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.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Let me ask you a second question.

You spoke in your remarks about how highly you value impacts upon indigenous peoples. One of the greatest harms brought by the Harper changes was excluding the trigger of navigable waters for assessments of all the oil sands activities in northern Alberta, because of the interaction of all the streams, the marshes, and so forth.

The federal government also, in its wisdom—both the Conservatives and the Liberals—failed to look at the transboundary impact of the Site C dam upon the rights of indigenous peoples in northern Alberta to traverse.

There actually is a court case. Mr. Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada found that any reasonable person would expect that the reduction of the number of protected waterways carries the potential risk of harm to the fishing and trapping rights of the Mikisew, thereby triggering the duty to consult. The area in which the indigenous people want to consult is the overall impact assessment, not a narrow process of simply looking at whether it is a minor or major impact.

One of the big issues is cumulative impact, and that's a significant issue that's been raised by a number of people. I wonder whether you can tell us how this new act, under Bill C-69, adequately addresses potential cumulative impacts, even of minor works upon minor waterways.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Okay.

We did not remove the responsibility for an environmental assessment. It is covered in Bill C-69 through the impact assessment act.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—of the first part of Bill C-69 is fisheries.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

As you know, the Navigation Protection Act, or now the Canadian navigable waters act, and before that the Navigable Waters Protection Act, is one of the oldest acts in the country.

I just want to make the point that, as you said, I have a great deal of power. I take that job extremely seriously because of the importance of the common right of Canadians to have access to navigation on our waterways.

As I said, we have added further dimensions to it. It was intended as an act to cover the issue of navigation when it was originally created.

Now, to address your point about an environmental trigger, there is, through Bill C-69 and through the impact assessment process, the possibility of triggering environmental—and not just environmental, but as well other—concerns that may be expressed, whether with respect to health, whether with respect to community—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Minister, I know you're fully aware that you have a great power. You have the unilateral power over navigation. It's a unilateral federal power, so unless you make a decision to protect a navigable river, there is no other recourse.

Your government also committed to strengthening this act, as well as other environmental laws.

There are definitely a lot of concerns that have been raised about the changes made by the Conservatives to this act, but there are equally a lot of concerns about this bill. One is that this Bill C-69 in its entirety has 800 clauses. One of the concerns that is being raised is that the impact assessment law does not include potential impacts to navigable waters as a trigger.

Prior to the changes made by the Harper government, there were two major triggers for federal environmental assessment: one was potential impacts under the Fisheries Act, and the second was under navigable waters. The third, but always confusing, was impacts to the rights of indigenous peoples.

Why has a decision been made not to include in the proposed impact assessment act, under clause 7, a trigger of a potential impact to navigable waters? Why is there a completely separate impact assessment process for navigable waters?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I am concerned about future generations as well, as we go forward, and that is why I am making the changes that are necessary.

In order to just complete, if I may, you said this bill should be split. I believe your party made that request to the Speaker, and the Speaker ruled that this bill did not have to be split because it was a bill that dealt with impact assessment. That was ruled on by the Speaker, and that is why this part, the Canadian navigable waters, constitutes a part of a very important bill, C-69, dealing with impact assessments on the environment.

[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?