Prime Minister Mark Carney’s new bill to fast-track major projects will have to rely on Conservative votes to pass, with all other parties expressing major reservations.
The legislation would allow the federal government to conditionally approve projects it deems “in the national interest” before an environmental or impact assessment or other regulatory processes take place.
Both the NDP and Greens have spoken out against it, while Patrick Bonin, Bloc Québécois environment and climate change critic, called Carney’s plan to fast-track major projects “highly problematic” at a French-language press conference on Monday. The federal government is seeking to give itself “superpowers” to accelerate projects and weaken environmental protections, Bonin said. Some of the factors used to evaluate whether a project is in the national interest are vague, and there’s no obligation for the government to adhere to it, he added. Then, there is the question of sovereignty and whether provinces can say no to projects in their jurisdiction.
Last week, Carney said projects need consensus from provinces to move forward, but the legislation doesn’t spell that out, leaving room for potential overreach on provincial jurisdiction, Bonin said.
The Building Canada Act is part of an omnibus bill that also includes action to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade, which is less controversial than the changes to major project approvals. On Monday, the Bloc Québécois called on the federal government to split the omnibus bill into two separate bills so the issues can be studied in the relevant federal committees.
The federal Conservatives have not confirmed whether they will support the bill — Leader Pierre Poilievre said caucus will discuss it on Wednesday. For the Conservatives, the question is not whether legislation is perfect, but whether it is better than the way things are, Poilievre said on Friday. “That's what we'll be looking at as we study this newly-introduced bill over the next few days.”
“We would vote in favour of accelerating even one project,” Poilievre said, indicating that he wants to see new pipelines in particular.
Last week, BC Premier David Eby said he will not support Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s vision of building a new oil pipeline to BC’s north coast.
Poilievre made it clear he doesn’t think provinces should get veto power over nationally important projects.
“We need a pipeline to the Pacific, and if the prime minister says he's going to wait till everyone agrees, then nothing will get done, which is what has been happening for the last decade,” Poilievre said at a press conference at Parliament Hill on Monday.
If the Conservatives support Bill C-5, the Liberals will have the votes they need to get it through the House of Commons. The NDP says its members will vote against the bill, with one MP calling the major projects section “really dangerous.”
“Once a project is on that list, it's not a question of if it's going to move forward, but how,” Alexandre Boulerice, NDP critic for environment and climate change, said in a phone interview with Canada’s National Observer.
“It's like Stephen Harper’s dreams coming true.”
He said the NDP is currently exploring possible options to block the bill, but any action would likely require cooperation with the Bloc Québécois. Either way, Boulerice doesn’t see how the federal government can rush the bill through by July 1, given that there are less than two weeks left before the House rises for the summer.
“It's a really capitalist logic that what we need to do is to provide certainty to investors and companies,” Boulerice said.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May also criticized the proposed legislation in a June 9 press release.
“Bill C-5 gives the federal Cabinet sweeping discretion to fast-track projects while weakening Indigenous rights and environmental protections,” May’s statement reads.
“This is the first time in 40 years that Canadian environmental assessment law has been written to serve political deals first and environmental responsibility second.”
Factors for determining national interest ‘carefully worded’
The bill lists some factors the government may consider when deciding whether a project will be listed for fast-tracking, one of which is whether it will “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.” Another factor is whether it will “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples.”
Boulerice said these are nothing more than broad slogans.
Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental governance at York University, was of the same mind.
“These are attempts to cover off points of potential vulnerability,” he said in a phone interview with Canada’s National Observer.
The bill does not have a clear definition of “clean growth,” he said, which creates huge loopholes for approving projects or employing technologies that many Canadians wouldn’t consider “clean.”
“The government has been very liberal in its definition of ‘clean’ to include things like CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage], critical minerals, [and] nuclear,” Winfield said.
The bill raises serious questions about how the federal government will reconcile Canada's climate change obligations with all the talk of potential pipeline and fossil fuel export projects at the same time as northern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario are going up in smoke, he added.
“Everybody thinks that it's an open door for pipelines, in fact, for oil and gas,” Boulerice said. “It's not about solving the housing crisis with a big project of building millions of homes. It's about energy.”
Carney has made repeated references to both clean and conventional energy, the latter of which refers to fossil fuels like oil and gas.
Carney has referenced “decarbonized” oil and used the Pathways Alliance’s proposed multi-billion dollar carbon capture project as an example of projects that could be considered for fast-tracking.
“Oil is carbon. There's no such thing as decarbonized oil,” Angela Carter, an associate professor of political science at Memorial University of Newfoundland, said in a phone interview.
“We need to be very, very careful about this definition of clean growth. If it's a project that contributes to sustaining and growing oil production, well, that's not clean growth. It's very, very, very simple.”
Bloc Québécois House Leader Christine Normandin said it's too early to say whether her party will support the bill. First, they want the government to respond to their request to split the bill into two parts, one for interprovincial trade and one for major projects.
“In a sense, this is taking what Stephen Harper tried to do with C-38 and putting it on steroids … The problem with trying to take shortcuts is it has a tendency to backfire and to make the underlying conflicts worse than ever,” Winfield said.
“Look what happened: Northern Gateway died, Energy East went nowhere, it took extraordinary steps to get Trans Mountain done.”
The biggest challenge for Carney’s government will likely be navigating Indigenous opposition and constitutional rights, said Michael Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council. Indigenous Peoples have the most “legal ability” to slow things down, he said, adding that it is not unsolvable for the Carney government but will be a key hurdle.
Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak voiced her concerns with the bill on Friday and called an emergency meeting on it this week.
Onlookers and experts who care about climate are looking on with “considerable uncertainty” because the bill could allow for massive progress to be made on an east-west electricity grid or fast-tracking renewable energy infrastructure, but that may not be the case, James Rowe, an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Victoria, said.
“Given the political economy of Canada as the fourth largest oil producer in the world … it's more likely those real powerful forces are going to get their way — and projects that might otherwise have been stopped by regulatory processes and consultations … are going to get fast-tracked,” he said.
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
Why oh why do you have to show a picture of that man? He's lost his seat, we don't have to listen to him until he gets his unearned new seat so please spare us. Put a picture of a monkey up there instead, or a vicious pitbull or or or ... anything but this guy and his sneering vicious words.
No need to bypass environmental regulations unless projects violate them — and the regulations are inconvenient for proponents.
Neoliberalism in action.
There are two O&G parties in Ottawa, not one.
The Liberals are far more effective in delivering on Corporate Canada's agenda.
We may be getting the government we deserve, but not the climate leadership we need.
Article: "The bill lists some factors the government may consider when deciding whether a project will be listed for fast-tracking, one of which is whether it will 'contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.' Another factor is whether it will 'advance the interests of Indigenous peoples.' …
"The bill does not have a clear definition of 'clean growth,' he said, which creates huge loopholes for approving projects or employing technologies that many Canadians wouldn’t consider 'clean.'
"'The government has been very liberal in its definition of ‘clean’ to include things like CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage], critical minerals, [and] nuclear.'"
The Liberals define "clean growth" as greening fossil fuels.
The Liberals have long hyped the fantasy of "clean energy" from oilsands extraction. "Clean technology" reduces the oilsands industry's emissions from a business-as-usual case.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) perpetuates fossil fuels while doing little to reduce emissions.
In 2017 Ottawa announced $28.8-million in grants for 11 companies focused on "clean energy and water technology".
"What is the 'clean technology sector'?", you ask.
A $10-million grant to help microwaves replace steam to extract BITUMEN from the OILSANDS.
Other grants went to firms working in such areas as "improving desalination and recycling of water used for OIL PRODUCTION, increasing the energy efficiency of large buildings, and cutting methane emissions."
No subsidies for the oil industry, of course. Just $28.8-million in grants, because the oil giants can't afford to fund their own R&D.
Of the $28.8 million for 11 "clean technology" projects, $26,078,000 or 91% went to 9 oil & gas industry projects.
$0 and 0% on renewables.
"Governments of Canada and Alberta invest in cutting-edge clean technologies to encourage clean growth"
https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2…
Clean technology is whatever the federal govt says it is.
"Alberta company receives grant for new technology to extract bitumen' (EJ, Nov 03, 2017)
"The leader of an oilfield technology company hopes a $10-million grant announced Friday will help microwaves replace steam as a key way to extract bitumen from the oilsands.
"'The fast-growing clean technology sector is a field where Canada stands to dominate,' federal Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi said Friday.
"'Our government believes economic growth and environmental sustainability go hand-in-hand. We don’t have to make this false choice of doing one or the other.'
"Grants went to firms working in such areas as improving desalination and recycling of water used for oil production, increasing the energy efficiency of large buildings and cutting methane emissions."
Try as we may, we can't free ourselves from the Harper/Poilievre madness. Decarbonized oil? B.S. CCS? B.S.
Decarbonized oil ranks up there with "freedom is slavery".
“We need a pipeline to the Pacific" You have one already. Take the win and FO!
“We need a pipeline to the Pacific..." --Pierre Poilievre, currently the unelected leader of the CPC.
Hello? There already is one. It's brand new. And it's not running near capacity. It probably never will, or if it does, then not for very long before the rapid electrification of markets in Asia and the global south displaces half or more of the oil demand there.
"The biggest challenge for Carney’s government will likely be navigating Indigenous opposition and constitutional rights..."
Indigenous groups fighting pipelines in court are most worthy of donations to the cause. Carney has spoken favourably of respecting Indigenous Constitutional rights. Let's hope he does not backtrack on his words in deeds.
I believe there is already enough legal federal power to cross provincial boundaries and operate federal assets within provincial and territorial jurisdictions. This was proven with TMX where BC-led challenges were defeated in the highest courts in both BC and the nation on jurisdiction alone.
In my view, that bodes well for zero emission power transmission corridors, electrified railways, zero emission industrial infrastructure and other electrification initiatives right down to local micro grids . It's not just about pipelines, but pipelines are getting all the press, especially with this unnecessary, over-the-top legal push from the feds.
TMX was also able to escape even applying for municipal permits. To top it off, TMX officials thumbed their noses at city staff through the then kangaroo court called the NEB, staff who were honestly trying to cooperate. TMX got away without having to supply accurate engineering plans for a pipeline that ran through many km of park land, road allowances and back lanes. A citizen applying for a building permit for a single car garage, back yard studio or a small addition to a house would have had to supply more plans to city hall.
This is so typical these days.