Skimping on environmental protections endangers us all

National Observer

22-05-2025

In the rush to grow Canada's economy by exploiting more of our natural resources, moves are afoot to pare back environmental impact assessments that slow or sometimes even block resource and industrial development. During the election campaign, the now-ruling Liberals promised to cut the decision time on projects from five years to a maximum of two.
Similarly, BC is about to pass a new Infrastructure Projects Act designed to expedite approvals and reduce environmental assessment times. Ontario also wants to speed development with a bill that would water down environmental impact assessments and downgrade species at risk laws, although you wouldn't know it from the name — Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act.
There may be good reasons to streamline assessment processes to allow for speedier economic development, especially for projects the federal government deems to be in the national interest. Tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump have put Canada's economy in a precarious position and Prime Minister Mark Carney believes now is the time for at least one ambitious federal infrastructure project — whether it be a national electricity grid or new pipeline — to decrease our reliance on the US. Provincial governments are also pushing for more mines, coal and fossil fuel development which they hope can be sold to a broader world market and replace economic losses of the tariffs.
But changes to our existing safeguards must be made carefully and should still include some measure of oversight from provincial and federal levels of government. The interests of provincial governments, under pressure to boost jobs and juice the local economy, can be too parochial. And some, like the United Conservative Party under Danielle Smith, have been so co-opted by industry, they simply can't be trusted with protection of our shared air, land and water.
Before our governments take a hacksaw to our impact assessment acts, it's worth remembering the devastation industrial development and resource extraction projects can wreak on our environment with or without safeguards.
Take for example, mercury from the Dryden pulp mill that poisoned the Wabigoon River, leaving Indigenous people living downstream devastating health problems. The pollution began more than 100 years ago, but the health impacts persist to this day. Yellowknife's Giant Mine belched arsenic into the air for just a few years in the mid-1900s before new equipment slowed the rate of pollution — and yet the cost of cleaning up the deadly toxicity already outweighs the total value of all the gold that was ever mined there.
More recently in 2014, the Mount Polley tailings pond dam collapsed, dumping hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste into BC streams and lakes near Likely, BC, about 170 kilometres south of Prince George. In 2023, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation discovered Imperial Oil had failed to alert the community to a massive spill from an Alberta oilsands tailing pond into a nearby watershed. And the following year, dangerously high benzene emissions from a Sarnia-area chemical company forced the evacuation of Aamjiwnaang First Nation residents.
Before our governments take a hacksaw to our impact assessment acts, consider the devastation industrial development and resource extraction projects can wreak on our environment with or without safeguards.
Would more restrictive impact assessments have prevented these specific industrial transgressions? Possibly not. But without impact assessments which expose potential pitfalls and seek to protect the environment and Indigenous rights, it would be tempting for profit-driven industries to cut corners and up the risk. It would also obscure the tradeoffs we make in the name of development.
Major industries tend to locate away from cities on Indigenous lands and when industrial safeguards fail, First Nations typically bear the brunt of the pollution. So, it's not surprising Indigenous leaders are questioning the moves to water down impact assessments. In BC, Stewart Phillip, grand chief and president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, chided the provincial government for failing to adequately consult First Nations on the pending infrastructure act. He warned if the BC government pushes aside Indigenous interests in its rush for economic growth, it can expect legal challenges.
The Chiefs of Ontario are similarly signalling trouble if the Ontario government fails to consult First Nations on its bill to ram through development in 'special economic zones,' such as the Ring of Fire mining area in Northern Ontario.
'You can't 'unleash' our rights or our sacred responsibilities to our lands and waters with the wave of a pen,' said Regional Chief Abram Benedict in an April 22 statement.
Environmental groups are also sounding the alarm over recent remarks by Carney, suggesting he is open to a redo of the federal Impact Assessment Act. Federal jurisdiction over environmental protection was already somewhat curtailed by a 2023 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that found federal impact assessments were unlawfully trampling on provincial jurisdiction. As a result, the feds withdrew a number of planned assessments, including Ontario Premier Doug Ford's controversial plans to build Highway 413.
As Carney and the premiers consider making changes, they must keep environmental protection front and centre and not listen exclusively to industry complaints, which might be overblown. At least one study on mining projects in BC found that changing economic conditions, not impact assessments, were by far the greatest cause for project delays.
If governments fail to fully consider the environmental concerns of First Nations, environmentalists and scientists, they can expect a slew of fresh lawsuits, protests and blockades. Canadians care deeply about the environment and if the government steps out they'll be prepared to step in to take its place.