moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move to streamline administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden.
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of Motion No. 434 which states:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should move to streamline administrative and regulatory processes in the energy sector with the objective to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden.
For an entrepreneur in the energy industry, negotiating the maze of government regulations is almost as great a challenge as overcoming the technical and physical problems of a program. Satisfying the demands of a multiplicity of regulatory boards and agencies, often at three levels of government, is like walking on fly paper; no sooner is one bureaucratic condition satisfied than the applicant's feet become glued to another sticky spot.
This is not unique to the energy sector. All phases of Canadian activity are mired in regulations and each successive government seems determined to pass more laws and make more rules. The old adage that the best government is the one that governs least has been all but forgotten. We are well on our way to terminal social and economic constipation.
The passion for filling out forms requiring the approval of platoons of bureaucrats is not new. This destructive waste of time and resources contributed mightily to the downfall of the Hapsburg, Ottoman and Soviet empires and was the leading cause of the collapse of the Manchu dynasty in which generations of China's brightest and best wasted away in an atmosphere of useless paper shuffling; thus the French word chinoiserie.
The curious aspect of energy sector over regulation is that almost everyone, including senior politicians, recognizes the problem. In April 1993 the Conservative government commissioned a review of federal regulations to "identify those that significantly reduce the competitiveness of Canadian industry" or impose needless costs on the consumers.
A report was released in October 1993 just in time for the election and some of the panel's recommendations have actually been acted on. Several sets of redundant regulations have been or are in the process of being revoked. These, however, were purely Natural Resources Canada regulations. It does not address the problem of the overlap of federal and provincial regulations, and regulatory conflict between various government departments is a much more serious matter.
Only the federal Minister of the Environment seems to be oblivious to the problem; witness her unseemly remarks and confrontational attitude during question period earlier this afternoon. This overlap, believe it or not, is most pervasive in her bailiwick in situations in which environmental protection is at stake. There is also overlap in matters affecting worker health and safety and the transportation of dangerous goods.
The multi-tiered environmental permit problem has been recognized by the Minister of Natural Resources. She has stated in an open letter to the Northern Miner that the government is committed to addressing this issue: "The goal is a single window approach".
Those words are music to every Canadian petroleum and natural gas producer and marketer and also to people in the mining, forestry, agricultural and transportation industries.
The Liberals, through their minister, have expressed a policy. Now I would truly like to see them act on it. Then we could stand back and watch the revitalization of our resource based industries.
For a classic example of regulatory overkill, I suggest we look at the Atomic Energy Control Board. Actually, I would rather not look at it since it is one of the few federal entities that continue to grow like a giant fungus in spite of the fact that its workload has been decreasing for a decade. Be that as it may, it is the major player in the regulation of the nuclear industry, all the way from mining to waste disposal.
Unfortunately the AECB is overlapped both provincially and federally. At the extractive level the provincial mining departments make regulations. The provincial environment departments make regulations. The federal environment department makes regulations and throughout the entire nuclear cycle various provincial occupational health and safety divisions make regulations.
When all other hurdles have been cleared there are still municipal zoning laws to contend with. I am aware of one instance in which a proposed uranium refinery facility in Saskatchewan was killed by the local government not on technical grounds but for purely political reasons.
Then we have review panels. They have no authority, no legal standing but they can delay projects for months simply by being in session.
In 1993 a joint federal-provincial environment assessment review board spent several months studying proposals for three uranium mining developments in Saskatchewan. It made three recommendations and the Saskatchewan government cheerfully ignored one of them with the blessing of the federal government. Why did it spend all that time doing the studies? Who knows.
It is time for the various provincial and federal departments to sit down together and develop a single window permitting system for uranium mines. Developers are entitled to know before the first shovel full of dirt is dug if in terms of economic benefits versus the social and environmental costs it makes sense to proceed with a project.
The second major national player in the regulation of the energy industry is the National Energy Board which controls all interprovincial movement of oil, gas and electricity. It also controls international trade in those commodities. Conflict exists to the extent that provincial interests are often contrary to what the National Energy Board considers to be the national interest. Who can ever forget the national energy program?
On the other hand, there is a good example of federal provincial co-operation in the offshore boards which regulate what goes on under the sea. These boards could serve as a pattern and a model for eliminating the problems caused by competing federal and provincial environmental agencies.
To get back to the environmental agencies, they are not energy regulators per se but they have a tremendous impact on the industry. There are instances of projects being environmentally approved at the provincial level only to have further studies and
interminable delays demanded by a federal department. I am sure other hon. members will have something to say about that.
The energy industry needs relief, not so much from taxes as from the ocean of paper it is required to swim through. An industry that accounts for 7 per cent of our gross domestic product and which directly or indirectly provides employment for 620,000 people is entitled to reasonable consideration and rational treatment.