Weakening safeguards won’t build Canada strong: How to fix Bill-C39
Strength is the power to exert force, the ability to resist pressure and the capacity to handle challenges. That’s why the federal government called its omnibus development legislation the Building Canada Strong Act (Bill C-39). Right now, Canadians want our country to be able to exert more force and resist more pressure.
We need strength to overcome critical challenges: trade conflict, Indigenous reconciliation and still-accelerating climate and biodiversity crises. These challenges, however, are intertwined. As is our economic and ecological resilience.
And that’s why Canada cannot reach this strength target by weakening legislative safeguards for environmental conservation and Indigenous rights.
Nature not only defines our nation; it undergirds Canada’s economy. To strengthen one requires we strengthen the other. Which is what makes Bill C-39 so concerning — it compromises the thriving, healthy ecosystems that make our country strong, as well as undermining the rights of the Indigenous Peoples on whose territories they lie.
Related: Conflicting federal policies risk putting nature further in jeopardy
We understand speed matters, and WWF-Canada supports efficient, predictable and timely reviews of major projects like mines, roads and energy infrastructure. But acceleration can’t come at the cost of protecting vulnerable nature and wildlife, enshrining Indigenous participation and consent, and preserving public confidence in federal decision-making.
That price is too high because, ultimately, it will make Canada weaker. Here’s how Bill C-39 could fulfil the promise of its title:
- Enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in law
This multi-step framework requires negative impacts on nature to be avoided if possible; minimized if not; restored if needed; and offset only as last resort. Currently, Bill C-39 reverses the order of the hierarchy, relying on offsetting and habitat banking. But ecosystems and biodiversity are not interchangeable.
To build Canada stronger, the mitigation hierarchy must be written into law.
- Set an expiry date for extraordinary powers
Bill C-39’s measures were written in response to extraordinary circumstances around economic sovereignty. However, new powers that allow exemptions from existing legislation and regulation must not become permanent without further scrutiny.
To build Canada stronger, a statutory sunset clause must be included.
- Put assessment before construction
Environmental assessment exists to inform decisions before impacts occur. Pre-approving activities before reviews are completed, mitigation measures identified and conditions applied reduces assessments to procedural exercises rather than scientifically grounded decision-making processes.
To build Canada stronger, project pre-approval must be removed.
- Ensure regional assessments inform, rather than authorize
Regional assessments are designed to improve cumulative-effects management by informing future project-level reviews, not replacing them. Bill C-39’s clause that project-level impact assessments cannot include anything already covered by regional assessment will risk turning this development-planning tool into de facto preauthorization. Similarly, a “region of national interest” declaration must be required to first address cumulative effects, ecological limits, areas of sensitivity, species at risk and mitigation hierarchy.
To build Canada stronger, use regional assessments as they were intended.
- Uphold project conditions that help manage impacts
Based on scientific analysis, technical review, Indigenous consultation and regulatory consideration, project conditions are a primary mechanism to manage environmental impacts. Yet Bill C-39 could allow them to be amended, suspended or even removed post-approval.
To build Canada stronger, the integrity of project conditions must be maintained.
- Eliminate “feasibility” considerations from project decision-making
Introducing vague feasibility considerations into decision-making under the Species at Risk Act and Fisheries Act will create uncertainty around required protections. Without objective criteria, “feasibility” could be interpreted primarily through cost or project convenience rather than ecological necessity to avoid jeopardizing species at risk.
To build Canada stronger, species at risk survival must not be diminished by loose definitions.
Don’t believe the false choice: It’s not economic prosperity or environmental safeguards. It must be both.
True nation-building projects must strengthen both economic resilience and our ability to withstand climate change and reverse biodiversity loss. Ecosystem safeguards, cumulative-effects management, species-at-risk protections and science-based decision-making all provide certainty for governments, for industries and for communities. By fixing Bill C-39, Canada can truly start building itself stronger.
