A green sleight of hand

Canadian Environmental Assessment Reforms shift project reviews from CEAA to the National Energy Board and CNSC, accelerating regulatory review of pipelines and nuclear facilities while raising oversight, sustainability, and green energy policy concerns.

Canadians do not want to see important infrastructure projects held up by pointlessly long environmental assessments that can be used by opponents to hijack good plans.

But nor do they want to see projects that are potentially damaging to the environment given cursory, rubber stamp approvals. And that is what makes Prime Minister Stephen Harper's changes to the nation's environmental assessment process, outlined in this month's throne speech and budget, so troubling.

If the government thought there were problems that need fixing – to ensure "improved environmental protection and greater certainty to industry," as stated in the throne speech – it ought to have explained publicly what the problems were and sought advice on the best possible reforms.

Instead, the government used its budget to announce that responsibility for environmental reviews of energy projects will be removed from the federal agency designed for that very purpose, and handed over to the National Energy Board for such projects, an agency whose primary mandate is to develop the oil, gas and electric sectors. Assessments of nuclear projects will go to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

This, coupled with the government's broader plans to remove what it calls "red tape" holding back businesses – which others call necessary environmental protections – raises questions about the underlying motivations for these changes.

Why strip reviews of energy projects – such as oil and gas pipelines – from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which has proven expertise and familiarity with the act's requirements?

It's easy enough to see how this can "accelerate regulatory review," as the budget states, and advance regulatory reform efforts, but how exactly does it "improve" protections? Sierra Club Canada argues that the government used the budget to "begin dismantling the (Canadian) Environmental Assessment Agency."

Certainly, this is yet another indication that Harper's government continues to see economic growth and environmental protection as opposing principles. Protecting the environment does not spell an end to economic growth; governments can and must pursue both strategies simultaneously.

Indeed, Ontario is showing the way by pursuing green energy, such as wind and solar – creating jobs and economic investment even as the U.S. leads in green investments today without selling the environment short.

But, far from embracing the opportunities of a green economy, Ottawa through its federal green strategy peddles funding for carbon capture and storage projects as support for "clean energy solutions."

Responding to critics of the environmental assessment changes, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice said the government wants a regulatory regime that "supports sustainable development and environmental practices," emphasizing the need for long-term green policies to guide industry.

That's what Canadians want, too. Unfortunately, there seems little hope that these changes will accomplish anything like those goals.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News