Evidence of meeting #133 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was forests.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Mr. Lake, you're now directing conversation to a member. I'm asking you to stay on the point.
This is the third time I've asked that and, as the chair, I do have the right to move on to the next speaker. I'm giving you the floor one last time to try to bring your comments back to the motion that you have in front of us and the parameters that I've set around it. If you're not able to do that, then I will move on to the next member.
4:25 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Mr. Chair, I appreciate that.
I'm going to continue to make the points that I need to make with the opportunity that I have to make them. I fully respect your right as chair to turn off my mike and move to the next speaker whenever you see fit.
I understand that what I'm talking about isn't necessarily on topic with my motion, but given the way the government has driven the agenda of this meeting and blocked reasonable requests by both opposition parties to hold the government to account, to have the opportunity for the minister to come, this is the only option we have.
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
I have to weigh in at this point.
4:30 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
I appreciate that you're going to shut my mike off now.
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
No, I'm just going to say that actually the government side hasn't had the mike so they haven't weighed in. They haven't said the things that you've just said, but I am going to move it on to the next member, and we'll see what Ms. Dzerowicz has to say.
Thank you for your comments.
Ms. Dzerowicz, it's over to you.
4:30 p.m.
Julie Dzerowicz Davenport, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that the debate be now adjourned.
4:30 p.m.
Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC
Can we get a recorded vote, please?
(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
4:30 p.m.
Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)
Debate on this one has been adjourned, so now we'll move back to the rounds of questions.
Next up is Ms. Dzerowicz.
4:30 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Thank you.
Welcome. We have nine of you here, so thank you for coming here today. Thank you for your wonderful testimony.
I'm going to start off with just a few definitions, just so that I can make sure I understand things. If we can get through those definitions quickly, then I can get to my questions.
The difference between carbon storage and carbon sequestration is...? Is it the same thing?
4:30 p.m.
Senior Manager, Climate Change Policy, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, it is the same thing.
4:30 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Okay, perfect.
Mr. Parry, you had mentioned that most of our emissions come from biological processes here in Canada. You mentioned three key sources: methane, nitrous oxide and, I think, carbon dioxide.
I know methane comes largely from our cows. From the agriculture perspective, where do the other two come from?
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy Development and Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Thank you for the question.
Methane is from ruminant digestion and manure. Nitrous oxide is from fertilizers and manure, and carbon dioxide is from soils and on-farm fuel use.
4:30 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Perfect. Thank you.
I was listening to a presentation by Dominic Barton, the recent former head of McKinsey. When he talked about climate change, he said that what it'll come down to is who gets to eat meat and who gets to drive cars. That's the way he summarized it very quickly.
This might be a bit of an insane question, but I know a number of people in my riding would ask this. As part of our agricultural contribution to reducing emissions, have we looked at, perhaps, eating less meat? Basically, it's the concept of actually moving away from cows and methane and more towards things that don't produce these emissions. Has that been part of any conversation?
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy Development and Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
It's a very good question. I'm relatively new to the department, so I'll check with my colleagues to see to what extent they're familiar with that. Certainly, in my former life at Environment and Climate Change Canada, I know that was a topic that was examined.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy Development and Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I will offer to follow up on that question to see to what extent we've looked at that.
4:30 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Okay, that's wonderful.
I think you also started talking about water, conserving water. I want to know what role the management of water has in actually reducing our emissions and in this whole pan-Canadian framework.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Policy Development and Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Maybe I'll give just a couple of points of clarification. Some of the programming under the Canadian agricultural partnership programs includes actions not only to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also to conserve water and protect soil. That said, there are other opportunities. If you use less water in farming practices, there are the reduced costs of moving the water and using energy to transport water. There are opportunities for savings there.
I don't know. Do you perhaps have anything to add on that?
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Ontario - Quebec Region, Science and Technology Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Actually, John will take it first. Then if there's anything, I can add that after.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Innovation Programs Directorate, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
We have a relatively small program called the agricultural greenhouse gas program, which is specific to addressing environmental concerns arising from agricultural technologies. It's to develop specific beneficial practices that farmers can adopt on the farm. We tend to look at those practices in four buckets. One is livestock systems, and to your former question—
4:35 p.m.
Davenport, Lib.
Would you mind just focusing on the water? That's what I'm interested in.
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Innovation Programs Directorate, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Yes. There's water cropping, water use and agroforestry, but those tend to be interlinked in terms of how those practices are developed. For example, we may be looking at what kinds of trees we should grow next to runoff in order to stop runoff from fields, related to fertilizer use, for example, in riparian zones. The nitrogen from the fertilizer is a contributor to greenhouse gases. We tend to look at the interaction among water, soil and air in a systems way as opposed to saying, “This has this effect on water. This has this effect on the air. This has this effect on soil.”