Evidence of meeting #105 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, all, today for your presentations, your briefs, and the hard work you've put toward helping us figure out the best way to move forward with this bill.
Many of you have spoken about meaningful public participation and I'd like to hear from each of you. How would you define “meaningful public participation”?
In your view, how would that best be represented in this bill?
Postdoctoral Fellow, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
Are you asking a particular participant?
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Whoever would like to go first, go ahead. I'd like to hear what everyone has to say on it.
Postdoctoral Fellow, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
Okay.
I am going to quote John Sinclair, who has a submission on impact assessment, because he has a definition in his submission.
Meaningful public participation establishes the needs, values, and concerns of the public, provides a genuine opportunity to influence decisions, and uses multiple and customized methods of engagement that promote and sustain fair and open two-way dialogue.
I think that's a really good definition.
In our written brief we list a number of components that are required as part of that, things like access to information, to expertise, to legal counsel, and to funding, those sorts of things that are required to enact meaningful public participation.
Liberal
Vice-President, Research, Canada West Foundation
No, other than that clearly a process needs to be established, so an adjudicator's office would be one idea. There has to be some way to establish exactly which groups have common commentaries and group them together. People need to know in advance what that process is so that needs to be part of the bill, not just part of its culture but also part of this bill.
Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre
Lisa might be better equipped to answer this question because she has studied this longer and deeper than I have.
I would mention, just to reiterate an earlier point, that I found the public consultation that the EA panel organized to be very respectful, very thoughtful, and quite efficient, too.
Lisa, do you have some general comments on this?
Executive Director and Senior Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law
Sure. Thanks, Mark.
It's interesting that Nichole mentioned John Sinclair. John Sinclair and I wrote an article together following our engagement with the Emera Brunswick pipeline substitution process a number of years ago. I would say, from all of the little things that we drew from that, meaningful public participation is when members of the public who do seek to participate in a process feel that they've been heard and have had the opportunity not just to hear what the project is about but to actually influence the direction that it might take.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
Nigel, is there anything you'd like to add that's different from what has already been said?
Prof. Nigel Bankes
I don't think so. I think Ms. Dusyk really caught the essentials. I guess one thing I would say is that by removing the standing test from part 2, we are effectively punting to the regulator the responsibility to develop rules that will determine who actually appears. I think Mr. Kenyon's reference to the genuine interest test is probably a good starting point for those rules.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Rather than punting it down to the regulator, do you think that definition should actually be embedded within the act ?
Prof. Nigel Bankes
I think it's probably a good idea not to have it in the act. It then leaves it organic and capable of changing over time rather than becoming fossilized, which is what we see in some jurisdictions, including in my home jurisdiction of Alberta.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Would the rest of you agree with that, or do you think that there should be a clearer definition within the act as to what meaningful participation should look like?
Postdoctoral Fellow, Federal Policy, Pembina Institute
I won't comment directly on that, but I will say that there is definitely a need for flexibility and for understanding that public participation will look different for different projects. In that sense, I don't necessarily see a harm in including a definition of meaningful public participation, but I do think that we need to ensure that what we're legislating makes room for flexibility and adjustment from project to project so that it's something that can be applied in different circumstances and, as Mr. Bankes said, potentially evolve.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay.
Nigel, I wanted to throw this out there as well. I know you talked about the regulator sitting on the IAA, and the impact that could have. I know that the advisory panel originally had said that there shouldn't be any regulators on the panel. Then Rod Northey said yesterday that, actually, they would probably revise that and say it would have one regulator who is not the chair. Would you agree with that view?
Prof. Nigel Bankes
Yes, I would because I think it's an important perspective and knowledge base that needs to be brought to bear.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
At the same time, it should be communicated that there would be no majority of regulators on the panel and that they would not be the chair.
Prof. Nigel Bankes
Correct. I think I already said that in earlier comments. I very much support Mr. Kenyon's comments on that.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I know you commented on that as well. Would you agree with that position?
Managing Director, Pembina Institute
I'd agree with that. I think there are some specific differences, though, between the CER and potential offshore issues, so I'd reserve that comment for the CER context.
