Groups call on Ottawa to reverse course on environmental policy

“Prime Minister (Mark) Carney is proposing the worst evisceration of environmental law in Canadian history, ensuring that Canada is left behind in the energy transition, and Canadians will pay the price and the damages could last for generations,” said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence.

Ottawa released two discussion papers last month which proposed, among other things, approving projects before they’re reviewed and exempting certain projects from laws meant to protect species at risk.

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.

The federal government has said it has been told by industry that the level of expertise on energy projects that lived at the Canada Energy Regulator couldn’t be found at the Impact Assessment Agency.

The proposals are part of Ottawa’s attempt to position itself as a reliable energy supplier as the war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz ramps up energy prices globally.

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

They have said the complexity of Canada’s regulatory processes puts at risk opportunities to provide more global energy security.

Trevor Ebl, president of Canadian natural gas pipelines at TC Energy, said last year companies like his are competing with American and Mexican rivals 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 in development.

The environmental groups said there’s no evidence to suggest Canada’s 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 federal 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,” says one of the discussion papers, which are undergoing a 30-day consultation process wrapping up on June 7.

Speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said she wrote to Government House leader Steven MacKinnon and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc, to ask that MPs receive a technical briefing on the discussion papers.

“I’m sad to report that not only has there been no briefing, I haven’t had a response to my letter,” May said, adding she typically gets at least an acknowledgment.

“Both discussion documents should be completely withdrawn and nothing proposed should ever be brought forward in legislation.”

Environment groups said Wednesday those proposed 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, 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 Wednesday, Prime Minister Mark Carney said the government is “absolutely not” throwing away environmental protections and cited 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 environment leaders said Ottawa’s efforts to fast-track approvals for projects undermines the work Canada is doing to protect nature. May called Carney’s reference to the government’s nature strategy “laughable.”

“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.