Bill C-38; Comprehensive Package or “Sneak Attack”?

What You Should Expect from its Approval

Written by Luis Fernando Arce, Chief Interviewer

Image obtained via Stephen R. Gilman on Flickr Creative Commons

As the days pass by, opposition to the Omnibus Bill C-38 – put forth as a Budget Bill by the Conservative Government – continues to grow exponentially from various groups including the three other political parties, other private groups and non-governmental organizations.

Both its long and short names – the former of which is “An Act to Implement Certain Provisions of the Budget Tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and Other Measures” – suggests that the main focus of the bill is on addressing budgetary issues. Indeed, the press releases and headlines by the government have placed the emphasis on what they say is the bill’s potential to bolster the economy, create jobs and improve the Employment Insurance (EI) program. However, at least a third of the 450-page bill, which has 753 sections and proposes a total of 69 amendments to existing laws, is devoted to modifying environmental laws, something which is not mentioned even remotely in the various press releases.

[pullquote] The three other Official Canadian Political parties have vowed to bring forth a total of over 871 amendments to the bill [/pullquote]So far, private petition-building websites and other domains that seek to foster public opinion have exploded with petitions asking the public to call on Government to stop this bill. One of these websites – http://www.avaaz.org/en/sneak_attack_on_the_environment/?tta – declares that the bill is a “sneak attack…[to] secretly gut our environmental protection laws” and give the Conservative Government full discretion to approve pipelines and other such projects which have seen savage opposition from environmentalists, private citizens and First Nation communities.

From the tactical point of view, the three other Official Canadian Political parties have vowed to bring forth a total of over 1300 amendments to the bill (which have been trimmed down to 871 now), many of which are expected to overlap. However, as both NDP and Green Party leaders have voiced, the idea is two-fold: first, to draw-on debate over this piece of legislature which they feel has been rushed through parliament; and second, to possibly achieve the toppling of this government by amassing votes for each amendment proposed by the opposition, which they say equates to confidence votes lost.

On vote number 194 in Parliament on May 14, 2012, four of the seven issues being voted on were in one way or another accusing the government of what they considered unscrupulous behaviour in regards to the environment.

The different opposition parties agreed on every point of contention, including one of two undecided members (but it still wasn’t enough to defeat the 148 votes from the Majority Party). The most indignant issue seems to have been what was referred to as the erosion of democratic institutions and transparency by “over-concentrating power in the hands of government ministers.” Also attacked was what was seen as the Government’s deceitfulness by trying to shield itself on controversial non-budgetary issues by “bundling them into one enormous piece of legislation masqueraded as a budget bill.” It spoke against the silencing of the checks and balances on the government’s ideology by undermining the roles of “trusted oversight bodies [such] as the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the CSIS Inspector General and the National Energy Board, among others.” Finally, the government was criticized for gutting the federal environmental assessment regime and for “[overhauling] fish habitat protection that will adversely affect fragile ecosystems and Canadian sustainability.”

Added to this conglomeration of opposition are two former Progressive Conservative Fishery Ministers. Also, former Alberta Premier (Reform Party) and former member of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NREE), Bob Mills has come out against the proposed elimination of the NREE. Bob was also a one-time environment critic on Harper’s Opposition Shadow Cabinet, but despite the Conservative Party’s victory in 2005, he was not called to serve on the position again. David Wilks, a rookie Tory MP in British Columbia, has also expressed his disappointment in the “lack of debate” over the bill. Also Tom Siddon, John Fraser, and Alberta Premier Allison Redford – all Conservatives – have spoken against the bill. Various websites and articles are calling on people to visit petition-websites such as www.avaaz.org or www.blackoutspeakout.ca and are also urging them to call their Members of Parliament and ask that the bill be amended if not killed.

Image obtained via franke.james on Flickr Creative Commons

The bill has completed the Committee Report Presented in the House of Commons stage, and is now undergoing a round of voting over the proposed amendments to the bill.

Other than the reforms to the environmental and fisheries laws, the budget bill also proposes major reforms to Canadian natural resource project approval rules, employment insurance benefits, Old Age Security eligibility, food safety and oversight of the country’s spy agency.

*********************

Here is a glance of the sub-divisions of the Legislative Summary which focus on the environment, published on the Parliament of Canada website, which you can visit for the entire Legislative Summary or the entire Bill itself – (http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Mode=1&Language=E&billId=5514128&View=8).

Division One of Part Three “establishes a new federal environmental assessment regime,” essentially meaning that it will fall under the purview of the Federal Government to carry out projects if “they determine that those projects are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects”.

[pullquote]The budget bill also proposes major reforms to Canadian natural resource project approval rules, employment insurance benefits, Old Age Security eligibility, food safety and oversight of the country’s spy agency.[/pullquote]Division Two of Part Three amends the National Energy Board Act to allow the Governor in Council, who acts on the advice of the Federal Cabinet, to make the decisions on the issuance of certificates for major pipelines. Additionally, it provides the National Energy Board with Federal Jurisdiction over navigable land and pipelines “that cross navigable waters.” It also places time limits on regulatory reviews and enhances the power of the Board Chairperson to enforce these limits.

Division Three of Part Three amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to again transfer Federal Jurisdiction to the National Energy Board over navigable waters, land and pipelines. And remember, by this time the National Energy Board will be under the tutelage of the (Conservative) Governor in Council Prosco.

Division Four of Part Three amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act so that it may allow the maximum term of temporary members of the Council of Safety Commission – whom are appointed by an Order in Council signed by the Governor in Council – to increase from the current six months to three years.

Division Five of Part Three amends the Fisheries Act to “more effectively manage those activities that pose greatest threats to these fisheries” – in other words, giving the Federal Government more power to determine how to manage those things that affect fisheries which, among others, include oil drilling and pipelines. It also calls for the “clarity for authorization of serious harm to fish and of deposits of deleterious substances.” It further stipulates that the Governor in Council be the one who appoints a new Minister to oversee the implementation of the Act and that this new minister have the power to “expand and clarify powers of inspectors.”

Division Six of Part Three amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to give the Minister of the Environment authorization to “renew disposal-at-sea permits in prescribed circumstances.”

Finally Division Seven of Part Three amends the Species at Risk act to ensure, among other things, that the “National Energy Board will be able to issue a certificate when required to do so by the Governor in Council under subsection 54(1) of the National Energy Board Act.”

Sources:
– Stephen R. Gilman
– franke.james
– AVAAZ.ORG
– PARLIAMENT OF CANADA WEBSITE
– OPEN PARLIAMENT WEBSITE
– HUFFINGTON POST
– CBC
– THE SPEC