Canada faces a critical choice. Should it prioritize sovereignty and energy independence by improving its mining industry and building pipelines? Or should it continue prioritizing climate change decisions, even at the cost of relying on U.S. infrastructure and economy? At the center of this decision lies Bill C-69. Many praise its environmental protections. Others say it strangles Canada’s ability to build critical pipelines and escape foreign control.
What Is Bill C-69?
Passed in 2019, Bill C-69 replaced CEAA 2012. It introduced the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA). These laws aim to control energy projects destined to be developed in Canada or abroad but financed with Canadian funds.
Controversial from the start, this bill created a new environmental framework that some argue delays many projects. Others say it cancels developments that would increase Canada’s economy and self-sufficiency in a time of global instability. Bill C-69 expands the scope of project assessments. Now, evaluations include health, social, economic, climate, and Indigenous impacts.
It also replaced the National Energy Board with the Canadian Energy Regulator. The goal was to modernize oversight and increase public trust. In theory, it promised faster decisions. In practice, it added layers of complexity and federal discretion.
What Was There Before?
Before Bill C-69, Canada operated under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). It focused primarily on environmental impacts. Assessments covered only major federal projects. Critics said it lacked transparency and excluded Indigenous voices. It had fewer requirements and narrower goals.
Which Sectors Does It Affect?
Bill C-69 affects key sectors: mining, transportation, oil and gas, hydroelectricity, and other infrastructure projects. Any major initiative touching federal interests falls under its scope.
Canada’s Energy Mix and Trade Reality
According to recent trade data, energy products rank among Canada’s top exports.
Crude oil production
Canada’s crude oil primarily serves export markets. In 2024, Canada exported C$147B of crude petroleum, making it the most exported product. The main destinations were the United States (C$141B), China (C$2.28B), Netherlands (C$953M), United Kingdom (C$667M), and Germany (C$639M).
Petroleum gas
In 2024, Canada exported C$14.4B of petroleum gas, its sixth most exported product. Main destinations included the United States (C$12.3B), Japan (C$1.47B), South Korea (C$431M), Mexico (C$130M), and Netherlands (C$6.74M).
Yet, for domestic energy use, oil and gas are not the main sources. Canada’s electricity system is mainly powered by hydroelectricity. The national energy mix looks like this:
- Hydropower: 60%
- Uranium: 14%
- Natural gas: 12%
- Wind: 6%
- Coal & coke: 5%
- Solar, biomass, and other: 3%
Green Energy
As one of the richest countries in natural water resources, Canada made the right choice in relying on hydropower, which produces minimal CO₂.
Hydropower and nuclear provide stable, continuous electricity year-round. They are not dependent on seasons or daylight and serve as reliable sources of power. However, despite their benefits, these green energy sources cannot currently be stored on a large scale to support international trade.
The energy produced by hydro systems must be used in real time or delivered via infrastructure such as high-voltage direct current lines, which are used to supply the American power grid.
Wind and solar, however, are intermittent. Solar peaks in summer and drops in winter—when demand is highest. Wind fluctuates unpredictably. Over time, their environmental and financial costs raise questions about long-term sustainability.
To address this, Canada uses pumped-storage hydroelectricity, also called “pompage-turbinage.” This method involves two water reservoirs at different elevations. When demand is low, excess electricity pumps water to the upper reservoir. During peak demand, the stored water is released back down through turbines to generate electricity.
This system allows limited energy storage at grid scale, but it is geographically restricted. Only regions with the right elevation and water availability, such as Quebec and British Columbia, can use it effectively. Pumped-storage does not support mass electricity export or long-term storage across weeks or months.
In addition, electricity suffers transmission loss. In Canada, between 6–10% of electricity is lost when traveling through long-distance power lines. This further limits interprovincial and export efficiency.
So while Canada’s homes depend on electricity, its economy depends on oil and gas. These fuels are easy to store, transport, and export. Electricity, even with pumped-storage, cannot replace pipelines when it comes to international energy trade.
Bill C-69 – What Are the Positive Contributions?
As with any bill, it does not have only negative effects. The bill significantly increased environmental accountability. Now, each project must be accompanied by a serious and rigorous impact study on public health, ecosystems, and the environment. It also expanded public participation in debate and decision-making. It recognized Indigenous rights more directly and integrated climate change in federal policy. The idea was noble: protect Canada’s land, water, and future generations.
Where Has It Failed?
Bill C-69 introduced uncertainty. Project timelines extended due to a broad range of new factors: environmental, health, social, economic effects, meaningful public engagement, ministerial discretion, and climate change. These led to increased legal risk. Companies faced higher costs per project. Some left Canada, stating that too many regulations kill business viability. Alberta called it a “no more pipelines” bill. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled parts of it unconstitutional, affirming provincial rights over natural resources.
Canada’s Sovereignty and Bill C-69
Since Donald Trump’s re-election, attacks on Canada’s sovereignty and economy have intensified. Canadians are realizing how much Canada has relied on the U.S. for decades. Now, major voices are calling for a radical shift. Calls to invest in Canada’s natural resources are growing louder.
Canada, one of the richest nations in rare earths and energy, must make those sectors more efficient. Oil from Alberta still travels through U.S. pipelines before reaching Quebec—with insufficient volume to support Canadian distribution and export goals.
Bill C-69, as written, blocks solutions to this. It empowers federal ministers to cancel projects “in the public interest.” But who defines that interest? Is it national unity? Is it ideology?
Can We Afford This in a Crisis?
Canada’s economy is fragile. Recently exposed by Trump’s tariffs and now China’s, inflation rises. Energy prices surge. Unemployment looms. Canada needs jobs, strong and independent economic foundations and needs infrastructure to support its sovereignty.
It needs oil profits kept at home. Sovereignty is more than a speech. It means powering provinces without foreign pipelines. It means open interprovincial trade and national coordination.
The failure to build east-west pipelines is not just a policy issue—it’s a sovereignty failure. While Ottawa blocks projects, Alberta bleeds opportunity. Ontario stays dependent.
Quebec the top recipient of equalization, remains the strongest pipeline opponent while still benefiting from Alberta’s oil industry, funny how it is.
What Needs to Change?
It’s true that health, climate change, First Nations, and public input matter. But that does not mean shooting ourselves in the foot. Today, global powers focus on energy capacity: China, the U.S., India, Russia, and South Korea all invest heavily in energy growth. Canada does the opposite.
One solution? Amend Bill C-69. For example, allocate a percentage of profits from mining and oil to fund green energy innovation. Build pipelines to transport oil and gas across Canada. Export globally. Reap the benefits of your raw resources.
Then reinvest in environmental innovation. Invest in algae and cyanobacteria—ancient organisms that created Earth’s oxygen and capture CO₂ better than any tech. Support battery development to store green energy. The laws exist; the technology needs catching up.
Canada must remove vague ministerial powers. Accelerate approvals without weakening reviews. Let provinces manage their own resources. Focus on energy goals that benefit all Canadians.
Canada cannot compete if its oil must detour through the U.S. It cannot lower emissions without managing its own energy. Sovereignty means energy independence. Pipelines are not just steel—they’re lifelines.
Conclusion
Bill C-69 remains a subject of major debate, especially in Canada’s current fragile situation. It has even sparked discussions about a possible Alberta separation. This amendment deserves at least a serious revision.
Some aspects must be preserved, such as the importance of evaluating environmental and climate impacts and including Indigenous nations in decision-making. But the law should also enable the development and support of sectors that sustain Canada’s economy.
Instead of framing the issue as a battle between two camps—the oil and gas industry versus climate activists—our political leaders should unite both sides. The goal must be to shape legislation that strengthens both the Canadian economy and the country’s climate transition.
These two visions are not enemies. They are complementary. When integrated, they could help Canada achieve a level of strength and innovation that neither side could reach alone.
Discover more from Canada 24 Press
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
