Expedited Environmental Assessment: Survey Guide
Page 3: Engagement opportunities and final thoughts
Please share your preference of how you’d like to be informed about a project going through an expedited environmental assessment * [rating scale]
Please rate these options however you feel aligns with how you’d like to be informed. Unfortunately this section is mandatory, but if you don’t want to give input on this you can just select “not sure” for all options.
Because this section is mandatory, we have provided some guidance on what we feel are the best ways for the EAO to keep the public informed about an expedited EA. This guidance is based on ensuring as much information as possible is shared and ensuring both in-person and online access to information. However, we acknowledge that impacted communities and individuals will have diverse perspectives on what works best for them. We encourage you to respond in a way that feels best for you and your experience.
Suggested options to rate highly if you’re unsure:
Review full versions of technical documents, reports and data
An in-person open-house near or in your community with information posters and experts from the EAO and the proponent project team on hand to answer questions
Online virtual information session with presentations from the EAO and the proponent project team and an opportunity to ask questions
Would you participate in a community advisory committee for a project being assessed in your area? [Y/N/Not sure]
Please only select “yes” if you would like to actually be added to the EAO’s list for Community Advisory Committees. This means that the EAO may reach out to you when opportunities to join a Committee arise. We encourage folks to express interest here if you feel you might have capacity to take it on, in order to make sure the EAO is hearing from impacted community members. Keep in mind that this selection is not binding, and you can always decide later that you don’t want to participate.
Note: for this question, if you click “yes”, “no”, or “not sure”, a box will pop up asking why you chose this option. This follow-up question is not mandatory and you can leave it blank if you like.
Do you have any feedback on the proposed criteria to determine if there is sufficient community interest in forming a community advisory committee? [Y/N/Not sure]
Select “yes” if you would like to give more feedback. We have provided some sample text below.
*If you select yes to the previous question: Please share your feedback on the proposed criteria to determine if there is sufficient community interest in forming a community advisory committee, and please be as detailed as possible.
You can use this space to share anything you’d like the EAO to know about your thoughts on Community Advisory Committees, including if you have lived experience engaging in one. If you’re not sure what to say, we’ve provided a few points below:
It’s very concerning that public input is being relied on to decide whether to form Community Advisory Committees, given that the public input period for this survey and the proposed public input periods in the expedited environmental assessment process are so short.
Community Advisory Committees should be the default where possible, to ensure more opportunities for community input.
Do you have any other feedback about community advisory committees for expedited environmental assessments?
Feel free to share any other feedback you have, or leave this space blank.
[Important Question] While the focus of this survey is the public participation experience, you may have other feedback about the proposed expedited environmental assessment process as a whole, and we welcome your thoughts on any other topic in the discussion paper as well.
We have provided some options of suggested points to raise here. These are intended as guidance to make this survey more accessible. We encourage you to put these responses in your own words if possible, as that carries more weight than form responses. Please also feel free to share other points that are important to you.
When this law was introduced, the government promised that it would not compromise BC’s environmental standards. This proposal puts BC’s environmental assessment process, and our environmental standards, at risk. It should not move ahead.
By only focussing on “high risk values”, the expedited process compromises the integrity of environmental assessments. This is directly contrary to public promises. This should not be part of an expedited EA.
Standard environmental assessments are the bare minimum for how a project should be assessed. This expedited process creates more risk, and compromises crucial opportunities for community input. BC should go back to the drawing board and ensure an expedited process does not compromise democracy or the health of communities and nature.
The expedited process relies far too heavily on proponent-driven information and analysis. This creates major risk of bias and one-sided analysis.
This process effectively rolls back some of the 2018 Environmental Assessment amendments for expedited projects, such as the list of matters that must be assessed. These were bare minimum reforms, and projects cannot be exempt from these criteria.
The EA process protects health and safety for all British Columbians and our environment. By rushing through these major changes, we are risking the health and safety of people across the province.
This survey did not provide enough opportunity for public input into this process. The public should be properly consulted, and these changes should not be rushed through.
The proposed expedited EA process removes First Nations consensus-seeking opportunities and does not allow for Indigenous-led environmental assessments. This is in direct contradiction to BC’s commitment to reconciliation and further detracts from its legislative commitment to align BC’s laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as per the Declaration Act. Opportunities for First Nation engagement in the standard EA process should not be compromised.
This process risks putting more control in the hands of major industry proponents while cutting corners on First Nations and community decision-making. Democracy should not be compromised to make things easier for industry.
If the BC government wants EAs done faster under the IPA, it should be done through increased investments and resources into the EAO rather than expecting staff to do more with less.
Don’t forget to hit submit on the survey before closing. Thank you for engaging in this process and making your voice heard!