Which laws apply to species at risk in Canada?

On the federal level, the primary species at risk legislation is the SARA. This is legislation which is meant to prevent species from becoming extinct or extirpated, provide for the recovery of species at risk, and ensure that species of special concern do not become threatened or endangered. [1]

How does the Species at Risk Act work?

To start the Act enables a panel – the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada or COSEWIC – to meet twice yearly in order to assess species and classify them under one of the categories listed in the ‘Categories of Species at Risk’ section, above. [2] Once a classification has been made, COSEWIC makes a recommendation that those species determined to be at risk be added to SARA under the appropriate category. [3] After receiving this recommendation, the federal government begins a consultation process during which they study the economic and social effects that may accompany the inclusion of these species on a protected list. Although there are legislative timelines embedded within the classification process, the inclusion of a socioeconomic analysis has meant that any species considered to have high social and/or economic value are not necessarily added to the list. For example, take a look at the case of the chinook and sockeye salmon. COSEWIC has on several occasions recommended that both these fish be classified as endangered. However, this classification would stop all commercial harvesting so, for ‘social and economic reasons’ the salmon remains unclassified and therefore unprotected. [4]

Notably, SARA only applies to fish, migratory birds, and species found on federally controlled land. While this may sound like a lot, the vast majority of land in Canada is controlled by the provinces and therefore this legislation does not apply.

Some Problems with the SARA

One downside to the SARA are the regular delays that plague the classification and recovery plan processes. Although the SARA includes certain deadlines – for example, once COSEWIC makes a recommendation about a species, the federal Minister of the Environment has 90 days to submit a report to the Public Registry with the government’s decision for a plan for the treatment of that particular species[5] – these deadlines are often vague or unenforced. In particular, when it comes to the 90 day deadline on a Minister’s report, the question of when this 90 day countdown actually begins is still up for debate. [6] Does it begin when the recommendation is actually made or when the Minister acknowledges formal receipt of the recommendation – perhaps months down the road?

The problems do not stop there, because once a recovery strategy is laid out (including a design for the recovery of at risk populations), any deadlines that are to be included in the plan are discretionary and are outlined by the Minister not by legislation. This means that if the government chooses not to enforce deadlines – perhaps because they are facing an upcoming election or are worried about the economy – there is little that anyone can do to stop them.

One example of this delay occurred in April 2008 when COSEWIC recommended that the Minister consider a designation of special concern for Canadian polar bears. Unfortunately, the Minister did not formally acknowledge receipt of this recommendation until November 2008, which meant that the 90-day countdown did not actually start until at least 6 months after the recommendation was made. Even after this acknowledgment, it took until 2011 for the Minister to make a listing recommendation. [7] This delay of more than three years is important to consider because the legislation cannot be amended until a formal listing recommendation is made. This is just one example of how delays have plagued SARA’s implementation. When species’ populations are falling to dangerously low levels, the impact of these types of delays could be devastating to an already precarious situation.

Despite these challenges, SARA has some important sections that allow its important critical habitat protections to extend over provincial land. One of these is Section 80, the SARA section enabling protection orders. This section allows the government to issue an emergency authorization extending SARA’s protections to a particular species and all of its critical habitat, regardless of whether this habitat is located on federal or provincial land. These recommendations can be made when the federal Minister issues an opinion that the species faces an imminent threat to its survival or recovery, threats which are not being adequately managed by provincial authorities. [8]

Sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it!

In 2013, the protection order provision was used for the first time, when a protection order was authorized for the protection of the Greater Sage Grouse, a bird whose critical habitat can be found in Southeast Alberta and Southwest Saskatchewan. This authorization came after a court decision required the federal Minister to identify, in a recovery strategy document, as much critical habitat as it was possible to identify at the time – even if the entire critical habitat had not yet been identified. [9] It was only after the Court released this decision that the federal Minister of the Environment released the opinion that the Greater Sage Grouse faced imminent threats to its survival and recovery. 

The action plan subsequently released by the federal government prohibited nearly all new industrial development and activities that took place on the Greater Sage Grouse’s critical habitat. This effort was heralded as a success by environmental groups and the population of Greater Sage Grouse has started to bounce back. In opposition of the order, a junior oil and gas company along with the city of Medicine Hat filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to oppose the federal government’s protection order after the oil and gas company was faced with bankruptcy. [10] The case was heard by the Federal Court in July 2018, however, as of mid 2020, a decision had not yet been released. Unfortunately, due to opposition of this sort, the protection order provision remains underutilized and due to the complex nature of federalism, may be difficult to rely upon.

A positive step for the sage grouse did come with a Federal Court of Appeal decision issued in May 2020 on the Western Chorus Frog. The Western Chorus Frog which is found in Great Lakes/St. Lawrence region is also subject to an Emergency Order under sections 80 and 97(2) – the same sections that apply to the protection of the Greater Sage Grouse. [11] The Federal Court of Appeal found that the emergency order issued for the Western Chorus Frog was constitutional and properly falls under the federal criminal law power.[12] There is no specific mention of the Greater Sage Grouse in this decision but it is a good sign that any further litigation in the Greater Sage Grouse file could rely on this decision as backup for the constitutionality of that emergency order.

Another option for extending federal control onto provincial territory is with a similar provision known as the safety net provision – found in sections 34 & 35 of SARA. The SARA safety net can be used to extend federal protection to animals living on provincial or territorially owned land. This section can be invoked if the federal government determines that the provinces are not doing enough to protect an at-risk species. [12] This provision has never been utilized, despite coming into force in 2004. 

Overall, despite its potential applications, the use of SARA remains restricted to the few species that reside in national parks or on other federally owned land. Despite this, it has strong habitat protection provisions and could be an important tool if applied more broadly.

Do you know of any other species at risk in Alberta that this legislation might help, if these provisions could be applied?

<< Which laws apply to species at risk in Alberta?

Federalism & Species at Risk >>

[1] Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29.

[2] Species at Risk Act, s 14.

[3] Species at Risk Act, s 15(1).

[4] World Wide Fund for Nature, “Living Planet Report Canada: A National Look at Wildlife Loss” (2017) at 12 online: http://assets.wwf.ca/downloads/WEB_WWF_REPORT_v3.pdf?_ga=2.221509080.1559932242.1506963091-1205928063.1506963091.

[5] Species at Risk Act,  s 25(3).

[6] Species at Risk Act, s 25(3).

[7] Shaun Fluker & Jocelyn Stacey, “The Basics of Species at Risk Legislation in Alberta” (2012) 50:1 95 at 101.

[8] Species at Risk Act, ss 80(2).

[9] Nigel Bankes, Sharon Mascher & Martin Olszynski, Can environmental laws fulfill their promise? Stories from Canada (2014) 6:9 Sustainability 6024 at 6033.

[10] The Canadian Press, “Sage grouse protection order challenged by Alberta city, oil company” (3 January 2014) CBC News online: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sage-grouse-protection-order-challenged-by-alberta-city-oil-company-1.2483759.

[11] Emergency Order for the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes / St. Lawrence — Canadian Shield Population, SOR/2016-211 online: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2016-211/FullText.html.

[12] The Maison Candiac Groupe Inc v Attorney General Of Canada, 2020 CAF 88.

[13] Species at Risk Act, ss 34 & 35.

 

 

 

 

Species Law

Lesson Plan: Fundamentals of Environmental Law
Lesson Plan: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Lesson Plan: Tragedy of the Commons
Lesson Plan: Climate Litigation

Curriculum Connections

Newsletter

Join our new AlbertaEnviroLaws Facebook group to ask questions, participate in discussions and other online engagement. Please share this widely so that the high school teachers and students in your circles hear about this great new resource for supplemental online learning. AlbertaEnviroLaws Facebook Group