A group of prominent Canadian scientists has raised concerns over proposed legislation aimed at accelerating the approval of major infrastructure projects, warning that the bill could inflict lasting harm on the environment. The open letter, signed by 56 fellows of the Royal Society of Canada and released Thursday, urges Prime Minister Mark Carney and parliamentary committees to reconsider or amend key provisions of Bill C-39, known as the Building Canada Strong Act, before it becomes law.
The scientists assert that certain clauses in the bill threaten to undermine protections for species at risk and their habitats, potentially causing irreversible damage to Canada’s natural heritage. They argue that these risks contradict the bill’s stated goal of facilitating construction projects while maintaining robust environmental safeguards.
Central to their critique is a provision granting the federal environment minister expansive authority to allow certain “enabling activities” — such as site clearing, dredging, or road construction — to proceed before a project receives full approval, provided the minister deems these actions “in the public interest.” The bill does not clearly define the scope of these activities, a point the scientists say could lead to unchecked environmental disruption.
Officials from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada contend that such activities would still be subject to conditions and require appropriate permits aimed at mitigating adverse effects. They emphasize that early approvals would not guarantee a favorable outcome for the overall impact assessment.
Ecologists involved in the letter express concern about the potential consequences if preliminary work proceeds on projects that ultimately do not receive approval. John Smol of Queen’s University highlighted the impracticality of reversing ecological damage, noting that damaged wetlands or lakes are not easily restored.
The scientists also criticize the bill for sidelining the precautionary principle, which advises against undertaking potentially harmful activities without a thorough understanding of associated risks. They describe the legislation as effectively “burning the barn down while the horse is still inside,” echoing the apprehensions of researchers such as Catherine Potvin of McGill University and Jeremy Kerr of the University of Ottawa.
Additionally, the letter challenges new provisions linked to the Fisheries Act that would allow companies to pay fees instead of restoring fish habitats damaged during project development. Signatories argue that the legislation should prioritize avoiding and minimizing harm before permitting compensation, ensuring environmental accountability.
Representatives from Fisheries and Oceans Canada responded that fees would be regulated to offset project impacts and that policies would guide their calibration relative to harm caused.
Another key concern is the bill’s expansion of the Building Canada Act by removing a five-year sunset clause and granting cabinet the power to designate “regions of national interest” without clear size limitations. The scientists request retaining the sunset provision and explicitly defining those regions to prevent unchecked authority.
The proposed legislation also empowers a single minister to remove environmental conditions attached to permits and assessments and sets a one-year deadline for decision-making, which critics say is insufficient for thorough reviews. Villy Christensen, a University of British Columbia fisheries scientist, observed that complex projects like the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion have undergone assessments lasting several years and questioned the feasibility of detailed reviews within the new time constraints.
Officials maintain that Fisheries Act reviews can meet the one-year timeline given complete company submissions and pointed to the introduction of a "concierge service" to assist applicants in preparing their documents.
Nevertheless, experts caution that while political and industrial processes operate on short timelines, ecological systems require longer periods to recover from damage, underscoring the potential for permanent environmental impacts under accelerated approval processes.