Latest news with #CanadianEnvironmentalProtectionAct
Cision Canada
5 days ago
- Politics
- Cision Canada
We don't have to tear down nature to 'Build Canada'
TORONTO, June 16, 2025 /CNW/ - The federal government's proposed Build Canada Act, a plan to fast-track "nation-building" development projects, from critical minerals mines and oil and gas pipelines to habitat-fragmenting highways and Arctic deep-water ports, risks damaging the nature that is at the core of Canada's economy and identity — threatening the wealth of the nation it is supposed to defend. World Wildlife Fund Canada is deeply concerned about the bill, which would allow Cabinet to override key environmental protections, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, for projects deemed in the national interest. We are also concerned that this legislation could undermine the federal government's obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Development decisions that bypass Indigenous consultation risk perpetuating the very harms that reconciliation is meant to address. Canada is already falling behind on its biodiversity commitments. It has yet to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted in 2010, and recently agreed to new targets under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Meanwhile, the data tell a troubling story: populations of species listed as at risk nationally by COSEWIC have declined by 59 per cent on average from 1970 to 2016. Species of global conservation concern — those assessed as "threatened" on the IUCN Red List — have declined by 42 per cent on average in Canada over the same time period. We understand the need to build infrastructure and support economic growth, particularly considering uncertain geopolitical times. But nature must be part of that future, not a casualty of it. Our wetlands, forests and grasslands are not obstacles — they are assets. They store carbon, filter water, and act as natural firebreaks. Undermining the laws that protect them risks repeating the mistakes of the past, when unchecked development led to widespread habitat loss, degraded water systems, and long-term costs to both people and wildlife. If we've learned anything from recent years of wildfire smoke-filled skies, mega storms and floods, it's that a healthy environment isn't a luxury, it's a line of defence. Now is the time to invest in nature-based solutions, creating conservation economies that strengthen communities, create jobs and help safeguard us from the impacts of climate change. We urge Parliament to take a more balanced path, one that ensures development does not come at the expense of the nature that defines and protects us. About World Wildlife Fund Canada WWF-Canada is committed to equitable and effective conservation actions that restore nature, reverse wildlife loss and fight climate change. We draw on scientific analysis and Indigenous guidance to ensure all our efforts connect to a single goal: a future where wildlife, nature and people thrive. For more information visit
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
We don't have to tear down nature to 'Build Canada'
TORONTO, June 16, 2025 /CNW/ - The federal government's proposed Build Canada Act, a plan to fast-track "nation-building" development projects, from critical minerals mines and oil and gas pipelines to habitat-fragmenting highways and Arctic deep-water ports, risks damaging the nature that is at the core of Canada's economy and identity — threatening the wealth of the nation it is supposed to defend. World Wildlife Fund Canada is deeply concerned about the bill, which would allow Cabinet to override key environmental protections, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, for projects deemed in the national interest. We are also concerned that this legislation could undermine the federal government's obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Development decisions that bypass Indigenous consultation risk perpetuating the very harms that reconciliation is meant to address. Canada is already falling behind on its biodiversity commitments. It has yet to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted in 2010, and recently agreed to new targets under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Meanwhile, the data tell a troubling story: populations of species listed as at risk nationally by COSEWIC have declined by 59 per cent on average from 1970 to 2016. Species of global conservation concern — those assessed as "threatened" on the IUCN Red List — have declined by 42 per cent on average in Canada over the same time period. We understand the need to build infrastructure and support economic growth, particularly considering uncertain geopolitical times. But nature must be part of that future, not a casualty of it. Our wetlands, forests and grasslands are not obstacles — they are assets. They store carbon, filter water, and act as natural firebreaks. Undermining the laws that protect them risks repeating the mistakes of the past, when unchecked development led to widespread habitat loss, degraded water systems, and long-term costs to both people and wildlife. If we've learned anything from recent years of wildfire smoke-filled skies, mega storms and floods, it's that a healthy environment isn't a luxury, it's a line of defence. Now is the time to invest in nature-based solutions, creating conservation economies that strengthen communities, create jobs and help safeguard us from the impacts of climate change. We urge Parliament to take a more balanced path, one that ensures development does not come at the expense of the nature that defines and protects us. About World Wildlife Fund Canada WWF-Canada is committed to equitable and effective conservation actions that restore nature, reverse wildlife loss and fight climate change. We draw on scientific analysis and Indigenous guidance to ensure all our efforts connect to a single goal: a future where wildlife, nature and people thrive. For more information visit SOURCE World Wildlife Fund Canada View original content to download multimedia: Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Winnipeg Free Press
5 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Contentious major projects bill falls under microscope as Liberals rush it through
OTTAWA – Provisions in the federal government's controversial Bill C-5 that would allow the executive branch to skirt laws in order to push forward major projects are likely to survive a court challenge, some constitutional experts say. But others warn the proposed law would allow Ottawa to flout its constitutional duty to consult with First Nations under Section 35 of the Constitution. The bill has become a magnet for criticism as the Liberal government moves to push it through the House of Commons by the end of this week. The legislation would give the federal cabinet the ability to set aside various statutes to push forward approvals for a small number of major industrial products, such as mines, pipelines and ports, if the government deems them to be in the national interest. Paul Daly, chair in administrative law and governance at University of Ottawa, said that while the provisions giving the executive more power are controversial, they're likely to survive a court challenge. 'This bill probably is constitutional,' he said. 'It is unlikely that a court would invalidate this as violating the Constitution.' Sections 21 to 23 of the bill allow the executive branch to bypass existing rules and processes in 13 laws — including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Indian Act and the Impact Assessment Law — through a regulatory process that does not need to be approved by Parliament. These sections are what's known in the legal community as 'Henry VIII clauses' — a reference to a King who preferred to govern by decree rather than through Parliament. Courts have not found these to be constitutionally invalid, Daly said, adding there are guardrails in the legislation. He said Charter rights and the duty to consult will continue to apply to the legislation. 'It's similar in character to the carbon tax legislation from a few years ago, where the Supreme Court said the Henry VIII clause was constitutionally valid. And I suspect that a court, if this statute were challenged, would come to the same conclusion,' Daly said. His faculty colleague Errol Mendes, another law professor and constitutional expert, also said by email that he thinks the clauses can be defended constitutionally. But Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said sections 22 and 23 and 'very worrisome' because they could allow the federal cabinet to exempt a pipeline or some other project from the Species at Risk Act. And she said she thinks it gives the federal government too much leeway on the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples on decisions that affect them. 'If I were Canada's lawyers, I would have advised them strenuously against this bill,' she said. 'That consultation has to be meaningful and I worry that, especially under the timelines that this government wants to make these decisions, that this bill is basically circumventing the government's constitutionally required duty to consult.' The bill aims to speed up the approval process for major projects so that cabinet can render a decision in two years at the most. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said it takes too long to push major new projects through 'arduous' approval processes. 'Canada is a country that used to build big things,' Carney said when the bill was introduced on June 6. 'In recent decades, it has become too difficult to build new projects in this country.' Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said Friday that the legislation must be studied thoroughly since it can suspend various laws and regulations relating to language, First Nations rights, the environment and threatened species. 'The government seems to want to avoid scrutiny on the bill, which by itself is worrisome,' he said in English when speaking to reporters in the House of Commons foyer. 'How could we go forward with such a huge bill with huge consequences for Quebec and Canada without at least doing what we have been elected to do, which is studying, thoroughly, this bill in committee?' Speaking on background at a technical briefing for journalists, federal officials said that while the government has no intention at this time to draft regulations that would bypass those laws, the legislation does give it a lot of flexibility. NDP MPs Leah Gazan, Alexandre Boulerice and Lori Idlout wrote to government House leader Steven MacKinnon on Friday to formally request that the bill's study be slowed down to provide for more debate in the House. 'Failure to uphold constitutional obligations and environmental standards at a time when we are experiencing a climate emergency will have the opposite effect of developing Canada's economy and sovereignty, and will only lead to conflicts in the courts,' they wrote. 'In its current iteration, Bill C-5 violates Canada's constitutional obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 that recognizes and affirms Aboriginal treaty rights by giving the governor in council the ability to sidestep constitutional obligations.' Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. The bill is expected to undergo an unusually fast one-day study by the House transport committee Wednesday afternoon and evening. The government expects to pass the bill by the end of Friday. The federal Conservatives have argued the bill does not go far enough. Conservative Natural Resources critic Shannon Stubbs said in the House on Friday that the 'anti-energy, anti-development' Liberals should repeal the 'no-new-pipelines' Bill C-69, passed by the Justin Trudeau government. She said the Impact Assessment Act it created heaped difficulties on energy sector projects and prevents them from going ahead. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 16, 2025.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contentious major projects bill falls under microscope as Liberals rush it through
OTTAWA — Provisions in the federal government's controversial Bill C-5 that would allow the executive branch to skirt laws in order to push forward major projects are likely to survive a court challenge, some constitutional experts say. But others warn the proposed law would allow Ottawa to flout its constitutional duty to consult with First Nations under Section 35 of the Constitution. The bill has become a magnet for criticism as the Liberal government moves to push it through the House of Commons by the end of this week. The legislation would give the federal cabinet the ability to set aside various statutes to push forward approvals for a small number of major industrial products, such as mines, pipelines and ports, if the government deems them to be in the national interest. Paul Daly, chair in administrative law and governance at University of Ottawa, said that while the provisions giving the executive more power are controversial, they're likely to survive a court challenge. "This bill probably is constitutional," he said. "It is unlikely that a court would invalidate this as violating the Constitution." Sections 21 to 23 of the bill allow the executive branch to bypass existing rules and processes in 13 laws — including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Indian Act and the Impact Assessment Law — through a regulatory process that does not need to be approved by Parliament. These sections are what's known in the legal community as "Henry VIII clauses" — a reference to a King who preferred to govern by decree rather than through Parliament. Courts have not found these to be constitutionally invalid, Daly said, adding there are guardrails in the legislation. He said Charter rights and the duty to consult will continue to apply to the legislation. "It's similar in character to the carbon tax legislation from a few years ago, where the Supreme Court said the Henry VIII clause was constitutionally valid. And I suspect that a court, if this statute were challenged, would come to the same conclusion," Daly said. His faculty colleague Errol Mendes, another law professor and constitutional expert, also said by email that he thinks the clauses can be defended constitutionally. But Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said sections 22 and 23 and "very worrisome" because they could allow the federal cabinet to exempt a pipeline or some other project from the Species at Risk Act. And she said she thinks it gives the federal government too much leeway on the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples on decisions that affect them. "If I were Canada's lawyers, I would have advised them strenuously against this bill," she said. "That consultation has to be meaningful and I worry that, especially under the timelines that this government wants to make these decisions, that this bill is basically circumventing the government's constitutionally required duty to consult." The bill aims to speed up the approval process for major projects so that cabinet can render a decision in two years at the most. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said it takes too long to push major new projects through "arduous" approval processes. "Canada is a country that used to build big things," Carney said when the bill was introduced on June 6. "In recent decades, it has become too difficult to build new projects in this country." Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said Friday that the legislation must be studied thoroughly since it can suspend various laws and regulations relating to language, First Nations rights, the environment and threatened species. "The government seems to want to avoid scrutiny on the bill, which by itself is worrisome," he said in English when speaking to reporters in the House of Commons foyer. "How could we go forward with such a huge bill with huge consequences for Quebec and Canada without at least doing what we have been elected to do, which is studying, thoroughly, this bill in committee?" Speaking on background at a technical briefing for journalists, federal officials said that while the government has no intention at this time to draft regulations that would bypass those laws, the legislation does give it a lot of flexibility. NDP MPs Leah Gazan, Alexandre Boulerice and Lori Idlout wrote to government House leader Steven MacKinnon on Friday to formally request that the bill's study be slowed down to provide for more debate in the House. "Failure to uphold constitutional obligations and environmental standards at a time when we are experiencing a climate emergency will have the opposite effect of developing Canada's economy and sovereignty, and will only lead to conflicts in the courts," they wrote. "In its current iteration, Bill C-5 violates Canada's constitutional obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 that recognizes and affirms Aboriginal treaty rights by giving the governor in council the ability to sidestep constitutional obligations." The bill is expected to undergo an unusually fast one-day study by the House transport committee Wednesday afternoon and evening. The government expects to pass the bill by the end of Friday. The federal Conservatives have argued the bill does not go far enough. Conservative Natural Resources critic Shannon Stubbs said in the House on Friday that the 'anti-energy, anti-development' Liberals should repeal the "no-new-pipelines" Bill C-69, passed by the Justin Trudeau government. She said the Impact Assessment Act it created heaped difficulties on energy sector projects and prevents them from going ahead. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 16, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Hamilton Spectator
08-05-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Benzene alert blamed on ‘messaging system error'
An alert issued this week by INEOS Styrolution about elevated benzene levels at its Sarnia facility has since been retracted, with the company citing a 'messaging system error.' A follow-up clarification was issued today, stating that no exceedances occurred on May 5. The original message, distributed through the Sarnia-Lambton Alerts system on May 5, stated that 'hourly benzene emissions on-site have been detected above 0.021 parts-per million (67.5 µg/m³).' That figure matches the company's internal 'proactive alert' threshold — a level set below Ontario's regulatory one-hour ambient air quality criterion (AAQC) for benzene of 90 µg/m³ (approximately 0.028 ppm). A second message, issued at 7:06 a.m. on May 7, repeated the same language from the original alert and described the notification as a 'proactive precaution.' INEOS stated that emissions reduction efforts would be identified if abnormal conditions were present, and emphasized that no adverse effects were expected. Later that same day, a correction was issued at 3:01 p.m., reading: 'CORRECTION to the notifications sent May 5th [10:53 and 11:09 a.m.] Due to a messaging system error, two community notifications were incorrectly distributed yesterday. We would like to clarify that no on-site emissions at our Sarnia facility have exceeded 0.021 parts per million (67.5 µg/m³) on May 5, 2025.' INEOS has not explained why the May 7, 7:06 a.m. alert repeated the exceedance language just hours before issuing the correction. As of publication, no retraction or clarification has appeared on the BASES (Binational Air Quality and Environmental Strategy) public notification platform, where the original alert was posted. In response to questions from The Sarnia Journal, INEOS said the company uses a proactive alert threshold of 0.021 ppm to notify the public before reaching Ontario's regulatory limit. The company confirmed that no exceedances occurred on May 5, 6, or 7 and that emissions remained below the 90 µg/m³ limit. However, it did not address questions about whether that threshold was exceeded on other dates, the cause of the messaging error, or what safeguards exist to prevent similar notification issues in the future. OOntario's one-hour air quality limit for benzene, the maximum amount allowed in outdoor air over a one-hour period, is 90 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m³). INEOS's internal alert threshold (67.5 µg/m³) represents approximately 75% of that regulatory limit and is described by the company as a proactive measure to inform the community in advance of any regulatory breach. Benzene is a volatile organic compound used in petrochemical processing and plastics manufacturing. It is listed as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and is classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Long-term exposure can increase the risk of leukemia and other blood disorders, while short-term exposure to high levels may cause symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, or drowsiness. The alerts were issued during INEOS Styrolution's ongoing benzene removal plan at the Sarnia site, which includes pipeline transfers and the emptying of an on-site benzene tank. The company has stated that emissions controls are in place and no off-site health impacts are anticipated. This article was created with support from advanced editorial tools and reviewed by our team to ensure accuracy and fairness. Learn more .
