Canada’s ‘Major Projects’ Should Not Come at the Cost of the Environment

For as long as I can remember, Canadians have taken pride in living in a country defined by its natural beauty. We celebrate our mountains, forests, lakes, rivers, coastlines, and wildlife as though they are part of our national identity—because they are. Whether it is the rugged Atlantic shoreline, the vast prairie grasslands, the towering peaks of the Rockies, or the seemingly endless boreal forest, Canada's environment is not merely scenery. It is the foundation upon which much of our economy, culture, and quality of life rests.

That is why I find myself increasingly concerned whenever politicians, industry leaders, or commentators argue that environmental protections should be weakened in the name of speeding up "major projects." The phrase itself sounds harmless enough. After all, who could oppose progress? Who does not want economic growth, good-paying jobs, reliable infrastructure, or energy security?

But beneath the appealing language lies a question that deserves far more attention than it often receives: What happens when the pursuit of major projects begins to outweigh our commitment to environmental stewardship?

I believe Canada can build. I believe Canada can grow. I believe Canada can modernize its infrastructure, develop critical resources, and strengthen its economy. What I do not believe is that these goals require sacrificing the environment that future generations will inherit. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Long-term prosperity depends on protecting the natural systems that sustain us.

The real challenge facing Canada is not choosing between development and environmental protection. The challenge is ensuring that development happens responsibly.

The False Choice Between Economy and Environment

One of the most persistent narratives in Canadian politics is the idea that environmental protections stand in the way of economic success. We hear that regulations create delays. We hear that environmental assessments discourage investment. We hear that public consultations slow projects that are supposedly in the national interest.

This framing presents a false choice.

The environment and the economy are not opposing forces. They are deeply interconnected. Healthy forests absorb carbon, support biodiversity, and sustain industries ranging from tourism to forestry. Clean water is essential for agriculture, manufacturing, and public health. Stable ecosystems support fisheries, recreation, and local economies across the country.

When environmental damage occurs, the economic consequences often follow.

Wildfires have become more frequent and destructive. Flooding events are growing more costly. Droughts affect agricultural production. Communities face enormous rebuilding expenses after climate-related disasters. Insurance costs continue to rise.

These are not abstract environmental concerns. They are economic realities.

When I hear arguments that Canada cannot afford environmental protections, I often wonder whether we can afford the consequences of abandoning them.

The Rush to Build

In recent years, there has been growing pressure to accelerate approvals for major projects. Supporters argue that Canada is losing investment opportunities because projects take too long to move from proposal to construction.

There is some truth to the frustration.

Lengthy bureaucratic processes can create uncertainty. Investors want clarity. Communities want answers. Businesses want timelines they can plan around.

However, there is a critical difference between improving efficiency and eliminating safeguards.

Environmental reviews exist for a reason. They help identify risks before irreversible damage occurs. They force governments and developers to examine impacts on water systems, wildlife habitats, Indigenous communities, and local ecosystems.

Without these assessments, mistakes become far more likely.

History offers countless examples of projects that appeared beneficial in the short term but created environmental and financial burdens that lasted decades. Cleaning up contamination is almost always more expensive than preventing it in the first place.

Moving faster should not mean moving blindly.

The Importance of Indigenous Voices

One of the most important lessons Canada continues to learn is that meaningful development requires meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples.

For generations, Indigenous communities have been excluded from decisions affecting their lands and waters. Projects were often approved without proper consultation or consent. The consequences are still felt today.

I believe Canada has an opportunity to take a different path.

Indigenous knowledge offers valuable insights into local ecosystems. Communities that have lived on and cared for the land for centuries often possess a level of environmental understanding that cannot be replicated by short-term studies alone.

Including Indigenous voices should not be viewed as an obstacle to development. It should be viewed as an essential component of responsible decision-making.

Projects that earn genuine community support are more likely to succeed in the long run. Projects that ignore local concerns frequently face legal challenges, public opposition, and social conflict.

The goal should not be to silence opposition. The goal should be to create projects worthy of support.

Climate Change Cannot Be Ignored

Any discussion about major projects in Canada must include climate change.

The evidence surrounding climate change is overwhelming. Temperatures are rising. Weather patterns are changing. Extreme events are becoming more common and more severe.

Canada is warming at roughly twice the global average rate, with northern regions experiencing even faster changes.

These realities create difficult questions about how future projects should be evaluated.

For example, should infrastructure be designed using historical climate data when future conditions may be dramatically different?

Should energy projects be assessed solely on immediate economic benefits while ignoring long-term emissions?

Should governments continue approving developments that increase environmental risks while simultaneously investing billions to mitigate climate impacts?

I do not believe these questions have easy answers.

What I do believe is that pretending climate change does not exist is no longer a credible option.

Every major project approved today will influence Canada's environmental footprint for decades. Decisions made now will affect future generations long after current political leaders have left office.

That responsibility should not be taken lightly.

Economic Growth Requires Sustainability

Some people hear environmental concerns and immediately assume opposition to development.

That assumption misses the point entirely.

I want Canada to succeed economically.

I want strong industries.

I want competitive businesses.

I want good-paying jobs.

I want thriving communities.

The reason I care about environmental protection is precisely because I care about those outcomes.

Economic growth that destroys the resources upon which future growth depends is ultimately self-defeating.

Imagine a company that boosts quarterly profits by neglecting maintenance on its equipment. For a while, the numbers might look impressive. Eventually, however, the machinery fails and the costs become unavoidable.

The same principle applies at a national level.

Natural systems provide services that are incredibly valuable yet often taken for granted. Clean air, clean water, fertile soil, flood protection, and biodiversity all contribute to economic resilience.

Once degraded, these systems can be extraordinarily expensive—or impossible—to restore.

True prosperity requires sustainability.

Lessons From Resource Development

Canada's resource sector has played an enormous role in shaping the country's economy.

Mining, forestry, oil and gas, hydroelectric development, and agriculture have generated jobs and wealth for generations.

I recognize the importance of these industries.

At the same time, history demonstrates why environmental oversight matters.

Abandoned mines have left behind contaminated sites.

Industrial pollution has damaged waterways.

Habitat destruction has affected wildlife populations.

Communities have faced health and environmental consequences from poorly managed development.

These experiences should not lead us to reject resource development altogether. They should lead us to demand higher standards.

Modern technology offers opportunities to reduce environmental impacts significantly. Better monitoring systems, improved engineering practices, cleaner energy sources, and more rigorous accountability measures can help balance economic and environmental priorities.

The lesson is not that development is inherently harmful.

The lesson is that development requires responsibility.

The Cost of Short-Term Thinking

One of the greatest challenges in public policy is the temptation to prioritize immediate gains over long-term outcomes.

Politicians operate on election cycles.

Businesses often focus on quarterly performance.

Media attention shifts rapidly from one issue to the next.

Environmental consequences, however, often unfold over decades.

A project may create jobs today while generating environmental liabilities that future taxpayers must address.

A decision that appears economically attractive in the short term may prove far more costly over time.

This disconnect between short-term incentives and long-term consequences creates a dangerous dynamic.

When environmental protections are weakened, the benefits are usually immediate and visible.

The costs are often delayed and diffuse.

Future generations cannot vote in today's elections. They cannot participate in current consultations. Yet they will live with the consequences of our decisions.

That reality should encourage humility.

Innovation Is a Better Solution

Rather than weakening environmental standards, Canada should focus on innovation.

If approval processes are too slow, improve them.

If regulations are confusing, simplify them.

If technologies create environmental risks, develop better technologies.

Innovation allows societies to solve problems without abandoning important values.

The history of human progress is filled with examples of industries adapting to higher standards rather than collapsing because of them.

Automobile manufacturers improved safety.

Factories reduced pollution.

Energy systems became more efficient.

Technology advanced because expectations increased.

Environmental protection should be viewed as a driver of innovation, not an enemy of it.

The countries that develop cleaner technologies today may become the economic leaders of tomorrow.

Accountability Matters

Another issue that often receives insufficient attention is accountability.

When major projects create environmental damage, who bears responsibility?

Too often, the public ends up paying the price.

Taxpayers fund cleanup efforts.

Communities absorb economic losses.

Future generations inherit environmental degradation.

Meanwhile, the profits generated during the project's most lucrative years may have already been distributed elsewhere.

This imbalance creates a troubling incentive structure.

If companies expect society to absorb environmental costs, there is less motivation to minimize risks.

Strong accountability mechanisms help correct this problem.

Developers should be required to demonstrate how environmental impacts will be managed.

Financial assurances should be sufficient to cover cleanup obligations.

Monitoring should continue long after construction is complete.

Success should not be measured solely by whether a project gets built. It should also be measured by how responsibly it operates throughout its lifespan.

Public Trust Is Essential

Major projects depend on public trust.

When people believe decisions are being made transparently and responsibly, support becomes easier to earn.

When people suspect environmental concerns are being ignored or dismissed, opposition grows.

Trust cannot be demanded.

It must be earned.

That requires transparency, honest communication, rigorous assessments, and meaningful public engagement.

Communities deserve to understand both the benefits and the risks associated with major developments.

Citizens should not be treated as obstacles.

They should be treated as stakeholders.

A healthy democracy depends on informed participation, especially when decisions have long-lasting consequences.

What Kind of Country Do We Want to Build?

Ultimately, debates about major projects are not just about economics or environmental policy.

They are about values.

What kind of country do we want Canada to be?

Do we want a country that views environmental protection as an inconvenience to be bypassed whenever it becomes politically inconvenient?

Or do we want a country capable of balancing growth with responsibility?

Do we want development that creates prosperity for a few decades?

Or do we want development that supports prosperity for generations?

These questions matter because infrastructure, resource projects, and industrial developments shape the nation's future.

The decisions made today will influence landscapes, ecosystems, communities, and economic opportunities long after current debates have faded from memory.

A Better Path Forward

I do not believe Canada must choose between development and environmental stewardship.

We can have both.

We can build infrastructure while protecting water quality.

We can develop resources while preserving biodiversity.

We can create jobs while reducing emissions.

We can modernize the economy while respecting Indigenous rights.

Achieving these goals requires effort, patience, and political courage. It requires rejecting simplistic narratives that frame environmental protection as an obstacle to prosperity.

The strongest economies are not built by consuming every available resource as quickly as possible. They are built by managing resources wisely and sustainably.

Canada possesses extraordinary natural wealth. That wealth is not limited to minerals, timber, energy reserves, or industrial capacity. It also includes forests, rivers, wetlands, wildlife, and ecosystems that provide immeasurable value.

Protecting these assets is not anti-development.

It is one of the most important investments we can make.

As Canada debates the future of major projects, I hope we remember that environmental stewardship is not a barrier to progress. It is part of progress.

The true measure of success is not how quickly we build. It is whether what we build leaves future generations with a country that is stronger, healthier, and more resilient than the one we inherited.

That is the standard I believe Canada should strive to meet.