Ecologists and other scientists concerned about Canada's proposals to Getting Major Projects Built?
-
Ecologists and other scientists concerned about Canada's proposals to Getting Major Projects Built? You may want to sign on to this open letter to the Government of Canada.
Call on the Federal Government to reject policy changes that weaken ocean protection
The Privy Council Office Government of Canada engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca Dear Privy Council Office, We are writing to express our deep concern about proposed changes outlined in the Government of Canada’s discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, released on May 8, 2026. Particularly, enabling pre-approved development zones (Federal Economic Zones), increasing flexibility for offsetting damage to fish and fish habitat, allowing Disposal at Sea, authorising construction activities prior to final impact decisions, and exempting projects from the Species at Risk Act jeopardy test could create irreversible harm to marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them. Healthy oceans are the foundation of lasting prosperity As an ocean nation with the world’s longest coastline, Canada depends on healthy marine ecosystems to sustain fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, climate regulation, cultural practices, and the food systems and rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Government of Canada has recognized that a sustainable blue economy must create opportunities and jobs while ensuring that the ocean remains healthy. This aligns closely to Prime Minister Carney’s vision of the economy expressed in his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All that highlights the need for markets and public policy to be grounded in broader values, including sustainability, resilience, fairness, responsibility, solidarity and humility. However, the proposed changes would undermine this vision by compressing environmental assessments, increasing reliance on offsets for damage to fish habitat, and creating detrimental pathways around species-at-risk safeguards. In pursuing short-term investment, Canada must not treat marine ecosystems and Indigenous relationships with ocean territories as constraints to development, but recognize them as foundations of lasting prosperity and well-being. Canada’s oceans already face multiple interacting pressures Marine ecosystems across Canada are already under stress from ocean warming, marine heatwaves, acidification, deoxygenation, habitat alteration, pollution, underwater noise, vessel traffic, fishing pressure and the cumulative effects of coastal development. Compressed assessment timelines may limit the collection and consideration of evidence needed to evaluate interacting and long-term effects. Greater flexibility in the use of fish-habitat offsets could allow additional habitat damage to proceed without adequately accounting for existing pressures or uncertain restoration outcomes. Pre-approved development zones and pathways around species-at-risk safeguards could further enable projects to be considered in isolation, even where their combined effects with existing activities and climate change may push already stressed ecosystems or vulnerable species beyond ecological thresholds. For marine ecosystems, where impacts accumulate across habitats, species and generations, effective decision-making requires more comprehensive assessment and protection, not less. Offsetting cannot replace irreplaceable marine ecosystems The proposed increased reliance on offsets assumes that ecological damage in one place can be compensated for by habitat restoration or creation elsewhere. Yet marine habitats are connected to local food webs, species movements, seasonal cycles, fisheries, Indigenous fishing practices and place-based cultural relationships. If harm has been avoided and minimized, restoration may address small residual impacts, but an offset cannot reliably replace critical habitat, a culturally significant fishing area or the ecological functions needed by species already under stress. Offsetting must not become a justification for approving avoidable damage to irreplaceable marine ecosystems. Species at risk must not be made expendable The proposal to allow exemptions, even under a high threshold, from the Species at Risk Act would weaken a fundamental safeguard against irreversible biodiversity loss. A major project should not proceed if it could undermine the survival or recovery of endangered species. The Southern Resident killer whale illustrates what is at stake: this distinct and endangered population already faces interacting threats from reduced prey availability, vessel disturbance, underwater noise and pollution. Projects that create undue stress are likely to result in losing an iconic and biologically unique population of whales that is invaluable to the whale-watching industry and central to west coast culture. Canada must honour its conservation and reconciliation commitments Canada has committed to conserving 30 percent of its marine and coastal areas by 2030, implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and advancing Indigenous-led conservation and reconciliation. Reforms that weaken habitat safeguards, accelerate project decisions or create exceptions to species-at-risk protections would undermine this progress. For many Indigenous communities, marine species and habitats are integral to food systems, stewardship responsibilities, law, identity, culture and relationships between people and nature. Major-project decisions must respect these rights and relationships from the outset, and Indigenous Peoples should not be treated as groups to be consulted within an accelerated approval process or accommodated after development priorities have been determined. We should not trade Canada’s future for short-term gains Faster approvals may promise near-term jobs and investment, but development that degrades ecosystems, diminishes fisheries or increases extinction risk transfers lasting costs to coastal communities, Indigenous Peoples and future generations. Marine biodiversity, healthy fisheries and resilient coastal ecosystems are forms of wealth that support food security, livelihoods, cultures, recreation and resilience to climate change. Canada’s assessment of public interest must therefore go beyond immediate construction investment and short-term GDP growth to recognize ecosystem health, equity and intergenerational well-being. Canada must reject any policy change that weakens ocean protection Canada must reject any policy change outlined in the discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, because Our Oceans are foundational to our country’s ecological and human health, our fisheries and tourism industries, and the well-being of Indigenous communities whose relationships with marine ecosystems are rooted in stewardship, reciprocity, and long-term care. A shift toward less protection would directly contradict Canada’s blue economy vision, its commitments to sustainability and regeneration, and its pledge to protect 30% of marine and coastal areas by 2030. At a time when oceans are already under mounting pressure from climate change, overfishing, and biodiversity loss, this is the moment for stronger protection—not less. Short-term economic gains cannot be allowed to undermine long-term ecological resilience, food security, cultural continuity as well as the infinite benefits that our oceans and fisheries can generate. The path forward for Canada is clear: protect more, restore more, and govern the ocean as the living foundation of a just and regenerative future. Sincerely, Rashid Sumaila, Professor, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia William Cheung, Professor, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia Marie Auger-Méthé, The University of British Columbia, Associate Professor, Vancouver, British Columbia YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WILL APPEAR HERE
Google Docs (docs.google.com)
-
Ecologists and other scientists concerned about Canada's proposals to Getting Major Projects Built? You may want to sign on to this open letter to the Government of Canada.
Call on the Federal Government to reject policy changes that weaken ocean protection
The Privy Council Office Government of Canada engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca Dear Privy Council Office, We are writing to express our deep concern about proposed changes outlined in the Government of Canada’s discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, released on May 8, 2026. Particularly, enabling pre-approved development zones (Federal Economic Zones), increasing flexibility for offsetting damage to fish and fish habitat, allowing Disposal at Sea, authorising construction activities prior to final impact decisions, and exempting projects from the Species at Risk Act jeopardy test could create irreversible harm to marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them. Healthy oceans are the foundation of lasting prosperity As an ocean nation with the world’s longest coastline, Canada depends on healthy marine ecosystems to sustain fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, climate regulation, cultural practices, and the food systems and rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Government of Canada has recognized that a sustainable blue economy must create opportunities and jobs while ensuring that the ocean remains healthy. This aligns closely to Prime Minister Carney’s vision of the economy expressed in his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All that highlights the need for markets and public policy to be grounded in broader values, including sustainability, resilience, fairness, responsibility, solidarity and humility. However, the proposed changes would undermine this vision by compressing environmental assessments, increasing reliance on offsets for damage to fish habitat, and creating detrimental pathways around species-at-risk safeguards. In pursuing short-term investment, Canada must not treat marine ecosystems and Indigenous relationships with ocean territories as constraints to development, but recognize them as foundations of lasting prosperity and well-being. Canada’s oceans already face multiple interacting pressures Marine ecosystems across Canada are already under stress from ocean warming, marine heatwaves, acidification, deoxygenation, habitat alteration, pollution, underwater noise, vessel traffic, fishing pressure and the cumulative effects of coastal development. Compressed assessment timelines may limit the collection and consideration of evidence needed to evaluate interacting and long-term effects. Greater flexibility in the use of fish-habitat offsets could allow additional habitat damage to proceed without adequately accounting for existing pressures or uncertain restoration outcomes. Pre-approved development zones and pathways around species-at-risk safeguards could further enable projects to be considered in isolation, even where their combined effects with existing activities and climate change may push already stressed ecosystems or vulnerable species beyond ecological thresholds. For marine ecosystems, where impacts accumulate across habitats, species and generations, effective decision-making requires more comprehensive assessment and protection, not less. Offsetting cannot replace irreplaceable marine ecosystems The proposed increased reliance on offsets assumes that ecological damage in one place can be compensated for by habitat restoration or creation elsewhere. Yet marine habitats are connected to local food webs, species movements, seasonal cycles, fisheries, Indigenous fishing practices and place-based cultural relationships. If harm has been avoided and minimized, restoration may address small residual impacts, but an offset cannot reliably replace critical habitat, a culturally significant fishing area or the ecological functions needed by species already under stress. Offsetting must not become a justification for approving avoidable damage to irreplaceable marine ecosystems. Species at risk must not be made expendable The proposal to allow exemptions, even under a high threshold, from the Species at Risk Act would weaken a fundamental safeguard against irreversible biodiversity loss. A major project should not proceed if it could undermine the survival or recovery of endangered species. The Southern Resident killer whale illustrates what is at stake: this distinct and endangered population already faces interacting threats from reduced prey availability, vessel disturbance, underwater noise and pollution. Projects that create undue stress are likely to result in losing an iconic and biologically unique population of whales that is invaluable to the whale-watching industry and central to west coast culture. Canada must honour its conservation and reconciliation commitments Canada has committed to conserving 30 percent of its marine and coastal areas by 2030, implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and advancing Indigenous-led conservation and reconciliation. Reforms that weaken habitat safeguards, accelerate project decisions or create exceptions to species-at-risk protections would undermine this progress. For many Indigenous communities, marine species and habitats are integral to food systems, stewardship responsibilities, law, identity, culture and relationships between people and nature. Major-project decisions must respect these rights and relationships from the outset, and Indigenous Peoples should not be treated as groups to be consulted within an accelerated approval process or accommodated after development priorities have been determined. We should not trade Canada’s future for short-term gains Faster approvals may promise near-term jobs and investment, but development that degrades ecosystems, diminishes fisheries or increases extinction risk transfers lasting costs to coastal communities, Indigenous Peoples and future generations. Marine biodiversity, healthy fisheries and resilient coastal ecosystems are forms of wealth that support food security, livelihoods, cultures, recreation and resilience to climate change. Canada’s assessment of public interest must therefore go beyond immediate construction investment and short-term GDP growth to recognize ecosystem health, equity and intergenerational well-being. Canada must reject any policy change that weakens ocean protection Canada must reject any policy change outlined in the discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, because Our Oceans are foundational to our country’s ecological and human health, our fisheries and tourism industries, and the well-being of Indigenous communities whose relationships with marine ecosystems are rooted in stewardship, reciprocity, and long-term care. A shift toward less protection would directly contradict Canada’s blue economy vision, its commitments to sustainability and regeneration, and its pledge to protect 30% of marine and coastal areas by 2030. At a time when oceans are already under mounting pressure from climate change, overfishing, and biodiversity loss, this is the moment for stronger protection—not less. Short-term economic gains cannot be allowed to undermine long-term ecological resilience, food security, cultural continuity as well as the infinite benefits that our oceans and fisheries can generate. The path forward for Canada is clear: protect more, restore more, and govern the ocean as the living foundation of a just and regenerative future. Sincerely, Rashid Sumaila, Professor, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia William Cheung, Professor, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia Marie Auger-Méthé, The University of British Columbia, Associate Professor, Vancouver, British Columbia YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WILL APPEAR HERE
Google Docs (docs.google.com)
Not just marine ecosystems: Freshwater & terrestrial systems are also at high risk from these proposals to circumvent Canada's Species At Riak Act (SARA).
-
Ecologists and other scientists concerned about Canada's proposals to Getting Major Projects Built? You may want to sign on to this open letter to the Government of Canada.
Call on the Federal Government to reject policy changes that weaken ocean protection
The Privy Council Office Government of Canada engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca Dear Privy Council Office, We are writing to express our deep concern about proposed changes outlined in the Government of Canada’s discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, released on May 8, 2026. Particularly, enabling pre-approved development zones (Federal Economic Zones), increasing flexibility for offsetting damage to fish and fish habitat, allowing Disposal at Sea, authorising construction activities prior to final impact decisions, and exempting projects from the Species at Risk Act jeopardy test could create irreversible harm to marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them. Healthy oceans are the foundation of lasting prosperity As an ocean nation with the world’s longest coastline, Canada depends on healthy marine ecosystems to sustain fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, climate regulation, cultural practices, and the food systems and rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Government of Canada has recognized that a sustainable blue economy must create opportunities and jobs while ensuring that the ocean remains healthy. This aligns closely to Prime Minister Carney’s vision of the economy expressed in his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All that highlights the need for markets and public policy to be grounded in broader values, including sustainability, resilience, fairness, responsibility, solidarity and humility. However, the proposed changes would undermine this vision by compressing environmental assessments, increasing reliance on offsets for damage to fish habitat, and creating detrimental pathways around species-at-risk safeguards. In pursuing short-term investment, Canada must not treat marine ecosystems and Indigenous relationships with ocean territories as constraints to development, but recognize them as foundations of lasting prosperity and well-being. Canada’s oceans already face multiple interacting pressures Marine ecosystems across Canada are already under stress from ocean warming, marine heatwaves, acidification, deoxygenation, habitat alteration, pollution, underwater noise, vessel traffic, fishing pressure and the cumulative effects of coastal development. Compressed assessment timelines may limit the collection and consideration of evidence needed to evaluate interacting and long-term effects. Greater flexibility in the use of fish-habitat offsets could allow additional habitat damage to proceed without adequately accounting for existing pressures or uncertain restoration outcomes. Pre-approved development zones and pathways around species-at-risk safeguards could further enable projects to be considered in isolation, even where their combined effects with existing activities and climate change may push already stressed ecosystems or vulnerable species beyond ecological thresholds. For marine ecosystems, where impacts accumulate across habitats, species and generations, effective decision-making requires more comprehensive assessment and protection, not less. Offsetting cannot replace irreplaceable marine ecosystems The proposed increased reliance on offsets assumes that ecological damage in one place can be compensated for by habitat restoration or creation elsewhere. Yet marine habitats are connected to local food webs, species movements, seasonal cycles, fisheries, Indigenous fishing practices and place-based cultural relationships. If harm has been avoided and minimized, restoration may address small residual impacts, but an offset cannot reliably replace critical habitat, a culturally significant fishing area or the ecological functions needed by species already under stress. Offsetting must not become a justification for approving avoidable damage to irreplaceable marine ecosystems. Species at risk must not be made expendable The proposal to allow exemptions, even under a high threshold, from the Species at Risk Act would weaken a fundamental safeguard against irreversible biodiversity loss. A major project should not proceed if it could undermine the survival or recovery of endangered species. The Southern Resident killer whale illustrates what is at stake: this distinct and endangered population already faces interacting threats from reduced prey availability, vessel disturbance, underwater noise and pollution. Projects that create undue stress are likely to result in losing an iconic and biologically unique population of whales that is invaluable to the whale-watching industry and central to west coast culture. Canada must honour its conservation and reconciliation commitments Canada has committed to conserving 30 percent of its marine and coastal areas by 2030, implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and advancing Indigenous-led conservation and reconciliation. Reforms that weaken habitat safeguards, accelerate project decisions or create exceptions to species-at-risk protections would undermine this progress. For many Indigenous communities, marine species and habitats are integral to food systems, stewardship responsibilities, law, identity, culture and relationships between people and nature. Major-project decisions must respect these rights and relationships from the outset, and Indigenous Peoples should not be treated as groups to be consulted within an accelerated approval process or accommodated after development priorities have been determined. We should not trade Canada’s future for short-term gains Faster approvals may promise near-term jobs and investment, but development that degrades ecosystems, diminishes fisheries or increases extinction risk transfers lasting costs to coastal communities, Indigenous Peoples and future generations. Marine biodiversity, healthy fisheries and resilient coastal ecosystems are forms of wealth that support food security, livelihoods, cultures, recreation and resilience to climate change. Canada’s assessment of public interest must therefore go beyond immediate construction investment and short-term GDP growth to recognize ecosystem health, equity and intergenerational well-being. Canada must reject any policy change that weakens ocean protection Canada must reject any policy change outlined in the discussion paper, Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, because Our Oceans are foundational to our country’s ecological and human health, our fisheries and tourism industries, and the well-being of Indigenous communities whose relationships with marine ecosystems are rooted in stewardship, reciprocity, and long-term care. A shift toward less protection would directly contradict Canada’s blue economy vision, its commitments to sustainability and regeneration, and its pledge to protect 30% of marine and coastal areas by 2030. At a time when oceans are already under mounting pressure from climate change, overfishing, and biodiversity loss, this is the moment for stronger protection—not less. Short-term economic gains cannot be allowed to undermine long-term ecological resilience, food security, cultural continuity as well as the infinite benefits that our oceans and fisheries can generate. The path forward for Canada is clear: protect more, restore more, and govern the ocean as the living foundation of a just and regenerative future. Sincerely, Rashid Sumaila, Professor, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia William Cheung, Professor, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia Marie Auger-Méthé, The University of British Columbia, Associate Professor, Vancouver, British Columbia YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WILL APPEAR HERE
Google Docs (docs.google.com)
First the hanging, then the trial: Canada to pre-approve "major" industrial projects without first vetting them for their environmental costs. It's as if this government sees no value in our natural environment. Or in upholding its commitments as a signatory of the UN Biodiversity Convention.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
