Environment Committee on Feb. 6th, 2024

[Prof. Marie Larocque]

Yes, that's a good point.

We should perhaps give priority to knowledge about aquifers or about transboundary basins between the provinces in particular.

That said, the geological formations and the environments where water systems are found are very different from one end of the country to the other. In Quebec, our aquifers and our rivers and watercourses are very different from the ones in British Columbia, just as the climate is. It is therefore very difficult to have a comprehensive formula. The provincial or local level is probably where characterization or knowledge is best acquired.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

For my next question, you are undoubtedly going to see me coming.

I assume that as part of your job, you are constantly looking for funding, like everybody in academia. Is there funding from the Department of Environment and Climate Change precisely for the type of research you do?

[Prof. Marie Larocque]

In Quebec, yes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Do you receive funding from the federal government, in Quebec, without going through the research institutes? That is what I mean.

[Prof. Marie Larocque]

There is a lot less from the federal government. It is really droplets. There are relatively few programs for water among the federal environment programs at present.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

That may be something our analysts can note.

Should one of the priorities of a Canadian water agency not be to provide better funding for researchers asking this type of question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please give a brief answer.

[Prof. Marie Larocque]

Yes, undoubtedly. However, it would have to be done in a very targeted way. It should not be done with the goal of acquiring knowledge about the aquifers in the Saguenay region, for example, since there are already provincial efforts for that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

We are the best at that kind of thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We have to continue.

I am now going to give Ms. Collins the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Rougeot, maybe I'll start by allowing you to finish what you were saying when our time got cut off.

[Aliénor Rougeot]

Sure. It was just a short thought. You were asking me about the health impacts or the impacts in general on communities of the contamination that I was describing. I wanted to point out that we've observed really a limited effort by both industry and government, all levels of government, to actually seriously quantify and characterize that impact.

I think we have to ask ourselves honestly whether it's because it's mostly indigenous communities that there has been repeatedly a comfort level with not knowing how much people are exposed to heavy metals, which, again, have been tied to really serious health impacts. I just wanted to point that out, in terms of weighing the absence of data not as an absence of consequences but perhaps a deliberate looking away, because we don't really want to realize the truth.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

We've seen that a lot when it comes to environmental racism, especially on indigenous communities in Canada.

I know that you followed the proceedings really closely after the leak became public. I'm curious. Listening to both the Alberta Energy Regulator and Imperial Oil, what did you take from their testimony? What did you think was missing?

[Aliénor Rougeot]

I think that, on the part of the Alberta Energy Regulator, we didn't see a body that seemed to take seriously its duty with regard to people. It seems like they prioritized ensuring that the industry's interests were protected. It ended up conducting a review of its own behaviour during that study and concluded that it actually did nothing wrong. I think that might be correct, because they are just not set up in their policies to actually protect communities from these sorts of contaminations. That tells us that it's a system that is dysfunctional from its root. It was not a one-time accident. It would happen again.

What I took away was a very serious need to rethink the way things are regulated there. I really want to echo what the nations have said. They have reminded us all that they have treaty rights, and that those rights include shared jurisdiction over monitoring. They are demanding shared powers when it comes to regulating and monitoring.

Again, we have to keep going back to the fact that although the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over all aspects, and a lot is in the hands of the Alberta government, there are things that are clearly within the federal government's purview. Above the Fisheries Act and those other aspects, there is the issue of cross-boundary pollution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will now have to go to Mr. Kram, I think.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

To Mr. Ostrop from the Alberta Irrigation Districts Association, you said in your opening statement that the government should “implement policy that encourages rather than inhibits” irrigation. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? How has the government been inhibiting irrigation instead of encouraging it?

[Alex Ostrop]

Thank you very much for that question.

We do believe that we have a strong role to play in climate change adaptation. As pointed out, there will be increased variability and there will be more severe weather events. The ability to capture the water when it comes earlier and more suddenly in the season, as a result of certain climatic events, is key.

The ability to build storage reservoirs, either on stream or off stream—and it's largely off stream in our area—is an absolute key. That will help to take pressure off the river system, so that we're not using those river flows in the time when they're most sensitive, and it will really help not just from an irrigation perspective but also from a flood mitigation perspective. Anything from the government level to assist in the establishment of some storage reservoirs, which we feel are a key ingredient for climate change adaptation, is extremely important.

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

You also mentioned that it would be beneficial for Lethbridge to have a regional office of the Canada water agency. Can you elaborate on the benefits of a regional office for Lethbridge?

[Alex Ostrop]

Absolutely, and thank you again for the question.

We appreciate what the Canada water agency is willing and able to do. We do see it as an imperative that regional considerations and regional priorities continue to be respected and, as well, that provincial jurisdiction be protected.

For those regional priorities to be communicated to the federal level, I think that having an office in what is really Canada's irrigation capital is very important. We manage fresh water here, and we believe we do so effectively, but if the idea is knowledge sharing and collaboration, then I think having a regional office in the irrigation capital is imperative.

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

Can you share with the committee which organizations or persons you have consulted with before you came to the conclusion that a regional office in Lethbridge would be beneficial?

[Alex Ostrop]

We speak on behalf of our member irrigation districts. There are 11 of them.

We understand that obviously with a federal agency that collaborates with and coordinates what I believe are the 20 different agencies where the federal agencies touch on fresh water, there can be value in that, but if there isn't proper regional knowledge sharing, then that value is not what it could be.

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

In response to an earlier question, you indicated that you had consultations about the mandate of the Canada water agency as it was coming into being. Can you share with the committee whether the request for a regional office in Lethbridge was one of the recommendations you made at that time?

[Alex Ostrop]

Indeed, we have communicated that as part of that collaboration process during the engagement process.

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

Can you elaborate for the committee on the regulatory approval process for approving an irrigation project as it now stands? Is the regulatory approval process a major undertaking? Is it a minor undertaking? Could you walk us through that process?

[Alex Ostrop]

There are several federal departments where we touch. One is DFO. We speak with them with respect to how we maintain and operate our works, as well as how we run the water on- and off-season. We also touch, of course, with Environment and Climate Change Canada when it comes to any sort of environmental impact assessment of major works we're doing. The Department of Agriculture, of course, is a given, but there are even such things as the PMRA and Health Canada, with respect to some of the operational issues concerned. There are many points of contact at the federal level.

Having the ability to perhaps streamline some of those points of contact would be appropriate. We've had a long history of working with all levels of government, whether provincially or, more historically, federally, when it comes to the establishment of this irrigation infrastructure, and we certainly see great value in further collaboration, both provincially and federally.