Evidence of meeting #89 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 federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Good morning, colleagues.
We are resuming where we left off last Thursday. Mr. Bachrach had the floor. He had just moved a motion.
Mr. Bachrach, the floor is still yours.
11 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the last meeting, I moved a motion, which was put on notice. Perhaps I'll start by repeating it for the folks who are watching.
It reads:
That, given the importance of freshwater ecosystem services to the prosperity, sustainability, and resilience of British Columbian communities, and given the increasingly severe impacts of climate change including drought, wildfires, and floods, the committee urge the federal government to work with the Government of—
11 a.m.
Bloc
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Can we just test this to see if...?
Do you hear me now, Madame Pauzé?
11 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll just pick up where I left off, I suppose:
—the committee urge the federal government to work with the Government of British Columbia to establish a $1 billion watershed security fund; that the Committee report this to the House; and that the government table a written response.
This stemmed from some really compelling testimony that we had from Mr. Zeman, who is the executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. He talked to the committee about how his organization has been working in partnership with first nations and landowners on hundreds of watershed restoration projects across the province. I think it's some really exciting work.
This uses the term “watershed security” and maybe the best place to start is by talking about what this concept of watershed security is.
What we're talking about when we say “watershed security” is really rebuilding the natural defences of our watersheds. There's so much literature out there on the importance of natural infrastructure. We know that natural systems are some of our best defences against climate change and the extreme weather that we've been seeing more and more.
Watershed security is really about rebuilding those natural defences. It's about bolstering collaborative monitoring by engaging communities and first nations in data collection and going out on the land and to the watersheds to observe what's happening, so that we are better informed and better able to respond when things change. It's about strengthening watershed governance in partnership with the provinces, first nations and local governments.
In British Columbia, there's been a long history of this work. The opportunity right now is really to bring some significant resources to bear, so that the organizations and communities that want to do this work are supported by the federal government.
This has huge potential for job creation. We're talking about the potential for thousands of well-paid jobs in communities. Some of this work is already taking place.
We know that the cost of not doing this is also very significant. In British Columbia, people are well aware of the devastating impacts of wildfires over the past number of years, the flooding and the atmospheric river that hit the Lower Mainland and caused extensive damage. We do have the potential to mitigate these effects if we act swiftly and if we put in place the structures that are required to bolster natural infrastructure and make sure that our watersheds are resilient.
In British Columbia, top of mind for many folks is the health of wild salmon stocks. This work around resilience and building watershed security also has the benefit of protecting and enhancing our wild salmon, which are so important to our economy and to first nations.
That really gets to the heart of what this motion is about.
The Government of B.C. has already invested over $100 million in watershed security. The potential here is to build that into a $1-billion fund. It's not with the federal government contributing the balance, but with a sizable matching contribution from the federal government, increased contributions from the provincial government and the leveraging of private investment as well. Together, these three parties could put together the funds to really sustain this work into the future.
I know this is an initiative that the B.C. government is very excited about. First nations are very excited about it. When we talk about climate change and securing watersheds, it's relatively rare that we get such broad support from across all the different sectors—from different governments and across the political spectrum. When we see that kind of alignment, I think it really behooves us to get behind those efforts and support them with significant resources.
That's why I'm excited about this. It's why I brought forward the motion after Mr. Zeman's testimony before the committee.
I know we're going to have other witnesses who appear before this committee on this study. We did hear from Watersheds B.C. at our last meeting.
I know, unfortunately, the witness's testimony was cut short. I wasn't able to ask the questions that I wanted to ask of the witness, but hopefully the presentation that she made had an impact on the committee. Hopefully we'll hear from more folks from my home province who are passionate about this work.
My hope today is that we can debate this motion and hopefully pass it so that the government can know that the committee supports moving forward with this vision. I think it's a really positive vision. I think it could have a tremendous impact on the province of British Columbia and the watersheds that sustain our communities.
Mr. Chair, I'll leave it at that for now. Perhaps I can offer some more thoughts later in the debate.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
I have Mr. van Koeverden, Mr. Mazier, Mr. Longfield and Madame Chatel.
Mr. van Koeverden.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I start, I'll ask Mr. Bachrach if there has been anything modified? Have there been any changes to it?
December 5th, 2023 / 11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
As we discussed, we are in favour of this motion as it's written. We would like one small change and that's just to provide a written report and basically remove the section on reporting it to the House. All in all, we're very supportive of it.
There are a couple of things I wanted to talk about with respect to this motion in the context of our debate in the last couple of meetings. I'll touch on the constitutionality of looking at watersheds. I think we're all aware of the hydrological cycle and how water travels across borders and knows no boundaries, and the importance of ensuring that we are protecting our most vital resource, both in British Columbia and elsewhere.
I'll provide a reflection on Ontario's maintenance of our greatest natural resource, which is fresh water. These are my personal reflections, not necessarily professional ones. I'm not a scientist, but we have had some really great water scientists here at this committee recently and my observation as somebody who spends a lot of time on the water in Ontario is that we're really lucky to have conservation areas. We're really lucky to have conservation authorities doing the work to do the science, collect the data, look at restoration and develop a base of knowledge around endangered and threatened species.
Just recently in the new Parks Canada development at Rouge National Urban Park, we visited an organic farm that was having some problems with their water table. They were finding that every spring they weren't able to start planting until later in the season than some of their neighbours. The conservation authority came by and determined that, if the creek that runs adjacent to the property ran a little bit slower for one reason or another, their water table would dry up just a little bit earlier in the spring and they'd be able to plant three to four weeks earlier. They did this restoration project and not only did this provide better drainage for the fields, which are in excess of 30 to 40 acres—they plant tonnes and tonnes of varieties of vegetables—but they also found that there were fish species and turtles and frogs that moved into this little area just adjacent to their farm. Since it's an organic farm, they had no concerns about any sort of contamination or anything like that.
Conservation authorities do fantastic work.
When posed with the question, why British Columbia? Obviously, my colleague is from British Columbia, but the question might arise, why is this more of a priority for British Columbia than for others? I would say that it's also a priority for Ontario, but we have an asset and that asset is our conservation authorities. The science and the work that they do in tree planting and in habitat restoration are really extraordinary.
We're entering into the holiday season and people are starting to put up their Christmas trees. I don't know if anybody else on the committee has had this experience in their local community, but in Halton, Conservation Halton actually asks you to drop off your Christmas tree after the season. Take the tinsel and all the decorations off obviously, but the Christmas trees are really useful for habitat restoration to create berms and to provide a barrier between the different species.
I visited the Royal Botanical Gardens between Hamilton and Burlington recently and found that they were using their Christmas trees to do that work. I actually saw this huge line of discarded Christmas trees that were providing a barrier and habitat restoration. They're just doing extraordinary work.
We're lucky in Ontario that we have these conservation authorities, but it's something I think other provinces could emulate. I do think that we're lucky in Ontario.
Moving on to the constitutionality of looking into pollution and looking into how pollution impacts our communities, but particularly indigenous communities, something that was raised by my colleagues from the Conservative Party.... I was told to consider running, and I think we were all told to consider perhaps running in Albertan politics if we are concerned about Alberta's pollution and the impacts of it on the population of Alberta.
Now, I'm concerned about pollution outside of Halton region, not just because I'm concerned about all Canadians but because I also know that pollution knows no boundaries. It doesn't care about borders. Pollution in Halton, whether it's airborne or water-borne, will enter water systems, and those water systems will then have an impact further down the water cycle on millions of people.
I did spend some time reflecting on the comments with respect to whether or not it was useful for a committee in the federal government to study pollution specific to one particular region, or to call on an energy regulator from one particular province to change its behaviour, modify its practices or reconsider its work a bit. I did look, and I provided my colleague from the Conservative Party with an email regarding the federal subject matters.
They're very explicit. It's very clear to me that our study is with respect to our jurisdiction, and we are well within our rights and our domains to look at how pollution impacts various communities, but specifically indigenous communities. That's because federal matters can include—I'll just read it—as the basis of most federal jurisdiction over environmental issues, public property, which means federally owned public property—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, for how long do the Liberals plan on filibustering ?
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't know exactly where this is heading. I'm just wondering. I do question a little bit the relevance of the comments.
Mr. van Koeverden, maybe you could explain how this connects to Mr. Bachrach's motion. I saw a hint of that when we talked about watersheds and pollution from the sky that gets into a watershed. In fact, when we were studying the oil sands, the development in 2007—I keep going back to that—one of the vectors in the study was the notion that pollution from the industry was going into the air and getting into the water through the air, as opposed to seeping into the water from tailings ponds.
It is relevant in that respect, but for a good chunk of what you're saying I'm not sure how it connects. I'd like to give you the opportunity to maybe say how it connects to the motion.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Certainly.
Mr. Bachrach's motion makes recommendations for one province, British Columbia. We recently had an energy regulator from another province, Alberta, and the question was raised by some members of the Conservative Party as to whether or not we ought to even be in the business of making recommendations to provincial authorities. I think we ought to be.
We ought to recognize that every province is quite different with respect to how it does this work. I gave some examples about Ontario. I apologize if my stories were a little bit long. I went for a nice long run this morning. I'm quite relaxed and feeling very zen, so perhaps I'll try to tighten up my comments a little bit.
I do think it is pertinent to really consider that Canada is basically 13 countries. It tries really hard to be one, and we achieve that—Canada's a great country—but we're very unique in the context that there really isn't that much connecting maybe the economy of the Yukon to the economy of Prince Edward Island.
By the same token, with respect to Mr. Bachrach's motion, we are, through this motion, making recommendations or considering one province above all others, above all 12 of the other provinces and territories. In the previous work we've undertaken with respect to the Alberta Energy Regulator, it was proposed that perhaps if we want to be making recommendations to one specific province, we should get involved in provincial or territorial politics.
I don't think that's necessary, for the following reasons. Federal subject matters can include public property, which means federally owned property, which could include parkland or Crown land; fisheries, both marine and fresh water; navigation and shipping; anything with respect to criminal law; or any issue that impacts first nations people.
In this very old document—I should read it verbatim, although it uses old language that we've updated. It says, “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.” Of course, we recognize that's outdated language that we don't use anymore.
In addition to that, the opening words of section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867 set out federal residual power, which numerous legal decisions have interpreted to mean that various subject matters not explicitly listed in the Constitution, such as marine pollution and interprovincial water pollution, are nevertheless all within federal jurisdiction. Therefore, it's very clear that we have the jurisdiction, that we have the actual authority and that we, as a federal government but also as a committee of this government, have an obligation to look at marine pollution and interprovincial water pollution.
That, to me, means that—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
On a point of order, I really do wonder how long he's going to filibuster. We're talking about water ecosystems and not about pollution. If he refers to the motion, he'll see that there's nothing about pollution at all.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
As long as he can keep his filibuster to the comments there, that will be fine.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I agree that it's getting far removed from the motion.
I would ask again, Mr. van Koeverden, that you maybe narrow the focus a little bit.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
My reflection was less on whether or not the pollution with respect to the ecosystem was something we ought to be considering and more about whether or not it should be one specific province.
My amendment was simply about how we deal with the information we're going to gather and then provide to the government, and what we expect in return. That's it.
I agree with the notion that our committee ought to have the latitude to make recommendations to one specific province or multiple provinces at any given time, because I think, with respect to pollution, with respect to ecosystems, with respect to water or with respect to indigenous peoples, specifically first nations, it's quite pertinent to the jurisdiction of our federal government but also to the topics that this committee is to look at.
The issue I was focused on, which I will continue to focus on for a moment, was whether or not our committee ought to be looking at particular provinces. I continue to be of the strong opinion that any conduct of the Alberta Energy Regulator, and whether or not it can do its work—
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
My colleague across the way said he planned to support the motion with an amendment. I'm just wondering how long he plans to speak in broad, general terms without actually moving the amendment so we can move forward with committee business.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't think that's a point of order. It's an opinion or a question, but not a point of order.
