Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We may have missed our opportunity with the previous witnesses on that question.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

It's something that is brought up with me and I was curious to see if anybody is actually looking at that.

I do want to ask about infrastructure. Since 2006 I know there's been record investments in infrastructure. I was wondering how important this investment in infrastructure is in helping municipalities improve their waste water systems. How much money have they been able to leverage? How does it help these problematic areas of concern? How does it help them become delisted?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Moore.

[Jeff Moore]

That's a very good question.

In terms of waste water as a priority category, it is a category in a number of our programs, including the green infrastructure fund and under the building Canada fund as well. If you look at what we've done nationally in terms of waste water, I think I mentioned in my remarks that we've supported close to 1,600 projects and committed about $2 billion. It depends on the nature of the project, but usually we'll leverage another two-thirds. We'll normally invest in one-third of a municipal project and sometimes we can go as high as 50%, particularly under a program like the green infrastructure fund.

I would like to take the opportunity to talk about the Great Lakes for a second. In the Great Lakes area, since 2006 we've supported 173 projects. Within those 173 projects we've committed $631 million out of 1.8 billion dollars' worth of costs in waste water projects. Not all of these would have a direct impact on areas of concern in the Great Lakes waters, but those are the types of projects we would have in the surrounding area.

I'm sorry, you had one other part to that question, but I didn't get to it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I was curious how these investments allow municipalities to leverage their investments. How does it help them become delisted? In these areas of concern, we hear we're on track to have them finished by 2025. How does it help the municipalities get to the point where they need to be?

[Jeff Moore]

With the projects we support, we're just one piece of the puzzle in terms of delisting an area as being an area of concern. A great example is Red Rock where we're actually the last piece of the puzzle in getting the area delisted. Once that project is complete, that area will be delisted. Is that right?

[A voice]

Nipigon Bay.

[Jeff Moore]

Nipigon Bay. When we fund waste water projects, we're looking at trying to treat the waste water that's being introduced into the water. That's just one way our programming will contribute towards areas of concern in getting them delisted.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

We have been given a chart and it shows Canadian and U.S. areas of concern. I noticed the Canadian ones, and I noticed quite a few more on the American side.

Do you or anybody have statistics about waste water effluents in the Great Lakes percentage-wise between Canada and the U.S.? For Canada and the U.S. are the regulations similar? How is the U.S. doing relative to Canada, or how is Canada doing relative to the U.S. with respect to these areas of concern and having them properly remediated?

[Jeff Moore]

From our perspective, we wouldn't have that information. I would guess that Environment Canada probably would have that information if you're looking for it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Are there any other comments on that? That's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll move on then to Mr. McKay.

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

Do you mind if I take his 30 seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I do actually, but we won't tell anybody.

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

I want to ask a follow-up on Mr. Swerdfager's response to Ms. Freeman's question and the change in the Fisheries Act.

Now you only follow fish where there's serious harm to the fish, but they must be part of a commercial, recreation, or aboriginal fishery. What I don't understand is there's an entire food chain here. How you determine what is commercial, recreational, or aboriginal is another issue, but how do you only follow that subset of the universe of the food chain?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

I don't have the text of the act in front of me, but I used to be able to quote it almost verbatim. One of the key provisions of it says “...fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.” To use your example, the idea of the act is set up so that the fish we focus on goes down the food chain. It's not just simply the apex predator, or the high trophic levels of the ecosystem. If you're looking at a fish and fish habitat that is supportive of other fish, but is not the target of a fishery, the Fisheries Act still kicks in, in so far as section 35 protections are concerned.

Perhaps I should have expanded earlier, because the question was focused just on what changed. In light of this conversation, we should also keep in mind that section 36 of the Fisheries Act, which is administered primarily by our colleagues at Environment Canada, is a blanket protection with respect to pollution in a fish habitat context as well. That provision was not changed as part of the recent changes in the act. It puts in place a comprehensive protection against the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish.That remains intact and hasn't changed.

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

I'm still a little confused, but since I have only a few minutes left, I'll let it go. It does strike me as a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Burden, you have a map attached to your presentation. What caught my attention was the two pink sections showing diverted drainage.

I understand what diverted drainage means in principle, but does that mean the drainage shown in these particular pink sections is diverted into the Great Lakes or away from the Great Lakes? What does that mean?

[David Burden]

I'll actually have to get back to you on that. I noticed the map when I was flying in last night, and I saw the indication of that, but I can't answer the question.

We'll get back to you on that.

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

You said to yourself, “Some idiot's going to ask me what that means”, right?

[David Burden]

No, if I'd thought of that, I would have asked somebody.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I see. All right.

The page previous to that refers to your work with respect to Ontario Power Generation's work close to Lake Huron. The way I understand your paragraph, you've been engaged to consider the fish habitat that would be generated by virtue of the burying of nuclear waste.

Can you expand on that and tell us how far down they're going to bury it? What's the proximity to Lake Huron? Is it below the water table, or can you ever have anything that's below the water table?

Expand on that paragraph a bit, please.

[David Burden]

I don't have the exact information on that, but it's 600-odd metres below the surface. It is, I believe, a couple of kilometres from the lake.

We've undertaken a review, and we've provided our information to the Canadian nuclear safety agency. From our perspective, we don't see that there will be any direct impact to fisheries or fisheries habitat as a result of that project. We're there as a technical support to the Canadian nuclear safety agency, but we're not directly a responsible authority.