Including Manitobans in project decisions

Numerous news stories have documented the ebb and flow of announcements about the Carney government’s plans to action economic change through projects of national interest, such as the Port of Churchill Plus, mine developments and other projects.

One thread running through many of these stories yet to be pulled together is the need for meaningful participation in decisions about whether and how these projects should proceed. This is perhaps typified by the reaction of the government of British Columbia and Coastal First Nations to finding out from the media that the federal and Alberta governments had signed an MOU to build a pipeline from Alberta through B.C. without consultation. In this regard, federal Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller has been quoted as saying that they must meet face to face with communities about any new pipeline.

The federal government is a party to numerous agreements meant to ensure participation in decision making, such as the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions. The foundations of these will certainly be tested as the federal government implements the Building Canada Act (Bill C-5).

This Act will accelerate development approvals but will potentially override established laws that ensure participation, such as impact assessment.

Meaningful participatory processes are vital to actioning development. They can include many important benefits, such as an increased understanding of issues by all those involved, contribution of new ideas from the public, enhanced ownership of key issues, input to and buy-in for mitigation and monitoring approaches and implementation measures, and enhanced capacity for all to engage with matters that affect and interest them.

Meeting increased citizen expectations for their views to be considered in decisions can also lead to better public policy, greater trust in government and institutions, and a stronger democracy.

However, these benefits should not be assumed, given the likelihood of tension between government decision makers, project proponents and community expectations for influence over final decisions.

Such tension will surely play out in relation to the approval processes for major projects in Canada, especially if participation is not meaningful.

Fortunately, the foundational elements of meaningful participation are well known — adequate notice, access to information, opportunity to comment and early and ongoing participation. We also have the basic tools to achieve these foundational elements, such as strong public registry systems for posting and accessing information.

The challenge is finding the willingness to action these. We have seen the outcomes of progressive approaches to participation in large project developments in Canada such as the Voisey’s Bay nickel mine in Newfoundland and Labrador, modified through engagement to counter the boom-and-bust cycle for communities through agreement to extend the life of the project by 15 years, or the redesign of Manitoba Hydro’s Wuskwatim generating project to reduce flooding by building a low-head dam, a decision that followed extensive consultation.

The Major Projects Office will help proponents navigate regulations and find financing and potential Indigenous partners. Manitobans and Canadians, though, will also need assistance to navigate and participate in decision processes.

A recent ruling of the UN Aarhus Convention Committee that “Portugal failed to respect citizens’ rights to environmental information and public consultation in the case of the Barroso lithium mine”, a mine declared a “strategic project” by the EU, a designation designed to accelerate project approvals, underscores the importance of decisive action.

If governments fail to take the time needed for meaningful participation, it will simply happen outside of the formal decision-making process.

This can include protests, blockades, broad-based anti-project mobilization through social media platforms, rallies, court cases and other methods that will frustrate the development of new projects without bringing any of the benefits that can result from more meaningful participation.

In the end, accelerated decision processes have at least two worrying outcomes: significantly reduced time frames for all affected parties to share knowledge, and compressed opportunities for governments to properly assess the information gathered on which to base their decision.

John Sinclair is a professor and director of the Natural Resources Institute at the University of Manitoba.