 | A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.(October 2012) |
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) (the Act) and its regulations established the legislative basis for the federal practice of environmental assessment in most regions of Canada from 2012 to 2019. It was repealed with the coming into force of the Impact Assessment Act on August 28, 2019.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37 (CEAA) is an Act of Parliament that was passed by the Government of Canada in 1992. [1] The Act requires federal departments, including Environment Canada, agencies, and Crown corporations to conduct environmental assessments for proposed projects where the federal government is the proponent or where the project involves federal funding, permits, or licensing. The purposes of the Act were set out as follows: (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.
The original version of the Act was repealed in 2012 and re-written by the Harper government. The new law came into effect on July 6, 2012. [2]
There are marked 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). The new Act omits the preamble and statement of purpose. 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. The Regulations Designating Physical Activities document (RDPA) describes the projects covered by the new Act. The new Act limits assessment just to the type of projects listed in this regulation (and its amendments).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The new Act decreases initial input from biologists and accelerates the movement of the project to the legal hearing stage. Upon receipt of the project description, the agency has ten 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 completion 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.
The new Act limits public input. The general public is allowed 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"
Both the old and new Act require 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 Minister 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 forced to make a decision by Congress
In 2016, the government of Justin Trudeau held a discussion about the CEAA and the RDPA. They then proposed the Impact Assessment Act. [3]
The purpose of CEAA 2012 is to:
CEAA 2012 applies to projects described in the RDPA, namely physical activities summarized therein. [5]
When the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) is the responsible authority for a designated project that is described in the RDPA, [5] upon acceptance of a project description, an analysis is undertaken by the Agency to decide if a federal environmental assessment is required. This step does not apply to designated projects regulated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for which conducting an environmental assessment is mandatory when such a project is designated.
The Minister of the Environment may designate a project when carrying out of the project may cause adverse environmental effects, or that public concerns related to those effects warrant the designation. An environmental assessment under CEAA 2012 is required for each project designated by the Minister of the Environment.
A responsible authority ensures that an environmental assessment of a designated project is conducted in accordance with CEAA 2012, including ensuring the public is provided with an opportunity to participate in the environmental assessment.
Under CEAA 2012, responsible authorities can be the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board or the Agency.
Federal departments and agencies with specific expertise are required to provide information and advice that support the conduct of environmental assessments by responsible authorities.
For projects on federal lands that are not designated projects, before a federal authority or an airport authority may carry out the project or exercise any power or perform any duty or function that will permit the project to be carried out, the authority will have to be satisfied that carrying out the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. This also applies if the Governor in Council has decided the project's significant adverse environmental effects are justified in the circumstances. This responsibility also applies to projects outside of Canada that are federally funded or for which the Government of Canada is the proponent.
The following factors must be considered:
There are two types of environmental assessment conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012):
An environmental assessment by a responsible authority is conducted by the Agency, the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Information on the process for environmental assessments conducted by the Agency is provided below. Information with respect to environmental assessments conducted by the National Energy Board or Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may be found on their websites.
An environmental assessment by review panel is conducted by a panel of individuals appointed by the Minister of the Environment and supported by the Agency.
Both types of assessments can be conducted by the federal government alone or in cooperation with another jurisdiction, such as a province.
Upon acceptance of a complete project description, the Agency has 45 calendar days, including a 20-day public comment period, to determine whether a federal environmental assessment is required.
An environmental assessment conducted by the Agency must be completed within 365 days. This timeline starts when a notice of the commencement of the environmental assessment is posted on the Registry Internet site and ends when the Minister of the Environment makes a decision as to whether the designated project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
The Minister of the Environment may refer a project to a review panel within 60 days of the notice of commencement of an environmental assessment. An environmental assessment by a review panel needs to be completed within 24 months. This timeline starts when the proposed project is referred to a review panel and ends when the Minister of the Environment issues the environmental assessment decision statement.
For every environmental assessment:
Environment and Climate Change Canada, is the department of the Government of Canada responsible for coordinating environmental policies and programs, as well as preserving and enhancing the natural environment and renewable resources. It is also colloquially known by its former name, Environment Canada.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is the primary law in the United States for protecting and conserving imperiled species. Designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation", the ESA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973. The Supreme Court of the United States described it as "the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation". The purposes of the ESA are two-fold: to prevent extinction and to recover species to the point where the law's protections are not needed. It therefore "protect[s] species and the ecosystems upon which they depend" through different mechanisms. For example, section 4 requires the agencies overseeing the Act to designate imperiled species as threatened or endangered. Section 9 prohibits unlawful ‘take,’ of such species, which means to "harass, harm, hunt..." Section 7 directs federal agencies to use their authorities to help conserve listed species. The Act also serves as the enacting legislation to carry out the provisions outlined in The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Supreme Court found that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." The Act is administered by two federal agencies, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). FWS and NMFS have been delegated by the Act with the authority to promulgate any rules and guidelines within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to implement its provisions.
The Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 is a United States environmental law which was passed to work in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). One of the two major purposes of the Act was to authorize the creation of an Office of Environmental Quality to provide the professional and administrative staff needed for the Council on Environmental Quality. The second major purpose was to "assure that each Federal department and agency conducting or supporting public works activities which affect the environment shall implement the policies under existing law". To accomplish these purposes, the act gave more responsibilities to the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in his new role as director of the Office of Environmental Quality.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a United States law, passed by the 94th United States Congress in 1976 and administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that regulates chemicals not regulated by other U.S. federal statutes, including chemicals already in commerce and the introduction of new chemicals. When the TSCA was put into place, all existing chemicals were considered to be safe for use and subsequently grandfathered in. Its three main objectives are to assess and regulate new commercial chemicals before they enter the market, to regulate chemicals already existing in 1976 that posed an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment", as for example PCBs, lead, mercury and radon, and to regulate these chemicals' distribution and use.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is a United States federal law that set up the basic U.S. system of pesticide regulation to protect applicators, consumers, and the environment. It is administered and regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the appropriate environmental agencies of the respective states. FIFRA has undergone several important amendments since its inception. A significant revision in 1972 by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA) and several others have expanded EPA's present authority to oversee the sales and use of pesticides with emphasis on the preservation of human health and protection of the environment by "(1) strengthening the registration process by shifting the burden of proof to the chemical manufacturer, (2) enforcing compliance against banned and unregistered products, and (3) promulgating the regulatory framework missing from the original law".
The Sydney Tar Ponds were a hazardous waste site on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia, Canada.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is an act of the 36th Parliament of Canada, whose goal is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention and to protect the environment, human life and health from the risks associated with toxic substances. It covers a diversity of activities that can affect human health and the environment, and acts to address any pollution issues not covered by other federal laws. As such, the act is a "catch all" piece of legislation that ensures potentially toxic substances are not inadvertently exempt from federal oversight as a result of unforeseen legislative loopholes.
Environmental Impact assessment (EIA) is the assessment of the environmental consequences of a plan, policy, program, or actual projects prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. In this context, the term "environmental impact assessment" is usually used when applied to actual projects by individuals or companies and the term "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA) applies to policies, plans and programmes most often proposed by organs of state. It is a tool of environmental management forming a part of project approval and decision-making. Environmental assessments may be governed by rules of administrative procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making, and may be subject to judicial review.
Environmental planning is the process of facilitating decision making to carry out land development with the consideration given to the natural environment, social, political, economic and governance factors and provides a holistic framework to achieve sustainable outcomes. A major goal of environmental planning is to create sustainable communities, which aim to conserve and protect undeveloped land.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is the Canadian government agency responsible for the regulation of pest control products in Canada under the federal authority of the Pest Control Products Act and Regulations. The agency is a branch that reports to Parliament through Health Canada. The PMRA is responsible for providing access to pest management tools while minimizing the risks to human health and the environment by “using modern evidence-based scientific approaches to pesticide regulation, in an open and transparent manner”. Their main activity areas include: new product evaluation, post market review and compliance and enforcement.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law 102–580, was enacted by Congress of the United States on October 31, 1992. Most of the provisions of WRDA 1992 are administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
To protect the environment from the adverse effects of pollution, many nations worldwide have enacted legislation to regulate various types of pollution as well as to mitigate the adverse effects of pollution. At the local level, regulation usually is supervised by environmental agencies or the broader public health system. Different jurisdictions often have different levels regulation and policy choices about pollution. Historically, polluters will lobby governments in less economically developed areas or countries to maintain lax regulation in order to protect industrialisation at the cost of human and environmental health.
The Deep Geological Repository Project (DGR) was a proposal by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in 2002 for the site preparation, construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a deep geological radioactive waste disposal facility for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste (L&ILW). In 2005, the municipality of Kincardine, Ontario volunteered to host the facility located on the Bruce nuclear generating station adjacent to OPG's Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF). The facility would have managed L&ILW produced from the continued operation of OPG-owned nuclear generating stations at the Bruce, Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario. In May 2020, after 15 years of environmental assessment, OPG withdrew its application for a construction license on Saugeen Ojibway Nation Territory.
Pesticide regulation in the United States is primarily a responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In America, it was not till the 1950s that pesticides were regulated in terms of their safety. The Pesticides Control Amendment (PCA) of 1954 was the first time Congress passed guidance regarding the establishment of safe limits for pesticide residues on food. It authorized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban pesticides they determined to be unsafe if they were sprayed directly on food. The Food Additives Amendment, which included the Delaney Clause, prohibited the pesticide residues from any carcinogenic pesticides in processed food. In 1959, pesticides were required to be registered.
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is an agency of the Government of Canada responsible for federal environmental assessment process of major projects. It is part of the Environment and Climate Change Canada portfolio.
Manitoba archaeology regulations control archaeology-related activities in the province of Manitoba.
The province of New Brunswick has created and implemented various Acts, such as the Clean Environment Act, Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, throughout history to ensure that the environment is considered and protected throughout various project. These acts describe the process that will be undertaken to assess the impact of projects, and the steps to be taken when certain situations arise.
The Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act is an Act of the Parliament of Canada. This omnibus bill was introduced by Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance under Prime Minister Steven Harper's majority Conservative government as a 2012 Budget Implementation Act. Bill C-38 was given Royal Assent on June 29, 2012. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 attracted controversy both for their size and for the breadth of provisions contained that were not fiscally related. Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, claimed that, "[i]n spite of the fact that most Canadians have no idea how seriously Bill C-38 will affect their lives, the Senate is about to begin hearings so that Conservative Senators can vote on it as soon as possible... This railroading version of democracy is tragic for Canada."
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)