Environment Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[Mathieu Madison]

Thank you for the question.

We made headway with the farming community a little later in relation to water management. We need social innovation in terms of how we involve the farming community. We also need technical and financial support. Quebec's watershed organizations must create a collaborative platform to try to engage the farming community and to involve the community in making decisions about strategic water planning in Quebec.

At the domestic level, the Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec works with the Union des producteurs agricoles, for example, to find out what farmers are experiencing and what they really care about and need in terms of water. We put these issues at the forefront of our discussions. Our role is to then turn these discussions into action with regard to water management. Each watershed organization deals with the matter in a different way, with the agriculture stakeholders in its area. Watershed organizations must engage and involve the community, and then work on the water‑related technical and financial issues in their area.

We see farming and environmental professionals working closely together. On an economic level, they'll work together to find solutions backed primarily by the farming community, rather than trying to implement measures on farmland that come solely from the scientific community.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you have a specific example drawn from your experience over the past 20 years?

[Mathieu Madison]

I'll give you an example that has just been made public, including in the media. In the Mille‑Îles river area, the Conseil des bassins versants des Mille‑Îles is working on a stream in the Oka area. The stream is used extensively by apple growers for their water supply. Since people are drawing water from the same stream, the resource must be shared and there have been conflicts over its use. The waterway, the Rousse stream, flows into Oka national park, where it also serves as a habitat for protected species.

The watershed organization set up a discussion platform, funded in part by the provincial government, to work with farmers on their real concerns, find common ground and reach a consensus on the water resource. These discussions give rise to all types of solutions, primarily proposed by farmers, for how to share water in the area. Farmers are joined by other experts who come to discuss biodiversity, climate change or the impact of water shortages or the spring freshet.

This social innovation process plays a key role in our search for ways to resolve water‑related concerns.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think that the example of the Mille‑Îles river could serve as a model for everyone. When we work together, when we don't impose anything, but find solutions together, the process is much more effective. When we're part of the solution, we can implement it more effectively than when the solution is imposed by other people who, in some cases, don't know the daily reality of farmers.

I also want to talk about federal jurisdiction over transportation, alien species and transboundary watersheds. Thank you for raising this point. How could the current federal regulations be changed to make a real and tangible impact? Could this be done in keeping with your earlier example?

[Mathieu Madison]

In terms of federal jurisdiction over transportation, the regulations concerning navigation immediately come to mind. They date back to when shipping was the main mode of transportation. These regulations don't apply well to an environment where we're trying to adapt quickly to the risks posed by invasive alien species in bodies of water. I think that Mr. O'Connor has also come to talk about this issue.

We find that it would likely be better to make decisions about navigation at the municipal or local level, rather than at the federal level, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. A process is in place to help communities work on the navigation issue, but it's fairly arduous. Granted, changes have been made recently to make the process easier or less time‑consuming, but it still involves a complex methodology for the stakeholders involved. This is just one example.

We could also talk about transboundary watersheds. For example, we have watershed organizations that handle the Ottawa River or some of its tributaries and an Ottawa River round table, but their work applies only to the Quebec side. As a result, there's no easy way to work with organizations on the Ontario side of the river. The challenge is even greater in the case of the Richelieu river, which draws all its water from the United States.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, I must stop you there.

Mrs. Chatel, you have the floor.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my Conservative colleagues that our farmers are innovative, especially in Quebec. I'll get on my soapbox here. The farmers in my constituency are proactively coming up with many solutions. We spoke with an outstanding group called Farmers for Climate Solutions, which works with watershed organizations in the Outaouais, for example.

You spoke of governance and the importance of breaking down silos. I've been hearing about this matter from all water management stakeholders, such as farmers and the Agence de bassin versant des 7 here in the Outaouais. I applaud these recommendations, which align completely with what I'm hearing at home.

You also emphasized how the federal government must bring the provinces to the table. Where I come from, the Ottawa River is vital, but it flows between Ontario and Quebec. You said that the Canada water agency must help both provinces, which share a watershed and a river, along with its tributaries. Can you elaborate on this excellent recommendation, Mr. Madison?

[Mathieu Madison]

Thank you for the question.

The Ottawa River is a good example, but it could easily apply to other Canadian provinces as well. Integrated water management at the watershed level must be based on the geographical unit of the watershed involved. The Canada water agency could be a place or platform for combining Quebec's regional governance model with Ontario's model, to find ways to work together on the issue on both sides of the border.

We know that conservation authorities have a completely different type of governance in their area. We have much to learn from each other. However, we, the watershed organizations, along with the Quebec government, don't have the mandate to work with them, nor do they have the mandate to work with us.

The Canada water agency would provide a good national platform for handling one of Canada's priority watersheds, for example, but also all kinds of other rivers, including most of Lake Winnipeg's tributaries.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That's an excellent recommendation; I'll pass it on to our analysts. That would be a great thing for the Canada Water Agency to do.

You were also talking about different departments talking to each other to promote better collaboration and cohesion within a given province. What I'm hearing from watershed organizations is that it's hard to get all the actors to sit down together at the table. That includes RCMs, municipalities, ministries and farmers, for example. What concrete recommendations do you have to facilitate that kind of co-operation?

[Mathieu Madison]

You realize the need for that right away when you try to solve one of the problems on the ground. Take land development, for example, which is under Quebec's ministry of municipal affairs and housing. This is a key factor in most of the water-related problems in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. If we really want to tackle land development, we have to factor in all the ministries that are directly or indirectly involved. The ministry of municipal affairs and housing works with municipalities on development plans and city planning, but we also have to consider public resources overseen by another ministry.

We also have to look at how we manage bodies of water, and that falls under another ministry. We can't work on this without including everyone involved. The Canada Water Agency can do this work at the national level when we need to talk about issues that are covered by several ministries at once. We know departmental org charts can be pretty complex. The person responsible for water, say, at Quebec's ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, can be associated with a ministry that's pretty far removed and doesn't necessarily have a direct connection to the other ministries working on the same issue.

Having a centralized platform where those kinds of discussions can take place, something inclusive that enables integration and de-silos everyone is, in our opinion, the only way to come up with viable solutions.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Madison.

Mr. Chair, do I have a few seconds left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, you have 45 seconds left.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Perfect.

Mr. Madison, you also talked about funding. Personally, what I've been hearing is that watershed organizations, like the Agence de bassin versant des 7 in my riding, lack funding and can't deal with all the issues on their plate.

What options do you see for watersheds? Can the Canada Water Agency help?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please keep your answer brief.

[Mathieu Madison]

I think that Quebec's model, in which the watershed organization gets government funding for its mandate to foster collaboration, is a good thing. Implementing measures has to be done a different way, though. I think the Canada Water Agency should serve to bring everyone together for a common purpose so priorities can be established for where the money will be used to implement measures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perfect.

Apparently Mr. Sopuck is online. We'll just do a test.

Mr. Sopuck, can you hear us?

[Robert Sopuck, Former Member of Parliament, As an Individual]

I certainly can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perfect.

We understand you're recovering from some knee surgery. I hope that's going well.

[Robert Sopuck]

I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could you take no more than two minutes to do a little roundup of what you already said the last time?

[Robert Sopuck]

Thank you for the opportunity.

Again, I'm aware that I made a statement in my first appearance, and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please give me a second.

Do we have interpretation?

Can you talk for 30 seconds about something unrelated? Is there anything you want to say about your riding and your successor, or something?

[Robert Sopuck]

It's the best riding in Canada, and I have been succeeded by a very able gentleman, who is doing great work for his constituency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can you lower your mic on the boom a bit, and tell us a bit more about Mr. Mazier?

[Robert Sopuck]

I could go on and on, but I would use up most of the committee's time, so it's not fair.

Can you hear me okay?