Category: Environmental Page 19 of 53

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Bills C-68 and C-69 and the Consideration of Sex, Gender and Other Identity Factors

Legislation Commented On: An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence (Bill C-68) and An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-69)

Over the past couple of months, several of my colleagues have posted comments on Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 (see here). My focus in this post is on one section that is common to Bills C-68 and C-69, which provides that when making a decision under the relevant Act, the decision-maker may or indeed must consider, among other things, “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors” (see proposed section 2.5(i) of the Fisheries Act (“may”), section 22(1)(s) of the proposed Impact Assessment Act (“must”), and sections 183(2)(c), 262(2)(c) and 298(3)(c) of the proposed Canadian Energy Regulator Act (“must”)). The preamble of Bill C-69 also states that “the Government of Canada is committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and projects and to taking actions that contribute to an inclusive and democratic society and allow all Canadians to participate fully in all spheres of their lives.”

Disappointment at the Bank: The Fish Habitat Banking Provisions of Bill C-68

By Dave Poulton

On April 17, 2018

In Environmental, Fisheries Regulation, Protection of Species

By: Dave Poulton

PDF Version: Disappointment at the Bank: The Fish Habitat Banking Provisions of Bill C-68

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-68: An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence

Over the past weeks several ABlawg contributors have posted their summaries and commentary on the suite of environmental assessment and protection legislation introduced by the federal government in the form of Bills C-68 and C-69. The series started with Martin Olszynski’s overview of the two pieces of legislation, to which readers are referred for background to my contribution.

The purpose of this post is to examine fish habitat banking, a fisheries management tool that for the first time stands to be legislated through the amendments to the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c F-14 found in Bill C-68. Habitat banking is a mechanism to enable the provision of habitat “offsetting”. To understand habitat banking, therefore, it is necessary to start with the concept of offsetting.

Asking the Right Questions about Amendments to the Fisheries Act

By Martin Olszynski

On April 16, 2018

In Environmental, Fisheries Regulation, Protection of Species

By: Martin Olszynski, Brett Favaro and Nicolas Lapointe

PDF Version: Asking the Right Questions about Amendments to the Fisheries Act

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act

On February 5, 2018, the federal government tabled Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act. This Bill is the product of roughly two years of study and public consultation by both the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) – study and consultation that was promised by the then-opposition Liberals during the last federal election campaign. That promise was itself a response to the previous Conservative government’s changes to the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c F-14, as part of its overhaul of the federal environmental regime back in 2012. With respect to the Fisheries Act specifically, the previous government took direct aim at the habitat protection provisions of that legislation (section 35). While some of the changes were positive, such as broadening protection to include not just “works and undertakings” but also “activities”, most of them were widely panned (see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and here). Whereas the original prohibition protected all fish and fish habitat, post-2012 only those fish (and their habitat) that were part of, or supported, a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery are protected. The level of protection has also been reduced: whereas the previous version of section 35 protected against “harmful alterations, disruption, or destruction” of fish habitat, the 2012 version only protects against the “permanent alteration or destruction” of fish habitat.

Bill C-69 and the Proposed Impact Assessment Act: Rebuilding Trust or Continuing the “Trust Us” Approach to Triggering Federal Impact Assessment?

By Sharon Mascher

On March 29, 2018

In Environmental

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: Bill C-69 and the Proposed Impact Assessment Act: Rebuilding Trust or Continuing the “Trust Us” Approach to Triggering Federal Impact Assessment?

Legislation Commented On: An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-69)

Consultation Paper Commented On: Consultation Paper on Approach to Revising the Project List: A proposed Impact Assessment System

On February 8, 2018 the Government of Canada tabled Bill C-69. My colleague Martin Olszynski provided an initial overview of Part 1 of the Bill, the proposed Impact Assessment Act (IAA), in an earlier post. Several of my colleagues have now posted on various aspects of the proposed IAA, including Nigel Bankes, Shaun Fluker, David Wright, Kristen van de Biezenbos, Alastair Lucas, David Laidlaw, and Arlene Kwasniak. This post focuses on the question of what projects will trigger the federal impact assessment process under the proposed IAA. As I have noted previously, how this question is answered is essential to assessing whether the proposed IAA fulfills the Liberals’ promise to develop a new impact assessment process that restores the trust of Canadians and protects our environment. It goes without saying that in order for the impact assessment process to become relevant, it must first be initiated. Without effective and transparent triggers, therefore, the rest of the process becomes immaterial.

Multi-Jurisdictional Assessment and Bill C-69 – The Further Fading Federal Presence in Environmental Assessment

By Arlene Kwasniak

On March 26, 2018

In Environmental

By: Arlene Kwasniak

PDF Version: Multi-Jurisdictional Assessment and Bill C-69 – The Further Fading Federal Presence in Environmental Assessment

Bill Commented On: Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and make consequential amendments to other Acts

This is a continuation of the series of ABlawg posts on Bill C-69. The Impact Assessment Act (IAA) part of Bill C-69 is intended to replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA 2012). This post concerns how the proposed IAA addresses the situation where more than one jurisdiction has decision-making authority over a project and each jurisdiction requires an impact assessment (IA). A key question for federal legislators is should there be two (or more) assessments or one assessment? And if one, what is the nature of that process, and what roles must the respective jurisdictions play in the assessment?