Environment Committee on Feb. 6th, 2024

[Aliénor Rougeot]

That's right. The study you're referring to, I think, is the one that came out two weeks ago from Yale University and Environment and Climate Change Canada. It pointed out that there had been monitoring only on a section of potential air pollutants and we had not been looking for many other air pollutants that are less present in conventional oil but are very present in unconventional oil, so the oil sands. What they found is that there are 20% to 64% additional emissions compared to what was being reported, and therefore all the policies or the different ways we've been thinking about local communities' exposure were obviously ignoring a massive amount of exposure.

What struck me and really touched me when I read that report was that, for decades, local indigenous communities have flagged that they can't breathe every summer and that their children have increasing rates of asthma, and their concerns were dismissed because they were shown numbers saying, no, look, things are in order. It's actually because we weren't looking for the right things. That health concern has been shared by the nations for decades and we were just ignoring them based on false information.

I'll also point out that a lot of these emissions may actually be coming from the tailings, not the rest of the operations, and especially from the drying tailings, so in a context in which we're thinking about reclamation and drying tailings is one of the solutions on the table, we should be very concerned about drying tailings without other options to make sure emissions don't increase. We should be concerned that it isn't an actual viable solution. The question of how we reclaim the tailings hasn't been solved, and that's one of the reasons we're calling for a moratorium on tailings throughout, because we don't have a solution to the tailings problem, whether it's the volumes or the drying ones, which emit massively.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You mentioned a few of the impacts in frontline indigenous communities. Can you talk a little bit more about what you're hearing from these communities in terms of the health impacts?

[Aliénor Rougeot]

Absolutely. Of course, this committee has heard from them, and I'll invite you to continue talking to them directly, because they can speak best to it.

I think in terms of the impacts, and again, thinking back about federal jurisdiction here, one of the key impacts is actually on their rights, their treaty rights, their constitutional rights, their right, for example, to use the land for traditional practices. That is something that's being compromised when waterways and the environment are polluted and therefore harvesting is no longer an option. We're also hearing about mental and spiritual impacts, and we're hearing of course about the health impacts. You've all heard Chief Adam and Chief Tuccaro talk about that in the past in regard to rare cancers, asthma and other aspects of that.

Again, I really think we need to realize that neither the government nor industry has—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll have to stop there.

Ms. Collins, if you want a signed copy of the report Ms. Rougeot held up, I can arrange that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Can you also send it to the Prime Minister?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Mazier for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for coming out here today.

I'm going to be asking some questions of the Alberta Irrigation Districts Association.

Thank you for coming here today. Being a Manitoba farmer, I've always looked with envy at Alberta and how they go about irrigating their croplands. They were the model for western Canada. They were far ahead of the curve, partly because of industry, but also because there was a need and Alberta knew that to be sustainable, they needed water. You guys got it figured out about trapping the water, actually collecting the water when the time was good, like making hay when the sun shines. You followed all the farming practices properly and you have a great system in Alberta. I'll tell you it's the envy of Manitoba; that's for sure.

My first question is about some clarification. Mr. Ostrop, you were talking about how many billion dollars' worth of goods that are produced from irrigation?

[Alex Ostrop]

It's $5.6 billion annually of GDP towards Alberta's economy. What's interesting is that it seems like irrigation is really punching above its weight, because if we look at overall agricultural land, irrigation is only on 4.5% of the agricultural land, yet it produces close to 30% of the agriproduct GDP. The efficiency and the value of the land that is irrigated are disproportionate to agriculture in the rest of the province.

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

That's pretty amazing. It would actually add value, so those farmers would be able to produce more food at the end of the day, because they have access to water. Well done on that.

Mr. Phillips, was the Alberta Irrigation Districts Association consulted on the Canada water agency, and if so, what recommendations did you give the government?

[Richard Phillips, Vice-Chair, Alberta Irrigation Districts Association]

We were involved in discussions about the Canada water agency. We did provide a submission with recommendations and our thoughts about what the Canada water agency should and should not do, respecting provincial jurisdiction, of course, but there are many things that the Canada water agency could do effectively.

We're hosting a conference today. We just had a presentation on it, and we were informed of many good things they could be involved in. Our recommendations, we believe, are largely being respected with the Canada water agency coming into play here.

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

You mentioned provincial jurisdiction, and that you've been reassured. Believe me, you're probably the first in Canada who has talked like this, especially in the rural areas, when it comes to food production.

Can you expand on what you learned today? Where did you have the most concerns, especially when it comes to provincial jurisdiction? That would be the best question.

[Richard Phillips]

I think our concern simply is that water varies tremendously across this huge nation of ours, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution for many things. Some things within provincial jurisdiction—allocation of water within a province's boundaries—need to remain within that province. The way in which they license or allocate water is a provincial matter. When you get to transboundary issues, then there potentially is a role for federal government to play.

As we were informed by our speaker today from the Canada water agency, largely you're looking at areas of mutual concern across provincial boundaries, because there are some things that ought to stay within a province. There are other things where there certainly could be a role for a federal agency to deal with it.

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

You were talking about “the risks of inaction” if this is not prioritized. I wonder if you can expand on those. Adaptation really is the key to food production. I don't know a farmer out there.... We only have 100 to 110 days, at maximum, to produce a crop, take it off and put it away in a safe place, so we can market it for the rest of the year. We truly do a remarkable, modern-day type of model here in Canada every year.

What happens if we don't address the water worries and put in too many...implications like that? Can you maybe expand on those risks of inaction?

[Alex Ostrop]

Thank you again for that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 15 seconds, please.

[Alex Ostrop]

We've done a tremendous job at increasing efficiency. We're literally irrigating twice as many acres with less overall water diversion as we did in the 1970s. However, as Mr. Famiglietti stated, we have a role to play in the variability. We need to be able to store water when it comes, because climate change will result in greater climate variability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Ali now for five minutes.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing before the committee and sharing their knowledge and experience.

My first question is for professors Famiglietti and Larocque. The federal government is currently working to start up an independent Canada water agency, with legislation currently in the House. What do you think the agency's priorities should be as it builds capacity and starts to advance its work?

[Prof. James Famiglietti]

Thank you for the question.

I think we have touched on some of these issues in the course of our discussions this afternoon. It's imperative that the nation understand how we do these allocations among all the things we need water for. Again, that's for humans, for the environment, for energy production, for food production and for economic growth, so guidance there, I think, is very important.

I think there's a real role in ensuring that each province has adequate flood protection. There's a role there in ensuring that each province has adequate water quality protection and adequate groundwater protection. There were further issues that came up earlier with respect to transboundary issues, so there's a clear role for a water agency there.

I want to draw a parallel to what's happening in the United States. Take California, for example. California is running out of groundwater, and the reason is that it grows food for the entire nation. Within the United States, California water security is viewed as a California problem, even though it grows food for the entire nation.

When we look at our food-producing regions in Canada, we need to make sure that if we want to keep those food-producing regions there, they have adequate water supply, and that may require a national level—I don't know if we call it oversight, or policy, or planning.

Those are just some examples.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

That's great. Thanks.

Ms. Larocque, do you want to add something?

[Prof. Marie Larocque]

Thank you for the question.

Some provinces are making huge efforts to understand the state of their water resources and put in place the beginnings of integrated water management systems. There are a lot of initiatives in the provinces.

The particular role that I foresee for the Canada Water Agency deals with integrating data in Canada, making information available and transferring knowledge, which can often not be done at the project level or even the province level. The Agency would play a role as an umbrella organization by making information available and presenting it clearly, by transmitting knowledge and best practices and, as Mr. Famiglietti said, by contributing to solving transboundary problems.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My second question is also for professors Famiglietti and Larocque.

Water policy exists in many different places within the government. With the establishment of the Canada water agency, do you think it would be beneficial for some parts of the public service that are currently responsible for water policy to be brought under the umbrella of the Canada water agency?

[Prof. James Famiglietti]

The degree to which certain aspects of water, the management of water, are fractured and fragmented.... Those are some of the types of things that could be brought under the umbrella of a Canada water agency.

That's just a quick thought on that. I will pass it to my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry, but we're more or less out of time.

We will go now to Mr. Simard for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to come back to what you said earlier, Ms. Larocque.

Nobody is going to fall off their chair if I tell you I am not a huge advocate of federal government intervention in what I consider to be Quebec jurisdictions. I see the creation of a Canadian water agency as kind of a form of interference.

You said earlier that knowledge was not very advanced. If there is a mandate that the Canada Water Agency should have, would it not be to facilitate knowledge and provide financial support for knowledge, about both groundwater and surface water?