Submission

Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

The Submitters assert that Canada is failing to effectively enforce section 6(a) of the Migratory Bird Regulations (MBR) adopted under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA) against the logging industry 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. The Submitters claim that their research, based on statistical data, estimates that in the year 2001 clear-cutting activity destroyed over 85,000 migratory bird nests in areas of Central and Northern Ontario. 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. They assert that despite the estimated widespread destruction of bird nests, an access to information request revealed no investigations or charges in Ontario for violations of section 6(a). 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.

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In response to the submission, Canada asserts that “Environment Canada’s Wildlife Enforcement Branch has not made a sweeping policy decision not to enforce subsection 6(a) of the MBR with regard to logging operations.” The response states that priorities for wildlife enforcement are set on an annual basis in response to public complaints, international commitments, and wildlife conservation goals. The response indicates that “[i]n the forestry context, an enforcement approach that will be helpful to migratory bird conservation over the long term first requires compliance promotion and education among industry, particularly decision-makers.” It states that CWS has initiated such compliance promotion activities and “is planning and in the process of implementing significant new initiatives and programs to address the growing needs of compliance promotion and enforcement of wildlife laws among industry in general. Environment Canada will investigate possible violations of subsection 6(a) of the MBR, and lay charges as may be appropriate.” The response concludes that “because the submitters did not provide any actual case, the Canadian Government was not able to respond in a meaningful way to their main assertion” and “[f]or this reason, as well as the submitters’ failure to otherwise make a complaint to the CWS that a logging operation in Ontario was in violation of subsection 6(a) of the MBR, the Government of Canada believes that a factual record is not warranted.”

Names and citations of the environmental laws in question:

Section 6(a) of the Migratory Bird Regulations adopted under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.

Submitter(s):

Canadian Nature Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Earthroots, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Great Lakes United, Sierra Club (United States), Sierra Club of Canada, Wildlands League - Represented by Sierra Legal Defence Fund (SLDF)