Sure.
Again, the issues deal with water quality and quantity. I brought up the issue of groundwater being very important. My testimony is on the record. If people wish to see it, they can.
I'll add a couple of points to it.
In terms of freshwater management, I have a bias for action. We need things to get done. We can't stand by. There are very pressing water issues out there. I'm a strong proponent of adaptation and mitigation. Again, I look to what Premier Duff Roblin did in Manitoba: a floodway and flood-control structures to protect Manitoba and Winnipeg from floods.
I must go against the grain of some people, I'm sure. I'm not a fan of the idea of the Canada water agency. Water is too interdisciplinary to be given its own agency. The model I strongly prefer is—some people on the committee may remember it—the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, which, unfortunately, was cancelled. That was an agency that integrated everything: water management, water supply, tree-planting, better farming practices, watershed conservation, and so on. It was an agency developed after the Great Depression and it did a stellar job. To me, the prairie farm rehabilitation administration is a model that needs to be expanded, writ large, across the country.
My very last point is this: We need to hear from people who live on the land—the farmers and ranchers, especially veterans who've been on the land for 30 or 40 years. They understand the issues of climate change, conservation and environmental management better than anybody. I would implore the committee to do what they can to get people like that in front of the committee on this study.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.