The Government of Canada has published a sparse but alarming Discussion Paper that proposes sweeping reforms to federal assessment and permitting processes. The overall goal of the Paper is to simplify and shorten these processes so that major projects can be approved and implemented more quickly. The public consultation period on the Discussion Paper has been extended until July 22, 2026. I have reviewed submissions by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, 350.org and Environmental Defence. All three have grave concerns about what the government is proposing to do. Here is a nutshell summary of what the Discussion Paper proposes:
- Arbitrarily compress all federal decision-making for major projects into an one-year timeline, without specifying which types of “major projects” will receive this preferential treatment
- Wholly exempt major projects regulated by the Canadian Energy Regulator (i.e. international/interprovincial pipelines and electricity transmission lines) from the current legal requirement to undergo rigorous impact assessments under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA)
- Empower the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to conduct impact assessments of nuclear and uranium projects under the IAA, and to determine whether such projects would cause significant negative federal effects. This would effectively sideline the Impact Assessment Act for these types of projects, relying instead on the CNSC to carry out robust, credible, and participatory impact assessments of nuclear projects, and make final determinations about whether such projects may cause significant adverse effects that cannot be mitigated.
- Enact new legislation to establish “Federal Economic Zones” through regional assessments which would oust the requirement for project-level assessments for a broad range of “pre-approved” infrastructure and industrial development in such zones
- Eviscerate current federal permitting regimes in relation to navigation, ocean dumping, fish and fish habitat, and exempt major projects from the critically important provision in the Species at Risk Act which prohibits the federal Minister from issuing permits for activities that may jeopardize the survival or recovery of species at risk (i.e. orcas)
- Allow unspecified early construction activities for major projects to occur well before an impact assessment decision has been made to approve or reject the project.
The BEA Board approved the following position statement in response to the Government of Canada’s proposal.
My name is David Laing. I am 74 years old and have been living in Brampton Ontario for close to 50 years. I am also the President of the Brampton Environmental Alliance, and I am writing this submission both on my own behalf as well as that of the Alliance. After reviewing the “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada” discussion paper I have grave concerns about the direction being taken by the Government of Canada as outlined therein.
I have lived long enough to experience a time before there were robust environmental protection regulations in Canada, particularly in Ontario, when Lake Erie was considered to be a “dead lake” with no oxygen to support aquatic life, when Lake Ontario was so polluted that water activities such as swimming and paddleboarding in the Lake were considered unthinkable, when toxic effluent floating on the Don River was so concentrated that it actually caught fire on more than one occasion. If enacted, I fear that the proposals in this discussion paper will be taking us back to those times, of the environmental wild west in the name of economic growth. Surely there must be a better way for Canadians to address the threats to our national sovereignty than to destroy the very essence of what makes Canada great.
The purpose of having environmental regulations is to allow governments to make challenging decisions about which parts of our environment should be saved or destroyed based on scientific evidence and expert analysis. Their purpose shouldn’t be to merely slow down project implementation but to decide if a project should proceed or not. That analysis may take a year, or it may take 10 depending on project complexity and how much is known about the impact on affected eco-systems. Some projects simply shouldn’t be built because of the level of damage they will cause, no matter how much economic growth potential they promise. Do we really want to put the fate of Canada’s natural heritage assets in the hands of politicians who are almost always driven by 4- or 5-year election cycles and are prone to populist pressures? We think not.
Making decisions that cause environmental destruction must be carried out with the utmost care and with as much knowledge as possible. The stakes are very high, and the likelihood of “unintended consequences” is significant. We must be conscious of the fact that, once an ecosystem is destroyed, it is gone for decades, once a species is extinct, it is gone forever.
For environmental regulations to be truly effective, they must act more like a constitutional framework, representing the fundamental values of the country and its citizens. Support for the environment cannot be viewed as a “fashion statement”, in favour today, and out of favour tomorrow or next year. We must find out from Canadians what aspects of Canada they hold truly dear. The unique aspects of this country, such as the Salish Sea Orca, the rich aquatic eco-systems of the Douglas Channel and the eco-system services provided by the peat bogs of Northern Ontario, to name but a few. Only then can we truly know what should be saved and what can be sacrificed in the name of economic growth.
Accordingly, the BEA supports CELA’s position that being to, “immediately withdraw the ill-conceived Discussion Paper proposals which, if implemented, would constitute the most significant rollback of federal environmental laws in recent decades”. Like CELA, members of the BEA do not oppose economic activity, good jobs, or sustainable resource management.
As inspiration, I recommend that the Government look to the Haida Nation with the sustainable practices they have implemented with their vast wealth of forest, fish, and minerals, and the excellent relationships they have established with the B.C. Government as well as the various extraction industries. The Haida have managed to find that delicate balance, where the environment and the economy support each other helping to ensure the health of current and future generations by not repeating the mistakes of the past. I believe that most Canadians want what we want, economic prosperity in the context of strong(er) environmental protections, ensuring that, what we hold dear about Canada, will last forever.
David Laing – President, Brampton Environmental Alliance
https://bramptonea.org 416-402-3778
