Evidence of meeting #91 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We are looking at the interpreters to see if we have a signal.
They're going to try. They say it's not bad.
Could you give us a 120-second review of what you said last time?
1:10 p.m.
Former Member of Parliament, As an Individual
Sure.
Again, the issues deal with water quality and quantity. I brought up the issue of groundwater being very important. My testimony is on the record. If people wish to see it, they can.
I'll add a couple of points to it.
In terms of freshwater management, I have a bias for action. We need things to get done. We can't stand by. There are very pressing water issues out there. I'm a strong proponent of adaptation and mitigation. Again, I look to what Premier Duff Roblin did in Manitoba: a floodway and flood-control structures to protect Manitoba and Winnipeg from floods.
I must go against the grain of some people, I'm sure. I'm not a fan of the idea of the Canada water agency. Water is too interdisciplinary to be given its own agency. The model I strongly prefer is—some people on the committee may remember it—the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, which, unfortunately, was cancelled. That was an agency that integrated everything: water management, water supply, tree-planting, better farming practices, watershed conservation, and so on. It was an agency developed after the Great Depression and it did a stellar job. To me, the prairie farm rehabilitation administration is a model that needs to be expanded, writ large, across the country.
My very last point is this: We need to hear from people who live on the land—the farmers and ranchers, especially veterans who've been on the land for 30 or 40 years. They understand the issues of climate change, conservation and environmental management better than anybody. I would implore the committee to do what they can to get people like that in front of the committee on this study.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for being here with us.
Mr. Madison, I want to pick up on something you said at the end of your remarks earlier. In response to Ms. Chatel, you said that, for the Canada Water Agency, all the funding should be equally distributed. Some of the money has already been allocated, but Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog weren't covered by that funding.
That came as a surprise, especially since, in your opening remarks, you talked about the importance of contact with our neighbours to the south, the United States. Can you please fill us in on what's happening with that?
1:10 p.m.
President of the Board of Directors, Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec
I don't want to comment on funding for those two areas specifically, but one thing we know for sure is that they, like others, have less funding than they need to adequately address water management issues for those two bodies of water.
I think the cross-border aspect is interesting because we need a game plan that everyone affected by this issue can commit to. We need to be able to do that no matter where the border is. Then we have to work with local actors to prioritize where the money should go. We can develop an action plan based on costs and benefits and prioritize projects and initiatives based on what they will cost and how effectively they'll solve problems. We can decide together where to spend the money.
One thing is for sure: We need more funding to implement actions that stakeholders on both sides have prioritized.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you.
You talked about the Ottawa River earlier. I'd like to talk about that body of water because, as we know, there's a proposal to build an open dump. A lot of experts and observers say there's a high likelihood it'll pollute the Ottawa River.
Can you comment on that? Are there any observations you'd like to share with the committee about Chalk River and the Ottawa River?
1:15 p.m.
President of the Board of Directors, Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec
I won't take a position on the project itself. Typically, what watershed organizations do is not take positions on issues but listen to the stakeholders on the ground.
If the Canada Water Agency is given that role, it may be interesting to discuss those issues. A platform could be created where stakeholders can discuss a given issue.
Of course, there are environmental assessments. In Quebec, that's done by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. Anyone can state their position on a platform, but there's no dialogue among stakeholders.
In Quebec, we have the Forum d'action sur l'eau. Stakeholders usually submit briefs on bills, and the forum enables them to discuss issues around specific projects and participate in discussions about Quebec's strategic policies and approaches. There has to be a place where these issues can be discussed openly because that's how you can assess the risks and repercussions of a project on the ground.
Watershed organizations are there to manage the process, not take positions.
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Are there any approaches you can suggest that would respect Quebec's jurisdiction?
A conversation about freshwater will of course centre on Quebec and the municipalities. You talked about that, but are there any steps the federal government could take that would respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces?
1:15 p.m.
President of the Board of Directors, Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec
That's a very important question. Quebec has a model that's been in place for 20 years. The strategic planning and stakeholder mobilization mandate is well established with watershed organizations. That model may not exist in other provinces, though, and the federal government could play a role in helping the other provinces implement that kind of initiative.
I hear other people tell us about what should be set up in other provinces. I think you need to have a process managed by neutral organizations so as to bring stakeholders from different regions to the table. That kind of process should be funded, regardless of where the funding comes from.
The next important thing is implementing an action plan, but there's a funding gap there that the federal government could fill.
There are also issues that aren't adequately addressed by the federal government and that we don't have the power to study at the provincial level. Transportation came up earlier. Fisheries and oceans is another one, fish species in marine waters, for example. Agriculture is another one; it's shared between the provinces and the federal government, and federal departments could provide additional support there.
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Funny you should mention transportation. For this study, we sent questionnaires to every department, and in response to nearly all the questions, the Department of Transport said it was not involved. We were a little taken aback by that answer.
You talked about money, of course. I have here a document from Alexandre Brun from a long time ago, over 10 years. He asked for $65,000 per year to fund an organization. Since then, many structures have been added, and money has been invested. It doesn't take long to destroy the environment, but it takes a long time to restore it.
Have you costed your current needs?
1:15 p.m.
President of the Board of Directors, Regroupement des organismes de bassins versants du Québec
We sent each watershed organization $65,000 to do integrated water resource management, to carry out the process.
However, the amount needed to implement the master plan for water is much higher. The Government of Quebec put $500 million on the table for the plan, and we'll hear about that soon. That money will enable myriad measures, but there will be implementation needs everywhere else too.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to ask my questions to Ms. Botelho, not just because she's from my riding, but because of the important work that Watersheds BC has been doing on the concept of watershed security.
I wonder, Ms. Botelho, if you could tell us a bit more about the key elements that have been identified by Watersheds BC with respect to watershed security.
1:15 p.m.
Director, Watersheds BC
All of the work we have done to date demonstrates that watersheds impact all elements of our economic and community security—so that's personal security—as we've seen in the climate events across the country but particularly in B.C. with the floods, the wildfires and the drought.
There are both short-term and long-term impacts. They include the ability of businesses to conduct business. We saw the country-wide impacts of what happened with the transportation infrastructure as a result of the floods of 2021. From our work and the investments that have been made in British Columbia we have seen how restoring watersheds—in terms of riparian areas—restoring wetlands and ensuring that there is erosion protection make a difference. We saw that in real time during the floods when there was water retention in particular areas that prevented flooding, which also created a refuge for wild salmon in the Fraser Valley.
We also saw how infrastructure that focused on natural infrastructure and infrastructure that took into account future conditions and benefits to salmon also had remarkable results during the flood. We know that the insurance sector is floundering and really being devastated by the costs of these impacts, and I know you've heard in other committees about how they are dealing with those and about what's needed. We know that water is an important and critical, if not central, part of the climate crisis and that it costs humans. It costs our fellow citizens, it costs our economy and it costs our ecosystems.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Obviously, you've made the case that watershed security is important both ecologically and economically.
Can you talk a little bit about what we see as the main threats to the health of watersheds across Canada at this point?
1:20 p.m.
Director, Watersheds BC
I would say, again, that I think climate is one of the most significant factors right now because it's impacting not only supply—that means water being available for communities to do business and to have safe drinking water and for ecosystems to be able to survive—but also the other things I mentioned, such as flooding and wildfires.
You've heard from my fellow witnesses about the challenge of governance. There is an intersection of multiple jurisdictions—first nations jurisdictions here in British Columbia, local governments, the federal government and provincial government—coming together and needing to make decisions that are appropriate for particular places.
You've already heard from my fellow witness in Quebec on the benefit of having local watershed governance bodies that can bring people together and ensure that there is enforcement and an ability for all levels of government to do the work they need to do, which requires not only skills and capacity but also the funding to do that work.
Something else we have seen in British Columbia is that there is a need for training and skills associated with this work. There is enormous potential for this sector. We've done some research on the watershed sector and we have seen the economic potential of the workforce associated with this.
I would say we need to look at governance, climate and the federal government investing in the work.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
There's been a very interesting initiative in British Columbia, called the Indigenous Watersheds Initiative, which I know you have been involved with. Can you talk a bit about the importance of an initiative like this, and how it might be a model for other watersheds?
1:20 p.m.
Director, Watersheds BC
Thanks for that question.
This is a $15-million fund that was supported by the Province of B.C. and is being delivered in partnership with MakeWay Foundation. The way that the funding has been designed and delivered has been in collaboration with an indigenous advisers circle, which has played a critical part in allocating the funds to the 49 projects that we have funded through this work. It is being delivered over three years, so the way we have done the work and the flexibility we have incorporated into the design of the work have enabled communities to start work immediately and to focus on their priorities.
In particular, many regions in B.C. and first nations communities are in remote locations and are isolated, so it is difficult to access the territory to do the conservation work and to do the work on the landscape that needs to happen.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. We'll have to stop there.
We'll go to Mr. Kram for five minutes.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome back, Mr. Sopuck, to the committee. My questions will be for you today.
The last time you were here, you talked about the incentives to assist farmers to conserve wetlands on their property. Could you elaborate on that a bit and provide some recommendations on what the best ways are to incentivize farmers to preserve wetlands on their properties?
1:25 p.m.
Former Member of Parliament, As an Individual
Sure. The issue, Mr. Kram, relates to property rights and incentives. Right now, all of the incentives to producers and farmers are to produce as much as they can. Mr. Leslie, for example, who represents a major farm community—and Mr. Mazier, as well—knows that farmers are under the gun to produce as much as they can.
On a piece of farmland, for example, Mr. Kram, there are also “public goods”, and those public goods are water, wildlife and so on. The private goods pay the bills on a piece of farmland, for example. The public goods are primarily a cost. As you well know, farming around wetlands—and I've done it myself—is very difficult, so in this day and age of all the incentives to produce more and more, farmers are responding to those incentives and draining wetlands.
The only way to deal with this—and there's no other way to do it—is to publicly subsidize the maintenance and restoration of wetlands on private lands. We'll end up with a win-win situation whereby farmers are recompensed for the conservation and enhancement of public goods while, at the same time, being able to maintain their private livelihoods.
One very last point I'd like to make is that Canada is the only industrialized country in the western world that does not have a large-scale program of incentives for producers. The United States Department of Agriculture, for example, has a $6-billion conservation fund, making it the largest conservation agency in the world.
That's how I would solve that problem, Mr. Kram.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
What do you see as the best way of implementing that policy? Is there currently a registry of all the wetlands on private property everywhere in the country, or would a farmer have to proactively register with the government and get some sort of tax breaks or something like that?
1:25 p.m.
Former Member of Parliament, As an Individual
That's an excellent question. Wetlands are classified between, basically, permanent and ephemeral wetlands. Ephemeral wetlands come and go, depending on the rainfall. Permanent wetlands are, as they say, permanent. There's lots of work where wetlands have been inventoried.
Again, I make the point, Mr. Kram, that other countries are way ahead of us in this regard. The U.S., for example, has the “Swampbuster” program. We do not need to reinvent the wheel if we are to have a program such as this. A program such as this would be the single most effective environmental conservation program that Canada has ever seen.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you very much.
Last time you were here, you talked about the Smith Creek watershed in Saskatchewan. You also talked about restoring wetlands to decrease flood peaks. Can you elaborate on the benefits of restoring wetlands to decrease flooding and flood peaks?
1:25 p.m.
Former Member of Parliament, As an Individual
Sure.
Wetlands act as little sponges. As spring rolls around, the snow starts to melt, and if there are enough wetlands on a piece of land, the water collects in the wetlands and is slowly metered out over the course of the advancement of spring. Thereby, rivers and streams are able to handle that kind of flow.
Again, this is not an anti-farmer thing. It's just a fact that if wetlands are gone, runoff is speeded up, and excess runoff goes into waterways that are not equipped to handle it. That's how we end up with flooding.
In order to deal with flooding, as I alluded to the last time, we need a mixture of both hard infrastructure and natural infrastructure. As one of the previous speakers alluded to, and I strongly agree with it, wetlands can be considered natural infrastructure. As I said in my previous testimony, when any infrastructure programs are designed by any government, I think there should be a category for natural infrastructure. That pertains to the wetlands, as you alluded to, Mr. Kram.