IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

Addressing Cumulative Effects

about 1 year ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

What are the gaps in our national environmental frameworks and what geographic areas should first be examined for regional assessments?

jacson about 1 year ago
Removed by moderator.
Jc Chenier almost 2 years ago
test
sandra stephenson almost 2 years ago
all First Nations territories should be reassessed first. Waterways are second. All areas where mining, fracking, oil & gas extraction are performed need reassessment according to 2020 standards.
Charlene B almost 2 years ago
An integrated framework for inter-related federal regulatory processes is needed in order to avoid duplication, provide consistency, and are coordinated. Clarity is needed on what the outcome and benefit of regional assessments are before geographic areas can be discussed. Federally-led regional IA should focus on federal lands so as not to overstep on provincial authorities.
Anne G almost 2 years ago
I am unsure of what the benefit of the regional assessments would be. This should be clarified. The federal government must lead regional IAs on federal land and in marine areas - where they are responsible for resource management. The reviews and reforms to this process should not create unnecessary duplication and should be well coordinated to avoid confusion and added time and costs.
K Ketilson almost 2 years ago
• The Discussion Paper does not provide a pragmatic and integrated framework for inter-related federal regulatory processes. There are numerous reviews and reforms underway that are not connected with existing requirements, are inconsistent, and are duplicative or overlapping in many areas. These reviews and reforms need to be better coordinated – the cumulative burden of this extensive process of reform is overwhelming and costly to Canadians.• Project Impact Assessment must be restricted to designated major projects that significantly affect a matter of federal jurisdiction. In the nuclear industry, designated major projects are new uranium mines or mills, new nuclear fuel processing facilities, new nuclear power plants, and new nuclear waste storage facilities.• An adequate transition period has not been defined for new federal legislation or legislative requirements. Transition should be 2 – 3 years to allow seamless and efficient implementation. • Priority areas for national environmental frameworks should be consistent with those required to support goals and gaps outlined in the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. • The Discussion Paper presents duplicate and equivalent purposes and outcomes for national frameworks and strategic assessments. • The purpose, or intended outcome or benefit of any regional assessment remains unclear.• Federally-led regional IA must be limited to federal lands and marine areas where the federal government is responsible for land and resource management.
Tim Mccullough almost 2 years ago
This is an overall comment regarding proposed changes. I understand the intended changes dilute protection of the environment from previous legislation. One might consider what process would occur in a more evolved society say perhaps Scandanavia. Attempts to dilute protection eventually fail the environment, the public and then the elected Government. The voice of corporate lobbying is louder i Ottawa than the voice of uninformed public who pay the cleanup bill after the profits were taken out. Allowing resources to be destroyed with inadequate environmental scrutiny is jost what I'd want if I was a corporation. Who do you serve and why?
john almstedt almost 2 years ago
Any legislation or regulations needs to incorporate the recommendations of the Expert Panel Report. Any process relating to projects involving the nuclear industry or radioactive materials must be independent of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Having the CNSC with any authority over environmental assessments gives the impression of a conflict of interest, there needs to be an entity the general public can trust to safeguard their health and the environment before the business interests of the nuclear industry.
Priddis almost 2 years ago
All evaluations should be cradle to grave. This should be for all projects, whether O&G, Power dams, and all other infrastructure programs. They also should include the costs of not doing the project and costs (environmental, & social). Fore example if we compare using imported Saudi oil where women have no rights, then they would be penalized 50% (using a population split of 50/50, alternatively Canada would have a 200% bump for using our own resources.) Environmentally we should be comparing the capture of solution gas, salt water, and abandonment. Again, cradle to grave evaluation. If it is other energy resources (water) it should be measured as well. For example, how many acres of boreal forest (carbon sink) are eliminated? How much concrete and vehicular green house gases are produced. What are the social costs for indigenous groups?
Ashley & Wendy Hilliard almost 2 years ago
Eg Kinder Morgan pipeline - no consideration of cumulative effect on eg orcas. Most scientists say is a death sentence for them. Cumulative effects must be mandatory
Andrea Adams almost 2 years ago
The time is now to work to save the environment, put environmental protections in place, pass a law to protect the environmental rights of all. The government must work to protect us from global warming and climate change, and immediately put an end to putting big oil first. The fossil fuel industry is knowingly contributing to global warming and harming humanity (and animals who are vital to our ecosystem) in its pursuit of profit. The time is now to foster a green fuel economy--this is truly our only hope for survival. Fossil fuel has left the world drowning in its own filth. The time is now for the government to put an end to the flagrant abuse of its citizens by the fossil fuel industry. The time is now for all of us to demand laws to protect our dear Canada--all of our dear peoples and animals and waters and air. The time is truly now...
Amy almost 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.
Karen Whiteside almost 2 years ago
Addressing Cumulative Effects - Q. What are the gaps in our national environmental frameworks and what geographic areas should first be examined for regional assessments? Cumulative effects can be both static and fluid. Consequently, any database or other method design that is selected must be build with the capacity to be regularly updated. This should be able to be accomplished, in part, by utilizing and linking various provincial and federal technological data gathering services.Climate Change is one of the byproducts of pollution. and as such, regional contribution of GHG cannot be viewed in isolation nor can it offset by national emission targets. While endeavours like the Pan Canada Agreement offers some hope moving forward, please specifically consider Regional pollution has further reaching negative effects to community demographics and ecological health and must be assessed within this broader context.Other Regional and Provincial static cumulative data to include in a comprehensive database:Indigenous values. Community demographics, Eg. population ages including segments most susceptible to health risks from pollution. Mining, oil and gas. Hydro dams. Forestry and other industry land and water use. Seaport operations and ship transit volumes. Other Regional and Provincial non static or fluid cumulative data to include in a comprehensive database:Wildfire disruption in GHG emission, loss of carbon sinks and impacts to wildlife and regional economies. Wildlife habitat and wildlife verified census. Flooding and other natural disaster disruption to ecological, farming and other socio economic balance. Gross GHG end user or downstream use of existing industrial products, both domestic and export. *One example that could be built on and ultimately fed into a federal national data base may be found in provincial work, in it’s initial stages, in provinces like BC’s burgeoning Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) and CEF Assessments initiative . “An EA must consider the cumulative effects of the reviewable project in combination with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities. The scope of, and procedures and methods for, EAs are determined by EAO and set out in the Application Information Requirements (AIR) for each project. For each VC being assessed, an EA must: 1. establish spatial and temporal boundaries for the assessment of cumulative effects; 2. describe how each VC has been or is being affected by other past and present projects and activities; 3. identify any natural or human-caused trends in the condition of the VC; 4. identify potential incremental future cumulative effects; 5. identify additional measures that could mitigate cumulative effects; 6. evaluate residual cumulative effects; and make a determination of significance of cumulative effects using a clearly defined threshold. “ http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/cumulative-effects/bulletin_1_cef-ea_feb_2017.pdf & more details here - http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/cumulative-effects-framework Respect and thank you for your consideration.
Shannon Purves-Smith almost 2 years ago
For starters, leave out the crappy music on this survey. The government is not widening the consultation on the environment. Many good ideas were submitted at the 2016 town hall meetings. Did anyone even read them? Once again, the Indigenous people are meaningless;y pandered to. If the territory is theirs, they have the say, not the government. I am embarrassed every time I hear the recognition of their territory history. Give them what they need: water and land, first. We all know the government won't make them equal "partners." Their is a wealth of environmental knowledge and research in the world. You need experts to bring that information to Canada, not to blunder along and satisfy the corporations with a third rate plan. There is no real opposition in this discussion paper. It's not specific about anything. The issue is the climate change caused by global warming. That should be your framework. Everything else is wishful thinking unless that is the goal. Good intentions all over the place failing because our dependence on fossil fuels won't be addressed. Fiddling while Rome burns.
Keepers of the Athabasca almost 2 years ago
We have a gap in applying Environment Canada's scientific expertise in monitoring. Some regions have historic handicaps with industry capture (Alberta Environment experienced determined and dedicated shredding as soon as the NDP government was elected, which was shut down as quickly as possible, however many documents were gone, and the employees remain). We like your suggestion for an 'integrated open science and data platform': once data is open, independent scientists and students will be able make suggestions and assist with the increasingly complex and interrelated files that make up cumulative effects.
Melanie almost 2 years ago
Regional assessments should be conducted in areas with multiple industrial operations so cumulative impacts can be addressed. Cumulative environmental monitoring programs are a key component of this. All assumptions of potential impacts of projects should be addressed through some form of physical/actual monitoring.
Douglas Macaulay almost 2 years ago
I believe the largest gaps are at the national, strategic and regional levels. This is where federal government role(s), resources and activities should be focused. Examples: (1) national - the federal government should move from the general aspirational goal of moving toward a lower carbon future, to a detailed road map with calendar based milestones for aggressively lowered GHG emissions to provide a context within which proposed (and possibly, existing) oil sands projects can be considered; (2) strategic - the federal government should identify transportation and energy options that are preferred in terms of their ability to contribute to achievement of Canada's climate change goals, and ensure that national policy incentivizes deployment of those options over others by proponents of projects; (3) regional - regions within which cumulative impacts should be assessed and managed should be based on ecological boundaries, not political; possible candidates for early attention include the boreal forest (in which the Ring of Fire is situated); coastal BC (proposed shipping route for proposed LNG projects)
Andrea Hull almost 2 years ago
Addressing cumulative effects is paramount, upstream and downstream and taking into account the ecological valuation and 'services' that the ecosystem provides, as well as the global harms of approving projects. There should be a moratorium on future pipeline/oil and gas projects effective immediately with stronger corporate regulations on monitoring/clean ups/subsidies to grow green energy sector. The writing is on the wall, the planet and all people are reaping the harmful health effects of our unsustainable growth.We need to protect our vital waterways, wetlands and ecological servicing geographic areas.
Shelley Baigent almost 2 years ago
I don't want the CNSC to be sole or shared decision maker for environmental assessments for nuclear waste projects; as noted by the Expert Panel, the CNSC is a captured regulator and lacks the necessary independence and neutrality because of its close relationship with the industry it regulates.
James Corcoran almost 2 years ago
Cumulative impacts assessments. South Western Ontario , the area below the Niagara Escarpment , also known as the deciduous forest zone.
G. Meston almost 2 years ago
Please note that as my comments are general in nature, I will submit my full discussion under the question: What are the gaps in our national environmental frameworks? In my general comments I also touch on “How do we respectfully and meaningfully incorporate Indigenous knowledge? andHow do we provide greater confidence in the science behind project assessments?I am taking this opportunity today to respond to the Discussion Paper on Environmental and Regulatory Reviews, as a Canadian Citizen who has become cynical about the intentions of government. I hear from government a lot of correct sounding words intended to placate the masses of Canadians deeply concerned about the health of our environment. However, actions taken by government seem, increasingly, to be more in the interest of industry and the next election than for the health and protection of our environment and consequently, the common good of society. As such, I do not believe that the primary goal should be to get “resources to market”. I believe the primary goal should be to protect the environment and move rapidly to sustainable, green energy and the rewarding jobs that would create.If the Liberal Government of Canada truly wants to restore integrity to environmental protection processes, then you will have to act with integrity. Here is what action with integrity (with regard to the quality of our land, air, freshwaters, oceans and atmosphere) looks like to me:1. Immediately, fulfill your 2015 Liberal election promises and restore the full environmental protections of the Navigable Waters Protection Act dismantled by the Stephen Harper government through Bill C-38 and C-45. 2. Invest in regular, widespread, professional, and independent scientific monitoring and research to determine the true state of health of our land and watersheds, our eco-systems, our food sources, our carbon emissions, etc. Include, especially, areas around extraction industries. Make all gathered scientific data available to the public. How can good policy based on science be made if the science is not gathered and made available?3. Overhaul the Environmental Assessment process by forming a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority to conduct environmental assessments as per the recommendations of the expert panel on Environmental Assessments. Remove it completely from the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and any other industry powered influence. Ensure First Nations representation on that board. Ensure that climate change implications are part of any Environmental Assessment.4. Adopt the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB and moving it from Calgary to Ottawa.5. Develop a proper independent inspection and regulatory process to ensure industry complies with strict environmental safety regulations and standards. 6. Make it mandatory for industry to pay for clean up of spills, leaks and other forms of contamination as a result of their operations, both current and those shut down.7. Stop subsidizing fossil fuel industries. Do it now. 8. Stop using the man-made-up “economy” as an excuse to ignore environmental destruction and climate change realities. Emphasis on “profits” repeatedly undermines good policy. What benefit is wealth (increasingly for only a few) if we are poisoning and sacrificing the underpinnings of our very survival? What costs result by ignoring the poisoning? 9. Instead, emphasize the higher goals of health and well-being, as a result of clean and protected natural resources. Elevate the beauty and perfect functioning of healthy eco-systems with humanity as part of the eco-systems of our communities, our country and our world. This may seem like a lot to ask, but serious circumstances require serious measures, especially in the light of accelerating climate change. Civilization is on the brink of a new way of thinking and doing. I encourage you leaders to lead the change that may yet overcome the impending storms. Not only will you restore integrity to the Environmental Assessment process, you will help to restore the perfect integrity of our country’s eco-systems and, indeed, the health of the planet.How, then, will you use your power? How will you be the change you promised? What will be your legacy?Thank you.
K Stockwood almost 2 years ago
The Navigable Waters Protection Act was overwritten in 2012 by the Navigation Protection Act and proposed changes won't restore protections lost in 2012. Left out is consideration of environmental impacts when a proposal might impede navigation. More must be done to save the whales in the St Laurent and truly protect them, and not just sacrificing them to commerce.
Pat. McGarry almost 2 years ago
• Cumulative effects assessment has had a troubled history in practical application. And new approaches to improve CEA and decision-making is important. But there is little credibility to be gained in improvements while the federal government is approving new oil and gas pipelines and extraction. There is no question at this juncture in human development that the planet cannot sustain any further increases in carbon use and emission. The biggest and most obvious current cumulative effect is begin ignored in Canada and tinkering with the assessment process will not substitute for conscionable decision-making by federal regulators. Carbon tax or cap and trade systems do not go nearly far enough in limiting carbon emission to levels that will not further contribute to atmospheric carbon levels and global warming.
The Inverhuron Committee almost 2 years ago
The Inverhuron Committee agrees with the findings of the Expert Panel. We presented our concerns in Toronto on November 9th. Our specific concern was around the deep geologic repository for nuclear waste which is proposed by Ontario Power Generation. The plan is to site this project at the Bruce Nuclear location next to Lake Huron. We have been fully engaged in the process guided by the Environmental Assessment Agency. Our initial submission to the Joint Review Panel included a recommendation that the Government of Canada should address nuclear waste in a "big picture" fashion. Since the waste is being treated by two different agencies and is divided into two projects, based on the level of radioactivity of the waste, this issue needed initial government policy guidance (a Canadian framework), as well as co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments (both of which are involved separately in nuclear waste disposal). In addition, the two repository projects need a co-ordinated cumulative effects approach as there is a proposed overlap in geographic areas for the individually studied sites. This is too big an issue to be handled by a Joint Review Panel and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission alone. These two latter bodies are both too vested in the project.
Karen Wonders almost 2 years ago
I am a supporter of Elizabeth May/ Green Party of Canada. She is an expert on our national environmental policies and I agree with her 100%. In 2012 she spent 24 straight hours in the House of Commons, after having tabled 400 amendments to bill C-38. Not a single amendment by Ms. May was accepted by the Harper government. Three years later and the Liberals have backed down in this discussion paper which shows little leadership in the critical issue of environmental protection across Canada.
Pacific Institute for Ecologicl Economics almost 2 years ago
The Navigable Waters Protection Act prior to 2012 was the very best legislation at the time. It must be reinstated, at a minimum. Cumulative effects of development on waterways must be a critical factor in assessing new proposed projects.
ted higginbotham almost 2 years ago
The The Navigable Waters Protection Act should be restored to its pre 2012 conditions. Our water deserves to be better protected it is a critical resource.
Sipekne'katik almost 2 years ago
1. The geographic areas that should be examined first would be areas where one project is in operation and a second project is proposed within the same region/area. As an example, the Bay of Fundy Area should undergo a regional assessment to ensure that future tidal energy projects within the same area consider cumulative impacts of all previous approved projects in that one area. 2. For projects that have already received approval, there should be a way to ensure that cumulative impacts are also considered from those projects. This could be addressed by amendments to current approval terms and conditions.
Marilyn Otton almost 2 years ago
I believe the government should follow the recommendations of the NEB's expert panel in this matter.
Karen Breeck MD almost 2 years ago
I very much agree with and support the vision behind the discussion paper in general. There appears however to be a disconnect specific to nuclear waste and its future disposal. This topic area is one that is too important to not do right the first time around. Chalk River appears to be the most complex and challenging of the upcoming disposal requirements. Canada needs to slow down and do this one right as it will be the precedent setter for other projects around Canada. The Canadian public has no reason or history yet to trust CNSC as the sole or shared decision maker for environmental assessments for nuclear waste projects; as noted by the Expert Panel, the CNSC lacks the necessary independence and neutrality because of its close relationship with the industry it regulates. This is compounded by Canadas lack of standards, policy, definitions in the area of nuclear wastes. Nuclear waste disposal is a gap area that needs to be addressed as a priority, starting with the Chalk River waste.
Martha Jo (MJ) Willard almost 2 years ago
1. Protect the environment2. Using consistent data parameters3. Development national environmental framework—protection of biodiversity (as this protects us); forest management to maintain safe CO2 update & O2 production by determining how much reliance will be on forests as a very minimum (also establish the ideal)4. Evaluate and establish toxin levels in downstream water tables (including estrogenic compounds, other organics)5. Set minimal and ideal levels for assessment of injury to future generations (toxins in water tables downstream, growth in children)6. For major energy transmission, nuclear, and offshore oil and gas projects, the agency and life- cycle regulators must jointly conduct environmental and cumulative impact assessments as part of a single, integrated review process7. Stop fossil fuel subsidies; move subsidies to renewable energy projects8. Key is to restore and rebuild lost ocean, forest, fresh water, prairie habitats9. Clarify the criteria used for the aqueous highway test10. Set up guidelines for plastics and toxins in waterways from the projects as well as other organic pollutants11. Prohibit the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of natural fish habitat and stocks without exception
Jane almost 2 years ago
• I am concerned that the recommendation that the NEB remain in Calgary will mean a continued bias in favor of the oil and gas sector. Even if it is just optics, it sends the wrong message. Canada is a large country. The NEB needs to represent all of Canada and all types of energy. • The NEB Board could move around the country, which would allow provincial and territorial jurisdictions the opportunity to host the board, and highlight the energy challenges and opportunities across all of Canada. • The expert panel crisscrossed the country in order to understand the diverse needs, arguments, and opinions about energy from Canadians. An NEB board that moves around the country would give all Canadians the opportunity to have meaningful public participation, be able to engage in a two way face to face dialogue with board members, and greater transparency overall. The NEB board would be able to see how environmental assessment and regulatory decisions are working.• The NEB could mandate that the Board and Hearing Commissioners be representatives from each province/territory, and Indigenous and Inuit communities. It should include those who have expert knowledge of climate science.
Jane almost 2 years ago
• Please add to “we need to understand the state of climate (not just the environment) regionally and nationally” to include the needs of the planet in the “big-picture.”• A significant problem is Canada’s failure to have environmental rights written into the constitution. • Under the section “Purpose” Protect the Environment should come before regain public trust. If we fail, as a collective, to protect the environment then how much trust can be regained for any government at any level that doesn’t make that protection the top priority?• The report/discussion paper uses the phrase “Goal – to protect the environment”– This is a very general statement and the word environment is over used and can mean many things. If this protection only means no spills or leaks from pipelines then it neglects the processes and products at either end of the pipelines. Additionally, we must not ignore health sector costs, plus costs associated with the health of all living things.• The most significant gaps in national environmental frameworks are highlighted in the pictures you’ve included in your report. The pictures include scenery, cultural symbols, people at work, graphs but lack images of pipelines, solar panels, wind generators, pollution, traffic, and masses of population (including tourism population).• Another important gap is the time it is taking to take action on climate change.
Ahava almost 2 years ago
One of the major gaps is the lack of honest and thorough consultation with all parties including Indigenous groups. All geographic areas need to be examined.
Sarah Colwell almost 2 years ago
We need to protect our waterways as they were protected previously.Thatis,mostofourwatersshouldbe protectedaprioriand any alteration to this mustbe by application to astrongenvironmentalagency.Note thatthe spacing of my comment has been disrupted byaproblemwithyoursite!
Anhthu almost 2 years ago
Take into account cumulative effects, with environmental as the most important pillar among the five listed in the Expert Panel's recommendation, given that this is an environmental assessment most and foremost. All geographic areas are important, starting with the ones considered as high risks based on an IA.
G. Meston almost 2 years ago
Please note that as my comments are general in nature, I will submit my full discussion under the question: "What are the gaps in our national environmental frameworks?" In my general comments I also touch on “How do we respectfully and meaningfully incorporate Indigenous knowledge?" and"How do we provide greater confidence in the science behind project assessments?"I am taking this opportunity today to respond to the Discussion Paper on Environmental and Regulatory Reviews, as a Canadian Citizen who has become cynical about the intentions of government. I hear from government a lot of correct sounding words intended to placate the masses of Canadians deeply concerned about the health of our environment. However, actions taken by government seem, increasingly, to be more in the interest of industry and the next election than for the health and protection of our environment and consequently, the common good of society. As such, I do not think that the primary goal is to get “resources to market”. I think the primary goal is to protect the environment.If the Liberal Government of Canada truly wants to restore integrity to environmental protection processes, then you will have to act with integrity. Here is what action with integrity (with regard to the quality of our land, air, freshwaters, oceans and atmosphere) looks like to me:1. Immediately, fulfill your 2015 Liberal election promises and restore the full environmental protections of the Navigable Waters Protection Act dismantled by the Stephen Harper government through Bill C-38 and C-45. 2. Invest in regular, widespread, professional, and independent scientific monitoring and research to determine the true state of health of our land and watersheds, our eco-systems, our food sources, our carbon emissions, etc. Include, especially, areas around extraction industries. Make all gathered scientific data available to the public. How can good policy based on science be made if the science is not gathered and made available?3. Overhaul the Environmental Assessment process by forming a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority to conduct environmental assessments as per the recommendations of the expert panel on Environmental Assessments. Remove it completely from the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and any other industry powered influence. Ensure First Nations representation on that board. Ensure that climate change implications are part of any Environmental Assessment.4. Adopt the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB and moving it from Calgary to Ottawa.5. Develop a proper independent inspection and regulatory process to ensure industry complies with strict environmental safety regulations and standards. 6. Make it mandatory for industry to pay for clean up of spills, leaks and other forms of contamination as a result of their operations, both current and those shut down.7. Stop subsidizing fossil fuel industries. Do it now. 8. Stop using the man-made-up “economy” as an excuse to ignore environmental destruction and climate change realities. Emphasis on “profits” repeatedly undermines good policy. What benefit is wealth (increasingly for only a few) if we are poisoning and sacrificing the underpinnings of our very survival?What cost occurs by ignoring the poisoning? 9. Instead, emphasize the higher goals of health and well-being, as a result of clean and protected natural resources. Elevate the beauty and perfect functioning of healthy eco-systems with humanity as part of the eco-systems of our communities, our country and our world. This may seem like a lot to ask, but serious circumstances require serious measures, especially in the light of accelerating climate change. Civilization is on the brink of a new way of thinking and doing. I encourage you leaders to lead the change that may yet overcome the impending storms. Not only will you restore integrity to the Environment Assessment process, you will help to restore the perfect integrity of our country’s eco-systems.I leave you with these questions: How, then, will you use your power? How will you be the change you promised? What will be your legacy?Thank you.Gail MestonVictoria BC
Judith almost 2 years ago
The gaps are many thanks to the Harper Government, and with regards to nuclear projects, they leave Canadians with a regulator that never says no to an applicant to build a nuclear facility. In the Ottawa Valley, we are facing serious long term consequences by a privatized Canadian Nuclear Laboratories that seeks to create a large dump right on the Ottawa River. The Environmental Impact Statement produced by the proponent does not define the Ottawa River as a sensitive ecosystem that is shared by Canadians and indigenous peoples, it also fails to adequately account for the existing contamination of the soils , which will be increased by many folds when the Near Surface Disposal facility is constructed. Many feel the CNSC cannot protect the environment and so it should have its powers curtailed under a revised Environmental Assessment Act. We hope the new Act lives up to the Trudea governments expressed values about the environment.
Terry Woods almost 2 years ago
The major gap appears to be the current governments willingness to keep the promises they made during the last election. Electoral Reform being just one of the major ones. Now in the interest of sliding this review process past the public while they and the media are on summer vacation is yet another reason why there is no trust that there will be a meaningful result that provides protection to our environment.
Barry Wilson almost 2 years ago
I have written extensively on this as a Cumulative Effects Scientist. As per my several offers previously to GoC, I offer my experience to the committee. Contact Me. barry@ceanalytic.com You can also download this FREE report I prepared for anyone who is interested in Cumulative Effects management: The Top 10 Critical Success Factors For Cumulative Effects Assessment http://www.barryjwilson.com/p/top10CEAFactors. It is no longer enough to look at one individual land use in isolation. We need to examine the cumulative effects of all the different land uses together. Here are the 10 Factors:1. Benefits And Liabilities The project review/approval processes for new projects defines Cumulative Effects narrowly as a negative thing to be mitigated or avoided. While it seems expedient - this negative regulatory perspective is in fact crushing your project’s chances to be approved and developed. Plan for what you want – not what you don’t. Use this opportunity to put in place the system components that will lead to the future outcomes you want. More here: https://www.barryjwilson.com/blog/this-secret-can-get-your-project-plan-approved 2. Good Indicators (a.k.a. Valued Components) Defining an appropriate set of indicators is crucial because it influences the study area boundary, how the landscape is stratified, and what data and information will be needed. What makes a good indicator? Here’s 5 criteria adapted from the USDA I use: 1) cultural, economic or ecological relevance, 2) response variability, 3) management relevance, 4) feasibility of implementation, 5) interpretation and utility Learn more: https://www.barryjwilson.com/blog/selecting-performance-indicators 3. Appropriate Baseline Pre-industrial condition ranges for indicators due to changes in landscape composition resulting solely from natural disturbance and indigenous occupation are appropriate. I call this the Range of Natural Variation and use a scientific method to estimate conditions before the effects of modern human footprints on landscapes. Don’t be a victim of “shifting baseline syndrome”. Learn more: https://www.barryjwilson.com/blog/project-conflicts-driven-by-answering-the-wrong-question 4. Meaningful Time History and potential futures must both be assessed. We know that history is littered with lessons unlearned. Do not perpetuate this mistake. Understanding historic development rates and patterns uncovers the driving forces for system dynamics. We also know that ecosystems do not operate on the timescale of an operating project – traditional knowledge tells us we should be thinking in terms of 7 generations. Read more: https://www.barryjwilson.com/blog/a-3-point-plan-to-fix-environmental-assessments-in-canada 5. Meaningful Space Examining only the potential effects of a proposed development within the project fence line prevents us from seeing the forest for the trees. We must evaluate the cumulative effects of proposed development at the scale appropriate for the indicator in question. In some cases that means the local study area, in others it means in the context of watersheds and basins. Watch this presentation: https://youtu.be/7Y5SvqZbNT4 6. All Human Land Uses It is now widely acknowledged that individual project assessments are simply inadequate without being considered within the context of the big picture. And in many instances today, the uprising of conflict and disagreement over proposed land development originates in the fear that with the next project, we may be throwing on the straw that will break the camel’s back. It is not enough to look at one individual land use in isolation. We need to examine the cumulative effects of all the different land uses together. More here: https://www.barryjwilson.com/blog/splendour-without-diminishment 7.Natural Disturbance Perhaps even more influential than human land use, natural disturbance is a major change agent. Forces of nature have been a constant through history and will continue to be a primary driver of cumulative effects into the future. Wildfire, floods, avalanches, earthquakes, insect and disease epidemics are sharp reminders that you must account for Mother Nature in your assessment. Learn more: https://www.barryjwilson.com/blog/can-we-re-learn-to-live-with-wildfire 8. Climate Change Debate continues about the causes of climate change but one thing is sure – it’s happening – and therefore your assessment must include it. I have assessed various climate change scenarios in a holistic cumulative effects context using the international standard: reports are available upon request. the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Learn more: http://sedac.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/RCPs.html 9. Collaborate Consider the people of the area you want to work in as shareholders of your venture. When we have a stake in the success of an effort then we have a natural inclination to help make it work. None of us wants to do something so we can lose. Do this well and your support network will be strong. Fail to do this, if the people have no stake in it, they will become an impediment. Connect with collaboration specialist and author of Break Through To Yes David B Savage on Episode 3 of the Virtual Time Machine Podcast: https://www.barryjwilson.com/pages/podcasts 10. No Silver Bullet You’ll have to decide what model(s) to use for forecasting. There are a lot of models out there. I have used a bunch of them and I’ve even created a few. The interactions of the environment, the economy, society and culture are a complex set of systems interacting at many levels. I’ve learned that there is no “Silver Bullet”. The model you need is directly dependent upon the question(s) you are asking. Remember that while models are extremely helpful, models don’t make decisions – people do. Visit http://www.cumulativeeffects.online and join me for a tour of my favourite cumulative effects simulator, ALCES. “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe” – John Muir
Marty Layne almost 2 years ago
Please follow the recommendations to preserve our environment and bring our policies into line with the science.
Neville Gosling almost 2 years ago
Of course the cumulative effects should be taken into account. For example, the NEB would not look at the cumulative effects of increased greenhouse gas produced by ramping up production of diluted bitumen and shipping it via pipeline.
Elsie Manley-Casimir almost 2 years ago
All geographic areas in Canada are important; especially those areas that produce our food, the watersheds that we depend on for our drinking water. All areas of earth are important. We are charged with looking after our earth for our grandchildren's children and their children. Anything that threatens life cannot be allowed to go ahead for short-sighted profits. As stewards of earth, we must pledge to walk softly on this earth of ours.
Anne Learn Sharpe almost 2 years ago
In order to have a complete survey of cumulative effects of any project, we need reliable data on the environmental condition of any area under consideration, including water quality and quantity; air quality; any species endangered, threatened or in decline; percentage of green space, including forests, grasslands, meadows, wetlands, and an assessment of the services they provide to the community. Any other projects underway or already in place in a particular area also need to have impact assessments completed. Any projects under review must have extensive monitoring in place to assess any effects as they arise and the results must be made available for the public with enforcement in place for remediation. Projects must also have an exit strategy that includes full funding and complete responsibility of the proponent for returning the area to it's original state. One of the most crucial effects to be considered is increased green house grass emissions that would accelerate climate change, or destruction of natural features such as forests, wetlands and grasslands that have the ability to mitigate climate change.Sensitive and undisturbed areas such as old growth forests, wetlands, water recharge sites and source water sites, and habitats for declining species must be a priority.
Diana almost 2 years ago
restore NWPAturn NEA into quasi-judicial boardoverhaul NEB as per panel recommendations - why do you have panels if you don't listen to them (as per election reform)
Jim Culp almost 2 years ago
Generally agree with the national environmental frameworks. The geographic areas that should be first examined for regional assessments because of large ongoing industrial development and resource extraction are the Skeena and Nass River Watersheds because of previous large scale industrial logging and recent plans for numerous pipeline plans.Next the Kitimat River Valley has also experienced large scale industrial logging and large industry such as the Rio Tinto Alcan Aluminum Smelter resulting in current air quality issues and controversial land use decisions. Air quality is currently an issue in the Kitimat-Terrace air shed. Many large industrial projects are being proposed such as LNG projects and oil refineries.Prince Rupert is home to a large seaport, fish canneries, coal and other commodity shipping facilities and more than one LNG facility is be proposed and some newer industries such as a liquefied propane terminal has been built plus other smaller industrial operations.Prince George is home to numerous large industrial operations such as an oil refinery, a pulp mill and saw mills. Air quality is currently an issue. Any knew large development would compromise or enhance the bad air quality. In addition because this is a medium size city land use is impacted inside and outside the city.All the river valleys between Prince Rupert and the Peace River country where pipelines are being planned or could be built have for the most part have large industrial logging in them, highways and communities and various smaller industry and commercial development are also part of the picture and together have a huge cumulative impact upon the valuable tourism, recreational fishery and wildlife values etc.Lastly the whole Peace River country and its gas and oil development which is constantly growing and impacting upon agriculture land and quality of life and air and water quality.
Al Lehmann almost 2 years ago
As human populations expand, diverse impacts accumulate. Such accumulations need to be accounted for when attempting to evaluate potential damage to the environmental area in which they are proposed.
Jan McQuay almost 2 years ago
First, I wish to protest the timing of this discussion paper. It seems obvious that public input is not welcome, since the government put this out during the summer, when most people are trying to take time off and relax. So you should extend the comment period for at least another month. There is no harm in that, and a lot of good. Your discussion paper talks about transparency and public input, but you have started the game by sneaking it in during the summer break. On the substance of the cumulative effects issue, the gap is that review agencies, the NEB and Nuclear Safety Board in particular, are more interested in promoting fossil fuels and nuclear than they are in protecting the environment. So we need an environmental review board made up of environmental academics, not mainly industry representatives, with teeth. The NEB just rubber stamps any project the fossil companies put forward. It needs a complete overhaul. As for the Nuclear Safety Board, why don't they start seriously addressing the issue of decommissioning? If they were really interested in the environment (safety for future generations), they would ensure that starts right away, instead of allowing Pickering to undergo yet another overhaul. Another big gap in addressing "cumulative effects": what every happened to governments ensuring corporate responsibility? Why are companies like Polley Mines allowed to walk away from the environmental devastation they created? why aren't companies required to keep adequate environmental cleanup reserve funds? Why do they make millions while the taxpayer pays for cleanup, if there is any cleanup?As for species at risk, as far as I know Ontario does a decent job of identifying species at risk, and that could be a model for other areas. But addressing the effects of climate change, international travel bringing new viruses and fungi, the disappearance of vast tracts of forest, water pollution, pesticides and crashing bee populations, all these have not been addressed. So when you say "cumulative effects" of individual projects, I don't think you are anywhere close to covering the issues of environmental degradation.
Garry Fletcher almost 2 years ago
It would appear that this set of questions is fulfilling the government goal of checking the box of having consulted with the public. That is however, very inadequate. I only found out about this website by a friend e-mailing a link.. Where are the newspaper/media adds emphasizing that you really wanted informed public input. I expected to find here thousands of contributions... On the other hand with my resent experience as an intervenor in the NEB debacle on the Kinder Morgan/trans mountain pipeline, the federal government was given thousand of pages of good advice, informed by science, and the top economic consultants but they rarely bothered to even require KM/TMX or their own departments of Transport and Fisheries to respond to questions posed by the intervenors . In the end acceptance of most advice by the many intervenors was ignored. The proponent of the pipeline was not even taken to task to be responsible for the effects on the marine environment, even without a catastrophic oil spill disaster. The cumulative effects of increased tar-sands diluted bitumen transport on the coastal waters of BC was never dealt with, even though many scientific contributions were made about the cumulative problems that will follow such a project. As for an example, the "science" of measuring the effects of underwater sound on whale populations won't even be available until long after the project has started. Most of the costs related which may follow when accidents happen in the marine environment will be paid for by the loss of jobs on our coast, and the taxpayers of BC and Canada and the loss of cultural identity for First Nations people dependent on the marine environment. Our oceans are a most valuable source of Natural Capital. The environmental impacts of humans and their profit-based activities have been ignored and continue to be ignored. So if you want to consider cumulative environmental effects, start with a moratorium on all planned projects in the marine environments of all three coastlines of Canada. Perhaps most revealing is one of your guiding principles : ---"The views of the public and affected communities will be sought and considered." If considering but failing to act upon it is all that can be guaranteed then why do we even bother?
Bill Darnell almost 2 years ago
I am appalled (but perhaps not surprised) that you would ignore your promises, the wishes of those who voted for the current Liberal government and the recommendations of your expert panels to restore protection to the fresh water lakes and rivers, to restore the power of the NEB to include the complete scope of climate change and a strong and independent Environmental Assessment process. The capitalist model of exploiting the environment that is the foundation of any economy for corporate profit has failed. Be the change not the apologist.
Connie Duchene almost 2 years ago
The gaps are in the process itself. The NEB requires a complete overhaul (as recommended by the expert panel). It should not be based in Calgary; it should not remain under its current composition. They certainly should not be given authority to decide on projects; neither should the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They do not have public trust; they do not have my trust. Another gap is the government not restoring the Navigable Waters Protection Act, leaving our waterways open and unprotected to significant adverse environmental effects.
Onni Milne almost 2 years ago
The obvious gap in our current national environmental framework is that there is no consideration of the cumulative effects for approved projects. Each project is considered as a one-off, disregarding the synergy of multiple projects in an area. As a BC resident, I suggest that the oceans on each side of Canada be given priority. Oceans are our oxygen life line so their damage means our lack of survival. How many times does this need to be repeated before anyone in Ottawa understands what this means.
Margaret Van de Pitte almost 2 years ago
Alberta's boreal forest is ill served by the existing environmental assessment process and is not even well covered by conservation organizations.
Kim deLagran almost 2 years ago
Aboriginal treaties and lands should be assessed as lands within Canada that cannot be altered, built upon etc.without their majority consent as a nation within Canada.
DT almost 2 years ago
There are many gaps in the proposed national environmental framework, but I'll mention only one here and that is the fact that there is NO MENTION of taking into account the HEALTH IMPACTS.
Michael Wheatley almost 2 years ago
I understand the Liberal government intends to betray Canadians by ignoring the recommendations of expert panels and leaving Conservative damage in place. This is the same sort of betrayal we saw with electoral reform. I support the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. I support the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board. I oppose the government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). I voted for change. I don't want Harper Light with a niece smile.
Wendy W. almost 2 years ago
As a lay person, it feels like you are asking the wrong questions. Why not ask specific questions, like "do you support the panel's recommendations to overhaul the NEB and move it to Ottawa?" Yes/No answers with reasons would allow more of the public to give their opinions. I am not unintelligent but asking ordinary Canadians to evaluate a report for essay style questions, discourages many from participating in this process. I look to smart, informed individuals like Elizabeth May (and other very well spoken individuals in this string of comments) to express my concerns as I know she can say it 100 times better than I can. Suffice to say that I am in support of the various recommendations from the experts. Ignoring them is illogical. A good leader is not expected to be knowledgeable on all things. A good leader surrounds him/herself with a competent, experienced and knowledgable team and uses that expertise to make sound decisions. I implore this government to do just that. I and many British Columbians are very upset at the way oil and gas projects have been approved. We want environmental protection laws to be tougher and enforced.
linda almost 2 years ago
The review of several pieces of environmental legislation at once offers the opportunity to align decision-making around core outcomes, including carbon reductions in Canada’s climate plan. The discussion paper fails to make these vital connections, leaving cross-referencing requirements out of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as well as the decisions of the National Energy Board.The Navigable Waters Protection Act — overwritten in 2012 by the Navigation Protection Act — was an incredible piece of environmental legislation with a focus on protection in tandem with navigation. The proposed changes do not suggest that the protections lost in 2012 will be restored. Left out is consideration of environmental impacts when a proposal might impede navigation.
Antonia Mills almost 2 years ago
The previous recommendations for reforming the EPA process need to be enacted. Cumulative Effects are huge and must be addressed.
Antonia Mills almost 2 years ago
All geographic areas deserve regional assessments by a panel that is independent of industry and attentive to Indigenous concerns about the impact on the environment and fish habitat.
John D. Jacobs, PhD almost 2 years ago
1. Canada needs an updated and comprehensive assessment of the state of our natural environment (agricultural lands and soils, forests, wetlands, wilderness and wildlife, oceans and freshwaters) to provide the background against which proposed 21st Century development may be evaluated. 2. No project should be permitted to proceed if it is shown that it is likely to cause harm to the health and stability of the natural environment or to persons and communities. Ministerial exemptions should be applied only under the most stringent and open conditions. Controversial decisions, including ministerial exemptions, should be accessible to court challenge, with a pathway outlined for such challenges.3. Environmental, social and economic sustainability should be a central considerations in all assessments. 4. The environmental assessment process must recognize that development is proceeding in a changing climate, and therefore consider all possible climate impacts as well as opportunities for the amelioration of such impacts. 5. One of the most obvious gaps in the current EA regime is with our freshwaters. We need restoration of protection for all Canadian inland waters under revised legislation. This should not be limited to the matters of navigation. Freshwaters and freshwater ecosystems need a higher level of protection under a revised Fisheries Act, and exemptions to the prohibition of pollution under the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations should end.
M. Bowes almost 2 years ago
I totally agree with all the comments made by Elizabeth May. Please do not go back on your promise to do all you can do to protect the environment for all Canadians, now and for future generations. While economy is important, it is imperative to put ecology before economy because if we do not, we will not HAVE a planet on which to have an economy.
Charlene Minifie almost 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.
Charlene Minifie almost 2 years ago
I concur with Elizabeth May's response. She speaks my mind.
Judith Sharp almost 2 years ago
I would consider all of the mineral exploration in various parts of Canada, the needs of fishermen and farmers that differ immensely from those folks working in cities. Wherever there are Indigenous people living, their environmental needs have to be fully understood and examined.
Barry Wilson almost 2 years ago
When I talk with people in big business, they often tell me the biggest threat to future investment and creating more jobs is the ‘risk and uncertainty of land use approvals’. As a practitioner you know that the project review/approval processes for major new mines, energy or manufacturing defines Cumulative Effects narrowly as a negative thing to be mitigated or avoided. While it seems expedient - this negative regulatory perspective is in fact crushing your project’s chances to be approved and developed. Here’s how to tip the scale back in favour of jobs and development. https://www.barryjwilson.com/blog/this-secret-can-get-your-project-plan-approved
Derek Menard almost 2 years ago
You have to reprotected our waters. This is insanity that they are all open to industry.99%. I'd like to follow the spirit of a comment below and say that Elizabeth May has already said everything I would come here to say. Please see her comments.
Marion Cumming almost 2 years ago
The federal government ought to live up to its pledges in conection with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the restoration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. One egregious example is the recent federal approval of the Sisson Brook Mine in the Sacred Headwaters of the Nashwaak River in New Brunswick (where i used to live). Reserves are being manipulated into supporting the project by the provincial government in order not to lose crucial funding, for example for much needed housing. So much for "free, prior, informed consent". Female elders are camping in their ancient hunting grounds in the headwaters, courageously standing up for the beloved land and water. They know that the Sisson Mine would lead to the Bird Brook Watershed, Lake Brook, etc. losing the relevance of their names and that the Nashwaak River- that I once drank from untreated - would become irreparabley polluted. Perceived short term economic benefits ought not to replace long term benefits where First nations land rights and values are concerned and pipelines, energy and mining ventures are issues. Please honour your pledges.
E. Roumagoux almost 2 years ago
I concur with Elizabeth May's response. She speaks my mind.
LINDA DIXON almost 2 years ago
The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
Gary wilklinson almost 2 years ago
First it was a change in our voting that was dropped,now it is the restoration of the protection of our lakes is not going to happen if this continues I will have a hard time voting for the Liberal Party and I have for years.
Deborah Webb almost 2 years ago
Please fully restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act provisions (overwritten in 2012 by the Navigation Protection Act)so that the protections lost in 2012 will be restored, and additionally. include full consideration of environmental impacts when a proposal might impede navigation. In addition, please add the cross-referencing requirements between the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as well as the decisions of the National Energy Board in order to align decision-making around core outcomes, including carbon reductions in Canada’s climate plan.Canada should restore all that was lost during the Harper government years and add provisions already enshrined in many northern European, British and New Zealand legislation to bring our legislation up to the latest capabilities possible in protecting the natural environment.Regarding regional assessments, I would prefer that all waterways be the first priority, land based or oceans.
Helen Dayay almost 2 years ago
In regard to the recently release discussion paper.I have two comments1. The review of several pieces of environmental legislation at once offers the opportunity to align decision making around core outcomes. The discussion paper fails to make these vital connections2the proposed changes do not suggest The Navigable Waters Protection Act will be restored. WHY not?
Breanna almost 2 years ago
We need to increase the amount of protection we have on our water ways and increase protection for other bio-diverse areas. As a citizen of this country I feel that I should have more say in the environment than that of industry and business who's only invested interest is monetary.
Rose almost 2 years ago
Wierd framing! The NeoLiberal governance is killing the everyday Canadians ability to enjoy living due to soaring costs of living and neglect of all that is precious about our Canada. I'm not OK with our country of land, coastlines, rivers and lakes is now a business only deal. There is no I terrify where ethics are abandoned, especially when this wolf/Trudeau wore sheep's clothing and sold his image, for his soul. Corporatization is THE KEY ISSUE. NAFTA, FREE TRADE ALL to eliminate people power for independence and enjoyment of what was freely given twice. Once by God or the Creator and by millions of Indigenous who only looked to Share the vast territory. DFO is the gap that has willfully abandoned all responsibility for protecting BC westcoast WILD SALMON, in favourite of empowering a unacceptable number of putrid, toxic Norwegian open pen fish farms of Atlantic salmon. They are like fleas, in every noc and cranny of what was formerly, astoundingly rich thriving biodiversity areas. Now all the sealife in the area are suffering from crabs to clam beds are dead. The Oolichans and Herring, wild and netted. Frankinfish are now visible, only now that one fish farms net blew out thousands. Antibiotic riddled, low class excuse for salmon now further threatening our gift of life from the Creator. Many animals also rely on healthy salmon, as do the Cedar trees. The DFO and fish farms need immediately removed and charged with a thorough clean up. We need westcoast Indigenous over sight for that much touted Wild class West Coast Protection System. No more bull. Cancel everything that Harper did and toot suit! Trudeau promised his electors yet persists in doing everything against his word.
Ainslie Thomson almost 2 years ago
This is a perfect opportunity to ensure that decision making is aligned with outcomes in Canada's climate planning, including carbon reductions. The discussion paper fails to make these alignments by leaving out cross-referencing between the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the decisions of the National Energy Board. In addition, The Navigable Waters Protection Act — overwritten in 2012 by the Harper government's Navigation Protection Act — was environmental legislation with a focus on protection in tandem with navigation. The proposed changes do not suggest that the protections lost in 2012 will be restored. Left out is consideration of environmental impacts when a proposal might impede navigation. This legislation needs to be stronger and needs to include the restoration of lost protections. It needs to connect legislation-driven decisions to climate-change targets and sustainability goals. These acts should be the most powerful tools to determine the health of ecological systems throughout Canada in the face of potentially destructive pressures from human activities.
Elisabeth Hart almost 2 years ago
The previous government caused devastating damage to the protections we had in place to safeguard our environment, along with the rights of Indigenous communities who are often the first line of defence against environmentally-destructive projects. Their government’s omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45 were responsible for gutting many of these protections. Now, it appears the current government is set to break their promise to reverse this mess. I would like to see the Liberal government keep it's promises and reverse completely these two environmental bill C-38 and C-45. And stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of millions of dollars per year. It's time to put that money I to renewable energy and retrofit programs to mitigate global warming.
Gary Janisse almost 2 years ago
We need to take back control and allow more openness to the populations quite hiding results of research and expand it we need to know what shape we are in we need to protect more coast lines and fresh water venues and we need to protect the prairies and Hudson Bay territories
Gary Janisse almost 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.
S.Hauth almost 2 years ago
It's my understanding that the NEB members were selected with Harper's approval and most are right leaning oil industry advocates. I would like to see a more balanced NEB with members who can provide strong evidenced arguments for both the environment and industry.
S.Hauth almost 2 years ago
The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. I am very concerned about this!
Julia Stretch almost 2 years ago
The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
Marlyn Horsdal almost 2 years ago
A huge gap in our framework is the useless Navigable Waters Protection Act, gutted by the Harper government. DO NOT leave this bad legislation in place. The NWPA must be restored to its original powers.
Nicole Corrado almost 2 years ago
The Navigable Waters Protection Act was unfortunately removed in 2012. As a result, several whales have died from boat strikes recently in the St Lawrence River recently. Boat noise, sonar, and construction noise are also problems. Please reinstate the act, and strengthen it. Please consider whales and other animals when creating regulations.
Betsy Johnston almost 2 years ago
FIrstly, the NEB needs overhauling as promised in our PM's election campaign to protect first nation's lands and our national and provincial environment. Our Navigable Waters Protection Act needs to be restored to its previous stature. All Canadian lakes, rivers and streams need protection!!
PATRICIA ARNEY almost 2 years ago
Environmental frameworks must be National and wherever possible international, cross borders and eliminate barriers as neither water, wildlife nor fauna recognize our boundaries. Environmental protection requires a big picture approach to ensure what is good for one region, element does not negatively impact another. More importantly that the economy is not negatively impacting our environment
sylvie almost 2 years ago
It is important that our Federal governments put in and enforce water ways laws to ensure that our marine animals and fishes are protected. As seen recently whales died in the St Lawrence River. Please works with our protection charities such as WWF, Greenpeace to improve the protection of our marine eco system for generation to come.
Judy Senka almost 2 years ago
The government has got to put ecology before economy. It has to face reality that Climate Change is real. You cannot have infinite resource extraction in a finite earth!
Nancy Crozier almost 2 years ago
The North, and remote communities -just because few people inhabit some territories doesn't mean they have no impact on the rest ofCanada.Global warming has,if anything,made these lands more impactful than ever. The loss of natural habitat for migratory animals has far-reaching effect on species at risk.Canada has aprivilege and obligation to the world to protect our flora and fauna,especially the boreal forests and Arctic.Acknowledging that one region's development affects others is no small detail in managing large territories.We are all connected when it comes to global warming and its impacts.
Nancy Crozier almost 2 years ago
The gaps in our national environmental frameworks were handcrafted by the Conservatives. Trudeau needs to do what he promised pre-election. Respect and act on Indigenous People's wisdom. Hire back scientists and re-staff the many departments eliminated by Harper for the benefit of corporate resource stripping. Bring back The Freshwater protection act . Quit asking the public to tell you what to do and put money into science, research and development of excellence in resource management and environmental protection . There are thousands of educated young people with these skills from many universities across Canada that thought this would be a growth industry for a country so blessed with resources and abundant natural beauty. Get off your butt Trudeau and walk the talk - NOW!
Nancy Crozier almost 2 years ago
I'm having difficulties signing in Whereisthe login??????
Paulette Lachance almost 2 years ago
Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) and rely on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Listen to expert and field advice.
Gwynne Thompson almost 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.
Eluned almost 2 years ago
Before we can begin to address the gaps, we need to abolish the NAFTA conditions that allow corporations to sue Canada for protecting our country. We have lost billions in settlements and this money could have been spent in developing new technology and protecting this amazing country.
Eluned almost 2 years ago
It's ironic that you use an indigenous boat as your front page, because like Harper you have shown no respect for them. There are too many gaps to list, you are failing at every level. So disappointed in this government who pretended to be on the side of the people and who are definitely in the pockets of corporations, especially oil and gas.
Susan E. Match almost 2 years ago
There is so much wrong I do not know where to begin. Please start acting on environmental issues. The Liberals are as usual following the Conservative lead. So many voted Liberal hoping for change. We are starting to suffer under climate change and Canada's fish habitats, lakes, land are so unprotected. We need to change fast and the Liberal government needs to move on environmental issues.
Susan E. Match almost 2 years ago
Overhaul Energy Board. Follow through on election promises.
A. Katherine Duperron almost 2 years ago
It is important that government supported scientific projects be restored to pre-Harper status. We have a lot of continuity in many areas already. Geographic areas which should first be examined are those that oil/gas/mining interests have their eyes on, well before they start planning.
Ann Kujundzic almost 2 years ago
I'm wondering why I did not know of this discussion paper before.....Is it being listened to? Where else can I express my concerns about the overhaul of the National Energy Board? This is probably the most important issue before us: how to effectively deal with Climate Change and its disastrous effects on humanity.
Ann Kujundzic almost 2 years ago
All areas which are being devastated by environmental issues. Agricultural land which will feed future populations as global warming increases.
David Salsman almost 2 years ago
The right to a healthy environment for all Canadians should be enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Every decision on environmental issues and large corporate projects must then be judged based on the its merits to not infringe on those rights. The conservatives gutted existing protection, the liberals ran on a platform to re-institute them. Follow through. Then go further and make it law by adding it to the Charter. To do anything less is to rob our children of the world they deserve to inherit.
Marilyn Shaw almost 2 years ago
We need to restore the protections that used to be provided by the Navigable Waters Protection Act before it was overwritten in 2012 by the Navigation Protection Act. We need to ensure that environmental impacts are considered for any proposals involving water and/or navigation please. Thank you.
j. summers almost 2 years ago
The environment and more specifically our waterways are the most important assets we have. Protect them starting in the Arctic . Eliminate fracking. Do what you promised for our planet and the generations to come.
Sara Steil almost 2 years ago
The review of several pieces of environmental legislation at once offers the opportunity to align decision-making around core outcomes, including carbon reductions in Canada’s climate plan. The discussion paper fails to make these vital connections, leaving cross-referencing requirements out of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as well as the decisions of the National Energy Board.The Navigable Waters Protection Act — overwritten in 2012 by the Navigation Protection Act — was an incredible piece of environmental legislation with a focus on protection in tandem with navigation. The proposed changes do not suggest that the protections lost in 2012 will be restored. Left out is consideration of environmental impacts when a proposal might impede navigation
Liz Haan almost 2 years ago
Essential for new legislation to link all legislation driven decisions to climate change and other goals.
Genevieve Laurin almost 2 years ago
The current laws offer insufficient protections, especially when it comes to our lakes and waterways. We need to reinstate the protections previously included in the regulations before it was gutted by the Harper government in 2012. It is our responsibility to future generations to ensure that we protect their legacy. Long-term vision is essential in the establishment of any new regulation. There will always be new and different commercial opportunities, but once we lose a natural ecosystem, it's gone for good.
Craig E Vogan almost 2 years ago
Utilize our scientific, and indigenous communities and involve them in the regional assessment processes
Johanna Echlin Old Fort William Cottagers' Association almost 2 years ago
We expect the Federal Government to honour its commitments and not back track. Canada's environmental assessment law (2012) is currently just a skeleton of the previous law, thanks to the former Conservative Government. The Liberal Government has made promises to improve and strengthen this law. An Expert Panel made excellent recommendations and we expect the Liberal government to adopt ALL of the expert panels' recommendations for reform. Canada's protection of all our waterways is crucial.
J DeRoo almost 2 years ago
Please adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for environmental reforms
john mainland almost 2 years ago
This government is hellbent on ignoring it's promises that it was elected under.1. No Independent NEB.2. No consultations with FN on key issues.3. No independent review of Site C before they approved licences.4. No independent review of KM pipeline.5. No independent review of FN womens murders.6. No implementation of Judge Cohen's 2011 report on the decline of west coast wild salmon stocks. And the demise of our orcas who survive on the wild salmon....the atlantic farmed are loaded with lice & viruses.7. No decent food, warmth housing or clean water, soil, air for FN.the government should be ashamed of itself.......continuing in the traditional role of destruction/elimination of FN by our 1st PM.....sad....fix it....please
Joseph Fall almost 2 years ago
Cumulative effects and negative, non-monetary externalities have too long been ignored in EA and NEB assessment processes. Scoping assessments so that cummulative and indirect impacts are ignored is irresponsible and typical of 20th century "frontier" mentality, not suitable for dealing with current global population and environmental conditions. Rather than limiting the scope of EA and NEB assessments, Canada should show some 21st century leadership in evaluating all projects on their "triple bottom line" net impact to identify those proposals that are truly beneficial to the long-term sustainability of our nation.
Maggie nebout almost 2 years ago
We have to make our protections of the environment as strong as possible for navigation, fish, water purity for drinking, no industry spilloffs. Do not weaken the legislation but ensure that it is stronger-as strong as it can be. The US should not be allowed to take their drinking water from our Great lakes or St lawence or any of our rivers
Kim Charlesworth almost 2 years ago
The biggest gap is that we no longer protect IN ANY WAY water, wildlife habitat, or the environment. We have had excellent publicly-funded bodies make good recommendations, and they are being ignored. The National Energy Board should be completely overhauled, as per the recommendations. The EA should be turned into a quasi judicial boar with the sole authority for conducting EAs - as per the recommendations. The NWPA should be restored to its previous stature NOT relying on jurisdictions to decide the level of protections. The current government's decision to waive the fines for the perpetrators of the Mount Polley mining disaster demonstrates that it is not committed to protecting our water. Fracking should be eliminated for a number of reasons including its wasteful use of water. The recommendations of the Cohen Commission should be fully implemented.
Darryl H almost 2 years ago
We are not putting the habitats and native wildlife first in the process.We are not cancelling permits of non-complying holders and penalizing to the full extent of the legislation and regulations, and not providing for geometrically increasing penalties for any subsequent offense.Northeast Alberta is a pollution trouble spot, Arctic Ocean is most vulnerable, and Atlantic and Pacific coasts are suffering from overfishing, traffic, fish farmers' negligence, and polluted river outflows.
J Wells almost 2 years ago
The biggest gap in the national environmental framework is the credibility of this Liberal government by ignoring or watering down its election promises to completely overhaul the National Energy Board and then to ignore the recommendations of the expert panel .The same applies to the promise to reinstate the Navigational Water Protection Act which has not happened and to ignore advise to convert the Environmental Assessment into a quasi judicial body. I urge the government to reinstate the laws that were in place before the Harper Government declared war on the environment to further the interests of the oil,gas and mining industries.The Mt Polley mine disaster (BC) saw millions of tons of tailings pollute a pristine lake and a town water supply and no charges were laid against the company.Fish Farms have been proven to contaminate the wild salmon stock without oversight or prosecution by the Feds.I would hope that this government would do the right thing and reinstate the environmental protection measures that were promised before the election and not make policies that are politically expedient
Peter Puxley almost 2 years ago
Offshore development proposals should be assessed to take into account their impact on neighbouring communities and regional economies - the fisheries and tourism industries, for example. Full participation by affected communities in risk assessment and the determination of acceptable risk is essential. The absence of baseline data on affected marine species is salutary in Canada. The Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans is currently ill-equipped to pas judgement on the impact of offshore development on the East Coast fishery and marine environment without such data.
carol b almost 2 years ago
From information I have seen, I am concerned about the following:The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.We live in a wonderful country that is the envy of many. However, our government, the people who we elected to serve us, seem not to have our best interests at heart. Environmental protections are integral to the quality of life we live. How can you allow 99% of our waters remain unprotected? It is time for someone in government to strap on a pair of balls and do the right thing for all our sake! We do not live apart from nature, we are part of it and if it is not protected, then neither are we! Mr. Trudeau gives the impression that he is a nature lover. Talk is cheap, please stop pandering to Big Business and put in the proper protections back and give the proper people the authority to conduct rigorous environmental assessments without interference or influence from profiteers.
Elmie Saaltink almost 2 years ago
My concern is that too many decisions are made politically ( of course) and also that economics loom so large- leading to decisions that are looking way too short-term- ( ie- lets keep fishing jobs in NFLD until -OOps- no fish for anybody for generations). There is talk about enforcement, but this requires staff who are too often too thinly spread. Also the folks/companies who benefit from resource extraction somehow manage to avoid paying the cost of restoration. There is often talk of remediation- but that is not the same thing at all. Situations like the Mt. Polley tailings spill tell industries- "no problem, a little fine will put you right", and the Fish Lake approval makes a mockery of all the review processes. We need to realize that we are not in the 20th century any more, that we can't keep passing on these environmental costs to our children so that we can keep our cushy lifestyles now. We need to make decisions that will make some folks uncomfortable, and We need to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon, and leap ahead to a more environmentally responsible future. let's not get dragged- let's think way ahead and be leaders, not reluctant tails. real economic prosperity will come to us by taking the lead- not by hanging on to the old ways until forced ahead!
Barbara DeMott almost 2 years ago
As many believe it is imperative to reinstate the protection of our navigble waters since 99% of our lakes, streams, and waterways remain unprotected. Follow the advice of experts and reinstate the Environmental Assessment agency as a quasi judicial body with sole authority, overhaul the NEB which is a complete farce and totally the servant of industry.
Richard Carton almost 2 years ago
Gaps occur when cuts are made to existing policies and when the findings of expensive publicly-funded bodies are largely ignored. Good examples are Liberals decision to ignore the recommendation to substantially reform the National Energy Board and to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting the EA. Pollution in the St. Lawrence River, Arctic and the Great Lakes should be reviewed and mitigated. British Columbia needs a lot of attention due to the number of issues. The protection of our oceans and waterways is particularly urgent. The current government's decision to waive the fines for the perpetrators of the Mount Polley mining disaster demonstrates that it is not committed to protecting our water. The Navigable Waters Protection Act should be fully restored. Fracking should be eliminated for a number of reasons including its wasteful use of water. The apparent overlap in jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments has been a weak excuse for allowing the loading of American thermal coal at the Fraser Surrey docks. The environmental assessment there was a sham. The recommendations of the salmon advisory board should be followed - offshore fish farming should be banned. The findings of the Coen Commission should be fully implemented.
Linda Mulhall almost 2 years ago
I expected more from this government. If I had wanted more Harper policies, I would have voted for them. The Liberals are reneging on their promises. We must protect the environment against the rampant corporate destruction of land and water. We need a strong Federal policy with teeth, to ensure the provinces follow through.
Linda Mulhall almost 2 years ago
Accept and implement the Environmental Assessment Expert Panel's recommendations! Convert the EA Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with sole authority for conducting assessments. Restore our own national authority over the environment.
Linda Mulhall almost 2 years ago
I agree with many of the comments listed below. I am VERY disappointed in the approach of this government to environmental issues. Restore teh NWPA to its previous stature; protect our lakes, streams, and rivers. We need a Federal approach on this. Hold the provinces accountable.
Sandra Marshall almost 2 years ago
I support the comments of Elizabeth May concerning acceptance of all the recommendations of the expert panels on environmental assessment. ''The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.''
Kerri Klein almost 2 years ago
Reinstate the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). No not rely on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Restore the NWPA to its previous stature, as currently 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams remain unprotected from industrial projects. The Arctic and North need special prioritization for protection.
Nora Fernandez almost 2 years ago
Regional areas most at risk Northern BC and Alberta -powerful interests involved...most people not aware so participation would be naturally limited. Government should implement promises made during election time and pay attention to the advice and recommendations of its own experts.
Maureen McGuire almost 2 years ago
Restore the N.W.P.A. to it's previous stature. Move the N.E.B. to Ottawa. Protect the waterways of Alberta and BC, particularly in the northern region. Live up to your election promise. Stop acting like the Harper Government.
Maureen McGuire almost 2 years ago
I am very concerned with your approach to this. Canadians are giving little time to dialog and comment about the most crucial issue facing us. Shame on you.Presently the regional areas most at risk are in Northern BC and Alberta. The government needs to restore the Navigable Water's protection Act to it's previous stature. The present Act provides no protection from industrial projects.
Gary and Elizabeth STEWART almost 2 years ago
We are shocked by the Trudeau government's failure to live up to its election promises. First it was the blatant ignoring of the promise of electoral reform. Now it is the Harper govt's destruction of Canadian environmental protection laws that Trudeau promised to rectify. The Trudeau govt. has decided to ignore the advice of two expert panels on environmental assessment and they are going to keep Harper's plan to destroy the NWPA. They will also keep the status quo in the NEB and the Nuclear Safety Commission. We are asking ourselves why we voted Trudeau when for all he is changing, we might as well have voted for Harper.
Jon almost 2 years ago
The Navigatable Waters Protection Act needs to be restored.
Gasper Jack almost 2 years ago
I want to remind the government that pollution is pollution and that fracking is not okay in my books, so do a reversal on the allowances for fracking Canada, we`re supposed to be friendly to all and fracking is a major contributor to making potable water unuseable to all.
Simon Lindley almost 2 years ago
It seems that the Government of Canada's discussion paper has completely overlooked its own expert panels' recommendations. This is very watered down from what the Liberal government promised when campaigning, to the point of impotence, nothing but a shadow of the recommendations. The government needs to implement the complete overhaul of the NEB. The government has also completely failed in adopting almost all of the EA expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA.The government has largely left the previous government's damaging Omnibus Bills intact, such as C-38, intact, along the the devastating gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act , leaving almost all of Canada's waterways, for the most part, unprotected. This is a truly disappointing paper on so many fronts, a complete sell out to industrial interests over sound environmental policy.
Jason Steeghs almost 2 years ago
Two major gaps: 1/ Not factoring in upstream emissions in assessments, 2/ The effects of open pen aquaculture. Some geographic areas to be first examined include the Salish Sea, remaining tallgrass prairie in Southern Ontario, "cancer alley" near Sarnia, Ontario, the Bay of Fundy region in Atlantic Canada, and the most vulnerable of climate-impacted areas of the Arctic.
Karen Henderson almost 2 years ago
I urge the Liberal Government to adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms. Please, no half measures or worse, no changes at all. Stand behind your election promises, stand up for the environment.
Roger Richardson almost 2 years ago
We need solid reforms, not some diluted measure that does very little and takes years before doing anything.
Jason Steeghs almost 2 years ago
Like everyone else here, I expect and call on this government to follow the expert panel recommendations with regards to the overhauling the NEB and moving it to Ottawa, converting the EAA into a quasi-judicial board, and restoring the NWPA protections to the level of pre-Harper dismantling.It is cynical and opportunistic to do anything otherwise, and will reflect very poorly on the party. Like so very many other Canadians, I voted Liberal to remove Harper and with the strong hope that this iteration of the federal Liberal party would be different than previous ones. With the approval of pipelines and the abandonment of electoral reform, we've almost lost all faith and hope in this government. Prove us wrong...do the right thing and follow the advice of the expert panels you convened.
Liz almost 2 years ago
I am concerned about the fact that the environmental reforms promised by the government are shaping up to little more than half-measures, or worse. My main concerns are:The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
Dr Rick Hudson almost 2 years ago
Adopt the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA.
Kristy Reimers-Loader almost 2 years ago
1. Please go ahead with the reform and modernization of the National Energy Board, as recommended by the expert panel convened from December 2016-March 2017. Our national energy strategy needs to change to reflect the shift in emphasis from fossil fuels to renewable green energy technologies.2. Please reconsider rejecting the recommendations of the expert panel on Environmental Assessments re converting the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority for conducting environmental assessments. It is inappropriate for government stakeholders to be conducting environmental assessments within their own particular sphere of activities.3. Please restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Studies have shown that water will be the most contested and valuable resource in the coming decades; Canada is in a position to be a major player on the world stage if we can preserve the integrity and quality of our water.
Jacinthe Eastick almost 2 years ago
I wish to compel the current federal government to fill its elections promises and to adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms. Surely we can achieve a Canada that does not pit resource extraction industries against the protection of our shared environment.
Faith Blenkin almost 2 years ago
Now is the time to protect our lakes and forests, not jeopardize them. If a panel of experts is telling us that this is not a good idea, and we are ignoring them, then why have a panel of experts at all. What in the world is the point of a panel of experts if you ignore their recommendations! If the effects of the last 100 years have not taught us what happens when we don't put the environment first, I wonder what exactly has to happen before we do. Because "putting people first" at the expense of the environment is not ever actually putting people first. It is putting the present first at the expense of the future. It is saying we are more important than our kids and grandkids. The most valuable thing we have to pass on to our kids is the environment we live in. Without it, we're all dead. And in case you weren't aware, dead people don't need jobs or a good economy.
R. Economou almost 2 years ago
Follow the National Energy Board expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB and move it to Ottawa. Follow the Environmental Assessment expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. Do not keep the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards. Do not keep the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act). Do not rely on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Protect Canadian lakes, rivers and streams from industrial projects.
Caroline Maloney almost 2 years ago
Why did the Canadian government reject the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel recommendations which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB, and ignore its sound advice to move it to Ottawa rather than Calgary?
freedomfortibet almost 2 years ago
The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
RJ Jamieson Jamieson almost 2 years ago
First of all...the NEB needs a huge house cleaning/overhaul. I have serious concerns about conflicts of interest here. Secondly environmental assessments should be done by an environmental assessment agency that is totally separate from the neb, nuclear safety commission Etc. There must be no conflict of interest.This government also promised to reverse the NWPA changes done by the previous government. The destruction of that is leaving the great majority of our lakes and rivers at risk from industrial pollution. This is unconscionable!And while I'm at it we need a fair voting system preferably proportional representation! I believe the majority of voting public wants this as well. If they didn't they would have shown up in great numbers to the hearings across the country and they did not but many showed up who wanted some form of PR!
Sandra Murphy, citizen almost 2 years ago
Follow the recommendations made by the Committee on Electoral Reform and implement the recommendations of the two expert panels on environmental assessment.Reinstate and further improve the protections lost to us with the Conservative government's passing of the omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45.
Judy Lightwater almost 2 years ago
Navigable Waters and other legislation must be strengthened to protect lakes, rivers and oceans. National Energy Board and environmental assessment recommendations must be implemented. What happened to the promises made during the election?
Arthur Olin almost 2 years ago
The dominance of the NEB by industry stakeholders is a clear example of what is wrong with the present system. The resignations of members in protest of procedures, the interpretation of their mandate to ignore environmental and climate change issues, and the critical report of the expert panel reviewing them is more than sufficient to destroy their public credibility and to attract social license for their proposals. This seemed to me to be the position of the Liberal Party as opposition, and certainly of the NDP.A new procedure is needed to appoint such boards, with clear guidelines regarding the technical expertise required but also clear conflict of interest criteria. These were clearly not present or not enforced for the NEB. Parliamentary committees should vet a significant list of technically able members and choose from them a board that reflects broad national interests. It is easy to select a board that will echo a chosen policy, so the selection process needs to take great care to avoid this.I was particularly concerned an incident some years ago where the Harper cabinet took it upon itself to overrule the nuclear regulatory agency ruling and order a nuclear reactor deemed to be unsafe back into operation. The issue involved the government appointed management had lied to the agency, compromising trust in the management, and a cabinet decision backed the managers. Any system with regulatory agencies that are considered so weak that they can be overruled by people without the technical knowledge to do so is really suspect. In that case a possible nuclear accident was risked unnecessarily.
Clarence almost 2 years ago
Keep your promise and protect the environment. You will suffer the consequences.
David Hitchcock almost 2 years ago
Environmental assessments are entrusted to bodies such as the National Energy Board that do not have a primary focus on the environment.
T. Sande almost 2 years ago
The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa.
Karen Lightbody almost 2 years ago
I just cannot believe that our Canadian identity of being environmental and having fresh water is going to be destroyed! This is a main reason we voted out the conservatives believing the Liberals. guess more wolves in sheeps clothing? Protect the environment and especially our waters. It is unquestionably the only option for the future. We are too late likely to change the global impact, but not trying is a crime against humanity!
Dan Carpenter almost 2 years ago
I agree with J.F. Davis on his response!The Government does the right thing and assembles an expert panel to make recommendations and now it appears that it is all for nought. Why did you put it together and then take no notice of it? What's happened to your environmental promises? Please follow the panel's recommendations. The NEB needs a complete overhaul that's for sure, and should be based in Ottawa where government resides. The same thing seems to have happened with the Environment Assessment panel. Please listen to its advice. Convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority for conducting EA. Finally, please restore the NWPA to its previous stature, so ALL Canadian lakes, rivers and streams remain protected from industrial projects which could destroy the environment. We are counting on you to protect our land, our water and our people from those who would put self above all else. Thank you.
Donna Martin almost 2 years ago
I am very disappointed that this current liberal regime is backtracking on pre-election promises regarding our environmental protection. I am disappointed in this process to gather information. I was lucky enough to happen upon this site..I wonder how many others have no idea this site even exists. Is this what they mean by 'reaching out' to Canadians for comment? A complete overhaul of the NEB is vital and was promised. We must revert to the status of our waterways pre-Stephen Harper..nothing less.Any fish farming must be done in regulated and controlled land based facilities.Keep your election promises Justin Trudeau, put the well-being and future of our environment ahead of industry interests.
DOROTHY D almost 2 years ago
The gaping hole in the framework is the decision not to follow the recommendations of the expert panels that were commissioned to study what changes need to be made to undo the mess the Conservative government made of the environmental regulations. All waters need to be protected, not returned to protection piecemeal. The NEB needs complete overhauling, not a cursory tweaking, and should be moved to Ottawa. Energy projects need to be considered by a quasi judicial board rather than the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Protection Bd and offshore Petroleum Boards (conflict of interest!) so that there is some teeth in the protection of our environment. Fisheries and Ocean deals with the dichotomy of industry support and environment protection. This is the problem in many of the overseeing arms involved with protection of the environment. Let's put some teeth in the regulations and follow the panels' recommendations.
Ron Crabtree almost 2 years ago
Gaps:1. Industry-biased agencies that ignore environmental issues are doing environmental assessment.2. No agency has the mandate to audit/monitor and enforce environmental legislation.3. Environmental laws are now weaker than ever after Harper's Bill C-38.4. The penalties for ignoring stringent controls to avoid environmental damage are no deterent to industry. (VW's diesel engine fraud is an example.)5.The public always pays for environmental damage.6. Canada appears to allow environmental risks that other countries don't (e.g. Norway and fish farms) We should have best practices, not profit-driven practices.7. We should adopt the philosophy of looking out for our children's children and, for those without children, the next generation's generation.
Patti VanderLinden almost 2 years ago
The environmental reforms promised by the government are shaping up to little more than half-measures, or worse. My main concerns are:The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
Larry Kazdan almost 2 years ago
The environmental reforms promised by the government are shaping up to little more than half-measures, or worse. My main concerns are: The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. Please adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.
Frank Williams almost 2 years ago
Much written here about how there will be more user friendliness, and I'm sure that we all agree with that, but details would be nice. I imagine all areas would want their areas to be assessed, but maybe prioritize those where volunteer groups (like Streamkeepers) are present, and perhaps could help?
Alex J Zimmerman almost 2 years ago
1. A complete overhaul of the National Energy Board (NEB) as recommended by the expert panel convened for the purpose. Without serious reform and without moving it to Ottawa, it will remain a de-facto tool of the fossil-fuel industry, not a board that will be able to independently regulate the broad spectrum of 21st century energy sources . 2. Convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board as recommended by the expert panel recommendation, with the sole authority for conducting EA. This was a well-considered, good recommendation to ensure its independence and impartiality. 3. The Harper Conservatives gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), removing most waters from its purview, effectively remains in place in the discussion paper. Instead you seem to be relying a case-by-case applications to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Don’t do this. Simply revert to what was there before Stephen Harper got at it. Failure to do so means that there is basically no difference between your government and theirs on this issue. The previous changes were not something Canadians voted on nor do they want it.
Roger Elmes almost 2 years ago
Neither fish farming nor aquaculture is mentioned anywhere in this document. Open ocean pens should be totally banned. All fish farming must be done in properly controlled land-based facilities that are totally isolated from the ocean.Man-made cumulative effects have already profound implications for wild fish. These range from habitat destruction to pollution to environmental catastrophes like the Hell's Gate to accumulation of mercury in many species. There need to be specific strategies focused on fish rather than on industry and profit.
Sharon McMillan almost 2 years ago
Please refer to, and adopt, all of the expert panels’ recommendations. Do not ignore them.
S. Smeds almost 2 years ago
The environmental reforms promised by the government are shaping up to little more than half-measures, or worse. They are wanting to ignore the recommendations of two expert panels. My main concerns are:The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. Even underground water should be protected.
Sharon Leighton almost 2 years ago
There seems to be no understanding of the unique and powerful tides in the Bay of Fundy, or the concomitant responsibility of Canadians to keep this Bay free of such things as oil spills or other contamination.
Carol almost 2 years ago
I have read a number of the comments below and agree that this government must do something for the benefit of the people, please keep in mind that we need this world for many years to come, I beg you to make decisions that will improve our country, look after our heritage, care for all Canadians and make Canada a country to be proud of in all aspects.
tomfromCalgary almost 2 years ago
I am concerned that the Discussion Paper leaves in place, or in only slightly modified form, many of the disastrous provisions of the Conservative government's decimation of environmental policy and programs. I have three overriding concerns in this regard:1. The proposed rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations regarding the NEB, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB, as well as moving it back to Ottawa. 2. The proposed rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. 3. The proposal to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
J. F. Davis almost 2 years ago
The Government does the right thing and assembles an expert panel to make recommendations and now it appears that it is all for nought. Why did you put it together and then take no notice of it? What's happened to your environmental promises? Please follow the panel's recommendations. The NEB needs a complete overhaul that's for sure, and should be based in Ottawa where government resides. The same thing seems to have happened with the Environment Assessment panel. Please listen to its advice. Convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority for conducting EA. Finally, please restore the NWPA to its previous stature, so ALL Canadian lakes, rivers and streams remain protected from industrial projects which could destroy the environment. We are counting on you to protect our land, our water and our people from those who would put self above all else. Thank you.
Sheila Page almost 2 years ago
Our waterways are currently unprotected from industrial projects. Please restore the previous N.W.P.A. This particularly affects the west and northern coasts and their drainages. Protecting pacific salmon stocks and orca populations are among my concerns.To protect our environment implement the N.E.B.'s expert panel's recommendations to restructure and relocate the N.E.B. It belongs in Ottawa. This affects development in my province, B.C.Please implement the recommendations of the expert panel on Environmental Assessment so that it is the sole authority for conducting the Environmental Assessments. My concern is for the province of B.C. and its waterways.
ken de la barre almost 2 years ago
The gaps are obvious; the government is backtracking on its commitments. the public is not fooled! Oil and gas and mining projects need to be looked at carefully by a new energy board! The government has already received recommendations. It looks as if First Nations will step into the breach and also the courts. The public will win now or in the next election!
Barry almost 2 years ago
All waterways including underground waterways should be protected.
Barry almost 2 years ago
All waterways including underground waterways should brg66
Timothy Bartoo almost 2 years ago
The obvious gaps in our national environmental frameworks were created by the previous government's omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45. A simple, reasonable first step would be to restore the environmental protection provisions that were in place and functioning reasonable well before their blunt and callous destruction. Improvements in national environmental protection could proceed from there.
Michael Layland almost 2 years ago
The Environmental Assessment Agency needs to be given independent authority for conducting EA.
Gasper Jack almost 2 years ago
I find that the federal government should of stuck up for all canadians when Fukishima power plant accident occured, the nuclear community and I do believe Canada is a member of said community. That Canada should of helped arrest the catastrophy and continued reactions of nuclear explosions back in 11 March 2011. The Pacific Ocean is turning acidic with continued dumping of 300,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the ocean, daily.
Gasper Jack almost 2 years ago
I find that the federal and provincial governments dropped the ball when it come to the pollution issues that are allowed in the mining and concerns about how waste waters are in the future going to impact the salmon and trout . The constitution of Canada states that first nation have the right to fish and when the country of Canada does not prosecute mining companies that dump waste waters into lakes that have fish and people actually utilize the lake, it is imparitive that infractions have occurred and prosecution should of been enacted on that mining company.
Sharon Sommerville almost 2 years ago
My comment is simple: keep your election promise. To do otherwise suggests that you don't care about the concerns of Canadians that voted for you, that you can't be trusted to keep your word and that you are willing to put the interest of industry before the well being and future of our environment.
donald1 almost 2 years ago
Do the right thing for a sustainable future for our children.Accept the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. Accept the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to its previous stature, protecting irreplaceable Canadian lakes, rivers and streams from industrial projects.
Questioning almost 2 years ago
The environmental reforms promised by the government are shaping up to little more than half-measures, or worse. My main concerns are:• The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. • The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place. • The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.I urge you to act as global leaders in regards to these issues. We don't have time for politicking and partisanship. Please act now to protect our irreplaceable environment.
Margaret H Forsythe almost 2 years ago
I see two major gaps in our national environmental framework. #1. We need to restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It worked well for protecting Canadian lake, rivers and streams. It helped oversee projects by local Conservation networks, and kept our waterways clean. #2 We need an Environmental Assessment Agency that is separate from the CNSC and NEB. Solar, Wind and other renewables are leading global economies. We need a group that will have new insight to lead the way. The CNSC has a great deal of work keeping our Nuclear industry safe, let it keep to that job. It will also allow us to partner with Indigenous leaders whose environmental knowledge will make our nation more sustainable. And provide leadership for other nations to see how this collective effort can make a nation stronger.
Alvan Maxwell, retired teacher almost 2 years ago
I started typing without reading previous comments. Its obvious that I'm not the only one is alarmed that the government I voted for, the one I expected real change from, is now playing the shell game. This process is not addressing the reality of protecting the commons, as it was in the previous Navigation Act. Also, I relate to the "backwards" bit, it should be the responsibility of developers to prove and insure no harmful effect before our government grants OKs. I've seen already that that is not happening, and you can rely on this: I will not be flummoxed again.
Bill Henderson C.M. almost 2 years ago
please adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations
Paul almost 2 years ago
Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act. To have jurisdictions apply to restore this precious resource on a case by case basis is ludicrous.
Barbara Mills and Dorrance Woodward for Assoc. for Denman Island Marine Stewards almost 2 years ago
Cumulative Effects There is an urgent need for cumulative impact assessments in the Pacific coastal region and other regions where marine ecosystems are threatened by anthropogenic factors. We fully support the concept of a national environmental framework to inform regional assessments, and we believe that it is long overdue. Marine ecosystem management should be an integral component of Canada’s national environmental framework and be part inform the wider regional assessments. The marine ecosystem is as fragile and as critical to life on earth as air quality and climate change. Every second breath we take comes from the ocean, and because ocean life is already vastly depleted and threatened, it is essential that marine ecosystems be given equal import as any other.We applaud your wisdom in focusing on strategic assessments, regional assessments, biodiversity and species at risk; and especially the impacts on indigenous people all as top priorities. We also ask you to focus on toxic substances used in industrial products and practices. Despite CEPA posting a toxic substance list, industry is still disposing of known carcinogens and toxins into vital water sources. Ministers are still allowing the use of toxic materials that threaten essential life cycles of marine organisms. Before industry is permitted, it is extremely important that independent cumulative impact assessments are required.
M. Schultz almost 2 years ago
Please reconsider the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, and the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. Please reconsider restoring the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to its previous stature. In general, I'm concerned at how much damage was done to environmental laws in Canada.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
"Maintaining the flexibility to exclude designated projects from assessment under certain conditions based on clear criteria and a transparent process" is completely at odds with science-based cumulative-effects analysis.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
First, restore the NWPA, that way all geographic areas are then protected, immediately....Gaps: The proposed environmental framework is exactly backward: The proposals for science-based cumulative effects analysis and approval should be established as a requirement in seeking permission for proposals, not to establish protection. i.e. Waters, watersheds and ecologies should be protected by default. The effort and resources should be expended by those seeking financial benefit, not those seeking to protect our water and waterways for future generations.
Dale Kelly about 2 years ago
I copied this over as I agree with the remarks "First this is almost a secret document. To the best of my knowledge it has not been made public knowledge. I am quite well informed and follow general news and political activity, but only became aware of this document and procedure indirectly. If you truly want involvement from the people of Canada inform them and make it far easier for them to be involved.ALL areas of the country should be equally involved. Develop a process which enables this. It is apparent to me what the process etc., should be, who should be involved, how it should be independently regulated and evaluated. Why not you? This government in spite of its claims seems only to be evading the real issues and how to deal with them. Yes, it is immensely complex and will require decisions and actions that will bring about profound and enormously significant changes. But. This has to happen if our world and its inhabitants are to survive."
Judith Appleby about 2 years ago
The National Energy Board needs to be completely overhauled to ensure that protection of our lands, waters and wildlife is foremost, and concerned Canadians have more influence than corporate interests. We must retrain our workforce to move away from industries that are obsolenscent and harmful to our planet
UN Swissindo about 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.
Colin Creasey about 2 years ago
Why are you bothering to ask me this question if you are ignoring the advice of your expert panel? Is this all just smoke and mirrors?
Greg Taylor about 2 years ago
We need to undo the damage of the Harper Government in relation to C-38 and C-45. We need to ensure our waterways are protected, including those in close proximity to oil and gas development, including proposed pipelines.The NEB needs to be completely gutted and we need to once again have a legitimate environmental assessment process. There shouldn't even be discussion about oil and gas exploration in marine protected areas. A marine area is not protected in such cases.
Horst Backe about 2 years ago
Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to protect all Canadian lakes, rivers and streams from the effects of industrial projects.The National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. The current decision to ignore this recommendation should be reconsidered.- The government’ should also reconsider its decision to ignore recommendations to make the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The hodge-podge of assessment processes is neither adequate nor efficient.
sheila krekorian about 2 years ago
Examine the discharge from Niagara Falls NY powerplant into the Niagara River at Niagara Falls, Ontario.
ruth tait about 2 years ago
Depredations into wilderness environments are an on-going concern, but a development of multiple strategies for dealing with urban environments is pressing in order to halt the tendency toward wildlife diversity dead zones. In an increasingly warming climate, urban heatsink microclimates are a huge human health risk and wildlife disrupter. There are many ways to deliver both knowledge- and infrastructure-mitigations to this. Urban environments, properly managed, can become havens for many threatened species. The list of deliverables in this regard is enormous.. but, first of all, sophisticated urbanites need to be better informed of the dangers of continuing to live in the way they are accustomed to.
Clement Kent about 2 years ago
"Maintaining the flexibility to exclude designated projects from assessment under certain conditions based on clear criteria and a transparent process" is a terribly vague statement. Will the "transparent process" to exclude designated projects be open to public inspection and input? This is a loophole you could drive a giant tar sands mining vehicle through!
Clement Kent about 2 years ago
Effects on species at risk should be highlighted. Investigation of cumulative impacts is crucial - the 10th project to remove wetland from a region has a higher proportionate impact than the first. For projects such as pipelines, dams, power plants, etc decomission plans and financial provision for these should be in the initial assessment.
Naomi about 2 years ago
The NWPA needs to be improved, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. This is unacceptable.
Naomi about 2 years ago
I do not support the government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The EA should be focused on protecting the environment based on science and not influenced by economics.
Am about 2 years ago
Final decisions should be made by informed elected representatives of the people of Canada. Monitoring, compliance, enforcement and follow-up should also be the responsibility of elected representatives of the people of Canada, and there should be consequences if decisions, regulations, and laws are not complied with.
Helga Guderley about 2 years ago
I believe that the protection of all navigable waterways should be reinstated. Leaving the weakened protection that the Harper government brought about is not in tune with the Liberal government's claim to enhanced environmental protection. Only a very small handful of our wonderful bodies of water are currently under federal protection. Counting on local or provincial authorities to protect our waterways is not sufficient. National standards should prevail.This promise is one that must not be broken.
Marnie Troyer about 2 years ago
The Environmental Assessment Agency must have the interests of the environment above those of big oil and gas. Why are we still seeking more and more risky methods of extracting and transporting a less and less desirable product? I'd like to see this government act on its election promises, reverse the Harper damage, and make the protection of our environment a priority.
Richard Peisinger about 2 years ago
Environmental Assessment (EA) - Carry out the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. Do not allow Harper’s ‎C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards to remain in place.
Richard Peisinger about 2 years ago
National Energy Board (NEB)- Carry out the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. Seriously reform the NEB and move it to Ottawa, which will result in great cost saving.
Richard Peisinger about 2 years ago
Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) - Restore the NWPA to its previous stature so 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain protected from industrial projects.
Gwen Harris about 2 years ago
I, like so many others, had hoped that new legislation for protecting the environment would reverse harm done to protection by the Harper government. Three areas of continuing concern are: 1) to restore protection of navigable waterways from industrial projects - really critical; 2) address the concerns and recommendations of the Environment Assessment expert panel; and 3) the recommendations of the NEB expert panel.
Sam about 2 years ago
Take action on the National Energy Board expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB.As well as the Environmental Assessment expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. Fix Harper’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, like you promised.
MurdO about 2 years ago
All Canadian lakes and rivers should once more be part of the Navigable Waters Act .
Anonymous about 2 years ago
The gaps in our national environmental frameworks are gaping. The National Energy Board examined by an expert panel paid for by taxpayers and none of it's recommendations are being implemented. That is a big gap.The Environmental Assessment expert's panel recommendations to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority for conducting environmental assessments has been rejected. How can it be anything but serving corporate energy interests to send the projects to the unchanged NEB, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards where the environment's interests will inevitably fall prey to the economic interests of corporations... not even Canadians.And finally, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not being re-instated after Trudeau promised. This means that 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects and jurisdictions will have to fight the corporations to protect them... David versus Goliath stories with less sure endings.I am shocked by the lack of attention to election promises by this Liberal government. I had hopes that Trudeau would think and act differently but I see he has been co-opted by the corporations and thinks economic well-being is the same as the well-being of the whole country - it's peoples and all the creatures that live here. It is NOT! The well-being of the whole means thinking of the whole.
Lisbeth Mousseau about 2 years ago
99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams are unprotected from industrial projects.
Lisa H. about 2 years ago
The federal government needs to actually take some of the actions recommended to it. The NEB’s expert panel recommended overhauling the NEB and moving it to Ottawa. That should be done, and not ignored. The EA’s expert panel recommended its agency should be covert into a quasi-judicial board and given soil authority for conducting environmental assessments. That should be done, and not ignored.The current government should also stand by its own promises and restore federal protection to the rivers and lakes of Canada, which were slashed when the previous government gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act.What the current government should NOT do is have a long, drawn-out and expensive public consultation and then proceed to follow exactly *none* of the recommendations they receive.
Bonnie Sokoloski about 2 years ago
While I don't know what the specific gaps are in the NEB, the EPA, and the NWPA, the election promise was that these would be reviewed by panels of experts in their fields, and improvements made accordingly. My understanding is that nothing of significance has come of this. I want to see the recommendations of the experts implemented, in order to provide much more stringent environmental protections than we currently have.
Dorothy about 2 years ago
Clearly the environment is being virtually ignored in favor of destructive big corporation practices. We can't continue to encourage oild and gas production by building pipelines and off-shore drilling sites, and be environmentally responsible. Strong leadership is needed, such as is presently happening in Germany, to stand up to the corporate powers. I am disappointed in the election promises being broken and the direction the Trudea government is taking.
Peter Moller about 2 years ago
Our water bodies should be protected from contamination. Monitoring and policing should not be left to the private sector to look after. We need to increase the staff to fill the need. Areas that have been subject to exploitation in the past should be monitored for remedial measures. To the extent possible, the polluters should pay for any remediation.
Mairy Beam about 2 years ago
I do not understand why you have not completely overhauled the NEB as recommended by the expert panel. Canadians have lost faith in the NEB, and are rapidly losing faith that this government listens to their expert panels, or First Nations, or ordinary citizens. Environmental assessments can not be trusted to the NEB. They should be done by the Environmental Assessment Agency as recommended by the panel.
Guy Talevi about 2 years ago
I would like to see a complete overhaul of the NEB, per the expert panel's recommendations.The NEB main office should be in Ottawa, not Calgary, as the NEB answers first to the people of Canada, not the energy industry.Environmental assessments should be conducted by the Environmental Assessment Agency, not the NEB.The Navigable Waters Protection Act should be restored to what it was before the Harper-era changes.Thank you.
Marilyn Sundeen about 2 years ago
I am not in favour of these changes.1. I am very concerned that the Government has not taken the advice of the NEB to reform the committee itself and that it will remain in Calgary and not be moved to the seat of national government in Ottawa.2. I am also angry that you have not taken the Environmental Assessment panel's expert recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. Again this leaves Canada with no true 3rd party review.3. I am very opposed to the government’s decision to maintain Harper’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Once again, this is leaving the environment with no true protection.It seems that your talk about protecting the environment is just that all talk. I am very, very disappointed.Sincerely,Marilyn Sundeen
Margaret Whyte about 2 years ago
Resources is a gap that must be increased to ensure protections reallly happen.Institutiing the promised protections in the form of 20 percent of our waters is crucial.
Margaret Paul about 2 years ago
I have read the questions provided below and I have to say, they are best described as bafflegab. To respond to them would be to become mired in the bureaucratic backwater, rearranging the deck chairs that have kept us on this sinking ship for decades. I prefer instead to offer a general comment on the government's approach to environmental considerations. First, we as a nation must concede that the age of fossil fuels is over. At present, over 6% of the world's wealth goes to subsidize the fossil fuel industry. These subsidies need to end and the oil industry must begin to pay the real costs incurred by the people and the planet since the inception of the industrial revolution. Innovative, clean sources of energy must be actively sought and their development supported economically by government. As to the current NEB, it is a biased organization and should be disbanded in favour of a group of scientists who have the greater good of all citizens as their goal. The right of every person, including indigenous peoples, to a healthy environment must be respected above monetary considerations. Begin this review process in the knowledge that as of this moment, everything has to change and the government must adopt a completely different model of decision making, one that puts people and the planet first. Do this, and the rest will follow.
Lorene Benoit Health Education about 2 years ago
I agree with at least 30 of the 37 comments that were already posted when I read this as of Aug 145th. I find it a true disregard for money that tax payers have already spent studying, consulting, discussing....and to what end??? All the recommendations from this last costly 'consultative process' Turdeau govt' appears to be following NONE of them! Consultation just seems to be another word for let's do nothing to change the status quo and pretend that we are. Exactly the same as the ongoing process of re-re-re-regulating natural products under the guise of 'protecting the public' - again at incredible public expense for another million dollar consultation process that barely finished and was implemented 2 years ago!
Concerned about 2 years ago
Canada has the most fresh water in all the world. It is one of our must important resources. All of our waterways MUST be protected. You promised to undo Harper's Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), allowing industry to use our waterways as they please. I'm sorry but our water is not to be given away to the large corporations. Our resource is priceless, and money hungry industries should not be allowed to exploit it. All geographic areas should be examined for regional assessments.
Wayne Rayner about 2 years ago
Why is this discussion website not "https" ? Not being taken very seriously?1. Please follow the expert panel's recommendations and overhaul the NEB and move it from Calgary to Ottawa.2. Please follow the expert panel's recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board.3. Please restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act to it's previous state before Harper's meddling with it.Thank you, Wayne.
ken about 2 years ago
We feel the need to bring three key concerns to your attention: - The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. - The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that Harper’s ‎C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place.- The government’s decision to maintain Harper’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
R Procyk about 2 years ago
See below
Mel Duhamel about 2 years ago
There are too many gaps to list in the national environmental frameworks. The expert panels' main recommendations could have addressed many of them and I'm deeply disappointed that the government instead chose to maintain the NEB and other energy project regulators in virtually their current forms and keep CEAA from having full authority for all environmental assessments. CEAA should do EAs for all energy projects and have stronger powers to enforce compliance with its recommendations. Thoughtful, comprehensive regional assessments are needed prior to opening up new areas for development, particularly in the north where Canada still has large areas of intact habitat and carbon-storing peatlands. Individual projects should not be pushed through before such assessments are complete.
Stephen Shaw about 2 years ago
First this is almost a secret document. To the best of my knowledge it has not been made public knowledge. I am quite well informed and follow general news and political activity, but only became aware of this document and procedure indirectly. If you truly want involvement from the people of Canada inform them and make it far easier for them to be involved.ALL areas of the country should be equally involved. Develop a process which enables this. It is apparent to me what the process etc., should be, who should be involved, how it should be independently regulated and evaluated. Why not you? This government in spite of its claims seems only to be evading the real issues and how to deal with them. Yes, it is immensely complex and will require decisions and actions that will bring about profound and enormously significant changes. But. This has to happen if our world and its inhabitants are to survive.
Maggie Laidlaw about 2 years ago
There are numerous gaps in your so-called national environmental framework, but before I address those, I must reiterate my disappointment when I heard that Catherine McKenna was going to be our environment minister. She has had absolutely no environmental experience, has shown a complete disregard for most of the environmental issues that concern many Canadians, not least of which is the government's cow-towing to Big Energy re oil and pipelines, and her generally flippant attitude at the Paris Accord (really, her own personal photographer??!) was pathetic. With regard to the framework, I have three major concerns: 1. You commissioned an expert panel to look at all aspects of the NEB recommendations, then summarily dismissed them! The NEB is completely broken (and entirely at the whim of Big Oil). Its stronghold on the NEB needs to be severed, and that will not happen as long as the NEB remains based in Calgary. The panel recommended a series of reforms AND a move to Ottawa, but your government is too politically scared of Big Oil to do anything. If that is the case, why pay for an expensive panel when you knew you were going to ignore its findings? 2. Your rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board is short-sighted in the extreme. It was an opportunity to have an arms-length board making sound environmental decisions unencumbered by the arm-twisting of interested parties, and you squandered it! You are adopting the same weak EA processes you railed against when Harper and his ilk passed Bill C-38. The NEB in its current form, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards are all puppets of Big Oil, and they largely remaining in place.3. The Navigable Waters Protection Act (a misnomer if ever I heard one!) brought in by Harper fails to protect the vast majority of our waterways, and confers minimal piecemeal protection at the whim of jurisdictions, instead of being a firm national protection policy. Could it be that in this regard you are cow-towing to the U.S. government, which has failed to hide its intention to turn our waterways into mere commodities to be traded on the open market? Once again, the Liberal government campaigned against issues such as the removal by Harper et al. of protection of our water, yet you do a complete flip-flop in government, when you could easily have reinstated comprehensive protection of our waterways! Instead, you leave the vast majority open to pollution and degradation by industry.
Mary Cooper about 2 years ago
After all of these expensive reviews and consultation you have undertaken, your bottom line is to simply ask more questions. There is no meat at all in the report. This is just a waste of resources (past) and creating more work with no clear goal in sight. By this stage you should have draft legislation to be reviewed and discussed. This government is showing itself to be no better than the appalling previous Conservative government. I am very disappointed in your all.
Ole Nielson about 2 years ago
Shame on Trudeau's Liberal government for LYING to Canadians!1.) The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition DESPITE the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. 2.) The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that Harper’s ‎C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place.3.) The government’s decision to maintain Harper’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
E. Peter about 2 years ago
1) Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). 2) Untie the NEB from big oil influence. 3) Although there seems to be little hope because of the the lack of political and corporate will, a national energy program/policy would be both environmentally and economically useful if it were to expand the refinement of oil in Canada rather than building pipelines to supply other countries like China and USA.
Douglas Dobbyn about 2 years ago
You must show environmental leadership and repair/restore The Navigation Waters Act! Harper destroyed, do you want to maintain the destruction or build for a better future by protecting our most precious resource? Please, make my Canada a leader again.
DCL about 2 years ago
We need to undo the damage Harper caused to environmental protections -- it looks as though what's happening here is an attempt to make it look as though something is being accomplished while really doing very little. As recommended by the expert panels (why have them if we don't want to listen to them??), we need to overhaul the NEB, give the EA Agency sole authority for conducting EAs, and restore the NWPA. Also, I strongly disagree with this quote: "Canada’s new environmental assessment system must consider impacts on more than just the environment. The economic, social and health effects associated with a project must be considered." The whole reason why environmental assessments were initiated is because other impacts were always considered and never the environment. We need an independent agency that ONLY considers the environment in making assessments. I'm so sick of people thinking that somehow the environment is a luxury or an optional consideration. It's what we all depend upon for our very existence, or at least a reasonably healthy one. It's also incredibly selfish to offload the consequences of bad decisions onto future generations. I thought I was voting for these values when I went Liberal this time -- but just as with the changes to the Electoral Act, it seems as though environmental promises will be broken.
Patricia Rogerson about 2 years ago
It is really important that the Canadian government be good stewards for all of our navigable waters. The Harper legislation was really bad, please reverse it. We had some very good navigable water regulations that have served Canadians well.
Karen Lightbody about 2 years ago
I just get really tired of broken promises and illogic. We have great academia in Canada and when we are given reports and/or advice, we should listen. We need to think of the future generations and try not to destroy environment and leave an illogical governmental system. Let's at smart and do the right thing to make it better.
Sannie McInnis about 2 years ago
Why don't we listen to our experts and make recommended changes to the NEB and the EA and reinstate the the NWPA? These changes were promised! There are your gaps. Obviously, areas suffering the greatest environmental damage currently or in future should have top priority, but without some changes on the Federal level.......
D Sweetnam about 2 years ago
We feel the need to bring three key concerns to your attention: - The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It will remain in Calgary under its current composition despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. - The government’s rejection of the Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The government now proposes that Harper’s ‎C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place.- The government’s decision to maintain Harper’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), instead relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
Jacqueline Steffen about 2 years ago
The gaps include not accepting independent and government scientific reviews/evidence instead of permitting oil industries to make decisions. Fish farms should not be permitted along the wild salmon route on the BC coast. We've had extremely low salmon runs in the last 2 years. We need to address the concerns of First Nations and our fishing industry. Very few of the recommendations have been completed in the Cohen Commission Paper. The Southern Strait of Georgia contains a large portion of the critical habitat of the southern resident killer whales, which now number fewer than 80 individual animals. Orcas face many threats including pollution, over fishing and noise from vessel traffic. We need to protect our national parks all across Canada. Fossil fuels and pipeline projects are a risk to our water resources and wildlife. Canada’s oil and gas industry has a massive problem with under-reported methane leaks and fugitive emissions from oil and gas facilities in Alberta and British Columbia.
Rebecca Weigand about 2 years ago
It is very positive that upstream climate-changing emissions are to be considered in assessments - e.g., the emissions released in the process of digging up the fossil fuels. Yet, downstream emissions need also to be considered - those fossil fuels will be burned and their dangerous impact on a rapidly warming climate must be taken into account in any project. Please ensure that downstream emissions, waste, and life cycle analysis are part of all resource extraction project environmental assessments.
Janet Parkins about 2 years ago
The gaps in Canada's national environmental frameworks relate to muzzling scientists and allowing captured regulators and for profit industry to make the decisions. Canada needs to return to using scientific evidence (produced by qualified, unbiased scientists) based decision making. I do not know enough to comment on which geographic areas should be examined first for regional assessments - all geographic areas should be examined using actual scientific evidence based assessments.
Clayton Lloyd-Jones about 2 years ago
Open pen fish farms were one of the subjects addressed by the Cohen commission and as a result a number of recommendations were made to study why there was such a decline in the wild salmon stocks returning to the Fraser river. It seems that very few of the recommendations have been followed. I think that the aquaculture industry in the Pacific ocean should be looked at more closely and find out how the diseases that are plaguing the Atlantic salmon in the pens are being managed. In addition, it would be a good idea to make the industry a land based one rather than ocean based. That would solve the problem of sea lice, disease transfer, waste elimination and the impact these farms have on herring, candlefish sockeye fry and invertebrates on the ocean floor directly beneath the pens.
Beth Janz about 2 years ago
One of the questions asked in the Discussion Paper was 'What are the gaps in our national environmental frameworks and what geographic areas should first be examined for regional assessments? ' I would like to propose the Salish Sea on the Pacific West Coast be be examined on an urgent basis. This is an area proposed as a World Heritage Site, yet there is a disturbing disconnect between municipal, provincial and federal governments, industry and environmental science. The crown of the ecosystem is perhaps the Orca - and its well-documented struggle for sustainability is mirrored within the entire eco-system. I would request an immediate and cross-government assessment of the entire fishing and aquaculture industry and a moratorium on new projects until there can be an alignment with environmental science recommendations. It is my experience that industry at the moment is winning at the cost of our environment.
Robert Haslett about 2 years ago
1. Transition open net fish farms onto land. 2. Adhere to the recommendations of the Cohen Report. 3. Work with the provincial government to standardize licence fees and catch limits to equal standards for both salt and fresh water anglers. 3. Support community and government hatcheries. 4. Recognize the right of non-indigenous people to also treat salmon as a food source. 5. Put our lakes, rivers and streams BACK into the Navigable Waters Act. 6. Ban the use of herbicides and pesticides within 500 meters of any fish bearing or fish supporting waters.Re: "geographic areas", - all areas in and adjacent to fish bearing/supporting streams, lakes and rivers. Thank you for this opportunity to give my input.
Roger about 2 years ago
GHGs have been effectively demonized by the environmental lobbies so that it is not possible to qualify or discuss the issue without being dismissed as an industry shill. Much greater weight must be placed on local effects of activities on the environment (such as water or fragmentation, feasible remediation), not global effects - argued primarily based on non-falsifiable computer models and under-estimating non-anthropogenic effects
Edward Kurys P.Eng MBA about 2 years ago
I think an open discussion is needed with regards environmental initiatives particularly the movement to electric cars. In regard to electric cars, the public should be made aware of the following aspects associated with electric vehicles;1. Cost of upgrading residential wiring to accommodate charging of electric vehicles.2. Cost of upgrading the electric grid.3. Cost of expanding power generation to accommodate increased electricity usage.4. Increase carbon footprint of an expanded power generation system and operation compared with reduction of gasoline driven vehicles5. Inefficiencies association with electric vehicles such as gradual loss of travel time due to the gradual deterioration of batteries, charging time and the affect to economic growth from these inefficiencies.6. The environmental damage caused by the proliferation of battery dumps from electric vehicles. These batteries are made from very toxic lithium so storage of old batteries would have to be done in engineered locations to prevent contamination of land and water supplies. The cost of the storage and processing of old batteries will be considerable and add to the country's carbon footprint.Perhaps a better way to decrease our carbon footprint rather than the dubious route of electric cars is to plant more trees. Trees absorb CO2 and in addition to reducing the carbon footprint will help to cool the planet. Another route would be to design more efficient gasoline vehicles with say small scrubbers that will remove some or most of the CO2 from car exhausts.It seems to me that the government is buying the green agenda hook, line and sinker without allowing adequate discussion and debate. This was apparent during the climate conference in Paris when those opposed to the Paris Climate agenda where not allowed to speak. This narrowness of vision could result in severe pain to individuals and our economy if insufficient debate is not allowed so as to arrive at a consensus that everyone can buy into and not just those dogmatic and tunnel vision greens and environmentalists. I suggest that better environmental policies could be achieved by welcoming open discussion and debate on important environmental issues. If the global warming cabal are so confidant of their position, why is it that they don’t welcome open discussion and debate.
Edward Kurys P.Eng MBA about 2 years ago
1.0 I consider that the process needs to be simplified. The present process takes too long to get project approval and adds too much cost to a project such that some projects never get off the ground resulting in lost jobs and a loss of economic activity.2. Regards indigenous input. I agree that their rights should be protected, however I also consider that the greater good of Canadians and Canada should be given a very high weighting. A reasonable approach is needed - veto powers by small groups should be judiciously controlled.
Al Spiess about 2 years ago
A national environment framework could serve Canada well. However it must be based on science and historical data. Giving way to individual activist groups only serves the minority not the country as whole. If a framework was developed it must be applied equally to all Canadian industries not just the Oil and Gas industry. This tool must not be used to allow profit for one industry and defer another. The framework must be made by Canadians for Canadians not foreign entities.
Andrew Adams about 2 years ago
My concern with the cumulative effects aspect is that the upstream GHG emissions for say two pipeline projects could count the same emissions at least twice and lead to an exaggerated account for upstream emissions. To me, the proper time to consider upstream emissions was when each upstream project received its environmental review. The emissions from the upstream projects are assessed then and now for every downstream project the same emissions will be counted again.Secondly reviewing the cumulative effects for a pipeline project is actually of no use since there is absolutely nothing that the pipeline project can do to reduce upstream emissions other than not be built. So it is a waste of time and effort for cumulative emissions assessments to be done for pipeline projects. And even if a pipeline is rejected because of upstream emissions then all that will happen is that the oil will be shipped by rail which in my opinion is a poorer alternative to a pipeline.In actual fact we are wasting a lot of time, effort and money doing ultra detailed reviews of pipelines and other resource projects when the best way to reduce our CO2 emissions is to reduce our CONSUMPTION of all fossil fuels not only in Canada but worldwide. This is simply because at least 75% of CO2 emissions occur when fossil fuels are CONSUMED in our IC engines, jet engines, furnaces, power plants, etc. Reducing CONSUMPTION works everywhere in the world and ultimately if CONSUMPTION is reduced then so will production go down since no company anywhere will go on producing something that they cannot sell for a profit. We should all focus our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions on reducing the CONSUMPTION of all fossil fuels.
Andrew Adams about 2 years ago
My concern with the cumulative effects aspect is that the upstream GHG emissions for say two pipeline projects could count the same emissions at least twice and lead to an exaggerated account for upstream emissions. To me, the proper time to consider upstream emissions was when each upstream project received its environmental review. The emissions from the upstream projects are assessed then and now for every downstream project the same emissions will be counted again.
Stanley Bobrow about 2 years ago
We seem to single out the oil and gas industry when we talk about environmental reviews. Why are there no public consultations for a new auto plant in Ontario? There are major highway construction projects throughout the country with no discernible environmental reviews. Both of these examples have obvious green house gas implications, yet no impact studies are publicized.We need to be much more consistent to make our approach credible.
Stanley Bobrow about 2 years ago
I applaud a science based approach. A preconceived irrational emotion based approach will not get us to where we want to be.
JACK MEYER about 2 years ago
Water is our most precious resource, and must be protected at the cost of our lives.
Raymond Hoff about 2 years ago
Recent studies of the "pollution footprint" of the Oil Sands on PAH, secondary organic aerosols and heavy metal deposition show that we are woefully underinformed on the extent of transport in air and water of major projects which have been in operation for nearly 50 years. To have the science to inform decision-making in Canada's remote areas will require a significant increase in research in the national laboratories. Programs in the Arctic, near shore waters and the Great Lakes have either been terminated or are now still on the chopping block. There is a need for the Advisors to the Minister to plan how to remedy these shortfalls in basic scientific knowledge of the trends of contaminants in Canada.
David Polster about 2 years ago
I am concerned that solutions to environmental problems often create more problems. I will use the diking around Duncan to illustrate this issue. You may be aware that the Federal Government provided North Cowichan a bunch of money to construct dikes around the town as a result of 2009 floods, but the dikes do not solve the problems of the loss of watershed services associated with logging in the watershed for the past 100 years. We need to be careful that our solutions to problems (say a pipeline corridor that dissects important wildlife habitat that is "solved" by building over- or under-passes. But these serve as funnels for wildlife and therefore provide opportunities for enhanced predation and do nothing for animals that steer clear of openings in the forest.).We need to look for solutions that build resilience in our ecosystems, like the restoration of watershed hydrology or the elimination of the broad R-o-W associated with pipelines and effective restoration.
J. Walker about 2 years ago
Consider developing environmental assessment tools that relate to different environments (e.g., urban/residential; rural/agricultural; parks, protected areas, undeveloped, polluted) that have the potential to affect the environment (e.g., hydro electric, oil & gas, mines, nuclear, highways, development including housing, golf courses, etc.). Clearly identify with Indigenous leaders, those locations requiring public consultation (likely a lot of this has been completed). Identify baseline standards for the environment, including impacts, tests, prevention, mitigation etc. Perhaps standardize this 'stuff' across all levels of government/provinces ...
n nLinc about 2 years ago
We have to understand the differences with indigenous reserve land and or territory values verses our geographic land of canada values and try to deliver all govt resources to make them progress in the same context as we do in our own cities/towns while also comprehending and maintaining the established culture in those two regions.
Byron Whitford about 2 years ago
There is potential for International agreements like the Paris Accord and Government programs such as the Canadian Framework for Clean Growth and Climate Change to pit regions against each other as they compete to fill the GHG quota first.If a project in one region receives approval and increases our NATIONAL net GHG output, bringing us closer to our cap or making it harder to reach our reduction goals, will it negatively affect other projects still in review in other regions? The risk of a national unity crisis arising if one project is approved despite increases to GHGs while another is rejected for the same reason is great.
Jim Anderson about 2 years ago
I don't see that there are any gaps in the frameworks. The gaps I see are in the approach that the leftist environmentalists take in assuming we as Canadians, who have approximately one half of one percent of the earths population, have the resources to stop climate change. We don't, its as easy as that. The other part of the equation, to me, is that the earth has been warmer than it is now, there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now and the natural earth contributes more to the atmosphere than man, through volcanic actions and methane from the oceans, fissure sin the rock and decaying matter beyond human consumption.