Bill C-73

Nature Accountability Act

An Act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity

This enactment imposes certain duties on the Minister of the Environment to promote transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments that Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think I struck a nerve. They seem a little upset by my talking about when their leader's pension comes to fruition and the legislation that is literally trying to move back the election date to enable a whole bunch of them who were elected in 2019 and are probably not coming back to this place after the carbon tax election. They are trying to get their pensions. Once again, last night, the NDP leader put his pension above Canadians and our country. It is another failure, but it is not surprising.

I will continue on to what we could be debating on Monday, if the government, the Liberals, just handed over the documents. We could go to Bill C-73, the nature accountability act, which our environment committee is attempting to do a prestudy on to circumvent the fact they will not hand over the documents, to try to help pass legislation in the future.

Obviously I, as a proud member of the environment committee, have looked at the legislation and I will summarize it like this. It is a plan to make a plan, which is consistent with the current government. It is all about trying to build bureaucracy, help out friends of the Liberals and not actually accomplish anything. It is lazy environmentalism that is best summarized as all of the Liberal government's environmental policy. I asked the minister who was before us on this bill this week, the radical environment minister, about additional spending and/or potential new hiring of bureaucracy that would be needed to enact this legislation should we pass it. He refused to say. He just would not admit there might be.

I asked if he could look for internal savings, given that there has been a 53% increase in the number of senior executives within that department, or maybe we could look internally and try to find some efficiencies, we will call it, within that department. Do we just need to go back to the piggy bank of Canadians and borrow more, increase our debt and increase inflation, just to pay for their reckless, bureaucratically bloated ideas?

I have been here a little over a year now, and I think I have come to understand the Liberals' guiding principles in this place. I would say principle number one is this: When something does not work, just throw money at it. That must be the solution. It looks like we are doing something if we just throw more money at it.

Principle number two is this: When people do not work, hire more of them. Clearly that has been the track record.

Principle number three is this: When something actually is working well, bring in some Liberal insiders and break it. That is how we have ended up doubling the number of bureaucrats over the last nine years. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer is questioning whether Canadians are seeing an increase in service delivery after all of that new spending.

I have talked to constituents. Anybody who deals with this behemoth of a federal government rightfully has complaints about service standards. Passports are not being returned to people faster. Our PAL, our firearm licensing application, for which many people are currently undertaking the courses to become trained and tested responsible firearms owners, is slowing down. It is not getting any faster. Nobody has said to me, “Oh, I called the CRA the other day and it answered like that. It was a great conversation. I really enjoyed that.” It is the exact opposite.

Nothing is working better under the federal government right now, despite more debt-fuelled spending to once again expand that bloated bureaucracy without outcomes. That is what we should measure, not how much money we throw at the problem. Are we improving the outcomes and delivery of what the federal government should be focused on for Canadians?

Of course, we have the recent NDP-Liberal tax trick. It is another example of the failed philosophy. The reality is that we in this country, industry in this country, unfortunately, has faced regulatory strangulation, for lack of a better term. Perhaps it is the right term.

We will use one example of many terrible pieces of legislation that have continuously focused on driving out investment, driving away opportunities and just trying to add problematic elements for those entrepreneurs and investors, whether they be individuals or Canadian public pension plans, who want to invest in Canada, who want to build in Canada. Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, or, maybe more appropriately named, the never-build-anything-ever-again-in-this-country bill, is a prime example of how we have made it so unattractive to invest in and do business in this country.

This is evident by the fact of the massive outflow of foreign direct investment that has previously been in Canada but is now going to the United States. I would be surprised if any member of the House has not talked to a business owner in their community who has said that if the Conservatives do not win, they are leaving. It is a real problem, and the data shows it is happening already, because of the strangulation through regulation and legislation under the Liberal government. The Liberals treat the economy as if it were some sort of machine where we just pull some levers and press some buttons and everything will work out just fine.

The Liberals are not even trying to hide their plans. They regularly say that we need to build the future economy and to transition our economy. What they mean when they say that is that they want a government-controlled, centrally planned and manipulated economy, entrepreneurs be damned. The Liberals claim to know what Canadians need and want, and they are going to try their best to make sure the economy matches their ideology. That is not the way the economy works.

Instead of trying to drive economic growth through private sector investment, the Liberals choose to spend, which is why there has been a doubling of our national debt and drastic increases in the price of life. Whether it be through direct taxation on individuals or on companies, or, of course, through the hated carbon tax, it is not surprising that when a party focuses on changing the economy to something it believes it should be, taxing everybody to death, there is a doubling of the price of all homes in this country, a doubling of rent and record-breaking numbers of people lining up at food banks in what should be a prosperous, leading nation.

The Liberals have doubled down as of late. They are trying to bribe Canadians with their own money with the government's $250-check proposal and a temporary tax cut, a pause. It has been called a “cut” a lot in the chamber over the last number of days, but to me a tax “cut” means actually cutting it, not hitting the pause button to give a break for two months on a couple of items deemed essential. The Liberals decided what is going to be listed for the temporary pause.

Public Accounts

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I just want to reiterate that I was not making a personal attack; I was stating a fact that should be of concern to Canadians, which is that the member, the Leader of the Opposition, has failed to get security clearance. This means that they are not apprised of what is happening within their own party. If it sounded like a personal attack, perhaps the member should be talking to their leader about what he is doing.

I will go on to what I was talking about, which is that the Conservative Party does understand and I hope they believe, otherwise ignorance is bliss, that global inflation was not caused by the price on pollution program. It was caused by the COVID pandemic, supply chain problems, conflicts and the post-COVID economy. It was global.

As I said earlier, before I was interrupted, although I would hope all countries around the world would have some kind of price on pollution program to join us, only 40 countries around the world do. Therefore the global inflation experienced in other countries, which was many times greater than the inflation we experienced, could not have been caused by a price on pollution program. Nevertheless, the Conservatives sit here and use as proof that it was caused by us the fact that Canada had high inflation at the same time as it had a price on pollution program.

I would really appreciate some more attention being paid to facts. I know that slogans are easy and catchy, but they are not reality. We have to look at something even worse that is happening. The Conservatives have put forward the misinformation that not only was inflation caused by a price on pollution but also that all of the issues will be automatically solved, including inflation and high interest rates.

Inflation and interest rates are coming down only because of the concerted efforts our government has made. It has nothing to do with the price on pollution, which continues. In fact the price on pollution increased at the same time as interest rates and inflation fell. If high interest rates and inflation are caused by the price on pollution, I would like the Conservatives to explain how it works in the inverse.

There is no science, math, or proof behind what the Conservatives are saying. When they say that everything will be solved by their simple slogan of axing the tax, they are misleading and deceiving Canadians. In fact, we know that eight out of 10 households in Canada on a current basis, cash in, cash out per month, get more back than they pay. The only households that do not are those of the wealthier, who can pay more and are actually consuming more fossil fuels because they have bigger homes, more cars and perhaps a cottage or a boat. Those people can pay more and should be paying more because they are doing more damage to our environment.

The other argument is that the price on pollution has done no good. That is not true. Emissions are down 8% from the 2015 level. When our government took over in 2015, the projection for what the emissions would be in 2030 was twice as high as they are now.

What if there had been a government like the current Conservative Party in office, continuing inaction on climate change, muzzling scientists, not letting people talk to the press about what was happening and clearly preferring to let the oil and gas industry run rampant? That is just what the Conservative Party is doing, with its leader meeting with oil and gas executives behind closed doors to take maximum contributions for its fundraising efforts. This kind of behaviour shows that Conservatives are not really concerned with what concerns most Canadians, which is pollution and the future of our planet. Our young people need us to stand up for them.

The oil and gas industry contributes more than 30% of emissions in this country, pollution, and less than 6% to our GDP. It is also mostly foreign-owned. Why is the Conservative Party continuing to support it and put it ahead of Canadians?

The other thing going on right now is the filibuster. I understand to some extent why the Conservatives are doing it: They want to have an election right now. They know that the further they go and the longer they speak, the less popular their leader becomes. People see what he is really about, what he is saying and doing and what the party is doing; therefore they want to have an election and do not want it to go any longer.

Ignorance is bliss, but if people begin to wake up and start to understand that what the Conservatives are saying is not true, they may actually realize that the best bet for the future of this country is a continuation of our government, which is what we all need. What really confuses me is the NDP and the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Victoria. Why is she supporting this?

We agree that there is an important piece of legislation, Bill C-73, the nature accountability act, which needs to move forward. It is the proposed sister act to our Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. We need it to move forward as well, yet NDP members are persisting in supporting the opposition in the filibuster, which is keeping us from doing the real work that Canadians need us to do.

I would just say that we need to move on. The filibuster needs to stop. There is real work to do, and continuously repeating empty slogans and blocking the work of this place will not get us there. We on this side continue to work for Canadians, ensuring that we are ready to move forward with important legislation when the filibuster ends. We are always going to put Canadians first.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that very impressive speech. I share his views.

We are sitting here and debating this because the opposition is feigning concern for the climate crisis and for what is happening. I am very curious as to why the NDP is continuing to allow this filibuster to continue, and I wonder why it continues to support the Conservative Party and what that party is doing to actually prevent us from moving forward and taking real action on issues such as Bill C-73. I am sure the member would agree with me that this is an incredibly important bill to fight climate change and to protect our environment. Could the hon. member comment on that?

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member the same question I asked his colleagues.

There have been concerns in regard to the NDP's backing away from sound environmental policy. One of them, of course, is related to the carbon tax, the price on pollution, versus the carbon rebate, and the NDP's most recent position on the issue. The second one is in regard to Bill C-73, nature accountability legislation on which we have attempted three times now to get a prestudy done in committee.

The member is familiar with the filibustering that has been taking place in the House. Having a prestudy would be a good thing, but again we are just not able to get it through without support from the NDP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there are some people within our communities who are concerned about what appears to be the New Democrats' shifts in policy. One of them is in regard to the price on pollution and backing away from a price on carbon. Another one is just dealing with Bill C-73, which is a very important piece of legislation that is very beneficial to the environment. On at least three occasions, we have tried to get a prestudy done on that legislation. It seems that the NDP members are siding with the Conservatives and it is causing some frustration.

Can the member provide some clarity in terms of the NDP position in regard to Bill C-73? Would he be okay with getting into a prestudy? Let us keep in mind what is taking place today and in the last number of weeks in the House in terms of the Conservative filibuster.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately it is true. The three- or four-week Conservative-led filibuster in the House of Commons has extended to committee as well. The Conservatives open most meetings by saying they would like to see the minister at committee. I presented a motion today that would see the minister come to committee on Wednesday to discuss Bill C-73. Of course, they would be more than welcome to ask any question they like on any subject they like with the minister there. However, they filibustered it and ended debate, so unfortunately we will not be starting the debate on Bill C-73. I hope they will change their minds sometime soon and end the filibuster.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Bill C-73. I know that at the standing committee on the environment, a motion has been put forth not once but three times to have a prestudy on that piece of legislation. Given what has taken place inside the House of Commons, unfortunately it has not been passed. My understanding is that it is because there is a coalition, which includes the New Democrats and the Conservatives, to prevent a prestudy from taking place.

Perhaps the member could provide his thoughts on that issue.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. I hope members opposite have not used up all of their clever heckles while they are sitting down, because I want to hear what they have to say when they stand up and it is their turn to speak. Sometimes, when I do school visits, teachers have to remind their students they should not speak out of turn. They are usually in grade 5, so 10 years old and 11 years old. It is disappointing to see the Conservatives using similar tactics as schoolchildren do.

I want to talk about Bill C-73, which is an act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Canada is a huge country. We have so much biological diversity from coast to coast to coast. We have a global obligation. This is not a choice. We need to protect it. We are the stewards of this global biodiversity framework. We hosted the meeting in Montreal last year and have made that commitment internationally.

We know the Conservatives have talked about commitments as outlandish as leaving the United Nations altogether. They make fun of the sustainable development goals. They ridicule members like me when we wear our SDG pins in the House. In fact, they promote this misinformation, and actually it is disinformation because it is quite harmful, about some kind of a globalist agenda with respect to the SDGs.

I wonder if the Conservative members ever read what the 17 SDGs are. If they would like, they could perhaps share which sustainable development goal they find most reprehensible. Perhaps it is clean water; perhaps it is no hunger; perhaps it is education for all, or perhaps it is equity. Perhaps it is partnerships, because we know the Conservatives think they can operate in a silo all on their own, without international co-operation, without international frameworks and agreements, and without attending United Nations meetings or going to COP.

The Conservatives think Canada is this tiny island that can operate alone. They think we do not have any obligations to lower our emissions here, despite them being some of the highest in the world, or obligations to promote biodiversity and end nature loss.

I will just end by saying nuclear energy is an asset and a solution to the triple threat of pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss we are experiencing. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise and it is reckless to not take action. I am proud to be standing here on the government side with a government that is taking action on all three and utilizing every tool in our tool box to achieve those goals.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to Halton Hills to see what comes out of a gas-powered electricity-generating station. I can see colour just fine. It was brown effluent. I would invite him to come. I know the member's community still burns coal to create electricity. That is the dirtiest way known to make electricity, and natural gas is not far behind. There are net-zero ways of producing electricity onto our grid. Indeed, sometimes the effluent is brown.

Conservatives who are against doing anything to fight climate change, even though it is hurting our economy and communities, are anti-science. We have seen it with the NDP, which recently flip-flopped on carbon pricing, and we have also seen it with the Bloc Québécois, whose members voted against Bill C-49, even though this legislation enables the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to build offshore renewable energy for the first time, reducing emissions and creating tens of thousands of jobs. It will attract billions in investment and unlock a $1-trillion offshore energy industry. What a remarkable thing to vote against. Conservatives voted against Atlantic Canada and so did the Bloc Québécois. It is astonishing.

The decisions around nuclear waste are being managed properly, following rigorous scientific study, consultation and environmental assessment, and with safety measures in place. It is reckless for the Bloc Québécois to suggest politicians should be making these decisions instead.

This report concludes that Canada is safely managing our nuclear waste according to best practices and best international policies. This will continue to be the case and will only be more important as we utilize this technology to reduce our emissions, fight climate change and support good, sustainable jobs as we go forward.

I would like to transition a bit to a bill that I am excited to have come to this House when we can dispense with the current filibuster that the Conservatives are engaging in. I am looking forward to discussing Bill C-73. Bill C-73 is a bill that focuses on biodiversity, our environment and nature-based solutions for fighting climate change.

I am very proud to live in Halton region. I grew up in Halton region, and it is one of the most biodiverse areas in Canada. It surprised me when I heard that, so I looked it up. It also surprises a lot of people who live in that area because it is home and it does not look or feel like a rainforest or like the most biodiverse area in Canada, but indeed it is. That is something worth protecting. I do a lot of school visits and I hear from kids all the time who are concerned about biodiversity loss and pollution, and the impacts of climate change. We have to fight against that.

As we are fighting against that and trying to make progress, the Conservatives are introducing bills, trivial ones and rather silly ones like a bill to bring back the plastic straw. They are very proud of it. They will applaud. They are very proud of their legislation to promote the use of single-use plastics.

I spend a lot of time on the water. Sometimes when I am on the water, I see Tim Hortons lids and straws—

The Environment

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, we took a major step toward launching Canada's 2030 nature strategy by introducing Bill C-73, the nature accountability act, in the House. Canada is the second country in the world to do so.

The bill would hold our government and future governments accountable in making progress on our ambitious nature protection goals. The bill and the strategy provide a coordinated approach to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, help protect nature for future generations and ensure we reach our goal of protecting at least 30% of our lands, waters and ice by 2030.