Introduction

[Contents] [Next]

The Canadian identity is inextricably linked to wildlife. Beavers, loons, polar bears, caribou, osprey, and belted kingfishers appear on our coins and bank-notes. Our flag is the maple leaf. At our airports, souvenir shops overflow with postcards, mugs, T-shirts, and magnets depicting scenes of wildlife in their natural habitat; glossy brochures offer tourists fishing opportunities, hunting adventures, and whale-watching excursions.

This connection with wildlife has deep roots. The promise of fortune from fishing, trapping, and hunting attracted the first explorers and colonizers to this country. Fishermen settled on the Atlantic coast and fur traders traveled by canoe along river routes used for centuries by aboriginals, and built trading posts that eventually became major cities--Quebec, Winnipeg, and Edmonton. Some even argue that Canada exists today because of the demand in sixteenth-century Europe for hats made from beaver pelts (Canada Yearbook 1997: 35) Hunting, trapping, fishing, and logging are part of Canadians' collective memory.

The importance of wildlife throughout our history is constant but today we value wildlife for reasons that differ radically from those of the past: economic dependence, which in some cases led to severe over-exploitation, has largely been replaced by the view that Canada's plants and animals should be treasured for their inherent worth.

There is now a growing concern, fueled by environmentalists' predictions of a critical worldwide decline in biodiversity, that many species in Canada are endangered and at risk of becoming extinct. This concern has most recently been expressed in the proposed federal legislation, the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act (Bill C-65), which was designed to "prevent Canadian wildlife species from becoming extirpated or extinct and to provide for the recovery of those that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity" (Canada, Ministry of the Environment 1997: 1a). Although this bill died on the order paper in the spring of 1997, many expect that a new version will be introduced, possibly in the fall, 1999 or spring, 2000. Bill C-65 was not the first attempt to use federal laws and regulations to protect endangered species in Canada. Such legislation was considered in the fall of 1994 (C-275) and the spring of 1996 (C-238) (Wilson 1998: 4-5), though both bills died on the order paper.

These efforts followed Canada's international commitment to enact legislation to protect endangered and threatened species made at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.1 The failure to pass federal legislation since the summit in Rio de Janeiro has become the main focus of debates about whether Canada's wildlife is adequately protected from the threat of extinction. For example, on May 27, 1998 the article, Green Just Not Ottawa's Colour, in The Globe and Mail (McIlroy 1998a) gave details of the second annual report to Parliament from the Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The article stressed that, "Canada's plants and animals are increasingly threatened by pollution and loss of habitat. But the government has done little to meet its obligations under the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity . . . Ottawa still hasn't set goals, or allocated resources. (It still hasn't passed an endangered-species bill.)" (McIlroy 1998: A3).2 In another story, Ottawa Called Flop at Saving Species, the Toronto Star reported the results of a study done by a coalition of environmental groups: "The coalition gave the federal government a D grade for its failed effort to pass Bill C-65, the Endangered Species Act." (Thompson 1997: A6). Another recent story in The Globe and Mail reports:

US environmentalists will ask their government tomorrow to enact trade sanctions against Canada because of Ottawa's failure to pass endangered-species legislation . . . At the very least, the legal petition will embarrass Canada, once seen as an international leader on environmental issues, but now increasingly viewed as a laggard.3(McIlroy 1999b: A1)

The central premise of these news reports is that failure to pass federal endangered-species legislation is equivalent to failure to protect species at risk. Consequently, the need for this legislation has not been seriously debated. Instead, opponents have been arguing over the content of proposed bills. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Legal Defense Club claim that proposed legislation lacks "teeth" and is too watered down to be effective. On the other hand, to many contemporary wildlife authorities, the form and effectiveness of traditional endangered species legislation as an appropriate remedy is at issue. Further, many industry groups favour rewriting the bill to ensure that the rights to private property are protected.

In this Critical Issues Bulletin

There is no doubt that Canadians care about species at risk and will continue to do so in the future. To determine the best way to express this sentiment, however, we must abandon the rhetoric and simple-minded demands for more regulation that have dominated discussions about the state of endangered species in Canada and turn to careful consideration of the nature and extent of the threats to endangered species as well as the likely effects (including unintended consequences) of federal legislation.

This Critical Issues Bulletin evaluates the need for federal legislation to protect endangered species in Canada by asking fundamental questions that have been by-passed in the public debate. First, does the number of endangered species in Canada represent a problem serious enough to warrant the consideration of federal legislation? Second, is federal legislation the best way to protect endangered species or are there better means?

This paper first examines the nature and magnitude of the threats to endangered species in Canada by presenting an overview of the number of endangered species, as recorded by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada (COSEWIC), and exposing some of the difficulties with using that number as representative of the actual number of endangered species in this country. Then, the idea that governments and private interests are not currently doing enough to protect Canada's wildlife is challenged. Since legislative proposals in Canada have been similar to existing legislation in the United States, the final section of the paper examines what Canada can learn from the American experience. Policy recommendations are presented in the conclusion.

[Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Sunday, September 26, 1999.