THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 9, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 6:29 p.m. [ET], to study the government response to the sixth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled Treading Water: The impact of and response to the 2021 British Columbia floods, tabled in the Senate on October 27, 2022.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses — thank you for joining us — and those who are watching this meeting on the web. My name is Rob Black, I am a senator from Ontario and I chair this committee.
Today’s meeting is on the government response to the sixth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, entitled Treading Water: The impact of and response to the 2021 British Columbia floods, tabled in the Senate on October 27, 2022.
Before we hear from witnesses, I would like to start by asking senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Cotter: My name is Brent Cotter. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson, a senator from Prince Edward Island.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, a senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Klyne: Good evening and welcome. My name is Marty Klyne, a senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator McNair: Good evening. My name is John McNair, a senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Burey: Welcome. Sharon Burey, a senator for Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues.
Today’s panel will focus on the third recommendation of the committee’s report:
That the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, or — as required — other governments in the two countries, engage in ongoing discussions about the management of transboundary waters, including the Nooksack River.
We will hear from government officials from the relevant departments. Our witnesses this evening include, from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Cecile Siewe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Meteorological Service of Canada; Wayne Jenkinson, Executive Director, National Hydrological Services; and from Global Affairs Canada, Niall Cronin, Executive Director, U.S. Transboundary Affairs.
Welcome, folks. I will invite you to make your presentations, and we will begin with the witnesses from Environment and Climate Change Canada, followed by Global Affairs. Each department has five minutes for your presentations. When we get to one minute left, I’ll raise one hand, and when we get to two hands raised, it means it’s time to wrap up quickly. With that, the floor is yours, madam.
[Translation]
Cecile Siewe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much. It’s an honour to address you today in my capacity as Assistant Deputy Minister of the Meteorological Service of Canada, or MSC, at Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC.
In recent years, Canadians have had first-hand experience with the devastation that extreme weather, including floods, has wreaked on our communities across the country. The increasing frequency of these events underscores the vital role of ECCC. My department, under MSC’s auspices, provides authoritative information on weather and other environmental conditions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The services we provide enable Canadians to take action and make informed decision on a daily basis, especially in the wake of extreme meteorological events.
[English]
As we all know, in November of 2021, southwestern B.C. experienced record-breaking rainfall due to an atmospheric river which produced destructive floods that spread to northwestern Washington State. The floods impacted livelihoods and critical infrastructure, and the impact on agricultural areas like the Sumas Prairie was particularly severe as more than 1,000 farms were affected, with farmers losing millions of livestock and thousands of hectares of land.
Today, I am with you to discuss the government’s response to recommendation 3 of the sixth report of this committee, which outlines:
That the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, or — as required — other governments in the two countries, engage in ongoing discussions about the management of transboundary waters, including the Nooksack River.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada agrees with this recommendation. Domestic water resource management in Canada is jointly shared among federal, provincial, and municipal governments, and in some instances territorial and Indigenous governments. Transboundary water management with the United States is facilitated by a number of mechanisms, including the Boundary Waters Treaty and the International Joint Commission (IJC), which ensures coordination and co-operation in the management of shared waterways.
ECCC officials directly engage with international water boards by providing technical support to the IJC. Environment and Climate Change Canada also advises Global Affairs Canada on technical matters relating to transboundary waters.
[English]
Specific to the Nooksack River identified in recommendation 3, the Nooksack River does not flow through Canada, but flooding in the Nooksack River periodically affects levels and flows of the Sumas River, which does flow into Canada, and this can exacerbate flooding conditions in Canada. As such, Canada remains committed to supporting the ongoing engagement on the management of the Nooksack River.
After the 2021 floods, the governments of B.C. and Washington State have been leading a new Transboundary Flood Initiative, the TFI, which also includes First Nations, U.S. tribes and local governments in the Fraser Valley, in a dedicated effort to build and sustain initiatives to address Nooksack River flood prevention and response. Federal officials are engaged with the TFI’s technical table to share information as part of Canada’s Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program.
Canada will continue to engage in discussions regarding transboundary waters management and the Nooksack River. We stand ready to ensure progress and collaboration to protect lives and livelihoods on both sides of the border.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have, along with my colleague Wayne Jenkinson. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Siewe.
[Translation]
Niall Cronin, Executive Director, U.S. Transboundary Affairs, Global Affairs Canada: Good evening. My name is Niall Cronin, and, since September 2022, I have been the Executive Director of the U.S. Transboundary Affairs Division at Global Affairs Canada.
Before continuing, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
[English]
The U.S. Transboundary Affairs Division at Global Affairs Canada provides a broad range of analysis and advice to GAC senior officials and ministers as well as to other federal departments on border, energy, water and environmental issues affecting Canada’s bilateral relationship with the United States. This includes subjects such as climate change, fossil fuels, water quality and quantity issues, fisheries as well as Canada’s engagement with the International Joint Commission, or IJC. The division also provides advocacy support to Canada’s diplomatic network in the United States on energy and environmental issues.
[Translation]
I’m pleased to be with you today to discuss the management of transboundary waters with the United States, including our engagement with the International Joint Commission and its role in this work.
[English]
Canada and the United States share the longest international boundary between two countries in the world, more than 8,800 kilometres in length, of which over 40% is water. Our nations signed the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909 to jointly manage transboundary waters and to help prevent and resolve water‑related disputes along the boundary between our two countries. The treaty provides general principles rather than detailed prescriptions to guide the two countries in matters such as approving projects that would affect natural water levels or flows across the boundary, and it is the IJC, a commission with three commissioners appointed from each country, that carries out the intent of the treaty. Global Affairs Canada is responsible for managing Canada’s relations with the commission and ensuring that Canada meets its obligations under the Boundary Waters Treaty. We work closely with technical experts at Environment and Climate Change Canada to help us determine potential impacts on water levels and flows.
Following the floods in 1990 in the Nooksack River Basin, Canadian and American agencies involved in flood control created the Nooksack River International Task Force, which has since evolved into the Transboundary Flood Initiative. The Province of B.C. and the State of Washington, as well as the cities affected by the 2021 floods, have been engaging through this initiative a multi-government agreement that advances a framework to support collaboration and identify actions for flood risk reduction and habitat restoration in the Nooksack and Sumas watersheds. As my colleague from Environment and Climate Change Canada said, the federal government is supportive of this effort and is represented on the initiative’s technical committee.
Global Affairs Canada also works on relevant transboundary water issues through Canada’s Consulate General in Seattle.
[Translation]
Our colleagues in Seattle conducted two site visits to Everson City, Washington, and Abbotsford, British Columbia, in 2022.
They met with stakeholders and rights holders from both sides of the border, including representatives of First Nations; representatives of local governments and the governments of Washington and British Columbia; and their counterparts from the U.S. Consulate General in Vancouver. Global Affairs Canada will continue to monitor the situation and raise the issue with the U.S. as needed.
With that, I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cronin.
I’m going to take the prerogative and ask the first question, if that’s all right, Senator Simons. I want to be clear: Is the Transboundary Flood Initiative that you spoke about the same as the one you mentioned in your presentation? Is it the same?
Ms. Siewe: I think it started out with one name, and it evolved into the Transboundary Flood Initiative. It’s the same initiative we spoke to.
The Chair: Thank you. That was my question, just for clarity.
Senator Simons: My apologies for being late. I was helping to entertain some of our guests for later this week from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, or FAO. I’m Senator Paula Simons. I’m from Alberta, from Treaty 6 territory.
I must say that it is a very pleasant surprise to hear how far advanced you are in this process. I can’t help but wonder if the fact that it’s a transborder issue has not given more urgency to the attention that you have paid to this.
One of the frustrations we felt, I think, is that on the Canadian side of the border, so much of the responsibility has been downloaded to municipalities and First Nations, and neither the province nor the federal government have really stepped up to deal with the infrastructure shortfalls that were identified in our report.
I’m wondering if you can tell me about the American side of the border. Is it as fractured a responsibility, or is there more responsibility taken by the Army Corps of Engineers or by the Washington State government? Is there something we can learn from the American model?
The Chair: Who wants to take that?
Mr. Cronin: What I think we’ve heard from our consulate in Seattle, who engages regularly with the U.S. counterparts, including the senators from Washington State who have a real interest in this, is not that it’s more cohesive but that it is complex. All the levels of government need to be at the table, and that’s what’s proved effective in addressing the issue. That’s why it’s encouraging that the Transboundary Flood Initiative does have a number of tables where First Nation governments on both sides of the border, provincial and state officials can engage, and federal officials are engaging in the technical tables. We also see that in other transboundary water issues. When it is all levels of government rowing in the same direction, it’s simple to say, but it’s just that much more effective.
Senator Simons: I’m just wondering if there is anything else that either Mr. Jenkinson or Ms. Siewe wants to add to that.
Wayne Jenkinson, Executive Director, National Hydrological Services, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I would be happy to respond, senator, to your question about whether or not it’s more fractured here or more fractured in the United States.
We have done a lot of work over the years with our U.S. friends and colleagues on transboundary issues, and I don’t think we can say that it’s more or less fractured. Certainly, the structures are different. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ role is unique, and I don’t know that we have a full equivalent here in Canada. Similarly, I think Environment Canada’s role is unique, and I don’t think there is an analogue that would match perfectly over there. The United States Geological Survey, or USGS, plays some of the role that we play. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they are more or less fractured, only that the structures are not quite exactly aligned.
If you do look at the Nooksack task force, which is now the TFI, you will see that there is a lot of participation from all levels of government on both sides of the border — Indigenous communities, federal agencies and state and provincial contributors. Some of these flooding issues are, by their nature, quite multi-jurisdictional in how they have to be solved.
I hope that answers your question.
Senator Simons: What happened in the Fraser Valley was — I mean, I hate to use the cliché “the perfect storm,” but we had the atmospheric river, we have the fact that the Sumas Prairie is a former lake bottom, and then we have the issue with the Nooksack River and the overflow. To what extent can we prevent or mitigate a future flood event by dealing with the Nooksack issue? It’s one of several factors, but how important is it to the prevention of a future inundation?
Mr. Jenkinson: How important is understanding the Nooksack in preventing future inundations? I think it’s exceptionally important. If you look at some of the studies that have been launched as part of that Nooksack task force — you know, the first flooding happened in 1990, and since that time, there have been a lot of investigations to fully understand the nature of the flooding in that region. It wasn’t until the atmospheric river flooding that we saw a flood of that magnitude again. The perfect storm is a bit of a cliché, but the Fraser was peaking, and we were having floods coming down from the Nooksack River. It is difficult to characterize those, and that requires some work. I’m getting the note that we want to carry on, but I think it’s important to understand it physically and understand how to prevent it going forward. Apologies for running over time.
The Chair: If you have follow-up, we’ve got second round.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for joining us this evening.
My question to all of you is this: Considering the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, what strategy is the government pursuing to enhance the resilience of Canada’s agriculture sector to future floods and other climate-related challenges? Today, we have weather satellites going around the globe. I suppose there is quite a number of them up there. How accurate are their predictions that we would know if there is a sudden change in weather patterns that will bring perfect storms like the one in Vancouver?
Mr. Jenkinson: This might be for me as well. I guess the question is what our prediction capabilities are for these perfect storms.
I’m not a meteorologist or a weather forecaster, so I can’t speak to it with much authority, but we can provide you with more details, if you’d like. I do know that forecast skill drops off quite quickly after several weeks. We don’t necessarily have the capability to accurately and with precision estimate what the quantities or locations of the rains are going to be or how much they will accumulate as a result of these events. I think the long and the short of it is that accurate, long-term forecasting is difficult to do.
Senator Oh: How much cooperation do you get with the U.S. department and whatever weather satellites are hovering around the sky? That is important. Technology these days should be able to give us some kind of indication or some kind of warning.
Ms. Siewe: Absolutely. What I can share on that front is that we continue to conduct research to improve our modelling capabilities and prediction capacity, and we work very closely in collaboration with other meteorological services around the world. We are part of the World Meteorological Organization. We share our data, and we get to have access to their data. I’ll say the same thing about the U.S. We do work very closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. Again, as Wayne mentioned earlier, they are structured a bit differently from the way we are structured. In the Meteorological Service of Canada, we have different entities that they might not have, and they have some that we don’t have. However, we tend to collaborate on work very closely with them, share resources as much as possible and leverage data capacity as well as computing capacity to the extent that we can.
Senator Oh: Does Canada have its own weather satellites and surveillance on weather?
Mr. Jenkinson: We certainly have satellites that we use. I don’t know if I can speak to that question precisely.
Ms. Siewe: I will give you a broader response, and we can maybe send you a more specific response in writing later. Our monitoring capacity includes radar, weather radio, satellites, and then we also have hydrometry that measures the water levels. We have all of that monitoring infrastructure across the country.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: Again, welcome.
In your opening remarks, you talked about the extreme weather events and that the frequency will be expected to only continue in increased intervals. The first question is this: In this subject matter of the transboundary waters, including the Nooksack River, is that a natural flood zone as it is today and was before?
Mr. Jenkinson: It is a natural flood zone.
Senator Klyne: In your work, and particularly in reference to the mapping program, are sustainability and resilience goals of the outcome here at the end of the day? When I talk about sustainability, I mean the ability to maintain the integrity designed in a rebuild and also resilience to able to adapt to changing conditions. We don’t have a crystal ball, but we know that we’re in for a few frequent events on an increasing basis. Are those two goals, sustainability and resilience, there?
Do you collaborate in what that rebuild might look like? Are you able to recommend and influence that maybe the dikes get pulled back further so it can hold more water as opposed to being closer to the river line where it overflows sooner than it should so it can handle a larger body of moving waters?
Also, on the patterns that we know with the limited knowledge we have about the future, do you do any modelling that suggests that there needs to be some substantial change to where things are positioned and maybe things shouldn’t be rebuilt in certain locations, given it’s a natural flood zone?
Mr. Jenkinson: Certainly. There are a number of initiatives, and I think the National Adaptation Strategy, which I think was discussed in some of the previous hearings, would align with some of the goals that you’ve identified. Linked to that strategy is the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program. This is more the proactive approach in identifying high-risk areas and doing work to delineate where those flood zones might be. That’s a federal program that is cost shared with the provinces and territories. There are two studies active in this area right now with a number of communities being investigated for pilot programs. There is active work being done and money is being spent to try and characterize what the flood risk is in this region and across the country. That’s part of it.
In terms of identifying are we doing the modelling or is modelling being done, if we look at the work that this Nooksack task force has done and other groups have done on the provincial and federal, or provincial and state levels, there are studies being done where these maps are being produced and climate change scenarios are being investigated. There is an increased understanding of what is happening in these various areas to provide the tools for planned mitigation. The task force, the TFI, certainly has that in their work plan, if you like.
Senator Klyne: With the probability of a recurrence, that cost is high. There are two costs, right? There are elements of risk. The probability of a reflood is I wouldn’t say high but it’s probably medium, and the cost to that will be substantial. That’s high risk no matter how you measure it on those two bases. Are we doing what we can? We don’t have much in controls of the probability of it flooding again, but we could probably reduce some of the cost by repositioning things. I trust that people are looking at these, and maybe the farm can’t be here but it’s got to be over there and everybody wins. I trust those kinds of conversations are taking place.
Mr. Jenkinson: Senator, I think we mentioned in our response one of the more recent studies coming out of the Nooksack task force that was done, Abbotsford I think was, it was a study that was funded in part through federal dollars and B.C. dollars. That study looked at different mitigation measures, and they included what you described, so ring dikes around certain communities, looking at different positioning of levees, both in Canada and the U.S., and looking for increased conveyance measures downstream as you approach the Fraser Valley. These things are being investigated. They need to be fully considered because in some cases, like the Nooksack, let’s say, if it were prevented from flooding, there are Indigenous communities downstream that might be adversely impacted if those flows are not allowed to follow their natural course, if you like. There is a lot to consider when looking at it, but this work is being done.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. I’ll sleep well tonight.
Senator McBean: Thanks to all of you for being part of what I always think of as maybe such an awkward conversation for you but super fun for us.
I think this is a bit in line with where Senator Klyne was going. Sometimes I get a little nervous when I’m in a room where everybody is nodding their heads in agreement that something will be done. The government says yes to the three recommendations, and then I wonder what is actually getting done. If we were to have flooding again this year, people would say, “Well, you spent all this money looking at it, but what have you done?”
I’ll give this to each of you. What does addressing the issue actually mean, beyond just doing research and observation, and who is doing that work? I’ll put my follow-up question right here. Can you give an example of what some of those projects are that will make flooding less tragic in the future?
Ms. Siewe: I will defer to Wayne because he and his team are working directly. Wayne is the director for our National Hydrological Service in the Meteorological Service of Canada, and he and members of his team are working directly with TFI. I think they met with the Nooksack task force as recently as last Thursday, so he has a good handle on what projects might be happening.
In broader response to what is being done, we do a good job of lessons learned. What lessons did we learn from the previous experience? As other initiatives are being undertaken and we’re looking at resilience and response, it’s also important to look at what lessons we learned from the last event and what actions can be taken immediately, and some would have to be medium term and long term.
Mr. Jenkinson: Thank you, Cecile.
To expand on that statement, there are many ways that one has to try and understand the challenge that one is facing in the context of flooding. My group at NHS, the National Hydrologic Service, is very involved in this, which is the regular collection of data so that during these events we have a good understanding of where the flooding is happening and we can evacuate communities if necessary. I think there’s a foundation of good timely data that needs to be available for us during the events to respond to them appropriately.
There is more work being done, like the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program. This is real work that is happening in partnership with the provinces and territories so we can identify areas with standard methods across the country so that every jurisdiction is able to understand where the high-risk areas are, to what extent, and what communities they have to protect at 100-year events or other design events.
Beyond that, once you look at the work like the TFI is doing, there are specific steps that can be taken to provide mitigative measures. As I mentioned before, is that some work to improve conveyance so that when the area does flood, you can get the water out of those regions more quickly?
Making sure we have resiliency in the data production, understanding the areas that are at high risk and taking actual infrastructure measures to reduce that risk, those are all three things that have happened in this region or are happening in this region. Perhaps I’ll leave it there.
Mr. Cronin: From Global Affairs, I’m always humbled when I come to these appearances with colleagues from Environment and Climate Change Canada. It’s clear that technical expertise resides in that department.
What I think Global Affairs can do is continue to make sure that this gets attention from the U.S. side by raising it with counterparts there, explaining Canada’s position and the impact on Canadians, and then, through our Consul General in Seattle and the team there, engaging with local communities and decision makers on the U.S. side to, again, look for areas where there can be collaboration and cooperation and looking at what advice we are getting from the scientists and technical experts who are part of this initiative and how we bring that forward, and if there’s a block, what can be done diplomatically to help resolve it.
To date, we’re encouraged by what we see from the initiative. There doesn’t seem to be a need for higher-level intervention at this stage, but it’s a file that we watch very closely, exactly because of what you’re raising. We need to be ready for next time.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here. It’s always very interesting to have a lot of nerdy people around the table.
I wanted to drill down on what Senator McBean was saying about this Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program that you talked about. Could you expand on that? Apparently, the government invested $164.2 million for 2024-28. Tell me about the program in a little more detail, what this money will do, and how accessible this information is going to be for ordinary Canadians.
Mr. Jenkinson: I’m happy to respond, senator.
This is a program that is being led by Public Safety. Natural Resources Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada are involved. It’s a large program. The numbers you quote are correct. It started in 2021, and it’s been renewed recently, in 2024, for another five years. It’s a cost-shared program, which is to say that all the products that are launched are cost-shared 50-50 with the provinces and 75-25 with the territories — 75 for the federal government.
The challenge we were facing as a country is that there was inconsistent flood mapping across the country. In some cases, it hadn’t been developed in certain regions where it was important to have it. The approaches being taken to develop those maps were inconsistent, and the funds were often not available for smaller jurisdictions to actually implement the studies that were required to conduct those flood hazard maps. This study was designed to take a federal initiative to ensure that there were opportunities for communities, municipalities, provinces and territories across the country to have the opportunity to advance this flood mapping.
It’s so important because, without having a sense of where the risk is and what the inundation would look like, it makes it difficult to respond to that event when it happens. It’s an important precursor to preparing communities in Canada for a response to what we know is an increased risk of flooding.
There are many facets of the program. My team is closely involved with setting the technical standards for making sure that the approaches that are taken are scientifically rigorous and consistent across the country. We’re developing partnerships with different provinces and territories to issue contracts to get these flood maps done.
We’re also doing science and technology. We’re having research conducted to make sure we’re advancing the technologies or approaches we use to create these maps so that climate change is properly incorporated. The science keeps evolving. It’s important that the science that we help to fund advances those technologies. That’s a lot of what we’re involved in.
Public Safety and NRCan are also involved in much larger‑scale analyses with more regional modelling tools and with results that will be shared more generally through public websites. I can’t speak to the details of that, but there is certainly a mandate to share these data with communities going forward.
It’s multi-faceted and very important, and it’s something that’s been lacking for some time.
Senator Burey: I’m still trying to get my head around how far along you are. Do you have targets such as we need 10% of communities to adopt this program within such a time?
Mr. Jenkinson: I apologize, senator. I don’t have those numbers with me to share with you today, but those are available and we can share them, certainly.
In B.C., for example, we currently have 13 projects in 19 locations within the province itself. We have 245 flood-mapping-related projects in 310 locations across Canada. I don’t know what that represents in terms of overall coverage in terms of protecting Canadian communities, but those details would be available from the flood hazard mapping identification teams.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing no one else for the first round, we’ll move on to the second round.
Senator Simons: I want to come back to a point I raised on my first go-round. When we did our initial study, we heard quite shocking testimony about the state of the dikes and about the fact that the maintenance of those dikes had been downloaded to municipalities that simply didn’t have the resources to repair and maintain them.
When you are at your tables and having these discussions and have all the parties at the table, what are you hearing from the municipalities, from the province and state and from the federal government about who is responsible for what? To pick up where Senator McBean left off, you can have all the meetings and talks that you like, but if, at the end of the day, the person whose job it is to fix the dams and the dikes doesn’t have the money to do so, we can’t make good on any of our international commitments.
Ms. Siewe: I don’t know if Wayne has a more specific response to that, but I’ve made note of that question. I’ll find out exactly where that responsibility resides and the extent to which it’s part of the discussions at the table at the TFI, and we will provide you with a written response, if that’s all right.
Senator Simons: That would be great.
My other follow-up question is to come back to where I was talking to Mr. Jenkinson before about the Nooksack River. You raise a really interesting point. You can’t just turn off the water because, downstream, that water has environmental and social consequences for other people.
We’ve had a reliance on dikes that goes back 200 years. I’m also a member of the Transport and Communications Committee, and we’re doing a big study about transportation infrastructure and resilience to climate change. We’ve heard in a number of our meetings about the need to find more natural ways to manage waters — whether that’s rebuilding wetlands or creating natural sinks for the water to go to — and that, sometimes, too many dikes, too many bollards, actually makes the problem worse. Can you comment on whether that’s part of the discussion?
Mr. Jenkinson: Absolutely. The concept of stream restoration is very active now. The days when we would develop channels that were entirely concrete are largely behind us, and we’re looking to more naturalized channels, for all sorts of reasons. You mentioned the wetlands as part of it. They can be natural flood-attenuation devices, so it’s important that we have that.
Interestingly, the new TFI, this Nooksack committee, has prioritized habitat restoration as part of their initiative. They’re looking at understanding the flood situation, but habitat restoration is a primary focus of theirs. It’s incorporated into the work they are doing. One has to be careful when one puts infrastructure in place on the ground because it could have quite deleterious effects on habitat if one isn’t careful.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much. Thank you again for all your work on this file. This has been very inspiring tonight.
Senator Klyne: What you’re looking at here is a massive undertaking It’s a project, though, and it’s got a beginning and an end. At some point, we can’t be a month late. I don’t know when you expect to wrap up something that steps back, and then, “Aha, that’s it.” When I think about the complexity of this thing, there has to be a lot of engineers, scientists, civil and environmental engineers, hydrologists or hydrology engineers and meteorological experts. With all those brilliant minds around that area, have you had any breakthrough solutions or “aha” moments where you think, “We’ve been thinking about this all wrong. We’re going to do it this way”?
Mr. Jenkinson: It’s a good question, senator. I’m not sure how to answer it, to be honest. Aha moments? Probably not. These are complicated problems that often involve trade-offs or responding to infrastructure decisions or other decisions that have been made many, many years ago. The Sumas Lake was drained in the 1920s, right? So these are choices that were made, and now we’re figuring out how to live with those choices. I don’t know if there’s been an “aha” moment for me necessarily on how to solve some of these Gordian-knot-type challenges.
Senator Klyne: When you think about all the upstream and downstream ripple effects that are testing all the engineers out there — civil, environmental, hydrologists, meteorological experts — we can only just wish the best for everybody out there, but I hope you’re keeping good memoirs because there are probably some lessons to be learned here.
Mr. Cronin: I could add, senator, that one thing we’ve seen on the file is certainly the new initiative that was announced more recently to take steps to be much more deliberate in engagement and collaboration with First Nations. That was something lacking, perhaps, in what was set up in the 1990s. I think both countries and the state and the province are looking to rectify that.
Senator Klyne: I’m glad you brought that up because I was going to ask you if there were any traditional learnings there. The elders carry on the stories, and they know where the water is going. Were there some benefits from that collaboration?
Mr. Cronin: Absolutely. Yes. It has become part of the technical and policy tables.
Senator McBean: I feel that we’re like the eclipse and all lining up on the same stuff here, Senator Burey, Senator Simons and Senator Klyne. It’s pulling together a little bit for me.
I was really happy, Mr. Cronin, that you mentioned, the first time, the local communities and now the First Nations.
Mr. Jenkinson, you were talking about how to get things done. I remember watching the floods happening. Farmers were out with big equipment, trying to put the dikes back together again. Are they involved in these conversations? That’s the community involvement that we need, because all of the work that got done, or a lot of it comes, back to the community. I think I’m hearing from you that the community is involved.
Ms. Siewe, I like the part where you said that you’re looking at the lessons learned and finding resilience. I was thinking, “Yes. Those are the wins that we are feeling good about here in these moments.”
I have two questions to leave with you. What isn’t being done? What is the stuff that’s not being done right now that we have to get at? What if this were the national press asking, because it just flooded out again, “What did we miss?” What isn’t being done? What we as a group not getting? I don’t know if you heard Senator Klyne, but he called you guys brilliant, so I’m going to go with that. What are we not getting that you want to make sure you can impress upon us?
Ms. Siewe: I’ll approach your questions in two ways.
Earlier, Niall said he finds coming to these hearings a humbling experience because of what he learns about us. What I really gain from these — not that I’ve been to a whole lot of them — is that the questions asked by the committee members make us think of things in a different way. It is possible to be in a space for so long that you develop a bit of tunnel vision. You have asked questions, and now I have a note, “How are we involving the communities? Are we going down to the level of the farmers who were impacted, and what do they have to share?” I just wanted to share that.
What isn’t being done? It’s a good question that we will take back. We will also ask Wayne to put it to the room the next time the TFI meets. “Okay, what is being missed?” We will have everyone ruminate on that for a bit.
My first point was with respect to what you are not getting. I don’t think that you’re “not getting” anything. I just really appreciate the nature of the questions that you collectively ask. They make us think about things in a different way and apply a different lens to things that we’ve been working on for a long time and that we think we know a lot about.
Mr. Jenkinson: I will just say, senator, that it’s an excellent question. What are we missing?
One of the challenges that we have with events like this — and, really, it happens so often. I think back to the Calgary floods and the floods in Souris and in Lake of the Woods recently, just a year or so ago, and Lake Champlain where the river flooded. It seems every couple years, we have a very serious flood across the country. My advice to, I guess, all of us is to make sure we’re committing to resolving these issues, not in a responsive way but that we’re committing to water and resilience on an ongoing basis. We should not just pay attention to events when they happen, but we should continuously recognize this is a risk across the country. We must give it the resources and the support and the salience that it deserves so we don’t have to be having, if you’ll pardon me, meetings like this where we’re trying to respond to what was a very severe crisis. If we’re continually recognizing this as a priority for Canada, then we’ll be more prepared when these things happen. That’s probably my big takeaway. I’ve been in a lot of studies with the IJC, International Joint Commission, and others where we are looking very closely at events that have happened. We have questioned why cities like Minot or Calgary or Burlington, Vermont flooded, when a little more adaptive management or proactively addressing of these concerns on an ongoing basis might put us in a better position in terms of preparing ourselves and Canadians.
Mr. Cronin: I would just step back a little bit and look at transboundary issues in general, making sure that we’re paying attention to our relationship with the United States at all levels and doing the constant care and feeding of that. When emergencies happen, then we know who to call, and we have good relations and an openness to help on both sides. For me, that’s a lesson in working on files related to the U.S. Take the time and be constant and deliberate in making sure those relations are good.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Robinson, it looks like you have the last question. There appear to be no other questions.
Senator Robinson: The bar has been set pretty high. I might be dropping the brilliance level a bit here.
Senator McBean: They are brilliant.
Senator Robinson: I hope my question allows you to shine your brilliance even brighter.
In regard to the Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program — and you may have explained this previously — what is the funding mechanism? We’ve talked about cities. I’m thinking about smaller, rural municipalities and how they access the funding. How does that happen? Are there barriers to smaller entities accessing the funds they might need to assess and adopt?
Mr. Jenkinson: It’s a good question.
Most of the funding arrangements are done by bilateral agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments. NRCan, Natural Resources Canada, manages most of those arrangements. They announced recently that they have arrangements with all the provinces and territories and are now setting up studies in that way. That’s the plumbing or the instrument, if you like, in terms how those funds are being distributed. I can’t speak to details of how specific communities are targeted. I can find out that information for you, but that’s the overview, if you like of, how the arrangements have been made.
It’s been an extraordinarily popular program. We do a lot of work with the provinces and territories on a number of levels — flood prediction, hydrometry to water measurement that my group does, and the flood hazard mapping in the provinces. The colleagues with whom we work in our community of practice has been extraordinarily positive with the work that we’ve been able to do together with them. As a federation, being able to get on top of a problem, it’s been quite successful.
It’s a long-winded answer to your question, but there are bilateral arrangements in place to make sure those funds get appropriately distributed.
Senator Robinson: I’m cognizant of previous — 10, 20 years ago — floods in Manitoba, and Manitoba being really reluctant to trigger federal money because they couldn’t afford it. Is there any way for you to drill down to, in particular, rural municipalities to see if there’s a general sense if the money is accessible? I’m just wondering what the attitude is in the province. We look at this big number of $164.2 million that was added to the $63 million prior to that, and I just want to make sure there’s not a barrier there between the province or the territory getting it down to the municipalities that are smaller and don’t have such a big voice.
Mr. Jenkinson: I can’t speak to the details of that. I don’t know, senator. I do know that as part of these exercises, our teams are actively involved. I know that right now, with British Columbia and the federal government, they’re conducting a scoping exercise on this very region to identify which of the communities in the region need to be focused on. They don’t know exactly where they’ll be focusing the funds, but part of the exercise is to scope and to identify which communities need it. There is work being done to try and identify and target the highest risk, the regions that need it the most urgently. In terms of how the municipalities interact with the province in that context, I don’t know that I can respond to that directly here.
Senator Robinson: I don’t need you to respond directly. Just add it to your food for thought when you’re looking after the fact, when we look back at it and say, “What could we have done better,” just to ensure we’re not seeing pockets that aren’t able to access this funding, to better prepare them for the inevitable next flood. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Any additional questions? I see none.
Witnesses, thank you very much for being with us this evening and for participating. Your testimony and insight are very much appreciated. I’d like to say thank you for your kind words about this group and the questions that we pose to you. We appreciate that. I think we do ask you questions that are in depth and maybe a little more — they’re better than just partisan questions. Let’s leave it at that. Yes, I’ll stop right there.
Senators, is it agreed that we suspend briefly to proceed to the in camera portion of this meeting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)