Environment Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you. That leads into my next question, but I'll add another one, if you wouldn't mind providing an answer in writing.

In addition to the agencies and how we could reform that, what specific regulations tend to be a hindrance or difficult to work with? Could you provide that in writing?

As you mentioned with the Canada water agency, one of the challenges we've seen is that nobody seems to really know what it's going to be. It started as PFRA 2.0. It is going to be difficult to re-establish all of this understanding of local landscapes that has been lost with the end of it.

Mr. Donnelly, you mentioned that you've had a couple of meetings with stakeholders. There seem to be a couple of meetings here and there, but nobody really knows what the core purpose of the agency is going to be.

To the best of your ability, could you explain from your perspective—and I'll go to you after, Mr. Donnelly—what you think the new water agency is going to look like? You mentioned the funding apparatus. What does that currently look like? Is this a better place to funnel money through to large projects like Lake Diefenbaker?

[Shawn Jaques]

Like you said, we've had some initial meetings, two or three, but we don't really have a clear understanding of exactly how it's going to be working. We've had some conversations. They talk about a funding partner and they talk about research, but we haven't had a clear understanding of what the agency is going to do.

To answer your question on the funding of projects, I do think that this is maybe an opportunity for the agency to provide funding to provinces for different types of water projects. That's one of the areas where we think they can help.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Donnelly, you mentioned a whole-of-government approach and the bringing of all stakeholders together being a vital way the B.C. government does this.

My concern is that this is going to be an Ottawa-knows-best situation. They went off, and they've come up with this idea. Then they're quietly, slowly, going to roll out what this looks like, which I think will lead to duplication. It's not going to lead to any stakeholders, provinces or anybody involved with the water management being happy.

Is that a fair assessment and a concern of yours, Mr. Donnelly?

[Fin Donnelly]

I'll take your first question first, which is what it is going to look like. I can't answer that. I think that's up to you and up to the Government of Canada.

As far as what we hope, and I think I share some of your concerns, it will look as good as the consultation and inclusion of provinces and territories, so I think that's absolutely critical. I said in my opening remarks that the number one recommendation is increased investment. That is what British Columbia did as an early adopter of the belief that water is critical to our people, wildlife, economy and culture, to everything that we do. We are investing and we are looking for partners.

What it could do—and I do agree with Mr. Jaques about the concierge-like role that the Canada water agency could play—is ensure that there is efficiency, that there is a one-window approach and that provinces, territories and users can all go to one area to find out the best place to go—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Fin Donnelly]

—and monitoring science, etc. There are a lot of roles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go now to Madame Chatel.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses.

Mr. Jaques, I'd like to begin by asking you a few questions about the Water Security Agency.

You said earlier that priorities had to be determined from among the various users. I'd also like to return to what your colleagues said before.

Many users are in the agricultural, industrial and mining sectors. It's also clear that what the future holds in store for us includes droughts, precipitation and other disturbances caused by climate change. We expect disputes between users to become more frequent.

How do you think the Canada Water Agency will be able to contribute to this dialogue?

Earlier on, Mr. Donnelly mentioned that the parties could be brought together for discussions and preparations. As for Saskatchewan and the role of your agency there, I'd like to know if you are planning these sorts of discussions.

[Shawn Jaques]

Thank you for the question.

That is exactly what the Water Security Agency is. It brings almost everything—all the water-related activities in the province—under one umbrella. We're responsible for the regulation, the licensing, the monitoring and the testing, all of those aspects.

On your question about priority, I think that is a role that we're doing already. We work with all of the users. We've had situations where, because of lack of precipitation, we've had to cut back agriculture producers on the amount of water they use, to make sure that communities have first access and get their full allocation. It's also about how we operate the structures and how we manage the systems to make sure that we have the water—that we capture it when there's an abundance of water to use when it's drier.

That is a role that our agency already plays, that kind of mediation, if you will.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Do you feel that the Canada Water Agency should mainly perform this role between the provinces?

[Shawn Jaques]

Right now, our agency is also responsible. We sit on the different jurisdictional water boards and the Prairie Provinces Water Board. We have membership on the international boards and commissions as well.

Again, our agency is representing our province in making sure that we're monitoring the waters that flow into Saskatchewan and making sure that we flow out our 50% share to Manitoba and to the United States or into Alberta and the northern watershed. That's again a function that our agency is doing.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'd like to clarify something, but first, I'd like to hear Mr. Donnelly's and Mr. Mack's comments about that.

[Fin Donnelly]

Sure. Thank you for the question.

First of all, something that we've done in terms of our work in British Columbia is to recognize that the water sector has roughly around 40,000 to 60,000 jobs, which is on par with the oil and gas sector in British Columbia. It is a significant sector already. Luckily, we've done some economic reports to reflect that.

In terms of interministerial work, yes, we definitely need to have clarity of jurisdiction: federal, provincial and territorial. We treat it a little differently in British Columbia, where we have an integrated ministry. As ADM Mack mentioned, it's water, land and resource stewardship. It's a new ministry, but it's a very similar function, where we're looking at the planning, coordination and regulatory role that the ministry takes on, and it works with other ministries within our province.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

It's important, because a number of witnesses said that the Canada Water Agency should perform a leadership role in terms of coordination. However, it's equally important to know whether this would mean overlapping activities. We don't want a duplication of effort. If the provinces are properly equipped to do this work, then the Canada Water Agency ought to do something else.

I'd like to hear, briefly, what you have to say about that. Would it be a duplication of work or does the Canada Water Agency have a role to play in this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 20 seconds left.

Who is the question for?

[Fin Donnelly]

I could jump in here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

Is it going to duplicate the work? Is the agency going to duplicate what the provinces do?

[Fin Donnelly]

I don't think so, but to go back to Mr. Leslie's point, I think that if there isn't collaboration and work with the provinces and territories to find out what work is existing, it could cause problems. We absolutely need coordinated efforts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

You have enough time for two short questions, Ms. Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Do I have two minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay. I'll get straight to it.

Mr. Donnelly, there was a federal-provincial-territorial committee on drinking water a long time ago. The committee made recommendations on drinking water. That was over 20 years ago.

To your knowledge, did the suggestions from that committee ever become regulatory in your province of British Columbia?

[Fin Donnelly]

I think I'll turn to James. Twenty years ago was a little before my time.

[James Mack]

I would have to follow up on that. We have new reports that come from our provincial public health officer. We work with Canada around drinking-water issues. I'll be honest, though. We're working off more recent recommendations.

I'll have to check to see if those still have life after all this time.

[Fin Donnelly]

Certainly, boil-water advisories for nations have come way down in British Columbia. We've addressed that as a high priority. Now our municipalities are looking at moving to tertiary in many cases, but it's certainly off primary to secondary. There has been a huge investment in water infrastructure from the nineties until now—that's over 30 years.