Balancing Development and Nature: The C-39 Debate
Ottawa’s new bill fast-tracks major projects but raises fresh environmental protection concerns among wildlife advocates and experts across Canada.
environmental protection bill
When Speed Meets Science: Understanding Bill C-39
Canada is facing mounting pressure to accelerate infrastructure and resource development projects. Prime Minister Mark Carney introduced the Building Canada Strong Act—Bill C-39—framing it as essential legislation to respond to economic threats. The bill contains more than 300 clauses that modify over a dozen separate pieces of federal legislation, fundamentally reshaping how the country approves major construction, mining, and energy ventures.
On the surface, the government’s logic seems straightforward: faster approvals mean more jobs, more investment, and stronger economic resilience. But environmental experts, Indigenous leaders, and conservation organizations are raising alarms about what gets sacrificed in the rush to build.
The Impact Assessment Shortcut
Before construction typically begins on mines, railways, or ports, Canada’s environment and climate change minister must sign off on an impact assessment—a thorough review examining potential environmental, social, economic, and health effects. It’s a careful, methodical process designed to catch problems before shovels hit the ground.
Bill C-39 changes this. Under the new rules, Ottawa could grant permits for preliminary construction before the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada finishes its work, provided the environment minister deems the activity “enabling” and in the “public interest.” The government maintains it can still stop a project if the full assessment shows it shouldn’t proceed.
Environment and Climate Change Minister Julie Dabrusin stated the government is not rolling back environmental regulations. Yet critics argue the vague language leaves too much room for interpretation. Megan Leslie, president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada, emphasized that the national interest includes protecting lakes and rivers from pollution, keeping communities safe from floods and fires, and preventing species extinction.
Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, countered that early construction makes practical sense. Canada’s construction season is constrained by weather, and allowing minor work before winter could save millions of dollars and months of delays on projects.
Henry VIII Powers Made Permanent
Last year, the government passed Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, which included sweeping powers allowing Ottawa to exempt certain projects from environmental regulations if deemed in the national interest. Critics compared these to “Henry VIII clauses”—a reference to the autocratic English king who wielded unchecked authority. The government promised those powers would be temporary, lasting five years.
Bill C-39 removes the sunset clause, making them permanent. Two major projects are already on track to receive this treatment: Alberta’s West Coast pipeline and the Robert Banks Terminal 2 port expansion in British Columbia’s lower mainland.
Exner-Pirot noted that future Parliaments can revoke laws if voters decide they’re being abused. But Julia Levin, associate director of Environmental Defence Canada, warned these permanent exemptions could create what she called sacrifice zones where projects get rubber-stamped without proper scrutiny.
Regions Pre-Approved for Development
The bill introduces a new concept: regions of national interest. After conducting an environmental assessment, the federal cabinet could designate an entire area a region of national interest, granting broad authority to approve future projects within it. One assessment is currently underway in Ontario’s Ring of Fire, a mineral-rich and ecologically sensitive area in the north.
The government says activities would still need to meet specific criteria. For example, Ottawa could permit mining for critical minerals in the Ring of Fire along with necessary roads, bridges, and power lines, while excluding natural gas pipelines from the same region.
The approach isn’t entirely one-sided. David Wright, an environmental and energy law professor at the University of Calgary, noted that clean energy projects could benefit from faster approvals. A regional assessment for offshore wind development in Nova Scotia has been completed and could unlock significant renewable energy generation for the province and country.
However, Wright cautioned that even renewable projects carry environmental risks that could affect Indigenous rights, ecosystems, species at risk, and private landowners.
Watering Down Species Protection
Bill C-39 keeps intact protections for species at risk but introduces loopholes. Companies already possess the ability to dump stones, gravel, and rubbish in rivers or drain lakes—but currently require federal cabinet approval for such activities.
Under the new bill, the environment minister could exempt water bodies from this oversight entirely. Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, flagged this as particularly concerning in northern Alberta, where oilsands companies use substantial amounts of water.
The bill also modifies the Species at Risk Act after academics and environmentalists launched campaigns against its removal. The “jeopardy test”—which prohibits projects from proceeding if they could drive a species to extinction—remains. However, the fisheries and environment ministers could now factor in “technical, economic and practical” considerations when permitting construction in sensitive areas.
Lisa Gue, a national policy manager with the David Suzuki Foundation, called this backward thinking, warning that unraveling these standards leaves Canada vulnerable to long-term environmental harm.
Fish Habitat in the Balance
The Fisheries Act faces similar changes. Projects could now harm fish and fish habitat if protecting them isn’t deemed economic or practical. The government proposes expanding a fish habitat bank, where developers could pay into restoration efforts instead of preventing damage upfront.
Margot Venton, a lawyer and director of the nature program at Ecojustice Canada, raised the specter of ecosystem collapse. She pointed to the cod fishery closure in Newfoundland during the early 1990s as a cautionary example of what happens when fish populations are decimated—entire industries can disappear.
Sally Otto, a professor in the department of zoology at the University of British Columbia, framed the tension starkly: the government is willing to deepen Canada’s environmental deficit significantly to balance national finances. While building Canada strong matters, Otto insisted, safety for the environment, humans, and nature matters equally.
What Comes Next
Bill C-39 is moving through Parliament with the Liberal government’s majority support. The Assemblée des Premières Nations warned against “abusing” that majority to push through legislation that could harm Indigenous interests and lands. Watch for parliamentary debate and committee reviews, which will likely highlight specific projects that could be affected and the long-term environmental trade-offs involved.
If you live near a Ring of Fire community, a proposed pipeline route, or an area slated for regional development assessment, monitoring government announcements about project designations will help you understand what may be approved in your region. Environmental organizations are filing formal submissions to Parliament—following those documents can provide detailed technical critiques of specific provisions.
