The Energy Mix
Subscribe
Donate
  • Topics
    • Buildings & Infrastructure
    • Climate Equity & Justice
      • Energy Poverty
      • Indigenous Rights & Reconciliation
    • Climate Finance
      • Community Climate Finance
      • Finance & Investment
      • Insurance & Liability
      • Subsidies
    • Climate Impacts & Adaptation
      • Biodiversity & Habitat
      • Drought & Wildfires
      • Forests & Deforestation
      • Health & Safety
      • Heat & Temperature
      • Ice Loss & Sea Level Rise
      • Severe Storms & Flooding
    • Emissions
      • Carbon Levels & Measurement
      • CCS & Negative Emissions
      • Methane
    • Energy
      • Renewables
      • Fossil Fuels
      • Hydrogen
      • Nuclear
      • Batteries & Storage
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Power Grids
    • Food & Agriculture
    • Industry
      • Data Centres & Tech
      • Critical Minerals & Mining
      • Petrochemicals & Plastics
    • Policy & Politics
      • Carbon Pricing
      • COP Conferences
      • Elections
      • Energy Politics
      • International Security & War
      • Legal & Regulatory
    • Research & Innovation
      • International Agencies & Studies
      • Research & Development
    • Society & Culture
      • Climate Action
      • Mis/Disinformation & Greenwashing
      • Jobs & Training
      • Leisure & Recreation
      • Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion
    • Transportation & Mobility
      • Electric Vehicles
      • Shipping & Aviation
      • Transit
      • Walking, Biking & Micromobility
  • Regions
    • Africa
    • Arctic & Antarctica
    • Asia
    • Australia
    • Canada
    • International
    • Mexico & the Caribbean
    • Middle East
    • Oceans
    • Small Island States
    • South & Central America
    • Subnational
    • United States
    • UK & Europe
  • Special Coverage
    • The Weekender
    • IEA2026
    • Canada’s Major Projects Office
    • Hidden Wonder Valley
    • COP30
    • Cities & Communities
    • Heat & Power
    • Community Climate Finance
  • More Resources
    • Climate Glossary
    • What If We Changed the Conversation on Climate Change?
    • Eco-Anxiety
  • About
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Topics
    • Buildings & Infrastructure
    • Climate Equity & Justice
      • Energy Poverty
      • Indigenous Rights & Reconciliation
    • Climate Finance
      • Community Climate Finance
      • Finance & Investment
      • Insurance & Liability
      • Subsidies
    • Climate Impacts & Adaptation
      • Biodiversity & Habitat
      • Drought & Wildfires
      • Forests & Deforestation
      • Health & Safety
      • Heat & Temperature
      • Ice Loss & Sea Level Rise
      • Severe Storms & Flooding
    • Emissions
      • Carbon Levels & Measurement
      • CCS & Negative Emissions
      • Methane
    • Energy
      • Renewables
      • Fossil Fuels
      • Hydrogen
      • Nuclear
      • Batteries & Storage
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Power Grids
    • Food & Agriculture
    • Industry
      • Data Centres & Tech
      • Critical Minerals & Mining
      • Petrochemicals & Plastics
    • Policy & Politics
      • Carbon Pricing
      • COP Conferences
      • Elections
      • Energy Politics
      • International Security & War
      • Legal & Regulatory
    • Research & Innovation
      • International Agencies & Studies
      • Research & Development
    • Society & Culture
      • Climate Action
      • Mis/Disinformation & Greenwashing
      • Jobs & Training
      • Leisure & Recreation
      • Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion
    • Transportation & Mobility
      • Electric Vehicles
      • Shipping & Aviation
      • Transit
      • Walking, Biking & Micromobility
  • Regions
    • Africa
    • Arctic & Antarctica
    • Asia
    • Australia
    • Canada
    • International
    • Mexico & the Caribbean
    • Middle East
    • Oceans
    • Small Island States
    • South & Central America
    • Subnational
    • United States
    • UK & Europe
  • Special Coverage
    • The Weekender
    • IEA2026
    • Canada’s Major Projects Office
    • Hidden Wonder Valley
    • COP30
    • Cities & Communities
    • Heat & Power
    • Community Climate Finance
  • More Resources
    • Climate Glossary
    • What If We Changed the Conversation on Climate Change?
    • Eco-Anxiety
  • About
  • Contact
Subscribe
Donate
The Energy Mix
Subscribe

Liberals to Reject Most Senate Amendments to Impact Assessment Act

June 12, 2019
Reading time: 3 minutes

DEZALB/goodfreephotos.com

DEZALB/goodfreephotos.com

The federal government is poised to reject most of the amendments to the proposed new Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, put forward last month by unelected Conservative Senators following a relentless lobbying and public relations effort by the fossil industry.

“In a notice posted overnight, the government outlined its own amendments, which include many that were put forward by the Independent Senators’ Group (ISG) but virtually none of the Conservatives ones,” the Globe and Mail reports. The ISG formed in March 2016 to promote a “functioning independent, non-partisan Senate”, became the biggest bloc in the Red Chamber in 2017, has held a voting majority since 2018, and put forward its share of amendments after the Senate Transport Committee, led by fiercely partisan Chair David Tkachuk (C, SK), spent more than a year dissecting and essentially campaigning against C-69.

In the House of Commons, “Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna is expected to kick off debate on the highly contentious legislation Wednesday afternoon, followed by a vote in the House of Commons where the Liberals hold a majority,” the Globe states. “The amended bill would then be returned for consideration by the Senate, which is dominated by the ISG.”

Get the latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Today

View our latest digests

The fossil lobby and its political allies have claimed C-69 would prevent any new pipeline or major resource project from ever being built. Yesterday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called six Conservative premiers “absolutely responsible” for threatening to tear Canada apart over C-69, after their open letter claiming national unity would be at stake unless the government accepted all 187 amendments to the bill. Less fevered analysis has suggested the legislation would deliver more timely, credible project decisions — and that diluting it would trigger a flood of litigation, just like the Harper-era deregulation that C-69 was meant to at least partially correct.

Now, “the Liberal government has rejected calls by industry and several premiers to adopt a series of Conservative amendments because they would have seriously weakened the bill,” the Globe reports. “Those amendments would limit public participation in hearings; put industry-specific regulatory bodies in charge of reviews; and eliminate a requirement that panels must consider climate change and Indigenous rights when reviewing major resource projects.”

The government “has accepted amendments that would rein in the minister of environment’s discretion to intervene in a hearing process; clarify that the review agency has the power to manage public participation in order to meet strict timelines; and add explicit language that the goal of the project assessments is to ensure economic development along with sustainability.”

Trudeau told the House the government is happy to accept amendments that make the bill better. “What we will not do is accept the premiers’ saying ‘There is a threat to national unity if we don’t get our way,’” he said yesterday. “That is not the way to hold this country together.”

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who made C-69 a flashpoint in his deeply divisive but decisively successful election campaign in April, claimed the premiers had penned their letter in the best interests of co-operative federalism. “We only asked to be heard, and this dismissive response from the federal government is the real threat to the national economy and to national unity,” he tweeted.







in Canada, Energy Politics, Fracking & LNG, Indigenous Rights & Reconciliation, Legal & Regulatory, Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion, Oil & Gas, Oil Sands, Pipelines / Rail Transport, Subnational

Trending Stories

Orin Zebest/flickr
Subsidies

$5.3B Subsidy Won’t Counter ‘Oil-Fuelled Inflation’, Critics Say, as Ottawa Extends Gas Tax Suspension

September 8, 2026
2.3k
Mark Seery/Augtera
Data Centres & Tech

Tech Giants Face AI Bubble as Investment Nears Dot-Com Levels, Famed Investor Warns

October 2, 2026
695
Loozrboy/flickr
Pipelines / Rail Transport

Carney Designates ‘Pacific Link’ Pipeline as Project of National Interest

October 1, 2026
1.1k

Comments 3

  1. Reynold Reimer says:
    7 years ago

    It would be nice to read some details about the proposed amendments.

    Reply
  2. Ruth says:
    7 years ago

    As they say, “the Devil is in the details”! !
    Such a simple statement as: “clarify that the review agency has the power to manage public participation in order to meet strict timelines; and add explicit language that the goal of the project assessments is to ensure economic development along with sustainability.” seems to me a re-iteration of the status quo. The NEB already has the power to MANAGE public input ….. and ENSURING economic development really means a project will certainly go forward. In our growth and money- obsessed system, SUSTAINABILITY can mean anything you want it to. And “along with” is a pretty weak term compared to “ensure”!
    Same old, same old language game played by our rosy-cheeked PM.

    Reply
    • Mitchell Beer says:
      7 years ago

      Ruth, that was my reaction as well, with two thoughts.
      First, that the government seems intent on protecting the core of the bill, even if they’re prepared to give up some of the important details in the horse-trading…which means it’s a win, even if it’s not a clean win.
      And second, if the goal is to ensure economic development, I wonder how long it’ll take for intervenors to establish that real economic development is *impeded* by fossil development…that Simon Fraser’s Burnaby campus, for example, won’t be delivering much economic benefit to the surrounding community, much less graduates for the next 35 to 50 years, if it’s obliterated by a tank farm fire. That’s not to say the NEB as we’ve ever known it would be set up to consider that line of reasoning. But if some future regulator could be persuaded to — or forced into it by a court decision or by horrific events on the ground — the economic development argument could actually become one of the tools in *our* toolbox, which it should always have been.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Get the latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Today

A Modest Proposal for a New Project of National Interest

by Aaron Cosbey
October 4, 2026

…

Follow Us

Liberals to Reject Most Senate Amendments to Impact Assessment Act

June 12, 2019
Reading time: 3 minutes

DEZALB/goodfreephotos.com

DEZALB/goodfreephotos.com

The federal government is poised to reject most of the amendments to the proposed new Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, put forward last month by unelected Conservative Senators following a relentless lobbying and public relations effort by the fossil industry.

“In a notice posted overnight, the government outlined its own amendments, which include many that were put forward by the Independent Senators’ Group (ISG) but virtually none of the Conservatives ones,” the Globe and Mail reports. The ISG formed in March 2016 to promote a “functioning independent, non-partisan Senate”, became the biggest bloc in the Red Chamber in 2017, has held a voting majority since 2018, and put forward its share of amendments after the Senate Transport Committee, led by fiercely partisan Chair David Tkachuk (C, SK), spent more than a year dissecting and essentially campaigning against C-69.

In the House of Commons, “Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna is expected to kick off debate on the highly contentious legislation Wednesday afternoon, followed by a vote in the House of Commons where the Liberals hold a majority,” the Globe states. “The amended bill would then be returned for consideration by the Senate, which is dominated by the ISG.”

Get the latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Today

View our latest digests

The fossil lobby and its political allies have claimed C-69 would prevent any new pipeline or major resource project from ever being built. Yesterday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called six Conservative premiers “absolutely responsible” for threatening to tear Canada apart over C-69, after their open letter claiming national unity would be at stake unless the government accepted all 187 amendments to the bill. Less fevered analysis has suggested the legislation would deliver more timely, credible project decisions — and that diluting it would trigger a flood of litigation, just like the Harper-era deregulation that C-69 was meant to at least partially correct.

Now, “the Liberal government has rejected calls by industry and several premiers to adopt a series of Conservative amendments because they would have seriously weakened the bill,” the Globe reports. “Those amendments would limit public participation in hearings; put industry-specific regulatory bodies in charge of reviews; and eliminate a requirement that panels must consider climate change and Indigenous rights when reviewing major resource projects.”

The government “has accepted amendments that would rein in the minister of environment’s discretion to intervene in a hearing process; clarify that the review agency has the power to manage public participation in order to meet strict timelines; and add explicit language that the goal of the project assessments is to ensure economic development along with sustainability.”

Trudeau told the House the government is happy to accept amendments that make the bill better. “What we will not do is accept the premiers’ saying ‘There is a threat to national unity if we don’t get our way,’” he said yesterday. “That is not the way to hold this country together.”

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who made C-69 a flashpoint in his deeply divisive but decisively successful election campaign in April, claimed the premiers had penned their letter in the best interests of co-operative federalism. “We only asked to be heard, and this dismissive response from the federal government is the real threat to the national economy and to national unity,” he tweeted.







in Canada, Energy Politics, Fracking & LNG, Indigenous Rights & Reconciliation, Legal & Regulatory, Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion, Oil & Gas, Oil Sands, Pipelines / Rail Transport, Subnational

Comments 3

  1. Reynold Reimer says:
    7 years ago

    It would be nice to read some details about the proposed amendments.

    Reply
  2. Ruth says:
    7 years ago

    As they say, “the Devil is in the details”! !
    Such a simple statement as: “clarify that the review agency has the power to manage public participation in order to meet strict timelines; and add explicit language that the goal of the project assessments is to ensure economic development along with sustainability.” seems to me a re-iteration of the status quo. The NEB already has the power to MANAGE public input ….. and ENSURING economic development really means a project will certainly go forward. In our growth and money- obsessed system, SUSTAINABILITY can mean anything you want it to. And “along with” is a pretty weak term compared to “ensure”!
    Same old, same old language game played by our rosy-cheeked PM.

    Reply
    • Mitchell Beer says:
      7 years ago

      Ruth, that was my reaction as well, with two thoughts.
      First, that the government seems intent on protecting the core of the bill, even if they’re prepared to give up some of the important details in the horse-trading…which means it’s a win, even if it’s not a clean win.
      And second, if the goal is to ensure economic development, I wonder how long it’ll take for intervenors to establish that real economic development is *impeded* by fossil development…that Simon Fraser’s Burnaby campus, for example, won’t be delivering much economic benefit to the surrounding community, much less graduates for the next 35 to 50 years, if it’s obliterated by a tank farm fire. That’s not to say the NEB as we’ve ever known it would be set up to consider that line of reasoning. But if some future regulator could be persuaded to — or forced into it by a court decision or by horrific events on the ground — the economic development argument could actually become one of the tools in *our* toolbox, which it should always have been.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Orin Zebest/flickr

$5.3B Subsidy Won’t Counter ‘Oil-Fuelled Inflation’, Critics Say, as Ottawa Extends Gas Tax Suspension

September 8, 2026
2.3k
Mark Seery/Augtera

Tech Giants Face AI Bubble as Investment Nears Dot-Com Levels, Famed Investor Warns

October 2, 2026
695
Loozrboy/flickr

Carney Designates ‘Pacific Link’ Pipeline as Project of National Interest

October 1, 2026
1.1k

A Modest Proposal for a New Project of National Interest

by Aaron Cosbey
October 4, 2026

…

Follow Us

Copyright 2026 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Buildings & Infrastructure
    • Climate Equity & Justice
      • Energy Poverty
      • Indigenous Rights & Reconciliation
    • Climate Finance
      • Community Climate Finance
      • Finance & Investment
      • Insurance & Liability
      • Subsidies
    • Climate Impacts & Adaptation
      • Biodiversity & Habitat
      • Drought & Wildfires
      • Forests & Deforestation
      • Health & Safety
      • Heat & Temperature
      • Ice Loss & Sea Level Rise
      • Severe Storms & Flooding
    • Emissions
      • Carbon Levels & Measurement
      • CCS & Negative Emissions
      • Methane
    • Energy
      • Renewables
      • Fossil Fuels
      • Hydrogen
      • Nuclear
      • Batteries & Storage
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Power Grids
    • Food & Agriculture
    • Industry
      • Data Centres & Tech
      • Critical Minerals & Mining
      • Petrochemicals & Plastics
    • Policy & Politics
      • Carbon Pricing
      • COP Conferences
      • Elections
      • Energy Politics
      • International Security & War
      • Legal & Regulatory
    • Research & Innovation
      • International Agencies & Studies
      • Research & Development
    • Society & Culture
      • Climate Action
      • Mis/Disinformation & Greenwashing
      • Jobs & Training
      • Leisure & Recreation
      • Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion
    • Transportation & Mobility
      • Electric Vehicles
      • Shipping & Aviation
      • Transit
      • Walking, Biking & Micromobility
  • Regions
    • Africa
    • Arctic & Antarctica
    • Asia
    • Australia
    • Canada
    • International
    • Mexico & the Caribbean
    • Middle East
    • Oceans
    • Small Island States
    • South & Central America
    • Subnational
    • United States
    • UK & Europe
  • Special Coverage
    • The Weekender
    • IEA2026
    • Canada’s Major Projects Office
    • Hidden Wonder Valley
    • COP30
    • Cities & Communities
    • Heat & Power
    • Community Climate Finance
  • More Resources
    • Climate Glossary
    • What If We Changed the Conversation on Climate Change?
    • Eco-Anxiety
  • About
  • Contact

Copyright 2025 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Buildings & Infrastructure
    • Climate Equity & Justice
      • Energy Poverty
      • Indigenous Rights & Reconciliation
    • Climate Finance
      • Community Climate Finance
      • Finance & Investment
      • Insurance & Liability
      • Subsidies
    • Climate Impacts & Adaptation
      • Biodiversity & Habitat
      • Drought & Wildfires
      • Forests & Deforestation
      • Health & Safety
      • Heat & Temperature
      • Ice Loss & Sea Level Rise
      • Severe Storms & Flooding
    • Emissions
      • Carbon Levels & Measurement
      • CCS & Negative Emissions
      • Methane
    • Energy
      • Renewables
      • Fossil Fuels
      • Hydrogen
      • Nuclear
      • Batteries & Storage
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Power Grids
    • Food & Agriculture
    • Industry
      • Data Centres & Tech
      • Critical Minerals & Mining
      • Petrochemicals & Plastics
    • Policy & Politics
      • Carbon Pricing
      • COP Conferences
      • Elections
      • Energy Politics
      • International Security & War
      • Legal & Regulatory
    • Research & Innovation
      • International Agencies & Studies
      • Research & Development
    • Society & Culture
      • Climate Action
      • Mis/Disinformation & Greenwashing
      • Jobs & Training
      • Leisure & Recreation
      • Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion
    • Transportation & Mobility
      • Electric Vehicles
      • Shipping & Aviation
      • Transit
      • Walking, Biking & Micromobility
  • Regions
    • Africa
    • Arctic & Antarctica
    • Asia
    • Australia
    • Canada
    • International
    • Mexico & the Caribbean
    • Middle East
    • Oceans
    • Small Island States
    • South & Central America
    • Subnational
    • United States
    • UK & Europe
  • Special Coverage
    • The Weekender
    • IEA2026
    • Canada’s Major Projects Office
    • Hidden Wonder Valley
    • COP30
    • Cities & Communities
    • Heat & Power
    • Community Climate Finance
  • More Resources
    • Climate Glossary
    • What If We Changed the Conversation on Climate Change?
    • Eco-Anxiety
  • About
  • Contact

Copyright 2025 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.