Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver says Canada needs to overhaul the rules for approving major resource projects—now.
“We must diversify our energy markets away from our single reliance on the United States, and access those new fast-growing economic regions that need our resources,” Oliver told reporters Tuesday.
And while Canada is not immune to the “economic storms that are buffeting other parts of the world,” we are hindered by a regulatory process that can delay projects several years. He said the systems were designed to ensure projects were environmentally sound, but have strayed beyond that.
“Unfortunately, the system seems to have lost sight, over the past few years, of this balance between careful review and practical action. The old system is broken and it is time to rebuild it.”
Oliver said it was an urgent matter that the government intended to address immediately.
After plugging Canada’s position as a global energy super power, Oliver said the oil sands need to be developed in an environmental and socially responsible way.
And while reviews for those projects are important, he said they must be done more quickly.
“Our resources are of little benefit if our regulatory environment acts as a deterrent to their development.”
With opposition in the U.S. halting approval for the Keystone XL pipeline to Texas, the government is looking to export oil sands crude to Asia via the Northern Gateway pipeline from a plant near Edmonton, Alberta, to Kitimat, a small British Columbia port town.
A review of that project began yesterday and is expected to last two years. Some 4,000 parties want to testify during the proceedings.
But Oliver said he was not referring to the Northern Gateway project specifically because it is already under regulatory review. He said his comments were referring to the overall need for market diversification and an improved regulatory system.
Oliver took heat from environmental groups after he issued an open letter on Monday saying environmental and other “radical” groups aim to block resource development “no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth.”
“These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects.”
Oliver said these groups use foreign funding and resort to American-style lawsuits to delay projects until they become economically unviable.
He pointed to the nine-year review of the Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline as a case in point.
Critics Lash Out
Oliver has since faced fierce criticism for the comments. Greenpeace Canada fired back that Enbridge pipelines spilled oil 610 times between 1999 and 2008, and is now trying to build the Northern Gateway pipeline on unceded indigenous territory.
Other environmental and aboriginal groups have also lined up to lambaste the project, as have naturalists in affected areas.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May described Oliver’s letter as a “hyperbolic rant.”
“By characterizing this issue as environmental radicals versus Canada’s future prosperity you have done a grave disservice to the development of sensible public policy,” she wrote in an open letter.
Oliver said he was not referring to everyone concerned about the project, only groups he believes are indeed radical.
“Certain groups are radical. They wish to block any hydrocarbon development. Indeed they are opposed to hydro electricity as well.”
He said such groups would assign Canada to a period of economic stagnation, adding that he was not referring to aboriginal communities, which the government has a constitutional obligation to consult.
Projects reviews do need enough time to receive a scientific analysis and to allow all groups with a legitimate interest to voice their concerns, but delays of several years threaten Canada’s economy, he said.
“We are not talking here about pushing forward projects that do not meet environmental standards.”
But he does want a timeline on that process. “It shouldn’t go on forever.”
Oliver estimates oil sands projects will create over 3 trillion in economic activity and hundreds of billions in revenues for the government over 25 years and create more than 600,000 jobs on an annual basis.
What shape any changes to project reviews takes is unknown, said Oliver. He was not yet sure if rebuilding that regulatory process would require legislative or regulatory changes and couldn’t comment on what, if any, acts would need to be altered.
The Opposition’s Take
NDP environment critic Megan Leslie described Oliver’s comments as “troubling.”
“There are a lot of people that have a stake in these environmental processes,” she said. “There is nothing radical in thinking about future generations.”
Leslie was incredulous that Oliver was not sure exactly what actions could be taken to improve project reviews, given that parliament’s environment committee was in the midst of reviewing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act when its study was cut short.
She could not comment further because the decision was made in camera, but the Conservatives do have a majority on the committee.
Prior to being squashed, the committees review heard from both industry and civil society about ways to improve environmental assessments, she said.
“Everyone agrees that there are problems with the act.” But while some projects took an inordinate amount of time to review, she said most go smoothly.
She said Environment Minister Peter Kent is currently working on changes to the environmental assessment act, but she was not aware of the scope of those changes.
David McGuinty, the Liberal’s natural resources critic, said without specifics, Oliver’s calls to overhaul project review regulations amounted to little more than a “cheap ruse” calculated to appeal to specific voters.
He said any effort to accelerate reviews and get projects underway faster is motivated by the government’s efforts to maintain deficit reductions and safeguard the Conservatives claim to be responsible stewards of the economy.
“That is what this is really about at the end of the day.”
By launching a “full front assault” on the arms-length review process just as the Northern Gateway review is about to begin, McGuinty said Oliver was acting in a manner unbecoming a minister. Any attempt to impose timelines on reviews was, in effect, compromising their independence, he said.
“There is always room for improvement,” said McGuinty, but said changes should be discussed after carefully reviewing the current regulatory regime and identifying specific targets.
