Environmental impact assessment process substitution: experiences of public participants

This paper explores policy action taken by the federal government in Canada to test the potential for substitution of the federal process to regulatory bodies as a means of encouraging environmental impact assessment (EIA) efficiency. Our purpose is to present the experiences of people who participated in the EIA of the Emera Brunswick Pipeline in order to gauge the impact of such process substitutions on meaningful public participation. Our approach included document reviews and a focus group session with some of the public participants in the Emera Pipeline hearings. We find that the National Energy Board hearing process substituted in the case did not meet many of the key requirements of meaningful participation and left some public participants feeling disrespected and marginalized.