Canada since Rio: "a lost decade".

Introduction Not a Pretty Sight To people living elsewhere in the world, Canada has the image of being a pristine wilderness. It's a land of endless forests, sparkling mountain streams, and clean, cool lakes. But, that's just an image. In reality, Canada's environment is in as a big a mess as everyone else's. The federal government says 16,000 Canadians die prematurely each year because of air pollution. Seven people died and thousands more became sick by drinking tainted water in Walkerton, Ontario in May 2000. In the nine-months following this tragedy, there were 246 boil-water advisories in Ontario alone. (People are told to boil their tap water when officials suspect the supply has been contaminated.) The Canadian Institute of Child Health says exposure to toxins is the probable cause of a 25% increase in childhood cancer during the past 25 years. According to a 2001 University of Victoria study, Canada is doing very poorly in looking after the environment. Compared to the 29 most industrialized countries in the world, Canada ranked 28th. The study was based on statistical information from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and it makes for grim reading. Some highlights, or perhaps we should call them lowlights: * Canada is among the three worst countries on nine indicators (per capita greenhouse-gas emissions, sulphur dioxide emissions, carbon monoxide emissions, volatile organic compound emissions, water consumption, energy consumption, energy efficiency, volume of timber logged, and generation of nuclear waste); * Only the United States and Luxembourg produce higher per capita levels of greenhouse-gas emissions than Canada. We pump out 48% more greenhouse gas per capita than the OECD average. Canadian emissions have gone up about 13.5% since 1990, violating our international commitments; * Canada ranks 28th out of 29 OECD nations in water consumption per capita; only the Americans use more water per person than we do. The amount of water consumed in Canada has increased by 25.7% since 1980, causing higher stress on aquatic ecosystems; * In terms of energy use per capita, Canadians rank 27th out of 29 OECD nations, ahead of only Iceland and Luxembourg. With respect to energy efficiency, meaning the amount of energy required to produce a fixed amount of GDP, Canada ranks 28th. Although Canada's energy efficiency has increased by 21% since 1980, this gain was more than offset by our increasing population and economic growth so that total energy consumption continued to climb, rising 20.3% between 1980 and 1997. * We do a bit better on garbage. Canadians produce an average of 490 kilograms of municipal waste per person each year. That puts Canada 18th out of 27 OECD nations. We actually reduced our garbage production by 3.9% between 1980 and 1997. * Canada performs badly in another form of garbage -- nuclear waste. We produce more of this highly toxic substance every year, per capita, than any other OECD nation. Only the United States produces more nuclear waste, but it has ten times our population. Even then, Canada is projected to create more total nuclear waste than the U.S. by 2010. The annual volume of nuclear waste produced in Canada has grown by 76% since 1982. As well, Canadians are 24th out of 27 nations in per capita hazardous waste production. * Our farmers get poor marks. They rank 22nd out of 28 OECD nations on pesticide use; 25th out of 28 on commercial fertilizer use. * We can give ourselves a pat on the back for biodiversity. Among OECD nations, Canada ranks 7th for the number of species at risk, and 13th out of 29 in percentage of land designated as parks, ecological reserves, and other protected areas. * There is some excuse for our poor showing in transportation (25th); ours is such a big country that goods and people have to cover greater distances than in any other OECD nation. However, both the number of motor vehicles in Canada and the road distance travelled have more than doubled since 1970. It looks like a sorry record. Many observers agree that Canada has fallen badly behind in looking after Nature. The International Development Research Centre in Ottawa ranks Canada 93rd out of 180 nations on environmental performance. There have also been critical reports from Canada's Auditor-General, the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and every single non-government environmental group in the country. FACT FILE In Canada, composting organic waste is voluntary; in the Netherlands, it's illegal to put any organic waste into the garbage. According to the World Wildlife Fund, humans will have to colonize two new planets in the next 50 years to sustain their current level of growth in exploitation of the Earth's resources. SWEDEN WINS Canada and Sweden have a lot in common -- northern climate, mostly urban population, advanced economy, affluent people. One thing we don't have in common is a commitment to a clean environment. That's the conclusion of David Boyd, an environmental lawyer and professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. In 2002, Dr. Boyd published his book Canada vs. Sweden: An Environmental Face-Off. Using the hockey analogy, Sweden beats Canada 9-1. The book looks at ten key environmental indicators and finds that Canada beats Sweden in only one: we have set aside a slightly higher percentage of land as parks. In the other nine categories Canada comes in second. Dr. Boyd writes that, "Canadians both in total and on a per capita basis, create more air pollution than Swedes, generate more municipal waste, use more pesticides, and produce far more greenhouse gases. More of our sewage goes untreated. Our fisheries are being depleted more rapidly. We provide much less aid, as a percentage of GDP, to developing countries to facilitate their sustainable development." The reason Sweden trounces Canada in cleaning up the environment is government leadership. Unlike Canada, Sweden has a national strategy to achieve sustainability by 2025, with laws that set targets and goals. Website Eco-Research Chair of Environmental Law and Policy -- http://www.polisproject.org/ Politics Promises Made, Promises Broken With enormous fanfare, the leaders of the G8 gathered at Kananaskis, Alberta in June 2002. A couple of months earlier, the environment ministers for the same big, industrialized countries met at the same venue and received almost no attention. The idea of the meeting was for the ministers to discuss how to approach the Earth Summit to be held later in the year in Johannesburg, South Africa. Someone leaked a draft of the communique to be released after the environment ministers' summit. Maude Barlow, Chair of the Council of Canadians, got a copy and went ballistic. Ms. Barlow is a sworn enemy of globalization so what she saw in the communique was guaranteed to anger her. The document called for a "critical role" for the private sector in protecting the environment and "convergence" with trade and investment deals. Ms. Barlow commented: "There's no plan of action. They are submerging environmental concerns and making it take a subordinate role to a larger agenda, the corporate and private-sector agenda." This is a familiar complaint from environmentalists and people on the left wing of politics. But, there is evidence to support the view that, when push comes to shove, our governments favour business over the environment. Just ask Johanne Gelinas. Ms. Gelinas is Canada's Environment Commissioner and she and her staff are part of the Office of the Auditor-General. This is a branch of the federal government whose job it is to oversee all the operations of the government and to report to Canadians on what it finds. In the fall of 2001, Commissioner Gelinas issued a report that was far from complimentary about Ottawa's record on the environment. She said the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien had failed to come through with funding it promised, and it had "abandoned important stated positions." One focus of the report was the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin: home to 16 million Canadians. Here's an excerpt. "My findings have implications that are nationwide. The health, prosperity, and social well-being of half of Canada's people are inextricably linked to the quality and health of the basin's environment. "My audit found a number of challenges that face Ottawa, including: * "There is no clear strategy to deal with threats to drinking water. The federal government's understanding of changes in water quality is based on monitoring a limited number of contaminants. It does not know whether our drinking water meets the national safety guidelines it helped develop; * "Current farming practices are not sustainable. In spite of conservation efforts, close to half of Ontario's agricultural soil is at risk of washing away faster than new soil can form. Livestock operations in Ontario and Quebec -- often `factory farms' -- generate manure equal to the sewage of 100 million people. This activity contributes nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacterial contamination to groundwater and nearby streams and lakes. Ottawa is not working effectively with the provinces to manage the problem, nor has it any formal plan in place; * "Only 10% of the endangered and threatened species under the federal government's jurisdiction in the basin have stable or improving populations. Forty percent have declining populations. Trends for the remaining 50% are not reported; * "Invasive aquatic species such as zebra mussels are a serious and growing threat to the basin's ecosystem balance. Ballast water and sludge from ocean-going ships are the main sources of this risk. Canada relies upon voluntary guidelines and compliance with U.S. regulations; * "Canada is not living up to its international commitments. Under an agreement with the United States, 17 highly contaminated sites on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes were identified for cleanup in 1985. Sixteen sites are still [listed]." Meanwhile, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund says Canada has failed on other international promises. In 1992, Canada was one of the leading nations to sign a pledge to protect the world's biodiversity. Ten years later, the Sierra Fund released a report pointing out that Canada had done very little to honour its promises. "The lost decade is, sadly, an apt description of where Canada stands in relation to the significant commitment it made in 1992," commented the report. FACT FILE According to the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy another "Great, green wave," of public opinion is swelling. It says that Environics polls suggest the environment is becoming the most important concern of 73% of Canadians. WALKERTON Ontario never had a more business-friendly government than that of Mike Harris. His belief, and that of his Progressive Conservatives, was that less government was better government. Regulations, such as those governing the environment, were seen as a hindrance to the growth of the economy and the creation of jobs. Elected in 1995, the Harris government quickly started hacking and slashing at government services and spending. One of the hardest hit departments was the Ministry of the Environment (MOE); its budget was cut by $200 million, and a third of its employees were let go. Some of MOE's responsibilities, such as testing drinking water, were given to private companies as a cost-saving measure. Just before the holiday weekend at the end of May 2000, heavy rain carried cattle manure into a well that supplied drinking water to the town of Walkerton, Ontario. From this, a deadly bacteria known as E.coli 0157:H7 got into the water system. Over the next few days, 2,300 people in the town of 4,800 fell ill and seven died. A subsequent inquiry, led by The Honourable Dennis O'Connor, found that cuts to the provincial environment department were at least partly responsible for the disaster. The lion's share of the blame went to incompetent local government employees and their elected bosses who knew little about the water system they operated. A gross failure of government at several levels caused people to lose their lives. According to government reports, Canada is `a world leader in sustainability.' Our `environmental record is among the best in the world.' We are a `world leader in environmentally safe and clean mining practices,' sustainable forest management, and pesticide regulation. These claims are demonstrably false. More Canadians die every year from air pollution than from homicide." David R. Boyd, Senior Associate Eco-research Chair in Environmental Law and Policy, University of Victoria. Websites Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development -- http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/oagbvg.nsf/html/environment.html Walkerton Inquiry Report -- http://www.walkertoninquiry.com/ Economics Nature's Bounty Everybody is gung-ho about economic growth. And, why shouldn't they be? Economic growth creates jobs, it increases wealth, it enables us to pay for better social programs such as health care and education. The standard measure of how well our society is performing is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the measure of the value of all the goods and services we create. If the GDF is growing at three or four percent a year everybody is happy. If the GDP is declining everybody is miserable. Up: good -- down: bad. A nice simple state of affairs we can all understand until someone such as David McGuinty comes along. He's an economist and he's president of a group in Ottawa called the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) The Roundtable's members are leading Canadians appointed by the prime minister. Their job is to provide "decision makers, opinion leaders, and the Canadian public with advice and recommendations for promoting sustainable development. "Working with stakeholders across Canada, the NRTEE identifies key issues with both environmental and economic implications, examines these implications, and suggests how to balance economic prosperity with environmental preservation. The logic is that simply striving to increase the country's GDP will end up wrecking the environment. Mr. McGuinty explains it this way: "Does it make sense to construct an air conditioner that uses an ozone-depleting gas? Yes, it fattens our GDP, both in the construction of the cooling device and in the manufacture of sunscreens to protect us from increased solar radiation, but at what long-term cost? "... GDP was not designed to tell us if the environmental underpinnings of economic activity -- `natural capital' -- are being employed in a sustainable fashion. GDP doesn't alert us if we are destroying ecosystem services, such as the ozone layer, which protects people from skin-cancer-causing excess ultraviolet radiation. GDP ignores services provided by Nature and does not acknowledge that some economic advantages damage these services." What the NRTEE and many others are saying is we have to develop new accounting systems that include the cost of what we get from Nature. These new systems must also be able to tell us whether or not we are using up what Nature provides faster than it is being replaced. What Nature gives us is huge and mostly free. Also, the gift is so big we have difficulty establishing its value. How do you set a price on the regulation of the atmosphere and climate, the purification and storage of fresh water, or the formation and enrichment of soil? In 1997, a group of academics took a shot at setting a value on Nature's bounty. The team of economists and environmentalists came up with the figure of $33 trillion U.S. A very rough estimate of Canada's share of that is $2.86 trillion Cdn, or a bit more than $95,000 Cdn for every person in the country. We could think of that as our deposit in the Bank of Nature. We can be careful and live on the annual interest that deposit pays, leaving the $95,000 capital intact. Or, we can spend the 95 grand, have a party, and wake up in the morning with nothing in the Bank and a hangover. For the last two or three hundred years we've been partying; but, since 1961, we've really been tearing up the joint. Our industrial society has been placing heavier and heavier demands on the resources Nature has provided. A study released in June 2002 points out where this will lead. Published in the highly respected U.S. journal The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study says we are heading for "ecological bankruptcy." The non-profit group Redefining Progress looked at the links between the economy and the environment and reported that Earth's resources "are like a pile of money anyone can grab while they all close their eyes, but then it's gone." Just a generation ago, in 1961, our demands on the Earth's resources equalled about 70% of the planet's power to regenerate then1. But, today, we are using resources in 12 months that it takes Nature 15 months to replenish. Some important people are taking note of this kind of economics, among them Canada's former Finance Minister, Paul Martin. In May 2001, Mr. Martin gave a speech indicating he agreed with many of the economic suggestions of the National Roundtable. "Protection of the environment is not an option," he said. "It is simply something we must do. It is a fundamental issue. It is beyond debate. It is beyond discussion." He said Ottawa has set aside $9 million to develop environmental indicators. These would help us see the impact of our economic activity on the environment, which has never been possible using traditional economics. If Mr. Martin's plan becomes a reality, Canada would be one of the first countries in the world to use environmental indicators. FACT FILE In 1996, Canadians spent $11 billion enjoying the wildlife and Natural areas in which they live during a variety of nature-related activities. BAD BECOMES GOOD Traditional economics measures only the monetary value of goods and services produced. That is then expressed as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If a fully loaded oil tanker ploughs into rocks on the coast of Cape Breton Island, the cost of the cleanup adds to the GDP. If a surgeon spends all her time removing cancerous turnouts from patients that are the result of pollution, her services add to the GDP. If tornadoes and become more powerful because of global warming (and they will), repairing the damage they cause will add to the value of the GDP. YOUR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT  A typical Canadian places a heavy demand on Earth's resources. If everone in the world lived the way we do, we would need four planets. the size of Earth to supply all the resources. You can find out your individual impact by completing a simple quiz at a website operated by Redefining Progress (see page 13). In about two minutes you answer a few questions about diet, housing, mobility, etc. At the end, you'll be told how many hectares of the Earth's surface are needed to support your lifestyle. The Fraser Institute, based in Vancouver, is an economic research group that favours the business model for economic development. In April 2002, the Institute published a report that attacked many of the sacred cows of environmentalists. "Economic progress," the editors of Environmental Indicators (5th Edition) wrote, "is not the enemy of environmental progress but its ally. Rising incomes not only increase the demands for goods and services such as cars, refrigerators, and haircuts, but they also fuel the demand for environmental amenities. This demand gets expressed in a variety of ways, including support for stricter environmental laws, demand for cleaner products, and an increased willingness to donate money to conservation groups. As a result, studies find that once a country reaches a per-capita income of around $8,000 U.S., most indicators of pollution have already begun to fall." The World Bank reports that access to safe drinking water and sanitation improve almost immediately when incomes in developing countries improve. The Fraser Institute adds that, "While these studies make the conventional view that more production leads to more pollution look out-dated, the idea still has a lot of currency since it has been an important belief of the environmental establishment for over 30 years." NATURE UNDERVALUED  A classic example of failing to account for the value of Nature's gifts is the collapse of Canada's East Coast fishery. The traditional Newfoundland fishery was based on catching cod from small boats fairly close to the shore. Then, the government encouraged the use of large boats in the deep ocean. The idea was to catch more fish, process them in Newfoundland, and build up the island's economy. Few people gave much thought to the size and the value of the resource on which the fishery was founded. The cod were over-fished and the fishery crashed. In 1992, Canada banned cod fishing. A decade later, the stocks had still not rebounded. Websites Ecological Fiscal Reform -- http://www.pembina.org/ecological_fis.asp National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy -- http://www.nrteetrnee.ca/ Redefining Progress -- http://www.rprogress.org/ Your Ecological Footprint -- http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp# Forests Going, Going ... We tend to forget that Canada is one of the most forested nations in the world. As Global Forest Watch points out, our country "contains over a third of the world's boreal forest, one fifth of the world's temperate rainforest, and a tenth of the total global forest cover. Canada has the second major repository of northern forests, after Russia. Canada's boreal forest is one of the three largest `frontier forests' remaining on the planet. The other two are in Russia and Brazil. Canada's relatively undisturbed forest areas are sufficiently large to maintain all of their native biodiversity." But, say environmentalists, Canada is not doing a very good job of looking after its forests. Dr. David Schindler thinks Canada's boreal forest could be gone in 50 years. Dr. Schindler teaches at the University of Alberta and is recognized as one of the world's foremost experts on the boreal forests. There might be a few isolated patches of boreal forest left in protected parkland, but the huge green swath that covers northern regions will be gone. It's a combination of threats, most of them from human activity, that causes Dr. Schindler to make his dire prediction. Global warming is one problem. During the 1990s, temperatures around Kenora in northern Ontario rose by 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much but it was enough to accelerate water loss by 50%. The drier environment encouraged two massive forest fires to ravage the area in a single decade. Acid rain, which comes from pollutants carried on the wind from coal-fired power stations, vehicle exhausts, and other sources, is another factor. As are logging practices, such as clear-cutting. All combine to weaken the forest's ecology. Dr. Schindler points to Alberta for a glimpse of the boreal forest's future today. Half the province lies within the boreal forest region, but only nine percent of Alberta's remaining forest is wild. Oil wells and pipelines get preference over forests. In Manitoba and Quebec, hydro dams have submerged or damaged almost 20% of the boreal forest: in some provinces, more than 60% of it has been schedule for clear-cutting. Global Forest Watch believes that logging in boreal regions will have to be reduced by 25% to be sustainable in the long run. Canada's federal and provincial governments seem to have done little to protect this rich natural resource. Often, because responsibility is shared, each jurisdiction blames the other. Ottawa's Canadian Forest Service (CFS) has the job of promoting "the sustainable development of Canada's forests and competitiveness of the Canadian forest sector for the well-being of present and future generations of Canadians." That's a tough job to do with a budget that has been cut to ribbons. Between 1995 and 1998, the annual operating budget of the CFS was reduced from $219 million to $93 million. Global Forest Watch reports that "At both the federal and provincial levels, deep budget cuts have drawn down the staffing and resources required to implement and enforce new policies and legislation." As a result, says the group, the responsibility for forest management is being left increasingly in the hands of a few very large forestry companies. The record on that is not very encouraging. In a 2001 report, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund accused Ottawa of giving up on the enforcement of water pollution laws in eastern Canada. The group said that pulp and paper mills from Ontario east committed almost 3,000 violations of water pollution laws between 1995 and 1998. Only seven prosecutions were launched. The government and industry officials attacked the report as inaccurate. And, it's not just the boreal forest that's threatened; Canada's west coast rainforest has been the scene of mammoth battles among environmentalists, Native peoples, and forestry companies. British Columbia's coastal rainforest is the last temperate, old-growth forest left in the world. It is an almost priceless resource as an untouched ecosystem and habitat, but also because of the very valuable timber it contains. But, those two aspects of the forest are incompatible. Cut down the forest to harvest the timber and the ecosystem is lost. Keep the ecosystem as it is and the value of the wood cannot be realized. Five years of conflict seemed to be resolved in April 2001. British Columbia's Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, coastal Native Indian leaders, environmental groups, and forest companies signed an agreement covering the region from northern Vancouver Island to Prince Rupert as well as the Queen Charlotte Islands. Half a million hectares of new, protected areas were created and logging on a million more hectares was postponed. Timber harvests will decline and a more ecologically friendly system of forestry introduced. A multi-million dollar transition fund will help workers who lose their jobs as a result of the deal. One of the key elements in the battle was a campaign by environmentalists against the customers of logging companies. They succeeded in pressuring U.S. companies such as Home Depot, the world's largest lumber retailer, to boycott wood products from the area. Other activists have taken note of the success of this campaign. We can expect to see similar tactics used by environmentalists in campaigns to promote sustainable practices. FACT FILE The volume of timber taken from Canadian forests increased by 14.6% between 1980 and 1997. Forests cover 4.5% of Canada's land area. Less than 8% of Canada's forests are fully protected from logging and other industrial exploitation. CLEAR-CUTTING: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY Almost everybody has bad things to say about clear-cutting, except loggers. Clear-cutting is a technique in which every tree in an area is felled at the same time. The commercially valuable logs are hauled out and the rest are left on the ground. The area can then be planted with identical saplings. So, a future crop will be of trees that are all the same age and species that can be harvested mechanically. That's the good bit. The bad is that clear-cutting destroys habitats, disrupts natural watercourses, and triggers increased soil erosion. It also results in hideously ugly landscapes. The vision of bald mountain tops, looking as though a nuclear weapon had been exploded on them, has been used by environmental groups. Billboards showing patches of clear-cut Canadian wilderness have been effective in persuading Europeans to boycott our lumber products. HOME OF THE SPIRIT BEAR A rare, white bear lives in the forests along the coast of British Columbia. Known as the Spirit Bear to Native people, this animal quickly became the poster child of the struggle to save the ancient forest from logging. What has come to be called The Great Bear Rainforest stretches in a band about 200 kilometres wide from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaskan border. It includes stands of red cedar, western hemlock, sitka spruce, and balsam fir; some of these trees are 1,000 years old. But, it's the Spirit Bear that may have saved the forest; its image has been exploited shamelessly by the environmental movement. One campaign was against the Centex home building company in the U.S. and was aimed at halting the use of rainforest lumber in construction. On a billboard a picture of a Spirit Bear had the caption, "Your new Centex home leaves him homeless: stop using old-growth wood." BOREAL BONANZA The boreal forest is Canada's largest ecosystem, stretching from Newfoundland to the Rockies. It took 65 million years to evolve to its present state, and provides Canadians with life-support systems estimated to be worth at least $70 billion a year. The boreal forest filters impurities out of water; it captures carbon and produces oxygen; it builds soil; it protects and sustains the world's largest collection of lakes and wetlands; and, it provides a habitat for thousands of species. Websites Canadian Forest Service -- http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfsscf/index_e.html Canadian Forestry Links -- http://www.magma.ca/-evb/forest.html Global Forest Watch Canada -- http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/canada/ Biodiversity Natural Ejection Stories about the passenger pigeon are almost legendary. They gathered in huge colonies that were very densely populated; there might be as many as 100 nests in a single tree. It was said that a migrating flock of these birds would darken the sky for days. They nested in Canada from the east coast right out to the Prairies in numbers too high to be counted although it was certainly many billions. But, passenger pigeons made for good eating and they were easy to shoot, net, and otherwise kill. From 1871 to 1880 the total population of passenger pigeons went into a dramatic decline. By the 1890s, they were rare and, in 1902, the last recorded sighting of a passenger pigeon in the wild in Canada was made in Penetanguishene, Ontario. The species became extinct when the last known passenger pigeon died in September 1914 in a zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio. So shocking was the rapid extinction of the passenger pigeon that some people began to give serious thought to protecting other species that might be at risk. Today in Canada, 23 animals and plants have been entirely eliminated from the world's genetic pool. The number of species in Canada that are endangered or of special concern has risen from 178 in 1988 to 358 in 2001. That might give the impression that we're rushing headlong into disaster. However, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has not yet studied all species. Numerous invertebrates, plants, and fish still need to be assessed; as this happens more species are added to the list suggesting that a dramatic decline in biodiversity is taking place. According to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, 99% of the extinctions are the result of human activity; the main cause being destruction of habitat. COSEWIC says habitat loss is the primary threat to 80% of the species on the Endangered Species List. Destructive logging practices, filling wetlands for urban development, and excessive levels of industrial and urban pollution all play a role in accelerating species extinction. The natural environment of Canada is almost unrecognizable from the landscape the first European settlers found. Only one percent of the original Carolinian forest is left. Half the original rainforest is gone, and three quarters of the old Prairie grassland has been ploughed. Species that took thousands of years to adapt to living in those untouched environments have had to adjust to their destruction in a few centuries. Many haven't been able to change fast enough and have vanished. And the destruction continues. The Sierra Legal Defence Fund says that, "Recent studies estimate that in Canada today, we lose more than 240 acres [97 hectares] of wildlife habitat every hour. It is a rate of habitat destruction that is fuelling one of our largest and most important environmental problems." So, the swift fox and burrowing owl are vulnerable in the Prairies. Forest-dependent species such as the marbled murlet and Newfoundland pine marten are threatened. At the moment, seven Canadian provinces - Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan - have specific legislation to protect species at risk of extinction. Other provinces have changed existing laws to deal explicitly with endangered species. In June 2002, the House of Commons passed Bill C-5, a plan to protect endangered species that fall trader federal jurisdiction. Also, Canada was one of the first industrialized nations to sign the International Convention on Biological Diversity at the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992. There is also a national recovery program called RENEW (for Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife). Under this program, recovery plans for species that are endangered or threatened are developed and put in place under the supervision of a team of experts. Add to this the efforts of tens of thousands of volunteers who: * to take part in bird counts and banding programs; * to devote a portion of their gardens to growing and preserving heritage seeds; * to act as interpreters and guides at nature centres; * to join civil protests to protect habitats from destruction; * to volunteer to guard nesting peregrine falcons and other birds from collectors who try to steal their eggs; * to do door-to-door fundraising for environmental groups; * to lobby for tougher species protection laws; * and, engage in many other activities to protect a vulnerable piece of our environment. All that effort is still not enough, and we haven't even mentioned the marine environment. Canada has the longest coastline of any country in the world, stretching 244,000 kilometres when islands are included. Canada claims jurisdiction over more than five million square kilometres, that's equal to more than half the country's land area. Yet, less than a tenth of one percent of Canada's marine areas is closed to industrial development. (About eight percent of the land area is closed.) However, what goes on in the ocean depths may be more important to the world's environment than what happens on land. As usual, it took a disaster to get the attention of decision makers. The collapse of the Newfoundland cod fishery in the early 1990s focussed people's minds on marine ecosystems. Scientists are now studying the relationship between industrial development and the health of the oceans. Offshore oil and gas drilling, large-scale ocean-floor trawling, undersea mining all have an impact on a fragile ecosystem. President of the World Wildlife Fund, Monte Hummel says "Canada has a unique responsibility and opportunity to make a conservation contribution of global significance. Yet, marine ecosystems remain the most unaddressed conservation priority in our country today." FACT FILE The volume of fish caught in Canadian waters has dropped 75% since 1990, reflecting the ecological disasters in the east coast cod and west coast salmon fisheries. Killer whales on Canada's West Coast and the East Coasts beluga whales are the world's most toxic mammals because of industrial pollution. Other provinces have changed existing laws to deal explicitly with endangered species. CANADA HAS: One fifth of the world's remaining wilderness, and one tenth of its forests. About 71,000 known species of plants, animals, fungi, and micro-organisms. THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN Predators are very important to the ecological balance of the environment. Knock out major predators such as wolves or coyotes and there is a ripple effect throughout the food chain. Without wolves there is a population explosion among the larger grazing animals on which they feed. With greatly increased numbers of deer looking for food, many plant species become threatened. Habitats that small mammals, insects, and birds depend on are destroyed by overgrazing and their populations go into decline. There are between 50,000 and 65,000 wolves in Canada. They disappeared from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick around 1870, Newfoundland in 1911, and from the southern Prairies in the early 190Os. Wolves are considered extinct in most of southern Ontario and Quebec. A CLOSE CALL There were just 21 whooping cranes living in the wild in 1941. In a now familiar story, most of their breeding habitats have been destroyed. Whoopers now spend the winter in the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. In spring, they fly north to the Wood Buffalo National Park near the border between Alberta and the Northwest Territories. The journey is hazardous. Some cranes have been killed flying into power lines and microwave towers. Sometimes, hunters bag them in flight. A massive conservation effort over the last 60 years has built the wild whooper population up to about 380. But, this is still dangerously low. The biggest threat to the birds is in the wintering grounds along the Texas coast. An oil spill from a passing ship could destroy the coastal marshes the whooping cranes depend upon for survival. THE GULLY One of the most important wildlife habitats under Canada's jurisdiction is also the most rarely visited. The Gully is an underwater canyon 200 kilometres off the coast of Nova Scotia. At 20 kilometres wide and two kilometres deep, the Gully is bigger than the Grand Canyon. It's a place where cold-water corals as much as 1,500 years old live. The endangered northern bottlenose whale lives there, as well as dolphins, many species of fish, and migratory birds. But, fish stocks are collapsing in the Gully and activists have been pushing Ottawa to create a marine reserve there. Industrial activities in or near the Gully could wreak havoc to its ecosystem. But, in 2001, Ottawa sold $500 million worth of oil and gas exploration leases in the area. Websites Canadian Wildlife Service - http://www.cws-scf.cc.gc.ca/ Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada -- http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.htm Earthroots - http://www.carthroots.org/ The Gully - http://www.wwfcanada.org/en/cons_pgms/gully/default.asp Urban Death in the City Hacking and wheezing through smog alerts is becoming a frequent experience for Canada's city dwellers, And, as 78% of Canadians live in urban areas, that means most of us. By far the largest and worst affected area is southern Ontario. This heavily populated region creates enough air pollution on its own to cause plenty of coughing and spluttering. But, the quantity of locally generated pollutants is doubled by contributions from the United States. A southerly flow of air pumps thousands of tonnes of soot and gases, from coal-fired power stations and industry in the Ohio Valley, up into Ontario. Now, add a blistering July sun; all the goop in the air cooks in the heat to form what the experts call photochemical smog. (Smog is a word created from combining parts of the words "smoke" and "fog".) The recipe for photochemical smog includes a list of noxious substances with long chemical names. The result is a brownish haze that does bad things to most life forms. The most obvious results of exposure to smog is that peoples' eyes start watering, the air we breathe tastes of sulphur, and the inside of shirt collars turn black. Most people find these effects irritating but, more sinister stuff is going on. For people with breathing problems such as asthma or emphysema, a smoggy day call mean a trip to hospital. Frequent or prolonged exposure can mean a trip to the morgue. Many of the chemicals found routinely in the air we breathe are what's called carcinogenic, or cancer causing. Benzene is a known villain and people who work at gas stations may be getting more than their fair share of it. About one percent of gasoline is benzene and it's vented off as a vapour from the fuel. There is a similar problem with dry-cleaning stores. Tetrachloroethylene is used as a cleaning agent, and it's thought to cause cancer. There are ten particularly worrisome chemicals (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chromium 6, and formaldehyde are among them). Toronto's public health department found nine of them in the city's outdoor air in concentrations close to or above safe levels. In their 2002 report, health officials wrote: "This study indicates that Toronto residents are routinely exposed to a variety of carcinogenic chemicals in the environment, and that these exposures are associated with a lifetime cancer risk greater than one in a million excess cancers." The city's medical officer of health, Dr. Sheela Basrur points out the difficulty this air pollution causes for people. "You can avoid smoking," she told a news conference, "but you cannot avoid breathing. If you go into a polluted environment or if you live in a neighbourhood that has a high-traffic density there is not much you can do, short of moving, but to where? There is no unpolluted, safe environment these days." FACT FILE Sweden has imposed a tax on carbon dioxide emissions and the proceeds are invested in renewable energy development and public transit. Canada has no such program. SMOGGY FACTS According to the Clean Air Alliance, emissions from the coal-fired generating station at Nanticoke, Ontario cause 1,000 premature deaths a year in Toronto. According to another estimate, 40 Canadians die from air pollution-related causes every day. Two-stroke engines, commonly found on lawn mowers, leaf blowers, weed-whackers, etc., can emit up to 20 times more pollution than four-stroke engines. The safe level of a cancer-causing chemical is defined as a concentration that causes one extra person to die prematurely of cancer among every one million residents over their lifetimes. KILLER SMOG December 1952 was a very bad time to be living in London, England. The city's power stations were fuelled by coal, and almost every home was heated by a coal fire. Thousands of trains a day entered and left the capital pulled by coal-fired steam engines. And, factories using coal added to the sulphurous cloud of smoke that was trapped over the city by a weather pattern. At ground level, the smog was so thick that visibility was less than one metre. In the space of five days more than 4,000 people died as a direct result of the smog. Four years later, the Clean Air Act was introduced banning the use of smoky fuels such as coal. TREES TO THE RESCUE Chicago is a city of about three million and, as with many cities, it has more trees than people. This "urban forest" performs a lot of useful tasks. Trees absorb pollution and a landmark study in 1994 put some numbers on this activity. The study found that Chicago's urban forest removes nearly 750 million kilos of pollutants from the air each year. To do the same work, pollution-control equipment costing $9 million U.S. would have to be installed. In addition, trees provide summer shade and cut winter cold so that heating and air conditioning costs are lower. They reduce water run-off and erosion, filter dust, block noise, and create a habitat for songbirds. They also absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen Websites Cleanair Canada - http://www.cleanair.ca/ Toronto Environmental Alliance - http://www.torontoenvironment.org/ Toxicity Quick! Bury it! Canada has nothing to crow about when it comes to cutting pollution. According to a North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) report, released in May 2002, toxic releases declined 6% in the United States from 1995 to 1999. During the same period, Canadian emissions rose 6%. The NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) report, Taking Stock, found that although chemical releases remain large in both countries (a total of 3.4 million tonnes in 1999), the U.S. has tougher regulations to control toxic pollution. Ontario was, by far, the worst polluter in Canada. While overall toxic pollution from the two countries dropped 3% during the five-year period, Ontario reported a 19% increase in releases and transfers of toxic chemicals. Ontario's poor record was blamed largely on a big increase in metal wastes shipped to the Safety-Kleen Ltd. hazardous-material landfill near Sarnia, and higher metal waste from Dofasco Inc., the Hamilton-based steel maker. Mark Windield is with the Pembina Institute, an environmental policy think tank based in Ottawa and Alberta. He says many Canadian companies are collecting their hazardous pollutants and disposing of them in landfill sites, instead of redesigning their factories to lessen the generation of hazardous wastes. While the CEC study showed little overall change in the total toxic chemicals generated in North America during the five-year study period, it found big changes in how pollutants are handled: releases to air from manufacturing went down 25% (153,000 tonnes). But that was offset by increased releases to lakes, rivers, and streams (+25%), landfill sites (+35%), and underground sites (+25%): total additional releases in these locations added up to 115,000 tonnes. So, it looks as if Mr. Windield could be right, that pollution is not being prevented, only transferred to different locations. Among other findings in Taking Stock: * Total releases for 1999 include 269,000 tonnes of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive problems; * More than 13,000 tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals were released from Canadian and U.S. industrial facilities in 1999; * Electrical utilities report the largest total releases in North America--more than 450,000 tonnes. Among the worst culprits were Ontario's coal-fired electricity plants; * Just four industries--primary metals, chemical manufacturing, electrical utilities, and hazardous waste management--accounted for almost two-thirds of total releases and transfers in 1999; * More than a million tonnes of chemicals were sent for recycling in North America in 1999; * Only a few chemicals are responsible for most of the releases: just 25 account for 90% of total releases on- and offsite. Almost one-third of all releases on- and off-site are metals and their compounds. Most of these metals are sent to land disposal either on- or off-site. Taking Stock is produced by the CEC--the Montreal-based environmental body established by the NAFTA partners--from data collected by the national governments of Canada and the United States. The report covers 210 chemicals for which there are comparable figures in the two countries. About 25,000 factories and other facilities submitted data. "`Out of the air, into the water and land' emerges as a major trend from our five-year analysis. North America's progress in reducing toxic releases to air must continue but it also must be matched by reductions in water and land releases ... Overall, the total reported amount of chemicals released changed little over the five years and the findings in this new report should prompt all of us--industry, government environmental groups, and citizens--to ask what can be done to get all of the trends pointing in a downward direction." Janine Ferretti, Executive Director, Commission for Environmental Cooperation Websites Commission for Environmental Cooperation - http://www.cec.org/ Pembina Institute - http://www.pembina.org/ National Parks Underfunded and Under Pressure Canada has some of the world's most magnificent national parks. * The Gwaii Haanas Park is in the southern Queen Charlotte Islands on the British Columbian Coast. It covers almost 1,500 km² and is home to 39 unique plants. Each year 750,000 sea birds nest in the park, which is also home to black bears, pine martens, and other mammals. It has a landscape of deep fjords and rugged mountains in a setting of one of the most beautiful and precious old-growth temperate rainforests. * Grasslands Park is south of Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Here almost 1,000 km² of Prairie grassland is preserved as a natural habitat for pronghorn antelopes, prairie falcons, and blacktailed prairie dogs. * Fathom Five National Park is at the tip of Ontario's Bruce Peninsula, which separates Georgian Bay from Lake Huron. It protects the northern tip of the Niagara Escarpment, a limestone cliff that stretches 725 kilometres north from Niagara Falls. * Prince Edward Island has one of the smaller national parks. Just 22 km², this park on the island's north shore covers 40 kilometres of beaches, marshes, sand dunes, ponds, woodlands, and cliffs. Thirty-five other national parks, in every province and territory, have been created. The plan is to protect unique ecosystems and help Canadians appreciate their country's fabulous natural heritage. But, all is not well in Canada's national parks. Just because a park has been created doesn't mean everything in it is protected forever. Many of Canada's parks, both national and provincial are under pressure from commercial development. The Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories is an example. Mining and oil and gas development is taking place outside the park, although within the South Nahaani River watershed. There are serious concerns that industrial activities will have a negative impact within the park. Another concern is on the West Coast. Here's what the Canadian Nature Federation says about The Pacific Rim National Park Reserve: "Pacific Rim is under intense threat both from within the park, and from land use beyond its borders. In particular, the fragmentation of the park into three distinct areas has had a significant impact. "The allocation of lands outside the park to timber extraction over the last several decades has reduced the park to a narrow band of wilderness in some places. Roads and parking lots further fragment parts of the park. "The park ecosystem is also vulnerable to marine pollution, as the Grace Harbour oil spill of 1989 demonstrated when oil slicks rolled up on the park beach, killing hundreds of birds. "With up to 700,000 visits per year, visitor pressure continues to grow on the park. Fortunately, visitor conflicts with wildlife such as black bears and cougars have decreased in recent years due to strict regulations about food and garbage in campsites." This park is home for 20 species that are considered to be at risk of extinction. On Canada's East Coast another park is in trouble. The Prince Edward Island National Park draws huge crowds -- 35,000 people for each square kilometre of its beaches, sand dunes, and woodlands. That many pairs of feet is playing havoc with the ecosystem. And now, developers want to attract even more visitors. The provincial government approved plans for an all-season resort with a 150-room hotel and restaurant and an 18-hole golf course close to the park. The developer is also planning to build 910 timeshare units and 8.5 km of hiking and cycling trails in the area. The proposed resort is expected to attract 140,000 visitors per year to the fragile Greenwich Dunes area. This is almost twice the number that Parks Canada has set as the upper limit of visitors. The increased traffic could spell disaster for the dune ecosystem, and its rare flora and fauna that includes the globally endangered piping plover. The Canadian Nature Federation and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund are fighting to protect our national parks from these kinds of threats. But, where is Parks Canada? Surely, the federal agency that has responsibility for these national treasures is standing on the barricades, shoulder-to-shoulder with the environmentalists? Well, yes and no. As with many government departments over the last decade, Parks Canada has had its budget cut. It lost about a quarter of its funding at the start of the 1990s. Since then, the understaffed agency has been struggling just to keep the system's roads, fences, campsites and other infrastructure from falling apart. In 2000, a Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks estimated that $328 million over five years was needed to restore the parks. As of the summer of 2002 none of that money had shown up. The longer the parks are starved of cash the more costly it will become to fix them. Canada's national parks fall under the jurisdiction of Heritage Minister Sheila Copps. At the time of the 2000 report on the state of the parks, Ms. Copps promised, "We will revitalize Canada's national parks. That is our responsibility." FACT FILE Parks Canada says it has the goal of creating a park to represent each of the country's 39 natural ecological regions; to achieve this 14 more parks are needed. It's been said that Canadians love their national parks so much they love them to death. "National parks are maintained for all people--for the ill, that they may be restored, for the well that they may be fortified and inspired by the sunshine, the fresh air, the beauty, and all the other healing, ennobling; and inspiring agencies of Nature. National parks exist in order that every citizen of Canada may satisfy a craving for Nature and Nature's beauty; that we may absorb the poise and restfulness of the forests; that we may steep our souls in the brilliance of the wild flowers and the sublimity of the mountain peaks; that we may develop in ourselves the buoyancy, the joy, and the the activity we see in the wild animals; that we may stock our minds with the raw material of intelligent optimism, great thoughts, noble ideas; that we may be made better, happier, and healthier." James B. Harkin, First Commissioner of National Parks (1911-36) ENDANGERED PARKS The Canadian Nature Federation (CNF) has published a list of the l0 national parks most at risk from threats to their environments. They are: * Prince Edward Island National Park - PEI * Nahanni National Park Reserve - NWT  * Point Pelee National Park - ON * Wood Buffalo National Park - NWT/AB * St. Lawrence Islands National Park - ON * Riding Mountain National Park - MB * Pacific Rim National Park Reserve - BC * Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve - BC * Elk Island National Park -AB * Waterton Lakes National Park - AB The Nature Federation published a similar list three years earlier in 1999. Some parks have dropped off the earlier list; not because conditions have improved but because conditions in other parks have become so much worse that they've been bumped off the list. WATER PARK Parliament has passed Bill C-10. Called the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, this law creates a framework for the creation of national parks in marine environments. Environmentalists are hoping Parks Canada will establish marine conservation areas in the Great Lakes, and on Canada's three ocean coastlines. Canada's first National Marine Park, Fathom Five, is at Tobermory at the tip of the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario. Websites Canadian Nature Federation - http://www.cnf.ca/ Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society - http://www.cpaws.org/ Parks Canada - http://Parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/