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 

NEW YORK TIMES
By Kendra Pierre-Louis

Fish populations are declining as oceans warm, putting a key source of food and income at risk for millions of people around the world, according to new research published Thursday.

The study found that the amount of seafood that humans could sustainably harvest from a wide range of species shrank by 4.1 percent from 1930 to 2010, a casualty of human-caused climate change.

“That 4 percent decline sounds small, but it’s 1.4 million metric tons of fish from 1930 to 2010,” said Chris Free, the lead author of the study, which appears in the journal Science.

Scientists have warned that global warming will put pressure on the world’s food supplies in coming decades. But the new findings — which separate the effects of warming waters from other factors, like overfishing — suggest that climate change is already having a serious impact on seafood.

Fish make up 17 percent of the global population’s intake of protein, and as much as 70 percent for people living in some coastal and island countries, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

“Fish provide a vital source of protein for over half of the global population, and some 56 million people worldwide are supported in some way by marine fisheries,” Dr. Free said.

As the oceans have warmed, some regions have been particularly hard-hit. In the northeast Atlantic Ocean and the Sea of Japan, fish populations declined by as much as 35 percent over the period of the study.

“The ecosystems in East Asia have seen some of the largest decline in fisheries productivity,” Dr. Free said. “And that region is home to some of the largest growing human populations and populations that are highly dependent on seafood.”

Now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Dr. Free began the research while a Ph.D. student at Rutgers University.

Marine life has been subjected to some of the most drastic effects of climate change. The oceans have absorbed 93 percent of the heat that is trapped by the greenhouse gases that humans pump into the atmosphere.

A study published in January, also in Science, found that ocean temperatures were increasing far faster than previous estimates.

Amid these changing conditions, fish are shifting where they live, in search of their preferred temperatures. High ocean temperatures can kill off both the fish themselves and the sources of food they depend on.

“Fish are like Goldilocks: They don’t like their water too hot or too cold,” said Malin L. Pinsky, an associate professor in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University and a co-author of the new study.

In about a quarter of the regions studied, fish had expanded their range. Off the Atlantic coast of the United States, sustainable catches of black sea bass increased by 6 percent over the study period.

Another quarter of the regions saw no significant changes in fish populations, like the northwest Atlantic Ocean, where Atlantic herring are abundant.

But half the regions did not fare as well. The northeast Atlantic Ocean — home to the Atlantic cod, the mainstay of fish and chips — saw a 34 percent decline in sustainable catches.

Over all, more populations of fish declined than increased over the eight decades in the study.

The researchers focused on sustainable catches, using a measure developed by the United Nations that quantifies the amount of food that can be repeatedly harvested from a base population of fish. “Fisheries are like a bank account, and we’re trying to live off the interest,” Dr. Pinsky said.

Several previous studies have predicted that climate change would lead to fewer ocean fish in the future, but the new research looked at historical data to determine that the declines had already begun.
​
“This is going to be one of those groundbreaking studies that gets cited over and over again,” said Trevor Branch, an associate professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, who was not involved in the study. “Most of what I’ve seen before in terms of climate-change impacts have been speculative, in terms of, ‘We think this is what’s going to happen in the future.’ This one’s different.”

The researchers used a data set of 235 fish populations located in 38 ecological regions around the globe. The detailed data told them not only where the fish were but also how they reacted to environmental effects like changing water temperatures.

The team compared that data to records that showed how ocean temperatures had changed over time, broken down by the various regions. These regional analyses were important, because some parts of the ocean have warmed faster than others.

“We then connected those to which populations responded positively, negatively, and which didn’t respond at all,” Dr. Pinsky said.
​
The data revealed some other trends. Fish populations in the colder parts of their ranges tended to fare better than those located in warmer areas — for those fish, the extra heat was too much. This was especially troubling to the researchers, because the data they used was less detailed in the tropics. Fish losses in those regions may have been higher than in the regions the study focused on, Dr. Pinsky said.

Warm areas fared even worse when they were overfished. The researchers suggested that overfishing made fish even more vulnerable to temperature changes by hurting their ability to reproduce and damaging the ecosystem.

Guarding against overfishing and improving the overall management of fisheries can help, the researchers said. But ultimately, they said, the solution lies in slowing or halting climate change.
​
A separate study, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, found that limiting warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius, above preindustrial levels — a goal of the Paris climate agreement — could result in billions of dollars in extra revenue for fisheries globally. Much of that would be in the developing world, where many people rely on fish for protein.

“We hope that this highlights the importance of accounting for the fact that climate change is driving shifts in productivity,” Dr. Free said of his research. “Fishery managers need to come up with new innovative ways of accounting for those shifts. That includes reducing catch limits in warm negative years, but it can also include increasing catch limits in cooler positive years. Having regulations that are adaptive to climate change is going to be really important for maximizing food potential.”

Article by Michael Finley
Gowling WLG

A new definition in Bill C-68, the new Fisheries Act (the "Act"), has the potential to significantly broaden the Act's concept of "fish habitat".  As mentioned in a previous article, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommended adding the concept of water flow to the definition of "fish habitat" by inserting the following provision prior to the third reading of the Bill:

Deeming — habitat

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the quantity, timing and quality of the water flow that are necessary to sustain the freshwater or estuarine ecosystems of a fish habitat are deemed to be a fish habitat.

Bill C-68 is currently before the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and includes this provision.  This article addresses why the above provision was inserted into Bill C-68 and what the implications of this change might be if it remains in Bill C-68 following Senate committee review.

First, the "why".  The above provision, which, for the purposes of this article, will be called the "deeming provision", has its genesis in a broader concept known as "environmental flow".  The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat has adopted the below definition, endorsed at the 2007 International River Symposium held in Brisbane Australia:

Environmental flow describes the quantity, quality and timing of water flows required to sustain freshwater ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems.1

A number of witnesses at the committee stage of Bill C-68, advocated for the inclusion of environmental flows somewhere in the Act, including West Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, Oceana Canada, and the Tsleil-Waututh.

Notably, though the deeming provision might suggest otherwise, environmental flow does not necessarily require or imply a pristine aquatic ecosystem, devoid of human use.  Rather, the concept of environmental flow presumes a variety of uses.  As the International Union for the Conservation of Nature notes:

Intuitively, it might seem that all of the natural flow, in its natural pattern of high and low flows, would be needed to maintain a near-pristine ecosystem. Many ecologists believe, however, that some small portion of flow could be removed without measurable degradation of the ecosystem. How much could be removed in this way is more difficult to assess, with estimates ranging between about 65% and 95% of natural flow having to remain, with the natural patter of flow also retained. Once flow manipulations move past this, then river ecologists can advise on patterns and volumes of flows that will result in a range of different river conditions. This information can then be used to choose a condition that allows an acceptable balance between a desired ecosystem condition and other social and economic needs for water. The flows allocated to achieve the chosen condition are the environmental flow.2

Concern about maintaining environmental flows reflects the reality that many of Canada's aquatic systems are under increasing pressure from human activity, and that water is not an unlimited resource.  From an environmental-protection perspective, the benefit of an environmental flow approach is that it is inherently holistic.  Considering environmental flows involves thinking about the total health of a water body and attempts to account for the total effect of individual water uses on the system as a whole. 

However, while it is easy to understand that a certain level of water flow (or indeed, a seasonal variability of flow) is environmentally necessary, it is not as easy to "operationalize" the concept.  What, for example, is a dam operator or industrial user of water to do in order to maintain the environmental flow of the waterway they benefit from? Many water users alter flows daily, simply by nature of their operations.

Equally there are issues in determining the appropriate environmental flow.  As it stands, there is no single, federally-mandated methodology to determine what the appropriate or required environmental flow is in a given waterway.  Various methodologies to assess the appropriate flow exist.  The World Wildlife Fund suggests that there are over 200 methodologies to determine environmental flow globally, reflecting in part the variety of water resources being assessed.3 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, through the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, has assessed a number of these methodologies.4 

Bill C-68, as it stands, does not mandate how the appropriate or required environmental flow is to be established for the purpose of the deeming provision.  For dams and fishways, this might be done by regulation, given the Ministerial power at s. 34.3(7) to "make regulations respecting the flow of water that is to be maintained to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat."  However, it is not yet clear what guidance will apply to restrict or limit other types of water use for the purposes of their operations.  Consumptive use, for example, has a different effect on environmental flow than obstruction or temporary diversion of water.5 

Nevertheless, the variability of environmental flows means that regulations will likely be unable to clearly mandate what must be done by individual users.  Instead, it is likely that a case-by case approach will be required. This is because optimal environmental flows vary depending on the water in question.  For example, perennial rivers (those that flow all year) do not have the same characteristics as seasonal rivers that flow only at certain times of year (such as during the spring freshet).6 Given that the environmental flow for a given river system is individual to that system, and given that different uses may affect flow differently, it is unlikely that appropriate environmental flows will be easily established by general regulation.  Instead, it will be necessary to establish the flow for the specific system in question. 

Without guidance, it is not yet clear what types of alteration of flow are permissible and what might require authorization by the Ministry as an alteration of fish habitat for the purposes of the new Act.  Further, it is likely that what one user does on a waterway with respect to flow will impact another potential user's ability to use water.  This means existing uses of a waterway and their impact on environmental flow will have to be assessed when determining whether a future use of that waterway is appropriate or approvable.  Guidance is required from the DFO on these points, either through regulation or policy-making. 

Guidance is also required to understand how users' obligations to maintain environmental flows relate to their obligations under provincial water regimes, such as the Ontario Water Resources Act.  Permits to take water under the Ontario Water Resources Act, for example, often take into consideration appropriate water flow and the health of upstream and downstream environments.  Water uses will require coordination between provincial and federal authorities to ensure that the regulatory burden is not duplicated between regimes.

While including flows in the definition of fish habitat represents a significant change to the Act, considering flow as part of habitat is not new. The previous Act's prohibition of killing fish (former s. 32) and prohibition of harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitat (former s. 35) already indirectly contemplated the concept of maintaining ecological flow. 

Case law bears this out.  For example, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. was successfully prosecuted under both of these sections of the former Act when, acting on what it perceived to be DFO authorization, Rio Tinto initiated an emergency ramp-down of water flow past its dam in the Kemano river.  It did so in order to allow B.C. Hydro to conduct urgent infrastructure repairs.7 The court found that this rapid decrease in river flow had deleterious impact on salmon fry (juvenile salmon) in the river. 
​
Given that Bill C-68, in its current form, returns the s.35 prohibition on harmful alteration damage or destruction of fish habitat to the Act. If Bill C-68 is approved in its current form, then interference with flow that impairs habitat will, once again, constitute an offence.  It remains to be determined whether any guidance will be provided through regulation or DFO policy.  If Bill C-68 in its current form comes into effect, then in the event of a prosecution, water users who may be charged under the new s. 35. Those who are charged and who seek to make out a due diligence defence will be well-served to understand the hydrological conditions of the watercourse within which they operate. Water users in general would benefit from clear DFO guidance on what must be done to maintain environmental flows. 

READ MORE: http://bit.ly/newfisheriesact

By PETER MAZEREEUW      
Bill C-69, a bugaboo for conservative politicians and a target for environmentalists, is in for a long, rough ride in the Senate.

By Holly Lake
iPolitics

Most marine refuges in Canada don’t meet globally accepted protection standards — some of which this country had a hand in creating.

That’s the finding of a new report published Wednesday by SeaBlue Canada, a coalition of six national conservation organizations that includes the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Ecology Action Centre, Oceans North, West Coast Environmental Law, and the World Wildlife Fund Canada.

While Canada has come a long way in a short time, having designated 7.9 per cent of its oceans as protected since 2015, the report shows stronger standards are needed to better protect biodiversity. SeaBlue found that only 40 per cent of the areas closed under the federal Fisheries Act met the highly protected marine refuge criteria. The other 60 per cent need improvements to meet international standards.

Even when measured against Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)’s own guidance, 27 per cent of marine refuges were unlikely to meet the criteria to be counted as protected.

The group reviewed all 54 areas protected through the Fisheries Act and assessed how these areas met DFO’s own criteria, as well as those set by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and guidance adopted last fall at the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD).

Canada is a party to the convention, which set a target in 2010 to protect 10 per cent of the world’s marine areas by 2020. This was to be accomplished by creating marine protected areas (MPAs), as well as what’s known as other effective area-based measures (OECMs). Initially, little guidance existed to determine those other measures, since they’re different from full MPAs, and not protected under MPA legislation.

(In Canada, marine refuges can be established relatively quickly, compared to a marine protected area, which can currently take between five and 10 years to create under the Oceans Act and National Marine Conservation Areas Act.)

In recent years, however, CBD has been trying to come up with guidance for refuges, and, last fall, it was adopted when parties to the Convention gathered in Egypt. Meeting CBD criteria determines if a site can count as “protected” at an international level. Among the criteria? That a refuge should be effective.

“Effective protection of biodiversity sort of precludes industrial activity,” said Susanna Fuller of Oceans North, a co-author of the report.

And yet, of the 7.9 per cent of marine areas Canada has protected, more than half are marine refuges created through measures in the Fisheries Act. That means that while the impact of commercial fishing is restricted in many of them, the legislation can’t prohibit mining or oil and gas activity.

“That’s our biggest problem in Canada,” Fuller said. “It doesn’t make any sense to preclude one industrial activity and allow another that has similar impacts.”

Last November, new oil and gas leases were awarded by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for areas that fall within the Northeast Newfoundland Slope Conservation Area. Designated in December 2017 by the federal government, it’s one of the largest marine refuges in Canadian waters — and the largest single closure on Canada’s East Coast — covering 46,833 sq. kilometres.

The refuge was created under the Fisheries Act, and prohibits all bottom-contact fishing activities within its boundary to protect sensitive sponges and corals — which are considered vital fish habitat.

This past December, criticism was swift after the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board launched the bidding process for two exploration licences to look for oil in the waters around the province’s iconic Sable Island. That process was launched just days after Parks Canada finished a survey of how to manage a national park reserve there.

“Let’s just say Atlantic Canada is being a bit recalcitrant on the federal government’s objectives (for) marine conservation,” Fuller said. “They see it as inhibiting economic development, but we can well protect 10 per cent of the ocean and still have sustainable economic development.”

Given that the fishing industry has worked with government and conservation organizations to set aside areas for protection, Fuller said SeaBlue Canada is recommending protected areas be off-limits to other industrial activities that threaten fish and fish habitat. That’s key to maintaining the trust not only of the fishing industry, but of Canadians as a whole.

“It’s (adding) insult to injury that oil and gas is allowed in where the fishing industry isn’t. It’s not a predictable regulatory regime,” she said. “We wouldn’t protect an area of forest from clear-cutting and then allow mining. So let’s do things in a comprehensive manner in the marine environment.”

Bill C-68, the overhaul of the Fisheries Act that’s currently before the Senate, may help in that regard. It restores habitat protection provisions, which could extend to any activity that destroys habitat.

Fuller said oil companies don’t even want to drill in protected areas, necessarily, but their boundaries don’t show up on oil and gas leasing maps.

“Making those boundaries clear would be a step in the right direction. Then companies could decide if they want to bid on areas with fisheries closures.”

The report found that some types of marine refuges are more likely to meet international standards than others. When it comes to protecting corals and sponges, Canada is doing well. What’s known as sensitive benthic-area closures were more likely to meet protection standards than multi-species and single-species closures. They’re meant to protect the seafloor and make up 84 per cent of marine refuges.

“There has been major, major progress on that, which is great,” Fuller said. “They’re protected from all bottom fishing. How do we make sure they’re protected from other habit-destructive activities?”

In addition to aligning with international standards and passing Bill C-68, the report says each marine refuge must be monitored and managed to ensure biodiversity is being conserved. It also says smaller areas that only protect a single species should be removed from consideration by protection targets, because they don’t contribute to the overall protection of biodiversity.

SeaBlue also wants a review of the Atlantic Offshore Accord Agreements so that oil and gas exploration and development is restricted from areas that are closed to protect fish and fish habitat.

In October, the National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Area Standards issued its final report, which said no oil and gas development, seabed mining, or bottom-trawling fishing should be allowed within the boundaries of MPAs. The panel didn’t recommend extending that same protection to refuges. Fisheries and Oceans Minister Jonathan Wilkinson hasn’t responded to the report, but told iPolitics in December it was coming soon.

“I think there is a will to make some improvement,” Fuller said. “Canada always said, when there was international guidance, they would look at it.”

Jocelyn Lubczuk, Wilkinson’s press secretary, confirmed that. She noted Canada has played a leadership role in developing the CBD’s guidance by sharing DFO’s science-based criteria for what qualifies as a marine refuge, which helped shape what was adopted at the CBD conference in November 2018.

“As a party to the CBD, Canada has committed to further aligning our conservation efforts with those that have been internationally adopted,” she said.

Over the next few months, DFO’s marine refuge standards and criteria will be reviewed, while also considering recommendations made by the MPA advisory panel.

As for whether there needs to be some give from the oil and gas industry to help ensure federal protection efforts succeed, as Fuller suggested, Lubczuk said a key criterion of DFO’s operational guidance is that conservation objectives must be clear, and any permitted activity can’t conflict with those objectives. Each marine refuge will be evaluated regularly to ensure that continues over time.

“Oil and gas activities in marine refuges will continue to be subject to regional or project-specific assessments, as well as regulatory decisions from the offshore board responsible,” she said.

From a legacy perspective, Fuller said the best thing to do is act on SeaBlue’s recommendations.
​
“Other countries have protected a great share of their ocean. Let’s make sure (that) what Canada does, it does it well. We can lead (by) doing it well.”

CTVNews.ca's Josh Dehaas, with files from CTV's Kevin Gallagher in Ottawa and Melanie Nagy in Vancouver 

Protesters delayed a speech by the prime minister in Ottawa and blocked traffic in Toronto and Vancouver on Tuesday, after RCMP moved in on an Indigenous blockade to enforce an injunction that would allow a pipeline to proceed in northern British Columbia.

The rallies came one day after RCMP arrested 14 people at the blockade site southwest of Houston, B.C., where members of the Gidimt'en clan of Wet'suwet'en First Nation are trying to stop construction of Coastal GasLink’s pipeline from going ahead.

RCMP were expected to dismantle another camp nearby on Tuesday. Police have blocked members of the public including the media from accessing that camp, saying that the “temporary exclusion zone” is required for “privacy and safety.”

They said in a written statement on Monday that police “facilitated a meeting between hereditary chiefs and (Coastal GasLink) in the hopes that this could be resolved without police involvement,” but “it was determined that the matter could not be resolved.”

The pipeline would bring natural gas from near Dawson Creek to a port on the coast in Kitimat, where it would then be liquefied before being exported. It’s part of a $40-billion project that was approved by the federal and provincial governments in October. Elected chiefs have given their support, but some hereditary chiefs have not.

Chief: ‘Where’s our Indigenous rights?’

One of those hereditary chiefs, John Ridsdale, told CTV News Channel on Tuesday that he is opposed to the project on his traditional territory because it his “responsibility to look after the land.”
“We need clean water, clean air, clean land,” he said.

“This is how we teach our children for the future to look after this,” he added.

Ridsdale said that the chiefs are “hurt” by actions of Coastal GasLink, and he accused the RCMP of being “puppets (of) industry and a government that won’t stand up for Indigenous rights.”

Ridsdale said that a 72-year-old woman was among those arrested. She was released but the 13 other people arrested were taken to Prince George, he said.

“We didn’t expect such an extreme action,” he added. “We did expect some to show up but the forces that they used, the amazing numbers that they used, the tactics that they used, were actually something we did not expect as peaceful people.”

The chief thanked the hundreds of people who showed up at rallies to ask Canada to demand that the RCMP cease enforcing the court order.

“Where’s our human rights? Where’s our Indigenous rights?” he said. “They always talk about reconciliation,” he went on. “If yesterday was any form of what reconciliation looks like in the governments’ eyes, I don’t want any part of it.”

Bellegarde: ‘Honour the rights and title’

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde also criticized the enforcement action, saying in a written statement that “reconciliation will not be achieved through force.”

“Real consensus will be built when the parties, with very different views, come together in a meaningful and productive dialogue,” his statement goes on.

“If this was really about the 'rule of law' then governments would be honouring the rights and title of First Nations in their traditional territories, which are recognized by Canada's own courts,” Bellegarde added.

One of Tuesday’s largest protests began on Parliament Hill and proceeded through downtown Ottawa. A meeting between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a number of First Nations negotiators unrelated to the protest was delayed after demonstrators pushed their way into the building.

In Toronto, hundreds of protesters rallied in front of city hall before marching through the streets blocking traffic. Some held banners with skulls drawn on them and the words “no pipelines.”

In Vancouver, police were forced to shut down roads as hundreds marched through the city’s downtown chanting, drumming and carrying placards.

There were also rallies in support of the Indigenous blockaders in Edmonton, Montreal, Prince George, B.C., and North Bay, Ont.

One man at the North Bay protest told CTV Northern Ontario demonstrators want “peace and dialogue” and want politicians to demand that the RCMP “not move in and forcibly remove sovereign people from their own land.”

Protests in support of oil and gas

Meanwhile, a different kind of protest was held in Regina, where oil and gas industry workers who are facing the prospect of layoffs want to see more pipelines proceed.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe attended the rally, which he said was about defending the “quality of life” that Canadians enjoy thanks to natural resources development.

“You are here today because you care about our resource sector, you care about our province and you care about our nation,” Moe told the cheering crowd.

The Regina rally was organized by Canada Action, a group that has now held dozens of rallies in support of pipelines. Canada Action argues that the Coastal GasLink pipeline will help to reduce carbon emissions by allowing developing Asian countries to transition power production from coal to cleaner natural gas.

In Calgary, members of Canada Action showed up to counter a protest in support of the blockade. They shouted “build that pipe, build that pipe” and demanded the Trudeau government scrap Bill C-69, which they say would make pipeline approvals more difficult.

Sean Alexander was one of them. “People in Calgary, people in the energy sector ... are tired of sitting back and listening to this small minority get a voice over ours,” he told CTV Calgary.

The ministers in charge of Indigenous affairs both turned down a request from CTV Power Play to offer their views on the RCMP’s enforcement.

Cullen: ‘Time for Trudeau to engage’

NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who represents the northern B.C. riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, told Power Play that he tried to visit protesters on Monday but was blocked by RCMP.

“We have a clash here between the traditional Indigenous government which has existed for thousands of years and the laws and the governance in Canada,” Cullen said. “Mr. Trudeau has promised to recognize those two things. That’s what reconciliation means, I think,” he added.

Cullen said that aboriginal “rights and title” must be recognized in this case and that the federal government needs to “get involved in a meaningful way.”

“The prime minister was skiing in B.C. last week in Whistler. He’s going to be here tomorrow, we believe, in Kamloops,” Cullen added. “It’s time for him to engage.”
​
The 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline would supply natural gas for the LNG Canada project, which is a joint venture between Shell, PETRONAS, PetroChina, Mitsubishi Corporation and KOGAS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calgary Herald
By LICIA CORBELLA

On Wednesday afternoon, federal Bill C-69 passed second reading in the Senate by a vote of 56-29.
The response from the Alberta government on this troubling news?

Crickets. Deafening silence. Inaction on an epic scale.

Officially called the Impact Assessment Act, many people in the energy industry prefer to call it Justin Trudeau’s “No More Pipelines Law”. Deron Bilous, Alberta’s economic development and trade minister, said Bill C-69 will “doom our energy sector.”

Premier Rachel Notley’s NDP government argues it has done plenty to object to Bill C-69.

The facts state otherwise.

In August of 2017, Alberta Environment Minister Shannon Phillips and Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd wrote their federal counterparts a four-page letter initially raising concerns about what was then called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It’s not a bad letter but lacks any sense of urgency or alarm.

On Feb. 8, Bill C-69 was tabled in the House of Commons and by March 19 it passed second reading and headed to the House of Commons’ environment committee. Ten days later, United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney sent a letter to Notley suggesting that the entire legislature unite against Bill C-69. She never responded.

Eventually, Kenney put forward a motion condemning Bill C-69 in the Edmonton legislature. Notley’s government voted against the motion.

From March 22 to May 22, the environment committee held 14 meetings in Ottawa. It was during this time that Chris Bloomer, president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, told the committee: “It is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built under the Impact Assessment Act, much less attract energy investment to Canada.”

The committee had 150 briefs submitted and 117 witnesses appeared. Even though Alberta has the most to lose from this bill, no one from the Alberta government bothered to testify. Not even a brief was submitted before the committee.

This missed opportunity is inexcusable and a gross dereliction of duty considering the significant effect this legislation will have on Alberta if passed.

On May 29, the bill cleared the committee and headed back to the House. Two days later, Alberta sent a letter to three federal ministers, stating: “Alberta also requests that these timelines accommodate government-to-government dialogue and we need to see a plan by June 30, 2018, on how this will occur.”

There’s no evidence of any dialogue occurring. In fact, on June 20, Bill C-69 passed third reading in the House and headed to the Senate. Surely, by now, Notley should have gone nuclear on Bill C-69.

Instead, Notley’s government sent a technical brief to the feds. Then, silence about this disastrous bill from the Alberta government ensued for many months.

On Aug. 15, at the annual Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference in Iqaluit, the governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario protested Bill C-69. McCuaig-Boyd, however, did not publicly raise any objections about Bill C-69 when she had a national audience.

In early September, Alberta business leaders associated with a group called Suits and Boots launched a public campaign to fight Bill C-69.

Finally, on Sept. 25, possibly because of Suits and Boots’ action and resulting media coverage, Notley announced that she would send Phillips and McCuaig-Boyd to Ottawa to lobby the Senate for changes.

On Oct. 9, the Alberta government sent a technical document to the feds about the bill and, on the same day, Notley sent Trudeau the most strongly worded letter to date about the bill.

On Oct. 24, Phillips met with about 100 senators to discuss Bill C-69. Waiting so late into the process is obviously highly risky.

And Notley’s government is claiming it’s done a good job on this file?

“Unlike Jason Kenney,” Mike McKinnon, a spokesman for the energy minister, wrote Thursday, “we are out there every day fighting for things that matter to Albertans like getting the Trans Mountain pipeline built and fixing Bill C-69. We still intend to formally go before the Senate committee to deliver that message.”

There is so much wrong with the above statement. But it gets worse.

“This is too important to get wrong,” continued McKinnon. “We’ve seen what happens when this process fails with the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision and we saw it happen when the Harper-Kenney Conservatives made a complete mess of pipeline approvals with Northern Gateway. As the Premier said on Nov. 28, this is one of the biggest public policy failures of the last generation. It is unforgivable.”

Talk about misplaced blame. Northern Gateway was vetoed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Notley never objected to that devastating act.

In fact, she was in favour of killing Northern Gateway. On April 24, 2015, during an editorial board meeting with the Herald, Notley said she was opposed to Northern Gateway:

“I think Gateway is not the right decision. I think there’s just too much environmental sensitivity there. And I think there’s genuine concerns by the Indigenous communities . . . . And so, I don’t think it’s a particularly good use of our time,” said Notley.

Now, she and her spokespeople are trying to lay the blame on the Harper government that approved it? It’s galling.

As Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers president and CEO Tim McMillan said Thursday: “Bill C-69, as it’s currently written, will devastate not just Alberta’s energy industry but industry across Canada.”

Notley and her government have completely mishandled Bill C-69.
​
In this case, silence is deadly

Canadian Press
Joan Bryden

OTTAWA — Conservative senators are being accused of deliberately stalling Liberal government legislation to keep it in the public eye for political benefit.

That's particularly true of Bill C-69, new rules for environmental assessments of energy projects, which has drawn the wrath of Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provincial governments that fear it will scare off investment in projects like pipelines by setting up too many regulatory hurdles.

"This is a bill that could generate a lot of political attention and it is in the interests of some senators to use the bill as political hay," Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, leader of the Independent Senators' Group, said in an interview.

The argument over getting bills through the Senate broke into the open in the red chamber Thursday, just hours before MPs and senators ended their last sitting in Parliament's iconic Centre Block for at least 10 years. Both chambers were slated to resume work on Jan. 28, housed in temporary new quarters while Centre Block undergoes a massive restoration.

But senators agreed Thursday to delay until Feb. 19 the move into their new home in Ottawa's old railway station, giving workers time to fix a ceiling gap that was causing "disruptive noise levels" so bad that they would affect the Senate's operations, including plans to provide for the first time live broadcasts of Senate proceedings. Senate staff didn't detect the design problem until they started running practice sessions to prepare for senators' arrival.

While the full Senate won't sit until Feb. 19, senators unanimously approved a motion that Senate committees should resume work on Jan. 28, as originally planned. But Woo said Conservative senators seem intent on ensuring that committee work is also put off for three more weeks.

Senate committees can't begin studying bills until their three-member steering committees recommend a schedule for hearings and propose a witness list. But Independent senators complain that Conservative steering committee members are suddenly saying they're too busy to meet, making it impossible to set the agendas for the committees.

Accusations 'total hogwash': Tory leader in senateWoo claims their objective is twofold: to drag out controversy over contentious bills and to enable Conservative senators to claim the bills that eventually pass are flawed because there wasn't enough time to thoroughly examine them.

"To the extent that any given government bill can be used as a partisan talking point, it is in the interests of the Opposition to drag out the conversation for as long as possible — not only to have messaging around the bill but to also give the impression that there wasn't enough time to properly review the bill," he said.

Sen. Larry Smith, the Conservative leader in the upper house, dismissed that accusation.

"We don't give commands that people can't go to meetings. That's total hogwash. That is what I call partisanship," Smith said in an interview.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau indicated at last week's first ministers meeting that he's counting on the Senate to propose some amendments to Bill C-69, which had been stalled at second reading in the upper house thanks to procedural manoeuvres by Tory senators. Senators voted Wednesday to send the bill to their energy and environment committee for detailed examination.

On Thursday, the committee's chair, Independent Sen. Rosa Galvez, complained in the chamber that she's been unable to get the Conservative member of the steering committee to show up for a meeting. In the past, she said steering committees have met by phone or email, but Conservatives are now insisting on meeting in person.

Conservative Sen. Don Plett retorted that all three members of a steering committee must be present for it to meet and accused Galvez of not wanting to follow rules she doesn't like. He also accused her of proposing a one-sided witness list. He acknowledged that Conservatives are opposed to the bill but insisted they want to hear from both sides of the debate.
Galvez in turn said she found Plett's tone "extremely aggressive."

Independent Sen. Paula Simons, a recently appointed Alberta senator, said she's been hearing from hundreds of Albertans who are "begging" for the committee to begin its examination of the bill as soon as possible. She noted that all three members of the steering committee were in the chamber as she spoke.

"Would it not be possible for the sake of the thousands of Albertans who are terribly concerned about C-69 for you to find some way for the steering committee to meet so that we could serve the people of Alberta and Canada and get to this bill?"

Smith said later the problem is that some inexperienced, Independent senators don't understand the rules of the Senate.

"What we want to make sure is that chairs of committees make sure that they assemble their steering committees before taking action or gathering data or information without the input of the steering committee. It's more of an organizational issue."
​
Asked if he anticipates that Senate committees will get back to work on Jan. 28, Smith said: "That's up to each of the chairs to be able to mobilize their people."