Debates of Oct. 29th, 2020

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Looking after our fresh water is very important. It is the future of humanity.

Does my colleague not recognize the considerable danger inherent in his motion in terms of interfering in Quebec and provincial jurisdictions?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I thought I allayed that fear in my speech when I recognized at the outset that water is a provincial resource. That is very clear in the Constitution.

The federal government cannot do everything, so we need to collaborate. As far as I am concerned, the federal government is not trying to interfere in provincial jurisdictions on the issue of water. I have never seen any attempt to expand the federal government's jurisdiction over water, but it would be a good point to raise if the committee ever launches this study, which I think is overdue. It is time to focus on our water resources, especially in the context of climate change.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and his advocacy for freshwater.

We urgently need updates to our freshwater policies and legislation, but we also need to make sure our policies are based on a new nation-to-nation governance paradigm that is consistent with the principles of reconciliation and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The member mentioned the tragedy of continued boil water advisories in indigenous communities. It is important to note that the Neskantaga First Nation has not had access to clean drinking water for 25 years. It had to be evacuated during the pandemic, because it does not have running water. The government is responsible, and must act now.

When it comes to this bill and the creation of a Canada water agency, its mandate and functions should be co-developed with indigenous nations. That work takes time and should start immediately.

Does the member agree that the water agency should be co-developed with indigenous nations, that it should start now, and that the committee study should complement but in no way slow down, pause or put the creation of the agency on hold?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree entirely that the study should not get in the way of any initiative currently under way. It is complementary to a whole host of initiatives. I was told by the minister, in response to a question in the House, if I am not mistaken, that the government is consulting first nations on what they would like to see in the agency. I know first nations on the Atlantic have created a water authority, which is a wonderful idea. I hope the agency will have that kind of constructive relationship with that authority, because that might be a model for the future in other first nations communities.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and to deliver on behalf of my caucus some of the sentiments we share on the motion before us.

First of all, let me thank the sponsor of the motion for his advocacy on all issues related to fresh water. I recently joined the environment committee and I look forward to discussing this as well as other areas of interest. When I was first named the Conservative critic for environment and climate change, I stated that I would like for us to focus on things we can agree on and not exclusively focus on areas of disagreement.

I believe all Canadians and therefore their parties want to see tangible results on the environment, whether it be increasing critical habitat or decreasing emissions while returning hope to people who are right now without work.

We all represent Canadians with all kinds of different backgrounds and experiences. I think that we are united in our appreciation for these sometimes personal stories about the lives of these people who influence our work as parliamentarians. These stories shine through and speak to our shared values, challenges and aspirations.

I would like to share a story with the House. When my great-grandfather José Albas came to Canada from Spain with his wife Amanda and his two young children, he was only supposed to be stopping by here on his way to Argentina to work. However, life happens, as they say, and after struggling for many years, they ended up raising mink on the shores of Lac La Biche, Alberta, where the family fished to support their farm.

This livelihood did not make them wealthy, but it provided a stable living, in stark contrast to their earlier attempts at farming in other regions. My grandfather Joseph worked on the farm and eventually took over when his father died from an infection after being bitten by one of his animals. The work was hard, but my grandfather was not afraid of hard work. He relished in it. That all changed one day.

I heard conflicting reports of overfishing and some sort of discharge, and in fact, the article “Two Fish, One Fish, No Fish: Alberta's Fish Crisis” traces the history of fishing on Lac La Biche. It says, on page 14, “To add indignity to the mortal injury of overfishing, by the 1950s the essential watershed integrity that supported the lake and its fish populations had been compromised.” This was written by author Lorne Fitch.

They eventually had to abandon their mink farm, which I believe is now part of a golf course. It ended a delicate balance in the 1950s for my family and for many others, but in my mind, this story demonstrates how important our water can be, how sensitive these ecosystems can be and how harmful this damage can be to the creatures that live in the water and those who depend on it for sustenance, including local first nations and surrounding families like my own.

The motion put forward by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis calls for an extremely in-depth and expansive study of all aspects of Canada's freshwater policy. It is clearly stated to be a precursor study to the government's promise to bring in a Canada water agency.

To start with, I dislike members of a committee using House motions to control what the committee does. Before my colleagues across the way start saying my party did so with a motion recently, that was only necessary because their party was filibustering in committees and trying to stop important work. Whenever possible, committees need to determine their own operations, timetables and schedules.

Since the member for Lac-Saint-Louis also sits on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, he already knows that study proposals from all parties deserve special attention, and his motion as written would prevent them from happening.

I hope that, in committee, all parties will have the opportunity to carry out a study of their choice. I also hope that these studies will be short enough so that everyone will have a chance.

It is not just that. It may be literally impossible to meet the 30-day deadline. Our committee is already conducting a study from the member for Repentigny. The minister will be appearing next week. The report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development looked at this, and the restrictions imposed by the House administration limit the number of meetings that we can hold.

With respect to the intent of the motion itself, I too have concerns about freshwater protection and management in our country. Our survival and the survival of our communities depend on sources of safe, clean water. In my riding there are many rivers and lakes, such as Okanagan Lake and Nicola Lake.

The members for Kelowna—Lake Country, North Okanagan—Shuswap and I have repeatedly advocated for protections for the lakes and rivers in our regions. I personally raised with the minister the ongoing threat of invasive aquatic species to our freshwater lakes, species such as zebra and quagga mussels that continue to threaten our natural environment and way of life. Sadly, the Okanagan does not receive anywhere near the supports to address these challenges as other regions, particularly the Great Lakes.

I wish to continue to push for solutions to these threats. In the event the study occurs, that will be an important aspect to consider.

Another area of serious concern that relates to this motion is the impact from flooding events. Due to climate change, once-rare flood events are now much more common. One only has to look at my riding and region to know this is the case, particularly in the Nicola and Okanagan valleys. Serious flood events have become an annual challenge for many in my area, and obviously throughout Canada. Therefore, studying flood impacts, mitigation policies and infrastructure that deserves attention would be an effective use of our time.

It has been said that water policy and water infrastructure is an area of tremendous importance that the public rarely sees. For municipal governments, it is always a top issue. The needs to build water and waste-water infrastructure are never ending, yet this kind of infrastructure is expensive and is not as obvious to the public so it is often overlooked.

There may be certain advantages in having a coordinating body and that is something worth studying as well. Also, being able to examine the continued policy of the Liberals to allow huge amounts of raw sewage to be dumped into our water sources is essential.

It is abhorrent that this continues to happen in Canada with the approval of the Liberal Minister of the Environment. The Conservatives have long been opposed to the dumping of sewage into our waters, and the motion would give us an opportunity to examine the government’s ability to address it.

However, I have serious concerns about the motion, particularly with the creation of a Canada Water Agency. The Constitution assigns much of the jurisdiction over freshwater resources to provincial governments.

Creating a national agency to oversee and regulate all freshwater policies in Canada would clearly violate provincial jurisdiction. For example, Quebec and my home province of British Columbia have extensive hydroelectric power systems. They are provincially regulated, but if the federal government decided that it now controls freshwater management, it could interfere with provincial authorities.

Ontario will lose its voice in the International Joint Commission, which manages the Great Lakes, as the federal government takes over, and Manitoba will lose its authority over flood management.

If this motion were to pass, I look forward to speaking to provincial representatives at committee who can share the good work they are doing and the lack of need for the federal government to completely take over, in addition to provincial jurisdiction, a Canada water agency would have serious implications for reconciliation with indigenous people.

These are the issues I very much look forward to study at committee if this motion passes muster by this House.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. Again, I thank the member opposite for his contribution and sponsoring this motion tonight.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion moved by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I would like to begin by saying that I share all of the concerns that he raised, because we know that fresh water is life. The human body is two-thirds water. I call that an essential service. Protecting this resource is vital to the future of humanity.

However, it is important to recognize that Motion No. 34 is gargantuan. It would have the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development undertake a study focused on fresh water that would require, but not be limited to, a review of six federal laws and an examination of the roles of 11 public entities. The committee would also analyze intergovernmental relations at all levels relating to freshwater protection and management and the international treaties governing Canada's freshwater interests and obligations.

I have not even finished reading the motion, and I am already out of breath.

The motion also calls for the committee to consider research needs in that area and to analyze the pressures on the resource.

The motion also makes mention of climate change, flooding and drought, which I was pleased to see. Finally, the motion asks the committee to consider the possibility of creating a Canada water agency.

No one should be expected to do the impossible, but the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this motion, and our arguments are based on two things, the substance and the form.

Let us start with the substance.

Every element of the motion directly or indirectly involves a risk of significant interference in Quebec's jurisdiction. Quebec's provincial laws protect the lakes and rivers, and it is the Government of Quebec that takes action to guarantee the safety of the drinking water supply. The management of water resources is the responsibility of the provinces in which these resources are found.

In June 2009, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted an act to affirm the collective nature of water resources, which is very good, and to increase protection for water resources. The state is and must remain the steward of this resource. It is considered to be part of the heritage of the community. Quebec, not Canada, is the benevolent steward for future generations.

I agree that we are spoiled, given that 10% of our territory is covered by fresh water and we have 3% of the world's supply of water. Quebec believes that it has a major responsibility to protect and preserve this collective wealth.

Quebec decided to do this by taking an integrated watershed-based approach to water resource management. This means it promotes collaboration, and when it is time to talk about the protection and use of this blue gold, decision-makers, users and members of civil society are involved in analyzing the issues and seeking solutions.

The Bloc Québécois acknowledges that the federal government has jurisdiction over water in first nations communities. The federal government is working to eliminate the boil water advisories and to improve the water supply systems and waste water treatment systems.

However, the Bloc Québécois will never stand by as the federal government undermines Quebec's jurisdictions. It is in our DNA, and I must say that we are pretty wary these days. I know that the member for Lac-Saint-Louis touched on this in his speech, but with the throne speech, the infringements on areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces keep piling up. Once bitten, twice shy, as they say.

We also condemn the federal government's attempt to overstep its jurisdiction by speaking directly to municipalities, which report exclusively to their legislatures.

Let us talk about the Canada water agency. Yes, we agree about co-operation, but the Canada water agency would become the 12th public organization, and its objectives can be met in other ways, without creating another bureaucratic agency and undermining respect for jurisdictions, which is important.

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis spoke about co-operation, but such organizations already exist. For example, there is the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors & Premiers. This is a real venue for co-operation, but the proposed Canada water agency is a federal agency. It is not the same thing.

How can that be done without the Canada water agency? We can lean on existing expertise and promote collaboration among the 11 government entities listed in the motion.

One very good example of a federal disconnect that could be fixed is the disconnect between environmental protection and the Canada Shipping Act. Transport Canada has jurisdiction over navigation. The bigger a vessel is, the more it stirs up sediment, causes shoreline erosion, increases the amount of phosphorus and algae in the water, and disturbs fish spawning grounds.

The Canada Shipping Act was updated in 2006. It established regulations governing the design of pleasure craft and where they are allowed to go, but it does not address the number of vessels in a given location at all, even though it could.

Let me share a very specific example. Lac des Sables in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts can accommodate 54 boats, but because Transport Canada does not regulate this, the lake regularly hosts up to 400 boats. The federal government can regulate pleasure craft, but Quebec cannot. That is one example of something that could be done. It is important to protect the water in our lakes. Many people get their drinking water from our lakes.

There is also a disconnect in agricultural practices, particularly with respect to agricultural runoff, which accelerates eutrophication in lakes. We could go on and on about this as well.

The lake heritage of Quebec and the rest of Canada is being weakened by the lack of collaboration between federal officials, on the one hand, but also by the quality of their discussions with their Quebec counterparts. There could be a facilitating role, like for the protection of the Quebec and Ontario shores of the Ottawa River. This exists.

This brings me to the second part of my presentation. I repeat, there are venues for collaboration. I named one earlier, the Canada water agency. It is a federal agency. It is not the collaborative agency that already exists. The Government of Canada has a public service with a multitude of managers, coordinators, analysts and more. The Government of Canada has thousands of analysts and experts within its public service and its network of chairs and research institutes who would be ideally suited to do the work that we are asking elected officials on this committee to do in less than 40 hours.

Committees must deal with motions whose substance could, it seems to me, be studied properly. There should be more concrete motions. The experts, the analysts who have to receive the order are the ones who should study it, at least if we really want to get answers.

I have some concerns about sending such a broad motion to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I think House committees should be places of work, where members carry out their duties as elected officials co-operatively, without resorting to the usual partisan tactics, in the interest of the common good and, most importantly, in the interest of getting results.

We need to have the humility to acknowledge who would be best equipped to handle this important but extremely tall order from the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. Let us work instead on getting results that all parliamentarians can appreciate. They can figure out how to move forward on major issues, conduct additional work, and, ultimately, enable the government to fulfill its role as the legislator.

I would have liked this motion to be revised to avoid any wording that implies interfering in provincial jurisdictions. I would then have liked it to be broken down into several parts so that the committee could concentrate on one aspect and get tangible results.

I do not know where this saying comes from, but the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. This motion is so big that I think it is well suited to my suggestion today. I think everyone in the House and in committee would benefit if we were to narrow down this motion.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this motion directs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to undertake a comprehensive study on federal policies and legislation relating to fresh water, and we do need changes to our laws on fresh water.

Canada is facing new and intensifying water challenges and we need to modernize our approach to freshwater management along with Canada’s outdated federal freshwater legislation. However, the government has committed to the creation of a Canada water agency and it is aware of the most significant flaws in our waters laws. Therefore, it is important that this study not stop, pause or slow down the creation of the Canada water agency or the updating of the Canada Water Act.

There is no denying that the challenges we face when it comes to the protection and sustainability of our fresh water have changed drastically over the past few decades. This is why we need a new approach to freshwater management. If we want to ensure Canada’s waters are resilient to climate change, safe for human health and sustainable in the long term, we need to do this work.

We know that climate change is already impacting freshwater issues and the challenges are increasing in severity. However, climate change has also created new and complex issues, such as rising sea levels and increased severe weather systems. Addressing these challenges to our freshwater systems requires coordination and an integrated response at the federal level. Unfortunately our outdated federal water laws and policies failed to account for climate impacts both now and in the future.

In particular, water-based natural disasters like flooding and droughts, but also disasters like toxic algae blooms and climate fires, are increasing exponentially both in frequency and severity. This events cost governments billions of dollars, first in direct disaster assistance but also impact our economic revenue and indirectly cost billions more. Canada’s capacity to manage these events is severely hampered by a lack of data and reporting, a lack of national forecasting and prediction capacity and a failure to adequately incorporate climate change impacts.

I want to recognize my New Democrat colleague, the MP for London—Fanshawe, and her bill, Bill C-245, which calls for a freshwater strategy and also explicitly includes consultation with indigenous peoples. Indigenous water rights are inadequately recognized in our current water management systems.

We need to ensure that our policies are based on a new nation-to-nation governance paradigm, that our policies are consistent with the principles of reconciliation and that they are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We need to ensure that all our water laws recognize indigenous nations’ inherent rights to self-determination.

In addition to these issues, our water management capacity is also fragmented across over 20 different federal departments and this governance model impedes governments at all levels across the country and makes our shared water challenges even more challenging. On top of that, watersheds and river basins are composed of many overlapping jurisdictions. Local, provincial, indigenous and federal governments have at times lacked the capacity or the means to effectively work together. Transboundary watersheds and river basins shared by Canada and the U.S. are also in need of governance renewal.

The first step to addressing this is to establish a Canada water agency. While the Liberals have committed to this in the most recent throne speech, which is a positive sign, we have heard many environmental promises from the government before. What we really want to see is action. The government has missed every climate target it has set. It is even failing to meet Stephen Harper’s weak climate targets. It said that it would have a plan to meet our international climate commitments “immediately” after the throne speech. Over a month has passed and still no sign of the plan.

While I am glad the water agency was mentioned in the throne speech, with no timeline attached and with Liberals not moving forward on the things they said they would tackle immediately, like climate targets, I have to admit that I am skeptical the government will put action behind its words. The water agency is important and we should, at the very least, be getting started now. Its mandate and functions should be codeveloped with indigenous nations. They should also be developed in close collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, local authorities, water organizations and the public.

Creating the Canada water agency is just the first step. There is a huge need for broader reforms, including in the Canada Water Act, and the agency would ideally be the foundation needed to start transforming the way water is managed.

The Canada Water Act, which urgently needs updating, is Canada’s primary federal freshwater legislation. It has not been adequately or significantly updated in decades. It does not currently reflect or adequately respond to the issues that I outlined, including the impacts of climate change and addressing indigenous water rights. The act also needs to address the evolving role that the private insurance industry plays in flood risk mitigation and damage reduction. I want to acknowledge the work of FLOW, an organization that has been fighting for these issues for a long time.

In the same way the water agency needs to be codeveloped with indigenous peoples, updating the Canada Water Act should involve a legislative, consent-based codrafting process with indigenous nations. This process needs to be rooted in nation-to-nation relationships. It has to be consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This motion, which instructs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to review federal water policies, may help identify ways forward, but the study should not slow down the urgently needed work. There is no need to wait for the results of the study to begin updating the Canada Water Act.

Many organizations, like FLOW and others, have worked hard and identified comprehensive data on the gaps in our freshwater legislation and have identified ways forward. This important work will take time to codevelop with indigenous nations and other partners, and could and should start now.

One of the pieces mentioned in this motion is the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. In 2012, the Harper government's omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45, removed key legal protections from over 99% of Canada’s lakes and rivers. In 2015, the Liberals committed to reviewing the previous government's changes and to restore lost protections. Unfortunately, the amendments in the bill did not fully live up to the government's promise to restore lost protections of waterways. It restored some, and the restored legal protections are narrowly focused. They exclude environmental values and in some cases are substantially weaker than the pre-2012 version of the law. The consideration of environmental impacts of projects was not reinstated. However, despite these flaws, it does represent in general a positive step forward from the Harper era that decimated navigable water protections in Canada. I hope this motion can address some of the flaws that remain in this legislation.

I am passionate about this issue. Watershed protection is one of the things that got me involved in politics. I want to thank my sister, Georgia Collins, for her leadership when a contaminated soil dump was proposed at the head of the watershed that provided drinking water to her community of Shawnigan Lake. She helped mobilize her community and got me involved. It was being involved in that ultimately successful fight to stop the project that taught me about and sparked my passion for protecting freshwater, and taught me about the dangers that exist for Canada’s watersheds and river basins.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has just started its first study this week. It concerns me that this motion circumvented the regular process of choosing studies at the steering committee, and I initially worried that it might impede the work of the committee or that it could slow down the needed work on freshwater legislation. However, I want to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his passion for freshwater protection and his willingness to work across party lines.

I have consulted with my colleague, the sponsor of Motion No. 34. I would like to move the following amendment. I hope he will accept it as a friendly amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting subsection (i) and by replacing “(ii) schedule no fewer than 10 meetings, (iii)” with the following: “(i) schedule no fewer than seven meetings, (ii)”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I consent to the amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Ms. Collins, could you confirm your seconder, please?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment is in order.

We will now go to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Western Economic Diversification Canada) and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (Canada Water Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my thanks to the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for bringing forward Motion No. 34, which asks the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to undertake a comprehensive study of federal policies and legislation relating to fresh water. His leadership on fresh water has been outstanding, and he is respected on all sides of this House for his knowledge and commitment in this important area.

The Government of Canada is committed to safeguarding our country's freshwater resources for generations to come. No resource is more important to Canadians than fresh, clean water. Our lives and livelihoods depend on it. Motion No. 34 provides an opportunity for this government to continue to show our commitment to address freshwater issues.

Internationally, water is recognized in many fora as a critical resource that needs protection from ongoing challenges. Since 2012, the World Economic Forum has consistently ranked the impact of water-related challenges, such as the decline in water quality and quantity, in the top five global risks to economies and societies. In its “The Global Risks Report 2020”, three out of the top five issues have links to water, including climate action failure, biodiversity loss and extreme weather.

Here in Canada, fresh water is integral to our economy, society, identity and culture, and is central to indigenous harvesting activities and cultural practices. In fact, Canada has 20% of the world's fresh water and the third largest renewable supply of fresh water. For example, the Great Lakes watershed, shared by Canada and the United States, is the largest freshwater lake system in the world, and with this water wealth comes great responsibility to protect this precious resource.

I would like to take some time now to discuss some of the existing work the federal government is doing to protect our vital freshwater resources.

The Government of Canada has decades of experience undertaking watershed protection initiatives in collaboration with provincial governments, indigenous communities and stakeholders. Canada is committed to working and collaborating with others to restore and protect our freshwater resources through arrangements such as the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health, the Canada–Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence, and the Canada-Manitoba Memorandum of Understanding Respecting Lake Winnipeg and the Lake Winnipeg Basin.

In the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Government of Canada committed to further protections and taking active steps to clean up the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Simcoe and other large lakes. This commitment builds on existing national and regional programming that contributes to the restoration and protection of Canada's freshwater resources.

In 2017, we invested $70.5 million to protect the Great Lakes and the Lake Winnipeg basin. Of this investment, $44.84 million over five years was provided to the Great Lakes protection initiative in order to take action to address the most significant environmental challenges affecting Great Lakes water quality and ecosystem health. This funding supports efforts to address priorities of reducing phosphorus loading to Lake Erie, assessing and enhancing the resilience of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, evaluating and identifying at-risk, nearshore waters, reducing releases of harmful chemicals and increasing public engagement through citizen science.

From budget 2017, $25.8 million was also provided to the Lake Winnipeg basin program. We have invested in a wide range of projects that focus on actions to reduce excessive nutrients, such as phosphorous, from entering the lake, as well as projects that enhance collaboration through the basin and that support indigenous engagement on freshwater issues.

In addition, Environment and Climate Change Canada provides support to 16 international joint commission, binational boards and is also supporting four domestics interjurisdictional water boards. They are the Prairie Provinces Water Board, the Mackenzie River Basin Board, the Lake of the Woods Control Board and the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board.

Our government administers and enforces a number of water-related laws that are mentioned in the motion. For example, Environment and Climate Change Canada administers and enforces the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Environment and Climate Change Canada regulates releases of toxins into water, limits nutrients in cleaning products and requires companies to prepare emergency plans. In addition, the Canada Water Act provides the framework for co-operation with provinces and territories in the conservation, development and use of Canada's water resources.

Recognizing the importance of integrating scientific considerations into decision-making, the Government of Canada supports investments in freshwater scientific research.

Domestically, the Government of Canada is collaborating with many scientific organizations, experts and networks to address water challenges in Canada. In budget 2017, the government allocated $197.1 million to increase ocean and freshwater science, monitoring and research activities.

Environment and Climate Change Canada freshwater monitoring activities also provide critical data and information to implement departmental mandates and guide decision-making. For example, the department's National Hydrological Service collects, manages and shares water quantity data in partnership with provincial and territorial partners at more than 2,800 active monitoring stations across Canada.

The National Hydrological Service also supports the International Joint Commission, which works to protect water shared by Canada and the United States on water management of transboundary waters.

In 2019, the Government of Canada invested $89.7 million to modernize the National Hydrological Service to support earlier and more accurate information about freshwater resources. This investment will help to ensure the sustainability of the government's water monitoring networks which in turn will help prepare Canadians through water-related disasters like flooding and droughts.

Environment and Climate Change Canada also manages, in collaboration with other federal departments and provincial and territorial governments, the freshwater quality monitoring and surveillance program designed to be relevant for freshwater decision-making processes. The program disseminates timely information on freshwater quality and aquatic ecosystems across the country.

Across the country indigenous peoples, non-indigenous Canadians and the government are contributing meaningfully to reconciliations efforts by supporting nature conservation initiatives. For example, in budget 2017, the Government of Canada announced $25 million over four years to support an indigenous guardians program.

This has been mentioned a few times by other colleagues. As my colleague, the member for Victoria mentioned, in the Speech from the Throne, this government reaffirmed its commitment to developing a Canada water agency. A Canada water agency presents an incredible opportunity for greater collaboration in Canada to protect and manage our freshwater resources sustainably. It is a government commitment that the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change has asked me to advance, and I do that proudly.

Earlier this year we began to gather Canadian's views on what a Canada water agency could do. Over the last several months we have had initial discussions with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and have met with many organizations and stakeholders.

We created an online PlaceSpeak website, where Canadians can go to provide their thoughts on freshwater priorities and potential roles for the agencies. More than 6,000 Canadians visited the site, demonstrating a significant interest in this topic.

The Government of Canada will be working hard over the next few months to undertake engagement with provinces and territories, importantly, indigenous peoples across this land, stakeholders and the public to create a Canada water agency that will help keep our freshwater resources safe, clean and well managed.

In my estimation, my hon. colleague's Motion No. 34 provides another opportunity to advance this government's commitment to further protect and manage freshwater resources, including potentially contributing to the creation of a Canada water agency, which by the way, will not be a regulatory agency, will respect provincial jurisdiction and will work across disciplines, across governments—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Small Business

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is my first time rising for Adjournment Proceedings in the House. I am simply here to ask the government to provide greater clarity on the CEBA program and the timelines involved, and to try to get a better understanding of the challenges the government faced implementing the program.

I am not interested in the statistics surrounding who has benefited or what the program was designed to do. I am fully aware of this, as are many Canadians who have successfully applied to the program. What I and many MPs want to know, along with countless Canadians, is why so many small business owners and farmers were left behind and left feeling forgotten.

I kindly ask the minister who is responding to try to put herself in the position of the small business owners and farmers, like the dozens I heard from across Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and the thousands across this great country, who have been asking questions and addressing their concerns to us since the inception of this program in April.

I would like to note that the Conservatives alone have brought this issue up with the CEBA over 30 times in the House. We in opposition have constantly pushed the government to make changes and adaptations to the program so that it actually works for the majority of small business owners and farmers.

Small businesses are the backbone of our communities, and every one of us MPs should always be standing up for and advocating on behalf of the hard-working, talented, industrious and brave small business owners and farmers in our ridings. This is why I am here this evening, and one of the fundamental factors as to why I got involved in politics.

Initially, senseless rules excluded many small business owners from the CEBA. The primary problem under the initial criteria was that small business owners must have had a pre-existing business account to qualify. Sole proprietors typically use a chequing account rather than a business account, and thus they did not qualify. My colleagues and I pushed for two simple corrections to the loan criteria: First, remove the requirement to have a business account to qualify for the CEBA, and second, expand the eligibility criteria for the CEBA to include revenue decline so that more small businesses qualified for the $40,000 loan.

However, it took a long time. It was not until August 31 that the government announced it was working closely with financial institutions to make the CEBA program available to those who qualify with qualifying payroll or non-deferrable expenses but, so far, had been unable to apply due to not operating from a business bank account. The Liberals committed then to making this happen. However, I note that it was just an announcement that they were going to look into it.

The problem with that unclear announcement, and many of the unclear announcements with no clear implementation date, was that it added to the confusion of those business owners and farmers struggling in my riding and in many ridings across the country. Many of these small business owners heard the news in August and took it to mean that they could then apply, so they did. Some applied once and some eight or nine times, without getting any explanation for why they were rejected. They would call the 1-800 number. They would wait on hold for six or eight hours. They would sometimes get a call back one day, two days or three days later.

These are hard-working individuals who had been waiting for the promised changes for nearly two months. They had been waiting on the government to take action on its commitments and these delays had negative impacts on their businesses, families and mental health as they wondered how they were going to get by.

It was not until this past Monday that the government announced that the CEBA would finally be available to businesses that had been operating out of a non-business banking account. However, that really is not true, and it could even be said that the government has been misleading Canadians. The Liberals' news release on Monday is titled, “Canada Emergency Business Account now open to businesses using personal banking accounts”. However, those using personal chequing accounts are still not eligible for CEBA. Those interested in making use of the CEBA program must open a business account with their financial institution.

To be clear, the government is claiming that the Canada emergency business account is now open to businesses using personal banking accounts. This means that you are eligible, but applicants have to create a new business account in order to be able to apply. They are not eligible from their personal account.

The government may have legitimate reasons for this decision. However, these small business owners, farmers and all Canadians deserve to know why. Why did it take the government so long to implement these changes?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interest in helping our small businesses through our Canada emergency business account.

I am very proud of this program. As the members know, it is an interest-free loan and it is partially forgivable. Entrepreneurs right across the country have been saying how important this lifeline was to them.

I would also note that the scale and the speed with which we came out with the CEBA loan program is virtually unparalleled anywhere else in the world. In April, we rolled out this emergency loan program for our businesses, mere days or weeks after the beginning of the pandemic in this country. It has already delivered over $30 billion in emergency credit to about 770,000 Canadian businesses.

Let me get to the question that my colleague is raising. I am very pleased that we were able to ensure that everybody, including those who have personal accounts rather than business accounts, will now be able to use the CEBA loan program. As the member noted, an announcement was made several weeks ago now, but on Monday, the CEBA loan program is now available through financial institutions for people who do have personal accounts. I think that is an important step forward.

We did negotiate with our financial institutions. Our banks are delivering this program. Government is not doing it alone. We did need to work with our financial institutions in order to make this possible, and now it is possible.

I would also note that in the last few weeks we also indicated that we would be expanding the CEBA loan program, and CEBA would go from $40,000 as it has been since April, to $60,000. This additional $20,000 loan would have up to half of it being forgivable upon timely repayment. In total, we are talking about $20,000 that could be forgivable for this important loan that is helping so many small businesses.

I would also like to address another concern that was raised, I believe, by this member in the House with respect to call centres. It is important for clarification and for all of my colleagues in the House and online to note that the call centre, which was initially set up in the summer, was very successfully responding to thousands of calls from small business owners who had questions. The volume increased to an extent that it became a callback centre, and calls are being returned now within 48 to 72 hours. We are getting good feedback from our entrepreneurs, indicating how helpful the agents are in responding to questions.

I am happy to answer a follow-up question from my colleague opposite if there is one.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would really just like an answer to the question. Why the delay? We started to identify these shortfalls in the CEBA program as early as May, yet it was over six months before those changes were finally made.

Again, what I would like an answer on is why the government keeps making announcements of what it wants to do or what we will do, without making it crystal clear when it is actually going to implement them or execute them.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my initial response, government is not able to execute this type of emergency loan program on its own. It is our partnership with our banks and financial institutions across the country that allows business owners to use the program. I believe, in some cases, banks are able to transfer the money within hours, if not days. We very much rely on our banks in order to provide this service.

As members can imagine, the due diligence that banks have been undertaking for business accounts was not possible with personal accounts. This is why it took the extra time. It is why we have worked so hard over these last number of weeks and months in order to make it possible for everybody to benefit from the CEBA loan. I am very proud that everybody with a personal account will be able to use this emergency business account.

Public Safety

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually during Adjournment Proceedings to address a question I asked on October 19, not that long ago, in relation to the ongoing conflicts between the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia and non-indigenous fishermen, and more specifically in the context of systemic racism.

We know that the name Donald Marshall, Jr., as I said on October 19, will always be remembered in Canada as synonymous with injustice and systemic racism. He was jailed for 11 years for a crime he did not commit, and when he was finally out of jail, he continued to play a significant role in indigenous rights for the Mi'kmaq people. Two different court cases bear his name.

The Marshall case stands for the proposition that, of course, the treaties of peace and friendship of 1760-61 established that Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy rights to land and resources were never surrendered. Donald Marshall took the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada because the simple act of fishing eels was considered out of season, even though it was completely within Mi'kmaq fishing rights.

The systemic racism that I want to address is deeper than the RCMP's actions in failing to protect the Mi'kmaq lobster catch or the lobster pound in West Pubnico, where the Mi'kmaq catch was being stored. As we know, it was burned to the ground while the RCMP stood by. In my question on October 19, I asked why there is never any shortage of well-equipped RCMP officers to move in to arrest non-violent indigenous protesters protecting their land and resources anywhere across Canada, but particularly in my home province of British Columbia, yet there is somehow a failure of the RCMP to protect indigenous property. It is much deeper than these several episodes.

Let us look at the statistics of how injunctions are granted. It is injunction law that allows RCMP officers to be converted from public security and public safety officers into essentially the private police of corporations operating on indigenous lands. The Yellowhead Institute, in a study from October 2019, noted that when corporations go to court and seek injunctions to prevent indigenous people from interrupting their commercial enterprises, corporations succeed before the courts in gaining injunctions 76% of the time. In contrast, when indigenous people go to court to seek injunctions to protect their land from corporate operations, they are rejected 81% of the time. Thus, the system in which we operate is, again, systemically racist in that the RCMP are far more likely to show up for corporations.

In the case of the Elsipogtog, there were indigenous actions against fracking back in 2013 in New Brunswick. Mi'kmaq residents, in full possession of their rights, in a non-violent protest against fracking, had the police show up with attack dogs. They showed up well armed and arrested people. They arrested them forcefully. This is quite an outrage when we look at the history of how the RCMP operate to enforce injunctions to protect resource-extracting companies. Their rights to extract resources come right up against indigenous rights recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, yet over and over again, it is indigenous people who are not protected by the RCMP while corporations are.

When we look at what has happened in British Columbia, certainly injunctive relief was available—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has four minutes to answer.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you even through the use of technology. I also want to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands whom I am pleased to see again.

As usual, she is raising very important questions. I very much appreciated the information she provided on the injunctions and the disproportionate share that is granted to the corporations. It is an interesting element that I will look into. It is true that systemic racism is not limited to the actions of the RCMP. It is much more widespread than that. It is institutional. We acknowledge it, we condemn it and we are working to resolve it.

I also want to thank her for allowing me to say a few words about the situation in Nova Scotia. This situation happened in the wake of the implementation of livelihood fishing by the Sipekne'katik nation. I will begin by saying a few words about the criminal acts that were committed during the dispute between the first nation and the commercial fishers.

Our government clearly condemns the racism, violence and crimes committed during this conflict. We implore all those involved to support constructive efforts for peaceful de-escalation and dialogue. Moreover, all of this is taking place while we continue to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Our government remains committed to reconciliation and the development of a new and improved relationship with indigenous peoples, one based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and collaboration.

While the RCMP has faced complex issues this year, it continues to work to build meaningful, lasting relationships with indigenous peoples. It would be a shame to let the criminal acts committed in this conflict undermine these efforts. Any lasting resolution to this dispute must be based on the recognition of the legitimate Mi'kmaq treaty rights.

This means that the threats, racism, violence and intimidation must stop. The primary role of any police force is to protect the public and enforce the laws, including the Criminal Code of Canada. All Canadians enjoy the fundamental freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and demonstration. They should be able to exercise those freedoms safely.

However, resorting to violence and putting lives in danger to protest a situation is totally unacceptable. The people responsible for these crimes must be held to account. The RCMP takes its role of ensuring public safety very seriously and has been on site since the start of the conflict. At the same time, the governments, namely the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia, are trying to make the parties reach a lasting solution based on the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Mi'kmaq and the treaties.

Charges have been laid and multiple investigations are under way into crimes against persons, in particular the violent assault of Chief Michael Sack. The police is also investigating crimes against property, such as the fire at the lobster pound on October 19. This is a sad episode in our collective history.

To further increase the capacity of the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness approved a request put forward by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia to increase, as needed, the number of RCMP members under contract present in Nova Scotia so they can keep the peace as is their duty. To say that the RCMP police presence in the region is unusually high would be an understatement. It will continue to be high as long as necessary. The increased and enhanced presence of the RCMP includes officers in uniform ensuring greater visibility of law enforcement and carrying out random patrols in communities.

In addition to officers in uniform there are more strategic tactical operations officers from several authorities. Furthermore, RCMP officers patrol the waters in the region depending on the needs and the RCMP emergency response team has a vessel for immediate deployment if necessary.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to contrast for parliamentarians the notion of indigenous people having the right to a moderate livelihood in the lobster fishery of Nova Scotia with Clearwater Seafoods. Its founder, John Risley, has a net worth of $1.2 billion from fishing in Mi'kmaq waters. Clearwater Seafoods has been found guilty by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of gross violations of conservation rules, such as leaving lobster traps on the ocean floor over a period of years, allowing for an illegal catch to take place. Clearwater Seafoods does not have the RCMP showing up to give it a hard time. Clearwater Seafoods takes a huge resource, and I am not against that. I just think the contrast between corporate rights and exploitation and the way indigenous people have been treated in this, seeking a moderate livelihood, is a scandal. I would ask all of us to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will give the parliamentary secretary one minute to respond.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, one minute is not very much time to talk about the serious issues raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

At the request of the Nova Scotia government, the RCMP was sent to help protect people and maintain law and order. That is what everyone should expect here. We need to de-escalate the situation. That is vital. The RCMP will play a role in that.