Other Comments | Submit your comments | Discussion Paper

IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

Other Comments

12 months ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Please reference the topic(s) you are commenting on.

Lindsay Wiginton over 1 year ago
Hello, Please note that the submission from the Pembina Pipelines Corporation is mistakenly labelled "Pembina Institute" in your submissions library.
Diana Ghikas over 1 year ago
Why are not all submissions being posted on this website? At least a few are missing that were posted a few days ago which I would like to read.
Rider Petch over 1 year ago
The NEB has lost all independent credibility. Richard Steedman came to present to the College of Applied Biologists in Nanaimo, and when asked what professional organization members of the Calgary NEB office belonged to, he replied that the NEB was trying to save taxpayers money and did not pay for members to belong to an organization. In that simple statement, he indicated there is no professional accountability staff are required to have - even within their own organization. That simple fact says it all. They are located in the Corporate center of the Oil Patch...Calgary. The NEB is doomed to carry this reputation to their grave.In summary, the NEB should no longer be an environmental assessment authority or pipeline decider. They have never had credibility and they never will. Please get an divested government organization and follow your panels advice.Sincerely,Rider Petch, R.P.Bio
ron hawkins over 1 year ago
To begin, this regristration & comment format is UNFRIENDLY. wHAT A lot of hoople to get in,and then to be presented with 8 subject topics to speak to. Are you trying facilitate public input, I don't think so, more likely discourage, control and shape it to your own requirements!!. BAD, BAD, BAD on you, who lose faith with us who wait to serve you. 1. My major concern is after hearing from the Expert Panel the government REJECTS theirconsidered recommendations, instead turning it into a less-expert, public opinion poll.What a lame duck, offensive, milk-toast response!2., Therefore: ACCEPT the N.E.B. expert panel recommendations calling for a complete overhaul of the NEB AND move it from Calgary t o Ottawa. ACCEPT the expert panel recommendation to convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial Board with the sole responsibility for conducting the Environmental Assessment. RESTORE the Navigable Waters Protection Act to its previous stature, providingprotection of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams from indusrial projects.
Priddis over 1 year ago
Board Members- Any member serving on a panel should have consistent rules. ie if it is demanded that a panel member should not be associated with oil & gas companies for 4 years then this should also hold true for environmental, and indigenous representatives on the panel. Representatives must be held to the same standards
L. Wagner over 1 year ago
My comments are in regard to "Building Common Ground: A New Vision For Impact Assessment in Canada". I would like to urge the government to implement the recommendation of the Expert Panel to take away decision making authority from the CNSC (a "captured regulator") and give it to an independent Impact Assessment authority to ensure independence and neutrality.
Dave Taylor over 1 year ago
The decommissioning project at the Whiteshell Nuclear Research establishment has been seriously compromised by a private consortium. The project they have proposed is not well researched nor safe.They need to be carefully regulated and the CNSC has demonstrated that they are not independent enough to control this private consortium of British and American companies. Independent environmental assessments were promised last election, they need to be put into effect.
Lynn Jones over 1 year ago
Please adopt all of the Expert Panel's recommendations for environmental reforms.In particular, the recommendation of the Expert Panel that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) not have decision-making authority on nuclear projects is very important. The compromise suggested in your discussion paper is not workable. CNSC should be able to provide advice during an EA, no more. It does not have the necessary impartiality to be involved in decision-making. The Impact Assessment Authority is the way to go. Please do not backtrack and give in to industry lobbies on these important reforms. As a society we will have to deal with the nuclear waste that we have been accumulating for over six decades. It is a difficult thing to do and as a society we must do it right, with broad consultation and input from all sectors of society. The current nuclear waste disposal project EA, with CNSC at the helm, for a giant radioactive landfill beside the Ottawa River at Chalk River Ontario, is a clear example of how NOT to do environmental assessments for nuclear waste disposal. Please do make sure that decision making on nuclear waste projects will be done by the Impact Assessment Authority with broad public input.
Duncan Noble over 1 year ago
Nuclear waste disposal projects need to be independently assessed. The Expert Panel noted that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is a captured regulator and lacks independence and neutrality because of its close relationship with the industry it regulates. Legislation or regulations should incorporate the recommendations of the Expert Panel Report ... in particular that the assessment process be independent of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board.
Keepers of the Athabasca over 1 year ago
Regarding 'Modern Energy Regulation':As Canada undergoes our energy transition away from fossil fuels, it is important to keep the public interest firmly focused on the world we create today for future generations. So many fossil fuel projects are already approved in Canada that our transition itself is questioned by some. Energy includes not just fossil fuel, but biomass, solar, wind, geothermal, small or run-of-river hydro and other renewable or sustainable forms of energy production. We hope there is a method for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to prioritize and promote sustainable energy production over polluting forms of energy production.Kudos for including Indigenous representation in your plans, but please ensure that this representation is meaningful and directional. This review is an excellent opportunity to include Indigenous philosophies that can direct Canada toward sustainability, which should be a goal for all of us. Through our past history and the continuance of some current practices and processes, First Nations and people of Indigenous ancestry in Canada do not have the honoured role of place that they should, and our 150th anniversary as a country has started the discussion on what must change. The changes needed, will be searching, heartfelt, developed, implemented, and lasting. Truth comes before reconciliation. Including diversity is also important, as different perspectives bring the thought diversity that is needed when accomplishing successful assessment. We are concerned that locating the National Energy Board in Calgary, while providing access to Canada's major oil companies, can provoke an echo chamber effect, where all that Board may hear are the voices of these companies. We have seen the effects of this silo over the past half decade in Alberta, and hope there will be a way to include both Indigenous and ENGO input to counteract the echo chamber.We are glad to see that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will include more public participation, and especially get rid of the 'directly affected' clause. We are all connected, and all affected by projects in Canada.A landowners' advocate is a very important tool for Canadians. Owning land, particularly in rural areas means navigating systems that were not developed with the public in mind. It has been very difficult for farmers and other landowners to be heard, never mind understood when advocating for their lands and health. We have many situations in Alberta where people's health and livestock are affected, and still they must fight lengthy legal battles to be heard by powerful companies.Open data improves transparency, aids efficiency, and provides a common ground for assessment. Where open data is used, the beginnings of understanding about cumulative effects can develop. This is the way of the future and we look forward to a government that provides open data for the evaluation of projects.Re: Enhanced protection for Canada's Fish and Fish HabitatSince the changes to Canada's protection of fish and fish habitat, Alberta has lost all of our commercial fisheries. That lack of protection sure did not work out very well here. In reclaiming protection for fish and fish habitat, it is important to remind all concerned that sustainability is the goal, and we can allow nothing to prevent it. We have seen what collapsing fish stocks look like again and again, so we now must explore sustainable fish and fish habitat protection.We are glad to see that Indigenous Knowledge will be specifically sought in regards to the assessment of projects in Canada. We recommend further to seeking this knowledge, that involvement at a community level, including program development, planning, monitoring, and other employments be part of projects that are of interest to First Nations.Some of the tools we need in order to get to sustainable assessment in Canada are the precautionary principle, polluter pay principle, ecosystems based management, and in particular, a close examination of cumulative effects. We must get to the bottom of all of the various effects that accumulate in terrible health and environmental costs; because of the complexity at our time in history of so many different projects all affecting each other, perhaps AI can help untangle the web we have woven.Unfortunately, in Alberta we have regularly seen the results of individuals and municipalities performing HADD (harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat without approval). They get a fine, and willingly pay the fine in order to proceed with illegal marinas, docks, and other features. We hope that CEAA can encourage best practices, and work with the landowners and municipalities who control some of Canada's riparian areas toward implementing best practices for development. In order to build capacity and develop expertise, please consider the Watershed Council format from Alberta. Local stakeholders develop watershed management plans working with the province's best practices. These councils have mandated participation from each sector, including local municipalities and First Nations, industries, farmers, community organizations, and the public; they are funded by the province (for the next 3 years at least). The watershed council format could also be very useful in assisting the CEAA to contact grassroots communities for various endeavors, especially building capacity and expertise to protect fish and fish habitat, which is part of their mandate.
Peter Benner over 1 year ago
ExpertPanelPleaseEnsureExpertPanelRecommendationIsImplementedToEnsureIndependence
Eleanor Brownlee over 1 year ago
I fervently hope to see environmental reforms brought forward which match up to the promises made by the Trudeau Liberals in their election platform and which truly repair the damages created by the previous government through their omnibus bills C-38 and C-45. Most especially I am deeply concerned that the government appears to have rejected the NEB expert panel's recommendations. It seems the NEB is to remain in Calgary under its current composition which is contrary to the very sound advice of the costly panel which recommends seriously reforming the NEB and moving it to Ottawa.Further, the government appears to have decided to continue on with the Harper government's destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act while relying instead on individual jurisdictions to apply on a case by case basis to restore previously held protections to waterways. Thus rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. This is totally unacceptable.Finally, I urge that the government must adopt all of the expert panels' recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.Thank you.
Ashley & Wendy Hilliard over 1 year ago
In general. Please adopt most stringent standards. The world id dying. Nature is under assault. This will lead to a catastrophe. Canada must lead. Roll back all Conservative measures.Justin Trudeau promised this _ will he deliver?
Yvonne Bell over 1 year ago
I strongly urge this government to adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms. The following are some of my concerns:• 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. Your government promised to fix our broken environmental laws in the last election. Please don’t break another election promise.
Douglas Macaulay over 1 year ago
1. Federal government role(s) - I believe there to be a number of areas in which federal government leadership is sorely needed; they include - translating general, aspirational visions in areas like climate change and renewable energy into roadmaps with tangible milestones that may have measureable impacts on present and proposed projects; working with Indigenous peoples on a government-to-government basis to develop and keep current national, strategic and regional assessments; capacity building with Indigenous peoples; improving public access to documentation and supporting input to review processes. With respect to regulatory oversight, I believe the government's role should be to review the outputs of project assessments, make decisions based on how well the submission demonstrates the proponent having met requirements (including in partnering with Indigenous peoples, integrating science and traditional knowledge), issue permits, and monitor ongoing compliance. I believe that project impact assessment should be driven by the proponent, guided as appropriate by available strategic and regional assessments and also by the results of the early engagement and planning stage. 2. Alignment of impact assessment process with overall project development process - these processes need to be better aligned than they have been, in many cases, to date. Early engagement with Indigenous peoples from the earliest stages of exploration and project conceptual design is a feature of any resource projects that have recently or are being successfully developed. In my view, a given legislated overall timeframe is less important that the proponent being able to control when stages of the formal regulatory review processes starts and then having confidence of a reasonably quick regulatory review and decision.3. Transition phase - many current projects may be in parts of the country that would be obvious candidates for a strategic or regional review. I believe it to be very important that a way be found for proposals being developed by companies that can demonstrate a commitment to sustainable development to continue to progress with regulatory support in the absence of a strategic or regional review.
W M Tex McLeod over 1 year ago
NEB - an important starting point in the restructuring of the NEB is to relocate the board to a neutral location, the optics of the board remaining in Calgary subject to the pressures applied by the oil and gas industries undermines the credibility of board decisions.
Karen Whiteside over 1 year ago
There is one overarching principle that needs to be respected before all else. Our ecological systems, our environment, our life support system is the very bedrock on which every other human endeavor is built. Protecting our environment trumps all other endeavors when considering what industry should proceed. .Respect
Karen Whiteside over 1 year ago
One project – One assessment - ii.Modern Energy Regulation NEB - the National Energy Board is responsible for oversight to ensure industry operations fulfil due diligence and adheres to current laws revalent in protecting natural assets, community health standards. The NEB is not an elected entity, but rather one of appointment and not directly controlled by Canadian citizenry as are elected officials. Consequently, the NEB should not be given power beyond their capacity of industry oversight. The NEB is not and cannot provide an unbiased analysis of environmental impact. The NEB is a regulator, and as such, should uphold protections as identified by Ministry of Environment policies, not form these policies, thereby keeping oversight and policy separate. Adhering to this check and balance approach prevents various branches of the government from yielding excessive power over others. One project – One assessment - iv. Enhanced Protection for Canada’s Fish and Fish Habitat While considering legislative, regulatory, policy and program changes, please reinstate the Fisheries Act that was in place prior to 2012 and build on that. West Coast salmon and resident killer whales, now only 77 left, are among those who can no longer wait. DFO responsibilities need to be reassigned regarding Atlantic salmon open net aquaculture. Promoting aquaculture and managing fish stocks is a conflict of interest.
Lou Allison over 1 year ago
I think it is crucial that the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) be restored. I also think that all environmental assessments should include rigorous analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and be considered in the light of cumulative effects nationally.
Ian Thomson, Oxfam Canada over 1 year ago
I am encouraged to see a commitment to Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) in the discussion paper. In Oxfam Canada's feedback on the Expert Panel's report, we highlighted the absence of any strong gender analysis in their report and urged the Government of Canada to make gender equality considerations a centrepiece of Canada's new EA process. We would encourage the Government of Canada to implement GBA+ as comprehensively as possible, so that it informs the design and implementation of the EA legislation and processes themselves, not simply as a tool to assess specific projects or policies undergoing the EA process. Implementing GBA+ effectively and with integrity will lead to better and more just outcomes for all Canadians.
G. Meston over 1 year ago
If you missed it earlier in my complete response to the general topic of Environmental and Regulatory processes laid out in the topic of Addressing Cumulative Effects: I am 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.
Sue Hutch over 1 year ago
Legislation needs to be stronger than currently proposed, including restoring lost protections and linking all legislation-driven decisions to climate-change targets and sustainability goals.
Stan R Blecher over 1 year ago
The CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN A DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR PROJECTS. The CNSC has repeatedly made irresponsible decision in respect of radiation safety, has demonstrated that it does not understand that there is no safe dose of radiation, and the President of the CNSC is on record as having, in front of TV cameras, ridiculed the scientific fact of the "linear curve, no threshold" rule - i.e. that there is no safe dose.
The Inverhuron Committee over 1 year ago
There has been much mention of the CNSC as regulator, overseer and approval agency for nuclear projects. This has built a tremendous mistrust between the government and its citizens. During the Hearings for the deep geologic repository, the CNSC, many times, appeared to be the proponent, agreeing with OPG, supporting OPG and answering questions that were meant for OPG. The CNSC hires the Panel Members, loans one of their staff lawyers to the Panel for the duration of their appointment, and covers costs of the process. The CNSC also maintained a relationship with the elected officials of the region, meeting with them regularly meeting with them in private and encouraging them that the project would have a positive result. The relationship shown throughout the duration of the Hearings was very disturbing to the public.
K Stockwood over 1 year ago
This government needs to make much more progress for the environment to live up to commitments made at the Paris accord and in general to stay in line with a progressive, feminist approach to governance that respects indigenous peoples and the environment. You simply can't keep up this approach of putting business first and allowing more pipelines, as one example.Please make sure all industrial projects take into consideration the First Nations lands on which they take place and the impact on climate change.Canada has less than 0.5% of the world's population yet is responsible for one eighth of the pollution caused by greenhouse gases - that's hugely embarrassing and means we are involved in the destruction of the planet more than most countries.
Karen Wonders over 1 year ago
Make Fish Farms illegal on the BC Coast. Inact the decisions by the Cohen Commission.
Pat. McGarry over 1 year ago
Purpose: What does ensuring resources get to market have to do with environmental protection and assessment? Perverse really.
John Jackson over 1 year ago
Citizens’ Clearinghouse on Waste ManagementComments on: Government of Canada’s Environmental and Regulatory Reviews Discussion Paper dated June 2017Comments submitted August 28, 2017We are opposed to the Federal Government’s proposal that for nuclear projects “the assessments would be conducted jointly by the agency [‘a single government agency’ as proposed on page 13 by the Government] and life cycle regulators” (Discussion Paper, p. 13). In the case of nuclear projects the “life cycle regulator” would be the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).The Citizens’ Clearinghouse on Waste Management has been involved as a citizen advocate in many provincial and federal environmental assessments over the years – especially on hearings related to waste disposal facilities. Some of these facilities have been for radioactive wastes. This has meant that we have experienced processes and hearings where the CNSC has conducted the review process as well as ones that they were not involved in. From the perspective of coming to the most appropriate conclusion for the community and for the country and from the perspective of citizens involved in these processes, those in which the CNSC has conducted or jointly conducted the review and hearing process have been substantially inferior and very unsatisfactory.The CNSC, as the regulator of the nuclear industry and nuclear facilities, has developed a strong perspective that it has the ability to regulate (i.e., put adequate controls on facilities, monitor, and enforce their rules) and that through these the CNSC can solve all issues. They also bring the perspective that they have access to the best technical knowledge on nuclear matters and, therefore, tend to not lend much credence to opposing experts and scientists. This perspective makes the review and hearing process much less open-minded than a review and hearing process needs to be to reach the best conclusions and to seriously take into account the views of participants. It means that they pay little attention to central EA components such as alternative solutions, cumulative impacts, sustainability, and community impacts. They focus instead on technical aspects. In a recent paper, six academic experts in environmental assessments succinctly summarized the impact of the bias that an organization such as CNSC brings to environmental assessment: “But this is expertise on how the project will operate, not on whether, all things considered, the project ought to proceed” {Olszynski, Stacey, MacLean, Kwasniak, and Gibson, “Strengthening Canada’s Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Processess: Recommendations and Model Legislation for Sustainability,” 18 August 2017, p. 21). We support the recommendation made by the Expert Panel that Environment Canada and Climate Change set up to review federal environment assessment processes. In their final report, the Expert Panel recommends the government set up a single authority, “such as a quasi-judicial tribunal” [“Building Common Ground,” 2017, p. 51]. The role of the CNSC in this system would be to publicly give advice just as other government and non-government organizations and individuals give advice during the review and hearing process.John Jackson17 Major Street, Kitchener, Ontario N2H 4R1
Sipekne'katik over 1 year ago
The NEB office should be located in Ottawa the same as other federal headquarters.
Marilyn Otton over 1 year ago
Why had the government rejected the recommendations of the expert panel on the NEB? It needs to be completely overhauled, as well as to be moved to Ottawa so it's not literally sitting in the lap of the gas and mining industries.The C-38 regime of of energy projects needs to be reassessed, and not left basically in place. And the EA expert panel recommendations to convert the EAA into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA be instituted. The Navigable Waters Protection Act needs to actually PROTECT OUR WATERS from direct and indirect damage from industrial projects, through restoring previously-held protections to water-ways.I want processes and laws that support a sustainable environment, work to reduce climate change and put the well-being of our population before profit for the few. This is highly possible but will require seeing possibilities through completely new lenses - putting money towards new, environmentally friendly technologies rather than just putting a few restrictions on big busniess.
Doreen A. Evendenveneden over 1 year ago
Please comply with the NEB's expert panel recommendations re the overhaul of the NEB and its relocation to Ottawa as well as the conversion of the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi judicial board with the sole authority for conducting EA.Restore the NWPW to its previous level of protection from industrial projects to all canadian lakes, rivers and streams.
Terry Woods over 1 year ago
National Energy Board - There must be a complete overhaul and relocation to Ottawa. This would not only put some distance between the energy sector industry and the board that is supposed to govern but would also make it less costly for opponents to such projects. Currently, in order to meet with, or make presentations to, federal gov't agencies and the NEB requires travel to 2 different cities.Since most of the protection of our environment has been left to poorly funded First Nations and environmental groups there has been a severe roadblock put in place to protect the interest of project proponents. This discriminatory practice must be stopped.Navigable Waters Protection - The government decision makers must come to understand that all waters are navigable by some sort of craft and therefore should all fall under the same level of protection. What may appear insignificant to some could very well hold great importance to others. The former regulation (prior to Harper) should be restored and strengthened. It is time to show some real leadership and begin keeping election promises.Environmental Assessment Agency - Convert this agency to a quasi-judicial body comprised of non-partisan experts. Have the decisions made with the main criteria of protecting the environment. Relegate economic interests to the very bottom of the approval criteria. The long-term pains of environmental degradation will be far greater than the short-term gains.
Rick Bradshaw over 1 year ago
The CNSC is not an independent agency but rather a conduit for the Nuclear energy sector to operate through. To my knowledge they have never refused a licence and will typically do what it takes to see a project get up and running. They are not credible as an environmental watchdog nor should they be asked to be. Please take decisions regarding environmental impact out of the hands of those with a vested interest in the completion of projects.
Nancy Groom over 1 year 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!
Robert F. Hollins over 1 year ago
All this Bla-Bla. Climate action is needed yesterday. Love the monster storm pounding Texas? Love the wildfires? Love the degraded air and water quality?Love the Canadian Government waiting and asking for more words?
Cara Rose-Brown over 1 year ago
I don't want the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 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.
Martha Jo (MJ) Willard over 1 year ago
1. Single government agency2. Legislative provisions to allow for substitution of projects and project assessments3. Consistent use of Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)4. Decision making retained by Minister(s) or Cabinet based on whether the project is in the public interest, to ensure accountable to the government agencies that have done the work so that a change of government does not impair environmental issues5. Establishing alternatives to some formal adjudicative processes6. Maintain the National Energy Board in Calgary, while eliminating the residency requirement7. Publish a summary of the received comments as well as specific responses with reasons for accepting as well as reasons for rejecting these suggestions with an appeal process set up
Jane over 1 year ago
The only reference to Canada meeting its 2030 target is on Page 9 of the NEB discussion paper. This one mention is insufficient to reflect the severity of the issue of global warming and its devastating effects.
Jane over 1 year ago
The NEB is considering “Making use of a proposed integrated open science and data platform to inform environmental frameworks and regional assessments and to enable-ongoing additions to the knowledge base.” We may want to consider this climate science special report accessed at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.htmlA risk to continued reliance on fossil fuels and an argument for Canada’s move towards clean energy technology is because of the unknown and the possibility of surprise elements from climate change. Some relevant quotes from the above mentioned report include the following amongst others.• If we continue to rely on fossil fuels for energy how great is the risk of the unknown “remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to those emissions?”(Pg. 15 Line 20-21)• How is the NEB going to build in regulatory infrastructure to include “future challenges and the increased knowledge and information of climate science that does not yet provide a “detailed understanding.” (Pg. 19 line 10)• Page 55 – Lines 17 – 22 – “Atmospheric circulation and extreme events: The extent to which atmospheric circulation in the mid latitudes is changing or is projected to change, possibly in ways not captured by current climate models, is a new important area of research. While still in its formative stages, this research is critically important because of the implications of such changes for climate extremes including extended cold air outbreaks, long-duration heat waves, and changes in storms and drought patterns”• Page 57 – Lines 1-4 – “ Potential surprises-Both large-scale state shifts in the climate system (sometimes called “tipping points”) and compound extremes have the potential to generate unanticipated surprises. The further the Earth system departs from historical climate forcings, and the more the climate changes, the greater the potential for these surprises.”An open science and data platform also needs to embrace a global focus towards clean energy and global impacts such as reflected in this climate report. For example • “Understanding the full scope of human impacts on climate requires a global focus because of the interconnected nature of the climate system.” (Pg 23 Line 22-23)• “In addition to fossil fuel reserves, there are large natural reservoirs of carbon in the oceans, in vegetation and soils, and in permafrost. In the industrial era, the CO2 atmospheric growth rate has been exponential with the increase in atmospheric CO2 approximately twice that absorbed by the oceans.” (Lines 23-26)• .” (Ch. 13) Pg. 29 middle bubble - “The world’s oceans are currently absorbing more than a quarter of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere annually from human activities, making them more acidic (very high confidence), with potential detrimental impacts to marine ecosystems."
Jim Culp over 1 year ago
The changes to the Fisheries Act.I have been following the efforts of a group of people from across Canada who for over a year have been meeting and discussing changes to the act. They have met with members of parliament and the Fisheries Minister. They have done amazing amount of work and a fantastic job of recommending changes to the Act and I support everything they have recommended. Much of what has been incorporated by the Fisheries Standing Committee and its submission to the Federal Government for implementation. Navigation Protection Act, it should be called the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Its original intent was to protect lakes, rivers and streams not navigation protection. It is a crime what has happened. What the previous conservative Government did to the act was unacceptable and our present Government agreed and said it would re-establish the original act. It has reneged on its promise how can anyone trust a government that has backtracked on such an important protection for Canada's water systems.The governments rejection of the EA expert panel recommendation to convert the Environment Assessment agency to into a quasi-judicial Board with sole authority for conducting EA's is disappointing resulting in the NEB and other boards remaining in place.As I said earlier the NEB needs to be moved to Ottawa and to be reformed.I am very upset over the changes made by the former Conservative government omnibus bills C-38 and C-45 that were responsible for gutting various protections for the environment and fisheries and the Liberal Government promised to reverse those changes but it has not carried out that promise.Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments.Jim Culp Terrace BC
Jane over 1 year ago
– Interim principle - “No project proponent will be asked to return to the starting line.” The NEB needs to have the authority to question what is not currently a good project regardless of its past approval. As we are in unchartered territory with regards to climate change, all energy use needs to be assessed or re-assessed. There should be some component that allows for any project whether approved or just being reviewed to be reversed in consideration of devastating, surprising and un-anticipated effects from climate change that may arise.
David Huntley over 1 year ago
Discussion paper, CNSC, Environment I am totally opposed to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) being in charge, either totally or even partially, of any environmental assessment. Its role should be limited to making a submission to anyone doing an environmental review. The reason for this is that I have experienced in some detail how the National Energy Board (NEB) operates, and have a little knowledge of the operation of the CNSC. The NEB has clearly been a tool of the fossil-fuel industry, i.e. it is a captured regulator. It sees its job as promoting the industry. I think it was designed that way. That might have been a reasonable thing several decades ago. It no longer is. The Ministerial Panel that examined the Trans-Mountain Expansion Project after the NEB had recommended in favour of it found six serious questions that needed answering before the Project should go ahead. As well, of the NEB Board members, one has been convicted of insider trading, one applied for membership and was accepted even though he had an obvious severe conflict of interest, and three met privately with a pipeline proponent. These are all things I did not seek out - they just came to my attention so it seems likely that there are others. I have consequently no trust that the NEB makes decisions in the public interest. I know less about the CNSC, but what I have come across indicates that it is also a captured regulator that sees its job as promoting the nuclear industry and not the public interest. We need a completely independent organization to do environmental reviews when it comes to decisions involving nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, isotope production and so on.Thank you for your attentionDavid HuntleyProfessor EmeritusDepartment of PhysicsSimon Fraser University,Burnaby, B.C.
Ahava over 1 year ago
I urge you to adopt all of the expert panels' recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms including a complete overhaul of the NEB and restoring the Navigable Waters Protection Act to its previous stature pre-Harper. Fulfill your promises to overhaul the NEB process, be a leader on Climate Change policy and work toward Reconciliation with First Nations.
Anhthu over 1 year ago
I support the following:1. Accountability - increased the Ministers' accountabilities relating to decisions concerning the approval of projects;2. Penalty - it is unclear whether a penalty is involved when contamination occurs. A polluter should bear responsibility for remedyingcontamination for which the polluter is responsible and must bear the cost of remediation. The penalty needs to be sufficiently high to deter the polluter from making the same mistake;3. Challenge process - have a process in place where decisions could be challenged. In this context, establishing a funding program would be important;4. Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) - establish an EBR at the federal level. For example, Ontario has an EBR. We all should have the rights to breathe clean air, drink safe water, enjoy a nontoxic environment and provide a healthy ecosystem for our children and grandchildren;5. Reward and Incentive - The Government should be the leader and steward for a healthy environment. As such the Government should incentivize industry to invest in making products and using processes that respect the environment. We are in the 21st century and we have thesmart and the science to make our living more harmonious with the environment. There is no longer a need to use archaic and outmoded material and methods that are harmful to the environment and a treat to our natural resources;6. International commitment - continue to work on international commitments and align environmental laws with, for example, the Paris Agreement
J. P. Unger over 1 year ago
I ask that any legislation and regulations incorporate the recommendations of the Expert Panel Report to the effect that any impact assessment or similar process relating to projects involving the nuclear industry or radioactive materials be unequivocally independent of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The CNSC must not be sole nor shared decision maker for environmental assessments for radioactive waste projects or other nuclear industry-related ones since, as I understand the Expert Panel has noted, the CNSC is a captured regulator and lacks the necessary independence and neutrality because of its close relationship with the industry it regulates.In other words, until such day the CNSC undergoes a deep reform or is replaced by an institution that can be trusted by the general public to safeguard public health and the environment before nuclear industry business interests, having the CNSC with authority over such environmental assessments could be described as a blatant conflict of interest.It is my understanding that the CNSC has been lobbying for maintaining control over such assessments. If that is indeed the case, it begs the question of why a taxpayer-funded federal public institution would not be in support of divesting itself of a responsibility that would be increasing its budgetary and managerial burden, repeatedly placing it in an awkward/conflict of interest position, and keeping such assessments from achieving the greatest possible objectivity and impartiality. To conclude, I ask again -not as a request, but as a demand from a taxpayer and citizen, and on the basis of principles of public fairness, responsibility and duty of care- that any new legislation and normative or regulatory framework ensure that the CNSC does not have any control over environmental assessments related to projects involving the nuclear industry or radioactive materials, and that its role be limited to providing input in a way similar to that of every other stakeholder -including the general public.
Anne Learn Sharpe over 1 year ago
Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act as promised in the Liberal election campaign. This government has failed to restore protection to 99 % of the lakes, rivers, streams of Canada. The new Navigation Protection Act passed by the Conservatives has a completely different mandate. The focus is on waterways that are commercially navigable and ignores the holistic value of all waterways. Waterways are integral to our history, our identity our well-being. Leaving it up to the citizens of a particular jurisdiction to apply for protection for their local waterway is unrealistic. I am a resident of one of the two areas that have had their local waterway added to the Navigation Protection Act and I know firsthand how much time, energy and persistence it took to achieve this. Expecting this depth of commitment from citizens is an abrogation of government responsibility.
Jan McQuay over 1 year ago
This process of "public input" amounts to an insult to Canadians. How could people have public input when we weren't even aware of the discussion paper? I only found out at the last minute and I have made the time to respond quickly, but many people don't even know this process is going on. Shame on you.
Robin Del Pino Ferries over 1 year ago
Regarding Environmental Reforms promised by the Government (the discussionpaper) My concerns are about rectifying the damage caused by the previous government and making sure Canadians and the Canadian environment are fully protected.This government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) is appalling. Relying on jurisdictions to apply case-by-case basis protections to waterways is piecemeal, unstandardized and allows for exploitation of our natural resources. Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects, which is unacceptable.This government must restore the NWPA to it’s previous stature and protect all Canadian lakes, rivers and streams from industrial projects.Also highly concerning is 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. This governments’ proposal that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place is unacceptable and the (EA) expert panel’s recommendations need to be acted upon, not dismissed.The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB is unacceptable. Why were the expert panel’s recommendations rejected? It should not remain in Calgary under its current composition, but should accept the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa.
Gertruda Hadwin over 1 year ago
I urge you to adopt all of the expert panels' recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.1. Complete overhaul of the NEB.2. Convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board with the sole responsibility for conducting EA3. Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act to its previous stature.
Mailis Valenius over 1 year ago
Climate ChangeI think the new environmental and regulatory review legislation and process to assess projects, policies, proposals, programs and activities should include a cost-benefit analysis with different climate change scenarios.Mailis
Shelagh Levey over 1 year ago
Review of Environmental Assessment Act.I am writing in regard to the review for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012. This was very flawed and I commend the government for reviewing it. It is important to restore protection for navigable waters, fisheries and input from First Nations. A panel should be non-partisan and formed from experts. It needs to have power, and not be a front for government as was the case with an Energy Review Hearing for the KInder Morgan project that I once attended in Victoria. There should also be access for citizens to make their concerns known.The Salish Sea is of particular concern to me. Open net salmon farms should be banned as they are a threat to the continued existence of wild salmon. The risk of allowing increased shipping of diluted bitumen is unacceptable and should not be approved.
David Phillips over 1 year ago
All topics. Have you kept ANY of your election promises? Your progress since attaining office seems to verify the old adage: "If the politician's mouth is open and moving, and if he/she is not eating, then he/she is lying".
Mark Tipperman over 1 year ago
Decision making needs to consider alternatives to each proposal. Including the alternative locations, methods and of not proceeding at all, and the alternative of proceeding at a smaller scale. Decision making must consider cumulative effects and not each project in isolation.
Al Lehmann over 1 year ago
Any project whose evaluation does not reference potential climate impacts will participate in one of the great frauds of public management, namely, ignoring critical evidence as well as avoiding responsibility by "kicking the can" of the problem down the road for future generations to solve.
Amiable Resource over 1 year ago
Consult: 1 418 928 6549
Onni Milne over 1 year ago
FA: Thank you for restoring habitat protections under the Fisheries Act. This was taken away by Stephen Harper's government.CEAA/NEB: The review of several pieces of environmental legislation at once offers an opportunity to align decision making around core outcomes, including carbon reductions in Canada’s climate plan. Where are these vital connections when they are not included now? Include cross-referencing requirements in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as well as decisions of the National Energy Board.NWPA: The Navigable Waters Protection Act was changed in 2012 by the Navigation Protection Act. It offered environmental legislation with a focus on protection in tandem with navigation. Proposed changes do not restore protections lost in 2012. Where is consideration of environmental impacts when a proposal might impede navigation. Canada does not belong to corporations or to government ministers in Ottawa. Canada belongs to the citizens of Canada. I am one of thousands speaking out and standing up to protect our Home, our Commons Heritage. We are saying that it is no longer good enough to be tied to a Fossil Fuel economy of the last century when the Renewable Energy economy of the 21st century offers us more sustainable jobs with a healthy environment. When will officials in Ottawa remove the Fossil Fuel noose from our economic necks? Now is a good time to make that move.
Kim - Algonquin Tea Co over 1 year 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." Seems quite obvious. Corporations can even mean well, but they are clearly looking out for themselves, and the brighter the employees the better they are at convincing everyone else to serve their interests. Many dear friends are working at Chalk, but it is too close for them to have clear heads that will serve our ancestors, and our planet thousands of years from now. Do the right thing. It is what is always expected of you as representatives of our people and guardians of our resources. Thank you.
Christina Anderman over 1 year ago
Impact Assessment of Nuclear Waste Disposal Projects:I don't want the CNSC to be the 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.
Karen Playfair over 1 year ago
NWPA - I am concerned that the proposed changes simply do not repair the damage done to the environmental assessment process by the previous government through Bill C-38. Specifically, I would like to see the protection that was previously provided by the Navigable Waters Protection Act restored in its entirety to its pre-Conservative-government status. NEB - Regarding the National Energy Board, I would like to see a complete overhaul of the board, consistent with the NEB expert panel recommendations. Overall - It is critical that environmental protections in this country be not only restored to pre-Conservative levels, but improved upon. In reading the discussion paper, I see nothing that promises clear or immediate action to do so.
Leap Montreal over 1 year ago
The government looks set to quietly backtrack on their promise to fix our environmental laws. We need to be kept abreast of its decision-making through a transparent process involving complete disclosure.A few months ago, the government undermined the recommendations of the Committee on Electoral Reform. Now they are almost entirely ignoring the recommendations of not one, but two expert panels on environmental assessment. 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. The 23-page publicly available discussion paper released in late June offers a lacklustre position on issues relating to environmental protection.
Ole Hendrickson over 1 year ago
A single agency should conduct environmental assessments. Your discussion paper says, “Many stakeholders have told us that having three separate agencies responsible for environmental assessment creates confusion and a lack of trust.” I agree. A group to which I belong, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, has first-hand experience with the confusion and lack of trust created by giving so-called “lifecycle regulators” exclusive authority over environmental assessment of energy projects. In truth, the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) are not “lifecycle regulators”. Both bodies lack expertise in waste management – in the “back end” of the energy chain. The NEB regulates pipelines, power lines, and energy imports and exports. CNSC regulates development, production, possession and use of nuclear energy and nuclear substances. NEB has a well-documented inability to deal with greenhouse gases. CNSC has a well-documented inability to deal with radioactive waste. CNSC has not adopted a standard radioactive waste classification despite repeated urgings from other Parties to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. The term “waste” appears nowhere in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The discussion paper says that the government is considering “Establishing a single government agency responsible for impact assessment and for coordinating consultations with Indigenous peoples for federally designated projects.” This is an excellent step forward, and fully consistent with the Expert Panel’s recommendations in Building Common Ground. BUT, then the discussion paper says “For major energy transmission, nuclear, and offshore oil and gas projects, the agency and lifecycle regulators would jointly conduct impact assessments as part of a single, integrated review process.” I strongly warn against allowing so-called “lifecycle regulators” to jointly conduct impact assessments with the agency. It bears repeating that the NEB and CNSC are NOT lifecycle regulators. This term wrongly suggests that these bodies have competence in all aspects of the energy chain. Building Common Ground contains an extensive discussion of the problems caused by provisions in CEAA 2012 giving NEB and CNSC authority for environmental assessment of energy projects. Designating NEB and CNSC as “joint assessors” is a backtracking from the Panel’s recommendation that an independent agency lead environmental assessments. This will lead to serious implementation difficulties and confusion. Would CNSC still hold environmental assessment hearings? CNSC already has sufficient jurisdiction over nuclear projects by virtue of its licensing powers. It’s crucial to get NEB and CNSC out of their roles for deciding how environmental assessments will be done, and deciding their outcomes. They have a serious credibility problem. For example, CNSC's Commissioners have never refused a licence application during CNSC's 17 year history. These problems are illustrated by three project proposals for permanent disposal of the Government of Canada’s own radioactive waste that are undergoing environmental assessments under CEAA 2012: the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project, the Near Surface Disposal Facility Project and the In Situ Decommissioning of the Whiteshell Reactor #1. There was no planning stage at the outset of these projects. All were launched with the discredited “Decide, Announce, Defend” approach. Members of the public who wish to participate in these environmental assessments are experiencing serious barriers in accessing information. For the Near Surface Disposal Project, the scope of the environmental assessment, defined by the CNSC, is extremely narrow. It ignores the decommissioning activities that could be fast-tracked at various federal nuclear sites (Whiteshell, MB; Becancour, QC; Kincardine, ON) as an outcome of the project. And it ignores the risks of shipping radioactive wastes from these sites to Chalk River, Ontario. These problems with the assessment were brought to the attention of the CNSC by scientists and members of the public, but CNSC has chosen to ignore them. This “joint assessment” proposal seems to be a poorly thought-out response to industry pressure. It will make the environmental assessment process more complex, lead to delays, and perpetuate confusion. Keep it simple and let the agency take sole responsibility for environmental assessments of energy projects.
Barry Stemshorn over 1 year ago
ii. Modern Energy Regulation (page 20)Extend these principles and actions as appropriate to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and off-shore energy boards.iii. Restoring Lost Protections to the Navigation Protection Act (page 21)Restore the environmental assessment “triggers” of the former Navigable Waters Protection Act and re-establish the protection previously provided to all navigable waters in Canada.iv. Enhanced Protection for Canada’s Fish and Fish Habitat (page 22)These proposals should be strengthened as required to restore all protection afforded by the Fisheries Act prior to 2012 including the triggers for environmental assessments.
D Tim Seitz over 1 year ago
I DO NOT WANT CNSC TO BE THE ONLY AGENCY INVOLVED IN A DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR PROJECTS.
Douglas Woodard over 1 year ago
I suggest that any legislation or regulations incorporate the recommendations of the Expert Panel Report accessible via http://eareview-examenee.ca and in particular that the process be independent of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board.
Warren Bell over 1 year ago
Environmental protection under the Navigable Waters Act: I am absolutely astonished, as is our membership, by your unwillingness to restore protection to watercourses as existed under the Navigable Waters Protection Act that was destroyed by Stephen Harper's government. That you would fail to do this, but would instead simply allow various jurisdictions to do this on a case-by-case basis, is an astonishing failure of your commitment to environmental protection as outlined in your appeal to voters prior to the 2015 federal election. If you continue with this plan, you will certainly disappoint experts in ecological health issues. We hope you will restore watercourse protection again.
Christine Cavan over 1 year ago
FOLLOW THE EXPERT PANEL POSITION TO SET UP AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY TO CONDUCT EAs. THE CNSC AND NEB SHOULD NOT BE EQUAL PARTNERS WITH THIS NEWLY CREATED AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR AND ENERGY PROJECTS. THE INVOLVEMENT OF THIS COMMISSION AND BOARD WOULD SERIOUSLY UNDERMINE THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS. CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY WITH FULL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEANINGFUL INPUT - NOT INFO SESSIONS MEANT TO HIDE FACTS AND RAM AHEAD WITH QUICK, CHEAPER AND DIRTY SOLUTIONS I.E. IN ADVANCE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS BEING ADHERED TO IN A NATIONAL POLICY FOR RADIOACTIVE AND OTHER LETHAL WASTE DISPOSAL.
Susan Marta Smyth over 1 year ago
To those Responsible for the Paper on Environmental and Regulatory Concerns:It would appear that the recommendations of those expert panels you hired to guide reforms have been ignored. What then, is the point of hiring panels?This process is a repetition of the kind of betrayal and mockery of environmentalists and scientists demonstrated by Justin Trudeau and this Liberal government. You cannot pretend to have Climate Change anywhere close to the top of your agenda and time is running out !You people have your head in the sand - the good looks and charming ways of this prime minister are wearing thin and the world will take note.Look to the Scandanavian countries and Germany. Change your cowardly ways and do something before it is too late.Susan Marta Smyth
Michael Wheatley over 1 year ago
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 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 voted for change. I don't want Harper Light with a niece smile.
Evelyn Scott over 1 year ago
This input is from both Harvey and Evelyn Scott on all the topics provided. We had trouble accessing the site, and ended up submitting all of this via a very old iPad.
DT over 1 year ago
I agree with the comments made by Claudia Lake. This last minute request for public input is a sham. If the government is serious about making changes, they will let all Canadians know about it rather than just the few who go the extra mile to get informed. Even then, it is only because of another party (the Green Party) that I even know about this. If the Liberal party really wants to hear from Canadians, they would be open and transparent on a mass scale. The status quo and continued negligence of the environmental protections will ultimately (as it is already) costing all of us in health and well-being. No more paying lip service, time for this government to act on human ethics and global promises.
Mike Borie over 1 year ago
I DO NOT WANT CNSC TO BE INVOLVED IN A DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR PROJECTS, -- AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN EXPERT PANEL.
Wendy W. over 1 year ago
Our government has an opportunity here to do a 180. Dazzle us with visionary ideas. Be tough. Protect us for generations. Lead us into the future. All you have to do is implement what your expert panels are telling you to do!!! How easy is that? Canada's youth deserve the universal right to clean air, clean water and food grown in unpoluted soil and oceans. If that underlying principle was applied with true sincerity to the assessment of every project, then Canadians would be able to trust the system.
Charlene Minifie over 1 year ago
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. C-38 must NOT see the regime of energy projects decided on by multiple interests (the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards). "Offshore boards"?!! Joke? Put the control back in the hands of Canadians ONLY. Offshore boards are a sell-out to all Candians. All lakes, rivers and streams must be 'blanket-protected' and safeguarded against industrial projects and NOT protected only on a case-by-case basis! Government must restore previously-held protections to all waterways with the NWPA protecting the previous stature of 99%.
Sheila Hill over 1 year ago
Act on the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB, reforming it and moving it to Ottawa. Act on 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 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects
Terron Dodd over 1 year ago
I suppose that by the term "stakeholders" you probably mean those that hope to make money from a certain thing. But the real stakeholders in all these matters under discussion are the people who live in Canada. Most of the area of Canada is still a reasonably fit place to live. But not all of it. There are places where the water and air are too polluted to be healthy to live there. It takes a healthy natural world for healthy people to be able to live in it. Over the history of Canada many legal protections have been enacted to try to keep Canada in a healthy state for the people. When Steven Harper was prime minister he abolished many of these protections in order to let the rich make more money faster. Eventually the voters put Steven Harper and his party out of office by electing the Liberals instead, who promised to undo all the damage that Steven Harper had done. But so far they have failed to keep most of their important campaign promises. I think it would not be so hard to go back and reestablish all the protections that used to be in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. You promised to do it the waters need it. So do it! There were important reasons why the expert panels on the reform of the NEB and the environmental assessment agency made the recommendations that they did. Now carry out those recommendations fully! We need a National Energy Board that works for the people, not for the financial interests of corporations! We need an Environmental Assessment Agency that will make sure the environment is really protected! All the people in the world depend on that environment to live, so we have to do our best to preserve the part over which we have influence. If the Liberal government is going to leave the destructive changes in force that were legislated by the Harper government, what in the world what was the use of electing them? Maybe we would have done better to elect the NDP.T. K. Dodd
Claudia Lake over 1 year ago
I want to reference this entire process for making comments regarding the Environmental Assessment process. First of all, the government of Canada cannot possibly hope for meaningful public consultation if the process and the possibility to respond is kept quiet from the public until the 11th hour; I have only just learned about the opportunity to comment because of an e-mail I received a day ago from Elizabeth May, Canada's federal Green party leader. Why is the government of Canada not sending the message out loud and clear, so that all Canadians far and wide, young and old have an opportunity to respond, and not just online, using your pre-written forms which have very little room for individual input?This is a sham and a shameful way to ask the public, Indigenous or otherwise, to respond. First of all a lot of us still do not have access to the Internet or a computer, you need to let people know way ahead of time, and not just during the summer months when everyone is on holiday and otherwise preoccupied with summertime activities, so comments can be thoughtfully made and sent, either in this format or by the good old fashioned way, using pen and paper and the postal system! I only have until tomorrow to comment now, having only just found out about this process. So, I would summarize by saying that the government of Canada needs to take more time to gather more input from the people of this country, not just those that live in the cities and have access to unlimited Internet, telephone and other modern forms of communication, but those of us who live on the land, and who rely on the sea and the forests and the land for our livelihoods. We are the ones who are most affected by government decisions regarding the environment, whether we are Indigenous or not; and to date the government's decisions have failed to adequately preserve and protect the natural environment for all of us. The Environmental Assessment process has been gutted by the previous government, putting industry and natural resource extraction at the top of the priority list ahead of all consequences to the natural environment, including wild fish and their habitat, endangered, at risk and threatened species on land and in the oceans and the air. I am also offended by the fact that the government of Canada states within the discussion paper that the government's "most important" relationship is with the Indigenous people of Canada. It is a very important relationship indeed, especially considering the very poor way in which Indigenous peoples have, and still are in some cases, mistreated by the authorities of this fine country. But others of us were born here too, thank goodness, or came from away and have become Canadians since. The point is, all of these relationships should be important to the government; part of the problem is that we, and our knowledge, in some cases more informed than those of modern Indigenous folk (through no fault of their own) are not taken the least bit seriously by the government of Canada. An example: we do not even have a telephone system that works! In the 21st century!! How can you ask for and expect to get meaningful consultation if there are no means of communication!! I am getting off topic, but it all goes back to the same thing; the long-winded discussion paper, which basically says nothing but is full of repeated statements and fancy computer-graphic flow charts, and which probably cost the taxpayer a lot of money, and the "fill in the blanks to our questions" method of getting input from the public, doesn't give anyone an opportunity to really say what needs to be heard by government: that the Environmental Assessment system is a sham that gives industry and the bottom line the top priority to go ahead with projects that are and will be destructive to Canada's natural environment, and that do not give individuals room for meaningful consultation on each project, on an individual basis. The government of Canada needs to restore the Environmental Assessment process to its former glory. Stop destroying the land and the sea and the air we breath. Stop exporting our raw logs, stop using our coastal waters as commercial feed lots for farmed salmon, stop extracting and exporting dirty tar sands oil, stop allowing big forestry companies to develop their tree farm licenses as real estate. This land, its forests, rangeland and the oceans that surround us belong to all the people of this country, not just the developers and industry, and least of all the government; you are responsible for looking after all of it, for all of us, not just a chosen few whose only interest in this country is the bottom line. I ask that the final date for submissions of commentary to this discussion paper be extended and promoted in order for the government to acquire more meaningful input from the citizens of this country.Sincerely,Claudia LakeMaurelle Island
Tim almost 2 years ago
The legislation needs to be stronger than currently proposed, including restoring lost protections and linking all legislation-driven decisions to climate-change targets and sustainability goals.
Sheila Asdal almost 2 years ago
The Discussion Paper on Environmental & Regulatory Review:After reading the 23 page discussion paper, and sifting through the information and proposed "changes", I am most disappointed that the government is reneging on election promises and wasting taxpayer money by ignoring the recommendations made by the expert panels and from public input.I am asking that this government:1. Follow the National Energy Board's panel recommendations to completely overhaul the NEB and move it to Ottawa.2. Change the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with sole authority for conducting environmental assessments. Also the environmental assessments must not go to the National Energy Board, nor to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, nor to offshore boards such as the petroleum board.3. Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to its previous stature and restore the protection of 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams.DO NOT maintain the previous Conservative government's destruction of the NWPA.You state that:* there is a need for greater transparency*protections to Canada's fisheries & waterways are insufficient*Indigenous peoples & the public should have more opportunities to meaningfully participateThis is very true, and in order to regain public trust this government needs to not only engage expert panels and gather public input to help guide reforms, but the government needs to listen to and implement the recommendations of those panels & the public.Sincerely, S. Asdal
Dr Mary Richardson almost 2 years ago
I am appalled that the Government is not following the advice of the expert panels who were tasked with reviewing the NEB and the EA Agency. So much destruction has occurred that the Liberal party assured us would be repaired when they got into office. Please do not water down the expert advice. Thank you.
Wm. G. McGrath almost 2 years ago
My basic criticisms are as follows: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 the 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 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.
Ian Bonyun almost 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.
Breanna almost 2 years ago
When you do not follow through with the campaign promises except for legalizing marajauna and increasing our debt I would say your time in office is a complete failure. We wanted an alternative not a slightly less conservative government. Peer reviewed science does not lie. But greed all to often clouds the vision of those in power. We need protection of our waterways, an unbiased NEB and a government who is willing to risk it all to create a future. We are not improving our environment but just hoping it all goes away. It's going to be too late. I want clean water, air and a right to hold industry responsible for the destruction they cause. Change the LAWS!!
Campbell B. Smith almost 2 years ago
If you are a government concerned for the welfare of children and the environment they will inherit, I would urge you to adopt all of the expert panels' recommendations (NEB & EA) and full restoration of the NWPA. Politics is a labyrinth; life is a path. Please choose carefully.
Darryl H almost 2 years ago
Thank you for considering Off-topic and Other Comments.Reference: Media Player near upper right corner of http://www.discussionpaper.ca/Discussion-paper "CANADA.CA/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS"......is wasting Governments resources, electricity, and bandwidth that would be better spent making the webpages suitable for more devices and browsers, if not actually protecting our environments.
Nicole Corrado almost 2 years ago
It is wonderful that fish habitat protection will be restored under the Fisheries Act.The discussion paper does not do enough to require the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the National Energy Board to move toward renewable energy.The Navigable Waters Protection Act was unfortunately removed in 2012. As a result, several whales died recently from boat strikes in the St Lawrence River. Please reinstate the act, and strengthen it.
Betsy Johnston almost 2 years ago
I reiterate D. Delanoe"s comments...The proposal fails to restore the protections in the The Navigable Waters Protection Act that were gutted in the 2012 rewrite by the government of the day. By not restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. This is enormously disappointing and may be disastrous for some waterways.In addition, the National Energy Board should be completely reformed and moved from its western location to ensure it is arms-length and fair in its assessments.Overall policy should be linked to a broad consideration of how we can protect our environment and attain climate change targets, recognising that these elements are linked. Centralising oversight in a single Environmental Assessment Agency responsible for all environmental assessments would go some way in addressing this issue.
Alison Petten almost 2 years ago
A great start - just need to be stronger and very clear about environmental reviews being required and employing the precautionary principle to decision making. The NEB needs to be reformed to be an independent national board without industry leaders. (Yes, they need to be consulted etc but not making decisions.)
Alison Petten almost 2 years ago
Environmental Reviews and Water Navigation: It does not appear that we have done enough yet to make sure that we retire the protection that was lost in 2012. It is important that the Navigable Waters Protection Act considers the impacts on the environment whenever a proposal may impact navigation. Another important point is to make sure we link the legislation to our climate change targets and insure sustainability is considered! Thank you.
Tasha almost 2 years ago
1. The National Energy Board should be remodeled, and be moved to Ottawa.2. The Environmental Assessment Agency should be a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for doing environmental assessments. Other agencies will not be as effective at protecting the environment.3. Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Waterways should be public and protected from industrial projects.
Erin almost 2 years ago
A good start but not enough! The most important issue of our time is Climate Change and governments will be remembered based on how seriously they took this issue. Please have the insight to be a leader in this regard. Think of your children and grandchildren. The Navigable Waters recommendations are not enough, nor are the fisheries protection recommendations. I commend the government for wanting to consult Indigenous peoples, and for trying to make this information more transparent. That said, the standards at which projects are approved need to be completely reconsidered. Projects with sustainable goals should be subsidized, and true costs of doing business analyzed (ie. health effects and cost to taxpayer healthcare and citizen quality of life).
D. Delanoe almost 2 years ago
The proposal fails to restore the protections in the The Navigable Waters Protection Act that were gutted in the 2012 rewrite by the government of the day. By not restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. This is enormously disappointing and may be disastrous for some waterways.In addition, the National Energy Board should be completely reformed and moved from its western location to ensure it is arms-length and fair in its assessments.Overall policy should be linked to a broad consideration of how we can protect our environment and attain climate change targets, recognising that these elements are linked. Centralising oversight in a single Environmental Assessment Agency responsible for all environmental assessments would go some way in addressing this issue.
Conrad Vanderkamp almost 2 years ago
The National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendation called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. You are ignoring that recommendation. That doesn't look to me like restoring trust in the NEB Follow 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. You are diminishing our government's control without that. You promised to reverse the Harper government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Your present proposals do not do that.
A.W. almost 2 years ago
This is a major disappointment. It appears that this government too is easily influenced by the major power players to backtrack on promises to the people. As the time is nearly up to post, I will simply quote Elizabeth May's remarks: 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.
Adam Stefanski almost 2 years ago
I am very happy that the present government is doing something to fix shameful environmental backtracking by the previous regime. However the proposition seems to be lacking a lot.Especially The Navigable Waters Protection Act — overwritten in 2012 by the Navigation Protection Act is not restored and proposed version is very week leaving majority of our waters unprotected. Please do the work you promised and restore the legislation in the form as it was before - protection all our waters.Adam StefanskiOntario
Marilyn Shaw almost 2 years ago
The legislation that you are currently proposing is too weak; it needs to be better. You need to do more with regards to climate-change. You need to do more about sustainability. You are being too short-sighted. How many future generations do you care about? Any? (sad)
Craig E Vogan almost 2 years ago
Our governments number one concern should be "Global Climate Change" and how we are going to cope with all of the changes incurred with our weather patterns when our global temperatures reach + 2C Please do not do this for me but for my children, and grand children, so they to can enjoy the outdoors, and enviromnent as I did during my lifetime Craig Vogan, RSE
Gaétan Caron almost 2 years ago
NEB GovernanceIntroduction The Government of Canada has taken a very positive step by adopting a measured approach to revitalizing the environmental and regulatory processes for major energy projects. The Discussion Paper released by your government, in response to a series of consultations held in recent months on the environmental assessment process and the NEB, contains very tangible improvements to a number of key institutions that have contributed for many years to the quality of life of all Canadians. The National Energy Board established in 1959 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) established in 1992 are two such institutions. Canada is recognized for having institutions and agencies such as those that are respected on the international stage.  At the same time, continual improvement is always available and the Discussion Paper achieves this goal with flying colours, a remarkable policy achievement.  Your government has made it clear in the Discussion Paper that not all is broken in our environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes:  "Our government recognizes that some elements of the current system are working and should continue to form part of improved environmental assessment and regulatory processes, including decisions with enforceable conditions, legislated timelines, tools for federal-provincial cooperation and a strong role for expert regulators in energy transmission, nuclear and offshore oil and gas.” (Page 6 of Discussion Paper)Under the process considered in the Discussion Paper, strategic and regional assessments of cumulative impacts would be produced, followed by an improved early engagement phase of project reviews led by project proponents but with a more active role played by governments with due allowance for meaningful and well-resourced engagement of Indigenous peoples.  Then, an assessment of all relevant impacts (environmental, economic, social and health) would be made jointly by a strengthened CEA Agency and the expert regulators - in the case of pipelines, the NEB.  This would in effect return us to pre-2012 legislative provisions, albeit in an improved version. For major pipeline projects - the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project being the last major example of the previous regime— a Joint Panel would conduct the EA and the regulatory review with hearing commissioners cross-appointed under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act.  Recommendations, accompanied by all of the approval conditions that would be required to align the project with the national public interest, would be made to Cabinet for a final decision. There is however an area of the Discussion Paper where the direction being considered should be re-assessed: NEB Governance. The nature of the perceived problemIn its Report, the Expert Panel on NEB Modernization affirmed, in very few words, that the current governance model in place at the NEB should be replaced. In the words of the Panel: “…respondents expressed fundamental confusion about and dissatisfaction with how the NEB is governed, starting with the very concept and name of the “Board” itself. This is not a trivial consideration, and we have seen how the terms employed sow misunderstanding of how the NEB functions.” (Page 61 of the Expert Panel Report)This is the only diagnostic offered by the Panel as to the nature of the problem as seen by some Canadians: it is hard to understand how the NEB functions. The other considerations contained in the Report are the Expert Panel’s own views as to what good governance looks like, drawing mostly from the experience of public corporations accountable to shareholders for stock price growth and dividends. The accountability of the NEB to Canadians is infinitely more subtle than accountability for shareholder value. A corporate model of accountability and governance for the NEB may not be the most adapted model, given the complex range of societal outcomes expected of NEB decisions and activities in a Westminster form of Parliamentary democracy. How the NEB is governed today The Parliamentary Process It is true that NEB governance today is not simple and straightforward. The subtleties of the NEB governance model are commensurate with the complexities and the difficulties of the task, and the trade-offs required when determining the public interest for the nation as a whole. First and foremost, the NEB, in its regulatory functions, is accountable to Parliament, not to the Executive Branch of government. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. This is necessary so that Parliamentary activities related to the NEB, such as the tabling of the Annual Report, the appropriations required under the Financial Administration Act, compliance filings such as the Departmental Performance Report, to name a few, can take place within the parliamentary environment. Accountability of the NEB is effectively made real by the appearance of NEB witnesses, including its Chair and CEO, before Committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. This is how the NEB’s performance is measured through probing questions, requests for information, feedback from Members of Parliament from all sides, and Committee reports. This is a very effective process, for all to see, with transcripts to read. Accountability is also effected through Parliament’s actions in the budgets it approves for the NEB, and the conditions under which the NEB may use its budget, as proposed to Parliament by Treasury Board and other central agencies. Internal Accountability There is also an explicit accountability system within the NEB as a public institution. It is described in comprehensive and useful detail in the NEB Governance Manual (See https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/whwr/gvrnnc/gvrnncmnl-eng.pdf) .Like the Westminster form of governance itself, NEB governance is a series of checks and balances. Power and control are shared and not held by an individual. The Chair and CEO must carry out two distinct roles. As Chair, the incumbent is the advocate of all Board members and chairs their meetings. The Chair is a Board member as well, and votes on NEB decisions as member, without a preponderant vote, when a tie needs to be broken. The Chair promotes collegiality and includes Board members in all strategic discussions of regulatory policy and direction. The Chair leads by example on NEB values and behaviours (These values, identified in the NEB Strategic Plan (see https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/whwr/gvrnnc/strtgcpln-eng.html) are integrity, regulatory leadership and accountability). The Chair designates panels of Board members, typically three members, to sit on hearing or other regulatory panels. Once designated, these Panel members must act independently, without interference or influence from the Chair and the other Board members. As CEO, the incumbent is in effect the Deputy Head and is responsible for all non-regulatory accountabilities with central agencies. The Board members are not formally included nor do they have any legislative responsibilities in these administrative matters but the Chair and CEO can choose to seek their views, given the fact that NEB financial and human resources and procurement affect the ability of the Chair and CEO to provide effective human and financial resource support to Board members. In effect, the Chair and CEO, as CEO, is accountable to Board members, as a group, for the provision of staff support to the Board. This is an important element of the checks and balances in the NEB accountability system. The Chair and CEO is designated at pleasure from the pool of Board Members by the Governor in Council, and can be removed from Chair and CEO office subject to common law provisions. Board members are appointed under good behaviour, which means they cannot be removed from office without a joint motion of the House of Commons and the Senate, this applying also to the Chair and CEO as a Board member. Of great importance in this governance structure is that the Board members are engaged in the full life cycle of NEB regulation: from pre-application engagement, through the hearing process, then construction and operation, and abandonment. They are required to form a holistic view of NEB activities, in interaction with the NEB staff. They are essential contributors to every strategic aspect of the ongoing regulatory choices the NEB must make as it balances the economic, environmental and social considerations that are in constant evolution as Canadian society’s values and preferences evolve over time (This language is borrowed from the definition of public interest included in the NEB Strategic Plan cited above: “The public interest is inclusive of all Canadians and refers to a balance of economic, environmental and social considerations that changes as society’s values and preferences evolve over time”). This is a much broader role than that of Hearing Commissioners being considered in the Discussion Paper. The governance model considered in the Discussion PaperAmong the ideas being considered under the Modern and Effective Governance heading, the Discussion Paper envisages:¥ separating the roles of Chair and Chairperson of the Board, currently held by the same person; ¥ creating a corporate-style executive board to lead and provide strategic direction to the NEB organization; and ¥ creating separate Hearing Commissioners to review projects and provide regulatory authorizations. While it would be feasible to separate the functions of Chair and CEO, having them combined makes the accountability framework better adapted to the complex public interest responsibilities at stake in the NEB’s day-to-day work. The Chair must serve the Board, through his or her own actions, and through the staff the incumbent directs as CEO. This is a very useful part of the checks and balances in place in the current framework. This arrangement promotes consensus-building within a collegial group of Board members working together towards the best outcomes for Canada. It also prevents the concentration of power (in the sense of influence and control over regulatory policies and directions) in one person, and leverages the diversity available with Board members, this being enhanced by the Discussion Paper’s suggestion of enhanced diversity on the Board. The notion of a corporate-style executive board has in it the basic flaw that this model is meant to provide governance to corporations. The NEB is not a corporation. Also, as an independent quasi-judicial body, it cannot accept direction from outside itself. The corporate Board of directors would also add an undue layer of accountability between the Board and Parliament. It is doubtful that Parliamentary Committees would summon members of that corporate-style Board to account for the NEB’s actions. Yet, under that model, assuming that it could accept outside direction, the NEB would have to answer questions on NEB direction by telling Parliamentarians that it is obeying direction provided to it by a corporate Board that meets a few times a year and is not involved in the details. The existing direct connection between the NEB and Parliamentarians serves democracy and accountability much better than an ill-adapted corporate model. Finally, the NEB would lose considerable value if its Board members became solely Hearing Commissioners, involved in a thin slice of the broad range of life-cycle responsibilities it is accountable for. Such a move would leave untapped the rich experience of a diverse group of Board members involved both in setting the strategic regulatory choices the NEB must make on an ongoing basis and the solemn, difficult and essential task of adjudicating in public hearings on difficult issues involving a balance of social, environmental and economic dimensions. It would also make possible the concentration of power and influence in a few hands if, for example, the CEO made every effort not to allow matters to go to hearings, when the NEB has discretion to hold public hearings or not. ConclusionAs recognized in the Discussion Paper, many elements of the current system are working effectively, should be kept and be continually improved. The vast majority of ideas for change in the Discussion Paper are worth implementing, and will keep our public institutions modern, vibrant, and the envy of the world. In matters of NEB governance, however, the corporate model is ill-adapted to the realities of our Westminster form of Parliamentary democracy. Enhancing the diversity of the Board, increasing Indigenous representation among the Board, and eliminating the residency requirement for Board members, as considered in the Discussion Paper, are excellent examples of how the Government of Canada can support the continual improvement process that the NEB has been undertaking ever since its creation in 1959. Respectfully submitted,Gaétan CaronPresident,JEMF-X Inc.
Joseph Fall almost 2 years ago
Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA)Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, as promised by this government during the last election campaign, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. This is totally unacceptable and belies a preference for short-term economic benefits at the expense of the long-term sustainability of our precious aquatic ecosystems and waterways. Riparian areas and waterways are too important and deserve de facto protection from industrial activities.
J Wells almost 2 years ago
I completely support Elizabeth May's stand on the need and how to fix the environmental laws presently under review.
Bruce Farquharsonson almost 2 years ago
1. The government’s should follow the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. The NEB should not remain in Calgary under its current composition but, following the sound advice of the costly review panel, should be seriously reformed and moved to Ottawa.2. The government should reconsider proposing that the C-38 regime of energy projects going to the NEB, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards will largely remain in place – and should follow 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 government’s needs to reconsider the decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) and should restore the NWPA to its previous stature, so that Canadian lakes, rivers and streams can be properly protected from industrial projects.
Ken Forster Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate almost 2 years ago
Regulation and Enforcement regarding Fish Habitat in your discussion paper: "Prohibit the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat without approval Clarify when Fisheries Act authorizations are needed for projects and when they are not Identify measures to avoid and mitigate harm to habitat, including through the development and enforcement of standards and codes of practice Enhance enforcement powers Clarify the factors considered in decisions about approvals Build the capacity and develop expertise to protect fish and fish habitat "Look at the recent escape of thousands of Atlantic Salmon in the Pacific. Every potential disaster is only potential until it happens and it will either through human or material error or weakness. We have been shouting for years to kill the west coast fish farms as they endanger the wild Pacific species. Always profit before what is right!
Jenny almost 2 years ago
I agree with all the critiques given by MP Elizabeth May: •
Peter Puxley almost 2 years ago
More generally, the NEB must be completely reformed to remove it from its "captured" past and to restore it as an independent national arbiter free of intimate industry associations.The letter and spirit of the old Navigable Waters Protection Act should be restored in line with the "precautionary principle".Federal environmental assessment should be returned to an independent body at the federal level, as proposed by the review panel.
Nora Fernandez almost 2 years ago
Re: National Energy Board: The government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations call for a complete overhaul of the NEB is an issue as it will allow the NEB to remain in Calgary under its current composition, despite the sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa.RE: Environmental Assessment Government should follow 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. Instead the government 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.RE: Navigable Water Protection Act The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), 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.
Simon Guertin-Armstrong almost 2 years ago
The National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations should be followed, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB and move it to Ottawa. 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 should be followed. The government should restore the NWPA to its previous stature, and thus protect 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams from industrial projects.
Aaron Schneider almost 2 years ago
. 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.
Newfoundland and Labrador Oil & Gas Industries Association almost 2 years ago
Proposed changes: Governance• While joint impact assessments with the C-NLOPB as part of a single integrated review process is in the right direction, there is uncertainty as to individual roles, decision-making and responsibilities and timelines. • Decision making retained by federal minister(s) or the federal cabinet based on whether the project is in the public interest will greatly increase uncertainly as it relates to our offshore resources. Under the Atlantic Accord, that decision rests with the Newfoundland and Labrador Natural Resources minister if all regulatory requirements, including environmental, are addressed. Furthermore, it needs to be implicit in the issuance of an exploration license that oil exploration and production is in the public interest of Canada pursuant to regulatory approval. • The requirement for an early planning phase led by proponents could provide some clarity for proponents if government provides clear direction. However, it should not increase approval timelines.Proposed changes: What is assessed• Maintaining the flexibility to exclude designated projects from assessment under certain conditions based on clear criteria and a transparent process is in the right direction and should be used to exclude the first exploration well in a new area as there is already a transparent process in place. • Relying on the life-cycle regulators (i.e. National Energy Board, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Offshore Petroleum Boards) for the assessment of non-designated projects (i.e. delineation wells in the offshore) is positive and we believe that ever greater reliance on life-cycle regulators is necessary given their unique experience and capabilities.• Strengthening existing provisions that explicitly require assessment of impacts on Indigenous peoples needs to include a reasonable definition of impact, including the extent and probability of impact.Proposed changes: Parameters • Broadening the scope of assessment to include environmental, economic, social and health impacts is a duplication of the EIS submission required by the C-NLOPB under the Development Plan Application process. Proposed changes: Cooperation with Jurisdictions• The development of cooperation agreements with interested jurisdictions (provinces, territories, Indigenous) to advance and support the objective of one project (one assessment while respecting their jurisdiction) is positive, and should include avoiding duplication with respect to offshore exploration wells. Proposed changes: Timelines • The 12-month legislated timeline under CEAA 2012 should be maintained but consideration must the given to placing some limitations on new information requirements placed on proponents during the process that can unduly lengthen the timeline.
David Lyon almost 2 years ago
I am a householder in Kingston Ontario and also own a small lakeside property north of Sydenham, Ontario. In each case I have concerns about environmental protection; perhaps more in the case of Sydenham than Kingston. In short, I am concerned about three things in particular: One,I am opposed to the government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB and its return to Ottawa. Two, I am disturbed by 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. This is unhelpful. Three, I deplore 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. This is bad news for the land and for Canadians.
Jon almost 2 years ago
Expert panels should not be ignored. I implore the government to adopt the recommendations of both the NEB and Environmental Agency expert panels.
Roger Richardson almost 2 years ago
Listen to experts, not corporations. Act on the advice your receive.Put the needs of citizens ahead of corporations.Look after Canada, not multinationals.
Kathleen Ernst almost 2 years ago
Adopt the NEB expert panel recommendations. Stop reneging on your election promises. We the voters do notice and have long memories.
Jason Steeghs almost 2 years ago
Enact the advice provided by the expert panels you convened! This is valuable advice provided by tax-payer dollars. If you ignore it, you're no better than the previous regime we voted out. And so very many of us will definitely look to NDP or Green next election if you don't start keeping your promises.
Dr Rick Hudson almost 2 years ago
Adopt the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB.
Stu Young almost 2 years ago
I'm commenting on these Environmental Review topics in general, as I don't feel qualified to address the specific topics this discussion Page is organized into. Like most Canadians, I don't have the time to educate myself thoroughly on the specifics of the many issues that define where the country is heading. But that doesn't mean I don't notice when it's not going the way things were promised during the 2015 election.When I voted strategically, against my Green Party inclinations, I was (again, like many Canadians) hoping to stem the tide of the overly-industry-friendly Harper government. That (strategic voting) won't be happening again. Not by me, nor by many others. After watching the current Liberal government turn its back on so many of its election promises, we'll be voting with our hearts next time. And so I believe the current government is wasting a one-time opportunity.Back to the topic at hand - please follow the recommendations of the expert panel. Revise and relocate the NEB, and restore the NWPA to its previous stature.When I began voting federally, decades ago, you voted once, for the party with the promises best-aligned with one's point of view, and that party generally acted as advertised. Things evolved, and now we have, in effect, quasi-referenda on all manner of issues, with petitions, opportunities for input such as this Discussion Page, and letters to one's MP all being required, in addition to that vote every four years.I believe I'm not the only citizen who lacks that kind of time availability, to parse through hundreds of documents on each issue, so instead we engage when alerted to an issue by someone we trust.I trust Elizabeth May, and what Ms May tells me is that the current Liberal government is proposing to water down its expert panel advice to the point of leaving the legislation not much different from the Harper version. To sum up: I ask the current government to follow the recommendations of its expert panel, in re-instituting the spirit of the protections in the original legislation.
Sharon Sadler almost 2 years ago
I am supporting Elizabeth May's call to hold our government accountable to its promises, to adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms. Together, we can achieve a Canada that does not pit resource extraction industries against the protection of our shared environment. Because the environmental reforms promised by the government are shaping up to little more than half-measures, or worse. Of concern: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.
PG almost 2 years ago
I'm concerned about 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. I'm concerned about 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. I'm concerned about 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.
Diana Hardacker almost 2 years ago
When I spoke at the NEW hearings in Victoria in Jan. 2015? Almost 100% of respondents expressed not being in favour yet the federal government gave the green light. That is not how democracy is supposed to work.The NEB needs to be reformed, and moved to Ottawa. The government should convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. The Navigable Waters Protection Act needs to be restored to protect 100% of our country's waterways. This is of particular importance to me because I teach students how salmon are essential in our ecosystems and their habitat must be protected.Please adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.
Chris C almost 2 years ago
Listen to your expert panels!! Adobt the recommendations from the NEB and EA expert panels. Reverse the changes brought in by C-38. Restore the Navigable Waters Protetion Act. Oh and change the voting system, while you're at it. Fufill your commitments to Canadians.
Dan Carpenter almost 2 years ago
Topics? ALL of them. What does this information have to do with the Bank???? Keep your election promise and reverse the Harper bills C38 and C45. You are two faced liars. It is blatently obvious!
David Hitchcock almost 2 years ago
The government should accept the advice of the expert panel on the National Energy Board to reform the agency and move it to Ottawa.The government should accept the advice of the expert panel on environmental assessment to turn the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority for conducting environmental assessments.The government should restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act to its previous status.
T. Sande almost 2 years ago
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.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.
Wendy Birkinshaw Malo almost 2 years ago
I am concerned about 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 - this is unacceptable. I am concerned about 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 - again, this is unacceptable. I am concerned about 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 - this too is unacceptable.I urge the government to take the advice and recommendations provided by its own expert panels and to make significant changes to the current regimes in place to better protect our environment and rights, including Indigenous rights.
Sheila Harrington almost 2 years ago
Trust in your own expert panels and heed them. We must protect our waters, our marine areas, biodiversity and community! This administration should adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.
Morgan Nyberg almost 2 years ago
Adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for environmental reforms.
Ann Byrne almost 2 years ago
Follow through on your promise to reverse the damage from bills C-38 and C-45! Do not ignore the recommendations from two expert panels on environmental assessment. Restore NWPA to previously held protections to waterways.
Brian Gallivan almost 2 years ago
Protections in the NWPA should apply to all lakes, rivers and other navigable waterways in each and every province and territory.The National Energy Board should be restructured and moved to Ottawa. Alberta is not the centre of our federal government. The Environmental Assessment Agency should have sole authority in conducting environment assessments.
Michael Keller almost 2 years ago
Overall, it is actually quite simple: Expert panel opinions have been expressed and recommendations have been provided. These should be accepted/adopted and adhered to as recommended. Otherwise, soliciting public input and perspective, i.e., a form of public consultation practice, will have been blatantly ignored = a disenfranchisement of democratic process in governance. In addition, I recall a campaign promise to fix/reform Canada’s environmental laws and, thereby, upholding the essential protection of our shared environment now and for all subsequent generations. Please keep your promise...
Anita Payne almost 2 years ago
NEB: Accept the recommendations of the expert panel: Reform the NEB and move it to Ottawa.EA: Convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority to conduct environmental assessments.Restore environmental protections to navigable waterways. Water is life!
Mark Hazell almost 2 years ago
Let me start by referring you to Elizabeth May's comments included in her email of August 23 -- I share Ms. May's concerns in their entirety, and have more of my own.My largest concern is that so many of the projects the government is meant to oversee and approve should be rejected out of hand because they fly in the face of all scientific research about the continued reliance on fossil fuels, and of Canada's commitments as a signee of the Paris accord. The time has come to greatly reduce the entire world's use of fossil fuels, and to stop new projects designed to continue their widespread use. I know that this is neither convenient or easy, but it is the government's responsibility to do this. Instead of fiddling with thinking about how we can fine tune the approval practice, we need the government to lead the nation in the creation of an economy and way of life that takes the crisis of climate change seriously.
Bruce Rosove almost 2 years ago
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.
Sharon Leighton almost 2 years ago
Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act. What good is a country when all its waters have been spoiled? Make protection the default position, and let industry prove their projects will not violate that protection.
Roger Elmes almost 2 years ago
I concur with two major critiques offered by MP Elizabeth May: • 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.
Dawna Bates almost 2 years ago
Greetings.I don't know the specific category to place my comments so I will put them all here.I am disheartened with the Kinder Morgan pipeline that is being pushed through. I believe this is very short sighted and I would hope that my government would take a long term view. What we are not talking about is once the tar makes it to the coast what then? Tank it over to Asia with all the potential risks that shipping may cause? This is NOT a good idea.I want my government to support and encourage personal generation of solar and wind through a grant system or rebates and tax credits. I want my government to ensure that the large utility companies are supportive of small household generators.I want my government to put money into research that will expose partnerships between the large utility generators and small generators. There has been some positive information from those groups wanting to provide innovative methods of storing power. I want my government to support and enable these groups.I want my government to ENFORCE and perhaps eliminate the farming of salmon in the oceans. Recently thousands of farmed and possibly GMO'd salmon escaped through their netting. Who is monitoring this? Do we know what we are doing here?We have a beautiful country which is the envy of the world. Let's be the leader in protecting what we have and the leader moving toward self sufficiency and sustaniblility in all areas.Thanks for asking!Dawna
Paul R Pennington B.Sc.,M.Sc. almost 2 years ago
My comments are general You must completely remove all the Harper era corporate giveaways. If you don't you are doomed in the next election. It will prove beyond any doubt that the Liebrals and the Con artists are just branches of the same evil. Now completely owned by the corporate oligarchs. What Harper did was a crime forcing through legislation clearly written by the corporate. You promised to repeal it and you lie again. Many are now on to this corporate takeover of our governments. Prove you are different and not owned Fix this evil legislation now
Carol MacLeod almost 2 years ago
The paper rejects National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. The paper rejects 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 paper appears to suggest that the government maintain the existing Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA),which, combined with the aannounced polict of the United States, dooms the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence system. Most Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.Of particular concern is how this proposed polict would apply to the proposal to bury nuclear wate at Chalk River. What environmental protections would there be for the Ottawa River???
Ashley Zarbatany almost 2 years ago
I am extremely disappointed that the Liberal government has completely backtracked on almost all of its pre-election campaign promises to address the lack of environmental protections in this country. The Liberals were largely elected because people were fed up with the Conservative government's pro-oil, pro-pipeline agenda and disregard for our shared environment. In B.C. the majority of people are against the Kinder Morgan pipeline and we've seen over and over again that the NEB is a corrupt rubber-stamping lackey for the oil industry. Trudeau campaigned on the the promise to overhaul the NEB and now he is backtracking on that promise. It is unacceptable and B.C. will not forget it. We just elected an NDP/Green government in our province and a large part of the reason for that is because we were betrayed. The refusal to scrap the NEB is another betrayal. The refusal to reinstate the Navigable Waters Act is another betrayal. The refusal to listen to the expensive, tax-payer funded expert panels on how to reform our environmental laws is another betrayal. We will not forget this.
Ellie O'Day almost 2 years ago
I am responding based on what this government says, vs what it does, which is essentially nothing. We have had an NEB expert panel, who suggested changes, which were ignored. The NWPA was a mess that should be referred back to jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis, but this government backed down from making changes to the Harper government's slashing of protections to most of our waterways. As with electoral reform, it seems this government campaigned on one thing, but is finding ways out of making any changes. What a letdown this Liberal government has become, guilty of the same environmental abuse and neglect as the Conservatives were.
Michael Maser almost 2 years ago
These are my summary comments: I am appalled at the government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. The NEB needs to be overhauled and moved to Ottawa, which is much more consistent to your campaign promise. I am appalled at 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. This is unacceptable and will undermine public and environmental safety. Stick to your campaign promises. The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) is incredible to me - especially after your campaign promises!!!! Rather than restoring the NWPA to its previous stature, 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. This is unacceptable to me. Overall, I'm appalled at your backtracking on campaign pledges - and I voted for your government based on these pledges, and your pledge on electoral reform. You need to stick to your campaign pledges and prioritize environmental and public safety - the measures you outline will not be sufficient to do that. - Michael Maser, Gibsons, BC
Michael Layland almost 2 years ago
Overall respect for properly constituted expert panels.I feel the government's decision must be based upon the recommendations of such expert panels with respect to outcomes such as environmental, economic and social sustainability, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and conserved biodiversity, while ensuring a process that engages the public, advances reconciliation with Indigenous people and ensures efficient and timely consideration of proposed projects, policies and programs. You have called for the considered opinions of experts in these field, and should respect and follow them, rather than buckle in to powerful special interests with contrary views.
Jane Mertz almost 2 years ago
Please restore all our Environmental Legislation to previous levels and then enhance them further. Industry and governments needs to understand that humans would like to remain on the planet for a long time, not a short time. Our waters and our lands need protection from pollution and over use. This should be a priority for climate change action. We are going backwards, not forwards. I thought we were promised a bright future from this new government, how sad the future is from the 1900's exploitation period.
Chris Eve almost 2 years ago
I have read the discussion paper and would like to express my deep disappointment.I could write at great length but it seems clear to me that there is very little point because your government hears only what it wants to hear.I have never voted Green in my life but on this matter Elizabeth May speaks for me. She states the concerns concisely and politely. I am angry at the betrayals implicit in this paper and I admire her calm advocacy which is more than I can manage.
Tyler almost 2 years ago
The current Government campaigned on a promise to re-establish the environmental protections that had been recently stripped down by the former Government.We Canadians expect these protections to be FULLY re-established, and will not settle for a partial fix.
Lesley Forester almost 2 years ago
The environmental reforms promised by the government are shaping up to little more than half-measures, or worse. I hold the government accountable to its promises. 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.
Allan Harrison almost 2 years ago
This government must adopt the recommendations of the expert advisory panels on the National Energy Board, the Environmental Assessment Agency, to restore the NWPA, as they have promised.Canada desperately need these reforms to undo the catastrophic damage the previous federal government did to environmental protections in this country.
Bill Henderson C.M. almost 2 years ago
Please adopt all of your expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.
Rena Viehbeck almost 2 years ago
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.
R. Cormier almost 2 years ago
I am extremely concerned over 3 key points:The government has rejected the National Energy Board's panel's recommendations to completely overhaul the NEB. It wants to move the NEB to Otaawa, which would help ensure that there's no conflict of interest. Leaving it in Calgary means that the people who have the most to gain through environmentally unsound policies, will have the greatest control. At least in Ottawa, the NEB would receive (hopefully) more oversight.The government wants the Environmental Assessment Agency to stay crippled. Mr. Harper's C-38 bill ensured that energy projects will be going to the NEB, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and offshore boards, bypassing real Environmental impact Assessment. This isn't right.Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA): Previously held protection to waterways should be viewed on a case-by-case basis by their jurisdictions. Harper destroyed protection of our lakes, rivers and streams from industrial projects. The government seems to be wanting the same thing.Mr. Trudeau is proving himself to be Harper with another face, and I am frightened by the environmental prospects, and disgusted with how this present government has proved itself completely untrustworthy, and Mr. Trudeau a liar and promise breaker.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
Enough has been stated by others regarding the NEB and the necessity for this government to work to establish credibility. It is essential that the beginning of all environmental impact review & assessment be based upon a clear, solid, universal foundation such as, at a minimum, 1. re-establishing the navigable waters protection act, 2. transparency in process and data (open-data standards), and 3. upon due respect for Indigenous issues (e.g. UNDRIP). Lacking a clear foundation for decision making leaves us mired in the muck, unable to make clear progress. Reducing environmental standards just sinks us deeper in the muck, entrenching opposition. We are a very wealthy nation with abundant natural resources, largely unspoiled compared to any other nation on earth. Why can't we see that and use it to our advantage? Show the world what's possible when done well. We can do this, to the betterment of society, indigenous peoples, the environment and, yes, the natural resource industry.
Janet Pattinson almost 2 years ago
Regarding the National Energy BoardI understand the government has rejected recommendations made by the National Energy Board expert panel which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. Since that expert panel has provided sound advice for serious reform of the board and to move it to Ottawa, it is worrisome that their advice after costly deliberation should be ignored. The government is in need of the advice of experts.Regarding Environmental AssessmentAnother expert panel recommended that the Environmental Assessment Agency be converted into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA. When experts are engaged to make recommendations, it seems suitable to take their advice seriously. Rejecting their advice means that the process instituted by the previous conservative government remains in place, despite a great deal of opposition to that other government's handling of environmental issues. The NEB has not been serving the environmental interests of Canada and other groups currently handling these issues have not helped either.Regarding Navigable Waters Protection ActThe previous Conservative Government deleted many protections to the navigable waters act leaving that part of the environment at great risk. It means that most of the Canadian lakes, rivers and streams remain unprotected from industrial projects. The previously held protections to waterways should be restored.It is distressing that the current government appears to be "conservative" in the matter of environmental protection. We voted that previous government out of office in large part because of their neglect of the environment. There is so much more to life than industrial activity. We depend on our environment to sustain life. The government of today should be providing much more protection to our environment.Thanks for your attention. Janet Pattinson.
D. McLenaghen, B.Sc. almost 2 years ago
The government must implement the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB and its relocation to Ottawa. The government must implement 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 environmental assessments.The government must comprehensively reverse Stephen Harper’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) uniformly across all jurisdictions, instead of relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to waterways.
Colin Creasey almost 2 years ago
This comment is a reminder of the promises that the Trudeau government made, and then reneged on. These include tax fairness, proportional representation, respecting First Nations rights, restoring the Navigable Waters Act, overhauling the NEB, the list goes on. This government says that it makes decisions for the good of Canadians, but it is actually referring to the good of Canadian corporations. Much like the previous Conservative government. It should be remembered that this government came into power because people were tired of the Harper Conservatives, and the Trudeau promises seemed like a breath of fresh air. This air has turned foul, making voters realize that in electing a Liberal government, they were actually getting more of the same. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, is the definition of stupidity. The Canadian people do not like being made fools of. This government may well find that out at the next election.
Greg Taylor almost 2 years ago
This government needs to move beyond empty and misleading political branding and expressions like 'the environment and economy go together' when it clearly favours a business as usual approach. Very little substance has changed since the Liberals took power, but the general public very often doesn't realize this. It's time that substance backed up rhetoric.
Elaine Hughes, Quill Plains (Wynyard) Chapter, Council of Canadians almost 2 years ago
We strongly urge the Liberal Government to adopt ALL of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.The Precautionary Principle states: CAUSE NO HARM!Anything less is irresponsible, dangerous and unacceptable!
Bonnie Sokoloski almost 2 years ago
Please do a better job of publicizing opportunities for input such as this. As evidenced by the small number of responses, hardly anyone knows about this " discussion paper".
Dav almost 2 years ago
A lot of the comments in this section seemed focused on the national energy board. The government have presented some good recommendations with respect to the NEB. For example, creating what amounts to three executive branches: the CEO, the board of directors and a group of independent hearing commissioners, with no overlap between these branches, This model will create greater accountability, It will create checks and balances and prevent one branch from being to powerful. The CEO must report to the board of directors who are themselves accountable to parliament. The commissioners must be independent judges free of political and corporate interference.
Laurie Ashworth almost 2 years ago
What I did like in the Environmental and Regulatory Reviews Discussion Paper- The goal toward one project – one assessment- The goal to provide clear guidance to industry on what to be assessed and how- The goal to explain federal decisions well. This will improve fairness and build trust in the system- The goal to involve science, evidence and indigenous knowledge in all assessments- Allowing public participation and providing easy online access to all environmental and regulatory reviews- Studying cumulative effects at the national level- Placing one agency to be responsible for environmental, economic, social and health impacts- Planning for periodic reviews of all major projects with enforceable assessment conditions- Cooperation at the federal, provincial, territorial jurisdictions to make assessment more efficient and thorough and fair- Providing a definition of all activities that should be cost-recovered (ie. decommissioning, disaster clean up, etc)What I did not see and would like to see- Acceptance of the National Energy Board expert panel’s recommendation to seriously reform the NEB and move it to Ottawa- Acceptance of the Environmental Assessment expert panel’s recommendation to give the EA Agency sole authority to perform EAs instead of multiple organizations- A plan to restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act which Stephen Harper dismantled and leaves many of our lakes, rivers and streams unprotected Please create an Environmental Review process within Canada that we can be proud of and that will protect our country for generations to come!
Marnie Troyer almost 2 years ago
A lot of election promises were made concerning the protection of our environment and the undoing of the previous government's damage to our environmental safeguards. Is that all they were --- election "promises"? Is this, after all, a government that only appears to mean well while actually doing little of any value where our environment is concerned. Fossil fuels need to be a thing of the past; let's get on with it.
Dissapointed. almost 2 years ago
General Comment.How can we be expected to reply to this discussion paper as presented? It is an intentionally overwhelming litany of government bafflegab and weasel words that is full of high sounding intentions but containing limitations and loopholes enough to show little real intent for reform. I am not going to waist my time on playing this game of "consultation" when my opinions and beliefs will ultimately only be ignored anyway. Please do not expect us to play into your hands by allowing you to simply exhaust our patience and determination by constantly disappointing us. This is my strongly worded rejection of this manipulation and a charge to start walking the talk instead of towing the corporate line.
Jane Topping almost 2 years ago
The first area I would like to comment on is the Federal Fisheries Act:This is an incredibly important piece of legislation that was destroyed by the Harper government. It needs to be modernized and greatly strengthened to ensure that protection for fish is strong, and protection for fish habitat is also very strong. Our native fish species are an incredibly important element of Canada's precious biodiversity. They also are very important to the health and wellbeing of our Indigenous People, are very important to tourism and to local enjoyment and are a very important component of healthy natural ecosystems all of which are very important . If you have to make a choice do so in the best interests of Conservation and building a future that is sustainable and ensure that this act is made as strong as possible.The second are a I would like to comment on is The Navigable Waters Protection Act:This Act was also gutted by the Harper Government. It is a critical piece of legislation if we hope to protect our lakes etc. across Canada. It is imperative that The Navigable Waters Protection Act be reinstated and strengthened.The third area of my concern is the NEB:It is in its current and propose state a failure and a complete disgrace . It must be completely overhauled to ensure its decisions are fair , transparent, based upon scientific fact and respectful of the rights of our Indigenous People and other Canadians It must not be controlled by the fossil fuel lobby.The last area I would like to comment upon is The Environmental Assessment Act:This act is critical to ensuring Canada's efforts to conserve and protect important natural ecosystems, threatened species and their critical habitat, unique natural areas and render decisions on proposed development that are in the best interests of first and foremost protecting our fragile environment and ensuring that development proposed is being done in the right place and in the right way with strong r in place for monitoring the effects of development and ensuring there are plans in place to handle and mitigate any toxic output from projects as well as plans for closing down and remediating development sites. There also needs to be active monitoring to ensure compliance and hefty fines for non-compliance.To be effective the EA Agency needs to be converted into a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority for conducting EA's.Canada must step up and really protect our environment not just pay lip service and conduct business as usual. It is the only foundation upon which we can hope to build our FUTURE , a future that is SUSTAINABLE for generations to come.
S. Norcross almost 2 years ago
NWPARestore the NWPA to its pre Harper state to recover the "two steps backward" he took and scrap bill C38. We need to recover lost ground through protection in order to move ahead. For me, this was the campaign promise I am counting on.
Green@Heart65 almost 2 years ago
People Not PipelinesAugust 15, 2017I ask the Government of Canada:- to follow the recommendations of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. The NEB should be seriously reformed and moved to Ottawa.- to follow 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.- to restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to its previous status, before modifications made by Harper’s government.
Judy almost 2 years ago
Government needs to listen to advice of experts they empanel. The National Energy Board expert panel recommended a complete overhaul of the NEB, including moving it from Calgary to Ottawa.
Judy almost 2 years ago
Re the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA): This was dismantled by the Conservatives, with the result that currently 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams remain unprotected from industrial projects. After nearly 2 years, jurisdictions are still in the position of having to apply on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protection to waterways. The NWPA should be restored to its former stature.
robert woodward almost 2 years ago
Do overhaul the national energy board 2} convertEAA into a judicial board to conduct environmental assessment3} protect cdn waterways from industrial pollution
Dan Buller almost 2 years ago
Take money out of the equation concerning Indigenous individuals.Reform the NEB and move it to Ottawa.Scrap Harper's C-38 bill entirely.Communicate with the public in a language that ALL understand.Restore the NWPA to its previous stature.
Joy Thorkelson almost 2 years ago
Protection for fish and fish habitat: any environmental assessment also needs to assess the effect of impacts on fisheries - which may differ from impacts on fish or fish habitat. For example, a project can have negative impacts on a small fish stock requiring a closure of all fisheries on this stock. As a result of this closure, fisheries on co-migrating stocks could also be completely shut down, thereby negatively impacting harvest opportunities on the co-migrant stock. In fact, the co-migrating stock, not impacted by the project, may be the target stock and conceivably the fishery would lose the economic value of the target stock, due to the negative project impacts on the smaller stock. This would have been the case in a pipeline spill impacting Nanika/Morice sockeye (a small stock) which co-migrates with the larger Babine stocks. A closure of any fisheries impacting the smaller Morice sockeye stock would prevent a fishery on the target lucrative Babine stock, costing the fishery and communities the loss of millions of dollars. However, if only the value of the fish or fish habitat is considered, the cost of a pipeline spill would only take into account the loss of the economic value of the impacted Morice sockeye, not the economic loss of the forgone Babine sockeye.
Dan Buller almost 2 years ago
What happened to the comments I originally typed unto the submission document?
Jean Jenkins 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 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.
Frances Daw almost 2 years ago
I am so disappointed in the so called "Sunny Way" Liberals. Trudeau and his colleagues are not living up to their electioneering promises. 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 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.Please address these issues.Sincerely,Frances Daw
Peter Moller almost 2 years ago
We need to distance our regulatory bodies from political influence. The members of bodies like the National Energy Board were largely chosen on the basis of their political suitability rather than their technical knowledge. This needs to change.
Jay Bailey almost 2 years ago
Industry: Realize that businesses and even industries have a natural ebb and flow or life and death cycle. Subsidization is helpful to a point, beyond which, unless it is an essential service, it should be allowed to die a natural death. Instead, subsidizing innovation in industry and research can either rejuvenate or replace those businesses or industry in a much more healthy manner.
Wai Tak almost 2 years ago
Trudeau's government has broken its promises to Indigenous Peoples and to the Canadian People; e.g., election reform. This document is a cleverly designed piece of government advertisement. The major problems with NEB and with Cabinet having the final say over these projects are not addressed. When campaigning, Trudeau promised that Indigenous Nations would have effective veto power over industrial, resource projects in their traditional territories and hunting grounds. Trudeau has broken these promises with his government's approval of the KM pipeline, Enbridge Line 3, as well as the government's lobbying for Keystone Pipeline, despite significant and principled opposition from Indigenous communities. Please refer to statements for e.g., by Secwepemc Nation and by Winona LaDuke's group.From the news:"The Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh First Nations at the pipeline’s terminus have been putting up a courageous battle for years, and they’re being joined by Indigenous groups across the province. Last week, the Secwepemc Nation, whose terrain the pipeline bisects, issued a statement as profound in its urgency and scope as any climate policy I’ve ever read. Amidst the smoke of raging fires, they pointed out that the pipeline is a serious safety risk — how’d you like a superheated oil pipe in your backyard? And they added that because it poured carbon in the air it would up the chances for fires far into the future.“We explicitly and irrevocably refuse its passage through our territory,” said the tribal assembly. “Investors take note, there is no Secwepemc consent for Kinder Morgan. Kinder Morgan will not pass through Secwepemc Territory.”"
R. Cormier almost 2 years ago
The panel for the National energy board, called for intensive reform of the NEB, and for it to be moved from Calgary (conflict of interest) to Ottawa. The present Govt. has rejected this. In Ottawa there would be (hopefully) better oversight on the decisions and processes that the NEB makes. Rejection of panel's recommendations: disgusting.The Environment Assessment Board's panel recommended that the Environment Assessment Agency be converted 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. I thought we were supposed to be reversing the harm done to environmental protections done by Harper. Rejection of this recommendation: Disgusting.Lastly, The Liberals under Trudeau have decided to maintain the changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act by the previous Govt., instead of relying on a case-by-case basis to restore previously-held protections to our waterways. So the protections that have been stripped away by the "Harper Govt." will remain stripped away, leaving our waterways completely vulnerable to industrial projects. Mr Trudeau promised to restore Environmental protections that Mr. Harper had removed. That he now chooses to break that promise is...disgusting.I am extremely disturbed by the trend of Mr. Trudeau breaking promises that got him voted in, his refusal to protect the environment, and his apparent eagerness to become Mr. Harper with a different face.
Lori almost 2 years ago
I am disappointed that the present government has not been doing as it said it would in protecting our environment and in reforming our electoral system. Please stop the politics, to put it politely! It is now time for action, not more money and time wasted on supposed research, etc. Please, asap....put into action the recommendations of the NEB experts panel, the recommendations of the EA experts panel, and restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act!
Timarie Marentette almost 2 years ago
A full page of buzzwords but what is actually being done? This document and feedback requested is eerily reminiscent of the electoral reform websites questions. It's nice that expert panels are utilized however what is the point in wasting taxpayer money on them if we do not take their advice? The NEB needs to be completely overhauled per the recommendations of the expert panel, the NEB should be in Ottawa as well, NOT Calgary. The Liberal government made campaign promises that said they would review changes to the navigable waters act, reinstate what was removed from them and possibly increase protections when warranted. It does not appear that this is what is being planned. Relist all lakes and rivers under the act to keep campaign promises. Why is the government reneging on all their election promises? The liberal government are now in the pockets of corporate lobbyists from big hydro and big oil. Adding a comment about gender based analysis plus to your buzzwords is not enough to differentiate you from the conservatives.
Eugene Hrushowy almost 2 years ago
The NEB created under the Harper gov't needs to be reformed to redress its balance to ensure that oil/mining is not the only or majority interest in decision making. In my opinion, public trust has been severely eroded and needs to be reestablished. In addition, legislation needs to be created to safeguard all waterways in Canada. The way to do that is to involve local communities nearest to a watershed in vetting all applications for industrial/corporate exploitation of a waterway. Further a mechanism is necessary to ensure that cummlative effects of waterway exploitation are recognized. Not only do we need to think like a watershed but we need to think like a biosphere.Clean waterways and air are the single most crucial legacy to leave the future.
Katie West almost 2 years ago
The following are key concerns: 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. The NEB expert panel's recommendations need to be accepted - a complete overhaul of the NEB.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. The Environmental Assessment (EA) expert panel’s recommendation should be accepted.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. The NWPA should be restored to its previous stature.
R Procyk almost 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.
Trevor Reeves almost 2 years ago
Scrape Bill 38 in entirety and restore the Navigagable Waters Protection Act to it's pre Harper er status.
Robin almost 2 years ago
The Green Party says that - The government rejected 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 rejected 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 decided 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.I can find nothing in the discussion paper that makes clear the Government's position on these issues. In fact the paper is almost devoid of specifics. I hope that the Green Party is not correct.
patricia almost 2 years ago
Environmentandregulatorypractices: - 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.YourgovernmentisgoingbackonpromisestocleanupHarpersmesses!!!thatiswhyyouwereelected!!shapeup!
Patricia Rogerson almost 2 years ago
I am still hopeful, that our government can move forward, it can recognize that without a clean air, clean water and earth, no one eats, drinks or breathes. A great economy is very nice, like a new car but you cannot eat it or breathe it or drink it. We need to get our priorities straight.
bob boase almost 2 years ago
It seems to me the purpose of this document is to block out legitimate involvement of those who are concerned about our environmental future while giving the green light to industry and international trade agreements to do what they will. This document is more evidence of a failure of vision of our current and past governments. Instead of supporting and developing Canada's 21st century economy, we are stuck with propping up Canada's 20th century extractive economy, which has proven toxic to our environment. A sad story indeed.
Shirley Handley almost 2 years ago
Although it is all very well and good to tell the public you will be taking their input, using expert advice and consulting with Indegenious groups, it means absuolutely nothing if you disavow their input and follow your own plans. I am very disappointed that the panel recommendations are been overlooked in so many areas. Particularly regarding the National Energy Board, the Environmental Assessment panel and the National Water Protection Agency. At this point in history we can't waste time pandering to business pressures. The government's priority has to be the environment and aggressive response to climate change.
Jim Chaput almost 2 years ago
Return (as promised) the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) to its previous stature so that Canada's lakes, rivers and streams are protected. Under the current situation, 99% of these waterways are unprotected from industrial projects.
Dianne Varga almost 2 years ago
Re: the government’s rejection of the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. In particular, I’m concerned that the cabinet has final decision-making power on environmental assessments, that politics may overrule science, and almost certainly will. Re: the government’s craven decision not to reinstate the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). 99 per cent of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects.
June Kendall almost 2 years ago
A. Convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EAB. We need a complete overhaul of the NEB and move it to Ottawa ... away from Calgary's oil interests.C. Restore the Navigable Waters Protection Act to its previous stature ... as it was before Harper got his hooks into it.
Jacqueline Steffen almost 2 years ago
Threats to water quantity and quality are all around us, from poorly planned development, water diversions and uncontrolled consumption, to direct pollution. CANADA is furthest behind in protecting its ocean with only 0.11% protected. Of this 0.03% is in the Arctic, 0.00% in the Pacific** and 0.08% in the Atlantic. If we want to protect the natural areas that filter our water, clean our air and support wild creatures, farmlands that produce our foods, and waterways that provide our drinking water, then we need strong planning systems, including objective environmental assessments. Increasing pressure from human activities such as fishing, shipping, industrial development and oil and gas exploration threaten the health of these waters. The impacts of these activities including species extinctions, declines in fish stocks, pollution and invasive species will likely be compounded by climate change, acidification and sea level rise.All energy and industrial projects must be subject to a climate test;• The NEB must no longer be an environmental assessment authority;• The project review process must respect the rights and authority of Indigenous peoples;• The NEB should work for Canadians, not the oil and gas industry, by making it easier for the public to participate meaningfully in energy decision-making and ensuring the energy project review process is transparent, accountable and based on scientific evidence;• The modernized regulator must provide energy information that is consistent with Canada’s climate commitments. The federal government’s proposals for restoring Canada’s environmental laws are an improvement, but they don’t go far enough.
Stephanie Coburn almost 2 years ago
One of the biggest concerns is that even after consultation, the final decision is made by a Minister or the Cabinet, over-riding whatever science and/or public opposition has been heard. In signing the Paris climate agreement, the government committed to certain greenhouse gas target. In this document it is stated that Cabinet will still have the power to override science and/or public opposition because of political considerations, as was done in approving the Kinder Morgan expansion. Letting the science be left out for political reasons is unacceptable, and makes a mockery of whatever consultation you purport to pursue.Years ago I sat on a committee with the CNSC and various reps of environmental NGO's. Life cycle regulators, as it says on page 18, are supposed to be judging a project on its merits, not promoting the project. It was clear to us that the CNSC was not an unbiased regulator, but was a booster of nuclear power plants. When the CNSC came to New Brunswick for hearings on refurbishment of Point Lepreau the chair of the CNSC was rude and dismissive to opponents of the project, and it was clear that they were only going through the motions of reviewing the project, not actually weighing the evidence. The members of these boards, the NEB, the CNSC, should be non political appointments, unbiased persons with expertise in these fields. What is the use of advisory committees, peer reviewed science, if the final decision is still political?This government signed the Paris climate accord. We must not only count the emissions from the projects, but the emissions that would be produced by the product we are shipping. It's ridiculous to think that the total emissions of all the petroleum products that are produced in Alberta are not part of our total emissions! The planet doesn't care where the CO2 comes from, it's all causing climate chaos.
Tara McFadden almost 2 years ago
Navigation protection: As a recreational boater, the Navigation Protection Act should proactively protect my health and safety (Constitutional rights) in addition to navigation rights.
John (Bill) Leffers almost 2 years ago
Protecting Canada's fish stocks..I fish the Skeena river system and changes need to be made to stop the over harvesting of the salmon. Here are some ideas to stop the " cheaters" from taking more fish than allowed.1) Do away with making it possible to print off more than one line licence. It is too easy to print off more than 1 licence, therefore letting you catch a fish on a licence, process the fish, then return with your "other licence". This happens more than people think.2) Reduce yearly catch limits3) Implement a tagging system.4) Increase CO presence at peak times in the high traffic area.( I fished 2 weeks in the Skeena region and never saw a CO).These sound real simple, but I believe these changes could make a big difference in the protection of the Skeena River salmon.
Jordan almost 2 years ago
NEW FISHING REGULATIONSHello, Even as a young man, i have seen salmon stocks in the skeena region fall. Now is the time to change the system and stop over fishing province wide. A group of friends and i have sat down and started talking about new managment plans for each region. What we have got, is this. For chinook, sockeye and coho. We should implement a tagging system. Just like we have with hunting. Give out 5 tags for chinook, 10 tags for sockeye and 10 tags for coho. ( number of tags can vary on the year) at 2 dollars a tag. The tag would look like a ski tag, a sticker with a metal ring. Once you retain your salmon you must tag that salmon by putting your metal tag and sticker on the tail. This inturn stops people from catching their fish going home, putting them in the freezer and coming back out to fish. On these tags you should be writing the size of each salmon and date caught. I know there are flaws in this plan but its an idea to move foward. Now regarding the ocean. We need to cut the amount of salmon caught. We should have regulation like the river has now on the ocean. 1 chinook over 65cm, 2 coho, 2 sockeye. Guides that operate in the ocean are basicly commercial fisherman. Pulling a limit of 2 chinook 4 coho 4 pinks 4 chum and 4 sockeye everyday has a impact on those populations. I know that everyone needs to make a living but when there are no fish or the stocks get so low that the goverment shuts down fishing nobody will have a job.I hope you take my idea and build on it, There is a lot of room for improvement.
Donald almost 2 years ago
Regarding the “scientific licence” from Fisheries and Oceans, one can obtain as a sports fisherman, and is used for halibut fishing. What it does is allow any one with this permit to catch as many halibut or any size and all they have to do when getting home is buy halibut by total weight of what they caught from a commercial licensee, there by converting their sport fishing outing into a paid sub contractor of a commercial licensee. One would think that then the commercial fisherman would be catching less, only there are many licensees that do not fish, do not even have a boat, so this becomes just a method for people with money to sport fish beyond the regs, and allows licensees to act as land barons, owning fish that could be given to sport fishermen, acting as middle men. The sport fishing for halibut has been severely regulated, with a back door for the rich tourist and wealthy residents. I also see halibut for sale at farmers markets in Calgary. Is the science licence designed for those who want to fish and then sell the unlimited catch as they please? Catching oversized spawners and unlimited numbers seems to say that the limits on the sport fisherman is bogus. This needs fixing, the sport fishing regulations fixed, and the commercial quota converted to sports, especially for those who only own the commercial licence for profit, and do not have a boat or any intention of fishing. It is not a job for them only a licence to print money.
Donald almost 2 years ago
Regarding Fisheries and Oceans, specifically licences, and recording of catches. Now one buys their licence online and can print as many copies as they want. Then one can fish and catch and record their catches on the licence, sound fair, only as soon as they get home and have not been checked for their catch they simply destroy that licence and next trip use a new copy making the recording of catches totally bogus. That is a joke. We should have to use a government issued reporting card that can not be replaced without a large fee and a lot of trouble, like lost driver’s licences. I have been fishing the same waters for 20 years and have been checked twice on the water and 3 times along the highway when travelling.
Roger almost 2 years ago
I'm very disappointed to see no approach to curtailing the meddling by unaccountable and often foreign funded lobbyists and NGOs. Our local economic development, if deemed by Canadians to be acceptable must not be hijacked by "environmental" philanthropists like the Tides Foundation, Oak Foundation, Moore Foundation, Packard Foundation, Paul Allen, Nathaniel Simons and so on - working through compliant Canadian lobbies like the Pembina Institute, Suzuki Foundation Tides Canada, or Greenpeace. Our assessment process must be protected from foreign interests.
Al Spiess almost 2 years ago
I spent several hours reading the discussion paper, comparing notes from one topic heading to another. I found multiple overlapping recommendations. If the purpose of this discussion paper is to improve and simplify the NEB process, we have missed the opportunity. The recommended proposals are sure to bog down an already long and enduring process to get approval. With respect to the many Indigenous references in the discussion paper, we are moving away from science based evidence to the opinion of a individual people. I agree the Indigenous people should be part of the public engagement process, although that opportunity is now available but appears it is not being utilised. We need to base decisions on fact not opinion. If we continue to be influenced by self serving activists we will soon find our country in civil unrest. We need to approve projects on science and good engineering practices. If you do not like the results of the findings, you need to get over it, whether that be approval or non approval. I do not know of one major project that has been approved without multiple conditions being imposed by the NEB as it operates today. These conditions must be reconciled prior to final permitting and start of construction.Finding better processes and or procedures is on going, no one wants to destroy their own backyard. Maybe we need to look at the processes and procedures that are in place today. Are we reinforcing rigour to the codes and standards to which we construct our pipelines or are they being somewhat ignored when constructability becomes difficult in the field? Historical data tells us that if a failure during operation occurs, in most cases it is related to poor construction practices and or poor maintenance, with oversight of codes and standards as related issues. Maybe we should be giving the NEB more oversight when it comes to new construction much like they have during integrity programs. The occasional visit from an NEB officer keeps everybody on their toes and honest. New strides and undertakings such as API 1169 pipeline inspector training certification are being taking with respect to craft inspection during construction. Most corporations adhere to CWB for welding inspector certification and NACE for coating inspector certification. Do we need a national registry for craft inspectors and craft inspection service providers governed by a code of conduct with rules of enforcement with respect to implementation of applicable construction codes and standards?These are only my opinions, some I hope will help to improve the system thus giving way to a more economical and prosperous society.
Peter Ottensmeyer almost 2 years ago
As I read through the document I became sick to my stomach by the wealth of truths, half-truths, gobbledygook, mish-mash of philosophies, considerations to every nuanced objection, invitations of inclusion of ignoramuses to the process, with the shunting aside of knowledgeable regulators to regulate only exploratory drill holes as a quoted example, that the only thing that will ever get done under this regime is NOTHING. It seems designed to discourage a proposal of any project. On top of that, if science, which to me is knowledge, and other knowledge, which is not defined nor written down to examine, carries the day, then the governmental body reserves the right to nix the project anyway.It is discouraging to see that such a confusing document has seen the light of day. Even to argue any given point requires that one virtually memorize all aspects to cover all the bases.Please have an old-style English teacher rewrite the document with the help of someone who understands logic, to correct the grammar, carve out redundancies that also hide minor variations, and come back for public comments on a much more succinct and logical document that is readable and understandable without requiring a major study of its contents in great detail. If this is an attempt to demonstrate what is meant by “openness” of the process, it failed. This document is opaque and threatening in its multifarious duplicity.Peter Ottensmeyer PhD FRSCProfessor EmeritusUniversity of Toronto
JACK MEYER almost 2 years ago
Communication is a two way street and no one should be a barrier to stop progression of it.
JACK MEYER almost 2 years ago
every Canadian should have a voice now.
John Dunn almost 2 years ago
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government of Canada’s Environmental and Regulatory Reviews Discussion Paper. My general impression of the Discussion Paper is that while it may well resonate as ‘progressive’ to young idealistic urban voters (who have no knowledge of Canada’s already burdensome regulatory regime), a seasoned project proponent will immediately spot the paper’s sophistry; it imposes, (after all is said and done) an even higher (and more expensive and burdensome) bar for regulatory approval for major projects in Canada. Indeed, it may be seen some by some as subterfuge for a hidden government agenda to completely frustrate Canada’s resource economy. My specific questions and comments are as follows: 1. What would the role of the National Energy Board be under a recommendation that integrated assessments for major energy projects be subject to a separate regulatory authority? 2. What is the basis for the Government of Canada’s continued assertion that the NEB does not have public trust? 3. The paper proposes that the NEB have a corporate-style board to direct the NEB, and separate hearing commissioners to review projects and make regulatory decisions and for legislation that would provide for Indigenous representation on the board and among hearing commissioners, and provide for an expanded role for Indigenous peoples in monitoring of pipelines and other energy infrastructure. The Discussion Paper does not acknowledge that the NEB already has indigenous members and asserts that the views of Indigenous people are not adequately considered. It would be helpful for the Government of Canada to point to specific NEB decisions where they believe that not to be the case. 4. How early does early engagement have to be? The existing regulatory timeline for major energy projects already spans years; is this requirement to be additive to what is already the most exhaustive and expensive regulatory process in the world? 5. Other than an asserted need for greater transparency and public participation, what is the rationale for eliminating the “standing test” used by the NEB? If the only qualification for participating in the NEB process (and receiving funding to do so) is “I have an opinion” what is the government’s response to the well-established tactic by ENGO’s of choking the system with robo-coordinated opposition? The corporations who make application to the NEB, and their employees who stand as witnesses before the Board are, by definition, subject to regulation and have multiple checks & balances in place (including being subject to securities law and with codes of conduct in place for employees etc.). Will participants in the NEB process have any comparable requirement imposed on them? For example, will ENGO’s first have to demonstrate that their employees adhere to an organizational code of conduct and, as public corporations do, provide full financial transparency including the providence of their funding? 6. The Discussion Paper asserts that, currently, Indigenous knowledge is insufficiently taken into account. There is no evidence to back-up this claim. As the Discussion Paper clearly sees Indigenous knowledge as foundational to new environmental assessment & regulatory review processes (Indigenous knowledge is mentioned no fewer than 21 times in a 23 page document), the Government of Canada should tell us precisely what Indigenous knowledge is and how is to be weighed, for example, against best-available peer-reviewed science? Further we are told that Indigenous knowledge may be protected by confidentiality. If it is evidence, should it not be transparent? 7. The Discussion Paper’s ‘Guiding Principles’ make no mention of the project proponent, industry, or investors; this reinforces the general flavour of the Discussion Paper that they are (at best) a secondary consideration. Indeed, the document in its entirety mentions industry, proponents, or investors only 8 times; it is clear that this is not remotely a document intended to bolster Canada’s economy through the recruitment of investors and their capital to Canada (and ‘middle class jobs’) but rather an overtly political manifesto to, in fact, make them flee Canada. 8. Yet the energy & resource sector, which is so critical to the Canadian economy and our GDP, is also the largest single provider of employment for Canada’s Indigenous peoples. Indeed the paper’s stated aspiration to create “good middle class jobs for Canadians” curiously omits the desperate necessity to create “good middle class jobs for Indigenous people”. 9. The Guiding Principles refer to a fair, predictable and transparent process; but for whom? It is very clear that the process must be fair, predictable and transparent for Indigenous peoples as they are mentioned no less than 56 times in a 23 page document. The continuous references to the concerns of Canada’s Indigenous people appears to have been inserted in the document as liberally as possible, and it smacks of virtue-signaling rather than a desire to practically improve regulatory processes for all Canadians, including Indigenous peoples. The Discussion Paper is unclear whether the process is also to be fair, predictable and transparent for proponents; however it is clear that if ‘project proponents’ are not entirely an inconvenience for this government, then they most certainly are an afterthought. 10. Building on points 5 to 9 above, what is the Government of Canada’s process for considering views on its Environmental and Regulatory Reviews Discussion Paper? Is the view of a single, project proponent who is considering whether to risk hundreds of millions of capital on a highly politicized and clearly less-evidence & fact-based process the same as an ENGO who has no capital at risk and whose stated mandate is to oppose all resource projects? Does an ENGO robo-generated submission from outside of Canada have the same weight as an individual Canadian citizen with a vested stake in Canada’s economic future? 11. The Discussion Paper states that “There is no relationship more important to the Government of Canada than that with Indigenous peoples”. Yet Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.If there is no relationship ‘more important’ to Canada than that with Indigenous peoples then Canada’s relationship to me must indisputably be ‘less important’. How then is the Discussion Paper’s implication that some are more equal than others consistent with my rights under the Charter?
Sarah Otto almost 2 years ago
Re Fisheries Act: One of the biggest concerns among scientists was that the 2013 change to the Act removed protection and consideration for all fish and focused only on “serious harm” to fish “that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries, or to fish that support such a fishery.” Several scientific assessments of this change have noted the importance of providing appropriate protection for all fish, to avoid species loss, to provide for potential future use, and to protect the functioning of food webs that are the lifeblood for aquatic communities, including fish of commercial interest. As stated by Bailey et al. [1]:"considering only the current fishery value fails to protect the option value, future potential value, or non-use value of marine ecosystems and the life they support"and by Dr. Jeff Hutchings [2]:"It has been estimated that 80% of 71 wildlife species of freshwater fish at risk of extinction in Canada would not be considered “fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or…fish that support such a fishery”."I am therefore very concerned that the July 2017 Discussion paper mentions restoring habitat protection but does not mention doing so for species beyond those that are currently fished. Please do reinstate appropriate protections to ensure that all species of fish can prosper and maintain healthy population sizes.[1] Bailey, et al. "Canada at a crossroad: The imperative for realigning ocean policy with ocean science." Marine Policy 63 (2016): 53-60.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15002869[2] http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_361_e_39680.html
J. Walker almost 2 years ago
Transparency & Public Participation: I wonder where economic development comes into play in the assessment of projects. Do Canadians support economic development, which would help the economy, provide employment, utilities and amenities along with protecting the environment? Jurisdictional Cooperation: The more government departments (and levels of government) that exists = more jurisdictional overlap, differing legislation/regulation, and increased taxes/expenses and confusion.
Angela Watt almost 2 years ago
Science, Evidence & Traditional Knowledge: I would like to know how the process worked before and compare it to what the government wants to do now. My understanding is that this is what was happening already. Is this really a step forward or is it a "make work" project for those who are anti-oil? Having said that, I would have thought that all of these issues were covered previously.
n nLinc almost 2 years ago
We have to comprehend the cold hard benefit of uniting ourselves when there is no other option, this very relates to our Currency of our own country, im hearing from tech startups on yonge st in toronto to georgia st in vancouver saying tgey do not want to purchase their own capital in CDN dollarettes and prefer USD as a way to get out of the crisis of our own dollar. IF we do not unite our two currencies into the AMERO even trillionaires want to flourish our country because they think the crisis is just ridiculous.
George Canetti almost 2 years ago
Get rid of all of the 'old boys' in the old boys network. Transparency is paramount!
MacIsaac81 almost 2 years ago
I believe the NEB should stay focused in Alberta as they are our Countries biggest energy producer. Moving it East is a very ignorant move and a slap in the face to Alberta.
MacIsaac81 almost 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.