IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

Cooperation with Jurisdictions

about 1 year ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

What are the most important steps we should take to improve cooperation across jurisdictions?

jacson about 1 year ago
Removed by moderator.
Charlene B almost 2 years ago
Cooperation agreements could be designed to avoid duplication, reduce delays, enhance the process, and respect the various authorities jurisdictions within Canada. An example would be a memorandum of understanding (MOU). However, agreements should not delay projects if an agreement cannot be met.
Anne G almost 2 years ago
Avoid duplication of effort and ensure reviews and any changes to be implanted are well coordinated. Cooperation between applicable regulatory agencies should be required to minimize conflicting requirements and unnecessary delays.
K Ketilson almost 2 years ago
• The Discussion Paper does not provide a pragmatic and integrated framework for inter-related federal regulatory processes. There are numerous reviews and reforms underway that are not connected with existing requirements, are inconsistent, and are duplicative or overlapping in many areas. These reviews and reforms need to be better coordinated – the cumulative burden of this extensive process of reform is overwhelming and costly to Canadians.• Impact Assessment must be restricted to designated major projects that significantly affect a matter of federal jurisdiction. In the nuclear industry, designated major projects are new uranium mines or mills, new nuclear fuel processing facilities, new nuclear power plants, and new nuclear waste storage facilities.• An adequate transition period has not been defined. Transition should be 2 – 3 years to allow seamless and efficient implementation. • Concerned that joint conduct of IA will create parallel, duplicate and unnecessary federal requirements, delay publication of IA process documents and communication between a project proponent and the best placed technical authorities.• Cooperation agreements between or among all relevant regulatory agencies must be designed to minimize conflicting or duplicative requirements, prevent unwarranted delays, and recognize the value of current provincial processes in ensuring sustainable outcomes.• Substitution should be available to all project types to ensure that IA is conducted by the best-placed regulator, which may be the province.• The absence of a cooperation agreement should not be an obstacle to an IA proceeding.• Cooperation among federal agencies should ensure that the information required to facilitate subsequent permits pursuant to federal legislation is incorporated in the IA process. • Cooperation between multiple federal agencies during the conduct of the IA should be based on a memorandum of understanding that designates the lead regulator during the conduct of IA to minimize duplication and overlap, and identifies the publication of the IA decision as the date when oversight will transfer from joint conduct to the life cycle regulator.
Priddis almost 2 years ago
Cooperation between different levels of government have to be associated with their voting power. Federal would be associated with all of Canada etc. There should be penalties for levels of governments if a project is approved and lesser parliaments disagree, hurting society as a whole. ie if provincial, indigenous governments hold up, challenge federally sanctioned projects their should be penalties. Provide some skin in the game for governments, groups and individuals that subsequently challenge approved projects. It only hurts taxpayers that their elected representatives have already approved. Why should the few subvert the will of many?
C L Hommel almost 2 years ago
Please, please listen to the expert panels (who are already represented by all provinces and territories and diverse communities) and trust or respect your own process, by adopting their recommendations. The royal 'We' (i.e. the Federal Government) seem to be behaving as 'first among equals' here; perhaps an attitude adjustment is in order, to improve cooperation. across jurisdictions.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
To improve cooperation across jurisdictions we can ensure all parties involved understand that social impact and environmental impacts will be measured on a long-term, multi-generational, basis, not just on the maximum number employed for a construction season or two.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
To improve cooperation across jurisdictions we can ensure information about the science, the project, arguments for and against, etc. are widely available in a useful, open, manner (open-data, not buried in non-machine readable PDF's).
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
To improve cooperation across jurisdictions we can seek models that have proven to work elsewhere - looking beyond our own borders to the larger context, . For example, the Extraction Industry Transparency Initiative, EITI. A clear, strong, internationally accepted foundation for inter-jurisdictional resource extraction agreements as a basis for cooperation. 36 nations are on-board with EITI, with another 25 undergoing validation, including our largest trading partner. If our resource industry seeks to invest and operate in any of those countries, we must be EITI compliant. It is in Canada's best international trade interest to align with EITI , so let's look at how we can use it internally, e.g. cooperation with First Nations.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
To improve cooperation between jurisdictions we must set a clear, high bar for environmental protections and social benefits, including Indigenous issues. Setting a low bar simply ensures that decisions will be endlessly contested, leading to wasted time and money by project proponents, potential investors, First Nations, local communities, environmental NGO’s, and the many levels of government. Investors week clarity and certainty, not endless delays - the only way to achieve that is with with clear, high standards.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
To improve cooperation between jurisdictions we must re-establish the navigable waters protection act. The NWPA crosses all jurisdictions - it is fundamental to cross-jurisdictional cooperation. Anything less than NWPA will fail to establish a clear foundation or basis for discussion or for decisions.
Karen Whiteside almost 2 years ago
Cooperation with Jurisdictions - Q. What are the most important steps we should take to improve cooperation across jurisdictions? provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments should retain an active role in project assessments, either initially conducting the assessment or signing off after validating findings from a federal assessment or vise versa.
Keepers of the Athabasca almost 2 years ago
CEAA may need to combine some agencies for optimum efficiency.Be careful on bullet 2 (considering substitution of project assessments): concerns exist about captured regulators and agencies unwilling to address their mandate, for example, Health Canada in response to Teck's proposed new bitumen mine, the Frontier Oil Sands Project, in which they do not see any reason for the project not to go ahead. This is after charging Dr. John O'Connor with 'causing undue alarm' regarding cancer clusters in northern Alberta, settling with him out of court because he was correct, and the final health study never being completed (First Nations walked away after industry groups wanted to become involved - why in the world would industry ever have anything to do with a health study?).Another example is the Alberta Energy Regulator, who is proven over and over again to be utilizing inaccurate data sets, not have the resources (or perhaps the inclination) for inspections, and many other complaints. Is there a way to 'cooperate' while correcting behaviors rampant in certain jurisdictions?We questions what is meant by 'developing new provisions to enable substitution with Indigenous governments', and 'increasing flexibility to allow the Government of Canada to defer or harmonize with environmental assessment processes created pursuant to Indigenous governments.' We hope what is mean is that the Government of Canada will work more closely with First Nations governance structures to realize and act on the contributions of Traditional Knowledge holders.We have seen many incidences of municipalities with environmentally destructive practices, especially since protections were removed from Canada's waterways. Incidents include wanting to place barriers in the Athabasca River (purportedly for erosion control), allowing illegal marinas around the Lesser Slave Lake on a regular basis, and many many other instances. We hope that our federal government can address long term environmental responsibility with municipalities.
Melanie almost 2 years ago
In cases where provinces and cities do not agree with a project taking place there needs to be a process in place to deal with that. If a majority of people in a geographic area are opposed to environmental, human health and social impacts of a project that needs to be addressed.
Arlene Kwasniak, University of Calgary, Faculty of almost 2 years ago
There should be only cooperation and integration, no substitution as that term is narrowly used. Please see my paper that I uploaded "Harmonization, Substitution, Equivalency, and Delegation in Relation to Federal Assessment" which was commissioned by the Expert Panel. Also see the critique of substitution in our paper "Strengthening Canada's Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Processes: Recommendations and Model Legislation" by Professors Martin Olszynski, University of Calgary Faculty of Law, Jocelyn Stacey, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia Jason MacLean, University of Saskatchewan College of Law Arlene Kwasniak, University of Calgary Faculty of Law Robert Gibson, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, uploaded by Professor Olszynski.
G. Meston almost 2 years ago
Envision a better way: Civilization is on the brink of a new way of thinking and doing and a clear vision, based on scientific data, will appeal across jurisdictions. Stop using the man-made-up “economy” as an excuse to ignore environmental destruction and climate change realities. Emphasis on “profits” repeatedly undermines good policy. What benefit is wealth (increasingly for only a few) if we are poisoning and sacrificing the underpinnings of our very survival? What costs result by ignoring the poisoning? Instead, emphasize the higher goals of health and well-being, as a result of clean and protected natural resources. Elevate the beauty and perfect functioning of healthy eco-systems with humanity as part of the eco-systems of our communities, our country and our world. Go for it!
The Inverhuron Committee almost 2 years ago
Projects which overlap in any way must be overseen by one body with co-operation among entities. In the case of the deep geologic repository, this would mean co-operation between the federal and provincial governments with less involvement by the CNSC as leader. It is not economically sound to have two projects working individually with obvious overlap. This creates unnecessary cost, and conflicts as well as a huge burden on the public who are trying to keep up to date on two important projects that work independently.
Karen Wonders almost 2 years ago
Consult with environmental groups that have been working for decades on grass roots issues.
Karen Breeck MD almost 2 years ago
When addressing issues that may impact the amount and health of Canada's fresh water supplies - greater coordination and cooperation are required to acknowledge the importance of this resource to all Canadians now and for the generations to come. Water discussions require improved and higher levels of cooperation across all jurisdictions.
Martha Jo (MJ) Willard almost 2 years ago
1. Decision making retained by Minister(s) or Cabinet but must be evidence based as well as based on Indigenous environmental knowledge and more leadership than final decision only on whether projects are in the public interest, to ensure accountable government2. Project List Regulations periodically reviewed (state time frame)3. Projects can still be designated, or excluded, from assessment, under certain conditions based on clear criteria and a transparent process Clarify Need cumulative, biodiversity, assessment as well as signoff but Indigenous based on their environmental knowledge to protect Mother Earth4. Authority for enforceable assessment conditions must be specified5. Explore a mechanism to amend project conditions to support adaptive management and technological advances6. As a standard mechanism of working: nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown, government-to-government7. Assessments are cooperative and flexible
Jane almost 2 years ago
• Regularly monitor at the local, national and international level to understand changing perceptions of climate change and about Canada’s impact, contribution and obligations to climate change such as meeting our Paris Climate Agreement obligations. • Ask all jurisdictions what they feel are the most significant challenges of climate change within their geographic boundaries.• Ask all jurisdictions what they think the economic downsides and upsides would be for their areas in transitional processes away from fossil fuels.• Ask for success stories already underway of how people are already taking action on climate change and highlight them.• Ask all jurisdictions for a list of clean energy education and clean energy entrepreneurial projects in their jurisdictions and how they can offer more support (for example - affordability for solar panels, easy transition and simple processes for permits for installing solar panels).• Ask all jurisdictions for predictions of the costs of relief funds from extreme weather, a result of climate change.• Ask jurisdictions of how they think climate change will affect the water resources in their jurisdictions and what back-up plan they have if water becomes scarce or too polluted.• Ask all jurisdictions for thoughts about how they can help their neighbours across the world, the country or just next door in times of dangerous climate change. We’ve seen how people in Canada help one another in times of need such as in the Fort Mac fire and in BC’s wildfires. It is time to come together over climate change. • Ensure all jurisdictions have access to the final draft of this following Climate Science Special Report. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html
Ahava almost 2 years ago
Do not force unwanted, environmentally destructive projects on any group. Listen. Abide by your promises. Acknowledge Fist Nations rights and territories.Assure that All parties are at the "table" during all steps of the process.
Jim Culp almost 2 years ago
I agree with concept so long as the process is not watered down and it does not interfere with provincial, municipal and First Nations Rights.I support those who want to see significant changes to National Energy Board and for it to be relocated to Ottawa to reduce lobbying by the oil and gas industry. So long is it is located in Alberta Canadians will question where its allegiance lies
Anhthu almost 2 years ago
More dialogue between governments. Perhaps, appoint liaison officers who main responsibilities are to identify and address issues requiring cooperation across jurisdictions.
Onni Milne almost 2 years ago
Listening to those who have concerns regarding destruction of our Home and Commons Heritage is a good place to start. Acting in accordance with those concerns is a good step to follow. "In the national interest" has become code for approval of every project in spite of intense citizen/First Nations disapproval. It seems that municipal governments (at least in BC) are ahead of our national government in incorporating economic, environmental and social interests.
DT almost 2 years ago
Do not force unwanted, environmentally destructive projects and process on any group.Have an objective third party assess the safety of the Energy Boards and not those working in the Boards themselves which is completely biased.
Evelyn Scott almost 2 years ago
Our federal government needs to provide a strong structure and legislative framework to ensure our indigenous peoples across the country be given their recognition as long standing protectors and managers of our water, lands and air. Regardless of province or territory this co management role needs to be recognized.
Wendy W. almost 2 years ago
Time and money is wasted arguing between federal and provincial governments. Of course every province is biased to their own needs. So of course it's difficult for provinces to self-assess projects that impact multiple jurisdictions. We need tough federal laws that set the bar high for environmental protection. Then the opportunities and challenges are fair across-the-board. Provinces and Muicipalities should have opportunities to participate in suggesting good/better/best choices for their citizens but everyone should have to meet or surpass the same criteria, no exceptions.
Alexander Quaglia almost 2 years ago
Promote the respect to our common home: Canada
John D. Jacobs, PhD almost 2 years ago
Set a rigorous standard for scientific assessment and ensure that the various agencies involved meet those standards. “One project, one assessment” must not become an excuse for shifting responsibility for the final decision to one level. History shows that provincial EA authorities may be biased in favour of a development on economic grounds and chose to ignore scientifically demonstrable environmental considerations.
Charlene Minifie almost 2 years ago
Off-shore interests should NOT be incorporated. This is a sell-out to all Canadians.
Judith Sharp almost 2 years ago
We need to respect the differences in each jurisdictions and not steam-roller over one to gain more for another.
Ian Bonyun almost 2 years ago
When BC says "no pipelines, no tankers", how about you listen to them?
Nicole Corrado almost 2 years ago
Make these forms easier and quicker to fill out. Contact all Canadians on the voters list.
Betsy Johnston almost 2 years ago
I wholeheartedly support and agree with the following comment. First: We can try to look beyond our own borders to the larger context, seeking models that work elsewhere. Start with the Extraction Industry Transparency Initiative, EITI. A clear, strong, internationally accepted, foundation for inter-jurisdictional resource extraction agreements as a basis for cooperation…. Second: Re-establishing the navigable waters protection act. Anything less fails to establish a foundation or basis for discussion or for decisions…. Third:. set a clear, high bar for environmental protections and social benefits, including Indigenous issues. Anything less leads to waste of time and money by project proponents. If project sponsors aren't prepared to strive for truly effective solutions, let's not waste their time and money, nor the taxpayers’, nor the First Nations’….. Fourth: ensure information about the science, the project, etc. is widely available in a useful, open, manner (open-data, not buried in non-machine readable PDF's).... Fifth: ensure all those involved understand that social impact and environmental impacts will be measured on a long-term, multi-generational, basis, not just on the maximum number employed for a construction season or two.
PATRICIA ARNEY almost 2 years ago
I agree with Nora's submission below. Seems the Federal government is quite capable of imposing laws across the country so why not impose stronger environmental protection laws?Overall responsibility for the environment should be in the hands of the federal government since it covers the entire country and many issues will cross provincial boundaries. This should not prevent provincial governments to enact tougher regulations in any area if they want. Assessments are crucial EAA should be the only agency doing environmental assessments and have authority on this -it should be almost like a judicial board. Proper assessment of a project is crucial in making appropriate decisions.
Nancy Crozier almost 2 years ago
Oh,and keep the corporations out of these governing conferences.The enormous influence of business should be only invited in when the perameters and intentions of regulations have been laid down.
Nancy Crozier almost 2 years ago
Good luck with that....tricky as each region/province has very different needs and priorities.Maybe compulsory meetings of Premiers on a quarterly schedule.And include FirstNations leaders in those meetings.
Susan E. Match almost 2 years ago
Listen to the Green Party. They didn't win but they represent a lot of Canadians. Many who would have voted Green voted for these Liberals based on their election promises. So listen to the Greens. What has happened to Trudeau - why is he so controlled by big corporate destroyers. He was so confident going into the election. He promised to work with the Greens. What happened?
Marilyn Shaw almost 2 years ago
Have non-partisan teams. Have a variety of peoples from different levels of government. Have indigenous representation acceptable to most indigenous peoples. Have both men and women. Have people from different ethnicities and social levels. Have people who care about the world more than themselves and who are smart, committed, and interested.
Craig E Vogan almost 2 years ago
Please start listening to groups like the indigenous, scientific communities, David Suzuki Foundation etc. before making long term recomendations on our environments and how to manage them effectively !
Kim Charlesworth almost 2 years ago
Be transparent - and ensure that the goals are protection of the environment, water, and air; not economic status quo. Invite the overlapping agencies to the table and be prepared to accept advice.
R Thomas almost 2 years ago
Actually share information and commit to working together across agencies, departments, and jurisdictions. This has been done in many areas, e.g. in Ontario for water quality where the conservation authority brings together provincial, municipal, and non-profit organizations to monitor water quality and develop policies to protect it. You need to plan events and processes that purposely invite these different organizations and levels of government together to enhance collaboration. These aren't easy issues to resolve.
Ken Forster Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate almost 2 years ago
Are you speaking of Federal and Provincial jurisdictions? If in regard to Water Protection, if we leave it as is, our lakes and rivers will all be vulnerable to industry. This is clearly not what Canadians want.The government’s decision to maintain the previous government’s destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) lacks wisdom. 99% of Canadian lakes, rivers and streams will remain unprotected from industrial projects. This is not what Canadians want.
Barbara DeMott almost 2 years ago
I wholeheartedly support and agree with the following comment. First: We can try to look beyond our own borders to the larger context, seeking models that work elsewhere. Start with the Extraction Industry Transparency Initiative, EITI. A clear, strong, internationally accepted, foundation for inter-jurisdictional resource extraction agreements as a basis for cooperation…. Second: Re-establishing the navigable waters protection act. Anything less fails to establish a foundation or basis for discussion or for decisions…. Third:. set a clear, high bar for environmental protections and social benefits, including Indigenous issues. Anything less leads to waste of time and money by project proponents. If project sponsors aren't prepared to strive for truly effective solutions, let's not waste their time and money, nor the taxpayers’, nor the First Nations’….. Fourth: ensure information about the science, the project, etc. is widely available in a useful, open, manner (open-data, not buried in non-machine readable PDF's).... Fifth: ensure all those involved understand that social impact and environmental impacts will be measured on a long-term, multi-generational, basis, not just on the maximum number employed for a construction season or two.
Nora Fernandez almost 2 years ago
Overall responsibility for the environment should be in the hands of the federal government since it covers the entire country and many issues will cross provincial boundaries. This should not prevent provincial governments to enact tougher regulations in any area if they want. Assessments are crucial EAA should be the only agency doing environmental assessments and have authority on this -it should be almost like a judicial board. Proper assessment of a project is crucial in making appropriate decisions.
Maureen McGuire almost 2 years ago
We have the tools. Overhaul the NEB and move it out of Calgary.
Roger Richardson almost 2 years ago
BC is not finding co-operation with oil and gas pipelines. Our rivers, lakes and coast will suffer for the profit of others.
Timothy Bartoo almost 2 years ago
The “one project – one assessment” idea is undoubtedly popular amongst proponents and the federal government. Being on the receiving end of a provincial-federal unified pre-determined decision process on TMX project, perpetrated by an industry-captured regulator (the NEB) that puts our beloved BC coastal environment at severe environmental risk with benefits accruing overwhelmingly to non-Canadian-based multinational corporations has galvanized my opposition to any process that attempts to undermine the legitimate fundamental authority of the Provinces to protect their environment and citizenry. The Liberal government would be wise to tread very carefully regarding any attempt to take decision-making power away from the Provinces and First Nations.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
Removed by moderator.
Jess Harding almost 2 years ago
First: We can try to look beyond our own borders to the larger context, seeking models that work elsewhere. Start with the Extraction Industry Transparency Initiative, EITI. A clear, strong, internationally accepted, foundation for inter-jurisdictional resource extraction agreements as a basis for cooperation…. Second: Re-establishing the navigable waters protection act. Anything less fails to establish a foundation or basis for discussion or for decisions…. Third:. set a clear, high bar for environmental protections and social benefits, including Indigenous issues. Anything less leads to waste of time and money by project proponents. If project sponsors aren't prepared to strive for truly effective solutions, let's not waste their time and money, nor the taxpayers’, nor the First Nations’….. Fourth: ensure information about the science, the project, etc. is widely available in a useful, open, manner (open-data, not buried in non-machine readable PDF's).... Fifth: ensure all those involved understand that social impact and environmental impacts will be measured on a long-term, multi-generational, basis, not just on the maximum number employed for a construction season or two.
Colin Creasey about 2 years ago
Cooperation, to me, if finding a way through competing viewpoints, in order to come up with a consensus. This is what the Federal government should be doing, but I don't think that this government wants to listen to different opinions. It has already proven that it is incapable of doing that. Just look at what happened to the Health Accord. The most important step is for the Federal government to grasp the nettle, and provide some actual leadership. This has to be a give and take process. People do actually understand that.
Bruce William McCulloch about 2 years ago
Engage all stakeholders
Clement Kent about 2 years ago
How about making this a democratic process? Give a fixed number of votes to each of industry, provinces, Indigenous groups, landowners, scientific & environmental groups, and lastly the federal government. Define clearly the number/proportion of votes required to approve a project, and stick by this.
Bonnie Sokoloski about 2 years ago
Again, please explain what you mean by this. Cooperation across which jurisdictions? Cooperation usually involves unbiased listening and consensus building.
Peter Moller about 2 years ago
Overall responsibility for the environment should be in the hands of the federal government since it covers the entire country and many issues will cross provincial boundaries. This should not prevent provincial governments to enact tougher regulations in any area if they want.
Bill Johnstone about 2 years ago
Our government has few good reasons to stick with the current Navigable Waters Protection Act. Jurisdictions mostly don't have the resources to restore previous waterway protections case by case. Our government needs to revert the NWPA to its previous form. If we leave it as is, our lakes and rivers will all be vulnerable to industry. This is clearly not what Canadians want.
lindawilbee about 2 years ago
No province should be allowed to hold another province's environment hostage for its own political or economic gain.
Mel Duhamel about 2 years ago
Get all stakeholders at the table early, try to break down silos and turf wars between government agencies, and encourage open communication between all parties on a human level. While some parties will remain entrenched in their viewpoint no matter what, hopefully a majority of reasonable heads will agree on a path forward. In some cases, scrapping the project completely or relocating it to a less sensitive area may well be the outcome that is in the best public interest. Taxpayers are usually stuck with the bills for cleaning up industry's abandoned sites, as well as the costs of healthcare or having to provide alternate food and water sources for affected communities. These project costs can exceed the taxes and royalties that the governments received from those industries while they were operating. We need to keep that in mind when considering what's truly in the public's best interest.
R Procyk about 2 years ago
See belo
E. Peter about 2 years ago
Local or provincial "wants" often conflict with the greater (Canadian/global) good. Discussions with provincial and more "local" jurisdictions are useful but, if there is an impasse, the greater global and national "good" should prevail.
Patricia Rogerson about 2 years ago
Recognize that each community sees everyone else as the other, start every conversation with a gathering of all of the others and their needs into a common direction with many different goals. The direction is important the goals less so.
Jacqueline Steffen about 2 years ago
There should be a review and and an assessment process with participation from all jurisdictions affected. Further discussion and solutions can be resolved if all issues are addressed.
Roger about 2 years ago
There should be a single review and assessment process with maximal participation and access - not a chain of re-assessment for multiple jurisdictions. That said, in some cases, one participating jurisdiction can veto an approval
Gordon about 2 years ago
As with indigenous people, no one group or jurisdiction (municipal or provincal) should be able to withhold approval or hold a project to ransom. There also should be a fixed time frame for the process which should have event time periods.
Al Spiess about 2 years ago
Cooperation should start with recognition of Provincial jurisdiction. Projects must be allowed to move forward if they meet the requirements of the Provincial governing agency. If a project falls under federal jurisdiction, the cooperation moves in the other direction, once approved by the responsible federal government agency then all provinces have a legal obligation to allow the project to move forward. Political and or individual group idealism should not be tolerated once approval is given.
Andrew Adams about 2 years ago
Input from various other jurisdictions is necessary but where the overall public good of the whole country comes into conflict with a city or district's wishes then the whole country's benefit should override local concerns otherwise virtually no project in this country would ever go ahead.
JACK MEYER about 2 years ago
Everyone with a stake should be willing to come to the table and address issues cooperatively.
Earl Matheson about 2 years ago
Eliminate interprovincial barriers and impediments related to trade and employment.
J. Walker about 2 years ago
Determine the roles and responsibilities of each agency and endeavour not to overlap government accountabilities. Then, provide the department with the resources to do the work.
Greg Decker about 2 years ago
Any person or organization that deliberately delays the regulatory, court challenges or construction phase should be fined $10,000 per day with no maximum amount. Plus if convicted would automatically be disallowed for 5 years from ANY federal funding.
Greg Decker about 2 years ago
Good luck with this!! Every jurisdiction feels they deserve a VETO for any project they don't like. Already our different jurisdictions can not cooperate on something as simple as alcohol. ANY project that crosses multiple jurisdiction's ( pipelines, power lines) or is a national priority ( ship building, nuclear power) should only require federal approval and federal permits required. This would prevent a provincial jurisdiction from delaying projects by refusing simple permits ( road building or tree removal). Time limits should be enshrined into law for each step, to a maximum of 2 years. 1 year would then be allowed extra, for court challenges. This would give a certainty of 3 years to a decision. If after 1 year of court challenges is reached (with no decision) the " Notwithstanding" clause should be applied and the regulatory decision should be applied. Regulatory uncertainty has decimated the investment climate. This has led to direct financial consequences for us and thousands of others. Let alone the indirect losses everyone suffers from with reduced royalties and taxes paid.