Bouchard’s `Green Plan’ fails to address environmental issues

Hidden assumptions can play havoc with person-to-person communication, and unstated premises buried in an ostensibly neutral question can predetermine the answer. These faults are, regrettably, all too common in the discussion document recently released by federal government Minister Lucien Bouchard. Entitled The Green Plan: A Framework for Discussion on the Environment, the booklet contains many questionable assumptions and slanted premises. The document, and the consultation process that surrounds it, seem clearly designed to provoke an unfocused enthusiasm for new environmental interventions.

The trouble starts in the first paragraph. While paying lip service to “sustainable development,” the minister’s introduction states the government’s goal: “To make Canada, by the year 2000, the industrial world’s most environmentally friendly country.” Important questions such as “Who will keep the score?” and “By what measures?” aside, one has to ask whether the minister realizes that such a lopsided goal is in fact the antithesis of “sustainable development.” It may be effective in whipping up uncritical public support, but it won’t serve Canada’s interests.

According to the Bruntland Commission, who first framed the concept, the complete phrase is “environmentally sustainable economic development.” Bruntland recognized that both economic development and environmental stewardship are essential.

In fact, the commission called for an integration of economic and environmental decision- making. An international competition for environmental friendliness (if indeed any other nation were prepared to join in the race) is a recipe for economic disaster. It sounds more like a publicist’s dream than a serious attempt to solve complex environmental problems.

Make no mistake: there are serious global problems. The solutions must also be global. Unilateral action by Canada, one of the smaller industrialized countries, will not be effective, but it will be extremely costly for the country. In a global economy, competitiveness will suffer. Canada would have more credibility, and would do more good, if it undertook to set an example for the world in applying the total concept of environmentally sustainable economic development. It could then promote the same approach with other countries to prompt global action.

Integration of environmental and economic decisions requires a stepwise process, which the mining industry would support. The correct approach involves identifying environmental priorities, because we cannot solve all the problems at once. Priorities would be based on assessment of the risk to human health, backed up by credible scientific data.

After exploring all reasonable options to solve the priority problems, the cost of each solution would be estimated and the most economic or least costly solution specified. The solution must be phased in such a way as to minimize economic disruption. Throughout this process, full information must be provided to all stakeholders through an effective consultative process designed to produce a consensus on the problem and the solution.

The consultation process selected for the Green Plan — a series of 2-day hit-and-run workshops around the country — cannot be expected to produce consensus on anything. The time is too short and the required information base is lacking. Unfortunately, even those consultations will end on June 30, when federal officials will retire to complete their action plan.

This is only a sample of my concerns about the Green Plan. Space does not permit the enumeration of all the other hidden assumptions and premises. That will have to be done elsewhere. But I think you get the idea. George Miller is the president of The Mining Association of Canada.