That's a good question. Why don't I use Kinder Morgan as an example, since it's so topical right now and you did bring up this political gridlock between Alberta and B.C.
In the NEB's review of the Kinder Morgan projects they did not consider global oil demand and supply scenarios that we're talking about that are aligned with the Paris Agreement, with Canada's own policies and commitments. They did not allow economic evidence that showed the cost and benefits of making this investment instead of alternatives during the review. They did not allow consideration of the impact of tankers going up the B.C. coast. They did not consider the downstream emissions of the projects. They did not allow cross-examination of the witnesses who wanted to testify there and of Kinder Morgan's lawyers.
They considered the upstream emissions but not the downstream emissions. The entire process involved Kinder Morgan presenting evidence and then all of the other intervenors, whether they were pro or against the pipeline, responding to Kinder Morgan's evidence. There was no testing of the evidence. There was no testing of the assumptions.
What I think we need is an energy information agency or regulator that provides the information independently and then allows both sides, the proponents and the public and the intervenors, to respond to that independent, third-party credible evidence that could come from the government and from expert witnesses, instead of being forced to respond with limited resources to a report commissioned by the proponents of the company, which obviously has an interest in skewing the numbers and hiding the datasets that they use.