Impact Assessment Act and Canadian Energy Regulator Act

The bill, which was introduced by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna, had its first reading on February 8, 2018, ==Repeals==

C-69 repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the National Energy Board Act. ==Reception==

C-69 was heavily criticized by Conservatives and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who feared that the new regulations would stifle investments to natural resources extraction in Canada. A June 20, 2019 National Post article called Bills C-69 and C-48 "controversial". The Post said that natural resources sector and some provinces had fiercely opposed the bills for over a year before its passage. Professors Martin Olszynski and Mark S. Winfield believe these criticisms are overblown. Winfred points out that the pre-2019 regulatory framework is much weaker than the one that existed for 40 years in Canada before it was axed in 2012. C-69 brought back some of the consultation requirements from that period, and according to Winfield, "the legislation is a relatively minor adjustment to what already existed". In fact, Olszynski believes that this bill would make it easier for projects to go forward, as project critics would be included in the decision-making process, and thus less likely to resort to litigation to make their voices heard. ==Amendments==

The Canadian Energy Regulator Act was amended by the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, which was ratified on April 3, 2020, to replace references within the act to the North American Free Trade Agreement with references to the newer United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement. ==Legal challenges==

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney submitted an appeal with the Alberta Court of Appeal in 2021 alleging that Bill C-69 was an attack on the province's "vital economic interests" and that it has resulted in job loss. On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the ABCA's decision in Reference re Impact Assessment Act and ruled "the federal impact assessment scheme is unconstitutional in part." The Court found the Impact Assessment Act, 2019 was "not directed at regulating 'effects within federal jurisdiction' as defined in the Act, because these effects do not drive the scheme’s decision-making functions" and that "the defined term “effects within federal jurisdiction” does not align with federal legislative jurisdiction." ==See also==