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.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm inclined to vote against it because I like the idea of tabling it in the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're going to have a vote. Let's have a vote and get it on the record.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
We go back to the main motion.
I have a whole list of people on the main motion. I want to make sure that everyone wants to remain on the list.
I have Mr. Mazier, Mr. Longfield, Madame Chatel, Madame Pauzé and Mr. Bachrach on the main motion as amended.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Yes, and I think it's very good.
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach, for bringing this motion forward.
Getting back to his original inaugural speech when we kicked off this committee meeting, he touched on a lot of different keywords in terms of “rebuilding the natural defences” versus man-made defences—I think that's really good language—and the things to be working on in general when it comes to landscape management. Also, “watershed security” is another good term. I like that one, and “watershed governance”. I think the reality is that the salmon stocks, of course, are always important to B.C.
Regarding “job creation”, I think that's the only one I was questioning when reflecting on what you had to say. It was on creating the jobs, the jobs that are going to be created out of that. Maybe he can comment a bit more on this. Is it that there are going to be government jobs at the end of the day, or are those people going to be creating more things at the end of the day to contribute to our gross domestic product?
I think that has always been a conversation when we come down to managing the landscape and talking about conservation. Is it really a new job, or is it just a matter of “this is how mankind is going to live on the landscape and we need these kinds of jobs”?
I don't know if I would hang my hat on the job creation part of it, but as far as the rest of what this fund would do goes, and what all the things are that need to be addressed on the landscape, I think it's a good motion. I think we should vote on it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll go to Mr. Longfield, then Madame Chatel, Madame Pauzé, Mr. Bachrach and Mr. van Koeverden.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I will be very brief, although I do want to mention that the Christmas tree program we have in Guelph is “Trees for Tots”, and it's run by the children's foundation to raise money for school programs for kids in Guelph. They raise about $60,000 a year by having 300 volunteers collecting holiday trees and then mulching them. The mulch goes into community gardens in Guelph, so there is an environmental impact there that's beneficial for our community, and it gets 300 volunteers out doing great things for the kids in our community.
To go back to the motion, though, I have only one comment. The $1 billion kind of hit me. I think we might be getting operational there. I don't know whether $1 billion is enough, or if it's too much or how we come to defend $1 billion. I know it's significant, and it should be a significant fund, but I would drop the $1 billion and just establish a watershed security fund.
December 5th, 2023 / 11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes, because it might not be enough, and it might be too much. I don't know.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll debate the $1 billion now. Does anyone want to talk about the $1 billion?
Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through you to Mr. Longfield, indeed, it might not be enough. The hope would be that it would grow beyond $1 billion, because the need is so great. Look at some of the watersheds that have been impacted in British Columbia and need restoration, especially the Fraser, which is the largest river system in our province. It has seen tremendous development impacts over many years. It's also seen natural impacts.
Look at the Big Bar slide just a couple of years ago that almost entirely blocked the Fraser River and caused major implications for wild salmon. Look at the lower Fraser River in the Fraser Valley, where the flooding we saw last year occurred. A lot of the impact on ecosystems that we saw was a result of development over time that hasn't taken into account the impact on natural systems.
There's a tremendous opportunity there to restore those ecosystems and rebuild the natural resilience. It's going to take a serious commitment, probably beyond what's articulated here.
The billion-dollar number comes directly from Mr. Zeman's presentation. I think it's based on, if I recall, a $400-million contribution from the province, an equal $400-million contribution from the federal government and $200 million that would be leveraged from private investors.
I'll look for the chair's indulgence if I just stray down a slight side path here to address one of Mr. Mazier's earlier points about job creation. I think the potential of this fund is that, if the federal government makes a substantive investment, there's the potential to leverage investment from the private sector. When we talk about job creation and economic development, leveraging private investment is often an important part of the conversation.
Now we're talking about—
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Have I convinced you already? I'm just getting warmed up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We'll go back to the main motion. I have Madame Chatel, Madame Pauzé, Mr. Bachrach and Mr. van Koeverden.
Mrs. Chatel, you have the floor on the main motion as amended.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would suggest two things.
First of all, Mr. Bachrach, I was wondering if it would be possible to highlight in your motion something you talked about. After the part that says “establish a $1 billion watershed security fund”, I propose to add, in brackets, that it be “composed of investments from the federal and provincial governments and the private sector”. You could use the term “capital” or you could use the term “investments”. Indeed, it should be clearly stated that it would consist of funds from the provincial and federal governments, but also from the private sector, because that is a very interesting aspect of this fund. Government resources are limited and this work must be done in partnership. So it would be important to highlight that aspect. That's my first suggestion.
Second, I propose adding in brackets after that, “and to work with provinces that would like to implement a similar fund”. That way, it wouldn't only be for British Columbia, and we would open the door to a discussion between the federal government and the other provinces that would like to establish a similar fund. I think your idea is interesting, Mr. Bachrach, and I would like it to inspire the other provinces as well.
Liberal