Nation-building projects and government rules

The Mark Carney-led Liberals were elected for a change. We hoped that the new prime minister, intimate of the titans of finance, was ideally equipped to ride the wave of national outrage (and pride) to provide the leadership to counter the economic assault from our southern neighbours.

One of the hallmarks of national leadership is to advance at least some initiatives that are clearly in the national interest but may draw fire from some segments of society. The prime minister would certainly say that Bill C-5, legislation to — among other things — speed up the approval process for “nation-building” projects, and a companion initiative to identify “unnecessary” regulation exemplify such leadership.

The main criticisms of C-5 have come from First Nations and environmental groups. These concerns have been well articulated, and are now being acted out in court. Although it may change, the fact is that this bill is now the law of the land, and therefore should also be assessed in terms of whether it will in fact achieve its objective of speeding up the approvals process for “nation-building” projects.

Of course the bill begs the question of just what kind of a nation we want to build, or more fundamentally, what kind of a nation we already have. Adopting a national flag, repatriating the constitution, these were nation-building projects, neither of which were capital projects. Bill C-5 is more about capital development. Perhaps the rollout of these “nation-builders” will revive serious public dialogue about what we are and what we aspire to be.

Major undertakings in Canada have to navigate processes that are often five years or more in length. At a time when we will have to construct a coast to coast web of electrical transmission, substantially increase our renewable energy capacity and restructure our economy to counter the U.S. economic onslaught, this is not acceptable.

One brake has been government — federal and provincial — that has often been unable produce timely and credible analyses of development proposals. This is partly as a result of a bipartisan failure to allocate sufficient resources to their own environmental institutions, and an institutional mindset that all development is good.

Proponents regularly bellyache about “red tape” but often produce incomplete or scientifically deficient assessments of their own projects, resulting in time consuming do-overs.

Most major projects involve both federal and provincial governments. Duplication and overlap is inevitable. In addition, the federal environmental assessment process has been used as a lever to require, as part of federal sign-off, approval of factors that lie outside Ottawa’s jurisdiction.

And then there’s consultation. Governments have not imposed discipline on this aspect of project approvals and this can result in a process lacking temporal and financial boundaries. This is not to say this is bad (or good), but simply that consultation is one of the factors contributing to the length of process that Ottawa wants to accelerate.

So, does Bill C-5 address the previous process friction sufficiently to ensure major project reviews conclude in two years? That depends.

Assuming that the objective is to still produce quality project assessments, just faster, then If Ottawa and the provinces are prepared to adequately fund their review infrastructure; if governments are able to harmonize their review processes; if proponents are given clear objectives their own project analysis must meet, and the consequences of failing to meet them; and if governments are prepared to define when consultation is considered complete — then perhaps speed up can be achieved.

Nothing in the legislation, however, guarantees this result.

Continuing his lurch to the right, the PM has initiated a search for “unnecessary” regulations that prevent or hamper good things from happening. You may remember our late, lamented provincial government set about this quest with great fanfare. The result? Absolutely nothing.

Regulations pass through a rigorous enough process to ensure that, at least at the time, their benefits exceeded their cost. Of course, some regulations no longer serve the public interest as the conditions that spawned them have changed. A periodic review to ensure that we weed out such anachronisms makes sense and in fact does routinely occur.

Regulatory reviews — and there have been many over the years — tend to focus on possible negative effects on business. Let’s hope the PM — an ultimate high finance insider — does not lighten the “burden” of business regulation at the expense of the public welfare.

“Approving development projects takes way too long, red tape is hamstringing business and it’s harming our economy.”

Sound familiar? This was the refrain of the Harper government and Conservative governments across the country. Now, perhaps the PM’s current initiatives are more pragmatic and not ideology driven, simply a necessity in the face of a dire threat.

We rejected Pierre Polievre; let’s hope we didn’t get him anyway.

Norman Brandson is the former deputy minister of the Manitoba departments of environment, conservation and water stewardship.