When we talk about the “national interest,” we tend to picture steel, not soil. Transmission towers, deep ports and export corridors are emblematic of a nation on the move. It’s understandable. Big projects have always held weight in this country: the railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway.
Now, with the passage of Bill C-5 – the One Canadian Economy Act – Canada is poised, once again, to build big. The legislation grants cabinet new powers to fast-track projects deemed in the national interest. Prime Minister Mark Carney presents this as a way to “connect and transform our country and unleash economic growth while upholding environmental protections and Indigenous rights.”
These ambitions are urgent and important. But the challenge lies in how we define “national interest.” Projects that disregard the ecological foundations on which we depend could undermine the prosperity and resilience they seek to create. To see the full potential of the projects slated for fast-tracked development, nature must not be considered an obstacle, but the backbone of our nation-building efforts.
Take the Grays Bay Road and Port project in Nunavut, planned to unlock Arctic shipping and mineral access. It crosses permafrost and caribou habitat already strained by warming temperatures. In Ontario, the Ring of Fire holds critical minerals needed for EV production, but sits atop one of the world’s largest carbon sinks: the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Nova Scotia’s Wind West initiative (a promising clean energy project) still requires new transmission corridors that could impact forests, wetlands and marine ecosystems.
And finally, the Churchill Falls project, which will develop transmission lines connecting Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec to power generated along the Churchill River. With a decades-long history, this project is considered in the national interest, but widely critiqued for the environmental and cultural impact associated with the development of a new power plant on Gull Island. These projects may serve the future — but only if they don’t damage the environment that the future depends on.
Fortunately, we don’t have to choose between progress and protection: a paired investment strategy would help ensure environmental protection isn’t treated as an afterthought in the implementation of One Canadian Economy. For every dollar spent on national-interest infrastructure, a portion should be allocated to natural infrastructure. That means investing not only in roads, ports, and transmission lines, but also in restoring wetlands, protecting forests, expanding greenspaces and building trails that connect people to nature.
Canada is taking steps in this direction: the federal Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund and the Natural Infrastructure Fund are two examples of economic policy meant to grapple with the complicated intersection of development and environmental protection. But to truly meet the moment, especially as we accelerate development, funding for nature must be mandatory, scaled to match the ambition of major development projects and integrated from the start.
The benefits are twofold.
First, protecting nature protects infrastructure: wetlands absorb floodwaters, forests reduce erosion and coastal ecosystems help buffer storms. Second, access to healthy, intact natural areas plays a critical role in public health, mental well-being and community cohesion. Research affirms that infrastructure projects designed with environmental foresight are more resilient and cost-effective. In 2019, UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted that “making infrastructure more climate-resilient can have a benefit-cost ratio of about 6 to 1. For every dollar invested, six dollars can be saved.” Since then, findings from insurance bureaus, think-tanks and associations have consistently reinforced this point.
Of course, funding alone isn’t enough. A paired investment strategy must be part of a broader framework that includes rigorous environmental assessments, meaningful consultation and true partnerships with Indigenous communities from the outset. But as a starting point, new funding for protecting nature – and connecting Canadians to it – is both practical and powerful.
Canada is right to pursue bold infrastructure goals, but how we build — and how we invest in the environment along the way — will define the legacy we leave behind. If we fail to recognize that the national interest lies not just in what we build on the land, but in the land itself, we risk losing more than we gain.
Matt DeCourcey is the former MP for Fredericton. He served as senior advisor to the Minister of Finance and is the current director of government affairs at Trans Canada Trail.
Comments