We must put teeth into Canada's proposed endangered species legislation before it is too late, says DAVID SUZUKI
Quick, think of a country with a strong environmental reputation. Which one came to mind? You probably didn’t think of the United States and I really doubt you thought of Mexico. But I’ll bet you couldn’t help thinking of Canada.

Yet both the United States and Mexico have legislation to protect endangered species. Canada does not, and the proposed legislation that is once again coming before cabinet after two previous failed attempts needs some crucial changes if we want to start catching up to our neighbours.

Internationally, Canada still has somewhat of a boy scout reputation when it comes to the environment. We are blessed with an incredible natural heritage, a relatively small population and a huge land base. Visitors cannot help but be awed by our natural splendour - indeed, that’s why many come here. We’ve also played host to some international environment conferences that were the impetus for important environmental agreements like the Montreal Protocol to eliminate ozone-depleting substances.

But our reputation far exceeds our track record and it has begun to fray, badly. If you followed the Climate Summit meetings in The Hague last fall, for example, you may have noticed that non-governmental organizations gave Canada more “Fossil-of-the-Day” awards than any other country for attempting to weaken the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. Equally glaring is Canada’s lack of federal legislation protecting endangered species, which should be a national embarrassment.

In recent years, scientists world-wide have recognized how important the variety of life (biodiversity) is to ecosystem and human health. Everything from the largest carnivore to the smallest soil invertebrate has a function within an ecosystem that helps the system maintain itself over time. This diversity of life also drives the “ecosystem services” that sustain human life, everything from maintaining soil fertility to regulating the climate, cleansing our air and water, and absorbing our waste. Whenever we lose a species, we unravel a thread in the fabric of life that binds us all together.

Like Canada’s international reputation, Earth’s life fabric is fraying. In fact, human activities are creating what scientists call the sixth great extinction because species are going extinct faster now than they have since the dinosaurs died out. World-wide, thousands disappear every year. In Canada, 364 species are considered at risk, although the actual number is likely much higher.

Belatedly, Canada is finally poised to enact endangered species legislation. Unfortunately, the Bill currently before cabinet, known as the Species at Risk Act (SARA), is more about politics than it is about protecting endangered species. On paper, it has many possibilities, but it puts far too much power in the hands of politicians, and not enough in the hands of scientists and researchers who, unlike politicians, actually have some knowledge about the animals that need protecting.

For example, the number one threat to biodiversity world-wide and the number one threat to Canada’s endangered species, is habitat loss. Yet SARA does not directly protect habitat, where an animal forages for food, breeds and raises its young - it only protects an animal’s nest or den. This is absurd. A species cannot exist without habitat - they are inseparable. SARA does not even directly protect the habitat of animals that obviously fall under federal jurisdiction, like migratory birds. Instead, habitat protection is left entirely up to the discretion of cabinet, which “may” or may not actually enforce action, depending on what, if anything, the province involved is already doing. And we all know how cooperative and well-integrated federal-provincial politics are.

Strangely, SARA does not even start with the existing list of 364 species at risk identified by the scientific committee that assesses the status of wildlife in Canada. Instead, SARA starts with zero species and requires the same committee to review the existing list. Once that’s finished, cabinet gets to pick which ones will be protected under SARA. Again, the final decision is political, not scientific.

Canadians overwhelmingly want habitat protection to be mandatory, not discretionary (79 per cent said so in a recent poll). In fact, it’s already mandatory in four of the six provinces that do have endangered species legislation. Even industry groups like the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Canadian Mining Association have reached a consensus with environmental groups and are proposing tougher legislation.

Canada has an opportunity before us that we must not pass up. Allowing the continual erosion of life’s diversity is not an acceptable option. As an international group of scientists recently wrote in the journal Nature: “The scientific community and informed citizens should become engaged in conveying to the public, policy-makers and land-managers the enormity and irreversibility of current rapid changes in biodiversity. Despite convincing scientific evidence, there is a general lack of public awareness that change in biodiversity is a global change with important ecological and societal impacts and that these changes are not amenable to mitigation after they have occurred.”
In other words, humans depend on a diversity of life. It is suicidal to tear at the web of life which provides our most basic needs - clean air, water, soil and energy. We must take action to conserve this biodiversity, because once it’s gone, we can’t bring it back. What we can start to reclaim right now is our international reputation, and we can begin by strengthening our proposed endangered species legislation to have some teeth.

Originally published in The Globe and Mail, March 22, 2001.

To voice your concerns about Canada's endangered species, visit wildcanada.net or the BC Endangered Species Coalition and send a fax directly to the federal committee drafting our new legislation.