The newly tabled revamp to the federal infrastructure approvals process — Bill C-39 — comes with the tagline, “One project, one decision, in one year.”
asserted
revamp → table → year
But this seems to be more a suggestion than a rule.
asserted
this → seem → rule
If passed, the bill would make numerous changes to federal laws that determine whether or not infrastructure gets built.
asserted
infrastructure → pass → laws
The intent is to streamline the approvals process and to give a better estimate to prospective builders of when to expect a green light.
asserted
intent → streamline → light
So, while proponents at present must work with multiple federal authorities to get their project approved, sometimes one after another, Bill C-39 would designate one federal authority as the point of contact.
asserted
C-39 → work → contact
In cases where multiple assessments are needed from different federal bodies, Bill C-39 would have these run at the same time, rather than in sequence.
asserted
these → need → sequence
Sequential assessments have been a problem in the past: a positive outcome under the Impact Assessment Act, which can take years to obtain, can be derailed by a negative Species at Risk Act assessment — or it can be later tossed out in court.
asserted
it → take → court
This was what happened to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories when it tried to build a long-term nuclear waste storage facility at one of its research sites in Ontario.
asserted
it → happen → Ontario
And, when certain federal authorities are deciding what conditions to impose on a project they would like to approve under certain legislation, Bill C-39 would require them to take into account the “technical, economic and practical feasibility” of said conditions.
asserted
they → decide → conditions
This would apply to the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER), the federal transport minister with respect to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the environment minister with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the ministers who carry out the Species at Risk Act.
asserted
who → apply → Act
The bill is still in its early days, but at this point it’s received more praise than criticism.
asserted
it → receive → criticism
Part of that is no doubt marketing: the bill is couched as a way to grow the country’s independence and focus on what we can control, which is a major reason many Canadians support this country being an “energy superpower,” according to federal public opinion research conducted back in March.
uncertain
country → couch → March
The prime minister knows his audience.
asserted
minister → know → audience
But it’s true that a more simplified project approval process is needed.
asserted
process → ’ → ?
It wasn’t surprising that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith showed optimism when asked about it the new legislation.
asserted
Smith → show → legislation
And, in an interview with the Globe and Mail, Cenovus Energy board chair Alex Pourbaix called it “fantastic”: “The devil is always in the details, but if we can truly get to one review, a decision in one year — that makes the Canadian regulatory permitting system very similar to the U.S. and other places in the world whose economies are going great guns.
asserted
economies → call → world
That is exactly where the problem lies with Bill C-39: the details.
asserted
problem → lie → Bill
There are a number of major caveats to “One project, one decision, one year” that threaten to get in the way of a timely, simple decision.
asserted
that → be → decision
One issue, put simply in the federal backgrounder, is that “One project, one decision would not apply” to projects regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the CER.
asserted
project → put → Commission
For projects that fall under CER authority — pipelines, power lines and such — the draft legislation merely states that the CER “may” work with other federal authorities to co-ordinate their respective reviews, Indigenous consultations and the timing of their decisions.
uncertain
CER → fall → decisions
The CNSC is given a similar option: it “may” co
uncertain
it → give → option
Additionally, some projects will see the introduction of new masters.
asserted
projects → see → masters
The government backgrounder puts it more simply than the legislation: projects with “potential significant adverse federal impacts” are to be made “jointly with the minister responsible for the relevant sector” or cabinet.
asserted
projects → put → sector
At present, under the Impact Assessment Act, a second minister is not involved in making these decisions.
asserted
minister → involve → decisions
Perhaps this change will amount to a trivial extra signature in practice, but it could also lead to more bureaucracy and delay.
uncertain
it → amount → bureaucracy
A whole lot of delay is worked into the draft legislation, regardless of the notional “one year” timeline.
asserted
lot → work → timeline
“One year” also comes with an asterisk.
asserted
year → come → asterisk
Under the Bill C-39 scheme, timelines for complete reviews on new pipelines and power lines under 300 kilometres by the Canada Energy Regulator can be extended by 90 days to facilitate more Indigenous consultations.
asserted
timelines → extend → consultations
A complete review in these cases would be required within 300 days of the proponent’s application and a decision would be required “as soon as possible” afterwards, which means a 90-day extension would push the decision past its one-year time limit.
asserted
extension → require → limit
The draft legislation would also allow for time to be excluded in calculating whether timelines for issuing approvals have been met.
asserted
timelines → allow → approvals
The amount of time and the justification for it would be up to the government, so if an approval was running behind schedule, the government could just declare it is on time.
uncertain
it → run → time
New pipelines and power lines over 300 kilometres would run under slightly different timelines, but the overall time limit for the government to come to a decision would be 365 days.
asserted
government → run → decision
That’s all to say, a number of escape hatches have been worked into the legislation to account for delay and stalling — whether from slow-walking bureaucrats or disgruntled Indigenous groups — that can likely be expected in response to any major project proposal.
asserted
that → ’ → proposal
It’s easy enough to legislate a 90-day timeline, but it’s a marathon to defend in court.
asserted
it → ’ → court
Judges have alreadydemonstrated an expectation of perfection when it comes to governments carrying out the duty to consult in the past — sometimes to the point of derailing projects mid-construction, after millions have already been spent.
asserted
millions → alreadydemonstrate → projects
They will not likely take kindly to what Indigenous litigants will almost certainly frame as an arbitrary consultation deadline.
asserted
litigants → take → deadline
And here lies the core problem that Bill C-39 can’t really address: Indigenous constitutional rights have been over-interpreted by the courts to the point where it’s very difficult to provide certainty, no matter what the latest fix-it-all bill in Parliament says.
asserted
bill → lie → Parliament
This will be solved by supporting intellectual production in legal spheres and fighting duty to consult cases with all the federal government’s might.
uncertain
This → solve → might
This, the Carney government doesn’t seem interested in doing.
asserted
government → seem → ?
In fact, it continues to support the legal brainstorming of the decolonial cause, which undermines efforts to get more development off the ground.
asserted
which → continue → ground
…and 5 more, not listed.
The Aporia
