Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act: SOR/2023-263

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 157, Number 26

Registration
SOR/2023-263 December 8, 2023

SPECIES AT RISK ACT

P.C. 2023-1210 December 8, 2023

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, makes the annexed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act under subsection 27(1) of the Species at Risk Act ^{footnote a}.

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 Bee mckayi 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.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Order.)

Issues

Canadians depend on biodiverse ecosystems and the services they provide, including clean air and water, fertile soil, carbon sequestration, and flood and drought mitigation. Biodiversity contributes to the resilience of species and helps ecosystems adapt to change. Globally, up to 1 000 000 species are threatened with extinction, natural ecosystems have declined by 47% on average and the global biomass of wild mammals has fallen by 82%.^{footnote 1} The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework^{footnote 2} (KMGBF) was adopted in December 2022 at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Government of Canada, through Environment and Climate Change Canada (the Department) is responsible for leading the development of the 2030 National Biodiversity Strategy and reporting on Canada’s progress to meet the KMGBF targets. One way for Canada to support the KMGBF is by protecting domestic species at risk to halt species extinction and reduce extinction risk.

Species that are at risk are afforded protections under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) when listed on Schedule 1 of SARA (the List of Wildlife Species at Risk). The Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act is needed to up-list the Monarch from special concern to endangered and list the Western Bumble Bee (mckayi and occidentalis subspecies) as special concern and threatened respectively, to ensure that these species are afforded protection commensurate with risks associated to their survival. Listing species at risk on Schedule 1 of SARA, and the associated protections triggered by the listing, support not only the protection of the species, but also overall biodiversity and ecosystem health.

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 3} 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 a federal regulator in order to prevent terrestrial species^{footnote 4} from becoming extinct at the global scale^{footnote 5} or extirpated^{footnote 6} 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 May 2023, there are 660 species listed under Schedule 1 of SARA.

COSEWIC

In 2003, SARA established the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (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 Governor in Council (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 7} 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 8} 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 Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act (the Order) is to ensure that the various measures available under SARA to protect and recover species at risk, are applicable to the species that will be reclassified or added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk (Schedule 1 of SARA) by this Order.

Description

The Order will 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 9}

Table 2.1: Species for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA

Taxon	Species	Scientific name	Previous status	New 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	Previous status	New 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 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 and supplemental consultation results

The Department conducted initial consultations on the addition of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis and mckayi subspecies to Schedule 1 of SARA between December 2014 and May 2015. Initial consultations on the up-listing of Monarch took place between January and October 2018, with follow-up consultations taking place in 2020. The Department sent consultation letters and emails to all Indigenous groups, wildlife management boards, federal land administrators, provincial and territorial governments, municipal governments, interested agencies, and the SAR Public Registry mailing list.

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.

Summaries of the initial and supplemental consultations can be found in the proposed Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act, which was prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on May 13, 2023.

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The proposed amendments were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on May 13, 2023, followed by a 30-day public comment period. The link to this comment period was also posted on the SAR Public Registry and a social media campaign was launched to raise awareness of it and encourage stakeholder participation.

A total of 578 comments were received.

Of these, 526 comments were received as part of an email-writing campaign organized by the Wilderness Committee. A combination of emails indicating support (513) and some containing general comments (13) were received. The emails indicating support for up-listing the Monarch and listing the Western Bumble Bees referenced the importance of bees for biodiversity and their importance to the food chain. They also included support for recovery strategies to ensure critical habitat is protected and that the species are protected from the threats they face, including those from pesticide use. General comments included messages hoping the government would consider environmental interests over corporate interests, the true realization of climate change impacts (e.g. wildfires), steps individuals are taking to help (i.e. planting pollinator gardens) and the overall need to protect the environment. In addition, many campaign participants provided additional information in their emails, including species observations and anecdotes, personal experiences with pollinators, and expressions of interest for stewardship activities.

The additional 31 comments received in support are described below.

Fifteen comments were received from individuals supporting the listings, including species observations, their importance to biodiversity, personal experiences with pollinators, and expressions of interest to participate in stewardship activities, as well as suggestions for potential locations that could be converted to pollinator habitat.

Nine comments were received from a second letter-writing campaign, through the online regulatory consultation system, from individuals suggesting that the government should provide funding for the municipality to purchase a former golf course in Greater Montreal to create habitat for the Monarch to thrive.

One comment was received from an NGO supporting the up-listing for the Monarch. However, they noted their concern about milkweed and the potential implications for the safety of their airport operations should they not be able to remove milkweed as required and noted the potential operational activity delays that could arise should they require a permit to do so. The Department noted the NGOs concerns and has accounted for them in the cost and permitting analyses. If the NGO is not already performing active vegetation maintenance, such concerns can be mitigated by the Department’s permitting scheme, likely without delay to the NGO’s activities.

One comment was received from an ENGO indicating their support for the listings and noting the importance of staging habitat in Canada. They also specified the need for a comprehensive and strong recovery strategy that considers the important legal protections in Canada while also working in partnership with the agriculture industry to mitigate impacts.

One comment from a municipal government expressed support for the listing and suggested that the Monarch’s critical habitat not be limited to its host plant (milkweed) only.

Four Indigenous groups indicated their support for the proposal. Comments outlined the importance of pollinators and stewardship activities to support the species; concerns around the future identification of critical habitat; interest in participating in the development of action plans that will follow the listings; and concerns regarding the usage of milkweed for subsistence and medicinal purposes and the potential impacts the prohibitions will have on harvesting for Indigenous communities. It was also identified that permitting requirements for certain activities are unclear, but if required, could impact and/or pose barriers for stewardship activities. The Department encourages groups and individuals with an interest in the species to participate in the recovery planning process for further discussions regarding the identification of critical habitat on federal lands. While it is possible that milkweed could be identified as Monarch residence, the Department maintains that harvesting milkweed would not be prohibited under SARA unless those activities affect individual Monarchs or damage or destroy their residences on federal lands. Concerns regarding clarity of permitting requirements and stewardship activities have been noted and will be addressed in compliance promotion materials for the Order.

General comments were received from 17 participants, including those from individuals, an ENGO, a provincial government, a crown corporation, Indigenous groups, and an industry organization. Comments included concerns about milkweed being included on the noxious weed lists in some provinces; the requirement for a standardized protocol to survey for occupied milkweed; suggestions and actions for the creation and implementation of recovery strategies and action plans; the need to ban certain pesticides and herbicides; pollinator observations; concerns about potential future prohibitions on non-federal lands; implications for the management of lands; and the commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity through sustainable agriculture. The Department has noted these concerns and SARA provides the opportunity for these factors to be considered in recovery planning, permitting, and compliance promotion activities, among others.

A total of four comments were received in opposition to the proposed Order from individuals, and provincial governments.

One individual opposed the up-listing of the Monarch with no reason provided and a second because they feared that the prohibitions would impact the ability to interact with and rear Monarchs. However, the Department can confirm that if an individual is not on federal land, the general prohibitions do not apply. However, any actions should be undertaken in accordance with provincial and territorial rules and restrictions.

One provincial government opposed the up-listing indicating that the Monarch is not included in their provincial wildlife legislation but could be protected, should the province deem it necessary to do so. They also indicated that any species included under SARA could have socioeconomic impacts for the province when critical habitat is designated and protected. The Department undertook a cost-benefit analysis of the Order and determined this to be a low-cost proposal. The details can be found in the regulatory analysis section below.

Another provincial government opposed the up-listing of the Monarch based on recent data showing positive trends in overwintering sites, from data that became available after the 2016 COSEWIC assessment. The province also mentions that up-listing the Monarch to the status of “endangered” would create a misalignment in species status between the province and the federal government. They also indicate potential socioeconomic implications for the province. As described in the previous paragraph, a cost-benefit analysis was undertaken. The Department is committed to protecting pollinators. Using the precautionary principle, 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. SARA provides the opportunity for these factors to be considered in recovery planning, permitting, and compliance promotion activities.

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 will apply following the reclassification of the Monarch from “special concern” to “endangered.” However, the Order will 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 will apply following the listing of the Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies as threatened. However, the Order will 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.

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 listing recommendation to the GIC following the receipt of a COSEWIC assessment cannot be bypassed.

Regulatory analysis

This analysis presents the incremental benefits and costs of the Order. Incremental impacts are defined as the difference between the baseline scenario and the regulatory scenario in which the 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 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 2% over the period of 2024–2033. Unless otherwise noted, all monetary values reported in this analysis are in 2022 constant Canadian dollars.

Overall, the Order is expected to benefit Canadian society. Protection of the species in these 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 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 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 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 will 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 will be 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 is also be prohibited. In addition, the application of the general prohibitions will 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 will also trigger the 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 will 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, will help ensure broad support for the approaches set out within them.

Regarding the Western Bumble Bee mckayi subspecies, the “special concern” designation triggers the requirement for the development of a management plan and serves 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 Order provide various types of benefits to Canadians. Although preventing the loss of these benefits cannot be attributed to the 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 10} Some Indigenous groups celebrate the bee, through masks, artwork,^{footnote 11} images in totem poles, and through traditional dance^{footnote 12} that has been revived in recent years.^{footnote 13} 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 14} 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 15}
c

(b) Functional benefits

The species in the 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 16} 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 17} As pollinators, bees increase the quantity and quality of crops, resulting in greater economic output.^{footnote 17} A key study examined data from 90 studies on crop-visiting bee communities and estimated that wild bee communities increase crop yield.^{footnote 18} 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

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 19,footnote 20} While there are no specific studies on the existence value of the Western Bumble Bee, people may derive existence value from bumble bee species.^{footnote 17}

The Monarch is considered a highly charismatic species across Canada and throughout North America.^{footnote 21} 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 placed on conserving and restoring Monarch habitat in the United States was approximately $28 (2014, USD).^{footnote 22} Adjusting the lower-bound 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 at least a one-time payment (donation) for Monarch conservation of approximately $36 per household. If extrapolated to all Canadian households within the Monarch’s range, this results in a one-time national willingness to pay about $510 million.

(d) Recreational value

Canadians often derive recreational and aesthetic benefits from viewing or watching charismatic species, such as the Monarch.^{footnote 21} 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 23} 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 24} 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 25,footnote 26} 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 27}

Costs

For each species, the analysis considered four types of incremental costs of the 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, directly linked to the listing of the species.

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). While the residence description has not yet been finalized for the Monarch, it is possible that milkweed could be identified as a residence when occupied. Whether or not it is considered a residence, the destruction of occupied milkweed will 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 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 28} 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 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, 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 29} The cereal maker General Mills also ran a campaign, Bring Back the Bees,^{footnote 30} alongside their popular Cheerios brand. Similarly, the #Gotmilkweed campaign^{footnote 31} and Mayors’ Monarch Pledge^{footnote 32} 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 Order.

Agricultural activity on federal lands

For the Monarch, agricultural producers of corn, soy, canola and wheat crops^{footnote 33} 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 34} of oilseed and grain crops are produced with the use of herbicides. However, this production stems from only 70%^{footnote 35} 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 36} 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 million 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 37} 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 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 federal departmental properties 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 38} 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 $0.55 million and $0.43 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 and other activities on First Nation reserves and federal departmental properties

In the high permitting cost scenario, for Monarch-related permits, it is assumed that each farm on First Nation reserve and federal departmental properties 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 $2.6 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 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 on Parks Canada administered land / Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) on national wildlife areas or migratory bird sanctuaries	$400	3	1	6	1
Total applicant costs	N/A	$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 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	$3,200	155	5	779	15
SARA compliant increment — federal government	$700	3	1	7	2
Parks Canada on Parks Canada administered land	$400	3	1	6	1
Total permits	N/A	161	8	792	18
Total government costs	N/A	$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 based on the reporting requirements for each listing category.

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

Type of listing	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

Emphasis will be a stewardship first approach via compliance promotion and educational awareness on how the Monarch and Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies can be protected. However, it is still expected that ECCC enforcement will inspect 10% of identified properties on federal lands, prioritizing sites where agriculture activities may pose a threat to the Monarch or Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies individuals or their residences. In addition, reactive response to referrals and requests from stakeholders may occur.

The enforcement costs during the first year of operation are estimated at about $100,000. These include $17,000 for analysis, engagement with partners, strategic development of operational activities, $36,000 for inspections (including operations, travel and transportation costs), and $47,000 for investigations and measures to deal with alleged violations (including warnings and prosecutions). Enforcement in subsequent years is estimated at approximately $83,000 per year.

Total enforcement costs are estimated to be $750,000 over ten years (discounted at 2%).

Considering the Monarch and its host plant’s broad geographic range on federal lands, and when the Monarch is generally present in Canada (June to October, and mid-May to August in southern Ontario) the Department will conduct further scientific studies to confirm where the species residence is located to more precisely estimate the enforcement costs required as a result of the Monarch’s reclassification from species of special concern to endangered.

Compliance promotion materials (e.g. fact sheets) will assist in explaining the species characteristics, the residence description, and 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 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. The cost to Government of enhanced compliance promotion efforts for both the Monarch and Western Bumble Bee occidentalis subspecies is approximately $26,000.

Implications for impact assessments

There could be some implications for projects^{footnote 39} 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 critical 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 Order are not uniformly distributed across Canadian society. First Nations on reserves are disproportionately affected by the Order, in particular the up-listing of the Monarch, 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 Order to stakeholders and First Nations

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	$860,000	$2,700,000	$80,000	$250,000
Permit applications for agricultural and non-agricultural activity (Monarch only)	$300,000	$1,700,000	$110,000	$290,000
Total costs to stakeholders and First Nations from Monarch listing	$1,160,000	$4,400,000	$190,000	$540,000

Benefits and costs summary

The 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 Order. Costs to government, industry, and research applicants from permit applications, and reviewing and issuing permits are estimated to range between $1 million and $4.6 million. In addition to permit-related expenses, the Order could impose incremental costs on Indigenous peoples and stakeholders between $1 million and $3 million over 10 years, due to potential decreases in agriculture-related profits due to general prohibitions. Enforcement costs, at a minimum, are estimated to be $750,000 over 10 years. Administrative costs to government from the development of recovery strategies, action plans, a management plan, and compliance promotion, are estimated to be $0.34 million to $0.43 million. The total cost of the Order is estimated to be $3 million to $8.8 million over 10 years. Additional costs may be incurred by stakeholders and First Nations from potential mitigation necessary to comply with permitting requirements.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of years: 10 (2024–2033)
• Price year for costing: 2022
• Present value base year: 2023
• Discount rate: 2%

Table 7: Monetized costs (millions of Canadian dollars)

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Government	Reviewing and issuing permits	0.55 to 2.60	0.06 to 0.30
	Administrative costs (compliance promotion, recovery strategy, management plan development, etc.)	0.34 to 0.43	0.04 to 0.05
	Enforcement (preparation & operations)	0.75	0.1
All stakeholders and First Nations	Applying for permits	0.4 to 2.0	0.05 to 0.23
	Reduced agricultural yields	1 to 3	0.1 to 0.3
All stakeholders, government, and First Nations	Total costs	3.0 to 8.8	0.3 to 1.0

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the Order will impact small businesses. All farms in the Order are considered small businesses based upon the average number of employees per farm.^{footnote 40} Since the Order only addresses the status of the species and not the conservation measures, a flexible option was not possible.

In the high cost permitting scenario, the majority of permit applications (85%) are expected from commercial agricultural activity. Under this scenario, an estimated 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. This would serve to limit direct impacts on small business.

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. Expected compliance costs for these farms are approximately $1 million to $3 million (total present value), or $0.11 million to $0.33 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.

Small business lens summary

• Number of small businesses with administrative costs: 670
• Number of small businesses with compliance costs: 14
• Number of years: 10 (2024–2033)
• Price year for costing: 2022
• Present value base year: 2023
• Discount rate: 2%

Table 8.1: Compliance costs

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Profit losses to small businesses (Agriculture)	$106,000 to $325,000	$1 million to $3 million
Total compliance cost	$106,000 to $325,000	$1 million to $3 million

Table 8.2: Administrative costs^{footnote 41}

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
Permit applications by small businesses	Up to $204,000	Up to $1.8 million
Total administrative cost	Up to $204,000	Up to $1.8 million
Administrative cost per impacted small business	Up to $300	Up to $2,700

Table 8.3: Total compliance and administrative costs

Totals	Annualized value	Present value
Total cost (all impacted small businesses)	$105,000 to $530,000	$1 million to $5 million

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies since there is an incremental increase in administrative burden on business, and the proposal is considered burden in under the rule. No regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

Although the number of permit applications that will be triggered as a result of the Order is uncertain, preparing the permit application will represent an administrative cost to the applicants. Based on the available data and information on past permit applications, it is assumed that approximately 723 permits could be requested by industry. Permits are expected to be applied for in the first year of publication to enable the continuation of activity, as allowed.

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. These estimates are based upon the experience of SARA permit applicants and data on previously requested permits.

The permit applications could give rise to one-time administrative costs that are estimated to be $65,814 on an annualized basis (2012 Canadian dollars, discounted at 7% to a base year of 2012) on the part of all applicants, or $91.03 in annualized administrative costs per application (2012 Canadian dollars, discounted at 7% to a base year of 2012).

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 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 Order would help Canada meet its commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Specifically, the Order would support the recently adopted KMGBF 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 amendments to Schedule 1 of SARA would also support the 2022–2026 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS)^{footnote 42} goal to “protect and recover species, conserve Canadian biodiversity,” and target that “by 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 “take 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 43} concerning “Life on Land” (goal 15) and “Climate Action” (goal 13).

Gender-based analysis plus

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) 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 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 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. 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 Order would come into force on the day on which it is registered.

Following the listing, the Department and Parks Canada 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 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 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 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 Parks Canada’s 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

Enforcement measures to promote a return to compliance are possible where affected stakeholders and First Nations fail to comply with the general prohibitions described in sections 32 and 33 of SARA, for individuals or their residences located on federal lands, or if the terms and conditions of a section 73 permit issued under SARA are not met by permit holders.

SARA also 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 44} 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 45} no later than June 1 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 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 added 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 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 added to Schedule 1 as threatened because it has experienced a significant (over 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). While the residence description has not yet been finalized for the Monarch, it is possible that milkweed could be identified as a residence when occupied. 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 to be reclassified from species of special concern to endangered because it has declined by more than 50% over 2006 and 2016, as measured at overwintering sites (California and Mexico).

The Migratory Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus ssp. plexippus) was listed as endangered on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species in July 2022. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, established in 1964, is an inventory of the global conservation status and extinction risk of biological species and is a critical indicator of the health of the world’s biodiversity. In September 2023, IUCN revisited its July 2022 Red List decision on the Migratory Monarch Butterfly and downgraded their assessment from endangered to vulnerable (similar to the SARA category of threatened). The situation may continue to evolve, potentially resulting in further downgrading of the species should additional data become available to support it. While the Department is aware of the IUCN’s change in position, the government’s policy is to list a species per the COSEWIC advice, based on the information available at the time of the assessment. COSEWIC is required to reassesses wildlife species designated in a category of risk every 10 years, or earlier if warranted. The anticipated COSEWIC reassessment of the Monarch will provide a timely opportunity for Government to ensure this species is properly listed so as to secure its recovery.