ENVI Committee Report

Dissenting Opinion by the Liberal Party of Canada on the Report of the Statutory Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

The Liberal Party of Canada presents this opinion regarding the recent study on the Statutory Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, as, in our opinion:

1. a framework was not developed using a systematic method from the testimony heard (i.e. the process was not an evidence-based approach);
2. testimony was limited;
3. the report does not accurately reflect all views presented by witnesses, and we fear will be used to weaken (CEAA) (e.g. ``Remove Unnecessary Steps`` is the title of a heading on page 8, and Recommendation 3 says, ``the requirement for a consideration of alternatives to the project, which is currently required during the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act screenings, be eliminated from the Act``); and
4. mere wordsmithing (e.g. title: ``Protecting the Environment, Managing our Resources`` and ``Canadians have a rich environmental heritage that we are justifiably proud of; there is a broad sentiment toward ensuring development does not irresponsibly degrade that natural heritage for future generations.``) will not hide the fact that testimony regarding the environment and the need for better protection is largely not included in the report.

The Statutory Review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act offered the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development the opportunity to assess whether or not there needed to be changes to the current Act in order to help meets its goals. All witnesses agreed changes were necessary; unfortunately, not all views were included in the Committee`s report, but rather those that focussed on efficiency and reduced timelines. It therefore appears that this report will be used to justify changes to CEAA that in our opinion will weaken environmental assessment legislation (e.g. Recommendation 10 says ``that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency focus the application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act on projects of significance.`` How will `significance` be defined?), which should, in fact, promote sustainable development, and thereby achieve or maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy.

A meaningful and serious review of CEAA would have, after having heard from witnesses, developed a framework of the stakeholders who had presented, the concerns and recommendations they made, and then determined what the main themes were, were there any gaps in the testimony heard, and were further witnesses required to address any such gaps? Unfortunately, an evidence-based approach was not used, and hence, the scope of the study, and stakeholders from whom we heard, were limited. We think it is extremely unfortunate that witnesses who took the time and effort to prepare testimony, and appear before Committee may not see their concerns and recommendations reflected in the Committee`s report.

As it is impossible to address all concerns regarding the report in a limited dissenting report, let us draw attention to three specific concerns: (1) possible reduced public participation in any environmental assessment, which we would see as undemocratic, unfortunate, and poor for the economy, environment, and society; (2) possible reduced Aboriginal consultation (e.g. Recommendation 15 says, ``streamline aboriginal consultation``), which we would consider a breach of duty to consult, and completely unacceptable; and (3) possible increased ministerial powers (e.g. Recommendation 2 says, ``and more authority to the Minister with respect to major projects, which would remove the two-step decision making process after a comprehensive study, where the Minister makes an environmental assessment decision and then the responsible authority or authorities make environmental assessment decisions.``) which we would see as potentially disrespectful of stakeholders` legitimate concerns, with the possibility of over-riding scientific evidence.

Major gaps of the Committee`s report are its failure to address cumulative impacts, an issue which the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development drew attention to in his October, 2011 Report, and strategic environmental assessments in a significant way.

From the lack of framework, limited testimony, and the failure to include testimony on all sides of the issue, it appears that the government is intent on weakening CEAA. Should the government adopt such a course of action-under the guise of streamlining the process--we run the risk of loss of natural life support systems and other ecosystem failures.  We also run the risk of slowing down the process through possible conflicts and lawsuits, especially where constitutional rights and public concerns are not adequately addressed.

We therefore recommend that:

• the government affirm a strong role in environmental protection and assessment;
• environmental assessment processes be standardised among jurisdictions, and strengthened to promote sustainable development, and to leave a positive environmental and economic legacy;
• the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency be the responsible authority in relation to the majority of assessments, and that its funding be increased;
• ambiguity in the current CEAA legislation be clarified, so long as it enhances the effectiveness and fairness of the environmental assessment process;
• the federal government work with relevant jurisdictions to enable regional cumulative effects assessment frameworks that can efficiently manage provincial and federal responsibilities;
• aboriginal people`s constitutionally-protected rights are honourably and meaningfully addressed in the environmental assessment process;
• applicants be required to disclose all possible options available for a project, based on cultural, economic, environmental, and social considerations; and
• the federal government, in cooperation with any relevant jurisdiction, put in place regional monitoring programs to address cumulative impacts.

Our hope is that Canada have the most comprehensive environmental assessment system process in the world: namely, allowing all stakeholders to feel that their voices have been heard and respected; ensuring environmental protection and sustainability; promoting projects that contribute to our economic well-being, while conserving the environment and protecting human health; and allowing development that meets the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations.

Unfortunately, the government appears intent on allowing the ``pendulum to swing too far`` in the direction of economic interests, and in so doing, potentially puts our one, and only environment, which we bequeath to our children and grandchildren, at risk. We must remember that, ``We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."