Evidence of meeting #94 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 federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Policy and Corporate Events, Canadian Nuclear Association
Thank you for the question, Madame Pauzé.
I think you may be misinformed. The Impact Assessment Act does capture some nuclear projects. I'm not sure what your source is there. The Impact Assessment Act captures some nuclear projects.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're going to have to go to Ms. Collins. Maybe Ms. Collins wants to pursue this—
5:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Policy and Corporate Events, Canadian Nuclear Association
Again, with the small modular reactors, some are of a certain size. There is a limitation that they put into the regulation, called the project list. Some SMRs are actually captured by the Impact Assessment Act, depending on their size.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses.
My first question is for Ms. Tull.
We are seeing precedent-setting droughts in British Columbia. They're impacting wild salmon populations, food security, the safety of our communities, ecosystems and local economies. Can you talk a bit about what needs to be done?
You also spoke—and we heard this from other witnesses—about how B.C. isn't getting its fair share of funding, especially when it comes to water funding. Can you talk a bit more about the regional inequities that need to be addressed?
5:20 p.m.
Co-Chair, BC Watershed Security Coalition
Yes. Thank you for the question.
We've pulled data that we accessed through federal reporting. We found that between 2008 and 2022, Ontario received $224 million in federal freshwater funds for the Great Lakes and Lake Simcoe protection and restoration. We saw in budget 2023 a real historic commitment of $420 million over 10 years for the Great Lakes. In a 25-year period, that's roughly $650 million in federal funds to fresh water in Ontario, which is needed. Similarly, we've seen significant investments of $62 million between 2008 and 2022 for restoration in Manitoba and another $111 million for the St. Lawrence action plan in Quebec.
However, we really haven't seen these federal funds allocated in British Columbia.
Much of the federal funding for fresh water has been allocated through agreements with these specific provinces to assure the alignment in federal and provincial funding approaches. This is really an opportunity for freshwater funding programs for provinces to be aligned with British Columbia.
We're seeing that two of B.C.'s major watersheds—the Fraser and the Mackenzie—have been named as priorities of the current federal freshwater action plan, but no funds have been committed to that.
When we look at what's currently allocated under the freshwater action plan, of the $650 million, we see that only $420 million has been allocated. That leaves less than $230 million for the rest of the country and those other priority river basins. It's just woefully inadequate as the amount that is needed to make meaningful and lasting changes to get ahead of the crises we're seeing.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
That's really disappointing to hear, given that watershed health and function across B.C. are rapidly deteriorating and given the severity of the impacts of drought that we're seeing.
You spoke a little bit about the economic impacts of watersheds. Can you speak to how investing in the watershed sector as a whole contributes not only to climate resilience but also to new employment opportunities?
Talk a little bit about how this is a viable avenue for transitioning workers from traditional resource industries into a watershed workforce.
5:20 p.m.
Co-Chair, BC Watershed Security Coalition
Thanks for that question.
This really is an opportunity for job transition into the watershed sector. It's timely.
The working for watersheds initiative has highlighted the watershed sector's really significant role in supporting jobs. In B.C., it's more than 47,000 people annually.
There's a unique opportunity for workers in those traditional resource roles—whether that be heavy machinery, oil and gas, aquaculture or forestry—to pivot into this growing sector. Jobs within the watershed sector range from entry level to high skilled, seasonal to permanent, and technical to policy-oriented roles. They really can cater to individuals at various career stages, whether that's youth entering the workforce or experienced workers transitioning.
The watershed sector is primed right now for further growth over the next decade. Federal investments, particularly through mechanisms like the B.C. watershed security fund, which I mentioned earlier, can really serve as a catalyst to foster growth in this sector, while also attracting other investments and creating opportunities for a just transition for workers that allows them to stay in their communities with family-sustaining jobs. Then that's an opportunity for them to be reinvesting back into their local economies.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you so much.
Mr. Pomeroy, you had talked about some concrete actions we need take, including national coordination, prediction and identifying vulnerabilities.
Can you speak about some of the other actions the federal government needs to take?
5:25 p.m.
Distinguished Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Yes.
The first is to fix the federal fragmentation. We have about 20 departments with water functions, including four with large ones. The Canada water agency has been stood up, but these functions have not been coalesced into the agency. This is not working yet; we just added another fragment to the mess. We need to do better than that. We have to put these in the agency and make that agency work.
The second is to collaborate. We need national water leadership, not federal water leadership. I have to say that we need to get out of Ottawa and into the provinces, territories and communities to see what's going on.
The third is to fund water science. We're seeing the shutdown of the largest freshwater research program in the world right now in Canada, with no follow-on proposed.
The fourth is to fund observations. We have the equivalent of 64 experimental lake areas with the global water futures observatories. They will shut down next year without further funding. There's no continuity plan.
The final one is to address the emergency. We have a drought in our history as a nation, from B.C. to Labrador and from the Prairies to the Arctic. It's worse in Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan than in anyone's lifetime. I'm not seeing much federal interest or response to it. As a westerner, I don't understand this.
Look at what's happening in B.C. with the problems with hydroelectricity, water supply for communities, and on and on. Great Slave Lake hit the lowest water level ever recorded this fall in the Northwest Territories. It's a disaster for the Mackenzie basin.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
We'll go to the second round. We'll do the same thing. I'll cut it by about 40%.
Mr. Kram, you have three minutes.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start with Dr. Pomeroy from the University of Saskatchewan, which is just downstream from the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation projects.
Could you share your views with the committee about the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation projects?
5:25 p.m.
Distinguished Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Yes. Those irrigation projects are essentially completing the plan for Lake Diefenbaker, which was a reservoir built for irrigation in the 1960s. Very little of that irrigated water use was taken up at the time. It's the largest water reservoir in the Prairies and has tremendous capacity to support irrigation.
That said, it was designed in a time when we had a mid-20th-century climate and water regime. This year, that reservoir received only 28% of its normal inflows. I think that going forward, we have to realize that there will be times of great stress, with water supply issues across the province. When it was designed and built, there was no consideration of the downstream indigenous communities in the Saskatchewan River delta, the largest freshwater delta in North America. It has more or less dried out in the last few years. The muskrat have been wiped out.
For water management of that irrigation system, we need to look at things that are broader than just irrigation. Yes, we can do that, but there is also hydroelectricity, as well as water for communities, mines and other developments, as well as the ecosystem and the downstream indigenous communities, all while making sure there's enough left over for Lake Winnipeg and Manitoba Hydro. These are difficult things, but with appropriate prediction systems and multi-use operation of these reservoir systems, I think we can do it. We can reduce some of the impacts of climate variability and extreme droughts and floods on the water systems in the central Prairies.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
You touched on this at the very end: When it comes to climate adaptation and resiliency, can you speak about the benefits of irrigation projects such as this one and others?
5:25 p.m.
Distinguished Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
I think southern Alberta has shown that this has tremendous economic input effects on its economy and on food exports with a diverse range of crops. Saskatchewan needs to look at irrigation to make sure that it has the marketing in place so that farmers want to irrigate, that we have the funding to do it and that we are growing high-value crops used around the world.
In terms of climate change impacts on other agricultural regions, interest in what western Canada and Canada as a whole can grow will increase over time. That would be to the benefit of this project.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
I only have a few seconds left, Mr. Chair.
This is for the witnesses from the Canadian Nuclear Association.
I wonder if you would be willing to make a written submission to the committee about the environmental impact and approval process with respect to water that new nuclear projects currently have to go through, with some suggestions about how to improve and streamline the process.
I think that's my time, Mr. Chair.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
Ms. Taylor Roy, go ahead for three minutes.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish I had much more time, because I have many questions.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
What I'd like to focus on is how we enforce a coherent strategy for water management. I heard testimony about some things you looked at, Mr. Pomeroy, back in the nineties, which were predicting what was going to happen. Things didn't change very much.
Right now, we're talking about a national water agency, which is amazing. It will consolidate, coordinate and do more research. However, one problem I see constantly in Ontario, where I am, is that we're not all working in the same direction. There are different priorities and objectives.
One example in Ontario is a connector highway called the Bradford bypass. It's going to be a small highway of 16 kilometres costing over $1.5 billion. It's crossing the Holland River twice and having a huge impact on Lake Simcoe. It's taking up wetlands, farmlands and all the natural infrastructure we need to keep. The priority of the municipalities and the government is development and putting in another roadway that will help with traffic congestion, which is real, but rather than looking at other options, they're sticking with a lot of the same solutions we had before this climate crisis.
I think Lake Diefenbaker is a bit the same, from what you were saying. It's necessary, but how we look at it and what we do have to change.
How do you think we can address that? Even if the Canada water agency consolidates and does the research, if other levels of government don't move in the same direction, we are going to have a very hard time meeting our goals when it comes to water management and fighting climate change.
This is for Mr. Pomeroy.
5:30 p.m.
Distinguished Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
We have to be very careful that we don't regret our developments in a few decades because of the rapidly changing conditions we have.
Something you mentioned was road development. Road salts are heavily used in southern Ontario. They are in fact making the recovery of Ontario's lakes much more difficult, because they cause stratification of the water, and therefore more phosphorus is trapped in there and there are more algae blooms. This is recent science that came out of the University of Waterloo.
These results, and mitigation measures, have to be taken into consideration in these developments. How can you develop the road without having those impacts? This is something that Canadians have worked on for a long time, and I think it can be done, but we have to be planning for the hydro-climatic conditions of the mid-21st century, not for the mid-20th century, and that will be crucial for those things.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for about a minute and a half.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
First, I have a request for Ms. Baker, because she didn't answer my question. I want to know what the Canadian Nuclear Association intends to do to assess and manage the accumulation of radioactive waste in waterways, when the Ottawa River is already contaminated with tritium, for example. I'd like her to send us the answer in writing.
I'd also like to ask Ms. Maezo a question. We talk a lot about the Canadian Water Agency, but there's also the question of food safety. This summer, we know that people died after eating contaminated cantaloupe, for example.
Do we have the right priorities when talking about the Canada Water Agency? Shouldn't we be talking instead about food security and ways to strengthen it, especially at the border?
5:30 p.m.
Agri-Environmental Consultant, Fédération de l’UPA Outaouais-Laurentides
Of course, food security is a priority. With climate change, we risk receiving fewer imports from countries that also have problems. This can be managed in all sorts of ways, including trade.
At the moment, for example, we could put more emphasis on our local producers to help them, such as our dairy and beef farms, which have the highest environmental standards and much less impact on the environment than our neighbours in the United States, for example. Priority should be given to helping our local farms remain healthy and sustainable and retain their vital agricultural territory.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This question is to Ms. Tull.
My colleague Taylor Bachrach, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, moved a motion that was passed at this committee, calling on the federal government to implement a $1-billion watershed protection fund with the help of the B.C. government and other investors.
Could you explain why such a fund is essential?