The acceleration of federal approvals for "nation-building projects" was the major theme of this week's first ministers meeting in Saskatoon. A rush to streamline approvals for resource development and infrastructure projects has been central to the Canadian response to United States President Donald Trump's profound disruptions to longstanding trade and security relationships.
Author
- Mark Winfield
Professor, Environmental and Urban Change, York University, Canada
At the provincial level, Ontario's Bill 5 and British Columbia's Bill 15 also propose to move aggressively to fast-track mining and infrastructure projects.
These fast-tracking efforts are fuelling debate, particularly in terms of the implications for Indigenous rights and the implicit trade-offs pertaining to the environment and climate change.
Regulations often a minor factor
Project review and approval processes in Canada have already been aggressively streamlined over the past decade. The 2019 Federal Impact Assessment Act , also known as Bill C-69, was largely modelled on Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 2012 Bill C-38 rewrite of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
It's important to determine why projects are delayed in the first place. Most move through assessment processes with little delay or controversy. Problems emerge when proposals are poorly designed, face serious technical or economic doubts, raise major environmental, climate or safety concerns, and spark significant social, political or legal conflicts over their costs, benefits and impacts.
A recent study on mining approvals in B.C., for example, found that far more mines were approved than ever actually developed. The main cause of delays was changing economic conditions. Regulation was found to be only a minor factor.
While there are always potential ways to improve review processes, the results of previous streamlining efforts suggest the need for caution about the potential for these initiatives to backfire.
Impact assessment and similar processes emerged as more than a way to accurately assess projects and their risks and benefits. They also provided a framework for managing intense social and political conflicts those projects may generate.
If these processes are streamlined too much, the conclusions of these assessments may seem illegitimate. There could be a trade-off between clear, certain outcomes and ensuring the approval process is fair and trustworthy.
Exacerbating conflict
The Harper government's Bill C-38 reforms were intended to facilitate the construction of more oil pipelines. In the end, they only escalated the spiralling political and legal conflicts around projects like the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines.
The accompanying Alberta-to-B.C. Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline was only approved after a tortuous process. That culminated in the federal purchase and completion of the pipeline at a cost to taxpayers of $34 billion .
A similar process unfolded under Ontario's 2009 Green Energy Act . The legislation's aggressive bypassing of local approvals reinforced a backlash against renewable energy projects in rural communities. The end result was a nearly decade-long de facto moratorium on renewable energy development. The situation has only recently eased .
The political consequences of these efforts at streamlining are noteworthy. The Bill C-38 episode was seen as playing a role in the Harper government's defeat in 2015 . Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's loss of his majority government in 2011 was also partly attributed to the rural response to the Green Energy Act.
Checks and balances
Aside from the political aspects, it's important to recognize the value of thorough reviews for projects that are likely to be high-risk, high-cost and high-impact.
When past reviews have been rushed or cut short , they've undermine confidence in the decisions made - especially when even faster processes could increase the risks and costs passed on to taxpayers.
The Muskrat Falls and Site C hydro projects in Labrador and B.C., respectively, stand as testament to those risks. Both projects ran years behind schedule and billions over budget and continue to face major technical, environmental and economic challenges. Review processes can be important checks on poorly conceived, politically motivated projects.
It's also important to think carefully about the long-term economic rationales being presented for projects. Canada is a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer, making it unlikely to be among the last standing in a decarbonizing world .
That should raise serious questions about major investments in new fossil fuel export infrastructure. The irony of developing such projects as major wildfires, widely attributed to the impacts of climate change, burn in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba cannot be overlooked.
Global markets for commodities like critical minerals are also uncertain and in deep flux .
The high costs of nuclear projects, as demonstrated by recent experiences in the U.S., the United Kingdom and Europe , also make them unlikely candidates to form the foundation for clean energy superpower status.
'Special economic zones'
Ontario's Bill 5 represents the most aggressive streamlining proposal seen so far. The legislation would exempt designated "special economic zones" and even trusted proponents - such as mining companies assigned to lead projects - from all applicable provincial and municipal laws and regulations.
The province's approach has raised fundamental questions about the rule of law, democratic governance and Indigenous rights , and jurisdictional boundaries.
Some commentators have pointed out that these zones are common in authoritarian regimes like China's, or in jurisdictions in deep economic distress .
Others have accused Ontario of racing to the bottom in terms of health, safety and environmental standards, respect for the rule of law, Indigenous rights and basic democratic values.
All of this suggests a need for caution in further streamlining review and approval processes for major projects. These are undertakings with risks and costs that could stretch far into the future and must be properly understood before they proceed.
Mark Winfield receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
