The petition raises concerns about Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s use of risk management frameworks to determine when a letter of advice is issued in place of a Fisheries Act authorization for works, undertakings, or activities that have residual negative effects on fish and fish habitats.
According to the petition, small, low-risk projects often proceed with a letter of advice instead of an authorization and have no requirement to offset any residual harm to fish and their habitat. The petition argues that letters of advice are non‑regulatory, are not recognized under the Fisheries Act, and bypass legal requirements for offsetting negative effects and for Indigenous consultation under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act,
1982, Part II.
The petition seeks clarification from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada on whether issuing letters of advice introduces legal or constitutional issues, such as violating section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act or the duty to consult Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the petition inquires about Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s risk management framework, including how risk is defined, how thresholds are determined, and whether guiding principles align with international best practices.
The petition also asks about accountability and effectiveness, such as how Fisheries and Oceans Canada calculates its reported success rates in avoiding or mitigating habitat impacts, the number of letters of advice issued since 2005, and the evidence supporting mitigation and
offsetting measures.