Good morning, Madam Chair, and honourable committee members. I am Colleen Collins, vice-president of the Canada West Foundation, an independent, non-partisan public policy research organization with a western Canadian perspective.
Bill C-69 proposes to overhaul Canada's energy project assessment process, create a new impact assessment agency, and replace the National Energy Board with the Canadian energy regulator. Changes to the existing process are necessary to restore both public trust in the project approval system and the confidence of potential investors in the Canadian economy.
We are pleased that the government has put forward a comprehensive vision for a process that is intended to increase transparency, fairness, and inclusiveness. However, it fails to address the implications of that process on trust, economic activity, and national competitiveness, the very reasons that drove the change in the first place. Proponents and investors are not worried about tough, evidence-based regulation. What discourages investment is decision-making that is vague, uncertain, and subject to politically motivated decisions at the end of a long and expensive process.
Bill C-69, as proposed, retains some of the same features that are causing problems in the current system. Most important, the bill continues to leave the political decision until after the end of the regulatory process. Without question, decisions about what is or is not in the national interest should be made by our elected leaders. That is key to our democracy. However, those decisions need to be made up front, before the long and costly regulatory process begins. Bill C-69's proposed planning phase prior to the impact assessment provides an ideal window for this upfront political decision.
The national interest decision should not be subject to changing political views during or after the process. We have seen political decisions undermine the credibility of the regulatory process. If the government does not trust the regulator to make fair, independent, evidence-based decisions, then why should Canadians and investors? There needs to be certainty that during the long process of seeking regulatory approval the goalposts will not change and a new government will not overturn prior decisions and commitments.
Bill C-69 further compounds this problem by removing the requirement for a decision by the regulator at the end of its assessment process. Currently, the regulator recommends to the government whether it should approve a project or not. Bill C-69 does not extend this authority to the new IAA, and this is a mistake. The government's job is to put in place a framework for the regulatory process. It must let the regulator do its job. That job should go beyond communicating a project's impact, benefits, and mitigation. After examining the evidence presented, assessing and balancing positive and negative impacts, as well as potential mitigation, the regulator is in the best position to make an informed and impartial decision on whether or not the project should proceed.
Another critical driver of uncertainty and lack of trust has been a shifting of the development of economic, indigenous, and environmental policy onto the regulator. A regulatory process cannot and should not be expected to determine policy. Ongoing political debates about climate, energy, and indigenous relations have found their way into NEB project hearings for lack of any other venue in which to resolve these issues. These policy debates are much broader than any specific project. The federal government must address broader policy questions before they encumber the regulatory process with issues beyond its scope. The combination of clear policy on relevant issues and a regulatory process that deals with project specifics is critical to improving both trust and the investment climate in Canada.
A positive step forward is the shift to an assessment process that considers both the positive and negative impacts of a project, unlike the focus on negative impacts under the current system. In addition, including the formal recognition of health, social, and economic effects will also contribute to a more balanced assessment and a balanced public debate. The new regulator will also have to figure out how to deal with the increased volume of participation in regulatory reviews stemming from the elimination of the well-established principle of “standing”.
While obtaining input from a wide variety of people is a positive step, the regulator will need to establish a strong process to manage them. It should ensure that diverse voices are heard without the consultation becoming an impediment to good decision-making. It will need to ensure that the most relevant voices are not lost. Finally, whatever process is used, it must be clear to all that consultation does not mean veto power.
Thank you.