Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has submitted the party’s response to the federal government’s May 8 discussion papers on accelerating major projects and creating a more integrated Canadian economy.

The response warns that the government’s proposals could weaken environmental assessment, Indigenous consultation and protections for species at risk while giving Cabinet sweeping powers to approve projects under vaguely defined claims of “national interest.”

The discussion papers propose completing federal reviews within one year, creating Federal Economic Zones in which some projects could be pre-approved, and allowing Cabinet to exempt individual projects from a key protection under the Species at Risk Act.

“The government is treating environmental safeguards as red tape when they are actually basic economic due diligence,” said May, Member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. “Impact assessment is the credit check before the loan is approved. If a project does not have a demonstrable business case, it should not proceed—let alone receive public money or exemptions from laws protecting nature and Indigenous rights.”

May first wrote to the ministers responsible on May 12, requesting detailed public briefings for Members of Parliament before the original June 7 consultation deadline. She received no acknowledgement, response or briefing. Although the deadline was subsequently extended to July 22, the government has provided no additional detail about the proposals.

The Green Party is calling on the Liberal government to conduct meaningful public consultation before imposing a one-year review timeline and to abandon proposals for Federal Economic Zones in which projects could be pre-approved or exempted from environmental laws. The party is also urging the government to reject any measure that would allow Cabinet to exempt projects from the Species at Risk Act’s jeopardy test.

The submission further calls for transparent, independent cost-benefit analysis of proposed major projects and argues that federal funding should not be provided to projects that would undermine Canada’s climate and biodiversity commitments.

There is an erroneous notion that big projects have been stalled because of regulation, the response notes. But the evidence is to the contrary. In many cases, public review reveals that a proposal is economically unsound, environmentally unsustainable or unlikely to retain public and Indigenous support.

“Canada needs projects that are economically sound, carefully planned and built to last,” said May. “Rushing past Indigenous rights, ecological limits and proper economic analysis is not a strategy for prosperity. It is a recipe for cost overruns, stranded assets and enormous liabilities for taxpayers.”

The Green Party Leader’s complete response to the May 8 discussion papers is available here.

– 30 –

For media inquiries or to arrange an interview: [email protected]