Environment Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I understand, but you haven't answered my question. You're talking about groups. Who within those groups did you get sign-off from?

[Ian Ketcheson]

In the context of Alberta, we worked very closely on the first nation side with the chief and council of those groups that were there. On the Métis side, we also worked with local communities and regional communities. We also worked with some groups who asserted rights and were not part of a formal first nation. We talked through those issues with them as well.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

With respect to the indigenous groups where you were dealing with the chief and council—which I would suggest would be a normal, recognizable process for government to do—how have you assessed the risk of others within that group still not being onside and still holding up a project?

[Ian Ketcheson]

Through all of the impact assessments when we undertake consultations—and this is a new feature that is sort of codified in the act—we are aspiring to achieve consent. We're making every effort that we can to ensure that the communities we work with provide consent on a project. Obviously, there will be a range of views within every community around individual projects, but we are very much looking at the impacts on rights and assessing the ways in which those impacts can be mitigated or accommodated if needed.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I understand that you're making your best efforts, but I think you would have to agree with me, given recent events, that it is impossible to say that it's entirely predictable.

[Ian Ketcheson]

I think it's fair to say that when undergoing indigenous consultations, it's not predictable, much like any other processes with representatives.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you. That's good.

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have one and a half minutes.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

One and a half minutes. Okay—all that time.

I want to take a look at section 9 of the act. This gives the minister the power to designate a project on request or by his or her own initiative. Are there limitations on that power, or is it an open power where the minister can simply designate?

[Terence Hubbard]

This provision was carried over from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. It is an extraordinary authority, an authority that hadn't been used frequently under the previous legislation. The authority requires the minister to assess whether there is potential for significant environmental impacts in areas of federal jurisdiction or significant areas of public concern, so those tests have to be met. If they are met, then the minister may designate a project as requiring a federal assessment. It's not a mandatory requirement that he reach that conclusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

The next round of questions is from Mr. Scarpaleggia.

You have six minutes, please.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is sort of in the same vein or continuing on that track.

When we say “designate a project”, that means a project that's not on the project list, right?

[Terence Hubbard]

There are two ways that a project could be designated. Number one, it is on the project list, or number two, the minister uses that discretionary authority that was mentioned by the other member to require an assessment of something that's not on that list.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

How does a project get on the project list? The project list must be a revolving list, really.

[Brent Parker]

The project list is a regulation that existed under CEAA 2012. It was reviewed as part of the EA review process, so there was a fairly extensive public engagement process on that. However, the project list is a GIC regulation that was established. In its establishment, there was a fair bit of analytical work that looked at what the major projects typically seen in Canada are that have the potential for impacts in federal jurisdictions.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of this. The project list is not specific projects. It's specific types of projects.

[Brent Parker]

That's correct. It's specific types of projects.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So, the main criteria are that it has to be above a certain dollar amount, I guess, and it has to be within federal jurisdiction. Would those be the main criteria?

[Brent Parker]

The basic tenet is that we're looking at projects that have the potential for the greatest environmental affects in federal jurisdiction. The way that we identified that was through thresholds, and typically there are production thresholds. For example, with regard to mining, there are different types of mining projects that are identified on that list above a certain amount of annual-production thresholds.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So, public transit projects in and around cities would not qualify unless they traversed federal lands or impacted migratory birds or species at risk. Is that correct?

[Brent Parker]

That's generally correct. There are some specific infrastructure projects that are included on the list. In terms of going through the impact assessment process, you would need to be on the list. The one exception in your comment is that, if it's on federal lands, there's a separate process that is not an impact assessment process to the same degree. It's identified in separate provisions within the act. Those are managed by the federal land managers, as opposed to the Impact Assessment Agency.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I see. In the past, there were different kinds of assessments; there were panel assessments, then there were screenings and assessments that were somehow narrower in scope and less involving of public consultation.

Has that continuum been maintained, or are you just now doing impact assessments that involve public consultation and the like?

[Brent Parker]

Those processes have been simplified into two different streams. The assessment can either be run by the agency itself, or the minister can choose to refer that project for review to an independent review panel. In both cases, there is actually a new provision, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, around a planning process, which allows us, as the agency, to work with the proponent and the public for up to 180 days to plan how the assessment will proceed. That's a new feature that enables us to have a lot more engagement with those who are interested in the project, to work with the proponent around improvements to the project before it actually moves into the assessment that would be done by the agency or the subsequent review panel.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Is that an element of added flexibility that proponents would welcome? This seems to be that there's an opportunity after study to take a different track from a full-blown assessment and go to something that is more restricted. Would that be a feature that would, in a sense, please project proponents?

[Brent Parker]

Through the course of our consultations, we certainly heard a lot of support for having proponents engage with us early and have that early planning process where there is open and transparent access to the conversation around how projects are being developed. I think the thing that is probably most beneficial is that, because of that early engagement, we have a much better sense of what the key issues are for those projects, what the key interests are from communities and indigenous groups, which allows us then to work on focusing and scoping the project. I mentioned tailored impact statement guidelines in my remarks. That's a new tool under the act that allows us to tailor the issues that are most important in the process, so that when that assessment begins, proponents already know at the outset what the key issues are and what the information methodologies would be in terms of requirements for bringing themselves into the next step of the assessment.