Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Appearance before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (December 2023): Supplementary Binder used by the President

Mentions of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Opinion on the Impact Assessment Act in Parliamentary Committees

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) opinion was brought up in five committees: Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (ENVI), Standing Committee on Natural Resources (RNNR), Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO), Standing Committee on Finance (FINA), and Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN).

The pages below include the direct transcripts of these mentions.

FOPO: Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

FOPO – Tuesday, December 5th, 2023

MP Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays-Central-Notre Dame

Starting in 2022-23 DFO received $92M spread over six years for implementation of the Impact Assessment Act. How has the Supreme Court opinion on the Impact Assessment Act affected DFO’s implementation of the Act?

Annette Gibbons, Deputy Minister (DM), DFO

We continue to work on the cases that we’re working on and as the government has announced there is work underway to work on the way forward given the reference case on the Act. I think that at the end of the day, DFO’s work on assessing impacts to projects that come through will continue on, there will be adjustments depending on the changes to the IAA, but we will still have a role to play in assessments of fish and fish habitat.

Clifford Small

Do you know what that role will be until the new revisions come out? Or are you waiting to see?

Annette Gibbons

We are working through that with colleagues from other departments.

ENVI: Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

ENVI – Tuesday, October 24th, 2023

MP Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa

The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s Bill C-69 was unconstitutional because it interjected on provincial jurisdiction. Provinces are rightfully worried that opening the Canada Water Act will also intrude on their jurisdiction.

Did anyone here read the Supreme Court’s decision, and can they share what they learned from it so that the government doesn’t intrude on provincial jurisdiction again with the changes to the Water Act?

Daniel Wolfish, A/ADM Canada Water Agency

I’ll start with that answer. I’m Daniel Wolfish, and I am the acting assistant deputy minister for the Canada Water Agency. I’ll note that the reference is being read and studied, and we are working with our colleagues across government around what the implications would mean.

The government has noted that we accept the court’s opinion while affirming the right of the Government of Canada to put in place impact assessment legislation and to collaborate with the provinces on environmental protection. It’s in that context that we want to work within the Canada Water Agency to respect provincial jurisdictions while continuing to facilitate coordination across the provinces and territories, with indigenous peoples and within the federal government.

The reference on the Impact Assessment Act does demonstrate the need to be respectful of the federal-provincial framework and the constitutional division of powers in the areas where jurisdictional coordination is needed, including in the management of freshwater.

Kate Ladell, Director General (DG), Ecosystems Management, DFO

I can tell you that I did read the report. Similar to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), we also accept the decision, noting that any amendments that would be needed fall within the purview of ECCC and the Impact Assessment Agency. We will absolutely consider any implications to any legislative changes and regulations that we could contemplate flowing from it. Thank you.

ENVI – Tuesday, October 31st, 2023

MP Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage-Lisgar

How do you hope to be able to do that? In what process are you actually going to start engaging with the provinces? According to them, they weren’t engaged early on in the development of the Canada Water Agency. At what point and how are you going to go about actually engaging with the provinces to make sure their jurisdiction is respected, particularly in light of their rightful concerns as highlighted by the Supreme Court decision on Bill C-69?

Daniel Wolfish, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister (A/ADM), Canada Water Agency

Thank you for the question. We are conscious of the reference from the Supreme Court. We do respect it, and we will respect it. We started our consultations with the provinces and territories in 2000. We shared a paper called “Toward the Creation of a Canada Water Agency”. We held a number of bilateral calls with provinces and territories along the way. We also used the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to have conversations.

We’ll continue to use the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) as a vehicle for conversations in a multilateral forum. We’ll continue to use bilateral discussions, particularly as we implement the freshwater action plan and the mechanisms that we use with provinces and territories to manage the freshwater ecosystem initiatives.

We have an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Manitoba. We have an agreement with Quebec. We have an agreement with Ontario. We’ll continue to be working through those agreements and looking to coordinate with provinces on each of the freshwater ecosystems.

ENVI – Thursday November 9th, 2023

MP Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country

Earlier this year an opinion was shared by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act. Commissioner DeMarco, do you believe that this ruling will hamper the government’s approach to impact assessments? Do you think it has implications for building the infrastructure necessary for us to get to our emissions reduction goals?

Jerry DeMarco, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

In terms of the impact of the ruling on reaching the emissions reduction goals, I guess I’ll pretend I’m in my previous role as an environmental adjudicator at the federal and provincial level, rather than in the audit office.

There’s no question that carbon pricing, which is one of the signature pieces, is constitutional under national concern doctrine. There was a recent decision from the Supreme Court about that.

There’s no question that pollution regulation is valid under the criminal law power in terms of regulations relating to contaminants under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That’s from the Hydro-Québec case from, I think, 1997. Somebody can check that later to make sure that’s right.

The signature pieces—carbon pricing and regulation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act—are already upheld by the Supreme Court. The recent decision on the Impact Assessment Act would have no impact on those two pieces, which are the big-ticket items.

Will that ruling have an effect on impact assessment? Yes. That was what the decision was about. The federal role in impact assessment will have to abide by the delineation of jurisdiction set out in the recent Supreme Court ruling that was issued.

ENVI – Tuesday, November 21st, 2023

MP Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa

It is very clear why the minister is hiding and doesn’t want to testify in front of this committee: On October 13, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional. On October 26, Minister Guilbeault was forced to backtrack on his failed carbon tax. He finally admitted that it was unaffordable for Canadians. On November 7, the government’s own environment commissioner stated that Minister Guilbeault is failing to meet the government’s own emissions targets, and on November 14, the Federal Court ruled that Minister Guilbeault’s plastic ban was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

No wonder he is hiding.

I expect the Liberals and the New Democratic Party (NDP) will help cover up the minister’s tracks again by stopping debate on my motion, but Conservatives do believe that Canadians do deserve answers from this minister.

Thank you, Chair.

ENVI – Thursday, November 23rd, 2023

MP Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa

The Federal Court of Canada has deemed this Liberal government’s plastic ban “unreasonable and unconstitutional”. Those are the exact words from the court. This is the second time in nearly a month that the courts have ruled that the Liberal government’s environmental policies are unconstitutional. Last month the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals’ “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional, and now we know that Minister Guilbeault’s plastic ban is also unconstitutional. I wish he would just quit hiding from this committee so that we could ask him some quick questions on his failed policies, but he keeps hiding from Canadians.

It’s been over 240 days since this minister has testified at committee. He has been embarrassed by these court rulings, but Canadians deserve answers. I expect that the Liberals and the NDP will once again block this motion and continue on, but the Conservatives believe the government needs to quit introducing legislation that contravenes the laws and the Constitution.

ENVI – Tuesday, November 28th, 2023

MP Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent

The government appears to have a strong desire to get involved in issues that are not their concern. That is especially the case with respect to the environment. Need I remind my colleagues representing the government that they got bad news from the courts, which have to review some of their decisions?

Remember that the Supreme Court of Canada called out the government with respect to Bill C-69. Let me give an example that pertains directly to Quebec: in this regard, the federal government unilaterally gave itself the power to conduct an environmental assessment of major hydroelectric projects.

As a Quebecer, I am very proud of the major projects in Quebec that were developed in 1950s, completed in 1960s, and re-developed in the 1970s, the James Bay project in particular. I am very proud of the major advances that we, the Quebec nation, have made with respect to hydroelectric power.

With the legislation enacted by Bill C-69, the federal government invited itself into the process to impose.

What I am trying to say, Mr. Chair, is that it is very important for the federal government to focus on federal issues and not provincial ones. I was saying, quite rightly, that the government has the bad habit of encroaching into areas of jurisdiction that are not theirs, especially as regards the environment.

Let me remind you that, with Bill C-69, the federal government gave itself the power to decide, without consulting anyone and especially not the provinces, to conduct environmental assessments of major hydroelectric projects. Yet this is essentially a provincial matter, unless a dam were built on the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is under federal jurisdiction, but that is not likely to happen. It has been this way for a hundred years and it works very well, as we know.

So, the government has given itself the power to redo what Quebec already does with respect to the environment. The environmental assessments conducted by the office of environmental public hearings are quite serious and thorough. They are conducted by scientists who reach a conclusion. The federal government, on the other hand, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has been in office for eight years now, thinks that the people in Ottawa are smarter than those in Quebec and will conduct a better assessment. That is not true. It simply duplicates and delays the process.

FINA: Standing Committee on Finance

FINA – Thursday, October 26th, 2023

Robert Asselin, Senior Vice-President, Policy, Business Council of Canada

In the aftermath of last week’s Supreme Court ruling on the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, it is essential that the government move quickly to provide clarity, certainty, and predictability on the rules for major projects. We must not lose out on once-in-a generation business investments that are necessary to reduce our emissions and foster economic growth for the benefit of all Canadians.

MP Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley

I have a question for you, Ms. Bernard and Ms. Pellerin. It has to do with Bill C-69, what we affectionately call the “no more pipelines" bill. I wonder if your organization has a position on this. We know that the Supreme Court recently opined that several sections of this bill are unconstitutional, and the government announced that it’s going to have to retool it.

My understanding is that this legislation makes no mention of UNDRIP and doesn’t really address the idea of economic reconciliation, which is one of the points you raised in your opening statement. I’m wondering if you agree that this legislation is seriously flawed and needs to be reworked.

Yes, Bill C-69, what we call the “no more pipelines” bill, creates administrative roadblocks not only to oil and gas but also to things like mines, critical minerals and those types of things. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled that many of the bill’s sections are unconstitutional. I was wondering if your organization has any opinion on that piece of legislation, which does not mention UNDRIP.

Julie Pellerin, Senior Director, Economic Development and Infrastructure, Assembly of First Nations

With regard to the Assembly of First Nation’s (AFN) position, we don’t really have a position. We support and advocate for the first nations, and the issue of pipelines is one that each individual first nation will be addressing.

However, when it comes to references to UNDRIP and to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA), we are looking at all of the legislation that is put forward by Canada. If Canada enacts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and its subsequent national action plan, the AFN will be ensuring that all the legislation in Canada—and Canada should also be doing this as their commitment—will reflect their commitment to those documents—UNDRIP, UNDA and the national action plan.

I know that doesn’t necessarily specifically answer your question, but it’s not in my sector, so I’m not as able to elaborate on it as much, but actually perhaps we can follow up and provide some information.

INAN: Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs

INAN – Thursday, October 19th, 2023

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, Conservative Party of Canada (CPC))

I put a motion on notice the other day around Bill C-69. I would note that the Supreme Court has deemed Bill C-69 to be unconstitutional. This bill affected many communities in northern Alberta.

I was wondering if we could take a moment to pass my motion. The motion doesn’t call for a study or anything like that. It just asks for this committee to state an opinion and that the opinion be reported back to the House of Commons. My motion notes the Supreme Court’s decision and that Parliament should work quickly to ensure we abide by that decision.

I would note that at the time of the passage of Bill C-69, Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom from Woodland Cree First Nation was quite upset about the passage of this bill, as it ended a number of pipeline projects that were anticipated in northern Alberta, the Eagle Spirit pipeline being one of them and the northern gateway pipeline being another one. At that time, he was concerned about this, and it seems as if his concerns have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Chair, I would seek that we pass this motion.

Motion: Arnold Viersen moved — That the committee recognize that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that Parliament has “to act within the enduring division of powers framework laid out in the Constitution”, that Bill C-69 has unduly impacted and contributed to the cancellation of the Eagle Spirit pipeline, a multi-billion dollar project that would have greatly contributed to economic reconciliation for over 35 First Nation communities and the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, a nearly $8 billion dollar project that was supported by 30 of First Nation communities along the proposed route, and that it is the opinion of the committee that Bill C-69 be repealed, and that this motion be reported to the House.

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Conservative, Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock)

I think my colleague’s motion is something the committee should consider very seriously. Of course, as you know, I am voting in favour of it.

Prior to the bill’s implementation, we had a number of indigenous leaders at this committee talk about the damage Bill C-69 was going to do, and we saw, almost immediately, the amount of investment that left Canada following its introduction, among others. I’m including the anti-tanker bill that came after that, as well. We got warnings from indigenous leaders before, during and after the debate. We saw oil and gas investment take a severe hit.

It’s in turn also hurting first nations communities themselves. I point to an article written by Stephen Buffalo, who was at our committee just last week. The date is June 14, 2019. It’s talking about the damage it will do to the prosperity of first nations communities that would have benefited from resource projects like oil and gas, mining, and the list goes on. It talks about how there is a way to capitalize on the investment coming into the country for natural resource projects and turning it into jobs, investments, revenue generation, wealth and opportunity, on and off reserve. That would be a benefit for everybody—indigenous people and non-indigenous people. That could be a win-win.

At the same time, it could supply the world with energy—some of the cleanest energy taken out of the ground—and displace the bad actors in the world. We saw the German Chancellor come to Canada. We saw the Japanese Prime Minister asking for Canadian energy. The Prime Minister told them there wasn’t a business case for it. I don’t know which industry people he spoke with, but clearly not the same ones who are advocating for the growth of the industry.

Then, we saw disruption in the world. We saw Germany sign on to Russia, which is basically financing the war against Ukraine, despite warnings against that. The conflict happened. We’ve seen pipelines disrupted; therefore, supply starts to get disrupted. Of course, demand was ramping back up after the pandemic and other things. Therefore, we have a shortage of supply, not to mention that some other countries are cutting their production. Canada could have played a leadership role had we been promoting this industry and the extraction of this resource. There would be tremendous wealth earned and generated from some of these projects.

When we talk about the cost of gas, we mentioned the carbon tax as a major point, but another way to bring down the price—which would bring down the price of almost everything, including food and fuel, things that Canadians are having a tough time affording—is to add supply. The law of supply and demand is almost absolute. By adding supply to an already stretched system, doing it the best way we can, and providing jobs, wealth and opportunity in all communities, we could have a win-win situation here. At the same time, we’d help our residents and citizens—the people of this country who would like to have lower prices at the supermarket and who would love to have lower energy prices when filling up their cars and the tanks in their trucks, which they use to transport the goods. It is all combined.

When you have an industry that is handcuffed—basically shut down because of bad government policy, with no way to increase it when the world is itching for it—you have an increase in price.

I find it very frustrating that these indigenous leaders.... I’m going to quote Stephen Buffalo very shortly, and I will wrap up my comments, because, again, we do have witnesses and we want to ask them some questions.

The warnings were there, all the warnings, that this was going to cause problems. All of the warnings were there in terms of the investment that was going to leave the country, and we saw billions of dollars leave. Even when the government bought Trans Mountain, what did the company that sold the government Trans Mountain do? They took that money and invested it in infrastructure in Texas, so Texans and the Americans get to use Canadian dollars, Canadian taxpayer dollars, to invest in their infrastructure and create job opportunities and wealth in their country while we lag behind.

I’ll quickly quote Stephen Buffalo, and then I’ll wrap up, because I do want to get to the witnesses.

For some of our communities, oil and gas projects, pipelines and related infrastructure, and a vast service sector have produced jobs, supported new Indigenous-owned companies and produced large returns for Indigenous governments. We used the money to build houses, support cultural programs, and pay for our administrative operations. The revenue also gave us more financial autonomy and created a real sense of optimism in some of our communities.

Again, Stephen Buffalo just appeared at the committee last week. He was advocating for this. There are lots more opportunities here if the government would reconsider some of its anti-energy policies, especially at a time when the world is asking for it to do so.

Thank you, Chair.

RNNR: Standing Committee on Natural Resources

RNNR – Monday, October 16th, 2023

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland

It is of course an unignorable fact that we’re gathering here one business day after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the cornerstone piece of legislation governing the regulation of resource projects and its sweeping and wide net catching many other projects and intervening in jurisdictions. We know that is the case today. It’s inescapable that we have you here to answer questions in that context, which demonstrates just how much uncertainty has been created in the last eight years of this government.

Mr. Kruger, you mentioned that you have worked in 20 countries in your long career as an expert in this field. I wonder if you would expand on your perspective and your comments on the role of Canadian oil and gas in the world, Canada’s opportunity both domestically and internationally and the importance of clarity and certainty for private sector proponents to meet those aims.

Rich Kruger, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Suncor Energy

I have worked in more than 20 oil- and gas-producing countries around the globe—southeast Asia, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, west Africa and North America—over the course of my nearly 40-year career. The last seven years of my career were here in Canada. When I look at what I see about not only what we do but how we do it, whether it’s human rights, personnel safety, environmental protection or the responsibility this industry applies to developing its natural resources in Canada, I can without hesitation say that I believe the world is a better place if the incremental barrel of oil comes from Canada than most anywhere else I’ve ever worked.

I retired three and a half years ago from the industry, and I chose to come back earlier this year because I believe in the industry. I believe in Canada. I believe in Canadians, and I believe we can punch above our weight by lowering the emissions and carbon content of what we produce here and not only providing it at home but also providing it abroad.

Shannon Stubbs

No. I’m speaking to the one that you got notice for on Friday. It’s that the committee recognize that the bill has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 5-2 decision, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said Parliament has to “act within the enduring division of powers framework laid out in the Constitution” and that all provinces and territories called for major changes to Bill C-69 that were ignored; therefore, it’s the opinion of this committee that Bill C-69 should be repealed and report that finding to the House in order for the House to vote on the viability of the bill given the Supreme Court’s majority ruling.

This is extremely important, of course, because the judgment said that Bill C-69 invites the federal government to make decisions where it has no jurisdiction. It requires assessments of projects with little or no possibility of federal effects to have a federal review. It represents an unconstitutional arrogation of power by Parliament in which the decision-maker gets practically untrammelled power to regulate projects whether Parliament has jurisdiction to regulate or not. The purposes of the IA are considerably broader than what is—

RNNR – Monday, October 23, 2023

MP Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills-Grasslands

We have a business case. Let’s get the business case. Let’s get the business rolling. Then we can fix some of the regulatory issues that have come up, as we’ve seen with Bill C-69 being ruled largely unconstitutional as well. I think we’re going to get a chance, hopefully, to address that in the near future. I think that will play a part in Canada being able to be a global liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplier.

RNNR – Wednesday, October 25, 2023

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland

To begin, Chair, I would like to give verbal notice of the following motion: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional immediately following the completion of the clause by clause review of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada—Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Now, Chair, I would like to move the following motion that I gave notice of on October 16. You were right about the timing then, and so now, of course, it’s all in order.

We urge that: The committee recognize that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 5-2 decision, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that Parliament has to “act within the enduring division of powers framework laid out in the Constitution,” and that all provinces and territories called for major changes to Bill C-69 and were ignored by the Liberal government. It is the opinion of the committee that Bill C-69 should be repealed, and report this finding to the House in order for the House to vote on the viability of the bill given the Supreme Court’s majority ruling.

It is, of course, because the uncertainty, the death by delay, the endless timelines, and the abilities and opportunities for political interference at many different stages throughout the assessment have not only driven out billions of dollars in traditional oil and gas development and already killed 300,000 jobs for oil and gas workers in every corner of this country but also, of course, disproportionately impacted provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and certainly Newfoundland and Labrador.

The reason this is important for everybody here and for all Canadians is that Bill C-69, which now, even though the NDP and the Liberals ignored Conservatives’ cautions at the time.... As you know, I am here to represent the people of Lakeland, so that’s my number one job, but I have to say it’s a little bit awkward because, of course, I was the shadow minister for natural resources for the official opposition during all that time. I did warn about every single aspect that the Supreme Court has now said is unconstitutional, but, of course, so did every provincial premier and every territorial leader by the time it was getting out the back end.

Here is the fact. Because of the Liberals and the NDP, a law that the Supreme Court now says is unconstitutional has been in place for five years, for half a decade. That not only will continue the flood of traditional oil and gas investment and jobs from this country to others, as a consequence of years of anti-energy, anti-resource development and anti-private sector policies, but it will also absolutely hamper and prevent the private sector investments, technology and innovation required for more clean energy, green energy and renewable energy development in the future. It will absolutely stop and is stopping in its tracks the development of alternative energies and fuels of the future, which, I would note, Liberals and NDP members say they support.

MP Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins-James Bay

Mr. Simard raised an important point. It’s about the issue of our role as parliamentarians, not acting, as I said, in this partisan rat pack kind of behaviour.

Mr. Simard talked about what was out of order, but the Supreme Court did not rule that legislation out of order. They raised questions about certain parts of that legislation; other parts of that legislation are still intact. This motion is inaccurate and an attempt to just throw everything that was voted by Parliament into question, when it’s not in question. There are certain elements that the Supreme Court ruled on, but not others.

Mr. Mario Simard

As I pointed out earlier, I wonder if this motion is in order. Not only are we talking about a bill, but we have to be aware that this bill comes under the Department of the Environment. I don’t see how the Standing Committee on Natural Resources would be empowered to say that a bill that falls under the Department of the Environment should be repealed and would have to signify this to the House. In my view, the motion is not in order, since the Supreme Court ruling in question applies to a statute, not a bill. Even if the motion were in order and a committee were to examine this, it would be up to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to do this work, since the bill in question, i.e. Bill C-69, falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment.

Patrick Williams, Clerk of the Committee

The motion calls for the committee to report to the House. It is true that Bill C-69 was already adopted in the 42nd legislature. It’s not before the House right now, which means that if someone tried to concur in the report in the House, the House would likely not be able to act on the content of the report. At that point, the Speaker might rule that the motion to concur in the report is out of order. Whether or not.... There could be a procedural issue in the House, but it would be up to the Speaker to rule at that point.

Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Assessments, By the Numbers

Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Assessments, By the Numbers (PDF - 157 kB)

Impact Assessment Agency of Canada
Tsawwassen First Nation Accommodation Payment of $25 Million

Q1. Why was Tsawwassen First Nation provided $25 million?

Q2. What outstanding impacts will the Terminal have to Tsawwassen First Nation?

Anticipated Assessment Decision-Making - 9 Month Look Ahead (November 2023 – July 2024)

Map of Canada
Timeline
  • Summary

    Map of Canada and timeline depicting projects under assessment with anticipated ministerial decision between November 2023 and July 2024:

    • Mine Marban (Quebec, IAA Opinion if IA required; January 2024);
    • Strange Lake (Quebec; IAA Opinion if IA required; February 2024);
    • Great Bear Gold (Ontario; IAA Opinion if IA required; February 2024);
    • Novador (Quebec; IAA Opinion if IA required; February 2024);
    • Smoky River Wind (Alberta; Request for Designation; ministerial decision anticipated in February 2024);
    • Tilbury Marine jetty (British Columbia; Substituted under CEAA 2012; ministerial decision anticipated in March 2024);
    • Cooper Cove Marine Terminal Expansion (Newfoundland and Labrador; IAA Opinion if IA required; March 2024);
    • Marmora Clean Energy Hub (Ontario; IAA Opinion if IA required; March 2024);
    • Georgina Island Fixed Link (Ontario; IAA Opinion if IA required; March 2024);
    • Marguerite Compressed Air Energy Storage (Alberta; IAA Opinion if IA required; March 2024);
    • Hydrogen Ready Power Plant (Ontario; IAA Opinion if IA required; April 2024);
    • Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels (Manitoba; Agency-led under CEAA 2012; ministerial decision anticipated in April 2024);
    • Project Mont Sorcier (Quebec; IAA Opinion if IA required; April 2024);
    • fording River Extension (British Columbia; IAA Opinion if IA required; June 2024);
    • Boat Harbour Remediation (Nova Scotia; Agency-led under CEAA 2012; ministerial decision anticipated in July 2024);
    • Tilt Cove Exploration Drilling (Newfoundland and Labrador; Agency-led under CEAA 2012; ministerial decision anticipated in August 2024)

Project Name

Tilbury Marine Jetty (British Columbia (BC))

Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin Outlet Channels (Manitoba (MB))

Boat Harbour Remediation (Nova Scotia (NS))

Tilt Cove Exploration Drilling (Newfoundland and Labrador (NL))

Project Type

LNG Transport Jetty

Water Management

Waste Management

Oil & Gas

Capital Investment

$260 million

$600 million

$310 million

$52 million

Next Ministerial Decision*

March 2024 (To be confirmed (TBC))

April 2024 (TBC)

July 2024 (TBC)

August 2024 (TBC)

Assessment Type

Substituted under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) 2012 (province-led)

Environmental assessment (EA) by Agency under CEAA 2012

EA by Agency under CEAA 2012

EA by Agency under CEAA 2012

Current Status / Next Milestone

BC provided EA report in October 2022

Agency receive additional information

Agency to receive information from proponent on issue resolution with local Indigenous community

Proponent to submit additional information, timelines unknown

Provincial Status

BC led substituted EA completed, awaiting ministerial decision

Proponent is the MB Department of Transportation and Infrastructure

Proponent is a NS Crown corporation

Not applicable

Key Issues / Considerations

Cumulative effects of marine shipping (southern resident killer whale; Indigenous rights)

Effects on Fish and fish habitat, and Indigenous peoples; and impacts on Indigenous rights.

Pictou Landing First Nation is opposed to the Project and may not give consent

Accidents and malfunctions, and oil and gas cap

Note: As of November 28, 2023

* Dates contingent on the timing and quality of project information from proponents

Page details

2024-06-25