Environment Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Is a debate really necessary or can we proceed to a vote?

There doesn't seem to be any debate, so let's vote on the second amendment proposed by Mrs. Chatel.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're back to the main motion as amended previously.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'll give you a general explanation of why we are opposed to the motion. Obviously, there is a financial issue, but there is also a jurisdictional issue.

We're talking about a $1 billion fund to which British Columbia will contribute $100 million or $200 million, and to which the federal government will then contribute. Will we also have $1 billion for our watersheds in Quebec, given our wealth of water? To give you an idea, I would point out that all the lakes and rivers in Quebec cover three times the size of France. So water is a great asset in Quebec, although it's affected by pollution problems related to industrialization, of course, but that's another discussion.

Quebec created its national water policy in 2002, under Bernard Landry's government. It was the result of initiatives such as the Legendre commission in 1970, watershed management experiments, the Environmental Conservation Council in 1993, the Water Management Symposium in Quebec in 1997 and the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement report in 1999–2000. Through all of this, the Government of Quebec has placed watershed organizations at the centre of the water governance model. This is squarely in the area of jurisdiction.

The topic of this study, fresh water, is already a bit of a jurisdictional issue. However, Mr. Bachrach's motion is squarely within provincial jurisdiction. Despite Mr. van Koeverden's explanations, I remain opposed to this motion, for the reasons I gave earlier. This is about respect for jurisdictions, which is a crucial and topical issue in this country.

The federal government, through its spending power, is already meddling in everything. It wants its own programs, its own priorities, its own standards, and the provinces take turns giving in to get the money. As a result, the real autonomy of the provinces is shrinking. Mr. Bachrach's motion makes it even smaller. As we know, a number of provinces are expressing the same frustrations as Quebec regarding federal interference at the moment. There was a time when we were the only ones expressing it, but now Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta are too.

So, for all these reasons relating to the famous federal spending power, we are going to vote against Mr. Bachrach's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have the floor, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate what Madame Pauzé has offered. I think the potential here, though, is really to create a model based on a province that is already creating that model. It's to come in as a federal partner, which is something the federal government does all the time.

I somewhat reluctantly voted against Ms. Chatel's amendment to encourage the federal government to work with other provinces that are also interested in setting up such funds, but I think the potential here is really to augment and to amplify the work that's already going on in British Columbia and to create a model that can then be rolled out across the country.

The significance of British Columbia.... This comes back to a question that Mr. van Koeverden asked in his opening remarks: Why B.C.? The fresh water action plan that the federal government put in place in 2017 includes something like $70 million, I believe. The lion's share of that investment has gone to the Great Lakes, and rightly so. When it comes to fresh water, that's a major concern for Canada. Then Lake Winnipeg has received, I think, $25.7 million from that fund.

Three other watersheds are noted in the fresh water action plan—the Fraser, the MacKenzie and the St. John's—yet those watersheds haven't received funds through the fresh water action plan budget amount that was committed in 2017.

Obviously, in British Columbia, the Fraser is top of mind as a concern for a lot of folks. There's a tremendous amount of opportunity there. Like I mentioned at the beginning, part of that opportunity is the fact that there are so many organizations, first nations and communities that want to do this work. They're raring to go. They just need a federal partner that's willing to support that work with a financial contribution.

To be fully transparent, Mr. Chair, I represent Skeena—Bulkley Valley. It's a riding that is named for the Skeena watershed, which is B.C.'s second-largest watershed and one of our most important wild salmon systems. I grew up in the Fraser watershed, right at the headwaters of the Fraser River.

The work that's proposed as a part of this.... Of course the B.C. watershed security fund would disburse funds to all of the watersheds in B.C. I think it's really, truly a provincial effort. However, because it's such a huge watershed, the Fraser is a big opportunity. I know that right from the very top of the watershed to the estuary, there's a lot of work that can be done.

I think that's really why it's worth supporting a motion that focuses on British Columbia, because that's where a lot of this energy is. They're trying to create a new model around watershed governance that looks at watersheds differently.

We heard at our last meeting, I think it was, some testimony by one of the academic witnesses, who talked about the fact that watersheds often don't line up with political boundaries. Trying to think more bio-regionally and trying to think about how we come together around the health of watersheds and work together across communities and across differences to do that work is the really exciting part of this and why it's really worth supporting.

We're on the original motion, so I can also go back to Mr. Mazier's comment about job creation. It's true that some of the most direct job creation would come directly from the government investment in this fund. As I mentioned previously, it would also come from the private sector contributions that are leveraged through that fund. More important is the fact that healthy watersheds support all kinds of economic activity and all kinds of jobs. When we invest in restoring watersheds and when we invest in watershed resilience, other economic benefits will accrue from that.

If we think about the impact of the flood this past summer on agriculture, there is restoration work that we can do. There is stewardship work that could be funded through this fund that would actually result in better resilience for farmers to withstand future droughts. Of course, the jobs that rely on that agricultural activity.... In my area, a lot of it is beef and raising cattle. We saw just absolutely devastating consequences from the level five drought this past summer.

Farmers are still trying to have hay shipped up from the United States, at incredible cost. There are a few ranchers and farmers who are thinking ahead about how they can do this work differently and how they can manage their land in a different way so that they're more resilient against the impact of floods by rotating the grazing of their cattle and working with wetlands on their property and this sort of thing. I know this is a topic that Mr. Mazier is very passionate about, so that's why I mention it.

[A voice]

You're going to trigger him.

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

I know. I'm trying to goad you into more debate here.

The point is that, of course, it's more difficult to measure, but when we make an investment in the resilience of ecosystems and watersheds, there is all sorts of economic activity that will come from that. In the lower Fraser we're talking about salmon habitat and about white sturgeon. There's a massive tourist economy that is based on that. I could go on and on at length in terms of the job creation potential here.

I'm noting the time, Mr. Chair. Maybe we can bring this to a vote. I'm really encouraged by the debate I've heard so far. The work happening in my home province makes me incredibly proud that our provincial government is taking this on.

Like I said at the outset—and I'll end with this—the biggest potential here is to work on the ground, to have boots on the ground to work on issues that matter to communities and to first nations, and to use that as a catalyst for reconciliation and for building relationships that I think we'll see a lot of benefit from in the future.

I think that's the real potential here. We have first nations. We have groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Watershed Watch, the POLIS Project, the B.C. government and local governments. Everyone's coming together—partly in the wake of these devastating events that we've seen—around this idea of restoring and investing in watersheds. I think it would be a real shame if the federal government didn't get behind that and help to amplify that work.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I'm really hopeful this motion will pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before I go to Mr. van Koeverden and Ms. Chatel there are a couple of things.

One is that the notice said we'd meet until 1:30. However, we don't have to go until 1:30. If we're not ready for the witnesses at noon we have to extend the time unless somebody wants to propose an adjournment. That's one point.

The second point is that it was brought to my attention that we may need to modify one word in the motion as a result of the amendment to strike “that the Committee report this to the House”. Because we've struck that, it doesn't make sense to put “that the government table a written response.” We could put “that the government provide a written response” because we're not reporting to the House.

Is it acceptable that we change the word “table” to “provide”?

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

On that point, I think that's fine. Maybe put “provide to the committee” to be clear about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, so it would be “provide to the committee a written response.”

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

Yes, because they're not going to provide it to the House anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is everyone okay with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

That way we can debate their response when it comes back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, exactly.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief.

First, thanks again to my colleague for raising this. I think it's a great recommendation. It's a great motion.

On the topic of job creation with respect to conservation authorities in Ontario—with my being familiar with how it all works—really good conservation authorities aren't government jobs. They self-generate a lot of their own revenue, and they're able to pay their staff without having to rely on government funding. Then the government funding that does go into these organizations protects our local economy. It protects against insurance liability. It protects from flooding, and it protects a lot of things that people might not notice, such as biodiversity and species loss. These are really important things too, which might not have the attention of absolutely everybody. I'm glad that my honourable colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley cares about these things.

I think one of the reasons it ought to be funded by multiple levels of governments is that, occasionally, you get a government that's hostile—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Mazier?

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

I have a point of order. Is the minister coming today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wanted to discuss that as well. He's not coming today.

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

It's been over 250 days, so I wondered when he was coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

He's not coming today. I believe he's in Dubai today for COP.

Mr. van Koeverden, to all the committee, we're pretty much in line to start the witnesses at 11 o'clock, but it's obviously up to the committee how much time we want to take debating this.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

All I was trying to say is that great conservation authorities provide an excellent framework or model for exactly what we're talking about here. Good ones do a lot for a community, and they're not government jobs. The reason to have them funded by multiple levels of government is that the work is so important and it creates stability. Occasionally you'll get a government that's hostile towards them, so making sure there are multiple levels of funding for them.... For example, in 2021, a conservation authority was given $9 million from ECCC through the nature smart climate solutions fund.

I'm very supportive of my friend's motion, and I'm looking forward to voting for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mrs. Chatel, you have the floor.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to emphasize that all levels of government, whether federal or provincial, have to deal with the water issue. It's fundamental. In the Outaouais, where I live, there are more than 400,000 citizens in the Ottawa River watershed, one of which is located in Quebec and the other in Ontario. Personally, I cannot conceive of watersheds having political boundaries, as my colleague so aptly said. I have to emphasize that the federal government has to get involved, along with the provinces, as well as the municipalities and watershed organizations.

I've talked to the watershed organizations in my riding, and they need support from the federal government. I'm really disappointed that my colleague voted against the amendment. Had it been passed, it would have allowed us to have discussions about increasing funding for the Outaouais watersheds. They need it.

That said, I would like us to vote on the motion, which I will be supporting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will now go to the vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)