Environment Committee on Nov. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have three witnesses today. Two are online, and one is with us.

I would like to mention that everyone who's online, whether they be members of the committee or witnesses, has passed the sound check, so all is good there.

We have with us Bryan Gilvesy, from ALUS. With us in person is Mr. Ralph Pentland. We have, also online, Ms. Zita Botelho, from Watersheds BC.

We'll start with—

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

Mr. Chair, could you update everybody on where the minister is today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't know where he is. I'm assuming that he's on his way to Dubai. That's what I assume.

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

We asked for him to be here. Obviously, he's not listening in today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, but he has confirmed that he can come.

I'll bring this up when we do future business.

We'll start with Mr. Gilvesy.

You have five minutes, please, for an opening statement. The floor is yours.

[Bryan Gilvesy, Chief Executive Officer, ALUS]

Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to speak today.

I'm a farmer and a rancher in Norfolk County, Ontario, as well as the CEO of the only farmer-led, community-based charitable organization in Canada delivering nature-based solutions. ALUS has been implementing one of the most effective and scalable solutions to water quality protection for nearly two decades. We build and restore natural infrastructure, or natural systems, on marginal or uneconomic farmland to provide solutions. I come to you today bringing an agricultural solution to Canada's freshwater priorities.

The agricultural sector both relies on and affects freshwater resources in Canada. The decline in Canada's inventory of natural assets such as wetlands and forests has removed critical infrastructure that helps protect water quality from activities that affect freshwater systems. Without sufficient natural infrastructure, we see impacts on water quality. Soil erosion and sedimentation can harm aquatic plants and wildlife and create an environment favourable to the development of algae blooms and pathogens. Runoff of nutrients, pesticides, organic matter and pathogens threatens aquatic life, drinking water systems and our food supply.

Natural infrastructure built by farmers and ranchers on their working landscape reduces nutrients from entering freshwater systems, thereby preventing harmful algae blooms. It reduces soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways. It slows water flow and increases absorption of water to reduce flood risk, and it supports groundwater recharge for increased water security for both upstream and downstream communities.

Wetlands restored by farmers help manage rising watercourse levels by slowing water flows and support groundwater recharge by capturing and absorbing excess water. They also protect food security by reducing the effects of severe weather as well as enhancing wildlife habitat to support birds, pollinators and other beneficial insects and insectivores.

ALUS knows the solution is at the grassroots level because it has supported over 1,600 Canadian farmers and ranchers in building nature-based solutions that enhance natural infrastructure on their lands to protect water quality and quantity, including restoring and/or creating tens of thousands of acres of wetland habitat. Our network is driven by 40 community partners that provide the grassroots leadership our program demands. We now operate in six provinces.

ALUS has quantified freshwater benefits produced by our projects in four Ontario watersheds and has proven that ALUS projects deliver positive results for water quality. With support from RBC Tech for Nature, ALUS modelled water-based outcomes across four watersheds within the Lake Erie basin in Ontario. The project demonstrated the effectiveness of nature-based projects on ALUS farms in reducing nutrients entering watercourses that feed into Lake Erie, with the largest benefits coming from restored or created wetlands.

We've demonstrated how the agricultural community can deliver effective solutions to freshwater quality concerns across the country. ALUS and its network of farmers are standing ready to scale their efforts and deliver measurable water quality outcomes through nature-based solutions on marginal farmlands for the benefit of all Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Gilvesy.

We'll go now to Mr. Pentland for up to five minutes.

[Ralph Pentland, Member, Forum for Leadership on Water]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the committee for undertaking this study and also for the opportunity to meet with you today.

I'm just going to start with a few words about a seven-page submission that you received from the Forum for Leadership on Water—or FLOW—a little while ago.

FLOW is made up of about a dozen volunteers from across Canada who have been collaborating on water policy analysis and advice for over 15 years.

My own background in the water field goes back over 60 years. That's 30 years in the federal government and 30 years in a combination of consulting and volunteering in Canada and in about half a dozen other countries. Over those 60 years, I have observed a lot of major changes both in water issues and in the conventional wisdom about how we should deal with them.

When I first started working in the field, the sole emphasis was on economic development. Around 1970, we had the water pollution crisis and we added an environmental component. By the time the federal water policy was issued in 1987, we were trying to reconcile economic and environmental values through sustainable development concepts. Those three phases are all still work in progress. We're now in the early stages of introducing a variety of rights into the equation. At the same time, we're trying to cope with the very serious implications of a changing climate.

The FLOW submission takes both the evolving issues and the evolving conventional wisdom into account and suggests 15 priority areas that we believe are ripe for significant progress in the coming years. The criteria for setting these priorities are that, first, there is an issue of national significance, and, second, that there is potential to do something about it in the coming years.

As short-term priorities—say, over the next five years—we speak to the Canada water agency, collaboration, Canada-U.S. waters, indigenous drinking water, flood damage reduction, climate change adaptation, water prediction, river basin priorities, water data and water research.

As medium-term priorities—say, over the next 10 years—we speak to legislative renewal, chemicals management, water apportionment and principles for the watershed approach.

Finally, as a long-term priority—say, beyond 10 years and I don't know how far into the future—we foresee evolving social justice principles being incorporated more fulsomely into water management decisions.

I think I'll just leave it at that. I welcome any questions that committee members may have on our submission or on any other topic that you may wish to raise with me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Pentland.

Now it's Ms. Botelho's turn.

[Zita Botelho, Director, Watersheds BC]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you as part of this important study on fresh water.

My name is Zita Botelho, and I am the director of Watersheds BC. I'm calling in from the unceded territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt nations.

Since 2021, Watersheds BC has been working in partnership with two philanthropic organizations to help deliver $42 million of B.C. provincial funding that has supported 110 watershed security-related projects across B.C.

I need to start by identifying a problem. Over the last 15 years, the federal government has been weakly engaged in freshwater issues in B.C. Recognizing the diversity of freshwater challenges across the country, B.C. continues to see little federal engagement relative to other regions.

Today, I'm here to talk to you about a win-win-win opportunity for the federal government. The conditions in B.C. are both urgent and optimal for the federal government to actively collaborate with the Province of B.C., the NGO community and first nations.

I will speak to four conditions that offer an opportunity for the federal government to demonstrate leadership that will yield substantial economic benefits, drive employment transitions, uplift rural and remote communities, advance UNDRIP implementation and, importantly, address the escalating costs of climate impacts.

First, the B.C. government has put skin in the game. Since 2021, it has invested $57 million in funding watershed security projects. In March 2022, the B.C. government committed an additional $100 million to establish an endowment for a watershed security fund. This fund is being co-developed with the first nations water caucus to create a governance and implementation framework for a long-term sustainable fund.

B.C. has seen the benefits of its investments, and this is an immediate opportunity for the federal government to invest $400 million over four years to match B.C.'s initial investment. These B.C. investments have primed the pumps and cleared the pathway for delivering impact and results.

Second, let's delve into the economic potential that investing in watershed security can unlock. There's a prime opportunity to create jobs and employment transitions. The Healthy Watersheds Initiative's major outcomes report shared that $20 million in funding resulted in 1,273 direct jobs across B.C.

More recently, through the Indigenous Watersheds Initiative, 103 jobs are being supported by 14 projects, with 62% of jobs being held by community members. We estimate that IWI will support approximately 245 jobs, with many in remote and rural indigenous communities. These investments are supporting jobs that focus on monitoring and assessment, indigenous knowledge and land-based learning, planning and governance, fisheries and food sovereignty, restoration and protection.

Third, let's consider the pressing issue of climate impacts and the costs associated with them. You likely need no reminder of the devastating atmospheric river that hit B.C. in October 2021, or the record wildfire and droughts of 2023. The cost of the 2021 floods was $9 billion. Yesterday, B.C.'s finance minister reported that the cost of this year's wildfire budget is $987 million, and that figure doesn't include the costs to individuals, businesses and communities. The wildfire burned scars that criss-crossed this province, creating increased risks of flood, mud and landslides. This year's historic widespread drought is predicted to result in a billion dollars' worth of economic losses.

Investing in watershed security is a proactive step toward climate resilience, which not only safeguards our communities, but also saves money in the long run. Look no further than the successful projects funded by the Healthy Watersheds Initiative. These projects, whether addressing wildfires, floods or restoring wetlands, showcase the tangible benefits of investing in watershed health. We witnessed their successes in real time during the floods. This isn't just about crisis management; it's about long-term planning that ensures the safety and well-being of citizens.

Fourth, investing in watershed security helps to advance the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Through the work of HWI, we have seen how this investment supported articles 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 36 and 39. The investment enables first nations to focus on their priorities, and they have shown their leadership through this work.

As I hope I have made clear, conditions in B.C. are ripe for collaboration and well positioned to deliver positive impacts and outcomes. I recommend that the federal government invest $400 million in the watershed security fund.

I commend this committee for studying such a crucial matter. By prioritizing and making these investments, we can build resilience in our communities and proactively respond to disasters before they happen.

I look forward to continuing this conversation with you and answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Botelho.

We'll now open the floor to questions, and Mr. Leslie will start the first round. Each speaker will have six minutes to ask the witnesses questions.

Mr. Leslie, you have the floor.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start with Mr. Gilvesy.

I appreciate your testimony this morning. I think it's important that you were able to offer a bit of a unique perspective as both a farmer and a leader within an organization working with farmers to deliver ecological goods and services to Canadians.

I think that's important specifically due to the fact that we need to sustainably intensify the production of our best farmland. We need to feed both Canadians and a growing hungry population around the world. By maximizing production on our best farmland, we can allow other aspects of the farm to be used for the benefits we can derive from a natural environment. We need to do a good job of recognizing that it's “whole of farm”. It's not just the field level. You talked about some of the riparian areas along the bush lines that are maintained, and the trees planted by farmers. Again, these are the ecological goods and services delivered for the public good, which often come at a cost to farmers and landowners.

First, I'd like to ask you this: How does Canada fare in comparison to other countries and some of our international trading partners in terms of support for farmers and landowners already willing to invest and take the right actions to deliver solutions for our environment?

[Bryan Gilvesy]

We've had some direct experience in the United States. We're opening ALUS in Iowa and Ohio, so I'll compare it directly to the experience there.

The infrastructure bill the Biden government introduced has provided not only fresh capital—lots of capital—but also fresh thinking about the value of nature-based solutions for the planet and the people. I don't think we're there yet, in Canada. We've heard much about the efficacy of that program in the States. I don't believe we have overriding, objective support with that kind of money in Canada yet. I'd have to say that, at this point in time, while the thought is there, and while programs like ours exist and are primed and ready to go, the dollar commitment isn't there yet.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

I think that's a great point you've raised, because farmers ultimately need to be paid for a public good they are providing on their private land. I appreciate that you mentioned the costs and capital associated with this.

One of the important challenges we see facing farmers right now is an increasing debt load and increasing taxes, particularly the carbon tax and the impact that has. It's removing capital from their ability to make practice changes, enhance wetlands and take meaningful action on the ground.

I'd like you to expand on what impact the reduction in capital available to farmers through the carbon tax and other taxation and policy decisions has in terms of their ability to deliver these ecological goods and services.

[Bryan Gilvesy]

I'd like to answer that question by pointing out the opportunity.

What we see and what we've learned from the farm participants and leaders who deliver our program across the country is that they see their farms somewhat differently. The farm is capable of producing food, fibre, energy and ecosystem services all at the same time. We don't see that clearly from a policy perspective—that all of these things can occur at the same time. I think that's the opportunity.

There's another lens to bring to bear on this. These ecosystem services we're producing on our farms relate to a marketplace that is increasingly growing and determining that there's real value in producing these things for society. That marketplace is increasingly being supported by several of the corporations that support our program, such as Danone, Molson Coors, Cargill, General Mills and RBC.

I sense it's much more of an opportunity that we can harness: viewing a farm as much more than it ever was before.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'll quickly go back to the international comparison with the United States.

I know they have the conservation reserve program, which is widely used down there. It is largely based on prevailing land rental rates. As we have an expansion in the size of equipment, there are more and more areas of marginal land that simply don't make sense for farmers to work with.

Would you be in support of a program like that, one that provides a meaningful commitment, financially, to farmers, so they can try to remove some of that marginal land, or towards wetland enhancement or creation? Is that a model we should be following?

[Bryan Gilvesy]

I'll be quite clear. ALUS is inspired by the conservation reserve program, with one particular twist: The farmers themselves, at the community level—they know their lands, communities and priorities best—deliver the program. It's interesting how, for both individual farmers and groups at the community level, the definition of “marginal farmland” has shifted. Yes, we're allowing farmers to declare what's marginal. We're not dictating this, but the size of equipment.... Highly erodible points and areas close to bush lots are marginal by definition, because they're uneconomic to farm with the cost pressures—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

I'd like to cede my remaining time to Mr. Mazier.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the following motion.

First of all, Mr. Pentland, this will only take two or three minutes here. This is a simple motion.

That given the statement made by Mr. Derek Hermanutz, Director General, Economic Analysis Directorate, for Environment and Climate Change Canada on November 9, 2023, at the Standing Committee of Environment and Sustainable Development of:

“I think we're probably in a world where we could say with some rough analysis that up to one-third, potentially, of the emissions reductions that we are projecting to 2030 would come from carbon pricing”;

And given that Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has stated in their 2023 Fall Reports that:

“The federal government is not on track to meet the 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”;

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order the production of Environment and Climate Change Canada's complete analysis including all economic modelling, referred to by Mr. Derek Hermanutz, of the government's emissions reduction projections specifically from the carbon tax, no later than December 8, 2023.

Mr. Chair, the Liberals keep telling us that Canadians need to pay a carbon tax to reduce emissions; however, no one in the government has been able to say exactly how much emissions are being reduced from the carbon tax. No wonder the environment commissioner has revealed that the Liberals are failing to meet their own emissions targets.

If the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay a costly carbon tax in the name of emissions reductions, Canadians deserve to know exactly how much emissions are being reduced by this carbon tax. It's a very simple ask for Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Mazier's interest in carbon pricing.

I note that it's not just the Liberals suggesting that carbon pricing is the foundation for any serious emissions reduction strategy. It was also the Conservatives in the last federal election—with the exception of Mr. Leslie, I might add, because he won a by-election and probably wasn't even allowed to say “climate change” in his campaign, but it does exist. We are here to fight climate change and determine how we might do that together, collectively.

It's a good thing, because yesterday we published ECCC's analysis on how carbon pricing is reducing our emissions. It is indeed responsible for up to one-third. It's challenging, as any economic modelling is, to come to a precise number, but the commissioner and the gentleman from ECCC at the meeting indicated that it was up to one-third.

That modelling and that economic analysis are now available on ECCC's website. I will forward it to every member of the committee. I don't think it's necessary to formally table it or request it from the government, given that it's on the website.

I would move to adjourn debate on this and return to the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can we have a vote on adjourning debate?

(Motion negatived: 6 nays; 5 yeas)

The debate continues.

We will continue to discuss the motion.

For the record, I've been generous so far with the MPs who table motions while we have witnesses. I allowed the person to use the rest of their speaking time after the motion had been adopted or rejected, but I'm told that things are done differently in the House. Once you table a motion, you lose the rest of your speaking time. From now on, the mover of the motion, regardless of party, will lose the rest of their speaking time; it has to be fair to everyone.

There's a vote in the House today. I therefore ask the members of the committee if they give me permission to continue the meeting until five minutes before the vote. I assume everyone will stay here to vote online.

I seem to have the committee's agreement on this.

The next speaker is Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I share your desire to move through these motions efficiently. I think if each party at the table has a chance to offer its thoughts, then we could move to a vote and get back to the witness testimony, which I agree is very important.

I, too, keyed in on the statement from the official at our previous meeting that the carbon pricing regime in Canada is responsible for about a third of emissions reduction. I think better understanding the numbers behind that statement would be useful.

I take Mr. van Koeverden's point that the modelling is now available on the website. I haven't looked at it yet. If that is indeed the case, then this motion is going to be quite easy for the department to fulfill by providing the committee with that modelling.

I would just add that—and I appreciate Mr. Mazier's opening comments—it does seem from the tone of his comments that he wants to see Canada meet its emissions reduction targets. I think the best way to underscore the sincerity of those comments is to put forward effective, credible and evidence-based policies that would allow Canada to meet the targets.

What we hear continually is criticism of one policy and, frankly, I agree that the policy has major drawbacks when it comes to its effectiveness in driving down emissions. However, what we don't hear from the Conservative Party is any viable alternative. We don't see the alternative policies being brought forward for scrutiny, and I think that's very important.

I'll end my remarks there, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to go to a vote on this motion and to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, we'll go now to Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The Bloc Québécois also finds the motion very interesting. Although it seems to be accessible on the site, we are ready to vote in favour of this motion.

I'd like to propose two small amendments. In the last paragraph, it says: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order [...]” Since we want to be more diplomatic, we propose replacing the word “order” with “request” or “call for”.

As for the date, we propose December 13, 2023, instead of December 8, 2023.