By Chris Tollefson for IRPP.

The Trudeau government has recently announced a sweeping review process that could culminate in what has been described as “the most fundamental transformation of federal environmental law in a generation.” This review, among other things, will determine the fate of the controversial law that governs federal environmental assessments, known as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012).

Ironically, CEAA, 2012, a statute that the Harper government radically revamped to be industry-friendly, nowadays has very few friends. Even key industry insiders admit that the legislation, aimed primarily at expediting the approval of major new resource development projects, has been a spectacular failure. Not only are many major environment assessments (EAs) that are underway under CEAA, 2012 stalled, mired in controversy, tied up in litigation (or all of the above), but more importantly, Canadians have lost trust in the way we assess and make decisions about these projects.

Can CEAA, 2012 be renovated, or is it a tear-down? There are at least ten good reasons to believe the latter.

1. Trust. During the last federal election, a key theme that resonated with many voters was Mr. Trudeau’s claim that the institutions and processes we have put in place to assess major new projects have lost the trust of Canadians. Once lost, trust is not something that is easily regained. Band-Aid solutions that seek to remedy the deep-seated flaws of processes by annexing new reviews (such as creating a new consultation panel after the NEB’s review of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project), have little or no chance of restoring trust let alone the social licence upon which such projects must ultimately depend.
2. The need for a new approach to EA. Our current EA system is primarily focused on identifying whether proposed projects will have “significant” adverse environmental effects. This approach is misguided. Large, controversial projects should not be able to secure approval simply because the proponent’s scientists manage to persuade federal regulators that the predicted adverse effects of a project fall below this ill-defined “significance” threshold. We need assessments to do more than generate predictions about the significance of a project’s adverse effects. Future assessments should instead ask, as Robert B. Gibson, Meinhard Doelle and A. John Sinclair advocate, will this project make a net contribution to our sustainability as a nation? This question becomes especially critical post-Paris. In Warren Buffett’s words: “Predicting rain doesn’t count. Building arks does.”
3. The National Energy Board. Under CEAA, 2012, the National Energy Board (NEB) was given exclusive jurisdiction over federal EAs involving pipelines and other major energy projects. This was a job the NEB neither wanted nor was suited to. Traditionally, its wheelhouse has been technical issues, such as pipeline thickness requirements, not the value-laden or science-driven questions that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is more accustomed to dealing with. And while the NEB approves projects based on a “public interest” test, it has tended to regard the public interest as being largely synonymous with the interests of western Canadian energy producers. To secure the trust of Canadians, federal EAs need to be conducted by an agency that has the expertise and the independence from the interests it is charged with regulating.
4. Catastrophic but “unlikely” project effects. Increasingly, companies have been able to persuade the NEB to interpret CEAA, 2012 in ways that undermine its most basic purposes, including its obligation to assess projects in a manner consistent with the precautionary principle. For instance, in the Northern Gateway and TMX review processes, proponents of the projects argued that they should not be required to model the effects of a large catastrophic oil spill because the odds of such a spill were not “likely” (i.e., less than 50 percent probable). As BC Nature argued in its legal challenge against the Northern Gateway approval, such an interpretation of CEAA, 2012 which the NEB accepted, deprives the ultimate decision maker (a responsible minister or the cabinet) of key information about the potential catastrophic impacts of a project, simply because the disaster is not statistically likely to happen.
5. Federal leadership. For major projects, especially those with serious climate change implications, the federal government should not allow the provinces simply to take on responsibility, or substitute (“sub in”) for doing the required federal EA. The federal government gave itself the power to agree to substituted EA’s under CEAA, 2012, primarily at the urging of the province of British Columbia. Since then, B.C. has been given permission to sub in for the federal government on fourteen occasions; mainly on mines and liquid natural gas project assessments. These delegation arrangements raise serious public trust issues, particularly given the perception that provincial assessments are less rigorous and more prone to regulatory capture. A case in point is theTaseko mine review that swiftly secured EA approval from B.C., but was later twice turned down by federal EA assessors. A new generation EA system should encourage mutual cooperation and integration, and eschew delegation of key assessment duties.
6. Provincial leadership. For similar reasons, the provinces should not hand off the ball to federal agencies to do EAs that profoundly affect provincial interests. Effective EA require both levels of government to show leadership. At around the same time that the B.C. government was gearing up to lobby Ottawa for the right to sub in for the federal government under CEAA, 2012, it also inked an agreement with the NEB that delegated to the feds the province’s power to assess and render an EA decision on all future major energy projects (including Northern Gateway and TMX). In a powerfully worded decision, the B.C. Supreme Court recently called this agreement an “abdication” of provincial responsibility. B.C. now finds itself in the unenviable and difficult position of conducting its own assessment of the Northern Gateway and TMX applications, after the fact.
7. Cumulative effects. CEAA, 2012 fails almost completely to grapple with one of the most pervasive and vexing issues in environmental assessment: the phenomenon of cumulative effects—predicted changes to the environment from a proposed project in conjunction with past, present, and future projects or other activities in the same region. For those who work in EA, the pressing need to be more rigorous and systematic about how we account for cumulative effects is beyond dispute. In Northern Gateway, one of the few cases where a federal agency found that there were likely to be significant adverse cumulative effects on an endangered species (the iconic Woodland Caribou), that same agency recommended that the effects were “justified in the circumstances” without offering reasons other than the project was in the public interest. We need to fundamentally rethink the way we assess and make decisions about cumulative effects. And because the nature of those effects can often implicate national interests, it is essential that the federal government take leadership.
8. Aboriginal rights and title. Some of the loudest voices in the chorus of those calling for the complete repeal ofCEAA, 2012 are Indigenous Peoples. And understandably so. There is complete and utter confusion over the role of EA authorities, as opposed to other processes and venues, in discharging the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult. This is a key issue that the Federal Court of Appeal addressed in its recent decision in the Northern Gateway case. Now that Canada has finally adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is time for it to turn its mind to how to redesign federal EA in a manner that complies with its legal duties and responsibilities under domestic constitutional and international law.
9. Independent science. CEAA, 2012 depends heavily on the science put forward by industrial proponents and their hired consultants. It is then largely left to the community organizations, conservation groups and First Nations to bring forward scientific evidence that casts doubt on the proponent’s science. This model assumes that such groups have the capacity and opportunity to present competing science; it also assumes that the process will assess and weigh these competing scientific perspectives in a sound, fair and balanced way. The recently concluded NEB assessment in TMX underscores just how misplaced these assumptions are. At a minimum, contrary to the approach adopted by the NEB in TMX, where there is conflicting scientific evidence on key issues before the reviewing agency, federal law should require that the reviewing agency order cross examination to help ensure that the applicable federal decision-maker has a proper evidentiary record upon which to make a decision about the fate of the project. Moreover, agencies should be required to render reasons in project assessments that take into account relevant independent science.
10. Paris. Perhaps the biggest single reason why CEAA, 2012 is now completely outmoded and must be re-engineered from the ground up is Canada’s new international commitments under the Paris climate agreement. This agreement obliges Canada to do its best to help keep average global temperature increases below 1.5 degrees C. This commitment means that we have now embarked on the path of decarbonizing our economy. The implications of this are only now sinking in. Going forward, the federal government, as of January 2016, now requires all new major energy projects to be assessed for their direct and upstream GHG emission effects. For projects currently being assessed under CEAA, 2012, this new climate test is being conducted as an add-on to the EA done by the originally assigned agency. The quality of these add-on climate assessments is mixed. While some have been quite sophisticated (Woodfibre and Petronas) others (including TMX and Enbridge Line 3) have been more superficial, particularly in their treatment of upstream GHG impacts. If we are to chart a realistic path towards complying with our Paris commitments, these analyses must become a central feature of a new generation federal EA law, and be carried out by credible and independent scientists.

There are many more reasons why it is necessary to re-engineer our federal environmental assessment law from the ground up. Among them is the need to make room for new ideas, perspectives and processes that can bring Canadians together. CEAA, 2012 did just the opposite. Paradoxically, however, the discontent and appetite for change that the CEAA, 2012 reforms have generated may well have created precisely the right conditions for the once-in-a-generation law-making opportunity that lies ahead.

10 Reasons #Ottawa Should Rebuild Our #Environmental #Assessment Law from Scratch https://t.co/qhToexSlQ9 … #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/r6yAeswgEx

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 18, 2016

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

At a 2012 Paddle for the Peace event the new federal  Justice Minister Judy Wilson-Raybould said the destruction of the Peace Valley for the contentious Site C dam threatens Canada’s reputation on the world stage.   In a video recently published on the Common Sense Canadian, a site co-founded by Rafe Mair and documentary filmmaker Damien Gillis, Wilson-Raybould said Canada’s “reputation is at stake with approval of these projects like Site C, like the Enbridge pipeline.”   “Our reputation as a caring and considerate environmentally friendly nation internationally is going to be questioned,” she said. “Running roughshod over aboriginal treaty and rights, including treaty rights, is not the way to improve that reputation.”   Some Treaty 8 First Nations in B.C. are vocally opposed to the Site C dam, which will flood more than 5,000 hectares of farm land, swamp indigenous archaeological sites and permanently destroy land First Nations use for hunting, fishing and collection of traditional medicines.

Treaty 8, signed in 1899, states First Nations have the right to continue their traditional way of life, including the right to hunt, trap, fish and forage, “for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.” 

Wilson-Raybould, MP for Vancouver-Granville, was celebrated last fall for being Canada’s first indigenous minister. The daughter of B.C. First Nations leader Bill Wilson, Wilson-Raybould’s professional background includes high-profile positions such as regional chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.   In a public mandate letter to the minister, Trudeau emphasized the importance of repaired federal relations with Canada’s indigenous peoples:   “No relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples,” the Prime Minister stated. “It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.”   Permits for Site C construction were granted under the previous federal government and, as DeSmog Canada first reported, at least 14 of those permits were quietly granted during the writ period of the last federal election.   Four court cases initiated by Treaty 8 First Nations and the Peace Valley Landowners Association are still in the courts.   Earlier this month Wilson-Raybould told a Victoria audience she sees no conflict between her past protest and her current position as minister of justice.   “Everything I do as the Member of Parliament for Vancouver-Granville and as the minister is rooted in my values and my principles, rooted in the mandate the prime minister gave me and the rule of law, and ensuring the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is dealt with,” she told reporters at a Liberal policy convention.   The minister added she was “proud” to have attended an annual Paddle for the Peace gathering with opponents of the project.   “With respect to Site C, I understand the tremendous opposition to moving forward,” she added.   When pressed on the 2012 video, Wilson-Raybould’s spokesperson Joanne Ghiz told the Globe and Mail the project was approved by the former federal government and that BC Hydro, the project proponent, must comply with legally binding conditions. Ghiz added a project appeal is currently under examination.    Chief Roland Willson of the West Moberly First Nation said letters opposing the project on treaty grounds have been sent to Trudeau’s cabinet.   “I have to believe in my heart they are seriously considering it. They have to understand the process was severely flawed,” he told DeSmog Canada in a former interview.   “They can’t talk about a new enhanced relationship and start stabbing their fingers in our eyes…There’s no doubt it’s an infringement of treaty rights,” he said.   Many had hoped the new federal government would give treaties greater weight in decisions about major resource projects.   In February, a coalition of organizations from across Canada, including Amnesty International and the David Suzuki Foundation, urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to halt construction of the Site C dam, saying the project violates Treaty 8.   “Our organizations are profoundly concerned that construction of the Site C dam is being pushed ahead despite the conclusion of a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment that it would severely and permanently undermine indigenous peoples’ use of the land; harm rare plants and other biodiversity; make fishing unsafe for at least a generation and submerge burial grounds and other crucial cultural and historical sites,” an open letter released by the coalition said.   “The people of Treaty 8 have said no to Site C. Any government that is truly committed to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, to respecting human rights and to promoting truly clean energy must listen.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In a case that faced three courts and spanned more than two decades, the Tsilhqot’in First Nation of British Columbia’s interior won an unprecedented Supreme Court of Canada decision last week granting them title to 1,750 square kilometres of land. 

“We take this time to join hands and celebrate a new relationship with Canada,” Chief William said. “We are reminded of our elders who are no longer with us. First and foremost we need to say sechanalyagh (thank you) to our Tsilhqot’in Elders, many of whom testified courageously in the courts. We are completing this journey for them and our youth. Our strength comes from those who surround us, those who celebrate with us, those who drum with us.”

First awarding recognition of the right to hunt, fish and trap on their traditional territory, then spring boarding off the historic Delgamuuk’w decision in 1997 that recognized oral history as admissible evidence requiring no further corroboration, Justice David Vickers of the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the nation could prove title to roughly half the original claim area. Vickers also ruled that both provincial and federal governments were failing in their constitutional obligation to the nation, and that the B.C. government had infringed upon the rights and title of the Tsilhqot’in people.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) may be ratified as soon as tomorrow, November 1. This despite a massive demonstration of Canadian opposition to the investment trade deal that will lock the federal government into a dangerously undemocratic agreement with China and Chinese investors for 31 years.

The proposed agreement, signed by Stephen Harper in Russia on September 9 and kept secret until September 26, is being strong-armed through the house of commons after the required 21-day session in Parliament.

Political action and environmental groups, opposition party leaders and experts in the field of international trade law are urging the Harper government to reconsider the agreement’s immediate ratification, demanding an open parliamentary debate before the trade deal’s future is decided.

So far all requests to throw out the deal, host a national debate, investigate the deal in emergency Parliamentary discussions, or indefinitely delay the deal’s ratification, have gone unheeded by the Harper government.

Under FIPA the federal government is obliged to protect investor rights and profits, even to compensate for lost profits. That means when it comes to disputes involving Chinese investors, like the one over the future of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline, the Canadian government will have a duty to protect investor profits and not necessarily the jurisdictional rights of the British Columbian government, people or First Nations.

But as West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) pointed out yesterday, First Nations people in Canada have a unique constitutional standing in the country, a standing that restricts the federal government from making decisions — without prior consultation — that affect First Nations’ constitutionally-protected Aboriginal Rights.

It appears the Stephen Harper government has not fully considered the fact that, as WCEL puts it, “by giving new rights to Chinese investors, the treaty risks undermining Canada’s obligations to deal in good faith with First Nations.”

When it comes to the China-Canada Investment Deal, not only has the Harper government failed to deal in ‘good faith’ with First Nations, but has failed to deal with First Nations at all. For this reason, the details of the treaty may be inconsistent with Canadian law.

According to WCEL Canada is hoping to ratify the trade deal through an “Order of Council,” which will see the deal implemented via Cabinet without any legislation. However, Canada is only meant to implement international treaties this way “once the treaty is consistent with Canadian law.”

Treaty implementation occurs in Canada this way because we’ve got what is called a dualist model: “a treaty that has been signed and ratified by the executive still requires incorporation through domestic law to be enforceable at the national level…Canada cannot ratify an international treaty until measures are in place to ensure that the terms of the treaty are enforceable in Canadian law.”

(This is different than America’s monist system where Congress has the power to ratify treaties, making them, in principle, U.S. law, adds WCEL).

So, are the terms of FIPA ‘enforceable’ in Canada?

Well, no. Not according to Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution which states that the Crown must make decisions “leading to a just settlement of Aboriginal claims.” The Crown also has a duty to consult and accommodate First Nations before adversely impacting Aboriginal Title and Rights.

Aboriginal Title and Rights include the right to exercise sovereignty over territorial lands, to fish and hunt traditional foods and to partake in ceremonial practices. What is immediately obvious to BC First Nations is that Canada’s duty to protect and ensure these rights runs into conflict with Canada’s proposed duty and obligation to promote and protect the rights of Chinese investors eager to make a profit of the country’s production and export of tar sands oil.

Yesterday the Union of BC Indian Chiefs addressed Stephen Harper directly on this issue.

As they outlined in an open letter, BC’s First Nations are concerned Canada’s ability to honour negotiations with aboriginal peoples will be limited while the legal threat of international arbitration hangs over the government’s head. This is especially pertinent to the development of the tar sands and the construction of bitumen pipelines — both of which pose a significant threat to First Nations’ territorial sovereignty and traditional, land-based ways of life.

“On behalf the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, we are writing to firmly express, advise and direct the Government of Canada to reject the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China as the Government of Canada has breached its fiduciary duty to consult First Nations on our respective constitutionally-enshrined and judicially-recognized Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights.

Furthermore, as both Canada and China have adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, both countries are bound by Article 19 which states: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned…in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

As designed, we believe that through the ratification of this agreement, China will be granted protection and would thus greatly increase their investment in the development of the Alberta tarsands, pipelines, mining projects and possibly future offshore drilling projects, all at a great cost to our Aboriginal Title, Rights and Treaty Rights.”

Source: Globe and Mail

As this map illustrates, the pipeline traverses the territories of numerous First Nations in both Alberta and British Columbia and will supply Asia-bound supertankers with tar sands bitumen to ship through territorial waters.

When it comes to deciding whose rights ought to be protected, WCEL suggests FIPA could lead the government to favour foreign investors over First Nations:

“FIPA itself may violate the constitutionally-protected process of negotiations between the Crown and First Nations. There is a reasonable probability that the threat of multi-million dollar investor-state suits under FIPA will create a disincentive for the Crown to negotiate honourably with First Nations (for example, regarding environmental and cultural protection measures in treaties or other legal agreements). The question is whether this effect is so significant that it can be said that FIPA therefore ‘substantially interferes’ not just with First Nations preferred outcomes, but the very process of negotiation. If so, then on the basis of Charter jurisprudence in Canada, a court could hold any legal action taken by Canada to ratify or implement FIPA to be unconstitutional, and it is possible that a First Nation could seek an interim injunction preventing its ratification until they have their day in court.”

WCEL adds “given the lack of consultation with First Nations on FIPA it is very difficult to see how Canada could justify its infringement of First Nations constitutional rights.”

What can you do?

The countdown is running low, with the deal’s potential ratification expected as early as tomorrow.

If you haven’t already signed a petition, or you are looking to sign another, be sure to check out these options:

Leadnow.ca and SumofUs.org’s Stop the Sellout: Canada is Not for Sale

David Suzuki’s Stop the China-Canada Trade Deal

Change.org’s Prime Minister Harper: Stop FIPPA Deal with China NOW and allow debate in House of Commons

The Council of Canadians Open Letter to Stephen Harper

Sustainable Living and Urban Gardening Anti-FIPA Petition

You can also email these pivotal members of the Standing Committee on International Trade:

Rob Merrifield rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca

Ron Cannan ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca

Russ Hiebert russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca

Ed Holder ed.holder@parl.gc.ca

Gerald Keddy gerald.keddy@parl.gc.ca

Bev Shipley bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca

Devinder Shory devinder.shory@parl.gc.ca

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.