Quick approvals: what gets lost in fast-tracking major projects.
Cutting red tape sounds great, but hidden costs deserve more attention.
It is fashionable these days for political leaders to talk about cutting red tape and building fast. There is little discussion about what is being lost in the drive for rapid development of major projects. A closer look behind the scenes suggests citizens should hold up a “Slow Down” sign because they will pay for the rush in many ways and for a long time.
In July, a federal discussion paper, “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada,” raised concerns about due process in how the Building Canada Act will be implemented. Not long after that, on August 1, the West Coast Pipeline Project was officially listed as a potential nation-building project with a short, vague public consultation open until September 18 and a decision by October 1. On August 28, the Robert Banks Terminal 2 Project and the Mackenzie Valley Highway were added to the list, again with limited public consultation until October 1. Once a project is designated “of national interest,” the expedited approval process in the discussion paper kicks in. On the first day of the fall parliamentary session, the Building Canada Strong Act, Bill C-39, was introduced to make quick approvals legal and extend fast-tracking to many more major projects, beyond those of “national interest.” I hope Canadians push aside slogans about fast-tracking, big dollar signs and promised jobs to consider more substantive issues that will affect Canada long after the current trade war, which is used to justify shortcuts.
What is being lost are the essential tools of good governance that prevent the kind of abuse of power and autocratic rule we now see south of the border. Trust in Mark Carney or Pierre Poilievre right now does not justify making it easy for an autocratic leader to seize near-absolute power in the future. This path will erode public trust in government decisions, which is already low.
This path will erode public trust in government decisions.
Not merely red tape
Three big red flags stick out of a host of technical concerns. First is the loss of reasonable impact assessment. Whether one favours a pipeline or not, evidence of its impacts on creation and public health should be considered before approval, not afterward. Environmental assessments are not red tape. Think back to Grassy Narrows and the cost in human lives and health from the failure to consider the impacts of allowing mercury to pollute the water in order to fast-track a paper mill.
Second is the loss of a thorough cost-benefit analysis. When billions of taxpayer dollars are spent, the public has a right to know that existing evidence about full costs and alternative options was seriously considered, to be assured that this is the best use of resources. Haste makes waste.
Third is the loss of checks and balances, transparency and public accountability. In order to save time, the same minister will champion a project, fund it, approve it, decide what conditions will be put on it and manage its implementation. This violates the most basic principles of good governance and it invites corruption.
There will be consultation with Indigenous peoples because it is legally required. But it should not be up to Indigenous people alone to stand up and protect water, air and public health that all citizens need, including future generations.
Development does not have to come at the expense of care for creation. Protecting the public interest requires due process. There is still time to pull in the reins and use a responsible process rather than focusing on speed alone.
