ENVI Committee Report

In his September 2, 2002 address to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien observed:

Since the publication in 1987 of Our Common Future, the concept of sustainable development has moved from elite discussion to the centre of the international agenda. The speed of this shift reflects the fact that, in essence, sustainable development is about the very destiny of our planet.

It reflects a rising global awareness that clean air, clean water and safe food are universal needs. And that wise environmental stewardship is a universal obligation.

Canadians are a pragmatic people. We believe that it is not just admirable goals that will ensure a better world for our children. It is concrete results. We prefer action to rhetoric. …

That is why I am pleased to see the many concrete action plans and innovative partnerships emerging from this Summit. This reflects the direction we are moving in Canada.

The Committee submits that EA in Canada must also move from rhetoric and admirable goals to action and concrete results if sustainable development is to be achieved. EA can be a tremendous tool for achieving environmental, economic and social benefits if the opportunity can be fully seized. But even with proposed amendments, Bill C-9 takes only modest steps towards a results-based and action-oriented approach.

The Committee recognizes that implementation of our recommendations would mean deep and far-reaching change. Perhaps many of the historical difficulties in delivering results from the federal EA system are indeed because changes to how decisions are made must be comprehensive. Such change would also help restore Canada’s international role in the development of effective environmental assessment, a role which many witnesses testified had been diminished over the years.

The federal EA process must do more than merely identify adverse environmental effects, assess their significance, propose mitigation measures and advise decision makers. In the past, this advice has been too limited, and has often been ignored or manipulated to fit decisions already made. Decision makers must have clearer guidance on the results (e.g., sustainability of projects or policies, benefits to ecosystems) to be achieved from EA, and how these results are to be measured. Such results must cover issues of critical environmental importance, including those set out in the September 30, 2002 Speech from the Throne (e.g., reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, protection of biodiversity, establishment of protected areas). Project EAs must be subject to a system
of enforceable permits that would hold responsible authorities and proponents accountable for ensuring, under threat of penalty, that terms and conditions of approved projects are met.

Federal EA must be engaged earlier in project planning and must be established as a practical and constructive tool. It can no longer be seen as a late-stage burden on development that frustrates proponents, governments and stakeholders but as a positive aspect of project management. Canadians expect that the federal government will play a key role in assessing the environmental effects of projects of significance. Federal leadership is needed to ensure that these important projects are identified early, and properly assessed with substantial participation by the public and in consultation with Aboriginal people and provincial and territorial governments. The goals of EA should be to benefit the environment, maintain ecosystem integrity, and ensure meaningful public participation. In this way EA will not merely avoid significant adverse environmental effects but will become a significant tool in achieving sustainable development.

Panel reviews are essential as a way to engage the public in project assessments, and to commission and consider objective scientific evidence, and must be used more frequently. In order to ensure that more panel reviews take place, new approaches for short and issue-specific panel reviews need to be developed.

The assessment of cumulative effects is another critical issue which must be addressed and requires the devotion of more resources. More emphasis on the assessment of cumulative effects is required at the level of individual projects but also regionally, where a number of projects are being considered at a given time or where industrial development is proposed for a relatively intact ecosystem.

The relationships with respect to EA between federal authorities, provinces, territories and, in particular, Aboriginal and comprehensive claims institutions, needs systematic review. As Aboriginal and comprehensive claims institutions take up primary responsibilities with respect to federal EA of projects, federal roles under CEAA may need to be reconsidered or harmonized.

Finally, the assessment of proposed federal policies, programs and plans (“strategic environmental assessment”) requires a legal framework to ensure compliance with requirements, as well as accountability and transparency in the conduct of such assessments.

The Committee concludes that EA must reach beyond Bill C-9 and embrace a new vision that has measurable benefits to ecosystems and enhances the sustainability of projects and policies. The federal government has a key leadership role in pursuing this new vision of EA — a role that Canadians demand, and the protection of our natural environment requires.