Early Engagement and Planning | Submit your comments | Discussion Paper

IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

Early Engagement and Planning

12 months ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

What should be the process and outcome of an early planning phase?

Charlene B over 1 year ago
The proponent should be able to engage and plan a project prior to submission of the project description. Business decisions need to be respected. Duplication in reviews should be avoided as it is not efficient, particularly for inter-related federal regulatory processes. The reviews need to be coordinated using an integrated framework.
Anne G over 1 year ago
Clarity on the transition period is required, nothing short of 2 or 3 years is required to ensure a smooth implementation. Engagement should continue to be led by the proponent and focused on those directly impacted by the project. Duplication of effort should be avoided whenever possible.
K Ketilson over 1 year 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.• 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. Transition should be 2 – 3 years to allow seamless and efficient implementation. • The Impact Assessment process must adequately satisfy any IA review requirements associated with federal regulatory decisions need to facilitate later approvals and permits.• The early planning phase should be initiated in response to a project description from the proponent, and be scoped based on the scale of the project.• Do not support multiple project description submissions and government and stakeholder review for designated major projects that require the IA process.• Engagement prior to submission of project description should continue to be led by the proponent.
Karen Whiteside over 1 year ago
The proponent holds the responsibility to submit an adequately researched and designed proposal and this should not be put on the public to do. This step can be eliminated if industry is given and understands pre-conditions clearly identified in the Early Planning and Impact Assessment stage. Industry bears this responsibility to understand the region their proposal affects and provide reasonable proof of their proposals ability to amicably integrate into that region’s culture, ecology and economy and regional cumulative pollution status challenges.
Karen Whiteside over 1 year ago
Early Planning and Impact Assessment - Q. What should be the process and outcome of an early planning phase?Please consider reviewing your model to attain greater proficiency. In order to reduce redundancy and repetition in assessing individual projects, regional core environmental and socio economic stress limits or thresholds should be initially established and will be driven by the Cumulative Effects/Strategic Assessments data base. These baseline parameters can then be used in a project's initial viability study phases to determine if any project warrants further consideration or if industry needs to go back to their respective project design phase.Pre-determining regional baselines based on the premise of regional ecological resource having finite parameters provides the following benefits:1. Industry has advance knowledge of probabilities of their proposed project being viable for a specific region. 2. Industry gains insight for project modification and improvements prior to entering into a regulatory review. 3. Government costs are reduced in reviewing individual proposals by eliminating repetition and improving review times. 4. Allows government to fast track whether a proposal is viable based on whether it meets the finite regional ecological resources as predetermined by scientifically based data. 5. Allows indigenous and community stakeholders to contribute to database design greatly reducing the need to reiterate relatively static concerns with each new project review that transpires. For example, once hereditary sacred places, traditional medicine and subsistence food resources are tracked in the pre-approval database 6. Allows indigenous and community stakeholder opportunity to validate database accuracy
Lou Allison over 1 year ago
Complete information should be provided by proponents of projects, not designs that change and fluctuate even as assessments are under review, as in the case I am most familiar with: the proposed Nexen-CNOOC/Inpex Aurora LNG plant slated for Digby Island, BC. Not only has the design and overall environmental footprint and impact changed several times, the proponent has repeatedly been found lacking in providing the kind, quality and amount of information necessary to satisfy the basic requirements of the process. The company has paused the process twice, but the EAO (provincial as this review is being conducted by substitution), the Working Groups assessing the information and the Public do not have the right to institute a pause: this seems inequitable and affords the proponent undue power over the process. Requiring more complete disclosure from the outset would have forced this company to be better prepared before instituting an assessment that has proved so incomplete and problematic.
Keepers of the Athabasca over 1 year ago
It's important that early planning does include important aspects of project design. 'Direct engagement' should go both ways. Proponents should be asking for input and/or Traditional Knowledge applied to their project, also individuals, groups, scientists, and Traditional Knowledge holders should be able to comment on projects as they are developed. We are glad to see that you are proposing the elimination of the 'standing' test, as all Canadians are affected by energy development, now and into the future. Climate change means that we all need to be involved in energy development. This makes the case for increased participant funding as well, so all Canadians can be involved when they have important input. Inclusive monitoring and compliance activities can help prevent the 'silo' behavior of regulators, and diminish the current echo chamber around projects with thought diversity. Further, please consider encouraging Environment Canada scientists to utilize their specialties and training in a non-biased way. We were very disappointed at Bob Brua (Environment Canada)'s presentation at the Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network's biennial Science Forum in Edmonton on "Assessment of Biological Condition: Lower Athabasca River Tributaries and Mainstem on February 28, 2017, in which he did not even mention tailings ponds as a potential factor in water quality. How is it possible that roads, open pits, and bitumen processing are factors and the massive tailings lakes are not?
Douglas Macaulay over 1 year ago
At the earliest point possible, a proponent should present the conceptual components of a proposed project, with identification (in a generic manner) of potential material impacts, assuming the use of best available technology. Indigenous representatives would then identify critical concerns, or aspects of the region/site that are particularly sensitive, environmentally or culturally (sacred sites, key harvesting areas/locations, migration routes, cultural heritage sites). The outcome of this early engagement exercise would be a tiered (critical/foundational; of major importance; of importance) list of questions/issues that the proponent would need to satisfactorily address in its (later) work and submission. Going forward in the process, ongoing engagement with Indigenous peoples would occur and at specific milestones there would be more formal meetings where the proponent presents the results of work to that point and the Indigenous representatives respond. Among the roles of the federal government at the point(s) decisions are made regarding licencing the project, one of the key considerations will be how well the proposal has done in addressing items on the list.
Andrea Hull over 1 year ago
The environmental and health impacts need to be considered FIRST. Only projects that can offer positive effects for the environment and our health should be approved from now on if we truly want to mitigate the effects of climate change.
G. Meston over 1 year ago
Any early planning process must ensure that that sufficient public notice is given to all participants and the pubic at large.
K Stockwood over 1 year ago
Sometimes it seems like there's the opportunity to comment and provide feedback, but then when decisions are made to grant licenses for pipelines, it seems like all our comments are fruitless and go unheard. Before greenlighting any further industrial projects which will impact the environment and the people who live on the land you must be sure the government restores lost protections and links all legislation-driven decisions to climate-change targets and sustainability goals.
The Inverhuron Committee over 1 year ago
The Inverhuron Committee agrees that early engagement is required if projects under the Environmental Assessment Act are to appear to be transparent and fair. Our involvement with the deep geologic repository came at the Hearing stage - where we were not able to ask questions of the proponent. At that stage the Environmental Assessment was "complete" and the project seemed to be supported by the CNSC. The public wants to know that the proposal has been examined by independent overseers (scientists, panel members outside of the CNSC, and research from International sources).
Sipekne'katik over 1 year ago
1. Regarding an early engagement and planning phase please see the following: "Best Practices Guide to Prior Consultation in the Americas" by Jay Hartling, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung Regional "Indigenous Political Participation" Program in Latin America, 2017.2. A possible outcome of an early planning phase could be a meaningful relationship is built with the proponent prior to project approvals being received.
Marilyn Otton over 1 year ago
These should
Robert F. Hollins over 1 year ago
We elected a party (Liberal) that promised action on climate change, and much more stringent environmental regulation. The path is clear. Why is there this barrage of verbiage, obfuscating the clearly visible way?
Robert F. Hollins over 1 year ago
Can't understand why you are asking this question. Before the 2015 election you promised to act. Now all you can do is collect words and spout off about process, outcome and early planning???
Kathryn Barnes over 1 year ago
Martha Jo (MJ) Willard over 1 year ago
1. Ensure good projects go ahead only if resources get to market without damage to environment as signed off on by Indigenous and environmentalists alike.2. One project – one assessment, with the scale of assessment aligned with the scale but with right to correct assessment if false assumptions are missed
Jane over 1 year ago
• The process must include climate science and climate change in every aspect of energy decisions at any stage of the process. • The outcome must include Canada’s Paris Climate Agreement commitments as a defining goal to prevent a 2 C increase in global average temperature. This is our biggest call to action.• The outcomes must include a timeline for decreasing dependency on fossil fuels for energy, and the possibilities to transition away from fossil fuels and build a clean energy future for Canada.• Canada is a large country and each province and territory has its particular resources, economic, political and social challenges and therefore consensus on energy is difficult. This is something we must talk about as part of the process.• The process must include the creation of careers, jobs and infrastructure in clean energy in order to secure a healthy, socially and economically vibrant Canada.
Ahava over 1 year ago
To let all parties who will be impacted know about the process with much time to consider and organize themselves. (I am hearing music as I write and it is very distracting. It is coming from this website)
Anhthu over 1 year ago
To identify cumulative effects early, allow for early analysis and consultation so that concerns could be discussed and addressed before critical decisions and investments are made.
Jim Culp over 1 year ago
I agree with early engagement and planning which has been sadly lacking in the development of the Kitimat Valley and for that matter in the entire Skeena and Nass Rivers Watersheds where large industrial logging has taken place with large impacts upon other resources and fish and wildlife habitats as well as a slower rate of logging that could have contributed to a more secure and predictable long term forest industry.Most of all the turmoil that residents in the Skeena, Nass, and Kitimat Valleys and in the Central Interior where oil and gas pipelines were and continue to be planned have gone though and are still going through is unconscionable and inexcusable. Early engagement and long term planning would have made and still can make a huge difference. Deciding (governments, indigenous people and stakeholders not just the proponents) which valleys are appropriate for pipeline location and which valleys are not would have slowed down development but in the end it may have resulted in some projects proceeding.The PETRONAS LNG project should never have been planned for Lelu Island in the Skeena River estuary where Skeena River salmonids were being threatened by the development . Had early engagement and preplanning taken place with all First Nations and stakeholders the project would not have proceeded and a more appropriate location could have been found.
Anne Learn Sharpe over 1 year ago
I agree that proponents of any project must address cumulative effects in their initial proposals. Proposals should be put on hold until all necessary data is available. Proposals should be made available to the public at an early stage and peer reviewed to assess any possible negative outcomes or to make sure the proposal includes the safest and most effective technology for the least impact on the environment.
Jan McQuay over 1 year ago
Early engagement and planning is great, but the interim principle "No project proponent will be asked to return to the starting line" is not reassuring. Some projects clearly should not proceed, regardless of where in the process they may be. Some "bottom lines" should be established. First, no project that results in a net increase of greenhouse gas emissions should be allowed to proceed. A second "bottom line" should be that every project should include a decommissioning and cleanup fund that is adequate and cannot be used for any other purpose until the project winds up and environmental impacts have been resolved. Thirdly, no project should proceed on indigenous land without their agreement, and no project should be allowed on nature reserves. Then, if the proponents can satisfy these baseline criteria, public input should be the next step.
Mark Tipperman over 1 year ago
Solicitation of public input for the scope of environmental assessments. What are the concerns and risks that the assessment agency needs to consider; and what issues must the proponent address with probative evidence
Mark Tipperman over 1 year ago
Canada should require environmental assessments through a process that starts with scoping to determine the issues that need to be evaluated, following by a preliminary assessment and a final. Public input needs to be actively sought for the scoping and preliminary assessment. Reviews of environmental assessments should be left in the hands of an environmental appeals board comprised of individuals with expertise; not political hacks and not the trial level courts.
Onni Milne over 1 year ago
The process and outcome of an early planning phase must be to ensure that all concerned citizens and levels of government are informed of the when and where of the process. Extra care must be taken to include First Nations affected by any project in their area beyond telling them what has been decided and approved.
Connie Duchene over 1 year ago
Public consultation opportunities, and easily accessible information should be provided early in this process.
Kim deLagran over 1 year ago
The process should be widely publicized before it begins and involve all levels of government for debate especially in areas that will be directly affected Outcomes must also be widely publicized.
DT over 1 year ago
The process and outcome in the early planning phase is to consult with experts on the health impacts of the proposed projects. This should include Environmental Medicine Physicians, Toxicologists, Public Health experts, as well as other knowledeable Physicians and Scientists.
Michael Wheatley over 1 year 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.
Evelyn Scott over 1 year ago
Active engagement and co-planning and co-management of the proposed project with Indigenous people in that territory. Indigenous people and other long term residents in that region need to be given standing and direct engagement in the early planning process and throughout.
Wendy W. over 1 year ago
Other people can articulate this better than me...in short, take Elizabeth May's well-researched planning processes seriously. Public engagement is important so I appreciate the opportunity to comment but you already have experts and colleagues with great insight. Just listen to them.
Antonia Mills over 1 year ago
All people who will be impacted by a proposed plan should be listened to and their concerns should have the capacity to stop the development.
John D. Jacobs, PhD over 1 year ago
There should be an open and transparent presentation of the project to all interested parties, with adequate opportunity and time for the exchange of information and to address areas of initial concern. The outcome of the early phase should be a consensus on what level of assessment is required, with a full review always being an option.
Charlene Minifie over 1 year ago
I stand behind Elizabeth May's well-researched planning processes. Please listen to the research!
Judith Sharp over 1 year ago
I believe it is essential to understand each Territories and Provinces needs, and that it would be worthwhile to hold Town Meetings to let people discuss the problems as they see it, as well as meeting the Mayors and Chiefs and their councils.
Gary Janisse almost 2 years ago
We need to look at the most vulnerable areas first we need to restore more research and allow freedom of peech
Marlyn Horsdal almost 2 years ago
The government needs to listen to its own expert and objective panels. One such panel recommended that the National Energy Board be completely changed, and moved to Ottawa. DO NOT IGNORE this advice. The NEB as set up under Harper is a sham. This government must free itself from the fossil-fuel corporations. Another panel advised changing the Environmental Assessment Agency into a board with the authority to order environmental assessments. DO NOT IGNORE this advice either.
Nicole Corrado almost 2 years ago
All groups of people need to be involved. This seems to be addressed. Wildlife and their habitats need to be taken into consideration.
Betsy Johnston almost 2 years ago
Do the right thing and act on the advice of the expert panels, namely the NEB overhauled, and the Environmental Assessment should become a quasi judicial body and reinstate the Navigational Protection Act . In addition, further protection is needed for the Orca in the Salish sea and for wild salmon from the effects of the fish farms.The Arctic Ocean needs special protection and should have new policies enacted!
PATRICIA ARNEY almost 2 years ago
Scientific research reviews by scientists and first nations not public forums.
Nancy Crozier almost 2 years ago
Collecting data for one.Thepreviousgov't strippedCanadaofitsmost,valuableResource-scientists and experts within its advisorybodies.Hire-objective non-partisan experts in their fields and set up research departments in sustainability and innovation.Find out what countries are excelling in climate change and learn how to do even better.
A. Katherine Duperron almost 2 years ago
Early planning should include gathering environmental, social, cultural information about the region of a proposed project. Way before any consultations are held, the proposers should have a remediation plan in place and a payment into a disaster/remediation fund.
A. Katherine Duperron almost 2 years ago
Early planning should include gathering environmental, social, cultural information about the region of a proposed project. Way before any consultations are held, the proposers should have a remediation plan in place and a payment into a disaster/remediation fund.
A. Katherine Duperron almost 2 years ago
Early planning should include gathering environmental, social, cultural information about the region of a proposed project.
Marilyn Shaw almost 2 years ago
First, do no harm. Do not allow anything to be done unless there is no doubt that it is cost-beneficial for the environment, present, and future to do so.
Margaret H Forsythe almost 2 years ago
I think we need a mission statement - an environmental bill of rights, that puts our right to sustainable fresh water, clean, breathable air, and clear goals on climate change. All planning then must be looked at to see if it is in keeping with our mission as a country. We need to have innovations in science as more of a priority in this early planning, than industry heavy weights. I think Council of Canadians and the David Suzuki Foundation would have good solutions to how this could be structured.
Joseph Fall almost 2 years ago
Community participation and public engagement are keys to early planning phase. But these must not be hollow exercises, intended to mollify or simply to meet requirements. The key outcomes from early planning phase should be a public document detailing the "triple bottom line" for the project, and giving equal voice to the concerns raised by the public, indigenous communities, government and academic agencies, along with industrial proponents. Current engagement processes and their outcomes are too much like promotional materials in support of the project, which serve to undermine or obscure legitimate concerns of those opposed to it.
Kim Charlesworth almost 2 years ago
The goals must be set as protection for the environment - we all need clean air, clean water, clean food. If you do that, and actually aim for that outcome, and then figure out how to mitigate the economic fallout instead of just ignoring the recommendations, we will achieve what needs to be achieved. If we want an environment that sustains us into the future, we have to set our goals for that - not maintaining the status quo for those with economic interests.
J Wells almost 2 years ago
Do the right thing and act on the advice of the expert panels ,namely the NEB overhaul and the Environmental Assessment to become a quasi judicial body and to reinstate the Navigational Protection Act . In addition further protection is needed for the Orca in the Salish sea and for wild salmon from the effects of the fish farms.The Arctic Ocean needs special protection and should have new policies enacted.
Barbara DeMott almost 2 years ago
Adopt the recommendations of the expert panels to completely overhaul the NEB and moe way from industry pressure in Calgary to Ottawa. Convert Environmental Assessment agency into quasi judicial bord to hve sole authority for conducting envirinmental assessments.
Nora Fernandez almost 2 years ago
Why would our Government have experts do studies on the proposed projects - a good idea - if government is not ready to listen to what they say? These experts have had public meetings and/or on-line forums to allow people to share their thoughts/input. Government needs to listen their own experts studies and implement...Stop treating us like children who do not see the manipulative nature of process that disregard expert knowledge. Listen and act on what you're told.
Kerri Klein almost 2 years ago
Adopt the expert panels recommendations for environmental reforms. Specifically, 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. 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. There are better options for planning in engagement that is more democratic and science based.
Maureen McGuire almost 2 years ago
Stop this patronizing approach. Expert panels and government members have advised of the need to discuss regional concerns locally. Overhaul the NEB and Environmental Assessment agency into a quasi-judicial board.
Roger Richardson almost 2 years ago
We need to correct what the Conservatives didn't. Canada's environment needs serious help. Indigenous rights must come before corporate wants. We have to consider the future of Canada before big business. Pollution, global warming and general environmental destruction must be dealt with now.
Jason Steeghs almost 2 years ago
Consider mapping environmental sentiments and awareness in various demographics (with frequent updates) and using open, transparent education to advise citizens and non-proponent stakeholders of the various impacts and benefits of environmentally-impactful projects.
Caroline Maloney almost 2 years ago
The Environmental Assessment Agency, along with a quasi-judicial board, should be the sole authority for conducting EA!
Dan Carpenter almost 2 years ago
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.
T. Sande almost 2 years ago
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.
Sheila Harrington almost 2 years ago
this administration should adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.
Alex J Zimmerman almost 2 years ago
The process should be based on keeping campaign promises to repeal the major errors of the previous government and should start from the premise that the various expert panels' recommendations will be the starting point for improved outcomes, not some aspirational goal to be negotiated away by industry.
L A S almost 2 years ago
Take the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. Move from Calgary according to the sound advice of the costly panel and move it to Ottawa.
Sharon Leighton almost 2 years ago
If the Government continues to have experts do studies on the proposed projects - a good idea - then they should listen to what the experts say. If, as they often do, they have public meetings or on-line forums to allow for public input, they should listen to that, as well, and not just discount it as the public's chance to vent. That's the most important thing. Listen and act on what you're told.
Sheila Page almost 2 years ago
Early planning has been outlined already by the expert panels of the N.E.B. and the Environmental Assessment panel. The outcome should be acceptance of their recommendations.
Timothy Bartoo almost 2 years ago
In order for an early planning and engagement phase to be worthwhile, it is necessary that the concerns of stakeholders other than the proponent be considered very seriously. There is danger that a proponent will go through the motions of this required phase without sincerity, concerns will fall on deaf ears, and it will devolve into an effort to placate opposition. This kind of outcome has been seen many times in the past.In the case of a proposal that is clearly not in the public interest, it should be possible for the government to flatly reject a proposal at the early planning and engagement phase, so as to minimize the wastage of time, energy and money on the parts of the proponent, government and opposition.
Michael Layland almost 2 years ago
The full and transparent collection of the Canadian public's opinion and consideration of that opinion in the planning phase.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
Early engagement should begin with the clear understanding that protected status for waterways exists prior to any project planning - i.e. restore the NWPA. Early engagement then begins with the necessity that all planning be based on effective protection, with the onus on the project proponent to demonstrate effective mechanisms to ensure ongoing protection.
Colin Creasey almost 2 years ago
Why are you asking this question if you are ignoring the advice of your expert panel?
Greg Taylor almost 2 years ago
Public consultation and respect for the outcomes of those consultations regardless of whether the government agrees with those outcomes. Make sure First Nations and environmental organizations play a key role in those consultations to balance out the voices of industry.
Lisbeth Mousseau almost 2 years ago
We need a complete overhaul of the NEB. reform it and move it to Ottawa.
Peter Moller almost 2 years ago
We need the situation to be studied by a body which is arm's length from corporate or political influence. This could comprise experts in their field in academia and/or unbiased non-governmental think-tanks without outside influencers. Government scientists could also be part of it as long as they were freed from political control.
Mairy Beam almost 2 years ago
Clearly this is all bafflegab because of the point you made as number 1 i.e. "no project proponent will be asked to return to starting line.". You dazzle us with promises but the reality is that nothing has changed. The NEB is still in thrall to big business, our waterways are unprotected. The First Nations must go to court to have their treaties respected. BC First Nations are locked into costly negotiations which insist that they give up their sovereign rights.
R Procyk almost 2 years ago
See below
Mel Duhamel almost 2 years ago
The location and project concept should be announced broadly and transparently by the proponent so that stakeholders can step forward and have their concerns addressed during the design process, not afterward. Proponents must understand that some projects truly should not go forward in the locations they are considering and it would save them time and money to find that out that early.
E. Peter almost 2 years ago
Less planning and more action. Most of the issues stated require little planning since the required actions are extremely clear... for example; 1) Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA).2) Untie the NEB from big oil influence.
Patricia Rogerson almost 2 years ago
As communities Canadians work well together, we have built a country to be proud of, but we have made a few mistakes and those mistakes usually occur when we decide to forgo a good and broad public process for planning new projects, we miss so many excellent ideas and methods when we narrow our view too soon.
Annemarie Reimer almost 2 years ago
Not much different than Harper's ! For example, Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.You talk about listening to science: how about listening to the science of climate change which says that in order to meet our Paris agreement targets we cannot get the so-called resources to market. This kind of fence sitting is going to cost the entire planet and all species greatly!
Gary Kenward almost 2 years ago
While there is repeated mention of a "legislative timeline", but no actual dates provided. As our enviornment sits mostly unprotected. Under the principle that "no project proponent will be asked to return to starting line.", potentially damaging projects will be allow to proceed without restraint until new legislated process are instituted?Consultation is a excellent approach, but given the often slow progress of reaching a consensus, is there not a need to put in place interim legistlation to mitigate the risk of enviornmental catastrophes?
Gary Kenward almost 2 years ago
Regarding Enhanced Protection for Canada’s Fish and Fish Habitat: I do not see any mention of incorporating the extensive knowledge of local (indigenous and non-indigenous) fishermen. This should be explicitly identified. Some believe the cod fishery collapse might have been avoided if Fisheries Canada had paid more attention to the knowledge of the local fishermen.
Beth Janz almost 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.
Roger almost 2 years ago
All NGOs must identify their interest and publically disclose their sources of funding - most especially disclose their non-Canadian funding
Al Spiess almost 2 years ago
Once the Proponents designs, location and route are completed, the early engagement process could start. The process can't be assessed and discussed fairly without a design. Doing this upon concept would only confuse the process. Definition of scope must be available to have a meaning full engagement. Public consultation must include all effected parties within the route and or location of the project.
JACK MEYER almost 2 years ago
Finding a way to get projects going rather, than being litigated till nothing gets done.
JACK MEYER almost 2 years ago
Finding a way to get projects going rather, than being litigated till nothing gets done.
J. Walker almost 2 years ago
The proponent - government, private or non-profit sectors - would kick off the process by announcing project. The proponent is responsible for conducting an effective early planning phase. Utilize IAP2's model for early project planning, which incorporates public participation in the design of the project.
n nLinc almost 2 years ago
We have to privatize the think tankers\information collectors only because companies like ellisdon are really the ones that make the best actually happen therefore resilliently impacts a community.
Byron Whitford almost 2 years ago
A system must be put in place by the Government and the First Nations community to help guide proponents through this early planning and engagement process. Consensus among the first nations community must be reached on this or we risk repeating past mistakes. A good example is the First Nations Education Act introduced by Stephen Harper. Despite broad consultation by the Federal Government and buy in from the AFN this still failed due to divisions within First Nations communities that the government failed to see or acknowledge.Proponents must know what is expected of them. What is considered "Engagement?" Who exactly are they to engage with, for how long and under what conditions. Failure to define these things will lead to claims of a "lack of engagement" no mater what the proponents does which will undermine the process.
Jim Anderson almost 2 years ago
At this late date, in your mind? You are looking at early planning?