Environment Committee on May 3rd, 2018

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Does this apply to temporary waterways?

[Catherine Higgens]

Temporary waterways such as ditches and irrigation channels are not intended to be captured by the definition, because they would not be for the purposes of travel.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

What about natural ravines that flow for a week per year?

[Catherine Higgens]

There would need to be a test of reasonable likelihood of use for travel and transportation or exercise of indigenous rights. If it's a minor ditch or crevice that fills with water temporarily, that would not, in my opinion, fall under that definition. This is not the canoe test. It's not as restrictive as it was under the MPA. It's in the middle, but with some clear guidance to industry and to municipalities.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I appreciate the answer. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

I let that go on, because I think it's important that we have that clarification.

Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all very much for being here once again on this very important bill.

As I've mentioned a number of times, I have been through environmental assessments and terms of reference at the provincial level with the Province of Ontario. It was my experience in going through those that the proponent has an incredible amount of power, in a sense, on defining what evidence or science is going to be used. I want to follow up on where Mr. Fisher was going earlier.

It's very much proponent driven. In the mining experience, they decide how it will be studied, what will be reported, how reports are presented, or whether they're even presented at all. Once again, if they don't like the findings, nobody knew the report was even done.

How does Bill C-69 ensure that this is not going to be a purely proponent-driven process when it comes to the science and evidence?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

There are a number of ways. First off, proposed section 22 of the legislation, which lays out the factors that need to be undertaken in an impact assessment, is an expanded section that looks at health, social, and economic factors as well as community knowledge and indigenous knowledge and impact. It's a broader suite of things that need to be looked at in an assessment.

Then on a project-by-project basis, the agency will work with a proponent in the early planning phase to look at those factors and establish tailored impact statement guidelines for them to fill out. Throughout the early planning process, we will also be working with others, indigenous groups, stakeholders, and the Canadian public, to find out what issues need to be brought to bear within the assessment process, and those will be factored into the tailored impact statement guidelines that the proponent will receive.

There's quite a process that includes a multitude of individuals, including our partners at the federal level, to help define what the scope of the assessment will be and the reports that are needed to be provided. It's not just the proponent determining those. There are many factors that play into determining that scope.

Once this scope has been set and the proponent is filling in the information and the reports that are needed to conduct the assessment, those are then evaluated by federal experts. We turn often to our partners in Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport, or NRCan, and their science sections to review those. Those reports and the analysis by those federal expert departments will now be posted on the registry.

In the past, there was some information posted on the registry. The proposed legislation proposes to post more of the proponent's science on the registry, but also the analytics of our federal partners who have helped us to assess that science.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The agency itself, or whoever's reviewing this, will actually have the strength of regulatory oversight to ensure that it's not just the proponent's science that will be a part of this. The agency's demands will also be met, and every report generated by the proponent will be disclosed. There's no ability for them to, as I said, not like the results of a particular report and just not share those with the agency or anyone else.

[Christine Loth-Bown]

Yes, that's correct. There are increased provisions for transparency, for posting all the science. There's also a legislated requirement for federal expert departments to weigh in and analyze scientific information, and for their analysis to be posted as well.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

It has also been my experience in going through this process that many times as you're meeting the public participation requirements it's just a box-checking process: “Okay, yes, yes, we met with them. We told them what it was about. We heard what they had to say.” There was really no meaningful participation on behalf of the public.

I asked the minister this question, and she stated that, yes, we need to ensure that we have meaningful participation. But how is that being captured now, in this bill? When I look at it now, it looks like it's just a box-checking exercise.

[Christine Loth-Bown]

Meaningful participation starts in the early planning. One of the key outputs of the early planning phase is a public participation plan as well as an indigenous engagement and consultation plan.

I noted earlier that we'll be doing that with indigenous groups. We'll also be doing that with the public to find out who wants to be consulted, who's interested, and who has issues that they want brought to bear. The agency will be playing a role in terms of drafting those issues and providing those back to the proponent. There's a step in the legislation requiring us to do that. At the end of the early planning phase, there will be a defined public participation plan that will outline who wants to participate and how they would like to be participated with.

So that's important throughout there, and—

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Can hearings be a part of that plan? Can cross-examination and all the rest of it be a part of that early planning phase?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

The early planning phase is not the assessment process. The assessment process actually starts after the early planning phase.

I think it's important to note that the legislation doesn't define what public participation tools need to be used. It's enabling, so it's enabling meaningful public participation. We will be working to develop policy and guidelines that will define a plethora of public participation tools that can be used throughout the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. I let that go on a bit, because I think it was an important clarification.

Madame Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Hi. I will ask my questions in French, which is my first language.

Good morning, and thank you, everyone.

I would first like to say that I'm replacing a colleague today. I am interested in the topic we're discussing today, but it is outside of my comfort zone. I normally sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, where members work hand in hand, and where we have the right to ask any questions we may have.

I was left wanting more, and I'll tell you why. It concerns the agency's impact assessment. Paragraph 22(1)(s) of the proposed bill mentions “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”. Both you and the minister talked a lot about indigenous peoples.

Do you take gender-based analysis into account when drafting such a major bill?

If so, what impact will this bill have on women and children? We talked a lot about indigenous peoples.

I also have another question. I'll ask both of my questions, and then the witnesses can answer them however they want.

Could Bill C-69 be an obstacle to the economic development of certain remote areas, for example, regions that aren't populated by indigenous peoples, given all the analyses you will conduct? In my region, there are few indigenous communities, if any.

[Christine Loth-Bown]

We have taken women and children into account in the bill. When evaluating projects, we believe that it is very important to examine the impact they will have on everyone. From time to time, we realize that there can be a social impact on the communities. Gender identity is one example of an issue we're studying.

If a number of people come to work on a project, we need to house them, which means renting houses, apartments and other accommodation. This can have an impact on women and children, because of the potentially higher rent.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

More specifically, you talked a lot with indigenous peoples. You consulted with them.

[Christine Loth-Bown]

Yes.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

What I want to know is whether you consulted with women.

We're talking more and more about gender-based analysis. Women should therefore be part and parcel of a bill this important. Have you consulted with them?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

We talked to both women and men during our consultations.

As the minister explained, our consultation had a number of steps. At each step, we heard Canadians expressing comments and a diversity of points of view. We have taken all of these comments into consideration in our analysis.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Okay.

Have there been any comments on the potential obstacle to certain regions' economic development?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

The aim of the legislation is not to impede economic development, but to implement an assessment system that could help it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

I have one quick question.

The proposed impact assessment act and also the Canadian energy regulator act have transitional provisions. The Mining Association of Canada has expressed real concerns that there's an inconsistency between those transitional provisions. They would like to have the same transitional provisions apply. They're really concerned that under the new regime, projects that are already under way will have to go back to the beginning rather than completing the process under the old regime.

You've taken that into account, I assume.