Debates of Jan. 27th, 2021

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak in this House today in representing the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap. Although my participation is virtual, I strongly believe that it is important for members' voices from across the country to be provided opportunities to be heard in the debates, especially in times of adversity, such as we are currently facing.

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis has introduced Motion No. 34, which is a substantial motion that seeks to direct the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to undertake a lengthy and comprehensive study of many aspects of Canada's policy and legislation related to fresh water, including international treaties governing water. The motion also proposes that within the study the committee specifically focus on the creation of a Canada water agency.

Reading this motion, I was reminded of my work at the fisheries committee nearly four years ago, when the fisheries minister directed the committee to set aside its existing work plan to undertake a review of the Fisheries Act in preparation for legislation the government was planning to introduce. We are told as parliamentarians that committees are masters of their own destiny and work plans. Here we again have a member of the governing party attempting to set the committee's work plan from outside the committee.

Parliamentary committees were never meant to operate at the behest of the governing party; rather, they are empowered to act independently to identify and study matters they deem to be of importance. The sponsor of this motion wants this House to impose a study plan on the environment committee when the government members of that committee could simply have proposed the study themselves at the committee table, which is the appropriate place for future business of committees to be discussed and determined.

The committee's work is meant to occur according to the will of the committee, not of the governing party. When the House becomes the voice and the hand of the Prime Minister's office, telling committees and parliamentarians what to do and when to do it, we effectively erode the independence afforded members and standing committees in the Standing Orders.

I noticed the sponsoring member had a previous intervention on this motion in which he stated his long interest in water. This is indeed an interest I share, as I have long held an interest in Canada's water resources and especially the fish and other species that live therein.

Before I was a parliamentarian, I dedicated much of my life to conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitat. In that role as a conservationist, l learned of the importance of Canada's freshwater systems and the species of wildlife and communities of Canadians that our fresh waters sustain.

When I view the government's performance on protecting Canada's freshwater resources, I see two critical areas where the government has failed to address significant threats to Canada's freshwater systems.

The first of these, I note, is the Liberal government's failure to deliver actions and resources required to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species, or AIS, to Canada's water systems. My riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap spans a boundary between two major watersheds in British Columbia: the Okanagan, which feeds into the mighty Columbia, and the Shuswap, which feeds into the Fraser River. It is well known and one of North America's greatest salmon-producing rivers. These two networks of fresh water are massive and cover a large portion of British Columbia and three U.S. states. If AIS infestations occur in these systems, the ecological and economic damages will be permanent.

These networks of fresh water and the salmon stocks that the water has historically supported are extremely important to both the histories and futures of indigenous and non-indigenous communities alike. However, the Liberal government has repeatedly chosen inaction over action when it comes to protecting these fresh waters that sustain our precious salmon stocks.

In 2019, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development provided the House with a report on AIS, in which she concluded that Canada's lakes, rivers and oceans are poorly protected against aquatic invasive species. The commissioner also included that the cost for prevention of AIS was much lower than the cost of managing or trying to eradicate them after introduction occurs.

Similar conclusions and warnings were also delivered to the government in the report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled in the House last November.

Despite these warnings and calls to action for the sake of protecting Canada's freshwater and the habitats they embody, the Liberal government has failed to deliver protection to our freshwater.

Should this motion be supported by the members of the House and initiate a study by the environment committee, I would hope that the committee would grant due consideration to the protections, or lack of protections, of Canada's freshwater against the spread of aquatic invasive species. Also, if the motion leads to a study, I hope the study will assess the roles and responsibilities of the federal government and those of the provinces and territories in what should be a united and coordinated effort to protect our freshwater resources and establish contingency plans for responding to threats and such introductions of aquatic invasive species.

The second failure of the government that I raise is its plan to defer, by amendment, deadlines for the implementation of federal waste-water treatment effluent regulations. Last summer, when the government was embroiled in the WE scandal and Canadians and the news media were distracted from other actions of the government, the current Minister of Environment, who is a previous fisheries minister, announced that his government intended to extend the prohibition deadline for dumping of untreated sewage into Canadian waters.

While the previous Conservative government established these national standards and set deadlines for the implementation, the Liberal government wants to suspend those protections for years by deferring implementation deadlines. If the Liberal government, the Minister of Environment and the sponsor of the motion are serious about protecting Canada's freshwater, why are they undermining protections that were supposed to be in place and operating this year?

This is but one more example of a government full of promises and empty of actions, and another example of how it disincentivizes compliance actions that actually protect our waters. Waste-water systems effluent regulations set national effluent quality standards and came into effect in 2015. Communities with systems that did not apply were able to apply for extensions or transitional authorizations before June 2014. Many communities applied, but some did not. Those communities that failed to apply will now be given another deferral. This is not the leadership or stewardship that our freshwater resources deserve.

Again, it is an honour to represent the citizens of the North Okanagan—Shuswap and to participate in this important debate on the essential matter of conserving our freshwater. Anyone who has visited or lived in the North Okanagan—Shuswap will understand how important water is to the people here.

Water and the species therein have sustained habitants here for a millennia. It has been a means of transportation for just as long and even more so with the development of our most western province. Water, fisheries and especially our Pacific salmon are extremely important to us in the North Okanagan—Shuswap. If this study occurs, I hope it will lead to greater awareness of the importance of our water and the effective protection needed.

I will continue to advocate on behalf of my constituents on the issues I raised today and all issues important to them.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I spent some time rereading Motion No. 34.

As an observer of Canadian politics, I was reminded that centralization at the expense of the provinces never works in the Canadian federation. Attempts at centralization are often rationalized by the argument that Ottawa knows best, and that was what pushed me to get involved in politics and stand up for the interests of Quebec. Today's motion is in the same vein, in that it is a direct infringement on provincial jurisdictions. This aspect is particularly troubling to me, and I will come back to it later.

In addition to the infringement on provincial jurisdictions, the motion would paralyze the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for 10 meetings, which is a big deal. I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but I think I speak for most parliamentarians when I say that we can smell a hint of impending elections in the air. We would be paralyzing the committee for 10 meetings for a bill that is not clear in its intentions. We do not really know what the mandate of the Canadian water agency would be. The committee would be tied up for 10 meetings even though there are many other things it should be looking at first, such as our climate change proposal. I think the committee would be more interested in studying climate change than in this infringement on provincial jurisdiction over fresh water.

My first question is this: Does this subject justify paralyzing the committee for 10 meetings? I do not think so. That is why I will vote against this motion, and I hope my party will do likewise because we have received the signal.

Another subject that should be examined in committee is the recovery, which will eventually happen. The recovery plan the government is currently proposing focuses on two main areas of activity. The first is the electrification of transportation, which, as everyone knows, will help Ontario's automotive sector. The second is fossil fuels, including the ridiculous announcement we heard recently regarding the production of hydrogen from oil and gas. It seems to me, then, that by tying up the committee with this motion, we will not be able to focus on the critical issue of possible green stimulus measures that could be introduced.

On the face of it, I do not see how, in the short time available to us, we could devote 10 meetings to the fresh water issue without slowing down the work of the committee, which is much more urgent.

Last summer, I had the opportunity to visit many watershed organizations in my riding. Quebec is home to many such organizations. Some that come to mind include my friends from Lac Kénogami and my friends from Lac Labrecque. These people all told me that their biggest hurdle is the fact that the Canadian Navigable Waters Act is a federal piece of legislation. For example, navigation speeds must be federally approved. These people are having a hard time putting standards in place because the federal government is sluggish and reluctant to act. When it comes to legitimate concerns about the protection of the shorelines of several lakes in Quebec, we cannot legislate because that falls under federal jurisdiction.

My fear is that if this motion is adopted, another layer of bureaucracy will be added and many boaters and people who believe in the management of their waterways will lose a significant portion of them. This remains to be seen as well.

The issue of traffic management was raised several times as was water quality. The proposed motion does not enlighten us as to how we could control water quality.

A few years ago, Quebec had to deal with the major problem of blue-green algae. I am not an expert, but, as I understand it, a significant contributor to the problem was shoreline erosion. The federal government did practically nothing about this. If we add another layer of bureaucracy, I believe that the problem would only worsen.

People living in the area have legitimate concerns and already feel excluded by navigation laws. We see these kinds of concerns emerging and they are not being addressed by the federal government. My fear is that the motion will add another layer of bureaucracy.

Also, the work of the committee would practically come to a halt for 10 meetings in what is likely, if we are being an honest, a pre-election context. I think this is a very bad idea and ill-advised.

Moreover, I introduced Bill C-225, which seeks to ensure that what happens in Quebec is governed by the Government of Quebec. I think that this environmental sovereignty, in the current context and from a climate change perspective, is absolutely essential. Quebec has demonstrated its freshwater management capabilities. We have the institutions we need to have our local fresh water, in our territory, managed by Quebeckers. It should be noted that Quebec has 3% of the world's renewable fresh water. That is significant. Several organizations have already been established. I was talking earlier about watershed organizations, but there are also cross-border watershed organizations and we have the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. These measures are already in place. I do not see how we could harmonize what the Government of Quebec has already done with the proposed motion.

In summary, this problem brings to mind the federal government's political agenda. This is what happened with long-term care homes for seniors. The federal government wants to establish national criteria and implement Canada-wide policies, but this approach often ignores communities' concerns. The federal government's track record on the environment since the beginning of this Parliament has not been good. We only have to think of the pipelines and the recent example with Trans Mountain. Is this motion intended to be just smoke and mirrors? Talking about fresh water and freshwater regulations sounds good, but that is ultimately difficult to enforce. I simply do not think the committee has the time to study this kind of motion. I urge my Liberal and Conservative friends to look at this motion before us and perhaps set it aside.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss sustainable development, particularly as it relates to freshwater management and protection.

Many members will know that the protection of freshwater is something that hundreds of thousands of Albertans are deeply worried about now probably more than ever as we face the potential destruction of large portions of the eastern slopes of our Rocky Mountains and the poisoning of the Oldman River, streams and aquifers that sustain life in southern Alberta.

I am not from southern Alberta, but my husband's family has lived in the shadows of the eastern slopes for a very long time. I was born and bred in Edmonton. As many members will know, Edmonton is located in the North Saskatchewan River watershed and relies on the water of the North Saskatchewan for our very existence. I feel deeply compelled to not only protect this watershed but all watersheds and water basins in Canada.

Canada is one of the most freshwater abundant countries in the world. We are blessed with beautiful lakes, streams and waterways from coast to coast to coast. However, that does not mean there are no issues. Canada has long faced water challenges, especially in Alberta, and now those challenges are intensifying with climate change.

We need to change our approach to freshwater protection and management to address climate change, while improving Canada's outdated federal freshwater legislation. We also need to address new threats to our freshwater systems from ecologically damaging developments, like coal exploration and mining projects that Jason Kenney and the Conservative provincial government is supporting. The federal government has an obligation to ensure waterways are protected even when provincial governments refuse to do so.

Canadians are now well aware of the impacts of more frequent and more severe water-based natural disasters as well. We talk of 100-year floods more frequently now. We will probably have to change what we call those, because we can hardly call something a 100-year flood when it happens significantly more frequently.

In Alberta, we have bounced between drought and flood. It has cost lives and billions of dollars in disaster assistance and community rebuilding. In 2013, catastrophic floods displaced 100,000 people and killed five Albertans. We have seen similar disastrous floods in Ontario and Quebec. More regular floods and droughts cost billions in lost agricultural production and infrastructure.

Toxic algae blooms are now common in lakes across Canada. They kill wildlife and pets, sicken people and force our recreational areas to close.

My family has a small lakeside cottage at Seba Beach and we have had it for about 50 years. It is only in the last few years that algae blooms for all intents and purposes close the lake for several weeks each summer.

Our capacity to manage these events is severely hampered by a number of things. Among those would be deficient data and reporting, a lack of national forecasting and prediction capacity, outdated flood plain maps and a failure to adequately incorporate climate change impacts into our decision-making.

We know that climate change is already impacting freshwater and we know that these issues caused by climate change are complex and interrelated. It is not just changing weather patterns: the floods that come with sudden extreme storms, the droughts that come when we no longer get snow in the winter. Climate change is also changing how our forests grow, leading to more frequent and more dangerous forest fires, which in turn are leading to more flooding and more drought.

It is vital that the deficiencies in data, forecasting and mapping in the current system be addressed, but it is also vital that we have a coordinated and integrated federal response to these challenges. That requires federal water laws and policies that account for climate impacts now and into the future.

I spoke with the Minister of Environment earlier this month about the open-pit coal mining. I was alarmed by the admission that he could only evaluate individual projects and could not consider the cumulative impacts of multiple projects. Our ecosystem does not work this way and neither should our approval processes.

When I speak of the vital importance of having a holistic, comprehensive look at water issues and how we protect water, I want to make it crystal clear that we cannot allow this study to delay the creation of a Canada water agency. The government committed to the creation of the agency in the most recent throne speech, and I fully support that action.

A Canada water agency is overdue, but that agency's mandate and functions should be co-developed with indigenous nations. Water is sacred. Under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, water is understood to be an inherent right. It is a right that is not subject to other legal interpretations.

We know that indigenous people in Canada have had their inherent rights to water ignored for generations. These rights are barely recognized in current water management systems. A new nation-to-nation governance paradigm consistent with the principles of reconciliation and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is needed to recognize indigenous nations' inherent right to self-determination. Anything else contravenes the stated intentions of the government and will ensure that the new agency is a failure.

The agency's mandate must also be developed in close collaboration with local authorities, water organizations and the general public. The level of expertise among academics and activists on these issues in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona alone is impressive and we need to make sure that this expertise is accessed.

Finally, on the issue of creating a Canadian water agency, I just want to add that the agency would be just one of the reforms we need. We also need to modernize and update the Canada Water Act. The motion should not delay or otherwise prevent the committee from setting a work plan to do just that.

Earlier in my speech, I talked a bit about the proposed open-pit coal mining and the environmental protections and the need to protect water in Alberta. As members will know, this is preoccupying me at the moment. In Alberta, Jason Kenney's UCP government has now rescinded the coal policy that has been in place my entire life and that has prevented new coal expansion and development on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

It is important to note that while I am urging the committee to consider a wide range of issues, including climate change and broad consultation, Jason Kenney's government did absolutely no consultation before rescinding the coal policy, a policy put in place by the Lougheed government after six and a half years of public consultation.

Jason Kenney's move to open the eastern slopes to coal mining and exploration will not just change our mountains forever, but will also have severe consequences for Alberta's water basin for generations to come. These impacts will be felt far downstream, including in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the United States. It is that cross-border water issue that means the federal government must act.

As the committee develops this study and the renewal of our water policies, it is critically important that it consider the impacts of decisions by governments like Jason Kenney's to turn to old technologies and old development for short-term economic gain at the expense of our water systems. The federal government must include an examination of open-pit coal mining in this review.

Given that the quantity, quality and timing of water flows are all directly related to land use and that the need for climate change mitigation will increase the importance of groundwater recharge, which occurs on terrestrial environments, it is essential that the committee include expertise and consideration of land-use impacts on water security as well.

Failure to consider the links between land use and water has caused ongoing challenges, and no effective solutions are being implemented. A case in point of course is coal mining. The sort of damage becomes evident thanks to water monitoring in the streams themselves, and this is traditionally where we have looked for water problems and solutions. However, the problems are actually land-use problems and the solutions will require new approaches to planning and regulating land use in the source water areas for Canadian rivers. For this reason, it is essential that the committee include expertise and seek advice.

Right now, a single project threatens the water supply for much of southern Alberta, including drinking water for Lethbridge, Fort MacLeod and surrounding communities and the irrigation water that farmers and ranchers rely upon for agricultural systems. The committee must include these issues in its study.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of this motion. There are some significant issues covered by the proposal, and a full and fulsome study by a committee of Parliament, with recommendations back to the House as well as to cabinet and the Prime Minister, are in order.

There is an old saying in municipal affairs that if we do not manage our water, our water manages us. This was abundantly clear, unfortunately, in Calgary where a flood in 2013 did about $3.4 billion worth of damage to the city. That could have been avoided if an investment of $600 million had been made in flood protection in the river valleys that run through the city. The call from the City was made to the federal government, but it was dismissed by federal Conservatives at the time because it appeared that they were supporting the impacts of climate change. While the Tories were still struggling with their denial of climate change and the science of climate change, they allowed Calgary to fend for itself. In response, the damage was done because water does not wait for Conservative leadership to catch up to science. Science is science, geology is geology, and water is water.

This underscores a need. We have had five “storms of the century” in the last 15 years in Toronto alone. Water is going to play an increasing role in significant economic disruption but, more importantly, in population displacement and population loss in parts of the country.

The forest fires that have been plaguing western Canada are a direct result of drought and other influences tied to the management of water, and those fires do extraordinary damage. They are seen as fire and emergency situations, not as water and climate change issues. Until we start to broaden our understanding of exactly what the impact on water is as it relates to climate change, we are going to be playing catch-up on this. We are going to be spending billions of dollars mitigating the impacts of badly managed water, instead of spending the hundreds millions of dollars it would take to hopefully create and deliver much stronger environmental policies but also much stronger water policies.

I will note that I represent a riding that, as can be seen from the map behind me, is part of the Great Lakes system. There are a number of issues around this bill that are related to that.

For example, the Great Lakes are home to 51 million jobs largely dependent on fresh water, on power generated by water, and on the lakes' shipping capacity. All of these things combine to create an economic vitality that is quite profound in terms of its impact on the continent, so there are a significant number of jobs. In fact, one-quarter of all Canadians draw their drinking water from the Great Lakes. We have to be smart about how we manage this asset or, as I said, this asset will manage us.

The situation is fluctuating. It has great volatility and great capacity to cause danger. It is not simply something, as a member from the Bloc said, to relegate to the Province of Quebec. How do we relegate water to a province when it crosses boundaries every time it flows? How do we relegate management of the Ottawa Valley to one province over another, any more than we tell people in Montreal they should be flooded so we can spare folks on the north shore of Lake Ontario from being flooded, or vice versa?

Clearly a national conversation needs to be had. Clearly a national strategy needs to be enunciated. We can look at the 16 different international joint commissions that govern water in Canada, and the four national jurisdictional bodies that govern water from the prairie rivers to Lake of the Woods in the province of Manitoba. We can look at the Ottawa River, as I mentioned earlier. We can look at the Mackenzie River Delta. All of these interprovincial and interterritorial waterways have a profound impact on everybody who shares that water.

The floods that happen in the Ottawa Valley do not distinguish between the Quebec and the Ontario sides of the river, or between the Quebec and the Ontario citizens who are impacted. Neither do the floods contain the economic damage province to province, and simply say one province alone has to deal with it, and that the country is going to walk away from it because some sort of archaic, bizarre interpretation of the Canadian Constitution is that we do not share resources like water across provincial and territorial boundaries. That literally does not hold water as an argument.

In terms of the Great Lakes, our government has stepped up on these fronts, but the stepping up on these issues requires us to work within regulatory frameworks where we never have total control of the issue or a global perspective on what is happening with water, and we do not understand, from a national perspective at all times, what the best strategic direction forward is.

For example, the member from the Bloc said that water flow is an issue when navigating up the St. Lawrence Seaway and into the great lakes. The reason water flow is an issue is that we are trying to drain the Great Lakes because of their record-high and fluctuating water levels due driven by climate change and due to habitat destruction in the watersheds around the Great Lakes. When we do not plant trees or protect wetlands, as we are seeing in Ontario now with the MZOs from Queen's Park and when we do not protect our conservation authorities, as we are also seeing being undermined by moves at the provincial legislature, what ends up happening is that the Great lakes overflow with water and the flooding is profound. We had six hundred homes in my riding alone flooded in the last couple of years, and the way we have protected those waterfront properties is by flowing the water out of the Great Lakes faster. That has implications for shipping. It has implications for Montreal and downstream, and to simply pretend that we can manage the Great Lakes without understanding the impact in Quebec and downstream into the Atlantic provinces is just absurd.

This is a critically important issue for protecting water quality; protecting the integrity of our habitat, our wetlands and our river basins, as well as our Great Lakes; and also managing the navigational and shipping capacity that water offers us, in particular to cities like Hamilton, where the agricultural business there depends on getting boats through the St. Lawrence River. We cannot do that if the water is too low or too high, or if it is moving too fast or too slowly. All of these issues require comprehensive, coordinated action and investment in a stronger water agency to make sure that we have coordinated action and that the best science is available so that the best conservation and displacement policies are put in place. As well, this would inform us on how to manage the environment upstream, so that we create a more balanced approach to the way in which water impacts us right across the country.

I will also say this about water, the impact it has on cities and settlements and why this institute is so critically important, which is that we have a fifth of the world's freshwater in Canada. That commodity is going to be result in unbelievable economic opportunities and advantages in the coming years. It will also be what will give us the ability to survive the next century, if we manage it properly. To start trying to solve the problem after it has been created is like trying to mop up a house after there has been a leak in a bathroom. The thing to do now with water is to attend to it immediately before it causes damage that takes out so much in so many communities around our waterways.

When we take a look at this proposal to study the joint commissions and international treaties and the interprovincial and territorial treaties, indigenous water lot rights and indigenous approaches to conservation, as well as indigenous treaty rights tied to water lots, we are examining the water quality issues that are required for human existence and industrial standards. In Pittsburgh a few years ago, they had to close high-tech plant because the water quality was so low they could not get the water clean enough to do some of the high-tech work in that part of the country.

When we take a look at water quality, it is not just a question of human existence; it is also what our economy is based on. We have an economy that is based far more than on just the fish and what we pull out of the water; it is the use of the water in industrial processes. It is critical.

When we take a look at our energy and switching away from fossil fuels where possible and moving toward renewables where there is an opportunity, water plays a critical role in that new energy future in this country.

As we move toward more electric vehicles and greater use of batteries as a mobile power source for more than just vehicles, but also for all sorts of machines, water is going to play an increasingly important role in all of this.

If we do not understand where freshwater is being managed, what the goals and strategies are and the impacts of decisions as they relate to the economic dynamics around water conservation, water usage and the use in industry as well as power generation; if we do not also take a look at the impact in terms of the storms and flooding we are seeing and the droughts that we are trying to mitigate, but also take a look at the climate change impact and where water—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I have been trying to give him a few signals, but I am not sure if he was just not seeing me.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, on September 23, 2020, in the Speech from the Throne that opened the second session of the 43rd Parliament of Canada, the Government of Canada reiterated its desire to create a Canada water agency. The throne speech stated that the government will create a new Canada water agency to keep our water safe, clean and well managed. The government will also identify opportunities to build more resilient water and irrigation infrastructure.

Motion No. 34, which was moved by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis and would provide instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regarding fresh water, seems to be a diversion to delay the implementation of concrete measures to protect the environment and better regulate and protect our fresh water.

This is another example of the Liberals' doublespeak. They claim to be concerned about the environment, but then they tangle themselves up in procedure so that they can put off taking real action.

Madam Speaker, could you mute my colleague? There is some noise.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did not hear any change here. Is someone else's microphone on?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Okay. It is now muted.

The hon. member can continue.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for your help.

I would remind members that the government prorogued Parliament while the country was in the midst of the COVID-19 public health crisis.

As far as I know, few parliaments shut down during the crisis, but that is the bizarre strategy the Liberal government opted for.

We all know that protecting freshwater is crucial. We need to protect this resource. We need to take urgent action. We also know that climate change is affecting freshwater. According to Statistics Canada, Canada produces 3,478 cubic kilometres of renewable freshwater per year. That is twice the volume of Lake Ontario, or an average of 104,000 cubic metres of water per Canadian.

According to the website of Quebec's ministry of environment and climate change, freshwater accounts for 10% of Quebec's surface area. Quebec has tens of thousands of rivers and over three million bodies of water totalling 3% of the planet's renewable freshwater reserves. Almost 40% of all that water is in the St. Lawrence watershed. Numbers like that might suggest that this resource is not in jeopardy, but nothing could be further from the truth. Rising water levels and freshwater salinization are real threats.

An article published in Le Soleil in January 2016 reported that Quebec City and Lévis were concerned about the salinity of the St. Lawrence. According to the article, the area where the salt and fresh waters meet is located at the eastern tip of Île d'Orléans, but scientists are saying that climate warming could push it towards Quebec City and Lévis. A study was launched to identify the danger to drinking water intakes in the St. Lawrence River, in particular to determine if and when salt water could make its way westward and into our faucets. None of this is new, and yet the Liberals introduced their bill on the environment just a few hours before the House of Commons rose for the holiday break. Once again, they did everything at the last minute.

For five years it has been the same old thing. The Liberals introduce bills with good intentions, but no substance. They are driven only by their image. Let us not forget Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which received royal assent in June 2019. They used a lot of words to accomplish nothing.

In December, the government certainly could have added something about water, a major resource for our country. We are here to talk about freshwater and its protection, but when it comes to water we have our doubts about the government's promises.

Today, less than seven days after his inauguration, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden, signed an executive order on his plan for the environment. In the meantime, after five years in power, this government has been unable to get any tangible results for Canadians.

Here is a clear example. The federal government admitted that it would likely not meet its objective of putting an end to all long-term boil water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021, and experts all agree that the government is still a long way from meeting that objective.

My colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, with whom I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, also expressed concerns about the management and protection of Canada's fresh water. On October 29, he said, and I quote: “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.” He went on to say that he has repeatedly advocated for protections for the lakes and rivers in his region.

It is the same thing in the wonderful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which I have the great honour of representing. There are many lakes, rivers and other waterways in this beautiful region, which is located near the St. Lawrence River.

These precious resources add to people's quality of life and make an enormous contribution to the region's economy. One thing that I think is important and that I care about as a member of Parliament is doing everything I can to protect the environment. I would like to remind members that, we, the Conservatives, do not wake up every morning with the goal of destroying the planet, quite the contrary.

We are the best protectors and keepers of our land and of nature. We, the Conservatives, have an excellent record on environmental issues.

I am a father. It is important to me to leave a healthy environment and sound economy to my children, grandchildren and, of course, future generations.

I remind members that respect for jurisdictions is important to the Conservative Party. Our party is the only one that respects that principle in the House of Commons.

We agree that the study proposed by Motion No. 34 should go ahead. This is my colleague's motion. He is currently the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; when he moved the motion, he was a member of that committee.

However, my colleagues and I seriously question the government's tactics. The Conservatives have long been opposed to the dumping of sewage into our waters, and the motion would give us the opportunity to examine the government's ability to address this issue.

I share the concerns of my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola about the motion, especially those he stated last October with respect to creating the Canada water agency.

The Constitution assigns much of the jurisdiction over freshwater to provincial governments. We must ensure that there is collaboration with the provinces and that the Liberal government does not dictate the provinces' course of action, as it is wont to do. We are seeing this with the management of the pandemic.

Quebec has an extensive hydroelectric power network, which is regulated by the provincial government. An attempt by the federal government to take control over fresh water would interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is not surprising that the Legault government has already expressed concerns about the creation of this agency. As I was saying, our party is the only party in the House of Commons that respects provincial jurisdictions .

I want to conclude with a quote from an article published in November 2019, which rightly sounded the alarm. Bob Sandford, a co-author of a report by the Global Water Futures project, which involves 22 universities, said, “We've enjoyed the luxury of the myth of limitless abundance of fresh water in Canada.” The article concluded with the following statement: “We have to commit to changing what we do and how we do it. And we need to have done that yesterday.”

Now is the time to act. The current government has done nothing but make empty promises since 2015. To wit, not a single tree has been planted. Protecting the environment is not a priority. It is all smoke and mirrors.

I urge the government to reflect, respect the environment, take meaningful action to protect fresh water and respect provincial jurisdictions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the member that he will have just four minutes for his speech. Then the sponsor of the motion will have five minutes.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a real shame because I had a 10-minute speech prepared.

Everyone thinks water is important. More people agree on that than on apple pie. I am drinking some water tonight, in fact. Everyone likes water, including my hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. He likes water so much that he wants Parliament to take time, lots of time, to study a whole bunch of freshwater issues.

Our time here this evening, mine in particular, is limited, so I will get straight to the point: Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over freshwater resources.

I really want to emphasize the fact that our time is limited, because it is pretty clear to me that the government would like us to run out the clock before the election. It would be convenient to tie up the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development by telling it to study the fresh water issue instead of taking real action on the environment. Better still, instead of analyzing the risks associated with the offshore oil drilling that the Liberal government chose to approve, the committee would be focusing on what the provinces are doing and then telling them what they should be doing.

We are not fooled. If the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis and the Liberals had the same concern for salt water as they do for fresh water, they would be extremely surprised. It is crystal clear to me that we must protect water now. The best way to do that is not by undertaking a vast pre-election study in order to greenwash the government's record. The best way to do it is to listen to the scientists, the very ones that the Liberals keep saying over and over that they rely on to make decisions.

Fine words and studies are all well and good, but it is 2021. We are past the point of asking all these questions that scientists have already asked and answered. My colleague may have very good intentions for our waterways and may even still believe his government's claims of environmentalism. However, whether or not we set up a Canada water agency, if there were oil in Lake Saint-Louis, this government would dream up a good reason to extract it.

No one is better placed than Quebec and the provinces to deal with environmental issues relating to water or just environmental issues in general. Not only does each province have its own environmental ministry with competent expert scientists, but they are responsible for managing water resources within their borders.

I have some advice for the Liberals. They should start by respecting Quebec and provincial environmental laws before trying yet again to encroach on other governments' area of jurisdiction. This Parliament can regulate the fisheries, shipping and navigation. That has been clear for over 150 years.

What my colleague seems to want is for Canada to become an armchair quarterback who criticizes everything the players do on the field. I am sorry, but that is not how this country is supposed to work. Once again, a sovereignist is forced to remind the government of the basics of federalism. We should be keeping track of how often this happens.

I would like to suggest something, if I may. The Bloc Québécois, and more specifically, the eminent and outstanding member for Jonquière, who also happens to be a great guy, introduced a bill on Quebec's environmental sovereignty, Bill C-225. Unlike Motion No. 34, Bill C-225 does not analyze federal laws, but rather amends them. Let us be pragmatic for a moment. Anyone who acknowledges the importance of protecting the environment must also acknowledge that it is urgent. If it is so urgent, let us choose the fastest and most effective means of doing so, if they exist. In our case, Quebec and the provinces have the strictest rules, and they already exist.

Logically speaking, if the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and his colleagues are consistent, they will have to agree that, when it comes to its own infrastructure, the federal government should respect provincial regulations and municipal bylaws instead of getting into jurisdictional squabbles.

I think people know me well enough by now to guess what I am about to say. Who do we work for? I will tell you who I work for and why I am here. I work for my constituents back home in Lac-Saint-Jean. On environmental matters specifically, I am working for my children's generation. I am working for young people who, just this afternoon, were telling me that they are sick of all the red tape. Young people are sick of the federal government slowing everything down and accomplishing nothing. What is the point—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the member's time is up and I tried to indicate that to him. I very much appreciated all of the speeches this evening.

Resuming debate, for right of reply, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

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

Madam Speaker, we need the study on this motion because it is time we gave formal and comprehensive attention to the protection and management of our most precious resource, our fresh water. Clearly, this government has begun to do just that.

The recent throne speech reiterated the government's commitment to creating a coordinating and research mechanism called the Canada water agency. Consultations are well under way to inform the shape of this new entity.

The throne speech also committed to creating a national water strategy. The House owes it to itself to be part of the conversation around these important initiatives. The proposed study would make the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development the locus of Parliament's engagement on both initiatives. The committee is the ideal and rightful forum for an in-depth conversation on current and future federal policies and initiatives involving fresh water.

I know there are concerns in some quarters. These concerns have been expressed by my Bloc colleagues, notably the members for Repentigny, Jonquière and Lac-Saint-Jean. There is concern that an active federal interest in fresh water risks impinging on provincial jurisdiction, but this is not the case, neither in terms of the recent throne speech commitments nor in terms of the spirit of this proposed study.

First, the Canada water agency would not be a regulation-making body. Its purpose would be to explore freshwater issues for the purpose of information sharing with stakeholders, which includes various federal departments, provincial governments, academic institutions, private sector companies and international bodies.

Second, the federal government has clearly proven it is open, where appropriate, to involving provinces in freshwater management, even where there is a clear federal constitutional responsibility.

For example, in regard to the 2012 federal waste-water system effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, these do not apply in Quebec since equivalent waste-water regulations are in effect in that province. Moreover, there are currently bilateral waste-water administrative agreements between the federal government and the provinces of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan.

I compare the water domain to the free market in economics. I do not mean this in the sense of water being a private good. It is not and should never be. I mean that, like the economic free market, there is a large number of actors, too large to inventory, working simultaneously toward the objective of optimally protecting and managing this vital resource.

These efforts are, in a way, guided by an invisible hand working for a common good and not by central government planning or direction. That is the boon, but it is also the challenge. Just like with the free market, some measure of coordination is always needed, so too is it in respect to fresh water.

Finally, when we speak of a national water strategy, we are really speaking of a federal water strategy, not an invasion of jurisdiction by a national government intent on implementing a uniform vision for water. We are speaking of a long overdue attempt to rationalize disparate, and too often disjointed, elements of water policy in federal jurisdiction.

Canada is a water nation worthy of a focused discussion in Parliament on the clear and rapidly emerging issue of water security at a time of galloping climate change, rapid industrial development and sustained global population growth. I thank all members who participated in the debate on this motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

For the sake of clarity, I invite a member present in the House to rise to indicate that the motion is agreed to on division or to request a recorded division.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to have the amendment carried on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

(Amendment agreed to)

The next question is on the motion, as amended.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair.

For the sake of clarity, I would invite a member present in the House to rise to indicate if the motion is agreed to on division or to request a recorded division.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be here at the late show tonight to speak about farmers, ranchers, the carbon tax and clean fuel standards. A carbon tax hike is set to make things a lot harder for Canadian farmers and ranchers. A tax hits farmers from many different directions with very few exemptions.

For inputs and fertilizer, add a carbon tax. For seeds, add a carbon tax. Equipment, machinery and parts cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a combine is close to $1 million. Add to that a carbon tax. For grain drying, which costs tens of thousands of dollars, add a carbon tax. For heating buildings, and there are many, add a carbon tax. We have a crop, and now what do we do? We have to truck it and deliver it, with a carbon tax added on. For grain companies and elevators, add a carbon tax. What about the railway? Yes, we have to move things, so add a carbon tax.

Producers pay all the downstream costs with no ability to increase the price they receive. Agriculture sector producers use the most energy efficient and innovative means in the world. Agriculture producers are also carbon sinks.

As Brian Cross noted in The Western Producer, Alberta Federation of Agriculture President Lynn Jacobson said, “the carbon tax increase highlights the need for additional carbon tax exemptions for prairie farms.” He also noted, “The establishment of national carbon credit system that allows farmers to capitalize on carbon sequestering activities would go a long way”.

The government is hiking the carbon tax, or the clean fuel standards tax, without a comprehensive plan to address the damage it is going to cause to our agriculture sector and supply chain.

Speaking of challenges on the Prairies, the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline is devastating to real people, families, businesses and communities. We need jobs and growth, and the pipeline supplied both. The Prime Minister talks about support for the resource sector, but killed northern gateway and added barriers to energy east that killed it. The government legislated Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which did in pipelines as well.

The Liberals also bought a pipeline from a private company that just wanted to build it and wanted the government to get out of the way so it could do it. Now it is many billions of dollars over budget and years behind completion. Will it get built? Is Enbridge Line 5 through Michigan next on the hit list? It would mean thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec.

Post-COVID-19 jobs in the resource sector are an essential part of getting Canadians back to work and recovering Canada's economy. We need this sector working. Where is the plan to do it?

Speaking of plans, was the COVID-19 plan a Canada-focused plan? We all know the first thing the government should have done was protect the most vulnerable and protect front-line workers. How do we do that? It is with rapid testing, tracing and isolation. Instead, the government's plan was lacking significantly, and we slowed down the economy to almost a crawl. Then it was basically closed twice.

Sadly, many vulnerable families have been lost forever. Many businesses are closed and many more will be. Students have lost an academic year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost. Mental health challenges are now exploding.

Now in January, 10 months later, the government has started asking for COVID tests. Where was that 10 months ago? Where was the support for Canadian industries to develop rapid testing and vaccines?

We need to protect lives and livelihoods. That is the key to getting out of this crisis and getting people back to work. The government's handling of this situation has prolonged the economic damage and is risking lives.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Bow River for the opportunity to address the strong measures our government has put in place to support our farmers.

Our government is maximizing our trade opportunities for our farmers. We have been working hard to diversify our trade through agreements with key trading partners, including the European Union, North America and the countries of the trans-Pacific partnership. Most recently, we did so through the trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

The results speak for themselves. The 14 free trade agreements we have in place cover 51 countries, connecting our farmers to 1.5 billion global consumers. Together these agreements give Canadian farmers a competitive edge in over 60% of the global economy. Today, we are the only G7 nation to have a free trade agreement with the other six nations. That puts us in a very powerful position internationally.

We know that strong farm business means a strong economy. That is why we are focused on strong business risk management programs. Building on all emergency supports we have rolled out this year to support farmers during the pandemic, our government stands ready to step up with improvements to the BRM programs.

We are seeking a national consensus with the provinces and territories to make enhancements to the AgriStability program that would significantly increase the amount paid out to our farmers through the program. As a starting point, our government is looking to remove the reference margin limits, and is prepared to look at further immediate enhancements to AgriStability. As well, we are looking to increase the AgriStability compensation rate from 70% to 80%.

With regard to the hon. member's reference to the review of neonicotinoid insecticides by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the government has engaged with producers and other stakeholders to examine impacts and identify potential alternatives to neonics, including through research. We have submitted to the PMRA new scientific papers and additional information from the public, the province and the agriculture industry, as well as our working group. The PMRA is currently reviewing the submitted information and plans to provide federal decisions in the spring of 2021.

We support the rigorous science-based regulation of pesticides in Canada to ensure they continue to meet modern health and safety standards. We will continue to make sure our farmers have the tools they need to feed Canadians and the world.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I am on the heritage committee, I know the topic of free speech is now very alive and part of what we are doing. Have members ever heard of Hyde Park in London? It is famous for “Speakers' Corner”, where anyone can come to speak about whatever topic they like.

The heritage minister recently indicated that he intends to introduce legislation to regulate speech on the Internet. Hate speech is already illegal in Canada and has been for years. The Criminal Code makes it illegal to incite violence and promote hatred. I have received many communications from my constituents expressing interest about what this plan might look like.

The minister's intentions are probably great, but this needs to be approached very carefully, with input from members of all parties. Freedom of speech and religion are a crucial foundation of our country's democracy.