There is so much to talk about and so little time. I really appreciate everybody's input, particularly the fact that you are also talking about the Canadian energy regulator. It's insane that we're also reviewing that act. We don't even report to that minister.
One of the things that I think has been left confused, and probably Professor Bankes can speak to this, and also the representative from East Coast Environmental Law, is that there seems to be confusion about the expert panel recommending a permanent tribunal as opposed to ad hoc appointments to a panel. I think people are getting confused about that permanent tribunal versus judicial review.
Maybe it would be good if the lawyers who are testifying to us would explain that. Those are two totally different things. I can relate to one of the reasons the expert panel recommended a permanent tribunal, because I'm from Alberta and we're used to a permanent energy review panel. They are used to people coming forward. They're used to sitting down with participants and saying, “Can you get together with those other groups and combine and hire one lawyer and one engineering expert?”
The problem is that, with this bill, nobody ever knows how their project is going to be reviewed. It might never be reviewed at all as a result of the so-called planning process. It might be reviewed by the agency. It might be reviewed by some type of panel. It's not really clear what the participation rights are under any of those. There is a need for clarification. If there are participation rules, those rules should apply across the board, including probably to the CER.
There have been a couple of suggestions, some that might actually be put in the statute, or on the other hand, are actually under the regulation power of the cabinet, that the cabinet be required to issue regulations that state those rights. One thing I would point out, and I would be interested for people to comment, is that under the environmental co-operation agreement to NAFTA, Canada long ago signed on to deliver, for the rights before tribunals, the right to present evidence and the right to cross-examine, so it is odd that none of this is in there.
I'm troubled by the suggestions of throwing in something like an adjective for “meaningful” participation, and then feeling that there's a need to define what meaningful participation is. You're cutting off the opportunity to actually have clear guidelines as to what the rights are. I would appreciate some feedback on that and who you think should best decide what those participation rights should be and what the access to costs should be. Where should those be laid out?
Would anybody like to comment on that?