In an attempt to fast-track development of projects deemed of national importance, the Government of Canada is advancing a series of legislative and regulatory changes through Bill C-39, which will make it harder to measure the potential consequences of certain projects, meaningfully address those consequences, and hold project proponents accountable. 

Here are some of the changes we are concerned about:

• Impact assessments on compressed timelines. Bill C-39 would shrink the period available to rigorously evaluate the complex consequences of development to a single year.

• Fewer protections for fish and fish habitat. According to the Fisheries Act, a company whose project harms fish or fish habitat is required to offset that damage with measures such as habitat restoration. Bill C-39 instead allows project proponents to pay a fee to the Environmental Damages Fund and does not require that those funds be used to recover the destroyed habitat. This proposal assumes that habitat loss can be easily translated into a dollar amount that can then be used to promote conservation elsewhere. However, these impacts represent long-term, potentially irreversible changes to specific ecosystems and species that people depend on. 

• Fast-tracking approvals for entire regions. Bill C-39 would allow Cabinet to mark whole regions of the country where eligible projects can be pre-approved without undergoing an assessment. Projects within the region would not be assessed based on potential harm; so long as they meet the region’s criteria, their approval would be deemed mandatory. Regional assessments are a helpful tool to map areas of importance for biodiversity and for communities, and to outline potential cumulative effects where projects could overlap. They were not designed to enable the pre-approval of projects. Projects must continue to be assessed individually, both because no two projects are the same, and because Canada’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples cannot be meaningfully fulfilled through a single assessment process completed before any construction starts.

• Strictly political decision-making. This bill hands significant authority regarding the impact assessment process to political office holders, setting a dangerous precedent. C-39 would allow for more political discretion over which projects require an assessment—and, if an assessment results in parameters a project must follow to prevent harm, the bill would allow the Minister to change them if a project proponent claims they are too expensive or technically difficult to follow. This creates a serious risk that political and economic interests could override science, public input, and Indigenous consultation. 

• From emergency measures to permanent powers: When Bill C-5, the precursor to Bill C-39, was passed, the government presented the legislation as a temporary response to a crisis. Many of its proposed changes were set to expire in 2030, allowing the government a short-term window to fast-track development. Bill C-39 removes that expiration date, meaning that changes that were introduced as short-term measures will become permanent Canadian law. 

Impact assessments are a critical part of responsible, sustainable development—a strong line of defence between industry and the environmental, social, health and economic costs of development. 

The assessment process does not apply to every project, only the ones most likely to have significant negative consequences for the environment and public, making it a crucial step before shovels hit the ground. It also provides a way for the government to gather scientific information on how a project will affect people or the environment, public opinion and consult with Indigenous communities whose territories and rights may be affected.

If approved, Bill C-39 would make it significantly harder to assess new developments with the rigour, scrutiny, and public input required to truly serve the interests and wellbeing of Canadians.

In the Government of Canada’s Force of Nature Strategy, they write:

“Nature underpins much of our economic prosperity and climate action. It is essential to Canada's growth, security, and nation-building. When conservation and economic activities are seen as competing priorities this risks weaker conservation outcomes and project delays. However, these goals need not be at odds.”

We agree.

If Canada wants to do big things quickly, one of those big things should be working to fully understand our environment and its value.

Building Canada strong means moving quickly to invest in the research, science and local knowledge essential to making good, evidence-based decisions. The more we know up front, the less time we need to spend collecting information in project assessments.

To build Canada well, the government should:

• Initiate, complete, and/or recognize existing mapping of Canada's oceans, coastal areas, and estuaries to identify areas of ecological and cultural significance. This requires technical and financial support so communities can lead or meaningfully participate in the work and retain ownership of their cultural data. Mapping would give communities, proponents, and governments early clarity on where high-value and high-sensitivity areas are and provide the ecological and cultural data needed to guide concurrent investments in protection and mitigation.

  In Canada's oceans, integrated marine spatial plans co-developed with Indigenous partners, coastal communities, and governments create predictability for existing activities such as shipping, fisheries, energy, and conservation, and greater certainty for new projects and activities. Canada should move quickly to fund the creation or completion of marine spatial plans on all three coasts.

• Develop a national underwater noise policy to minimize harm to marine mammals and other sensitive species. Vessel traffic, seismic surveys, construction and dredging related to major projects all add noise to marine environments, and noise can have significant impacts on marine life. In Canada’s Arctic communities, the health of marine life is essential to food security and wellbeing. Canada has announced plans to develop an Arctic underwater noise and marine mammal monitoring program to assess the impacts of increasing underwater noise associated with major projects, including evaluating the effectiveness of noise management measures. They have also planned to address underwater noise that affects whales, announcing $100 million to build long-term capacity to monitor, assess and mitigate noise along all three coasts. However, mitigation measures will only be effective if they are non-voluntary and enforceable, and in Arctic waters they must be co-developed with Inuit. 

• Create more efficient pathways to safeguard freshwater habitats. Under section 35.2 of the Fisheries Act, the government can designate Ecologically Significant Areas to proactively protect freshwater and nearshore habitats. Canada should use this tool to fast-track well-studied, locally developed proposals now, in parallel to its work to build a National Water Security Strategy. 

• Strengthen regional assessments and cumulative effects assessments. The single best tool industry and governments can use to create more certainty for proponents and communities is to conduct robust regional assessments and improve assessments of cumulative effects. Regional assessments, if designed well, generate a wealth of helpful information, from baseline conditions and community priorities to areas of biological and cultural significance. Cumulative effects assessments, as a part of both project and regional assessments, look at the combined impacts of a proposed project alongside other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the same area, allowing planners to gain a holistic picture of how projects are interacting. While these tools exist in Canada, they need significant strengthening to deliver meaningful results, including setting thresholds and limits on total disturbance in a region, accounting for all effects within a region (such as climate change), and ensuring they are co-led with Indigenous partners. Regional assessments should be considered a supportive base from which to improve project-level reviews—they cannot be used to exempt projects from the assessment process.

• Fund Indigenous monitoring programs on a long-term basis. Indigenous peoples have deep knowledge of their lands and waters and are best placed to support baseline data collection, long-term monitoring, and early detection of change. Guardian programs and community-based monitoring already generate much of the knowledge that assessments and management decisions rely on, and they are essential to long-term management and enforcement. Canada should recognize their importance, including by providing stable, ongoing funding.

• Ensure port modernization includes decarbonization. As Canada invests in new and expanded ports to support trade and major projects, those investments should include shore power and infrastructure for low- and zero-emission fuels. Decarbonized ports reduce air pollution for nearby communities, and position Canadian ports to compete as international shipping moves toward stricter emissions requirements.

Bill C-39 has only just been introduced. It is not law yet. The bill must first go through the federal parliamentary process, where MPs and senators will review, debate, and vote on the bill. If both the House of Commons and Senate pass the bill after this stage, which can move quickly, it will become law.

This is where you can take action! Contact your MP today and let them know that Bill C-39 must be amended to safeguard the natural infrastructure that supports us all.