Liberals need to get serious about priority national projects
Prime Minister Mark Carney surrounded by cabinet colleagues to announce the One Canadian Economy bill. / SCREENSHOT
The rubber is beginning to hit the road on the Carney government’s approach to designated major national projects, and the battle lines are forming. They represent a complex matrix that may ultimately see the government find itself fighting a multi-front war. Winning this war will require a deft political and legal strategy, and so far, there seems to be little evidence of one.
Securing approvals for major projects such as housing developments, mines, airport expansions, highways, public transport, oil and gas pipelines, electricity lines, cell phone towers, and others has become more complex, time-consuming, and expensive in Canada. The thicket of legal rules, consultations, and fees that applicants have to comply with have steadily thickened over time.
This is not a result of some bureaucratic “deep state” unilaterally imposing an “anti-growth,” “woke,” and “anti-jobs” agenda on Canadians. Rather, this has reflected a deepening public sensitivity to the potential environmental and social impact of major projects, in addition to their economic benefits.
Outside intervenors bring high levels of legal and political sophistication to the table during public consultations. Dismiss this as “NIMBYism” or anti-growth zealotry, if you will, but it is an established fact that governments are bound both legally, morally and politically to respect.
Which brings us to the Carney government’s election pledge to streamline approvals for “projects of national interest.”
As its opening gambit on the file, the government has announced it plans to introduce legislation that will fast-track nation-building projects with a streamlined regulatory review separate from the existing Impact Assessment Act (IAA), the same Bill C-69 enacted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that the Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre pledged to repeal if elected.
Not far, not good
The Prime Minister held a meeting with the First Ministers (FMM) this week, where “they discussed projects of national interest …subject to consultation with Indigenous Peoples whose rights may be affected.” The FMM statement also indicated the kind of nation-building projects meant to be considered for streamlined review: “highways, railways, ports, airports, pipelines, nuclear projects, clean and conventional energy projects, and electricity transmission systems…”
So far, so good. But it's not very far. And it has not been very good.
It is difficult to imagine a piece of legislation more certainly designed to raise the hackles of environmental and other advocates and Indigenous peoples. Some of them thought Bill C-69 was itself insufficient to safeguard their interests. So, a bill designed to short-circuit Bill C-69 will, for them, be a flashing red light. Indeed, the Assembly of First Nations has already indicated that such streamlining is a threat to their treaty rights.
This followed Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Rebecca Alty “saying that work to fill the First Nations infrastructure gap won’t qualify for Ottawa’s push to fast-track what it calls “nation-building projects’.” Justice Minister Sean Fraser then publicly said “the federal duty to consult and engage Indigenous people on major nation-building projects does not amount to granting those communities a veto,” a statement for which he later apologized just as publicly.
Insufficiently important
On the other hand, those whose projects don't win what might be called the “national interest lottery” will be unhappy that theirs is deemed insufficiently important to qualify for streamlined review. And this won't just be private sector displeasure. It has been reported, for example, that a “well-placed federal source” indicated that a proposed Quebec City–Labrador transmission line brought to the FMM by Quebec Premier Francois Legault “would not meet the criteria established by Carney.”
So, you can count on the parliamentary review of the notional Bill to be boisterous and protracted. The Conservatives are already arguing that the national interest concept does not go far enough to boost economic growth. The NDP, devastated in the election, will oppose the Bill if only to reestablish its credentials as an authentically progressive voice for environmentalists and Indigenous peoples.
Apart from its long-standing opposition to oil pipelines, the Bloc Québécois will push for any and all projects proposed by Quebec. Finally, the provinces and territories can be expected to protect jurisdictional prerogatives. The more independent-minded Senate that Justin Trudeau has bequeathed to the government could also be a treacherous process.
Then, assuming the bill is passed within a reasonable time frame, the criteria for the streamlined review will likely be subject to judicial review.
Cavalier approach
This is not to be excessively negative about the prospects for the success of a streamlining Bill. The economic, public policy, and political cases for it are strong.
But the Carney government must bring a level of seriousness to this initiative commensurate with the huge political stake the government and the country have in its success. One-off, uncoordinated ministerial pronouncements and peremptory decisions delivered by anonymous government officials reflect a cavalier approach, not a well-thought-out strategy
It is early days yet, but the Liberals need to get more serious and focused if they are going to succeed on this key campaign pledge.
