Annotated Compendium of Expert Panel’s Responses to Participant Recommendations

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.