Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, the Bloc Québécois supports Motion No. 15. This motion concerns ecological gifts. Among other things, it proposes that the House recognize certain principles regarding the importance of conserving private land to protect biodiversity, and that the government consider tax measures to promote this type of conservation.
The public issue that we are discussing is the preservation of biodiversity, which actually refers to the variety that exists among living organisms, including genetic, species and ecosystem diversity. One thing the motion proposes is that the House recognize the importance of voluntary conservation, which is the conservation by property owners of ecological features found on their land. These may include waterways, marshes, buffer strips, wetlands, habitats, vulnerable species and endangered species.
It must be noted that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over land that it does not own. It is important to keep that in mind. Supporting private conservation initiatives is a valuable tool that the federal government can use to promote land-based conservation, and the Bloc Québécois supports that.
The Bloc Québécois would also like to point out that, currently, conservation organizations play a key role on the ground. These are stakeholders who often work on a voluntary basis and are involved in the conservation of private lands, particularly in Quebec. Members should keep in mind that we are talking about 8% of our land that is private, primarily in southern Quebec. These areas have some of the richest and most diverse natural environments. The southern regions have unique ecosystems, but they also have some of the most significant interactions between people and nature.
By supporting Motion No. 15, we wish to renew our commitment in favour of legal conservation measures, like tax breaks, because we should work toward encouraging donations of land to conservation organizations so they are able to protect more land. In southern Quebec in particular, it is important to do this and to protect this land in perpetuity. This would result in significant benefits for the ecosystems in question, as well as for the people who get to enjoy these ecosystems.
Another avenue to consider, and the one we feel is the most important, is for the federal government to plan to take concrete action to protect nature, particularly by enhancing the nature agreements between the provinces and the federal government. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois proposed, during the 2025 election campaign, that the federal government triple its share of the funding for the Canada-Quebec nature agreement, increasing it from $100 million to at least $300 million, in order to help Quebec, which is taking action to protect nature.
Unfortunately, what we see in the latest budget is that the protection of nature has been completely left out, even though it is a recurring theme with this government. There were zero additional dollars in the latest budget for the protection of nature, for the protection of biodiversity, even though the government has committed to reaching some fairly ambitious targets by 2030.
Action is in fact urgently needed. In our view, the government has to show some consistency here, because humans are dependent on biodiversity in many respects. We depend on what it does for us, whether that is in terms of food, medications, air quality improvement, water quality improvement, or mitigation of the effects of climate change, such as droughts and floods.
The loss of biodiversity is one of the most urgent global emergencies, along with pollution, climate change and others. Even the World Economic Forum has identified biodiversity protection or biodiversity loss as the third most pressing global risk along with disinformation and misinformation, the return of state-based armed conflict and the climate change crisis.
The loss of biodiversity is a crisis. Additional measures need to be taken to protect biodiversity from threats posed by habitat and ecosystem loss and degradation resulting from human activiy. This is why it is so important to protect private lands and encourage protection by individuals and organizations. Obviously, urban sprawl and industrial overdevelopment come at a cost. The problem extends across the globe.
That is why the Convention on Biological Diversity, a global convention, was put in place in 1992. It eventually led to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, ratified in Montreal in 2022, which set ambitious targets and was signed by the Canadian government. The most ambitious of the 23 targets is to protect 30% of Canada's land, inland waters and coastal and marine areas by 2030. This means protecting 30% of our territory by 2030. That is Canada's goal.
The Canadian government needs to get to work, because Canada set a target of protecting 25% of its territory by 2025. This target will obviously not be met. The previous government used to say that the goal of protecting 25% of Canada's land and waters would be met by 2025, but the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was very clear in his latest report: As with the fight against climate change, Canada is not on track to achieve its area-based conservation targets, and there is currently no plan, road map or pathway for reaching its target of protecting 30% of its territory by 2030.
It is now 2025, and it is obvious that the Liberal government has missed its target. Today's figures show that 13.8% of Canada's terrestrial area, including land and freshwater, is protected and 15.5% of its marine territory is protected. This is a far cry from the 25% and 30% targets that would need to be met to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and to respect Canada's international biodiversity protection commitments. When we look at Canada's 2030 nature strategy, we realize how fortunate it is that Quebec itself made commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is not waiting for the rest of Canada to develop and implement strategies, because Canada is still way behind.
It is important to understand that Quebec territory does not belong to the federal government, but to Quebeckers. Quebec assumes its own responsibilities for protecting its territory and protecting the natural environment. The environment is protected by Quebec's environmental legislation, not the federal government. Quebec is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and managed to protect 17% of its territory by 2024. By way of comparison, Ontario has protected 10.9%. Quebec is doing its part and contributing to the goal of protecting 30% of the territory. Once again, Quebec has invested nearly $908 million in its nature plan, while the federal government has contributed only $100 million.
We need to look at the big picture, and what we see now are other significant rollbacks from the federal government that would more than cancel out its initiatives, including the initiative in Motion No. 15, which is important and which we support, as I said. How can Canada hope to meet its targets when what we are seeing now is a rollback of environmental protections? Areas are being opened up to more oil and gas development, regardless of the consequences. There are plans for new pipelines that would have serious repercussions. There is even talk of lifting the west coast oil tanker ban that has been in place since 1972, which would allow oil tankers to enter this ecologically valuable territory.
We want to move forward and see more measures like this being proposed. The government needs to enshrine this into law, if possible, to facilitate ecological donations. However, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room. It is the government's failure to protect biodiversity. It is the lack of a plan. It is the zero dollars in the latest budget for the protection of territory, biodiversity and parks. On the contrary, we are seeing rollbacks, while the Liberals have billions of dollars set aside for oil companies.
True, today's motion is a good initiative, but let us not forget that this government has a disastrous record when it comes to the environment, as stated by the former minister of Canadian identity and culture, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.