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
Bloc
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?
Director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice
Thank you for your question.
You're right. A project like the Vista mine has a profound impact on biodiversity, and it affects federal interests, particularly fisheries and other species at risk.
A large-scale thermal coal project like Vista certainly should have been assessed. However, I see that under the Nature Accountability Act, it wouldn't be possible to make a regulatory decision like that. That's not its purpose. However, it would provide a better understanding of how such decisions do or do not affect Canada's targets.
At the moment, we have no way to assess whether a regulatory decision will undermine our objectives. That's why we need a shield to protect biodiversity—that's one of our suggestions—and to ensure that federal authorities consider the impact of projects like Vista on Canada's biodiversity targets.
That should have been taken into account in the decision not to assess the project.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Ginsberg.
I let you elaborate because you had a lot to tell us about that decision. Here we are talking about biodiversity, and at the same time, decisions are being made to go in the opposite direction.
The bill provides for the preparation of national reports, including an assessment of Canada's progress in meeting global targets, any corrective measures taken or considered to address any failure to make progress on its contribution to meeting those targets, as well as any other information the minister considers appropriate.
Do you believe that the contents of the national reports required under the act as currently drafted are sufficient? Should more information be required? If so, what information would you like to see added to the reports?
Director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice
We need to add domestic targets. There are none at the moment.
On the one hand, the targets ensure that the federal government takes into account all threats to nature and, on the other, they provide a solid foundation for attracting commitment by the provinces and indigenous peoples.
It's very important that these targets be specific and that they reflect Canada's international commitments to the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Along the same lines, we recommend that the report required by the act explain the main threats to biodiversity. That's missing from the act and it needs to be added.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Currently, the act simply provides for the biodiversity targets in the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Are there other areas the federal government could commit to and go further than the global targets do?
Director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice
Many targets concern impacts on biodiversity and are explained in international biodiversity frameworks. I'm sorry, but I can only list them in English.
They include species abundance, species distribution, species extinction risk, habitat quality and extent and ecosystem integrity, connectivity and resilience. These are all things that are taken into account in our international commitments but not currently reflected in the law.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Pauzé. Your time is up. I gave you extra time.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'd like to thank Mr. Ginsberg for his efforts to answer in French.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I was going to say the same thing. I gave him extra time in recognition of his commendable efforts to respond in French.
Thank you.
Ms. Collins is next.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you so much to the witnesses for being here and for all your work when it comes to promoting biodiversity and protecting nature.
I have a number of questions. Maybe I'll pick up where Madame Pauzé left off around targets.
Mr. Ginsberg, can you start by telling us a bit about the targets you're proposing and how they are connected to the global biodiversity framework?
Director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice
Certainly. The GBF, as I explained perhaps rather haltingly in French, now does set out a number of interim targets to 2030, which are global in nature, but what that actually means for Canada is unclear.
As I said in my opening remarks, that's left for each individual signatory to the treaty to define. We say that we should take those global lists and define—
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
If I could just quickly.... That's amazing. Can you talk about why it's so important to have guidance in this law for target setting?
Director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice
We see it in the international examples as well. We won't get to the end state if we don't clearly state in the law what is required to get there. That's what accountability means: Parliament expressing the desire to get to a certain end state and then prescribing what the government must do in order to show that it is getting there.
In the U.K., the environmental targets for biodiversity—these are regulations made under the Environment Act 2021—set very detailed targets for species recovery, lowering extinction risk, species abundance and habitat restoration and creation.
We don't want to be a laggard in this area. That is the international best practice that we should follow.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
That's great.
Why is it important for those targets to be set for milestone years?
Director, Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, Ecojustice
That's already our practice in the net-zero act, which we've mentioned. There, the minister is required to set a national greenhouse gas emissions target for each milestone year, with a view to achieving that defined target. It's a very important accountability measure.
It would be incoherent to take a different approach with respect to biodiversity, and it might actually be even more important with respect to biodiversity, because of the complexity of nature reporting. We're dealing with many indicators, not just one. We have to make sure that we are on track and that, if we're not, we are correcting course in a timely way to achieve success. That's why we need time-bound indicators.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
That's great.
Maybe turning to Ms. Johnston, then, is there anything you want to add about targets? Without tangible quantifiable targets, it's hard to see how this bill would enforce any accountability.
Do you want to expand at all on what Mr. Ginsberg said, especially about the repercussions the government could face if they fail to meet their targets?
Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Yes. Thanks for letting me expand on this.
First, I'd say that while climate change is an incredibly difficult challenge, as we all know, it's actually comparatively much simpler to at least set targets for biodiversity. There are so many facets to biodiversity. It's such a complicated subject. That's why we're proposing in our amendments that the act be prescriptive about the areas that a government has to consider when it's setting targets, because there are, as we've both alluded to, so many drivers of biodiversity decline.
Also, then, when we're talking about biodiversity, we're talking about species, habitat and connectivity and ecosystems, and we need to have multiple targets so that we're attacking all of the root causes of nature loss and also making sure that we're protecting all the values. Targets are important because they tell us where we ought to be. How are we going to measure our progress if we don't have the signposts along the way?
When we talk about accountability, it's the same as under the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. We're not so much talking about legal accountability, because federalism and the provinces also have a huge role to play in protecting nature. We're not thinking that under this act—
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Ms. Johnston, I'm just going to jump in because I'm running short of time and I do want to get a couple of questions in for some of the other witnesses.
Turning to Ms. Gue, can you expand on the importance of the GBF, the global biodiversity framework targets, but also maybe tie in a bit about the importance of government funding when it comes to meeting these goals?
Manager, National Policy, David Suzuki Foundation
Again, just to build on what we offered in our opening statement, this death by a thousand cuts problem, as my colleague stated, is really an apt characterization of one of the greatest failings in Canada's current approach to protecting nature, to protecting biodiversity. It's literally often a case of missing the forest for the trees.
While, yes, we have these imperfect processes for assessing and mitigating damage individually, on a case-by-case basis, what we see is that one step forward in one area is undermined by several steps back somewhere else. That's the turning point that the new global biodiversity framework targets offer us. It's an opportunity to see the whole, to see how to drive progress towards an overall result. However, to get there, we need, as my fellow panellists have pointed out, clear guideposts and transparency to know how we're doing, to track our progress.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thanks very much.
We're really short for time. For the second round, I'm going to make it two minutes each.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's two minutes each. That's time for a good question that packs a lot of punch.
We'll start with Mr. Mazier.
