Bill C-69 (Historical)

An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act
(a) names the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada as the authority responsible for impact assessments;
(b) provides for a process for assessing the environmental, health, social and economic effects of designated projects with a view to preventing certain adverse effects and fostering sustainability;
(c) prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated project if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, all effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project, the extent to which the project contributes to sustainability and other factors;
(d) establishes a planning phase for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, which includes requirements to cooperate with and consult certain persons and entities and requirements with respect to public participation;
(e) authorizes the Minister to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel if he or she considers it in the public interest to do so, and requires that an impact assessment be referred to a review panel if the designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;
(f) establishes time limits with respect to the planning phase, to impact assessments and to certain decisions, in order to ensure that impact assessments are conducted in a timely manner;
(g) provides for public participation and for funding to allow the public to participate in a meaningful manner;
(h) sets out the factors to be taken into account in conducting an impact assessment, including the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(i) provides for cooperation with certain jurisdictions, including Indigenous governing bodies, through the delegation of any part of an impact assessment, the joint establishment of a review panel or the substitution of another process for the impact assessment;
(j) provides for transparency in decision-making by requiring that the scientific and other information taken into account in an impact assessment, as well as the reasons for decisions, be made available to the public through a registry that is accessible via the Internet;
(k) provides that the Minister may set conditions, including with respect to mitigation measures, that must be implemented by the proponent of a designated project;
(l) provides for the assessment of cumulative effects of existing or future activities in a specific region through regional assessments and of federal policies, plans and programs, and of issues, that are relevant to the impact assessment of designated projects through strategic assessments; and
(m) sets out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects of non-designated projects that are on federal lands or that are to be carried out outside Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.
The Canadian Energy Regulator Act, among other things,
(a) provides for the establishment of a Commission that is responsible for the adjudicative functions of the Regulator;
(b) ensures the safety and security of persons, energy facilities and abandoned facilities and the protection of property and the environment;
(c) provides for the regulation of pipelines, abandoned pipelines, and traffic, tolls and tariffs relating to the transmission of oil or gas through pipelines;
(d) provides for the regulation of international power lines and certain interprovincial power lines;
(e) provides for the regulation of renewable energy projects and power lines in Canada’s offshore;
(f) provides for the regulation of access to lands;
(g) provides for the regulation of the exportation of oil, gas and electricity and the interprovincial oil and gas trade; and
(h) sets out the process the Commission must follow before making, amending or revoking a declaration of a significant discovery or a commercial discovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the process for appealing a decision made by the Chief Conservation Officer or the Chief Safety Officer under that Act.
Part 2 also repeals the National Energy Board Act.
Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) rename it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;
(b) provide a comprehensive definition of navigable water;
(c) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister must consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(d) require that an owner apply for an approval for a major work in any navigable water if the work may interfere with navigation;
(e)  set out the factors that the Minister must consider when deciding whether to issue an approval;
(f) provide a process for addressing navigation-related concerns when an owner proposes to carry out a work in navigable waters that are not listed in the schedule;
(g) provide the Minister with powers to address obstructions in any navigable water;
(h) amend the criteria and process for adding a reference to a navigable water to the schedule;
(i) require that the Minister establish a registry; and
(j) provide for new measures for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Part 4 makes consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament and regulations.

[Edouard Saab]

That's a good question.

I guess the truthful answer is that with more rigour would probably come more questions and then more time to ensure diligence is made. Ultimately, if it's going to answer questions that had not been answered by an environmental assessment or any of the internal work done by a reactor developer such as Westinghouse, or an end-user, or even under the requirements of the licensing process under the CNSC.... I would not anticipate any questions or challenges to be posed that were not identified through those current steps, so no, I don't think the benefit, at least for Bill C-69, would be truly there for the public.

[Edouard Saab]

Yes, I was referring to the technology itself. Thank you for the question.

In terms of legislative requirements, yes, I wouldn't say that there are challenges, but there are processes that we need to follow. As a nuclear reactor provider, we would work with utilities, end-users and customers to follow the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission environmental assessment requirements.

Should we be looking at a microreactor under 200 megawatts, although Bill C-69 may not be mandated for us, there might be a possibility that impact assessment would be required. Now, the impact assessment does add a burden. It does add costs. It also would slow down for anything less than I think 300 megawatts the allowances that are required. There is a potential for us to take a technical process and make it a little longer and more expensive, and ultimately, the sad part of it is to delay some of the solution that could be provided to these remote communities and these industrial users of technology.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here this evening.

I'll start with Mr. Saab.

Did I hear you correctly when earlier you said that there are really no challenges, policies or issues with building nuclear—such as SMRs—in Canada? Would this also include Bill C-69?

[Edouard Saab]

I don't have the specific fact, Ms. Gladu, but my understanding is that the number has been incredibly low. Any death related to nuclear has come from construction, not from the operations of nuclear. In fact, nuclear has probably one of the best records for energy generation compared to any of the comparables.

To your point about the environmental assessment and impact assessment, I think it's Bill C-69 you're referring to. The requirement is for an impact assessment for anything over 300 megawatts, but the truth is there is also the allowance for the environment minister to call upon an impact assessment for any project. It's not like anything is hiding under the bill. The bill does allow for the right projects to have the right reviews when necessary.

[Evelyn Gigantes, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am not a supporter of the development of SMRs, either in Canada or anywhere else. The reason is that our weather over the last few years is giving us clear evidence that climate change is rapidly becoming a challenge to all life on this wonderful planet.

SMRs are being touted by the nuclear industry as a necessary part of slowing and containing climate change. I believe the complete opposite: I think the nuclear industry is trying to save itself from a downward spiral and is waging a desperate campaign to convince the public and elected representatives to invest massive public funds in an ill-placed effort to battle climate change through SMR development.

The fact is that here and abroad the best-informed scientists and economists are stating the obvious: The surest, least costly and quickest way to reduce the carbon emissions that threaten life on our earth is to limit our energy use through conservation measures, to use electricity as our major source of energy and to generate that electricity with renewable resources. In Canada, that means a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and hydro.

I have provided your committee with an article co-written by two experts, a Canadian and an American. It describes the way we can electrify our major energy usage while deftly shifting energy supply sources and meeting backup demand. I've also provided an article about the recent study by the David Suzuki Foundation that comes to the same conclusion. That's the positive part of what I'd like your committee to be ready to report.

There is also a negative part, which I hope you will consider and determine to report. Nuclear power is not an answer to any problem. Nuclear power has generated waste that threatens life and health wherever it is in use or has been in use. Its history both here and abroad is linked to preparation for war, and that history repeats itself to this day as we watch, pained and frightened by the terrible threat to nuclear reactor sites in Ukraine.

Here in Canada, we have scandalous nuclear waste piled up in places like Chalk River and Elliot Lake. We are engaged in the pretense that there will soon be a new nuclear waste management policy, which will deal with these kinds of awful, life-threatening messes. Meanwhile, the former chair of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ensured that most SMRs would not even require an environmental impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of 2019 because he managed to arrange matters to ensure that most SMRs are not included on the project list associated with the act. It's an astonishing fact that most current Canadian SMR proposals will not be subject to any environmental review.

I've also provided a third article on the subject of the extraordinary levels of nuclear waste that would be generated by developing SMRs. It outlines the fact that per unit of energy produced, SMRs would produce much larger amounts of high-level nuclear waste than the much larger CANDU reactors.

To sum up, I believe that SMRs are unnecessary given that there are alternative methods of electrifying our energy sources, which will be much cheaper, faster, more flexible and environmentally acceptable, and the last thing this world needs is SMRs sold to countries where their existence would add to the dangers posed by terrorism and war.

Thank you.

[Brett Plummer]

Yes, Bill C-69. That's correct.

One of our technologies, the first of a kind, fits within the project list. It basically will go through an existing environmental assessment utilizing the province and the CNSC, but as you build out, especially with Moltex, which has a larger capacity, and also with fuel conversion, it really falls into the impact assessment of Bill C-69, as well as the additional units associated with our ARC clean energy, the other technology. Presently, this is a long process, so we're looking for ways not to get around the process but to streamline it.

The other aspect, to your question associated with Mr. Rencheck, is that the CNSC, the regulator, has been extremely co-operative to this day and, as Mr. Rencheck said, is ramping up, but again, we need to look ahead to the future with the build-out and building the nth of a kind, and we're not going to be able to go through the same process for the nth of a kind versus the first of a kind. Once the reactor design is standardized and has been reviewed and approved, really the only assessment at that point should be around any changes associated with the site characteristics or location.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is that the assessment from Bill C-69?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is that Bill C-69?

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Delbert Wapass and I'm the former chief of Thunderchild First Nation and currently a board member on the Indian Resource Council. Our organization represents over 130 first nations that produce oil and gas or that have a direct interest in the oil and gas industry. Our mandate is to advocate for federal policies that will improve and increase economic development opportunities for first nations and their members.

I'm very pleased your committee is studying barriers to indigenous economic development, because we face a great many, not least from federal policies and legislation. Our communities benefit from involvement in oil and gas. The relationship has not always been perfect, but now it is positive and getting better. We are more involved in oil and gas jobs in reclamation, in procurement and in equity shares than ever. There isn't another industry in the country that has engaged indigenous peoples more meaningfully, in terms of the scale of own-source revenues, than the oil and gas industry have, and that's a fact.

That's why it is so important to our economic development and self-determination that Canada have a healthy and competitive oil and gas sector, but it often feels as though Canada is trying to eliminate the sector instead of support it. The cost overruns on TMX that indigenous groups want to buy, the cancellation of Keystone XL, the cancellation of Northern gateway, the tanker ban, the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, the lack of LNG export capacity, the cancellation of Teck Frontier mine, the tens of millions in royalties that we lost in the past decade due to the differential in price between WCS and Brent crude—these have directly harmed our communities. These have cost first nations hundreds of millions in lost own-source revenues. I think everyone on this committee knows that none of our communities can afford that.

The lost own-source revenues and royalties are one big thing, but on top of that, these missed opportunities have cost our people procurement opportunities that probably would have numbered in the billions. When you talk about economic development, that's what's important: Giving our people well-paid jobs, getting first nations-owned businesses big contracts from trucking and catering to earth moving and reclamation so they can grow their businesses and hire more people and create opportunities for our entrepreneurs. There is no sector—no solar panel installation, no tourism, no golf courses—that can replace the economic opportunity that oil and gas provides for first nations, so you can eliminate the biggest barrier for indigenous economic development if you stop hampering our oil and gas industry.

I note that government is even now considering a cap on emissions, which is poorly drafted and which will in practice be a cap on production. Instead, I ask that you promote and encourage our involvement by making sure that first nations have the access to capital we need to be real partners in new projects.

I know you've heard in this study how [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I and our chairman are also involved in the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation. We've been able [Technical difficulty—Editor] in power plants, carbon capture facilities, pipelines and more, but at the federal level some people consider government-backed loans to indigenous communities to get involved in these things to be fossil fuel subsidies.

If the federal government is truly committed to reconciliation and the principles of UNDRIP, then you should be supportive of whatever kind of economic development we want to be part of, regardless of what industry it's in. You shouldn't be picking and choosing for us. You don't know better than we do what the right balance is for development in our territories. For our members, for many other first nations, oil and gas provide the best opportunity. It doesn't mean that we aren't interested in other sectors or that we don't want to be part of the net-zero economy, but this week of all weeks it should be obvious that having a strong oil and gas sector that has meaningful indigenous involvement and ownership and that is a global leader in environmental, social and governance principles is in the interests of all Canadians. I can tell you that it is in the interests of the Indian Resource Council.

Regarding the just transition, that's been put forward without consulting nations and their communities. It was handed down without any discussion. These discussions need to take place at the chief and council tables, not simply in Ottawa, for moving oil gas to alternative energy.

Thank you very much.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you. I have one more quick one here.

On the night your government approved Bay du Nord, to cushion the blow to those who wanted the project scrapped, your government announced you'll be introducing even more regulations, which have yet to be fleshed out.

Now that the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional, how could you possibly move forward with further regulations, without having any certainty before the Supreme Court weighs in?

Will you commit today to not introduce any new regulations until the Supreme Court rules on whether Bill C-69 is unconstitutional?

Opposition Motion—Subsidies for the Oil and Gas Sector

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have some questions about the member's figures, but I am going to get to something that I think is more important.

We are talking about 53,000 families in Alberta that were suffering during the oil and gas downturn. It is no longer in a downturn, I will point out. The Court of Appeal of Alberta came out last week and indicated very clearly that Bill C-69 was ultra vires of the federal government. That being the case, the NDP leader in Alberta indicated that the main cause of the layoffs in Alberta was a punitive regulatory regime as a result of Bill C-69.

Would the member agree with her party leader in Alberta that it is the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision on Bill C-69 that led to those 53,000 families being laid off in Alberta?

Finance

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil for putting this motion forward and the discussion on splitting up the budget implementation act. There are so many pieces in that bill that really should be separated and discussed, debated and considered at committee separately, not pushed through the way the government has pushed legislation through in the past.

I recall Bill C-69, when there were literally hundreds of amendments proposed that could not even be debated. Does the member for Barrie—Innisfil expect the same is going to happen with the budget implementation act?

Natural Resources

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Stephen Harper tried to create large projects in this country to solve problems by ramming them through by gutting environmental protections, and big surprise, nothing got done because Canadians know that the environment and the economy need to go together. We brought forward Bill C-69, which actually protects the environment and gives clarity to companies.

We have been able to move forward on large projects since. Canadians know the environment and the economy go together. Why do Conservative politicians not know this?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can learn that we can have both. If we did not have the unconstitutional Bill C-69 limiting our Canadian oil and gas exports, then Canadians would actually be able to afford to fill up their tanks so they could go to work and take their kids to school. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his role in this cost-of-living crisis and finally stop making life harder for the average Canadian?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is zero pipelines have been proposed or built under the Liberals, and they have killed billions in projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs. The PM ignored experts, workers, indigenous leaders and investors in every province and territory on Bill C-69. The court said it is a “profound invasion” that places a chokehold on provinces. It called it a “wrecking ball” that “smacks of paternalism” and overrides indigenous agreements. It is uncertain, unpredictable, unquantifiable and unreliable, just like Conservatives warned. Therefore, instead of wasting more time and tax dollars to appeal, will he just repeal Bill C-69?