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.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Do you see this legislation attempting to be conservation or preservation?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
It looks like preservation.
Certainly, given our experience over, probably, the last decade as it relates to the national park reserve and other discussions around the nature agreement, we don't see ourselves in this future, for sure.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay.
I want to talk about access.
What is the concern insofar as access in a preservation model? I used to be a national park warden. I used to be a conservation officer with the Province of Alberta. I was a fisheries technician. I worked for the Government of Alberta and numerous conservation organizations “when I wore a younger man's clothes”, as Billy Joel says.
From your perspective as a federation, could you please tell me what the concerns of your members are when it comes to being able to practise conservation-type activities, such as hunting and fishing, and differentiating that from other activities insofar as access?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Generally speaking, preservation is a hands-off approach, whereas conservation sees people as part of land management, wildlife management and fish management.
In the world of conservation, we talk about our projects. For example, we were just down in south Okanagan the other day. We were putting out a bunch more trail cameras where we're looking to do a prescribed and cultural burn, which is active land management in the Okanagan. This is a fire-maintained ecosystem—and a pile of it. A hundred years ago, we started suppressing fire. In the 1950s, we invented Smokey the Bear, a fraud who said, “Put out forest fires”. What we're learning here is that forest fires and controlled, prescribed and cultural burns are part of landscape management. Our ecosystems need fire to function.
That would be the difference between conservation and preservation, I guess, in this case.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I agree with you. I think the people of Jasper fully understand, now, what the difference is between a preservation and a conservation model, and what happens when you sterilize, from human use and human activity, vast tracts of land without active conservation and management. For example, Jasper National Park did not do any wolf predation control and has since lost the caribou herds that spent most or some of their life cycle inside Jasper National Park. Yet, everybody outside Jasper National Park was blamed for that population declining.
I think the overall goal here, for the government—through the United Nations framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity—is 30% by 2030, but it's also 50% by 2050. When I went to university, the model was 12.5% preservation and 75% active management—12.5% is used by cities and so on. I don't imagine that anybody in any urban environment is going to be asked to tear down their house to make way for nature. Who, then, is going to be asked to cede their land or territory? The question has been asked here about whether this would affect private land. Because it's a process bill—and one could argue that the Species at Risk Act is a process act—it can very much impact a landowner.
Can you tell us how the government could possibly get to 50% of the biozones in Canada without having an impact on privately owned land?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
In 15 seconds, the answer is no, I can't.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
In the Outaouais region, just the other side of the Ottawa River, over two years ago, we organized a regional COP15. I assembled over 70 community leaders, including the indigenous guardians of Kitigan Zibi, because we wanted to ensure that the conservation efforts were locally grounded, effective and credible.
From this gathering, we created something quite unique. The project is called Kidjīmāninān, which means “our canoe”. That means we're all in it together. It's an indigenous-led conservancy project involving over 40 municipalities and 10 organizations and industries all together. We received $2 million from Environment Canada and we launched this project this summer. This will make the Outaouais the first region in Canada to try to develop a road map to meet our biodiversity targets.
My question is for Chief Adamek. How could Bill C-73 mandate greater recognition, funding and support for similar indigenous-led initiatives across Canada?
Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations Yukon Region
Thank you for your question.
I believe that a committee is a way to ensure that the minister responsible for implementing the act is held accountable.
It would certainly be that within the legislation and the specifics around, as mentioned, some of the accountability in terms of data collection, monitoring and assessment. You mentioned the one canoe project, which I think is a great example, but in the long term, how is that one canoe project being tracked and what are the outcomes specifically? As one of your colleagues on this committee shared, the 50% by 2050 target is ambitious but, in my view, it's not impossible.
In fact, we see indigenous and protected conserved areas, just like in Yukon with the Kaska Dena Council. To those who are having side chatter and some laughs on the side, I would really encourage you to take a look at the Kaska Dena and what they've done with their indigenous and protected and conserved areas.
Again, I think the goals are ambitious, but we don't have another planet. There's no Plan B. The option here is to really lean in and work together to be able to advance and support first nations-led, of course, conservation and biodiversity protection.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you so much.
From my experience, indigenous-led biodiversity projects are very successful and have shown great leadership. I hope every region in Canada will follow examples like this.
I would like to ask a question of Mr. Hazell. When he came, the minister spoke about his openness to suggestions for how to improve Bill C-73. I would like you to mention, if you have time, five key amendments you would like to see.
Consultant, Greenpeace Canada
To get the five important ones.... I think my colleagues on the previous panel mentioned a few. Embedding target setting legally in the bill is important, because that's not there. That's one.
Ensure that the NBSAPs have some meat on them in the legislation. Describe what the minister must do in terms of producing the NBSAP. That, certainly, is a second one.
A third one is that the advisory committee needs some amendments to ensure that it is independent and can set its own mandate. I come back to the point I made earlier. I think we have to try to bridge this gap between stuff that happens in Ottawa and the solid conservation work that happens on the ground and in the water, whether it's done by the wildlife federation representatives who have been mentioned or by indigenous peoples. We have to figure out how to bridge that gap.
This bill is a much smaller bill than what's been represented. It's really about accountability and measuring progress. I just don't see how we can be against that.
Another amendment would relate to the commissioner of the environment. I think it's important that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has the explicit authority under the legislation to conduct audits, as he currently does now under the CNZEAA legislation.
Those are—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
If you haven't already included those recommendations in your brief, perhaps you could send them to us.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Hazell, in your remarks, you talked about the fact that Canada has not met and is not meeting its commitments.
I'm going to read you some newspper healines from recent weeks or months: “Ottawa setting the stage for an offshore oil boom”; “60 oil drilling projects found to have no major repercusions”; “ExxonMobil looking for a deposit three times bigger than Bay du Nord off Newfoundland”. Here's one last one, from a European newspaper: “Canada, a steward of global biodiversity, authorizes oil and gas in marine protected areas”.
The minister recently appeared before the committee, and I asked him a question. He told me that oil drilling is prohibited in or near marine refuges. However, we see that the government is authorizing exploratory dilling to look for deposits. If the company finds deposts, the government removes the protection status of those targeted areas.
If Bill C‑73 as currently drafted were in force right now, would it prevent the federal government from promoting oil development on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and removing protections when oil deposits are found?
Consultant, Greenpeace Canada
My answer is no.
This bill really has nothing to do with oil and gas exploration, whether offshore or onshore. It just doesn't. We have to come at these issues of oil and gas exploration and their impact on nature using other laws, whether those are federal laws or provincial laws. This bill really doesn't speak to that issue that you're identifying, if I've understood you correctly.
Thank you.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Therefore, Bill C‑73 can't do anything right now to protect biodiversity, from oil drilling or from a coal mine. Normally, the provinces protect the land and the federal government protects the oceans. Right now, we're talking about shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces.
What does Bill C‑73 mean for the governments of Quebec and the provinces? Under the Constitution, they retain most of their legislative authority over nature conservation in terrestrial ecosystems.
Consultant, Greenpeace Canada
You're right.
I think that this bill has been fairly carefully written so far and our amendments are trying to do the same thing, which is to ensure that the obligations under the act fall on the federal minister and do not fall on provinces. They don't really oblige provinces to do anything.
Given that the provinces have the substantial authority to legislate with respect to nature, it's imperative that the provinces, territories and indigenous governments get involved. It's essential that they assist in delivering on the targets that have been set nationally.
This is a much smaller bill than some are suggesting. This bill is really pretty limited to trying to figure out whether or not we're making progress on biodiversity.
Unfortunately, there's a long history in this country of governments dissembling and pretending that we're making progress by writing the reports in such a way as to appear that there is progress, when the science says that nature is in decline across the board.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I quite agree with your analysis of all this.
Ultimately, it seems that the bill enshrines in law the agreements that have taken place internationally.
In 2020, the Convention on Biological Diversity secretariat stated that Canada had not met its commitments under the convention.
As currently drafted, could the proposed Nature Accountability Act guarantee that domestic biodiversity strategies and action plans will be sufficient to meet the 2030 targets and the long-term 2050 targets of the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework?
Consultant, Greenpeace Canada
There is no guarantee.
There are no guarantees there. In a way, if Bill C-73 is passed, it will be up to the nature community. It'll be the folks sitting at this table, the wildlife federations across the country. It'll be up to the the Canadian public to look at the reports that are generated and say, how are we doing in terms of protecting southern resident orcas.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.
I have a number of questions for a few of the witnesses, but maybe I'll start with Mr. Hazell.
You mentioned a biodiversity shield in your opening remarks. Can you talk a bit more about what that biodiversity shield would look like and what the amendment you're suggesting would mean in practice for federal decision-making?