Environment committee  I'll jump in with two comments. First, we should be trying to avoid duplication in review. That's inefficient. I don't think it's in anyone's interest. Second, we have to recognize that, even where we have a federally regulated project like Trans Mountain, there will be a legitim

Environment committee  I'm going to let Mr. Kenyon start.

Environment committee  That's a political decision.

Environment committee  I'm focusing more directly on the CER legislation. The decision should be a political decision, but as we've just talked about with Mr. Amos, there should be some guidance provided. There should be reasons given by cabinet or the minister, and that decision should be reviewable b

Environment committee  My recollection of Kearl is that it was a case brought by Pembina, and yes, it did result in the review going back to the panel and it rectified the omissions in its assessment.

Environment committee  I think that is a very interesting question. It's interesting to look at the differences between the IAA legislation and the CER legislation. For the CER legislation, what we have now is an expanded list of the criteria that are found in the National Energy Board Act. I think th

Environment committee  Yes, I would because I think it's an important perspective and knowledge base that needs to be brought to bear.

Environment committee  Correct. I think I already said that in earlier comments. I very much support Mr. Kenyon's comments on that.

Environment committee  I don't think so. I think Ms. Dusyk really caught the essentials. I guess one thing I would say is that by removing the standing test from part 2, we are effectively punting to the regulator the responsibility to develop rules that will determine who actually appears. I think Mr.

Environment committee  I think it's probably a good idea not to have it in the act. It then leaves it organic and capable of changing over time rather than becoming fossilized, which is what we see in some jurisdictions, including in my home jurisdiction of Alberta.

Environment committee  I can try, Mr. Rogers, although I suspect both Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Butler might be better placed to answer, because I have principally been looking at part 2 of the bill, dealing with the Canadian energy regulator, and the CER will have really no jurisdiction in relation to offs

Environment committee  Thank you for the question, Ms. Duncan. I have looked at that part of the bill. My recollection was that there were really few, if any, changes from the current provisions of the National Energy Board Act, so I have two comments on that. One, I think interprovincial transmissio

Environment committee  The international lines are subject to federal regulation, depending upon the proponent's election. The proponent has the ability to run the project through a provincial permitting system rather than the federal permitting system, which is what happened in the MATL line, the Albe

Environment committee  I guess my opinion—certainly in relation to the CER, which I've thought more about than the offshore boards—is that I would agree with Mr. Kenyon's comments that it's important to have that CER involvement because of the knowledge base that it brings and because it will be the li

Environment committee  I've made one comment, of course, in my brief and remarks this morning about requiring the Federal Court of Appeal to provide reasons to support its decisions. However, you are asking me much more, I think, about the creation of an environmental court or an environmental appeal b