Environment Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

I think we should keep in mind that the Agency won’t be a regulatory body; rather, it will be a point of contact for scientific collaboration, among other things.

Thank you to the witnesses. This has been a fascinating discussion.

I would encourage you to send us any written analyses—Mr. Behn alluded to this—because it's a very hard issue to grasp. Anything you can provide in a written note with additional insights would be greatly appreciated by the committee members and analysts.

Thank you very much for this discussion.

We're going to break for literally two minutes to onboard someone for the next panel.

Members, I would like you to think about something over the next couple of days.

We agreed we want to travel to the Kearl site and Fort Chipewyan in the spring. If you could give some thought to which non-sitting week you would like to travel in—perhaps it's the week in May—and if you see me in the House, let me know what you think, and we can approve a particular time slot very quickly at the next meeting so the House team can prepare an itinerary and budget. I don't want to spend too much time discussing this here at the committee. If you see me informally, I'm sure we can come to a consensus.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Dear colleagues, we are now ready to welcome the second group of witnesses. Unfortunately, Mr. Brandes had to leave the meeting because we went over the scheduled time. He could not stay after 5:30 p.m. We will continue until 6:30 p.m. today.

We have Mr. Atcheson participating in the meeting via the Zoom application; Ms. Paquerot, who is in the room; and Mr. Jaques and Mr. Cooper from the Water Security Agency, who are also in the room.

We will start with five–minute statements.

Mr. Atcheson, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Aaron Atcheson, Partner, Miller Thomson LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you. My name is Aaron Atcheson. I'm a partner at Miller Thomson in London, Ontario, and leader of our firm's projects group. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the committee today.

I write regularly on water issues in Water Canada and recently wrote a piece in respect of legal personhood for waterways with one of my colleagues, Katherine Cavan.

I certainly think that who speaks for nature and in particular for waterways is a question that raises potential conflicts. Certainly, local first nations must be part of the answer, but what happens when there are multiple first nations that seek to speak for a waterway, other communities, other stakeholders? What happens when some manner of impingement on a river is necessary for the greater benefit of the communities in an area?

I would start by saying that I don't think that legal personhood for waterways needs to mean negative consequences for well-considered and planned infrastructure projects. If the relevant right of nature here is legal standing simply to take a party, presumably a government approval authority, to court over a decision, how do we effectively avoid legal personhood for a waterway becoming another source of delays in moving forward with infrastructure projects in our country?

It's our view, mine and my co-author's, that it's critical that we engage problem solvers, solution-minded individuals in the representation of waterways. It would be a failure of those of us involved to allow this concept of legal personhood to become just another way for the not-in-my-backyard elements in our society to delay or kill projects without offering alternatives to achieve the advances that are needed to meet the needs of both humans and nature.

One of the questions that needs to be determined effectively is how we make expertise and knowledge available to the stewards or guardians of a waterway. Should people with such knowledge and expertise be encouraged to become the guardians themselves, or should they be available as resources to ensure that decisions are made with full knowledge of the circumstances, the options, etc.?

In parallel to assisting in determining who speaks for a waterway, I think it would be advantageous for us to allow input from the waterway early in the planning process for infrastructure projects. That said, it would not be beneficial to effectively twin the environmental assessment process for every project with associated delays.

Just for a moment, consider an example of a new waste-water treatment facility planned to ensure that waste water created by humans is treated and does not affect the drinking water sources for various communities. The treated waste water out the far end of the system needs to go somewhere, and traditionally that would be an area waterway. If that waterway runs through traditional territory of multiple first nations, and through other communities, who speaks for the waterway in assessing whether the municipality planning the waste-water treatment plant has sufficiently addressed the health and well-being of the waterway?

It's a complex problem. It requires knowledge of the areas involved and the river, but also knowledge and expertise related to the technologies being considered for the new infrastructure and the associated risks involved, and “no, not here” is just not an acceptable answer given the need for all human beings to have safe drinking water in that case.

I think the most critical question may be how we induce the stewards of a waterway to consider options that minimize the negative effects on the river while allowing infrastructure to proceed and then how this information makes its way into the planning process.

I am certainly not an expert in how other governments have proceeded and sought to include the information provided on behalf of a river, but certainly, we should be looking at other jurisdictions. There are roughly a dozen countries, I believe, that have experience now with rights of nature and so could speak to this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Atcheson.

Professor Paquerot, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Sylvie Paquerot, Retired Associate Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make two clarifications at the outset. First, the format of consultations like these is quite uncomfortable and goes against the grain for a researcher or professor, since our work requires us to prove a proposal before making any assertions, which we can then present in five minutes.

I also want to tell you that an entire volume, which I invite you to read, was written on the issue of a water agency. I will present the conclusions to you, and you may then ask me questions about the arguments of interest to you.

Second, I would like to clarify here that my main area of expertise is international law and global water governance. I looked into issues of water governance under different sovereign states in an ancillary way, because international law problems generally flow from the concept they have of things. What happens in the states puts limits on what we can do in terms of international law.

The other reason I agreed to meet with you is because I have observed connections between many issues raised on an international level and the challenges of water governance within federations. Indeed, the various levels of power essentially look like what we try to do when we want to govern internationally a resource we hold in common.

I will quickly go over three blind spots that became apparent to me while reviewing the water agency project during a conference.

First, there is the issue of plurality.

Then there is the water cycle, followed by the carrying capacity of water ecosystems. I think it is important to take these blind spots into account.

For those interested in the issue of plurality, in 2016 a researcher by the name of Frédéric Julien wrote a thesis focused specifically on the concept Canadians have of water.

Because of the method of participation in Canadian public consultations, we see that the issue is mainly a divergence of identities rather than that of ideas. The effect is often such that dissent doesn’t emerge during consultations. Then we wonder why we can’t come to a consensus.

I therefore think it’s important to reconsider means of participation in consultations on water and to democratize the process around water such that various concepts of water may emerge. We cannot solve conflicts by hiding the fact that different concepts exist.

Furthermore, we know that the government of Canada is biased on the issue of water. This bias came out in 2002, when Canada was the only country to vote against the resolution on the right to water at the UN Commission on Human Rights.

When NGOs wrote to ask for an explanation of its negative vote, the Canadian government replied that the resolution could challenge its permanent sovereignty over its water resources.

This is an example of why it is important to understand the concept of the thing we are talking about before thinking about governing it.

From this perspective, because it is a point of coordination, as the Chair reminded us earlier, and because it is designed to become an interface, a Canadian agency is a significant factor that must be outlined on a political level before it starts its work. Otherwise, it will be caught up in contradictions.

That brings me to the second blind spot: the fact that Canada regards water as a resource over which it has sovereignty. In the past, Canada has not been particularly innovative when it comes to international water law. If I could find a reason to create a Canadian water agency, it would be to state and assert Canada’s responsibility for preserving the hydrological cycle.

There is a major challenge in international law, namely the refusal of nations to consider the global nature of the hydrological cycle. We saw how many decades it took for the issue of climate change to be taken seriously. If it takes as long for the water issue to be taken seriously, we’re in for some nasty surprises.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mrs. Paquerot, your comments are fascinating, but your time is up. You will still have the opportunity to raise the points you have left by answering questions.

We’ll now move on to Mr. Jaques, from the Water Security Agency.

Mr. Jaques, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Shawn Jaques, President and Chief Executive Officer, Water Security Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting us here today to speak about water management in Saskatchewan.

Canada is a water superpower. Across our great land—but especially in Saskatchewan and Manitoba—our water is the key to our prosperity. It sustains economies, turns aspirations to reality and helps communities reach their full potential. Ensuring a sustainable supply of water is crucial to the future growth and prosperity of the Prairies—be it in agriculture, manufacturing, energy or an array of other industries.

These are Minister Joly's words from “Prairie Prosperity: A Vision for the Management of Water Resources across Saskatchewan and the Prairies”, published in 2020. The report focused on the unrealized potential of irrigation at Lake Diefenbaker.

Creating a large and secure supply of water in the Prairies was discussed for many years in Saskatchewan. Discussions gained momentum following the crushing drought of the 1930s. The decision to proceed with the project was made in 1959, with construction completed in 1967. Lake Diefenbaker was formed by the construction of the Gardiner Dam and the Qu'Appelle River Dam. Lake Diefenbaker was envisioned to provide water for power generation, irrigation, drinking, and urban and industrial development. Today, it provides a significant supply of hydroelectric power, drinking water for nearly two-thirds of the province and water for urban and industrial development in the central area of Saskatchewan.

The irrigation potential of the lake, however, has never been fully realized. Pumphouses and canals were built during the construction of the project. Today, irrigation is operational on the east side of the lake. Unfortunately, in 1973, work was discontinued on the west side by the provincial government of the day when canal construction was already 90% completed. The west side project was never finished. Today, as a result, we see many kilometres of dry canal with concrete structures that have never been used. Lake Diefenbaker has the potential for up to half a million irrigation acres. We are now focused on building out irrigation infrastructure on the west side of Lake Diefenbaker.

The Lake Diefenbaker irrigation projects represent some of the most unique opportunities in Canada to deliver on food security, climate resiliency and economic growth. Irrigation enables producers to grow diverse, high-value crops, which increases on-farm profitability and enables value-added processing, business attraction and employment. The projects would create thousands of new jobs in construction and duration of operation. This represents potentially billions in new tax revenue for both the provincial and federal governments.

Most estimates say global food production must rise by 70% by 2050 to feed the projected nine billion people around the world. What increased irrigation of this scale means for Canada is a reduced reliance on food imports. Increased irrigation allows our country to grow not only more food per acre but also different crops, replacing costlier food imports that must travel further distances to reach our grocery stores.

The Water Security Agency has undertaken significant engagement activities with the local communities, rural municipalities, stakeholder groups and indigenous rights holders. In total, the project team has engaged in 18 in-person meetings with indigenous communities. These meetings included information and education on the projects, as well as the economic benefits they could provide to irrigators, agri-food production and other possible processing opportunities. I would say the feedback so far from these meetings has been very positive. We look forward to ongoing engagement with the public and indigenous rights holders as the work on the projects continues.

One of the frequent questions I'm asked is: Is there enough water for a project of this size? The short answer is yes. In preparing some of the preliminary work for these projects, WSA examined nearly 90 years of flow data to better understand the water supply and its availability and sustainability. We found that, with normal operations, there is almost 900,000 acre feet per year of water available. These projects, when fully built out, will use fewer than 700,000 acre feet per year. For some perspective, water lost due to evaporation each year equals about 4% of the annual inflow into Lake Diefenbaker, but these projects will use about 2% of annual inflow.

We believe the time for these projects to move forward is now. They hold immense potential for Canada, with strengthened food security, climate resilience, water sustainability and lasting economic benefits. Building the Lake Diefenbaker projects would be a tangible step towards achieving these goals and solidifying Canada's position as a global leader.

Over 50 years ago, we built Lake Diefenbaker together. Now is the time to fulfill the national historic vision and secure our future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kram, go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

My questions will be for Mr. Jaques and Mr. Cooper from Saskatchewan's Water Security Agency.

First off, could you explain to the committee the benefits to farmers and agriculture of having abundant access to an irrigation system and fresh water compared to just relying on rainwater?

[Shawn Jaques]

Yes, thanks Mr. Kram. I'll start, and then Mr. Cooper can jump in.

What I would say is that especially in years when there are drier conditions, it gives producers that certainty that they will have enough water to produce a crop. For example, this year we saw some of the irrigated yield on durum, for example, at close to 100 bushels per acre in an irrigation district, whereas the dryland production was under 30 bushels per acre, so it gives producers that certainty.

I would say that it's the ability to start growing higher-value crops, diverse crops, and we are seeing examples of that in our province.

I don't know if you have anything to add.

[David Cooper, Vice-President, Agriculture Services and Economic Development, Water Security Agency]

I think you covered it well.

I would maybe add just a couple of things.

In recent years we've had challenges with food security, and I think what we're seeing now is the ability to grow more table-ready foods locally, which is a big benefit. I think expanding irrigation creates more of those opportunities, so that's another benefit.

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

Could you elaborate on some of the types of crops that could be grown with access to this irrigation system that are not being grown right now?

[Shawn Jaques]

We are seeing, with some of the existing irrigation already, vegetable production. We're seeing some specialty crops. I am aware of one producer who grew different varieties of irrigated beans that normally wouldn't be grown in our province. We're seeing a local company growing carrots for local production and local grocery stores in our province.

I think those are the opportunities that are there.

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

Part of the role of this committee is to make recommendations about the role of the new Canada water agency.

Could you explain, from your perspective and from the perspective of the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation projects, what would be a useful role for the Canada water agency to play to move projects like this forward, and what would maybe be a not so useful role?

[Shawn Jaques]

Maybe I'll just back up a little bit for the committee's interest.

The Water Security Agency in Saskatchewan is a unique organization in the country. In it everything water-related is under one agency. We advance different water management initiatives that are required to support the provincial economy and the quality of life for Saskatchewan residents while protecting the environment.

We're responsible for all the regulation in the province. We handle the water licences to different users, regardless of who the user is. We do a number of monitoring activities to make sure the rivers and the water streams are safe.

Our concern right from the get-go, when we had some early conversations, was that it not duplicate services that were already provided within our province, because we already provide those. The agency is there to help provide some funding opportunities, as Mr. Orb spoke about earlier, or maybe some of that science or collaboration or the research side.

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

Okay, very good.

In your opening statement, you used the term “climate resiliency”. Could you explain what climate resiliency means and how the Lake Diefenbaker projects can play a positive role?

[Shawn Jaques]

Lake Diefenbaker does just that. It provides an ample supply of water that can be used, whether for our communities or for agricultural production. It makes water available in drier years.

We have had years in which there has been excess water, and it helps provide protection against flooding.

When it comes to agricultural production, it makes sure that producers have that stable supply of water they need to grow their crops, but it can be used to make water available for communities as well should they need a source of water.

[David Cooper]

I'd maybe add a little bit.

In terms of resilience and adaptation, the project is very helpful, because research has been done in terms of what we can expect in climate change scenarios with precipitation. What they're saying is that the volumes should remain steady or perhaps increase if you're able to capture and store. Lake Diefenbaker is very helpful in the sense that it can capture water whenever we're lucky enough to receive it, and we can benefit from irrigation that way. It provides us that resiliency in case of future droughts.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to give my remaining time to Mr. Mazier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 40 seconds.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the following motion:

Given that:

The Liberal government has started a process that would force pizzerias, bagel shops, and any establishment that uses a wood-fired oven to run their business, to track their emissions and to report them to the federal government through a national registry, according to a statement from Minister Guilbeault’s department;

The committee express its opposition to the current process initiated by the Minister of the Environment and abandon any plans to ban the use of wood-fired ovens and report this to the House, and the committee immediately call Minister Guilbeault, departmental officials from the departments of the environment and natural resources to appear before committee within two weeks of this motion being adopted.

The fact that we must address this matter is simply ridiculous. Canadians couldn't believe what they read when they opened the newspaper the other day. The headline in the Montreal Gazette read, “Federal agency sizing up air pollution from bagel shops and pizzerias”—

[Sylvie Paquerot]

Mr. Chair, I would ask that your guests be shown respect. I don’t think that is the subject of this meeting.

Pardon me, but I feel as if I’m wasting my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I understand, but unfortunately only Committee members may intervene on that subject.

I don’t know who…

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe Ms. Collins raised a point of order because you’re using a newspaper as a prop, Mr. Mazier. That’s not really something you’re allowed to do at committee. I think it’s the same rule as in the House of Commons. You can’t use a document as a prop.