Joint Panel Review

Professor Nigel Bankes, Professor of Law at the University of Calgary has penned a blog post describing the relationship between joint review panels (JRP) and the government, using the Northern Gateway Pipeline JRP as an example.

His post was prompted by a January 9, 2012 news release by the Honourable Joe Oliver, federal Minister of Natural Resources, who, among other statements, indicated that the current regulatory process is “broken”, due to the actions of “environmental and other radical groups”. The public hearings for the Northern Gateway Pipeline JRP opened on January 10th.

Professor Bankes details how the project can be rejected or approved by the JRP, the responsible authorities, and the government, under the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Soberly, he tried to “imagine the challenge facing [the Northern Gateway Pipeline] panel in convincing the community that the fix was not already in and that the job of the panel was to conduct a careful, independent and impartial review of the project”.

You can read his entire post, ‘The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel and the Governor in Council’ here.

Leave us a note

2011 was a busy year in environmental assessment (“EA”)  planning for a project entitled, “Marathon Platinum Group Metals and Copper Mine”  located in Pic River in the Township of Marathon in northern Ontario.

In July, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency posted an updated notice of commencement for the project to advise that, as of July 12, 2010, a series of amendments to federal EA under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) came into force. By virtue of these amendments, the Agency gained an “enhanced role” in the EA process. In particular, the amendments gave the Agency the lead role in carrying out the appropriate federal EA. This is a very important precedent since it is a fundamental departure from the longstanding practice of self-assessment in federal EA.

In August, the Agency posted a federal-Ontario agreement for a joint EA panel review – the first such agreement ever made involving Ontario EA. Also in August 2011, Ontario issued an EA harmonization order under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act – which was also the first of its kind.

Beyond the EA process, the present joint EA panel will need to address serious substantive issues around what is meant by a “significant adverse environmental effect”, and, in particular, whether such an effect is derived from guidance on planning policy set out in provincial plans and policy statements. Two examples of such guidance applicable to this part of northern Ontario are the 2011 Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, and the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement.

To date, the EA process has involved panel sessions on valued ecosystem components in October. In December 2010, the proponent, Stillwater Canada Inc., published new site layout designs. Also in December, the panel wrote to the Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation to clarify Aboriginal consultation on this EA process. Earlier this month (January 11, 2012), the Pic Hobart First Nation wrote to the panel to seek a future panel hearing in Pic Hobart. Going forward, the next major step in the joint EA process is SCI’s release of a draft environmental impact statement on the project in March 2012.

Further details on the various joint EA documents are found in this paper, which was presented at a November 30, 2011 Ontario Bar Association conference.

 

 

Leave us a note

Public interest groups, Ecojustice and CPAWS Wildlands League, are asking the federal and provincial Ministers of the Environment to use their discretion to elevate the environmental assessment of the Cliffs Chromite Project, proposed in Northern Ontario, to a joint panel review.

Leave us a note