Evidence of meeting #80 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was health.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, he's not doing that. He's reintroducing the topic but not the motion.
Go ahead, Mr. Deltell.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
This is just a clear indication that we should talk about that more than ever.
Mr. Chair, allow me to get back to the thread of the conversation.
What we are seeing right now is that this government didn't keep to the rules that, yes, we can't do that, and this is not good for the health of this country.
Monsieur Carreau, here's what this article says about the spill that took place this summer in Quebec City:
Waste water contains chemical contaminants: pesticides, pharmaceuticals and contaminants such as plastic. It also contains pathogens: coliforms and other harmful bacteria.
How can Canada's Department of Health tolerate such a practice?
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Thank you very much for the question.
Again, with relation to discharge of waste-water effluents and those decisions, those are in the purview of Environment and Climate Change Canada, so I'd defer to my colleagues in response to that line of questioning.
However, I can say that from a drinking water perspective and for the protection of health, Health Canada does indeed have strong health guidance on pesticides, chemicals, plastics and other pollutants that may be present in fresh water to ensure that provinces, territories and municipalities put in place treatment to ensure that those pollutants are reduced to a level that is acceptable and that thereby they protect the health of Canadians.
Thank you.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I will continue reading the article:
These contaminants can become trapped at the bottom of the river and find their way into the food chain, being absorbed by fish, micro-organisms, animals and humans.
Let's leave aside everyone's various responsibilities. Mr. Carreau, is it a good thing, yes or no, to discharge waste water into rivers, when we know that pesticides can contaminate the water people will use?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Carreau, I would ask you to give a brief response, because we need to move on to Mr. Longfield.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry, Mr. Longfield. Mr. Carreau still has a brief answer to give, and then we'll go to you.
I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly.
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Thank you.
Again, I would defer to my colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada with respect to the specific questions on discharge. However, from a fish consumption issue that was raised in the line of questioning, indeed Health Canada does have very specific guidance and health information to prescribe to ensure the safe consumption of fish that may be in contaminated areas.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Barbosa, particularly in terms of the progress on boil water advisories.
I believe we started our term in 2015 with about 108 boil water advisories. They then went up to 143, probably because we tightened up regulations, I'm going to guess. You can maybe comment on that.
It's also to say that in 2023, we had nine boil water advisories added and six lifted; in 2022, we had seven added and 11 lifted; in 2021, we had seven added and 28 lifted. We continue to have long-term boil water advisories being introduced.
Could you comment on the dynamic nature of boil water advisories and what we're doing to try to prevent them in the future?
12:20 p.m.
Director General, Department of Indigenous Services
Thank you for the question. That's a great question.
On part one of the question, in terms of the totality of lifts, in 2015, there were approximately 110 long-term drinking water advisories, and each of the long-term drinking water advisories is very fluid; some are added over time and some are removed. The overall intent is to see a net reduction, and we're seeing a historic level of progress and a historic level of funding in recent years.
In terms of the reason there might be advisories added or removed, in some cases, as I mentioned, we're seeing that there can be quick repairs to systems in order to permit longer-term responses.
There are two major factors in terms of lifts, but I think there are two static numbers that I would really want to point to. One is to ensure that the short-term lifts do not become long term. We're seeing approximately 260 since 2015. Those numbers matter, and those numbers add up to impact many Canadians in terms of their quality of living and their quality of life.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
That's terrific. Thank you.
I've visited several first nations to look at this issue since being elected. I went up to Sioux Lookout and talked with the NAN, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. An elder there said to me, “Stop poking holes in Mother Earth. Then we won't have boil water advisories.” I think he was referring to starting with clean water instead of continuing to contaminate the water.
As we saw, the Chippewa from Fort Chipewyan came to us as a committee to talk about the Kearl spill pollution getting into their stream. I know that pollution from industry has been the main contributing factor in other areas. What are we doing to try to fill a policy gap that we may have in terms of provincial jurisdiction over water in provinces and federal jurisdiction to get clean water for first nations?
12:20 p.m.
Director General, Department of Indigenous Services
I would point to two immediate responses.
One is the importance of source water protection and having source water protection plans that extend beyond the current jurisdiction of Canada's confederation. Water flows, and the need for that water to be safe transcends jurisdiction. There is source water and there are sources of water on reserve, and those should be as clean as sources of water that are off reserve. Partnership is critical. There are many source water protection plans that first nations have with local municipalities in order to talk about the shared jurisdiction and shared prosperity over water.
On the second point, in terms of contamination, this was a huge part of the engagement we've had with hundreds of first nations in bringing forth new legislation to have a robust regulatory and standards regime on reserve. This talks about the shared jurisdiction and the shared prosperity over water, but it also talks about legal mechanisms that first nations can have over their own affairs based on their rights over their lands.
We continue to have this dialogue with first nations in order to build the most robust legislation possible prior to bringing it forward, but certainly source water protection, the availability of appropriate resources and the interactions between provinces, territories and rights holders are critical.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you.
I've spoken with grand chiefs in Ontario. We did a round table at the University of Guelph and we talked about Walkerton—I talked about Walkerton—and they said that this wasn't their standard, that the Ontario standard is not their standard, and that they wanted to have their standard. Could you comment on that, please?
12:20 p.m.
Director General, Department of Indigenous Services
I would completely agree. I think a new regulatory regime, a new legislative regime—the one we're actively engaging on right now—should be predicated on first nations' rights.
There are robust water legislation and regulatory portfolios in this country, including in Ontario post-Walkerton, and they are some of the most aggressive in the world, but should first nations want to bring forward their own laws on their own lands, we are hopeful they will have jurisdiction to do so. That's been a healthy part of the conversation we've had with first nations over the last two years in order to build a legislative regime that respects the rights of first nations on their lands and their rights to bring forward legislation and regulations that respect their autonomy over their affairs.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We'll go to the last round. We start with Mr. Mazier.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming here today.
As a little bit of a preamble, we were talking in the previous committee meeting about dumping raw sewage into the rivers and lakes and the impacts of that. Then, of course, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc shut down that discussion. That's the preface to where we start this conversation today.
My first question is for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Mr. Norris.
There was mention of the importance of water quality for agriculture. Is the dumping of raw sewage impacting water quality for agriculture?
12:25 p.m.
Director, Resilient Agriculture Policy Division, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I would have to defer that to ECCC, which is in charge of measuring water quality.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Ms. Champagne, you're from the environmental side. I would think you would have something to say.
12:25 p.m.
Environmental Scientist, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
I can say that it is an active area of research. Our scientists have projects to look at the impact of various amendments to soils on soil and water quality, plant health and livestock health, but we don't have regular territorial jurisdiction on monitoring water quality.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I guess it was just.... Is the dumping of raw sewage impacting water quality for agriculture? It's a simple question.
12:25 p.m.
Director, Resilient Agriculture Policy Division, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Again, I think I have to defer to ECCC, which does the water quality.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
To follow up on Mr. Deltell's questioning on health, here is another simple question: Does Health Canada support the dumping of raw sewage into Canadian lakes and rivers, yes or no?
12:25 p.m.
Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Again, questions related to the decisions made on waste-water effluents are under the purview of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and we'd defer to that.
Health Canada works with provinces and territories to ensure that there's guidance in place and that there are guidelines and treatment to be able to deliver safe water to all Canadians based on the pollutants we see in source water contamination.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Why are those regulations in place? Why would you have a regulation in place to stop raw sewage dumping?