Think tank says Bill C-5 approval process should be “swift by default”
An economic think tank is calling on the Carney government to set firm and transparent guidelines for what its approval process will be under Bill C-5.
An economic think tank is calling on the Carney government to set firm and transparent guidelines for what its approval process will be under Bill C-5, saying the process should be “swift by default.”
The Montreal Economic Institute believes that it's time for federal impact assessments to be “fair, transparent, and swift for all projects, not just the few favoured by Ottawa under Bill C-5.”
Bill C-5 was introduced by the Carney government to accelerate the approval process for major infrastructure projects deemed in the “national interest,” receiving Royal Assent last month.
“Bill C-5 is a clear admission that the current project approval process is broken,” said MEI director of research Krystle Wittevrongel.
“Plagued by a lack of predictability, investors have found the process unreliable, and creating a bypass for a few projects favoured by politicians does not fix that.”
The MEI is proposing that the Liberals set firm deadlines for reviews, suggesting a maximum window of 18 months.
Additionally, the institute is urging that the Carney government respect its constitutional limits, focusing federal assessments strictly on areas of federal jurisdiction to reduce legal uncertainty.
Since the Impact Assessment Act was passed in 2019, only one project has managed to successfully complete the process, which was Cedar LNG, a proposed floating liquid natural gas facility in Kitimat, British Columbia.
“There are currently 20 projects undergoing this assessment review, 12 of which are in the second phase, five are in the first phase, and three are being assessed under BC’s substitution agreement. Not a single project is in the final stages of assessment,” said MEI in a press release on Monday.
The Montreal think tank also recommended that the Carney government limit its scope of considerations to avoid overly subjective criteria such as sex and gender.
Another recommendation is to “eliminate duplication.”
“If a province has already completed a rigorous assessment, the federal government should automatically accept its findings,” said MEI.
The prolonged uncertainty of whether projects will be approved or not keeps many investors wary of engaging with Canada’s energy sector.
For example, the value of projects in Natural Resources Canada’s major projects inventory was $711 billion in 2015 but dropped to $572 billion in 2023.
When adjusted for inflation, Canada could have potentially had $886 billion in planned investments, marking $314 billion in lost revenue.
However, globally, oil and gas investment has been on the rise and is estimated to have increased by seven per cent last year, according to the International Energy Agency.
“This is being led by Middle East and Asian NOCs, which have increased their investments in oil and gas by over 50 per cent since 2017, and which account for almost the entire rise in spending for 2023-2024,” said the IEA.
Meanwhile, countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany, Poland, and Greece have all expressed their interest in Canadian energy.
“If this government wants to get things built, it should overhaul the process to benefit all projects and sectors, rather than having everything hinge on its discretion,” said Wittevrongel.
“Ministerial meddling is no fix for Canada’s protracted and opaque approval process. Only a system that is swift by default will draw the investment Canada desperately needs to unlock its full potential.”
In reality Canada has not had an effective Parliament for a long time now.
It can be argued that our Parliament has not been effective now for many, many years.
However... After many voters decided to learn nothing from ten years of governance by a guy with a weird sock fetish and a herd of trained seals and voted for an off-shore banker with faux elbows Parliament sat for a mere month passing two pieces of legislation that the country is likely to regret (Liberals being Liberals).
One of those C-5 seemed that it just might work however time has shown that anything any Liberal touches turns to that which one picks up after one's dog.
Will C-5 in the hands of the guy whose majority of investments reside in the USA and whose bank accounts reside in locations not taxed do us any good.
One might have to go to Los Vegas for those odds but I would guess they are going to be quite long ones.
What does it matter if it passes. It is a meaningless piece of paper as long as bills c69 and c48 is still on the books. C5 has changed nothing, as 49+48 cancels any effect of c5. It just makes a mockery of all who voted for it.