Government of Canada

 

Back Vancouver, BC

The Expert Panel for the review of environmental assessment (EA) processes met in Vancouver December 11th, 12th and 13th, 2016, for in-person sessions which included public and Indigenous presentations, a public workshop and an Indigenous open dialogue session.

The following summary presents the comments and input received throughout these in-person engagement sessions. It is intended to present the views of participants, and not the views of the Panel itself.

The summary is organized using the Panel’s “Suggested Themes for Discussion”, available on the Panel’s website at www.EAreview.ca.

The Panel wishes to thank all those who participated for sharing their expertise and experience at these sessions.

Environmental Assessment in Context

Public sessions - December 11th and 12th, 2016

The Panel heard that sustainability and sustainable development should be the ultimate, overarching goal of EA instead of determining the significance of negative effects. Participants indicated there is a need to clarify the purpose(s) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012) and to have the purpose(s) specifically addressed in the EA review process.

Some groups suggested that impacts to Indigenous rights should not be examined through the EA process, while others suggested that impacts on rights should be assessed. The Panel heard that there is a need to focus EA on preserving and protecting the health of the environment and people, on addressing cumulative effects, and on prioritizing the environment over economic considerations. The Panel heard about the importance of transparency and independence and that decision-making should be free from politics.

The Panel also heard that the precautionary approach should be adopted and that proponents should have the burden of proof to show no harm.

Indigenous sessions – December 11th and 13th, 2016

The Panel heard that EA processes need to become more rigorous, and incorporate sustainability as a key principle. Participants were of the view that sustainability should be the focus of a technical review to help inform decision-making. On a related note, participants thought that the test for whether an EA gets approved should not be how much damage or pressure resources can take. Participants also thought that climate change must be considered within future EA processes.

The Panel also heard how EA processes have functioned as mechanisms to dispossess Indigenous Peoples of their lands, and has led to sustained societal impacts. As a result, EA has become a discredited institution and the credibility gap between Indigenous Peoples and the government is increasing. Participants thought that it is time to create a situation where all parties benefit.

Overarching Indigenous Considerations

Public sessions - December 11th and 12th, 2016

The Panel heard that Canada is not meeting its obligations with regards to the duty to consult, and that Provinces and others, including proponents, are not an adequate replacement for the Crown in carrying out its duty. The Panel heard that changes to EA processes should enable full implementation of the duty to consult and integrate the principle of free, prior, and informed consent for Indigenous Peoples.

The Panel heard about the lack of Indigenous capacity and funding to adequately participate in EA processes. Participants provided examples of Indigenous communities conducting their own EAs as a way to address the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The Panel also heard that changes to the EA processes should reflect UNDRIP, the Government of Canada’s commitments to reconciliation and a nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous sessions – December 11th and 13th, 2016

The Panel heard that there is a need for a more meaningful inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in EA processes from the ground up, including Indigenous Peoples’ right to participate in decision-making. Participants also thought that early engagement and inclusion of Indigenous Peoples needs to occur in culturally appropriate ways. Participants also expressed concern that there is currently an assumption that all Indigenous groups have the same reasons for supporting or rejecting a project – a more nuanced and respectful understanding of the differences between Indigenous groups needs to be built and reflected within EA processes. Participants also made the point that participation in current EA processes, and particularly the review panel process, can take away resources and focus from other sections of Indigenous communities and programming; in other words, communities make sacrifices to participate in EA.

The Panel heard that consultation is often perceived to be an afterthought in EA processes, and that the government has no ability to negotiate accommodation to impacts on Indigenous rights and title. Participants thought that there needs to be a process to develop a mutual understanding of what consultation is and what it means, so that federal, provincial and Indigenous governments can start to share expectations and build consultation processes together. With respect to accommodation, participants thought that an insurance fund for accommodation should be developed, so that there would be compensation available if the project causes significant impacts, including harm to cultural and psychological well-being. The Panel also heard that an EA determination of “not significant” does not mean that there will not be impacts to Indigenous rights; the process must become better at scoping and assessing impacts to rights, with input from the affected Indigenous groups. Further, participants cautioned that potential impacts to rights can be distinct from environmental effects.

Participants thought that integrating consultation into EA processes is not sufficient if the government only focuses on consulting with Indian Act bands.

Participants explained that some aspects of the duty to consult are currently delegated to the proponent, who does not have the proper expertise. Participants thought that the duty to consult needs to be addressed within legislation while still ensuring enough flexibility for unique arrangements. It is important to leave room in the reconciliation process for creative approaches that government and Indigenous groups can engage in together. Participants also thought that the current lack of funding and capacity has resulted in threats to Indigenous rights and title.

The Panel heard that the changes to CEAA, 2012 interfered with the obligations and spirit of comprehensive treaties and land claims agreements that were previously negotiated. The changes were made with no consideration of how treaties would interact with EA processes and legislation. Participants also stated that EA processes should be not be allowed to interfere with the treaty rights of Indigenous Peoples to use natural resources, and that one order of government should not unilaterally make decisions that impact treaties.

The Panel heard that UNDRIP needs to be addressed within EA processes. Participants shared their views on what criteria for consent could include, and when consent would be required. Participants suggested that consent be legislated, which would require more upfront work by proponents and governments but result in long term benefits, and build respect for Indigenous jurisdiction and institutions into the system. Participants also expressed their view that government must undertake a process to find out what consent means to Indigenous Peoples across Canada, and come to a mutual understanding.

Participants stated that nation-to-nation relationships should be respected throughout EA processes. With respect to developing a nation-to-nation relationship, participants thought that the government needs to ensure it is sending representatives to the table with proper authority and mandates to produce results. Participants thought that new EA processes should be built with a nation-to-nation relationship in mind. Indigenous Peoples have been around since time immemorial, as governments, and should be treated as such. Participants also said that nation-to-nation relationships can only be achieved if the government respects Indigenous rights to decision-making. The Panel also heard that consensus-based decision-making must be built into legislation in order for a true nation-to-nation relationship to be realized.

The Panel heard many different views on the role of Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) within EA processes, and how IBAs may link to consent or adequacy of consultation. Participants thought that IBAs could play a role in the process of a community providing consent, but also had reservations about the extent of that role. Participants also suggested that the negotiation of IBAs may be better placed outside of EA processes.

The Panel heard that Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK) is a powerful and efficient vehicle for sharing information across participants, including decision-makers, in EA and regulatory processes. Participants stated that ITK is essential in the early planning phases of project design, and should be respected and treated as equal to other forms of knowledge, including Western science, throughout EA processes. The Panel also heard that there are conflicts between Western science and ITK, which has an impact on decision-making. Participants also thought that ITK and Western science should not be compartmentalized, as ITK is science, based on thousands of years of observation. Intergenerational knowledge should also play a role in EA processes, and it should be recognized that Indigenous knowledge comes in many different forms.

The Panel heard that information related to land use is never shared between proponents, or government and proponents, no matter how many studies and maps are produced. Information related to land use should be shared in order to reduce duplication of work by Indigenous groups. Participants thought that government has, or should have, privacy legislation to protect sensitive information. On a related note, participants said that ITK could be summarized and/or simplified to preserve its confidentiality and protect sensitive information.

Planning of Environmental Assessment

Public sessions - December 11th and 12th, 2016

Participants indicated that EAs should include an assessment of all aspects of human health and safety, including noise; effects to water quality; effects to air quality; socio-economic effects; and climate change effects. Effects to species at risk and ITK should also be considered in EA.

The Panel heard that there should be specific triggers for regional EAs with diverse panels hired to conduct regional studies. These studies must be adequately resourced through contributions from proponents. Participants pointed out the use of regional studies as an important tool for addressing cumulative environmental change, and in particular climate change and the need for greater integration of land-use planning and monitoring. The Panel heard that regional studies allow decision-makers to consider regional changes and take a longer-term approach to cumulative regional impacts.

The Panel also heard that climate change is the ultimate cumulative effect and that both strategic and regional environmental assessments should be developed with climate change as a significant focus. The Panel heard that good EA processes should look at all greenhouse gas emissions - upstream, direct, and downstream. These assessments should set emission targets for regions or sectors. Participants also indicated that more projects that emit greenhouse gases need to be captured by EA processes and that there should be a federal trigger for large emitters. The Panel heard that there is mistrust in the process when projects are approved regardless of emissions.

The Panel heard that alternatives and mitigation should be considered throughout the lifetime of projects, in line with Canada’s commitments to climate change mitigation. The Panel also heard that EAs should consider how climate change may affect a project and socio-economic conditions in a region.

Indigenous sessions – December 11th and 13th, 2016

Participants spoke to the need for appropriate baselines to be established. Participants thought that projects should be assessed against the previous, pre-development environment. Participants explained that environments have a certain carrying capacity for change, and current EA methodology does not reflect this.

The Panel heard that current EA processes do not adequately consider effects to health, socio-economics, cultural and spiritual conditions, or cumulative effects. Participants did not see enough rigour applied to current scoping and valued components selection processes.

Participants identified a critical need to have regional and/or strategic EAs conducted before projects are proposed. Project-based EA processes are not the appropriate tool to deal with problems related to the cumulative effects of previous development. Participants suggested that more streamlined project-based EAs could be carried out if regional and/or strategic assessment were carried out first. This could be an incentive for provinces to enter into regional assessments with the federal government. Regional EAs would also help inform Indigenous groups about what is happening in their territory, and thus enable them to make better decisions.

Participants mentioned that the “need for” and “alternatives to” projects, that existed previously, should be brought back and would help achieve free, prior and informed consent.

Conduct of Environmental Assessment

Public sessions - December 11th and 12th, 2016

The Panel heard about the potential bias or perception of bias related to research that is paid for by proponents. Participants recommended that an independent body (government or otherwise), funded by proponents, conduct science at an arm’s length to maintain transparency. The Panel also heard that science funding to government departments and agencies be restored and that data from citizen scientists should be assessed in a sound, fair and balanced way. Some participants were of the view that proponent-led EISs are not inherently biased because they are conducted by consultants and not proponents.

The Panel heard that the current EA practice where the proponent is involved in developing the EIS creates an adversarial process. Participants suggested that an EIS could be jointly planned (what, how and who), and could be conducted under the oversight of the responsible agency.

The Panel heard that information produced during the conduct of EA can be a massive burden for the panel, experts, witnesses, and citizens to review, comprehend and evaluate inside the mandated time frame and with the resources available. The Panel also heard that proponents’ desire to streamline and speed up the process can compromise the integrity and ability of EA’s to meet the goals of public participation and environmental protection. Participants indicated that EA review panels should be able to request additional time and/or resources where justified by the nature, complexity, and/or size of the project. Additionally, where research emerges that challenges the veracity of the assumptions and conclusions of an assessment, there should be a pause or reset button until a further determination can be made.

The Panel heard that the independent expert panel process for conducting federal EAs under CEAA 2102 has been a complete failure in reaching the goal of supporting economic growth. Participants recommended that the panel review process be eliminated because it is combative, divisive and ineffective. The Panel heard that panel processes have become a platform for opponents of projects to create delays until projects are no longer feasible, to impose conditions which make projects not economically viable, or simply to stop the development altogether.

Participants questioned the independence of panels when they are supported by a secretariat made up primarily of government employees with institutional bias. The Panel also heard that EA review panels lack expert members. The Panel heard that review panels are unreasonably expensive for project proponents who hold much of the financial burden and none of the control. Participants noted that review panels are not accountable to anyone; after submitting a final report, the panel is dissolved and no longer exists.

Participants recommended that review panels should be replaced with an expert committee of government regulators with expertise to conduct fulsome EAs. The expert committee should deliver the appropriate levels of consultation and accommodation for both Indigenous peoples and the public. Participants also recommended assessment councils: temporary, ad -hoc groups of federal, provincial, Indigenous and other experts, appointed by all relevant jurisdictions, to compile and conduct research to establish baseline scenarios and predictions, conduct technical aspects of assessments, and produce assessment reports for consideration by a reviewing body.

The Panel heard that the NEB should not be responsible for the environmental aspects of pipeline reviews and that its role should be re-scoped. The Panel heard that the NEB has not demonstrated competence in science-related matters and that review panels should be comprised of scientists and citizens with scientific expertise who are unbiased. The Panel also heard that proponents such as port authorities should not be both proponent and regulator.

Participants suggested that more Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency staff should be dedicated to Indigenous consultation, developing expertise in integrating ITK and building relationships. They indicated that most of the human and financial resources tend to go into science-based EA, whereas a large percentage of the workload is related to Indigenous consultation.

The Panel heard there is a need to streamline EA guidance and requirements for consultation and carrying out EAs, and that guidelines are required for proponents, consultants and governments on their role and what should be included in EA.

Indigenous sessions – December 11th and 13th, 2016

The Panel heard that the roles of the various participants in EA processes need to be reshaped, including the roles of proponents, Cabinet, government, Indigenous Peoples and review panels.

Participants were of the view that currently the proponent has too active of a role through the process, from project design through to the development and submission of the EIS. Participants were of the view that the relationship between the government and the proponent is too intimate. Participants thought that the government and Indigenous Peoples need to be more involved in shaping the project description and the design of the project itself. Participants also indicated that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency should be independent from other ministries and levels of government, and that the people who write the final EA report should be entirely independent. Participants further suggested that a new EA agency needs to be developed that would have the authority to conduct all EA processes. Such an agency should be independent and free from outside pressures in making decisions. Participants also noted that Cabinet currently has too much discretion and needs to be constrained.

With respect to review panels, participants explained that any decision on how representatives are appointed to a review panel, as well as the terms of reference for a review, should be undertaken as a tripartite negotiation. Participants expressed that the NEB should not lead review panels and instead become a participant, with the option of sitting on the review panel with others. With respect to Indigenous representatives appointed to review panels, participants thought that there could be a perceived bias but that in reality the individual should have the knowledge and expertise necessary to be on the panel.

The Panel also heard that the role of a project liaison needs to be developed; this project liaison would facilitate and ensure engagement and communication between Indigenous groups, the proponent and government. Participants suggested that Indigenous groups be allowed to help with the selection of the project liaison, whether through participating in a screening process or by making the final decision.

Participants spoke to the need for more flexible timelines, or removing legislated timelines altogether. They explained that timelines are too short and rushed; they do not allow for adequate time to assess impacts to Indigenous rights and title, let alone create the conditions necessary for the building of consent or reconciliation.

Decision and Follow-up

Public sessions - December 11th and 12th, 2016

The Panel heard that there should be an established set of criteria and evidence around why decisions are made including a requirement by review panels to make clear what science it considered.

The Panel heard about the need for enhanced monitoring, reporting and enforcement. Participants provided the example of Ports who they indicated lack the ability to issue administrative monetary penalties.

The Panel heard about the lack of baseline data and independent science. Participants gave the example of Woodfibre where the baseline data in Howe was outdated and did not reflect the recovery of the herring population.

The Panel heard about the need to give Indigenous communities decision-making power. Participants noted that while governments can grant permits for resource development, only Indigenous communities can grant permission for development projects to proceed.

Participants discussed the need for economic and environmental trade-off decisions and rationale to be articulated clearly by both review panels and the federal Cabinet. EA is intended to be an objective and evidence-based process to determine environmental effects and mitigate. This is a process that should be informed by experienced staff, expert science and social science. The Panel heard that transparency and credibility enhances the acceptability of EA process. The Panel also heard that vested interests should not override environment concerns. The Panel heard recommendations for shared decision-making when there are competing interests; for example, municipalities are a natural body to deal with local interests.

The Panel heard that there is a black box related to significance determination that is arbitrary and ambiguous; the determination requires objective criteria such as magnitude, duration, and reversibility, against which EA practitioners must defend their determination. Further, the Panel heard that panel reports are final: there is no appeal process; there is no process by which to question or communicate if there is a faulty conclusion; and there is no mechanism with which to correct an error. Participants recommended an independent tribunal to hear appeals from any party or public and to mediate and arbitrate where government consensus cannot be reached. This would provide quality-assurance reviews.

The Panel was cautioned to avoid transforming environmental assessment into a permitting process which duplicates provincial responsibilities and confuses the purpose of EA. Further, some participants suggested that ‘social licence’ does not exist as a legal concept or principle and does not in substance confer a stamp of approval.

Participants recommended independent science-based decision making based on scientific data that meets scientific rigours and standards. The Panel heard that an independent body should decide and justify EA decisions and that the public would like to be one of the stakeholders engaged in decision-making. The Panel also heard recommendations for a multidisciplinary advisory panel to vote on decision statements in a transparent decision-making process with clear rational. The Panel heard that EA decisions should be made by Parliament, not Cabinet. Others suggested that decisions should be made by experienced professionals, the public at large, Indigenous Peoples and other stakeholders. Participants recommended that monitoring and follow-up should be conducted by an independent authority. This independent monitoring body should be involved in monitoring long term impacts.

Indigenous sessions – December 11th and 13th, 2016

The Panel heard that the government needs to start EA processes with asking Indigenous groups what key information, including baseline data, needs to be gathered to inform and shape the assessment of a project. Participants also expressed support for developing sustainability criteria and considerations for the assessment and decision-making processes. The long term impacts of projects on local communities, which would include Indigenous and non-Indigenous, should be included in a sustainability analysis.

Participants were critical about the current state of science within current EA processes. Participants thought that there are currently massive knowledge and data gaps within EA processes, and that EA needs to start paying critical attention to major decisions that are being made in the absence of knowledge. Participants advocated for precautionary principles to be applied to EA processes to control and account for knowledge and data gaps. Participants also thought that there is a need for government to start thinking about how larger issues, such as environmental injustice and the shifting landscape of Indigenous rights and title, is taken into account in EA processes. Participants also expressed their views on how public and Indigenous information, provided through public comment periods, is considered by decision-makers. There is a sense that there is a bias with respect to this information, versus studies put forward by the proponent, whereby the public and Indigenous groups only provide “comments” which are not considered as core knowledge.

With respect to the Cabinet decision-making process, which participants pointed out is used more and more frequently, the Panel heard that there is a need for increased transparency and accountability. Participants thought that the public needs to know the information that goes before Cabinet, as well as the explicit factors that Cabinet considers in its decision-making. Furthermore, participants thought that there is a need to ensure that factors important to sustainability are considered by Cabinet, and that the reasons for Cabinet’s final decision need to be provided in a fully transparent way.

The Panel heard that Indigenous Peoples need to be involved in decision-making, and that collaborative decision-making would help with the process of reconciliation and the development of trust. With respect to decision-making, there should be transparency and clarity in the determination of significance, including clear criteria.

Participants were also concerned about the assumption that mitigation measures designed within an EA process will actually be effective. There is the additional concern that many mitigation measures are not detailed enough. Participants want mitigation plans to be rooted in science, which would include ITK.

The Panel heard that there should be active Indigenous monitoring in EA processes, and involvement in follow-up activities. Participants provided examples of Indigenous guardian programs that currently exist as a possible model to follow. Indigenous groups want to know that proponents are meeting the commitments that they made through EA processes.

Public Involvement

Public sessions - December 11th and 12th, 2016

The Panel heard that notification for public comment and participation is inadequate. It was recommended that the notification period be increased to one month and the public comment increased to a minimum of three months. The Panel heard that current participation opportunities under the federal EA process are inadequate. Formal hearings generally do not suit participation by the general public. The Panel heard that there should be a tailored approach to funding to encourage public participation. More engagement and transparency in the post-EA phase could help improve public confidence; however, avoiding duplication with Provinces is recommended. The Panel heard about the importance of early public and community involvement. It was also recommended that all information be made available on the public registry.

The Panel heard that EA legislation should be improved to protect participants from being “slap-suited” by proponents for having participated or said something about a proposed project.

Indigenous sessions – December 11th and 13th, 2016

The Panel heard that there is a personal, tangible consequence to Indigenous Peoples’ participation in EA processes; the very environment in which the review is conducted derives from a Western worldview that excludes Indigenous perspectives and worldviews.

The Panel also heard about the need for increased capacity, in the form of funding as well as other forms of support, to enable Indigenous Peoples to participate in EA processes. This is especially important for early stages of planning processes and relates to the need for upfront capacity building within communities. The current lack of capacity means that Indigenous groups cannot monitor the environmental effects of projects, nor pull information pertaining to past and existing effects into the ongoing assessment of project EAs. Participants also noted that early funding provided upfront for grassroots Indigenous organizations would help build consent, increase participation in EA processes, and thus reduce the likelihood of court challenges on EA decisions.

Participants suggested that a “proponent pays” approach to consultation with Indigenous groups within EA processes should be implemented. Funding should not be a limit to full participation in an EA, but the current reality is that many groups do not have access to adequate funding to participate in all phases.

Coordination

Public sessions - December 11th and 12th, 2016

The Panel heard that there is support for one project, one assessment and that a multijurisdictional review is a solution to address some of these issues, especially at the regional or strategic level. The Panel heard support for both substitution and equivalency. Participants recommended that the federal government expand the use of these provisions to areas outside of British Columbia. Having a single review process fulfill both federal and provincial mandates can enhance both public and industry confidence. The Panel heard that overlap and duplication does not result in better, more informed decisions. Rather, limited resources are often wasted, and interested parties, communities, proponents and reviewers are left frustrated. The Panel heard that a single coordinated process results in a more robust review of relevant project information and data. Benefits include a focused conversation, improved consultation and coordination between all parties, and a more comprehensive assessment and consideration of all the facts while retaining separate decision-making.

The Panel also heard that substitution should not be used. Participants gave the example of liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects where there is seen to be a conflict of interest because of the provincial mandate to develop LNG facilities and act as a regulator. The Panel was cautioned against EA “becoming a rubber stamp process for industry.” Participants recommended a strong federal role, with cooperative assessments as the ultimate goal, not substitution.

The Panel heard recommendations for an independent assessment authority to collaborate with jurisdictions to review and make recommendations on all levels of EA, to conduct public and Indigenous engagement, to provide secretariat support and to help develop policy and regulations. The Panel also heard about regional co-governance boards to uphold the laws of all levels of government, including reviewing and making recommendations on all levels of EA.

Indigenous sessions – December 11th and 13th, 2016

The Panel heard that the only way forward for the future of EA processes is through partnership with Indigenous groups, while recognizing their inherent jurisdiction and role in the decision-making process. Participants thought that Indigenous groups need to be involved from the very beginning and be part of the team that helps the proponent develop and review projects and collaborates on the technical review. Participants also thought that Indigenous groups should develop their own EA process that incorporates their traditional laws and values.

The Panel heard that Indigenous laws have mechanisms to engage in reciprocity and resolve conflict, and that this needs to be recognized and incorporated into future EA processes. Participants stated that the government needs to recognize inherent Indigenous jurisdiction and not “delegate” it, as it is not the place of government to do so. Participants elaborated that it is time to look to a broader transfer of jurisdiction to Indigenous communities in order to develop better processes. The Panel also heard that there is a positive obligation on behalf of the government to educate itself about the source, content and scope of Indigenous inherent jurisdiction.

The Panel heard that some Indigenous groups currently have the legal authority to conduct their own EA processes, through modern treaties or the First Nations Land Management Act, and that these processes need to be appropriately recognized and coordinated. The Panel also heard about independent EA processes conducted by Indigenous groups. Participants were clear that Indigenous Peoples have the right to develop their own processes, if they wish, and make project decisions that need to be accounted for within future EA processes.

Annex I

Public sessions - December 11th and 12th, 2016

List of Presenters

  • Eoin Finn, My Sea to Sky
  • Rob Sianchuk
  • Karina Brino and Bryan Cox, BC Mining Association
  • Trefor Smith
  • Lynn Chapman
  • Tracey Saxby, Marine Scientist Visual Science
  • Chris Quaife
  • Chris Joseph, EA practitioner and researcher
  • John McManus, Teseko Mines Chief Operating Officer
  • Glen Wonders, Gavin Dirom Association for Mineral Exploration
  • Anna Johnston, West Coast Environmental Law
  • Dawn Hoogeveen, UBC, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability
  • Denise Mullen Business Council on BC
  • Andre Sobolewski, Environmental Consultant
  • Ward Prystay, Stantec
  • Tony Crossman, Canadian Bar Association
  • Kegan Pepper-Smith Ecojustice
  • Harshan Radhakrishnan, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC
  • Mark Freeburg and Christian Baxter Teck Resources
  • Peter McCartney, Wilderness Committee
  • Candyce Batycki, Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y)
  • Chris Tollefson and Anthony Ho, BC Nature
  • Joe Foy, Wilderness Committee
  • Onni Milne
  • Carrie Brown, Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority

Workshop Participants

  • There were 31 participants.

Indigenous sessions – December 11th and 13th, 2016

List of Presenters

  • Leah George-Wilson and Andrew Beynon. Tsleil-Waututh First Nation
  • Aaron Bruce, Ratcliffe& Co LLP on behalf of Squamish Nation
  • Karyn Sharp, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
  • Jaime Sanchez, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council
  • Anne-Marie Sam and Colleen Erickson, Nak’azdli Whut’en
  • Dominique Nouvet, Woodward & Co
  • Chief Joe Alphonse, Tsilqhot’in National Government
  • Aleki Tuivai, Spuzzum First Nation
  • Kelly Davison, British Columbia Métis Federation
  • Caleb Behn, Waterkeepers
  • Chief Marilyn Slett and Jess Housty, Heiltsuk Nation
  • Elvis Fjellner, Kaska Dena Council
  • Martyn Glassman, Coastal First Nations
  • Chief Darrell Bob, Xaxli’p First Nation
  • Chris Tollefson, Anthony Ho and Chad Day, Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation on behalf of Tahltan Nation
  • Carleen Thomas
  • Christopher Evans
  • Andrew Bak, Tsawwassen First Nation
  • Tamlyn Botel, Citxw Nlaka’pamux Assembly
  • Nalaine Morin, Arrowblade Consulting Services
  • Ceilidh Stubbs, Sahtu Renewable Resources Board

Open Dialogue Participants

  • There were approximately 18 participants.

Submissions Received in Vancouver

Title

Author

Date Posted

View Full Submission

Transcript - Public Presentations, Vancouver Dec 11 2016

Vancouver Transcript

February 14, 2017

Transcript - Public Presentations, Vancouver Dec 11 2016

Vancouver Transcript

January 13, 2017

Transcript - Indigenous Presentations, Vancouver Dec 13 2016

Vancouver Transcript

January 09, 2017

Transcript - Public Presentations, Vancouver Dec 12 2016

Vancouver Transcript

January 09, 2017

Supporting documentation for Ecojustice, Vancouver Dec 20 2016

Ecojustice

January 09, 2017

Follow-up from Vancouver Presentation “Tsleil-Waututh Nation Assessment Report”

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

January 05, 2017

Follow-up from Vancouver Presentation “Tsleil-Waututh Nation Stewardship Policy”

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

January 05, 2017

Submission “Re: Environmental Assessment Process Review” for Vancouver, Dec. 12th, 2016

Canadian Bar Association

January 05, 2017

Emails sent to Expert Panel as references for presentation in Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Tracey Saxby

January 05, 2017

Handhout for presentation in Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Tracey Saxby

January 05, 2017

Speaking notes for Heiltsuk First Nation presentation in Vancouver Dec. 12, 2016

Heiltsuk First Nation

January 05, 2017

Submission to the Expert Panel Reviewing Environmental Assessment Processes in Canada

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

January 05, 2017

Presentation "Toward Shared Understanding" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Stewart Muir with Resource Works

January 05, 2017

Stantec Presentation at December 12, 2016 Session in Vancouver Received Dec. 20, 2016

Ward Prystay, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. and Sandra Webster, Ph.D., R.P.Bio.

December 29, 2016

Written submission "Tsleil-Waututh Nation preliminary comments on the Review of Environmental Assessment (EA) Processess" for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

December 21, 2016

Presentation (map) for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

Ceilidh Stubbs with Sahtú Renewable Resources Board

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Indigenous Knowledge in Canadian Environmental Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

Nalaine Morin with Nlaka'pamux

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Governance in Canadian Environmental Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

Tamlyn Botel with Citxw Nlaka'pamux Assembly

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Review of the Environmental Assessment Processes" for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

Chad Day, Chris Tollefson and Anthony Ho with Tahltan First Nations

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Environmental Assessment in the Context of Reconciliation" for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

Patrick Kelly with Coastal First Nations

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Review of the Environmental Assessment Process: Presentation to the Expert Panel" for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

Andrew Bak with Tsawwassen First Nation

December 20, 2016

Presentation (map) for Vancouver, Dec 13 2016

Chief Joe Alphonse of Tsilhqot’in National Government

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Review of Environmental Assessment Processes in Canada" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Carrie Brown with Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

December 20, 2016

Written submission for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Joe Foy with Wilderness Committee

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Mark Freeburg and Christian Baxter with Teck Resources

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Canada's Environmental Assessment Process" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Harshan Radhakrishnan with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC

December 20, 2016

Written submission "Considering Climate Change in Environmental Assessments" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Kegan Pepper-Smith with Ecojustice

December 20, 2016

Written submission "Environmental Assessment Process Review" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Tony Crossman with The Canadian Bar Association

December 20, 2016

Presentation "MECC EA Expert Panel Review" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Ward Prystay with Stantec

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Canadian Environmental Assessment Act & Review Process" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Denise Mullen with Business Council of British Columbia

December 20, 2016

Preliminary written submission and supporting documents for presentation in Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Anna Johnston with West Coast Environmental Law

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Expert Panel on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Process" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Gavin C. Diron and Glen W. Wonders with Association for Mineral Exploration

December 20, 2016

Written submission "Independant Expert Panel Review Process in Environmental Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

John McManus

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Review of Environmental Assessment Processes" for Vancouver, Dec 12 2016

Roger Emsley with Against Port Expansion in the Fraser Estuary

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Restoring Trust" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Trefor Smith

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Recommendations on Environmental Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

First Nations Lands Advisory Board

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Issues with EA Process: Recommendations to make public engagement meaningful and restore public trust", Vancouver, Dec11 2016

Tracey Saxby from Visual Science

December 20, 2016

Presentation "Federal EA Panel Review" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Chris Joseph with Swift Creek Consulting

December 12, 2016

Speaker notes for the presentation "Review of the Environmental Assessment Processes" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Karyn Sharp and Jaime Sanchez with Carrier Sekani Tribal Council

December 12, 2016

"Presentation to Federal Expert Panel re Environment Assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Chris Quaife

December 12, 2016

Written Submission "Remarks to the Expert Panel" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Lynn Chapman

December 12, 2016

Presentation "Review of the Federal Environmental Assessment Process" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Karina Briño with the Mining Association BC

December 12, 2016

Presentation "Modern-day environmental assessment" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Rob Sianchuk

December 12, 2016

Presentation and speakers notes "Improving CEAA Processes" for Vancouver, Dec 11 2016

Eoin Finn with My Sea to Sky

December 12, 2016

In: | Comments are closed | What We’ve Heard – Vancouver, BC

Comments are closed.

Date modified: