Michael Wilson, a retired geography professor from the University of Saskatchewan, understands the dilemma facing those trying to create effective species-at-risk legislation.
Last week, he joined more than 900 other Canadian scientists in sending a letter to prime minister Jean Chrétien condemning the government’s latest species-at-risk attempt as inadequate.
The government hopes to push the legislation through Parliament this autumn and winter. On Sept. 14, the Liberal House of Commons leader Don Boudria identified the legislation as a priority for the fall parliamentary session that opened Sept. 17.
Read Also
Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations
Ag in Motion highlights need for biosecurity on cattle farms. Government of Saskatchewan provides checklist on what you can do to make your cattle operation more biosecure.
“Though SARA (the Species at Risk Act) does have some positive features, it falls far short of providing the protection needed to safeguard our endangered wildlife,” said the letter, signed by some of Canada’s most prominent scientists, many of whom work for the federal government.
“Remarkably, the proposed SARA still fails to require habitat protection. It prohibits the destruction of an animal’s nest or den but not the rest of its habitat – which is comparable to protecting a person’s bedroom but not the rest of their house or neighbourhood.”
David Schindler, an award-winning scientist from the University of Ottawa, said the legislation is “worse than nothing” unless it is strengthened.
In a later interview, however, Wilson acknowledged that for landowners, the issue is complicated by the economic loss they can suffer because of restrictions on their use of land if it is habitat for endangered animals and plants.
“It is reasonable for farmers and ranchers to not want to be forced to bear the biggest burden,” said Wilson from his home in Saskatoon. “It’s put up or shut up time for Canadians in their support for endangered species. If they really care, they must let politicians know that they are willing to see a higher tax bill in support of this.”
Last week, the lines were drawn by opponents of the current government bill.
Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Jack Wilkinson said the government must improve its compensation rules if it is to win the support of landowners. The present proposal is that landowners who have habitat protection imposed on them absorb the first 10 percent of impact and then receive 50 percent compensation on the remaining loss.
“Farmers are environmentalists by nature. They rely on the land, water and air for the health and production of their crops and animals,” said Wilkinson. “They understand the value of maintaining as many species as possible within our ecosystem for balance and benefit. We have real problems understanding why our senior governments expect farmers to pay the price of maintaining habitat for species at risk.”
Meanwhile, the conservative National Citizens Coalition launches an advertising campaign this week denouncing the legislation as an attack on private property rights.
“Bill C-5 is supposed to protect endangered plants and animals but it doesn’t protect anything,” said coalition researcher and lawyer Neil Seeman in a statement issued from Toronto. “Instead, it endangers the property values and property rights of landowners.”
Environment minister David Anderson vowed to push the legislation through in the face of opposition. He said continued political wrangling means delay and more habitat loss.
