Summary of the Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee on Science and Knowledge November 24 and 25, 2021 Virtual Meeting

Meeting Objective

There were five main objectives of the November 24 and 25 meeting of the TAC. The first was to update the TAC on the work of the sub-committee on pre-planning. The second was to seek TAC review and recommendations on the Agency’s draft “Describing Effects under the IAA” guidance. The third was to determine a work plan for additional work on health, social, and economic (HSE) effects, building on the TAC’s recommendations. The fourth was to seek agreement on the themes summarized by the Agency, based on TAC feedback on implementation of TISGs. The final objective was to explore biodiversity as a topic for which the TAC would give advice..

Day 1

Agenda Item: Opening Remarks

• The ex-officio member provided a territorial acknowledgement for the land on which the Agency representatives were located, and spoke directly to his own journey in terms of reconciliation.
• The Agency provided some updates on the arrival of its new Minister and on the renewal offers issued to current TAC members.

Pre-planning

• The TAC sub-committee on pre-planning introduced a draft report containing best practices for enhancing activities that take place before the planning phase. The sub­committee requested written comments from TAC members following the meeting.
• The committee briefly discussed the option of having a working group established in pre­planning, including its potential composition, opportunities and challenges.

Agenda Item: Describing Effects under the IAA

• The Agency presented on its draft “Describing Effects under the IAA” guidance, and provided a copy to TAC members. The presentation provided context on the guidance and a summary of the approach outlined in the current draft.
• Key points of feedback provided by TAC members included: the implications of a focus on residual effects; the need to provide clarity on the Act’s provisions for assessing significance; the concept of significance and its relation to regulatory and value-based thresholds; ensuring an accurate understanding of what is meant when an analysis indicates that there will be no effect on a valued component; the importance of ensuring that significance includes societal values; understanding the different roles and perspectives between those who propose and those who determine it; as well as considerations around including positive effects in extent of significance determinations.

Agenda Item: Health, Social, and Economic Effects

• The TAC agreed upon a work plan for further work on HSE effects, building on its previous recommendations.
• TAC members supported a new Agency document on mental health effects. Ideas put forth for the new document included having it focus on best practices instead of tools and looking at how mental health was considered in past assessments. Members committed to sharing with the Agency any relevant resources on mental health best practices.
• TAC members also discussed the possibility of ethical practice guidance. Considerations in developing the document included the possibility of consulting with outside experts and aligning timelines for ethical review within the legislated timelines for the Impact Assessment Act. The Agency will share a draft of the ethical practice work with TAC for review at a later date.

Day 2

Agenda Item: Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines

• The TAC co-chairs provided an overview of the topic, and provided a recap of some of the discussion and outcomes from the September-October TAC meeting.
• TAC members discussed a number of points related to TISGs, including accommodating flexibility throughout the process if doing thorough scoping up front, focusing on important valued components (within the context of the specific project assessments), noting areas where there is uncertainty, providing proponents with clarity and predictability, and options for navigating tight timelines.
• The TAC agreed to meet in smaller groups to work through five specific themes: 1) operationalizing a risk-based approach to scoping; 2) identifying project key issues and tiering them; 3) information to be requested from proponents 4) information to be requested from federal authorities; and, 5) other sources of evidence.

Agenda Item: Biodiversity as a Valued Component in the Context of UNDRIP and the Convention on Biological Diversity

• A TAC member presented on the topic of biodiversity as a valued component in the context of UNDRIP and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The presentation included an overview of relevant aspects of both the declaration and the convention, as well as some context for the connection with biodiversity.
• Key points discussed by the TAC included: opportunities to leverage regional assessments, ways to best define biodiversity, how to account for biodiversity as a valued component in impact assessment, the need for Indigenous perspectives, and the connection between biodiversity and the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations.
• The TAC decided to form a sub-committee to further explore the topic.

Take Aways

• The pre-planning sub-committee will do further work, and return to present to the TAC at the January 2022 meeting.
• The Agency will organize smaller group meetings on the TISG themes.
• The Agency and co-champion will organize an initial meeting of the biodiversity sub-committee.

Attendees

TAC Co-Chairs

• Kevin Hanna
• Darcy Pickard

TAC Committee Members

• Alistair MacDonald
• Bill Ross
• Gillian Donald
• Glennis Lewis
• Helga Shield
• Marie Lagimodiere
• Mark Shrimpton
• Meinhard Doelle
• Michel Bérubé
• Regrets
• Colin Webster

Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

• Brent Parker
• Robyn Whittaker
• Wesley Moore
• Steven Begg
• Michael Grassie
• Joshua Boisvert
• Anne Spear