Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

On behalf of the International Joint Commission, thank you very much for inviting us. I am here as Canadian co-chair of the IJC with my colleague Dr. Susan Chiblow, Canadian commissioner. As also already noted, Dr. Christopher Wilkie is here as the Canadian section secretary.

I'm phoning you from Winnipeg, Manitoba, the Treaty 1 territory and homeland of the Métis nation. I'm right in the middle of the Red River basin, which is a transboundary basin.

The IJC is a binational, impartial organization that is mandated by the governments of Canada and the U.S., through the boundary waters treaty of 1909, to work toward the prevention and resolution of disputes in shared waters along the boundary. In fact, 40% of our boundary is shared water. We work with all interested stakeholders and rights holders to recommend solutions. We have worked all across the boundary, including in Lake Ontario flooding, apportionment water quantity issues in drought regions—for example, in the Prairies—and harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie.

It's important for you to know that IJC commissioners, while we're appointed by the Prime Minister and President respectively, we do not take direction from our respective governments when we make decisions. We work as a commission to find consensus and identify solutions that are in the best interest of both countries. With that, though, we operate by the mandates given to us from the governments. The scope of our work is defined by our governments. Our conclusions are based on the best available science and informed by the knowledge and networks of hundreds of experts and local citizens on binational boards and committees. We develop a common binational fact base and then propose options in the best interest of shared waters. It's a model that has served us well for 115 years.

An effective relationship with the U.S. is imperative to any Canadian approach to freshwater management. An estimated 80% of the Canadian population lives in Canada-U.S. shared watersheds. These transboundary waters are also the traditional territories of many first nations, Métis and tribal nations.

We would like to talk to you about three main challenges we experience in relation to fresh water in Canada today.

The first challenge is the complex, multijurisdictional nature of freshwater management and the science needed to support good consensus-building. When we search for local solutions, the shared boundary takes precedence over political boundaries. We are unique in North America in that regard. To do this better, because collaboration is hard enough, we need collaboration around data harmonization. A key example of this is climate change and the challenges presented by climate change.

Floods, droughts and wildfires occur on a regular basis. The impacts of climate change in particular will continue to alter the flow and distribution of water resources, impacting our communities in profoundly detrimental ways, so working together is critical for resilience. We need to improve our ability to predict climate change impacts—namely, through improved flood forecasting. This needs to be done in a cross-border way, and currently it is not. This is critical for resilience.

Second, the IJC's contribution is restricted by limitations in the scope of our current activities. Our mandate varies across the border. We do not holistically consider water quantity, water quality, ecosystem health and socio-economic factors in all the lakes and rivers where we are currently active. In some places, we look at only a subset of those pieces. In addition, our remit in all transboundary basins is not universal, in that there are watersheds where we do not do anything. The IJC needs a mandate that allows us to build mutually acceptable consensus solutions all along the Canada-U.S. border, not in just some locations.

Finally, the consensus and collaboration process itself is increasingly difficult. All laws and treaties depend on their makers remaining fully committed to them to ensure that they accomplish their intended goals. It's in our national interest to prevent conflict along the border. While our countries have many issues that they deal with on a daily basis, water security is, in our view, the foundation of them all. The terms of the treaty are aimed at that specific direction, and they require domestic resolve. I would point you to your previous study in 2004, where at that time you made a recommendation to this effect.

Moving forward, we have already been asked by both parties to build partnerships with indigenous peoples along the border and to assist with that. We strongly encourage the federal government to further support IJC's efforts with indigenous peoples. We asked both parties to bolster domestic efforts in that regard.

To conclude, we have served both countries admirably in keeping the peace along the boundary where water is shared. Impartiality, shared fact-finding, robust public engagement and an ability to convene diverse interests are what make our model truly unique and effective.

Thank you.