April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Babies exposed in the womb to a commonly used
insecticide have brain abnormalities after birth, according to a study
that looked at children born before the U.S. limited the chemical's use. Details here.
A "crop-duster" sprays Lorsban, (Dursban's "sister" chemical, sharing the same active ingredient, chlorpyrfos) on a canola crop in western Manitoba PLT photo.
Few people would argue against making environmental review processes and
regulations more efficient - as long as they're effective. But changes
announced in the recent federal budget don't do that. Instead, they make
it easier for the federal government and industry to push through
projects that could harm the environment and the economy, and limit the
ability of ordinary Canadian citizens to have a say in matters of
national importance.
Based on the budget announcement you'd think delays and duplication in
the environmental review process are the biggest issues. They're not. As
the Pembina Institute points out,
the equivalent of one major oil sands mine has been approved in each of
the past five years, and the pace is increasing. Some people, including
former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, suggest we'd benefit by slowing
down - for economic and environmental reasons. When there are setbacks
in the review process, they're often caused by industry's reluctance to
provide timely data or by a lack of capacity within the government
itself. The latter is getting worse as funding for basic monitoring and
enforcement is subject to further cuts.
Eliminating environmental reviews for some projects altogether, shifting
responsibility to the provinces, and severely cutting back on staff and
agencies that provide management and information are not ways to make
processes more efficient; they're ways to accelerate approval of major
projects, making the short-term interests of industry a higher priority
than protecting the air, land, and water we all need to stay healthy.
Vermillion River - Dauphin, MB. PLT photo
Provincial regulations are not always consistent, they're often weaker
than federal rules, and they don't necessarily take into account the
impact of decisions in one province on people in others. Remember also
that B.C. approved a mining company's proposal to destroy Fish Lake near Williams Lake, but a subsequent federal review rejected it.
Other changes that could profoundly affect the way industrial and
environmental concerns are considered include a move to restrict
participation in environmental hearings to those "directly affected" and
a proposal to shift decision-making authority for major energy
projects, including the Northern Gateway Pipeline, from the National
Energy Board to the federal cabinet. This could mean these decisions
will become increasingly political rather than based on the best
scientific information, expert advice, and public concern.
A democratic government committed to openness and transparency will
ensure our shared resources are used - or not - in a way that provides
maximum benefit and minimum harm to its citizens. That requires
listening to what experts, community members, and the organizations that
represent them have to say. That's true regardless of whether those
organizations speak for the interests of people who see the environment
as a priority or those whose biggest concern is tax dollars.
Besides putting the environment and the human health that depends on it
at risk, these changes to policy and regulation could actually make
review processes more inefficient and time-consuming. If people lose
trust, we could see more conflict and court challenges. Recently, the
Nuxalk First Nation of Bella Coola withdrew from the Northern Gateway hearing
- hereditary Chief Charlie Nelson argued that the government has
already made up its mind to approve the project. Instead, aboriginal
leaders say they will consider going to court to defend their rights and
stop the project.
The government should work to make environmental rules more effective,
improving efficiency as one of a number of objectives. A consultative
and transparent process that engages a range of interests, information,
and expertise would work best. The opportunity to achieve this was there
when a parliamentary standing committee was charged with reviewing the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act last year. But the Canadian Environmental Law Association says that process was rushed, poorly implemented, and anything but 'comprehensive' in nature.
We all want a free and democratic country with a healthy environment and
strong economy. The best way to guarantee that is to encourage
scientific research and knowledge, open discourse, and respect for a
range of viewpoints. There are ways we can improve efficiency of
decision-making, such as clearer environmental rules. Sometimes - but
not always - it may take longer to reach a decision, but at least we'd
be confident it is made in the best interests of all Canadians.
By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Editorial and Communications Specialist Ian Hanington.
Hey you dreamers, strikers and new left redeemers out there, for thirty-one magical days beginning this Tuesday, May 1, we take the plunge and strike! Details here.