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.

Natural Resources

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, what the Liberals fail to mention is that the $40-billion project is exempt from their job-killing carbon tax.

Now the Liberals' “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, is a threat to the livelihood of Canadians who depend on the energy sector for employment. New carbon taxes, downstream emissions, regulations and now Bill C-69 will end energy investment in Canada as we know it.

The record is clear. The Liberals have failed to get a pipeline built, and it is time for them to scrap this legislation. Will the Minister of Natural Resources from Alberta do the right thing and kill this bill?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, thanks to the Liberals, energy investment in Canada has seen its biggest decline in more than 70 years.

Canadian businesses are dying, people are losing their jobs and tens of billions of dollars are going to the U.S. economy instead of ours.

The Prime Minister's “no more pipelines” bill will only make it worse. Will the Prime Minister stand up for Canadian workers, businesses and our economy, and scrap Bill C-69?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' “no more pipelines” bill was passed by this House with the shameful support of three Alberta Liberals. However, it is not too late to stop it.

Last week, the Alberta Chamber of Commerce told the finance committee that any pipeline company under Bill C-69 would be foolish to even apply for any type of pipeline, while the Alberta crude differential hit $50 last week.

Will the minister from Alberta do the right thing and kill this bill before it becomes the “no more pipelines” law?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, we are very pleased with Bill C-69. Why? Because we listened to indigenous peoples. We listened to business people. We listened to people in the resource sector. We listened to environmentalists, because what did we commit to? We committed to getting our resources to market, but we also committed to rebuilding a trust in how we do environmental assessments.

We have come up with a system that engages indigenous peoples early, that has shorter and tighter timelines as businesses were requesting. It also ensures that we make decisions based on science. We know to get our resources to market in a responsible way we need a proper process. That is exactly what we—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-69 is putting a chill on investment in Canada's natural resources sector. The president of the Indian Resource Council said, “Bill C-69 will harm Indigenous economic development, create barriers to decision-making, and make Canada unattractive for resource investment.”

This legislation must be stopped. To make matters worse, under the current Prime Minister, Canadian energy investment has seen its biggest decline in more than 70 years.

When will the natural resources minister kill this bill?

Carbon Pricing

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, Albertans are struggling, Edmontonians are struggling, and what do we get from the Ottawa Liberals in our time of need? A carbon tax. What is their response to the concerns voiced about the impact of this carbon on everything? It is to take the kids to morning hockey on a bus, renovate our houses, or maybe buy an electric car. That is easy enough to say if someone is a trust-fund millionaire.

People in my riding are already feeling the hit from the Liberal failure on pipelines and the attack on our energy industry with Bill C-69 and the oil tanker ban. Now on top of all that, they are being forced to pay for a carbon tax on everything.

The Liberals preach about the middle-class tax cut, but that tiny amount means nothing when the cost of everything else, including interest rates and debt, is skyrocketing thanks to the government. It is time for the government to start thinking about the individual impacts its policies are having on everyday Canadians rather than pandering to special interest groups.

It is time for the government listen to Albertans and axe this carbon tax.

Natural Resources

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the government's last budget, it was noted with some concern that the discount on Alberta crude had averaged $20 a barrel over the previous year. The budget then went on to predict that, with new pipelines on the way, the differential this year would begin to close, allowing Canadians to get closer to world prices.

The differential has not shrunk. Last week, it hit a staggering $50 per barrel. This means that under the current government's failed pipeline policies, Canada is subsidizing the American economy by sending discounted oil, along with jobs, investment and lost tax revenue to the United States, while supporting Saudi Arabia by importing its oil.

Therefore, on behalf of thousands of my constituents who depend directly on the energy industry, I call upon the government to stop Bill C-69, stop Bill C-48, quit dithering, table a plan to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built, scrap the carbon tax, and get serious about energy policy.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, four pipelines. That is what the former Conservative government did, unlike those guys on that side of the House.

Bill C-69, the carbon tax, the tanker traffic bans are all unmistakable signs of a government that is hostile to the future growth of the energy sector. There is no doubt that the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, is a direct attack on Albertans.

The provincial NDP and the Prime Minister have punished hard-working Albertans enough.

When will the Minister of Natural Resources, who is from Edmonton, finally intervene and kill the bill?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Calgary, Alberta, there is no trust in the current government.

Bill C-69 is the greatest threat to Canada's energy industry since the NEP. The energy industry is responsible for more than 500,000 jobs across Canada. However, thanks to the Prime Minister's no-more-pipelines bill, there will be no more major energy infrastructure projects built in Canada. Companies say that if the bill passes, they will stop investing in Canada.

When will the Prime Minister stop driving energy investment away and killing Canadian jobs?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told Canadians more than once that he plans to phase out the energy sector, and Bill C-69 is exactly how he will do it. The no-more-pipelines bill means more regulations and longer application times. It means reduced transparency and less investment. It means increased uncertainty and further job losses. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian families and the workers in the energy sector depend on the resource sector. They are calling it the final nail in the coffin.

When will the government kill the no-more-pipelines bill and save the Canadian resource sector?

Indigenous Affairs

[Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the question. Unfortunately, I disagree with the premise of her question for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, I disagree with the member's claim that our government has picked a side on the Trans Mountain expansion project, unless she is suggesting that she is against creating good jobs, opening new markets for Canadian resources, and ensuring that Canada receives a fair price for them, because that is the opportunity we support.

Nor do I agree with any suggestion that respecting indigenous rights is just a formality. Our government has been very clear: no relationship is more important to Canada, and this government, than the one with indigenous people. The Prime Minister has said it countless times. It was a central tenet in our throne speech. It has informed and inspired everything we have done since, including our consultations on a framework for respecting and implementing indigenous rights that would fundamentally redefine that relationship, replacing confrontation with collaboration.

That is why we also implemented an interim approach for reviewing resource projects that includes supporting meaningful indigenous engagement and taking indigenous knowledge into proper account.

We introduced Bill C-69 so that good projects go ahead in Canada. It is legislation that would create new partnerships by recognizing indigenous rights up front and confirming the government's duty to consult. It is legislation that would not only require the consideration of indigenous knowledge but respect the need to properly protect it. It is legislation that would consider the impact of resource development on indigenous rights and culture in the decision-making process. It is legislation that would build capacity and enhance funding for indigenous participation, and it is legislation that would aim to secure free, prior and informed consent. That is is our record.

Now we are building on it by respecting the Federal Court of Appeal's decision on the TMX project and following its direction for enhancing indigenous consultations. That way forward includes relaunching phase 3 consultations with all 117 indigenous groups affected by the project. It also includes working with first nation and Métis communities and seeking their views on how to get phase 3 right; doubling the capacity of our consultation teams; ensuring that our government representatives on the ground have a clear mandate to conduct meaningful consultations and empowering them to discuss reasonable accommodations with indigenous groups on issues important to them; and, of course, appointing the former Supreme Court Justice, the Hon. Frank Iacobucci, as the federal representative to oversee the consultation process.

The evidence is overwhelming. We are committed to moving forward in the right way.

[Isabelle Turcotte]

I would say in terms of exploiting its oil and gas and natural resources, Canada needs to demonstrate how it does so in a way that is consistent with meeting its own target under Paris. There's an opportunity to make sure that we evaluate projects in terms of their climate impact through Bill C-69. We look forward to making sure that projects are well evaluated and take these concerns into consideration.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to take the floor after that ruling, but I am pleased that we can pursue that other matter through other channels.

I am here now to address Bill C-83. I appreciate that the Liberal Party gave me a time slot, in recognition of the fact that there has been an allocation of time on debate and I otherwise might not have been able to speak to this at all. I wish to go on record, and I am not feeling any sense of cognitive dissonance in doing this, to thank the government party for allowing me to speak for 10 minutes, and I also wish that the government party had not decided to use time allocation on Bill C-83.

In any case, this bill comes to us in a context I want to address first, which is a political context and a political climate that has been created by recent debates in this place, in which, I regret to say, I felt demeaned. I felt displaced, demeaned and diminished by a tactic of the official opposition to turn the House of Commons into sort of a secondary chamber for the review of punishments meted out through the proper system, the courts of law. We have taken days and had people's names and the horrors of gruesome, cruel murders repeated on the floor of this place.

There is clearly some thought in some quarters here that it is a good campaign tactic to talk about punishment a lot and to regret when our correctional system responds in ways that might appear to some as lenient. However, we are a country built on the rule of law. We recognize that our prison system is not merely for punishment. We have to have this discussion, I think, fairly constantly. What is the point of our correctional system? What is the point of our prison system?

As many MPs have said on the floor of this place today in response to Bill C-83, many of the people in our prison system are going to re-enter society. We would like them to re-enter society with the life skills they will need to be contributing members of society, having paid, in that terminology, their debt to society.

It is in that context, where on one end of the political extreme we are told that we have become too lenient towards prisoners, that we turn our attention to an appalling situation, where rights have been infringed and lives have been lost through the failure of the prison system to handle certain kinds of prisoners, those who find themselves in likely incarceration in solitary confinement.

Of course, this bill comes to us in the context of one of the most egregious of those examples, again, as has been mentioned in this place today, the case of Ashley Smith. I think we forget sometimes how horrific her death was, how hard her life was, how hard her mother tried to help her and how the prison system made her survival impossible.

The coroner's inquest into Ashley Smith's death found that although she died from self-inflicted choking, while the guards watched, the context and the circumstances of her death amounted to a homicide. That coroner provided 104 recommendations.

We also know of the cases of Adam Capay, a young indigenous man who spent 1,600 days in solitary confinement; or Richard Wolfe, who did not actually die in solitary but collapsed in a prison exercise yard, at 40 years old, having spent 640 days in solitary confinement; or another indigenous man whose case comes to mind, Eddie Snowshoe, who spent 162 days in solitary confinement before hanging himself.

We can note from those cases that it is quite often those with mental health issues, those who are marginalized, those who are racialized and particularly those who are indigenous who end up in solitary confinement. Therefore, it is certainly welcome that the Minister of Public Safety has brought to this place a bill that promises to end this ongoing stain on the reputation of Canada as a civilized country. Solitary confinement for those lengths of times has been found internationally to constitute torture, and we are a people who are convinced that we do not practise torture.

Therefore, I am sad to share my disappointment with this bill and my concern that we do not have it right yet.

Coralee Cusack-Smith, mother of Ashley Smith, speaking for her family on Bill C-83, said “it's a sham and a travesty that it's done in Ashley's name. It's just a different name for segregation. It's not ending segregation. Not ending segregation for anyone with mental health issues. It's just a new name.”

It seems that the fact it is merely a rebranding is reflected in a statement by the hon. Senator Kim Pate who, having spent time before entering the other place to dedicating her life to the fair treatment of women prisoners, in particular through the Elizabeth Fry Society, described Bill C-83 as disappointing and even as weakening the limitations on how often a segregated prisoner can experience solitary confinement. We have this idea that structured intervention units will be entirely different from solitary confinement. I hope they will be. I have to say that it is one place where I would like to emphasize the positive in this place.

I was a member of Parliament, at the same desk, in the same chair, for an opposition party through the 41st Parliament. I could add up on the fingers of one hand the number of times I saw a single amendment made to a government bill. In a four-year term of a majority government under Stephen Harper, bills were rammed through from start to finish without a single amendment. Therefore, I will credit the current government and the administration of the current Prime Minister with being more open to amendments. However, it is a mixed bag. Some bills I would have been so happy to support if they only had been amended enough to make them acceptable. Bill C-69, the environmental assessment omnibus bill, is in that category. It is a tragedy that the Liberals did not get that one right. It will be a tragedy if we collectively in the House do not get it right on this one.

We have an obligation as a civilized society to re-examine what we mean by “incarceration” and “corrections” in the criminal justice system and what the purpose of incarceration is. In the 41st Parliament, the former government got rid of prison chaplains in that system. It got rid of prison farms where some prisoners could have the first experience in their lives of a day outdoors doing an honest day's labour. I suppose it is ironic that an honest day's labour took place in a prison farm context. However, those programs were killed by the previous government.

The prison system in our country cannot just be seen as a place where some parts of the political spectrum can score political points by talking about life being too easy there for people who have committed heinous crimes, as the language always describes them. I am not sympathizing with criminals. I support the rights of victims. However, it is not an effective prison system if it kills people who have committed minor crimes, who become stuck in a Möbius loop where they cannot get help. We have to break that cycle now. We have to find ways to focus our prison system on fairness, respect, reconciliation and rehabilitation. This is not the stuff of bleeding hearts; this is what makes a society whole. This is what allows people who have been in prison to come back out and function in a civilized society and not pass on the patterns of behaviour they have experienced to their family and children.

I have hope for Bill C-83. I will do everything I can at committee, and everything I can by working with members of the groups who have given their lives to this, whether it be the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and those very brave people who have been incarcerated and are willing to come forward to say, “This is what would have helped me. This is how it did not help me.”

Yes, a prison system is to ensure that people pay their debt to society and are punished for things that are morally indefensible and a huge assault on our society. However, there are also a lot of people in prison who have committed relatively minor crimes who, if they were wealthier and had better lawyers, might not be there. There, but for the grace of God, go members and I. Therefore, let us fix Bill C-83.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

We have Bill C-69, and we have an arbitrary moratorium. I understand that all the major Inuit organizations have now walked away from nutrition north, because that conversation has not been going so well, I guess, not actually seeing action from a government that made some significant promises.

In the last government, I think we had a reasonable Arctic policy framework. Maybe a new government wants to rejig it, but it sounds like we've spent three years now on that from the very start, again.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

This might not impact the territories as much, but certainly we have Bill C-69, which is working its way through Parliament.