Canada needs effective legislation to save endangered
species, and industry has a role to play
(article by Gordon Peeling and Tony Rotherham
The survival of Canada's wildlife is everyone's business. And the only way to develop legislation to save species at risk, and a working program to protect habitats, is to involve all interested parties. Many countries have passed species laws and are pressuring Canada to do the same.
The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Mining Association of Canada are both members of the Species at Risk Working Group (SARWG) and are teaming with the National Agriculture Environment Committee, the Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club of Canada to advise on species-at-risk policy in Canada. This may sound like an unlikely coalition, but we all share the same goal, creating a species program that works.
We all agree that The new Species at Risk Act, to be tabled this week, is a vast improvemnt on earlier versions that divided industry, environmentalists and government. But it still is only one element in the campaign to save the diversity of Canada's wildlife.
Our working group has toiled for two years to find an approach to species at risk that all of us can embrace. We have spent time and effort to understand the needs and views of all six partners and how to fit them into the Canadian conservation, jurisdictional and business context. It should be noted that, contrary to a recent Globe column, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund is not a member of our working group and the National Agriculture Environment Committee does not speak for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, one of our members.
Our pulp and paper and mining groups got involved because our industries sell a great deal of their products to environmentally sensitive foreign markets. Demonstrating good resource stewardship is essential if we are to avoid losing these markets.
But there's more to it than that. Our industries believe in sustainable development and support the federal government's efforts to adopt species legislation as an essential tool to achieve this. Our workers, managers and shareholders are no different from other Canadians. They cherish healthy wildlife populations and want to adjust the practices of our industries to accommodate the needs of species at risk. Finally, we want to avoid the kind of controversy that resulted from earlier attempts to legislate species protection.
One area where confusion may still arise is in jurisdictional responsibility. The federal government has jurisdiction over migratory birds and their critical habitat, species that are covered under the Fisheries Act and their habitat, and all species and their habitat on federal lands. Provincial governments have jurisdiction over all other species and also over land use on non-federal lands within their boundaries.
The federal government can also use its criminal law power to prohibit the harming of species at risk. This is fine as long as the prohibitions are focused and do not drift into areas of provincial responsibility. If they did, we could face disputes, paralysis and eventually a Supreme Court challenge. Nothing there that is good for species at risk.
Species can only be effectively protected if both levels of government are active within their jurisdictions, are equipped with effective legislative tools, and work co-operatively. Such co-operation was the intent of the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, developed in the mid-1990s. It ties all wildlife ministers in Canada and some key federal ministers in a process aimed at building a safety net for species at risk. Mining and forest products companies operate under provincial jurisdiction. We strongly support the Accord as a way to avoid jurisdictional battles.
The majority of species at risk occur on private land, provincial crown land or land used by aboriginal communities. The new act should provide a way to involve landowners and land users. There should be incentives for improved practices and compensation paid where the cost of protection is unfairly placed on some individuals or organizations. The care for species at risk is a value shared by all Canadians. All Canadians should share in the burden of recovery.
The first step we need to take is to accurately identify which species are at risk. This process needs to be crystal clear and rigorous. We certainly expect that a species identified by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as being at risk should receive the protection it deserves under federal and provincial legislation.
Species are put at risk largely as a result of the loss or degradation of their habitat. Once a species is legally listed, a recovery plan should be developed and implemented by all interested and informed stakeholders. If habitat loss or degradation is a factor in the decline of the species, a strategy should be developed that ensures habitat conservation but will minimize impact on industry, land users or communities in the area. Compromises can and should be reached.
The environmental community has expressed concern that the SARWG consensus has not been fully incorporated. Using our working group as a model, we would be happy to contribute our ideas and goodwill to a further round of discussion with Environment Canada, provincial governments, industry groups and environmental organizations to find solutions to some remaining important issues. Critical habitat management, the scope and means of federal legislation, the recovery planning process, and fair compensation for affected land users, all still need to be addressed.
Let's move together on this. We will soon need co-operation from everyone to undertake the development and implementation of the recovery program that is ahead of us.
in The Globe and Mail, March 27, 2000)
Home