Environment Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you. This is another sharing moment between the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois.

Welcome, Ms. Provost.

I'll ask one question very clearly so I don't trespass too much on this generosity.

When the nature strategy on how we would get to 30 by 30 was first unveiled—that was two years ago, in June 2024—a key part was the nature accountability act. As we all know, Bill C-73 died on the Order Paper.

I wonder if the minister can update us on when we might see the nature accountability act reintroduced in Parliament.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Thank you very much for your question.

At the moment, we're not working on that. We're in the process of coordinating the team's activities to implement the force of nature strategy. A lot of work has been done in the past, but it's mostly been done in silos by many organizations. As a result, the preparation work we need right now to be able to meet the 30% by 2030 target in four years likely wasn't done.

We'll get the structure organized first. If that element is still worthwhile and useful, we will probably consider it. However, right now, we're really focused on ensuring that we're coordinating effectively and that the tools are put in place to fully deploy all measures, such as those related to mobilizing capital.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Ms. May.

Ms. Provost, I unfortunately missed the beginning of your remarks.

Did you receive a specific mandate letter for your duties? I'm not talking about a generic letter, but a letter from the Prime Minister outlining your priorities and your duties. It's not entirely clear to people.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Thank you for your question. I'll answer it in two parts.

The first part has to do with my mandate. Mr. Carney didn't put it in writing, but he was extremely clear in the Speech from the Throne. My role is to protect the land and meet the 30% target by 2030. That is exactly what I was working on with our colleague Mr. Guilbeault at the beginning of the mandate. He was told that. I have a very clear objective associated with my role.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Did you receive a mandate letter related to that?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

It is not a letter. The objective was set out in the Speech from the Throne. I agree that it is quite powerful, as a mandate letter.

Would you like me to answer the other part of the question? You wanted to know what my mandate was as secretary of state.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I thought you'd already said that.

What is it?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

What I said in my statement was that my role, as secretary of state, is that of a project manager. Ministers have an extremely broad and complex remit.

However, as I said to Ms. May earlier, the work carried out for the “A Force of Nature” strategy was done by several organizations in isolation. Appointing a secretary of state therefore allows for the coordination of all this.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I will now talk about funding.

The nature conservation strategy that has just been implemented has a budget of $3.8 billion. In the past, British Columbia received $500 million for its nature plan. Quebec received $100 million. At the time, the Minister of the Environment said that a further $460 million was available for Quebec.

However, we have never seen this money. Is the $460 million that was available for Quebec still available? If so, when should Quebec receive it?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Thank you for your question.

The budget structure of the former government is not the budget structure of our new government.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The $3.8 billion is being invested over three years. With this sum, do you think you can achieve the target of 30% of protected areas by 2030 without needing any more money?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

The $3.8 billion is being invested over five years.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

What I wanted to know is whether you can make it to 2030.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Yes, we will make it to 2030.

The aim of the strategy as a whole is to free up capital, much of which is invested in philanthropic organizations, in particular. There is also money allocated to businesses that is likely available for nature conservation. That is more or less what I said to our colleague earlier. We want to maintain the government's leadership. That is important. In fact, this has been crucial, as 80% of the funding behind the results achieved today was public funding. This is remarkable and fundamental.

However, current economic conditions, if they remain as they are, will not allow us to complete the work by 2030.

Our intention is therefore to use the second and third pillars to increase our financial resources and achieve the objective.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Canada's 2030 nature strategy, published in 2024, ran to 210 pages. I believe your new strategy is 15 pages long.

The 210-page document contained 23 targets from the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as well as indicators for each of these targets.

Are you still aiming for these targets?

Can you provide us with an update on these indicators as part of the strategy?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework remains an agreement adopted by Canada. Commitments have still been made. The two strategies go hand in hand. My colleagues will certainly be able to provide you with an update on the 23 targets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shannon Miedema]

Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

We will now turn to Ms. Anstey for five minutes.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

I had a couple of questions specific to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we are really hoping for natural resource development in the future as we experience decline, especially in our rural and remote communities. I'm curious about what consultation specifically you've done in the natural resource sector, as well as with municipalities, in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as you prepared for this strategy.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Thank you for your question.

Consultation on the strategy took place when Canada's 2030 nature strategy was being developed. What is contained in the current strategy is the implementation strategy. There was no consultation specifically on implementation.

When we are ready to finalize the conservation plan for your province, we will do so as we have done elsewhere, which means we will work with the province and local stakeholders. We will seek solutions that reconcile conservation objectives with economic development goals.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you.

Recently, the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial government withdrew support for a proposed south coast fjords national marine conservation area because it felt that it threatened some opportunities in the fishing and mining sectors. With this strategy, does the federal government respect the province's position to not want to enter into these agreements?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Thank you very much for your question.

Generally speaking, we cannot impose nature conservation on the provinces. The provinces are responsible for 76% of the territory. They have responsibilities recognized by the Constitution. Here, the intention is not to encroach on the provinces' jurisdiction, but rather to find strategies for sustainability.

We must consider the fact that Canadians love and wish to protect nature. They say so, and it is a recognized fact. For example, Parks Canada is one of the iconic symbols not only across the world, but also in Canada. It unites Canadians.

The initial strategies we wanted to adopt may not have aligned with the approach favoured by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, we have other solutions to propose, not only to protect nature but also to support the province in the development of major projects. That is why we are focusing on the second pillar, namely “Building Canada Well”.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Okay, so if you go through another round of consultations and they still take the same position, will their decision be respected?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

It is not possible to disregard a province's decision, as the territory falls under that province's jurisdiction.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Okay. Thank you.

I'll just expand on that a little bit more deeply. When this decision was made by the provincial government, the FFAW also came out and was very supportive of that decision. It said, “This decision shows respect for fish harvesters and recognizes the real economic harm this proposal posed to adjacent communities”. Its position was that “the proposed NMCA threatened the owner-operator fishery while offering no evidence that it would achieve meaningful conservation outcomes” and that “further restrictions would only undermine [the] livelihoods” of the fish harvesters in that area.

I'm curious. When you're looking at all of these strategies, are these the sorts of things you keep in mind, and will these livelihoods be protected as you roll these measures out?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

As I must respond briefly, I will say that all efforts regarding the conservation of marine areas are made with the aim of maintaining the capacity to fish in the long term. There is therefore no question of banning fishing or other activities. Rather, the aim is to ensure that this remains a sustainable resource.

At present, given that there are no protective measures in place, it is uncertain whether the resource will be protected in the long term in certain respects. That is why we continue to believe that, even for Newfoundland and Labrador, there are excellent opportunities to be seized. We also believe that the province will maintain its fishing quotas.