Opinion: Before Canada builds faster, we need to think with a longer view

Over the past months, two humpback whale incidents off the coasts of B.C. caught the public and media’s attention. In late September, marine mammal specialists with Fisheries and Oceans Canada worked for two days to disentangle a whale from fishing gear off the coast of Vancouver Island, mobilizing expertise, vessels, and public resources to free the whale. More recently, DFO is again searching for a whale that was struck by a B.C. Ferries vessel, hoping to determine the extent of the injury. Few people would question those efforts.

Yet together these incidents highlight a broader lesson. Society is often willing to invest significant resources to respond once environmental harm becomes visible, while paying far less attention to preventing damage before it occurs. In some cases, intervention is possible. In many others, environmental impacts are difficult, expensive or impossible to reverse. By the time ecological damage becomes apparent, recovery may require years of effort and substantial public investment.

These lessons should inform how we think about the federal government’s Building Canada Strong Act (Bill C-39). The question is not whether Canada should build. The question is whether efforts to accelerate major project approvals could reduce opportunities for independent scientific review before decisions with generational consequences are made. Canada can build faster, but parliament should ensure that independent scientific review remains a robust part of decision-making under Bill C-39.

Ecosystems often fail from the bottom up. The ecological changes that drive declining fish populations, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation frequently begin long before they become visible. Marine researchers are already documenting shifts in plankton communities, species distributions and food-web structure across the Northeast Pacific as ocean conditions change. Some of these changes are associated with warming waters, marine heatwaves and declining oxygen levels, while others reflect natural climate variability. Distinguishing between the two requires sustained monitoring and scientific expertise. By the time impacts become obvious, the decisions that contributed to them may be long forgotten and recovery can require decades of effort and public investment. Ecology repeatedly teaches us that prevention is easier and cheaper than restoration.

That reality matters because Bill C-39 is intended to accelerate major infrastructure and development projects. Canada needs ports, transportation corridors, energy projects and other infrastructure that strengthen our economy and improve our resilience in an uncertain world. But scientists and environmental organizations worry that efforts to speed approvals may reduce opportunities for independent scientific review while placing greater responsibility on political decision-makers to evaluate long-term environmental risks. The federal government maintains that environmental protections will remain in place while making reviews more efficient.

Scientific review is often portrayed as an obstacle to development. Its purpose is something quite different: identifying risks before they become permanent realities. Environmental assessment is society’s attempt to understand long-term consequences before making irreversible decisions. Unlike a bridge failure or a stock market crash, ecological consequences rarely announce themselves immediately. Cause and effect may be separated by years or decades. Independent science helps identify those risks before future taxpayers and communities are left to manage the consequences. Ecological systems do not respond to election cycles or project-approval timelines, which is why evidence, monitoring and scientific expertise matter.