By Josh Wingrove
BLOOMBERG

Alberta’s incoming premier is already fighting pipeline law changes that are in the offing.

Jason Kenney’s conservative party swept to power Tuesday in Canada’s oil heartland after a campaign in which he regularly took aim at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. In his victory speech, Kenney also criticized Trudeau for “imposing new laws that will make it impossible to get pipelines approved in the future.”

A trio of proposed laws affecting pipeline, environmental and oil shipping laws are working their way through Canada’s Senate as Trudeau’s Liberals gear up for an October election, trailing in the polls. The most controversial is known as Bill C-69 -- Kenney’s predecessor in Alberta also opposed its current wording, but his election will add pressure to Trudeau to bow to concessions sought by the oil industry.

“I expect to see the federal government make substantial changes to that piece of legislation because they’re needed or the Canadian economy will suffer,” Tim McMillan, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, told reporters Wednesday.

Proposed Law
The sprawling Bill C-69 would create a new regime for approvals of things like crude oil pipelines and new mines. Trudeau’s government argues the law clarifies a currently opaque system that sees projects regularly struck down by courts, but the oil industry says it’s too complicated and would deter new pipelines.

The proposed law has become a lightning rod and is now under examination in Canada’s increasingly unpredictable Senate. Changes to the bill are almost certain, and this will trigger a standoff with Trudeau’s elected lawmakers in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking: an election would kill any bills that haven’t yet made it into law.
“This will give certainty, it will build public trust and therefore it will result in projects being built,” Senator Grant Mitchell, the bill’s sponsor in the upper chamber, said in an interview. He expects an amended version to pass. “The risk is in not doing it, in my mind. That’s not to say it can’t be changed.”

Industry View
C-69 is so wide-ranging there’s no cohesive industry view -- the oil sector opposes its current form, but others aren’t as worried. Oil industry groups have suggested major changes that would make the bill palatable, but warn they need to be taken broadly together, and not cherry-picked.

“If this bill passes like it is, it’s going to be a jobs killer, and investment killer and you’re not going to get the major projects that we should get,” Chris Bloomer, president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said in an interview.

Christopher Carlsen, vice-president of engineering at Birchcliff Energy, said during a conference in Toronto this week there’s “significant nervousness and investor questions” about the bill.

One key uncertainty is that the government hasn’t released the “project list” to which the new rules will apply. A draft of that list is expected to be made public in the coming weeks, a Canadian government official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they aren’t authorized to speak publicly.

The Senate has sparred over how quickly it will consider C-69, first proposed last year, and two other bills: C-68, which makes related reforms to fishery and environmental laws, and C-48, which bans crude oil tanker traffic on the northwestern coast of British Columbia. All the bills touch on energy development and environmental rules.

Canadian Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi said the government is open to changes that would “strengthen” C-69, but signaled the government planned to push ahead with the bill despite the blow-back. “I respectfully disagree with the industry’s assessment of this legislation,” he said.

Timeline UnclearThe Trudeau government expects the bill to pass in some form and receive royal assent before the election, rather than stall and die, the Canadian official said. Trudeau has a majority in the House of Commons, and the Senate historically bows to the wishes of elected lawmakers.

If the law is passed, Trudeau’s government will also need to weigh how quickly it’ll take effect. The prime minister could face criticism from the industry if he pushes for a start date before the election.
​
“The fear is that in the rush, the bill itself could be mangled,” said Justyna Laurie-Lean, vice-president of environment and regulatory affairs at the Mining Association of Canada, which is calling for a year-long implementation process.

READ MORE: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-18/kenney-win-puts-maligned-trudeau-pipeline-law-under-new-pressure

Jesse Snyder
National Post

OTTAWA — Senators have agreed to discard a hard deadline on the passage of Bill C-69, according to a document obtained by the National Post, easing the pressure to complete the sweeping energy reforms before spring.

After a flurry of closed-door meetings Thursday, Conservative and Independent senators came to an agreement to reverse parts of a motion tabled one day earlier by Sen. Peter Harder, the Liberal government’s Senate representative, which would have fast-tracked 11 bills that are currently in the upper house. The deal between Conservative and Independent senators will eliminate proposed deadlines on three controversial pieces of legislation, including Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the moratorium on oil tanker traffic in northern B.C. waters.

The agreement comes as the Senate energy committee prepares to tour the country to hear from witnesses on Bill C-69, which proposes to overhaul the review process for major energy projects like pipelines and hydro dams. The legislation has become a focal point for many in the Western provinces concerned it could deter future investment in the oil and gas sector.

Some senators have said they are open to amending the bill, which industry groups argue is lacking in detail and therefore leaves the project review process open to interpretation. Last August, Ottawa purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion as a way to ensure construction of the project, which had languished in part because of Canada’s complicated regulatory review process.

Harder tabled a motion Wednesday which would have imposed a tight deadline of May 30 for the Senate to pass Bill C-69, a full month before the upper house’s final scheduled sitting day before summer break, June 28. It also proposed a June 6 deadline for the oil tanker moratorium bill and a May 30 deadline for Bill C-68, the counterpart to Bill C-69 that focuses on ocean protections.

Conservative senators delayed a vote on the motion Wednesday, then in private meetings Thursday pushed for an agreement to remove some of the deadlines.

Still, the agreement maintains a firm timeline on when various committees need to report back to the Senate, imposing short timeframes in which senators can propose amendments.

The energy committee studying Bill C-69 will need to report back to the Senate by May 9, just weeks after senators complete their cross-Canada tour, according to the updated schedule seen by the Post. Senators on the transport committee, who are studying Bill C-48, will need to report back by May 16.

The tighter deadlines come as the end of the spring session nears, a fall election looms and a swath of legislation is lagging in the Senate. Thirteen bills are currently under review int he upper house, as well as roughly 10 more bills yet to be passed to the Senate from the House of Commons.

Some senators have accused the Conservatives of delaying bills for political purposes, causing some legislation to stall for as much as a year. Bill C-55, which updates various marine protections, has languished in the Senate since April 2018. The updated schedule now proposes to bass the bill by May 2.

Conservative senators, for their part, voiced loud objections to the motion on Wednesday, saying the government was looking to stifle debate on critical pieces of legislation.

“It’s not about the dates that are being proposed, it’s about the restriction,” Conservative Sen. Judith Seidman said Thursday morning, before the agreement was signed. “It’s constricting debate on the issues through this mass, widespread motion.”

In a statement Wednesday Conservative Sen. Larry Smith called Harder’s motion to assign deadlines to a bundle of 11 bills “unprecedented,” and said it “shuts down the abilities of senators to review and question government legislation.”

Independent Sen. Doug Black told the Post Wednesday that senators might have to work long hours in order to review and potentially amend the legislation before the May 9 deadline. Black, who represents Alberta, is not on the energy committee but has been an outspoken critic of the bill in its current form and plans to travel with other senators to hear from witnesses.
​
“It’s really tight, there’s no doubt about that,” he said. “But I believe that if we continue to work as hard as we’re working, we’re likely to achieve that timeline.”

John Paul Tasker
CBC News 

The federal Liberal government's controversial overhaul of environmental assessment legislation has united virtually every major natural resources industry association in opposition — and they're asking the Senate committee studying Bill C-69 to make some fixes to avoid threatening the viability of key sectors of the economy.

Amid the barrage of criticism, the government itself has recognized it may have to agree to some tweaks to get the legislation — expected to be one of the last major pieces of the Liberal agenda to pass before the fall election — through the Red Chamber.

Speaking last week at an event for Canada's mining companies — one of the few sectors that has offered support for the elimination of some federal and provincial regulatory duplication in Bill C-69 — Trudeau thanked miners for their "measured" approach to the legislation.

"Quite frankly, [a] number of thoughtful submissions and amendments to that, to improve it, [came] from this industry," Trudeau said.

Since the Senate began its study of Bill C-69 last month, however, industry representatives from the oil and gas, hydro, nuclear and uranium sectors have appeared before the energy committee with a long list of suggested amendments. Rather than a few tweaks, these industries are proposing major rewrites.

While the government has presented the legislation as a way to streamline and improve what many consider to be a poor approvals process introduced by the former Harper government, critics maintain that replacing a bad system with another problematic one will not solve persistent problems. To that end, a number of Conservative and Independent senators have said they will push for amendments.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) said the federal Liberal government's impact assessment changes could inadvertently cripple sectors already grappling with low commodity prices and constrained pipeline capacity.

The lack of a "project list" in the legislation — a definitive account of the types of projects that would be subjected to federal impact assessments — has industry associations anxious about the risk of regulatory creep. They fear Ottawa might apply its process to projects that, to date, have operated largely under provincial jurisdiction, such as the "in situ" projects in Alberta's oilsands.

Nova Scotia Power also wants to see the project list restricted to "major, large-scale projects of national significance." As written, the bill gives the environment minister almost total discretion to put a project on the list for what could be more rigorous scrutiny by federal regulators.

"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. Our livelihoods of Canadian families and communities are at stake," said Tim McMillan, president of CAPP.

The government has said project list details will be published in the regulations, which will be released publicly only after the legislation passes through Parliament. It also has signalled "in situ" projects could be left off the list, despite pressure from environmentalists.

In fact, West Coast Environmental Law, a leading green advocacy group, has said the bill is "not a gift to environmentalists" since it does not offer many of the safeguards they sought. It argues the bill simply "follows the footprints of its predecessor laws, with the exception of some changes to add clarity and accountability."

The Canadian Nuclear Association has said that while the legislation may be an attempt to streamline the rules, it's creating uncertainty. "Capital is fluid and investors do not like uncertainty. This uncertainty is magnified by the legislative regime being proposed because it is missing a key element, and that is the project list," John Barrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said at a recent Senate meeting.

Petroleum producers are particularly concerned about just how much leeway the legislation gives the environment minister to perpetually stall or cancel a project — even after it has successfully gone through the assessment process.

The bill's supporters say ministerial authority must be preserved and C-69, if it's passed, would at least compel the minister to say publicly why the government is making a change to a project's timeline.

"We welcome the Senate taking a serious look at this legislation, and we have consistently said that we are open to amendments put forward by the Senate, should they strengthen and improve the bill," Sabrina Kim, a spokesperson for Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, said in a statement to CBC News.

Kim said the Liberal government has been working on the legislation since the last election, calling it a product of extensive consultation with both industry groups and environmentalists.

"Canadians deserve the strongest bill possible to protect our environment, honour Indigenous rights and partnerships, and ensure good projects go ahead in a timely fashion. This will create the certainty that investors need and well-paying jobs for Canadians. It is critical to rebuild trust in how we review major projects, and this legislation is an opportunity to get this right," Kim said.

But CAPP, which represents most of the big companies in Alberta's oilpatch, is also concerned about the addition of a new pre-assessment process. The government has said this will help companies avoid the sort of legal pitfalls that have undermined the Trans Mountain expansion, while CAPP maintains it simply formalizes a process that most companies already follow as a matter of good business practice.

By tacking up to 180 days onto the process, project proponents fear C-69 will lead to longer, not shorter, timelines for project approval. The Canadian Hydropower Association has said it already takes 8 to 12 years to build a hydro project in this country and the new regime will make it "more challenging to manage and more complex."

Industry associations have reserved their harshest criticism for changes to the "public participation" component of the approvals process.

Ottawa has eliminated the "standing test" that applies to deciding who can appear before the regulator weighing project approval. The federal Liberal government has said it believes this will make the process more democratic and participatory.

Right now, only people who are directly affected — local communities or nearby Indigenous groups, for example — or those with expert information are allowed to have their say. The new law would open the process up to virtually anyone who wants to appear.

The industry associations worry the relatively lax rules will subject project hearings to unreasonable interference by activists and protracted legal actions over who can speak. They say the regulator should have the discretion to decide who participates.

"What we have seen is activists, groups, many of the American-funded activists have taken a very deliberate approach at targeting Canada, first and foremost, and our institutions," McMillan said.

"Tim Hortons talk is rarely about the National Energy Board, but certainly those groups have used social media very effectively and have lobbied governments voraciously to get changes that make it more difficult for Canada to attract investment."

Frank Saunders, the vice-president of regulatory affairs at Ontario's Bruce Power, said C-69 needs at least some basic criteria for deciding who can appear.

"I don't care how far away they come from, as long as they are talking about the project versus some esoteric view on nuclear energy. There are people who believe you shouldn't be doing that, and they want to come and argue. They have a right to argue it, but that's not the forum," he said.

LARRY MACDOUGAL/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Speakers at another pro-pipeline rally in Alberta continued their attacks on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Saturday, saying if leaders in Ottawa don’t hear their message now, they will when a planned convoy arrives there in 2019.

Chad Miller with the group Oilfield Dads told the crowd gathered in Rocky Mountain House that the province is suffering its “worst recession turned depression” in a generation owing to weakened oil prices, exacerbated by a lack of pipeline capacity.

“Even those that put away for the rainy days and then some have had to use their savings, and more, to try to weather this never-ending hard times scenario,” Mr. Miller said.

Numerous rallies and truck convoys have been held across Alberta and Saskatchewan in recent weeks to protest against federal actions that critics say will make building pipelines more difficult. Those include Bill C-69 to revamp the National Energy Board and Bill C-48, which would ban oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s northern coast.

A convoy in Medicine Hat, Alta., last weekend attracted 650 vehicles, according to police, and groups are planning one in February that will travel from Western Canada to Ottawa.

“Today, I say to Ottawa, can you hear us yet?” Mr. Miller asked the crowd during Saturday’s rally.

“Don’t worry, you’ll see us in February when we convoy to Ottawa!”

A truck convoy was also held Saturday in Lloydminster, which straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary.

Earlier this month, the federal government announced it would spend $1.6-billion to help energy companies struggling because of plunging oil prices.

But Jason Nixon, who represents Rocky Mountain House in the provincial legislature, said what Alberta really wants is pipelines.

​“Trudeau, we don’t want your money. We want you to get out of the way,” Mr. Nixon said to the crowd in Rocky Mountain House.

The groups Rally 4 Resources and Canada Action say in a Facebook event post that the convoy to Ottawa is intended to end Feb. 20 on Parliament Hill. The post says letters voicing support for the industry, as well as individual and family photos, will be delivered to the Senate.

The page stresses that the event is not connected to the yellow vest campaign, which also advocates for pipelines but is associated with opposition to Canada signing the United Nations migration pact.

“To be clear, we take issue with bad policies put forward by Justin Trudeau’s government, but we do not favour any political party. This movement is about supporting our families,” the Facebook post states.