Environment Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have two minutes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay, good.

Mr. McCann, could you wrap it up? I have one last question for you as well.

[Tyler McCann]

I would say, just briefly, that I think it's important to understand that around the world the water dynamics are changing. Canada has an opportunity to get ahead of the problem before it comes, before we're put in the same position that the Australians and the Americans have been put in, for example. We can act before the crisis gets here, and it's something that should be driving how we think about water and agriculture.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

One other issue I want to point out, and I'm sure you're in agreement, is that I've often observed that rain makes grain. If we don't have water in agriculture, we don't have any food. Rain makes grain, but with drought, nobody wins. That's an old farm saying, actually, and you can take that one to the bank. It's so true, as we see when we look at how ecosystems break down when we don't have enough water.

When we talk about water, we are talking about food supply in our nation. This is why we need to get this correct. Agriculture needs to be front and centre. The agriculture managers—the producers who are on the landscape—have the ability to actually save Canada and make Canada a nation that is a superpower when it comes to agricultural production, but they have to have the tools. It doesn't need a top-down type of government approach; it needs a bottom-up type of approach whereby farmers can actually be part of the solution.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Mazier.

We'll go to Madame Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today, including those appearing by video conference.

My question is for Mr. McCann.

Good morning and welcome, Mr. McCann. I gather that you're from the municipality of Bristol, in the beautiful constituency of Pontiac.

Congratulations on your excellent report entitled “A National Agri‑Food Water Action Plan.” I read it with great interest. In your conclusions, you wrote the following: “In an era of increasing climate and geopolitical change and conflict, water is undoubtedly the challenge of the 21st century. For Canadian agriculture and food, there is tremendous potential to turn that challenge into an opportunity.”

It's important to hammer this point home. Way to go!

I have two questions that directly relate to your recommendations in the report.

My first question concerns water management, which should be carried out at the watershed level to address the challenges posed by water and agriculture.

Could you elaborate on this key recommendation?

[Tyler McCann]

Yes, of course.

In some places, the planning done at the watershed level is very effective. However, in other places, the management could be planned better.

By way of context, water is a regional challenge. There are several ways to approach watershed management. Some approaches work well, but the solutions for a watershed in one region may not be the same as the solutions in other areas. The dynamics are different, depending on the quantity, quality and types of pressure.

Every province has a different approach to water management. In some places, watershed authorities have the tools and funding to invest in research, management and knowledge transfer. However, this isn't the case everywhere. The level of investment isn't the same in all regions.

We believe that these authorities should receive better support and the tools needed to manage the watersheds. This would help to support people who are well versed in the matter, who are working in this environment, who have experience in the field and who know the situation in their region's watershed.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

We don't always agree with our Conservative colleagues on environmental measures. However, we do agree that farmers must be at the table. For example, as part of our committee's very important study of water, we must ensure that farmers' voices are heard loud and clear. As you pointed out, they're on the ground, and they understand the significance of climate change and water issues.

I want to talk about recommendation 6.2, which calls for the launch of an expert panel. I also liked Mr. Mazier's question about the possibility of incorporating your recommendation into the Canada water agency, which is still under development.

Do you have any solutions that we could put forward as part of this study?

[Tyler McCann]

According to our proposed action plan, the agriculture ministers would be responsible for the issue, and the responsibility would be shared. Other departments would have a say, including the environment and infrastructure departments. The list is quite long.

We want this matter to become a key topic at the agriculture ministers' working group meetings. The Canada water agency could provide support, and its representatives should be involved in all stages of the work. We recommend that a state of the water report be released every two years. This report would provide an overview of the situation with regard to the water and the agriculture and agri‑food sectors.

Ultimately, the agriculture ministers should take the lead on this issue, even though it's a shared responsibility. In the agriculture sector, you can't always let others take the lead. The agriculture sector and the ministers involved must show leadership and propose their own solutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

You have about five seconds left, Ms. Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. McCann, I just want to say that I'm intrigued by this recommendation.

How could the sustainable finance action council's work on governance structure help incorporate your proposal effectively?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, the witness won't have time to answer the question.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

It would be good to receive a written response, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Chatel.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

I'd like both Mr. Aherne and Mr. Macnair to answer my question. I'll focus on the right to safe drinking water, which Mr. Macnair referred to in his remarks.

We know that the public authorities sometimes damage the integrity of water ecosystems, with complete impunity. I'll give you a few compelling examples. Naturally, I'm thinking of the dumping of toxic substances by the oil sands industry, the mining companies, which have dumping permits for 16 lakes in the country. I'm also thinking of the pest management regulatory agency, or PMRA, which advocates for an increase in pesticide use. After all, this does concern what we'll be eating. Other governments can only take so much action. They can't move forward if Canada doesn't get its act together.

Mr. Aherne and Mr. Macnair, do you think that Canada has the right legislative framework in place to protect the water environment?

[Dr. Julian Aherne]

Thank you for the question.

I missed most of the question because of my earpiece, but I got the end of it, which I think related to whether Canada has put in the right policies or framework.

I think Canada is working towards putting in the right policies and framework. There are good structures in place, but I think those structures can be improved, and there can be more common sense or joining of the dots between organizations.

For example, most of the pollution that I've worked with is atmospheric transport of pollution into receiving systems such as fresh waters, so clearly there needs to be a connection or coordination between agencies responsible for monitoring air pollution and those responsible for monitoring fresh waters.

I'd like to suggest an earlier—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In terms of the agencies, we know that the government wants to set up the Canada water agency. However, could this agency resolve the main issue, which is the blatant lack of political will on the part of the public authorities?

I provided some examples earlier, including the dumping of toxic substances by the oil sands industry, the mining companies, which have dumping permits for 16 lakes in the country, and the PMRA, which authorizes pesticides.

Can the Canada water agency resolve all these issues?

I'd like Mr. Macnair to answer this question. I'll then turn to Mr. Aherne.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Macnair.

[Randal Macnair]

I don't profess to be an expert on this matter, but my short answer from our experience in the Elk Valley is no.

Right now, there is work being done by ECCC on coal mining effluent regulations, and the intent is to create a two-tier system by which new mines will be subject to one level of requirement while the mines in the Elk Valley will basically be grandfathered and get a free pass.

The situation that we have in the Elk Valley is one in which industry is addressing the symptom, which is the water contamination, not the problem, and that's how mining is conducted.

Again, the failure of the provincial and the federal regulatory systems is why the Ktunaxa Nation has been asking for more than a decade for an International Joint Commission reference on the watershed in the Elk Valley. We have really lost faith in the federal and provincial governments in maintaining the health of our watersheds and ecosystems. There have been mass die-offs of fish in three of the tributaries.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Macnair.

You're basically saying that everyone is working independently and that there's no coordination.

Mr. Aherne, do you think that the Canada water agency can ensure that the departments take a coordinated approach when the public authorities themselves are damaging the integrity of water ecosystems? Mr. Macnair has just provided an example.

[Dr. Julian Aherne]

Thank you.

Maybe I'll just follow up on the comment from the previous witness and say that to some extent I agree that we focus on end-of-pipeline solutions. We know that the answers are easy. We should really clean up the emission points.

I would suggest that an agency should be able to. It was a suggestion that an agency could convene or facilitate, but I think it could also mandate and put in place stronger responses. In theory it should, but it's tough to say. I mean, I don't understand why it couldn't.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

As I understand it, the current level of pollution control is totally inadequate. As you said in your opening remarks, pollution and pollutants move. Since each department works in its own little box, and there's no coordination, the other levels of government are limited, because the federal government doesn't take charge of its own affairs.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we have to move on to the next speaker, Ms. Pauzé.

Mr. Aherne, you can always answer Ms. Pauzé's question in the next round of questions.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today.

I was listening to Mr. Macnair's presentation. He briefly mentioned the need for an International Joint Commission reference.

I wonder, Mr. Macnair, if you could expand on that. What would the process be for obtaining such a reference? What do the community and your organization see as being the beneficial outcomes of that? What role can the committee play in ensuring that such a reference takes place?

[Randal Macnair]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Again, as I mentioned, the call for the International Joint Commission reference has been put forward by the Ktunaxa Nation for over 10 years. It's a reference under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. It's a method by which Canada and the United States would share oversight of the watershed.

This has been requested because, for instance, the Elk Valley water quality plan, which was implemented in 2014, has not achieved the results that it set out to. Teck has not been in compliance with that since the beginning, in the almost 10 years that the plan has been in place.

From the committee's perspective, it's a matter of political will. It's something that has been discussed by the President of the United States and our Prime Minister. We know that it's, shall we say, on the radar. However, as I mentioned earlier, with this pending deal with Glencore, we need that oversight in place so we can stop polluting our neighbours and stop polluting our own backyard.