Wildfires raging in Canada this summer not only underscore the severe threat that climate change poses to the country’s ecosystems, but also highlight the deep connection between conservation and economic prosperity – the two must be aligned for both to succeed.
The federal government recognized this inextricable link last spring when it announced a landmark $3.8 billion for its nature strategy to protect the country’s lands and waters, calling it both a moral duty and an economic imperative.
Now, however, the government risks undermining this vital investment and moving Canada in the wrong direction by proposing legislative, regulatory and policy changes that weaken environmental protections in order to fast-track major projects such as pipelines, ports and mines – disregarding the critical connection between the environment and the economy.
This is misguided and dangerous. There are far more effective ways for the government to speed up project reviews without diluting environmental standards – alternatives that benefit both nature and the economy.
Nature Canada – in our submitted response to the government’s proposals – has identified more than a dozen practical reforms that do just that.
The government should take them seriously.
Our recommendations recognize that conservation and prosperity must mutually reinforce one another for either to flourish. We cannot grow the economy while cannibalising nature and we cannot conserve nature if we lack the resources to meet society’s needs.
That is why we commended the federal government for its nature protection strategy.
That is why we supported the government’s 2025 throne speech commitment to improve and accelerate federal environmental review processes to get major projects built without unnecessary delays while maintaining environmental standards and responsibilities.
However, many of the reforms the government is now putting forward to fast-track major project approvals are deeply concerning.
They weaken environmental protections, treating environmental regulations as “red tape” holding up project approvals.
They risk undermining democratic norms by giving ministers the power to set aside laws and regulations without legislative oversight – setting a terrible precedent not just for the environment, but also for our entire democracy.
Yet, weakening environmental safeguards by bypassing environmental review processes and replacing legal standards with political discretion will not accelerate construction.
Instead, it will squander social licence, invite endless litigation, trigger constitutional friction with Indigenous People and jeopardize Canada’s international trade commitments, all while putting species and habitats at risk.
A more effective and efficient way to build major projects without abandoning environmental integrity is to put nature front and centre from the beginning.
This means identifying environmental risks early on, avoiding conflict where possible and providing certainty for communities, Indigenous partners, investors and proponents.
Here are four practical solutions from our submission to do this.
First, environmental assessments and permit reviews should be carried out simultaneously and early on in project planning.
This would allow regulators to guide project proponents on adjustments they might need to make at the design stage to meet environmental standards and to identify proposals with inherently unacceptable risks early on in planning before major capital is spent.
Second, the government should adopt a whole-of-government mitigation hierarchy as a common framework for major projects, with co-ordinated regulations and policies across departments.
This approach would enable the government to set ecological baselines defining unacceptable harms to nature, avoid environmental harms, minimize unavoidable impacts, restore ecosystems after projects are built or spent and then, only as a last resort, offset environmental impacts that could not be avoided or reversed with other measures that leave nature net better off.
Third, the government should conduct high-quality, pre-project regional assessments before soliciting proposals for major projects.
Unlike the government’s proposed Federal Economic Zones – which would pre-approve certain developments without environment reviews – regional assessments would not waive or suspend environmental standards, but would identify the kinds of developments that could proceed in a region without risking ecosystem collapse
Fourth, the government should incorporate natural capital accounting – based on the results of its Expert Taskforce on Natural Capital Accounting and Nature Financing – into major project evaluations.
By integrating the taskforce’s findings on how to measure and incorporate the value of nature in decision making, assessment processes for major projects would reflect the true value of ecosystems.
Nature protections are not an impediment to project development. They are an essential “credit check” that confirms that a proposed project is environmentally sound before it receives government approval.
Instead of weakening environmental standards, it is time for the federal government to adopt practical solutions that speed up project approvals without sacrificing nature protections.
It will be a win-win for nature and the economy.
Photo courtesy of DepositPhotos
