Canada’s federal EA process developed over the last 30 years as a policy to improve planning and decision making related to development projects by providing information about likely environmental effects and mitigation measures. The Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) was established by the federal Cabinet in 1973 and strengthened in 1984 when an order-in-council was issued. EARP was replaced by CEAA, which was enacted by Parliament in June 1992 and came into force in January 1995.
In January 2000, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency) commenced the required five-year review of CEAA, which included extensive consultations with the public, stakeholders, Aboriginal communities and governments, and provincial and territorial governments. In March 2001, at the conclusion of the five-year review, the government tabled Bill C-19, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. On December 4, 2001, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (the Committee) began its study of this bill.2
The Committee felt that the goals of Bill C-93 were laudable, and that the bill should improve CEAA and federal EA as a whole. The amendments made to the bill by the Committee, particularly with regard to improving meaningful public participation, would have helped to achieve these goals. Four government motions at report stage, however, have undone some of the Committee’s work in this regard. The Committee voted — twice (first in Motion KS-20, then in the government’s omnibus, amended Motion G-23) — for a 30-day comment period after the posting of information including screening reports. The screening report is the pivotal document in screening-level assessments (over 99% of all EAs) because it contains the basis for the government’s decision about whether, and on what terms, to allow a project to proceed. Instead, the government has limited the effect of KS-20 by eliminating screening reports from its ambit and reducing the comment period to 15 days. Therefore, public input in decisions in the vast majority of these environmental assessments will be limited.
Several witnesses, including Jamie Kneen, Co-chair of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus, Canadian Environmental Network, raised the concern that the scope of the five-year review was limited and that Bill C-9, even with amendments, overlooks major issues:
We welcome the proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act embodied in Bill C-9, but they are modest, and as a whole do not take us further down the road toward sustainability. In fact, the bill is notable as much for what has been left out as for what it contains. It is clear that the whole five-year review has been an exercise in reduced expectations, from the outset of the public consultation process to the wording of the bill in front of you. … Our conclusion is that the five-year review does not allow meaningful time for discussion on these topics, and there’s a need for a larger discussion about environmental assessment. (Meeting 64)
Jerry DeMarco, Managing Lawyer and Acting Executive Director, Sierra Legal Defence Fund (Toronto), suggested a number of items that should be included in a consideration of EA issues not addressed by Bill C-9.
This Committee may also wish to consider doing hearings on environmental assessment broadly, as opposed to just this bill. This bill makes some improvements, but it isn’t a very comprehensive look at whether or not we’re doing a good job overall in terms of performance indicators in environmental assessment; how good a job environmental assessment is doing on the ground; or if we have done any follow-up to see if mitigation measures are really reducing environmental impacts. (Meeting 60)
The Committee attempted to incorporate some of the concerns expressed by witnesses; even if these were outside the stated goals of Bill C-9. The removal of blanket exemptions for Crown corporations for example, is a significant improvement to the bill. The Committee was, however, restricted by Parliamentary procedure in its capacity to deal with many of the issues that stakeholders raised, such as those described above.
This report is intended to address these concerns as an indispensable supplement to the Committee’s reporting of Bill C-9 to the House of Commons. Further, the Committee believes that Parliament and the Government of Canada would welcome a report on what is needed to ensure that projects, policies and programs are environmentally sustainable and protect the integrity of ecosystems, and by reflection, the health and well-being of Canadians.
This report examines areas where the current federal approach has not succeeded, sets out a number of important challenges that remain to be addressed, and provides recommendations on what should be done. The report deals with the basic questions:4
| 1. | Is EA leading to tangible benefits to natural ecosystems? |
| 2. | Are departments and proponents in compliance with CEAA or are they avoiding the law? |
| 3. | Is EA helping proponents improve their projects? |
| 4. | Is EA helping the federal government, in cooperation with its provincial and territorial partners, to achieve its environmental commitments and goals? |
| 5. | Are Canadian taxpayers benefiting from their investment in the EA process? |
| 6. | Is the public being adequately engaged? |
| 7. | Are Aboriginal rights and perspectives being respected? |
| 8. | Are government policies, programs and plans being assessed for their environmental impacts and consequences? |
In short, how can the federal EA process be improved to better meet the goals of sustainable development?
The Committee hopes this report lays the foundation for a subsequent bill to be introduced within the next seven years, in concurrence with the seven-year Committee review as placed in Bill C-9 by the Committee.