Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 157, Number 19: Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act

May 13, 2023

Statutory authority
Species at Risk Act

Sponsoring department
Department of the Environment

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Order.)

Issues

Biodiversity is rapidly declining worldwide as species become extinct. According to a recent report from an international panel of experts, an average of around 25% of species in assessed animal and plant groups are threatened. This suggests that around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades. Unless measures are undertaken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss, further acceleration in the global rate of species extirpation is anticipated. According to the report, the global rate of species extirpation is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years.^{footnote 3} In the same report, the experts have also identified and ranked the five direct drivers of biodiversity loss and degradation with the largest relative global impacts so far. These drivers are, in descending order: changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species.

Canada, the second-largest country in the world and home to a large assortment of species, is not exempt from this global biodiversity crisis. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), between 1970 and 2014, 451 of 903 monitored wildlife species in Canada declined in abundance. This is true for all monitored wildlife groups, from mammals, to fish, to birds, to amphibians and reptiles. Of the other half monitored, 407 species showed increases in abundance, and 45 species showed stable trends. While these success stories are encouraging, the discovery that half of the monitored wildlife in the study are in decline cannot be ignored.^{footnote 4} With this rapid and steep decline in biodiversity, Canada is experiencing many adverse effects that are typically associated with habitat and species loss.

Biodiversity is positively related to ecosystem productivity, health, and resiliency^{footnote 5} (i.e. the ability of an ecosystem to respond to changes or disturbances). Given the interdependency of species, a loss of biodiversity can lead to decreases in ecosystem function and services including natural processes such as pest control, pollination, coastal wave attenuation, temperature regulation and carbon fixing. These services are important to the health of Canadians and also have important ties to the Canadian economy. Small changes within an ecosystem can lead to a loss of individuals and species resulting in adverse, irreversible, and broad-ranging effects on Canadians.

Species that are at risk are afforded protections under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) when they are listed on Schedule 1 of SARA (the List of Wildlife Species at Risk). The proposed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act is needed to list or modify the status of three species recently assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), and for which the Minister of the Environment wishes to make a listing recommendation to the Governor in Council (GIC). Listing species at risk on Schedule 1 of SARA, and the associated protections triggered by listing, support not only the protection of the species, but also overall biodiversity and ecosystem productivity.

Background

Canada is a country with a rich natural environment that supports a large diversity of plant and animal species. This natural heritage is an integral part of its national identity and history. Wildlife is valued by Canadians for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual, recreational, educational, historical, subsistence, medical, ecological, and scientific reasons. Canadian wildlife species and ecosystems are also part of the world’s heritage.^{footnote 6} The Department of the Environment (the Department) is mandated, among other things, to preserve and enhance the quality of the natural environment, including flora and fauna. Although the responsibility for the conservation of wildlife in Canada is shared among all levels of government, the Department plays a leadership role as federal regulator in order to prevent terrestrial species^{footnote 7} from becoming extinct at the global scale^{footnote 8} or extirpated^{footnote 9} from Canada.

The primary federal legislative mechanism for delivering on this responsibility is SARA. The purposes of SARA are to prevent wildlife species from becoming extirpated from Canada or extinct; to provide for recovery of wildlife species that are listed as extirpated, endangered, or threatened as a result of human activity; and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. In 2003, when SARA was first enacted, the List of Wildlife Species at Risk included 233 species. Since then, the List has been amended to add, remove, or reclassify species. As of February 2023, there are 640 species listed under Schedule 1 of SARA.

COSEWIC

In 2003, SARA established COSEWIC as an advisory body to, among other things, assess or re-assess the status of wildlife species.

The assessments are carried out in accordance with section 15 of SARA, which requires COSEWIC to determine the status of species it considers to be at risk and to identify existing and potential threats to the species. COSEWIC members meet twice every year to review assessments of wildlife species and to classify those wildlife species as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, species of special concern, data deficient, or not at risk.

Once COSEWIC has provided its assessments of species at risk to the Minister of the Environment (the Minister), the Minister has 90 days to post a response statement on the Species at Risk Public Registry (SAR Public Registry) indicating how the Minister intends to respond to the assessment and related anticipated timelines. The response statements outline the extent of the consultations on proposed changes to Schedule 1 of SARA.

Subsequent to the consultations and any further analysis carried out by departmental officials, an order in council published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, formally acknowledges receipt of the COSEWIC assessments. This then triggers a regulatory process through a proposed order whereby the GIC may, within nine months of receipt of the assessment, on the recommendation of the Minister:

(1) add a wildlife species to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk according to COSEWIC’s status assessment;

(2) decide not to add the species to the List; or

(3) refer the matter back to COSEWIC for further information or consideration.

If the GIC does not make a decision within nine months of the formal receipt of COSEWIC’s assessment, subsection 27(3) of SARA states that the Minister shall amend Schedule 1 of SARA according to the assessment.

In addition to recommending new additions to Schedule 1 of SARA, COSEWIC may review the status of a previously assessed wildlife species and recommend a new classification for this species. Reclassification is important to ensure the designation is consistent with the latest available scientific information, allowing for better decision-making regarding the species in terms of its conservation prioritization. Species are up-listed when their status has deteriorated since their last assessment (e.g. through population decline). When the status improves, they can be down-listed or delisted to ensure that the species are protected according to the purposes of SARA while minimizing impacts on stakeholders and resources.

Prohibitions under SARA

Upon listing in Schedule 1 of SARA, wildlife species benefit from various levels of protection, depending on their status, as per the general prohibitions under sections 32 and 33 of SARA. Table 1 below summarizes the various protections afforded.

Table 1: Summary of protections offered to wildlife species and their residences immediately upon their addition to Schedule 1 of SARA

Species status	Species protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994	Aquatic species protected by the Species at Risk Act	All other listed species protected by the Species at Risk Act
Special concern	SARA’s general prohibitions for individuals table a1 note a and for residence table a1 note b are not applicable for species with special concern status.	SARA’s general prohibitions for individuals and for residence are not applicable for species with special concern status.	SARA’s general prohibitions for individuals and for residence are not applicable for species with special concern status.
Threatened, endangered or extirpated	SARA’s general prohibitions apply to all endangered, threatened and extirpated migratory birds listed in Schedule 1 of SARA and protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, anywhere they occur, including private lands, provincial lands, and lands within a territory.	SARA’s general prohibitions apply to all endangered, threatened and extirpated aquatic species listed in Schedule 1 of SARA, anywhere they occur, including private lands, provincial lands, and lands within a territory.	SARA’s general prohibitions apply to all endangered, threatened, and extirpated species listed in Schedule 1 of SARA when found on federal lands table a1 note c . In a province, general prohibitions apply only on federal lands. In the territories, general prohibitions apply only on federal lands under the authority of the Minister of the Environment or the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency.
Table a1 note(s) Table a1 note a As defined in subsection 32(1) of SARA, no person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species, and under subsection 32(2), no person shall possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species, or any part or derivative of such an individual. Return to table a1 note a referrer Table a1 note b As defined in section 33 of SARA, no person shall damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of a wildlife species that is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, or that is listed as an extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada. Return to table a1 note b referrer Table a1 note c As defined in section 2(1) of SARA "federal land" means land that belongs to His Majesty in right of Canada, or that His Majesty in right of Canada has the power to dispose of, and all waters on and airspace above that land; the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada; and reserves and any other lands that are set apart for the use and benefit of a band under the Indian Act, and all waters on and airspace above those reserves and lands. Return to table a1 note c referrer

On non-federal lands, listed species that are not an aquatic species or a migratory bird protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA) can only be protected under SARA by an order made by the GIC.^{footnote 10} The Minister must recommend that such an order be made if the Minister is of the opinion that the laws of the province or territory do not effectively protect the species or the residences of its individuals.

Recovery planning for threatened, endangered, or extirpated species

Listing a species under an endangered, threatened, or extirpated status triggers mandatory recovery planning by the competent minister^{footnote 11} in order to address threats to the survival or recovery of the listed species.

Recovery strategies must be prepared in cooperation with appropriate provincial or territorial governments, other federal ministers with authority over federal lands where the species is found, and wildlife management boards authorized by a land claims agreement, among others. In preparing the recovery strategy, the competent minister must determine whether the recovery of the listed wildlife species is technically and biologically feasible. If it is not feasible, the recovery strategy must include a description of the species’ needs and, to the extent possible, the identification of its critical habitat and the reasons why its recovery is not feasible. If the recovery of the species is possible, the recovery strategy must address threats to the survival of the listed species, including any loss of habitat, and must include, among other things, the identification of the species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, based on the best available information.

Once a final recovery strategy has been posted on the SAR Public Registry, the competent minister must then prepare one or more action plans based on the recovery strategy. Action plans are also prepared in consultation with the above-mentioned organizations and persons. SARA does not mandate timelines for their preparation or implementation; rather, these are set out in the recovery strategy.

Protection of critical habitat

Requirements under SARA for the protection of critical habitat depend on whether the species are aquatic, migratory birds protected under the MBCA, or other species, and whether these species are found on federal lands, in the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf of Canada or elsewhere in Canada.

When critical habitat or portions of critical habitat have been identified on federal lands, in the exclusive economic zone of Canada or on the continental shelf of Canada, SARA requires that it be legally protected within 180 days of its identification in a recovery strategy or an action plan. Protection can be achieved through provisions under SARA or any other Act of Parliament, including conservation agreements under section 11 of SARA.

If critical habitat is located in a migratory bird sanctuary under the MBCA, in a national park included in Schedule 1 of the Canada National Parks Act, in the Rouge National Urban Park established by the Rouge National Urban Park Act, in a marine protected area under the Oceans Act, or in a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act, the competent minister must publish a description of that critical habitat in the Canada Gazette within 90 days of the date that the critical habitat was identified in a final recovery strategy or action plan. The critical habitat protection under subsection 58(1) of SARA (i.e. prohibiting the destruction of critical habitat) comes into effect automatically 90 days after a description of the critical habitat is published in the Canada Gazette, and the critical habitat located in the federally protected area is legally protected under SARA.

If critical habitat is identified on federal land but not found in the protected areas listed above, the competent minister must, within 180 days following the identification of this habitat in a final posted recovery strategy or action plan, either

• (1) make a ministerial order under subsection 58(5) of SARA to apply subsection 58(1) of SARA, prohibiting the destruction of this critical habitat; or
• (2) publish a statement on the SAR Public Registry explaining how the critical habitat (or portions of it) is protected under SARA or another Act of Parliament, including conservation agreements under section 11 of the SARA.

For portions of critical habitat for species other than aquatic species or critical habitat for migratory birds to which the MBCA applies, SARA considers the protection of the critical habitat by other governments (e.g. provinces, territories). In the event that critical habitat is not protected in these areas, the GIC may, by order, apply the SARA prohibition against destruction of that critical habitat. In cases where the Minister of the Environment is of the opinion that critical habitat on non-federal lands is not effectively protected by the laws of a province or territory, by another measure under SARA (including agreements under section 11) or through any other federal legislation, the Minister must recommend an order to the GIC to apply the SARA prohibition against destruction of critical habitat on non-federal lands. Before making the recommendation, the Minister must consult with the appropriate provincial or territorial minister. In all cases, the GIC makes the final decision on whether to proceed with the order to protect the critical habitat in question.

Permits issued under SARA

Under section 73 of SARA, the competent minister may enter into an agreement or issue a permit authorizing a person to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat, or the residences of its individuals. Permits are required by those persons conducting activities affecting species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as extirpated, endangered, or threatened, that is, activities which contravene SARA general prohibitions, critical habitat orders or emergency orders.

SARA sets out the conditions that the Minister must consider before issuing a permit.

Management of species of special concern

The addition of a species of special concern to Schedule 1 of SARA triggers the development of a management plan that enables the species to be managed proactively, maximizes the probability of its success, and is expected to avoid higher-cost measures in the future. The management plan includes conservation measures deemed appropriate to preserve the wildlife species and avoid decline of its population. It is developed in cooperation with the relevant provincial and territorial governments, other federal government departments, wildlife management boards, Indigenous partners and organizations, and any appropriate stakeholders, and must be posted within three years of the species being listed.

Objective

The objective of the proposed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (the proposed Order) is to ensure that the various measures available under SARA to protect and recover species at risk, are applicable to the species that would be reclassified or added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk (Schedule 1 of SARA) by this proposed Order.

Description

The proposed Order would amend the List of Wildlife Species at Risk by adding two species (see Table 2.1) and reclassifying one species (see Table 2.2). A detailed description of each species, their ranges and threats can be found in Annex 1 of this document. Additional information on these species can also be found in the COSEWIC status reports.^{footnote 1}

Table 2.1: Species proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA

Taxon	Species	Scientific name	Current status	Proposed status	Range
Arthropods	Western Bumble Bee mckayi subspecies	Bombus occidentalis mckayi	N/A	Special concern	Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia
Arthropods	Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies	Bombus occidentalis occidentalis	N/A	Threatened	British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan

Table 2.2: Species proposed for reclassification on Schedule 1 of SARA

Taxon	Species	Scientific name	Current status	Proposed status	Range
Arthropods	Monarch	Danaus plexippus	Special concern	Endangered	All provinces, except for Newfoundland-and-Labrador

Regulatory development

Consultation

Under SARA, the independent scientific assessment of the status of wildlife species conducted by COSEWIC, and the decision made by the GIC to grant legal protection by listing a wildlife species under Schedule 1 of SARA, are two distinct processes. This separation guarantees that the panel of scientists may work independently when assessing the status of wildlife species and that Canadians have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process of determining whether or not wildlife species will be listed under SARA.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the conservation of wildlife is a joint responsibility and that the best way to secure the survival of species at risk and to protect their habitats is through the active participation of all those concerned. SARA’s preamble stipulates that all Canadians have a role to play in preventing the disappearance of wildlife species from Canada’s lands. One of the ways that Canadians can get involved is by sharing comments concerning the addition, reclassification, or removal of species to Schedule 1 of SARA. All comments received are considered by the Minister when making listing recommendations to the GIC.

Comments received from those who will be most affected by the proposed changes are given particular consideration (e.g. follow-up consultations with key Indigenous organizations). Consultations are considered in relation to the potential consequences of whether or not a species is listed under Schedule 1 of SARA.

The Department begins initial public consultations with the posting of the Minister’s response statements on the SAR Public Registry within 90 days of receiving a copy of an assessment of the status of a wildlife species from COSEWIC. Indigenous peoples, stakeholders, organizations, and the general public are also consulted by means of a publicly posted document titled Consultation on Amending the List of Species under the Species at Risk Act: Terrestrial Species.

Consultation documents provide information on the species, including the reason for their designation, a biological description and location information. They also provide an overview of the SARA listing process. As well as being posted online, they are distributed to individuals and organizations, including Indigenous peoples and organizations, provincial and territorial governments, various industrial sectors, resource users, landowners and environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) with an interest in a particular species.

Initial consultation results summary

Consultations on the addition of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis and mckayi subspecies to Schedule 1 of SARA took place between December 2014 and May 2015. The Department sent consultation letters and emails to all Indigenous groups, wildlife management boards, federal land administrators, provincial and territorial governments, and interested agencies (e.g. agriculture organizations and environmental non-governmental organizations). The consultation materials were also sent to addresses subscribed to the Species at Risk Public Registry mailing list.

During the consultation period, six comments were received related to these two subspecies, all of which supported the addition of the species to Schedule 1 or provided general comments without indicating support or opposition. Comments were received from three provinces and territories, two wildlife management boards and one regional district.

Consultations on the addition of the Monarch to Schedule 1 of SARA took place between January and October 2018. The Department sent consultation letters and emails to all Indigenous groups, wildlife management boards, federal land administrators, provincial and territorial governments, municipal governments, and interested agencies (e.g. agriculture and forestry organizations and corporations, and environmental non-governmental organizations). The consultation materials were also sent to over 1 900 addresses subscribed to the Species at Risk Public Registry mailing list.

During the initial consultation period, 12 comments were received related to the reclassification of the Monarch, 11 of which supported the reclassification or provided general comments without indicating support or opposition. One of the general comments was from an industry organization expressing its concerns about the recovery planning that would follow the listing, without indicating its position on the up-listing of the species. One Crown corporation wrote to express its opposition to the up-listing of the species. Both organizations expressed concern that the reclassification of the Monarch could restrict their ability to perform their activities.

The Crown corporation in question expressed concern about the level of protection that would be immediately afforded to the host plant, the milkweed, if the Monarch is up-listed to an endangered species. They explained how the host plant of another SARA-listed butterfly — the Mormon Metalmark — met the definition of residence for the application of SARA’s general prohibitions and expressed concern that the same rationale would apply to milkweed and result in significant permitting requirements for them. They suggested that Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) authorize removal of individual milkweed plants without requiring a permit, and that the process to do so be defined before the species is up-listed.

Under SARA, a residence is defined as a “dwelling-place such as a den, nest or other similar area or place, that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life cycles, including breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, feeding or hibernating.” Further, section 33 of SARA states that “( … ) no person shall damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of a wildlife species that is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species ( … )”.

Milkweed species are the host plants of the Monarch, which depends solely on milkweed plants for reproduction. The eggs, caterpillars, or chrysalis can be found on milkweed when Monarchs are present in Canada (for most of Canada, this is from June to October, and from mid-May to August in southern Ontario). Occupied milkweed is likely to be considered a residence when Monarchs are present. Whether or not occupied milkweed is considered a residence, the destruction of it would kill or harm individuals, whether they are eggs, caterpillars, or chrysalises; thus, the activity would require a SARA permit. No permit would be required for removing milkweed outside of the Monarch’s breeding period (for most of Canada, this is outside of the June to October window), as the plant is a perennial that dies back with frost.

The industry association mentioned above expressed concern related to the bundling of agriculture and forestry effluents as a high impact threat to the species and how this threat would be addressed in the recovery planning that will take place following the proposed up-listing. They suggested that forestry effluents be considered separately from agriculture effluents in the recovery strategy and indicated that these sectors use herbicides on different scales and quantities. They also highlighted the need to coordinate strategies across borders, as only the northern limit of the Monarch range is in Canada. Finally, they expressed the need for more research on how climate change could be impacting the species’ habitat over the summer months and to identify mitigation strategies that could be applied.

In its assessments, COSEWIC refers to the Unified Classifications of Direct Threats and Conservation Actions from the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The bundling of the forestry and agricultural effluents as a high impact threat in the COSEWIC assessment was a result of the IUCN’s standardized scheme of threats. The category in question, “9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents,” is included under the broader threat of “9. Pollution.” Therefore, there is no option to separate the two sectors in this respect. During the recovery planning that would take place following the proposed up-listing, it would be clearly indicated whether or not forestry and agricultural effluents are a threat to Monarch.

In 2020, consultation follow-ups were conducted with First Nations. One comment was received from a First Nation in Ontario supporting the reclassification of the Monarch.

In addition to formal consultations, in 2017, a letter-writing campaign was launched by the David Suzuki Foundation, calling for federal support for research and conservation efforts for the Monarch in Canada, as well as for support of COSEWIC’s recommendation that the species be up-listed to endangered. Nearly 8 500 letters from the public were sent to members of Parliament, and to the Minister of the Environment.

Supplemental consultation results summary

Because of the high-profile nature and wide range of occurrence of these pollinators, the Department published a Notice of Intent in the Canada Gazette as well as a publication on the Consulting with Canadians website to invite additional input. The consultation sought feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, in particular industry stakeholders such as the agricultural sector, to better understand the potential implications of the proposed status changes. The 45-day comment period began on November 5, 2022.

A total of 9 466 comments were received.

General comments were received from 30 participants, which included individuals, industry organizations, ENGOs, other government departments (OGDs), a provincial government, and a university professor. Eleven of the general comments received were part of a letter-writing campaign organized by Rosemère Vert, an ENGO located in Quebec. The campaign urged the Department to consider the Monarch and milkweed presence on a former golf course when determining the species’ critical habitat. The remaining general comments focused on providing observations on the species’ COSEWIC status reports including on threats to the species. Many comments provided suggestions for recovery planning and identification of the Monarch’s critical habitat, species observations, and identifying potential impacts of the proposed Order. Commenters also included suggestions for Monarch and Western Bumble Bee conservation efforts (e.g. reduction of pesticide use, creation of habitat, and international collaboration on conservation).

A total of 9 422 comments support the proposed Order. Of these, 9 391 were part of a letter-writing campaign organized by the David Suzuki Foundation. The letters indicated support for up-listing the Monarch and listing the Western Bumble Bees. The letters encouraged recovery planning and suggested that recovery plans include a reduction in pesticide use on federal lands in particular, but also a national strategy to reduce total pesticide use and associated risks. Many campaign participants provided additional information in their letters, such as species observations and anecdotes, and expressed an interest in stewardship activities.

The remaining 31 supportive comments were received from individuals, ENGOs, municipalities, and an Indigenous organization. These commenters also urged the Department to protect various pieces of Monarch habitat, provided suggestions for the species’ recovery planning, detailed Monarch observations, indicated a desire for pesticide use reductions, and highlighted the need to adhere to various Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets.^{footnote 2}

A total of 14 comments were received in opposition to the proposed Order from individuals, industry organizations, and Crown corporations. One individual expressed concern over the date of the assessment for the Monarch (2016) and provided links to web pages with Monarch observations. The Department is committed to the principle that, if there are threats of serious damage to a wildlife species, cost-effective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific certainty. One individual generally opposed the proposed Order with no reason provided. Eight individuals feared that up-listing the Monarch as endangered would prohibit them from raising larvae, tagging butterflies, and conducting other stewardship activities. However, the general prohibitions triggered by the proposed Order would only apply to federal lands unless authorized by a SARA permit. The activities (e.g. raising caterpillars, tagging) would still be allowed on non-federal lands unless prohibited by provincial legislation.

Two organizations expressed opposition to the proposed Order, suggesting that recent innovations in agriculture have resulted in a reduced environmental risk surrounding pesticide use and habitat loss. The Department is committed to conserving biological diversity and to the precautionary principle, that if there are threats of serious damage to a wildlife species, cost-effective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific certainty. While threats to the species may evolve, the Department approaches the SARA listing recommendations using this basic principle and relies on the best scientific information available at the time of the COSEWIC assessments. As agricultural technologies advance over time, SARA provides the opportunity for these factors to be considered in recovery planning, permitting, and compliance promotion.

One Crown corporation opposed the up-listing of the Monarch, stating the decision to up-list is premature. It indicated that if large polygons of Monarch critical habitat are identified, it may prevent it from meeting its forest strategy goal of planting 100 000 trees and may also have financial implications on agricultural production. Another Crown corporation expressed concern with the potential up-listing of the Monarch, explaining that potential protections afforded to the species’ residence would have significant impacts on its operational activities. However, the majority of these concerns can be mitigated through the Department’s permitting scheme or through the removal of milkweed outside of the Monarch’s residential period.

More generally, there is widespread public awareness for the protection of the Monarch and public concern for the Monarch’s population decline based on the level of public media calling on the Department to act to protect the Monarch, its habitat, and milkweed. Calls for government action have been increasing following the Monarch’s recent listing as endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species, which represents the international status of the species.

There is also general consensus in the media that bumble bee populations are declining, with much of the conversation including stewardship actions the public can follow. There have been some calls to action from environmental groups to have the Western Bumble Bee species listed under SARA.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada, including rights related to activities, practices, and traditions of Indigenous peoples that are integral to their distinctive culture. As required by the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an assessment of modern treaty implications was conducted on the proposal. The assessment identified the following implications.

The Monarch and the milkweed upon which it depends have been found to occur in areas with modern treaties and self-government agreements in place. The species is found in areas covered by the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Self-Government Agreement, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. After careful analysis of relevant modern treaty provisions of the agreements, it has been determined that the reclassification of the Monarch from special concern to endangered is not expected to impact treaty rights.

The general prohibitions of SARA would apply following the proposed reclassification of the Monarch from special concern to endangered. However, the proposed Order would not conflict with any provisions in the modern treaty agreements and therefore would not impact modern treaty rights. The Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement and the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Self-Government Agreement maintain that federal laws concerning the conservation of endangered species or species at risk will prevail in the event of conflict with other provisions in their agreements. The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement outlines that the relevant minister will maintain authority to manage the conservation of wildlife and respective habitats. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement outline that federal laws regarding environmental protection still apply within the relevant territories.

The extent of occurrence of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies also overlaps with areas covered by modern treaties and self-government agreements: the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, the Nisga’a Final Agreement, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, the Tla’amin Final Agreement, the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, and the shíshálh Nation Self-Government Act. Analysis of the listed modern treaty and self-government agreements revealed that the listing of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies is not expected to impact treaty rights.

The general prohibitions of SARA would apply following the listing of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies as threatened. However, the proposed Order would not conflict with any provisions in the modern treaty agreements and therefore would not impact modern treaty rights. The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement outlines that the relevant minister will maintain authority to manage the conservation of wildlife and respective habitats. The Nisga’a Final Agreement, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, the Tla’amin Final Agreement, and the shíshálh Nation Self-Government Act do not contain provisions on non-harvestable species. The Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement maintains that federal laws concerning the conservation of endangered species or species at risk will prevail in the event of conflict with other provisions in the Agreement.

While the extent of occurrence of the Western Bumble Bee mckayi subspecies overlaps with modern treaty areas, the SARA general prohibitions will not apply to this subspecies. Therefore, there are no modern treaty implications expected for this subspecies.

Indigenous engagement and consultations

Canada has committed to a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. In line with this commitment, the Department is taking measures to ensure meaningful consultations with Indigenous peoples and organizations in the interest of respect, cooperation and partnership. In parallel, discussions are taking place with interested Indigenous communities to determine the most appropriate approaches to consult with them.

Instrument choice

While the protection of species at risk is a shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces and territories, SARA enables the federal government to protect species listed as threatened or endangered on federal lands, or everywhere in Canada for migratory birds or aquatic species.

The Act includes sections that support voluntary stewardship approaches to conservation in collaboration with any other government, organization or person in Canada. While these sections could be used to generate positive outcomes for a species, the obligation for the Minister to make a recommendation to the GIC for an assessment cannot be bypassed.

Regulatory analysis

This analysis presents the incremental benefits and costs of the proposed Order. Incremental impacts are defined as the difference between the baseline scenario and the regulatory scenario in which the proposed Order is implemented over the same period. The baseline scenario includes activities currently ongoing on federal lands where a species is found and incorporates any projected changes over the next 10 years that would occur without the proposed Order in place. The regulatory scenario includes the impacts expected to arise from general prohibitions as well any potential future critical habitat protection order on federal lands. Since critical habitat is only identified in a recovery strategy following the listing stage in Schedule 1 of SARA, the extent of critical habitat identification (and therefore related protection measures) is uncertain at this time. Therefore, the analysis is based on the best available information at this stage.

An analytical period of 10 years has been selected, because the status of the species must be reassessed by COSEWIC every 10 years. Costs provided in present value terms were discounted at 3% over the period of 2023–2032. Unless otherwise noted, all monetary values reported in this analysis are in 2022 constant Canadian dollars, discounted at 3%.

Overall, the proposed Order is expected to benefit Canadian society. Protection of the species in these proposed listings would preserve associated socio-economic and cultural values, existence and option values as well as benefits from ecosystem services such as pollination. The costs associated with the proposed Order are expected to be less than $10 million over 10 years. These costs are related to the development of recovery strategies, action plans and management plans, where applicable, as well as potential permit applications and compliance promotion. Other costs from this proposed Order stem from the triggering of general prohibitions and potential future critical habitat protection orders for species listed as threatened or endangered.

Benefits

Under SARA, endangered, threatened and extirpated species benefit from the development of recovery strategies and action plans that identify the main threats to their survival, and, when possible, the habitat that is necessary for their survival and recovery in Canada. The proposed Order would support the survival and recovery of the Monarch, Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies, and Western Bumble Bee mckayi subspecies in Canada. Listing species on Schedule 1 supports the purposes of SARA, which are to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened and to respond to the advice of scientists.

Following reclassification of the Monarch on Schedule 1 of SARA as endangered and classification of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies as threatened, they would benefit from immediate protection on federal lands through the application of the general prohibitions of SARA (sections 32 and 33 of SARA). As a result, it would become illegal to kill, harm, harass, capture or take any individual of these species. The possession, collection, buying and selling or trading of an individual or any part or derivative of an individual would also be prohibited. In addition, the application of the general prohibitions would make it an offence to damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals. Compliance with these prohibitions is expected to have a positive impact on the recovery of the species.

Listing or reclassification as threatened or endangered would also trigger requirements, under SARA, to develop a recovery strategy, and to prepare one or more action plans based on it. The development and implementation of these documents would support the recovery of these species, as they are designed to, among other things, identify threats to the survival of the species and its habitat, and indicate measures that may be taken to address them. Further requirements to develop these documents, to the extent possible, in collaboration with a wide range of implicated partners and stakeholders, from provincial and territorial ministers to wildlife management boards and aboriginal organizations, would help ensure broad support for the approaches set out within them.

Regarding the Western Bumble Bee mckayi subspecies, the special concern designation would trigger the development of a management plan and serve as an early indication that the species requires attention due to a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. This helps manage the species proactively, maximizing the probability of success and potentially preventing higher-cost measures in the future. Such efforts would ensure that the species is protected according to the purposes of SARA, with minimal impacts on stakeholders, Indigenous peoples and government resources.

Additional protection measures may also be undertaken by various levels of governments, Indigenous peoples, as well as stakeholders. It is expected that these combined measures will be instrumental for the conservation and recovery of these species. Although preventing the loss of these benefits cannot be attributed to the proposed Order alone, SARA specifies that the Government of Canada is committed to a precautionary approach to avoid the permanent loss of Canada’s biodiversity.

Total economic value of species conservation

The total economic value framework is often used to assess how environmental assets such as species at risk contribute to the well-being of society. Using this framework, this analysis found that the species in this proposed Order provide various types of benefits to Canadians. Although preventing the loss of these benefits cannot be attributed to the proposed Order alone, some information about the benefits that these species provide to Canadians is discussed below for context.

(a) Socio-economic and cultural value for Indigenous peoples

Bumble bees, more generally, are noted to be of cultural significance to Indigenous peoples.^{footnote 12} Some Indigenous groups celebrate the bee, through masks, artwork^{footnote 13}, images in totem poles, and through traditional dance^{footnote 14} that has been revived in recent years.^{footnote 15} Bees, in Cherokee and in other Indigenous groups, represent the need to respect nature, reminding humans not to exploit the lands or the prized goods we receive from the lands and animals .^{footnote 16} Finally, bees are symbolic in many ways and for several spiritual groups, including Indigenous groups. It represents productivity, focus, communication, community and defensiveness, among others. The bumble bee represents strength and being able to accomplish any goals including the impossible, thanks to focus, and determination.^{footnote 17}

(b) Functional benefits

The species in the proposed Order may play important functional roles that support economic systems and human health and well-being. For example, both subspecies of the Western Bumble Bee may offer functional benefits, such as pollination, that support human health and economic systems. Pollination is the process of transferring pollen within and across plants to allow for fertilization and reproduction. Although many species are pollinators, including some birds, butterflies, flies, beetles and bats, the 800 species of bees in Canada are considered especially important pollinators due to the diversity of plants they can pollinate.^{footnote 18}This diversity is contingent on ensuring the livelihood of diverse bee species because some plants have evolved to form symbiotic relationships and are dependent upon specific pollinators.

Both subspecies of the Western Bumble Bee provide pollination services that are important to the production of a wide array of crops. Many agricultural crops are highly dependent on this natural service to propagate and support production yields at little or no cost to agricultural producers.^{footnote 19} As pollinators, bees increase the quantity and quality of crops, resulting in greater economic output.^{footnote 19} A key study examined data from 90 studies on crop-visiting bee communities and estimated that wild bee communities increase crop yield.^{footnote 20} To determine the potential value of the pollination services provided by the Western Bumble Bee, a subset of bees in this study were used. Taking the average contribution to crop production value from bees in the Bombus family occurring in Western North America, the potential value of pollination services provided were estimated at approximately $120/ha, some portion of which could be attributable to the Western Bumble Bee.

Pollinators, including bees, are also critical in maintaining wildflower diversity, which offers aesthetic value, in turn enhancing the diversity of many other wildlife species including other insects.

(c) Existence value

In addition to pollination benefits, people may derive existence values from bumble bee species.^{footnote 19} Many people derive well-being from simply knowing that a species exists now, and/or for future generations. Studies on other at-risk species indicate that society does place substantial value on vulnerable species, especially charismatic, symbolic, or emblematic species.^{footnote 21, footnote 22} The Monarch is considered a highly charismatic species across Canada and throughout North America.^{footnote 23} This species is one of a few butterflies that migrate, and their migration from southern Canada to Mexico has been described as an endangered biological phenomenon. The Monarch is used in classrooms all over North America to teach children about biology, metamorphosis, conservation, and an appreciation for nature. Therefore, it is assumed that Canadians may be willing to pay for the recovery or survival of the species.

A study by Diffendorfer, Jay E., et al. (2014), estimated the average one-time value that households in the United States (U.S.) placed on conserving and restoring Monarch habitat in the United States was approximately $28 (2014, USD).^{footnote 24} Adjusting the estimate for inflation and the exchange rate, and assuming that the preferences for Monarch conservation of Americans and Canadians are similar, it is estimated that Canadian households are willing to pay a one-time payment (donation) for Monarch conservation of approximately $33 per household. If extrapolated to all Canadian households within the Monarch’s range, this results in a one-time national willingness to pay about $460 million.

(d) Recreational value

Canadians often derive recreational and aesthetic benefits from viewing or watching charismatic species, such as the Monarch.^{footnote 23} For example, one study estimated the total direct revenue from tourism in the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico to be $2.2 million (2004, USD).^{footnote 25} No equivalent reserve exists in Canada; however, there are at least 12 butterfly conservatories and gardens that offer Canadians the opportunity to see butterflies. In addition, the Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory, which welcomed nearly 315 000 visitors between April 2019 and March 2020, hosts an annual, free Monarch release program where people can tag Monarchs before releasing them for their migration to Mexico for the winter.^{footnote 26} These events and attractions indicate that Canadians derive value from seeing Monarch butterflies and butterflies more generally.

(e) Option value

Society often places a value on retaining the option of possible future uses associated with a species. The “option value” of the two subspecies of Western Bumble Bees to Canadians could stem from the preservation of their genetic information that may be used in the future for biological, medicinal, industrial or other applications. For example, bumble bees are being used by scientists to better understand how to keep small aircraft stable in windy conditions, which is an example of the emerging field of biomimicry. Bee venom is also being researched for its potential medicinal properties.^{footnote 27,footnote 28} The Canadian public may value the preservation of genetic information that could be used in the future for biological, medicinal, genetic and other applications.^{footnote 29} The species recommended for listing or reclassification in the proposed Order are associated with such values (i.e. option values).

Costs

For each species, the analysis considered four types of incremental costs of the proposed Order:

• Costs to stakeholders and Indigenous peoples related to compliance with general prohibitions on First Nation reserves or other federal lands;
• Costs of permit applications and issuance for both stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, and the Government of Canada;
• Costs to the Government of Canada for recovery strategy, action plan or management plan development, compliance promotion and enforcement; and
• Potential costs stemming from downstream impacts related to future SARA regulations.

The analysis is based on the best available information at this stage.

Affected First Nation reserves and other federal land, and costs related to compliance with general prohibitions

SARA’s general prohibitions do not apply to species of special concern, meaning that the listing of the Western Bumble Bee mckayi subspecies does not create any incremental costs to stakeholders and Indigenous peoples.

General prohibitions apply immediately for species that are listed as threatened, endangered or extirpated and are found on federal lands. The Monarch and Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies are likely present on various departmental lands and First Nation reserves across Canada.

For all federal properties, including properties with agricultural activity, the Monarch egg, caterpillar and chrysalis can be found on milkweed when Monarchs are present in Canada (for most of Canada, this is from June to October and from mid-May to August in southern Ontario). Occupied milkweed is likely to be considered a residence when Monarchs are present. Whether or not it is considered a residence, the destruction of occupied milkweed would be a destruction of individuals, whether they are eggs, caterpillars, or chrysalises; thus the activity would require a SARA permit. Therefore, under SARA general prohibitions against the destruction of eggs, caterpillars, chrysalises and occupied milkweed from federal properties during this period will likely be prohibited without a permit. The protection of potential critical habitat for the Monarch was not considered, as it cannot be determined until the recovery strategy has been drafted.

For all properties within the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies range, various threats were considered, such as pathogen spillover from commercially managed bee colonies, pesticide use, and land use practices. There are mitigation measures, regulatory tools, and frameworks in place to minimize potential harm to the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies.^{footnote 30} Therefore, potential costs related to the listing of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies would be related to potential future protection of critical habitat, or potential contraventions of the general prohibitions from land use practices.

Costs are expected for stakeholders and First Nations related to the triggering of general prohibitions for these species, including potential forgone profits from agricultural practices and permit applications. Costs to the Government of Canada from the proposed Order for these three species, related to administrative activity, permitting, compliance promotion, and enforcement activities are discussed below.

Non-agricultural activity on federal land

For non-agricultural properties for both Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies and Monarch, several assumptions were made to determine the baseline level of compliance and potential applications for permits. Within the baseline, federal properties under one hectare are assumed to already be compliant, as they are able to survey their properties for the presence of the species. Additionally, it is assumed that specific land cover types that are not suitable for the Monarch or Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies, such as properties with minimal area that include buildings or other infrastructure, are considered to already be compliant in the baseline. For all remaining federal properties, it is assumed that nearly all properties are already compliant (80%) or will become compliant (15%) with the general prohibitions; the remaining non-compliant properties (5%) are assumed to require SARA permits. Permit-related costs are further described below.

The assumption of high baseline compliance is based on the high level of public attention that pollinator conservation has received in recent years. For example, the David Suzuki Foundation has run or is running several campaigns (e.g. Bee-bnb pledge, Butterflyway Project) to raise awareness about the importance of pollinators and to encourage people to create bee- and pollinator-friendly habitats in their communities.^{footnote 31} The cereal maker General Mills also ran a campaign, Bring Back the Bees,^{footnote 32} alongside their popular Cheerios brand. Similarly, the #Gotmilkweed campaign^{footnote 33} and Mayors’ Monarch Pledge^{footnote 34} specifically support the conservation of Monarchs and their critical habitat. These campaigns suggest that public awareness of the threats to Monarchs and bee populations and related conservation actions are widespread in Canada. Given this, actions that would meet SARA requirements for compliance are likely already occurring across the properties affected by the proposed Order.

Agricultural activity on federal lands

For the Monarch, agricultural producers of corn, soy, canola and wheat crops^{footnote 35} on federal lands may carry losses in profits in the event that certain herbicide application activities are not eligible for a permit. As indicated above, milkweed species are the host plants of the Monarch, which depends solely on milkweed plants for reproduction. Given that the presence of milkweed within these croplands may result in a decrease in the potential crop yields, agricultural property managers are likely to apply broad spectrum herbicides, such as glyphosate (often referred to as “Roundup”), to prevent and eliminate milkweed. Herbicides could be applied during times of the year when the egg, larva and chrysalis are assumed to not be present and not at risk of harm. However, normal agricultural practice involves multiple stages of herbicide application over the season: pre-emergent, emergent, and pre-harvest. Pre-emergent treatment of agricultural fields and pre-harvest spraying would still be permitted. At this time, however, the impacts to yield of the partial use of herbicides are not known. Therefore, the profit loss estimates are based on a full discontinuation of herbicide use and may therefore be an overestimate. However, given the potentially cost prohibitive nature of genetically modified seeds for herbicide-resistant crops (e.g. Roundup Ready), land managers may choose to not use any level of herbicides and opt for traditional seeds when only partial use is acceptable due to general prohibitions. Therefore, the assumption of farms choosing either full use or no use of herbicides is more likely to be reflective of current practices.

On average, across Canada, the majority (93%)^{footnote 36} of oilseed and grain crops are produced with the use of herbicides. However, this production stems from only 70%^{footnote 37} of farms in Canada. Therefore, it is assumed that smaller farms with lower production levels are not using herbicides. Where farm size was possible to estimate, it was assessed by crop type and province to determine if it fell below a determined threshold of assumed compliance. For properties where farm size was unknown, primarily those located on First Nation reserves, the average rate of herbicide application by province was applied to the total crop land on the First Nation reserve, to determine the estimated area with specific crops that are likely to already be compliant.

Based upon historical permitting data, it is assumed that it will be possible to issue permits to 98% of properties with agricultural activity that are assumed to not already be compliant, under various stewardship conditions. Permit-related costs are further described below.

For all remaining properties, costs related to the agricultural activity on federal lands are based on an expected decrease in yield across crop types and provinces within the Monarch range. The expectation is that the remaining producers will only be permitted to use herbicides on their crops at specific times to avoid destroying or damaging milkweed with possible Monarch individuals; including eggs, larvae, chrysalis, and adults. A systematic review^{footnote 38} of potential yield decreases from herbicide use reduction across crop types in the United States and Canada revealed an average decrease of 16% to 49%. Cost estimates are based upon the potential decrease in yield, historical crop prices, average production per hectare, and average operating profit margins for grain and oilseed crops, by province when possible. Potential losses in operating profit due to yield reductions for agriculture producers who are non-compliant and may not receive a permit are estimated to be approximately $1 to $3 million over 10 years. This may not be representative of the potential losses, as

• capital expenditures, such as costs related to equipment and land assets, are not included in the operating profit margin used to conduct this analysis, and are likely to be a significant portion of the total costs, resulting in a potential overestimate of the profit margin;
• there may be a decrease in the operating costs from no longer using the round-up ready seeds and herbicides resulting in a potential overestimate in profit losses; and
• the average cost of capital expenditure per unit produced will increase as the yield decreases resulting in a potential underestimate of profit losses.

There are no expected costs related to agricultural activity on federal lands from the listing of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies. A decision by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in 2019 determined that specific neonicotinoids^{footnote 39} do not present a substantial threat to pollinators, including the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies when mandatory mitigation measures are followed as directed.

Permit applications from stakeholders, First Nations, and federal government

As discussed above, permits would be required for activities that would be prohibited under the general prohibitions of SARA, such as occupied milkweed removal during the breeding period. This analysis uses data obtained from previously requested permits following the listing of a species under SARA to make assumptions about the number of potential permit applications. It is important to note that it is not certain that additional permit requirements would be triggered as a result of the proposed Order and no conclusions can be made on whether a permit could be issued prior to submission of an application.

Low permitting cost estimate: Permits limited to First Nation Bands and departmental land by region

For properties without agricultural activity, it is assumed that various permits may be applied for to cover incidental activities, research on the species, activities beneficial to the recovery of the species or to make a permit issued by the competent minister under another Act of Parliament SARA compliant.

In the low-cost permitting scenario, First Nation Bands would apply for a SARA permit for research, beneficial or incidental activities that cover all reserves that fall under their jurisdiction, and departments can apply for permits that would cover all properties they manage within a given region.^{footnote 40} Therefore, under this scenario, up to 21 permits may be applied for across all federal lands and First Nation reserves, related to Monarch, and up to 8 permits related to the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies.

For properties with specific agricultural activity (corn, soybean, wheat, and canola), affected federal departments may apply for one permit to cover all properties that they manage, by region. Under this scenario, there may be up to 140 permit applications related to agricultural activity within the Monarch range.

Based upon these assumptions, costs to the federal government and applicants related to permits under this scenario is approximately $0.5 million and $0.4 million respectively over 10 years. Approximately 71% of applicant costs are related to activity on First Nation reserves.

High permitting cost estimate: Permits for farms on First Nation reserves and federal departmental property, and other activity on federal departmental properties and First Nation reserves

In the high permitting cost scenario, for Monarch-related permits, it is assumed that each farm on First Nation reserve and federal departmental property would apply for a permit separately. Assuming all farms on reserve are average-sized and removing farms that are assumed not to use herbicides in production, there may be up to 706 applications across all federal lands and First Nation reserves with the specific agricultural land cover. However, the average farm size may not be representative of farms on these reserves as large farms in Alberta and Saskatchewan may be significantly distorting this number. Furthermore, the likelihood of Monarch occurrences in Western Canada is lower, although the extent is unknown. Therefore, the permit costs under this scenario are expected to be an overestimate.

In addition to permits related to agricultural activity, there may be permit applications for other activities on federal land. Under this scenario, a separate permit application is necessary for each property that remains non-compliant. It is estimated that there may be up to 86 permit applications from industry and researchers, and 18 permit applications from First Nation reserves for Monarch and Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies.

Based upon these assumptions, the costs to the federal government and applicants related to permitting under this scenario are approximately $2.5 million and $2 million respectively over 10 years. Approximately 85% of applicant costs are related to activities on First Nation reserves.

The average costs related to permit applications for the proposed Order are presented in Table 3 below, including the number of permit applications expected under the two analytical scenarios, representing a lower and upper bound of cost estimates. There may be additional compliance conditions associated with the permits issued. However, the compliance cost to permit applicants is unknown at this time and is therefore not included in the costs presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Permit applications costs per permit

Type of permit application	Cost per permit	Number of permits (low): Monarch	Number of permits (low): Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies	Number of permits (high): Monarch	Number of permits (high): Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies
Industry, including Indigenous peoples (incidental permit, e.g. herbicide application)	$2,700	140	2	706	6
Industry (incidental permit) — SARA compliant increment only table b1 note a	$700	1	1	3	1
Researcher/scientist (research or beneficial permit)	$1,300	15	3	73	9
Researcher/scientist (research or beneficial permit) — SARA compliant increment only	$300	2	1	4	1
Parks Canada Agency on Parks Canada Agency–administered land / Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) on national wildlife areas or migratory bird sanctuaries	$400	3	1	6	1
Total applicant costs	—	$390,000	$10,000	$2,000,000	$30,000
Table b1 note(s) Table b1 note a For properties that already require a permit by the competent minister under another Act of Parliament for an activity to take place (national park, national wildlife area, etc.), there would be an additional cost to make the permit SARA compliant, which is estimated to be approximately a quarter of the effort of a new permit application (or about seven hours of the applicant’s time). Return to table b1 note a referrer

Table 4: Administrative costs to the Government of Canada from issuing permits
Note: The estimates have been rounded.

Government	Cost per permit	Monarch (low)	Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies (low)	Monarch (high)	Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies (high)
New permit — ECCC	$3,400	155	5	779	15
SARA compliant increment — federal government	$700	3	1	7	2
Parks Canada Agency on Parks Canada Agency–administered land	$400	3	1	6	1
Total permits	—	161	8	792	18
Total government costs	—	$501,000	$18,000	$2,500,000	$50,000

Other federal government administrative costs

As outlined in Table 5 below, administrative costs to the Government of Canada differ depending on the listing category, as different categories trigger different reporting requirements.

Table 5: Type of listing and associated costs to the Government of Canada

Species	Species	SARA requirements	Estimated cost per species
New listing as species of special concern	Western Bumble Bee mckayi subspecies	Development of a management plan	$40,000 to $60,000
New listing or reclassification from species of special concern to endangered, threatened or extirpated	Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies, Monarch	Development of a recovery strategy and action plan	$80,000 to $100,000 per document

Compliance promotion and enforcement

Due to the species and its host plant’s broad geographic range, the estimated cost of planned and targeted enforcement is difficult to determine at this time. Further scientific study and monitoring by the Department may assist in estimating the level of enforcement effort and costs required as a result of the Monarch’s reclassification from species of special concern to endangered.

Following the implementation of the proposed Order, in the short-term, emphasis will be placed on a stewardship first approach via compliance promotion and educational awareness on how the species can be protected. Compliance promotion materials (e.g. fact sheet) will assist in explaining the general prohibitions and provide information on research and stewardship activities. Compliance promotion strategies will be used to evaluate what activities might be necessary to raise awareness about the species in the proposed Order and an understanding among potentially affected communities. This will include working closely with enforcement, Indigenous groups and communities, federal property managers, and other government departments and agencies.

Similarly, enforcement costs for the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies will be determined at a later date, but are expected to be minimal, given the limited number of permits, the high level of expected compliance, and the nature of the threats to the species.

Enforcement measures are possible where individuals fail to comply with the general prohibitions on federal lands or if the terms and conditions of a SARA section 73 permit are not met.

The cost to government of enhanced compliance promotion efforts for both the Monarch and Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies is approximately $26,000. The costs of creating the associated documents, such as recovery documents, management plans, action plans, and compliance promotion for the Monarch and the two subspecies of Western Bumble Bees is $0.35 to $0.44 million.

Implications for impact assessments

There could be some implications for projects^{footnote 41} required to undergo an impact assessment (IA). However, any costs are expected to be minimal relative to the total costs of performing an IA. Once a species is listed in Schedule 1 of SARA, under any designation, additional requirements under section 79 of SARA are triggered for project proponents and government officials undertaking an IA. These requirements include identifying all adverse effects that the project could have on the species and its critical habitat and, if the project is carried out, to ensure that measures are taken to avoid or lessen those effects and to monitor them. However, the Department always recommends to proponents in IA guidelines (early in the IA process) to evaluate effects on species already assessed by COSEWIC that may become listed under Schedule 1 to SARA in the near future, so these costs are likely already incorporated in the baseline scenario.

Potential impacts of future SARA regulations

The listing of a wildlife species under SARA as threatened, endangered or extirpated triggers a series of obligations for the government, including the preparation of a recovery strategy that includes the identification, to the extent possible, of the habitat necessary for the survival or recovery of the species (critical habitat), and different obligations regarding the protection of that critical habitat on federal lands. Protecting critical habitat on non-federal land may require the taking of regulatory action. The socio-economic impact of each individual regulatory action would be assessed if this additional protection becomes necessary.

Distributional analysis

This analysis presents the benefits and costs to Canadian society as a whole. However, the direct impacts of the proposed Order are not uniformly distributed across Canadian society. First Nations on reserves are disproportionately affected by the proposed Order, given the high level of agricultural activity on First Nation reserves relative to other federal properties.

The following Table 6 presents the distribution of impacts between affected agricultural producers on First Nation reserves and on other federal properties.

Table 6: Distribution of costs of the proposed Order

Cost type	Costs to First Nations on reserves (low)	Costs to First Nations on reserves (high)	Costs to land managers on federal departmental land (low)	Costs to land managers on federal departmental land (high)
Profit losses related to agricultural activity unlikely to receive a permit with compliance measures	$800,000	$2,500,000	$100,000	$200,000
Permit applications for agricultural activity	$270,000	$1,600,000	$80,000	$140,000
Permit applications for non-agricultural activity	$20,000	$100,000	$20,000	$90,000
Total costs	$1,090,000	$4,200,000	$200,000	$430,000

Benefits and costs summary

The proposed Order is expected to trigger protections and coordinated actions to support recovery of the listed species, thereby contributing to the benefits that they provide to Canadian society. Species conservation is associated with socio-economic and cultural values, pollination, existence, and option values. Although it is not possible to quantify the incremental benefits related to this proposal, it is expected that these benefits would outweigh the total costs of the proposed Order. Costs to government, industry, and research applicants from permit applications, and reviewing and issuing permits are estimated to be between $1 million and $4.6 million. In addition to permit-related expenses, the proposed Order could impose incremental costs on Indigenous peoples and stakeholders between $0.9 million and $2.5 million over 10 years, due to potential decreases in agriculture-related profits due to general prohibitions. Administrative costs to government from the development of recovery strategies, action plans, and a management plan, as well as from permit application processing and compliance promotion, are estimated to be $0.35 million to $0.44 million. The total cost of the proposed Order is estimated to be $2.2 million to $7.7 million over 10 years. Additional enforcement costs are anticipated in the future but are unknown at this time.

Cost-benefit statement

Number of years: 10 (2023–2032)
Base year for costing: 2021
Present value base year: 2022
Discount rate: 3%

Table 7: Monetized costs (millions of Canadian dollars)

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Government	Reviewing and issuing permits	$0.52–$2.6	$0.06–$0.3
Government	Administrative costs (compliance promotion, recovery strategy, management plan development, etc.)	$0.35–$0.44	$0.04–$0.05
All stakeholders and First Nations	Applying for permits	$0.4–$2.0	$0.05–$0.23
All stakeholders and First Nations	Reduced agricultural yields	$0.9–$2.7	$0.11–$0.29
All stakeholders, government, and First Nations	Total costs	$2.2–$7.7	$0.26–$0.90

Non-quantified impacts

Negative impacts

• Costs to government from enforcement of permits and compliance

Small business lens

The proposed Order is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small businesses, given that all farms in the proposed Order are considered small businesses based upon the average number of employees per farm.^{footnote 42} Given the nature of the proposed amendments, no flexible option was considered.

In the high cost permitting scenario, the majority of permit applications (85%) are expected from commercial agricultural activity. Under this scenario, up to 670 farms may accrue administrative costs of up to approximately $1.8 million (total present value), or $0.2 million in annualized value. Under the low-cost permitting scenario, it is expected that First Nations bands and departments would apply on behalf of the small businesses residing on their properties that may contravene the general prohibitions. In the low-cost permitting scenario, the administrative costs to the small businesses would be zero. The one-time cost of a permit application is approximately 1.5% of the average annual farm revenue.

All potential losses in profits related to non-compliant, non-permittable agriculture activity would be realized by small businesses. Approximately 2% of permits are expected to be denied, or approximately 14 farms if all farms that are denied a permit are an average-sized farm for their respective crop and province. For these farms, it is assumed that there may be a 16% to 49% decrease in expected yield, and therefore a 16% to 49% decrease in revenues and profits. Expected compliance costs for these farms are approximately $1 million to $3 million (total present value), or $0.12 million to $0.35 million in annualized value. This may not be representative of the expected compliance costs, due to various considerations around costs related to agricultural activity on federal land, as discussed in the “Costs” section of the regulatory analysis.

Since the proposed Order only addresses the status of the species and not the conservation measures, a flexible option was not possible.

Small business lens summary

Number of small businesses with administrative costs: 670
Number of small businesses with compliance costs: 14
Number of years: 10 (2023–2032)
Base year for costing: 2022
Present value base year: 2023
Discount rate: 3%

Table 8.1: Compliance costs

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Profit losses to small businesses (Agriculture)	$0.1–$0.31 million	$0.9–$2.7 million
Total compliance cost	$0.12–$0.35 million	$0.9–$2.7 million

Table 8.2: Administrative costs

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Permit applications by small businesses	$0–$0.2 million	$0–$1.8 million
Total administrative cost	$0–$0.21 million	$0–$1.8 million
Administrative cost per impacted small business	$0–$260	$0–$2,600

Table 8.3: Total compliance and administrative costs

Totals	Annualized value	Present value
Total cost (all impacted small businesses)	$0.1–$0.48 million	$1–$4.8 million

One-for-one rule

Although the number of permit applications that will be triggered as a result of the proposed Order is uncertain, preparing the permit application will represent an administrative cost to the applicants. Therefore, the proposed Order is considered to be an “IN” under the Government of Canada’s “One-for-one” rule.

Based on the available data and information on past permit applications, it is assumed that approximately 716 permits could be requested by industry and a further 87 applications could be received from scientists/researchers in the 10 years following listing.

The permit applications could give rise to one-time administrative costs that are estimated to be $73,289 on an annualized basis (2012 Canadian dollars, discounted at 7% to a base year of 2012) on the part of all applicants, or $102 in annualized administrative costs per applicant (2012 Canadian dollars, discounted at 7% to a base year of 2012). These estimates are based upon the experience of SARA permit administrators and data on previously requested permits.

A new permit application is estimated to take approximately 27 hours of the applicant’s time, for activities such as familiarization with the application requirements, information collection/retrieval and application completion and submission. For properties that already require a permit under another Act of Parliament for an activity to take place (e.g. national parks, national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries), the additional work required to make the permit SARA-compliant would require an estimated 7 hours, at an estimated cost of $354 per permit application.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The federal government plays a leadership role as federal regulator in the designation of species at risk in Canada. However, the protection of wildlife species is a responsibility shared between the federal, provincial and territorial levels of government. The provincial and territorial governments have indicated their commitment to protecting and recovering species at risk through their endorsement in 1996 of the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.

Currently, two provinces have specific legislation in place to support the protection of the Monarch. It is classified as a species of special concern under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 and the New Brunswick Species at Risk Act. The Western Bumble Bee subspecies are not listed under any provincial or territorial legislation.

Strategic environmental assessment

A strategic environmental assessment concluded that the proposed Order would result in important positive environmental effects. Specifically, it demonstrated that the protection of wildlife species at risk contributes to national biodiversity and protects ecosystem productivity, health and resiliency.

The proposed Order would help Canada meet its commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Specifically, the proposed Order would support the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework^{footnote 43} and the overarching global goal regarding the “sustainable use and management of biodiversity to ensure that nature’s contributions to people are valued, maintained, and enhanced.” Given the interdependency of species, a loss of biodiversity can lead to decreases in ecosystem functions and services. These services are important to the health of Canadians and have important ties to Canada’s economy. Small changes within an ecosystem resulting in the loss of individuals and species can therefore have adverse, irreversible and broad-ranging effects.

The proposed amendments to Schedule 1 of SARA would also support the 2022–2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS)^{footnote 44} goal to “[p]rotect and recover species, conserve Canadian biodiversity,” and target that “[b]y 2026, increase the percentage of species at risk listed under federal law that exhibit population trends that are consistent with recovery strategies and management plans to 60%, from a baseline of 42% in 2019” by helping ensure that species are provided appropriate protection. The amendments would also indirectly contribute to the FSDS goal to “[t]ake action on climate change and its impacts” by supporting the conservation of biodiversity because many ecosystems play a key role in mitigating climate change impacts. These actions would also support the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals^{footnote 45} concerning Life on Land (goal 15) and Climate Action (goal 13).

Gender-based analysis plus

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) analysis was performed for this proposal, examining whether characteristics such as sex, gender, age, race, sexual orientation, income, education, employment status, language, visible minority status, disability or religion could influence how a person is impacted by the proposed Order. The analysis found that, in general, Canadians benefit positively from the protection of species at risk and from maintaining biodiversity. The Western Bumble Bee subspecies that are included in the proposed listing Order and that occur on First Nation reserves have important cultural, ceremonial and socio-economic significance for Indigenous peoples.

The region of residence was identified as the main factor determining how a person would be impacted by the proposal. The listing of new species to Schedule 1 of SARA or their reclassification as endangered or threatened (from special concern) triggers the application of the general prohibitions to kill, capture or harm the protected species. Whenever these general prohibitions are implemented, they may disproportionately impact Indigenous peoples because they only apply on federal lands, of which First Nation reserves are a part. Therefore, individuals residing on First Nation reserves are the main subgroup that could be negatively affected by the listing of species under Schedule 1 of SARA.

The sector in which a person is employed and Indigenous status were also factors identified in determining how a person would be impacted by the proposal. The Monarch relies on milkweed, which is often found and removed from agricultural lands, and all species included in the proposal are threatened by pesticides and herbicides, which are commonly used in the agriculture industry. A possible decrease in crop yield is possible for fields that do not use this herbicide. Therefore, some potential impacts to Indigenous peoples and those working within the agricultural and landscaping industries are expected. In addition, it would be an offence to damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of the species on federal lands. This may disproportionately impact Indigenous peoples and businesses that are engaged in the removal of milkweed and/or the use of glyphosate or other herbicides for agricultural practices on federal land. According to the 2012 North American Industry Classification System results from the 2016 Canadian Census, approximately 70% of people working in “agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting” are men. Given that the ratio of agriculture on First Nation reserves versus departmental land is 92%, First Nation farms, the majority of which are associated with large canola and wheat farms in Saskatchewan and Alberta, will be disproportionately affected by this Order. The impacts to the agricultural sector could therefore disproportionately affect men and Indigenous peoples within the species’ ranges.

The Department performed consultations to ensure all potentially affected parties had the opportunity to provide input into the listing proposal. It was understood by the Department that the information that forms the basis of the consultations is complex, and is therefore not easily accessible to persons with low literacy skills or without a science background. Language may also be a barrier to meaningful participation in consultations for Indigenous peoples. To address these challenges, the Department offered to provide teleconferences or face-to-face meetings to explain the proposal and discuss its potential impacts to the communities that requested more support.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed Order would come into force on the day on which it is registered.

Following the listing, the Department and the Parks Canada Agency would implement a compliance promotion plan. Compliance promotion initiatives are proactive measures that encourage voluntary compliance with the law through education and outreach activities and raise awareness and understanding of the prohibitions. Compliance promotion initiatives aim to

• increase awareness and understanding of the proposed Order;
• promote the adoption of behaviours that will contribute to the overall conservation and protection of wildlife at risk in Canada;
• increase compliance with the proposed Order; and
• enhance knowledge regarding species at risk.

These objectives may be accomplished, where applicable, through the dissemination of information products to Indigenous peoples and/or stakeholders explaining new prohibitions on federal lands with respect to the species included in this proposed Order.

These products would be posted on the SAR Public Registry. Mail-outs and presentations to targeted audiences may also be considered as appropriate.

Within the Parks Canada Agency network of protected heritage places, front-line staff are given the appropriate information regarding the species at risk found within their sites to inform visitors of prevention measures and engage them in the protection and conservation of species at risk.

Subsequent to listing, the preparation and implementation of recovery strategies, action plans or management plans may result in recommendations for further regulatory action for the protection of wildlife species. It may also draw on the provisions of other Acts of Parliament to provide required protection.

Compliance and enforcement

SARA provides for penalties for contraventions to the Act, including fines or imprisonment, seizure and forfeiture of things seized or the proceeds of its disposition. Agreements on alternative measures may also be used to deal with an alleged offender under certain conditions. SARA also provides for inspections and search and seizure operations by enforcement officers designated under SARA. Under the penalty provisions of SARA, a corporation found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $300,000, a non-profit corporation is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000, and any other person is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both. A corporation found guilty of an indictable offence is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000,000, a non-profit corporation to a fine of not more than $250,000, and any other person to a fine of not more than $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both.

Service standards

SARA allows individuals to apply to the competent minister for a permit to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals. Upon notifying an applicant that their application for a section permit is received, the Minister has 90 days to either issue or refuse to issue the permit.^{footnote 46} The 90-day timeline may not apply in certain circumstances.

The Permits Authorizing an Activity Affecting Listed Wildlife Species Regulations contribute to consistency, predictability and transparency in the SARA permitting process by providing applicants with clear and measurable service standards for the permit application process. The Department of the Environment measures its service performance annually, and performance information is posted on the Department website^{footnote 47} no later than June 1st for the preceding fiscal year.

Contact

Paula Brand
Director
Species at Risk Act Policy
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environment and Climate Change Canada
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard, 15th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec
J8Y 3Z5
Telephone: 1‑800‑668‑6767
Email: LEPreglementations-SARAregulations@ec.gc.ca

ANNEX 1 — Description of species proposed to be added to, reclassified in or removed from Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act

New additions

Two populations of Western Bumble Bee are proposed for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA. Both populations are genetically, morphologically and spatially distinct from each other. As a result, they were divided into two different designatable units.

The Western Bumble Bee mckayi subspecies (Bombus occidentalis mckayi) occurs from central-northern British Columbia through southern Yukon and western Northwest Territories. The species prefers nests underground in burrows or hollows in decaying wood. This subspecies is proposed to be added to Schedule 1 as a species of special concern based on the serious and apparent northward-moving decline of the occidentalis subspecies in the south and the uncertainties in the causes of this decline, which could also be affecting the mckayi subspecies.

The Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) occurs in British Columbia, south of the 55–57^o N, in Southern Alberta and in Southern Saskatchewan. It prefers mixed woodlands, farmlands, urban areas, montane meadows, and prairie grasslands. This subspecies is proposed to be added to Schedule 1 as threatened because it has experienced a significant (>30%) decline from sites where it was once abundant, and it has the highest parasite loads of any bumble bee in North America.

Both designatable units are threatened by pesticide use, habitat change, and disease transmission from exotic bumble bee species. Additionally, the occidentalis subspecies is threatened by intensive residential and commercial development in the lower mainland, lower Fraser Valley and greater Victoria area in British Columbia, as well as in Calgary and its surrounding area in Alberta. Agriculture intensification is also a threat that is specific to the occidentalis subspecies.

Reclassification

The Monarch (Danaus plexippus) is a large migratory butterfly. The Canadian range of occurrence includes portions of nine provinces from British Columbia to Nova Scotia. Eastern Monarchs (Monarchs in the group east of the Rocky Mountains) breed from Alberta to eastern Nova Scotia and migrate south to overwinter in the mountains of Central Mexico. Western Monarchs (Monarchs in the group west of the Rocky Mountains) breed in southern British Columbia and migrate south to overwinter in coastal California. Milkweed species are the host plants of the Monarch, which depends solely on milkweed plants for reproduction. The egg, caterpillar, or chrysalis can be found on this plant when Monarchs are present in Canada (for most of Canada, this is from June to October). Occupied milkweed is likely to be considered a residence when Monarchs are present. Whether or not it is considered a residence, the destruction of occupied milkweed would kill or harm individuals, whether they are eggs, caterpillars, or chrysalises; thus the activity would require a SARA permit. No permit will be required for removing milkweed outside of the Monarch’s breeding period (which, for most of Canada, is outside the months of June to October). The plant is a perennial that dies back with frost. There would be difficulty in identifying occupied plants in large land areas such as fields and meadows — this highlights the need for strong compliance promotion to mitigate the issues this may cause for land managers. Milkweed grows predominantly in open and periodically disturbed habitats such as roadsides, fields, wetlands, prairies, and open forests. The Monarch is threatened by the degradation of the overwintering habitat in Mexico, the increased use of herbicides affecting milkweed, a decline in nectar supplies throughout the migratory route and neonicotinoid pesticides. The species is proposed to be reclassified from species of special concern to endangered because it has declined by more than 50% over the past decade, as measured at overwintering sites (California and Mexico).

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act under subsection 27(1) of the Species at Risk Act^{footnote a}.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Order within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Paula Brand, Director, Species at Risk Act Policy, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Gatineau, Quebec J8Y 3Z5 (tel.: 1‑800‑668‑6767; email: LEPreglementations-SARAregulations@ec.gc.ca).

Ottawa, April 20, 2023

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act

Amendments

1 Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act ^{footnote a} is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Arthropods”:

Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Monarque

2 Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Arthropods”:

Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies, Western (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) Bourdon de l’Ouest de la sous-espèce occidentalis

3 Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading “Arthropods”:

Bumble Beemckayi subspecies, Western (Bombus occidentalis mckayi) Bourdon de l’Ouest de la sous-espèce mckayi

4 Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act is amended by striking out the following under the heading “Arthropods”:

Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Monarque

Coming into Force

5 This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that public email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.