Environmental Assessment Library

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) IN CANADA:

 In his article entitled "The Candu Factor (The Globe and Mail, May 3, 1997), Andrew Nikiforuk has raised some basic questions about the current practice of EIA in Canada Understandably, the style and tone of W. Nikiforuk's article a nd that of his earlier report, may not have won loud applause from some senior managers in the federal Government It should, however, be obvious that he has raised a number of valid issues which need to be openly discussed and debated. Such a public dialo gue is both timely and important for undertaking a meaningful review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which is due in l999.

As is the case in other industrialized counties, the public and political recognition of the gravity of environmental problems remains a very visible item on the Canadian national agenda. Responding to persistent public concerns, all levels of g overnment in Canada have passed pieces of legislation supposedly meant to protect and improve the health of the natural environment. Naturally, there remain disagreements and doubts as to the adequacy and effectiveness of all such measures.

At the federal level a number of steps have been taken by the past governments, in support of Canada's roles and responsibilities for protecting its own as well as the global environment. The passage of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) was one of the several measures taken in support of this mission. The long march towards achieving this goal was led, at various points in time, by several federal Ministers of the Environment belonging to both the Liberal and Conservative parties.

This Act was promulgated by the federal Government in January, l995. The fact is, however, that the Canadian Government in 1973, committed itself to the above mentioned goal through a Cabinet Policy Statement commonly known as the Guidelines Ord er. The Act now provides a legal base to EIA as practiced by the federal Government of Canada.

The Preamble to the CEAA states that:

It is commonly agreed that the most effective preventative measure is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which refers to the systematic process of the examining the environmental consequences of proposed actions and recommending appropriate remedial measures before making final decisions. EIA is now universally accepted as the most suitable way to prevent unnecessary damage to biophysical and social environments. The Brundtland Commission specifically recommended EIA as an impor tant tool for sustainable development. Consequently, it seems advisable to examinee the practices and procedures currently being used to implement the Act. The federal Environmental Assessment Process under the CEAA is governed by the following guiding pr inciples:

Leaving aside for the moment, the obvious limitations and narrow scope of the first three 'Guiding Principles", let us focus on the advisory nature of the process.

Canada is governed by the elected representatives with mandate to make decisions on behalf of the people of Canada. Hopefully, members of the Parliament of Canada, and especially those holding such positions and portfolios, want to make good and balanc ed decisions which are in the best interest of the country and society as a whole. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the decision makers should seek and receive good advice before making irrevocable decisions. Thus, the purpose of conducting EIA is t o collect, compile and synthesize all relevant scientific and technical information as wel1 as community input for assessing both the positive and adverse effects of a proposal. It should, however, be pointed out that the legal requirement under the CEAA is to apply the EIA process only. The resultant findings including conclusions and recommendations, are only advisory in nature and can be wholly or particularly accepted or ignored by the decision makers. The question is then why invest so much time, mon ey and energy on conducting an exercise when its results are purely advisory and not legally binding? How can the environment benefit when the law requires to predict impacts but provides no legal framework for dealing with those predictions.

The federal process, both under the Guidelines order and CEAA, has been in place for over twenty years now. Its effectiveness in improving the economic development process and the Canadian environment has never been clearly established. Similarly, its usefulness to the proponents for designing environmentally friendly proposals and its influence on the federal decision making process is very much debatable. Another major difficulty in assessing the real effectiveness of this process is that it is admin istered by the same source which is supposed to receive the advice generated by this exercise, namely the federal Minister of Environment.

The Agency responsible for ensuring that the process produces the best possible advice, no matter how bitter a pill it may be for the minister to swallow, itself looks to the same minister for its sustenance. It becomes very difficult, if not impossibl e, for those administering this purely advisory process not to take into account factors which could eventually add to the political '' discomfort " of the Minister and his/her Cabinet colleagues. To make the Minister look good is a corner stone of the bureaucratic culture, an accepted measure of the degree of loyalty to the high command and of course, a ticket to enter the upper levels of the bureaucratic system. The fact that the real purpose of the whole exercise is to get the "best advice" and that the Minister(s) always have the option to accept or reject it, is often forgotten or discarded. More often, the political consequences of accepting or rejecting advice resulting from a federally administered EIA, is often one of the most important co nsiderations. It is unrealistic to expect government employees ignore completely political consequences of including or excluding certain issues in an EIA review which implicate political commitments of the ruling party or government policies and programs .

Some of the key questions related to EIA process and practices of the federal Government in Canada which need to be addressed include:

It is possible that there may be other important questions relating to this matter or that some of the questions listed above have been already answered. There is, however, need to evaluate and analyse the past performance in ord er to secure a better future. It seems highly desirable that Canadians discuss and determine how best to implement the EIA requirements imposed on both public and private sectors under the complex web of rules and regulations of various levels of governme nt in Canada.