rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

We need better, not shorter environmental assessments

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca in its summer fundraiser today for as little as $5 per month!

Aerial view of Athabasca River and tar sands tailing pond. Photo: doneastwest/Flickr

It's hard not to sympathize with those who want to drastically change provincial and federal government environmental assessment processes. You only have to suffer through one or two, witnessing seemingly endless meetings, memos, draft terms of reference, real terms of reference, draft reports, real reports, and the obligatory sprinkling of highly structured consultations -- all much more concerned about process and bureaucratic milestones than substance -- to know something is seriously wrong.

The problem, however, is not so much the amount of time these processes take. The problem is that in the end they typically do not address the most fundamental question that major project developments entail -- are these major projects in the general public interest? As tedious and detailed the impact assessments are, they do not meaningfully investigate whether, to what extent, and for whom the projects offer economic or other benefits. And they certainly don't consider whether those benefits offset the risks of adverse impacts and other social and environmental costs the projects will inevitably give rise to.

The process itself has become a substitute for the sensible airing of a project's benefits and costs. Proponents and their supporters in government just want to get through what they see as a bureaucratic hurdle, convinced that the economic benefits far outweigh whatever risks and costs the projects entail. The fact that there may be no net benefits, because of shortages of skilled workers (limiting the benefit of the job creation), major power requirements (imposing costs on existing ratepayers), exchange rate effects (hurting other industries), new public infrastructure and service requirements (paid for by taxpayers) does not matter. The assumption of benefits is a matter of faith, not the result of publicly vetted, methodologically sound analysis.

Opponents may want to debate the issue of benefits versus costs, but typically are restricted in what they can raise or what the review panel will consider. For them the only option is to use the process to delay and ultimately stop projects they do not want to proceed, where they are convinced that the adverse impacts and risks far outweigh whatever benefits the projects may entail.

As for the bureaucrats managing the process -- they just want to play by the legislated rules, satisfying all legal requirements with whatever tedium and redundancy is required to avoid court action. The goal is not so much to shed light as to avoid the darkness of even longer delays and ministerial wrath.

All in all it is a remarkable and frustrating waste of resources for a scandalously limited scope of inquiry. Details abound; meaningful analysis and insight are in short supply.

Change is needed, but not the change the feds brought in. The feds clearly just wanted to tilt the process game in their favour. Fewer formal reviews and shorter time frames mean quicker approvals.

Shorter time frames are good if and when they can be achieved. However, what is really required for the assessment of major projects is a broader scope of inquiry -- one that explicitly addresses the question of the public interest. We need better, not shorter assessment processes.

This article was first posted on Policy Note.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.