“Stabbing It to Death”: The Liberal Government’s Assault on Endangered Species Law

The proposed changes to the Species At Risk Act (SARA) would dismantle one of the Liberal government’s most notable environmental achievements. Since its enactment in 2002, SARA has been a cornerstone of Canadian conservation efforts, providing a framework for protecting vulnerable species and their habitats.

However, with the government poised to table a bill that would exempt major projects from the “jeopardy test,” it is clear that the Liberal government prioritizes economic growth over environmental protection. This safeguard, which prohibits Ottawa from authorizing projects that harm listed species and their critical habitats if they would jeopardize their survival, has been instrumental in protecting Canada’s most vulnerable wildlife.

The jeopardy test is not merely a technicality; it is a critical safeguard that has been essential to the effectiveness of SARA. The proposed changes would essentially gut this protection, allowing the government to prioritize economic interests over environmental ones. This would have far-reaching and devastating implications for Canada’s biodiversity conservation record.

Consider the case of the southern resident killer whale, one of the species listed under SARA and currently teetering on the brink of extinction. A new West Coast pipeline would exacerbate noise pollution and lead to significant habitat destruction, essentially decimating the last remaining population of these majestic creatures.

The Liberal government’s justification for these changes is that they need to fast-track projects to strengthen the economy and diversify exports away from the US. However, this argument rings hollow when faced with the reality of Canada’s environmental record. The country has consistently ranked low in terms of biodiversity conservation, and SARA has been a rare bright spot in an otherwise dismal landscape.

The scientists who penned the open letter criticizing these changes are not alarmists; they are seasoned experts who have spent their careers studying and advocating for Canadian wildlife. Their criticism is rooted in a deep understanding of the consequences of these changes. As Kathryn Harrison, a UBC professor specializing in climate and energy politics, noted, this precedent-setting legislation would set an extraordinary tone for future environmental regulation.

“This bill would essentially say that we’re not worried about protecting species at risk anymore,” Harrison said. “Rather than going through Parliament and amending those laws, they’re passing a new law saying, ‘we’re not worried about that anymore.’”

The government’s response to the open letter has been meager at best. In an emailed statement, the Privy Council Office claimed that the government is committed to conservation and recovery of species at risk – but this commitment seems hollow when paired with the proposed changes.

As Canada hurtles towards a future where environmental protection is sacrificed for economic gain, one can’t help but wonder: what does this mean for our collective responsibility to protect the natural world? The answer lies not in bureaucratic jargon or government spin; it’s in the quiet desperation of species teetering on the brink of extinction.