Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2024

[Stephen Hazell]

We need funding to deliver on this bill, and to deliver on the NBSAPs—the action plans—so we can provide support to indigenous nations and indigenous protected areas. It's also to support the work of local folks—the anglers, hunters, etc. who are doing good work on the ground. There needs to be that program.

There is a major concern about funding winding up in this fiscal year, so this next budget must have significant new funding for nature in order to meet the targets Canada agreed to. Remember, Canada championed the global biodiversity framework. Canada was hailed around the world for the work we did in getting this deal done. Greenpeace International thanked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment for the work they did.

Now we have to deliver.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, I was going to lead you to discussing that, Mr. Hazell.

The government may have worked well on the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. However, we heard this week that there will be no impact assessment on a major coal mine expansion project.

How are we going to meet our targets, whether it's our greenhouse gas reduction targets or our biodiversity targets?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll give you 10 seconds if you want to respond, Mr. Hazell.

[Stephen Hazell]

The answer lies with another federal law, the Impact Assessment Act, and in making sure big projects are subject to federal assessments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I will follow up with Chief Adamek.

As you mentioned, indigenous protected areas make up a huge part of the progress that has been made when it comes to protecting nature in Canada. Indigenous guardians are such an inspiring example of how conservation can be done in line with upholding indigenous rights. You rightly raised the importance of having first nations, Inuit and Métis governments at the table.

I'm curious about whether there are other ways you see this bill interacting with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and making sure that the voices and perspectives of different nations across Canada are heard and respected.

[Regional Chief Kluane Adamek]

Thank you.

We want to acknowledge that there are positive steps by which the legislation is referenced, but there are elements of UNDRIP that need to be further included in the bill. In my opening remarks, I specifically referred to the ministerial advisory committee. There are other elements of this legislation that require direct correlation with UNDRIP. As we know, the right approach is a rights-based approach.

Lastly, I think it's important to remind ourselves that any major project, as was mentioned, must go through the Impact Assessment Act.

This bill, Member Kram, is not related. This bill is specifically looking to ensure that we are keeping on track with our targets with respect to conservation. Being from Yukon, it is important that I share that the impacts of the project with respect to this legislation is zero. It would be then, rather, directed to the IAA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The time is more or less up, Ms. Collins.

Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, and Chief Adamek, welcome to your Parliament.

Mr. Maharaj, hello again. I had the pleasure of meeting you yesterday.

In your testimony, you talked about the fact that public trust could be eroded if a lot of announcements are made but no results are achieved. However, we recently learned that nearly three-quarters of the projects in the net zero accelerator initiative, had no target. This is $8 billion of taxpayers' money being given to companies to achieve net zero, but they have no target.

Do you think managing public funds in this way with the laudable goal of reducing emissions undermines the credibility of efforts to achieve net zero?

[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.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

What do you think is most effective? Having a specific project that directly and concretely targets pollution reduction? Is it instead having ambitious emissions reduction targets based on a set percentage spread out over many years, founded on 30-year-old data and using a questionable calculation method? What do you think is better? Concrete action, or—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please provide a very quick response, Mr. Maharaj.

[Akaash Maharaj]

In my own view, it's better to have modest promises that you keep rather than ambitious promises that you do not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our expert witnesses for joining us today and for sharing with us their insights.

I wish we had more time. I wish we had more meetings, and I wish we started a couple of months ago, but sadly, opposition parties filibustered my motion to bring this prestudy forward to this committee. However, I'm glad we're here.

Unfortunately, we've seen some conservative witnesses do a little bit of fearmongering with respect to their concerns around private land and hunting rights. I feel as though those concerns have been more or less debunked by experts who know how this legislation works.

I'm from Ontario, and we're fortunate in Ontario to have legislation on conservation authorities. Unfortunately, the provincial government has recently been undermining some of the abilities of our conservation authorities to do their important work.

If this bill passes, clearly it wouldn't prevent provinces from exercising their rights and doing what they would like, but I would like to know, from your perspective, what steps you believe are necessary to be taken, both provincially and territorially, in order to ensure that all groups continue to do their good work.

I will start with Chief Adamek and then go to Mr. Maharaj if that's possible.

[Regional Chief Kluane Adamek]

I first want to acknowledge again that I did start my opening comments by noting the heightened political tensions that exist. If we could all just take a moment to sort of put those aside....

With respect to your question, this bill is to make sure, whichever government is elected moving forward, that there is accountability to ensure that we are advancing with conservation. I truly feel, political stripes aside, that this bill is in the interest of all Canadians. There need to be amendments, absolutely. However, if we don't have accountability for public funds with respect to advancing this work, then why are we even bothering with conservation at all?

I recognize that there's time, but in the place that I come from in the Yukon, you finish the conversation because it is important to hear the voices. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. I acknowledge that this is your process. I come from a different process, one that is Tlingit, and you talk until the work is done.

If I have a chance to come back, I will answer the rest of your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, I think the process is dovetailed. I think we had a good discussion because of the quality of the witnesses and the the questions that were asked.

So, I want to thank the witnesses, especially those who travelled to be here. This has been very informative. I found it very stimulating. We'll be ready when the bill comes.

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Chair, what are we doing on Monday?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll be providing guidance to the analysts for the sustainable development study report. I want to keep working on the draft report from the appearances of the oil company CEOs. There's also the possibility of looking at the report on the caribou. There'll be an opportunity for members to present motions. It's going to be more of a housekeeping kind of meeting.

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

Mr. Chair, could I just ask about the caribou report, because it has a time limit? It's time sensitive due to the decree. The public consultation, to my understanding, is already over. I think it would be wise for our committee to ensure that we contribute, since we spent that much time as a committee reviewing it. It should be the top priority to make sure that we contribute to that process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

What I would suggest is that you bring both reports, and we can decide on the spot then, because I don't think we have time for a debate. Bring both reports, and we can talk about it.

Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm sorry. I missed the very beginning. You were talking about the agenda for Monday, and I just wanted to make sure that it's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Witnesses, please feel free to leave the table.

Go ahead, Ms. Collins. Sorry.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

For the agenda for Monday, I just want to make people aware and also to flag for the chair that if you're creating an agenda, I will be moving the motion on the net-zero accelerator to get further on redactions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, thank you.

As I say, it's pretty flexible at the moment, but I guess the main point is that we're not having witnesses on a particular topic. It's going to be an in camera meeting, basically, on committee business.

Mr. Mazier.