PROCESSWEST Magazine Online

CAPP wants Ottawa to pause and get Bill C-69 right

October 15, 2018   Don Horne




The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) is asking the federal government to pause and review its plans for Bill C-69 and further consider the long-term impacts to the country and Canadians.

According to Tim McMillan, president and CEO of CAPP, by working collaboratively with the oil and natural gas industry and other stakeholders, the government can make the Bill what Canada needs it to be – a framework for an efficient process that maintains high environmental standards and in which Canadians and investors can be confident.

“It’s important the Government of Canada gets Bill C-69 right the first time – we can’t afford to get this wrong,” says McMillan. “Creating unnecessary barriers to investment isn’t good for anyone. The livelihoods of Canadian families and communities are at stake.”

The proposed changes to the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will make the regulatory process more complicated, time consuming, legally vulnerable and, ultimately, erode public and investor confidence. Bill C-69, in its current form, will be a significant barrier to future investment and put jobs at risk, from coast to coast to coast.

Advertisment

“Barriers to investment already exist today. Without thoughtful consideration, any changes to our regulatory system could be detrimental to the future of major projects,” says McMillan. “In order to get Bill C-69 right the first time, government needs to pause and further consider the long-term impacts of major changes to federal legislation on the Canadian economy.”

The federal government can now create an improved legislative framework – more concise, timely, simpler and certain – for future energy developments by:

  • Providing a clear path to project approvals and construction;
  • Leveraging the expertise of federal and provincial regulators;
  • Establishing a framework for Bill C-69’s early planning phase;
  • Removing the debate on public policy questions from project reviews; and
  • Creating a project list that clearly defines appropriate thresholds or criteria for any additions or deletions.


Print this page

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*