Evidence of meeting #3 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Terence Hubbard  Vice-President, Operations Sector, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Brent Parker  Acting Vice-President, Strategic Policy, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Ian Ketcheson  Director General, Crown Consultations Division, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Jennifer Saxe  Director General, Regional Operations, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Alison Clegg  Committee Researcher
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Alexandre Roger

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are having a briefing by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The witnesses are Brent Parker, acting vice-president, strategic policy; Jennifer Saxe, director general, regional operations; and Steve Chapman, chief science and knowledge officer.

Who am I missing—

Yes.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

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

On a a point of order, Madam Chair, I have a preliminary matter I want to bring up before we proceed with the witnesses.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Sure.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

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

It was my understanding on Thursday when we came together that there was an agreement that after we heard from the witnesses today we would go to open committee, where we would discuss what would be going to steering committee and what would be in open committee. The agenda that we received says that we immediately go in camera, which was not what we had discussed or agreed to on Thursday.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Generally, Madame Findlay, the committee business is always done in camera, but if you want it to be open, it can be. It's not a problem.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

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

Well, we did discuss this on Thursday and had consensus on this then.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

I don't.... I think we'll have to check the blues for whether we agreed what will be in camera or open, but—

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

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

My understanding from you, Madam Chair, and from our discussion was that we would be in open committee where we would discuss what would go into in camera in the steering committee, and that's what we prefer to do.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Is there anybody who has a problem with the committee being open?

Yes, Mr. Longfield.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

I never have a problem with open committee, other than some of the items, of course. I shouldn't say “never”, as “never” is not the good word to use.

My understanding last time was that the subcommittee was going to talk about the motions that had been received and look at prioritizing the motions, and then come back to the committee with what the next study recommendation would be, so that the committee could vote on the next study.

If we need to do some of that out of camera, yes.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Sure. Nobody has a problem keeping committee business in open, right?

8:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

With that, can we proceed with the witnesses?

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

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

Yes.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chapman is not there. I'm not even looking there.

Mr. Ketcheson and Mr. Hubbard, how many minutes do you have between the four of you? Are you each taking five minutes, seven minutes, 10 minutes?

8:45 a.m.

Terence Hubbard Vice-President, Operations Sector, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Brent will make our opening comments, so we'll have one presenter for opening comments and then the rest of us will be—

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Okay, and that's it, and then we can ask questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Parker.

8:45 a.m.

Brent Parker Acting Vice-President, Strategic Policy, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Thank you very much.

My name is Brent Parker. I am the acting vice-president of external relations and strategic policy at the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

I appreciate the opportunity to come to speak with you today about the agency and the Impact Assessment Act itself.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is a federal body accountable to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The agency is responsible for conducting impact assessments under the Impact Assessment Act, and is headquartered here in Ottawa, with six regional offices. The agency has almost 500 full-time equivalent employees with an annual budget of $74 million for this past fiscal year.

Impact assessment is an internationally recognized planning tool designed to understand and mitigate the negative effects of projects while enhancing their benefits.

Federal impact assessment has a long history in Canada, first established in 1974, and our predecessor, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, was established in 1994 under the original Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and continued under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012.

This past August, 2019, the Impact Assessment Act came into force, repealing the 2012 law and creating the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

Federal impact assessment applies to major projects. These are designated in a regulation, colloquially referred to as the “Project List”. It focuses on those projects with the greatest potential for adverse effects in areas of federal jurisdiction related to the environment. There are currently over 70 major projects undergoing federal assessment, ranging from oil and gas and mining projects, to highways, ports and infrastructure, and renewable energy projects.

The Agency's work under the Impact Assessment Act is guided by a number of principles. They include fostering sustainability, predictability and timeliness, co-operation, reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples, meaningful public engagement, and integrating scientific information and indigenous knowledge.

I'd like to touch on each of these themes today and highlight some of the early successes in the implementation of the Impact Assessment Act.

First, the Impact Assessment Act broadens project reviews, from environmental assessments to impact assessments, with a focus on sustainability.

This means that federal assessments now consider a broader range of potential impacts to understand how a proposed project could affect not just the environment but also social and health aspects, indigenous peoples, jobs and the economy over the long-term.

The act also recognizes that individual project reviews are not best placed to address complex policy issues, and it provides new tools for the consideration of these. Regional and strategic assessments are the tools that provide avenues to understand the “big picture” view.

With this in mind, the agency has been working closely with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, as well as with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador since last spring on a regional assessment of offshore oil and gas exploratory drilling east of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will enhance environmental understanding and protections while also streamlining specific project review.

The Impact Assessment Act creates an efficient and predictable review process, giving companies the clarity and predictability they need.

Project reviews have legislated timelines and they are rigorously managed.

The Impact Assessment Act introduces a new planning phase. Planning brings greater predictability to the process by establishing requirements and expectations at the outset that will inform and guide a project assessment. It lays out how we will engage with indigenous groups and stakeholders, and co-operate with other jurisdictions. It also enables public participation to identify potential issues early and determine how they may be addressed. Most importantly, for project proponents, it establishes what will be examined during the impact assessment and any information and studies that will be required.

Just this week, the agency marked a milestone, posting notices of commencement for the first projects that have completed the planning phase under the Impact Assessment Act, those being the Webequie Supply Road and the Marten Falls community access road, both in northern Ontario.

Cooperation is another guiding principle to move towards more timely project assessments for companies and a one-window approach for stakeholders, to avoid duplicating efforts.

Federally, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada leads all major project reviews and coordinates consultation with indigenous peoples. Assessments continue to rely heavily on the expertise and experience of federal departments, as well as life-cycle regulators, including the Canada Energy Regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and the Atlantic offshore petroleum boards. For example, the agency has closely worked with federal departments and the Canada Energy Regulator over the recent while to work through the planning phase for the Gazoduq project, a proposed natural gas pipeline located in eastern Ontario and Quebec, including on the development of the draft tailored impact statement guidelines, which are currently out for public consultation.

The act also mandates the agency to co-operate with other jurisdictions on impact assessments, and provides enhanced tools to avoid duplication and align processes. There are collaboration agreements in place for almost all current assessment that are underway.

One particularly fruitful partnership is that with British Columbia, driven by a co-operation agreement that was put in place in August 2019, between the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the British Columbia Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. This agreement has seen us realize the first substitution process under the Impact Assessment Act.

Reconciliation with indigenous peoples is a key consideration woven into the design of the assessment process.

The Impact Assessment Act provides enhanced opportunities for partnerships with First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities, based on recognition of indigenous rights from the start—this includes early engagement and opportunities to participate at every stage.

The law also requires that decision-making take into consideration indigenous culture and impacts on Indigenous peoples and rights. The aim is to secure consent through processes based on mutual respect and dialogue.

As I mentioned, public participation is a key element of the Impact Assessment Act. This process under the act is open and transparent, with greater opportunities for communities to have their voices heard. A new online platform has been created for sharing information and increasing public access. Throughout the assessment process, the public has meaningful opportunities to participate. There are many ways that indigenous groups, stakeholders and the general public are able to provide feedback, from town halls to workshops to online platforms; and all of those opportunities are tailored to the circumstances of a particular project.

Transparent, evidence-based decision-making is a fundamental part of the review process. Impact assessments consider scientific evidence which is rigorously tested by federal scientists and made available in an easy-to-understand format for the public. It is mandatory to consider and protect indigenous knowledge, where available, alongside science and other evidence.

Impact assessments are carried out by the agency or by a review panel under the act to help inform the public interest decision, which is made by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, or cabinet.

Reasons for decisions are now made publicly available so that Canadians can better understand the rationale for decision-making.

In conclusion, the agency's working to put into practice the principles articulated in the Impact Assessment Act, and to reflect values that are important to Canadians: early, inclusive and meaningful public engagement; a predictable and co-operative process; nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown and government-to-government partnerships with indigenous peoples; timely decisions based on the best available science and indigenous knowledge; and sustainability for present and future generations.

Thank you very much. This concludes my opening remarks. We would welcome questions from the committee.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Thank you.

We go with the first round for six minutes. Madam Findlay.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you all for being here today. We appreciate your informing us on what you do and how you do it. It's a great opportunity.

Mr. Parker, in your remarks you talked about having a process that is predictable for business, and one of the ways you say it's predictable is by engaging with indigenous people...how to do that. Clearly, in these last two and a half weeks of railroad blockages and shutdowns of businesses, layoffs of Canadians right across the country, there was a failure with respect to the Coastal GasLink.... And now we have Teck, which has pulled out because of, among other reasons given, political unrest and uncertainty in the business environment in Canada.

When you say that you organize whom to talk to, because reconciliation is a key factor, how do you determine whom to talk to? Are you recommending that government and you engage with elected chiefs and councils? How do you take into account, for instance, hereditary chiefs who have been saying they weren't consulted?

8:55 a.m.

Acting Vice-President, Strategic Policy, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Brent Parker

Thanks for the question.

I think I'll ask Ian to take that, who's responsible for our Crown consultation division.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

Thanks.

February 25th, 2020 / 8:55 a.m.

Ian Ketcheson Director General, Crown Consultations Division, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Great. Thanks very much.

At the beginning of every project we undertake, we go through a process of assessing the likelihood that there are would-be impacts to asserted rights or established rights of indigenous groups. Obviously, the process of fulfilling “duty to consult” obligations is top of mind right now for many people. Our approach is very much driven by the specific projects that we work on and that are going through the impact assessment process.

In the case of Teck Frontier, there were approximately 20 groups that we consulted over a period of approximately eight years through that process. I'm not really able to speak to the specifics of Coastal GasLink. It went through a provincial process and the determination as to the indigenous groups to be consulted was very much driven by that process.

From our perspective—

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

Excuse me, we only have so much time.

In the Teck case, for instance, how did you determine among those groups? Our understanding is that there were many first nations in agreement with Teck Frontier. How did you determine among those groups whom you were talking to and whom you were getting agreement from?

9 a.m.

Director General, Crown Consultations Division, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Ian Ketcheson

We undertook consultations with approximately 20 groups from the beginning. Some of those indicated that they had signed impact benefit agreements with the proponent. We spoke with all of those groups through every step of the process and made sure that at the end of it, we had properly assessed what the impacts on rights were, identified ways in which we could address those impacts and worked with the communities to determine if there were any outstanding issues. That was a process that we undertook for approximately eight years.