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.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair and honourable members, I am pleased to meet with the committee today to talk about Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act.

Canada is fortunate to be surrounded on three coasts by the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans, and is also home to countless lakes and rivers. I have had the pleasure of travelling coast to coast to coast to see these waters first-hand, and the special pleasure of being able to see the vast network of lakes, rivers, canals, and oceans that form our great nation from space. I can tell you that even from space, you can clearly see that lakes, rivers, and other water bodies are a key element of our transportation network.

I have also had the pleasure of hearing from Canadians about their passion for boating, be it in their canoes, kayaks, sailboats, motorboats, or larger vessels.

There can be no doubt that Canada relies on all of its navigable waters for recreational use and for the movement of goods and services. Indigenous peoples also exercise their rights in these waters.

Canadians want to ensure that navigation on these waterways can be protected now and in the future, including on our heritage and longest wild and free-flowing rivers. They expect that their public right of navigation is being protected.

When I was appointed Minister of Transport in 2015, the Prime Minister gave me the mandate to review the Navigation Protection Act with a view to restoring lost protections and incorporating modern safeguards. After an extensive review and consultation process, we are now proposing to amend the Navigation Protection Act and create the new Canadian navigable waters act to fulfill this commitment and better protect the right to travel on all navigable waters in Canada.

The new Canadian navigable waters act is the product of more than 14 months of consulting with Canadians, which began with a study of the previous government's changes by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Madam Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the standing committee for the time it dedicated to this study and for its recommendations. The standing committee's work provided a solid foundation for the new Canadian navigable waters act.

The proposed Canadian navigable waters act was also informed by the views of indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, industry, recreational and environmental groups, and the general public. Waterway users have told us clearly that they want oversight on all navigable waters in Canada, more transparency and clarity around processes and decisions, greater partnership opportunities for indigenous peoples in administering navigation protections, and observance of the need for processes to remain efficient and predictable.

The proposed Canadian navigable waters act addresses these concerns. The act will contain a new requirement for approval of major works that significantly impact navigation on all navigable waters, such as large dams or other works, and authority for the Minister of Transport to regulate obstructions on all navigable waters.

Madam Chair, the government is committed to open, accessible and transparent processes. It is a question of public trust.

The Canadian Navigable Waters Act would provide better rules that will deliver greater transparency about proposed projects that could affect navigation, to make it easier for Canadians to have a say in projects that concern them.

We recognize that, to participate in decisions, Canadians need to know about projects before they are built. The Canadian Navigable Waters Act would require that project proponents notify and engage with potentially affected communities and waterway users before construction of a project takes place on any navigable water.

Should this early engagement leave unresolved navigation-related concerns for works, the government would now have the ability to review these concerns and require the proponent to seek an authorization if appropriate. This new resolution process would give Canadians a better and more modern way to raise navigation concerns for a project proposed in any navigable lake or river in a more efficient, timely, and modern manner.

The act would also require that the department establish a new public registry to house project information and information on decisions. This would help communities stay informed, participate in decision-making processes, and access information over the long term.

The Canadian Navigable Waters Act also provides for an improved, more inclusive schedule, allowing a layer of extra oversight to be provided for navigable waters where it is needed most, including those of particular importance to Canadians and indigenous people.

I must recognize the critical role the navigable waters have in supporting the indigenous peoples of Canada and their ability to exercise their rights. We have heard that water is critical to their way of life, and the Canadian navigable waters act has been proposed to further our goals for reconciliation in a number of ways, but most importantly, to facilitate partnerships between Canada and indigenous peoples in administering the proposed act within their traditional territories.

The proposed act supports a strengthened relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership that is responsive to indigenous peoples and that aims to secure their free, prior, and informed consent. The act would require consideration of and protection of indigenous traditional knowledge and the consideration of any adverse effects that decisions may have on indigenous rights.

We also recognize that stronger navigation protections are only of value to Canadians if they can be robustly enforced. That is why the Canadian Navigable Waters Act would include new modern enforcement powers and stronger penalties.

Madam Chair, the proposed Canadian Navigable Waters Act is an important element of the proposed new impact assessment system that will protect our environment, our fish, and our waterways, while rebuilding public trust and respecting indigenous rights. This new system will require a rigorous assessment of a full range of impacts for projects that have the potential to pose a significant risk to the environment in areas of federal jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act will restore protection measures for all fish and fish habitats and create new fisheries management tools to enhance the protection of species and ecosystems. This broad new system will consider a whole range of potential impacts for any project designated for review—not just on the environment, but also on communities, health, indigenous peoples, and jobs. Decisions under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act will be fully integrated into this new impact assessment system.

To sum up, this proposed legislation will provide navigation protection for all navigable waters as a significant contribution to the new impact assessment system. It will also create more accessible and transparent processes, making it easier for indigenous peoples and the public to engage in projects that affect their communities and to resolve navigation issues of concern to them. Our navigable waters are the common heritage of all Canadians, and the right to travel on them must be protected. The proposed new Canadian navigable waters act will do this.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm going to bring the meeting to order. I'd like to get the meeting under way. The minister has to be out of the room at 4:30, and we have our industry panels coming in.

I want to welcome the minister.

Thank you very much, Minister Garneau, for joining us today with your team. We're very much looking forward to your statements, and it is great to have you kicking off your portion of Bill C-69. It's great to hear what you have to say.

We'll have a quick round of questioning. We're probably going to get only one round. You're all going to get your six minutes, but you may want to share that time with other members so that everybody can have a chance to ask a question. I know there is an eagerness for that.

I'm going to open the floor right now to the minister.

Oceans Act

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by addressing the statement that we misrepresented the actual progress that has been made with regard to marine protected areas. Up until the last election, less than 1% of our oceans and marine ways were protected, despite the fact that we are five years into a 10-year commitment to get to a protection level of 10%. Our government has doubled down our efforts and now has reached a point of 7.75% protection, representing hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of new protection, which I know for a fact Canadians are proud of.

Also with regard to transparency, what we will see, not just in the changes to the Oceans Act in Bill C-55 but also in the changes in Bill C-68 to the Fisheries Act, and Bill C-69, is that our government is sticking to and increasing our commitment to provide transparency. In the Fisheries Act, for example, a registry is being created. This is to make sure Canadians have all the tools they need to understand what the government is doing so that they can hold us to account. It is also to make sure people who are doing projects, whether big or small, have certainty around timelines and the like. That is the kind of transparent work that our government continues to do on these important bills.

World Water Day

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on World Water Day, I rise to speak about the importance of protecting Canada's lakes and rivers.

In 2012, the Conservative government gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act. During the 2015 federal election, the Liberals promised they would immediately reverse stripped environmental protections and create new environmental safeguards.

Almost three years later, the Liberals finally introduced Bill C-69, the Navigation Protection Act, which falls considerably short of what the Liberals promised during the election campaign. In fact, the minor changes introduced in the bill make little or no difference for the protection of 99% of our waterways. Instead, Canadians will be forced to fight the government on a case-by-case basis to protect each lake, river, creek, or stream.

On World Water Day, I hope the government and all MPs will acknowledge the importance of water to Canadians and pledge to conserve, protect, and restore watersheds across our great country.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, ministers, for being here. I know our committee certainly appreciates your appearance.

Madam Chair, I have one question, and then I would like to share my time and give Ms. May the opportunity to have a few minutes to speak to the ministers as well.

Ministers, back home in Nova Scotia, the Halifax Port Authority administers about 260 acres of federally owned land situated at multiple points around the navigable waters of beautiful—I am a little bit biased—Halifax harbour.

I'd like to know more about how Bill C-69 would change the way ports conduct their assessments and whether this may mean a strengthened oversight for projects on port lands.

I also would like to know if there is a possibility that Bill C-69's assessment of projects could be conducted by the agency itself.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for your patience and for the decorum that you've exhibited here today. We appreciate it.

Your mandate is to restore public trust in the environmental assessment, to provide meaningful public participation, to ensure that decisions are based on science, and to advance reconciliation through nation-to-nation co-operation with indigenous peoples.

I have a group of questions, and they are aimed at determining whether, or to what extent, those goals are actually satisfied in Bill C-69 and whether further amendments are going to be needed.

First, why are the five public interest factors for ministerial cabinet decisions, found in clause 63, merely considerations? For accountability purposes, why are they not the mandatory basis for decision-making?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have one very quick question for the Minister of the Environment.

Will this committee and the public receive the project list before our review of Bill C-69 completes, and before third reading proceeds?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Ministers, thank you very much for being here this afternoon. I very much appreciate it.

Having gone through provincial terms of reference and the environmental assessments process multiple times, how does Bill C-69 ensure that the IA process is not just one of checking off boxes? You know, consulted with indigenous groups, check; consulted with local residents, check; received technical briefs from opponents, check.... At the end of the day, none of the consultation briefs, in my experience, were taken seriously, or considered or reflected in the final project deciding the design or alternatives.

How does Bill C-69 ensure that all public input is considered, reflected, or acted upon? Does Bill C-69 ensure that the IA process is not simply a checking boxes routine?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Can you let me know when I have one minute left in my time? I am going to share the time with Mrs. Stubbs.

Madam Minister, Mr. Minister, and the senior officials, my thanks for being part of this morning's exercise.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of Natural Resources say that he was happy to sit down with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I completely agree with that approach. Now, beyond the approach and the image, we must work together to attain concrete results.

Madam Minister, in your presentation, you said that Bill C-69 is intended to ensure that scientific data are considered, that indigenous people are consulted to find out their interests and their opinions, that public opinion will be able to be expressed, that groups that want to provide information to the process can do so, and so on.

Let me lead by example. Following a request from the Department of Environment, I led a consultation in my constituency of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I have sent you the information.

I am having a hard time assessing the consistency of the entire process. At second reading in the House, there is a time allocation motion. You want to hold consultations and make everyone happy. But here you are actually limiting the participation of parliamentarians in the debate.

Madam Minister, can we hear your comments on the paradox that is jumping out at us?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Quite clearly, the minister is simply unable to provide a number, which is clearly ridiculous. When I ran the environmental program at a paper mill, we installed a waste-water treatment plant and we knew exactly how water quality would improve because of the installation of that plant. What you're telling Canadians here is that they will be asked to pay a $50 carbon tax—probably increasing over time—and there is absolutely no measurement of what the environmental effect will be. That's basically what I'm hearing, and that's fine.

I now would like to address the issue of competitiveness. What I heard from both ministers is simply beyond belief in terms of how this will help Canada's competitiveness. It will help to destroy it. In fact, my first job as a young fisheries biologist was doing pipeline assessments in the Mackenzie Valley. Twenty-five years of process on that potential project killed that project, and now we have impoverished communities all along the Mackenzie Valley because that pipeline was not built. Bad process kills projects.

For example, on February 9, 2018, Steve Williams, the CEO of Suncor, said that Suncor was to shun major new projects amid Canada's “difficult” regulatory environment, and we're one of Canada's major oil companies and we're not investing here anymore....

I have a paper here: “Pipeline shortage to cost the economy $15.6 billion this year”. Maybe you wouldn't run into so many deficits in your budgeting if you allowed the economy to actually proceed and create income. In terms of the legal review of Bill C-69, in the legal Daily publication, the headline reads, “Bill C-69 aims to expand and speed federal reviews, but lawyers doubt process will be faster or cheaper”.

Quite clearly what your government is doing is severely constraining the development of Canada's natural resource industries. You're reaping the remnants of the good governance under Stephen Harper, but that will quickly dissipate. How will you ensure investors with a process like this? Why do you think someone like Steve Williams has decided to shun Canada in terms of investing?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

Now, I'm going to repeat that you've often said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. I've gone through Bill C-69 with a fine-tooth comb. It addresses many of the environmental challenges that projects that fall under the ambit of the act will face. Nowhere is there any reference to economic benefits or anything compelling the agency or the review panel to actually consider the economic benefits for Canada.

Despite the rhetoric we hear from you and your government, it appears that in fact the economy and the environment don't go together. This legislation, which addresses economic projects that drive prosperity in Canada, doesn't in any way address the economic benefits that would accrue to Canadians as a result of these projects.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I would add that this is a different world from what it was in 1959 when the National Energy Board was first established. This is a different world even from what it was when the first idea of building pipelines was developed by proponents and the process of regulatory review was established a number of years ago.

This bill reflects that changing world, and we believe it reflects it in a way that recognizes and honours the three pillars of responsible economic development in the energy sector, and that is that we want good projects to go through. We understand that the expansion of export markets is of vital Canadian interest. Ninety-nine per cent of Canada's exports of oil and gas go to one country, the United States. We don't think that's healthy in the short term or the long term.

We started looking at what results we want and we concluded that we want responsible, good projects to go through in a timely way while respecting the environmental realities and our international and domestic obligations and our constitutional and moral obligations to indigenous peoples. We think that all three of those pillars and the values that underlie them are reflected in Bill C-69.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Ministers McKenna and Carr, thank you for coming to our environment and sustainable development committee to speak to Bill C-69. Like many of my colleagues, I believe this may be the most important piece of legislation that our government passes, and we have passed some very important legislation since forming office.

As a British Columbian with strong roots in the Prairies, I feel strongly that the current legislative and regulatory framework for projects has in the past decade failed our country, including our economy, our environment, and, as importantly, our indigenous peoples. We're seeing this through the conflict that's arisen, as an example, under the Kinder Morgan pipeline project that affects British Columbians, Albertans, and Canadians.

As a government, we added interim principles to address the shortcomings of the legislative and regulatory process left by the previous government for the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, and yet conflict remains.

Can each of you summarize for our committee and for Canadians who are following these hearings how Bill C-69 will provide clarity and certainty in the process for assuring future projects under federal jurisdiction, how this legislation will provide better protection for our environment, and how future assessments will include the input of Canadians, including indigenous Canadians with whom we, as a country, have a special relationship that requires special consideration? If you could each take about two minutes to provide your summary, that would be appreciated.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everybody.

Let me begin by thanking you for your work. Really, the work of committees is at the heart of our democracy. The fact that it's in the centre of this building is a metaphor for how important it is.

I want to say that for ministers to come together and be accountable in front of members of Parliament from all parties is one of the most important things that we ever do. I look forward to the exchange, which I am sure might have its spirited moments, and that's the way it should be.

I also want to begin by picking up on something that Minister McKenna said, right at the end of her remarks. That's the importance of Bill C-69, to ensure that the economy and the environment continue to go hand in hand.

It makes sense for us to appear together. I'm sure both Conservative and Liberal members will remember that it wasn't always this way. There was a time when ministers of the environment and natural resources would probably not sit at the same table. When they sat around even their own partisan tables, things were always a bit tense. We believe in 2018 that there is one conversation.

Also, the minister and I were together in Vancouver last week at the GLOBE conference, giving keynote addresses and participating in panel discussions during round tables with indigenous people, with environmentalists, with leaders of industry and clean technology. It didn't matter in front of what audience, our message was always the same, the message that we're delivering this morning.

I think it is a powerful message that Canadians see the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change sharing the same table, demonstrating that the economy and the environment are not competing interests, but equal components of a single engine that drives innovation, jobs, and economic growth. That has been our government's vision from day one, and the results speak for themselves.

Last year, Canada added more than 420,000 jobs, most of them full-time positions, and many of them in our resource sectors.

Alberta, a province hit hard by three years of low oil and gas prices, is among those posting large job gains, adding 55,000 new positions. Its economic output per capita is again leading the country.

As one University of Calgary professor told the Canadian Press last month, Alberta's economy is recovering faster than almost anyone could have expected. On the other side of the country, Quebec is essentially at full employment, with labour shortages reported in some parts of the province.

It's not surprising, then, that Canada led all G7 countries with 3% growth last year and that our unemployment rate has been hovering around 40-year lows. Such robust growth is difficult to duplicate year after year; we know that. We also know that governments are a part of it; job creation is really due to the actions of individual Canadians.

Economies have their cycles, but the message is clear: we can create good jobs for the middle class and those working hard to join it, with a future built on the three pillars of economic prosperity, environmental protection, and indigenous participation.

Bill C-69 is a big part of our vision. It has the potential to transform our natural resources sector by providing project proponents with clearer rules and greater certainty, by allowing local communities to have more input, and by ensuring indigenous people have more opportunities in the development and oversight of our nation's vast resources.

That includes our energy sector, which is why we are proposing a new Canadian energy regulator, or CER, to replace the existing National Energy Board. We want to create a new federal energy regulator with the necessary independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector in the 21st century.

It would be a federal regulator with a modern, effective governance structure, one that includes a chief executive officer who would be separate from the chair; a board of directors that would provide strategic direction, distinct from a group of independent commissioners responsible for adjudication; and at least one member of both the board and the commissioners who would be first nation, Inuit, or Métis.

That's what the Canadian energy regulator act proposes to do.

Under our plan, timelines for reviews would also be shorter, more predictable, and better managed. Project reviews would not exceed two years for major new projects, and not more than 300 days for smaller ones, all the while continuing to recognize the expertise of the offshore boards and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

At the same time, the CER act would make public engagement more inclusive. For example, the NEB's existing “test for standing” would be eliminated to ensure every Canadian has an opportunity to express his or her views during project reviews. Participant funding programs would be expanded to support new activities.

We also want to advance reconciliation by building and funding the capacity of indigenous peoples to participate more meaningfully in project reviews, as well as recognizing indigenous rights up front, confirming the government's duty to consult, requiring consideration of traditional indigenous knowledge, and aiming to secure free, prior, and informed consent.

The new CER would have more powers to enforce stronger safety and environmental protections, including new powers for federal inspection officers.

All of these enhancements would ensure that good projects can proceed without compromising the environment or engagement, allowing our energy resources to get to markets in responsible, timely, and transparent ways.

Canadians have painted a similar picture for our country in this clean growth century through the hundreds of thousands who joined our ongoing Generation Energy discussion to imagine Canada's energy future, the hundreds more who travelled to Winnipeg last fall for our two-day Generation Energy forum, and the thousands who participated in 14 months of public consultation to draft this legislation. Canadians have told us that they want a thriving, low-carbon economy. They want us to be a leader in clean technology, and they want an energy system that provides equal opportunities to Canadians, while minimizing harm to the environment. They also understand that we're not there yet. We need to prepare for the future, but we must also deal with the present by providing energy that they can count on when they flick on a light or fill up their cars.

A modern energy regulator is essential to that, and to ensuring all Canadians have continued access to a safe, affordable, and reliable supply of energy. That has been the role of the National Energy Board since 1959. Under its almost 60-year-old mandate, the NEB has been responsible for making recommendations and decisions on projects, overseeing the safety and environmental performance of facilities, and engaging Canadians.

Today the NEB regulates approximately 73,000 kilometres of international and interprovincial pipelines and another 1,400 kilometres of international power lines, as well as all of our Canadian imports and exports of energy.

Unfortunately, the NEB's structure, role and mandate have remained relatively unchanged since the National Energy Board Act was first introduced in 1959.

That has created some challenges at a time when energy regulation should be evolving and adapting with the changing times, and when a modern energy regulator is central to integrating Canada's energy, economic, and climate goals. The new CER would help to address all of that.

For example, it would introduce a more inclusive approach to reviewing energy projects by incorporating a full impact assessment of key factors. As well, the CER's mandate would cover emerging energy developments such as the regulation of offshore renewable energy, and with legislative timelines, the new CER would significantly strengthen investment certainty. So will the new transition period that is based on clear rules, the earlier engagement to identify public priorities, the clearer direction on indigenous consultations, the coordinated activities between the CER and the new impact assessment agency, and the continued government responsibility for final decisions.

Bill C-69 is ambitious, but achievable. It is legislation designed for the Canada we know today, and the Canada we want for tomorrow, a Canada where we create the growing middle class we all want, while protecting the planet we all cherish for generations to come.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak today about this important piece of legislation, and I really appreciate the hard work of all the committee members.

The legislation we introduced earlier this year aims to restore public trust in how the federal government makes decisions about such major projects as mines, pipelines, and hydro dams. These better rules are designed to protect our environment, improve investor confidence, strengthen our economy, and create good middle-class jobs. They will also make the Canadian energy and resource sectors more competitive.

With these better rules, we are working to build on Canada's strong economic growth and historic job numbers.

Together with my ministerial colleagues, I have been working very hard to deliver this government's promise to regain public trust in environmental assessment and regulatory processes to help get resources to market in a sustainable way and introduce new, fair processes. As a first step, in January 2016 we introduced an interim approach and principles that will guide decision-making for projects that were already in the system.

These interim principles clearly show the following.

First, decisions will be based on scientific and probative data as well as on sound traditional indigenous knowledge.

Second, we are going to listen to the opinion of Canadians and of their communities.

Third, indigenous people will be consulted in a significant and respectful way.

Fourth, decisions will consider the effects of the various projects on the climate.

Fifth, no project that has already been assessed will have to start the process from scratch.

Our government did not stop at interim principles. In June 2016, we launched a comprehensive process to review existing laws and seek Canadians' input on how to improve our environmental and regulatory system. This review was guided by two expert panels, two parliamentary committees, as well as extensive consultations with indigenous peoples, industry, provinces and territories, and the public.

The expert panel established in August 2016 and tasked with examining environmental assessment processes, travelled for four months to consult Canadians across the country. After that, the committee submitted to me a report that included a summary of the comments received and the way in which they had been examined, together with recommendations to improve federal environmental assessment processes.

The government then held a public comment period on that report and engaged with stakeholders and indigenous peoples. Over 1,000 online comments and 160 submissions were received, and over 100 in-person meetings were held with thousands of Canadians from across the country.

We then took all the information and input that we heard and released a discussion paper that outlined the government's proposed path forward, based on the feedback from the expert report and the submissions provided. This too was the subject of extensive consultations, both online and in person.

On February 8, I introduced Bill C-69, which is the culmination of all that input. The proposed legislation responds to what we heard from provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and the public, addressing what matters to Canadians. Bill C-69 will introduce a modern assessment process that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities.

First, assessments will consider not just environmental impacts of projects, but also the social, health, and economic impacts they may cause. When making decisions, we will consider whether companies are using the best available technologies and practices to reduce impacts on the environment, and a gender-based analysis will ensure any potential impacts unique to women, men, or gender-diverse people are identified and addressed.

Under the proposed framework, decisions will be based on whether a project with adverse effects is in the public interest. A public interest determination will be guided by several factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability, impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights, and mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce the project's impacts on Canada's ability to meet its environmental obligations and climate change commitments.

Proactive strategic and regional assessments will allow the potential cumulative effects of development projects to be evaluated. In addition, the decision-making process will be more enlightened.

We also heard that project reviews need to be predictable, provide regulatory certainty, and work across multiple jurisdictions. The new legislation proposes to have one agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada, lead all major project reviews and coordinate with indigenous peoples. One project, one assessment, is a guiding principle to drive co-operative reviews and avoid duplication.

New tools are available for the impact assessment agency to work collaboratively with jurisdictions and with life-cycle regulators such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the proposed Canadian energy regulator to ensure this principle is met.

A new early planning phase will engage jurisdictions, potentially affected indigenous peoples and communities, to ensure that key issues are raised early so that project proponents know at the outset what is expected from them.

Thanks to this early planning and participation stage, we will also be able to encourage the public on the front lines to participate in the dialogue. That stage will also allow us to simplify the process, something that is positive for everyone.

For the first time, there will now be a legislated timeline for decision-making for assessment. These timelines will ultimately shorten project assessments, allowing proponents to spend more time investing in project development to build the Canadian economy.

Indigenous peoples are leaders in conservation. They've long been stewards of the environment and have rights related to the management of land, waters, and wildlife. They have knowledge of the land that spans generations. We will advance Canada's commitment to reconciliation and get to better project decisions by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start.

We will require traditional indigenous knowledge to be considered, as well as available scientific and other data.

Indigenous governing bodies will have more opportunities to exercise their powers and responsibilities under the Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act.

In addition, we will increase funding to the Participant Funding Program to support indigenous participation and to strengthen capacities linked to impact assessments.

We also heard that Canadians want to ensure that assessments are grounded in science and that the process is transparent and accessible. The bill proposes a number of measures to address these issues. Greater public participation opportunities will be provided, including during the early planning phase and during the impact assessment process. All Canadians will be assured the ability to participate.

An online registry will provide access to information on specific environmental assessments of projects, including the scientific data used in the impact assessment.

Summaries of the facts supporting the assessments, written in plain language, will be made available in order to ensure strong participation.

Assessments and decisions will be informed by the best available science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge. Scientific evidence will be tested, and where findings are uncertain, third party reviews will be available.

The bill also proposes to increase transparency by requiring that decisions, with detailed reasons, are made public so that Canadians can better understand the rationale behind the decisions.

As you know, the proposed impact assessment act was informed by extensive consultation, and I am committed to continuing the dialogue.

Since the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, I have met with stakeholders from industry and from environmental groups, with representatives of indigenous peoples, and with my provincial counterparts in order to obtain their reactions on what has been proposed in the bill.

The better rules we announced this year reflect what we have heard overwhelmingly and consistently from Canadians over the past year and a half.

They want a modern environmental and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects can go ahead, which creates good, middle-class jobs and grows our economy. As we always say, the environment and the economy go together.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. I would like to thank the committee for the collaborative approach that you have taken in your work around this table to date, and I look forward to the outcome of your review of this important piece of legislation.