Political prerogative actually helpful – WP editorial

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Published: September 14, 2006

CANADA’S Species At Risk Act has come under attack from environmental groups for what they’ve described as a loophole that allows the federal environment minister to intervene in the interests of protecting species deemed endangered, threatened or otherwise at risk.

Critics argue that the provision politicizes the decision-making process. Species protection should be based on science, they say.

Results of the debate could have consequences for farmers and ranchers.

The ministerial prerogative in the act, which would allow the federal environment minister to intervene in matters of provincial jurisdiction, is necessary to provide distance on controversial issues. It is a chance for cooler heads to make decisions that are removed from local political battles and from the influences of environmental lobbies and powerful companies.

Read Also

Looking down a fence line with a blooming yellow canola crop on the right side of the fence, a ditch and tree on the left, with five old metal and wooden granaries in the background.

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

The difficulty of solely science-based decisions is highlighted in a recent British Columbia case. It concerns forestry and the endangered Northern Spotted Owl, but could have wider implications.

The Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club of Canada, ForestEthics and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee have asked federal environment minister Rona Ambrose to halt logging in areas of southwestern B.C. to protect the owls. With just 17 remaining in Canada, the situation is critical.

But the B.C. government, after consulting scientists, has devised a plan that includes breeding and relocating owls, as well as preserving 860,000 acres of habitat. It maintains that the plan is adequate. Environmental groups disagree.

Who’s right? The case illustrates how ineffective science can be in providing black and white answers.

Ironically, some of the same people complaining about the provision’s potential to move decisions from the realm of science and into politics, are doing that very thing by asking Ambrose to overrule the B.C. plan. They want political intervention because science has reached a deadlock. In this case, however, Ambrose has turned down their request.

The spotted owl is worth saving, as are other species at risk. But elimination of the ministerial intervention principal could have serious implications for agriculture. The burrowing owl, swift fox and whooping crane, to name a few, are all protected prairie species under the act.

Farmers, like environmentalists, have an interest in preserving species, but they also have a right to security – to be able to live their lives without fear that one day environmental fervor will trump science and take away their livelihoods. Human, social and societal issues must also be taken into account.

Environmental issues are emotional issues. They affect our water, our food, our backyards, our farms and ranches.

Government should maintain its right to step into situations where emotion overtakes science and common sense.

explore

Stories from our other publications