Environment Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Terri Stewart]

To answer that question, I would like to take just a few moments to talk about why we even monitor the water at all. The water monitoring data can provide a real-world picture of the potential exposure to inform Health Canada's risk assessments in terms of pesticides that may or may not end up in the water.

Currently, Canada does not have a consistent national water monitoring program. In the absence of this information, the PMRA defaults to overly conservative assumptions, often resulting in the cancellation of uses that would otherwise not be a regulatory concern. This reduces the competitiveness of Canadian growers and compromises their ability to combat both existing and future pests.

In terms of a national, government-run program, having such a framework really would ensure quality and consistency in terms of methods of detection and sampling collection, use of thresholds that are in line with what is used by Health Canada, sampling done across Canada—including different agricultural areas—and being able to do it at a consistent frequency so that they can conduct trend analysis to understand the levels over time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. Is what you're reading part of your brief, so that we can capture it?

[Terri Stewart]

No, it's not, but we can provide it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If you could send it in writing, that would be great.

Ms. Chatel, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll turn to Mr. Miltenberger.

Your words are wise. You said that water was first and foremost a national issue, and that we shouldn't waste our time fighting over water jurisdictions. Instead, we should bring governments with jurisdiction to the table to work together to better protect our water and nature.

I'll give a nod to my Bloc Québécois colleague, who I hope will take note. She emphasized the need to include local communities in decisions. Quebec signed the agreement of the 15th conference of the parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, or COP15. Target 22 of the agreement clearly states that local communities and indigenous peoples must play a key role in decisions regarding the protection of nature, including water in particular.

In the Northwest Territories, you saw great success when governments came together to make the right decisions. Drawing on this experience, do you have any advice for the Canada water agency? It must take the same steps to protect water, which you so eloquently referred to as a national issue.

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Yes. Let me offer these quick comments. I agree. It's a very good question.

The issue in all these matters that we deal with here, it seems to me, is with political will.

The Canada water agency, right now, is being developed as a federal initiative. One of the concerns we have in the Northwest Territories, for example, is that there's no real oversight or involvement of the provinces, territories or indigenous governments at the political oversight level, where you're creating the political conditions for the Canada water agency to succeed.

That's a critical piece, and that table—not fighting over jurisdiction, but looking at how you can bring your jurisdictions together and make them more effective by collaboration—is a real step that I think needs to be dealt with. The Canada water agency needs to have the tools that are currently scattered, as we hear, all across government. Monitoring is a perfect example.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Petelle or Ms. Stewart, we heard talk about including local communities. In my opinion, farmers are part of these local communities.

Do you have any advice for the committee on how the Canada water agency can also include the voice of farmers, in keeping with its goal of working with all levels of government and communities?

I believe that my time is up, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

The witnesses could send us a written note on this topic. This will give them time to think the question through and to prepare a useful document.

Ms. Pauzé, you have time for a question.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Before asking my question, I'll say something to Mr. Petelle and Ms. Stewart.

Your members produce chemicals that many regulators believe pose dangers. These dangers include acute poisoning, chronic illness in humans and toxicity to bees and other wildlife.

I imagine that you would agree with the need for more transparent regulations. We're proposing a public system to ensure traceability and accountability. I think that it would lend credibility.

Mr. Bouchard, my last question is for you.

You spoke about the per capita basis guiding the distribution of public funds for the clean water and wastewater fund. It seems that other parameters could be considered. What are these parameters?

[Jimmy Bouchard]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Pauzé.

The clean water and wastewater fund is a program linked to the federal infrastructure plan. The goal of this infrastructure plan is to ensure economic growth and job creation, which is a good thing. I think that it's a noble goal. However, the environmental impact of projects should be taken into consideration. In my opinion, the program's main goal must be changed.

If the main consideration for distributing these funds is the per capita basis, obviously preference will be given to projects that have a lower environmental impact. For example, in the case of the clean water and wastewater fund, there are ways to extend water systems or to supply new plants for economic development purposes. This comes at the expense of other projects that have a much higher environmental impact, such as pumping stations that would prevent waste water from being discharged directly into the environment.

I'll use the following image to show the people here. Saguenay, the city that I represent, is two and a half times larger than the island of Montreal. It has as many pumping stations, overflows and infiltration plants as the city of Montreal. However, its population is 15 times smaller.

As you can see, we can't succeed if we work this way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

Ms. Collins, you have time for one question, but you're on mute, I think.

There's also a button on the headset I'm told, on the ear.

That's much better. We have contact now.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I just switched it to the internal microphone, so I'm wondering if the interpreters are able to interpret well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, no.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'll cede my time. It's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Mazier.

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

How long do I have, three minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

My questions are for CropLife.

How could the federal government best support plant science to reduce the amount of fresh water needed to grow food?

[Pierre Petelle]

I mentioned gene editing as one example. There are crops that are being developed in more arid countries that will have an applicability to the Prairies, which are under severe drought conditions. There are crops being developed that have double the root mass of regular crops so that you're storing more carbon in the soil. I mentioned short-stature crops that are more resilient to strong winds and other weather events. As I said, on drought tolerance and saline tolerance, there's a problem in Manitoba and other parts of the country with high salinity soils over time.

These innovations are at our doorstep. What I mentioned the government can do is to enable the regulatory environment. Instead of looking at ways to try to block these things, they can find a way to bring them to market and make sure that it's done in a safe way. We're not afraid of a regulatory environment to make sure that the environment and health are protected, but let's do it in a way that's reasonable and predictable.

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

I think that's the challenge, right? We've been talking about what the regulatory avenue is for this to happen.

Could you submit basically a paper on that, the difference between gene editing, CRISPR and all of these new technologies versus the old mutagenesis model that we call non-GMO? It's a much more intrusive and prehistoric model, basically. Could you supply that information to us—

[Pierre Petelle]

Yes.

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

—and then relate it back to water, what it does for our food production systems and how it makes it more efficient?

How long has it been in trying to get this regulatory regime in place in Canada, to get the gene editing in place?

[Pierre Petelle]

As I said, we started about seven years ago to have discussions with the regulators. I think it took a couple of years just to get their attention. This wasn't on the doorstep yet, but the last few years have been encouraging and frustrating at the same time.

I think we're at the 11th hour. The last policy, we're hoping, will be published in March or April, we're told by the department. That will conclude the regulatory guidance for our members and others on how to bring these products to market in Canada.

At that point, we will probably be the number one jurisdiction in the world in terms of predictability and scientific criteria, but there's been some blood on the floor to get there.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield, you have the floor.