Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.
When we talk about water management on a watershed scale, we often think of lakes. In my case, the experience I’ve had is mainly linked to the St. Lawrence River as a whole and the Lake Ontario system. So I’m going to talk to you about that for a few minutes.
I’d like to tell you about two concrete success stories involving essential ingredients for water governance at the watershed level. The first is the St. Lawrence Action Plan, which came into being in the early 1990s and covers the entire St. Lawrence River. It is a federal government initiative in which the Quebec government is also participating.
The second model involves the regulation of the waters of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, as a result of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Its purpose is to regulate the flow of water from Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence River. This enables all its uses, from supplying drinking water to commercial navigation and hydroelectricity.
These two models have been in use since their inception, thanks to key ingredients to make the recipe for water governance a long-term success. I’m talking here about respecting areas of jurisdiction, for example. It’s never perfect, but it can work very well. We’re talking about a vision and a mission adapted to the reality of each watershed. Local and regional knowledge, sustained scientific research and studies, citizen involvement in all processes and ongoing communications are key elements.
In the case of the St. Lawrence Action Plan, the government of Canada staffed the plan with leaders who believed in its mission, and who themselves formed work teams with champions for the various areas of activity to come. The strong commitment of these champions, who had both soft skills and know-how, was instrumental, and was reflected in the steps taken to establish a respectful collaboration with Quebec government representatives. It also ended up selecting its own champions, from among the many government departments involved, to participate in the development and implementation of areas of activity aimed at protecting the water of the St. Lawrence River.
Together, they promoted and supported citizen involvement through a non-profit organization called Stratégies Saint-Laurent. This organization coordinated the creation of ZIP committees for areas of prime concern along the St. Lawrence River. These multisector round tables established along the shores of the St. Lawrence and Saguenay rivers represent a form of participatory water governance for territories, in which local and regional players have worked together for decades. The efforts and work of each table generally complement the efforts of those in neighbouring sectors.
The other model I’d like to talk about concerns water level regulation in the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario watershed. The International Joint Commission, a binational body established in 1909, created an international board to regulate water levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. In this example, respect for jurisdictions, knowledge sharing, constant updating of data and scientific knowledge are necessary to regulate water levels to meet upstream and downstream water needs as equally as possible.
Added to this is the board’s own culture of transparency, supported by sustained joint communication efforts. These are necessary to inform people about how we respond to their recurring needs and problems, and to improve their understanding of water level management. The board strives to take into account their reality at all times, wherever they may be located within the watershed, without neglecting other quieter needs, such as those of ecosystems, i.e., ecological needs.
These two examples are not perfect. Several other initiatives have been launched, such as the Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec, or ROBVQ. This organization plays an essential role, as does Stratégies Saint-Laurent, through the key elements I’ve mentioned, such as sustained communication efforts. The same is true of similar initiatives elsewhere in the country.
For a long time, we wondered how we could unite all these local initiatives, from east to west and north to south, in a complementary way. The arrival of climate change is well documented, and populations across the country are directly affected by its dramatic consequences. These include, as we said earlier, forest fires, melting glaciers and the destruction of infrastructure.
The severity of these consequences across Canada is a possible thread that could motivate our government to present a vision linking and complementing existing watershed management initiatives to mitigate these negative effects and foster collaboration on an unprecedented scale.
I’d like to conclude by reminding you that, for the members of the group I represent, the Forum for Leadership on Water, or FLOW, it’s important that water management be based on the following five pillars: reconciliation with indigenous peoples, knowledge creation and mobilization, co‑operative federalism, the watershed-scale approach, of course, and deep reform of our laws and regulations.
Thank you for your attention.