Co-operation Agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada

Provide a comment

• Re: Support for the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Impact and Environmental Assessment Cooperation Agreement

  by NL Hydro, 20 days ago

  Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro supports the proposed Agreement between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador respecting cooperation in the conduct of environmental assessments.

  The draft Agreement’s commitment to a coordinated, single‑process approach (“one project, one review”) is a constructive step toward improving clarity and reducing duplication within the assessment system. A more streamlined process can help improve timelines and predictability for proponents, Indigenous groups, regulators and the public, while still allowing resources to focus on substantive environmental effects and meaningful consultation rather than parallel processes.

  Overall, the Agreement provides a balanced practical framework for federal–provincial cooperation that supports responsible resource development... Continue reading

  Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro supports the proposed Agreement between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador respecting cooperation in the conduct of environmental assessments.

  The draft Agreement’s commitment to a coordinated, single‑process approach (“one project, one review”) is a constructive step toward improving clarity and reducing duplication within the assessment system. A more streamlined process can help improve timelines and predictability for proponents, Indigenous groups, regulators and the public, while still allowing resources to focus on substantive environmental effects and meaningful consultation rather than parallel processes.

  Overall, the Agreement provides a balanced practical framework for federal–provincial cooperation that supports responsible resource development and aims to enhance the efficiency and consistency of environmental assessments while respecting jurisdictional roles.

• Mrs Valerie Walsh

  by Valerie Walsh, 23 days ago

  I’m writing to express serious concerns with the Draft Co-operation Agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment.

  To be blunt, this reads less like an effort to improve environmental review and more like an effort to streamline project approvals by reducing scrutiny and limiting meaningful public input.

  There is a lot of language in the document about “robust processes,” “transparency,” and “public participation,” but when you look at what is actually being proposed—“one project, one review,” substitution of federal assessments, and reliance on provincial processes “to the greatest extent possible”—it’s hard not to conclude that... Continue reading

  I’m writing to express serious concerns with the Draft Co-operation Agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada on Environmental and Impact Assessment.

  To be blunt, this reads less like an effort to improve environmental review and more like an effort to streamline project approvals by reducing scrutiny and limiting meaningful public input.

  There is a lot of language in the document about “robust processes,” “transparency,” and “public participation,” but when you look at what is actually being proposed—“one project, one review,” substitution of federal assessments, and reliance on provincial processes “to the greatest extent possible”—it’s hard not to conclude that this will weaken oversight, not strengthen it.

  Many of us are already dissatisfied with the current provincial process. It is not seen as rigorous, transparent, or particularly responsive to public concerns. Harmonizing federal review with that system, without first fixing its shortcomings, does not serve the public interest. It risks locking in a lower standard.

  The substitution provisions are especially troubling. Allowing federal assessments to be effectively replaced by a provincial-led process removes an important layer of independent review. Publishing a notice for comment is not the same as ensuring meaningful public participation—especially if the overall process is being compressed and coordinated behind the scenes.

  There is also a clear emphasis throughout the document on efficiency, timelines, and creating a “positive investment climate.” That may be good for proponents, but where is the equal emphasis on strengthening environmental protection, public trust, and accountability? Faster decisions are not better decisions if they come at the cost of proper scrutiny.

  On public participation specifically, the agreement talks about it, but does not actually strengthen it in any concrete way. There are no clear commitments to early engagement, expanded access, or stronger consideration of public concerns. Given how limited public input already is in the provincial process, this is a major gap.

  I am also concerned about the inconsistency around Indigenous rights. While the federal government maintains its commitment to UNDRIP, the province explicitly does not apply it as law. It is not clear how a harmonized process will reconcile that difference in a way that truly respects Indigenous rights in practice.

  At the end of the day, the problem here is not duplication—it’s confidence. People do not trust that the current system adequately protects the environment or reflects public input. This agreement does nothing to address that. Instead, it appears to make it easier for large projects to move ahead with fewer checks.

  If this agreement is going to move forward, it needs to be revised to:

  • Strengthen—not reduce—independent federal oversight

  • Include clear, enforceable requirements for meaningful public participation

  • Improve transparency at every stage of the process

  • Ensure that harmonization raises the bar, rather than lowering it

  As it stands, this agreement looks like it is designed to facilitate approvals and is for corporations, not to ensure they are done properly.

  Sincerely,

  Valerie Walsh

• Concern about endangered species protections

  by Madison Acker, about 1 month ago

  I am concerned that this process will allow certain endangered species to fall through the regulatory cracks. Some species are provincially protected and others are federally protected. Who will be responsible for assessing impacts of projects on federally listed endangered species, or migratory species? How will we ensure that the needs of these species are adequately assessed? What financial resources and expertise will the federal government provide to the provincial government to ensure that all relevant species are considered?

  I am concerned that this process will allow certain endangered species to fall through the regulatory cracks. Some species are provincially protected and others are federally protected. Who will be responsible for assessing impacts of projects on federally listed endangered species, or migratory species? How will we ensure that the needs of these species are adequately assessed? What financial resources and expertise will the federal government provide to the provincial government to ensure that all relevant species are considered?

• I give my support to the agreement

  by Carson loveless, about 1 month ago
  I do support this agreement so much

  I do support this agreement so much

• Provincial Capabilty and Lack of Section 35 and UNDRIP Support.

  by Paul Saunders, about 1 month ago
  The Federal government has to proceed with caution when giving the province more authority to complete EA’s without full Federal involvement. As a member of Qalipu First Nation, an active EA consultant and being actively involved in the mineral prospecting industry I can say that the Provincial Government has only limited capabilities to conduct effective EA’s especially those where Indigenous Peoples are involved. This issue must be rectified before an agreement giving the province more power to conduct EA’s without or with limited involvement of the Federal Process is considered. Having worked in EA process, both provincially and federally this... Continue reading

  The Federal government has to proceed with caution when giving the province more authority to complete EA’s without full Federal involvement. As a member of Qalipu First Nation, an active EA consultant and being actively involved in the mineral prospecting industry I can say that the Provincial Government has only limited capabilities to conduct effective EA’s especially those where Indigenous Peoples are involved. This issue must be rectified before an agreement giving the province more power to conduct EA’s without or with limited involvement of the Federal Process is considered. Having worked in EA process, both provincially and federally this statement is based on decades of experience working at both the federal and provincial level. The very minimum that would be required is a signed commitment by the province that mandates the consideration of Section 35 and UNDRIP in all undertaking where indigenous people have the potential to be impacted. Without this the impact on first Nation members and non-members in a large number of NL communities will become a secondary consideration at best.