Latest news with #SpeciesatRiskAct
Montreal Gazette
7 days ago
- Business
- Montreal Gazette
Lincoln: ADM conduct in airport expansion flies in the face of good corporate citizenship
Op Eds The Gazette's front-page headline of July 24 — '' Airport consultation flies under radar '' — came as no surprise to me. Aéroports de Montréal appears to have developed an ingrained habit of flying low, far too low, regarding consultation on its projects and their impacts. In 2021, ADM decided to extend its wings into commercial development. It undertook to sublease federal land under its airport-management lease to a Montreal corporate group, Medicom/Meltech, for a substantial mask manufacturing plant of 15,500 square metres. The facility would have covered the large expanse of milkweed plants known as the Monarch Fields, an essential habitat for the endangered monarch butterfly, protected federally under the Species at Risk Act. The reaction of broad swaths of civil society was swift, incredulous and sharply negative. Substantive briefs were submitted during the short consultation period, and public protests ensued. Recognizing the legitimacy of the public outcry, Medicom/Meltech proved a responsible corporate citizen with its praiseworthy decision to locate its plant elsewhere. For ADM, however, this public lesson in responsible corporate citizenship seemed to fall on deaf ears. Whether in a fit of pique to show those pesky protesters who was the boss, or for whatever reason, ADM chose summertime in 2022 to suddenly raze to the ground an estimated 4,000 milkweed plants of the Monarch Fields covering 19 hectares. The highly descriptive words of Marwah Rizqy, MNA for St-Laurent, vividly capture the complete exasperation of civil society: 'Pendant que les Québécois fêtaient la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Aéroports de Montréal passait la tondeuse.' Indeed. While Quebecers were celebrating la Fête nationale, ADM was mowing the field. This spring, ADM was at it again. It announced it is taking over the land it leases to the City of Dorval for its golf course to build a fuel depot and decarbonization plant. Not only did Dorval Mayor Marc Doret point out that more suitable alternative areas existed, but he also joined representatives from Montreal, St-Laurent and civil society to underscore the irony of obliterating mature trees and flora — the surest natural sequesters of carbon — to replace them with a facility surrounded by paved access roads and parking areas to ... decarbonize. Hopefully, this is another plant that will not see the light of day on federal land. The article of July 24 refers to a $10-billion expansion project. I repeat, $10 billion. Yet the consultation period for each of the two separate components of the project is a mere 30 days! Is this a joke, and does ADM believe this is responsible behaviour for a not-for-profit corporation entrusted to provide a major essential service to millions? In the article, Pierre Lachapelle, president of Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau, referred to realistic consultation periods offered by organizations such as the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE), which holds independent environmental impact assessments on provincial projects. Consultations for the $6.3-billion REM project lasted two years. They were widespread and contentious, as the huge investment and its impacts clearly demanded. Here, ADM is giving interested citizens 30 days for written submissions on a massive project. May I suggest the qualifiers 'outrageous' and 'arrogant' are not out of line? It brought to mind another airport project where, obviously, due diligence and meaningful consultations must have lacked the thoroughness its importance demanded. Had the billions now being spent on the back of finessed ''consultations'' been directed instead to fast-rail access and the projected extension of Highway 13, maybe the white elephant that Mirabel became could — should — have been Montreal's airport of the long-term future. For several years, an extensive consensus of civil society has endured regarding the crucial importance of protecting the federal lands around the airport. Prime Minister Mark Carney has stated that this unique natural site is one being considered as a national urban park. It is high time ADM should become a conscientious corporate citizen and, along with the federal government, start earning our trust for this worthy cause.
National Observer
24-07-2025
- Politics
- National Observer
Canada's premiers should tread more carefully on climate policy
In a year of unexpected political developments, one of the biggest surprises so far has been the unusual degree of harmony between Ottawa and the premiers. Wab Kinew, David Eby, and Francois Legault have been making unusually peaceful noises about their relationship with Ottawa, ones that got turned up a few notches at this week's first ministers' meeting in Huntsville, Ontario. Heck, even Danielle Smith and Scott Moe have managed not to look completely petulant at times. But when it comes to their obvious fondness for Mark Carney, nobody comes close to Doug Ford. 'The prime minister is the most humble person you'd ever want to meet,' Ford told reporters on Tuesday after letting it slip that Carney had stayed at his chalet. 'He listens, he's a smart business person. … He's a very good man, and he just wants the best for Canada.' Wherever Pierre Poilievre was at the time — and it wasn't the Alberta riding where he's trying to win a byelection — he must have been doing enough fuming to heat a small village. Even so, a return to Canada's regularly scheduled political programming seems inevitable, if not yet imminent. When that happens, it will almost certainly have something to do with climate change — and the federal government's continued insistence on doing something about it. The recent joint letter penned by Ford and Smith to federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin offers a window into what that conflict will look like. The letter calls for the immediate repeal of the clean electricity regulations, the Impact Assessment Act, the oil and gas emissions cap and the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, along with an amendment to the Species at Risk Act that would supposedly respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. In other words, they want the federal government to withdraw almost every meaningful climate policy and regulation it has put forward since 2015. The letter from the two premiers builds on the memorandum of understanding signed between their provinces in June (which Saskatchewan recently signed onto) that called for, among other things, the repeal of the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. As Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz — yes, environment minister — said on social media, 'these policies undermine competitiveness, delay project development, kill investment and disproportionately harm provincial economies without any benefits to Canada's environment.' The last point is both obviously false and deeply ironic given the source, but it's also a deliberate distraction. What these premiers really want, what they always want in the end, is a federal government that doesn't do anything more ambitious than send them their transfer payments. They want it to stay in a narrowly-drawn constitutional lane, and they very much want it to stay out of the effort to address climate change — even after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was, in fact, in its lane. For all of his enthusiasm for getting infrastructure projects built, Carney isn't about to surrender to the provinces here. The very idea of a docile and submissive federal government is fundamentally at odds with the vision he's laid out for Canadians, in which the federal government spends more on its military, pushes harder for national economic infrastructure like electricity grids and pipelines, and otherwise acts decisively in the national interest. It's a vision Canadians endorsed in April's federal election, and one they seem even more enthusiastic about almost three months after the ballots were counted. It's also a clear contrast to the last Liberal government, which talked a good game around national issues and objectives and then consistently failed to actually defend them. As I wrote in a column earlier this year, 'if there's an overarching criticism of Justin Trudeau as prime minister that will outlast the short-term griping about his style or specific policy failures, it will be his failure to stand up more fully for Canada. On any number of fronts, from his government's numerous concessions to the jurisdictional encroachment coming from Quebec to its inability to forcefully denounce creeping Alberta separatism, Trudeau has routinely declined to defend the national interest.' Premiers like Danielle Smith and Doug Ford are demanding that Ottawa drop all of its climate-related policies. Why they're picking a fight with Mark Carney that they might not be able to win. It seems unlikely that Carney will make the same mistake — or fail to learn from it. If anything, one of the early signatures of his tenure as prime minister has been a willingness to jettison Trudeau-era policies and programs if they're unpopular or ineffective. Yes, he's willing to fast-track major infrastructure projects, at some inevitable environmental cost, in an effort to stimulate Canada's economy and reduce our dependence on the United States. But he's not about to trade in his core belief in the importance of addressing climate change — and the economic risks that are both created and multiplied if we don't. The premiers will find that out in due course. Whether they decide to fight Carney on a hill whose contours he knows instinctively depends on their own political calculations and concerns. Alberta and Saskatchewan will almost certainly try to use Carney as a scapegoat for their own failures the way they did so effectively with Justin Trudeau, if only because they have so many of them to distract voters from. But the new boss very clearly isn't the same as the old one, both in style and substance. Just ask Doug Ford.
Vancouver Sun
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Vancouver Sun
Opinion: Turning the tide for southern resident killer whales
A new political era is unfolding in Canada, characterized by a push for expedited development approvals through the Building Canada Act under Bill C-5. This legislation empowers the federal cabinet to approve projects deemed to serve the national interest, overriding environmental reviews and the permitting procedure. While this may expedite new development, it poses an urgent question: Will safeguarding coastal ecosystems and endangered species like southern resident killer whales receive equal urgency? The whales are perilously close to extinction. At 73 individuals, their decline since being listed as endangered two decades ago is unfolding in plain sight of scientists, governments, First Nations and the public, despite mounting science on how to reverse it. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. These whales aren't interchangeable with other killer whales. Southern residents are a distinct population that have been separated from other whales for hundreds of generations. They have rich cultural traditions, strong social bonds, share their prey and use calls not shared by any other killer whales. To lose them wouldn't only entail the loss of a genetically unique population, but also a lineage of culture and knowledge deeply intertwined with our coastal ecosystem. In 2018, the government of Canada declined to issue an emergency order under the Species at Risk Act, opting instead for a series of alternative conservation measures. Subsequently, annual protection measures were implemented, but many were limited in scope, voluntary or weakly enforced. In 2025, despite a federal assessment confirming the population wasn't recovering and remained at risk of imminent extinction, a second emergency order request was once again denied. In June, the Canadian government announced its 2025 protection measures for southern resident killer whales. Although well-intentioned, the measures largely mirror previous ones: fishing closures in designated areas, vessel-restricted zones, voluntary vessel slowdowns and a proposed increase in the minimum distance vessels must maintain from the whales. In March, we invited 31 scientists from Canada, the U.S., and Europe to Vancouver to address a critical question: What would it take to save this population? The result was a science-based set of 26 recommendations, some new, others improvements to existing actions. The list is solidly grounded in evidence and bolstered by expert consensus. The full workshop report, Strengthening recovery actions for Southern Resident killer whales, was released earlier this month and is publicly available at All the recommendations could be implemented now, without waiting for further research. The full workshop report is publicly available at All the recommendations could be implemented now, without waiting for further research. Consider chinook salmon. Southern residents depend on chinook that are large and high fat. While many salmon runs have declined, what is particularly problematic is that there has been a shift from runs once abundant with big, fatty chinook in the spring, to fall runs often comprising smaller, leaner individuals — a shift that has been exacerbated by hatcheries. We recommend maintaining fishery closures that prioritize the whales' access to their important salmon. One way to do this is to shift fishing effort to locations near or in rivers. This would give southern residents a better chance to feed before those salmon are targeted by fishermen. Reducing underwater noise is also urgent. Southern residents rely on echolocation to find their prey, and the vessel noise that currently saturates their habitat greatly reduces the rate at which they can find fish. The Port of Vancouver's ECHO program has undertaken substantial work to identify plausible noise reduction targets. Our panel of scientists recommended making those targets biologically relevant by accounting for the whales' need for quiet time, communication and foraging. Expanding the geographic and seasonal scope of ship slowdowns, adopting noise output standards for commercial vessels and requiring clear noise-reduction plans for future development projects are among the other steps needed. Contaminants, though less visible, remain a chronic threat. Southern residents remain among the Earth's most polluted marine mammals. We urged stronger source controls, green infrastructure to reduce urban run-off, accelerated phaseouts for banned chemicals and an overhaul of Canada's chemical review system to account for risks posed to long-lived species like killer whales and their prey. Southern resident killer whales have transcended their status as symbols of the Pacific Northwest, becoming ecological sentinels that serve as a warning about the health of our coast, our fisheries and our collective stewardship. Although recovery is still within reach, it will not be achieved by perpetuating the status quo. With the recent appointment of new federal government ministers in place, now is the time for them to demonstrate leadership by prioritizing the conservation of southern residents. The new government has a responsibility to act, and now it has the information needed to do so effectively. Lance Barrett-Lennard and Valeria Vergara are cetacean scientists with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Misty MacDuffee is a salmon scientist with Raincoast. Paul Paquet is a senior scientist with Raincoast.
Cision Canada
18-07-2025
- Business
- Cision Canada
Government of Canada Provides Early Decision on the Adding Capacity to Sainte-Marguerite-3 Generating Station Project in Quebec
OTTAWA, ON, July 18, 2025 /CNW/ - The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) has conducted an assessment of the Adding Capacity to Sainte-Marguerite-3 Generating Station Project located in on the Sainte-Marguerite River near Sept-Îles, Quebec, and determined that its potential adverse effects within federal jurisdiction would be limited or addressed through other means. The proponent, Hydro-Québec, may now move forward with obtaining any necessary authorizations and permits from federal authorities. To arrive at its section 16 decision under the Impact Assessment Act, IAAC engaged other jurisdictions, federal experts, stakeholders, the public, and Indigenous Peoples to review the project description and identify potential impacts to federal jurisdiction and ensure they can be addressed. IAAC is of the view that the potential adverse effects within federal jurisdiction would be limited or addressed through existing federal and provincial laws and regulations. These include but are not limited to the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, as well as Quebec's Environment Quality Act. As a result, a more comprehensive federal impact assessment is not required. The documents and list of factors considered can be found in IAAC's decision with reasons. Quick Facts Hydro-Québec is proposing to increase the capacity of the Sainte-Marguerite-3 hydroelectric power station on the Sainte-Marguerite River near Sept-Îles, Quebec. As proposed, the project would include the installation of a third generating unit in the existing power station, at the site earmarked for this purpose, as well as the construction of a 300-metre underground penstock linking the headrace tunnel to the future generating unit. The project would increase the capacity of the existing power station by at least 440 megawatts, for a total of 1,322 megawatts. The review process from start to finish took 60 days to complete. IAAC facilitates the sustainable development of major projects subject to the Impact Assessment Act through open and efficient assessments. These assessments identify ways to ensure the environment and Indigenous Rights are protected as projects get built. Decisions like these ensure that Canada's impact assessment process is efficient by determining at an early stage whether a comprehensive impact assessment is required or not.
Hamilton Spectator
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Ford gutted Ontario's environmental laws. Now he wants Ottawa to clear the last line of defence
If the Bill 5 megaprojects proposed by Ontario Premier Doug Ford — like mining in the Ring of Fire or building Highway 413 — push federally listed species, such as the boreal caribou or redside dace, to the brink, only the federal Species at Risk Act still stands in the way. Now, Ford is demanding that Ottawa clear that last line of defence — and this time, he's brought an ally: Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. Backed by Alberta, Ford's government is calling on Ottawa to repeal some of Canada's key environmental laws, which experts warn are now the only measure preventing species' extinction, climate backsliding and unchecked industrial expansion. Both provinces want Ottawa to repeal the Impact Assessment Act, carbon-pricing legislation, clean electricity regulations and parts of the Species at Risk Act — many of which echo protections Ford has already weakened in Ontario. In their joint letter , they claim provinces are better equipped to oversee environmental protection and federal rules amount to overreach, saying they 'disproportionately harm' project development without delivering 'any quantifiable benefits.' The letter comes in the context of the recently passed Bill C-5, which accelerates projects deemed to be in the national interest by Prime Minister Mark Carney's cabinet. Ford has submitted a list of his 'nation-building projects' to Ottawa — including a proposed tunnel under Highway 401 and mining developments in the Ring of Fire — which experts say would likely face federal scrutiny under the same laws he now wants repealed, due to their impact on First Nations, wildlife and water. Michael Drescher, associate professor at the University of Waterloo, said after Ontario passed its own project-acceleration law, the similarly named Bill 5 — which created Special Economic Zones allowing the province to suspend its own environmental laws — federal laws remain the only meaningful barrier. 'That's probably why they're now pushing the federal government to rescind or repeal those laws,' he said. Drescher questioned the provinces' push to repeal federal environmental laws, arguing it's unnecessary since Ottawa already has tools like Bill C-5 to exempt specific 'nation-building' projects. He said the joint letter from Ontario and Alberta appears less about streamlining approvals and more like an effort to eliminate environmental safeguards altogether. Drescher warned that repealing federal laws could undermine Canada's international climate and biodiversity commitments, including those under the Paris Agreement — responsibilities that fall to the federal government, not the provinces. While the federal government has dropped its carbon levy on consumers, the industrial carbon price remains in effect — requiring major polluters, such as steelmakers, cement plants and oil refineries, to pay for their emissions. Ontario, like Alberta, currently has its own industrial carbon pricing regime, which is expected to generate billions in revenue over eight years. But the only reason it exists is because the federal backstop — upheld by the Supreme Court — requires provinces to have one. Both provinces have requested the backstop be removed. Tim Gray, executive director at Environmental Defence, warns repealing the federal industrial carbon tax would lead Ontario to scrap its own system. 'I think it'd be about five minutes before Ontario cancelled its [own] program,' Gray said. British Columbia did the same immediately after the federal government cancelled the consumer carbon tax in March, and for the same reason — the backstop no longer existed. Without the federal backstop on the industrial carbon price, Ontario's biggest industrial polluters would no longer have any incentive to reduce emissions. Canada's efforts to transition to a cleaner, lower-emission economy would lose one of its key mechanisms, Gray added. Gray also rejected the claim that the federal Impact Assessment Act blocks development. 'It's a project review mechanism… Not every project that every industry proposes is always a good idea,' he said. In most cases, he added, federal oversight improves outcomes by identifying environmental risks early and recommending mitigation strategies that benefit both the economy and the public. Along with their joint letter, Ontario and Alberta signed a Memorandum of Understanding to promote a more 'investment-friendly' regulatory environment for energy and trade infrastructure. The agreement also includes plans to cooperate on nuclear development, including both small-modular and large-scale reactor technologies. Peter Graefe, a political science professor at McMaster University, said resource industries are pressuring governments to weaken environmental protections — and provinces like Ontario and Alberta are responding by demanding less federal oversight. Graefe said this reflects a larger shift away from environmental protection and toward rapid resource extraction — a trend he believes includes the current federal government. While Ottawa may not repeal laws outright, he said it appears willing to soften them under pressure. But he warned the political fallout could be significant. 'The Liberal government is going to pay a bigger price with their electoral base if they agree to this,' Graefe said, adding it could push climate-focused voters toward the NDP or Greens. Graefe said provinces may want federal backing to share the political fallout from controversial development. 'If the federal government says yes, it's not just the province anymore. They can say, 'We're doing all this — and it's not just us.'' If projects later stall or fail, provinces could shift the blame to Ottawa. 'That's an easy way to get out of it — to say, 'The federal government blocked us,' as opposed to, 'It was a bad idea,'' he added. Drescher said leaving environmental protection solely to provinces could have serious consequences. Pollution, habitat loss and species decline don't stop at provincial borders, which is why federal involvement is essential, he added. Without national standards, decisions made in one province can harm ecosystems and communities elsewhere, whether through shared waterways, migratory species or air pollution, Drescher said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
