Date: 20090909
Docket: T-1529-07
Citation: 2009
FC 878
Ottawa,
Ontario, September 9, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA
GEORGIA STRAIT ALLIANCE
WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE
and DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION
Applicants
and
MINISTER
OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
By these
reasons, the Nooksack Dace, a small minnow whose habitat is four fresh water
streams in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, has the distinction of being
the first endangered species in Canada to benefit by a comprehensive
interpretation by this Court of key elements of its protective legislation: the
Species at Risk Act, 2002, c. 29 (SARA).
A decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Minister)
pursuant to SARA has prompted the Applicants to bring the present
Application as a “test case” respecting the Minister’s interpretation of SARA
as displayed in the decision under review. The Applicants argue that the
Minister knowingly failed to follow the mandatory requirements of s. 41(1)(c)
and (c.1) of SARA with respect to the Final Recovery Strategy for the Nooksack
Dace. However, during the course of the hearing, Counsel for the Applicants
stressed that no allegation of bad faith is being made respecting this conduct.
[2]
Nevertheless,
in my opinion, the story that gave rise to the present litigation and the
conduct of the litigation itself is important to be told. This is so because a
review of the Minister’s decision-making under SARA applied to the
Nooksack Dace provides ample proof that the bringing of the present Application
was absolutely necessary. This is a story about the creation and application of
policy by the Minister in clear contravention of the law, and a reluctance to
be held accountable for failure to follow the law. Therefore, this is a case
about the rule of law described by Justices Bastarache and LeBel at paragraph 28
of Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190:
By virtue of the rule of law principle, all exercises of public
authority must find their source in law. All decision-making powers have legal
limits, derived from the enabling statute itself, the common or civil law or
the Constitution. Judicial review is the means by which the courts supervise
those who exercise statutory powers, to ensure that they do not overstep their
legal authority. The function of judicial review is therefore to ensure the
legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the administrative process and
its outcomes.
[3]
In the end
result, the Applicants’ judicial review argument concerning the Minister’s
failure in decision-making is limited to a question of statutory
interpretation. For the reasons which follow, I find that the Minister acted
contrary to the law intended by Parliament to protect the Nooksack Dace.
I. Overview of the Present
Dispute
[4]
The
Applicants’ purpose in launching the present Application is stated in the
following paragraphs of the Notice of Application:
15. The Applicants are “public
interest groups” in that they are charities that work for environmental
protection and have no personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in the
outcome of the Application.
16. The Applicants believe that
they need to bring this Application to address federal failure to implement the
SARA, which failure is further endangering Canada’s at risk species. They believe that an
order requiring SARA to be complied with is in the public interest because the
viability of Canada’s wildlife populations is a
matter affecting all Canadians.
17. The Applicants also believe
that, unfortunately, they have no choice but to litigate this matter. Each of
the Applicants has a record of working to protect at-risk species and also a
record of working, using non-litigious means, to ensure that the federal government,
including the Respondent Minister, implements the SARA. They bring this
Application only in the face of overwhelming evidence that: (a) the Canadian
government is attempting to avoid its obligation to implement the SARA so as to
protect Canada’s at-risk species; and, (b)
non-litigious means have not proven effective in ensuring this whereas
litigation, or its threat, has proven effective.
The Applicants’ detailed position in the present Application
is stated in précis form in the Notice of Application; the factual statements
are not in dispute:
The grounds for the
application are:
The Species at Risk Act and
the Nooksack Dace
1. The Species at Risk
Act (SARA) received Royal Assent on December 12, 2002 and came into force in
three phases. On March 24, 2003, sections 134 to 136 and 138 to 141 setting out
amendments to other national wildlife legislation came into force. On June 5,
2003, sections 2 to 31, 37 to 56, 62, 65 to 76, 78 to 84, 120 to 133 and
137 came into force. On June 1, 2004, the remainder of the SARA’s sections
came into force: sections 32 to 36, 57 to 61, 63, 64, 77, and 85 to 119.
2. The purpose of the
SARA is:
…to prevent
wildlife species from becoming extirpated or becoming extinct, to provide for
the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened
as a result of human activity and to manage species of special concern to
prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened (s.6).
3. The Nooksack dace
is a small (<15 cm) stream-dwelling minnow. Within Canada it is known from four lowland streams in
British Columbia’s Fraser
Valley. The global distribution
includes approximately 20 additional streams in north-west Washington.
4. The Nooksack dace
is “listed” pursuant to the SARA as an “endangered” species, meaning that
it on the List of endangered Wildlife Species set out in Schedule 1 to the
SARA. The dace’s status as “endangered” means that it is “a wildlife
species that is facing imminent extirpation.” “Extirpated” means no longer existing
in the wild in Canada, but existing elsewhere in
the wild. (s.2). The Nooksack dace is extirpated from some tributaries in
Canadian watersheds where it was abundant in the 1960s.
5. Listing triggers
SARA’s provisions to prevent extirpation and provide for recovery of
species. These include prohibitions against harm (s.32), protections for
residence (s.33) and the requirement of the Minister to undertake recovery
planning (ss.37-46) and recovery plan implementation (“action planning”)
(ss.47-64).
6. Essential to the
recovery planning process is the Minister’s preparation of “recovery
strategies” which “must address the threats to survival of the species” (s.41).
Recovery strategies must, inter alia:
• describe the
species and its needs,
• identify the threats to
its survival and threats to its habitat; and
• identify “critical
habitat, to the extent possible, based on the best available information” including
examples of activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat
(s.41) (a), (b) & (c).
7. Protecting critical
habitat is often necessary to the survival and recovery of a species. This is
reflected in the preamble to the SARA - “habitat of species at risk is key
to their conservation.” This is also recognized by the definition of critical
habitat - “habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed
wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the
recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species” (s.2).
8. By this definition,
protection of critical habitat occurs only if it is identified in a
recovery strategy or action plan, which triggers a prohibition against its
destruction (s.58). But, unlike recovery strategies which must be prepared
according to mandatory timelines (s.42), the SARA contains no time limits for
preparing action plans. Thus, failure to identify critical habitat at the
recovery strategy stage risks indefinite delay in its eventual identification
and protection.
The Nooksack Dace Recovery Strategy and
federal intention to disregard the SARA
9. The Nooksack dace
was a species listed on Schedule 1 of the SARA when the Act came into force,
therefore the Recovery Strategy was due June 5th, 2006 (ss.42(2)).
10. The SARA requires a
proposed recovery strategy to be placed on a SARA Public Registry where, for 60
days, the public may file written comments with the Minister (s.43(1)). 30 days
after this, the Minister must include the final recovery strategy on the Public
Registry (s.43(2)).
11. A draft [proposed] Nooksack
Dace Recovery Strategy was posted to the Public Registry on or about September
25th, 2006. Comments were submitted on behalf of the Applicants
which noted, inter alia, the failure of the Recovery Strategy to
identify critical habitat notwithstanding that its location is known.
On July 23, 2007, one year after it was due, the final Nooksack Dace
Recovery Strategy was posted to the Public Registry.
12. The Recovery
Strategy does not identify critical habitat while identifying loss of habitat
as one of the main threats to the Nooksack dace’s survival, and recommending
habitat protection in ensuring the species’ survival and recovery.
13. The Recovery Team,
formed to provide the minister with advice on the Recovery Strategy and
comprised of leading experts regarding the Nooksack dace, could and did
identify critical habitat and wished to include that identification of critical
habitat in the Nooksack Dace Recovery Strategy.
14. But, at the
direction of the Minister and/or his delegate, the Recovery Team removed the
identification of critical habitat from the Recovery Strategy and inserted it
into a separate document which was not posted to the Public Registry.
[Emphasis in the
original]
[5]
Thus, the
present Application primarily concerns the recovery strategy provisions of SARA
as applied to the Nooksack Dace and, in particular, the correct interpretation
of s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1):
41. (1) If the competent minister
determines that the recovery of the listed wildlife species is feasible, the
recovery strategy must address the threats to the survival of the
species identified by COSEWIC, including any loss of habitat, and must
include
(a) a description of the species and its needs
that is consistent with information provided by COSEWIC;
(b) an identification of the threats to the
survival of the species and threats to its habitat that is consistent with
information provided by COSEWIC and a description of the broad strategy to be
taken to address those threats;
(c) an identification of the species’ critical
habitat, to the extent possible, based on the best available information,
including the information provided by COSEWIC, and examples of activities
that are likely to result in its destruction;
(c.1) a schedule of studies to identify
critical habitat, where available information is inadequate;
(d) a statement of the population and distribution
objectives that will assist the recovery and survival of the species, and a
general description of the research and management activities needed to meet
those objectives;
(e) any other matters that are prescribed by the
regulations;
(f) a statement about whether additional
information is required about the species; and
(g) a statement of when one or more action plans
in relation to the recovery strategy will be completed.
[Emphasis added]
|
41. (1) Si le
ministre compétent conclut que le rétablissement de l’espèce sauvage inscrite
est réalisable, le programme de rétablissement doit traiter des
menaces à la survie de l’espèce — notamment de toute perte de son habitat —
précisées par le COSEPAC et doit comporter notamment :
a) une
description de l’espèce et de ses besoins qui soit compatible avec les
renseignements fournis par le COSEPAC;
b) une
désignation des menaces à la survie de l’espèce et des menaces à son habitat
qui soit compatible avec les renseignements fournis par le COSEPAC, et des
grandes lignes du plan à suivre pour y faire face;
c) la
désignation de l’habitat essentiel de l’espèce dans la mesure du possible, en
se fondant sur la meilleure information accessible, notamment les
informations fournies par le COSEPAC, et des exemples d’activités
susceptibles d’entraîner sa destruction;
c.1) un
calendrier des études visant à désigner l’habitat essentiel lorsque
l’information accessible est insuffisante;
d) un
énoncé des objectifs en matière de population et de dissémination visant à
favoriser la survie et le rétablissement de l’espèce, ainsi qu’une
description générale des activités de recherche et de gestion nécessaires à
l’atteinte de ces objectifs;
e) tout
autre élément prévu par règlement;
f) un
énoncé sur l’opportunité de fournir des renseignements supplémentaires
concernant l’espèce;
g) un
exposé de l’échéancier prévu pour l’élaboration d’un ou de plusieurs plans
d’action relatifs au programme de rétablissement.
[Je souligne]
|
[The COSEWIC referred
to in the provision is the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
established by s. 14]
Of primary concern with respect to s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1) is
the definitions of “habitat” for aquatic species and “critical habitat” provided
in s. 2 of SARA:
"habitat" means
(a) in respect of
aquatic species, spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply,
migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or
indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic
species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced; and
…
"critical
habitat" means the habitat that is necessary for the survival or
recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’
critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the
species.
|
« habitat »
a)
S’agissant d’une espèce aquatique, les frayères, aires d’alevinage, de
croissance et d’alimentation et routes migratoires dont sa survie dépend,
directement ou indirectement, ou aires où elle s’est déjà trouvée et où il
est possible de la réintroduire;
[…]
« habitat
essentiel » L’habitat nécessaire à la survie ou au rétablissement d’une
espèce sauvage inscrite, qui est désigné comme tel dans un programme de
rétablissement ou un plan d’action élaboré à l’égard de l’espèce.
|
The issue is whether the term “habitat” includes two
features: a defined geographic area capable of being located on a map and
the physical and biological attributes of that area that allow a species to use
it for the function of carrying out its life processes.
[6]
The
recovery strategy provisions of SARA are one component of a comprehensive
protection strategy. Following meeting the recovery strategy requirements in s.
41, the action plan element takes effect as set out in sections 47 to 55. There
is no dispute that the scheme of these two elements is to first provide a
baseline of information about the biology and ecology of a species and a broad
strategy to address conservation threat. In contrast, action plans are intended
to describe more detailed “action” measures to achieve a species’ survival and
recovery, including evaluation of the socio-economic costs and benefits of such
measures.
[7]
For contextual
clarification, the recovery strategy and action plan elements of SARA
are quoted in the Annex “A” to these reasons.
II. The Minister’s Final Recovery
Strategy Decision
[8]
The
process leading to the posting of the Final Recovery Strategy of the Nooksack Dace
involved the preparation of a Draft Proposed Recovery Strategy, the posting of the
Proposed Recovery Strategy, public consultation, and then the posting of the
Final Recovery Strategy.
[9]
Therefore,
five sequential actions are the focus of the present judicial review: the
preparation of a Draft Proposed Recovery Strategy in June 2005; the June 21,
2006 direction by Ms. Allison Webb, the Regional Director of Policy for the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in the Pacific Region with respect to
the contents of the Proposed Recovery Strategy to be posted and which was
posted for comment on September 25, 2006; the July 18, 2007 departmental
recommendation of Mr. Pardeep Ahluwalia, Director General, SARA
Secretariat, directed to Mr. Larry Murray, Deputy Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to approve Ms. Webb’s decision; Mr. Murray’s concurrence to the
recommendation on behalf of the Minister on July 18, 2007; and the July 23,
2007 posting of the Final Recovery Strategy. It is agreed that Mr. Murray had
authority to concur on behalf of the Minister and, thus, the concurrence is the
decision of the Minister.
[10]
While the
present Notice of Application cites the decision under review as that of the
posting of the Final Recovery Strategy by the Minister on July 23, 2007, it is
agreed that the decision under review is composed of the actions of Ms. Webb,
Mr. Ahluwalia, Mr. Murray, and the content of the Final Recovery Strategy considered
together.
A. The Recovery Team’s Draft
Proposed Recovery Strategy
[11]
Recovery strategies under SARA in British Columbia for freshwater fish are developed by a
Recovery Team composed of a core group of experts and others added to assist
with individual species as needed. With respect to the Nooksack Dace, a
subcommittee of such a team was formed in December 2003 to begin assessment of
the Nooksack Dace and to continue assessment of the Salish Sucker; one of the
members of the sub-working group was Dr. Mike Pearson, a self-employed
professional biologist who is the lead authority in Canada on the ecology,
conservation, and habitat needs of freshwater fish generally and, in
particular, the Nooksack Dace and Salish Sucker. Dr. Pearson has provided his
expertise to DFO under contract since 2003.
[12]
Dr.
Pearson was requested to
prepare a preliminary draft of a recovery stategy for both the Nooksack Dace
and Salish Sucker for the consideration of the Recovery Team with an eye
towards placing a final draft before the Minister as the Proposed Recovery
Strategy required to be posted pursuant to s. 42(1) of SARA. Dr.
Pearson’s affidavit filed in the present Application supplies contextual
information about meeting this request (see Affidavit of Mike Pearson,
Applicants’ Application Record, Vol. 1, Tab
6).
[13]
At
paragraph 15, Dr. Pearson provides the Minutes of the Recovery Team’s meeting
on December 10, 2003 which contains the following description of the challenge
that the definition of critical habitat presented:
…the main protective measures of
SARA do not kick in until critical habitat is defined. Although there is much
within -and among- agency discussion about how to go about defining critical
habitat there is at present no clear direction coming from the agencies on how
to do this. The wording of SARA implies that the legislators are deferring to
the expertise of relevant groups to define critical habitat.
At paragraphs 17 and 18, Dr. Pearson makes the following
comment about meeting the challenge:
I considered it very important that we identify
critical habitat. Nooksack dace are under threat primarily from habitat loss
and degradation in each of the four watersheds they inhabit in Canada. Various forms of habitat
loss and degradation including water withdrawal from wells and streams, toxicity
associated with urban storm drainage, channel dredging for drainage, and loss
of riparian (stream-side) vegetation are all major concerns in one or more of
these watersheds. Because of this, protection of critical habitats is key to
addressing the primary threats endangering Nooksack dace. Indeed, it is the
key factor in ensuring the survival of the species.
According to the SARA, ‘critical
habitat’ means the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a
listed wildlife species and that is identified in the recovery strategy or in
an action plan for the species. In biological terms, I recognized two
thresholds in this definition: survival and recovery. In biological terms, I
interpreted the survival threshold as the habitat required to support
the minimum viable population size (MVP) for the species in each of the
watersheds it currently occupies. The recovery threshold was as set out
as the recovery goal in the Nooksack dace Recovery Strategy: “To ensure the
long-term viability of Nooksack dace populations throughout their natural
distribution in Canada.” It includes some amount of
additional habitat, but recognizes that the full recovery of Nooksack dace
populations to historic levels is not possible given the extent and permanence
of habitat loss and degradation in their native watersheds.
[14]
At
paragraphs 19 to 24, Dr. Pearson describes the process of identifying the
critical habitat of the Nooksack dace:
When I began preparing the Nooksack dace
Recovery Strategy, direction on identifying critical habitat was drawn from a
template for recovery strategy preparation contained in an October 2004,
species at risk recovery planning handbook produced by the Canadian Wildlife
Service, an agency of Environment Canada. The template was forwarded to me by
Dr. Todd Hatfield, Coordinator of the Recovery Team. The template states:
“Critical habitat is defined
in SARA as “the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a
listed wildlife species…” It should relate to the recovery goal: if the goal
is survival (maintaining existing population size and distribution), then the
critical habitat would be the habitat currently occupied by the species. If the
recovery goal is full recovery, then the critical habitat would be the habitat
needed by the species in order to maintain a self-sustaining and viable
population level. In most cases, the recovery goal and the identified critical
habitat will fall somewhere within the continuum from survival to full
recovery.
*Note that critical habitat is
not formally identified until the recovery strategy or action plan for the
species that contains the critical habitat identification has been included as
the final in the SARA public registry. Until that time, the identification of
critical habitat should be developed to the extent possible, but be considered
a proposal only (as advice to the competent minister).
The critical habitat proposal
should be developed with reference to population and distribution goals,
particularly with respect to the amount, distribution and connectivity of
habitat patches. Where data are incomplete, critical habitat identification
should be done in stages. Identify what you can in well-studied areas now and
develop a schedule of studies (see below) for areas that are more poorly
known.”
I was also aware that SARA requires
identifying critical habitat to the extent possible, I took that at face value,
seeking to identify critical habitat in terms of describing both the qualities
of critical habitat as well as describing as best I could where it was; that
is, delineating its specific location and extent on a map.
To illustrate the process of identifying
Nooksack Dace critical habitat, I briefly set out below the method the Recovery
Team chose. This method was based on:
1.
an estimate
of minimum viable population size (MVP) for the species. This is the minimum
number of breeding adults necessary for a population to be likely to survive in
the wild.
2.
a
definition allowing the identification of suitable (potential critical) habitat
in the field.
3.
an
estimate of the area of suitable habitat on the landscape.
4.
an
estimate of mean population density of Nooksack dace in suitable habitat.
1.
Estimation
of the minimum viable population size (MVP).
Statistical methods of assessing MVP
exist, but depend on detailed demographic data not available for Nooksack dace
or many other species at risk. High quality estimates for well over 100 species
do exist in the literature, however. They range from 2000 to 10,000
reproductive individuals. The Recovery Team concluded that the Nooksack dace
MVP was likely to be in the low to mid thousands. The Team further concluded
that the population of Nooksack dace in each watershed (creek) needed to be
assessed separately as they are geographically isolated from one another. Being
geographically isolated means that Nooksack dace cannot move between the
watersheds and the population in one watershed thus cannot contribute to the
survival of that in another watershed. In effect, each watershed’s population
must be managed as though the others do not exist, so to maximize the chances
that the Nooksack dace will survive in Canada. Therefore, each watershed’s population
must be kept at least as large as the MVP. Therefore, critical habitat for the
species as a whole must include all critical habitat for each of the
populations.
2. A definition allowing the identification of suitable (potential critical) habitat.
The Nooksack dace is a habitat specialist with a small geographic
distribution. It is found only in and around riffle habitats (areas of shallow
turbulent flow over rocky substrate). This is well documented by every
researcher who has studied them. The Nooksack dace is considered a subspecies
of the longnose dace (R. cataractae), also a well known as a riffle specialist
across its continental range. Nooksack dace spawn, rest, forage, and
over-winter in riffles, and many appear to remain in very small home ranges,
covering less than 50 m of stream. In the course of my research, I waded or
canoed the entire length of all streams Nooksack dace are known to inhabit in Canada, and mapped the extent of
riffle habitat under low flow conditions. As is customary in stream surveys, I
divided each stream into a number of reaches (segments of streams with
relatively homogenous habitats). For of the 72 reaches identified in the
Nooksack Tributaries (The Brunette River population was not included as it was
only discovered in 2005, after this study was completed.) I measured the length
of major stream habitat types (pools, riffles, glides), categorized substrate
particle size, in-stream cover availability and land use within 200m of the
channel, and sampled for Nooksack dace presence using minnow traps. I used a
statistical model (logistic regression) to show that the extent of riffle
habitat in a reach is, by far, the best predictor of Nooksack dace presence.
They are found in fewer than half of all reaches containing less than 10%
riffle by length. In aggregate these data provided a strong scientific basis
for identifying areas of suitable, or potential critical habitat.
3. An estimate of the area of suitable habitat on the landscape.
I multiplied the length of riffle habitat in each reach by the average channel
width in that reach to estimate total riffle area in the watershed.
4. An estimate of mean population density in suitable habitat.
I used a field-derived estimate of Nooksack dace density in high quality
habitat of 1.9/m2.
Multiplying of riffle area in each watershed by the population density in high
quality habitat yielded an estimate of the watershed’s maximum achievable
population (carrying capacity) for Nooksack dace if all of the habitat were in
excellent condition. We then compared this to our estimate of minimum viable
population size (MVP) for each watershed, which is low to mid thousands of
Nooksack dace.
The riparian portion of potential critical habitat was assessed and mapped
using an adaptation of the BC Governments Riparian Area Regulation assessment
methodology as described in Exhibit “G”, which are consistent with the habitat
needs of Nooksack dace.
If the area of suitable habitat available
in the landscape is less than that necessary to support the MVP, either all
available habitat should be identified as critical, and additional habitats be
restored until enough is available to support the MVP, or recovery should be
declared not feasible. This is because a population of Nooksack dace that is
smaller than the MVP cannot be expected to persist in the wild. If the suitable
habitat area far exceeds the area necessary to meet the MVP, not all of the
habitat may be needed in order to ensure survival. In either case, more habitat
than just that needed to support the MVP of Nooksack dace would still need to
be identified as critical habitat, to meet the recovery goal for the Nooksack
dace by moving the population towards the higher threshold of recovery.
The maximum achievable population size of
Nooksack dace for the Nooksack tributaries, assuming all habitat was of
excellent quality, ranged from 3000 to 5700 fish. This led the Recovery Team to
conclude in the Recovery Strategy (pg 19) that “the maximum achievable
population size is close to the minimum viable population size and that all
suitable habitats should be designated critical.” Actual populations are
believed to be much lower than this ideal-world estimate, as most habitat is
degraded, In the recently accepted COSEWIC status report on Nooksack dace
(referred to in paragraphs 8 and 13), I estimated that only 300 and 800
Nooksack dace remain in Fishtrap and Pepin Creeks respectively. These numbers
are significantly lower than the estimated MVP for Nooksack dace.
Based on the application of these 4
variables, we were able to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty the
quantity and location of critical habitat needed for survival of the Nooksack
dace. Because we concluded, as stated above, that “the maximum achievable
population size is close to the minimum viable population size and that all
suitable habitats should be designated critical” we recognized the necessity
for protecting critical habitat in each of the Nooksack Tributaries.
[Emphasis added]
[15]
Dr. Pearson provided
his draft to the Recovery Team in June 2004, and a second draft in January
2005. The Recovery Team then provided its final “Draft Recovery Strategy” to
DFO in June 2005.
B. Ms. Webb’s direction
[16]
With
respect to the Recovery Team’s Draft Recovery Strategy, and with respect to
compliance with s. 41(1)(c) of SARA, Ms. Webb made the critical decision
to direct the altering of all draft recovery strategies then in progress in the
Pacific Region of DFO, including the Nooksack Dace Draft Recovery Strategy; the
altered document was proposed three months later as the Proposed Recovery
Strategy. The action taken by Ms. Webb is described in the following email sent
on her behalf on June 21, 2006 by Ms. Liane O’Grady a DFO employee:
Subject: Update on
Critical Habitat Identification and Policy Development
Hi Everyone,
Just thought I would send along a few
recent developments with regards to the identification of critical habitat in
recovery strategies and a renewed focus on SARA policy development in NHQ.
Critical Habitat ID:
Recently, a decision that was made
regarding direction on critical habitat in recovery strategies. This has been a
difficult and long standing issue for us in Pacific Region as well as for
others (there have been similar concerns in C&A). As a result, after
extensive regional discussion it has been decided that critical habitat should
be removed from all RS [Recovery Strategies in the Pacific Region] in process
and for the foreseeable future until a clear policy direction has been provided.
The reasons for this decision are as follows:
• Critical habitat
identified in some recovery strategies had not yet undergone scientific peer
review. To complete this would require further time delays (2-4 months). In
addition, PSARC is still in the process of considering how to move forward on
the peer review of SARA habitat related science.
• The Act itself and
current draft policy are very clear that consultation must occur with any
parties affected by the identification of critical habitat. At this point it is
not clear that all potentially affected parties have been consulted.
• Neither the policy
nor operational guidelines on the identification of critical habitat have been
finalized leading to the potential for inconsistent identification and
protection within the region and across the department.
• There has been no
legal review of this policy. Also, the request for a legal opinion as to the
legal obligations of the Minister with respect to posted recovery strategies
has not yet been completed.
• Current
expectations are that the Fisheries Act and Oceans Act are to be
used to protect critical habitat, yet the definition of critical habitat is not
consistent with the SARA definition.
• We would like
to proceed cautiously with the identification of critical habitat, while still
recognizing that we have a legal obligation to do so, given that we may be
setting a precedent where we are uncertain as to the potential impacts of doing
so.
The region is cognizant of the fact that
it has already missed the deadline for posting the Nooksack Dace, Hotwater Physa, and Killer
Whale recovery strategies on the SARA Public Registry and believes that it
would not be beneficial to encounter further substantial delays pending
resolution of the above noted concerns. I realize that this will cause some
frustrations amongst staff who have worked diligently on our recovery teams, but
it is better to have thoughtfully considered the impacts of critical habitat
identification and to move forward in a coherent manner consistent with
national direction. We will continue to work actively with our
counterparts in NHQ to ensure that policy work done on critical habitat
includes discussion and adequate direction for staff working at the operational
level.
Policy Framework Development:
The recent SARA program evaluation
flagged the urgent need for EC/DFO/PCA to complete the SARA policies and
guidelines in order to assist in effective implementation of the Species at
Risk Act. As a result, the DM Steering Committee and the SARA ADM Committee
have flagged a number of policy priorities (listing/delisting, socio-economic
analysis, identification and protection of critical habitat, protection of
species at risk, permits and agreements, activities authorized in recovery
planning documents, feasibility of recovery, and consultation), which have now
been incorporated into the draft SARA Policy Framework which is attached. There
is currently a push to move forward on external consultations of this policy
framework, however adequate regional review and comment has not yet been
completed. I am hoping to provide NHQ with a regional response for their
consideration prior to the framework being finalized and external
consultations being initiated. If you would like to provide comments, please
pass them on to me by Wednesday July 5th. (My apologies to
those of you who may have now received this information more than once).
[Emphasis added]
(Respondent’s Record, Vol. 1, Tab 20, pp.
16 – 17)
[17]
The
details of “critical habitat” that Ms. Webb decided to remove are described by
Dr. Pearson as follows:
In September 2006, the
Proposed Recovery Strategy was posted on the SARA public registry with some of
the information related to the critical habitat removed. Specifically, our map
of Nooksack Dace critical habitat (Figure 4, page 13 of Exhibit “D”), and a
table listing activities likely to result in destruction of critical habitat
(page 14) were removed, and the description of critical habitat altered to
remove references to its length and the specific definition. For example, the
sentence “The combined length of proposed critical
habitat in the three
watersheds where it has been surveyed is 21.3 km (of 36.4 km of surveyed stream
channel)” was removed.
(Pearson Affidavit, para. 30)
C. The recommendation to
Mr. Murray
[18]
The
following Memorandum, dated July 18, 2007 was sent by Mr. Pardeep Ahluwalia,
Director General of the SARA Secretariat, to Mr. Larry Murray for his
concurrence as an authorized delegate of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans:
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY MINISTER
POSTING ON THE PUBLIC REGISTRY
OF FINAL RECOVERY STRATEGIES FOR THE MORRISON CREEK LAMPREY, NOOKSACK DACE AND
SIX STICKLEBACK SPECIES UNDER THE SPECIES AT RISK ACT (SARA)
(For your signature)
Summary
• Under the Species
at Risk Act (SARA), a proposed version of a recovery strategy must first be
posted on the SARA public registry for a 60-day comment period. The competent
minister then has 30 days to incorporate comments received as appropriate, and
post the final recovery strategy on the public registry.
• A proposed
recovery strategy for the Morrison Creek Lamprey, one for the Nooksack Dace,
and one covering six Stickleback species were posted on the SARA public
registry on September 20, September 26, and October 10, 2006, respectively.
• None of the
recovery strategies identify critical habitat. The David Suzuki Foundation
and Sierra Legal Defence have sent letters voicing their concerns regarding
missed timelines for posting recovery strategies, and notably, the absence
of critical habitat identification in the Nooksack Dace recovery strategy.
• The critical
habitat section of the Nooksack Dace and Stickleback recovery strategies has
been modified to indicate that DFO will conduct peer reviews of the Recovery
Team’s recommendations related to critical habitat before it is identified in a
SARA action plan. No substantial changes have been made to the final Recovery
Strategy for the Morrison Creek Lamprey.
• It is recommended
that you approve posting on the public registry of the final versions of all
three recovery strategies. The proposed versions of these recovery strategies
were approved by ADM Science, ADM Oceans & Habitat, ADM FAM and ADM
Policy in the fall of 2006, and no significant content changes have been made
to the final versions.
Background
• The Morrison Creek
Lamprey, Nooksack Dace, and Paxton Lake and Vananda Creek
Stickleback species pairs were included as endangered species on the List of
Wildlife Species at Risk (Schedule 1) of the Species at Risk Act (SARA)
when the Act came into force in June 2003. Under s. 42(2) of SARA,
the proposed recovery strategy for these species was to be posted on the
public registry by June 2006.
• The Enos Lake
Stickleback pair was listed as endangered under SARA in January 2005, and a
proposed recovery strategy for this species was due is due in January 2008.
A single recovery strategy covering all three Stickleback species pairs
(each pair comprising a benthic form and limnetic form, for a total of six
species) was prepared due to similar ecology and threats.
• The 60-day public
comment period of proposed recovery strategies ended on November 19, 2006 for
the Morrison Creek Lamprey, on November 25 for the Nooksack Dace, and on
December 9 for the Stickleback species pairs.
• Following the
comment period, the competent minister has 30 days to review the comments
received, make changes as appropriate, and post the final version of the
recovery strategy on the SARA public registry. Final recovery strategies for
the Morrison Creek Lamprey, Nooksack Dace, and Stickleback species pairs were
to be posted on the public registry on December 19, 2006, December 25, 2006,
and January 8, 2007, respectively.
Analysis / DFO Comment
• No significant
changes have been made to the final recovery strategies for Morrison Creek
Lamprey, Nooksack Dace, and Stickleback species pairs. One comment on each
proposed recovery strategy was received through the public registry, and the
information has been incorporated where appropriate after consultation with the
Province of British Columbia and the Recovery Team.
• The declaration in
the final version of the documents has been modified to the effect that the
British Columbia Ministry of Environment has reviewed and accepts the recovery
strategies as scientific advice. This wording makes it more explicit that
recommendations therein do not impose commitments on the province of BC. The Province has
participated in the development of the three recovery strategies as per the
requirements of SARA and of the Bilateral Agreement.
• Critical
habitat is not identified in any of the three recovery strategies. The
David Suzuki Foundation and Sierra Legal Defence have raised concerns on the
absence of critical habitat identification in the Nooksack Dace Recovery
Strategy specifically. Given the possibility that this issue may arise
with recovery strategies for other freshwater species in BC, internal
discussions on a path forward were warranted, resulting in the delay in posting
the final versions of these recovery strategies.
• Specifically, the
David Suzuki Foundation sent a letter on December 15, 2006 concerning the
absence of critical habitat in the proposed Nooksack Dace recovery strategy.
The Department responded on May 2, 2007 to clarify that although the recovery
team identified key features of critical habitat for this species as well as a
proposal for its spatial delineation, DFO was of the opinion that critical
habitat should be scientifically peer reviewed prior to its inclusion in a SARA
recovery strategy. The response also indicated that the Recovery Team supports
this approach.
• Subsequent to this,
Sierra Legal Defence wrote to the Department on June 7, 2007 to again note that
the recovery strategy for Nooksack Dace was one year overdue and to seek
departmental confirmation that the recovery strategy for Nooksack Dace would
include critical habitat identification.
• Discussions
with DFO-Pacific Region, the SARA Secretariat and Department of Justice
concluded that it is justifiable for DFO to conduct a scientific peer review of
the recommendations of the recovery team for defining critical habitat before
it is identified in a recovery strategy. These peer reviews are
warranted to confirm that critical habitat identification is scientifically
defensible, as well as to ensure that it is consistently identified across all
departmental recovery strategies. Peer reviews are a standard DFO process to
confirm the validity of scientific findings. The Province of BC, who co-chairs all freshwater recovery
strategy development, is also supportive of this approach.
• Consequently,
the critical habitat section of the Nooksack Dace and Stickleback species pairs
presents general habitat features to be considered when critical habitat will
be identified, but does not make specific geospatial delineations. The
Recovery Team has developed biologically-based recommendations for defining
critical habitat for these species as a separate document, which is available
to the public upon request to the Recovery Team. The recommendations will
be submitted for external scientific peer review through the Pacific Science Advisory
Review Committee.
• There is the
potential for this issue to be raised in the media by conservation groups when
the Nooksack Dace recovery strategy is posted without critical habitat. As
such, media lines, which will also be applicable to the Stickleback recovery
strategy, are currently being drafted.
• Department
officials will, at the request of Sierra Legal Defence, set up a meeting to
discuss recovery strategy development processes. It can be expected that as
part of that dialogue, the critical habitat concerns related to Nooksack Dace
and Sticklebacks will be raised. During that session, the explanation of using
the peer review process will have to be reiterated.
Next Steps
• It is recommended
that you approve the posting on the SARA public registry of the
final recovery strategies for the Morrison Creek Lamprey, Nooksack Dace, and
Paxton Lake, Enos Lake and Vananda Creek Stickleback
species pairs.
Pardeep Ahluwalia
Director General
SARA Secretariat
________________
I concur,
Larry Murray
Attachments (3): 1)
Recovery Strategy for the Morrison Creek Lamprey in Canada
2) Recovery Strategy for the Nooksack
Dace in Canada
3) Recovery Strategy for Paxton Lake, Enos Lake, and Vananda Creek Stickleback
species pairs in Canada
[Emphasis added]
(Exhibit 1, filed in the course of
the hearing of the present Application)
[19]
Thus, Mr.
Murray was asked to approve Ms. Webb’s direction. It appears that a legal
opinion from the Department of Justice regarding the interpretation of s. 41(1)(c)
of SARA played a role in the development of the recommendation.
D. Mr. Murray’s concurrence
to the recommendation
[20]
Mr. Murray
concurred to the recommendation on July 18, 2007.
E. The Final Recovery
Strategy
[21]
As a
result of Mr. Murray’s concurrence, the Final Recovery Strategy contains the
following statement with respect to the critical habitat of the Nooksack Dace:
CRITICAL HABITAT
Identification of Critical Habitat
The Recovery Team has developed
biologically-based recommendations for defining critical habitat for Nooksack
dace. These recommendations have been prepared as a separate document (Pearson
2007), which is available to the public upon request to the Recovery Team. The
proposed critical habitat document will be submitted for external scientific
peer review through the Pacific Science Advisory Review Committee. After
the peer review process, a final version will form the biological
recommendations for designating critical habitat. To conform with current
policy on species at risk and recovery strategy content, the following
discussion on critical habitat presents general habitat features that should be
considered when defining and designating critical habitat, but does not make
specific geospatial recommendations.
Critical habitat is defined in SARA as
“the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed
wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the
recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species.” [SARA S. 2(1)]. Attributes
of critical habitat for Nooksack dace have been defined but not mapped or
designated in this recovery strategy. A quantity of proposed critical habitat
sufficient to ensure the survival and recovery of Nooksack dace will be
designated through the action planning process, which will include
socioeconomic analysis and consultation with affected interests. The Recovery
Team has compiled scientific data that will provide the basis for an official
designation of critical habitat (Pearson 2007). Further studies are
required to confirm the presence of other Nooksack dace populations and their
critical habitats, and to characterize specific threats. Designating critical
habitat will contribute to the refinement of recovery objectives and the
management of activities that impact the species.
Potential critical habitat for Nooksack
dace consists of reaches in their native creeks that contain or are known to
have previously contained more than 10% riffle by length. It includes all
aquatic habitat and riparian reserve strips of native vegetation on both banks
for the entire length of the reach. Reserve strips should be continuous with
width requirements based on reach-scale assessments as described in Pearson
(2007; in review through PSARC).
Critical Habitat Features
Based on available physical and
biological data, potential Nooksack dace critical habitat features likely
include the following key elements:
The Reach Scale
Riffles and shallow pools (see below) are
the required habitats of Nooksack dace, but critical habitat should be defined
at the reach scale, a larger, natural unit of river morphology that ranges from
hundreds to thousands of metres in length (Frissell et al. 1986). There are
three reasons for adopting this scale. First, the reach scale corresponds to
the distribution of subpopulations within watersheds (Pearson 2004a). Second,
the ‘channel units’ of critical habitat (riffles and shallow pools) are dynamic
and frequently move during flood events in these streams. In Bertrand Creek, this occurs on an annual
basis (Pearson pers. obs.). Effective protection and management of critical
habitat in these circumstances must allow for normal channel processes and
must, therefore, occur at a spatial scale larger than the channel unit. The
reach scale is the next largest in accepted stream habitat classifications
(Frissell et al. 1986; Imhof et al. 1996). Third, the reach scale corresponds
most closely to that of land ownership in these watersheds and, consequently,
to most potential recovery actions.
Riffle Habitat
Available information overwhelmingly
suggests that riffles are critical to species persistence. Nooksack dace typically
occur in riffles over loose gravel and cobble substrates where water velocity
exceeds 0.25 m s-1. They spawn near the
upstream end of riffles (McPhail 1997) between late April and early July
(Pearson 2004a) and forage nocturnally for riffle dwelling insects (McPhail
1997). The percent of riffle in a stream reach is a good predictor of dace
presence. Riffles that are isolated b long stretches of deep pool, however,
are seldom inhabited (Pearson 2004a). A threshold of 10% riffle by length
would exclude these small isolated riffles that have little value to Nooksack
dace.
Shallow Pool Habitat
Young-of-the-year Nooksack dace inhabit
shallow (10-20 cm) pools adjacent to riffles where they swim above sand, mud,
or leaf litter substrates and feed upon chironomid pupae and ostracods (McPhail
1997). Loss of these habitats will likely produce negative population-level
impacts.
Riparian Habitat
Riparian vegetation should be included in
critical habitat to the extent it is necessary to protect the integrity of
in-stream critical habitat.
Required widths would vary among sites and should be defined in reach scale
assessments. Reserves must be sufficient to control sediment entry to the
stream from overland flow, to prevent excessive bank erosion and to buffer
stream temperatures. Reserve areas will also remove significant amounts of
nitrate and phosphorous from groundwater, although their efficiency depends
strongly on hydrogeologic conditions (Martin et al. 1999; Puckett 2004;
Wigington et al. 2003). The effectiveness of a riparian reserve in preventing
materials (e.g., sediments, nutrients, toxins) from entering a stream depends
strongly on its continuity in addition to its width (Weller et al. 1998). Consequently,
riparian reserves in critical habitat reaches should be continuous. In
open landscapes, such as agricultural fields, vegetation from reserve areas
will collect windblown insects (Whitaker et al. 2000). Such insects, falling
from riparian vegetation into the water constitute an important food source
headwater streams (Allan et al. 2003; Schlosser 1991).
It is important to understand that in
some circumstances, more than 30 m of riparian vegetation may be required for
full mitigation of warming (Brown & Krygier 1970; Castelle et al. 1994;
Lynch et al. 1984) and siltation (Davies & Nelson 1994; Kiffney et al.
2003; Moring 1982), and for long-term maintenance of channel morphology (Murphy
et al 1986; Murphy & Koski 1989). At least 10 m are required to maintain
levels of terrestrial food inputs similar to those of forested landscapes (Culp
& Davies 1983). Reserves as narrow as 5 m provide significant protection
from bank erosion and sediment deposition from overland flow (Lee at al. 2003;
McKergow et al. 2003).
Failure to maintain an adequate riparian
reserve as part of critical habitat would be highly likely to cause
population-level impacts. In habitats lacking sufficient flow or groundwater sources,
lack of shade may increase water temperatures to harmful levels. Increased
erosion due to poorer bank stability will cause sediment deposition in riffles,
impairing spawning and incubation, reducing food availability and eliminating
the interstitial spaces in coarse substrate that dace occupy. Nutrient loading
will be higher in reaches without adequate riparian vegetation (Dhondt et al.
2002; Lee et al. 2003; Martin et al. 1999) and is likely to contribute to
hypoxia through eutrophication. Solar radiation will also be higher in reaches
lacking adequate riparian shading (Kiffney et al. 2003) and will contribute to
eutrophication. Reserves of 30 m or more should be maintained around Nooksack
dace habitat wherever feasible to provide a high level of protection from
impacts of adjacent land uses.
[Emphasis added]
(Applicants’ Application Record, pp. 1237
– 1239)
III. The Conduct of the Present
Application
A. The Applicants’ position
on the interpretation of s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1) of SARA
[22]
In support
of the present Application, Counsel for the Applicants supplied a detailed
argument that the statement of the critical habitat of the Nooksack Dace in the
Final Recovery strategy resulting from Mr. Murray’s decision is contrary to
law. The basic features of this argument are as follows:
1. It is mandatory that each of the requirements
listed in s. 41(1)(a) to (g) be met, including those specified in s. 41(1)(c)
and (c.1);
2. Sections 41(1)(c) and (c.1) impose
conjunctive duties;
3. The mandatory requirement in s.
41(1)(c) to identify a species’ critical habitat is met by determining and
stating its features and providing a geospatial delineation of its location in
a Final Recovery Strategy because only after critical habitat is so identified
can an important object of SARA be met; providing legal protection for a species
at risk;
4. The mandatory requirement in s.
41(1)(c) to identify a species’ critical habitat “to the extent possible” means
identifying as much critical habitat as possible, and in as much detail as
possible, even if it is not possible to identify all critical habitat areas or
features;
5. The mandatory requirement in s.
41(1)(c) to identify a species’ critical habitat to the extent possible “based
on the best available information” means that the identification of a species
critical habitat to the extent possible must be based on the information in
existence not the best possible information that can be acquired in the future.
B. The Minister’s initial
position in response
[23]
The most
significant feature of the initial position taken by the Minister in the
present Application is an obvious attempt to avoid a finding on the correct
interpretation of s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1) of SARA.
[24]
In written
argument provided three weeks before the commencement of the hearing of the
present Application, the Minister took the position that the decision under
review is made in error of law, but only on the basis of two issues framed as
follows:
The substantive
issues arising from this case are the following:
1. did the Minister
have authority under ss. 41(1) of the SARA to defer the making of a
determination about the adequacy of the available information to identify
critical habitat to the extent possible until the completion of the PSARC
scientific peer review of Dr. Pearson’s assessment of potential critical
habitat; and
2. was the
Minister’s discretion to make a determination under ss. 41(1) about the
identification of critical habitat fettered?
(Respondent’s
Memorandum of Fact and Law, para. 28)
With respect to these issues, the Minister was prepared to
agree to declarations that the answers to the questions are “no” and “yes”
respectively. Given these admissions on the part of the Minister, Counsel for
the Minister argued that none of the statutory interpretation issues raised by
the Applicants in their statutory interpretation argument arise from the facts
of this case, and, therefore, are irrelevant and need not be addressed in order
to dispose of the present Application. Nevertheless, having advanced this
argument, Counsel for the Minister presented the following statement to support
the position taken as set out in the following paragraphs of written argument:
31. The Minister’s position to the issues in this case
are as follows:
a. the competent minister must, in a
recovery strategy, identify critical habitat to the extent possible, based on
the best available information, within the timelines set out in ss. 42-43 of
the SARA. Where available information is adequate, the competent minister must
identify critical habitat to the extent possible. To the extent available
information is inadequate, the competent minister must include in the recovery
strategy a schedule of studies to identify critical habitat;
b. in approving the posting of the 2007
Recovery Strategy, the Minister was required to determine, on the basis of the
information that was available, to what extent it was possible to identify
critical habitat for the Nooksack dace;
c. because a scientific peer review is a
standard DFO process to assess the validity of scientific information and the
conclusions reached, the Minister deferred making the decision about the
adequacy of available information to identify critical habitat to the extent
possible until a scientific peer review of the Nooksack Recovery Team's
recommendations related to critical habitat was conducted;
d. to the extent that a scientific peer
review was required to allow the Minister to determine whether the available
information was adequate to identify critical habitat to the extent possible,
such peer review should have been completed before the expiration of the
timelines set out in ss. 42-43 of the SARA so that the Minister could have
determined whether the information available was adequate to identify critical
habitat to the extent possible;
e. the Minister did not, in the
circumstances of the Nooksack dace case, have the authority to defer the
identification of critical habitat pending a scientific peer review after the
timelines set out in ss. 42-43 of SARA had expired; and
f. the June 2006 Direction to remove
critical habitat from all recovery strategies was unwarranted and fettered the
Minister's discretion.
32. The positions
set out above fully address the issues arising in this case, including the
Applicants’ submissions regarding the mandatory nature of paragraph 41(1)(c)
and the interplay between paragraphs 41(1)(c) and (c.1).
33. None of the other statutory
interpretation questions put forward by the Applicants arise on the facts of
this case. They are therefore irrelevant and this Court does not need to
address them in order to dispose of this judicial review.
34. Specifically, the question as to
whether or not paragraph 41(1)(c) requires the competent minister to
geospatially delineate critical habitat is not in issue in this case. In issue
is simply the Minister’s decision to defer or postpone the determination about
the adequacy of the available information, which information included maps
describing potential critical habitat to a point in time when that information
had been scientifically peer reviewed. As set out in the 2007 Recovery
Strategy:
The Recovery Team has
developed biologically-based recommendations for defining critical habitat for
Nooksack dace. These recommendations have been prepared as a separate document
(Pearson 2007), which is available to the public upon request to the Recover
Team. The proposed critical habitat document will be submitted for external
scientific peer review through the Pacific Science Advisory Review Committee.
After the peer review process, a final version will form the biological
recommendations for designating critical habitat.
(Webb Affidavit, Exhibit “J”, p.12,
Respondent’s Record, Tab 1, Vol. 1, p.142)
35. The Minister does not
allege that the description of general habitat features in the final recovery
strategy constituted or amounted to identification of critical habitat.
Therefore, contrary to the Applicants’ submissions, there was no “erroneous
construction” of paragraph 41(1)(c) by the DFO about the manner in which the
critical habitat must be described in a recovery strategy. Rather there was
no identification of critical habitat at all because no determination had been
made about the possibility of identifying some critical habitat.
[Emphasis added]
(Respondent’s
Memorandum of Fact and Law, paras. 31 to 35)
The statement in paragraph 31 is apparently an
interpretation of s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1). However, to the contrary, in the
course of oral argument Counsel for the Minister explains its purpose as
follows:
This really was made for the purposes of
illustrating or agreeing with the possibility that you have to meet both
obligations in the same decision. That's all it is, and that's the only
purpose for which this particular admission is set out in paragraph (a). It's
not for the purposes of actually trying to give some sort of an interpretation
as to what is the scope of the obligation. That's not what it's seeking to do.
(Transcript Vol. 3, p. 149)
[25]
With
respect to the argument made in paragraph 35, in the course of oral argument,
Counsel for the Minister made the unsupported argument that Mr. Murray approved
the recommendation of July 18, 2007 without turning his mind to the interpretation
of s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1). I find there is no basis to engage this argument.
There is no evidence on the record of what was in Mr. Murray’s mind at the time
he concurred in the recommendation presented; Mr. Murray did not file an
affidavit. As a result, the recommendation, and his concurrence to it as quoted
on the record, speaks for itself.
C. Opportunity provided to
the Minister to argue interpretation
[26]
Given that
there is no obvious support within s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1) for the Minister’s
position on the law that “where
available information is adequate, the competent minister must identify
critical habitat to the extent possible” and, given the nature and content of the
other features of the argument advanced by Counsel for the Minister, in the
course of the hearing I gave the following direction:
With respect to the Minister's decision
of July 18th, 2007, presently under review, counsel for the
applicants have produced a very detailed, contextual and purposive analysis of
the Species at Risk Act, known as "SARA", to argue that
the decision is contrary to law on a number of grounds. This is considered
necessary because the legislation has yet to be interpreted by this Court.
Without a response to the applicants'
argument on the law, counsel for the respondent admits that an error in law did
occur in the issuance of the decision, but places limits on the nature of the
error. The applicants do not accept this limited argument as correct in law,
or as a just result to the application, and therefore do not consent to the
conclusion of the present application on the basis of the respondent's consent.
Counsel for the respondent argues that,
given the admission of error, a contextual and purposive determination of the
correct interpretation of SARA is not relevant. This argument is
supported by the Minister's position as stated at paragraph 31 of the
respondent's Memorandum of Fact and Law. It is a statement which is an
interpretation of section 41(1)(c) and (c.1) of SARA, which counsel for
the applicants argues raises a statutory interpretation controversy.
I agree that an interpretation
controversy is at the heart of the decision under review. I disagree with
counsel for the respondent's argument that a contextual and purposive
interpretation of SARA is not relevant. In my opinion it is not
possible to determine the present application on the basis of the consent
alone, particularly given the objection of counsel for the applicants, because
it is only a proper and correct interpretation of SARA that can ground a
finding of error of law. The admission made by the respondents is merely a
position adopted; it is not a legal conclusion. Only this Court can determine
a conclusion, and it is only fair and just that this be accomplished in the
usual manner, which is to first interpret the law and then examine the
Minister's conduct to determine whether it is contrary to law, and if so, in
what specific way or ways.
Therefore, I find that counsel for the
respondent must be provided with an opportunity to make a full argument on the
correct interpretation of SARA in response to the argument completed by
counsel for the applicants.
(Transcript, Vol. 3, pp. 152 – 154)
D. The Minister’s response
[27]
The
Minister decided to take up the opportunity to provide a statutory
interpretation argument which is addressed in the analysis which follows.
[28]
However,
in making the argument, the Minister continues to assert the position that Mr.
Murray did not make a decision under s. 41(1)(c) or (c.1) of SARA. While
it is clear on the record that the Minister did not make the determinations
required by the provisions, the Minister did make a decision not to do so. This
decision applied the belief that the determinations could be postponed on
policy grounds as a defensible action. The Applicants’ position with respect to
this conduct is that it is not simply unwarranted but is contrary to law. I
agree with this argument.
[29]
I agree
with the Applicants that the decision-making conducted by Ms. Webb and Mr.
Murray requires a definitive interpretation of s. 41 of SARA to dispel
any idea that policy can supersede Parliament’s purpose as expressed in SARA.
Indeed, the present Application brings the constitutional imperative of the
rule of law into sharp focus.
[30]
As an
outcome to the present pressure exerted by the Applicants to have the Minister and
the officials at DFO recognize and meet their statutory responsibility under SARA,
which has been met by initial resistance but ultimate willingness, the
interpretation of s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1) has become less of a challenge. On some
key features there is agreement while on others there is a difference of
opinion. The following analysis distinguishes between these two results.
IV. The Correct Interpretation
of s. 41 (1)(c) and (c.1)
A. Points of agreement
1. The
standard of review is correctness
[31]
In the
present Application the Applicants question the Minister’s authority to alter
the terms of SARA by government policy. As authority is a question of
law, it is agreed that the Minister’s decision must be considered on the
standard of correctness (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190).
2. Interpretation of SARA
requires a textual, contextual, and purposive analysis
[32]
The
correct interpretation of SARA must be found in the approach to modern statutory
interpretation. It is agreed that the test to be applied is that stated by the
Supreme Court in Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601, at
para. 10:
It
has been long established as a matter of statutory interpretation that “the
words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical
and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the
Act, and the intention of Parliament”: see 65302 British Columbia
Ltd. v. Canada, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804, at para. 50. The interpretation
of a statutory provision must be made according to a textual, contextual and
purposive analysis to find a meaning that is harmonious with the Act as a
whole. When the words of a provision are precise and unequivocal, the
ordinary meaning of the words play a dominant role in the interpretive process.
On the other hand, where the words can support more than one reasonable
meaning, the ordinary meaning of the words plays a lesser role. The relative
effects of ordinary meaning, context and purpose on the interpretive process
may vary, but in all cases the court must seek to read the provisions of an Act
as a harmonious whole.
[Emphasis
added]
3. Section 38 is a
codification of the precautionary principle
[33]
The preamble
to SARA states its objectives:
Recognizing that
Canada’s natural heritage is an integral part of our national
identity and history,
wildlife, in all its forms, has value in and of itself
and is valued by Canadians for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, recreational,
educational, historical, economic, medical, ecological and scientific
reasons,
Canadian wildlife species and
ecosystems are also part of the world’s heritage and the Government of Canada
has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological
Diversity,
providing legal protection for species
at risk will complement existing legislation and will, in part, meet Canada’s commitments under
that Convention,
the Government of Canada is committed
to conserving biological diversity and to the principle that, if there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage to a wildlife species,
cost-effective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species
should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific certainty,
responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada
is shared among the governments in this country and that it is important for
them to work cooperatively to pursue the establishment of complementary
legislation and programs for the protection and recovery of species at risk
in Canada,
it is important that there be cooperation between the
governments in this country to maintain and strengthen national standards of
environmental conservation and that the Government of Canada is committed to
the principles set out in intergovernmental agreements respecting environmental
conservation,
the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council is
to provide national leadership for the protection of species at risk,
including the provision of general direction to the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in respect of that Committee’s activities
and general directions in respect of the development, coordination and
implementation of recovery efforts,
the roles of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and of wildlife
management boards established under land claims agreements in the
conservation of wildlife in this country are essential,
all Canadians have a role to play in the conservation of
wildlife in this country, including the prevention of wildlife species from
becoming extirpated or extinct,
there will be circumstances under which the cost of
conserving species at risk should be shared,
the conservation efforts of individual Canadians and
communities should be encouraged and supported,
stewardship activities contributing to the conservation
of wildlife species and their habitat should be supported to prevent species
from becoming at risk,
community knowledge and interests,
including socio-economic interests, should be considered in developing and
implementing recovery measures,
the traditional knowledge of the aboriginal peoples of Canada should be
considered in the assessment of which species may be at risk and in
developing and implementing recovery measures,
knowledge of wildlife species and ecosystems is critical
to their conservation,
the habitat of species at risk is key
to their conservation, and
Canada’s protected areas, especially national parks, are vital
to the protection and recovery of species at risk,
[Emphasis added]
|
Attendu :
que le patrimoine
naturel du Canada fait partie intégrante de notre identité nationale et de
notre histoire;
que les espèces
sauvages, sous toutes leurs formes, ont leur valeur intrinsèque et sont
appréciées des Canadiens pour des raisons esthétiques, culturelles,
spirituelles, récréatives, éducatives, historiques, économiques, médicales,
écologiques et scientifiques;
que les espèces
sauvages et les écosystèmes du Canada font aussi partie du patrimoine mondial
et que le gouvernement du Canada a ratifié la Convention des Nations Unies
sur la diversité biologique;
que l’attribution
d’une protection juridique aux espèces en péril complétera les textes
législatifs existants et permettra au Canada de respecter une partie des
engagements qu’il a pris aux termes de cette convention;
que le gouvernement
du Canada s’est engagé à conserver la diversité biologique et à respecter le
principe voulant que, s’il existe une menace d’atteinte grave ou irréversible
à une espèce sauvage, le manque de certitude scientifique ne soit pas
prétexte à retarder la prise de mesures efficientes pour prévenir sa
disparition ou sa décroissance;
que la conservation
des espèces sauvages au Canada est une responsabilité partagée par les
gouvernements du pays et que la collaboration entre eux est importante en vue
d’établir des lois et des programmes complémentaires pouvant assurer la
protection et le rétablissement des espèces en péril au Canada;
que la coopération
entre les gouvernements du pays pour le maintien et le renforcement des
normes nationales de conservation de l’environnement est importante et que le
gouvernement du Canada est attaché aux principes énoncés dans les accords
intergouvernementaux en matière de conservation de l’environnement;
que le Conseil
canadien pour la conservation des espèces en péril a la responsabilité
d’établir les orientations pour l’ensemble du pays en matière de protection
des espèces en péril, notamment en ce qui concerne les activités du Comité
sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada et l’élaboration et la
coordination des mesures de protection et de rétablissement de ces espèces;
qu’est essentiel le
rôle que peuvent jouer les peuples autochtones du Canada et les conseils de
gestion des ressources fauniques établis en application d’accords sur des
revendications territoriales dans la conservation des espèces sauvages dans
ce pays;
que tous les
Canadiens ont un rôle à jouer dans la conservation des espèces sauvages,
notamment en ce qui a trait à la prévention de leur disparition du pays ou de
la planète;
que, dans certains
cas, les frais de la conservation des espèces en péril devraient être
partagés;
que les efforts de
conservation des Canadiens et des collectivités devraient être encouragés et
appuyés;
que les activités
d’intendance visant la conservation des espèces sauvages et de leur habitat
devraient bénéficier de l’appui voulu pour éviter que celles-ci deviennent
des espèces en péril;
que la connaissance
et les intérêts — notamment socioéconomiques — des collectivités devraient
être pris en compte lors de l’élaboration et de la mise en oeuvre des mesures
de rétablissement;
que les
connaissances traditionnelles des peuples autochtones du Canada devraient
être prises en compte pour découvrir quelles espèces sauvages peuvent être en
péril et pour l’élaboration et la mise en oeuvre des mesures de
rétablissement;
que la connaissance
des espèces sauvages et des écosystèmes est essentielle à leur conservation;
que l’habitat des
espèces en péril est important pour leur conservation;
que les aires
protégées au Canada, plus particulièrement les parcs nationaux, sont
importants pour la protection et le rétablissement des espèces en péril,
[Je souligne]
|
[34]
Canada has ratified the United
Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (the Convention)
and, therefore, is committed to apply its principles. An important feature of
the Convention is the “precautionary principle” which is stated by the
Supreme Court of Canada as follows:
In order to achieve
sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle.
Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
(114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson
(Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R.
241 at para. 31)
It
is agreed that s. 38 of SARA is a codification of the precautionary
principle which, as stated in the Preamble, in part, meets Canada’s commitments under the Convention:
Commitments to be considered
38. In preparing a recovery strategy,
action plan or management plan, the competent minister must consider the
commitment of the Government of Canada to conserving biological diversity
and to the principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage to the listed wildlife species, cost-effective measures to
prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for a
lack of full scientific certainty.
[Emphasis
added]
|
Engagements applicables
38. Pour l’élaboration d’un programme de rétablissement, d’un
plan d’action ou d’un plan de gestion, le ministre compétent tient compte
de l’engagement qu’a pris le gouvernement du Canada de conserver la diversité
biologique et de respecter le principe selon lequel, s’il existe une
menace d’atteinte grave ou irréversible à l’espèce sauvage inscrite, le
manque de certitude scientifique ne doit pas être prétexte à retarder la
prise de mesures efficientes pour prévenir sa disparition ou sa décroissance.
[Je souligne]
|
[35]
Therefore,
s. 38 is a mandatory interpretative principle that applies during the
preparation of recovery strategies. However, in this respect, Counsel for the
Minister emphasizes two factors: the codification in s. 38 introduces the
factor of “cost effective” measures to Canada’s commitment and, as stated in the
Preamble, community knowledge and interests, including “socio-economic
interests”, should be considered in “developing and implementing recovery
measures”. It is important to clarify the precise role that each of these
factors plays in the recovery strategy process composed of, first, preparing a
recovery strategy, and, second, acting on it.
[36]
The use of “cost effective measures” is understandable in a
situation of scarce economic resources, but, nevertheless, the words in the
provision are precise and unequivocal: the measures required to “prevent the
reduction or loss of the species” must still be taken and “should not be postponed
for a lack of full scientific certainty”.
[37]
The words in the Preamble are also precise and unequivocal; the “development
and implementation of recovery measures” is an action taken with respect
to a final recovery strategy. Once a final recovery strategy is prepared, an
action plan involving recovery measures is required to be developed and
implemented; s. 49(1)(e) of SARA makes it clear that it is only at this
stage of the process that “socio-economic costs” are considered.
[38]
For clarification with respect to their position
on the application of the Convention , the Applicants make the following
argument:
The Convention is a binding treaty, and SARA was enacted in
part to implement Canada’s
treaty commitments. Furthermore, the Convention is part of the
“entire context” to be considered in interpreting the SARA. Therefore, not
only must the SARA be construed to conform to the values and principles of the Convention,
but the Court must avoid any interpretation that could put Canada in breach of its Convention obligations.
(Applicants’ Further Reply Submission, para. 25)
[39]
As the
Minister does not disagree with this argument, I find it is correct in law.
4. The
provisions of s. 41 of SARA are mandatory
[40]
It is
agreed that the provisions of s. 41 of SARA are mandatory. Most
recently, Justice Zinn has made this point very clear in Alberta Wilderness Association Assn.
v. Canada (Minister of Environment), 2009 FC 710, [2009]
F.C.J. No. 876 at paragraph 25:
There is no discretion vested in the
Minister in identifying critical habitat under the SARA. Subsection 41(1)(c) requires that the
Minister identify in a recovery strategy document as much critical habitat as
it is possible to identify at that time, even if all of it cannot be
identified, and to do so based on the best information then available. I note
that this requirement reflects the precautionary principle that “where there are
threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation,” as it was put by the Supreme Court of Canada, citing the Bergen
Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development in 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40.
[Emphasis added]
Therefore, as argued by the Applicants, I find that Ms.
Webb’s direction and Mr. Murray’s approval of her direction are actions
contrary to law. The result of these actions is that the Minister failed to
meet the mandatory requirements of s. 41 (1)(c) in the Final Recovery Strategy.
The totality of this conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the
precautionary principle as codified in SARA.
[41]
Ms. Webb
gave six reasons for directing the removal of information with respect to the
location of the critical habitat identified by Dr. Pearson. As stated above, in
addition to the peer review and policy excuses offered for not meeting deadline
or content requirements, the following statement is important to emphasize:
We would like to proceed cautiously with
the identification of critical habitat, while still recognizing that we have a
legal obligation to do so, given that we may be setting a precedent where we
are uncertain as to the potential impacts of doing so.
[Emphasis added]
A proper question to ask about this statement is: potential impacts
on what or whom? It is obvious that the impact on the Nooksack Dace is not the
focus. The Applicants have advanced the suggestion that political and socioeconomic
considerations came into play in Ms. Webb’s direction and Mr. Murray’s decision.
While I consider that this suggestion is not directly relevant to the
determination of the present Application, it is clear that no political or
socioeconomic consideration can be applied by a competent Minister in meeting Parliament’s
intention as expressed by the mandatory provisions of s. 41(1) of SARA.
[42]
With
respect to the requirement on the Minister to identify critical habitat to the
extent possible based on the best available information at the recovery strategy
stage without political or socioeconomic considerations in play, as argued by
the Applicants, I find that the following statement made in the Final Recovery
Strategy as quoted above is an error in law:
Attributes of critical habitat
for Nooksack dace have been defined but not mapped or designated in this
recovery strategy. A quantity of proposed critical habitat sufficient to
ensure the survival and recovery of Nooksack dace will be designated through
the action planning process, which will include socioeconomic analysis and
consultation with affected interests.
5. Sections 41(1)(c) and
(c.1) impose conjunctive duties based on the best available information
[43]
It is
agreed that with respect to a competent Minister making the determinations
required under s. 41(1)(c), the phrase “best available information” comprises relevant
scientific, community, and Aboriginal traditional knowledge, and requires a competent
Minister to gather, review, and evaluate the available information during the
preparation of a recovery strategy and not to disregard, ignore, or remove
reliable information about a species’ critical habitat. It is agreed that where
the available information so evaluated is determined by the competent Minister
to be inadequate, the recovery strategy must include a schedule of studies.
[44]
It is also
agreed that the determinations made by a competent Minister under s. 41(1)(c)
and (c.1) are subject to judicial review on the standard of reasonableness.
This principle is confirmed by Justice Zinn’s decision in Alberta Wilderness
Assn., above.
B. The primary point of
disagreement: the definition of “habitat” and “critical habitat”
[45]
In the
final result, after the full conduct of the decision-making and challenge that
is the focus of the present Application, this is the primary question in
dispute: what are the constituents that must be included in the identification
of a species’ critical habitat? The answer to the question lies in the correct
interpretation of the definition of “habitat” because “critical habitat” is a
sub-set of the definition of “habitat”. The definitions found in s. 2 of SARA
are worth repeating:
"habitat" means
(b) in respect of
aquatic species, spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply,
migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or
indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic
species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced; and
…
"critical
habitat" means the habitat that is necessary for the survival or
recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’
critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the
species.
|
« habitat »
a)
S’agissant d’une espèce aquatique, les frayères, aires d’alevinage, de
croissance et d’alimentation et routes migratoires dont sa survie dépend,
directement ou indirectement, ou aires où elle s’est déjà trouvée et où il
est possible de la réintroduire;
[…]
« habitat
essentiel » L’habitat nécessaire à la survie ou au rétablissement d’une
espèce sauvage inscrite, qui est désigné comme tel dans un programme de
rétablissement ou un plan d’action élaboré à l’égard de l’espèce.
|
[46]
The
Applicants maintain that the constituents of the habitat, and accordingly the
critical habitat, of a specific species are an identifiable location and the
attributes of that location that meet the criteria of the statutory definition
of both terms. When the present Application was commenced, there was no
apparent dispute about location and attributes as the constituents. The Final
Recovery Strategy for the Nooksack Dace makes it clear that, in the
identification of critical habitat, location and attributes are inextricably
linked. The bone of contention that fuelled the present Application was the
Minister’s removal of the location constituent from the Final Recovery Strategy.
[47]
It is
important to note that in the preparation of the Draft Recovery Strategy the
approach of citing both location and attributes was consistent with Canadian
government policy statements and, indeed, the policy statements were followed
in the Final Recovery Strategy but for the removal of location for the stated
reason that a peer review of Dr. Pearson’s findings was necessary. A primary
source of the policy statements on the record of the present Application is a
document dated March 10, 2005 and entitled Species at Risk Act
Implementation Guidance: Draft: Technical Guidelines for Identifying Critical
Habitat (Technical Guidelines) which is intended to provide guidance
to practitioners, such as Dr. Pearson, respecting the identification of
critical habitat. Coincidentally,
the document was issued contemporaneously with the submission of the Draft
Recovery Strategy.
[48]
In the Technical
Guidelines under the heading “Statement of Intent and Purpose” the
following explanation is provided:
These guidelines provide a
summary of technical guidance for the identification of critical habitat under
SARA. They aim to promote: i) a common understanding of the policy requirements
for identification; ii) a consistent methodological framework for
identification; and iii) the preparation of biologically and legally
defensible critical habitat proposals.
[Emphasis added]
Under the heading “The Expected Product” the following
expectations are stated:
Advice on crucial habitat must
consist of several basic elements and recovery practitioners should be aware of
them before starting the identification process. The Federal Policy
Discussion Paper: Critical Habitat outlines the minimal standards for
communicating proposed critical habitat as follows:
1. NARRATIVE of the
species’ critical habitat(s), which may include such things as: an account of
appropriate natural communities; habitat types; habitat features; necessary and
sufficient quantities (e.g., hectares) (see section 5.0 How much Critical
Habitat is Enough? for additional discussion); compositional arrangement; and
any essential ecological processes (e.g., pollination, parasitism, dispersal,
fire, flood). In essence, this section describes proposed critical habitat by
answering the question - WHAT IS IT?
2. RANGE COORDINATES
(e.g., UTM zone, UTM easting, UTM northing, datum of coordinates) in order to
geospatially locate the proposed critical habitat within Canada. Within the area(s)
delineated by the range coordinates only habitat fitting the narrative is
considered actual critical habitat. In essence, this section contributes to the
identification of proposed critical habitat by answering the question - WHERE
IS IT?
(Respondent’s Record, Vol. 1,
pp. 370(a) – 371)
1. The
Minister’s interpretive argument
[49]
It appears
that in the present Application the Minister is fostering a statutory
interpretation which is in conflict with the policy that was effectively accepted,
but not followed as mentioned. As a result, in the present interpretative
process, the Minister is the proponent and the Applicants are the respondent.
[50]
A primary
obligation which the Minister was required to meet in the Final Recovery
Strategy for the Nooksack Dace under s. 41 (1)(c) was the “identification of
the species’ critical habitat”. In meeting the interpretive standard set in Trustco
Mortgage Co., above, the Minister’s textual, contextual, and purposive
analysis places strong weight on the text of the definition of “habitat” to support
the argument that the words of the provision are precise and unequivocal, and,
therefore, the ordinary meaning of the words play a dominant role in the
interpretative process. Thus the argument is that, given the use of the word
“areas” in the definition of habitat for an aquatic species, the critical
habitat for an aquatic species is a geographic location, and while the
attributes which cause the location to be a species’ habitat are capable of
precise description, the attributes themselves are not a constituent of that
critical habitat for the purposes of s. 41(1)(c) and (c.1) of SARA. With
respect to a supporting contextual and purposive analysis to find a meaning
that is harmonious with SARA as a whole, the Minister’s argument
proceeds as follows:
Interpreting ‘identification of critical
habitat’ in terms of a place or location is also consistent with the scheme and
context of the SARA, which consistently refers to ‘critical habitat’ and
‘habitat’ in terms of an ‘area’. For example, ss. 49(1) requires an action plan
to “include, with respect to the area to which the action plan relates,
(a) an identification of the species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible,
based on the best available information and consistent with the recovery
strategy” (emphasis added).
Similarly, ss. 80(4) prescribes the
contents of an emergency order, which is intended to protect the habitat that
is necessary for survival or recovery of a species before such habitat is
identified as critical habitat in a recovery strategy or an action plan.
Subsection 80(4) makes it abundantly clear that the reference to the
identification of “habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of
the species” is in relation to an area by prescribing that the
following:
(4) The emergency order may
(a) in
the case of an aquatic species,
(i) identify
habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of the species in the area
to which the emergency order relates …
The exact same
language applies to migratory species and other species.
Further, sections 58-62 of the SARA,
which provide for the protection of critical habitat, prescribe various
processes by which destruction of critical habitat becomes prohibited. The
applicable process is determined by the place or location of the critical
habitat so that, for example, where the identified critical habitat is in a
national park or other area described in ss. 58(2), publication in the Canada
Gazette is all that is required to protect the critical habitat. In
contrast, where all or part of the critical habitat is “not in a place
referred to in ss. [58(2)]”, a ministerial order may be required in accordance
with ss. 58(4).
Finally, the preamble also recognizes
that “Canada’s protected areas,
especially national parks, are vital to the protection and recovery of species
at risk”.
The SARA’s consistent, repeated and
exclusive use of language that refers to a geographically identifiable place,
location or area directly contradicts the Applicants argument that the
identification of critical habitat must include a description of such habitat’s
‘features’ or ‘attributes’ to ensure that the prohibitions against destruction
of critical habitat can be enforced.
The Minister submits that reading in such
additional requirements would be contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of
the ‘identification of critical habitat’ as reflected in the language and
scheme of the SARA and the intention of Parliament, as discussed above.
The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly recognized that a broad and
general approach to describing the prohibited activity is fully acceptable in
the field of environmental protection “given that the nature of the environment
(its complexities, and the wide range of activities which might cause harm to
it) is not conducive to precise codification” (R. v.
Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031, [1995]
S.C.J. No. 62 (Q.L.) para. 43). Therefore, it can be
fairly anticipated that the obligation to identify threats to habitat, in
combination with examples of activities that are likely to result in
destruction of critical habitat in a recovery strategy, as provided for in
paragraphs 41(1)(b) and (c) of the SARA, will be sufficient to address
enforcement and notice requirements.
Therefore, there is no need or any justification for reading in
non-statutory requirements to the meaning of ‘identification of critical
habitat’.
[Emphasis in the original]
(Respondent’s Further Reply Submissions, paras. 49 – 55)
2. The Applicants’
interpretive response
[51]
The
Applicants dismiss the Minister’s textual dominance argument on the following
basis:
Even read without referring to legislative purpose at s.6 or in the
entire context of the SARA, the definition of “habitat” for an aquatic species
cannot be given the narrow and selective construction proposed by the Minister…
Firstly, this definition clearly makes reference not simply to
areas, but rather to areas that provide species with certain physical and
biological amenities that allow them to carry out their life processes. To be
habitat under the SARA definition, an area must contain features useful to a
species. Those features would ensure the species could spawn, rear its young,
have available food and free migration passage, among other life functions. In
the case of the Nooksack Dace, while the dace is not located up in the trees of
the riparian buffer zone, it depends on this biological component of habitat to
survive and to recovery.
Secondly, the SARA definition of habitat
includes places where aquatic species formerly occurred but do not presently
occur. The only way to analyze whether an aquatic species has “the potential to
be reintroduced” to a formerly occupied area is to assess whether that formerly
occupied area contains the biological and physical features that could sustain
the species. It would make no sense to identify the geospatial coordinates of a
streambed where an endangered fish could be reintroduced, if that streambed had
run dry.
(Applicants’ Further Reply Submissions, paras. 57 – 59)
With respect to Counsel for the Applicants’ reliance on s. 6
of SARA, under the heading “Purposes”, the provision reads as follows:
The purposes
of this Act are to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming
extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated,
endangered or threatened as a result of human activity and to manage species
of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or
threatened.
|
La
présente loi vise à prévenir la disparition — de la planète ou du Canada seulement
— des espèces sauvages, à permettre le rétablissement de celles qui, par
suite de l’activité humaine, sont devenues des espèces disparues du pays, en
voie de disparition ou menacées et à favoriser la gestion des espèces
préoccupantes pour éviter qu’elles ne deviennent des espèces en voie de
disparition ou menacées.
|
[52]
In the
Applicants’ contextual and purposive analysis two cogent issues in favour of an
expanded definition of “habitat” are presented: it is required for a species’
protection; and it conforms to the values and principles of the Convention.
[53]
The
preamble to SARA makes the point that “the habitat of species at risk is
key to their conservation”. With respect to conservation and the definition of
“habitat”, the Applicants’ argument is as follows:
The Applicants reply that the Minister’s construction of critical
habitat as merely a location, that does not contain any physical or biological
features that a species relies on directly or indirectly for survival or
recovery, renders s.41(1)(c) absurd and defeats the Act’s purposes.
For example, it would be frankly impossible, at the action planning
stage, to devise “measures that are proposed to be taken to protect the
species’ critical habitat” if the specific features of the critical habitat needing
protection measures had not been identified [s.49(1)(b)]. Likewise, it would
be impossible to prohibit the destruction of any part of a species’ critical
habitat – like trees, water, or food – if those parts went unidentified
[s.58(1)]. The Minister’s interpretation thus undermines the operation of
provisions of the SARA specifically aimed at providing for the recovery of
endangered species.
Except perhaps by nuclear Armageddon, one cannot destroy a place in
its entirety. Nor can one destroy a set of geospatial co-ordinates. Rather, the
destruction of critical habitat involves destruction of the components of
that habitat. Put concretely, to destroy a spotted owl’s habitat involves
clear-cutting the old-growth forest it relies on for food and protection from
predators. To destroy an endangered frog’s habitat may involve filling and
paving a wetland and placing a shopping mall atop it. To destroy the Nooksack
Dace’s habitat could involve removal of riparian vegetation, which the dace
rely on to regulate temperature, erosion, and pollution; or removing water from
the streambed. Clear-cutting trees, filing wetlands and draining streams does
not destroy the location; rather, it destroys the features and components
that were relied on by endangered species.
Critical habitat must be the area that contains biological and
physical features needed to sustain a species’ life processes. Without those
features, the areas could not satisfy the statutory definition of “critical
habitat.” Namely, without those features, the areas would not be necessary
for a species’ survival and recovery.
The second half of s.41(1)(c) requires examples of activities likely
to destroy critical habitat. Other than nuclear Armageddon, it is very
different to think of any activities that would destroy an entire location.
Read as a whole, s.41(1)(c) clearly requires the identification of the features
of critical habitat, and examples of activities that could destroy these
features.
[Emphasis in the original]
(Applicants Further Reply Submissions, paras. 40 – 44)
[54]
Thus, the
Applicants argue that the “habitat” and “critical habitat” definition sections
of SARA must be read in context with its protection provisions. That is,
the definition of “habitat” must be read to include attributes in order for the
definition of “critical habitat” to include attributes, and, thereby, the protection
provisions have effect with respect to the location and attributes of the critical
habitat of a species. In making this argument, Counsel for the Applicants
allows that, with an important exception, the protection of the attributes of a
critical habitat is only relevant where there is some evidence that a certain
species actually uses a certain area as habitat. The exception is found in the
definition of habitat for an aquatic species which refers to an area upon which
the species directly or indirectly presently depends “or areas where aquatic species formerly
occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced”.
[55]
As to
purposive construction, the Applicants stress that the preamble to SARA
expresses Canada’s commitments under the Convention.
With respect to the Convention and the definition of “critical
habitat”, the Applicants’ argument is as follows:
In reply to the Minister’s submission that the identification of
critical habitat should be limited to its location and not refer to its
physical or biological features, the Applicants submit that this interpretation
is not consistent with the values and principles of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and risks Canada’s non-compliance with the treaty.
The international law context demonstrates that s.41(1)(c) must be
interpreted so as to satisfy Canada’s commitment, under Article 8(b) of the Convention,
to promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the
maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings.
“Ecosystem” is defined to include both physical and biological components:
Ecosystem means a dynamic complex of
plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment
interacting as a functional unit.
Furthermore, Article 7 obligates each Contracting Party, for the
purposes of in-situ conservation of ecosystems, natural habitats and
species under Article 8, to:
(a) Identify components of biological diversity important for
its conservation and sustainable use having regard to the indicative list of
categories set down in Annex 1;
(b) Monitor, through sampling and other techniques, the
components of biological diversity identified pursuant to subparagraph (a)
above, paying particular attention to those requiring urgent conservation
measures and those which offer the greatest potential for sustainable use; ...
In the Applicants’ submission, the Court should interpret s.41(1)(c)
in light of Article 7, which itself is aimed at achieving the conservation of
species and habitats under Article 8. To conserve natural habitat under
Article 8, the Contracting Parties agreed that all components of biological
diversity, and not just its location, should be identified.
[Emphasis in the original]
(Applicants Further Reply Submissions, paras. 45 – 48)
[56]
As
additional support for the argument on the constituents of critical habitat,
Counsel for the Applicants refers to the American jurisprudential experience
which clearly concludes that attributes are a constituent of critical habitat.
Counsel for the Minister objects to this reference because the American law
with respect to the determination of “habitat” and “critical habitat” is
notably different from SARA. This is a point conceded by Counsel for the
Applicants but, nevertheless, the American experience is advanced as evidence
of the logic of interpreting SARA in the way that has been developed in
the American jurisprudence. However, given the conceded legislative difference,
I find that the American experience is not a useful aid to the present statutory
interpretation exercise.
3. Conclusion
[57]
I find the
Minister’s textual, contextual, and purposive argument to be weak.
[58]
First, I
agree that the definition of “habitat” places a focus on a certain location but
it is implicit that the location is only identifiable because special features
exist at that location upon which the species depends to carry out its life
processes. Therefore, in the definition of “habitat”, a location is
inextricably linked to its special identifiable features and includes its
special identifiable features. Therefore, with respect to the use of the word
“areas” in the definition of “habitat”, I find that the word can support more
than one reasonable meaning; it is not just a location, but a location that
includes its special identifiable features. Therefore, I find that the ordinary
meaning of “areas” plays a lesser role in the interpretation process.
[59]
Second, the
mere repeated use of the term “area” in various provisions of SARA does
not bolster the Minister’s textual argument without a primary analysis of
contextual and purposive considerations in the use of the term which, I find,
has not been accomplished.
[60]
Third, specifically
with respect to the Minister’s reference to the emergency order provisions as
support for a textual interpretation of SARA, in oral argument Counsel
for Applicants provided the following understanding:
The
applicants don't believe this provision is particularly relevant at all to
understanding Section 41, but they can offer an explanation of how this
provision generally works. Subsection (4), paragraph (a), subparagraph (i)
refers to the fact that an emergency order may identify habitat that is
necessary for the survival or recovery of the species. Now, the reason, in the
applicants' submission, that that doesn't simply say "identify critical
habitat" is because critical habitat as defined by the Act is that
which is identified in a recovery strategy or action plan, and these emergency
orders may be issued, or made, prior to the completion of a recovery strategy
or action plan. So, that is the reason for the fact that the Act here,
unlike other places, refers to habitat that is necessary for the survival or
recovery, which substantively means the same thing as critical habitat, but
critical habitat is further defined under the Act as that which has been
set out in one of those two recovery documents. So that's just to clarify why
the language is somewhat different.
And then
there was some reference to why it seems to be an area within an area. And I
just wanted to clarify that emergency orders may be issued or made by the
Minister of Environment where there is a concern that the species is not
receiving -- is at imminent risk of not receiving adequate protection. Now,
the reason that it says identified habitat that is necessary for the recovery
-- survival or recovery of the species in the area to which the emergency order
relates, is that some species, plants or animals, in our submission, are
transboundary or found in more than one area.
So, for
example, just -- hopefully this will help. An endangered species of plant
could be found on both the Ontario side of the border and the Quebec side of the border. And Quebec
could have implemented robust species protection legislation that prohibited
any interference with that plant's survival and recovery. Ontario, and I say this only hypothetically, could have enacted
meeker Endangered Species legislation that was not sufficiently
protecting the plant and resulting in an increased imminent risk to the plant.
Or not preventing it in any way. So this emergency order allows the Minister
to apply the order just to one area, as opposed to the entire area where the
plant is found. And whether that be according to provincial legislative lines
or the fact that the species is widely disbursed and doing one on one area and
not in another.
I just wanted to -- again, I don't know
how to clarify it or not. But I just wanted to attempt to clarify that the
reason that it appears to be an area within an area is that, in fact, the
emergency order may apply to only part of the habitat, depending on
legislative, political and/ or geographical circumstances. And I don't know to
what degree that is
helpful, but it -- in any event, the
applicants say that this really isn't material to interpreting Section
41(1)(c).
(Transcript, Vol. 6, pp. 48 – 51)
Counsel for the Minister did not challenge this
understanding in reply. As a result, I find that the emergency measures component
of the textual argument is disconnected from the main point of the present interpretative
analysis and is, therefore, irrelevant.
[61]
Fourth, the
Minister’s textual argument does not meaningfully address what I find to be the
compelling logic of interpreting “habitat” to include its essential attributes;
the argument is completely unresponsive to this important issue. As described
by Dr. Pearson, for the Nooksack Dace, habitat is all about the “riffles”.
Thus, as a practical matter, the identification of the habitat of the Nooksack
Dace must include the identification of the riffles feature of its critical
habitat; doing so is, in my opinion, also a legal matter.
[62]
Fifth, as
noted, the Applicants’ Convention argument is presented in written
submissions in response to the Minister’s interpretation argument. As Counsel
for the Minister did not specifically address the argument by way of reply, I
find that the argument is unchallenged. As a result, I give it strong weight as
support for the Applicants’ contextual and purposive analysis.
[63]
And sixth,
the Applicants effectively argue that little weight should be given to the
Minister’s textual interpretation on the meaning of “habitat” and “critical
habitat” because it is contrary to the published expectations of the government
of Canada with respect to the
development of recovery strategies. Counsel for the Minister’s response is
essentially that the Technical Guidelines are irrelevant because the
interpretation of SARA is required to be conducted according to the
statute. In my opinion this submission neglects the critical point that a
contextual and purposive analysis requires a broad approach. In a broad
approach to identifying the constituents of critical habitat, the Technical
Guidelines cited above provide an informed understanding of the purpose of
the identification of critical habitat as required in s. 41(1)(c) of SARA
and the required content of the identification to meet the purpose. Appropriately,
the Technical Guidelines were effectively applied in the breach in the
preparation of the Final Recovery Strategy. In my opinion, for the Minister to
now resile from this position undermines the weight to be given to the textual
argument presented; I am not able to take it seriously.
[64]
As a
result, I find that the Applicants are correct in their interpretation of the
definition of “habitat” and “critical habitat”.
C. The meaning of “to the
extent possible”
[65]
Any
dispute about the meaning of this phrase is resolved by Justice Zinn in Alberta
Wilderness Assn., above, where at paragraphs 24 and 25 he accepted an
agreement between Counsel for the Minister of the Environment and the
Applicants that “[s]ubsection
41(1)(c) requires that the Minister identify in a recovery strategy document as
much critical habitat as it is possible to identify at that time, even if all
of it cannot be identified, and to do so based on the best information then
available”. There is no question that this ruling applies to the Minister in the
present case.
IV. Conclusion
[66]
For the
reasons provided, I find that, whether by agreement or by contest, the
Applicants are wholly successful in the present Application.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1.
For the reasons provided in conclusion of the
present Application, pursuant to s. 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act, I
declare that the Minister acted contrary to law by failing to meet the
mandatory requirements of s. 41(1)(c) of SARA in the Final Recovery
Strategy for the Nooksack Dace.
2.
By agreement, each party is to bear its own
costs.
“Douglas R. Campbell”
ANNEX “A”
Species at Risk Act, 2002, c. 29
Recovery of Endangered, Threatened and Extirpated
Species
Recovery
Strategy
Preparation — endangered or threatened species
37. (1) If a wildlife species is listed as an
extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species, the
competent minister must prepare a strategy for its recovery.
More than one competent minister
(2) If there is more than
one competent minister with respect to the wildlife species, they must
prepare the strategy together and every reference to competent minister in
sections 38 to 46 is to be read as a reference to the competent ministers.
Commitments to be considered
38. In preparing a recovery strategy, action plan
or management plan, the competent minister must consider the commitment of
the Government of Canada to conserving biological diversity and to the
principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the
listed wildlife species, cost-effective measures to prevent the reduction or
loss of the species should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific
certainty.
Cooperation with others
39. (1) To the extent possible, the recovery
strategy must be prepared in cooperation with
(a) the appropriate provincial
and territorial minister for each province and territory in which the listed
wildlife species is found;
(b) every minister of the
Government of Canada who has authority over federal land or other areas on
which the species is found;
(c) if the species is found in
an area in respect of which a wildlife management board is authorized by a
land claims agreement to perform functions in respect of wildlife species,
the wildlife management board;
(d) every aboriginal organization
that the competent minister considers will be directly affected by the
recovery strategy; and
(e) any other person or
organization that the competent minister considers appropriate.
Land claims agreement
(2) If the listed wildlife
species is found in an area in respect of which a wildlife management board
is authorized by a land claims agreement to perform functions in respect of
wildlife species, the recovery strategy must be prepared, to the extent that
it will apply to that area, in accordance with the provisions of the
agreement.
Consultation
(3) To the extent
possible, the recovery strategy must be prepared in consultation with any
landowners and other persons whom the competent minister considers to be
directly affected by the strategy, including the government of any other
country in which the species is found.
Determination of feasibility
40. In preparing the recovery strategy, the
competent minister must determine whether the recovery of the listed wildlife
species is technically and biologically feasible. The determination must be
based on the best available information, including information provided by
COSEWIC.
Contents if recovery feasible
41. (1) If the competent minister determines that
the recovery of the listed wildlife species is feasible, the recovery
strategy must address the threats to the survival of the species identified
by COSEWIC, including any loss of habitat, and must include
(a) a description of the
species and its needs that is consistent with information provided by
COSEWIC;
(b) an identification of the
threats to the survival of the species and threats to its habitat that is
consistent with information provided by COSEWIC and a description of the
broad strategy to be taken to address those threats;
(c) an identification of the
species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, based on the best
available information, including the information provided by COSEWIC, and
examples of activities that are likely to result in its destruction;
(c.1) a schedule of studies to
identify critical habitat, where available information is inadequate;
(d) a statement of the
population and distribution objectives that will assist the recovery and
survival of the species, and a general description of the research and
management activities needed to meet those objectives;
(e) any other matters that are
prescribed by the regulations;
(f) a statement about whether
additional information is required about the species; and
(g) a statement of when one or
more action plans in relation to the recovery strategy will be completed.
Contents if recovery not feasible
(2) If the competent
minister determines that the recovery of the listed wildlife species is not
feasible, the recovery strategy must include a description of the species and
its needs, an identification of the species’ critical habitat to the extent
possible, and the reasons why its recovery is not feasible.
Multi-species or ecosystem approach permissible
(3) The competent minister
may adopt a multi-species or an ecosystem approach when preparing the
recovery strategy if he or she considers it appropriate to do so.
Regulations
(4) The Governor in
Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister after consultation with
the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency and the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, make regulations for the purpose of paragraph (1)(e) prescribing matters to be included in a recovery
strategy.
2002, c. 29, s. 41;
2005, c. 2, s. 21.
Proposed recovery strategy
42. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the competent
minister must include a proposed recovery strategy in the public registry
within one year after the wildlife species is listed, in the case of a
wildlife species listed as an endangered species, and within two years after
the species is listed, in the case of a wildlife species listed as a
threatened species or an extirpated species.
First listed wildlife species
(2) With respect to
wildlife species that are set out in Schedule 1 on the day section 27 comes
into force, the competent minister must include a proposed recovery strategy
in the public registry within three years after that day, in the case of a
wildlife species listed as an endangered species, and within four years after
that day, in the case of a wildlife species listed as a threatened species or
an extirpated species.
Comments
43. (1) Within 60 days after the proposed recovery
strategy is included in the public registry, any person may file written
comments with the competent minister.
Finalization of recovery strategy
(2) Within 30 days after
the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (1), the competent
minister must consider any comments received, make any changes to the
proposed recovery strategy that he or she considers appropriate and finalize
the recovery strategy by including a copy of it in the public registry.
Existing plans
44. (1) If the competent minister is of the opinion
that an existing plan relating to a wildlife species meets the requirements
of subsection 41(1) or (2), and the plan is adopted by the competent minister
as the proposed recovery strategy, he or she must include it in the public
registry as the proposed recovery strategy in relation to the species.
Incorporation of existing plans
(2) The competent minister
may incorporate any part of an existing plan relating to a wildlife species
into a proposed recovery strategy for the species.
Amendments
45. (1) The competent minister may at any time
amend the recovery strategy. A copy of the amendment must be included in the
public registry.
Amendments relating to time for completing action plan
(2) If the amendment
relates to the time for completing an action plan, the competent minister
must provide reasons for the amendment and include a copy of the reasons in
the public registry.
Amendment procedure
(3) Sections 39 and 43
apply to amendments to a recovery strategy, with any modifications that the
circumstances require.
Exception
(4) Subsection (3) does
not apply if the competent minister considers the amendment to be minor.
Reporting
46. The competent minister must report on the
implementation of the recovery strategy, and the progress towards meeting its
objectives, within five years after it is included in the public registry and
in every subsequent five-year period, until its objectives have been achieved
or the species’ recovery is no longer feasible. The report must be included
in the public registry.
Action
Plan
Preparation
47. The competent minister in respect of a recovery
strategy must prepare one or more action plans based on the recovery strategy.
If there is more than one competent minister with respect to the recovery
strategy, they may prepare the action plan or plans together.
Cooperation with other ministers and governments
48. (1) To the extent possible, an action plan must
be prepared in cooperation with
(a) the appropriate provincial
and territorial minister of each province and territory in which the listed
wildlife species is found;
(b) every minister of the
Government of Canada who has authority over federal land or other areas on
which the species is found;
(c) if the species is found in
an area in respect of which a wildlife management board is authorized by a
land claims agreement to perform functions in respect of wildlife species,
the wildlife management board;
(d) every aboriginal
organization that the competent minister considers will be directly affected
by the action plan; and
(e) any other person or
organization that the competent minister considers appropriate.
Land claims agreement
(2) If the listed wildlife
species is found in an area in respect of which a wildlife management board
is authorized by a land claims agreement to perform functions in respect of
wildlife species, an action plan must be prepared, to the extent that it will
apply to that area, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
Consultation
(3) To the extent
possible, an action plan must be prepared in consultation with any
landowners, lessees and other persons whom the competent minister considers
to be directly affected by, or interested in, the action plan, including the
government of any other country in which the species is found.
Contents
49. (1) An action plan must include, with respect
to the area to which the action plan relates,
(a) an identification of the
species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, based on the best
available information and consistent with the recovery strategy, and examples
of activities that are likely to result in its destruction;
(b) a statement of the measures
that are proposed to be taken to protect the species’ critical habitat,
including the entering into of agreements under section 11;
(c) an identification of any
portions of the species’ critical habitat that have not been protected;
(d) a statement of the measures
that are to be taken to implement the recovery strategy, including those that
address the threats to the species and those that help to achieve the
population and distribution objectives, as well as an indication as to when
these measures are to take place;
(d.1) the methods to be used to
monitor the recovery of the species and its long-term viability;
(e) an evaluation of the
socio-economic costs of the action plan and the benefits to be derived from
its implementation; and
(f) any other matters that are
prescribed by the regulations.
Regulations
(2) The Governor in
Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister after consultation with
the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency and the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, make regulations for the purpose of paragraph (1)(f) prescribing matters to be included in an action plan.
2002, c. 29, s. 49;
2005, c. 2, s. 22.
Proposed action plan
50. (1) The competent minister must include a
proposed action plan in the public registry.
Comments
(2) Within 60 days after
the proposed action plan is included in the public registry, any person may
file written comments with the competent minister.
Finalization of action plan
(3) Within 30 days after
the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (2), the competent
minister must consider any comments received, make any changes to the
proposed action plan that he or she considers appropriate and finalize the
action plan by including a copy of it in the public registry.
Summary if action plan not completed in time
(4) If an action plan is
not finalized in the time set out in the recovery strategy, the competent
minister must include in the public registry a summary of what has been
prepared with respect to the plan.
Existing plans
51. (1) If the competent minister is of the opinion
that an existing plan relating to a wildlife species meets the requirements
of section 49, and the plan is adopted by the competent minister as a
proposed action plan, he or she must include it in the public registry as a
proposed action plan in relation to the species.
Incorporation of existing plans
(2) The competent minister
may incorporate any part of an existing plan relating to a wildlife species
into a proposed action plan for the species.
Amendments
52. (1) The competent minister may at any time
amend an action plan. A copy of the amendment must be included in the public
registry.
Amendment procedure
(2) Section 48 applies to
amendments to an action plan, with any modifications that the circumstances
require.
Exception
(3) Subsection (2) does not
apply if the competent minister considers the amendment to be minor.
Regulations
53. (1) The competent minister must, with respect
to aquatic species, species of birds that are migratory birds protected by
the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, regardless of where they are
located, or with respect to any other wildlife species on federal lands, make
any regulations that are necessary in the opinion of the competent minister
for the purpose of implementing the measures included in an action plan, but,
if the measures relate to the protection of critical habitat on federal
lands, the regulations must be made under section 59.
Consultation
(2) If the competent
minister is of the opinion that a regulation would affect a reserve or any
other lands that are set apart for the use and benefit of a band under the Indian
Act, he or she must consult the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and the band before making the regulation.
Consultation
(3) If the competent
minister is of the opinion that a regulation would affect an area in respect
of which a wildlife management board is authorized by a land claims agreement
to perform functions in respect of wildlife species, he or she must consult
the wildlife management board before making the regulation.
Incorporation by reference
(4) The regulations may
incorporate by reference any legislation of a province or territory, as
amended from time to time, insofar as the regulations apply in that province
or territory.
Consultation
(5) If the competent minister
is of the opinion that a regulation would affect land in a territory, he or
she must consult the territorial minister before making the regulation.
Exception
(6) Subsection (5) does
not apply
(a) in respect of individuals
of aquatic species and their habitat or species of birds that are migratory
birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and their
habitat; or
(b) in respect of land under
the authority of the Minister or the Parks Canada Agency.
Use of powers under other Acts
54. For the purpose of implementing the measures
included in an action plan, the competent minister may use any powers that he
or she has under any other Act of Parliament.
Monitoring and reporting
55. The competent minister must monitor the
implementation of an action plan and the progress towards meeting its
objectives and assess and report on its implementation and its ecological and
socio-economic impacts five years after the plan comes into effect. A copy of
the report must be included in the public registry.
|
Loi sur les espèces en
péril, 2002, ch.
29
Rétablissement des espèces en voie de
disparition, menacées et disparues du pays
Programme de rétablissement
Élaboration
37. (1) Si
une espèce sauvage est inscrite comme espèce disparue du pays, en voie de
disparition ou menacée, le ministre compétent est tenu d’élaborer un
programme de rétablissement à son égard.
Élaboration conjointe
(2) Si plusieurs ministres compétents sont responsables de l’espèce
sauvage, le programme de rétablissement est élaboré conjointement par eux. Le
cas échéant, la mention du ministre compétent aux articles 38 à 46 vaut
mention des ministres compétents.
Engagements applicables
38. Pour
l’élaboration d’un programme de rétablissement, d’un plan d’action ou d’un
plan de gestion, le ministre compétent tient compte de l’engagement qu’a pris
le gouvernement du Canada de conserver la diversité biologique et de
respecter le principe selon lequel, s’il existe une menace d’atteinte grave
ou irréversible à l’espèce sauvage inscrite, le manque de certitude
scientifique ne doit pas être prétexte à retarder la prise de mesures
efficientes pour prévenir sa disparition ou sa décroissance.
Collaboration
39. (1)
Dans la mesure du possible, le ministre compétent élabore le programme de
rétablissement en collaboration avec :
a) le ministre provincial ou territorial compétent dans la province
ou le territoire où se trouve l’espèce sauvage inscrite;
b) tout ministre fédéral dont relèvent le territoire domanial ou
les autres aires où se trouve l’espèce;
c) si l’espèce se trouve dans une aire à l’égard de laquelle un
conseil de gestion des ressources fauniques est habilité par un accord sur
des revendications territoriales à exercer des attributions à l’égard
d’espèces sauvages, le conseil;
d) toute organisation autochtone qu’il croit directement touchée
par le programme de rétablissement;
e) toute autre personne ou organisation qu’il estime compétente.
Accord sur des revendications territoriales
(2) Si l’espèce sauvage inscrite se trouve dans une aire à l’égard de
laquelle un conseil de gestion des ressources fauniques est habilité par un
accord sur des revendications territoriales à exercer des attributions à
l’égard d’espèces sauvages, le programme de rétablissement est élaboré, dans
la mesure où il s’applique à cette aire, en conformité avec les dispositions
de cet accord.
Consultation
(3) Le programme de rétablissement est élaboré, dans la mesure du
possible, en consultation avec les propriétaires fonciers et les autres
personnes que le ministre compétent croit directement touchés par le
programme, notamment le gouvernement de tout autre pays où se trouve
l’espèce.
Caractère réalisable du rétablissement
40. Pour
l’élaboration du programme de rétablissement, le ministre compétent vérifie
si le rétablissement de l’espèce sauvage inscrite est réalisable au point de
vue technique et biologique. Il fonde sa conclusion sur la meilleure
information accessible, notamment les renseignements fournis par le COSEPAC.
Rétablissement réalisable
41. (1) Si
le ministre compétent conclut que le rétablissement de l’espèce sauvage
inscrite est réalisable, le programme de rétablissement doit traiter des
menaces à la survie de l’espèce — notamment de toute perte de son habitat —
précisées par le COSEPAC et doit comporter notamment :
a) une description de l’espèce et de ses besoins qui soit
compatible avec les renseignements fournis par le COSEPAC;
b) une désignation des menaces à la survie de l’espèce et des
menaces à son habitat qui soit compatible avec les renseignements fournis par
le COSEPAC, et des grandes lignes du plan à suivre pour y faire face;
c) la désignation de l’habitat essentiel de l’espèce dans la mesure
du possible, en se fondant sur la meilleure information accessible, notamment
les informations fournies par le COSEPAC, et des exemples d’activités
susceptibles d’entraîner sa destruction;
c.1) un calendrier des études visant à désigner l’habitat essentiel
lorsque l’information accessible est insuffisante;
d) un énoncé des objectifs en matière de population et de
dissémination visant à favoriser la survie et le rétablissement de l’espèce,
ainsi qu’une description générale des activités de recherche et de gestion
nécessaires à l’atteinte de ces objectifs;
e) tout autre élément prévu par règlement;
f) un énoncé sur l’opportunité de fournir des renseignements
supplémentaires concernant l’espèce;
g) un exposé de l’échéancier prévu pour l’élaboration d’un ou de
plusieurs plans d’action relatifs au programme de rétablissement.
Rétablissement irréalisable
(2) Si le ministre compétent conclut que le rétablissement de
l’espèce sauvage inscrite est irréalisable, le programme de rétablissement
doit comporter une description de l’espèce et de ses besoins, dans la mesure
du possible, et la désignation de son habitat essentiel, ainsi que les motifs
de la conclusion.
Plusieurs espèces ou écosystème
(3) Pour l’élaboration du programme de rétablissement, le ministre
compétent peut, s’il l’estime indiqué, traiter de plusieurs espèces
simultanément ou de tout un écosystème.
Règlement
(4) Sur recommandation faite par le ministre après consultation du
ministre responsable de l’Agence Parcs Canada et du ministre des Pêches et
des Océans, le gouverneur en conseil peut prévoir par règlement, pour
l’application de l’alinéa (1)e), les éléments
additionnels à inclure dans un programme de rétablissement.
2002, ch.
29, art. 41; 2005, ch. 2, art. 21.
Projet de programme de rétablissement
42. (1)
Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le ministre compétent met le projet de
programme de rétablissement dans le registre dans l’année suivant
l’inscription de l’espèce sauvage comme espèce en voie de disparition ou dans
les deux ans suivant l’inscription de telle espèce comme espèce menacée ou
disparue du pays.
Liste des espèces en péril originale
(2) En ce qui concerne les espèces sauvages inscrites à l’annexe 1 à
l’entrée en vigueur de l’article 27, le ministre compétent met le projet de
programme de rétablissement dans le registre dans les trois ans suivant cette
date dans le cas de l’espèce sauvage inscrite comme espèce en voie de
disparition ou dans les quatre ans suivant cette date dans le cas de l’espèce
sauvage inscrite comme espèce menacée ou disparue du pays.
Observations
43. (1)
Dans les soixante jours suivant la mise du projet dans le registre, toute
personne peut déposer par écrit auprès du ministre compétent des observations
relativement au projet.
Texte définitif du programme de rétablissement
(2) Dans les trente jours suivant la fin du délai prévu au paragraphe
(1), le ministre compétent étudie les observations qui lui ont été
présentées, apporte au projet les modifications qu’il estime indiquées et met
le texte définitif du programme de rétablissement dans le registre.
Plans existants
44. (1) Si
le ministre compétent estime qu’un plan existant s’applique à l’égard d’une
espèce sauvage et est conforme aux exigences des paragraphes 41(1) ou (2), et
qu’il l’adopte à titre de projet de programme de rétablissement, il en met
une copie dans le registre pour tenir lieu de projet de programme de
rétablissement de l’espèce.
Incorporation d’un plan existant
(2) Il peut incorporer toute partie d’un plan existant relatif à une
espèce sauvage dans un projet de programme de rétablissement de celle-ci.
Modifications
45. (1) Le
ministre compétent peut modifier le programme de rétablissement. Une copie de
la modification est mise dans le registre.
Modification du délai
(2) Si la modification porte sur le délai pour terminer un plan
d’action, le ministre compétent est tenu de fournir les motifs de la
modification et de mettre une copie de ceux-ci dans le registre.
Procédure de modification
(3) Les articles 39 et 43 s’appliquent, avec les adaptations
nécessaires, à la modification du programme de rétablissement.
Exception
(4) Le paragraphe (3) ne s’applique pas si le ministre compétent
estime que la modification est mineure.
Suivi
46. Il
incombe au ministre compétent d’établir un rapport sur la mise en oeuvre du
programme de rétablissement et sur les progrès effectués en vue des objectifs
qu’il expose, à intervalles de cinq ans à compter de sa mise dans le
registre, et ce, jusqu’à ce que ces objectifs soient atteints ou que le
rétablissement de l’espèce ne soit plus réalisable. Il met son rapport dans
le registre.
Plan d’action
Élaboration
47. Le
ministre compétent responsable d’un programme de rétablissement est tenu
d’élaborer un ou plusieurs plans d’action sur le fondement de celui-ci. Si
plusieurs ministres compétents sont responsables du programme, les plans
d’action peuvent être élaborés conjointement par eux.
Collaboration
48. (1)
Dans la mesure du possible, le plan d’action est élaboré en collaboration
avec :
a) le ministre provincial ou territorial compétent dans la province
ou le territoire où se trouve l’espèce sauvage inscrite;
b) tout ministre fédéral dont relèvent le territoire domanial ou
les autres aires où se trouve l’espèce;
c) si l’espèce se trouve dans une aire à l’égard de laquelle un
conseil de gestion des ressources fauniques est habilité par un accord sur
des revendications territoriales à exercer des attributions à l’égard
d’espèces sauvages, le conseil;
d) toute organisation autochtone que le ministre compétent croit
directement touchée par le plan d’action;
e) toute autre personne ou organisation qu’il estime compétente.
Accord sur des revendications territoriales
(2) Si l’espèce sauvage inscrite se trouve dans une aire à l’égard de
laquelle un conseil de gestion des ressources fauniques est habilité par un
accord sur des revendications territoriales à exercer des attributions à
l’égard d’espèces sauvages, le plan d’action est élaboré, dans la mesure où
il s’applique à cette aire, en conformité avec les dispositions de cet
accord.
Consultation
(3) Le plan d’action est élaboré, dans la mesure du possible, en consultation
avec les propriétaires fonciers, les locataires et les autres personnes que
le ministre compétent croit directement touchés ou intéressés, notamment le
gouvernement de tout autre pays où se trouve l’espèce.
Contenu du plan d’action
49. (1) Le
plan d’action comporte notamment, en ce qui concerne l’aire à laquelle il
s’applique :
a) la désignation de l’habitat essentiel de l’espèce dans la mesure
du possible, en se fondant sur la meilleure information accessible et d’une
façon compatible avec le programme de rétablissement, et des exemples
d’activités susceptibles d’entraîner sa destruction;
b) un exposé des mesures envisagées pour protéger l’habitat
essentiel de l’espèce, notamment la conclusion d’accords en application de
l’article 11;
c) la désignation de toute partie de l’habitat essentiel de
l’espèce qui n’est pas protégée;
d) un exposé des mesures à prendre pour mettre en oeuvre le
programme de rétablissement, notamment celles qui traitent des menaces à la
survie de l’espèce et celles qui aident à atteindre les objectifs en matière
de population et de dissémination, ainsi qu’une indication du moment prévu
pour leur exécution;
d.1) les méthodes à utiliser pour surveiller le rétablissement de
l’espèce et sa viabilité à long terme;
e) l’évaluation des répercussions socioéconomiques de sa mise en
oeuvre et des avantages en découlant;
f) tout autre élément prévu par règlement.
Règlement
(2) Sur recommandation faite par le ministre après consultation du
ministre responsable de l’Agence Parcs Canada et du ministre des Pêches et
des Océans, le gouverneur en conseil peut prévoir par règlement, pour
l’application de l’alinéa (1)f), les éléments
additionnels à inclure dans un plan d’action.
2002, ch.
29, art. 49; 2005, ch. 2, art. 22.
Projet de plan d’action
50. (1) Le
ministre compétent met le projet de plan d’action dans le registre.
Observations
(2) Dans les soixante jours suivant la mise du projet dans le
registre, toute personne peut déposer par écrit auprès du ministre compétent
des observations relativement au projet.
Texte définitif du plan d’action
(3) Dans les trente jours suivant la fin du délai prévu au paragraphe
(2), le ministre compétent étudie les observations qui lui ont été
présentées, apporte au projet les modifications qu’il estime indiquées et met
le texte définitif du plan d’action dans le registre.
Sommaire en cas de retard
(4) Si le plan d’action n’est pas terminé dans le délai prévu par le
programme de rétablissement, le ministre compétent est tenu de mettre dans le
registre un sommaire des éléments du plan qui sont élaborés.
Plans existants
51. (1) Si
le ministre compétent estime qu’un plan existant s’applique à l’égard d’une
espèce sauvage et est conforme aux exigences de l’article 49, et qu’il
l’adopte à titre de projet de plan d’action, il en met une copie dans le
registre pour tenir lieu de projet de plan d’action à l’égard de l’espèce.
Incorporation d’un plan existant
(2) Il peut incorporer toute partie d’un plan existant relatif à une
espèce sauvage dans un projet de plan d’action portant sur celle-ci.
Modifications
52. (1) Le
ministre compétent peut modifier le plan d’action. Une copie de la
modification est mise dans le registre.
Procédure de modification
(2) L’article 48 s’applique, avec les adaptations nécessaires, à la
modification du plan d’action.
Exception
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne s’applique pas si le ministre compétent
estime que la modification est mineure.
Règlements
53. (1) Le
ministre compétent prend, par règlement, à l’égard des espèces aquatiques,
des espèces d’oiseaux migrateurs protégées par la Loi de 1994 sur la
convention concernant les oiseaux migrateurs, où qu’elles se trouvent, ou
de toute autre espèce sauvage se trouvant sur le territoire domanial, les
mesures qu’il estime nécessaires pour la mise en oeuvre d’un plan d’action.
Si les mesures concernent la protection de l’habitat essentiel sur le
territoire domanial, les règlements sont pris en vertu de l’article 59.
Consultation
(2) Si le ministre compétent estime que le règlement touchera une réserve
ou une autre terre qui a été mise de côté à l’usage et au profit d’une bande
en application de la Loi sur les Indiens, il est tenu de consulter le
ministre des Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien et la bande avant de le
prendre.
Consultation
(3) Si le ministre compétent estime que le règlement touchera une
aire à l’égard de laquelle un conseil de gestion des ressources fauniques est
habilité par un accord sur des revendications territoriales à exercer des
attributions à l’égard d’espèces sauvages, il est tenu de consulter le
conseil avant de le prendre.
Incorporation par renvoi
(4) Les règlements peuvent incorporer par renvoi, dans la mesure où
ils s’appliquent à une province ou à un territoire, toute mesure législative
de la province ou du territoire, avec ses modifications successives.
Application dans les territoires
(5) Si le ministre compétent estime que le règlement touchera des
terres dans un territoire, il est tenu de consulter le ministre territorial
avant de le prendre.
Exception
(6) Le paragraphe (5) ne s’applique pas :
a) à l’égard des individus d’une espèce aquatique ou d’une espèce
d’oiseau migrateur protégée par la Loi de 1994 sur la convention
concernant les oiseaux migrateurs, et de leur habitat;
b) à l’égard des terres relevant du ministre ou de l’Agence Parcs
Canada.
Pouvoirs conférés au titre d’autres lois
54. Le
ministre compétent peut, en vue de la mise en oeuvre d’un plan d’action,
exercer tout pouvoir qui lui est conféré au titre d’une autre loi fédérale.
Suivi et rapport
55. Cinq
ans après la mise du plan d’action dans le registre, il incombe au ministre
compétent d’assurer le suivi de sa mise en oeuvre et des progrès réalisés en
vue de l’atteinte de ses objectifs. Il l’évalue et établit un rapport,
notamment sur ses répercussions écologiques et socioéconomiques. Il met une
copie de son rapport dans le registre
|