Carney’s Major Projects Bill Could Be a Fast Track to Catastrophe |
The recent passage of Bill C-5 has left many in a fog. Framed as a response to threats from the United States administration, the legislation is, in the main, intended to fast-track what the Canadian government sees as projects integral to the country’s economic security.
I am someone with decades of experience working on large mining, oil and gas, and environmental projects in many capacities—from Peru to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, from Patagonia to Northern Canada. I have been at the tip of the spear for construction but also on teams managing ecological impacts. I have seen first-hand how well a project can go but also the disaster that can befall it if it is rushed. With that experience, I can say that there are positives and negatives to the process envisioned under Bill C-5, and somewhere in there are opportunities to expand on but also tripwires and land mines to be aware of.
The item I focused on immediately in the new legislation was the “one project, one review” principle to eliminate duplicate studies when it comes to environmental impacts. Any large-scale development in Canada requires what is referred to as an Environmental Impact Assessment, or EIA. These have been at the core of any project I have worked on. It is a long-term study not only into potential impacts but also to build a clear understanding of what is in that place before the work starts: detailed studies of flora and fauna, water bodies both above and below ground, and effects on local communities. EIAs build a case for a project and also influence how and where things are built.
I’ve often heard the complaint that these kinds of standards aren’t practised everywhere and that they put Canada at a disadvantage when competing internationally. In fact, the opposite is true. EIAs are a widely accepted global norm, and projects that try to bypass them are the ones out of step with international practice. Canada’s long-standing commitment to these processes—and our leadership in refining them—has made us a model for responsible development worldwide.
In many ways, we in Canada have been far ahead on these processes for a long time. While working in Peru in the early 2000s, I found the national environmental regulations around mining and large projects a jigsaw puzzle, one that had missing pieces and required an effort to make things fit where they sometimes didn’t. The Peruvian government and a few mining companies began to work with Canada, creating a framework of co-operation and technical assistance and building a model which became their own. The systems in place in Peru now are profoundly improved and impactful in a complicated mining landscape that runs from the high mountains to the desert, jungle on one side and the ocean on the other. It would be strange for Canada to begin to dismantle its model processes while other jurisdictions grow and deepen theirs.
EIAs can look different for different kinds of projects depending on where they are being proposed. The Liberal government’s initial list of major projects, for example, includes two copper mines—one in Saskatchewan and another in British Columbia—as well as a plan to build out the LNG Canada terminal in Kitimat, BC, which would involve expanding the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Now, mines may have a deep impact over a relatively small footprint, whereas a pipeline can have a narrow band of influence over the distance of whole provinces or even the country. These different types of projects carry different challenges, advantages, and risks. Pipelines can provide a nation with a new and powerful position in a world hungry for energy, but they can also leak, spill, and suffer blowouts. Mines bring us the materials we use in society every day, but their impact on the land is, in many ways, permanent.
Whether or not these projects are important enough to take these risks can depend on who you ask. However, any project, large or small, should have thorough and intelligent processes to determine........