Environment Committee on Dec. 11th, 2024

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Right, and when land is protected for biodiversity protection, it can still be accessed for recreation, and certainly even for hunting.

Is that correct, Ms. Plotkin? I can see you nodding.

[Rachel Plotkin]

That is correct in most protected areas.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Yes. Canada is a large country with a lot of great open space and wonderful conservation areas. I think one of the least controversial issues is that we preserve it, save it and make sure that it's here for generations to come.

I'm a big fan of the outdoors, and I thank all four of you for coming and helping us strengthen this legislation.

I probably have less than one minute left. Ms. Johnston, if you could make one recommendation, in closing, for one way to strengthen this legislation, what would you do?

[Anna Johnston]

Probably, most critically, I'd beef up the requirements around the NBSAPs, the biodiversity strategies and action plans and reports, because that's really where we are able to see what the federal government is planning to do to protect nature.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

With my remaining 10 seconds, I'd just like to thank all of you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Now you're down to five.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I would like to thank all of you for contributing today. You do have a seat at the table because you are at the table. You are contributing to better legislation today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

There are five people here, and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This brings our panel to an end. We will stop briefly.

Thank you very much. It was a very interesting discussion. I think the two-minute system worked very well. People were really focused.

Thanks again. It was all very interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will get started. Witnesses, please take your places.

I believe the online witness has had a sound check done, and everything is good.

We have with us for this second panel the Assembly of First Nations Yukon Region, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace Canada and Nature Canada.

We'll start with the Assembly of First Nations Yukon Region. I believe it's Regional Chief Kluane Adamek who will be speaking.

The floor is yours, Chief, for five minutes. Go ahead.

[Regional Chief Kluane Adamek, Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations Yukon Region]

I'm hoping the timing starts now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, it starts right now.

[Regional Chief Kluane Adamek]

[Witness spoke in Southern Tutchone and provided the following translation:]

Greetings. My name is Kluane Adamek. I am from Kluane First Nation and the Kluane people. I come from the Daḵłʼaweidí clan. My traditional name is Aagé. I hold my hands up and give thanks to the Algonquin people, whose territory we are on.

[English]

Thank you so much for the opportunity to share with this important committee as you work through the precursors to Bill C-73. In terms of my remarks today, I'm going to be very specific about recommendations for amendments as we view them through a first nations lens.

This bill is critically important to ensure there are accountability mechanisms in place with respect to implementation. Bill C-73 is an important component of Canada's plan to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. However, as introduced, it requires a few changes to do so. Firstly, we require more commitments within the bill, including legislation that targets achievement rather than just reporting on progress. I'll give a few examples for that shortly. Secondly, it requires a study of Canadian legislation, policies, programs and subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity, and the creation of a plan to address them. Lastly, it should legislate authority, responsibility and capacity to the ministerial advisory committee, as well as ensure there is specific representation from first nations individuals.

Now, Métis and Inuit, I'm assuming, will have a chance to speak with you regarding their amendments, so I say this specifically from a first nations perspective: We require a member on this committee. I can speak to the importance of this, as I served on Canada's Net-Zero Advisory Body. Ensure that indigenous voices are represented at all levels where decisions or advice related to the land, environment, water and, of course, biodiversity are concerned. This is absolutely critical from a rights-based approach.

The stronger commitments in this bill require ministers to be responsible for each target and to create accountability for lack of progress on missed targets, which is currently not included. In order to identify key drivers of biodiversity loss, a critical component of the success of this bill and the NBSAP is the requirement of a process to identify legislation, policies and programming—including subsidies—that drive biodiversity loss. Without a process like this or actions on findings, Canada is setting conservation targets while simultaneously working against these targets, therefore supporting further degradation of biodiversity. This study should identify legislation, programs, policies and subsidies that harm biodiversity, identify the ministers responsible, recommend measures to reduce and eliminate these mechanisms, and report on progress via national reports.

As mentioned, as guidance for a mechanism for Canada's successful halting and reversing of biodiversity loss, the advisory committee must be appropriately funded and equipped. It requires the importance of incorporating traditional knowledge and western science to advise on conservation. The indigenous knowledge must come directly from indigenous knowledge-holders. As such, this advisory body must ensure there is a rights-based lens. To enable this, the bill must authorize the committee to review and advise on elements related to Canada achieving biodiversity outcomes, and it must commit appropriate and sustainable resources to this work.

I'll share a reflection with the committee. It goes like this: I come from Kluane First Nation. You can google “Kluane National Park”. Our lake has gone down by 10 feet in the last 10 years. The ways in which our fish are growing have changed. The mass number of wolves we see in our territory has impacted the way we hunt moose and caribou. If we don't put into the plan an action on accountability with respect to this bill, we're going to be looking to these species and observing biodiversity, but there will be no accountability for the ways in which some of the work is being implemented and how it will be reviewed in terms of data.

This is where we require some of the amendments I have suggested. Specifically, from a rights-based approach, you have to include first nations. This bill, in our view—though, geopolitically, there is a very partisan environment here in Canada—is something that every single party should be getting behind, because we have to be accountable.

There's no way of moving forward without ensuring that we're actually tracking what it is that we're seeking to achieve. That is a first nation view to this legislation.

Again, amendments are required, but we really should all be getting behind this, because we're all a son, a daughter, a granddaughter, or perhaps have children of our own. If we do not do this right, right now, there are impacts that we may experience moving forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well put.

[Regional Chief Kluane Adamek]

I've got there on time. I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well put.

We'll go now to Mr. Jesse Zeman, from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, who is online.

[Jesse Zeman, Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the committee for the opportunity to be a witness.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation is British Columbia's largest and oldest conservation organization, with over 40,000 members and 100 clubs across the province. Our clubs and members spend hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours and dollars conducting wildlife, wetland and fish habitat restoration, as well as advocating for legislative, regulatory and policy changes to support a future that includes healthy fish, wildlife and habitat.

Over the past two years in the world of fish, wildlife, habitat, water and wetlands, the BCWF has delivered over 100 projects worth more than $7 million while partnering with over 50 indigenous communities. This includes 71 beaver dam analogues built in 2024 and nearly 45,000 kilograms of garbage removed from the tidal marsh in the Fraser River. Since 2021, we've delivered over 230 projects and more than $11 million in project work for the benefit of the environment.

Our partners and funders include indigenous communities, ENGOs, local communities, private landholders, the Government of Canada and the Province of B.C. Our 2016 estimate of volunteer contribution by our members was over 300,000 hours per year. I believe we greatly exceed that now.

Our membership is dedicated to the conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat, donating hours and dollars to science and on-the-ground stewardship; however, our membership is also extremely concerned about the future of public access to fish, wildlife habitat and nature in general.

The BCWF is deeply concerned that Bill C-73 does not ensure a future in which Canadians can camp, hike, backpack, birdwatch and hunt and fish sustainably. These sustainable lifestyles and sustainable recreation must be front and centre for new land designations.

This bill provides the Minister of Environment and Climate Change powers that do not include adequate parliamentary oversight. The bill talks about collaboration, but does not ensure stakeholders, where British Columbians will be consulted, and the bill provides authority to set aside public land and delegate control to unelected management authorities. Consultation includes provinces, indigenous peoples of Canada and an advisory committee. There is no stipulation as to the representation of the advisory committee.

We have a number of examples where the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has failed to consult and sometimes represent the public, including caribou recovery in northeast B.C., which has set a number of our communities back by decades, and a lack of leadership around ensuring public access for sustainable lifestyles and sustainable outdoor recreation around mechanisms to achieve the 30 by 30 targets. We believe that connecting British Columbians and Canadians to nature is good for their mental and physical health, and that people connected to the land are people who will protect it.

The BCWF supports increased conservation. However, there is significant concern that this comes at the expense of eliminating sustainable use and sustainable outdoor recreation. The BCWF has experienced this with the proposed South Okanagan-Similkameen national park reserve in the same area where our members have funded, donated to and volunteered for the largest and most collaborative mule deer research project in the province's history. Throughout this project, our members have assisted in capturing, GPS collaring and doing mortality investigations on mule deer, as well as deploying and maintaining over 150 remote sensing trail cameras and reviewing millions of pictures.

These same people are now being told by the Government of Canada that it does not want to see them hunting in their own backyard because it's being turned into a national park reserve. We have also experienced declarations of moratoriums on licensed hunting through other federally derived conservation mechanisms.

This bill does not give us comfort that British Columbians and Canadians will be able to enjoy and interact with nature in the same places and in the same ways we can today. If Canadian families are out camping, hiking, backpacking and hunting and fishing sustainably, the Government of Canada should be saying: “This is great. We want more people and their kids off their screens and out connecting with nature.” The Government of Canada should be encouraging and supporting sustainable lifestyles and sustainable outdoor recreation, and that should be recognized in this bill.

To close, everyone needs to see themselves in our shared future.

Thanks for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Zeman.

I will go to Greenpeace Canada as represented by Mr. Stephen Hazell.

[Stephen Hazell, Consultant, Greenpeace Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Stephen Hazell. I'm pleased to represent Greenpeace Canada today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. Thanks for the opportunity to appear.

Greenpeace is an independent, not-for-profit organization that uses peaceful protest to work towards a greener, more peaceful world. My role is as a consultant on federal nature law and policy. Formerly, I was executive director to a number of national environmental and nature groups. I served as regulatory affairs director of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and as adjunct professor of environmental law at uOttawa.

Greenpeace's overarching message is this. With amendments, Bill C-73 could be an important tool to hold Canada accountable to meet its international commitments to halt and reverse nature loss. Nature in Canada is in dire crisis. As of 2020, 873 species have been identified as critically imperiled. Highly endangered northern spotted owls have dwindled in number to just one female in the wild. Boreal caribou populations are in sharp decline across Canada's north. The population of endangered right whales has continued to decline in the past decade, despite efforts to reduce entanglements and vessel strikes.

Overall, Canada has repeatedly fallen short in fulfilling our commitments to protect nature since the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Federal and provincial nature laws have been largely ineffective and poorly implemented. Canadians are now demanding a strong nature law. A Greenpeace petition now has almost 90,000 signatures. The landmark 2022 global biodiversity framework, signed by 196 countries, is a tremendous opportunity for Canada to halt human-induced extinction of threatened species and to protect 30% of terrestrial and marine areas. This can and must be achieved while respecting the principle of free, prior and informed consent under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

My colleagues has talked about the CNZEAA, the Canada Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Implementation has shown that legally binding targets and plans do drive progress—in this case, on climate. The same is true for nature. Accountability is required to ensure progress, and legislation is needed to ensure accountability.

Bill C-73 does need strengthening. Greenpeace Canada strongly supports the amendments proposed by Ecojustice and West Coast Environmental Law in the previous panel. I'll highlight a few of these amendments as follows.

The biodiversity shield amendment would support a whole-of-government approach, which is critical to ensure consistency in Canada's nature protection efforts so that you don't have one department saying one thing and another department doing something that is completely contrary. That's what we mean by whole-of-government approaches.

Amendments are also needed to ensure that the proposed advisory committee has a legislated mandate to ensure its independence and effectiveness. I, myself, would say that anglers, hunters, landowners and ranchers are all experts as well. They're the people who manage wildlife on their land. I don't see any reason that you wouldn't have them on the advisory committee as well. In fact, the species at risk advisory committee did have anglers and hunters on it. I don't know why we wouldn't do that again under this bill.

In a country that's built on colonial resource extraction, Bill C-73 must also explicitly prioritize the rights and leadership of indigenous peoples. Bill C-73 should also acknowledge that the rights of nature are inherent to the right to a healthy environment as currently proposed by the government in the draft implementation framework for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Note that Bill C-73's accountability framework mandates federal action, such as setting Canada-wide targets, but not action by provincial or territorial governments. Provinces and territories hold much, if not most, of the authority under Canada's constitution to conserve and restore nature, so collaboration among the several levels of government is absolutely critical to meeting the overall national targets.

In conclusion, a strong Bill C-73 would signal true leadership in Canada and leadership internationally to halt and reverse nature loss.

Thank you so much. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Hazell.

From Nature Canada, we have Mr. Akaash Maharaj.

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Akaash Maharaj, Director of Policy, Nature Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the members of the committee for inviting me to contribute to your deliberations on Bill C-73.

I am Akaash Maharaj, head of policy for Nature Canada, one of our country's oldest conservation institutions. Nature Canada rallies together more than 250,000 individual Canadians and a network of more than 1,200 organizations in every province and territory.

To be direct, our world is currently enduring the sixth mass extinction in planetary history, the Anthropocene extinction. Unlike the five great dyings of past epochs, this one is driven not by natural catastrophes, but instead by human activity and, in particular, by habitat destruction. Species are currently disappearing at 1,000 times the natural extinction rate, and nearly 30% of surviving species are threatened with extinctions. Bluntly, we are in the midst of the gravest extermination crisis of life on our planet since the end of the dinosaurs.

For this reason, Nature Canada's members are convinced that Canada has made the right decision in joining the Convention on Biological Diversity, and especially in committing to conserve our lands and waters. Canadians are not committed to international standards to please international institutions. We are committed to them for the good of Canadians, for the well-being and prosperity of Canadian communities, and to leave a better country for future generations of Canadians.

However, a commitment is only as good as the acts that follow it. When Canadians describe a promise as being a political promise, we are rarely expressing our confidence that those promises will be kept. This is why Nature Canada is enthusiastic about a nature accountability act, a federal law that would bind the federal Environment Minister and compel him to keep his conservation and biodiversity promises to Canadians.

Bill C-73, as it currently stands, is not that law. The only accountability in the current text is in its title. The bill directs the minister to set national targets, but it has no mechanism to ensure that his targets are meaningful. The bill encourages the minister to develop measures linked to those targets, but it has no requirements that he actually meet any of his targets, and it levies no consequences if he fails to do so. In essence, the bill neither provides the minister with any powers not already held, nor does it bind the minister to any outcomes.

However, it could do all that and more if the legislators in this room were willing to summon their determination to amend it. We ask you to consider and to make the following amendments.

In clause 4, make it explicit that the minister is accountable to Parliament and to Canadians not only for developing a plan towards the target, but also for actually implementing that plan and meeting those targets.

In clause 5, ensure that the minister's targets are tied to species abundance, distribution, extinction risk and habitat quality, and are informed by an assessment process conducted by the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada.

In clause 6, bind the minister's reports to the new anti-greenwashing provisions of the Competition Act's provisions that prohibit entities from making false or misleading claims about the environmental benefits of their offerings.

In clause 7, strengthen the mandate and the independence of the new advisory committee so that if the minister chooses not to implement a committee recommendation, he will have a positive responsibility to report his reasons to Parliament.

In clause 9, include a statutory requirement that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development conduct and publish independent audits on ministerial compliance with the act.

These amendments would make the nature accountability act a law worthy of its name, and as importantly, it would reassert the role of parliamentarians as the guardians of our democracy.

Across the world, democracies are in decline. They are not dying on the barricades in a noble struggle against tyrants. They are surrendering themselves willingly to demagogues and to authoritarians because their peoples have come to believe that public institutions are operating without effect and without accountability. I ask you to amend this bill to stand up for Canada's natural heritage and to stand up for our democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Maharaj.

We'll go to the six-minute round.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to start my questions with Mr. Zeman from the British Columbia Wildlife Federation.

I want to thank him for his testimony and thank him and his members for the tremendous grassroots efforts that have been made to do on-the-ground work for the benefit of all British Columbians and all Canadians, through protecting and doing habitat enhancement.

Mr. Zeman, the previous witness on this—and I'm assuming you saw Ms. Anna Johnston from the West Coast Environmental Law Association—said that this law is a process law, and by that, it does not actually impact anything on the ground.

What was the B.C. Wildlife Federation's role in helping the government craft this legislation? Were you consulted prior to the development of this legislation? As well, because it's a process law, how would this help the B.C. Wildlife Federation to deliver meaningful conservation programs on the ground, if at all?

[Jesse Zeman]

The first question was whether we were consulted on this law. No, to my knowledge, our organization was not.

The second question was, how does this help? The challenge we're having out here, quite frankly, is this: There is a lot of concern about federal mandates and federal funding for protected areas. Our organization, by and large, supports increased conservation measures. I think we demonstrated that when we talked about all the things we do. Our challenge, and the concern in B.C., is that British Columbians who go out camping, hiking, hunting and fishing will be excluded from these places. You talk about outcomes for conservation. If you throw the conservationist out, you are, in part, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think the broader challenge here is that you need people who buy into the outcomes of conservation designations, and who are there to support them and defend them, as opposed to removing them.