Joint Review Panel

Joint Review Panel
Name	Joint Review Panel
Formation	1990s
Type	Statutory tribunal
Jurisdiction	Multijurisdictional environmental assessment
Headquarters	Ottawa
Parent agency	Federal review bodies and provincial authorities

Joint Review Panel

The Joint Review Panel is a statutory adjudicative body established to conduct coordinated environmental assessments of major projects involving multiple regulatory authorities, intergovernmental agreements, and Indigenous communities. It operates at the intersection of federal, provincial, and territorial frameworks such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, provincial environmental statutes, and intergovernmental accords, providing integrated review processes for projects like pipelines, mines, and hydroelectric developments. Panels have been convened for prominent undertakings including projects linked to the Northern Gateway Pipelines, Keystone XL pipeline, Mackenzie Gas Project, and international transboundary proposals.

Overview

The panel model was designed to harmonize review procedures among bodies such as the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, provincial agencies like the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office, and territorial offices including the Northwest Territories Environmental Assessment and Review Board. It interfaces with institutions such as the National Energy Board, the Canada Energy Regulator, the Supreme Court of Canada, and federal departments like Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Panels aim to consolidate technical expertise from agencies including the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and consult stakeholders represented by organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and industry groups like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

History and development

The Joint Review Panel concept emerged from intergovernmental negotiations following controversies such as disputes adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Canada over federal-provincial jurisdiction and after landmark assessments including the review of the Voisey's Bay mine and debates during the era of the National Energy Board reforms. Early models were shaped by precedents from commissions of inquiry like the Baden-Powell Commission and environmental tribunals established under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1992 and later iterations. High-profile reviews during the 1990s and 2000s—engaging parties such as the Government of Canada, the Government of Alberta, Government of British Columbia, corporate proponents like Enbridge, and financial institutions like the Export Development Canada—drove procedural refinements and jurisprudential guidance from courts including the Federal Court of Appeal.

Mandate and functions

Mandates are typically set out in joint orders-in-council, memoranda of understanding, or bilateral agreements between entities such as the Privy Council Office and provincial cabinets. Functions include conducting public hearings, assessing environmental impacts under statutes including the Fisheries Act and provisions influenced by the Species at Risk Act, evaluating socio-economic consequences referenced to instruments like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and recommending mitigation measures to regulators such as the National Energy Board or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Panels engage with Indigenous rights claims articulated in decisions like R v. Sparrow and consult rights holders represented by groups such as Métis National Council.

Composition and appointment

Panels are typically composed of experts appointed by ministers, lieutenant governors in council, or regulatory boards, drawing candidates from professional rosters including former adjudicators of the National Energy Board, academics from institutions such as the University of British Columbia and the University of Calgary, and Indigenous knowledge holders affiliated with organizations like the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. Appointments follow instruments like orders-in-council issued by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada and relevant ministers, and may involve input from provincial premiers, cabinet ministers, and statutory agencies including the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

Procedures and decision-making

Procedures combine elements of administrative law established in cases such as Baker v. Canada and statutory hearing rules used by bodies like the Canadian Transportation Agency. Panels hold public hearings in affected municipalities—ranging from Vancouver and Calgary to communities in the Yukon and Nunavut—and manage evidence through document filings, expert panels, cross-examinations, and community testimony. Decisions conclude with a report and recommendations delivered to ministers, regulators like the Canada Energy Regulator, and legislative bodies; these reports influence permits and authorizations under statutes such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and obligations enforced by agencies including Transport Canada.

Notable reviews and impacts

Notable panels have examined projects tied to corporations and proposals like Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline proposals, and cross-border initiatives debated in contexts such as the International Joint Commission. Outcomes have affected corporate strategy, investor decisions involving entities like TransCanada Corporation and Kinder Morgan, and policy reforms referenced in debates within the House of Commons of Canada and the Senate of Canada. Panel findings have informed court challenges heard by the Federal Court and prompted amendments in legislation such as the successor statutes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Criticisms and reforms

Critiques have come from advocacy groups including Greenpeace and David Suzuki Foundation, Indigenous organizations like the Assembly of First Nations, industry associations such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and academic commentators from institutions like McGill University. Criticisms target perceived delays, duplication with regulators like the National Energy Board, questions of impartiality, and limitations in accommodating Indigenous traditional knowledge as emphasized following rulings like Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia. Reforms have ranged from procedural streamlining by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to legislative changes debated in the Parliament of Canada and administrative adjustments by provincial cabinets.

Category:Environmental assessment in Canada