:
Welcome to this meeting, which is basically a continuation of where we were last Tuesday when were questioning witnesses and then debated a motion.
First of all, I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here. Mr. Wolfish, it's really nice to see you in person. We really appreciate that you've come back for this one hour. It's such an interesting topic and there's so much to learn from all of you.
I can inform the committee that all of the sound tests have been done for the witnesses who are online, so we're essentially ready to go.
We had just started the second round—the five-minute round—when we started debating the motion. We're at the top of the five-minute round.
We'll start with Mr. Leslie for five minutes.
:
Thank you for the question.
The Canada water agency's focus will be on the coordination of efforts on a number of fronts. One will be across the federal house, recognizing that there are over 20 departments that have roles and responsibilities with regard to water.
The second particular focus will be around being able to coordinate with provinces and territories with respect to the federal framework, the roles of provinces and territories in water and the need to collaborate on transboundary waters in particular.
The third area of responsibility we will be focusing on is the engagement and work with indigenous peoples, making sure that we have indigenous people..and that we integrate the indigenous rights framework into the work that we do.
With that, we hope that we are going to be able to respect the roles and responsibilities of provinces while providing leadership on federal policy for water.
:
Thank you for the question.
We are conscious of the reference from the Supreme Court. We do respect it, and we will respect it. We started our consultations with the provinces and territories in 2000. We shared a paper called “Toward the Creation of a Canada Water Agency”. We held a number of bilateral calls with provinces and territories along the way. We also used the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to have conversations.
We'll continue to use the CCME as a vehicle for conversations in a multilateral forum. We'll continue to use bilateral discussions, particularly as we implement the freshwater action plan and the mechanisms that we use with provinces and territories to manage the freshwater ecosystem initiatives.
We have an MOU with Manitoba. We have an agreement with Quebec. We have an agreement with Ontario. We'll continue to be working through those agreements and looking to coordinate with provinces on each of the freshwater ecosystems.
:
We recognize that the provinces and territories have an important regulatory role to play with drinking water, with source water and with non-source water protection. We'll continue to respect those rules and responsibilities.
Our job is to work with provinces and territories, stakeholders, partners and indigenous communities around the freshwater action plan. We've identified eight transboundary watersheds across the country that require collaboration and co-ordination. We have $650 million of funding to help coordinate action in those areas, including around the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence, the Wolatoq/St. John River in New Brunswick, Lake Winnipeg basin, the Fraser and the Mackenzie.
We will continue to collaborate with the provinces on identifying priorities and putting in place measures to help with non-point source protection and improving water quality in those areas.
The agency will be created in two steps. We've already taken action on the first step. In June, with my appointment as the acting assistant deputy minister, it became a branch within Environment and Climate Change Canada. I report directly to the deputy minister and I support the minister, as well as the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister on the work that we do within the branch.
The government has committed to tabling legislation to create the stand-alone agency. That legislation will be tabled according to the priorities of the government. When that legislation passes, we'll be able to move forward to create the stand-alone agency reporting directly to the minister.
We have started to build our presence in Winnipeg. We already had a poster out to recruit staff. We have a presence already there working on the Lake Winnipeg basin. We'll continue to build our presence there after the—
:
I can take that question.
We issued what we would call a discussion paper in May of this year for a 60-day consultation period. That consultation period has closed, and we are going to be incorporating those comments into the Canada Gazette, part II, which we hope we are on target to publish next year, in 2024.
If I can take a step back, the amendments were designed to do three main things. One was to improve what we currently have for what we call the "temporary bypass authorization". When the first iteration of the wastewater effluent release regulations went into effect, there were provisions that allowed owners and operators of wastewater systems to get authorization to bypass the treatment for a very specific period of time and discharge undertreated water at the final discharge point while they were undertaking very needed maintenance, repairs and upgrades.
What we realized over the past few years since the regulation went into effect is that we did not have provisions that would allow us to have an awareness and ensure that there was sufficient mitigation to the receiving environment for bypasses that would take place in other parts of the facility but not at the final discharge point.
That's one thing that the regulations have been amended to update.
:
I want to thank you for coming back to see us; that's very kind of you.
Mr. Wolfish, before today's meeting, I read the written answer that you sent us. Thank you for that as well.
What I understood from your presentation the other day is that you seem to rely heavily on the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which is a kind of intergovernmental forum under the direction of the environment ministers. However, I couldn't find any information on that forum in the research that I did before this meeting. What value would it add to the Canada water agency? My impression thus far is that nothing comes out of that forum, but the Canada water agency seems to attach considerable importance to it.
Would you please tell us what value it would add to the agency?
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment is a council that meets fairly regularly at the deputy level, the ministerial level and at the officials level. There is a working group that does work on water issues. We have been using that forum as a way to have conversations about water. Other departments have also been using that forum as a way to have conversations around water for several years. We will continue to use that as a multilateral forum.
In addition to that, we have been reaching out to provinces and territories on a bilateral level, and then, when necessary as we continue to do our work, we will bring together a committee of officials at the assistant deputy minister level or at the officials level to support water.
:
Mr. Chair, this is an important issue to the Standing Committee on Environment because over the last eight years, the , multiple environment ministers and the entire Liberal government told Canadians that their punishing carbon tax was affordable. They claimed that increasing gas prices by 61¢ a litre was needed to meet their environmental targets. They claimed that increasing the cost of home heating was needed to meet their environmental targets. They claimed that increasing the cost of food production was needed to meet their environmental targets, and the most misleading statement on the carbon tax was that they claimed Canadians would get more money back than they would pay.
None of these statements is true, and even the has started to admit that his carbon tax isn't an environmental plan; it's a tax plan. The Prime Minister finally admitted that his carbon tax was unaffordable. Last week, after noticing that their popularity was sinking, the Liberals announced that they were implementing a temporary pause on their punishing carbon tax, but not for all Canadians. Only some Canadians would qualify for a tax break and 97% of Canadians would not.
When asked why the carbon tax wasn't being removed on all sources of home heating in every province, the Liberal basically told Canadians living in the Prairies that they were being punished because they didn't vote Liberal. That statement was one of the most divisive things I've heard since being elected.
Mr. Chair, as members of the environment committee, we should be alarmed because, for many years, this committee has been misled by the government. The testified at this committee on March 27 this year that Canadians “get more money back from the federal government than”—
:
The environment minister testified at this committee on March 27 this year that Canadians “get more money back from the federal government than what carbon pricing is costing them.”
If Canadians are getting more money back than they paid, then why are the Liberals pausing their carbon tax on home heating?
The also testified at this committee on May 3, 2022, that a carbon tax “is one of the most effective ways of reducing emissions.”
If the carbon tax is needed to reduce emissions, then why have emissions continued to go up under the Liberal government?
Last year, on March 24, the bragged to this committee about the carbon tax top-up for rural Canadians. He stated, “There is clearly a rural lens...applied to carbon pricing.”
If rural Canadians were considered, then why did his own government just admit that rural Canadians needed more money?
Earlier this month, the government's own department testified at this committee that the Liberals' second carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations, will disproportionately impact low- and middle-income Canadians. The government knew that its second carbon tax would punish low- and middle-income Canadians, but that didn't bother it. The government plowed ahead with it anyway. It's absolutely shameful.
Never has it been more clear that the carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it's simply a tax plan. Canadians have finally called the government's bluff, and Canadians are counting on us to immediately abolish the carbon tax once and for all.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Rarely has an announcement by a prime minister been so booed by virtually everybody, starting with the former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, a former member from the Ottawa region and a leading figure in the first wave of this government. She's also identified as the architect of the Liberal carbon tax. We don't share her point of view, but we recognize her as the architect of carbon pricing.
Barely a few hours after the Prime Minister's surprising announcement, Ms. McKenna expressed her regret, sincere regret from someone who believes in the principle of carbon pricing. She believes that imposing a tax on carbon in order to take money out of taxpayers' pockets is a good thing. We don't share that belief. However, she is indeed the architect of the policy that has been implemented by the current Prime Minister.
What did we see last Thursday? A Prime Minister who, after preaching to the entire world for eight years about the importance of carbon pricing, decided to flip-flop and lower the carbon tax for a portion of the population because he was taking a real hit in the polls. We can see the result of that today.
As we say back home, when you're two-faced, you've got four cheeks for slapping. That's why the ecologists, provincial premiers and Canadians are angry. That's the reality.
:
I presume this is why the Premier of Saskatchewan said they will not collect the carbon tax anymore. It's because this is totally unacceptable and it is focused only on the maritime people. It's not me who said that. It's the , at the press conference, who showed it very clearly.
[Translation]
On Thursday afternoon, the Prime Minister of Canada held a press conference instead of attending question period. Whom did we see at that press conference? Only Liberal members from the Maritimes. Where were the people from Ontario? Where were the people from Quebec? Where were the people from Manitoba? Where were the people from Saskatchewan?. No, it's true: there are no Liberals in Saskatchewan. Where were the other Liberal members and ministers?
[English]
They're missing in action, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
They weren't there, and for good reason. It didn't concern them.
test
The truth is that this makeshift policy is based solely on the fact that the Prime Minister is taking a hit in the polls.
I have a lot of respect and esteem for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. As we say back home, he steps up to the plate. He appeared at oral question period on Friday morning and answered questions. He also appeared on the program Les coulisses du pouvoir, where he very politely said there would be no more changes like that one as long as he was minister. Indirectly, he was saying that, if the Prime Minister does it again, he will resign.
I repeat: I very much respect the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change on a personal level. He's also a tough adversary. Personally, I like tough adversaries because they encourage you to do your best.
Our understanding is that he stepped up to the plate to defend a position I believe he didn't really support, but I don't want to presume. He didn't support the idea of permitting the Bay du Nord project either, even though it was the right thing to do for the good of the country. The minister even uttered a veiled threat that he would resign if the Prime Minister did it again.
On the one hand, the architect of this tax policy, an environmental policy, who established and introduced the Liberal carbon tax, isn't happy, and, on the other, the current minister, who's required to implement that policy and, more particularly, forced to implement the reversal announced by the Prime Minister, isn't happy either. Neither one is happy, and rightly so.
We've also heard a great hue and cry from duly elected provincial authorities, who would have liked the whole thing to be cancelled, if possible. That's what we'd like too. At least if we're talking about winter heating, all types of heating should be included. However, the Prime Minister made his decisions based on his partisan political intentions. That isn't how a prime minister should act, particularly with regard to one of his commitments, one of his key policies.
You should've heard all the comments on the weekend from people who don't hate the current prime minister and who acknowledge that the two basic focuses of his approach for the past eight years have been the First Nations and carbon pricing. Now, in a dramatic turn of events, he retreats from carbon pricing. Need I note that he's doing so after insulting everyone who didn't agree with them, starting with the Conservatives? And now he flip-flops because he's taking a hit in the polls.
That's why we're saying that, if the carbon tax is hitting Canadians hard in one part of the country, it's hitting all Canadians across the country, and in every way.
A year ago, more precisely on October 20, 2022, we of the official opposition conducted a one-day debate in the House of Commons on winter residential heating in Canada. We thought—I think it was entirely logical, and thePrime Minister showed last week that we're partly right—that it wasn't a good idea to create and impose a new carbon tax on residential heating in the middle of winter. Who voted against that motion a year ago? The party in power, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party voted against the motion. In short, we Conservatives were the only ones who thought it wasn't a good idea to impose a new tax on residential heating in Canada in the middle of winter. It was sheer common sense.
The Prime Minister, flanked by members from only one region of Canada, made a makeshift announcement for partisan political purposes. However, as Prime Minister, he speaks on behalf of all Canadians. He managed to sew division among ecologists, provincial political authorities and ordinary Canadians alike but failed to please all Canadians, including Quebeckers, of course, who are paying a heavy price.
For all these reasons, we would like to continue debating the motion. We would also like the Prime Minister to be accountable in this matter. We're talking about home heating; it makes no sense to tax Canadians in the middle of winter.
For four years now, I have heard over and over again in my riding that the carbon tax has been making life less and less affordable for people, particularly when it comes to the cost of home heating. I was very surprised at the announcement last week that the Liberal government was going to pause the carbon tax on home heating, but only for home heating oil and not for natural gas.
Why would that be? Well, with a little bit of research, one can see that in Saskatchewan, all of the home heating is done with natural gas, whereas in the Atlantic provinces it is primarily done with oil.
I think that certainly raises some questions about why that decision was made. I think the Liberals rural economic development minister, , explained it very clearly this weekend when she said that the Prairies do not elect enough Liberals and, therefore, her government was not going to listen to the people of that region. It really is shameful that affordability and the cost of living are not a concern to this Liberal government when it comes to the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, simply because of the way they voted in the last election.
I think the level of divisiveness this government has stooped to is shameful. I fully support the motion by my colleague, Dan Mazier.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I agree. It's a motion worthy of support. I find it interesting that the tax began as revenue-neutral, and then you were getting more back, and now it's being recognized that it is punishing Canadians and needs to be paused—at least until there's an election where the Liberals can try to regain power and reimplement and quadruple the carbon tax. When the polling is down, the scrambles to come up with.... Perhaps if had been able to ask my question earlier, we could have found out that this was driven by departmental officials, but it seems a lot more like a political decision made when polling numbers are down.
It's so typical of this and his need to try to divide Canadians. My colleague across the way points out that the heating oil exemption applies across Canada. That's great—only that 97% of people don't use heating oil. We've picked and chosen in an area in which there are a bunch of Liberal MPs, where polling numbers are down, and we should provide some relief to them. What about my constituents? What about people across the country who are sick and tired of paying a carbon tax?
I know that my colleagues haven't knocked on doors as recently as I have, but I will give you fair warning that in the next election you will find that people despise the carbon tax; that people are hurting; and that people, businesses and families are struggling to get by. They know this is a tax plan, not an environmental plan.
They'll realize that—
I welcome the opportunity to correct some facts that were just bandied about by the members opposite for the last little while. I regret that I have to do this, but unfortunately, they are either willfully ignorant of the facts or extremely enthusiastic about misleading Canadians.
The pause on the carbon levy on a product—home heating oil—is not specific to one region. Home heating oil is the dirtiest way to heat your home. It is extremely inefficient. We used to have an oil furnace in our house and now we don't, and I can tell you with certainty that not having it is a far more efficient and less dirty way.
It's like living on a cruise ship. A cruise ship runs on a similar kind of oil. It's archaic. It's the way that we heated homes in the 1800s. We don't need to do that anymore. We have better technology and we're encouraging people to get off home heating oil.
They keep saying it's only specific to Atlantic Canada, and that's absolutely false. There are more people in the province of Quebec who use home heating oil than there are in Atlantic Canada. Quebec is a much bigger province. There is no federal carbon levy in Quebec, which is something my colleagues opposite consistently like to ignore.
Around 20% of Nova Scotians use home heating oil, so there is a low-hanging fruit opportunity to correct that and to work with our neighbours in Atlantic Canada. In order to work with them, we are giving them a bit of a break on the cost of home heating oil, which has been inflated by lots of factors, including the war in Europe. This is a good way to do that.
Some 60% of Yukoners still heat their homes with home heating oil, and these changes will reflect that. There is no added benefit for Atlantic Canadians. Any province or territory that would like to sign up for the heat pump program can, and other provinces have so far.
Heat pumps are an extraordinarily efficient way of heating one's home. We are not living in the 1800s anymore, and we ought to work on the low-hanging fruit of home heating, which includes heating oil. I am proud that this government has taken that step.
For the record, being an MP in a rural community, I'm also thrilled.... The members opposite always think it's hilarious that Milton is rural. I encourage you to come, Mr. Leslie. We might not be as rural as southern Saskatchewan, but we have lots of farms. I have lots of constituents on home heating oil, and I have been pushing for an increase to the rural top-up. It's a welcome change because, indeed, it costs a bit more. A 20% rural top-up is a welcome change for rural Canadians.
Let's get back to work.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleague Mr. Deltell for praising the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I wholeheartedly agree with him that he's an excellent minister.
As chair of the liberal rural caucus, I can tell you there has been a lot of discussion. It's not always easy for Canadians living in rural areas to transition to a more environmental and ecological type of heating, or to electric vehicles. These people need a little more time and support to make the transition with the help, for example, of the oil to heat pump affordability program, which applies across country, which is important. So I think the three-year pause reflects that reality.
Of course, when provinces add their contribution to that of the federal government, that makes it easier to offer grants for transitioning to heat pumps. So I hope that all Canadian provinces will participate actively in this process so the same programs can be provided to all Canadians from sea to sea.
With that, I'd like to know whether we can now vote on the motion so we can then move on to our freshwater study.
Thank you to the officials for sitting with us through that. I hope we can get back to our topic of discussion now that we've cleared that off our table.
For Mr. Wolfish, 58 formerly pristine lakes around the Kenora area were managed since 1968, and in an unexpected and controversial move, in 2012 the Conservative federal government defunded the facility. It was the Experimental Lakes Area and now it's being managed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and I believe they're also out of Winnipeg.
I used to canoe a lot in that area. I'm from Winnipeg originally. Knowing the importance of research on fresh water, I'm wondering how will the Canada water agency interact with IISD-ELA?
:
I'll start with the answer and then I will turn to my colleague to supplement the answer.
As the first step what I would say is that the experimental lakes did receive funding in budget 2023 as part of the overall investment in the freshwater action plan.
In terms of our collaborations with IISD, they're based in Winnipeg. The headquarters of the CWA will be in Winnipeg. We've had conversations around collaboration and opportunities for training and growth and connections, so that conversation will continue to happen as we proceed.
With the particulars around the experimental lakes, Arash, do you have anything to add or should we come back with a written answer?
:
Thank you. That's going to be key.
As we look at Canada, that's going to be very key for other areas to learn from as well.
Ms. Ladell, maybe to start with you—and it also relates to Ms. Blais. When I was living in Manitoba I did a lot of work on hydroelectric dams up the Churchill and Nelson rivers. Lake Winnipeg was the big reservoir for all the hydroelectric facilities, and Lake Manitoba also, taking all the water from east of the Rocky Mountains into the watershed, which ultimately fuelled our power in Manitoba through the hydroelectric dams.
There is always a lot of controversy about the lake level and how that lake level is managed with indigenous communities living on the lake, with other communities living on the lake, with southern Lake Manitoba's being flooded when Manitoba Hydro would control the level of Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg.
How do we manage the hydroelectric needs of Canada at the same time as respecting the rights of indigenous people and others living on our lakes?