Is this the end of federal environmental assessments? | Notes from the Panther Lounge | David Suzuki Foundation
Photo: Is this the end of federal environmental assessments?

(Credit: Jordan Oram via Flickr)

By Lisa Gue, Environmental Health Policy Analyst

When was the last time you heard so much about a federal budget bill? They don't usually get much attention because they speed through Parliament on the fast track. Then again, budget bills don't usually involve a wholesale assault on environmental laws.

Bill C-38 is no ordinary budget bill. The bill overwrites the entire Canadian Environmental Assessment Act among other damaging measures (which really don't belong in the budget, by the way).

We don't yet know exactly how these changes will play out. The new rules leave much up to the discretion of federal Cabinet Ministers, and they are tight-lipped about how they intend to use their new discretionary powers.

Sign up for our newsletter

But the changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in Bill C-38 insert an obstacle course of political hurdles and constraints from start to finish of the environmental assessment process.

Hurdle 1: Designation

Consider a hypothetical project subject to federal regulation. Currently, an environmental assessment is usually required for any project involving the federal government — with specified exceptions. But under the new rules, assessment will only be required for projects designated by the Environment Minister. We do not yet have information about which types of projects (if any) the Minister intends to designate. The politicization of this process opens the door for intense lobbying by industry proponents keen on keeping their projects off the list.

Hurdle 2: Screening

Let's say the Minister designates our hypothetical project for environmental assessment. Unless it's a nuclear project or a pipeline (or other energy infrastructure project regulated by the National Energy Board), an assessment still isn't automatic. As a first step, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will conduct a screening. Screening is part of the current environmental assessment process, but under the new rules it will be downgraded to a six-week preliminary review with a more limited scope. For example, screenings will no longer be required to consider the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project or cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project, in combination with other projects or activities. On completion of this screening, the Agency will decide — at its discretion — if an environmental assessment is required.

Hurdle 3: Substitution

If an environmental assessment is required, there's still one more "out." If a provincial environmental assessment is also underway, the federal requirements can be waived — even if the provincial environmental assessment has a narrower scope and more limited opportunities for public participation. The federal government may then base its decision on the conclusions of the provincial assessment or decide to exempt the project from the Act altogether.

Hurdle 4: Assessment by independent panel only at the Minister's discretion

Imagine that our project makes it past the first three hurdles and a federal environmental assessment is eventually conducted under the new rules. Don't hold your breath for the appointment of an independent review panel. Under the current rules, the Environment Minister is required to refer an assessment to an independent review panel (or mediator) if screening indicates that a project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, if environmental effects are uncertain or if public concerns warrant, or at the request of a federal departments responsible for conducting a comprehensive environmental assessment. Under the new rules, assessment of pipelines and nuclear projects can no longer be eligible for review by an independent panel; they will now be assessed in-house by government agencies (only if the Environment Minister designates such a project for assessment, that is). The Environment Minister may refer other projects to an independent panel for assessment, but is no longer required to do so under the circumstances outlined above. Again, this invites lobbying from industry proponents to avoid the scrutiny of an independent panel. Although the scrutiny will be less scrupulous under the new rules.

Hurdle 5: Scope of review

In some cases, the new Act limits assessment of environmental impacts to effects on fish and fish habitat, other aquatic species and migratory birds, as well as other environmental effects, "directly linked or necessarily incidental" to the government's role in the project. This could mean that certain indirect impacts are no longer considered — like effects on endangered terrestrial species and their habitat (except if the effect occurs on federal land or crosses provincial or international borders). The Environment Minister may require other environmental impacts to be assessed, but we do not yet know if he or she will do so.

Additionally, the new Act specifies that public participation in some environmental assessments will be restricted to individuals, "directly affected" by the proposed project or deemed to have, "relevant information or expertise." It is not clear how these criteria will be assessed. Participant funding programs to facilitate public involvement in the environmental assessment process will also be scaled back.

There are also new time limits imposed on environmental assessments — two years for assessments conducted by independent panels and one year for assessments conducted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Hurdle 6: Decision by Cabinet

If our hypothetical environmental assessment identifies significant adverse impacts, under the new rules Cabinet will decide whether the project should proceed despite its impact on the environment — rather than the department or agency that conducted the assessment — and is responsible for regulating the proposed project.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's website points out, "Protecting our fragile environment while building a strong economy is a sustainable development challenge that Canadians face every day. Environmental assessment responds to this challenge by helping to eliminate or reduce a project's potential impact on the environment before a project begins."

Unfortunately, under the new rules for environmental assessments, an even bigger challenge might be securing a mandate to conduct meaningful assessments in the first place.

June 12, 2012
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/panther-lounge/2012/06/is-this-the-end-of-federal-environmental-assessments/

Read more

Post a comment


2 Comments

Jun 19, 2012
2:30 PM

I am currently in Scandinavia for the Summer and people here are speechless and cannot understand how Canada has recently become so backward especially considering the increasing evidences in the Arctic of the upcoming crisis.

Canada is destroying itself and people need to understand that this destruction is not caused by a single man but by all the Canadian population who persist in being in denial. Don't believe what I am saying, just travel and educate yourself and you will easily realize how futile economical gains will soon be if Canada is pursuing its course on the current path.

Jun 13, 2012
12:19 PM

I'm really finding it harder to be a proud Canadian. It seems that our country's future does not belong to it's people.

The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »