Senator Francis: This question is for Mr. Olszynski. I’m concerned that Bill C-5 does not include any mechanism to pause or revoke a project once the single authorization document has been issued, even if new evidence later reveals that the project creates significant unintended social or environmental consequences. In your opinion, should the bill include a mandatory review mechanism or revocation clause to allow for reassessment and corrective action after approval?

Mr. Olszynski: It is true that a project can be deleted from the list but only until the section 7 authorization is issued. It is hard to imagine in a bill like this, where the whole point is to create certainty or an early green light, having a provision that revokes that green light. I imagine that it would be hard to reconcile those two imperatives.

However, there is a power to change the conditions of a project as time goes on. That power is explicitly there. It is important that it is there. Then the question becomes in a sense, what can you do with the breadth of that condition changing? It might mean that, ultimately, if you have decided that some effect or impact is not actually okay, you could change the conditions to try to minimize or even eliminate it. But to your first question, I think in the context of the bill that says yes right out of the gate, it would be hard to include something like that.