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]

Could the legislation they are putting forward then be jeopardized if we can't come to some sort of agreement and relationship with Bill C-69? Will the legislation they are presenting to their legislatures be in jeopardy if the aspects of Bill C-69 that relate to their bills can't be resolved?

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

Thank you.

I appreciate your answer to that, Ms. Knowles.

I'd like to ask you this question. Were the provincial governments given a course of action, if the regulatory framework related to Bill C-69 is not corrected? In your discussions, were they given a course of action and expectations of how long it will take or how we might have to go back to correct this? Are they aware of it?

We understand they're supportive of the concept, with the hope that Bill C-69 is going to be dealt with. Have they been given a course of action in the event that the regulatory framework can't be corrected?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Those same premiers have also written a letter to axe the carbon tax. We're still waiting on the government to do that, too. I would appreciate members' support for the premiers on that one, too.

The point, Mr. Chair, of why we are here.... The amendments the government is proposing are to delay the implementation of the act. They have to consult with the provinces, because they haven't done their job yet, and they have to fix the Impact Assessment Act, because it's been ruled largely unconstitutional. That's the problem.

Why not take this bill and make sure that there are no unconstitutional elements to it and that we're passing something that will withstand the test and not have to go before the courts as the previous Parliament's Bill C-69, now known as the Impact Assessment Act, has done? It had to go to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't think the provinces and industry want this bill to suffer the same fate. We know they want updates to the accords. We know that and we get that. That's what we're here to do. We support that. What we don't support is passing an unconstitutional bill. That's why Conservatives are doing the work here and now, at committee, to prevent the same result for the bill we're working on here today, which is Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord implementation acts is to prevent the same fate as that of Bill C-69.

We are trying to do the best we can now so there's certainty in the long run. I understand that this might be hard for some members to get, but that is the point of this exercise here today. It's to do our job as legislators.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We always seem to have to start again with simple explanations.

Bill C-49 is updating the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a long-standing piece of legislation that was negotiated with Newfoundland and Labrador and with the Province of Nova Scotia. There have been attempts to undermine the Atlantic accords by the previous Conservative government. Pierre Poilievre was in that government. The attack on the Atlantic accords didn't go well.

When we get letters from the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia calling on the federal government to update the language of the Atlantic accords, so we can move ahead with new employment opportunities and new energy projects, our responsibility is to make sure the language is updated so it can do the job it has done. It has never been challenged as unconstitutional. It hasn't been opposed.

We keep going back to square one, because the Conservatives want to fight about Bill C-69. My concern is that the longer we delay, the more we're guaranteeing that workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia are being undermined, because the projects that are getting off the ground are going to jurisdictions where they have the certainty that legislation is actually going to be passed and not filibustered.

Bill C-49 is constitutional. It has been constitutional. It has never been opposed. I would hope that we can get this done so we can move on to other pressing matters.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

If it helps, I would suggest, through you, Chair, that the parliamentary secretary for natural resources could perhaps enlighten this committee and all Canadians, including senators, investors, provinces, municipalities and indigenous communities, who have all challenged Bill C-69, including every single premier and territorial leader who either opposed it outright or called for major overhauls.

Moving forward, of course, the Supreme Court decision that less than 6% of the bill is constitutional and the vast majority is largely unconstitutional was made in December. Many of those clauses explicitly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49. If the parliamentary secretary to the minister is suggesting that these senior qualified experts in the public service, who are trying to give the elected members of the government the rationale to cover for their own mistakes.... Perhaps she as the parliamentary secretary can actually give the answers that all of us need to know, about when the government will be bringing forward new legislation or amendments. I don't know how that works for a law that's already a law and no longer an act. It has been a law unconstitutionally for half a decade already under these NDP-Liberals. I think it would behoove her to answer, for clarity for the elected members here and all Canadians, when those changes would be happening.

I'll reinforce the point my colleagues are making, which is that it is ridiculous that we are being asked to pass this legislation, brought forward by the NDP-Liberals, when we made the proposal in December that they could take the time to get Bill C-69 fixed first. Then we would move to Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 after that. However, here we are in April and the government is saying they're still promising legislation. That hasn't happened.

The point my colleagues are making is that, obviously, if this bill gets passed with those sections unresolved, it will come into force with a lack of certainty and clarity about its constitutionality and legality. It will automatically invite legal challenges by the same groups, or by other groups involved in the challenges to Bill C-69, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I give kudos to the public servants for doing their jobs. This isn't their mess to fix, but it certainly is the minister's. Since the parliamentary secretary is here, and she is saying that the officials shouldn't answer any more of these questions, perhaps she can.

Thanks, Chair.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

I have the same question swirling around in my head: Why are we moving forward on this when we're referencing a piece of legislation that, in fact, may not even exist anymore because it's been ruled unconstitutional? That's what we're being asked to do here. It doesn't matter whether other jurisdictions are asking us to do it—if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. I just don't understand why everybody seems to be okay with Bill C-49 referencing Bill C-69, which we know has been deemed to be largely unconstitutional. It doesn't make any sense why we wouldn't fix that first, before we move ahead, or delete the references—which is what this amendment is doing—to something the Supreme Court of Canada has decided is unconstitutional.

Why would we reference a document that's no good?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thanks.

I guess it's kind of building on what my colleague has said. Throughout our study of the bill, there were at least 35 portions of the bill that directly referenced or quoted the Impact Assessment Act, particularly the parts of it that were deemed largely unconstitutional. I think that's the basis for the concern that we have here, that the bill does reference those parts that are unconstitutional. It's building on that part.

Is it right for us to proceed when we are basically giving validity...? This bill will just give validity to something that is unconstitutional, but it will still be unconstitutional. Is it not going to run the risk, then, of having the same fate as Bill C-69 from the previous Parliament, the Impact Assessment Act, of being in front of the courts and again being referenced as largely unconstitutional and providing issues for investors and for the provinces that are looking to develop their resources?

Our job is to be certain and clear. Again, this bill quotes unconstitutional parts of an act, so how are we supposed to proceed with confidence in that? I know that you're not supposed to give us advice on that, but I'm just saying.... I think you understand what I'm trying to say here, though, about that. Is that correct? How can we proceed with a bill that is unconstitutional? Does that not create problems?

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

Mr. Bustros, you're from the justice department. I suppose I should have directed it specifically there.

I understand what you can do within the legislation and the thoughts about that, but I'm talking about unconstitutionality. Does that then make Bill C-49...? If we are addressing that and cannot come to any agreement there, as has been suggested by your departmental officials, what does one have to do to Bill C-49 if the unconstitutional aspect of Bill C-69 continues to work its way into it? In terms of the conflict that occurs with Bill C-49, what remedies does the justice department see for this situation?

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

Thank you.

I brought this up earlier with the folks from the justice department who are here today. My question is for them, if we could have some clarification.

Once there is legislation that is deemed unconstitutional and it becomes embedded in future legislation, what recourse does the government have? If Bill C-49 is also considered to be unconstitutional, then do we have to go back to the very beginning and deal with this legislation prior to dealing with the unconstitutionality of the previous bill, Bill C-69?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is a pretty straightforward and simple one, as follows:

That Bill C-49, in Clause 170, be amended by deleting line 23 on page 119 to line 12 on page 120.

There's obviously the long-standing position of the Conservative Party that the reference to the unconstitutional implementation act, Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament, is problematic and needs to be addressed. It needs to be dealt with, and the fact that it hasn't been dealt with is problematic and will create and cause more uncertainty for people looking to build projects in this country.

I really think that the fact that this has not been done and fixed yet leaves this committee no choice but to delete it, because at this point we need to be passing bills and laws that are constitutional and that wouldn't be deemed to be largely unconstitutional, as Bill C-69 was. I think the committee can do the right thing today by deleting this portion. That way, we can provide some certainty and clarity going forward so that provinces and investors have a chance to do this right.

Thank you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We're going to vote against this clause and the amendment, but I would just take the opportunity to again impress upon Canadians and all elected members of this committee that it behooves the government to fix their catastrophic, unconstitutional Bill C-69, which should have been done even before members were in a position to try to assess Bill C-49 adequately, given how many clauses from Bill C-69 that were designated by the Supreme Court of Canada as being unconstitutional are in Bill C-49.

That's a responsibility of and an error on behalf of the anti-energy NDP-Liberal costly coalition, and the Conservatives will vote against that for these reasons. It's the government's job to fix the mess they made.

[Danielle Smith]

Mostly, it's been the various legal actions that we've had to take against the federal government. We've had a victory on the Impact Assessment Act, which you know as Bill C-69. We had a success initially on the declaration of plastics being toxic also being deemed to be unconstitutional, but I can tell you that my justice department is very busy. We have about 14 different actions that we are going to be taking against the federal government for the various ways in which it's interfering with our jurisdiction.

If you read the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act—so I don't share your aspiration on separation—we just believe that the Constitution should be abided by, and that the Constitution was written in a way that gives sovereign powers to the provincial levels of government and sovereign powers to the federal level of government. It talks about the need for co-operative federalism: that the federal government cannot interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction unilaterally. I think that's being borne out with some of the court decisions the federal government has now lost.

[Danielle Smith]

I should make sure that the committee knows exactly why Steven Guilbeault faced law problems. One was for the stunt he pulled on the CN Tower. The other was that he climbed on the roof of our premier Ralph Klein's house when his wife, Colleen, was home, terrifying her.

You can imagine how Albertans feel about how this is the person now responsible for enacting emissions policy. I would say that we've been able to work constructively with the federal government on a number of areas. It has worked with us on establishing a net-zero petrochemical plant with the Dow Chemical Company and a net-zero hydrogen plant with Air Products. We're in the process of getting to the final finish line on a net-zero cement plant with Heidelberg. It's worked with us on De Havilland to make sure that we have water bombers being built, not only in our province but also to help the rest of the country.

I don't want to say that it's uniformly negative, but the spirit of co-operative federalism means that you do not take unilateral action in an area of provincial jurisdiction. It means that you work collaboratively. I think the court has chastised the federal government, led in this area by Steven Guilbeault, on two occasions: the Impact Assessment Act and the plastics ban.

The approach that I would like to see the government take is to work collaboratively with us the way it has, not come through with a cap on a particular industry—oil and gas emissions, which it has announced—or a cap on methane, which it has announced, which will disproportionately impact our province. Its proposal for a net-zero power grid, outside the Constitution under section 92, clearly demonstrates that it doesn't understand how our electricity market works. Net-zero vehicles, having 20% of vehicles sold by 2026.... We know that will simply kill our auto sector and reduce our ability—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suspect that MP Patzer will want to respond after, but I'll just take this moment to say this: Let's spare the sanctimony around here with the crowing about listening to provincial premiers, if we will, since the NDP and Liberals actually have zero problem ignoring the Liberal Newfoundland premier who has asked over and over that they spike the carbon tax hike on April 1.

We have already demonstrated our willingness to work in good favour by accepting the two subamendments. MP Patzer has summarized exactly why we are engaging the will of the elected members of this committee to consider including the Conservatives' specific language on protecting and maintaining the environmental characteristics in the case of offshore renewable development and explicitly include this in Bill C-49.

Here is why. It is because it is not enough at this point, after nine years, for the Liberals, propped up by the NDP, to say, “Just trust us.”

I will give this example. It has been five months since the Supreme Court of Canada said that the law based on Bill C-69, which has been in place for half a decade, is largely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that less than 6% of the law based on Bill C-69 stands up, including, as we've discussed multiple times in the debate on this rushed bill, the dozens of references that are here in Bill C-49 to Bill C-69. This will automatically cause this bill, if it's passed as written, to be vulnerable to litigation and challenges, causing even more uncertainty for offshore petroleum developers, obviously, but also for any private sector proponents who want to launch into offshore renewable development too.

This is why—so Canadians understand—Conservative MPs on this committee are trying to compel the NDP, Liberal and Bloc members of this committee to be explicit about our elected representatives' priority to protect and maintain the environmental characteristics according to the expanded new scope and scale of the mandate that Bill C-49 will provide for regulators. Also, in addition to my colleague's tough but fair and accurate comment on the Conservatives' 20,000 amendments to Bill C-50, the just transition bill, let me just say for the record—because I heard him quip it—that those were not generated by AI.

Second of all—

Impact Assessment Act

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Impact Assessment Act.

We are at a critical juncture where the decisions we make can shape our nation's trajectory towards prosperity and sustainability. Central to our discussion is a vital piece of legislation, common-sense Bill C-375. The bill represents a golden opportunity to streamline how we approach environmental assessments, ensuring that crucial green projects can move forward swiftly and responsibly. It is about cutting through red tape to unleash Canada’s potential for growth while safeguarding our natural environment.

Bill C-375 is not just about amending current legislation; it is also about embracing a smarter, more collaborative way of working together as federal and provincial governments, joining forces to make Canada a better place. If we work together, we can propel our nation into a future where economic development and environmental stewardship go hand in hand.

Over the past eight years, our system has been bogged down by unnecessary bureaucracy, a maze of regulations that, while well-intentioned, often hinder progress rather than facilitate it. The Liberal government's approach, as seen with Bill C-69, better known by many as the “no more pipelines act”, has unfortunately contributed to this stagnation. That piece of legislation, found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, exemplifies an overreach of federal jurisdiction into areas that should rightfully fall within provincial expertise. The result has been delays, confusion and a chilling effect on investment in green and infrastructural projects essential for our nation's future.

The Conservative Party has always championed the principles of efficiency, jurisdictional respect and the reduction of unnecessary governmental interference. Bill C-375 stands as a testament to these values, offering a practical solution to the challenges we face. By allowing for agreements between federal and provincial governments to exempt certain projects from the cumbersome process of repeated environmental assessments, we are proposing a way forward that would respect the expertise of provincial authorities and eliminate redundant federal oversight.

At the heart of our discussion on Bill C-375 lies a multitude of benefits that promise to reshape the landscape of environmental assessments and project development in Canada. The legislative amendment stands not just as a policy shift but also as a signal of progress, highlighting our commitment to efficiency, economic growth and environmental integrity. There are several tangible benefits the bill would bring to the table, ensuring a prosperous future for all Canadians.

The cornerstone of Bill C-375 is its ability to streamline the environmental assessment process. By allowing federal and provincial governments to work closely together, we can eliminate redundant evaluations, ensuring that projects do not get tangled in a web of bureaucratic red tape. This approach would not only speed up the approval process but also conserve valuable resources. It would be a common-sense step toward making government operations leaner and more effective, directly translating into quicker turnarounds for project commencements. This efficiency is critical for maintaining Canada’s competitive edge on the global stage, especially in attracting investments in green technology and infrastructure.

An immediate advantage of streamlined assessments would be the acceleration of project approvals. This benefit cannot be overstated. By reducing the time it takes for projects to clear regulatory hurdles, we would open the door to wider economic opportunities that come with new infrastructure and technology investments. These projects are not just about immediate economic gains; they are also about laying the groundwork for sustainable economic growth. Developers and provinces could move forward with greater confidence, knowing that their initiatives would not be indefinitely delayed by the bureaucratic process. This predictability would be invaluable for planning and executing projects that can significantly contribute to our economy and our environmental goals.

Furthermore, fiscal responsibility is a principle that guides our goals for proper governance, and Bill C-375 is aligned with that aspect. By avoiding duplication in environmental assessments, we would be poised to save significant amounts of public funds. These savings would stem from reduced administrative costs and the more efficient use of resources. While it is challenging to put an exact figure on these savings, the financial implications are clear and substantial. These funds could be redirected to other pressing needs, such as health care, education or further environmental conservation efforts, maximizing the impact of every taxpayer dollar.

Perhaps one of the most profound benefits of Bill C-375 would be the emphasis it places on collaboration and respect for provincial expertise. Canada's provinces and territories are diverse, each with its unique environmental landscape and economic context. This diversity demands a tailored approach to environmental assessments, one that respects the knowledge and capabilities of provincial authorities.