Skip to content

Bill C-49 is blowin’ a gale: A significant step in offshore renewable energy legislation

By Sadira Jan, Dave Randell, Nancy Rubin, G. John Samms, Kimberly MacLachlan, and  Jamie Gamblin

Bill C-49 received Royal Assent and will amend the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to allow for offshore renewable energy development in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The changes are a welcomed addition to Atlantic Canada’s energy landscape.

Introduced in May 2023, Bill C-49 passed through various stages in the House of Commons and the Senate. Nova Scotia recently passed its mirror legislation which has not yet been proclaimed into force in the Advancing Nova Scotia Opportunities Act (Bill 471).  Newfoundland and Labrador have yet to introduce their mirror legislation.

House of Commons Senate
1st Reading – May 30, 2023 1st Reading – May 30, 2024
2nd Reading – October 17, 2023 2nd Reading – June 6, 2024
Committee – April 18, 2024 Committee – September 25, 2024
Report Stage – May 2, 2024 Report Stage – September 26, 2024
3rd Reading – May 29, 2024 3rd Reading – October 1, 2024
Royal Assent – October 3, 2024

 

Expanded regulation

Bill C-49 renames the offshore petroleum energy regulators in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador (the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (“CNSOPB“) and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (“CNLOPB“)) to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator to oversee offshore renewable energy projects (the “Regulators“).

  • Bill C-49 defines an offshore renewable energy project as any research or assessment conducted with respect to the exploitation or potential exploitation of renewable energy resources to produce an energy project (unless it is conducted by or on behalf of a government or educational institution) and the actual exploitation, storage, or transmission of an energy product produced from a renewable resource (NS – section 109(3); NL – section 3 (3)).
  • To date, oil and gas activities in the offshore areas of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have been regulated through the CNSOPB and CNLOPB including licensing, compliance, exploration and decommissioning. (See June 1, 2023 update.)

Full and fair participation for Canadians

Canadian corporations and residents will have full and fair participation in offshore renewable energy work and projects including in the course of employment and in the supply of goods and services. Bill C-49 focuses on the participation of under-represented groups. The impacts of offshore renewable energy projects on fishing activity will also be considered important in the issuance of submerged land licences (NS – section 98.7; NL – section 96.6).

Submerged land licensing

Bill C-49 establishes the process for issuing submerged land licences and an associated revenue regime for such licences.

  • Submerged land licences may be limited to particular technologies or types of renewable energy resources as defined in the licence (NS – section 91(3); NL – section 88(3)).
  • A submerged land licence will not be required for research, or assessments conducted in relation to the exploitation of a renewable resource that does not require attaching a facility or structure to the seabed (NS – section 91(4); NL – section 88(4)).
  • A submerged land licence in relation to Crown reserve land will not be issued unless a call for bids process is conducted by the Regulators (NS – section 93(1); NL – section 90(1)) or an exception applies (NS – section 97(1); NL – section 94(1)).
  • A submerged land licence (or shares in a submerged land license) may only be held by a “corporation incorporated in Canada” (NS – section 98.6; NL – section 96.5).
  • The consolidation of two or more submerged land licences into one licence (NS – section 98.4(3); NL – section 96.3 (3)) is permitted.

Environmental and health and safety priorities

The environmental protection and occupational health and safety regimes have been expanded to include offshore renewable energy projects.

  • The Regulators may, by order, prohibit work in offshore areas if there is an environmental or social issue of “serious” nature, or dangerous or extreme weather conditions (NS – section 59(1); NL – section 56(1)).
  • The Regulators may make regulations prohibiting an offshore renewable energy project or the issuance of interests if the offshore area is identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection (NS – section 59.1; NL – section 56.1).
  • Interest owners may be required to surrender or cancel their interests for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection (NS – section 59.2 (1) and (4); NL – section 56.2(1) and (4)). Compensation may be awarded to an interest owner if an interest is cancelled or surrendered as a result (NS – section 59.3; NL – section 56.3).
  • There is a prohibition on any “debris” being left in offshore areas (NS – section 188.18(1); NL – section 183.18(1)). Debris is defined as any facility or structure that has been abandoned without authorization or any material that has broken away or has been displaced from an abandoned facility (NS – section 188.17(1); NL – section 183.17(1)).
  • The Regulators have the authority to direct public inquiries if a spill, debris, accident, or incident results in death or injury or there is danger to public safety or the environment (NS – section 188.23(1); NL – section 183.23(1)).

Transboundary hydrocarbon management regime

Bill C-49 establishes a transboundary hydrocarbon management regime in an offshore renewable energy context to regulate fields or pools that straddle international and domestic administrative boundaries, new methods of showing hydrocarbon accumulations in geological features, and limits the duration of future significant discovery licences to 25 years. A “significant discovery” is defined as a discovery that demonstrates the existence of hydrocarbons that has the potential for “sustained production.”

  • Transboundary means a pool [or field] that extends beyond the Regulators’ jurisdiction.
  • While transboundary pools are to be exploited as single pools, they can be subject to joint exploitation with a joint exploitation agreement, unit agreement, and unit operating agreement having been entered into and approved (NS – section 188.05(1) and (2)); NL – section 183.05(1) and (2)).
  • With advice from the Regulators, the Federal and Provincial Ministers may enter into joint exploitation agreements with respect to transboundary pools extending into foreign government territory (NS – section 188.06(2); NL – section 183.06(2)).
  • On May 17, 2005, Canada and France signed an agreement relating to the exploration and exploitation of transboundary hydrocarbon fields off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and the French islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon. While originally for petroleum resources, this agreement will presumably extend to offshore renewable energy projects with these amendments.

Additional changes

Bill C-49 also provides for the following amendments:

  • Adds clarity around the role of the Federal and Provincial Ministers and Regulators with respect to regional and strategic assessments for offshore renewable energy projects. The Regulators may conduct regional and strategic assessments with respect to existing or future offshore renewable energy work (NS – section 142.018(1) and 142.019 (1); NL – section 138.017(1) and 138.018(1)). The Federal and Provincial Ministers may also enter into agreements with jurisdictions authorized under other Federal or Provincial legislation to conduct these assessments (NS – section 142.018(2) and 142.019 (2); NL – section 138.017(2) and 138.018(2)).
  • Allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to regulate offshore infrastructure access (including the enforcement of tolls and tariffs). There is limited information on this at this time and we will continue to monitor.
  • Allows the Crown to rely on the Regulators to consult with the Indigenous peoples of Canada with respect to potential adverse impacts of work or activity in offshore areas on existing Aboriginal and treaty rights (as outlined in the Constitution Act, 1982) and to accommodate those adverse impacts, as appropriate (NS – section 18.1; NL – section 17.1).

This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Energy Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top