Is Ottawa really thinking and acting in our best interest?

There was time not that long ago when many of us thought we could rely on the feds to rein in the runaway that the Alberta Gov't. is on. My rude awakening is....I don't think so.

Lorne Fitch has provided a paper from the Government of Canada which expresses the need to fast track project approvals and a quicker road to development in order to win the favour of potential investors. We surely don’t want other countries getting the jump on us, proper protocols and the environment be damned.

Here’s Lorne with a link to that paper and his own take on it.

“Among many things the move on part of both governments to speed up approvals for projects has me spooked, especially related to coal mines. Here’s the discussion paper for the federal initiative. It seems like they would like input, so it might be good to make people aware of this and the opportunity to comment.”

Speed Kills—Even on Major Projects Approvals

Lorne Fitch, P. Biol.

Fast food, fast highways, fast project approvals. Everyone is in a rush these days. All introduce greater risk, more danger, and a sense there isn’t time to thoughtfully assess all of the implications of speed versus caution.

Bill 30, the Alberta government’s Expedited 120-Day Approval Act and the federal government’s “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada” initiative are examples of this pell-mell rush to get projects approved fast. There is a cost to this speed which is rarely factored into the hype and sales pitch of economic development.

The usual rationale is approvals take too long, the “red tape” is too constricting, and opportunity will flee to less regimented jurisdictions if governments don’t acquiesce and accede to reducing the regulatory burden.

Surely there is no conflict between corporate interests and the public good? Well, both the provincial and federal governments have been subject to a concerted whispering campaign that time is money, long-range planning for environmental assessment is overly onerous, regulations are too constraining, and if business doesn’t get a signal of speedy approvals the economy will surely crater. This all seems so compelling until one looks for the evidence.

There is no credible evidence that regulatory processes like environmental assessments are an obstacle for business, that the process currently takes too long, or in any way constrains economic development. On the contrary, it is in the public interest to ensure projects actually meet requirements for protection of water quality, landscape integrity, human health, biodiversity, and related conventions signed by governments.

The process also is a sober test of whether projects risk a bailout from the public purse because of bad business decisions or inadequate environmental restoration or reclamation.

One of the axioms of speed is “There’s never time to do it right, but there’s always time to do it over.” Except, many times we don’t get to do it over, especially when the pace of development zeal leaves an unfortunate legacy of polluted water, damaged landscapes, and biodiversity losses, including extirpation and extinction of species.

While the evidence of careful, thoughtful planning leading to unnecessary delays is wanting, the evidence of reckless, poorly planned, and political interventions leading to project failures, downloading of costs to the public, and damaged ecological integrity is legion. That’s why we require guardrails. Ironically, these serve to protect business as well from poor planning, unintended liabilities, and a rush to development with a lack of critical information to succeed.

In Alberta consider the thousands of abandoned gas and oil wells that the industry would like the public taxpayer to remediate. Or the deficit in funds to reclaim the tar sands and coal mines, and deal with their toxic legacy, if indeed this is remotely possible, because of business decisions initially rushed to approval.

We should not be fooled or lulled into a false sense of complacency by empty but soothing filler words and phrases from our governments on the need to erase careful, thoughtful planning and oversight. Be wary of “simplifying, clearer advice, pre-approval, narrowing types of activities for streamlining, allowing construction before approvals, adjusting impact assessment conditions, exempting projects.”

Added to this are the meaningless and mostly vacuous references to mitigation and offsetting to compensate for losses of biodiversity and habitats. This is particularly disingenuous since most of this “compensation” is unmonitored, untested, and unproven. Even the Auditor General of Canada says so.

All of this rush represents the essential dismantling of years of negotiation and public engagement on what the rules are for environmental impact assessments and the guardrails to ensure the public interest is protected in developments. This enthusiasm for economics over the environment overrides principles I thought were well enshrined, at least federally. It’s a significant step backwards.

The dubious quality of government promises is matched by the flood of hype and hyperbole on why we need to make significant environmental sacrifices in favour of the shiny bauble of speedy economic development. What could possibly go wrong with the rush to do so?

Lorne Fitch is a Professional Biologist, a retired Fish and Wildlife Biologist and a former Adjunct Professor with the University of Calgary. He is the author of Streams of Consequence, Travels Up the Creek, and Conservation Confidential.