Abstract
Canada’s provinces and territories govern species at risk across most of Canada, with the federal Species at Risk Act generally covering only aquatic species, migratory birds, and species living on federal land. More than a decade after a 2012 report by the environmental law charity Ecojustice on species at risk protection in Canada, we use the same criteria to evaluate the current state of provincial and territorial species at risk legislation, and we provide updates on changes in each jurisdiction since 2012. These criteria are as follows: whether at-risk species are being identified, whether these species are being protected, whether their habitat is being protected, and whether species recovery plans are being created and implemented. We find that there is considerable variation across jurisdictions, with shortcomings that result in inadequate protections for at-risk species, as well as strong components that should be adopted by all jurisdictions. We recommend seven key areas for improvement: dedicated and harmonized legislation, limited discretionary power, increased embrace of scientific and Indigenous knowledge, appropriate timelines for actions, reasonable exemptions to protections, habitat protection across land ownership types, and transparency throughout the process. We urge policymakers to address current shortcomings as they work toward meeting Canada’s biodiversity conservation commitments.
Introduction
The most powerful federal tool for species and habitat protection in Canada is the Species at Risk Act (SARA 2002). Protections for threatened and endangered species at risk (SAR) listed under SARA include prohibitions on hunting, possessing, and destroying residences of that species on federal lands, alongside the mandatory creation of action plans and species-specific recovery plans. However, there are many fundamental problems with SARA, including widespread use of discretionary language, politically/economically biased listing, and neglect of recovery plans (Findlay et al. 2009; Mooers et al. 2010; Turcotte et al. 2021). The effectiveness of SARA is particularly limited by the narrow application of its basic protections, which only cover aquatic species, migratory birds, and individuals living on federally managed Crown (i.e., public) land (Wojciechowski et al. 2011). Federally managed Crown land covers only 4% (170 000 km2) of the 10 provinces in Canada, where 96% of SAR reside (Neimanis 2013; Government of Canada 2023). Additionally, the federal government rarely uses SARA’s “safety net” intervention clauses, in which federal protections can be invoked if provincial/territorial legislation cannot protect a species on its own (Smallwood 2003). Consequently, most listed species and their habitat are not genuinely protected by SARA (Bolliger et al. 2020) and rely only on provincial and territorial legislation for protection.
A 2012 report by Ecojustice Canada exposed inconsistencies in SAR legislation among Canadian provinces and territories, and noted an overall lack of strict, clear, and impactful laws (Nixon et al. 2012). Biologists, political scientists, and environmental lawyers have criticized provincial and territorial governments for the inadequacy of many aspects of SAR laws, from species identification to enforcement (Olive 2018; Mitchell and Rak 2019; Westwood et al. 2019). In some cases, SAR legislation has been significantly weakened over time by various new amendments and acts (Bergman et al. 2020).
