Royal Society fellows warn Bill C-39 risks irreversible harm, seek six amendments Fifty-six fellows of the Royal Society of Canada are urging Prime Minister Mark Carney and parliamentarians to amend Bill C-39, warning the fast-track approvals legislation could cause costly and potentially irreversible environmental harm. Fifty-six fellows of the Royal Society of Canada are warning that Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, risks costly and potentially irreversible harm to the environment unless it is amended. In an open letter released Thursday, the scientists and scholars call on Prime Minister Mark Carney and parliamentary committees to drop or rewrite provisions they say weaken protections for species at risk, ecosystems, natural resources and human well-being. The letter has been submitted as a brief to key parliamentarians. The recommendations are not the official position of the Royal Society of Canada, a national academy of scientists, scholars and artists.A spokesperson said the organization was not involved in organizing or mobilizing the letter. Society president Francoise Baylis said in an emailed statement that the group supports its members in drawing on their expertise to contribute to important public discussions and work toward better outcomes for Canada. The scientists outline six specific amendments. They say the changes are needed for the government to keep its promise to protect nature.While they support the bill central aim of streamlining project assessments, they argue several clauses must be altered or scrapped entirely. The letter states that clauses left unamended risk costly and potentially irreversible harm to Canada natural heritage and would fail the law stated aim of building projects while maintaining strong environmental protections.Sarah Otto, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia who initiated the letter, said the bill is moving quickly without expert input and asks Canadians to just trust that the government will do the right thing for nature. In an interview, she said Bill C-39 as drafted puts aside a lot of the environmental regulations and laws in place in Canada to protect nature, waters and air.Scientists Warn Of Irreversible Environmental HarmShe said the harms often cannot be fixed, so the country is borrowing from the natural resources of future generations to pay for economic growth now. One key concern is a provision that would give a federal environment minister extraordinary authority to allow enabling activities the minister specifies before a project is approved, if the minister considers it in the public interest that they be carried out first. The bill does not define those activities.The letter warns they could include site clearing, dredging and road work. Nancy Macdonald, a spokesperson for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, said such activities would continue to be subject to conditions, including to mitigate and remediate adverse effects in federal jurisdiction, and would still require relevant permits. She added that approval of early works does not guarantee a positive outcome for the impact assessment.John Smol, an ecologist at Queen University in Kingston, asked what would happen if a lake or wetland were drained for a project that was later rejected. He said you cannot simply put water back in, because that is not how ecology works, adding that the toothpaste is out of the tube.Catherine Potvin, a McGill University biologist, said in an email that the bill completely bypasses the precautionary principle, the idea that potentially harmful activities should not go ahead until their risks are understood. Jeremy Kerr, a biologist at the University of Ottawa, said the concern is burning the barn down while the horse is still inside.Experts Criticize Weakening Of Permit SafeguardsThe scientists also want the bill to drop the test requiring regulators to weigh whether environmental conditions on permits are technically, economically and practically feasible. They say this weakens safeguards exactly where they are most needed. The letter further objects to fees companies could pay under revisions to the Fisheries Act instead of restoring the fish habitat they damage.The scientists want the bill to require companies to avoid and minimize harm first, and to fully compensate for any harm they do cause. Mike Campbell, a spokesperson for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, said in a statement that fees would be held to the same standard for counterbalancing project impacts as other forms of offsetting. He added that the calibration of fees relative to impacts for eligible projects would be done through regulations and policy.Campbell also said the fisheries department will meet the one-year timelines for Fisheries Act reviews once companies provide all required studies and information. He did not say how long reviews typically take but said a new concierge service will help companies prepare strong and complete submissions. Otto said her biggest concern is the bill expansion of the Building Canada Act, which passed last year.Bill C-39 would scrap that law five-year sunset clause and let cabinet designate regions of national interest of undefined size. The letter asks that the sunset be kept and the regions defined. The scientists also want the bill to drop new powers that would see a single minister remove environmental conditions on permits and assessments. And they want the bill to allow decisions to take longer than its one-year deadline when needed.Villy Christensen, a UBC fisheries scientist who advised the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority on ecosystem modelling for its Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion, said the project review took around seven years. He said he agrees with the government that the way it works now takes too long, but he cannot see how one can do a credible job with the time constraints being added. Smol added that ecosystems run on a different clock.He said political and industrial projects are by and large temporary, measured in years, while ecosystem damage can be permanent. The bill proposes to accelerate the regulatory approval process for nation-building energy and infrastructure projects while addressing labour uncertainty. It was tabled on the first day of the fall sitting and cleared its first parliamentary hurdle three weeks later.Government Touts Bill Despite PushbackIn a press release, the government touted the bill as the most comprehensive and ambitious reform to Canada ability to get big things built in a generation. Despite assertions from senior government officials and federal ministers that the bill upholds environmental standards and Indigenous rights, there has been considerable pushback, including climate activists bringing their discontent to Parliament Hill.Labour groups have sounded alarms over changes to the Canada Labour Code rules around collective bargaining included in the bill, which they say will have adverse consequences for workers and strip them of their right to strike. Business and industry stakeholders have welcomed the legislative package, which also proposes to create zones of national interest and ensure federal assessments of new projects take no longer than one year and are coordinated under a new streamlined process.So far, it has largely been these pro-commerce and manufacturing voices that have been given a platform to speak to the bill in front of the special committee struck to study it on an accelerated timeline. The bill has been sent to a specially constructed House Committee, where MPs will focus exclusively on the legislation and no other issue, unlike standing committees that must juggle multiple bills and studies at the same time.Committee Votes To Advance LegislationOf the 12 members tasked with studying the legislation, 11 have already voted in favour of it. The sole MP who voted against the legislation at second reading is Bloc Quebecois MP Gabriel Ste-Marie. Both the Liberals and Conservatives are fully backing it. Neither Green Party MP Elizabeth May nor any NDP MPs were invited to join the committee.NDP Parliamentary Leader Don Davies said in an interview that the only vehicle open to parliamentarians is to amend the bill, but that process is severely limited. He said the committee stage is the only stage where Canadians get to weigh in, and it is vital because listening to Canadians often reveals flaws that can form the basis for amendments.However, in this case the Liberals have limited the amount of time to hear from witnesses they have not hand-selected to eight hours. Davies said the inescapable conclusion is that Carney is not interested in hearing opposition. Otto said the experts behind the letter have requested to appear as witnesses, but they have not been invited yet.