Environment Committee on Sept. 25th, 2025

[Ian Ketcheson]

Our overwhelming priority in conducting an impact assessment on the indigenous consultation side is to ensure the full, active participation of indigenous groups that are potentially affected, so that they have a leadership role in the assessment itself. This means that we have dedicated teams across the country that will work closely with the communities to make sure that we're working with them in a way that works for their governance and the way they make decisions and build consensus within communities. At every step of the way, we ensure that we are working hand in hand with our indigenous partners to make sure that we can truly understand and communicate to decision-makers the range of potential impacts and ensure that those messages and concerns are carried all the way through.

We work with more than 300 communities across the country. We have teams across the country that spend a lot of time working with those partners to make sure their voices are heard and prioritized in the process.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I don't want to leave out our water folks over here. I want to make sure that I ask them a few questions.

I live on the mouth of the Fraser River, where the fresh water meets the salt water of the Pacific Ocean. Fresh water is important for the salmon that run by. How is the agency coordinating at all levels of government, territories and indigenous communities to engage in shared water management?

[Gemma Boag]

We are focused on collaborating at the federal level. Within the federal level, there are over 20 departments and agencies that touch on fresh water in some way. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the agency chairs an interdepartmental committee to bring together those departments to advance strategic approaches to working on freshwater issues. We also work closely with provinces and territories in terms of implementing freshwater ecosystem initiatives. We also work jointly with those governments on water boards, for example the Prairie Provinces Water Board and the Mackenzie River Basin Board. We work closely with indigenous partners in those venues and also on various initiatives that the agency is undertaking. For example, in the development of a freshwater data strategy, we engage with indigenous partners directly.

Importantly, we also work with stakeholders and with the public on initiatives. A current example of that is that we're holding round tables on water issues around the country, whether that be water in the economy or water in collaboration with different jurisdictions, where we bring together experts and stakeholders to discuss issues. That's a bit of our convening role. That's a bit of a high level, but we can give more examples.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

We have time for one short question and one short answer.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

What investments are being made to address climate-driven challenges, such as flooding and droughts?

[Gemma Boag]

In terms of flooding and droughts, the majority of the agency's programs work on water quality issues. Some of those interventions—the programs my colleague runs—help improve resilience to flood and drought impacts in watersheds. There are other programs in the federal government that look at flood and drought issues as well.

Recognizing the time, I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Mr. Grant.

I now give the floor to Mr. Bonin for six minutes.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. I also want to thank them for their presentations.

We're talking about fast-tracking projects by reducing wait times from five to two years. You've suggested ways to do that. If it's so easy, why weren't the timelines shortened earlier?

[Patricia Brady]

I'll start by saying that timelines were set out in the legislation. The idea was to set maximum deadlines.

When the Impact Assessment Act came into force in 2019, we followed that directive. Now we're following another one, which is to set two-year deadlines.

I also want to clarify something. There are a lot of misperceptions or misconceptions about the timelines of our work.

For assessments that have gone through the comprehensive process, Éric mentioned timelines of around four years. We have actually completed 20 assessments in and around six months. The way the process works is that there is an initial assessment period, after which we may determine, after consultation, that there isn't a need for a comprehensive assessment. If you look at the average timeline of initial assessments and comprehensive assessments, it's around 10 months. With that, the timelines are not as far off as we might think.

Again, there are ways to improve our processes through experience and finding efficiencies. There are new tools available now that weren't available when we began implementing the act, and we're going to use those flexibilities to meet the two-year timelines.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

Earlier, you mentioned that a project included in Bill C‑5 would be subject to an impact assessment if it were considered a designated project.

As I understand it, the Impact Assessment Act is provided for in Bill C‑5. The major projects office or the government can decide not to conduct an impact assessment for a project that is designated.

Did I understand correctly?

[Patricia Brady]

Under the Building Canada Act, if a designated project under that act is also a designated project under the Impact Assessment Act—which will not necessarily be the case—an impact assessment will be required of that project.

I think there was mention of five projects that were announced. First of all, those projects were referred to the major projects office. They haven't yet gone through the process to be formally listed or scheduled under the Building Canada Act. Three of those projects have already completed assessments, so they won't require any further assessment by us, because those have already completed assessments, and the other two projects are not subject to the Impact Assessment Act, so we won't interact with them under the new act.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

We asked that the Montreal airport expansion project, which includes a new jetty, be subject to an environmental assessment. The Minister of Environment replied that it was not possible to designate the project for that purpose, pursuant to paragraph 9(7)(b) of the Impact Assessment Act, because funds had been allocated, in this case by the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

As I understand it, if the federal government invests money in a project, it automatically can't be designated by the minister to undergo an environmental assessment.

Can you explain that to me?

[Éric Landry]

That's right. There are limits to the minister's discretion for designating a project that is not on our project list.

Subsection 9(7) contains two subcomponents that limit her power in the following cases: when another federal department has granted a permit or authorization enabling the project in question to proceed, and when a federal agency has granted funds and those funds have been disbursed. The latter applied in the case of the Montreal airport.

When my team receives an application for designation, we first check to see if the project is on the project list. If so, it is already designated, so there is no need for the minister to exercise her discretion. Otherwise, before triggering the formal process of applying for designation, we check whether any of the restrictions set out in subsection 9(7) apply to the project in question, which was the case for the Montreal airport project.

If memory serves, we received over 75 applications for designation, and in at least 15 cases, a restriction applied and the minister could not exercise her discretion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Mr. Bonin, you have time for a brief question and a brief answer.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

I'm going to put my question to the representatives of the Canada Water Agency.

First of all, thank you for being with us.

We recently learned that 97% of the PFAS, aka forever chemicals, in the river come from the Great Lakes in Ontario. We all know that these substances are highly problematic.

Do you have any information on what's being done to address this issue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

I'm sorry, but the time is up.

[Véronique Hiriart-Baer, Director General, Freshwater Management, Canada Water Agency]

Okay.

We'll get back to you in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you very much.

Now we will go to Mrs. Anstey for five minutes, please.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Some of the information is helpful. I just want some clarity on a couple of things.

The Prime Minister was recently in my province, Newfoundland and Labrador, and after he left there were all kinds of news reports about the Bay du Nord project being on the major projects list.

I'm wondering if they are there. Are they listed?

[Patricia Brady]

There currently aren't any projects formally listed under the Building Canada Act.

There was an announcement of the first five projects that were being referred to the new major projects office. Bay du Nord is not one of those five projects. There was an announcement of five projects that would be referred to the office. It will be for the office to determine whether or not those are designated or whether there are other services that those projects will benefit from. There were also three broader strategies that are not in the project level phase but were being referred to the office as well.

I can go through those that were in the public announcement: the Contrecoeur Port of Montreal expansion, the Darlington nuclear project in Ontario, LNG Canada phase 2, the McIlvenna Bay mine in Saskatchewan, and the Red Chris mine in B.C. The broader strategies the office will consider are the Port of Churchill, the Alto high-speed rail project, and, in the east, Wind West.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

I'm sorry. I probably should have clarified: I'm wondering if they're being considered. Have they come up in conversation? There was a lot of publicity around it afterwards. After he met with people in the sector, at least a couple of news reports came out that said they were being considered. Do you have any awareness that they're being considered?

[Patricia Brady]

I am just aware of what has been publicly announced. The major projects office would be better placed to answer those questions. The ones that have been publicly announced for consideration are the ones I listed.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you.

You talked a little bit about the misinformation or the misunderstanding around the timelines for environmental assessment, but the major projects office had to be created. I'm wondering about the streamlining process. What was broken within the system in order for this new process to have to move forward?

[Patricia Brady]

The Building Canada Act doesn't just deal with impact assessment. I think there are 19 pieces of legislation listed in the schedule that it deals with. The objectives are to provide more upfront certainty on the outcomes, so that the initial authorization of the project—sort of pre-approved, subject to conditions—will be issued in a single document, as opposed to multiple, which is currently the case. Currently, there is an impact assessment decision, but we're just one part of the regulatory process. As I mentioned at the outset, it doesn't apply to very many projects. There are Fisheries Act authorizations, Species at Risk Act authorizations, mining effluent regulations and a number of federal permits.

The objective of the act is to streamline all of those permits into one process, which is supposed to happen within two years, and a single decision document. It's also to provide investors with upfront certainty on the outcomes of those processes. The other requirements of these acts will still apply to those projects.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Okay.

At our last meeting, we talked about the oil and emissions cap. I'm wondering how that interacts with the environmental assessment for the projects that do make their way onto the list. Are they still subject to the cap? How does that work?