1. The proposal would…

1. The proposal would essentially remove all Schedule B projects from Class EA requirements, with only a handful of projects that are similar to Schedule C projects remaining to fall under the new proposed MPAP process. This will certainly be less restrictive for municipalities, as the majority of all projects would now be exempt from Class EAs. The potential for cost/time savings will likely still vary depending on how rigorous a (now voluntary) environmental study and/or public consultation process a given municipality wishes to undertake. Many conscientious municipalities may choose to continue to conduct a process that would be similar to the current Schedule B process (i.e. environmental studies, consideration of alternatives, 2 points of consultation, etc.), in which case the potential for cost/time saving is limited. Interested parties such as the general public, business community, developers, etc. will expect a faster turnaround; however, it may take the same amount of time because of reasons listed above.
2. While on one hand a less-regulated process is welcome, given the potential for time/cost savings, on the other hand the de-regulation could be less protective of the environment and of interested and affected parties if some projects do not end up undergoing the same degree of evaluation of the impacts and alternatives or public engagement that would have been required by the Schedule B process. Furthermore, the loss of a consistent standard/approach (i.e. now there will be no Schedule A, A+ or B applicable throughout Ontario) could add inefficiencies and/or confusion to the overall industry (municipalities, consultants, developers, etc.) if the approach taken from municipality to municipality can vary widely.
3. The 120-day timeline between the notice of commencement and completion of the Environmental Project Report (EPR) seems very aggressive. Schedule B and C Class EAs take 18-24 months on average, especially considering the seasonal nature of many environmental studies. In order for a municipality to comply with the 120-day timeline, it would essentially have to complete all of these studies before “starting” the project and publishing the notice of commencement. So while the ministry can claim it’s now a 120-day process, the reality is that it will probably have taken the same amount of time, when considering the pre-notice work. I suspect the Ministry’s expectation here is that all or most of this work should be done through Master Plans ahead of time?
4. We anticipate issues with approval of development applications, if developers are pushing for approvals citing the 120-day window and municipalities requiring more time to conduct EA-like studies even if not required by the Ministry.
5. Approaches between municipalities will inevitably vary and some will be more thorough with their approach than others. Larger municipalities will have more resources (e.g. more staff, larger tax base and budget, etc.) than smaller municipalities.
6. While the streamlined nature of the MPAP is welcome, it's important to consider how potential disputes arising during the process will be addressed. A clear and efficient dispute resolution mechanism would be beneficial for both municipalities and the public.
7. The MPAP's focus on self-assessment by municipalities presents both opportunities and challenges. While streamlining approvals, it also places a greater onus on municipalities to possess the necessary expertise and resources to conduct thorough environmental review where an EA may not be required by the ministry under the new framework. Further, this may lead to increased costs for municipalities under certain projects and a potential for inconsistency across municipalities when reviewing similar projects not requiring an EA.
8. The MPAP should strive to maintain the same level of environmental protection currently achieved through full MCEAs. While streamlining the process is valuable, ensuring robust environmental standards are upheld remains a top priority. Municipalities should be equipped with the necessary tools and resources to conduct thorough environmental assessments under the MPAP.
9. A mechanism for addressing unforeseen environmental impacts identified after the MPAP process is complete is crucial. This could involve revisiting the assessment or requiring additional mitigation measures to ensure ongoing environmental protection. Flexibility within the MPAP framework allows for adaptation and ensures unforeseen issues can be addressed effectively.
10. Regular evaluation of the MPAP's effectiveness over time will be crucial. This will ensure the program meets its objectives of streamlining approvals while maintaining environmental safeguards. Understanding how the MPAP functions in practice will allow for adjustments and improvements as needed.