Skip to content

Popular topics:

Part of Reducing and managing emissions

Alberta’s response to the federal Impact Assessment Act

How we are fighting to uphold provincial sovereignty for infrastructure projects and natural resource management.

Overview

The Government of Canada enacted the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) in 2019. The IAA grants additional powers to the federal government to review and potentially prohibit major infrastructure projects such as intra-provincial highways, energy and oil and gas projects.

Since the legislation was first introduced in 2018, Alberta’s government has expressed concerns that the act overreaches into provincial authority and is harmful to Alberta’s economy.

Response timeline

We have engaged with the federal government and affected stakeholders to raise issues about the Impact Assessment Act through a variety of ways:

  • February 2018

    Bill C-69 is introduced in the House of Commons. Over the next year, Alberta sent the federal government letters conveying concerns with the bill and led roundtable sessions with Alberta stakeholders. 

  • June 2019

    Bill C-69 receives royal assent. Alberta appeared before the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to state Alberta’s concerns with the IAA. 

  • August 2019

    The Impact Assessment Act came into force, along with a new set of regulations. 

  • September 2019

    Alberta sought the Alberta Court of Appeal’s opinion on the constitutional validity of the IAA and related regulations by Order in Council 160/2019. 

  • May 2022

    The Alberta Court of Appeal’s ruled 4:1 in favour of Alberta’s case against the Act.

  • March 2023

    The Supreme Court of Canada heard Canada’s appeal. Ten non-governmental organizations intervened in support of Alberta, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Indian Resource Council and the Business Council of Alberta.

  • October 2023

    The Supreme Court of Canada released its opinion largely in Alberta’s favour, finding all but 10 provisions of the IAA unconstitutional. 

Provincial priorities

Due to the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal government indicated that it will make amendments to the IAA. These are expected in April 2024. We will continue to monitor the progress of this legislation and take action as needed to:

  • facilitate meaningful consultation with affected stakeholders
  • support the economy
  • ensure the integrity of Alberta’s provincial regulatory systems
  • protect the environment and natural resources for all Albertans

Support for provincial jurisdiction

As an intervener in this process, we agreed with the Alberta Court of Appeal that the provinces are best positioned to review and regulate resource development projects within their own borders, and we applaud the clear decision from the Supreme Court of Canada today. We are pleased that this decision affirms the roles of each level of government. Regulatory certainty and efficiency are key to facilitating natural resources projects that are in the interests of Canada. In the spirit of the Court’s call for cooperation, CAPP looks forward to collaborating with both the federal and provincial governments to ensure that projects in the national interest – those reinforcing energy security, providing lower emissions energy, and maintaining affordability to Canadians – will proceed in a timely manner.” –Lisa Baiton, president, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (2023)

We are hoping it's [the Supreme Court’s ruling] a signal that the pendulum is starting to swing back in terms of the desire of the public and policy makers to restrict and end projects. Maybe they're starting to realize that these projects can be done responsibly with the environment being considered." –Mike Martens, president, Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of Alberta (2023)

We encourage the Government of Canada and Parliament to expedite the legislative changes necessary to address the court’s findings to ensure investment confidence in British Columbia’s and Canada’s critical minerals and mining sector. We are pleased the Supreme Court of Canada also spoke to the need for both provincial and federal authorities to work cooperatively on environmental assessments for major projects. MABC has been advocating for better alignment and integration of provincial and federal permitting and authorization processes to reduce timelines, while ensuring the highest standards of environmental protection.” –Michael Goehring, president, Mining Association of British Columbia (2023)

The [Alberta Court of Appeal] opinion is a victory for Indigenous rights. The Courts are recognizing federal overreach and interference which is incompatible with the autonomy of Indigenous peoples. We have a right to make arrangements with industry and determine what is in our own best interests." –Chief Roy Fox, Chair of the Indian Resource Council and Chief of the Kainai Nation (2022)

As we argued, First Nations have a right to improve our economic and social conditions through the creation of economic activities. Whether that comes from oil and gas production or other projects is our decision, not the federal government's. They do not get veto power over us.” –Stephen Buffalo, president, Indian Resource Council (2022)

Canada today is attracting more uncertainty, not more capital. Canada has lost and will continue to lose investment and jobs if we do not have a system with clear rules, clear timelines and decisions that stick.” –Tim McMillan, president and CEO, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (2019)

Rather than setting the foundation for stable, predictable, and defendable environmental and regulatory processes, Bill C-69 would lead to increased politicization of decisions and uncertainty, diminished integrity of impact assessments, and further erosion of public trust. The end result will be reduced investment in infrastructure, undermining Canada’s competitiveness. As a result, Enbridge cannot support Bill C-69 in its current form.” –Enbridge submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources re: Bill C-69 (2019)

Our industry believes that with those amendments no further pipelines will be built in Canada under the legislation that’s being proposed. That, firstly, is a problem. The bigger issue for us is that our investors – Canadian and foreign – have lost confidence in the energy industry. They’ve lost confidence in the political regime that is in place in Canada, and that is driving investment in our shares and in our industry away. Bill C-69 will just further raise that issue for us.” –Jeff Tonken, president and CEO of Birchcliff Energy and CAPP Chair (2019)

I think one of the most disturbing parts of what we’re experiencing today is that it’s really back to process and certainty. We are concerned about the lack of certainty that Bill C-69 in its current form actually would present for our industry, and we’re telling you that our investors would not participate. We have the government on the other side taking a stand saying the opposite.” –Sue Riddell-Rose, president, Perpetual Energy (2019)

We believe that Bill C-69, in its current form, will not achieve its objective of improving environmental and regulatory processes, and it will further reduce confidence and investment in Canada. What this could mean to Canadians is loss of tax revenues to fund education, health, and community; disappearance of meaningful, well-paying, highly skilled jobs; an exodus of our youth and talent and innovation that our sector creates; lost opportunity for economic reconciliation with Indigenous communities; and the erosion of Canada’s competitiveness. This is not just an energy industry problem; it’s a critical issue for Canada, so it’s essential we get this bill right.” –Al Monaco, president and CEO, Enbridge (2019)

News

Previous Alberta’s environmental leadership
Next Baseline and Reduction Opportunity Assessment Program