May 29, 2025
President Trump's arrival has brought profound [disruptions](https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/what-trumps-executive-orders-mean-for-canada/) longstanding trade, security and environmental relationships with the US. In Canada's case, one of the central features of the response has been a rush to ‘streamline’ approvals for resource development and infrastructure projects. Ontario’s [Bill 5](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bill-5-protect-ontario-by-unleashing-our-economy-act-guide-1.7542478), and BC’s [Bill 15](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/premier-mining-exploration-plan-1.7544487) are prominent examples of this trend.
The federal government is [signalling](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-carney-to-brief-premiers-on-plan-to-fast-track-major-nation-building/) its own intention to introduce legislation to accelerate projects in the "national interest." All of these initiatives are prompting growing debates, particularly around their implications for [Indigenous Rights](https://manitobachiefs.com/press_releases/first-nations-treaty-leaders-respond-to-throne-speech-delivered-by-king-charles-iii/) and the implicit [trade-offs](https://www.theenergymix.com/anxiety-optimism-as-throne-speech-chatter-points-toward-faster-project-approvals/) around the environment and climate change that they may embed.
Project review and approval processes in Canada have already been aggressively streamlined over past decade. The 2019 Federal Impact Assessment Act (a.k.a.Bill C-69), was largely modelled on Conservative Prime Minister's Stephen Harper’s 2012 Bil C-38 re-write of the then Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The [result](https://theconversation.com/cooling-the-rhetoric-on-canadas-environmental-assessment-efforts-113539) is already a shadow of the pre-2012 process.
It is important to approach this question by asking why projects are delayed. Most projects move through assessment processes with little delay or controversy. Problems arise when proposals are incomplete, poorly conceived, their technical or economic viability is subject to serious doubts, or they generate serious social, political and legal conflicts over their costs, benefits and impacts.
A [recent study](https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2024-0083) on mining approvals in BC, for example, found that far more mines were approved than ever actually developed. The principal source of approval and development delays was changing economic conditions. Regulation was found to be only a minor factor.
While there are always potential ways to improve review processes, the results of previous streamlining efforts suggest the need for caution about the potential for these initiatives to backfire.
Impact assessment and similar [processes](https://metcalffoundation.com/publication/a-new-era-of-environmental-governance-in-canada/) emerged as more than a way of gaining more comprehensive perspectives on projects and their risks and benefits. They also provided a framework for managing the intense social and political conflicts that projects may generate.
Overly aggressive streamlining can have the effect of robbing processes of their capacity to establish the legitimacy of their conclusions. There can be fundamental trade-offs between certainty of outcome and process legitimacy.
The Harper government's Bill C-38 reforms were intended to facilitate the building of additional oil pipeline export capacity. In the end, the government's initiatives only reinforced the spiralling political and legal conflicts around projects like the [Northern Gateway](https://www.thenorthernview.com/news/feds-reject-northern-gateway-pipeline-5942065) and [Energy East](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/transcanada-energy-east-1.4338227) pipelines. The accompanying Alberta to BC Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline was only approved after a tortuous process. That culminated in the federal purchase and completion of the pipeline, at a cost to taxpayers of [$34 billion](https://www.theenergymix.com/trans-mountain-price-tag-jumps-to-34m-as-market-prospects-dim/).
A similar process unfolded under Ontario’s 2009 [Green Energy Act](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s09012). The legislation's aggressive bypassing of local approvals [reinforced](https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201528) a backlash against renewable energy projects in rural communities. The end result was a nearly decade long de facto moratorium on renewable energy development. That bar has only recently begun to be [eased](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-wind-power-green-energy-doug-ford-electricity-1.7297217).
The political consequences of these efforts at streamlining are noteworthy. The C-38 episode was seen as central to the Harper government's [defeat](https://www.energylawfoundation.ca/pipe-dreams-deferred-a-look-back-on-how-major-canadian-pipeline-projects-fared-in-2015-and-outlook-for-the-future/) in 2015. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's [loss](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-mcguintys-green-energy-policy-cost-him-a-majority-in-ontario/article556454/) of his majority government in 2011 was widely attributed to the rural response to the Green Energy Act.
Beyond the political dimensions of project reviews, the importance of meaningful reviews of what are likely to be high-risk, high-cost and high-impact projects should be recognized. The outcomes of previously [short-circuited](https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2018/the-pitfalls-of-short-circuited-project-reviews/) reviews cannot inspire confidence in the quality of decisions, and costs and liabilities that taxpayers will be exposed to, through even more streamlined processes. The [Muskrat Falls](https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/article/after-10-years-muskrat-falls-has-left-deep-wounds-in-newfoundland-and-labrador/) and [Site C](https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/site-c-dam-bc/) hydro projects in Labrador and BC respectively stand in testament to those risks.
It is also important to think carefully about the long-term economic rationales being presented for projects. Canada is a relatively[high-cost](https://oilandgasinfo.ca/patchworks/oil-supply-costs/ "")[fossil fuel](https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-lng-canada-cgl-economics/ "")producer, making it unlikely to be among the last standing in a[decarbonizing](https://www.iea.org/news/the-energy-world-is-set-to-change-significantly-by-2030-based-on-today-s-policy-settings-alone "")world. That reality should raise questions about major investments in new fossil fuel export infrastructure. Global markets for commodities like critical minerals are uncertain and in[deep flux](https://thesecretariat.in/article/behind-low-price-critical-minerals-market-oversupply-and-uncertainty "").
The [high costs](https://www.cleanairalliance.org/the-real-cost-of-new-nuclear/) of nuclear projects, as [demonstrated ](https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2024)by recent experience in the US, UK and Europe, make them unlikely candidates to be the foundation for 'clean' energy superpower status.
Ontario’s [Bill 5](https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-5), represents the most aggressive streamlining proposal seen so far. The legislation would [exempt](https://cela.ca/cela-comments-on-bill-5-protect-ontario-by-unleashing-our-economy-act-2025/) designated "special economic zones" and even "trusted" proponents, from all applicable provincial and municipal laws and regulations. The province’s approach has been seen to raise fundamental questions about the rule of law, democratic governance, and [Indigenous rights](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z37jImoA6U) and jurisdictional boundaries.
It has been observed that these kinds of zones are a common feature of authoritarian regimes, like [China's](https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/doug-ford-is-undermining-democracy-while-blaming-donald-trump/article_e7263825-1a1b-4ef2-99aa-8df18ebe9811.html ""), or jurisdictions in [deep economic distress](https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/316931512640011812/special-economic-zones-an-operational-review-of-their-impacts ""). They have been seen as expression of economic strategies based on [racing to the bottom](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-doug-ford-is-running-roughshod-over-the-environment-and-the-law-sound/) in terms of health, safety and environmental standards, respect for the rule of law, Indigenous rights, and basic democratic values.
All of this suggests a need for caution in the further streamlining review and approval processes for major projects. These are undertakings whose risks and costs, which may stretch far into the future, need to be properly understood before they proceed.