Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act has made an appearance in many neighborhoods across the province since coming into being in 1976.  Unfortunately, it has left a large number of neighborhoods and municipalities wondering why it bothered to come in the first place.

The EA Act is usually encountered by taxpayers as a Class Environmental Assessment.  It is a streamlined version of an environmental assessment that allows municipalities to go about their "business as usual" practices in order to do routine work like building access roads, modifying hydroelectric facilities and effecting flood and erosion control measures.

On the way to becoming streamlined, the Class EA became the dominant form of environmental assessment in the province, comprising 90% of all environmental assessments that are done.  Planning and consultation activities are very much proponent-driven under this approach and there is less oversight by the Ministry of the Environment, unlike the MOE's active involvement in an "individual" or "full" EA under Part II of the EAA.

Proponents like to argue that the environmental impact of these projects are predictable and minor…but since the proponent wants to avoid a full EA, the environmental impact will always be framed as "predictable and minor". Even though its stated purpose is the betterment of the people of Ontario through the wise management and protection of the environment, the EA Act has left a disgruntled group of taxpayers, activists and lawyers in its wake who will tell you the Act is "broken" in a fundamental way.

Before you pass off all these complaints as self-interested sour grapes, consider that the most consistent objector to the Ontario Environmental Act has been the province's own environmental watchdog, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.  According to his 2007/08 Annual Report:
"the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is not adequately meeting its vital procedural oversight role... (and the) EA process retains little credibility with those members of the public who have had to tangle with its complexities.from - Environmental Assessment: A Vision Lost

The Environmental Commissioner calls for an urgent new vision for environmental assessment and states that the broken EA process should concern...
... not only academics and environmentalists but "the business community, the development-oriented ministries and everyday Ontarians hoping to see their province move forward on a sustainable path".
from - Environmental Assessment: A Vision Lost

The Act defines "environment" as air, land, water, plant and animal life and the social, economic and cultural conditions influencing human life.  And so, when a Class EA comes to a neighbourhood, interested parties will attend public consultation sessions, be lectured by the "experts", write letters and/or express their concerns at public meetings, all in the hope that they might in some way influence what happens in their neighborhoods.    Guess what?    They never do.

"Under Class EAs, public comments and concerns are submitted to the proponent, rather than to an independent arbiter.  The proponent can decide how (or whether) to respond to the concerns.  MOE also tends to bounce commenter's procedural concerns about a project back to the proponent."
from - Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Annual Report, part 3, section 32

As far as neighbourhood activists and environmentalists are concerned, the whole consultation process has been discredited.  They find the system is weighted in favour of the proponents, projects are changed after public consultation opportunities have passed, technical details are not made available to the public in a timely way, if at all and they are frustrated by MOE's unwillingness to insist on fairness both in consultation and in process.

The Commissioner states:
"Under the Class EA process, public concerns abound.  A "no" decision is not a possible outcome.  The ministry can only elevate the status of the project to an individual EA or impose conditions.  Frustrated members of the public invoke the available appeal mechanism (a request for a "bump-up" to an individual EA, also known as a "Part II Order") about 60 to 70 times in a typical year, but to the ECO's knowledge, the ministry has not granted one such request.  The minister does, in some cases, respond to bump-up requests by imposing conditions on proponents.  But the conditions are often soft measures, such as additional consultation through liaison committees, rather than what is most sorely needed: stronger mitigation requirements."

The Commissioner has a laundry list of shortcomings that have provoked much agitated discussion around the province.  For instance:
proponents are allowed to apply for and obtain other approvals prior to EA approval
the need for projects is often shielded from scrutiny
important back-end technical details are also shielded from scrutiny
there is little respect for Official Plan principles and objectives
the statutory principle of "betterment" is completely neglected
monitoring, compliance and enforcement of EA terms is weak or non-existent
air quality monitoring techniques and health effects data are either suspect or ignored completely

The only people who seem to benefit from the EA process as it now exists are the legions of professional planners, transportation engineers, heritage, cycling and other consultants who are ready to sign off on a report, with little regard for what actually works best in a particular locale.  Their response is formulaic.

After all, if your head office is in London or Toronto, one neighbourhood looks pretty much like another.  The Environmental Assessment has become their bread and butter.  Should we be surprised then that the so-called solutions reflect the most ardent desires of politicians and other entrenched interests, rather than the wishes of a neighbourhood or community?