Good afternoon. Many thanks to the chair and to the members of this committee for inviting me to come and speak about this important bill.

I am a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, where my expertise focuses on constitutional law, biodiversity, climate and impact assessment law. I've been working closely on Bill C-73 with my colleagues Josh Ginsberg and Stephen Hazell from Ecojustice and Greenpeace, who are also appearing before you today.

We've submitted a joint brief recommending proposed amendments, and we've divided up our speaking notes so that we can be most efficient and effective for you this evening.

I'm going to focus my remarks on why we and nature need a strong nature accountability law.

I was deeply involved in the development and implementation of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which I like to call CNZEAA after its acronym, and have first-hand experience in how accountability legislation can help drive government ambition and transparency in setting and meeting nature targets and environmental targets.

My remarks are based primarily on what we've learned from CNZEAA and that we can apply to Bill C-73.

Put simply, as it has with climate, Canada has a long history of talking a big talk on nature and then failing to walk the walk.

We've been a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, or the CBD, since 1993, and as required by the convention, in 1995 we published a national biodiversity strategy that set out a framework for protecting nature.

In 2010, we agreed to the Aichi targets, a set of five strategic goals and 20 targets aimed at addressing challenges in the implementation of the CBD.

We also have a federal sustainable development strategy that includes goals like protecting and recovering species and conserving biodiversity, and myriad laws aimed at protecting nature, like the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

And yet, as our colleagues from the David Suzuki Foundation pointed out, our biodiversity is in a free fall. Species continue to decline at alarming rates, habitat continues to degrade and fragment and invasive species and pollution continue to accumulate, with climate change exacerbating these harms.

I would argue that a lack of accountability for setting and meeting nature goals is why Canada's biodiversity has declined at this rate despite all of our international and domestic laws and instruments.

While the CBD requires Canada to submit national biodiversity plans and progress reports, there's nothing actually preventing it from producing glossy brochures instead of detailed and credible documents.

What the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act has taught us is that accountability legislation can help drive ambition in setting domestic targets, make plans for meeting those targets credible and ensure honest reporting on progress.

Before CNZEAA was enacted, Canada's 2030 climate target was 30%, which was far below what experts said was Canada's obligation under the Paris Agreement, and its climate plan lacked any kind of details that would be necessary to know if we were going to meet even that weak target.

After CNZEAA came into force, the government set a more ambitious target of 40% to 45% and established a new and more detailed plan for how it would achieve those reductions. Last December, its first progress report showed that since the act has been enacted, we have increased our ambition and are more closely on track to meeting our climate goals.

Bill C-73 could help do the same for nature, but not, unfortunately, as it's currently drafted. It is so light on detail that it more closely resembles one of those glossy brochures that we're trying to avoid than true accountability legislation.

To live up to its promise, we think that Bill C-73 needs to do six things.

First, it needs to require the minister to set national nature targets so that we know what direction we're trying to go.

Second, it also needs to be more prescriptive about the contents of plans and reports so that we have a road map for meeting those targets and honesty about whether we're on course.

Third, it needs to ensure that the nature advisory committee has the mandate, expertise and resources it needs to provide independent advice.

Fourth, it should enshrine a biodiversity shield so that federal decisions don't undermine our ability to meet our nature targets.

Fifth, it should require periodic reviews by the sustainability commissioner.

Finally, sixth, it should ensure respect for indigenous rights, knowledge and law in all steps and decisions taken under it.

I'll conclude my remarks there. I would be happy to answer any questions, and, as I mentioned, my colleagues Josh Ginsberg and Stephen Hazell will go into more details on these recommendations.

Transcript

Discussions (0)