The universal application of such prohibitions is consistent with the application of criminal law and less like discretionary federal regulation being applied within provincial jurisdiction. Such powers already prohibit cruelty to individuals of any animal species, regardless of where the animal is found. In a bill that presumes to be founded on the federal government's constitutionally enshrined powers over criminal law, the failure to prohibit the direct, intentional killing of the most imperiled of Canadian species is inexplicable. Moreover, such prohibitions carry few of the more sensitive issues involved in critical habitat protection on provincial land and would send an important signal internationally of Canada's commitment to protect species at risk. Even in the context of current federal-provincial tensions, implementation of such modest prohibitions should not prove politically difficult.
Wildlife conservation is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.
However, we look to the federal government to show leadership on the issue of critical habitat protection by acting on federal land and in areas of clear federal jurisdiction. Critical habitat protection measures in Bill C-33 are only mandated on some federal lands. However, the federal government has clear jurisdictional responsibility for the conservation of species on all federal lands, as well as for aquatic species covered under the Fisheries Act and for migratory birds covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. We further recommend that critical habitat protection measures identified in the recovery process within these three areas of federal jurisdiction be made mandatory, rather than discretionary. In the territories, we recognize that appropriate measures are needed to ensure the effective involvement of territorial authorities, affected Aboriginal communities and wildlife management boards.