Hi Tweets,

For all the environmental hassles you folks in the US have you do have
something unavailable to Canadians in the same situation: law. In Canada...?
Well, judge for yourself. Here's a recent Nicholas Read column in the
Wednesday April 22 1998 edition of the Vancouver Sun, giving the current
status quo on Endangered Species protection in Canada and what 'changes' the
politicians are planning (can you say 'tobacco-industry science', kiddies?).
After it, considering the multimillion budgets received by Environment
Canada and the provincial environment ministries, you may ask the same
question as someone once asked the National Hockey League of its infamously
look-the-other-way, laissez-faire referees: just what is it they pay those
people to actually *do*?

(begin quote)
Headline: Ministers Deny Help to Imperilled Wildlife

Subhead: Canadians were supposed to hear this month of plans to protect
endangered species. Try September!

Text:

This month, Canada's environment ministers were to have made public their
plans to protect Canada's endangered species.
It was about time, too. Not since October 1996, when representatives of
those same governments signed the National Accord for Species at Risk, had
they done anything noteworthy.
The accord, however, was supposed to have changed all that. After years of
standing by idly, governments finally had promised to listen to polls and
take action. This month they were supposed to reveal what action.
Except they didn't. Now they say an announcement won't come before September
or October. However, given the singular unwillingness of Jean Chretien's
Liberals (the federal party currently in power and roughly equivalent to the
Democrats) to deal seriously with any environmental issue, let alone one as
significant as this, it probably would be unwise to place bets.
Especially in view of a document released by a Canadian wildlife directors'
committee that makes recommendations so retrograde that if implemented, they
could, arguably, create legislation that would be even worse for endangered
species protection than the status quo.
Most damaging are these:
[1] That all scientists appointed to assess the biological status of species
be approved by government ministries.
[2] That ministers would "provide direction and terms of reference" to
scientists, and endorse the "species assessment criteria".
[3] That ministers, and not scientists, "ratify and publish" a national list
of endangered species.
In other words, the directors suggest that politicians co-opt completely the
process by which vanishing species are identified and listed. And that would
be ruinous for the species survival.
Why? Consider this. Scientists have determined that 73 BC species are
threatened or endangered. The provincial government grudgingly admits to four.
In Quebec, which, unlike BC, has endangered species legislation, scientists
have listed 65 species at risk. The government cncedes nine.
In Ontario, scientists have identified 138 species in trouble. The
government names 24.
The situation is similarly derelict across the country, and now provincial
wildlife officials appear to want to ensure that any national list be just
as short and just as distorted.
Steven Curtis, associate director general (sic) for the Canadian Wildlife
Service, says not to worry. He claims the recommendations will be
"recrafted" before they are submitted to ministers for approval.
Possibly, but a certain level of government interference was reflected in
Bill C-65, the previous Liberal government's aborted endangered species act,
and so far everything points to an encore--a case where politicians, not
scientists, have the final, crucial say in endangered species legislation.
This week, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, a
body of independent scientists, will make public its 1998 list of species at
risk.
(end quote)

Count your blessings.

Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery, and change;
mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
Aphra Behn (1640-1689)