Environment Committee on April 9th, 2024

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

Certainly, the payouts for these disasters have increased dramatically. There was roughly $1 billion in damages from these events from Confederation up to the year 2000. We're estimating now that it's about $40 billion since the year 2000. It has gone up quite a bit.

In some basins, flood frequency and magnitude have increased, and in others they've changed in timing, but there is global evidence now that drought frequency and occurrence are increasing. Also, there's direct scaling of rainfall intensity with air temperatures. As air temperatures go up, storms become more intense. That comes out of the calculations, and it also comes out of the observations that we see around the world.

We're seeing this. We're seeing these shifts. I mean, areas that used to get their floods from snowmelt are now getting them from rainfall or rain-on-snow events. That's really problematic for Canadians, because we're getting floods occurring that we're not familiar with. All of our engineering designs go back over a century, from the 20th century's climate, and now we're facing the need for designs that are based on what is still to come.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

We're experiencing some pretty wacky watershed events in Halton region right now because we don't have snowmelt. There's been a considerable amount of rain recently, but it's just a very different situation in our creeks and rivers.

I'm very concerned about the impact this will have on our flood mapping, because I don't think our flood mapping will necessarily change as a result of changing weather patterns. Is it important for conservation authorities in Ontario to go back to the drawing board a bit and look at some of the flood mapping, or is it still strictly about the elevation of various places and their proximity to the streams, creeks and rivers?

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

The ability to calculate future flood plains has been developed. Colleagues from Global Water Futures and I have a paper in review describing the technique, which we applied to the Bow River above Calgary in response to those events to look at how those flood frequencies will change by the end of the century.

It's possible to do this for all of Canada now. We simply need to sit down and do it.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

If we are seeing these flood frequencies increase, certainly the magnitude of the destruction is going up because of what we've built along those areas. Perhaps that's a warning for the future to cut it out. Otherwise, we're going to experience more and more destruction from those.

What's the cause? What could be attributed as a cause for the increase in frequency of these flooding events?

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

The change in the frequency of flooding and in the occurrence of flooding is sometimes due to development. Our communities really like to develop flood plains because that's the most desirable property and people want lakefronts or riverfronts for their homes.

It's also the change in the nature of storms. Storms cluster much more now than they used to. We get more multiple-day storms, greater storm intensities, greater rainfall intensities and now, in some cases, more rain on snow, depending on the elevation. All these are working together to make those changes to our flood regimes in Canada.

We now even have glacier melt causing floods. The peak flood in Whitehorse, Yukon, which occurred in 2021, was started by the heat dome that occurred that year. It was the Llewellyn Glacier and other snowpacks in the mountains above Whitehorse melting away at a rapid pace. We've never seen this before. This is what we have now.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

With respect to all of these realities of the current situation and what we can do to mitigate some of these destructive events, or at least mitigate the impacts they have, in what ways will a national strategy aid in the delivery of more timely and reliable forecasting and information?

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

There are number of things. One is that with an adequate prior forecast, people can take personal actions. They can get things out of their basements. They can evacuate the area. They can secure their businesses. They can protect their farms. There's lots they can do. Lots of sandbagging can be done with a few days' notice. Provincial agencies can reduce the water storage in reservoirs to provide capacity for water to fill in.

Furthermore, better predictions can allow for better flood plain mapping and help the insurance industry come up with reliable and suitable costs for flood insurance across the country that are based on the best science. It would also allow communities, provinces and territories to plan for future development to avoid excess costs in the future.

These things can be used for water supply forecasting. It can help us look at irrigation expansion. It can help us restore natural functions to rivers, wetlands, deltas, and on and on. It's many things. Hydroelectricity is also a massive one.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks, Dr. Pomeroy.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you, Mr. van Koeverden.

Ms. Pauzé, go ahead for six minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We know that four departments are concerned. I know that's in clause 3 of the bill. They are the Department of Environment, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

The strategy outlined in clause 3 calls for new investment, the identification of properties and infrastructure at risk, the establishment of a national co-operative system and the creation of a national hydrological forecasting service.

That's what I want to focus on. Why not first review the entire Meteorological Service of Canada? Why create another structure? Is there some benefit to creating another structure rather than bringing the representatives concerned to the same table to review ways to provide the service?

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

As we said at the outset, the Canadian Meteorological Centre operates on a top-down model. In other words, there is no collaboration. We think the new system should be more collaborative and structured. Bill C-317 is a foundational bill.

To be collaborative, you have to rely on the National Hydrological Service, within which the federal government and the provinces collaborate and share costs.

The aim is to change the way we think about this issue so we can have the best of both worlds. As I said at the outset, we use a top-down approach. We can't change the fact that weather forecasting is made possible for us by satellites. Whether we like it or not, that's the way it works. It's centralized and top-down. However, there also has to be horizontal collaboration among local, provincial and territorial bodies so we can get the best of both worlds. Most of the elements are probably already in place, but we're working too informally for the moment.

As I said, the project is foundational. All we're asking the federal government to do is submit a proposal. It could be amended, but we have to have a good proposal in order to move forward.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

As we all know, the departments often work in silos, unfortunately, and aren't used to collaborating. However, I think it's possible to acquire the habit. It seems to me that government authorities are already doing part of the work contemplated in Bill C-317.

Would the bill really improve matters? Would it really improve current government action to develop a national flood and drought forecasting strategy? We know that national strategies are a popular tool among the Liberals.

Here's an example. Quebec has a flood protection plan. The other provinces must have established something else, but I don't know what that might be. How will the bill help improve the present situation? Government authorities in Quebec, the provinces and the territories already have responsibilities.

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

Knowledge is advancing quickly in the field.

The purpose of collaboration is to exchange best practices and knowledge. As Mr. Pomeroy said, some provinces have considerable resources. They have strong capabilities and extensive expertise, but others less so. However, under the federal model, some provinces always need a little more help than others. The system enables everyone to work together.

Knowledge is developing so quickly that even the provinces with strong capabilities in the field could benefit from the exchange of knowledge and best practices. This is a very dynamic field that's developing quickly. I believe everyone could benefit from collaboration.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Can you assure us that the legislation providing for the creation of this bill meets a genuine need and doesn't merely put different names on activities in which the government is already engaged?

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

Earlier you said that at least four departments were working in silos. This strategy will encourage them to work together and to work better together so that we have a slightly more unified system.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you.

That pretty well wraps up the six minutes.

Ms. Collins, you have six minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the member for putting forward this important bill.

I thank Mr. Pomeroy for being here as a witness today and for all of his work.

We know that unprecedented weather events have impacted Canadians. It used to be that we were talking about a scary future, but now we're talking about the scary present that we are living through. In British Columbia, we're experiencing multi-year droughts at the same time as extreme flooding and evacuations.

I notice that the preamble of this bill talks a bit about how “communities and industries, notably the farming industry, are inordinately impacted by floods and droughts”. That's so true. We also know that many indigenous communities face a far greater risk of weather-related emergencies.

How do you see governments working with first nations and Inuit and Métis communities to implement these kinds of policies and to really make sure that they are leading some of this work?

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

I'll pass it to Dr. Pomeroy after my initial comments.

My understanding is that the strategy would bring everyone to the table. It would benefit from input from all stakeholders, including provinces, territories, industry, first nations and Métis. Then the idea is to see how best to translate the predictive knowledge to help communities on the ground that are buttressing themselves against these natural disasters.

Is that a correct way of seeing it? I'm sure you can add more nuance, Dr. Pomeroy.

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

It's a start.

One thing we found in the Global Water Futures program is that there's almost nowhere in Canada where there is a flood prediction point on a first nations territory, on an indigenous territory. We put them in the big cities. That's where the gauges and the prediction points went. There's an easy win there: It's to start making sure that we're actually predicting flooding directly on reserves.

The second thing is to bring indigenous knowledge into this. It's something that we did with co-led projects. There may not have been gauges there for a long time, but there are long memories of when floods occurred, how they occurred and things like that. We bring that in to do a test of our predictions to make sure that they have some reality to them.

The other thing is that, for floods, we tend to focus on economic damages. We talk about $6 billion in Calgary. We don't talk about human suffering so much. The suffering is often much more profound in the more vulnerable and poorer communities. There are some in Manitoba and elsewhere in the country that have had long-term evacuations due to flooding. They're not getting back to their communities. This is destructive in such a fundamental way to the whole society. We need to better account for those problems.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks so much.

The impact on farmers is profound when it comes to drought and flooding, with the economic and human costs. I'm curious. Can you speak more broadly about our food system and the impacts that flooding and drought have on our food system here in Canada?

[Dr. John Pomeroy]

The recent drought has had an incredible impact on our agriculture. So many ranchers in the southwestern Prairies have been reducing their herds. That's also happening in B.C. and elsewhere. In the Palliser Triangle area of southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta, the dryland farmers have had disastrous years for multiple years now. Irrigation was introduced to this area. One of the irrigation districts just had the announcement that it will be getting half of its normal allocation of water because of a shortage of runoff from the Rockies anticipated this year.

It is affecting food in many ways. Manitoba has experienced many years with flooding when it was impossible to get crops going. Some provinces have sometimes had flooding and drought in the same year, depending on where you were and which farms were affected. Crop insurance carries this, but crop insurance is based on averages. Long-term droughts and flooding start to decrease the benefit there, and it tends to be heavily subsidized by the rest of society. The whole thing eventually becomes untenable if we don't take some action.

With prediction, if farmers knew reliably in January what the drought situation would be, then they could plan their seeding and what they are going to do with their fields. The irrigation district could better manage what it's doing. We could reap a tremendous economic benefit and a food security benefit from this as well. That's what I'd like to see in the future.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, as a member of the government, I'm sure you've had conversations with the Minister of Environment about the importance of freshwater security, flooding and droughts. Why do you think the minister hasn't implemented this flood and drought strategy before? We are now eight years in.

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

I know he's very supportive of this bill. I've spoken to him about it.

As I was saying at the beginning, ECCC is working on elements of this system that we're trying to create. I think the government should be working faster and more broadly with the provinces, territories, first nations, industry and so on. I think it should be a priority, and that's what the bill is signalling, that we need to move a bit faster. Some work has been done. Work is happening within federal bureaucracy. It may be disjointed, but it's happening. As Dr. Pomeroy said, there have been meetings, but they're not terribly formalized. They're more ad hoc. So—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

I'm sorry I have to interrupt you. I was enamoured when you were talking about agriculture.

We're going on to our second round. We'll start with Mr. Kram for five minutes.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, it's good to see you in the witness seat today.

Dr. Pomeroy, thank you for joining us as well.

I think everyone can recognize the value of improved drought and flood forecasting. I think we also have to recognize the value of being good stewards of the public purse. I wonder if you can give us an idea of how much this entire system and program will cost in terms of upfront costs as well as the annual operations.