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.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[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—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

In general, I want to highlight.... Maybe I'll just start by realizing that my subamendment has the typo from the original amendment. We need to edit “meetings” and put it as the singular.

With regard to the amendment itself and the importance of doing a prestudy on Bill C-73, it is a really important bill that we want to tackle and it is important when we're thinking about biodiversity and accountability. We want to make sure that we have the minister come this Wednesday, which everyone's in agreement with.

As this is clearly a conversation that's going to take a little while, normally we would schedule another study from the list of studies that we need to do at a subcommittee meeting so that we wouldn't take up witness time. This is a way for us to make sure that this conversation can happen.

My big priority is to make sure that we honour the wishes of the nations that have asked Parliament to look at the contamination in Fort Chipewyan. I want to make sure that the remaining meetings of this prestudy don't displace that and allow the current government to avoid accountability on the contamination and the lack of transparency and communication to those nations in Fort Chipewyan.

I also want to make sure that we get to this prestudy on Bill C-73. It is critical. I'm hoping that this is a way that we can have the whole committee come together, pass this motion today and then move on with the business at hand.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just have a point of clarification.

My subamendment to the amendment was that we determine the timing of this prestudy on Bill C-73 at the next subcommittee meeting. It wasn't determining when that subcommittee meeting would be. I would actually suggest that we don't have it in lieu of one of our public meeting times but that we add an extra hour to one of our sessions or that we have it on another day. I would leave that to the discretion of the chair.

We have the minister on the Wednesday, as you said—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just a second, Ms. Collins.

Basically, Ms. Collins was saying to go ahead with one hour of the finance study on Wednesday, followed by the minister on Bill C-73, and then we would hold a subcommittee meeting to discuss the timing of Ms. Collins' study.

What I'm saying is that if we do that, I think the issue of Wednesday is settled. We're all in agreement, so I don't know why we're debating Wednesday. I think what we're debating now is whether we have a subcommittee meeting in lieu of one of our regular meetings, and then that subcommittee meeting would not be able to be held until November 25, because we've already agreed on what we're doing on the 18th and the 20th.

Therefore, what I'm suggesting is that on the 25th, we could finish that one hour we have left on the finance study with the witnesses that we had to just let go, and we could then go in camera for the second hour, do committee business and talk about Ms. Collins' study.

If you want to make that a two-hour committee business meeting, then we can do that as well, but that takes us up to two o'clock on a Monday. We could do that, and we may get committee business done in half an hour, so it may all be moot in the end.

That's the issue we're talking about. It's whether we have a subcommittee meeting on, say, November 25, or whether we have our witnesses back for one hour and then do one hour of future business, in camera, on the 25th. That's where we are.

Ms. Collins, what are you suggesting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It will be up to the committee to decide. However, you're right.

The problem is that if we don't adopt this motion, the minister won't appear. In other words, we are inviting the minister through the motion. If we don't adopt the motion, Wednesday is up in the air and we don't know when we'll be able to invite him.

Can I see the original motion, unamended?

In the transcript of the meeting, it says that the minister is prepared to appear on Bill C‑73 on Wednesday. Everyone seems to agree on that. If the amendment is withdrawn and we adopt the motion, we'll get the desired result.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

—before beginning the prestudy on Bill C-73.

Now, it so happens that after today we have only one hour left on the finance study. That's what we'll do Wednesday in the first hour. In the second hour, the minister is free, and he'll come and launch the prestudy on Bill C-73. It all falls into place—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have also been informed that the minister is available on Wednesday for the second hour of the meeting. I was going to invite a panel of witnesses for the first hour of the meeting to finish the finance study. Then we could hear from the minister during the second hour of the meeting to begin the study on Bill C‑73.

All Ms. Pauzé is doing is following through on the idea. We understand that what you want is for the minister to come on November 6.

If it's okay, we don't need to vote on it. I see agreement.

I have a few names on my list, including Mr. Leslie.

Go ahead, Mr. Leslie.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much to both of you.

If I could, Mr. Chair, I've already tabled my motion for a prestudy of Bill C-73. With my remaining time, I'd like to retable it. I'm hopeful that we can vote on it quickly so that we can get the minister here.

I would just say that over the last couple of meetings, the Conservative members have indicated their desire to have the minister come to committee. I'm hopeful that he can come Wednesday if we can pass this motion.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

According to the motion we passed, if they didn't get back to us by today saying that they were going to do a study, we are planning on doing a study.

If there is an amendment being put forward to this prestudy on Bill C-73, I very much support looking at Bill C-73, tackling the big gaps in the legislation and strengthening the legislation on biodiversity accountability, but I want to make sure that doesn't displace the important study on the contamination in Fort Chipewyan, so I would suggest that it come afterward.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That's great.

Can we all agree that when we return, we're going to study Bill C-73?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to table my motion that I brought to the committee's attention just recently on Bill C-73, which is an act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments that Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

I'll read it again for the committee: “That to this end, the committee hold a minimum of five meetings, invite the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and officials; and that the study begin within seven days of the adoption of this motion.”

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay. That's very clear. Thank you very much.

It's my hope that this government's Bill C-224 will help unify the inclusion of various cancers linked to firefighting right across the province, because I know that unfortunately there are provinces that treat various cancers differently. We know that when these heroes are exposed to those toxic chemicals, it's an employment-related illness. It should be treated as such.

Thank you for your work. This has been a tough couple of meetings for anybody who has ever spent time battling a fire. I talked to a couple of my friends who, after leaving sport, went into firefighting. This summer was very devastating for Albertans. I have family in Jasper, and it was a very emotional time. If you could also relay our collective gratitude and sympathy to the folks you represent, I'd really appreciate it.

The perspective of.... How we value and see biodiversity in Canada has also been highlighted by various academics and witnesses on this committee. With wildfires and natural disasters increasing, I think we have to step up as a committee and as a government. When we lose nature, we jeopardize a lot of things we rely on and take for granted. Those include clean air, clean water, flood regulation and climate regulation. In Halton, we rely on our conservation authority. I know that would relate to this.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll put on notice the following motion.

“I move that that this committee undertake a pre-study 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 eight meetings; that the committee invite the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada and officials; and that the last two meetings be dedicated to clause-by-clause consideration—

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.

Nature Accountability Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑73, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)