Accessibility and Access Keys [0]
Would you buy a house without knowing its price? Would you shop for groceries in a store where products weren’t priced? Of course not. So you shouldn’t let the government spend tax dollars without knowing what its decisions will cost Canadians in the short and long term.
Environment Minister Jim Prentice has announced a two-year waiver on federal environmental assessments of infrastructure projects funded by the Building Canada Plan. This decision risks letting the government put millions into infrastructure projects without knowing the environmental costs. While some projects (such as wastewater treatment plants and public transit) could have net positive effects by creating jobs and cleaning up our water and air, others will have net negative effects when we factor in their environmental costs (such as the health costs of air pollution).
The projects targeted by the plan are intended to provide “high-quality, modern public infrastructure that contributes to long-term economic growth, a clean environment and strong communities,” and create “a stronger, safer and better Canada.”
The government seems to be forgetting its promise to pursue economic development that is environmentally responsible. That promise is in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which aims to prevent environmental harm by assessing risks in advance, and to ensure public participation in environmental decisions.
It sounds like environmental assessment is also intended to make Canada “stronger, safer and better.” So why can’t that process and the Building Canada Plan work together?
The good news is, they can. Government can create jobs quickly and jump-start the economy while contributing to “long-term economic growth, a clean environment and strong communities” by targeting investment in green infrastructure. The recent Sustainable Prosperity study Building a Green Economic Stimulus Package for Canada showed that investing $1.7-billion in wastewater treatment would generate 17,000 jobs and clean water. Investing $4-billion in public transit would create 52,000 jobs while reducing air pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions.
Instead of waiving assessments for infrastructure projects, Mr. Prentice should exempt projects that create jobs without creating environmental debt – in other words, projects that build human and natural capital simultaneously. That’s how we create a “stronger, safer and better” country.
The government’s desire to streamline the assessment process for projects unlikely to generate significant adverse environmental effects is legitimate. According to environmental law expert David Boyd, of the 25,000 federal assessments conducted between 1995 and 2000, “more than 99.9 per cent were approved,” yet the government spent $40-million a year on the process. If assessments are expensive exercises that do not lead to protection, they should be changed. But the place for this change is during the legislation’s coming five-year review – not with dangerous exemptions.
Why dangerous? you might ask. After all, Mr. Prentice has proposed waivers only for the kinds of projects where experience has shown insignificant environmental effects.
Consider that an environmental assessment review panel recently concluded that Imperial Oil’s Kearl tar sands project – which will release emissions equivalent to an estimated 800,000 new passenger vehicles – will have “no significant environmental effects.” Are these the kinds of projects to be exempted?
The tar sands are an extreme example, but they illustrate the danger. More worrying is that this waiver is a sign of the government’s desire to severely gut the act during review. Without environmental assessment, we’re shopping without prices.
Waiving these requirements is a predictable reaction in times of economic crisis. But we saw the results of such “streamlining” during Ontario’s Common Sense Revolution. Have these lessons not led us past the point of equating environmental protection with economic harm?
We’ll never achieve durable economic prosperity by destroying the environment. The Building Canada Plan will only make Canada “stronger, better and safer” if it does so in an environmentally sustainable way. We don’t need to call off the watchdogs – we need to give them more teeth.
The authors are environmental law experts at the University of Ottawa.
Copyright 2009 – The Globe and Mail