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.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It has been interesting to listen to the witnesses this morning. I have heard various views. We looked at tax credits to make things work, and others were saying that the worst thing we could do is give tax credits because that would encourage bad behaviour.

I'll start with Mr. Fagerheim of Whitecap Resources.

I've seen the type of work that our oil and gas industry has done to become world leaders, and your work with carbon capture utilization and storage is amazing. Other projects in Alberta are doing the same, taking the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of cars off the roads. Of course, it's happening in Alberta, and it doesn't seem like anybody really cares about what is taking place there.

I'm concerned somewhat, because the way I look at it, we talk about all these great things we're going to do and that we are going to take all these minerals out of our landscape. Our last witness indicated we have to protect our landscape; therefore, we're not going to want to advance that in all areas. A couple of days ago we heard from indigenous leaders who were saying they need to have jobs and to be part of our natural resource development, and oil and gas is critical for them. We've heard from miners saying that any place else in the world you can get a project done in nine months, and it takes years and years here. We have Bill C-69, which ensures that is going to happen forever.

Where are we going to get all these minerals to create this electric vehicle battery development project when we have people who just don't want to see any development anywhere?

Mr. Fagerheim, I know the great work you've done. How do you convince others that our oil and gas industry is the best in the world and that it's better for us to be developing our great resources than giving it to somebody else to do?

[Sean McCoshen]

As mentioned earlier, we're looking at a late-June-to-July application going in, depending on our consultation with indigenous communities on the route. That's going to dictate, essentially, how long the process will take. I mentioned earlier that Bill C-69 was sort of designed with some advancements on the old bill, but it was also sort of designed to have meaningful consultation. That's where we're at right now, and that's driving the process. Once that's done, we're going to submit. Like I said, we're shooting for about June.

J.P., do you want to add to that? I mean, the NET team is kind of handling that more than I am.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Environmental impacts are another component of Bill C-69. I understand that the Yukon and Northwest Territories have large caribou herds that migrate across the north.

What can be done to protect the caribou herds that migrate along the proposed railway route?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

A major component of Bill C-69 is indigenous consultation.

Can the witnesses expand on the indigenous consultation they have done or plan to do with respect to the proposed Alaska—Alberta railway?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.

My questions are for Mr. Gladu and Mr. McCoshen of the Alaska-Alberta Railway Development Corporation.

A couple of years ago, the federal government brought in Bill C-69, which adds a considerable amount of overhead to major pipeline and resource projects, and that law would also apply to the building of the Alaska to Alberta railway. Can the witnesses speak to the effects of Bill C-69 on major projects in Canada and on this railway proposal in particular?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Maybe instead of giving Tesla owners the subsidies they now receive, we could start a little bit of a fund when this does happen. I'm just afraid that it's going to be people who don't own cars and so on who are going to be caught with the cost of the upgrade.

In the minute I have left, Dr. Exner-Pirot, I want to stress how critical it is that we look at the great industrial leadership we have in our indigenous community. You had talked about the requirements with regard to Bill C-69 and talking to our native population. Do you see ways that we could make this work better when we are trying to engage with the mining sector?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thanks once again, Madam Chair.

We've just finished a study on the red tape permit economy and the like. This is one of the questions I'd like to start off with. In Canada, it takes years to get projects approved, whereas in other places in the world, they certainly don't have to deal with that. We've seen this with Bill C-69 and the other issues associated with that. We've seen billions of dollars leave Canada because of the time it takes or projects perhaps not being allowed to get on the road here.

Mr. La Salle, can you give me a quick comparison of the time it takes to get through the red tape we have here in Canada? If we're going to come up with a solution, we have to look at that first and then take it from there.

[Sonya Savage]

I would agree with that. We've certainly heard from investors. Of course, we're trying to attract $30 billion of investment to Alberta, and we have a lot of economic and competitive advantages with a skilled workforce and an industry that's committed to carbon reduction.

We've heard from investors that there is a great cloud of uncertainty in Canada over what this means. That's piled on top of a lot of other uncertainty that's out there. Remember, we're still dealing with Bill C-69, which gives us regulatory uncertainty on even getting a project through a regulatory process. You add on this piece of legislation and the labelling that plastic is toxic, and it adds on a whole new layer of uncertainty. Again, those investors have choices of where to invest in other jurisdictions.

In fact, we've seen a huge investment of a petrochemical facility going into Pennsylvania. That facility would have been nice to have in Canada, because there were jobs. To give you some perspective, the opportunity in Alberta for jobs is, we believe, to create 90,000 direct and indirect jobs over construction and operation. Those are 90,000 jobs that Alberta desperately needs, and those are 90,000 jobs that Canada desperately needs. They are also 90,000 jobs that could go to some other jurisdiction with lower environmental standards.

I would agree with what you just said, and it's a very significant concern for our province.

[Laurie Sargent]

I will be pleased to provide an initial response and then see if my colleague Ross Pattee from Crown-Indigenous Relations might wish to add, because it really has been a whole-of-government effort to implement and reflect the principles of the UN declaration across the federal system.

Minister Bennett mentioned that there are already many laws that reflect the declaration itself in their language, their preambles or their purpose clauses. We have Bill C-92, the act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; the Indigenous Languages Act passed in the previous session; and the preamble to Bill C-69, the impact assessment legislation. There are many examples in legislation itself.

Then, of course, the declaration has been informing a lot of the work that Crown-Indigenous Relations is doing in a number of different areas, including in the recognition of rights tables and the negotiations there.

With the chair's permission, I could ask if Ross might also wish to add anything.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

It's been very clear that this free, prior and informed consent must not be interpreted as a veto. In some ways it's easier to define what it's not than to insist, like in Bill C-69, that indigenous people are at the table at the first idea of a project. What that means is it's an ideal opportunity to form those partnerships for indigenous people to have the benefit of the kinds of economic opportunities that would come out of building a project together, or in the seizing of those kinds of opportunities.

I think it's the opposite, that without this understanding that indigenous people will be there at the table, unfortunately, some projects went forward without talking to indigenous people, and they ended up in court for a very long time, or with blockades, or those kinds of things.

This gives you the clarity to say “nothing about us without us”.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

That's a great question, Jamie.

It really is important for people to understand that, even with Bill C-69, the issue is “nothing about us without us”. This means that, for good projects to go forward, indigenous people should be at the table at the original design of the project. This is happening in the north all the time. Inuit are at the table to determine.... Good projects go forward; mediocre projects get made better; bad projects get rejected. That's known right from the beginning.

We're in a transition now where there are a number of projects that may have been seen as controversial, but this is what will provide the clarity, going forward, as to how it works.

I think you've also underlined an important point. Consensus is not unanimity. There are going to be times when certain people object, but I think the courts are holding up the duty to consult and accommodate, and this will be the way forward. I think that this is....

The work I'm doing on self-determination, nation rebuilding and trying to make sure that, like in the north, there's a voice for a nation that is consistent with the will of that community and that we are able to go forward with a true government-to-government, nation-to-nation approach, in a true partnership going forward.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you so very much.

But then, there are decisions that are made by government: let's stop moving our energy to the east; let's not allow northern gateway to proceed; let's put other barriers in place. In Bill C-69, there are additional regulations that, as far as they are concerned, seem to be barriers to the general industry, but they're barriers to your people as well.

Mr. Ross, you mentioned that there are concerns involving Chevron. They have thrown up their hands in despair and essentially walked away from this large job and wealth-creating projects, rather than take what we need to sell to the world to help where greenhouse gases are concerned and to sell our technology.

Can you explain how much the regulatory processes we put in place are damaging that opportunity?

You mentioned before, in talking about the U.S., how our stopping what we do is going to help supplement their markets. Yes, we know who it is that benefits from all of the eco-activists who stop investment in Canada.

Could you quickly comment on that?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

There are other projects that have been presented and looked at. It seems as though, because they are energy projects, the regulatory burden that has come from Bill C-69 and so on is just putting roadblocks beyond that which you were speaking of.

Do you think governments would listen to you with regard to how damaging those regulations are, or are we just going to be spinning our wheels and talking about this forever?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Swampy, thank you for being here today.

Coming out of COVID, we're going to need enormous economic growth in this country, and we had anemic growth prior to COVID. We were about 1% of GDP, so it was quite slow. You're offering some alternatives, saying that first nations people want to participate and were willing to participate with northern gateway.

How frustrating is it for you, with the added regulatory burdens to try to stop major projects like this? Bill C-48 would be an example of that, the tanker ban, as well as Bill C-69.

I want to hear more from you. Are you frustrated, because it sounds like you want to be part of the solution?

[Dale Swampy, President, National Coalition of Chiefs]

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the study of competitiveness in Canada.

My name is Dale Swampy. I'm a Samson Cree Nation member and a COVID survivor. I'm honoured to be presenting to you from the traditional territory of the Tsuut'ina Nation and the Treaty 7 first nations in southern Alberta.

I'm the president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, or the NCC, a coalition of industry-supportive chiefs. Our mandate is to defeat on-reserve poverty through participation in our country's development of its natural resources. We work in co-operation and in partnership with natural resource proponents in an effort to enhance the economic prosperity of reserve communities. We also support indigenous-led natural resource projects.

I appreciate that you have included an indigenous perspective on the panel today, because Canada's ability to attract investment is a major challenge, more so today than at any other time in our country's history.

As you are aware, Canada has experienced a significant loss in its ability to compete on the international market, as well as within its own boundaries. We are no longer able to trade effectively even between our own provincial borders. Many would agree that this is a direct result of restricting regulatory barriers that have been introduced over the past few years.

For example, we believe the tanker ban, or Bill C-48, was passed in order to ensure that Alberta's oil does not cross the borders of British Columbia and on to tidewater. International trade of our most valuable commodity would have increased the standard of living of all Canadians, including first nations. First nation communities in B.C. and Alberta lost $2 billion in benefits when the northern gateway project was cancelled. The cancellation had no effect on world greenhouse gases. It only created uncertainty for would-be investors in Canada's economy.

The new national regulatory regime, or Bill C-69, was forced onto an existing regulatory process, the National Energy Board, which was already a world leader in safety, integrity and environmental protection. We feel there was no need to amend this process.

The new UNDRIP legislation, Bill C-15, will create additional uncertainty and legal ambiguity in an economy that is already hindered by major project delays caused by lawsuits that challenge our own Constitution. The NCC has already expressed its issues and concerns regarding this legislation, and has asked, through its participation in hearings, that the federal government consider alternative legislation to fulfill its promise for reconciliation with first nations in Canada.

The NCC believes that increased indigenous community participation in the natural resource industry, through employment, contracting and ownership, will increase Canada's competitiveness. We want the federal government to give first nations a share in ownership and control of Canada's natural resources in a manner similar to what the U.S. gave the 13 tribes in Alaska.

Who better to give ownership of natural resources and natural resource development than first nations. Our people have lived on this land for thousands of years. We respect and want to protect the land. Many people will come and go, but first nations people will never leave this land. We have a spiritual tie to the land. We will never sell our lands or resources. Since 1971, the Alaskan tribes have had the authority to sell their lands and resources, and not one tribe has ever considered selling their land.

We have missed out on 150 years of natural resource development in this country, along with countless billions of dollars' worth of projects, projects that would have supported thousands of jobs in indigenous, rural and remote communities. It is time for Canada to grant first nations the right and ownership of their natural resources.

Instead of using new legislation, such as UNDRIP, as a form of reconciliation, the NCC requests that the federal government consider an act similar to that of the Alaskan tribes, which will provide ownership of lands and resources currently owned by the Government of Canada.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in a report issued by the Liberal Party under the leadership of Jean Chrétien, recommended that the federal government grant to aboriginal peoples of Canada 30% of all the lands and resources owned by the federal government as a form of reconciliation. Through this report, the federal government possesses the ability and justification to grant this to all first nations in Canada.

We are hoping your study will provide our chiefs with an opportunity to create a reconciliation process that provides real and tangible benefits for first nation communities and supports Canada's economic growth and competitiveness. Together we can defeat on-reserve poverty.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions and further discussion.