Evidence of meeting #105 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you for that.
This is a very quick follow-up. If you don't think an environmental appeals board type of entity is appropriate in this particular scheme, what do you think is the appropriate role for cabinet in this?
11:45 a.m.
Prof. Nigel Bankes
I am of the view that the final go/no-go decisions in relation to projects are political decisions and are therefore appropriately made at either the ministerial or the cabinet level. I'm also of the view that those decisions, too, need to provide appropriately detailed reasons, which themselves would be subject to review by a court.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, and thank you to all the witnesses for appearing today. There was only one witness who actually addressed the issue of competitiveness, the ability of our natural resource sector to actually compete within the global marketplace, and that was Ms. Collins. Thank you for doing that. That is critical. Canada is a rich country in terms of natural resources. The price we get for those resources is dependent upon certainty and upon the competitiveness of the playing field on which Canada competes internationally.
You mentioned, Ms. Collins, that the decision as to what is not in the national interest should be made by political players, which I think has been repeated here at this table a few times. When did you suggest that this decision should be made? Was it in the planning process itself or later?
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Research, Canada West Foundation
The opportunity is the planning process, so the decision at the end of the planning process is the national interest decision. That's the time for the political decision.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Did I hear you say that a new government should not overturn a decision made by a previous government based on the regulatory review process?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Can you give me an example of a project where that actually happened, where the new government overturned a project?
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Research, Canada West Foundation
I think we saw that with the northern gateway decision, where a project had been approved by the regulator and the previous government and then--
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Is it your position that the decision by the current government to overturn the northern gateway project has undermined confidence in Canada's regulatory process and our investment environment?
April 19th, 2018 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
All right.
You have also suggested that policy debates regarding ongoing climate change and first nations issues and a few other issues should be dealt with before the assessment process begins. Is that correct?
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Research, Canada West Foundation
Yes. If there's a decision that we don't want marine traffic on the west coast, that's a policy decision. That's not part of a regulatory decision. If we for some reason decide that we don't want energy development in Canada, then that's part of the policy decisions. That should not be part of a regulatory decision.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
We presently face a real challenge with respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which went through a rigorous regulatory review. After the fact, there was an additional review that was thrown into the mix. It went through that. At the end of the day, the government made a decision to move forward with the project. It is still facing hurdles.
Do you have any words for this committee as to why this is happening?
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Research, Canada West Foundation
I think the reason that it's happening is the whole notion that we're running parallel processes. We're running a regulatory process and because there's a political decision at the end of that process, that parallel process continues. You have participation in the regulatory process—that's one layer—but if interests believe that there's something to be gained by continual lobbying and action on the political side, of course they're going to use that process. That only makes sense if the model is built that way.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Is it your opinion that Bill C-69, which is before a committee right now, would improve the public's trust and confidence in the regulatory process?
11:50 a.m.
Vice-President, Research, Canada West Foundation
No, because the bill doesn't trust the regulators or the impact assessment committee to make the decisions. As I've said, why would the public trust a process that in fact Bill C-69 doesn't trust?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Kenyon, in your testimony you said that you are pleased that the standing test has been removed from the environmental assessment process. Correct?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Is it your position that there should be no limitations or parameters on who should have standing to appear during the assessment process?
11:50 a.m.
Managing Director, Pembina Institute
No. Specifically, the standing provision, as it was, was quite limiting. It is reasonable to expect that we need to make room in these discussions for those with expertise and knowledge to be able to participate in the process.
Obviously it's not the intent to create a circus by letting everyone into the process, and I think that's actually a really good comment from Dr. Collins, but I don't believe that our existing process was expanded enough to allow full discussion.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'm glad you mentioned that you don't want this to turn into a circus, because that is the fear of the investment community, that a process like the one provided for now in Bill C-69 will indeed result in a circus.
You haven't been specific as to what kinds of limitations you would impose in terms of standing.
11:55 a.m.
Managing Director, Pembina Institute
There's a couple of really good examples—
11:55 a.m.
Managing Director, Pembina Institute
Thank you.
There is the genuine interest test, so you're able to judge participants. Either you are locally involved or you have knowledge on the project or the area. You're looking for people who actually add value to the discussion and there's a test on that.
There's also a case in Alberta, for example, with the Alberta Energy Regulator, where they recently were reviewing tailings management plans. There is quite a restrictive standing test in Alberta but they actually added a provision there to allow genuine interest organizations that had information and knowledge about the tailings interest to come and present knowledge that added to the robustness of their review.
