Tag Archives: Senate

Canada’s Endangered Environmental Laws

Posted on by
Peace and Environment News, January–March 2013
by Mike Buckthought

On December 14, the Senate passed another omnibus bill, Bill C-45. The omnibus bills C-38 and C-45 have seriously weakened Canada’s key environmental laws. By bundling so many amendments in two massive bills, the Harper government avoided any meaningful debate in the House of Commons. The omnibus bills made far-reaching changes to environmental legislation, including the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

  • Bill C-38 repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which was passed in 2007 to ensure that Canada would implement a climate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On December 12, 2011, Environment Minister Peter Kent announced that Canada would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.
  • Bill C-45 made substantial changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA). It is now known as the Navigation Protection Act. The bodies of water that are covered by the legislation are listed in Schedule 2 of the bill. The list includes 97 lakes, 55 rivers, six canals and the oceans. The vast majority of Canada’s lakes and rivers are not protected by the weakened legislation.
  • Bill C-38 gutted the Fisheries Act, by removing protection for fish habitat and allowing the Fisheries Minister to authorize water pollution. The Minister is given extensive powers to introduce regulations “authorizing the deposit of deleterious substances.” These regulations may specify the toxic substances to be released, and the bodies of water that may be harmed. If one lake is not large enough to hold the toxic tailings from a mine, it is always possible for the Minister to designate “places falling within a class of waters or places.” The quantities and concentrations of toxic substances may be specified by the regulations.
  • Bill C-38 repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). This was one of Canada’s key environmental laws. Under the CEAA, environmental assessments evaluated the long-term health and environmental impacts of proposed projects. Harmful impacts were identified, and alternatives could be recommended. Three levels of assessments could be conducted: screenings, comprehensive studies or review panels.
  • The CEAA was replaced by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). Federal environmental assessments are no longer required if there is a provincial process in place. At first glance, this appears to be a way to avoid duplication. In reality, it will clear the way for the approval of harmful industrial projects. The less stringent provincial reviews will not consider the complete range of environmental impacts.
  • There will be a dramatic drop in the number of environmental assessments. Under the old legislation, assessments were triggered if certain pre-conditions were met. Under the new legislation, most projects will no longer require a federal assessment. Assessments will be required if a project is included in a designated project list. The list was hastily established using “recycled” regulations, without any opportunities for public comment.
  • CEAA 2012 provides short time limits for the completion of an environmental assessment. An assessment must be completed within 365 days, or 24 months if it is referred to a review panel. The imposition of mandatory time limits threatens the environmental assessment process. With a compressed timeline, there will be fewer opportunities for the public to be involved. There will also be limited opportunities for researchers to collect the scientific data needed to adequately assess a project.
  • Public participation in some environmental reviews may be limited, because of new requirements that participants must be “directly affected” by a project. This could limit opposition to energy projects, especially in remote areas that are sparsely populated. With this restriction in place, someone who happens to live in Ottawa or Vancouver might not be allowed to comment on a proposed pipeline in northern British Columbia.
  • Bill C-45 created the Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act. No environmental assessment will be required for the new international bridge linking Windsor and Detroit. The project is also exempt from any obligations under the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Navigation Protection Act.

To learn more about recent changes to Canada’s environmental laws, visit West Coast Environmental Law (wcel.org), Save Canada’s Environmental Laws (www.envirolawsmatter.ca) or Ecojustice (www.ecojustice.ca).

Mike Buckthought writes about environmental issues.

Published in the Peace and Environment News, Volume 28, Number 1, January–March 2013, page 8.

And They Call It Democracy?

Posted on by
Peace and Environment News, January–February 2011
by Mike Buckthought

On November 16, Conservative Senators defeated Bill C-311 (the Climate Change Accountability Act) with a vote of 43 to 32.

The climate bill was passed in the House of Commons by a majority of elected Members of Parliament. When it reached the Senate, Conservative Senators called for a surprise vote at a time when many Liberal Senators were away. According to media reports, the Harper government ordered Conservative Senators to vote against the bill at the first possible opportunity.

Bill C-311 was a Private Member’s bill introduced by NDP MP Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North) on February 10, 2009. On April 1, 2009, the bill passed second reading with 141 votes in favour and 128 against.

The Climate Change Accountability Act incorporated recommendations of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It would have ensured that Canada commits to reducing emissions by at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, with reductions of 80% by the year 2050. These reductions are needed to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change.

Support for the climate bill was strong, with tens of thousands of Canadians signing letters and petitions addressed to Members of Parliament and Senators. An open letter supporting the bill was endorsed by over 40 organizations across the country, including Sierra Club Canada, Ecology Action Centre, Council of Canadians, David Suzuki Foundation, Équiterre and NUPGE.

What message did the government convey to the people of the world when it obstructed passage of climate legislation? Canadian negotiators headed to the international climate talks in Cancun without a credible plan to tackle global warming.

While in Mexico, Canada’s team targeted the emissions of other countries. They insisted that countries such as China and India should commit to binding targets for reductions. Meanwhile, the defeat of Bill C-311 ensured that Canada would not commit to deep reductions in emissions. Canada’s per capita emissions are much higher than the emissions recorded in other countries.

The Harper government engineered the defeat of Bill C-311, ignoring the fact that a majority of Members of Parliament passed the bill in the House of Commons. It was a curious move, considering that Harper campaigned on the idea of a reformed, elected Senate. Instead, we now have a Senate stacked with Harper loyalists. The Prime Minister has appointed 38 new Senators in all, shifting the balance in favour of the Conservatives.

With the defeat of the climate bill and a new Conservative majority in the Senate, we are left wondering: will the Senate now block any legislation introduced by opposition parties, implementing the dictates of the new king?

Viewed from overseas, Canada is jettisoning its principles in pursuit of the all-mighty petro-dollar. In an article published in the Guardian, George Monbiot expresses his dismay. He is witnessing, he says, “the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state.”

The defeat of Bill C-311 represents a serious setback for efforts to tackle climate change. There are economic consequences, too. Without strong commitments to reduce emissions, it becomes more difficult to justify investments in renewable energy. We need climate legislation with binding targets for emissions reductions, and a national strategy to invest in renewable energy and create thousands of green jobs in Canada.

Mike Buckthought worked as national climate change campaigner for Sierra Club Canada, 2008–2009. The opinions expressed here are his own.

Published in the Peace and Environment News, Volume 26, Number 1, January–February 2011, page 6.