There are moments in conservation work when science, policy, and lived experience of the ocean begin to align in uncomfortable clarity. This is one of those moments.
Across Canada’s three coasts, people share the same ocean with whales—often without seeing them, but always connected to them. In the Salish Sea, the North Atlantic, and Arctic waters, whales are navigating the same pressures: noise, vessel traffic, shifting prey availability, and the slow accumulation of stressors that rarely make headlines but increasingly shape survival.
And right now, the question is not whether we understand what is happening. It is what we choose to do with that understanding.
That is why right now, GSA is working hard to:
Speak up for whales and the Salish Sea
The federal government is currently accepting feedback on proposals that could weaken environmental protections and species-at-risk safeguards until June 7. If you believe endangered species should not be traded for short-term industrial development, we encourage you to make your voice heard through our online letter-writing and calling tools.
Bring the whale conservation to Parliament Hill
Through Whales Are in Our Nature, co-hosted with Oceans North and the Canadian Wildlife Federation, we are joining Indigenous leaders, researchers, policymakers, and conservation practitioners in Ottawa to advance practical solutions for whales across Canada’s three coasts.
Follow along from the ground in Ottawa: Throughout the event (June 8–11, 2026), we’ll be sharing updates, insights, photos, and key developments directly from Parliament Hill and meetings with decision-makers. Follow us on social media to stay connected and learn how you can continue supporting this work.
Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn
At their core, these efforts are about ensuring that decisions affecting our oceans are guided by science, accountability, and a commitment to future generations. While the challenges facing whales are complex, the consequences of inaction are becoming increasingly clear.
Why take action and follow us on the Hill? Let me tell you more.
From shore, we look at the ocean, and everything looks normal. Ferries move on schedule. Cargo ships trace familiar routes. Fishing vessels work predictable lines. Ports hum with constant motion. It feels, in many ways, like always. But for whales, this is a different world entirely. It is a soundscape dominated by engines. A foraging environment where prey is harder to locate and harder still to catch when vessel noise increases. A landscape of movement corridors carved into fragments by growing industrial use. And for Southern Resident killer whales (SRKWs)—now just 74 individuals—every added disruption matters.
Recovery measures exist. But they only work if they are strong enough, sustained long enough, and applied consistently across the system. The truth we return to again and again is simple: whales do not need protection in principle. They need conditions in which survival is actually possible.
What recovery looks like when it is allowed to work
There is a reason people in whale conservation keep returning to stories of recovery. Not out of nostalgia, but because they work. Where pressure has been reduced—through whaling bans, stronger shipping regulations, improved habitat protections, and sustained enforcement—whale populations have responded. Not instantly, and not everywhere equally, but measurably. We see it in the rebound of humpback populations in multiple regions. In North Atlantic right whales, intensive and imperfect management efforts are still attempting to hold the line. In localized gains for belugas, where protections have remained in place long enough to matter. These are not miracles. They are outcomes of decisions.
That is what makes this moment so consequential. We already know recovery is possible. The question is whether we are willing to do what recovery actually requires. The Salish Sea is one of the most intensely used marine regions in the country. Ferries and shipping traffic overlap with SRKW foraging areas. Fishing activity shares space with endangered whales searching for Chinook salmon. Recreational boating, industrial transport, and coastal communities all depend on the same waters. In this context, conservation becomes less about abstract protection and more about operational choices: vessel distance and speed, fishing timing and location, interim measures to reduce levels of underwater noise, and whether disturbance is treated as a manageable impact or an unavoidable baseline.
And it is also about people. No workable solution exists without fishers, First Nations, coastal communities, and industry at the table. The ocean is shared. Any path forward has to be shared too.
The push and pull: progress and pressure
Recent federal investments signal growing recognition of the scale of the crisis: increased funding for marine protection, monitoring, and noise reduction, alongside proposed regulatory changes such as expanded vessel setback distances for SRKW to 1000m. These are meaningful steps. They reflect years of advocacy, science, Indigenous leadership, and community engagement. Your voice included.
But alongside this progress, another set of proposals is emerging. Accelerated approval pathways for major infrastructure projects would significantly shorten environmental assessment timelines. Within these discussions sits a more difficult question: whether species-at-risk protections could be overridden if a project is deemed in the “public interest.”
If Southern Resident killer whales can be weighed against a pipeline deemed today as of “public interest”, what is weighed tomorrow? Belugas against a port expansion? Salmon against a shipping corridor? Caribou for a mining expansion? These are not abstract policy debates for those working in marine conservation. They are foreseeable pathways with real consequences, including the loss of species that we as Canadians consider our identity, and our collective responsibility to future generations.
Call to Action: where urgency meets decision-making
Embedded within proposals to fast-track major projects—and compress environmental assessments and permitting decisions into less than a year—is a significant weakening of the Species at Risk Act. One of the most alarming changes is the potential erosion of the Act’s “jeopardy test,” a critical legal safeguard designed to prevent the approval of activities that could threaten the survival or recovery of endangered species, including Southern Resident killer whales. Exempting projects from this test would strip away one of the few enforceable protections currently standing between SRKWs and further industrial expansion, pushing this already fragile population closer to extinction.
At the same time, the proposed establishment of “Federal Economic Zones” (FEZs) would pre-designate regions for major infrastructure and industrial projects with accelerated approvals and reduced project-by-project environmental review. Energy corridors, ports, pipelines, and associated developments could move forward with limited oversight of their cumulative ecological impacts.
For the Salish Sea, the implications are profound. Without strong environmental standards and oversight, a globally significant marine ecosystem risks becoming an industrial corridor shaped by mounting noise, vessel traffic, habitat disruption, and intensified extraction. Environmental assessments and the Species at Risk Act are not barriers to progress—they are the mechanisms that push governments and industry toward better practices, innovation, accountability, and higher standards. They exist to ensure development is designed responsibly, with long-term ecological health and species survival in mind, rather than treating environmental harm as an acceptable cost of doing business.
If this resonates with you, please take action. The federal government is currently accepting feedback until June 7th. This is a critical opportunity to speak up if you do not want to see extinction traded for extraction.
Whales Are in Our Nature: continuing the work on the Hill
Alongside this call to action, work continues through Whales Are in Our Nature, co-hosted with Oceans North and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.
This gathering brings together Indigenous leaders, researchers, policymakers, and conservation practitioners for four days of focused work. It is not symbolic—it is structured around urgent, practical challenges:
- Entanglement solutions for North Atlantic right whales
- Noise reduction and sustainable ocean planning
- Spatial protection, monitoring, and stewardship
Through theme-based sessions designed for federal staff and parliamentarians, the event will create opportunities to deepen understanding of the threats facing whales, explore practical and collaborative solutions, and strengthen strategic policy and advocacy efforts aimed at long-term marine protection and stewardship. We hope this event serves as a meaningful reminder to government officials—including Members of Parliament, Senators, and Ministers—of the vital importance of healthy oceans and nature, not only for marine species and ecosystems, but for the communities, livelihoods, and cultural connections that depend on them.
What happens next matters
One of the challenges in moments like this is pace. Policy announcements, consultations, field realities, and ecological change rarely move in sync. That gap can make it difficult to see the full picture as it unfolds. We want to help close that gap, making it easier to follow what is happening, what it means, and where decisions are heading. Updates—including policy developments, field actions, and event coverage—will continue through Georgia Strait Alliance’s organizational channels, partner networks, and on-the-ground reporting during key moments. We will help bring forward what is happening in real time and ensure decision-makers hear clearly what people across the region are concerned about and calling for.
At its core, this is not a debate about whether development should happen. It is a question of design and standards. Can we build systems where extraction does not automatically outweigh survival? Where “public interest” meaningfully includes the future of species that cannot recover once lost?