Evidence of meeting #86 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
With respect to the process for obtaining a reference, Mr. Macnair, would the Canadian government simply request that one take place, or is this something that both countries would have to request simultaneously?
11:40 a.m.
Conservation Coordinator, Elk Valley, Wildsight
Thank you for that question, because it is key.
It's my understanding that every reference that has taken place has involved a joint submission by Canada and the United States, although it is possible for one country or the other to move unilaterally.
It would be our hope that Canada and the United States, as neighbours and partners, would join together and make this reference together. That would, from our perspective, be much stronger. Of course, the Province of British Columbia and the transboundary Ktunaxa should be part of that dialogue.
As I understand it at this point, it is absolutely up to the political will of the government of the day.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Macnair, do we know how the Americans feel about this? It would be interesting to hear from them as part of this study. I'm not sure if we'll have anyone relevant to this specific topic coming to testify, but in your conversations with folks across the border, is there a shared desire to see such a reference?
11:40 a.m.
Conservation Coordinator, Elk Valley, Wildsight
From my understanding, from the U.S. Geological Survey to the indigenous nations in the United States right up to the White House, there is a desire to move forward with Canada on a reference.
Senator Tester of Montana recently spoke to this. A paper recently released on the contamination in the Elk-Kootenay watershed really underlined the importance of this issue. I can share that with you, Mr. Bachrach.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That would be helpful. Perhaps you could submit it to the committee and we could consider it as part of our report.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As you know, Mr. Macnair, my neighbours are considering a proposal to mine about 800,000 tonnes a year of coal in the Skeena watershed—
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, we can finish. We will have time to finish and still have six minutes until the vote.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Don't worry. I have it under control. I will let you know how you voted after it's done.
I see, Mr. Chair, that you will give me another couple of seconds to finish my question.
My question to Mr. Macnair is this: What message would he share with the people of the Bulkley Valley and the Skeena watershed who are looking at this proposal to mine 800,000 tonnes of coal per year in the Skeena watershed, which is home to an internationally renowned steelhead angling industry and, of course, all five species of wild salmon, which are vital to first nations?
What should people take from the experience of the Elk Valley?
11:40 a.m.
Conservation Coordinator, Elk Valley, Wildsight
I will put it this way. Coal mining has been happening in the Elk Valley for 125 years. If I were asked if we should do it again, I would probably say no.
We have a legacy in our valley, which provides high-quality steelmaking coal around the world, but to start a mine with the issues and the impacts that come with a sunset industry, the reality is that the world is moving away from steel made with coal, and the horizon that would give us would be about 30 years, so I would say no.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will have to stop there for the vote, but we will have time for a shortened second round with this panel, so if the panel wouldn't mind waiting about 15 minutes, we will come back to you after the vote. We're all voting virtually, so we don't have to walk over to the House, and that saves time.
I appreciate members' agreeing to that.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
There are five minutes left.
Thank you. We will pause for a moment.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will resume now. We're doing a shortened second round. We're going to reduce everyone's time on the second round by 25%, so if my math is good, that means four minutes and two minutes.
We welcome Mr. Garon to the committee. Welcome, Mr. Garon.
Mr. Leslie, you now have four minutes.
November 23rd, 2023 / noon
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start with Mr. McCann.
I appreciate the comments of my colleague from across the way who spoke about the importance of the agricultural sector's voice in environmental policies, specifically in water policy. However, in my experience, that has not been the reality under this government at all.
I notice, Mr. McCann, that the National Agri-Food Water Action Plan states that a series of papers on the creation of the CWA mentioned supporting agri-food. However, agriculture formed a very small part of these documents, so I'm curious. From your perspective and that of your colleagues in the agricultural sector, is agriculture normally engaged meaningfully in water issues or in any environmental policy issues, the sustainable agricultural strategy and the Canadian water industry?
What is your perspective on the engagement with the agricultural community? Is it a consultation or is it a meaningful engagement?
12:05 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
I think that's an interesting question.
The level of consultation has probably never been higher. We have more opportunities to offer more perspectives in more places, but I think that's different from engagement, and I'll note that the approach with the sustainable agriculture advisory committee that the federal government is using is different. There's more ongoing in-depth engagement.
I don't think we necessarily see that on other files in the same way, and so I do think it is important to recognize the difference between consultation and engagement, and I think we would all appreciate the opportunities for more meaningful, more in-depth engagement on this issue and many others.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. McCann.
I'd highlight that research into productivity is an important part and potentially has great environmental impact in terms of moisture resistance and drought resistance for crop commodities. For example, we're seeing a shift away from farmer-led research and decisions being made that are going to have the benefits of productivity and the ability to have crops that adapt to changing climate and changing water levels.
I'd just like to combine two questions into one. What role does water management on natural landscapes on farms play in terms of irrigation and water availability, and what research priorities do farmers need to adapt to the changing water availability we have without investing in water retention and irrigation capacity?
12:05 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
Canadian agriculture, compared to its competitors, is a relatively low user of irrigation. We have a lot of untapped potential for sustainable irrigation on Canadian farms. The Government of Saskatchewan is picking up something that was started 60 years ago to build out greater irrigation infrastructure. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a backer of that, so there is potential. It's a good example of finding the balance between conserving the resource that we have and leveraging it for irrigation, and I think we can do both in Canada.
R and D is really important. We have bred and developed more resilient crop varieties that are able to withstand droughts in ways they couldn't 20 or 25 years ago. That's a really good example of an R and D measure. Resilience in productivity is not necessarily directly related to water, but it is really critical to responding to this changing dynamic of water and climate change.
We need to do more. We need to invest more. We need to recognize that our models and our knowledge around how water is changing are also changing, and we're not doing enough. We called for a mission-driven research call.
One of the challenges we often get in agriculture is that rather than investing more and investing incrementally, we just keep adding research priorities to the existing budgetary envelope, and so rather than just adding water to the list, we think we need to actually invest more and dedicate and target that additional investment in water as a priority.
