Environment Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[Brent Parker]

There are provisions that allow the minister to extend the timeline for up to 90 days in the various stages of assessment that you referred to.

In addition, if after having extended it for 90 days there were a desire for additional time for the review, the question would have to go to cabinet for decision. Such an extension of the timeline doesn't have a set number of days associated with it. They would identify what time frame was needed.

In terms of the specifics related to your question around the overall length of time of the review, the new timelines under the Impact Assessment Act are shorter than those under CEAA 2012. There's a takeaway presentation, which we have provided, that lays out the details of this, but grosso modo, there's the early planning phase, which is 180 days; then the review process itself under CEAA 2012 was 365 days. Under the new act It has now been amended to be 300 days. Similarly, the time for a review panel, which was 720 days, is now 600 days. Then the final decision step by the minister is either 30 days or, in the case of cabinet, 90 days.

In addition to those time frames, there are the potential extensions that you noted of 90 days, by the minister or by cabinet.

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

Is it 90 days at each of those stages, and then cabinet could extend further upon request?

[Brent Parker]

That's correct.

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

Thank you.

Also, can the minister request that the proponent provide additional information on the project even after the panel or agency has submitted its final report to the minister? If so, are there any limitations to what can be requested by the minister?

[Brent Parker]

Section 52 allows the minister to request subsequent information in cases in which there's not sufficient information to take a decision. This is a discretionary power that is there in cases of need.

The whole intent of the legislation, however, is built around getting the information early through a planning phase and then articulating it through the information statement guidelines I noted, so that all of the information that is ultimately needed is included in the assessment report at the end of the process.

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

My interest is not so much in what's likely to happen as in what could happen. Can the minister at that stage, after the recommendation, ask for information that had not been previously considered, for instance?

[Brent Parker]

There is the potential for that through this provision, if it were needed to support the actual decision-making.

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

In such a case, how are timelines taken into account? Could doing so extend the process by months—or even years, if one had to go into a whole new analysis?

[Brent Parker]

The only provisions to extend the timelines are those I mentioned, in which the minister would have the ability for a 90-day period. Beyond that, because of the section 52 provisions, it's not something that could actually be adjusted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Saini, I understand you are splitting your time with Mr. Longfield.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes, I am.

I want to follow up on my last question. If a project in Canada is deemed to go forward, there may be impacts, for example, on the U.S.A. Does trigger a necessity of informing the U.S.A. that this project would have an environmental impact and making sure they are aware of it and are included in the impact assessment; or, because they have not ratified the treaty, would you not consult with them?

[Terence Hubbard]

Because they haven't ratified the treaty, we would not have a specific obligation under the Espoo Convention, but we have bilateral relations that we have established with the U.S.A. over the years. Many times we have a project that has potential trans-boundary effects. Through those conventions, we notify them and collaborate with them as necessary throughout the process.

It wouldn't be a specific requirement under the treaty, but by convention.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just by virtue of good neighbourly relations, then, you would inform them. Do they do the same thing for us in that regard?

[Terence Hubbard]

Similarly, through Global Affairs and through the State Department, we have bilateral arrangements to inform each other of projects when there are potential trans-boundary effects.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Between TMX, CGL and Teck, which were three really important projects that are very instructive, I think, for the Canadian public....

Concerning the Teck piece, first of all, with Teck's withdrawing their application and citing that there isn't a solid climate change framework, I read that to be a provincial framework, as there is still no regulatory system for hitting a cap of 100 megatonnes in Alberta. When you are looking at the risks in a project due to provincial regulations or legislation, does it come into our impact assessment to say that there is a risk to the project because of its not having approvals that could be regulated through the province?

[Terence Hubbard]

Certainly, to the extent that provincial governments have regulatory mechanisms or tools in place to mitigate project-specific impacts, they are something we would consider. Any time we see a potential for impacts in federal jurisdiction, we have an obligation to look at measures to mitigate them. The stronger the mechanisms that are in place, the easier it is for us to rely on those mechanisms rather than look at other ways in which to mitigate the impacts.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Looking north at that project on the Mackenzie River and the impact of that project upon the river, and questioning whether the territory had enough monitoring of water levels and how they might impact the watershed of the Mackenzie.... Is that also something we look at, or is it strictly up to the territory to look at it?

[Terence Hubbard]

Impacts on water and water levels were looked at through the review panel process. There are also mechanisms in place to look at the cumulative impacts of various provincial agreements between Alberta and B.C., looking at impacts on water flows on the Peace-Athabasca delta.

Various reports and assessments have been done by our colleagues in other federal departments as well. Transport Canada recently released a report on water flows in the region.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

With only a minute left, maybe I will stick with Teck, because I think it is instructive in terms of how we do our process and create predictable processes for businesses in the assessments.

How would we pull together any relevant provinces or territories on a project that may have provincial jurisdiction overlapping with federal jurisdiction? Do we have joint meetings with the proponent, the provinces and territories and the federal government? Is that typically how the process unfolds?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That's your time, sir.

[Terence Hubbard]

As Jennifer mentioned earlier, through the new process we have an obligation to put in place a collaboration agreement for every review process. We would sit down with each province to look at how we can collaborate to address the interests of each jurisdiction.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

But it was not necessary under the old agreement.

[Terence Hubbard]

It was not necessary, but advisable.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes.