By Stephanie Axmann & Bryn Gray
McCARTHY TETRAULT

​On August 28, 2019, Canada’s new federal environmental legislation under Bill C-69 (including the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), Canadian Energy Regulator Act (CERA), and Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA)) and Bill C-68 (amendments to the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence) came into force.  These new statutes and legislative amendments introduce enhanced Indigenous consultation requirements for mining, pipeline, and other projects that require federal impact assessments and certain federal regulatory approvals and permits. McCarthy Tétrault’s update on the new IAA (including key transitional provisions) and associated Regulations is available here.

Bill C-69 Amendments

In February 2018, we wrote an overview of the Indigenous-related aspects and implications of the proposed IAA. The House of Commons’ proposed amendments to Bill C-69 were subsequently reviewed by the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Of the Senate’s 188 proposed amendments, the House of Commons accepted 62 amendments fully and 37 with modifications. Bill C-69, as amended, received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.

In broad strokes, the overall scope and approach with regard to the Indigenous aspects of the now-in force IAA (as well as CERA and CNWA) have remained substantially similar since First Reading. The new Indigenous-related aspects of the IAA and other Acts generally focus on new measures designed to:

1. increase opportunities for Indigenous participation, cooperation and partnership with government in impact assessment processes and decision-making;
2. enhance recognition and consideration of Indigenous rights and interests; and
3. enhance consultation and engagement opportunities for Indigenous groups.

As part of this, the IAA and CERA expands the scope of what must be considered vis-à-vis Indigenous interests in decisions or recommendations under these statutes. The decision-maker will be required to consider any impacts on Indigenous peoples and their asserted and established Aboriginal or treaty rights.  This goes beyond the common law requirements of the duty to consult, which is limited to the consideration of impacts on section 35 rights and does not consider impacts on Indigenous peoples generally. 

The federal government summarized the House of Commons’ proposed Indigenous-related amendments to Bill C-69 in a summary document; these proposals were largely adopted by the Senate and embodied in the final version of the Bill. Below are some notable Indigenous-related amendments made to Bill C-69 (and particularly to the IAA) since First Reading in the House of Commons in 2018.

Express reference to UNDRIP

No reference was made to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the initial draft of Bill C-69. This absence was notable given that the federal government had previously committed to implementing UNDRIP.  UNDRIP contains a number of provisions relating to seeking the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous groups in various situations, including the approval of projects affecting their lands or territories. UNDRIP is now referred to in the preambles of the IAA and CERA (which state, “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing” UNDRIP) but there are no requirements for Indigenous consent in either statute except for reiterating pre-existing consent requirements for the use of reserve land and certain treaty lands in CERA. The IAA and CERA now also expressly mandate government authorities to exercise their powers in a manner that respects the Government of Canada’s commitments with respect to the rights of Indigenous peoples. It is unclear how this mandate provision will be interpreted and we anticipate that both provisions could become the subject of future litigation. (These references have not been added to the CNWA).

Bill C-69 generally reflects the federal government’s apparent intentions to implement the principles of UNDRIP and specifically the concept of FPIC of Indigenous groups in decision-making. The federal government is doing so by increasing opportunities for Indigenous participation in decision-making (“aiming to secure consent”) rather than by implementing a stricter standard of consent in respect of all decisions affecting Indigenous peoples or rights.  The wording of certain FPIC provisions and the manner in which UNDRIP has been implemented outside of Canada provides support for Canada’s position. The federal government’s approach aims to strike a balance between competing interests, including where certain affected Indigenous groups support a project and others oppose it. However, there continues to be heightened expectations of consent and confusion in this area. This is due in part to earlier statements by the federal government about their “unqualified support” for UNDRIP which they have in fact qualified through further statements and actions, including Bill C-69.  

The various agreement, arrangement, substitution and delegation approaches set out in the IAA give rise to the potential for Indigenous groups to negotiate consent principles into decision-making processes. These types of agreements and arrangements are discretionary on the part of either the Minister or the Impact Assessment Agency (Agency). If exercised, they give rise to potential opportunities that would significantly shift assessment and decision-making authority from government to Indigenous groups whose rights may be affected by a project. In our view, the true extent to which such measures will have any meaningful impact on the impact assessment regime will largely depend on the government’s willingness to implement them in practice, and particularly the degree to which they are willing to enter into such agreements with Indigenous groups that are not parties to modern treaties, and whether government will offer up authority beyond projects on modern treaty or reserve lands.

Consideration and Protection of Indigenous Knowledge

“Indigenous knowledge” has replaced references to the “traditional knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada” in each Act in Bill C-69. Indigenous knowledge is defined broadly as “the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada. The federal government has indicated that this change in terminology is to clarify that Indigenous knowledge is intended to include the evolving knowledge of Indigenous peoples and is not limited to “traditional knowledge”.

New measures have also been added to ensure transparency in the consideration of Indigenous knowledge. For example, the IAA includes various new reporting requirements on the Agency, review panel, or jurisdiction for a substituted process to expressly describe how Indigenous knowledge was considered and applied in their assessment and decision-making processes.

There are also new measures to ensure the protection of confidentiality of Indigenous knowledge. For example, under the IAA, CERA and CNWA, prior to disclosing Indigenous knowledge for purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, the Minister, Agency, committee, review panel, or Regulator, as applicable, must consult with the provider of Indigenous knowledge about the scope of proposed disclosure and potential conditions of disclosure.

This still leaves many unanswered questions about how Indigenous knowledge will be considered in project reviews and how to address the challenges that have arisen in the past with the collection and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into project reviews. With respect to next steps for the implementation of the Indigenous knowledge provisions under Bills C-69 and C-68, the federal government has announced that “federal organizations will work in partnership with Indigenous peoples to promote a common understanding for the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge in project reviews and regulatory decisions through the development of an Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework and other procedures and guidance.” Further information regarding the development of the Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework is available here.

Additional Consultation and Cooperation Requirements

The final version of Bill C-69 contains amendments to ensure additional consideration of Indigenous interests in certain decision-making.  For example, under the IAA, in deciding whether an impact assessment of a designated project is required, the Agency must take into account a range of factors, including comments received within the specified time period from any jurisdiction or Indigenous group that is consulted. Moreover, if the Agency decides that an impact assessment of a designated project is required, it must provide the proponent with certain documents, including tailored guidelines regarding information or studies required from the proponent and “plans for cooperation with other jurisdictions, for engagement and partnership with Indigenous peoples, for public participation and for the issuance of permits.”  It remains to be seen how detailed and prescriptive this information will be.

Indigenous Representation on Advisory Councils

Under the IAA, the Minister must establish an advisory council to advise him or her on issues related to the implementation of the impact assessment and regional and strategic assessment regimes set out under the Act. Amendments were made to ensure a distinction-based approach to Indigenous membership on advisory councils, such that the interests of First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples are all represented. Membership on this council must include at least one person representing interests of each of First Nations, Inuit and Métis.  Similarly, membership on the committee to advise the Agency regarding the interests and concerns of Indigenous peoples in relation to assessments to be conducted under the Act must also include at least one person representing interests of each of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.

Similarly, under CERA, the establishment of an Indigenous advisory committee by the Regulator is now mandatory, for the purpose of enhancing the involvement of Indigenous peoples and organizations in respect of pipelines, power lines, offshore renewable energy projects and abandoned projects. Membership on the advisory committee must also include at least one person representing the interests of each of First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

References to Indigenous Women

Express requirements for consideration of the rights of Indigenous women have been added to two sections of the IAA. Before making an order to designate a physical activity that is not prescribed by regulations, the Minister may consider adverse impacts of the physical activity on the rights of Indigenous peoples – including Indigenous women. As well, when conducting a regional assessment or committee assessment of a federal policy, plan or program relevant to conducting impact assessments, the Agency or committee must take into account Indigenous knowledge provided with respect to the assessment – including the knowledge of Indigenous women.

Indigenous Capacity Support Program

Separate from Bill C-69, the federal government recently announced a new Indigenous Capacity Support Program as part of its efforts to improve and facilitate Indigenous participation in the new IA process. The program aims to assist Indigenous peoples, communities and organizations develop skills to better participate in impact assessments. The government’s Public Notice states that “[t]his funding, provided outside the context of specific project reviews, is intended to support better informed and more meaningful engagement and leadership of Indigenous peoples in consultations on project assessments, regional and strategic initiatives, and policy development.”

All Indigenous organizations, groups and communities are eligible, including: Indigenous groups or collectives coordinating more than one Indigenous group; and incorporated or registered Indigenous non-profit organizations, such as a band council, association, co-operative or institution. The nature and type of activities that are considered eligible (to a maximum funding allocation of $300,000) include: developing or supporting organizational capacity to participate in or undertake, as well as deliver information, data and studies on behalf of Indigenous communities or organizations mandated to support the implementation of environmental assessments; and outreach activities to strengthen awareness of environmental assessment issues; and design and delivery of workshops, training programs, or materials for Indigenous peoples for related activities.

Bill C-68 Amendments

In February 2018, we also wrote an overview of the Indigenous-related aspects of the initial draft of Bill C-68 and its proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. In furtherance of the federal government’s reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples, the Fisheries Act amendments provide opportunities to increase and strengthen the role of Indigenous groups in decision-making under the Act, which includes the potential for an increased role in project reviews, monitoring and policy development.

Following the introduction of Bill C-68, there were a number of Indigenous-related amendments including:

• The definition of Indigenous, in relation to a fishery, has been amended to mean: “that fish is harvested by an Indigenous organization or any of its members pursuant to the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or for any purposes set out in any rights implementation measures as agreed to by the Crown and Indigenous peoples.” The earlier definition referred to the use of fish as food for social or ceremonial purposes, or for purposes set out in a land claims agreement. Although nuanced, the new definition seems to potentially broaden the scope of what could constitute an Indigenous fishery under the Act.
  
  
• The Act introduces new measures to maintain and rebuild major fish stocks prescribed by regulations, which could affect Indigenous fisheries.
  
  
• The Rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada are now positively recognized under the Act, which “is to be construed as upholding” section 35 rights, and not as abrogating or derogating from them. As well, any agreement entered into by the Minister with an Indigenous governing body to further the purposes of the Act, must now expressly “respect the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35.”
  
  
• As with Bill C-69, references to the traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples of Canada have been changed to Indigenous knowledge. As well, before disclosing Indigenous knowledge for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, the Minister must consult with the provider of the Indigenous knowledge about the scope and potential conditions of disclosure.

We will continue to monitor and provide commentary on the new legislation and associated regulations, and as any implementation guidelines that are released. 

SOURCE: https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/canadian-era-perspectives/indigenous-implications-bills-c-69-and-c-68-worth-second-look?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

By Paulina Adamson, Tony Crossman, Terri-Lee Oleniuk
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
JDSUPRA

The federal government’s long-awaited overhaul of key environmental laws (Bill C-69, which implements the new Impact Assessment Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act and related regulations) will take effect on August 28, 2019. The Impact Assessment Act will replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, (CEAA 2012) overhauling the federal environmental assessment (now impact assessment) system. The new regime includes a revised list of activities that will trigger an impact assessment (see the Physical Activities Regulations (Project List)); and some other details of how the impact assessment process will work.

For more information on Bill C-69, please see our February 2018 Blakes Bulletin: Federal Government Overhauls Canadian Environmental Legislation and June 2019 Blakes Bulletin: Federal Government Passes Controversial Environmental Legislation and Tanker Ban.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT TRIGGERS: THE PROJECT LIST

The federal government has released an unofficial version of the Project List with an official version to be published on August 21, 2019, prior to coming into force on August 28, 2019. While the Project List maintains many of the existing categories in CEAA 2012, the list also expands the categories of projects subject to an impact assessment. For example, there is a new trigger for in-situ oil sands extraction facilities or expansions of in-situ oil sands extraction facilities if the facility is located in a province that has not limited the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by oil sands sites in that province or, if a greenhouse gas emissions limit exists, but has been reached. Further, many of the thresholds of projects caught by CEAA 2012 have changed. While new thresholds have been introduced (i.e., more projects will be caught), somewhat surprisingly, other thresholds have increased (meaning fewer of these categories of projects will be caught). For example, the trigger for assessment of a new pipeline is now 75 km or more of new right of way, as opposed to 40 km under the CEAA 2012 regime.

After much speculation, discussion and consultation, the publication of the Project List provides some greater certainty to project proponents regarding whether an impact assessment will be required. However, considerable uncertainty remains as the Minister has the ability to, on request or on his or her own initiative, designate a physical activity that is not contained in the Project List if the Minister is of the opinion either that the activity “may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or adverse direct or incidental effects, or public concerns related to those effects warrant the designation”. It remains to be seen what public concerns may warrant such a designation.

PROJECTS THAT DON’T REQUIRE ASSESSMENT, TIME LIMITS AND REQUIRED INFORMATION

The federal government has also released an unofficial version of the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulation (IMTLR). Time limits under the Impact Assessment Act may be suspended (1) upon the proponent’s request; (2) to undertake additional studies or collect additional information related to changes in the design, construction or operation plans for a designated project; and (3) for the collection of certain fees and costs if they are not paid by the proponent within the required time limits. The IMTLR also sets out what information is required to be provided by proponents in the initial description of a designated project. The required information includes a list of all Indigenous groups that may be affected by the project, a summary of engagement undertaken with Indigenous Peoples and the key issues raised during the engagement.

Still to come is clarification of what projects will not require an impact assessment. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is currently seeking input on a ministerial order that will designate proposed classes of projects on federal lands and outside Canada that will only cause insignificant adverse environmental effects and will not be required to undergo an impact assessment. Comments will be accepted until August 21, 2019.

COMMENTARY
​
The overhaul of federal environmental laws has been many years in the making, with the most significant being the new impact assessment regime. The release of draft regulations, including the Project List, provide some clarity on the new impact assessment system. However, the Impact Assessment Act contains many discretionary provisions and new mandatory considerations that leave many questions unanswered about how the new system will work in practice.

By Fatima Syed
CANADA'S NATIONAL OBSERVER

Environmental groups have given Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government a passing grade on its efforts to restore protections to Canada's natural habitats, which the Liberals say are in jeopardy if the Conservatives return to power following this fall's federal election.

Nature Canada has created a report card — in consultation with Freshwater Alliance and other environmental law groups such as Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Centre Québécois du droit de l’environnement — to assess the Trudeau government's efforts to restore public trust and transparency in Canada's environmental legislation.

"The overall takeaway (is) that the government has done a pretty good job — better in some areas, worse in some," said Stephen Hazell, director of policy and general counsel at Nature Canada.

The report card is the first of its kind, according to Hazell. It examines six major changes to four major environmental laws passed in 2019 — averaging roughly a B grade across the board.

Hazell said the grading in Nature Canada's report card was assessed based on what the environmental community thought was needed to deal with each of the issues at hand, and the extent to which the government fulfilled its 2017 promises.

"We did it partly because there had been such a flurry of environmental laws enacted by Parliament in 2019," Hazell said in an interview. "The last time there was anything similar was 2012 with the Conservatives... when they basically trashed all environmental regulations.

"This sort of thing doesn’t happen very often," he added. "It's very rare that you get a government that’s as interested in dealing with environmental law issues as the Trudeau government was in 2019."

The Trudeau government proposed sweeping amendments to Canada’s environmental laws in 2017 to reverse a series of "very controversial" changes implemented by the Harper administration in 2012, which immediately cancelled about 3,000 environmental assessments.

During the 2015 election campaign, Trudeau committed to restoring credibility to the environmental assessment process and launched a series of advisory panels and consultations to help create new legislation.

One of his underlying goals was to manage environmental reviews under a transparent process that makes it easier for the public to participate, and urges federal officials to consider all economic, social and health effects of a project, including effects on Indigenous Peoples.

"Under Stephen Harper the protections for fish and fish habitat were lost when the Fisheries Act was revised in 2012," Fisheries and Oceans Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told National Observer in an email. "That was part of a broader agenda with respect to fisheries and the environment where we saw significant layoffs of scientists, significant layoffs of protection officers, the closures of Coast Guard facilities including the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and $100 million in operating budget reductions."

The Harper cuts to environmental protects also "gutted the scientific capacity of the department such that ideologies started to play far more of a role than science and evidence," he said.

Wilkinson thanked "the thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who participated in the consultations that were incredibly important in informing the changes" made to the Fisheries Act and other environmental legislation, calling them "a promise made and a promise kept."

Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna's office echoed similar sentiments, noting that the Trudeau government had "reform(ed) a broken system and restore(d) protections that Harper’s government gutted and (Conservative Leader) Andrew Scheer has promised to return to."

"The Conservatives made it harder, not easier, for major projects to be developed in Canada," Caroline Thériault, spokeswoman for McKenna, said in a statement to National Observer. "That’s why Canada urgently needed better rules, and why we’ve worked hard since Day 1 to restore public trust in how decisions about resource development and other major projects are made."

Tories argue Trudeau gets 'failing grade'

In an emailed statement to National Observer, Scheer’s spokesman disagreed with this characterization.
“Justin Trudeau’s report card on the environment gets a failing grade from everyday Canadians struggling to make ends meet and get ahead," wrote Daniel Schow.

"The Trudeau Liberal carbon tax increases the price of everything from home heating, gas and groceries while doing nothing to reduce emissions and meet our Paris targets.”

Hazell said the process to create the report card did find some flaws in the political process as it pertains to environmental legislation.

For instance, many of the changes to these bills were proposed by the Senate, the majority of which were "anti-environment," he argued.

"The Senate has become the problem. That’s the place where good environmental law would die if we didn’t have a government committed to this file," he said.

Hazell also said that, despite the passing grade report card, more work needs to be done.

In an Aug. 2 letter to Trudeau, a coalition of environmentalists including Hazell urged the prime minister to expand the project list subject to environmental assessments.

"We are keenly aware of the upcoming federal election, and (the) closing of a window of opportunity for dramatic action on the project list," the letter reads.

The report card

Here are the grades for the major environmental laws that were passed:

Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) — C

This act established a single federal agency to ensure public participation in the approval process of any energy project, pending cabinet approval. The new agency would look at the social and health aspects of a project, as well as the effects on the economy, environment and Indigenous Peoples.

It also included a "climate test" (how the project affects Canada's ability to meet its climate targets) — the first time such a thing has been included in federal legislation.

Hazell said they were disappointed the Senate brought an amendment that allowed the agency to select the members of the review panels, and only designated projects were subject to this agency. For example, it excluded pipeline assessments to those 75 kilometres or more.

Fisheries Act amendments (Bill C-68) — B+

The Liberal government reinstated this act after the Harper Conservatives axed it, thus restoring important protections for fish habitat. The act also created new requirements to rebuild depleted or threatened fish populations, and a more transparent process to approve any projects/activities that would harm fish or fish habitat.

The act also bans the import and export of shark fins, and includes a mandatory review every five years for any changes.

Hazell said environmentalists were disappointed in a provision removed by the Senate that ensured water flows would also be a protected habitat.

Canadian Navigable Waters Act (Bill C-69) — C+

This act extended protections for any project happening near navigable water, requiring all such projects to receive federal approval.

Canadian Energy Regulator Act (Bill C-69) — B

This act created the role of Canadian energy regulators and also established a group of independent commissioners responsible for timely and transparent project reviews and decision-making.

Oceans Act, Canada Petroleum Resources Act amendments (Bill C-55) — A

This was a straightforward bill, Hazell said, and accomplished what it was designed to: temporarily protecting Canada's oceans for up to five years as a step to permanent Marine Protected Area protection.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act (Bill C-48) — B+

This act protected the northern British Columbia coast from major oil spills by banning tankers carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of crude oil from being in the area. A Senate committee voted against the bill, but it narrowly passed the full Senate in June.

By Gabriel Friedman
FINANCIAL POST

The Senate on Thursday night passed controversial legislation that overhauls the environmental review process, a bill that is likely to draw court challenges and remain a topic of discussion as campaigning for the upcoming federal election heats up.

“I must say that I’m fairly comfortable supporting Bill C-69 as it stands today, especially because it may be one of the major issues in the next election campaign,” said Eric Forest, an independent senator from Quebec.

Though it was staunchly opposed in the energy sector, the bill drew support from mining trade organizations.
C-69, which passed 57 to 37, has a broad range of consequences and was designed to ensure that companies moving forward on major construction projects have a “social licence.”

To that end, it creates new requirements for public consultation including on climate change, gender and other issues. But it also has broader consequences, including the creation of a national Impact Assessment Agency that will oversee project evaluations.

The legislation grew out of a Liberal campaign promise in 2015 to overhaul the environmental review process; and earlier this month, Senator Grant Mitchell, formerly leader of Alberta’s Liberal Party and now sitting as an independent, said that C-69, which he sponsored, replaces an environmental review process that had stopped working.

“It had failed to get critical projects built,” Mitchell told the Senate on June 17. “It did not have the trust of Indigenous peoples nor the public at large and, as a result, had been mired in litigation that had so unsettled investors it had to be fixed.”

He added that the House of Commons had accepted 62 amendments from the Senate outright and 37 with some modifications, which is an “historic record” and the greatest number since it started being tracked in the 1940s.

The centre of opposition to the bill has been the oil and gas industry in Alberta, where Premier Jason Kenney said on Friday he would file a court challenge to the law, calling it a violation of provinces’ constitutional right to control the development of natural resources.

“It inserts massive new uncertainty into the federal environmental approval process for major projects, leading energy industry groups to say that no future pipeline will ever be proposed under this regime,” Kenney said in a statement.

Chris Bloomer, president and chief executive of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said that his organization had put forward a package of amendments it felt were necessary to make the bill palatable.
​
The Liberals rejected most of his organization’s suggested amendments, leaving him feeling like their concerns had been “glossed over,”  said Bloomer.

Unlike the Liberals, he argued that the old environmental review process — the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012 — has been working.

“There were things about the CEAA 2012 legislation that needed to be fixed,” said Bloomer, “but fundamentally these were renovations, not burning down the house.”

Still, he said it is difficult to point to specific problems with C-69, and instead said that the legislation has too many vague clauses and elements. That will end up injecting uncertainty into the environmental review process, which will deter investment in pipeline projects in Canada, said Bloomer.

In a prediction, he said, “It’s highly unlikely that you’re going to see, beyond what we see on the table now, major new projects put forward.”

But there was even stronger opposition from a group called Suits and Boots, founded and led by Rick Peterson, a former leadership candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada, who led a campaign to kill the bill outright.
Peterson acknowledged that the bill did contain some good provisions, but said it also had “some real killers.”

“To me, the biggest risk is the litigation risk — going to court all the time,” he said.

In some ways, that concern echoes Liberals’ stated reason for overhauling the environment legislation, with Mitchell saying that projects had been “mired in litigation.”

Most notably, that included the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which faced 18 court challenges.

Anna Johnston, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, who was appointed to sit on an advisory committee to assist with the process, said the new bill is an improvement in many ways.

As an example, she said it introduces a new planning phase so that companies must consult the public early on, designed to ensure that all project impacts that need to be studied are identified at the outset.

She also said it requires companies to assess their impact on gender: For instance, when a mining company, which has a largely male workforce, sets up in a remote area, it evaluate its potential impact on women in the nearby community.

“Unlike what a lot of opponents would have you believe, it’s not earth shattering, it’s not a whole new approach,” said Johnston.

The bill sets out which projects are subject to the federal environmental review, and Johnston said many projects are not covered, and predicted only a handful of projects per year would be covered.
​
“Bill C-69 — it’s a compromise, it’s not a perfect bill,” said Johnston.

By Jolson Lim
iPOLITICS

​With time ticking away on the 42nd Parliament, the Senate last night passed the Liberal government’s controversial legislation overhauling environmental assessment practices in the country along with a flurry of other government bills.

A ceremony will be held in the upper chamber on Friday afternoon to give 21 bills recently passed royal assent, formally making them into law.

Among bills senators passed yesterday was Bill C-69, which passed a motion by a vote of 57 to 37 in support of the House of Commons message on the Senate’s amendments.

READ MORE: Liberals reject 90 per cent of Senate Conservative amendments to C-69

The government had agreed to accept 99 Senate amendments to the bill that would change the way large energy projects are regulated in Canada, stripping out proposed changes put forward by Conservative senators that tilted in favour of the interests of the oil and gas sector.

It included amendments that would reduce the scope of cabinet power in deciding to approve resource projects.

Conservative politicians across Canada and the oil and gas sector condemned the passage of Bill C-69, which they worried would make it nearly impossible to get approvals needed on new resource projects.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said he would repeal the legislation if his party forms government in the upcoming fall election.

“This is a sad day for Canada,” Scheer said in a statement. “With the passage of Bill C-69, Justin Trudeau finally has his law that will phase out Canada’s oil and gas industry.”

The piece of legislation had faced a rocky road through the upper chamber, with senators proposing an unprecedented 188 amendments at third reading.

Meanwhile, environmental groups, who had worried that the bill would be watered down amid the Senate turbulence, praised the passage of Bill C-69.

“The government should be commended for remaining committed to strengthening environmental oversight in the face of misinformation and fear-mongering from the oil and gas industry and some provincial leaders,” said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence.

“For the first time, a project’s impact on climate change will be considered during the review process.”

The Senate also passed the Liberal government’s budget implementation bill, Bill C-97, at third reading last night without any amendments. It includes controversial changes to asylum eligibility requirements and measures to boost Canada’s struggling journalism sector.

READ MORE: Oil tanker ban bill to become law

The only government bill left to be passed is Bill C-98, which would create a new complaints board for the Canadian Border Services Agency. It currently sits at first reading in the Senate.

While senators passed a motion late last night that would adjourn the Senate until September following today’s royal assent ceremony, the body can be recalled back in the summer in order to pass this bill. Bills are not formally scrubbed off the order paper until the election writ is dropped.

The Senate will also be needed to vote on legislation ratifying the new North American trade agreement, if the government chooses to proceed with doing so. Ratification of the trade deal currently faces headwinds in the U.S. Congress, with Democrats wanting changes regarding labour and environmental protections.

The government’s legislation banning oil tanker traffic from the northern British Columbia coast (C-48), reforming Canada’s current prison system (C-83), and reducing delays in criminal proceedings and eliminating peremptory jury challenges (C-75) were also passed in the Senate yesterday evening.

Unlike Bill C-69, which received the vote of moderate senators including Sen. Paula Simons, Bill C-48 was passed with only a narrow 49 to 46 vote, with one abstention.

Earlier yesterday, legislation meant to protect and preserve Indigenous languages (C-91) and reforming Indigenous child and family welfare services (C-92) had also passed.

As well, legislation that would provide more federal power to impose safeguard measures in order to protect Canada’s steel industry from dumping (C-101) and providing money for the public service for the 2019-20 fiscal year (C-102) was also passed.

SOURCE: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/06/21/senate-passes-bill-c-69-in-a-scramble-to-approve-last-remaining-government-bills/

By Jesse Ferreras and Emily Mertz
GLOBAL NEWS

Canada’s senators have given the thumbs-up to Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, which sets up a new authority to assess industrial projects, such as pipelines, mines and inter-provincial highways, for their effects on public health, the environment and the economy.

Bill C-69 passed Thursday night by a vote of 57-37.

The bill is set to go to Royal Assent after a motion by Sen. Grant Mitchell to keep the Senate from insisting on amendments that the House of Commons didn’t agree to.

The move came after Senate passed 188 amendments to the bill earlier this month.

The governing Liberals accepted 99 of those amendments – 62 were accepted as they were written, and another 37 were accepted with several changes.

Conservative Sen. Richard Neufeld called C-69 “one of the most toxic, polarizing and divisive bills” he’s encountered in 10 years as a senator.

READ MORE: Provincial energy ministers condemn feds after majority of Bill C-69 amendments rejected

Energy ministers from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario said June 12 that many of the amendments that were struck down would have made Bill C-69 more palatable for the resource sector. They wanted the amendments taken as a complete package.

The federal government, however, said it believed some would have allowed a new Impact Assessment Agency to decide not to consider the impacts on Indigenous people or climate change when assessing a project. Other changes would have restricted limits on who can participate in an assessment hearing, as well as made it harder to challenge a project approval in court.

The prime minister responded June 12, saying the legislation is necessary to get energy projects built in Canada.

“The conservatives still seem to think that the way to get big projects built is to ignore Indigenous peoples and ignore environmental concerns,” Justin Trudeau said. “That didn’t work for 10 years under Stephen Harper, and it’s certainly not going to work now.

“That’s why we we had to change the process.”

The legislation split opinion among senators from Alberta.

Sen. Paula Simons voted in favour, tweeting that she “would and could never have supported it as it first came to us.”

“But tonight, we passed a dramatically different bill than the one that met me when we arrived here.”

Less enthusiastic about the bill’s passage was Sen. Doug Black.

“Tonight the Senate has chosen to keep the ‘closed for business’ sign in the window of Canada by adopting Bill C-69,” he tweeted.

This is bad for Canada and I will continue to work for our collective family business – the natural resource sector.”

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said it was “a bad day for our economy, and the Canadian federation.”

In a message on Twitter, Kenney said: “This means the No More Pipelines Law will become law.”

In a second tweet, Kenney thanked the 37 Senators who “voted for common sense by opposing C-69, including Alberta Senators Black, Tannas and McKoy,” and said he was “very disappointed that Alberta Senators Mitchell, Simons and Laboucane-Benson voted in favour of this bad version of a bill that will hurt our province.”

The federal environment minister had a different take on the bills’ passage.

Earlier Thursday, the Senate approved Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which will formalize a moratorium on oil tanker traffic of a certain size in waters from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the province’s border with Alaska.

It was a close vote, with 49 Senators voting in favour of the controversial bill, 46 voting against and one abstaining.

READ MORE: Canadian Senate passes B.C. tanker ban bill, prepping for it to come into law

The passage of the bill in the Senate means it will now proceed to Royal Assent and become law.

C-69 and C-48 were among a long list of bills the Senate pounded through late into the night Thursday as the chamber prepared to adjourn for the summer and the subsequent election.

But Canadians haven’t heard the last about the pair of bills. They’re both destined to be fodder for Liberals and Conservatives on the campaign trail to this fall’s election.
​
— With files from Global’s Adam MacVicar and The Canadian Press’ Mia Rabson

SOURCE: https://globalnews.ca/news/5415294/bill-c-69-passes-senate/

By John Paul Tasker
CBC NEWS

While the Senate's transport committee recommended the upper house defeat the bill outright, a coalition of Independent and Liberal senators has cobbled together enough votes to rescue legislation to implement the government's planned ban on oil tankers along B.C.'s northern coast.

The outcome was far from certain after the committee that studied the legislation recommended against passing the Liberal plan. The committee issued a scathing report this week saying that, if passed, the bill would stoke a nascent separatist movement in Western Canada, and accused the government of unfairly targeting Alberta's oilpatch at a time of constrained pipeline capacity and cratering oil prices.

The strongly worded report — penned by the committee's chair, Conservative Saskatchewan Sen. David Tkachuk — prompted a backlash of sorts Wednesday night from other senators who called it overly partisan.

Senators rejected the committee's report by a vote of 38 to 53, with one abstention. Now, senators are expected to make amendments at the third reading phase of the legislative process before sending the bill back to the Commons for approval.

The Senate also voted this evening on Bill C-69, the government's controversial overhaul of the environmental assessment process. The Senate's energy committee passed more than 180 amendments to that bill that would, among other things, limit the environment minister's ability to interfere in the regulatory process and stop and start project timelines.

Having passed the Senate, C-69 now returns to the House of Commons with all 180 amendments. 

While not explicitly written into the Liberal government's 2015 platform, then-third party leader Justin Trudeau vowed to institute a moratorium on oil tankers docking at ports along the northern B.C. coast when unveiling his plan for the environment at a Vancouver-area event in June, 2015.

In describing the legislation, Tkachuk said it is "not as advertised" — that it is not a "moratorium" at all because there is no set timeline, and should be described as a ban. (The Conservative Party recently launched a series of ads with the tagline, "Justin Trudeau, not as advertised.")

In the report, Tkachuk said the legislation was motivated not by a desire to protect the pristine Great Bear rainforest but rather by electoral considerations. He said Trudeau is willing to undermine the Prairie economy to court votes elsewhere.

Tkachuk said Trudeau is "targeting one region, where the political rewards for the government of the day are few, in order to please voters in other regions of Canada — regions where the government of the day has far greater potential to win seats.

"Your committee notes the ruling political party has historically been unable to win a significant number of seats in the region targeted by this bill, and that all credible polls indicate the ruling party will be unable to win a significant number of seats in the upcoming federal election."

Independent Quebec Sen. Andre Pratte said that, while he opposed parts of the tanker ban bill and will offer amendments at the third reading stage, he thought Tkachuk's report did a disservice to the committee's deliberations on the legislation.

While many reports are produced with a degree of consensus — with contributions from members of the committee from different parties — the committee's deputy chair, Independent Quebec Sen. Julie Miville-Dechêne, said there was no such offer from Tkachuk.

"He said no to any steering committee, as usual. We were therefore unable to decide in a collegial manner how to go about writing the report. My only priority then became to ensure that whatever report was prepared would be put before the Senate promptly so that we can all vote on it," the senator told her colleagues.

"I therefore urge you to emphatically reject this 21-page report, which does a disservice to the Senate and does not do justice to the diversity of opinion among the 139 witnesses who appeared before us."

However, while she was critical of the Tkachuk report, Miville-Dechêne and other dissenting senators did not draft a minority report to respond to the Tory-penned document.

Independent Manitoba Sen. Murray Sinclair said the transport committee is clearly "dysfunctional," given how much bickering there was between members at its meetings and in the chamber Wednesday.

"It's appearing to me, from being here, that this committee did not function properly and did not function in a collegial matter. I therefore consider it to be a dysfunctional committee," the former judge said.

"The committee did not appear to be able to get along very well in its work and deliberations, and that causes me concern because now we are being asked to be parties to this report as members of the chamber."

The "dysfunction" label prompted claims of unparliamentary language from the Conservative opposition, with one senator saying the description "defamed" the work of the committee.

Independent Quebec Sen. Rosa Galvez said the mood at the transport committee, of which she is a member, was "extremely unpleasant" under Tkachuk's leadership.

She said the committee's travel, to locations in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan, was essentially a waste of time because dissenting voices were all but excluded from Tkachuk's final report.

"A cost-benefit analysis of this report would be absolutely scandalous," Galvez said.

"Overall, I got the feeling that our work was being undermined and even sabotaged. Rather than conducting an in-depth analysis of Bill C-48, of its weaknesses and limitations, so that we could suggest amendments and make observations that could be effective in improving it, we created a hostile and aggressive atmosphere that prevented the legislation from being studied in the best interests of Canadians."

Galvez said her colleague, Independent Alberta Sen. Paula Simons — who sided with the Tories to vote down Bill C-48 at committee — was "harassed" to vote a certain way.

Tkachuk defended the committee's work and the report it produced.

"This was not a waste of time. This was the Senate at its best," he said of the committee's travels.

• Coastal First Nations slam senators, say upper house doesn't have 'legitimacy' to kill tanker ban

• Jason Kenney now says Alberta can live with amended C-69 environmental assessment bill

• Garneau says he's open to amendments as opposition to B.C. tanker ban bill mounts

He said the bill, which would ban tankers capable of carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of oil from an area that stretches from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border, is "so egregiously bad that it should be stopped in its tracks."

"Your committee has concluded from the varied and quite passionate testimony put before it, from a broad range of witnesses who appeared in Ottawa, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, that Bill C-48 is both divisive and discriminatory," Tkachuk said.

He said the legislation, which does nothing about oil tanker traffic in Eastern Canada, serves only to bolster a growing Western Canadian separatist movement.

"The feeling of resentment, I can tell you, is palpable and any legislation that pours fuel on that particular fire should not be allowed to proceed," Tkachuk said.

He said the bill will cost "us all," as it imperils the future of Alberta's oilpatch and conventional oil development in Saskatchewan — two major economic drivers for the Canadian economy.

If enacted, the ban would frustrate future pipeline projects like the now-defunct Northern Gateway project, or the proposed Indigenous-led Eagle Spirit pipeline.
​
"Your committee strongly maintains that targeting one region of Canada for economic punishment is unconstitutional and destructive to the fabric of Canadian federalism," Tkachuk said.

By Peter Mazereeuw
THE HILL TIMES

Several high-profile government bills are entering the final stretch of scrutiny by Senators this week, with a decision on whether or not to kill the controversial tanker ban bill, C-48, on the docket, and third reading debate on the government’s sweeping environmental impact assessment bill, C-69, expected to begin early this week.

The government has also continued to introduce new bills in the House of Commons as recently as last week, with just 15 sitting days now left in the House and a handful more than that in the Senate. It’s possible not all of them will pass through both Chambers and into law before Parliament rises for the summer for the election campaign without negotiations and cooperation among groups both in the House and Senate.

The House is scheduled to sit until June 21 and the Senate until June 28. The next election is expected to happen on Oct. 21 and the House will not be back before then, so there’s a legislative push on for the government over the next three weeks.

The government tabled legislation to implement the CUSMCA trade agreement with the United States and Mexico just last week. Bill C-100 is still at second reading in the House, and would have to pass through a committee study and multiple rounds of debate before it arrived in the Senate to begin that process anew.

The New Democrats in the House signalled last week that they won’t make it easy for the government to move the bill along quickly without using time allocation, when they voted against a motion preceding C-100 that authorized government spending to implement that trade deal. The Conservatives and Liberals voted in favour of the motion.

However, should Bill C-100 make it to the Senate, members of the Red Chamber should already be familiar with it, said Independent Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain (De la Vallière, Que.), the deputy facilitator of the Independent Senators Group.

“We’ve been expecting it for a long time, we know what’s in it. We can find [the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee] enough time to study it,” she said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) and U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence discussed the implementation of the trade deal during the latter’s visit to Ottawa last week. Mr. Pence said his administration was pushing for U.S. legislators to implement the bill this summer.

Government House Leader Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Ont.) didn’t include C-100 in her response to the Thursday Question last week, meaning it may not come up for debate this week.

Government House leaders often strike deals with their opposition counterparts to get unanimous consent to advance certain bills through several stages simultaneously late in a legislative session, but the NDP’s vote on the spending motion for C-100 means that is unlikely in this case. The government could also recall the House of Commons in the summer to deal with C-100, if it wants to wait for the U.S. to ratify the trade deal before Canada does the same.

Sen. Saint-Germain said she didn’t know whether the Senate would have enough time to study and vote on other recently-introduced bills before it rises. Bill C-99, to change the citizenship oath to recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and C-98, to create an oversight body for the Canada Border Services Agency, are both still at second reading in the House.

Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen (York South-Weston, Ont.) told reporters last week that “we are very hopeful for a multi-party approach in support” of the citizenship oath bill.

“We are proceeding forward by presenting a bill, but also hoping that with the other parties supporting this, we can move quickly towards passage,” he said.

When asked whether the Senate would have enough time to deal with bills recently introduced into the House once they progressed to the Upper Chamber, Senator Peter Harder (Ottawa, Ont.) the government’s representative in the Senate, said “the Senate will do what the Senate needs to do.”

A spokesperson for Conservative Senate Leader Larry Smith (Saurel, Que.), Karine Leroux, said in an emailed statement that “these last-minute bills show a lack of planning by the Trudeau government. The Official Opposition in the Senate will act responsibly and do its due diligence by reviewing the latest bills proposed by the Trudeau government.”

Senate to vote on killing tanker ban bill

The Senate is expected to vote early this week on a report from its Transport Committee on Bill C-48, a bill that would fulfill a Liberal election promise to ban oil tanker traffic from the northern B.C. coast, making permanent a voluntary moratorium that is already in place there.

The Senate Transport Committee recommended that the Senate kill the bill in its report, finalized late last week. Senators on the committee came to a tie vote on whether to proceed with the bill. Tie votes count as a loss, meaning the vote determined that the committee would recommend that Senators do not allow the bill to go ahead.

If the Senate accepts the committee’s report, Bill C-48 will die, in what would be an exceptionally rare move by the Upper Chamber to defeat a government bill. If the Senate does not accept the committee’s report, the bill would go on to be debated at third reading, where Senators could move amendments to the controversial bill, which Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and others have said would harm the oil and gas industry. 

If Senators do amend the bill at third reading, it could set the stage for a ping-pong battle between the two Chambers. Transport Minister Marc Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Westmount, Que.) has rejected the idea of amending the bill to create exemptions to the moratorium zone, suggesting in front of Senate Transport Committee in May that opening up corridors for shipping oil on the coast would undermine the purpose of the bill, since spilled oil could spread far and wide through the water.

Sen. Saint-Germain, a member of the Transport Committee, said she couldn’t predict how Independent Senators would vote on the committee’s report when it comes before the Chamber at report stage. The report was agreed to on division, meaning that not all committee members agreed with it, but those who opposed did not force a formal vote.

“I anticipate very interesting discussions,” she said.

Independents collectively form a majority in the Chamber, but are not whipped or formally tied to any political party.   

The Senate Conservatives will try to convince Senators to accept the committee’s report and kill Bill C-48, said Conservative Senator David Tkachuk (Saskatchewan), the chair of the Transport Committee. The Conservatives may bring forward amendments to the bill if it makes it to third reading, he said.

Independent Senator Elaine McCoy (Alberta) penned an op-ed in The Globe and Mail late last week, urging her colleagues to kill C-48, and Independent Senator Doug Black (Alberta) said he agreed with her via Twitter. Independent Senator Paula Simons (Alberta) voted against proceeding with the bill at the Transport Committee.

Senators green-light overhaul of C-69

Senators agreed late last week to pass Bill C-69, on reforming the environmental impact assessment process, through report stage, meaning they effectively endorsed the 187 amendments to the bill made by the Senate Environment Committee.

That bill has also been widely criticized by conservative politicians and resource industry groups, among others, for everything from technical errors to potentially causing harm to the resource industry. The Environment Committee’s amendments ranged from minor changes to those that would take discretionary power over assessments away from the federal environment minister, and changes that environmental groups say would make environmental reviews too industry-friendly, for example, putting industry regulators back in charge of review panels conducting assessments, and ensuring the economic impact of a project is taken into account in an assessment.

The Senate agreed to pass the committee’s report on division, meaning some Senators disagreed with the report, but weren’t willing to force a recorded vote on it. Third reading debate on Bill C-69 will likely begin early this week, and the Senate Conservatives are considering putting forward one or more new technical amendments at that stage.

The government fisheries and fish habitat bill, C-68, is also at third reading in the Senate, as is Bill C-77, to reform the the military justice system. Senate leaders agreed hold a third reading vote on C-77 by June 6.

Baylis’ urges PROC to get Members’-rights motion back to House

Liberal MP Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Que.) is urging MPs on the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to do a short study of his private member’s motion to change the standing orders, M-231, and get it back to the House in time for a vote, before it dies on the order paper with the summer break and dissolution of Parliament for this fall’s election.

Mr. Baylis testified before PROC late last week, as the committee held its first hearing on the motion, which would establish a second debating Chamber for the House to deal with private member’s business, and would change the standing orders in several ways to take power out of the hands of party officers like the whips, and put it into the hands of backbench MPs—including doing away with speaking lists, through which the whips decide who gets to speak in the House and when.

Mr. Baylis’ motion had also been before the House of Commons as a whole for consideration, but he missed the first hour of debate on the motion in the House last week after making a mistake with his scheduling, he said. Because he missed the debate, the motion died, making PROC Mr. Baylis’ last chance to revive it.

Mr. Baylis told the committee members that many of the ideas proposed in the motion have been examined by MPs before, and noted that PROC had already done a separate study on establishing a second Chamber for the House. He told The Hill Times that he had received positive feedback from the Conservatives, NDP, and Liberal whip Mark Holland (Ajax, Ont.) about the motion. He said there was nonetheless some “timidity” about making big changes to the way the House does its business, and that he wanted PROC to complete a study on the motion so that all MPs would have a chance to vote on it in the Chamber before the summer.

[email protected]

Status of government bills

​House of Commons

Second reading:

• C-5, An Act to Repeal Division 20 of Part 3 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1
• C-12, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act
• C-27, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
• C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge)
• C-32, An Act related to the repeal of Section 159 of the Criminal Code
• C-33, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act
• C-34, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act
• C-38, An Act to amend an Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)
• C-39, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions)
• C-42, Veterans Well-being Act
• C-43, An Act respecting a payment to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to support a pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy
• C-52, Supporting Vested Rights Under Access to Information Act
• C-56, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act
• C-87, Poverty Reduction Act
• C-94, An Act respecting certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund
• C-98, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act
• C-99, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act
• C-100, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America, and the United Mexican States

Report stage:

• C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act
• C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children, youth, and families
• C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis
• C-97, Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

Consideration of amendments made by the Senate:

• C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
• C-59, An Act respecting national security matters

Senate

Senate pre-study:

• C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children, youth, and families
• C-97, Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

Committee:

• C-48, Oil Tanker Moratorium Act
• C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and other Acts
• C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, and the Garnishment, Attachment, and Pension Diversion Act
• C-82, Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act
• C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting)
• C-91, Indigenous Languages Act

Report stage:

• C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act

Third reading

• C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act
• C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act
• C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Awaiting Royal Assent

• C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms
• C-81, Accessible Canada Act

READ MORE: https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/06/03/senate-to-decide-on-fate-of-tanker-ban-liberals-leaving-u-s-mexico-trade-bill-until-last-minute/202345

By Jolson Lim
iPOLITICS

​The Senate is pushing forward with efforts to change the Liberal government’s controversial environmental assessment bill, passing this afternoon a package of energy sector-friendly amendments to Bill C-69.

The Senate environment committee had submitted a report to the full Senate with 188 total amendments that tilt heavily in favour of the interests of Canada’s oil and gas industry, which believes the bill will hurt prospects for future energy projects if passed as originally envisioned by the Trudeau government.

The Senate passed today, on division, the report and its recommendations. A formal recorded vote was not held.

Bill C-69, which alters how large energy projects are regulated, will now be brought to third reading during the Senate’s next sitting day on Monday, where members of the Upper Chamber can propose additional amendments.

The Liberal majority in the House of Commons will then have a chance to vote on whether or not to support the Senate’s version of the bill.

Environment groups have slammed some Senators, who are unelected appointees, for proposing amendments to a government bill and throwing the likeliness of its passage into uncertainty, with four sitting weeks left.

BACKGROUNDER: Environment groups blast Senate committee for amendments to Bill C-69

The amendments from the Senate committee include reducing cabinet power to intervene in energy assessments and altering the way climate change impacts are considered in the regulatory process. Many of the proposals are word-for-word what oil and gas groups have proposed.

Before the report was passed, Conservative Senators Michael MacDonald and Dennis Patterson spoke at length in opposition of the bill, saying the piece of legislation entered the Senate in a form requiring major changes.

READ MORE: Kenney vows ‘immediate’ constitutional challenge if Bill C-69 is passed

SOURCE ARTICLE: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/05/30/senate-passes-amendments-to-bill-c-69-moves-to-third-reading/

By David Moscrop
MACLEAN'S

With Parliament set to rise on June 21, MPs are preparing for a summer filled with pre-election groundwork. But the government will be making the dash to sunny days with its briefcase full of legislation that has yet to be passed. Prime Minister Trudeau and his team will be under pressure to deliver on these commitments. That task will be made difficult by emboldened Independent senators and obstructionist Tory senators, as well as opposition members of Parliament who have concerns with the substance of pending legislation, wish to see the government embarrassed ahead of the election in October, or both.

After being elected in 2015, Trudeau publicly shared the mandate letters he delivered to each of his members of cabinet, outlining what was expected of them and anchored by the “12 top priorities” of the government. As a means of accountability, the Privy Council Office (PCO) created a mandate-letter tracker and published it online. When last updated on March 22, the website indicated that only four of 432 commitments were “Not met” and were “Not being pursued”—electoral reform; a balanced budget; an employment insurance break for firms that hire young folks permanently; and the removal of GST on capital investments in new, affordable rental housing. The PCO states that there has been “Progress made” on 267 promises and that 161 have been “Completed/Met.”

But there is some serious unfinished business in that “Progress made” section. Filed under it is Canada’s response to the opioid crisis, which has been slow and insufficient. Ditto fixing ensuring public servant pay—as the Phoenix pay system debacle remains unresolved. Ditto once more Indigenous housing and the implementation of recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

As the dissolution of Parliament and the federal election approach, the fate of a few key pieces of legislation hang in the balance—and that’s important. The remaining bills cover efforts to tackle the climate emergency and to address the ongoing colonial relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples. Their fates will reflect the priorities and capacities of the government, what it cares about and what it cares enough about to get something real done. The same is true of the Senate. So, the next few weeks will be decisive—both a test of the Trudeau government and the (semi-) independent Senate. At the time of this writing, there were eight bills under consideration in the House of Commons and 11 in the Senate. And the latter is where things get interesting.

While the government has control of the agenda in the House, and the capacity to control the calendar, with Trudeau’s changes to the Senate after his election 2015, he has had less ability to direct affairs in the Red Chamber—which is now experiencing some growing pains. Today, the Independent Senators Group (ISG), a caucus of non-partisan senators, has an absolute majority in the upper house. The Senate Conservatives (who did not respond to a request for an interview), however, remain partisan and obstructionist, their apparent interest in stalling the government’s agenda increasing as the election draws nearer.

Candice Bergen, the Conservative House leader in the Commons, blames the government. “I think they have realized that they haven’t accomplished a lot and are trying to get some things done. For sure they have really failed on their promises to Indigenous people.” But some government legislation, including the contentious environmental assessment review legislation, Bill C-69, has been in front of the Senate since the summer of 2018—and has been stalled by partisan temporizing. Sen. Yuen Pao Woo, facilitator of the ISG, sees such political games as an old problem, indicative of the reality that, while the Senate is changing, it’s not fully reformed. “It’s the old way, which is that partisan caucuses use the rules to extend and to obstruct and to delay,” he says. “It is the status quo that is holding back the Senate rather than the new approach.”

Of the dozen bills currently before the Senate, a few stand out as particularly important to the government—and the country. Bill C-92, a bill designed to address serious flaws in the Indigenous child welfare system, is one. So is Bill C-91, an Indigenous languages bill to fund and protect Indigenous languages. The budget implementation act, Bill C-97, is also in front of the Senate, but given that it’s a money bill, the chamber is unlikely to tie it up for too long. There’s also Bill C-59, a national security bill. Bill C-71, a firearms regulation bill, was just passed.

The most contentious bills, however, seem to be concerned with the environment. Bill C-48, which would institute an oil tanker moratorium along the northern coast of B.C., has been scrutinized by the Senate for ages, and was recently defeated at committee—though not killed. Its fate will be decided on the floor of the upper chamber. Bill C-68, which is concerned with the sustainability of fish stocks, has been making its way through Parliament for years. Coastal First Nations are demanding the Senate assent to the bill.

And then there’s Bill C-69, the granddaddy-showdown of them all. The environmental assessment bill has been controversial from the get-go. While supporters see it as an essential update to the review process for major resource projects, opponents regard it as a threat to, among other things, the green-lighting of pipelines. Alberta premier Jason Kenney has been stumping against it for months, making the bill a feature of his recent, successful election campaign. Unsurprisingly, the oil and gas lobby has been aggressively opposed to it, too. The Senate (and not just Conservative senators) has offered 187 amendments to the bill, which doesn’t surprise Bergen. “The outcry against C-69 has been massive,” she says. “It is a terrible bill that will do massive damage to our economy.”

For a government keen to tout its achievements, especially on the environment, this situation is far from optimal. In October, voters will be asking “What have you done for me lately?” as well as “What are you going to do for me next?” Currently, the Liberals trail the Conservatives in the aggregate polls by six points. They’re likely to remind Canadians of their success lifting children out of poverty with the Canada Child Benefit--which is increasing. They’ll also be sure to trumpet their renegotiation of NAFTA, though the new deal has yet to be ratified by Parliament or the U.S Congress and may not receive approval from the latter.

The legalisation of marijuana will be another feather in their cap. And Trudeau has himself said that he would happily make the election about the carbon tax. Yet his team will also have to answer to shortcomings on big files, including letting down Indigenous peoples, failing to balance the budget, breaking their promise on electoral reform and—to the dismay of progressives—purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The government is confident it will get its legislation passed, and members are prepared to use the parliamentary tools at their disposal to make that happen, such as longer sitting hours for the House of Commons. “We’ll most likely be entertaining extended hours,” says government House Leader Bardish Chagger. “I believe it’s important for us to be able to not only having meaningful debate but to call legislation to a vote—and also to have time to consider amendments that might come back from the Senate.”

Another tool: asking the House to sit past its scheduled adjournment on June 21. “I would hope that if we continue working in a productive manner, we shouldn’t have to do that,” says Chagger. “But if there are important pieces of legislation that are not completed, of course. We are here to serve Canadians and their best interests.”

With an election coming, Parliamentarians will amplify the high-notes of the legislative process—getting the remaining bills passed will be political, partisan and acrimonious. The fate of each piece of government business in the next few weeks will then offer voters a way to assess their government of the last four years; to decide whether the country is walking on sunshine or down a boulevard of broken Liberal dreams.

READ MORE: ​https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-final-mad-scramble-to-deliver-on-team-trudeaus-big-promises/