What Bill C-39’s loosened environmental regulations could mean for Canadians

The Canadian government introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, in September 2026, with the stated aim of fast-tracking large-scale projects. Hailed as a major advancement by the government, it has also been criticized as a bill that could bulldoze environmental regulations. The government has said the proposed legislation is aimed at protecting “economic security.” Under the new bill, new “federal economic zones” would be created where projects could be “pre-approved.” This would provide exceptions to habitat and species-at-risk protections and other federal oversight. What could this new legislation mean for environmental regulations and how could it impact Canadians if passed into law? Less time for environmental review In October 2024, the government released a framework for implementing the right to a healthy environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, linking environmental protection directly to human health and well-being. However, Bill C-39 reduces the time period for thorough environmental review. The government has touted the bill’s shortened timeline for project approval, compressed to a one-year review. This allows for quick decisions to be made, and proponents to know whether a specific project will be able to proceed in a shorter timeframe. While this is viewed as a clear advantage, some are warning that the one-year timeline could still be extended and delayed. Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon appear before the legislative committee on Bill C-39 in Ottawa in October 2026. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang Environmental regulations are not simply environmental protections, they also protect public health. Effective regulations reduce exposure to polluted air, contaminated water, toxic chemicals and climate-related hazards. They help prevent disease, improve quality of life, reduce health-care costs and protect the well-being of current and future generations. Recent evidence shows that the health and economic benefits of environmental regulation far outweigh the relative costs. Build first, assess later Under Bill C-39, the government would be able to permit preliminary construction to begin before the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada completes an assessment. This would be the case if the environment minister considers a project to be in the “public interest.” Reduced environmental regulations would directly impact the communities within the area of the proposed projects and those downstream. It could mean potential environmental degradation and destruction, as well as weakened habitat protection, before a full assessment can be done. Many of the proposed “projects of public interest” are in areas of significant ecological importance. Many are situated on or near First Nations territories. Leaders from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation stated they “will not accept this legislation as it stands,” stating they support responsible development but that acceleration of development cannot be at the expense of Indigenous communities. The government is wrong in assuming the choice is either environmental protection or rapid development. Many jurisdictions have shown that projects can move faster when governments improve co-ordination across departments and agencies. This could include digitizing permitting, establishing clear timelines, conducting strategic planning earlier and eliminating duplication in approval processes. The evidence suggests that delays often arise from fragmented governance and administrative inefficiencies, not environmental safeguards. Pay now, worry later Prime Minister Mark Carney announces a proposed pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast in Calgary in July 2026. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Todd Korol Bill C-39 also introduces changes to the Fisheries Act that make it easier to advance projects that may impact fish or fish habitats. The bill introduces third-party “habitat credits” and fees for minor impacts. Under this model, a third party can engage in habitat restoration and effectively “sell” credits to companies building major projects. The bill would allow companies that damage fish habitat during construction to buy habitat restoration credits from approved conservation groups instead of doing the restoration work themselves. The goal is to speed up project approvals while still requiring companies to compensate for environmental damage. Supporters say this could fund larger and more effective habitat restoration projects, reducing red tape without comprising environmental monitoring. Critics worry it could make it easier for companies to damage fish habitats as long as they can afford to pay for credits elsewhere, allowing habitat damage to become simply a cost of doing business. Media coverage of Bill C-39 tends to focus on pipelines, mines and regulatory processes. However, it’s also about the air Canadians breathe and the water they drink. It is about the fish we catch and the natural spaces that support our health and well-being. The question is not whether Canada should build new projects or strengthen its economy. It must. The real question is whether it can do so without weakening environmental safeguards that protect communities, ecosystems and future generations. As governments push to accelerate development, Canadians should pay close attention. The consequences will be felt not only in boardrooms and construction sites. They will be felt in rivers, forests and households across the country for decades to come.