Evidence of meeting #139 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
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.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Are we going to have a meeting on Monday and a meeting on Wednesday?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
There will be no meeting on Wednesday, but there will be one on Monday.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're going to talk about instructions to give to the analysts regarding the report on sustainable finance, among other things. There will probably be motions brought forward at the meeting. We want to close the loop before the holidays.
Ms. Collins, you have the floor.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to confirm the following. I know that we have a meeting scheduled for Monday. I was going to propose a unanimous consent motion today to add an extra 15 minutes so that we could tackle a motion that I'd like to table on the net-zero accelerator, but if we are meeting on Monday and we have your commitment that you won't cancel this meeting, I'm comfortable doing it later. I just want to get that confirmation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
In answer to Madame Chatel, I said that, yes, we're having a meeting. I said that it would be to give drafting instructions to the analysts for the sustainable finance report but that, probably, we will also be entertaining motions. I think that covers your concerns.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
That's wonderful. So, we'll have an opportunity in that meeting to talk about the motions. That sounds great.
Liberal
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.
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.
Rachel Plotkin Boreal Project Manager, David Suzuki Foundation
Good afternoon.
As Lisa said, my name is Rachel Plotkin. I'm the boreal project manager at the David Suzuki Foundation, where I work to protect species at risk and maintain and restore healthy forest ecosystems.
I'm going to follow Lisa's lead with three points of my own, which are set in the context of forest biodiversity.
The first is that the current suite of policy and regulatory tools intended to protect biodiversity is not working. This is primarily due to the fact that Canada's approach to protecting nature has often operated with a mitigation framework, which makes sense as an approach in the fight against climate change, but it has driven the loss of biodiversity. Under it, protected areas are safe—well, to some extent—from the impacts of resource extraction and development, but outside of protected areas, which is over 70% of the land and water in Canada, harm to nature is continually approved, even if it is mitigated or made less bad. This leads to ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation and is what we call death by a thousand cuts.
An example of how this plays out is boreal woodland caribou, which are threatened with extinction in almost every province and territory in Canada due primarily to habitat fragmentation caused by forestry and oil and gas extraction activities.
The second point is that change can only come about with a strong road map outlining how to achieve it. In order to maintain and restore nature, we must develop more effective tools that create limits to the footprint of resource extraction and development activities and clearly demarcate areas of ecological importance. Canada's new nature strategy, which outlines steps to identify degraded areas, support indigenous leadership and assess priority areas for restoration, is a start, but it needs legislative backing.
My third point is that an effective nature accountability law will bring greater certainty and transparency, which can reward progressive forestry practices in the global marketplace. Clear objectives and mechanisms for reporting on them can help create confidence in both investors and consumers, which is critically important in industries such as forestry.
The global stocktake decision, signed by 193 countries last year at COP28 in Dubai, includes a 2030 deadline for halting and reversing deforestation and land degradation. Additionally, the EU has adopted a deforestation regulation prohibiting trade tied to deforestation and forest degradation. This means preventing forest degradation is critical to the success of the Canadian forestry industry in the global forum.
In Canada, we're still largely stuck in the mitigation framework, limiting damage on a site-by-site basis while overall forest degradation remains the trend. The maintenance and restoration of biodiversity are this generation's collective responsibility. If we are to achieve it, we need a road map to get there with targets, timelines, policies and clearly identified leaders because despite good intentions, our stumbling to date has been grossly insufficient to halt and reverse the loss of nature.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Plotkin.
We'll go now to the Manitoba Wildlife Federation. We have with us Chris Heald, senior policy adviser.
Go ahead, Mr. Heald, with your opening statement.
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Heald.
We'll go now to West Coast Environmental Law and staff lawyer Anna Johnston.
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Johnston.
We go now to Joshua Ginsberg from Ecojustice.
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We'll go to questions.
Mr. Leslie, you have six minutes.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start with a fairly straightforward yes-or-no questions. I'll go from right to left because I'd like to hear all your views on this.
Recently, Minister Guilbeault was sitting in one of those very chairs, and he gave himself a very aggressive pat on the back for achieving Climate Scorecard's 2024 Government Climate Leadership Award. You were all, frankly, very critical of his achievements as a minister and of the achievements of this government. Do you believe that the government is living up to the promises it has made and is, in fact, achieving the results it has promised Canadians in biodiversity-loss reduction and emissions reduction?
I'll start with Ms. Johnston and then go across.
Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association
You're starting with the easy questions, eh?
I think this government has made admirable progress on the environment in general, specifically with regard to climate.
Conservative
Director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice
Thank you for the question.
No government of any stripe has fully met any biodiversity targets it has committed to. That's why we do applaud the government for bringing forward this bill—