Proposed changes to Canada\u2019s major projects permitting process could speed up approvals at the expense of protections for the environment and First Nations, critics warn.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe goal should be better decisions earlier, not weaker decisions faster,\u201d Victoria Goodday, public policy specialist with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Canada, told The Energy Mix.<\/p>\n
The federal government launched public consultations in May for two discussion papers proposing reforms to the impact assessment process for reviewing and approving major projects like mines and pipelines. The original 30-day engagement period was extended to a July 22 deadline, with a summary report expected by the end of summer.<\/p>\n
Ottawa\u2019s reforms aim to speed up project timelines as Canada competes with other countries to attract investment in large-scale projects, the government says<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some organizations, like<\/a> the Business Council of Canada, welcomed the changes, maintaining that the current system \u201cis too slow and burdensome.\u201d<\/p>\n But environmental groups are speaking out against the reforms, warning that the changes will centralize authority, reduce accountability, and weaken environmental oversight. In a statement, Nature Canada said<\/a> it supports speeding up federal review processes, but that the current proposal will \u201charm nature irreparably, and in doing so, impoverish Canadians.\u201d<\/p>\n The proposal outlines six reforms, including a one-year deadline for federal review and decision-making, making some projects reviewable by the Canada Energy Regulator without calling for separate impact assessments, and creating a \u201cone Crown consultation process\u201d that would steer Indigenous groups affected by major projects through \u201cone consultation process for each project\u201d.<\/p>\n Some First Nations organizations, like the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, raised concerns<\/a> that the changes risk weakening First Nation jurisdiction and environmental protections. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs rejected<\/a> the proposal as written, stating that the substance of the reforms\u2014and the speed with which they are being advanced\u2014\u201cfundamentally contradicts\u201d Canada\u2019s commitments to upholding First Nations\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n In an email to The Mix, Goodday said that although the current assessment system does need to be changed, reforms should focus on identifying ecological risks and cumulative effects early on in the process\u2014that is, before project pathways are established\u2014rather than relying on \u201cpermitting and other late-stage regulatory safeguards to resolve problems.\u201d<\/p>\n And while setting a one-year time frame for project approvals is not in itself a problem, there does need to be better identification of the information to be gathered before a decision is made, Goodday added. Project approval decisions \u201cshould not be forced to meet an arbitrary deadline at the expense of decision quality\u201d when there is uncertainty about how the environment will be affected.<\/p>\n The proposal also includes a move to designate Federal Economic Zones over areas like transportation corridors and energy networks where certain projects would be considered \u201cpre-approved\u201d. According to Goodday, this could lead to irreversible harms to the environment and risk weakening Indigenous rights and interests. It is also less efficient, as pre-approval could miss opportunities to avoid high-risk areas and major impacts that will lead to higher costs later on, which \u201care ultimately borne by proponents, investors, and the public.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe way to improve the process and actually eliminate risk and uncertainty for proponents is to deal with ecological risk early,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Proposed changes to Canada\u2019s major projects permitting process could speed up approvals at the expense of protections for…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":157463,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[4554,17,6935,23465],"class_list":["post-157462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-canada","tag-byline-internal","tag-canada","tag-dow","tag-scf"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157462","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157462\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/157463"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}