Building at speeds not seen in generations, as per Mark Carney’s oft-repeated election pledge, has been less hypersonic than the prime minister might have wished.
As the new parliamentary budget officer pointed out last week in an analysis of the spring fiscal update, only two of 15 projects being overseen by Carney’s Major Projects Office are actually under construction, and the two largest have yet to reach a final investment decision.
Part of the problem remains regulatory uncertainty, and that was the subject of a discussion paper issued by the government on Friday. That sounds of little consequence, but it could prove seismic.
It pointed out that the speech from the throne had promised to make decisions on big projects within two years — down from five (or more) in years past.
To achieve that goal, the government is now proposing some major changes to regulations and environmental assessments. There would be earlier and more co-ordinated consultation with Indigenous Canadians; one federal project decision, rather than multiple from different departments; approval authority for pipelines and nuclear projects would transfer from the Impact Assessment Agency to the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission respectively; the government would create “federal economic zones” for transportation corridors and telecom networks, to ease the permitting process; and it would streamline the regulatory environment by being more flexible, about for example allowing early construction activity before an impact decision is made.
Shannon Stubbs, the Conservative energy critic, hit the politics show circuit over the weekend, calling it all “an illusion,” and pointing out that this prime minister advised the last one, who oversaw the paralyzation of approvals processes.
If the discussion paper turns into legislation, that line is going to be a hard sell.
The proof that this prime minister is not following the same script as the last one is clear from the bewailing by the Liberal environmental wing and its NGO fellow travellers.
Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault told the Toronto Star’s Althia Raj that the measures proposed in the discussion paper go beyond what the Harper government proposed in 2012. If it goes ahead, he said “the main criteri(on) to evaluate projects moving forward … is going to be economic development, and nothing else will matter.”
There is no doubt there are political risks for Carney in these proposals. MPs say he was challenged in caucus last week on the lack of social spending in the spring update.
One caucus source said Guilbeault’s position is becoming untenable, and no-one would be surprised to see him end up in the NDP. But the source said the gap between the former minister and the next person in the caucus on environmental issues remains wide. Mass defections remain unlikely at this point, he said.
But the upside for Carney makes it worth the risk. Building more, faster, was after all the pledge upon which he campaigned and won.
A firm commitment to overturn Trudeau-era environmental policy opens the door to a broader deal with Alberta. Last Thursday, the province’s premier, Danielle Smith, said on social media that she and Carney have made “significant progress” toward reaching an agreement on a West Coast pipeline and the industrial carbon tax, even if there is still “some work left to be done to get to the finish line.”
Carney has taken seriously not only industry’s concerns but a grievance that planted the seeds of Alberta separatism. It will be much easier to fight a separation referendum campaign if one of the root causes of alienation has been removed.
The other reason why the discussion paper is smart politics is that it is in line with public opinion. Environmental groups are complaining that, if implemented, the plan is a blank cheque to “drive entire species to extinction or extirpation.”
Big, if true. But this is a government that pledged to spend $3.5 billion in the spring update on a strategy to protect nature. Is the public going to accept that Carney is really on a quest to exterminate species at risk?
The polling suggests Canadians are much more willing to prioritize growing the economy over protecting the environment than they were in the recent past.
A new Angus Reid Institute survey said that opposition to pipeline projects has dwindled as people have accepted the need to bolster the economy. (In 2019, 55 per cent said protecting the environment should be a bigger focus versus the 45 per cent who favoured economic growth; now, 61 per cent say growing the economy should be the priority, while 39 per cent prefer a focus on stewarding the economy.)
Guilbeault warned that the discussion paper might open the door to years of litigation that will delay projects that might otherwise be built.
That’s true. But the judiciary is not immune to the public mood, and the two parties that commanded 85 per cent of the vote in the last election are now calling for action.
Canada was less of a country over the course of the past decade than it was a stalemate, as activist ministers, turbulent environmentalists and Indigenous protesters conspired to drive out $1 trillion in investment.
Now, almost everyone agrees, it’s time to build.
National Post