Evidence of meeting #86 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 community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Okay.
Hi, Mr. McCann. I have some more questions here.
One thing about the farming community is that they're always being accused of dumping fertilizer into water streams—cows are in the water and all of that kind of stuff—but what about the technology of taking the nutrients out of the water?
Being in Manitoba, of course, we're the lowest part of the watershed, so everything from.... I said the day that Saskatchewan discovers that their nutrients are going down the river is the day the water gets shut off.
When I was previously, with Keystone Agriculture Producers, I noticed there was a model out there. They were taking the phosphorus out of sewage treatment plants and then putting it back on the soil. Where I farm, we're very low in phosphorus, so phosphorus would be a key ingredient.
When developing this agency, where would working toward solutions and technology belong in the water discussion, and how would we place it into whatever entity was going to be developed?
12:20 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
You highlighted some really interesting issues and dynamics that play out in agriculture. We often think about the one issue—carbon gets a lot of attention these days—but depending on where you are in the country and how you farm, water may be your number one environmental impact.
We don't do a really good job in Canada of prioritizing what issues need to be addressed in what places, but there is a lot of improvement that's already been made.
PFRA was mentioned in the last question. There are some really good examples of.... That is less relevant today, because the way that we farm is different. The practices that are used—no-till, a combination of no-till and Roundup, and GM products—have really changed the impact that farming has. They've reduced runoff and have helped reduce the environmental impact, but there are still some challenges in some places.
Recognizing that some of those areas need more of a focus around reducing environmental impact is important, but there's a lot of opportunity to do it in a proactive, progressive way rather than trying to regulate or take that stick approach. I think there's a lot of interest in doing better and a lot of opportunity for partnership to improve agriculture performance.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I've often thought that if somehow we could get the cities that have infrastructure problems when it comes to dumping sewage and all of those issues around it to somehow start marrying that with agriculture production, I think we'd be way better off as a country. I think that's something that the committee needs to coordinate as we develop new policies for this.
How much more time do I have?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I know that PFRA is brought up a lot. I heard Terry Duguid, the parliamentary secretary for water, bring it up. He was saying, “Well, it's gonna be like PFRA.”
The problem with PFRA was that it was a very government type of approach, and it was very outdated, as you commented as well. I think we could learn from PFRA; there were some good things, but there were also some very limiting things in it.
I'll go back to my first question.
If there's one takeaway when it comes to dealing with agriculture and food production, what should be focused on most importantly when it comes to water and water management?
12:20 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
I think it is investment in research and development. How do we do a better job of understanding how to be more water-efficient? How do we do a better job of developing more drought-tolerant crops and more drought-tolerant cropping systems?
We talk a lot about mitigation, but I think that adaptation is actually the number one issue for agriculture. That really should be where the focus is—on how we adapt to this new reality.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
On that note, I'd like to thank all of the witnesses today for their contributions to our study.
We will take a short break—ideally five minutes—and then go to our second panel.
Thank you again to the witnesses and thank you to the members for your questions. We'll be right back.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will now resume the meeting.
Greetings again to the committee members.
Welcome to our witnesses.
I want to assure you that the sound tests were carried out successfully.
We have with us Eddy Charlie, co-organizer of the Victoria Orange Shirt Day; Frank Annau, director of product stewardship with Fertilizer Canada; Jérôme Marty, executive director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research; Grand Chief Victor Bonspille and Eugene Nicholas, director or environment, who is joining us by video conference, both from the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake; and Tracy Cross, retired member of National Defence and retired chief of police of Kanesatake.
We'll start with Mr. Charlie.
Mr. Charlie, you have the floor for five minutes.
12:30 p.m.
Eddy Charlie Co-Organizer, Victoria Orange Shirt Day, As an Individual
Hi, everybody.
I'm from the Cowichan Nation. I left home when I was 14 and moved to Vancouver. I came back to the island 20 years ago. I went to the Cowichan River and I noticed the water was very shallow, only about a foot deep. Every year that I went back, it was getting more and more shallow, so I asked somebody about that. They told me there was a mill in Crofton that was diverting the water for its use.
I went into the community and talked to some of the elders and asked them if they were getting salmon. They said no. I asked them a little bit more about the water and why it was so low. They told me that a lot of it had to do with the mill in Crofton diverting the water. That was having a drastic effect on the plants and animals around the river.
I am really concerned, because the salmon run has been getting lower every single year since 2002. Not only are the salmon not returning to the Cowichan River, but the plants are also becoming destroyed because the water is not getting there, and when the water does run, it's warm because it's too shallow.
I'm really concerned because my elders used the river as a source of food and medicines. Every year more and more of the plants are dying. More and more of the animals are not returning, especially the salmon. My ancestors thrived along the Cowichan River only because of the salmon.
I was talking to somebody about reconciliation, and I want to point out that reconciliation is not just about human relationships' it's also about reconciling with the land, having a relationship with the land. Right now, we are not getting that.
My people would like to be able to use some of the plants along the riverside, but that's not possible because the river is absolutely destroyed.
I was talking to somebody whose last name is Williams. He's one of the last few members of my nation who speak Hul’q’umi’num’ and he knows a lot about the medicine and the land. He told me if we don't do anything now, we're not going to be able to pass anything on to our children.
I do not want to be one of the last few people to celebrate life along the Cowichan River. I do not want to be one of the last ones to be able to enjoy having salmon for dinner, and I do not want to be the last one to be able to enjoy collecting and harvesting medicines along the riverside, but that may be the case, because as it is now, the whole riverside is absolutely destroyed. You can drive a car right up the river for half a mile.
I am just asking the government to please help us achieve reconciliation—not just human to human, but with the land as well. I do not want my own grandchildren to not be able to enjoy what my grandparents were able to enjoy along the river.
I'm getting very emotional talking about this, because the life along the river is absolutely destroyed. The trees are dying. The plants are dying. The salmon are not returning, and...it's absolutely terrible.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Charlie, for that very cogent exposé on the impact of declining water levels on the way of life of a people. We'll have time for questions. I'm sure there will be many questions.
We'll go now to Mr. Annau from Fertilizer Canada. Mr. Annau is online, I believe.
12:35 p.m.
Frank Annau Director, Product Stewardship, Fertilizer Canada
Thanks, everyone.
I'm Frank Annau, the director of product stewardship for Fertilizer Canada. We represent manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in nitrogen phosphate, potash and sulphur fertilizers. Thank you for the invitation to appear and to speak today.
We believe that voluntary industry-led initiatives that put farms at the centre are the best approach to reduce nutrient runoff. To that end, we have been heavily involved with implementing 4R nutrient stewardship across Canada. This 4R approach has helped farmers apply the right source of fertilizer at the right rate and the right place at the right time.
The resulting efficient use of fertilizer and nutrient use efficiency increases both cost savings and crop yields. Applying fertilizer in the right place with the right weather conditions also ensures it stays in the field and out of waterways.
For example, in Ontario, 4R corn production practices can reduce phosphorus runoff by up to 60%. In a Saskatchewan cereal-oilseed-pulse rotation, this reduction could be as high as 75%.
These numbers are provided by our 4R Research Network, a group of leading research scientists at the universities across Canada who help determine best practices for different growing regions. This knowledge is then shared with farmers by Canadian crop advisers, or CCAs, who participate in our 4R programming, which has two tracks: 4R designation and 4R certification.
The 4R-designated CCAs provide recommendations to farmers and create a 4R management plan. Acres under advisement are then reported back to Fertilizer Canada and aggregated across the country. As of 2022, we had 8.5 million acres under 4R designation towards our five-year goal of 14 million by 2025.
The 4R certification is built off the same foundation but is verified by third party auditing and is currently run in Ontario. Audits require documented evidence to show that CCAs have worked with farms to identify minimum setbacks for surface water, inlets and wells, and that they have collected on-farm data to show reasonable expectation of no increased risk to water quality.
The 4R certification standards were drafted in 2018 by our steering committee as part of a voluntary initiative to improve the western Lake Erie basin. One of the key goals is to create long-term positive impacts on water bodies associated with agriculture, including reducing eutrophication and helping to meet water quality standards. These efforts support the Canada-Ontario Lake Erie action plan, which features 4R in its approach to reduce water phosphorus levels by 40% below 2008 levels.
We are pleased to report that 1.8 million of 9 million total arable acres in Ontario are under 4R certification as of 2022. This exceeds our goal of one million acres by 2025. Combined with 4R designation, that's approximately 11 million acres under 4R advisement across Canada, towards our five-year goal of 15 million acres by 2025. We also recently hit the 500 mark of 4R-designated CCAs to provide guidance.
However, we can always improve. Our annual fertilizer use survey shows 56% of growers self-report these basic 4R practices. However, only 30% are where they already use 4R principles, and only 7% have 4R plans that are signed by a CCA.
The cost of initial implementation also remains one of the top barriers to wider adoption. To overcome this barrier, we believe that a 4R climate-smart protocol should be adopted by Canada's greenhouse gas offset system. This would allow farms to generate and sell credits for 4R practices that reduce emissions and would have the co-benefits of reducing runoff. In turn, this would generate revenue for farms, reduce implementation costs and increase demand for 4R guidance. The on-farm climate action fund has already upticked that demand, and a national protocol would push it even higher.
In response, we believe government support could help accelerate 4R training for crop advisers to provide the needed guidance. We have already invested $2 million in developing and running 4R programming since 2018, and this is on top of the tens of millions invested in identifying and demonstrating best practices in R and D. Our pre-budget submission this year requests an additional $2 million in government funding to aid in these efforts.
We have also advocated these solutions to the sustainable agriculture advisory committee, where I co-chair the fertilizer emissions reduction working group. I'm pleased to report that the working group on soil health and water has also identified advanced nutrient management in its recommendations.
We have also engaged AAFC on the UN's global biodiversity framework under target 7 to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff. We were very pleased to see 4R featured in its recent “what we heard” report on Canada's 2030 biodiversity strategy consultation and we look forward to further collaboration.
Just to close, our 2021 consult on the Canada water agency also had three key recommendations: to recognize the standard of 4R stewardship, to support market-based incentives for growers and to align with provincial management plans that feature 4R, such as the Manitoba climate and green plan and the Prairie resilience plan.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak. I would be happy to take any questions.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
November 23rd, 2023 / 12:40 p.m.
Jérôme Marty Executive Director, International Association for Great Lakes Research
Mr. Chair, members of Parliament, distinguished guests and committee staff, good afternoon.
My name is Jérôme Marty, and I am the executive director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research.
I first would like to acknowledge the land where we gather today: the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation. The Algonquin people are the customary keepers and defenders of the Ottawa River watershed.
I welcome the opportunity to share with you the main issues and priorities that Great Lakes scientists are reporting for the Laurentian Great Lakes. There are three main topics that we would like to bring forward.
The first one is about nutrients. Although the Great Lakes water quality has improved in several lakes, Lake Erie continues to remain a priority area with regard to nutrient management, both for point sources—for example, urban areas—and for non-point sources, such as agriculture. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement includes reduction targets for phosphorus loading, with a 40% reduction from 2008 levels by 2025. The reduction of point source discharges of nutrients has been achieved through improved waste-water treatment technologies, but the reduction of non-point source nutrients through adaptive management and best practices poses more challenges.
The second topic is about contaminants of emerging concerns: the CECs, the “forever chemicals”. Pharmaceutical and personal care products—PPCPs—and pesticides and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—PFAS—are increasingly detected in the waters of the Great Lakes, including in urban surface waters. Understanding the human and ecological impacts of exposure to persistent CECs is critical both for specific compounds and for mixtures.
The third is microplastics. They are now widespread through the Great Lakes basin. They can be detected in water, sediments and wildlife. Recent research has been conducted to assess the toxicity of microplastics exposure in the Great Lakes. These risk assessments show that the concentrations measured across the Great Lakes exceed proposed risk thresholds for water samples.
We have produced five recommendations as part of our brief.
The first one is to consider adding CECs and microplastics to the list of contaminants of concern in, for example, Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The second is to invest in research to better understand the fate, behaviour and toxicity of emerging contaminants to support informed regulations.
The third recommendation is to consider climate change as an accelerator for pollutant production and toxicity. Higher temperatures increase metabolic rates of resident organisms, causing oxygen depletion and creating toxic conditions for the biota. Higher water temperatures also favour the growth of harmful algal blooms—HABs—that are able to release cyanotoxins such as microcystin. As stated by the editor of our journal, Dr. Robert Hecky, Lake Erie is “the canary in the Great Lakes climate mine”. In this context, the urgency of reducing nutrient inputs from the land becomes even more critical.
The fourth recommendation is to engage with first nations and Métis on water monitoring and management. This recommendation is reflected in “The 2023 Third Triennial Assessment of Progress on Great Lakes Water Quality”, released by the IJC to the parties earlier this month.
The fifth and last recommendation is to adopt a comprehensive approach for Great Lakes science. As mentioned earlier, the Great Lakes are inland seas, and as such they call for management approaches that are similar to those developed for marine ecosystems. Faced with an aging research infrastructure, Great Lakes science has fallen behind in its ability to understand the physical, chemical and biological features of these ecosystems and also to report on how quickly they are changing. Several organizations are working together to develop a decadal science plan for the Great Lakes. This initiative is led by the IJC and has identified six priorities for the Great Lakes and will next focus on a blueprint for the plan's implementation.
I thank you for your time to allow us to share insights on the threats that pollution poses to the Great Lakes. Please contact IAGLR should you have any questions about science and the Great Lakes or require support for your work.
Thank you very much for your attention.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much, Mr. Marty.
Next is Grand Chief Bonspille.
12:45 p.m.
Grand Chief Victor Bonspille Mohawk Council of Kanesatake
Shekon Sewakwe:kon.
I'm here today to bring to your attention an issue in my territory, the Kanesatake Mohawk territory, concerning a G&R site that is owned by two community members. It's on federal lands within our territory. I want to bring to the attention of the committee here and to all the members who are listening and who can bring awareness or some assistance the issue that since 2015, I believe, this has been a toxic waste site in our community.
In 2021 my council and I revoked the band council resolution, the permits and the agreement we had with the owners of G&R. We were in discussions with the federal and provincial governments on a remediation process, which has now been halted because of the interference by five members on my council regarding the site and because of three requests from the federal government that have not been answered due to the toxic environment in our council.
The witnesses here—Mr. Tracy P. Cross, and online, Mr. Eugene Nicholas, who is the environmental director at Kanesatake—and I have been working diligently with our community and with another council chief, Chief Valerie Bonspille, to help remediate the issue. There are remediation plans, but they're being stopped. They're being roadblocked by five members of my council for reasons that I can only say are ridiculous.
When it comes to health and welfare, this involves not just Kanesatake, not only my community, but also the surrounding municipalities and their community members. This is not a political issue anymore. I believe that the federal and provincial governments have been trying to undermine that view of it, but it is now a health issue.
I have joined forces, or forces from those municipalities have joined in with my plea with the MNAs. We've written a press release. We wrote resolutions together to the federal and provincial governments for assistance with this issue. Right now, they have fallen on deaf ears, and it seems that we're being ignored.
This was read out in the House by Ms. Elizabeth May. It was brought up, I believe, two years ago and it is still being ignored. It is being held, I believe, as a political hostage by these five individuals on my council to stop any progress in the remediation plan that the federal government is offering to our community. I think it's time that both governments—provincial and federal—realize that this has to stop.
People need to start listening. People have to realize that this is not a first nations issue; it's a community issue. It's a non-native issue, a health issue and an environmental issue.
We're talking now about water issues. There are three streams that run through the G&R site and into the Ottawa River, which turns into the Lake of Two Mountains, which then turns into the St. Lawrence River. That affects multiple municipalities and communities downriver as well as aquatic life, the fauna, our medicines, our natural way of life and fishing. This is affecting many, many aspects of our livelihood and traditional territory.
I'm just here to make a plea as a last.... We're almost destitute here to have something done, to have somebody listen to us and to get something in writing, an agreement. I've even gone so far as to ask the federal government to approve veto power for me to sign these agreements to get it done, because my community and other communities surrounding it have been wanting this.
It's being held as a hostage for negotiations by these five individuals who want their way done rather than what the community wants.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you for that opening statement.
We'll now go to the first round of questions.
Mr. Deltell, you have six minutes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, dear friends.
Welcome to all the witnesses.
Mr. Cross, Mr. Nicholas and Grand Chief, thank you so much for your testimony—but what a testimony. It's hammering us to see how much a hostage you are right now.
The situation you are experiencing is completely intolerable. Thank you very much for your testimony today.
First, how do you explain the fact that the federal government didn't do anything to help you, and now we have this situation to address?
12:50 p.m.
Mohawk Council of Kanesatake
The federal government has given us three options, three requests, that need to be done by a full council. It's obvious that the full council does not want to adhere to these requests. That is why I asked for veto power from the federal government to accept that. It was out of respect, but that respect has gone out the window right now. I haven't even gotten a response to my request. Our community is now wondering why this is not happening.
The federal government has left on the table these three requests that need to be done by a full council signage, which is going to be impossible at this point. It's a political vacuum. With the avenues I have within my mandate, we've been trying hard to try to rectify this and come to a solution for many years now, since I was mandated in 2021 as the new grand chief of Kanesatake. The previous grand chief ignored these issues.
When I was brought in, I did my mandate and I did my platform and I came through with my promises. I removed the band council resolution and the agreement from council. I was even able to have the owners of G&R turn over the lands to our community. That's one of the agreements the federal government wants, because they will not fund a privately owned property. I had those lands reverted back to the Mohawk Council. That's when these agreements were put forward by the federal government.
Now they're left on the table. My community and I and Chief Valerie and members like Mr. Cross here and our department of the environment are fighting for that and fighting against our own...these individuals who are supposed to be there for the community.
12:50 p.m.
A voice
Governance.
12:50 p.m.
Mohawk Council of Kanesatake
My own governance. Exactly.
It's just a fight. We keep running into walls because the federal and provincial governments are not intervening properly. They are letting us fight among one another. They're letting this become—I'll put it in brackets—an “Indian” issue, a “first nations” issue. It is not. This has gone way beyond the scope of just within our territory.
Right beside the G&R site, there are the properties of farmers who have been affected economically with their crops, with their dairy, with their agriculture. It's affected their income and it's affected their livelihood. I thought for sure that if we got these municipalities on our side, the federal and provincial governments would listen, but obviously they don't seem to care about either side.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative