Environment Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

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

The last question, if I have time, Madam Chair, is about the substitution process.

I'm told that Bill C-69 made it easier to just have a provincial assessment body do the assessment, whereas before you might have needed a joint assessment or even maybe—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

The answer will have to come later. Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have six minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

From the outset, I would like to ask that the answers to the questions be provided in writing. We have received written responses from the Department of Environment and Climate Change to the questions that were asked at last week's meeting. I'm making the same request for this meeting today. Thank you.

I'm worried, but I imagine you will reassure me. Initially, when we talked, there was still the word “environmental.” It was the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Now, we keep talking about impact.

I'm going to refer to IAAC's mission and mandate, which is about making informed decisions on major projects in support of sustainable development. In the environmental community, the words “sustainable development” are no longer used because they go far beyond environmental considerations.

When you conduct your analyses, do you look at the impact on the forests, on biodiversity, on health, basically on everything?

[Jennifer Saxe, Director General, Regional Operations, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada]

Absolutely. We continue to observe and analyze all the environmental effects: biophysics, forests, biodiversity, and health. Under the new bill, we are also looking at social, economic and health effects. The process is transparent for environmental effects, but in addition to that, other effects are considered as part of the assessment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

If I understand correctly, when proponents want to obtain an assessment, they are the ones who must produce the impact study.

What are you asking them to produce? Does that have anything to do with what you have just explained?

[Jennifer Saxe]

Exactly. That's the planning period that Mr. Parker described. At the beginning of the assessment, we talk to and consult with the public, the proponent, and the communities. That's when we develop the guidelines. We have interim guidelines and we consult on those guidelines.

Those guidelines include all the information and all the studies we need. They include all the environmental, social, economic studies and information, including the gender-based analysis plus, GBA+. That all ends with guidelines so that proponents have the clear knowledge they need to move forward and to provide us with the information we need.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm going to talk about a specific case that we discussed earlier: the Frontier project.

Which members of the panel had the decision-making process in their hands?

We went to see all the people consulted, but we were not able to find out where they all came from. The few people we were able to find were mainly people associated with the oil companies.

Let me ask a direct question. Could you tell me who are the members on the panel who had the decision-making process in their hands?

Where did they come from? I may have missed it, but I only saw a few of them and they were all connected to the oil industry.

[Terence Hubbard]

In this case, the panel was established by the governments of Canada and Alberta. Two members of the panel were selected by Alberta. They were energy experts from Alberta, and another member was appointed by the Minister of Environment.

That panel made the recommendations to the Government of Canada and made the decision on the province's behalf.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The people chosen to be part of it are therefore chosen by the province. The agency does not choose the people to sit on the panel.

[Terence Hubbard]

The Frontier project was born under the old act.

Under the new process, the Minister of Environment has to create a list of nominees, and the agency has to appoint the nominees to each panel.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Could I get some documentation on the requirements you have just listed?

[Terence Hubbard]

Yes, we can get them ready.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I still have some questions. Do I have any time left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have 45 seconds.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I will ask a question and you can answer in the next round.

Last week, we heard from officials from the Department of Environment and Climate Change. They have a great deal of expertise, of course, but there are also many experts in universities. The science is there and it's objective, in my opinion.

Do you also turn to those scientists?

[Terence Hubbard]

Of course, that's a major part of our mandate.

We rely heavily on the expertise of our partners: the ministers of Environment, of Fisheries and Oceans and of Transport Canada.

We don't try to replicate all that knowledge within our agency; instead, we use all the available expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

Madam Collins is next, for six minutes, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

First, thanks so much for being here and for your presentation.

First, is it correct that in the previous iteration of the review panel, climate change and the impacts upon our climate commitments—say, for example, of tech—were not considered and they didn't actually look at how this project would impact our getting to net zero by 2050?

[Terence Hubbard]

Climate wasn't a specific factor listed within the legislation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, but in 2016 the government put policy guidelines in place that would require the agency to look at climate impacts for projects that were underway throughout that framework.

In the case of Teck Frontier, the panel did look at impacts of climate change throughout that assessment, and it's more specifically laid out as a specific criterion under the new Impact Assessment Act for any new projects that will be coming forward under that legislation.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

My understanding is that in their decision-making process, they said they couldn't actually take climate impacts into consideration. They looked at the impact on species at risk and at land use, but really, the climate piece and its impact on our meeting our climate commitments wasn't included in their actual decision-making.

Is it from this point forward that it will definitely be included in the decision-making process?

[Terence Hubbard]

I can't speak on behalf of the Province of Alberta and what they considered specifically in making the decision on behalf of the province, but certainly climate impacts are considered in making a final determination in a federal assessment.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You've talked a little bit about the rationale for the project list and about the increase in the size thresholds to require review of projects from those under the previous rules. Why is there no threshold or trigger that would mandate assessments based on a project's greenhouse gas emissions, to make sure that any large carbon project, regardless of the sector, would receive an assessment?

[Brent Parker]

Building off the last answer, there is certainly an obligation on governments to consider the climate impacts of projects that are on the list. For projects that are on the list, there was analysis done to look at whether the projects on the list were those that would typically involve federal jurisdiction.

When we articulate all the different areas of those, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are among those areas. Those types of projects are, then, captured on the list. There's not an explicit entry that is carbon-based per se, but going through the list one can see that those projects that emit high amounts of GHGs are actually on the list.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

There are some major projects, including new cement plants and in situ oil sands projects, being excluded from the new project list.

Can you talk about the rationale for those ones being left off?

[Brent Parker]

There are a number of different regulatory considerations for projects. When you look at essentially any major project, there is typically provincial as well as federal regulation of some sort that comes into play.

In terms of its rationale, the Impact Assessment Act really is designed as a planning tool to look at the impacts of major projects. Projects that are not on the list were ones that for the most part either were formerly on the list or ones that, in addition to those, were considered but already have a regulatory framework of some sort around them for managing the interests that fall within federal jurisdiction.

Specifically, if you look at impacts on migratory birds or on climate change—those different areas—those are the things that were taken into account when we were looking at these projects.