The federal government’s push to fast-track nation-building projects is facing growing criticism from Canada’s scientific community, with leading ecologists and biologists warning that proposed reforms could weaken environmental safeguards, expose endangered species to greater risk and ultimately impose significant economic costs on Canadians.
The Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution (CSEE), which represents roughly 930 scientists across the nation, argues exempting large projects from scrutiny under the Impact Assessment Act would reduce the ability to identify environmental risks before construction begins and eliminate opportunities to redesign projects to avoid or minimize harm.
They are responding to a discussion paper released by the government, called Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, as part of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s effort to accelerate approval timelines for major infrastructure projects such as pipelines and transmission lines.
The government says the current regulatory processes are often duplicative and can delay approvals for more than five years, discouraging investment and hindering economic growth. However, the CSEE notes in a submission to the Privy Council Office that it supports efforts to eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies but strongly opposes reforms that would weaken environmental assessment requirements.
The submission was endorsed by the Canadian Society of Zoologists and Society of Canadian Ornithologists.
At the heart of the dispute is a proposal that could allow some major projects to bypass federal impact assessments entirely.
The government discussion paper contemplates new federal economic zones and a greater role for the Canada Energy Regulator in reviewing certain projects, including pipelines, transmission lines and offshore renewable energy developments.
The CSEE says such projects often cross ecologically sensitive landscapes and can fragment wildlife habitat across provincial boundaries.
Without comprehensive assessments, the scientists say, Canada could face increased risks of water contamination, habitat destruction, species declines and the loss of valuable natural ecosystems that support communities and local economies.
“The obvious risk of these changes is that projects would proceed without first determining their potential health and environmental consequences – from diminished air quality and water contamination to species declines, extinctions and the overall loss of natural capital – leaving communities and the natural resources (water, lands and wildlife) supporting them to pay the price,” CSEE president Julia Baum warns in the submission. “Bypassing environmental assessments also prevents projects from being adjusted, sometimes minimally, to reduce their environmental health impacts.”
The CSEE is also concerned changes would permit some construction activities to begin before environmental reviews are completed.
Early-stage activities such as land clearing, dredging and foundation work frequently cause the greatest ecological disturbance, the society argues.
Another significant concern involves proposed amendments to the Species at Risk Act. Ottawa is considering giving cabinet the authority to exempt certain projects from the law’s “jeopardy test,” which requires that approved activities not threaten the survival or recovery of endangered species.
The CSEE argues this safeguard is one of Canada’s few legally binding protections for wildlife and warns creating exemptions could subject conservation decisions to political and economic pressures.
Scientists are similarly critical of plans to broaden the use of habitat offsetting under the Fisheries Act, as the proposal would make it easier for developers to compensate for damaged fish habitat by restoring or creating habitat elsewhere although research shows newly created ecosystems rarely replicate the biological value of natural habitats that develop over centuries.
The CSEE also frames its opposition in economic terms, noting Canada’s natural capital, including its forests, wetlands, freshwater systems, oceans and grasslands, provide enormous economic benefits through water filtration, carbon storage, flood protection, fisheries and tourism.
Its submission indicates ecosystem services from Canada’s boreal region alone are worth at least $93 billion annually, compared with approximately $38 billion in net market value generated through resource extraction.
A separate study cited by the society estimates protected and conserved areas contribute $10.9 billion to GDP and support 150,000 jobs every year.
Further, the organization argues weakening environmental laws could create legal and trade risks, as Canada’s obligations under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement include commitments not to relax environmental laws to attract trade or investment.
The society also contends proposed reforms may conflict with Canada’s commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and could complicate efforts to uphold Indigenous consultation and consent obligations under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Despite its criticism, the CSEE is not calling for an end to major projects. Instead, it is urging Ottawa to pursue what it describes as “win-win” solutions that balance economic development with environmental stewardship.
The group recommends strategic land-use planning, increased investment in scientific capacity at the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, regional environmental assessments conducted before projects are approved, stronger engagement with scientific experts and continued protection for critical habitat under species-at-risk legislation.
The CSEE also recommends focusing approvals on projects that advance Canada’s climate commitments while maintaining rigorous safeguards for wildlife and ecosystems.
Ottawa has indicated it will review feedback from industry, Indigenous communities, environmental groups and the public before legislation is finalized. A report is expected by the end of summer.
