This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Catherine McKenna Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill C-69—Time Allocation MotionImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
February 27th, 2018 / 10:40 a.m.
See
context
NDP
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I declare the motion carried.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé is rising on a point of order.
The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Lakeland has twelve and a half minutes remaining in her speech.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my comments on part 2 of Bill C-69, the Canadian energy regulator act.
Last week I shared some concerns about the bill, especially in the context of the Liberals' constant denigration and undermining of confidence in the regulator and in Canada's reputation at home and internationally, especially since the 2015 election, with respect to responsible resource development.
The Liberals have imposed new hurdles, delays, rule changes, called for phasing out the oil sands, added costs and roadblocks to the oil and gas sector, which is already the most heavily-regulated industry in Canada by all levels of government. They have told the hundreds of thousands of unemployed energy workers in Canada to just hang in there.
Regulatory and fiscal policies are key factors in the economics and business decisions of multi-year, multi-billion dollar energy projects for private sector companies. Now the Liberals are adding more uncertainty with more processes and more details yet to be known. The risk is the acceleration of the already massive investment and job losses in Canada's natural resources development as a result of the Liberals' ideological and anti-energy-driven decisions.
I am concerned about the new preplanning phase in part 1 that would apply to major projects like pipelines. Put aside the fact that Canadian common best practice already is to undertake early pre-project engagement with stakeholders, indigenous communities, and scientific experts. According to Bill C-69, after the initial six-month process, the minister alone can deny projects before the assessment stage. So much for experts, transparency, objective evidence and clear measures.
The bill provides no assurances that clear and publicly-known rules will be applied consistently to all project applications or that the full rationale for a denial will be made public. This approach clearly allows for political and ideological decision-making behind closed doors. The only hope for energy developers is that if a project is politically risky, the minister might kill it at the outset, instead of forcing proponents to wade through years of expensive reviews, wasting time and billions of dollars of capital investment, risking jobs in the meantime.
I want to review the three key claims made by the Liberals.
First, the Liberals claim that public participation will increase in both volume and effectiveness because of the elimination of the standing test of the National Energy Board. That test set out the two-pronged consideration for those who can participate: first, anyone who was directly affected by the project; and, second, anyone who had sufficient expertise or relevant information may be heard. On the face of it, that is reasonable.
However, let us look at a concrete example, the Enbridge Line 9B reversal and Line 9 capacity expansion proposal, about how this test operated in practice.
After receiving 177 applications to participate, the NEB granted 158 applicants full participation rights, and asked 11 applicants to submit a letter of comment. The board only denied eight. One of them appealed, so the courts examined her application and the board's decision. Her application was aimed at the second prong of the standing test, to contribute based on her expertise.
The judicial decision stated:
She stated that she had a specified and detailed interest in the matter...based on her religious faith. In her view, a spill from a pipeline, even far away from her home, is “an insult to [her] sense of the holy.”
I think this case illustrates that the standing test worked reasonably, designed to keep the focus of the approval hearings on important issues and to weed out irrelevant information.
Now let us review the new standing provision. Section 183(3) states, “Any member of the public may, in a manner specified by the Commission, make representations with respect to an application for a certificate.”
I note this language excludes no one. Every person or organization, so long as they comply with the procedure, may submit comment and be heard. This means that a radical anti-resources activist organization from Europe or an American-funded group competing with Canadian companies for investment dollars has the same right to be heard at a hearing for a pipeline, mine, or an LNG project in Canada under Canadian regulations, in Canada's process, as local stakeholders, indigenous communities, industry representatives, experts, and concerned Canadian groups.
Therefore, the regulator will have two options. It might choose to allow everyone who asks to be heard to provide comment, which effectively eliminates any meaningful participation, because when everyone is heard in fact no one is heard. Or the regulator will establish a hierarchy where some participants have the right to give oral and written evidence, others will give written submissions, and the least helpful or relevant contributions will be relegated to some kind of participation prize category where they can contribute but no one will care.
This is fundamentally chaotic, unpredictable, and unclear. How can a proponent prepare for a hearing process where literally anyone can provide comments and questions? Why should decisions about Canadian projects in Canada be influenced by non-Canadians?
The second key claim the Liberals make is that Bill C-69 would create concrete timelines of 450 days for major projects and 300 days for minor projects, except it does not really.
First, the clock starts only when the commission says the applicant has submitted the complete application, but it is entirely discretionary. The bill gives no definition of what is “complete”. It does not prevent the regulator from continuously deciding that an application is incomplete for political reasons or otherwise.
The second problem is that the regulator may exclude any period of time from the time limit calculations, so long as reasons are provided. It is any amount of time and any number of times. Is a timeline that could have any part of it excluded from the calculation really a timeline at all?
The third problem is that the minister may extend the timeline indefinitely by issuing repeat orders granting new 300 or 450 day timeline resets. Stakeholders, like the Mining Association of Canada, are concerned that the proposed system for timelines could undermine the competitiveness and growth prospects of mining in Canada, a sector that is often the only or the major employer in northern, remote, and indigenous communities.
It is disingenuous of the Liberals to claim they have made timelines concrete when the bill clearly shows there is nothing concrete about them.
The Liberals third claim is that new factors for consideration will make the approval process more robust and produce better results for Canadians. Of course factors for consideration for a major pipeline project, for instance, are fundamental to its viability. For example, the Liberals interfered in the energy east hearings, and their appointed panel told the NEB that even though it was years and millions of dollars into the process, energy east should be reconsidered, based on upstream and, for the first time ever, downstream emissions. Making upstream and downstream emissions a condition for pipelines is a double standard to which no other major infrastructure, or any other sector or foreign oil, is held. It is already regulated provincially. The Liberals forced energy east to be abandoned.
On page 167, proposed subsection 183(1)(2), it states:
The Commission must make its recommendation taking into account...all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and directly related to the pipeline, including
(a) the environmental effects, including any cumulative environmental effects;
The term is not defined and may be designed to allow a project to be killed for political expediency.
Cumulative environmental impacts should be clearly defined here, not left broad and vague. Also, it is unfair to project proponents to account for impacts elsewhere in the value chain. For example, the approval of Trans Mountain should not hinge on Kinder Morgan accounting for emissions of planes flying out of Victoria and Vancouver. Imagine if that same standard applied to other vital infrastructure, like highways, airports, and rail.
On top of that, once a project gets through every single hurdle and even if approval is granted, the minister or the regulator can still issue a post-approval demand for further study and evaluation. This new measure almost guarantees delays after future approvals. Despite the Liberal rhetoric, that is exactly how the B.C. NDP is trying to kill Trans Mountain right now. Unfortunately, it is already clear that under the Liberals, federal approval of a national project in federal jurisdiction does not mean it still will not be stopped.
For every Liberal claim about the bill, the process is clearly designed for political influence and intervention. At any stage the minister can step in and kill the project. Even at the various stages where there is no formal ministerial approval required, the minister still could interfere, just as the Liberals did with energy east, and signal to the regulator that the project needs to be delayed or killed outright. It does not clarify or streamline an objective, evidence-based process where decisions will be made by experts.
What are the results? Suncor, the leading integrated oil and gas company in Canada, says that it will not invest in major projects in Canada in the future. Billions of investment dollars are leaving Canada for the U.S. and other energy-producing jurisdictions. The combined impact of additional regulations, higher taxes, and uncertainty makes Canada a more difficult place to invest capital.
There is another component of Bill C-69 that requires careful examination.
The government claims the bill would broadly enhance and expand consultations with indigenous communities, but the government should be more precise and accurate. Bill C-69 does not actually change the consultation rights for indigenous communities at all. Canada has developed, through laws, executive action, and court decisions, a framework within which meaningful indigenous consultation occurs. The crown has a duty, when it takes executive action, to examine if it would interfere with or infringe on a section 35-protected right of an indigenous community. If such a right is identified and the executive still intends on following that course of action, the indigenous community must be meaningfully consulted and compensated for any loss or infringement of the right.
Bill C-69 simply would not change this fundamental principle.
What I have heard from pro-energy and pro-natural resources indigenous groups is that the Liberals are interfering with their ability to responsibly manage their lands and to engage with industry in equity partnerships, which is a widespread practice. From the tanker and drilling bans to the northern gateway veto, the Liberals unilaterally destroyed immediate and future opportunities in responsible resource development for indigenous people, without consultation.
Canadian natural resource proponents have long worked with indigenous communities early to identify affected communities and establish relationships. In the case of Trans Mountain, literally any indigenous community that wanted to be involved was included in consultation. The project is supported by 40 aboriginal groups along the route and four of the six first nations in the area are equity partners.
The real question the House must consider about the legislation is this. What global oil market share should Canada own? As well, what will really be the future of natural resources development and all the jobs it provides across the country? The fact is that global demand for oil and gas is going to continue to increase. Countries that do not match Canada's environmental, human rights, labour and consultation standards, and transparency are ready to meet that demand.
If the Liberals continue to create more layers and uncertainty, it will only mean Canadian energy investment will continue to fall and energy resources will not be able to meet that increasing demand from Canada.
Energy is the number one private sector investor in the Canadian economy, and it is Canada's second biggest export. The importance of this sector cannot be understated. The responsible development and transportation of Canada's energy resources lifts that standard of living of every Canadian, reduces poverty, and funds important social programs in every community across the country.
Canada's economy needs a strong natural resources sector. It has sole ownership of 7% of GDP. It produces billions of dollars and a million jobs. It is Canada's opportunity to continue to be an environmental leader in the world.
Ramming this bill through is irresponsible. Industry is already pulling investment capital from Canada. It is warning about the impacts of this legislation. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have already been lost. If Bill C-69 passes, in one blow, the Liberals will have put at serious risk the immediate and long-term future of Canada's natural resources development.
I will oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to do so. I hope, at the very least, the Liberals will allow us to represent the people who sent us here on their behalf to represent their interests and values, and to give this massive legislation the debate it deserves.
Impact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
February 27th, 2018 / 11:45 a.m.
See
context
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that Canadians understand the importance of the energy sector. Coming from the west, we understand the importance of markets abroad. For example, for 10 years the Harper government was unsuccessful in delivering pipelines, not one inch of pipeline that would lead to tidewaters. The Conservatives can talk about it, but through the minister, this government has delivered on pipelines and energy while taking the environment into consideration.
Could the member explain to Canadians why the Harper government was so unsuccessful at delivering that valuable energy to markets through pipelines to tidewaters?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, under the previous Conservative government, 17 pipelines were approved, and four are in operation. The Liberals continue to spin this narrative that not one inch of pipeline was approved under the Conservative government. It is just not true. In fact, not one inch of pipeline the Liberals have approved, or any of the other initiatives, have been completed. They really need to drop this completely false rhetoric and misleading Canadians on this issue.
In fact, in recent history, only two new initiatives have been proposed as new pipelines to tidewater: the energy east pipeline, which would take Canadian energy resources to eastern Canadian refineries to secure our own energy independence and security and then shipped to European markets; and the northern gateway pipeline, which would have gone to the west coast to ship to the ever-increasing demand in the Asia Pacific.
The Liberals killed the energy east pipeline with rule changes and delays, and vetoed the approval of the northern gateway pipeline on the exact same day they approved other projects using the exact same science, evidence, and basis. It is all talk. No wonder Canadians do not trust them on this issue.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, I am finding the debate most amusing, with both parties arguing over whose environmental assessment process guarantees that every project will be approved. It is not what the process is supposed to be about, but it is very revealing.
The member's colleague who sits on the committee with me has raised similar concerns to what I have about the uncertainty of the bill. Essentially, we have a framework where the details will come with regulations and rules to be implemented after the bill is finally approved.
I wonder if the member could agree with me that there is a serious problem. The decision on whether or not anything will be assessed will be left to a project list or to the discretion of the minister. Does she not agree that perhaps it would have been good to do this process at the same time that they were consulting on the bill?
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not think that Conservatives, or anyone here, are advocating that every single proposal or project must automatically be approved. Conservatives support, as we always have, the highest standards of consultation and environmental consideration, consultation with impacted communities and indigenous communities, for which Canada has long been known, for decades. In fact, we are second to none, to no energy producing country in the world. Canada is a world leader on all of those fronts. Conservatives support that and champion the Canadian energy and our long-time environmentally responsible, socially responsible, vigorous and rigorous standards, with a stringent consultation process for the consideration and approval of major energy projects.
However, I agree with the member wholeheartedly and completely that on a number of instances, as I outlined in my speech, and maybe we can get into it more through these questions and comments, the bill opens wide multiple levels and major scope of intervention by ministers—and it also should also be mentioned by non-Canadians—in the consideration and decision of Canadian projects that are so important to the entire economy and the millions of Canadians who are employed in the natural resources sector, both directly and indirectly.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Madam Speaker, I do not think there are too many people in the House who have the knowledge and expertise on this issue as does our shadow minister for natural resources.
Two things that the member touched on are quite important to discuss. Liberals are trying to talk about that this as a science-based, fact-based bill. However, the bill states that the Minister of Climate Change and Environment has the sole responsibility to decide if a project is in the public good and will decide whether that project moves from the assessment stage on to the full study.
What kind of impact will that have on a project when the proponent sees no clear path to success? In fact, he sees that no matter what kind of documentation, what kind of study and analysis are done, there is one person in cabinet who has the authority to say that the project is worthwhile and for the public good.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, we need to put this into context about what is happening in energy investment in Canada since the 2015 election under the Liberals. The two years after the election saw the steepest decline of energy investment in Canada from any other two-year period in 70 years. The dollar values are the equivalent of losing 75% of manufacturing, almost the entire aerospace industry in Canada. It is shocking that this has not been a pressing priority for the federal government and that it is bringing forward legislation that will cause more uncertainty and more risk, deterring more capital from Canada, which is important to every Canadian across the country.
The member is right on when he says that this flies in the face of all the Liberals' rhetoric about evidence, scientific-based decision-making, when they allow for political interference at multiple levels, including before the process even starts, and afterward by one single member of the cabinet who has already demonstrated a radical anti-energy agenda.
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Madam Speaker, the member pointed out that the process of having pipelines approved is lengthy and challenging. There is no question about that. It has also been challenged that the government has been misspeaking when it says that the previous government was not able to get one pipeline built to tidewater. That has been challenged and it has been said it is incorrect.
Could the member give us the name of that pipeline that was built to tidewater? If not the name, could the member provide maybe where it was built, from where to where?
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, what Canadians would like is for the Liberals to one day take responsibility for being government and to focus on the debate at hand. Here is what they have done.
The Liberals disallowed opposition members and opposition staff from being able to participate in a full technical briefing on this legislation along with media and stakeholders. They offered a technical briefing hours after they had already provided full rationale for stakeholders and media. That did not just impact their colleagues in the Conservatives, but it impacted our colleagues in the NDP. They may approach this issue from a different perspective, but they deserve to be briefed just as sufficiently nonetheless. Now they are cutting off debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation that would impact a sector which literally underpins the entire Canadian economy. It puts our reputation at risk as a long-term and future environmentally and socially responsible producer of oil and gas in the world.
Let us use our time here today, limited as it is and shut down as hypocritically as it was by the dictatorial Liberals, and let us focus on the legislation at hand. Let us debate the impacts of the bill that they have put forward and are trying to ram through.