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.

[Anna Johnston]

One of the barriers to effective biodiversity protection in Canada has been.... I mentioned all of these international instruments that we're a party to and the myriad of federal laws, programs and regulations, but there's no one unifying place where we can see whether and how they're working together, and then what gaps there are. An effective Bill C-73, or nature accountability law, would be that place.

Once we get that detail fleshed out for what has to be in national biodiversity strategies and action plans, we'll be able to have a comprehensive picture of what we have in place to protect nature and what the main drivers are of biodiversity loss that we have to contend with. Like I said, what are the gaps that need to be filled? We have all of these different fragments, but right now, we don't have that one holding place to see how they're all working together and whether we need additional resources to protect nature.

That's really what we see this bill being able to do.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Anna Johnston.

Bill C-73 is also known to be a sister bill to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, or Bill C-12. Showing transparency to Canadians and holding government to account is important. Why does Canada need a nature accountability act?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

My question is for Mr. Ginsberg.

Halting and reversing biodiversity loss is one of the great challenges of our time, but if we get it right, the transition to a nature-positive Canada will have profoundly positive impacts on our collective well-being, economic prosperity and quality of life now and into the future.

Can you tell the members why Bill C-73 is crucial? Why must it pass?

[Joshua Ginsberg, Director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for initiating the pre-study of this important piece of legislation, and thank you also for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss our proposals to improve Bill C-73. I'm a lawyer at Ecojustice, and I also direct the environmental law clinical law program at the University of Ottawa. I specialize in constitutional, administrative and environmental law.

Bill C-73 is welcome progress for nature. Canada contains a huge part of the natural world, which we are responsible for safeguarding. It has approximately 24% of the world's boreal forests and about 25% of the world's temperate forests. Its 1.5 million square kilometres of wetlands make up about 25% of the entire world's total. Canada also has the world's longest coastline, two million lakes and the third-largest area of glaciers in the world. All of that is facing decline at rates unprecedented in human history.

Canada needs a national law to coordinate and implement its commitments to halt and reverse nature loss, which were made at the landmark global meeting in Montreal in 2022. I am concerned, however, that the nature accountability act, as presently drafted, is weaker than its counterparts in other jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, and even weaker than its companion legislation in Canada concerning climate, which is the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

Unlike those two laws, the NAA, as currently drafted, does not require that the government set any target or end goal for biodiversity. There is no clear purpose in the law for the planning and the reporting that it requires. It's kind of like outfitting a ship for an ocean voyage but not setting a destination. You're likely to get lost or go in circles.

With amendments to strengthen it, though, the NAA would help Canada chart a course to harmony with nature by 2050. Our proposed amendments would strengthen the NAA by directing the government to set national targets for nature and make detailed plans to meet them. This is very much like the U.K. legislation, which incorporates goals and targets directly into its regulations, including targets to reduce the risk of extinction and restore and create wildlife-rich habitats. The targets there are accompanied by detailed reporting obligations to ensure accountability.

National targets are required for laws like this one that implement global commitments, like the Paris Agreement for climate and the global biodiversity framework agreed in Montreal, and that's for two reasons.

First, Canada has a dualist system, which means that international agreements have no force here until Parliament—you—says they do. A law means that Canada has an obligation to act, and also shows the world that we are serious about our nature commitments.

Second, these agreements set a broad global ambition, with each country left autonomously to determine what they will do within their own borders to contribute. Specifying those contributions in law makes government accountable for achieving them, so these targets are very much in response to the commitments we've made internationally, but they are a made-in-Canada approach.

We have not met past nature commitments. The lack of a legal basis for those commitments was a key reason for that. The independent auditor found that the reason for failure was a lack of strong national leadership, including an integrated national approach that coordinates actions, tracks progress and makes the required corrections, and that is what the NAA, with our suggested amendments, would accomplish.

I want to say one word about jurisdiction, because it was raised already by my fellow panellist here.

The federal government has an important role in protecting nature, and so do provinces and indigenous nations. The jurisdiction of all governments must be respected, and they must be enabled to do everything within their power to protect the natural world.

It's for that reason that our proposed definition of national targets distinguishes between targets that are within federal jurisdiction to achieve and targets that are national in nature and that the federal government would necessarily seek to co-operate on with provinces, territories and indigenous peoples, and we emphasize that indigenous rights and jurisdiction must be respected and prioritized in target-setting.

In the brief accompanying our remarks, we've provided for you detailed suggestions for amendments to enable target setting, to improve reporting requirements so that the public gets a full picture of the progress being made towards those targets, and to ensure independent oversight and a whole-of-government approach to nature.

I will be very happy to answer any questions about those suggestions.

Let me close by saying that we, again, thank the committee for this important work. We urge it to support Bill C-73 and to endorse our amendments to make it even more effective.

[Anna Johnston, Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association]

Good afternoon. Many thanks to the chair and to the members of this committee for inviting me to come and speak about this important bill.

I am a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, where my expertise focuses on constitutional law, biodiversity, climate and impact assessment law. I've been working closely on Bill C-73 with my colleagues Josh Ginsberg and Stephen Hazell from Ecojustice and Greenpeace, who are also appearing before you today.

We've submitted a joint brief recommending proposed amendments, and we've divided up our speaking notes so that we can be most efficient and effective for you this evening.

I'm going to focus my remarks on why we and nature need a strong nature accountability law.

I was deeply involved in the development and implementation of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which I like to call CNZEAA after its acronym, and have first-hand experience in how accountability legislation can help drive government ambition and transparency in setting and meeting nature targets and environmental targets.

My remarks are based primarily on what we've learned from CNZEAA and that we can apply to Bill C-73.

Put simply, as it has with climate, Canada has a long history of talking a big talk on nature and then failing to walk the walk.

We've been a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, or the CBD, since 1993, and as required by the convention, in 1995 we published a national biodiversity strategy that set out a framework for protecting nature.

In 2010, we agreed to the Aichi targets, a set of five strategic goals and 20 targets aimed at addressing challenges in the implementation of the CBD.

We also have a federal sustainable development strategy that includes goals like protecting and recovering species and conserving biodiversity, and myriad laws aimed at protecting nature, like the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

And yet, as our colleagues from the David Suzuki Foundation pointed out, our biodiversity is in a free fall. Species continue to decline at alarming rates, habitat continues to degrade and fragment and invasive species and pollution continue to accumulate, with climate change exacerbating these harms.

I would argue that a lack of accountability for setting and meeting nature goals is why Canada's biodiversity has declined at this rate despite all of our international and domestic laws and instruments.

While the CBD requires Canada to submit national biodiversity plans and progress reports, there's nothing actually preventing it from producing glossy brochures instead of detailed and credible documents.

What the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act has taught us is that accountability legislation can help drive ambition in setting domestic targets, make plans for meeting those targets credible and ensure honest reporting on progress.

Before CNZEAA was enacted, Canada's 2030 climate target was 30%, which was far below what experts said was Canada's obligation under the Paris Agreement, and its climate plan lacked any kind of details that would be necessary to know if we were going to meet even that weak target.

After CNZEAA came into force, the government set a more ambitious target of 40% to 45% and established a new and more detailed plan for how it would achieve those reductions. Last December, its first progress report showed that since the act has been enacted, we have increased our ambition and are more closely on track to meeting our climate goals.

Bill C-73 could help do the same for nature, but not, unfortunately, as it's currently drafted. It is so light on detail that it more closely resembles one of those glossy brochures that we're trying to avoid than true accountability legislation.

To live up to its promise, we think that Bill C-73 needs to do six things.

First, it needs to require the minister to set national nature targets so that we know what direction we're trying to go.

Second, it also needs to be more prescriptive about the contents of plans and reports so that we have a road map for meeting those targets and honesty about whether we're on course.

Third, it needs to ensure that the nature advisory committee has the mandate, expertise and resources it needs to provide independent advice.

Fourth, it should enshrine a biodiversity shield so that federal decisions don't undermine our ability to meet our nature targets.

Fifth, it should require periodic reviews by the sustainability commissioner.

Finally, sixth, it should ensure respect for indigenous rights, knowledge and law in all steps and decisions taken under it.

I'll conclude my remarks there. I would be happy to answer any questions, and, as I mentioned, my colleagues Josh Ginsberg and Stephen Hazell will go into more details on these recommendations.

[Chris Heald, Senior Policy Advisor, Manitoba Wildlife Federation]

Thank you for the opportunity to be a witness.

To start, I'll provide a bit of background. The Manitoba Wildlife Federation is the oldest and largest conservation organization in Manitoba. We are over 80 years old and represent conservationists, hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts. Our members are from all walks of life and of all ethnicities.

Our membership shares a deep passion for the protection of our environment and believes strongly that all of our country's resources are shared resources. It doesn't matter what those resources are, be they water, trees, wildlife, minerals or fish; they belong to all Canadians, regardless of economic stature and ethnicity. We are also adamant that these precious resources must be managed and harvested in a sustainable manner.

That's a bit of background.

Moving to my specific comments on Bill C-73, we feel strongly that the federal government is implementing UN-driven environmental targets, which were committed to without consultation with the provinces, landowners and resource users who manage and enjoy these public spaces. We believe this bill provides the minister with a blank cheque to implement changes without any further parliamentary oversight. We feel this bill uses words of symbolism that sound great on paper but fall short on details and are devoid of measurable outcomes.

We feel this bill has the federal government overreaching into provincial jurisdiction. This bill talks about collaboration numerous times, but in fact, it provides the federal minister with wide discretion to consult—or not, if he so chooses—with the provinces, municipal governments, private landowners and resource users, including hunters and anglers.

This bill closely mirrors other federal government United Nations initiatives, like the indigenous protected areas and ecological corridors. It provides the authority for a large-scale set-aside of public lands, which are our country's shared resources, a delegation of control and management of access to Crown lands to unelected management authorities.

A Manitoba-specific example of what I've just described is the federal government pushing the IPAs and ecological corridors without consultation with landowners, the provincial government, municipal governments or grassroots organizations like ours.

With the IPAs, we've seen the federal government deputize Parks Canada to begin the implementation of the Seal River indigenous protected area in northern Manitoba. This large tract of Crown land consists of an area the size of the province of Nova Scotia. This IPA is the first of nine proposed for Manitoba and has received initial federal funding from the $600-million federal allotment.

The implementation of this IPA and the ecological corridors designed to connect the IPAs are being forced through without proper consultation, and they do not have widespread support as stated. Common sense would dictate that these initiatives are bound to fail in meeting their goals without the full consultation of all invested stakeholders.

How can we, as a society, consider restricting access to Crown resources and implement management practices on private land without including the farmers, the hunters and the anglers who live in these areas and who are the true champions in protecting our precious natural resources?

We urge this committee and the federal government to rethink this top-down, UN-driven approach, stop delegating control over these lands to unelected management boards and develop a made-in-Canada approach that engages input from all provinces and all Canadians, who cherish our outdoor spaces.

Thank you.

[Lisa Gue, Manager, National Policy, David Suzuki Foundation]

That's right. Thank you.

Good afternoon. The David Suzuki Foundation appreciates the invitation to appear today, and I'm sorry I can't be there in person.

My name is Lisa Gue. I'm the national policy manager at the DSF, and I'm joined in the room by my colleague, Rachel Plotkin, boreal project manager.

I'll briefly speak to three points, and then I'll hand it off to Rachel to complete our opening statement.

First, thank you for initiating this prestudy. When Bill C-73 was introduced in June, we called on Parliament to prioritize it on the fall legislative agenda. By this time, we had hoped to see it referred to committee and reported with strengthening amendments. Instead, the fall came and went, and the bill has yet to even be called for debate. We're very concerned that this important legislation has stalled, and we encourage the committee to continue this prestudy after the break so that you can move quickly to amendments if and, hopefully, when the bill is finally referred. We also implore all of you to work with your parliamentary colleagues to find a path to enable the second reading debate and vote on Bill C-73 as soon as possible in the new year.

My second point is that there has long been broad support from across the political spectrum for Canada's commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney signed the convention for Canada in 1992. Later, the global 2020 targets were agreed to under the Harper government. While the current government deserves credit for Canada's convening role at COP15 in Montreal where the new 2030 targets were negotiated, they didn't stand alone. I know some of you were there, too. It would be appropriate and a powerful statement if Bill C-73 and amendments to strengthen it were supported by all parties, a team Canada approach to the biodiversity crisis.

My third point is that bold targets and accountability legislation are no panacea, and this bill is not a substitute for the many other things that need to be done to halt and reverse nature loss. However, a legislative framework for planning, reporting on implementation and results and continuous improvement is essential to keep progress on track. It will also improve predictability and transparency.

I will leave the remainder of our time to Rachel to speak about why the 2030 nature targets matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. People can move their motions. We'll have time for that for sure.

Okay, is there anything else? No.

Today we are dealing once again with Bill C-73. We're doing a prestudy of the bill before it arrives in committee. We have two panels.

The first panel includes the David Suzuki Foundation, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, the West Coast Environmental Law Association, and Ecojustice.

We'll start with the David Suzuki Foundation.

I believe, Ms. Gue and Ms. Plotkin, you'll be sharing your five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good afternoon, colleagues.

First of all, I'd like to inform you that the sound tests have been successfully completed.

Before we begin, I would like to seek the committee's unanimous consent to adopt the budget for the preliminary examination of Bill C‑73.

Is anyone opposed to adopting this budget?

Seeing no dissent, the budget is adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The budget is therefore adopted.

Next, you were asked to suggest witnesses to the clerk for the pre-study of Bill C‑73, but so far, she's received only one name, if memory serves. I remind you to send her your suggestions.

Third, before we break for the holidays, we'll have to give the analysts some pointers and suggestions to guide them in preparing the draft report on sustainable finance. We'll be discussing this in person, but in the meantime, please send your suggestions as soon as possible to the analysts and the clerk as to what you'd like to see in this report. That will give them some assurance if, for some reason, the committee doesn't have time to discuss it in person.

Unfortunately, the minister won't be able to be here on December 4. What do you think about the following idea: instead of dealing with the supplementary estimates that day, we could have a meeting on the Net Zero Accelerator Fund, which we were supposed to examine on December 16. Is there agreement to move this meeting to December 4?

Seeing no opposition, that's fine, we'll have that meeting on December 4.

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.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I want to talk about Bill C-73 and start by thanking you for your leadership on biodiversity.

Back home in the Outaouais, your department funded a project called Kidjimaninan, which means “our canoe”. It's a project, led by indigenous communities, to protect biodiversity in the Outaouais and meet our regional targets. So thank you for your leadership. Without you, it wouldn't have happened.

Now let's talk about the bill, which I would really like us to pass and about which Ms. Collins finally asked an important question: Are you open to amendments? We will study this bill here in parliamentary committee. I look forward to it and I would like to study it thoroughly. What will the process be if the committee decides to propose some recommendations?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I've been quite eager to ask a question of the minister on biodiversity. I thank all members who supported the prestudy for Bill C-73 to come to this committee over the last couple of weeks.

Minister, thank you for coming here to talk about how important Bill C-73 is to protect biodiversity.

As we've discussed, the corridors funding is very important to me personally. I live in a part of the Niagara Escarpment that is one of the most biodiverse areas in all of North America. That is surprising for people who live there because it doesn't seem like a rainforest or anything like that, but it's beautiful.

Today, actually, on behalf of you, I should offer that I was able to call a gentleman by the name of David Flood, who is an indigenous man in northern Ontario. He's part of the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, which is something I have tremendous respect for. They are fabulous and a great solution for climate change and for the biodiversity loss that our environment is facing.

I was able to call him and congratulate him on over $1.3 million in funding for the Wahkohtowin organization. It's like a B Corp. He was describing it to me on the phone. They do amazing work. Across the traditional territories of the Brunswick House First Nation, Chapleau Cree First Nation and Missanabie Cree First Nation, they are going to support the Wahkohtowin height of land ecological corridor project. It's in partnership with various first nations.

David Flood is an amazing leader and somebody who cares deeply about biodiversity and cultural preservation. He's working with Parks Canada.

Could you elaborate on why this—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Minister, on Bill C-73, I would like to see improvements on accountability, on the biodiversity shield and on the advisory committee's independence. I'm curious as to whether you are open and, hopefully, committed to ensuring that targets, timelines and mandatory reporting on biodiversity and nature protection are built in with audits by the environment commissioner and parliamentary oversight to ensure government accountability.

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

I understand Ms. Collins' point on biodiversity, but asking for an admission of guilt about something that was done or an admission statement.... I have no idea how this helps us discuss Bill C-73 or helps with the biodiversity issue at all.