In May, OSPE submitted formal comments to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on proposed amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, introduced through the Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026 (POWER Act).
For OSPE, process efficiency and environmental rigour are not in conflict. Ontario’s engineers understand both, and we urged the government to pursue modernization without weakening accountability.
Why This Matters
Environmental assessments (EA) govern the projects Ontario’s engineers design and build. When the EA process produces sound, defensible decisions within reasonable timeframes, it serves everyone: proponents, communities, Indigenous nations, and the public. When it is streamlined in ways that reduce scrutiny without reducing delay, it creates a different kind of risk downstream, in the form of project disputes, judicial reviews, and post-approval complications that are more costly than the time that was nominally saved.
Ontario needs an EA process that is both rigorous and efficient. OSPE is prepared to help build one. We welcomed further dialogue with the ministry on these issues and remain available to contribute technical expertise to the ongoing modernization of the framework.
What Is Being Proposed
The amendments target three specific elements of the comprehensive Environmental Assessment process; removing the public comment period on the Ministry Review, eliminating the public’s ability to request that a project be referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) for an independent hearing, and removing the requirement for Cabinet concurrence on the Minister’s final decision.
Regarding the removal of the Ministry Review comment period, OSPE recommended a risk-based approach: keep the Ministry Review comment period as a discretionary tool the ministry can deploy when there is a demonstrated need, rather than eliminating it outright. That preserves flexibility without the accountability loss.
The ministry has confirmed that the internal review will continue regardless of whether the public comment period exists. If the Ministry Review is being conducted anyway, the time and effort required to publish its findings and accept public comment is minimal. The efficiency argument is not proportionate to the transparency cost. What is being removed is not a redundant step. It is public access to the ministry’s independent technical assessment of whether the proponent’s work is adequate, including identified errors, omissions, and gaps.
Regarding the removal of the public’s right to request a project be referred to the OLT, OSPE recommended retaining the public referral right with clearer, more transparent criteria for when a referral must be granted and when it may be refused. A revised framework would preserve meaningful access while preventing procedural delays in straightforward cases. The rationale for removal is that requests have been rare and that only one has resulted in a hearing since 1976. If the mechanism has rarely produced hearings, it cannot credibly be said to cause delay. What it does is signal to proponents that their EA must be able to withstand independent scrutiny. That signal has value throughout the assessment process, not only when a referral is actually granted.
OSPE supports removing the Cabinet concurrence requirement appropriately places final decision-making authority with the accountable minister. A discretionary Cabinet referral authority is retained for matters of significant public interest. This change does not reduce environmental protection in any meaningful way, and the efficiency gains are real. OSPE supports it.
The Broader Point About Where Delay Actually Comes From
Engineering practitioners know where EA timelines stretch: incomplete proponent submissions, iterative fieldwork, deficient consultation programs, extended preparation timelines. These are proponent-side factors. The ministry-controlled steps, including the Ministry Review comment period, operate under prescribed deadlines. If the government’s goal is a faster process, the reforms should target the stages where delay actually occurs, not the accountability mechanisms that protect the integrity of the process.
OSPE recommends that the government engage engineering professionals and technical experts who work within the EA process when developing further reforms. Our members know where the bottlenecks are. They also know where they are not.
To protect public safety, Ontario needs an EA process that is both rigorous and efficient. OSPE welcomes further dialogue between engineers and the ministry on these issues.
Leave a Comment