Re-posting: The Vanishing Guardrail: How Ontario Hollowed Out Environmental Assessment by Mark Mattson

In 1976, Ontario was a global leader. With the passage of the Environmental Assessment Act, the province committed to a simple but radical democratic idea: before projects permanently altered landscapes, waterways, or communities, proponents would have to prove the project was needed, examine better alternatives, and engage the public in meaningful dialogue. Environmental assessment (EA) was meant to be a guardrail—ensuring that development strengthened, rather than undermined, Ontario’s environmental and social foundations.

That guardrail is now dangerously weakened.

As Ontario moves ahead with multi‑billion‑dollar infrastructure and energy expansions—including major nuclear projects on Lake Huron and Lake Ontario—it is relying on an assessment framework that has been hollowed out of its original purpose. Warnings issued nearly two decades ago by former Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller have shifted from cautionary opinion to sobering diagnosis. Ontario has not simply drifted off course; it has severed process from purpose and inverted the logic of environmental decision‑making itself.

A Quiet Philosophical Shift

The erosion of Ontario’s environmental assessment system did not happen overnight. There was no single repeal or dramatic rollback. Instead, decades of legislative amendments and administrative changes steadily thinned the Act’s spirit while preserving its outward form.

As Miller observed in 2008, the most consequential change was philosophical. The core question of assessment quietly shifted from “Should we do this?” to the much narrower “How do we get this approved?”

This shift was cemented in the mid‑1990s with the introduction of proponent‑defined Terms of Reference. Under this model, project proponents are permitted to set the scope of their own environmental assessments—determining which questions will be asked, and which will be excluded, before the public or independent experts are meaningfully engaged. In practice, this has allowed the most inconvenient questions—such as whether a project is needed at all—to be scoped out from the start.

When proponents define the scope, exclude necessity, and pre‑determine alternatives, environmental assessment no longer evaluates a decision. It merely rationalizes one.

The Disappearance of Need and Alternatives

At its strongest, Ontario’s EA framework rested on two pillars: proof of public necessity and the rigorous examination of alternatives. Today, both are largely absent.

Highways are assessed without serious evaluation of whether transit, land‑use change, or demand management could achieve the same objectives. Energy projects proceed without examining decentralized generation, conservation, or demand‑side solutions. When “need” is pre‑determined by growth plans or political commitments, assessment becomes little more than design optimization—minor adjustments to a project whose core assumptions are never tested.

The result is a process that feels increasingly performative. When approval is the only plausible outcome, evidence becomes irrelevant and public participation erodes into a box‑ticking exercise. Communities are left with the unmistakable impression that consultation begins only after the real decisions have already been made.

The Cost of Avoiding Scrutiny

The consequences of this erosion are not theoretical. Ontario’s fiscal and environmental history shows that bypassing environmental assessment does not eliminate risk—it simply pushes it downstream.

In 2006, Ontario’s $60‑billion Integrated Power Supply Plan was exempted from environmental assessment. Shielded from independent, evidence‑based scrutiny, the plan advanced assumptions that later failed under real‑world conditions, contributing to costly reversals and abandoned investments.

A similar pattern emerged with the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants. Because Ontario’s energy planning and siting decisions were largely insulated from the Environmental Assessment Act, projects were procured without rigorous public examination of need, alternatives, or location. When political opposition later forced cancellations, the absence of upfront scrutiny translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in avoidable costs and years of institutional fallout. The criminal conviction related to destroyed records was not the cause of the failure—it was a downstream symptom of a system that had removed transparency and accountability from the front end of decision‑making.

In each case, environmental assessment was treated as a delay to be avoided. The result was not efficiency, but amplified financial, legal, and democratic risk.

Rebuilding the Guardrail

Restoring credibility to Ontario’s environmental management system requires more than administrative tweaks. It requires a return to first principles.

First, environmental assessment must once again force proponents to answer the hard questions: Is this project actually needed? And are there better ways to achieve the same public purpose? Assessing “alternatives to” a project—not just alternative sites—must be mandatory, not optional.

Second, Ontario needs independent, science‑led oversight focused on ecological and social outcomes, not procedural compliance. The elimination of the Environmental Commissioner’s office left a gap that has never been filled.

Third, public participation must be meaningful. Without intervenor funding and real opportunities for dialogue, consultation will continue to function as risk management rather than democratic engagement.

Finally, assessment must move beyond the logic of “acceptable harm.” In an era of climate change and cumulative environmental stress, the question should be how projects can leave ecosystems and communities better off—not merely less damaged.

A Choice, Not a Technical Fix

For nearly two decades, Ontario has doubled down on the wrong path. Fast‑tracking has replaced scrutiny. Exemptions have replaced evaluation. Process has been allowed to drift further and further from purpose.

The Environmental Assessment Act was never meant to be a bureaucratic speed bump. It was designed as a democratic decision‑making tool—a guardrail to protect the public interest in the face of irreversible change. Ontario now faces a choice: environmental assessment can either test our decisions before they are made, or it can continue to serve as a veneer that merely survives them.

In a time of climate instability and ecological fragility, flying blind is not a strategy. It is a gamble Ontario can no longer afford.

TO LISTEN to whole interview with Mark Mattson and Environment Commissioner Gord Miller go to: https://on.soundcloud.com/5r60sUov56uU5rityJ