Evidence of meeting #99 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.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Just because Mr. Pietroniro hasn't had a chance to answer a question, maybe we could go to him first.
4:50 p.m.
Professor, Forum for Leadership on Water
From a monitoring perspective, I'd say we have to.... From an adaptive management perspective as well, you can't really manage what you don't monitor. I'll put that lens on it and say that we should probably look at expanding monitoring—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We need to do more monitoring.
Ms. Hendriks, very quickly, please.
4:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Restoration and Regeneration, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
We have existing funding programs, but I would want to see a freshwater and climate lens placed on them. When we work towards our global commitments to the biodiversity framework, I think there's a lot of opportunity, and the ENGO community has requested that we see a lens of biodiversity and fresh water specifically for this study, on that funding.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you.
I'd like to start with Nutrien.
The statistic that my colleague Dan Mazier mentioned is a very important one: 50% of the food produced is thanks to fertilizer. I think it's important to highlight that with a population of eight billion, we'd be looking at starving about four billion people if we didn't have the invention of the Haber-Bosch process. Therefore, I'd like to thank your industry for the work that you're doing to support rural communities and farmers and to, frankly, feed our entire population.
Now you did mention Nutrien's use of market-based mechanisms to drive grower adoption of lower-carbon products and practices. I'm just wondering if you could expand a little bit on what that program has looked like for Nutrien as part of a volunteering of farmers, and how that could work with water.
4:50 p.m.
Vice President, Sustainability and Stakeholder Relations, Nutrien Ltd.
Absolutely.
We use the nitrous oxide emission reduction protocol from the Alberta government plus the conservation cropping protocol. We work with growers on executing that protocol, which promotes higher nutrient use efficiency. Through that measurement we can pay them a price utilizing the federal carbon price for their greenhouse gas reductions and/or removals.
What's interesting in the project that we're working on in Manitoba with water is that if we focus on water conservation or water quality, ultimately, we believe there is a net benefit to greenhouse gas reductions as well, plus biodiversity. In a similar way, those volunteer programs could reward growers for their practice changes.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
You mentioned the 4R nutrient stewardship application practice. For those who might not understand, could you expand on what that process is, why it matters in terms of efficiency, and how it relates to the efficient use of water on plants?
4:50 p.m.
Vice President, Sustainability and Stakeholder Relations, Nutrien Ltd.
Mike, do you want to take this one?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Adviser, Agriculture and Environment Sustainability, Nutrien Ltd.
Sure.
4R outlines the right source of nutrients, the right rate at which they need to be applied for the crops, the right timing so that plant uptake is optimal, and then the right placement—so, making sure that, where possible, it's banded under a subsoil versus broadcast. All of these practices—combined with technologies such as enhanced efficiency fertilizers, nitrification inhibitors and other products, and digital technologies such as precision agriculture—can help optimize nutrient use, reduce potential loss to the environment, whether through water or the atmosphere, and optimize the use of water and nutrients in the farmers' fields to create a more productive and profitable crop that's more sustainable from an environmental standpoint.
February 27th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
That's great. Thank you, Mr. Nemeth.
Mr. Chair, in my remaining time I would like to move the motion that I spoke into the record at the last meeting of the environment committee regarding the Minister of Environment's announcement that there will be no more envelopes from the federal government to enlarge the road network, and asking that our committee condemn Minister Guilbeault's announcement.
Now I think it was perhaps the minister saying the quiet part out loud, and it obviously sent the Prime Minister's Office into a communications frenzy to try to backtrack on whether or not this government was, in fact, abandoning supporting all communities in their desire to increase the capacity of our roadways. Unfortunately, it seems as though, from the accidental announcement, this was intentional. It was a decision made by the cabinet with the intention of, I suppose, trying to curb emissions, taking Canada back to the Stone Age where we have no power, no vehicles, no new roads and, frankly, no wealth.
Obviously, the intention is to move people out of their cars and onto buses or some sort of mass transit system, which is so tone-deaf and out of touch with the vast majority of our nation's space.
Now, I did take note that the rural member of Parliament for Milton, in 2021, did say on Twitter, “Say it with me: building highways doesn't fight climate change,” so perhaps there is agreement across the caucus that, in fact, we should no longer be building highways and roads in this country.
It seems to be a bit at odds with the member of Parliament from Pontiac, however, who said, “I am very proud to be able to rely on the governments of Canada and Quebec to support the widening of Pink Road, as well as other initiatives.”
It seems to be very unclear.
What I know is very clear is this. I'm sure that when we were all back in the ridings last week, we had our mayors, our reeves, our city councils come up and say, “What is going on in Ottawa? Where did the idea that we would no longer be funding roads come from?” If you didn't hear that, you're not telling the truth.
I'll give you a real-world example from my riding. Highway 3 in Manitoba is extremely busy. It is full of passenger vehicles, farmers and a whole lot of trucks using it every single day to make sure that we have the goods where they need to be and people where they need to be. The twinning of sections of this highway will reduce accidents and make sure that those goods get where they need to be on time.
However, with this Liberal government's commitment to not fund such projects, it sends a terrible message to all those who live and work in my riding, and in rural Manitoba, and across rural Canada.
My understanding is that Minister Guilbeault, the government, had not spoken to any provincial or municipal officials before taking this extremist position of not building any more roads.
I think it was extremely reckless to, although accidentally, make a clear announcement of the intention. I know my colleagues across the way—the rural Liberal MP from Milton, from Guelph, from Aurora—Oak Ridges and from Pontiac—are either sitting in gridlock near a city, or they're travelling long distances. I can't fathom that there would be agreement from these members of Parliament with this government's position—with this war on cars and commuters and the movement of goods across our country.
My hope here today is that we recognize that this was a poor decision, a poor announcement, and that we make the choice to condemn it. I don't think we should just simply adjourn debate, given the diversity of opinions from my Liberal colleagues on this matter. I hope we can bring this to a vote.
We can have a debate on this—I'm more than happy to do so. However, rather than just adjourning debate and hiding these extremist positions of this radical environment minister, let's have a conversation about this and whether or not this country should be built up with the help of our federal government, or if we'd rather go back to horses and buggies.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, Chair.
I'll reread what the environment minister said, “Our government”— meaning the Liberal government—“has made a decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.”
Can you imagine that? A minister of the Crown...and his government actually backs it up. Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have backed up that statement. That is very disturbing, and it is a direct attack on rural Canada.
Let me be very clear. There are three policies that are hammering rural Canada. The first one is increasing the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. By increasing the carbon tax, the commissioner's already said it...and there are various agencies all across government that have acknowledged that, disproportionately, rural Canadians are being impacted by the carbon tax. They know that, and this government keeps on marching on with increasing that carbon tax.
The second one is banning gas-powered vehicles. That's another thing this minister....That's the goal—in 2035 we're going to have no more gas-powered vehicles in Canada. It's going to create a whole great shortage in Canada.
The third one is that we now have a minister saying we're not building any more roads and highways. Why not?
We know rural Canada and the rest of Canada needs highways to move around. We're a vast country. We need to move our goods. We need to make a living in Canada. We don't go anywhere without getting on a road in Canada, and this government wants to just get out of that and stop producing any types of roads. It's absolutely insane.
This is why this radical environment minister should be stopped. This is why we're bringing this motion forward. This is why you should go along with this, instead of talking against me, trying to draw me out and ignoring me. You should be paying attention.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Order.
Mr. van Koeverden and Mr. Mazier, this is not a debate between the two of you.
Mr. Mazier, you have the floor. Go ahead.
5 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
When people are shouting across, their microphones are not on. Those of us who are online can't actually hear what's going on.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You're not actually missing much on the back-and-forth. On the heckling, you're not missing much.
Go ahead, Mr. Mazier.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I find it quite interesting; I know that the NDP members represent lots of rural ridings, and I know that they get the impact of this statement. They should be absolutely appalled as well, like I am, from that statement.
Even just the notion that we're laughing about it; I can't understand why you're so not shocked about this. People in rural Canada are scared. This is a trifecta of policies that are just absolutely punishing rural Canada, and you don't get it. You don't care.
