally beneficial projects that will help get people out of their cars and onto public transit. This is good news for our health and the health of our environment.

We have already begun work on developing a new process in the Municipal Class EA to include transit projects.
We have partnered with the Municipal Engineers Association and have provided them with the funding necessary to complete the new process which I expect to be drafted for public comment this summer.

To ensure a future with cleaner, greener energy, we’re going to refine the existing screening processes under Regulation 116 to remove duplicative provisions. We are also going to review and if possible revise triggers/thresholds to exempt more projects from EA, especially for green/renewable projects.

To better manage our waste in this province, we are going to develop an EA waste regulation that will set out the EA process requirements for waste facilities, based on the type, size and impact of the project. For projects with a greater environmental footprint, the process will be more rigorous — for those with a smaller footprint, we will apply a more efficient process.

If there is one sector that is at a real deficit with respect to rules and structure, it is the waste sector. We need to fill the gap by providing much needed clarity and direction to proponents, both public and private, as well as Ontarians in communities right across the province who want to participate in the process.

This has been a rather brief snapshot of the directions I am proposing to improve the EA process.

As I said earlier, we will be back to you with these details as we consult on each element of our improvement plan.

We need to continue a dialogue with you, to ensure we have hit the mark and have found the right balance. As Beth indicated, our goal is to refocus, rebalance and revitalize the EA process. We are committed to reviewing our improvements to ensure they are achieving just what we set out to do.

For today, these changes are what I believe are needed to get us to an improved, more efficient and transparent process that is fair regarding the time and costs associated with the process, but most importantly, does what the Act is meant to do — protect the environment for future generations.

Thank you, and please enjoy your lunch and the remainder of the afternoon.

- end -