Your editorial of Feb. 28, “Phone, fax or mail — Stop David Anderson!” contains a number of outlandish claims that are based on misguided comparisons with U.S. endangered species legislation.
The government of Canada is taking a made-in-Canada approach that does not resemble the U.S. model. The protection of species will not be achieved through confrontation. That is why our strategy relies on co-operation and voluntary measures as the primary means of protecting species and their habitat. It treats land owners and land users as partners in the protection of species at risk and their habitats. The federal approach is to provide incentives and support to Canadians to protect species and use a legislative backstop only when other efforts do not work.
Nature and wildlife are an inherent part of our identity as a nation. Canadians expect their federal government to take a leadership role in protecting species at risk, and to maintain this country’s good record when it comes to wildlife conservation. As signatories to the International Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada also has an international obligation to do so.
To reach these goals, we have adopted a co-operative approach through existing commitments by the provincial, territorial and federal governments to protect species and habitat, under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.
Our strategy recognizes that stewardship activities are an effective, cost-efficient means of protecting species and their habitats. Voluntary preventive measures will form the cornerstone of federal efforts to protect species and habitats throughout Canada by providing Canadians with the tools to become part of the solution. Indeed, the federal government’s approach distinguishes itself from the U.S. by investing in the efforts of land owners and land users.
Recently, the minister of finance reaffirmed our commitment to conserving Canada’s natural heritage by announcing $90 million to help develop stewardship and recovery programs for species at risk over the next three years, and amending the tax rules to facilitate ecologically significant land donations and easements.
The proposed species-at-risk act will provide the legal tools to ensure that the government’s strategy achieves its goals, and prevents threatened or endangered species from falling through jurisdictional cracks.
In most cases, the actions of different levels of government, combined with stewardship and incentives, will be successful. However, if voluntary measures fail and all other co-operative options have been exhausted, we have a duty to act to prohibit the destruction of species and their critical habitat. This prohibition will be coupled with a compensation regime. We will be consulting with stakeholders on this compensation regime prior to the proposed legislation coming into force. The recovery planning process is designed to be inclusive and will take socio-economic considerations into account.
I think your readers will agree that we are proposing a reasoned and balanced approach to protect Canada’s natural heritage. Land owners and land users throughout the country will continue to play an active role in helping to ensure that future generations enjoy a landscape that is rich in biological diversity.
Be the first to comment on "Canada obligated to protect endangered species"