Note – Blog was edited on June 4, 2026 to reflect a new deadline for the commenting period.
by Richard D. Lindgren, Counsel, CELA
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 Discussion Paper is to simplify and shorten these processes so that major projects can be more quickly approved and implemented in a faster manner.
The public consultation period on the Discussion Paper was extended until July 22, 2026. CELA urges members of the public, environmental organizations, and Indigenous communities to express their views on the federal proposals. Incredibly, the Government of Canada has already committed to “moving quickly to introduce legislation following the engagement period.”
CELA is strongly opposed to the Discussion Paper proposals for the reasons outlined in our detailed brief that was recently filed with the federal government.
CELA’s overall conclusion is that the Discussion Paper proposals are unjustified, regressive, and contrary to the public interest. If enacted, the proposed changes will significantly reduce environmental protection, public participation, transparency, and accountability under federal environmental law.
Among other things, the Discussion Paper proposes to:
- arbitrarily compress all federal decision-making for major projects into an unrealistic one-year timeline, but without clearly 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
- 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)
- allowing unspecified early construction activities for major projects to occur well before an impact assessment decision has been made to approve or reject the project
While CELA is concerned about these and other attempts to fast-track major projects, we are particularly opposed to the Discussion Paper’s proposals in relation to nuclear projects regulated by the CNSC.
As noted above, the Government of Canada proposes that impact assessments of such projects would be conducted by the CNSC instead of review panels under the IAA. In addition, it is proposed that final decision-making under the IAA will be given to the CNSC (unless the CNSC finds that the project would cause “significant negative federal effects,” in which case the decision is to be referred to Cabinet for a decision).
However, based on CELA’s decades-long experience in CNSC-regulated matters, there are well-founded public concerns about regulatory capture, highly technical focus, and exclusion of threshold planning questions (i.e. the need for and alternatives to the project) in CNSC proceedings.
In these circumstances, CELA submits that the CNSC should not be relied upon for the purposes of carrying out robust, credible, and participatory impact assessments of nuclear projects, or for making final determinations about whether such projects may cause significant adverse effects that cannot be mitigated.
This same view was previously expressed in 2017 by the independent Expert Panel that extensively consulted on federal assessment reform and provided advice to the federal government prior to the enactment of the IAA:
Other participants were concerned about having the NEB and CNSC conduct assessments. A frequently cited concern was the perceived lack of independence and neutrality because of the close relationship the NEB and CNSC have with the industries they regulate. There were concerns that these Responsible Authorities promote the projects they are tasked with regulating. The apprehension of bias or conflict of interest, whether real or not, was the single most often cited concern by participants with regard to the NEB and CNSC as Responsible Authorities. The term “regulatory capture” was often used when participants described their perceptions of these two entities. The apprehension of bias on the part of these two Responsible Authorities eroded confidence in the assessment process.
Additionally, some participants argued that these industry specific regulatory agencies are more focused on technical issues than they are on the planning process that is fundamental to a thorough IA. Participants felt that issues were not properly being assessed and were being put off to the post-decision regulatory phase (emphasis added).
Accordingly, CELA urges the Government of Canada 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.
At the same time, CELA reiterates that we do not oppose economic activity, good jobs, or sustainable resource management. Moreover, as a legal aid clinic, CELA strongly supports measures that reduce poverty and increase resilience, especially in remote, rural, northern and Indigenous communities.
However, the Discussion Paper proposals are inconsistent with strong and robust environmental protection that ensures the health of current and future generations and that does not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Visit our Action Alert page to tell the federal government that Canadians want stronger environmental protections, not rollbacks.
Blog: The Flawed Federal Proposal to Fast-Track Major Projects
Note – Blog was edited on June 4, 2026 to reflect a new deadline for the commenting period.
by Richard D. Lindgren, Counsel, CELA
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 Discussion Paper is to simplify and shorten these processes so that major projects can be more quickly approved and implemented in a faster manner.
The public consultation period on the Discussion Paper was extended until July 22, 2026. CELA urges members of the public, environmental organizations, and Indigenous communities to express their views on the federal proposals. Incredibly, the Government of Canada has already committed to “moving quickly to introduce legislation following the engagement period.”
CELA is strongly opposed to the Discussion Paper proposals for the reasons outlined in our detailed brief that was recently filed with the federal government.
CELA’s overall conclusion is that the Discussion Paper proposals are unjustified, regressive, and contrary to the public interest. If enacted, the proposed changes will significantly reduce environmental protection, public participation, transparency, and accountability under federal environmental law.
Among other things, the Discussion Paper proposes to:
While CELA is concerned about these and other attempts to fast-track major projects, we are particularly opposed to the Discussion Paper’s proposals in relation to nuclear projects regulated by the CNSC.
As noted above, the Government of Canada proposes that impact assessments of such projects would be conducted by the CNSC instead of review panels under the IAA. In addition, it is proposed that final decision-making under the IAA will be given to the CNSC (unless the CNSC finds that the project would cause “significant negative federal effects,” in which case the decision is to be referred to Cabinet for a decision).
However, based on CELA’s decades-long experience in CNSC-regulated matters, there are well-founded public concerns about regulatory capture, highly technical focus, and exclusion of threshold planning questions (i.e. the need for and alternatives to the project) in CNSC proceedings.
In these circumstances, CELA submits that the CNSC should not be relied upon for the purposes of carrying out robust, credible, and participatory impact assessments of nuclear projects, or for making final determinations about whether such projects may cause significant adverse effects that cannot be mitigated.
This same view was previously expressed in 2017 by the independent Expert Panel that extensively consulted on federal assessment reform and provided advice to the federal government prior to the enactment of the IAA:
Other participants were concerned about having the NEB and CNSC conduct assessments. A frequently cited concern was the perceived lack of independence and neutrality because of the close relationship the NEB and CNSC have with the industries they regulate. There were concerns that these Responsible Authorities promote the projects they are tasked with regulating. The apprehension of bias or conflict of interest, whether real or not, was the single most often cited concern by participants with regard to the NEB and CNSC as Responsible Authorities. The term “regulatory capture” was often used when participants described their perceptions of these two entities. The apprehension of bias on the part of these two Responsible Authorities eroded confidence in the assessment process.
Additionally, some participants argued that these industry specific regulatory agencies are more focused on technical issues than they are on the planning process that is fundamental to a thorough IA. Participants felt that issues were not properly being assessed and were being put off to the post-decision regulatory phase (emphasis added).
Accordingly, CELA urges the Government of Canada 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.
At the same time, CELA reiterates that we do not oppose economic activity, good jobs, or sustainable resource management. Moreover, as a legal aid clinic, CELA strongly supports measures that reduce poverty and increase resilience, especially in remote, rural, northern and Indigenous communities.
However, the Discussion Paper proposals are inconsistent with strong and robust environmental protection that ensures the health of current and future generations and that does not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Visit our Action Alert page to tell the federal government that Canadians want stronger environmental protections, not rollbacks.
Share: