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.