Environment Committee on Feb. 27th, 2014

[David Ullrich]

So—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm sorry, but I have to keep on moving here because of the shortness of time.

Your answer is not comforting, may I say.

[David Ullrich]

Sorry, truthful though.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes, it's truthful but not comforting.

Second, with your invasive species issue, I agree with you on the Asian carp. That's a pretty serious issue, and it is a bit disconcerting.

In terms of ballast water in ships on the Great Lakes, the EPA has put in a regulatory framework. It was imposed last month. I'm given to understand that there's very little likelihood that many ships can actually comply with that regulatory environment, and that, only coincidentally, any ship built prior to 2009 is exempt from that regulatory requirement, which only seems to be coincidental that it is in the entire U.S. fleet but it would apply much less so to the Canadian fleet.

Is my factual rendition of that issue correct, and if so, where are we going to go from here? It seems to be a use of a regulatory environment to be unfairly discriminatory against one side of the fleet as opposed to the other side of the fleet.

[David Ullrich]

As with most things on the Great Lakes, it's not really simple and straightforward.

First of all, we have to make a distinction between the salties and the lakers. Through the political process, on the U.S. side at least, the lakers are not subjected to the same requirements that the salties are. That is a cause for concern both in terms of equity and.... Although the lakers, which operate completely within the lakes, cannot bring new invasive species from outside, they can spread existing ones. So there is concern about that.

The hope is that both countries are still requiring ballast water exchange in the open waters for the salties. There has not been a new invasive species detected since 2006, which is cause for encouragement. I think much more needs to be done to totally harmonize and make sure these are strictly enforced.

We're at a period.... It's moving in the right direction, not at the same pace on both sides and applying to all ships, but we're at least moving in the right direction, and we have to continue to push.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I think there may be a little bit of a war on the Great Lakes over this—

[David Ullrich]

I hope not.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

—that is not very helpful to anyone.

Moving to Mr. D'Andrea, we had a huge flood event in Toronto this year, down at the bottom of the Don Valley Parkway in particular. You described this $1.5-billion, 25-year project of tunnels and reservoirs. Would that event have been more containable with your project?

[Michael D'Andrea]

To some extent. I'll throw a few other numbers to you. That system that I described would capture most of the flow from our combined sewer system that we would expect in an average year and provide for a spillage of one to two overflows. It wouldn't capture all of the runoff that we would have in a summer season. When you have a storm that approaches something to the tune of a one-in-100-year storm there will be some storage provided, but you're going to need something far more significant.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

If you're having these very frequent one-in-100-year events, should we be describing them as one-in-a-decade events?

[Michael D'Andrea]

Certainly when you speak to our residents, particularly those who have had sewage in their basements repeatedly over the last decade or so, there is no such thing as a one-in-100-year event.

It's unprecedented the level of control that the approach that Toronto has taken. I have some images and I said to someone that these residential neighbourhoods literally look like downtown Beirut. They look like war zones. We're basically ripping up every single street and putting in place these underground storage systems. To deal with the problem as you described on a watershed basis, I think the best hope for that watershed is the work that's taking place with respect to the flood plain and the flood protection works at the lower end in conjunction with waterfront Toronto and the conservation authority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Mr. McKay.

We're going to move on to Mr. Bevington. We're now starting our five-minute rounds.

Mr. Bevington, please.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the presenters. That was excellent information today.

With Hamilton harbour you indicate the cost of the Randle Reef is $140 million and this mostly has come as a result of industrial pollution, is that correct?

[Chris Murray]

That's right.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is there any question of trying to attach some of these dollars back to the companies that created the situation?

[Chris Murray]

In our case the community contribution is from Halton region, the city of Burlington, the city of Hamilton, as well as U.S. Steel. U.S. Steel is contributing some of the metalworks that are associated with this construction project as well as a small amount of cash. Our total contribution is in the order of $46 million; their contribution to this project is in the order of about $7 million or $8 million. They are, I think, from historic practices deemed to be the company that has contributed most to the problem. They are in fact part of the community's contribution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I just want to interrupt for two seconds and I won't take it off your time, but again, this is another example, the city of Hamilton also did a great job of their presentation, it's not in both languages but those figures are in this form if you care to pick one up at the end of the meeting.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

The figures are important but the liability, was there any sense of liability on the part of the companies for this entire amount? In the process you entered into did you assign responsibility to the various businesses?

[Chris Murray]

That was, as you can imagine, a very sensitive topic. There has been a number of different owners of that steel-producing plant so where we were able to make progress was agreeing that some contribution would have to be made. In terms of any ongoing liability for any contamination to the harbour, they're not willing to be participants if there is going to be some kind of legacy responsibility. At the end of the day, as the city representative, we were satisfied there was at least some contribution coming from them.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Do you think there is something to learn through this process for the future? As you mentioned earlier, you said the best result was simply not to put the pollution in the water. When you're dealing with these situations where there is pollution entering into the system, is there some process that should be established to assign responsibility?

[Chris Murray]

I think in fairness to the steel producers in Hamilton harbour, I would say certainly since 1990 to 2010, a lot of that $1.2 billion that has been invested in Hamilton harbour has come from not just local government but the industries themselves and retrofitting their operations to address water quality issues. I do think there has been responsibility taken the last couple decades. But there seems to have been about a 40-year period, say during the beginning of the Second World War and extending forward, where there was a race to the bottom in terms of contamination. In that area, very little seems to have been done. It's going to take us about another 40 years before we're able to turn it around.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What would you say the current status is of the Randle Reef situation, the sewer outflows, and the water treatment plant upgrades? Can you give a percentage completed?

[Chris Murray]

In terms of the objectives in the Hamilton harbour RAP, which of course John can speak to, I think we're about 50% towards where we want to be.

We know that the major investments that are going to be made, starting in 2015 and ending in 2019, at both the Hamilton and the Halton water/waste water facilities are going to make a large dent in the problem. That's why we're saying that in 2020 we believe we can start to look at decertification. I'd say we're well on our way. Much of it has to do with the approach that's been taken through the RAP with the parties that have been working together for a long time and are still quite passionate.

The political involvement has been wonderful. There are annual events involving all levels of government and political representation. They are very well aware of what's being achieved each and every year. That level of engagement, I would say, along with the scientific community's being right in our backyard, has led to this momentum, which just hasn't stopped.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have about 30 seconds.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I have a question for all three of you.

Have these municipalities at all used the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' green fund for any of the work that has gone on here, for the assessment or the planning or any of it?