Our website uses cookies

Cookies help us to understand how you use our website so that we can provide you with the best experience when you are on our site. To find out more, read our privacy policy and cookie policy.

Manage cookies

Please review and manage the Cookie settings below. You can change these settings any time by clicking the "Cookie settings" link in the footer of the page

  1. Essential cookies:
    Necessary for enabling core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.

IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

Transparency and Public Participation

about 2 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

What tools can we use to facilitate your participation and help you access the information you need in a user-friendly way?

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
Byron Whitford about 3 years ago
Internet and public advertising. How many people actually know about this process we are currently participating in? I only know because I am active and email the government and you emailed me. Traditional advertising and new non traditional means must be used to inform the public of these processes.
n nLinc about 3 years ago
We should include cutting edge social media and other tools and establish a level playing field for upcoming canadian tech companies that will play a large part in this industry as a result of us investing in innovation.
Julie Evaskevich about 3 years ago
Give us all a vote on important decisions. We need some say in our futures for ourselves and upcoming generations. Dialogue can be through e mail and website(s). Invitations to participate can be through these avenues, as well as television and radio. Get us involved. There are plenty of Canadians with brilliant and creative ideas that aren't necessarily in a high tax bracket or that have university degrees.
J. Walker about 3 years ago
Provide information using a variety of multi-media tools (e.g., social, printed, and t.v./radio news). Online and effective access and input into a project would be preferred but not everyone has access to a computer (even in Canada).
JACK MEYER about 3 years ago
Have everyone at the table who have a reason to be there and not to just obstruct.
JACK MEYER about 3 years ago
Have everyone at the table who have a reason to be there and not to just obstruct.
Al Spiess almost 3 years ago
Project information must be made available prior to public consultation, thereby having a informed society and not based on group activism. Use of social media, government and project websites. All projects fall within a certain governments jurisdiction and must be approved at the local government (MD) level prior to federal or provincial approval. If residents within these jurisdictions have concerns they can contact their local government, town council for project details. Ensure documentation is in a text and dialogue that is understood by average Canadians.
Gordon almost 3 years ago
Transparency and Public Participation is all well and good but it should be limited to those affected by the project. Too often the naysayers are the most vocal. Questions need to be asked, how will the project affect the local environment, communities, local & national economy to name a few. A project should be approved based on it's merits. No one group should be able to stand in the way of the approval process.
Jacqueline Steffen almost 3 years ago
Use media sources in a number of ways. Newspapers, news stations, commercials, FB. Not everyone uses the computer, so it would be helpful to use a variety of methods.
Dianne Varga almost 3 years ago
Consultations? Like those on physician assisted dying, on electoral reform? You need to be prepared to accept opposing views, which you most surely aren't.
Patricia Rogerson almost 3 years ago
Develop a data base of interested individuals, advertise it and then send out requests for input. An easy and inexpensive process to facilitate information. Then have a sociology or social work or other University class take on summarizing and weighting the results. Excellent research experience for the class and an objective summary of the results would be our wonderful result.
E. Peter almost 3 years ago
email, webinars, and a statistical database that "honestly" shows voter preferences without the usual "paid by the word" verbal diarrhea.
R Procyk almost 3 years ago
See below
lindawilbee almost 3 years ago
The basic tool of listening to, and responding to, the government's own experts and committees needs to be implemented! Ignoring the hard work and dedication of committees set up by the government itself is insulting and foolish. Also, the tool of listening to, and responding to, the voters who went to the polls and voted for the current government would be much smarter than ignoring them. The anger and disappointment at this trail of broken promises will see the current government voted out in the next election. An overhaul of the NEB was promised. Get it done! The current government in BC, in spite of facing a state of emergency with all the forest fires, is wasting no time fulfilling election promises. This shows that where there is a will, there is a way.
Mairy Beam almost 3 years ago
You need to restore the faith of the public in your processes. This can be done by listening to the expert panels, the cross party parliamentary committees, and the voters. What a concept!! I don't know who this government is listening to -- a decided lack of transparency. Oh, yes, and how about keeping your election promises? That would also help to restore credibility.
Bonnie Sokoloski almost 3 years ago
Use different forms of providing information, eg. newspapers, radio and TVnews, social media, town halls. Ensure that the citizens across the country know what is being proposed and how they can have input. For example, I would not have known about this opportunity if I had not been alerted by another political party. Don't pretend you've asked for input if you have not ensured people know where and how to give it.
Joy Thorkelson almost 3 years ago
A cross index or searchable database is needed to enable the public to access information on one subject that may be located in many different documents. For example, in the Enbridge Northern Gateway hearing, specific information on specific topics was buried in Enbridge's project description, in briefs by organizations or in government documents and each document had to be fully reviewed in order to find the information. Responses to information requests were even harder to deal with as info responses were in numbered folders which contained many files that were given vague names. Each file had to be opened and reviewed to find out if the specific information being sought was provided in that file. This led to information not being found and much time being wasted by many participants.
Lisbeth Mousseau almost 3 years ago
Convert the Environmental Assessment Agency into a quasi-judicial board, with the sole authority for conducting EA.
MurdO almost 3 years ago
First of all trying to sneek this through during the busy summer holiday season does not ensure "Opportunities for Canadians to meaningfully participate". The environment affects us all. This opportunity to participate should have been widely circulated, there are newspapers, TV, websites, but I only heard of this through a Green Party email.
Anne G almost 3 years ago
Knowing your target audience and marketing participation options to them is key. While allowing everyone in Canada to participate in the review process is commendable, not everyone should have an active voice when it comes to a project. By allowing those not directing potentially impacted to have an equal voice, you reduce the power of local participants to have a say. Environmental groups, lobbyists, industry, etc. all have an agenda, but there is a time and place. Allowing people in BC to speak and actively oppose projects in Saskatchewan would not be appropriate, especially if they are supported locally.
Dav almost 3 years ago
I like the idea of greater transparency. I like the idea of peer reviewed. I like the idea of clearer rationale for decision making. I like the suggestion that indigenous knowledge be given the same weight as other forms of expert opinion and evidence. I would like to see a system where government experts appear on the record. This would be transparent, their assessments would be subject to peer review by proponents and intervenors, It would assist the public in understanding the rational for decisions. Only by revealing regulatory expertise to the light of day can you ever fully assess how indigenous knowledge was incorporated and weighed relative to the assessments of internal experts of the various agencies.
Clement Kent almost 3 years ago
Make all documents web-submittable and openly web-viewable well before any decision deadlines. Put a registry of projects under review in a single open web location.
Nancy Pow almost 3 years ago
I found it challenging to give my comments on this particular paper because of the topic headings suggested for comment. What might make more sense is to have a comments link embedded into the discussion paper, so that after reading a particular section you could comment on it directly. Thanks for the opportunity to give input.
Greg Taylor almost 3 years ago
Support the public's wishes whether or not the PM and cabinet actually agree with such findings. On the issue of electoral reform experts and the public demonstrated clear support for a move to a proportional voting system, but Mr. Trudeau refused to listen because he personally opposed it. The process was smoke and mirrors, and just one example of the fact that the Liberals and Conservatives are different in branding but not substance. This needs to change.
Colin Creasey almost 3 years ago
You can start by listening to the people who elected you. This government has broken so many promises, tax fairness, proportional representation, restoring the navigable waters act, ignoring indigenous rights, reneged on providing leadership when negotiating a new Health Accord, not overhauling the NEB, the list just goes on. I feel like I am wasting my time answering any of this, because the government does not seem to have any intention of keeping any of it's promises. I see the Liberals as the Conservatives with a kinder face. The policies are virtually the same.
Jess Harding almost 3 years ago
PART III There are excellent open-data, open-government standards and processes. They should be applied, transparently to engage public participation. When those open-data systems are implemented, the evidence clearly shows that citizens will use those tools. effectively.
Jess Harding almost 3 years ago
PART II Transparency would have been a useful concept to apply to this discussion paper... After 8 weeks, only 27 comments? Really? I suggest that announcing this process just before a summer long weekend, then closing it prior to making much effort to publicize it, are examples of how NOT to be transparent. Reading the comments suggests there's little or no faith 'public participation' was the goal of this process... There are a huge range of effective on-line marketing tools, social media channels, and news channels crying out for content. Most 'newspapers' these days are ready to publish almost any press release to fill their pages. Just send them the 'presser.' Somehow this discussion paper and feedback process managed to avoid all those news channels and feeds. 'Fiver' and many other freelance sites could get you a hundred times the response rate for the cost of a few lattes.
Jess Harding almost 3 years ago
Part I There is a clear international standard for resource-related transparency, the extraction industry transparency initiative, EITI. It is focused primarily on financials and public, transparent monitoring of commitments, but that's frequently the primary issue - not whether the environment or indigenous issues are dealt with effectively, rather, how much will it cost, how little can be done, and how effectively will commitments be monitored. A true commitment to transparency must include commitment to international standards, such as the EITI, that require and audit compliance. (Note: EITI goes far beyond the half-measures introduced by the Harper gov't) As we've seen, any Canada-only solution can and will be subverted and diluted. Either we commit to transparency standards, or we're committed to ongoing divisive process and uncertainty. Certainty to high standards clearly beats ongoing uncertainty, for investors, for the public, for indigenous peoples.
Barbara Mills and Dorrance Woodward for Assoc. for Denman Island Marine Stewards almost 3 years ago
It is important that the assessment, monitoring and approval process be transparent, and the process be open to the public. It is totally unacceptable that in a democracy for a Minister or cabinet to make decisions that create environmental destruction behind closed doors and for political advantage. Decisions should be made based on the health of the earth, the oceans and Canadians. They should never, in this time of environmental degradation be made for the benefit of corporations or poliitcal gain!!!
Lesley Forester almost 3 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.
Timothy Bartoo almost 3 years ago
Proponents of proposed projects must be required to provide all requested details to the government and to the public. Claims of need to withhold information to protect proprietary interests, as were made by Kinder Morgan regarding fundamental elements of the TransMountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project, such as disaster response capabilities, must be rejected out-of-hand. If a proponent wants to build a project, the risks being proposed to be taken on by the public justify the public’s right to full disclosure. Any reasonable set of tools for the distribution of such information is acceptable. Withholding information from the public is not.
Sheila Page almost 3 years ago
I like this current process except for the annoying music and image side bar.
Sharon Leighton almost 3 years ago
You need to overcome the obstacles set up by your previous actions, such as the fake survey on electoral reform. It is very difficult to believe that anyone will care what we say, because no one cared about that. I do find the questions in this survey more clear and permitting broader responses, and that is a good thing, but there is still the haunting feeling, based on previous experience, that all these words are going to be used to manipulate us into accepting what the current government wants to do.
Alex J Zimmerman almost 3 years ago
Use clear language to state your intent up front with regards to the regulations. Don't bury significant changes or lack thereof in the text of the last pages.
Sheila Harrington almost 3 years ago
This administration should to adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms.
Dan Carpenter almost 3 years ago
keep your election promise. To do otherwise suggests that you don't care about the concerns of Canadians that voted for you, that you can't be trusted to keep your word and that you are willing to put the interest of industry before the well being and future of our environment.
Caroline Maloney almost 3 years ago
Instead of relying on jurisdictions to apply on a case-by-case basis which the previous government used, thereby destroying the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), restore previously held protections to waterways, protecting 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers, and streams from industrial projects, AS PROMISED!
Ron Craven almost 3 years ago
Instead of giving me a bunch of technical questions to answer a transparent method of asking for our responses to this paper would be to allow us to decide how we wish to comment rather than how you will accept our comments. This is a sham which is no surprise from a government that knows no bounds to its cynicism towards the Canadian people. Your paper is a joke without a punchline using doublespeak to say that you are planning to once again go back on your word and ignore everything the the experts and the voting public have to say and push forward with an agenda that ignores any concept of democracy as you push forward with a multi faceted agenda to transform Canada from a poorly functioning democracy to a dictatorship of the corporate elite. You disgust me and if we are allowed an election in 2019 and you haven't taken full permanent control of the government by a coup Canadians will toss you onto the garbage heap and elect a government that will actually work with and for the Canadian people.
Jason Steeghs almost 3 years ago
Begin by following the recommendations of the expert panels you convened! Write the questions in a more accessible way that allows the majority of non-expert citizens to voice their opinions without having to feel like their strong feelings are out of place in a cold, bureaucratic questionnaire. (This is a good example!)
Roger Richardson almost 3 years ago
The public needs factual information on what's happening.If you ask for advice, then ignore it then it's a smokescreen that gives the impression that the government is listening.
Ken Forster Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate almost 3 years ago
Adopt all of the expert panels’ recommendations for these desperately needed environmental reforms. Why ask for public participation if you reject the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB. The sound advice of the costly panel to seriously reform it and move it to Ottawa has been rejected. Why?
Maureen McGuire almost 3 years ago
Town hall meetings across Canada's regions. There are many means to increase your transparency. This approach, with a small window is undemocratic. Our environment is obviously not important to this government. The NEB needs to be overhauled and moved out of Calgary.Restore the NWPA to it's previous stature.
Nora Fernandez almost 3 years ago
Ignoring expert advice is dangerous: environmental challenges are huge and the issues are complex. Participation took place already. Now you have recommendations to adopt. Participation here is participation "after the fact" to agree more or less with the report of your liking. -creating some sort of approval for what you already decided will be done, not the electoral promises made but more of the same. Canadians wanted Harper out for a reason...if you keep Harper thinking and agenda in place then Canadians will soon want you out too.
Barbara DeMott almost 3 years ago
Use your wealth and broad powers to make your planning and procedures open to input instead of this unadvertised comment paper submitted for a week for public input. Very transparent of your motives to do nothing to support envirionmental reform.
Peter Puxley almost 3 years ago
Affected communities must receive financial supports that allow them to call independent expert witnesses and cross-examine development proposals if the playing field is to be levelled. Regulatory agencies must have thew capacity to conduct independent research and assessment, rather than depend on industry-sponsored research.
J Wells almost 3 years ago
Regular updates in online,Facebook etc and news outlets.Buy ads in the media in the local free newspapers asking for involvement by people who normally are not involved in the political scene.I would hope that if the government listened and actually acted on the recommendations the public might hope that this process is not one of being seen to be doing something while the decisions are already made .
Kim Charlesworth almost 3 years ago
Yes, affected communities should be consulted, and First Nations. But really, if you already have good consultation processes in place. The problem is that you IGNORE the recommendations of those publicly funded consultations: the NEB expert panel; the EA expert panel, the Cohen Commission, etc. Just do what you need to do to protect the environment, water, air and PEOPLE will feel well represented. When you cater to high level corporate interests instead, we all feel betrayed.
Joseph Fall almost 3 years ago
The largest issue I see here is that public input, particularly in opposition to projects seen as "economically beneficial", is largely ignored. This has made many Canadians cynical and disengaged from participation. This very process serves a great example of this perverse -- the Government of Canada, at great expense to taxpayers, funded an NEB expert panel and an EA expert panel to advise on aspects of the Environmental and Regulatory reviews. Yet it is clear from the disccussion paper that the recommendations of these expert panels has largely been ignored.It is not sufficient to simply make this information publicly available -- if the Gov. of Canada intends to ignore the recommendations of a panel of experts they themselves have hired to advise them, then transparency demands a well articulated rationale for ignoring that advice and a clear vision of why the alternative is better for Canada's "triple bottom line" and long-term sustainability.
Marilyn Shaw almost 3 years ago
Online forms like this are good, thank you.
Susan E. Match almost 3 years ago
Need to let public know what you are doing. Why did we not hear earlier that the Liberals were going back on all their election promises?
A. Katherine Duperron almost 3 years ago
Transparency has already failed in the decision of this government to go ahead with controversial pipelines with no explanation about the supportive science that I have seen for going ahead with them, certainly no added conditions for leak prevention, leak checking and leak corrections. Political parties which decry the decisions of previous governments rarely seem to reverse those decisions when they get into power. Governments must be immune to pressure by corporations. Eliminating the "standing" test used by the NEB to exclude environmentalists is a start. The NEB cannot be seen to give preference by numbers and power to corporations. All Canadians have a stake in all these kinds of projects.
Nancy Crozier almost 3 years ago
Use CBC public broadcasting-create programs to inform thePublic about what is going on.Better yet-use the internet,Facebook Instagram,-all of the means that are common media &knowledge for most Canadians.This may cost us but it has a knock-on effect of creating media employment And informing the public.You could start by fixing this website feed-back glitch which takes me to your wretched video every time i hit the SPACE BAR!!!
Erin almost 3 years ago
I agree with commentor Nancy below. If Canadians are on social media, advertise there with links to current information on prospective projects. Streamline the website, and put summaries up- including easy to understand summaries of the Science!!!!
Betsy Johnston almost 3 years ago
I totally agree with Kim Charlesworth...that, yes, affected communities should be consulted, and First Nations. But really, if you already have good consultation processes in place. The problem is that you IGNORE the recommendations of those publicly funded consultations: the NEB expert panel; the EA expert panel, the Cohen Commission, etc. Just do what you need to do to protect the environment, water, air and PEOPLE will feel well represented. When you cater to high level corporate interests instead, we all feel betrayed.
Nicole Corrado almost 3 years ago
The discussion paper is too vague. The WWF newsletter gives more information. Please make it easier for people to comment. There are too many steps to posting comments.
Breanna almost 3 years ago
There should be more advertised online forums. In the age of social media, the government needs to be more transparent. Not every Canadian knows how to access and voice their opinions on policies that greatly affect our future. There should be no reason that advertisements and notifications could not be sent to the citizens of Canada. NOT platform BS but the real issues that the government tries to hide and ignore. We need better legislation to protect this Country, so far the government is failing us and acting like the bills the conservatives passed were "not that bad". The Liberal government is so far acting like Conservatives with really deep pockets.
Judith Sharp almost 3 years ago
I would be able to participate best via e-mail or in attending a public gathering in my home city.
Charlene Minifie almost 3 years ago
Not left offshore interests trump those of the Canadian citizen!
John D. Jacobs, PhD almost 3 years ago
Provide up-to-date online information with access to all relevant documents and provide for meaningful public consultation at the hearings level and through the internet.
Alexander Quaglia almost 3 years ago
Keep the best possible communication with all parties interested, in particular, give a major participation to all political parties
Wendy W. almost 3 years ago
Speaking as a publicist and a just a person, communication is key. Editorials in comment boxes are interesting but they are extremely difficult to compile into clear data. A survey can gather data very efficiently. But language is important and government surveys have failed us miserably in the past (the electoral reform survey was a prime example). Whether it's a survey, TV commercial, press release or comment section like this one, you have to communicate in short, clear statements or questions about a specific action or recommendation and use plain language. The trouble with long, vague questions (as we see in all levels of government when there is a referendum) is that it almost never boils down to a compilable opinion, yes/no or agree/disagree answer. So no matter what avenues are used to seek public input (social media, traditional print/radio/TV media, online forums, townhall meetings) you must communicate clearly. You have lots of inexpensive ways to reach the public and direct them to a comment area or survey, but without phrasing questions simply, effectively and in a non-biased way, the information gathered is almost pointless.
Evelyn Scott almost 3 years ago
Ensure that all Canadians with an ecological interest in projects have an open accessible opportunity to do so - that means no restrictions on getting standing to participant in terms of proximity to projects and ease of online accessing of information and to provide input.
DT almost 3 years ago
For my participation and that of my colleagues, a consultation with the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, as well as the provincial branches as well as the College of Family Physicians of Canada would be very helpful, especially if a user-friendly survey was sent out to of all Physicians.
Kim deLagran almost 3 years ago
Create information websites which include contact information for officials and politicians and government departments responsible for any particular project.
Jan Slakov(citizen) almost 3 years ago
I tried a couple times to upload my submission but the system does not seem to be working for me. A friend tried last night without success either. Is there a problem? And now, as I write, music starts playing intermittently! THE DEADLINE MUST BE EXTENDED!
Onni Milne almost 3 years ago
I get my information from conservation organizations like the David Suzuki Foundation and the Sierra Club. I have never received any information from my government telling me about a process and how to get involved. How about making it a priority to ensure that these organizations continue to inform us. How about using air time on CBC radio to publicize your processes via their public announcements. How about using local CBC radio programs to publicize your processes via interviews with your staff.
kcollier almost 3 years ago
I do not want CNSC to be involved in a decision-making capacity about environmental assessments of nuclear projects of any kind. That is what the government's own expert panel recommended.
Prairie Person almost 3 years ago
As a typically extremely busy Canadian citizen (working on and off the farm to earn a living), I rarely have time to research current events and political affairs. I have not read the discussion paper but am extremely disappointed, although NOT surprised, that the only way I found out about this discussion paper/forum is via email from another political party, not any branch of the current government, and not from any form of media or communication. When a political party wants to win an election, their expensive ads are all over TV programming, commanding our attention. But when the governing party is 'working' on decisions that affect us all, it seems to be pretty much behind closed doors, almost secretive, with almost no attempt to allow for general public input and response. It sure isn't 'in my face'!Months ago, I paid a lot of attention to the issue of electoral reform, signing several petitions etc. What a waste of my time that was!! So, here is another 'opportunity' for citizens to voice their opinions and make valid contributions and suggestions........in the end, for what!!?? Will anybody in parliament ACTUALLY listen? I don't think so. So, thanks for the OPPORTUNITY to have a say, but, as a frustrated citizen of a not-very-democratic reality, I won't even bother to read the documents and comments since I don't believe the government will pay any attention to what the people say, as demonstrated with the recent example of electoral reform in Canada. Good luck to us all is all I can hope. :/
Mark Tipperman almost 3 years ago
Opportunities to submit comments online, as well as by mail and in person at public hearings where all citizens have a right to be heard
Jan McQuay almost 3 years ago
This discussion paper is a prime example of how NOT to get public input. Publishing before the July long weekend with a comment period ending in August? Really! And NO advertising in the regular media! How exactly did you expect people to know about this? If this is how public input on environmental protection is to be sought in the future, I despair. Sure, eliminate the "standing test", improve participant funding, have clear transparency requirements for projects, inclusive monitoring, those all sound good, but when you can't even get widespread discussion on the environmental impacts going, how can we trust you'll follow through on these things you're "considering"? I should also emphasize that the public needs to know well in advance of upcoming proposals for projects. I found out about this discussion paper a few days before your deadline! It should be extended, with plenty of publicity at the same time.
Anne Learn Sharpe almost 3 years ago
Websites and social media sites as well as traditional print news sources with complete and clear information and with sources cited would be a good start. A central listing of all proposed projects by region, their timelines and opportunities for public comment or any scheduled public meetings would also be useful. Information organized by standard themes such as those used in this discussion paper would make it easier for people to access the information they need.
Jim Culp almost 3 years ago
My experience with dealing with NEB through the Enbridge Oil Pipeline Proposal is that the process was to formal for many people including myself. Smaller meetings with a more relaxed process,with a set meeting time would be helpful rather than one large gathering using a microphone in front of large numbers of people which is intimidating for many people. Possibly individuals and environmental and conservations should meet together. First Nations as one and Industry as a unit. Stakeholders and First Nations should be made aware that government agencies responsible for fish and wildlife and their habitats and ecosystems they live in are rarely involved in environmental assessment. Their expertise and knowledge as result of data gathering and through studies is a mystery to most participants. They need to be given opportunities to speak and answer questions, transparency in this regard is critical over how a project may be judged.
Terry Woods almost 3 years ago
Write things in clear language and make it accessible to people. Instead of using public media in a way that is advertising how great the government is, provide peer-reviewed reports and analysis that do not have a bias.There often seems to be funds to advertise government programs in a partisan way. Use the money instead to give facts.
Judith almost 3 years ago
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories does not conduct its business in a transparent and open matter, hence the distrust of the new management.
Anhthu almost 3 years ago
Website, social media and a central online database.In addition to the tools, you must provide the public with consultation papers and supporting material that are written in layman's terms in order to make public participation more meaningful. Referring to the "IAP2's Public Participation Spectrum" on page 37 of the Expert Panel's report, you must as a minimum bring the participation to a "Involve" and preferably "collaborative" level. I agree with the Expert Panel's analysis that public participation in federal EA is currently at the "inform" and "consult" levels. Personally, I feel that I am in the "inform" category. I lack the information and knowledge to meaningfully participate. For example, one of the question in this Discussion Paper refers to "project list". Unfortunately, the project list is not defined, which makes it difficult for someone in my situation to comment. Further the present Discussion Paper provides a good summary of how the Government proposes to proceed with the environmental reform; however, it does not provide the reasoning and basis behind the recommendations. In particular, beside from providing the occasional quote from expert panel's reports, the Discussion Paper does not explain why, for example, a recommendation from an expert panel is accepted or refused. Also, I would like to see the Government specifically reach out to our youth (high school and university levels) during the consultation period, as they will be directly impacted by the decisions made today.
Ahava almost 3 years ago
Multi-pronged approach to letting the public know about their ability to participate. Easy to read and understand information.
Jane almost 3 years ago
• Provide on-line tools to increase transparency and increase the opportunity for the public to participate in the energy decision process.. Reportage is needed and worthy but it should not be the place that we rely upon for decisions that are made. People, industry, government and organizations must be held accountable for their actions and choices.
Martha Jo (MJ) Willard almost 3 years ago
1. Need for greater transparency around the scientific evidence based data supporting decisions and to ensure Indigenous knowledge is sufficiently considered2. Need for greater transparency around the scientific evidence based data supporting decisions3. Provide easy, searchable by words, on line public access4. Use good two-way dialogue by email or on-line with 72 hour responses as a standard5. Maintaining legislated project assessment timelines but making these public6. Increasing public participation on timelines, regulations, cumulative and environmental effects using evidence based scientific data as well as Indigenous environmental knowledge
Robert F. Hollins almost 3 years ago
The presently elected government was given the mandate by the voters of Canada to aggressively act to forstall further climate change and protect the environment. What the heck are we doing with all this navel gazing? It is time to act !
Sipekne'katik almost 3 years ago
1. Having one central website that is easy and clear to navigate which contains all project and Proponent related information, and2. Having all Proponents submit documents using the same user friendly format/template would assist in public participation.
Karen Wonders almost 3 years ago
There is no transparency if the government rejects the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations to call for a complete overhaul of the NEB. It needs to be removed from Calgary and influential oil and gas corporations, reformed and moved to Ottawa. Recent public participation in NEB forums are nothing but a charade.
K Stockwood almost 3 years ago
The deadline for comments is today but I only learned about this from WWF last week so that's not much time for public participation. You can improve transparency by making the National Energy Board completely independent of oil lobbyists and oil companies as a start! And you can listen to all the thousands of Canadians who say the government should focus on environmental protection not business concerns and building pipelines. It's essential to consult with any First Nations about industrial projects taking place on their land.
The Inverhuron Committee almost 3 years ago
The addition of social media to the process may be relevant at this time. Also, inhibit heavy marketing by proponents such as Ontario Power Generation since the public does not have access to the same media, does not have funds to counter the advertising, does not have employees whose mandate is to sway public opinion. Our group has found this to be very frustrating. OPG floods the marketplace with, at times, misleading and one-sided views of their project. As an example, on a television news show, the CEO of OPG indicated that there are nine operating repositories in the world. This is semantic manipulation as three were closed for failures (one has partially reopened since that time) and the rest were a different category from the proposed project). When pressed on this statement, OPG replied that they were referring to any site that contained nuclear waste.
G. Meston almost 3 years ago
Provide more instruction on the completion of the feedback questionnaire. EG the requirement to answer every question is not made clear until one discovers eventually that it has not been accepted. Better yet, do not make it necessary that public participants respond to each subject in order to respond at all.
G. Meston almost 3 years ago
Further to my last comment, transparency can be improved in the following ways:If the Liberal Government of Canada truly wants to restore integrity to environmental protection processes, then you will have to act with integrity. Here is what action with integrity (with regard to the quality of our land, air, freshwaters, oceans and atmosphere) looks like to me:1. Immediately, fulfill your 2015 Liberal election promises and restore the full environmental protections of the Navigable Waters Protection Act dismantled by the Stephen Harper government through Bill C-38 and C-45. 2. Invest in regular, widespread, professional, and independent scientific monitoring and research to determine the true state of health of our land and watersheds, our eco-systems, our food sources, our carbon emissions, etc. Include, especially, areas around extraction industries. Make all gathered scientific data available to the public. How can good policy based on science be made if the science is not gathered and made available?3. Overhaul the Environmental Assessment process by forming a quasi-judicial board with the sole authority to conduct environmental assessments as per the recommendations of the expert panel on Environmental Assessments. Remove it completely from the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and any other industry powered influence. Ensure First Nations representation on that board. Ensure that climate change implications are part of any Environmental Assessment.4. Adopt the National Energy Board (NEB) expert panel’s recommendations, which called for a complete overhaul of the NEB and moving it from Calgary to Ottawa.5. Develop a proper independent inspection and regulatory process to ensure industry complies with strict environmental safety regulations and standards.
Melanie almost 3 years ago
The NEB have no credibility with the public after the Kinder Morgan project was initially assessed. Obviously this is not an objective transparent science-based body suited to assess projects. Have CEAA and EC and other departmental staff with energy sector knowledge assess these projects instead in an objective and unbiased manner.
Keepers of the Athabasca almost 3 years ago
Include open data on all projects. This way the public, independent scientists, First Nations, project proponents, and others will all be accessing the same data.
Keepers of the Athabasca almost 3 years ago
• Keepers of the Athabasca supports the concept of the use of ‘best available technology’ or BAT. In the past, issues of cumulative effects, harm reduction, health effects, ‘unknown factors’, and other factors were systematically excluded when determining the ‘economic achievability’ of best available technology, or the proponent preferred ‘best available technology economically achievable’ BATEA. Because project proponents are continually searching for inexpensive technology, some of the best technology available has been systematically excluded from standard use. The BATEA concept has also stifled innovation and collaboration among some industries. When examining the concept of BATEA, the Environmental Assessment process must determine to include cumulative effects, long term health effects, life cycle of the technology, and other full cost accounting of relevant factors that have regularly been left out of proponents’ calculations.
Lou Allison almost 3 years ago
Making environmental assessments more searchable and streamlining data so that the public does not have to sift through such enormous tables of crossed-data: even a keyword search would help, as would simplifying the language. I understand that scientific language and terminology is specific and not always accessible to the public: I am not suggesting diluting it. Eliminating some of the jargon used by proponents seeking social license would help however.
Karen Whiteside almost 3 years ago
Transparency and Public Participation - Q. What tools can we use to facilitate your participation and help you access the information you need in a user-friendly way?The tools itemized as being considered in the discussion paper are good and if implemented should provide some relief for participants going forward, with emphasis, in my view, on the following: Eliminating the “standing” test previously used by the National Energy Board & Greater transparency on reasons for environmental assessment and regulatory decisions. Also, please consider the time and energy commitment required to participate can be enhanced by first ensuring a proponent's project proposal is not unduly cumbersome, nor incomplete and the proponent needs to conduct themselves is a positive and non-adversarial manner as has been the experience in past NEB reviews. Suggestions to consider to remedy this are as follows: 1. Segmentation approval by generating various review milestones, go/no go points should be adopted. For example, export pipelines will have a shipping terminus. This would be the first go/no point for the review process to be moved forward to the next level or to be abandoned . 2. Conditional approvals should no longer be necessary if the proponent submits a proposal based on their clear understanding of pre-approval prerequisites.
Douglas Macaulay almost 3 years ago
Processes and online tools such as those used for providing the public with the reports of expert panels, and with the Discussion Paper, and for gathering comments in an organized way, could be used for this purpose for national policies or strategies (climate change, energy), for strategic or regional assessments, or for project assessments. I believe the scope and extent of public input, and the weight given to public comments, should be scaled to the situation. Specifically, broader policy or strategy proposals may be appropriate to share at a few stages (as has been done with the four separate reviews and now this Discussion Paper). For projects, the main partnership should be between a proponent and affected parties including Indigenous peoples, in the context of an overall process that leads to a regulatory decision and subsequent permitting and monitoring. Public input could be sought on whether the output(s) of a project assessment process demonstrate adherence to guiding principles and national strategies; however review by or input from non-affected members of the public on specific project details should not in my view be required (or at the least should not be afforded similar weight as input from affected parties).
Amy almost 3 years ago
Just make it real. Don't say you're going to be "transparent" and sell us out on the side
Cec Robinson almost 3 years ago
You, our Government of Canada, say that you want to regain public trust.So why waste the thousands of hours of input collected from us by your expert panels and condensed by them for you into recommendations that you appear ready to ignor?Very strong environmental protections are fundamental to any sort of healthy and prosperous future.Canada and the world need more from you than just the pretence of a job done.We need you to grapple with this work fully, and to get it right so that it is worth doing, and we can be proud of it into the future.We need you to:Completely restructure the NEB to give it visible credibility and integrity.They must include all upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions in all of their assessments.They must remove the conditions and arbitrary deadlines that make it so difficult for the public to engage fruitfully.Restore environmental protections for all rivers and lakes in Canada that were removed by the new Navigation Protection Act.We cannot protect fish if we do not protect their environment.I am referring to ALL native fish!All of our environmental assessment decisions must be linked to our climate change targets and to long term sustainability goals, not just immediate environmental impacts.You initiated a robust environmental review process.Please follow through now with integrity, so that your expert panel members and all the other Canadians citizens like me will know that our caring and hard work was worthwhile.In doing so, you will brighten our environmental future, and strengthen the health of our democracy at the same time.
C L Hommel almost 3 years ago
In my view, transparency was compromised by having this discussion website come alive while the house is in summer recess. There is a massive amount of information to be digested. There has been little or no media coverage (anywhere). I have not seen any presentations / reporting by the panels. My MP is great at sharing this kind of info at town halls (not usually a summertime thing) and in quarterly newsletters etc. But alas, we have yet another hurry-up deadline. I am concerned that the government will not take the advice of the expert panels regardless of public participation. I remain sceptical, due to the devastating dismissal of a comprehensive electoral reform consultation process last fall.
Eleanor Brownlee almost 3 years ago
I find this website difficult to negotiate. I know this is largely because I am not skilled at computer use but suspect I may not be the only one who feels strongly about the topic but finds it challenging to participate. If I click submit after responding to a question I then get channelled into a whole raft of other comments and have difficulty getting back to respond to the other questions. Having experienced this is the past I tried entering my assorted comments in the hopes of being able to submit them all at the end. Evidently that did not happen so you received only my final comment in response to the last question. That was a huge waste of time and quite frustrating. Would it be possible to adapt the format to make it easier for the computer illiterate amongst us to take part. Believe it or not we do exist! And that repetitive music is enough to make you crazy. Thanks.
Charlene B almost 3 years ago
The review of inter-related topics (Fisheries Act, CEAA, etc.) may create confusion. A more targeted approach with focus may be better in the future and provide more engagement. Overwhelming the public with many reviews at once may frustrate rather than engage the public.
Anne G almost 3 years ago
Knowing your target audience and marketing participation options to them is essential. It is commendable to allow everyone in Canada to participate in the review process, but not everyone should have an active voice when it comes to a project. By allowing those not directing potentially impacted to have an equal voice, you reduce the power of local participants. Environmental groups, lobbyists, industry, etc. all have an agenda, but there is a time and place. Allowing people across the country to speak and actively oppose projects in a juristiction would not be appropriate, especially if they are supported locally.
sandra stephenson almost 3 years ago
The public needs to know our views are effectuated. I've participated in two consultations so far, which have also included "expert" panels, and both have summarily been ignored by the government - one on remaking the NEB this summer, and one on electoral reform last year. Of course we won't participate if we're all wasting in our time participating in a PR sham.
sandra stephenson almost 3 years ago
The public needs to know our views are effectuated. I've participated in two consultations so far, which have also included "expert" panels, and both have summarily been ignored by the government - one on remaking the NEB this summer, and one on electoral reform last year. Of course we won't participate if we're all wasting our time participating in a PR sham.
jacson about 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.