Call to Action on Proposed Federal Major Project Reforms
Our SSHRC Partnership Project “Quality in Canada’s Built Environment: Roadmaps to Equity, Social Value and Sustainability” brings together 14 Canadian universities, more than 70 researchers, and over 60 public, private, and community partners to rethink how “quality” is defined, assessed, and achieved in Canada’s buildings, public spaces, landscapes, and cities. Drawing on western and Indigenous ways of knowing, our collective expertise spans architecture, landscape architecture, design, engineering, planning, ecology, and more. Our partnership provides a framework for understanding quality not simply as aesthetic or technical performance, but as a multidimensional public good shaped by social inclusion, environmental stewardship, community experience, and long-term resilience. We know high quality built environments emerge from rigorous planning, evidence-based decision-making, and meaningful consideration of social, cultural, ecological, and economic systems.
Residents of Canada currently have an opportunity to provide input to the Government of Canada’s discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada. As both an ecologist and built-environment professional, I am personally very concerned about the proposed changes. The following comments are made in the spirit of collaboration, with the aim of helping the Government achieve its economic goals while honouring Canada’s obligations to conserve natural infrastructure for the wellbeing of current and future generations. The proposed federal reforms – while intended to accelerate major infrastructure and resource development projects in Canada – risk reducing the capacity of governments, professionals, Indigenous communities, and the public to evaluate how major projects will affect landscapes, settlements, infrastructure systems, and future generations.
Major concerns of relevance to our SSHRC partnership1:
- Weakening Environmental Assessment Processes: Exempting projects from impact assessments or transferring approvals to less comprehensive regulatory processes could reduce opportunities to identify design modifications, mitigation measures, and alternative approaches before irreversible damage occurs. For built environment professionals, environmental assessment functions as a critical project-development tool that improves project quality, not simply a regulatory hurdle.
- Reducing Protection for Species and Ecological Systems: Biodiversity conservation and connection to the land are increasingly recognized as a core components of sustainable urbanism, regional planning, and infrastructure design. Changes to the built environment should be done in the context of restoration, rather than as acts of destruction. Proposed exemptions from the Species at Risk Act could permit developments that undermine ecological integrity and landscape resilience.
- Allowing Construction Before Assessments Are Complete: Authorizing site preparation and early works before assessment decisions are finalized may create irreversible outcomes before alternatives can be properly evaluated. This challenges fundamental principles of precautionary planning and evidence-based project delivery.
- Expanding Reliance on Ecological Offsetting: Replacing habitat protection with compensation measures elsewhere assumes ecological functions can be replicated after destruction. Essential ecosystem services, such as flood protection, water filtration, and habitat provision, cannot easily be recreated through offsetting schemes. Architecture and planning are fundamentally place-based disciplines. Every site possesses unique ecological, cultural, historical, and spatial characteristics. Offsetting is increasingly recognized as a substitute for design excellence, as it treats ecological systems as interchangeable components, rather than as integral parts of place.
- Increasing Ministerial Discretion: Long-term quality in the built environment depends on predictable governance frameworks, professional expertise, and public accountability. Greater reliance on discretionary political decision-making may weaken transparent, expert-informed evaluation processes. Further, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), implemented through Bill C-15, obliges Canada to secure free, prior, and informed consent for developments affecting Indigenous territories. Shortened timelines and streamlined assessments risk limiting the time and information necessary to support these processes. Several First Nations warn that “streamlining” measures will repeat colonial decision-making patterns where development is imposed without consent.
1A more complete discussion of these concerns from the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution
Reframing ecosystems as essential infrastructure
These concerns are motivated by the growing understanding among architects and built environment professionals that ecological systems are not external constraints on development, but foundational infrastructure assets that contribute directly to economic productivity, resilience, and quality of life. The federal government’s recent A Force of Nature strategy reflects this growing recognition of nature as essential infrastructure, highlighting the immense value of services such as flood protection, water filtration, climate regulation, and biodiversity support. Backed by a $3.8 billion commitment, the strategy argues that nature conservation and economic development are mutually reinforcing objectives. Yet the proposed reforms, introduced only weeks later, risk undermining this principle by reducing protections for the natural assets that sustain Canada’s economy and communities. Degradation of these systems is likely to generate significant long-term costs that far exceed any short-term gains in project approval timelines.
A call for integrated approaches
Accelerating project delivery should not come at the expense of the evidence-based planning and institutional safeguards that contribute to equitable and high-quality built environments. The government should consider integrated approaches that align infrastructure investment, climate action, biodiversity conservation, and regional development, supporting the needs of all communities. Specific recommendations include:
- Strategic spatial planning for major projects that jointly considers socioeconomic needs and environmental considerations
- Strengthening investment in the capacity of Canada’s Impact Assessment Agency and federal regulatory bodies to accelerate through and high-quality assessments
- Collaborative design of assessment frameworks involving natural scientists, built-environment professionals, Indigenous knowledge holders, and other experts.
- Ensure that major projects are planned and located in ways that avoid encroachment on legally protected critical habitat for Endangered and Threatened species recognized under the Species at Risk Act.
- Adherence to a hierarchy of avoidance, minimization, and offsetting only as a last resort.
- Prioritization of projects that advance climate commitments while safeguarding natural and community assets.
What can members of our partnership do?
I encourage all Quality in the Built Environment partners, and the broader community of built environment professionals in Canada, to contribute evidence-based responses to the government’s proposed changes (until June 7th). Please consider:
- Writing and submitting a response to the Discussion paper. Responses can, and should, be much shorter than the above response, which is deliberately crafted to represent broad concerns relevant to our partnership. Responses could be submitted by individuals or by research groups, and even a paragraph or two is sufficient. Responses are to be emailed to: [email protected] More information can be found at: https://www.canada.ca/en/one-canadian-economy/services/simplifying-canada-process/engagement-supporting-timely-decision-making.html
- Contacting your local Member of Parliament (MP) to voice your concern about the proposed changes. You can look up your MP and their contact details at: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en Please note that you do not have to be a Canadian citizen to do this, but do need to reside in the riding whose MP you’re contacting. Contacting your MP can range from sending them the letter you are submitting as your response to requesting a meeting to discuss its implications with them.
By Carly Ziter, Concordia University
