Annotated Compendium of Expert Panel’s Responses to Participant Recommendations

The following is a compendium of public comments provided by the Expert Panel.

This is third party additional information ‎so the public can see how their comments relate to the Expert Panel report.

Author Name Submission Title Hyperlink Summary of Main Recommendations Section Numbers

A Jensen

environmental impact

585.1 We need to preserve our dwindling resources and protect the environment not destroy it

585.1 - s2.1.3

Aamjiwaang First Nation

Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act by Aamjiwnaang First Nation

8.1 Engage early when an EA is needed.
8.2
Hold information sessions to inform the community members about the EA processes.
8.3
Provide funding to obtain independent legal and technical advice.
8.4 Ensure that the Crown has obtained free, prior and informed consent.
8.5 Assess the impacts of proposed projects to Section 35 Rights
8.6
Work with First Nations to develop and initiate a plan to identify and remediate the cumulative effects of pollution
8.7 Provide support and funding for the development of AFN's own EA Processes
8.8
Ensure participation on review panels
8.9 Create a Regional Expert Panel on Indigenous Knowledge
8.10 Create a First Nations Environmental Assessment Authority
8.11
Make it a requirement for Land Use and Traditional Knowledge studies to be included in the EA Review Process
8.12
Make it a requirement that CEAA staff receive land-based and experiential training from First Nations communities and Elders about Traditional Ecological Knowledge

8.9 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
8.10 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
8.4 - s2.3.1 
8.5 - s2.3.2 
8.7 - s2.3.3 
8.11 - s2.3.4 
8.12 - 2.3.3 
8.1 - s2.4.1 
8.2 - s2.4.2 
8.3 - s2.4.2 
8.11 - s2.5.2 
8.8 - s3.2.2.3 
8.6 - s3.5.2

Aaron Janzen

Meaningful public participation beyond CEAA 2012

132.1 Meaningful public participation must be a requirement of EA processes
132.2
Participation must occur early in the EA process, before plans are drawn up and while decisions can be made
132.3 Capacity building must be included to enable and encourage participation
132.4
Public participation should be built into stages of next-generation EA
132.5
Community-based monitoring programs provide a good balance for incorporating public participation into follow-up and monitoring
132.6
Building trust is essential, which means that assessment findings and decisions should be transparent so future assessments might learn from preceding ones

132.1 - s2.4.1 
132.2 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1 
132.3 - s2.4.2 
132.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
132.6 - s2.5.4 
132.5 - s3.3.2

Abby Schwarz

Submission to EA expert panel

59.1 The next-gen EA should

  1. be accessible and inclusive, using everyone,
  2. be based on the concept of sharing the environment with other species rather than simply selecting a convenient site and expecting its inhabitants to adjust to it, and
  3. utilize a systems-based approach, looking at community structure and dynamics rather than individual species.

59.2 An independent body, or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, should conduct EAs and be a “Centre of Excellence” for EA.
59.3
Project EAs should be reviewed in order to

  1. have a broader scope,
  2. place more emphasis on project alternatives and on potential accidents and malfunctions that might have significant repercussions for the environment,
  3. public participation opportunities should be required for affected communities, should start early in the scoping phase of the process; be accessible, welcoming, and transparent; and enable the public to ask questions directly of the proponent,
  4. be based on credible evidence-based science and accurate information,
  5. consider the effects of any project on human health and well-being,
  6. consider the economic value to human society of the area that will be affected by a project.


59.4
EA recommendations should arise from a consensus among stakeholders and proponent(s), possibly using the “Getting to Yes” model (Harvard Negotiation Project). Recommendations should not be based on “expert opinion” but on scientific evidence and stakeholder needs, and must include acknowledgement of uncertainty in predictions and significance determinations.
54.5
A monitoring plan should be required for every project, and should be discussed at the time of the initial proposal and throughout the EA process.

59.1 - s2.1.3 
59.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
59.3 - s3.2.2.1, s2.4.1, s2.4.3. s2.1.3, s2.5.1, s3.4.1 
59.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
59.5 - s3.3.2

abdulwahab

Lettre à l'agence canadienne

544.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands and natural resources.

544.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Aberdeen Neighbourhood Association

Presentation "PRESENTATION: IMPACT OF INDUSTRY NEXT TO COMMUNITY" for Kamloops, Nov 28 2016

348.1 There should be establishment of guidelines or zones that do not allow industry to establish in areas close to a community.
348.2
These exclusion zones should be identified using local knowledge.
348.3
Appointment of a community advocate to assist those that may be impacted by industrial development to wade through the environmental process and bureaucracy.
348.4
The science needs to be absolutely independent from the parties that have anything to gain from the decisions.
348.5 Use of the "precautionary principle" where if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
348.6 The proponent should have to accept responsibility for baseline assessment before any development occurs for any residence within a prescribed distance from any proposed industrial site.

348.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
348.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
348.3 - s3.1.2 
348.4 - s2.5.3 
348.5 - s2.5.1

Abigail Woods

C'est de changer les idée

521.1 Respect First Nations' rights.
521.2
Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.
521.3 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

521.3 - s2.1.3 
521.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
521.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

ACFN IRC

Presentation "Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Fort McMurray, Nov 24 2016

351.1 Fully adopt and implement the UNDRIP.
351.2
New regime must facilitate Indigenous participation with lower thresholds for triggering EA, timelines that allow for meaningful participation and funding that allows for communication of Indigenous perspective.
351.3
Require assessment of effects on Treaty rights.
351.4
Require transparent decision-making.

351.1 - s2.3.1 
351.3 - s2.3.2 
351.2 - s2.4.3, s2.3.3, s3.4.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 351.4 - s3.1.1

Adams Lake Indian Band

Written Submissions by Adams Lake Indian Band Received Dec. 23, 2016

863.1 Consultation over and above EA processes.
863.2 Indigenous-driven EA processes.
863.3
Consent-based decision-making.
863.4 For an EA to be complete, it must rely on traditional knowledge in conjunction with available western scientific knowledge.
863.5 Achieving a nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown that is based on respect and recognition of their title, rights, treaty rights and Indigenous laws and values.
863.6 Sharing of benefits.
863.7
Regional land use planning.
863.8 Adequate capacity funding.

863.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
863.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
863.2 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1 
863.3 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
863.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
863.6 - s2.3.5 
863.8 - s2.3.3 
863.7 - s3.5.1

Addison Reist, Kelsey Baker, Travis Reid and Matthew Waldie

Recommendations on CEAA 2012 Received Nov. 18, 2016

996.1 Expand the scope of the CEAA to encompass smaller projects.
996.2 Allow consultation from the general public.
996.3 Extend the development stage and the consultation period.
996.4 Start the assessment earlier in the project life.
996.5 Define generic standards that are less reliant on ministerial judgement.
996.6 Account for the cumulative effects of having multiple projects.
996.7
Encompass and evaluate effects on the climate.

996.1 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
996.3 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1 
996.4 - s2.1.2 
996.6 - s2.1.4, s3.5.1 
996.2 - s2.4.1 
996.5 - s2.1.3, s2.5.1, s3.2.2.3

Aerin Jacob

Follow-up submission for EA Review panel re: scientific rigour

2.1 Seek and act on the best available evidence. Existing and potential environmental impacts of projects be assessed (with methods, results, and interpretations rigorously peer-reviewed) by parties with arms-length relationships from proponents.
2.2
Make all information from environmental assessments permanently and publicly available (e.g. data, metadata, model parameters, reproducible code to analyze data).
2.3
Assess cumulative environmental effects from past, present, and future projects and activities across multiple scales.
2.4 Work to prevent and eliminate real, apparent, or potential conflicts-of-interest by requiring public disclosure.
2.5 Develop explicit decision-making criteria and provide full, transparent rationale of factors considered (e.g. risks weighed, alternatives considered, etc.).

2.1 - s2.5.1, 2.5.3 
2.2 - s2.5.1 
2.5 - s2.5.4, s3.2.2.3 
2.4 - s3.2.2.1, s2.4.3, s3.2.2.2, s3.3.2, s3.3.3, s3.1.1 
2.3 - s3.5.2

Aerin Jacob

Recommendations to strengthen scientific rigour in environmental decision-making from researchers

14.1 Seek and act on the best available evidence.
14.2
Make all information from environmental assessments permanently and publicly available.
14.3
Assess cumulative environmental effects from past, present, and future projects and activities across multiple scales.
14.4
Work to prevent and eliminate real, apparent, or potential conflicts-of-interest by requiring public disclosure.
14.5 Develop explicit decision-making criteria and provide full, transparent rationale of factors considered.

14.4 - s3.2.2.1, s2.4.3, s3.2.2.2, s3.3.2, s3.3.3, s3.1.1 
14.1 - s2.5.2 
14.2 - s2.5.1, s2.4.3 
14.5 - s2.5.4 
14.3 - s3.5.2

Aerin Jacob

Presentation "Improving environmental assessment in Canada: Suggestions from the Liber Ero Fellows" for Nanaimo, Dec 15 2016

214.1 Effectively applying precautionary principle to minimize risk by quantifying uncertainty of both economic and environmental predictions.
214.2 Revise interpretation of cumulative effects to more clearly identify when, where, and how projects should proceed in order to minimize the cumulative effect of disturbance on VECs.
214.3
Improve how "success" is measured for post-operation phases by monitoring abundance (not just presence) of all VECs relative to pre-disturbance conditions and reference areas.
214.4 Define acceptable limits of change before project approval. Targets and interventions developed, reviewed, and monitored by scientists.
214.5
Improve how baseline conditions are determined by defining minimum standards for surveys (including presence/abundance of VECs). Use BACI studies to evaluate effects relative to pre-project conditions.
214.6
Improve transparency and reproducibility of EIA findings. All empirical data, model parameters, and methods used to develop EIAs should be made freely available for download and hosted on a third party web site.
214.7 Accurately account for long-term impact of project's construction and operation phases development by clearly assessing long-term or lag effects of construction and operation phases. Avoid "double-counting" offset areas for multiple projects. Centralized, spatially explicit database of project impact areas (local and regional).

214.2 - s3.5.1 
214.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
214.1 - s2.5.1, s2.5.4 
214.5 - s2.5.1 
214.6 - s2.5.1 
214.7 - s2.5.1 
214.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2

Aerin Jacob

Presentation "Improving environmental assessment in Canada: Suggestions from the Liber Ero Fellows"

See analysis of brief #214

 

Aerin Jacob with the University of Victoria

Presentation "Scientific rigour and transparency - Recommendations from the next generation of Canadian scientists" for Nanaimo, Dec 14 2016

222.1 Seek and act on best available evidence. Draw conclusions from multiple sources. Arms-length relationships from proponents. Rigorously peer-review with justification. Prioritize and fill knowledge gaps, adapt.
222.2 Make all information from EAs permanently and publicly available. Share raw data and reproducible code to analyze. Verify conclusions and benchmark for the future.
222.3
Assess cumulative effects from past, present, and future projects and activities across multiple scales.
222.4
Work to prevent and eliminate real, apparent, or potential conflict of interest. Protect decision-making from undue influence, actual or perceived individual and institutional basis and independently and openly conduct and review EAs.
222.5
Develop explicit decision-making criteria and provide full, transparent rationale of actors considered.

225.5 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3 
222.2 - s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s3.3.2 
222.1 - s2.5.1, s2.5.2, s2.5.3, s3.2.2.2 
222.4 - s3.1.1 222.3 - s3.5

ahmed

lettre pour aider la terre

523.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.

523.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Alan Harvie

Submission "Submission to the Expert Panel for the Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process" for Calgary, November 21, 2016

458.1 The federal EA process must respect the federal role in Canada and not encroach upon areas of provincial jurisdiction. The federal EA process can and should only look at federal issues.
458.2
The federal EA process should be designed around generating and using the best science to aid decision makers. It should be a risk-based approach, where potential consequences and the probability of those consequences materializing are assessed.
458.3 Instead of just relying on proponents to bring the science forward, the CEAA process should involve a much more inquisitional review panel. This could be done by the panel having its own experts who effectively peer-review the proponent's science.
458.4 The inquisitional model can also directly focus more on the key, controversial issues compared to a more passive processes when the focus is more on the key issues that the proponent wants to be in focus.
458.5
Alternatives to the project being assessed must be thoroughly considered.
458.6
Have a more rigorous process prior to a public hearing whereby people who wish to intervene must register and have an opportunity to explain what evidence or knowledge, insight or experience that they will bring to the attention of the decision maker. Pre-hearing meetings could be held. CEAA should not be a forum where broader government policies are debated.
458.7
The CEAA panel should make the final decision on a project.
458.8 There needs to be transparency in the decision.

458.1 - s2.1.1 
458.6 - s2.4.1 
458.2 - s.2.5.1, s.2.5.4 
458.3 - s.2.5.3 
458.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
458.5 - s3.2.2.1 
458.7 - s3.2.2.3, s3.1.1 
458.8 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4

Alan Harvie

Submission to the Expert Panel for the Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process

See analysis of submission #458

 

Alan P. Diduck, The University of Winnipeg; A. John Sinclair, University of Manitoba

Achieving Deliberative Public Involvement in Environmental Assessment

162.1 The "Principles of Meaningful Participation" need to be enshrined in the new statute.
162.2
Mandatory timely information sharing via a complete and accessible public registry.
162.3
A legislated system is needed for mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
162.4 Establishment of an option for a public hearing that is less formal than the hearings currently mandated and practiced.
162.5 Greater deliberation could also be achieved with new provisions that allow for iterative rounds of hearings.
162.6 The provision of opportunities for public involvement at the scoping stage of EA requires a mandatory statutory foundation.
162.7 Statutory provisions are needed requiring opportunities for public participation, including deliberative forums, in follow-up and monitoring on a scale appropriate to the circumstances with full transparency in decision processes as a critical pre-condition.
162.8 The discretion that is likely to be built into these statutory and regulatory provisions for meaningful participation should be balanced with a set of legislative principles against which specific decisions can be measured to ensure the appropriate exercise of such discretion.
162.9 The EA Authority should be mandated to engage with stakeholders, rights holders, and public interest organizations to develop ongoing EA education and training programs and, in individual EAs, to prepare and implement public participation plans.
162.10
Government agencies should be directed to engage, where needed, in deliberative involvement forums, sharing and explaining their knowledge, particularly relevant scientific and technical studies, and answering questions where they have the information to do so.
162.11 The EA Authority should be mandated to develop an easily accessed, well-organized and searchable electronic library of EA case materials, including documentation of impact predictions and monitoring findings, records of decisions and justification, etc.
162.12 Opportunities and methods for deliberative involvement, appropriate to the circumstances of each case, should be mandatory in public participation plans.

162.1 - s2.4.1 
162.2 - s2.4.3 
162.6 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1 
162.7 - s2.1.2, s3.3.2 
162.8 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
162.9 - s2.4.2, s3.2.2.1 
162.10 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.2 
162.11 - s2.5.1 
162.12 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1 
162.3 - s3.2.2.3 
162.4 - s3.2.2.3 
162.5 - s3.2.2.3

Alberta Wilderness Association

Presentation "Canada’s Environmental Assessment Act (CEEA) and Cumulative Effects" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

451.1 There should be no provincial substitution of EAs.
451.2 Harmonization should occur where provincial jurisdiction is involved - each government has to uphold its duty under the law.
451.3 CEAA provides the framework for EIA's to be an effective screening process to approve/deny projects instead of just a routine component of completing projects.
451.4 Although project-by-project EAs remain important to target site specific environmental impacts, a regional approach to assess cumulative effects is essential.
451.5 Reinstate CEAA 1992 requirement that all projects with a trigger were subject to an EA unless exempted. Expand so that activities, projects and programs such as budgets and policies are included.
451.6
Assessments are integrated, tiered, starting at the strategic and regional level. Participatory and sustainability-based assessments at regional, strategic and project levels, and each of those levels inform the other.
451.7
Earlier triggering in the planning processes, with public and First Nations involvement.
451.8
Expand scope to consider cumulative effects of projects in consideration of broader land use, future projections such as climate change, policy contexts, and international agreements.
451.9
Consider environmental benefits of not proceeding with the proposed activity.
451.10
Restore CEAA 1995 environmental effects definitions, which included any effect a project had on the biophysical environment.
451.11 Require assessments to occur across multiple spatial scales and be comprehensive enough to include relationships between the proposed project, other existing and future impacts, and important environmental components.
451.12
Use pre-industrial baseline when considering cumulative effects.
451.13 Require screening process to consider indirect effects.
451.14
Implementation of biologically relevant mitigation measures must be monitored and noncompliance must be consistently enforced.

451.3 - s2.1.3 
451.6 - 2.1.4 
451.8 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
451.10 - s1.2, s2.1.3,
451.11 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.2 
451.1 - s2.2.2 451.2 - s2.2.1 
451.12 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2 
451.5 - s3.2.1 
451.7 - s3.2.1 
451.9 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
451.13 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
451.4 - s3.5.1 
451.14 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Alberta Wilderness Association

Presentation "Regaining and Instilling Public Trust in Federal Environmental Assessment Processes" for Calgary, November 21, 2016

462.1 Restore the 1992 section 5-like triggers and consider additional triggers.
462.2
Make better use of the Exclusion List, and model and replacement class assessments.
462.3
If appropriate, reduce assessment numbers through regulatory legislation.
462.4
Mandate and use SEA and REA.
462.5
Institute appropriate assessment tracks.
462.6 Mandate the main directive of the Mining Watch Canada v. Canada (2010 SCC 2) decision - no down-scoping or slicing and dicing projects to reduce assessment requirements.
462.7
No substitution in new EA legislation, instead, prescribe upward harmonization that respects and meets the jurisdictional requirements and responsibilities of both provinces/territories and the federal government.
462.8 Mandate better federal oversight and coordination of joint review to increase flexibility and reduce unnecessarily duplication.
462.9 Mandate an independent non-regulatory agency to oversee harmonized reviews.
462.10 Empower quality assurance review to report on, evaluate, and improve joint reviews.
462.11
Legislatively establish a Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) which would be an independent ombudsperson with powers necessary to ascertain whether EAs are effective and to use the information to improve future EAs.
462.12
Legislatively require federal regulators to ensure that appropriate conditions are in approvals so that the QAA can do its work.
462.13 Legislatively prescribe feedback and improvement mechanisms so the same mistakes or inaccuracies are not repeated.
462.14
Legislatively require federal regulators to comply with QAA improvement requirements.
462.15 Legislatively empower and require the QAA to carry out other quality assurance reviews.

462.3 - s3.2.1 
462.12 - s3.1.1 
462.14 - s3.1.2 
462.7 - s2.2.2 
462.8 - s2.2.1
462.9 - s3.1.1 
462.10 - s3.1.2 
462.11 - s3.1.2 
462.15 - s3.1.2 
462.1 - s3.2.1 
462.2 - s3.2.1 
462.6 - s3.2.1 
462.4 - s3.5.1 
462.5 - s3.5.2, s2.1.4 
462.13 - s3.3.2

Amalya

Mon opinion sur le problème environnementale

542.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands and natural resources. 542.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

542.2 - s2.1.3 542.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Amanda Trotter

Presentation

P27.1 Need to engage with resource industry on establishing triple bottom-line reporting as a norm in the industry/condition of granting licences to operate, on a localized level, taking into account a gender-based analysis, corporate social responsibility, the pre-existing culture of people in the area, the long term sustainability of the project, local economic diversification and the values of the people that live there. A holistic approach between financial, social and environmental reporting and accountability shifts responsibility onto industry to ensure that they deliver in all three areas, not only on the financial bottom line. South Africa processes as an example.

P27.1 - s2.1.3

Ambrose Raftis

Presentation "Presentation to Expert Panel on Environmental Assessment Process" for Sudbury, Nov 3 2016

241.1 If liabilities levels can’t be met the project is a no go
241.2
Current process shows pipeline estimates off by a factor of 84 There should be no absolute liability limit
241.4
When polluter is required to pay by law then realistic business decisions can be made. Liability should be distributed amongst all parties including the commodity owner
241.5
Confining the liability to one partner through limited partnership agreements allows liability to be avoided through bankruptcy

241.1 - s3.2.2.3 
241.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
241.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
241.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Amin

Lettre à l'agence canadienne

537.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.
537.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

537.2 - s2.1.3 
537.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Amnesty International Canada

Submission to the federal review of environmental assessment processes

367.1 The Act should include in its purposes the protection of human rights, with express reference to Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
367.2 Include explicit recognition that impacts on the culture and heritage of Indigenous peoples, and on use of lands and resources, are matters of rights protected by the Treaty, the Constitution and international law.
367.3
The assessment process should require disclosure of the federal government's assessment of the strength of the rights of potentially affected Indigenous peoples and provide an opportunity for Indigenous peoples to put forward contending interpretations and such supportive evidence as they may wish to provide.
367.4 Include an acknowledgement of the harm done to Indigenous peoples by colonial policies and practices.
367.5 Include explicit direction that assessments must factor into the evaluation the seriousness of impacts, the extent to which previous harms experienced by Indigenous peoples have created heightened vulnerability to further harm.
367.6
Include explicit direction that Indigenous perspectives be incorporated in determining the seriousness of potential impacts.
367.7 Require that any review evaluate and report on the claimed social and economic benefits of proposed projects and evaluate and report on the potential negative social and economic impacts caused directly by a project or interaction with other cumulative impacts.
367.8 Require examination of differential impacts by gender, including gender interacts and intersects with other aspects of identity, including sexual identity, ability, ethnicity and Indigenous identity. Contain explicit requirements that information submitted by a project proponent include such intersectional gender-based analysis.
367.9 Allocate resources to developing capacity for gender-based analysis.
367.10 Reform of EA process should take place in the context of broader reform of government laws and policies.
367.11 Government should collaborate with Indigenous peoples in establishing the TOR of each assessment.
367.12 Factors considered in EA should include whether the affected people have given FPIC.
367.13 The report of an assessment should contain recommendations and reasoning for whether a project should be approved.
367.14 Final decision should be made by the Minister of the Environment rather than Cabinet and should include reasoning.

367.7 - s2.1.3 
367.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
367.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
367.5 - s2.3.2 
367.8 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.2 
367.9 - s2.3.3 
367.10 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
367.2 - s2.3.2 
367.3 - s2.3.2 
367.6 - s2.3.2
367.11 - s3.2.2.1 
367.12 - s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1 
367.13 - s3.2.2.3 
367.14 - s3.2.2.3, s3.1.1

Andrea Morison, BA, MA, Peace Valley Environment Association

Additional Comment for Consideration to CEAA Review Panel Received Dec. 10, 2016

807.1 The value of ecological systems and services must be comprehensively considered when assessing project costs and benefits.
807.2 Important values such as the carbon sequestering ability of the forest and grasslands that will be impacted/flooded must be considered.

807.1 - s2.1.3 
807.2 - s3.7

Andrei Sobolevsky

Presentation

P32.1 Separate the technical assessment from the political assessment.
P32.2 Process needs to simplify the technical information and present it in a way that allows engagement of the public, it would build trust in process.
P32.3 Need a way to separate the technical information and follow-up discussions afterwards, also need a way to vet the technical information. The vetting process ought to have some kind of appeal process or way of challenging, if somebody has grounds for disagreeing on the conclusions.
P32.4 Need to develop government staff/reviewers with strong industry experience as well as technical expertise.

P32.2 - s2.4.3
P32.4 - s2.5.1
P32.3 - s3.2.2.3
P32.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Andrew Bak with Tsawwassen First Nation

Presentation "Review of the Environmental Assessment Process: Presentation to the Expert Panel" for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

250.1 Changes to legislation or review process must not interfere with the agreements with the Crown.
250.2 First Nations should be engaged by proponents before a project description is submitted for review.
250.3 Natural resources that are referenced in treaties should be identified as Valued Components in any review.
250.4 EA should not be used to measure the legitimacy of territorial claims.
250.5 Projects should be measured against the state and "carrying capacity" of the unimproved environment. They should create net positives for the environment.
250.6 Adequate funding should be offered.

250.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate 250.4 - s2.3.2 250.5 - s2.1.3 250.3 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.3 250.6 - s2.3.3 250.2 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1

Animakee Wa Zhing

Written Submissions Regarding the Federal Environmental Assessment Regulatory Process

64.1 Require consideration of Aboriginal and Treaty rights within future EA regime.
64.2 Develop fulsome consultation protocols in accordance with First Nation's existing legal traditions and procedures.
64.3 Provide additional resources and capacity support options to build the internal capacity of First Nations to allow for effective participation in the review process.
64.4 Increase funding for First Nation participation in the EA process, to support for a paid internal position to coordinate First Nation participation and for the collection of Aboriginal knowledge throughout the EA process.
64.5
Remove barriers to First Nations participation such as caps on funding and strict timelines for participation.
64.6
Increase Crown oversight during negotiations for capacity funding agreements between First Nations and project proponents.
64.7 Implement a system where First Nations have the opportunity to determine and identify whether a project may impact their rights.
64.8 Mandatory face-to-face meetings with First Nations leadership or identified community consultation coordinator - prior to any public announcement of a proposed project.
64.9
Use Aboriginal knowledge in EA process.
64.10 Allow for participation in decision-making, namely by implementing Free, Prior and Informed Consent, guaranteeing that First Nations have a say in determining the scope of EA, having a legislatively enshrined consent-based decision-making role regarding the approval of projects along with mitigation measures.

64.1 - s2.3.2 
64.2 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
64.3 - s2.3.3 
64.4 - s2.3.3 
64.5 - s2.3.3 
64.9 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
64.10 - s2.3.1 
64.9 - s2.5.2 
64.2 - s3.2.2.1 
64.6 - s2.3.5 
64.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
64.8 - s3.2.2.1 
64.10 - s3.2.2.3
 63.5 - s3.4.1

Anishanabeg of Kabapikotawangag Resource Council

Presentation

P23.2 There is not enough community-based engagement to make a full review of the alternatives
P23.3 F
ully involve First Nations into planning and decision - making within our territories —their territories
P23.4
Our medicine teacher tells us about the importance of minerals and the worth of having clean water, of having strong medicines, for having a healthy environment. Our Mother Earth health requires minerals, and minerals in the ground should be a national priority and a plan
P23.5
[with regards to consultation in EA] greater effort should have been made to come into our territory to understand our protocols and to talk to us about our protocols. the federal government has a major responsibility and a major role to play to ensure that our protocols and our way of life is respected and protected and to ensure that there are mechanisms in place to support our preservation in terms of preserving our way of life and preserving our culture, preserving our interests in the water, in the land
P23.6
the government agency that has control over the EA procedures should be meeting with the governing personnel in Grand Council Treaty 3 that has control over and coordination of those government procedures that they have to undertake
P23.7
we need, at our nation level, at our community level, to have that kind of [technical] capacity [] to interpret EA processes and EA reports, and to have some meaningful dialogue with these specialists and consultants.
P23.8
In the federal EA process would be some kind of protocol development between whatever the lead agency is for environmental assessments generally and Grand Council Treaty 3, who has jurisdiction, and also—so joint reviews of projects would be important, especially mining projects, given the commitments that these communities have made to protect Lake of the Woods.
P23.9 Timelines and transparency are important considerations for the legitimacy of EAs for oral tradition people

P23.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P23.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
P23.8 - s2.2.1
P23.3 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3
P23.5 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2
P23.7 - s2.3.3, s2.5.1
P23.9 - s2.4.3
P23.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Anna Johnston

Presentation 2 to EA Expert Panel: Governance of Next-Generation Environmental Assessment

393.1 Implementing the 12 pillars of Next-Gen EA.
393.2
In next-gen EA, jurisdictions cooperate in project-level assessment, and especially in regional and strategic assessments.
393.3
Participatory and sustainability-based assessments occur at the regional, strategic and project levels, and each of those levels inform the other.
393.4 Collaborative assessment and decision-making processes are based on nation-to-nation relationships, reconciliation and the obligation to secure the FPIC of Indigenous peoples.
393.5
Temporary, ad hoc groups of federal, provincial, Indigenous and other experts should be appointed by all relevant jurisdictions to compile and conduct research to establish baseline scenarios and predictions, to conduct technical aspects of assessments and to produce assessment reports for consideration by reviewing body.
393.6 SEAs currently governed under Cabinet Directive should be conducted by relevant federal departments.
393.7
Project EAs conducted by proponent should have safeguards to prevent bias or by Assessment Councils.
393.8
Set up an expert advisory committee to recommend REAs and SEAs, provide strategic and policy advice, help develop sector TOR and recommend scientific standards for assessments.
393.9 Set up an independent tribunal to hear appeals from any party or public, mediate and arbitrate where government consensus cannot be reached and provide quality assurance reviews.

393.3 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
393.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
393.9 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
393.8 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
393.2 - s2.2.1 
393.4 - s2.3.1 
393.7 - s2.5.1 
393.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
393.6 - s3.6.1

Anna Johnston

West Coast Environmental Law Preliminary Submission on Next Generation Environmental Assessment

394.1 The federal government must play a strong role in all aspects of EA processes and decisions at all levels in order to understand all implications of its decision, ensure that processes are conducted to the highest standards, help the public trust decisions, and ensure that it is upholding its international and constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples.
394.2
The legislative framework should recognize federal jurisdiction to conduct regional-scale assessments and should set out triggers for REA and SEAs.
394.3
The legislation should facilitate and encourage cooperation with provincial and Indigenous governments, and the meaningful engagement of local governments and co-governance boards. Substitution should not be an option. The federal government should seek to harmonize assessments to the highest standard, collaborating on processes and decisions with other relevant jurisdictions wherever possible.
394.4 Reinstate EA triggers for undertakings within federal jurisdiction that affect Canada's progress towards sustainability. Add a trigger for any undertaking in federal protected areas, as well as a mechanism in the legislation that would allow any person or government to trigger a project assessment by submitting an application that meets prescribed criteria.
394.5
Mandatory trigger for SEAs of plans, policies and programs currently governed by the Cabinet Directive. For REAs and SEAs not currently covered by the Cabinet directive, a combined triggering approach is recommended.
394.6
Establishment of an expert advisory committee to recommend to the Minister that REAs or SEAs need to be conducted.
394.7 The legislation should impose periodic updates to regional and, in some cases, strategic assessments.
394.8 The legislation should establish a clear right of appeal for both processes and final decisions, as well as such matters as whether participation has been meaningful and the UNDRIP appropriately implemented.
394.9
Provide for mediation and arbitration where governments are not able to achieve consensus.
394.10
Establishment of an independent tribunal to hear appeals of all interim and final EA decisions.
394.11
Establishment of an independent expert committee to provide strategic advice and assistance on all aspects and levels of EA, including when REA and SEA should occur, on sector TOR and on federal policy and guidance.
394.12
Establishment of co-governance boards in each province and territory.
394.13
Allow for the appointment of review panels at all levels of EAs, especially for larger-scale, more complex or controversial assessments.

394.3 - s2.2.1. s2.2.2 
394.5 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
394.6 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
394.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
394.11 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s2.5.1 
394.12 - Inconsistent with Canadian statutes and Constitution
394.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
394.8 - s3.1.1 
394.10 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
394.4 - s3.2.1 
394.9 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
394.13 - s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
394.2 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1

Anna Johnston

West Coast Environmental Law Preliminary Submission on Next Generation Environmental Assessment

See analysis of submission #394

 

Anna Johnston with West Coast Environmental Law

Preliminary written submission and supporting documents for presentation in Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

261.1 The federal government should play a strong role in all EAs within its jurisdiction, with the goal of cooperative assessment with all relevant jurisdictions.
261.2
In order to understand, avoid and mitigate adverse direct, cumulative and interactive effects and better ensure equitably distributed net environmental, social and long term economic gains, attention should be paid to even the smaller projects.
261.3
Strategic and regional assessments should not only provide a forum for policy-level discussions to take place at appropriate scales, but should at the same time provide guidance to subsequent project-level EAs and better enable EA to serve as a planning tool.
261.4 Canada needs one central, independent and trustworthy authority to govern all EAs it undertakes at all levels, but have the power to appoint regional co-governance boards where possible with provincial and Indigenous governments.
261.5
Establishment of an independent tribunal to help adjudicate disputes, facilitate government-to-government relations, and provide quality assurance review of the federal EA regime and bodies.
261.6 An independent expert body should be established to provide strategic guidance on such matters as when regional and strategic EAs should be conducted, terms of reference, appointing review bodies, scientific standards, conduct of EAs, and more.
261.7 Ad-hoc "Assessment Councils" comprised of federal and Indigenous experts, as well as experts from outside government, should be appointed on a case-by-case basis to conduct regional and strategic EAs.

261.1 - s2.1.1 
261.2 - s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
261.3 - s3.7, s3.5.2, s3.6.1 
261.4 - s3.1.1 
261.5 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
261.6 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1, s3.6.2 
261.7 - s3.5.2

Anna Johnston, West Coast Environmental Law

West Coast Environmental Law Submissions on next generation environmental assessment

85.1 Provide for a strong federal government role in all federal EAs and decisions.
85.2
Establish mechanisms for cooperation between federal authorities and decision-makers and provincial and Indigenous governments on processes, decisions and follow-up at all levels.
85.3 Establish an independent tribunal and provide a right of appeal for interim and final decisions.
85.4 Recognize federal authority to conduct regional-scale assessments, produce scenario-based regional and SA outcomes and tier those outcomes with project-level EA.
85.5
The scope of factors to be considered in federal EA should include all impacts, benefits, risks and uncertainties on all environmental factors as well as human health.
85.6
Legislation requires consideration of alternatives to the project.
85.7 The test in EA should be: which option is the most likely to result in lasting, equitably distributed net environmental, social and long-term economic benefits.
85.8 Set out generic sustainability-based criteria and trade-off rules to guide EA approval and require the development of case-specific criteria during assessments.
85.9
Encourage regional and strategic EAs wherever possible and tiering of all levels of EA.
85.10 Include an “off ramp” in project-level EA, whereby a reviewing body can send regional or policy-scale matters to the Minister for consideration at the regional or strategic level.
85.11
REA/SAs be conducted by experts appointed by the federal government and Indigenous governments.
85.12 Establish a central authority and allow for regional co-governance boards and review panels.
85.13
Establish an independent expert advisory committee to provide strategic advice on all levels of EA, and REA/SAs.
85.14 Allow for cost recovery from proponents either through fees or taxes.
85.15 A “traffic light” approach should be used in conjunction with REA/SAs to screen out proposals that are incompatible with pathways to sustainability.
85.16
Require the registration of all federally-regulated undertakings with the potential to affect Canada’s progress towards sustainability with the federal authority.
85.17
Require SEAs of all federal policies, plans and programs.
85.18 Establish a permanent, searchable, public registry.
85.19
Impose disclosure requirements on private entities and data-collection information on government agencies, and facilitate collaboration with Indigenous and public experts and academia.
85.20
Introduce a climate test.
85.21
Economic modelling include the social cost of carbon.

85.6 - s2.1.2 
85.7 - s2.1.3 
85.8 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
85.16 - s2.1.1 
85.13 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
85.4 - s2.1.4, s3.5.1 
85.10 - s2.1.4 
85.11 - s3.5.2 
85.9 - s2.1.4 
85.1 - s2.2.1 
85.2 - s2.2.1 
85.20 - s3.7 
85.21 - s3.7 
85.18 - s2.5.1 
85.19 - s2.5.1, s2.5.2, s2.5.3 
85.3 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
85.12 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
85.5 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.3 
85.15 - s3.5.2, s2.1.4 
85.17 Not in line with the Panel’s vision
85.14 - s3.4.2

Anna Tobiasz

Recommendations for the Canadian Environmental Assessment 2012 Received Nov. 15, 2016

1004.1 Fisheries Act and Navigation Protection Act should trigger and go through impartial EAs.
1004.2 CEAA timeline should be paused for public comment or be extended to encourage thorough EAs.
1004.3 Meaningful public and First Nations engagement should be required within the CEAA.
1004.4 Increased funding for Governmental agencies and programs to improve capacity for monitoring and research.
1004.5
Stronger inclusive of science, traditional ecological knowledge, and ecosystem based decision making in the CEAA.

1004.3 - s2.4.1 
1004.5 - s2.5.2, s2.5.4 
1004.1 - s3.2.1 
1004.4 - s3.3.2, s3.4.2 
1004.2 - s3.4.1

Anne Neave

Supplementary information to Nov 28 Expert Panel in Kamloops

533.1 At a minimum, HIA should involve the proponent, key decision makers (ministry representatives), public health officials and all stakeholders, particularly the most vulnerable such as pregnant women, young children, the elderly and those with chronic heart and lung diseases.

533.1 - s.2.5.1, s.2.5.3

AREVA Resources Canada Inc.

Expert Panel Supplementary Submission

152.1 The changes invoked by the CEAA 2012 have improved the federal EA process. More time should be given before large scale changes are made to CEAA 2012.
152.2 The UNDRIP has far broader implications to Canada than EA. This constitutional issue must be addressed broadly by the Government of Canada.

152.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision 152.2 - s2.3.1

Arlene Kwasniak

Restoring trust in, and Improving Environmental Assessment

17.1 Develop a climate change trigger to better enable the government to assess climate change effects of projects.
17.2
Provide mechanisms so that excluded projects will require assessment in appropriate circumstances.
17.3
The CEAA should not permit federal/provincial or territorial substitution; instead it should re-instate harmonization for joint environmental assessments.
17.4
Harmonization should be upward harmonization that ensures that the constitutional and legislative requirements of both jurisdictions are met.
17.5
The federal government should through legislation and policy improve harmonization

  1. ensuring a one window approach,
  2. efficient coordination (Federal Coordination Regulation under CEAA 1992),
  3. securing harmonization agreements with all provinces/territories,
  4. single body for the RA for all joint EAs, (v) developing best practice EA standards,
  5. conducting audits and review of joint assessment processes.

17.6 Require that quality assurance programs (QAP) be developed and implemented.
17.7
Avoid conflict of interest, or the appearance of conflict of interest. The QAP should be overseen by another entity that has the powers necessary to carry out its functions.
17.8 Include provisions to require feedback and improvement mechanisms.
17.9 Develop QAP for other EA elements such as the effectiveness of public participation, Aboriginal participation policies or practices, harmonization or other joint jurisdictional processes.

17.3 - s2.2 
17.4 - s2.2.2 
17.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
17.1 - s3.2.1 
17.6 - s3.1.2 
17.7 - s3.1.1 
17.8 - s3.1.2 
17.9 - s3.1.2 
17.2 - s3.2.1

Arman Barat

Arrêter le Réchauffement Planétaire

539.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.

539.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Aroland First Nation

AROLAND FIRST NATION: FEDERAL REGULATORY REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

43.1 Provide adequate funding and resources to First Nation to actively participate in the EA process. Specific funding should be allocated for obtaining experts to participate in the consultation and negotiation process. Proponents should pay for all follow-up/monitoring/advisory committee.
43.2
Early involvement in the EA Process and consultation.
43.3 Define clear roles for Indigenous governments and community members in the EA process.
43.4
Indigenous led monitoring programs for baseline data and follow up data collection
43.5 Ensure affected Indigenous communities are specifically consulted by the Crown before an EA decision is made
43.6
Incorporate provisions of the UNDRIP and Free Prior and Informed Consent into the Act
43.7
Increase transparency and collaborative decision-making with Indigenous governments.
43.8
Lengthen timelines for Indigenous-specific consultation and increase opportunities for consultation and participation.
43.9
Alternatives to a project should be assessed to establish the preferred or most sound option.
43.10 The Crown must assess and discuss Indigenous title, Treaty rights and governance rights, and impacts.
43.11
Make consideration of Indigenous knowledge mandatory and its integration into the EA process.
43.12 Effects on Traditional Land Use need to include effects on Indigenous food security, health, culture, economy.
43.13
Indigenous representation on government review teams, joint review panels and advisory committee.
43.14 Ensure affected communities have a role in deciding criteria to assess the significance of residual effects.

43.12 - s2.1.3 
43.1 - s2.3.3, s3.4.2, s3.3.2 
43.5 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.3 
43.6 - s2.3.1 
43.7 - s2.3.1 
43.10 - s2.3.2 
43.11 - s2.3.4 
43.4 - s2.5.2, s2.5.3, s3.3.2 
43.8 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
43.2 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.2 
43.3 - s3.2.2.1 
43.9 - s3.2.2.1 
43.13 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3 
43.14 - s3.2.2.1

Aroland First Nation

Updated - Presentation "Initial Input to Federal EA Regulatory Review Panel Hearings" for Thunder Bay, Nov 15 2016

See analysis for submission #43

 

Aroland First Nation

Presentation "Initial Input to Federal EA Regulatory Review Panel Hearings" for Thunder Bay, Nov 15 2016

See analysis for submission #43

 

Aroland First Nation

Presentation "Initial Input to Federal EA Regulatory Review Panel Hearings" for Thunder Bay, Nov 15 2016

See analysis for submission #43

 

Arthur Hadland

Submission and attachments from Arthur Hadland for presentation in Fort St. John, Dec. 5 2016

738.1 Take away the power of expropriation from industry. Expropriation is intended for public utilities (public roads, sewer and water).
738.2 Define and incorporate meaningful significant social licence into final review recommendations.
738.3
Recognize free market value of industrial land to compensate for the industrialization of farmland.
738.4
Recognize rural community's net contribution to the city states.
738.5
Sanctify and prioritize the stewardship and integrity of water above all industrial demands in the EA process.
738.6 Emphasize the importance of preserving productive farmland above industrial uses.
738.7
Need National Farmers Advocate to counter balance/represent the interests of impacted individuals.
738.8
The negative long term effects of cumulative intrusions on the land and water must be addressed.

738.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
738.2 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
738.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
738.6 - s2.1.3 
738.7 - s3.2.2.1, s2.4.1 
738.5 - s2.1.3 
738.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
738.8 - s3.5.1

Assembly of First Nations

First Nations' inclusion in the review of Environmental and Regulatory processes

1027.1 Recognize, respect, affirm and implement the inherent and fundamental human rights of Indigenous peoples, affirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, as well as the UN Declaration, in all decision-making processes and activities related to EA.
1027.2 Federal and provincial governments must recognize the existence of First Nations inherent and constitutional rights pertaining to governing the lands, water, air, and resources.
1027.3 Canada must recognize and respect First Nations legal orders and their respective processes, protocols, and decision-making. Legislation should have the latitude to recognize the diversity of First Nations legal orders and supporting their inclusion as appropriate.
1027.4 Support the recognition and revitalization of Indigenous laws, ceremonies, Indigenous institutions and connection to the land through a First Nations-led EA process.
1027.5
Engage in focused dialogue with First Nations to substantively identify, recognize and engage the protocols, structural elements and processes of a renewed nation-to-nation relationship.
1027.6
Processes, developed in partnership, should involve First Nations to ensure that future environmental assessment will protect First Nations territories, including land, waters and resource rights.
1027.7
Respect and recognize First Nations’ jurisdiction and pre-existing relationships (Indigenous law, Treaty relationships, Indigenous authority).
1027.8
Any definition of “jurisdiction” must recognize First Nations’ autonomous jurisdiction and sovereignty.
1027.9 The new federal EA act must include a broad enough definition of jurisdiction to allow for First Nations to conduct their own EAs on the basis of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership.
1027.10
In this context, First Nations decision-making regimes should include legally binding and enforceable conditions of approval that are respected by governments, municipalities, proponents and other applicable actors.
1027.11 In places of overlap, respect First Nations protocols and traditional ways of governance and dispute mechanisms, instead of invoking processes aimed at dividing and conquering.
1027.12 Mandate cultural competency training for any federal / provincial / territorial government and proponent worker to have a strong understanding of those First Nations’ history, culture, government, legal traditions and socio-economic context.
1027.13
In an era of consent, mandated coordination between jurisdictions on the basis of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership must be an essential component of the new legislation.
1027.14
There is a need for coordination between First Nations and other government regimes that share and respect decision making (government to government relationship).
1027.15
Collaborative decision-making mechanisms will be based on the nation-to-nation / government-to-government relationship, which will facilitate joint decision-making at every stage in an EA process.
1027.16
Regional / strategic level assessments will include First Nations in all stages of their process on the basis of rights, respect, cooperation, and partnership.
1027.17 First Nation jurisdictions would be able to trigger regional / strategic level undertakings, in response to their regional / strategic needs
1027.18
Federal and provincial officials should be required to provide a written description of the final decision to ensure that all parties understand the exact rationale behind how a project is approved or rejected.
1027.19 The legislation must be flexible enough for future First Nations-led environment assessment regimes.
1027.20 General principles, developed in full partnership with First Nations, should be developed to help guide these processes. However it cannot be rigid and must incorporate the diversity of First Nations and their protocols, processes, and practices.
1027.21 Where Indigenous Knowledge is engaged, responsible authorities must take that information into account and afford that information “due weight”, meaning “equal and due treatment.”
1027.22
Respect for First Nation’s protocols or processes to engage Indigenous Knowledge, whether through oral methods (e.g., stories) or written, must be respected in the legislation and given equal weight to “western science.”
1027.23
Respect for First Nation’s internal guidelines, protocols and policies on the use of such knowledge must be respected by governments, municipalities, proponents and other applicable actors.
1027.24 The federal act should explicitly integrate gender equality, especially Women`s knowledge, in all stages of environmental assessment.
1027.25
Seek prior informed consent: Only the Indigenous Nation can decide if they are willing to provide access to their Knowledge.
1027.26 In the context of Indigenous Knowledge systems, free, prior and informed consent refers to process leading to an outcome—usually written—that is given by an Indigenous nation.
1027.27 Access to Indigenous Knowledge is a privilege and a responsibility. It must be respected and done in full partnership with the Nation. Some Nations may request that an Indigenous Knowledge access agreement (also referred to as a protocol agreement, or memorandum of understanding) be negotiated, setting out how their Indigenous Knowledge will be accessed and used in a given EA process.
1027.28
Adequate human and financial capacity should be provided to support First Nations in the elaboration or development of their own Indigenous Knowledge access agreements, if applicable.
1027.29
The purpose of federal EA should be to protect the next seven generations as well as safeguard and create more abundancy for future grandchildren (i.e., have a net social, environmental, cultural, and economic benefit)).
1027.30 Require a holistic health assessment of community well-being to be a part of the assessment process in recognition of the ecological/social determinants of health, and legacy impacts.
1027.31 Mandate the inclusion of cultural health as a necessary component that needs to be assessed on a nation-by-nation basis.
1027.32 First Nations require sustainable, predictable, and reliable funding and capacity that are not tied directly to an individual project or proponent in conflict of interest.
1027.33 Funding should support long-term planning for First Nations.
1027.34 Develop, resource, and implement a training program for Indigenous, local and science knowledge system practitioners to enhance familiarity and experience with distinct knowledge systems.
1027.35
Capacity for First Nations and governments to jointly develop mechanisms that ensure First Nations environmental assessment processes are respected and decisions are upheld by governments.
1027.36 All governments, municipalities, proponents and other applicable staff should be provided with cultural competency training including education about the UN Declaration, the standard of free, prior and informed consent, the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action, as well as the individual First Nation’s governance, history, and protocols, at the will of the First Nation.
1027.37
Establish and support a First Nations-specific Advisory Committee that is written into new EA legislation.
1027.38 Establish and support First Nations regional and national coordination to support First Nations in EA processes.

1027.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
1027.24 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
1027.29 - s2.1.3 
1027.30 - s2.1.3 
1027.31 - s2.1.3 
1027.37 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
1027.38 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
1027.10 - s3.2.2.3 
1027.21 - s2.5.2 
1027.2 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
1027.4 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
1027.6 - s2.2.1, s2.5.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.2 
1027.7 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1 
1027.8 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1 
1027.9 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1 
1027.13 - s2.2.1 
1027.14 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1 
1027.19 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1 
1027.1 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3, s3.5.2, s3.6.2 
1027.3 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
1027.11 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1 
1027.12 - s2.3.3, s3.1.2 
1027.15 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
1027.20 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.2 
1027.22 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
1027.23 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
1027.25 - s2.3.4 
1027.26 - s2.3.1 
1027.27 - s2.3.4 
1027.28 - s2.3.3 
1027.32 - s2.3.3 
1027.33 - s2.3.3 
1027.34 - s2.3.3, s2.5.2 
1027.35 - s2.3.3 
1027.36 - s2.3.3
1027.10 - s3.2.2.3 
1027.18 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4 
1027.16 - s3.5.2, s3.6.2 
1027.17 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1

Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs

Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Written Submissions - Review of Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 23, 2016

886.1 Renewing relationships (nation to nation).
886.2
Reconsider the relationship with Mother Earth.
886.3 A commitment to action is required:

  1. committing to a four year dialogue between federal government and First Nations and
  2. active and ongoing learning is required.

886.4 EA must be done holistically. An important part of holistic EA is the realization that climate change is happening.
886.5 EKH and Oral Traditional Evidence must be given equal weight to Western experts and evidence.
886.6
Meaningful ongoing engagement and consultation with indigenous Nations is required.
886.7
EA processes must be enhanced and expanded, including before, during and after assessments are conducted.

886.2 - s2.5.2 
886.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
886.4 - s2.1.3, s3.7 
886.7 - s2.1.2, s3.5.1 
886.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
886.6 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
886.5 - s2.5.2

Association for Mineral Exploration

AME’s Submission to Canada’s Expert Panel on Environmental Assessment Processes

179.1 The federal government should take deliberate steps to evolve the substitution process into full equivalency status for BE EAs.
179.2 Experts involved in the federal component of an EA should focus their review on critical project elements, and avoid scope creep and consideration of tangential issues.
179.3
The independent panel process should be eliminated.
179.4 Industry must respectfully, proactively and frequently engage with indigenous people and communities, throughout the life cycle of mineral discovery and development.
179.5 EAs should not be overly influenced by external organizations and their agendas, especially internationally funded groups that do not have interests in Canada.
179.6
EAs should remain focused on higher level questions and information exchange that relates to significant potential impacts and benefits.

179.4 - s2.1.1, s2.4.1 
179.6 - s2.1.3 
179.1 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
179.2 - s3.4.1 
179.5 - s2.4.1 
179.3 - s3.2.2.3

Association for Mountain Parks Protection & Enjoyment

AMPPE's Submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

38.1 Sustainable tourism, culture, education and visitor experience must also be primary factors alongside ecological integrity in the environmental impact assessment process.
38.2 Keep the current structure whereas environmental impact assessments are undertaken by Parks Canada.

38.1 - s2.1.3 38.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2

ATCO

Presentation "Presentation to Expert Panel Reviewing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Process" for Calgary, November 21, 2016

461.1 Ensure process is triggered by environmental risk profiles of significant projects and clearly sets out expectations for required information and associated evaluation criteria.
461.2 Establish consistent methodology and process timelines while allowing flexibility for the best overall environmental outcome.
461.3 Promote effective and efficient processes by minimizing jurisdictional overlaps while maintaining a robust process.
461.4 Engagement needs to occur early and often, before a project goes through the regulatory approval stage.
461.5
Caution against being overly prescriptive about requirements such that it hinders creative or innovative solutions.
461.6 Prioritize consultation and engagement with directly impacted stakeholders.

461.3 - s2.2 
461.1 - s3.2.1 
461.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
461.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.4.1 
461.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s2.4.1 
461.5 - s3.3.1

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Towards a Reconciliation Based Environmental Assessment Regime

Same as submission #25

 

Atlantic Salmon Federation

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Review: A Wild Atlantic Salmon Perspective

159.1 The federal EA process must be triggered when a proposed project or activity has the potential to negatively impact a species for which the federal government is responsible.
159.2
Federal EA legislation must work in tandem with the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act to ensure the highest level of protection is applied in all relevant situations
159.3 Federal legislation must have the power to ensure that assessments of potential impacts on species under federal jurisdiction conducted through a provincial EA process are consistent across jurisdictions and meet (at least) the federal standard.
159.4 People must be explicitly viewed as part of the environment.
159.5
An effective EA process must provide public participation that is meaningful, early, ongoing, accessible and dynamic.
159.6
Assessments must incorporate the best and most up to date information on the natural and human environments where potential impacts might occur.
159.7 The EA process should apply to all levels and have the capacity to address cumulative impacts
159.8
Legislation should set out clear criteria and rules to guide data collection, assessments and decisions, present a comprehensive reason for decision and the public should have the right to appeal decisions

159.1 - s2.1.1, s3.2.1 
159.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
159.7 - s2.1.4, s3.2.1, s3.5.1 
159.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
159.3 - s2.2.1 
159.5 - s2.4.1 
159.6 - s2.5 
159.8 - s2.5.4, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Austin Badger, Theran Bassett, Angelina Conte, Scott Girvan

Recommendations for CEAA 2012 from Theran Bassett, Austin Badger, Gina Conte and Scott Girvan Received Nov. 17, 2016

999.1 The CEAA should not contain equivalency agreements in order to ensure more thorough environmental assessments.
999.2
CEAA’s framework and provisions inhibit its ability to protect the environment and need to be changed.
999.3
In order to increase aboriginal participation, the federal government needs to increase funding, lengthen and increase amount of EA processes, and change international conduct.

999.2 - s2.1.3 
999.1 - s2.2.3 
999.3 - s2.3.3

Ayesha Herian & Sanam Zomorodi

PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, QUESTION 4 – UNDER WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BE UNDERTAKEN AT THE REGIONAL, STRATEGIC OR PROJECT-LEVEL

291.1 SEA and REA should be seen as EA tools on par with PEA.
291.2
SEAs and REAs should both be approved earlier than the authorization of the related PEAs to reduce the time and effort normally required for the latter.

291.1 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
291.2 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.1

Barbara Mills and Dorrie Woodward: with the Association of Denman Island Marine Stewards

Written Submission for December 14, 1pm Public Presentation

See analysis of submission #230

 

Barbara Mills with the Association for Denman Island Marine Steward

Presentation "Environmental Assessment Review Process" for Nanaimo, Dec 14 2016

230.1 - Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) should be special management areas with specific EA standards for sustaining quality of habitat and restricting certain types of activity within their boundaries.
230.2
EA should result in an ecosystem based management plan directed at the long term sustainability of marine biodiversity and the preservation of the ecosystem within EASAs.
230.3 Habitat protection standards in EBSAs should be based on requirements of organisms dependent on this critical habitat not on the needs of industry.
230.4
EAs should include social, cultural, and local economic values as well as environmental considerations. All stakeholders need to be included and consulted.
230.5 Supporting sustainability should be the core purpose of a renewed CEA Act, especially for vital areas identified as EBSAs.
230.6 All areas designated as EBSAs should automatically trigger a high level ecosystem based EA.
230.7
First priority be given to EBSAs that support critical life processes.
230.8 A comprehensive CEA be undertaken before any new projects are permitted in degraded ecosystems.
230.9
EA should be conducted by independent experts, not the proponent.

230.4 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
230.5 - s2.1.3 
230.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
230.6 - s2.1.1, s3.2.1 
230.7 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
230.9 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
230.1 - s3.5.1 
230.2 - s3.5.2 230.8 - s3.5.1

Barbara Ronson McNichol

Speaking notes for presentation “Presentation to Environmental Assessment Review Process” in Sudbury Nov. 3rd, 2016

801.1 Ensure government authorities follow their own guidelines and stop extraction operations as soon as it is seen that important guidelines were not followed.
801.2 Be more specific and stringent regarding what constitutes adequate consultation with First Nations.

  1. Require an effort to inform all Indigenous people in the traditional territory concerned, not just the “First Nations” that Canada officially recognizes.
  2. Require proof that letters of invitation have been received by specific First Nation decision makers and that a decision has been made not to participate, if that is the case.
  3. If a decision has been made by the chief not to participate, require the proponents to request of a statement as to the reason for nonparticipation, and to make this public information.

801.3 Do not conclude that if a band chief approves of an activity, it is OK.

801.1 - s3.3.3 
801.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
801.3 - s2.3.1

Bart Tsannie

Speaker notes from Chief Bart Tsannie for Saskatoon, Sept 20 2016

844.1 A real nation-to-nation dialogue is going to be one in which the parties speak together about setting the frame. First, the treaty rights have to be clearly protected and understood. Then broader plans and policies are needed.
844.2
There is a need to have clear Land Use Plans in place, jointly agreed to, and areas of lands that are going to be protected and cared for in perpetuity. There needs to be a clear process, in which we have faith.
844.3 There needs to be ongoing meetings with staff, and we need to be provided with sufficient information so that we are able to speak to the matter at hand.
844.4
EA should become much more centered on Aboriginal communities.
844.5
The cumulative effects of projects need to be assessed.
844.6 Aboriginal rights are protected under the Treaty and the Constitution Act, 1982, are priority rights and need to start to be weighted higher in decision-making and the identification of accommodation.

844.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
844.4 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.3.2 
844.6 - s2.3.2 
844.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.4.3 
844.2 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
844.5 - s3.5.1

BC Assembly of First Nations

BCAFN Written Submission for the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

307.1 Provide adequate funding for capacity so that First Nations can be meaningfully involved throughout the EA process.
307.2
New timelines and mechanisms to allow for critical review and response.
307.3
Regular meetings with the Crown, proponent and First Nations for information sharing and collaboration regarding project plans.
307.4 Thorough collection of baseline data and TK to inform TLUP and CTTPs.
307.5
Develop a standardized and uniform methodology for the collection of TK.
307.6 Crown and proponents should invest in baseline data collection.

307.1 - s2.3.3 
307.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
307.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
307.6 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
307.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 
307.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2

BC First Nations Energy and Mining Council

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

62.1 The Expert Panel is in a position to make recommendations to the Government of Canada that it respect Aboriginal rights law and implement the standards of UNDRIP, both in the process of reforming the federal environmental assessment process by engaging First Nations as partner, as well as in the substantive outcomes of that process being reformed laws, regulations, policies, practices and guidelines.

62.1 - s2.3.1

BC Nature

Science, the Law, & the EA Process - Reclaiming Legitimacy in Federal EAs

407.1 Single, independent, assessment agency. Enhancing the role and independence of CEAA or by creating a new, independent agency or board dedicated to conducting federal EAs.
407.2
Move away from proponent-driven professional reliance model for the gathering of scientific and technical information (perceived bias). The responsible authority (RA) with the proper expertise should conduct the investigation and EA or it should hire the most qualified independent consultants to provide technical reports. The RA should be able to recover the costs of the EA from project proponents.
407.3
Reinstate screenings and comprehensive studies.
407.4
The Office of the Chief Science Advisor should have the jurisdiction to review the conduct of the RA and act as a final arbiter on competing scientific evidence that is in the record before the RA.
407.5 Mandatory cross-examinations for comprehensive studies and review panels.
407.6 Adequate and accessible public registries (i.e. all the documents in the record for the EA process).
407.7
Rigorous rules for responses to information requests (IR). The EA statute should include a mandatory provision requiring respondents to provide full and adequate IRs.
407.8
Move towards a focus on sustainability. The EAs should as "does a project provide net positive contribution to sustainability?”
407.9 The new EA legislation shall include provisions that encourage the federal government to conduct SEAs or REAs in conjunction with provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal governments where appropriate. SEA/REA shall provide legally authoritative parameters for project-level EAs that are situated within the scope of the SEA/REA.
407.10
Increased transparency in reporting and justifications.
407.11
Requirement for worst-case scenario analyses.

407.8 - s2.1.3 
407.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
407.4 - s3.1.2, s2.5.1 
407.5 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
407.7 - s2.5.1, s2.5.2, s3.2.2.2 
407.10 - s2.4.3, s2.5.4, s3.3.2, s3.3.3, s3.2.2.3, s3.1.1 
407.11 - s3.2.2.1 
407.6 - s2.4.3 
407.1 - s3.1.1 
407.2 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3, s3.4.2 
407.9 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.1, s3.6.2

Biigtigong Nishnaabeg

2016 Environmental Assessment Act Review - Biigtigong Nishnaabeg (written submission)

188.1 First Nation agency or body outside those identified in the current definition of "jurisdiction" should have the authority to conduct EAs.
188.2 Establish a framework for ensuring collaboration with First Nation communities and organization in EA process (First Nation membership on all EA review panels, review panel agreements, participating the development of guidelines, etc.)
188.3 Results of consultation must be incorporated in the EA. Consultation must be in-depth and ongoing. Consultation forums should be established as part of the EA follow-up process. First Nations community-led monitoring programs should be required. partially/in text
188.4
EIS guidelines should be amended to provide a clear framework for integrating First Nation rights and interests into screening and assessment criteria.
188.5
Clear triggers and/or guidance for when regional study EAs. Consideration for cumulative effects during screening stage.
188.6 First Nation consultation should be carried out to develop a framework for sustainability grounded in First Nation values and principles.
188.7 The Act should include the list of triggers for an assessment present in the 1992 version.
188.8
All federal EAs need to include a screening level Human Health Risk Assessment of the effects of the project.
188.9
Proponents should be obliged to ensure that adequate capacity and other measures are provided to First Nations to participate in EA process and to conduct follow-up programs.
188.10
First Nations must be able to provide informed consent for the collection, analysis, and incorporation of traditional use and socio-economic information into the EA process.
188.11
The Act should include mandatory requirements for meaningful incorporation of First Nation TK and socio-economic effects in cumulative effects and residual effects assessments.
188.12 Technical guidelines should be developed to guide the incorporation of environmental regulatory permitting application content into processes for assessing and evaluating proposed mitigation measures.
188.13
All federally and provincially listed species at risk should be listed as "components of the environment". The Act should also provide First Nation communities with the opportunity to identify culturally important species.
188.14 Full assessment of worst case scenarios should be mandatory for all assessments.

188.7 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
188.8 - s2.1.3 
188.1 - s2.2.1 
188.6 - s3.2.2.1, s2.3.2 
188.12 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
188.14 - s3.2.2.1 
188.3 - s2.3.2, s3.3.2 
188.9 - s2.3.3 
188.10 - s2.3.1, s2.3.4, s2.5.2, s2.5.3 
188.11 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
188.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
188.4 - s3.2.2.1 
188.13 - s3.2.2.1 
188.5 - s3.5.1

Bill Clapperton, Canadian Natural Resources Limited

Submission from Canadian Natural - Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

178.1 In-situ oil sands projects should not be listed in the Regulations Designated Physical Activities.
178.2
Use the best placed regulator.
178.3 Support the concept of "one project, one assessment".
178.4
The federal EA process should focus on understanding the environmental and socio-economic effects of a project and not be used as a mechanism to introduce or develop new policy.
178.5
The EA decision-making process must be subject to predictable and reasonable timelines.

178.1 - s3.2.1 
178.4 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
178.3 - s2.2 
178.2 - s3.1.1 
178.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1

Bobbie-Jo Greenland-Morgan, President of the Gwich'in Tribal Council

Gwich'in Tribal Council Supplementary Submissions re: Federal Environmental Assessment Process in Canada Received Dec. 19, 2016

See analysis of submission #276

 

Bow Valley Naturalists

Bow Valley Naturalists - Submission to the Environmental Assessment Expert Review Panel, December 2016

58.1 Meaningful public participation is essential. Providing the opportunity to participate should not be discretionary. A comprehensive notification should be sent when a review of a project. Throughout the EA process, the public must be restored as an equal partner in environmental planning processes.
58.2
Small projects matter and should be included in the EA regime with appropriate tools to ensure the level of assessment is consistent with the risk they pose.
58.3
The EA regime should require the Parks Canada Agency to be accountable and to hold up the EA bar in a way that leads and mentors others to do the same.
58.4
Strategic and regional EA must be required to be used as tool to address the cumulative effects that are overtaking many areas in national parks as a result of tourism and activity promotion in these protected areas.
58.5
Separation of management and EA practitioners
58.6
Activities must be subject to assessment in national parks
58.7
Funds must not be committed to projects prior to EA
58.9
Use independent science in the EA process.
58.10
The EA legislation applied to national parks must be explicit in recognizing the legal context (prevention of impacts)
58.11
Issue a compliance statement for the project prior to conducting an EA or approving funds.

58.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
58.11 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
58.1 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
58.9 - s2.5.3 
58.3 - s3.2.1 
58.2 - s3.2.1
58.5 - s3.2.2.1 
58.6 - s3.2.1 
58.10 - s3.2.1 
58.4 - s3.5.1

Bow Valley Naturalists

Speaking Notes for Presentation “Key Concerns Presented to the Environmental Assessment Expert Review Panel” in Calgary Nov. 21st, 2016

See analysis of submission #58

 

Brad Armstrong

Speaking notes for presentation "Presentation to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Kamloops, Nov 28 2016

339.1 CEAA 2012 and EA in Canada are comprehensive, thorough, and effective. As such, they should not be changed.

339.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report

Brad Armstrong

Presentation to the Expert Panel

See analysis of submission #339

 

Bradley Fulton

Fixing Canada's Environmental Assessment Process Received Dec. 03, 2016

987.1 Need an environmental process that is open, scientific, and thorough, recognizing that everyone deserves clean air and water.
987.2 The cumulative effects on the environment must be examined too - in particular, the effect on climate change.

987.1 - s2.1.3, s2.5.1 
987.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.1, s3.7

Brandon Allen

Environnement

538.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.
538.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

538.2 - s2.1.3 
538.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Brett Andronak

Presentation "public participation in environmental impact assessment follow-up and monitoring" for Winnipeg, Nov. 16th 2016

778.1 The development, design and implementation of follow-up and monitoring programs should involve participation from the public and indigenous communities.
778.2 Monitoring programs should be supported by community-based monitoring initiatives at a project scale or regional scale where feasible.
778.3 Public and indigenous engagement should continue on after project approval and into the follow-up and monitoring stage of a project.
778.4 Monitoring advisory committees and working groups should be open to all interested stakeholders and have full access to all monitoring results.

778.1 - s3.3.2 
778.2 - s3.3.2 
778.3 - s3.4.1, s3.3.2 
778.4 - s3.3.2

Brian Miller

Presentation "Overarching Indigenous Considerations in EIAs - An Environmental Planner's Perspective" for Nanaimo, Dec 14 2016

211.1 Need to improve VC and KI scoping.
211.2
Better data integration needed to complete EIAs such as via LUPs/CCPs.
211.3
Need new performance management linkages between EIAs/SEIAs.
211.4
Improve monitoring and reporting.
211.5
Adequate funding required for proper participation.

211.5 - s2.4.2 
211.2 - s2.5.2, s2.5.3 
211.1 - s3.2.2.1 
211.3 - s2.1.4, s3.6.1 
211.4 - s3.3.2

Brian Miller

Presentation "Overarching Indigenous Considerations in EIAs - An Environmental Planner's Perspective"

See analysis of submission #211

 

Brian Pinch

Comments on Environmental Assessments in Canada Received Dec. 17, 2016

981.1 E.A.s should be a neutral body that is focused on just the environmental implications. The body must somehow be able to consider the broader question of alternative projects and/or project configurations.
981.2 Crucially, the full impact of the project must be looked at, including upstream impact, climate change, etc.
981.3
There must also be consideration of cumulative impacts. Five projects might each be approvable in their own right but the overall impact of building them might be catastrophic.
981.4
There needs to be more than one kind of E.A. One would look at big questions such as how much development an area can stand and how it could best be done. A second level of assessment could be on individual projects with a focus on how best to build them and mitigation.

981.1 - s2.1.2, s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
981.2 - s2.1.3 
981.3 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4, s2.5.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.5.1 
981.4 - s2.1.4, s3.2.1, s3.5.1

Brian Yates, SNC-Lavalin

Environmental Assessment in Practice

12.1 Invest in open, transparent and publicly accessible regional studies, planning, and strategic EAs to better establish regional environmental thresholds and objectives and provide reference points and frameworks for EA practitioners.
12.2
Clarify the basic principles of EA as a planning and decision tool for specific projects and activities, distinct from a vehicle to address broader environmental policy issues. While proponents may be reluctant to address policy issues as part of their own project reviews, they are interested in improving the environmental performance of their projects, and that is the proper focus of EA legislation.
12.3
Ensure that information required to conduct an EA remains appropriate to the decision at hand.
12.4 Invest in guidance material on the EA that addresses issues related to adequacy of information, cumulative effects, and relationships between broader societal issues and EA.
12.5
Provide adequate resources, including training and staffing, for government officials to do their jobs in a satisfactory manner.

12.2 - s2.1.2 
12.4 - s2.5.1 
12.5 - s2.5.1 
12.3 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
12.1 - s3.6.1, s3.6.2, s3.5.2

Brigid Rowan of The Goodman Group, Ltd.

Presentation "Accounting for Full GHG Impacts and Importance of Meaningful Expert Participation" for Ottawa November 1st, 2016

493.1 Recognize that there are big uncertainties in the determination of full GHG impacts and consider a range of impacts, which may vary from very small to very large.
493.2 Recognize there are limits in what can be determined even with the best analysis.
493.3
Understand that there will be considerable judgment required in the determination of range of estimates.
493.4
At EA level, consider these uncertainties and range of impacts in developing findings/recommendations and potential conditions/mitigations.
493.5 At Cabinet-review level, consider these uncertainties and range of impacts in determining whether projects should be approved, as well as potential conditions/mitigations.
493.6
In terms of broader Cabinet-level decision-making, government is not just looking at specific projects but at a much wider array of activities and policies, so mitigation and off-setting can be much broader than at project level.
493.7
If Cabinet is going to consider approving major tar sands pipelines, to be credible, the government must have workable plans for how such projects could be consistent with meeting emissions reductions targets.
493.8
Hire skilled, independent and unbiased experts to determine the specific guidelines for the calculation of full GHG impacts in the EA review.
493.9
Do away with insufficient funding caps and instead have intervenors justify their budgets in advance and obtain approval.
493.10 Grand funding to intervenors who can demonstrate how their proposed subjects are relevant to their area of interest.
493.11
Apply relatively strict and tight deadlines evenly for all parties (intervenors and proponents).

493.1 - s.3.7 
493.2 -s.3.7 
493.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
493.4 - s3.7 
493.7 - s.3.7 
493.9 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
493.10 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
493.8 - s.2.5.3 
493.5 - s3.2.2.3 
493.6 - s3.6.1 
493.11 - s2.4.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office

Expert Panel's Review of EA Processes - British Columbia's Submission

205.1 The federal EA framework should include a positive obligation on federal departments to participate in provincial only EAs, where requested and appropriate, similar to the obligation under S.20 of the current Act.
205.2
The federal EA framework must support the principle of one project - one assessment by enabling a number of mechanisms including substitution, coordination and equivalency that allow this principle to be achieved.
205.3
Substitution should be broadened to enable substitution to the Agency where that is appropriate, and enable the NEB to substitute its process for a provincial process. The Agency and a provincial assessment authority should have an option of entering into a broad based substitution agreement, rather than request substitution on a project or class basis.
205.4
Clarify that substituted EAs can follow provincially regulated timelines rather than federal timelines and that the substituted process does not need to replicate the technical requirements of federal approach provided the matters are assessed adequately.
205.5 The federal EA process needs to be flexible enough to achieve the objectives of one project-one assessment by allowing the EA process or procedure to be modified as necessary to accommodate an agreement with another jurisdiction.
205.6
The federal EA approach to engaging Aboriginal groups should be flexible so that, in the absence of substitution or in the case of a federal only assessment, it can evolve and incorporate collaborative approaches such as those being advanced in BC.
205.7 Federal legislation and its attendant regulatory framework should adopt the principle of flexibility to allow the federal EA process to be tailored to the type of project, the level of public interest, the potential impacts of the project and the interests of Aboriginal communities and in order to implement the principle of one project- one assessment.
205.8
The federal EA process should be adjusted so that the EIS guidelines are developed later in the process such that they are better tailored to the project in question, avoid delays and information requests later in the process, and ensure alignment with provincial information requirements.

205.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
205.3 - s2.2.2 
205.4 - s2.2.2 
205.5 - s2.2.1 
205.6 - s2.2 
205.2 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2 
205.7 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
205.8 - s3.2.2.1

British Columbia Métis Federation

British Columbia Métis Federation Written Submissions re EA Review Received Dec. 21, 2016

926.1 Consultation over and above EA processes.
926.2 Indigenous-driven EA processes.
926.3 Consent-based decision-making.
926.4
For an EA to be complete, it must rely on traditional knowledge in conjunction with available western scientific knowledge.
926.5 Achieving a nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown that is based on respect and recognition of their title, rights, treaty rights and Indigenous laws and values.
926.6
Sharing of benefits.
926.7 Regional land use planning.
926.8
Adequate capacity funding.

926.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
926.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
926.2 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
926.3 - s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1 
926.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
926.6 - s2.3.5 
926.8 - s2.3.3 
926.7 - s3.5.1

Bureau du Nionwentsïo

Mémoire de la Nation huronne-wendat

232.1 Respect for the rights and interests of first nations must be a guiding principle of the CEAA and the processes that flow from it.
232.2 Separate consultation on all projects within or near its territory.
232.3
Significant consideration must be given to first nations throughout the EA process. The nation should be able to carry out its own impact studies with adequate resources to do so and reasonable timelines.
232.4
The cumulative effects of projects and their impacts on rights, customary activities and interests must be adequately assessed from the Aboriginal perspective, values, traditional knowledge, etc.
232.5 Concerns need to be integrated upstream and really taken into account throughout the decision-making process, and appropriate and satisfactory accommodation measures must be implemented.
232.6
First Nations must be partners in decision-making processes.

232.4 - s3.5.1 
232.1 - s2.3.2 
232.2 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
232.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3 
232.6 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
232.5 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.2

Business Council of British Columbia

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Process

361.3 There is no need for a complete overhaul of CEAA 2012 nor a return to a pre-2012 regime.
361.4
Companies cannot, and should not, be expected to act as proxy government representatives as it relates to the duty to consult.
361.5
IBAs should not be included in CEAA.
361.6 There is a need for greater guidance and clarity on the scope of, and approach to, TEK studies; the collection and consolidation of existing studies by federal and provincial governments.
361.7
There is a need for additional numerical thresholds that determine what are designated projects requiring EAs and an articulation of the rationale for why an EA is required for each type of designated project.
361.8
Governments must develop policy, and gather, store, and make publically -accessible data around upstream and downstream environmental impacts and cumulative effects.
361.9
Project proponents should assess the most important issues and present solutions to those issues in plain language and accessible format. The process must avoid dueling experts, and enable greater understanding by more people.
361.10 Maintaining the current CEAA 2012 timelines, while finding ways to be more efficient and to reduce delays.
361.11
The EA processes should recognize the distinction between the tasks that properly belong to regulatory agencies and the issues that go beyond individual projects and rightly fall to legislators and elected governments.
361.12
Continuity of personnel with appropriate skills and knowledge is critical to enable development of expertise and to manage complexity.
361.13 Adding a decision statement amendment mechanism.
361.14
Enforcement must be left to the public agencies charged with issuing permits and licenses.
361.15
Improve the interface with the public, including regulators and project proponents to develop and make available user-friendly application information.
361.16 The revisions to CEAA 2012 should not include a reference to "social licence" or make it a requirement of the EA process.
361.17 The substitution model should not be eliminated.

361.17 - s2.2.2 
361.3 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
361.7 - s3.2.1 
361.11 - s3.1.1 
361.16 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
361.4 - s2.3.5 
361.5 - s2.3.5 
361.9 - s2.4.3 
361.6 - s.2.3.4 
361.8 - s.2.5.1 
361.12 - s.2.5.1 
361.15 - s.2.4.3 
361.13 - s3.3.1 
361.14 - s3.3.3 
361.10 - s3.4.1

C. Hammond

Ensuring a timely and thorough process: The need for regional assessment

119.1 RSEA could front lead public participation in a meaningful way, thus allowing for input on resource development and land planning before projects are proposed.
119.2 Gauging public receptiveness and defining regional values up front.
119.3
Have regional strategic EAs and cumulative EAs in place in order to design projects with regional context in mind.

119.1 - s3.5.2 
119.2 - s3.5.2 
119.3 - s3.5.2

C. Peter Watson, National Energy Board

Final Submission from NEB, December 2016

860.2 The federal EA regime would be better positioned to meet public expectations if energy system issues and broad policy matters were addressed in public processes that are separated from project assessments, or through government initiatives.
860.3
Good cumulative effects assessment requires collaborative policies, plans, criteria and definitions at regional, national and, with issues such as GHG emissions, global levels. The NEB incorporates cumulative effects assessment into the project EA to the extent possible, with the data and knowledge that is available. Development of land use plans, more baseline data, and national targets and thresholds would help.
860.4 Governments could conduct regional EAs on areas or corridors that are either heavily developed, or proposed to be developed. Such geographically focused EAs could help establish baseline conditions against which to measure incremental or cumulative effects, and could help define significance of additional effects.
860.5 A rigorous cumulative effects assessment of GHG emissions in EAs will require a national GHG strategy, and clarity on how project assessments should take the strategy into consideration.
860.6 Public participation in the regulatory process should be meaningful, recognizing that "meaningful" can have different meanings based on every individual's expectations. Evidence-based participation in project-specific hearings should focus on issues relevant to the project and the regulator's mandate, rather than broader societal concerns or policy issues.
860.7
Provide guidance on how EA processes could better use evidence informed by traditional knowledge to complement evidence informed by Western knowledge. To be most effective, co-development of such guidance with Indigenous peoples would be ideal.
860.8
Provision of strategic capacity funding directly to Indigenous groups, rather than relying on project-specific participant funding.

860.2 - s2.1.4, s3.6.1 
860.3 - s2.1.4, s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
860.8 - s2.3.3 
860.5 - s3.7 
860.6 - s2.4.1 
860.7 - s2.5.2 
860.4 - s3.5.1

C. Peter Watson, Office national de l'énergie

Mémoire final de l'ONE, décembre 2016

See analysis of submission #860

 

C. Scott Findlay

Submission "SOME COMMENTS ON THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS" for Ottawa November 1st, 2016

494.1 Those provisions of CEAA 2012 s. 5 that proscribe environmental effects on territory that is not clearly under federal authority and prescribe geographical scale should be repealed.
494.2 Consider producing a Technical Guidance Document that specifies inclusion and/or exclusion criteria for proscribing the universe of environmental effects that should be considered.
494.3
Design and establish an Operational Policy Statement (OPS) under CEAA 2012 that establishes the presumption that all assessments must include an explicit characterization/rationale of the need of the project, a consideration of alternatives as well as the rationale for selection of the designated project under consideration unless the decision-maker explicitly determines that these requirements will be waived, in which case the rationale for the waiving of these requirements by the decision-maker must be published in the CEAA registry.
494.4
Design and implement an OPS that specifies that all predictions about environmental effects and the significance thereof be accompanied by an explicit statement about the underlying causal hypotheses, an explicit account of the project-specific evidence that justifies the predictions, an explicit assessment of the extent to which the predictions are consistent with the weight of current scientific evidence, and if they are not, an explanation for the discrepancy.
494.5 The OPS should include a provision requiring that predictions be accompanied by, and expressed in terms of, one or more indicators or measurement endpoints, the levels of which could feasibly be determined or estimated as part of a follow-up implementation audit or effects monitoring program.
494.6 All records that are part of the project file should be posted on the Registry.

494.1 - s2.1.1 
494.5 - s
494.6 - s2.4.3, s2.5.1 
494.2 - s2.5.1 
494.4 - s2.5.1 
494.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

C.E. Watson

Federal Environmental Assessment Reflections

121.1 Employ methods that respect designated sensitive environments and hold developers to higher standards to provide up to date evidence that their proposals ensure no negative impacts on these areas.
121.2
Inform the public of their efforts to regulate industry to provide the best available scientific evidence to ensure that the environment is not affected negatively.
121.3 Allow opportunities for input at all stages of the EA process, including the Environmental Impact Statement and the follow up of Monitoring requirements for a proposed project.
121.4
Use an independent scientific expert panel to be the decision-makers regarding the acceptance of any projects that may result in significant environmental impacts rather than leaving those decisions to Cabinet

121.2 - s2.4.3 
121.1 - s2.5.3 
121.4 - s3.1.2 
121.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Caleb Behn

Presentation

P35.1 EA has been a mechanism to legitimate the dispossession of Indigenous Peoples, recommendation to move towards a malleable adaptive process that allowed for genuine jurisdiction of Indigenous Peoples.
P35.2 Support for independent Indigenous-led EA processes. Make use of mechanisms that allow for the empowering of indigenous laws on the land to heal both the legal ecosystem and the physical ecosystem that the legal ecosystem stewards over.
P35.3 National interest doctrine should be applied to the deployment of extractive technologies.
P35.6 Before the Panel even thinks about how to recommend improvements, you have to be honest about what this process has done. The practice has to be accountable now for what was done.
P35.7 CEAA should be modified to create a process whereby something like those dreams (dreaming as critical cultural practice) could be incorporated and considered as evidence.
P35.8 Approve land-based hearings - if there is space and scope for jurisdiction and opportunity on the land, what you do on the land is you invert the privilege model that permeates this process, and creates a humbled space where there's more space to hear.
P35.9 Recommendations need to create space for real discourse and dialogue.
P35.10 EA needs to start paying attention to 2 things: the fact that you're making major decisions in the absence of knowledge (huge data and knowledge gaps that are exploited by industry) and the resource gap (most communities do not have the ability to engage on issues). Major issue is the knowledge to action gap.
P35.11 CEAA has to start thinking about environmental injustice at a systemic level.
P35.12 Need to incorporate entities like the Keepers of the Water, grassroots entities that are not typical Indian Act band councils, and resource them appropriately, you will include them early on enough in the process that they will believe you when the approval comes down with the appropriate conditions. Early funding for grassroots recommended.

P35.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
P35.6 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P35.8 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.3
P35.9 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
P35.11 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P35.12 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
P35.2 - s2.2.1
P35.1 - s2.3.1
P35.7 - s2.5.2
P35.10 - s2.3.3, s2.5.1, s2.5.4
P35.12 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Calliou Group

Presentation "Michel First Nation" for Calgary, Nov

438.1 Develop EA practitioners' guide to facilitate the identification of impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty rights using EA methodology.
438.2
Identify impacts for each Nation potentially affected:

  1. separate indicators specific to rights,
  2. collect baseline information from each Nation, and
  3. use EA methodology.

438.3 Identify accommodation measures in a transparent fashion that avoids, mitigates, and/or compensates for the effects identified.
438.4 Should not substitute the procedural aspects of the duty to consult for the identification of impacts to rights using EA methodology.
438.5 Change the definition of "environment" to include human and non-human systems and "environmental effects" to include Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
438.6
Clear identification of procedural aspects for delegation to proponent.
438.7
Clear identification of Crown responsibilities (vis a vis Boards and Agencies)
438.8 Adequate capacity and sufficient timeline.
438.9
Crown involvement in mitigation discussions.
439.10 Reconciliation should be the desired outcome.

438.5 - s1.2, s2.1.3 438.6 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision 438.1 - s2.3.2 438.2 - s2.3.2 438.3 - s2.3.2 438.4 - s2.3.2 438.7 - s2.3.2 438.8 - s2.3.3 438.10 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 438.3 - s3.2.2.2 438.9 - s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Calvin Sanderson

Presentation

Saskatoon Indigenous Presentations Transcript

P3.1 [The way to help] First Nations on IBAs is to make sure that EIS and the environmental assessment departments are looking at all the issues with industry and First Nations.To prevent roadblocks and all these other things with the First Nations, sit at the table, get these environmental departments at that table to sit down, mediate it if you have to, to try and resolve the impact benefit agreements with the First Nations.
P3.2 Because we don't have the capacity nor the funds to have our own environmental management to correspond back to these letters that are coming every day.
P3.3 You know, one of the things when you go back to your recommendations is that I think the First Nations need their own technical and their new management – environmental management at their own grassroots community, so we can finally go back and start making comments on all the letters that are coming from the provincial government that no, we can't accommodate this.
P3.4 We'd like to come and talk to you and talk about accommodations, not consultations. It's good to consult with First Nations, but also you got to accommodate at the end of the day when industries are going ahead on any other operations they have in your traditional territories.
P3.5 You can't also look at the First Nations reserve. You got to continue to look at the traditional territories that they've been – that they've been occupying I guess since the day that our great-grandfathers have been setting foot in our area.
P3.6 There got to be compensation somewhere. Industry's got to be forced, either from the EA or provincially, federally, and to be a part of that meeting, to be a part of that process, where they can sit down with the three – with the First Nations and the industry and the environmental assessment panels that are looking at these EIs, and say no, we can't give you this. What kind of agreement do you have with the First Nations? What do you have on the table? We can't give you this ticket until you have a concrete agreement.

P3.6 - s2.3.5
P3.1 - s2.3.5
P3.2 - s2.3.3
P3.3 - s2.3.3
P3.4 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5
P3.5 - s2.3.2

Cameco

Presentation "Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process" Sept. 19, 2016

677.1 Integration of federal legislation, such as CEAA with Species at Risk Act to coordinate EAs with other authorizations.
677.2
Enhance responsible authorities' scope to resolve issues raised by federal authorities in the EA process to satisfy other authorizations.
677.3 Ensure desired outcomes are informed by risk to the public, workers and the environment.
677.4
Recognize that implementation of best available technology must be economically achievable.
677.5
Enhance recognition of licensing regimes. Not all activities that may trigger would represent a significant change to the effects that had been previously assessed and approved.
677.6
Risk-based approaches should be uniformly implemented among federal authorities.

677.3 - s2.1.3 
677.4 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
677.1 - s2.2.1 
677.6 - s2.5.1 
677.2 - s3.2.2.1 
677.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Cameco Corporation

Cameco Corporation’s Comments on the Federal Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

54.1 Ensure a science based process that is timely, predictable and transparent by using the best available science, the best placed regulator to coordinate the process and is the decision-making authority.
54.2 EAs should be focused on new projects and not duplicate or supplant the role of the best-placed regulators who provide environmental oversight for ongoing projects and activities.
54.3 Science-based and risk-informed desired environmental outcomes for a project must be agreed upon during the planning phase of an EA process, and the methods used to achieve these outcomes should be the responsibility of the proponent.
54.4
Federal and provincial governments should not mandate IBAs as a precursor to or an outcome of an EA.
54.5
Regional federal EA, regional EA or strategic EA, although serving a purpose, should not be perceived as a panacea that would address the lack of integration between critical components of the federal regulatory framework such as CEAA and SARA without clarity on how it would put mechanisms in place to achieve the desired outcomes.
54.6
Commitment to working with, learning from, and ensuring prosperity for Indigenous communities is beneficial for the proponent and the communities, and does not need to be mandated by the federal EA process.
54.7 Federal-provincial coordination could be improved in the EA process by a concerted effort in the planning phase of the EA to establish the lead review and decision-making agency for matters subject to both provincial and federal legislative requirements

54.4 - s2.3.5 
54.6 - s2.3.5 
54.1 - s2.5 
54.2 - s3.1.1 
54.3 - s3.2.2.1 
54.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 
54.5 - s3.5.2, s3.6.1

Camp Eagle Nest

Presentation "Presentation delivered to Environmental assessment Review Panel" for Sudbury, Nov 4 2016

236.1 Create a "National Park Reserve" pending the outcome of Aboriginal Land Claims and make the area part of a federal development strategy.

236.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia

Presentation "Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia Presentation to EA Expert Panel, Halifax, 3 October 2016" for Halifax October 3rd 2016

670.1 Shift the current focus in EA and regulatory agencies from simply addressing and mitigating the impacts of proposed projects to protecting the things we value - the health of marine life, sustainability of marine resources and energy, and the socio-economic livelihoods and well-being of Maritime communities on land and sea.
670.2
A reformed EA process should focus on sustainability-enhancing outcomes and a net contribution to well-being that safeguards the natural resources and beauty that we - and all our relations - depend on and enjoy.

670.1 - s2.1.3 
607.2 - s2.1.3

Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia (CPONS)

Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia (CPONS)

665.1 Replace the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) with a more impartial and representative agency.
665.2 Mandatory public hearings with independent expert witnesses and funded public-interest legal representation.
665.3
Transparent decision-making and reporting by the agency.
665.4
Stronger in-house research capacity.
665.5 A moratorium on oil drilling in all zones of critical importance to marine ecosystems and a sustainable fishery.

665.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
665.3 - s.2.5.4, s3.2.2.3 
665.4 - s3.1.2, s2.5.1 
665.1 - s3.1.2 
665.2 - s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board

Letter to Johanne Gélinas, Chair, Expert Panel, Review of Environmental Assessment Processes from Scott Tessier

767.1 The Offshore Petroleum Boards should be designated Responsible Authorities as CNLOPB is the best placed to lead EAs for petroleum activities in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area.

767.1 - s3.1.1

Canadian Assoc. for Laboratory Accreditation

CALA Submission to CEA Expert Panel

283.1 The laboratory conducting chemical analyses should be accredited in accordance with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
283.2 The laboratory's scope of accreditation should include each of the test methods required for any testing work being specified.
283.3 The accreditation of laboratory should be issued by an accreditation body.

283.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
283.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
283.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes

172.1 The Regulations Designating Physical Activities should include only those activities most likely to impact areas of federal jurisdiction
172.2
Ensure that project plans and project EA requirements and recommendations align with existing policies
172.3
Include Indigenous Knowledge as an input to the EA process and recognize that decision-makers need flexibility to consider all information available and make their own assessment of the relative weight
172.4
Focus on science-based decision making in the EA process
172.5
Exploration drilling should not be a designated activity under CEAA 2012
172.6
The appropriate federal/provincial agencies should have exclusive EA decision making authority for resource development for all projects, except where the project is on federal lands
172.7
Introduce legislated timelines to allow proponents to plan their projects effectively
172.8
Continue to undertake regulatory reforms through a substitution and/or equivalency model based on the principles of "best-placed regulator" and "single-window" approach
172.9
CEAA should not be used as a mechanism to introduce or as a means to develop policy.
172.10
Establish adaptive environmental management process whereby as the project operates and monitoring data is collected, adjustments to the project and monitoring programs are make based on scientific data collected under the monitoring programs
172.11 Focus on engaging with impacted parties while allowing access to information to any interested parties
172.12
Develop and implement a new federal/provincial bi-lateral EA agreements that incorporate current federal EA requirements.

172.1 - s2.1.1, s3.2.1 
172.9 - s2.1.4 
172.5 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
172.10 - s2.5.1 
172.6 - s2.2 
172.8 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
172.12 - s2.2.1 
172.3 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
172.11 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
172.4 - s2.5.4 172.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
172.7 - s3.4.1

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Presentation "Presentation to Expert Panel" for Calgary, November 21, 2016

460.1 Public interest decisions need to balance environmental, social and economic impacts and benefits based on evidence.
460.2
CEAA environmental effects definition should remain focused on effects to areas within federal jurisdiction.
460.3
Indigenous knowledge must continue to be used in the EA process.
460.4 Use of a project-list approach should be maintained with additional clarity and refinements.
460.5
Legislated time limits should be maintained.
460.6
Provinces should have exclusive decision making authority for resource development.
460.7
Alignment of the federal and provincial EA processes to reduce duplication through the use of substitution.
460.8
Offshore exploration wells should be excluded from the Regulations Designating Physical Activities.
460.9 Offshore Board should be a Designated RA.
460.10
In situ oil sands projects should not be listed in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities.

460.1 - s2.1.3 
460.2 - s2.1.1 
460.10 - s3.2.1
460.6 - s2.2 
460.7 - s2.2.2 
460.3 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
460.9 - s3.1.1 
460.4 - s3.2.1 
460.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
460.8 - s3.2.1

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Presentation ''Environmental Assessment in the Atlantic Canada Offshore Context'' for St. John's October 5

656.1 The Offshore Petroleum Boards should be designated Responsible Authorities.
656.2 Timelines and certainty regarding any changes to CEAA 2012 is paramount.
656.3
Flexibility in the EA process is essential. Setting in offshore NS & Newfoundland is not the same. EA process should have the flexibility to address the scale and setting.

656.1 - s3.1.1 
656.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
656.3 - s3.2.2.1

Canadian Bar Association

Submission “Re: Environmental Assessment Process Review” for Vancouver, Dec. 12th, 2016

764.1 One EA could satisfy Indigenous, federal and provincial EA requirements, if the Indigenous community or Indigenous EA body exercising jurisdiction over the project agreed.
764.2 The public, Indigenous communities and other levels of government should be given the opportunity to make recommendations to the CEAA for areas that could be the subject of regional studies. In turn, the Agency could recommend to the Minister those regional studies that should proceed.
764.3
More funding is required to ensure that the best evidence is presented to EA review panels. There is no contradiction between increased funding and streamlining the EA hearing process.

764.1 - s2.2.1 
764.2 - s3.5.1 
764.3 - s2.4.2, s3.4.2

Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Submission to CEAA Expert Panel

435.1 Stakeholders and Indigenous groups should operate with access to full information (baseline information and cumulative impacts).
435.2
Projects should be subject to a single regulatory review process that has clearly defined steps and timelines and where roles and requirements are well understood.
435.3
The EA should result in better outcomes for Canadians. The scrutiny and feedback uncovered during the review process should improve project design, helping to mitigate potential environmental and social impacts.
435.4
The ideal EA should be focused on outcomes.
435.5
Project-level EA should not be used to answer big policy questions (climate change, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, etc.).
435.6
One change to explore is to make the political decision on a project before the regulatory review, particularly for major projects.
435.7 The framework should be flexible enough to recognize the different approaches to engagement, consultation, accommodation each community and project requires.

435.3 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1 
435.4 - s2.1.3 
435.6 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
435.5 - s3.7, s3.6.1 
435.1 - s2.4.3, s3.3.2, s2.5.1 
435.2 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
435.7 - s3.2.2.1

Canadian Construction Association

Submission to the Expert Panel on Federal Environmental Assessment

189.1 Establish an ongoing advisory body to seek informed consensus-based advice on matters relevant to EA
189.2
Retain the list-based triggering mechanism as well as the CEAA, NEB and CNSC for EA administration
189.3
Maintain current timeframes to enhance certainty of process for project review
189.4
Harmonize federal-provincial-territorial and municipal EAs
189.5 Amendments to CEAA 2012 should be respectful of other governments and their laws, regulations, policies
189.6
Ensure federal authorities have the capacities to provide oversight and enforcement of its EA
189.7
Establish appropriate and transparent EA process requirements for EA of non-designated projects
189.8
Provide oversight, guidance, and limitations on the use of stop-clock
189.9 Strengthen resources within the CEAA to ensure institutional capacity
189.10
Expand timeframes for consultation and public comment periods
189.11
Manage the public engagement process to allow those affected by a project to meaningfully participate
189.12
Limit the discussion on policy matters in project EA
189.13
Consideration of cumulative environmental effects should be limited to the extent to which the project contributes to those effects and its proponents can reasonably be expected to evaluate and mitigate them
189.14 Use SEA/REA for broader policy and cumulative environmental matters that are beyond the scope of EA
189.15
Project EA should consider the use of best available technologies through consideration of "alternative means of carrying out the project" but should not consider "alternatives to" the project
189.16 Mechanisms and processes need to provide the opportunity for Indigenous rights holders to speak to the environmental effects of a project specifically and in a timely, constructive manner in parallel with an EA

189.7 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
189.4 - s2.2 
189.5 - s2.2 
189.10 - s2.4.3 
189.11 - s2.4.1 
189.1 - s3.2.2.2 
189.2 - s3.1.1 
189.6 - s3.3.3 
189.9 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
189.3 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.2, s3.4.1 
189.8 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.2, s3.4.1 
189.13 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2 
189.15 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
189.16 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s.3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
189.14 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
189.12 - s3.6.1

Canadian Construction Association

Submission "Presentation Script of Canadian Construction Association" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

See analysis of submission #450

 

Canadian Construction Association

Presentation "Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

450.1 Ensure federal EA process is mindful of provincial-territorial and municipal EAs and avoid creating unnecessary duplication.
450.2 Harmonize the provincial-territorial and municipal EAs when evaluating a project with the goal of "one project, one assessment".
450.3 Facilitate issuance of permits and related authorization by federal authorities coincident with EA approval.
450.4
Maintain current timeframes for project review with possibly more time for review of the Project Description by public to improve scoping.
450.5
Provide improved oversight of EA including public transparency.
450.6
Provide oversight of Agency administration of "stop-clock time" and IRs.

450.1 - s2.2 
450.2 - s2.2 
450.5 - s2.4.3, s3.3.2, s2.5.3, s1.3, s3.3.3, s3.2.2.1 
450.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
450.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
450.6 - s3.4.1

Canadian Construction Association

Presentation "Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Calgary, Nov 23 2016

See analysis of submission #450

 

Canadian Construction Association

Speaking notes for presentation in Calgary Nov. 23rd, 2016

791.2 Ensure federal EA process is mindful of provincial-territorial and municipal EAs and avoid creating unnecessary duplication.
791.3 Harmonize the provincial-territorial and municipal EAs when evaluating a project with the goal of "one project, one assessment".
791.4
Facilitate issuance of permits and related authorization by federal authorities coincident with EA approval.
791.5
Maintain current timeframes for project review with possibly more time for review of the Project Description by public to improve scoping.
791.6
Provide improved oversight of EA including public transparency.
791.7
Provide oversight of Agency administration of "stop-clock time" and IRs.

791.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
791.2 - s2.2 
791.3 - s2.2 
791.6 - s1.3, s3.3.3 
791.5 - s3.4.1

Canadian Electricity Association

A fair, predictable, credible, transparent and efficient Environmental Assessment (EA) process

280.1 Maintain the existing designated project list.
280.2
Maintain the existing timeline requirements.
280.3
Maintain the existing limited number of Responsible Authorities (RAs).
280.4 Enable the effective use of SEA and REA.
280.5 Enhance coordination towards implementing the "one project, one review" principle.
280.6 Provide guidance to better define the roles and responsibilities of Parties during the Indigenous consultation process.
280.7
Provide better guidance on the follow-up and monitoring, federal permitting/authorization processes following and EA and the federal lands EA process.
280.8 Establish a comprehensive CEAA public registry.
280.9
Amend CEAA to clarify that environmental effects include social and economic components.
280.10
Amend CEAA to enable the amendment of decision statements.

280.9 - s1.1, s2.1.3 
280.5 - s2.2 
280.6 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
280.8 - s2.4.3 
280.3 - s3.1.1 
280.1 - s3.2.1 
280.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 
280.4 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
280.7 - s3.3.2 
280.10 - s3.3.1

Canadian Electricity Association

Presentation "Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Review: An Electricity Sector Perspective" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

500.1 Greater use of SEAs and REAs to address policy issues (e.g. climate change), and using proponent driven EA for project specific effects.
500.2 Greater consistency between federal legislation as well as between federal/provincial EA processes.
500.3
Greater flexibility to amend the decision statements and monitoring measures as experience improves understanding of a project, its impacts, and the appropriateness of mitigation measures.
500.4 Consider opportunities for greater federal/provincial cooperation through equivalency agreements.
500.5 Timely consultation and engagement of Indigenous peoples.
500.6
There have been some improvements in participant funding, but more funding for those who are significantly impacted by a given project should also be considered.

500.4 - s2.2.3 
500.1 - s3.5.2, s3.6.1, s3.7 
500.5 - s2.3.1 
500.6 - s2.4.2, s2.3.3 
500.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
500.3 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

72.1 For major pipeline projects, create a two-part review that separates out the factors that feed a "national interest determination" (i.e. sustainability assessment or strategic level) from the well-established, standard technical review of routing ,engineering, detailed environmental and land matters. Keep the actual same assessment for smaller projects.
72.2
Maintaining EA responsibilities within the NEB for federally regulated pipelines.
72.3
The future federal EA should ensure that processes are fair and transparent, coordinated, clear, efficient, comprehensive and based on science. The purpose and limitations of EAs should be clearly articulated.
72.4
For Indigenous consultations, separate processes are needed for broader Nation-to-Nation issues. There is a need for much greater clarity about the roles and responsibilities in consultation and accommodation between the federal and provincial governments, industry, review panels or regulatory tribunals, and Indigenous groups. The Federal government should have a consistent approach to identifying groups that need to be consulted. The FPIC should be interpreted as the objective of consultation but not as absolute requirement or veto. Detailed guidance should be developed about what should be contained in traditional land section of EAs.
72.5
Should maintain the CEAA 2012 "designated project" approach. It is important to consider the scope of the environmental factors that should be addressed within the federal EA. Mandatory timelines should be maintained.
72.6
EA must embrace several lines of evidence including scientific knowledge, community knowledge and Indigenous traditional knowledge. Enforcement of conditions must remain within the context of a regulator.
72.7 EA process should be designed to encourage meaningful participation, allowing the diverse views of stakeholders to be heard can increase the knowledge base in order to better identify environmental consequences.
72.8 Encouraging and enabling coordination should be a key feature in any re-design of EA legislation. The changes (now CEAA 2012) facilitating substitution should be maintained.

72.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
72.8 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2 
72.4 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
72.7 - s2.4.1 
72.3 - s2.5.1 
72.6 - s2.5.2 
72.2 - s3.1.1 
72.5 - s3.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

Speaking notes for Presentation “CEPA Presentation Expert Panel: Review of Environmental Assessment Processes” for Calgary Nov. 21st, 2016

789.1 Maintaining a “one project, one review” approach.
789.2 The NEB should account for the fact that the public wants to be more involved in the very legitimate broader policy matters such as climate change, upstream and downstream effects of projects, Canadian energy policy, Indigenous rights as well as matters of personal, local or regional interest, but that they are beyond the scope of CEAA 2012 or the NEB’s mandate.
789.3
Introducing a two-part review for Major Pipeline Projects. Part-one of the review would be a type of sustainability assessment to determine whether the project is in the national interest. Undertaken at the federal government level, broader public policy considerations such as climate change goals would be considered. Part-two would be an independent, thorough project-specific EA performed by the NEB as the best-placed regulator with the experience and expertise to conduct specific reviews and retain its existing authority to impose conditions on the approval of the project.
789.4
Maintaining EA responsibilities within the NEB as the best-placed regulator to conduct a coordinated, efficient and thorough review.

789.1 - s2.2 
789.3 - s3.7 
789.2 - s3.6.2, s3.7 
789.4 - s3.1.1

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

Presentation “CEPA Presentation Expert Panel: Review of Environmental Assessment Processes” for Calgary Nov. 21st, 2016

790.1 Developing a two-part review for Major Pipeline Projects. The two-part review separates out the factors that feed a ‘national interest determination’ from the technical review of routing, engineering, detailed environmental and land matters. The first part of the review would be a type of sustainability assessment or strategic level undertaking by the federal government that would gauge public policy considerations and consider whether the project is in the national interest – the question of “if” the project should proceed. The second part of the review would be a project assessment that would be a thorough review of the technical aspects of a project. It would assess “how” a project could proceed.
790.2 Maintaining EA responsibilities within the NEB as the best-placed regulator to conduct a coordinated, efficient and thorough review.
790.3 Maintaining the principles of “one-project-one-review” is at the core of regulatory efficiency and excellence.
790.4 An enhanced approach must first recognize the reasonable limits of project reviews and what Indigenous issues they can and cannot reasonably address. The federal and provincial governments need to take concrete action to establish alternative effective processes that can resolve nation-to-nation issues that go beyond individual projects and what proponents can be reasonably expected to address.

790.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
790.3 - s2.2 
790.4 - s2.3.1 
790.2 - s3.1.1

Canadian Environmental Law Association

The Legal Path to Sustainability: The Top Five Reforms Needed for Next-Generation Assessments

The "next generation" legislation should:
173.1
Require early and meaningful public participation in both the information-gathering and decision-making stages of sustainability assessments and post-approval activities.
173.2
Require the preparation and updating of strategic and regional-level sustainability assessments of governmental plans, policies and programs, which, in turn, will guide or direct project-level assessments.
173.3
Impose effective requirements for identifying and evaluating cumulative effects within sustainability assessments at the strategic, regional and project level.
173.4
Include specific, general and discretionary triggers to determine the applicable assessment track that will be used to address a broad range of sustainability considerations.
173.5 Include statutory sustainability criteria to facilitate informed, accountable and independent decision-making, and approval decisions should contain stringent and enforceable terms and conditions, particularly in relation to monitoring and reporting.

173.1 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1 
173.4 - s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
173.5 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.3, s3.3.1, s3.3.2 
173.2 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
173.3 - s3.5.1

Canadian Environmental Law Association

Submission "GOING BACK TO THE FUTURE: HOW TO RESET FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LAW" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

507.1 The new federal EA legislation should include a combination of general triggers (.e.g. federal proponency, funds, lands and instruments), specific triggers (e.g. regulatory list of nationally significant projects), and inclusion/exclusion lists to determine when federal EA requirements apply, and which EA "track" should be used.
507.2
The new federal EA legislation should contain broad definitions of "environment" and "environmental effect", and should expand the list of prescribed environmental planning factors which must be addressed in every EA in order to ensure sustainability.
507.3 The new federal EA legislation should establish an independent, quasi-judicial expert tribunal that is empowered to hold public hearings and render legally binding EA decisions, subject only to a time-limited Cabinet appeal and judicial review supervision by the Federal Court.

507.2 - s1.2, s2.1.3 
507.3 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
507.1 - s3.2.1

Canadian Environmental Law Association

Presentation “Going Back to the Future: How to Reset Federal Environmental Assessment Law” for Ottawa, Nov. 8th, 2016

797.1 The new federal EA legislation should include a combination of general triggers (.e.g. federal proponency, funds, lands and instruments), specific triggers (e.g. regulatory list of nationally significant projects), and inclusion/exclusion lists to determine when federal EA requirements apply, and which EA "track" should be used.
797.2
The new federal EA legislation should contain broad definitions of "environment" and "environmental effect", and should expand the list of prescribed environmental planning factors which must be addressed in every EA in order to ensure sustainability.
797.3 The new federal EA legislation should establish an independent, quasi-judicial expert tribunal that is empowered to hold public hearings and render legally binding EA decisions, subject only to a time-limited Cabinet appeal and judicial review supervision by the Federal Court.

797.2 - s1.2, s2.1.3 
797.1 - s3.2.1 
797.3 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2

Canadian Hydropower Association

Canadian Hydropower Association Submission on the Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

149.1 A timely, predictable and certain federal EA process that can easily be coordinated with all provincial EA processes and avoids excessive duplication. Tighter timelines should be tightened and more detailed guidelines are needed.
149.2 No fundamental change should be made to CEAA 2012 as the objectives of the review can be achieved through strong policy and guidance development combined with some minor amendments to the Act and regulations under the Act.
149.3
The current triggering mechanisms (list of designated physical activities) should be maintained.
149.4 The CEAA, the NEB and the CNSC should remain the responsible authorities for the EA process.
149.5
Positive physical environmental effects generated by the project should be taken into account.
149.6
Governments should cooperatively undertake SEA and RA.
149.7 The requirements for Indigenous consultations should be reviewed cooperatively by the federal and provincial governments.
149.8 Strive to reduce duplication with the provinces by maintaining the focus of federal EA on major projects and environmental effects that fall under federal jurisdiction, by maintaining the current EA delegation, substitution and equivalency provisions, by working with the provinces to maximize the use of these provisions.
149.9
Develop a complete and easy to use project registry and project file that covers cradle to grave.
149.10
When deciding on mitigation, responsible authorities should focus on obtaining the best reasonably achievable environmental outcomes instead of the technology used.

149.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
149.5 - s2.1.3 
149.1 - s2.2, s3.4.1 
149.7 - s2.3.2, s2.2.1 
149.8 - s2.2 
149.9 - s2.4.3 
149.4 - s3.1.1 
149.3 - s3.2.1 
149.10 - s3.3.1 
149.6 - s2.2.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.1, s3.6.2

Canadian Hydropower Association

Presentation "Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

496.1 Focus on improving the EA process as opposed to repealing, replacing or making major changes to the Act.
496.2 Do not restore the previous Act or design an entirely new process. This could cause uncertainty and delay that could risk investments in clean power and frustrate GHG reduction efforts without necessarily creating greater environmental protection.
496.3
Prioritize policy, process, guidance and regulatory improvements while maintaining flexibility to respond and adapt to regional and cultural differences to help promote new relationships with indigenous and non-indigenous stakeholders.

496.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
496.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
496.3 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.2, s3.4.1, s3.6.1

Canadian Nuclear Association

Canadian Nuclear Association Recommendations to the Expert Panel on CEAA Review

170.1 CNSC is the best placed regulator to conduct federal EAs for the unique case of the nuclear industry
170.2
The federal government must lead, along with industry and Indigenous representatives, a process to develop a coordinated, integrated, multigenerational socio-economic educational development strategy
170.3
The EA process must recognize the importance of, and be well coordinated with, other licensing, permitting and compliance requirements for projects.
170.4 Reaffirm the role of EA as a planning tool and look to address gaps in plans, policy or programs through other mechanisms
170.5 Maintain the focus of federal EA on projects that have the potential to cause significant environmental effects
170.6
Enhance the recognition of the role and value of the nuclear licensing process in the EA process
170.7
Establish timely, predictable and transparent process as well as coordination with other agencies and provinces

170.4 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.6.1 
170.5 - s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
170.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
170.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
170.3 - s2.2 
170.7 - s2.2, s3.4.1 
170.1 - s3.1.1

Canadian Nuclear Association

Presentation “Review of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Process” for Ottawa November 1st

514.1 Affirm that the purpose of project EA is to ensure environment is fully considered in planning of projects.
514.2 Where raised, policy discussions should be dealt with appropriate bodies.
514.3 More detailed aspects can be dealt with at the permitting licensing stage.
514.4
Consider development of REAs/SEAs process with the provinces to consider broad policies and cumulative impacts.
514.5 Continue to move towards one project, one EA review and to improve the coordination with other agencies and provinces.
514.6 Enhance RA scope to include and resolve issues raised by other federal authorities in EA process to satisfy other permit requirements.
514.7
Continue to develop and define workable timelines that allow for full review without unreasonable delay.
514.8
Environmental reviews already in progress should not be required to be restarted after legislative or regulatory changes.
514.9
Maintain the focus of federal EA on projects that have the potential to cause significant environmental effects. Projects with little potential for environmental effects should be dealt with either by provinces or through licensing progress.
514.10
Many nuclear projects like refurbishment are maintenance activities not a new project and should not require a new EA.
514.11 Enhance recognition of the role and value of nuclear licensing regimes in the EA process.

514.1 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
514.2 - s2.1.4 
514.9 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
514.5 - s2.2.1 
514.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
514.6 - s3.5.1 
514.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
514.10 - s3.2.1 
514.11 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
514.2 - s3.6.1 
514.4 - s3.5.2, s.3.6.1, 3.6.2

Canadian Pacific

Speaking Notes for Presentation "CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT REVIEW: CANADIAN PACIFIC’S PRESENTATION TO EXPERT PANEL" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

447.1 EA does not lend itself to a one size fits all approach. The scale of the assessment needs to be proportional to the potential risks of the project. There should be a differentiation between the requirements for projects where no EA is required, where an environmental screening is required, a comprehensive study and the projects which requires a Review Panel.
447.2
The EA process should be separate from the project approval process.
447.3
The determination of the scope of the EA process needs to be defined objectively rather than the current discretionary process which can be subject to political pressures.
447.4
The Regulations Designating Physical Activities should be expanded to define thresholds for projects which trigger environmental screenings versus comprehensive studies versus review panels.
447.5 Greater use needs to be made of SEAs and REAs to support project EA in a hierarchical manner. SEAs should be used to consult broadly on the potential benefits and impacts of government policy. REAs should be used to review the effects resulting from implementing the government policy within a defined geography and finally a project EA to review the specific effects associated with a discrete project brought forward in support of the implementation of the Policy.

447.1 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
447.2 - s3.1.1 
447.3 - s3.2.2.1 
447.4 - s.3.2.1 
447.5 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s2.1.4

Canadian Pacific

Presentation "CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT REVIEW: CANADIAN PACIFIC’S PRESENTATION TO EXPERT PANEL" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

See analysis of submission #447

 

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Restoring Legal Rigour to Environmental Assessments in National Parks

57.1 There should be a presumption that a legislated federal EA process applies to all physical works conducted in the national parks, and this presumption should only rebutted if a physical work is listed on a prescribed exclusion list.
57.2 The federal EA process for all physical works proposed in a national park must be informed by the best available science and traditional knowledge, including the park's ecological monitoring and reporting program, and consistent with the management plan for the park.
57.3 A major development project must be defined in the legislation and should include, at a minimum, those works which were subject to a comprehensive study under CEAA 1992.
57.4
The federal EA process for projects in national parks must include full and meaningful public participation in all aspects of the process from the development of TOR and the initial scoping of a project to the post-assessment monitoring phase.
57.5
The federal EA process for major development projects in national parks should be administered by CEAA and culminate with a determination on whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

57.4 - s2.4.1, s3.2.1 
57.2 - s2.5.1, s2.5.2 
57.5 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s2.1.3 
57.1 - s3.2.1 
57.3 - s3.2.1

Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, et al.

The Need for Health Impact Assessments to be Integrated into all Federal Environmental Assessment Processes

55.1 Integrate Health Impact Assessment as a core component of federal EA processes.
55.2
Develop and employ a robust HIA framework
55.3
Require the establishment of baseline health and community well-being data prior to any development proposal being made.
55.4 Meaningfully engage and empower stakeholders and rights holders early in the EA process, including in the screening and scoping stages.
55.5 Establish Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada as central decision-makers in the EA process.
55.6
Integrate HIA into the cabinet directive for strategic EA of policies, plans and programs, legislate the process, and encourage HIA at provincial/territorial and municipal levels by actively working with the requisite partners.
55.7
Expand the application of EA processes to include all development proposals.
55.8
Where there are considerable and reasonable scientific uncertainties with potential for serious present or future harm, the UNESCO 2005 definition of the precautionary principle should be used to inform the discussion.

55.1 - s2.1.3 
55.5 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
55.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
55.2 - s2.5.1 
55.3 - s2.5.1 
55.8 - s2.5.1 
55.4 - s3.2.2.1, s2.4.1 
55.7 - s3.2.1

Candyce Paul

Presentation

P7.1 The environmental assessment process must have input and take recommendations from the people of the land seriously. No one or understands or knows the impacts that are happening to the extent that the traditional land users do.
P7.2 There are never sufficient numbers of inspectors to truly do the job, and there are insignificant consequences to the industry to deter them from contaminating lands, air, and water.
P7.3 There need to be environmental laws that have the power to leave certain elements in the ground so that there will be lands and waters that will be able to sustain the generations ahead.
P7. 4 I think that it has to involve things like not allowing companies to use confidentiality agreements when they go to consul—consult with our leaders, so that our leaders are free to actually bring information back to the table.
P7.5 real facts about the impacts are very watered down. And we start to do the research ourselves, there's lots of information out there. We shouldn't have to actually be doing it ourselves. But when we find out that information, there's – it's creating a lot of mistrust and a lot of gaps that need to be filled. In order for us to actually give consent of any sort, there has to be real facts laid out.
P7.6 [Re: possibility of parallel EA process run by Indigenous groups] That also – that would be extremely useful. But we also need the tools and the money to be able to do that. And this is where we are at a disadvantage all the time, is putting together something that qualifies as a response to these things. We do not have enough people with education. Most of the people are volunteers. We don't have positions for that, to work on that. And we don't have the resources, the financial resources, to do that, to do what would qualify for those studies.

P7.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P7.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P7.1 - s2.3.4, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2
P7.5 - s2.3.1
P7.6 - s2.3.3
P7.5 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3
P7.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Carol Brown

Submission "Environmental Review" for Prince Rupert, Dec. 8 2016

1009.1 Build up regulations around habitat and quality of life for citizens.
1009.2 Transparency from the ground and water up.
1009.3
Peer-reviewed science.
1009.4
Equal opportunity and equal protection for small communities.

1009.1 - s2.1.3 
1009.2 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
1009.4 - s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3, s3.2.2.1 
1009.3 - s2.5.1

Carol Mason, Commissioner, Chief Administrative Officer

Metro Vancouver Comments on the Review of the Federal Environmental and Regulatory Processes Received Dec. 15, 2016

See analysis of submission #958

 

Carol Mason, Commissioner, Chief Administrative Officer, Metro Vancouver

Metro Vancouver Comments on the Review of the Federal Environmental and Regulatory Processes Received Dec. 6, 2016

958.1 Incorporate ongoing mechanisms for dialogue and opportunities for meaningful engagement with local governments into federal EA process.
958.2 At key points in the process, enough lead time is needed for staff feedback to be considered by local government elected officials who operate within municipal Council and/or regional Board approval processes.
958.3
The science in many fields is evolving and EAs should reflect these growing bodies of scientific evidence with respect to the valued components for a project (e.g. climate change adaptation, health impact assessment, cumulative impacts, ecosystem services, etc.). The review process should also allow some flexibility to incorporate the most recent methods and findings, regardless of whether they were specified in the original EIS guidelines.
958.4
A clear and scientifically-sound approach should be employed to develop a consistent methodology for assessing cumulative effects.
958.5
Lessons from monitoring and follow-up programs should be used periodically to evaluate the methodologies used in EAs and changes that should be reflected in the assessment process.

958.1 - s2.2.1 
958.3 - s2.5.1 
958.4 - s2.5.1, s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
958.5 - s2.5.1 
958.2 - s3.4.1

Carrie Brown with Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

Presentation "Review of Environmental Assessment Processes in Canada" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

253.1 Maintain current designated project list.
253.2
Reinstate reporting to CEA Registry for large, complex, high profile, non-designated projects.
253.3 Provide for greater support from other federal authorities when requested for non-designated project reviews.
253.4 Call for new regional interagency, multi-stakeholder collaborative forums.
253.5 Enhanced mechanisms for initiating, implementing and funding regional cumulative effects assessments under CEAA.
253.6
Enhanced requirements for monitoring, reporting and enforcement.

253.1 - s3.2.1 
253.2 - s3.2.1 
253.3 - s3.1.1 
253.4 - s3.2.2.1 
253.5 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
253.6 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Carrielynn Victor and Matt McGinity

Presentation "Environmental Assessment Review" for Nanaimo

See analysis of brief #213

 

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council Submission to Expert Panel on Federal EAs Received Dec. 23, 2016

879.1 The establishment of regional boards comprised of Indigenous Nations and other governments to implement regional cumulative effects monitoring, management and regional decision-making. One important element of this change is to create Regional ITK Quality / Resource Committees.
879.2
Significant increases in funding must be afforded to indigenous groups.
879.3 Cumulative effects must be assessed from historical baselines and thresholds of abundance must for established. Indigenous nations need to be able determine the safe limits to development can proceed in relation to sustaining sufficient levels of ecological resources upon which right-based activities depend. The only way to do this is to recover the information as what originally our Nations had access to in natural the resources of our Territories. The practise of creating baseline studies based on current conditions is valueless, and needs to change.
879.4
A collaborative EA process needs to be on a Nation-to-Nation basis. Joint environmental stewardship in Indigenous Nations territories must become the norm.

879.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
879.4 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s2.3.1 
879.2 - s2.3.3 
879.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Celesa Horvath

Written Submission to the Expert Panel for the Review of EA Processes

71.1 EA should be viewed as one tool in a "tool-box", complemented by other decision-making support tools that are better equipped to address matters outside the purview of EA.
71.2 Decisions should be articulated in a transparent manner.
71.3 The centralization of standard federal EA with the Agency, excepting those projects that fall within the mandate of the NEB, the offshore Petroleum Boards and the CNSC is good and should be maintained.
71.4
The existing provisions for equivalency and substitution should be maintained but strengthened.
71.5 Further guidance should be developed for practitioners to facilitate the collection, documentation, and meaningful and appropriate use of traditional and community knowledge in EA.
71.6
Public opinion should be considered in scoping an EA but not when assessing effects and their significance.
71.7
Review the mandatory timelines.

71.1 - s2.1.2 
71.4 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
71.5 - s2.3.4 
71.3 - s3.1.1 
71.2 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4 
71.6 - s3.2.2.1 
71.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s.3.4.1

Celesa Horvath

Presentation to the Expert Panel for the Review of EA Processes

See analysis of submission #71

 

Cenovus Energy

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of the Environmental Assessment Process

181.1 Maintain the Regulations Designating Physical Activities list.
181.2
Maintain the definition of "environmental effects" introduced in CEAA 2012 and a similar approach should be applied to the Regulations, such that it includes only those activities that present a potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects on areas of federal jurisdiction or whose potential environmental effects cannot be addressed through provincial processes.
181.3
In-situ oil sands projects should not be listed in the Regulations Designated Physical Activities.
181.4 The Government of Alberta has responsibility for natural resource development in Alberta and should be the decision-making authority for resource development projects, except when the project is on federal land.
181.5
Encourage the alignment of the federal and provincial EA processes through the use of substitution and equivalency agreements, based on the principles of "best-placed regulator" and "single-window" approach.
181.6
Project development and EA requirements and recommendations must align with existing policy.
181.7 EA process should not be used as an alternative vehicle for developing policy.
181.8
Encourage SEA and REA as a means to facilitate dialogue and regional land use planning. The use of the outcomes of the SEA and REA should be clearly defined at the outset of the process.

181.1 - s2.3.1 
181.2 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
181.7 - s2.1.4 
181.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
181.4 - s2.2 
181.5 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
181.8 - s3.5.1 
181.6 - s3.6.1

Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

Testimony Submitted to Expert Panel

215.1 The cumulative impacts assessment should be conducted by the Federal Ministries and agencies and not the Province or proponent.
215.2
Sections allowing Provincial equivalence and substitution for federal analysis should be removed.
215.3 All EAs should take a watershed approach to the impact analysis as the smallest scale of review.
215.4
The Act should require a minimum prescribed level of consultation and include measureable benchmarks to evaluate the success of that consultation.
215.5
Indigenous groups, including those, such as Central Council, subject to transboundary environmental affects, should be invited to participate on EA working groups, which are tasked with leading a technical review of the EA information provided by a proponent.
215.6 It should be a requirement both for direct engagement with Indigenous groups to determine how they want to be involved, and for negotiations of IBAs.
215.7
The Act should embrace as standards the UNDRIP and include specific language concerning FPIC to assure accessible, transparent and meaningful consultation including the right to appeal and the right to consent.
215.8
The federal EA process should apply to all projects that have the potential for transboundary effects.
215.9 An independent oversight body review should be required for all projects in a transboundary watershed, basin, aquifer and ecosystem to bring credibility to the EA process and give downstream users transparent access and ability to affect decisions.
215.10 Reinstate a robust alternatives analysis.
215.11 The Operational Policy Statements under the Act should include the rationale for the selection of the project design among all viable alternatives that fulfill the project objectives. This should include a consideration for the "no action" alternative.
215.12
All parts of the EA should be based on credible and accountable peer-reviewed science.
215.13 The hypothesis on which the impact prediction is based should be specified.
215.14
Mitigation measures should be implemented regardless of whether the residual environmental effects are predicted to be significant or not to help account for unexpected cumulative and synergetic effects.

215.8 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
215.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
215.2 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
215.4 - s2.3.2 
215.6 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
215.7 - s2.3.1 
215.12 - s.2.5.1 
215.13 - s.2.5.1 
215.14 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase 215.5 - s3.2.2.2 
215.9 - s3.1 
216.6 - s3.2.2.1 
215.10 - s3.2.2.1 
215.11 - s3.2.2.1 
215.1 - s3.5.2

Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

CCTHITA Testimony to Expert Panel

409.1 Strengthen the weak cumulative effects analysis for multiple projects. The assessment of the impacts of any one project needs to be coupled with all other development in the watershed or region.
409.2
CEAA needs to require a minimum prescribed level of Indigenous consultation and include measureable benchmarks to evaluate the success of that consultation.
409.3
Federal EA process should apply to all projects that are transboundary in nature.
409.4
The Operational Policy Statements under CEAA must include the rationale for the selection of the project design among all viable alternatives that fulfill the project objectives. This must include a consideration of alternatives including the "no action" alternative, as well as the rationale for selection of the final project design and mitigation. Alternatives analysis must begin with an Ecosystems Services assessment and be based on a set of general principles that include the inherent right to a healthy environment.
409.5 All parts of the EA must be based on credible and accountable peer-reviewed science. The hypothesis on which the impact prediction is based must be specified.

409.2 - s2.3.2 
409.5 - s.2.5.1 
409.3 - s3.2.1 
409.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
409.1 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement

Le test climatique dans la réforme de l'évaluation environnementale fédérale

39.1 The reform should make it mandatory to consider GHGs over the entire life cycle of a project throughout the life of the project. Project upstream and downstream emissions must be included if they have a causal relationship to the project. Consideration of GHG emissions from land-use change associated with projects is fundamental to the environmental assessment. The actual lifetime of an infrastructure must be considered.
39.2 The social cost of different GHGs should be included in EAs in Canada.
39.3
The federal government must ensure that loans, loan guarantees, investments and subsidies provided to third parties for infrastructure meet the objectives of sustainable development and reduction of GHG.

39.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
39.2 - s3.7 
39.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Channa S. Perera, MA

Presentation "Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Review: An Electricity Sector Perspective" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

See analysis of submission #500

 

Charles Hickman, NB Power

Presentation ''Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: NB Power Perspective'' for Fredericton Oct 11

644.1 Maintain existing focus on larger, more potentially significant projects and maintain current thresholds in regulation.
644.2
Enhance relationship between federal and provincial agencies to address smaller projects.
644.3
Maintain focus on project and project impacts. Proponent driven EAs are not well suited to policy and strategic discussions.
644.4 Encourage/support regional planning (e.g. watershed based plans).
644.5
Provide additional policy or regulatory guidance on CEAA section 67.
644.6
Develop mechanism to ensure EA conditions are reflected in subsequent approvals (one project, one review) and maintain Agency as the lead.

644.2 - s2.2.1 
644.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
644.1 - s3.2.1 
644.3 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3, s3.6.1 
644.5 - s3.2.1 
644.4 - s3.5.2

Cheryl Brown

review

184.1 There needs to be a requirement and mechanism that enables interaction.
184.2
Notifications for both CEAA and the proponent should be published in the papers, Internet and social media to allow for participation.
184.3
A larger public funding base should be available in order to allow for public participation.
183.4
The time frames must be at the least 60-90 days and longer if the documents to which the comments are to be directed are large.

184.1 - s2.4.1 
184.2 - s2.4.3 
184.3 - s2.4.2 
184.4 - s2.4.3

Cheryl Chetkiewicz

Planning Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study from Ontario’s Far North

118.1 Consider combining general triggers (e.g. federal proponency, lands, funds, instruments) and specific triggers (e.g. regulatory lists) to determine when federal EA requirements apply.
118.2
Consider the renewed use of an updated (and possibly expanded) Exclusion List to help screen out environmentally insignificant projects (all-in-unless-exempted approach).
118.3
Assessments would be required prior to federal regulatory decisions under such statutes as the Fisheries Act, Navigation Protection Act, Species at Risk Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act.
118.4 Broaden the list of "environmental effects" considering the broader definition found in CEAA 1992 as well as the need to consider a sustainability test more explicitly in each EA as well as regional approaches or frameworks for cumulative effects assessment.
118.5
Consider decision-making based on cumulative effects assessment at a regional, strategic and project level and focus on valued components rather than human activities. All impacts should be presumed to be cumulative and assessment should include indicators associated with sustainability.
118.6
Set out a legal framework for regional and strategic EAs, including: when they are triggered, their processes and substantive requirements, linkages to project-level assessment, resource management and planning, public and stakeholder engagement and Indigenous co-governance.
118.7 Set out general requirements and principles for meaningful participation so the public can see in the legislation what, at a minimum, will be available to them.
118.8
There should be an appellate body to enforce requirements and standards, ensure fairness and adherence to minimum standards and principles, and provide a right to appeal for participants.
118.9 Key aspects of collaborative consent with Indigenous should be set out in legislation. There needs to be flexibility in order to adjust to models for specific groups and circumstances. Nation-to-Nation agreements should be used to define and separate the issues.

118.4 - s2.1.3, s3.5.2 
118.9 - s2.3.1 
118.8 - s3.1.2 
118.1 - s3.2.1 
118.2 - s3.2.1 
118.3 - s3.2.1 
118.7 - s2.4.1 
118.5 - s3.5.2 
118.6 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.1, s3.6.2

Cheryl Chetkiewicz, Ph.D. of Wildlife Conservation Society Canada

Submission "Improving Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study from Ontario’s Far North” for Thunder Bay, Nov 14, 2016

430.1 All impacts should be presumed to be cumulative. Assessments should take a long-term and wide-ranging view that looks backwards at historic evidence to determine existing accumulations of effects, trajectories and directions, the present-day at multiple and integrating stressors, and forward by projecting, testing and, where necessary adjusting alternative future scenarios.
430.2
Wherever possible, cumulative effects should be considered at the regional level, to set the parameters and stage for a long-term understanding of the effects of human activities on values within a region. Cumulative effects assessment needs to focus on valued components (species, ecosystems) rather than human activities.
430.3
SEA and REA should be set out in legislation, linking them with other levels of assessment and planning, and providing the public with a legal mechanism for upholding requirements regarding SEA and REA.
430.4
Legislate a trigger for REA or SEA upon a petition by an Indigenous government to the federal (and ideally provincial) government and a mechanism for co-designing that process.
430.5
The regulatory regime needs to require cumulative effects assessment at the SEA and REA levels.
430.6
Consider a mechanism and governance structure for cumulative effects assessment at a regional scale. A central agency or regional body should be responsible for coordinating and/or conducting a cumulative effects assessment at a regional scale.
430.7
Consider new models of governance for regional assessment that incorporates the regional cumulative effects assessment. Impact review boards and independent advisory committees established under modern land claim agreements could offer models for governance structures.
430.8
Make all information from EAs permanently and publicly available in a free, searchable federal registry and repository as a condition of EA and review processes, including the data collected prior to assessment baseline data.

430.8 - s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s3.3.2 
430.6 - s3.1.2 
430.1 - s3.5.2 
430.2 - s3.5.2 
430.3 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.1, s3.6.2 
430.4 - s3.5.1 
430.5 - s3.5.1 
430.6 - s3.5.2 
430.7 - s3.5.2

Cheryl Robb, Government and Public Affairs Advisor, Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Syncrude Canada Ltd. Response to the Consultation on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 16, 2016

852.1 Propose a clear rationale for the application of federal EA processes.
852.2
EAs must be timely, coordinated where overlapping processes cannot be avoided, effective, and respectful of Indigenous rights and provincial jurisdiction, with a predictable and transparent process.
852.3
Consideration should be given to determining a best-placed lead authority.
852.4
Priority should be given to enhancing coordination, substitution, equivalency provisions and ensuring there is adequate capacity, resources/skills to manage the interplay between federal and provincial processes and associated federal regulation such as the Fisheries Act.
852.5
Focus on the net environmental and socio-economic factors unique to each project.
852.6
Provide support to enhance the capacity of Indigenous communities to meaningfully participate in the regulatory review processes.
852.8
Pursue greater alignment with provincial governments on the scope and processes for consultation and accommodation.
852.9
Establishing trustworthy nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous peoples, accelerating the completion of land claims, directly providing capacity support for participation in project review and in the opportunities that projects provide, including by investing in education and training, and sharing government resource revenues collected from projects with affected communities.
852.10 Focus on strategic assessment of federal policies, plans and programs, assessment of activities on federal lands, etc.
852.11
The Activities Designation Regulation should be refined to add clarity to the definitions sections, and to include only those activities most likely to impact areas of federal jurisdiction.
852.12
Priority should be given to continuously enhancing coordination, substitution and equivalency provisions as well as ensuring there is adequate capacity, resources and skills to manage the interplay between federal and provincial processes and associated regulations.
852.13
Greater federal efforts to improve Fisheries Act compliance and Species at Risk Act implementation.
852.14
Provide clarity to the public throughout the processes to increase confidence and efficiency in the regulatory system.
852.15
CEAA 2012 should be amended to enable adjustment to process and timeline details to better align the federal process with that of a provincial government, to encourage agreements for single harmonized processes.

852.13 - Forwarded to other reviews
852.1 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
852.5 - s2.1.3 
852.2 - s2.2.1 
852.4 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
852.8 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1 852.12 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
852.2 - s2.3.1, s3.4.1 
852.6 - s2.3.3 
852.9 - s2.3.3 
852.14 - s2.4.3 
852.11 - s3.2.1 
852.15 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
852.10 - s3.6.1 
852.3 - s3.1.1

Chief Bruce Achneepineskum, Marten Falls First Nation

Marten Falls First Nation Submission Received Dec. 23, 2016

826.1 EA must reflect the importance of the land, air, water, wildlife and all components of the environment.
826.2
In addition to environmental impacts, EA must provide for an assessment of social, cultural, economic, heritage, and way of life impacts.
826.3
EA must recognize the significance of traditional land use activities among the First Nations, including trapping, fishing, hunting and gathering, and ensure that people engaged in these activities have their views considered and issues addressed.
826.4 EA must provide for an assessment of impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights, including through identification of disturbance thresholds from the First Nations’ perspective.
826.5
EA must provide for co-management on a government to government basis.
826.6
EA must incorporate and utilize both contemporary scientific knowledge and traditional First Nation knowledge, and all baseline studies must respect and reflect traditional First Nation knowledge.
826.7 EA must take place through a process that respects each party’s decision-making authority.
826.8
The EA process must include the meaningful involvement of individual First Nation communities that is reflective of the different potential impacts of mineral developments and related infrastructure undertakings on each particular First Nation.

826.1 - s2.1.3 
826.2 - s2.1.3 
826.3 - s2.1.3, s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
826.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
826.4 - s2.3.2 
826.6 - s2.5.3.4, s2.5.2 
826.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1 
826.8 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1, s2.3.2

Chief Charlie Cootes, President, Maa-nulth Treaty Society

Maa-nulth Submissions regarding CEAA 2012 Received Dec. 22, 2016

908.1 Prior to amending CEAA 2012, engage in deeper, meaningful government-to-government consultations. Funding needs to be provided.
908.2
Ensuring projects are consistent with the principles of environmental protection and sustainability should be the core purpose of the act.
908.3 All major projects that require a federal permit, are located on federal lands, receive federal funding should be subject to federal EA.
908.4 Include at least two levels or streams of EAs.
908.5 Clear and transparent direction as to whether EA is triggered, and if so, which level or stream it falls within.
908.6
All four pillars of the environment should be taken into account when assessing a project (environment, health, socio economic, cultural).
908.7
The requirement to take into account effects on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes should include treaty rights.
908.8 Low probability, high consequence accidents or malfunctions should be assessed, not just those that are more likely to occur.
908.9 Further guidance regarding the determination of which mitigation measures are technically and economically feasible.
908.10
TK must be taken into account when assessing a project.
908.11 The need for the project, alternatives to the project and the effects of the project on climate change should be mandatory.
908.12 Contain a provision triggering a mandatory EA for any plan, policy or program currently covered by the Cabinet Directive.
908.13 Contain a provision authorizing and requiring the review body to put a project-level EA on hold pending the completion of a SEA/REA.
908.14
Should not provide for the complete substitution of a federal EA with a provisional one.
908.15 Federal EAs should be undertaken by a single, permanent federal review body with the expertise necessary to assess a proposed project's impacts on all aspects of the environment. The regulatory body must be provided with sufficient funding.

908.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
908.8 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
908.2 - s2.1.3 
908.3 - s2.1.1 
908.4 - s2.1.4 
908.5 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1, s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
908.6 - s2.1.3 
908.7 - s2.1.3 
908.11 - s2.1.1, s3.7 
908.12 - s2.1.4 
908.10 - s2.3.4
908.9 - s2.5.1 
908.13 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
908.14 - s2.2.2 
908.15 - s4.3.2

Chief Christine Zachary-Deom, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake

Mohawk Council of Kahnawake - EA Process Review Received Jan. 03, 2017

810.1 EA process should not be used as a means to discharge the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate and UNDRIP.
810.2
Clear, established protocols should be established and followed for all federal consultation.
810.3
Indigenous Nations must have the opportunity to exercise their jurisdictional rights, including the right to impose project conditions or refuse projects when appropriate.
810.4
Whenever monitoring of project related impacts does occur, there should be Indigenous participation in monitoring activities and further opportunities for binding conditions to be placed on proponents to compensate or remediate the impacts that are identified.
810.5
Restauration of multi-option evaluation is required to allow for a thorough examination of all possible project iterations.
810.6
Create various levels of intensity of EA assessment including designating projects that do not require federal EA.
810.7
Adopt an ecosystem approach to EA with the goal of protecting the interests of the next seven generations.
810.8
Funding must be sufficient to ensure that Canada not only has strong laws on environmental protection, but that these are also enforced.
810.9 EA must consider both existing and historic conditions when determining environmental impacts.
810.10
Rationale for the determination of "no significant impact" must be formalized.
810.11 Additional Indigenous involvement is required within all aspects of EA including post-approval construction, operating and monitoring.
810.12
Recognition of the historic loss of trust with Indigenous Nations and measures implemented to attempt to rebuild these relationships.
810.13 Coordination between Federal, provincial and Indigenous governments is required to ensure that all aspects are appropriately considered.

810.6 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
810.9 - s2.5.1, s2.5.2, s2.5.4, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
810.12 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
810.5 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
810.7 - s2.1.3 
810.13 - s2.2.1 
810.1 - s2.3.2, s2.3.2 
810.2 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1 
810.3 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
810.8 - s2.3.3, s3.4.2 
810.11 - s2.3.1, s3.3.2 
810.4 - s3.3.2 
810.10 - s2.5.4, s3.2.2.3

Chief Darrell Bob, Xaxli'p

Xaxli’p Comments on the Review of Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 23, 2016

898.1 The 2016-2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, which embodies Canada’s commitment to sustainable development, should be integrated into the EA process.
898.2
The upstream GHG emissions methodology must be specifically reconciled with the forth-coming Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change as well as relevant provincial climate change strategies.
898.3
Amend Section 19 - Factors to be considered, Subsection 3 - Community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional knowledge of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to include that a “designated project must take into account community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional knowledge”.
898.4
Expand the cumulative effects analysis procedure to include a broader geographical scale, whereby acknowledging the interconnectedness of the landscape and the true effects that a project imposes on the environment.
898.5 The EA process should respect the culturally significant entities in such a way that projects aid in the preservation of the culture and in the sustainability of the ecosystem for future generations.
898.6 Develop a legal framework for the integration of R-SEAs into the CEAA. Such an approach must support the option of saying no to a project if it does not align with regional and strategic visions.
898.7
A framework must be developed to support free, prior and informed consent in CEAA legislation, process and practice.
898.8 The EA should not be used to address infringement on First Nation rights.
898.9
The CEA Agency should gain independence from the federal government and elect a board of impartial members at arm’s length from the government who will not be reprimanded for voting against a proposed project.
898.10 The new CEAA should be updated to ensure that all data collection and concerns are addressed before any decision is made on the approval of the project.

898.1 - s2.1.3 
898.4 - s2.1.3, s3.5.1 
898.6 - s2.1.4, s3.5.1 
898.3 - s2.3.4 
898.7 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
898.8 - s2.3.2 
898.2 - s3.7 
898.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.2 
898.10 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
898.9 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2

Chief Elsie Jack and Jim Tanner, Carry the Kettle First Nation

Presentation

P48.1 I believe, firmly believe that First Nation people in this whole process — there needs to be a direct link between the regulatory process in relation to our issues.
P48.2
It’s important to take a look at our indigenous knowledge from a holistic perspective and not from the western society perspective with a scientific knowledge. We have to take a look at it from a different approach in order to be successful, in order for us to move on to an era where we need to be successful and have a dually respect for one another. And I think our aboriginal title and our Aboriginal Treaty Rights have to be respected in that concept.
P48.3 The conventional process right now does not do a proper cumulative effects analysis. The reason it doesn’t is because in order to define Aboriginal Rights there has to be a proper land use study. There has to be a proper rights study done before you can define their rights. Not even different members of First Nations know what their rights are until they speak to other people in their First Nation about where they hunt, where they trap, where they gather their berries.
P48.4 Dealing with the general bias or the general racism, if you will, against traditional knowledge in our regulatory process I think is very important.

P48.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
P48.1 - s2.3.1
P48.2 - s2.3.4
P48.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2

Chief Gregory Burke, Bras d'Or Lake Métis Nation

Presentation

P14.1 The Métis of Nova Scotia as we were 100’s of years ago, must have a voice at the environmental and economic table.
P14.2
We of the Bras’dor Lake Métis Nation of Nova Scotia want to work with the environmental assessment review board and all governments on all levels for the benefit of our people, the people of Nova Scotia and the industry sectors of Canada to bring jobs to my people making Nova Scotia a better place to live having the resources to build a stronger natural resource for cleaner water, cleaner air for a more modern infrastructure for better safer roads and highways and for a much cleaner safer environment.

P14.1 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1
P14.2 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2

Chief Matthew Todd Peigan

Presentation

P1.1 'I'm assuming from the statements made in the intervening period that two key sustainability considerations will be put back into all environmental assessments. One is the requirement to consider the real need for a particular project, as well as alternatives to the project. The other is the requirement to consider the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be affected by the project to meet present and future needs.
P1.2 a representative institution for the purpose of free, prior and informed consent is and always will be the government of Pasqua
P1.3 Social license is rooted in our beliefs, perceptions, and opinions. Free, prior, and informed consent, on the other hand, is solidly grounded in our inherent and treaty rights, and affirmed in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. And because of this, it takes precedence over social license.
P1.4 Those individuals in the area that the impact is – is – may – may happen, those entities, First Nation governments, should be involved. Not all together, but someone should be identified. If I may give an example, you have the TransCanada Pipeline, Energy East. I would have had someone from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec First Nation involved identified by the First Nations. I cannot talk about the cultural and spiritual and traditional about the Mi'kmaq, as they cannot talk about it on the Saulteaux.
P1.5 First Nations need the financial resources to hire their own expert person to review those documents to put them in layman's terms what's in them, what are potential impacts.

P1.1 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3
P1.2 - s2.3.1
P1.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2
P1.4 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2
P1.5 - s2.3.3

Chiefs of Ontario

COO Submission CEAA Review

166.1 Recognize Indigenous law and institutions
166.2
Address legacy of past process
166.3
Allow for Nation-to-Nation relationships
166.4
Respect inherent rights of Indigenous people
166.5
UNDRIP article 32
166.6
Fair dealing and reconciliation between Indigenous people and the Crown
166.7 Free prior and informed consent
166.8 Define meaningful consultation
166.9
Provide new and adequate funding to Indigenous groups
166.10
Integrate traditional ecological knowledge
166.11
Eliminate barriers for participation
166.12
Perform baseline assessments and monitoring
166.13
Consider the regional context rather than one-project at a time
166.14
Integrate a gender analysis in EAs

166.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
166.8 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
166.14 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase 166.1 - s2.3.1 
166.3 - s2.3.1 
166.4 - s2.3.1 
166.5 - s2.3.1 
166.6 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
166.7 - s2.3.1 
166.9 - s2.3.3 
166.10 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
166.11 - s2.3.3, s2.4.1 
166.12 - s3.2.2.2 
166.13 - s3.5.1

Chilliwack Field Naturalists

ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEW LEGISLATION ON F EDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN CANADA

412.1 Transparency, fairness and accountability of the process where review panel members are independent of the project's proponent.
412.2
A process based on science. All evidence presented at the EA must be backed up by science, and duly documented. The evidence presented by the proponent should be examined and, if needed, must be cross-examined.
412.3 Including impacts on risk to human health and well-being. No proposal found to increase the risk to human health or well-being must be approved.
412.4 Evaluation of the project's impact on climate change.
412.5
A process with sustainability of the environment as core objective. The EA must be about enhancing sustainability and ensure a fair distribution of benefits and risks.
412.6
Assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposal at regional level. This is particularly important in the EA of complex proposals consisting of a number of separate, but interdependent, complementary and interacting phases, and a rush of similar proposals for a particular region or watershed submitted in a short time period.
412.7 Transparent and accessible information.
412.8 Collaborative assessment with First Nations. Compliance with UNDRIP.
412.9 Fiscal responsibilities of the proponent and/or project operator.

412.3 - s2.1.3 
412.5 - s2.1.3 
412.9 - s3.4.1 
412.8 - s2.3.1 
412,4 - s.3.7 
412.7 - s2.4.3 
412.2 - s.2.5 
412.1 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
412.6 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Chris Joseph with Swift Creek Consulting

Presentation "Federal EA Panel Review" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

381.1 Shift away from proponent self-assessment and the bias that inevitably comes with it.
381.2
Don't put up with black box analysis (i.e. vague criteria to assess significance) and guide practitioners on how to overcome.
381.3 Care about the real value of projects.
381.4
Provide a genuine means to engage people on the broader policy questions.

381.3 - s2.1.3 
381.2 - s.2.1.3 
381.1 - s2.5.3 
381.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Chris Quaife

"Presentation to Federal Expert Panel re Environment Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

383.1 Science matter should be validated.
383.2 Process to integrate with Indigenous Nations and locals, not only to consult.
383.3
Assure that a risk inventory and contingency plans are developed.
383.4
The government should play a role for issues that are beyond the proponent's role.
383.5
Apply precautions and far-sight to engagement stakeholders.
383.6
Develop broad terms of reference for hearing panels and for final Cabinet roles.
383.7 Recognize impacts on/from climate change in cumulative effects.

383.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phases
383.4 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
383.6 - s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.1.2 
383.7 - s.3.7 
383.1 - s.2.5.1 
383.5 - s.2.5.1 
383.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1, s2.4.1

Chris Quaife, Principal, Symmetric Resources

Submission to EA Review Panel Received Dec. 27, 2016

821.1 Science matter should be validated.
821.2
Process to integrate with Indigenous Nations and locals, not only to consult.
821.3
Assure that a risk inventory and contingency plans are developed.
821.4
The government should play a role for issues that are beyond the proponent's role.
821.5
Apply precautions and far-sight to engagement stakeholders.
821.6 Develop broad terms of reference for hearing panels and for final Cabinet roles.
821.7
Recognize impacts on/from climate change in cumulative effects.
821.8
A concept should be developed for the EA, corresponding to the project goals, scope and issues, stakeholder interests, and the geographical and temporal range of project impacts and benefits.
821.9
Assessments should be rigorous and open and be used to reach decisions. They should

  1. seek and act on the best available evidence,
  2. make all information from EAs permanently and publicly available,
  3. assess cumulative environmental effects from past, present, and future projects and activities across multiple scales,
  4. work to prevent and eliminate real, apparent, or potential conflicts-of-interest by requiring public disclosure, and
  5. develop explicit decision-making criteria and provide full, transparent rationale of factors considered.

821.10 Where a Panel or Cabinet prefers one rationale over another, the logic of this should be explained further than by “in the national interest” or “the risk is acceptable”.
821.11 Multi-jurisdiction collaboration is an imperative to give direction about the boundaries within which an EA has to constrain a project – laws, regulations and policies.

821.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s2.5.2 
821.5 - s2.4.1 
821.8 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
821.9 - s2.1.3, s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s2.5.3, s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.5.1 
821.11 - s2.2.1 
821.4 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1, s3.6.2, s3.7 
821.7 - s3.7 
821.1 - s2.5.1 
821.2 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3, s3.2.2 
821.6 - s3.2.2.3 
821.10 - s3.1.1, s2.5.4

Chris Zimmer, Alaska Campaign Director, Rivers Without Borders

Rivers Without Borders' Comment Letter to Expert Panel Review of CEAA Received Dec. 23, 2016

874.1 The following quote from the 1992 CEAA should be reinstated: "The purposes of this Act are. to ensure that projects that are to be carried out within Canada or on Federal lands do not cause significant adverse environmental effects outside of the jurisdictions where they are to be carried out."
874.2
CEAA should require automatic triggers for an EA when authorization is required under the Fisheries Act.
874.3 A federal Review Panel must conduct an extensive EA for all projects with potential transboundary impacts.
874.4 Cumulative impacts in transboundary watersheds must be examined and this process must be overseen by independent scientific experts, not project proponents.
874.5
SEAs should be carried out in transboundary watersheds with multiple proposed and/or active projects.
874.6
Federal EAs must have independent science advisory panels.
874.7
Separate government agencies that promote projects from those that regulate.
874.8
Formal public hearings should be required in the potentially impacted transboundary communities for projects with transboundary implications.
874.9
Public and Aboriginal participation and consultation, including those representing downstream nations, must begin before a project enters into an EA process.

874.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
874.2 - s2.1.1 
874.3 - s2.1.1 
874.9 - s2.1.2 
874.8 - s3.2.2.3 
874.4 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
874.5 - s3.5.1 
874.6 - s3.1.2, s2.5.1 
874.7 - s3.1.1

Christina Hodgson

EA Reform- Transparency, and Sustainability.

140.1 Key recommendations include planning goals in advance instead of simply reacting when a new project is proposed, increasing transparency, working together with provinces under a jointly created framework and finding new ways to increase efficiency in the process that don’t involve reducing the scope of consideration. With a new sustainability focus, it is time that we paid attention to the long forgotten pillars of social and environmental concern, while still keeping in mind the economic concerns that our country and provinces face. Now that we have international obligations through the Paris Agreement, we have to do our best to meet those goals, and changing the CEAA process is a step in the right direction.

140.1 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s2.2.1, s3.7, s3.2.2.1

Christy Ngan

Brief - CEAA 2012

584.1 Retain assessments of alternatives and need of for proposed projects
584.2
In order to capture the full range of impacts that causes public concern, it is recommended for CEAA 2012 to consider all of the environmental effects of projects it approves, not just effects that are restricted to the definition stated in the regulation.
584.3 Develop a systematic process for engaging with Aboriginal peoples on policy issues, publish available detailed working guidance on Aboriginal consultation and environmental assessment by a review panel.
584.4
Not be limited by the term "interested parties", decision makers should weigh public input as they see fit, but should not prevent the public from providing it.

584.1 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
584.2 - s2.1.3 
584.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
584.4 - s2.4.1

Citxw Nlaka'pamux Assembly

Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012) Processes

31.1 Early engagement. It should occur before the development of a project description, which could be supported by a working group that includes the affected First Nation, proponent and the federal government. The need for the project as well as its alternatives is needed. The engagement should be carried out in an appropriate manner that respects how a First Nation may go about making a decision about what happens on the land.
31.2
The First Nation and the federal government must work together as Nation to Nation to determine what factors are considered in an assessment through a joint decision making framework. Determination of impacts should be done collaboratively. First Nations should be mobilized in decision making around design and mitigation.
31.3
More transparency is required with respect to how decisions are made and what justifiable impacts are.
31.4
Recognize the ability of the impacted First Nation to say "no" to a project.

31.4 - s2.3.1 
31.1 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.2 
31.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.2 
31.3 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4

City of Port Moody

City of Port Moody Submission to Expert Panel on Federal Environmental Assessment Review

The federal government should consider amendments to:
378.1 Encourage projects which seek the best option, rather than just evaluating acceptability of one alternative.
378.2
Increase review independence.
378.3
Strengthen meaningful participation of local communities.
378.4
Base their review on sustainability principles, including the integration of environmental, social, and economic objectives.
378.5 Consider projects in the context of overall strategic plans and outcomes.
378.6
Introduce measures to strategically scope reviews and include requirements for local impact assessments.
378.7
Establish clear performance objectives, including standards for project approvals and oversight throughout a project's lifetime.

378.4 - s2.1.3 
378.3 - s2.4.1 
378.7 - s.2.5.3, s.3.3.1, s.3.3.2 
378.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
378.1 - s3.2.2.1 
378.6 - s3.2.2.1 
378.5 - s3.6.1

Claire Truesdale

Presentation to the Expert Panel on CEAA, 2012 for Nanaimo, Dec 15 2016

213.1 Mandate regional studies and regional decision-making frameworks. Regulation describing when required including provision for Indigenous community request. Mechanisms for Indigenous participation in development of regulation, studies and frameworks. Based on pre-development baselines, current status and thresholds for acceptable cumulative impacts.
213.2 Reduce role of proponent and increase role of government. EIS conducted by government or independent contractors hired in consultation with parties. Require proponents to pay fees to cover this cost. Nation to nation consultation.
213.3 Broaden consideration of Section 35 Rights and make consultation explicit. If EA is to be used as primary mechanism for consultation, fulfilling duty to consult should be included in purposes and mandate. Government's position must be clear, Aboriginal communities must be informed of the role the EA will play in consultation.

213.3 - s2.3.2 
213.2 - s2.5.3, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.2 
213.1 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Claire Truesdale

Presentation "Presentation to the Expert Panel on CEAA, 2012"

See analysis of brief #213

 

Clarence Natomagan

Presentation

P4.1 - CEAA offers limited participant funding – funding, but it is responsibility of impact indigenous nations to secure those funds and listen to the input of its people. I've participated in a few CEAA-funded and CNSC-funded reviews myself as an individual. Groups – First Nations groups, they usually get the majority of the funding. But regardless of the funding, the funding happens after the fact, after the documentation, after the EA is done. Right? So again, the job is done, you get a hundred thousand dollars to – to review, get a scientific and technical team together, a legal team, to review the EA. But at that point in time, it's really hard for First Nations group to actually have any impact or any real impact on the process going forward.
P4.2 It is important to understand that the EIS should be geared toward understanding—the understanding of major stakeholders, such as those most impacted by the mining industry.
P4.3 Thirty days to respond can be challenging if the volume of paper is immense, or when CEAA notification process is lacking in terms of when it can be doneWe don't have scientists; we don't have technical people living with us that can help in this. Right? So you need that extra time.
P4.4 One responsible authority is adequate. People talk about bringing in other groups. NGOs will tell you we need more governing agencies in the EA process. But I support the principle that the entity providing the permits or the licenses should be the responsible authority in order to reduce timely – timelines and ambiguity. And the RA must interact with those most affected by their decisions.
P4.5 early engagement, to me, early engagement is not coming to my hut (ph), coming to my home town and doing a town hall meeting, and then two hours later you're gone. Early – early engagement and involvement from a First Nations perspective, I still believe what Ms. McDonald said holds a lot of value in that, you know what, keep us involved. Don't just tell us what you're going to do. Keep us involved.I think, from the EA perspective, when the proponent is working for two and a half years to develop – to do the environmental studies, to show the – the Environment Minister that this is what we're going to do to be protective of the environment, the public, and the workers, this is what we're going to do, I think that's the time First Nations people should be involved in the process.

P4.1 - s2.3.3, s2.4.1
P4.2 - s2.4.3
P4.3 - s2.4.3
P4.5 - s3.2.2.1
P4.4 - s3.1.1, s3.4.1

Clean Energy BC

CEAA Review

160.1 Keeping the list approach as it provides clarity and transparency to project developers and investors regarding what federal approvals are required.
160.2
The substitution agreement between BC and the Government of Canada should be maintained and used as a mechanism to promote an even greater focus on collaboration between the two levels of government.

160.2 - s2.2.2 
160.1 - s3.2.1

Clean Ocean Action Committee

Presentation "A Presentation to The Environmental Assessment Review Panel on the Total lack of Consideration Provided to Impacted Communities and Originating Stakeholders As Oil and Gas Resources are Developed on Canada’s Scotian Shelf" for Halifax October 3rd 2016

672.1 Research is needed to:

  1. assess the toxicity of dispersed oil to deepwater corals, ground fish and invertebrate species that have high economic importance (e.g. lobster, crab, scallops) and
  2. model the distribution of deepwater plumes of dispersed oil in relation to areas of known fisheries productivity, such as the fishing banks of Canada's east coast.

672.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Clint Westman

Presentation

P6.1 I think it's very important that there be a standard for the type of people who are producing these, again, very sensitive and very culturally specific studies on aboriginal land use and aboriginal traditional knowledge.
P6.2 lack of capacity on the part of the proponents, consultants, and apparently on the panel and their staff that is evaluating such things, because these – these unbelievable assertions never go unchallenged. So it points to a fundamental lack of understanding about aboriginal aspirations and aboriginal futures, and, frankly, a less than full implementation of the parts of the statute governing environmental assessment where traditional land use is recognized as a very important consideration.
P6.3 So what I want to say is that we also need solid social science, and that the standards for determining social impacts must be improved through this process if the process is to have credibility.
P6.4 So I think there needs to be, number one, maybe a bigger role for the First Nations rather than the proponent in commissioning the research, would be a good place to start.

P6.4 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
P6.1 - s2.3.3
P6.2 - s2.3.3, s2.5.1 P6.3 - s2.5.1

CN

Presentation "Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Review" for Prince Rupert, Dec 8 2016

321.1 Improved clarity and certainty. EIS Guidelines that are project specific and detailed. Referrals to Review Panel.
321.2 Economic considerations should be included in EAs.
321.3
Timelines and schedules could be further improved.

321.1 - s3.4.1 
321.2 - s2.1.3 
321.3 - s3.4.1

Coastal First Nations - Great Bear Initiative Society

Environmental Assessment in the Context of Reconciliation

19.1 Implement collaborative governance and joint/shared decision-making.
19.2 Establish an independent assessment authority (Canadian Environmental Assessment Board). The Board needs to be impartial and free of any executive branch influences and should be established through an open and transparent process.
19.3
Develop a new EA process. The new process should include three distinct components, two of which take place prior to proceeding with project-specific EAs: (i) Strategic/Regional pre-assessment, (ii) pre-EA project proposals, and (iii) project-specific EAs.

19.3 - s2.1.4 
19.1 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s2.3.1, s2.2.1 
19.2 - s3.1.1

Cold Lake First Nations

Cold Lake First Nations Submission to the Expert Panel

23.1 The EA legislation needs to acknowledge and define how Indigenous people can institute UNDRIP, uphold the constitutionally protected rights, and actively manage the decisions that directly affect the lands, waters, and resources.
23.2
Creating a defined role for Indigenous governance within the federal EA process.
23.3
Aboriginal consultation and the assessment of impact to Aboriginal/Indigenous rights need to be combined in project application and review processes, and the scope of any assessment of impacts to Indigenous people needs to be at the level of rights, not "traditional land use".
23.4 A recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction and cooperative assessments should be instituted.
23.5 Any project with the potential to impact Treaty and Indigenous rights should require a federal EA or requirements should be set at the federal to prescribe standards for assessment of impacts to Treaty and Indigenous rights.
23.6
Conduct Nation to Nation consultation in combination with some form of cooperative assessment with Indigenous groups.
23.7
Both cumulative effects and climate change should be key factors considered in any EA.
23.8
The Government of Canada should adopt and incorporate the criteria of comprehensive cumulative effects assessments in EA processes.
23.9
Require a regional cumulative effects assessment where a region has shown a significant decline in key ecological values.
23.10
Indigenous groups should be involved from the initial stages of project planning and scoping, right through final decision and monitoring.
23.11
First Nations should have the ability to conduct their own assessment and should have full capacity (training, education) to fully participate.
23.12
There should be one standard for EA across the country.
23.13 Mandatory federal assessments of in situ developments.
23.14
Any project that may cause adverse impacts to the environment or Indigenous people should require a federal EA.
23.15 Assessments to predict impact to Indigenous groups should be undertaken by each group, with support from proponents and the Crown.
23.16
Proponents or the Crown should develop a pre-disturbance baseline in addition to current baseline required in EAs.
23.17
The inclusion of TEK in EA should be mandatory.
23.18
Government needs to be involved in the mitigation of or compensation for impacts arising from development.
23.19 Members of Indigenous groups should be given first right to contracts to undertake follow up and compliance monitoring within their traditional territories.

23.12 - Inconsistent with Canadian statutes and Constitution
23.16 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
23.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.7 
23.4 - s2.2 
23.6 - s2.2.1 
23.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
23.2 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
23.3 - s2.32 
23.10 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
23.11 - s2.2.1, s2.3.3 
23.17 - s2.3.4 
23.18 - s2.3.5 
23.5 - s3.2.1 
23.13 - s3.2.1 
23.14 - s3.2.1 
23.15 - s3.2.2.2 
23.8 - s3.5.2 
23.9 - s3.5.1 
23.19 - s3.3.2

Cole Atlin

Capturing and Integrating Cumulative Effects into Assessment

The primary foci of future policy building for assessing cumulative effects and appropriate response options, especially at the regional scale should be:
195.1
Designing and delivering tiered regional assessment regimes, where credible and authoritative public processes for assessing cumulative environmental effects and broad alternatives are used to address regional concerns and opportunities and to guide the planning and assessment of individual projects
195.2 Requiring the adoption and use of explicit sustainability-based criteria for assessment evaluations and decision-making, duly specified for particular applications

195.1 - s2.1.4, s3.5.2 
195.2 - s2.1.3, s3.3.2.1

Cole Atlin

Presentation "Potential Governance Models for Strategic Assessment” for Thunder Bay, Nov 14, 2016

431.1 Sustainability is not about balancing one need against another, but seeking lasting mutual benefits and avoiding adverse effects.
431.2 Sustainability is a high test: no go unless positive sustainability effects can be achieved.
431.3
The governance structure should be designed to achieve the following key objectives:

  1. application of sustainability-based criteria in all decision-making,
  2. use of future scenario options to illuminate cumulative effects, implications of different pace and scale of development, and
  3. broad participation for more perspectives, learning, understanding, credibility and support.

431.1 - s2.1.3 
431.2 - s2.1.3 
431.3 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report

College of Applied Biology

Review of Environmental Processes

444.1 The concept of accountability should be added as a cornerstone of a revised robust and transparent EA process. To enhance confidence, the EA process needs qualified accountable professionals, whose recommendations must be based on scientific facts and must not be biased by emotions.

444.1 - s2.5.3, s3.4.1

Collier Azak, Chief Executive Officer, Nisga’a Lisims Government

Nisga’a Lisims Government Submission to the Expert Panel of the Federal Assessment Process Received Dec. 23, 2016

896.1 Any proposed amendments to CEAA 2012 should be subject to an assessment of their implications for modern treaties in accordance with the AMTI Guide.
896.2 The EA legislative scheme should not impede the implementation of modern treaties in general.
896.3 Any new federal EA legislation must address how EA processes will occur and decisions be made such that they are in compliance with any applicable provisions of modern treaties.
896.4
Any new legislation should include the following definitions: cumulative effects, environment, follow-up program, mitigation measures, sustainable development.
896.5
Section 4(1)i of CEAA 2012 should be changed to replace "encouraged" with "conduct".
896.6 It should be incumbent on the Agency to ascertain whether any information or knowledge exists, particularly as it may pertain to Aboriginal or treaty rights and interests.
896.7
Section 38(2) of CEAA 2012 should be amended to include Aboriginal and Treaty Nations.
896.8 Section 73(1) of CEAA 2012 should be amended to ensure that any committee established to conduct a study of the effects of existing or future physical activities carried out in a region that is entirely on federal lands and within lands designated under a Treaty must include representation for that Treaty Nation.
896.9 EAs conducted by the Agency must assess cumulative impacts to valued components.
896.10
The concept, overall approach, methodology and implications of "significant adverse effect" need to be revisited and updated.
896.11
Indigenous groups must be directly and meaningfully involved in setting the TOR for panel reviews.
896.12
The CEAA should proactively ensure that Indigenous groups on the front-line of development proposals obtain a level of balance in the risk-benefit spectrum where such balance is deemed achievable by the parties.

896.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
896.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
896.5 - s2.1.3 
896.10 - s2.1.3 
896.11 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
896.2 - s2.2.1 
896.3 - s2.2.1 
896.6 - s2.3.3 
896.12 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
896.7 - s3.2.2.2 
896.8 - s2.3.1, s3..5.1 
896.9 - s3.5.1

Committee for Future Generations

Supporting documentation for the Committee of Future Generations, Saskatoon Sept 20

730.1 There need to be Environmental Laws that have the power to leave certain elements in the ground so that there will be lands and waters that will sustain the generations ahead.

730.1 - s2.1.3

Communities and Coal

CEAA - The Role of Port Authorities

120.1 Port Authority should not be allowed to review and approve projects. All projects should go through Environnement Canada, which should decide when and what level of screening is required.
120.2 A 2014 omnibus bill authorizes the federal government to sell federal lands to a Port Authority. These lands would no longer be designated as "federal lands" and therefore certain provisions of the CEAA 2012 and Species at Risk Act no longer apply. These lands should remain classified as "federal".
120.3
Projects applying for permits within the Port's jurisdiction should include impacts to the entire footprint of the project, even if outside of their jurisdiction.
120.4 Project reviews must consider cumulative impacts of various projects in a region when rendering a decision.
120.5
Municipalities should be accorded special status in order to have more meaningful role in the CEAA review process.

120.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
120.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
120.1 - s3.1.1 
120.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
120.4- s3.2.2.1

Concerned Citizens Bowen

Submission regarding Review of Environmental Assessment processes

296.1 Project proponents must be required to pay into a fund used to hire consultants to do the EA independently from the proponent.
296.2 Review the present models of data collection. The future is not with centralized agencies that collect when they feel fit to do so. The future is with local ownership and protection of land and water resources.
296.3 Agencies like DFO must seek a different model and possibly play a role in facilitating the on-the-ground research and data collection.
296.4
Invest or use the research capability of "citizen scientists", provide for frameworks, collection and review protocols to ensure that collected data can be used and entered in databases.
296.5
Enter into dialogue with First Nations on a Nation-to-Nation level, respecting historic and established Indigenous rights and titles.
296.6 Research and establish parallel knowledge collection models.
296.7
Provide for proper Land use management plans with clear zoning and clear identification where what can be done.
296.8
Meaningful participation can only be assumed when people have been provided with adequate time to review a project.
296.9 An indigenous EA process between and Indigenous Nation and a company can at no time be considered a substitute for the requirement for provincial or federal government to meaningful consult with Indigenous Nations about development projects.

296.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
296.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
296.3 - Forwarded to other reviews
296.5 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
296.8 - s2.4.3 
296.9 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
296.4 - s2.5.2 
296.6 - s2.5.2 
296.7 - s3.5.2

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County

Strengthening federal environmental assessments: a case study of nuclear projects at the Chalk River Laboratories

See analysis of submission #501

 

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County

Strengthening federal environmental assessments: a case study of nuclear projects at the Chalk River Laboratories

See analysis of submission #501

 

ConocoPhillips Canada

ConocoPhillips Canada Submission to the Expert Panel Review

282.1 The application of CEAA should not extend to in situ projects as it would result in duplication with provincial processes.
282.2 Reduce duplication, uncertainty, delays and increased costs associated with the layering of EA processes.
282.3 More clarity is required with respect to the role, key elements, and legislative framework with respect to REA.
282.4
EA processes should not be expected to address outstanding policies issues regarding Indigenous rights and reconciliation.

281.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
282.2 - s2.2, s3.4.1 
282.3 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
282.4 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Conseil des Innus d'Ekuanitshit

Mémoire présenté au Comité d’experts pour l’examen des processus fédéraux d’évaluation environnementale

86.1 The Act should recognize the sovereignty of indigenous peoples in their territories and their right to decide on projects affecting their territories and resources (FPIC).
86.2
The new law should take into account the impacts of a project on the environment and societies for the next seven generations.
86.3 The Act should implement Canada's international climate change commitments and take into account the entire life cycle of the project with respect to GHG emissions.
86.4
Screening process for designated projects (with a more comprehensive list), projects funded significantly by the federal government, and projects that require authorization under federal legislation.
86.5 The agency should take into account, as a minimum, all environmental impacts that fall under federal jurisdiction, as well as socio-economic impacts, even though they fall more within provincial jurisdiction.
86.6
The new Act should ensure that impacts are considered according to an ecosystem approach.
86.7 The impacts on the economy should not only account for the positive impacts, but also all the indirect costs involved (subsidies, tax credits, health costs, etc.)
86.8 The Act must provide for Aboriginal participation from the screening process and the drafting of the EIS Directive.
86.9
The project should take into account the impacts of the project on the current use of indigenous lands and resources, including use that is not for traditional purposes.
86.10
Ensure full Aboriginal participation (review funding, deadlines, language and translation needs), including on review panels.
86.11 The Act should provide that traditional knowledge of communities potentially affected by a project must be taken into account rather than should be taken into account.
86.12
The Act should allow first nations to conduct environmental assessments on their territory.
86.13
One agency should be responsible for EAs.
86.14
In order to avoid conflicts of interest in EIS preparation, take steps to ensure that there is an independent relationship between consultants and promoters.

86.2 - s2.1.3 
86.4 - s2.1.1, s3.2.1 
86.5 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
86.7 - s2.1.3 
86.12 - s2.2.1 
86.1 - s2.3.1 
86.11 - s2.3.4 
86.3 - s3.7 
86.13 - s3.1.1 
86.6 - s2.1.3 
86.8 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
86.9 - s3.2.2.1 
86.10 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
86.14 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3

Coreen Sayazie

Speaker notes from Chief Coreen Sayazie for Saskatoon, Sept 20 2016

843.1 In order to determine impacts to Treaty rights of a project, one must first understand whose Treaty Rights they are referring to. This requires taking the proper steps to get to know the people, the land, and what is important to them.
843.2
The significance of impacts requires day to day monitoring and follow up to see how the impacts really occur in the communities.
843.3
When there are impacts, we need to find ways to accommodate those impacts, or reject projects, because Treaty rights should be prioritized.
843.4 In the monitoring plans, there has to be a defined point that will trigger action to make things right if something is wrong. Communities must be involved. 843.5 Improving the federal EA process to recognize Treaty rights also includes having clear guidelines on traditional use and occupancy.

843.1 - s2.3.2, s2.3.3 
843.3 - s2.3.2 
843.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
843.2 - s3.3.2 
843.4 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Corfield And Associates

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: A brief describing issues with the 2012 changes and providing recommendations for amelioration

164.1 The CEAA should recognize the suite of Aboriginal rights and title, including their roles as decision makers
164.2 Funds should be available for capacity building
164.3 Re-instate the scope that the CEAA considers by removing RDPA
164.4 Cumulative impacts should be assessed and area thresholds should be developed
164.5
Indigenous TK should be seen as complementary to western knowledge and First Nations' perspectives, methodology, decisions and experts need to be respected as much as western science
164.6
Timelines for approval should consider the requirements of local First Nations
164.7
Oversight of the EA should be done by the appropriate government agency
164.8
Aboriginal effects section should stand alone, separate from the scientific effects analysis
164.9
Federal EA process should reference Aboriginal planning documents
164.10
The federal government should work with First Nations to ensure that Aboriginal rights are clearly communicated to the proponents
164.11
Meet UNDRIP and other federal commitments with First Nations developing their own participation timelines, budgets, knowledge and conclusions about a project
164.12 Prioritize regional planning in areas that will experience numerous development proposals in the future
164.13 Independent consultants should conduct the EIS and be reviewed by other consultants on behalf of communities and Aboriginal groups.

164.10 - s2.3.2 
164.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
164.1 - s2.3.1. s2.3.2 
164.2 - s2.3.3 
164.11 - s2.3.1 
164.8 - s2.5.2, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.2 
164.13 - s2.5.3 
164.7 - s3.1.1 
164.5 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.2, s2.3.4 
164.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 
164.9 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
164.4 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s3.2.2.1 
164.12 - s3.5.1

Council of Canadians

Submission - Protect Every Lake and Every River

301.1 Reinstate the CEAA and other water legislation to their pre-2012 standards and hold consultations to strengthen legislation based on the pre-2012 standards. Cumulative impacts and impacts on navigable waterways should be scoped into EAs.
301.2
Federal scrutiny of pipelines and powerlines under the NWPA and requirement of detailed information on waterways under CEAA must be reinstated and strengthened.
301.3
Strick safeguards for waterways within the framework of the UN-recognized human right to water must be implemented.
301.4 FPIC must be obtained from Indigenous communities so that Indigenous treaty and water rights are respected and a nation-to-nation relationship is truly established.
301.5
A consultation process that fosters true collaboration between communities and government is needed. Regulatory agencies must implement community recommendations on an ongoing basis.

301.1 - Forwarded to other reviews
301.2 - Forwarded to other reviews
301.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
301.4 - s2.3.1 
301.5 - s2.4.1

Council of Canadians - Emma Lui and Diane Connors

Submission and Presentation "Environmental Assessment and Water Protection" for Edmonton September 26

635.1 Strengthen EAs by reinstating the requirement for EAs to include the above information on relevant waterways and impacts on waters.
635.2
Respect and protect more waterways by reinstating the definition of "navigable waters" to its previous definition (through the NWPA) that affords protection and oversight to make lake and every river in Canada.
635.3
Reduce oversight on impacts to water by reinstating a trigger for EA if a project would substantially interfere with water, including pipeline and transmission line projects.
635.4
A very important factor for the future EAs is building in the expectation and structure for an assessment to come back with a "no" scenario. Similarly, under the FPIC understanding when an Indigenous community does not give consent for a project then that project cannot go forward.

635.1 - Forwarded to other reviews
635.2 - Forwarded to other reviews
635.3 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
635.4 - s2.3.1

Council of Canadians: Williams Lake Chapter

Expert Panel; Review of Environmental Assessments

126.1 The new process has to abandon the isolated project by project approach, and introduce an overview or strategic decision making process which would involve an initial filter or screening to determine whether or not a proposed project would likely be in the public interest and consistent with government’s objectives (e.g. has First Nation support, fits with Canada's international commitments such as GHG reduction targets, etc.).
126.2
In depth environmental assessments should only be initiated for those projects that pass this initial screening
126.3 The EA process should be revised to address issues such as

  1. proponents should not be the ones doing the EIA,
  2. consider cumulative impacts of proposed projects,
  3. proponent's claims of economic benefits must be subject to independent expert review, to name only a few.

126.3 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.5.1 
126.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2 
126.1 - s3.5.2

Cowichan Tribes

Comments on and suggestions for reform of CEAA 2012 and associated processes.

388.1 First Nations must be involved in all aspects of the EA process, including planning and decision-making, side by side with federal and provincial governments.
388.2
Nation-to-Nation relationship with communication between First Nations and other decision-makers in a partnership context.
388.3 EA timelines need to allow time for separate meetings and planning sessions with each affected First Nation.
388.4
Impact analysis could be better addressed by First Nations being involved with developing a new methodology of assessing potential impacts that incorporates Indigenous laws and worldviews.
388.5
UNDRIP needs to be strictly adhered to from the outset of an EA process.
388.6
TEK needs to be weighted equally with Western empirical science in all aspects of the EA process, and First Nations need to be provided with capacity resources to carry out studies simultaneously with proponents or government decision makers.
388.7 The reviewable projects aspect of CEAA 2012 needs to be abolished and the former methodology for assessing whether or not an EA is needed needs to be reinstated.
388.8
Scoping decisions must be made with Aboriginal consent and must consider all impacts.
388.9
Recognize that environmental impacts are not equivalent to impacts on Aboriginal rights.
388.10
Project approvals should be refused where regional planning has been inadequately addressed.
388.11 For major projects, EA should be driven by an independently-appointed review panel with investigative powers to direct government departments and retain independent experts to assess environmental risks and impacts. There should be a clear distinction between the technical review and the political decision about whether the project is approved.
388.12
First Nations should be involved and funded to participate in the monitoring program.
388.13
Adaptive management should not be used as a catch-all to allow projects to proceed in the face of scientific uncertainty. The precautionary principle should apply so that, in specific cases of scientific uncertainty, and where potential impacts are significant, the project does not proceed.
388.14 Joint review panels involving a First Nation's appointee should be established or considered.

388.1 - s2.3.1 
388.2 - s2.3.1 
388.4 - s2.3.2 
388.5 - s2.3.1 
388.6 - s2.3.3 
388.9 - s2.3.2 
388.10 - s3.5.2 
388.11 - s3.1.1, s2.5.3, s2.5.1 
388.13 - s2.5.1 
388.14 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
388.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
388.7 - s3.2.1 
388.8 - s3.2.2.1 
388.12 - s3.3.2

CPAWS

Submission "Presentation to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

445.1 Some form of the legislated inclusion list from CEAA 1992 be restored for national parks and major project should be subject to a minimum legislated process similar to what EAA 1992 outlined in its comprehensive study list.
445.2
There should be a link between the EA process and the legislated ecological integrity mandate for national parks and that at a minimum this requires the legislation to prohibit any approval for a project with significant adverse environmental impacts in a national park.

445.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
445.1 - s3.2.1

CPAWS

Presentation "Presentation to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

See analysis of submission #445

 

Craig Candler with Ktunaxa Nation Council

Presentation and Summary Table "KNC Perspectives on EA Issues & Themes for Federal Review" for Nanaimo, Dec 15 2016

218.1 Establish independent federal Indigenous knowledge and reconciliation support offices to provide input to federal agencies running EAs, to arbitrate disputes between Indigenous groups, Crown, and proponents, and to generate guidance on incorporating of TK.
218.2 Joint determination of methodologies for assessment of impacts.
218.3 Identification of agreed upon and culturally informed significance thresholds in EIS. Issue early community engagement guidelines. Plan language documents need to be produced by proponents throughout the EA process, including assumptions made.
218.4 Joint/collaborative drafting for Decision Statement and inclusion of Indigenous knowledge holders, or individual chosen by them as part of the panel. Define in federal EA legislation and policy how UNDRIP will be adhered to, including more that FPIC clauses.
218.5 Develop a federal EA "justification" assessment framework for Indigenous rights.
218.6
Joint development of VCs and indicators.
218.7
Pre-, during-, and post-construction Indigenous monitoring, adaptive management, and communication conditions should be a standard for all federal EA Decision Statements.
218.8 Include capacity funding for reclamation and restoration periods.
218.9 Develop requirement to assess impacts on Indigenous rights and title into federal EA.
218.10 Establish a federal requirement for EIS to establish total cumulative effects to date, including trend over time, and prior to assessment of effects in specific project case.
218.11
Indigenous perspectives regarding the underlying requirements sufficient for the practice of rights must be considered, including cultural acceptability, quantity, and quality of available resources and conditions.

218.4 - s2.3.1, s2.3.4, s3.2.2.3 
218.5 - s2.3.2 
218.8 - s2.3.3 
218.9 - s2.3.2 
218.11 - s2.3.2 
218.10 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
218.1 - s2.3.3 
218.2 - s3.2.2.1 
218.3 - s2.4.3, s3.2.2.1 
218.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
218.7 - s3.3.2, s3.3.2, s2.3.1

Cynthia Bertolin

Presentation

P9.1 Periodically we can access a small envelope of CEAA monies but in no way does this reflect the actual cost of the work that we're having to undertake.
P9.2 The assertion is important because it is the thing that triggers the honour of the crown. The duty to consult – and this is where things get a little squirrelly with the, with the crown, be it federal or provincial – extends not just to the front end of the process, which is the application phase, but it extends all through the life of a project and to reclamation. That is something that's currently not being done in Canada.
P9.3 To get to FPIC in EA] Métis nation needs the resources to be able to look at what's going on. That's what mitigation is about, having a discussion about what it is we're looking at. We're not anti-development, but how do you build a space to continue to talk about how to harvest (inaudible), or what's the best time to get muskrat?

P9.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
P9.1 - s2.3.3, s2.4.2
P9.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3

D McDonell

Comments on CEAA 2012 for your consideration

134.1 The thresholds for the types and sizes of mines potentially requiring a federal EA and the threshold used to determine if an expansion of an existing mine could also require a federal EA should be further evaluated to the potential for unintentional gaps that they could cause.
134.2 The list of areas that can be assessed through a federal EA should be reviewed and expanded.
134.3
The Act should be examined to see if it might be possible to harmonize EA and regulatory processes.
134.4 Special consideration should be given to the accidents and malfunctions that can occur on large scale projects during the operations and closure phases.
134.5
The list of Responsible Authorities should be expanded to include other Federal Agencies (e.g. Fisheries and Oceans Canada)
134.6 Consider a greater level of RA discretion in terms of the timing of the federal EA within the Act.
134.7
Additional information should be publicly available (e.g. addendum reports, letters of support, etc.)
134.8 The notion of adaptive management should be added to the follow-up and monitoring programs
134.9
The federal EA decision statement could also be enhanced by including comprehensive follow-up monitoring framework (with roles and responsibilities, thresholds for decision-making, etc.)
134.10
The RA or the Minister should be able to adjust the conditions if warranted.

134.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
134.7 - s2.4.3 
134.5 - s3.1.1 
134.1 - s3.2.1 
134.2 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.1 
134.4 - s3.2.2.1 
134.6 - s3.2.2.1 
134.8 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2 
134.9 - s3.3.2 
134.10 - s3.3.1

D.M. LeNeveu

Presentation to the Expert Panel: Review of CEAA Winnipeg, 16 November 2016 by D.M. LeNeveu

614.1 Form a permanent independent Federal Environmental Assessment Agency funded by proponents to conduct the EA based on cumulative effects of the entire project from extraction to usage. EA must be done by independent unbiased experts selected and managed by the federal assessment agency. Legacy projects approved by provincial licensing that were not subject to EA's should be reviewed by the agency. The amendments passed by the Harper government should be repealed.
614.2
Public input should be an integral part of the process.
614.3 NRCan, the NEB and the CNSC should provide technical input where relevant.
614.4
A climate change test should be completed based on a national carbon budget consistent with international commitments.
614.5 The agency should do full and complete indigenous consultation and assessment of effects on traditional lands and the food chain.
614.6 Environmental lawsuits having merit as determined by the agency should proceed expeditiously with legal cost born solely by the defendant.

614.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
614.6 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
614.5 - s2.3.2, s2.1.3 
614.4 - s3.7 
614.2 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1 
614.1 - s3.1.1, s3.4.2

D.M. LeNeveu

Presentation to the Expert Panel: Review of CEAA Winnipeg, 16 November 2016 by D.M. LeNeveu

See analysis of submission #614

 

Daniel DeLong

The Public Participation Process in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

443.1 The public needs to be provided with a reasonable opportunity to become involved in the process (open location, convenient time, outside of official working hours).
443.2 Independent facilitators should be made available on request, especially at the early stages of engagement, to facilitate productive discussion between the proponent and interested members of the public.
443.3
The definition of "interested party" must remove the "directly affected" condition and revert back to how it was worded in 1992.
443.4
Time-limits imposed on providing feedback on the screening process should also be removed, or greatly extended, to allow more flexibility for those who want to have an opportunity to participate. The new CEAA should encourage ongoing involvement by extending participation programs to the monitoring and follow-up phases of EA.
443.5
Throughout the public engagement process, there must be a more effective method of communication instead of only having public hearings and open-houses. The new CEAA must recognize the value of social media and allow for the material available in the EA registry to be accessible on social media outlets.
443.6
The reports and files must also be comprehensible to all stakeholders, and the executive summary should be written in non-technical language.
443.7 Participant funding should not be restricted to an interested party in the case of a substitution.

443.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
443.1 - s2.4.1 
443.3 - s2.4.1 
443.5 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
443.6 - s2.4.3 
443.2 - s3.2.2.1 
443.4 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2, s3.4.1

Daniel Mesec

Presentation

P37.1 There needs to be some sort of preliminary consultation before any proposal is submitted to CEAA or the government that looks through who's going to be affected and bring them into the room and get their knowledge, their traditional knowledge, their local knowledge.
P37.2 Build in free, prior and informed consent that we see in the UNDRIP.
P37.3 There can't be a hard timeline put on any of these EA processes.
P37.4 Need to send back proponents when inadequate science and data. Recommend an approach like Skeena Knowledge Trust and the Pacific Salmon Foundation - they have a layer that tracks salmon, spawning rivers, and they have the data there on a public forum where it can be viewed.
P37.5 CEAA needs to do a better job at going into communities and providing them the right information.
P37.6 Re: sustainability and cumulative effects assessment. Bay of Fundy turbine a good example of sustainability assessment, these provisions need to be built into a next generation CEAA process.
P37.7 Endorse the 12 pillars of the West Coast Environmental Law's assessment of the EA process because there are a lot of things in there that we touched upon today, many of us.
P37.8 One of the pillars of the process needs to account for emotion and spirituality that is connected to the land and to the fish and to the air and to the trees and it's all connected. And if people don't feel that they're being heard because that idea of emotion and of spirituality doesn't fall within a scientific process, then those issues need to be addressed. Definitely if we're going to enact and endorse the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights, that - that is part of it.
P37.9 There has to be a mechanism in place for these projects to be reviewed of their validity and whether or not they are - that there is a value within them being processed in a provincial EA system or a federal EA system when you have a company like TransCanada who has a federally-regulated network of pipelines that is going to spill over into B.C. and just because this one section of the pipeline doesn't cross a border, it can be put through the B.C. regulations. And again, I think that that is - that is grossly inadequate and needs to be addressed in the CEAA process.

P36.6 - s2.1.3
P37.7 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
P37.9 - Inconsistent with Canadian statutes and Constitution
P37.2 - s2.3.1
P37.5 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3, s3.2.2.1
P37.8 - s2.3.1, s2.3.4
P37.4 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3, s3.2.2.2
P37.1 - s3.2.2.1
P37.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2

Danielle Gutwillinger, Leah MacGillivray and Alexander Altmann

Brief on Recommendations for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes Received Nov. 15, 2016

1002.1 Provisions for equivalency should not be included under EAA 2012. However, when provincial legislation proves to be more stringently regulatory, then it would be more appropriate to have an equivalency agreement in place.

1002.1 - s2.2.3

Dave Shannon

Requirements of an EA

40.1 Any review panel must be well qualified, independent of and not have a vested interest.
40.2
There should be at least one climate scientist involved in any assessment.
40.3
There must be an examination of both upstream and downstream effects in any EA.
40.4
Cumulative effects of the proposed project in conjunction with existing projects and other proposals.
40.5
If a project has a calculated GHG reduction associated with it, a proviso should be included that if project is approved, it comes with a guarantee that the more heavily polluting projects it is meant to displace are shuttered
40.6
Because a proponent usually gets the ‘science’ it pays for, consider the peer-reviewed credentials of the proponent’s scientific consultants and weigh these against the credentials of scientific submissions of those opposed to the project
40.7
Because a region’s indigenous inhabitants have been natural custodians for many thousands of years, give Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) an equal footing with western science.
40.8 Examine the fallacy of the proponent’s input-output economic models that make wild pie-in-the–sky (and false). Projections about future economic benefits and local job creation.
40.9
Employment and construction must have a strong Canadian component.
40.10 If a project is approved, ensure that an industry funded trust is set up to dismantle the infrastructure.
40.11
Because climate change affects us all, all citizens must qualify as intervenors, not just those directly on the pathway of the proposal

40.9 - s2.1.3 
40.10 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
40.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
40.2 - 2.5.1 
40.5 -In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
40.11 - s2.4.1 
40.6 - s2.5.3 
40.7 - s2.5.2 
40.8 - s2.5.1 
40.1 - s3.1.1 
40.4 - s3.5.2

David Keane, President and CEO, BC LNG Alliance

Submission from BC LNG Alliance

128.1 EA in context: Support science, evidence and fact-based decision making that balances the environmental, social and economic interests with prescribed timelines and focused project lists. Efforts should be made to reduce duplication between various levels of government and should provide clarity and flexibility for addressing subsequent project changes.
128.2 Overarching Indigenous consideration: is inclusive of Indigenous knowledge to identify and mitigate potential impacts. Supports early engagement of those directly impacted. Supports reconciliation and the principles of UNFRIP in a manner consistent with Canadian Constitution and Law.
128.3
Planning EA: Ensure clear jurisdiction and agency coordination, including one-project, one-assessment, minimizing duplication. Provide certainty for all participants using projects lists and prescribed timelines.
128.4 Conduct of EA: should help determine how projects fit within existing policy. Should be adequately resourced with experienced professionals. Requires the RA to engage appropriate government departments. Technology selection considers environmental performance, as well as other important factors such as safety, cost, reliability, etc.
128.5
Decision and follow-up: The province should have exclusive decision-making authority for resource development, except where the project impacts matters of federal jurisdiction. CEAA 2012 should provide proponents with an ability to amend a decision statement to account for subsequent projects changes.
128.6
Public involvement: Promote early engagement with directly impacted people, as well as improved public transparency related to monitoring decision conditions.
128.7 Coordination: Use substitution to avoid duplication, and recognize the successful track record that the BC EAO has in delivering substitution.

128.1 - s2.1.3, s2.5.4 , s3.2.2.1 
128.7 - s2.2.2 
128.2 - s2.3.1, s2.3.4 
128.6 - s2.4.1 
128.3 - s3.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 128.4 - s3.2.2.2 
128.5 - s3.2.2.3, s3.3.1

David L Day

Parks Canada is effectively pursuing sustainable development and ecosystem protection for National Park ski areas by rigorously applying the provisions of the 2010 Cabinet Directive on Environmental Policy, Plan and Program Proposals to ski area management and long-range planning.

271.1 National parks ski area plans and developments should be not be submitted to the full provisions of CEAA Comprehensive Study.
271.2. Optimize positive environmental effects and minimize or mitigate negative environmental effects;
271.3
Consider potential cumulative environmental effects;
271.4
Implement the Federal Sustainable Development strategy;
271.5 Save time and money by drawing attention tom potential liabilities for environmental clean-up and other unforeseen concerns; 271.6 Streamline project-level environmental assessment by eliminating the need to address some issues at the project stage;
271.7
Promote accountability and credibility among the general public and stakeholders; and
271.8
Contribute to broader governmental policy commitments and obligations

271.1 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
271.2 - s2.1.3 
271.6 - s2.1.4 
271.8 - s3.7, s3.6.1 
271.7 - s2.4.1 
271.3 - s3.5.1 
271.6 - s3.5.2, s3.6.1 
271.4 - s3.6.1 
271.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

David R. Boyd

From Environmental Assessment to Sustainability Assessment: A Way Forward for Canada

309.1 New and Improved CEAA. Return to the general approach embodied in the original CEAA (clear triggers, complete scope, full range of environmental effects, etc.), but improve the law based on lessons learned both in Canada and internationally. Improvements would include: attempting to achieve positive environmental outcomes, instead of merely mitigating damage; inclusion of assessments for plans, policies, and programs; improved mechanisms for public participation; and commitment to the principles of the right to a healthy environment, precaution, pollution prevention, polluter pays, environmental justice, intergenerational equity, intrinsic value, and recognizing ecological limits.
309.2
Sustainability Assessment. Create pioneering Sustainability Assessment legislation that shifts the objective from mitigating adverse environmental impacts to providing a positive contribution to a sustainable future.
309.3 CEAA plus SA. Create a hybrid model that includes SA and EA, similar to the system in place in the European Union, where SA and EA are complementary.

309.1 - s2.1.3, s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s3.2.1 
309.2 - s2.1.3 
309.3 - s2.1.4

David Suzuki Foundation

How the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 is failing Canadians

389.1 Reinstate the parts of the CEAA 2012 act lost in 2012, namely

  1. reinstate triggers from other acts and mandatory assessments for a broad range of projects,
  2. ensure that public consultation is free and unfettered, and
  3. require free and easy public access to a registry with detailed project information.

389.2 Improve parts of the CEAA 1992 to reach modern standards, by

  1. including cumulative effects,
  2. prioritizing regional EAs, and
  3. recognizing environmental rights and their protection as a fundamental purpose of the act.

389.1 - s3.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
389.2 - s3.5.1

David Suzuki Foundation

How the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 is failing Canadians

See analysis of submission #380

 

David Suzuki Foundation (variations of this email received by 11232 individuals)

It's time to repair Canada's broken environmental assessment process

EA should do 5 things for people in Canada:
743.1
Allow everyone, including Indigenous peoples, to say "no" to environmentally damaging projects in their communities.
743.2
Ensure that the environmental safety net, which includes other laws and regulations, is intact and working to keep air, water and soil healthy.
743.3
Guarantee public participation and the FPIC of Indigenous peoples.
743.4
Consider the "big picture" and include cumulative effects from multiple projects on interconnected ecosystems in ways a case-by-case approach cannot.
743.5 Include scientific and traditional Indigenous ecological expertise on all EA panels.

743.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
743.3 - s2.3.1, s2.4.1 
743.5 - s2.5.2, s3.2.2.3 
743.1 - s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1 
743.4 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Dawn Hoogeveen

Presentation

P31.1 Change the framing of EA away from mitigation and towards one based in actual land use decision-making processes. In other words, asking whether or not a project should proceed instead of calculating the impacts.
P31.2 Put in clauses in EA legislation that expand timelines and allow for and prioritize community-based land use planning initiatives.
P31.3 Recommend future legislation that provides communities with decision-making power and relieves the Crown from the threat of being sued for compensation, provides Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities the space, funding, and right to a better planning process so that major conflicts over proposed projects are played out in a more even playing field.
P 31.4 S trengthen decision-making processes so that we can understand the property rights that are granted at the mineral staking stage (related to consent).
P31.5 FN need to be given more decision-making power over their lands and the right to FPIC as legislated in UNDRIP, but beyond that, the right to make informed decisions over their cultural and heritage sites.

P31.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
P31.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P31.5 - s2.3.1
P31.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1
P31.3 - s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1

Dean O'Gorman

Speaking notes for presentation in Edmonton, Sept 26 2016

838.1 Two big improvements in the CEAA 2012 (CEAA2012) which should be maintained:

  1. Regulations Designating Physical Activities and
  2. elimination of screening-level EAs.

838.2 Carefully review the current projects on the project list, both in terms of the project types captured as well as the thresholds listed, to determine whether modifications should be made (perhaps also comparing the federal project list to similar lists used by various provincial jurisdictions).
838.3
A revised and modernized set of guidelines to proponents on how to address both GHG mitigation, as well as planning for climate change adaptation, would be an important step to improving the treatment of both climate change mitigation and adaptation in the EA process.
838.4 It would be a worthwhile exercise for the government to take steps to reduce the lack of clarity on when a project warrants a referral to a review panel, as opposed to being assessed via a standard EA, by providing some well thought out guidance on which projects are likely to warrant referral to a review panel.
838.5
The review process should take a little more time on the front end, to foster collaboration between a proponent (and its consultants) and the expert federal reviewers who will eventually be reviewing the EIS, as well as key stakeholder and First Nations communities. The goal could be to improve the scoping of the studies that are done in the planning stage, and thus potentially produce a more efficient and relevant process for information requests after the EIS has been submitted.
838.6
Given the importance of delivering sound and timely reviews for projects in the federal EA system, the federal government should invest in improving the staffing capacity within the federal system to support these reviews.

838.3 - s3.7 
838.1 - s3.2.1 
838.2 - s3.2.1 
838.4 - s3.2.2.2 
838.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 
836.6 - s2.5.1, s3.4.2

Dean O'Gorman

Presentation

P8.1 [Re CEAA 2012 project list approach is good, can be improved upon] The question to my mind is whether a project that's not currently on the list, or projects at the thresholds that are currently identified, do they potentially impact areas of federal responsibility? That's the criteria that, I think, that looking through what should be on the project list.
P8.2 [Re Climate change and federal guidelines on climate change and EA from 2003] I'd suggest that a revised and modernized set of guidelines on this issue, along with a commitment from the federal review process, to promote their use and application would be an important step to improving the treatment of both climate change mitigation and adaptation in the EA process.
P8.3 it's a worthwhile exercise for you to suggest that the government take steps to try and reduce this lack of clarity by providing some well thought out guidance on which projects are likely to warrant referral to a review panel.
P8.4 Is there a way to promote such an enhanced collaboration? I suggest that one approach might be a formal requirement for working groups to be formed at the beginning stages of a project to contribute to, again, scoping the study so that answers are produced that answer and address the eventual concerns federal regulators are going to have later in the process.
P8.5 One way that the federal government could contribute more effectively to this upfront engagement and the process as a whole, I'd argue, would be to think about ways to improve the staffing capacity of federal expertise within the federal system to support these reviews.You may want to consider as the panel whether it would make sense to recommend such an approach or such a training and mentoring program really to, to the agency and to other expert federal reviewer departments.

P8.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
P8.1 - s3.2.1
P8.3 - s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3
P8.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2
P8.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Dean Whellan, Community Consultant, Red Sky Métis Independent Nation

Red Sky Métis Independent Nation Review of CEAA 2012 Received Dec. 23, 2016

889.1 CEAA is the regulatory body for the environment for Canada and the regulation act that governs the agency needs to reflect the interests of all stakeholders in a clear and transparent way for all Canadians.
889.2
The duty to consult calls for meaningful consultation and accommodation. The basic necessities of meeting this requires ensuring adequate time, resources, education, open communication and respect of Indigenous rights.
889.3
Integrating new decisions and principles regarding Indigenous rights need to be implemented in a timely manner. The reduction of documents relating to the same project from proponents and regulatory bodies will improve community capacity. Up front funding for necessary resources to review documentation and longer review periods need to be implemented.
889.4
There needs to be some definitive documentation that shows the ability for CEAA to decline an application due to environmental or stakeholder concerns.

889.2 - s2.3.2, s2.3.3 
889.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3, s3.2.2.1 
889.4 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4 
889.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report

Dease River Development Corporation, on behalf of Dease River First Nation

Dease River Development Corporation Written Submission Received Dec. 20, 2016

952.1 Consultation over and above EA processes.
952.2 Indigenous-driven EA processes.
952.3
Consent-based decision-making.
952.4
For an EA to be complete, it must rely on traditional knowledge in conjunction with available western scientific knowledge.
952.5 Achieving a nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown that is based on respect and recognition of their title, rights, treaty rights and Indigenous laws and values.
952.6
Sharing of benefits.
952.7
Regional land use planning.
952.8
Adequate capacity funding.

952.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
952.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
952.2 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s2.3.1 
952.3 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
952.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
952.6 - s2.3.5 
952.8 - s2.3.3 
952.7 - s3.5.1

Dene Tha' First Nation

Dene Tha' First Nation Submissions to Environmental Assessment Review Panel

5 areas should be addressed in the new federal EA legislation:
21.1
Strategic, regional and cumulative effects EA with full First Nation participation.
21.2
Aboriginal Impact Assessments should be included in the factors that are legislatively-mandated. There should be statutory provisions for EA applications to include a meaningful stand-alone section containing and Aboriginal Impact Assessment that assesses the environmental, health, cultural and heritage, and socio-economic impacts.
21.3
Full participation of impacted First Nations at every step of the EA process, including prior to the proponent filing an application. The First Nations should have a role in determining whether there is a need for an EA, the scope of the project, the type of assessment, the scope of assessment, the completeness of EIS guidelines and EIS, the recommendations on approval, and dispute resolution.
21.4 Independent Canadian Environmental Assessment Board, as a single expert agency responsible for conducting EAs in all sectors. The agency must have the means to deal with conflicting expert opinions in a robust and transparent manner, including through referring the issue to an independent board, taking the issue to mediation or hiring its own experts.
21.5
Additional EA issues.

  1. Project condition. There must be a continuity between project-level conditions (EAC conditions) that filters down to subsequent activity-specific regulatory approval phases (such as specific permits and authorizations required by legislation) so that activities on the ground are consistent with what was predicted in the EIS/AIA.
  2. Need for the project. There should be a legislative requirement for proponents to include in the project's TOR and application a thorough assessment of the need for the project, including any alternatives and a cost-benefit analysis of alternatives over the life of the project.
  3. If harmonized EAs are to be used, it should be a legislative requirement to use the more stringent between federal and provincial requirements.
  4. Funding should be provided to First Nations in order to allow for participation.

21.5 - s2.2, s3.5.2, s3.6.1, s3.6.2 
21.2 - s2.3.2 
21.5 - s2.3.3 
21.4 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
21.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Denis De Pape

Incorporating ‘Social Licence to Operate’ into Environmental Assessments

575.1 Require consideration of community support and opposition for the proposed project in EA guidelines provided to project proponents.
575.2
Include community support/opposition as one of the socio-economic components to be examined in an EA and reported on in an EIS.
575.3 Specify that this component is expected to address the support and opposition of all First Nations, Metis and Inuit whose traditional territory is affected by the project, and all nearby communities directly affected by the project,
575.4 The methodology, analysis and reporting of this component would need to recognize differences in size of communities and more importantly, differences in legal status of communities.
575.5
The nature and extent of community support of and opposition to the project would need to be demonstrated in a scientifically credible manner. UNSURE
575.6
Require an analysis of the validity of the method selected. This requirement should motivate those producing the EA to consult with community representatives about the choice of method.
575.7 Separate results would be presented for each Indigenous and non-Indigenous community within the scope of the community support/opposition component.
575.8
Determination of community support or opposition would be expected to take into accounts all mitigation and enhancement measures that are proposed for the project.
575.9 As with other components in an EA, a significance analysis would be required for the community support/opposition component. This analysis would need to take into account the importance of the distinctive legal rights of Indigenous communities.
575.10 As part of the EA, proponents would be required to identify and commit to measures for enhancing community support or reducing opposition, including agreements entered into with communities.

575.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
575.2 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
575.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
575.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
575.8 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
575.9 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
575.10 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
575.3 - s2.3.1 
575.7 - s2.3.1 
575.6 - s.2.5.3, s3.2.2.1

Denise Melanson

Speaking notes for Fredericton, Oct 11 2016

835.1 In order to ensure a thorough and unbiased process, it is necessary that EIAs be conducted by scientists who are truly independent and free of economic and political pressure and influence.
835.2
The Precautionary Principle, which is the standard that should apply when human welfare and health is involved, would dictate that the assessment should come before the decision.
835.3 Review the EIA model being used by the International Council for Exploration of the Seas. This Assessment model gives equal weight in all geographic spatial planning to human cultural factors such as historic land usage, traditional and spiritual values, as well as the issues related environmental safety and economic considerations.

835.3 - s2.1.3 
835.1 - s2.5.3 
835.2 - s2.5.1

Denise Mullen with Business Council of British Columbia

Presentation "Canadian Environmental Assessment Act & Review Process" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Areas for improvements:
260.1
CEAA office staffing, expertise and succession. Should have skilled project managers with substantive experience that provide continuity to project reviews
260.2
Should review the timeline stop-clock criteria that lengthen actual process times.
260.3 Should review the rationale development for the project list.
260.4 The Crown has to assume its duty to consult, develop guidance on TEK methodology and clarify what is expected under S. 35.
260.5
The data for cumulative impact assessments should be accessible and usable. Accessible and readable EA documents.
260.6
Clear boundaries and expectations for public involvement and industry consultation requirements should be established.

Must avoid:
260.7
Substituting more process for decision-making. CEAA must be a definitive decision not a station-stop on the pathway of approval
260.8
Offloading government responsibility to industry in terms of costs and duty to address First Nations issues
260.10
Transforming EA into a permitting process by duplicating provincial responsibilities.
260.11
Inclusion of the term "social licence" as it prolongs process, etc.

260.1 - s2.5.1, s3.1.1 
260.10 - s2.1.1, s2.1.2, s2.2 
260.11 - s1.1 
260.7 - s2.2.2 
260.4 - s2.3.2, s2.3.4 
260.5 - s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s3.3.2, s2.5.1 
260.6 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1 
260.8 - s2.3.2 
260.3 - s3.2.1 
260.2 - s3.4.1

Denman Opposes Coal

Submission to Review of Environmental and Regulatory Review Processes Received Nov. 30, 2016

989.1 Assessment should include:

  1. determination of whether the proposal serves the public interest,
  2. analysis by independent experts,
  3. assessment of the proponent’s financial solvency at the outset to ensure prudent expenditure of public funds,
  4. increased availability of funds for public and First Nation participation,
  5. early public scoping sessions to indicate degree of support/opposition to project, reasons for position, needs for further information, and questions, and
  6. expansion of the definition of “need” for the project to include perspective of local community.

989.2 Assessment should include:

  1. comprehensive and clear explanation of decisions by federal and provincial project manager, agency heads and Cabinet Ministers, and
  2. listing of criteria or guidelines to be followed by decision-makers in making discretionary determinations.

989.3 Assessment should include:

  1. comprehensive terms of reference addressing project’s contribution to global GHG emissions during the entire life-cycle of the project, serious consideration of the “No Project” alternative, and “need” for the project from perspective of local community,
  2. expanded definition of the affected area around the mine that would be studied for possible effects,
  3. expanded geographical scope of baseline studies and impact assessment, increased number of parameters and species with increased attention on longer-range, longer-term impact potential, and assessment of the health, structure and function of the larger ecosystem,
  4. assessment approach not solely reliant on inadequate “Valued Components" analysis,
  5. serious regard of community plans and vision statements of local and regional governments and non-governmental organizations,
  6. requirement to address a more comprehensive definition of “sustainability” in terms of long-term viability of local/regional economies, and
  7. sufficient consideration of cumulative effects of the historic mine pollution, residential development and proponent’s plans for further coal mine development in the area.

989.4 Assessment should include:

  1. identification of public comments so that commenters can easily find proponent response,
  2. improvement of transcription of oral comments at meetings,
  3. development and publication of clear criteria for evaluation of proponent response, especially as to what constitutes “adequacy” of proponent’s responses to public comment so as to avoid discretionary and subjective determinations by officials and evasive and insubstantial responses by the proponent, and
  4. solicitation and publication of opinion by commenter as to whether proponent response is satisfactory.

989.5 Assessment should include:

  1. greater authority and influence of the GWG to affect decisions,
  2. inclusion of analysis by the GWG of the content of the full application prior to the public comment period,
  3. sufficient time and resources for GWG to properly review documents.

989.1 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s2.4.1, s2.5.1, s3.2.2.1, s4.2 
989.2 - s2.1.3, s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3,
989.3 - s2.1.3, 2.5.1, s3.7 
989.5 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.3 
989.4 - s2.4.1

Denna

Pourquoi la terre est important

529.1 Respect First Nations' rights.
529.2
Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.

529.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
529.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Department of Natural Resources, Government of NL

Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes

302.1 The C-NLOPB should be designated as an RA.

302.1 - s3.1.1

Devon Canada Corporation

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes

169.1 Maintain CEAA 2012 definition of environmental effects
169.2
Allow additional implementation of substitution and/or equivalency as allowed under CEAA 2012
169.3
Continued focus on science-based decision making in the EA process
169.4 EA should focus on understanding the environmental effects of the project, not to develop policies
169.5 Implementation of UNDRIP must be consistent with broader related efforts of government (not solely for EA)
169.6 Continued collaboration between government, communities and industry to establish greater definition on TK best practices
169.7 Greater delineation and harmonization of federal-provincial and proponent roles in consultation
169.8
Ministry/Agency is the body that should assesse impact to rights and assess the consultation adequacy
169.9
SEA/REAs can add significant value to the EA process if they are completed with clear outcomes, led and funded by regulators, and used as tools to inform decisions related to project-specific EAs.
169.10
Provinces and the appropriate provincial agencies should have exclusive EA decision making authority for resource development for all projects, except those where effects from the designated project fall within areas of federal jurisdiction 169.11 Implementation of clear regulatory timelines
169.12 CEAA should focus on engaging with potentially impacted parties while allowing access to information to any interested parties in order to improve overall transparency and confidence in the process

169.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
169.4 - s2.1.4 
169.2 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
169.10 - s2.1.1, s2.2 
169.5 - s2.3.1 
169.7 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
169.8 - s2.3.2 
169.12 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
169.3 - s2.5.4 
169.6 - s2.5.2 
169.9 - s3.5.2, s3.6.1, s3.6.2 
169.11 - s3.4.1

Diana Hardacker

Improvements to Environmental Assessment Act Received Nov. 17, 2016

1000.1 Unrestricted public participation.
1000.2
Decisions based on the long term health of whole ecosystems and communities.
1000.3
Easily accessed information for all.
1000.4
Continual testing to make sure Canada meets its Paris climate goals.
1000.5
A framework for addressing the cumulative effects of industrial and other activities in a region.
1000.6 Abide by scientific evidence and studies, and the input of participants.
1000.7
Rules and criteria to encourage transparency, accountability and credibility, and to avoid politicized decisions.

1000.2 - s2.1.3 
1000.5 - s2.1.4, s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
1000.4 - s3.7 
1000.1 - s2.4.1 
1000.3 - s2.4.3 
1000.6 - s2.5.2 
1000.7 - s3.1.1

Diana Traverse

Presentation

P16.1 [re environmental emergencies and associated works] A lot of this has been done behind doors, the discussions, but there has been no accountability or transparency from the federal and the provincial government.
P16.2 You need to be made aware that there's a lot of discussions that are made behind doors pertaining to indigenous people. They need to be made aware and there needs to be certain policies implemented for accountability and transparency, especially with Manitoba Hydro.

P16.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
P16.2 - s2.3.5, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Diane McDonald

Ya'thi Néné CEAA Submission

99.1 Additional funding for community direct social, economic, cultural and traditional use studies, for community-developed consultation and engagement tools and for EA training.
99.2
Require that community impact studies and impact on Aboriginal and Treaty rights are integrated in the EIS before acceptance of the EIS. The same goes for Traditional Knowledge.
99.3
Develop guidance on how to asses indirect effects on indigenous groups, on how rights and title impacts are to be assessed and for the protection of sacred sites, archaeological sites and protection of Treaty 10 rights and on how to develop socio-economic impact assessment specific to indigenous communities.
99.4
Integrate the spirit and intent of FPIC into the federal EA process.
99.5 Involve First Nation at all steps of the EA process, including when setting timelines.
99.6 Develop a roster of SME to support Indigenous groups, ensure that more Aboriginal people sit on panels and recognize existing process and policies.
99.7 Require regular feedback and reporting directly to the community and for decision-makers to spend time on the land.
99.8
Bring back federal screenings for all projects and establish a requirement for total cumulative effects.
99.9 Involve communities in post-EA follow-up and establish more rigorous requirements for follow-ups.

99.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
99.1 - s2.3.3, s2.4.2 
99.4 - s2.3.1 
99.6 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
99.2 - s2.5.2 
99.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
99.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
99.8 - s3.2.1, s3.5.1 
99.9 - s3.3.2

Diane McDonald

Speaker Notes from Diane McDonald for Saskatoon, Sept 20 2016

See analysis of submission #99

 

Ditidaht First Nation

Written Submission to the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

24.1 EA must foster meaningful indigenous participation by incorporating Indigenous Knowledge, reviewing the timeline approach in the Act, increasing the funding available to indigenous communities and encouraging collaborative models for EA in which First Nations are participating or can choose to conduct their own standalone assessments. EA should be based on appropriate direct and cumulative effects methodology. The EA should require consideration of effects on Aboriginal and Treaty rights and there is a need for a meaningful cumulative effects assessment methodology.
24.2
EA must support meaningful consultation with First Nations.

24.1 - s2.2.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.3, s2.3.4, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.5.2 24.2 - s2.3.2

Dmitry Lisitsyn (Lothar Schiese)

Presentation

P38.1 Studies need to be completed independently, to avoid conflicts of interest.

P38.1 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3

Doig River First Nation

Written Submission to the 2016-17 Federal EA Review Panel

117.1 Develop Early Community Engagement Guidelines for proponents.
117.2
Ministries should have more latitude to adopt additional compensatory and accommodation measures
117.3
Provide substantial increase in the amount of guaranteed federal funding to indigenous group for EA process
117.4
Develop a collaborative consensus Nation-to-Nation approach and Joint Review Panels
117.5 Invest in regional cumulative effects management system and conduct regional studies
117.6
Include the assessment of GHG in upstream assessments and review the baseline requirements
117.7
Bring back federal screening projects for smaller projects
117.8 Work with Aboriginal groups to strengthen guidance on traditional knowledge and include it in EA process. Require evidence of active engagement of Aboriginal groups and integration of TK knowledge.
117.9
Increase visits to the land by Federal decision-makers and ensure comprehension of TK.
117.10
Abandon the current Substituted EA process
117.11
Develop requirement in law to assess impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights and require that impacts be assessed
117.12
Proposed changes to CEEA - see brief

117.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
117.9 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
117.10 - s2.2.2 
117.2 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
117.3 - s2.3.3 
117.8 - s2.3.4 
117.11 - s2.3.2 
117.6 - s3.7 
117.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
117.7 - s3.2.1 
117.5 - s3.5.2

Doig River First Nation

Speaking notes for Chief Makadahay and Cec Heron “Presentation to the Federal EA Review Panel” in Fort St. John Dec. 6th 2016

777.1 If Substitution is continued indigenous communities must be a part of the decision for undertaking Substituted EAs.
777.2 Substituted and Coordinated EAs should be abandoned. If substitution is not abandoned, then more stringent guidelines should be developed, with Aboriginal groups.
777.3 Treaty Rights must be looked at and seriously considered in the future for all major projects, and guidance must be developed with Canadian indigenous groups on how Treaty and Aboriginal rights can be meaningfully assessed. Panels should also provide their informed opinions on the adequacy of consultation.
777.4 The right to "stop the clock" needs to be shared with affected First Nations through a joint decision-making process, part of an overall shift to implement co-management between these levels of government.
777.5 CEAA should either be restructured and provided the appropriate funding to maintain adequate in-house expertise, or focus more on administering EAs rather than assessing effects themselves. More independent panels and more indigenous people on panels in the federal EA system are needed.
777.6 The federal government needs to reject outright any “go elsewhere” argument that does not include a full scope assessment of the ability of affected First Nations to

  1. access preferred locations for meaningful rights practices; and
  2. “go elsewhere”, by identifying the total cumulative effects loading across the territory of that Nation.

777.7 EA must reject the argument that somehow adaptability is a form of mitigation, and assessing the cost of these adaptations.
777.8 Baseline standards should be developed with Aboriginal groups for the assessment and mitigation of impacts to the intangible elements of Aboriginal culture and all federal EA should require Cultural Resource Management Plans that include intangible elements of culture, and requirements that the culture holders themselves are involved in drafting of these plans from the outset. In addition, conditions to EA certificates need to include Elders Advisory Committees to inform planning and interpretation of monitoring programs and implementation of adaptive management truly protective of indigenous cultures.
777.9 The involvement of affected First Nations in pre-, during and post-construction monitoring should become the norm, the minimum foundation for conditioning for any major project in their territories.

777.1 - s2.2.2 
777.2 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2 
777.3 - s2.3.2 
777.5 - s2.5.1, s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
777.7 - s2.5.1, s3.3.1 
777.6 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
777.8 - s2.3.2 
777.4 - s3.4.1

Don Ivany, Atlantic Salmon Federation and Don Hutchens, Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador

Letter to Honourable Catherine McKenna ''Re: Request for Federal Environmental Assessment of Proposal from Grieg Newfoundland Seafarms (Provincial Registration #1834 which has been registered for Environmental Assessment with the Provincial Department of Environment and Conservation, in Newfoundland and Labrador'' April 18, 2016

650.1 Subject the Grieg Newfoundland Seafarms to a Federal EA.

650.1 - s3.2.1

Don Sutherland

MEG Energy- EA Review Submission

210.1 Provincial policymakers should be empowered in EA processes to ensure that regional differences are respected and considered in all federal decision-making processes. Where provincial standards meet or exceed the expectations that have been clearly defined in federal policy, the equivalency and substitution provisions enabled by the Act can and should defer to a provincially-led project review and decision-making process.
210.2
Refine the Regulations Designating Physical Activities to add clarity to the scope of the legislation and as a result, ensure that only projects for which a federal EA is appropriate are captured. The Regulations should not apply to integrated cogeneration with oil sands production facilities or higher thresholds should be applied for such projects.
210.3
Continuing to regulate predictable timelines, adding further clarity to the scope of the Act, and further utilizing the Act's substitution and equivalency provisions to ensure that provincial expertise informs assessments and consequent decisions.

210.1 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
210.3 - s2.2, s3.4.1 
210.2 - s3.2.1

Donald L. Hutchens, Pres. Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador’s

Presentation ''Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador’s (SCNL) Brief"" St. John's October 5

See analysis of submission #650

 

Dr Anna Hargreaves

the need for an arm’s length hiring body

125.1 Contracts to conduct EAs should be awarded by an arm’s length body. They should still be paid for by industry, but industry should have no say in who is hired to conduct them.
125.2
All raw data gathered from EAs should be provided with the EA itself and ideally be make publicly accessible
125.3
A measure of uncertainty should be required for every number presented, both data and projections
125.4
The spirit of compliance requirements should be explicitly stated to reduce the short cuts available
125.5
There should be clear, an explicitly stated mechanism by which First Nations can veto a development project

125.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
125.5 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
125.2 - s2.5.1 
125.4 - s3.3.3 
125.1 - s3.4.2

Dr. Adrienne Peacock

Comments on Environmental Assessment

288.1 For any process of data collection to be credible, interested interveners should be involved in setting the terms of reference for data collection and the appropriate regulatory agency should hire the consultants (not the proponent(s)) using a fund provided by the proponent(s).
288.2
There should be a fund available to enable effective public interest intervention.
288.3 Where the project impacts are contentious, social licence can only be sought through a responsive public hearing.
288.4
Interveners should have input to public hearing panel selection.
288.5
All expert witnesses providing information to the panel must be available for cross examination by all parties, including the public interest interveners, and these witnesses must be under oath.
288.6
The resulting report must be made public and government must make clear that their reasons for accepting or rejecting a project are transparently evidence-based.

288.2 - s2.4.2 
284.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
288.1 - s3.2.2.1 
288.3 - s3.2.2.3 
288.6 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.3 
288.5 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.3

Dr. Brian L. Horejsi, as a citizen and representing Speak up for Wildlife Foundation

Submission to EA Review Process Received Dec. 23, 2016

872.1 Full public participation must be enshrined, starting with public scoping of the issues and foreseeable problems, public entitlement to submit evidence, and public review of draft EA.
872.2
The EA panel must do, or oversee the preparation of all EIA. They can, and should, included drawing on multidisciplinary experts from government, academia, and independent organisations as members of the assessment panel.
872.3
The new regulations must include a foundation that all analysis and decisions will incorporate "best available science".
872.4
The public must be given the legal right to challenge the Panel's decision, and subsequent adherence to the decision and its obligations by the proponent of a project in an administrative hearing process, and when necessary, in the federal courts.

872.1 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1 
872.2 - s2.5.3, s3.2.2.3,
872.3 - s2.5.1 
873.4 - s3.2.2.3

Dr. Briony H.E. Penn

Environmental Assessment Act Review Panel Received Dec. 28, 2016

966.1 The EA process should address the long-standing concerns of Canadians:

  1. takes into account cumulative impacts,
  2. reviews projects within the context of climate change, is independent from industry and government,
  3. has a meaningful and extensive public involvement,
  4. protects indigenous subsistence rights.

966.2 Canadians should be properly warned of the implications of not keeping viable functioning ecosystems/carbon sinks.

966.1 - s2.1.3, s2.3.2, s2.4.1, s2.5.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
966.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Dr. Elaine Porter

The True Costs of Mining: Needed Approaches to the RECONCILIATION process

127.1 A regional approach to environmental assessment is the only one that makes sense in light of the larger ecosystem connections and cumulative environmental effects.
127.2 To renew our relationships with the indigenous we need to honour their relationship with the land and allow them their traditional place as its caretakers

127.2 - s2.3.1 
127.1 - s3.5.1

Dr. Piotr Trela

Submission to the review the environmental impact assessment

652.1 The research and preparation of the EA, while still paid for by the proponent, should be awarded by a neutral, hands-off agency, like the environmental impact assessment panel.
652.2 Sufficient amount of the proponent's money should be set aside to support independent evaluation of the assessment and review of applicable scientific literature by non-profit stakeholders.
652.3 Make the recommendation of the EA panel either binding, or at the very least, much more difficult to reject; then enforce their implementation.
652.4
Monitor the implementation of the assessment recommendations by the proponent after the EA process of the proposal is concluded.
652.5 Evaluate of the performance of the environmental consulting firms hired to prepare the environmental impact assessment report.
652.6
Learning from the past mistakes. Follow-up assessment would be useful in future improvements of the EA process itself

652.1 - s.2.5.3, s3.4.2 
652.2 - s.2.5.1, s.2.5.3, s3.4.2 
652.3 - s3.2.2.3 
652.5 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3 
652.6 - s3.3.2 
652.4 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Dr. Piotr Trela

Submission to the Panel on Environmental Assessment

See analysis of submission #652

 

Dr. Sandy Greer, PhD

Follow-up to Initial Written Submission in the Environmental Assessment Review based on Intervenor Participation regarding Deep Geological Repository Proposed next to Lake Huron

9.1 The EA processes need to recognize more fully the limitations not just of the `precautionary principle’ but the limitations of the human mind to create theoretical principles and empirical tools such as technologies of measurement based upon the limitations of human subjectivity.
9.2 Determination that there could be "significant adverse environmental effects" should be demanded sooner, through mandatory tests, prior to licencing a designated project.
9.3 EA regulations should recognize human limitations in regard to assumptions about how much we think we can know, or eventually discover, by using computer modelling.

9.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
9.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
9.3 - s2.5.1

Dr. Sandy Greer, PhD

Submission "Critique of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process Using Example of Proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Radioactive Waste" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

See analysis of submission #9

 

Dr. Vanessa Craig, R.P.Bio, President, College of Applied Biology

Review of Environmental Review Processes Received Dec. 07, 2016

974.1 Should add the concept of accountability as a cornerstone of a revised robust and transparent EA process. To enhance confidence, the EA process needs qualified accountable professionals, whose recommendations must be based on scientific facts and must not be biased by emotions. The addition of accountability to the EA process, whether in data collection; development of reports, recommendations, or statements; or for decision-makers, will provide the public, government, and industry with a level of trust that is currently lacking.

974.1 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3

Duncan Wilson, Vice President, Corporate Social Responsibility, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Submission to the Expert Panel Reviewing Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 12, 2016

756.1 Consider other mechanisms or forums for meaningful public dialogue and policies outside of EA processes.
756.2
Ensure mitigation measures are both technically and economically feasible in the specific context of the project being proposed.
756.3
Introduce stringent requirements for proponents to provide information about project and site-specific technical and economic feasibility.
756.4
Enhance the capacity of Aboriginal groups to more effectively participate in federal EA process.
756.5
Provide for coordination of Crown Coordination and proponent engagement and continue to provide guidance.
756.6
Maintain the list of designated projects in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities.
756.7 Enhance CEAA by developing clear mechanisms and appropriate guidance to help initiate, define scope and fund regional studies.
756.8 Enhance the capacity and resources of those charged with the administration of the review process (i.e. CEAA).
756.9
Compel port authorities to provide appropriate transparency around projects and environmental reviews and permitting.
756.10 Provide greater oversight and transparency for non-designated projects in a timely way.
756.11
Use appropriate qualified and experienced accredited professionals to prepare technical content of EA.
756.12
Provide transparency regarding the factors taken into consideration by the statutory decision maker when making a public interest decision and the process by which such a decision may be made.
756.13
Require proponents and the permitting agency to provide plain language summaries of technical information in an accessible format.
756.14
Continue the requirement to consider public and Aboriginal input when selected VCs for federal EA.
756.15 Continue the provision for process harmonization and coordination for designated projects where both federal and provincial EAs are required.
756.16
Re-introduce provisions for non-designated projects located on federal land or otherwise within federal jurisdiction to increase consistency and avoid duplication in the manner in which multiple federal authorities identify, evaluate and determine the significance of environmental effects.
756.17
Clarify the scope of environmental reviews of non-designated projects, in particular specifying the factors that should be considered.
756.18 Include provisions or requirement for regional multi-stakeholder and multi-agency collaborative partnerships or forums.

756.2 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.1, s2.5.2 
756.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
756.9 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
756.15 - s2.2.1 
756.13 - s2.4.3 
756.17 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
756.18 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
756.3 - s3.2.1 
756.4 - s2.3.3 
756.6 - s3.2.1 
756.10 - s3.2.2.1 
756.11 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
756.12 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4 
756.14 - s3.2.2.1 
756.16 - s3.2.1 
756.7 - s3.5.1 
756.1 - s3.6.1, s3.6.2 
756.8 - s3.1.2

Eabametoong First Nation

Eabametoong First Nation Written Recommendations to CEAA 2012 Expert Review Panel

75.1 The federal triggers for EA under CEAA 1992 should be reinstated and additional triggers should be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities. In addition to federal triggers, the Regulations Designating Physical Activities should remain in place to provide greater certainty about projects requiring EA. An exclusion list should be reinstated.
75.2 Review timelines and funding for EA in order to improve opportunities for Indigenous participation.
75.3 The role of the CEAA must be reimagined.
75.4
First Nation led EA should be recognized and encouraged.
75.5 Creating appropriate federal engagement with aboriginal people in EA, including clearer requirements for Crown engagement, clearer authority for federal departments to gather information by First Nations, etc.
75.6
Require consideration of effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.
75.7
Provide for government led, regional/strategic EAs.
75.8
Develop a proper approach to meaningful assessment of the cumulative effects a project may have on Aboriginal and Treaty rights.
75.9
Assess projects based on their contribution to sustainability along with their mitigation of adverse effects.
75.10 Require consideration of Indigenous Knowledge.
75.11 Funding provided to assist participation in an EA should not be considered a mitigation measure and EAs should be conducted even where IBAs are signed.
75.12 Require transparent decision making and stronger EA follow-ups and enforcement.

75.3 - s3.1.2 
75.9 - s2.1.3 
75.4 - s2.2.1 
75.2 - s2.3.3, s3.4.1 
75.5 - s2.3.2 
75.6 - s2.3.2 
75.8 - s2.3.2, s3.5.2 
75.10 - s2.3.4 
75.11 - s2.3.5 
75.1 - s3.2.1 
75.7 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
75.12 - s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.3.2, s3.3.3, s2.5.1

Eabametoong First Nation

Presentation "The land belongs to the Creator, and the People belong to the Land” for Thunder Bay, Nov 15 2016

427.1 Reconfigure purpose and approach of CEAA to examine two complementary foci or tests, namely sustainability and the identification and mitigation of significant adverse effects.
427.2
Broaden CEAA to specifically identify effects on Aboriginal and Treaty rights, rather than being considered as a sub-set of environmental effects in section 5(1)c.
427.3
EA must occur at a broader, strategic/regional environmental governance and policy/management level, and link to tiered project-level EAs.
427.4
As Treaty partners, First Nations and others need to be supported with time and capacity, as well as processes that enable joint decisions on EA conditions and approvals with the Crown.

427.1 - s2.1.3 
427.2 - s2.1.3, s2.3.2 
427.3 - s2.1.4 
427.4 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3, s3.2.2.3

Eagle Lake First Nation

Written Submissions Regarding the Federal Environmental Assessment Regulatory Process

63.1 Require consideration of Aboriginal and Treaty rights within future EA regime.
63.2
Develop fulsome consultation protocols in accordance with First Nation's existing legal traditions and procedures.
63.3
Provide additional resources and capacity support options to build the internal capacity of First Nations to allow for effective participation in the review process.
63.4
Increase funding for First Nation participation in the EA process, to support for a paid internal position to coordinate First Nation participation and for the collection of Aboriginal knowledge throughout the EA process.
63.5 Remove barriers to First Nations participation such as caps on funding and strict timelines for participation.
63.6
Increase Crown oversight during negotiations for capacity funding agreements between First Nations and project proponents.
63.7 Implement a system where First Nations have the opportunity to determine and identify whether a project may impact their rights.
63.8
Mandatory face-to-face meetings with First Nations leadership or identified community consultation coordinator - prior to any public announcement of a proposed project.
63.9
Use Aboriginal knowledge in EA process.
63.10
Allow for participation in decision-making, namely by implementing Free, Prior and Informed Consent, guaranteeing that First Nations have a say in determining the scope of EA, having a legislatively enshrined consent-based decision-making role regarding the approval of projects along with mitigation measures.

63.1 - s2.3.2 
63.2 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1 
63.3 - s2.3.3 
63.4 - s2.3.3 
63.5 - s2.3.3, s3.4.1 
63.9 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
63.10 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
63.6 - s2.3.5 
63.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
63.8 - s3.2.2.1

East Coast Environmental Law

Considerations to Improve EIA in Canada

13.1 EA should be holistic, incorporating biophysical, social, economic and cultural considerations.
13.2 Improve decision-making by making the EA process accessible and based on mutual learning.
13.3 The use of a formal hearing process for specific EA should be clearly articulated in legislation. T 13.4 Recognize intergenerational equity in the EA process.
13.5 Ensure a national approach to EA as the elimination of federal EA is not necessarily replaced by robust provincial assessment.

13.1 - s2.1.3 13.5 - s2.2.1 13.4 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report 13.2 - s2.5.3 13.3 - s3.2.2.2

East Coast Environmental Law

Presentation "Presentation to EA Reform Panel 3 October 2016 Halifax, Nova Scotia" for Halifax October 3rd 2016

667.1 The next generation of EA in Canada must recognize and address the inherent imbalance between a project proponent and citizens who may oppose the project of have concerns or questions.
667.2 The next generation EA must ensure that proponents are held accountable when they fail to meet the requirements of the EIS guidelines and information requests from those responsible for assessing the project.
667.3
The next generation EA needs to incorporate the principles of sustainability to ensure that those responsible for the assessment of a proposed project can use those principles to guide their work.

667.3 - s2.1.3 
667.1 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
667.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3

Ecojustice

Federal Environmental Assessment for the Future: Ecojustice Submissions to the Environmental Assessment Review Panel

See analysis of submission #257

 

Ecojustice

Submission "Ecojustice Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Calgary, November 21, 2016

456.1 The assessment of environmental effects should be conducted by an unbiased, independent authority at arm's length from departmental mandates and partisan political interests. RAs, such as the NEB, can and should provide required subject-area expertise to an independent assessment authority, but should not be conducting the assessment themselves.
455.2 Decisions must be based on explicit, clearly articulated sustainability-based criteria that are identified at the start of the assessment process, and supported by persuasive evidence presented during the process.
455.3 Decision making must be transparent and open. All documents and information considered by the decision maker must by publicly available.
455.4
The decision maker must articulate fulsome reasons for the decision that provide justification, transparency and intelligibility with respect to the decision made, including identification of the trade-offs considered.
455.5
Any override of the recommendations of the independent authority by the political decision maker must be time limited, transparent and justified with fulsome reasons.
455.6
The establishment of a quasi-judicial appeal board to hear appeals of procedural matters, interlocutory decisions and recommendations made by the authority conducting the assessment.
455.7 Explicit statutory provisions allowing for appeal of procedural matters, interlocutory decisions and recommendations to the appeal board.
455.8
Explicit statutory provision allowing for an appeal to the appeal board of the EA report on the grounds that it has not been prepared in accordance with the statutory requirements.
455.9
Explicit statutory provision allowing for an application to the Federal Court for judicial review of a decision by the political decision maker, particularly where the decision maker has failed to provide reasons for the decision, within the normal limitation periods established in the Federal Courts Act.

455.7 - s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3, s3.1.2 
455.9 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
455.1 - s3.1.1 
455.3 - s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.1, s2.4.3 
455.4 - s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3 
455.6 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
455.8 - s3.1.1 
455.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4, s2.1.3 
455.5 - s3.2.2.3, s3.1.1

Ecojustice

Submission "Ecojustice Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

481.1 Adopt a hybrid approach whereby the legislation includes a list of designated projects but is also triggered by key legislative authorizations, such as those pertaining to fisheries and navigable waters.
481.2 In addition to a list of designated projects, it is also important that there be a provision by which the Minister can subject a non-designated proposal to an EA similar to s. 14(2) in CEAA 2-12. There should be a clear test for the exercise of this discretion so that it is exercised where warranted based on the likely impacts of a given project.
481.3
There should be a requirement for the Minister to provide reasons as to why a project is not likely to cause adverse environmental effects in situations where the Minister decides to reject a request.
481.4
All designated projects should be subject to an EA. In the event that the government decides to retain a screening step, then initial screening for a particular undertaking should be a largely administrative step aimed at determining whether or not an EA is required.
481.5
EAs should be scoped so as to examine the overall impact of a project on economic, social, and environmental sustainability, and should include consideration of project impacts on local communities. This includes cumulative effects on the environment but also on communities.
481.6 The public should have the opportunity to meaningfully participate in scoping decisions rather than being included after the fact and after a decision may have already been made to exclude matters of interest to the local community from the scope of an EA without public input.
481.7 A statutory requirement to include certain factors in an EA would help ensure comprehensive assessments.
481.8
The list of factors presently identified at s. 19(1) of CEAA 2012 should be expanded and amended so as to provide greater clarity. Among the mandatory factors to be considered should be potential alternatives to achieving the purposes of a given undertaking that would decrease its associated adverse social, cultural, and environmental effects.
481.9 Limit project splitting to ensure projects are considered in a holistic manner so as to truly advance the objective of sustainable development.
481.10
Examination of community impacts should of necessity include consideration of the characteristics of the impacted community similar to the approach taken under the US NEPA.

481.5 - s2.1.3 
481.10 - s2.1.3, s2.4.3 
481.3 - s3.1.1, s2.5.4, s3.2.2.3 
481.1 - s3.2.1 
481.2 - s3.2.1 
481.4 - s3.2.1 
481.6 - s3.2.2.1 
481.7 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.3 
481.8 - s2.1.3 
481.9 - s2.1.3

Ecojustice

Submission “Ecojustice Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes” for Toronto, November 9, 2016

See analysis of submission #481

 

Ecojustice

Submission "Ecojustice Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Ottawa November 9, 2016

See analysis of submission #481

 

Ecojustice

Submission “Ecojustice Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes Clarity and Dealing with Uncertainty” for Ottawa November 8, 2016

See analysis of submission #506

 

Ecojustice

November 8, 2016: Clarity and Dealing with Uncertainty

623.1 We must shift from EA for the purpose of mitigating adverse impacts of proposed projects to a sustainability assessment of policies, plans and projects that fosters the strongest feasible positive contributions to lasting wellbeing while avoiding significant adverse effects.
623.2 The new Act should provide clear direction about what must be included in an EA with specific and measurable standards against which to measure sustainability, and those requirements should have the force of law. More precisely:

  1. binding standards for meeting sustainability threshold,
  2. a requirement to substantively consider all evidence relevant to the sustainability analysis (EA should do more than avoid acute harm, they should evaluate the extent to which a project contributes or derogates from broader sustainability goals) and
  3. rules for addressing any ongoing uncertainty about potential adverse effects of a project.

623.3 To effectively foster lasting wellbeing while avoiding adverse effects, an EA must ask clear questions and answer them with reference to all of the relevant evidence. The questions asked should spring from set legislative criteria and be subject to a known and rigorous standard of proof. Clear, precautionary rules are equally important in situations of scientific uncertainty.

623.1 - s1.2 
623.2 - s1.2, s3.2.2.1 
623.3 - s.2.1.3, s.2.5.1

Ecology Action Centre

Improving the Contribution of Science and Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge to EA Process

147.1 Improve science in the EA process and in EA documents
147.2
Consider including an open and transparent peer review mechanism in the EA process
147.3
Setting standards and criteria for EA documents
147.4
Ensuring the involvement of external scientists and holders of traditional and indigenous knowledge in the production or review of EA documents
147.5
Increase the independence of those producing EA documents
147.6
Employ strategic and regional assessments in a consistent and dedicated manner
147.7
CNSOPB and CNLOPB should not become responsible authorities

147.1 - s2.5 
147.2 - s2.5.1 
147.3 - s3.2.2.1 
147.4 - s2.5.1, s5.2.2 
147.5 - s2.5.3 
147.7 - s3.1.1 
147.6 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1

Eighth Fire Solutions Inc.

Presentation "EA expert panel Presentation" for Sudbury, Nov 4 2016

235.1 CEAA should require an office for Indigenous Engagement Strategies to model decolonization at the national level and to encourage strategies at local and regional levels that rebuild and respect Indigenous connection to the land and water, knowledge of resource development projects, participation in the economy, etc.
235.2 Regional/Treaty participation in EA processes, including ongoing monitoring to decrease competition between First Nations and to increase more effective use of limited human resources in land use planning.
235.3
Include TEC/TK/IK as well as local knowledge in all EA processes.
235.4
TEK/TK/IK during EA and supplementary stages of project implementation must have authority.

235.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
235.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.3.2 
235.3 - s2.3.4 
235.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2

Elaine Hughes, Quill Plains (Wynyard) Chapter of the Council of Canadians

Expert Panel on the Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 20, 2016

963.1 The former CEAA should be re-instated along with the improving water protection Acts.
963.2
Restore and enhance the freshwater and environmental legislation so that all lakes, rivers and waterways are fully protected.
963.3 Reinstate and strengthen federal scrutiny of present and proposed large pipelines and power lines under the NWPA and assessment of waterways under the CEAA. Include a clause in the NWPA and CEAA so that potential spills or discharge of harmful substances are assessed for their impact on all navigable waters.
963.4 Hold public consultation and independent expert panels and incorporate feedback to strengthen the NWPA.
963.5
Ensure that a consultation process is established in CEAA that fosters true collaboration between communities and government so regulatory agencies implement community recommendations on ongoing basis. Develop a a mechanism that establishes a community's right to say "no" to projects that threaten waterways and empowers communities to create low-carbon, sustainable jobs that safeguard water.
963.6
Consult with Indigenous peoples and incorporate the obligation to obtain FPIC into the CEAA, NWPA and Fisheries Act so that Indigenous treaty and water rights are respected and a nation-to-nation relationship is truly established.
963.7 Implement strict safeguards for waterways within the framework of the UN recognized human right to water and sanitation.

963.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision, Forwarded to other reviews
963.2 - Forwarded to other reviews
963.4 - Forwarded to other reviews
963.7 - Forwarded to other reviews
963.6 - s2.3.1 
963.5 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1

Elias Elhaimer & Nigel Vidler

Indigenous Traditional Knowledge in Canadian Federal Environmental Assessment

355.1 Conduct a rigorous evaluation of the federal EA process within Canada to ensure that the proper legislation is set in place to establish a pathway for ITK to effectively inform federal EA and assist in the prevention of further environmental degradation in Canada.
355.2
ATK and Western knowledge should be equally valued, and the Indigenous engagement and the gathering of ITK should occur much earlier within the federal EA process to ensure meaningful consultation and better-informed decisions.
355.3 Mandatory requirement for proponents to attempt to incorporate ITK or request ITK.
355.4 Change the language in section 19(3) in the current Act from "may take into account" to "should take into account" ITK.
355.5 More opportunities should be present where ITK can be incorporated throughout the EA process which will be at the discretion of Indigenous peoples rather than project proponents.

355.1 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
355.2 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2, s3.2.2.1 
355.3 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
355.4 - s2.3.4 
355.5 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2

Elisa Obermann

Presentation "Marine Renewable Energy & the Environmental Assessment Process" for Halifax, Oct. 3, 2016

666.1 Maintain EA process under CEAA to support experience and data gathering.
666.2
Ensure efficient and effective EAs through joint EA process.
666.3
Encourage and enhance DFO engagement in science and monitoring.
666.4
Support responsible adaptive and staged growth through clean technology funding.

666.2 - s2.2.1 
666.3 - s2.5.1 
666.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
666.1 - s3.1.2

Elizabeth

Les problèmes au Canada

541.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.
541.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

541.2 - s2.1.3 
541.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Elizabeth Kaller

Environmental Protection and Assessment Received Dec. 20, 2016

945.1 Urgent action to stabilize and reduce GHG emissions should be central to plans and proposals.
945.2
Consideration of jobs and trade and profit, which detour environmental thought and action, should be avoided.
945.3 Proposals to be assessed should arrive with research on cumulative effects and alternatives, and be subject to robust scrutiny, by experts and the public.
945.4
Proposals for the development and transport of fossil fuels, and proposals lacking FPIC-proposals which could not be approved- should not be received.
945.5 Assessment panel members should be independent, expert, and conflict-free.
945.6
Panel decisions should be revisited over time to improve decision-making performance.
945.7 The EA agency should go beyond examining new proposals and could examine the effect of practices in use.

945.2 - s2.1.3 
945.4 - s2.1.3 
945.1 - s.7 
945.3 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.5.1 
945.7 - s3.5 
945.5 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
945.6 - s3.3.1

Elizabeth May, O.C., Member of Parliament, Saanich-Gulf Islands, Leader, Green Party of Canada

My Submission to the Expert Panel Received Dec. 23, 2016

891.1 There is a need for a more robust agency, with permanent commission members and the ability to develop an internal jurisprudence would better serve the public and proponents of projects.
891.2 Urge a comprehensive Environmental Bill of Rights for Canada.
891.3
The NEB has no place in environmental reviews, and even less so should the CNSC of the off-shore petroleum boards be conducting reviews.
891.4
Restoring the CEAA to its 1992 status would be a vast improvement. But in 2017, we should be able to modernize the process for better environmental protection in the context of enhanced socio-economic results.

891.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
891.4 - s2.1.3 
891.1 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
891.3 - s3.1.1

Elizabeth Metis Settlement (EMS) and Fishing Lake Metis Settlement (FLMS)

Submission from EMS and FLMS - Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

1016.1 The Agency needs to develop expertise on the impacts of resource development on Indigenous rights, including Indigenous culture.
1016.2 Work with Indigenous communities to develop guidelines for the effective assessment of impacts on Indigenous peoples.
1016.3 Work with Indigenous communities to collaboratively develop guidelines respecting the appropriate use, disclosure and protection of traditional land use information collected in the course of project assessments.
1016.4 Funding should be provided for non-project specific capacity building with respect to federal EA processes.
1016.5
Better coordination of capacity funding for Indigenous communities with the timing of the regulatory process.
1016.6
CEAA should be amended to require the Agency to lead all EAs, as opposed to proponent-led EAs.
1016.7
CEAA 2012 should be amended to require Agency involvement when provincial regulatory processes regarding Metis and First Nation consultation and accommodation are lacking or inadequate.
1016.8 SAGD projects over 12,000 barrels/day should be added to the designated projects list.
1016.9 CEAA 2012 should be amended to require the Crown consultation plan for each project requiring an EA.
1016.10
CEAA 2012 should be amended to reflect the spirit and intent of UNDRIP.
1016.11
The definition of "environmental effects" in CEAA 2012 should be amended to include effects on current and future use of lands for traditional purposes.
1016.12 CEAA 2012 should be amended to require TLU studies to be completed as part of an EA.
1016.13
The Agency should work with Indigenous communities to establish a process for measuring and addressing regional cumulative effects and impacts on Aboriginal rights.
1016.14 The Agency should develop a clear mechanism for monitoring and follow-up programs.

1016.8 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 1016.11 - s1.2, s2.1.3 
1016.7 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
1016.1 - s2.3.3 
1016.2 - s2.3.2 
1016.3 - s2.3.4 
1016.4 - s2.3.3 
1016.5 - s2.3.3, s3.4.1 
1016.9 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1 
1016.10 - s2.3.1 
1016.12 - s2.3.4 
1016.13 - s2.3.2, s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
1016.6 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
1016.14 - s3.3.2

Elsipogtog First Nation

Written Submissions on behalf of Elsipogtog First Nation Received Dec. 20, 2016

960.1 Consultation over and above EA processes.
960.2
Indigenous-driven EA processes.
960.
3 Consent-based decision-making.
960.4
For an EA to be complete, it must rely on traditional knowledge in conjunction with available western scientific knowledge.
960.5 Achieving a nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown that is based on respect and recognition of their title, rights, treaty rights and Indigenous laws and values.
960.6
Sharing of benefits.
960.7 Regional land use planning.
960.8
Adequate capacity funding.

960.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
960.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
960.2 - s2.3.1 
960.3 - s2.3.1 
960.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
960.6 - s2.3.5 
960.8 - s2.3.3 
960.7 - s3.5.1

Elsipogtog First Nation

Written Submissions to the Expert Panel regarding the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 20, 2016

962.1 Consultation over and above EA processes.
962.2
Indigenous-driven EA processes.
962.
3 Consent-based decision-making.
962.4
For an EA to be complete, it must rely on traditional knowledge in conjunction with available western scientific knowledge.
962.5 Achieving a nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown that is based on respect and recognition of their title, rights, treaty rights and Indigenous laws and values.
962.6
Sharing of benefits.
962.7 Regional land use planning.
962.8
Adequate capacity funding.

962.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
962.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
962.2 - s2.2.1 
962.3 - s2.3.1 
962.4 - s2.3.4 
962.6 - s2.3.5 
962.8 - s2.3.3 
962.7 - s3.5.1

Emily Davis

Coordination with Indigenous Peoples in Environmental Assessment in Canada: Proposed Reforms

532.1 Introduce an early stage consultation by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to all Aboriginal communities relevant to a development to clearly articulate the regulatory process of EA and the specifics of participating in an EA.
532.2
Incorporation of a comparative section in CEAA which defines the similarities and differences of the federal duty to consult process in comparison to participatory approaches in EA by proponents.
532.3
In CEAA, incorporate a legally binding approach to “meaningful” participation for Aboriginal peoples.
532.4 Adjust the participant funding structure for Aboriginal peoples to encourage “on-going” participation following an approval decision.
532.5
In CEAA, define that traditional Aboriginal knowledge must be considered in an EA.

532.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
532.1 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1, s2.1.2, s2.4.2 
532.3 - s2.3.2 
533.4 - s2.3.3 
532.5 - s2.3.4

Emma Hodgson

Presentation "Presentation to CEAA Review Panel" for Kamloops, Dec 5 2016

See analysis of submission #330

 

Emma Hodgson and Adrienne Davidson

Presentation "Presentation to CEAA Review Panel" for Fort St-John, Dec 5 2016

330.1 It is critical to provide the public with sufficient information about changes to policy; provide data and analyses that assess and explain the implication of changes.
330.2
Ensure projects are assessed for cumulative impacts across boundaries. EA process must be flexible enough to engage in transboundary questions.
330.3
Involvement of experts, particularly regarding cumulative effects is crucial.

330.3 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3

Emma Hodgson and Adrienne Davidson,

Presentation "Presentation to CEAA Review Panel" for Kamloops, Nov 28 2016

See analysis of submission #330

 

Emma Hodgson, Amanda Winegardner and Adrienne Davidson

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Review Panel - Written Submission

97.1 A gap analysis should be conducted by government in order to compare the new legislative framework with the previous framework.
97.2
Federal EA processes must be sufficiently flexible to allow for the assessment of transboundary impacts and cumulative effects across jurisdictional boundaries.
97.3
Subject matter experts involved in EA processes are generally consultants. While they can bring a wealth of knowledge, EA processes should also include the input of academics and other research based organizations in order to ensure that the most recent best practices from the literature are represented.
97.4
Ensure that proper data gathering and dissemination is available on EA processes, whether or not protections of navigation are improved.
97.5 Perform an assessment of whether protection of navigation can have environmentally protective effects even without the triggering of an EA.
97.6
While piecemeal addition of water bodies to Schedule A of the NPA will not guarantee enhanced environmental protection or more environmentally protective interaction with CEAA, water bodies of critical importance to First Nation, Inuit and Métis users should be considered for protection of navigation.

97.2 - s2.1.1, s3.2.2.1 
97.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
97.4 - s2.5.1 
97.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.3 
97.5 - s3.2.1 
97.6 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Enbridge

Enbridge Submission for Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes - Dec 2016

199.1 Canada's regulatory system does not require radical reform. The foundation remains strong and could be incrementally improved with several targeted initiatives.
199.2
Canada's regulatory regime must be underpinned by a robust public policy framework.
199.3
The NEB remains the best-placed regulator for federal EA.
199.4
The current designated project list approach is working well and should be maintained.
199.5
Establish an "EA library" to enable public access to previous EAs as well as follow up and monitoring data
199.6
Expanded up-front scoping process for EA development involving participation from impacted stakeholders
199.7 Improve the cumulative effects assessments, including the development of clear and consistent guidelines
199.8 Project proponents remain best placed to conduct EAs
199.9
Incentives for stakeholders to coordinate their input across like-minded groups may help minimize duplication and focus public resources on common interests.
199.10 Provide greater certainty and guidance regarding Indigenous consultation and accommodation, including clearly outlining roles and responsibilities, process steps and timelines.

199.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
199.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
199.4 - s2.3.1 
199.6 - s2.1.2 
199.9 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1 
199.3 - s3.1.1 
199.5 - s2.4.3, s3.3.2, s2.5.1 
199.8 - s2.5.3, s3.2.2.2 
199.6 - s3.2.2.1 
199.10 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
199.7 - s3.5.2

Envigour

Presentation "Presentation to Expert Panel: Bruce Cameron, Principal Consultant Envigour Policy Consulting Inc." for Halifax October 3rd 2016

664.1 Set energy policies and objectives. Governments have an obligation to say what and how.
664.2 Conduct SEA to establish environmental and social issues framework. Policy direction on what and how activities in this area should take place. Build early public awareness, engagement and input into decisions.

664.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate 664.2 - s3.6.1, s3.6.2

envirolawsmatter.ca, a project of West Coast Environmental Law Association (variations of this email received by 518 individuals)

Time for the next generation of environmental assessment in Canada

The next-generation EA law should be based on an integrated set of reforms, including:
744.1
Sustainability as a core objective, to ensure the long-term health of the environment and communities.
744.2
Meaningful public participation for anyone who wishes to participate.
744.3
Accessible information for the public, Indigenous groups and stakeholders.
744.4
A climate test to ensure Canada stays on track to meet its climate goals.
744.5
A framework for addressing the cumulative effects of industrial and other activities in a region.
744.6
Collaborative decision-making with Indigenous nations, based on nation-to-nation relationships and the obligation to secure FPIC.
744.7
Rules and criteria to encourage transparency, accountability and credibility, and to avoid politicized decisions.

744.1 - s2.1.3 
744.6 - s2.3.1 
744.4 - s3.7 
744.2 - s2.4.1 
744.3 - s2.4.3 
744.7 - s3.1.1 
744.5 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Environment North

Presentation "Review of environmental and regulatory processes to restore public trust” for Thunder Bay, Nov 14, 2016

432.1 Align project approvals with climate goals.
432.2 EAs need to develop a framework for project approval in terms of GHG emissions including upstream, project and downstream emissions.

432.1 - s.3.7 
432.2 - s.3.7

Environment North

Presentation "Federal Environmental Assessment Review Key Considerations" for Thunder Bay, Nov 14, 2016

433.1 Develop a long-term vision grounded in sustainability with a focus on social well-being rather than economic goals that have the expectation of the social structure falling into place. Strategic plans, policies and programs need to be linked to the long-term vision.
433.2
Develop robust cumulative effects guidelines and a regional approach.
433.3 Make use of precautionary principle and adaptive management strategies.
433.4 Build in flexibility to enable ongoing review and early identification of issues to make timely adjustments.
433.5 Involve public and indigenous peoples in determination of risks and adjustments.
433.6
Integrate science and traditional knowledge.
433.7
Consider complexity, science, critical theory, systems ecology and participatory democracy.
433.8
Consider thresholds and limits to growth that not all impacts can be mitigated.
433.9
Public involvement needs to be ongoing and from the outset (selection of review panel, developing TOR, scoping, monitoring, etc.).
433.10
Increase funding levels to enable thorough public review. Provide additional funds when review extended due to additional information.
433.11
Provide sufficient resources for public to engage experts to create a level playing field and promote a balanced review.
433.12 Make extensive use of public review groups to enable dialogue and debate.
433.13 Provide an appeal process for the public.
433.14
Ensure reasonable timeframes for public review.
433.15
Provide information regarding the alternatives considered included consideration of the "null" alternative.

433.1 - s2.1.3 
433.8 - s2.1.3 
433.7 - s2.5.1, s2.4.1 
433.10 - s2.4.2 
433.11 - s2.4.2 
433.14 - s2.4.3 
433.3 - s.2.5.1 
433.6 - s.2.5.2 
433.4 - s3.2.2.1, s5.4.1 
433.5 - s3.2.2.1 
433.9 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.3.2, s2.4.1 
433.12 - s3.2.2.1 
433.13 - s3.2.2.3 
433.15 - s3.2.2.1 
433.2 - s3.5.2

Environmental Health Association of Manitoba

Environmental Health Association submission regarding the Canadian Environmental Assessment Process review

106.1 Support the 8 recommendations of the "Health Organizations and Health Professionals Submissions of the Federal Environmental Assessment Processes"
106.2 Support the "12 Pillars of a Next Generation EA Regime" as contained in the submission by West Coast Environmental Law.

106.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
106.2 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report

Environmental Law Centre (Alberta)

Federal Environmental Assessment: evolving EA law to sustain future generations

234.1 Federal EA should be focused on ensuring a sustainable approach to resource development and climate change, to maintain the quality of the environment for future generations.
234.2
CEAA should include planning (strategic, regional and project) assessments and post assessment compliance assurance and ongoing review and evaluation of mitigation approaches.
234.3
Determinations of a project's contribution's net benefits to all aspects of sustainability should be guided by clear criteria that can be integrated at the earliest stages of planning, which in turn will mitigate investment risks.
234.4
There must be systems of information gathering and decision making in EA process whereby heightened scrutiny of projects and their contributions to cumulative impacts must be assessed.
234.5
Assessments must be inclusive of relevant criteria/factors and related analysis to be able to ascertain the overall sustainability of a given project or proposal.
234.6
The EA agency should be accompanied by measures to avoid regulatory capture including an independent statutory mandate, high levels of autonomy to direct and manage EA processes, and the inclusion of statutory mechanisms to be reviewed.
234.7
EA related work should be conducted through a third party but funded by the proponent.
234.8
Indigenous and community based monitoring and knowledge should be included in the assessment process.
234.9
Participatory rights should include rights to cross-examine information that is supporting project assessments.
234.10
Commitments made during the course of EA reviews should be deemed to be binding conditions of the subject party.
234.11 Create a system where follow-up is transparent and accountable with clear and robust monitoring, tracking, evaluating, learning and altering mitigation conditions on EA related approvals.
234.12
Removing substitution and equivalency provisions of CEAA 2012.

234.1 - s2.1.3 
234.12 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
234.3 - s2.5.4, s2.1.3 
234.5 - s2.5.4 
234.9 - s2.5.1 
234.6 - s3.1.1 
234.4 - s2.5.3, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
234.2 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3, s3.5.1 
234.8 - s3.3.2, s2.5.2 
234.10 - s3.3.1 
234.11 - s2.5.1, s3.3.1, s3.3.2 
234.7 - s3.4.2

Environmental Law Student Society

Presentation

P12.1 the environmental effects of all projects involving the federal government in any way must be addressed, considered and documented. We can no longer limit the environmental impacts that we take into consideration to a designated project list. The regulations designating physical activities are inadequate if we have to – if we want to have a healthy and sustainable future.
P12.2 When it comes to projects in this list, it's necessary to have a panel review, a panel whose appointments are based on merits and expertise similar to human rights. Because if they are of national significance, we need experts who are willing and able to do what is best for Canadians. The power to decide if environmental assessment is necessary cannot be left to the discretion of people who are subject to political and economic influence.
P12.3 Environmental impact assessments cannot be done in isolation of one another, and certainly cannot be self-assessments by industry or bureaucracies who have a mandate separate from the one in Section 4, Subsection 2 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, especially if there are no binding guidelines on how to complete a thorough environmental assessment that make – that takes into account all relevant and accumulative factors.
P12.4 As you know, CEAA '12 Section 19 is Factors Considered. It requires the consideration of cumulative environmental effects that may occur in connection with a designated project, but there is – but there needs to be a subsection within that list that includes factors that must always be taken into consideration. This assessment must include and have written within the legislation the impacts the proposed development would have on greenhouse gas emissions and its impact to climate change, all aquatic ecosystems, including freshwater, marine, and including areas beyond national jurisdiction, and terrestrial ecosystems look at their entirety.
we recommend that the environmental assessment process include P12.5: 1) an assessment of projected greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the surrounding environment; P12.6 2) a consideration of how those emissions can be justified under Canada's international obligations; P12.7 3) the approach – the adoption of an adaptive impact management plan allowing proponents to respond to changes in technology and environmental conditions; and P12.8 finally, mandated consistent monitoring throughout the operation of the project.
P12.9 We believe that there should be a complete overhaul of CEAA 2012.
P12.10 The new Environmental Assessment Act should include more opportunities for not only public consultation but appeal decisions on – appeal decisions on whatever is made. Not only should there be opportunities to appeal throughout each step of the approval process, but there also has to be a chance to appeal based on continuous monitoring. .. A review of such – of this could happen in the courts, but it would be more equitable and just if it was brought to an environmental tribunal composed of industry and scientific experts, similar to the structure that we have in our human rights tribunals.

P12.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2
P12.9 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
P12.5 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.7
P12.6 - s3.7, s2.1.3
P12.10 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s3.2.2.3
P12.1 - s3.2.1
P12.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3
P12.3 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3
P12.7 - s2.5.1
P12.8 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2

Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus

Achieving a Next Generation of Environmental Assessment

359.1 A ‘cooperative’ federal EA approach with other jurisdictions should be used.
359.2
Delegation, equivalency, and substitution of provincial processes for the federal one should not be permitted, for reasons of public confidence as well as process standards.
359.3
At the federal level, there should be one responsible authority for reviewing all levels of assessment. Decision-makers would receive recommendations from reviewing bodies, with final decisions made by all relevant jurisdictions.
359.4
An independent tribunal would handle disputes, facilitate government-to-government negotiations, and potentially conduct periodic reviews of the federal EA regime and processes overall.
359.5
An independent expert committee would provide strategic advice and assistance on all levels of EA, including when regional and strategic EAs should be conducted.
359.6
Triggering of federal assessments of undertakings should combine the list-based approach taken in CEAA 2012 and the decision-based approach taken in CEAA 1992:

  1. a list of undertakings for which assessments are mandatory; and
  2. decision-based triggers for undertakings that require a federal regulatory decision or meet other criteria for federal involvement.

359.7 Mandatory triggering of S-REA of proposed federal policies, programs, or plans being advanced for Cabinet or ministerial decision.
359.8
An expert or multi-interest committee should be established to advise the Minister of Environment on changes to the mandatory assessment list of undertakings, decision-based triggers for undertakings, and triggering of strategic and regional assessments.
359.9
Commitments and obligations arising from the EA process should result in meaningful tracking, reporting and compliance assurance.
359.10 The Assessment Authority should maintain a registry of commitments and obligations identified through EA.
359.11
Legislative mechanism to allow individuals, RAs, and the Assessment Authority to initiate specific tracking and reporting measures where there appear to be issues of non-compliance.
359.12
There should be an EA-specific authorisation, with conditions, in addition to other relevant federal authorisations to ensure commitments are expressed in a clear and enforceable manner, and are specifically tracked in the EA decision-making process.
359.13 Adaptive management and mitigation measures must be entrenched in a formal system of monitoring, evaluation.
359.14
Next generation EA legislation should establish the generic criteria for assessment decision making and provide for further specification of these criteria for application to particular cases and contexts in line with the legislative generic criteria.
359.15
At a minimum, the federal government must conduct project assessments so as to understand whether proposed projects affect Canada’s ability to meet its international climate commitments and obligations

359.1 - s2.2.1, s3.4.1 
359.2 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
359.8 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
359.10 - s2.4.3, s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
359.14 - s2.1.3, s2.5.4, s3.2.2.3 
359.15 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
359.15 - s3.7 
359.3 - s3.1.1 
359.4 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
359.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2 
359.6 - s3.2.1 
359.14 - s2.1.3 
359.7 - s3.6.1 
359.9 - s3.3.3 
359.11 - s3.3.3 
359.12 - s3.3.1, s3.3.3 
359.13 - s3.3.2

Eoin Finn with My Sea to Sky

Presentation and speakers notes "Improving CEAA Processes" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

387.1 Meaningful participation:

  1. require extensive local advertising, social notice of EA steps and timing, including notice to all local authorities,
  2. require that the working groups be representative of all stakeholder interests,
  3. require town hall style open houses hosted by the public advocate, and
  4. require proper attention to public comments, proponent responses and expert evidence.

387.2 Science based decisions:

  1. appoint a public's advocate funded in parity with proponent's spending,
  2. require independent peer-review of all proponent-supplied science,
  3. allow cross-examination of proponent-supplies materials,
  4. require establishment of baselines for key environmental metrics and value components,
  5. require a full pro-forma public benefit accounting,
  6. forbid proponents' local donations.

387.3 Best technologies available:

  1. require that the public advocate research and publish world-leading practices technologies,
  2. require proponents to highlight and address any deviation from world-leading and
  3. require adequate public liability insurance coverage.

387.4 Inclusion of Indigenous groups:

  1. clarify indigenous rights and title prior to launch of EA process,
  2. fund FN's own EA reviews,
  3. respect bottom-up organization of FN decision-making and (iv) require proponents to adhere to contractual deliverables to FNs.

387.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
387.4 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.3, s2.3.5 
387.1 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
387.2 - s.2.5.1, s.2.5.3

Équiterre

Review of Environmental Assessment Processes - Équiterre

141.1 Replace CEAA 2012 with an entirely new piece of EA legislation built upon the 12 pillars of next-generation EA.
141.2 Create an independent, quasi-judicial expert tribunal, comprised of full-time members with EA experience who are carefully vetted to ensure they are free of bias and conflicts of interest.
141.3
Implement measures to ensure integrity, quality and independence of information used in assessing environmental and socio-economic impacts, and establish new standards for the EIS that assures proper focus on sustainability considerations, and moves the EIS model away from the traditional adverse impacts/mitigation focus.
141.4
Absolutely eliminate the notion of "Responsible Authorities" or other delegations of responsibility for conducting federal EAs.
141.5 Utilize broad definitions of "environment" and "environmental impact".
141.6
Ensure that the "need for the project" is properly substantiated by the proponent and analyzed from a public interest-based perspective, and that alternatives to the project are given substantial weight and consideration.
141.7 Avoid lists of designated projects and establish more sensitive triggers for EA application that will ensure capture of all projects ,policies and programs in need of evaluation.

141.1 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
141.5 - s2.1.3 
141.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
141.7 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
141.3 - s2.5.3 
141.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
141.4 - s3.1.1

Eric Harvey, Senior Counsel, CN Rail

CN Rail Submission to the Expert Panel Received Dec. 22, 2016

912.1 Maintain the CEAA as the EA administrator, and the separation of the EA and permitting processes.
912.2
Maintain the Regulations Designating Physical Activities List, and the focus on larger projects with the potential for significant effects.
912.3 Maintain existing opportunities for public and Indigenous consultation.
912.4 Ensure that project scoping for railway projects remains focused on the federal railway undertaking, and does not extend to upstream or downstream activities outside of the railway's control.
912.5 Provide for more consideration of economic benefits in the EA decision-making process.
912.6
Improve adherence to defined timelines.
912.7 Provide clearer EIS Guidelines at the outset of the EA process.
912.8
Clearly define the factors that guide whether a project requires a panel review.

912.2 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
912.4 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
912.5 - s2.1.3 
912.3 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
912.7 - s3.2.2.1 
912.8 - s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
912.1 - s3.1.1 
912.6 - s3.4.1

Eric Reder

Speaking notes for presentation "Oral Presentation to the Federal Expert Panel Reviewing Environmental Assessment" for Winnipeg, Nov 16 2016

416.1 Implementation of UNDRIO, specifically article 19.
416.2
The next generation EA cannot be written without the inclusion of the lost fish habitat protection from the Fisheries Act, shoreline protection which was partially provided under NEPA, and the removal of EA from the NEB along with the reinstated requirement for all major projects - including pipelines - to require federal EA. The Species At Risk Act also needs to be included in the formation of next gen EA.
416.3
Next gen EA starts with cumulative impacts assessments for a region.
416.4
Federally chartered agency will exist for each of the regions in Canada, and it will be jointly governed by aboriginal, federal, provincial, and territorial government representatives.
416.5
Public hearings are needed, where proponent and/or government are required to answer questions on record, without limitations on public participation.
416.6
EA panel must use their power of subpoena to ensure government and/or the proponent testifies under oath when information is not forthcoming.
416.7
The scientists working for various governments, as well as independent scientists and experts, need to be the Technical Advisory Committee for an EA.

416.1 - s2.3.1 
416.6 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
416.5 - s2.4.1 
416.2 - Forwarded to other reviews
416.4 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
416.7 - s3.2.2.1, s2.5.1 
416.3 - s3.5.1

Eric Swanson

Recommendations to Modernize Federal EA in Canada

6.1 Incorporating a screening phase before projects proceed to a full technical review.
6.2
Allow people to engage as Cabinet itself engages (i.e. broadly and expansively).
6.3
Broad, expansive engagement should be conducted early.
6.4
Integrate the concept of systemic risk (explain the nature of the risks involved along with the potential benefits).
6.5
Use early engagement to formalize pathways to "no".
6.6
Federal EA should be re-named Federal Environmental Risk Governance.
6.7
There needs to be a check on Cabinet's authority to approve.

6.1 - s2.1.2, s3.2.1 
6.6 - s1.2 
6.2 - s2.4.2 
6.3 - s2.4.1 
6.4 - s2.5.4 
6.7 - s3.1.1 
6.5 - s3.2.2.1

Eugene Bourgeois

Presentation "Recommendations" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

482.1 Adopt Ontario's 1976 EA guidelines.
482.2
Make funding available to stakeholders in the local study area to participate.
482.3
Allow cross-examination of witnesses.
482.4
Create an oversight body with the responsibility to bring criminal charges against any institutions and leaders who seek to subvert the good intentions of the act by creating and end-run around the regulations.

482.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
482.2 - s2.4.2 
482.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
482.4 - s3.3.3

Eugene Bourgeois

Submission to EA Review Panel for Eugene Bourgeois Toronto, November 9, 2016

See analysis of submission #482

 

Eugene Bourgeois

Submission to EA Review Panel for Eugene Bourgeois Ottawa, November 9, 2016

See analysis of submission #482

 

Eugene Bourgeois

Speaking Notes for Eugene Bourgeois' Presentation in Toronto November 9, 2016

See analysis of submission #482

 

Eugene Bourgeois

Eugene Bourgeois's Presentation Missing on Submission Page Received Dec. 20, 2016

See analysis of submission #482

 

Evidence for Democracy

Scientific integrity for environmental decision-making: A submission to Canada’s Expert Panel for reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

156.1 Standardize methods for integrating community and traditional knowledge throughout the project life-cycle
156.2
All proposals, interim reports and EIS should include detailed, replicable methods and open data
156.3
Provisions for peer-reviewed independent science and evidence through the establishment of either

  1. a fund for stakeholders to contract environmental expertise in addition to the proponent, or
  2. an independent arms-length government body responsible for the entire impact assessment

156.4 Establish an independent, arms-length body for decision-making which uses transparent and consistent criteria for significant adverse effects
156.5
Make follow-up reports mandatory and public, and allow the decision-making body to amend approvals and conditions based on new evidence
156.7
Establish a comprehensive online public registry with a standardized format for all information and data concerning projects under the CEAA
156.8 Establish a program of regional or ecosystem-level assessment to evaluate impacts on environment, economy, society, and human health at multiple scales

156.7 - s2.4.3 
156.1 - s2.5.2 
156.2 - s2.5.1 
156.3 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3, s3.4.2 
156.5 - s3.3.1 
156.4 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s2.5.4 
156.8 - s3.5.2

ExxonMobil Canada

EMC Submission to the Expert Panel

284.1 Coordination of inter and intra-governmental activities with respect to EAs will remove the existing overlap of various agencies and reduce duplication of effort for all stakeholders. The ultimate objective should be one project with one assessment and one decision.
284.2
The current project list approach helps assures a measure of certainty and should be maintained.
284.3
The RA should seek to engage appropriate levels stakeholders expertise as well as appropriate government departments for input.
284.4
Timelines for stakeholders and agency input should be established in order to support process efficiency.
284.5
Employ a risk based approach that recognizes both the consequences and probability and assesses alternatives. Mitigations should be commensurate with the risk and in situations presenting high consequence / high probability risk that cannot be mitigated the proposed activity should not be permitted to proceed.
282.6
Leverage SEA conducted by the C-NLOPB and CNSOPB.
282.7
The engagement capacity of Indigenous groups can be enhanced by optimizing participation in an efficient process that minimizes duplication and provides for appropriate timelines that allow for meaningful engagement and consultation.
282.8
The C-NLOPB and CNSOPB should remain RAs for offshore oil and gas.

284.1 - s2.2.1 
282.7 - s2.2.1 
284.5 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
284.6 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
282.8 - s3.1.1 
284.2 - s3.2.1 
284.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
284.4 - s3.4.1

Fawn Knox

Written submission for the November 28th forum in Kamloops, B.C. Received Nov. 27, 2016

991.1 EA processes, policies, regulations and legislation must go beyond considering the role of land-system change and consider all the subsystems of our planet (removing C02 from the atmosphere, freshwater use, loss of habitat, etc.) in order to chart an ecologically sustainable course.
991.2
The contribution made by all must be shared with all levels of the EA; the provincial, regional, local, strategic and project levels, including better opportunities for Indigenous peoples to participate.
991.3 Accessible information for the public, Indigenous groups and the stakeholders.
991.4 We not only need to be changing our ways of extracting resources, but we need to be transitioning to an approach that removes economic development from environmental degradation and long term adverse health impacts that are commonplace within mining operations.
991.5 A framework for addressing the cumulative effects on industrial and activities in the region, including a Health Impact Assessment.
991.6 Collaborative decision-making with Indigenous nations.
991.7
Rules and criteria to encourage transparency, accountability and credibility and to avoid politicized decisions.

991.1 - s2.1.3 
991.4 - s2.1.3 
991.5 - s2.1.3, s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
991.6 - s2.3.1 
991.3 - s2.4.3 
991.2 - s2.4.3 
991.7 - s3.1.1

Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations

Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations' Final Report to the Expert Panel Received Dec. 23, 2016

905.1 Fund and provide for the creation of an independent Indigenous constitutional rights compliance officer.
905.2
Engage Indigenous communities at the strategic policy level.
905.3
Require preliminary comprehensive EAs for all development projects.
905.4 End substitution of provincial and regulatory assessments and decision-making.
905.5
Broaden the definition of "environmental effects".
905.6
Remove excessively broad, non-transparent government discretion and control.
905.7
Lengthen timelines for Indigenous-specific consultation.
905.8
Increase opportunities for Indigenous input within EA processes.

905.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
905.3 - s2.1.2 
905.5 - s1.3, s2.1.3 
905.4 - s2.2.2 
905.6 - s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s3.2.2.3 
905.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
905.8 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
905.2 - s3.6.2

Feminist Northern Network

Final submission from FemNorthNet "Requiring Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) and Participatory Research Principles in Environmental Assessments"

1010.1 To include a gender based analysis plus (GBA+) requirement as a mandatory component of EA.
1010.2
To incorporate principles of participatory research into EA processes, including follow-up and monitoring.

1010.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
1010.2 - s2.5.1, s2.5.2

First Nations Health Authority

FNHA Submission to EA Review Panel

33.1 Improve health assessment in EAs by integrating a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment (HIA) approach and related management plans.
33.2
Incorporate socio-economic assessments and related management plans into EAs.
33.3
Require the establishment of baseline data on community health and wellness prior to any development proposal.
33.4
Health and socio-economic assessments should be community-driven, participatory processes, inclusive of traditional ecological knowledge and community-defined health and wellness indicators.
33.5
Ensure effective engagement processes with First Nations communities and EAs and improve funding for participation and capacity building.
33.6
Enhance capacity of health authorities to establish expertise, review projects, participate in HIAs, SEIAs, and EIAs, critique relevant assessments, and respond to increased health agency requirements resulting from resource development projects.
33.7 Achieve clarity around legislated powers under the BC Public Health Act to require HIAs to be conducted.
33.8 EAs should meet the highest level of international standards available.
33.9
Reconsider the definition of "designated project" and/or ensure provincial EA processes are consistent with federal standards and adequately consider Aboriginal interests and impacts.

33.1 - s2.1.3 33.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
33.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
33.7 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
33.8 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
33.2 - s2.1.3 
33.9 - s2.2.1, s3.2.1 
33.5 - s2.3.3 
33.4 - s2.5.2, s2.5.3

First Nations Lands Advisory Board

Presentation "Recommendations on Environmental Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

266.1 No changes to the framework agreement EA process can be made without the consent for framework First Nations.
266.2
Explore framework agreement amendments to set out core EA principles for EAs and remove current restriction tying First Nations to use CEAA.
266.3
The requirements for consent, consultation or other engagement in future federal EA legislation should be developed by agreement with Framework First Nations.
266.4 Set out in CEAA requirements to engage First Nations before the start of an EA process, to provide for participation in the EA process itself including funding consideration, and to require consideration of First Nations in identified compliance and enforcement measures.
266.5 Clarification of CEAA: explore in context of other CEAA amendments changes to the CEAA definition of "jurisdiction" to expressly identify First Nations that have ratified the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management

266.1 - s2.1.2, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
266.2 - s2.1.3, s2.3.2 
266.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
266.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.3.3, s2.3.1, s2.3.3, s2.1.2 
266.5 - s2.2.1

First Nations Lands Advisory Board

First Nations Lands Advisory Board Recommendations on Environmental Assessment

See analysis of submission #266

 

First Nations Lands Advisory Board

Presentation “First Nations Lands Advisory Board Recommendations on Environment Assessment” for Vancouver, December 11th, 2016

See analysis of submission #266

 

Foothills Ojibway First Nation - Chief Jim O'Chiese

FOFN Written Submission to the Expert Panel for the Review of EA Processes

32.1 The EA regime should be replaced by a model that affords full recognition of the Aboriginal perspective on such matters as Aboriginal title and rights, including treaty rights, and incorporates the Aboriginal constitutional rights to self-determination and self-government, and the Indigenous jurisdiction over their land, including for the Indigenous communities whose jurisdiction is not yet recognized. An Indigenous board should be put in place (not part of CEAA) in order to take part in the whole process, starting at the very outset of the assessment, and be involved in the decision-making process.

32.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2

Foothills Ojibway First Nation - Chief Jim O'Chiese

FOFN Written Submission to the Expert Panel for the Review of EA Processes

35.1 CEAA 2012 needs to be revised in order to be consistent with the Crown's fiduciary relationship with indigenous peoples.
35.2
Include a consideration for Aboriginal title and rights in the statutory scheme.
35.3 Review the current definition of environmental effects with respect to Aboriginal people to acknowledge that Aboriginal perspective is needed to make this determination.
35.4
Mandatory inclusion of Aboriginal perspective regarding potential impacts of a project.
35.5 Provide Indigenous-specific consultation process to uphold the Crown's duty to consult.
35.6
Remove barriers to meaningful participation (flexible timelines, proper communication, adequate funding, plan language version of documents, etc.).
35.7
Recognize and account for the Aboriginal inherent rights to self-determination and self-governance.
35.8
An Indigenous board, designed to assist Indigenous communities in evaluating the environmental and cultural effects of a given project on their rights and interests as early as the screening stage should be put in place.
35.9 The revised CEAA needs to recognize the Indigenous jurisdiction at every phases of EA process, including at the decision-making stages, in line with UNDRIP.
35.10
CEAA should ensure that Indigenous communities have a say in the final decision-making through the board and its local agencies.

35.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
35.8 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
35.1 - s2.3.2 
35.2 - s2.3.2 
35.4 - s2.3.2 
35.7 - s2.3.1 
35.9 - s2.3.1 
35.5 - s3.2.2.1, s2.3.2 
35.10 - s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1 
35.6 - s3.4.1

Fort McMurray #468 First Nation Industry Relations Corporation

Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

295.1 EA processes need to be re-centered to a meaningful and collaborative process. There is a need for Nation-to-Nation dialogue and engagement in these processes.
295.2
EA processes need to better recognize that projects, whether small or large, do not occur in isolation. There needs to be a better understanding and assessment of a project's environmental effects on a regional, cumulative, as well as at a broader level. Triggers should be added to require a broader cumulative assessment (geographic areas, etc.). The concept of environmental effects needs to be broadly conceptualized and clarified. All potential environmental effects should be considered in assessments.
295.3
The EA process needs to better recognize and account for the time and capacity constraints that can be experienced by Indigenous groups. There is a need to ensure that timelines are reasonable for meaningful and informed indigenous involvement and participation in such processes. Indigenous groups need to be engaged at an early and foundational stage of the assessment process.
295.4 Monitoring and follow-up should include broad participation, particularly from indigenous communities such as local First Nations.

295.1 - s2.3.1 
295.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 
295.2 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
295.4 - s3.3.2

Fort McMurray Metis Local 1935, Fort Chipewyan Metis Local 125, Fort McKay First Nation, Fort McKay Metis Local 63 and Conklin Metis Local 193

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

294.1 Retain a list of designated project but with an expanded application (e.g. mandatory federal EA for situ developments, projects that may cause adverse impacts to the environment or Aboriginal people, etc.). Include an "Aboriginal impact" trigger, impacts on water quality as a trigger and a broader scope for EA.
294.2
Put protections back into the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act.
294.3 Conduct RSEA to identify high value traditional land use and conservation areas, mechanisms to protect opportunities for traditional land use in proximity of the communities, and develop indicators of sustainability for monitoring, adaptive management and follow up. Include a provision for the public to request such an assessment.
294.5 Develop a directive and guidance document requiring an integrated approach to assess impacts to aboriginal culture, land use, and the environment.
294.6
Restore aspects of CEAA related to assessment of climate change and GHG.
294.7
Consideration for cumulative effects, with a revised definition, and mechanisms for its integration.
294.8 Re-instate that alternatives to project are mandatory for all federal assessments.
294.9
Provide a regulatory guideline for assessing the environmental effects of malfunction or accidents.
294.10
Add provisions for follow-up mechanisms to ensure mitigation and commitments are implemented and monitored.
294.11
Require an assessment of the net positive effects of the project to the environment as well as socio-economic conditions locally and regionally.
294.12
Increase transparency. Reasons for decision when projects are approved should be made available as well as all documents.
294.13 Respect the Crown's duty to consult and UNDRIP. Consultation processes and the federal assessment process need to demonstrate the effect consultation has had on decision making.
294.14 Remove barriers to participation (timelines, funding)

294.11 - 2.1.3 
294.2 - Forwarded to other reviews
294.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
294.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
294.8 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
294.9 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
294.6 - s3.7 
294.10 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
294.14 - s2.4.2, s2.4.3 
294.1 - s3.2.1, s3.2.1 
294.12 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.3 
294.13 - s3.2.2.3 
294.3 - s3.5.2

Fort McMurray Métis, Fort Chipewyan Métis, Fort McKay First Nation, Fort McKay Métis & Conklin Métis

Presentation "Review of Federal Environmental Assessment (CEAA)" for Fort McMurray, Nov 24 2016

See analysis of submission #294

 

Frederick W. Schueler, Ph.D. & Aleta Karstad, Fragile Inheritance Natural History

Environmental Assessment - Fragile Inheritance Natural History Received Dec. 22, 2016

922.1 Impartial EAs of proposed projects as opposed to proponent-led EAs. The ministries should assess how bit a job each EA will be, invoice the proponents for the cost, themselves contract-out the EA to impartial investigators, and then circulate the resulting drafts to interested, expert, and indigenous parties for peer-review.

922.1 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.2

Gabriolans Against Freighter Anchorages

Protection of coastal environments threatened by marine industrial development

136.1 Institute a sustainability model.
136.2
Reinstate the classes of EAs removed in CEAA 2012 to include screenings and comprehensive studies.
136.3
Institute independent assessments.
136.4
Scientists with expertise should become prime decision makers, removing the politics from the decision-making.
136.5 Public participation in all stages of the EA.
136.6
Consideration of best alternatives should include all alternative options or scenarios on a broader regional. Basis as assessed by an independent process.

136.1 - s2.1.3 
136.6 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.5.1 
136.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
136.5 - s2.4.1 
136.3 - s2.5.3 
136.4 - s2.5.1, s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.1.2

Gary Schneider, Co-chair, Environmental Coalition of Prince Edward Island

Presentation ''Presentation to Expert Panel'' for Fredericton October 11

642.1 The EA process should include:

  1. and open and transparent process,
  2. full recognition of Indigenous rights,
  3. cultural sensitivity,
  4. early and timely notification,
  5. repeated opportunities for public involvement,
  6. participant funding,
  7. a genuine ability to influence the outcome,
  8. an assortment of public involvement tools,
  9. an accounting of how the public input was used, and
  10. a thorough follow-up and monitoring program.

642.2 The EA process should recognize that sustainability-enhancing economic, ecological and social objectives are interdependent. EA should be centered on learning, building a culture of sustainability and serving the long as well as short term public interest. The EA process should be regarded as a learning process instead of a confrontation.

642.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.3, s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3, s3.3.2 642.2 - s2.1.3

Gavin C. Diron and Glen W. Wonders with Association for Mineral Exploration

Presentation "Expert Panel on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Process" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

262.1 The federal EA process could be improved by focusing on information needed for Federal jurisdiction permits.
262.2
Federal reviews should consider critical project elements and avoid scope creep into other issues, such as broader cumulative effects assessments.
262.3
Additional improvements could include removing Independent Panel Reviews which are too often logistically and technically challenging, difficult to fulfill agency mandates, and confrontational.
262.4 The Federal government should continue to provide support to indigenous communities to meaningfully participate in EA processes.
262.5 Evolving the substitution process and implementing the equivalency tool in the future.

262.1 - s2.1.1 
262.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
262.5 - s2.2.2 
262.4 - s2.3.3 
262.2 - s3.5.1

George M. Dolinar, Director, Environmental Protection and Radiation Protection, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Letter "Canadian Nuclear Laboratories letter in response to request for engagement from the Expert Panel" December 19, 2016

936.1 The CNSC is the agency best placed to make EA decisions on nuclear projects.
936.2
The CEAA 2005 Exclusion list should be re-instated to exempt projects known to have no significant environmental effects from a Section 67 Review.
936.3
EAs and Section 67 reviews should be coordinated with permitting processes, such as those under the Species at Risk Act.
936.4 Guidance should be provided on how to include factors such as upstream GHG emissions.
936.5
The potential for net environmental improvements should be more clearly recognized by the EA process.

936.2 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
936.5 - s2.1.3 
936.4 - s3.7 
936.3 - s3.2.1 
936.1 - s3.1.1

George Sorger

Submission “ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, SOME THOUGHTS ON THE PROCESS” for Ottawa November 1st

515.1 An EA should weigh the benefits and costs of a project but should also consider some costs to be unacceptable.
515.2
The need or benefit of a project should be compared to alternatives.
515.3
EAs should examine the entire project, including the GHG emissions throughout the lifecycle of the project.
515.4
Major decisions should leave very large margins of error if base on predictions and should not be entirely based on them. Monitoring should not be left to the interested parties, and the result should be available to the public.
515.5
Authorities should attempt to consider the long term social and environmental consequences of a project and how, if necessary, it is to be recompensed or remediated.
515.6 There needs to be a systematic way of informing the public periodically about the progress of EAs and about any resulting agreements and projects.

515.1 - s2.1.3 
515.2 - s2.1.3, s2.1.3 
515.3 - s3.2.2.2, s3.7 
515.5 - s2.1.3 
515.6 - s2.4.3
515.4 - s2.5.1, s2.5.4, s3.3.2

Georgia Strait Alliance

Georgia Strait Alliance submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

130.1 There is a need for a comprehensive regional understanding of the combined impacts of development, as well as a regional public conversation.
130.2
R-SEA should be triggered by the following:

  1. for federal policies, programs, and plans,
  2. where cumulative effects are significant,
  3. where significant development is foreseeable,
  4. where there are significant socio-economic or health concerns.

130.3 Regardless of the model used (cooperative model, hybrid, joint implementation model, etc.), the harmonized information gathering process for EA should be separated from decision-making which rests with each individual jurisdiction.

130.3 - s2.2 130.1 - s3.5.2 
130.2 - s3.5.1

Gerald Singh, Cathryn Clarke Murray, Megan Mach, Jackie Lerner, Bernardo Ranieri, Guillaume Peterson-St.Laurent, Janson Wong, Alice Guimaraes, Gustavo Yunda, Kai Chan

A Brief Submitted to the Expert Panel re: Review of the Environmental Assessment Process

15.1 Expand scope of EA such that appropriate spatial and temporal scopes are identified and can be justifiable ecologically.
15.2
Deep and meaningful consultation needs to be asserted in the EA Process, with greater effort to consult First Nations, community and environmental groups. Transparent justification should be documented to demonstrate that views and inputs were taken into account in significance determination and decision-making.
15.3
Apply consistent and strong guidelines for selecting valued components and indicators when determining impacts and their significance.
15.4
Empower environmental standards and thresholds such that they can be legally enforced and binding.
15.5
Redefine "significant" such that it is science-based rather than based on professional judgement.
15.6
Impose monitoring of mitigation measures rather than assumed mitigations are effective as stated.
15.7
Ensure enforceability in prescribed mitigation measures.
15.8 Eliminate conflict of interest between proponents and practitioners by having third-party/government decide on EA practitioners rather than proponents. Proponents should not directly pay EA practitioners, rather funding should be diverted into an EA fund and distributed by government.
15.9
EA process and practitioners should be provided greater discretion to acknowledge significant impacts.

15.5 - s2.5.4 
15.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
15.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
15.2 - s2.4.1 
15.6 - s2.5.1, s3.3.2 
15.8 - s2.5.3 
15.9 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
15.4 - s3.5.2 
15.7 - s3.3.3

Gilles Côté

Follow-up to Expert Panel questions in Ottawa, Nov. 1st 2016

803.1 Should apply a multi actors multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) methods to EAs.

803.1 - s3.2.2.1

Ginny Flood, Vice President Government Relations Suncor Energy

Strengthening Environmental Assessment in Canada - Suncor Submission to the CEAA Review Panel

Three key priorities for the review of the CEAA Act:
177.1
The Act should serve the broader public interest with accountability to present proponents, Aboriginal Peoples/groups with interests or activities in/near the proposed project area, and directly affected stakeholders
177.2
The Act needs to clearly articulate the role of federal EA in the Canadian context
177.3
The Act needs to provide proponents flexibility to meet pre-determined environmental outcomes in the most effective and efficient way possible

177.1 - s2.1.3 
177.2 - s2.1.1 
177.3 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3

Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs

Submission "AN INDIGENOUS APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT" for Prince Rupert, Dec 9 2016

See analysis of submission #317

 

Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs

Presentation "AN INDIGENOUS APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT" for Prince Rupert, Dec 9 2016

317.1 Develop sustainability assessment and criteria based on 5 questions (environmental stewardship, economic benefits and costs, social and cultural benefits and costs, fair distribution of benefits and costs, and present versus future generations).
317.2
Develop a climate test to assess projects.

317.1 - s2.1.3 317.2 - s3.7

Gitxaala Environmental Monitoring

A Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process

The federal EA process should:
123.1
include Indigenous groups in decision making
123.2
remove the adversarial review panel process
123.3
include the UNDRIP free, prior and informed consent in the final step in any approval
123.4 be based in principles of sustainability
123.5
be an open and transparent process during all stages
123.6
consider social, cultural and economic effects to the same degree as environmental effects
123.7
include the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge on par with western methods
123.8
ensure Indigenous values are included alongside other environmental components
123.9
ensure the proper assessment of cumulative effects, using indicators established by regional and strategic initiatives
123.10
close gaps in regulation and provide for monitoring, permit allocations, follow-up reporting and enforcement

123.4 - s2.1.3 
123.6- s2.1.3 
123.3 - s2.3.1 
123.7 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
123.8 - s2.3.2 
123.1 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
123.2 - s3.2.2.3 
123.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.4.1 
123.9 - s3.5.2, s3.6.1

Gitxaała Environmental Monitoring

Presentation "Gitxaała Nation: A Review of CEAA 2012" for Prince Rupert, Dec 9 2016

The Canadian Environmental Act should include:
313.1 Guidelines for assessing impacts without relying on strength of claim.
313.2
Clear definitions regarding potential effects.
313.3
Provisions for stronger co-management and decision-making.
313.4 Acknowledgement of Indigenous Resource Management and Protection.
313.5
Stronger guidelines for consultation.
313.6
Clear and more in-depth cumulative effects requirements.
313.7
Clear guidelines to avoid project splitting.

313.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
313.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
313.3 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
313.4 - s2.3.1 
313.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
313.6 In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
313.7 Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Gloria Desorcy, Executive Director, Consumers’ Association of Canada Manitoba

Consumers’ Association of Canada Manitoba answers to questions asked during presentation to the Panel in Winnipeg Received Dec. 23, 2016

820.1 Adopt the Twelve Pillars of Next Generation EA Regime, in total, as a basis for environmental assessment legislation.
820.2 Establish a participant funding mechanism aimed at supporting informed participation and creating a level playing field between the proponent and participant organizations.
820.3
Require public participation to be conducted as part of every environmental assessment and review process, including all the components of timing, access to participation, availability of information in various formats (including an information registry), inclusion of all affected communities of consumers, outreach and options for participation, as described previously in these remarks.
820.4 Require project proponents and decision makers to document a record of input gleaned from public participation, and to demonstrate the use of that input to make change, or to justify the decision not to use that input for change.

820.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
820.2 - s2.4.2 
820.3 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
820.4 - s2.4.1

Gold Corp

Presentation "Presentation for the CEAA Panel" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

502.1 Reduce duplication improves communication, clarity and transparency.
502.2
One window process, mindful of jurisdictions.
502.3 Support regulatory certainty.
502.4
Allow for predictable permitting timelines.

502.1 - s2.2.1 
502.2 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1 
502.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
502.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Grace Kabamba

Change

543.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands and natural resources.
543.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

543.2 - s2.1.3 
543.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Grand Conseil de la Nation Waban-Aki

MÉMOIRE DU GRAND CONSEIL DE LA NATION WABAN-AKI AU COMITÉ D’EXPERTS DANS LE CADRE DE L’EXAMEN DES PROCESSUS D’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

145.1 Include the specific provisions in the CEAA in a separate chapter to adequately fulfill the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate.
145.2 Allow for adequate funding (recurrent funding for setting up and maintaining a multidisciplinary team for coordination of consultations as well as for the needs and expertise specific to each project).
145.3 Review the timelines for consultations. The separate consultation process must have timelines that are consistent with the realities of the Aboriginal communities involved.
145.4 Proponents must be able to know, identify and communicate with all communities potentially affected by their project.
145.5 Integrate and take First Nations into account at the earliest stages of the process and at all stages of the EA.
145.6 The objective of the EA should be an objective of sustainability.
145.7
The new law should take into account the impacts of a project on the environment and societies for the next seven generations.
145.8
To ensure that government has the best information when making decisions in the public interest on the basis of sustainability, the conceptual, legislative and regulatory framework needs to understand the role and services of Ecosystems as well as their support capacity.
145.9
The EA process must be

  1. predictable to promoters and investors,
  2. fair to First Nations,
  3. credible and transparent, rooted in Aboriginal science and knowledge and (iv) encourage First Nation participation.

145.10 Implementing government commitments at the international level by taking into account the GHG emissions of a project over the entire life cycle of the project. Consider the amplification of the residual and cumulative environmental impacts of the project due to realistic climate change scenarios.
145.11 Adopt at least a hybrid approach. Screening for projects and comprehensive analysis for projects of major or trans-provincial scope.
145.12
Consider all environmental impacts that may affect a legislative area of ​​the federal Parliament
145.13 Clearly define certain requirements for the content of EIS and their objectives (avoidance, mitigation, etc.).
145.14 Feedback on First Nations concerns and recommendations. Explain the reasons behind the decisions. Obtain First Nations consent.

145.6 - s2.1.3 
145.7 - s2.1.3 
145.8 - s2.5.1 
145.2 - s2.3.3 
145.9 - s2.3.1, s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
145.10 - s3.7 
145.13 - s3.2.2.1 
145.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
145.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 
145.4 - s2.4.3 
145.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.3.2 
145.11 - s3.2.1 
145.12 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.1 
145.14 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3

Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)

Presentation material for Montréal, Oct 27 2016

834.1 All reviews have to be done by the JBNQA Section 22 entities, not by entities that are foreign to the territory and its inhabitants.
834.2 All projects which have impacts on matters of federal jurisdiction, like navigable waters, fisheries, migratory birds or species at risk or which are otherwise triggered, should be screened and assessed.
834.3 The required permits from all authorities should also be obtained.

834.1 - s3.1.1 
834.2 - s3.2.1 
834.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) / Cree Nation Government

BRIEF ON THE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESSES

4 main areas that require major reforms:
148.1
Change the triggers of federal assessment and to restore robust oversight and thorough EA of areas under federal jurisdiction.
148.2 Ensure that the JBNQA bodies carry out the assessments in Eeyou Istchee, with the participation of the required federal bodies.
148.3 Ensure that the JBNQA process benefits from the modern tools available for other processes in order to make it more transparent.
148.4
Endure that the Crees benefit socially and economically from the projects being developed in Eeyou Istchee.

148.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
148.2 - s2.2.1 
148.4 - s2.3.5 
148.1 - s3.2.1

Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) / Cree Nation Government

BRIEF ON THE REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESSES

See submission #148

 

Grand Council Treaty #3

Presentation "PRESENTATION TO THE EXPERT PANEL FOR THE REVIEW OF FEDERAL REGULATORY PROCESSES” for Thunder Bay, Nov 15 2016

429.1 Federal law should not surpass provincial law.
429.2
Developing a regulatory process that is adaptive and can change based on best available technology.
429.3
Cost and safety are weighted equally in alternative assessments under CEAA. Environmental safeguards and/or alternatives should be considered rather than pro-economical factors for the benefit of the company.

429.3 - s2.1.3 
429.1 - s2.2 
429.2 - s3.3.1

Grand Riverkeeper Labrador Inc.

Speaking note for presentation ''Presentation to the Expert Panel on EA Reform'' for Happy Valley-Goose Bay October 6

645.1 All scientists involved in any environmental assessment must be arms-length from government, especially when the project being assessed is a “Crown Corporation”.
645.2
Future EA processes should have as a legislated component, a specific department within CEAA which is properly funded, properly staffed and is there specifically to help lead citizens and citizen’s groups step by step through the process that is a Federal/Provincial Joint Panel Process and that the department appoint knowledgeable staff person/s for each major project who will have the mandate to stay with that project and the citizens and groups involved from start to finish.
645.3 When two projects are closely related, they should be assessed together in order to assess all effects.
645.4
Clear criteria must be legislated into “Next Generation EA”. Criteria that take into account sustainability and climate change.
645.5 Ensure that the views of Indigenous and all citizens during consultation is actually recognized in the decision making process; that the interest of those adjacent to the project is served first, and that the science is peer reviewed.
645.6 An independent advisory committee should be put in place and with input from concerned citizens at the very beginning of the process and that Committee should determine which scientists should be brought in to study the Proponent’s EIS with consideration for not only western science but local knowledge as well.
645.7
If communities choose that they don’t want a project; there needs to be a mechanism to “stop” a project from proceeding.
645.8 SEAs should take place before any further projects are assessed in order to avoid some of the pitfalls of over-development.
645.9 Funding to participate in EAs should be provided to interested individuals and groups, should be adequate for the job at hand, and should be provided by Proponents and included as a cost of doing business.

645.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
645.4 - s2.1.3, s3.7, s3.2.2.1 
645.7 - s2.1.3, s2.4.1 
645.5 - s2.4.1, s.2.5.1 
645.9 - s2.4.2, s3.4.2 
645.1 - s.2.5.3 
645.2 - s3.1.2, s3.4.2 
645.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
645.8 - s3.5.1, s3.6.1

Grand Riverkeeper Labrador, Inc.

Presentation ''Presentation to the Expert Panel on EA Reform'' for Happy Valley-Goose Bay October 6

See analysis of submission #645

 

Grande Prairie Metis Local 1990

Grande Prairie Metis Local 1990 Submission to the Expert Review Panel Received Dec. 23, 2016

848.1 Shared decision-making is critical.
848.2
Environmental accommodation agreements with the Crown would be appropriate in certain circumstances.
848.3 CEAA should include a provision to allow "Indigenous regulatory bodies" to conduct ESAs by substitution.
848.4 The federal Cabinet should provide the rationale for decisions and explain how it balances Aboriginal interests with Canadians as a whole.
848.5
Métis culture and lifestyle must be considered in environmental socio-economic assessments.
848.6
The phrase "current use of land and resources" needs to recognize the natural expansion of traditional territory.
848.7
Provide funds to allow for cultural heritage baseline assessment.
848.8 Promote the use of cultural keystone species methodology for purpose of reclamation.
848.9
Indigenous ecological knowledge must be taken into account when conducting an EIA.
848.10 Enhance the participatory capacity of Métis Local to ensure meaningful participation in EAs.
848.11 In collaboration with Aboriginal governments, develop a legal framework for strategic-level and application-level collaborative decision-making processes.
848.12
Provide consistent funding for the development of capacity.
848.13
Increase the long-term capacity to monitor impacts within traditional territories by providing employment, developing a communication protocol for non-compliance issues, devising a detailed and transparent monitoring system, and making the monitoring reports public.
848.14
Obtain access agreements before any project is approved.
848.15 Assess cumulative effects at the appropriate scale and the project stage.

848.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
848.8 - s2.5.1, s2.5.2 
848.11 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3, s2.4.1 
848.14 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
848.5 - s2.1.3
848.3 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2, s2.3.1 
848.1 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
848.2 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
848.7 - s2.3.3 
848.9 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
848.10 - s2.3.3 
848.12 - s2.3.3 
848.15 - s3.5.1, s3.2.2.1 
848.4 - s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4 
848.13 - s3.3.2, s2.3.3

Green Action Centre Inc.

Submission on improving Environmental Assessment in Canada

270.1 Support the West Coast Environmental Law's 12 Pillars of Next Generation EA.
270.2 Support the fundamental points and key overarching policy issues outlined in the Multi-Interest Advisory Committee's advised to the panel.
270.3
The EA assessment process should shift from one driven by a focus on ecological impacts on paper, and economic impacts in decision-making, to one based on sustainability principles objectives and standards.
270.4
The Precautionary Principle should be applied as a fundamental consideration when assessing projects, and the potential for long-term negative impacts on the environment should outweigh potential short-term economic gains.
270.5 Integrate the EA processes and Canada's climate goals under the Paris Agreement, including the assessment of direct and upstream GHG emissions of proposed projects.
270.6
A climate assessment or climate test should be applied before a full assessment.
270.7
A pre-screen approach should also be applied to the presence or absence of consent from indigenous communities experiencing direct adverse effects from proposed projects and undertakings.
270.8
Need for integrated and regional and cumulative effects assessments.
270.9 The principle of non-regression should be included in a new Act.

270.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
270.2 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
270.3 - s2.1.3 
270.5 - s.3.7 
270.6 - s.3.7 
270.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
270.4 - s2.5.1 
270.8 - s3.5.1 
270.9 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Green Action Centre Inc.

Submission on improving Environmental Assessment in Canada

See analysis of submission #270

 

Greenpeace Canada

Submission “GREENPEACE” for Toronto, November 10, 2016

486.1 The Act should broaden the scope of who can participate and the ways they can participate.
486.2 A single agency should be responsible for environmental assessment under modernized EA legislation.
486.3
A broader scope of projects should be assessed (i.e. the designed project list is too narrow), the assessment should be of the entire project, and be conducted proportionately to the type of project it is.
486.4 Sustainability and climate tests should be compulsory under any new EA legislation.
486.5 An assessment of worst-case accident, malfunctions and terrorist events should be required.
486.6
Reasons (feedback) should be provided throughout the entire EA decision making process.

486.4 - s2.1.3 
486.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
486.1 - s2.4.1 
486.6 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.3, s3.1.1 
486.2 - s3.1.1 
486.3 - s3.2.1

Greg Brady

Presentation

P49.1 ultimately I think harmonization of consultation is key. Having the CEAA, the provincial government or the proponent all go have a conversation with the community is already taxing that capacity. It needs to be harmonized. It needs to be collaborative. It needs to be meaningful.
P49.2 It’s not within the mandate of CEAA to identify Aboriginal or treaty rights and use those triggers for accessing those and making a determination on that.
P49.3
[when asked by panel about how to improve Canadians understanding of Indigenous history] I would make certainly education a key component of our school system. I believe in aboriginal history and the context and through that — and understanding those impacts of history, only can you go from there to being meaningful understanding of peoples’ perspective.

P49.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
P49.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P49.1 - s2.2

Greg Langston

Improving Canada's Environmental Assessment Process

142.1 Contracts to conduct EA be awarded by an independent body, with winning proposals being those with the best science. Financing for the EA should remain the responsibility of the development company. The conflict of interest of consultants working directly for developers must be removed from the EA process.
142.2
EAs and data from EA should be made publicly available.
142.3
Increase capability at the CEAA, including increased staff for reviewing of EA’s. Further, to enforce quality control of the science, establish an auditing process for analyses presented in EA’s and site audits for field procedures.
142.4
There must be a mechanism for First Nations to veto development on their land, including unceded territory. First Nations must also be provided with appropriate resources to adequately review development proposals and EA’s with their interests in mind.

142.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
142.4 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3 
142.1 - 2.5.3, s3.4.2 
142.2 - 2.5.1

Greg Wilson, Department of Communities, Land and Environment Prince Edward Island

Presentation ''Environmental Assessment in PEI'' for Fredericton October 11

641.1 Minimum standards for Aboriginal consultation should apply across the country (mechanisms for consultation, timelines, clarity on when to start consultation and when to finish).
641.2
For small provinces, like PEI, with limited resources, federal government needs to ensure that scientific expertise and input continue to be provided in the future.

641.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
641.2 - s2.2.1

Gregory Bowser

Submission to the EA Expert Review Panel - "What would a fair, transparent, and trustworthy decision-making process look like?"

286.1 Ensuring opportunity for timely participation within all EAPs and not just considering those "directly affected".
286.2 Developing an accurate definition of "cumulative effects", and, define thresholds for cumulative effects so that observed effects can be quantified, interpreted, and studied accurately using the scientific methods outlined in the literature.
286.3
Conducting nation-wide multi-jurisdictional REAs and CEAs to develop RISs with accurate cumulative effects for each region in Canada.
286.4
Publishing all reports within corresponding databases to create a wealth of accumulated knowledge of the current state of cumulative effects and regional impacts within Canada. This information should be shared with other jurisdictions to aid in developing a scientifically sound approach to cumulative effects globally.
286.5 Mandate proponents to use information determined in the assessments when submitting registration documents and performing EIAs and charge a fee that should be used to support the REA program.
286.6
Provide "decision reports" in tandem with each decision statement. A framework for a quantitative analysis with performance metrics should be applied to showcase EIS compliance with guidelines, regulations, cumulative effects, as well as public and aboriginal input.

286.1 - s2.4.1 
286.4 - s2.5.1 
286.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
286.5 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
286.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
286.3 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Gurmeet Singh

Public Engagement in Environmental Assessment

1.1 The new reforms in the EA legislation should broaden the process of public engagement and make it simple and public friendly. Examples include:

  1. carry out the engagement of public in the EA process from the pre-project proposal stage,
  2. information regarding EA should be readily available and understandable,
  3. remove the hindrance for participation (e.g. time limits) to accommodate better public participation,
  4. encourage post-project development monitoring and social audit,
  5. concepts in EA such as ‘interested parties’ should be eliminated and every citizen should have equal opportunity to participate in the EA process.

1.1 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3, s3.3.2, s3.4.1

Gurmeet Singh

Public Engagement in Environmental Assessment

See analysis of submission #1

 

Gurmeet Singh

Public Engagement in Environmental Assessment

See submission #1

 

Gurmeet Singh, Master of Natural Resources Management, University of Manitoba

Public Participation in Environmental Assessment Received Dec. 31, 2016

814.1 For public participation to be efficient, the engagement of public in the assessment process should be carried out from the pre-project proposal stage.
814.2 Notifying the participants well in advance via social media, emails etc. can enhance participation.
814.3
NGOs, academicians and various other groups that can make public participation more productive should be encouraged to participate.
814.4 Views of public in the participation process should be given due importance in decision making related to the project, even scrapping the project in case of unanimous dissatisfaction.
814.5 Concepts in EA such as ‘interested parties’ should be eliminated and everyone should get equal opportunity to participate in the EA process.
814.6 Stiff time limits should be removed from the EA process to accommodate better public participation.
814.7
Post-project development monitoring and social audit by the public must be encouraged.
814.8
Clear and time bound grievance redressal mechanisms should be available to bolster the faith of the public in the process.
814.9 Authorities should be made more accountable, they should provide reasons for their recommendations and decisions.
814.10 The new reforms in the EA legislation should broaden the process of public engagement and make it simple and public friendly.

814.1 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1 
814.2 - s2.4.3 
814.3 - s2.4.1 814.4 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.3 
814.5 - s2.4.1 814.6 - s2.4.3, s3.4.1 
814.10 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
814.7 - s3.3.2 
814.8 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3 
814.9 - s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3,

Gwen Johansson

Submission "Notes: Presentation to Environmental Assessment Review" for Fort St-John, Dec 5 2016

332.1 EA hearings should be a quasi-judicial process, where testimony is given under oath and there is cross-examination with full procedural safeguards.
332.2
EA Panels should have the option of recommending whether the project should proceed.
332.3
The proponent should not be in charge of the EIS or the studies. Studies should be under the supervision of an independent body.
332.4
Decisions ought to be science-based.
332.5
The hearing should be funded by a separate, independent agency which has the resources and power to call evidence and to hire experts themselves.

332.4 - s2.5.4 
332.1 - s3.2.2.3 
332.2 - s3.2.2.3 
332.3 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3 
332.5 - s3.2.2.3

Gwen Johansson, Mayor, District of Hudson's Hope

Environmental Assessment and National Energy Board Assessments Received Dec. 23, 2016

902.1 TORs should include examination of the impact of the project on the sustainability of the local economy and way of life, not just the national or international impacts.
902.2 Cumulative impact should include all previous industrial development, which is not presently the case.
902.3 Cumulative impact, in the context of EA and NEB hearings, should refer to accumulated effect of man's activities on the basic building blocks of life: land, water and air.
902.4 The hearing processes should be revamped. The proponent's role should be to submit their application, supported by whatever evidence they deem helpful, to an independent agency set up for the purpose of considering these types of projects.
902.5 The decision to proceed or not proceed should be based on the best scientific evidence available.
902.6 NEB pipeline hearings are of specific concern to local governments. Local governments as well as the private landowners whose land is taken should have more influence over where projects are located.
902.7 Expropriation powers are part of the scenario for all resource development. The Panel should provide an analysis and recommendations regarding the expropriation question.

902.1 - s2.1.3 
902.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
902.6 - s2.4.1 
902.5 - s2.5.4 
902.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
902.4 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
902.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Gwich'in Tribal Council

GTC Supplementary Submissions re: Federal Environmental Assessment Process in Canada

276.1 Steer public participation provisions in the new Act away from any ability to unduly limit Aboriginal oral testimony in EAs.
276.2 Guaranteed and increased funding for participants.
276.3 Participation guarantees.
276.4
Assessment that goes beyond project-by-project.
276.5 Landscape-scale assessment.
276.6 Appreciation and incorporation of traditional and ancestral knowledge.
276.7
Balance traditional knowledge and western scientific knowledge.
276.8
Look to the Burger Inquiry for good participation practices.
276.9
Appreciation for the tension between traditional values and major projects and economic development needs.
276.10
Importance of consistency with the land claim.
276.11 Funding and other resources for capacity building in communities.
276.12
A need for plain language materials, and simplified templates and forms.
276.13
Increased time for meaningful engagement.
276.14 Significant need for baseline data.
276.15
Firm requirements for land remediation and associated financing.
276.16
Enhanced mechanisms for industry accountability.
276.17
Recognition of the challenge of assessing monetary value to ecosystems and socio-economic impacts.

276.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
276.8 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
276.9 - s2.1.3 
276.15 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
276.6 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
276.10 - s2.3.2 276.11 - s2.3.3 
276.17 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
276.2 - s2.4.2 
276.12 - s2.4.3 
276.7 - s2.5.2 
276.14 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.2 
276.16 - Vague
276.3 - s2.4.1 
276.13 - s3.2.2.1 
276.4 - s3.5.1 
276.5 - s3.5.1

Gwich'in Tribal Council

Presentation "Gwich’in Tribal Council Presentation to the Expert Panel on the Review of Federal EA Processes" for Inuvik September 29th 2016

673.1 Legislated guarantees for Aboriginal participation (no timelines).
673.2
Legislated mechanisms for Aboriginal funding.
673.3
Inclusion of key components of meaningful participation: adequate notice, access to info/data, funding, opportunities for review and comment, face-to-face hearings, acceptance of oral evidence and testimony, early and ongoing.
673.4
Require consideration of TK. Require oral evidence to be heard and accepted.
673.5 FPIC - ensure any inclusion of strategic-level decisions in EA does not diminish Aboriginal voice/rights.
673.6 Expert Panel should recommend that GHG and climate change impacts be mandatorily included as a factor to be considered in federal EAs.
673.7
Substance of a "climate test" could be through use of a detailed quantification of Canada's international emissions reduction commitments and a benchmark against which projects are assessed.
673.8
Expert Panel should recommend that legislative changes not come into force until implementation tools, mechanisms and resources are in place.
673.9
Readiness should include capacity funding, guidance (for all parties), data-gathering tools, training, enforcement measures.
673.10 Jurisdictional confusion should be addressed in advance, particularly in relation to modern land claim jurisdictions.
673.11
Congruence needed between stated legislative purposes and specific legal requirements.

673.8 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
673.11 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
673.10 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
673.2 - s2.3.3 
673.4 - s2.3.4 
673.5 - s2.3.1 
673.6 - s3.7 
673.7 - s3.7 
673.3 - s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3 
673.1 - s2.3.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
673.9 - s3.3.3

Gwich'in Tribal Council

Gwich'in Tribal Council submissions re federal environmental assessment process in Canada

See analysis of submission #673

 

Haisla Nation Council

Suggestions for Improving Environmental Assessments in Canada Received Dec. 16, 2016

985.1 Heightened pre-EA information requirements.
985.2
Selection of truly independent panel members, with input from affected First Nations.
985.3
Funding which reflects the real cost of participating in EAs.
985.4 The requirement for an Aboriginal Interest Assessment.
985.5
The requirement for proper scoping of projects to include all related project components and corollary projects affected by or linked to the project.
985.6
Collaboration with First Nations on the spatial scoping of effects assessments.
985.7 Comprehensive testing of evidence through a transparent and inclusive process.
985.8
Shared or joint decision-making, including information requirements, recommendations, potential conditions, measures required to address impacts to Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title.
985.9
Preference for projects with, and an emphasis on, First Nation consent
985.10
Crown engagement in Crown consultation throughout the EA process so that opportunities to alter or modify the project are not missed.
985.11
Legislative changes to ensure accountability to through the courts.

985.1 - s2.1.2, s3.2.1 
985.5 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
985.3 - s2.3.3, s2.4.2 
985.4 - s2.3.2 
985.6 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
985.8 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
985.9 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
985.10 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
985.11 - s2.3.2 
985.7 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3 
985.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2

Hanin Harb

Des idées pour aider l'environnement

522.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.
522.2
It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

522.2 - s2.1.3 
522.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Hanna Janzen, ExxonMobil

Presentation ''Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes Presentation to the Minister’s Expert Panel'' for St. John's October 5

657.1 Empowering the knowledgeable regulator. Include offshore oil and gas regulators as Responsible Authorities.
657.2
Coordinating inter and intra-governmental activities (one project, one assessment, on decision).
657.3
Employing a balanced approach by protecting sensitive environments and fostering economic growth, energy security and reliability.
657.4
Ensuring a timely, predictable and transparent process by maintaining mandatory timelines, continuing a project list approach and establishing boundary conditions for EA.
657.5
Continue to require RA's to engage appropriate government departments. Provide opportunity for stakeholder experts and establish timelines for input to support process efficiency.
657.6
Employ a risk-based approach by recognizing the consequences and probability, assessing alternatives, developing mitigations commensurate with the risk, and do not proceed if high consequence/high probability risk cannot be mitigated.
657.7
Improve process efficiency to optimize participation by minimizing inter and intra-government duplication as well as repetitive EA's for the same activity in the same regional environment.
657.8
Maintain certainty through designated project list and defined timelines.

657.3 - s2.1.3 
657.2 - s2.2.1 
657.7 - s2.2.1 
657.6 - s2.5.1 
657.1 - s3.1.1 
657.4 - s3.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
657.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
657.8 - s3.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1

Hans Seidemann - City of Prince Rupert

City of Prince Rupert Comment

20.1 Implement an initial site screening process prior to the submission of an application or establishing firm criteria for determining site suitability.
20.2
Include an assessment of socioeconomic concerns for non-aboriginal communities. In other words, the socioeconomic impacts of a project on local communities (effects on local infrastructure or community well-being) in order to provide protection against harmful boom-and-bust cycles in the local economy, infrastructure demands which outpace municipal capacity, or extreme pressures on local housing markets and social services.
20.3
Restructuring the assessment process with clearer delineations of responsibilities and a de-politicization of the EA.
20.4 Vest the responsibility of characterizing effects of projects with expert Canadian regulatory agencies (i.e. not the proponent).
20.5 Government's responsibility should be exercised through the establishment of clear limits, threshold, and criteria for assessment of proposed projects (should not be decided by the Minister of Environment).

20.1 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
20.2 - s2.1.3 
20.4 - s2.5.3 
20.5 - s2.5.4, s3.2.2.1 
20.3 - s3.1.1

Harry Swain

Written submission "Environmental Assessment for the 21st century" for Nanaimo, Dec 14 2016

228.1 A central part of EA must be a consideration of any collision with the constitutional rights of native Canadians.
228.2
Revised legislation should make it clear that all departments, including central agencies, have obligations to assist in the EA process, and to answer questions from inquiries.
228.3 No rigid time limits should be imposed and issues should be pursued until all attendees have an opportunity to get their views on record.
228.4
Alternatives to a project should be examined.
228.5 CEAA should make sure to have staff with qualifications in economics and that are competent in French and/or English to write reports.
228.6
Panels should have the advice of unconflicted administrative law experts.
228.7
Panels should have access to some examples of hearing procedures with pros and cons to help in setting their own procedures.
228.8
Publish reasons for decisions.
228.9
Deal with the conflicts inherent in assigning the same people to the pre-Panel, Panel and post-Panel stages of an EA.
228.10 Updated federal guidelines on cumulative effects analysis would be important.

228.4 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
228.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
228.1 - s2.3.2 228.5 - s2.5.1, s3.1.2 
228.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
228.8 - s2.5.4, s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3, s3.2.2.8, s2.5.1 
228.9 - s3.1.2 
228.10 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
228.2 - s3.2.2.2 
228.3 - s3.4.1

Harry Swain

Environmental assessment for the 21st century

See analysis of submission #228

 

Harry Swain

What I learned from the Site C Joint Review Panel

479.1 CEAA 2012 needs, at a minimum, revision to allow the need for, and alternatives to, a project to be examined. CEAA should make sure that available staff include a few people with qualifications in economics.
479.2
Try to keep the panel working together (i.e. avoid long distance between panel members).
479.3
Ensure proficiency in French and/or English for report writing.
479.4
Make practical arrangements for hiring or seconding specialists. Ensure that Panels have the advice, as needed, of an unconflicted administrative law expert.
479.5 Publish some examples of hearing procedures used by other Panels and inquiries, with pros and cons, to assist Panels in setting their own procedures. Move to a model of vox pop plus experts, the first open to all, the second much more restricted and open to cross-examination by Panel-selected interested parties. Give Panels a role in deciding on whether specific intervenors need public funding.
479.6
Ensure that the Panel can express its views on s. 35 issues.
479.7
Invite the Treasury Board Secretariat to provide advice on cost-benefit analysis.
479.8 Publish reasons for decision.
479.9
Deal with the conflicts inherent in assigning the same people to the pre-Panel, Panel, and post-Panel stages of an EA.
479.10 For Panels, make the time and resources available based on the complexity and environmental/social importance of the case.
479.11 Stimulate, with the provinces perhaps, baseline studies in areas that are going to be the focus of large-scale resource development.
479.12
Convene an expert workshop on the practicalities of cumulative effects analysis.

479.5 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1, s2.4.2 
479.1 - s3.2.2.1 
479.4 - s2.5.1 
479.6 - s2.3.2 
479.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
479.8 - s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4 
479.9 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
479.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
479.10 - s3.2.2.3, s3.4.2 
479.11 - s3.5.1 
479.4 - s3.4.2

Harry Swain

Follow-up from Nanaimo Presentation “Should we implement United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?”

761.1 The UNDRIP contains a lot of high-faulting language; that Canada already meets most of its dicta. Implementing UNDRIP may get in the way of more important and practical reforms.

761.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Harshan Radhakrishnan with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC

Presentation "Canada's Environmental Assessment Process" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

256.1 Include the climate change impacts and the climate change risks on projects. It should include provisions for both mitigation of GHG and adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
256.2 Account for cumulative environmental effects, both geographically and temporally. To the extent possible, downstream GH emissions should be included, whether they occur in Canada or outside the country.
256.3
Make provision for "no net loss" of habitat/natural landscapes over the life of the project.
256.4 Legacy sites, including sites not subjected to an EA process, that the public perceives to have been not adequately decommissioned or restored should be in scope. Ensure that decommissioning and restoration is consistently completed to increase public trust.
256.5
Public perception that compliance with existing regulations or permits is inadequate should be a focus. The EAP should specifically address the issues of compliance and enforcement, ensuring that adequate resources are available.
256.6
Require ongoing monitoring of environmental impacts and take remedial action should the impacts exceed those agreed upon.
256.7 Provide for a single comprehensive assessment process that is multi-jurisdictional process and considers climate change.

256.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
256.1 - s3.7 
256.2 - s3.7 
256.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
256.5 - s3.3.3 
256.6 - s3.3.2 
256.4 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Hatem

Lettre apropos de l'environnement

540.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.
540.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

540.2 - s2.1.3 
540.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Heiltsuk First Nation

Speaking notes for Heiltsuk First Nation presentation in Vancouver Dec. 12, 2016

780.1 The legislation should provide for a “proponent pays” approach to aboriginal participation.
780.2
Legislative amendments to CEAA, and to the suite of acts being considered - the Fisheries Act, the Navigation Protection Act and the National Energy Board Act - should be made in accord with at least two principles.

  1. The first principle is that First Nations are governments. As with all levels of government, First Nations are entitled to know about the impacts of projects on their communities and their resources, and specifically on their aboriginal rights and titles.
  2. The second principle is that a proponent wishing to profit from projects should pay for assessments of impacts on First Nations. In other words, CEAA should be based on a “proponent pays” model, where First Nations do not bear the brunt of the costs of participating in an assessment.

780.1 - s3.4.2 
780.2 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3, s3.4.2

Helen Hargreaves

feed back

68.1 Contracts to conduct EAs should be paid for by industry (as in the current system) but awarded by an arm's length body, to remove the conflict of interest inherent in industry choosing the consultants that write EAs and conduct monitoring
68.2 There should be a clear, achievable mechanism, even if the bar is high, by which First Nations can veto a development project on their territory

68.2 - s2.3.1 
68.1 - s2.5.3, s3.4.1

Holan Habib

Aide-moi à arrêter ce problème

528.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.

528.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Horse Lake First Nation Industry Relations Corporation

Horse Lake First Nation Industry Relations Corporation's Written Submission for the Review of the Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 23, 2016

884.1 Implementing the UNDRIP on the Rights of Indigenous People.
884.2
Setting up a parallel process with First Nations.
884.3
Revenue sharing with First Nations.
884.4
Having industry engage with First Nations prior to submitting their EA application to government.
884.5
Having TK at par with western science.
884.6 Providing adequate funding to First Nations and long-term benefits flowing back to First Nations.
884.7 Mandating First Nation Environmental Inspectors as part of any and all projects on First Nation territory.

884.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
884.4 - s2.1.2 
884.2 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1 
884.1 - s2.3.1 
884.6 - s2.3.3, s2.3.5 
884.5 - s2.5.2

Hugh Benevides

Speaking notes for presentation "Toward Next-Generation EA — Presentation to Expert Panel, Review of Environmental" In Montreal Oct. 26

408.1 Ensure federal funding for new processes and bodies.
408.2
Critical stages and functions of next-gen EA should be at arms-length and truly independent of departments, agencies and the Cabinet.
408.3
There should be an arms-length, quasi-judicial tribunal making project-level decisions.

408.1 - s.3.4.2 
408.2 - s3.1.1 
408.3 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2

Hugh Benevides

Présentation '' Towards Next-Generation EA'' pour Montréal le 26 octobre

631.1 The next generation EA should be to ensure that undertakings deliver the strongest feasible positive contributions to lasting wellbeing while avoiding significant adverse effects.

631.1 - s2.1.3

Imperial

Imperial Oil written submission to CEAA Expert Panel

231.1 - Balanced decision-making is essential. Both the positive and the negative of a project should be heard and considered.
231.2 CEAA 2012 should encourage early engagement with local communities and indigenous people by allowing the flexibility to develop a preferred project option together, rather than requiring the proponent and local people to spend time and resources evaluating static alternatives.
231.3
Clear jurisdiction under the principle of one project, one assessment.
231.4
Broader application of substitution and equivalency should be encouraged.
231.5
Greater transparency as it relates to decision conditions is needed in order to build trust and ensure proper oversight.
231.6
The applicability of the Act and the Agency's Crown consultation process must be transparent and predictable for all participants.
231.7 Specified time lines must be retained.
231.8
Processes should be designed to encourage collaborative work with directly impacted parties.

231.1 - s2.1.3 
231.3 - s2.2, s3.2.2.1 
231.4 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
231.6 - s2.3.2 
231.2 - s2.4.1 
231.8 - s2.4.1 
231.5 - s3.1.1, s2.5.4, s3.2.2.3, s3.3.3 
231.7 - s3.4.1

Imperial

Presentation "CEAA Expert Panel" for Calgary, November 21, 2016

459.1 Balanced decision-making that includes environment, social / cultural and economics. CEAA 2012 focuses on adverse effects. Both the positive and the negative should be heard and considered.
459.2
Clear jurisdiction and agency coordination: one project, one assessment. BC substitution process is effectively reducing duplication.
459.3 Clarity and predictability for all participants regarding applicability and timelines: engagement begins early and continues through full life of project.

459.1 - s2.1.3 
459.2 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2 
459.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1

IN SITU OIL SANDS ALLIANCE

IOSA COMMENTS - EA REVIEW

22.1 Any changes to the Canada's EA framework should carefully consider Canada's global competitiveness in attracting investment into small- and medium-sized companies.
22.2
There should be "one project, on assessment" and there is a need for a flexible federal EA process that enables cooperation, and the need for tools that support reduced duplication, including substitution of the federal process for the provincial one.
22.3
The public confidence issues with the existing process can only be addressed by improving access to information and engagement for those most directly affected by project development.
22.4
The best placed jurisdiction, the jurisdiction with the broadest regulatory role with regards to the project, should be responsible for conducting the EA and there should be a clear justification for all activities included on a federal list of projects requiring an EA.

22.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
22.2 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2, s3.4.1 
22.3 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
22.4 - s3.2.1

In Situ Oil Sands Alliance

Presentation "Présentation au Comité d’experts chargé de l’examen des processus d’évaluation environnementale" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

See analysis of submission #463

 

In Situ Oil Sands Alliance

Presentation "Presentation to the Expert Panel Reviewing Environmental Assessment Processes" for Calgary, November 23, 2016

464.1 Recommend against any changes to the Act that increases the scope of CEAA to include in situ projects.
464.2 Where provincial standards meet or exceed the expectations that have been clearly defined in federal policy, substitution provisions should defer to a provincially-led project review and decision-making process.
464.3
Further information sharing on project economic benefits and the implementation of monitoring and approval conditions could improve public confidence in the existing regulatory regime.

464.2 - s2.2.2 
464.1 - s3.2.1 
464.3 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Innu Nation

Innu Nation submission to the Expert Panel

82.1 Adopt a sustainability assessment approach where "contribution to reconciliation" is a central criterion and for which benefits of projects to Indigenous Nations are assessed.
82.2
Develop a policy for evaluating the seriousness of impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Interests and a framework for assessing such impacts.
82.3
Develop and implement EA co-management agreements between Canada and Indigenous Nations.
82.4
Adopt the framework for reconciliation based on the 6 principles outlined by the Special Rapporteur.
82.5
Federal EA legislation must require reasonable consent before EA approval for projects that will or could impact Indigenous Nations' Aboriginal and treaty rights and interests.
82.6
New EA legislation should provide for directed mediation.
82.7
Establish a funding program to provide adequate financial resources to Indigenous Nations
82.8
The core of the consultation during EA must be between the Crown and Indigenous Nations. Effects on the rights and interests should be assessed. Make Indigenous Traditional Knowledge mandatory for EA. Training should be offered to non-Agency and non-government staff.
82.9
Improve the effectiveness and credibility of EA process and have qualified Indigenous people to sit on review panels. Review panels be designed, funded and tasked to make reviewable decisions, subject to challenge and reconsideration under certain conditions and situations.

82.1 - s2.1.3 81.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
82.3 - s2.2.1 
82.2 - s2.3.2 
82.5 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
82.7 - s2.3.3 
82.8 - s2.3.2, s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
82.9 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
82.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.1.1

International Association for Impact Assessment - Western and Northern Canada

Recommendations for Making Environmental Assessments More Fair and Effective

209.1 Participant status: Full participation in CEAA 2012 has been reduced to "interested parties" that are "directly affected" or have "relevant information or expertise". Good EA is inherently participatory. The definition should be reviewed.
209.2 Definition of environmental effects: The Government of Canada should consider not just come but all of the environmental effects of projects it approves, not just that fit into the definition in CEAA 2012.
209.3 Federal-provincial substitution: The decision that a provincial process is an appropriate substitute should only be made where the provincial process would include the assessment of every impact that the federal process would assess, with equal rigour.
209.4 Timelines: Discretion on fair timing is better left to those conducting the review. Alternatively, adequate participant funding should be provided.
209.5 Designated projects: Greater inclusiveness is in order to ensure that projects that may cause adverse impacts receive due consideration.

209.2 - s2.1.3, s1.1 
209.5 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
209.3 - s2.2.2 
209.1 - s2.4.1 
209.4 - s3.2.2.1, s2.4.2, s3.4.1

Inuvialuit Regional Corporation & Inuvialuit Game Council

IRC & IGC SUBMISSION TO THE EXPERT PANEL –

570.1 CEAA 2012 should be amended to restrict its application in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) and if new federal legislation is the chosen path forward, its application should be similarly limited.
570.2
Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act (YESAA) should also be amended to eliminate overlaps on the North Slope.
570.3
In those instances, such as projects resulting in transboundary effects or ones that are in the national interest, that give rise to a role for CEAA in the ISR, new federal EIA legislation that provides for joint and cooperative reviews with the IFA-based EIA processes should meet the requirements of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA). Such legislation should incorporate the following features: strengthening the sustainability purposes and broadening the scope of federal EIA and the provisions that fully operationalize them, adopting a model of shared governance, supporting application of Aboriginal traditional knowledge, and applying worst case scenario assessments in major projects.

570.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
570.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
570.3 - s2.1.3, s2.2.1, s.2.3.4, s.2.5.2

Jack Hicks

Presentation

P5.1 So then you run into the usual questions of how does the legislation in place govern your – your participation; what kind of funding do you get. In our case it was minimal, but it was something. I mean, they – we can't say we got nothing, but we didn't get nearly – we could have made a far greater contribution if we'd had greater resources. Our timelines were not unreasonable. It was – everything in Nunavut is incredibly expensive, most of all travel. So our biggest limitation was the ability to – to send volunteers to meetings where we really needed to be.
P5.2 [Current review process requires decisions be made on technical grounds alone, not taking into account public support or concern. Panel asked should that set of technical grounds be open to additional critieria?] We – we think it should, but we also think that there should have been an FPIC process outside of the environmental assessment processBut in the absence of some form of FPIC, an environmental assessment process in and of itself is not an acceptable settlement
P5.3 suppose it would be possible to – to achieve clarity on FPIC within an environmental assessment process, but my gut instinct is not; that any environmental assessment process has its constraints. I don't know how you would frame the legislation to – broadly enough to allow an FPIC test that would stand the scrutiny to happen within the constraints of an environmental assessment review.

P5.2 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3
P5.3 - s2.3.1
P5.1 - s2.3.3

Jacob Irving

Presentation "Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

See analysis of submission #496

 

Jacques Tétrault, Comité des Citoyens et Citoyennes pour la Protection de l’Environnement Maskoutain

Présentation ''Mémoire soumis au comité d'experts chargés par la Minister de l'Environnement et du Changement Climatique d'examiner les processus fédéraux d'évaluation environnementale au Canada'' pour Montréal le 26 octobre

628.1 Any project should be analyzed based on its effects on the climate (GHG increase / decrease).
628.2 Projects should then be analyzed based on their cumulative effects.
628.3
Subsequently, projects should be evaluated on the basis of their economic impacts (including the amounts associated with the effects on climate change).
628.4
Start the evaluation process of the Energy Est project from the beginning in order to gain public confidence.

628.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
628.1 - s3.7 
628.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
628.3 - s2.1.3, s3.5.2

James Baldwin, Manager, Regulatory Policy and Advocacy Canada, Shell Canada Limited

Shell Canada Limited Submission to the Expert Panel Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 22, 2016

911.1 Early identification of the impacted peoples and scoping of potential effects, considering evidence from the impacted group as to potential impacts.
911.2 Incorporation of project technical information into scoping of impacted peoples at an early stage, and consistent application of technical project data into scoping.
911.3 Early alignment on Special Boundaries so they can be considered in study areas used for the EA and identified in the TOR for the EA.
911.4 Clearly defining processes and roles which would benefit all parties.
911.5 Ultimately the duty to consult belongs with the Crown.
911.6 Alignment between federal and provincial/territorial agencies on approval conditions, if those conditions include accommodation.
911.7 Consideration of how to better involve Indigenous peoples in decision-making in EA.
911.8 Clearly layout the process in plain language for all stakeholder groups to ensure a common understanding at the start of the process.
911.9 Offshore exploration projects should be removed from the Regulations Designating Physical Activities and in situ projects should remain out.
911.10 Predictable, consistent and early determination of whether a federal EA is required. Predictable application of review timelines.
911.11 Improved coordination between federal and provincial/territorial agencies. Increased use of substitution. Clear approval conditions.
911.12 Consideration should be given to a fit-for-purpose process which would allow sufficient flexibility for adjustments to a federal decision statement.
911.13 Distinguish between impacted parties and interested parties.

911.1 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
911.2 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
911.3 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
911.9 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
911.10 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
911.12 - s2.1.4 
911.11 - s2.2.2 
911.5 - s2.3.2 
911.7 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
911.13 - s2.4.1 
911.4 - s3.2.2.1 
911.6 - s3.2.2.3 
911.8 - s3.2.2.1

James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment

Recommendations relating to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act - 2012

see submission #1017

 

James Gomm

Speaking notes "Presentation to Environmental Protection Act" for Sudbury, Nov 3 2016

242.1 Ensure a rigorous follow-up on compensation plans in order to avoid violations. One of the guiding principles of the EA process must be no net loss of fish or fish habitat as a result of the project.

242.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

James Gomm

Presentation "Presentation to EPA Expert Panel" for Sudbury, Nov 3 2016

See analysis of submissions #242

 

James Tanner

The Use and Abuse of Traditional Knowledge

108.1 Incremental individual EA must be first supported by regional assessments which must include regional traditional land use studies and resources requirements to meet Treaty promises and Aboriginal rights requirements, a cumulative assessment of the land disturbance and a comparison of the land use and resource requirements of all First Nations with the regional cumulative impacts of existing disturbance and resource abundance and sustainability.
108.2 Once this cumulative framework is established, it can be updated in each region for any new proposal.
108.3
Federal and provincial governments should identify priority regions for these cumulative studies.
108.4
Methodologies will be more standardized when Treaty and Aboriginal rights are included in the legislation as required assessment criteria.

108.4 - s2.3.2 
108.1 - s3.5.2 
108.2 - s3.5.2 
108.3 - s3.5.1

Jamie Kneen

Submission “Presentation to the Expert Panel Reviewing Environmental Assessment Processes” for Ottawa November 8, 2016

See analysis of submission #497

 

Janice Flynn

Baseline wildlife surveys of coastal ecosystems as an essential initial step to avoid “data gaps” in two areas of the Environmental Assessment Process: 1) when identifying “Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs)” and 2) when proponents address the impact of operations on VECs at proposed sites.

74.1 At the time the project is registered, trigger a complete and comprehensive literature review of known ecological impacts from proposed operations at similar sites.
74.2
Make data collection and scientific study mandatory at proposed sites in which ecological information is lacking at the government level and at the level of the proponent.
74.3
Prohibit the use of "no data" in the EA process.
74.4 Disallow proponents to utilize the proposed ecosystem in its entirety; assign a portion to the project, with the remainder as a control for scientific study.

74.2 - s2.5.1 
74.3 - s2.5.1 
74.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
74.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Jason MacLean

Submission "Canada’s current environmental assessment law: a tear-down not a reno" for Thunder Bay, Nov 14, 2016

434.1 Future assessments should ask: will this project make a net contribution to our sustainability as a nation.
434.2
It is necessary to re-engineer the federal EA law from the ground up.
434.3 To secure the trust of Canadians, federal EAs should be conducted by an agency that has the expertise and independence from the interests it is charged with regulating.
434.4 A new generation EA should encourage mutual cooperation (federal-provincial) and integration, and eschew delegation of key assessment duties. Effective EA requires both levels of government to show leadership.
434.5
The fundamental assumption underlying EA must shift from how a proposed project will proceed to whether it proceeds at all.
434.6 The government must translate consultation into a new regime that mirrors all of those commitments while encouraging and enabling more Canadians to become meaningfully involved in environmental decision-making.
434.7 Key priorities for a meaningful EA reform includes:

  1. moving beyond project-level assessments,
  2. focusing on net positive contributions to sustainability, and
  3. avoiding costly trade-offs among interdependent economic, ecological and social objectives.

434.8 There is a need for polyjural collaboration and polycentric consensus-based decision-making.

434.1 - s2.1.3 434.5 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.3 434.7 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4 434.4 - s2.2.1 
434.2 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
434.3 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
434.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.4.1 
434.8 - s3.2.2.3

Jay Thorkelson

Presentation

P36.1 Better information management: There needs to be an index of subjects, not just a list of topics or a list of - or a list of who is - the submissions or a list of participants. There - none of the Enbridge information was indexed, and so it was very hard to find. Applies to information requests and other pieces of information, such as maps. Difficult to keep track of all the information, requests, and responses. Not helpful.
P36.2 The impact on fisheries needs to be talked about. And so my recommendation is that the federal departments need to come to the table with a proper review in all aspects of their mandate, not just in the aspects that they pick and choose.

P36.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P36.1 - s2.4.3

Jean Piette, Conseil Patronale de l’Environnement du Québec

Présentation ''Commentaire du CPEQ portant sur la révision des processus d'évaluation environnementale'' pour Montréal le 26 octobre

630.1 Amend the CEAA 2012 to specify how EA are to be carried out as well as the extent of the obligations of private developers and those of federal authorities and agencies for not designated projects.
630.2
Introduce a simplified evaluation procedure to accelerate the implementation of projects with low environmental impact carried out on federal lands.
630.3
Signature of agreements allowing for the harmonization of provincial and federal EA procedures.
630.4
Assess the economic benefits generated by projects as part of the EA. This assessment should be done by the proponent and the government.
630.5
Use strategic EA to assess government policies or strategies and not for specific projects.
630.6 Integrate traditional knowledge into account but without an obligation to achieve results.
630.7
Update of the Regulation (i.e. criteria for federal EA procedure, definition of environmental impacts, etc.).
630.8 Increase the collaboration between the project initiator and the ministries and agencies when conducting EAs.
630.9
The Minister should have the option of referring a project to environmental mediation when this project raises more local or private issues.

630.4 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.3 
630.7 - s.2.1.3 
630.3 - s2.2.1 
630.6 - 2.3.4 
630.8 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
630.1 - s3.2.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
630.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
630.9 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
630.5 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Jenny Weitzman

Incorporating climate change considerations into the EA process

392.1 Strengthening legislative foundation for incorporating climate change in EA.
392.2 Standardizing guidelines, lists, and project-level requirements.
392.3
Implementing regional-level and strategic considerations for climate change, especially in vulnerable areas.

392.1 - s2.1.1 
392.3 - s3.7 
392.2 - s2.5.1

Jessica Romo

Scoping in Environmental Assessment in Canada: Proposed Reforms

556.1 Federal EA should move towards a broader, more ambitious view of the scoping process, while still maintaining a focused approach. The scope should be broadened to include social, economic, cultural and biophysical issues as well as the interconnectedness between them.
556.2 Reverse the narrowing of the scope in CEAA 2012, and take guidance from CEAA 1995 in including a wider range of environmental considerations.
556.3 The proponent should further investigate who would provide valuable knowledge and information pertaining to environmental impacts of a proposed project and who should be involved in the scoping community early on in project development.
556.4
Reference to project alternatives should be taken into account for achieving sustainable development, despite being removed in the scoping of CEAA 2012.
556.5
Broadening the scope to include climate changes and greenhouse gas emissions as factors to consider is also recommended in reforming federal EA in Canada, due to the recognized significance of this environmental issue.
556.6
The scoping process be differentiated for large- and small-scale projects, to ensure environmental impacts are correctly identified and considered regardless of the size of the project.

556.1 - s2.1.3 
556.2 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
556.4 - s2.1.3 
556.5 - s3.7 
556.3 - s2.4.1, s.2.5.2, s3.2.2.1 
556.6 - s3.2.2.1

Jiachen Yuan, Ming Sam Fan, Rudy Klaue and Anthony Tsai

Suggestions for CEAA 2012 Received Nov.18, 2016

997.1 Widen the range of projects which will trigger a federal EA, specifically using less discretion-based decisions for the matter.
997.2 Widen the scope of the EAs.
997.3
Widen the scope by allowing more freedom in the rather limited CEAA 2012 EA process.

997.1 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
997.2 - s2.1.3 
997.3 - s2.1.3

Jill Taylor, President of SOS Great Lakes

Updated - Submission "REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESSES" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

73.1 The Expert Panel must look at the whole of CEAA: its purpose, definitions, timelines, the role of indigenous peoples and the public in participation, the detail criteria of screening/evaluation/recommendation/mitigation, governance and enforcement. Situation of conflicts of interest should be avoided.
73.2
The CEAA process must be a tool for designing and evaluating projects but it should be more rigorous, clear and detailed with explicit design, decision-making and risk assessment criteria.
73.3
Assistance and monitoring of the process should be done by the CEAA or arm's length body. The substance and accuracy of EIS should be reviewed in detail by unbiased parties at various stages of its preparation.
73.4
Adequate timeframes should be established in order to allow for meaningful participation.
73.5 Changes in context, environment, scientific discovery, cultural shift, to name only a few, should be accommodated during the EA process. As such, the project scope and requirements should also evolve.
73.6
Climate change must be accounted in the EA process.
73.7
Alternatives sites and means should be encouraged during the EA process.
73.8
Health, socio-cultural and socio-economic effects must be assessed.
73.9
Better coordination, collaboration and harmonization between jurisdictions.
73.10
Public engagement must be valued and the terms enhanced.
73.11
The go/no-go triggers should be clear at all times.

73.9 - s2.2.1 
73.6 - s3.7 
73.10 - s2.4.1 
73.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
73.3 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2  
73.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
73.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.4.3 
73.5 - s3.2.2.1 
73.7 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.2 
73.8 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.3 
73.11 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3

Jill Taylor, President of SOS Great Lakes

Submission "REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESSES" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

See analysis for submission #73

 

Jill Taylor, President of SOS Great Lakes

Presentation "REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESSES" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

See analysis for submission #73

 

Jill Weitz, Manager, Salmon Beyond Borders

Salmon Beyond Borders Final EA Review Comments Received Dec. 23, 2016

847.1 A federal Review Panel must conduct an extensive EA for projects with potential transboundary impacts.
847.2
A federal EA must include a strategic watershed cumulative impact assessment, incorporating socio-economic and cultural impacts, impacts to habitat and other environmental effects, water quality and quantity monitoring plans, long-term planning, project alternatives, etc.
847.3 A federal Review Panel must conduct the EA for projects with transboundary implications, not the government, project proponents or other RAs.
847.4 EIS must be completed by the federal government and/or independent expert scientists, not the government or project proponents.
847.5
The analysis of the EIS must be conducted by the federal government and independent experts.
847.6
Public and Aboriginal participation and consultation must begin before a project enters into an EA process.
847.7
The EA report must come from the federal government, and not the provincial government nor the project proponent.
847.8
The final decision must be made by the federal Review panel, not solely the Minister.
847.9
Enforceable conditions that require the highest standards for projects with transboundary implications must be regulated by the federal government and not the provincial government.
847.10
Follow-up and monitoring of enforceable conditions for projects with transboundary implications must be conducted by the federal government and not the provincial government or project proponent.

847.1 - s2.1.1 
847.2 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4, s3.5.1, s3.5.2 847.4 - s2.5.3 
847.5 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.2 
847.6 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
847.7 - s3.2.2.2 
847.8 - s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3 
847.9 - s3.2.2.3 
847.10 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
847.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Jill Weitz, Manager, Salmon Beyond Borders Submission

Salmon Beyond Borders Final EA Review Comments Received Dec. 23, 2016

See analysis of submission #847

 

Jim Emberger, Spokesperson

Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of the EIA Process Received Nov. 21, 2016

994.1 Integrated strategic, regional and project EIA’s, particularly when coupled with the concept of ‘sustainability’ as the guiding principle. By having a clear idea beforehand of the necessity of meeting sustainability standards and fitting into national/regional goals, many proponents may be dissuaded from suggesting speculative projects with the hope of getting approval later based on money spent.
994.2 Maximum standards should be developed for the amount of impacts allowed for any project, in as many areas as possible - environmental, public health, climate change, etc.
994.3 As climate change is the foremost health, environmental and security challenge of our times, it is imperative that a climate change test be a part of the EIA for all development projects.

994.1 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
994.2 - s2.1.3 
994.3 - s2.1.3, s3.7

Jim Emberger, Spokesperson, New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance

Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of the EIA Process Received Nov. 21, 2016

854.1 Support the concept of integrated strategic, regional and project EIA’s, particularly when coupled with the concept of ‘sustainability’ as the guiding principle. These concepts should help alleviate the burden on the regulatory agencies, as projects that do not fit within either the sustainability goal or do not advance (or possibly hinder) the nation’s environmental goals will not get started.
854.2
As part of the development of strategic and regional EIA’s and the prevention of speculative projects, maximum standards should be developed for the amount of impacts allowed for any project, in as many areas as possible - environmental, public health, climate change, etc.
854.3 It is imperative that a climate change test be a part of the EIA for all development projects.
854.4
The principles of transparency, accountability, access to information, indigenous rights and participation, continuing follow-up and learning are self-evident, and necessary to eliminate the current politicization of many projects

854.4 - s1.3, s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
854.1 - s2.1.4, s2.1.3 
854.3 - s3.7 
854.2 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.1

Jim McKnight

Environmental Responsible Resource Development

356.1 EA should be retitled as Project Assessment and not limited to strictly environmental aspects.
356.2 The cumulative effects of projects within an area should be considered.
356.3 The panel should have the authority to challenge any of the facts and figures presented by any of the proponents.
356.4
All panels must be jointly designated both federal and provincial.
356.5
The proponents must be responsible for the restoration of an area/zone to as near as possible to the condition it was in before the project began.
356.6
Catastrophic failures can happen and should be assessed.
356.7
Alternative measures must be fully and carefully examined.
356.8
All proposals should be required to supply factual information.
356.9
AT the present time, there is not enough effort applied by the various governments to ensure that the conditions agreed to in the assessment process are indicated in the permit.
356.10 All the decisions relating to the environment must be made public and should include the final Cabinet decision.

356.1 - s1.1, s2.1.3 
354.4 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
354.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
356.3 - s.2.5.3, s.3.2.2.2 
356.8 - s.2.5.3 
356.6 - s3.2.2.1 
356.7 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.3 
356.10 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4 
356.2 - s3.5.2 
356.9 - s3.3.1, s3.3.3

Jim Ronback, System Safety Engineer, (retired)

Single Failure Tankers and Newly Discovered Pollinators Under the Sea Received Dec. 23, 2016

728.1 Change regulations to require mandatory twin screws for tankers transporting hazardous cargoes along the coasts and in the harbours and waterways.

728.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Joan Kuyek

Presentation "EA of Mining Projects" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

499.1 Sustainability and the environment should be the key factor in "need and purpose".
499.2
Every EA should contain a state of the art Social Economic Impact Assessment.
499.3 EA must take into account lost opportunity costs, community values, long-term risk, cultural and social changes.
499.4
There is a need for an effective search engine to retrieve documents (registry).
499.5 Any discussion of REAs and SEAs has to address sacrifice zones. Cumulative effects needs to acknowledge inequitable burden of these zones.

499.1 - s2.1.3,
499.2 - s2.1.3, s2.5.1 
499.3 - s2.1.3 
499.4 - s2.4.3 
499.5 - s3.5.1

Joan Kuyek

Submission from Joan Kuyek DSW

619.1 Integrate a socio-economic impact assessment as integral to EA. Currently, the sections on health, social and economic impacts and benefits are not integrated into the discussion of need and purpose or the assessment of "Benefits to Canadians".
619.2
There is a need for a proper risk-benefit analysis of proposed mining projects. The economic vitality of a project has to be assured if it is to meet its obligations for mitigation and closure planning.
619.3
Public engagement: The onus should be on the proponent to prove that the project is to the benefit of involuntary stakeholders (i.e. communities affected by the project, government, indigenous original occupants of the property, etc.) and should adapt to their availabilities.
619.4 Fix the current problems with the registry (see brief) and create a proper archival retrieval system.
619.5
Regional EA have to take into account the "sacrificed zones" and make a decision about how these areas are to be contained and how the land and waters are to be healed and restored.

619.1 - s2.1.3 
619.2 - s2.1.3 
619.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
619.4 - s2.4.3 
619.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Joanna Skrajny, Conservation Specialist, Alberta Wilderness Association

Alberta Wilderness Association written submission on Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Review Received Dec. 16, 2016

964.1 The purpose of EAs should be not only to determine whether projects will have significant adverse environmental effects, but also to ensure they are sustainable and provide net social and environmental benefits.
964.2
A new Act must reflect the broad constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. Provincial substitution is not appropriate because of important distinct federal responsibilities, and harmonization should be used instead.
964.3
The scope of what is considered in EAs must be expanded in order to incorporate sustainability as a core objective.
964.4
restore the CEAA 1992 "in unless out" approach, coupled with regional and strategic assessments to trigger assessments to determine and limit cumulative effects of projects on the environment.
964.5
Incorporate comprehensive strategic EAs in the decision making process.
964.6 EAs are incomplete without proper consideration of the cumulative impacts on the environment.
964.7 Working to prevent, eliminate, and publicly disclose any potential conflicts of interests are crucial to restoring public trust in the process. Restoring credibility to EAs also requires that assessments are truly independently conducted and reviewed and are completed using best available science. The full assessment, including raw scientific data, must be permanently available to the public to allow for public review and evaluation during and after decision-making.
964.8
Decision making should recognize and select the best option among a host of alternatives; alternatives must always include an option of not proceeding with the activity.
964.9 For any changes to the EA process to be effective, they must be coupled with adequate capacity to implement monitoring and enforcement work. Changes to the EA act should include a mechanism to track information to inform whether the system works.

964.1 - s2.1.3 
964.2 - s2.1.1, s2.2.1 
964.3 - s2.1.3 
964.4 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
964.5 - s2.1.4 
964.8 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s3.2.2.3 
964.6 - s2.5.1, s3.5.1 
964.7 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
964.9 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Jodi Hilty and Candace Batycki

Comments from Y2YCI

520.1 Incorporating stronger science in developing EIA, specifically

  1. to ensure that impacts do not unduly affect future generations, the burden of proof on the project proponents should be shifted from demonstrating that there will be an impact to proof that there will not be an impact and more fulsomely addressing potential impacts.
  2. EIA for a project cannot be done without consideration of cumulative impacts in the rest of the environment.
  3. The revision should incorporate much clearer and stronger language to ensure proper consideration of cumulative impacts, including clear threshold for all VECs. Data which form the basis of the EIA should be shared freely.
  4. Increased science standards for baseline condition assessment and remediation and restauration is needed.
  5. Accurate assessment of the long-term impacts of the project.
  6. Incorporation of the impacts of a changing climate.

520.2 Sustainability as a core objective. Consider net contribution to environmental, social, cultural and economic well-being in the short and long-term.
520.3 Meaningful public participation for anyone who wishes to participate and should ensure indigenous peoples' consultation, engagement, and participation.

520.1 - s2.1.4, s3.7, s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s3.5.1 
520.2 - s2.1.3 
520.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.4.1

Joe Foy

SLAPP protection needed to ensure safe public participation

See analysis of submission #254

 

Joe Foy with Wilderness Committee

Written submission for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

254.1 The EA legislation needs to be improved so as to provide protection to participants who may be attacked by a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) for simply heeding the call by the EA office to submit public comment.
254.2 Public participants should be protected against anti-SLAPP legislation or given similar power that MLAs have in the Legislature not to be used by a project proponent for what they say or write about a proposed project.

254.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
254.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

John Davis for Clean Ocean Action Committee

Supporting documents for presentation by Clean Ocean Action Committee in Halifax, Oct 3 2016

839.1 Given the value of fishery to the province as a whole and given the near absolute dependence of coastal communities on the fishery as an economic generator, that maintaining the area of the ocean described by sites 3 and 4 as an oil and gas free buffer zone is a reasonable, cost free, insurance policy which helps to protect these most valuable fishing, spawning and nursery grounds.
839.2

  1. Limit catch rates to levels which allow the continuous regeneration of stocks,
  2. identify and protect important spawning grounds and
  3. identify and protect important nursery grounds.

839.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
839.2 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

John Davis, Clean Ocean Action Committee

Presentation

P11.1 Real and Functional Regulatory Oversight for the oil and gas industry that is carried out with a high level of scientific integrity and which actually reflects the value of the renewable resources on the Scotian Shelf that are being put at risk. We will accept nothing less
P11.2 R
esearch is needed to (1) assess the toxicity of dispersed oil to deep water corals, ground fish and invertebrate species that have high economic importance – lobster, crab and scallops. Research is needed to model the distribution of deep water plumes of dispersed oil in relation to areas of known fisheries productivities such as the fishing banks of Canada’s east coast.
P11.3 Meet the mandates that were put forward in the federal election. They’re really straightforward and if you read them and if they could be put in place, the federal Liberal platform said we will make environmental assessments credible again.
P11.4
We need a high level of scientific integrity. We need decision making that when you are in these discussions the only reason you’re in them is because there are resources that want to move forward and there are resources that feel threatened. The science and the decision making have to reflect the value of those resources that are going to be put at risk. That’s not reflected in the work of CNSOPB or CEAA right now
P11.5
There needs to be a better process for community involvement

P11.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
P11.3 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
P11.5 - s2.4.1
P11.1 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3
P11.4 - s2.5.4, s3.2.2.3, s2.1.3

John Knight

Submission "Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Process"

741.1 The assumption and resulting uncertainties of models should be made clear and alternative conclusions should be provided.
741.2 When making a risk evaluation, the significance of the impact on social values should be included.
741.3
The cumulative environmental impacts should be evaluated over a long period into the future using appropriate baseline.
741.4
NEB should not be a RA due to the apparent conflict of interest.
741.5
A rigorous system for the long term monitoring of any assessment conditions is critical.

741.2 - s2.1.3 
741.1 - s5.2.1 
741.4 - s3.1.1 
741.3 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
741.5 - s3.3.2

John McManus

Written submission "Independent Expert Panel Review Process in Environmental Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

263.1 Remove the panel review process as it currently stands.
263.2 Replace review panels with an expert committee of government regulators and make them accountable.

263.1 - s3.1.1 
263.2 - s3.1.1

John Werring with the David Suzuki Foundation

Written submission and speaker notes "How the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 is failing Canadians" for Nanaimo, Dec 14 2016

226.1 Reinstate the parts of the Act lost in 2012 by reinstating triggers from other acts and mandatory assessments, by ensuring that public consultation is free and unfettered, by requiring free and easy public access to a registry with detailed project information.
226.2 Improve parts of the CEAA 1992 to reflect modern standards by including cumulative effects, prioritizing regional EAs and recognizing environmental rights and their protection as a fundamental purpose of the act.
226.3
Move toward a complete overhaul of the CEAA to focus on regional strategic EAs as a foundation for the EA regime.

226.2 - s2.1.4, s3.5.1 
226.3 - s2.1.4 
226.1 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3, s3.2.1

Jonathan W. Moore

Presentation for Nanaimo, Dec 14 2016

See analysis of submission #225

 

Jonathan W. Moore

Written submission for Nanaimo, Dec 14 2016

225.1 Strategic EA by region or by sector. Establish an expert working group to consider the potential benefits and trade-offs associated with different scenarios of development.
225.2 Independent EA (not realized by the proponent or a consultant hired by the proponent). There needs to be a firewall between industry proponents and EAs such as an Independent Federal Committee on EA Implementation.
225.3
Transparent decision-making criteria. Disclosure of decision-making criteria. Open accounting for how decision incorporate strategic EA and project EA.

225.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
225.3 - s3.1.1, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4, s2.1.4 
225.1 - s3.5.2

Josh Ginsberg, Eco Justice

Submission "Clarity and Dealing with Uncertainty" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

The new legislation should include:
506.1
Binding standards for meeting the sustainability threshold. Under the new Act, assessors should consider all potential environmental effects, according to pre-determined standards and a clear evidentiary threshold. Further, assessments can and should do more than avoid acute harm: they can evaluate the extent to which a project contributes to or derogates from broader sustainability goals.
506.2
A requirement to substantively consider all evidence relevant to the sustainability analysis. Next-generation Sustainability Assessments will require a legislated set of generic criteria for evaluating the significance of effects.
506.3
Rules for addressing any ongoing uncertainty about potential adverse effects of a project. Adaptive management and its role in EAs should be clearly defined and limited to effects that are unforeseeable, using objective standards. It should also be primarily applied in follow-up, not as a tool for the initial assessment. If it is used, it should be clear what the adaptive management tool is, and how it is to be implemented.

506.1 - s2.1.3, s.2.5.1, s.2.5.4 
506.2 - s2.1.3, s2.5.4 
506.3 - s.2.5.1

Judith Sayers

Problematic Issues with Canadian Environmental Assessment and First Nations

168.1 The CEAA must be independent with a clear separation from the Government. Final decisions should be made by the CEAA.
168.2 In every decision regarding a project, it should be clear how the decision promotes sustainable development (healthy environment and economy).
168.3
Studying and taking into account cumulative effects must be mandatory and a requirement in the legislation.
168.4
More consideration and weight in the EA should be given to how environmental effects will have an impact on indigenous people.
168.5 There needs to be strict requirements or definition of why the Cabinet could exempt a component of the environment or accept a project.
168.6 First Nations should be consulted during the screening process. The 45 days timeframe should be extended.
168.7 Strict timelines may impede a proper EA. Some developments are more complex and should be given extended timelines.
168.8 If the Crown is ever to reconcile and establish a new relationship with First Nations, there has to be recognition of the jurisdiction of the First Nation.
168.9
The term Aboriginal Knowledge should be defined in the act and the term TEK should be revised.
168.10
The Act should be revised to say that EA must take into account traditional knowledge.
168.11
Mechanisms need to be put in place sot that indigenous wisdom is part of what is relied on for decision-making.
168.12
The government needs to have a clear policy on consultation outside the EA process or ensure that consultation in the CEAA is not delegated, reflects the honour of the crown, and is comprehensive enough to meet all the duties of consultation and possible consent.
168.13
Implement the UNDRIP and the FPIC.
168.14
Before any final amendments are made or a new CEAA is made, First Nations must fully consent.

168.2 - s2.1.3 168.6 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
168.5 - s2.5.4 
168.11 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2, s2.5.4 
168.12 - s2.3.2 
168.13 - s2.3.1 
168.14 - s2.3.1 
168.9 - s2.3.4 
168.10 - s2.3.4 
168.1 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
168.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.1 
168.4 - s2.3.2 
168.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.4.1 
168.8 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Julie Samson, Chairperson, Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee

The KEAC’s Recommendations on the Review of the Federal Assessment Process under the CEAA (2012) Received Dec. 19, 2016

976.1 The federal government should stipulate in the CEAA the primacy of the JBNQA and the environmental and social impact assessment and review procedure contained in Section 23, and that is apply the substitution mechanism under the CEAA for the jurisdictions already having environmental and social assessment duties, responsibilities and functions.

976.1 - s2.2.2

Julie Samson, Chairperson, Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee

The Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee's Recommendations on the Review of the Federal Assessment Process under the CEAA (2012) Received Dec. 19, 2016

978.1 The CEAA should be amended so as to incorporate the mechanisms for fulfilling the obligation of the Crown to consult and accommodate Native peoples, in accordance with the principles identified by the Supreme Court of Canada.
978.2
To consult the Inuit of Nunavik on any plan to substitute the EA process provided in Section 23 of the JBNQA for the EA process provided in the CEAA.

978.2 - s2.2.2 
978.1 - s2.3.2

Justin Serpa and Helena Kemper-Vanosch

CEAA 2012 recommendations to the Federal Government of Canada Received Nov. 15, 2016

1003.1 Define ‘meaningful’ in the legislation.
1003.2
Use the term “free, prior and informed consent to inform this definition and reflect UNDRIP in CEAA 2012.
1003.3
Take aboriginal concerns seriously.
1003.4 Remove equivalency and substitution from CEAA 2012.

1003.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
1003.4 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
1003.2 - s2.3.1 
1003.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.4, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Justina C. Ray, Ph.D. of Wildlife Conservation Society Canada

Submission "The Contribution of Science to Environmental Assessment: Considerations for the CEAA Review" for Winnipeg, Nov 16 2016

417.1 Significant opportunities for strengthening the language in the CEAA legislation itself so that it provides clear direction or expectations for the relative strength and role of science in all stages of the EA process - from the initial project description to the EA decision and follow-up monitoring and enforcement.
417.2
The RA should be provided sufficient time and financial means to obtain independent review of work submitted by development proponents and/or ancillary technical analyses/advise that fill gaps or provide alternatives to science delivered by the proponent.
417.3 Federal government budgets must recognize the critical need for scientific capacity, expertise, and data collection to support the RA role in EA processes (e.g. investing in regional monitoring programs).
417.4
Develop clear guidelines on expectations of scientific quality of materials to ensure delivery of the most meaningful and relevant information for decisions.
417.5
Clear decision-making criteria and trade off rules are needed to guide decisions and incentivize decision making based on the information and analysis considered during EA reviews.
417.6
Ensure continuous oversight by RAs from the beginning stages when guidelines are devised; invest in regional monitoring programs; establish clear guidance and criteria to define appropriate mitigation and require it to be specifically proposed during the conduct of an EA and its concrete, applicable details described in approval conditions. Monitoring requirements must be specifically designed to test the efficacy of mitigation measures. Require coordination between projects in a similar area to encourage information gathering on cumulative impacts. Make all information from EAs permanently and publicly available in a free, searchable federal registry and repository as a condition of EA approval.

417.1 - s.2.5.1 
417.3 - s.2.5.1 
417.4 - s.2.5.1 
417.2 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3 
417.5 - s3.2.2.3, s.2.1.3 
417.6 - s3.5.2

Justina Ray

The Effective Use of Science in Environmental Assessment

114.1 Make expectations for the relative strength and role of science in all stages of the EA process explicit within the language in the CEAA legislation - from the initial project description to the EA decision and follow-up monitoring and enforcement.
114.2
Mandate increased time and financial support by RAs to obtain reviews from scientists outside of the federal government of: 1) EA documents submitted by development proponents and/or 2) ancillary technical analyses and/or advice that fill gaps in EA science delivered by the development proponent.
114.3
Review panel members must include people with scientific training and expertise, and TOR must indicate how science is to be considered in panel deliberations.
114.4 Clear and detailed guidelines on expectations of scientific quality of materials must be developed to ensure delivery of the most meaningful and relevant information for decisions. Guidelines should provide clearly articulated expectations regarding quantity and quality of information that is expected.
114.5
Reduce the potential for conflict of interest between the production of EA materials and the outcome of project decisions.
114.6 Develop clear decision-making criteria and trade-off rules to guide decisions and incentivize decision-making based on the information and analysis considered during the EA reviews.
114.7
Require continuous oversight by RAs from the beginning stages when guidelines are devised.
114.8 Federal government budgets must recognize the critical need for internal scientific capacity, expertise, and data collection to support the RA role in EA process.

114.8 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
114.1 - s2.5.1 
114.4 - s2.5.1 
114.5 - s2.5.3 
114.3 - s3.2.2.3 
114.6 - s3.2.2.3, s2.1.3 
114.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
114.2 - s3.4.2

KAMLOOPS AREA PPRESERVATION ASSOCIATION

Submission "SUMMARY OF KAMLOOPS AREA PPRESERVATION ASSOCIATION (KAPA) PRESENTATION TO EXPERT PANEL" for Kamloops, Nov 28 2016

346.1 Establish a policy that no decision on a Panel Review for a large project located near a population centre should be made until proper public consultation has taken place.
346.2
Government agencies should hold public meetings before a project decision is made, where the agency assessment decisions are disclosed to the public, and the public is given an opportunity to question these decisions.
346.3
For resource projects located near large urban population, governments need to err on the side of caution and carry out a rigorous cumulative assessment of all reasonably foreseeable neighbouring mining projects.
346.4 In order to verify sampling techniques, assumptions, methodologies and analytical conclusions, government agencies should require submission of all assay data and other baseline data that the proponent has in its possession for any project.
346.5 To reduce the risk to taxpayers of abandoned/orphaned mines, the federal and provincial governments need to enact financial soundness test legislation.

346.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
343.3 In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
346.5 - Inconsistent with Canadian statutes and Constitution
346.4 - s2.5.1 
346.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3

Kamloops Area Preservation Association

Costs for community groups - answer to question from Doug Horswill

122.1 Provide the funding for independent scientists to study the proponents’ science or, even better, conduct the science in the first place with independent scientists

122.1 - s2.5.3, s3.4.2

Kamloops Physicians for a Healthy Environment Society

Submission "Presentation to the Panel Review Federal Environmental Assessment Process" for Kamloops, Nov 28 2016

344.1 Align responsibilities and reporting structures with respect to health concerns so that such concerns move up the chain of command.
344.2
Set standards for the units of time available to focus on the review of applications and fund the affected Ministries proportionately (proponents should not police themselves).
344.3
Level the playing field on time. If the proponent takes years to apply, the review could take equal time to reproduce the modeling or studies in the application.
344.4
New protocols need to be developed to require real life studies on real life projects and not rely of models with inherent errors and lack of post-operational accountability.
344.5
Air, water and soil management must be set up to transcend political silos of municipal, regional, provincial and federal jurisdictions.
344.6 Use a precautionary principle if unsafe, unproven, early or yet to be confirmed risks. Mandated public disclosure, realistic compensation estimates and a precautionary principle when the facts are not yet known.

344.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
344.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
344.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
344.5 - Inconsistent with Canadian statutes and Constitution
344.6 - s2.5.1, s2.5.4 
344.2 - s3.4.2

Kamloops Physicians for a Healthy Environment Society

Presentation "Presentation to the Panel Review Federal Environmental Assessment Process" for Kamloops, Nov 28 2016

See analysis of submission #344

 

Kapawe`no First Nation

Kapawe`no First Nation Review Submission Received Dec. 23, 2016

818.1 For the purposes of protecting Aboriginal peoples and their rights, the word "currently" should be removed from the Act.
818.2 An EA of a group's VEC should be scientifically based, include cumulative effects, examine multiple spatial and temporal scales, be measurable, and it should make full use of TEK.
818.3
The CEAA must cognizant of the fact that a Group has rights to lands and resources within their traditional territories that may exceed far beyond only the right to "use" the lands and resources.
818.4
The term precautionary principle should be explicitly defined, and applied to both the CEA Act and the CEP Act.
818.5 The EA process must take into consideration ATK (not should) and ATK must be used when assessing and estimating effects to Aboriginal peoples VEC.
818.6 There is a gap in the manner in which the term precautionary principle is defined in relation to protection of the environment. A proposed modification is suggested in the submission.
818.7 The issue of a 60 day timeline within the CEP Act should be resolved. It should be extended to four months or 120 days.
818.8 Review the definition of wetland.
818.9
The definition of wildlife areas should include areas of critical wildlife habitat for woodland caribou populations that are not self-sustaining.
818.10
The federal and provincial governments should order the EIA, select the firm to conduct it and send proponents the bill.
818.11 The Agency should be soliciting comments from not only the "public", but also Aboriginal peoples.
818.12
The process and consultation should be void of the terms "project specific effects" and "site specific effects".

818.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
818.7 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
818.8 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
818.9 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
818.12 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
818.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
818.5 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
818.11 - s2.4.1 
818.2 - s2.5.1, s2.5.2 
818.4 - s2.5.1 
818.6 - s2.5.1 
818.10 - s3.4.2, s2.5.3

Kara Flynn, Vice President of Government and Public Affairs

Syncrude Canada Ltd. Response to the consultation on the review of federal environmental assessment processes Received Dec. 16, 2016

983.1 Propose a clear rationale for the application of federal EA processes.
983.2
EAs must be timely, coordinated where overlapping processes cannot be avoided, effective, and respectful of Indigenous rights and provincial jurisdiction, with a predictable and transparent process.
983.3
Consideration should be given to determining a best-placed lead authority.
983.4
Priority should be given to enhancing coordination, substitution, equivalency provisions and ensuring there is adequate capacity, resources/skills to manage the interplay between federal and provincial processes and associated federal regulation such as the Fisheries Act.
983.5 Focus on the net environmental and socio-economic factors unique to each project.
983.6
Provide support to enhance the capacity of Indigenous communities to meaningfully participate in the regulatory review processes.
983.8
Pursue greater alignment with provincial governments on the scope and processes for consultation and accommodation.
983.9 Establishing trustworthy nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous peoples, accelerating the completion of land claims, directly providing capacity support for participation in project review and in the opportunities that projects provide, including by investing in education and training, and sharing government resource revenues collected from projects with affected communities. PARTIAL
983.10
Focus on strategic assessment of federal policies, plans and programs, assessment of activities on federal lands, etc.
983.11
The Activities Designation Regulation should be refined to add clarity to the definitions sections, and to include only those activities most likely to impact areas of federal jurisdiction.
983.12
Priority should be given to continuously enhancing coordination, substitution and equivalency provisions as well as ensuring there is adequate capacity, resources and skills to manage the interplay between federal and provincial processes and associated regulations.
983.13
Greater federal efforts to improve Fisheries Act compliance and Species at Risk Act implementation.
983.14 Provide clarity to the public throughout the processes to increase confidence and efficiency in the regulatory system.
983.15 CEAA 2012 should be amended to enable adjustment to process and timeline details to better align the federal process with that of a provincial government, to encourage agreements for single harmonized processes.

983.1 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1, s3.6.1 
983.5 - s2.1.3 
983.10 - s2.1.1, s2.1.4 
983.11 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
983.13 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
983.2 - s2.2, s2.3.2, s3.4.1 
983.4 - s2.2, s3.4.2 
983.12 - s2.2 
983.6 - s2.3.4 
983.9 - s2.3.3 
983.14 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
983.8 - s3.2.2.1 
983.3 - s3.1.1

Karen A. Peterson, PhD

Presentation "Federal Environmental Assessment Review - The Aboriginal/Canadian Context” for Thunder Bay, Nov 15 2016

428.1 Focus on the long-term by

  1. learning from the past and developing a better future, and
  2. identifying a common ground for future direction.

428.2 Build relationships by

  1. recognizing knowledge systems are rooted in different cultural perspectives, and
  2. seeking first to understand, then be understood.

428.3 Build capacity by

  1. learning how other people think, what their values are, how decisions are made,
  2. finding parallels with one's one culture and developing new protocols and methods jointly, and
  3. enhancing awareness through on-going information exchange.

428.4 The EA process should follow a holistic approach rather than a compartmental approach. It should be participatory rather than expert driven. It should be adaptive and oriented towards creative problem solving. It should be based on strategic thinking rather than static plan. It should be based on real partnerships and joint decision making.

428.1 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
428.2 - s2.3.4 
428.3 - s2.3.3 
428.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.1.2, s2.1.3

Karen Goodings, Director, Electoral Area ‘B’, Peace River Regional District

Federal Environmental Assessment Processes Review - Comment Submission Received Dec. 21, 2016

943.1 Assess a region, not just a project in order to have a clear impact assessment.
943.2
Under the EA, economics should be a very low factor.
943.3
Waters that cross through multi-jurisdictions should have multi-jurisdictional assessment done.
943.4 When doing EAs, take into account the previous processes such as the Land Resource Management Plan which went to great lengths to put a plan in place through local consultation with the focus to allow resources to be extracted while protecting the environment.
943.5
More severe consequences to the proponents. If they cannot prevent the infraction, they shouldn't undertake the project.
943.6 The EA review should engage in a process that allows for cross examination of evidence presented.
943.7
Recognize that many of the projects that are proposed fall under the impact line that would trigger an assessment which then compounds the cumulative impact aspect.
943.8
Access to funding for those that are impacted by the project need to be enhanced.
943.9 The proponent for a process should not lead the process. The lead should be appointed by an independent body to create the knowledge that this is a transparent process.

943.1 - s2.1.4, s3.5.1 
943.2 - s2.1.3 
943.3 - s2.1.1, s2.2.1 
943.7 - s2.1.3, s3.5.1 
943.8 - s2.4.2 
943.6 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.2 
943.9 - s2.5.3, s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
943.4 - s3.5 
943.5 - s3.3.3

Karen Monnon Dempsey, President, National Council of Women of Canada

Comments on the CEAA 2016 Review of Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 23, 2016

904.1 CNSC should not be mandated to conduct EAs under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

904.1 - s3.1.1

Karina Briño with the Mining Association BC

Presentation "Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

385.1 Retain substitution and equivalency provisions to support coordination and harmonization.
385.2
Provide adequate capacity, resources and skills in Agency and federal departments to deliver timely EAs.
385.3
Improve Species at Risk Act implementation through enhanced BC/Canada collaboration.
385.4
Prompt issuance of technical guidance to support changes to CEAA 2012.
385.5
Provide training for federal officials and hold government, proponent and stakeholder workshops to review changes.

385.1 - s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
385.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
385.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
385.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
385.2 - s.2.5.1

Karine Peloffy, Centre Québécois du Droit de l'Environnement

Présentation ''Présentation sur le cadre entourant les changements climatiques dans les évaluations environnementales'' pour Montréal le 26 octobre

629.1 Respect of the 12 pillars (see brief)
629.2
A significant place should be given to citizen participation throughout the process: before strategic decisions are made, during the EA and during the monitoring of the project. This participation should be accessible and not unduly restricted to a very limited number of people.
629.3 Taking into account the different alternatives, including that of refusing the project, as well as an analysis based on public interest must be an integral part of the EA.
629.4
The government should be responsible for participatory processes and should include:

  1. the right to reasonable notice,
  2. respect,
  3. disclosure and access to information,
  4. adequate resources,
  5. ability to influence results,
  6. explanations of how comments were received,
  7. opportunities to test the evidence

629.5 Consideration of GHG emissions and impacts on climate change in EAs (direct, indirect and cumulative emissions from a project must be taken into account over the entire life of the project)

629.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
629.3 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
629.5 - s3.7 
629.2 - s2.4.1 
629.4 - s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3

Karthikeshwar Sankar

For project environmental assessments, do you think the current scope and factors considered are adequate?

347.1 Cumulative effects assessment could be improved by adopting a more effects based approach and focus on understanding environmental systems and relationships rather than focusing on individual project stressors.
347.2
SEA should be made more mainstream as one of its purposes is to ensure that government departments are able to meet their sustainable development goals through their policies.

347.1 - s3.5.2 
347.2 Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Karyn Sharp and Jaime Sanchez with Carrier Sekani Tribal Council

Speaker notes for the presentation "Review of the Environmental Assessment Processes" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

382.1 For cumulative impacts to be properly recognized and assessed in EA, the federal government must

  1. require appropriate temporal boundaries to be adopted in assessments so a comparison can be made between pre-damaged baseline conditions, current conditions, and predicted future cumulative effects conditions loading on the VC, and
  2. require a contemplation of no development until the VC has adequately recovered.

382.2 Prescriptive direction to proponents on minimum requirements for cumulative effects assessments; especially as it applies to assessing impacts to First Nations rights land based practices.
382.3 Require all steps of the cumulative effects assessment process be developed in collaboration with affected First Nations, this includes the selection of which VCs are assessed.
382.4
Do not accept proximate biophysical information as "surrogate" for the required information. Information must be focused on characterizing the VC at hand.
382.5
Provide proponents with prescriptive direction, not just permissive suggestions on how to assess cumulative effects on VCs that are in decline or threatened, where thresholds have already been surpassed.
382.6
Ensure there is a centralized federal oversight committee who can consistently monitor, assess, and manage cumulative effects.
382.7 Formalize legal requirements for regional cumulative EAs when project put a way of life at risk.
382.8
Fund jointly-run programs to integrate provincial, federal, and First Nation stewardship initiatives.

382.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
382.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
382.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2 
382.1 - s3.5.2 
382.2 - s3.5.2 
382.5 - s3.5.2 
382.7 - s3.5.1 
382.8 - s3.3.2

Kasey Rogers and Alivia Cavallin

Recommendations for CEAA 2012 review Received Nov. 18, 2016

995.1 If a project triggers both a federal and provincial assessment, a committee is put together to carry it out to ensure a thorough and complete assessment is jointly and concurrently completed.
995.2 The time limit for application for review by a panel should be changed from 60 days after the notice of EA commencement to anytime while the EA is being conducted.

995.1 - s2.2.1 
995.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Kebaowek First Nation

Kebaowek First Nation Review of Canadian environmental processes - final written submission

69.1 Allow time and resources necessary for Aboriginal people to review the draft legislation and proposed amendments.
69.2
Federal EA should recognize community and customary laws and legal traditions with respect to decision-making and environmental stewardship. It should recognize and seek to apply the Algonquin principles of mutuality, respect and consultation when making decisions and allow for Aboriginal participation in EA decision-making.
69.3
UNDRIP should be a minimum framework for the relationship between Aboriginal people and Canadian State.
69.4
CEAA should better reflect Canada's commitments to reduce carbon emissions.
69.5
Aboriginal people should be recognized as partners in EA, not simply "stakeholders".
69.6
Sustainable development should be made the central goal of federal EA and should assess all foreseeable GHG at all stages of the project. The federal EA should extend beyond the "designated projects "list.
69.7
Amend CEAA to recognize the jurisdiction of indigenous EA institutions.
69.10
Provide financial and human resource to support for Algonquin institution to perform EA or as part of joint review panels.
69.11 Federal authorities should be subject to Aboriginal institutional audits and should be monitored for their adequate compliance with legislation.
69.12
Aboriginal community knowledge and traditional knowledge should be mandatory considerations under CEAA
69.13
Stronger legislative protection for sacred Aboriginal sites as part of social, cultural and EA.
69.14
Co-stewardship initiatives should be examined as models for implementation of mitigation measures.

69.6 - s2.1.3, s3.7 
69.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
69.11 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
69.13 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
69.7 - s2.2 
69.2 - s2.3.1 
69.3 - s2.3.1 
69.5 - s2.3.1 
69.10 - s2.3.3 
69.12 - s2.3.4 
69.4 - s3.7 
69.14 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Keepers of the Athabasca

Keepers' Submission to the CEAA review process

165.1 Before any project can proceed to a detailed planning phase, it must first have the FPIC of First Nations in Canada.
165.2
Include Treaty rights when making decisions regarding the environment and in determining cumulative effects.
165.3
Provide capacity in the interest of First Nations communities.
165.4
Make the utilization of Traditional Knowledge a requirement for any projects undergoing an EA.
165.5
The implementation of the UNDRIP must be a requirement for any projects undergoing an EA.
165.6
First Nations should be able to veto a project if plans for this project show it will cause insurmountable harm to the community.
165.7
Any interested individual must be able to make a submission to the EA (not only those directly affected).
165.8
Require the proponent present a ‘need’ for the project.
165.9
Include a section pertaining to ‘alternatives’ for the project in the EA.
165.10
Place project closure, remediation, and waste management costs clearly and realistically into the EA.
165.11
Enhanced’ harmonization for EAs, with coordination of information requests and agreed timelines for all steps.
165.12
All environmental effects must be examined, regardless of jurisdiction, legislative authority, or special considerations of a project.
165.13 Include the precautionary principle in every assessment.
165.14
Only an independent EA panel should conduct EAs and only independent scientists should provide information to the EA panel.
165.15 EA must include a follow up program to check and make sure that project proponents’ predictions are accurate.
165.16
Cumulative effects must be determined on a regional, national, and global scale depending on the type of emissions produced by a project and their distribution.

165.8 - s2.1.2 
165.9 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
165.10 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
165.1 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
165.2 - s2.3 
165.3 - s2.3.3 
165.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
165.5 - s2.3.1 
165.6 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
165.7 - s2.4.1 
165.14 - s2.5.3, s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
165.15 - s2.5.1 
165.12 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s2.1.1, s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
165.13 - s2.5.1, s2.5.1 
165.16 - s3.5.1 
165.11 - s2.2.1, s3.4.1

Kegan Pepper-Smith with Ecojustice

Written submission "Considering Climate Change in Environmental Assessments" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

257.1 Shift from environmental assessment to sustainability assessment, with sustainability tests.
257.2
Technical assessment and EAs should be conducted by an independent agency.
257.3
The new federal regime should explicitly outline mandatory measures to increase public participation in the EA process (at all stages), including processes to test scientific conclusions. Participation should be opened to all interested parties.
257.4
A hybrid approach to determine which projects are subject to a federal EA. It would involve both a list of designated projects subject to a jurisdictional screening and federal legislative decisions that trigger an assessment.
257.5
EAs need to have a broader scope (fulsome coverage including alternatives to a project, the "no action" alternative, climate impacts, total cumulative effects, social, economic and cultural impacts, etc.).
257.6
Joint assessment provision, with a mandatory requirement that the higher level of assessment be maintained.
257.7 Include requirement in the new legislation to avoid disproportionate impacts on low-income populations, Indigenous communities, and other socially vulnerable groups in Canada.
257.8
A robust regional and strategic assessment regime.
257.9
Cumulative effects should remain a mandatory consideration in all assessment. The new regime needs clear provisions on how to conduct a cumulative effects assessment.
257.10
For decisions on projects to be credible, they must be based on explicit, clearly articulated sustainability based criteria, they must be transparent and open and the reasons outlining the decision should be explained.
257.11 The revised assessment process should include the establishment of a quasi-judicial appeal board to hear appeals, and a statutory provision allowing for an application to the Federal court for judicial review of a decision by the political decision maker on justification and on standard administrative law grounds.
257.12
Specific requirements should be added with respect to follow-up including a requirement for reports on the status and results of follow-up programs, a requirement that the results of follow-up measures be considered in future assessments, etc.

257.1 - s2.1.3 
257.7 - s2.1.3 
257.9 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.1 
257.6 - s2.2 
257.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
257.11 - s3.1.1 
257.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
257.4 - s3.2.1 
257.5 - s3.2.2.1, s2.1.3 
257.10 - s2.1.3, s2.5.1, s2.1.3, s2.5.4 
257.8 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.1 
257.12 - s3.3.2

Kekinusuqs, Judith Sayers

Written submission "Problematic Issues with Canadian Environmental Assessment and First Nations" for Nanaimo, Dec 15 2016

201.1 There is a lot of discretion in CEAA 2012 to the Ministers and to the cabinet and there must be much more accountability and guidelines and reasons given than is currently required.
201.2 The debate on consent versus consultation must be resolved especially in relation to the UNDRIP.
201.3 Before any final amendments are made or a new CEAA is made, First Nations must be given the right to be fully consent or consulted.
201.4 There must be mechanisms put in place to deal with the difference in values from First Nations people to people in the EA Office and to anyone put on panels. Understanding First Nations way of life, the importance of a way of life that depends on the lands, water and resources, and understanding indigenous wisdom is critical for First Nations to have any confidence in EA processes.

201.2 - s2.3.1 
201.4 - s2.3.2, 2.3.4, s2.5.2, s3.2.2.1 
201.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
201.1 - s3.1.1, s2.5.4

Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society

 

1026.1 We are hoping the Federal Environmental Assessment would have stronger regulations due to the destruction of our traditional lands that the BC Government is allowing the industry to destroy. Elders and members are hoping the Federal Government would help us regulate industries such as forestry, mining, and oil and gas.
1026.2 Kelly Lake Metis Settlement Society should be made aware or informed of any and all future work or activities to occur around or on traditional lands.

1026.1 - s2.2.1, s3.2.1 
1026.2 - s2.3.2, s2.4.3

Kelly Mortimer

Presentation

P44.1 Recommendations re: UNDRIP - right to participate in decision-making, right to develop own decision-making institutions and to determine whether and how our lands and resources should be developed. EA must include Indigenous decision-making.

P44.1 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3

Ken & Arlene Boon

Additional Comments for EA Review Received Dec. 23, 2016

865.1 The effects of a project under review on climate change should play a larger role. That should also include the need to look at available alternatives to the project that would lessen the effect on climate change when weighed against other issues.
865.2 Regional considerations should carry a somewhat larger role in the process as long as they do not totally counter the greater public good when viewed from “30,000 feet” in favour of a local and perhaps narrow short sighted view.
865.3 In regards to a permitted project that has conditions attached to be followed. There should be some method to automatically red flag when conditions are not being followed.

865.1 - s3.7 
865.2 - s3.5.1 865.3 - s3.3.3

Ken Boon

Ken Boon presentation to Expert EA Panel Review on December 5, 2016

516.1 There should be independent and unbiased management and control of the public consultation process, and it should be paid the proponent.
516.2
The proponent should not be writing the EIS. This should be done by independent and unbiased professionals with cost recovered from the proponent.
516.3
The EIS should value Natural Capital within the EA process, and weigh the values being lost as result of a project versus the economic benefits of the project.
516.4
Involuntary Displacement should be part of any EA process where it is applicable.
516.5
Increase funding for those groups to take part in public hearings. Those taking part in hearings should be under oath.
516.6
Realistic time frames allowed for those involved.
516.7
Government should not be the proponent 516.8 Government needs to consider all recommendations from the EA Panel.
516.9 Government decisions should show justification and the public interest should be fully explained.
516.10
There needs to be a better determination on how First Nations are involved in decision making.
516.11
More capacity for compliance and enforcement with independent monitors on the ground, funded by the project.
516.12
Online inspection and monitoring reports should be available and kept up to date.
516.13
Employees who report infractions (whistleblowers) should not be in fear of repercussions for reporting infractions.
516.14
Higher levels of consequences to match non compliances.

516.3 - s2.1.3 
516.4 - s2.1.3 
516.10 - s2.3.1 
516.1 - s3.4.2 
516.5 - s2.4.2 
516.9 - s.2.5.4 
516.1 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
516.7 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
516.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.4.1 
516.9 - s3.2.2.3 
516.11 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
516.12 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
516.13 - s3.3.3 
516.14 - s3.3.3

Ken Forest

Presentation "FEDERAL EA REVIEW New Generation 2017: Science" for Fort St-John, Dec 5 2016

331.1 Composition of panels: ensure that one member has at least in part, a science background.
331.2
Make decisions based on science.
331.3
All assessment panels should have to view project impacts in time frames of centuries and all through the lens of a new and changing climate both in terms of mitigation and adaptation.

331.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
331.2 - s2.5.4 
331.1 - s3.2.2.3

Ken Forest

Presentation "FEDERAL EA REVIEW New Generation 2017: Science" for Kamloops, Dec 5 2016

See analysis of submission #331

 

Ken Forest

Presentation "Federal EA Review - New Generation 2017: Science " for Fort St. John Dec. 5 2016

See analysis of submission #331

 

KGHM

Presentation "Presentation to Expert Panel" for Kamloops, Nov 28 2016

341.1 Certainty regarding timeline across all permitting processes is key to project success.
341.2 A single project should require a single EA.
341.3
Regional assessments would increase the quality and effectiveness of decision-making, particularly regarding cumulative effects.

341.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
341.2 - s2.2 
341.3 - s3.5.2

Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg

Brief: Federal Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

299.1 Indigenous rights must be a guiding principle of the CEAA and the processes resulting from it.
299.2
Indigenous jurisdictions must be respected and integrated in the decision-making.
299.3
The different assessment levels must be integrated (regional, local, etc.)
299.4
The cumulative impacts and their effects on First Nations must be assessed.
299.5 A significant place throughout the entire EA process must be given to First Nations (upstream involvement, adequate resources and funding, separate consultation process, opportunity to influence the decision-making process).
299.6 Traditional knowledge needs to be considered throughout the EA process on an equal-footing to Western science.

299.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
299.2 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
299.5 - s2.3.1 
299.6 - s2.5.2 
299.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2, s2.1.4 
299.4 - s3.5.2

Kitsumkalum First Nation

Presentation "Kitsumkalum First Nation: An Original Tribe of the Tsimshian Nation" for Prince Rupert, Dec 9 2016

312.1 Government to do a R-SEA, needs to start with a strategic level assessment, including environmental, social and economic values, in cooperation with First Nations, local governments and proponents.
312.2
Substitution should be modernized to a cooperative decision process. Decision rationale should be made public.
312.3
Cooperative governance approach with a modernized process to adhere to UNDRIP.
312.4
As part of project approval conditions, implement a full monitoring program to evaluate if all the promises of jobs and benefits come true. Start process with regional and/or strategic level assessments of sustainability, social and economic impact and benefits.
312.5 Strengthen guidance or policy on what mitigation should be.
312.6
Make process transparent, measurable and duplicative.
312.7
Give federal agencies capacity to tackle cumulative effects. Bring back screening review of smaller projects.

312.2 - s2.2 
312.3 - s2.3.1 
312.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
312.6 - s2.4.3 
312.1 - s3.5.2 
312.4 - s3.5.2, s2.3.1 
312.7 - s3.5.2

Kristen Sora & Stephanie Taylor

Under What Circumstances Should Federal Environmental Assessment Be Required?

293.1 Returning to circumstances like the previous version of CEAA will create a legal test for whether or not an EA is required.
293.2 By eliminating the list of designated projects, requiring that any project related to a federal jurisdiction be screened, and expanding the definition of environmental effects, federal EA will become more effective.
293.3
SEA needs to be implemented within the legislation.

293.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
293.2 - s3.2.1 
293.3 - s3.6.1

Kristina Roberts, JD Candidate 2018

Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Human Development and Aligning with Canada’s Climate Change Commitments

305.1 Mandated REAs and SEAs as the primary role of the CEAA.
305.2
Substantive thresholds at the regional level for a number of environmental indicators, including air, water, and soil quality; as well as disturbance thresholds for wildlife.
305.3 Regional GHG targets and a climate test.

305.1 - s3.5.1 
305.2 - s3.5.2 
305.3 - s3.7

Ktunaxa Nation Council

Ktunaxa Nation Council Perspectives on Environmental Assessment Issues and Themes for Federal Review

781.1 Develop mechanism to arbitrate disputes between Indigenous groups, Crown, and proponents, and to generate guidance on incorporation of TK.
781.2 Joint drafting of ToR/EIS with TK holders to ensure integration of TK is appropriate.
781.3 Requirement for preindustrial/pre-development baseline.
781.4 Joint determination of methodologies for assessment of impacts.
781.5 Identification of agreed upon and culturally informed significance thresholds in environmental impact statement
781.6 Issue early Indigenous engagement guidelines with appropriate funding.
781.7 Collaborative approaches to EA need to become an expected standard, including minimum mitigations and actions that would apply to all CEAA projects. Collaborative EAs could qualify for particular time lines.
781.8 Joint/collaborative drafting of Decision Statements, potential for inclusion of First Nations representative as part of panel
781.9 Define in federal EA legislation and policy how UNDRIP will be adhered to, including more than FPIC clauses.
781.11 Develop a federal EA “justification” assessment framework for Indigenous rights consistent with Sparrow, Tsilhqot’in, UNDRIP, etc.
781.12 Separate rights infringement and accommodation tribunal may be necessary.
781.13 Pre-, during-, and post- construction Indigenous monitoring, adaptive management, and communication conditions should be a standard for all federal EA Decision Statements.
781.14 Include capacity funding for monitoring and compliance of conditions related to the EA certification, reclamation and restoration periods.
781.15 Develop requirement to assess impacts on Indigenous rights and title into federal EA.

781.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2 
781.11 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
781.12 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
781.9 - s2.3.1 
781.14 - s2.3.3, s3.3.2 
781.15 - s2.3.2 
781.1 - s3.2.2.1, s3.1.1, s2.5.2 
781.2 - s3.2.2.1 
781.4 - s3.2.2.1 
781.5 - s3.2.2.1 
781.6 - s2.3.3, s3.2.2.1 
781.7 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
781.8 - s3.2.2.3 
781.13 - s2.3.1, s2.4.1, s3.3.2 
781.7 - s3.4.1

Kwikwetlem First Nation

Written Submission for Review of Federal Environmental Assessment process

153.1 Indigenous engagement and decision making with respect to

  1. pre-application engagement,
  2. pre-screening/EA triggers,
  3. scoping the assessment,
  4. integrating Indigenous knowledge into the EA,
  5. decision-making,
  6. timelines and
  7. EA follow-up and enforcement.

153.2 Enhancing capacity and knowledge sharing.
153.3 Cumulative effects and regional studies.

153.1 - s2.1.2, s2.3.1, s2.3.4, s2.5.2, s3.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.3.2, s3.4.1 153.2 - s2.3.3, s2.3.4 153.3 - s3.5.1

Kyle Stanfield

Presentation

P26.1 The coordination between the feds and the province is a very big challenge for proponents. Avoiding duplication. Common EA conditions are something that I think many of us would like to see and would serve the public interest much better as well. Common annual reporting is another area that I think should be looked at.
P26.2 Expand the use of analysis of alternatives, the scientific approach in the EA process. The scientists that are currently working right now for federal agencies need to be set free to be able to properly understand environmental effects and complete their analysis of alternatives with the proponent so there’s a shared understanding that can be taken to the public in a progressive process which is a two-way street.
P26.3 Increased support for First Nations and Métis to be involved with the EA process early. So I would encourage the federal government to increase support for First Nations and Métis in terms of their technical abilities to hire independent consultants that are not necessarily directly involved with the project so that they can increase their own level of understanding with respect to the environmental effects and engagement with the company to make a better project.
P26.4 increase support to scientific and experienced regulatory staff within existing federal organizations. Federal staff have incredible knowledge in science areas that need to be levered to improve projects and help proponents to improve and reduce their environment footprints in a collaborative manner.
P26.5 I think the no net loss approach is something that could be expanded to be included within the environmental effects assessment process analysis of alternatives, specifically when you’re talking about climate change effects and biological diversity. Climate change is a huge risk to society generally and our way of life, and I think we need to make sure that projects that are moving forward are doing what they can to reduce or eliminate their impact on climate change.
P26.6 One of the problems that we have with environmental effects assessments in Canada is there’s a lot of subjectivity, and that leads to a lot of wheel spinning, both between the proponent and government and between government and the public. And I think that a more effective analytical approach where there are sub-components that are weighted numerically would bring greater efficiency and also identifying through the VECs assessment each of those sub-components.

P26.5 - s3.7, s2.1.3
P26.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
P26.1 - s2.2.1
P26.3 - s2.3.3, s3.2.2.1
P26.2 - s2.5.1
P26.4 - s2.5.1, s2.5.3, s3.4.2

Lac Ste. Anne Métis (Gunn Métis Local 55) and Mountain Métis (Grande Cache Local 1994)

Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

138.1 Regulators need to be educated about Aboriginal and Treaty Rights from Aboriginal peoples' own perspective.
138.2
Greater face-to-face engagement with Aboriginal communities.
138.3 There should be a broadly defined cumulative effects assessment, including a quantitative assessment of existing impacts, a quantitative prediction of the project effects and expressly defined and quantitatively derived maximum thresholds or limits for cumulative impacts to environmental systems.
138.4
Efforts should be made to improve data quality and availability for use in EA including making data available to the public for REAs.
138.5
Involvement at the earliest stages of EA process in order to integrate environmental, science and economic considerations.
138.6 The federal government should deal directly with organizations that the communities have authorized to represent them.
138.7
Sufficient capacity funding for participation should be provided.
138.8 Establish a multi-interest advisory committee, specific to Indigenous groups in order to facilitate engagement with Indigenous groups throughout the process (identification of historical and current traditional lands, current health and socio-economic conditions, etc.). Any follow-up monitoring and adaptive management programs should include participation of the multi-interest advisory committee.
138.9
Recognize that TK is its own system of knowledge an analysis that should be considered carefully alongside conventional science, not as a source of data to be subsumed within it.
138.10
Acknowledge that TK has several key strengths when compared to the conventional science likely to be available to a panel (built through attentive, continuous observation over many decades)
138.11
Understand that TK benefits from long histories of environmental relationship, but is also current and considers recent industrial change. This allows knowledge holders to provide strong consideration of potential industrial impacts from similar proposed projects.
138.12 Recognize that focus on limited site-specific values can misrepresent the wider area of value that is needed to sustain cultural use, value and meaning.
138.13
Consider actions that can be taken to reduce barriers to the presentation of oral history and TK in hearings, and development of skills needed by decision makers to hear, understand, evaluate and apply oral history and TK information on equal footing with technical and conventional scientific evidence.

138.1 - s2.3.3 138.2 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
138.9 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
138.10 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
138.11 - s2.3.4 
138.12 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
138.13 - s2.3.3, s2.3.4 
138.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
138.7 - s2.4.2 
138.4 - s2.5.1 
138.8 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
138.5 - s3.2.2.1 
138.3 - s3.5.2

Lake Babine Nation

Recommended Amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

3.1 Extend the EA review process to ensure adequate and meaningful participation in the scoping and review phases. The length of time allocated should be based on the size and complexity of the project, the data gaps and the time required to adequately address them, the extent and magnitude of potential impact, and the extent of consultation that would be required to ensure meaningful and effective participation
3.2
Include a requirement for the proponent to adequately assess potential cumulative effects.
3.3
Start meaningful consultation early to build effective relationships and identify data and information gaps.
3.4
Contact the First Nations well before the EA review process is initiated.
3.5 Incorporate Traditional Knowledge and utilize the best available science.
3.6
Participation of First Nations in data collection and quality control in information collecting process.
3.7
Collect or acquire sufficient pre-impact, pre-construction baseline data, at the expense of the proponent.
3.8
Review and directly participate in baseline pre-impact data collection to determine species abundance and distribution, life history, habitat requirements and the assessment of biological diversity.
3.9 The objective of mitigation and compensation strategies should be to protect and maintain or create pre-project baseline conditions to the greatest extent possible.
3.10 Implement the highest international standards for environmental and ecological protection.
3.11 Post-project completion monitoring.

3.1 - s2.1.2, s3.4.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
3.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
3.5 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
3.3 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1 
3.6 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.2 
3.7 - s2.5.1, s3.2.2.2 
3.8 - s2.5.1 
3.4 - s3.2.2.1 
3.11 - s3.3.2

Latifah Jama

Lettre a notre l'environnement

534.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.
534.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

534.2 - s2.1.3 
534.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Lax Kw’alaams Band

Submission to Expert Panel on Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) Received Dec. 22, 2016

918.1 Provide with sufficient funding support and ample opportunity to build its internal policy, administrative capacity, and accountability mechanisms.
918.2
Timeframes must be sufficiently adaptable to enable proper accountability measures to be implemented such that they allow for internal consultation and proper decision-making.
918.3 Projects must be introduced early, and it must be made clear to proponents that consent to developments in the territory is a necessary component of project approval.
918.4
The community must be part of the decision-making processes for projects that occur within its territories.
918.5 The community must be included in the monitoring of projects, including funding to support it in undertaking integrated environmental resource management on an on-going basis.

918.3 - s2.1.2, s3.2.1, s3.2.2.1 
918.1 - s2.3.3 
918.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
918.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Lax Kw’alaams Band

CEAA Expert Panel Received Dec. 21, 2016

See analysis of submission #918

 

Leon A. Gous, P. Eng., MBA, Director Engineering and Lou Pelletier, Director Planning and Building

Letter from City of Burnaby to Johanne Gélinas Received Nov. 28, 2016

969.1 Pipelines projects cannot remain solely within the jurisdiction of the NEB to review, and must be assessed by a panel with environmental expertise in issues that concern the Canadian public interest, including local and municipal issues.
969.2 Amending the CEAA so that there be a provision in the legislation that is triggered when a major project, including pipeline projects, is proposed for the appointment of an independent joint review panel to hold a public hearing on the project, with expertise in environmental issues, local issues and aboriginal issues. The NEB's role in the joint review should be limited to dealing with technical energy issues under the NEB Act, not with environmental issues, local issues or matters that concern the public interest, which should properly fall under the EA legislation.
969.3
Evaluating the "need" for any major pipeline or federal project, should presumably evaluate that need against a wide range of social and environmental criteria to determine whether it is in the "public interest". The EA legislation must facilitate and mandate the consideration of the broad interests at stake for major projects, including the consideration of environmental and socio-economic effects of upstream activities and of all downstream uses, including GHG emissions and the effects on climate change.
969.4 Amendments to the EA legislation should include a more comprehensive list of factors that must be taken into account in the review of major projects, including the following: need for the project, alternative projects, alternative means of carrying out the project, public interest, municipal interests, sustainability, science based, environmental effects, climate change and cumulative effects.
969.5 There needs to be guidance in the EA legislation for the steps that must be taken for a "public hearing" for a project. Those steps must include the full participation of the public and proper testing of evidence through cross-examination.
969.6 The legislated timeline for the review of projects should be abolished so that the process for reviewing a project reflects the size of the project, the public concern with the project and the potential risks and impacts of the project.

969.3 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s3.7 
969.4 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
969.5 - s3.2.2.2 
969.1 - s3.1.1 
969.2 - s3.1.1 
969.6 - s3.4.1, s3.4.2

Leona Peterson

Presentation

P39.1 Remove lobbyists from influencing government decision-making, and no more government propaganda (re: projects and development).
P39.2 True disclosure before mitigation, no more projects of pollution, no more tailings pond, no more toxic dumping rendering land unusable. I want to redefine the national interest, means it benefits Canadians, not for export.
P39.3 Do not consider accepting science, accepting standards as high as Canada's. We've got standards all around the world that are higher than ours.
P39.4 No more industry on panels, experts can be found without their obvious leanings.
P39.5 Set standards for areas and allow no other proposals to attempt their approach.

P39.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P39.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
P39.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
P39.4 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
P39.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Letissia Polonia

Reasonable changes necessary

397.1 EA should start with examination of fundamental needs and potential ways to achieve the desired endpoint, including the merits, desirability and long term public interest.
397.2 Serious consideration of broad alternatives, including the null alternative must be a central.
397.3
Focusing Canadian development and decision-making on least-toxic options than petroleum resources and best practices, putting the Precautionary Principle into action, using the Substitution Principle.

397.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
397.1 - s3.2.2.1 
397.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Lhoosk'uz Dene Nation and Ulkatcho First Nation

Lhoosk'uz Dene Nation and Ulkatcho First Nation CEAA Review Submission Received Dec. 23, 2016

894.1 Amend Section 19 to include that a designated project must take into account community knowledge and ATK.
894.2
Expand the cumulative effects analysis procedure to include a broader geographical scale, whereby acknowledging the interconnectedness of the landscape and the true effects that a project imposes on the environment.
894.3
Incorporating thorough understanding and consideration of the precautionary principle in the EA process would arguably help ensure that only EAs are approved that are believed to have minimal impacts even when all the evidence is not present or available.
894.4 Establishing and funding a national network of Indigenous guardians to monitor both land water resources.
894.5
The federal and provincial governments should provide funding to First Nation groups who wish to develop Traditional Land Use plans in advance of being part of future EA processes.
894.6
The revised CEAA should consider and respect the rights and title of Indigenous Peoples as well as internal First Nation governance.
894.7 The factors that trigger the need for an EA must be re-evaluated so that projects are no longer easily excluded from the process. 894.8 Stronger CEAA regulations surrounding the operating period of major projects as well as post-closure monitoring, compliance and follow-up.
894.9 Provide for sufficient funding to allow for participation in EA process.
894.10 First Nation should be given the same weight of importance as the government regulator concerns, including with respect to the selection of valued components.
894.11 The CEAA should gain independence from the federal government, and elect a board of impartial members who will not be reprimanded for voting against a proposed project.

894.4 - s2.3.3 
894.2 - s2.1.3, s3.5.1 
894.7 - s2.1.1, s2.1.2, s3.2.1 
894.1 - s2.3.4 
894.5 - s2.3.3 
894.6 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
894.9 - s2.4.2 
894.3 - s2.5.1 
894.10 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1 
894.8 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
894.11 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2

Liber Ero Fellows

Letter on CEAA reform

377.1 Both environmental and economic scientists must quantify the uncertainty of their predictions. As a condition of project approval, EIAs should include measures of uncertainty associated with economic benefits, and EIAs should not overlook the risks of uncertain and potentially negative effects of a project on the environment.
377.2
Revise the interpretation of cumulative effects to more clearly identify when, where, and how projects should proceed in order to minimize the cumulative effect of disturbance on valued ecosystem components. As a condition of project approval, proponents should identify how they will mitigate the exceedance of regional disturbance thresholds.
377.3
Monitoring the abundance of all valued ecosystem components as part of follow-up programs, with stakeholders, First Nations and project proponents tasked with deciding which species constitute a valued ecosystem component.
377.4
As a condition of project approval, define a priori the acceptable limits of change from pre-disturbance conditions - including magnitude and duration. Species or species-group targets should be developed by a scientific advisory panel to set monitoring and threshold standards for all EIAs.
377.5
Define the minimum standards required for surveys to quantify baseline/current conditions and monitoring effort.
377.6
As a condition of project approval, all empirical data, model parameters and methods used in the development of EIAs should be made freely available for download and hosted on a third party web site.
377.7
There needs to be clear guidance on how to assess the long-term or lag effects of construction and operation phases of a project. In addition, EIAs for new projects need to identify if they are going to impact areas previously used to offset the impacts of an earlier project.

377.1 - s.2.5.1 
377.5 - s.2.5.1 
377.6 - s.2.5.1 
377.2 - s3.5.2 
377.4 - s3.5.2 
377.3 - s3.3.2 
377.7 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Liber Ero Fellowship Program

Improving environmental assessment in Canada Received Oct. 27, 2016

183.1 Effectively apply the Precautionary Principle.
183.2
Clarify the role of cumulative effects in assessing project impacts.
183.3 Improve how success is measured for the post- operation phases of a project.
183.4
Define triggers for adaptive management responses.
183.5
Improve the determination of baseline conditions.
183.6
Improve the transparency and reproducibility of EIA findings.
183.7
Accurately account for the long-term impact of the construction and operation phases of project development

183.1 - s2.5.1 
183.5 - s.2.5.1, s.2.5.3 
183.6 - s.2.5.1 
183.7 - s.2.5.1 
183.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.1 
183.3 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
183.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Lilly Noble

Canada's Young Scientists Speak Out

579.1 Seek and act on the best available evidence. Existing and potential environmental impacts of projects should be assessed - with methods, results, and interpretations rigorously peer-reviewed - by parties with arms-length relationships from proponents.
579.2 Make all information from EAs permanently and publicly available. Barring certain private and community-held knowledge, or national security implications, information should be free and stored in a searchable federal registry as a condition of EA and review processes.
579.3
Assess cumulative environmental effects from past, present, and future projects and activities across multiple scales. Cumulative effects should be comprehensively evaluated across multiple temporal and spatial scales to inform project-level assessment, including areas under all jurisdictions and global-level effects where appropriate, and to align decision-making with provincial, national and international commitments to control carbon emissions and protect biodiversity.
579.4
Work to prevent and eliminate real, apparent, or potential conflicts-of-interest by requiring public disclosure. In addition to independently conducted and reviewed assessments, all meetings among interested individuals, organizations, stakeholders, and members of the decision-making process should be made public, and all parties should publicly disclose any real, apparent, or potential conflicts of interests.
579.5 Develop explicit decision-making criteria and provide full, transparent rationale of factors considered.

579.2 - s2.4.3 
579.1 - s.2.5.1, s.2.5.3, s3.2.2.2 
579.4 - s3.1.1, s2.4.3 
579.5 - s2.1.3, s2.5.4, s3.2.2.3 
579.3 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Linda Weilgart

Presentation "Environmental Assessment Review Comments Focus: Underwater Noise (seismic)" for Halifax October 3rd 2016

658.1 Noise constitutes a widespread, usually long-term degradation of the acoustic habitat. Canada's seismic mitigation is inadequate, untested for efficacy, and not scientific-based. Most effective mitigation by far is area closures. Spawning and breeding areas, migration corridors, areas of resident, endangered species must be off-limits.

658.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Lindsay McCallum

Presentation "Including Health in Environmental Assessment" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

480.1 Every EA should have a mandatory requirement to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) screening, to determine whether there are any health issues of concern and whether HIA is a viable option. This screening should be conducted with the relevant regulatory input.
480.2
If screening identifies health issues, then an HIA should be conducted as part of the EA process (rapid, intermediate, comprehensive).

480.1 - s2.1.3 
480.2 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3

Lindsay McCallum & Faiza Waheed

Including Health in Environmental Assessment: Integration of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Framework

410.1 Integrating a health impact assessment (HIA) framework within the EA process in order to assess potential positive and negative health effects resulting from proposed projects, policies and programs. Every EA should include a mandatory HIA screening (strategic, regional, project-level, etc.).

410.1 - s2.1.3

Lindsay Staples, Wildlife Management Advisory Council

Presentation

P10.1 There are inconsistencies and overlaps between the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and CEAA 2012 that never should have been permitted.
P10.2
Limit the application of CEAA now and in the future in the ISR on several grounds. First off, the IFA and the provisions that apply to the environmental assessment are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution. Secondly, the IFA satisfies the basic purposes of CEAA in a manner, in our view, superior to CEAA, and in a manner that CEAA fails to. The IFA-based EA processes have a performance record that has established solid Inuvialuit public and industry confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the process. Finally, the IFA is enabling legislation allowing the IFA regime to adapt to new thinking and best practices in the conduct of EA. In contrast, there are elements of CEAA 2012 that are restrictive, and we don't believe those provisions to be very helpful in the context of modern-day EA.

P10.1 - s2.2.1, s2.2.1
P10.2 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2

Lisa C. Fong

Beginning the Dialogue on Environmental Assessments: Heiltsuk First Nation and Kitasoo Xai'xais First Nation

10.1 Develop a Nation-to-Nation governance model, which integrates the sovereignty interests of First Nations, and giving significance to their free, prior and informed consent. In this model, Canada and First Nations will co-design and co-implement a new environmental assessment system.
10.2
Engage in dialogue with First Nations about Canada's approach to the environment, and this approach should be expressed in statutes like CEAA 2012, the Fisheries Act, the Navigation Protection Act and the NEB Act.
10.3
Modify CEAA 2012, namely by

  1. reframing the focus to promote environmental and social sustainability,
  2. redeveloping the scope of EA to assess proposed projects for environmental and social sustainability,
  3. developing tools that robustly assess for environmental and social sustainability,
  4. supporting regional and strategic EA and the engagement of First Nations in those assessments,
  5. conducting project-specific EA in the context of regional and strategic environmental assessments,
  6. supporting cumulative effects assessments, climate change assessments, human health and cultural health impact assessments, and the engagement of First Nations in those assessments,
  7. conducing project specific EA in the context of cumulative effects assessments, climate change assessments, human health and cultural health impact assessments.

10.4 There is a need for an EA process that can assist consultation, namely by

  1. consulting about processes, and about adverse impacts on Aboriginal rights, and titles prior to and during EA,
  2. requiring decisions-makers to be educated about First Nations protocols and cultural history,
  3. developing an EA process that promotes access to First Nations, allows for easy information sharing, encourages robust dialogue, etc.
  4. develop an expert round-table process to explore agreements and disagreements.

10.5 Develop a "proponent pays" model. Key elements include

  1. perform early assessments of funding needed by proponents for EA including First Nations participation,
  2. During the EA, perform adaptive assessments of First Nations participation funding,
  3. examine a deposit or security system to ensure access to proponent funds, and
  4. establish an independent administrator.

10.6 Develop transparent decision-making process through robust reasons.

10.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
10.3 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4, s3.5.2, s3.6.1 
10.1 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
10.4 - s2.3.2, s2.3.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
10.5 - s2.3.3, s3.4.2 
10.6 - s2.5.4

Lisa Clarke, Executive Coordinator, North Peace Tribal Council

North Peace Tribal Council Written Submission for the Review of the Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 23, 2016

876.1 Implement FPIC.
876.2
Revamping of federal and provincial legislation and regulation.
876.3 Parallel process for NPTC First Nations review.
876.4
Traditional ecological knowledge equal to Western science.
876.5
Guardianship program for the First Nations.
876.6
Pre-engagement process with industry.
876.7
Provide real benefits for First Nations.

876.2 - Inconsistent with Canadian statutes and Constitution
876.6 - s2.1.2 
876.3 - s2.2.1 
876.1 - s2.3.1 
876.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
876.7- s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
876.5 - s3.3.2

Lisa Schaldemose

Review of Environmental Assessment Processes Submission from ML1935, ML125, FMFN, ML63 and ML193 Received Dec. 17, 2016

See analysis of submission #294

 

Liza Vandermeer

Presentation

P21.1 So to introduce [economics] into the EA process I think is kind of double-counting the economic stuff as opposed to giving the environment the emphasis it requires.
P21.2 Again, one of the other things that concerns me about environmental assessments is that there doesn't seem to be a way to say no. We always end up saying yes with conditions. I mean, sometimes there are no-go decisions, but they're very, very rare.Regulators are almost never allowed to say no. There's so much pressure on regulators to say yes with conditions.
P21.3 One of the other points that I wanted to say that with the problem with conditions that are often attached to environmental assessments is sometimes they're unenforceable. And who's responsible for the follow-up?
P21.4 Another point that has been asked, I understand, was the idea of making agencies like the CNSC and the National Energy Board responsible for conducting EAs in the fields for which they regulate. I have to say, really bad idea.
P21.5 also think that it's a great idea to have third-party agencies preparing the environmental impact statements.The proponent has to pay that third party, but they have very, very strict protocols that they have to follow. So there's a good deal better chance that it's going to be an impartial and unbiased report that's being done.
P21.6 I hope that in my children's lifetimes we will be able to say that we've joined in as true partners with our First Nations people, and that's not going to happen until there's a process by which First Nations have the access to the experts and the capacity-building to be able to make their own decisions and not just be sort of shepherded along by civil servants no matter how well-meaning they are.
P21.7 [re substantive public participation] It has to be — the onus has to be on the agency to go out and get that, not just sort of provide opportunities.

P21.1 - s2.1.3
P21.6 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3
P21.7 - s2.4.1
P21.2 - s3.2.2.3
P21.5 - s3.2.2.2, s2.5.3, s3.4.2
P21.3 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2, s3.3.3
P21.4 - s3.1.1

Long Lake #58 First Nation

Long Lake #58 First Nation

1024.1 The principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People [UNDRIP] should be reflected in the approach that is advanced for ensuring that the principles of engagement and accommodation are instilled in federal environmental assessment processes.
1024.2 It is important that all environmental assessment processes ensure that First Nations rights are protected and respected.
1024.3 The process being developed by the Government of Canada must ensure that it respects the protocols, laws, and regulations that First Nations Governments have created.
1024.4 It is also important that future processes respect Traditional Knowledge.It is important that when information is made available to proponents, other Governments, regulators, etc. that the information provided should be fully considered and not sanitized or dismissed as has been past practices.
1024.5 the best form of addressing First Nations potential impacts through the environmental assessment process is to have a consent mechanism.The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency must ensure that there are adequate consent mechanisms at each of the critical stages of environmental review to ensure that First Nations have been meaningfully engaged.
1024.6 In fact, we strongly recommend that early notification be included in any revisions to the Act to get proponents on the front-end of their required engagement, rather than on the back-end. Long Lake #58 First Nation believes that it would be beneficial to have a formal seat at the table where project-scoping is being developed.
1024.7 As a regulatory board, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency should ensure that the regulations and how they are interpreted are clear.
1024.8 The regulatory approvals should always permit the regulatory to amend their approvals to apply new proven technologies that provide mutual benefits.
1024.9 The following steps should be included in the scope of environmental reviews: notification (early stage notification is preferred); base line studies; alternatives assessment; cumulative effects assessment; risk and mitigation assessment; draft environmental assessment report; final environmental assessment report.
1024.10 there should be a link between environmental certainty and economic certainty where First Nations are concerned
1024.11 Governments must also be made aware that they cannot abdicate their responsibility to provide accommodations to affected First Nations.
1024.12 Any project that has an impact on elements important to culture (air, land, water, and extraction of resources from traditional territory) should be required to enter into an environmental assessment process.
1024.13 the scope of the environmental assessment process should be reflective of the project itself
1024.14 Guidance and rules on which type of projects fall into which categories should be scoped and included in a detailed project environmental assessment table that would allow proponents to quickly reference the type of environmental assessment process that they will be expected to participate in (regional, project, strategic)

1024.6 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
1024.9 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
1024.10 - s2.1.3 
1024.12 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
1024.13 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
1024.14 -s2.1.4, s3.2.1, s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
1024.1 - s2.3.1 
1024.2 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
1024.3 - s2.3.1 
1024.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
1024.5 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
1024.11 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
1024.7 - s3.3.1, s3.3.3 
1024.8 - s3.3.1

Lorne Peterson

letter ~ "Learning to live in community with the land"

574.1 Assessments should involve collaborative learning with residents of the land, from local to regional to around the Earth home perspectives. Assessment review should be done in rounded gatherings of people in the natural and social sciences, in the arts, and residents of the land. This goes further than public participation.

574.1 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s.2.5.2

Lower Nicola Indian Band

Transforming Environmental Assessment

300.1 Federal EA requires transformation - not mere reformation - if it is to appropriately reflect and respect Aboriginal Title and Rights, including treaty rights, and properly align with the UNDRIP and the imperative of reconciliation.
300.2
The legal and policy transformation that EA requires is a movement from the current framework focused on how Indigenous nations participate within federal EA to a legal and policy framework that is focused on creating the proper relationships and partnerships between the assessment and decision-making processes of the Federal Crown and those of Indigenous Nations.

300.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
300.2 - s2.3.1

Luanne Roth and Prince Rupert Environmental Society

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes Luanne Roth and Prince Rupert Environmental Society

56.1 Strategic/regional EA could forestall major errors and conflict by giving the public a chance to add environmental and quality of life values into decision making process before they get to the project review stage. Project specific EAs would still be needed.
56.2 Any means of changing the contracting of EA work whereby the reporting of environmental risk posed by the project does not lessen the contractors' chances of future work would be very helpful.
56.3 Port authorities should not be involved in any aspect of the EA process which requires objectivity and consideration of environmental risk without damaging the public trust in the process.
56.4 Alternatives to projects should be considered in EA process.
56.5
Decision making process should serve the public's interest.

56.1 - s2.1.4 
56.4 - s2.1.2 
56.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
56.2 - s2.5.3 
56.5 - s2.1.3

Luanne Roth and Prince Rupert Environmental Society

Prince Rupert Environmental Society Submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 23, 2016

892.1 The CEAA should be revised to address the perceived problems, which are:

  1. lack of early public consultation about siting and general direction/goals of regional industrial development,
  2. bias in scientific reports during the assessment,
  3. conflict in interest between the Port Authority's mandate and the role of CEA,
  4. lack of real and viable alternatives being offered, and
  5. a flawed decision making process once the science is in.

892.1 - s2.1.1, s2.5.1, s2.5.3, s2.5.4, s3.1.1

Lyackson First Nation

Lyackson First Nation Submission to Expert Panel's Review of Environmental Assessment Processes dated Dec 22, 2016

139.1 Mandatory consideration of Aboriginal and Treaty rights within the assessment process
139.2
Introduce shared decision-making
139.3
Sufficient capacity (funding) and time for First Nations to participate in the EA process
139.4
Incorporate indigenous traditional knowledge and values
139.5
Mandatory inclusion of UNDRIP principles

139.1 - s2.3.2 
139.3 - s2.3.3 
139.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
139.5 - s2.3.1 
139.2 - s3.2.2.3

Lynn Chapman

Written Submission "Remarks to the Expert Panel" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

384.1 Environmental assessment process should be renamed "environmental protection assessment".
384.2 Both mandate and scope should be expanded and inclusive of larger regional environments and determination of down and upstream effects.
384.3 The precautionary principle should be incorporated as a foundational aspect of assessment. Proponents should be required to consider and to demonstrate how their project includes adherence to the precautionary principle.
384.4 Environmental protection assessments demand a broad and thorough cumulative impacts assessment. This expectation should be a determining feature of whether or not a project being assessed is allowed to proceed.
384.5
Cumulative effects assessments should be an ongoing project of the environmental protection minister such that governments cannot ignore or underfund this basic capacity and proponents cannot claim a lack of available data.
384.6 All Canadian EA should include processes for properly evaluating and accounting for not just the environmental costs of projects but the financial and economic costs of biodiversity loss and the loss of ecosystem services and functions.
384.7
Exercise real leadership in EA and make meaningful consideration of climate change impacts mandatory as part of the EA process and the determination of whether a project can be allowed.
384.8
Revitalize the capacity of EA by ensuring sufficient time and resources to meet the goals of full and meaningful citizen participation and environmental protection.
384.9
Allow for panels to request additional time and/or resources where justified by the nature, complexity and size of the project.
384.10 EA should have meaningful input and participation from First Nations.

384.6 - s2.1.3 
384.10 - s2.3.1 
384.1 - s1.2 
384.2 - s3.7, s3.5.1 
384.7 -s.3.7 
384.3 - s.2.5.1 
384.8 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.4.2, s2.4.3 
384.4 - s3.5.2 
384.5 - s3.5.1 
384.9 - s3.4.1

Lynn Maxted

Review for climate change first Received Dec. 10, 2016

973.1 A review of how a project will effect climate change must be the first step of an EA. Only after the climate change issue has been addressed will the proponent be advised to continue with the full EA. This would stop early on any projects that do not meet requirements. This early assessment must be science based

973.1 - s2.1.3, s3.7

Magnetawan First Nation

Presentation "Initial input to Federal EA Regulatory Review Panel Hearings" for Sudbury, Nov 4 2016

252.1 Provide mechanisms for indigenous communities to "stop the clock" on the EA process to ensure meaningful consultation.
252.2 Bring back regulatory triggers to federal legislation as a means to ensuring indigenous input on potential impacts are incorporated into the screening decisions.
252.3
Make consideration of indigenous traditional knowledge mandatory, its collection and use appropriate, and ensure it is meaningfully integrated into all relevant aspects of the EA process.
252.4
Ensure significantly affected indigenous communities have a role in EA Government Review Teams.
252.5
Ensure affected indigenous communities have a role in deciding criteria to assess the significance of residual effects.
252.6
Ensure affected indigenous communities are specifically consulted by the Minister's office before an EA approval decision is made.
252.7
Provide a mechanism for an indigenous organization or an operational community under the First Nations Land Management Act to undertake an EA by substitution.
252.8
Support for a collaborative consent approach.

252.2 - s3.2.1 
252.7 - s2.2.2 
252.3 - s2.3.4 
252.8 - s2.3.1 
252.4 - s3.2.2.1 
252.5 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
252.6 - s3.2.2.3 
252.1 - s3.4.1

Magnetawan First Nation

Speaking notes for Magnetawan First Nation presentation in Sudbury, Nov. 4th, 2016

799.1 Provide mechanisms for indigenous communities to "stop the clock" on the EA process to ensure meaningful consultation.
799.2 Bring back regulatory triggers to federal legislation as a means to ensuring indigenous input on potential impacts are incorporated into the screening decisions.
799.3
Make consideration of indigenous traditional knowledge mandatory, its collection and use appropriate, and ensure it is meaningfully integrated into all relevant aspects of the EA process.
799.4
Ensure significantly affected indigenous communities have a role in EA Government Review Teams.
799.5
Ensure affected indigenous communities have a role in deciding criteria to assess the significance of residual effects.
799.6
Ensure affected indigenous communities are specifically consulted by the Minister's office before an EA approval decision is made.
799.7
Provide a mechanism for an indigenous organization or an operational community under the First Nations Land Management Act to undertake an EA by substitution.
799.8 Support for a collaborative consent approach.

799.7 - s2.2.2 
799.3 - s2.3.4, s.2.5.2 
799.8 - s2.3.1 
799.2 - s3.2.1 
799.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
799.5 - s3.2.2.1, s2.3.1 
799.6 - s3.2.2.3 
799.1 - s3.4.1

Magnetawan First Nation

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Regulatory Review - Magnetawan First Nation Received Dec. 22, 2016

920.1 Consult with First Nations and ensure that results of such consultation are incorporated into the EA process.
920.2 The integrated importance of land-use, specific geographies, access to those geographies, traditional knowledge, and the resources being used within those geographies need to be considered together when making recommendations in EIS guidelines for baseline studies and in assessing effects on traditional use.
920.3 Effects to traditional use need to be assessed and reported on an individual community basis in EAs, and not on an aggregated basis.
920.4
Specific study area boundaries for assessing traditional use must be set based on sensitive receptors to project effects identified in traditional use baseline studies, and/or a composite of the study areas for aquatic/fish and fish habitat and terrestrial ecology/wildlife value components.
920.5
Indigenous communities must be able to provide informed consent for the collection, analysis, and incorporation of traditional use information into the EA process.
920.6 Pathways to secondary effects on Indigenous peoples' socioeconomic conditions and health as a result of effects on traditional uses need to be included in the scope of factors prescribed in EIS guidelines, and in evaluating the significance of residual effects related to such changes.
920.7 Legislation must be adapted to include current and future use of lands and resources by Indigenous peoples.
920.8
An integrated approach to presenting information (holistic understanding of effect implications), as it relates to socio-economics, is required.
920.9
All federally and provincially listed species at risk and culturally significant species should be listed as "components of the environment".
920.10
REA should be required in cases where there are species at risk and/or culturally significant species that have large home ranges and may be impacted by the proposed project.
920.11 The CEAA should include a mandatory requirement for meaningful incorporation of ATK.
920.12
The Act should stipulate that the collection of baseline data used to assess human health risks must be completed in collaboration with Indigenous communities so it reflects their circumstances.
920.13 The Act should include clear direction to use data from collected wild foods and medicinal plant samples.
920.14
The Act should explicitly require the analysis, description, and communication of the cumulative effects of a proposed project that may pose a risk to human health, in addition to the project-specific risks to human health.

920.2 - s2.1.2 
920.3 - s3.2.2.1 
920.4 - s2.1.3, s2.5.1 
920.6 - s2.1.3 
920.7 - s2.1.3 
920.8 - s2.1.3 
920.9 - s2.1.3 
920.10 - s2.1.4 
920.1 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
920.5 - s2.3.4 
920.11 - s2.3.4 
920.12 - s2.5.3 
920.13 - s5.1 
920.14 - s2.1.3, s2.5.1

Makivik Corporation

Presentation "Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process: Presentation to the Expert Panel" for Ottawa November 1st, 2016

495.1 Harmonization: the impact review process should be simple and harmonization should be sought. The review must be without prejudice to the processes negotiated under Lan Claim Agreements, including timelines. More transparency in the process, particularly for the referral of projects for federal review under NILCA should be encouraged.
495.2
Ensure regional representation during decision-making. Members of review panels should have knowledge of Nunavik and Inuit culture/society.
495.3
Community engagement: more outreach and education is needed. More in-person engagement by proponent and governments is necessary. It is important to communicate outcome of the processes to communities.
495.4
Inclusion of TK: TK must be considered equivalent to science and it must be considerate of intellectual property rights.

495.1 - s2.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.2.1, s3.4.1 
495.2 - s2.3.1, s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
495.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
495.3 - s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3

Makivik Corporation

Makivik Corporation Submission Received Jen. 05, 2017

See analysis of submission #750

 

Maliseet Nation of New Brunswick

Maliseet Nation of New Brunswick Submissions to the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

30.1 The Act needs to explicitly require the consideration and protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights as an overall purpose of the Act.
30.2
The Act should be amended to provide for co-management and collaborative decision-making.
30.3
The definition of "jurisdiction" should be amended to include non-land claim Aboriginal government and agencies.
30.4
Substitute the federal EA process when a request is received from Aboriginal government and agencies.
30.5
All Aboriginal governments/agencies should be able to enter into agreements for the establishment of review panels and conduct EAs.
30.6
The process for consultation under the Act should be explicit with flexible timelines and adequate funding.
30.7
A fund should be established to compensate Aboriginal people when rights are affected. 4
30.8
There needs to be clear and explicit decision-making criteria in the Act.
30.9
More expansive conditions for substitution/equivalency and obtain the view of Aboriginal people on substitution/equivalency.
30.10 Sustainability should be a requirement of the Act.
30.11
A policy for the preparation of EIAs should be developed (follow-up, adaptive management, enforcement, etc.).
30.12 Regional Land Use Plans should be developed regionally in collaboration with the federal and provincial Crowns and Aboriginal people.
30.14
Cumulative effects analyses should be required in areas which are known to have experience considerable impacts and exploitation.
30.15
The CEAA should endorse and support capacity development and work with First Nations to fund and organize baseline data collection.
30.16 Engage with the Aboriginal communities to assess impacts on treaty rights and assess options.
30.17 Aboriginal TEK should be a requirement of EAs and it should be done with the involvement of Aboriginal people.
30.18 Aboriginal worldviews must be recognized and documented in EA processes.
30.19 Develop guidelines for the documentation and inclusion of household (domestic, subsistence) economy in EA and require gender-based assessment.
30.20
Health should be an integral part of any EA (physical and social health impacts).

30.1 - s2.1.3, s2.3.2 
30.19 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
30.20 - s2.1.3 
30.7 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
30.15 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
30.3 - s2.2.1 
30.4 - s2.2.2 
30.5 - s2.2.1 
30.9 - s2.2.2 
30.6 - s2.3.3 
30.16 - s2.3.2 
30.17 - s2.3.4 
30.18 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
30.10 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
30.13 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
30.8 - s2.5.4 
30.11 - s2.5.1, s3.3.3 
30.2 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
30.12 - s3.5.2 
30.14 - s2.5.1

Manitoba Hydro

Presentation "Manitoba Hydro Presentation to CEAA" for Winnipeg, Nov 16 2016

418.1 The improvements brought about through CEAA 2012 in comparison to previous legislation are important and should not be lost.
418.2
What is essential is a process which is consistent, predictable and stable over time; efficient and timely; coordinated with provincial processes; broadly supportable; and consistently applied by the three RAs.
418.3
Develop a formal process to amend Decision Statement Conditions.
418.4
Establish formal mechanisms to facilitate timely adjustments to monitoring programs as results require.
418.5 Develop and implement policies to ensure that permit conditions emanating from other federal authorities are aligned with the findings of the EA and the conditions set out in the Decision Statement.
418.6 Establish policies and procedures to regulate the ability to "stop the clock" on legislated timelines.
418.7 Governments should be encouraged to cooperatively undertake SEAs and REAs to provide better focus for proponent led project specific assessments.
418.8
Review and update policies and guidance documents to provide clarity for all stakeholders on implementation of the Call for Action and Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.
418.9
Federal and provincial governments must resolve duplication issues and make greater use of delegation and substitution provisions and renew harmonization/cooperation agreements.
418.10
The priority must be on fine tuning a responsive process through policy refinement, guidance and necessary regulatory improvements rather than repealing, replacing of seeking major amendments to the Act.

418.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
418.6 - s3.4.1 
418.8 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
418.10 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
418.9 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2 
418.2 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 , s3.4.1 
418.7 - s3.5.2, s3.6.1, 3.6.2 
418.3 - s3.3.1 
418.4 - s3.3.2 
418.5 - s3.3.1

Manitoba Hydro

CEAA Review - Submission to the Expert Review Panel Received Dec. 23, 2016

899.1 An EA process that is timely, predictable and certain, coordinated with provincial/territorial EA processes and avoiding duplication.
899.2
No fundamental changes to CEAA 2012 should be recommended.
899.3
The current triggering mechanism, along with its flexibility, should be maintained. The CEAA should remain the sole RA for EAs.
899.4
Policy and guidance should be provided to govern the use and scope of "stop the clock" provisions within the Act.
899.5
An oversight mechanism should be developed to ensure consistency in alignment between Decision Statement conditions and the conditions contained in authorizations issued under federal statutes pertaining to a project.
899.6
Amend the Act to include explicit power for the Minister to amend Decision Statement conditions if warranted.
899.7
Positive physical environmental effects resulting from a project should be formally documented and taken into account.
899.8
Recommend governments cooperatively undertake SEAs and REAS. Such assessments will facilitate more focused and higher quality project-specific requirements.
899.9
The CCME, aided by a multi-stakeholder advisory committee, should review and provide recommendations on means to reduce duplication between federal and provincial governments and enhance delegation, substitution, equivalency and cooperation.
899.10 Review the process for assessment of projects located on federal land or receiving federal funding in order to make their review consistent among federal authorities, with prescribed timelines, as those carried out for projects elsewhere.
899.11
Create either a unified or easily accessible, cross-referenced set of federal and provincial information repositories collecting all project-related information throughout its life-cycle.
899.12
Develop policy and guidance on a Canadian approach to implementation of UNDRIP and FPIC.
899.13
Create specific updated guidance documents on the acquisition, use and incorporation of ITK in EA.
899.14 Provide Indigenous governments with sufficient resources to allow them to develop their own capabilities.

899.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
899.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
899.9 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
899.3 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.1.1, s3.2.1 
899.7 - s2.1.3
899.8 - s2.1.4 
899.10 - s2.1.1, s3.4.1 
899.1 - s2.2.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
899.9 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2, s2.2.3 
899.12 - s2.3.1 
899.13 - s2.3.4 
899.14 - s2.3.3 
899.11 - s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s2.5.2, s3.3.2 
899.4 - s3.4.1 
899.6 - s3.3.1

Manitoba Metis Federation

Manitoba Metis Federation - Written Submission - Federal Review of EA Processes

The next iteration of the CEAA should be based on an integrated set of reforms, including:
87.1
Sustainability as a core objective to ensure the long-term health of the environment and the communities that rely on them
87.2
Meaningful participation for Metis people who wish to participate.
87.3
Accessible information for all.
87.4
A framework for addressing the cumulative effects of industrial projects and other activities in a region that affects Metis aboriginal rights and interests.
87.5 Collaborative decision-making with Metis peoples, based on nation-to-nation relationships and the obligation to secure free, prior and informed consent.
87.6
Rules and criteria to encourage transparency, accountability and credibility and to encourage good science and ATK-based decisions.

87.1 - s2.1.3 
87.2 - s2.3.1, s2.4.1 
87.5 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
87.3 - s2.5.1, s2.5.4 
87.6 - s2.5.4 
87.4 - s3.5.2

Marcia Smith, Senior Vice President, Sustainability and External Affairs, Teck Resources Limited

Teck Submission on Review of Environmental Assessment Processes Received Dec. 20, 2016

851.1 Undertake further consultation with Indigenous Peoples, industry and other stakeholders following the Panel's report and direction setting.
851.2
Maintain acknowledgement that projects that have already undergone robust EA and consultation processes are grandfathered to help ensure a smooth transition to any new framework.
851.3
Refocus the Act's purpose to position EA processes as a planning tool aimed at achieving sustainable environmental outcomes.
851.4
Include a clearly and concisely articulated purpose for CEAA 2012.
851.5 Articulate a clear rationale for the application of federal EA processes.
851.6
Address cumulative by exploring the development of processes for federal/provincial governments to work together on cumulative effects.
851.7
Maintain the distinction between the role of the regulator as a project evaluator and that of the legislator/elected official as policy-makers.
851.8 Ensure that proposed revisions to CEAA 2012 continue to have reasonable timelines.
851.9 Give priority to enhancing coordination, substitution and equivalency provisions as well as ensuring there is adequate capacity, resources and skills to manage the interplay between federal and provincial processes and associated federal regulation (e.g. Fisheries Act).
851.10 Ensure that any proposed revisions to CEAA 2012 retain the existing provisions of substitution and that the federal government look for ways to broaden adoption of the substitution process in other Canadian jurisdiction.
851.11
Ensure the implementation of UNDRIP is sequenced and consistent across the spectrum of legislative and policy approaches.
851.12
Ensure that any adjustments contemplated to CEAA must be consistent with the outcome of the review of consultation and accommodation laws, policies and practices.
851.13
Ensure that Indigenous Peoples' participation in EA processes is done in a well-defined manner, consistent with the legal framework.
851.14 Explore the creation of project-specific EA boards including government and Indigenous representatives to work through specific EA processes issues within defined areas.
851.15
Enhance the efficacy of the Major Projects Management Office by aligning its mandate with the project-board framework.
851.16 Embed greater transparency in how information related to project enforcement and compliance activities are communicated to the public.
851.17 Ensure there are mechanisms in place for meaningful public and Indigenous engagement pre- and post-EA.

851.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
851.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
851.12 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
851.15 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
851.3 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
851.4 - s2.1.1, s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
851.5 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
851.9 - s2.2, s2.2.2, s3.4.2 
851.10 - s2.2.2 
851.11 - s2.3.1 
851.13 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
851.17 - s2.3.1, s2.4.1 
851.6 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
851.7 - s3.1.1 
851.14 - s3.2.2.1 
851.16 - s3.3.3 
851.8 - s3.4.1

Marcia Smith, Senior Vice President, Sustainability and External Affairs

Teck submission on review of environmental assessment processes Received Dec. 20, 2016

961.1 Undertake further consultation with Indigenous Peoples, industry and other stakeholders following the Panel's report and direction setting.
961.2 Maintain acknowledgement that projects that have already undergone robust EA and consultation processes are grandfathered to help ensure a smooth transition to any new framework.
961.3 Refocus the Act's purpose to position EA processes as a planning tool aimed at achieving sustainable environmental outcomes.
961.4 Include a clearly and concisely articulated purpose for CEAA 2012.
961.5 Articulate a clear rationale for the application of federal EA processes.
961.6 Address cumulative by exploring the development of processes for federal/provincial governments to work together on cumulative effects.
961.7 Maintain the distinction between the role of the regulator as a project evaluator and that of the legislator/elected official as policy-makers.
961.8 Ensure that proposed revisions to CEAA 2012 continue to have reasonable timelines.
961.9 Give priority to enhancing coordination, substitution and equivalency provisions as well as ensuring there is adequate capacity, resources and skills to manage the interplay between federal and provincial processes and associated federal regulation (e.g. Fisheries Act).
961.10 Ensure that any proposed revisions to CEAA 2012 retain the existing provisions of substitution and that the federal government look for ways to broaden adoption of the substitution process in other Canadian jurisdiction.
961.11 Ensure the implementation of UNDRIP is sequenced and consistent across the spectrum of legislative and policy approaches.
961.12 Ensure that any adjustments contemplated to CEAA must be consistent with the outcome of the review of consultation and accommodation laws, policies and practices.
961.13 Ensure that Indigenous Peoples' participation in EA processes is done in a well-defined manner, consistent with the legal framework.
961.14 Explore the creation of project-specific EA boards including government and Indigenous representatives to work through specific EA processes issues within defined areas.
961.15 Enhance the efficacy of the Major Projects Management Office by aligning its mandate with the project-board framework.
961.16 Embed greater transparency in how information related to project enforcement and compliance activities are communicated to the public.
961.17 Ensure there are mechanisms in place for meaningful public and Indigenous engagement pre- and post-EA.

961.1 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
961.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
961.3 - s2.1.2 
961.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
961.15 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
961.17 - s2.1.2, s2.4.1, s3.1.1 
961.9 - s2.2 
961.10 - s2.2.2 
961.11 - s2.3.1 
961.12 - s2.3.2 
961.13 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
961.16 - s2.4.3 
961.7 - s3.1.1 
961.5 - s3.1.2, s3.2.1, s3.5.1, s3.6.1 
961.6 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
961.14 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
961.8 - s3.4.1

Margaret Friesen

EMFs, the Birds and the Bees, and the Canadian Environmental Processes Review

76.1 The EA process should allow for newly identified environmental threats to biota such as anthropogenic electromagnetic fields.
76.2 Proper baseline studies by an independent government body should be conducted before major installations go forward.
76.3 Effective monitoring and reporting by an independent government agency for cumulative effects (concurrently and over time) is essential in the process to ensure minimal adverse effects.

76.1 - s3.2.1 
76.2 - s3.2.2.2 
76.3 - s3.5.1

Marie-Ève Maillé, Notreboite Renforcement des Collectivités

Présentation ''Contribution à l'examen des processus d'évaluation environnementale: L'importance de l'analyse des impacts sociaux et de l'analyse comparative entre les sexes'' pour Montréal le 26 octobre

627.1 Integrating social impacts when conducting EA and clarifying the governmental expectations and/or requirements for such analysis
627.2
Conducting gender-based analysis as part of the EA as men and women are impacted differently by a given project (i.e. will the project foster full participation of men/women and will the project have positive/negative impacts on the livelihood of men/women)

627.1 - s2.1.3 
627.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase

Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council

Presentation By Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council To The Expert Panel Independent Review Of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act/Agency for Halifax, Oct. 4, 2016

671.1 Establish a Government of Canada National Federal EA Act and Process.
671.2 Draft provisions to execute a National Accord for the preservation, conservation, and protection of the living environment throughout Canada in a National Federal EA Act with national administration and processes.
671.3 Include sustainability claims with measurable targets which are transparent and open to public review and challenge, rather than wishes and hopes, or best effort minimal cost mitigation plans with their limited review or inspection, or when failed to be unreported.
671.4 Ensure that the public servants working to realize the objectives of preservation, conservation, and protection of our living environment are adequately trained and employed in numbers required to undertake the work load of environmental assessments, and their follow up inspections.
671.5
The preamble of the Act should clearly include several sections of UNDRIP, recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their Rights to their lands, territories and resources.
671.6
In keeping with both international and domestic law that the interpretation section of the new National Federal EA Act, must include the terms consultation, and honour of the Crown.

671.3 - s2.1.3 
671.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
671.2 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
671.5 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
671.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
671.4 - s.2.5.1

Mark Bouchard

Reasonable changes necessary

See analysis of submission #397

 

Mark Butler, Ecology Action Centre

Presentation ''Presentation to the Expert Panel to Review Environmental Assessment Processes'' for Fredericton October 11

640.1 Sever the direct relationship between the proponent and those who produce the EIS and instead ensure that the EIS is produced by independent scientists and those with traditional and indigenous knowledge or access to it. The same applies for REA and SEA.
640.2 Consider including an open and transparent peer review in the EA process.

640.1 - s.2.5.3 640.2 - s.2.5.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2

Mark Freeburg and Christian Baxter with Teck Resources

Presentation "Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

255.1 Clarifying CEAA 2012's purpose and scope to

  1. include a clearly and concisely articulated purpose,
  2. re-focus purpose to position EA processes as a planning tool,
  3. articulate a clear rationale for the application of federal EA processes, and
  4. address cumulative effects more meaningfully.

255.2 Enhancing federal-provincial coordination by

  1. ensuring reasonable timelines are maintained and federal/provincial coordination enhanced,
  2. ensuring adequate capacity and resources to manage processes and
  3. retain and enhance substitution/equivalency provisions and explore broadening adoption of these in other Canadian jurisdictions.

255.3 Strengthening Indigenous Peoples' participation and decision making in an EA process by

  1. ensuring consistency with UNDRIP,
  2. aligning EA processes with post-Tsilhqot'in context,
  3. enhancing participate funding program,
  4. considering negotiating government-to-government agreements and
  5. exploring creation of project-specific EA Boards or Working Groups.

255.4 Enhancing the Act's compliance mechanisms, including the harmonization compliance reporting with provinces and enabling condition amendments to reflect projects' long life-cycles.
255.5
Enhancing post-EA engagement and transparency.

255.1 - s2.1.1, s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
255.2 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2, s3.4.1 
255.3 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
255.4 - s3.3.1, s3.3.3 
255.5 - s3.3.2

Mark S. Winfield, Ph.D.

New Era of Environmental Governance in Canada: Better Decisions Regarding Infrastructure and Resource Development Projects

636.1 Incorporate a consistent, non-discretionary triggering mechanism for undertakings in pre-identified categories. These criteria may be based on the cope and scale of undertakings, requirements for specific federal approvals, the role of federal agencies as proponents, and projects being located on federal lands or receiving federal funding.
636.2
Incorporate the potential for two streams in the assessment process:

  1. a screening level process for less significant undertakings and
  2. a more substantive evaluation and review process for more significant undertakings.

636.3 Incorporate requirements and mechanisms for strategic level assessments of programs, plans, and policies.
636.4 Incorporate mechanisms for the coordination of assessment processes where projects may be subject to assessments by multiple agencies or different levels of government.
636.5
Ensure that the assessment process incorporates examinations of the rationale and need for undertakings, examinations of reasonable alternatives, consideration of uncertainties and risks, including malfunctions and accidents, and cumulative effects of all project components based on a pre-determined baseline that includes greenhouse gas emissions.
636.6
Guarantee and facilitate meaningful public participation, including a broad and inclusive approach to participation, public notice and opportunities to comment, and timely and convenient access to information.
636.7
Participant funding should be provided to enable meaningful and effective representation.
636.8
Provide for a tiered review mechanisms and ensure comprehensive and effective consideration of evidence (inc. TK).
636.9 Provide for an independent and impartial decision-making body operating at arms-length from any specific government department.
636.10
EA decisions and the reasons for them should be made public.
636.11
Establish an independent administrative agency to support the assessment process.
636.12 Provide for regular (5-year) reviews of its operation and implementation by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

636.2 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
636.5 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
636.6 - s1.3, s2.4.1, s2.4.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
636.7 - s2.4.2 
636.8 - 2.1.4, s2.3.4 
636.9 - s3.1.1 636.10 - s2.5.4, s3.1.3, s3.2.2.3 
636.11 - s1.2, s3.1.1 
636.12 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
636.4 - s2.2.1 
636.1 - s3.2.1 
636.3 - s.3.6.1

Mark Winfield

Presentation "Presentation to Expert Panel on Environmental Assessment Reform" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

468.1 Clear and consistent triggering mechanism.
468.2
Scope of assessment, including consideration of rational, need and alternatives, sustainability criteria, cumulative effects and climate change implications.
468.3
Assessment structure:

  1. screening/administrative with option of bump-up for minor/routine projects.,
  2. comprehensive studies/panel reviews for major projects, and
  3. class assessment process for similar routine undertakings with well understood risks and impacts.

468.4 Public participation:

  1. options for multiple formats/modes,
  2. ability to directly challenge/examine proponent's evidence/lead own evidence before panels, and
  3. intervenor funding.

468.1 - s3.2.1 
468.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.7 
468.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
468.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s2.4.1, s2.4.2

Martha Jo Willard DVM MD FRCPC

EA Review Willard

576.1 The CNSC, the NEB and the CEAA need to be reorganized under an umbrella organization of EA. The umbrella EA Agency must be charged with the final decision regarding projects, not the Minister or Cabinet.
576.2 Adhere to the UN Declaration of Indigenous persons as well as the TRC's 94 recommendations.
576.3
The EA should begin as soon as a project is conceived by the project proponent. All aspects of the effects must be considered.
576.4
All evidence based scientific studies must be available as well as all Indigenous evaluations must be published for discussion.
576.5 The parameters of the monitoring must be set in advance and must be followed.

576.3 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
576.2 - s2.3.1 
576.4 - s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s3.3.2, s2.3.4 
576.1 - s3.1.1 
576.5 - s3.3.2

Marti McFadzean

Submission to EA Review Panel for Marti McFadzean for Toronto, November 9, 2016

473.1 All critical aspects of a project must be completed to the satisfaction of the government and the Canadian public before an approval is given.
473.2
Societal acceptance must be a pre-requisite to a project moving forward.
473.3
A business plan with all financial information and financial implications should be presented to the federal government for consideration before the EA process moves forward.
473.4
A truly independent body must be assigned to oversee the EA.

473.3 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
473.2 - s2.1.3 
473.4 - s3.1.1 
473.1 - s3.2.2.3

Martin Millen, Matachewan First Nation

Presentation

P22.1 And those are the kinds of experiences I have had that can be very discouraging in the sense of trying my best to speak on behalf of the voices that don’t have a voice at tables like this, or opportunities like this, and I’m talking only to living beings, the winged, the finned, the four-leggeds, the crawlies, the plants, the trees, the medicines, the air, the fire and the rock, all those elements. When we think about those elements there is a spiritual component to that and to understand that spiritual component is also resisted by science because science has nothing to do with spiritual conations or any of that. But I think that it’s due time that science needs to sit down and needs to take a look at what is it that we’re missing.
P22.2 The only way to really understand what I’m talking about is exactly what this elder was talking about back over here; you’ve got to go out to the land. You’ve got to go and sit with the land. You’ve got to go sit with that fire. You’ve got to go sit with those elders, and you may — that’s the only way.
P22.3 Every time that our First Nations try to bring up an issue related to environmental concerns they go, “Where’s your science? Where’s your proof?” How can we prove that if we don’t have the money to pay for the science, if we don’t have the money to pay for this expertise?
P22.4 [re resolving challenges of multiple worldviews, how to get to regulators receiving and making sense of Indigenous knowledge] But I believe that we need an opportunity to demonstrate, and we have demonstrated without a — beyond a reasonable doubt that this can be done where we bring people out on the land and we need to have people like yourself to help us to do that.And the other is, is, that if you want that kind of experience is to make sure that you follow the protocols.

P22.2 - s2.3.3
P22.3 - s2.3.3, s2.3.4, s2.5.1, s2.5.2
P22.4 - s2.3.4
P22.1 - s2.5.2

Martin Olszynski

Presentation "Avoiding the 'Tyranny of Small Decisions': A Canadian Environmental Assessment Regime for the 21st Century" for Calgary, November 21, 2016

See analysis of submission #457

 

Martin Olszynski

Submission "Avoiding the 'Tyranny of Small Decisions': A Canadian Environmental Assessment Regime for the 21st Century" for Calgary, November 21, 2016

457.1 Recommit to the goal of sustainable development, by requiring more transparency in the EA process, more formal analysis of the economic and social impacts of a given project, strategic EA, minimization of all adverse environmental effects through best practices and/or BAT.
457.2
Reduce the discretionary nature of the EA process to the maximum extent possible (objective criteria for the scope of factors).
457.3
Re-orient the CEA registry to an EA and project review registry.
457.4
Create an independent office or ombudsman to oversee the EA process in a timely and objective manner.
457.5
Integrate Canada's national and international commitments in the legislation.
457.6
Include mechanisms to coordinate federal reviews with reviews carried out according to re-emerging Indigenous legal orders.
457.7 Make ITK mandatory where it has been gathered and made available.
457.8
Commit to REA as a general rule but especially for areas under significant development pressure and or significant ecological value.
457.9
Amend the scope of factors by reinstating the consideration of "need for a project" and project "alternatives" and adding a climate change and impacts on ecosystem services.
457.10
Centralize EA within the CEAA for all major projects.
457.11
Include provisions to ensure an independent, arm's length relationship between environmental consultants and the proponents.
457.12
Include provisions defining adaptive management, requiring discrete, enforceable and peer-reviewed adaptive management plans, setting out the circumstances when reliance on adaptive management is permissible, and requiring all adaptive management plans to be posted on the CEA registry.

457.1 - s2.1.3 
457.2 - s2.1.3, s3.2.2.1 
457.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
457.6 - s2.2.1 
457.7 - s2.3.4 
457.9 - s.3.7 
457.3 - s2.4.3, s2.5.1 
457.11 - s.2.5.3 
457.4 - s3.1.2 
457.10 - s3.1.1 
457.8 - s3.5.1 
457.12 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Martin Olszynski

Avoiding the “Tyranny of Small Decisions”: A Canadian Environmental Assessment Regime for the 21st Century

See analysis of submission #457

 

MARY ANN SHANNON

Canada is so far behind many countries

49.1 We need a human rights based approach to climate policy that states any federal policy that worsens global warming must be rejected.

49.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Mary Gorman (Save Our Seas and Shores Coalition) / Greg Egilsson (Chairman - Gulf NS Herring Federation)

Submission to EA_Review Panel for Halifax, Oct. 3, 2016

661.1 Restore federal powers to the Environment Act and Fisheries Act to protect Canada’s longest coastline in the world and especially, the Gulf of St Lawrence from offshore oil and gas development.
661.2
Exercise federally-legislated powers to impose an immediate moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

661.1 - Forwarded to other reviews
661.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

masra

lettre a l'agence canadienne

531.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.

531.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Matawa First Nations Management

Summary of Grassroots Community Feedback Collected by Matawa First Nations Management

36.1 Distinct desire to be more actively involved in all stages of the EA, alongside a recognition that more education and community capacity is required for this to happen.
36.2
Communities would like proponents to be further distanced from data collection and planning of EA, as well as a greater incorporation of experts and environmental groups.
36.3
A flexible model that accommodates assessments on a case by case basis.
36.4 Communities should have the ability to stop a project should undesirable and unpredicted effects be observed.
36.5
Cumulative and regional assessments.
36.6 Community members should be informed regularly on decisions being made and research being done.

36.1 - s2.3.1 
36.4 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
36.6 - s2.4.3 
36.2 - s2.5.3 
36.3 - s3.2.2.1 
36.5 - s3.5.2

Matrix Solutions Inc.

Speaking notes for presentation "EA Review: A Practitioner's Perspective" for Calgary, Nov 23 2016

736.1 EAs should remain the responsibility of the proponent.
736.2
Strive for further harmonization in order to apply "one project, one assessment".
736.3
The quantification of a project's GHGs is appropriate and should be used in the broader GHG discussion but not to have the project approval hinge on these emissions.

736.2 - s2.2 
736.3 - s3.7 
736.1 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.3, s3.1.1

Matrix Solutions Inc.

Presentation "EA Review: A Practitioner's Perspective" for Calgary, Nov 23 2016

See analysis of submission #736

 

Matsqui First Nation

Matsqui First Nation Submission to Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

133.1 Include a provision in CEAA that jurisdictions require notification prior to developing the Hearing Order for a federal EA
133.2 Include Operational First Nations (OFNs) in the definition of "jurisdiction"
133.3
When multiple jurisdictions are triggered or potentially triggered by a project, require an applicant to confirm a Project Description that confirms the appropriate jurisdictions
133.4 Jurisdictions should not be intervenors at the NEB, but should have a specialized role based on their unique responsibility in evaluating a project
133.5 The responsible authority of the OFN will coordinate the EA work plan and timeline by entering into a joint agreement on the EA process while retaining independent decision making authority
133.6
The responsible authority will work with the OFN prior to scoping the EA to establish the common requirements under the federal and OFN EA processes
133.7 OFN approval will be a required condition for Governor in Council Approval
133.8
All federal government agencies engaged in lands and resources will be informed of the jurisdiction of OFNs through workshops and courses

133.4 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
133.1 - s2.1.3, s2.4.3 
133.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
133.6 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
133.2 - s2.2 
133.5 - s2.2.1 
133.8 - s2.3.3 
133.7 - s3.2.2.3

Meg Sears, PhD, Chair, Prevent Cancer Now

Prevent Cancer Now Submission Received Dec. 23, 2016

864.1 The federal government and interested parties should initiate conversations, with incentives put in place to start EA as early as feasible. Early consultation would identify potential needs (e.g. getting resources to market) to scope all possible options.
864.2 Shorter term gains must be rigorously assessed against realistic long term liabilities, with transparent disclosure of data and uncertainties.
864.3
Require high standards and transparency for data and analyses. The EA should require that all environmental sampling and analyses follow best practices, in terms of documentation, chain of custody, use of accredited laboratories meeting strict standards and quality control, and clear reporting of values and detection limits.
864.4
EA must include scoping potential adverse events and ramifications, and detailing impacts and potential responses.
864.5
Systematic review should become the mainstay practice to determine hazards, exposures and risks under CEPA, CEAA, PCPA, F&DA, CCPSA, Fisheries Act and whenever else scientific, evidence-based decision-making is required in government operations.
864.6
Environmental data should be systematically assembled within environmental health information infrastructure, to facilitate future research and assessments.
864.7
Systematic scientific review should be used for questions central to an EA.
864.8
When an EA reaches the conclusion that it is reasonably certain that a project does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, this is in fact a hypothesis. The responsible, scientifically credible action is to test this hypothesis, but this follow-up is rare.
864.9
Assessments must account for the fact that some populations in Canada are more vulnerable than others.

864.9 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
864.1 - s2.1.2 
864.2 - s2.1.3, s2.5.1 
864.3 - s2.5.1 
864.5 - s2.5.1 
864.6 - s2.5.1 
864.7 - s2.5.1 
864.8 - s2.5.1 
864.4 - s3.2.2.1

Melissa Nevin

Presentation

P13.1 The issue that we’re running into is there’s not enough information in these environmental effects determination to determine whether there are potential impacts on Mi’kmaq Rights and Title. So that’s a concern for us. Once the screening process has been taken away there is very little environmental information being provided on smaller projects.
P13.2 The CEAA legislation doesn’t fully address impacts to traditional ecological knowledge and – and aboriginal rights and title and only assesses the environmental effects.
P13.3 There’s no mechanism for Mi’kmaq recommendations to be implemented during the CEAA process. So when we make recommendations there is no mechanism in place to ensure those recommendations are followed through.
P13.4 There is a lack of follow up on – on projects when they’re approved and there is a lack of follow up when monitoring the terms and then conditions of approval.

P13.2 - s2.3.4
P13.3 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3
P13.1 - s2.3.2
P13.4 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Metis Nation of Ontario

Preliminary Comments of the Metis Nation of Ontario

191.1 Any changes to CEAA 2012 must respect the significant judicial developments enunciated with respect to the Crown's duty to consult.
191.2
Harmonization with provincially-regulated EA processes should be a priority in order to eliminate duplication of efforts.
191.3
Including Aboriginal nations early in the scoping of EA in order to select components of study capable of accurately predicting changes to their unique rights and interests would help to ensure that the EA process can in fact inform and be relevant to the Crown consultation process.
191.4
The key principle from the duty to consult, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, should be embedded within the regulatory process and be applied at each regulatory milestone (public disclosure, TOR, EIS review, etc.).
191.5
Restoring concepts from the previous CEAA, including the need for the project, alternatives to the project, renewable resource capacity, would help to identify impacts to both biophysical and socio-economic components.
191.6
Amend the CEAA 2012 in order to enhance consultation, engagement and participatory capacity of First Nations when involved in the EA process (see brief for the suggested modifications to definitions, purpose, environmental effects, EA by review panels).
191.7
If it is the case that the EA process is going to be the primary vehicle for discharging the duty to consult, then a more fulsome nation to nation dialogue and collaborative process must be set up with Indigenous people and governments.

191.1 - s2.3.2 
191.5 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
191.2 - s2.2 
191.4 - s2.3.2 
191.6 - s2.3.2, s2.3.3 
191.7 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2 
191.3 - s2.1.2, s2.5.2, s3.2.2.1

Métis Nation British Columbia

Métis Nation British Columbia Comments Received Dec. 23, 2016

862.1 The federal CEAA administration has coordinated joint panels for environmental assessment review in some provinces; this practice should be extended across the nation.
862.2
Stronger review for pipelines, not just those pipelines that cross interprovincial or international boundaries. Cross boundary projects should continue to be evaluated for federal review. In the case of industrial and mineral mines, where impacts to fisheries or marine environments exist, a federal review should be triggered. A more easily accessible list of designated projects would also be useful.
862.3
Cumulative impacts should consider not only the geographic range of a project and proximally impacts, but also the temporal impact of a project and fragmentation of habitat at the landscape level.
862.4
The percentage of original habitat, prior to any development within the RSA or LSA, should be included in the cumulative assessment.
862.5
Although adaptive management is paramount, and industry may well deserve a chance to modify mitigation/reclamation/control measures, monitoring results should be submitted through the federal CEAA nexus for transparency.
862.6 It would be of immense value for the CEAA administration to make available raw-data from baseline surveys.
862.7 Mandatory inclusion of traditional knowledge and respect of the governance structures.
862.8 The federal government should advocate for meaningful consultation for Métis in BC on all projects, which would ensure that the honour of the crown is upheld.

862.8 - s2.3.2 
862.2 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
862.1 - s2.2.1, s2.2.2 
862.7 - s2.3.1, s2.3.1 
862.6 - s.2.5.1 
862.3 - s3.5.1 
862.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
826.5 - s3.3.2

Métis Nation of Alberta

Métis Nation of Alberta Submission to the EA Process Review Expert Panel Received Dec. 23, 2016

901.1 Engage with Indigenous peoples from the legislative design to implementation; from project application to approval and monitoring. This means inclusion, involvement and engagement prior to the EA stage and throughout the project lifecycle.
901.2
Indigenous peoples must be partners in the design, drafting and implementation of legislation and regulations around consultation and environment.
901.3
To be able to fully address the current issues of consistency, confidence and Indigenous rights and the EA process, Canada must implement the UNDRIP principles in their entirety. The enactment of these principles is one of the necessary steps in reconciliation.

901.1 - s2.1.2, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
901.2 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
901.3 - s2.3.1

Métis Nation of Alberta Local 1909 Submission to the Federal EA Panel

Métis Nation of Alberta Local 1909 Submission to the Federal EA Panel Received Dec. 26, 2016

824.1 Enhance knowledge of Métis people and related issues for federal government EA staff and Proponents.
824.2
Develop federal government EA guidelines for Métis-specific information and consultation requirements.
824.3 Improve federal funding to Métis communities to ensure our membership is adequately represented by a political organization.
824.4 Provide funding opportunities to develop and update community consultation protocols for EAs.
824.5
Provide funding for EA participation earlier in the process, upfront, so burden of cost of EA are not carried by the Indigenous organization.
824.6
Increase federal government legal control over the EA process, including enhanced options available for punitive measures when it is clear best efforts have not been made.

824.4 - s2.3.3 
824.1 - s2.3.3 
824.3 - s2.3.3 
824.5 - s2.3.3 
824.2 - s3.2.2.1

Métis Nation of Alberta, Local 1909

Métis Nation of Alberta, Local 1909 Submission to the Federal EA Panel Received Dec. 28, 2016

See analysis of submission #824

 

Metlakatla First Nation

Speaking notes for Presentation “Metlakatla Oral Presentation to CEAA Review Panel, Dec. 9, 2016” in Prince Rupert, Dec. 9th 2016

785.1 Establish a formalized, proactive structure for government to government relationships at all levels during an EA—technical, management, and leadership, throughout all aspects of EAs, from the initial stages to the final decision.
785.2 The UN Declaration should be used a framework for Reconciliation with First Nations. The tenants of the declaration should guide development of a new EA process and associated governance structure.
785.3 Consultation must start well before the beginning of an EA process, by the proponent and Canada.
785.4 To have a meaningful government to government decision-making structure, First Nations must be resourced comparative to those undertaking the same work in Canada’s bureaucracy.
785.5 If a project is approved, Canada and the First Nation must continue their relationship post EA certificate to ensure EA commitments and Metlakatla’s consent to the project are upheld throughout the lifetime of the project.
785.6 Parallel to EA process, there must be a formal, structured, proactive, government to government venue for the federal government to engage on high level consultation and reconciliation issues that arise during project reviews.
785.7 If CEAA continues to make use of panels, at the very least, to respect a government to government relationship, the impartial panel should have to provide their reports and recommendations to a collaborative working group of experts including First Nations and provincial and federal agencies for input and improvement, and to a government to government leadership forum for further scrutiny and refinement before being forwarded to decision makers.

785.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
785.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
785.4 - s2.3.3 
785.5 - s2.3.1, s2.4.1, s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
785.6 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
785.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
785.1 - s3.4.1

Metlakatla Stewardship Society

Written Submission to the CEAA 2012 Expert Review Panel

77.1 Governance: redesign the EA process to support government to government engagement and sovereign decision making for First Nations involved in a project review.
77.2
Scope and elements of the EA: projects need to be examined holistically. Scientific rigour needs to be increased for transparency and credibility. Alternatives assessments must also occur prior to the full project review and First Nations should pay a key role in decision-making at all stages.
77.3
Jurisdiction and related processes: coordination across levels of governments needs to be improved and guidance must be developed to ensure adequate consultation and meaningful involvement of First Nations.
77.4
The findings of EA reviews need to be transparently and efficiently communicated across programs, agencies and to the public.

77.3 - s2.2.1 
77.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
77.1 - 3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1 
77.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1, s2.5.1

Michael D. Mehta, Ph.D. of Thompson Rivers University

Presentation "Environmental Impact Assessment In Canada: New Tools And Citizen Science Can Improve Results" for Kamloops, Nov 28 2016

338.1 Citizen science can improve the EA process (several examples of such initiatives are presented in the brief).

338.1 - s2.5.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Michael Gullo

Presentation "Environmental Assessment in the rail industry” for Ottawa November 8, 2016

See analysis of submission #498

 

Michel First Nation/Calliou Group

EA Methodology is Appropriate to Identify Effects on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

278.1 Recognize the goals of EA process and the duty to consult and if necessary accommodate are complementary.
278.2
Clarify that the definition of "environment" includes human components.
278.3
Clarify information collected about Aboriginal and treaty rights does not depend on a "site-specific" approach to show impact.
278.4 Require an identification of effect to the rights for each Nation in a disaggregated fashion.
278.5
Include "Aboriginal and treaty rights" as a component of the environment for study.

278.2 - s1.1, s2.1.3 
278.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
278.4 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
278.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
278.5 - s2.3.2

Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'Tagnn Inc. - Rosalie Francis

CEAA Review Process, Mi'gmawe'l tplu'tagnn Inc. with attachments: The Mi'kmaw Ecological Knowledge Protocol, 2nd Edition and the New Brunswick Mi'gmaq Indigenous Knowledge Study Guide

Amend CEAA 2012 to:
174.1
Encompass the CEAA 1995 pre-determined federal list of projects that triggered an EA
174.2
Recognize Aboriginal people as the holders of s.35 Aboriginal Rights and recognize the Crown's duty to consult. Consultation should be meaningful and should happen at the onset and throughout the EA review process.
174.3
Reflect the international commitments in the UNDRIP and include the FPIC
174.4
Recognize that Aboriginal Peoples' occupy and practice Aboriginal Rights throughout their traditional territories, lands where they may hold Aboriginal Title, and that they can be affected by projects that may have no proximity to the present day Indian Act reserves.
174.5
Aboriginal Peoples should be provided with project information in a timely manner and have sufficient time to review the information
174.6 Recognize that where an EA is to be undertaken, an Indigenous Knowledge Study is a requirement
174.7 Funding provided to Aboriginal Peoples for consultation should be provided directly from the Crown, not the proponent

174.1 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
174.2 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
174.3 - s2.3.1 
174.4 - s2.3.2 
174.5 - s2.3.1, s2.3.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
174.6 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
174.7 - s2.3.3

Mike Faries

Moose Cree submission to Expert Panel on EA process - December 23, 2016

84.1 The government needs to be more proactive with involvement in EA, both in preparation of EAs, guidance on what needs to be included and undertaking their duty to consult. Funding for capacity building and participation of indigenous communities is needed. Engagement needs to start before the EA and timelines need to be revised. The government needs to be present with the proponent for engagement and spend time working in the community. Staff should be trained to understand the indigenous culture and the importance of the land (Cree words are living). There is a need to clarify how UNDRIP applies when speaking about the EA process and FPIC needs to be entrenched in EA. It is important to provide a more important role for indigenous people in EAs (data collection, etc.).
84.2
There is a need for a regional scale approach rather than project by project. Government should co-manage with proponents or be present through each stage of the EA to guide the process and to ensure they are meeting their obligations for duty to consult. Sustainability should be assessed when reviewing projects.
84.3
The Review panel should be looking at best practices for EA across the country and around the world. The use of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) needs to be considered in all sections.
84.4
Commitments (monitoring, mitigation and adaptive management) should be clearer including how indigenous communities will be involved and informed of results. There should be a consolidated public place to track commitments and compliance with these commitments.
84.5 Accidents and malfunctions (including worst case scenario) should be detailed in the EA.
84.6 The most stringent EA process between the federal and the provincial should take the lead at all times.

84.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
84.6 - s2.2 
84.3 - s2.3.4 
84.1 - 3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.2, s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.3 
84.2 - s3.5.1, s3.2.2.1, s2.1.3 
84.4 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Mike Faries

Speaking Notes for Presentation "Presentation to EA Review Expert Panel" in Toronto, November 10, 2016

466.1 Expansion of a mine site (not greater than 50%) is not included in the designated list of projects despite the magnitude of potential environmental and social effects. A risk management framework should be used to look at these impacts even if they don't trigger CEAA.
466.2
Capacity (adequate funding and timeline) should be provided to ensure meaningful participation in EAs.
466.3
The government needs to be more proactive with involvement in EAs, both in preparation of EAs, guidance on what needs to be included and undertaking their duty to consult.
466.4
There needs to be a regional scale approach to assessments rather than project by project. There is a need to consider cumulative effects at the very least at the watershed level for projects with impacts to water.
466.5
The process as to how impacted Indigenous communities are being identified should be transparent.
466.6 The federal government should be more involved throughout the EA process and not simply to defer to proponents.
466.7
Involvement of Indigenous communities needs to start earlier and it needs to last longer.
466.8
Plain language summaries should be available to help with a better understanding of the process and results.
466.9
The use of TEK needs to be at the forefront of EA. TEK is not a stand-alone section in an EA, it needs to be considered in all sections.
466.10
Commitments (monitoring, mitigation and adaptive management) should be clearer including how Indigenous communities will be involved and informed of results.
466.11
There should be a consolidated public place to track commitments and compliance with these commitments.
466.12
The government should mandate a cleanup fund / Environmental Compliance Bond so that there is money available to cover both accidents/malfunctions, and negative environmental impacts.

466.12 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
466.2 - s2.3.3 , s3.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3 
466.5 - s2.3.2 
466.9 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
466.8 - s2.4.3 
466.1 - s3.2.1 
466.3 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
466.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.5.3 
466.7 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.1, s2.1.2 
466.4 - s3.5.1 
466.10 - s3.3.2 
466.11 - s3.3.3

Mike Ridsdale of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en

Submission "WET’SUWET’EN PRESENTATION" for Prince Rupert, Dec 9 2016

314.1 First Nation determined alternatives on its territory rather than relying upon information derived by the proponent.
314.2
The EA process must consider more than just the specific Project, but rather how best to incorporate all existing, proposed and potential projects to minimize negative effects.
314.3
There are restrictions with respect to sharing proponent information with the public. Confidentiality Agreements could be used for sharing raw data for in-depth analysis review.
314.4
Have a First Nations Technical Working Groups or Committees created that includes a range of First Nations experts in EA processes.
314.5
For consultation purposes, proponents must require an assessment of cumulative effects of past and existing activities on both culture, territory and environment.
314.6 Reduce reliance on industry self-regulation, monitoring, and self-reporting on the compliance of a project.
314.7 Ensure appropriate funding is made available.
314.8 Capacity development for training on planning, oversight, review, and response to address the issues that First Nations experience within the process of an EA.
314.9 Having interpretive guidelines would help individuals follow the aspects of the commitment for compliance and the certificate conditions.

314.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
314.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
314.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
319.9 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
314.7 - s2.4.2, s2.3.3 
314.8 - s2.4.2, s2.3.3 
314.4 - s3.2.2.1 
314.2 - s3.5.2 
314.6 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Mike Wilton

Presentation "ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PANEL" for Sudbury, Nov 3 2016

245.1 Remove from EA lexicon "mitigate", "lumping", "rehabilitate" and "sustainable development".
245.2
Headwaters must receive total protection. River systems depend on them for quality and quantity.
245.3
Always opt for Town Hall gatherings over open houses as they encourage interaction.
245.4
The perfect expert panels should be composed of a trapper, a field biologist, a field ecologist, a naturalist, a forest technician, a hydrogeologist, active citizens, environmental lawyers.

245.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
245.2 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
254.4 - s3.2.2.3, s3.1.2 
245.3 - s2.4.1

Mikisew Cree First Nation

Written Submission to the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

25.1 Establish an independent agency, funded by government and proponents seeking regulatory approval.
25.2 Additional federal triggers should be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities.
25.3
Include a region-specific regulation to ensure that there are clear, predictable federal EA triggers that reflect the unique realities of the oil sand regions.
25.4
Replace EA timelines with statutory provisions that account for the unique challenges of Indigenous people.
25.5
Increase the funding available to Indigenous communities and broaden the cost recovery provision (s. 59).
25.6
Amend the federal legislation to include provisions to harmonize timelines and information collection between federal, provincial, and Indigenous assessments processes where Indigenous groups chose to conduct their own EA.
25.7 Create an appropriate federal engagement with indigenous people in assessments.
25.8 Effects on aboriginal and treaty rights must be informed by understanding the nature of the asserted or proven rights, including the conditions necessary for First Nations to exercise those rights.
25.9
Federal EA legislation should provide for regional studies which focus on understanding cumulative effects of activities.
25.10
Develop a meaningful cumulative effects assessment methodology. Projects should be assessed not for their mitigation of significant adverse effects but rather for their contribution to sustainability.
25.11
Integrate Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous perspectives at every stage of EA.
25.12 Discourage the practice of delaying or avoiding assessments where IBAs may occur.
25.13 Decisions making should be made transparent and decision makers should be required to identify the matters that have been considered in determining that any significant adverse effects are justified.
25.14 Set timelines in which the government must develop an action plan for implementing EA recommendations.
25.15
Eliminate substitution and delegation.

25.1 - s3.1.1 
25.6 - s2.2.1 
25.15 - s2.2.2 
25.5 - s2.3.3 
25.7 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
25.8 - s2.3.2 
25.11 - s2.3.4 
25.12 - s2.3.5
25.10 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
25.11 - s2.5.2 
25.13 - s2.5.4 
25.2 - s3.2.1 
25.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.4.1 
25.3 - s3.5.2 
25.9 - s3.5.2 
25.14 - s3.3.2

Mikisew Cree First Nation

Presentation "Presentation to the Expert Panel: Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Fort McMurray, Nov 24 2016

352.1 Statute that requires consideration of effects of proposed development on Treaty rights.
352.2 Meaningful cumulative effects assessment.
352.3 Require consideration of Indigenous Knowledge.
352.4 Support Indigenous participation and role in decision-making. For example, lower thresholds for triggering EA and defined role for indigenous communities in establishing triggers for federal EAs, early engagement, sufficient capacity, adequate timelines, transparent decision making at all stages.

352.1 - s2.3.2 
352.3 - s2.3.4 
352.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s.2.3.3, s2.3.1, s3.4.1 352.2 - s3.5.2

Mining Association Canada

Submission "MAC Submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes” for Ottawa November 8, 2016

508.1 Examine the purposes of CEAA to ensure that they provide clarity on the intent of the Act to the public, Indigenous Peoples and project proponents; guide the implementation of the Act; and contribute to the achievement of sustainable environmental, economic and social outcomes for Canadians, Indigenous Peoples and proponents. Currently, CEAA 2012's expressed purpose is to assess designated projects, but provides no rationale for how projects are designated.
508.2
Propose a clear rationale for the application of federal EA processes.
508.3
Priority should be given to continuously enhancing coordination, substitution and equivalency provisions as well as ensuring there is adequate capacity, resources and skills to manage the interplay between federal and provincial processes and associated federal regulation such as the Fisheries Act. Which solutions are the most appropriate will depend on what other changes to the Act the panel recommends.
508.5
If the issue of disproportionate application of CEAA 2012 to mining cannot be resolved through other mechanisms, CEAA retain assessment of cumulative effects, but make the EA decision based on the significance of a project's contribution to those cumulative effects, rather than on the significance of the cumulative effects of other activities.
508.6 Explore processes that enhance Indigenous participation in decision-making.

508.2 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 508.5 - s2.1.3 
508.3 - s2.2, s2.5.1 
508.6 - s2.3.1 
508.1 - s3.2.1, s2.1.3

Mining Projects

Presentation "EA of Mining Projects" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

See analysis of submission #499

 

Mining Watch Canada

Submission "Environmental Assessment in the rail industry" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

494.1 Impact assessment processes must be aimed at producing a positive contribution to sustainability.
494.2
There must be effective mechanisms to assess policies, plans, and programs, with strong links to project assessments. There is a need for a more coherent, comprehensive and planning-based approach to assessment, including strategic assessment as well as regional assessments and land-use planning processes. Individual projects do not affect the environment or communities in isolation
494.3 The federal government must play a strong role in impact assessment. Federal leadership is required to provide rigorous information and analysis and sustainability-based criteria for provincial, territorial, and Indigenous decision-making, and to provide a framework – and standards – on which harmonized and joint assessment processes can be developed and implemented. Federal assessments should be conducted by a single central authority. This would provide consistency and predictability for proponent and public alike, and allow for learning to take place as practice and experience are built on, across many assessments. It also allows for independent investigation and analysis, which are crucial to good EA.
494.4
The role of the public is critical as participants are providing information that proponents or government agencies don’t have access to and identifying concerns, values, and information gaps or errors that decision-makers need to take into consideration — or as individuals and communities with rights, interests, and responsibilities trying to gather information and make their own decisions about activities and projects that will affect them.

494.1 - s2.1.3 
494.3 - s2.2.1, s2.5.3, s3.1.1 
494.4 - s2.5.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
494.2 - s3.5.2, s3.6.1

MiningWatch Canada

Making Federal Environmental Assessment Work for the Public and the Planet

193.1 The need to extend EA beyond biophysical impacts to look at sustainability more inclusively and holistically, including economic, social, and cultural aspects that are currently excluded.
193.2
The need to assess the environmental impacts (and sustainability) of regional development plans (regional EA) and policies, plans, and programs (strategic EA) as well as individual project, and to ensure that there are effective linkages between these different "tiers" of assessment to allow issues arising in project assessments to be brought into regional and strategic EA, and for regional and strategic EA to provide effective guidance for project EA.
193.3
The need for a coherent national approach to EA, underpinned by a strong federal role to ensure transparency, consistency, and accountability to the extent possible within Canada's constitutional division of power and the recognition and protection of Indigenous jurisdiction and authority, both through negotiated agreements with Canada in a nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples.
193.4
The need to ensure that the public has a meaningful role in EA process, including sufficient time and resources to gather and analyse information as well as to share and discuss information. The EA process must be capable of meaningfully changing the project of plan depending on public input, including rejecting unacceptable or unjustifiable ones.

193.1 - s2.1.3 
193.3 - s2.1.1 
193.4 - s2.4.1, s2.4.2, s2.4.3, s3.2.2.1 
193.2 - s2.1.1, s2.1.4, s3.5.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.1, s3.6.2

Mississauagas of the New Credit First Nation

Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation - Written Submission to the Expert Panel on the review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process

200.1 The Act should be reverted to (at least) the principles found in the 1995 CEAA, and that the Agency moves towards a more inclusive process that requires event more oversight, regulation and scrutiny.
200.2
The Agency should consider a process that considers cumulative effects on an expansive and regional basis. The assessment of cumulative effects (especially at the regional scale) should not be solely the responsibility of the project proponent.
200.3 The Agency should focus on building a comprehensive body of knowledge relating to existing projects/developments, past-present adverse impacts of projects on their surrounding environments, and an extensive baseline knowledge of the ecological health of small and large scale ecosystems.

200.1 - s1.2 
200.3 - s2.5.1, s3.3.2 
200.2 - s2.1.4, s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Mohammad shadad

Lettre pour aide le terre

525.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands.

525.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Mohawk Council of Kahnawake

Environment Assessment Process Review

167.1 EA process should not be used as a means to discharge the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate and UNDRIP.
167.2
Clear, established protocols should be established and followed for all federal consultation.
167.3
Indigenous Nations must have the opportunity to exercise their jurisdictional rights, including the right to impose project conditions or refuse projects when appropriate.
167.4 Whenever monitoring of project related impacts does occur, there should be Indigenous participation in monitoring activities and further opportunities for binding conditions to be placed on proponents to compensate or remediate the impacts that are identified.
167.5
Restauration of multi-option evaluation is required to allow for a thorough examination of all possible project iterations.
167.6
Create various levels of intensity of EA assessment including designating projects that do not require federal EA.
167.7
Adopt an ecosystem approach to EA with the goal of protecting the interests of the next seven generations.
167.8
Funding must be sufficient to ensure that Canada not only has strong laws on environmental protection, but that these are also enforced.
167.9 EA must consider both existing and historic conditions when determining environmental impacts.
167.10
Rationale for the determination of "no significant impact" must be formalized.
167.11
Additional Indigenous involvement is required within all aspects of EA including post-approval construction, operating and monitoring.
167.12
Recognition of the historic loss of trust with Indigenous Nations and measures implemented to attempt to rebuild these relationships.
167.13
Coordination between Federal, provincial and Indigenous governments is required to ensure that all aspects are appropriately considered.

167.7 - s2.1.3 
167.10 - s2.5.4 
167.6 - s2.1.4 
167.8 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
167.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
167.2 - s2.3.2 
167.3 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
167.12 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2 
167.13 - s2.2.1 
167.5 - s3.2.2.1 
167.9 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2 
167.11 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
167.4 - s3.3.1, s3.3.2

moi

aider la planète

526.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption.

526.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

MONICA DEL AGUILA

Public Participation in Environmental Assessment in Canada: Proposed Reforms

277.1 Reforms to strengthen the public participation legal framework, where the meaning, objectives, and the adequate breadth of public participation programs are clear for all the interested parties.
277.2 Establish specific participant funding programs for the members of the public to ensure a fair process and follow a fair timeline, where the notice is provided early, giving the participants the necessary time to submit their opinions.
277.3
Participation programs must be designed and developed with a learning focus.
277.4
An effective monitoring of participation process must be implemented, since it is useful for assessment, learning, and improving the participation of the public.

277.1 - s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1 
277.2 - s2.4.2, s2.4.3, s3.4.1 
277.3 - s2.4.2 
277.4 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Morrissa Boerchers

Submission "Mining Legacies and EA" for Winnipeg, Nov 16 2016

419.1 EA could better consider legacy effects if it embraced its original purpose, namely being used as a long term planning tool or a tool for "minimum regret planning"

419.1 - s2.1.2

Morrissa Boerchers

Presentation to EA Panel – Winnipeg November 16, 2016 Mining Legacies and EA

See analysis of submission #583

 

Morrissa Boerchers

‘Sustainability is finding the next mine’: The complicated relationships among mining legacies, sustainability and impact assessment

583.1 Mining legacies must be addressed in order to amplify the positive legacies and eliminate or minimize the negative in order to hasten sustainability (residual environmental effects, residual effects on communities, boom and bust, remaining infrastructure, resource depletion).

583.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Morrissa Boerchers

Presentation "Mining for Sustainability: Mining Legacy Effects and Environmental Assessment in Canada" for Winnipeg, Nov. 16th, 2016

760.1 Mining legacies must be addressed in order to amplify the positive legacies and eliminate or minimize the negative in order to hasten sustainability (residual environmental effects, residual effects on communities, boom and bust, remaining infrastructure, resource depletion).

760.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Morrissa Boerchers

Presentation "Mining for Sustainability: Mining Legacy Effects and Environmental Assessment in Canada" for Winnipeg, Nov. 16th, 2016

See analysis of submission #760

 

Moses Okimaw

Presentation

P18.1 But, you know, development and protection aren't necessarily a contradiction, really. That's why there are environmental assessments, right? How can we do this development in such a way that it doesn't destroy the whole land, totally destroy it? Destroy the animals, the fish, and the clean air and the clean water? That's the purpose of assessments and whatever damage there is, then, you know, we think of ways to mitigate the damage. Again, that's part of assessment, I think, anyways, should be, anyways, okay? To bring it — to bring the land back to its original shape as much as possible.
P18.2 I look at your and then I'm told that there's one aboriginal person, indigenous person. Well, I think there should be two more — one more so that there's an equal representation of Canada and indigenous. That's how I think of this land. Settler and indigenous. And that's the way I've learned how to look at the society, this land.

P18.1 - s2.1.3
P18.2 - s3.2.2.3

Mushkegowuk Council

Mushkegowuk Council: Respecting and implementing the rights of the Mushkegowuk First Nations as full partners in the environmental assessment processes

109.1 The Act must be amended to require consent of our First Nations for projects that have the potential to impact the Treaty rights to the lands and waters in traditional territories as well as projects that could impact the lands and waters. In order for consent to be informed, as part of the EA process, the First Nation communities need its own independent experts, access to or completion of regional baseline studies, access to the evidence of the proponent and the opportunity to test such evidence. This calls for a "re-set" of thinking about the nature and extent of the Treaty rights. We need to move away from consultation and instead move towards full, informed consent from the First Nation as Nation-to-Nation partners with Canada for the EA processes.

109.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Musqueam Indian Band

Musqueam Submission to the Expert Panel on the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

89.1 Project-specific cumulative effects assessment (should be undertaken collaboratively between the Crown and the First Nation, clear and prescriptive guidance from the CEAA, incorporate consideration of "hypothetical" future projects, establish pre-industrial conditions as the baseline for the assessment).
89.2 Regional EA (restructure the Act and the CEAA to give a greater role to its regional offices to work with Indigenous nations, amend the Act to create mechanisms for triggering, funding and implementing regional EAs in regions of intensified development, regional EAs must be undertaken collaboratively between the Crown and the First Nation, the legislation should include a clearly defined cost-recovery mechanism).
89.3
The Port/PER process under s.67 of CEAA (the Port of Vancouver's PER process should be replaced by a new arms-length environmental management and review agency, the agency should have shared decision-making structures, etc.).
89.4
Justification of project and project alternatives (make mandatory a clear requirement for project justification and evaluation of alternatives means of carrying out the project, infringement upon the constitutionally-protected Sparrow fishing should be justified).
89.5 Re-instatement of screening-level projects for meaningful review.
89.6 ITK must be incorporated into EIS. CEAA's 2015 guidelines on ATK/ITK must be replaced by a new set of mandatory guidelines developed in collaboration with Indigenous nations and ITK experts.
89.7
Require the assessment of both direct and indirect impacts of a project on rights-based practices, socio-economic conditions and Indigenous culture.
89.8
Re-instate a working group consultation process in the development of project-specific EIS guidelines and replace the federal "clock" with a joint decision-making process on information sufficiency.
89.9
Provide for adequate participation funding (user pay system tied to an independent body that determines the amount of funding required).
89.10
Amend legislation to seek efficiencies through cooperation and harmonization with other jurisdiction rather than substitution.
89.11 Provide further guidance and enhanced quality control regarding proponents' mitigation commitments.
89.12
Monitoring and enforcement must cover the full life-cycle of the project.

89.4 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3 
89.7 - s2.1.3 
89.6 - s2.3.4 
89.3 - s3.2.1 
89.1 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2 
89.5 - s3.2.1 
89.7 - s3.2.2.1, s2.3.2 
89.9 - s2.4.2 
89.2 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2 
89.11 - s3.3.2 
89.12 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
89.8 - s3.4.1

Musqueam Indian Band

Musqueam Submission to Expert Panel on Environmental Assessments Received Dec. 21, 2016

See analysis of submission #89

 

Nak'azdli Whuten

Nak'azdli Environmental Assessment Views

137.1 Co-management and joint chairs of the panels.
137.2
Involve Aboriginal groups in determining methods and procedures for making key decisions (scope, methodology, determination of significance, etc.) in EA process.
137.3 Cumulative environmental effects assessment must address previous, current and potential impacts on First Nations lands and rights.
137.4 Temporal boundaries must be required to reflect and incorporate community's stated boundaries.
137.5
The inclusion of TK should be directed by knowledge holders and proponents should demonstrate with evidence how it was included.
137.6
Increase in funding for indigenous nations for major project review.
137.7
Complete social assessment that fully capture community-level health and social conditions and consider human health impacts and risks 137.8 Establish a social performance management system with adequate funding and staffing requirements.
137.9
Train staff and employees to recognize the lasting impacts of the Canadian residential school system in support of the Reconciliation.
137.10
A risk/impact assessment process analyzed in the contact of the project's area of influence and key stages of the project cycle.
137.11
Established procedures to monitor the effectiveness of management strategies.
137.12 Robust stakeholder engagement program appropriate for the size of development.
137.13
Grievance mechanism to resolve concerns and grievances about the project’s environmental and social performance.

137.2 - s2.3.1 
137.5 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
137.6 - s2.3.3 
137.9 - s2.3.3 
137.12 - s2.4.1 
137.1 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
137.8 - s3.1.2 
137.4 - s3.2.2.1 
137.7 - s2.1.3 
137.10 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
137.13 - s3.1.2 
137.3 - s3.5.2 
137.11 - s3.3.2

Nalaine Morin with Nlaka'pamux

Presentation "Indigenous Knowledge in Canadian Environmental Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

239.1 Collaboration should take place with First Nation government to develop the scope of what is considered and EA.
239.2 Baseline should consider the sustainability, the timeframe of natural cycles, seasonal variation and an understanding that Indigenous knowledge comes in different forms but with equal or greater value.
239.3 The EA legislation needs to be flexible enough to fit the region an EA is being done in.
239.4
Indigenous knowledge needs to be used when fully evaluating impacts.
239.5 Decision statement should include consideration for Indigenous knowledge.

239.2 - s2.5.2 
239.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
239.5 - s2.5.4 
239.1 - s3.2.2.1 
239.3 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2, s3.4.1

Nameeta Sharma

What does meaningful, effective, inclusive public participation in the environmental assessment process look like?

290.1 The public must be incorporated throughout the entire planning process, beginning before the EIA is even approved and continuing through to monitoring.
290.2
There needs to be greater access to additional funding and project-specific resources to ensure that the public understands the social, environmental, and economic implications of a project.
290.3
The idea of “interested parties” that only members of the public that are directly affected by a project to participate needs to be abolished.

290.2 - s2.4.2 
290.3 - s2.4.1 
290.1 - s3.2.2.1

Naomi Grant

Presentation "What should the federal environmental assessment process look like?" for Sudbury, Nov 3 2016

238.1 Assess projects as to which option does the most good (good = sustainability, respect, contributing to the envisioned future)
238.2 Create a test that is science-based (precautionary principle) as it relates to climate, water, envisioned future, consent, and a comparison of options.
238.3
The assessment should be independent and impartial, meaningfully inclusive, consistent with overarching values and goals, account for the full cost of a project (lifetime assessment, be inclusive of communities and intrinsic values and traditional knowledge and on-going.
238.4
Respect the UNDRIP and FPIC. Community and public input should be able to change the outcome. Citizens should be able to meaningfully participate based on on-going dialogue.

238.1 - s2.1.3 
238.4 - s2.3.1, s2.4.1 
238.2 - s.2.5.1 
238.3 - s3.1.1, s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3

Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach

Review of Environmental Assessment Processes - Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach

925.1 The CEAA should be amended to indicate that ITK must be taken into account when a project is located on a territory affecting Indigenous rights and interests. Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure appropriate collection and use of ITK as well as meaningful integration into EA processes.
925.2 For Indigenous communities, the potentiality of adverse effects becomes the applicable criteria for being considered an interested party to a project, not the certainty of adverse effects.
925.3 Attention and engagement towards the participation of Elders is essential to the EA process. Similar efforts should be made to engage more actively other groups within Indigenous communities in the consultation process (based on age, gender, etc.).
925.4 Face to face meetings should be mandatory for every project and more funding should be allocated for that purpose.
925.5 Timelines should not hinder the quality of the analyses, whether undertaken by affected communities, governments or review bodies, and should not prevent meaningful public participation.
925.6 Indigenous communities should have the possibility to submit a project to federal EA, where such project would otherwise be exempted, and where it could potentially impact Indigenous rights and interests.
925.7 The scope of federal EAs should impose more stringent conditions related to air quality, dust and noise. The scope of EAs should also include downstream effects of development.
925.8 CEAA should include provisions whereby a proponent would have, as part of its federal EA process, to disclose its commitment to negotiating IBAs with impacted Indigenous communities, and to describe the consultation and accommodation process contemplated.
925.9 Indigenous communities should have a meaningful role in the final decision-making for projects located in their territories.
925.10 Additional efforts should be made to include Indigenous communities in monitoring and follow-up activities throughout the entire life-cycle of projects affecting their territories. The results of monitoring and follow-up activities should be communicated to the affected communities through regular updates on the state of the environment throughout the entire life of the project.
925.11 The modifications to CEAA 2012 should reflect thoroughly the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous communities, notwithstanding the fact that in certain cases, other EAs are also conducted either concurrently or successively.

925.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
925.1 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
925.2 - s2.3.2 
925.8 - s2.3.5 
925.11 - s2.3.2 
925.4 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
925.6 - s3.2.1 
925.7 - s3.2.2.1 
925.9 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
925.10 - s3.3.2 
925.5 - s3.4.1

Native Alliance of Québec

Written Submissions EA Review by the Native Alliance of Québec Received Dec. 23, 2016

903.1 Consultation over and above EA processes.
903.2 Indigenous-driven EA processes.
903.3
Consent-based decision-making.
903.4
For an EA to be complete, it must rely on traditional knowledge in conjunction with available western scientific knowledge.
903.5 Achieving a nation-to-nation relationship with the Crown that is based on respect and recognition of their title, rights, treaty rights and Indigenous laws and values.
903.6 Sharing of benefits.
903.7
Regional land use planning.
903.8
Adequate capacity funding.

903.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
903.5 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
903.2 - s2.2.1, s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
903.3 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
903.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
903.6 - s2.3.5 
903.8 - s2.3.3 
903.7 - s3.5.1

Nature Canada

Submission “Next Generation Impact Assessment: Toward Sustainability” for Ottawa November 1st, 2016

513.1 Establish the legislative framework for assessing the sustainability of proposed projects that require a federal decision or that are significant to the national interest, and of proposed federal policies, programs and plans.
513.2
Assess projects, policies, programs and plans based on their net contribution to lasting environmental, social and economic well-being without demanding trade-offs that entail significant adverse effects.
513.3
Review the triggers for federal impact assessment (e.g. major projects that are federally funded, projects to be sited in any federal protected area, "national interest" projects, etc.).
513.4
Project EA should require an assessment of a comprehensive set of factors affecting sustainability as well as require a worst-case scenario assessment.
513.5 Legislative framework for the preparation of strategic EA applicable to all proposed federal policies, programs and plans that have implications for the natural environment.
513.6 Strategic EA should also be required for all federal budgets.
513.7
The CEAA should be the sole responsible authority for the conduct of project and regional impact assessments (i.e. not the NEB and the CNSC).
513.8
Incorporate mechanisms that ensure that Indigenous people are consulted in good faith on impact assessments and accommodated for any impacts on their rights or interests after they have provided their free, prior, and informed consent.
513.9
Provide for adoption of co-governance models for EA and resource management as part of nation-to-nation negotiations along the lines of the legally entrenched claims agreements with Inuit and First Nations.

513.1 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3 
513.2 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
513.3 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
513.4 - s2.1.3 
513.8 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.5, s3.2.2.3, s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3 
513.9 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
513.7 - s3.1.1 
513.5 Not in line with the Panel’s vision
513.6 Not in line with the Panel’s vision

Nature Canada

Next Generation Impact Assessment: Toward Sustainability

See analysis of submission #513

 

Nature Canada and Environmental Law Centre

Starting off on the right foot: Recommended Criteria for Triggering Regional Strategic Environmental Assessments under a new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

357.1 Federal EA legislation should require that the federal government conduct strategic EAs for all plans, programs, and policies that are likely to significantly affect the environment.
357.2
Federal EA legislation should enable the responsible agency for EA to initiate R-SEA for regions where there are significant current or potential cumulative adverse environmental effects from development and where the federal government has authority over either the proposed activities or potentially affected environmental values in the region.
357.3
Federal EA legislation should require R-SEA where a new type of development or a significantly increased intensity of industrial development is proposed in a region.
357.4
Federal EA should require an R-SEA where a region has shown a significant decline in key ecological values or environmental health benchmarks and where there is federal jurisdiction over further development activity in the region.
357.5
The CEAA as the agency responsible for reviewing project-level EA should be able to initiate and facilitate an "off-ramp" procedure from a project-level EA.
357.6 Federal EA legislation should have a clear and transparent process to adapt and respond to petitions for an R-SEA from the public.
357.7
Federal EA legislation should establish a transparent collaborative R-SEA process with Indigenous and provincial governments where these levels of government submit a request for an R-SEA.

357.1 - s3.6.1 357.2 - s3.5.1 357.3 - s3.5.1 357.4 - s3.5.1 357.5 - s3.2.2.1 357.6 - s3.5.1 357.7 - s3.5.2

Nazar prokopchuk

Lettre de grande importance

546.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands and natural resources. 546.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

546.2 - s2.1.3 
546.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

NEBC Resource Municipalities Coalition

Presentation "Coalition Presentation to the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Fort St-John, Dec 5 2016

326.1 Federal and provincial governments must make evidence-based resource development policies and decisions in order to protect the overall health of the economy.
326.2
Acknowledge and respect First Nations rights in resource development in BC and Canada.
326.3 Federal and provincial government policy and resource development decisions must give priority to resource communities and First Nations communities.
326.4
Cumulative resource planning for major resource development must be given priority by provincial and federal governments.

326.2 - s2.3.1 
326.1 - s2.5.4 
326.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
326.4 - Inconsistent with Canadian statutes and Constitution

NEI Investments

Opportunities to Enhance Federal Environmental Assessment Processes

358.1 There is merit in efforts to streamline decision-making timeframes and regulatory effort on lower risk projects, but the best outcome for some high-risk projects is that they should not happen at all. The Expert Panel should consider ways to ensure that decisions to reject project proposals are made efficiently and transparently.
358.2
Integrate the strategic assessment of climate change impacts benefits. Assessing the GHG emissions impact should be undertaken at the earliest stage of the assessment process. If the potential climate change impacts of a project are so significant that they are bound to lead to the ultimate rejection of the project, the decision should be made early enough in the process to avoid the costs associated with the fully-fledged EA.
358.3 Scenario analysis and stress-testing. EA process should integrate a strategic assessment of how the project will fit into a future that meets the 2 degree target.
358.4
EA process would be greatly strengthened and streamlined by the incorporation of tolls such as RSEA. Such analysis considers a range of future development scenarios in order to ensure that current and future planning leads to the most desired outcomes rather than the most likely ones.

358.2 -In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
358.3 - s3.7 
358.1 - s3.2.2.3 
358.4 - s3.5.1, s3.5.2

Neil Thompson

Airport Concerns 1 of 5

376.1 No further Federal permits be issued to Site C unless the EIS omissions are properly modelled and endorsed by the professionals who have current responsibilities in our air traffic control zone.

376.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Newfoundland & Labrador Oil & Gas Industries Association

Presentation ''Environmental Assessment in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Context'' for St. John's October 5

654.1 The C-NLOPB should be designated the Responsible Authority under CEAA 2012.
654.2
The CEAA process for approval of an exploration well is a duplication of the C-NLOPB's requirements under the Atlantic Accord.
654.3
Exploration drilling should not be a designated project under CEAA 2012. The C-NLOPB's process is comprehensive and effective.
654.4 The regulation designating exploration drilling projects is unclear and adding to duplication.
654.5
The narrow interpretation of Designated Project Regulation could result in unnecessary and repetitive EAs covering identical areas.

654.2 - s2.2.1 
654.3 - s3.2.1 
654.4 - s3.2.1 
654.1 - s3.1.1 
654.5 - s3.2.1

Newfoundland and Labrador Environment Network

NLEN Submission to the Environmental Assessment Review Panel

Reference the recommendations presented in the submission Achieving a next generation of Environmental Assessment (submission #359)

 

Nicholas MacInnis

Public Participation Changes and Challenges

364.1 Construct an EA policy that is focused on two outcomes: sustainability and incorporating meaningful public participation.

364.1 - s2.1.2, s2.1.3, s2.4.1

Nishnawbe Aski Nation

Nishnawbe Aski Nation CEAA Review Submission - with Elder's 10 Point Response to EA and Legal Commentary

NAN Elder recommendations:
29.1
The land is a living thing
29.2
The people and the environment need to be in balance
29.3
Need for NAN peoples involvement and engagement early in the process (preferably at the start)
29.4
Recognize the need and value of including Traditional Knowledge in any EA in NAN territory. Understand that there are many sources that can be called upon, whether it is the input of Elders or the information held by the Lands and Resources departments.
29.5 For NAN communities to participate meaningfully in EA’s, there needs to be contributed resources.
29.6
There is a need to build capacity to participate in EA’s, especially in communities without previous or only limited experience
29.7 The scale and scope of the EA needs to ensure that all impacts are considered
29.8
The scale and scope of the study area be of sufficient size to foster cooperation among communities rather than causing divisions between communities
29.9 An acceptable EA must consider the cumulative impacts of an undertaking over time and space
29.10
Any EA decision must benefit future generations

29.1 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
29.2 - s2.1.3 
29.10 - s2.1.3 
29.4 - s2.3.4 
29.5 - s2.3.3 
29.6 - s2.3.3 
29.3 - s3.2.2.1 
29.7 - s3.2.2.1 
29.8 - s3.2.2.1 
29.9 - s3.5.2

Norinne Saddleback

Presentation

P50.1 find a way to endorse and entrench the recommendations of UNDRIP — to ensure prevention and protection and conservation of our environment, which is our pharmacy, which is our meat market, which is our livelihood — that biosphere needs to be intact
P50.2
There is no intellectual property protection for traditional knowledge.
P50.5
There is the duty to consult, but there is the duty to accommodate. Don’t forget the duty to accommodate.
P50.6
I invite you to give First Nations capability, the tools, to be involved in the EIA and answer EIA questions.

P50.1 - s2.3.1
P50.2 - s2.3.4
P50.5 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5
P50.6 - s2.3.3

Norma Pyle, Lands Director, Blueberry River First Nations

Submission of Blueberry River First Nations Received Dec. 23, 2016

895.1 Expand the list of projects subject to a federal EA to include all major projects that require a federal permit, are located on federal lands, receive federal funding or have a federal proponent, as well as small and medium projects that, because of their size, nature or location, warrant a federal EA.
895.2
Aboriginal groups must be engaged in the EA process from the early stages, before proposals are submitted and strategic decisions are made, all the way through monitoring and enforcement.
895.3 During early engagement, the aboriginal group must have the opportunity to participate in decisions with respect to whether a proposed project should proceed to a formal assessment or not based on information produced by the aboriginal group, such as land use plans, traditional use studies, socio-economic studies, and cumulative effects assessments.
895.4
Provide aboriginal groups with sufficient resources to meaningfully participate.
895.5
Provide for impartial and transparent decision-making. It must establish clear decision-making criteria to guide decisions, including factors to guide decisions in the case of residual impacts.
895.6
EA should be undertaken by a single, permanent, independent and impartial body guided by clear sustainability-based principles and goals and possessing the expertise necessary to assess a proposed project's impacts on all aspects of the environment.
895.7 Establish a meaningful public right to appeal to an independent and impartial adjudicator.
895.8 The NEB should not be conducting EAs.
895.9 Include a presumption that impacts are cumulative, must provide for cumulative impact assessments that focus on ecosystems, and must take a long term view. Cumulative impact assessment must be based on pre-industrial baseline conditions, must examine historical evidence to determine the true existing accumulation of effects and project those effects forward to assess future scenarios.
895.10 Impacts on treaty rights must be assessed directly, based on evidence from the right-holding community.
895.11
Provide for mandatory, well-defined and robust follow-up, monitoring, adaptive management, compliance and enforcement.

895.1 - s2.1.1 
895.2 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1 
895.4 - s2.3.3 
895.10 - s2.3.2 
895.5 - s3.2.2.3, s2.5.4 
895.6 - s2.5.3, s3.1.1 
895.3 - s3.2.2.1 
895.7 - s3.2.2.3 
895.9 - s3.5.1, s3.2.2.1 
895.8 - s3.1.1 
895.11 - s3.3.2, s3.3.3

Northern Confluence - Research by Ethan Krindle

CEAA Transboundary Memo

275.1 CEAA 2012 contains mechanisms to allow consideration of transboundary impacts in EA, as well as participation of foreign persons and groups who may be affected by them. However, CEAA 2012 lacks an automatic requirement that projects with potential transboundary impacts undergo a federal EA. Including a mandatory federal review of projects with potential transboundary impacts would be consistent with Canada's international treaty obligations and the declared principles of international law as articulated in the Stockholm and Rio Declarations.

275.1 - s2.1.1, s3.2.1

Northern Confluence Initiative

FPIC, Triggers and Restoring Trust - Northern Confluence submission to EA review

274.1 Adopting the principles of UNDRIP, including FPIC and ensure collaborative decision-making and/or joint assessments with indigenous governments.
274.2
EA legislation should include triggers for an EA when authorization is required under sections 32, 35 or 36 of the Fisheries Act.
274.3
Strategic EA should be carried out in transboundary watersheds with multiple proposed and/or active projects.
274.4
Independent science advisory panels for federal EAs.
274.5 Prohibit input-output economic models for project assessments.
274.6 Separate government agencies that promote projects with those that regulate.
274.7
Ensure meaningful participation within a process that can say no to bad projects. Improve transparency of decision-making process.

274.7 - s2.1.3, s2.5.4, s2.4.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
274.5 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
274.1 - s2.3.1 
274.4 - s3.1.2, s3.2.2.2 
274.6 - s3.1.1 
274.2 - s3.2.1 
274.3 - s3.5.1

Northern Confluence Initiative

Presentation "CEAA Review" for Prince Rupert, Dec 8 2016

See analysis of submission #274

 

Northern Health Authority of BC

Recommendations for Natural Resource Management: A Regional Health Authority Perspective

61.1 Expand the scope of natural resource management decision-making process to capture the broader health and socio-economic impacts (e.g. impacts to vulnerable groups, impacts to services and infrastructures, etc.).
61.2
Consider international best practice for EA and health
61.3
Review the current model of professional reliance. Assess whether a professional body could regulate and mandate the roles of social and health impacts assessors.
61.4
Cumulative effects need to be better considered in EA processes.
61.5
Federal assessment process should focus greater efforts on considering both positive and negative health impacts of projects with an overall objective of minimizing impacts and maximizing positive project legacies.
61.6
Potential impacts of accidents and malfunctions need to be assessed and considered in a more robust manner.

61.1 - s2.1.3 
61.2 - s2.1.3 
61.5 - s2.1.3 
61.3 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
61.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
61.4 - s3.5.2

Northwatch

Presentation "12 Pillars of Next-Gen EA" for Sudbury, Nov 3 2016

249.1 Respect the 12 pillars of Next-Gen EA.

249.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report

Norval Collins, MCIP, LPP

Email to Panel "Presentation to the Expert Panel - Additional Comments" Oct 4, 2016

662.1 EA should ask questions related to a projects contribution to climate change, but these need to be carefully bounded to avoid unnecessary costs. An EA document is not a vehicle for establishing policy. Similar, with greenhouse gas emissions, policy needs to be established by federal-provincial-territorial discussions which are currently ongoing.
662.2
EAs should focus on what is important to the decision maker to minimize environmental impacts associated with the project. Both mitigation and adaptation to climate change should be addressed in the EA but in ways appropriate to the process and the project or issue being reviewed.
662.3 Regional EA is one of the few ways to help provide guidance in relation to cumulative impacts.

662.1 - s3.7 
662.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3, s3.7 
662.3 - s3.5.2

Norval Collins, MCIP, LPP

Presentation on Environmental Impact Assessment to Expert for Halifax, Oct. 3, 2016

669.1 As the lead agency, the CEAA should have responsibility to set minimum standards for EAs in Canada and to conduct research into EA in Canada to support both consistency in approach and global leadership.
669.2
For EA to be useful it must at least consider our knowledge in relation to the area and time frame of projects impacts, as well as the types of climate change impacts involved.
669.3
The changes to the Fisheries Act have affected the intent of EA. Federal EAs since 2012 have only concerned themselves with direct impacts on fish of commercial, recreational or aboriginal importance. This means that EAs no longer mention the deep water fish. At risk is our claim to exploit these resources and reserve them for future benefits.

669.3 - Forwarded to other reviews
669.1 - s2.2.2 
669.2 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s2.5.2, s3.7

Nova Scotia Power

Submission to the Expert Panel Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

490.1 The goal for a modern EA process would include the following features: focused at the right level, balanced and sustainable, proper inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the process, consistency with policy, transparent, providing adequate mechanisms for public engagement, proper use of information, accountable and reasoned decisions, and better, more focused, follow-up monitoring.
490.2 Engagement with Indigenous people by proponents should start early, often in advance of any specific project.
490.3
The federal government, in cooperation with Indigenous people should identify the role they will play in the project study and review.
490.4
Proponents should provide sufficient time and resource capacity support to allow for meaningful dialogue with the Indigenous communities.
490.5
The federal government must provide clear guidance and criteria to ensure that the interests of Indigenous people are properly addressed and that project proponents may expect timely review and decision making.
490.6
While some balance is required to retain a process that is timely and efficient, a redefinition of the scope of EA to include biophysical, social and economic components would be key in keeping with modern day understanding of EA.
490.7
EA reform should include measures to ensure a more appropriate and more frequent use of SEA to assist in review of significant federal activities, policies, plans and programs and REA for initial, high level guidance to deal with issues or initiatives that can include a regional larger than one province or a sector/topic that requires broader considerations.
490.8
The existing triggers used in the CEAA 2012 regulations should be maintained.
490.9
Consideration and adjustment of approach and process to ensure consistency across the three RAs is needed.
490.10 Additional thought is required to ensure that important consultation (including Indigenous people) can be properly accommodated, while still providing some degree of certainty of process.
490.11
Ongoing maintenance of the principle of proponent led EA.
490.12 There is a need for increased transparency in EA. Project information must be made available to the public. Enhancement of a Registry of project information and decisions, including follow-up monitoring.
490.13
Ultimate decisions should be made by elected officials, Ministers, and in some cases Cabinet.

490.2 - s2.1.1, s3.2.2.1, s.2.1.2 
490.6 - s2.1.3 
490.8 - s2.1.1, s2.1.3, s3.2.1 
490.4 - s2.3.3, s2.3.5 
490.5 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.1 
490.10 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
490.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
490.12 - s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s3.3.2 
490.11 - s.2.5.3, s3.2.2.1, s3.1.1 
490.9 - s3.1.1 
490.3 - s3.2.2.1 
490.13 - s3.2.2.3, s3.1.1 
490.7 - s3.5.1

Nunatsiavut Government

Presentation ''Presentation to Expert Panel, Review of Canada’s Environmental Assessment Legislation'' for Happy Valley-Goose Bay October 7

647.1 Completely replace CEAA 2012.
647.2 Create enabling mechanisms with legislation to encourage and enable harmonization to the highest standard.
647.3
Include mechanisms within CEAA to consider emerging scientific or other knowledge even after a decision is made.
647.4
Ensure that effects assessed include socio-economic, cultural and biophysical.
647.5
Integrate all stages of environmental decision-making and protection into process (e.g. planning, permitting, monitoring and follow-up, etc.).

647.1 - Aligns with the Panel’s proposal and addressed throughout the report
647.4 - s2.1.3 
647.5 - s2.1.2, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.3, s3.3.1, s3.3.2, s3.3.3 
647.2 - s2.2 
647.3 - s.3.3.1

NunatuKavut Community Council (NCC)

Written Submission to Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel

28.1 Change the context of the EA consultation. The consultation should be transformed from the current top-down hierarchical process into a more collaborative Nation-to-Nation relationship of equals.
28.2
Facilitate Indigenous partnership in the EA process by making timelines more reasonable, addressing Indigenous groups capacity limitations, providing adequate funding and integrating Indigenous traditional knowledge as a complement to scientific knowledge in evidence-based EAs.
28.3
Correct the Crown's bias towards project development but transforming the NEB so it is no longer a captive regulator, incorporating an automatic triggering mechanisms for EAs, requiring proponents to justify the need for the project and consider alternatives, requiring consideration of cumulative effects, involve indigenous groups early in the process, ensuring duty to consult is carried out in good faith and supported by the CEAA and recognizing the principles of UNDRIP in CEAA.

28.1 - s2.3.2 28.2 - s2.3.3, s2.3.4, s2.5.2, s3.4.1 
28.3 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.1.2, s3.1.1

Obashkaandagaang First Nation

Written Submissions Regarding the Federal Environmental Assessment Regulatory Process

154.1 Require consideration of Aboriginal and Treaty rights explicitly within any future EA regime.
154.2
Require developing fulsome consultation protocols in accordance with First Nations' existing legal traditions and procedures.
154.3 Provide additional resources and capacity support options to build the internal capacity of First Nations, including for the collection of Aboriginal Knowledge
154.4
Increase funding, remove barriers to First Nations participation in EA process (such as timelines), guarantee funding support for a paid internal position to coordinate First Nation participation and increase Crown oversight during negotiation for capacity funding agreements.
154.5
First Nations should have the opportunity to determine and identify whether a project might impact their rights
154.6
Mandatory face-to-face meetings prior to any public announcement of a proposed project
154.7 Require an Aboriginal knowledge review for every proposed project and protect its confidentiality
157.8 Implement FPIC. Involve First Nations in determining the scope and in decisions relating to the content and adequacy of the EIS as well as in decision-making.
157.9
Include cumulative effects of a project on the broader environment.

154.1 - s2.3.2 
154.3 - s2.3.3, s2.5.1, s2.5.2 
154.4 - s2.3.3, s2.3.5, s3.4.1 
154.5 - s2.3.2, s3.2.2.2 
154.6 - s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
154.8 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1, s3.2.2.2, s3.2.2.3 
154.7 - s2.5.2 
154.2 - s3.2.2.1 
154.9 - s3.2.2.1, s3.5.2

Ochiichagwe’Babigo’Ining Ojibway Nation

Speaking notes for Presentation by Ochiichagwe’Babigo’Ining Ojibway Nation in Winnipeg, Nov. 17th, 2016

793.1 Ensure direct First Nation participation early in the EA process.
793.2 Where a project has the potential to impact Aboriginal and Treaty rights, a process that recognizes First Nation's jurisdiction to make its own final decisions about the project should be developed.
793.3
Provide opportunities for First Nation regional land use planning initiatives to inform EA processes.
793.4
Incorporate traditional First Nation knowledge in the EA of a project.
793.5 Provide adequate funding to promote capacity development of First Nations so that they can meaningfully participate in the EA process.
793.6 Provide for meaningful accommodation of Aboriginal concerns.
793.7
Provide opportunities for sharing of benefits from economic activity, including through revenue sharing .

793.3 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
793.1 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.1 
793.2 - s2.3.1, s3.2.2.3 
793.4 - s2.3.4, s2.5.2 
793.5 - s2.33 
793.6 - s2.3.2, s2.3.5 
793.7 - s2.3.5

Okanagan Nation Alliance

Presentation "Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (“CEAA”)" for Kamloops, Nov 29 2016

335.1 Implement principles expressed in the UNDRIP in modernization of Canadian legislation (Nation-to-Nation relationship, joint decision-making in every stage of the review, Nation on equal footing to Canada with respect to authority, program funding, and accountability, incorporate traditional knowledge, principles and practice)
335.2
Early engagement, before a project enters the CEAA process (pre-screening process to determine if projects can go ahead, review of the scope of assessment, develop "significance of impact" standards, and develop cooperative monitoring, training and employment framework).
335.3 First Nations require their own parallel project review processes that recognize their legitimate authority on the land .
335.4
Only parties at arm's length from proponent should assess and audit projects.
335.6 First Nations should be able to "stop the EA clock" during an EA if further studies are required.
335.7 Explicit decision-making standards should be developed to ensure that decisions are based on TK, science and evidence.
335.8 Indigenous communities must share financial benefits of the projects. 4 - OUTSIDE MANDATE ("must share")
335.9
Indigenous watchmen program to hold federal government accountable and work with compliance and enforcement branch.
335.10 Should leave room to change a decision based on new information and incremental impacts.

335.1 - s2.3.1, s2.3.2, s2.3.3, s2.3.4 
335.3 - s2.2.1 
335.8 - s2.3.5 
335.10 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
335.4 - s3.1.1, s3.1.2 
335.2 - s3.2.2.1 
335.7 - s2.5.4, s3.2.2.3 
335.9 - s3.3.3 
335.6 - s3.4.1

ola sami

le lettre du nature

536.1 Reducing Canada's oil consumption and its dependence on tar sands. 536.2 It is important to protect the environment and biodiversity.

536.2 - s2.1.3 
536.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate

Ole Hendrickson

Presentation "Strengthening federal environmental assessments: a case study of nuclear projects at the Chalk River Laboratories" for Ottawa November 8, 2016

501.1 Canada’s environmental assessment (EA) regime should be greatly strengthened by adopting a comprehensive set of EA principles, including

  1. enabling full public participation through the EA process,
  2. conducting more comprehensive EAs that examine interacting components of the environment and multiple activities in a particular site or region,
  3. providing full public access to relevant data and information, and
  4. making long-term sustainability and environmental health an overarching EA priority

501.2 Review the requirements for EA of nuclear projects. The CNSC should not be the exclusive federal authority for EA of nuclear projects

501.1 - s2.1.3, s2.4.1, s2.4.3, s2.5.1, s3.5.1 
501.2 - s3.1.1

Oliver Laser, Judy Bennett, Eric Hartman, Bruce Vincent

Environmental Assessment: Lessons from Practice

102.1 Indigenous considerations: provide greater levels of participant capacity funding for Indigenous groups and conduct more detailed consultation activities directly, instead of delegating to the proponent, and provide the results of the consultation promptly to the proponent.
102.2 Require the scope of the assessment to address the three pillars of sustainability
102.3 Ensure CEAA is not invoked strictly on a ‘law-list trigger’ basis. Maintain the Designated Activities Regulation listing of projects for which federal EA are required. Apply CEAA to address “environmental effects” focused on effects to resources under federal jurisdiction, and/or are not assessed under other jurisdictions’ EA processes.
102.4
Define specific requirements for providing details in EAs regarding ‘design-level’ mitigation decision-making conducted for the project and support a scoping process whereby valued ecosystem components (VECs) could be excluded from the scope of the EA where project doesn't interact with those VECs.
102.5 Develop and implement detailed standards and guidelines to foster consistency with respect to EA and have the final EA report and supporting data publicly available.
102.6 Provide guidance on improved scoping processes and for areas where plans or thresholds are absent.
102.7
Work with government departments to develop national or regional plans and establish associated effects or development thresholds for sensitive environmental indicators.
102.8
Require reporting of public / stakeholder engagement activities and identified concerns.

102.2 - s2.1.3 
102.1 - s 2.3.2, 2.3.3 
102.8 - s2.4.1, s2.4.3 
102.3 - s3.2.1 
102.4 - s3.2.2.1 
102.5 - s2.5.1 
102.6 - In line with the Panel’s proposal but relevant to the implementation phase
102.7 - s3.5.2

olubukola adebambo

Planning in Environmental Assessment: Q2 - For project environmental assessments, do you think the current scope and factors considered are adequate?

292.1 Inclusion of social impact assessment (SIA) to the scope of EA.
292.2 Integration of sustainability assessment (SA).
292.3
Develop a scoping guidance that covers all relevant factors and requirements.
292.4 Redefining the environmental components in section 5 of CEAA 2012.The environmental components such as terrestrial habitat, climate change, certain social, economic and cultural effects and their inter-relation with biophysical effects are not on the list.
292.5 Inclusion of climate change mitigation and adaptation provisions for developments. This would help to account for GHG emissions during project phases and develop actions to reduce the carbon footprint.

292.1 - s2.1.3 
292.2 - s2.1.3 
292.4 - s1.1, s2.1.3 
292.5 - s3.7 
292.3 - s3.2.2.1

Olubukola Adebambo

Planning in Environmental Assessment: Q2 - For project environmental assessments, do you think the current scope and factors considered are adequate?

See analysis of brief #292

 

Oni Milne

Presentation

P33.1 Need to ensure that there is a robust and effective climate test to evaluate all the proposals, ensure that cumulative effects of projects are considered, and that there is a right to a healthy environment in new legislation. Lead us forward to a healthy and sustainable economy for a healthy and sustainable future.
P33.2 Increase the protections in CEAA, the Fisheries Act, and Navigable Waters Protection Act.
P33.3 Disband the current NEB process.

P33.1 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
P33.2 - Forwarded to other reviews
P33.3 - s3.1.1

Onni Milne

Changes Needed to Environmental Assessment

620.1 Delete the proposed definition of environmental assessment in the CEA Act (2012). The “Context” section of the current Terms of Reference is too narrow to adequately describe EA.
620.2 Consider whether the NEB and CNSC are appropriate regulators for EA.
620.3 The Panel must review solutions such as strategic and regional assessment, cumulative effects of projects, effective co-management with First Nations governance.
620.4 Ask for contributions by leading environmental problem solvers.
620.5 Transparency and accountability. Beyond a summary of comments received, it is important to understand how the Panel considered input it received during the course of the review.
620.6 Public review of draft report.
620.7
Govern as if a healthy environment was a human right.

620.1 - s1.2, s2.1.3 
620.4 - Not in line with the Panel’s vision
620.7 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
620.3 - s2.3.1, s3.5.2, s3.6.2 
620.5 - s.2.4.1, s.2.5.4 
620.2 - s3.1.1 
620.6 - s3.2.2.2

Onni Milne

Changes Needed to Environmental Assessment

Make the following considerations a priority:
621.1
Effects of any operation to increase climate change.
621.2 Cumulative effects of development projects as more projects invade specific areas.

621.1 - s.3.7 621.2 - s3.5.1

Onni Milne

Changes Needed to Environmental Assessment

See analysis of submission #620

 

Ontario Mining Association

Ontario Mining Association: CEAA Submission

203.1 Enhancing Federal-Provincial Coordination. The more stringent of the two assessments could be conducted and accepted as fulfilling the requirements of both groups.
203.2
When addressing the scope and application of CEAA 2012, we request that the Expert Panel be sensitive to the provincial government's authority and avoids infringing on provincial jurisdiction.
203.3 The starting and stopping of the clock during the EA should only occur if there is missing information on the proponents' side, not as a means for the government to buy time to meet guaranteed timelines.
203.4 While it may be appropriate for CEAA to study and consider cumulative effects, the decision whether a mining project is to proceed should be based on the significance of the project's contribution to cumulative effects, rather than on the significance of the cumulative effects of other activities.
204.5 Critical to resource development is the recognition that, not only do Indigenous peoples have legally recognized Aboriginal and Treaty rights, but they are also stewards of the land and participate as benefactors of its development. This should be factored in when structuring Indigenous consultation, the focus of which should be reconciliation and relationship building.
204.6
When structuring regulatory requirements pertaining to innovation and new technologies in mines, the focus should be devoted to performance outcomes, and there be recognition that best available technologies can differ based on projects.
204.7
The federal government should adopt a national strategy to provide access to green energy that would power new projects and support regional economic growth, while also meeting Canadians' climate change objectives.

203.4 - s2.1.3, s2.1.4 
203.1 - s2.2 
203.2 - s2.2 
203.5 - s2.3.2 
204.6 - s3.3.1 
204.7 - Outside of the Panel’s mandate
203.3 - s3.4.1

Ontario Power Generation

Presentation "Presentation to the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Toronto, November 9, 2016

483.1 Retain the current 200 MW trigger for hydroelectric developments.
483.2
Retain the current RAs while ensuring they are focused and resourced appropriately to review technical content in EA submissions.
483.3
Reaffirm and communicate that EA is a planning tool, including the types of issues it cannot address.
483.4 Encourage industry to be more proactive outside of the EA process in engagement activities with Indigenous communities.

483.3 - s2.1.2 
483.2 - s3.1.1 
483.1 - s3.2.1

Ontario Power Generation

Presentation “Presentation to the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes” for Ottawa, November 9, 2016

See analysis of submission #483

 

Ontario Riv