What Ottawa’s plans mean for B.C.’s wild salmon and their habitats.
Between the federal budget, proposed changes to development rules under Bill C-39, and a November parliamentary review of the Fisheries Act, Ottawa is doing a lot right now that could shape the future of B.C.’s wild salmon. A lot of it isn’t good.
In recent months, Watershed Watch has submitted budget recommendations, responded to the proposed federal approval reforms that preceded Bill C-39, and provided input on the National Water Security Strategy. We have also raised the alarm over cuts to salmon monitoring and enforcement.
We’re pressing Ottawa to fund wild salmon recovery and are pushing back on decisions that undermine it. While commitments for our oceans, nature and fisheries are welcome news, it cannot excuse weaker safeguards or damage to wild salmon and their habitats.
Here’s what this week’s federal budget delivers—and left out—for B.C.’s wild salmon, what we’re concerned about regarding Bill C-39, and what a new report from Parliament’s fisheries committee recommends for the Fisheries Act.
Big projects in salmon waters
Ottawa is betting on resource development, energy infrastructure and expanded trade routes to strengthen Canada’s economy. With a $62.3-billion deficit projected for 2026–27, the federal budget makes big choices about where public money goes.
In B.C., some projects Ottawa is advancing would impact watersheds and coastal habitats wild salmon depend on.
The budget highlights Roberts Bank Terminal 2, designated a project of national interest on October 30 under the existing Building Canada Act. The proposed terminal would increase the Port of Vancouver’s container-handling capacity by approximately 50%.
Watershed Watch has opposed the project because of the risks to the Fraser River estuary, vital habitat for young salmon heading to the ocean. Many Fraser salmon populations are already at risk; further habitat loss of high-value estuary habitat will increase that risk and make recovery harder.
The federal designation for the project acknowledges likely adverse effects, including lost chinook habitat, and relies on measures to reduce and compensate for the harm. Ottawa has decided the project’s benefits outweigh its potential adverse effects.
We cannot assume that creating or restoring habitat elsewhere will make up for damage to a place salmon need. The limits of compensation deserve as much attention as the trade benefits.
The budget also reiterates a $500-million federal contribution to the Red Chris mine expansion, announced in July. The mine is in the headwaters of the Iskut River, a major tributary of the Stikine, which is one of B.C.’s biggest salmon-producing rivers.
A 2025 SkeenaWild review of historical monitoring data documented contaminated seepage and tailings-management concerns. SkeenaWild also acknowledged work to address problems under Tahltan leadership.
Before public money helps expand the mine, the public deserves transparent evidence of improvements and enforceable safeguards against further damage.
Changing the rules for development
Ottawa is also advancing Bill C-39, the controversial Building Canada Strong Act. Separate from the budget, it remains before a House of Commons committee as of November 6.
The bill proposes one-year timelines for certain federal assessment and permitting decisions once required information and studies are complete. It would also coordinate permitting and combine certain federal approvals into a single decision.
One change would let developers buy habitat credits from other organizations. For example, an organization could restore habitat and earn credits certified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). A developer authorized to damage habitat could buy those credits to meet its compensation obligations. Credits could only be used within a defined geographic area.
The bill would also enable regulations allowing certain authorized projects to pay a fee into the Environmental Damages Fund instead of arranging their own habitat compensation. Ottawa describes this option as intended for projects with minor impacts.
Success depends on whether affected fish get usable habitat in the right place and at the right time. Money changing hands does not establish that. DFO’s own policy puts avoiding damage first, reducing unavoidable harm next and compensation last. It recognizes that some losses cannot be fully compensated for.
For certain projects, the bill would also require the minister to consider whether permit conditions are technically, economically and practically feasible. Our concern is that pressure to make a project workable could take precedence over the conditions needed to sustain fish and their habitat.
These proposals would arrive as B.C.’s incoming government prepares to pursue faster resource permits, fixed mining approval timelines and expanded LNG development. Their platform says they will maintain environmental standards, but it’s not clear how they plan to do this.
We will hold both governments to their promises. Approval timelines must leave room to identify serious risks, require changes and refuse unacceptable damage.
Monitoring and enforcement need people on the ground
A separate November review by Parliament’s fisheries committee supports habitat credits and restoration fees, while recommending that the law require an overall gain in fish habitat.
The committee also calls for stronger enforcement and the resources to carry it out, a public record of habitat compensation projects, better monitoring and corrective action when restoration falls short. These remain recommendations to government.
The budget proposes stronger fisheries fines and penalties, with $3.4 million over four years and $1 million annually ongoing, starting in 2027–28, to implement a system of administrative fines under the Fisheries Act.
That needs to be backed by people who inspect worksites, verify habitat gains and act when rules are broken. Bigger fines need effective investigation and enforcement to deter damage.
The Coastal GasLink crossing of the Clore River in 2024 shows why accountability matters. Our allies at Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition struggled to get clear answers after a construction site flooded and damaged fish habitat. An investigation documented conflicting federal and provincial accounts about whether a compliance and enforcement agreement existed.
Governments need to show who will inspect, answer complaints and enforce conditions, and how that work will be funded through construction and operation.
What the conservation funding needs to deliver
The budget highlights Canada’s previously announced Nature Strategy, listing $3.7 billion for it. It includes the $412.9-million, five-year renewal of the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative (PSSI), announced in April. DFO says the renewal will strengthen science and monitoring, restore habitat and modernize salmon fisheries, but over half a year later, they still haven’t laid out the plan. Meanwhile, they have slashed budgets for monitoring salmon streams (their most important job).
Related support comes through the B.C. Fisheries Fund, announced in August, with a $106.5-million joint federal-provincial commitment over five years. This fund supposedly builds on the former British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund, and will “continue to support the conservation and recovery of wild Pacific salmon.” However, with “market development and diversification for the commercial fishing sector” as a new pillar of the fund, we are concerned that this broader mandate could shift money away from wild salmon recovery and the funding needed to support people monitoring and restoring salmon habitat.
The Nature Strategy also includes $326.6 million over five years, with $65.3 million annually ongoing, for fish and fish habitat protection, including development reviews. As Ottawa advances more projects, that capacity needs to keep up.
The budget also proposes $38 million over four years, starting in 2027–28, for national aquatic invasive species work.
What the ocean commitments mean for B.C.
In September, Ottawa announced $1.2 billion over four years, starting in 2027–28, for marine safety, conservation and Indigenous partnerships. The budget reiterates this commitment, explicitly linking it to growing shipping traffic and expanded energy and trade infrastructure on the West Coast.
Among the announced measures are $740 million for marine safety and related safeguards, including traffic monitoring, spill preparedness and fisheries enforcement, and $136 million for marine life, including spill response and underwater noise reduction. The latter includes support for quieter ferries and tugs in the Salish Sea. Two things are worth noting here. First, these programs extend beyond B.C. and the budget does not specify a provincial share. Second, a major oil spill on our coast would be impossible to contain and clean up.
The budget identifies $186 million over four years for the Northern Shelf Bioregion Reconciliation Framework Agreement in the Great Bear Sea region. It supports joint marine management with First Nations, conservation, emergency preparedness and work addressing the combined effects of shipping and other development.
The September announcement also described negotiations on Indigenous-led stewardship and restoration in the Lower Fraser River and estuary, without identifying a separate funding amount.
These investments can reduce real risks. They also show the work needed to manage the additional pressures Ottawa’s development plans would create.
Ottawa still needs to deliver on its promises
Ahead of the budget, Watershed Watch recommended investments in the salmon farm transition (to closed containment by 2029), B.C.’s Watershed Security Fund, salmon science and better fishing practices, and long-term Lower Fraser flood protection. Some relevant commitments remain in place, but important funding gaps persist.
The salmon farm transition is a glaring gap. Ottawa has committed to banning open-net pen salmon farming in B.C.’s coastal waters by June 30, 2029, alongside a transition plan for the industry and affected workers. We could not identify new, dedicated funding in this budget to implement that transition.
On flooding, the budget carries forward a commitment of up to $20 million in 2026–27 for B.C. Under the July Canada–B.C. Cooperative Prosperity Agreement, this supports cost-shared planning and initial project management, including infrastructure and ecological planning to advance flood mitigation in Sumas Prairie.
This welcome investment helps prepare projects to move forward. Sustained funding is needed to complete flood defences that safeguard communities and farmland while reconnecting salmon with floodplain habitat. A dedicated, long-term Lower Fraser flood program would help see that work through.
The same agreement commits Ottawa to exploring a contribution to B.C.’s Watershed Security Fund through the Canada Water Agency. This budget does not identify that contribution. We will keep pressing for investment in healthy watersheds.
Healthy rivers, wetlands and floodplains supply drinking water, sustain fisheries and farms, and help communities withstand floods and drought. Safeguarding them is part of building a stronger economy.
Ottawa wants to move faster on major development. It needs the same determination to deliver salmon recovery, defend healthy watersheds, and support coastal communities. We’ll keep pushing Ottawa to fund the people restoring habitat and counting salmon, strengthen enforcement, and reject development that puts wild salmon at unnecessary risk. The goal is healthier rivers, more wild salmon returning to spawn and lasting benefits for the communities that depend on them.
Share This Story!
What Ottawa’s plans mean for B.C.’s wild salmon and their habitats.
Between the federal budget, proposed changes to development rules under Bill C-39, and a November parliamentary review of the Fisheries Act, Ottawa is doing a lot right now that could shape the future of B.C.’s wild salmon. A lot of it isn’t good.
In recent months, Watershed Watch has submitted budget recommendations, responded to the proposed federal approval reforms that preceded Bill C-39, and provided input on the National Water Security Strategy. We have also raised the alarm over cuts to salmon monitoring and enforcement.
We’re pressing Ottawa to fund wild salmon recovery and are pushing back on decisions that undermine it. While commitments for our oceans, nature and fisheries are welcome news, it cannot excuse weaker safeguards or damage to wild salmon and their habitats.
Here’s what this week’s federal budget delivers—and left out—for B.C.’s wild salmon, what we’re concerned about regarding Bill C-39, and what a new report from Parliament’s fisheries committee recommends for the Fisheries Act.
Big projects in salmon waters
Ottawa is betting on resource development, energy infrastructure and expanded trade routes to strengthen Canada’s economy. With a $62.3-billion deficit projected for 2026–27, the federal budget makes big choices about where public money goes.
In B.C., some projects Ottawa is advancing would impact watersheds and coastal habitats wild salmon depend on.
The budget highlights Roberts Bank Terminal 2, designated a project of national interest on October 30 under the existing Building Canada Act. The proposed terminal would increase the Port of Vancouver’s container-handling capacity by approximately 50%.
Watershed Watch has opposed the project because of the risks to the Fraser River estuary, vital habitat for young salmon heading to the ocean. Many Fraser salmon populations are already at risk; further habitat loss of high-value estuary habitat will increase that risk and make recovery harder.
The federal designation for the project acknowledges likely adverse effects, including lost chinook habitat, and relies on measures to reduce and compensate for the harm. Ottawa has decided the project’s benefits outweigh its potential adverse effects.
We cannot assume that creating or restoring habitat elsewhere will make up for damage to a place salmon need. The limits of compensation deserve as much attention as the trade benefits.
The budget also reiterates a $500-million federal contribution to the Red Chris mine expansion, announced in July. The mine is in the headwaters of the Iskut River, a major tributary of the Stikine, which is one of B.C.’s biggest salmon-producing rivers.
A 2025 SkeenaWild review of historical monitoring data documented contaminated seepage and tailings-management concerns. SkeenaWild also acknowledged work to address problems under Tahltan leadership.
Before public money helps expand the mine, the public deserves transparent evidence of improvements and enforceable safeguards against further damage.
Changing the rules for development
Ottawa is also advancing Bill C-39, the controversial Building Canada Strong Act. Separate from the budget, it remains before a House of Commons committee as of November 6.
The bill proposes one-year timelines for certain federal assessment and permitting decisions once required information and studies are complete. It would also coordinate permitting and combine certain federal approvals into a single decision.
One change would let developers buy habitat credits from other organizations. For example, an organization could restore habitat and earn credits certified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). A developer authorized to damage habitat could buy those credits to meet its compensation obligations. Credits could only be used within a defined geographic area.
The bill would also enable regulations allowing certain authorized projects to pay a fee into the Environmental Damages Fund instead of arranging their own habitat compensation. Ottawa describes this option as intended for projects with minor impacts.
Success depends on whether affected fish get usable habitat in the right place and at the right time. Money changing hands does not establish that. DFO’s own policy puts avoiding damage first, reducing unavoidable harm next and compensation last. It recognizes that some losses cannot be fully compensated for.
For certain projects, the bill would also require the minister to consider whether permit conditions are technically, economically and practically feasible. Our concern is that pressure to make a project workable could take precedence over the conditions needed to sustain fish and their habitat.
These proposals would arrive as B.C.’s incoming government prepares to pursue faster resource permits, fixed mining approval timelines and expanded LNG development. Their platform says they will maintain environmental standards, but it’s not clear how they plan to do this.
We will hold both governments to their promises. Approval timelines must leave room to identify serious risks, require changes and refuse unacceptable damage.
Monitoring and enforcement need people on the ground
A separate November review by Parliament’s fisheries committee supports habitat credits and restoration fees, while recommending that the law require an overall gain in fish habitat.
The committee also calls for stronger enforcement and the resources to carry it out, a public record of habitat compensation projects, better monitoring and corrective action when restoration falls short. These remain recommendations to government.
The budget proposes stronger fisheries fines and penalties, with $3.4 million over four years and $1 million annually ongoing, starting in 2027–28, to implement a system of administrative fines under the Fisheries Act.
That needs to be backed by people who inspect worksites, verify habitat gains and act when rules are broken. Bigger fines need effective investigation and enforcement to deter damage.
The Coastal GasLink crossing of the Clore River in 2024 shows why accountability matters. Our allies at Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition struggled to get clear answers after a construction site flooded and damaged fish habitat. An investigation documented conflicting federal and provincial accounts about whether a compliance and enforcement agreement existed.
Governments need to show who will inspect, answer complaints and enforce conditions, and how that work will be funded through construction and operation.
What the conservation funding needs to deliver
The budget highlights Canada’s previously announced Nature Strategy, listing $3.7 billion for it. It includes the $412.9-million, five-year renewal of the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative (PSSI), announced in April. DFO says the renewal will strengthen science and monitoring, restore habitat and modernize salmon fisheries, but over half a year later, they still haven’t laid out the plan. Meanwhile, they have slashed budgets for monitoring salmon streams (their most important job).
Related support comes through the B.C. Fisheries Fund, announced in August, with a $106.5-million joint federal-provincial commitment over five years. This fund supposedly builds on the former British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund, and will “continue to support the conservation and recovery of wild Pacific salmon.” However, with “market development and diversification for the commercial fishing sector” as a new pillar of the fund, we are concerned that this broader mandate could shift money away from wild salmon recovery and the funding needed to support people monitoring and restoring salmon habitat.
The Nature Strategy also includes $326.6 million over five years, with $65.3 million annually ongoing, for fish and fish habitat protection, including development reviews. As Ottawa advances more projects, that capacity needs to keep up.
The budget also proposes $38 million over four years, starting in 2027–28, for national aquatic invasive species work.
What the ocean commitments mean for B.C.
In September, Ottawa announced $1.2 billion over four years, starting in 2027–28, for marine safety, conservation and Indigenous partnerships. The budget reiterates this commitment, explicitly linking it to growing shipping traffic and expanded energy and trade infrastructure on the West Coast.
Among the announced measures are $740 million for marine safety and related safeguards, including traffic monitoring, spill preparedness and fisheries enforcement, and $136 million for marine life, including spill response and underwater noise reduction. The latter includes support for quieter ferries and tugs in the Salish Sea. Two things are worth noting here. First, these programs extend beyond B.C. and the budget does not specify a provincial share. Second, a major oil spill on our coast would be impossible to contain and clean up.
The budget identifies $186 million over four years for the Northern Shelf Bioregion Reconciliation Framework Agreement in the Great Bear Sea region. It supports joint marine management with First Nations, conservation, emergency preparedness and work addressing the combined effects of shipping and other development.
The September announcement also described negotiations on Indigenous-led stewardship and restoration in the Lower Fraser River and estuary, without identifying a separate funding amount.
These investments can reduce real risks. They also show the work needed to manage the additional pressures Ottawa’s development plans would create.
Ottawa still needs to deliver on its promises
Ahead of the budget, Watershed Watch recommended investments in the salmon farm transition (to closed containment by 2029), B.C.’s Watershed Security Fund, salmon science and better fishing practices, and long-term Lower Fraser flood protection. Some relevant commitments remain in place, but important funding gaps persist.
The salmon farm transition is a glaring gap. Ottawa has committed to banning open-net pen salmon farming in B.C.’s coastal waters by June 30, 2029, alongside a transition plan for the industry and affected workers. We could not identify new, dedicated funding in this budget to implement that transition.
On flooding, the budget carries forward a commitment of up to $20 million in 2026–27 for B.C. Under the July Canada–B.C. Cooperative Prosperity Agreement, this supports cost-shared planning and initial project management, including infrastructure and ecological planning to advance flood mitigation in Sumas Prairie.
This welcome investment helps prepare projects to move forward. Sustained funding is needed to complete flood defences that safeguard communities and farmland while reconnecting salmon with floodplain habitat. A dedicated, long-term Lower Fraser flood program would help see that work through.
The same agreement commits Ottawa to exploring a contribution to B.C.’s Watershed Security Fund through the Canada Water Agency. This budget does not identify that contribution. We will keep pressing for investment in healthy watersheds.
Healthy rivers, wetlands and floodplains supply drinking water, sustain fisheries and farms, and help communities withstand floods and drought. Safeguarding them is part of building a stronger economy.
Ottawa wants to move faster on major development. It needs the same determination to deliver salmon recovery, defend healthy watersheds, and support coastal communities. We’ll keep pushing Ottawa to fund the people restoring habitat and counting salmon, strengthen enforcement, and reject development that puts wild salmon at unnecessary risk. The goal is healthier rivers, more wild salmon returning to spawn and lasting benefits for the communities that depend on them.
Share This Story!
What Ottawa’s plans mean for B.C.’s wild salmon and their habitats.
Between the federal budget, proposed changes to development rules under Bill C-39, and a November parliamentary review of the Fisheries Act, Ottawa is doing a lot right now that could shape the future of B.C.’s wild salmon. A lot of it isn’t good.
In recent months, Watershed Watch has submitted budget recommendations, responded to the proposed federal approval reforms that preceded Bill C-39, and provided input on the National Water Security Strategy. We have also raised the alarm over cuts to salmon monitoring and enforcement.
We’re pressing Ottawa to fund wild salmon recovery and are pushing back on decisions that undermine it. While commitments for our oceans, nature and fisheries are welcome news, it cannot excuse weaker safeguards or damage to wild salmon and their habitats.
Here’s what this week’s federal budget delivers—and left out—for B.C.’s wild salmon, what we’re concerned about regarding Bill C-39, and what a new report from Parliament’s fisheries committee recommends for the Fisheries Act.
Big projects in salmon waters
Ottawa is betting on resource development, energy infrastructure and expanded trade routes to strengthen Canada’s economy. With a $62.3-billion deficit projected for 2026–27, the federal budget makes big choices about where public money goes.
In B.C., some projects Ottawa is advancing would impact watersheds and coastal habitats wild salmon depend on.
The budget highlights Roberts Bank Terminal 2, designated a project of national interest on October 30 under the existing Building Canada Act. The proposed terminal would increase the Port of Vancouver’s container-handling capacity by approximately 50%.
Watershed Watch has opposed the project because of the risks to the Fraser River estuary, vital habitat for young salmon heading to the ocean. Many Fraser salmon populations are already at risk; further habitat loss of high-value estuary habitat will increase that risk and make recovery harder.
The federal designation for the project acknowledges likely adverse effects, including lost chinook habitat, and relies on measures to reduce and compensate for the harm. Ottawa has decided the project’s benefits outweigh its potential adverse effects.
We cannot assume that creating or restoring habitat elsewhere will make up for damage to a place salmon need. The limits of compensation deserve as much attention as the trade benefits.
The budget also reiterates a $500-million federal contribution to the Red Chris mine expansion, announced in July. The mine is in the headwaters of the Iskut River, a major tributary of the Stikine, which is one of B.C.’s biggest salmon-producing rivers.
A 2025 SkeenaWild review of historical monitoring data documented contaminated seepage and tailings-management concerns. SkeenaWild also acknowledged work to address problems under Tahltan leadership.
Before public money helps expand the mine, the public deserves transparent evidence of improvements and enforceable safeguards against further damage.
Changing the rules for development
Ottawa is also advancing Bill C-39, the controversial Building Canada Strong Act. Separate from the budget, it remains before a House of Commons committee as of November 6.
The bill proposes one-year timelines for certain federal assessment and permitting decisions once required information and studies are complete. It would also coordinate permitting and combine certain federal approvals into a single decision.
One change would let developers buy habitat credits from other organizations. For example, an organization could restore habitat and earn credits certified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). A developer authorized to damage habitat could buy those credits to meet its compensation obligations. Credits could only be used within a defined geographic area.
The bill would also enable regulations allowing certain authorized projects to pay a fee into the Environmental Damages Fund instead of arranging their own habitat compensation. Ottawa describes this option as intended for projects with minor impacts.
Success depends on whether affected fish get usable habitat in the right place and at the right time. Money changing hands does not establish that. DFO’s own policy puts avoiding damage first, reducing unavoidable harm next and compensation last. It recognizes that some losses cannot be fully compensated for.
For certain projects, the bill would also require the minister to consider whether permit conditions are technically, economically and practically feasible. Our concern is that pressure to make a project workable could take precedence over the conditions needed to sustain fish and their habitat.
These proposals would arrive as B.C.’s incoming government prepares to pursue faster resource permits, fixed mining approval timelines and expanded LNG development. Their platform says they will maintain environmental standards, but it’s not clear how they plan to do this.
We will hold both governments to their promises. Approval timelines must leave room to identify serious risks, require changes and refuse unacceptable damage.
Monitoring and enforcement need people on the ground
A separate November review by Parliament’s fisheries committee supports habitat credits and restoration fees, while recommending that the law require an overall gain in fish habitat.
The committee also calls for stronger enforcement and the resources to carry it out, a public record of habitat compensation projects, better monitoring and corrective action when restoration falls short. These remain recommendations to government.
The budget proposes stronger fisheries fines and penalties, with $3.4 million over four years and $1 million annually ongoing, starting in 2027–28, to implement a system of administrative fines under the Fisheries Act.
That needs to be backed by people who inspect worksites, verify habitat gains and act when rules are broken. Bigger fines need effective investigation and enforcement to deter damage.
The Coastal GasLink crossing of the Clore River in 2024 shows why accountability matters. Our allies at Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition struggled to get clear answers after a construction site flooded and damaged fish habitat. An investigation documented conflicting federal and provincial accounts about whether a compliance and enforcement agreement existed.
Governments need to show who will inspect, answer complaints and enforce conditions, and how that work will be funded through construction and operation.
What the conservation funding needs to deliver
The budget highlights Canada’s previously announced Nature Strategy, listing $3.7 billion for it. It includes the $412.9-million, five-year renewal of the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative (PSSI), announced in April. DFO says the renewal will strengthen science and monitoring, restore habitat and modernize salmon fisheries, but over half a year later, they still haven’t laid out the plan. Meanwhile, they have slashed budgets for monitoring salmon streams (their most important job).
Related support comes through the B.C. Fisheries Fund, announced in August, with a $106.5-million joint federal-provincial commitment over five years. This fund supposedly builds on the former British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund, and will “continue to support the conservation and recovery of wild Pacific salmon.” However, with “market development and diversification for the commercial fishing sector” as a new pillar of the fund, we are concerned that this broader mandate could shift money away from wild salmon recovery and the funding needed to support people monitoring and restoring salmon habitat.
The Nature Strategy also includes $326.6 million over five years, with $65.3 million annually ongoing, for fish and fish habitat protection, including development reviews. As Ottawa advances more projects, that capacity needs to keep up.
The budget also proposes $38 million over four years, starting in 2027–28, for national aquatic invasive species work.
What the ocean commitments mean for B.C.
In September, Ottawa announced $1.2 billion over four years, starting in 2027–28, for marine safety, conservation and Indigenous partnerships. The budget reiterates this commitment, explicitly linking it to growing shipping traffic and expanded energy and trade infrastructure on the West Coast.
Among the announced measures are $740 million for marine safety and related safeguards, including traffic monitoring, spill preparedness and fisheries enforcement, and $136 million for marine life, including spill response and underwater noise reduction. The latter includes support for quieter ferries and tugs in the Salish Sea. Two things are worth noting here. First, these programs extend beyond B.C. and the budget does not specify a provincial share. Second, a major oil spill on our coast would be impossible to contain and clean up.
The budget identifies $186 million over four years for the Northern Shelf Bioregion Reconciliation Framework Agreement in the Great Bear Sea region. It supports joint marine management with First Nations, conservation, emergency preparedness and work addressing the combined effects of shipping and other development.
The September announcement also described negotiations on Indigenous-led stewardship and restoration in the Lower Fraser River and estuary, without identifying a separate funding amount.
These investments can reduce real risks. They also show the work needed to manage the additional pressures Ottawa’s development plans would create.
Ottawa still needs to deliver on its promises
Ahead of the budget, Watershed Watch recommended investments in the salmon farm transition (to closed containment by 2029), B.C.’s Watershed Security Fund, salmon science and better fishing practices, and long-term Lower Fraser flood protection. Some relevant commitments remain in place, but important funding gaps persist.
The salmon farm transition is a glaring gap. Ottawa has committed to banning open-net pen salmon farming in B.C.’s coastal waters by June 30, 2029, alongside a transition plan for the industry and affected workers. We could not identify new, dedicated funding in this budget to implement that transition.
On flooding, the budget carries forward a commitment of up to $20 million in 2026–27 for B.C. Under the July Canada–B.C. Cooperative Prosperity Agreement, this supports cost-shared planning and initial project management, including infrastructure and ecological planning to advance flood mitigation in Sumas Prairie.
This welcome investment helps prepare projects to move forward. Sustained funding is needed to complete flood defences that safeguard communities and farmland while reconnecting salmon with floodplain habitat. A dedicated, long-term Lower Fraser flood program would help see that work through.
The same agreement commits Ottawa to exploring a contribution to B.C.’s Watershed Security Fund through the Canada Water Agency. This budget does not identify that contribution. We will keep pressing for investment in healthy watersheds.
Healthy rivers, wetlands and floodplains supply drinking water, sustain fisheries and farms, and help communities withstand floods and drought. Safeguarding them is part of building a stronger economy.
Ottawa wants to move faster on major development. It needs the same determination to deliver salmon recovery, defend healthy watersheds, and support coastal communities. We’ll keep pushing Ottawa to fund the people restoring habitat and counting salmon, strengthen enforcement, and reject development that puts wild salmon at unnecessary risk. The goal is healthier rivers, more wild salmon returning to spawn and lasting benefits for the communities that depend on them.
Share This Story!
