IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

Impact Assessment

about 1 year ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

What criteria should be used to consider potential changes to the Project List, and how do we ensure transparency in the process?

jacson about 1 year ago
Removed by moderator.
Charlene B almost 2 years ago
The criteria should be clear, transparent, and consistent. The complexity and risk of the activities proposed should be considered. Duplication of efforts should be avoided. Transparency could include outlining the criteria for the start with consideration from all parties involved.
Anne G almost 2 years ago
Changes to existing facilities that can be achieved within the licensing basis of a prior IA are not designated projects and do not require an additional federal IA process. Again, avoiding duplication of regulatory approval processes is essential to minimize confusion.
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.• 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 criteria for the Project List should be clear, transparent and consistent, consider the complexity of the activities proposed, and avoid duplication of regulatory approval processes. • Changes to existing facilities that can be achieved within the licensing basis of a prior IA are not designated projects and do not require an additional federal IA process.
Priddis almost 2 years ago
Impact assessment should be cradle to grave, measured against other projects. It should not be measured by social media, and non experts.
Terence almost 2 years ago
In my opinion, systems of points are at best a crude screening tool, but are often used instead of scientific analysis. This renders them pseudoscience. Systems of points are discredited throughout the mathematical literature, including Dimensional Analysis and Foundations of Measurement.
Amy almost 2 years ago
just be accountable for what you state / do. As you know gov't papers / powerpoints and etc always look pretty to the public, but often we see the end result is that someone has a hidden agenda and deals are made behind closed doors between gov't / industry.
Karen Whiteside almost 2 years ago
Impact Assessment - Q. What criteria should be used to consider potential changes to the Project List, and how do we ensure transparency in the process? 1. While Broadening the scope of assessment may appear to be holistic, inclusion of a project's economic viability should be considered separate from environmental, social and health assessments which are all intertwined. 1a. Economic viability of a project is concerned with worker, local and federal government income, revenues, a proponent's deliverability, solvency and markets and this has very little to do with social, environmental and human health implications. 1b. A project’s economic viability is too broad to be included and it is best left to financial experts and more notably would be the appropriate domaine of our finance minister. 2. No projects should be excluded from assessment In order to track cumulative effects. If a project is assessed as having no social, environmental or health negative impacts, it should be date validated as such and placed on public record accordingly. Otherwise, considering fluid changes to habitats and regional economies, there will be potential gaps in assessing cumulative effects.
Lou Allison almost 2 years ago
The precautionary principle should apply: the safety and integrity of irreplaceable natural values such as clean air and water should have precedence. Science used in assessing effects should be accessible and scientists should be available to other experts and the public, not muzzled in protection of private interests. A national standard should apply. If projects are approved follow-through should be conducted to ensure that the public is not stuck with the cost if clean-up or remediation becomes necessary.
Keepers of the Athabasca almost 2 years ago
We have concerns about "regulators' expert capacity". Some regulators have entrenched themselves in silo's with industry, and may not be qualified to appropriately comment on impact assessment in the public interest any longer. Consistency needs must be met nationally. Who checks up on regulators to make sure that their mandate is broad enough. not in conflict of interest, or being appropriately exercised? We need our federal government to do this.
Margit Dehnicke-Templeton almost 2 years ago
Sole decisions on Nuclear safety should not be made by CNSC. Independent assessment and decision making needs to be addressed by Independent authorities.
Melanie almost 2 years ago
Why are energy projects being dealt with independent of other project categories? It is my understanding that the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will continue to be used to assess energy projects. All EAs should be conducted by the same objective independent regulatory body - the CEAA - not by boards that have vested interests and strong ties to industry. Recent history shows from EAs done under Conservative Government with Kinder Morgan project that the NEB is not conducting projects in a comprehensive science-based manner and is set-up to rubber stamp energy projects. If anything traditional energy projects should be subject to additional rigour given their carbon footprints to send a message to industry that Canada has high standards for environmental protection and is honouring it's committment to shifting to alternative energy forms.
G. Meston almost 2 years ago
I have no comment on this aspect.
G. Meston almost 2 years ago
I have no knowledge to comment on this aspect.
The Inverhuron Committee almost 2 years ago
It is essential to include economic, social and health effects in the assessment process. When The Inverhuron Commission spoke to the Joint Review Panel about social acceptance within our community, we were told that this could not be reviewed by the members of the Panel. There was a great deal of discrepancy in the social acceptance of this project by the citizenry. As well, an independent health baseline study should be part of the requirement for projects that could potentially effect the health of citizens in the region. At this point, all health research is provided by the industry. Again, another way to build distrust and not build confidence.
Karen Wonders almost 2 years ago
Reinstate the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) destroyed by the Harper Government. Do not rely on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways. To ensure transparency the current government must make sure that all Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain protected from industrial projects.
Martha Jo (MJ) Willard almost 2 years ago
1. Address cumulative effects from the onset2. Eliminating the “standing” test previously used by the NEB3. Reinforcing rigour through peer reviewed, evidence based scientific data4. Considering both positive and negative impacts
Mailis Valenius almost 2 years ago
Need overall policy framework to guide Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Review Process. The proposed changes to Canada's Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Review processes include more of the status quo as far as projects are concerned. For example, most oil and gas projects are of the dinosaur age, and should not even be proposed in Canada.The new Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Review Process should include a review and assessment of policies (e.g., national energy policy), including the impact of different climate change scenarios.We need bold action and direction to guide the new Review Process. We need a national energy policy that charts a course away from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy. The survival of our planet and future generations require it. Global change is real, and we need to change our course before it is too late.
Jane almost 2 years ago
• Another important criterion is the affordability of clean energy alternatives.• How can the NEB criteria incorporate regulations or revisions for “potential surprises” as outlined in chapter 15 in the Climate Change report https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html
Anhthu almost 2 years ago
I support the creation of a single quasi-judicial tribunal mandated to conduct the Impact Assessment, as per the Expert Panel's recommendation. It is proposed that the agency is an independent entity at arms length of the government and does not report to any of the Ministers to ensure that it remains unbiased. I am unfamiliar with the Project List and the related process to get on the list, but as I understand it, the current process does not seems to work as a number of projects which could have harmful impacts on the environment are not on the list and thus not assessed. If the case, the process must be changed.
Jim Culp almost 2 years ago
I will defer to those people who have spent the past year or more trying to answer the first part of the question. I do know that I was unhappy in my area over run of river hydro projects under I think 50 megawatts which did not go through an assessment process yet they were only a few mw's under the thresh hold number, I suspect enough that their size did not trigger an environmental assessment. The change they caused two rivers was just as great as they would have caused if the project was only minimally bigger.Transparency can only be solved through good communication and willingness to respond to requests for information. If a person makes a substantial presentation it should be acknowledged and any questions asked should receive answers.
Terry Woods almost 2 years ago
All changes to a project should be first reviewed by a non-partisan body, based upon sound science. If the changes are deemed to be significant, a new project plan should be required. Too often tweaks and and adjustments to a project "on-the-fly" results in the lack of an effective way to monitor. A monitoring system set up to keep track one set of criteria is ineffective when those criteria change.
Anne Learn Sharpe almost 2 years ago
Follow the advice of the expert panel to create a quasi-judicial board with sole authority to conduct environmental assessments. The board should include non-partisan experts in a variety of disciplines including health, economics, sociology and justice as well as protection of the environment. Boards such as the National Energy Board and the CNSA may submit comments to the environmental assessment board for consideration, but should have no part in any final decisions as they are proponents more than adjudicators. If the government really wants Canadian citizens to have confidence in assessments, excluding the NEB and the CNSA from a decision-making role is a prerequisite.
Jan McQuay almost 2 years ago
Also, what is the Project List? How can we comment on that?
Jan McQuay almost 2 years ago
The Trojan horse in this section of the discussion paper is "economic, social and health impacts of projects should be assessed" as well as environmental. The reason we are in the environmental mess we're in is that short term, narrowly-defined economic impacts have been the only impacts that have carried any weight in decisions on projects, with a few notable exceptions like the Berger Commission in the 1970s. Most often, what is easily quantified is what gets counted, and the health of our ecosystems, even the looming 6th Extinction aren't enough to stop destructive projects, provided a corporation promises immediate jobs and "economic benefits". The environmental assessment process should be untainted by short-term (i.e. standard) economic arguments. Follow the recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority for conducting assessments. As for "life-cycle regulators", who exactly are you referring to? For example, when it comes to nuclear waste that is dangerous for thousands of years, do you really believe that our "life-cycle regulators" will be able to manage things that long?? I don't know what to make of such smoke and mirrors. Finally, one person or even a Cabinet should not be the final decision-maker on large projects. I like the idea of making Parliament work: bring the projects to Parliament in free votes. Leaving the final decisions in the hands of a Minister or even Cabinet is less democratic and is more vulnerable to the influence of powerful corporations.
Garry Fletcher almost 2 years ago
We need to follow the advice in this section that has already put forward by many others. Proposals were put forward to the NEB by several intervenors suggesting that Proper baseline studies and environmental assessment should be done along the whole of Southern Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the San Juan Islands before there is any increase in tanker traffic and further that the project proponent ( Kinder Morgan) pay for this assessment before its project was approved . Of course this was rejected by the National Energy Board, accepting an environmental impact desktop review by industry-sponsored consultants as all that was necessary. Industry proponents must be required to fund independent reviews of all projects they propose, provide for all potential mitigation expenses and governments must be steadfast in rejecting proposals which could have negative consequences which can never be mitigated. Eventual extinction of the southern resident killer whale population in BC being a good example.
Mark Tipperman almost 2 years ago
We need an independent, adequately staffed and funded agency to prepare environmental assessments and decision making. The current system of leaving decision making and assessments to varied governmental agencies, each with their own mission and prejudices, leaves the planet and its inhabitants in peril.
Evelyn Gigantes almost 2 years ago
I want to express my strong concern that a new approach to environmental assessment in the Canadian legislative framework NOT continue the murky path of involving multi agencies.The Government's Panel of Experts recommended in the report "Building Common Ground" that a single, clearly- mandated agency be established to oversee ALL environmental impact assessments:The Panel recommends that a single authority have the mandate to conduct and decide upon IAs on behalf of the federal government."Findings and recommendations:There should be a new Decision Phase for federal IA. Consistent with the independent, transparent and evidence-based approach of the proposed IA process, the IA decision should be made by the new Impact Assessment Commission."The Panel recommends that the IA authority should be established as a quasi-judicial tribunal empowered to undertake a full range of facilitation and dispute resolution processes."This is a vital step if Canadians are to have faith that agencies such as the Can Nuclear Safety Agency, which have a history of close operating ties with the entities they are called upon to regulate, no longer make the decisions about whether projects advanced by those entities will be approved.The Discussion Paper disregards this advice. It is not acceptable for this reason.
kcollier almost 2 years ago
I do not want CNSC to be involved in a decision-making capacity about environmental assessments of nuclear projects of any kind. That is what the government's own expert panel recommended.
Onni Milne almost 2 years ago
The priority must be to appoint credible members to any review panel. At this point, it seems political hacks have been entrusted to make decisions to promote government's corporate interests. As stated below, the NEB and CNSC have no credibility in terms of transparency or unbiased decision making. Any decision must be based on economic, environmental and social criteria rather than only financial benefit.
Connie Duchene almost 2 years ago
Transparency can be ensured by making the process transparent...which it isn't right now. Follow the recommendations of the expert panel!
Kim deLagran almost 2 years ago
We should examine how a project will affect the people the animals the land water and air for seven generations. A change to a project must have a wide base of consent.
Barry Stemshorn almost 2 years ago
I support the creation of a single agency mandated to assess environmental impacts. I also support the inclusion of economic, social and health impacts under the mandate of this agency provided that these added mandates do not detract from the effectiveness of environmental assessments including the priority and resources assigned them.I do not support the proposed role of the National Energy Board, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or other energy sector-specific regulators as partners to “jointly conduct impact assessments as part of a single integrated review process”. No other sector (fisheries, agriculture, transport, mining…) has been accorded such privileges. These sector-specific agencies cannot escape the fact that they must engage closely with their respective sectors and the associated capture effects, real or perceived. Rather than be named as full partners as implied by the words “jointly conduct”, their expertise could be harnessed when required in the role of a supporting expert agency. The afore-mentioned single agency should play the lead role in the impact assessment, have authority to oversee the work of “life-cycle regulators” in the enforcement of conditions under their areas of responsibility, and be the sole voice to advise the Government of Canada on the findings of the assessment and the effectiveness of implementation of conditions.I agree that final decisions on whether projects are in the public interest should be made by Ministers or Cabinet. This should include all major energy projects including pipelines, nuclear energy and nuclear waste management projects and offshore oil and gas projects.
Christine Cavan almost 2 years ago
Full disclosure of facts regarding for-profit companies involved in environmental projects is required. Use of all media and plain language coverage of the facts and budgets would ensure transparency. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission SHOULD NOT be involved in decision making involving the environmental assessment of nuclear projects and radioactive waste disposal as recommended by the government's own Expert Panel. The Expert Panel also recommended that the National Energy Board should not be involved in the Environmental Assessment process for energy projects. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE RECOMMENDED A NEW AGENCY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS THAT DOES NOT ALLOW INVOLVEMENT OF THE CNSC FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS NOR THE NEB FOR ENERGY PROJECTS. THIS RECOMMENDATION MUST BE FOLLOWED!
Dianne Fahselt almost 2 years ago
The projects list is where innovation is required. Anyone who is aware of global warming due to greenhouse gases or intense off-the scale UV indices knows that we cannot continue indefinitely as we are. The projects list has to emphasize alternate energy technologies, and give up the old stand-bys of oil and gas. It has to emphasize recycling and re-deployment of industrial waste, clean and efficient travel and housing. Exploration of waste as a resource. Jobs can be developed in research, design, operation and production in all of the above. The underlying objectives of all projects should be reparation of damage already done and avoidance of doing more. Jobs don't have to be tied to the use of oil and gas. We were able to by-pass the horse, so we can by-pass fossil-fuels and move on to sustainability. It would behoove us to observe the approach of European countries who are miles ahead of us in terms of ecological living. While there is seemingly no mechanism to ensure transparency. But it would we need a process that makes government accountable for its pre-election promises. It should be obliged to accomplish what was promised, and make good on enticements such as proportional representation and environmental protection.
DT almost 2 years ago
THE most IMPORTANT criteria to consider is the impact of human health, not just acutely, but cumulatively. Then, depending on the answer to the following questions, deciding if the project should proceed or not: 1) Will it increase the carbon emissions ? (If yes, then NO to the project); 2) Is it a renewable resource ? (If yes, then YES to the project); 3) Is it a high risk in terms of potential accident or disaster ? (If yes, then NO to the project); 4) Does it respect the rights to a cleaner environment ? (If yes, then YES to the project). This is not rocket science. And neither is the transparency issue. We have the internet bombarding people with ridiculous "news", why don't we put real news on there???
Evelyn Scott almost 2 years ago
All river and lake water courses previously protected by Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans and Navigable Water Acts which lost their required assessments by the Harper omnibus bills must be returned to that required assessment status. There can be no way that proposed projects large or small be allowed to avoid rigorous review and assessment.
Prof. Chandler Davis, University of Toronto almost 2 years ago
I thought I had understood that the Expert Panel recommended that a new Impact Assessment Commission be tasked with making final recommendations to the Government on the impact of such proposed projects as the Deep Geologic Repository for radioactive waste. (The term "impact assessment" being preferred to "environmental assessment" to emphasize that indirect or long-term consequences would be included.) But it seems in the discussion paper that this recommendation of the Expert Panel has been weakened, leaving the responsibility for such assessment shared with the existing regulatory body, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This would be a weakening, in that the CNSC has a natural inclination to side with industry analysts in sanguine assessments. Adequate vigilance in defence of the public interest would seem to require the originally proposed structure: a new independent body tasked with reaching conclusions--- with input from the CNSC, to be sure, but also by voices of the public.
Wendy W. almost 2 years ago
Here again is an unclear question. As another commenter noted, you haven't explained what the Project List is. I can't find it in the text of the document. So I will comment on what I did see. The idea of one review agency rather than three sounds good but it all hinges on the makeup of the one agency. Every environmental impact assessment has to be independent of industry interests. That's a no brainer. The whole point of the environmental assessment is to protect PUBLIC interest and the health of Canadians, our vital resources air and water, and our wildlife. So what are you proposing? Who exactly would sit on this board? What are the criteria for eligibility to sit on this board? Who appoints or elects these people? What safeguards are in place to hold these board members accountable to the public?
John D. Jacobs, PhD almost 2 years ago
There should be a public consultation ‘to solicit suggested changes to the existing Project List. As well, anticipating possible action for projects not on the Project List or below its thresholds, the list of Environmental Effects (paragraph 5) should be open to consultation. The Precautionary Principal should be applied in cases of uncertainty as to potential harm.
Charlene Minifie almost 2 years ago
Follow Elizabeth May's recommendations!
Judith Sharp almost 2 years ago
If changes are to be made to the Project List, then a cross-section of Leaders need to be included in this decision-making.
Francis Style almost 2 years ago
I am not convinced that the present Trudeau government is determined to protect the environment. One example: At Chalk River, close to the Ottawa River, CNL (operated by a number of commercial companies) proposes building an above ground dump for a mix of radioactive waste, which at some stage is almost certain to leak into the nearby Ottawa River, threatening the water supply of millions of Canadians. CNSC is a government entity that has sole decision-making authority over environmental assessments, but has too close a relationship with CNL to be effective. There should be a really independent review board to decide if environmental assessments and proposals are acceptable (as has been recommended by the government’s “Expert Panel”).
Nicole Corrado almost 2 years ago
The discussion paper does not do enough to require the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board to move toward renewable energy and fuel.
V. Sparling almost 2 years ago
Thank you for your interest in protecting our environment. I would like to suggest that when expert panels are engaged to assess something that their findings and recommendations are not ignored - what is the point if you do?Please:1. Reform the NEB and move it to Ottawa as recommended.2. 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.3. Restore the NWPA to its previous stature as recommended.I believe these actions are in the countries best interest.Beyond this discussion paper I hope one day that we become a truly enlightened country with the right to clean air and water in our charter of rights.Thank you for your consideration.
Nancy Crozier almost 2 years ago
Criteria should be determined by non-partisan experts-scientists,environmentalists and economists.Get the best possible advisors to ourMP's and MLA's. Have the experts findings televised in social media as well.
Susan E. Match almost 2 years ago
Undo what the Conservatives did under Harper. Go back to independent assessments based on scientific fact not wishes, and big business.
David Salsman almost 2 years ago
Make all review boards independent. No one with any vested (ie. monetary) interest or corporate ties on such boards. All reviews must be public and transparent.
Marilyn Shaw almost 2 years ago
What are the possible impacts in the present and in the future? What are the statistical probabilities? What are the financial costs and benefits, yes; but, more than that, what are the costs to the environment, especially the flora and the fauna? What are the options? What is the best for the medium and long-term? The short-term is less important.
Joseph Fall almost 2 years ago
The EA and NEB processes were gutted by the former government with bills C-38 and C-45. The current government campaigned on a strong promise to repair that damage and further strengthen review processes. This discussion paper does very little in that direction. Reviews of all large, industrial projects should be included, and should be evaluated using a "triple bottom line" approach, with Economic considerations being given no greater weight that Social and Environmental ones. The GC needs to start by fixing what has been so badly broken. We need strong government oversight to ensure that industrial projects have a positive net economic, and environmental, and social benefit; and contribute positively to the long-term sustainability of Canada and all Canadians. Transparency and accountability will naturally flow from an assessment regime that values public engagement and looks to enhance the "triple bottom line" for all Canadians. Fix what's broken and the rest will take care of itself.
Kim Charlesworth almost 2 years ago
Assessment of impacts should include all cumulative impacts - even a small project can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. A larger geographic area should be considered, as well as the interconnections between all components of the watershed, and ecosystems that are tied to where a project is, as well as it's impact on climate change - not just carbon emissions.
R Thomas almost 2 years ago
Adopt the expert panel's recommendations on overhauling the NEB. Adopt the expert panel's recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board. Restore the NWPA to its previous version protecting our bodies of water--don't maintain the Harper regime's version.
Peter Puxley almost 2 years ago
Assessment must be broadened to include impact on Canada's international climate change commitments. This means not just upstream, but also downstream impacts - we cannot export our climate change responsibilities!
Barbara DeMott almost 2 years ago
Don't reject the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which determined the necessity to completely overhaul the NEB. It should not remain in Calgary under its current composition against the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. Don't reject 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's proposition that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards to mostly remain in place is disappointing to say the least. Why is the government maintaining 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. Restore the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected
Kerri Klein almost 2 years ago
Accept the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. Reform this panel and move it from Calgary (where it can be too easily influenced by vested interests in oil and gas) to Ottawa.
Maureen McGuire almost 2 years ago
Restore the NWPA to it's previous stature. Overhaul the NEB and move it out of Calgary.
Roger Richardson almost 2 years ago
Canada's water is being used for industry ahead of all other uses. Rivers and lakes are dumping grounds for whatever corporations want to get rid of. How often does a corporation pay for the extensive damage they do?
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.
DOROTHY D almost 2 years ago
We should not have some projects that can maneuver around the approval process, avoiding assessment, period.
Roger Elmes almost 2 years ago
I concur with comments offered by MP Elizabeth May. • 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..
Timothy Bartoo almost 2 years ago
Change “Decision making retained by Minister(s) or Cabinet based on whether projects are in the public interest, to ensure accountable government” to “Decision making by free vote in the Hose of Commons based on whether projects are in the public interest, to ensure accountable government”.Remove from consideration: “Projects can still be designated, or excluded, from assessment, under certain conditions based on clear criteria and a transparent process.” This allows too much political influence. Inclusion decisions should always be made based on legislated criteria.
Jade Burnside almost 2 years ago
I would like the government of Canada to adopt the expert panel's recommendation for reforming the NEB and moving it to Ottawa.I would also like the government of Canada to adopt the expert panel's recommendations to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting environmental assessments.Lastly, I would like the government of Canada to restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act to its previous stature in order to protect our lakes, rivers, and streams by default, rather than only being protected on a case-by-case basis and only when application for such protection is made.
Wei-Quin Wong almost 2 years ago
How can the government justify rejecting the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which determined the necessity to completely overhaul the NEB? It should not remain in Calgary under its current composition against the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa. Why is the government rejecting 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's proposition that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards to mostly remain in place is disappointing to say the least.Why is the government maintaining 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. How can you people justify this?It's just what we have always suspected and feared: that the Liberal party is just "Conservative Light", and has no real conviction when it comes to environmental protection.
Anna Bogic almost 2 years ago
Please restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to its previous stature; jurisdictions should not have to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore their previous protections. This is inefficient and it will fail to protect more than 99% of our lakes, rivers, and streams from unwanted industrial projects.
Bill Henderson C.M. almost 2 years ago
Please adopt all of your expert panels’ recommendations on this
Barbara Mills and Dorrance Woodward for Assoc. for Denman Island Marine Stewards almost 2 years ago
Impact Assessment: We support the creation of a single government agency that is responsible for every stage of the Environmental Assessment and consultation process. This agency would eliminate many of the problems that have arisen wherein ecosystem and health needs are neglected, while destructive industry practices are promoted by regulatory ministries. Given the state of the planet, the environment needs an independent advocate, with no connection to industry.We would suggest that such an agency might be housed in the office of the Auditor General’s office while still having the unbiased authority and power to make firm decisions for protection of the environment. We would like to see this independent agency have access to, and be informed by, the most up-to-date and independent ecosystem based science and scientists. We suggest that greater public confidence in the science behind project assessments would be achieved by funding more research, focused especially on terrestrial and marine ecosystems.That this research should be rigorously reviewed by peers is a given.We do not believe that the final decision making should be retained by Minister(s) or Cabinet. At this time, when threats to the oceans and the impact of climate change are so profound. We believe suggest that environmental decisions should no longer be determined by politics, lobbying or ideology. The issues of environmental degradation are too critical to the survival of the people of this fragile Earth, to be left to politically based decisions.Return of Aquaculture to CEAAAfter Bill C38 was passed in 2012, Aquaculture projects were exempted from environmental assessment by the CEAA. In Baynes Sound, this has resulted in an escalation of aquaculture practices that are compromising critical fish habitat in estuaries, salt marshes, streams and forage fish spawning grounds. As well, key protective conditions have been removed by DFO from shellfish growers’ licenses, and use of toxic gear by growers has escalated. There has been neither monitoring nor enforcement, and consequently the marine environment has experienced significant, possibly irreversible degradation as microplastics accumulate in the substrate and water column. As Baynes Sound’s ecosystem has become more unhealthy and contaminated, growers have been unable to harvest their product as harvesting closures have been nearly constant during the last year. This lack of oversight and monitoring is hurting not only the ecosystem and the community; it is also hurting the aquaculture industry.We request that the new independent assessment authority also be responsible for shellfish aquaculture and for fisheries; and that environmental assessment of this sector be returned to the responsibility of CEAA. Both eminent scientists and Julie Gelfand in the Auditor General’s Office have warned that Canada’s fisheries have been mismanaged. We do not want the Pacific Coast to follow the disasters of the Atlantic coast.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/cod-moratorium-twenty-five-1.4187322
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
Process transparency can only be assured through open, public access to the project proposal, the science, the testimony pro & con, the decision criteria, accountability, ongoing commitments, etc.... Proven, effective, open-data and open-governance tools and processes are readily available. Let's not re-invent the wheel - just make effective use of existing open-data standards and tools, including analysis tools… International standards exist that ensure transparency through the project approval impact assessment phases and on into operation. We do NOT need a made-in-Canada solution. We need to work to auditable, accepted, proven, international standards such as EITI that cannot simply be overturned or watered down at the whim of future governments. Industry benefits from certainty and clarity of process. Society, governments, the environment, local communities, and indigenous peoples benefit from certainty as to commitments and ongoing accountability. Otherwise we'll remain mired in the mud, to the benefit of none of us.
Colin Creasey about 2 years ago
For the government to follow the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. For the government to 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 Harper’s ‎C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place.What is the reason for Government's rejection of the EA expert panel's recommendations?For the Government to restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to its previous stature, so that all Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain protected from industrial projects.
Nancy Pow about 2 years ago
The Environmental Assessment Agency should be a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. It doesn't make sense to me that energy projects will go to the NEB, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and offshore boards. In particular, projects going to the NEB, without it being completely overhauled and moved to Ottawa as recommended by the NEB expert energy panel, is fraught with bias.
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 dangerously vague statement. Will the public be able to participate in a decision to exclude? Industry? Just who makes the decision?
Bonnie Sokoloski about 2 years ago
First of all what is the Project List? You could start by explaining things to people!
Helga Guderley about 2 years ago
Why is the government rejecting the advice of the National Energy Board's expert panel? This panel, which cost a great deal to run, called for a complete overhaul of the NEB and moving it to Ottawa. The National Energy Board will remain in Calgary under its current composition.
Diana van Eyk about 2 years ago
Environmental assessments should include a rigorous climate test to determine whether a proposed project makes climate change worse. If the answer is yes, it should not be built.
Hung-Yeh Peisinger about 2 years ago
For the government to follow the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB! At this point, NEB 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. For the government to 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 Harper’s ‎C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place.What is the reason for Government's rejection of the EA expert panel's recommendations?????For the Government to restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to its previous stature, so that all Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain protected from industrial project, relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis
Jay Bailey about 2 years ago
Unrestrained economic growth is to the economy, as well as to the environment, what cancer is to biological life. We need to consider the overall well-being of all peoples within the borders of Canada, physically, mentally, emotionally and yes, economically, right through until at least the seventh generation ahead.
Bill Johnstone about 2 years ago
It's not too late to do what your National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel said to do: rebuild the NEB. The Board should start by moving to Ottawa, far enough away from Alberta's oil industry to be more objective. The Board must have fewer voices from the fossil fuel industry, and more voices from environmental groups that better understand environment impacts. The Board must also have better First Nations representation, to avoid the problems of the past.
Mel Duhamel about 2 years ago
We need rigorous regional studies done jointly by academia and government researchers to get baseline data that can be published openly in a peer-reviewed format. This baseline data is needed to be able to later measure project impacts; proponents need to make all their monitoring data publicly available and should invite independent researchers to analyze it. Project proponents will always claim their impacts will be negligible or can be mitigated, but without good baseline data and truly independent review, we have no way of knowing what the impacts actually are and how to design future projects better.
E. Peter about 2 years ago
Environmental impact... all aspects weighted base on expert/scientific input and not political/corporate preferences (climate, water purity, flora and fauna, agriculture etc.).
Patricia Rogerson about 2 years ago
Base lines must be established to keep track of any impacts that occur after a project starts, ongoing and critical evaluation of all species, water and earth and air must be monitored and the process must allow the monitors the authority to close a process. If we are assessing impacts from a new process or activity, we must consider the long term impacts by using a rigorous scientific study to replicate the existing conditions and the impact on the that system by the new process or activity. We have the capacity to examine in this manner and we should be using it for at least the short term less than 6 months impacts.
Andrea about 2 years ago
Given our significant needs for increasing our tax revenues in order to care for our rapidly aging population with a sound health care system, I would implore those making key decision to ensure we end up with a genuinely efficient and transparent system which can be considered business-friendly. Given the significant drop in investment in Canada since 2014, I would suggest that competing jurisdictions are already enjoying the benefits which could otherwise have enriched our entire nation.We need to take a careful look in the mirror and ask ourselves whether we want a free market and the accompanying benefits...today, we enjoy the fruits of such investments made by the previous generation.
Craig Janes about 2 years ago
I am fully supportive of the proposed changes outline here, and want to underscore the need to undertake integrated assessments that go beyond a narrow environmental approach to include social and health impacts, which can be equally, if not more, significant. The World Health Organization, for example, stresses the importance of integrated health and environmental impacts -- going beyond a reduced focus on air, water and soil to consider broader health impacts -- is key to meeting the SDGs. Also effectively addresses many of the concerns of indigenous communities.
rp_collins about 2 years ago
I am concerned that proposed changes to regulatory and environmental assessment processes outlined in Environmental and Regulatory Reviews: Proposed Approach will impede the timely development of Canada’s offshore oil & gas industry.I believe that there needs to be a balance struck between environmental stewardship and growing the economy – adding additional levels of regulation for the sake of doing so doesn’t make sense and benefits no one.Making the environmental process more lengthy and onerous will drive away investors who require clarity and certainty. For more than 30 years, this clarity and certainty was provided through the C-NLOPB environmental assessment process – with no negative environmental impacts.I ask the Federal Government to:• Recognize the legitimate role of experienced offshore regulators, particularly the C-NLOPB and the C-NSOPB,• Not impede exploration by applying requiring an environmental assessment for the first well in a new area,• Recognize that oil exploration and production are critical to the economy of Canada – the Atlantic Region in particular, and,• Most importantly, recognize that the exploration, development and production of our offshore resources is in the public interest and must be supported.East Coast Canada’s offshore oil & gas developments are not pipelines and should not fall under the same regulatory and environmental assessment regime - proposed regulatory and environmental assessment changes have the potential to cripple this emerging industry just as its getting started.
Al Spiess about 2 years ago
The impact assessment should be based on scientific environmental policy, historical industry data. If a National Environment Framework were to be developed and signed off on by all regions this could be the bases of all assessments. I believe there are real and sufficient scientific environmental policies in place today that can be used to apply a impact assessment. Final approval should be left in the hands of the responsible governing agency not politicians who could be influenced by politics not science.
JACK MEYER about 2 years ago
Which can get us more prosperous and enjoyment for all
Raymond Hoff about 2 years ago
As mentioned under Science, I don't see "The Precautionary Principle" discussed in this document. For projects which break totally new ground (pardon the pun) in areas where we have little prior knowledge, we have to have a guiding principle on protection of the environment.
J. Walker about 2 years ago
Criteria would include but not be limited to water, air, soil. Use a comprehensive risk assessment and identify potentially significant environmental impacts. Couple this information with the location: high population, endangered species, protected land ... Share this information in at least 2 stages and seek input before the process is completed.
n nLinc about 2 years ago
We have to comprehend the cold hard benefits of using automation systems like the self brick laying robot and other sorts of machines used for components of construction of infrastructure across this extordinary rich based country.