More than 50 leading Canadian scholars are demanding urgent changes to Bill C-39, known as the Building Canada Strong Act, to prevent permanent ecological destruction.. The legislation, championed by Prime Minister Mark Carney, aims to rapidly accelerate the approval process for major energy and infrastructure projects across Canada.
The one-year deadline for federal project assessments
Bill C-39 seeks to fundameentally alter how Canada handles large-scale developments by ensuring that federal assessments of new projects are completed within a maximum of one year .. According to the report, the legislation proposes a streamlined process and the creation of "zones of national interest" to reduce regulatory friction and attract investment in nation-building infrastructure.
This shift represents a broader trend toward "de-risking" industrial growth by removing bureaucratic hurdles. While the government presents the Building Canada Strong Act as the most ambitious reform of its kind in a generation, critics argue that the speed of approval is being prioritized over the quality of oversight. This mirrors global tensions between immediate economic expansion and long-term sustainability goals.
Why 56 Royal Society fellows demand six specific amendments
In an open letter published Thursday, 56 fellows from the Royal Society of Canada outlined six necessary amendments to prevent the Building Canada Strong Act from causing "irreversible harm" to the environment. Dr. Sarah Otto, a zoology professor at the University of British Columbia and one of the signatories, told CTV News that the bill effectively sidesteps existing laws designed to protect air, water, and species at risk.
As CTV News reported, Dr. Sarah Otto argues that the current drafting of Bill C-39 allows ministers to dismiss conditions intended to prevent environmental damage. The scientists warn that by lowering these standards to achieve current economic growth, the federal government is essentially "borrowing" from the natural resources of future generations.
The 11-to-1 committee majority backing Bill C-39
The legislative path for Bill C-39 has been remarkably swift, clearing its first parliamentary hurdle just three weeks after being tabled. The bill is currently being studied by a specially constructed House Committee of 12 members, 11 of whom have already voted in favor of the legislation. The only dissenting vote at the second reading came from Bloc Quebecois MP Gabriel Ste-Marie.
The composition of this committee has sparked significant debate, as both the Liberal and Conservative parties are fully backing the measure. Meanwhile, the NDP and Green Party MP Elizabeth May have been excluded from the committee, despite requests to participate. NDP Parliamentary Leader Don Davies has characterized this as an attempt by the government to "ram the bill through" without sufficient scrutiny.
The Canada Labour Code and the threat to strike rights
Beyond environmental concerns, Bill C-39 contains controversial changes to the Canada Labour Code regarding collective bargaining. Labour groups have sounded alarms that these specific provisions could strip workers of their right to strike and lead to adverse consequences for the workforce.
While business and industry stakeholders have welcomed the legislative package for its pro-commerce stance, the inclusion of labour code changes in an omnibus bill has drawn criticism. This suggests the government is using the "Building Canada Strong Act" as a vehicle to push through multiple disparate policy changes under the umbrella of infrastructure acceleration.
Who will get the remaining eight hours of witness testimony?
A critical point of contention remains the limited window for public input; the Liberal government has restricted the time for witnesses who were not hand-selected by the committee to just eight hours. This creates a significant bottleneck for experts and stakeholders seeking to voice concerns about the Building Canada Strong Act.
It remains unclear whether the 56 Royal Society of Canada fellows will be granted a hearing, as Dr. Sarah Otto noted that the experts have requested to appear as witnesses but have not yet received an invitation. Furthermore, the source does not detail the specific content of the six proposed amendments, leaving the exact technical nature of the scientists' demands unverified.
Comments 0