From Energy Now 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre announced that he will create a new ‘One and Done’ rule for resource projects: a one-stop shop, with one simple application and one environmental review. Poilievre also announced that he will rapidly approve 10 projects that have been stuck for years in the slow federal approval process. That will include Phase II of LNG Canada, a massive natural gas liquefaction project in Northern British Columbia. Many other projects will also be encouraged, all with an aim to bolster Canada’s economic independence against the Americans.

ONE-AND-DONE RULE will:

1. Create a ‘One Stop Shop’ – A single office called the Rapid Resource Project Office will handle all regulatory approvals across all levels of government, so businesses don’t waste years navigating bureaucratic chaos and coordinating between multiple departments with different processes. We will cooperate with provincial governments to get all approvals into this single office.
2. One application. End duplication – There will be one application and one environmental review per project, ensuring efficiency without sacrificing environmental standards. Instead of multiple overlapping studies that stall projects, governments will work together to deliver a single, effective review.
3. One-year maximum wait times for approvals with a target of six months. There will be a target goal of decisions on applications in six months, with an upper time limit of one year, giving businesses certainty, cutting delays, and getting shovels in the ground faster.

“After the Lost Liberal decade, Canada is poorer, weaker, and more dependent on the United States than ever before, especially as a market for our natural resources,” said Poilievre. “My ‘One-and-Done’ rule will quickly and safely unleash Canada’s natural resources by rapidly approving the projects Canadians need more of now: mines, roads, LNG terminals, hydro projects, and nuclear power stations, so we can stand on our own two feet and stand up to the Americans.”

When completed, LNG Canada Phase II will double LNG output from 14 million to 28 million tonnes annually, creating hundreds of jobs in construction, operations and maintenance, and generating new revenues to fund the social programs that Canadians depend on. A new Conservative Government will also repeal C-69, the No Pipelines–No Development Law, and lift the cap on Canadian energy that would prevent LNG Canada Phase II from ever proceeding. Mark Carney has confirmed he will keep both C-69 and the cap in place.

Conservatives will also establish the Canadian Indigenous Opportunities Corporation (CIOC), to offer loan guarantees for local Indigenous-led resource projects.

A new Conservative government will also rapidly review nine other projects to find the hold-ups and accelerate federal decisions to get industry moving, workers working, and dollars flowing back to Canada. The full list of projects is at the end of this release.

Mark Carney and Steven Guilbeault’s “keep-it-in-the-ground” ideology–which maintains Bill C-69, the energy production cap, and the industrial carbon tax–will continue to stifle development in Canada, leading to job losses and increased reliance on foreign imports. Carney has said that “more than 80 per cent of current fossil fuel reserves … would need to stay in the ground.”

“The choice is clear: a fourth Liberal term that will keep our resources in the ground and keep us weak and vulnerable to Trump’s threats, or a strong new Conservative government that will approve projects, unleash our economy, bring jobs and dollars home, and put Canada First—For a Change.”

Some of the priority projects a Poilievre government will work with proponents and First Nations to approve:

1. LNG Canada Phase II Expansion Project (BC): Aims to double LNG output but faces power supply challenges and output limitations related to the emissions cap.
2. Suncor Base Mine Extension (Alberta): Expansion of an existing mine anticipated to produce 225,000 barrels per day of bitumen froth. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2020.
3. Rook 1 Uranium Mine (Saskatchewan): A development-stage uranium project expected to be a major source of low-cost uranium. Approval process started in 2019 with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
4. Springpole Lake Gold (Ontario): A proposed gold and silver mine with an on-site metal mill. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2018.
5. Upper Beaver Gold Mine (Ontario): A proposed underground and gold and copper mine. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2021.
6. Northern Road Link (Ontario): A proposed all-season, multi-use road in northern Ontario. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2023.
7. Crawford Nickel Project (Ontario): A proposed nickel-cobalt mine with an on-site metal mill. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2022.
8. Troilus Gold and Copper Mine (Quebec): A proposed gold and copper mine. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2022.
9. Sorel-Tracy Port Terminal (Quebec): A proposed new port terminal in the industrial-port area of Sorel-Tracy. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2022.
10. Cape Ray Gold and Silver Mine (Newfoundland): A proposed gold and silver mine with a milling complex. Under assessment with the IAAC since 2017.

 By Ramona Coelho for Inside Policy

Canada legalized Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016, encompassing both euthanasia and assisted suicide. Initially limited to those nearing their natural death, eligibility expanded in 2021 to individuals with physical disabilities, with eligibility for individuals with mental illness in 2027. Parliamentary recommendations include MAiD for children. A recent federal consultation explored extending MAiD to those who lack capacity via advance directives, an approach Quebec has already adopted, despite its criminal status under federal law.

Despite its compassionate framing,  investigative journalists and government reports reveal troubling patterns where inadequate exploration of reversible suffering – such as lack of access to medical treatments, poverty, loneliness, and feelings of being a burden – have driven Canadians to choose death. As described by our former Disability Inclusion Minister, Canada’s system at times makes it easier to access MAiD than to receive basic care like a wheelchair. With over 60,000 MAiD cases by the end of 2023, the evidence raises grave concerns about Canada’s MAiD regime.

I am a member of Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC). Last year, the Chief Coroner released MDRC reports, and a new set of reports has just been published. The first report released by the Office of the Chief Coroner, Waivers of Final Consent, examines how individuals in Track 1 (reasonably foreseeable natural death) can sign waivers to have their lives ended even if they lose the capacity to consent by the scheduled date of MAiD. The second, Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions, includes cases where MAiD was provided on the same day or the day after it was requested. These reports raise questions about whether proper assessments, thorough exploration of suffering, and informed consent were consistently practised by MAiD clinicians. While MDRC members hold diverse views, here is my take.

Rushing to death, Ignoring Reversible Causes of Suffering

In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mrs. B, in her 80s, after complications from surgery, opted for palliative care, leading to discharge home. She later requested a MAiD assessment, but her assessor noted she preferred palliative care based on personal and religious values. The next day, her spouse, struggling with caregiver burnout, took her to the emergency department, but she was discharged home. When a request for hospice palliative care was denied, her spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service for an urgent assessment. A new assessor deemed her eligible for MAiD, despite concerns from the first practitioner, who questioned the new assessor on the urgency, the sudden shift in patient perspective, and the influence of caregiver burnout. The initial assessor requested an opportunity for re-evaluation, but this was denied, with the second assessor deeming it urgent. That evening, a third MAiD practitioner was brought in, and Mrs. B underwent MAiD that night.

The focus should have been on ensuring adequate palliative care and support for Mrs. B and her spouse. Hospice and palliative care teams should have been urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation. Additionally, the MAiD provider expedited the process despite the first assessor’s and Mrs. B’s concerns without fully considering the impact of her spouse’s burnout.

The report also has worrying trends suggesting that local medical cultures—rather than patient choice—could be influencing rushed MAiD. Geographic clustering, particularly in Western Ontario, where same-day and next-day MAiD deaths occur most frequently, raises concerns that some MAiD providers may be predisposed to rapidly approve patients for quick death rather than ensuring patients have access to adequate care or exploring if suffering is remediable. This highlights a worrying trend where the speed of the MAiD provision is prioritized over patient-centered care and ethical safeguards.

MAiD without Free and Informed Choice

Consent has been central to Canadians’ acceptance of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, some cases in these reports point to concerns already raised by clinicians: the lack of thorough capacity assessments and concerns that individuals may not have freely chosen MAiD.

In the waiver of final consent report, Mr. B, a man with Alzheimer’s, had been approved for MAiD with such a waiver. However, by the scheduled provision date, his spouse reported increased confusion. Upon arrival, the MAiD provider noted that Mr. B no longer recognized them and so chose not to engage him in discussion at all. Without any verbal interaction to determine his current wishes or understanding, Mr. B’s life was ended.

In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him. It was documented that the patient mouthed “yes” and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.

These individuals were not given genuine opportunities to confirm whether they wished to die. Instead, their past wishes or inquiries were prioritized, raising concerns about ensuring free and informed consent for MAiD.  As early as 2020, the Chief Coroner of Ontario identified cases where patients received MAiD without well-documented capacity assessments, even though their medical records suggested they lacked capacity. Further, when Dr. Leonie Herx, past president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Medicine, testified before Parliament about MAiD frequently occurring without capacity, an MP dismissed her, advising Parliament to be cautious about considering seriously evidence under parliamentary immunities that amounted to malpractice allegations, which should be handled by the appropriate regulatory bodies or police.  These dismissive comments stand in stark contrast with the gravity of assessing financial capacity, and yet the magnitude is greater when ending life. By way of comparison, for my father, an Ontario-approved capacity expert conducted a rigorous evaluation before declaring him incapable of managing his finances. This included a lengthy interview, collateral history, and review of financial documents—yet no such rigorous capacity assessment is mandated for MAiD.

What is Compassion?

While the federal government has finished its consultation on advance directives for MAiD, experts warn against overlooking the complexities of choosing death based on hypothetical suffering and no lived experience to inform those choices. A substitute decision-maker has to interpret prior wishes, leading to guesswork and ethical dilemmas. These cases highlight how vulnerable individuals, having lost the capacity to consent, may be coerced or unduly influenced to die—whether through financial abuse, caregiver burnout, or other pressures—reminding us that the stakes are high – life and death, no less.

The fundamental expectation of health care should be to rush to care for the patient, providing support through a system that embraces them—not rush them toward death without efforts to mitigate suffering or ensure free and informed consent. If we truly value dignity, we must invest in comprehensive care to prevent patients from being administered speedy death in their most vulnerable moment, turning their worst day into potentially their last.

Dr. Ramona Coelho is a family physician whose practice largely serves marginalised persons in London, Ontario. She is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-editor of the new book “Unravelling MAiD in Canada” from McGill University Press.