Environment Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, all. Good morning to the witnesses.

We have with us today in person Mr. Julian Aherne, associate professor in the school of environment at Trent University.

Online we have Mr. Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, and from Wildsight we have Mr. Randal Macnair, conservation coordinator, Elk Valley.

Each witness will have a five-minute opening statement.

We'll start with you, Mr. Aherne, for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Julian Aherne, Associate Professor, School of Environment, Trent University, As an Individual]

Thanks very much.

Good morning, Chair, and members of the standing committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

As was already mentioned, I'm an associate professor in the school of environment at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario. During the past three decades, my research has focused on assessing the impacts of air pollution on natural ecosystems, including fresh waters. I have studied fresh waters in the Canadian Arctic, in western British Columbia, in the Athabasca oil sands region and in south central Ontario. I focus on issues such as freshwater acidification; eutrophication; nutrient enrichment; and the fate of mercury, trace metals and emerging contaminants, including microplastics, in these systems.

Today I will briefly reflect on five broad points with respect to the federal management of pollution. I intend to expand on these points in a brief to be submitted within the coming weeks.

The first point is that pollutants can travel. Through this committee, you have heard evidence of freshwater pollution downstream of waste-water treatment plants or other point sources of pollution, which, for example, are some of the causes of pollution in the Great Lakes.

You've also heard that many pollutants can travel long distances in the atmosphere before being washed out by rain and deposited into fresh waters. It's well established that pollutants can travel across provincial boundaries and impact fresh waters in background regions that are remote from population centres. Therefore, freshwater pollution is a national-scale issue that requires management at the national scale.

The second point is that pollution is transboundary. Many pollutants undergo a long-range transboundary transport in the atmosphere, crossing national boundaries. In other words, some pollutants can travel through the atmosphere from one country to another. For example, Canada is a recipient of pollution from its nearby and distant neighbours. Similarly, Canada contributes to the pollution burden of other countries.

Therefore, the management of many pollutants can only be addressed through international agreements. There are many examples of the success of international agreements, such as the recovery of fresh waters from acidification under the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement or the current work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. Canada should continue to be an active participant in the international management of pollution.

The third point is that freshwater pollution will be influenced by climatic change. We currently lack an understanding of how the sources of pollutants, their transport and their fate in fresh waters will be impacted by climatic change. However, the current prediction is that climatic change will exacerbate freshwater pollution across Canada.

The fourth point is that monitoring is essential. Monitoring of fresh waters is essential to our understanding of the sources and impacts of pollution and essential in evaluating the success of mitigation strategies. This point is obvious.

However, we should reflect on the type of monitoring programs that are required. I suggest that coordinated national-scale monitoring is required for effective detection and management of pollution. Such monitoring programs must be long-term programs to allow for the detection of trends, and they must be coordinated to allow for comparison across regions.

For example, to date, observations of microplastics in fresh waters have been carried out by individual researchers, each using different sampling and analytical protocols. As a result, we have no capacity to compare across studies, and a limited understanding of the scale of the issue.

The fifth and last point is that research is essential. If we are to effectively tackle freshwater pollution, we need to understand the pollutant sources and their fate in the environment. Resources must be dedicated accordingly through provincial and federal funding programs to build capacity in research, and through grants and contribution agreements to build partnerships between governments and research institutions.

It is well established that research has played a central role in our understanding of freshwater pollution. For example, research conducted at the IISD Experimental Lakes Area in northern Ontario has contributed to environmental policy around the world, from mitigating algal blooms to reducing how much mercury gets into our waterways, and more recently to advancing our understanding of the fate of microplastics in fresh waters.

In closing, I urge the committee to reflect on these five points with respect to the federal management of freshwater pollution. Pollutants can travel, and pollution is transboundary.

It is a national and international-scale issue that requires management at the national and international scale. Monitoring and research are essential to our understanding of the sources, fate and management of pollution. A change of government should not result in the dismantling of monitoring capacity, research support or legislation to protect the quality of fresh water.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Professor. We'll have to stop there, but there will be much time for questions.

We'll go now to Mr. Macnair by video conference.

[Randal Macnair, Conservation Coordinator, Elk Valley, Wildsight]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Randal Macnair, and I am speaking to you from Vancouver, the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.

My home is in Fernie, in British Columbia's Rocky Mountains, the unceded territory of the Ktunaxa people.

I know you've heard statistics and results of reports from auditors general and the like. Levels of selenium are rising in the Elk Valley and fish are dying. What does this really mean, though? What's it like to live with this environmental catastrophe every day of your life?

I spent 15 years on Fernie city council as mayor and as a councillor. It's a beautiful mountain town in the heart of the Rockies. Our city motto is “In the Mountains by the River”, and the mountains and river define us and affect the people of our valley profoundly.

During my time on council, our aging water system regularly had boil water advisories, so we needed a second source to provide safe drinking water during these periods. We spent several years determining a source and working with the federal and provincial governments to fund the many millions needed for a safe, reliable water source. We determined the best way forward, and because the spectre of selenium was already flowing through our valley, we asked about future contamination of this new well. We were assured by both Teck and our geotechnical consultants that all would be fine.

I suspect you can see where this is going. After we had spent millions of dollars on a new water source and system, this spring selenium levels in the new well began to exceed levels for the safety of human health. This well has had to be taken off-line, and Fernie is again experiencing boil water advisories.

This impacts the elderly and medically compromised and creates great stress for many in our community. When you walk into the grocery store, along with the notices of school concerts and swim meets, you see the boil water notice from the city. These notices are a regular reminder of the failure of the provincial and federal governments and Teck to keep our river and our drinking water safe.

Unfortunately, what's happening in Fernie is not an isolated case. Sparwood, our sister community 30 kilometres upriver, had to have one of their wells for drinking water replaced by Teck several years ago due to selenium contamination. I have friends who have drinking water delivered to their home, as their well is contaminated, and no doubt others will follow.

In our beautiful valley, one of our signature summer draws is fly fishing. It's a key part of our summer economy and brings people from all over North America to fish westslope cutthroat trout. Many of my friends who work in the industry and rely on the river to provide for their families are increasingly concerned about the ever-rising levels of contamination.

Concerns regarding selenium have been part of our lives in the Elk Valley since the 1990s. For over 25 years the provincial government, the federal government and Teck have assured us that all will be well and that they are dealing with it. We regularly hear how much money Teck is spending, yet levels continue to rise. Statistics and assurances mean little when you can't drink the water.

As you may be aware, we are at a crossroads in the Elk Valley. Teck is selling its coal properties to Glencore, a Swiss mining giant. Again we have assurances, yet with a long history of failures in the Elk Valley, our skepticism runs high. Our valley needs to heal, yet Glencore promises government expansion of the mines.

We, the Ktunaxa Nation, and others have been calling for an International Joint Commission reference on the issue of selenium and other contamination in the waters of the Elk Valley.

The provincial and federal governments have failed us. We need this broad oversight. We need the health of our river back. We have a right to safe drinking water.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Macnair.

We'll go to Mr. McCann for five minutes.

[Tyler McCann, Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting me to speak this morning.

Agriculture and water have a critical relationship. Water, food security and national security are inextricably linked. Agriculture, the driver of food security, is limited by water quality and quantity. While Canadians often consider water to be an abundant natural resource, around the world there are pressures, including increasing demand and climate change, that are turning water into a scarce resource and reinforcing how precarious agriculture's relationship with water can be.

That increasingly precarious relationship is part of the reason that CAPI launched an initiative on agri-food water earlier this year. This work was funded in part by the RBC's tech for nature fund and was led by our distinguished fellow, Nicolas Mesly.

Before I dive into our recommendations, I'd like to provide some context.

First, Canadian agriculture compares pretty well to other major food producers when it comes to water. Canadian beef has a water footprint smaller than the world average and is 70% of the footprint of Brazilian beef. Canadian beef also reduced its water intensity by 20% between 1981 and 2011.

When it comes to wheat, we have a smaller footprint than the global average, with the lowest footprint measured in a 2010 study.

Food processing made up 7% of all manufacturing water intake in Canada, and improvements in efficiency helped lead to falling water use between 2013 and 2017.

Increasingly, players in agriculture and food value chains are setting and working towards water use efficiency targets. These figures do not capture how volatile agriculture's relationship with water has become. Struggling to cope with too much or not enough water is something that unites farmers from coast to coast. Our recently released report included a series of recommendations built around the creation of a national agri-food water action plan. We did not call for a strategy, as it seems like we are drowning in strategies these days; what we need is action.

The action plan must bring together different levels of government with farmers, indigenous communities, civil society and the agricultural value chain to proactively plan for and deliver the two outcomes we need: one that conserves this vital resource, and one that leverages it to boost sustainable food production.

Federal, provincial and territorial agriculture ministers should take ownership of agri-food water. Our report recommends they commit to develop the action plan by convening an expert panel, releasing a state of agri-food water report and then releasing the full action plan in July 2025.

Our report also recommends immediate action while the action plan is being developed. Immediate actions include developing a coordinated model for standardized data collecting and reporting; going further to use watersheds as the basis for research, innovation and knowledge mobilization; and investing in a mission-driven research call to respond to the grand challenge of conserving and leveraging water as a strategic asset.

Finally, I'd like to touch on the role of the Canada water agency, which came up throughout the outreach we undertook for the report.

There were ongoing questions about what role the agency would play in how agriculture and food would fit into its mandate. There is significant potential for the water agency to facilitate and convene progress on this important issue. A common refrain was that the agency should be a convener and an enabler, not a regulator. Given the needs and the potential of agriculture, the industry should embrace agriculture as a partner.

Water is critical for agriculture. Too much or too little has the potential to cause significant harm to food production, but managed and leveraged strategically, it can give Canada a significant competitive advantage in an increasingly hot, thirsty and hungry world.

I look forward to taking your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. McCann.

We'll go to the first round, starting with Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the panel for coming out here today. This is an important subject.

Mr. McCann, I'll start with you. You were singing to the choir here when you were talking about how government needs to basically coordinate and how there's an underlying issue across Canada and in different agencies in that they're all fragmented. When it comes to water control or, I guess, water authorities, we have a multitude of different agencies, and I guess this is one of the reasons we're trying to clarify this in the study.

I do remember the days of DFO, when they came over the landscape with a very top-down type of approach. As we go down this road of wanting to do better in Canada, are there any things we can point out or any rules we should be adhering to in order to make sure that we don't go beyond that and develop that kind of agency again, especially when it comes to this water agency?

[Tyler McCann]

I think it really speaks to the need to understand and respect mandates, jurisdictions and the role that all of the players play. I think there is a need and an opportunity for strong federal leadership, but it needs to be federal leadership that takes a collaborative approach with its provincial and municipal partners and the farmers who are often on the land and on the front lines of this debate. We see this not as a need for the federal government to expand its mandate but to act as a convenor and facilitator to bring more people together and develop common approaches.

With the provincial responsibility for water monitoring and water quality in Canada, we struggle with different approaches, different definitions, different standards used across the country. Bringing people together to develop a more common set of ways to talk about water research, water information and water availability is a small thing that can make a big difference.

I think there is an important opportunity as well in trying to better align and invest in that research so that we all have a common understanding of what we are really talking about with water availability and water quantity. Again, I think that's a real role that the Canada water agency can play to support other partners, and the federal government can play a supportive role, an enabling role, recognizing the limited mandate that it actually has on this issue.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

How is my time, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have three and a half minutes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I guess at this point I'd like to introduce a motion. I move that:

The committee report to the House that the Federal Court of Canada has overturned the Liberal Government’s cabinet order banning plastics, declaring the order, “unreasonable and unconstitutional”, and “invalid and unlawful”, that the committee urge the Liberal Government to act in accordance with Canadian law, and no longer introduce legislation and Cabinet Orders that contravene Canada’s laws and constitution.

Mr. Chair, I'm very surprised that this matter has not been raised at the environment committee yet, which is why I'm raising it today.

The Federal Court of Canada has deemed this Liberal government's plastic ban “unreasonable and unconstitutional”. Those are the exact words from the court. This is the second time in nearly a month that the courts have ruled that the Liberal government's environmental policies are unconstitutional. Last month the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals' “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional, and now we know that Minister Guilbeault's plastic ban is also unconstitutional. I wish he would just quit hiding from this committee so that we could ask him some quick questions on his failed policies, but he keeps hiding from Canadians.

It's been over 240 days since this minister has testified at committee. He has been embarrassed by these court rulings, but Canadians deserve answers. I expect that the Liberals and the NDP will once again block this motion and continue on, but the Conservatives believe the government needs to quit introducing legislation that contravenes the laws and the Constitution.

I hope we can vote quickly on this matter and move forward with our study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The chair recognizes Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As we've said before, the minister will be appearing before the committee at his earliest availability. We'll also be appealing the decision on the unconstitutionality of our ban on single-use plastics.

In the interest of using the time we might have left, I think we should return to the study at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are you proposing a motion to adjourn debate on this?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're proposing that we—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I propose that we adjourn debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a dilatory motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Thank you.

For the record, the minister has gotten back to me with a date, which I can share with you on another occasion.

We'll continue. Mr. Mazier, you have three minutes and 15 seconds.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. McCann, I'll go back to you.

One of the more underlying questions.... As I've looked at water issues over the years, I've often wondered if there are any other agencies or countries that are doing this well. What does the United States do? Do they have overarching coordinating bodies? Does Europe? How do other countries handle water?

[Tyler McCann]

I think how you define “well” is an interesting question.

Other governments have been driven by crisis to take different approaches. In the struggles around jurisdictions in the United States, states with their own approaches to water management that didn't always work well together were recently spurred to work well together when the federal government threatened to intervene and override their state jurisdiction. It points to a system that probably doesn't do a very good job of conserving, managing and leveraging the water that it has.

We watch a lot, with interest, what happens in Australia. Again, their agriculture sector has been significantly impacted by water use policy there, a water use policy driven by a crisis or the threat of a crisis—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have to stop you there because there's a bell ringing. It's a half-hour bell, I believe.

I'd like to get unanimous consent to continue for the next 25 minutes.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sorry. Go ahead—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Briefly, how much time do I have left?