CREATING THIS ENTIRELY NEW, EXPENSIVE PROCESS WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE MINDS OF THE B.C. GOVERNMENT.

sive process ($1 billion and counting) would not have changed the minds of the B.C. government, environmental groups, certain coastal communities or First Nations.

The bill will add an additional layer of bureaucracy through the creation of an Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, with responsibility for project reviews. Also, existing regulatory bodies, including the National Energy Board (NEB), will continue to monitor lifecycle activities and will be involved in joint impact assessments, which will be part of an “integrated review process.” That sounds more like triplication than a single review, so the table is set for dissension and delay. Other than political posturing, there is no apparent justification long-term social and health impacts and upstream and downstream emissions. It will also consider potential impacts on the government’s climate change guidelines. Furthermore, it must incorporate traditional Indigenous knowledge, which raises questions about how that knowledge would be evaluated and whether it raises conflict-of-interest concerns for affected First Nations communities.

In addition to its openended mandate, the agency will hear from people who may not be directly impacted by the project but who have an opinion. Public consultations will be very broad, including input on evaluation of project designs, plans and studies, and will be likely chaotic, reflecting deeply held but irreconcilable views. Also, time lines will be longer, because of the addition of an early engagement process of up to 180 days.

As we know, Indigenous groups can have diametrically opposing views on development, although those in favour are often silenced. Some see the enormous advantages of development for their communities in terms of employment, a long-term revenue stream, equity participation and having a seat at the table. Others focus on risks to their traditional way of life and the environment. The government has endorsed the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That raises an expectation that “free, prior and informed consent” implies a right to block resource development on or adjacent to current or ancestral Aboriginal lands. So far, the Supreme Court and the federal government have avoided going that far. Were it to happen, the future of development could be fatally compromised.

The inevitable result of regulatory overreach, empowered opponents, further delays and uncertainty will be to make pipelines unattractive investments. At a certain point, no sponsor will risk millions in a project that is mired in controversy, especially without assertive leadership from the government of Canada — witness the Pacific Northwest LNG and Energy East project cancellations. So we are trapped, without access to international markets for our oil and gas.

The economic consequences of permanently landlocked energy would be hundreds of billions of dollars of lost revenue and a significant hit to employment, growth and funding for critical social programs like health care. In short, we would be a poorer country and only have ourselves to blame because we allowed government to squander our legacy. of jurisdictions, from provinces to municipalities, who will continue to presume, if not demand, a final say in the regulation of Canadian energy developments. The consequential upset from the proposed new legislation will continue to disrupt and erode the regulatory climate in Canada while reducing the pre-eminence of the regulatory powers of the NEB or the new, proposed CER. These regulatory changes will continue to pose fundamental uncertainties and will make even more problematic effective and efficient determinations of energy projects judged to be in the national interest. Regrettably, the federal government’s intentions to restore public confidence in the NEB by modernizing it have now been eclipsed by far more pressing concerns for the economy, the national interest and, perhaps, the ability of the Canadian energy sector to thrive in, or to survive, such disparate, concerted regulatory assaults from so many sectors.

Canadians would be justified in questioning whether the federal government in its attempts to create a “more robust, transparent and inclusive process” to more closely align with its energy and climate policies have actually increased the regulatory uncertainties that have done so much to drive crucial energy investment out of Canada.