Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear here today.
My name is Lisa McLaughlin. I'm the vice-president of conservation strategy with the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Since 1962, NCC and our partners have helped conserve more than 20 million hectares of ecologically important lands across Canada for nature and for people.
I'll open today by reflecting on that and noting that my comments are to be taken within the context of the federal jurisdictions and the authorities. In that regard, NCC supports the objectives of Bill C-39, but we recommend one integrated change delivered through two linked elements: first, a net positive outcome for nature as an explicit objective of streamlining the federal project pathway; and second, to enable a broader approach to addressing unavoidable residual impacts, including proponent-led offsets, habitat banking and in-lieu fee mechanisms.
A net gain for nature positioning matters because it defines where we want to end up, not simply how we manage the impacts along the way. The mitigation hierarchy is an important method for addressing the project impacts, but assessments, permits and conditions do not on their own guarantee an overall positive outcome for nature.
An explicit nature-positive objective would establish that expectation: As Canada builds more and faster, development should contribute to reversing nature loss rather than adding to it. It would also strengthen confidence amongst stakeholders and rights holders that accelerating development will not accelerate nature loss.
The second element provides practical pathways. Today, addressing residual-impact requirements is handled differently across federal statutes and authorities, and important costs may be negotiated after project design and capital planning are well under way. Clearer pathways with a broader suite of qualified offsetting tools, including third-party habitat banking and fee-in-lieu mechanisms, provide development proponents with more ways to meet their regulatory responsibilities, increasing the opportunity to address those residual impacts with the best available conservation solution rather than the solution that can be assembled in the moment.
Normalizing a broader suite of tools can reduce bespoke negotiations and late-stage redesign schedule risks, while also connecting projects with land conservation specialists and stewardship and land management capacity. It's also an opportunity to leverage development-related funding into a much larger conservation investment. Rather than a proponent's offset dollars funding stand-alone projects, mechanisms like habitat banking and in-lieu funds can allow dollars to become the foundation of a larger conservation project. The required funding can be combined with philanthropic, private and other public dollars to expand the scale of land protection and restoration. The proponent would still meet its regulatory obligations, but the investment can help unlock conservation outcomes at a significantly larger scale than the offset alone.
We have seen this in action. We have done many of these projects across the country with development and industry partners. I'll provide an example for you here today from working with Elk Valley Resources. They contributed $20 million towards NCC's $90-million conservation project, with a pathway for their investment to potentially address their company's future regulatory offset needs. The company's regulatory offset obligations are not being displaced. Rather, the investment became a part of a larger conservation initiative, alongside funding from other sources, enabling a nature-positive outcome at a scale that neither the offset investment nor the conservation funding alone could achieve by themselves.
The opportunity within Bill C-39 is to make pathways like this more routine, rather than more exceptional. In that project, nature really did get a positive outcome. This project has protected more than 450 square kilometres in southeastern British Columbia, further connecting a network of 7,000 square kilometres of protected areas linking Alberta, B.C. and Montana. These lands have provided habitat for grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines and lynx and protect critical habitat for two federally listed species at risk.
This is what a nature-positive objective could look like if we were using all the tools on the ground. In taking this approach, Canada would not be starting from scratch. As the panellists already mentioned, England, the United States and Australia have already adopted different forms of reaching net-positive outcomes for nature.
Canada could build on this experience while designing a system suited to our regulatory framework, our landscapes, our nature and our business needs. We believe Bill C-39 could help Canada build these projects while also creating conditions for better outcomes for nature, which leads to better outcomes for people.
Thank you.