Talk:Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012

Untitled
Differences between the new act, the Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (sc2012 c-19) and the previous act, the Environmental Assessment Act (sc 1992 c-37).

Difference in purpose

New act omits the preamble. This stated that the purpose of the act is (1) to achieve sustainable development that conserves environmental quality by integrating environmental factors into planning and decision-making process, (2) exercise leadership within Canada and internationally, and (3) to provide access to information and to facilitating public participation.

Difference is projects included

Section 4 of each act is a clause that lists purposes. The new act is more restrictive in purpose. It applies to “designated projects” instead of “projects”. Public participation is “during” an environmental assessment instead of “throughout”. The new act also adds as a purpose that assessment be completed in a timely manner.

Regulations Designating Physical Activities (SOR/2012-147) describes the projects covered by the new act. The new act limits assessment just to the type of projects listed in this regulation.

The previous act applied to all projects that altered the environment. The Inclusion List Regulations (SOR/94-637) described projects for which a screening report was always required. The Inclusion List regulation was twice the size of the current list of designated physical activities. The previous Act also required a screening report for any project for which a federal department was required to issue a license or permit under the specific sections of other acts listed in the Federal Authorities Regulation (SOR/96-280). The previous act also required a modified screening report for projects where the proponent was a Crown Corporation or for projects outside of Canada or where the Government of Canada funded the project.

Ability of other departments to ignore environmental assessment

Under the previous act, other federal departments were not allowed to issue licenses and permits until any required environmental assessment was complete. Under the new act, certain other departments, specifically the National Energy Board, may issue licenses and permits without an environmental assessment, may conduct their own assessment, and may cancel existing assessments currently in process.

Basic Project Information Required

The Prescribed Information for the Description of a Designated Project Regulations (SOR/2012-148) gives the information required under the new act. A lawyer with no knowledge of biology could supply the information. Only section 17(a) question, the requirement to describe changes the project may cause to fish habitat requires knowledge of ecology. Information on environmental effects is limited to effects on fish, aquatic species, and migratory birds.

The regulations under the previous act required essentially the same information in the basic project description, except that it also required information on terrain, air, vegetation, all wildlife, and all habitats.

Comprehensive Study

Central to the previous act was a comprehensive study. What was to be included in the study was determined for each project. The agency issued a project-specific comprehensive study guideline within 90 days of receipt of the project application. The comprehensive study specified baseline data that needed to be collected, identified specific groups that needed to be consulted, and identified specific concerns for the proponent to address.

The new act does not require a comprehensive study.

Assessment Process

The new act uses a “straight to lawyers” approach. Upon receipt of the project description, the agency has 10 days to request additional information and post the project description on the internet. Following 20 days in which the public may post comments, the agency has 25 days to decide if the project requires a formal environmental assessment. Different bodies may conduct the assessment, but all assessments now follow judicial procedures of argument and counter-argument.

The previous act used a “biologist to biologist” approach. The agency had 90 days to determine if a project required a comprehensive study and to prepare project-specific impact assessment guidelines for the comprehensive study. Following competition of the comprehensive study, the agency could determine that no further review was necessary. If further review was necessary, the project could be sent to mediation or to a formal review panel.

Public Participation

The new act limits allows the public to comment on a new project during the 20 days the project is open for comment on the internet. During the formal review, only those who are “directly affected” by the project may participate. The legal meaning of “directly affected” in this context refers generally to persons who own property within one kilometer of the project.

Under the previous act, the project description was posted on the internet immediately, but the main source of public input was the consultation process described in the project-specific guidelines for any project that required a comprehensive study. The general rule was to actively inform the public and to solicit concerns. This included information sessions where the proponent would make a presentation and then solicit comments. The guidelines would list the municipal governments and tribal councils that must be consulted. For projects that went to formal review, the participation was open to all parties with an interest that was “neither frivolous nor vexatious”

Time Constraint

Both the old and new act requires an assessment report within 12 months. However, the new act also requires the Minister to make a decision within 24 months if the Minister has referred the matter to a review panel. Although the new law allows some extensions, the effect of a review panel failing to hear all testimony within the required time is that the Minster must reject the project application. Approval of the application in the face of an incomplete review is not a legal option for the Minister. The legal principles that apply in Canada are similar to the principles that required U.S. President Obama to reject the application for the Keystone Pipeline when force to make a decision by Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.180.220 (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105223219/http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.2/ to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.2/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105223219/http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.2/ to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Updates following the coming into force of Bill C-69 on August 28, 2019
For transparency purpose: I'm an employee of the Impact Assessment Agency

I would like to suggest that a mention be added to this page saying that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 was repealed with the coming into force of the Impact Assessment Act on August 28, 2019.

I would also like to suggest that information on Transition environmental assessment be added to this page.

Thank you for your consideration! Scleroux (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)