"For northern protected heritage places where CEAA 2012 does not apply, environmental assessment processes remain unchanged. For lands and waters administered by Parks Canada where CEAA 2012 applies, the prescriptive process in the former Act has been eliminated and replaced with a legislated requirement to ensure projects on federal lands do not cause significant adverse environmental effects. An assessment to fulfill Parks Canada's CEAA 2012 obligation will be called an "Environmental Impact Analysis..."

• Natural resources -- such as species at risk, air, ground and surface water, as well as plants and animals found in the vicinity of a project or otherwise potentially affected by it; 

• Cultural resources -- including evaluation of impacts to heritage value and character-defining elements of known cultural resources, and consideration of risks to areas with high potential to contain cultural resources, where no inventory has yet been completed, and 

• Visitor experience opportunities -- specifically how the proposed project is anticipated to adversely affect characteristics of the environment that are important to key visitor experience objectives."

Environmental impact assessment is, in its simplest form, a planning tool that is now generally regarded as an integral component of sound decision-making. Its fundamental purpose is summarized by R. Cotton and D.P. Emond in "Environmental Impact Assessment," in J. Swaigen (ed.), Environmental Rights in Canada (1981), p. 245, at p. 247:

The basic concepts behind environmental assessment are simply stated: (1) early identification and evaluation of all potential environmental consequences of a proposed undertaking; (2) decision making that both guarantees the adequacy of this process and reconciles, to the greatest extent possible, the proponent's development desires with environmental protection and preservation.

As a planning tool it has both an information-gathering and a decision-making component which provide the decision-maker with an objective basis for granting or denying approval for a proposed development: see M.I. Jeffery, Environmental Approvals in Canada (1989), at p. 1.2, § 1.4; D.P. Emond, Environmental Assessment Law in Canada (1978), at p. 5. In short, environmental impact assessment is simply descriptive of a process of decision-making.

Failing to allow adequate time for project review jeopardizes the effectiveness of the EA by curtailing the information-gathering component of the EA process. In particular, insufficient time limits the ability of individuals, not-for-profit groups, and communities to assist decision-makers through their comments on the value and/or potential impacts of the project. Under the new regime, the public will have very little time to review and comment on far-reaching projects that will permanently change their communities and environments.

• Escort tugs, the most powerful on the West Coast, that will also carry emergency response and firefighting equipment;


• Establishing a first response team in Kitimat that will significantly decrease the federal standard of responding to an incident;


• Locating emergency response equipment and training staff at locations along the marine route;


• Installing and monitoring a radar system to cover critical route sections and a monitoring station in Kitimat for all marine traffic to provide guidance to pilots and other vessels in the area;


• Tankers must be a maximum of 20 years old and classified by a suitable classification society;


• Tankers must be insured and provide proof of insurance;


• Tankers must be double-hulled;


• A tanker's classification society must be a member of the International Association of Classification Societies;


• Tankers must not have changes in ownership, classification or insurance underwriters more than once in the past two years;


• The tanker must have at least one inspection report in the Ship Inspection Report Program (SIRE) database in the previous two years;


• The tankers owner must agree to allow Northern Gateway or its agent access to the tanker for inspection;


• The tanker must have English-speaking officers and crew;


• The tankers will not have any expired or temporary certificates onboard;


• A tanker must certify that it meets all Flag and Port State requirements;


• A tanker's owner must agree to meet all the marine terminal regulations (such as the use of tethered escort and berthing tugs);


• A tanker's crew must agree to allow Northern Gateway to place representatives onboard the tanker as required during ballast discharge and loading operations to observe for safety and pollution prevention.

The heart of the Appellants' case is that there will be serious harm to human health at the nonparticipating receptor sites [the homes of the objecting neighbours]. The main ingredient of their case (ignoring for the moment issues such as turbine failure, shadow flicker, etc.) is that sound emissions (including audible sound, low frequency sound and infrasound) cause serious harm at certain levels and that the Project will emit sound at high enough levels that non-participating receptors will experience serious harm. However, the Appellants' position has not been proven...

In this case, the Tribunal has heard evidence of several different kinds of risks to human health. Based on the evidence, they can be put into several general categories. First, there are those, such as direct hearing loss, that the evidence in this Hearing shows will not be caused at all because the sound levels are too low to cause physical damage to the human ear. Second, there are those, such as physical injury or death from tower collapse, turbine failure or other accidents, which are caused at a very low rate across all turbine facilities. The chances of them occurring here at this site are extremely low. Third, there are those, such as chronic stress, sleep deprivation, etc., that are worthy of further study. However, the evidence at this Hearing has not shown, at this stage of research, that they will be caused here...

The research in this area is at quite an early stage and that our collective understanding of the impacts of wind turbines on human health will likely progress as further research and analysis is undertaken... This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree. The question that should be asked is: What protections, such as permissible noise levels or setback distances, are appropriate to protect human health?