Feds propose sweeping changes to environmental review process

The Canadian government has outlined broad changes to the federal environmental assessment process as part of a wide-ranging omnibus budget bill.

As long promised, the government is moving towards a one-project, one-review system with a clearly defined timeline — but the proposed changes contained in the bill go even further. Bill C-38 scraps the old Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) entirely and replaces it with a new CEAA that enshrines the government’s vision of what environmental assessments should cover, who should do the assessment and how they should be done. 

The act gives the federal government the authority to accept a provincial environmental review as equivalent to a federal assessment, and thereby meet requirements of the CEAA. The government has said this will only happen where provincial regulations are in-line with federal ones, but it is not yet clear how much, or if provinces will have to modify their current environmental assessment regimes.

With provinces covering many assessments, the federal government will concentrate on “major projects” with greater potential environmental and economic impact, while many smaller projects will be exempt from federal  environmental assessments altogether. It is not clear how the government plans to determine which projects require federal assessments, and which require no assessment at all.

And while the details of which projects get assessed are unclear, the bill does make it clear that the cabinet has greater powers in making that determination, as well as the right to supersede decisions of the National Energy Board. 

The proposed changes set clear timelines for the process, requiring a decision to be made on whether an environmental assessment is needed within 45 days, while actual assessments will be limited to one year for regular assessments and two years for more detailed panel reviews. The government also plans to set legally binding timelines for some permitting processes, including the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The government has not outlined what happens if assessments do not finish within the prescribed timelines.

Those providing input into the process is also set to be limited. Environmental assessments will only be reviewed by three departments — the National Energy Board, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission — as opposed to the more than 40 that previously participated. Participation in hearings will also be limited to those directly impacted by the project, which could hinder environmental groups from participating, but it’s still unclear how the government plans to define who is directly impacted.

But while it is limiting participation, the plan calls for better integration of Aboriginal consultations in the new review process. The government plans to provide funding to support Aboriginal consultations, have a clearly appointed department or agency that will help coordinate a review and set clear criteria for consultations.

The government plans to introduce enforceable decision statements in the environmental review process, which would mean follow-up programs to see that project environmental effects and mitigation efforts fit predictions, and the possibility of laying fines of up to $400,000 if things don’t match up.

Bill C-38 introduces changes to the long-standing Fisheries Act, limiting its focus to major waterways and to fish species of commercial, recreational or aboriginal value. 

Mining and exploration groups across the country, including the Mining Association of Canada, the Mining Association of British Columbia and the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia, all welcomed the announcement and the move to more certainty and predictability in the environmental review process.

Environmental and opposition groups have criticized the introduction of the legislation within the greater budget as an attempt to stifle debate, and criticized the proposed changes as attempts to reduce environmental regulations and standards, and generally weaken Canada’s environmental laws.