Our website uses cookies

Cookies help us to understand how you use our website so that we can provide you with the best experience when you are on our site. To find out more, read our privacy policy and cookie policy.

Manage cookies

Please review and manage the Cookie settings below. You can change these settings any time by clicking the "Cookie settings" link in the footer of the page

  1. Essential cookies:
    Necessary for enabling core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.

IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

Project List review

by Dillon, about 2 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Question 2: Do you have suggestions on the frequency for future reviews of the Project List?






Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
Robert Crosbie about 2 years ago
Should be on a continual basis - tied into evidence. Just because one activity in an area will do substantial damage to habitat does not mean all activities will. This needs to be carefully considered.
Allan Webster NWMO about 2 years ago
NWMO suggests that the Project List should be reviewed annually in response to changes in the underlying information on potential adverse effects within the federal jurisdiction that resulted in the identification of a project as being on the list. For example, if a new Species at Risk is identified, the basis on which projects should be included changes and the list should be re-examined. Similarly if a project is included due to a perceived threat to a Species at Risk and that species recovers such that it is no longer threatened, that project should be removed from the list. The existing processes for updating these federal legislative requirements should, in turn, trigger a review of the project list. This should ensure the list is aligned with other federal legislative changes and policy direction.
GHickey about 2 years ago
Should be every 3 years or thereabouts. Preferably on an annual basis.
Star-Ting Incorporated over 2 years ago
As an accredited specialist in "Responsible Risk Management®" I suggest that the Project List contain an external consultation process as well. This is not in conjunction with the current objectives of the proposal for the impact assessment system. Missing this step is an oversight. To include external consultation in the major projects by way of Project Impact Assessments reduces exposure to the Canadian government and its stakeholders, project sponsors and their stakeholders and to the communities the Canadian government wants to protect. Correcting this oversight is a must. First, instead of the Canadian government fighting small business and creating a strong competitive disadvantage for these companies who operate in the risk assessment or impact assessment space, the Canadian government by changing it current objective to include external consultations with companies who hold specialized information and knowledge will increase the Canadian government’s current risk exposure and as an additional side benefit will create small business opportunities rather than destroying multiple entities growth potential. This is a better method. Co-existence between government and private enterprise has always been the Canadian way. Do not change that. So, I strongly suggest that a re-consideration to the objectives of why the project list has been established from, "One project one review" to a broader range of consultation and impact measurements. “One project one review” is not a best practice. One review misses much. For example, Star-Ting Incorporated is the only company in the world that marries decision analytics with risk management and applies a science-based approach to the qualitative impact measures. This the government cannot do. Thus, the "one project one review" is inadequate and opens increased exposure to a variety of liabilities should a risk event occur and the courts find that only "one project one review" was undertaken. This exposure is worrisome and must not be allowed to exist for any of the major projects. Government should be doing its best to support the interests of all stakeholders not increase their liability exposures. Therefore, my suggestion to the Project List is that in its current state, this list is not robust, not fully efficient and must be re-written to include an external consultation oversight review which will consider alternatives and contingencies that the Project List missed. The main issue with projects is the amount of time the Canadian government takes to approve projects. A better way is to decrease the time the government spends in reviewing and evaluating the assessments. Once the assessment is on the desk of regulatory it should not take years to approve. A standard of review and acceptance criteria could substantially reduce acceptance time. The signatory, audit trail should provide sufficient acceptance notifications to allow the government to not stall projects. The proposed Impact Assessment Act should include acceptance criteria for project approval. This is within the jurisdiction of government and is a better approach than taking on the responsibilities of small business to conduct the project impact assessment. A functional government will undertake its responsibilities and not intermingle with private enterprise. This then would allow for increased efficiencies. Change the acceptance criteria timelines, add external consultation to the proposed impact assessment methods instead of the Canadian government assuming all the tasks and intermingling its role with that of private enterprise.
Paul Greg over 2 years ago
Should be every 3 years max. Given the size of govt. and it's bureaucracy, annually is likely not feasible.
Andrea over 2 years ago
I believe that future reviews of the project list should be completed annually, as effects/impacts in the surrounding area of a proposed project could always be subject to change (as sudden changes in data/new scientific discovery, changes in public opinions/concerns, changes to development strategies may arise)
Carlie over 2 years ago
I think the frequency for future reviews could be performed at least once a year but more reviews can be done if required.
Daniel Akpabio over 2 years ago
With current changes in the environment as a result of climate change and anthropogenic effects, annual review of the projects list should be done to ensure any impacts is tackled early.
Kristyn over 2 years ago
With rapidly changing technology, the Project List should be reviewed annually to ensure that the best methods of assessment are being utilized.By reviewing annually, modern technological advancements can be incorporated into the assessment process resulting in informative, accurate reviews.
Jeremiah Kevin over 2 years ago
The review should be done not only when the project is still going on but also when its completed. this will help to determine a potential cumulative effect.
Jack T. over 2 years ago
Whenever there are developments in the environmental and science field that may lead to better methods of assessment the project list should be revised. Reviews can help enable to the project list to have the most efficient and progressive methods that are available, which can save time and money.
Stephen Young over 2 years ago
Approved projects, should according to me, be consistently reviewed; in an annual basis. Since every year, the adverse effects of a project could change and could become more significant; causing more harm than the previous years and hence, more stringent thresholds and regulations could be implemented before it causes drastic, unforgivable consequences to the environment, to wildlife, to indigenous communities, and even to humans. With annual reviews of the Project List; endangered, threatened species or species-at-risk could be saved and prevented from extinction, more mitigation measures could be done and issues threatening humans, Indigenous communities and wildlife could be rapidly tacked and solved with early, and hence, efficient solutions. Moreover, annual reviews also allow the Federal Government and other responsible authorities involved in projects to be knowledgeable on the status of each individual project in the Project List. Hence, from my point of view, prevention is better than cure by annually reviewing the Project List.
Patricia Rogerson over 2 years ago
I have concerns that the list is accessed primarily by the corporations, there needs to be a doorway that ensures all projects are identified before they start across the country. Many would simply be listed and sent to other jurisdictions or other reviews, but the federal government would be the clearinghouse and do the directing and not the applicant.
I also think that the criteria for the list require reviewing at least every five years. Most importantly, a partnership between any province and the federal government should be available for any large, long-term (more than 10 years lifespans), project that spans more than 4 electoral districts.
Finally, any project with toxic effluent (both air and water) that has the potential to impact watersheds beyond a limited local area should be the subject of a review. Since none of these issues is specifically subject to review on your current project list it would be advisable to have a few reviews within the first 10 years of implementation to identify gaps in coverage and new issues of concern.
Savini over 2 years ago
With increased future reviews, such as an annual update, it allows for new scientific discoveries to be included and therefore have the most up to date knowledge available.
Drew over 2 years ago
The project list should be reviewed continuously on an annual basis to ensure that proper assessment is done for projects that may cause potential environmental impacts. Doing so will also make sure that future projects that may cause negative environmental impacts won't slip through the crack and cause harmful effects to habitats, humans or animals.
Louis over 2 years ago
I would suggest Project List to be reviewed constantly (lets say annually), and do the review more often in the areas that have adverse environmental effects.
Adam over 2 years ago
Projects need a minimum review period as well as a maximum. This is because it will allow for project adaptions due to new scientific evidence or events that could influence the project components. A maximum review amount (during the development process) will allow for a smoother more efficient timeline. Continual review annually or every few years will ensure the proponent is not only consistent with their proposal but compliant to their regulations. This will allow organizations to be accounted for.
Alyssa over 2 years ago
I suggest that the reviews of the Project List should be done constantly throughout the projects development. In areas that have species at risk or other valuable components, the reviews should be done more frequently (every couple months-twice a year). After a project is completed, it should be reviewed annually.
LeannaR over 2 years ago
The frequency of future reviews of the Project List should be at least every 2-3 years in order to respond to results of regional and strategic assessment including reassessing thresholds needed to meet Canada's climate and reconsiliation promises
Desiree Langenfeld over 2 years ago
The project list should be reviewed annually.
Andrew McLeod over 2 years ago
Setting a precedent for updated reviews does a good job of future proofing the system, allowing changes in regulations to be made on the fly, with the injection of more scientific knowledge over time.
Dagney over 2 years ago
A project should be up for review at the beginning and depending on what the project is it should be quite periodical, maybe once a year or more it really depends on the use of the land and what the project is like pipelines or office building two different scenarios. I disagree that we should give companies with good track records less reviews that could lead to less quality because they know they could get away with it. I also believe in a project being approved and monitored by multiple levels of government so that it is held to its highest standard.
Rmorrison11 over 2 years ago
The list should be revisited every 3-4 years. A major review should be considered for delisting of projects every 4 years but every 2 years any projects that are delisted but found to cause significant effects should be re-added. So, additions to the list could occur every two years and removals from the list could occur every four years.
Tyler over 2 years ago
I believe that the frequency for future reviews of the project list should depend on the track record of the company that proposed the project. I believe the company that proposed the project should be required to get all permits, licenses from lower levels of government as well as the general public before getting federal approval.
Raymond Cusson over 2 years ago
Yes, see above.