{"id":267093,"date":"2019-04-01T10:30:41","date_gmt":"2019-04-01T14:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/issues\/assessment-projects-improve-bill-c-69\/"},"modified":"2025-10-07T22:28:33","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T02:28:33","slug":"assessment-projects-improve-bill-c-69","status":"publish","type":"issues","link":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2019\/04\/assessment-projects-improve-bill-c-69\/","title":{"rendered":"Assessment of projects would improve under Bill C-69"},"content":{"rendered":"

Stephen Hawking\u2019s A Brief History of Time <\/em>has been called the world\u2019s least read, most celebrated book. In a more humble category, Bill C-69<\/a> could be Canada\u2019s least read, most criticized legislative proposal.<\/p>\n

C-69\u2019s most contentious parts would replace Harper-era legislation governing assessments of major projects, including those of the oil and pipeline sectors.<\/p>\n

A favourite target has been C-69\u2019s Impact Assessment Act, <\/em>which would supplant the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012<\/em><\/a>. However, many of the criticisms and proposed responses ignore the actual content of the proposed new law, neglect lessons from unfortunate experience under the current law, and imagine that legislation even more narrowly focused on speedy approvals would do better.<\/p>\n

Critics particularly hostile to the assessment aspects of C-69 have focused on four concerns. Each merits a response.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Critics say the <\/em>Impact Assessment Act would give too little attention to the economic benefits of projects.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The opposite is more likely. Certainly, the Impact Assessment Act <\/em>would bring more direct, comprehensive, open and rigorous attention to economic factors in project assessments.<\/p>\n

    The new act would cover all of the interactive factors that affect the shortand long-term public interest. They include a project\u2019s full range of positive and adverse economic effects as well as social, environmental and health effects and the project\u2019s resulting prospects for contributing to lasting well-being (sustainability).<\/p>\n

    In contrast, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012<\/em> is focused on adverse environmental effects and some consequential economic and social effects. Direct economic benefits enter only through the back door \u2014 under provisions that permit approval of projects with significant adverse environmental effects if they are \u201cjustified in the circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n

    What might qualify as \u201cjustified in the circumstances\u201d is left to cabinet discretion. While cabinet surely considers economic benefits in these cases, its deliberations are not public. The current law does not set out any criteria to guide or constrain cabinet\u2019s decision-making. Nor does the law require cabinet to reveal what information about the \u201ccircumstances\u201d it considered, or to provide reasons for its decisions.<\/p>\n

    The Impact Assessment Act<\/em> would introduce more transparent and comprehensive examination of projects\u2019 economic and other effects. Under section 63, decision-makers would have to determine the extent to which the assessed project would contribute to sustainability, the severity of effects on matters within federal jurisdiction (such as effects on fish and fish habitat, and environmental effects that cross provincial boundaries or go beyond Canada), appropriate mitigation measures, effects on Aboriginal\/Indigenous rights, and effects on meeting Canadian environmental obligations and climate change commitments.<\/p>\n

    The chief risk of the Impact Assessment Act<\/em> is not too little attention to economic benefits, but too much. By giving economic effects a clear role in assessments, the new law could reinforce the usual emphasis on anticipated economic benefits in project decision-making at the expense of social and environmental concerns.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Critics say the <\/em>Impact Assessment Act leaves too much room for political discretion.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Like the current assessment law, the Impact Assessment Act<\/em> would assign most serious decision-making authority to the political level, chiefly to cabinet. <\/em>The new act\u2019s advantages are constraints on these decision-makers. The act would require final decisions on proposed projects to be based on the assessment report from the public review (by the Impact Assessment Agency or a review panel) and on the section 63 considerations outlined above. And it would require publication of the reasons for each decision, again based on the required considerations.<\/p>\n

      Discretionary political-level decisions provide some accountability to the electorate. The problem is that ministers and cabinet members cannot be as well informed as those who have gathered and integrated the evidence. Also, they are tempted to favour immediate political advantage as a legitimate basis for judgment.<\/p>\n

      The middle-ground solution leaves only final authorization to the political level. The elected decision-makers receive recommendations based on comprehensive, impartial and rigorous public assessment. Decision criteria are defined and published reasons are mandatory.<\/p>\n

      The Impact Assessment Act<\/em> could be stronger on all of these matters. Certainly, it falls short of the recommendations made by the government\u2019s own expert panel<\/a>, particularly concerning the impartiality of assessments and reviews dominated by information from proponents. Nonetheless, the new act is a step up from the current assessment law.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Critics say the <\/em>Impact Assessment Act permits too much risk of delay in reaching approval decisions.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        C-69 is, in part, a response to failures under the current legislation to deliver viable assessment decisions in key cases. Most dramatic were the Northern Gateway<\/a> and Trans Mountain<\/a> pipeline assessments. In both cases, the assessment process delivered formal approvals but also stirred up strong opposition, and the approvals failed to withstand court challenges.<\/p>\n

        Oil and pipeline interests see these as \u201capproval process\u201d failures and call for an assessment law that will deliver faster and more certain approvals. However, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012<\/em> was designed for precisely that purpose. In the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain cases, the major delays resulted not from slow assessment but from a streamlined process that was not sufficiently consultative, comprehensive and credible.<\/p>\n

        Key provisions of the Impact Assessment Act<\/em> respond directly to these deficiencies.<\/em> In addition to covering the full range of important public interest considerations, the new act would<\/p>\n