ENVI Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Dissenting Report from the Official Opposition New Democratic Party on the Seven-year review of CEAA.SummaryThe New Democratic Party of Canada would like to thank all those witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable development and who submitted written briefs as part of the Committee’s statutory seven-year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). We would also like to thank those individuals and groups who requested to testify, but who were not allowed to appear before the Committee. In spite of publicly stating that the Federal Government intends to make sweeping and substantial changes to the regulatory approvals system for major resource projects, no details were brought forward to the Committee as part of the review of this Act, under which these projects are currently regulated. We are concerned that this is a major oversight, given the reported significance and potential impacts these changes could have, and would have expected the government to provide details as part of a thorough and credible review. The statutory review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act provides the Committee with an opportunity to reflect on the goals of environmental assessment in promoting sustainable development, the expectations of the public, and the needs of project proponents. The review should be a context for evaluating the current environmental assessment practices, identifying shortcomings and proposing improvements, and ultimately determining whether the current rules effectively tackle the public policy and environmental protection issues the law is intended to address. Parliamentarians should not abrogate their duty to conduct fulsome and comprehensive studies of legislation, as failure to do so diminishes the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the Committee’s report to the House of Commons. This ultimately affects the ability for policy makers to ensure that a piece of legislation serves in the best interest of Canadians. New Democrats believe that the study of CEAA undertaken by the Committee failed to meet standards that would make it, and any ensuing recommendations, credible and comprehensive. The lack of clarity on process and scope have lead to a significant and highly concerning lack of evidence on which to base the conclusions and recommendations of the report. Furthermore, the federal government’s Omnibus Budget Implementation Act 2010 made significant amendments to the CEAA, including introducing additional exemptions for certain projects and provisions granting the Minister of Environment power to limit the scope of assessments, changes made with no public consultation or Parliamentary review. However, these changes were not considered during the Committee’s review of the Act. New Democrats believe the federal government should delay any changes to the CEAA until it has conducted a proper, Canada-wide consultation, which includes key stakeholders, including affected communities, First Nations, provincial and territorial governments, and the key departments and agencies with the responsibility of conducting environmental assessments. CEAA is a key safeguard for Canada’s environment and the health of Canadians. It sets out fundamental requirements for how resources are developed and projects are designed and carried out, while protecting the interests of Canadians and the rights of First Nations peoples. It is a piece of legislation that warranted significant study, which it did not receive. With Canada’s international reputation and trade relationships being increasingly tarnished by government inaction and delay on environmental regulation, we must ensure we carry out credible reviews of the legislation that protects our environment and frames the way we develop our natural resources. The Committee’s statutory seven-year review of CEAA did not meet that standard. Lack of Clarity on Process For witnesses to provide relevant and cogent testimony, they must be given adequate time to prepare written and oral submissions and an idea of the scope and objectives of the legislative review. Neither of these fundamental procedural steps was taken by this Committee. No public statement was made respecting the commencement of the review. Further, the Committee allowed the evidentiary focus of the study to remain ambiguous and vague, meaning it was left unclear what aspects of the environmental assessment regime the committee aimed to study. This contributed directly to the paucity of evidence collected by the committee, and rendered the study incomplete. Given the complexity of CEAA it behoved the Committee to have some kind of focus for its review, and guidelines on the testimony it expected to collect. If the purpose was to gain a general understanding of the successes and failures of the legislation, that should have been stated at the very least; however, it is the opinion of New Democrats that a high-level cursory examination of the legislation would have been inadequate and that such a review should only have been used to help steer Committee members to further in-depth and targeted study. Lack of Evidence Because of the truncated, unfocused hearing process, testimony from important stakeholders and experts was curtailed or absent from the study. Numerous government departments and agencies were not heard from during the review. This list includes, but is not limited to:
It is concerning that while ostensibly studying how the government could ensure the protection of First Nations rights through CEAA, the committee did not hear from any Métis and Inuit representatives. The Committee heard only from the Assembly of First Nations, choosing not to consult regional Councils or individual First Nations. Except for the province of Saskatchewan, provincial environmental administrators did not attend the review as witnesses, despite extensive discussion from other witnesses of federal responsibility, duplication of processes at the provincial and federal levels and the topic of harmonization of provincial and federal assessment regimes. The Regulatory Advisory Committee (RAC), a multi-stakeholder committee established in 1992 to advise the Minister on the regulations and to provide guidance on the implementation of the CEAA was not invited. The RAC has significant experience in environmental assessment policy in Canada, and has undertaken valuable, periodic reviews of CEAA and its regulations. As a multi-stakeholder forum, it has used consensus among a diverse group of key stakeholders to advance the practice of environmental assessment in Canada. There were no representatives from communities affected currently or in the past by environmental assessment, nor were there representatives from labour. New Democrats would also like to note that there were significant regional, linguistic and gender imbalances with respect to the witnesses who appeared. Furthermore compounding the problems posed by limited evidence received by the Committee was the fact that the Committee did not undertake any travel as a means of collecting additional evidence during public hearings around the country, as was done during the 2000 study of CEAA. Fundamental Flaws in the Report The report as it has been drafted contains fundamental flaws with respect to its findings and recommendations. Despite discussion at Committee of crucial environmental assessment tools such as strategic and regional assessments, the need for cumulative impact assessment, meaningful public participation, participant funding, and the importance of and duty to consult First Nations, these topics are not raised in the findings of the report. Committee members also heard repeatedly about the need for adequate funding for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, including from industry representatives. This fact appears nowhere in the report. Moreover, industry witnesses also testified that proper, early environmental assessment, including public participation on the long-term social impacts of a project, assures that projects have the social licence needed to move forward in the best interests of Canadians. Yet this concept is absent from the report. Nor is evidence of the concerns expressed by witnesses regarding recent changes which were made to the federal environmental assessment rules contained in the omnibus budget bill (mentioned above) included. The report cites “testimony” and recommendations made by a government member of the Committee during the questioning of a witness. The NDP feels it is highly inappropriate to cite, as justification for conclusions, statements made by Committee members during the public hearings, in lieu of actual testimony from experts on the issue. Committee members may have opinions, but as Members of the Committee, they are not testifying, and there is no opportunity for other Members to question the validity or relevance of their statements. New Democrats find this to be highly concerning as it flies in the face of any recognizable purpose of a legislative review that engages experts from around the country and stands as an affront to the testimony presented and to the Parliamentary process. In light of the concerns outlined above, the NDP recommends that: The Committee call on the Government to delay any changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act until a thorough and comprehensive review that addresses the concerns detailed above is concluded and reported. Prior to any changes to the act, the government conduct robust, national, meaningful public consultations and the government fulfill its constitutional duty to consult First Nations communities. The Committee continue the study of CEAA, with revised objectives in terms of goals and evidentiary expectations; The witnesses listed above be invited to appear; The Committee present in the House a supplementary report based on the findings and conclusions of this revised study. |