Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:
The Submitters allege that Canada is failing to effectively enforce Section 6(a) of the Migratory Bird Regulations (MBR) adopted under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, in regard to logging in four forest management units (FMUs) in Ontario. Section 6(a) of the MBR makes it an offence to disturb, destroy or take a nest or egg of a migratory bird without a permit. In February 2002, these same Submitters filed the Ontario Logging submission (SEM-02-001), which made the same assertions as are contained in the new submission with respect to the same four FMUs, as well as many others. Pursuant to a decision of the CEC Council in April 2003, the Submitters presented supplemental information in connection with the original Ontario Logging submission in August 2003. The CEC Secretariat is currently developing a factual record for the Ontario Logging submission, pursuant to instructions from the CEC Council issued in March 2004. In its instructions, Council noted “that the submitters may, if they wish, submit a new submission with the requisite sufficient information with respect to the four (4) forest management units for which information was not available. In the new submission, the Submitters focus on the Cochrane, Shiningtree Forest, Temagami and Wawa Forest FMUs. Using the same methodology as used in the supplemental submission presented in August 2003, they estimate that 1,270 migratory bird nests were destroyed in 2001 in those FMUs. The methodology used to make this estimate is based on data from The Canadian Breeding Bird (Mapping) Census Database and Forest Management Plans for the relevant FMUs, plus actual harvest data. The Submitters state: “The actual harvest data information was obtained as it became available from industry or government sources in the period between April and 1 October 2004. In the case of the fourth unit-Shiningtree Forest-harvest data was not made available, despite our persistent inquiries, until 1 October 2004: almost three years since extraction activities took place in this part of the public forest!” They allege that Environment Canada, through its Canadian Wildlife Service, is primarily responsible for enforcing the MBCA and that virtually no action has been taken to enforce section 6(a) of the MBR against logging companies, logging contractors and independent contractors. The Submitters assert that the alleged failure to enforce section 6(a) of the MBR, in addition to the harmful impact on the migratory bird population, has negative consequences for wildlife biodiversity, tourism, respect for the law, fair competition within the logging industry and healthy wood stocks. The Submitters state that since the original submission was filed in February 2002, “no information has come to light in any government response, media reports, meetings with government, access to information requests, or other information to cast doubt on the Submitters’ original assertion that no charges were ever laid or investigations conducted-or other effective action taken, for that matter-against logging companies in any FMU in Ontario, including the four FMUs at issue in this submission.”
Summary of the response provided by the Party:
Acknowledging the close relationship between SEM-02-001 (Ontario Logging) and SEM-04-006 (Ontario Logging II), in its response to the submission, Canada referred the Secretariat to its response to the Ontario Logging submission and its response to additional information provided by the Submitters pursuant to Council Resolution 03-05. Canada also stated that the Canadian Wildlife Service did not receive any public complaints with respect to enforcement of s. 6(a) of the MBR in any of the four FMUs referenced in Ontario Logging II for the time period specified in the submission.
Names and citations of the environmental laws in question:
Section 6(a) of the Migratory Bird Regulations (MBR) adopted under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994
Canadian Nature Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Earthroots, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Great Lakes United, Sierra Club (United States and Canada), Wildlands League represented by/representés par/representados por: Sierra Legal Defence Fund
The Secretariat received a submission and began a preliminary analysis of it under the guidelines.
Submission - Submission authored by Submitter(s) on 05/10/2004
Acknowledgement - Communication to Submitter(s) authored by Secretariat on 14/10/2004
The Secretariat determined that the submission met the criteria of Article 14(1) and requested a response from the concerned government Party in accordance with Article 14(2).
Determination - Secretariat Determination under Article 14 (1) and 14 (2) authored by Secretariat on 14/10/2004
The Secretariat received a response from the concerned government Party and began considering whether to recommend a factual record.
Party Response - Response from the Party under Article 14 (3) authored by Canada on 07/12/2004
Acknowledgement - authored by Secretariat on 08/12/2004
Under guideline 10.3, the Secretariat proposed to Council that it would be more efficient to consolidate this submission with the following one:
The Secretariat informed Council that the Secretariat considers that the submission warrants development of a factual record.
Recommendation - Secretariat Notification to Council under Article 15(1) authored by Secretariat on 17/12/2004
Council decided to consolidate the submissions in question.
Resolution - Council decision concerning the development of a Factual Record authored by Council on 01/04/2005
The Council voted to instruct the Secretariat to develop a Factual Record.
Resolution - Council decision concerning the development of a Factual Record authored by Council on 12/03/2004
The Secretariat placed a work plan on its web site or otherwise made it available to the public and stakeholders.
Workplan - Overall workplan for Factual Record authored by Secretariat on 04/04/2005
The Secretariat submitted a draft factual record to Council, for a 45-day comment period on the accuracy of the draft.
The Secretariat received comments from Canada.
The Secretariat received comments from the United States.
The Secretariat submitted a final factual record to Council for Council's vote on whether to make the final factual record publicly available.
Council voted to instruct the Secretariat to make the final factual record publicly available.
Resolution - Council decision on whether the factual record will be made publicly available authored by Council on 31/01/2007
The final factual record was publicly released.
Final Factual Record - Final Factual Record authored by Secretariat on 20/06/2006