You have to ask quite a few Canadians these days to find one who's not worried about the economy.
Oh, ours isn't so bad -though it could always be better, with most of the uncertainty a result of the European debt crisis and the shaky overall picture in the United States. The situation certainly merits action on the part of governments - but not the sort of across-the-board industrial, petro-powered, rubber-stamp fast tracking favoured by former Conservative cabinet minister Jim Prentice.
Not all so-called "energy mega-projects" -the ones that Prentice, the former federal Environment Minister-turned-banking executive mentioned in a speech on Wednesday (Sept. 28) as the type the government should take pains to put on the fast track as part of an effort to bolster the economy -are created equal.
Hydro projects such as Site C and the Lower Churchill need to be scrutinized for environmental impacts and economic necessity before we decide whether they're worth the trouble. But the two that would facilitate the more expeditious transport of fossil fuels from Alberta's tar sands to foreign customers - the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines - would come with an environmental double whammy. That is, facilitating the continued increase in production at the world's most destructive and inefficient energy project while greatly increasing the risk of spills in the Canadian and U.S. heartlands, across our own province and in B.C.'s coastal waters.
Forgive us if we don't particularly relish the thought of boosting the economy in the short term at the expense of Canada's environment both now and, most probably, in the future.
A couple of weeks ago, a small-c conservative politician labeled a proposal to strengthen clean-air legislation as a job-killer. The comment, referring to a new air-quality rule proposed by the Obama administration, was made by a Republican lawmaker from Colorado. But based on their past pronouncements - and their unqualified support to date for both Keystone and Northern Gateway -it could easily have been made by any number of Conservative Canadian politicians. The Harper Tories are, after all, fond of parroting the rhetoric emanating from right-of-centre politicians from south of the border.
Job killers? Sure, environmental regulations occasionally go too far, and with most North Americans' attention focused on the economy at the moment, it's easy to see how such black-and-white statements might get some traction.
All we're asking for, really, is a modicum of long-term vision - a curb against potentially destructive capitalist greed, as it were.
In answer to the question raised in the lead of a recent New York Times article on the topic - "Do environmental regulations kill jobs?" - we would answer with a qualified, "no." Sure, regulations need to be examined from time to time to be sure they're doing what they set out to do. But before we set about the task of creating a sustainable job base, we need to be sure we have a safe and sustainable Planet Earth. Setting the table for future potential Gulf oil spills, while raping and pillaging an area larger than Vancouver Island (and growing), puts both our short- and long-term future at grave risk.
- David Burke
