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.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I don't have a lot of time, so I'll cut to the chase right away.
To the witnesses from the University of Calgary, you talked about a fragmented prediction landscape for floods in this country and the need for a Canadian institute for environmental predictions. Could you explain for the committee who is doing the predictions now in this country for flood predictions in this fragmented landscape?
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Chair, I can take that question.
Right now it's largely the responsibility of the provincial governments. Some municipal governments also give flood forecasting, and there is a national flood guidance system that's been recently developed by ECCC. All those agencies are talking together, and things are moving forward.
Where we think we can make more advancement is really on the research to operations side. The whole idea of this co-operative institute is to allow an ecosystem for research that allows interoperability between systems and allows people to take advantage of things like AI so that the provinces can make their systems better. At the federal level they can make their systems better, and the municipalities can as well. It's all a shared platform.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you.
Is the Canadian institute of environmental predictions going to be in addition to these 10 provincial bodies that are doing these predictions, or would the need for the 10 provincial bodies go away?
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, As an Individual
No. The idea here is to maintain the jurisdiction. This is a research to operations paradigm. It's the way to get research.
It's important to understand that all of these agencies that are doing predictions, whether it's flood predictions or water supply predictions, are always very busy. To actually undertake research to make their systems better is often very difficult, and it becomes fragmented.
The idea here is to really try to bring it all together into a cohesive national system, but every province would run their own forecasting system. The federal government and ECCC would continue doing the same things.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
I'm going to assume the $50 million that you mentioned in your opening statement would be new money, then, and if so, could you give us an idea of what the new money would be used for?
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, As an Individual
I'm going to let Dr. Clark speak to this a little bit. The focus would be on new money, but perhaps re-profiling existing money as well. There are many grants and contributions around the country that are being used now to update systems, so there's a possibility to re-profile existing money and add some new money into the system.
Part of the motivation here is that we're dealing with a bit of a crisis right now with climate change and everything we're seeing with wildfires, floods, and [Inaudible—Editor]
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you.
Thank you for being here, Mrs. Pétrin.
I, too, have concerns about the situation in Chalk River. My riding is just across the river, in Quebec. The municipality of Rapides‑des‑Joachims is nearby.
I very much share your frustration over the lack of alternative solutions. Certainly, the independent commission spent years hearing from experts from all over Canada and other parts of the world. It decided that the proposal, the only one submitted, was safe for the environment and human life. However, there wasn't an opportunity to conduct consultations on whether more suitable solutions existed.
If the radioactive waste is moved further away from the river, I know that it could seep into the groundwater, whereas the site that's been chosen is located on a bedrock ridge. Nevertheless, the primary concern people in my riding have is that the waste is currently on the shores of the river, in old buildings that housed nuclear reactors. All of those buildings—which are something to see if you've never been there—have to be demolished and the waste has to be secured.
What will happen if the project doesn't go ahead? Will the waste stay where it is, on the shores of the river, in a site vulnerable to forest fires, tornadoes and earthquakes? What's the answer? When you say that the project mustn't go ahead, I hope you aren't suggesting that the waste be left where it is.
I know that a protective membrane is in place, but it isn't a permanent solution. That's what people are worried about.
4:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Eau Secours
We certainly aren't saying that the waste should be left as it is. I wouldn't want to speak for the experts, who could probably propose some temporary solutions. I'm not an expert on the subject.
One thing is certain: we've been following citizens groups and experts in civil society who have examined the project. As soon as discussion of the project began, they were already calling for different scenarios to be assessed.
The problem is that this is the 11th hour. The situation is urgent, so the project was given the go-ahead. It's important to bear in mind, though, that citizens were already alarmed by the lack of alternatives when the discussions began.
I think it's necessary to reconsider how the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission does things, because the public wasn't adequately consulted at the front end. As you said, the only proposal that was examined was approved. How is it that there is no roof? How is it that all the rainwater will have to be treated?
A lot of problems were flagged at the beginning, but no solutions were identified.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
That concludes our time with the first panel.
I would again like to thank the witnesses for being here, both virtually and in person. It was a very informative discussion.
We will break for five minutes to bring in the second panel.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Colleagues, we're back in business here.
We have with us Dr. John Pomeroy, distinguished professor and Canada research chair in water resources and climate change.
We also have, from the B.C. Watershed Security Coalition, Coree Tull, co-chair, and from the Canadian Nuclear Association, Jill Baker and Sorouche Mirmiran.
From the Fédération de l'UPA Outaouais-Laurentides, we have Maria José Maezo joining us.
Without further ado, I will ask Professor Pomeroy to give his opening statement.
Go ahead, Dr. Pomeroy.
4:40 p.m.
Dr. John Pomeroy Distinguished Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual
Thank you very much.
It's an honour to be here as a University of Saskatchewan professor who does his work on Treaty 6 and Treaty 7 lands in the home of the Métis. We honour them.
I'm here representing the knowledge of over 200 professors at 23 universities across Canada, over 500 collaborators, and over 2,000 researchers and students who are finding solutions to water problems through their work in the Global Water Futures Programme, a federally funded study. It's the largest in the world led by universities, the most scientifically productive in the world, and it's in Canada. This is funded by the Canada first research excellence fund. It is ramping up right now. We are carrying on the observations of this with the global water futures observatories project, funded partially by the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
I want to note the contributions to modelling that professors Clark and Pietroniro made. They were key leads in the modelling program with the Global Water Futures Programme and made tremendous advances that are being used around the world in water and in environmental prediction.
I want to talk a bit about history. I was an Environment Canada scientist in the previous century. In 1996 I was asked to work with other scientists in the department to summarize the impacts of climate change on fresh water in Canada—exactly the question I've been asked to address here.
I found my slides the other day. They're kind of old-fashioned. Everything we mentioned in there had not happened yet, and everything we mentioned in there is now happening: the floods, the droughts being worse, the loss of glaciers, the loss of snowpack, lake ice, algae blooms, water contamination, and other problems. We're seeing it all. I guess the lesson from that is that science can be helpful.
Over 25 years ago, there was a good appreciation of what was coming if we didn't take action. Now we have to take action. The year 2023 was the hottest year on the planet since instrumented records began—and possibly in 120,000 years, which is most of humanity's history.
In Canada, this melted show and ice thawed permafrost, burned our forests and intensified the flow of water through the landscape. Floods were worse and droughts were worse. They were outside of anything in which the species in our country and in our natural environment have ever evolved. This is hurtling us into a dangerous and unfamiliar world where our experience and traditional approaches no longer provide adequate guidance.
Canada has an unprecedented number of water-related disasters. By my estimates, I'd say that they've exceeded $40 billion in costs since the turn of the century. Even worse, I say that those water disasters have broken the trust that Canadians once had in their government to manage their water competently.
There is international concern about these changes. The United Nations has instituted an international year of glaciers' preservation, which looks at the loss of snow and ice around the world. This is, of course, defining for Canadian water.
In 2023, the snow drought was the prompt to the wildfires, the prairie drought, the hydroelectric shortages, and now the depleted groundwater and the restricted water for municipalities that have been endemic across the country. It's from B.C. to Labrador, from the Prairies up into the Arctic.
The drought situation this year is looking dire. I operate observation stations in the Canadian Rockies. We have a snowpack that's 70% abnormal. Last year, we had record glacier melt. Our groundwater levels are at record low levels right now. Water reservoirs in the Rockies are five metres below where they should be at this time of year, and some reservoirs are so low that municipalities can't withdraw water through their pipes and have to get water trucked in to southern Alberta.
Lake Diefenbaker in southern Saskatchewan, which provides water for 70% of the population, received only 28% of its normal inflows last year, something absolutely unprecedented.
We need to pick up our game on fresh water. We need leadership on how to deal with these climate change and drought impacts.
Here's a list of things to consider:
We need national coordination, new investment, and novel technology—such as the environmental prediction mentioned—to help predict floods, water quality and droughts and to identify properties and infrastructure at risk in the future.
We need to identify the vulnerabilities of communities and focus on mitigating vulnerability, not just flood damages. It's not just money; it's people's lives.
We need to integrate our planning on river basins—something we don't do in this country—to help with disaster mitigation and adaptation, flood and drought recovery, pollution abatement, transboundary allocations, our American water relationships, and the use of natural infrastructure, such as lakes, wetlands and forests.
We need the leading-edge research and science capacity to inform wise water decisions and build state-of-the-art water prediction management systems to support our decision-making so we know in advance what's going to be happening.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We're going to have to stop there, but there will be many questions, I'm sure, and you'll be able to get more information into the discussion.
We'll go to Ms. Tull, please, for five minutes.
February 1st, 2024 / 4:45 p.m.
Coree Tull Co-Chair, BC Watershed Security Coalition
Hello. Good afternoon.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today as we discuss the fresh water study in the face of climate change.
My name's Coree Tull. I'm the co-chair of the BC Watershed Security Coalition. We're a non-partisan coalition representing 50 organizations and 255,000 British Columbians from all corners of the province.
Across Canada, healthy watersheds are vital to human health, security, prosperity and reconciliation.
Today I join you from the China Creek urban watershed, situated on the unceded traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil Waututh Coast Salish people.
The climate crisis is a water crisis. From coast to coast to coast, communities are on the front line of a relentless cycle of climate disasters. From droughts to fires to floods, climate change demands urgent attention, action and leadership to get ahead of these crises.
The rivers and lakes of British Columbia are essential to our local economies, the production of food, clean drinking water, wild salmon and the practice of indigenous rights and culture. Watersheds are nature's infrastructure.
However, B.C.'s watersheds have been weakened by the impact of human activities on the land, leaving us much more vulnerable to the climate-fuelled floods, droughts and fires that we're seeing.
Currently, B.C. is experiencing a multi-year drought. This has been characterized as a “sleeping giant” disaster by the B.C. Minister of Emergency Management. Communities in every corner of the province were impacted by the drought and subsequent wildfires this past summer, with eight river basins still in stage 4 or stage 5 drought. That means adverse impacts to socio-economic or ecosystem values are likely or almost certain.
The province's climate risk assessment has estimated that economic losses will exceed $1 billion annually from long-term water shortages.
January has exhibited unusually warm weather across the province, marked by minimal rainfall in certain regions and excessive precipitation that would typically occur as snow in others. This is being seen in parts of southern B.C. right now, with rising flood threats and local states of emergency. The current winter snowpack, which is averaging about 56% here for the province due to this low snowfall, is signalling another hard year of floods, droughts and wildfires, with even greater impacts than we've seen to this date.
For the second year in a row, Canada has exceeded the $3-billion mark in insured damages from natural disasters. Climate costs will continue to escalate unless we change our approach.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development notes that natural infrastructure like forests and wetlands, which are a critical feature of our watersheds, offers services at a lower cost than traditional built infrastructure, and these natural defences are not only cheaper to build but also more cost-effective to maintain, and they appreciate over time.
The Canadian Climate Institute estimates that each dollar spent on adaptation measures can save $13 to $15, factoring in both direct and indirect economy-wide benefits.
There are no more excuses. Climate change is here. We must make an urgent shift from reactive crisis management to proactive investment.
British Columbians and all Canadians need to see bold and decisive action from their federal government. They need to see investments in the security of their watersheds as a central infrastructure that will keep their communities safe.
Today I'm asking the committee to recommend in your final report that the federal government invest $400 million in the B.C. watershed security fund, which is being co-developed with first nations.
This investment is crucial to ensure long-term impacts on the ground and support collaborative partnerships for better decision-making. It also demonstrates a new way of working with first nations that can be a model for the rest of the country.
I also ask that you recommend that the federal government fulfill their commitment to invest $1 billion in the freshwater action plan.
Federal reporting demonstrates a long-standing disparity in investment in fresh water, with British Columbia receiving zero direct funding under various fresh water action plans in the last two decades. This discrepancy was underscored by the recent funding announcement under the freshwater action plan, which again left B.C. off the list of funding priorities.
It is time to address these regional inequities.
Healthy watersheds not only reduce risks to community health and security but also mitigate climate impacts on economic sectors like agriculture, fresh water, tourism, breweries, pulp and paper, and oil and gas.
In addition, investing in fresh water and watersheds creates vital local employment opportunities with local economic benefits. Recent economic studies show that B.C.'s watershed sector sustains over 47,000 jobs and contributes $5 billion to GDP through watershed work such as restoration, monitoring, technology and urban and industrial water management.
I commend this committee for studying such a crucial matter. Prioritizing and making these critical investments will build resilience in communities and proactively get ahead of disasters before they happen.
I look forward to continuing this conversation with you and answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. Tull.
We'll go to Jill Baker from the Canadian Nuclear Association.
4:50 p.m.
Jill Baker Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Policy and Corporate Events, Canadian Nuclear Association
Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for your invitation to appear and speak today. I'd like to recognize that I'm working today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin nation.
My name is Jill Baker. I am the vice-president of regulatory affairs and policy at the Canadian Nuclear Association, also known as the CNA. With me today is our regulatory affairs director, Sorouche Mirmiran, who will be joining the discussion if necessary during the Q and A portion of the meeting.
Just so you know, the CNA represents the clean nuclear energy companies that are responsible for nuclear energy production, mostly in Ontario and New Brunswick, as well as the supply chain that supports the industry. We have approximately 100 members across Canada. We also represent the Canadian uranium fuel cycle, including world-class and state-of-the-art uranium producers in Saskatchewan and processing and fuel fabrication facilities in Ontario.
The association also represents industries that produce and use important nuclear substances for industrial purposes across Canada as well as in the production and use of life-saving medical isotopes. Our association aims to promote Canada's worldwide leadership in both nuclear science and technology innovations. Currently, the industry employs over 76,000 people in direct and indirect jobs across the sector in Canada, and this is growing.
We want to take the opportunity today to draw your attention to the importance of the nuclear sector in climate change and to let you know what our position is, at a very high level, on the importance of water.
The study of fresh water and the impacts of climate change on this important resource being undertaken by the committee is both very timely and important. The sustainable protection of Canada's freshwater resources is a duty shared by all of us—individuals, governments and associations such as ours. Our members are committed to the health of the public and the protection of the environment, including the sustainable protection of fresh waters in the face of climate change and the stresses it imposes on the environment.
Today I would like to very briefly share with you where the nuclear industry and the members of the CNA stand on fresh water and sustainability.
The Canadian nuclear industry is federally regulated by our life-cycle regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, as well as Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. We commit to excellence by meeting or exceeding all relevant legal requirements to which we subscribe. We hold ourselves accountable to prevent pollution throughout the robust management of emissions and effluents. The industry's commitment to environmental protection includes the application of sustainability principles and the participation and engagement of indigenous communities.
Nuclear energy plays a critical role on our path to net zero and to fight climate change both domestically and internationally around the world. At COP28 last December, nuclear energy was recognized for its key role in reaching net zero by the U.S., Canada and multiple other countries. Nuclear energy is recognized by this federal government as part of the pathway to net zero in Canada. We must do what we can to ensure that Canada demonstrates leadership toward this pathway.
Furthermore, nuclear energy was recognized as a source of clean dispatchable baseload power, with benefits for energy security and for achieving the United Nations sustainable development goal number seven, which is affordable and clean energy. Canada is a top-tier nation in both environmental protection and nuclear energy, and we need to demonstrate leadership towards this path in Canada and across the globe by the following actions.
Canada can do so by implementing policies that support deployment of nuclear energy and other large-scale sustainable solutions, such as the reduction of overlap and duplication amongst provincial and federal entities and their policies and regulations. Across the globe, leadership towards a pathway to net zero could be achieved by delivering energy security and affordable clean energy to reduce the geopolitical pressures we have been seeing in the last two years.
We advocate that this committee continue its work to support Canada in protecting fresh water in a sustainable manner while remaining cognizant of the important role that nuclear plays in our shared commitment to fight climate change and our pathway to net zero. Beyond the objectives of this committee's focus today, we advocate that you and all interested parties work together to develop and deploy frameworks and solutions that will help individuals and organizations that are capable of addressing the challenges brought by climate change on not only fresh water but also our natural systems and our healthy ecosystem.
With that, the CNA and its members would like to thank you for your time. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Maria José Maezo Agri-Environmental Consultant, Fédération de l’UPA Outaouais-Laurentides
Good afternoon. My name is Maria José Maezo, and I am an agri-environmental consultant at Fédération de l’UPA Outaouais-Laurentides. I am here on behalf of the farmers in my region, which encompasses the Outaouais, the Laurentians, Montreal and Laval. The region is home to 2,500 farms, 3,500 farmers and 3.3 million residents.
Even though farmers represent less than 0.1% of the population, they shoulder significant environmental responsibilities. Agriculture is often singled out as a source of pollution, and farmers are required to implement many solutions to address environmental concerns. I am here today to talk about what farmers need in terms of production and support. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Union des producteurs agricoles. A demonstration was held under the slogan “we are central to the solution”. Farmers are ready to contribute to the solutions, but they need support, especially on the ground.
A very clear message I've heard today is that the multiple levels of government make the regulatory landscape much more complicated. It's harder and harder for farmers on the ground to deal with the various levels of government in order to comply with all the rules and regulations that apply to them. It is also harder for us to advise and support them in implementing solutions, in accordance with current, but ever-changing, regulations.
The first thing farmers want Canada to do is this: do everything possible to prioritize the protection of farmland. Our land, in particular, is quite fragmented and very much impacted by urban development as well as commercial and industrial development. That development affects water quality and, thus, access to clean water.
For example, on the island of Laval, it's impossible in certain areas to access the river. The groundwater isn't good enough, so farmers have to rely on the water supply system for their irrigation needs, which is very expensive. The situation in Kanesatake came up earlier. The community is in a vibrant agricultural area, in Oka. The contaminated site impacts water downstream [Technical difficulty—Editor].
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Pardon me, Ms. Maezo, but we just lost you.
The connection seems to be back.
Please carry on.
4:55 p.m.
Agri-Environmental Consultant, Fédération de l’UPA Outaouais-Laurentides
I think I may have moved. Sorry about that.
All non-agricultural development in agricultural areas jeopardizes not only water quality, but also access to water. Urban development projects can affect groundwater and can cause water supply issues for local farmers. Currently, our area is home to numerous mineral claims, and farmers are very concerned. They have spoken out against any mining development in agricultural areas.
Furthermore, farmers are asking for more professional support and funding to make the requested changes on the ground. They are being asked to change their practices and to implement a number of solutions to improve soil conservation and reduce pesticide use, among other things. Multiple studies have shown that these measures help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, healthier soil leads to better water retention, which in turn helps to prevent floods and reduce erosion.
However, these changes cost money and require specialized equipment. This can have a negative impact on yields in the short term, despite the potential long-term benefits. That is why farmers need financial help and technical support on the ground.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Ms. Maezo.
We will now begin the first round of questions.
Mr. Deltell, you have the floor.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to your Parliament.
My first question will be for Madam Baker. It's about the nuclear issue.
Ms. Baker, earlier in the meeting, witnesses reported on the reality of the landfill at Chalk River.
I'd like your comments on this situation.
5 p.m.
Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Policy and Corporate Events, Canadian Nuclear Association
Thank you for the question.
I'm not familiar in any level of detail with the Chalk River NSDF project, so I'd prefer not to comment on it. I don't have information about it. I wasn't involved, but I will say that I understand it went through a rigorous process through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as well as the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, which conduct robust review processes.
From what I understand, the Government of Canada's decision was that there would be no significant effects as a result of the project should the company, CNL, put in place the mitigation measures that were put forward that they committed to. I also understand that there's a monitoring program that has been developed in partnership with the first nation in the region. I don't know any details about it, but I understand that they will be involved in the monitoring, which will be a transparent process.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
As you know, Canada is the second-largest country in the world. Don't you think that we can find another place instead of being close to a river?