By Richard Lindgren, CELA Counsel
“The environment must not be a sacrificial lamb on the altar of corporate survival.”
– R. v. Bata Industries Inc. (1992), 7 CELR (NS) 293, para 11
Despite the serious ecological and socio-economic threats posed by toxic pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change, Canadians are now witnessing the rapid rollback of federal environmental laws in real-time.
Since last year, the federal government has passed or proposed several controversial initiatives that revise, dismantle, or remove key components of the national environmental law framework.
This framework had been carefully crafted and maintained by Parliament over the past several decades in order to advance the public interest by protecting the environment and safeguarding public health and safety.
Nevertheless, under the pretext of responding to U.S. tariffs and related economic threats, the federal government proposes to “build Canada strong” by streamlining and expediting federal assessment and approvals processes in order to attract investment and fast-track major projects across the country.
Illustrative examples of this questionable industry-friendly approach include:
- The 2025 enactment of the Building Canada Act (Bill C-5), which enables the federal government to designate and pre-approve “national interest” projects under various federal statutes, including the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), Species at Risk Act,, Fisheries Act, and Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA)
- The 2025 establishment of the federal Major Projects Office which is intended to advance “nation-building” projects “faster” by providing a “one-window” approach for coordinating and facilitating approvals needed by proponents
- The 2026 proposal to designate three large-scale infrastructure projects (including the proposed underground repository in northwest Ontario for used nuclear fuel waste) as “national interest” projects under the Building Canada Act, despite ongoing public and Indigenous concerns about the environmental and public health risks associated with these projects
- The signing of several federal-provincial “co-operation” agreements in 2025-26 under the IAA which are largely intended to defer or off-load assessment responsibilities to provincial governments, even in relation to projects that may have adverse impacts on areas of federal jurisdiction
- The 2026 amendment to the IAA projects list regulation that de-listed certain energy projects (i.e. interprovincial pipelines), which means that these projects are no longer subject to the IAA
- The 2026 introduction of the Building Canada Strong Act (Bill C-39), which builds upon the flawed reform proposals outlined in a 2026 discussion paper and, among other things, proposes to:
- empower the Cabinet to designate “regions of national interest” (like Ontario’s dubious “Special Economic Zones” concept) in which eligible major projects would be exempt from federal permitting requirements that would otherwise be applicable;
- enable the federal government to amend or remove approval conditions that were previously imposed by federal authorities upon major projects before they were designated as national interest projects;
- make the power to designate national interest projects under the Building Canada Act permanent rather than time-limited;
- provide the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission with the sole authority to conduct impact assessments of nuclear projects designated under the IAA;
- allow proponents to undertake early construction of projects before impact assessments have even been completed; and
- substantially shorten the prescribed timelines for project reviews under the IAA and Canadian Energy Regulator Act
From the public interest perspective, the scope, scale, and speed of the above-noted federal initiatives is unprecedented and unacceptable.
In CELA’s view, these changes matter and should be rejected because if implemented, they will inevitably result in a loss of public participation, transparency, and accountability in federal decision-making about environmentally significant undertakings.
Moreover, major projects which are fast-tracked under diluted (or inapplicable) federal assessment and approval regimes may cause significant adverse environmental effects and/or infringe upon the exercise of treaty/Aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Accordingly, environmental groups, academics, Indigenous communities, and others have strongly (and correctly) condemned the latest governmental attempt in Bill C-39 to further erode long-standing environmental protections embedded in federal environmental law. CELA will be submitting and web-posting a detailed legal analysis of Bill C-39 shortly.
Ironically, the federal government’s new-found interest in gutting environmental law is contrary to the well-known principle of non-regression (i.e. no rollbacks), which was expressly endorsed in the Bill S-5 changes to CEPA in 2023.
In addition, the federal government’s mantra of “building Canada strong” appears to be premised on the long-discredited “jobs vs the environment” argument which claims that environmental regulation is merely “red tape” that unduly constrains economic growth and development.
To the contrary, it is well-recognized that a strong economy depends on a healthy environment. In short, good sustainable jobs can be created or secured without sacrificing the environment and removing essential legislative guardrails.
CELA therefore calls upon the federal government to immediately withdraw Bill C-39 and to reconsider or pause the implementation of the other above-noted initiatives which are already in existence.
Blog: The Unjustifiable Demise of Federal Environmental Law
By Richard Lindgren, CELA Counsel
“The environment must not be a sacrificial lamb on the altar of corporate survival.”
– R. v. Bata Industries Inc. (1992), 7 CELR (NS) 293, para 11
Despite the serious ecological and socio-economic threats posed by toxic pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change, Canadians are now witnessing the rapid rollback of federal environmental laws in real-time.
Since last year, the federal government has passed or proposed several controversial initiatives that revise, dismantle, or remove key components of the national environmental law framework.
This framework had been carefully crafted and maintained by Parliament over the past several decades in order to advance the public interest by protecting the environment and safeguarding public health and safety.
Nevertheless, under the pretext of responding to U.S. tariffs and related economic threats, the federal government proposes to “build Canada strong” by streamlining and expediting federal assessment and approvals processes in order to attract investment and fast-track major projects across the country.
Illustrative examples of this questionable industry-friendly approach include:
From the public interest perspective, the scope, scale, and speed of the above-noted federal initiatives is unprecedented and unacceptable.
In CELA’s view, these changes matter and should be rejected because if implemented, they will inevitably result in a loss of public participation, transparency, and accountability in federal decision-making about environmentally significant undertakings.
Moreover, major projects which are fast-tracked under diluted (or inapplicable) federal assessment and approval regimes may cause significant adverse environmental effects and/or infringe upon the exercise of treaty/Aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Accordingly, environmental groups, academics, Indigenous communities, and others have strongly (and correctly) condemned the latest governmental attempt in Bill C-39 to further erode long-standing environmental protections embedded in federal environmental law. CELA will be submitting and web-posting a detailed legal analysis of Bill C-39 shortly.
Ironically, the federal government’s new-found interest in gutting environmental law is contrary to the well-known principle of non-regression (i.e. no rollbacks), which was expressly endorsed in the Bill S-5 changes to CEPA in 2023.
In addition, the federal government’s mantra of “building Canada strong” appears to be premised on the long-discredited “jobs vs the environment” argument which claims that environmental regulation is merely “red tape” that unduly constrains economic growth and development.
To the contrary, it is well-recognized that a strong economy depends on a healthy environment. In short, good sustainable jobs can be created or secured without sacrificing the environment and removing essential legislative guardrails.
CELA therefore calls upon the federal government to immediately withdraw Bill C-39 and to reconsider or pause the implementation of the other above-noted initiatives which are already in existence.
Share: