Environment Committee on Sept. 25th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

The meeting is now public.

Today the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is undertaking a briefing and is meeting with senior officials from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canada Water Agency for one hour.

The witnesses are accompanied by Adam Borden, senior parliamentary affairs officer at the department, to support the testimony of senior officials.

Is it the will of the committee to allow Mr. Borden to attend the in camera session? I see that everyone is in agreement. Good.

Today we have, from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Patricia Brady, vice-president, strategic policy and programs; Ian Ketcheson, vice-president, indigenous relations; and Éric Landry, vice-president, operations.

From the Canada Water Agency, we have Gemma Boag, director general, freshwater policy and engagement; Véronique Hiriart‑Baer, director general, freshwater management; and Justyna Frobisher, acting director general, corporate services directorate, by video conference.

Is that correct, Mr. Clerk? Good.

Each organization has up to five minutes to make an opening statement.

We will start with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

You have five minutes. Thank you.

[Patricia Brady, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

My name is Patricia Brady, and I am the vice-president of the strategic policy and programs sector at the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. I'm here with my colleagues Ian Ketcheson, who's the vice-president of indigenous relations, and Éric Landry, who is the vice-president of operations at the agency.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

I am pleased to appear before the committee today to provide an overview of the work of the Impact Assessment Agency and to answer your questions on the Impact Assessment Act.

The agency’s main responsibility is to conduct impact assessments of major projects, and regional assessments which look at prospective development on a regional basis to identify issues in advance, including cumulative effects.

Impact assessment is a project planning tool and the act provides for a process and forum to assess the effects of projects, coordinate Crown consultation and meet the duty to consult, and obtain public input.

Assessments ensure that issues are identified in advance so that adverse effects in federal areas that may be caused by projects can be prevented or mitigated through project design changes or conditions.

The act applies only to major projects, such as large mines, nuclear facilities and ports. Projects subject to the act are identified in the physical activities regulations, commonly known as the project list, which set out the types and sizes of projects that are subject to the act. The list focuses on those projects that are most likely to cause adverse effects in areas of federal jurisdiction, which include effects on fish and fish habitat, migratory birds and transboundary waters, as well as impacts on indigenous people.

Since the Impact Assessment Act first came into force, in 2019, an average of eight projects per year have met these thresholds and entered the federal assessment process. These projects are subject to an initial assessment, which includes consultations with indigenous peoples and the public, identification of key issues, and then a determination by the agency as to whether a comprehensive assessment is required. Approximately 40% of the projects that have come in and triggered the act have completed the process at that stage with early decisions, and many of those have been within six months. Only the most complex projects with the potential for serious adverse effects in federal jurisdiction will require more comprehensive assessments.

For these projects, the agency is now reforming our processes to complete comprehensive assessments within two years, in line with the government's commitments. There is flexibility within the current framework to do this through a number of measures, including focusing on key issues within federal jurisdiction; consulting indigenous peoples earlier and in a more targeted manner; standardizing process elements such as mitigation measures; using new tools, including artificial intelligence, to streamline internal process timelines; and reducing information requirements on proponents by relying on and deferring to provincial processes where overlap exists.

Co-operation with provinces will be key to meeting accelerated timelines and is a major focus for the agency right now. In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed to striking co-operation agreements with every interested province to realize the goal of “one project, one review” for major projects. First ministers then agreed to work toward efficiently and effectively implementing this, with the goal of a single assessment for all projects in a manner that respects federal, provincial and territorial jurisdiction, enhances coordination activities on permitting and eliminates duplication.

Co-operation agreements under the Impact Assessment Act will enable this and will set out how we'll work with provinces to meet shared and respective responsibilities to protect the environment and indigenous rights. This would replicate the positive experience we’ve had with B.C., where “one project, one review” has been the norm for the past decade. The agency has been working with provincial counterparts to develop agreements. We're currently consulting publicly on the “one project, one review” approach, and we have our first draft agreement, other than the agreement that exists with B.C. Our first draft agreement with New Brunswick was posted last week for consultation, and we are hopeful and expect more to come in the coming weeks.

Thank you again for the opportunity to highlight some of the agency’s current work and priorities.

My colleagues and I are happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Thank you, Ms. Brady.

We'll now go to Ms. Boag from the Canada Water Agency for five minutes.

[Gemma Boag, Director General, Freshwater Policy and Engagement, Canada Water Agency]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members.

I'd also like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation. We honour their enduring relationship with this land and water and recognize the vital role of indigenous peoples in protecting and stewarding fresh water.

The Canada Water Agency is a new federal organization with the mandate to improve freshwater management in Canada by providing leadership, effective collaboration federally, and improved coordination and collaboration with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to proactively address national and regional transboundary freshwater challenges and opportunities.

The agency was launched in October 2024 with the coming into force of the Canada Water Agency Act. The agency reports to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and is headquartered in Winnipeg, with offices across the country to ensure responsiveness to regional freshwater issues.

Fresh water is an irreplaceable natural resource. From coast to coast to coast, fresh water is fundamental to the economy, communities and the environment. Pressures such as climate change, land use change and pollution are driving changes in freshwater quality and quantity. Freshwater governance in Canada is complex, highlighting the need for strong, ongoing collaboration.

The Canada Water Agency directly responds to Canada’s freshwater challenges and opportunities through work in five key areas.

First, through service to Canadians we are focused on restoring and protecting significant freshwater ecosystems.

For example, one of our key programs is the delivery of freshwater ecosystem initiatives. In the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River, Lake Winnipeg and other nationally significant water bodies across the country, the Canada Water Agency supports freshwater management programs that improve ecosystem health in service to Canadians. These initiatives also mobilize financial commitments from multiple partners. The geographic extent of these initiatives is enormous, including approximately 90% of Canada’s population and covering 40% of Canada’s surface area.

Second, the agency provides policy leadership that responds to Canada’s most pressing freshwater challenges and opportunities.

For example, the Canada Water Agency chairs the federal freshwater committee, which provides a forum for strategic discussion among senior management from 26 federal departments and agencies with a responsibility towards freshwater.

Our third work stream is cross-country collaboration, which involves creating partnerships to protect nationally significant freshwater ecosystems. In this role, the agency chairs and supports several domestic and international water boards, which strengthen collaboration on water issues among jurisdictions.

In our fourth work stream, we work to promote freshwater literacy to cultivate a water-aware Canada. As part of our freshwater ecosystem initiatives, we collaborate with partners to deliver reports on the state of significant water bodies. Through the EcoAction program, we support community-led projects aimed at increasing community engagement in protecting and sustaining freshwater resources.

Lastly, our work on science and data is focused on translating freshwater science and data to inform decision-making. For example, the agency is collaboratively leading the development of a national freshwater data strategy to establish guidelines and principles for how freshwater information can be stored, organized and shared.

In closing, the Canada Water Agency is committed to ensuring that freshwater in Canada is clean, safe and well managed—today and for generations to come.

We look forward to working on the government’s freshwater priorities.

Thank you.

We are happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

Ms. Boag, thank you for your comments.

We will now move on to the question period.

Mr. Ross, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation. It was very enlightening.

I'm glad to hear we're talking about indigenous issues as well as transboundary issues.

First nations from the U.S.A. are currently intending to expand their interests under section 35 of the Constitution, arguing they are owed a duty to consult and accommodate with major and minor projects in Canada. How are your departments preparing for this challenge?

[Ian Ketcheson, Vice-President, Indigenous Relations, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada]

I can respond.

As you're aware, and as the committee will be aware, there was a recent Supreme Court case that indicated—

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

By the way, I should have prefaced that with the court case. It was the Desautel case.

[Ian Ketcheson]

Yes.

Following the Desautel decision, which did find there's a possibility for some indigenous nations in the United States to have some section 35 rights in Canada, we're very aware of that. In the current context, there have been a number of projects coming through the Impact Assessment Agency system that have been located in close proximity to the United States. We work closely with our colleagues in British Columbia on these. We have not been formally consulting with those groups in our projects; however, B.C. has a process for working with the southeast Alaska indigenous groups, and we have provided some engagement support for them currently. We recognize that, following the Desautel case, it is important to hear perspectives from communities based outside of Canada. On the active projects we have, we have not identified them for consultation, but we have been working to ensure their concerns are heard.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

You are aware that the court case was actually very narrowly defined. It didn't expand into section 35 rights per se. It was a hunting right. If anybody else wants to challenge that, it has to be challenged in our courts. It does not necessarily mean we need to consult and accommodate first nations from the United States.

I was very glad to hear about the efficient timelines proposed and the objectives for the impact assessment guidelines. We talked about duplication. I heard about that. It sounds very similar to the newly created major projects office. Is there going to be a lot of duplication? It sounds exactly the same as what was described by the Prime Minister in terms of fast-tracking major projects.

[Patricia Brady]

I can answer that.

I would say that not all of the projects that will be eventually listed under the new Building Canada Act will necessarily be projects that are designated under the Impact Assessment Act. There's the potential that there will be projects listed that actually are not subject to the Impact Assessment Act.

Where projects that are designated under the Building Canada Act are subject to impact assessment, proponents for those projects will continue to be required to provide information and go through our process, and we will continue to be required to do an impact assessment. The difference is that, at the end of that, conditions will be recommended as a result of our process to the minister responsible for the Building Canada Act, and then those conditions will be part of a single authorization of conditions document that would be issued for the project, which would have otherwise perhaps been a separate Fisheries Act authorization or any other permits that might be required.

Impact assessment, if it would otherwise apply to a project that is designed under that act, will continue to apply, but it will be a streamlined process and a streamlined conditions document. We will continue to have a role in conducting impact assessments.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

National security is a big issue, and I haven't heard any conversation about that in relation to environmental assessments. Is there any process in terms of potential participants in environmental assessments? Are there any background checks to see whether their participation in a Canadian impact assessment is fully or partially funded or even influenced by foreign interest groups?

[Patricia Brady]

National security isn't a factor under the Impact Assessment Act when looking at the impacts of projects, but the Investment Canada Act's national security provisions would apply to investments in major projects. So there is a federal act that looks at national security issues for investments and who the investors are in major projects. It's obviously a separate act. When we're talking about impact assessment, we're focused on the impacts of the project and not on the investor.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Not anybody asking to participate in an environmental assessment.... There is no background check to see if these participants are funded by foreign interests or influenced by foreign interests when they're actually trying to engage in an environmental assessment that will affect Canada's future.

[Patricia Brady]

It is a public process. Members of the public, interest groups, indigenous groups, obviously, and community members are invited to provide public input into the public process. All of that is factored into consideration—

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I understand that. My question is whether there are any background checks to see if participants are actually being influenced or funded by foreign interest groups.

[Patricia Brady]

We don't do background checks. We often get thousands of comments on the public record, submitted through our website with respect to projects. We don't do background checks in that regard. We do vet comments, of course, for appropriateness before they are posted online.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay.

Does the current Canadian environmental assessment allow for non-federal or non-provincial governmental environmental assessments to be legally recognized, similar to B.C.'s Environmental Assessment Act?

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

The time is up. Give a very short response, please.

[Patricia Brady]

The short answer is yes.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Angelo Iacono]

We will go to Mr. Grant.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned the co-operation agreement that was signed with New Brunswick. I was lucky enough to meet with the delegation from New Brunswick two days ago, and I recognize that they did sign that.

As a member from British Columbia, I know that it brings certainty to businesses in my province. I just wanted to ask if you could expand on how IAAC works with and collaborates with provinces on impact assessments and collaboration.

[Éric Landry, Vice-President, Operations, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada]

I'll take this one.

We have a memorandum of understanding with the Province of British Columbia. It sets the framework and defines how we collaborate with the province. The agreement sets a framework for substitutions—essentially, how substitutions work. The provincial minister will make a request for the project to be substituted to the provincial process. Essentially, the provincial process will meet the needs of both the federal government and the provincial government. It is a single process to meet the needs of both governments.

My team in the region will work closely with the B.C. environmental agency office, and we will support them through that process. We will support indigenous consultation through that process. We also offer participant funding for that process. Essentially, the province manages that process, and we're there to support them. It leads to an efficient process. It's one process, one review. Once the province has completed its review, it will submit a report to provincial ministers—typically, there are two ministers in B.C. who will make the decision—and to the federal minister of the environment for their decision.

There's a good track record of substitutions. The vast majority of our projects are substituted to the province. There are two recent examples under the Impact Assessment Act. The Cedar LNG project was approved in about three and a half years. More recently, the Ksi Lisims LNG project was approved on September 15. That was just over four years.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

You mentioned consultation with indigenous groups as well, and I just wanted to expand on that. How does IAAC engage and consult with indigenous communities as part of the impact assessment process?