Rumors of multi-million dollar fines and farmers being ordered off their land continue to exist about the power of endangered species legislation.
Differences of opinion like those held by Peggy Strankman, of the Canadian Cattleman’s Association, and Stewart Elgie, of Sierra Legal Defence Fund, helped scuttle federal endangered species legislation, said some at the Prairie Conservation and Endangered Species Conference held in Saskatoon Feb. 20-22.
Others suggested the more powerful lobbies of energy and business caused the failure of Bill C-65.
Despite international agreements that require Canada to introduce endangered species legislation, the federal bill died last year when the election call came. Mexico and the United States both have legislation in place to protect dwindling species and plans to rebuild stocks of endangered species.
Read Also
Europe holds promise for Canadian lentils
Pulse Canada is trying to help boost lentil consumption in Europe, which is already the fourth largest market.
“We have the opportunity to take another crack at the legislation now,” said Strankman. “We have the opportunity to improve it. We recognize that the legislation will come but we expect it will be different from the first time around.”
Learning each other’s perspectives has been part of the work for Strankman and Elgie over the past two years while they helped develop a report for the federal government to be used in creating the new bill.
Strankman said she and Elgie often sounded more like allies than enemies, agreeing the federal government may be failing both farmers and environmentalists for the same reasons.
She said the previous legislation failed to address many cattle commission concerns including compensation for loss of income and tax relief to those who own land affected by the new bill. She compared it to the U.S. model where there have been negative impacts on farmers and ranchers.
“Despite the fact we (the federal task force) all recommended the bill should contain compensation for farmers and that it should encourage landowners to participate with intelligent tax structures and other measures. The result was that none of this was in Bill
C-65,” said Elgie.
“We all recognize that the bill did too little to help landowners and it did too little to help endangered species,” he said.
Rancher Ted Perrin also commented on the bill’s failings.
“There is no incentive to maintain the land. We are pressured to make marginal land produce more and more just to make a living. Legislation that works will need to look at compensation for the farmer or rancher … . It will need to encourage the landowner to participate, not protect the environment solely at his expense,” he said.
Strankman also criticized the public consultation pro-cess during the review of Bill C-65. She said the federal government failed to properly inform rural residents about the hearings or provide enough opportunity for farmers and ranchers to participate.
“Protection of endangered species can’t take place without the willing participation of the landowner. That won’t happen without two-way communication,” she said.
Legislation alone will not protect endangered species and everyone involved must be a participant, agreed Cliff Wallis of the Alberta Wilderness Association.
“Sure there must be a stick, but there also must be a carrot and there must be consulting with landowners and lessees before you bring out the stick,” he said.
“The legislation wouldn’t do half the things rumors said it would do to landowners but most importantly it didn’t encourage them to participate in the protection of endangered species.
“We have to address the rumors by visiting the kitchen tables of ranchers and farmers. One on one is the only way to communicate an issue such as this,” said Wallis.
