When legislation has the potential to reshape environmental protections, scientific expertise has an important role to play in the public conversation.
In response to concerns about Bill C-39, 56 Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada came together to sign an open letter raising questions about the Bill’s potential implications for environmental safeguards, biodiversity, and the long-term health of ecosystems.
The letter was spearheaded by Sarah (Sally) Otto, FRSC (Killam University Professor at the University of British Columbia), who explains what prompted the collective response, why scientific voices matter in policy discussions, and what she hopes policymakers and Canadians will take away from the letter.
This was a Member-led initiative, not a formal RSC submission or institutional position. The RSC supports Members in mobilizing their expertise and contributing to important public discussions in their individual capacities.
Q: What prompted you and the other 55 RSC Fellows to write and sign the open letter?
A: In discussions with scientists across the country, my colleagues and I were raising major concerns about Bill C-39, a large omnibus Bill that in several sections allowed environmental protections to be avoided or dismissed. Because the Government has sought rapid passage of Bill C-39, there has been limited time for scrutiny and debate. For example, a special Legislative Committee was formed in the House of Commons to study the Bill on October 8, 2026, but all Briefs had to be submitted by October 26, 2026. With less than three weeks for scientists to express their concerns, there was a very short window in which to act. A formal comment from the Royal Society of Canada would have been impossible.
So, with input from colleagues, I drafted a letter and sent it out to ~100 of the most esteemed scientists working in Canada on environmental and biodiversity issues, all Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada. Within one week we had 56 signatures!
In that week, we also updated the letter based on the suggestions received from Fellows, as well as checked with environmental lawyers to ensure that we had a correct legal understanding. Fellows were extremely encouraging about voicing our collective concerns, with comments like: “I strongly support the concerns raised. It is particularly important that changes with potentially significant environmental consequences are informed by rigorous scientific evidence and assessment."
Q: What are the key concerns or issues you hope to bring to public attention regarding Bill C-39?
A: We had one overriding concern: the concentration of broad new powers bypassing environmental safeguards. The new powers allowed under Bill C-39 include (i) allowing projects to begin before they are approved; (ii) allowing projects to pay a fee to destroy fish habitat without minimizing harms or ensuring offsets are sufficient; (iii) dismissing conditions for approval of a project because they are too costly; (iv) collapsing the time set aside to approve a project to a single year even when more study is needed; (v) pre-approving projects and regions of “national interest” regardless of the environmental damage they would cause or whether such damage can be reversed; and (vi) allowing a single Minister to dismiss environmental conditions for permits and Impact Assessments.
“I collaborated with the proponent of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project from the Environmental Impact Statement phase through the Environmental Impact Assessment and Review Panel. This process spanned seven to eight years—and that’s too long. However, a comprehensive environmental assessment cannot be completed within a single year without compromising ecological outcomes.”
– Villy Christensen, FRSC, Professor, The University of British Columbia
The letter concluded that: “We agree with the goal of the Government to ‘create the conditions needed for investment in projects that support jobs and economic growth…while protecting the environment’. As written, however, Bill C-39 countermands the environmental protections currently in place in Canadian law, laws written to avoid irreparable harms to species, ecosystems, natural resources, and human wellbeing and health.”
“When governments and industries talk about costs, we must consider not just economic costs, but environmental costs, which will be paid by our children and grandchildren. How do you quantify the cost of lost species or permanently damaged ecosystems? No one is against ‘increasing efficiencies’, but this Bill simply goes too far. Our environmental regulations and policies are based on solid evidence, not simply wishful thinking”.
– John P. Smol, FRSC, Distinguished University Professor, Queen’s University; Former President of the Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada
Q: Why is it important for members of the research community to engage in this discussion?
A: We, the scientists who signed the letter, are experts in environmental issues and in the protection of nature. We are also largely paid by public funds. Thus, we have an obligation, in my opinion, to voice concerns whenever there is a contradiction between a stated goal (“build...while protecting the environment”) and legislative or regulatory changes.
“In a rapidly evolving political climate, it is easy to lose sight of our essential core principles. Economic growth without ecological sustainability can only lead in the long run to even more wicked problems.”
– John Fryxell, FRSC, Professor, University of Guelph
Q: What would you like policymakers and the broader public to take away from the letter?
A: Policymakers and the broader public should know that Fellows with environmental expertise who have studied Bill C-39 find that it will not, as written, protect the environment. It allows large-scale projects to be approved, even if the environmental harms cannot be remediated. It allows conditions set to protect the environment to be dismissed if they are deemed too expensive, too slow, or too challenging for project approval.
I believe that we can build smarter, in ways that limit environmental harm, but Bill C-39 does not do that. Globally, scientists recommend that projects follow the mitigation hierarchy to reduce harms to nature: first avoid harm, then minimize it, then repair any damage caused, and finally offset, but Bill C-39 does not follow this hierarchy [REF1]. For fish habitat, Bill C-39 jumps straight over the hierarchy to offsetting. Offsetting is the last option on the hierarchy for a reason: it often does not work [REF2,3]. To work, environmental restoration has to occur in an ecologically equivalent area, and typically much more area must be restored than harmed to have a net positive effect on nature [REF4], but the Bill, as written, does not require that the offsets counterbalance the harms caused.
Together, 56 Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada wrote this letter because the Act, if it becomes law, would greatly expand the ability of the government to dismiss environmental conditions, allow activities that harm the environment before impacts are assessed, and approve projects that will cause irreparable harm for generations to come.
Related Documents
- Bill C-39 – Read Bill C-39 (PDF)
- Government's stated goal – Read the Cabinet Directive
References
- [REF1] Arlidge et al. (2018). A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience, 68(5), 336–347.
- [REF2] Pope et al. (2021). When is an offset not an offset? A framework of necessary conditions for biodiversity offsets. Environmental Management, 67(2), 424–435.
- [REF3] Office of the Auditor General of Canada – Read the report on critical habitat for species at risk.
- [REF4] Quigley et al. (2006). Effectiveness of fish habitat compensation in Canada in achieving no net loss. Environmental Management, 37(3), 351–366.