Feds in serious danger of betraying environmental assessment reform promises

Unless the Trudeau government takes a sharp turn, fixing Canada’s environmental assessment law will be just one more bold commitment it won’t deliver on. The recent discussion paper outlining the federal government’s plans suggests little more than tinkering with the 2012 devastating re-write of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. The Trudeau Liberals made a campaign promise to “make environmental assessments credible again.” Once in government, the environment minister’s mandate letter repeated those objectives to “immediately review Canada’s environmental assessment processes to regain public trust and help get resources to market and introduce new, fair processes.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also repeated that “No relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples.” The government is in serious danger of betraying those promises. There are clearly elements within the government that are more concerned with spin—what they can tell Canadians to persuade us that they are meeting their commitments—than they are about actually following through on their goals. The discussion paper follows an expert panel's review of the federal environmental assessment (EA) processes. The panel criss-crossed the country and heard from community members, activists, experts (government and independent), and Indigenous and provincial governments alike. The panel was repeatedly told—and reported—that the process needs a fundamental overhaul, that it needs to recognize Indigenous jurisdiction, and be designed to assess development in terms of its contribution to long-term sustainability, not just immediate environmental impacts. Ironically, while the expert panel made a huge effort to engage meaningfully with the public and Indigenous peoples, the discussion paper makes scant reference to either the expert panel’s report or the thousands of pages of testimony that it heard. On the positive side, the discussion paper proposes adding gender-based analysis to impact assessment. If properly implemented, this would include gender-specific social and economic impacts, but also integrate gender perspectives into all aspects of information-gathering, analysis, and decision-making. The discussion paper also recognizes the importance of assessing cumulative effects, both as part of regional studies and as a key element of sustainability. It fails, however, to build on this recognition to provide a useful framework for either regional assessment or sustainability assessment. The paper also provides for direct engagement between Crown representatives and Indigenous peoples to address potential project impacts, and recognizes (finally) the importance and integral nature of Indigenous knowledge, but it fails to allow for implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. At the same time, other promises, like the one to “restore lost protections” for navigable waters, have simply been abandoned. The Harper government’s removal of tens of thousands of Canadian water bodies and waterways from the protection of the Navigable Waters Protection Act—and the EA process—was one of the key violations of trust that set off the Idle No More movement. Yet the Trudeau government is proposing to basically leave things as they are. Projects affecting rivers and lakes that are not specifically designated will continue to require neither permits nor assessments. The public and experts have also made clear demands for a law that would deal appropriately with smaller projects that can have serious consequences. People specifically pointed to the need for mandatory assessment of projects on federal lands, in national parks or national wildlife areas, or requiring the disposal of federal lands. Instead, the discussion paper keeps the Harper government’s “project list” with only minor tweaks. Government plans, policies, and programs need to be designed around sustainability, but the discussion paper proposes “strategic” assessment only to guide project-specific reviews. It doesn’t contemplate actually making it a legal requirement to design policies around sustainability; instead, it would leave in place the existing cabinet directive that repeated auditor-general reports have called ineffective, or worse. When it comes to public participation, the document recognizes the importance of early public engagement, but undermines public involvement through the rest of the process by maintaining the arbitrary and inappropriate legislated deadlines. The Liberals are proposing to tinker with the Conservatives’ legislation, not repeal and replace it. While this may keep the captains (and cheerleaders) of industry happy, it’s not going to restore public confidence, much less build reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. It will do little to help bring us to a sustainable and just future. Jamie Kneen is communications and outreach coordinator for MiningWatch Canada. He has been working on environmental assessment policy and practice since 1989. The Hill Times

Feds in serious danger of betraying environmental assessment reform promises

Their proposed changes to environmental assessment policy will do little to help bring us to a sustainable and just future.

Advocates at biodiversity conference push back against plan to expedite approvals for critical minerals mines

Can we set aside ‘Group Think’ long enough to fix environmental assessment in Canada?

Bill C-69 can’t fix what’s really plaguing pipelines

Advocates at biodiversity conference push back against plan to expedite approvals for critical minerals mines

Health Canada’s Attack on Natural Health Products: Undermining Well-being and Parliamentary Authority

Bill C-27 sacrifices consumer privacy for business innovations

Explaining the Alberta election

Could the insurance companies turn out to be the good guys?

A new link to hope and reconciliation in Ontario’s north

Trickle-down economics: the hoax that will not die

Natural Resources Canada has evolved into the Department of Oil and Gas

Why oilpatch suits are trying to boot Bill C-69

C-69 still ‘a mess’ after more than 100 amendments, say stakeholders, critics

Liberals to roll out legislative package with reforms to National Energy Board in early 2018: Carr

‘It’s the question of whether we want to continue in the status quo’: stakeholders worry environmental assessment process could lead to cut corners

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Feds in serious danger of betraying environmental assessment reform promises

Their proposed changes to environmental assessment policy will do little to help bring us to a sustainable and just future.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter