Even if the Conservative argument is true, that we've reached a point where environmental review processes are bogging down economic development, it's an after the fact assertion, rather than a fair read of present reality. One must cleanse their mind of any historical context to even begin to comprehend the Conservative position, it simply fails to comprehend we've reached this point for a reason.
There was a time when companies acted with complete and utter regulatory impunity. What occurred within this environment, they TRASHED the environment, the destroyed ecosystems, their one concern was money, they acted as amoral entities, they UTTERLY failed to show any environmental stewardship. In reaction, society created certain "checks- some would argue not enough still today- because companies couldn't be trusted to "do the right thing" unilaterally, they needed laws, rules and oversight, like an impulsive child, guidance was required. See, companies like to cut corners, if there is a decision to be made regarding greater good and selfish desire, HISTORY has shown a consistent pattern. Government "intervention" in the free economy is nothing more than a learned response, had corporations properly policed themselves, things such as "public consultations" wouldn't be required. To be a Conservative these days seems to demand a certain naivety about human nature, a simplistic world that bears no resemblance to practical expression.
I note today a story on another Enbridge leak, the timing instructive, because a small reminder that empty promises made by corporations are just that, a seasoned society realizes that mistakes do happen, the sales line rarely meets the reality, so the question becomes: can we afford human errors, can we trust profit driven entities? Corporations today LOVE to tout their environmental records, their advancements, their commitments, their emerging "green" philosophies. Trouble is, these supposed revelations didn't come unilaterally, if anything the by-product of demands from "radicals" and government regulation. Reasonable people understand this fact, not trying to harm the economy, but the realization that things we do can harm the environment and the consequences CAN overshadow any short term gain.
When we hear of a pipeline that will snake through mountains and earthquake zones, only to end up at a challenging sea passage, it is fair to be concerned, not only are questions required, they should be DEMANDED by any reasonable observer. Perhaps these factors explain why British Columbians are "divided" over the project, there are many competing interests in play, it's a complicated proposition. The only "radical" predisposition I can ascertain is those that vilify people with genuine concerns, based on a dubious track record from proponents. If projects are getting "bogged" down in the review process, the blame for the current state rests SQUARELY with those that have failed to act ethically, responsibly in the past, those that have actually harmed the environment, those that are doing it as we speak. "Radical" apparently means anyone with a capacity to incorporate history and understand human nature. We don't trust corporations, we don't believe their promises, this is a learned response, based on their continual failures, that's why we're here.