Federal Government Trims Environmental Review Requirements for Major Energy Projects

The federal government is reducing the scope of a key environmental review process to “simplify” the framework put in place by the Trudeau administration.

The change excludes several energy projects from the federal impact assessment process and assigns the task of reviewing them to a single federal regulator, according to amendments published this week in the Canada Gazette, the official newspaper and journal of record for the federal government.

The government announced in a Sept. 9 press release that it would remove certain energy projects like pipelines, power lines, and certain offshore renewable energy projects from the oversight of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), its environmental review agency.

Some oilsands extraction projects and fossil fuel-fired power generating facilities are also being excluded from the roster of projects that will undergo review by the IAAC, the press release said. Instead, all future assessments of major projects will be exclusively managed by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson described the change as a way to increase efficiency and reduce duplication.

“To make it easier to build major projects, we’re not lowering standards, but raising competence so we can catalyze investment, unlock our abundant resource base, create good jobs for Canadians and strengthen Canada’s economy at a time when economic competitiveness matters more than ever,” Hodgson said in the press release.

The latest amendment comes after Carney vowed to streamline regulatory approval procedures for major projects during last year’s federal election.

The Conservatives and provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan have asked that the Impact Assessment Act be scrapped altogether, saying existing federal and provincial regulatory frameworks can serve as checks while ensuring major projects aren’t impeded.

Some environmental activist groups, such as Environmental Defence, are criticizing the move on the other side of the debate, saying the federal government shouldn’t have eased the regulations.