Through the Accountable Mining Program, TI Canada releases a new study analyzing mining environmental assessment processes in Ontario, British Columbia and the Yukon Territory.
Toronto, 3 November 2020 – Among the many permits a company has to obtain to start a mining activity, authorities evaluate a potential project’s impact through environmental assessments (EAs). If this process is not carried out transparently and accountably, impacts remain hidden, and trade-offs may not be fully understood by the public. Through the Accountable Mining Program, TI Canada releases a new study analyzing EA transparency and accountability vulnerabilities in Ontario, British Columbia and the Yukon Territory.
The report uncovers 38 risks that may hinder transparency and accountability in EA processes.
Two risks found in all three studied jurisdictions are issues related to consultations with affected communities and the dual roles of government departments in both promoting and regulating mining leads to possible conflicts of interest.
Each jurisdiction also has its own specific risks:
Ontario
Ontario is the only Canadian jurisdiction where an EA is not mandatory for private sector projects, with a few exemptions. Often, a mining project is only subject to class EAs, which are limited in scope and largely preapproved. Proponents can make voluntary agreements to conduct an individual EA, which evaluates a project as a whole, but that does not happen frequently. Up until 2018, only eight out of 32 mining operations had undergone a provincial environmental assessment.
British Columbia
It is the responsibility of the proponent to complete a self-assessment and determine if the project meets EA thresholds. Interviewees raised concerns about the practice of project-splitting and staggering expansions over time to avoid EAs.
Yukon Territory
Yukon authorities produce a decision document that determines whether a proposed project should be carried out. The creation of this document was viewed as a “black box” by research interviewees and potentially subject to external or political influences. Multiple interviewees observed that the public is not provided with opportunities to comment on this decision document. Stakeholders said that it is often difficult to follow how final decisions are determined.
Recommendations
Mitigating these risks would strengthen the Canadian mining industry and its relationship with communities. As James Cohen, TI Canada’s Executive Director, points out: “A transparent and accountable EA process is essential for meaningful engagement and a responsible mining industry.” To achieve this, TI Canada recommends:
All three jurisdictions transfer responsibility for mining promotion to government agencies working with economic development to ensure the unbiased assessment of projects.
All three jurisdictions create guidelines to publicly disclose the rationale for EA-related decisions with substantive justifications.
All three jurisdictions develop criteria to assess public consultations and create procedural guidance for meaningful consultations in the EA process.
Ontario and Yukon adopt the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for EA consultations with Indigenous communities.
All jurisdictions develop guidelines on how to integrate FPIC in EA consultations.
British Columbia close project-splitting loopholes.
Ontario require EAs for private enterprises and determine clear thresholds for individual assessments.
The Yukon Territory strengthen disclosures of the EA decision-making process.
You can read the full Accountable Mining report here.
See all technical supporting documents on the report page here.
For media inquiries, please contact:
e-mail: ti-can@transparencycanada.ca
Phone: 416-488-3939