Yes, absolutely.
Bill C‑5 has potential. The problem is that the legislation should constrain the forthcoming regulations as well as those that will follow.
Right now, the legislative wording is extremely vague. The dangers of vague legislative wording include inconsistent, unpredictable and politicized rule-making. Vague terms also make it more difficult for Parliament, courts and the public to hold regulators accountable for how they interpret and apply the law.
The way the bill is currently drafted, it is clear that we are referring to climate change when we talk about the factors that are considered to designate projects of national interest. I'm referring to paragraph 5(6)(e) in part 2 of the bill, which states that a project must “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.” That's extremely vague, and it would really be more precise to talk about Canada's environmental obligations, as well as its climate change and biodiversity commitments.