Environment Committee on April 1st, 2014

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

So we're not going to catch any big break from this horrible winter and this pile up of great snow and ice.

[Mary Muter]

We are going to catch some, but no, we need to start to manage the Great Lakes much more responsibly than we are now. Canada doesn't even have a flow meter at a critical part in the St. Clair River, so we don't even really know what's happening there.

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

This brings me to the second question. I would like to get both Mr. Sweetnam's and your comments on this. Basically, you said that Superior, Erie, and Ontario are at historically normal levels, but Michigan, Huron—Georgian Bay—are at historically low levels. I interpreted that to mean that there is no way, in that configuration, to restrict the flow out through Lake St. Clair—

[Mary Muter]

The St. Clair River....

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

—and the St. Clair River. This is kind of curious. How would you actually do that? Would you do it by way of a dam? You've talked about speed bumps.

[Mary Muter]

That was what was originally designed and agreed upon, the speed bumps on the bottom of the St. Clair River. The IJC looked at this in their $17-million upper lakes study. They looked quickly at different options, and those options are described in their report on restoring Michigan and Huron levels.

We think that needs to be looked at more broadly. We think this can be done responsibly via some kind of flap gate that goes up and down, or some type of structure in the bottom of the river that could slow the flow.

Before that work even begins, they need to stabilize the riverbed. The riverbed, at the Blue Water Bridge, at the north end of the river, is now 60 feet to 70 feet deep. Ships only need 27 feet to—

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

Because it's all being channelled out....

[Mary Muter]

That's right. With that flow, they removed the rock cover. They removed a sand and gravel bar that acted as a natural weir to the outflow. They cut through that for navigation. They harvest it for sand and gravel. It has been 100 years of human alterations.

There is an opportunity to cover over it, to stabilize the riverbed, and to put some type of structures in. But to do that requires some engineering modelling work. We know that it needs high-level, three-dimensional modelling.

The U.S. army corps has now begun to look at this. We want Canada at the table.

[David Sweetnam]

There are some differences, actually, in the science. Water does not flow out through the deepest part of the river. It's restricted by the choke point, the shallowest part of the river. That is where the flow is going to be impeded.

What has been seen in the upper Great Lakes study.... In fact, in 2012 the flow rate of the St. Clair River declined by 12%. That year, we hit an all-time recorded low. Evaporation is playing the controlling part of water levels.

If you look at the historical modelling that's been done, NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States, has very clearly shown now that instead of precipitation driving lake levels, it's evaporation and water temperature. There are some significant evolutions in the science that have happened over the last couple of years.

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

Does that mean that even if they do restore, from 60 feet to 20 feet, it's not going to make any difference? Is that what your answer is?

[David Sweetnam]

What will happen is, at a higher water level, this extra conveyance capacity that exists in the river will allow water to flow out quicker, but once it drops down to the current water level regime, the outflow is within less than 1% of what it was before the erosion and dredging occurred, because the water levels are lower.

It doesn't play to a quick five-minute answer. It's a little more complicated than that. I think simplifying it too much actually does a disservice to the actual science that is very well established—

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

We're all into 30-second answers around here.

The second question had to do with the Canada-Ontario agreement that needs to be finalized. I thought that was a done deal.

[David Sweetnam]

The federal government hasn't yet signed it. We're just hoping to push and get the process finished.

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

Some aboriginal folks told me that Ontario was onside, the aboriginal nations were onside, the municipalities are onside—

[David Sweetnam]

Everybody's onside. It just hasn't been signed.

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

So what's the holdup? What's the drill?

[David Sweetnam]

I don't know if it's translation—

[Mary Muter]

Canada and U.S....?

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

Canada and Ontario....

[David Sweetnam]

As I understand it from the Province of Ontario, it's just a matter of some translation or something that has to be done, and then actually executing the documents.

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

We know all about that at this committee. How's my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have a moment. I just want to remind you, Mr. McKay, there's more than 30 seconds for the answer if you don't take five minutes to ask the question.

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

I've been asking very short questions, you'll notice.

The Great Lakes quality agreement, quantity and quality seem to be inextricably linked here. Are you satisfied that this agreement is an agreement that, if implemented, would actually address the issues that all of you have, from wetlands right through?

[David Sweetnam]

I think our concern right now is that the magnitude of the impacts of the climate change is going to overwhelm the anticipated effects. I think we may be thinking on a 20-year time scale, so we're a little concerned that the language around water levels isn't quite as explicit in the agreement as, perhaps, we would have liked it to be.

[Mark Gloutney]

I think there's been substantive progress in the thought and the deliberation around it. I'm much more optimistic about where it's going to get us, but I think there are some concerns when we look out longer term.