Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee for inviting me here to contribute to this critical discussion.
I will start by noting that on January 1, I concluded a five-year research position with a team working out of the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University that studied flood risk and the politics of housing development in Canada and abroad. I'm now semi-retired. The following opinions are my own.
I watched some of the recordings from previous committee meetings. I will not repeat scary data, nor will I repeat the demands for the federal government to fund and convene a Canada-wide strategy for adaptation to climate change. I've chosen to talk instead about watershed management for flood resilience in Canada and the Netherlands. I hope, and I'm sure you do too, that I'm not repeating what others have presented to the committee.
In recent years, I have spoken about flooding and urban development with dozens of Canadian and Dutch government and housing industry officials. Following from that research, I invite the committee to look closely at Dutch Water Authorities, an 800-year-old institution with elected boards that coordinate flood resilience, watershed by watershed. Please note that water management in the Netherlands is based on geography, climate projections and benefit-cost analyses, as well as mandates that supersede other political priorities.
Also note that over centuries, a unique model of decision-making has evolved in the Netherlands, which enables everyone from local landowners to senior federal government officials to negotiate solutions, including managed retreat and large infrastructure projects that everyone can agree with.
It's not idyllic. Democracy, as you know, can be messy and time-consuming, but despite changing weather and some close calls, the Dutch have not had a serious urban flood on a major river or from the sea in 70 years.
You may say it's not fair to compare Canada and the Netherlands because the Netherlands has a much longer history of much higher flood risk. Because of the ballooning costs of our disasters, I think it's fair to compare. By the way, we found Dutch people to be very welcoming to Canadians and very generous with their advice.
Now let's compare Dutch Water Authorities with Ontario's 36 conservation authorities, which are also organized by watershed. They have a similar mandate, which includes restricting development in flood zones. Take note that in 2016, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that between 2005 and 2014, the province of Ontario had by far the lowest per capita DFAA payouts for flood recovery of all Canadian provinces and territories.
The PBO said this was because Ontario's conservation authorities had kept development out of flood zones. Despite this fact, the Ontario government recently cut their funding and regulatory authority, ostensibly to speed housing development approvals. Critics claim that this was a misguided political action.
Given regulatory authority and a mandate to protect homes and neighbourhoods, a mandate that's hard to politicize, watershed management organizations can prevent development in flood zones. Canada does not have coordinated watershed management. Allow me to suggest that the federal government consider this as one of its strategies for reducing flood risk.
I mentioned the Dutch decision-making around water management, by which stakeholders take as much time as necessary, often around kitchen tables, to make tough decisions. This cultural practice, along with real respect for land and water, has parallels in some of our first nations models of decision-making. Taking this approach to watershed-based flood management would dovetail nicely with Canada's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples for the benefit of all Canadians.
Thanks for listening.