Paper cuts


Joe Oliver tries to assuage concerns about cuts to environmental assessments, but environmentalists aren’t convinced.

Environmental law expert Stephen Hazell said Oliver and Kent are only painting half the picture. While it’s true the biggest projects will still have some environmental oversight, “many, many small projects have big, big environmental effects.”

Hazell, in private practice, said the federal government is wrong to suggest that projects are still subject to “strong federal environmental protection laws and regulations” under statutes like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Species at Risk Act. “The reason Parliament decided to enact the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 25 years ago was because the existing regulatory processes were not assessing the environmental effects of development projects properly.”


Paper cuts

  1. wiki – In economics, rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth, for example, spending money on political lobbying in order to be given a share of wealth that has already been created. A famous example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. People accused of rent seeking typically argue that they are indeed creating new wealth (or preventing the reduction of old wealth) by improving quality controls, guaranteeing that charlatans do not prey on a gullible public, and preventing bubbles.

    • Get a brain, not a copy-paste machine.

  2. While I am not in a position to quibble with ” [e]nvironmental law expert Stephen Hazell” (he could be completely right), the TorStar reporter should have also indicated Mr. Hazell’s previous experience as head of Sierra Club (replacing E May) and also his involvement with CEAA, as described in his LinkedIn profile:

    In the mid-1990s, Stephen led the team at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that developed the regulations for the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.


  3. This comment was deleted.

    • Says fake EmilyOne.

      • Maybe EmilyOne finally took her meds and is now coherent?

    • And what does an imposter know about dubious credentials?

  4. “that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects”

    We’re going to hear a lot of that in the future…possibly accompanied with a fair amount of…’oops! ‘Didn’t see that one coming now did we? Oh well, nobody’s perfect. No real harm done’

    Just scanning down the list of cancelled reviews makes the real purpose of this execicse obvious really: Limit the participation of those the govt/business community perceives to be anti-development [there are some, but since we live in a democracy…so what!] Just think how much more smoothly and efficiently the engine of progress will run without all the nay sayers , whiners and luddites around? Thinking enviros should really zero in on this concept – “efficiency”, rather than just accuse the govt of heartless uber capitalism, thereby polarizing the debate still further.
    It is a remarkable time we live in. Ruled by a govt that gives free rein to every populist instinct and ignorant assumption it and its acolytes in the busness community possess. Science, and regulatory bodies must now be made to serve the god of economic development rather than watch over the process and try to spot flaws, mitigate or reasonably regulate.
    IOWs they’re trying to limit anyone’s capacity to say “no, we don’t want that, it’s not such a good idea.Let’s have a closer look”
    As always the instinct of this govt is to tilt the table and limit democractic input in the name of efficiency…but always defined on their terms and for the greater good…of the economy.Daddy knows best.

Sign in to comment.