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

3.1 Governance Model

about 3 years ago
CLOSED: This map consultation has concluded

To restore public trust and confidence in assessment processes, the conduct of impact assessments must respect the principles of being transparent, inclusive, informed and meaningful. Any authority given the mandate to conduct federal assessments should be aligned with these principles and: be open in process and decision-making; encourage participation from all corners; strive to ensure that participants feel engaged and their concerns have been considered; ensure decisions take into account science, facts and evidence; and ensure that the outcomes of the process are protective of future generations.

Click here to read the full text of this subsection

Please tell us your thoughts on what the Expert Panel proposed in this section.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
Anna Johnston, West Coast Environmental Law about 3 years ago
The Panel has laid out an ambitious and largely workable governance model for next generation IA, although there are some pitfalls. As noted in our comments on section 2.5, we support the recommendation that assessments be conducted by Assessment Teams, but SIAs currently governed by the Cabinet Directive may in some cases need to be conducted by the proponent department/agency/ministry. In addition to the IA Commission, the legislation should enable the appointment of regional co-governance bodies to be responsible for REAs, PEAs, and monitoring and follow-up. We support the Panel’s recommendation for a Project Committee; however, we are unclear about the need for both a Government Expert Committee and Assessment Team, and believe these could be rolled into the same entity. In addition to project-specific Project Committees and Assessment Teams, the legislation should establish both a standing Expert Advisory Committee and Multi-Interest Advisory Committee. An Expert Committee could provide helpful non-interest based information and recommendations to the Minister and IA Commission, e.g., on when SIA, RIA and PIAs should be required., as well as policy advice and guidance. It should be comprised of leading scientific and Indigenous experts. A Multi-Interest Advisory Committee is an important forum for building consensus and providing policy advice to the Minister. It should be comprised of key environmental, industry, Indigenous and academic representatives. The legislation should clearly enable the appointment of review panels not just to resolve issues of non-consensus, but also at the outset of IAs where appropriate. Importantly, rather than appeals going to Cabinet, an independent tribunal should be established to hear appeals. The tribunal should also be responsible for dispute resolution and quality assurance. Implementation of policies, guidelines and regulations should be by the Minister, with advice and support from the IA Commission. For detailed recommendations on the processes, governance and outcomes of RIAs, see our paper that we have submitted by email.
Friends of Morice Bulkley about 3 years ago
We support the recommendation to incorporate the IA function into a single authority, with strong regional presence across the country and with the mandate to make IA decisions. We support that this authority be comprised of an independent panel of experts in environmental sustainability.
Pat Moss about 3 years ago
Strongly support the recommendation of a single authority conducting all impacts assessments. In particular, the NEB should no longer be able to conduct project assessments. Agree that the authority should be established as a quasi-judicial tribunal. Decisions should be made by the new impact assessment body rather than the Cabinet but there would still be a final right of appeal to Cabinet.
Douglas Macaulay about 3 years ago
I agree with the assertion of what is required to restore public trust and confidence, but I do not believe the proposed mandate of an Impact Assessment Commission avoids conflicts of interest. The report itself indicates that regulation and assessment are distinct. I believe the federal government's role, and that of a proposed Commission, should focus on: establishing and promoting overall principles, processes and standards of different levels of IA; being a (one among others) vehicle for the Crown to fulfill its obligations to Indigenous people; promoting coordination among jurisdictions; developing a knowledge base of best practices; and regulatory oversight of activities/projects falling within federal jurisdiction (including monitoring). I believe there needs to be scope for proponent-led project assessment actvities, with accountability assured through the design of the process. I am concerned that the scope of responsibilities that would fall to an Impact Assessment Commission as contemplated in the report is overly broad, and would result in a bureaucratic process that would disincentivise responsible proponents and would not necessarily improve outcomes from the point of view of sustainability.
Elizabeth May about 3 years ago
This is the strongest recommendation contained in this important report. A single body should be responsible for IA in Canada. It has never been acceptable that industry regulators, such as the NEB or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, were responsible for environmental assessments. The NEB is not a body fit to perform environmental assessments. I have had direct experience with the NEB’s capacity to perform impact assessments as an intervenor in the Kinder Morgan process. My rights as an intervenor were routinely violated through failures of fundamental principles of procedural fairness.. In the Trans Mountain case, parties with direct interests were denied standing. Parties with standing were not given appropriate access to tribunal proceedings. Evidence was not cross-examined. I would encourage the government to ensure that the legislation is clear in order to protect due process in these most important proceedings.It is a tragedy that so many projects are likely to be "grandfathered" under the completely unacceptable NEB, CNSC and C-38 CEAA processes. If there is any way to offer proponents and Indigenous peoples the right to opt out of the C-38 dysfunctional process to move into the new regime, it would save proponents and intervenors alike excess frustration.
Blue Dot PEI about 3 years ago
We support the four areas of focus.
Greater Vancouver Board of Trade about 3 years ago
The notion of a single authority having the mandate to conduct these Impact Assessments is very concerning. It is our belief that proponents should continue to be responsible for their own project impact assessments, which adhere to guidelines set by a Federal authority. The Expert Panel’s proposal would add significant uncertainty to the project, and would ignore the required expertise that exists in the current process. Currently, proponents develop and fund their own impact assessments, and this process is part of their investment decision-making.
Q'ul-lhanumutsun Aquatic Resources Society about 3 years ago
We support the recommendation for a single federal authority leading IAs in order to avoid perceptions of bias (e.g. NEB supports and promotes fossil fuel development while doing EAs on projects, DFO conducts EAs on fish farms that they promote through their own policies and programs, etc.) and to make it easier to understand who has oversight over the IA process. However, clarity is required about how that authority will seek expertise from, and fund the acquisition of that information, other federal departments, Provincial and territorial governments, and First Nations.
Manitoba Infrastructure about 3 years ago
A quasi-judicial process may become rigid and require legal representation by all parties, which would imply considerable cost and time burdens on the process.
Northern Health Authority of BC about 3 years ago
Northern Health is in support of the recommendations contained in this section.
Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada about 3 years ago
The move to a single agency is long overdue, for all the reasons the Panel lays out. It’s not entirely clear how different branches would work together, and also maintain sufficient independent authority, within the Commission. It’s also unclear how many Commissioners would be needed if they are to take individual roles in specific IA processes; likewise, where panel reviews and joint panels are contemplated, if the panel members would be appointed ad hoc or drawn from a roster of known (and trained) individuals.
Brent Jones about 3 years ago
The existing processes are fine. Only those funded by groups outside of Canada or groups looking to get funded are upset with the existing process. Funding should only be available to those directly impacted, such as a pipeline running though their property or immediately adjacent. Groups just worrying about Green house gases don't deserve funding or status because they are not directly affected. This type of issue has already been addressed by the Federal Government via the Carbon Tax.Treading on Provincial jurisdiction should not even be contemplated. Only Projects that touch foreign (US) jurisdictions and Provincial borders or projects impacting Federally regulated water bodies should be in this process.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) about 3 years ago
FCM offers the following general comments on the Panel’s recommendation that a single authority (the “Commission”) have the mandate to conduct and decide upon impact assessments (IAs) on behalf of the federal government. 1. The Commission’s structure and mandate should demonstrate the federal government’s commitment to enacting the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The new process should contribute to reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples.2. As an entity, the Commission should have sufficient knowledge and experience of municipal government and its functions (e.g. emergency response, water treatment and land-use planning).3. Individually, Commissioners should have knowledge or experience in municipal government or its functions. 4. The Commission’s composition should reflect regional differences and local interests. 5. Legislation governing the Commission should specifically require that municipal bylaws and official plans be complied with, except where they would render a project inoperative. 6. Before beginning an IA process, timelines should be determined for its planning, study and decision phases, on a project-by-project basis, and these should allow for due consideration to be given to local and municipal concerns.7. Municipalities should automatically be granted status in any hearing on projects situated within their boundaries, or that have a direct and significant impact on those municipalities. Consideration should be given to granting municipalities ”full party status,” with the same rights to participation and procedural fairness given to project proponents, specifying that costs cannot be awarded against municipalities. 8. Costs for participating in the IA process shouldn’t be downloaded to municipal governments. To adequately assess risks posed by a project, municipalities must conduct technical analyses, often engaging third-party technical experts. Participant funding should reflect the scale of the work that must be completed by the intervener—driven, for example, by the population a municipal government is representing, or the territory or watershed it is responsible for—rather than establishing an arbitrary maximum. In consideration of the Panel’s recommendation that a single authority have the mandate to conduct and decide upon Impact Assessments (IAs) on behalf of the federal government, FCM submits the following recommendations related to National Energy Board-regulated infrastructure and the current mandate of the NEB. The proposed Commission should:1. Require that the proponent design the final routing of the project in consultation with municipal governments through whose boundaries the project crosses—in a manner that accommodates all reasonable municipal concerns—and that the consent of the municipality be granted prior to construction.2. Automatically grant status to municipalities in any hearing with respect to NEB-regulated infrastructure that is proposed to be routed through the municipality. Consideration should be given to granting municipalities ”full party status,” defined to include the same rights to participation and procedural fairness in the hearing as given to the project proponent, specifying that costs cannot be awarded against municipalities.3. Set out the procedural steps that must be taken in a public hearing, including for the review and proper testing of the proponent’s evidence through cross-examination by all parties.4. Ensure that municipalities are fully compensated for costs related to construction, including costs related to the loss of municipal land expropriated for use as a right-of-way.5. Strengthen regulatory requirements to prevent major incidents such as pipeline breaches.6. Establish a higher standard for mandatory installation of leak-detection equipment such as remote sensing pressure valves; capabilities such as shut-off valves and remote control valves; and cathodic protection from corrosion, as conditions for approval of new pipelines. 7. Include stringent performance criteria related to the protection of sources of clean drinking water, as conditions for the approval of new pipelines.8. Require robust monitoring programs using industry best-practices as a condition of project approval, and require that proponents consult with municipalities directly affected by the project on the monitoring plan’s development and implementation. 9. Ensure the NEB is adequately resourced, by proponents and the federal government, to dutifully enforce the terms, conditions and orders imposed on proponents as part of project approvals, and that sufficient oversight and public reporting mechanisms are in place to verify compliance. 10. Strengthen emergency response requirements, improve the coordination of emergency response, and ensure that municipalities and first responders have adequate information and training to participate in emergency response.11. Require project proponents to develop comprehensive emergency response plans in consultation with local governments and municipal first responders, to be made public in advance of submitting an application to the NEB for a project approval.12. Require project proponents to publically disclose emergency response plans prior to the public review process for new projects, and require that these plans be publically available throughout the lifespan of the infrastructure.13. Ensure that municipalities have transparent and timely access to information and documents about a project that are relevant to emergency response, both during the application process and throughout the lifecycle of the infrastructure. 14. Ensure that municipal first responders receive adequate training related to containing a leak or spill of liquid hydrocarbons, including diluted bitumen, and that this include training with respect to the containment of a spill in a major watercourse. 15. Require pipeline proponents to provide education and awareness programs for municipal first responders, including presentations for fire captains. These education programs are especially important in rural areas. Consideration could be given to developing a training curriculum that includes various levels—awareness, operational and specialized—depending on the capacity of the municipality and its role in response. 16. Address gaps in the required continuing education program for those agencies currently listed in the NEB regulations, whether that be in an urban or a rural setting. 17. Ensure that pipeline operators have specialized equipment available to respond to a leak or spill of liquid hydrocarbons, including any specialized equipment needed to contain diluted bitumen in a marine environment, and that municipal first responders are aware of the location and capabilities of the equipment and have the training to interface with it. 18. Consider establishing requirements that emergency response plans must meet, including minimum response times or minimum standards that pipeline operators must meet for having specialized equipment and trained staff within a specified distance of relevant infrastructure.19. Prevent downloading of costs and liability to municipalities.20. Ensure that costs related to equipment, training and personnel for emergency response are the responsibility of the project proponent.21. Ensure that costs incurred by local governments in response to emergencies are borne by the project proponent, including staff time and use of municipal resources, facilities and equipment.22. Ensure that municipalities are fully compensated for costs related to a catastrophic incident involving NEB-regulated infrastructure. These costs could result from impacts to municipal buildings, roads, bridges, culverts, water and wastewater treatment facilities and solid waste facilities. 23. Ensure that pipeline operators are required to carry sufficient liability insurance, and that operators are held accountable to provide adequate compensation in a timely manner. 24. Investigate the possibility of establishing an emergency response fund—funded by industry and managed by the federal government—to cover costs of responding to major incidents.25. Ensure that municipalities are fairly compensated and that liability is not unfairly transferred to municipalities for the construction and maintenance of municipal infrastructure within or in proximity to NEB-regulated rights-of-way.
Ian Thomson, Oxfam Canada about 3 years ago
Expertise in gender-based analysis should be built up within the IA Commission and its regional structures.
Cec Robinson about 3 years ago
We need to have the right of appeal, and an independent tribunal ( not the federal Cabinet ) to hear those appeals.
Shane Borchardt about 3 years ago
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the nuclear industry expertise in Canada and should remain the responsible authority.
Arlene Kwasniak about 3 years ago
I strongly support the Panel's recommendation that all federal assessment of projects, including those under the regulatory authority of the NEB and CNSC, be conducted by an independent body. Some of the details of what it calls the “Impact Assessment Commission” (IAC), may need refinement, however the Panel's recommendation of independence recognizes the distinction between assessing the impacts of a project and regulating it and the different processes and expertise required for each (EP Report 3.1.1). The recommendation does not reduce the NEB’s or CNSC’s powers to regulate. The Panel states “the goal of restoring trust and confidence in the process is a belief that the authority conducting the assessment must be free from bias and conflicts of interest … if there is trust in the authority conducting the IA, the outcome is more likely to be considered fair and thus be accepted by all parties, even if their particular positions do not win the day. As such, an authority that does not have concurrent regulatory functions can better be held to account by all interests than can entities that are focused on one industry or area and that operate under their own distinct practices” (EP Report 3.1.1).I am concerned though about smaller and routine projects, which I comment more on elsewhere. The legislation should contain mechanisms to trigger federal IA for all matters under federal jurisdiction where a federal authority has decision making power. There are ample ways to reduce numbers of assessments or to streamline them. The IAC model as presented by the Panel should be modified to ensure that there are avenues for different assessment streams.
John Takala about 3 years ago
I do not agree that the single authority should have the mandate to conduct IAs on behalf of the federal government. Those that do not trust the existing organizations (e.g. CNSC , NEB) will not likely trust a new organization once it approves a project they are opposed to and there will be then be calls for another "new, independent" organization. The nuclear industry requires a highly technical and specialized skill set and it is not practical or necessary to attempt to replicate this in another organization.
Wayne Summach about 3 years ago
Do not agree that federal IA in the nuclear industry should be led by any federal authority other than the CNSC. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should remain the responsible federal authority for any IA process conducted in the nuclear industry in Canada.
Ontario Rivers Alliance about 3 years ago
ORA supports the recommendations of the Panel that the NEB and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission no longer be responsible authorities for those types of projects. Instead, that all federal assessment power and responsibility should be vested in a new quasi-judicial tribunal - an IA Commission. This model is very close to what ORA recommended in our submission, that there be a single independent assessment authority. ORA recommends an IA Commission should handle all projects subject to an IA, and be responsible for every aspect of an assessment. However, the Panel also recommends that the Commission have overarching self-oversight, by being responsible for ensuring the integrity of IA processes, as well as itself, through self-directed quality assurance audits. This is a problem - elected officials can be held to account through the ballot-box, whereas a Cabinet-appointed commission or board members are further removed from democratic accountability. ORA recommends there be independent oversight of any new Commission, as well as an independent arbitration agency to handle appeals and disputes.
Campaign for the Protection of Offshore Nova Scotia about 3 years ago
CPONS followed with some interest the Report’s discussion regarding the current state of assessment agencies in Canada, particularly the concern cited by participants of the close relationship between industry-specific regulatory agencies and the industries that they regulate. CPONS experience with the Canada –Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) mirrors those concerns. CPONS questions the independence of this joint regulatory agency of the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia. Currently, for example, the CNSOPB Board is composed of a majority of individuals who have worked in the oil and gas industry in the past, some for companies that they are now regulating. Moreover, recent decisions by CNSOPB raise serious doubts about its environmental assessment capabilities and commitment (i.e. Shell Canada pipe and riser abandonment on ocean floor offshore Nova Scotia). CPONS agrees with the Panel’s observations that regulation/licencing and project assessment are two distinct functions that require different expertise and processes. In terms of environmental assessments, it is time for a new governance model. At a conceptual level, we believe that a single IA authority established as a quasi-legal tribunal to conduct and decide upon IAs on behalf of the federal government has some merit. Indeed, some of the specific recommendations surrounding this new agency make a great deal of sense and have the potential to improve the process. However, given the importance of this specific proposal, CPONS would like to take more time to evaluate its efficacy.
Anne Gent about 3 years ago
For the nuclear industry, it does not seem logical to have a single authority when other authorities, such as the CNSC, already have the technical expertise required. This proposal could create overlap and should be reconsidered.
David Suzuki Foundation about 3 years ago
These are the comments of the David Suzuki Foundation and should be considered in light of our comments on “Developing the Vision.” These comments are intended to complement joint submission of the Environmental Assessment Caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network (including the David Suzuki Foundation).In addition to other proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), we recommend amendments to section 4 to recognize Canadians’ right to a live in a healthy environment. Specifically, we recommend adding to section 4(1) of the act (purposes): (j) to protect Canadians’ right to live in a healthy environment.We also recommend including in section 4(2) (mandate) a duty to respect Canadians’ right to live in a healthy environment in the administration of the Act.More than 110 countries have passed laws recognizing citizens’ rights to live in a healthy environment. For example, France amended its constitution in 2005 to include an Environmental Charter, which states in Article 1, “Everyone has the right to live in a balanced environment which shows due respect for health.”In contrast, no Canadian law explicitly protects environmental rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act are both silent on the environment. Environmental rights include substantive and procedural guarantees. Substantive rights include clean air, safe water, a non-toxic environment and healthy ecosystems. Related procedural rights include access to information, participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice. In its current form, the CEAA confers some procedural rights (and we agree with the Expert Panel’s recommendations to strengthen public participation in impact assessment) but does not address substantive environmental rights.In our view, explicit recognition of environmental rights in the CEAA would complement and reinforce other proposed amendments intended to improve the process and outcome of federal impact assessment.
Charlene B about 3 years ago
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission are experts in the area of the nuclear industry and should remain the responsible federal authority for all nuclear industry related IA processes in Canada.
ShawnM about 3 years ago
Giving equal weight and voice to contributors that have a direct interest in an assessment as those who are more of a 'spectator' creates an artificial imbalance in the assessment. Assessments should encourage participation from all comers but the opinions of those directly impacted should be weighted significantly higher than those who are not.
Thevenot about 3 years ago
Would it be possible to have the IA Commission made up of "full time members" as well as one member from each federal department who's mandate is significantly affected by a given project, like a panel? That way we would still benefit from NEB/CNSC/other federal expertise while reducing potential for conflicts of interest or lack of trust in the regulatory authority.
Jeff K. about 3 years ago
I am concerned that this model will invite participation in the assessment process by people, other layers of bureacracy and foreign agencies with no interest in the project, allowing individuals and groups who oppose development generally, or competitors seeking economic advantage through regulatory obstruction, to delay the proceedings and halt Canada's economic development while pursuing their own.
Jon Henderson about 3 years ago
This proposal does not account for the fact that other regulatory agencies such as the CNSC are better position and best-suited to oversee any IA process related to the nuclear industry in Canada.
Andy about 3 years ago
Canada: 1.6% of world total CO2 emissions - (a statistical error)You live like it's 1662 for 1 year first - then I will consider these inhuman proposals.
Dr. Susan Diamond about 3 years ago
I certainly agree with the preamble statement above. it seems to be so abstract as the lack implementation teeth. In my lifetime as an actively engaged citizen, public trust in government to make decisions for the good of all has seriously eroded. Can it even be restored?
Kirsten Ketilson about 3 years ago
I do not agree that having a single IA authority oversee all IA process in Canada would be beneficial. I believe that where an independent federal authority already exists, such as is the case with the quasi-judicial body of the CNSC in the nuclear industry, it should remain responsible for oversight of the federal IA process. My observation is that the recommendation of the Expert Panel to move towards a single authority is not justified by a legal test or any proven evidence that indicates bias on the part of the CNSC. I also don't believe that the example provided in a number of submissions to the Expert Panel of the quasi-judicial Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal that supported / advanced this tribunal as a model of governance that should be adopted was accurate. My observation is that this tribunal does not oversee all EAs in Ontario, but only those that are referred to it by the Minister.
Brady Balicki about 3 years ago
Having a single IA authority established as a quasi-judicial tribunal would result in additional administrative burden and potentially duplicate or eliminate the roles and responsibilities of other federal agencies. Where possible, Impact Assessments should be led by the agencies with the appropriate technical capacity. These include both the National Energy Board and in the case of nuclear energy, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
Rebecca Peters about 3 years ago
For heavily regulated industries that have an independent review panel such as those under the NEB or CNSC, having an additional authority for IA would only serve to duplicate the regulatory process without additional benefit.
Stuart Juzda about 3 years ago
The courts should be the final authority in cases of conflict. The idea of an political appointed independent tribunal is a contradiction in it's very wording. The concept of consensus again is simply a way to push projects forward. You claim 2×2=4. I claim 2×2=5. Is an appropriate consensus answer of 4.5 acceptable. Of course not. The idea of a middle way forward leads to environmental disasters as we have observed in Canada.
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment about 3 years ago
Transparency transparency transparency! This means that sources of information, conflicts of interest, past records of affiliations and public positions and public writings of participants must be made freely available, in perpetuity, as well as the content of deliberations, the sources of documentation, and the information about sources and amounts of funding behind all contributions. That's the starting point. All other considerations flow from this fundamental principle. Without it, meaning, inclusion and the capacity to be fully informed fall away.
Les Hicks about 3 years ago
This seems to make sense.
Robert Huck about 3 years ago
Unless you plan on abolishing the CNSC and incorporating its assets and expertise into EC, there is no reason for another federal authority to conduct an impact assessment on nuclear projects.
Art Jackson about 3 years ago
agree with the science based, transparent, inclusive which holds equal sway with traditional values, knowledge. The future life forms must all be protected so projects must be judged accordingly
Kathleen Hennig about 3 years ago
The proposed appeal process of an environmental assessment directed toward the Federal Cabinet, does not provide adequate transparency or accountability to prevent political interference in these decisions. There should be a right of appeal for both interim and final decisions and an independent tribunal setup to hear these appeals.
Canadian Chamber of Commerce about 3 years ago
The Canadian Chamber agrees that a quasi-judicial tribunal that is arms-length from the government and generally outside of the broader public policy debate would be best placed to provide transparent, fact-based decisions. However, we are concerned that the consensus-based, inclusive approach outlined elsewhere in the Expert Panel’s Report is fundamentally incompatible with how a quasi-judicial tribunal operates. We are concerned that separating the impact assessment role from life-cycle regulators like the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would in fact create a one project, two review system that would add costs and delay without improving environmental outcomes. For example, pipeline projects would need to undergo one process with the IA authority, and then the NEB would need to assess whether or not the project is up to code. Life-cycle regulators like the NEB have responsibility for construction, operations and ultimately retirement of projects. In conducting this role, they would be collecting much the same information on the environmental and social impacts of the proposed project as the IA authority, leading to duplication and increased costs.
Kate Gordanier-Smith about 3 years ago
Section 3.1 I believe the Panel has got it wrong on this section. Canadians have a right to appeal disastrous environmental assessments like the so- called Kinder Morgan pipeline assessment that limited democratic participation and refused to allow consideration of the terrible damages from climate change to be included as part of the economic picture. The Panel has recommended that appeals go to the federal Cabinet, which isn't obliged to provide reasons for any decision. Plus final decisions could easily be politically motivated, swayed by lobbyists (read, those with money) and not based on facts or law. Canadians have a right to appeal both interim and final decisions. I believe an independent tribunal should be set up to hear appeals to ensure justice and transparency.
S. Wallace about 3 years ago
This is so critical - that science be a cornerstone of decisions and that the long term "future generation" impact be considered in all assessments.
Joanna Bull about 3 years ago
Communities should also have the right to appeal approvals they feel were not conducted in a transparent, inclusive, informed, and meaningful way. There must be a due process to handle these appeals that takes them seriously.
Colleen about 3 years ago
Please there needs to be a place for a right of appeal and an independent tribunal to hear those appeals to support true impact assessment and meaningful and whole input!
Colleen about 3 years ago
Yes this is a great model of governance and can only be based on respect of being transparent, inclusive, informed, and meaningful. The impact assessment must be for the wholeness of the any situation and not just a tool to support the misuse of power by companies (and governments) and only show a limited assessment! Again it comes back to wholeness and respect and understanding and wisdom.....
Nicole B about 3 years ago
There needs to be a right of appeal and an independent tribunal to hear those appeals.Also, including consensus building models that protect minority rights into the process are of critical importance. Right now industry has been running roughshod over stakeholder & environmental concerns. Yet industry is never on the hook to pay for cleanup or the public health after effect (nor adequate taxation on their revenues) to make projects of REAL holistic value.
Ms. about 3 years ago
Very few citizens call the current assessment process transparent, inclusive, informed and meaningful. When government decisions for projects are now challenged by concerned citizens or First Nations, there is a burden of prohibitive cost. What does Justice look like when it takes at least $500,000 to bring a case challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no way that appeals should go to the federal Cabinet as they are not obliged to provide reasons for their decisions and make decisions based on political interest as we have seen. A right of appeal for interim and final decisions by an independent tribunal must be established tohear appeals. That is what Justice and Accountability look like.
Jacqueline Steffen about 3 years ago
Right of appeal: Under our current law, it is extremely difficult to successfully challenge an environmental assessment through the courts. There should be a right of appeal for both interim and final decisions, and an independent tribunal should be established to hear those appeals to ensure justice, transparency and accountability.
Jacqueline Steffen about 3 years ago
Right of appeal: Under our current law, it is extremely difficult to successfully challenge an environmental assessment through the courts. There should be a right of appeal for both interim and final decisions, and an independent tribunal should be established to hear those appeals to ensure justice, transparency and accountability.
Tara Lockhart about 3 years ago
Transparency is important, of course, but I would also like to know that there will be real life consequences for the MP /government if they make decisions that break our trust or that they don't follow through with what they have asked to do. I'm tired of MPs being safe in their position. If a blue collar employee can be fired for being negligent or by not following through - so should a member of parliament no matter what they're position. I would want to see a real schedule with dates because in the past the government has often said it was going to do something by [insert vague date / year here] and then it gets pushed back or tabled altogether.
stu lip about 3 years ago
all Canadians should be able to have a say in environmental decisions that concern them.uphold Canada’s obligations towards Indigenous peoples.ensure all projects and activities are good for Canada’s environment and communities, enact triggers for all projects before they can receive a federal permit.should be a right of appeal for both interim and final decisions, and an independent tribunal should be established to hear those appeals in order to ensure justice and accountability. Allow right of appeal and an independent tribunal to hear those appeals.early planning stage is essential
John Bergenske, Wildsight about 3 years ago
An independent commission, IA authority, is very important. The panel recommendations are consistent with restoring public confidence in systems that have too often appeared biased. Appeal decisions should not be kicked into the political arena, but should go to an independent tribunal that "take into account science, facts and evidence; and ensure that the outcomes of the process are protective of future generations."
Michael Herauf about 3 years ago
I do not agree that elected federal officials should have the final say in reviewing appeals of the process. We have seen in recent governments how elected officials can be pressured to tow the party line. As well, political parties can be beholden to their financial supporters and politicians voting actions too often reflect those interests. Therefore it should be an independent mast panel of experts, somewhat akin to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding purely legal matters, who have final review of assessments. The members of that panel must be unencumbered by ties to industry and interests groups and must truly be impartial and experts in their interpretation of matters.
Michelle about 3 years ago
It is important to have a right of appeal and an independent tribunal to hear those appeals.
Lynda Gagne about 3 years ago
I would like to see a right of appeal and an independent tribunal to hear those appeals. Sometimes decisions do not reflect the spirit of the public trust doctrine in its broad application, and there should be a recourse.
Laurie~ about 3 years ago
It seems to me that every time a mining/pipeline/dam building project is turned down because of environmental concerns, the companies just keep appealing the decisions, over and over, until they wear everyone down and hope to sneak the project through. There should be a limit of one appeal for any company that is turned down by the assessment board. Their should also NOT be any exploration permits issued after a negative assessment. End of story!
Bill Bryden about 3 years ago
We need a right of appeal and an independent tribunal to hear those appeals.
Oliver Hockenhull about 3 years ago
I am informed that the "Expert Panel" has recommended that appeals should go to the Federal Cabinet, which could in its discretion make final decisions. THIS IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD. This assessment process must be placed within the legal system at all times and NOT be tainted by the whims of the political (as we see so clearly). As an example in the Netherlands —Water boards act independently from national government — for the good reason that the Water Boards are much less likely to fall prey to the vagary of elected national politicians.
Doug Allan about 3 years ago
There should be a right of appeal for both interim and final decisions, and an independent tribunal should be established to hear those appeals in order to ensure justice and accountability.
Brad Jones about 3 years ago
I agree!
Author Commented Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency about 3 years ago
Thanks for all your comments. Keep them coming!
Dr. Monique Dube about 3 years ago
The panel identified the key issues to IA credibility with respect to governance:- perception/lack of independence & neutrality of an organization from the industry it regulates - industry-specific regulatory agencies more focused on technical issues than planning. In some cases, assessments are not being conducted beyond a "check for application completeness", and the IA is a draft project approval. - regulation and assessment are two distinct functions that require different processes and diverse expertise. A regulator is not best placed in my opinion to make these decisions unless the structure and accountability within an organization facilitates independence and an evidence-based approach. - these issues have certainly resulted in more protest, court challenges, longer timeframes and increase cost for all parties. As such an independent Impact Assessment Commission as proposed is a solid panel recommendation to move forward on and would address many of these issues.
Ole Hendrickson about 3 years ago
The Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (CCRCA) are pleased that the Panel clearly heard our concerns in our submission about the proposed million-cubic-meter radioactive waste dump (“Near Surface Disposal Facility”) at the Chalk River Laboratories.CCRCA -- a small, community-based environmental organization – is finding it challenging to deal with a flawed environmental assessment of this dump proposal. The Panel recognized challenges we are experiencing such as inadequate resources, tight timelines when faced with huge amounts of difficult technical data, difficulty in accessing pertinent information, lack of acknowledgement of our concerns, and the lack of explanation provided for decisions. CCRCA told the Expert Panel that the impact assessment process led by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for the proposed Chalk River dump provides limited public participation, comes too late in the process, and may have little or no effect on the CNSC’s decision on project approval. The Expert Panel report says “Meaningful public participation is a key element to ensure the legitimacy of IA processes.” It calls for “early and ongoing public participation opportunities that are open to all, and says that “Results of public participation should have the potential to impact decisions.” CCRCA hopes to see swift legislative change to implement the Panel’s recommendation “that a single authority have the mandate to conduct and decide upon IAs on behalf of the federal government.” We believe that this will restore confidence and trust in impact assessment of nuclear projects, and it may also benefit the CNSC itself by allowing it to focus on more technical matters.
JD about 3 years ago
For pipeline projects under federal jurisdiction, the NEB is absolutely the best placed regulator to oversee environmental and socio-economic assessments. Otherwise there would be two regulatory streams, one for the newly formed IAC and one for the NEB. Proponents would be forced to duplicate work, timelines would be even more unpredictable than they are now, and costs would increase for both proponents and the federal government. For what benefit? People who oppose the NEB process are just upset that their 'values' (read: unscientific opinion) is often not considered by the NEB because they have to uphold the rules of natural justice. Well, if you create the IAC as a quasi-judicial commission, guess what, they too will have to uphold the rules of natural justice and will have to filter out fact from fiction. Instead of creating a new commission, there needs to be an outlet for the strategic, policy level decisions e.g., climate change or regional cumulative effects, that have disrupted the NEB process over the last 10 years.
JQH Consulting about 3 years ago
I am with a small organization and your report is huge and transformative. It is without precedent. It is impossible in the short time allowed to provide comments. I request that you take your own advice and provide a 6 month comment period. Preliminary comments 1. Major changes are envisioned without providing evidence on financability and resourcing. Who is going to pay? Where do the expert panels get resources capable of managing the huge scope placed upon them?2. The current EA process is subject to court challenge. The IA process would be too. The only certainty is that many projects get challenged and the only basis for evaluation is that the scope was clearly defined and that the process was followed. The changes you are proposing make enormous changes to how a project scope is defined and how the process will be developed. It does not address how court challenges would be dealt with. Thus the process is uncertain and likely puts a huge burden on the legal system. 3. Forcing comments into individual sections also makes your job easier but makes the ability to describe broader implications difficult.
Cassandra about 3 years ago
In Section 3.1 Governance Model, I completely agree with the recommendations and believe that this section carries more importance. This section is a cornerstone in this report because for a government process to be a public success it is necessary for the people to believe in and trust the process and its respective authority. In today`s assessment process people do not seem to trust in the process due to the presence of real or perceived bias and lack of trust and confidence. In response, the Panel recommended that a single independent and impartial authority be formed to direct the IA process. This authority would focus on efficient, consistent and accountable governance. Peoples` trust and belief in the system will begin to return if this recommendation is followed.
Abigayle about 3 years ago
I strongly agree that it would be beneficial to have one Responsible Agency rather than the current 3. Consistency is key for making effective decisions for IA’s, and having a consistent governing body will likely reduce any conflicts, and will make the process more transparent because no agency would have direct ties to a specific industry. The current EA process is very broken-up and combining the governance agencies to one Commission may also help unify the process. Having one agency would also help the IA process successfully implement the “one project, one assessment” mandate because there would be consist guidelines for decision-making processes. The Commission appears to be a well thought out idea, but the panel lacks to discuss who will be part of the Commission. I think it would be important to still include the Agency, NEB, and CNSC in the decision process but they could be departments rather than the primary decision makers. One unified agency could help with reviewing decisions to make sure each group is consistent. Additionally, it could be beneficial to include Indigenous community members in the Commission since the IA process is interested in providing more involvement opportunities.
Felysia about 3 years ago
I agree with The Panel’s recommendation to have a single authority to conduct the final decision about IAs for the federal government. I believe only one authority will clear up many misconceptions and misunderstandings that manifest because of the several authorities currently. Having a brand new authority will be a difficult transition for all involved. However, I think this recommendation will reduce the bias and increase transparency regarding decisions made about approvals. One authority would streamline the process as well and allow for a more efficient work because there is only the one authority to work through. I also agree that the decision of the single authority be subjected to the Governor in Council to enforce compliance to unbiased and transparent decisions.
Arynn about 3 years ago
I agree with most of the Panels recommendations, but if “transparency on all IA decisions” is to be implemented it has to be presented as literate enough for the public to understand. Otherwise, the current frustration of inaccessible information will continue. Although I agree with the efficiency proposed by the concept of central governance for IA through “the Commission”, a single organization might be too imposing to allowing for outside perspectives to be included in IA processes without more diversity. Furthermore, I would recommend that audits not be done internally, but by an unbiased and neutral entity. Regardless of how transparent an audit might be presented to the public, having a centrally powered IA organization self-regulate it’s own assessments has the potential to instigate questions concerning bias.
Jordan about 3 years ago
I agree that an increase in trust is a necessary step in improving the IA process. However I do not think that trusting the authority that is conducting IAs will make it any more likely for the public to consider an outcome to be fairer. An increase in trust will help to reduce public interference in the IA process but perceptions on fairness have nothing to do with trust. By increasing trust the public will be able to trust the authority to come to a fair conclusion but determining whether the result actually is fair will result in an increase in trust or loss in trust of that authority.
Shelby Feniak about 3 years ago
The recommendation of moving towards one federal IA authority successfully addresses public concerns regarding the loss of social license of the NEB and CNSC. The Commission seems to be well thought out in most sections of the required functions and capacities. Regional offices across Canada are a strong point of the Commission, if implemented successfully I believe regional representation and accessibility will greatly improve social license for IA authorities. Regaining the trust of the public is crucial to moving forward with the IA process in Canada as it will likely increase public participation and satisfaction. A very strong point of this section is that it acknowledges the need for transparency and reasoning to be released to the public to gain trust in the system.
Jennifer Weeks about 3 years ago
Combining regulatory authority all under one Commission’s group may not be as beneficial as the Panel predicts. Only having one governing body could encourage bias even though the report says it would decrease it. Furthermore, The NEB and CNSC are already extremely transparent bodies. Their websites allow public access to all projects and decisions. It would be beneficial to include a third governing body to balance public interest along with NEB, CNSC to decrease overall bias when reaching democratic decisions. The report also does not mention how big this new Commission’s group will be, how many Indigenous peoples will be on the committee, or what reserve they will represent. There is not mention of how the Federal government will fairly select this board. If they only select oil and gas industry members due to their knowledge, than that defeats the purpose of creating another Commission’s group. Furthermore, if there are only 5 Indigenous people on a board of 20 people when the project will impact treaty land, than they are being underrepresented. Also, why is there not any concern for indigenous members to sit on the NEB or CNSC right now? Overall, the Panel should elect different members to the groups they have already created or have the NEB, CNSC and Commissions cooperate to represent public and industry opinion on projects.
Rachael Melenka about 3 years ago
I agree with the Panel that a single authority is needed to represent the federal government and to approve or disprove IA’s. This will decrease bias between Responsible Authorities and projects, and result in the public trust of the IA process being able to make a conclusion based on environmental, social and economic data. Another form of decreasing this bias is to use quasi-judicial tribunals to make final decisions and settle any doubts from the public, and resolve problems within the IA of a project. Ensuring the IA Responsible Authorities are assessing from the same IA process would also decrease confusion and increase understanding and efficiency in the IA process.
Tayla Lazenby about 3 years ago
I agree with the historical concerns that the NEB and CNSC may be biased in their decision making verdicts due to their close ties to the industries they regulate. While I recognize that these close ties allow for expert insight and knowledge, I believe this knowledge can be utilized in other ways and not as regulators. To have public approval and sound decisions transparency is imperative. I believe that the idea of having a regulating body that is quasi-judicial would be able to objectively look at facts and make unbiased decisions. Also I agree with the idea of requiring information on their justification for decisions as this ensures thorough review and increases public trust and knowledge about the decision making process.
Pauline Hondl about 3 years ago
I agree with the panel repot on this section. I think this is a commendable start to restoring the public’s trust and confidence in the assessment processes. Encouraging participation from all corners may lead to overwhelming responses possibly slowing down the Impact Assessment process. Thus, having the exact opposite desired effect and slowing down the Impact Assessment process. Having three different authorities responsible for the environmental assessment with varying requirements leads to confusion and a slower assessment process. Therefore, the panel's recommendation to have one authority for the federal government is a good one. One federal authority in charge of Impact Assessments will have a more consistent assessment process.
Jennifer Buss about 3 years ago
I think that the ways in which this section proposes for increasing accountability of the commission and reducing bias are a good step, especially the internal audit function. Having members that identify with Indigenous groups also allows the EIA process to include their perspective, which will help to gain social license and to add more accountability and knowledge to the process. Also, the regional offices allow EIA’s to occur by people that actually know the unique issues present in the area. I feel as though there is an opportunity for further consolidation between the jurisdictions however. Specifically, if there is a regional office in each province anyways, the federal and provincial EIA processes could come together to perform one assessment instead of using equivalency or substitution agreements. This way, more individuals can be provided from the province and municipalities to aid in EIA’s and equivalency agreements and substitutions can be avoided. Also, this would allow all jurisdictions to be included in an equal capacity and processes and regulations to be uniform between jurisdictions as well (not just federally). Provincial and federal officials could also still focus on their jurisdictional EIA requirements and concerns (provincial vs federal legislation).
Haley Quadros about 3 years ago
Section 3.1 addresses the perceived bias of Responsible Authorities (RA’s) promoting the very projects they're tasked with regulating. The recommendation is that the “authority conducting the assessment must be free from bias and conflicts of interest” for the sake of confidence in the decisions and consequently, acquiring social license. This is to be achieved by establishing a single authority responsible for IA decisions-“the Commission”. This suggestion certainly appears to be a legitimate solution to increasing public trust in the IA process and outcomes. However, it can be argued that RAs like the CNSC and NEB are necessary due to the technical expertise required to assess projects such as nuclear plants and pipelines. While this section addresses that this is a view shared by proponents and practitioners, it does not make mention of, nor convinces, the reader that the Commission will be equally equipped to make decisions on projects that include nuclear energy. This section should make a stronger case for giving over decision-making power on pipeline and nuclear projects to a body that is not as well versed in assessing the technical merits of such proposals.
Erin about 3 years ago
I do agree that in the past and currently there are issues regarding the concern of the NEB and CNSC being bias based on their close relationship with industry. I think it is a good idea to provide adequate reasoning for the decisions made but I think it should be made available to the public. I believe to regain the trust of the public they should be informed of these decisions and given explanations for the reasoning behind the decisions made. Having a single authority to have the mandate to conduct and make decisions concerns me. This is the similar concern presented when proponents conduct their own environmental survey, having a third party do it eliminates any potential for bias and I feel like with a singly authority there may be doubt within the public and industry.
Lauren Erdely about 3 years ago
The panel suggest that a single authority have the mandate to conduct and decide upon IA’s on behalf of the federal government. I think this is a progressive motion that will benefit the IA process as a whole. By doing so I agree that trust in the responsible authority will be restored as the perceived relationship between industry and responsible authorities such as the NEB will be lessened. However, I do have concerns with the potential loss of critical and specific expertise. I believe that this movement towards a single responsible authority will only be productive should the panel and those involved in shaping this transition ensure that the responsible authority is prepared, expanded and well equipped to best assess any given project. I also argue that the suggestion for improved transparency be greatly stressed throughout the transition and development phases. I would encourage the panel to elaborate on how they intend to ensure transparency as well as how they intend to prepare the responsible authority for the increase in IA volume.
KierstenS about 3 years ago
Decentralizing power from headquarters to individual regions will allow for a more personable and transparent decision making process. Giving power to individual regions will make the IA process more trustworthy, as proponents within regions will have the opportunity to deal with those present within communities, which is likely to result in a more successful communication process between the more minor stakeholders and the federal government. By providing a more trustworthy process for conducting IAs and improving social license, cooperation between affected parties is sure to increase, as the process is open and fair. By implementing a process that will require clear decisions to exist based on evidence collected from a number of different spectrums, this is allowing the process to be inclusive and will likely reduce conflicts between the public, proponents, and the regulatory agencies responsible for approvals. I also think that the idea to combine the agencies into one power is a bad idea. If a single authority has complete power over the decision making progress, this results in a sort of “monopoly” on authority and it doesn’t allow for system of checks and balances, and I think that the public would be less supportive of this change.
Chris Arbter about 3 years ago
I think that the concern over RA’s like NEB and CNSC close link to industry is well merited. Not that these RA’s are not doing their job, there just seems to be a higher chance for their regulating results to be biased in comparison to an RA that does not have any relation to their proponents .Although I agree with the public concern for IA being conducted by an independent organisation, I disagree with the panel’s idea that a single authority would be most efficient for conducting IA’s. I believe that having an IA go through one single organisation can lead to just as much bias as regulators working closely to industry. Multiple independent organisations should be used to go through an IA to achieve the best, unbiased, and fair results. I think that the structure of leadership in IA with regard to the commissioners’ independence is crucial for the decision making process. This should theoretically eliminate any cause of bias in terms of the final decision of an IA being reached. Above all else, the commission’s main goal should be to ensure that monitoring and enforcement of guidelines is upheld. If they are not, realistically the IA will have been for nothing.
Peter Douglas Elias about 3 years ago
Response to Building Common Ground(The Final Report of the Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes)Prepared by:Peter Douglas Elias, Ph.D.,157 Sixth Ave W,Qualicum Beach, BC V9K 1S1250-927-7570Dougelias2015@gmail.comApril 2017IntroductionMy submissions to the Expert Panel dealt largely with the socio-economics requirements for an EA. Admittedly, socio-economics is only a small part of what the various acts and regulations contemplate. However, I believe that a failure to competently address this issue erodes the confidence of Canadians in general. A process that fails some of us, fails all of us. Correcting the failure of assessments to fairly consider Indigenous communities will go some way to “give Canadians confidence that projects, plans and policies have been adequately assessed.”My critique dealt with how socio-economics are currently addressed in CEAA 2012 and the NEB Act, and how socio-economics are reflected in numerous EA’s which are the result of these Acts. I focused on three problems.1. The wording in the Acts and various guidance documents is too weak to compel proponents to make a sincere effort at comprehending and portraying socio-economic conditions in Indigenous communities and how they might be affected by a proposed project. In particular, none of the terms addressing socio-economics are defined in the Acts.2. The socio-economic components of EA’s which I reviewed lacked any scientific foundation or credibility.3. The weak requirements were inadequately enforced by the relevant authorities, allowing proponents to present socio-economic images of Indigenous communities that were not only inaccurate and unreliable, but deeply offensive to those communities.So, will what the Expert Panel proposes be a remedy for these problems?Observations1. The Panel’s report, Building Common Ground, uses the term ‘socio-economic’ exactly once, where it (under)states, “Socio-economic effects were often underplayed.”The term ‘socio-economics’, especially as it is used in the Acts, allows the proponent to create any narrow definition most convenient for the proponent’s purposes, which is to gain regulatory approval for their project. Instead of ‘socio-economics’, the Panel uses the terms ‘economy’, ‘social’, and ‘cultural’. The use of terms which invoke society, culture and economy should oblige proponents to greatly expand their awareness of what must be addressed in an EA.The term “environmental assessment (EA)” focuses an assessment on the biophysical aspects of a proposed development. Instead, the Panel recommends “what is now ‘environmental assessment’ should become ‘impact assessment’ (IA).” The intended effect of the term ‘impact assessment’ is to expand what is required to assess the sustainability of a proposed project, including a broader scope of potential effects on indigenous communities. Further, the Panel recommends that Indigenous communities be engaged early in the assessment process in order to make certain their economic, social and cultural concerns are fully considered. Inevitably, by removing from the proponent the ability to decide valued components, much greater attention will be given to the potential effects of a project on communities.2. The Panel recommends that instead of having the proponent produce and analyze all data and information included in the IA, a separate, independent authority would assume the responsibility for preparing the IA. Part of the authority’s responsibility would be to “require that all phases of IA use and integrate the best available scientific information and methods.” Further, the Panel recommends that the authority responsible for the conduct of IA’s “have the statutory authority to verify the scientific accuracy of studies across all pillars of sustainability”, and “stronger guidelines and standards are needed to ensure that IA processes include rigorous scientific methods.” The Panel also recommends that verification of scientific accuracy (and scientific robustness in general) be done by “qualified experts from all governments, including federal, provincial and Indigenous governments. The results of all expert panel reviews must be publicly available to ensure transparency and consideration of information by any relevant experts outside the process.” These legislated requirements are “needed to ensure that the scientific evidence produced in IA processes is based on robust methods and can therefore be relied upon and trusted by participants in the IA process.”3. Of course, the Panel’s laudable recommendations must be embodied in the legislation which will replace the CEAA 2012 and the NEB Act. The vague and often contradictory language in those acts has allowed proponents to ignore a responsibility to thoroughly examine the potential effects of their projects on Indigenous communities. The new legislation must include mechanisms to assure compliance. As the Panel noted, “Effective compliance and enforcement is needed to ensure IA objectives are met.” ConclusionsTogether, these provisions recommended by the Panel would go far to ease my first concern that lax language in the Acts has allowed proponents to avoid significant consideration of the potential effects of a project on Indigenous communities.The Panel’s recommendations should reinforce the primacy of science in an IA and greatly reduce the ability of proponents to make terms mean whatever is most suitable for their purposes.Finally, robust compliance mechanisms would go far to assuring that proponents shoulder the full weight of their responsibilities.
Erin Kohler about 3 years ago
In the Indigenous relations section of the “Required functions and capacities” section it is stated that “Indigenous Relations would play an integral role in each IA”, but there is no specific action plan mentioned, which could present problems in the future. In the Science and Knowledge section there is a much more specific plan for ensuring that proper science is incorporated into IA, such as appointing a Chief Science Officer. Simply stating that Indigenous peoples will be involved in the IA process is not likely to result in Indigenous consultation and knowledge being implemented in every IA. There must be some sort of legislation attached to this, just like there is with the Science and Knowledge section, otherwise there is a risk that Indigenous relations could be overlooked.
Thomas Milligan about 3 years ago
The close relationships that NEB and CNSC have with industries should be considered. There must be neutrality of the responsible authority to ensure the full consideration of all five pillars; environment, economic, social, cultural and health. Creating a single body responsible for conducting IAs, would reduce conflict and improve public trust, however a single body may not be able to examine all possible angles of a proposed project. That is why, like suggested, working side by side with Indigenous people and local communities would promote a thorough IA that covers all concerns.Transparency of decisions, is integral to maintaining public trust. Within the Commission, the compliance and enforcement officers should express transparency to a certain extent. If full transparency was used, there would be potential for some loss in consumer confidence in the project proponent. This may remove economic profitability of the project, one of the 5 key pillars. Some form of discretion should be exercised.
John about 3 years ago
Removed by moderator.
John about 3 years ago
The CNSC has been acting independently from industry and has had excellent performance in the EA area (providing fair, impartial assessments). There is no need to remove it's jurisdictions aver EAs.