Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Stephen Hazell and I am pleased to represent Nature Canada.

Thanks so much for the opportunity to appear before the committee as it considers Bill C-69, and specifically the amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

Nature Canada is one of the oldest nature conservation charities in Canada, representing a network of over 130,000 members and supporters.

Nature Canada's key message today is that the proposed government amendments to Bill C-69 would severely undercut federal authority to assess impacts of proposed projects that cause serious transboundary environmental effects, such as acid gas, greenhouse gas emissions and reduced water flows in transboundary rivers.

Recall that the Supreme Court of Canada's October 2023 opinion confirmed the federal authority to carry out impact assessments of development projects as long as those projects have the potential to impact federal jurisdiction. The court opined that several IAA provisions strayed out of the federal constitutional lane. The government's proposed amendments fully address these issues, in Nature Canada's view.

Unfortunately, the government's amendments overreact to the court's opinion. The result is that proposed developments generating millions of tonnes of toxic air pollutants and GHGs or causing major reductions in transboundary water flows would not be subject to even the possibility of federal assessment.

Here are two examples of what I'm talking about, based on my own personal experience from over 40 years as an environmental lawyer working in Ottawa.

First, Colacem, a multinational corporation, is proposing a cement plant on the shores of the Ottawa River in Ontario, a few kilometres east of the province of Quebec, 70 kilometres upwind of Montreal and 50 kilometres upwind of Kanesatake First Nation. The Colacem plant would produce one megatonne of GHGs every year, as well as acid gas pollution in excess of Canadian standards.

The Kanesatake First Nation opposes the plant and says it was not consulted. No one consulted Quebec either. Ontario conducted no impact assessment, and Quebec was unable to undertake one, given that it wasn't on Quebec territory.

In 2018, Nature Canada petitioned the federal environment minister to convene a federal assessment of the proposed cement plant. That petition and a subsequent one were rejected.

The point is that the government's proposed Impact Assessment Act amendments would prevent a federal environment minister from even entertaining a request to designate any similar project generating significant transboundary air pollution, leaving downwind provinces—not to mention the United States—at the mercy of upwind provinces.

Nature Canada proposes that the IAA allow projects such as the Colacem cement plant to be designated for assessment so long as the transboundary air pollution is significant. Nature Canada is confident that the test for national concern under “peace, order and good government” as set out out by the Supreme Court in the previous Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act reference, can thus be met—perhaps with a backstop provision.

My second example is from 1986. Saskatchewan proposed the Rafferty and Alameda dams on the Souris River, which flows south into North Dakota before looping north to join the Assiniboine River, which flows through the middle of Mr. Morantz's riding.

Changes to the quantity and timing of transboundary water flows of the Souris were the key environmental issues at the time, not damage to fish habitat. Initially, the federal government refused to convene an environmental assessment for Rafferty and Alameda, but did so after the Canadian Wildlife Federation—where I served as legal counsel—applied successfully to the Federal Court for an order mandating an assessment.

My second point is that the government's amendments would preclude the federal government from assessing the impacts of such dams or other types of projects, like irrigation schemes, on transboundary waters.

Nature Canada says all adverse changes to international and interprovincial waters—not just pollution-related changes—should be included as effects within federal jurisdiction. The full text of these amendments is contained in amendments that have been tabled with the committee by several parties, as well as by other groups, such as Ecojustice.

Nature Canada recognizes that provinces may challenge the amended IAA in court. However, given that climate chaos and destruction of nature are the issues of this century, the federal government must face such challenges and advance impact assessment legislation that aggressively supports climate stability and nature conservation within federal jurisdiction.

Thank you very much.