Expert Panel Review of Federal EA Processes British Columbia s Submission

Transcription

1 Expert Panel Review of Federal EA Processes British Columbia s Submission Environmental Assessment Office and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 December 20, 2016

2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION... 3 B. BACKGROUND... 4 BC S Environmental Assessment Office and EA Framework... 4 Purpose of Federal Assessment Legislation... 6 C. ACHIEVING ONE PROJECT ONE ASSESSMENT... 8 Substitution... 9 Coordination Equivalency D. ENGAGEMENT OF ABORIGINAL GROUPS E. BEST PRACTICES, LESSONS LEARNED AND ADDITIONAL ISSUES Transparency Public Involvement EA Trigger Timeliness Project Scoping and Information Requirements Technical Working Group Relationships with Regulators Amendments Compliance and Enforcement Regional Studies and Strategic EAS Climate Change F. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX A APPENDIX B... 31

3 3 A. INTRODUCTION The British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) is pleased to provide the following submission to the federal Expert Panel review of Environmental Assessment Processes on behalf of the Province of British Columbia (BC). The Province of BC has an overriding interest that major projects in BC are subject to a rigorous process that is predictable, transparent and timely. As such our keen engagement in the federal review is explained by the fact that: Approximately 37 percent of all projects undergoing a federal Environmental Assessment (EA) since the introduction of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) are in BC; and Over 56 percent of proposed projects that required an EA under the BC Environmental Assessment Act (the Act) also required an EA under CEAA In terms of numbers, of the 59 EAs EAO has initiated since the introduction of CEAA 2012, 33 of those assessments also required an EA by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) or the National Energy Board (NEB). Should they all be approved, projects which require both a federal and provincial review in BC represent over $116,000,000,000 in potential capital investment. This overlap is not a recent development. In the Province of BC s submission on the five year review of the previous federal Act, it was noted that approximately 66 percent of projects required both a provincial and federal EA. As a result, EAO has a great deal of experience working with the Agency as well as the NEB. Our experience also includes being the only jurisdiction in Canada to request and successfully implement the substitution provisions under CEAA Of the 33 projects that have required both a provincial and federal EA under CEAA 2012, BC has been successfully granted substitution for 13 projects and 2 projects have concluded the assessment process: LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG. Similarly, EAO has agreed to a hybrid substitution process for the Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project which, while not a designated project under CEAA 2012, requires a CEAA Section 67 decision by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. EAO also has an agreement with the NEB under which the NEB conducts the EA for projects that require reviews by both agencies. Four projects currently fall under this agreement. This experience, combined with the fact EAO and the Agency share a common EA methodology and are similarly structured as standalone agencies, in our view, uniquely positions EAO to be of assistance in the current review of federal EA processes. In addition to this experience, we are constantly open to ways to continuously improve our process and foster learning to ensure the best informed decisions. This is enabled by a particular strength of BC s EA process: its flexibility - a critical component of any EA and a theme that we will return to in the course of this submission.

4 4 The submission below will focus on three key areas: Achieving the principle of one project - one assessment; Engaging with Aboriginal groups; and Best Practices, Lessons Learned and Other Issues. EAO has already had the opportunity to provide input through the November 2, 2016 technical briefing with provincial and territorial EA Administrators in which we provided to the Panel materials outlining our EA process and our case studies in harmonization agreements (coordinated and substituted EAs). We would of course be pleased to answer any further questions the panel may have about BC s EA process and these submissions. B. BACKGROUND Before discussing the three key areas identified above, it is useful to provide background on EAO as well as the purpose of federal EA from the Province of BC s perspective. BC S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE AND EA FRAMEWORK EAO was established in 1995 and is responsible for the neutral administration of BC s Act. The EAO Operating Framework below outlines the basic elements of the approach to EA in BC. A representation of our process, previously provided, is found in Appendix A.

5 5 As of November 2016, 298 projects have entered into BC s EA process. Of those 298 projects, approximately 50 percent of projects have been issued an EA certificate; 20 percent have been terminated, withdrawn, rejected or required to undergo further assessment. A further 12 percent have been issued an exemption or are seeking an exemption. Eighteen percent of the projects are still engaged in the EA process. These statistics alone do not demonstrate the effectiveness and value of EAs. Projects that are approved are often changed significantly in design and approach as a result of the EA process. Put another way, the approved project is not usually the same project that enters the EA. Generally speaking, the EA processes required under BC s Act and CEAA 2012 are similar. They are proponent driven processes based on an initial assessment and studies completed by the proponent, according to information requirements set by BC and/or Canada; proponent assessments are evaluated, reviewed and critiqued by government experts, Aboriginal groups and the public; they have a similar triggering approach; they follow a similar methodology; and are conducted by standalone agencies. Under these processes, public participation and transparency is a key component and fulfilling the duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal groups is critical.

6 6 Similar to BC s Act, CEAA 2012 s elements aimed at protecting the environment and the necessary requirements of an EA, provide a robust framework for considering the impacts of major project on that environment. A notable difference between the two processes is the scope of the EA. The scope of BC s EA process is broad and includes the assessment of environmental, economic, social, health and heritage effects, including cumulative effects, of a proposed project. While the focus of the assessment is on potential adverse effects, positive effects of the project are factors contemplated in the assessment process and may play a role in the decision whether to grant an EA certificate. By comparison, determining the scope of the EA under CEAA 2012 is less straightforward and the structure of the federal Act is more complicated. Under CEAA 2012 the scope of the assessment is narrower with a focus on environmental effects but it can be expanded in specific instances to address broader interests. In our experience, it is unlikely that a potential impact raised in an assessment of a project could not be addressed under the five pillars of a provincial assessment (environmental, economic, social, health and heritage effects); the same is not necessarily true under CEAA The decision-making process in BC also differs from the process under CEAA The decision to grant an EA certificate is in all cases made by two Ministers (the Minister of Environment and the Minister responsible for the sector from which the project originates). Ministers are required to consider the assessment report and any recommendations provided by EAO and may also consider any other matters that they consider relevant to the public interest in making their decision. PURPOSE OF FEDERAL ASSESSMENT LEGISLATION The purpose of federal assessment legislation must be grounded in an understanding of the federal and provincial jurisdiction over major projects. Any analysis regarding the authority, whether provincial or federal, to conduct EAs of projects, usually begins with the fact that the environment and environmental protection is an area of shared jurisdiction. This is widely accepted; however it is also important to understand the broader constitutional underpinnings of impact assessment and regulation of major projects that are subject to EA. In many cases, the activity being regulated falls under provincial responsibility. In addition, provincial constitutional authority over provincial crown land, natural resources in the province, property and civil rights and local matters, among others, provides a broad base of regulatory authority over proposed projects. Federal authority, by contrast, is narrower. Federal EA focuses on areas of federal regulation such as: fish and fish habitat and other aquatic species under the Fisheries Act, migratory birds, projects on federal land and those with potential effects that cross provincial and international boundaries. This narrower scope is demonstrated by the limited number of federal authorizations that are required following an EA. While what is required will vary from project to project, in the case of a mine on provincial crown land, for example, few federal authorizations are usually required. Federal legislation such as the Species at Risk Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act as well as the Metal Mining Effluent Regulation

7 7 are relevant in terms of evaluating, managing, monitoring, and reporting on environmental effects of the project, but there are no specific permitting requirements. If the mine impacts fish or fish habitat it may require an authorization under the Fisheries Act. Other permits that are required address matters such as the storage of pre-packaged explosives under the Explosives Act. In contrast, numerous authorizations are required under the following provincial Acts: the Mines Act, the Environmental Management Act, Forest Act, Wildlife Act, Water Act and the Heritage Conservation Act. In BC's view, the primary purpose of federal EA framework is to ensure a rigorous, predictable, transparent process exists to collect information and assess the potential significant adverse effects of a proposed project as it relates to federal areas of responsibility. It is important to recognize that, in the absence of any federal EA framework, major projects in BC would continue to undergo EAs. They would, however, lack the often much needed federal expertise and analysis relating to those areas of federal responsibility. To be effective, a federal assessment framework regime must ensure that federal departments are available to provide expertise and analysis during all EAs. This should also include provincial only EAs, where appropriate, and in particular where a major federal authorization must also subsequently be obtained. Participation in provincial EAs helps avoid gaps and reduce duplication while offering an opportunity for federal departments to meet protection objectives, ensure consistency with subsequent authorizations and build upon consultation from Aboriginal groups - even where a federal EA is not required. Recommendation #1: The federal EA framework should include a positive obligation on federal departments to participate in provincial only EAs, where requested and appropriate, similar to the obligation under S.20 of the current Act. However, an effective federal EA framework does not mean that the assessment must be overseen or conducted by a federal responsible authority such as the Agency. In some circumstances, the federal assessment authority may be the best placed assessing authority but in other circumstances, the provincial authority is best placed to conduct and lead the assessment process. As a general principle, given the broader base of provincial areas of responsibility discussed above, the provincial authority is more often in the position of conducting and leading the EA. Key questions that help determine the appropriate federal role in a given EA include: Is there a provincial EA already required? Subject to Recommendation #1, above, do federal departments need to be involved in the EA do they bring expertise or information that would be of value to the assessment? Are there major federal authorizations required? Is the federal government compelled by other legislation or regulation to render a federal decision/issue an authorization on the proposed project?

8 8 Who is the best placed jurisdiction to conduct the EA? Is the project an activity that is regulated federally or provincially? Is it on federal land? Do the effects of the project relate primarily to federal or provincial jurisdiction? Does the project have potential trans boundary effects? C. ACHIEVING ONE PROJECT ONE ASSESSMENT The Province of BC has been a longstanding advocate for the principle of one project - one assessment in order to address the duplication and inefficiency caused by multiple assessment processes. The rationale for one project - one assessment is well documented and supported. While effectively implementing one project - one assessment results in efficiencies and benefits to both the Province of BC and Canada, the most compelling benefits are to the public, Aboriginal groups and the proponent involved in the assessment process. Understandably, members of the public would prefer to go to one place to find information about an EA, want opportunities to participate and comment through a single process, and want to understand how their input has been considered by either or both jurisdictions. A member of the public should not be expected to determine whether his or her comment is best directed at the federal or provincial government or participate in multiple processes to ensure they are heard. Similarly, Aboriginal groups - provided their interests and input are appropriately taken into account and they are meaningfully engaged in the process - would likely prefer a single process by federal and provincial agencies rather than be engaged multiple times by multiple agencies in multiple processes. Not surprisingly, proponents see advantages in a single process based on a single set of information requirements, followed by the development of a single application and integrated EA process. Recommendation #2: The federal EA framework must support the principle of one project one assessment by enabling a number of mechanisms including substitution, coordination and equivalency that allow this principle to be achieved. A process that achieves the principle of one project - one assessment includes the following characteristics: a single project description provided by the proponent; a single comprehensive terms of reference/information requirements for the EA; a single engagement process for the public and government experts; a fully integrated engagement process for Aboriginal groups;

9 9 a single application by the proponent; a single comprehensive assessment report; a single set of timeline requirements. In addition to these characteristics, one project - one assessment should, wherever possible, also include a single assessor. In BC, this means an assessment of a proposed project should be led by EAO, the NEB or the Agency. In cases where both the federal government and the province are each conducting an assessment on the same project (with coordination where feasible), each jurisdiction currently tends to focus only on its jurisdictional accountabilities and not look at the project as a whole. This approach could lead to potential gaps in the assessment or the development of mitigation measures that may have the potential to conflict with each other. It is important to note that one project - one assessment does not mean that only one government participates in the assessment; federal departments and provincial ministries are vital participants in the EA process regardless of who is conducting it. Neither does one project - one process necessarily mean one jurisdiction no longer makes a decision. Depending on the model employed, both the provincial and federal governments could render a decision. This is the case under substitution. Below we examine our experience with the three tools available under CEAA SUBSTITUTION In a substituted EA, there is one EA process but two decisions. In the federal-provincial context, this means the assessment is conducted under BC s process but decisions are rendered by both BC and Canada. Substitution differs from delegation in that the EA is conducted according to BC s process. Under the delegation model, the process would be conducted by BC but according to the federal process. Since its introduction in CEAA 2012, substitution has proven to be an effective tool in BC. It has achieved all the characteristics of one project - one assessment identified above. Substitution strengthens rigour through an integrated assessment that addresses all issues while retaining separate decisions. It creates a single conversation with the public, agencies and Aboriginal groups that enhances consultation opportunities while reducing process burden. It reduces duplication of process and the resulting administrative burden on all participants. Finally, it increases the certainty of timelines by minimizing delay between federal and provincial decisions. It also, importantly, preserves the decision-making discretion of each jurisdiction. As noted above, BC has successfully sought substitution from the federal Minister for 13 projects since the provisions were brought into effect in Of those 13 projects, 2 projects have completed the assessment process. For these first two substituted EAs, LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG, both governments allowed the projects to proceed. A third project is expected to be completed early in An added benefit of substitution is that it supports innovation in both the federal and provincial processes. As the approach to substitution matures, BC sees opportunities for further process innovation. For

10 10 example, in regards to the next substituted EA currently underway, EAO will be conducting a public comment period on the draft assessment report and both provincial and federal certificate conditions - a change from the current practice in BC. FRAMEWORK FOR SUBSTITUTION IN BC Substitution began with the negotiation of an overarching Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Agency and EAO that set out a common framework divided into three phases of substitution: (1) pre-substitution; (2) conduct of the substituted EA; and (3) referral and decision-making stage. The MOU has been successful in setting out an operational common framework that guides substituted EAs, ensuring process transparency and integrity. Pre-substitution: Before substitution is requested, EAO and the Agency work together to understand whether a project is suitable for substitution. This early dialogue helps to achieve alignment between EAO and the Agency on the scope of the project, the scope of the assessment and Aboriginal consultation. Best practices have been established to ensure that the decision on whether an EA is substituted coincides with the determination by the Agency that a federal EA is required. The pre-substitution time period also allows the Agency and EAO to discuss whether there are potentially significant trans boundary effects or the EA is more suitable for a panel process (under CEAA 2012, substitution is not available when a federal panel is required). Substitution requests are made public by both EAO and the Agency before the request is considered by the federal Minister and the Agency uses its initial public comment period to seek any comments on the substitution request. Currently there is no reciprocal provision under CEAA 2012 to allow the Agency to enter into an agreement to conduct the assessment on behalf of a province. Adding this tool may assist in achieving the principle of one project - one assessment for certain projects, such as habitat enhancement activities on federal lands and other projects such as the Roberts Bank Expansion Project. In these cases, as with all substituted projects, it retains the ability for all interests both federal and provincial - to be considered fully in the EA. The purpose is to create an efficient and robust process without compromising scope or complexity in any way. The substitution provision in CEAA 2012 is only available for EAs conducted by the Agency and not for those conducted by the NEB. As noted above, while EAO has an agreement with the NEB under which the NEB conducts the EA for projects that require reviews by both agencies, there may be circumstances where it may make sense for the NEB to substitute its process for a provincial process. So far, substitution has only been requested on a project by project basis but, as more experience is gained, EAO intends to pursue substitution for certain classes of projects. BC strongly believes substitution by class is an important tool to create further efficiencies and certainty of process where there is a track record for assessments in a particular class. There also may be more efficient ways to enable substitution rather than relying on project by project requests. For example, broad based substitution agreements

11 11 could be put in place that would address not only the process but the types of projects where the substituted process would apply, further increasing predictability of process and efficiency. Recommendation #3: Substitution should be broadened to enable substitution by the Agency where that is appropriate, and enable the NEB to substitute its process for a provincial process. The Agency and a provincial assessment authority should have the option of entering into a broad based substitution agreement, rather than request substitution on a project or class basis. Conduct of the substituted EA: Once substitution is approved by the federal Minister, EAO conducts the assessment following its process. A key feature of EAs in BC is the use of a technical working group consisting of government experts, Aboriginal groups and local governments. The technical working group provides comments on the information requirements for the EA as well as the application by the proponent, the assessment report prepared by EAO and any proposed conditions. Substitution is sometimes misunderstood as meaning that the federal government is not involved in the EA. That is emphatically not the case. Federal departments continue to be actively involved in the assessment, including the technical working group. The Agency, while typically not actively involved in the technical working group for a substituted EA, is kept informed and provided key documents during the process so that they will be well positioned to re-assume their role during the development of potential conditions and decision-making phase. The Agency is also available to provide guidance as necessary. This was particularly important during the implementation of substitution as it coincided with the adoption of an entirely new Act. While a fundamental characteristic of substitution is that the conduct of the EA follows the provincial assessment process, there is recognition that in order for the federal Minister to make decisions, the substituted process must produce the information the federal Minister needs. As noted above, the broad scope of BC s assessment process ensures that the matters of federal interest can be incorporated into the provincial assessment. As a result of substitution, BC did need to make some adjustments to its process, most notably to ensure the technical requirements of S.5(1)(c) were met. As a result, EAO and the Agency worked together to develop guidance on how to approach this section of the Act. The flexibility in BC s process allowed for these adjustments to be accomplished by amendments to the procedural order rather than necessitating legislative or regulatory change. There are a couple of areas where the implementation of substitution could be improved during the conduct of the substituted EA. First, if the provincial EA process is substituted for a federal EA process, it should be clarified that the timelines of the provincial process apply. Second, as a result of how CEAA 2012 is structured, an extremely technical exercise is required to address matters that would already be addressed by the provincial EA due to its broad scope. For example, to address the effects of changes in the environment on Aboriginal Peoples under S.5(1)(c), EAO developed, in cooperation with the Agency,

12 12 separate technical guidance to assist proponents and participants in understanding this Section. Recommendation #4: Clarify that substituted EAs can follow provincially regulated timelines rather than the federal timelines and that the substituted process does not need to replicate the technical requirements of federal approach provided the matters are assessed adequately. Substitution and Aboriginal Engagement: Under the substitution model, the common consultation obligations are delegated to BC with two important exceptions. The federal government, through the Agency, determines who should be consulted at the beginning of the process and determines whether consultation has been adequate at the conclusion of the process. Like all environmental assessments, EAO is seeking to enhance engagement with Aboriginal groups in substituted EAs. This is discussed in more detail in Part D of this submission; however, it is important to emphasize here that substituted projects, rather than being a barrier, have demonstrated how improved Aboriginal engagement and involvement in EA can be facilitated. For example: In Woodfibre LNG, as the Panel has heard, adjustments to the process were made to accommodate the Squamish Nation Process. At the time, it was uncertain how the Squamish Nation Process would align with the substituted EA. However, with the benefit of this experience, we think there are ways to better align and incorporate these types of processes within the Crown EA framework. In the proposed Kemess Underground Project, a substituted EA that is nearing the end of the process, EAO worked with the First Nations involved to undertake the EA collaboratively. In this project, the First Nations themselves are currently participating in drafting the section of the assessment report on the impacts of the Project to Aboriginal Interests. Referral and Decision Making: Following the completion of the assessment process, federal requirements of the process transfer back to the Agency to complete the decision making process. Both organizations recognized from the beginning that this required coordination and information sharing during the assessment process, particularly as the shared information informs the development of potential conditions for the federal decision. For LNG Canada, both organizations were able to coordinate the decision making process so that a decision was announced on the same day. The federal decision on the Woodfibre Project was somewhat delayed because its completion coincided with the federal election process.

13 13 COORDINATION Since the introduction of CEAA 2012, ten projects in BC are being conducted as coordinated EAs. Two Projects have been completed (Brucejack Gold Mine & Pacific Northwest LNG) and one Project is pending a federal decision (Murray River Coal Mine). While EAO prefers the substitution model, EAO also recognizes that, in some situations, other approaches may be appropriate. For example, coordinated EAs may be better for projects that have potential for significant trans boundary effects or projects located on federal lands which have potential effects on the surrounding area that are also subject to provincial regulatory authority. However, in both of these situations, it is possible that a substituted EA conducted by either the Agency or EAO may still be the better option. Projects that both jurisdictions agree are best conducted through a Panel process, like the Site C Hydroelectric Project, should also follow a coordinated process. The recent EA of the Site C Project was able to achieve most of the characteristics of one project - one assessment because of the flexibility of the panel process and the fact EAO and the Agency where able to outline the process through an agreement. In our experience, the coordination of standard EAs under CEAA 2012 falls short of achieving the characteristics of one project - one assessment. Coordination, as currently implemented, results in two EA processes, each focused on relevant jurisdictional accountabilities following different timelines. Unlike the Site C example and substitution examples above, coordination on standard EAs tends to be ad hoc and lack a framework. The lack of flexibility of the federal process also means that coordination relies heavily on the flexibility of the provincial process, aided by a strong working relationship between the provincial and federal project leads. While joint work plans are developed, there is no agreement on a single process with a single set of timelines. Coordination efforts can be impacted considerably when approaches to timelines, consultation efforts and decision making become out of synch. As a result, the coordinated EA can often fragment into two processes that create multiple EA conversations while adding process burdens on Aboriginal groups, federal/provincial experts, proponents and stakeholders and the public. To achieve one project - one assessment, jurisdictions need the flexibility to alter their process and timelines as appropriate. For example, BC s Act allows variations to accommodate agreements with other jurisdictions (S.28). Given that the federal EA process must interact with several jurisdictions with different processes, the federal EA legislation should have the greatest degree of flexibility in this regard. Recommendation #5: The federal EA process needs to be flexible enough to achieve the objectives of one project - one assessment by allowing the EA process or procedure to be modified as necessary to accommodate an agreement with another jurisdiction. One of the key obstacles to effective coordination is the fact environmental impact assessment guidelines are developed very early in the federal process, causing the federal and provincial process to begin out of sync with the provincial process. This is discussed in more detail below under Part E Project Scoping and Information Requirements.

14 14 EQUIVALENCY Under equivalency there is one process and one decision. In the federal - provincial context, it would mean that the assessment that would normally attract both a federal and provincial assessment would be conducted by BC and only BC would render a decision. It is not possible to assess the effectiveness of the equivalency tool under CEAA 2012 because the provisions have not yet been used. This is in large part because substitution has only been undertaken in BC and EAO and the Agency purposely adopted an approach to focus efforts on substitution before considering equivalency. Consistent with the principle of flexibility, EAO supports the continued inclusion of equivalency provisions in the federal Act. However, one challenge with the current equivalency provisions is that is that they only authorize equivalency on a project by project basis. Like substitution, equivalency should be available on a class basis or by broad agreement, where possible and appropriate. D. ENGAGEMENT OF ABORIGINAL GROUPS Engagement with Aboriginal groups is a fundamental aspect of any EA process conducted in BC and EAO is committed to meaningfully engage with Aboriginal groups throughout the EA process. To date, engaging Aboriginal groups has been founded on meeting legal obligations to consult. However, EAO is seeking to improve how we work with Aboriginal groups as partners in considering the implications of proposed major projects, by enhancing involvement of Aboriginal groups through more collaborative approaches. The objective of consultation is to understand whether a proposed project may impact asserted or established Aboriginal rights and title or treaty rights (Aboriginal Interests) and identify measures that may avoid or mitigate those impacts. Effective consultation is also critical in order to meet the province s duty to consult, and where appropriate, accommodate for impacts to Aboriginal Interests. All assessments include an analysis of whether the proposed projects would adversely impact Aboriginal Interests of potentially affected Aboriginal groups. Although linked to the assessment of environmental, economic, social, health and heritage effects of the proposed project, this is its own distinct analysis. Key aspects of consultation during the EA process include: Undertaking and sharing with Aboriginal groups our assessments of the strength of any claimed Aboriginal rights or title, seriousness of potential impacts on their Aboriginal Interests, and depth of consultation. Participation in EAO s technical working group, along with federal, provincial and local government agencies. As members of the working group, Aboriginal groups have the ability to help determine the scope and process of the review, take part in technical discussions relating to topics of significant interest or concern, change project designs, and shape the conditions that become part of EA certificates.

15 15 Opportunities for Aboriginal groups to review and provide their input on key documents throughout an EA. An opportunity to submit their own independent submission to Provincial Ministers to consider when making their decision about whether to issue an EA certificate for a project. While a key foundation of EAO s engagement is to ensure meaningful consultation processes aimed at meeting its duty to consult obligations, EAO recognizes that some Aboriginal groups are not satisfied with the current process and are seeking greater engagement during the EAs. In response, EAO has been pursuing a collaborative approach, particularly with those Aboriginal groups with strong prima facie Aboriginal title claims in the project area, to enhance engagement with Aboriginal groups and the assessment process as whole. Collaboration enables BC to move beyond its duty to consult and accommodate, by seeking consensus on EA process steps as well as EAO s decision package for Ministers. In this way, collaboration supports and advances BC s reconciliation objectives, and provides an example of the manner in which the policy objectives of the government of Canada with respect to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can be achieved in the context of the EA process. Characteristics of BC s collaborative approach include: Considering the information needs of the Aboriginal Group; Enhancing the role of the Aboriginal Group in the assessment process, by considering and being responsive to community processes and decision-making needs of those Aboriginal groups; Engaging Aboriginal groups early to ensure their values and interests are better incorporated and understood; Seeking consensus on the assessment of seriousness of impacts on the Aboriginal group s interests, conclusions and potential accommodations to mitigate such impacts; Recognizing that Aboriginal groups may make their own decision in relation to a proposed project; and Enhanced involvement of Aboriginal groups in compliance and monitoring activities (including capacity building through shared training). Some ways in which EAO is seeking to implement new collaborative approaches to involving Aboriginal groups in EAs include: engaging the Aboriginal group earlier in, or even before, the EA process;

16 16 seeking to reach agreement on scope and procedures of the EA (Section 11 Order); selecting Aboriginal group-specific values and components to be assessed; identifying information needs and methods in the Application Information Requirements; seeking opportunities to ensure Aboriginal group perspectives are fully embedded in EAO s Assessment Report, including participating in collaboratively drafting sections of EAO s assessment report; seeking consensus on conclusions on impacts of projects on Aboriginal Interests and conditions needed to mitigate those impacts; and, using appropriate issues resolution mechanisms to seek to resolve key issues where agreement about the impacts and accommodation of Aboriginal interests has not been reached. As a result of the flexibility of the BC s EA legislation, EAO has been able to pursue and adapt these innovative collaboration initiatives without the need for legislative change. EAO is currently engaged or in development of a collaborative approach in several ongoing EAs. These include the proposed Blackwater Gold Mine Project with the Carrier Sekani First Nations, as well as the Ulkatcho First Nation and Lhoosk uz Dené Nation; the proposed LNG projects in the Prince Rupert Area with the Lax Kw alaams and Metlakatla First Nations; the proposed Ajax Mine with the Stk emlupsemc te Secwepemc Nation (SSN); and the proposed Kemess Underground Mine with the Tse Keh Nay. By pursuing this collaborative direction and additional initiatives with specific First Nations, EAO intends to strengthen the assessment of Aboriginal Interests and the involvement of First Nations in the EA such that objectives of Aboriginal groups can achieved within a process consistent with the principle of one project - one assessment that they help administer. The Panel has heard about assessment processes run by the Squamish Nation and the SSN in BC. These processes have been valuable learning opportunities about how to improve Aboriginal engagement in EA and identifying the role First Nations governments can play in engaging their community in the environmental assessment. Aboriginal groups who are undertaking complementary assessments of a proposed project are also learning about how their community s interests can be effectively integrated into provincial and federal EA decision making. Collaborative initiatives such as these can incorporate assessments or portions of assessments undertaken by an Aboriginal Group into Crown assessments, through deliberate coordination of timing and information gathering. In all cases, it is important that future collaborative opportunities in EAs should have a clear understanding of the information and process that an Aboriginal-based assessment will require at the outset of the EA process. Based on our experience and response so far, EAO is optimistic that this collaborative approach can enhance meaningful engagement with Aboriginal groups. Given that the Province of BC and Canada each

17 17 have an obligation to consult, and perhaps more importantly that both levels of government are deeply committed to reconciliation, it is critical that our approaches to consultation and collaboration align. This is yet another benefit recommending substitution. As noted above with respect to the assessment process generally, multi-layered and uncoordinated engagement with Aboriginal groups is undesirable for all. Where projects are coordinated, EAO and the Agency have already begun this work. The Agency recently was added as a party to a collaboration agreement initiated by EAO with the Ulkatcho First Nation and Lhoosk uz Dené Nation for the proposed Blackwater Project. We have cooperated on the establishment of a monitoring framework involving Aboriginal groups for PNW LNG. By working together, these evolving approaches will continue to inform our responsiveness to Aboriginal groups. Recommendation #6: The federal approach to engaging Aboriginal groups should be flexible so that, in the absence of substitution or in the case of a federal only assessment, it can evolve and incorporate collaborative approaches such as those being advanced in BC. In any event, the federal government and the Agency must continue to work with the Province of BC to align our approaches to Aboriginal engagement and avoid duplication wherever possible. E. BEST PRACTICES, LESSONS LEARNED AND ADDITIONAL ISSUES This section of BC's submission outlines some of the best practices and lessons learned based on EAO's experience as an EA authority and our direct experience with the implementation of CEAA We also address a few areas which have been raised in the submissions to the Expert Panel thus far that are of particular interest to the Province of BC. A rigorous process that is predictable, transparent and timely is critical to ensuring that Canada and BC remain competitive jurisdictions in the global economy. A key theme throughout this submission and the items below is the need for flexibility. In our view, as a general principle, EA legislation should be flexible in order to allow the EA process to be tailored to the type of project, the level of public interest, the potential impacts of the project and the interests of Aboriginal communities. Recommendation #7: Federal legislation and its attendant regulatory framework should adopt the principle of flexibility to allow the federal EA process to be tailored to the type of project, the level of public interest, the potential impacts of the project and the interests of Aboriginal communities and in order to implement the principle of one project - one assessment.

18 18 TRANSPARENCY Transparency is a key principle of any EA process. A transparent process should have clear, easily understood requirements, ensure public access to information and identify the factors that are to be taken into account in a decision. Below are some examples of how BC s EA process differs from the federal process in respect to transparency. Project Information Centre: BC s EAO is a leader in providing the public access to information during the EA process. The minimum requirements are set out in our Public Consultation Policy Regulation but in practice considerably more information is made available on its Electronic Project Information Centre: BC makes the overwhelming majority of its project documentation, related correspondence and procedural information available in a timely fashion. We also recognize that the volume of information in EAs can create its own challenges and in January 2017, EAO will be launching an upgrade to its Electronic Project Information Centre to further improve the accessibility of this information. Aboriginal Consultation: As noted above, BC provides Aboriginal groups with information (including ethonohistoric reports and strength of claim analyses) on how it reaches consultation level decisions and seeks the views of Aboriginal groups on the level of consultation arrived at. Assessment Reports: Assessment reports also need to be accessible to the public. EAO now produces a summary assessment report that focuses on the key issues in the assessment designed to be less than 50 pages on length. This is in addition to a comprehensive and longer assessment report. Reasons for Decision: Another area where BC s assessment process differs from the federal assessment process is the fact that reasons for decision, as well as reasons and recommendations of EAO s Executive Director, are provided when Ministers issue their decision to issue or not issue an EA certificate. While decision statements are issued by the federal Minister they do not provide reasons to the same extent as BC s current practice. Furthermore, requirements for cabinet confidence limit transparency when the federal cabinet is required to make a decision. Compliance and Enforcement: Finally, a recent focus on increased transparency in BC EA relates to compliance and monitoring. For example, inspection reports and Orders made under the Act are made available on the Electronic Project Information Centre. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public consultation is a key component of EAs. Like the Agency, EAO does not limit the participation of the public in its EAs to those who can demonstrate they are directly affected. While additional efforts may be need to be taken to ensure those directly affected by the project are consulted appropriately, EAO does not believe that limiting consultation to those that are directly affected is good EA practice. As is the case in many areas, EAO s public consultation regulation and process provide considerable flexibility so that public consultation can be tailored to the specifics of a project and type of EA.

19 19 Depending on complexity of issues, public interest and the location of the project, EAO has the flexibility to require proponents to engage in substantial direct engagement with affected parties, to extend EAOrequired consultation periods and add public information sessions as needed. In addition to online comment periods, EAO hosts open house information sessions in communities impacted by proposed projects. EAO s procedural order also contains a requirement for proponents to prepare Public Consultation Plans and to report on progress at different stages in the process through Public Consultation Reports. After accepting a proponent s application for review, EAO is required to provide a written assessment of the adequacy of any public consultation activities that the proponent has conducted or proposes to conduct in relation to its application for the EA certificate, and can require the proponent to conduct additional consultation if necessary to understand and mitigate for potential project effects. As noted above, BC is transforming its online content so that the public can more easily access comments and issues raised during the EA and information about how the comments have been addressed in the EA. EA TRIGGER Under CEAA 2012, the determination on how an EA for projects was triggered was changed to adopt a project listing approach supplemented by a process under which the federal Minister may designate a project. This adopts the approach used in BC as well as many other jurisdictions. This approach creates a clear and transparent legal trigger for an EA. Under the previous process, the determination of whether a comprehensive EA was required was unclear and often led to considerable delay. In addition, numerous projects below BC s EA threshold (approximately 490 at the time of BC s submission on the statutory review of the former Act) previously required screenings by the federal government. Another advantage of the designated projects list approach is its flexibility. It can be reviewed and adjusted from time to time as required. For all these reasons, this approach to triggering federal EAs should be retained. We also note that the types of projects included in the regulation are also an important way to reduce duplication between federal and provincial EA processes. There should be a clear rationale for why projects initially trigger a federal EA that is clearly tied to matters of federal jurisdiction or a national interest, particularly where a provincial assessment is already required. TIMELINESS EAO consistently hears from proponents and industry groups about the importance of timeliness in an EA process and that that timelines encourages mutual accountability, while ensuring predictability of process. In our view a rigorous EA can be accomplished within legislated timelines when working with a willing and ready proponent. Appropriate safeguards for suspensions and extensions of time provide the necessary flexibility to ensure the science, facts, and evidence necessary to conduct a thorough EA are provided and considered.

20 20 BC s legislated timelines, which have been in place since 2002, follow a different model than used under CEAA Under BC s process, there are no time limits during the pre-application process. Once the proponent submits its application to EAO, the following legislated timelines apply: Application screening: 30 calendar days Application Review: 180 calendar days Decision: 45 calendar days These timelines can be suspended or extended. Common reasons for suspensions include providing additional time for the proponent to provide further information in response to the review of application and to resolve issues raised during application review. EAO does not differentiate between time taken by the government (the clock is on ) and time taken by the proponent (the clock is off). In our experience, the existence of timelines in the pre-application period requires the Agency to immediately issue draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines at the start of the process which, as explained below, can lead to a less timely and effective EA as there is limited engagement by experts from government agencies, Aboriginal groups and the public. PROJECT SCOPING AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS A critical aspect of an EA is determining the scope of the EA and the information the proponent is required to submit as part of its application or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In EAO s view, the current federal practice for finalizing the EIS Guidelines occurs too early in the EA process. Due to the structure of the timelines under CEAA 2012, the Agency issues draft guidelines for review by the public immediately following the commencement of the EA. In contrast, under BC s process, the proponent is required to develop a draft which is then subject to comment by the technical working group, including Aboriginal groups, before being accepted by EAO. The valued components that are the subject of the EA must be supported by a rationale and must be reviewed by the technical working group before being finalized as part of the Application Information Requirements. A public consultation period and open houses are held during this process. In our experience, the immediate requirement for EIS Guidelines: leads to generic guidelines that are not tailored to an individual project and lack the specificity proponents require to prepare their EIS; and can often lead to information requests later in the process and criticism that the requirements are being changed late in the process. In addition, the immediate requirement for EIS guidelines under CEAA 2012 makes coordination with BC challenging as the two processes immediately become out of sync.

21 21 Recommendation #8: The federal EA process should be adjusted so that the EIS guidelines are developed later in the process such that they are better tailored to the project in question, avoid delays and information requests later in the process, and ensure alignment with provincial information requirements. TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP EAO forms technical working groups at the beginning of the EA consisting of government experts (both federal and provincial), Aboriginal groups and local governments. The working group assists in determining the information required for the proponent s application as well as the review of the application and the development of potential conditions. A key role of our working group members is to probe and challenge the scientific findings in the proponent s application. Often, on projects, additional information from agencies on the working group will lead EAO to reaching a conclusion that is different from what is in the proponent s original application. Occasionally, third party reviews or studies are required to address issues where there are differing views or conclusions. RELATIONSHIPS WITH REGULATORS EAO has focused efforts on strengthening relationships with its regulatory partners. For example, EAO and the BC Oil and Gas Commission have worked hard on developing a strong and complementary relationship through an MOU: There are also opportunities to strengthen relationships between federal EA and federal and provincial regulators recognizing that the regulatory process extends beyond the EA process. Substitution, by establishing more direct relationships between EAO and federal departments, also aids in this vital coordination. AMENDMENTS EAO has a process by which an EA certificate can be amended for certain types of changes during the life cycle of the project. Amendments may be related to change of certificate holder or to specific design changes. The Executive Director of EAO considers the nature of changes, the implication for conditions attached to the original EA certificate and whether the design (or other) change requires additional assessment and consultation. CEAA 2012 is unclear on the process required, if any, if the project changes following the issuance of a Decision Statement. It may not be necessary for the federal assessment process to require an amendment procedure given the federal areas of responsibility but greater clarity is required on how post decision

22 22 changes are addressed. Where both a federal and provincial EA was undertaken, substitution is again a viable option in these circumstances. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT EAO s Compliance and Enforcement (C&E) program was implemented in response to a 2011 Report of the BC Auditor General on EAO's oversight of certified projects. The program includes field and administrative inspections, review of complaints, investigations, compliance promotion and enforcement. The program works closely with other agencies, including the Agency, to ensure effective coordination of compliance oversight of environmental assessment conditions and permitting requirements. ( In its 2015 follow-up Report, the Auditor General reported that it had substantially or fully implemented four of its six recommendations and partially implemented the remaining two recommendations. Inspections are a key tool that EAO uses to promote compliance and enforce legally binding EA certificate conditions 129 inspections have been conducted since program implementation. All inspection reports and enforcement actions are posted to ensure access to compliance information for the public and permitting authorities. EAO ensures continuous improvement and effectiveness by incorporating lessons learned through compliance oversight into new EAs and conditions. Since the introduction of CEAA 2012, EAO has been working closely with the Agency and has invited the Agency to participate in joint inspections on several projects. To avoid duplication and ensure complementary conditions, it is imperative that EAO and the Agency work together. For example, federal assessment legislation should, rather than duplicate compliance and enforcement activity, have mechanisms to reach agreements or delegate authority to EAO or other provincial agencies. This has resulted in Aboriginal liaisons under the program attending inspections with EAO C&E staff on several projects. EAO has begun formalizing opportunities for Aboriginal communities to participate in compliance monitoring. Through the Natural Resource Sector Aboriginal Liaison Program, EAO works together in partnership with Aboriginal groups to support creating greater Aboriginal community awareness and skills training in various sectors of natural resource regulatory oversight, development, safety, environmental and emergency management, and restoration activities. EAO, with the Agency, recently participated in the development of the first Environmental Monitoring Committee Agreement for a certified project. The agreement sets out an approach for BC, Canada, Metlakatla and Lax Kw alaams First Nations to work together to monitor the Pacific Northwest LNG Project and to strengthen environmental protection in the Prince Rupert area. REGIONAL STUDIES AND STRATEGIC EAS During the course of the expert panel process, the role of regional plans or EAs and strategic EAs has been raised. It is suggested that some issues that arise in EAs would be better addressed outside a project level

23 23 assessment. Regional assessments or strategic EAs are often cited as a possible solution. EAO agrees that issues arise during EAs that may need to be resolved or assisted through a broader policy discussion or initiatives. However, these discussions or initiatives do not necessarily need to be addressed under a formal strategic or regional EA process. The development of a sector wide Cumulative Effects Framework in BC or the recently announced Canada-BC protection assessment under the Species at Risk Act for caribou and critical habitat for Southern Mountain Caribou provides relevant and recent examples. Another example is how the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations operates a comprehensive monitoring program across the BC land base to ensure relevant, timely and appropriate assessments of the effectiveness of provincial legislation in the stewardship of forest and range resource values. We agree that there is a place in EA legislation to enable processes that go beyond project level assessments. Section 49 of BC s Act provides authority for the Minister to undertake an assessment of any policy, enactment, plan, practice or procedure of the government and to provide a report and recommendations to the Minister at the conclusion of the assessment. This is a form of strategic EA. BC s Act also has a mechanism that enables assessments to be conducted on a basis that is broader than at a project level. These are referred to in the Act as class assessment and allow EAO to conduct assessments for a defined class of projects; including those defined geographically. Upon completion of a class assessment, the requirements of the class assessment can be applied to a project and exempt the project either wholly or partially from a project level assessment. These provisions, while enabling, have not been widely used. As noted above, this does not mean that regional or policy initiatives are not undertaken and do not inform the EA process. In many cases the need for broader initiatives are identified in the EA of an individual project. While often undertaken less formally, BC s Act also includes a Section (S.21) which allows EAO to refer a policy matter to Ministers responsible for the policy area for clarification and direction. Like BC s Act, federal legislation should also provide a framework and authority to use these types of tools, when appropriate, in areas of federal responsibility. Like project level assessment, these types of assessments or approaches must respect the broad nature of provincial authority. Given our respective constitutional responsibilities, the federal government is not often best placed to conduct regional based assessments as part of the EA process. However, when regional based assessments are conducted, there should be mechanisms to allow federal participation and a single approach. Regional studies that impact regions beyond federal lands should only be conducted in partnership with the applicable province(s) and territory(ies). This is recognized by the current legislation. CLIMATE CHANGE Another key issue raised by the Expert Panel is how climate change should be addressed in EAs. BC s EA process requires the assessment process to consider government policies and commitments as they affect the potential impact of a project.

24 24 Climate change is no exception. EAO works with BC s Climate Action Secretariat and regulatory agencies to take a consistent, rigorous approach to incorporating greenhouse gas and climate change considerations in EAs. Where a project has to potential to materially impact BC s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, EAO will assess the project s effect on greenhouse gas management. This determination is made during the valued component selection and application information requirements selection stages of the EA. Recent pipeline, mine and LNG facility reviews considered greenhouse gas management in the EAs. The GHG analysis for the substituted EA for the LNG Canada Project led to a finding of significant adverse effects from GHG emissions, and included a condition for a GHG emissions management plan in the provincial EA Certificate, as well as informing the federal Minister s finding and resulting referral to Governor in Council for decision on the Project. As required by EAO, proponents must assess their project s greenhouse gas emissions in their application for an EA certificate. For all projects, EAO also requires a description of the potential effect of the environment on the project (e.g. vulnerability to a changing climate) in an application for an EA certificate. BC is also actively participating in a national review of climate change methodology in EA originally authored by a federal-provincial-territorial review committee. F. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS In keeping with the stated purposes of the Expert Panel s review of federal EA processes, this submission has touched on many aspects of the current federal EA process that are effective as well as many that, with some adjustments, could greatly reduce unnecessary duplication, improve robustness, timeliness, transparency, fairness and Aboriginal and public engagement. BC is able to, as summarized in this submission, substantiate its observations based on its own provincial EA approach and its vast experience in working with the federal government on substituted, coordinated and review panel EAs. Notably, BC s successful implementation of the substitution provisions of CEAA 2012 has resulted in a greater appreciation for the necessity and opportunities for reducing duplication while retaining rigour and jurisdictional accountabilities. In addition to offering up information about its many EA best practices in the areas of transparency, timeliness, meaningful Aboriginal and public engagement, assessment methodology and post-certificate compliance and enforcement activities, BC presents the following recommendations to the panel, each of which have been discussed in the applicable sections of this submission. Purpose of Federal Assessment Legislation Recommendation #1: The federal EA framework should include a positive obligation on federal departments to participate in provincial only EAs, where requested and appropriate, similar to the obligation under S.20 of the current Act. One Project One Assessment

25 25 Recommendation #2: The federal EA framework must support the principle of one project one assessment by enabling a number of mechanisms including substitution, coordination and equivalency that allow this principle to be achieved. Framework for Substitution Recommendation #3: Substitution should be broadened to enable substitution to the Agency where that is appropriate, and enable the NEB to substitute its process for a provincial process. The Agency and a provincial assessment authority should have the option of entering into a broad based substitution agreement, rather than request substitution on a project or class basis. Recommendation #4: Clarify that substituted EAs can follow provincially regulated timelines rather than the federal timelines and that the substituted process does not need to replicate the technical requirements of federal approach provided the matters are assessed adequately. Coordination Recommendation #5: The federal EA process needs to be flexible enough to achieve the objectives of one project - one assessment by allowing the EA process or procedure to be modified as necessary to accommodate an agreement with another jurisdiction. Engagement of Aboriginal groups Recommendation #6: The federal approach to engaging Aboriginal groups should be flexible so that, in the absence of substitution or in the case of a federal only assessment, it can evolve and incorporate collaborative approaches such as those being advanced in BC. In any event, the federal government and the Agency must continue to work with the Province of BC to align our approaches to Aboriginal engagement and avoid duplication wherever possible. Best Practices, Lessons Learned and Additional Issues Recommendation #7: Federal legislation and its attendant regulatory framework should adopt the principle of flexibility to allow the federal EA process to be tailored to the type of project, the level of public interest, the potential impacts of the project and the interests of Aboriginal communities and in order to implement the principle of one project - one assessment. Project Scoping and Information Requirements Recommendation #8: The federal EA process should be adjusted so that the EIS guidelines are developed later in the process such that they are better tailored to the project in question, avoid delays and information requests later in the process, and ensure alignment with provincial information requirements.

26 APPENDIX A Overview: BC s Environmental Assessment Process 26

27 27 1 DETERMINE IF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED Applicant submits project description and assessment is required if: projects meets threshold in Reviewable Projects Regulation (applicant can seek exemption); Minister determines environmental assessment is required; OR EAO accepts applicant's request for environmental assessment NO LEGISLATED TIMELINE EAO begins engagement with Aboriginal groups IF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED, EAO posts the legal order under the Environmental Assessment Act online with announcement 2 DETERMINE SCOPE AND PROCEDURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EAO identifies potentially affected Aboriginal groups and undertakes strength of claim assessment EAO establishes working group (Aboriginal groups and federal, provincial and local government agencies) EAO sets out the scope and procedures for the environmental assessment, and outlines approach for consultation with Aboriginal groups and the public NO LEGISLATED TIMELINE EAO consults with applicant and Aboriginal groups To reduce overlap and duplication, EAO may apply for substitution of provincial process for federal environmental assessment if federal review is required EAO POSTS AN ORDER under section 11 of the Environmental Assessment Act online with an announcement ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

28 28 3 ESTABLISH APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS EAO determines information required to conduct environmental assessment EAO tracks and assesses adequacy of applicant's responses to issues raised by Aboriginal groups, the public and government agencies NO LEGISLATED TIMELINE EAO consults with Aboriginal groups EAO consults with government agencies EAO holds public comment period and open houses EAO FINALIZES AND POSTS the Application Information Requirements online with an announcement 4 EVALUATE APPLICATION FOR COMPLETENESS Applicant submits application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate EAO assesses applicant's Aboriginal and public consultation activities to date 30 DAY LEGISLATED TIMELINE EAO consults with government agencies EAO consults with Aboriginal groups If the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate contains the required information, EAO accepts it for review, announces the start of the 180-day review stage and posts the application online ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

29 29 5 APPLICATION REVIEW EAO reviews and assesses application to identify potential adverse environmental, health, economic, heritage or social effects and applicant's proposed mitigation measures EAO consults with Aboriginal groups EAO consults with government agencies EAO holds public comment period and open houses EAO tracks and assesses adequacy of applicant's responses to issues raised by Aboriginal groups, the public and government agencies EAO PREPARES an Assessment Report that may contain proposed conditions and a recommendation, and submits it to two provincial ministers for a decision on whether to issue an Environmental Assessment Certificate 180 DAY LEGISLATED TIMELINE 6 DECISION ON WHETHER TO ISSUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE Provincial ministers consider EAO's assessment report, recommendation, accompanying documentation and any matters of public interest when deciding whether to: issue an environmental assessment certificate with any conditions considered necessary; refuse to issue an environmental assessment certificate; OR order further assessment Provincial ministers consider whether EAO has satisfied legal duty to consult with Aboriginal groups ONCE A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE, decision is announced and EAO posts Assessment Report, Reasons for the Ministers Decision, and other relevant documentation online Aboriginal groups may submit separate submission for provincial ministers 45 DAY LEGISLATED TIMELINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

30 30 7 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT EAO's Compliance and Enforcement program verifies compliance with the Environmental Assessment Certificate Environmental Assessment Certificates contain legally binding conditions with which certificate holders must comply Compliance oversight remains in effect for the life of the project EAO works with government agencies to coordinate compliance oversight EAO consults and engages with Aboriginal groups about compliance and enforcement activities EAO POSTS INSPECTION REPORTS and other relevant compliance and enforcement-related documentation online EAO ALSO POSTS AMENDMENT documentation online Projects must be started within 5 years (holders may apply for 5-year extension) Environmental Assessment Certificate holders must apply for an amendment to make changes to the project or transfer ownership EAO reviews amendment application ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS