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.

[Akaash Maharaj]

That is obviously beyond the scope of Bill C-73, but I understand that you're asking it as an analogy about governments keeping their promises and being sound stewards of public funds in environmental projects—so, clearly not.

When governments miss their targets or handle public funds in a way that falls short of what they said, it damages public expectations, and it damages public support for those very programs. I would say that the remedies to that are more robust parliamentary investigations and actions and raising these matters to public attention.

Ultimately, a sound conservation strategy will win public confidence. Canadians believe in and support conservation. To the extent that you can reward the government when it does well and punish it when it does poorly, you will be doing a service for our country.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you.

Still with you, Mr. Zeman, the Premier of Yukon Territory and the territory's Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have publicly expressed their support for a project to connect the territory's power grid to B.C.'s Site C hydro dam so that the territory can stop burning diesel. They've called this a “generational investment” and a “nation-building moment”.

Mr. Zeman, can you speak to the effects of Bill C-73 on the future of major projects such as this?

[Stephen Hazell]

There is no guarantee.

There are no guarantees there. In a way, if Bill C-73 is passed, it will be up to the nature community. It'll be the folks sitting at this table, the wildlife federations across the country. It'll be up to the the Canadian public to look at the reports that are generated and say, how are we doing in terms of protecting southern resident orcas.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Therefore, Bill C‑73 can't do anything right now to protect biodiversity, from oil drilling or from a coal mine. Normally, the provinces protect the land and the federal government protects the oceans. Right now, we're talking about shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces.

What does Bill C‑73 mean for the governments of Quebec and the provinces? Under the Constitution, they retain most of their legislative authority over nature conservation in terrestrial ecosystems.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Hazell, in your remarks, you talked about the fact that Canada has not met and is not meeting its commitments.

I'm going to read you some newspper healines from recent weeks or months: “Ottawa setting the stage for an offshore oil boom”; “60 oil drilling projects found to have no major repercusions”; “ExxonMobil looking for a deposit three times bigger than Bay du Nord off Newfoundland”. Here's one last one, from a European newspaper: “Canada, a steward of global biodiversity, authorizes oil and gas in marine protected areas”.

The minister recently appeared before the committee, and I asked him a question. He told me that oil drilling is prohibited in or near marine refuges. However, we see that the government is authorizing exploratory dilling to look for deposits. If the company finds deposts, the government removes the protection status of those targeted areas.

If Bill C‑73 as currently drafted were in force right now, would it prevent the federal government from promoting oil development on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and removing protections when oil deposits are found?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you so much.

From my experience, indigenous-led biodiversity projects are very successful and have shown great leadership. I hope every region in Canada will follow examples like this.

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Hazell. When he came, the minister spoke about his openness to suggestions for how to improve Bill C-73. I would like you to mention, if you have time, five key amendments you would like to see.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In the Outaouais region, just the other side of the Ottawa River, over two years ago, we organized a regional COP15. I assembled over 70 community leaders, including the indigenous guardians of Kitigan Zibi, because we wanted to ensure that the conservation efforts were locally grounded, effective and credible.

From this gathering, we created something quite unique. The project is called Kidjīmāninān, which means “our canoe”. That means we're all in it together. It's an indigenous-led conservancy project involving over 40 municipalities and 10 organizations and industries all together. We received $2 million from Environment Canada and we launched this project this summer. This will make the Outaouais the first region in Canada to try to develop a road map to meet our biodiversity targets.

My question is for Chief Adamek. How could Bill C-73 mandate greater recognition, funding and support for similar indigenous-led initiatives across Canada?

[Akaash Maharaj, Director of Policy, Nature Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the members of the committee for inviting me to contribute to your deliberations on Bill C-73.

I am Akaash Maharaj, head of policy for Nature Canada, one of our country's oldest conservation institutions. Nature Canada rallies together more than 250,000 individual Canadians and a network of more than 1,200 organizations in every province and territory.

To be direct, our world is currently enduring the sixth mass extinction in planetary history, the Anthropocene extinction. Unlike the five great dyings of past epochs, this one is driven not by natural catastrophes, but instead by human activity and, in particular, by habitat destruction. Species are currently disappearing at 1,000 times the natural extinction rate, and nearly 30% of surviving species are threatened with extinctions. Bluntly, we are in the midst of the gravest extermination crisis of life on our planet since the end of the dinosaurs.

For this reason, Nature Canada's members are convinced that Canada has made the right decision in joining the Convention on Biological Diversity, and especially in committing to conserve our lands and waters. Canadians are not committed to international standards to please international institutions. We are committed to them for the good of Canadians, for the well-being and prosperity of Canadian communities, and to leave a better country for future generations of Canadians.

However, a commitment is only as good as the acts that follow it. When Canadians describe a promise as being a political promise, we are rarely expressing our confidence that those promises will be kept. This is why Nature Canada is enthusiastic about a nature accountability act, a federal law that would bind the federal Environment Minister and compel him to keep his conservation and biodiversity promises to Canadians.

Bill C-73, as it currently stands, is not that law. The only accountability in the current text is in its title. The bill directs the minister to set national targets, but it has no mechanism to ensure that his targets are meaningful. The bill encourages the minister to develop measures linked to those targets, but it has no requirements that he actually meet any of his targets, and it levies no consequences if he fails to do so. In essence, the bill neither provides the minister with any powers not already held, nor does it bind the minister to any outcomes.

However, it could do all that and more if the legislators in this room were willing to summon their determination to amend it. We ask you to consider and to make the following amendments.

In clause 4, make it explicit that the minister is accountable to Parliament and to Canadians not only for developing a plan towards the target, but also for actually implementing that plan and meeting those targets.

In clause 5, ensure that the minister's targets are tied to species abundance, distribution, extinction risk and habitat quality, and are informed by an assessment process conducted by the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada.

In clause 6, bind the minister's reports to the new anti-greenwashing provisions of the Competition Act's provisions that prohibit entities from making false or misleading claims about the environmental benefits of their offerings.

In clause 7, strengthen the mandate and the independence of the new advisory committee so that if the minister chooses not to implement a committee recommendation, he will have a positive responsibility to report his reasons to Parliament.

In clause 9, include a statutory requirement that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development conduct and publish independent audits on ministerial compliance with the act.

These amendments would make the nature accountability act a law worthy of its name, and as importantly, it would reassert the role of parliamentarians as the guardians of our democracy.

Across the world, democracies are in decline. They are not dying on the barricades in a noble struggle against tyrants. They are surrendering themselves willingly to demagogues and to authoritarians because their peoples have come to believe that public institutions are operating without effect and without accountability. I ask you to amend this bill to stand up for Canada's natural heritage and to stand up for our democracy.

[Stephen Hazell, Consultant, Greenpeace Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Stephen Hazell. I'm pleased to represent Greenpeace Canada today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. Thanks for the opportunity to appear.

Greenpeace is an independent, not-for-profit organization that uses peaceful protest to work towards a greener, more peaceful world. My role is as a consultant on federal nature law and policy. Formerly, I was executive director to a number of national environmental and nature groups. I served as regulatory affairs director of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and as adjunct professor of environmental law at uOttawa.

Greenpeace's overarching message is this. With amendments, Bill C-73 could be an important tool to hold Canada accountable to meet its international commitments to halt and reverse nature loss. Nature in Canada is in dire crisis. As of 2020, 873 species have been identified as critically imperiled. Highly endangered northern spotted owls have dwindled in number to just one female in the wild. Boreal caribou populations are in sharp decline across Canada's north. The population of endangered right whales has continued to decline in the past decade, despite efforts to reduce entanglements and vessel strikes.

Overall, Canada has repeatedly fallen short in fulfilling our commitments to protect nature since the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Federal and provincial nature laws have been largely ineffective and poorly implemented. Canadians are now demanding a strong nature law. A Greenpeace petition now has almost 90,000 signatures. The landmark 2022 global biodiversity framework, signed by 196 countries, is a tremendous opportunity for Canada to halt human-induced extinction of threatened species and to protect 30% of terrestrial and marine areas. This can and must be achieved while respecting the principle of free, prior and informed consent under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

My colleagues has talked about the CNZEAA, the Canada Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Implementation has shown that legally binding targets and plans do drive progress—in this case, on climate. The same is true for nature. Accountability is required to ensure progress, and legislation is needed to ensure accountability.

Bill C-73 does need strengthening. Greenpeace Canada strongly supports the amendments proposed by Ecojustice and West Coast Environmental Law in the previous panel. I'll highlight a few of these amendments as follows.

The biodiversity shield amendment would support a whole-of-government approach, which is critical to ensure consistency in Canada's nature protection efforts so that you don't have one department saying one thing and another department doing something that is completely contrary. That's what we mean by whole-of-government approaches.

Amendments are also needed to ensure that the proposed advisory committee has a legislated mandate to ensure its independence and effectiveness. I, myself, would say that anglers, hunters, landowners and ranchers are all experts as well. They're the people who manage wildlife on their land. I don't see any reason that you wouldn't have them on the advisory committee as well. In fact, the species at risk advisory committee did have anglers and hunters on it. I don't know why we wouldn't do that again under this bill.

In a country that's built on colonial resource extraction, Bill C-73 must also explicitly prioritize the rights and leadership of indigenous peoples. Bill C-73 should also acknowledge that the rights of nature are inherent to the right to a healthy environment as currently proposed by the government in the draft implementation framework for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Note that Bill C-73's accountability framework mandates federal action, such as setting Canada-wide targets, but not action by provincial or territorial governments. Provinces and territories hold much, if not most, of the authority under Canada's constitution to conserve and restore nature, so collaboration among the several levels of government is absolutely critical to meeting the overall national targets.

In conclusion, a strong Bill C-73 would signal true leadership in Canada and leadership internationally to halt and reverse nature loss.

Thank you so much. I look forward to questions.

[Jesse Zeman, Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the committee for the opportunity to be a witness.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation is British Columbia's largest and oldest conservation organization, with over 40,000 members and 100 clubs across the province. Our clubs and members spend hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours and dollars conducting wildlife, wetland and fish habitat restoration, as well as advocating for legislative, regulatory and policy changes to support a future that includes healthy fish, wildlife and habitat.

Over the past two years in the world of fish, wildlife, habitat, water and wetlands, the BCWF has delivered over 100 projects worth more than $7 million while partnering with over 50 indigenous communities. This includes 71 beaver dam analogues built in 2024 and nearly 45,000 kilograms of garbage removed from the tidal marsh in the Fraser River. Since 2021, we've delivered over 230 projects and more than $11 million in project work for the benefit of the environment.

Our partners and funders include indigenous communities, ENGOs, local communities, private landholders, the Government of Canada and the Province of B.C. Our 2016 estimate of volunteer contribution by our members was over 300,000 hours per year. I believe we greatly exceed that now.

Our membership is dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat, donating hours and dollars to science and on-the-ground stewardship; however, our membership is also extremely concerned about the future of public access to fish, wildlife habitat and nature in general.

The BCWF is deeply concerned that Bill C-73 does not ensure a future in which Canadians can camp, hike, backpack, birdwatch and hunt and fish sustainably. These sustainable lifestyles and sustainable recreation must be front and centre for new land designations.

This bill provides the Minister of Environment and Climate Change powers that do not include adequate parliamentary oversight. The bill talks about collaboration, but does not ensure stakeholders, where British Columbians will be consulted, and the bill provides authority to set aside public land and delegate control to unelected management authorities. Consultation includes provinces, indigenous peoples of Canada and an advisory committee. There is no stipulation as to the representation of the advisory committee.

We have a number of examples where the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has failed to consult and sometimes represent the public, including caribou recovery in northeast B.C., which has set a number of our communities back by decades, and a lack of leadership around ensuring public access for sustainable lifestyles and sustainable outdoor recreation around mechanisms to achieve the 30 by 30 targets. We believe that connecting British Columbians and Canadians to nature is good for their mental and physical health, and that people connected to the land are people who will protect it.

The BCWF supports increased conservation. However, there is significant concern that this comes at the expense of eliminating sustainable use and sustainable outdoor recreation. The BCWF has experienced this with the proposed South Okanagan-Similkameen national park reserve in the same area where our members have funded, donated to and volunteered for the largest and most collaborative mule deer research project in the province's history. Throughout this project, our members have assisted in capturing, GPS collaring and doing mortality investigations on mule deer, as well as deploying and maintaining over 150 remote sensing trail cameras and reviewing millions of pictures.

These same people are now being told by the Government of Canada that it does not want to see them hunting in their own backyard because it's being turned into a national park reserve. We have also experienced declarations of moratoriums on licensed hunting through other federally derived conservation mechanisms.

This bill does not give us comfort that British Columbians and Canadians will be able to enjoy and interact with nature in the same places and in the same ways we can today. If Canadian families are out camping, hiking, backpacking and hunting and fishing sustainably, the Government of Canada should be saying: “This is great. We want more people and their kids off their screens and out connecting with nature.” The Government of Canada should be encouraging and supporting sustainable lifestyles and sustainable outdoor recreation, and that should be recognized in this bill.

To close, everyone needs to see themselves in our shared future.

Thanks for your time.

[Regional Chief Kluane Adamek]

[Witness spoke in Southern Tutchone and provided the following translation:]

Greetings. My name is Kluane Adamek. I am from Kluane First Nation and the Kluane people. I come from the Daḵłʼaweidí clan. My traditional name is Aagé. I hold my hands up and give thanks to the Algonquin people, whose territory we are on.

[English]

Thank you so much for the opportunity to share with this important committee as you work through the precursors to Bill C-73. In terms of my remarks today, I'm going to be very specific about recommendations for amendments as we view them through a first nations lens.

This bill is critically important to ensure there are accountability mechanisms in place with respect to implementation. Bill C-73 is an important component of Canada's plan to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. However, as introduced, it requires a few changes to do so. Firstly, we require more commitments within the bill, including legislation that targets achievement rather than just reporting on progress. I'll give a few examples for that shortly. Secondly, it requires a study of Canadian legislation, policies, programs and subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity, and the creation of a plan to address them. Lastly, it should legislate authority, responsibility and capacity to the ministerial advisory committee, as well as ensure there is specific representation from first nations individuals.

Now, Métis and Inuit, I'm assuming, will have a chance to speak with you regarding their amendments, so I say this specifically from a first nations perspective: We require a member on this committee. I can speak to the importance of this, as I served on Canada's Net-Zero Advisory Body. Ensure that indigenous voices are represented at all levels where decisions or advice related to the land, environment, water and, of course, biodiversity are concerned. This is absolutely critical from a rights-based approach.

The stronger commitments in this bill require ministers to be responsible for each target and to create accountability for lack of progress on missed targets, which is currently not included. In order to identify key drivers of biodiversity loss, a critical component of the success of this bill and the NBSAP is the requirement of a process to identify legislation, policies and programming—including subsidies—that drive biodiversity loss. Without a process like this or actions on findings, Canada is setting conservation targets while simultaneously working against these targets, therefore supporting further degradation of biodiversity. This study should identify legislation, programs, policies and subsidies that harm biodiversity, identify the ministers responsible, recommend measures to reduce and eliminate these mechanisms, and report on progress via national reports.

As mentioned, as guidance for a mechanism for Canada's successful halting and reversing of biodiversity loss, the advisory committee must be appropriately funded and equipped. It requires the importance of incorporating traditional knowledge and western science to advise on conservation. The indigenous knowledge must come directly from indigenous knowledge-holders. As such, this advisory body must ensure there is a rights-based lens. To enable this, the bill must authorize the committee to review and advise on elements related to Canada achieving biodiversity outcomes, and it must commit appropriate and sustainable resources to this work.

I'll share a reflection with the committee. It goes like this: I come from Kluane First Nation. You can google “Kluane National Park”. Our lake has gone down by 10 feet in the last 10 years. The ways in which our fish are growing have changed. The mass number of wolves we see in our territory has impacted the way we hunt moose and caribou. If we don't put into the plan an action on accountability with respect to this bill, we're going to be looking to these species and observing biodiversity, but there will be no accountability for the ways in which some of the work is being implemented and how it will be reviewed in terms of data.

This is where we require some of the amendments I have suggested. Specifically, from a rights-based approach, you have to include first nations. This bill, in our view—though, geopolitically, there is a very partisan environment here in Canada—is something that every single party should be getting behind, because we have to be accountable.

There's no way of moving forward without ensuring that we're actually tracking what it is that we're seeking to achieve. That is a first nation view to this legislation.

Again, amendments are required, but we really should all be getting behind this, because we're all a son, a daughter, a granddaughter, or perhaps have children of our own. If we do not do this right, right now, there are impacts that we may experience moving forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

To date, how much consultation are you aware of with the agricultural producers in your province or in western Canada with respect to Bill C-73?

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

The most vocal supporters of Bill C-73 appear to be environmental activist groups that don't support land use or development. I think of organizations like Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace. Do you have anything to say about this?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

I'd have liked to be with you in person, but to avoid spreading little germs, it was a better idea for me to attend the meeting from my office.

I'll start with you, Mr. Ginsberg.

We believe that the government can amalgamate its policies in the act, which is fine. However, we have no illusions about the likelihood that the act will positively contribute to protecting nature and biodiversity.

For a long time, we've been calling on the government to stop making decisions that are incompatible with its own biodiversity objectives. We want it to stop paying lip service.

I'm going to talk to you about an announcement made earlier this week about the Vista coal mine. You can probably see where I'm going with this.

On December 6, the president of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada announced that the project to expand phase II of the coal mine over approximately 630 hectares will continue without any assessment.

If no assessment is done, how can we know what impact it will have?

Your organization, Ecojustice, has said that, once expanded, the Vista mine would be the largest thermal coal mine in Canadian history.

Doesn't a free pass for coal like this thwart the potential gains of Bill C‑73when it comes to nature accountability?

A free pass will certainly not help us meet our objectives, will it?

[Anna Johnston]

Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, as it would be prescribed by Bill C-73, the federal government has to produce biodiversity strategies and action plans. What we've seen lacking to date is enough detail on those strategies and plans to actually provide us with, as I called it earlier, the "road map" that we need.

The 2030 nature strategy is much more detailed in terms of a strategy, but you'll notice in the title that it's just the 2030 nature strategy. We don't yet have the accompanying action plan. What I see our proposed amendments doing, since they prescribe the actual contents of strategies and plans, is requiring the federal government to build on this fairly strong 2030 strategy to come up with the action plan for how we're actually going to put that strategy into action.

[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.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'll say it again.

I said that she doesn't want to talk about the bill that we are supposed to talk about. It's Bill C-73, and I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think we're getting off topic. I think the Bay du Nord is very relevant to the discussion of Bill C-73, but I don't think, personally, that the Trans Mountain pipeline is.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

According to our understanding, the federal government has relinquished management to the Atlantic provinces in order to have oil and gas development. At least, that's what we're seeing.

Could Bill C-73 prevent the Atlantic provinces from continuing to develop offshore oil and gas in sensitive areas?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here.

In your presentation, you said that every government had to assume its responsibilities and that everyone had to work together. I think the Bloc Québécois fully agrees with that. Quebec and the provinces take care of the land, and the federal government takes care of the oceans.

Oceans come under federal jurisdiction, so I'll take you back in time and talk about the Bay du Nord project. All the environmental groups had asked that this project not be approved, but you approved it. Of course, environmental groups were disappointed and criticized you. However, this project may not come to fruition because of a lack of investors and a lack of financial viability.

Basically, Bill C-73, under our consideration, is sort of a framework bill that involves the government's participation in what was signed in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. However, if this bill were turned into framework legislation, but public policies were different and oil development was promoted, would this bill prevent the development of a project similar to the one in Bay du Nord?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield.

I think it is correct to make a parallel between Bill C-73 and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, in the sense that the act imposes a certain number of things on our government and future governments. We have to produce action plans like the emissions reduction plan produced in 2022. We have to update those plans. They have to be tabled in the House of Commons. They have to be made public. We have to do consultations in the lead-up to that. We already have targets for 2022, but we have to set targets for future commitment periods, whether it's for nature or climate.

I think it's about accountability towards Canadians. It's about transparency. It's about ensuring the government puts in place the necessary measures to achieve the targets we set for ourselves.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister for being with us for two full hours and for showing us your commitment to our committee, as well as for the fine work you're doing on climate change and the exciting legislation that we're going to be discussing today and, hopefully, in future meetings sequentially, so that we can get to the crux of the legislation before us.

Thanks to Mr. van Koeverden for introducing his motion several weeks ago. We've been trying to have this conversation. The Conservatives are blocking. The NDP are putting other motions on the table.

It's great that we're finally starting the conversation together, because halting and reversing biodiversity loss is one of the great challenges we face, on top of climate change. This is a parallel challenge. If we get it right, we can transition to a nature-positive Canada in working with indigenous people, knowing that their knowledge will contribute to our solution together.

We have some profound impacts happening on our collective well-being. The University of Guelph looks at “one health” and says that the one health initiative is important. On biodiversity loss, through the Biodiversity Institute, we're tracking the results of that loss, but we have to start recovering from the loss that we have in front of us.

Can you tell the members why Bill C-73 is so crucial, so that our committee can really grab hold of this study?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you painted a very nice picture of what Bill C-73 is supposed to do. My concern is about Liberals talking about things that sound so nice and wonderful. This summer, you proved that concern with the mismanagement of the forest system. There was a lack of biodiversity, a lack of prescribed burns, and no getting rid of the mountain pine beetle and dead trees. One-third of Jasper burned.

Could you please explain to us why Canadians should believe this bill is going to protect the biodiversity of our ecosystem when you've proven that you don't have the ability to do it right now?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Canada's identity is deeply connected to its natural environment. Our forests, lakes, coastlines and wetlands are more than just landmarks. They are the lifeblood of our economy, culture and communities.

Canada plays a vital role in safeguarding the world's ecosystems. As the second-largest country on earth, Canada stewards 25% of the world's temperate rainforests, 24% of boreal forest and 37% of freshwater lakes, along with the longest coastline in the world. As a result, our domestic action has global implications.

The growing impact of environmental degradation—from biodiversity loss to climate instability—cannot be ignored. Forestry, agriculture, fishing and aquaculture are directly threatened by ecological disruptions, with implications for jobs, food security and public health.

Despite the progress we've made, such as the protection of 300,000 square kilometres of land and inland waters since 2017, our work is far from over. That is roughly half the size of Manitoba, and just two weeks ago, we announced the largest indigenous-led conservation project in the world, Mr. Chair, which will span more than one million square kilometres in the Northwest Territories.

In 2022, Canada played a key role in securing the ambitious Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, known as the GBF. The GBF outlines a 2050 vision of living in harmony with nature and sets four goals for 2050, with 23 global targets to halt biodiversity loss by 2030.

In June 2024, Canada was one of the first countries to publish a national strategy to outline how it will implement these targets domestically. At the same time, the government introduced Bill C‑73 in the House of Commons. This bill reflects Canada’s commitment to advancing efforts to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, by establishing a framework for accountability and transparency in delivering on the GBF commitments and ensuring sustained action at the national level.

If passed, Bill C-73 would codify Canada's commitment to contribute to these global targets, as well as future targets and long-term goals. The bill would require me, as Minister of Environment and Climate Change, as well as future ministers, to develop and submit national biodiversity strategies that align with international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. These strategies will outline federal measures and provide opportunities for provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, municipalities and other parties to highlight their actions, ensuring a collaborative approach to biodiversity conservation.

This is essential because no single level of government within Canada can achieve targets alone. Provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, as well as industry and civil society, must work together to secure a prosperous economy based on resilient ecosystems.

This involves ensuring the safety and security of communities, because nature-based climate solutions contribute to both sequestering emissions and mitigating climate change impacts such as heat domes and flooding.

To strengthen accountability, the minister will also be required to prepare national reports that align with international commitments under the CBD, and assess Canada's progress towards global biodiversity targets.

These reports will assess Canada’s progress, highlight where we need to course correct and ensure that we continue to improve. Both the strategies and reports will be tabled in Parliament and made publicly available.

Bill C‑73 places significant emphasis on indigenous leadership. The Government of Canada recognizes that indigenous peoples have long safeguarded the nation’s lands, waters and ice.

As such, Bill C-73 requires the integration of indigenous knowledge into conservation efforts, and mandates respect for indigenous rights, as affirmed by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

To support effective decision-making, the bill also requires that an advisory committee be established. This committee will provide independent advice to the minister on the most effective biodiversity measures to put in place. The committee will ensure that decisions are informed by scientific disciplines, indigenous knowledge, and biodiversity policy expertise at the national and international levels.

The composition of the committee ensures representation from indigenous partners, whose knowledge will complement scientific research, creating a comprehensive approach to biodiversity conservation.

This body can monitor Canada's progress towards achieving biodiversity targets, and recommend course corrections when needed. It will also help ensure the minister can stay aligned with emerging developments in science and policy.

At the heart of this bill lie a number of principles, including the principle of intergenerational equity, meaning that our actions today shape the world we leave for future generations. Bill C-73 ensures that future generations inherit a thriving environment.

The bill does not impose obligations on provinces and territories. It provides a framework for consultations and co-operation across all levels of government and society. Biodiversity conservation is a collective responsibility requiring the participation of governments, industry, indigenous partners, workers, environmental organizations and citizens alike.

To maintain the relevance and effectiveness of this legislation, Bill C-73 mandates a parliamentary review every 10 years. This review cycle aligns with the Convention on Biological Diversity's timeline for setting new global targets, ensuring that Canada's efforts remain responsive to emerging challenges and evolving commitments.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-73 represents a critical opportunity to reaffirm Canada's leadership in biodiversity conservation and environmental accountability. It provides the structure we need to deliver on our commitments, while fostering collaboration and transparency. It is also an opportunity for opposition parties to step up for Canada. This bill is being held up because the Conservative Party of Canada is holding up our important work in Parliament right now. I am calling on all parties to prioritize this bill. I hope we can come together. I look forward to working with all of you to move this important piece of legislation.

Together, we can build a future where nature thrives, ecosystems are restored and citizens have access to a prosperous future.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Welcome back.

Once again, we welcome the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Joining him for this second hour are Heather McCready, director general, legislative and regulatory affairs; and Basile van Havre, director general, Canadian Wildlife Service.

We will be spending the second half of today's meeting on Bill C-73, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in relation to certain commitments Canada has made under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Now, without further ado, I will turn the floor over to the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't think we have the time for that, because we have to go into our second hour, which is on Bill C-73, with the minister again with us.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I just wanted to respond to Ms. Taylor Roy.

Really, in large part, this is because the Conservatives were filibustering. Our committee business wouldn't have gone forward without this and we wouldn't be able to tackle the climate emergency. Also, they were filibustering Bill C-73, which should have been proposed in committee business, and it was the choice of the Liberals not to do that.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay.

I'm concerned that we're bumping all of this important committee business, whether that's the completion of our sustainable finance study or the meeting on Bill C-73 on biodiversity, which I've been asking for for weeks and which members of this committee claim to support, yet here we are debating other things. When are we going to find time to do this, given that we have a short window ahead of us?

I'll just say again that members on the Liberal side of this committee have been in favour of a visit from the environment commissioner, and we've encouraged a visit from the minister. However, Conservative members have filibustered throughout that process and have not allowed that process to come to fruition. As we've stated, we welcome a visit from the commissioner to discuss more thoroughly how Canada will meet its climate objectives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would like to say that I like the idea of the study. I really like the amendments that are being brought forward.

Mr. Sauvé, welcome. You can see that this isn't an easy committee sometimes, but it's good to set the parameters of our studies and what we're going to be focusing on.

I think that accountability of the government is definitely something that this committee needs to focus on. I also think the committee needs to continue its focus on the oil and gas industry as the major contributor.

I don't think it's in any way avoiding responsibility. I think both amendments clarify what we want to study. I don't think that leaving either of those out would help us with our parameters.

I also like the amendment that was mentioned earlier by Mr. van Koeverden, which was to make sure that Bill C-73 is also included in this agenda item that we have in front of us. I would like to see us get to that amendment.

I would love to support both the amendment and the subamendment as they're written. I'd like to see another amendment come forward that we could support on Bill C-73. Then we're set up for our schedule. We would know what we're doing and we would make sure that we hit our goal of getting these studies all done.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say thank you to Ms. Taylor Roy for some of her comments about the climate crisis generally. I think we are in a climate emergency, and the oil and gas sector is the sector that is driving up our emissions. As much as the Conservatives might not want to admit it, that is a fact.

That said, the government is the one responsible for regulating this industry and putting in place the policies that would drive down our emissions. A strong emissions cap and all of these things are vital if we actually want to drive down our emissions generally, and specifically in the oil and gas sector.

I'm not sure how I feel about this subamendment. Honestly, I think the report from the environment commissioner is damning. It is heartbreaking. As much as the government wants to claim that it is a climate leader, we are not on track to meet 40% to 45% by 2030. We have six years, and the report lays this out very clearly. We have six years to do the majority of the reductions that we need to meet our 2030 targets. This is an emergency.

I'm hesitant, honestly, to support the subamendment, mainly because I think there's a bit of redundancy. The report talks about emissions reductions, and I think there will be an opportunity to talk about the things that we can do to reduce our emissions. I think the report itself is something that we do need to focus on, and we do need to, ideally, have the government come to terms with the fact that it's not on track, that Canada has the worst record in the G7 for emissions reductions, and that we've had unreliable emissions reductions estimates. There have been transparency issues. All of these things are really important for us to cover. I'm hesitant to have a government that wants to try to avoid those conversations.

That said, I think it's really clear that the oil and gas sector is responsible for the bulk of our emissions. It is the sector that is emitting more than any other sector. The government, unfortunately, with the emissions cap, has decided to give them a watered-down policy that allows them to continue emitting. It doesn't actually force them to bring down their emissions in the way that we are relying on other sectors to reduce their emissions. These are companies that are making record profits right now.

I have to say that in part I am also a little bit hesitant to support what the Liberals are bringing forward because Mr. van Koeverden and Ms. Taylor Roy said false things about my positions on Bill C-73. I fully support a study on Bill C-73. I've been reaching out to Liberal members, asking that we try to work together to get this motion passed, to stop the Conservatives from filibustering. I've been trying my best to get this committee to function. I am feeling a little bit frustrated with Liberal members, as I have been reaching out and trying to figure out a way to actually dig into these really important issues.

I hope that on Monday, if we have committee business, we can pass a motion on Bill C-73. It is a prestudy. That bill is not coming to committee any time soon, but I would like us to dig into it.

I think part of me is wary of this subamendment because I see the Liberals trying to avoid accountability so often, but I am still mulling it over, to be honest.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I was responding to a point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My amendment to the motion as we've heard it is under the first section, where it says, “The committee hold a minimum of three meetings to investigate the Liberal government’s emission reduction policies”. Under (b), I would request that we have a two-hour meeting, with one hour dedicated to the commissioner's report and one hour on Bill C-73. Under (d), I would like to add at the end, after the date, December 13, 2024, “that the committee begin its prestudy of Bill C-73, an act respecting transparency and accountability, within seven days of the minister's appearance.” Once again, I'll add that it could have been more than one week ago, and we will be hearing from the commissioner of the environment in five days.

Thank you. That's it. That's my amendment, Mr. Chair.

[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.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay, but is it relevant to Bill C-73 or to Jasper, this article that he is reading from just to fill time?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is reading from the newspaper relevant to Bill C-73?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will save these important arguments that we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to consider when we decide whether or not we are going to move forward with a prestudy. I will save that for the main thrust of the amendment. I appreciate that I have perhaps veered a bit away from the subamendment, and I will reserve some of these pieces for later.

I will wrap up by saying this subamendment matters to people. I look forward to hearing from my colleague from Yellowhead, because I know he has talked to many people on the ground who are frustrated. I won't repeat the many reasons, but we all know why they are frustrated.

I will refrain from going into too much detail about why, from a parliamentary history perspective and a normal, typical legislative perspective, we should not entertain the idea of Bill C-73, other than to say, most importantly, as it relates to the subamendment, that we have a duty to Canadians to not hide the work we've done for months and months, whether it is bad for the government or good for the government. It shouldn't really matter. However, I don't appreciate it when the government wants to hide things.

As it relates to the Jasper wildfires, this is something that's devastating, not only to that community but to anybody who has visited there and had the opportunity to experience that beautiful national park and the hospitality of the people who live, work and play within it.

I hope my colleagues from all parties agree that it is entirely reasonable to pass my proposed subamendment, which would ensure that Minister Boissonnault doesn't delay this forever and that he comes here and provides an update to our committee so that we can wrap it up and have a fulsome study to report back to the House.

I will pause there, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

You established earlier that Bill C‑73 was not directly related to the discussion on the subamendment and that Mr. Leslie should stick to his subamendment. He's going off topic again, talking about the legal profession and theories. I am confused.

Again, Mr. Leslie—

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

Certainly. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, but I will offer a slightly revised version of that same reality.

The subamendment I have moved forward states, “but none shall commence until the committee has heard from Minister Boissonnault in relation to the study of the factors leading to the recent fires in Jasper National Park.”

Again, context is important. The motion where I am trying to say “but none shall commence” is about Bill C-73. I think it is entirely within the—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would rather take 30 minutes to explain why we should do things more promptly than take days, weeks and months and do nothing. I am happy to take a half hour of time to do better than the current trajectory of this Liberal government. I will take no issues with 30 minutes. In fact, I might go an hour. It might even be worth it.

The reality is that I cannot support the amendment as proposed, as I mentioned, without including this subamendment. I think we need to finish, perhaps, first and foremost.... I did outline many issues that are very important to Canadians of all stripes and of all regions, but the devastation that Jasper saw is, in my view, personally at least, the top priority. That's why I have moved the subamendment.

Collectively, I think the evidence is overwhelming. The Liberal government, in trying to move a prestudy on Bill C-73, is making a direct effort to change the channel from its failures in Jasper and from its failures for Quebec workers and, broadly speaking, taxpayers.

Bill C-73 was tabled in June. It has had a grand total of zero seconds of debate in the House of Commons. I'll come back to why that is very important. Just as importantly, I have never once seen Bill C-73—perhaps my colleagues can correct me—on one of those schedules of what is going to be coming up for debate in the House of Commons. For those who don't know, there's something called the Thursday question, where members of the official opposition ask the governing party what the agenda for the week ahead will be. The Thursday question response, as far as I can tell and have experienced, has never once included Bill C-73, so I don't believe this is actually a priority for the government. It might be a political priority, but it has not been proven to be in any way, shape or form a legislative priority, where the government is using its House of Commons time to actually move this forward.

Let me tell you why this matters, Mr. Chair. Case law, as it relates to ministerial statements, is vital. In our democratic system, there is a principle that Parliament holds the authority to both scrutinize and debate legislation in the House of Commons prior to its moving to the committee stage. This includes what I think is a critical moment, or often 20 minutes of a moment, where the minister presents the bill, explains its contents, its purpose and its objectives in the maiden speech for that legislation in the House of Commons.

In my view, we must respect the procedural order of Parliament. This ensures that members of all political parties have the proper context and the full information necessary to engage in meaningful deliberation when it gets to committee, to ask reasonable questions of the expert witnesses which this and every other committee brings before it.

I'm not saying this to make an allegation that a prestudy has never been done before, that it's entirely this new idea, but in this context, it is a rather novel strategy. The minister has not spoken to this bill at all. Not one second, beyond tabling, has been dedicated to this legislation. When you look at LEGISinfo—

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

Thank you. I think we could have had this wrapped up a little bit quicker if we hadn't had some members from the government side shut down and adjourn debate on this. I think we could have wrapped this up long ago, and perhaps we could have gotten Minister Boissonnault here much earlier. I think that would have been a fantastic opportunity for us to show cordiality and really come together and understand that we want to have the best.

Importantly, the second reason I am moving this subamendment is that, broadly speaking, I do have serious concerns about the prestudy of Bill C-73. I understand that there are certain stakeholder groups that want us to conduct a prestudy as a priority to them. I also understand that we don't know when the next election is going to be, and people want to have legislation that they care about dealt with prior to that.

Listen, I understand that, Mr. Chair, but the reality around this table is that none of us knows when that next election is going to come. There are rumours circulating around this place, around Parliament Hill and on social media that the Prime Minister may prorogue Parliament at any time, and all of our committee's work will be thrown out.

In the House of Commons, you can move a motion to bring back to the House of Commons all of the legislative agenda of the government and potentially a private member's bill if they so choose, but all of the work that we have done as a committee is lost; it's gone.

What worries me is the idea of doing a prestudy on Bill C-73. In my view, it's frankly absurd. Also, in my view, and I think reasonably in the view of anybody who's an observer of this committee or of politics broadly, it appears to be an effort to put on the back burner the many other ongoing and important pieces of work this committee has been undertaking for the past many months in the hope that they may never have to be dealt with.

Now, Mr. Chair, I'd like to quickly outline some of the work that is outstanding at this committee.

We had a meeting that we debated a lot about afterwards on how we deal with reports or a letter from the five, I believe it was, oil and gas CEOs. Whether we like their appearance or not, they came, and we should, in some way, at the request of the committee, as previously done, highlight what that appearance meant and what they said, and then report that back to the House, which I believe was the motion previously passed.

Towards the end of the summer, we all flew back from our respective ridings a bit early, for one or two meetings, I believe. That carried on at the start of our session here into September, following the federal government's edict and egregious government overreach, which would put mills and entire communities out of business when logging is prevented from happening in the vast—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps while I'm speaking to this, the clerk could check, because it seems that the amendment and the subamendment might be in conflict. One says that it must be done, and the other says it must be drafted. We're just going through what we're being asked to consider to vote on here, and it doesn't seem to be completely in order.

I will once again point out that we have been doing this de facto committee business meeting as an emergency, and in our last couple of meetings, the Conservatives filibustered so that we wouldn't be able to move on to discussing whether or not we could have a prestudy on Bill C-73. They filibustered a meeting where the Minister of Environment offered to come and discuss these issues.

These are very real challenges that we're facing. The commissioner very clearly pointed out that the increases in emissions are due to the oil and gas sector, most notably the oil sands industry in Alberta. The Conservatives want to continually suggest that these are the government's emissions, that these emissions are a result of government action or inaction, while we've been actively encouraging the oil and gas sector to decarbonize, modernize and become more efficient. We've enacted regulations. We've enacted over 100 measures to lower emissions, to decarbonize and to reduce the emissions that are related to oil and gas exploration and production in the oil sands.

Indeed, we've heard from those companies. We've delved into some of their results, and we can very clearly see that the only sector that hasn't reduced its emissions is the oil and gas sector, most notably the oil sands.

Before us, we have a pollution cap that we would like to put in so that the oil and gas sector needs to consider investing some of its astonishing $60 billion in revenues and profits into a more efficient process so that its sector isn't the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive oil product in the world. That's something we shouldn't tolerate as Canadians. We should ask the oil sands to innovate and join the rest of the world in decarbonizing their energy products. They're important products for all of us.

Next week, most of us will fly to Ottawa. Some of us will drive electric cars and others will take trains, but all of that transportation, at some stage, requires fossil fuels. We should be demanding that those fossil fuels be produced with the lowest carbon intensity possible, and that's not what we've been seeing.

I would very much welcome a study on how Canada should and will achieve these goals. We are on track to meet our 2030 goals. Much more must be done, such as a pollution cap on the oil and gas sector—something that the Conservatives are against and something that Premier Danielle Smith has spent $7 million on for an ad campaign in Ottawa, driving trucks around—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.

I would just start by saying that emergency meetings are to be used in emergencies. While we are 100% in a climate emergency—and I think some of the members of this committee agree with me on that—calling this meeting does not fall into the category of that requirement, especially given that we have the environment commissioner appearing at this committee—agreed to by all members—on Wednesday of next week at our second meeting. To have an emergency meeting to discuss whether or not the environment commissioner is going to appear seems a little bit presumptuous, or at least a little bit premature, especially given that in less than one week we'll have an opportunity to discuss these with him.

I'd also just question the genuineness—if I can use that word, if it's a word—of some of the members to actually hear from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change when, instead of filibustering two of the previous three meetings, we could have had the minister here. He wanted to come to talk about Bill C-73, so I welcome the friendly amendment from MP Sauvé to add the Bill C-73 study.

I have an amendment to that, as well, because I would like, for the Bill C-73 study, to be a little bit more rigorous and to include, perhaps, multiple days to look at Bill C-73 specifically. I'd also say that, five times in the last two or three weeks, I've tried to pass a similar.... I'm sorry. I think I was confused.

I will be moving a motion to add Bill C-73, if Mr. Sauvé's amendment doesn't already include it. Again, despite opposition from the Conservatives and the NDP, I've been trying for weeks now to move a motion to look at Bill C-73 and have been blocked. It's disappointing, because I don't think that biodiversity is such a contentious or partisan issue. I think we all agree that we need to protect species that are endangered by the triple threat of pollution, climate change and the loss of biodiversity.

I also call into question.... I know that Mr. Deltell is sincere when he talks about his desire to lower emissions and fight climate change. He will repeatedly say that Canada is not on track. However, by many measurements, we are indeed on track, and we are only on track because of the over 100 measures undertaken by this government to reduce our emissions. Indeed, it is irrefutable that our emissions are now lower than they've been since 1997 and that they would have been 41% higher than they are today had we not undertaken these over 100 measures.

These over 100 measures have been voted against by Conservatives every step of the way for the last eight or nine years. When asked pointedly if they have alternative measures that they'd like to propose to lower emissions, to hold oil and gas to account, to electrify, to decarbonize and to reduce our impact on the environment, they use one word: “technology”. In some ambiguous way—

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—

[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)