THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 2, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 7:32 p.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 32, 40, 41 and 42 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. We want to protect the staff in the interpretation booth. Please make sure your earpiece is away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Finally, please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I am Joan Kingston, the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I would like to have the senators introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec, Deputy Chair of the committee.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: I think I forgot to mention that I’m from New Brunswick.
Thank you, colleagues. I would like to welcome everyone with us today as well as those listening online on sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on November 26, we are beginning our study on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 32, 40, 41 and 42 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
I would like to welcome our panel here this evening: From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance; from the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, we have Nick Covelli, Deputy Chief Administrator; and from the Department of Justice Canada, we have Jenna MacDonald, General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section. Welcome to you all.
Thank you for being here tonight. If you would like to start with opening remarks, you have five minutes each, and we’ll follow up with questions from senators.
[Translation]
Stephanie Lane, Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good evening. My name is Stephanie Lane. I am the Executive Director, Legislative Governance, at Environment and Climate Change Canada. I am here today to participate in your pre-study of division 32 of part 5 of Bill C-15. I am accompanied by Nick Covelli and Jenna MacDonald.
I will speak to the proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA. The proposed amendments are administrative in nature. They are intended to regularize long-standing practices, improve cost-effective service delivery, and support the independence of review officers.
[English]
First, the amendments would formally constitute — in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA — the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada which is comprised of expert adjudicators called review officers. The function of the review officers already exists under CEPA, and the review officers carry out review hearings of certain enforcement measures issued under environmental and wildlife conservation acts. Although not currently named as a tribunal under CEPA, the review officers already operate as the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada, or EPTC. The amendments do not create a new tribunal. They make technical changes to the act that would result in the existing powers, duties and functions of the review officers under CEPA vesting with the tribunal. The amendments do not modify their existing powers, duties and functions.
Second, the amendments would add the EPTC to the schedule of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, or ATSSC Act. This would provide the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, or ATSSC, with the statutory authority to continue providing administrative support services to the tribunal.
The amendments also include transitional provisions to ensure the seamless transfer of powers and responsibilities from the review officers as currently under CEPA to the EPTC under the amended CEPA, as well as consequential amendments to environmental and wildlife conservation acts, so it’s the switch from the review officers to the tribunal.
[Translation]
I will now turn it over to my colleague from the Administrative Tribunals Support Service to provide more details on the support services that they provide to the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada.
After my colleague provides his opening remarks, I would be happy to answer questions you have related to your pre-study of that part of Bill C-15.
Nick Covelli, Deputy Chief Administrator, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada: Good evening, everyone.
[English]
Good evening, honourable chair and committee members. I am Nick Covelli, and I am the Deputy Chief Administrator for the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, or ATSSC. I am pleased to appear before you to take part in your pre-study of Division 32 of Part 5 of Bill C-15.
I would like to begin by briefly describing the role and mandate of the ATSSC. The ATSSC was created on November 1, 2014, with the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act. The ATSSC is responsible for providing support services and facilities to 12 federal administrative tribunals as well as the National Joint Council. We do so through a single, integrated service point.
By consolidating the resources of several administrative tribunals into one entity, the ATSSC was intended to optimize capacity and ensure access to specialized services for these various tribunals. The ATSSC provides specialized services to them related to registries, research and analysis, legal matters and other services. The ATSSC also provides internal services, such as human resources, financial services, information technology, facilities, security, planning and communications.
The ATSSC’s mission is to equip the federal tribunals and other bodies it supports with the resources and expertise that they need to deliver fair, impartial and efficient justice to the Canadian public.
The ATSSC has supported the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada, or EPTC, since 2019 through a memorandum of understanding with Environment and Climate Change Canada. The EPTC is made up of part-time adjudicators who act as review officers. Given the very specific skill set needed, and given their available time for EPTC matters is limited, review officers require support by the ATSSC staff who have expertise and organizational capacity otherwise not available to the review officers.
Registry services, legal services and other services for the EPTC are provided through the ATSSC’s Economic and Social Justice Secretariat. This secretariat, which also supports seven other tribunals, has three registry teams as well as two legal teams, allowing it to meet the needs of the tribunals efficiently and effectively.
The proposed amendments to the ATSSC Act will formalize the support that the ATSSC currently provides to the EPTC and make that support permanent. Formalizing the ATSSC’s authority in legislation will ensure that the tribunal continues to benefit from the full range of administrative services that the ATSSC offers, including modern case management systems, translation services and enhanced digital capabilities.
By confirming the EPTC’s status and stabilizing the existing relationship between the tribunal and the ATSSC, the proposed amendments will preserve the continuity of services and align the EPTC’s status with that of the other tribunals that the ATSSC supports.
For the ATSSC, the changes will not alter our operational relationship with the EPTC. The ATSSC will assume financial responsibility for the tribunal, which will be implemented through a transfer of funding from Environment and Climate Change Canada to the ATSSC.
In conclusion, I would like to state that the ATSSC is ready to implement the changes proposed in Division 32 to amend the ATSSC Act to enable the ATSSC to provide support services and facilities to the EPTC permanently.
We look forward to formalizing our relationship and continuing to support this tribunal. Thank you for having me this evening. I would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you very much to the both of you.
Jenna MacDonald, you’re here for additional support, so that’s great.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: This question is for Ms. Lane.
Some criticize the current review system, claiming that it isn’t independent enough from polluters. How will the creation of this infamous Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada improve decision-making independence compared to the current review system, given that review officers currently operate within the same administrative structure as their regulatory authority? This gives a good impression. What will actually change with this tribunal?
Ms. Lane: Thank you for the question.
[English]
The types of decisions that the Chief Review Officer and also the tribunal are responsible for reviewing include compliance orders and administrative monetary penalties, which are two types of enforcement measures that are issued by enforcement officers of Environment and Climate Change Canada. The function currently, as described by my colleague, is that the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature appoints the part-time review officers. There is a public process by which there is a call for potential review officers. They are quite independent because all of the support services are currently provided, and will continue to be provided, by the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada.
There may be a perception, as you say, that having the EPTC more formally listed as one of the tribunals supported by the ATSSC in legislation will enhance the perception of impartiality, but I would say that the department already makes great efforts to ensure that review officers are impartial and there is no influence. They are not employees of Environment and Climate Change Canada; they are quite independent.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Typically, changes are made because there’s a problem. Here, you’re saying that it’s just a perception, that there is a lack of independence, but that’s not true. What is the problem you are trying to fix? What will change?
Ms. Lane: That’s a good question. It’s a bit complicated. As you say, it is often because there is a problem that the legislation is changed. It’s really the structure of the act that Mr. Covelli is responsible for.
[English]
The ATSSC Act includes a schedule that lists all of the tribunals that are supported by the ATSSC. Because CEPA does not define the environmental tribunal as such — it refers to the Chief Review Officer and review officers — the structure of CEPA doesn’t allow for the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada, as it currently operates, to be formalized under the ATSSC Act. It really is one of those technical amendments that is done in order to facilitate a current relationship, and it will also codify what has been currently undertaken through a memorandum of understanding, or MOU.
As Mr. Covelli mentioned, there is an existing MOU between Environment and Climate Change Canada and the ATSSC to provide those support services. Going forward, there wouldn’t need to be that MOU. The funds that we currently provide to the ATSSC would be transferred through an appropriation act. Should Bill C-15 pass, there will be a future appropriation act — the Main Estimates or the supplementary estimates — that would permanently transfer funding from Environment and Climate Change Canada to the ATSSC.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It would be the same funds?
Ms. Lane: Yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Good evening, witnesses. My questions — and I have three or four of them — are directed to Ms. MacDonald. I’ll start with the first one.
If you go division by division for these four divisions that we’re considering here tonight, which of the proposed amendments in Part 5 raise the greatest constitutional considerations or issues?
Jenna MacDonald, General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Department of Justice Canada: I am only familiar with the ones in Division 32. I haven’t been leading on the other ones. We have been responsible for the ATSSC amendments, which don’t have any constitutional law issues, but I can’t speak to the other divisions.
Senator Arnot: So you can’t help me on any questions about Division 40?
Ms. MacDonald: That’s not me, no.
Senator Arnot: I’ll give you a general question here.
Bill C-15 includes measures that appear to streamline certain federal regulatory processes. From an administrative law point of view, how does the Department of Justice Canada assess whether these changes still preserve procedural fairness, reasonableness and adequate record building to withstand judicial review?
Ms. MacDonald: I’m not sure I can speak to all the regulatory elements, but in the normal course, Justice Canada would be consulted on the proposals and provide legal advice on how to ensure fairness — or whatever fairness is required — with respect to each of the individual proposals.
Senator Arnot: Division 40, which you’re not familiar with, appears to clarify or expand the role of climate-related and clean growth-related information in federal decision making. I’m going to ask this question: From a statutory interpretation perspective, does this division create any new legal duties, or does it mainly codify existing practice? What exposure might the Crown have if climate information is not fully incorporated or reported as envisaged?
Ms. MacDonald: I defer to my colleague Ms. Lane on that one.
Ms. Lane: I understood we were here today just to speak to Division 32, but I understand Division 40 amends the Building Canada Act — is that incorrect?
The Chair: Yes. At the steering committee meeting, it was decided to deal with Division 40 in another way, but if you have something that you would like to ask specifically, then we can arrange that on another —
Senator Arnot: I have about seven questions.
The Chair: Okay. We’ll deal with that in some way because you need answers. But for tonight, they came prepared for the amendments in Division 32.
Ms. Lane: My colleagues from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada or actually the Privy Council Office would be best placed to speak to the Building Canada Act changes in Division 40.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks, witnesses, for coming. What I would like to do is to know exactly what happens. Who makes a complaint? Who identifies a possible compliance issue that may not be in compliance? Who does that go to, and how will that change under the proposed legislation?
Ms. Lane: As mentioned in my opening remarks, there are certain enforcement measures that are subject to review by the Chief Review Officer as currently under CEPA, and those include compliance orders and administrative monetary penalties under various pieces of legislation. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 is one of them, and the International River Improvements Act is another. If an enforcement officer issues a compliance order or an administrative monetary penalty, or AMP — a fine — the person who receives that AMP or receives that compliance order can file for a review with the Chief Review Officer.
We do not have officials from the Chief Review Office here today. I do believe they will be coming to this committee at a different time perhaps to speak to another division, so there might be questions there. But I don’t know if my colleague Nick Covelli can speak to what happens once the Chief Review Officer receives that because they are independent from Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Mr. Covelli: Would you like me to elaborate on that?
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes.
Mr. Covelli: When a file comes into the EPTC, one of our registry officers, who are employees of the ATSSC, will open the file —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It is hard to follow with the acronyms. It is very difficult.
Mr. Covelli: There are too many.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Do you think you could give us the real names, especially since there is a language barrier here?
Mr. Covelli: When it comes into the tribunal, one of our registry officers will open the file. The member assigned to the file — let’s say it’s the Chief Review Officer — will have a hearing after the parties can make some submissions. The hearings usually take place virtually to facilitate access to justice for the participants to avoid travel and the costs associated with that, for example. After the hearing, the tribunal makes a decision, and that’s communicated by ATSSC employees on behalf of the tribunal, with reasons provided by the tribunal. And then the party that’s not successful before the tribunal has recourse to either the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal depending on the nature of the decision, which is my understanding.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks. There are 10 or 12 of the acts where actions could not be in compliance. Are the same officers looking at all of the acts, or are there different officers for different acts? Tell me how that works. Do they notice something might not be in compliance, or do they receive a complaint from someone who says, “Look, there is something going on here that’s not right”? How does it get to the compliance officer or the tribunal person, or whatever it’s called? That’s what I would like to know.
Ms. Lane: Okay. I may answer your question in a slightly different way that may not be getting to what you asked — if I’ve not quite grasped your question, please don’t hesitate to ask again.
I guess there are two different steps. The first step is the officers — you referred to the officers — and there are enforcement officers who are designated under Environment and Climate Change Canada’s statutes. Those enforcement officers are employees of Environment and Climate Change Canada. They work under a branch at our department called the Enforcement Branch.
I can’t speak to exactly how they decide to undertake their enforcement activities, but they do have a publicly available Enforcement and Compliance Policy. I understand there are certain activities they take proactively in certain industries or certain sectors, but they also respond to complaints from the public about possible infractions or suspected compliance challenges.
That’s the first step, and when you talked about officers, that is the step where Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers may be issuing a fine under an administrative monetary penalty or issuing a compliance order, which is an order that requires an individual to take certain actions where there is a suspected violation.
In that case, those compliance orders or administrative monetary penalties are issued to an individual — let’s say it’s you, for instance. Those would be issued to an individual. If that individual would like to challenge that decision or that administrative monetary penalty or that compliance order, their first recourse is to go to the Chief Review Officer, which in practice — and they use the name the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada even though it’s not defined as such under CEPA, or the act, right now. Their first step would be to challenge that decision with the Chief Review Officer, and then that’s when the ATSSC takes over — sorry.
Senator D. M. Wells: Can the compliance officer issue a mitigation order, or does it always result in some sort of fine or penalty?
Ms. Lane: Yes, the compliance order is not a fine per se. I’m just going to look up some of the —
Senator D. M. Wells: A compliance order could be a mitigation?
Ms. Lane: Yes. It requires the person who receives it to take certain actions. Enforcement officers at the department have the power to issue compliance orders to prevent a violation, to stop an ongoing violation or to require that remedial measures be taken. In essence, it’s an order to take a certain action. That’s what a compliance order is.
Senator D. M. Wells: For non-compliance, then it would go to a penalty phase. Is that fair?
Ms. Lane: I can’t speak to how enforcement officers use their discretion to decide what is the appropriate measure in a particular case.
Senator D. M. Wells: Under the review officers, I guess that’s the tribunal. Is that right?
Ms. Lane: That’s correct.
Senator D. M. Wells: Regarding their directive or their own orders, are they prescriptive, or do they have to make a judgment on this?
Ms. Lane: In the case of compliance orders, review officers under the acts have the authority to confirm or cancel that order, so that’s the order to take a specific action. They can amend, suspend or alter a term or condition of the order. They can add or delete a term or condition of the order. Those are the authorities of the review officers. Basically, they can amend the order or cancel it.
In the case of administrative monetary penalties, review officers or the tribunal have the authority to review the penalty or the facts of the alleged violation or both.
Senator D. M. Wells: Finally, to bring it all together, this amendment brings the two pathways together under one authority and set of rules. Is that right? Or tell me what I need to know about the amendment.
Ms. Lane: Sure. Currently, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the other environmental and wildlife conservation acts mentioned do not use the term “Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada.” They use the language “review officers” and “Chief Review Officer.”
What is changing with Bill C-15 is that everywhere you see “Chief Review Officer,” you’ll see “tribunal,” and everywhere you see “review officers,” you’ll see reference to the “tribunal.” The reason for that is because under the act for which Mr. Covelli is responsible, the way in which the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada has the authority to provide services to different tribunals is that they are listed in the schedule.
We can’t list Chief Review Officers under CEPA or list the Chief Review Officer under others — we have to refer to a specific tribunal. Because there is no tribunal named in law, we need to amend the act to do this. All of the powers that the Chief Review Officer and the review officers currently have won’t change. It really is this very administrative change to refer to the name of the body and constitute it in law.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you to the guests. I would like to circle back to the appointment process for members of the tribunal compared to that of the review officers. It seems to me that they are the same. I had a document that lacked information, including the length of the mandate, but I found that information in the clauses here. We removed the notice of appointment of the tribunal from the Canada Gazette. Can you explain the difference? Are there any other differences that I haven’t seen, and if so, can you point them out?
Ms. Lane: Yes. As far as I understand, pay has not changed. There is a small change. I’ll answer in English, I’m sorry.
[English]
There is a change to make reference to the Public Service Superannuation Act — again, these are very technical amendments, and I apologize — for members who may become full-time members of the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada, but there are currently only part-time members. That’s one thing that might change, but the remuneration will not change and does not change.
You made reference to a change from publication in the Canada Gazette to publication on the website. I think that is consistent and that is designed to be consistent with the more streamlined practices related to publication.
Mr. Covelli, I don’t know if you can speak to that. Does the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada typically publish its decisions or do other tribunals publish their decisions on the websites?
Mr. Covelli: Decisions are normally published on the website of each tribunal, so they’re made available to the public, especially if they are precedents. They are available to the public so that they can have access to the jurisprudence of the tribunal.
Sometimes, in more exceptional cases, for some of the tribunals that we support, there are decisions, I believe, that have to go into the Canada Gazette.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I was referring to the names of the review officers as opposed to the names of the members of the tribunal.
[English]
Ms. Lane: Right. The act currently requires that the names of the review officers be published in the Canada Gazette, and that will be changed to be published on a more visible platform, such as the tribunal’s website as opposed to the Canada Gazette. The names of the members of the tribunal, should Bill C-15 come into force, will be published online as opposed to in the Canada Gazette.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In response to the question, Ms. Lane, I think you gave me an idea of what could change. You said that the fact that this is not a tribunal ensures that you are struggling to get the same services as other tribunals. That just might be the change we need. What services are being referred to?
Ms. Lane: They are the services that Mr. Covelli spoke of earlier. The fact that the agreement may be reached through an agreement rather than by law means that there are certain services that aren’t really accessible.
[English]
Is that something that you could speak to?
Mr. Covelli: Yes. Like I said, the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, or ATSSC, supports 12 tribunals. Currently, one of them is the tribunal that we are discussing: the review officers.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I thought it was not called a tribunal?
Mr. Covelli: Yes. We refer to it as a tribunal because it has the applied title of the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada already, so we refer to it as such, and that’s how the review officers refer to themselves in their decisions.
We provide various support services and facilities to them, and we provide them to 11 other tribunals as well. One of the advantages of our organization, to the benefit of the organizations and tribunals we support, is that we have these pools of registry officers, legal advisors as well as other specialists and support staff who can be easily moved around, or fairly easily most of the time —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It was less easy before?
Mr. Covelli: Yes. Well, we’ve been supporting this tribunal for a few years already, but if one tribunal is busier than another, then we can shift the resources around as necessary.
If this tribunal that we’re discussing were to have a surge in work, we would be able to, hopefully, move some resources that are supporting other tribunals toward it to help it during its peak.
That’s an advantage of us supporting this tribunal.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Wouldn’t another advantage be if it were called a tribunal? Would offenders take it more seriously? Isn’t the threat of punishment by a tribunal more serious, even if it is by review officers?
Ms. Lane: Yes. Certainly, in the act, the tribunal will allow us to align ourselves with the title, which is now being used by the tribunal, but it will be directly in the act. There will be no confusion. In 2019, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada asked to be able to use that name, so it’s an applied title. They are currently using the title —
[English]
— the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada. Having that name clearly indicated in the law will reduce any confusion that might exist because the acts that will be amended by Bill C-15 all refer to “review officers.” They don’t refer to the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada, so I think that will definitely increase the clarity and transparency of what this body is and what it does.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Does the creation of this tribunal have an impact on the right to appeal a decision of the review officers? Is it amended or not at all?
Ms. Lane: No, it is not amended.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Agreed. Thank you. My curiosity is satisfied.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions, colleagues?
If there are no other questions, thank you very much for being here and for explaining all these administrative changes that bring clarity to the act. And thank you to all the senators for being here.
(The committee adjourned.)