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.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here to share your knowledge and expertise on this important subject.
My question is for Professor Aherne.
Could you advise us with respect to whether there is more that our government could do to deal with microplastic pollution in our rivers and lakes? Would a ban on single-use plastics result in a significant reduction in microplastic pollution?
12:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, School of Environment, Trent University, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
Microplastic pollution is an emerging topic. We're still, I think, in a learning phase. I gave an example that much of the research to date has carried out sampling and analysis using different methods, which we can't really compare, so we really don't have a good understanding of the situation.
I know there's been another committee in terms of microplastics, but I think we need some understanding of a coordinated sampling approach across jurisdictions so we can have an understanding of the scale of the problem. Of course, there's interest in terms of nanoplastics as well.
In terms of pollutants, I think that to some extent it's quite simple. If we can understand the sources, we can manage those sources and help to reduce the problem. Therefore, if single-use plastics are a source, then perhaps we should manage that source.
It's also worth recognizing that microplastics in the environment today are plastics that degraded 20 to 50 years ago and were released into the environment, so there's been that slow breakdown. Therefore, we expect to see an exponential increase in microplastics in the environment, given the fact that there's been an exponential increase in the use of plastics over the past 20 to 50 years.
I think we're at the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we're seeing and in terms of microplastics in the environment, so what we do today may have an impact in 50 years' time.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Through you, Mr. Chair, Mr. McCann, you have said that Canada has a “fragmented and siloed model” for water management and that the government's policies on data collection and reporting are far from complete or standardized. If you had the necessary authority, what steps would you implement to improve that situation?
12:10 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
I think there's an opportunity to bring people together. I think it's not necessarily about authority but rather about a collaborative approach that better standardizes the data collection, monitoring and reporting we do across provincial boundaries and alongside the federal government.
One thing I would do is standardize. We need to have a clear set of definitions. Then we need to invest more so we can better understand the availability and quality of water. This is a really good example of how the lack of understanding we have impacts our ability to be more strategic in how we conserve and leverage water.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Aherne, do you want to add anything on freshwater pollution and the different impacts on that, given your expertise?
12:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, School of Environment, Trent University, As an Individual
I think somebody asked a question earlier about whether there were good examples elsewhere. I think one example that may be worth looking at is the EU water framework directive, which tries to establish consistent methods for monitoring across multiple jurisdictions but also looks at top-down and bottom-up solutions to solving pollution.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's perfect. That's a very interesting answer.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McCann, you have put a lot of emphasis on the Canada Water Agency. For our part, we still don't know much about that agency and what its powers and objectives really are. You talked about conflict and drought prevention, but I'd like you to tell us more about the protection of the resource, meaning water, and about the health risks.
Shouldn't more regulations be put in place? If the Canada Water Agency can't do more, how can we better counter all the threats?
12:10 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
It's important to understand that the provinces are usually responsible for protecting water quality. I think the agricultural sector is a good example of the need to invest more in research. We should be improving and increasing our knowledge of practices to better protect water. In addition, we need to be more aware of the real effects of agriculture. Today, we have a lot of knowledge, but there are things that we believe we know and that we need to delve into.
We sometimes have an opportunity to improve our knowledge of the impact of agriculture on water. Clearly, this is a situation where the Canada Water Agency can show leadership by bringing the provinces together. I hope this will also be an opportunity for the agency to invest more in infrastructure and knowledge transfer.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
As I said earlier, provincial governments have responsibilities, but their ability to act is limited. If the federal government doesn't step up to the plate, they can't move forward.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Macnair, when we talk about mining, much of the regulatory environment is provincial in nature, yet when we talk about fish, water and pollution, these touch on federal statutes.
I wonder if you could speak to the federal government's role to date in the Elk Valley. What role has the federal government played and how has that related to the overall track record in addressing the issues you've mentioned?
12:15 p.m.
Conservation Coordinator, Elk Valley, Wildsight
I think it's a case of using a hammer where a scalpel is required.
The federal government has intervened by fining Teck, imposing several of the largest fines in Canadian history in terms of environmental fines, the biggest one being $60 million for thousands of infractions over several years, but it really appears that Teck takes this as just a cost of doing business. The amount of $60 million may sound like a lot, but it's a few days' worth of revenue for a corporation of that magnitude.
We need to get away from this.... We need punitive measures, but they need to be more constructive. Again I go back to the International Joint Commission and that sort of oversight that truly takes the importance of the entire watershed into consideration. That is critical.
Another piece I'd like to touch on is that what ends up on the land runs into the water, so it's critically important in places like the Elk Valley to ensure the protection of the terrestrial environment, since it influences so substantially the aquatic environment.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you very much.
We'll go to Mr. Longfield for four minutes and then we'll come back to Mr. Mazier.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to build on that last discussion we were having with Mr. Macnair about the terrestrial impacts on clean water.
Guelph is on a groundwater supply. We don't take our water from rivers and streams. There is an impact on aquifers, but there are also impacts on wildlife and biodiversity.
Could you comment on what are, as we're studying water, the related externalities we should also be including in our study?
I know there's a lot of stuff there.
12:15 p.m.
Conservation Coordinator, Elk Valley, Wildsight
There's a lot of stuff there. I'll start with the selenium.
The selenium is oxidizing from waste rock that comes from the mines. The wells I referenced in Fernie and Sparwood were both in aquifers. They were not on the river. These systems are, as you know, so interconnected that it's really critical to take a big-picture look.
For instance, the constraints on the spending of that $60 million fine from Teck are that it really be related to the aquatic environment, yet in many cases it might be better to acquire some of the surrounding landscape to reduce logging and to reduce turbidity.
We can't take any of this in isolation, as certainly Mr. McCann would know with respect to agriculture. This needs to be looked at holistically, thoroughly and now.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you.
That's exactly where I was going with my next question, to Mr. McCann, about planting trees in riparian zones to try to filter the water before it gets into watersheds and looking at what else is done in agriculture for root architecture to get roots going deeper into the soil to also help with carbon sequestration and soil health.
Could you comment on how the reason Canada is doing as well as we are in terms of water management sometimes has to do with soil management as much as anything?
12:15 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
Often the right things to do, the good things to do, in agriculture have multiple benefits. Planting more trees and riparian buffers are good for water management also. It's really good for carbon sequestration.
I think it's a good example, though, of where Canada has been slower than the rest of the world. If you look at the farm programming in the United States, they have had, for a much longer time, a much more significant conservation program that supports agricultural ends. Canada is coming to that game a little bit late.
There are existing programs, like ALUS, that help support farmers and that deliver some of those benefits you're talking about, but governments have been slow to come to the table with investments. I think we can do a lot more than what we're doing today.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I asked the next question of another witness.
I grew up on the Prairies, and PFRA was all over the Prairies from the dust bowls of the 1930s up until 2014, when the program was cancelled. It had to do with irrigation water and tree planting.
Is PFRA something we could be considering revisiting in terms of our agriculture partnerships with the provinces and territories?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
There's a lot of opportunity to do a lot more and to invest in it. I think the delivery model of how you go about it can certainly be debated. I don't know whether we need a new PFRA, but more investment is going to be a good thing.