Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s response to questions about the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project was that the fate of the pipeline will be based on science and not politics. If only that were true.
The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is an estimated $5.5 billion mega-project involving the construction of two parallel 1,150-kilometre pipelines across our province. While its Proponents point out that the project could add an estimated $270 billion to the economy of the nation (over 30 years), those who oppose the project point out that the coastal waters of BC present an extremely risky environment for tanker traffic, not to mention the estimated 400,000 to 1,000,000 barrels a day of crude oil that would be moved by pipeline.
While it is hard to wrap one’s mind around such enormous figures, it is not all that hard to focus in on the potential impact such a project could have on the environment.
The federal government’s response to people’s concerns about risk to the environment was the establishment of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel which, according to a press release from the National Energy Board, will provide “an open and transparent forum” for all hearing participants to make their view known.
The problem as I see it, is the continued fallout from Bill-C38 in the form of all the recent cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The federal government sent out letters to 92 habitat staff members in British Columbia telling them their positions will be cut, thus reducing the department in B.C. to half the habitat staff it had a decade ago. This begs the obvious question of how all these cuts will impact the DFO’s ability to effectively supply facts, figures and other relevant information to the Joint Review Panel in a timely manner?
“Heavy workloads and staff reductions at the DFO could jeopardize the federal government’s ability to protect Canadians from the negative impacts of industrial projects,” says an internal government document obtained under access to information laws. “Continuity of DFO team members throughout the process is critical to providing clear, consistent, and defensible advice, positions, and permits.”
Of course Enbridge has always asserted that if there were, indeed, unacceptable environmental risks posed by their Northern Gateway Project, the Joint Review Panel would simply stop the project from proceeding by enacting regulations under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act. The fact remains that the federal government’s environmental assessment system has only ever found an unacceptable environmental impact in three cases of the more than 10,000 they have had to consider since 2003.
Bill C-38 introduced, repealed and/or amended a significant number of federal laws including amendments to the Navigable Waters Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the First Nations Land Management Act.
And don’t forget that lost in all of the government’s double-speak were a number of more subtle changes that remove previously existing regulations prohibiting “pollution or harm to fish habitat” and replaces them with new provisions that would prevent “serious harm” to specific types of fisheries considered to be “of commercial, recreational or aboriginal value.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if the Prime Minister would make a statement that the fate of the environment would be based on science, not politics.
