Environment Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mrs. Chatel, the floor is yours.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I don't understand the point of talking about carbon pricing. The motion talks about capping greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector. As the experts said, carbon pricing is responsible for over 30% of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. It's highly effective. However, unfortunately, it isn't part of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I gather that the government's framework will include a methane emission credit exchange. There will be a price on carbon for methane emissions.

Mr. Mazier, the floor is yours.

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

I can carry on.

I'll reiterate that this emphasizes how tone-deaf they are.

Here's a quote from a news article:

First Nations see the reality of climate change every single day and expect Canada to address it. However, we do not accept a regime that creates new burdens on First Nations which already face deep infrastructure and economic challenges.

We all acknowledge that.

Canada should be working with us to confront the climate crisis and close gaps on reserve instead of creating policy in an ivory tower that exacerbates the affordability issues our citizens face.

Grand Chief Abram Benedict said that. How much clearer can it be? People are screaming to stop this insanity. What are you doing?

You just heard, “Oh no, point of order, this is all going to work. We'll put some more regulations on methane.” The bare foundation of how we make energy in this country.... Let's put some more regulations on it. Let's restrict it a little bit more. Let's create more energy poverty. Why not? Let's get at 'er.

It's unbelievable, Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we've had a fulsome debate on this, and I would like to see a vote on this motion at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, we can't—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm the last person on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, I guess you are, so we will have a vote on the motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

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

Chair, I want to move the following motion:

That given,

(a) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change travelled to Dubai to represent Canada at COP28;

(b) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change did not reveal the complete details of the individuals and entities he was scheduled to meet with in Dubai, including the items of discussion;

(c) Canadians deserve to know the priorities and outcomes of their national COP28 delegation in Dubai;

(d) the Liberal government has proven that they are unable to keep their environmental promises and have neglected to consult with many Canadians on their environmental policies;

(e) the Prime Minister stated, “That is why we committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in Ottawa.” in his open letter to Canadians following his election as Prime Minister;

(f) the committee welcomes any effort to increase government transparency for Canadians

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Committee order the production of the following documents related to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's trip to COP28 in Dubai:

(a) a detailed itinerary for each day the Minister was in Dubai;

(b) a list of all meetings the Minister attended while in Dubai broken down by (i) the meetings initiated and (ii) the meetings accepted by Canada's COP28 delegation.

(c) a comprehensive analysis of each meeting the Minister was present at including the (i) name and titles of the individuals in attendance, (ii) meeting notes, (iii) purpose of meeting, and (iv) outcome of meetings;

(d) all briefing notes provided to the Minister by all federal departments, including the reason for each briefing; and

(e) a detailed list of all expenses incurred by the Minister during his trip to Dubai;

And that these documents be provided no later than one week after the motion is adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the motion from my colleague. It's obviously in order.

Given that we have the minister appearing at committee on Thursday, that we have witnesses for the study at hand today, and that the time allocated for committee business has now concluded, I would offer my colleague the opportunity to raise this with the minister on Thursday.

I move to adjourn debate on this motion and move towards the study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let's vote on adjourning debate.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I have a point of order.

I just want to be clear that if we move to adjourn debate on this, we will be moving to hear the witnesses on fresh water. I've said nothing about whether I support the Conservative motions they've been moving. I might, in fact, be likely to do so. But I'm here today to talk about the important issue of fresh water.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The first step is to adjourn debate. Then I'm going to ask that we move on.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I take it that we now agree to hear from the witnesses, whose appearances have already been postponed once.

I don't see any objections. I would like to invite the witnesses to the table. I think that two of them are participating by videoconference. We'll take a short break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The sound tests have been completed. Ms. Botelho's test was successful, but Mr. Sopuck's test is still in progress. We'll see where things stand when his turn comes.

I want to welcome back our four witnesses, whom we're delighted to have with us once again. Three of the witnesses have already given their opening remarks. I'll ask them to keep their comments to two minutes, just to provide some context and refresh our memories a bit.

Mr. Madison, since you're a new witness and you haven't been here before or had a chance to give your opening remarks, you'll have five minutes. We'll start with you.

[Mathieu Madison, President of the Board of Directors, Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec]

Good afternoon. My name is Mathieu Madison. I'm president of the board of directors for the Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec. Our group includes 40 not‑for‑profit organizations from across Quebec that practice regional water governance.

I want to talk today about governance. I'll focus on two areas, which are Quebec's experience with regional governance and our recommendations for the Canada water agency, including considerations for its future structure and activities.

I want to share three key points with you. These points are drawn from our 20 years of experience in providing integrated water resource management at the watershed level in Quebec, with the help of 40 watershed organizations. Our main findings are as follows.

First, we found that water management in general is complex. It's complicated to talk about water quality, flooding and ecosystems. It's even more complicated to consider all the challenges, interests and concerns that sometimes differ from one water stakeholder to the next. It would be a mistake to try to simplify these complexities. Instead, we recommend working in an inclusive way, involving everyone in the discussion and holding extensive conversations with all water stakeholders. The goal is to identify the additional steps required to ensure collaboration and build consensus.

Our second finding concerns division. Water is managed in silos, both at different levels and scales, and also with local stakeholders. We recommend breaking out of these silos and implementing truly integrated management. We need to break down silos and find innovative and creative ways to get people to work together. In other words, we must break with the past to try to improve our current practices.

Our third finding concerns the choice of targets. Stakeholders often have a hard time understanding or implementing environmental targets for water quality or for a specific percentage of ecosystem conservation, for example. Farming is a good example. A farmer is unlikely to feel concerned by targets for water quality or invertebrate mackerel in a river. Since we want to be inclusive, we must find targets that more closely reflect the realities of the people we work with. We would like to redefine the notion of success. We'll no longer necessarily refer to environmental objectives, but rather to resilience, adaptation, creativity and innovation.

To some extent, this has been the experience of our watershed organizations for the past 20 years. Our mandate is to design a blueprint for water management. The blueprint should include the objectives and measures required for each area of our watersheds and a way to then engage and involve local stakeholders in implementing this action plan. Our findings show as much.

I also want to talk about what sectors the Canada water agency should focus on. The opportunity is ripe here to set up an agency that can provide real governance and try to address the proposed recommendations. The Canada water agency must bolster the legislative and executive authority of the Government of Canada in its jurisdictions.

The agency should also provide a platform for different national water stakeholders to discuss policy approaches and strategies; regulatory frameworks; and the prioritization of water research or specific projects. It could be a place to discuss the environmental assessment from a water perspective and to set funding priorities for water management. The agency would provide a genuine platform for the stakeholders and the departments involved to share ideas.

We also believe that the agency must take into account both provincial and federal jurisdictions. The Canada water agency must focus on certain exclusive jurisdictions or shared jurisdictions, such as transportation. We talked about navigation and invasive alien species. The federal government must be involved in these areas.

We must also consider transboundary watersheds. For example, in Quebec, we can't work on the Ottawa River without taking into account that a different province on the other side of the river handles water differently. To top it off, think of transboundary watersheds with the United States, such as the Saint John River, Lake Winnipeg, the Columbia River or the Great Lakes as a whole. Much work must be done on transboundary watersheds.

Of course, the federal government must address the issue of reconciliation with the first nations and their vital shared role in water management, particularly in a number of Canadian provinces. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Madison.

Mr. Pentland, would you like to take two minutes to encapsulate what you already said in your five-minute opening statement?

[Ralph Pentland, Member, Forum for Leadership on Water]

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I won't repeat what I said last time. I will just briefly remind you of what is in the seven-page FLOW submission.

The FLOW submission looks back half a century and forward a couple of decades. If you look back half a century, it concludes that we have been steadily bending the arc of history in the direction of justice. To look forward suggests that there's considerable potential to continue that trend.

The submission takes both the evolving issues and the evolving convention of wisdom into account and briefly describes 15 priority areas.

We use two main criteria in choosing the priorities. First, they have to be of national importance, and second, they have to be ripe for significant progress over the next few years.

As short-term priorities, say over the next five years, we speak to the Canada water agency, improved collaboration, Canada-U.S. shared waters, indigenous drinking water, flood damage reduction, climate change adaptations, water prediction, river basin priorities, water data and water research. That overlaps with what you just heard here.

As medium-term priorities, say over the next five to 10 years, we speak to legislative renewal, chemicals managements, water apportionment and principles for a watershed approach.

Finally, as a long-term priority over some undetermined period of time, we foresee evolving social justice principles being incorporated more fulsomely into water management decisions.

I'll leave it at that and welcome questions from the members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Pentland.

We'll go to you, Ms. Botelho, for a couple of minutes.

[Zita Botelho, Director, Watersheds BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'm speaking to you today from the unceded traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt nations.

Since 2021, Watershed BC has partnered with two philanthropic organizations that administer $42 million in provincial funding to support 110 watershed security projects.

Today I want to highlight a critical issue. Over the last 15 years, federal engagement in B.C.'s watershed freshwater challenges has been insufficient compared to other regions.

Today, I propose—as I did the other day—a quadruple win opportunity for the federal government in B.C., emphasizing collaboration with the province, NGOs and first nations.

The four conditions for federal leadership are offering economic benefits and employment opportunities, rural community support, UNDRIP implementation and addressing climate impacts.

First, B.C. has invested $57 million since 2021 in watershed security, with an additional $110-million commitment for a watershed security fund endowment.

Second, we know that watershed security generates economic potential and jobs. We've seen 1,273 direct jobs associated with $20 million of funding. The Indigenous Watersheds Initiative currently is supporting 103 jobs, with an estimated 245 jobs primarily in indigenous communities.

Third, as fellow witnesses have shared, in addressing climate impacts, watershed security is a proactive step to saving long-term costs. The 2021 floods in B.C. cost $9 billion. This year's wildfire costs were $987 million. The historic drought we experienced this year is predicted to result in $1 billion in losses.

Lastly, we've proven that investing in watershed security supports UNDRIP implementation, allowing first nations to focus on priorities such as protecting and restoring their watersheds.

In conclusion, B.C. is ready for collaboration. We recommend that the federal government invest $400 million in B.C.'s watershed security fund.

I commend Mr. Bachrach's motion of November 30. Allocating resources to this work creates jobs, watershed security and community resilience and proactively addresses climate disasters.

I hope today that we can have a conversation about these freshwater priorities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

I think we are still working on Mr. Sopuck's connection.

We'll go to the questions. When there's a question for Mr. Sopuck, we'll see whether he is able to take it.

We'll start over with Mr. Deltell, followed by Madame Chatel.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, we would like Mr. Sopuck to take part in this.

Welcome, Mr. Madison. I'm pleased to see you and meet you for the first time. I'm especially happy to hear from you. Your comments were highly insightful, especially your three observations based on 20 years of experience. If anyone knows what they're talking about, you do. Thank you for being here and for accepting my colleague's invitation. You provided excellent input for our discussion, and I appreciate it.

Of your three observations, I want to focus on the choice of targets. You clearly explained how a farmer's concerns are different from the concerns of a person living in a cottage by the river. Can you explain how you managed to convince the farmers? I know quite a few of them. First and foremost, they care about protecting the environment. They know that their careers depend on a healthy environment. Given your experience over the past 20 years, can you share some examples of farmers who managed to adapt by creating an innovative and environmentally friendly approach?