“The budget was a sad day for Canada in terms of the environment and the health and safety of Canadians,” Liberal environment critic Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Ont.) told The Hill Times last week. Ms. Duncan said that she was all for an efficient regulatory regime, but took a swipe at the government for using the struggling the economy as “an opportunity to gut environmental legislation.”
Ms. Duncan, who was part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2007 and taught at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management before entering Parliament in 2008, accused the government of ignoring the private sector’s willingness to transition to a green economy. Instead, she said, the government is attempting to fast-track development at the expense of the environment.
“What’s good for the environment can be good for the economy, and business gets this,” said Ms. Duncan. “If you reduce waste it pays off. Business understands this and Canadian communities understand this. They’re taking action and our government is lagging.”
The federal budget for 2012-2013 outlined planned changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in its chapter titled ‘Improving Conditions for Business Investment.’
Citing regulatory overlap between provincial and federal environmental assessments, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s (Whitby-Oshawa, Ont.) latest fiscal framework confirmed that the government intends to “establish clear timelines, reduce duplication and regulatory burdens, and focus resources on large projects where the potential environmental impacts are the greatest” in an effort to “modernize the federal regulatory system.”
According to Natural Resources Canada, defined timelines will consist of 24 months for panel reviews, 18 months for National Energy Board hearings, and 12 months for standard environmental assessments.
Mr. Flaherty has confirmed that the restrictions on the duration of environmental reviews will apply retroactively to major energy projects. This would likely apply to Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline—a two-way 1177 km conduit that would export up to 525,000 barrels a day of Alberta bitumen to port facilities in Kitimat, B.C. and import up to 193,000 barrels of condensate daily to Bruderheim, Alta. That project went to a joint review panel in January, but the imposition of retroactive timelines could cut the review short if it continues beyond 24 months.
The Hill Times contacted the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for an interview with agency president Elaine Feldman, but a spokesperson directed the request to Environment Minister Peter Kent’s (Thornhill, Ont.) office.
Mr. Kent was unavailable to comment on when legislation to reform CEAA would be introduced. An assistant to the environment minister would only confirm that reforms were “forthcoming,” but could not comment on whether or not the legislation would be introduced before the summer.
In October, Ms. Feldman told the House Environment and Sustainable Development Committee that her agency was “going to be very busy” if it was to review $500-billion in proposed natural resource projects over the next decade. Ms. Feldman delivered her testimony at the opening of the committee’s statutory review of CEAA.
The agency’s funding has been cut from $30-million to $17-million between 2011-12 and 2012-13—a 43 per cent reduction.
The committee’s final report, released in March, recommended many of the reforms promised in the budget.
Liberal and NDP members of the committee both produced dissenting opinions criticizing the committee’s report for focusing on the narrow recommendations from industry and for disregarding input from aboriginal groups and conservationists. The budget will invest $13.6-million over the next two years for aboriginal consultation as part of the new “streamlined” review process.
Simon Dyer, who serves as policy director for the Pembina Institute, said that the federal government has already backed off of environmental assessments for large-scale industrial projects. Mr. Dyer described the federal-provincial treatment of environmental reviews as a case of “hot potato.”
“Neither level of government really seems to want to invest adequate resources in ensuring environmental assessments are done properly,” observed Mr. Dyer, referring to Alberta and Ottawa’s regulation of development in the oil sands. “We’re talking about a situation where both the provincial and federal governments have starved the review bodies to the point that they can’t do an adequate job.”
Mr. Dyer also reiterated Ms. Duncan’s suggestion that the plans were short-sighted from economic standpoint.
“The perception around the world is that the oil sands are not well managed, and if you’re interested in the long game, it’s in the interests of the industry to have a rigorous and fair process,” said Mr. Dyer. “Weakening the process is actually going to hurt proponents in the long term if it actually weakens social licence and creates more opposition.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: CHRIS PLECASH
No comments:
Post a Comment