Groups call on Ottawa to reverse course on environmental policy

It also proposed taking the responsibility for reviewing pipelines, transmission lines, and offshore renewable energy projects away from the Impact Assessment Agency, and handing it to the Canada Energy Regulator.

Ottawa has said the idea on the latter proposal was because industry had raised concerns that the same level of expertise for energy projects that lived at the Canada Energy Regulator couldn’t be found at the Impact Assessment Agency.

The proposals come as Ottawa attempts to position itself as a reliable and “trustworthy” provider of global energy needs, fuelled in part by global energy shortages because of the war in Iran and the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.

Oil and gas industry leaders have for years called on Ottawa to remove regulatory hurdles which they say impedes development, specifically pointing to the Impact Assessment Act and West Coast tanker ban.

More recently, they said Canada’s “complex regulatory process” put at risk the opportunity to provide more global energy security.

Last year, Trevor Ebl, the president of Canadian natural gas pipelines at TC Energy, said companies like his are competing with his United States and Mexico counterparts for capital investment.

He compared TC’s Coastal GasLink pipeline in B.C., completed in 2024 after 10 years, with TC’s Southeast Gateway project in Mexico, which came online last year after only three years.

Still, the environment groups said there’s been no evidence to support the claims that Canada’s environmental laws are prohibiting development.

“Of course they would say that. Industry has a long history of always lobbying for environmental deregulation,” Gray told journalists.

“The government of Canada has an obligation to its citizens to display and reveal the evidence that they’re using, if they’re going to roll back 50 years of environmental regulation, which protects public interests. No evidence exists from our perspective.”

The discussion papers also proposed creating “economic zones” for transportation corridors, telecommunications networks, and energy production and transmission.

“Setting up these zones ahead of major developments would remove the need for separate project reviews, make the permitting process simpler, and reduce risks for investors,” read the discussion papers, which are undergoing a 30-day consultation process.

But environment groups said Wednesday those zones risk skirting environmental laws meant to protect wildlife, particularly at-risk species.

“They are proposing to put the extinction of endangered species, like the southern resident killer whale, on the table for political convenience,” said Kimberly Shearon, the executive director of Ecojustice.

“There is no coming back from extinction. Once a species is gone, it is gone forever.”

“The federal government says we must build quickly to address U.S. threats. We agree,” added Gray.

“But declaring federal economic zones as law-free areas broadly undermining environmental rules, approving projects before impacts are studied, and setting aside species protection isn’t building. It’s destructive and it’s dangerous.”

Speaking to The Canadian Press on his way into his weekly Liberal caucus meeting, Prime Minister Mark Carney said the government is “absolutely not” throwing away environmental protections, citing its new nature strategy.

“It’s the difference between making a commitment, which is what happened in Montreal a few years ago, and actually having a plan and the resources dedicated to deliver on the plan,” Carney said, referring to Canada’s pledge at the United Nations biodiversity conference in 2024 to conserve 30 per cent of lands and oceans by 2030.

“This government is very focused on delivering, very focused on execution.”

But the environmental leaders say Ottawa’s efforts to fast-track approvals for projects undermines the work Canada’s doing to protect nature.

“The proposal asks Canadians to accept less,” said Sandra Schwartz with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

“Less protection for nature, fewer safeguards for communities, and more risk of extinction for iconic species, all in the name of moving faster. Canadians didn’t ask for that. That’s not nation-building. It’s nation-breaking.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 3, 2026.

Nick Murray, The Canadian Press

by The Canadian Press

Groups call on Ottawa to reverse course on environmental policy

More Local News