The Ministry of Environment is initiating a public review of the draft Saskatchewan Environmental Code. This is the next key step in implementing a new results-based approach to environmental regulation.

“The ministry has embarked on an ambitious journey to reinvent how it regulates, oversees and manages impacts on the environment and natural resources,” Environment Minister Dustin Duncan said. “The code is a critical element of the results based approach, which includes increased transparency and stronger accountability tools, more attention on high-risk areas, improved client service and ultimately, enhanced environmental management.”

The results-based model focuses on required environmental outcomes and encourages innovation by making the proponent accountable to find the best way to achieve or exceed the required outcomes. The Saskatchewan Environmental Code, the first of its kind in Canada, will provide guidance on the design of environmental systems and facilities. It has chapters describing the acceptable results and standards for particular activities associated with development.

Three pieces of legislation – The Environmental Management and Protection Act, The Forest Resources Management Act, and The Environmental Assessment Act – were updated to support the results-based approach. The Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act, which is new legislation, also requires the development of code chapters. All four pieces of legislation were passed, but not proclaimed, in the spring 2010 legislative session. Once required sections of the code are completed, the new legislative framework will be brought into effect.

“I wish to recognize the commitment and participation of stakeholders and Aboriginal groups that have been so critical to our success in developing the draft code to this point,” Saskatchewan Environmental Code Development Committee (CDC) Chair Wayne Clifton said. “The public review stage now provides an opportunity for the broader public and all interested parties to contribute to the development of the code.”

The development of the code has been a collaborative effort involving various companies, associations, provincial and federal government agencies, environmental non-governmental organizations, municipalities, First Nations and Métis communities, academia and knowledgeable private individuals. In all, more than 200 experts and industry leaders were involved, directly or indirectly, in the development of this code.

“I think this approach to regulation can work, provided that there is a commitment by all of us – business people, governments, regulators and citizens – to recognize environmental protection as the top priority,”

Saskatchewan Environmental Society board member Ann Coxworth said. “This means acknowledging that a healthy economy can exist only within the context of a healthy environment. The public review period is an important opportunity for people to let us know whether that commitment is there.”

An online introductory document, code executive summary and the 19 code chapters have been posted to the ministry website at http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca for public review and comment.

Stakeholder and Aboriginal meetings are being held January 30 in Regina; February 2 in Prince Albert; and February 3 in Saskatoon. The intent is to have the first edition of the code approved and the legislation proclaimed in 2012.

Code development is continuing. Work on additional chapters addressing other subject areas including linear developments, works in or near water and hazardous substances storage have already begun.

For more information, contact:
Michele McEachern
Environment
Regina
Phone: 306-787-0412
Email: michele.mceachern@gov.sk.ca

Premier appoints task force to ensure landowners heard

Edmonton… Premier Alison Redford has created a task force that will be asking Albertans for their concerns regarding property rights.

“We have heard concerns from landowners that their property rights need to be better respected,” said Redford. “We need to move towards a more common-sense approach when it comes to property rights.”

The task force will be chaired by Diana McQueen, Minister of Environment and Water, with Evan Berger, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, as the vice-chair.

Other members include Verlyn Olson, Q.C., Minister of Justice and Attorney General; Jeff Johnson, Minister of Infrastructure; Cal Dallas, Minister of Intergovernmental, International and Aboriginal Relations; Frank Oberle, Minister of Sustainable Resource Development; Raymond Prins, MLA for Lacombe-Ponoka; and Arno Doerksen, MLA for Strathmore Brooks.

“We want to listen to Albertans and have a discussion about what property rights mean to them and what needs to be improved,” said McQueen.

In December, meetings will take place with stakeholders. In January, open houses will occur in several communities. To complement face-to-face efforts, a website will allow for written input from Albertans. Further details on how Albertans can participate will be released in the coming weeks.

To call toll free within Alberta dial 310-0000.

Building Capacity in Developing Countries in the Area of Natural Resources Management

On October 27, 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the creation of the Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development.  This announcement delivers on the Government of Canada’s commitment to support initiatives in developing countries that promote sustainable economic growth, create jobs and reduce long-term poverty.

This initiative will benefit partner countries by enhancing their capacity to manage their respective natural resources, including minerals, oil and gas.

The Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development

The newly created Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development will undertake policy research to identify best practices in extractive sector management for individual countries, and arrange technical assistance for governments and communities in developing countries through a partnership between the Federal government,Canada’s private sector and Canadian civil-society organizations.  The Institute will draw on the lessons learned inCanadaon extractive sector management.

The Institute will be housed in a Canadian university that combines a strong public-policy capacity with knowledge of the extractive sector and of mining in particular. Selection of the university will be carried out through a competitive process and the successful applicant will be expected to make an in-kind contribution to the creation and operation of the Institute.

Canada’s Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy

The Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development complements the Government of Canada’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector, announced in March 2009, and Sustainable Economic Growth Strategy, announced in 2010.

The objective of the Strategy is to improve the competitive advantage of Canadian international extractive sector companies by enhancing their ability to manage social and environmental risks. The CSR Strategy is based on four pillars:

1. Support capacity building initiatives in developing countries to manage the development of minerals and oil and gas, and to benefit from these resources to reduce poverty
2. Promote the widely-recognized international CSR performance guidelines
3. Set up the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor
4. Support the development of a CSR Centre of Excellence

Today’s announcement complements four recently announced pilot projects worth approximately $26.7 million designed to reduce poverty in Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ghana, and Burkina Faso.

For more information on Canada’s Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector, please visit the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s website (http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/ds/csr-strategy-rse-stategie.aspx?lang=eng&view=d).

Do you use B.C.’s resource roads for work, recreation, or because you live in or visit rural communities off the public road system? If so, help us serve you better by contributing to the Natural Resource Road Act Project to improve resource road laws and regulation for the benefit of all users.

Comments are invited on a discussion paper that will help build the foundation for the Natural Resource Road Act. The principles and proposed policy framework presented in this discussion paper are the starting point for a single, streamlined law that applies to all resource roads in B.C.

You are invited to voice your concerns and suggest solutions that will work for everyone. Comments will be accepted until December 15, 2011.

The government of Québec has just unveiled its strategy for drinking water conservation. This initiative aims to reduce water consumption and raise users’ awareness on the value of this shared resource. By 2017, Québec hopes to reduce the average water service production per person by at least 20% for Québec overall. It also hopes to diminish the leakage rate of all waterworks systems to a maximum of 20% of the water supply.

This strategy stems from Commitment 49 of the Québec Water Policy and is consistent with global efforts to tighten water policies. You can read the strategy on the website of the Ministère des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de l’Occupation du territoire.

2010-2013 Sector Development Plan for Commercial Aquaculture

The sector development plan for commercial aquaculture has, for the most part,the objective of positioning this industry as an important component of the Biofood Industry in Quebec.
Two main targets are in view, namely the profitability and the competitiveness of businesses as well as the sustainable development of Quebec commercial aquaculture.

Press release (in French only)

The province continues its efforts to help secure land for Nova Scotians with the release of a white paper to consider the creation of a community lands trust.

Damage Prevention Regulations

Statutory authority

National Energy Board Act

Sponsoring agency

National Energy Board

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

The proposed Damage Prevention Regulations (Regulations or DPR) are an amalgamation and modernization of two existing regulations under the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act): the National Energy Board Pipeline Crossing Regulations, Part I and the National Energy Board Pipeline Crossing Regulations, Part II (collectively the Pipeline Crossing Regulations).

The proposed Regulations would update requirements related to preventing damage to pipelines, providing for the protection of property and the environment, and the safety of the public and of the company’s employees. The proposed Regulations would apply to NEB-regulated pipeline companies (pipeline companies) and to any person planning or undertaking an activity with the potential to damage pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board (NEB).

Issue and objectives

Issue

Since the Pipeline Crossing Regulations came into effect in 1988, considerable work has been accomplished throughout the pipeline industry in the area of damage prevention. The Pipeline Crossing Regulations have become dated and no longer reflect current industry practice. Current approaches for effective damage prevention not included in the current regulations include active communication between companies, landowners and the excavating community, systematic monitoring of land use and activities, and continual evaluation and updating of practices.

Objectives

The NEB is committed to providing for the continued safe and reliable operation of Canada’s pipeline infrastructure. Regulations continue to be required to promote the safety of the public and NEB-regulated pipelines and the protection of property and the environment. Modernization of these regulations would contribute to an effective and efficient regulatory regime.

The proposed Regulations would improve effectiveness and clarity through amalgamation, alignment with current industry practice, inclusion of clear definitions and application of current regulatory drafting approaches and standards. Regulatory efficiency would also be improved through identification of activities that do not require leave under the NEB Act and inclusion of prescribed timelines related to locate requests.

Description and rationale

Damage to pipelines most commonly occurs through direct contact with the pipe during excavation activities and/or when a surface activity changes the load on a pipeline.

The proposed Regulations

• provide for the safety of the public, company employees and NEB-regulated pipelines;
• provide for the protection of property and the environment; and
• clarify the responsibilities of a pipeline company.

There are 10 main areas of change that would occur as a result of the proposed amalgamation and modernization:

1. The National Energy Board Pipeline Crossing Regulations, Part I and the National Energy Board Pipeline Crossing Regulations, Part II would be amalgamated and updated into the proposed Damage Prevention Regulations. The Pipeline Crossing Regulations would be repealed.

The proposed Regulations

2. are written in a goal-oriented style, which combines goal-based, performance-based and prescriptive elements, depending upon the circumstances;

3. include a definition of a safety zone (section 1);

4. would add new requirements related to ground disturbance (sections 7 and 8);

5. would require a pipeline company to be a member of a one-call centre, where one exists within a geographical area where its pipelines are located (section 3);

6. would require a pipeline company to have a damage prevention program (section 4);

7. would require a pipeline company to have an audit program (section 11);

8. would require a pipeline company to develop, implement and maintain standards for locating pipelines (sections 5 and 6);

9. specify the circumstances and conditions under which activities within the safety zone would not require leave of the NEB (sections 12, 13 and 16); and

10. include other updated requirements related to excavation, locate requests and timelines, markings, investigations, and reporting.

In developing the proposed Regulations, current regulatory drafting approaches and standards were applied and sections that were duplicative, were not consistent with the NEB Act or were covered by the NEB Act were removed.

Goal oriented

The proposed Regulations have been written in a goal-oriented style that includes prescriptive, goal-based and/or performance-based elements. Prescriptive regulation dictates the means by which compliance is achieved and may include what is to be done, by whom and how it is to be accomplished. Goal- or performance-based regulation sets regulatory goals or performance objectives to be achieved and allows companies to identify the means to meet them.

As an example, in the goal-based section 4, the proposed objective of the company’s damage prevention program is clearly stated as “anticipating and preventing damage to its pipeline.” In a more prescriptive style, paragraphs 4(a) through 4(d) list the elements of the program that would be required, such as ongoing public awareness, monitoring of land use and management of vehicles and mobile equipment across the pipeline. Using a combination of styles provides regulatory clarity while allowing a pipeline company the flexibility to develop a program that best suits its particular circumstances. The goal-oriented style also accommodates future advances in damage prevention and allows for the timely incorporation of best practices by a pipeline company.

Safety zone

The NEB Act restricts excavations with power-operated equipment or explosives within 30 m of a pipeline. The proposed Regulations would include a definition of “safety zone” consisting of an area extending 30 m perpendicularly from the centre line of a pipe on either side of the pipe.

The purpose of the safety zone is to protect the pipeline from accidental damage from activities such as excavations with power-operated equipment or explosives and provide for the safety of all persons living or working near the pipeline.

The proposed definition would address known challenges with the terms “pipeline”, “pipe” and right of way and provide consistency in how the safety zone is measured.

Ground disturbance

The proposed Regulations would restrict any person from undertaking a ground disturbance within 3 m of a buried pipe unless the conditions set out in paragraphs 7(1)(a) and (b) have been met.

This new provision would reflect the evolution of damage prevention and the need to address threats associated with ground disturbance. Restrictions related to excavations with power-operated equipment or explosives within 30 m of the pipeline, construction across, on, along or under the pipeline and crossings with vehicle or mobile equipment are set out in the NEB Act. In assessing the potential for activities not captured by the NEB Act to cause damage to the pipeline and associated facilities, it was determined that only those in close proximity to the pipe would have the potential to cause damage. Accordingly, this proposed provision would apply only to the area within 3 m of the centre line of the pipe.

One-call centre

The proposed Regulations would require a pipeline company to be a member of a one-call centre if it has a pipeline within a geographical area where a one-call centre exists (section 3). A one-call centre is an organization that coordinates requests for locating buried utilities, advises the caller of its member companies’ buried utilities in the area of the proposed activity and notifies its member companies of proposed activities.

Membership in one-call centres was recommended by the pipeline industry as a key method to prevent accidental damage to buried pipelines. Many companies are currently members of one-call centres.

Programs

The proposed Regulations would require a pipeline company to develop, implement and maintain a damage prevention program with elements that include public awareness, ongoing monitoring of land use, monitoring of any change in the ownership of the land in which the pipeline is located and the management of the movement of vehicles and mobile equipment across the pipeline (section 4).

The proposed Regulations would require a pipeline company to develop, implement and maintain an audit program for the purpose of verifying compliance with the proposed Regulations (section 11). Through audits, pipeline companies would evaluate their compliance performance against the regulatory objectives, take corrective actions, update procedures as necessary, have clear responsibilities and accountabilities, and have clear internal and external communications. Regular audits promote continual improvement of safety and environmental protection performance.

Standards for locates

The proposed Regulations would require a pipeline company to develop, implement and maintain standards for locating pipelines (sections 5 and 6). Implementation of standards and qualified and competent locators would promote planned, consistent and accurate means to locate facilities prior to excavation and ground disturbance.

Other updated requirements

The proposed Regulations set out when requests for locates of a pipeline must be made and associated timelines (sections 8, 17 and 18). The proposed Regulations would also require a pipeline company to investigate conditions, activities, actions or omissions that could cause damage to its pipeline, and submit a copy of the investigation report to the NEB (section 9).

The proposed Regulations also specify circumstances under which obtaining leave under the NEB Act would not be required, including carrying a pipeline across a utility other than a navigable waterway or a railway; construction of a facility across, on, along or under a pipeline; and excavations using power-operated equipment or explosives within the safety zone (sections 12, 13 and 16, respectively).

Consultation

The NEB has carried out extensive stakeholder consultation on the proposed Regulations. Project information including draft regulations, draft guidelines, regular updates and stakeholder comments received has been made available to the public on the NEB Web site.

In 1999, the NEB began a review of the Pipeline Crossing Regulations, first proposing a name change to reflect a focus on preventing damage rather than crossing activities.

In 2001, the NEB undertook a survey of approximately 350 interested companies, groups and individuals to obtain feedback on what should or could be included in the proposed Regulations. In the surveys returned, more than 80% of respondents indicated strong support for a number of damage prevention activities including: one-call centres, accuracy requirements for location of pipelines, development of minimum qualifications for pipeline locators, and the development of standards for awareness programs.

In May 2002, the NEB released A Conceptual Draft of the Proposed National Energy Board Damage Prevention Regulations and Guidance Notes (the Conceptual Draft) and conducted extensive stakeholder engagement for the next 12 months. Meetings with groups of interested stakeholders in the prevention of damage to underground infrastructure were held in Halifax, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Calgary, Alberta; Vancouver, British Columbia; Regina, Saskatchewan; London, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Montréal, Quebec. Over 150 professionals representing underground utilities, landowners, municipalities and pipeline companies participated. In addition, the NEB held public meetings or “open houses” in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia; Hardisty, Alberta; Regina, Saskatchewan; Kingston, Ontario; and Vaudreuil, Quebec. Interested stakeholders were provided with the opportunity to learn about the proposed Regulations and discuss the content of the Conceptual Draft. More than 250 persons attended.

Written comments on the Conceptual Draft were provided by a number of interested stakeholders, including pipeline companies and industry associations, one-call centres, various municipal and provincial authorities and contractor associations. Through the survey and initial stakeholder engagement process, several key elements to be included in the proposed Regulations were identified: one-call centres, accuracy requirements for location of pipelines, development of minimum qualifications for pipeline locators and the development of standards for awareness programs.

In October 2003, the NEB released Draft Guidance Notes for the National Energy Board Damage Prevention Regulations (Guidance Notes) for comment. This document included proposed text of the Regulations and incorporated many of the suggestions and comments provided through the consultation process. Consultation on the Guidance Notes was conducted through focus meetings in Montréal, Quebec; Saint John, New Brunswick; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Toronto, Ontario; and Winnipeg, Manitoba; as well as at venues such as the December 2003 NEB Workshop in Calgary, Alberta.

In February 2005, the NEB released a package consisting of a cover letter, draft National Energy Board Damage Prevention Regulations (October 2004) and Frequently Asked Questions. The package was posted on the NEB Web site and provided directly to pipeline companies, industry associations, interested stakeholders and potentially interested stakeholders.

Between 2005 and 2009, work on the proposed Regulations continued. In a parallel process, the NEB conducted a Land Matter Consultation Initiative and held meetings across Canada. As part of this initiative, in 2008 the NEB indicated its intention to incorporate into the proposed Regulations a requirement for companies to have a program in place to manage the movement of vehicles and mobile equipment across the pipeline.

In 2009, the NEB carried out another round of stakeholder engagement. An updated Proposed Damage Prevention Regulations and Draft Guidance Notes, February 2009 (the 2009 DPR and Draft Guidance Notes) was released on February 9, 2009, with a 10-week public comment period. Nineteen interested stakeholders provided written comments.

During this period, the NEB offered to meet with interested stakeholders to present the proposed Regulations, answer questions and hear comments. Meetings with the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) and the Canadian Association of Pipeline Producers (CAPP) were held. In July 2009, a further meeting was held with CEPA, UPA, Canadian Association of Pipeline and Utility Locating Contractors, Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc., Alberta Hotline Inc., Alberta One-Call Corporation, Montreal Pipe Line Limited, Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Kinder Morgan Canada Inc., and Advanced Locating Services to work towards a better understanding of the proposed Regulations and discuss concerns that had been raised.

Numerous stakeholders participated in meetings and submitted written comments. Generally, there was support for the shift to a goal-oriented style of regulation and for participation in one-call centres.

Issues raised and discussed during the stakeholder consultation process included the perceived restriction on the use of land within the right of way and safety zone, the introduction of new terminology (safety zone, ground disturbance), the proposed requirement to develop standards for locates; the perceived loss of company control to supervise, direct, monitor or suspend third-party activities and the proposed service standards related to requests for locates.

Modifications were made to the proposed Regulations in response to stakeholders’ comments throughout the consultation process. There were a number of issues related to the NEB Act that could not be addressed by the proposed Regulations, including the requirement to obtain leave from pipeline companies to cross pipelines, certain terminology and the absence of enforcement mechanisms such as fines.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

Under the NEB Act, the NEB is responsible for ensuring compliance with and enforcement of the existing regulations and would be responsible for the proposed Regulations. Compliance and enforcement provisions exist under the NEB Act and no change to compliance and enforcement authorities or responsibilties would result from the proposal. The NEB has trained and qualified Damage Prevention Inspectors and enforcement personnel and existing regulatory oversight programs. Compliance and enforcement activities would be funded through existing programs including existing cost recovery structures. The NEB has developed a plan to implement the proposed Regulations, manage information obtained through reporting requirements and inspection and audit activities and engage key stakeholders about damage prevention.

The proposed Regulations would impose three sets of service standards. Sections 8 and 18 of the proposed Regulations would impose a three-working day service standard on persons and the pipeline company related to locate requests. Section 14 would impose a 10-working day service standard on the pipeline company to enter into, or refuse, a request to enter into an agreement to construct a facility across, on, along or under a pipeline. Finally, paragraph 16(1)(d) of the proposed Regulations would specify that leave under the NEB Act is not required for excavations within the safety zone if not more than 30 days have elapsed after the date of the locate report. The service standard set out in subsections 8(3), 14(3) and 18(2) may be extended by mutual agreement.

Performance measurement and evaluation

The purpose of the proposed Regulations is to impose requirements related to prevention of damage to pipelines to provide for the protection of property and the environment, and the safety of the public and of the company’s employees.

In evaluating performance, the NEB will consider information from

• inspections and audits of company activities, facilities and programs;
• incident reports and investigations, including contributing factors and recommendations;
• investigation reports submitted pursuant to section 10 of the proposed Regulations;
• records of unauthorized activities, including tracking frequency, type of violation, geographic area and stakeholders involved;
• continued active participation on both provincial and federal Common Ground Alliances which are working towards the development of national best practices for the protection of buried infrastructure and a national one-call system; and
• direct communication with persons subject to the proposed Regulations.

Contacts

Scott Gedak
Technical Specialist, Environment
Regulatory Development Team
National Energy Board
444 Seventh Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0X8
Telephone: 403-299-3674
Fax: 403-292-5503
Email: scott.gedak@neb-one.gc.ca

Chantal Briand
Regulations Drafting Specialist
Regulatory Development Team
National Energy Board
444 Seventh Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0X8
Telephone: 403-292-4192
Fax: 403-292-5503
Email: chantal.briand@neb-one.gc.ca

Establishing Timelines for Comprehensive Studies Regulations

Statutory authority

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

Sponsoring agency

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issue and objectives

Since the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the Act) came into force in 1995, proponents have expressed the need for a more efficient and timely environmental assessment process — particularly with regards to comprehensive studies. The common complaint has been that the process is too slow, which can cause delays in the implementation of projects and increase the overall costs.

To address this issue, the Government of Canada recently amended the Act to streamline the administrative process and provide new authority for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) to assume responsibility for the conduct of all comprehensive studies except for projects regulated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

These legislative changes will reduce the time required to determine if a comprehensive study should be commenced, and to complete the environmental assessment, as there will be one federal authority responsible for making the initial decisions and completing the comprehensive study. Furthermore, an early start will enable the federal assessment to begin in coordination with provincial processes, and enhance the ability to coordinate and collaborate on the environmental assessment.

The proposed Establishing Timelines for Comprehensive StudiesRegulations (the proposed Regulations) would complement these legislative changes by imposing mandatory timelines on the Agency for its role in conducting comprehensive studies. The proposed Regulations would increase predictability and accountability by

• committing the Agency to completing the comprehensive study process within prescribed time limits; and
• requiring the Agency to report publicly on the implementation of the Regulations.

The requirements in the Act and its regulations on what must be examined through an environmental assessment are not changing. High-quality federal environmental assessments would continue to be delivered.

Description and rationale

The proposed Regulations would apply only to those comprehensive studies for which the Agency exercises the powers and performs the duties and functions of the responsible authority as proposed in the legislative amendments.

The details of the proposed Regulations are as follows:

• The Agency would have an initial period of 90 days from the receipt of a project description that complies with the requirements set out in the schedule to the Regulations to determine whether a comprehensive study should be started. The information required for a project description will be clearly spelled out in a schedule to the Regulations, which is consistent with the guidance currently provided to project proponents when preparing a project description for submission to a federal authority.
• Upon receipt of a complete project description, the Agency would be required to post a notice on its Web site to indicate that the 90-day time period has begun. Proponents and interested parties would then be able to track the amount of time the Agency takes to determine if a comprehensive study should be started.
• Once it is determined that a comprehensive study should be undertaken and a notice of commencement is posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Internet site, the Agency would be required to provide the proponent with terms of reference outlining the information required for the environmental assessment. Issuing terms of reference is a current practice whereby the Agency and other federal authorities describe the information needed from proponents in order to complete the comprehensive study report.
• If a comprehensive study is started, the Agency would be required to complete it within a period of 365 days. The 365-day period is in addition to the initial 90-day period to determine if a comprehensive study should be started. It would start on the day the notice of commencement is posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Internet site and end when the Agency publishes a notice for public consultation on the comprehensive study report.
• The 365-day period would be paused while the proponent collects any information necessary to meet the requirements of the terms of reference, unless the Agency has sufficient information to allow it to continue the assessment during such periods. The 365-day time period could also be paused at the written request of the proponent to, for example, accommodate time required to modify the project design or to align the environmental assessment with that of another jurisdiction. A period of suspension would not count towards the Agency’s time period for completion of the comprehensive study.
• The Agency would be required to report annually on its Web site on its performance vis-à-vis the Regulations to ensure accountability and transparency. This provision would ensure that interested parties may track the time within which the Agency is completing comprehensive studies.

There are no additional costs to government associated with the implementation of the proposed Regulations as existing resources will be used to meet the new regulatory requirements, conduct information sessions for staff, inform stakeholders, post notices and track the Agency’s performance. The benefit of the proposed Regulations, in concert with the time efficiencies gained through the legislative amendments, is a more timely, efficient, predictable and accountable comprehensive study process that may contribute to increasing industry confidence and fostering a positive investment climate in the Canadian economy.

Consultation

The Establishing Timelines for Comprehensive StudiesRegulations are being proposed to ensure that there is an accountable and transparent process in place for the conduct of comprehensive studies as soon as possible after the Agency assumes its new responsibilities as per the recent amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the length of the federal environmental assessment process for a number of years. During the five-year review of the Act in the early 2000s, one of the options considered for improving the timeliness, predictability and consistency of the federal environmental assessment process, was to develop timelines for comprehensive studies. Such an approach was widely supported by stakeholders, particularly by proponents, industry associations and provincial/territorial governments. It was thought that introducing timelines would increase predictability thus allowing for better planning and resource allocation as well as reducing negative business impacts.

Other stakeholders were either not opposed to timelines or expressed concerns that introducing mandatory timelines for comprehensive studies would have a negative impact on time allocated for public consultations, the quality of environmental assessment and the ability of staff to meet the timelines.

These proposed Regulations introduce overall mandatory timelines on the Agency for completing comprehensive studies but should not impact the public consultation process. The first opportunity for public input is immediately after posting a notice of commencement, and public input will be sought while the Agency is developing the terms of reference., Public input during the conduct of the environmental assessment would typically be sought while the proponent is obtaining all the necessary information for completing the environmental assessment, i.e. while the clock is paused. Finally, the public comment period on the comprehensive study report falls outside the period to which the timelines apply.

In terms of potential impacts on the quality of the environmental assessment, the timelines contained in these proposed Regulations are generous enough to allow the Agency sufficient time to conduct a quality environmental assessment but strict enough to ensure that the process does not take more time than is necessary. It is also important to understand that the bulk of the research and environmental studies that are essential to the environmental assessment will be undertaken while the 365-day timeline is suspended, thus having no impact on the quality of the data and research.

Regarding concerns about the ability of the staff to meet the timelines, the Agency has ensured that it is well structured and that it has the necessary human resources in place in order to be able to comply with these proposed Regulations. The Agency has also had the opportunity over the last two years, as part of the initiative to improve the regulatory regime for major resource projects, to undertake environmental assessments with established timelines.

The challenges associated with the slowness of the environmental assessment process were also highlighted in the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation’s 2004 report to the Government of Canada, Smart Regulation: A Regulatory Strategy for Canada. In that report, one of the key issues that arose through the Committee’s consultation with industry is that the federal environmental assessment process is too slow. In 2009, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce adopted a resolution on “the unification of the environmental assessment process” and called for a review of the Act to ensure efficient and transparent processing of federal environmental assessment as well as a greater ability to meet provincial timelines.

Environmental stakeholders have long argued that one federal agency should have greater control over the federal environmental assessment process. Recent amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will achieve that objective in part, as most comprehensive studies will now be conducted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. In 2008, the Canadian Environmental Network published a paper in which it was predicted that “if an independent agency ran the environmental assessment process more consistency, certainty, and timeliness likely would result.” Generally, environmental stakeholders are not opposed to more timely assessments, particularly if the time savings are gained from introducing efficiencies during the administrative steps of the environmental assessment process, as long as the quality of the environmental assessment and opportunities for public consultation are not compromised.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

There is no formal compliance or enforcement mechanism applicable to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or its regulations. However, a mandatory annual reporting requirement on the implementation of the Establishing Timelines for Comprehensive Studies Regulations is included in the proposed Regulations. This requirement would ensure that the Agency be publicly accountable for its performance in meeting the requirements of the proposed Regulations in a transparent fashion.

In terms of implementation, the Agency is already structurally organized in a way that will enable it to meet the requirements of the proposed Regulations. The Agency had to transform itself in the last few years in order to be able to take on new roles given to it for environmental assessments of major natural resource projects through the Cabinet Directive on Improving the Performance of the Regulatory System for Major Resource Projects.

The Agency will communicate any changes in procedures to stakeholders using existing mechanisms, including through interdepartmental and intergovernmental committees, and posting relevant information on its Web site. Federal authorities across the country will, in many cases, remain the first point of contact for proponents. Once contacted by a proponent regarding a project that is likely to require a comprehensive study, a federal authority would refer the project to the appropriate regional office of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency who would then deal directly with the proponent of the project.

Contact

John D. Smith
Director
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Place Bell Canada, 22nd Floor
160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H3
Telephone: 613-948-1942
Fax: 613-957-0897
Email: John.smith@ceaa-acee.gc.ca