By Amy Smart
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Significant changes could be coming to the way fisheries are managed in Canada, giving hope for the rebound of some species and the protection of others, says an ocean conservation group.

Josh Laughren, executive director of Oceana Canada, said proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would prompt the government to rebuild stocks that fall below sustainable levels.

And while the changes still include an “off ramp” for government to make decisions in the interest of short-term economics over longer sustainability, they would require those decisions to be made public, which Mr. Laughren said is a step toward ensuring past mistakes aren’t repeated.

“We’ve kind of sleepwalked through this incredible decline in abundance and it’s been hidden by some of the economics of it,” Mr. Laughren said in an interview.

More than half of the entire value of Canadian fisheries now comes from Atlantic invertebrates like lobster, crab and shrimp, he said, pointing to a 2015 report by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Not only does that make the industry more vulnerable to pathogens and disease, but the profitability of those fisheries have obscured the depletion of other marine species like groundfish. Since 1970, Canada has seen fish biomass decline by 55 per cent, an expert panel convened by the Royal Society of Canada found.

In the United States, fisheries laws have more bite because they clearly define “overfishing,” and when it occurs, action to stop and reverse the impacts is required within months. Forty-five stocks have been recovered since the law was introduced and 28 of the most successful ones were generating 54 per cent more revenue than when they were overfished, he said.

Bill C-68 was introduced a month after the Liberal government was sworn in and had its second reading in the Senate in December.

Mr. Laughren said he’s very hopeful the bill could improve biodiversity in a way that also creates more economic opportunity.

“Abundance provides options, abundance makes allocation a hell of a lot easier and provides more value. I think we’ve kind of forgotten about how important that is,” he said.

Others are more wary.

Paul Lansbergen, who represents commercial fisheries as president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, said that beyond protecting fish stocks the law should also protect “sustainable” fishing rights.

“The most significant policy issue facing the sector is a concern of stability of access to the fishing resource,” he told the Senate standing committee reviewing the bill.

“The use of fisheries is missing in the current wording of the bill.”

Mr. Lansbergen said the council will reserve an opinion on the law until accompanying regulations are revealed. But he told the committee it represents a significant change that will have long-standing implications for the sector and the health of the oceans and fish resources.

Canada’s seafood industry employs 80,000 people and accounts for $7-billion in exports to more than 130 countries.

Mr. Lansbergen said Canada is already a “global leader” in sustainable fisheries management, noting that 80 per cent of wild seafood production is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

He warned against forcing commercial fishermen to give up their licences.

“Taking away long-standing licences and quotas does not respect past investments and has eroded the sector’s confidence to invest and could undermine conservation efforts,” he said.

Martin Mallet, executive director of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, said he’s hoping the bill passes without too many hiccups, adding most fishermen associations in Atlantic Canada support the bill.

Mr. Mallet said the union particularly likes the way the bill would enshrine an existing owner-operator policy into law so it can be better enforced.

It would give stronger protection to East Coast fishermen against unaffordable quota costs that have made fishing more expensive than it’s worth in some other jurisdictions, he said.

“The West Coast fisheries are an example of what could happen if you don’t have this type of regulation. You end up having companies and investors basically buying the rights to the fish,” he said, with fishermen then leasing the quota from them.

It can mean less economic benefit funnelled into local communities, he said.

Bill C-68 also provides new authorities for Indigenous participation in the fisheries along with their co-management.

Terry Teegee, regional chief with the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, said he generally supports the bill but would like even stronger protection for First Nations’ inherent and constitutionally protected rights.

Many of the sections regarding Indigenous participation use language like “may” instead of “shall,” which means it doesn’t compel action, he said.

Mr. Teegee said Indigenous knowledge systems should be recognized on a level playing field with government science. Committing to rebuild fish stocks and habitat restoration could be seen as an act of reconciliation, he said.

“I think the bill itself is better than it was but certainly I think there can be improvements and more commitments to Indigenous people,” he said.

The clock is ticking on the bill head of the federal election this fall but Mr. Teegee said fisheries protection shouldn’t depend on who holds power.
​
“Right now we’re seeing climate change and we’re seeing fish stocks declining. We need to really fix things and make some interventions,” he said.

READ MORE: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-conservation-group-says-proposed-amendments-to-fisheries-act-give-hope/ 

More than 130 amendments to C-69 are on table — most requested by energy groupsBy Mia Rabson 
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Environment advocates say Canadian senators are bowing to pressure from the energy industry to gut new environmental-assessment legislation and they fear the Liberal government is going to do the same.

Bill C-69 is meant to be an effort to improve the way major energy and transportation projects are evaluated for their environmental impact, making the assessments more stringent so they're less likely to be challenged in court.

The Liberals, who introduced it, say lax assessments are why so few big projects, and no new oil pipelines, have been approved in Canada in years — they've been tied up in challenges.

The Conservatives, backed by provincial politicians such as Alberta's Premier Jason Kenney, say the process laid out in Bill C-69 would keep important projects from getting past the assessment stage.

More than 130 amendments are on the table at a Senate committee that could dramatically alter much of the bill, including moves to reduce cabinet discretion to intervene in the assessment process, to make it harder for anyone to challenge a project approval — or denial — in court, and to change how climate-change impacts are considered.

Many of the amendments are word-for-word what was asked for by energy lobby groups, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Kenney warned the Senate committee on May 2 that if the amendments suggested by Alberta's former NDP government, as well as those coming from the energy industry, were not adopted as a whole, it would stoke fires of Alberta separation result in a constitutional challenge on the grounds that the law intrudes on provincial rights.

'Running amok'Ecojustice lawyer Joshua Ginsberg says Bill C-69 as originally written struck a delicate balance on the need for Canada to build major new energy and transportation projects without harming the environment or contributing further to climate change.

"Now it's going to swing way over to the industry side," he said.

"The oil and gas industry is running amok in a Senate process and that is scary because they are only one stakeholder."

Oil-industry advocates launched a full-court press on the Senate, sending more than 50,000 letters and emails to individual senators, as well as publishing senators' phone numbers and flooding them with calls.

Environment advocates also made a strong push to support the bill, but Ginsberg said very few of the proposed amendments are the suggestions made by his side.

A spokeswoman for the Conservatives in the Senate said last week the amendments from the Conservatives were "based on" evidence and proposals from municipalities, provincial governments, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the Mining Association of Canada.

• Ottawa will exempt some oilsands projects from environmental assessments — if Alberta keeps its emissions cap

• Senators propose sweeping rewrite of controversial environmental assessment bill

A CAPP official declined comment on the amendments process and the concerns raised by environment groups Monday, saying the organization was still reviewing the many proposed changes.

Any changes have to be accepted first by the committee, then the Senate as a whole and finally the government before being incorporated into the bill. Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has said she is open to amendments to the bill but won't say what changes she will accept until the bill has finished its journey in the Senate.

Julia Levin, the climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, said she thinks there has been a shift in language from the government.

On Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Edmonton, where he said he is open to making changes to the bill recommended by a "broad range of voices," including business, Indigenous Peoples and community groups.

But he said repeatedly in that news conference that the existing system doesn't allow big projects to get built and he wants to overcome that obstacle while still protecting the interests of the environment and Indigenous communities.

Levin and Ginsberg both say if the Senate tries to rework the whole bill, the government would be better off to let it die and try again after this fall's election.

"With these amendments, it won't be better than what we have now," said Levin.

She thinks the Senate's major surgery is really a poorly disguised attempt to kill the bill by delaying its passage.

If the bill doesn't get passed before the election, it will die. There are just five sitting weeks left this spring for that to happen.

THE CANADIAN PRESS

The CEO of Enbridge Inc. says it’s “critical” to Canada’s energy future that substantive changes are made to proposed federal legislation to revamp how big resource projects win federal approval.

Speaking after his company’s annual shareholders’ meeting in Calgary, Al Monaco says there are three or four major problem areas in Bill C-69 that must be addressed.

His comments come as the Senate considers amendments to the bill that would repeal the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and retire the National Energy Board, leaving the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Energy Regulator as authorities responsible for assessments of the environmental, health, social and economic impacts of designated projects.

READ MORE: Senate committee examining amendments to Bill C-69

Earlier in the day, following a speech at a solar conference in Calgary, Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi said it’s vital that the bill be passed as soon as possible because it replaces a broken system that is preventing projects from being built.

But critics including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have demanded changes designed to prevent public policy debates from being part of project assessments, restrict application interveners to those directly affected by the project or with expertise, set firm timelines and limit government ministers’ discretionary powers.

Monaco says he applauds the aggressive stance of Alberta’s newly elected United Conservative Premier Jason Kenney in support of energy projects.

READ MORE: Jason Kenney calls environment assessment bill a threat to national unity

​“I think it’s great news that people are going to take the extra effort to ensure that people really understand the role that energy plays and what it does for our quality of life,” he said.

Enbridge pipelines handle about 62 per cent of Canada’s exports of crude oil into the U.S. and move about 18 per cent of all natural gas consumed in the U.S.

READ MORE: ​https://globalnews.ca/news/5256427/bill-c-69-changes-canada-energy-enbridge-ceo/

By Adam Toy
GLOBAL NEWS CANADA

Proposed changes to Bill C-69 — a bill that would overhaul how energy projects like pipelines would be evaluated and approved based on environmental impact — will be going under the microscope starting Tuesday, as a Senate committee examines amendments.

Independent, Liberal and Conservative senators are among the groups presenting amendments in the clause-by-clause review of the over 400-page bill.

“It’s going to be a little bit like two little boys in the playground — whose is bigger, whose is better?” Independent Alberta Senator Paula Simons told Rob Breakenridge on 770 CHQR. “I happen to think our package of amendments is extremely strong.”
​
READ MORE: Jason Kenney calls environment assessment bill a threat to national unity

In a release, the Independent senators said their amendments aim to provide clarity and predictability in the project assessment and approval process, reduce litigation, reduce ministerial discretion and lean more on expertise of life-cycle regulators.

“The ISG [Independent Senators Group] amendments will strengthen the independent impact assessment process so that good projects can proceed on a timely basis,” Senator Yuen Pau Woo said in a release.

​LISTEN: Senator Doug Black joins Rob Breakenridge to discuss Independent senators’ proposed amendments to Bill C-69

Senator Doug Black, also an Independent Alberta senator, told Breakenridge industry groups like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association are optimistic for future energy projects if his groups’ amendments are adopted.

READ MORE: Senate hearing on Bill C-69 makes stop in Saskatoon

“They are telling me that if the package of amendments that we have put forward are accepted, that they believe they have a reasonable opportunity of getting back to business,” Black said Tuesday.

“But the moment there’s any suggestion that this bill will hamper our ability to build pipelines and the projects that Alberta needs… I am absolutely about ensuring it does not advance.”

READ MORE: Some northern Alberta chiefs to support Bill C-69 at Senate hearing

The amount of discretion given to a minister of any political stripe in approving energy projects was a major concern for Independent senators.

“That was a concern, not just that extended timelines and could have taken a project forever, but that there could be political interference at so many points,” Simons said Tuesday.

READ MORE: Bill C-69 given a rough welcome at Calgary Senate committee hearing

Simons said she and her fellow Independents leaned on Ontario Senator Howard Wetston’s expertise as a former federal court judge and former CEO of the Ontario Energy Board to draw up an amendment to rein in the possibility of ministerial interference.
​
“We’re going to suggest that, instead of giving that power to the minister, that that power belongs to the regulator, the objective arms length regulator, who’s actually doing the work and that they have to provide reasons any time they stop the clock,” the Alberta senator said.

LISTEN: Senator Paula Simons discusses some of the amendments Independent senators are bringing to committee over Bill C-69

​Simons said Wetston also made a suggestion to protect the independence of the chair of the review panel, as well as some general Bill-related housekeeping.

“For example, an amendment which would grandfather in TMX [Trans Mountain Expansion], to ensure that TMX wouldn’t have to start all over again with this new regulatory regime, that it would still be grandfathered under the old one,” Simons said.

“That’s a very commonsense provision which isn’t in the existing bill.”

READ MORE: Notley urges senators to toss Bill C-48 ‘in the garbage’

Those are among the nearly 200 amendments to be discussed Tuesday evening in Ottawa.

“With luck, we’ll have a package of amendments that the whole committee agrees on and we take it back to the chamber,” Simons said. “If that doesn’t happen a bill can still be amended in the chamber at third reading.
​
“That’s not my preference because it’s a lot of amending.”

​While Black calls the version of the bill that passed the House of Commons “a dog’s breakfast,” Simons credited Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi with bringing to attention the dire state of the bill when considered with Canada’s energy industry.

“I think, as natural resources minister, he understood the flaws in the bill and I think he’s been working quietly and effectively within his own caucus to get them to see that amendments have to be made.”

READ MORE: Lynn Beyak should be suspended for refusal to remove ‘racist’ letters, ethics committee urges Senate

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney spoke to senate committees in late April and early May about Bills C-69 — which Kenney calls the “no more pipelines bill” — and C-48 — the “tanker ban bill” — but didn’t call for C-69 to be scrapped altogether.

“He said, in fact, he supported the amendments brought forward by Rachel Notley, which was very interesting,” Simons said. “Indeed, some of those amendments which were originally presented to us by Alberta’s previous premier have found their way into our our proposed amendments to the bill.

“I don’t know that it will answer all of Premier Kenney’s concerns, but I think it will address a great many of them.”

While a granular comparison of amendments of a bill that has already passed the House of Commons with the hopes to change that bill could easily be compared to fight an uphill battle, Simons hasn’t lost hope.
​
“We’re Albertans, we can go uphill.”

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

​SHANNON LOUGH
Coast Mountain News

As the federal government reviews the Fisheries Act, two North Coast B.C. residents flew to Ottawa to present how they think the act should be improved.

There are eight key areas to Bill C-68 and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is listed as number two.

John Helin, mayor of the Lax Kw’alaams Band near Prince Rupert, painted a grim picture of his Indigenous community as he spoke to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans – how members are struggling to make a living, and his experience with fisheries enforcement officers “racially profiling” members.

“We have a fleet of 70-80 gillnetters that can’t make a living anymore fishing for salmon. We have a fish plant in my community that at its peak, employs up 100 members in the village and we’re having a lot of challenges keeping that operation going,” Helin said.

To keep the fish plant going, they’ve diversified by processing groundfish, but he said with all the other fisheries coming into the area, they’ve lost an opportunity.

“There was a herring fishery in our day in the 70s and 80s, a seine herring fishery, and it wiped out that fish. To this day, that stock doesn’t come back. So herring is a staple, not just for people, but for other fish in the sea that feed off herring. So it’s alarming to us when DFO allows one guy to go out fishing and everyone else agrees to tie up,” Helin said.

Helin said the band wants to sign a comprehensive fisheries agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but had never done so since losing a fisheries case. He said it’s resulted in members being targeted on the water.

“It got so bad where one of the fisheries enforcement guys boarded my son’s boat, he was fishing my boat, and he had his 10-year-old kid on the boat, and this guy pulls his gun on the deck of my son’s boat without provocation. That went to court and it was tossed out. That shows how we’re treated in our own traditionally territory,” he said.

“When you talk about reconciliation, consultation, they’re just empty words for us. So hopefully coming before committees like this, we can make the improvements that we want.”

Earlier in the day, third-generation fisherwoman, fisheries biologist and Prince Rupert resident Chelsey Ellis presented her suggested amendments to Bill C-68, saying more and more licenses and quota are being transferred from fishermen and away from coastal communities.

“For the few young fish harvesters trying to persevere, it’s getting harder to earn a living and find a safe, reliable and professional crew to work with,” Ellis said, adding young people are not joining the industry because they don’t see a future in it.
​
She called for measures to prioritize and incentivize licenses and quota for “those taking the risks and working long hard hours” to harvest Canadian seafood, and the promotion of independence of owner-operator enterprises within all commercial fisheries.

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.

By MIA RABSON
The Canadian Press

OTTAWA—The federal government’s promised overhaul of environmental evaluations for energy projects is poised for a major Senate surgery, but the upper chamber must race to pass the bill before an election guillotine sends it to the shredder.

Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, fulfils a Liberal campaign promise to change how major energy projects get reviewed for their environmental, social and economic effects, with the aim of speeding up reviews and making their criteria clearer.

Introduced in February 2018, the House of Commons already made 136 amendments before sending it to the Senate.

Now it’s before the Senate energy committee, many members of which are vowing further changes.

Those amendments won’t be proposed for several more weeks after the committee agreed Thursday to take its study on a nine-city tour. It has promised to finish its report to the full Senate no later than May 9.

That leaves less than two months for the Senate to finish third reading — where senators can propose substantial changes to a bill — and the government to determine how many of the expected amendments it will accept.

If the bill does not get royal assent this spring, it will fall to the cutting room floor because any bills on the order paper go back to square one after the election, no matter whether the Liberals win again.

Sen. Grant Mitchell, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said it won’t be easy but “absolutely it will get done.”

He said it was made clear to him that while industry and some provincial governments have significant concerns with the bill, they see its failure as a worse option.

Tim McMillan, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, told The Canadian Press he doesn’t like the bill as-is, but killing it would tear up years of work and not provide any more certainty to his industry.

Mitchell says he is open to amendments, as are the prime minister and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna.

“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,” McKenna said in a written statement Friday.

The Senate is receiving intense pressure on this legislation.

This week alone, the premiers of Alberta and Newfoundland and the energy ministers of Saskatchewan and Ontario presented to the committee. Senators have also received nearly 50,000 letters urging them to either kill the bill or agree to major changes on everything from review timelines to who can be heard during a specific review.

Independent and Conservative senators are indicating a desire for some pretty significant changes.

Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, head of the Independent Senators Group, said the legislation affects other types of projects, including electricity transmission lines, hydroelectric dams and even airports.

“There’s a lot of work to be done,” he said.

The legislation lifts limits the former Conservative government placed on who can get standing to be heard during an assessment hearing, but many groups have said putting no limits on standing goes too far. Woo said he wants some changes made on that topic.

He also wants to see changes made to the level of discretion given to cabinet ministers who, as worded, can halt the review process for a time, upending the bill’s assertion of hard timelines for how long the review can take.

Conservative Sen. Dennis Patterson said provincial governments have raised legitimate concerns the bill oversteps established provincial jurisdiction and introduces new factors on which projects will be judged, such as climate change and gender. Patterson said some of those areas are so vaguely defined it just invites lawyers to challenge any decisions.
​
He is also concerned there isn’t enough in the bill to require direct and indirect economic benefits to be taken into account.

READ MORE: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/03/01/new-impact-assessment-bill-for-energy-projects-to-get-major-changes-in-senate.html