AT RISK OR DISMISSED? MAKING THE CASE FOR DESIGNATED SPECIES AT RISK
LEGISLATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

by
JORDYN BOGETTI
B.Sc. University of Guelph, 2015; J.D. University of Victoria, 2019

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
in the Faculty of Science
Thesis examining committee:
Courtney Mason (PhD), Professor and Thesis Supervisor,
Department of Tourism Management and Natural Resource Science, Thompson
Rivers University
Brian Heise (PhD), Associate Professor and Committee Member,
Department of Natural Resource Science, Thompson Rivers University
Karl Larsen (PhD), Professor and Committee Member,
Department of Natural Resource Science, Thompson Rivers University
Natasha Affolder (PhD), Professor and External Examiner,
Peter A. Allard School of Law, UBC

March 2024
Thompson Rivers University

© Jordyn Bogetti, 2024
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Courtney Mason

ii

Abstract
There is an ongoing worldwide extinction crisis linked primarily to human activity. One
of the most important tools for combating biodiversity loss is species at risk (SAR) legislation.
British Columbia has no such legislation despite being the Canadian province with the most
biodiversity and the highest number of SAR. In this thesis, I argue that BC should implement
designated SAR legislation, as the current laws in the province are not providing sufficient
protection to vulnerable species. I compared BC’s SAR conservation efforts to those of other
Canadian provinces using existing legislative regimes, species listing decisions, and recovery
action plans as proxy effectiveness indicators. BC scored near the bottom of all provinces on
all these measures. The provinces without legislation also performed worse on average than
those with legislation in most of the tests. I also examined court decisions concerning SAR and
found that provinces without legislation had slightly more favourable court decisions than
provinces with legislation. Focusing on the situation in BC, I analyzed the history of the
province’s legislature relating to SAR. I found that any progress towards enacting new SAR
legislation in the near future is unlikely. Finally, I interviewed stakeholders from the
conservation community about their experiences with BC’s SAR. These findings suggested
that most were dissatisfied with the current state of conservation in the province.

iii

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents......................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments...................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. ix
List of Tables................................................................................................................. x
Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................ xi
Chapter 1 – The Extinction Crisis and Setting the Scene for Legislative
Intervention .............................................................................................................................. 1
Defining the Distressed: A Note on Species at Risk ......................................... 2
Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 2
Extinction Rates and the Biodiversity Crisis .................................................... 2
Where Science Meets Law: The Difficulty of Assessing Conservation
Effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 4
Contextualizing Current Species at Risk Protections .............................................. 4
Focus-Fire on the Federal System: A Note on the Colonial Legal Practices .... 4
Legislation or Policy: Why Make a Distinction? .............................................. 5
The Constitution and the Division of Powers ................................................... 6
The Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) ......................................................... 7
Provincial Species at Risk Legislation .............................................................. 8
Narrowing the Field: Why Nine Provinces? ......................................... 9
BC’s Approach to Species at Risk .................................................................. 10
Thesis Statement and Research Questions ............................................................. 10
Research Direction, Methods, and Methodological Approach ..............................11
Research Methods and Analyses .............................................................................. 13
The On-Paper Protections: Legislation, Listing Decisions, and Databases .... 13
The In-Court Enforceability: Case Law and Court Decisions ........................ 13
The In-Practice Applications: Interviews and Case Studies ........................... 13
Data Analysis – Statistics and Significance ............................................................. 14
Analyses and Statistical Tests Used ................................................................ 15

iv
Mann-Whitney U-test ......................................................................... 15
Effect Size: Common language effect size and rank-biserial correlation
............................................................................................................. 16
Researcher Positionality ........................................................................................... 17
Thesis Overview ........................................................................................................ 18
References .................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 2 – Legislation, Listing Decisions, and Conservation Plans Across Canada
................................................................................................................................................. 25
Methods ...................................................................................................................... 26
Legislation....................................................................................................... 26
Collection ............................................................................................ 26
Scoring ................................................................................................ 27
Listing Decisions ............................................................................................ 28
Collection ............................................................................................ 28
Scoring ................................................................................................ 29
Conservation Plans.......................................................................................... 30
Collection ............................................................................................ 30
Scoring ................................................................................................ 31
Statistical Analyses: Mann-Whitney U test and Rank-Biserial Correlation ....... 31
Results ........................................................................................................................ 32
Legislation....................................................................................................... 32
Listing Decisions ............................................................................................ 34
Conservation Plans.......................................................................................... 36
Discussion................................................................................................................... 38
Trends in Legislation....................................................................................... 38
The Provinces in Context: Politics and Economies ............................ 38
Legislation Breakdown ....................................................................... 40
Listing Decision Trends .................................................................................. 43
Conservation Plan Trends ............................................................................... 44

v
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 45
References .................................................................................................................. 47
Chapter 3 – Species at Risk Case Law and Judicial Trends .................................... 50
An Overview of Canada’s Courts ................................................................... 50
Methods ...................................................................................................................... 52
Analysis: Mann-Whitney U test and Rank-Biserial Effect Size ..................... 54
Results ........................................................................................................................ 54
By the Numbers .............................................................................................. 54
By the Words ................................................................................................... 59
Civil..................................................................................................... 59
Criminal .............................................................................................. 60
Environmental Impact Assessments, Permits, and Exemptions ......... 62
Enforcement ........................................................................................ 64
Employment, Freedom of Information/Disclosure Issues .................. 65
Harvest Quotas .................................................................................... 65
Government Inaction .......................................................................... 66
Land Use ............................................................................................. 66
Discussion................................................................................................................... 67
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 68
References .................................................................................................................. 69
Chapter 4 – The Political Story of Species at Risk Legislation in BC ..................... 72
Methods ...................................................................................................................... 72
Mandate letters and policies............................................................................ 73
Draft Legislation ............................................................................................. 73
Hansard Discussions of Species at Risk ......................................................... 73
MLA Interview................................................................................................ 73
Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 74
Mandate letters and Policies ........................................................................... 74
Draft Legislation ............................................................................................. 74

vi
Hansard ........................................................................................................... 74
MLA Responses .............................................................................................. 75
Results ........................................................................................................................ 75
NDP Government Mandate letters .................................................................. 75
Draft Legislation ............................................................................................. 75
Hansard ........................................................................................................... 79
MLA Responses .............................................................................................. 84
Policies ............................................................................................................ 86
Discussion................................................................................................................... 87
Mandate letters ................................................................................................ 87
Draft Legislation ............................................................................................. 87
Hansard ........................................................................................................... 88
MLA Responses and Input .............................................................................. 89
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 90
References .................................................................................................................. 91
Chapter 5 – Species at Risk Protections in Practice: Conservation Community
Perspectives ............................................................................................................................ 93
Methods ...................................................................................................................... 93
Protected Areas Selected ................................................................................. 94
Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area ............................................. 95
Wells Gray Provincial Park ................................................................. 96
Participant Interviews ..................................................................................... 98
Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 99
Participant Interviews ..................................................................................... 99
Interview Analysis ..................................................................................................... 99
Categories and interview themes .................................................................... 99
Knowledge of Species at Risk Legislation and Protections in BC ................. 99
Differences Observed Over Time and Across Locations .............................. 102

vii
Inclusion of Indigenous Voices in Developing Species at Risk Protections in
BC ................................................................................................................. 105
Management vs. Protection ........................................................................... 107
Industry Effects on Conservation .................................................................. 108
Communicating the Importance of Species at Risk Protections ....................111
Suggested Improvements to Species at Risk Conservation Moving Forward
....................................................................................................................... 113
Discussion..................................................................................................................116
Conclusion ................................................................................................................117
References .................................................................................................................119
Chapter 6 – The Case for Species at Risk Legislation in BC ................................. 120
How Does BC’s Legislation Measure Up? ............................................................ 120
The Necessity of Designated Provincial Legislation............................................. 121
Conclusion and Further Research ......................................................................... 123
References ................................................................................................................ 125
Appendix I – Table of Legislation............................................................................ 126
Appendix II – Scoring Rubric for Legislation ........................................................ 130
Appendix III – Species Listing Decision and Conservation Plan Sources ............ 137
Appendix IV – List of Case Law Search Terms ...................................................... 139
Appendix V – List of Cases in Data Set ................................................................... 141
Appendix VI – List of MLAs Contacted .................................................................. 146
Appendix VII – MLA Contact Email Template ....................................................... 147
Appendix VIII – Consent Form for Interview Participants ................................... 148
Appendix IX – List of Interview Participants ......................................................... 151
Appendix X – Interview Question Framework ....................................................... 152

viii

Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge everyone who supported me through this program and
who made it possible for me to complete this thesis. First, to my supervisor, Dr. Courtney
Mason, for the guidance and support throughout this research, and for believing in the scope
and multiple approaches of this research. Thank you to my advisory committee, Dr. Karl
Larsen and Dr. Brian Heise, for your support and thoughtful recommendations on statistical
analyses and editing an extremely large and unwieldy document into a still large but more
streamlined thesis. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Canadian Mountain Network.
I would like to thank everyone who participated in interviews, named and unnamed.
Thank you for sharing your experiences with me, for expressing an interest in this work, and
for believing that this research could contribute to the conversation around conservation in BC.
Additional thanks to Tom Dickinson and Ian Barnett for helping make connections to other
participants. Thank you as well to Olea Vandermale for providing figures using invaluable GIS
skills that I do not possess.
I would also like to thank my friends and family for their encouragement, even when I
was avoiding questions on timelines and how I was progressing. Thank you to my parents for
always supporting my interest in nature and learning, from children’s programming right
through to a Masters. And finally thank you to Ben for being a sounding board and a
cheerleader, and for never believing this whole adventure had been a mistake.

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Map of Canada showing federal crown lands. Readers will note the relatively small
area identified, particularly in western provinces. (Map by Olea Vandermale.) .......... 8
Figure 2 – Map of Canadian jurisdictions with and without designated SAR legislation.
(Created using Microsoft Excel.) .................................................................................. 9
Figure 3 - Unweighted legislation score as a percentage of total possible by jurisdiction.
Average score for all provinces does not include the federal score. ........................... 33
Figure 4 - Weighted legislation score as a percentage of total possible by jurisdiction. Average
score for all provinces does not include the federal score. ......................................... 33
Figure 5 - Provincial-SARA listing comparison scores by province. PEI has no provincially
listed species. .............................................................................................................. 36
Figure 6 - Provincial-COSEWIC listing comparison scores by province. PEI has no
provincially listed species. .......................................................................................... 36
Figure 7 - Percent of all provincially listed species with conservation plans by province. PEI
has no provincially listed species ................................................................................ 37
Figure 8 - Percent of provincially listed endangered and threatened species with conservation
plans by province. Saskatchewan has no conservation plans for endangered or
threatened species. PEI has no provincially listed species. ........................................ 38
Figure 9 – Flow chart showing the hierarchy of Canada's court systems, with appeals moving
from bottom to top. ..................................................................................................... 51
Figure 11 - Number of cases in each scoring category of aligning with SAR interests (1-5) by
jurisdiction. ................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 12 - Case score averages for SAR interests by jurisdiction......................................... 56
Figure 13 - Number of cases in each scoring category of aligning with SAR interests (1-5) by
category of law. ........................................................................................................... 58
Figure 14 - Case score averages for SAR interests by category of law. ................................. 59
Figure 15 - Unweighted legislation scores including proposed draft SAR legislation for BC
from the BC NDP and the BC Green Party. ................................................................ 76
Figure 16 - Weighted legislation scores including proposed draft SAR legislation for BC from
the BC NDP and the BC Green Party.......................................................................... 77
Figure 17 - Map of BC showing provincial and national protected areas. The locations of Lac
Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area and Wells Gray Park are highlighted on the map.
(Map by Olea Vandermale.) ........................................................................................ 94
Figure 18 - Map of Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area, including the boundaries of
McQueen Creek and Tranquille Ecological Reserves. (Map by Olea Vandermale.) .. 96
Figure 19 - Map of Wells Gray Provincial Park, showing adjacent Cariboo Mountains
Provincial Park. (Map by Olea Vandermale.) ............................................................. 97

x

List of Tables
Table 1 - Number of species listed at any threat level, including extirpated or extinct, by
province....................................................................................................................... 34
Table 2 – Number of cases in each jurisdiction by level of court. .......................................... 55

xi

Glossary of Terms
BC
BC NDP

British Columbia
The BC New Democratic Party, a political party forming the
current provincial government (circa 2023)

CanLII

The Canadian Legal Information Institute, an open-access
database of legislation and case law

Case law

The body of common law based on precedents comprising
previous legal decisions

COSEWIC

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

Designated Legislation

Used in this research to mean a piece of legislation that is
specifically aimed at a particular area (in this case, species at
risk)

ESA

The United States of America’s Endangered Species Act
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature

IUCN
Jurisdiction

The area (either physical or in terms of content) where
government or court can make legal decisions

Legislation

In this research, legislation encompasses laws (statutes and acts)
as well as the regulations created under those laws

MLA

A Member of the Legislated Assembly, BC’s legislative body

MP
Policy

A Member of Parliament, the Canadian federal legislative body
An organization’s non-legislated approach to a particular topic

SAR

Species at risk

SARA

The federal Species at Risk Act

Species at risk

The term for any endangered, threatened, or otherwise vulnerable
species in Canada

Westlaw

A subscription based legal research database

1

Chapter 1 – The Extinction Crisis and Setting the Scene for
Legislative Intervention
Extinction is a natural part of the life cycle of a species that has always existed, the
reverse side of the coin to evolution and speciation. However, when the balance swings too far
in the direction of extinction, biodiversity is lost. When species go extinct faster than expected,
it is considered an extinction event or, in severe instances, a mass extinction (Pievani, 2014).
While historical mass extinction events are familiar topics in many science classes, the
unfortunate reality is that we are likely living through one – the Holocene extinction event
(Barnosky et al., 2011; Cafaro, 2015; Ripple et al., 2017). Unlike the competing hypotheses
about what killed the dinosaurs in the most recent mass extinction event (Chiarenza et al.,
2020), there is little room for argument that the Holocene extinction event is human caused
(Ceballos et al., 2015; Pievani, 2014). Human impacts on other species include habitat loss and
degradation from increased development of wild spaces, the accidental or intentional
introduction of invasive species to ecosystems, overexploitation of species and ecosystem
resources, and the effects of global climate change (which is itself linked to human activities)
(Pimm et al., 2014).
Where the cause of a problem is known, there is a chance to mitigate the damage.
Beyond any altruistic incentive to course-correct the detrimental effects humans have had on
other species, there are many practical (and selfish) reasons to be concerned about widespread
biodiversity loss. Global food security, access to clean water, and mitigation of extreme
weather events are all tied to healthy and diverse ecosystems (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2013;
Terraube et al., 2017). Intact ecosystems also benefit mental and physical health (Fisher et al.,
2009).
Many jurisdictions have enacted legislation increasing protections for vulnerable
species (Waples et al., 2013). The Canadian federal government and most of the provinces have
designated species at risk (SAR) legislation. Unfortunately, despite having by far the most
significant number of SAR, British Columbia (BC) is in the minority of Canadian provinces
without dedicated SAR legislation.
The scientific community, Indigenous groups and leaders, and legal professionals have
called for dedicated SAR legislation in BC (Westwood et al., 2019). The provincial government

2
has even acknowledged the importance of establishing designated legislation. In 2017, the BC
NDP campaigned on a platform that promised SAR legislation (BC New Democratic Party,
2017). The current Minister of Environment and Climate Change was charged with developing
legislation in their 2017 mandate letter (Horgan, 2017), but the timeline for enacting that
legislation has been repeatedly postponed (Sarah Cox, 2019). Despite the calls for establishing
provincial SAR legislation in BC, there has been very little research on whether, and to what
extent, the lack of dedicated legislation affects BC’s most vulnerable species. The project
researches the relationship between legislation and conservation.

Defining the Distressed: A Note on Species at Risk
Different jurisdictions and administrative bodies may use their own classification terms
and categories to reflect the risk urgency for each species. In Canada, and for this research, the
general term used is “species at risk” (Species at Risk Act, 2002). The most common
classification systems used in this research are the Canadian List of Wildlife Species at Risk
under the Species at Risk Act (SARA); the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC) status assessments; and BC’s Red, Blue, and Yellow Lists (as well as
other provincial equivalents).

Literature Review
Extinction Rates and the Biodiversity Crisis
Background extinction rates estimate how many species would go extinct over a given
timeframe without additional pressures (Pimm et al., 2014). Extinction events occur when
species go extinct at a higher rate than the background extinction rate (Pimm et al., 2014). For
mass extinction events, some researchers set the threshold at more than three-quarters of all
extant species going extinct within a short time (geologically speaking) (Barnosky et al., 2011).
There have been five major mass extinctions, referred to the “Big Five”, in addition to
numerous smaller extinction events (Bond & Grasby, 2016). The most recent, and perhaps
most famous, mass extinction was the Cretaceous-Tertiary, or K-T, extinction event about 66
million years ago (Chiarenza et al., 2020). In addition to the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs,

3
the K-T extinction is known for how it dramatically altered global biodiversity, leading to the
rise of mammals as the dominant species (Bond & Grasby, 2016).
While it is relatively easy to point to the fossil record and agree that the Big Five were
mass extinction events, it is more challenging to definitively say one of those global
catastrophes is unfurling (Barnosky et al., 2011). Despite this, the consensus is that we are in
the midst of a sixth mass extinction, the Holocene extinction event (Ceballos et al., 2015;
Pievani, 2014; Ripple et al., 2017). Current extinction rates are significantly elevated, with
estimates ranging between 100 to 1000 times higher than the background extinction rate
(Ceballos et al., 2015; Pimm et al., 2014).
While the long-term outcome of this elevated extinction rate may remain uncertain, the
cause is much more apparent than with historical mass extinction events (Bond & Grasby,
2016; Chiarenza et al., 2020). Humans are the primary cause of the current accelerated
extinction rate, both directly and indirectly. This is reflected in the alternative name for the
Holocene extinction event: the Anthropocene extinction event (Ceballos et al., 2015; Pievani,
2014).
This loss of biodiversity is of great concern. The loss of a single species, whether
pollinator or predator, can cause multi-trophic domino effects that impact entire ecosystems
(Terraube et al., 2017). Of particular importance, healthy ecosystems supply services that
directly and indirectly support human health. These range from access to potable water, to the
availability of resources for food or medicine, to decreasing disease transmission (Dirzo et al.,
2014; Terraube et al., 2017). Additionally, humans derive psychological and mental health
benefits from spending time in nature (Fisher et al., 2009).
When discussing biodiversity loss and SAR, there is a tendency, both in research and
in calls to action, to focus on preventing extinctions (Dirzo et al., 2014; Gaston & Fuller, 2008).
However, decreases or disappearances of populations at more local scales can have equally
devastating impacts on ecosystems (Gaston & Fuller, 2008). While the continued existence of
a keystone species elsewhere in the world may be comforting in the abstract, it does nothing
to restore ecosystem functions to an area where that species has been lost (Gaston & Fuller,
2008; Raymond et al., 2018).

4

Where Science Meets Law: The Difficulty of Assessing Conservation
Effectiveness
Assessing the effectiveness of conservation measures is notoriously difficult and
imprecise (Geldmann et al., 2013). When dealing with SAR, there are ethical reasons why
using pure experimental design and implementing a “treatment” of conservation measures in
one area while leaving another unprotected as the “control” is not viable. Additionally,
conservation measures must be applied in situ, which makes it functionally impossible to
eliminate all other variables that could influence a species’ survival, such as disease, severe
weather events, and shifts in public opinions about nature.
As an alternative, environmental science has a history of using other measurements and
data as proxy indicators for conservation effectiveness. Popular proxies have included changes
to canopy and foliage cover over time (Leverington et al., 2010); assessments of corruption in
governing bodies (Eklund & Cabeza, 2016); and counter-factual models that compare a
species’ persistence against projections of how the population would have fared without
intervention (Akçakaya et al., 2018). Proxy indicators of particular interest to this research
include species listing status decisions (Favaro et al., 2014) and analyses of protection plans
developed for SAR (Haines et al., 2013). Previous research has compared the effectiveness of
Canada’s Species at Risk Act to the American Endangered Species Act, both through purely
qualitative comparisons of the language of the two acts (Waples et al., 2013) and by scoring
the actions taken under each act to protect species (Olive, 2014a). However, there is a
significant gap in research comparing SAR legislation between Canadian jurisdictions.

Contextualizing Current Species at Risk Protections
Focus-Fire on the Federal System: A Note on the Colonial Legal
Practices
The legislation that governs SAR protections in Canada encompasses laws from
multiple sources and levels of government. For this project, I focussed on two pieces of the
puzzle: provincial and federal legislation within the Canadian colonial legal system. It is
essential to acknowledge that these are only two layers of the complex tapestry of how SAR
are governed and protected. This system does not account for the Indigenous laws of the

5
nations whose territories overlap with the same geographic areas, which may also contain
protections for species conservation.1 Additionally, municipal bylaws, internal regulation by
industries, and private land-owner agreements can all contribute or detract from SAR
conservation (Hill et al., 2019; Olive, 2014b; Reid, 2013).

Legislation or Policy: Why Make a Distinction?
Throughout this research, I use the term “legislation” to refer to both legislation and
regulations. As a distinction, policies, even those published publicly, were not included in the
analyses of legislation. Legislation, regulation, and policy are three terms often used in close
conjunction, so it is helpful to distinguish between them.
Legislation is what most people think of as “laws”. Each piece might more precisely
be called a statute, act, or code (Department of Justice of Canada, 2021a). A legislative body
enacts legislation. For Canada, this is the House of Commons, comprising elected Members of
Parliament. BC’s equivalent is the Legislative Assembly. There is a process to enact proposed
legislation, usually involving several steps of debate and opportunities for amendments before
the final vote (Department of Justice of Canada, 2021a). Once enacted, legislation remains in
effect until it is repealed or replaced, typically involving further discussion and another vote.
Regulations are similar to legislation but are made by the administrative body
responsible for each act rather than the entire legislature (Department of Justice of Canada,
2021a). As with legislation, there is an official process to enact regulations. Typically, this
requires notice to the public, allowing for amendments to draft regulations, although there are
usually no rounds of public voting (Department of Justice of Canada, 2021a). Regulations, like
legislation, remain in effect until repealed.
Policies establish a plan of action or guidelines for operation (Canadian Heritage
Information Network, 2021). Policies can be formal or informal. They may be public or kept

Language around the Indigenous peoples of Canada, particularly the legal language that is
adopted and imposed by the colonial legal system, has changed over time. While this research
will predominantly employ the term Indigenous, some of the outdated language remains in
effect in various pieces of legislation and in relation to different organizational structures and
may be employed when directly referring to those situations.

1

6
internal to an organization. Government policies must align with existing legislation (Canadian
Heritage Information Network, 2021). In contrast to legislation, there is no specific required
process to draft, amend, or remove policies. A government’s policies might inform new
legislation but cannot create additional restrictions or prohibitions (Department of Justice of
Canada, 2021a).
All three tools serve important purposes in governance. Legislation and regulations set
legal rights and provide a means of enforcing those expectations by establishing offences and
penalties. Legislated protections benefit from stability and certainty, as they cannot be changed
without due process. However, due process also makes enacting or adapting legislation and
regulations in response to changing circumstances slow and inefficient. Conversely, policy can
be altered or changed quickly, making it flexible and responsive (Canadian Heritage
Information Network, 2021). The trade-off is that protections and expectations established
under policy do not have the same guarantee of persisting, as they can be removed or altered
with less input or oversight than repealing legislation. Indeed, government policies are often
changed following an election to reflect new priorities and mandates.

The Constitution and the Division of Powers
Canada has a federal legal structure. This means that the national, or federal,
government shares power and the responsibility to create and enforce laws with provincial
governments. Part VI of the Constitution Act establishes the division of these powers (1867).
As another piece to this puzzle, Canada also comprises three jurisdictions that are territories,
not provinces, where the federal government retains some of the legislating and enforcement
rights that would otherwise belong to provincial governments.2
While some areas fall solely to one level of government or the other, they share
jurisdiction for the environment. In practice, this shared jurisdiction has made the federal

2

Of note, I use the term “jurisdiction” throughout this research to refer to the provinces and
the federal jurisdiction collectively. I use “provinces” when I do not include the federal
jurisdiction.

7
government cautious not to infringe on provincial jurisdiction (Becklumb, 2013). Wildlife
conservation and species protection are primarily under the jurisdiction of the provinces.

The Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA)
The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) is the national legislation protecting SAR (SC
2002, c. 29). Protections under the act include requirements to create action and recovery plans
for SARA-listed species and to identify and preserve critical habitat. However, listed species
are not guaranteed protection everywhere in Canada. SARA applies only to federal species:
migratory birds, aquatic species, and any species on federal crown lands (see Figure 1). Nonfederal species must rely on other sources to be assured those same protections.

8
There are override provisions in SARA that allow the federal government to step in if a
province is not taking sufficient conservation measures for a SARA-listed species or their
habitat (Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c.29 at s. 34). In practice, these override provisions have
rarely been exercised (Palm et al., 2020).

Figure 1 - Map of Canada showing federal crown lands. Readers will note the relatively small
area identified, particularly in western provinces. (Map by Olea Vandermale.)

Provincial Species at Risk Legislation
Currently, there are six provinces with designated SAR legislation: Manitoba
(Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, CCSM c E111 (1990)), Ontario (Endangered
Species Act, SO 2007, c 6), Québec (Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species, CQLR
c E-12.01 (1989)), New Brunswick (Species at Risk Act, RSNB 2012, c 6), Nova Scotia
(Endangered Species Act, SNS 1998, c 11), and Newfoundland and Labrador (Endangered

9
Species Act, SNL 2002, c E-10.1). The Northwest Territories also has designated territorial
legislation (Species at Risk Act, SNWT 2009, c 16).
On the other side of the equation, BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward
Island all rely on provisions in non-designated legislation to provide provincial protection to
SAR. Yukon and Nunavut also have no designated SAR legislation.

YT

NU

NWT

BC

NL
AB

SK

QC

MB

B

N N
EI

P

S

ON

Powered by Bing
© GeoNames, Microsoft, TomTom

Without Designated Legislation

With Designated Legislation

Figure 2 – Map of Canadian jurisdictions with and without designated SAR legislation.
(Created using Microsoft Excel.)

Narrowing the Field: Why Nine Provinces?
Readers will note that of the thirteen jurisdictions in Canada, this research focuses on
only nine. Since laws do not exist in a vacuum, or even in controlled laboratory conditions, it
is not feasible to isolate the impacts of legislation while eliminating all external variables. To
reduce variables that could arise from different relationships between jurisdictions, I looked at
only the nine provinces that share a legal system. Yukon, Northwest Territory, and Nunavut, as
territories, have a different relationship to the federal government and the division of powers
than the provinces (Becklumb, 2013). The other notable exclusion is the province of Quebec,
which operates under a civil law legal system, in contrast to the common law system employed
across the rest of Canada.

10

BC’s Approach to Species at Risk
BC’s current approach to SAR protection relies on provisions spread across a several
statutes and regulations. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change lists the
following provincial statutes as having protections for SAR:
Wildlife Act (RSBC 1996, c 488);
Forest and Range Practices Act (SBC 2002, c 69);
Oil and Gas Activities Act (SBC 2008, c 36);
Ecological Reserves Act, (RSBC 1996, c 103);
Park Act, (RSBC 1996, c 344); and
Land Act, (RSBC 1996, c 245).
In addition, the province lists SARA (SC 2002, c 29) and the international Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973) as providing
protections to SAR.
Designated species at risk legislation has been an ongoing topic of conversation in BC.
Bills introducing SAR legislation have been proposed in 2010 (Bill M 207), in 2011 (Bill M
211), and three times in 2017 (Bill M 208; Bill M 224; Bill M 226). These bills have never
been proposed by a member of the governing political party, and none have passed the first
reading (Westwood et al., 2019).

Thesis Statement and Research Questions
This research aimed to examine what impact species at risk legislation has on
conservation. I looked at two main areas of inquiry: how BC’s approach to SAR compares to
other provinces in Canada and how BC’s approach to SAR is operating within BC. The
research questions that guided this project are:
1. Do provinces with designated SAR legislation perform better on an assortment of proxy
indicators of conservation effectiveness when compared to provinces without
designated SAR legislation?
2. Do courts side more favourably with SAR in litigation matters in jurisdictions with
designated SAR legislation compared to those without legislation?

11
3. Are there gaps in BC’s current approach to SAR conservation and protection?
4. What barriers and opportunities affect SAR legislation development and
implementation in BC?
I argue that the presence of designated SAR legislation will positively affect
conservation. Provinces with legislation will perform better than those without across all proxy
indicators assessed, including court decisions. I also demonstrate that BC’s current SAR
legislative approach leaves gaps in protecting and conserving vulnerable species.

Research Direction, Methods, and Methodological Approach
The approach used in this research is broadly separated into two categories: 1) a largepicture legal and archival research-based examination of SAR protections across the country
and 2) more detailed interview-based case studies of how SAR are being protected in BC.
For the first part, I sourced information from official government publications and
databases and used that information to create data sets. I used proxy indicators for conservation
effectiveness to compare provinces with and without designated legislation. These proxies
looked at the completeness of legislative protections, decisions to list or not list species as at
risk, and the number of conservation plans produced for listed species. I also used case law
from courts and tribunals to look at trends in judicial decisions relating to SAR.
For the second part of the study, I drew from elements of a community-based
participatory research methodology (CBPR). CBPR is a methodology that works with, and for,
the communities that the project is meant to help (Ashok et al., 2017). It is a common
methodology in health sciences but can add value to research across many disciplines (Stanley
et al., 2015). In a CBPR project, the researcher works with participants from the community
throughout the research process to ensure that interview questions and the research direction
are tailored to reflect the experiences and concerns of those participants (Jagosh et al., 2015).
The six principles of CBPR are:
1) promoting active collaboration and participation at every stage of research,
2) fostering co-learning,
3) ensuring projects are community-driven,

12
4) disseminating results in valuable terms,
5) ensuring research and intervention strategies are culturally appropriate,
6) and defining community as a unit of identity (Ablah & Bronleewe, 2016).
Benefits of this approach include developing research questions that are more relevant to the
communities most affected, increasing the use and applicability of the data beyond the research
project, and translating research into policy (O’Fallon & Dearry, 2002).
Given the time constraints of this project, CBPR was more a guiding principle than a
fully implemented one in this research. These constraints include the fact that I split my time
and the research into two distinct categories, as well as additional challenges that came with
finding participants and scheduling interviews, particularly during the global Coronavirus
pandemic. Consequently, I did not do an initial round of interviews with community
participation to develop the research questions and direction of the interviews and research as
would have been ideal when applying a CBPR methodology. Instead, I sourced the initial
interview framework from existing resources, including an open letter to the BC government
from Indigenous leaders, scientific and legal professionals, conservation groups, and other
affected communities (Hume et al., 2012; Westwood et al., 2019).
I recruited initial participants through an emailed open call for interest that was kindly
supported by Dr. Tom Dickinson, a professor emeritus at Thompson Rivers University. At the
end of each interview, participants were encouraged to recommend additional possible
participants, following a snowball sampling method (Naderifar et al., 2017). The semistructured interviews allowed participants to express their thoughts and experiences without
constraint and in their own words. The interviews also included questions to participants about
what areas they saw as valuable for further research. Responses from earlier interviews
informed follow-up and additional questions in later interviews. Interviews were recorded, and
participants received the written transcripts and the opportunity to correct or clarify any
information, add additional comments, or retract any statements they no longer wished to have
included. Participants were also offered the option to have the completed research forwarded
to them.

13

Research Methods and Analyses
Since each part of this thesis employs complementary methods to source information
and data, the relevant chapter will include detailed description of the methods. The following
section contains a brief overview of the methods employed and a description of the data
analysis processes.

The On-Paper Protections: Legislation, Listing Decisions, and
Databases
The first portion of this project focussed on comparing BC’s SAR governance approach
to other Canadian provinces. The objective was to compare qualitatively and quantitatively
whether the absence of designated legislation means BC is less effective at conserving SAR
conservation than provinces with designated legislation. Data for this portion of the research
was obtained from each jurisdiction’s legislation database, the official government website for
the relevant ministry or department in each jurisdiction, and any linked databases such as the
COSEWIC database. Further details on how the information was collected and quantified are
available in Chapter 2.

The In-Court Enforceability: Case Law and Court Decisions
The second portion of this project focused on whether courts uphold the protections in
each jurisdiction. The objective was to collect and analyze the relevant case law for trends in
court decisions. I collected the cases using two Canadian legal databases: Westlaw and
CanLII.3 I then reviewed the results for content before finalizing the collection of cases. Further
information on case law collection and analysis is available in Chapter 3.

The In-Practice Applications: Interviews and Case Studies
The final portion of this research focussed on how protections are implemented on the
ground. The objective was to hear from participants involved with protected areas or SAR risk

3

Westlaw has a Canadian legal database that covers not only the standard courts, but also many tribunals and
administrative bodies, but requires a paid subscription to access. CanLII, short for the Canadian Legal Information
Institute, is an open-access database that covers Canadian courts and legislation.

14
in BC about their experiences with where protections are, and are not, working. I obtained data
for this from semi-structured interviews with participants connected to at least one of two case
study sites in BC: Lac Du Bois Protected Area and Wells Gray Provincial Park. Participants
signed consent forms and were offered anonymity, although most declined choosing to have
their quotes and opinions attributed to them by name. Ethics approval for participants’
interviews was obtained from Thompson Rivers University #102828.
This section also examines the policies and actions surrounding SAR in BC not covered
by legislation. Additional information for this chapter was obtained from BC’s legislature
regarding proposed SAR bills. Further information about the participant interviews and case
studies is available in Chapter 4.

Data Analysis – Statistics and Significance
As this research shows how the SAR protections and conservation compares across
different jurisdictions in Canada, there are practical limitations to which statistical analysis
methods are appropriate. I used non-parametric tests for the statistical analyses of the
quantitative data. I used these as I mainly worked with small population sizes (the nine
provinces in the research).
The standard practice of setting the threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis at 𝛼 =
0.05 is difficult to employ with such small populations. There is also some precedent in the
scientific discourse about moving away from relying on threshold significance levels
(Agathokleous, 2022; Vidgen & Yasseri, 2016; Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016). A primary reason
for this shift is a critique of the arbitrary decision to base significance on tradition and common
practice rather than biological or functional thresholds (Agathokleous, 2022; Kennedy-Shaffer,
2019). Proposed alternatives include reporting actual p values without reference to a
significance threshold and including effect size or confidence intervals when reporting
statistical analyses (Gardner & Altman, 1986; Halsey, 2019; Nakagawa & Cuthill, 2007;
Sullivan & Feinn, 2012).
As a further complication, this research blends scientific and legal analysis principles.
Statistical significance has a history of being challenging to translate into judicial or legal
significance (Carden, 2006; Moore et al., 2018). Proof is a word that is practically taboo in

15
science, where space is always held for uncertainty. Hence, the language of rejecting a null
hypothesis even when the results meet high statistical significance thresholds rather than
proving the alternate hypothesis. However, courts do deal in proof. The standard of proof for
legal decisions can range from “on a balance of probabilities” for most civil matters to the
much more stringent criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” (Department of Justice,
2021). These murky waters become further muddied in areas like administrative law, where
instead of using a standard of proof, courts judicially review administrative decisions according
to standards of review that range from reasonableness to correctness (Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019). These differences in language and perspective
mean that translating what is considered proof (or the absence of disproof) in science to legal
standards has been difficult in the past (Clements v Clements, 2012). This task is challenging
enough that the legal profession puts out advice and guidelines for lawyers and judges on
interpreting the testimony of expert witnesses and scientific reports in court (McleodKilmurray, 2013).
Given the limitations of this research, I have adopted the approach of reporting p values
rather than setting a significance threshold (Agathokleous, 2022; Halsey, 2019). I have also
included effect sizes for statistical tests (Maher et al., 2013; Nakagawa & Cuthill, 2007;
Sullivan & Feinn, 2012).

Analyses and Statistical Tests Used
Because the data sets were relatively small and manageable, I used basic statistical
software for the analyses, which were performed using Microsoft Excel’s Analysis ToolPak or
done by hand.

Mann-Whitney U-test
I used the Mann-Whitney U test most frequently in analyzing the data, otherwise known
as the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The Mann-Whitney U test is a non-parametric test that
compares two independent populations with small sample sizes, analogous to a two-sample ttest (Nachar, 2008). The advantage over a t-test for this research are that the Mann-Whitney U
test can be employed with both smaller n sizes and for ordinal data (Karadimitriou & Marshall,

16
n.d.). In this research, the two populations are provinces with and provinces without designated
SAR legislation.
The Mann-Whitney U test is calculated by assigning a numerical rank to all the data
points from smallest to largest, beginning with 1 (tied groups are given the mean of their
rankings). The formulae to calculate the U value are:
" (" $!)

and

𝑈! = 𝑅! − ! &!

" (" $!)

𝑈& = 𝑅& − " &"

where R1 is the sum of the ranks for population 1 and R2 is the sum of the ranks for
population 2. The smaller of U1 and U2 is the U value (Nachar, 2008).
To calculate the value of p in Excel, the U value needed to be converted to a z-test
statistic using the formula:
𝑧 =

𝑛 𝑛
𝑈 − + !2 & .
/𝑛! 𝑛& (𝑛! + 𝑛& + 1)
12

(Karadimitriou & Marshall, n.d.).
The p value can then be found using the following equation in Microsoft Excel:
𝑝 = NORM. DIST(𝑧, 0,1, TRUE) ∗ 2
The null hypothesis, H0, for a Mann-Whitney U test is that there is no difference
between the two populations, and HA is that the two populations are different from each other.
The smaller the p value, the less likely that H0 is true.

Effect Size: Common language effect size and rank-biserial
correlation
I used a rank-biserial correlation to find the effect size for the comparisons that used
the Mann-Whitney U test. A rank-biserial correlation is related to the common language effect
size, where f represents the proportion of all possible pairings that are favourable to a
conclusion. In this research, for example, f might represent the total number of pairings where
a province with designated legislation outperformed a province without designated legislation

17
(Kerby, 2014). The formula to calculate the common language effect size from a MannWhitney U test is:
𝑓 =

𝑈!
𝑛! 𝑛&

Rank-biserial correlations report the effect size by taking the proportion of favourable
pairs, f, minus unfavourable pairs, u (equal to 1 – f). Rank-biserial correlations range from -1
to 1. The further the value is from zero, the larger the effect size and the stronger the
relationship between the data (Kerby, 2014). The formula to calculate a rank-biserial
correlation is:
𝑟 = 𝑓−𝑢
For the Mann-Whitney U test, the rank-biserial correlation formula can be rewritten as:
𝑟 =

2𝑈!
2𝑈&
−1 = 1−
𝑛! 𝑛&
𝑛! 𝑛&

(Kerby, 2014).

Researcher Positionality
I am a non-Indigenous woman in my early thirties from a middle-class background. I
grew up in Kamloops. I moved away after high school for university, returning to do a Master
of Environmental Sciences at Thompson Rivers University. The protected areas I selected for
the case study portion of this research, explored in Chapter 4, are ecosystems familiar to me
and important to forming my relationship with nature. My earliest connections to ideas of
endangered species are arguably the two most recognizable species from Lac Du Bois and
Wells Gray, burrowing owls, and caribou.
My interest in this area of research comes out of my educational background. I did an
undergraduate degree in ecology before transitioning to law. I attended law school at the
University of Victoria, where the curriculum allows for a focus on environmental law. After
law school, I completed legal articles with the Department of Justice, the federal government.
My article experience was litigation based, primarily in relation to public law. I did have the
opportunity to work on files that dealt with environmental issues. After being called to the Bar

18
by the Law Society of British Columbia, I felt that working in law, even in environmental law,
was not the right fit for me. By the time an issue makes it to environmental litigation it is
because there is a conflict that could not be resolved without legal intervention. Environmental
law work is a critical step to have in place to uphold and enforce environmental protections,
but legal practice is reactive rather than proactive by nature. I decided to return to
environmental science to complete a Masters. My goal with this research is to integrate my
educational background to explore how environmental science informs law and how law
directs conservation.

Thesis Overview
This thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 gives an overview of the background
and context regarding SAR legislation in Canada and presents this project’s research questions
and objectives.
Chapter 2 begins to answer the objectives of this research by looking at the large-scale
picture. In this chapter, I compared provinces with and without designated legislation using
proxy indicators for conservation effectiveness. This corresponds to research question 1.
Chapter 3 brings in an analysis of the role of case law in upholding and enforcing SAR
protections. I compare judicial and tribunal decisions relating to SAR across different
jurisdictions. This corresponds to research question 2.
Chapter 4 shifts the scale of the research to focus on the situation in BC as it currently
stands. This chapter focuses on the political reasons for and against SAR legislation
development. This is done by examining public records of political debates, mandate letters to
ministers, and assessing proposed legislation for BC. It begins to answer research question 4.
Chapter 5 deals with the observed experiences of SAR conservation in BC. This is done
through participant interviews. This corresponds to research question 3 and continues to
answer research question 4.
Chapter 6 summarizes the research findings and includes recommendations about how
to proceed with SAR legislation development in BC.

19

References
Ablah, E., & Bronleewe, T. (2016). A community-based participatory research approach to
identifying environmental concerns. Article in Journal of Environmental Health, 79(5),
14–19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334064436
Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species, CQLR c E-12.01 (1989).
Agathokleous, E. (2022). Environmental pollution impacts: Are p values over-valued? Science
of
The
Total
Environment,
850,
157807.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.157807
Akçakaya, H. R., Bennett, E. L., Brooks, T. M., Grace, M. K., Heath, A., Hedges, S., HiltonTaylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Keith, D. A., Long, B., Mallon, D. P., Meijaard, E., MilnerGulland, E. J., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Rodriguez, J. P., Stephenson, P. J., Stuart, S. N., &
Young, R. P. (2018). Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop
an IUCN Green List of Species. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1128–1138.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13112
Akoglu, H. (2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency
Medicine, 18, 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
Ashok, S., Tewari, H. R., Behera, M. D., & Majumdar, A. (2017). Development of ecotourism
sustainability assessment framework employing Delphi, C&I and participatory
methods: A case study of KBR, West Sikkim, India. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 21, 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.10.005
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B.,
Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire, K. C., Mersey, B., & Ferrer, E.
A. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471(7336),
51–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678
BC New Democratic Party. (2017). Working for you: our commitments to build a better BC.
Becklumb, P. (2013). Federal and Provincial jurisdiction to regulate environmental issues
(2013-86-E).
Bill M 207, Species at Risk Protection Act, 2nd Session, 39th Parliament, British Columbia,
2010.
Bill M 208, Endangered Species Act, 2nd Session, 41st Parliament, British Columbia, 2017.
Bill M 211, Species at Risk Protection Act, 3rd Session, 39th Parliament, British Columbia,
2011.
Bill M 224, Endangered Species Act, 6th Session, 40th Parliament, British Columbia, 2017.

20
Bill M 226, Species at Risk Protection Act, 6th Session, 40th Parliament, British Columbia,
2017.
Bond, D. P. G., & Grasby, S. E. (2016). On the causes of mass extinctions. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeocology,
478,
3–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.11.005
Cafaro, P. (2015). Three ways to think about the sixth mass extinction. Biological
Conservation, 192, 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.017
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.
Canadian Heritage Information Network. (2021, October 12). Introduction to policy.
Government
of
Canada.
https://www.canada.ca/en/heritage-informationnetwork/services/digital-preservation/concepts-developing-policies/introductionpolicy.html
Carden, K. (2006). Bridging the divide: the role of science in species conservation law.
Harvard Environmental Law Review, 30, 165–259.
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M.
(2015). Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass
extinction. Science Advances, 1(5), e1400253. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253
Chiarenza, A. A., Farnsworth, A., Mannion, P. D., Lunt, D. J., Valdes, P. J., Morgan, J. V, &
Allison, P. A. (2020). Asteroid impact, not volcanism, caused the end-Cretaceous
dinosaur extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117(29), 17084–
17093. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11908179
Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32.
Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 91, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No
5.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 993
UNTS 243 (1973).
Department of Justice. (2021, September 1). Civil and criminal cases. Government of Canada.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csjsjc/just/08.html#:~:text=In%20a%20civil%20suit%2C%20the,proof%20beyond%20a
%20reasonable%20doubt.
Department of Justice of Canada. (2021, July 21). How new laws and regulations are created.
Government of Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/laws-lois/index.html
Dirzo, R., Young, H. S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N. J. B., & Collen, B. (2014).
Defaunation
in
the
Anthropocene.
Science,
345(6195),
401–406.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817

21
Ecological Reserve Act, RSBC 1996, c 103.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (2013). Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1754), 20122845.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2845
Eklund, J., & Cabeza, M. (2016). Quality of governance and effectiveness of protected areas:
crucial concepts for conservation planning. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13284
Endangered Species Act, SNS 1998, c 11.
Endangered Species Act, SNL 2002, c E-10.1.
Endangered Species Act, SO 2007, c 6.
Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, CCSM c E111 (1990).
Favaro, B., Claar, D. C., Fox, C. H., Freshwater, C., Holden, J. J., & Roberts, A. (2014). Trends
in extinction risk for imperiled species in Canada. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e113118.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113118
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services
for
decision
making.
Ecological
Economics,
68(3),
643–653.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Forest and Range Practices Act, SBC 2002, c 69.
Gardner, M. J., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Confidence intervals rather than p values: estimation
rather than hypothesis testing. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.),
292(6522), 746–750. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.292.6522.746
Gaston, K. J., & Fuller, R. A. (2008). Commonness, population depletion and conservation
biology.
Trends
in
Ecology
and
Evolution,
23(1),
14–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.11.001
Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I. D., Hockings, M., & Burgess, N. D. (2013).
Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population
declines.
Biological
Conservation,
161,
230–238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2013.02.018
Haines, A. M., Zak, M., Hammond, K., Scott, J. M., Goble, D. D., & Rachlow, J. L. (2013).
Uncertainty in population estimates for endangered animals and improving the
recovery process. Animals, 3, 745–753. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3030745
Halsey, L. G. (2019). The reign of the p-value is over: what alternative analyses could we
employ
to
fill
the
power
vacuum?
Biology
Letters,
15(5).
https://doi.org/10.1098/RSBL.2019.0174

22
Hill, C. J., Schuster, R., & Bennett, J. R. (2019). Indigenous involvement in the Canadian
species at risk recovery process. Environmental Science and Policy, 94, 220–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.017
Horgan, J. (2017). [Mandate letter from John Horgan, Premier, to George Heyman, Minister
of Environment and Climate Change Strategy]. Government of British Columbia.
Hume, G., Nixon, S., Page, D., Pinkus, S., Podolsky, L., & Russell, S. (2012). Failure to
protect: grading Canada’s species at risk laws.
Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Cargo, M.,
Green, L. W., Herbert, C. P., & Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of communitybased participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple
effects. BMC Public Health, 15, 725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1
Karadimitriou, S. M., & Marshall, E. (n.d.). Mann-Whitney U test (non-parametric equivalent
to independent samples t-test). https://maths.shu.ac.uk/mathshelp/
Kennedy-Shaffer, L. (2019). Before p < 0.05 to Beyond p < 0.05: Using History to
Contextualize p-Values and Significance Testing. The American Statistician, 73(Suppl
1), 82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1537891
Kerby, D. (2014). The Simple Difference Formula: An Approach to Teaching Nonparametric
Correlation. Comprehensive Psychology, 3, 2165. https://doi.org/10.2466/11.IT.3.1
Land Act, RSBC 1996, c 245.
Leverington, F., Costa, K. L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., & Hockings, M. (2010). A global analysis
of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management, 46(5), 685–
698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5
Maher, J. M., Markey, J. C., & Ebert-May, D. (2013). The other half of the story: Effect size
analysis in quantitative research. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 345–351.
https://doi.org/10.1187/CBE.13-04-0082
Mcleod-Kilmurray, H. (2013). Science and advocacy. In Environmental Education for Judges
and Court Practitioners. A Symposium on Environment in the Courtroom (II):
Environmental
Prosecutions.
http://www.brooklaw.edu/students/journals/blr/73.3.6_haack.pdf
Moore, J. W., Nowlan, L., Olszynski, M., Jacob, A. L., Favaro, B., Collins, L., WilliamsDavidson, G. L. T.-L., & Weitz, J. (2018). Towards linking environmental law and
science. Facets, 3(1), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1139/FACETS-2017-0106
Nachar, N. (2008). The Mann-Whitney U: a test for assessing whether two independent
samples come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for
Psychology, 4(1), 13–20.

23
Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball sampling: a purposeful method of
sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3),
67670. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670
Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical
significance: a practical guide for biologists. In Biological Reviews (Vol. 82, Issue 4,
pp. 591–605). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x
O’Fallon, L. R., & Dearry, A. (2002). Community-based participatory research as a tool to
advance environmental health sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives,
110(Supplement 2), 155–159.
Oil and Gas Activities Act, SBC 2008, c 36.
Olive, A. (2014a). The road to recovery: comparing Canada and US recovery strategies for
shared endangered species. The Canadian Geographer, 58(3), 263–275.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12090
Olive, A. (2014b). Urban awareness and attitudes toward conservation: a first look at Canada’s
cities. Applied Geography, 54, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.08.002
Palm, E. C., Fluker, S., Nesbitt, H. K., Jacob, A. L., & Hebblewhite, M. (2020). The long road
to protecting critical habitat for species at risk: the case of southern mountain woodland
caribou.
Conservation
Science
and
Practice,
2(7),
e219.
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.219
Park Act, RSBC 1996, c 344.
Pievani, T. (2014). The sixth mass extinction: Anthropocene and the human impact on
biodiversity. Rendiconti Lincei, 25(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-0130258-9
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P.
H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates
of
extinction,
distribution,
and
protection.
Science,
344(6187).
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752
Raymond, C. V., Wen, L., Cooke, S. J., & Bennett, J. R. (2018). National attention to
endangered wildlife is not affected by global endangerment: A case study of Canada’s
species at risk program. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 74–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.001
Reid, C. T. (2013). Conservation covenants. Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, 77(3), 176–
185.
http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?productid=6598
&recordid=333

24
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M.
I., & Laurance, W. F. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice.
BioScience, 67(12), 1028. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2081
Sarah Cox. (2019, April 19). B.C. stalls on promise to enact endangered species law. The
Narwal. https://thenarwhal.ca/b-c-stalls-on-promise-to-enact-endangered-species-law/
Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29.
Species at Risk Act, SNWT 2009, c 16.
Species at Risk Act, RSNB 2012, c 6.
Stanley, D., Marshall, Z., Lazarus, L., LeBlanc, S., Heighton, T., Preater, B., & Tyndall, M.
(2015). Harnessing the power of community-based participatory research: examining
knowledge, action, and consciousness in the PROUD study. Social Work in Public
Health, 30(3), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2014.1001935
Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the p value is not enough.
Journal
of
Graduate
Medical
Education,
4(3),
279–282.
https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
Terraube, J., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., & Cabeza, M. (2017). The role of protected areas in
supporting human health: a call to broaden the assessment of conservation outcomes.
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability,
25,
50–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.005
Vidgen, B., & Yasseri, T. (2016). P-values: misunderstood and misused. Frontiers in Physics,
4, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPHY.2016.00006/BIBTEX
Waples, R. S., Nammack, M., Cochrane, J. F., & Hutchings, J. A. (2013). A tale of two acts:
endangered species listing practices in Canada and the United States. BioScience,
63(9), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.8
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process,
and
purpose.
American
Statistician,
70(2),
129–133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
Westwood, A. R., Otto, S. P., Mooers, A., Darimont, C., Hodges, K. E., Johnson, C.,
Starzomski, B. M., Burton, C., Chan, K. M. A., Festa-Bianchet, M., Fluker, S., Gulati,
S., Jacob, A. L., Kraus, D., Martin, T. G., Palen, W. J., Reynolds, J. D., & Whitton, J.
(2019). Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing
species at risk legislation. FACETS, 4, 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-20180042
Wildlife Act, RSBC 1996, c 488 (1996).

25

Chapter 2 – Legislation, Listing
Conservation Plans Across Canada

Decisions,

and

Canada is a country that covers a large area, encompassing many climates and
ecosystems within its borders. Despite the vast size and sparse population density, Canadian
ecosystems are no exception to the global phenomenon of increased extinction rates and
climate change-driven biodiversity loss. Canada is experiencing the effects of global climate
change at an increased severity compared to the global average, warming at over two times the
global average rate (Bush et al., 2022).
The seriousness of the risk to global species is widely accepted. Governments,
organizations, and institutions from 170 countries are members of the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN). How species at risk (SAR) are protected differs from country
to country (Members Directory, n.d.). In some cases, as with Canada, SAR protections may
vary within national borders.
Canada’s legal structure is a federation. The constituent parts, the provinces and
territories, operate alongside the federal, or Canadian, government and share responsibilities,
obligations, and the power to govern (Constitution Act, 1982). The Constitution Act establishes
the division of powers between each level of the government (1982 at ss. 91 & 92(10)).
Both levels of government share jurisdiction over some areas. One such area is matters
relating to the environment (Becklumb, 2013). Wildlife is a provincial responsibility, apart
from federal species, which includes migratory birds, fish, and any species on federal crown
land (Becklumb, 2013). This means provinces have primary responsibility for SAR, and each
province makes its own decisions on protecting, conserving, and managing vulnerable species
(Waples et al., 2013). The result is that SAR protections are not uniform across the country.
This chapter compares how the nine common-law provinces approach SAR
conservation and management. These provinces can be divided into two groups: those with
designated SAR legislation and those without legislation. This chapter evaluates how
provinces without designated SAR legislation, including BC, compared to provinces with
designated SAR legislation. I demonstrate, qualitatively and quantitatively, that provinces
without designated legislation are less effective at SAR conservation than provinces with

26
designated SAR legislation. I show that provinces with designated legislation have more robust
protections and more effective conservation of SAR.

Methods
The ideal indicator to test the effectiveness of conservation legislation would be longterm population changes for species before and after the implementation of protective
legislation (Favaro et al., 2014; Findlay et al., 2009). This approach has been used in research
looking at the effectiveness of the American Endangered Species Act (Gerber & Hatch, 2002;
Hoekstra et al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2005). However, implementing legislation will never be an
instantaneous fix, and for this type of data to be collected, the legislation in question must be
in effect long enough to allow time for species to be evaluated and re-evaluated. Given the
range of dates when the various pieces of Canadian SAR legislation were enacted, as well as
the absence of legislation in several of the jurisdictions, looking at changes to population size
would introduce new variables to the analysis (Appendix I). Additionally, the jurisdictions do
not have the same extent of available data for SAR populations.
Instead, I used other measurements as a stand-in for conservation effectiveness, what I
refer to as proxy indicator measurements in this research. For this chapter, I looked at three
proxy indicators for each province: the completeness of the legislation governing SAR;
decisions to list or not list species as at risk; and whether there were conservation plans setting
out the next steps for protecting listed species.

Legislation
Collection
I collected the legislation that governs SAR protections for each jurisdiction using
official government websites as the starting point. I then used CanLII, an open-access Canadian
legal database, to search for any legislation in each jurisdiction containing the terms “species
at risk”, “endangered species”, “threatened species”, or “listed species” to find any legislation
not included on official websites. Finally, I used CanLII to find all regulations made under each
statute. Legislation was collected on March 1, 2021.

27
Next, I screened out any legislation that did not contain provisions or protections for
all SAR in that jurisdiction. For example, regulations that established a list of endangered
species, such as Saskatchewan’s Wild Species at Risk Regulations, remained in the data set.
However, regulations that established protected habitat boundaries for a single species were
excluded, such as the federal Critical habitat of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus
caribou) Boreal Population. This left 27 pieces of legislation, including those explicitly
incorporated by reference in another statute. The results were unevenly distributed across the
provinces, with BC as the outlier with 13 separate pieces of legislation covering SAR
protections. A table of all the legislation is available in Appendix I.

Scoring
To compare the legislation, I first needed to “score” the contents of the statutes and
regulations. To do this, I made a scoring rubric to assign numerical values to evaluation criteria
(Hoekstra et al., 2002; Murray et al., 2018). The evaluation criteria for this rubric were pulled
from existing research, commentary, and recommendations for developing SAR legislation
from legal and scientific professionals (Hume et al., 2012; Westwood et al., 2019). This left a
“wish list” of what ideal SAR legislation would contain, which became the criteria for the
rubric (Appendix II).
I assessed each criterion on a six-point scale from 0 to 5 for how well it was
incorporated into a jurisdiction’s legislation (Hill et al., 2019; Pawluk et al., 2019). The scale
reflected both the completeness of the legislation and whether it was discretionary or nondiscretionary. A score of 0 meant that the criterion was not included anywhere in the legislation,
while a score of 5 meant that it was included in full and was non-discretionary (Appendix II).
A separate scale was used to score each piece of legislation for how searchable it is when
looking for SAR information, and the average searchability was added to each jurisdiction’s
score (Appendix II). Finally, to account for not all criteria being equally important in
conserving and managing SAR, I weighted the final scores using a 1-3 multiplier. An
explanation of the scoring scales and multipliers is attached to the rubric in Appendix II.
This gave each jurisdiction an unweighted and weighted score for their legislation,
expressed as a percentage of the total score available. The total score was 340 for the

28
unweighted rubric and 775 for the weighted rubric. The higher a jurisdiction scored, the more
complete the legislation. As indicated below in the analysis, jurisdictions with designated SAR
legislation outscored those without designated legislation.

Listing Decisions
Collection
A decision to list or not to list a species as at risk is the first step to conservation. Listing
decisions have been used as a proxy for the effectiveness of legislation, particularly when not
enough time or data are available to assess conservation outcomes from biological indicators
(Findlay et al., 2009). Previous research has found biases against listing certain species in
Canada at the federal level, particularly species with economic implications arising from
protected status (Findlay et al., 2009; Mooers et al., 2007).
The language of listing categories varies slightly between jurisdictions, but it generally
reflects the threat levels using terms that would be easily discernible to anyone who is familiar
with SAR. The exception is BC’s listing system, which uses colour coding: Red for extirpated,
endangered, or threatened species; Blue for species of special concern; and Yellow for secure
or apparently secure species. BC does, however, have another list that designates species as
either “endangered” or “threatened” rather than using the colour-coded system. There are only
three species on the endangered list: the white pelican (Blue Listed), the burrowing owl (Red
Listed), and the Vancouver Island marmot (Red Listed). The sea otter (Blue Listed) is
designated as “threatened” in the same document, making a total of four species that are
protected on that list (Designation and Exemption Regulation, BC Reg 168/90 (1990)). For
this research, I used the colour-coded database for BC. Unlike the Designation and Exemption
Regulation, it is updated frequently and linked directly on the BC government webpage,
suggesting that it is the government’s preferred SAR classification system.
I obtained the lists for each jurisdiction directly from official government websites,
regulations or schedules within government legislation, and online databases (Appendix III).
Given the number of species in BC’s database, and the fact that many jurisdictions do not track
species that are not at risk, I excluded BC’s Yellow Listed species. PEI has no provincially
listed species and was excluded from all listing decision analyses. For federal listing, I used

29
the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) database.
COSEWIC is the body responsible for initial assessments and recommendations of species
listing status at the federal level. The database reflects both the COSEWIC recommended status
and the official federal listing status under SARA. Listing decisions were obtained on October
18, 2022.

Scoring
As it is unlikely that SAR are spread evenly across the country, and it is impossible to
infer information from how two provinces list different species, I needed to convert the lists
into a different form of data. I did this by comparing each province’s listing decisions against
federal listing decisions for the same species using habitat range information from the
COSEWIC database, which also provides SARA listing status. As COSEWIC is a national
committee that assesses species across Canada and reports where species occur, each
province’s list could be compared against the federal ones for species within their jurisdictional
borders.
I assigned a score to the listing status for each species: 1 – Not at Risk (equivalent to
an unlisted or unevaluated species, or to BC’s Yellow List); 2 – Special Concern (equivalent to
Sensitive, Vulnerable, and to BC’s Blue List); 3 – Threatened; and 4 – Endangered (equivalent
to BC’s Red List). As BC’s Red List status includes threatened and endangered species, I gave
the province the benefit of the doubt and assigned all Red List species a score of 4. To get the
provincial-federal comparison score, I subtracted either the SARA or COSEWIC score from
the provincial score for each species that both had listed and found the average. Comparing
provinces to SARA scores looked at whether provincial protection status was higher or lower
than legislated federal protections. Comparing the provinces to COSEWIC was to assess
whether provincial listing is more aligned with conservation recommendations before
economic and other interests are taken into account in the final SARA listing process. As the
federal list included species assessed as “not at risk” but the provinces did not, this created a
bias towards the provinces which could never have a score of 1. To account for this, I removed
all species with a score of 1, as well as extirpated and extinct species.

30
This gave me both a provincial-SARA and provincial-COSEWIC comparison score for
each province. I could use these scores to compare between provinces. A positive comparison
score meant that the province listed species at a higher level of risk than COSEWIC, or the
SARA listing decision. A negative comparison score indicated the opposite. The absolute value
of the comparison score reflected the extent of differences in listing decisions, with a score of
0 meaning they were the same and a larger score showing that they were further apart.
Provinces only look at species populations within their borders, while the federal score
would reflect the status of the species across the country. The larger the geographic area, the
more chance there is for a SAR in some parts of its habitat to still have a healthy population
elsewhere that “saves” the overall listing status. The federal listing decision would therefore
be less severe than provincial decisions. For this reason, I expected all provinces to have a
positive score. Because I argue that provinces with designated legislation will be more effective
and proactive at conservation, I also expected them to have higher listing scores than provinces
without designated legislation.

Conservation Plans
Collection
After a species has been listed, the next step is to implement protection and
management strategies. Depending on jurisdiction and specific content requirements, these
may be called conservation, management, or action plans. For simplicity, I refer to these
collectively as “conservation plans”. While most jurisdictions require conservation plans under
their legislation, the reality is that many of these plans are published well after legal deadlines
or remain outstanding (Hume et al., 2012). I used the number of conservation plans created in
each province as my third proxy indicator for the effectiveness of SAR legislation, taking it to
be a measure of implementing protection. For each province, I compared the number of
conservation plans to the total number of listed species. I collected the plans using official
government websites and databases (Appendix III). I obtained the plans on February 20, 2023.
Two provinces, Manitoba and PEI, did not have conservation plans listed on their
official websites. I found one Manitoba conservation plan for Boreal Woodland Caribou
through a Google search. I called the wildlife offices for both provinces to inquire whether they

31
had any additional conservation plans. The Manitoba office confirmed they had only one plan,
although a second one was in development. The PEI office confirmed that while they
unofficially adopt federal plans, they have no official provincial conservation plans. These
confirmations were obtained on March 1, 2023.

Scoring
I found the percentage of listed species with conservation plans for each province.
Because some provinces’ requirements for conservation plans omit species that are listed as
only “special concern” or equivalent (e.g., “sensitive”), I also obtained the percentage of only
the species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” (or their equivalents) that had conservation
plans. I did not consider the content of the conservation plans, only whether one existed or not.
BC’s database for conservation plans included federally produced plans in addition to
provincial ones. There is no indication from the database listing whether the federal plans are
officially adopted, but to give the province the benefit of the doubt, I used the percentage of
species that had at least one conservation plan, regardless of the level of government. In
contrast, New Brunswick’s database mentions when the province has adopted a federal
conservation plan instead of creating a provincial one.
Because conservation plans set out government commitments to act on SAR, a higher
percentage of listed species with conservation plans suggests that a province is more willing
or more able to implement and follow-through on SAR management. I argue that provinces
with designated SAR legislation will have higher percentages of conservation plans than those
without legislation.

Statistical Analyses: Mann-Whitney U test and Rank-Biserial
Correlation
To compare between the two groups of provinces, those with and those without
designated SAR legislation, I used the Mann-Whitney U test (Karadimitriou & Marshall, n.d.).
This is a nonparametric statistical analysis which can be used with smaller sample sizes and
ordinal data ((Karadimitriou & Marshall, n.d.). I did this for all three proxy indicators:

32
legislation scoring, listing comparison scores, and the percentage of conservation plans. I
calculated the effect size of these analyses with the rank-biserial correlation (Kerby, 2014).

Results
Legislation
When all jurisdictions’ scores were ranked from highest to lowest, the rankings
remained consistent regardless of whether the unweighted or weighted rubric was considered
(See Figures 3 and 4). Even before statistical analysis, there is a clear pattern when comparing
jurisdictions with and without designated SAR legislation. The average score for provinces
with designated legislation was much higher than that for provinces without designated
legislation, 62.8% to 33.2% for the unweighted scoring rubric and 65.9% to 37.6% for the
weighted rubric. The federal Species at Risk Act had the highest overall scores (78.2%
unweighted and 78.5% weighted). Saskatchewan was the only jurisdiction without designated
legislation to score higher than one with legislation, outscoring Manitoba (46.0% to 37.7%
unweighted, and 47.0% to 40.4% weighted).

Score - Percent of Total Available

33
90
80

69.7 68.5

70

78.2

74.7
63.2

62.8

60
50
40
30

44
32

49.6

37.7

34.7

33.2

22.1

20
10
0
BC

AB

SK

MB

ON

NB

NS

PEI

NL Federal

Average - All Provinces
Average - Provinces With Designated Legislation
Average - Provinces Without Designated Legislation

PScore - Prcent of Total Available

Figure 3 - Unweighted legislation score as a percentage of total possible by jurisdiction.
Average score for all provinces does not include the federal score.
90
80

72.5 72.2

78.5

77.4
67

70
60
50
40

48
38.1

40.4

53.3
38.2

26.2

30

65.9

37.6

20
10
0
BC

AB
SK MB ON NB
NS PEI NL Federal
Average - All Provinces
Average - Provinces With Designated Legislation
Average - Provinces Without Designated Legislation

Figure 4 - Weighted legislation score as a percentage of total possible by jurisdiction. Average
score for all provinces does not include the federal score.
The H0 for the Mann-Whitney U test showed no difference between the scores for
provinces with and without legislation. The Ha is that there is a difference between the two

34
groups. As the rankings of the provinces did not change, the results for the test were the same
for weighted and unweighted legislation: U = 1, which equates to p = 0.027. The effect size
from the rank-biserial correlation for the difference between jurisdictions with and without
designated legislation was r = -0.9.
The scores for every jurisdiction increased when the rubric was weighted compared to
their unweighted scores, although lower-scoring jurisdictions increased more than those that
started with higher scores. BC had the largest difference in the score when weighting the rubric,
a 6.0% increase. The federal SARA had the least increase difference, with only a 0.2% increase
over the unweighted score. Nova Scotia had the smallest change to their score for any province,
a 2.7% increase. The average increase in score for provinces with designated legislation was
3.1%, compared to 4.4% for provinces without designated legislation. I used a Mann-Whitney
U test to compare the increase in scores for the two groups, giving a result of U = 2 and p =
0.05. The effect size was r = -0.8.

Listing Decisions
After this quantitative analysis, it is apparent that there are vast differences between the
provinces regarding how many species are listed as at risk. BC has 1909 Red and Blue List
entries, by far the most for any province, exceeding even the 1230 species considered for listing
(not necessarily listed) by COSEWIC and SARA.4 Part of this difference is the diversity of
climates and ecosystems within the province reflected in a higher total number of species.
Another contributing factor is that, unlike other jurisdictions, BC extends listing status to
habitat and ecosystem types, not only species.
Province

BC

AB

SK

MB

ON

NB

NS

PEI

NL

# of listed
1909
145
17
64
256
92
63
0
51
species
Table 1 - Number of species listed at any threat level, including extirpated or extinct, by
province.

4

Of interest, if looking at BC’s species listed as either “endangered” (3) or “threatened” (1) it
would have the second fewest number with only four.

35
The listing comparison scores were positive for all provinces except Alberta, indicating
that most provinces on average listed species at a higher threat level than SARA or COSEWIC
(see Figures 5 and 6). Manitoba had the highest scores for both provincial-SARA (0.40) and the
provincial-COSEWIC (0.47) comparison, indicating that it assessed higher threat levels for
species on average than federal listing and COSEWIC recommendations. Saskatchewan had
the highest scores for a province without designated legislation across both comparisons (0.27
for both). Ontario’s score was closest to 0 for the provincial-SARA comparison (0.03), and
second-closest to 0 for the provincial-COSEWIC comparison (0.05). This indicates that
Ontario’s listing decisions are more closely aligned with federal assessments than other
provinces.
Provinces with designated legislation had a higher average score than those without,
with 0.19 to 0.08 for the provincial-SARA comparison and 0.24 to 0.11 for the provincialCOSEWIC. This suggests that provinces with designated legislation are more likely to assess
species at a higher threat level compared to federal listing and recommendations than those
without designated legislation. However, the analyzing the two groups of provinces using a
Mann-Whitney U-test suggests that there is not a meaningful difference, particularly when
looking at the provincial-SARA comparisons (U = 5.5 and p = 0.55 for provincial-SARA, U =
4 and p = 0.30 for provincial-COSEWIC). There is also less of an effect size between the two
groups of provinces for the provincial-SARA comparison (r = -0.27) compared to provincialCOSEWIC (r = -0.47).

36

Comparison Differential

0.5

0.4

0.4
0.27

0.3
0.2
0.1

0.27
0.19

0.1

0.08

0.03

0.19
0.15
0.08

0
-0.1

BC

AB

SK

MB

ON

NB

NS

PEI

NL

-0.14

-0.2

Average - All Provinces
Average - Provinces With Designated Legislation
Average - Provinces Without Designated Legislation
Figure 5 - Provincial-SARA listing comparison scores by province. PEI has no provincially
listed species.
0.5

0.47

0.4

0.35
0.27

Comparison Differential

0.3

0.18

0.2
0.1

0.08

0.15

0.24
0.19
0.1

0.05

0

-0.1

BC

AB
SK
-0.05

MB

ON

NB

NS

PEI

NL

Average - All Provinces

Figure 6 - Provincial-COSEWIC listing comparison scores by province. PEI has no
provincially listed species.

Conservation Plans
The percentage of species with conservation plans increased for all provinces except
Saskatchewan when only considering “endangered” and “threatened” species rather than all

37
listed species. Saskatchewan and Manitoba had the lowest percentage of conservation plans
outside of PEI, with fewer than 6% of listed species having conservation plans. Ontario and
Nova Scotia had the highest percentage of conservation plans, with over 60% of all listed
species having conservation plans and over 80% of threatened and endangered species having
conservation plans. BC had the third lowest percentage of conservation plans (11.5% for all
species, 19.8% for Red-listed species).5 Collectively, provinces with designated legislation had
a higher average percentage of species with conservation plans than provinces without: 43.4%
to 15.9% for all species and 49.1% to 33.1% for endangered and threatened species.

Percent with Conservation Plan

80

69.8

69.1

70
60

49

50

43.4

40

30.3

30
20
10

11.5

33.1

27.2

5.9

15.9
1.6

0
BC

AB
SK
MB ON
Average - All Provinces

NB

NS

PEI

NL

Average - Provinces With Designated Legislation
Average - Provinces Without Designated Legislation
Figure 7 - Percent of all provincially listed species with conservation plans by province. PEI
has no provincially listed species

5

Of interest, when looking at only the four species designated as “endangered” or “threatened” in BC, the

Vancouver Island marmot and the burrowing owl have conservation plans. This would increase BC’s percentage
of conservation plans to 50%, (75% of endangered species).

38
100

Percent with Conservation Plan

89.1

88

90

79.4

80
70
60
50

37.8

40
30
20

28.6

49.1
43.1
33.1

19.8

10

0

0
BC

1.8

AB
SK
MB ON NB
NS
PEI
NL
Average - All Provinces
Average - Provinces With Designated Legislation
Average - Provinces Without Designated Legislation

Figure 8 - Percent of provincially listed endangered and threatened species with conservation
plans by province. Saskatchewan has no conservation plans for endangered or threatened
species. PEI has no provincially listed species.
I used a Mann-Whitney U-test to compare the percentages of the provinces with and
without designated legislation. The rankings of the provinces do not change whether
considering all listed species or only endangered and threatened species. Either parameter
results in U = 4 and p = 0.2967. The effect size using rank-biserial correlation of the
comparison is r = -0.4667.

Discussion
Trends in Legislation
The Provinces in Context: Politics and Economies
For this research, it is critical to at least mention the economic and political differences
between Canadian provinces. Economies have a significant influence on conservation. Some

39
industries, particularly resource-extraction industries, have a negative impact on ecosystems
and the species whose habitats overlap the resource area.
The three western provinces without designated SAR legislation have economies
heavily reliant on non-renewable resource extraction industries, particularly oil, gas, and
mineral mining. BC also has a significant forestry industry, which must disturb ecosystems and
species’ habitat to harvest lumber (Canadian Immigration Law Firm, n.d.). While trees are
technically a renewable resource, harvested forests can take decades or centuries to return to
pre-harvest ecosystem functions, if at all. They do not renew within any practicable human
measurement of time. In contrast, the provinces with designated legislation have been less
reliant on extraction. Ontario’s economy is weighted more towards manufacturing and
production than resource extraction. The Atlantic provinces have traditionally had strong
fishing industries – a resource that requires healthy ecosystems and food webs to replenish
yearly (Canadian Immigration Law Firm, n.d.).
These generalizations are not complete distinctions, and economies evolve and adapt
to new circumstances just as species do. BC employs nearly as many people in the fishing
industry as New Brunswick (Canada Action, 2023). Resource extraction occurs across all
Canadian jurisdictions, not only in Western Canada. Forestry is a significant part of New
Brunswick’s economy, just as oil extraction is in Newfoundland and Labrador, and coal mining
has been in Nova Scotia6 (New Brunswick, n.d.; Newfoundland and Labrador, n.d.; Nova
Scotia, n.d.). Agriculture and animal husbandry are also widespread industries and, depending
on the management practices employed, have the potential to devastate natural ecosystems
(Barbosa et al., 2021; Gibbs et al., 2009). Tourism, particularly adventure tourism, is a rising
economic force, especially in BC, which relies on protecting wild spaces at least enough to
continue profiting from them (BC Government, n.d.).
Legislating protections for SAR means implementing restrictions on how and where
industries operate. As legislation is a political instrument, governments must decide how to

6

Donkin Mine, Nova Scotia’s only active coal mine, has been under a stop work order since July, 2023. It was

lifted in December 2023, but as of February, 2024 there are no updates that production has resumed (Nova Scotia,
2023).

40
balance the equation of economies and environments. In Canada, right-leaning political parties
have been more likely to prioritize industry and economic concerns over environmental issues.
This is reflected in the SAR legislation that does exist in Canada, with the majority enacted by
left-leaning political parties (Appendix I). The Canadian jurisdictions without designated SAR
legislation have also had long stretches of right-leaning governments.

Legislation Breakdown
The rubric I used to score the legislation showed a difference in the completeness of
SAR legislation for provinces with designated legislation compared to those without. In almost
all instances, provinces with designated legislation had higher scores than those without, with
average scores nearly twice as high for provinces with designated legislation. All jurisdictions’
scores improved after the rubric was weighted, although the rankings remained unchanged.
This suggests that even jurisdictions with incomplete legislation focus what protections they
do have on the more critical aspects of SAR legislation.
However, with a sample size of only nine provinces, even one exception from the
pattern should be considered. Saskatchewan scoring higher than Manitoba is evidence that
merely having designated SAR legislation does not inherently equate to better protections and
more complete laws relating to SAR. The content of the legislation matters more than the title
of the act, and notable gaps or absences from legislation are just as telling as the protections in
place.
Lawmakers often model legislation off existing laws from another jurisdiction. Based
on the language and organization, there are three groups of SAR legislation in Canada. The
first, chronologically, is Manitoba’s Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act. Enacted in 1990,
it scored poorly, putting it closer to BC and PEI’s legislation than to other designated SAR acts.
No other jurisdiction uses this model for their current SAR legislation. Of the many gaps in
Manitoba’s legislation, perhaps the most egregious is the complete absence of incorporating
Indigenous knowledge. While truly meaningful integration and incorporation of Indigenous
knowledge and perspectives in SAR legislation is an important and complex enough topic to
warrant its own thesis, Manitoba is the sole jurisdiction considered in this research that does
not even pay lip service to meeting these expectations. There is not a single mention on the

41
terms Indigenous, First Nations, Aboriginal or Indian7 throughout Manitoba’s legislation
(Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, CCSM c E111 (1990)).
The next legislative model is used by the Atlantic provinces of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Nova Scotia has the oldest legislation of the
three, dating back to 1998 (Appendix I). It also scored the highest for any province. New
Brunswick’s more recent Species at Risk Act from 2012 follows the same model but falls
slightly short in scoring. Newfoundland and Labrador’s legislation is related, although the
language and provisions are less similar than the other two provinces. Benefits of this model
include mandatory, single-step listing based off scientific knowledge. The downside is that
these provinces tend to have less inclusion of Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge
integrated into the legislation.
The last category is the Federal Species at Risk model of legislation. By its score, this
is the most complete SAR legislation in Canada. However, its limited area of application
diminishes the benefits of the legislation. While SARA does at least include mentions of
considering Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge alongside scientific information as
a source of expertise on SAR throughout the act, the act itself leaves a lot of room for
discretion. This weakens the provisions and the integration of expert opinions on SAR,
particularly regarding the two-step system for listing a species under SARA. Ontario’s
Endangered Species Act (SO 2007, c 6) seems to be modelled on the Federal legislation,
although it falls behind Nova Scotia in terms of scoring.
The federal SARA and Nova Scotia’s act were the two highest-scoring acts. The fact
that they are different models of legislation suggests that both models have strengths, but more
importantly, both have legislative gaps that the other model might more effectively cover.
While SARA can be considered the benchmark for SAR legislation in Canada, it should not be
the end goal when developing designated SAR legislation. None of the existing models of
legislation in Canada is perfect, and if BC were to enact new legislation, the aim should be to
exceed what is in place elsewhere in the country rather than to meet it.

7

These are the current and historic terminology used in Canadian legislation when referring to
the First Peoples of North America.

42
It is more complicated to group the provinces without designated legislation. Most
provisions protecting SAR in these provinces are contained in each jurisdiction’s variation on
a Wildlife Act. Saskatchewan scored high for a province without designated legislation, with a
separate Part of the Wildlife Act dedicated entirely to SAR provisions (SS 1998, c W-13.12).
Notably, Saskatchewan’s legislation suffers from an excess of ministerial discretion, with
listing decisions, recovery plans, and even seeking advice from an advisory committee all
things the Minister “may” do (Wildlife Act, SS 1998, c W-13.12, at Part V). Alberta’s
legislation, in contrast, does not include additional protections for endangered species beyond
those provided to any wildlife that is not in season (Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10). The
absence of additional protections is of particular concern because while plants may be
classified as an “endangered species” under Alberta’s act, protections for wildlife only extend
to “big game, birds of prey, fur-bearing animals, migratory game birds, non-game animals,
non-licence animals and upland game birds” (Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10, at s.1.1(II)).
Among all provinces that rely on Wildlife Act protections for SAR, only Alberta’s definition of
“wildlife” is this restrictive.
On paper, PEI’s legislation slightly edges out BC’s in terms of scoring. However, any
protections afforded by the province are largely theoretical, as there are no provincially listed
species. BC had the second-lowest scoring legislation, although it did beat Alberta by nearly
10%. BC’s regime was the most complicated to assess as it is spread across thirteen statutes
and regulations. Compare this to New Brunswick, which had the second-highest number of
pieces of legislation considered, with three. Beyond this lack of centralization, there are two
major weaknesses in BC’s legislation. The first is a complete absence of any requirement, or
even mention, of conservation plans for listed species (Wildlife Act, RSBC 1996, c 488). This
significant oversight was shared only with PEI. This means that any conservation, recovery,
management, or action plans made in BC are done only through government policy, rather than
any legislative impetus or imperative.
The second deficiency in BC’s legislation is less immediately apparent but may have
greater negative impacts. Technically, any additional protections afforded to SAR under BC’s
legislation apply to species designated as “endangered” or “threatened”, not to Red or Blue
Listed species. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, there are only four “endangered” and

43
“threatened” species in BC: the white pelican (endangered), the burrowing owl (endangered),
the Vancouver Island marmot (endangered), and the sea otter (threatened) (Designation and
Exemption Regulation, 1990). This means that BC’s legislative protections, which already
score low on paper, may be even weaker and less effective in practice.

Listing Decision Trends
For listing decisions, I argued that provinces with designated legislation would take
threats to SAR more seriously than those without designated legislation. A comparison score
of 0 would mean that the provincial and federal listing severity were balanced. The further
away from that neutral point of 0 a score was, either positively or negatively, the larger the
average difference in listing. While the average comparison scores for provinces with
designated legislation were higher than those without designated legislation, applying a MannWhitney U test gave less than compelling results. There was no clear pattern between provinces
with, and those without, designated legislation when it came to listing decisions.
Looking at individual provinces, only Alberta had negative comparison scores. This
means that almost all provinces found that species faced a higher threat level than federal
decision-makers. Manitoba had the largest scores in comparison to both COSEWIC and SARA,
followed by Nova Scotia. Saskatchewan had the largest scores of the three provinces without
designated legislation, tying Nova Scotia for the second-highest score for the SARA
comparison. New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and BC, in that order, made up the
middle of the rankings.
For the smallest scores, Ontario and Alberta were roughly equally far away from 0 for
the provincial-COSEWIC comparison, albeit in different directions. The Ontario-SARA
comparison was also the smallest overall score, 0.0333. This indicates that Ontario’s and
SARA’s listing decisions were the most closely aligned of any of the provincial-federal pairs
considered. There are two possible explanations that come to mind for the low score. The first
is that Ontario’s SAR legislation is modelled after the federal SARA, and it would make sense
that species listing criteria for the province would also follow the federal model and give
similar outcomes. The other explanation may be that as the province in this research that covers
by far the largest geographic area, it is possible COSEWIC and SARA decisions are weighted

44
more heavily towards Ontario’s populations of species, with species that are doing well in that
province also having healthy populations on a national level, and vice versa. Overall, species
listing decisions demonstrated a less distinct difference between provinces with and without
legislation than the other proxy indicators examined in this chapter, with analyses that showed
relatively large p values and small effect sizes.

Conservation Plan Trends
Provinces with designated SAR legislation are more successful, on average, at
producing conservation plans for their listed species. This aligns with the greater efficacy in
conservation I argued would be present in those provinces. However, the difference between
the two groups of provinces decreases drastically when looking at conservation plans only for
species listed as threatened or endangered rather than all listed species. These results suggest
that even though provinces without designated legislation are falling behind in terms of
producing conservation plans, they are, at minimum, able to focus on their most critically
endangered species.
An examination of the results for other proxy indicator measurements did not show a
clear pattern for the percentage of conservation plans. Ontario and Nova Scotia, the provinces
with the highest-scoring legislation, also had the highest percentage of conservation plans for
listed species. Of note, Ontario produced a batch of conservation plans relatively recently – at
the end of 2022 and the beginning of 2023 – shortly before the number of plans was collected
for this research. If that pattern continued, Ontario may have a higher percentage of
conservation plans than was reflected in this research. Alberta, the province with by far the
lowest results on both other proxy measures, had the third highest percentage of conservation
plans for “endangered” or “threatened” species. In contrast, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, in
the middle for legislation scoring, had extremely low percentages of produced conservation
plans.
As with Nova Scotia, BC placed consistently across all the proxy indicators, albeit at
the opposite end of the spectrum. Following the same trend, BC had one of the lowest
percentages of conservation plans. This poor outcome is understandable, although not
excusable, given the number of listed species in the province and the sheer volume of resources

45
required to produce conservation plans for them all. However, BC considered the threats to
those species severe enough to list them, and it is the province’s responsibility to take actions
beyond listing. Of interest is the fact that BC (and PEI) do not have any legislative provisions
requiring conservation plans be developed for SAR. This may also contribute to the low
percentage of plans produced by BC.
This project had clear limitations, which did not include an analysis of how detailed or
accountable each conservation plan was. Further research on the contents of conservation
plans, broken down by jurisdiction or by species classification, would be of value. Examples
of similar work include research that compares recovery plan strategies and targets between
Canada and the US (Olive, 2014a; Pawluk et al., 2019), and the research that emerged from a
large-scale project to create a database of the contents of plans introduced under the US
Endangered Species Act (Gerber & Hatch, 2002; Hoekstra et al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2005).

Conclusion
When looking at all the variables together, provinces with designated SAR legislation
have more comprehensive legislative protections and have taken more action to implement
those protections than provinces without designated legislation. However, the results for
individual provinces do not follow as clear of a pattern. Nova Scotia scored highly on all the
proxy indicator measurements assessed in this chapter, which is consistent with establishing
and implementing high-quality legislation. Ontario also performed well, although it scored low
on the listing decision comparisons. Alberta, at the other end of the spectrum, was well below
the average on almost everything, with by far the lowest scores on legislation and the only
negative listing decision comparison scores. However, Alberta has a much higher percentage
of conservation plans for listed species than other provinces without designated legislation,
particularly when only looking at endangered and threatened species. Manitoba was near the
middle for most analyses but had decidedly poor results for a province with designated
legislation. For two of the three proxy indicators, Manitoba scored roughly equal to, or worse
than, Saskatchewan despite Saskatchewan not having designated legislation. The two
neighbouring provinces had similar results in all the analyses, scoring in the middle on
legislation, high on listing decisions, and at the very bottom for the percentage of conservation

46
plans. This demonstrates that simply having designated legislation does not guarantee a
province will have strong protections and effective conservation measures.
Finally, BC has the second weakest legislative regime for SAR protection. Despite
being the province with the highest number of listed species, BC’s legislation is roughly on par
with PEI’s, the only province without any listed species. While BC appears to seriously
consider listing decisions, the language in the legislation still assigns protection based on BC’s
old (and apparently defunct) listing system, rather than the current colour list. In addition, the
province’s follow-through is lacking, with one of the lowest percentages of conservation plans
and by far the highest number of listed species without conservation plans of any variety.
On paper, it appears that having designated legislation increases the effectiveness of
SAR protection and conservation. However, these proxy indicators of conservation are only
one aspect of a complete effectiveness assessment. It is also important to investigate how
protections hold up when challenged and how they translate to real-life applications. The
following chapters address these issues.

47

References
Agriculture and losses of imperiled species. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14724642.2008.00543.x
Barbosa, J. M., Hiraldo, F., Romero, M. Á., & Tella, J. L. (2020). When does agriculture enter
into conflict with wildlife? A global assessment of parrot-agriculture conflicts and their
conservation effects. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13170
BC Government. (n.d.). Tourism research. Retrieved October 29, 2023, from
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/tourism-immigration/tourism-resources/tourismresearch
Becklumb, P. (2013). Federal and Provincial jurisdiction to regulate environmental issues
(2013-86-E).
Bush, E., Bonsal, B., Derkson, C., Flato, G., Fyfe, J., Gillett, N., Greenan, B. J. W., James, T.
S., Kirchmeier-Young, M., Mudryk, L., & Zhang, X. (2022). Canada’s changing
climate report in light of the latest global science assessment.
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/environment/impactsCanada Action. (15 February, 2023). Fishing industry in Canada: by the numbers. Retrieved
February
2,
2024,
from
https://www.canadaaction.ca/fishing_industry_canada_by_the_numbers
Canadian Immigration Law Firm. (n.d.). Choose wisely: immigration to Canada’s provinces
and
their
main
industries.
Retrieved
October
29,
2023,
from
https://www.canadianimmigration.net/blog/choose-wisely-immigration-to-canadasprovinces-and-their-main-industries/
Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.
Designation and Exemption Regulation, BC Reg 168/90 (1990).
Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, CCSM c E111 (1990).
Favaro, B., Claar, D. C., Fox, C. H., Freshwater, C., Holden, J. J., & Roberts, A. (2014). Trends
in extinction risk for imperiled species in Canada. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e113118.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113118
Findlay, C. S., Elgie, S., Giles, B., & Burr, L. (2009). Species listing under Canada’s Species
at Risk Act. Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1609–1617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15231739.2009.01255.x
Gerber, L. R., & Hatch, L. T. (2002). Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications, 12(3), 668.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3060976

48
Hill, C. J., Schuster, R., & Bennett, J. R. (2019). Indigenous involvement in the Canadian
species at risk recovery process. Environmental Science and Policy, 94, 220–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.017
Hoekstra, J. M., Clark, J. A., Fagan, W. F., & Boersma, P. D. (2002). A Comprehensive Review
of Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans. Ecological Applications, 12(3), 630–640.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3060971
Hume, G., Nixon, S., Page, D., Pinkus, S., Podolsky, L., & Russell, S. (2012). Failure to
protect: grading Canada’s species at risk laws.
Karadimitriou, S. M., & Marshall, E. (n.d.). Mann-Whitney U test (non-parametric equivalent
to independent samples t-test). https://maths.shu.ac.uk/mathshelp/
Kerby, D. (2014). The Simple Difference Formula: An Approach to Teaching Nonparametric
Correlation. Comprehensive Psychology, 3, 2165. https://doi.org/10.2466/11.IT.3.1
Members directory. (n.d.). International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved June 11,
2023, from https://www.iucn.org/our-union/members/members-directory
Mooers, A. Ø., Prugh, L. R., Festa-Bianchet, M., & Hutchings, J. A. (2007). Biases in legal
listing under Canadian endangered species legislation. Conservation Biology, 21(3),
572–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00689.x
Murray, C. C., Wong, J., Singh, G. G., Mach, M., Lerner, J., Ranieri, B., Peterson St-Laurent,
G., Guimaraes, A., & Chan, K. M. A. (2018). The insignificance of thresholds in
environmental impact assessment: an illustrative case study in Canada. Environmental
Management, 61(6), 1062–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1025-6
New Brunswick. (n.d.). New Brunswick Forest Industry. Retrieved February 2, 2024 from
https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/erd/forestryconservation/content/forest-products/forest-industry.html
Newfoundland and Labrador. (n.d.). Double oil and gas production in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Retrieved
February
2,
2024
from
https://www.gov.nl.ca/thewayforward/action/double-oil-and-gas-production-innewfoundland-and-labrador/
Nova Scotia. (n.d.). Nova Scotia’s historic underground coal mine workings information.
Retrieved February 2, 2024 from https://novascotia.ca/natr/meb/hazardassessment/historic-coal-mineworkings.asp#:~:text=There%20were%20coal%20mines%20in,surface%20and%20u
nderground%20coal%20mines.
Nova Scotia. (27 December, 2023). Donkin Mine stop work order lifted. Retrieved February
2, 2024 from https://news.novascotia.ca/en/2023/12/27/donkin-mine-stop-work-orderlifted

49
Olive, A. (2014). The road to recovery: comparing Canada and US recovery strategies for
shared endangered species. The Canadian Geographer, 58(3), 263–275.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12090
Pawluk, K. A., Fox, C. H., Service, C. N., Stredulinsky, E. H., & Bryan, H. M. (2019). Raising
the bar: recovery ambition for species at risk in Canada and the US. PLOS ONE, 14(11),
e0224021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224021
Taylor, M. F. J., Suckling, K. F., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). The effectiveness of the
Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis. BioScience, 55(4), 360–367.
https://doi.org//10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0360:TEOTES]2.0.CO;2
Waples, R. S., Nammack, M., Cochrane, J. F., & Hutchings, J. A. (2013). A tale of two acts:
endangered species listing practices in Canada and the United States. BioScience,
63(9), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.8
Westwood, A. R., Otto, S. P., Mooers, A., Darimont, C., Hodges, K. E., Johnson, C.,
Starzomski, B. M., Burton, C., Chan, K. M. A., Festa-Bianchet, M., Fluker, S., Gulati,
S., Jacob, A. L., Kraus, D., Martin, T. G., Palen, W. J., Reynolds, J. D., & Whitton, J.
(2019). Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing
species at risk legislation. FACETS, 4, 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-20180042
Wildlife Act, RSBC 1996, c 488.
Wildlife Act, SS 1998, c W-13.12.
Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10.

50

Chapter 3 – Species at Risk Case Law and Judicial Trends
Legislation that is not enforceable, or legislation that goes unenforced, is not much
different than an absence of legislation altogether. Enforceable legislation, backed up by
consequences for anyone circumventing the provisions, often is referred to as “having teeth”
(McNally, 2022). Without teeth, legislation is functionally no different from a written wish list.
One way to assess the enforceability is to examine how the courts ruled in cases relying on that
legislation, and whether the provisions are being upheld. In this chapter, I compare how courts
in different Canadian jurisdictions rule on species at risk (SAR) matters that come before them
by assessing whether conservation interests are upheld or not. I argue that provinces with
designated SAR legislation have stronger protections that hold up better in judicial
proceedings.

An Overview of Canada’s Courts
For readers unfamiliar with Canada’s court system, this is a brief introduction to the
different decision-making bodies in the country. Most of Canada uses a common law court
system, where decisions are bound by precedent from earlier cases. Effectively, older decisions
shape the law for new decisions. This creates a body of “case law”. Following precedent
ensures laws are applied consistently and predictably. Case law must agree with and reflect a
jurisdiction’s laws. New legislation can render established precedents irrelevant.
Case law is developed vertically in Canada. This means there is a hierarchy that sets
precedents for each court (National Self-Represented Litigants Project, 2016). Decisions from
higher courts set precedent, as do earlier decisions from the same court, but lower court
decisions are not binding (National Self-Represented Litigants Project, 2016). Additionally,
related case law from other jurisdictions can “persuade” a decision. However, in practice, each
province assigns more weight to decisions from some jurisdictions than others. In BC, for
example, it is not uncommon for courts to consider Alberta and Ontario cases, but case law
from other Canadian provinces will seldom be raised. Appeals follow the court hierarchy from
lower to higher levels of court.
Administrative tribunals are specialized decision-making bodies at the lowest level of
the hierarchy. They usually deal with a single piece of legislation or with a few pieces of closely

51
related legislation. Depending on the establishing legislation, these tribunals may be federal or
provincial (or territorial) (Department of Justice of Canada, 2021b). The next level up is the
provincial (or territorial) court. The respective province or territories grants these courts the
power to adjudicate. Most cases begin at this level, although provincial courts are limited on
which matters they can hear. For example, cases with damages over a certain threshold and
some significant criminal matters must begin in a superior court. There is no federal equivalent
to this level of court (Department of Justice of Canada, 2021b).
Next are the superior courts. It is the BC Supreme Court in BC, but different
jurisdictions may use other names, such as the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. Superior
courts hear initial matters outside the limits of provincial and territorial courts, as well as
appeals from lower courts. The Federal Court is equivalent to the Superior Courts but with
jurisdiction over specifically federal matters (Department of Justice of Canada, 2021b). Above
the superior courts are the courts of appeal, both provincial and federal. As the name suggests,
they hear appeals from the superior courts. At the highest level is the Supreme Court of Canada
(SCC), which is the final court of appeal in the country (Department of Justice of Canada,
2021b). The SCC hears appeals from every jurisdiction, and their decisions are binding on all
jurisdictions and courts in Canada, regardless of where a case originated (National SelfRepresented Litigants Project, 2016).

Figure 9 – Flow chart showing the hierarchy of Canada's court systems, with appeals moving
from bottom to top.

52

Methods
For this chapter, I did a case law review of all federal and provincial decisions (except
for Quebec) that dealt with SAR. I used Westlaw and CanLII as the search databases for the
case law review, using two databases as a back-up to ensure results missing from one database
were still included. Westlaw is a legal database that covers many administrative tribunal
decisions not reported on other databases. However, it requires a paid subscription to access
and it can be more challenging to note up8 specific legislation. CanLII, short for the Canadian
Legal Information Institute, is an open-access database that covers Canadian courts and
legislation. It is easy to navigate but does not carry many tribunal decisions. I used a series of
search inquiries in Westlaw with results filtered to show only cases. I compiled these results
into a single list, eliminating any duplicates. The case list from Westlaw searches was obtained
on March 14, 2022. I then cross-referenced this list against CanLII’s search database and
legislation note up functions, again eliminating any duplicates. Cases from CanLII were
obtained on March 22, 2022. This left a total of 1129 distinct results. The list of search terms
used is included in Appendix IV.
I narrowed the result list by eliminating all cases that were irrelevant to this research.
This meant removing all Quebec, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut jurisdiction
results. I also removed cases that did not address SAR related matters in the decision. Some
reasons I removed results include:
•

the decision dealt with unlisted wildlife, captive-bred wildlife, or domestic
species;

•

the decision dealt with importing exotic species;

•

the decision was an interim or related matter that dealt with non-SAR issues
such as costs or applications for standing;

8

“Noting up” is a legal term used when verifying if case precedent still stands. As an expanded
use, it can also mean to find the relevant law on a specific point by searching all instances
where a case, a piece of legislation, or a specific provision has been cited, relied on, or
challenged.

53
•

the decision mentioned SAR as part of the facts or background but did not
address protection or offences relating to those species as part of the matter in
question; and

•

the decision passed responsibility for addressing SAR related issues to another
decision maker.

I removed any results that were simply reports of initial policy-based decisions,
primarily granting permits for zoning and Environmental Impact Assessment decisions. I did,
however, include any appeals, judicial reviews, or other cases arising from those policy-based
decisions. On March 14, 2023, I noted up all the included cases. As the final step in narrowing
the results, I removed any case that was a lower court decision with an appealed decision that
was in the data set. I kept lower court decisions that had appeals dealing only with matters
unrelated to SAR issues (and therefore not in the data set). The final data set was 130 cases
relating to SAR across nine provinces and the federal jurisdiction. For the complete data set,
see Appendix V.
Next, I assigned scores to the cases. The scores are not a reflection of how “good” or
“bad” the decision was, as there are usually a complex mix of moral and ethical arguments on
both sides of a legal case. Instead, I based the scores on whether the party “for” or “against”
the SAR was successful on relevant issues. Because the outcome of a legal case is often a
spectrum of success, sometimes with each side succeeding on some of the issues, I assigned a
score on a scale of 1 to 5 for how successful the case was regarding the species’ interests: 1 –
a wholly negative outcome (e.g. permit granted to develop habitat regardless of harm to SAR);
2 – a limited negative outcome (e.g. a finding of lack of evidence of harm to the SAR); 3 – a
mixed or neutral outcome (e.g. case decided on unrelated points, or the issue was moot by the
time of the decision); 4 – a limited positive outcome (e.g. successful overturn of a permit to
develop while leaving the door open to reapply with improved mitigation); and 5 – a wholly
positive outcome (e.g. a successful prosecution of a party that committed an offence under
SAR legislation) (Glicksman et al., 2021).
I found the average scores for each jurisdiction. I also found the average scores for each
type of case based on category of law. These categories were:
•

criminal law cases;

54
•

non-criminal cases where the government was enforcing or upholding SAR
legislation or regulations;

•

cases relating to challenges that a government was not sufficiently upholding
legislation;

•

cases relating to harvesting or hunting quotas of wildlife or plant species;

•

cases relating to land use and designation;

•

freedom of information requests and disclosure issues;

•

appeals from decisions, permits, and exemptions relating to environmental
impact assessments and development;

•

one employment law case; and

•

other civil law cases.

Analysis: Mann-Whitney U test and Rank-Biserial Effect Size
To compare provinces with and without designated legislation I used a non-parametric
test as the numbers assigned to the case scores represented ordinal data, and the population
was so small (n = 9).9 I performed a Mann-Whitney U test to compare the average case scores
for provinces with designated species at risk legislation to those without designated legislation
(Karadimitriou & Marshall, n.d.). I also found the effect size of the difference using the rankbiserial effect size calculation (Kerby, 2014).

Results
By the Numbers
The 130 cases that made up the data set were not evenly distributed between the levels
of courts and jurisdictions. By court level, nearly half of the cases were from a superior court
(see Table 2). The second largest group was from administrative tribunals, primarily out of
Ontario. There were no cases from the SCC included in the data set. A few cases in the data
set did go to the SCC for issues unrelated to SAR. For example, Clyde River (Hamlet) v TGS-

9

Two provinces, New Brunswick and PEI, had no case law, so the effective sample size was
even smaller (n = 7).

55
NOPEC Geophysical Co. ASA, (Clyde River (Hamlet) v TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. ASA,
n.d.) was overturned at the SCC, but only on grounds of duty to consult (Clyde River (Hamlet)
v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40).
When examining the case law distribution by province, Ontario had the largest number
of cases, 40 (see Figure 11). BC and the Federal jurisdiction followed closely, with 31 and 30
cases respectively. The numbers dropped off from there. Alberta and Nova Scotia had 12 and
8 cases respectively. Newfoundland and Labrador had 3 cases, and Saskatchewan Manitoba
had a single case each. There were no cases from either New Brunswick or PEI.
Jurisdiction

BC

AB

SK

MB

ON

NB

NS

PEI

NL

Fed. Total

Administrative 6
Tribunals

2

-

-

29

-

2

-

-

1

40

Provincial
Court

5

6

-

1

3

-

-

-

2

-

18

Superior Court 15

3

-

-

8

-

5

-

-

21

60

Court of
Appeal

5

1

1

-

4

-

1

-

1

8

21

SCC

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

3

30

130

Total
31 12
1
1
44
0
8
Table 2 – Number of cases in each jurisdiction by level of court.

The average score for all cases in the data set was 3.34. The provinces were grouped
tightly together, with average scores ranging from 3 to 4 (see Figure 12). Saskatchewan had
the highest with a score of 4, followed by Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador with 3.67
each. Manitoba and Ontario had the lowest average scores, 3 and 3.09 respectively. However,
Ontario’s score was averaged over 40 cases while Manitoba’s reflects a single decision. BC
had the lowest average for a province without designated legislation with a score of 3.16. The
average scores for all provinces without legislation was higher than for those with legislation,
3.32 to 3.18. The average score for federal cases was 3.67. A Mann-Whitney U test comparison
of the provinces with and without legislation gave p = 0.22, with an effect size of r = -0.58.

56
45
40

11

Number of Cases

35
5

30
25
20

11

15

5
1

10

6

5

8

0
BC

11

8

7
17

6
2
1
3
AB

1
SK

3
1
MB ON NB
1 2 3 4 5

1
3
3
1
NS

5
5

PEI

2
2
1
NL Federal

Figure 10 - Number of cases in each scoring category of aligning with SAR interests (1-5) by
jurisdiction.

4

4

Average Score

3.67

3.67 3.67
3.5

3.5
3.16
3

3

3.1

2.5
BC

AB
SK MB ON NB NS PEI NL Federal
Average Score - All Provinces
Average Score - Provinces with Designated Legislation
Average Score - Provinces without Designated Legislation

Figure 11 - Case score averages for SAR interests by jurisdiction.

3.32
3.24
3.18

57
Assessing cases by category of law rather than by jurisdiction, the highest average score
was for public enforcement cases, with an average of 4.4 over 10 cases (see Figures 13 and
14). Harvest and hunting quota cases had the lowest average, 2.86 over 7 cases. The largest
group was the environmental impact assessment, permit, and exemption decisions, with 59
cases. It also had one of the lowest scores, with an average of 3. The second-largest group of
cases were criminal cases, with 25 cases and the second-highest average score of 3.72. At the
other end of the scale, freedom of information requests and disclosure had only 3 cases, and
employment law had a single case. Their average scores of 3.67 and 3 are therefore not
particularly informative.

58
60

13

50

8

Number of Cases

40

10
30

20

12

10

0

1
1
1
1

4
2
4
3

22
7
7
6

1

2
1

1
2

1
2
1
1
2

3
1
1
3

3
2
1

l
l
l
t
Civi rimina Appea yment emen equestQuotas action nd Use
In
lo
C en t
rc
t
La
IR
Emp Enfo FO Harves nment
m
p
o
l
r
e
e
D ev
Gov
/
A
I
E
1 2 3 4 5

Figure 12 - Number of cases in each scoring category of aligning with SAR interests (1-5) by
category of law.

59

4.5

4.4

Average Score

4

3.72

3.67

3.67

3.5
3

3

3

3

3.17

3.34

2.86

EIA

l

plo
ym

pp
ea

Em

tA

en
En
t
fo
rc
em
en
t
FO
IR
eq
ue
Ha
st
rv
es
Go
tQ
ve
uo
rn
ta
m
s
en
tI
na
cti
on
La
nd
Us
e

/D
e

ve
lop

m
en

Cr
im

Civ

il

ina
l

2.5

Average Score - All Cases

Figure 13 - Case score averages for SAR interests by category of law.

By the Words
While compiling the cases into data sets can give an overview of how courts are
generally ruling on SAR matters, some trends from case law cannot be quantified by numbers.
The reasons for decisions and the specifics on which cases turn are a crucial part of reviewing
case law. These trends are best examined by category of law rather than by jurisdiction.

Civil
There were only four civil cases in the dataset, meaning cases where all parties were
individuals or non-governmental corporations. This category had an average score of 3,
perfectly in the middle of the scoring scale. This indicates that the decisions were balanced
between deciding for or against SAR interests. The small number of cases meant that it was
difficult to establish trends in the decision making. Two cases dealt with property restrictions
aimed at conservation. In Nature Conservancy of Canada v Waterton Land Trust Ltd., the
plaintiff unsuccessfully sued the defendant for breaching a conservation easement. The Alberta

60
Court of Queen’s Bench found that the terms were changed by an oral agreement when the
property was purchased (2014 ABQB 303). In Vida, Re, the petitioner was unsuccessful at
satisfying any of the conditions needed to cancel a restrictive covenant preventing development
on land where SAR were expected to occur (2021 BCSC 1444).
The other civil cases dealt with injunctions. In Westfor Management v Extinction
Rebellion, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court granted an injunction to remove blockades set up
in protest of a clearcutting licence. The decision made it apparent that the blockades, as an act
of civil disobedience, served an important purpose, but the protestors should have brought a
judicial review of the decision to grant the clearcutting licence (2021 NSSC 93). Similarly, the
court in Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. found that the plaintiffs had
brought the wrong suit (2022 BCSC 15). The plaintiff’s sought an injunction against the project
proponent to stop development, on grounds that included negative impacts to SAR. The BC
Supreme Court found that there was insufficient consultation with the First Nation, and that
the Aboriginal right to fish was impaired by the project. However, the duty to consult was on
the Crown and not on the third-party project proponent named as the defendant (Thomas and
Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., 2022 BCSC 15).

Criminal
For criminal law cases, the courts tended to find more favourably towards the SAR
risk’s interests, with the second highest average score of any category. This high average is
likely at least partially due to the nature of the types of offences in question. SAR offences,
are, for the most part, strict liability offences. Strict liability differs from many other criminal
offences by not having a mens rea component. This means that there is no need to prove that
an accused meant to commit the offence (East Coast Environmental Law, n.d.). A strict liability
offence means that the prosecution only must show that the offence happened, and it is on the
defendant to show that they exercised due diligence, that they relied on an official authority
that they were not committing an offence, or that the offence provision did not apply to them
in the first place (East Coast Environmental Law, n.d.).
In the criminal cases from the dataset, only a portion dealt with whether the accused
was at fault. In fact, only one case raised a question of whether it was the accused who

61
committed the offence. In R v Newman, the accused successfully raised reasonable doubt that
someone else had activated their trapping line, which harmed an SAR (2018 ABPC 143). There
were cases that turned on the defences available to strict liability offences. In R v Shirey, the
accused shot two grizzly bears on their property, but did not raise either of the strict liability
defences of due diligence or necessity. They were convicted by the BC Supreme Court (2014
BCSC 2204). Conversely, the defendant in Podolsky v Caillac Fairview Corp. was acquitted
after showing they had done their due diligence to prevent window fatalities while designing
their building, despite the death of endangered birds (2013 ONCJ 65). In R v Morreau, the
accused was successful on appeal from a conviction for unlawful herring by arguing that they
had relied on the authority of the government, which had incorrectly broadcast the boundaries
of the fishing area (R v Morreau, [1997] 141 WAC 196).
Several of the criminal law cases related to Aboriginal Rights10. In R v Breaker, the
defendant established that their First Nation had traditionally hunted in a wildlife corridor, and
that there was no clear intent to extinguish the right to hunt when the area was protected. They
were acquitted from an unlawful hunting charge (R v Breaker, 2000 ABPC 179). In R v
Guimond, the Manitoba Provincial Court found that a fishing restriction regulation was an
invalid infringement of the accused’s Aboriginal Right to fish, despite the valid objective of
conserving endangered sturgeon, and acquitted the accused [2001] 11 WWR 163). The
Indigenous defendants in R v Morris, however, were unsuccessful in their defence for unlawful
hunting as the band with treaty rights to the area in question had no pre-contact traditions of
hunting elk, and therefore no Aboriginal Right to hunt elk (2010 BCPC 270).
Another group of criminal cases turned on procedural issues, including admissibility of
evidence or sentencing appeals. While some sentences were reduced on appeal, the
circumstances and contrition of the accused played a role. A notable example is R v The Lake
Louise Ski Area, where the corporate defendant unsuccessfully appealed a $2.1 million fine
penalty for cutting down 58 endangered whitebark pine trees. The court upheld the fine, finding
that the accused had heightened culpability as a mid-sized corporation, operating in a national

10

Aboriginal Rights are the legal term used to designate rights arising from traditional
Indigenous practices and cultures (Government of Canada, n.d.).

62
park, that had failed to train their employees resulting in multiple offences against SAR (2020
ABQB 422).

Environmental Impact Assessments, Permits, and Exemptions
The largest category of cases dealt with Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”)
appeals, and decisions related to granting development permits, or to exempting projects from
EIA. This category had an average score of 3.03, slightly above the middle of the scoring scale.
Generally, if there was evidence that a SAR was present and would be directly impacted by a
project, courts ruled in favour of halting or revising the project to protect SAR interests,
reflected in higher scores. However, the standard for refusing to allow development often
requires evidence of “serious and irreparable harm” to the SAR, which is a high burden to
meet. The result is that in circumstances where reproductive or nesting habitat would be
directly destroyed, or when a project was likely to cause direct injury to a SAR, the case scores
were high. Conversely, when the negative impacts from a project were downstream effects,
such as impacts to hunting habitat or prey, courts were more likely to decide that the standard
had not been met and the project could continue, reflected in a lower case score.
Several of the EIA cases decided in favour of SAR involved challenges from First
Nations or Indigenous groups alleging that proposed developments would impact traditional,
treaty, or Aboriginal rights. In Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal
Court of Appeal overturned a National Energy Board (“NEB”) recommendation to approve the
Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. One of the reasons for the decision was a finding that the
NEB had unjustifiably defined the scope of the project to exclude impacts to the Southern
Resident Killer Whale population from tanker traffic (2018 FCA 153). In Yahey v British
Columbia, the BC Supreme Court found that the province was unjustified in authorizing
development without regard for the Blueberry River First Nation’s treaty rights. The court
found that there were gaps in the province’s wildlife management regime, and that the
cumulative effects from projects in the area had significant adverse effects on Mountain
Caribou Herds, and other SAR (2021 BCSC 1287).
Courts also have ruled favourably towards SAR interests in relation to the impacts of
aquaculture on wild fish populations. In Northern Harvest Smolt Ltd. V Salmonid Association

63
of Eastern Newfoundland, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal upheld a lower
court ruling that the Minister’s decision to exempt a fish farming project from environmental
assessment was unreasonable (2021 NLCA 26). In Morton v Canada (Fisheries & Oceans),
the court found that the policy of not testing fish for two diseases before issuing an aquaculture
licence was unreasonable, and ruled scientific uncertainty could not be interpreted as a
conclusion that the risk of adverse effects was merely speculative (2019 FC 143).
In cases where courts decided against the SAR’s interests, they often cited that
sufficient mitigation measures were in place. In Clyde River (Hamlet) v TGS-NOPEC
Geophysical Co. ASA, the Federal Court of Appeal found that granting a licence to conduct
seismic surveys in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait was reasonable, despite potential impacts to at
risk bowhead whales and narwals, because there were sufficient mitigation measures attached
(2015 FCA 179). In 0707814 BC Ltd. V British Columbia (Assistant Regional Water Manager),
the court found that the mitigation measures of protecting a “replacement” parcel of land were
sufficient to permit infill of a wetland area where four SAR had been identified ([2008]
BCWLD 1993).
Another common issue was the balance of convenience, often regarding appeals of
permits and applications for injunctions to pause or stop development. In many cases, the
courts found that the balance of convenience favoured continuing ahead with the project if it
already had permits. In Shell Canada Ltd., Re., the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the
balance of convenience favoured allowing exploratory wells in grizzly bear habitat, as the
evidence that a grizzly den existed in the area had not been submitted in time to be considered
in the initial impact assessment (2011 ABCA 159). In David Suzuki Foundation v British
Columbia (Minister of Environment), ten run-of-river hydro projects were being built in a
watershed. They were submitted separately, which did not trigger environmental assessments,
although the combined project would have required an environmental assessment. Despite the
watershed being home to SAR, the BC Supreme Court found that the balance of convenience
favoured considering the project separately as submitted and did not require an environmental
assessment (2013 BCSC 874). In West Moberly First Nations v British Columbia, the BC
Supreme Court found that there were serious issues to be tried in court and the potential for
irreparable harm relating to the impacts of the Site C dam project on the treaty rights of the

64
First Nations. However, the court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour an
injunction to stop work from continuing the site pending trial of those issues (2018 BCSC
1835).
A significant subset of cases was appeals of development approvals for wind farms in
Ontario. These cases were argued on similar grounds, with claims of damage to the
environment, and of risk to human health. The appeals were only successful in instances where
serious and irreparable harm to a SAR was likely to occur. The mere presence of a SAR on the
land where the project was proposed was insufficient to stop development, as only some
species were found likely to be affected by the wind turbines. For instance, when Blanding’s
turtles were found to nest on the project land, the courts overturned approval for the projects
(Prince Edward County Field Naturalists v Ostrander Point Go Inc., 2015 ONCA 269).
Similarly, the presence of threatened bat overturned a wind farm approval, as the court found
that the bats were susceptible to wind turbine strikes (Wiggins v Ontario (Environment and
Climate Change), [2016] 5 CELR (4th) 95). Conversely, mitigation measures in the form of
compensation habitat for bobolink were sufficient to allow project development to continue
(Association for the Protection of Amherst Island v Ontario (Environment and Climate
Change), [2016] OERTD No. 36). Finally, in Lewis v Director, Ministry of the Environment,
bald eagles, a listed species in Ontario at the time, were identified in the area, but project
approval was upheld as there was no evidence of direct mortality to eagles from wind turbines
([2013] OERTD No. 70).

Enforcement
The enforcement cases were brought in response to government decisions to protect
SAR, or to disallow development or activity because of a SAR. These cases are related to
EIA/permitting decision cases but differ as the initial decision was to disallow the project.
Because these cases are instances where the government is actively upholding SAR legislation,
it is unsurprising that it has the highest average score, with 4.4615.
In Carhoun and Sons Enterprises Ltd. v Canada (Attorney General), the plaintiffs
claimed that they had been misled about the results of environmental screening that prevented
them from developing land that was suitable habitat for ten SAR, causing them to lose their

65
company. The plaintiff’s claims of negligence and misfeasance were dismissed by the BC
Supreme Court (2018 BCSC 1675). In Nelson Aggregate Co., Re., the Ontario Office of
Consolidated Hearing dismissed an application to have provincially significant wetlands
redesignated to allow the quarry to expand, finding that they had not demonstrated sufficient
protections would be implemented for the SAR whose habitat was in the proposed area ([2012]
71 CELR (3d) 233).
There was a group of cases in this category relating to an emergency order protecting
the Western Chorus Frog in Quebec. Several development corporations unsuccessfully
challenged the order, claiming that it was ultra vires and that by disallowing development in
the frog’s habitat, the order constituted uncompensated expropriation from the government (Le
Groupe Maison Candiac Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 88; Habitations Îlot StJacques v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 27; 9255-2504 Québec Inc.v Canada, 2022
FCA 43). In all these cases the court ruled in favour of the Western Chorus Frog protection.

Employment, Freedom of Information/Disclosure Issues
Neither of these categories had enough cases to see trends in court decisions.

Harvest Quotas
The cases related to harvest and hunting quotas had the lowest average score for any
category. It was also the only category with an average score below the mid-point of the scale,
at 2.8889. One issue in these cases was statutory discretion. In ANC Timber Ltd. v Alberta
(Minister of Agriculture & Forestry), a timber company sued the Minister for setting annual
forestry operating plans with regard for a draft caribou range plan. The Alberta Court of the
Queen’s Bench11 ruled that the Minister was exercising discretion, and that it was not for the
court to pass judgment on how well they were governing (2019 ABQB 710).
Another area where the harvest cases occurred was in relation to wildlife harvest quotas
related to traditional Indigenous hunting rights. In Makivik Corporation v Canada (Attorney
General), the federal Minister of the Environment varied a polar bear harvest quota that had

11

Now the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.

66
been decided under a co-management regime for wildlife arising from the Nunavik Inuit Land
Claim Agreement. The Minister varied the board’s decision by decreasing the harvest quota in
reflection of polar bear’s SAR status. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed, in part, the appeal
from the co-management board, and granted declaratory relief against the federal government
(2021 FCA 184).

Government Inaction
While a relatively small category of cases, these cases reflect how the courts rule when
the public brings challenges that SAR legislation is not being enforced. This category had an
average score of 3.6667, reflecting that courts tend to be willing to enforce existing SAR
protections even if governments are not upholding them. In Alberta Wilderness Assn. v Canada
(Minister of Environment), the Federal Court ruled that it was unreasonable for the Minister to
not identify any critical habitat in the Recovery Strategy for the Greater sage-grouse, despite
not having complete research on the species (2009 FC 710). In Georgia Strait Alliance v
Canada (Minister of Fisheries & Oceans), the Federal Court of Appeal found that it was
unlawful for a minister to rely on discretionary provisions from the Fisheries Act in a protection
statement instead of issuing a protection order, as the Species at Risk Act provisions required
compulsory and non-discretionary protection (2012 FCA 40). In 2020, the Nova Scotia
Supreme Court ruled in that the government had systemically failed to fulfill their obligations
under the Endangered Species Act. The Nova Scotia government had begun activity to correct
the failings before the judicial review, which meant that this case scored lower in this data set
as the issue was moot by the time of the decision (Sipkne’katik v Alton Natural Gas Storage
LP, 2020 NSSC 111).

Land Use
The land use category of cases includes decisions regarding rezoning land, altering
public land, and habitat loss. This was a smaller category with the median score of 3.1667. In
Bancroft v Nova Scotia (Lands & Forestry), the public brought a judicial review of a
government decision to sell an area of land was habitat of a SAR and that had previously been
treated as a protected area. At the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, the case was dismissed for

67
being moot, as the agreement of sale was no longer in place and the land in question had been
officially designated a public park (2022 NSCA 78).
In West Kootenay Community EcoSociety v British Columbia (Ministry of Water, Land,
& Air Protection), an environmental group brought a judicial review of the decision to move
the entrance road to a park, despite risks to painted turtle and great blue heron populations
(2005 BCSC 784). Due to highway regulations about access roads needing to be directly across
from each other, moving the entrance to the park would allow the owner of an adjacent parcel
of land to put in an access road at a lower cost than if the park entrance remained where it was.
The BC Supreme Court allowed the judicial review, finding that it the decision to move the
park entrance was an unauthorized exercise of decision-making power, as it was not to benefit
the park, but rather the private landowner (West Kootenay Community EcoSociety v British
Columbia (Ministry of Water, Land, & Air Protection), 2005 BCSC 784).

Discussion
None of the jurisdictions had an average case law score below 3, which was the middle,
or neutral, position on the case scoring scale. This suggests that courts are deciding with SAR
when related issues are brought before them. The provinces without designated SAR
legislation had higher average scores than those with designated legislation. This means that
looking at the case law, courts in provinces without designated legislation are actually ruling
more in favour of SAR interests than those in provinces with designated legislation. This is
the opposite result of what I had anticipated, showing that there is not a connection between
stronger SAR legislation and more favourable court decisions. However, the case law review
can only consider cases and decisions that have been reported. It is possible that the difference
in the averages of provinces with and without legislation is attributable to the types of issues
that make it before the court. Provinces with legislation may allow more room to bring
challenges and “weaker” arguments on the side of SAR, resulting in lower scores on those
issues.
From the ratios of the cases included in the data set, it is apparent that when SAR
protections exist, the courts are upholding them. However, the EIA cases demonstrate that
when a species is not protected under legislated provisions there is no recourse available in the

68
courts. This means that a species’ legal status is paramount to ensuring protection. The caveat
is that courts require sufficient evidence of impacts to the species. In addition to SAR listing,
it is also important to provide information about the species’ history and biology. The standard
of serious and irreparable harm means that indirect effects to the species, such as impacts to
prey habitats, may be discounted by courts if these is insufficient evidence of the prey’s
importance to the species’ continued survival.
This data set is limited, however, by the cases which have published decisions. SAR
concerns that were resolved privately, such as through arbitration or mediation, would not
appear in the search results. There is also an imbalance in the number of cases available for
each jurisdiction, so commenting on trends from provinces with only a few cases is
challenging.

Conclusion
From the data that was available, I found that the factors that determine whether courts
rule in favour of SAR is not dependant on the presence, or the strength, of SAR legislation. In
fact, the data showed an inverse correlation between court decisions and the completeness of
SAR legislation. Courts in the jurisdictions without SAR legislation sided more strongly with
the interests of species and conservation.
The case law demonstrates that SAR protections are generally being upheld, provided
they exist in the first place. While strong precedents protecting SAR are a valuable tool in the
conservation toolkit, legal decisions are by their nature reactive rather than proactive. Courts
can only get involved when conflicts have occurred, or after something has gone wrong. To
get a sense of how conservation proceeds in practice, outside of the contentious nature of
litigation, in Chapters 4 and 5 I looked at how SAR protections are progressing, and how they
are being applied.

69

References
9255-2504 Québec Inc.v Canada, 2022 FCA 43.
0707814 BC Ltd. v British Columbia (Assistant Regional Water Manager), [2008] BCWLD
1993.
Alberta Wilderness Assn. v Canada (Minister of Environment), 2009 FC 710.
ANC Timber Ltd. v Alberta (Minister of Agriculture & Forestry), 2019 ABQB 710.
Association for the Protection of Amherst Island v Ontario (Environment and Climate
Change), [2016] OERTD No. 36.
Bancroft v Nova Scotia (Lands & Forestry), 2022 NSCA 78.
Carhoun and Sons Enterprises Ltd. v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 1675.
Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40.
Clyde River (Hamlet) v TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. ASA, 2015 FCA 179.
David Suzuki Foundation v British Columbia (Minister of Environment), 2013 BCSC 874.
Department of Justice of Canada. (2021, September 1). How the courts are organized Canada’s court system. Government of Canada. https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ccsajc/02.html.
East Coast Environmental Law. (n.d.). Strict liability. Retrieved August 7, 2023, from
https://www.ecelaw.ca/glossary/strict-liability.html
Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, CCSM c E111 (1990).
Georgia Strait Alliance v Canada (Minister of Fisheries & Oceans), 2012 FCA 40.
Glicksman, R. L., Kim, D., & Groth-Tuft, K. (2021). Judicial review of scientific uncertainty
in climate change lawsuits: deferential and nondeferential evaluation of agency factual
and policy determinations (draft). To Be Published at 46 Harvard Environmental Law
Review, Issue #2 (2022).
Government of Canada. (n.d.). Aboriginal Rights. Retrieved October 29, 2023, from
https://rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100028605/1551194878345.
Habitations Îlot St-Jacques v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 27.
Karadimitriou, S. M., & Marshall, E. (n.d.). Mann-Whitney U test (non-parametric equivalent
to independent samples t-test). https://maths.shu.ac.uk/mathshelp/

70
Kennedy-Shaffer, L. (2019). Before p < 0.05 to Beyond p < 0.05: Using History to
Contextualize p-Values and Significance Testing. The American Statistician, 73(Suppl
1), 82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1537891
Kerby, D. (2014). The Simple Difference Formula: An Approach to Teaching Nonparametric
Correlation. Comprehensive Psychology, 3, 2165. https://doi.org/10.2466/11.IT.3.1
Le Groupe Maison Candiac Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 88.
Lewis v Director, Ministry of the Environment, [2013] OERTD No. 70.
Makivik Corporation v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 184.
McNally, M. D. (2022). What has no place, remains: the challenges for Indigenous religious
freedom in Canada today by Nicholas Shrubsole (A review). In Native American and
Indigenous Studies (Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 144–145). Project MUSE.
https://doi.org/10.1353/nai.2022.a863594
Morton v Canada (Fisheries & Oceans), 2019 FC 143.
National Self-Represented Litigants Project. (2016). The CanLII Primer: Legal Research
Principles and CanLII Navigation for Self-Represented Litigants. In The National SelfRepresented Litigants Project.
Nature Conservancy of Canada v Waterton Land Trust Ltd., 2014 ABQB 303.
Nelson Aggregate Co., Re., [2012] 71 CELR (3d) 233.
Northern Harvest Smolt Ltd. v Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland, 2021 NLCA
26.
Podolsky v Cadillac Fairview Corp., 2013 ONCJ 65.
Prince Edward County Field Naturalists v Ostrander Point Go Inc., 2015 ONCA 269.
R v Breaker, 2000 ABPC 179.
R v Guimond, [2001] 11 WWR 163.
R v Morreau, [1997] 141 WAC 196.
R v Morris, 2010 BCPC 270.
R v Newman, 2018 ABPC 143.
R v Shirey, 2014 BCSC 2204.
R v The Lake Louise Ski Area, 2020 ABQB 422.

71
Shell Canada Ltd., Re., 2011 ABCA 159.
Sipkne’katik v Alton Natural Gas Storage LP, 2020 NSSC 111.
Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., 2022 BCSC 15.
Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 153.
Vida, Re., 2021 BCSC 1444.
West Moberly First Nations v British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 1835.
West Kootenay Community EcoSociety v British Columbia (Ministry of Water, Land, & Air
Protection), 2005 BCSC 784.
Westfor Management v Extinction Rebellion, 2021 NSSC 93.
Wiggins v Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), [2016] 5 CELR (4th) 95.
Yahey v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 1287.

72

Chapter 4 – The Political Story of Species at Risk
Legislation in BC
The BC New Democratic Party (NDP) forms the province’s current government,
coming to power in 2017 after an extended period of BC Liberal governance. Initially, the BC
NDP were a minority government, only achieving the support necessary to form government
through a Confidence and Supply Agreement with the BC Green Party (2017 Confidence and
Supply Agreement between the BC Green Caucus and the BC New Democrat Caucus, 2017).
Included in the agreement was the requirement to prioritize the development of species at risk
(SAR) legislation for the province (2017 Confidence and Supply Agreement between the BC
Green Caucus and the BC New Democrat Caucus, 2017). Following the provincial election in
2020, the BC NDP formed a majority government, and as a result the Confidence and Supply
Agreement was no longer necessary to hold the legislature. As a result, the influence of the BC
Green Party over government priorities would be expected to diminish following the 2020
election.
In this chapter, I examine the reasons why BC has not implemented designated SAR
legislation. SAR legislation inevitably faces resistance from opposed interests, notably
industry and economic interests. The result is that political parties are more likely to call for
changes to SAR management when they are not able to implement those changes and face that
opposition. I argue that interest and action towards enacting SAR legislation has decreased as
the current government transitioned from opposition to a minority government working in a
coalition with a party that is centered around environmental concerns, to a majority
government.

Methods
I assessed the content of historical bills proposing SAR legislation as if they were part
of the legislation analysis in Chapter 2. I also looked at the Hansard (the records of government
debate) to follow the progression of political discussion surrounding SAR issues in BC. I also
reached out to members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) who had either proposed SAR
legislation in the past, or who hold positions in the cabinet that are responsible for SAR related

73
governance. Finally, I looked at the mandate letters to the cabinet, specifically the Minister of
Environment and climate change, and at the existing policy related to SAR in the province.

Mandate letters and policies
I found three mandate letters from the Premier to the Minister of the Environment since
the BC NDP government took office in 2017. The most recent mandate letter is available from
the BC Government Website. I found the earlier letters using a Google search to find
contemporary new articles that linked to previous mandate letters. Official policies relating to
SAR management and conservation are posted on the Ministry of Environment and Climate
Change website (Government of BC, n.d.). Policies were obtained on September 4, 2023.

Draft Legislation
SAR legislation was first proposed in BC in 2010. Five SAR bills have been proposed
to the legislature. These bills came from members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) from
two parties: the BC NDP and the BC Green Party. I found the proposed legislation on the BC
Legislature website by searching for Bills with the keywords “species at risk” or “endangered
species”. Draft legislation was obtained on September 6, 2023.

Hansard Discussions of Species at Risk
Hansard is the public record of all legislature sessions, available from the BC
Legislature website. No bill proposing SAR legislation has proceeded to a second reading in
the legislature. This means there are no official records of debates or voting on the draft
legislation. However, there are other instances of SAR legislation in the Hansard. I searched
the Hansard index for mentions of “species at risk”, “wildlife”, or “endangered species” in all
legislature sessions since 2010. I selected 2010 as the starting parameter for the search as it
was when the earliest proposed SAR legislation was introduced. I assessed the results for
relevant discussions. Hansard records were obtained on August 15, 2023.

MLA Interview
I reached out to the MLAs responsible for proposing draft SAR legislation. I also
contacted the current Ministers of Forests and Environment and Climate Change, and to the

74
current leader of the BC Green Party. For the list of MLAs contacted see Appendix VI. MLAs
were contacted using their official public service emails, available from the BC Legislature
website. The exception was Andrew Weaver, who is a former MLA for the BC Green Party,
who’s contact information I was able to find using a Google search. I used a similar email
template for contacting each of the MLAs, an example of which is found in Appendix VII.
Emails were sent to MLAs on October 14, 2022.

Analysis
Mandate letters and Policies
Mandate letters and policies are public documents that outline the government’s stance
on issues and priorities for the term of governance. They are also much more subject to change
than legislation and are the most current reflection of the government’s official position on
SAR. I assessed the content of the mandate letters and official policies for SAR protections.

Draft Legislation
I evaluated the most recent bill proposing SAR legislation from both the BC NDP and
the BC Green Party using the same legislation scoring rubric from Chapter 2 (see Appendix II)
(Bill M 208, 2017; Bill M 224, 2017). I chose to only evaluate the most recent bills as they
should represent the best available approximation of each party’s current position on what SAR
legislation could look like. It should be noted that these are still over five years old, and are
likely outdated approaches to SAR legislation.

Hansard
Unlike an interview setting, I could not ask follow-up questions or clarify statements
made in the Hansard. As a matter of public record, I presumed that all statements made in the
Hansard could be taken at face value. I analyzed the Hansard for recurring themes relating to
the development of SAR legislation.

75

MLA Responses
For the MLA responses, most were sent via email. I reviewed the emails for whether
they answered any of the questions I had asked, or provided any additional information. In
addition, I had one video call with a former MLA, which I recorded with the permission of the
participant and produced a transcript of. I reviewed the transcript of this interview as if it were
another emailed MLA response.

Results
NDP Government Mandate letters
Over time, there is a shift in the language employed in the mandate letters over time.
In 2017, when the BC NDP first formed the government with support from the BC Green Party,
the mandate letter included an expectation to “make substantive progress on the following
priorities: … [e]nact an endangered species law and harmonize other laws to ensure they are
all working towards the goal of protecting our beautiful province” (Horgan, 2017). After the
2020 election, the BC NDP formed a majority government. In the 2020 mandate letter, the
expectation regarding SAR had shifted to “make progress on the following items: … [c]ontinue
to work with partners to protect species at risk and work collaboratively with other ministries
to protect and enhance B.C.’s biodiversity” (Horgan, 2020a). The 2020 letter did not touch on
developing SAR legislation. In 2022 Premier John Horgan retired. The new Premier, David
Eby, updated the mandate letters to the Cabinet. In this most recent mandate letter, there is no
mention of SAR or of wildlife (Eby, 2022).

Draft Legislation
Both bills I assessed scored substantially higher on the legislation rubric I used in
Chapter 2 than BC’s current SAR legislation. BC’s current legislative regime scored 32.0% for
the unweighted score, increasing to 38.1% when weighted. Bill M 226, the legislation proposed
by the BC NDP in February 2017, scored 59.4% unweighted and 61.3% as a weighted score.
Bill M 208, proposed by the BC Green Party in November 2017, scored even higher with
65.6% unweighted and 67.7% weighted. Even the BC NDP version would be sufficient to
move BC from eighth to fifth highest scoring out of nine provinces (see Figures 15 and 16).

76
The BC Green Party version’s score would increase an additional spot to the fourth highest
scoring. This is before considering any further regulations or amendments that are often
enacted to supplement a statute.

Score - Percent of Total Available

90
80
70

59.4

60

69.7 68.5

65.6

50

44

40

32

30

78.2

74.7
63.2

62.8
49.6

37.7

34.7
33.2

22.1

20
10

M

Bi
ll

Bi
ll

M

de
ra
l

NL

PE
I

NS

NB

ON

B
M

SK

AB

BC

Fe

22
6

(
20 ND
P
8
(G )
re
en
)

0

Average - All Provinces
Average - Provinces With Designated Legislation
Average - Provinces Without Designated Legislation

Figure 14 - Unweighted legislation scores including proposed draft SAR legislation for BC
from the BC NDP and the BC Green Party.

77

PScore - Prcent of Total Available

90
80

72.5 72.2

67.7

70

78.5

77.4
67

61.3

60

53.3

48

50

40.4

38.1

40

65.9

38.2

37.6

26.2

30
20
10

M

Bi
ll

Bi
ll

M

de
ra
l

NL

PE
I

NS

NB

ON

B
M

SK

BC

AB

Fe

22
6

(
20 ND
P
8
(G )
re
en
)

0

Average - All Provinces
Average - Provinces With Designated Legislation
Average - Provinces Without Designated Legislation

Figure 15 - Weighted legislation scores including proposed draft SAR legislation for BC from
the BC NDP and the BC Green Party.
The two most recent versions of proposed legislation share many similarities in
language and structure. In many instances, even the section numbers matched between the
proposed Acts. This makes it possible to show direct comparisons. There are some slight, but
significant, differences between the two bills. The legislation proposed by the BC Green Party
placed greater emphasis on scientific information as the basis of decision making, and more
holistic protections at the ecosystem level. This is apparent when looking at the listed purposes.
For Bill M 226, proposed by a BC NDP MLA, the purposes listed are:
2. The purpose of this Act is to prevent species from becoming extirpated or extinct
and promote the recovery of species at risk by:
(a) identifying species at risk;
(b) protecting species at risk and their habitats;

78
(c) promoting the recovery of species at risk; and
(d) promoting stewardship activities to assist in the protection, survival and
recovery of species at risk.
Compare this to the purposes listed in the BC Green Party MLA’s Bill M 208:
1. The purposes of this Act are
(a) to prevent species from being extirpated or becoming extinct;
(b) to identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information,
including information obtained from community knowledge and First Nations
traditional knowledge;
(c) to protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to provide for the
recovery of species that are at risk;
(d) to promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of
species that are at risk; and
(e) to proactively protect healthy ecosystems to prevent species from becoming
at risk.
Bill M 208, the legislation proposed by the BC Green Party, continues to place more
emphasis on public disclosure and science. For example, in s. 27(1), which sets out allowed
exceptions to prohibitions against killing or harming listed species, Bill M 226 states the
Minister “may enter into an agreement authorizing an activity that would otherwise be
prohibited”. The language of Bill M 208, however, is that the Minister “may enter into a
publicly disclosed agreement authorizing an activity that would otherwise be prohibited”.
Additionally, s. 21, which sets out the requirements for recovery plans, begins with “[g]uided
by the Scientific Committee on Endangered species” in Bill M 208, a stipulation that is not
included in Bill M 226’s version. Bill M 208 also includes expanded definitions for critical
habitat and species of concern in comparison to Bill M 226. One other interesting difference
between the language of the two proposed acts is that Bill M 208 uses both “First Nations
traditional knowledge” (ss.1, 2, and 63) and “aboriginal traditional knowledge” (ss. 5 and 32)
(2017). In contrast, Bill M 226 refers exclusively to “aboriginal traditional knowledge” (2017).

79

Hansard
I looked at Hansard mentions of SAR going back to the 2nd session of the 39th
Parliament in 2010. On reading the Hansard for any mentions of SAR, a narrative thread begins
to take shape. The earliest mentions to SAR in the Hansard I found were from 2010, when the
BC Liberal party was in power. On May 19, 2010, Robert Fleming, an MLA for the BC NDP,
asked the Minister of the Environment, Hon. Barry Penner, why the government did not “get
to work introducing species-at-risk legislation that protects critical habitat of endangered
species in British Columbia?” (British Columbia, 2010). Two weeks later, on May 31, 2020,
Robert Fleming a draft Species at Risk Protection Act as a private members bill (Bill M 207,
2010).
The discussion surrounding species-at-risk generally followed this pattern until 2017,
with MLAs from the BC NDP and BC Green Party inquiring whether the BC Liberals had any
intention to implement SAR legislation. In response, the BC Liberal MLAs would point to
other pieces of protective legislation or reference the BC Species at Risk Task Force12 as the
action being taken to protect SAR. During this time-period, draft species-at-risk legislation
was put forward a further three times by MLAs from the BC NDP and the BC Green Party,
always as a private member’s bill (Bill M 211, 2011; Bill M 224, 2017; Bill M 226, 2017).
After the 2017 election, when the BC NDP formed the government in conjunction with
the BC Green Party, the rhythm of the debates around SAR changed. Initially, the Minister for
Environment and Climate Change brought up the work that would be done on SAR legislation
as part of their mandate. On November 2, 2017, Minister of the Environment and Climate
Change Strategy, Hon. George Heyman, stated that the new NDP Government:
[would] also move in the coming months and years to introduce an
endangered species law so that B.C. has a made-in-B.C. law, rather than being
subject to actions from the federal government, to take the place of the gap
that exists in B.C., which can take out ability to ensure that habitat, species

12

The Species at Risk Task Force was implemented by the BC Liberal Party in 2010. The
earliest mention I found in the Hansard was from May 18, 2011, from Minister Environment
Hon. Terry Lake (British Columbia, 2011). The task force wrote a report that was published
publicly in July 2011 (Fraser et al., 2011).

80
and ecosystems are protected in a way that protects them and protects our
industries (British Columbia, 2017).
On November 6, 2017, Andrew Weaver, then-leader of the BC Green Party, introduced
Bill M 208, the most recent draft of SAR legislation (Bill M 208, 2017). Hansard discussion
from early in the NDP Government is primarily a back-and-forth between the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change Strategy, Hon. George Heyman, and BC Liberal Party
MLAs about the necessity of SAR legislation.
As the BC NDP government aged, however, a new aspect to the discussions arose.
These were challenges, primarily from BC Green Party MLAs, about the progress, or lack
thereof, on SAR legislation. On November 21, 2019, Andrew Weaver asked the Minister of
Environment and Climate Change Strategy:
As the minister noted, in his mandate letter from the Premier, it states that the
minister will ‘enact an endangered species law and harmonize other laws to
ensure they are all working towards the goal of protecting our beautiful
province.’ I reiterate. We’re two years into this government, yet B.C. remains
one of the only provinces without legislation dedicated to protecting and
recovering species at risk (British Columbia, 2019).
After the 2020 election, when the BC NDP formed a majority government and the
Confidence and Supply Agreement was no longer in effect, Hansard mentions of SAR became
almost entirely challenges from the BC Green Party on the lack of legislation, and explanations
from the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
On July 10, 2020, BC Green Party leader, Sonia Furstenau, asked:
It was in the minister’s mandate letter, at the beginning of his mandate, to
bring in species-at-risk legislation. … I would like an update from the
minister on where things are at with this legislation. Are there funds in the
budget for producing this legislation? What are the barriers for why this
legislation hasn’t come forward? (British Columbia, 2020).
In response, Minister George Heyman stated:
We engaged, shortly after I received the mandate, to create species-at-risk
legislation. We did extensive consultation with industry, stakeholders, the
public, environmental organizations, and Indigenous nations. We found, as
would be expected, a lot of complexity. Particularly, one of the things that we
took note of was the strongly expressed desire by Indigenous nations … to
ensure that they were fully involved in both the legislation and in the

81
processes established by the legislation, particularly the application of
Indigenous knowledge. They said to us that they wanted to be sure that we
took the time to get it right. (British Columbia, 2020).
Questions about the lack of progress on SAR legislation continue to be asked. On
October 27, 2021, Jackie Tegart, MLA for the BC Liberal Party,
On November 21, 2019, the Minister of Environment stood in this House and
said: ‘It is in my mandate, and has been since day one, to develop B.C.’s
species-at-risk legislation.’ I have here the minister’s current mandate letter.
There is no mention of legislation to protect steelhead [an endangered
species]. It’s gone extinct. To the Premier, why did he break his promise to
protect an iconic species like steelhead? (British Columbia, 2021).
Minister Heyman’s response was:
The member is correct that a specific reference to species-at-risk legislation
is no longer in my mandate letter, but what is in my mandate is to work with
other ministers to take action to protect biodiversity in species (British
Columbia, 2021).
The most recent reference to SAR I found in the Hansard continues to make this same
enquiry. On February 27, 2023, Furstenau asked:
I asked the question to the Premier – whether there would be biodiversity
legislation or species-at-risk legislation. In fact, work on that legislation
started in 2017. It was promised by this party, in the 2017 election, that they
would introduce species-at-risk legislation, and the work started. The people
that were working on that legislation were told to stop working. I’m very
curious to know who told those people to stop working on the legislation,
which was promised by this government to the people of British Columbia.
My question again is to the Premier. Will he commit to introducing
biodiversity legislation? (British Columbia, 2023).
The response from Minister Heyman, and therefore the most recent government
response in the Hansard relating to SAR,13 was:
[W]hen we began working on, at that time, species-at-risk legislation for
B.C., the first thing we did was begin a series of consultations with First
Nations, who very quickly made it clear to us that they needed to be involved

13

Note: This is as of August 2023. The BC Legislature resumed sessions in October 2023. It
is possible that more recent debates on species at risk have occurred in the interim between
when the Hansard information was gathered and now.

82
in the development and discussion of the legislation at every stage of the
way… [W]e entered into… the negotiation of a nature agreement, a
comprehensive nature agreement, with the federal government by which we
could take steps to deal with ecosystem integrity. Again, we are working with
that, as we should, with First Nations around the province to ensure that it is
government to government to government and that we get it right. Our
government has committed to implementing all of the recommendations of
the old-growth strategic review. That includes enacting biodiversity
legislation. That is being done and worked on by my colleague the Minister
of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship in conjunction with First Nations,
as we must and as we should (British Columbia, 2023).
The second theme is the concerns brought up in opposition to developing SAR
legislation for BC. In addition to any sub-textual concerns about impacts to economy, there
were three major concerns explicitly identified:
1) that just because other provinces have legislation does not mean that BC needs it;
2) that focussing on SAR rather than ecosystems as a whole does not resolve the true
cause of biodiversity loss; and
3) that laws and regulations already in place could be used to protect SAR if they were
applied properly.
Interestingly, the most explicit statement of these concerns came from an extended
exchange between Minister George Heyman, and Mike Morris, an MLA for the BC Liberal
Party, on April 10, 2018 (British Columbia, 2018a). It regarded whether the necessity of
implementing SAR legislation just because other provinces have it:
M. Morris: [T]here are a plethora of these things scattered all over the place
that not only make it very complicated for the enforcement side, make it
complicated for government, make it complicated for the bureaucracy but
especially make it very complicated for industry and the citizens as to what
needs to be done. I don’t think we’re even aware of half the legislation that’s
out there at any given time because of the quantity that we have. … One of
the pieces of legislation that’s important in this province, as federal
legislation, other than SARA … is the Migratory Birds Convention Act. I guess
the first question is: what brought this idea forward? I’d never heard of
provincial species-at-risk legislation before. … I’m wondering: what concern
do we have, as a province right now, that initiated this idea?
Hon. G. Heyman: I would say that underlying everything is the fact that
British Columbia has the richest biodiversity in Canada, as well as the greatest
number of endangered species. I think protecting that legacy, clearly and

83
effectively, is an important goal of looking at legislation. I would agree with
the member that having multiple, potentially conflicting, pieces of legislation
is not an effective way to do that. … Environmental organizations, for many
years, have pointed out that B.C. is one of the last jurisdictions in Canada to
adopt legislation. …
M. Morris: Just because other jurisdictions might have some legislation in
place, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to follow suit and that there’s
a deficiency within the legislation in British Columbia that addresses some of
those same factors. … We’re talking about species-at-risk legislation, but if
we don’t use the tools that are already in the toolbox to help us address some
of these deficiencies that we have here, another act really won’t matter,
because we’re not paying attention to the requirements of the Migratory Birds
Convention Act. … Focusing in on one species really doesn’t provide the
effect that I think the minister might be looking for. … Is SARA going to offer
some relief there, or is the province going to look at enforcing the Migratory
Birds Convention Act and some of the existing legislation that’s out there to
protect the biodiversity that we have in the province? …
Hon. G. Heyman: I would say that one of the reasons we’re considering
legislation in British Columbia is because a number of inadequacies have
been identified with the federal legislation, including by the federal
government themselves. …. One of the inadequacies that exists in the federal
act is exactly, I think, the one the member identified, taking a species-byspecies approach. … I think one of the things we want to achieve is having
one clear piece of legislation, or pieces of legislation that are easily read
together, as well as having the tools and resources on the ground to ensure
that they’re enforced fairly and effectively in a reasonable manner. …
M. Morris: When I look at the Migratory Birds Convention Act … it’s pretty
specific on what it states with respect to the birds … The legislation is already
in place. We don’t need to invent any more. There’s corresponding legislation
under our provincial Wildlife Act, as well …There’s a lot on the books already
(British Columbia, 2018a).
The next recurring theme in the Hansard raises an apparent conflict with relying on the
existing protections, particularly the federal Species at Risk Act and the Migratory Birds
Convention Act mentioned in the above exchange. A concern expressed throughout Hansard
by MLAs from all parties was preventing the federal government from stepping in and
assuming responsibility for SAR management in the absence of provincial action. This was
raised in relation to federal intervention in caribou protection, but more recently there are
concerns about potential federal intervention in spotted owl conservation. In fact, Morris
segued directly from the above conversation into questions about the federal government’s

84
input in caribou conservation in BC. On April 9, 2018, John Rustad, a BC Liberal MLA, asked
the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, Hon.
Doug Donaldson, a question:
Specifically around caribou, caribou management and caribou recovery in the
various regions of the province, is the ministry still engaged in developing
and promoting the work that they were doing associated with recovery and
management to the federal government as a response to try to prevent the
federal government from its application of SARA, the species-at-risk
legislation?
In response, Minister Donaldson replied:
Yes, we are working and remain fully engaged with the federal government
on this issue. We don’t want a section 80 order — I believe it’s section 80 —
under the Species at Risk Act, the federal act, to be implemented by the federal
government, which means we lose much control of the management
activities. They are only able under the Species at Risk Act to consider habitat
considerations. We are able, in our process, to consider more than habitat, but
social and economic implications of managing a population for sustainability
(British Columbia, 2018b).
On April 17, 2018, Heyman had also expressed concerns with ensuring that the
province maintained control over SAR conservation as part of the reasoning for developing
provincial SAR legislation.
We also want to ensure that we have B.C. legislation – rather than be forced,
as we are in the case of caribou, to react to federal legislation in the absence
of any provincial legislation that the federal government could, in turn, look
to – and be assured that we have the mechanisms within British Columbia to
address listed species (British Columbia, 2018c).

MLA Responses
I sent inquiries about the current progress on SAR legislation to five MLAs through
email. I received an automated response from Robert Fleming’s office and no response from
George Heyman, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I did receive emailed
responses from the Deputy Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship, on behalf of
Katrine Conroy, then-Minister of Forests, and from Sonia Furstenau, the BC Green Party
Leader. I also had the opportunity to speak to Andrew Weaver, former BC Green Party Leader,
over video call.

85
The response from the Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship was that the
government was “committed to delivering on its mandate to ‘continue to work with partners
to protect species at risk and work collaboratively with other ministries to protect and enhance
British Columbia’s (B.C.) biodiversity.” I was also told that the government was continuing to
work on “policy projects that benefit biodiversity and species at risk” including money invested
in habitat restoration, and collaborating on a Nature Agreement (Cruickshank, 2023).
Outside of that, I was directed to “several laws and regulations that can be applied to
help conserve, protect, and recover species at risk”, notably the Wildlife Act, the Forest and
Range Practices Act (2002), and to protected area designations including parks and ecological
reserves. What was not included in the email response was direct answers about the questions
I had posed, including the absence of any mention of whether the development of SAR
legislation was still in progress, or any explanation for why no draft legislation had been
produced. The closest response I received was that “[t]he Province will be collaboratively
developing the path forward to implement all recommendations with Indigenous Peoples, as
well as engaging with stakeholders and communities. Engagement on the path forward will be
launched in late fall 2022.”
The email response from Sonia Furstenau’s office did address the questions I had sent.
In answer to why no draft legislation had gone forward beyond a first reading, I was given the
unfortunate, but not unexpected, explanation that “Private Member’s Bills… rarely, if ever,
move past first reading and into debate.” Additionally, in reference to why no new draft
legislation has been proposed since 2017, the email explaine:
[t]hings have shifted since we tabled the Endangered Species PMB in 2017,
and stakeholders are now clearly recommending that biodiversity legislation
is co-developed with First Nations, which is something that we could not do
in a Private Member’s Bill.
In the video call with Andrew Weaver, I was given more direct answers to some of my
questions. In response to why the proposed SAR legislation had not gone forward beyond the
first reading “there are only three private member's bills in the history of the BC legislature…
that have ever made it to second reading and passed. … [I]n BC … the private member's bill
is often done to trigger a discussion, and then hope that the public support it.”

86
In response to a question about what the limitations were on SAR legislation
development, he answered “the species at risk, ran up to natural resources really fast at some
point, and I don't, that's clearly to me, the reason why it never proceeded for it. But I don't
know what aspect of that it was the stumbling block.”
Finally, he provided a more detailed idea of his perception on the apparent conflict
between SAR legislation and industry perspectives:
It's not developing in BC and the reason why is very clear to me, is that there
has been a never-ending conflict between the natural resource sector and the
environmental sector in British Columbia, and there is no need for there to be
that tension … [T]ry to get people to recognize that every environmental
challenge actually is an opportunity for innovation. You have to solve it. And
when you solve these environmental challenges, it can be empowering for the
individual, but also, you know, triple bottom line when social environmental
and economic benefits.

Policies
BC’s approach to SAR conservation is accessible primarily through the Ministry of
Environment and Climate Change’s website (British Columbia, n.d.-b). The non-legislative
policy documents included the Canada-British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk (2005).
The purpose of this document was to allow for cooperation and coordination between the two
levels of government when it comes to SAR management and conservation. The document
itself does not set out many non-discretional requirements and did not establish any specific
protections for SAR, rather it focusses on the working relationship between the two
governments. Of note, considering the absence of any requirement for conservation or recovery
plans under BC’s provincial legislation, the Agreement calls for Parties to “endeavor to develop
recovery strategies and action plans that meet timelines and other requirements set in federal
and provincial legislation.”
The Best Management Practices (BMPs) are specifically tied to natural resource
stewardship on the government website, rather than to SAR (British Columbia, n.d.-a). They
include lists of guidelines for industry on how to manage and mitigate impacts to species during
project development. The BMPs are divided by type of species (amphibians and reptiles, bats,
plants, etc.) and by region-specific guidelines (Thompson & Okanagan, Lower Mainland,

87
Cariboo, etc.). These BMPs are generally not aimed at SAR specifically and do not establish
additional protections for SAR.

Discussion
Mandate letters
During the 2017 provincial election, the BC NDP platform included a promise to
establish designated SAR legislation in BC (BC New Democratic Party, 2017). Following the
election, the NDP formed the government with support from the BC Green Party to reach the
majority (2017 Confidence and Supply Agreement between the BC Green Caucus and the BC
New Democrat Caucus, 2017). The 2017 mandate letter from Premier John Horgan to the
Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, George Heyman, reflected this
campaign commitment to developing SAR legislation.
In November 2020, BC had another provincial election during the height of the Covid19 pandemic. There were no mentions of SAR legislation development in the 2020 campaign
platform, and only passing references to “wildlife”, “ecosystems”, and “biodiversity” (Horgan,
2020b). The mandate letter that followed the 2020 election also reflected the downgrading of
SAR protection as a priority for the government, with development of legislation being notably
absent from the language of the letter.
As the 2022 mandate letter did not follow another election, there was no campaign
platform to confirm what is apparent from the mandate letter – SAR protection has been
relegated even further down the list of priorities for the government. The evolution of the
language across the mandate letters shows a clear narrative that developing designated SAR
legislation is no longer an official priority for BC’s government. If the trend continues, it is
unlikely the government will take any action on SAR legislation in the near future.

Draft Legislation
Despite the time gap of over half a decade, both bills I scored have significant
advantages compared to the existing legislation in BC. The first is increased certainty in the
listing process. Both bills require the Minister to list species according to the recommendations
of an independent committee made up of individuals knowledgeable in either a scientific

88
discipline relating to conservation or in Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ss.5(1), and 16(1)
of each act). The other major advantage is the inclusion of conservation plan requirements, an
area that is completely absent from the existing legislation.
However, neither of these bills were without fault, and on paper they still fall short of
several provinces’ existing legislation. This may be attributable to the additional regulations
that often follow a new statute. However, legal ideology has shifted since the bills were
proposed, and it is unlikely that either would be passed as is. In fact, changes to perceptions of
what is needed in SAR legislation could partially explain why no new draft legislation has been
proposed. Neither bill was developed with Indigenous input and collaboration and this
component has been acknowledged as critical by MLAs from all parties in the Hansard
discussions.

Hansard
BC NDP rhetoric while the Liberal Government was in power consistently pushed for
SAR legislation development. After the change in government in 2017, the reports from the
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change during the addresses from the ministers in
the legislative budget sessions referenced the goal of developing species at rick legislation.
This aligned with the 2017 mandate letter. At this time, Hansard discussions of the issue were
primarily MLA’s who were opposed to the idea of SAR legislation and questioned the necessity
for the legislation.
Following the 2020 election, when the BC NDP gained a majority government and
were no longer beholden to the terms of the Agreement with the BC Green Party, the tone of
the Hansard shifted. Instead of confirming and defending work being done on SAR legislation,
the BC NDP was put on the defensive from MLAs asking why progress on SAR legislation
had stagnated. This pattern continues to the most recent Hansard accessed for this research.
Concerns that there are too many existing pieces of legislation do not inherently oppose,
and may in fact be a point in favour of, enacting SAR legislation. Codifying all aspects of a
specific area of law in one place, and repealing any prior provisions, is not a new concept in
Canada. Well-known previous examples include the Criminal Code (RSC 1985, c C-46) and
the Forest Practices Code of BC Act (RSBC 1996, c 159).

89
One specific objection to developing SAR legislation questioning the necessity, as
existing legislation, both provincial and federal, already covers what would be included in a
new statute. Ironically, another major concern, expressed at times by the same MLAs, was
preventing federal interference in provincial SAR management. Under SARA, federal
intervention only occurs when provincial action is insufficient. There is a direct conflict
between wanting to retain provincial authority over SAR management and wanting BC to rely
on protections under SARA (SC 2002, c 29) and the Migratory Birds Convention Act (SC 1994,
c 22). Holding up the Migratory Birds Convention Act as an example of existing protection
measures is particularly counterproductive, as the lauded habitat protections under that act
apply only to migratory bird species and only during specific times of the year. The Migratory
Birds Convention Act is not a reason provincial SAR legislation is unnecessary, but rather an
example of what protections could, and should, be afforded to all SAR, at all times of the year,
in all areas of the province.
Finally, the current NDP government’s reasons for the delay in acting on SAR
legislation have become focussed on taking the time to get it right. There is a repetition of
needing to take the time to include Indigenous perspectives. While it is positive that the
government is acknowledging the necessity of collaborating and consulting with Indigenous
groups in developing SAR legislation, it is hard not to read repeated references to consultation
as a means of deflecting responsibility for government inaction. Reading the Hansard all
together sets out an unfortunately common narrative in politics. A party in opposition has the
luxury to advocate strongly for drastic changes, particularly those that go against economic
interests. However, if that same party is elected to office, even on a campaign platform that
promises to enact those changes, the reality of governing and balancing many different interests
can lead to a failure to act on those promises. The result is a full circle where the previous
opposition finds themselves in the position of repeating, and defending, the same inaction they
had previously criticized.

MLA Responses and Input
The responses I received from the MLAs to my inquiries about SAR legislation did not
answer all my questions about the barriers to SAR legislation development but did align with
responses I anticipated. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the MLAs who are members of the current

90
government were unwilling or unable to provide context on why progress on SAR legislation
development had stalled. Additionally, the Green Party MLAs I reached out to confirmed that
private member’s bills do not typically progress in the BC Legislature and that the reason for
putting them forward is to draw attention to an issue and garner public support. Neither seemed
surprised that legislation had not been developed, nor were they particularly hopeful that new
legislation was on the horizon.

Conclusion
The story of SAR legislation development in BC is not a triumphant one, nor is it even
a slow grind towards a distant summit. Instead, it is a story of big promises and a slow slide
into inaction as the pressure to fulfill those promises eased and other interests took priority. Of
note is a recurring theme that came up throughout the Hansard and could explain the lack of
progress on this issue. The inclusion of Indigenous perspectives and input for SAR
development is an essential component of achieving good legislation, as will be reflected in
the next chapter. However, there is a concern that pointing towards Indigenous involvement
and taking the time to “get it right” does not address the gaps and absences that are currently
being felt by the lack of SAR legislation in BC. In the next chapter, I interviewed individuals
who have knowledge and connections to two of BC’s protected areas about their perspectives
on how SAR protections are, and are not, working in the province.

91

References
2017 Confidence and Supply Agreement between the BC Green Caucus and the BC New
Democrat Caucus. (2017).
BC New Democratic Party. (2017). Working for you: our commitments to build a better BC.
Bill M 207, Species at Risk Protection Act, 2nd Session, 39th Parliament, British Columbia,
2010.
Bill M 208, Endangered Species Act, 2nd Session, 41st Parliament, British Columbia, 2017.
Bill M 211, Species at Risk Protection Act, 3rd Session, 39th Parliament, British Columbia,
2011.
Bill M 224, Endangered Species Act, 6th Session, 40th Parliament, British Columbia, 2017.
Bill M 226, Species at Risk Protection Act, 6th Session, 40th Parliament, British Columbia,
2017.
British Columbia. (n.d.-a). Natural Resource Best Management Practices. Retrieved October
31, 2023, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resourcestewardship/laws-policies-standards-guidance/best-management-practices
British Columbia. (n.d.-b). Species and ecosystems at risk. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/speciesecosystems-at-risk
British Columbia. (2010). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
39th Parliament, 2nd Sess, Vol 18, No 4, (19 May, 2010) at 1415 (R Fleming).
British Columbia. (2011). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 39th Parliament, 3rd Sess, Vol 22, No 5, (18 May, 2011) at 1455 (Hon T Lake).
British Columbia. (2017). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 41st Parliament, 2nd Sess, No 52 (2 November, 2017) at 2:50 p.m. (Hon G Heyman).
British Columbia. (2018a). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 41st Parliament, 3rd Sess, No 110 (10 April, 2018) at 1:55 p.m. (M Morris and Hon
G Heyman).
British Columbia. (2018b). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 41st Parliament, 3rd Sess, No 108 (9 April 2018) at 6:10 p.m. (J Rustad and Hon D
Donaldson).
British Columbia. (2018c). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 41st Parliament, 3rd Sess, No 117 (17 April, 2018) at 3:45 p.m. (Hon G Heyman).

92
British Columbia. (2019). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 41st Parliament, 4th Sess, No 294 (21 November, 2019) at 10:40 a.m. (A Weaver).
British Columbia. (2020). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 41st Parliament, 5th Sess, No 8 (10 July, 2020) at 3:35 p.m. (S Furstenau and Hon
G Heyman).
British Columbia. (2021). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 42nd Parliament, 2nd Sess, No 117 (27 October, 2021) at 2:20 p.m. (J Tegart and
Hon G Heyman).
British Columbia. (2023). Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard).
In 42nd Parliament, 4th Sess, No 276 (27 February, 2023) at 2:15 p.m. (S Furstenau
and Hon G Heyman).
Canada-British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk. (2005).
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c. C.-46.
Cruickshank, A. (2023, July 19). B.C. may see $1.2 billion in conservation funding through
nature agreement. The Narwal. https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-nature-agreement-funding/
Eby, D. (2022). [Mandate letter from David Eby, Premier, to George Heyman, Minister of
Environment and Climate Change Strategy]. Government of British Columbia.
Forest Practices Code of BC Act, RSBC 1996, c 159 (1996).
Fraser, B., Arnold, M., Gratton, P., Guichon, J., Hatler, D., Hebert, D., Koop, B., Robinson,
P., Thomspon, D., & Walkem, D. (2011). Report of the British Columbia Task Force
on
Species
at
Risk.
https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do?subdocumentId=21823\
Government of BC. (n.d.). Natural Resource Best Management Practices. Retrieved October
30, 2023, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resourcestewardship/laws-policies-standards-guidance/best-management-practices.
Horgan, J. (2017). [Mandate letter from John Horgan, Premier, to George Heyman, Minister
of Environment and Climate Change Strategy]. Government of British Columbia.
Horgan, J. (2020a). [Mandate letter from John Horgan, Premier, to George Heyman, Minister
of Environment and Climate Change Strategy]. Government of British Columbia.
Horgan, J. (2020b). Working for you: John Horgan’s commitments to BC.
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, SC 1994, c 22.
Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29.

93

Chapter 5 – Species at Risk Protections in Practice:
Conservation Community Perspectives
While legislation is vital to conservation, what matters to a species, and to the people
involved in their protection, is how those laws are applied in practice. To assess how well BC’s
species at risk (SAR) protections operate in situ, I interviewed participants from the
conservation community who have experience with BC protected areas or SAR. The purpose
of this chapter is to highlight perceived strengths and weaknesses in the province’s current
approach, as well as to identify any barriers to implementing improvements. I found that most
participants interviewed were dissatisfied with current SAR protections and all participants felt
there was a need to improve existing conservation approaches.

Methods
I chose to interview individuals with connections to SAR through protected areas in the
province. I selected protected areas as they should represent the regions of the province that
are the safest for SAR and should be the best examples of BC actively putting conservation
measures and actions in place. In essence, if SAR protections are not functioning in BC’s
protected areas, then where are they? I selected two protected areas, Lac Du Bois Grasslands
Protected Area and Wells Gray Provincial Park, as the basis for the interviews. I contacted

94
individuals with a connection to one or both of those areas to inquire whether would participate
in an interview about their experiences with SAR protection in BC.

Figure 16 - Map of BC showing provincial and national protected areas. The locations of Lac
Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area and Wells Gray Park are highlighted on the map. (Map by
Olea Vandermale.)

Protected Areas Selected
The two areas were selected for their proximity to each other and to Thompson Rivers
University. They represent two different protected designations in BC. The following are brief
overviews of each site.

95

Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area
Lac Du Bois is situated just north of Kamloops, BC, on the unceded traditional territory
of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc. It was established in 1996, covering 15,712 hectares. The
protected area designation grants some protection while still allowing activities prohibited in
a provincial park (BC Parks, n.d.-a). Some of these activities include hunting, range cattle
grazing, and, notably, the building of the Trans Mountain Pipeline that passes through the
protected area. However, the boundaries of Lac Du Bois include two areas designated as
ecological reserves, which have the strictest level of protection for land designations in the
province (British Columbia, n.d.-m). These are the McQueen Creek and the Tranquille
ecological reserves, located in the northeast and southwest of Lac Du Bois, respectively.
Outside of the protected area, Lac Du Bois abuts municipal and private property, and private
conservancy land operated by the Nature Conservancy of Canada, an environmental not-forprofit. This gives a variety of land designations and protections across a relatively compact
area.
Even compared to the rest of BC, the interior grassland ecosystems have an incredible
amount of biodiversity and a proportionally higher number of SAR (Grasslands Conservation
Council of BC, n.d.). Lac Du Bois encompasses suitable habitat for many grassland SAR,
including rattlesnakes, sharp-tail grouse, burrowing owls, and Western long-billed curlews (BC
Parks, n.d.-a). Regarding human resources and infrastructure, Lac Du Bois does not have fulltime park staff (BC Parks, n.d.-a). Much of the area is managed collaboratively through local
wildlife groups and volunteer efforts. Additionally, Lac Du Bois has existing ties to Thompson

96
Rivers University, with the protected area being the site for past and ongoing research
conducted through the university.

Figure 17 - Map of Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area, including the boundaries of
McQueen Creek and Tranquille Ecological Reserves. (Map by Olea Vandermale.)

Wells Gray Provincial Park
Wells Gray Provincial Park is a Class A Park near Clearwater, BC. It is just over 100km
north of Kamloops, on the unceded traditional territory of the Simpcwúl’ecw (Simpcw) and
Tsq’escenemc (Canim Lake Band). Established in 1939, it covers 541,516 hectares (BC Parks,
n.d.-b). Directly adjacent to the northern end of Wells Gray is Cariboo Mountains Park,
comprising a further 113,470 hectares. This makes over 650,000 hectares of continuous
protected area.
As a Class A Park, development within Wells Gray is limited to supporting recreational
use of the area. Additionally, activities such as commercial logging and resource extraction are

97
prohibited. If an activity detrimental to conservation predated the formation of the park, it may
be allowed to persist. Wells Gray allows some hunting within the park’s boundaries (BC Parks,
n.d.-b). SAR within the park include martens, grizzly bears, and, most notably, deep-snow
mountain caribou (BC Parks, n.d.-b).
Compared to Lac Du Bois, Wells Gray has far more infrastructure and personnel
support. It is a major tourist destination with a dedicated information centre located in
Clearwater. The park is staffed and patrolled by Provincial Parks employees. Private recreation
and tourism companies also operate within the park year-round (BC Parks, n.d.-b).
Additionally, the park hosts the Wells Gray Education and Research Centre, operated by
Thompson Rivers University.

Figure 18 - Map of Wells Gray Provincial Park, showing adjacent Cariboo Mountains
Provincial Park. (Map by Olea Vandermale.)

98

Participant Interviews
Participant interviews of approximately 30 minutes in length were conducted in person,
over video call, and by telephone. Interviews took place between April 29 and December 7,
2022. Participants were not randomly selected from the general population. I chose instead to
focus on participants who had close connections to areas with known SAR measures, as they
would be more likely to have experience with how SAR conservation operates in BC and to
have opinions based on their knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of the current
system. Participants were initially recruited through an email sent by Dr. Tom Dickinson, a
professor emeritus at Thompson Rivers University, to individuals we believed may be
interested in the project. Participation was voluntary based on those who responded to the
initial request. While I had initially planned to include a wider perspective base and reached
out to industry-associated stakeholders, the individuals who agreed to participate selfidentified as being members of the conservation community in BC. Additional participants
were recruited using a version of snowball sampling (Naderifar et al., 2017), where participants
suggested others that might be interested in the project.
I sent participants a consent letter that explained the purpose of the interview and the
general topics to be covered. The consent form also gave an option to remain anonymous
(Appendix VIII). Seven participants chose to be cited in the research, with only one participant
electing anonymity. Three potential participants declined to participate, or ceased responding,
after receiving the consent letter outlining the purpose and the content of the interviews. A total
of eight participants took part (Appendix IX).
I used a framework of questions developed from existing commentary on SAR to
conduct the interviews (Appendix X). The interviews were semi-structured, allowing
participants to express their concerns in a flexible manner. Interviews were recorded, with
participant permission, and a written transcript of the recording was made after each interview.
These transcripts were sent to the participants to review, allowing them to make corrections,
expand on any points, or to retract any statements.

99

Analysis
Participant Interviews
Participant interview transcripts were coded by reviewing each transcript and
categorizing participant responses into broad themes and more specific sub-topics. Interviews
were then analyzed to look for consensus or diverging opinions between participants in relation
to each topic, and to highlight recurring themes across multiple participants. To promote
trustworthiness and collaboration with the participants following the CBPR model, results of
the analysis are presented using direct quotations and the participants own words (Elo &
Kyngäs, 2008). Except where a participant chose to remain anonymous, the quotations are also
attributed to each participant.

Interview Analysis
Categories and interview themes
I grouped the participant responses by topic and category. There were seven themes
encompassing categories of topics. These were:
•

knowledge of SAR legislation and protections in BC;

•

changes or differences observed over time and between locations;

•

the importance of including Indigenous perspectives and input when
developing SAR protections;

•

the role of management vs. protection;

•

the effects industry has on conservation;

•

communicating with the public and with industry-reliant communities likely to
be affected by SAR legislation; and

•

improvements to SAR protections they would like to see moving forward.

Knowledge of Species at Risk Legislation and Protections in BC
This first theme dealt with participants’ familiarity with the legislation that governs
how SAR are managed and protected in BC. Participants were asked how familiar they are
with the protections that do (or do not) exist in BC for SAR. Ian Barnett worked on

100
conservation and restoration projects in Lac Du Bois with conservation non-profits. He
expressed some experience with the legislation, both federal and provincial:
Somewhat, yes, I'm familiar. There's the federal legislation, which I wasn’t
directly involved with, but I remember it was in the late 90s, early 2000s, that
it came into the public domain, where they started to talk about it and develop
it. I think I understood some of it. And then on the provincial legislation, I
have a moderate amount of familiarity with the legislation.
Tom Dickinson has connections to both Lac Du Bois and Wells Gray in a volunteer
capacity, and professionally through his work with Thompson Rivers University. He also had
some familiarity with SAR legislation, although primarily within the federal rather than the
provincial context:
It was the federal Species at Risk Act that I tracked when I was teaching, and
I haven't paid much attention to what's been happening provincially. I know
that the listing process was pretty much taken within the Ministry of
Environment in those days. … [T]here's no single [provincial] act that
identifies the actions that have to be taken. Unlike in the federal act, even
though in the federal act is limited on the grounds that it actually pertains to
- federal parks and things like that.
Of the participants familiar with SAR protections in BC, most expressed a perception
of the absence of legislation rather than its presence. The participant who chose to remain
anonymous said:
Because of the lack of species at risk legislation in the province of British
Columbia, what I would be relying on is the Wildlife Act. And depending on
what kind of critters I’m dealing with, could be the federal Fisheries Act as
well. … I’m very familiar with the pieces of legislation that are out there that
both protect and provide guidance as well as best management practices.
Tay Briggs owns and operates Wells Gray Adventures, a company aimed at sustainable
adventure tourism within Wells Gray Park. She went a step beyond noting the absence of
legislation in the province, finding that the provincial protections were lacking:
I would say I'm somewhat familiar. One of the reasons we're in the position
we're in, it seems, is because we don't really have legislative protection
provincially. … But there’s no teeth in anything the province has to protect
species at risk, in my personal opinion.

101
Tay was not the only participant who expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of
provincial legislation. Trevor Goward is a lichenologist and an expert on deep-snow mountain
caribou, Wells Gray’s most well-known SAR. He also expressed that he felt there was
insufficient provincial SAR legislation:
I'm not really aware that there are any laws that protect mountain caribou in
BC. I mean, of course there is no hunting of deep-snow caribou. I guess you
could say that's a law if you like. But as for conservation? I'm not aware of
any laws. I’m aware of the … recovery implementation strategy for British
Columbia, which I think came out in 2007. … But again, that's not law. I
would say if there is a law that protects them, I don't know about it. And
certainly it's not working.
When asked if they were satisfied with how SAR are being protected in BC,
participants mostly answered negatively. The most positive response was from the participant
who elected to remain anonymous, but even that was tempered with some reservations:
I think the province has relied quite a bit on the federal government to meet
the needs of the federal act and the needs of the protection of federally listed
species. … The province could still do a lot more, I think, in providing
guidance and such. What’s interesting is, after 20 years, or 15-20 years of the
Species at Risk Act, the federal government has chosen not to enact and not
to enforce their act on BC legislation. Because there's always that trigger that
the federal act can apply if the province doesn't do their thing. … To me that
says that BC is doing enough to keep things in good check. But I think they
could do more. And once you do see a species at risk act, you will see more
guidance and more defined direction. And especially better direction.
Tay Brigg’s response was less positive about BC’s protections:
I guess as a summary I would say that no, in my personal belief, and my
personal experience, there's nothing in BC that guarantees protection for
species at risk. It's a lot of lip service.
Trevor Goward responded using a numerical scale: “On a scale of one to ten? I would
say, zero. Which means I’m very, extremely, unsatisfied.” Ian Barnett used a similar system:
I would say if ten was great and zero was terrible, I don't think we're midway.
I'd say more of four or five. I think that it’s not taken as seriously, because I
think it's still not well understood. And it's not a black and white thing … it
can be very gray.

102

Differences Observed Over Time and Across Locations
This theme deals with participants’ personal experiences, and changes they observed
over time, as well as any changes that participants had observed over time, as well as with
perceived differences or similarities between protected areas and surrounding lands. Dave Low
is a retired government biologist and the director of Lac Du Bois for the Burrowing Owl
Conservation Society of BC. He has lived in Kamloops since he was a boy, has observed
changes to the wildlife present within the city, as well as up in Lac Du Bois.
I used to see, I lived on the river, and I used to hear the nighthawks all the
time. … Very little productivity in the water nowadays. I think it has to do
with motorboats and oil, and disturbance.
…
The only place sharp-tail grouse are doing well is where the Strawberry Hill
Fire was in 2003. That's got a lot of sharp-tails up there. … There's not much
use on the Lac Du Bois grasslands anymore. I saw the most sharp-tail chicks
where the cows were grazing. … And they want to protect the nesting sites.
Well, you’ve got nesting sites for a million female sharp-tail up there. But you
don't have a million sharp-tail.
Nathan Matthew was the Chief of the Simpcw First Nation for twenty years. Simpcw
are of two nations whose traditional territory includes the area of Wells Gray Park. He
commented on changes to the caribou herd in Wells Gray:
I was doing some research back in the 70s … my grandfather, he said that
North of [note: audio unclear] the caribou were just like cattle. There were
herds of them. That was hard to believe because I have not seen one caribou
in my life. I've seen their tracks.
When it comes to changes to the protected area, Tom Dickinson went into the
management and zoning for Lac Du Bois.
There was a bit of a debacle when Tranquille changed ownership and they
wanted to develop it. … And one of the things that was interesting is that the
line for where the city boundary was is the area that defines the edge of where
Lac Du Bois is. And so there was always this unwritten agreement that what
there’d be is this buffer between the city owned lands and the developed lands
and this Crown land park, and that any of the lands that were in between
wouldn't be developed. … So there have been little issues surrounding the
management of it. … Government hasn't taken it to the next steps for all of
these protected areas, to revisit the management plans, and to come up with

103
public interest groups that could talk about what are the best interests for
public to serve for the management?
When asked about how well the protected areas are doing when it comes to SAR
conservation, participants had more information to share. Referring to Lac Du Bois, Ian Barnett
said:
Well, there's some challenges. There are rattlesnakes getting run over by
mountain bikes, we know that. There's the pipeline that's being put in, and I
can't comment on whether I think they've done a good job or not, I don't know.
But I would hope that there's a lot of effort that goes into … species, snake
dens, knowing where they are and trying to avoid them. And hopefully there's
measures being taken.
Nathan Matthew’s experience was with Wells Gray Park, in relation to the caribou
herds:
We’re [Simpcw] dealing with the herd that's up in that Wells Gray area. And
there's a number of groups that are doing studies, and there's planning
happening in terms of how to best protect caribou in terms of just staying
away from the areas. I know we're deactivating some roads up there to make
the habitat a little more natural, so that the wolves … sight lines are
diminished, and the roads are roughed up so that the wolves don’t just have
really easy access to their advantage if they're hanging around caribou.
Tom Dickinson, having connections to both protected areas, could comment on
differences he had observed between them in dealing with SAR conservation:
It's hard to say, they've changed the ministry so often with regard to land uses
and land planning. But it's hard to put a finger on what resources are, in fact,
available in any one time. I think in Lac Du Bois it really has fallen into the
realm of citizen groups that are working as a cooperative to try and find
solutions and working with other groups like the Nature Conservancy … at
trying to come up with management of scenarios and plans and identify where
the critical pieces of the habitat are. … To actually do what government I feel
should have a greater involvement in. … And again, I think up in Wells Gray,
it's even hard to get some of the managers in a provincial park to identify
things that are critically important to keep up. … And so things are not being
maintained in the way that they should be. I think the staff that runs [Wells
Gray] is a skeleton staff compared with the number of people in the public
that are actually using it. … I heard at one point that the Information Center
in Clearwater that is a gateway to Wells Gray Park had more visitors than the
information center in the harbor in Victoria.

104
I asked participants whether they had observed ay differences in how conservation
efforts operated within the boundaries of Lac Du Bois or Wells Gray compared to outside of
the protected area. The anonymous participant spoke to the situation at Lac Du Bois, and the
challenges that arise from the land outside the protected area not being one type of land
designation, but rather a mixture of Crown, municipal and privately owned land:
[P]eople do treat it differently. The challenge you have at Lac Du Bois is that
beyond that boundary because it's Crown land, or it's municipal owned land,
the protection for grassland ecosystems is so weak. … Municipalities have an
obligation to protect the species under the Wildlife Act. But when it comes to
ecosystems, they don't have to. … So that's a big challenge. The other
challenge, you have private property that allows the ATV zone right next to
the park. The class of park also has a big impact. … [T]hat class of park
allowed the twinning of Trans Mountain to go through. … I don't care if you
take the seed source and put it aside and put it back in two years, you're still
going to have a disrupted landscape. … Even as a protected park, you're still
depending on the class of the park, your land use designation is going to have
a big impact. And your neighbors, what you do and don't allow, it has an
impact.
When it comes to Wells Gray, one of the recurring themes was the presence of industrial
logging in the area outside of the park boundary. Participants found this of particular concern
because caribou, the most notable SAR in Wells Gray, have extensive ranges that go beyond
the park boundaries. Tay Briggs spoke from the perspective of someone who had been involved
with the forestry industry in the area:
In a protected area, they can't log. …To be honest with you, in all of my work
with forest companies and the Forest Service trying to gain some kind of
acknowledgement of the waning Wells Gray herd, which spend a lot of their
time outside provincial park boundaries, there is nothing that guarantees any
protection, or any consideration even, aside from vague, semi-professional
assurances that it would be okay.
Similarly, Trevor Goward expressed concerns about the absence of biologically
meaningful protections in industry standards, in particular logging:
There are number of lichen species that are threatened and or endangered in
Canada. … And what happens … if there's a patch of forest that has a rare
species, sometimes if it's a pipeline or something, it might get routed around
that particular patch. But that has no bearing whatsoever on whether the
species will live or cease to exist. That's not how it works. … So no, there's
nothing really practically meaningful that's happening, I would say. People

105
… are educated to believe that they're doing some good, but … it's really
painting the roses red in a way. … Species outside are basically at risk, and
the actions that have been taken, for species I'm familiar with, will not prevent
their disappearance over time. They might last for a while in a particular
stand, but there's so much industrial incursion going on[.]
Nathan Matthew also spoke to the noticeable difference in wildlife presence within
Wells Gray, and spoke about expanding protected designations to other areas to hopefully
ensure the same increased biodiversity elsewhere:
Oh, absolutely. There is no comparison. Once you get inside the park it's a
different world. … I do a fair bit of hunting outside the parks. And I may have
seen one grizzly bear track on the outside. But I've seen a number of grizzly
bear tracks inside the [Wells Gray]. Same with caribou and other wildlife
species - if you're quiet long enough a moose will walk by. … I know with
the Simpcw we’re interested in areas within our territory that still have
relatively intact ecological areas. One of them being the Roche Valley up in
the Robson. And we're moving toward having that put aside as an Indigenous
Protected Area. And it's almost a bit of a scrap because the logging companies
often have licenses that would suggest they could go in there, miners want to
get in there do their mineral exploration, and such. But it's an area that's
relatively untouched. We thought, well, wouldn't it be great to be able to set
this aside? For more educational purposes and protection of natural values.

Inclusion of Indigenous Voices in Developing Species at Risk
Protections in BC
The next theme dealt with the role that Indigenous values and perspectives should play
in protecting and managing SAR, including developing any new SAR legislation. It is a theme
that arose throughout interviews, not necessarily in response to one specific question or
prompt. Nathan Matthew (Sécwepemc) was the only participant I was able to recruit who selfidentified to me as Indigenous. As such, his perspective on this theme was of particular
importance.
We are taking measures, the Simpcw First Nation, we're doing a bit of
landscape planning, in terms of the Raft River watershed, and thinking about
what kinds of operational guidelines will be changed to make that area a
whole lot more compatible with the health of the animals. …Trying to look
at it a little more holistically, rather than just the prime activity being get in
there and knock all the trees down and get out and move on. The same with
the old growth areas, they're looking at the relative value of that from an
Indigenous perspective. … I think that that whole notion of establishing the

106
value of wildlife. Period. And from where we are, in a Sécwepemc or the
Shuswap culture, we have quite a different perspective on our natural world.
Out there, and in our territory, and every other territory in the province, the
government and the legislation that has developed over the last 100 or so
years has always been around extraction of natural resources, namely timber
and minerals, to the disadvantage of wildlife. They see it as having a higher
value, the conversion of timber or minerals into cash to feed the larger
economy. … I think that that’s the perspective, and that the decision making,
a good part of it, should be made by those that live in the area where the
resources are.
In the Sécwepemc tradition, we have our own laws that we’re looking at
applying. And we're actually doing that in terms of establishing some of those
basic values that are within our culture. … And one of the big ones is we have
an obligation to protect the plants and the animals and the water in our areas,
because we depend on them so much. … When the government says they
want to reconcile provincial laws with Indigenous laws, we have our big ideas
that we slide across the table, and say well, if we’re going to reconcile this,
how do you square what you're doing with our ideas. We see the natural
resources in the area, and it's all one thing, it's a big idea. … And we don't
pull it apart and say, we'll have a law for trees, and we'll have a law for rocks,
and a law for water. … I think that in terms of, you know, if we know that
there's species that are being stressed out, then we have an obligation to
protect them. So that's sort of creating that balance. … Where we're
attempting to have either an impact on the way that those laws are changed,
or have our laws work alongside those laws to create a more balanced
approach.
Dave Low addressed the key role Indigenous peoples and practices have historically
played in ecosystem maintenance and restoration, by using fires as a restoration process,
through an experience that was shared with him:
I haven’t mentioned Dr. Mary Thomas… She was an elder for the Shuswap.
When I was in the grazing committee, on the Task Force, she invited me to a
gathering at the mouth of the Salmon River, near Chase there. There she told
me a story that I'll never forget. … As a little girl she used to go with her
grandparents into the mountains and into the lake country. She said in the
spring they used to gather different plants… But she said when they went to
a site, they would gather food. And as they left, got packed up camp to move,
her grandfather used to light fires. They’d go to the next site, forage around
that. And as they left that the grandfather would light up fires. And they went,
it continued through the summer like that. I look back at the sites she had
described. … I doubt the grandfather's fires were successful maybe three
years out of every 20 at these different locations, but he was always trying to

107
provide forage that they needed for future years. And that's, that to me, struck
a chord.
Trevor Goward brought up the importance of Indigenous involvement when asked
about what changes he thought needed to be made to how SAR are being protected:
If Indigenous people in First Nations got involved creating Indigenous Parks,
protected areas that were used in conjunction with existing protected areas on
behalf of threatened and endangered species. Yeah, I don't think it's going to
happen in our culture. I think it would take somebody working from another
mindset. And I don't by any means believe that all Indigenous people have
the answer. But I think there are some who are very earnest about recapturing
and re-enlivening their cultures, and this will be part of it.
Tom Dickinson also emphasized that Indigenous people needed to be included in any
changes or improvements to SAR legislation:
I think it's important to do it in collaboration with First Nations. When you
take a look at the sea change that's happened in the last five years, maybe 10
years, since the Truth and Reconciliation and calls to action, I think there's
been a real emphasis on making sure that there is a consultation with First
Nations. And I think that's one thing that was totally lacking, even in the
federal work on the Species at Risk Act. Federally, the consultation with First
Nations simply didn't occur. And it was at that funny juncture of time when
First Nations wanted to be recognized as government, but government didn't
know how to recognize them. … And now I think revisiting it at a provincial
level, that's something that is a real obligation.

Management vs. Protection
One theme that I had not included in the initial interview framework, but that arose
repeatedly, was making a distinction between simply protecting an area versus actively
managing that area. Participants who made a distinction generally considered managing to be
a more hands-on, active process, compared to a more passively described process of simply
setting boundaries around an area and declaring it protected. Dave Low, who has a professional
history of actively intervening to promote ecosystem health, felt that managing and area would
have better outcomes than simply protecting it, but was not being done. In particular, he
emphasized the looking at the cause and effect of impacts to ecosystems, and understanding
the land and species in question:
The only thing that operates in Lac Du Bois is people management, and they
do a poor job of that. There is no resource management. … I think sometimes

108
that's the only thing that managers understand is protect, protect, protect. Not
manage. … [A]nd that's been the downfall of wildlife management. … You've
got to learn how to manage. That's the bottom line… It's almost like we're
only rationing rather than managing.
The absence of a continued and updated park management plans and land use planning
was brought up by Tom Dickinson, speaking specifically about Lac Du Bois, but more
generally about protected areas within BC:
I think people count on these parks, as being the reservoirs for [species at
risk]. I think there's not nearly enough funding put forward … following up
on the management. ... And it goes right beyond just the parks side of things,
it goes right to the land use planning side of things as well. … I think there
was a lot of hope, that by putting a good representative collection of protected
areas in place, and to put in place the protections necessary to make them
work, that that would be the thing that would keep our species that were
threatened outside the parks.
The anonymous participant also expressed that active management and more
intervention could have a positive impact, but tempered this with the reality that this level of
management requires resources that are likely not in the budget for protected areas:
I would like and hope, given the lack of firm direction on species at risk
legislation by the province, that a Provincial Park section would take the lead
on best management practices for conservation. Maybe not active
management, because you never have money for active management in a
park. But even if you had something, either more teeth or more means of
identifying, serving what you've got. Even knowing what the heck you've got
in your park. And being at the forefront of protecting, other than just saying,
“Oh, here's a land use designation or park zone designation, its natural
heritage or natural whatever, and we're just going to walk away and let it be”.
… I'd like to see more of that. More active management, more research. …
And then once you know the values, you know what to protect, you know
why it’s special, you know what you can do with it. … [Y]ou can’t conserve
something you don’t know.

Industry Effects on Conservation
The next theme centered on the effects that industry has on conservation and SAR
protections. Generally, participant’s experiences have been that industry operates in opposition
to SAR conservation. Dave Low found that industry played a role in the shift towards less
future-focused management of natural resources in the province. He described the types of

109
industry with the biggest impact as: “Industry, agriculture. Forestry and agriculture are our two
biggest land users in BC.” Expanding further on this:
[W]hen industry took over in the 1980s, industry forced the politicians to shut
down forest service almost. That's what happened. The managers in the forest
service were told to just basically always approve what industry says they
want. And that's where the resources went to hell because there was an
endpoint on the supply load.
Ian Barnett also brought up the influence of industry, in relation to discussion about the
harvesting of old-growth forest at Fairy Creek14:
It's a little bit of a farce, we’ve got legislation in place, and then you've got
activities that are still actively and likely impacting those species. So that's a
challenge. [A]nd I think people would argue well, the economics is what's
dictating it. I'm surprised in 2022 that that is still happening.
The economy driving SAR protections in the province was also echoed by Nathan
Matthew:
I think that there should be a change in attitude about our economic activities,
and our recreation activities in the territory just to make it more comfortable
for species that are having a tough time.
Trevor Goward also pointed to the strong influence of industry and economic interests
over the best interests of the SAR.
[A]s they’ve admitted within the last two years, that can’t possibly save
mountain caribou. They’re doomed. The very people whose function it is,
societal function, which is to look after the well-being of these animals, have
sold out to industry, and are behaving in league, basically, with industry to
keep the old growth forests needed by these caribou being logged. …
I think the larger picture is that we live in a neoliberal world where what's
important, ultimately, is the short-term economy. And anything that gets in
the way of that, will, just like the bison in days of yore, will be sacrificed in
the way. … It's structural. It's not the fault of any one person. It's buy-in by
people in power. … There are no tweaks possible. It's the entire system that
needs to be revamped. And very few people have the stomach for what that
would take. And so in the meantime, species are doomed.

14

Located in Pacheedaht First Nation Territory, northeast of Port Renfrew, BC.

110
Tay Briggs has experience working with forestry companies in the Wells Gray area,
and with the industry regulations and standards for logging in SAR habitat:
I had actually seen a caribou print in a place I had not seen one in forever, in
the wintertime, in the alpine. In the park, but quite close enough to the park
boundary as the crow flies from some of the proposed cut blocks. And I had
a professional forester tell me, ‘Seriously, why should we manage when
they're probably extinct anyway?’ And another one tell me ‘Yeah, but that was
just a track’. … And the other thing that was interesting about Canfor is they
informed me that they were certified through a stewardship program. …
[A]nd they had to meet those standards, which is great. … But when you go
and you ask them, where are the standards being applied, company-wide, they
can say that they're applying them in this place down here, and that place over
there, and they still get their certification. … They’re meeting some sort of a
loophole … all the audits were done through the company themselves. There's
no independent audits of this standard, of this certification.
Because of her experience in the area, Tay Briggs was able to expand more on the
forestry industry guidelines and legislation, and how accessible and complete it was.
I think it's quite obtuse. And I would like to give you a bit of an example.
When I was working with Canfor, when they were trying to develop high
elevation blocks, they said they would get a biologist in to do a character
study on the area, because we had expressed concern, because historically,
that area saw caribou. ... The biologist did a study and our committee asked
for access to it. And Canfor wouldn't give us access to the study. They
wouldn't let it be looked at in any way. And finally, after some pressing, they
said they would allow somebody to go to their office to look at it. … And I
was made to sit at the forester in charge’s desk to read that study, which was
less than a page and a half. And he wouldn't let me photograph it. And when
I started to take notes, he said I was taking too many notes. I would say that
the way that those issues were handled through forest companies, and I'm
using quotes now, the “Forest Practices Act”, was abysmal.
To expand further on the recourses that exist within the forestry industry to protect
SAR, I asked Tay Briggs about whether the industry was self-regulated or not:
What happens is … the culture of the industry. And what the industry values,
their set of values, are very, very different than the values of other users on
the land base. So basically, what you've done is given professional foresters
who are working for companies or even the government sole provenance to
manage according to their values. And the mechanism for bringing in public
input, which would bring in other values, not just wildlife but tourism, … or
water, industries that are concerned about watersheds. … But once that Act
was passed, none of those consultation, none of those other values are

111
required to be brought into the decision-making process. So, what happened
was there was corruption, of course, because they were logging in places
where other people's values weren't met. And what's the recourse? Once a
stream is destroyed, once a visual quality objective is not met, there is no
recourse. There is nothing.
Unlike with the conflicting interests between forestry and SAR described by other
participants in relation to Wells Gray, Tom Dickinson shared a look at how a different industry,
the cattle industry, had worked to reach a compromise about protecting the area of Lac Du
Bois:
On this land and resource management planning group, there were about 40
seats … and the biggest group that was relevant to Lac Du Bois were the
cattlemen and people associated with the cattle industry. … [I]n cattle
industry, one of the things that's most important … is the crown leases that
they have to go out and graze their cattle in different places. So, there was
this conflict that developed between the cattle industry on the one hand …
and folks like myself [that] wanted to protect the area. If you look at Lac Du
Bois, it’s called Lac Du Bois Grasslands Protected Area not Lac Du Bois
Grasslands Provincial Park. And that was the compromise that we came to,
the existing leaseholders on the lands that were included within the
boundaries of Lac Du Bois could continue to run their cattle on those leases,
they couldn't increase the number of head of cattle on them. And they had to
monitor what the impact on the grasslands were. … I think that was that was
a sort of compromise situation. But as it turned out, it was a pretty good winwin situation, because what it did is it put aside any commercial development
for things like gravel pits, or housing or other things. Lac Du Bois is an area
that would stand on its own for the values that it has to biodiversity.

Communicating the Importance of Species at Risk Protections
The next theme had to do with addressing concerns and interests that are apparently in
conflict with SAR conservation. In particular, the effect that implementing new SAR
regulations, and limiting natural resource industry, would have on communities that rely on
those industries. Ian Barnett spoke about the importance of communicating and sharing
information with the public when it comes to SAR conservation:
The public, maybe I'm naive, but I think the public, if spoken to with some
degree of honesty and accuracy, would be supportive, of either helping
support themselves, or helping the government's support, or helping the
university support or helping private NGOs, become more active in
conservation. I do believe it, but the public needs to have these cases brought
in front of them. Some way of doing that is having more information at

112
strategic sites. … I think it could be more readily available to people and
could be more accurate, more compelling.
Tay Briggs works out of Clearwater, a community that had strong connections to
forestry and lumber industries. She also has, as part of her work with SAR, been at meetings
with rural communities where SAR and industry conflicts have been discussed:
People in small communities, by and large, are not being spoken to in the way
they need to be spoken to, to understand the issue facing them. … I said,
‘Here's the way I look at it. We can either make some sacrifices now and have
caribou or we can make those exact same sacrifices in five years and not have
them’. And the guy at Canfor who ran that mill stood up at that meeting and
told me ‘I'm here to tell you Canfor’s here for the long run’ because I had said
in five years, there will be no Canfor here. We do not have the timber base.
… And a week later, I kid you not, Canfor permanently shut down their
operations here. So basically, resource towns in BC are being led to think that
by sacrificing the caribou they will have sustainable sources of timber, and
that is not the way it works. We are busy wiping our timber out whether we
try to save the caribou or not. … And I think that's partially our land managers
fault because we've never been really, really honest about what's happening
in our timber industry.
Tay Briggs also suggested that one option to lessen the impacts that would be felt by
restricting resource extraction would be to invest in the communities most affected, including
helping them to diversify the local economy:
Here's the thing to me is that the hard decisions, especially for charismatic
megafauna that are like caribou … are going to take larger pieces of the landbase out of resource extraction, impact small community. And I remember …
when they came out with the $20 million, which they set aside for caribou
recovery in BC … saying the best thing you could have done was not give
that to a bunch of land use managers who are just trying to justify their choices
on the ground, but pick out the communities that would be most impacted by
making the hard decisions that would have to be made to save those species,
and giving the money to them. Giving them the resources they need to pick
whatever industry might help save their small town and push it. … The great
irony is it's coming to all resource towns anyways, already hit most of them.
… But those sorts of decisions, and the reasons why the province has not
made those decisions yet, the reason why the province has no provincial
legislation is because the resource industry is a very strong lobby. And as soon
as the resource industry says, “oh, gosh, that is going to involve habitat, which
is going to involve trees”. Then they’re going to call up every small town, and
every small town MLA, and the shit’s going to hit the fan. … So to me, there
has to be a component that helps give resources back to small communities
because the fact of the matter is, these are the communities that all the

113
resources around their areas have been drained to feed urban areas in BC and
they all know it, and they resent it. Without that kind of buy in, it’s very, very
hard.
Nathan Matthew shared the importance of not just communicating with communities,
but with building understanding about SAR and ecosystems into education.
But we're doing it, we have the same general idea. From the same First
Nation’s perspective, we want to protect the local economy, the small towns
and villages up and down the Thompson and the Robson Valleys just to make
them economically viable. So, to do more planning where the people that live
in the area have more say in how their resources are used. And of course,
having ourselves, as an Indigenous group, have a very clear say. Another
piece I think that's really important is just education. What we educate our
kids to. … [J]ust learning about them and gaining a better appreciation as
young people. I think it's really important in terms of ultimately developing
ideas about how all the natural resources can be better respected and
preserved.

Suggested Improvements to Species at Risk Conservation Moving
Forward
The next theme dealt with changes the participants would like to see if new SAR
legislation was developed, and key areas that needed to be included in any attempt to do so. It
also dealt with shifts to public discourse and education in relation to conserving vulnerable
ecosystems and species in BC. Nathan Matthew placed an importance on education:
I think I mentioned it, but I would emphasize education, get the public onside
and get them to know about stuff. Particularly younger people, and not just
those that live in the country, but those who listen in the towns. And lots of
research, spend more money that you make out of converting the resources
out there into cash, using more of that cash to do research on animal, and even
plant species. Just to keep up sort of a good database on what's happening out
in the world and actually doing what works. I think everybody's pretty
concerned about the caribou. But nobody's really doing what it takes. They
say, well, we'll do everything but stop logging. Or we'll do everything except
stop running our snowmobiles around the mountains where the animals are.
So, something has to give if we're going to give a full respect to those animals
that we feel have a place in this world too.
He also emphasized the importance of increasing knowledge about what is happening
to species and their habitats:

114
I think, certainly, we need good evidence to show the relative numbers of
endangered or listed species and in terms of where they are, and how many,
and whether or not the numbers are going up or down or whatever. … I know,
it’s a lot of work, but I think a lot more research should go into the relative
health of the number of species that are out there. Don't wait till suddenly
somebody realizes, ‘Oh, my goodness, we haven't seen any more whooping
cranes’ or something. … So you need, in some cases, quite a broad based
spectrum, or an area to do research in, because if you just stand in one place,
you don't get much of a picture.
Ian Barnett similarly expressed the importance of sharing and disseminating
information about SAR, and how they are being protected:
In general, I think we've come a long way, but I still think we need to take it
a lot more seriously. And that means having more information in these areas
that we're looking at. For instance, we know that Lac Du Bois has X number
of species at risk. And yet, at the same time, there's a significant increase in
invasives. Plus we've got fires, and we've got climate change. So do we have
any predictive models for the future? What should we be doing to try to
conserve the areas for either the present species or the future. I do think that
we need to continue … understanding the values of the areas.
Tom Dickinson also felt that expanding and improving research and knowledge bases
around SAR was key to effective conservation:
I really don't think we know very much about these rich natural resources in
supernatural BC at all, we haven’t really had an ongoing set of biologists on
the ground, who are recording in detail what is necessary to understand
whether or not populations are increasing or decreasing. I think there has to
be attention paid to what those resources are, and what are the threats, and
whether or not, over time, we've seen changes that are appreciable. And I
almost guarantee that if we did that, we'd be amazed at the diversity that we
didn't know was out there. …
Tay Briggs felt that even when there is research and information known about a species,
there has not been enough action taken in response to that information:
Well, speaking for caribou because that's what I know best right now, the
research is there. As a matter of fact, even the federal site says the main reason
for the loss of caribou is the loss of habitat. And yet, since that was written,
there's been very little effort, in my personal opinion, or very little sacrifice
of terrain or forest practices in an effort to accommodate that. Certainly not
enough. You know, it all comes down to money. … Somehow, there has to be
a change, and that has to be changing a couple of things. And one of them is
enforce legislation. … Right now, nobody sacrifices. Or what people perceive

115
as a sacrifice we have to make to ensure the survival of some of these species,
people aren’t willing to make, and the great irony, great irony of all of that is
we are going to be in the same place between five and 10 years either with
caribou, or without caribou. Whether somebody has the ovaries or the balls
to do something about it now or not.
The anonymous participant expressed that one gap that needed to be filled in when it
comes to SAR conservation is enforceability:
[T]his province doesn't necessarily need a species at risk act if they can put
in place policies, procedures, or best management practices that have enough
teeth to protect, identify, and conserve the species at risk. I don't know if that's
really the case in this province. So maybe they do need a species at risk act.
The challenging part is once you build something like that, you do have to
maintain it, you do have to work at it, it's not just build it and walk away. …
So, even if you get a species at risk act, it's not the panacea.
They also stated that there should be greater protections for ecosystems as a whole:
The one thing I think we don't see very good protection on that I think needs
greater oversight is ecosystems. We have Blue and Red Listed species, and
because they're protected under the Wildlife Act, you can't harm them. So
there's high level stuff that you can't do. But there's nothing for ecosystems.
Trevor Goward felt that provincial legislation on SAR would be a good idea, but that
the most important change would be for governments to act on their promises to protect the
environment, and enforce the legislation they do have:
Well, bringing a species at risk act would be a good idea, provincially. Having
said that, there is a Species at Risk Act federally, SARA, and I've been involved
in trying to … get some action through that Act on behalf of the deep-snow
mountain caribou. And the government is not even following its own laws.
It's a difficult question. … [G]overnments are sometimes doing the lip work.
But there's really nothing happening that's going to give these animals a
future. … Where I’d I like to see it, but I don't believe that the government
will. … And with a few exceptions, I don't think that any of the animals that
have been recognized as endangered in Canada, threatened or endangered,
have had any real action applied to them. Recovery action, there are recovery
reports, but they amount to very little. They're recommendations. … Almost
never does that happen. And without that these the animals will disappear.
They're already disappearing.

116
As a final note on the interviews, I will include two quotes that give opposing views on
the future of SAR in BC, one expressing a belief that we can take actions to lead to a positive
outcome, and one fearing that we have already lost the chance at that future:
Tom Dickinson: I remember when I was young, seeing Globe and Mail
headline that said, “The Great Lakes are dead”. Right. And it was because of
the pollutants that were entering it, from the American side in particular. …
So, I've actually seen a resilience at a big level in ecosystems … [W]hen you
really do look at it. [R]ight now with [2021] summer and those fires and
everything, I tell you, nature was fighting back pretty good. And I think there's
a resilience of nature, that if we just give it a chance, and we don't continue
to hamper its ability to recover, it’d go a great long way.
Trevor Goward: My experiences, it's been very dispiriting. And there's
nothing to be done except revolution. But a revolution is not going to happen.
Because for various reasons … they're simply distracted with their own
stories, not the larger stories. … Canada has about one quarter of the wooded,
forested wilderness of the world. It's a sparsely populated country by global
standards, if there were to be a country where an animal like the caribou could
have survive, it ought to have been Canada, which is also wealthy country, an
educated country. And it simply hasn’t happened. And so now we come to the
point that if we can't find enough caring, as a society, for an iconic species
like the deep-snow mountain caribou, then we don't have enough caring for
our children. … And that's why, had we, as a country, found the resolve to
look after the species, we would have had the resolve to look after our young
people, but we did not, and so your future’s been spent.

Discussion
Interview participants generally felt that there was not enough action to conserve SAR
in BC. They expressed that they would like to see this taken more seriously in the province.
The necessity of including Indigenous perspectives and Traditional Ecological Knowledge into
developing or updating SAR legislation and management practices was another a through-line
between interviews. This reflects and reinforces the most recent Hansard discussions seen in
the previous chapter where consultation with Indigenous groups has been vaunted by
politicians as a key component to SAR legislation.
The role of industry and the economy also contributed to how interview participants
viewed SAR protection and conservation in BC. Without means of enforcement, even the best
industry guidelines will have no effect. Participant suggestions ranged that self-regulation and

117
internal discipline for industry guideline compliance was a contributing factor to negative
impacts on SAR. Another repeated suggestion was to use money generated from industry or
set aside for conservation to promote education and to assist with transitioning local economies
away from a reliance on resource extraction. There was also a call to communicate with those
communities most likely to be affected by new SAR legislation more transparently about the
long-term lifespans of the industries they prop up conservation interests.
Indeed, the importance of knowing what is going on with species was another major
takeaway from the interviews. Participants called for a focus on education around SAR, and
fostering a sense of responsibility towards the environment and the other species we share the
province with. Another recurring theme was increasing research on ecosystems and SAR,
including gathering information about population sizes, life history, and the habitat features
they need to thrive. Following that theme, participants also raised concerns that “protection”
of species was not the same as “management” of those species, and that more involved and
proactive measures would be preferable over simply identifying land to designate as a
protected area and expecting that to be sufficient for species recovery.

Conclusion
The interviews supported what I found in the other chapters of this research. From the
perspective of BC’s conservation community there is an absence of meaningful action taken
on SAR conservation and protection in BC. While dedicated legislation may not be the
proverbial silver bullet that resolves the many systemic issues that are failing our species,
absence of clear and thorough legislated requirements only enables insufficient management
practices. Increased education expanded research on species life-history, and a commitment to
upholding and enforcing promises and protections are all themes that came up in the
interviews. Proponents of dedicated SAR legislation also believe these are important inclusions
for new or updated legislation (Westwood et al., 2019).
Perhaps the most persistent theme across multiple interviews is the critical role that
Indigenous viewpoints and collaboration must play a role in any changes to BC’s conservation
approach. This echoes not only the calls to action for developing new legislation, (Westwood
et al., 2019), but also the shift in political debates explored in the Hansard in Chapter 4.

118
However, interview participants also expressed a sense of urgency in relation to SAR. There
are more than 200 Indigenous nations and communities in BC, and each is made up of
individuals, not a monolith of shared opinions and ideas. It will not be a quick task to
meaningfully incorporate Indigenous perspectives and Traditional Knowledge into legislation.
There is a clock ticking on SAR and taking the time to work with Indigenous groups should
not be used as a reason to forestall taking any action in the interim. Species do not have time
for the best possible solution to be developed, they need imminent and ongoing action if we
are to prevent extinctions.

119

References
BC Parks. (n.d.-a). Lac Du Bois Protected Area. Retrieved October 27, 2023, from
https://bcparks.ca/lac-du-bois-grasslands-protected-area/
BC

Parks. (n.d.-b). Wells Gray Park.
https://bcparks.ca/wells-gray-park/

Retrieved

October

27,

2023,

from

British Columbia. (n.d.). Types of parks and protected areas.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Grasslands Conservation Council of BC. (n.d.). Threatened. Retrieved October 31, 2023, from
https://bcgrasslands.org/
Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball sampling: a purposeful method of
sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3),
67670. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670
Westwood, A. R., Otto, S. P., Mooers, A., Darimont, C., Hodges, K. E., Johnson, C.,
Starzomski, B. M., Burton, C., Chan, K. M. A., Festa-Bianchet, M., Fluker, S., Gulati,
S., Jacob, A. L., Kraus, D., Martin, T. G., Palen, W. J., Reynolds, J. D., & Whitton, J.
(2019). Protecting biodiversity in British Columbia: Recommendations for developing
species at risk legislation. FACETS, 4, 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-20180042

120

Chapter 6 – The Case for Species at Risk Legislation in BC
The astounding deterioration of biodiversity worldwide, mainly attributable to human
activities, is a problem that only increases in severity. While human actions have contributed
to creating perilous situations for vulnerable species, it is human inaction to rectify and
remediate the damage that was the focus of this research. Without meaningful changes to how
species are managed, many will go extinct. The ramifications from the loss of those species to
ecosystems will be devastating and will further destabilize ecosystem and biodiversity health.

How Does BC’s Legislation Measure Up?
In Canada, species at risk (SAR) are not treated uniformly across all provinces. By
almost all the metrics I used in this research, BC, and the other provinces without designated
legislation, fall behind provinces with SAR legislation. There are many gaps within BC’s
legislation when compared to provinces with designated legislation. One of the most
significant is the absence of any legislative requirements for conservation plans for listed
species. While listing a species is crucial to ensure that any additional protections for listed
species are in place, that is a reactive measure of protection, only deterring or punishing
individual offences against that species. On the other hand, conservation plans represent a
government’s commitment to taking proactive steps towards safeguarding, and hopefully
ameliorating, the status of listed species. BC has one of the lowest ratios of published
conservation plans to listed species.
However, where the legislation exists, courts are willing to uphold it, with provinces
without designated legislation also having courts that tend to decide in favour of SAR more
than the courts in provinces with designated legislation. While this could be the result of fewer
cases needing to be considered by courts in provinces with SAR legislation, courts are willing
to protect listed species. This means that listing status remains an important metric of how SAR
protected.
The situation in BC is unlikely to change in the immediate future. Despite initial
promises and commitments to amending and improving BC’s SAR legislation, the current
government has yet to take any steps since coming into power in 2017. BC’s current legislation

121
is also not effective from the perspectives of the interview participants. It is not a situation
where effective on-the-ground conservation surmounts weaknesses of the on-paper legislation.
Participant interviews did not paint current conservation efforts in a favourable light, even
those occurring within protected areas. Outside of the boundaries of protected areas, SAR
conservation is in even more dire straits.

The Necessity of Designated Provincial Legislation
In the Hansard discussion for BC, some of the pushback against taking actions to enact
new SAR legislation is that existing legislation, including federal legislation, already covers
the same protections, rendering any new legislation redundant. However, there are several
reasons why leaving it all to federal legislation does not give vulnerable species the best chance
at protection and survival. Putting aside the initial barrier of federal legislation only applying
in specific areas, the “backup” provisions in SARA that allow federal legislation to apply
anywhere have only been employed sparingly since 2002. Only two species have emergency
orders under s. 34 of SARA, the provision that extends protection from killing, harming, and
damaging the residence of a listed species. These species are the greater sage-grouse
(Emergency Order for the Protection of the Greater Sage-Grouse, SOR/2013-202) and the
western chorus frog (Emergency Order for the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog (Great
Lakes / St. Lawrence — Canadian Shield Population), SOR/2016-211.; Emergency Order for
the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog Great Lakes / St. Lawrence — Canadian Shield
Population (Longueuil), SOR/2021-231).
Despite the concerns expressed in the Hansard (see Chapter 4), the federal
government’s intervention for boreal caribou was not an order made under s.34 of SARA, but
rather s.58, which prohibits the destruction of habitat identified as “critical habitat” to a listed
species if “the critical habitat is on federal land”15 (Critical Habitat of the Woodland Caribou
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) Boreal Population Order, SOR/2019-188). While the order
establishes critical habitat within BC, it does not implement the SARA backup provisions

15

For species that are not aquatic or migratory birds.

122
because it does not apply to land that is provincially managed (Order Summary: Critical
Habitat of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer Tarandus Caribou), Boreal Population Order,
2021).
The other well-known BC species that has been considered for an emergency order
under SARA is the orca. While orcas are aquatic species, and therefore under federal
jurisdiction, the government did make two orders establishing critical habitat (Critical Habitat
of the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific Southern Resident Population Order,
SOR/2018-278; Critical Habitat of the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific
Northern Resident Population Order, SOR/2018-279). However, the government declined to
make an emergency order for the protection of the southern resident population of orcas (Order
Declining to Make an Emergency Order for the Protection of the Killer Whale Northeast
Pacific Southern Resident Population, SI/2018-102). Both caribou and orcas have extensive
habitats in areas that overlap industrial ambitions for resource extraction or shipping. Indeed,
while economic interests are not explicitly mentioned as the reason the government declined
to make an order for the protection of the orca populations, they were “considered” in making
the decisions. In contrast, the western chorus frog emergency protection orders did not cover
nearly the same expanse of land and were less likely to conflict with industrial development
ambitions. Much of the pushback for the western chorus frog, as found in the court cases
assessed for Chapter 3, was from private housing developers in relation to purchased land could
no longer be developed.
Beyond the historical unwillingness of the federal government to intervene for SAR, it
is too unpredictable to rely on federal legislation alone. An example is the recent SCC decision
Re Impact Assessment Act (2023 SCC 23). While not directly relating to SAR, the decision
dealt with environmental law jurisdiction. The Province of Alberta challenged the Federal
Impact Assessment Act, claiming that the provisions, particularly those that triggered an
automatic federal review for certain “designated projects” was ultra vires the federal
government’s jurisdiction. The SCC did find that the “designated projects” provisions
unconstitutional, as the projects in question could be entirely within provincial heads of power
(2023 SCC 23).

123
Given the uncertainty around which head of power the environment falls under, the
SCC’s finding in Re Impact Assessment Act should warn against over-reliance on federal
environmental legislation to backstop any deficiencies within provincial legislative schemes.
The Species at Risk Act only applies on federal land, which makes up only a fraction of the
Canadian geographic area, particularly in western provinces like BC. Additionally, the federal
government has historically been unwilling to implement the failsafe provisions in the Species
at Risk Act designed to overcome the limited area of application in the absence of provincial
action. Vulnerable species cannot rely on federal legislation as the sole means of protection.
Provinces must be meaningfully involved in protecting their SAR.

Conclusion and Further Research
This research shows that provinces play a critical role in conserving SAR. While
designated SAR legislation is not strictly essential in fulfilling that role, the provinces without
designated legislation are unquestionably less effective at protecting SAR. In BC, it is not only
a matter of hypothetical weaknesses or oversights that might arise from a decentralized
approach. There are existing gaps in BC’s protections, and those gaps already impact
vulnerable species and ecosystems.
Individuals with ties to SAR and protected areas noticed and lamented the
government’s inaction in participant interviews. Additionally, the current political stance on
SAR in BC gives little hope for the situation to change in the near future. Until designated
legislation is implemented requiring better and more thorough protections, BC’s SAR must
rely on policy-based or discretionary action from the government to conserve their future.
Designated SAR legislation that is clear, thorough, and enforceable is a crucial component in
the campaign to prevent the loss of BC’s many and varied species. While designated SAR
legislation may not be the only possible means of remedying these impacts, this research shows
that some further action is needed.
This research only began to touch on the complexity that is effective SAR management
in BC, and in Canada. One crucial area of further research would be a trans-systemic approach
incorporating Indigenous laws and values on conservation in addition to the colonial legal
system examined in this research. This is an entire additional layer of complexity that could

124
not fit into this project but is, as noted by both MLAs in Chapter 4, and by the interview
participants in Chapter 5, an essential component in progressing SAR protections in the future.
On a similar note, Quebec was excluded from this research despite historically being seen as a
leader in Canadian conservation. Research comparing Quebec to the other Canadian provinces
would be of importance, perhaps with a focus on how civil law principles alter relationships to
the environment compared to the common law approach.
Another area that could be expanded on from this work is to go beyond the presence of
conservation plans examined in Chapter 2 by looking into the content of those plans. Important
factors are the thoroughness of species life history and habitat identification, the scientific
evidence behind target setting for population maintenance and recovery, and whether the
actions and funding in the plans can meet those goals. A final area of additional research would
be looking at how SAR listing decisions and conservation plans are incorporated into other
government decision-making processes, with a potential focus on Environmental Impact
Assessments required at both provincial and federal levels.

125

References
Critical Habitat of the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific Northern Resident
Population Order, SOR/2018-279.
Critical Habitat of the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific Southern Resident
Population Order, SOR/2018-278.
Critical Habitat of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Boreal Population
Order, SOR/2019-188.
Emergency Order for the Protection of the Greater Sage-Grouse, SOR/2013-202.
Emergency Order for the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes / St. Lawrence
— Canadian Shield Population), SOR/2016-211.
Emergency Order for the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog Great Lakes / St. Lawrence
— Canadian Shield Population (Longueuil), SOR/2021-231.
Order Declining to make an Emergency Order for the protection of the Killer Whale Northeast
Pacific Southern Resident Population, SI/2018-102.
Order Summary: Critical Habitat of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal
Population
Order.
(2021).
https://www.registrelepsararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/Cho-BorealCaribouSommaireSummary-v002021Jun-Eng.pdf.
Re Impact Assessment Act., 2023 SCC 23.
Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29.

126

Appendix I – Table of Legislation
Jurisdiction

Title

Year

Enacting
Gov.

Search
-ability
of Title

Listed
on Gov.
Website

BC

# of
Average
Pieces Searchability
13 (10 1.92
listed)

Ecological
Reserve
Regulation,
BC Reg
335/75

1975

BC New
Democratic
Party

3

Yes

Designation
and
Exemption
Regulation,
BC Reg
168/90

1990

BC Social
Credit Party

1

No

Wildlife Act,
RSBC 1996,
c 488

1996

BC New
Democratic
Party

3

Yes

Forest
Practices
Code of BC
Act, RSBC
1996, c 159

1996

BC New
Democratic
Party

1

No

Ecological
Reserve Act,
RSBC 1996,
c 103

1996

BC New
Democratic
Party

3

Yes

Park Act,
RSBS 1996,
c 344

1996

BC New
Democratic
Party

3

Yes

Land Act,
RSBC 1996,
c 245

1996

BC New
Democratic
Party

1

Yes

Permit
Regulation,
BC Reg
253/2000

2000

BC New
Democratic
Party

1

No

127

Forest and
Range
Practices
Act, SBC
2002, c 69

2002

BC Liberal
Party*

1

Yes

Government
Actions
Regulations,
BC Reg
582/2004

2004

BC Liberal
Party

1

Yes

Oil and Gas
2008
Activities Act,
SBC 2008, c
36

BC Liberal
Party

1

Yes

Environment
al Protection
and
Management
Regulation,
BC Reg
200/2010

2010

BC Liberal
Party

3

Yes

Park,
Conservancy
and
Recreation
Area
Regulation,
BC Reg
210/2018

2018

BC New
Democratic
Party

3

Yes

AB

SK

Wildlife
Regulation,
Alta Reg
143/1997

1997

Progressive
Conservative

3

Yes

Wildlife Act,
RSA 2000, c
W-10

2000

Progressive
Conservative

3

Yes

2 (2
listed)

3

2 (2
listed)

4.5

128

Wildlife Act,
SS 1998, c
W-13.12

1998

Saskatchewan New
Democratic
Party

4

Yes

The Wild
Species at
Risk
Regulations,
RRS c
W13.11 Reg
1

1999

Saskatchewan New
Democratic
Party

5

Yes

MB
Endangered
Species and
Ecosystems
Act, CCSM c
E111

1990

New
Democratic
Party of
Manitoba

5

2007

Ontario
Liberal Party

5

1987

Progressive
Conservative
Party of New
Brunswick

1

No

Wildlife Trust 2002
Fund and
Wildlife
Council
Regulation,
NB Reg
2002-6

Progressive
Conservative
Party of New
Brunswick

3

No

Species at
Risk Act,
RSNB 2012,
c6

New
Brunswick
Liberal
Association

5

Yes

2012

1 (1
listed)

5

3 (1
listed)

3

Yes

NB
Provincial
Offences
Procedure
Act, SNB
1987, c P22.1

5

Yes

ON
Endangered
Species Act,
SO 2007, c 6

1 (1
listed)

129

NS
Endangered
Species Act,
SNS 1998, c
11

1998

Nova Scotia
Liberal Party

5

1998

PEI Liberal
Party

3

Endangered
Species Act,
SNL 2001, c
E-10.1

2001

Liberal Party
of
Newfoundland and
Labrador

5

Yes

Species
Status
Advisory
Committee
Regulations,
94/01, OC
2001-754

2001

Liberal Party
of
Newfoundland and
Labrador

3

Yes

Fed
2002

Liberal Party
of Canada

5

1 (1
listed)

3

2 (1
listed)

4

1 (1
listed)

5

Yes

NL

Species at
Risk Act, SC
2002, c 29

5

Yes

PEI
Wildlife
Conservation
Act, RSPEI
1998, c W4.1

1 (1
listed)

Yes

* As of April 2023, the BC Liberal Party was renamed the BC United Party

130

Appendix II – Scoring Rubric for Legislation
SCORE FOR INCLUDED ELEMENTS:
0 – not included, 1 – incomplete/nominal and discretionary, 2 – incomplete and nondiscretionary partially discretionary, 3 – vague/uncertain if complete and non-discretionary
or partially discretionary, 4 – complete but discretionary, 5 – complete and mandatory
Score Multiplier: x1 – tangential (nice to have), x2 – supporting provision, x3 – core
practical/essential provisions.
OVERALL QUESTIONS:
How searchable is legislation? (1- Bad – no directly relevant terms, 2 – Long title includes
terms, but not short title, 3 – OK, title includes related terms like species, wildlife,
endangered, 4 – Long title is descriptive, short title includes term, 5 – Good – name is
specific and descriptive (species at risk, endangered species, threatened species)
How many total pieces of legislation required to find provisions (including statutes and
regulations):
Jurisdiction:
Short Title and Reference:
Long Title:
Date Assented to:
Government Party:
Searchable:
Number of sources:
Topic

Score

Multiplier

PURPOSE/PREAMBLE
Clearly aimed at
protecting species
at risk?

X2

Co-governance or
incorporation of
Indigenous
traditional
knowledge or
laws?

X2

Protection of
critical habitat one
of purposes of act

X2

DEFINITIONS

Section #

Additional
Section

Notes

131

Definition of
critical habitat

X2

Definition of
dwelling or
residence
Definition of
Endangered

X2

Definition of
Extirpated
Definition of
habitat
Definition of
Special Concern
Definition of
Species at Risk

X2

Definition of
Threatened

X2

GENERAL PROVISIONS
All types of species
are protected by
the act

X3

Sub-species units
are protected

X3

Protections apply
everywhere

X3

LISTING PROCESS
Listing process is
clearly established

X3

Listing
recommendations
are based on
scientific
reasoning

X3

Listing
recommendations
are made by
independent body

X2

Independent body
includes
representatives
from science,

X2

132
environment,
biology
backgrounds
Threats are
included in listing
decision
Public/scientists
can recommend
species to listing
body

X2

Listing is
automatic

X3

Reasons are
provided for
listing decisions

X2

Listing decisions
are subject to a
deadline

X2

Emergency
expedited listing
process for
imminent threats

X3

Status of listed
species is reviewed
periodically

X2

PROTECTIONS
Protections apply
automatically to
all listed species

X3

Automatically
include federally
listed species

X2

(Provincially listed
for SARA)
Protection from
killing

X3

Protecting from
harming/harassing

X3

Protection from
trafficking

X3

Protection of
offspring/parts

X3

133

Exemptions to
protection
(hunting licenses,
etc.) are limited
and clearly
established

X3

Exemptions
require reasons

X2

CRITICAL HABITAT
Requirement to
identify critical
habitat

X3

Deadline to
identify habitat

X2

Habitat is
automatically
protected

X3

Industry projects
must comply with
regulations

X3

Establishment of
new protected
areas for critical
habitat

X2

PROTECTION PLANS/RECOVERY PLANS
Protection
plans/recovery
plans are required

X3

Protection
plans/recovery
plans require
identification of
threats to
individuals,
habitat

X2

Deadline for
protection plans

X2

Recovery goals are
science based

X3

134

Ecosystem or
multi-species
recovery plans
where sciencebased evidence
applies

X2

Action plans or
concrete steps for
recovery process
must be set out

X3

Action plans must
address threats to
species including
threats to critical
habitat

X3

Deadlines for
action plans

X2

Regular
monitoring of
recovery process is
required

X3

Recovery plan
monitoring done
by independent
body

X2

Protection
committees are
established

X2

Committees are
independent

X2

TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND ADMINISTRATION
Regular
reports/reviews of
legislative
effectiveness
required
Independent
oversight
committee is
established
Funding for
recovery plans is
guaranteed

X2

135

Emergency Order
Availability

X2

Regulations must
be made to expand
protections where
needed

X3

Conservation
Agreements with
other jurisdictions
must be
considered for
species that cross
jurisdictional
boundaries
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement
authority is
provided for in the
act

X3

Breaches of act
can be reported by
public/scientists

X2

Deadlines to
investigate
reported breaches

X2

Offences and
punishment
provisions

X3

Corporate
Offences included

X3

Corporate liability
scales with
corporate net
worth
Fines are
earmarked for
restoration

X2

INDIGENOUS CONSULTATION AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
Consultation and
Indigenous
Knowledge
integrated
throughout the act

X3

136

Indigenous
knowledge
integrated into
listing decisions

X3

Indigenous
knowledge
integrated into
recovery plans

X3

Indigenous title
and treaty rights
concerning species
at risk are
recognized and
protected by the
act

X3

NOTES:

137

Appendix III – Species Listing Decision and Conservation
Plan Sources
Federa
l

Species search

https://species-registry.canada.ca/indexen.html#/species?sortBy=commonNameSort&sortDirect
ion=asc&pageSize=10

BC

BC Species and
Ecosystems

https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/

Recovery documents

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants
-animals-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-atrisk/recovery-planning/recovery-planning-documents

Wild Species Status
Search

alberta.ca/lookup/wild-species-status-search.aspx

Plant species at risk

alberta.ca/plant-species-at-risk

Species at risk Resources

alberta.ca/species-at-risk-resources

AB

*NOTE: Alberta’s
recovery plan status was
updated in April 2023,
after the collection date
for this project.
SK

*New:
https://www.alberta.ca/system/files/custom_downloaded
_images/epa-status-of-provincial-recovery-plans.pdf

The Wild Species at Risk
Regulations, (1999)
Chapter W-13.11 Reg 1

Accessible from:
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmentalprotection-and-sustainability/wildlife-andconservation/wildlife-species-at-risk

Woodland Caribou

Accessible from:
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmentalprotection-and-sustainability/wildlife-andconservation/wildlife-species-at-risk/woodland-caribou

Species and Ecosystems
at Risk

https://www.gov.mb.ca/nrnd/fishwildlife/wildlife/ecosystems/index.html

Conserving a Boreal Icon
– Manitoba’s Boreal
Woodland Caribou
Recovery Strategy

Accessible from: https://gov.mb.ca/nrnd/fishwildlife/resource/articles-and-publications.html

ON

Species at risk in Ontario

https://www.ontario.ca/page/species-risk-ontario

NB

Species at Risk Public
Registry

https://www1.gnb.ca/0078/SpeciesAtRisk/searche.asp?_gl=1*qo53p5*_ga*MzY5ODY5MzQ5LjE3MD
AwNzI2ODM.*_ga_F531P4D0XX*MTcwMDA3MjY4

MB

138
My4xLjAuMTcwMDA3MjY5My4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2
.229386076.1985099530.1700072683369869349.1700072683
NS

Species at Risk –
Recovery Update

https://novascotia.ca/natr/wildlife/species-at-risk/

PEI

Species at Risk – PEI

https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/envir
onment-energy-and-climate-action/species-at-risk-pei

NL

Species at Risk

https://www.gov.nl.ca/ffa/wildlife/endangeredspecies/

139

Appendix IV – List of Case Law Search Terms
All searches were filtered to only include cases as results.

Database Jurisdiction filters

Search term

Westlaw

none

“species at risk act”

Westlaw

none

“endangered species”

Westlaw

Ontario

“Endangered Species Act” (ON)

Westlaw

none

“Species at Risk Act” (federal)

Westlaw

Nova Scotia

“Endangered Species Act” (NS)

Westlaw

Saskatchewan

“The Wildlife Act” (SK)

Westlaw

Saskatchewan

“Wild Species at Risk Regulations”

Westlaw

BC

“Wildlife Act” (BC)

Westlaw

Alberta

“Wildlife Regulation”

Westlaw

PEI

“Wildlife Conservation Act”

Westlaw

BC

“Forest and Range Practices Act”

Westlaw

BC

“Environmental Protection and Management
Regulation”

Westlaw

BC

“Permit Regulation”

Westlaw

BC

“Ecological Reserves Act”

Westlaw

BC

“Land Act”

Westlaw

BC

“Oil and Gas Activities Act”

Westlaw

BC

“Park Act”

Westlaw

Manitoba

“Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act”

Westlaw

Saskatchewan

“Captive Wildlife Regulations”

Westlaw

New Brunswick

“Species at Risk Act” (NB)

Westlaw

Alberta

“Wildlife Act” (AB)

Westlaw

PEI

“Wildlife Conservation Act”

Westlaw

Newfoundland and
Labrador

“Endangered Species Act” (NL)

CanLII

none

“species at risk”

CanLII

none

“endangered species”

CanLII

none

“threatened species”

140

CanLII

none

“Species at Risk Act” (federal)

CanLII

BC

“Wildlife Act” (BC)

CanLII

BC

“Park Act”

CanLII

BC

“Land Act”

CanLII

BC

“Forest and Range Practices Act”

CanLII

BC

“Oil and Gas Activities Act”

CanLII

Alberta

“Wildlife Act” (AB)

CanLII

Saskatchewan

“Wildlife Act” (SK)

CanLII

Manitoba

“Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act”

CanLII

Ontario

“Endangered Species Act” (ON)

CanLII

New Brunswick

“Species at Risk Act” (NB)

CanLII

Nova Scotia

“Endangered Species Act” (NS)

CanLII

PEI

“Wildlife Conservation Act”

CanLII

Newfoundland and
Labrador

“Endangered Species Act” (NL)

141

Appendix V – List of Cases in Data Set
0707814 BC Ltd. v British Columbia
(Assistant Regional Water Manager),
[2008] BCWLD 1993

Benninger v Central Almaguin
(Planning Board), 2019 CarswellOnt
18585

9255-2504 Québec Inc. v Canada, 2022
FCA 43

Bovaird v Director, Ministry of the
Environment, [2013] OERTD No. 87

Adam v Canada (Minister of the
Environment), 2011 FC 962

British Columbia (Ministry of Forests,
Lands, Natural Resources and Rural
Development), Re, 2018 BCIPC 44

Ahousaht Indian Band v Canada
(Minister of Fisheries & Oceans), 2008
FCA 212
Alberta Wilderness Assn. v Canada
(Attorney General), 2013 FCA 190
Alberta Wilderness Assn. v Canada
(Minister of Environment), 2009 FC 710
Alliance to Protect Prince Edward
County v Director, Ministry of the
Environment, [2013] OERTD No. 40
ANC Timber Ltd. V Alberta (Minister of
Agriculture and Forestry), 2019 ABQB
710
Association for the Protection of
Amherst Island v Ontario (Environment
and Climate Change), [2016] OERTD
No. 36
Atlantic Salmon Federation (Canada) v
Newfoundland (Environment and
Climate Change), 2017 NLTD(G) 137
Bain v Director, Ministry of the
Environment, [2014] OERTD No. 13
Bancroft v Nova Scotia (Lands and
Forestry), 2022 NSCA 78
Bancroft v Nova Scotia (Lands and
Forestry), 2019 NSSC 205
Bancroft v Nova Scotia (Lands and
Forests), 2020 NSSC 175

Burns Bog Conservation Society v
Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC
1024
Cameron, Re, 2021 NSUARB 8
Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society v
Canada (Minister of Canadian
Heritage), 2001 FCT 1123
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
v Maligne Tours Ltd., 2016 FC 148
Canadian Transit Co. v Canada
(Minister of Transport), 2011 FC 515
Canadian Transit Co. v Canada
(Minister of Transport), 2011 FC 517
Carhoun and Sons Enterprises Ltd. v
Canada (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC
1675
Cassiar Watch v Canada (Ministry of
Fisheries & Oceans), 2010 FC 152
Centre québécois du droit de
l'environnement v Canada (Minister of
the Environment), 2015 FC 773
Cham Shan Temple v Director, Ministry
of the Environment, [2015] OERTD No.
9
Concerned Citizens In
Adjala/Tosorontio Inc. v AdjalaTosorontio (Township), 2018
CarswellOnt 1114

142

Concerned Citizens of North Stormont v
Ontario (Environment, Conservation
and Parks), [2019] 25 CELR (4th) 216
David Suzuki Foundation v British
Columbia (Minister of Environment),
2013 BCSC 874
Digby (District), Re, 2018 NSUARB
116
Dingeldein v Ontario (Director,
Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change), [2015] OERTD No.
32
Druyan v Canada (Attorney General),
2014 FC 705
Durham Area Citizens for Endangered
Species v Ontario (Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry), 2015 ONSC
1933
East Oxford Community Alliance Inc. v
Ontario (Director, Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change),
[2015] OERTD No. 45
Elphinstone Logging Focus Society v
Timber Sales Manager, BC Timber
Sales, 2019 BCSC 1994
Environmental Defence Canada v
Canada (Minister of Fisheries &
Oceans), 2009 FC 131
Environmental Defence Canada v
Canada (Minister of Fisheries &
Oceans), 2009 FC 878
Fohr v Ontario (Director, Ministry of
the Environment and Climate Change),
[2015] OERTD No. 43
Fort Nelson First Nation v British
Columbia (Deputy Administrator,
Pesticide Control Act), 2003
CarswellBC 1880
Georgia Strait Alliance v Canada
(Minister of Fisheries & Oceans), 2012
FCA 40

Goulet v Timmins (City), 2018
CarswellOnt 22017
Guelph (City) v Soltys, 2009 CanLII
42449 (ON SC)
Habitations Îlot St-Jacques v Canada
(Attorney General), 2021 FCA 27
Haldimand Wind Concerns v Ontario
(Director, Ministry of the Environment),
[2013] OERTD No. 12
Hanson v Director, Northern Region,
Operations Division, Alberta
Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development, [2014] AWLD 2007
Hughes v Parks Canada Agency, 2015
PSLREB 75
Jacobs v British Columbia (Deputy
Regional Manager), [2017] BCWLD
4842
Laforme v The Corporation of the Town
of Bruce Peninsula, 2021 ONSC 5287
Le Groupe Maison Candiac Inc. v
Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA
88
Lewis v Director, Ministry of the
Environment, [2013] OERTD No. 70
Living Oceans Society v Canada
(Minister of Fisheries & Oceans), 2009
FC 848
Lynn v Nova Scotia (Lands and
Forestry), 2021 NSSC 184
Makivik Corporation v Canada
(Attorney General), 2021 FCA 184
MiningWatch Canada v Canada
(Minister of FIsheries & Oceans), 2007
FC 955
Monture v Ontario (Director, Ministry
of the Environment), 2012 CarswellOnt
12208

143

Monture v Ontario (Director, Ministry
of the Environment), [2012] OERTD
No. 69
Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc. v
Ontario (Director, Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change),
[2015] OERTD No. 19

R v McNeill, 2007 BCSC 773
R v Morreau, [1997] 141 WAC 196
R v Morris, 2010 BCPC 270
R v Nam Bak Enterprises Ltd., 2012
BCPC 506
R v Newman, 2018 ABPC 143

Nation Rise Wind Farm Limited
Partnership v Minister of the
Environment, 2020 ONSC 2984

R v Rio Tinto Alcan Ltd., 2017 BCSC
1144

Nature Conservancy of Canada v
Waterton Land Trust Ltd., 2014 ABQB
303

R v Russ, 2008 BCPC 182

Nelson Aggregate Co., Re, [2012] 71
CELR (3d) 233
Ontario (Natural Resources and
Forestry) v South Bruce Peninsula
(Town), 2021 ONCA 332
Ontario (Natural Resources and
Forestry) v South Bruce Peninsula
(Town), 2021 ONCA 749

R v Russ, 2007 BCPC 453
R v Sandover-Sly, 2002 BCCA 56
R v Shirey, 2014 BCSC 2204
R v The Lake Louise Ski Area Ltd., 2017
BPC 262
R v The Lake Louise Ski Area Ltd., 2020
ABQB 422
R v Thomson, 2015 ABPC 63
R v Thomson, 2017 ABPC 185

Pembina Institute for Appropriate
Development v Canada (Attorney
General), 2008 FC 302

Romandale Farms Limited v The
Corporation of the City of Markham,
2021 ONSC 4204

Podolsky v Cadillac Fairview Corp.,
2012 ONCJ 545

Rounthwaite v Canada (Minister of
Environment), 2007 FC 921

Podolsky v Cadillac Fairview Corp.,
2013 ONCJ 65

Salmonid Association of Eastern
Newfoundland v Her Majesty the Queen
in Right of Newfoundland and
Labrador, 2021 NLCA 26

Prince Edward County Field Naturalists
v Ostrander Point GP Inc., 2014 ONCA
227
R v Eyben, 2013 BCPC 300

Saskatchewan (Minister for
Environmental Assessment Act) v
Redberry Development Corp, [1992] 2
WWR 544

R v French, 2019 ABPC 149

Shell Canada Ltd., Re, 2011 ABCA 159

R v Guimond, [2001] 11 WWR 163

Sierra Club Canada v Ontario (Ministry
of Natural Resources), 2010 ONSC
5130

R v Breaker, 2000 ABPC 179

R v M&A Rentals Inc. (1041400 Ontario
Inc.), 2021 CarswellOnt 15219
R v Malleck, 2007 NLTD 201

144

Sierra Club Canada v Ontario (Ministry
of Natural Resources), 2011 ONSC
4086

Van Den Bosch v Director, Ministry of
the Environment, [2014] 90 CELR (3d)
208

Sifton Properties Ltd. v Brantford (City),
[2014] 27 MPLR (5th) 39

Vida (Re), 2021 BCSC 1444

Sipekne'katik v Alton Natural Gas
Storage LP, 2020 NSSC 111
Skibsted v Canada (Environment and
Climate Change), 2021 FC 301
Skibsted v Canada (Environment and
Climate Change), 2021 FC 416
SLWP Opposition Corp. v Ontario
(Director, Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change), [2015] OERTD
No. 57

Walker Aggregates Inc., Re, [2012]
OERTD No. 29
West Kootenay Community EcoSociety v
British Columbia (Ministry of Water,
Land, & Air Protection), 2005 BCSC
784
West Kootenay Community EcoSociety v
British Columbia (Ministry of Water,
Land, & Air Protection), 2005 BCSC
744

Snider, Re, [2010] AWLD 2620

West Moberly First Nations v British
Columbia, 2018 BCSC 1835

Sorge v British Columbia (Deputy
Director of Wildlife), [2005] BCWLD
5291

West Moberly First Nations v British
Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines),
2011 BCCA 247

SR Opposition Corp v Ontario
(Environment and Climate Change),
[2015] OERTD No. 61

Western Canada Wilderness Committee
v British Columbia (Chief Forester),
[1998] 106 BCAC 221

Stanek v Aurora (Town), [2021] 12
OMTR 96

Western Canada Wilderness Committee
v British Columbia (Minister of Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource
Operations), 2014 BSCS 808

Sunshine Coast Conservation Assn. v
Assn. of British Columbia Forest
Professionals, 2007 BCSC 193
Sunshine Logging (2004) Ltd. v Prior,
2011 BCSC 1044

Western Canada Wilderness Committee
v British Columbia (Ministry of Forests,
South Island Forest District), 2003
BCCA 403

The Corporation of the City of Windsor
v Paciorka Leasehold Ltd., 2021 ONSC
2189

Western Canada Wilderness Committee
v Canada (Minister of Fisheries &
Oceans), 2014 FC 148

Thomas and Saik'uz First Nation v Rio
Tinto Alcan Inc., 2022 BCSC 15

Western Canada Wilderness Committee
v Canada (Minister of the Environment),
2006 FC 786

Trent Lakes (Municipality) and By-law
No. B2013-009, Re, [2015] 85 OMBR
425
Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada
(Attorney General), 2018 FCA 153

Westfor Management v Extinction
Rebellion, 2021 NSSC 93

145

Wiggins v Ontario (Environment and
Climate Change), [2017] 13 CELR (4th)
235
Wiggins v Ontario (Environment and
Climate Change), [2016] 5 CELR (4th)
95
Wildlands League v Ontario (Lieutenant
Governor in Council), 2016 ONCA 741
Wrightman v Director, Ministry of the
Environment, [2014] OERTD No. 11
Xats'ull FIrst Nation v British Columbia
(Director, Environmental Management
Act), [2008] BCWLD 4464
Yahey v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC
1287
Young v Ontario (Environment and
Climate Change), [2016] 4 CELR (4th)
221
Zoocheck Canada Inc. v Parks Canada
Agency, 2008 FC 540

146

Appendix VI – List of MLAs Contacted
•

George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change – no response (not even
automated)

•

Rob Fleming, sponsor of Bill M 207 (2010), and Bill M 211 (2011) – automated
response

•

Katrine Conroy, Minister of Forests

•

Andrew Weaver, former leader of the BC Green Party, sponsor of Bill M 224 (2017)
Bill M 208 (2017)

•

Sonia Furstenau, Leader of the BC Green Party

147

Appendix VII – MLA Contact Email Template
The following is a version of the email template I used to send to current and former
MLAs of BC. Versions were edited for each recipient. This was the version sent to the Minister
of Environment and Climate Change, George Heyman:
Hello,
My name is Jordyn Bogetti. I am doing a Master’s in Environmental Science at
Thompson Rivers University. The focus of my thesis is on species at risk legislation in BC.
Developing and [sic.] enacted a designated endangered species act for BC was included
in the 2017 mandate letter to you as the Minister of Environment and Climate Change strategy.
The process was underway but has not been completed, and no bills have been proposed with
draft legislation in response to that mandate. The language in the 2020 mandate letter to the
Minister of Environment and Climate Change was also downgraded from enacting new
legislation to “continu[ing] to work with partners to protect species at risk and biodiversity”.
As you know, draft legislation has been put forward in the past in BC. Member's bills
were proposed in 2010, 2011, and twice in the first half of 2017 before the change in
government. You were the sponsor of Bill M 226 in 2017. Unfortunately, none of these bills
made it to a second reading in the legislature so there is no public record of any debate or
reasons why those bills did not move forward.
As the sponsor of one of those previous bills, I am writing to inquire whether you would
be willing to comment on why those bills, particularly the one you sponsored, were not passed
in the legislature. I am also writing to you in your capacity as Minister of Environment and
Climate Change to inquire where the process of enacting species at risk legislation currently
stands in BC.
Thank you for your time,
Jordyn Bogetti

148

Appendix VIII – Consent Form for Interview Participants
“The Development of Species at Risk Legislation in British Columbia”
Project researcher: Jordyn Bogetti | 1-778-512-1753 | bogettij10@mytru.ca
This consent form is for a research project being conducted by Jordyn Bogetti, a
Masters of Environmental Science student at Thompson Rivers University (TRU). The
purpose of this project is to research how British Columbia’s current species at risk legislation
is operating, and to determine whether species at risk conservation would be improved by
developing designated legislation. The research will be conducted from the fall of 2021 to the
spring of 2022 and will involve a one hour, one-on-one semi-structured interview with Jordyn
Bogetti.
Participation is completely voluntary, and you may withdraw from the interview at any
time. You may choose to remain anonymous by circling the correct area below. By choosing
this option your name and organization will be coded and never disclosed. If you choose to
not remain anonymous, your name and other details including your occupation or organization
may be disclosed alongside your views and opinions in the final report. This could put you at
risk of violating corporate or employment policies. You may also choose to let the researcher
know during the interview if you wish to keep only some identifying details anonymous. You
will also be sent a transcription of your interview to review for accuracy, and will be given the
opportunity to change your decision on anonymity after you review the transcript.
Interview questions will consider existing species at risk protections under the Wildlife
Act, Forest and Range Practices Act, Oil and Gas Activities Act, Ecological Reserves Act, Park
Act, Land Act, conservation policies or actions taken in provincial protected areas, and personal
interactions or experiences with species at risk.
Interviews will be recorded. The recordings will be accessible only by the researcher,
Jordyn Bogetti, and by her research supervisor, Dr. Courtney Mason. The storage and disposal
of records/data will be as follows:
1. Initial interview recordings will be stored in a password-protected file on a passwordsecured computer.

149
2. Recordings will be backed up to a password-protected folder, on a password-protected
desktop computer at TRU.
3. Recordings will be transcribed to written files, which will be stored the same way as in
steps 1 and 2.
4. Recordings will be deleted once the transcribed files are stored and backed-up.
5. You will be sent the transcription of your interview to whichever contact information
you provide to review for accuracy. You are responsible for storing or deleting your
copy of the transcription.
6. Researcher copies of the transcriptions and any research data will be deleted 5 years
after the completion of the project, or immediately if you choose to withdraw.
There is a low likelihood of discomfort and/or inconvenience associated with your
participation in the project. It is possible that the research will be published. There is a
possibility if you choose not to remain anonymous that opinions you express as part of your
participation in this research could violate your employment policies, or otherwise lead to
social discomfort.
If you would like to receive a copy of the executive summary of the completed project,
please circle the appropriate area below.
Any comments, questions, or concerns should be directed towards Jordyn Bogetti, who
can be contacted by e-mail at bogettij10@mytru.ca or by phone at 1-778-512-1753. Her
research supervisor Dr. Courtney Mason can be reached by e-mail at cmason@tru.ca. For
further information, please contact the Chair of the TRU Research Ethics Board at TRUREB@tru.ca or 1-250-828-5000. If you have read and fully understood the consent form, and
agree to participate, please initial in the space provided below:
Please initial or circle:
•

I am 19 years of age or older. ______

•

I have received, read, and understand this consent form. ______

•

I agree to allow my name, position and organization to be published in the final document
or used in presentations regarding the final document: YES / NO

•

I wish to remain anonymous: YES / NO

•

I permit the interviewer to audiotape/record the interview: YES / NO

150
•

I would like to receive a copy of the executive summary of the completed project: YES /
NO
By signing this consent form, I ___________________________ agree to participate

in this project.
Signature:

_______________________________

Date:

_____________________________
Project Researcher’s Name: ________________________
Signature:

_______________________________

_____________________________

Date:

151

Appendix IX – List of Interview Participants
Name

Protected Area
Affiliation

Interview Date Connection to Protected Area

Ian Barnett

Lac Du Bois

April 29, 2022

Worked with Ducks Unlimited and
Nature Conservancy of Canada on
projects in Lac Du Bois and
adjoining private conservancy lands.

Dave Low

Lac Du Bois

May 5, 2022

Worked as a government biologist in
Kamloops Regional Office. Director
of Lac Du Bois for the Burrowing
Owl Conservation Society of BC.

Jean Nelson

Wells Gray

May 9, 2022

Member of the Friends of Wells
Gray society.

May 13, 2022

Registered Professional Biologist
(RPBio). Worked previously with
the Priority Grasslands Initiative.

Anonymous

Trevor
Goward

Wells Gray

May 16, 2022

Lichenologist and expert on deepsnow mountain caribou, with a
research focus on the Wells Gray
herd.

Tom
Dickinson

Lac Du Bois and
Wells Gray

July 12, 2022

Professor Emeritus at Thompson
Rivers University in the Biological
Sciences Department. Previous
research connections to both Lac Du
Bois and Wells Gray. Member of the
Friends of Wells Gray.

Tay Briggs

Wells Gray

September 26,
2022

Registered Forester and owner and
operator of Wells Gray Adventures,
an adventure tourism company
operating in Wells Gray.

Nathan
Matthew

Wells Gray

December 7,
2022

Chief of the Simpcw First Nation
(Sécwepemc) for twenty years.
Chancellor of Thompson Rivers
University.

152

Appendix X – Interview Question Framework
POSITION/BACKGROUND
•

What do you do for work?

•

What is your connection to Protected Area?
o Employment, volunteer, recreation, etc…

•

How long have you been working/volunteering/visiting Protected Area?

•

How often are you at Protected Area?

SPECIES AT RISK FAMILIARITY
I will be using the term “Species at Risk” to describe a species that is endangered or
considered threatened.
•

How familiar are you with species at risk?

•

How alert are you to the possibility of encountering a species at risk when you are
working/volunteering/visiting outdoor or wilderness areas?

•

Would you take any different actions or measures if you thought you might encounter
a species at risk?

•

Are you more careful in areas where you know species at risk live?

EXISTING LEGISLATION AND CONCERNS
•

How familiar are you with how species at risk are protected in this province?
o Which laws, regulations, or policies relating to species at risk are you familiar
with?

•

Have you ever looked for or read any of these laws or regulations?
o Did you encounter any issues with accessing or reading those regulations or
laws?

•

Would you look for more information on laws or restrictions if you were visiting
species at risk habitat?

153
o Where would you look for this information?
o How many different places would you be willing to check?
•

Do you think finding information about species at risk protections in BC is accessible?
o Is there anything you would like to see changed?

•

Are you satisfied with how species at risk are being protected in BC?
o Is there anything you would like to see changed?

•

Are you satisfied with how protections for species at risk are implemented in BC?
o Is there anything you would like to see changed?

SITE SPECIFIC POLICIES
•

Do you have any experience with policies or laws that govern the Protected Area?
o Are there any species at risk specific policies?

•

Have you seen any informational displays about the Protected Area?
o Where?
o What types? (signs, websites, pamphlets)
o Do you stop to read the informational displays?

•

Do you check for updates to information about Protected Area regularly?
o Where?

PROTECTED AREAS POLICIES AND MEASURES
•

Are you aware of any species at risk within the Protected Area?

•

How did you find out about them?

•

Have you seen or heard any information about species at risk in the Protected Area?
o Where?
o What types of information?
§

Where the species lives/habits

§

Conservation measures being taken by the Protected Area

§

Areas/activities to avoid while visiting Protected Area

§

What to do if you encounter a species at risk

154
•

Do you feel you could be better informed about species at risk in Protected Area?

•

Do you feel that species at risk conservation in Protected Area is working?
o Why or why not?
o What would you like to see changed?

•

Have you seen or heard any information about species at risk conservation outside of
the Protected Area?
o Where?
o What types of information?

•

Do you feel that species at risk conservation outside of Protected Area is working out?
o Why or why not?
o What would you like to see changed?

•

Have you visited other areas within or outside of BC where you did see or hear
information about species at risk?
o How was that information provided?
o How did that experience compare to the species at risk experience at Protected
Area?
Final:

•

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS/AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
RELATING TO SPECIES AT RISK THAT YOU HAVE?
o Types of questions you have
o Types of questions you would like asked
o Groups you would like to see included in species at risk work