Evidence of meeting #9 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ceaa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
On most of these projects, the proponents will be doing their due diligence and working through a business case prospectus initially. At what point would you actually see the environmental public input into that process?
12:50 p.m.
Prof. John Sinclair
In Manitoba, we had a process wherein we sat down for quite some time and thought about this. This was a multi-stakeholder group brought together by the province. We had some agreement quite early on the initiation of the process. That could be within the legislated process or on behalf of the proponent, following directions provided for in legislation. So there was agreement, including agreement from industry, that the process could start quite early.
Now there are obviously issues of confidentiality around some activities that proponents want to undertake and don't want their competitors to find out about. What can I say about those?
It needs to start as early as practicable in the process. Right now we often start the participation process once we've decided what the project is, exactly what it looks like, and where it's going to be. That's too late, as we're then just working with operational decisions.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
The time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Toet, and Mr. Sinclair.
Ms. Duncan, you have seven minutes.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for coming, and thank you to our witnesses in Saskatchewan.
I'm going to begin by asking about sustainability assessment, which focuses on the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of a project rather than merely on determining the significance of adverse, mainly biophysical, environmental effects. It seeks to improve positive elements of a project as well as to mitigate the negative ones.
I'm just wondering if I can go to the three witnesses. Do you think that CEAA should be amended to require assessment of the environmental and socio-economic sustainability of projects, and not just their adverse environmental effects?
One-word answers are fine.
12:50 p.m.
Prof. Robert Gibson
Certainly, I think we need a positive legacy and we will more likely get all of these factors considered openly in an integrated manner, if it's required by law and we avoid the trade-offs being made in closed circumstances without accountability and transparency.
12:50 p.m.
Prof. John Sinclair
I agree as well and would just add that I think that's the direction that things are moving in other jurisdictions as well.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Saskatchewan Mining Association
Our third point in this submission was to integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations in the process, in accordance with paragraph 4(1)(b) already.
I'd also just like to mention that in Saskatchewan--and I wouldn't think it's just the case in the Saskatchewan jurisdiction--under the duty to consult, most of the communities in the north are aboriginal, first nations, or Métis. So very early on in the process or from the get-go, we're involved in consultations about environmental, social, and economic considerations, whether specified through CEAA or not.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you.
CEAA currently focuses on assessment of biophysical effects and other directly related effects using the legal test of determining the significance of adverse environmental effects and identifying mitigation measures that reduce the effects below the significance level. I think some people feel that the significance test has been misused; and in the past, the environment committee has proposed a definition of significant that would make this test more objective and quantifiable and less subject to misuse.
I'm wondering, Dr. Sinclair, if you could comment on how you might define significant. From the things that have been suggested in the past, it's clearly a very difficult thing to define.
12:50 p.m.
Prof. John Sinclair
There's a practitioner, David Lawrence, a colleague of mine, who has published quite a bit on the significance test. If he isn't coming before the committee, I would recommend that you have a look at some of his work in that regard, because he has thought more about that test than I have. So I won't try to answer the question--
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Prof. John Sinclair
Sure, we can make sure you get his work.
Maybe Bob, do you want to...?
12:55 p.m.
Prof. Robert Gibson
The significance test is inevitably complex because it depends on the specifics of the circumstances. Hoping to have a simple answer that can simply be quantifiable is attractive but I don't think it's practical. The term has certainly been abused, but the better way around that is to focus assessment on comparison of the reasonable options available in the two alternatives within the project concept. So what you'd be doing is openly judging according to explicit criteria, which should include the full suite of sustainability criteria that our colleagues have suggested. If you compare the relative merits when looking at the long-term legacy of undertakings, you will be less likely to get snarled in this legalistic question about whether you've crossed the boundary into significance or not, which isn't the issue. The issue is whether we get desirable projects that will leave a positive legacy.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you.
Dr. Sinclair, you mentioned that government scientists are moving away from the process. I wonder if you could clarify that.
12:55 p.m.
Prof. John Sinclair
Sorry, no. What I meant by that is that as we reduce the number of scientists and other people in government who can participate in these processes, we're then relying on others to participate. So we need to make sure there are participatory processes available for them to bring forward some of the important data that might otherwise have been brought forward by government agencies.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I don't know if you can comment on this, so I'll ask gently. Can you comment on whether government scientists should be moving away from the process?
12:55 p.m.
Prof. John Sinclair
Absolutely not. I think there's an obligation.
You know, if I can't get support to do the research, you're relying on my ability to do it for free or to get students to do it for free. There has to be some ability by the federal government to help and to have scientists and others involved in decision processes like these, especially for large complex processes. Absolutely.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Are you aware of projects where it's been challenging because of a lack of scientific expertise?
12:55 p.m.
Prof. John Sinclair
What I would say is that it's been challenging where there have been multi-jurisdictional assessments, or bilateral assessments that haven't involved the federal government. It's been challenging when the federal government hasn't come to provincial hearings, even though it's a joint process or harmonized process.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mark Warawa
Thank you so much. The time has expired.
Because of the short remaining time, we'll share two minutes each.
Two minutes, Ms. Liu.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sinclair, you mentioned there might be other witnesses who could help us in the study. So I would suggest that you provide the clerk with the names of those witnesses.
12:55 p.m.
Prof. John Sinclair
I will.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
We had the Canadian Electricity Association come in and we had a really interesting conversation about the ideal social licence. We talked about how the process of consultation is really important, as you and the Saskatchewan Mining Association mentioned earlier.
We know that consultation with aboriginal communities is important. I was really glad to hear that you're trying to take social and economic factors into consideration, and I think that's really important. We also know that recent cuts to the CEAA threaten the consultation process with aboriginal communities.
So my question is this. Does your industry see the value of social licence that comes with a robust EA process? Or would the Saskatchewan Mining Association encourage a stronger consultation process? And if so, what form would that take?