'Within 10 days of the coming into force date, the Agency will notify you how the transitional provisions in section 180 of IAA would be applied to the Webequie Supply" 

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/ENEV/Briefs/2019-05-07_BillC-69_QuebecMining_e.pdf

Transitional provisions

The proposed Impact Assessment Act includes a series of transitional provisions for projects whose screenings (sections 178 and 180), comprehensive studies (section 179) and environmental assessments (sections 181 to 183) began before the coming into force of the new Act.

The QMA believes it is essential that projects currently being assessed, as well as any that commence their assessment process before the new Act is passed, be permitted to continue through the process without having to meet the requirements of the new Act, regardless of whether the project is at the beginning of the process or at the final stage.

Since the process in the proposed Act is very different from the current one, projects that have not completed their assessment process must be allowed to proceed with it without having to go back and perform steps that were not in the legislation when the project notice was submitted to the Environmental Assessment Agency.

To grow, the mining industry needs clear, stable, predictable approval processes. Changing the rules of the game mid-project sends a negative message to investors who have chosen Canada as the place to invest.

It is paramount that the processes or rules of the game not change once the project has begun, as investors based their decision to invest on the parameters in place at the beginning of the project.

Recommendation 8

The QMA recommends that the new provisions of the Impact Assessment Act apply only to projects submitted after the Act has been passed.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the proposed process could inhibit mining development in Quebec and the rest of Canada. The QMA therefore hopes that the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources will take note of the detailed comments in this brief and make appropriate amendments to Bill C-69.

=======================================================

So were these amendments to Bill C-69 made? Since taxpayers are the ones paying the salaries of the folks creating all this stuff, you'd think we would have the right to know.

You'd think that you would be clearly able to see the proposed ammendments and see the ones that were approved by the Senate on the evening of  June 20, 2019.

Good luck finding the info. You can  look for clues ...though.

Based on the bolded parts below from 2 articles...it looks like the recommendation made by Quebec mining was one of the amendments to the original C69. Otherwise why would the Quebec senator say what he said below and why state.... the bill drew support from the mining trade organizations.

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/why-this-may-not-be-the-last-we-hear-of-the-contentious-bill-c-69

“I must say that I’m fairly comfortable supporting Bill C-69 as it stands today, especially because it may be one of the major issues in the next election campaign,” said Eric Forest, an independent senator from Quebec.

Though it was staunchly opposed in the energy sector, the bill drew support from mining trade organizations.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5415294/bill-c-69-passes-senate/beta/?utm_expid=.kz0UD5JkQOCo6yMqxGqECg.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fglobalnews.ca%2Fnews%2F5417286%2Fparliament-summer-bills-passed%2Fbeta%2F

The move came after Senate passed 188 amendments to the bill earlier this month.

The governing Liberals accepted 99 of those amendments – 62 were accepted as they were written, and another 37 were accepted with several changes.

The passage of the bill in the Senate means it will now proceed to Royal Assent and become law.

But Canadians haven’t heard the last about the pair of bills. They’re both destined to be fodder for Liberals and Conservatives on the campaign trail to this fall’s election.

==============================================

It's pathetic, as taxpayers we have to hunt for clues like this.