What the Discovery Islands Salmon Aquaculture Ruling Really Means

The Discovery Islands ruling is not a victory for wild salmon. It is a victory for ministerial discretion exercised without an obligation to prove results.

Analysis
By Fabian Dawson
SeaWestNews

This week’s Federal Court of Appeal ruling on salmon farming in British Columbia’s Discovery Islands has been widely framed by anti–fish farming activists as a victory for wild salmon.

It is nothing of the sort.

What the Court delivered was not an environmental judgment, but a constitutional and administrative one. It did not weigh biology, measure ecological outcomes, or rule on whether salmon farms harm wild fish. Instead, it clarified who holds the final authority when science, policy, and politics collide.

In essence, the central takeaway from the ruling is that federal ministers retain the legal authority to make fisheries policy decisions even when scientific evidence does not support them. So long as a decision is explained and procedural rules are followed, political judgment can lawfully prevail over scientific conclusions, the Court ruled.

That matters most in resource policy areas like salmon farming, where such latitude allows electoral considerations and activist pressure to outweigh what the science says.

The Discovery Islands dispute dates back to the 2020 decision to begin phasing out open-net salmon farming in the region, following sustained activist campaigns claiming fish farms threatened wild salmon migration.

That Trudeau-era decision was justified on the basis of “social licence and acceptability,” rather than new scientific findings demonstrating harm.

Legal challenges from salmon-farming companies and affected First Nations followed, producing years of litigation, ministerial reconsiderations, and renewed licence denials before the matter reached the Federal Court of Appeal.

In this case, the Court accepted that federal scientists and the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) conducted multiple peer-reviewed risk assessments concluding the Discovery Islands’ aquaculture operations posed no more than a minimal risk to wild stocks. The Court also accepted that Fisheries and Oceans departmental officials advised against closing the Discovery Islands farms.

Under the Fisheries Act, the Court ruled, ministers have broad discretion to weigh science alongside other considerations, including broader policy objectives. As long as a decision is explained and procedural fairness is respected, courts will not re-weigh the evidence or substitute their own judgment.

This ruling weakens science as a legal anchor. Once scientific findings are no longer determinative, environmental regulation becomes far more exposed to political pressure.

That exposure matters most in highly charged policy spaces like salmon farming, where organized activist campaigns are persistent, media-savvy, and politically influential. When science no longer decides outcomes, the safest political choice is often not to follow the data, but to respond to pressure.

That is why this ruling has implications far beyond aquaculture. Any regulated resource sector operating under federal discretion now faces the same reality that science may inform decisions, but it does not protect them.

If the Discovery Islands closures were meant to deliver a clear ecological payoff, the evidence to date has been underwhelming.

Peer-reviewed studies published after the Discovery Islands farms were removed show that sea-lice levels on wild juvenile salmon have remained high, even in the complete absence of salmon farms. In some years, they have been among the highest recorded in the region.

Researchers have documented similar patterns in the Broughton Archipelago and other coastal areas, regardless of whether salmon farms are present. Environmental drivers such as ocean temperature, salinity, and habitat degradation play a far more significant role than aquaculture.

A landmark review published in Aquaculture, Fish and Fisheries, analyzing more than two decades of data, reached the same conclusion. Marine net-pen salmon farms in British Columbia were found to have no more than minimal impact on wild Pacific salmon populations, with no solid evidence linking farm-origin pathogens to population-level declines.

None of this post-closure data was before the Court. In that sense, the Discovery Islands ruling is not a victory for wild salmon. It is a victory for ministerial discretion exercised without an obligation to prove results.

The ruling also comes amid mounting economic consequences. Industry estimates warn that the federal plan to fully phase out open-net salmon farming in British Columbia by 2029 could eliminate more than 4,500 jobs and expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in compensation claims tied to cancelled licences, supply contracts, and Indigenous benefit agreements.

Salmon farming meets every accepted definition of a sustainable resource project. It produces food for domestic and export markets, operates under federal and provincial laws, and supports Indigenous and non-Indigenous employment across coastal B.C.

This decision confirms that even a tightly regulated, science-reviewed activity can be shut down without proof of environmental harm, based instead on ministerial judgment about acceptable risk.

The Discovery Islands ruling now stands as a clear marker in Canadian aquaculture policy. It confirms that science may inform decisions, but it no longer anchors them.

And it lands uncomfortably against the   Carney government’s repeated commitment to evidence-based decision-making and national policy grounded in data, expertise, and measurable outcomes.