Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2024

[Stephen Hazell]

The three organizations—Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law and Greenpeace—had two ideas for this biodiversity shield, but the basic idea is that there be some communication among federal departments and agencies to ensure that nature and biodiversity are taken into account in all government decisions.

Unfortunately, the federal government is a big place, and lots of people are doing lots of different stuff, and a lot of that stuff is at cross-purposes to each other. This law would would try to herd those cats to try to ensure that, whether or not it's Natural Resources Canada making a decision with some some coal mine or some some offshore oil and gas project, nature is being considered in those decisions.

We had two suggestions.

One, the most benign, would be that the departments must take into consideration nature and biodiversity in bringing forward proposals to cabinet. That's the less dramatic of the two.

The second one would be to put a positive obligation on them to ensure that whatever decisions they make do not harm, do not breach, Canada's obligations under the act or internationally. That's a bit of a tougher swallow for the government, I guess, but we still think that they both would help.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks so much.

I asked the previous panel about this, but really, in thinking about Canada's slow progress when it comes to conservation, I have deep concerns about whether or not we're going to meet our targets of 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030.

Maybe I'll start with the three people in the room.

Yes or no, do you feel that Canada is on track to meet its nature commitments? Also, then, I'd love to hear from each of you whether you think this bill, if not amended, has a realistic shot of getting us on track?

I'll start with Mr. Hazell.

[Stephen Hazell]

No, we're not on track. I think the bill will help, especially if we have amendments.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks.

Mr. Maharaj is next.

[Akaash Maharaj]

No, we will not meet our targets. In addition to 30% by 2030, there is a commitment to 25% by 2025, and 2025 arrives in 20 days. We are at roughly 14%. We're not making up the other 11% in that time.

Should the bill pass, even if it's not amended, there is no harm in doing so, but it would be a terrible missed opportunity. It would be an exercise in political communications rather than an exercise in public policy.

I think there is perhaps one downside, and that is that every time governments of any stripe make promises that they do not keep, it erodes public confidence in public institutions.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

Go ahead, Ms. Adamek.

[Regional Chief Kluane Adamek]

Maybe I'm the optimist here, but I do believe we can achieve those goals—if you work in partnership with indigenous peoples. A large amount of that 14% is with indigenous protected and conserved areas. Therefore, we must find ways to propel and support those communities as rights holders to the land. There were questions earlier about when people have to leave their houses and that trees are going to be planted. Take a moment here. What we're talking about is potentially fee simple land, and also Crown land. Most importantly, all land, as we learned in the most recent Supreme Court case, is first nation land or Inuit land or Métis land right across this country.

Again, as the optimist at the table, if we are going to reach these targets, it will only happen if you work in partnership with indigenous peoples. That has been made very clear, in my view, by the ways that the IPCAs have supported that 14%, which we would love to see get bigger.

With respect to the second part of your question, have we reached them? No. Is there still time? In my view and in AFN's view, there is still time, although perhaps more the 30% by 2030 as opposed to the 25% by 2025.

Look, if this bill doesn't pass, then all of the work that's being done to achieve these goals, which are not just Canada's goals, but also—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm so sorry to interrupt you. I have a follow-up question, and I think I have only 30 seconds left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 10 seconds. I'm sorry.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay.

I will let you know my question and follow up in the next round. I really want to get your perspective on how you see this bill working with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I'll ask that in my next round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you so much.

We will now begin the second round of questions.

The distribution of speaking time in the first round seems to have worked well, when everyone had two minutes. We're going to do the same thing, although we will still run a little late.

Mr. Kram, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is for Mr. Zeman from the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

Given the time constraints, you didn't quite have time to answer the last question by my colleague Mr. Calkins about landowners. If you could be so kind as to submit a written submission on that, that would be very helpful.

[Jesse Zeman]

Was that the question about 50% by 2050?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That's right.

[Jesse Zeman]

Okay. We'll have to do some work on that.

[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?

[Jesse Zeman]

I'm sorry. I'm not aware of the connection to Site C or the plan from Yukon down to B.C. In the world of major projects, our focus is really around the world of conservation.

Generally speaking, our message here is that Ottawa is not connected to people who live in the communities who are impacted, or not impacted by conservation outcomes. I think that's the message we're trying to get across. I think everyone here should be cognizant of that. We talked about the national park reserve where that's been introduced. There's been tremendous social conflict in all of the communities. Prior to that, 44,000 hectares had been acquired and restored by groups like Ducks Unlimited, Nature Trust, Nature Conservancy and hunters and anglers, and no one had an issue.

I think what we're trying to get across here is that there's a big place called Ottawa, and it is out of touch with communities and people who have their hands in the ground and are working together. That is one of the missing pieces in this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kram.

I now give the floor to Mr. Longfield for two minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Maharaj, thank you for succinctly addressing each clause that you had some comments on. I want to circle back to a couple of them, if I might.

With regard to clause 9 and audits, Mr. Hazell also mentioned the commissioner of sustainable development and climate change being involved in the audit process. Is that something you were thinking about there and having that come back to Parliament or through this committee?

[Akaash Maharaj]

Absolutely. No person can be a dispassionate judge of his or her own desserts. Any minister of any stripe will always tell a good story about their achievements. The auditor has no such restrictions. It must come back to Parliament.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you. He makes us uncomfortable, but that's his job. He's always at our committee. I think he's been here six times in the last couple of months.

Regarding clause 6 on the assessment process, I'm thinking of the University of Guelph. I think about them a lot, which is no surprise, being the member of Parliament for Guelph. They have the Biodiversity Institute that's been tracking biodiversity loss among animal and plant life forms across the planet.

Is that about getting data from universities, including, let's say, the University of Guelph? Are third party assessments what you're thinking about, in terms of assessment?

[Akaash Maharaj]

Yes. It's universities, expert groups and the Government of Canada's own committees and facilities. It is an extraordinary matter that there is so much expertise within the government itself, which is not represented in the bill.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

In the few seconds I have left, Chief Adamek, thank you, thank you. Your optimism is something we need more of, but we also need that accountability. I think you hit a perfect balance there, so thank you for being at our committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for you, Mr. Hazell, and it has to do with funding.

In your opinion, what investments would be needed for Canada to meet its commitments to nature?