EDITORIAL PAGE — Dangerous precedents

If you love trees and animals more than human beings, you will love some of the proposals brought forward by the federal government to “renew” the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government is offering to “empower” citizens to protect the environment by granting them greater access to information, the right to request investigations, and the power to bring a civil suit when government fails to enforce the Act.

All this sounds fine in theory. But the reality is that these proposals would provide some misguided people with the tools to stop, or at least stall, mining and logging, among other resource-based industries upon which the survival and prosperity of this country depend.

Moreover, Canadian taxpayers will be expected to foot the bill for these “investigations” and civil suits, and resource developers will pass along the costs they incur to defend themselves to consumers, who will, in turn, pay more for basic resource commodities.

This frightening scenario is already being played out in the United States, where, each month, the newspaper People for The West tallies up projects that were derailed, in one way or another, by groups that know how to play environmental hardball.

Take the recent case in California, where, at a construction site for a medical centre, someone discovered eight endangered flies. Enter the Fish & Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act, and, before long, an additional US$3.3 million was being spent to move and redesign the facility to make room for the habitat of eight Delhi Sands Flow-Loving flies. As it turned out, construction was delayed by a year and each fly incurred a cost of $413,744, plus change.

Five years earlier, green groups threatened to sue under the Endangered Species Act to protect a population of red-cockaded woodpeckers nesting in the training areas of Fort Bragg, N.C., home of several elite army units. The army was forced to restrict its training, and the newspapers gloated that the woodpeckers had “won out” over tanks and infantry. There was even a Senate committee hearing into the matter, with one general testifying that the restrictions hurt tank gunnery and helicopter gunship practice, night manoeuvres and anti-aircraft drills. He felt it was “unconscionable” to send troops into the field without proper training. . . but the greenies were unmoved.

More recently, the Virginia Department of Transportation undertook to build a 6-mile highway. But first, the Endangered Species Act required an impact statement. Thousands of local plants were examined, before researchers discovered a smooth coneflower, which — you guessed it — was on the list. After a 2-year delay, the state allowed the highway to be built — but with an alternative route, in order to make room for the precious coneflower.

Another case involved an artist who made Indian head dresses using feathers she found on the ground. Unfortunately, one of these was the former property of an eagle. The hapless artist landed in federal court, where she was convicted of violating the laws against possession of protected bird parts.

The Canadian government ought to think twice about setting up a system that opens the door to such nonsense. Instead, let’s have regulations that are practical, cost-effective, and based on co-operation, rather than confrontation.