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.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

If we'd had more than one party's support, we would be studying Bill C-73 right now instead of having an emergency debate.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Sure.

The NDP voted against discussing commencing the meeting on Bill C-73. We were set to have the minister last Wednesday, but the NDP decided that they were not in favour of looking at the prestudy on Bill C-73.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the point of order, Mr. Leslie.

As I was saying, over 100 measures have been undertaken by this government to lower our emissions and, in every step of the way, the Conservatives have tried to block them. They voted against these measures, while not proposing any alternative measures to lower our emissions. It's pretty rich to hear from the Conservatives that they feel as though we're not on track, despite evidence to the contrary—that we are on track to lower our emissions to the proposed 40% to 45% mark by 2030.

They are lower than they've been since 1997. The year Connor McDavid was born was the last time our emissions were this high. That's good news and something that we can all celebrate. Innovations—from transport to construction, agriculture and even oil and gas—have allowed them to be this low. I would say that the innovations put forward by the oil and gas sector and the energy sector more broadly have not been sufficient, because they continue to go up, but the sector has been innovating and lowering its emissions to some degree, or at least its hypothetical ones. They could be a lot higher.

Among the over 100 measures undertaken by this government that the Conservatives have continually stood against and voted against are ones that have earned a Nobel Prize in economics, such as carbon pricing, but also our clean fuel standard; our phase-out of coal—it's astonishing that the Conservatives should stand against that—our plan to have net-zero emissions by 2050 with our Federal Accountability Act; our clean growth program; our zero-emissions vehicle initiative, which has seen record growth, particularly in provinces that also have a zero-emissions vehicle standard; our investments in renewable energy; our investments in carbon capture, utilization and storage; industrial carbon pricing in the oil and gas sector; our investments in green buildings and energy efficiency; our home retrofits; and our efforts to reduce plastic waste pollution.

In fact, this one draws particular ire, given that the Conservatives have brought forward a private member's bill entitled the “bring back the plastic bag” bill, because they just can't seem to remember their cotton bags when going to the grocery store, I guess. Also, their boycott of Tim Hortons and its plant-based lid experiment was another hilarious move by the Conservatives.

There are also nature-based solutions for climate change, subsidies for green innovation, working towards international leadership and developing those relationships, commitments in collaboration with other jurisdictions, funding for climate adaptation, our work on green energy and green job creation, electrification of public transit, sustainable agriculture, hydrogen strategies and our work on environmental, social and governance initiatives, an acronym that the Conservatives just love to hate—ESG. I don't know why they keep bringing witnesses here to suggest that ESG is a bad thing. We should focus on the environment, sustainability, better governance and social programs that support people.

Once again, Mr. Chair, we have the commissioner of the environment coming to this committee on Wednesday. We did not need to have this emergency meeting to discuss this. We have time in the committee to discuss it.

It's particularly disappointing that the prestudy on Bill C-73 for biodiversity—to ensure that we have accountability in that regard—has been continuously blocked by the NDP and the Conservatives. I don't know why it needs to be so contentious. Instead, the opposition has been filibustering these meetings, wasting time and then calling an emergency meeting on a Friday of a non-sitting week—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

There was definitely no malice intended. We're in a public discussion. We can say things in committee that we can use outside of committee.

I really think this discussion needs to happen at the transport committee. If we take over this study, we're doing the work of the transport committee, which they might not want us to be doing. I think we're waiting to hear back from them, and in the meantime, we're trying to get Bill C-73 onto our schedule, which is a priority bill.

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

We as members have privileges in this place, in this committee, in this House, and we decided that we wanted to see documents. The reason that we have not seen a speech from the minister on Bill C-73, I assume my Liberal government colleagues would complain, is that dastardly Conservatives and all opposition members are asking, just like veterans, for more than they can give. In this case it's legal documents that may show potential criminal activity, as outlined by the Auditor General, to the tune of nearly $390 million.

They may take that position, but my hope is that by the time this proposed new amended motion rolls around, the House may be moving. We may have heard from Minister Guilbeault, the tabling sponsor of the legislation, to better understand the full context.

My concerns remain very much the same, that due to the obstinance of this Liberal government we will not have the documents turned over to the law clerk and then, therefore, on to the RCMP for their consideration as to whether or not criminal activities may have occurred.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say, broadly speaking, I think we agree with the proposed amendment from our NDP colleague. It is to me very disappointing that the parliamentary secretary of environment has no idea what the transportation committee is doing on such an important issue that relates directly to the environment, but I appreciate a bit of an update from you there, Mr. Chair, in terms of what seems to me to be the transportation committee fluffing this off. I think we did pass a motion. When this committee passed a motion, that's, in my view anyway, the main reason that we would support this NDP amendment to this new motion on a prestudy for Bill C-73.

As I was saying a little earlier regarding the prestudy broadly, I think we should follow the proper order of procedures of how this place has worked. My hope is that by perhaps outlining as per the proposed changes from my NDP colleague that by the time November 27 rolls around, hopefully sooner, the government will acknowledge the will of Parliament, the will of their Liberal, now non-partisan Speaker, who has ruled that we have, as members, had our parliamentary privilege breached when we collectively—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay, great.

The three first nations that have called on this committee and on parliamentarians to investigate what happened with the contamination give a really clear example of environmental racism, whereby the government has hidden information and, in many ways, has acted in the same way that Canada has acted for years. It didn't give communities the information and the knowledge they need to protect themselves and keep their health and their children safe.

I don't want to take too much time with this, but I am proposing this amendment in hopes that it might also get the Conservatives on board, because this would likely happen after the completion of the Jasper study. We have a number of things on the docket. It means that we would start a prestudy of Bill C-73 before we start some of the reports and the more granular work that is to come, hopefully, in the new year. However, it would ensure that we honour the requests of these first nations and that there is accountability for the government when it comes to environmental racism and the contamination happening in Fort Chipewyan. It would also mean that we could meaningfully engage in fixing the weak and inadequate piece of legislation the government has put forward on biodiversity accountability and that we could do the hard work of—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. van Koeverden for pushing for a prestudy for Bill C-73, but I am very disappointed that the Liberals have approached it in a way that has resulted in us being here debating something for over an hour—for multiple hours if we include the last meeting—that we could have passed when we were dealing with committee business just a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. van Koeverden had already tabled the motion, but then he chose not to move it in our in camera committee business, where there is no benefit or incentive for Conservatives to filibuster and try to get clips on whatever they want to talk about.

It is also really disheartening to see the Conservatives filibustering a really important bill and a really important motion on an act respecting transparency and accountability for nature and biodiversity.

I am going to table an amendment to this. I really hold the strengthening of this piece of legislation dearly, because while I think it's really important that this legislation has been tabled in the House, it is a weak piece of legislation. Much like the climate accountability act, the biodiversity accountability act has been watered down. It has huge gaps. It needs to be amended and strengthened. It's why I support a prestudy of this bill. However, it shouldn't be used to displace other important work our committee is engaged in, in particular the study on the contamination that's happening in Fort Chipewyan and the fact that these nations have called on us—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The motion is about Bill C-73.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I have a point of order.

I think this isn't really relevant to his actual motion. This is talking about Bill C-73.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks Mr. Chair.

The bill is Bill C-73. It's an act respecting transparency and accountability with regard to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

We've been approached by various stakeholders in this building, as we're coming in and coming out of these meetings, urging us to look into this and do a prestudy. This is an important bill.

First of all, Canada is one of the most biologically diverse countries in the world, not just because of our size, but also because of the diversity of our landscapes. This is a uniquely Canadian issue that I am looking forward to studying.

Canada is facing a triple threat of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. All three have an impact on biological diversity. I'm looking forward to looking into Bill C-73.

I'll also say that if we'd passed this in the last couple of meetings, when I gave notice of this motion, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have already been here. He would have visited today. That's what the Conservatives seem to suggest they would like. They would like more ministers—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Certainly, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-73 is an act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Canada is—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

The motion reads:

That this committee undertake a prestudy on Bill C-73, an act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity; that to this end, the committee hold a minimum of five meetings;

(1) that this study begin on November 27;

(2) that the committee invite the Minister of Environment and officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada on November 27, 2024; and

(3) that the committee complete its sustainable finance study on November 25 with a two-hour meeting.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to get us back on track. I'd like to give notice of a new motion, “That this committee undertake a prestudy on Bill C-73, an act respecting transparency—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think the point of the amendment, if I may, is to try to force Mr. Boissonnault to come earlier than December 4. It's intended to be leverage, so I guess you could say it's not really about.... The whole motion is about Bill C-73, but the subamendment that we're discussing is really, I think, intended to put pressure on Mr. Boissonnault to come earlier, so that is basically, I think, the tack that is being taken. As long as we talk about Jasper, I guess it's relevant, because the subamendment speaks of Jasper and Minister Boissonnault.