Environment Committee on Dec. 7th, 2023

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, how are we doing for time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have a minute.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Could you give us an idea of how much these regulations would cost? If we were to implement these new regulations or these new laws, how much of an effect would that have on a boat-by-boat basis? How much would it cost?

[David O'Connor]

It depends on the boat and the risk it carries. Earlier, I talked about a fine proportional to the value of the boat that would have been moved while the drain plug was in place. In Alberta, for example, you get a $180 fine if you move your boat when the drain plug is in place. For someone who has a boat inherited from their grandfather and works for minimum wage, that's a lot of money. However, their boat is not really a risk. It is less of a risk than a large boat for water sports that costs $250,000, and filling up its gas tank costs $420. For those who can afford a boat like that, a $180 fine is not a problem. It's cheaper than a full tank of gas.

That is why we are suggesting a fine representing 5% of the boat's value. It becomes more restrictive for people who own large boats, without being excessive. If they can afford a $250,000 boat, they can pay such a fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Last but not least, we have Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Stegemann.

I'm going to try to ask three questions, so I would just ask that the answers be kind of brief.

Mr. Stegemann, I was fortunate enough to work on the indigenous and northern affairs committee during the UNDRIP legislation. We passed that, despite protestations and the Conservatives voting against it. I'm really glad we got UNDRIP legislation through.

What aspects of it do you think are the low-hanging fruit on water rights for indigenous peoples? What should we do next, as a government, to ensure that water protection is a priority for indigenous communities through the lens of UNDRIP?

[Andrew Stegemann]

The most important thing in front of the committee when it comes to recommendations for that is the renewal of the Canada Water Act. The Canada Water Act is 50 years old. It's really important that the act be aligned with, respect and uphold UNDRIP.

With respect to water, that is the opportunity and that's why the Canadian Coalition for Healthy Waters is advocating that the act be co-drafted with indigenous nations.

I know that's not easy, but a real effort to be transparent, to bring indigenous nations in right now, pre-engagement with the act, and to renew it in a way that is co-drafted is the best opportunity to uphold UNDRIP right now with respect to water.

When I speak with indigenous nations, the comment I always hear is that water is not a resource; water is an element that is essential for life. To indigenous peoples, it is sacred. That is the most important thing.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stegemann. I appreciate that.

My second question is for Mr. Gilvesy.

Thank you for coming back to the committee.

Our government is really proud of the millions of dollars it has spent on nature-based solutions for agriculture. I was fortunate enough to visit some recently on a farm in the Rouge National Urban Park.

Could you give us just one example, very briefly, with respect to some of the solutions we might see in Norfolk County?

I was fortunate enough to visit your region recently too, just along the shores of Lake Erie. It's really beautiful.

I thought some clear examples might be helpful.

[Bryan Gilvesy]

We operate in 40 different communities across Canada, but what's unique about our program is that it's delivered locally, so the local committee led by farmers makes the decisions on what occurs on the Norfolk sand plain, for instance, and they do locally appropriate things.

One thing that is very popular here is the restoration of tallgrass prairie on our lands. A lot of people forget that tallgrass prairie was native to this landscape. By returning it to the sand plain.... We get great efficacy by putting this extremely deep-rooted and drought-tolerant plant back on our landscape for biodiversity and for building soil health and water quality. That's is a really great example.

We also work a tremendous amount on erosion control, creating the structures that protect our highly and easily erodible sand plain. We create the structures so that our gullies and fields don't wash into the cold water streams and into the watercourses. Thereby, we get protection for the cold water streams and the trout habitat there, and of course downstream against algae blooms in the Great Lakes.

Those are two of the things that are unique to what happens in Norfolk because of the sand plain that we operate on.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gilvesy.

I want to acknowledge how critical working with farmers and agricultural workers is in fighting climate change, and I want to thank you for your work.

My third and final question is for Mr. David O'Connor.

Thank you for travelling here, once again.

I've been to your area twice for the Canoe Kayak National Championships.

In your work, are canoes or kayaks a concern?

[David O'Connor]

We have concerns about all types of vessels. It's about the scale of risk.

As I've mentioned several times, a canoe or a kayak is easy to dry. There isn't necessarily a confined space where water can accumulate, so it can be drained quite easily. So those kinds of vessels are less of a risk. The risk is always there, but it's a matter of reducing it.

Fishing vessels that contain tanks or boats for water sports that contain closed spaces, for example, are high-risk vessels.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much.

I note that our government has put a consumption tax on very large boats for recreational purposes, and we have also been investing a lot into habitat renewal, with a huge investment into the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for invasive species. I hope that's a flow-through that you acknowledge is an effective way to get the job done on both sides of the ledger.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the witnesses and the committee members. The discussions were extremely enriching.

Mr. O'Connor, thank you for coming back to Ottawa, as well.

We'll leave it at that for now. We will continue our study next Tuesday.

I wish everyone a good evening and a good weekend.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, do we not have a few minutes left in our meeting?

I was under the impression that we had until 1:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. Go ahead.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

In that case, if we're done with our witnesses, I have a motion that I would like to put on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here and for coming back. We really appreciate your time and your expertise.

Mr. Chair, today, despite opposition from some politicians who seek to obstruct actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, our government has made history. Earlier today, our government made news to cap emissions from the oil and gas sector without impacting production. This builds on a motion in the House of Commons that was first passed on June 17, 2019—before my time as a member—when we declared a national climate emergency.

Earlier in the meeting today, Mr. Chair, I was proud to distribute a hard copy of the “2023 Progress Report on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan”.

That motion back in 2019 came about as a result of the government's recognition that Canada needed to do its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly and rapidly. It was followed on March 25, 2021, by a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that found that carbon pollution knows no boundaries and that our Parliament has the authority to address it, and therefore a moral imperative to do so.

After that, we increased our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, which is in line with limiting global warming to less than two degrees, which is in our emissions reduction plan progress report that I brought here today. It also shows that we are well on our way to meeting both that target and our interim objective of 20% below 2005 levels by 2026.

It's also worth noting, Mr. Chair, that Conservatives consistently suggest that this government has missed opportunities or that we haven't achieved our goals. Not only is that not true today, Mr. Chair, but it is also not true of any of our objectives. When we realize that we will exceed a certain objective, we increase our ambitions, as we have on this one.

Increasingly, there is widespread recognition that—

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Mazier.

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

This isn't related to the testimony today—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I think Mr. van Koeverden is giving notice.

You're not moving this. You can't move it because it requires—

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

Is it related to today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, but he has the floor and he's giving notice.

Do you have much more to say?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

There is one paragraph, and then the motion.