Skip to main content

Some of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s most vocal critics have repeated calls for the government to repeal Bill C-69, which the Liberals passed in June.

Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

The federal government says it won’t make changes to its environmental-assessment legislation for major infrastructure projects, but it is open to suggestions on how to implement the new review process.

Some of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s most vocal critics have repeated calls for the government to repeal Bill C-69, which the Liberals passed in June. Premiers Scott Moe and Jason Kenney have dubbed the bill the “no more pipelines act.” And on Tuesday, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer again called for the government to repeal the measure.

The Impact Assessment Act sets out new rules for approving big projects such as pipelines, mines and offshore wind projects, and has become a lightning rod for opponents and proponents of the oil patch.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Scheer and Mr. Moe each had meetings with the Prime Minister in Ottawa on Tuesday. Saskatchewan’s leader was critical of Mr. Trudeau’s response to his requests, and late Tuesday night, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement on the meeting, characterizing it differently.

Part of it said that Mr. Trudeau had invited "suggestions for improvements to the Impact Assessment Act.”

His spokeswoman, Eleanore Catenaro, clarified Wednesday that the statement doesn’t mean the legislation will be reopened, but rather that the government will consult on implementation.

The suggestions will inform the "operational policies and guidelines that have yet to be developed,” Ms. Catenaro said in an e-mail.

Mr. Moe’s spokesman, Jim Billington, said the Prime Minister “did not characterize what possible changes could look like.” He said an example of one the province wants is the removal of “arbitrary” ministerial discretion on which projects will be subject to the federal review.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said Mr. Trudeau’s offer doesn’t change anything.

“It’s status quo," chief executive officer and president Tim McMillan said Wednesday. The association has been highly critical of the legislation, but Mr. McMillan said it’s committed to ensuring implementation is done “as effectively as possible.”

Story continues below advertisement

The lack of clarity from the first statement from Mr. Trudeau’s office led some, including Mr. McMillan, to think the Liberals would open up the legislation.

“You can’t fix flawed legislation with regulation," he said. For example, he said the bill allows for “multiple points of delay” from people who want to “inappropriately” challenge projects in court.

Independent Alberta Senator Paula Simons noted that the Liberals “substantively” amended the bill, based on suggestions from the Senate, even though some amendments that she had hoped for were rejected. Ms. Simons said she thinks that while the transition to the new system might be difficult, it could result in a better review process.

“C-69, if implemented the way I hope it will be, should in the long run be better for project proponents and investors than the old system," she said.

Ms. Simons issued cautions about the “unhelpful” rhetoric from groups on both sides of the debate: those making Albertans the “bad guys” and those “exaggerating” the negative impact of Bill C-69.

The debate around Bill C-69 comes down to trust, according to University of Calgary associate law professor Martin Olszynski, who noted that opponents raised concerns about elements of the federal act that they don’t take issue with at the provincial level.

Story continues below advertisement

“When you look at the provincial regimes, industry trusts that they will be implemented in a way that works for them, but they don’t have that same trust federally," Prof. Olszynski said.

He also said that some requested amendments to the bill were unrealistic. For example, the request to reverse federal paramountcy and allow provincial laws to trump federal laws. However, Prof. Olszynski said consulting on implementation could still allay concerns, such as defining the extent to which the public can participate in the process.

Sabrina Kim, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna’s spokeswoman, said the government is open to advice on implementing the legislation to “protect the environment [and] ensure proper Indigenous consultation, while getting good projects built.”

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies