Murray Wood: Who's hot... and who's not
Every Friday, Murray Wood takes a look back at the week's news and decides who's hot... and who's not. This week's list ...
OTTAWA — The federal government says it received more than 21,000 emails on proposed changes to how major projects are reviewed and will spend the coming weeks combing over those submissions.
A window for public feedback on the proposed changes closed Wednesday. The government said it will publish a report summarizing the submissions by the end of the summer.
Read more:
- Alberta pipeline MOU has potential to benefit Sask., experts say
- Moe positive on Alberta pipeline deal and federal cooperation
- Work begins on Rose Valley wind project, with largest share of Indigenous ownership in Sask.
A spokesperson for the Privy Council Office — which oversees the major projects office — said that while officials are still compiling the feedback, as of July 17 the government had received 187 written submissions from stakeholders. They included Indigenous and environmental groups, think tanks, academics, provinces, territories and municipalities.
“The Government of Canada also attended 24 meetings with Indigenous groups (including three virtual engagement sessions) and 27 stakeholder meetings,” said spokesperson Pierre Cuguen.
Ottawa released two discussion papers in May which proposed, among other things, approving major projects before they’re reviewed. It also proposed exempting certain projects from laws designed to protect species at risk.
The government also proposed taking the responsibility for reviewing pipelines, transmission lines and offshore renewable energy projects away from the Impact Assessment Agency and handing it to the Canada Energy Regulator.
The federal government has said it has been told by industry that the level of expertise on energy projects that lived at the Canada Energy Regulator couldn’t be found at the Impact Assessment Agency.
The government also has proposed creating “economic zones” for transportation corridors, telecommunications networks, and energy production and transmission. Those zones would allow the federal cabinet to decide which activities would be allowed in them, and give ministers the power to pre-approve projects.
In May, Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told The Canadian Press the proposed changes “demonstrate a pattern of exclusion.” She also criticized the short timeline for submitting feedback.
Ottawa initially set a deadline of June 7 for feedback but extended it to July 22 following heavy criticism, primarily from environmental and Indigenous groups. They also pushed the timeline to table legislation to the fall sitting.
“Look, there are enormous issues at play here,” Transport Minister and government House Leader Steven MacKinnon told The Canadian Press when the government extended the consultation period. “We want to make sure we get the full range of views.”
The feedback the government received included a submission from the Green Party, which sought more clarity on how cabinet would be held accountable if species at risk are threatened by Ottawa’s decisions. It also raised concerns about the proposed economic zones.
“As proposed, these zones of environmental lawlessness could be decreed by federal fiat virtually anywhere in Canada given the breadth and variety of areas to be covered by the discussion paper,” the Green Party wrote in its submission.
“While the discussion papers and frequent press releases attempt to create the impression that this government respects Indigenous rights, the government’s actions suggest this is not the case. The discussion papers’ specific proposals appear to have been developed in a settler culture bubble.”
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May wrote to MacKinnon and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc back in May requesting briefings for MPs to allow them to better understand the proposals.
Speaking to The Canadian Press on Friday, May said MPs never got a briefing — even though Ottawa pushed the deadline for feedback — and she never received a reply to her letter.
Other stakeholders who weighed in on the proposed changes included the Ottawa-based think-tank Public Policy Forum, which had recommended many of the changes contained in the federal government’s discussion papers.
In its submission, Public Policy Forum said Ottawa could go even further with the proposed changes but mainly urged the government to introduce legislation in the House of Commons before Ottawa hosts its Canada Investment Summit in mid-September.
The summit is bringing together some of the world’s wealthiest investors to convince them to invest in Canada. But after extending the timeline for feedback, the earliest the government will now be able to table any legislation to implement its proposed changes would be just six days after the summit wraps up.
“It is imperative that the government demonstrates tangible progress on implementation,” Public Policy Forum wrote in its submission.
“Investors will be looking for concrete signals that reforms are real, underway, and durable enough to underpin long-term investment decisions.”
Public Policy Forum also recommended that Ottawa add an “investment lens” to legislative mandates for regulators.
“Regulators are currently mandated to prevent or mitigate environmental and societal harms, but they bear little responsibility for how regulatory decisions influence investment outcomes,” Public Policy Forum wrote.
“Adding an investment lens to legislative mandates would ensure regulators consider both risk management and the broader economic value of proposed projects, including growth, competitiveness, and economic security, while creating greater accountability for whether regulatory processes support or discourage investment in Canada.”
— With files from Alessia Passafiume
Read more:
