Canadian Scientists Warn Bill C-39 Could Weaken Independent Research in Push to Fast-Track Major Projects

By: Ebenezer Adugyamfi & Emmanuel Ayiku for GhanaianNewsCanada
22 OCTOBER 2026

Canadian federal scientists are raising concerns over the Carney government’s proposed Bill C-39, warning that efforts to accelerate major infrastructure projects could weaken independent scientific assessments and undermine protections for the environment and public safety.

The legislation, known as the Building Canada Strong Act, is intended to speed up approvals for projects considered important to Canada’s economic and strategic interests. It proposes major changes to federal project reviews, environmental laws and labour rules, with the government seeking to make decisions more predictable for investors and reduce delays affecting infrastructure development.

However, scientists represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) argue that some provisions could allow important findings and regulatory decisions to be made before the scientific work normally required to support them has been completed.

Their concerns centre on whether government departments will have sufficient time, resources and independence to assess the consequences of projects involving mines, pipelines, ports, transportation infrastructure and other major developments.

The debate places two priorities at the centre of Canada’s economic agenda: accelerating construction to strengthen the country’s competitiveness and ensuring that decisions are supported by credible scientific evidence.

Scientists warn against rushing expert assessments

On October 2, federal scientists gathered in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, to protest against Bill C-39 and warn that the proposed changes could weaken the role of independent scientific expertise in government decision-making.

The group included members of PIPSC’s Applied Science and Patent Examination Group, which represents professionals working in areas including fisheries, environmental protection and scientific regulation.

Bryan Van Wilgenburg, president of the group, argued that accelerating reviews without protecting the independence of scientific assessments could create risks for communities and ecosystems.

The union says scientists already face pressure from staffing shortages, recruitment and retention challenges, and reductions affecting public-service capacity. It argues that asking federal experts to deliver faster decisions while weakening institutional resources could make it more difficult to maintain the quality of assessments.

The concerns extend beyond the speed of the review process. Scientists are also questioning provisions that could allow certain findings, determinations and opinions required for qualifying projects to be treated as favourable before the professional work that would ordinarily inform those decisions is complete.

Critics say such provisions could change the relationship between scientific evidence and government approval decisions.

They argue that expert assessments should help determine whether a project is safe, environmentally acceptable and consistent with the law, rather than becoming a procedural requirement to be completed after key decisions have effectively been made.

The government, however, maintains that its objective is to reduce unnecessary delays while preserving regulatory standards.

What Bill C-39 proposes

The federal government introduced Bill C-39 on September 21, 2026, as a major part of its plan to accelerate infrastructure development and strengthen Canada’s economic independence.

The legislation seeks to expand the federal government’s ability to fast-track projects deemed to be in the national interest and establish clearer timelines for reviews and decisions.

Under the proposed framework, federal reviews and decisions would generally be completed within one year after a project proponent submits a comprehensive application.

The bill would also change how multiple federal approvals are coordinated, with the aim of reducing duplication and giving businesses greater certainty about when decisions will be made.

Another element would allow the government to designate regions of national interest and establish conditions for certain types of development within those areas.

The legislation also proposes changes to environmental and fisheries-related laws, including provisions affecting the assessment and permitting of projects.

Supporters say these measures could help Canada develop infrastructure more quickly, improve access to new markets and attract investment in sectors such as energy, critical minerals and transportation.

Critics counter that faster timelines and expanded ministerial discretion could make it more difficult to assess cumulative environmental effects, examine scientific evidence and give affected communities sufficient time to participate.

Because Bill C-39 is a broad piece of legislation affecting several areas of federal policy, its implications extend well beyond project approval timelines.

Why independent science matters

Federal scientific assessments help governments understand how proposed developments may affect water quality, fish populations, wildlife, ecosystems and the health and safety of surrounding communities.

For example, a proposed mine may offer employment and generate economic activity, but its environmental assessment may also need to examine the potential effects of waste disposal, water use and contamination.

A pipeline can create jobs and provide access to new markets, while requiring careful evaluation of potential impacts on waterways, wildlife habitats and communities along its route.

Similarly, ports and transportation projects may require detailed analysis of their effects on coastal ecosystems, fisheries and nearby populations.

Scientists argue that these assessments must be conducted with sufficient time and access to reliable information to identify risks before decisions are made.

The concern surrounding Bill C-39 is that if the review process is accelerated without adequate safeguards, important scientific questions could receive less attention or be addressed too late to influence the project’s design.

The government’s challenge is therefore to demonstrate that faster decisions can still be based on comprehensive evidence and meaningful expert advice.

Environmental groups raise similar concerns

Scientists are not the only group questioning the proposed legislation.

Environmental organisations have warned that the bill could weaken protections by giving ministers greater discretion to exempt certain projects from existing regulatory requirements or allow some preliminary construction activities to begin before a full impact assessment has been completed.

The legislation would also make aspects of the federal government’s national-interest project framework more permanent, raising questions about how future governments might use the powers.

Environmental advocates argue that the potential consequences could be significant in ecologically sensitive areas, particularly where projects affect endangered species, waterways or habitats already under pressure.

Supporters of faster project approvals, meanwhile, say Canada needs a more efficient system to compete internationally and prevent essential infrastructure from being delayed by overlapping processes.

The disagreement is not simply about whether development should proceed. It concerns the safeguards, evidence and consultation required to determine which projects should move forward and under what conditions.

Indigenous consultation remains a central issue

Bill C-39 has also faced criticism from Indigenous leaders and organisations concerned about consultation and the protection of Indigenous rights.

Some First Nations representatives argue that the proposed timelines could make it harder for communities to assess projects affecting their territories and participate meaningfully in decisions.

Indigenous consultation can involve reviewing technical studies, considering impacts on traditional activities and lands, and negotiating measures to address potential harm. Critics say those responsibilities cannot always be accommodated within rigid timelines.

The federal government has maintained that the legislation does not remove its constitutional duty to consult Indigenous rights holders.

Canada–U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc has said that a more efficient process does not mean a less rigorous one. Other government ministers have similarly argued that the legislation is intended to reduce administrative delays while maintaining environmental and safety standards.

Nevertheless, Indigenous organisations continue to seek stronger guarantees that consultation will not be reduced to a procedural exercise.

The issue is particularly important for projects involving critical minerals, pipelines and major transportation routes, where economic development may intersect with treaty rights, traditional land use and environmental protection.

The government’s case for faster development

The Carney government argues that Canada must improve its ability to build major infrastructure if it wants to strengthen its economy, attract investment and reduce dependence on the United States.

International trade tensions have reinforced Ottawa’s efforts to diversify markets and develop projects that connect Canadian resources and products to overseas customers.

Under the government’s plan, faster and more predictable approvals could help businesses make investment decisions and allow projects to move from planning to construction with fewer administrative delays.

Ministers have argued that strong environmental standards and timely decisions are not mutually exclusive.

They maintain that better coordination between regulators and clearer processes can reduce unnecessary duplication without eliminating the requirements needed to protect the public.

The government has also pointed to the need for major infrastructure investment to support employment, energy security and the development of critical mineral supply chains.

However, scientists and environmental advocates say the effectiveness of those reforms will depend on the detailed wording of the law, the resources available to regulators and the safeguards governing ministerial decisions.

A bill facing scrutiny in Parliament

Bill C-39 passed its first vote in the House of Commons on October 8 and was referred for further study.

The government has established a special legislative committee to examine the extensive bill, which includes amendments affecting multiple federal laws.

Federal ministers defended the legislation before the committee on October 19, as criticism continued from environmental groups, labour organisations and Indigenous representatives.

Liberal MP Patrick Weiler has also called for additional safeguards, expressing concern about the scope of ministerial discretion, compressed consultation timelines and the possibility of allowing some construction activities to begin before an environmental assessment is complete.

The concerns demonstrate that questions about the bill are not confined to opposition parties. Some members of the governing party have also raised issues about how the proposed powers should be constrained.

The committee process will provide an opportunity for MPs to examine the legislation’s provisions and consider potential amendments before the bill proceeds further through Parliament.

What is at stake for Canadians?

The debate over Bill C-39 could have long-term implications for how Canada balances economic growth with environmental protection, scientific independence and Indigenous rights.

If the legislation achieves its stated objectives, it could help reduce uncertainty for project developers and allow some major infrastructure decisions to be made more quickly.

However, if safeguards are insufficient, critics fear that the drive for speed could weaken the evidence used to assess risks and reduce the ability of affected communities to influence decisions.

For federal scientists, the central concern is whether the government will preserve the independence and capacity needed to provide reliable advice.

For industry, the priority is a predictable approval system that allows projects to proceed without unnecessary delays.

For Indigenous communities and environmental organisations, the question is whether accelerated processes will still provide meaningful consultation and protect ecosystems and legally recognised rights.

The final impact will depend on the legislation Parliament ultimately approves, how regulators implement it and whether the government provides the resources needed for effective oversight.

As the bill undergoes parliamentary scrutiny, the dispute highlights a fundamental challenge facing Canada: building major projects more quickly while ensuring that decisions remain grounded in science, public accountability and the protection of people and the environment.