Reject major projects reforms
Petitioners ask Parliament to reject the 'Getting Major Projects Built in Canada' proposal's changes that would limit environmental assessments to one year, create blanket pre‑approved zones, override SARA jeopardy, or let ministers alter conditions.
Why we would sign this petition
- Maintains thorough environmental assessments so projects are reviewed based on actual risks rather than rushed timelines, reducing likelihood of contamination or oversight failures.
- Requires each project be assessed individually, avoiding blanket approvals that could miss site‑ or project‑specific impacts on ecosystems and human health.
- Preserves Species at Risk Act protections and clear conditions, preventing government or ministerial overrides that could weaken legal safeguards and reduce transparency.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- Fixed or lengthy reviews can delay projects, increasing costs and discouraging investment in infrastructure and resource development.
- Blanket rejection of reforms may forego opportunities to streamline approvals for low‑impact projects, where shorter reviews could be efficient without significant environmental harm.
- Keeping absolute legal constraints could limit government flexibility to respond to urgent national priorities; a calibrated, transparent override mechanism might balance protection and project delivery.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED We, the undersigned, a group of scientists and academics who live in the Vancouver Point Grey riding of the Honourable Member of Parliament Wade Grant, are deeply concerned that several of the legislative changes described in the recently released government proposal "Getting Major Projects Built in Canada - Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms" will significantly weaken Canada's ability to ensure the standards of environmental oversight that Canadians expect their government to deliver. We are especially concerned that: 1. Forcing major project reviews to occur within an artificial time period (such as one year) will risk serious environmental harms, such as industrial contamination of soils and waters (already too common in Canadian industrial projects). The important thing is to get the environmental assessment correct, not to get projects approved quickly with a strong risk of weakened oversight. 2. The creation of pre-approved development zones ignores the fact that different projects can pose very different risks to nature and human health. Projects need to be assessed individually on their potential for risks and harms, not solely based on their location. 3. Giving the government of the day the power to circumvent legal protections for nature and the environment, implicit in the proposal to allow Cabinet to disregard the jeopardy clause of the Species at Risk Act, is reckless. Recognizing that the Liberal party will not always be the governing party, we find this proposal extremely dangerous; who is to say how this government-or future governments-will define 'a high threshold to be met' or 'reasonable efforts' to avoid or reduce impacts on nature and the environment. 4. The proposal assumes a false dichotomy between the environment and the economy. As social and natural scientists, we know that our economy relies on nature. THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to: 1) Reject the proposal to limit the environmental assessment process to one year, without any safeguards in place, because it is likely to result in shortcuts that cause harm. 2) Reject the proposal to create blanket 'pre-approved zones' of development with no separation by project type and scope, because projects are likely to have different harms and need to be assessed individually to safeguard humans and the environment. 3) Reject the proposal to allow Cabinet to circumvent the jeopardy test from the Species at Risk Act, to ensure democratic transparency of current and future decisions. 4) Reject the ability of Ministers to 'adjust' environmental conditions for projects, as this is poorly defined and as written appears ripe for abuse.
Government response
No government response is available yet.