The latest report by the environment commissioner does not suggest Canada is anywhere close to China’s level of ecological degradation, but Scott Vaughan said he is concerned environmental protection is failing to keep pace with economic development.
“It’s clear there is a natural resources boom … Maybe it’s time for a boom in terms of environmental protection to protect Canadians’ health and to protect the Canadian economy,” he said.
Specifically, he pointed to gaps in environmental safeguards such as the low level of inspections in major resource projects; continuing government tax incentives that support fossil fuel extraction; slow progress in establishing marine protection areas; and, a lack of co-ordination between East Coast petroleum boards and the federal government if they had to respond to a major oil spill. In that case, the Canadian Coast Guard has no mandate to respond to a major oil spill, he said.
Opposition parties seemed surprised to find out things are as bad as they’ve been saying, but they rebounded sufficiently to pepper the prime minister with questions in the House of Commons.
Tom Mulcair, the New Democratic Party leader, suggested the Conservatives have let big polluters off the hook and left the taxpayer to foot the bill. He was referring to the chapter in the report on financial assurances for environmental risk.
This pointed out Canada’s nuclear industry is liable for just $75-million in the event of an accident, which is minuscule compared to Germany, where liability for operators is $3-billion, and Japan, where liability is unlimited and operators must carry insurance of $1.5-billion. Similarly, offshore oil and gas liability is limited to $30-million to $40-million, compared to $249.8-million in Britain.
Stephen Harper replied the polluter pay principle remains at the centre of his responsible resource development agenda and more action will be taken in the future.
Legislation to increase liability to $650-million has been introduced in previous parliaments and Peter Kent, the environment minister, said work is under way to address the financial assurances issue.
Bob Rae, the interim Liberal leader, also pressed Mr. Harper on whether he agreed with Mr. Vaughan’s central conclusion — there are gaps between the pace of natural resource development and environmental protection.
The prime minister appeared to reply in the affirmative, saying growth means those protections need to be enhanced and that government intends to take “additional measures.”
The environment will always be a “shield” issue for the Conservatives, one where they are perpetually on the defensive. But, even when judged by Tory standards of ambivalence toward the biosphere, 2012 did not go well.
Having provoked aboriginal ire by ramming through his omnibus budget bills, Mr. Harper appears to have reached the conclusion his image as the prime minister prepared to befoul Canada’s pristine wilderness in the relentless quest for profit may have gone a bit too far.
Most of Mr. Vaughan’s recommendations were accepted without reservation by the government and we will see in the coming weeks whether this was just political expediency.
What was noticeable about most of the political exchanges was the broad consensus among the parties. I don’t mean they agreed.
But, for example, there was no suggestion from the NDP there should be a moratorium on resource development. The main criticism from the NDP environment critic, Megan Leslie, was the Conservatives are guilty of poor financial management through use of fossil fuel subsidies and outdated liability limits.
This is a party that sees itself as a government-in-waiting and, as such, is not about to shut down a sector that employs 750,000 Canadians.
The commissioner’s chapter on fossil fuel subsidies was one of the most interesting and bears scrutiny.
At first blush, conservatives and progressives should be united in condemning continued hand-outs to fossil fuel companies, in contravention of the Group of 20 commitment to reduce such subsidies.
On closer examination, there may be a case to be made for some of the nearly $1-billion a year in direct subsidies and tax incentives, if you buy the idea they should only be used to encourage innovative activity that might not otherwise take place.
In the past five years, the report suggested $508-million has been spent in direct subsidies, but nearly all of that was on clean tech research and development.
In the same period, $1.47-billion of revenue was foregone as a result of the accelerated capital cost allowance on oilsands projects, which encourages companies to invest in new production technologies and improve productivity. The program is being phased out by 2015 and its day is probably done.
A further $1.9-billion of tax revenue was foregone in the same period by allowing companies to use flow-through share deductions. This tax shelter enables businesses like junior mining companies to raise money by selling unused tax deductions to investors.
The Mineral Exploration Tax Credit is set to expire in March but Ross Gallinger, executive director of the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada, says the $80-million to $100-million in reduction to government revenues allowed junior miners to raise $700-million in flow-through financing last year, to the benefit of many northern and aboriginal communities.
These are high-risk plays where investors need an incentive to get involved. They hardly constitute subsidies. In fact, clean tech companies – which are similarly high-risk investments – are lobbying for the same kind of tax treatment.
The political parties may disagree on some of the finer points of detail in Mr. Vaughan’s report. Where everyone seems to agree is that more work needs to be done to close some of the gaps identified.
There are signs the Harper government realizes the $600-billion in new natural resources projects will not come to fruition simply because it wants them to — it needs to show environmental stewardship to win the consent and support of people affected.
This is not China and there is a recognition growth cannot be at all costs.
Original Article
Source: fullcomment.nationalpost.com
Author: John Ivison
No comments:
Post a Comment