The federal government is backing away from plans that would have allowed certain major projects to bypass key protections under Canada’s Species At Risk Act, following an overwhelmingly negative response during a summer-long consultation process.
The decision removes one of the most controversial elements of Ottawa’s proposed changes, but environmental organizations warn that species could still face increased risks through other mechanisms available to the government.
The federal government is preparing legislation for the fall aimed at accelerating approvals for major projects, a central commitment made by Prime Minister Mark Carney. As part of that effort, Ottawa released two discussion papers in May outlining possible changes to the way major projects are reviewed.
Among the proposals was a plan to give cabinet ministers what the government described as “limited” authority to exempt certain projects from the so-called “jeopardy test” under the Species At Risk Act.
The proposed authority would have applied only where an exemption was considered to be in the public interest and where the project proponent had made all reasonable efforts to avoid or minimize impacts on species at risk.
However, a senior government source speaking on background confirmed a report by The Toronto Star that Ottawa is no longer planning to proceed with that portion of the proposal.
The change follows the feedback received during the consultation period.
In a report released Wednesday summarizing more than 26,000 submissions received by the federal government, Ottawa acknowledged that “clear perspectives” had emerged around protections for species at risk.
Indigenous participants, in particular, raised concerns about both the Species At Risk Act proposal and a related proposal involving the Fisheries Act.
The government’s consultation report said some Indigenous participants were concerned that allowing cabinet to authorize certain activities in exceptional circumstances deemed to be in the public interest could establish precedents for overriding rights-based and environmental protections. They also warned that such measures could infringe on Indigenous rights.
At the same time, the consultation showed that many stakeholders supported efforts to better coordinate reviews involving species at risk.
The government said there was, however, a consistent message that improving efficiency could not become a form of deregulation.
“While many stakeholders supported improvements to efficiency, there was opposition to measures that could weaken core environmental safeguards,” the report said.
Particular concerns focused on proposals involving the Species At Risk Act, measures that could potentially reduce environmental review requirements, and changes that would give ministers and cabinet greater discretion over environmental conditions.
Other pathways remain
The decision to withdraw the proposed Species At Risk Act exemption does not eliminate the government’s broader ability to override environmental legislation.
The Building Canada Act, passed last summer as part of the controversial Bill C-5, gives Ottawa the authority to allow projects designated as being in the “national interest” to bypass provisions contained in a dozen laws. The Species At Risk Act is among them.
That broader power is raising concerns among environmental advocates.
“So one of the really cynical things this government is really good at doing is building multiple pathways to get their outcome,” said Julia Levin, associate director at Environmental Defence.
Last week, Environmental Defence launched an advertising campaign highlighting what it described as the potential consequences for the Southern Resident Orcas. The organization says the whales could remain at risk if Ottawa proceeds with legislation changing the way major projects are reviewed.
Levin said the government’s decision to remove the proposed exemption should therefore not necessarily be viewed as a guarantee of stronger protection for threatened species.
“That’s why it’s really risky if we celebrate this change, when actually the impacts on species are the same. The outcomes for species are the same. They are still going to suffer as a result of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s vision,” Levin said.
She acknowledged that eliminating one route toward potentially weakening protections was a positive development, but said she remained unconvinced that species would ultimately be safer.
“Having removed one pathway to extinction is positive. But I’m not confident that species will be any safer because of it because of these other ways that the prime minister has created.”
