Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[Michael Goffin]

For the initial response, and then the contingency plan provides the framework for cooperation. It's a joint response on—

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

Who ends up with the liabilities from that flow?

[Michael Goffin]

I would have to check further into the marine contingency plan.

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

The government put forward a concept of polluter pay in the Speech from the Throne. As far I recollect, there hasn't been much happening since then.

Would the concept of polluter pay be applied to this kind of agreement between Canada and the U.S.?

[Michael Goffin]

Polluter pay is one of the principles in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, so we always look first to apply the polluter pay principle.

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

Somebody was telling me that not only are there shipments going through the Great Lakes with oil sands products, but there are also on docks and on shore various oil sands products, which frankly caught me by a bit of surprise.

Is that true?

[Michael Goffin]

Not to my knowledge. I know it has been discussed, but not to my knowledge.

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

As far as Environment Canada is concerned, there are no oil sands products, whether it's diluted bitumen or full bore bitumen being shipped through the Great Lakes system.

[Chris Forbes]

Yes.

Although, to be clear, I think you'd have to talk to the Department of Transport or others about specific shipments.

As Mike said, that's to our knowledge, but I'm not sure. That's not part of our—

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

It frankly came as a bit of a surprise to me as well, and it would be of some concern.

A final issue is with respect to these algae blooms and the diminished volumes in the Great Lakes, particularly Georgian Bay, and I suppose Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, and Lake Erie. If you look at your map, you can see that.

It's not clear to me how this is going to get—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. McKay, your time is up, so could you quickly get to your question.

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

It's not clear to me how this is going to be resolved without a substantial increase in the volume of water.

[Michael Goffin]

The volume level of water is one factor; I wouldn't say it's a major factor. Phosphorus is the controlling substance of all the things that affect algae growth. We think the way to influence the amount of algae in the lakes is to influence the amount of phosphorus entering the lakes. That's the current science.

Changes in water levels, in Georgian Bay in particular, might affect circulation patterns and could have an impact on algae growth, but we're still looking at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Goffin, and Mr. McKay.

We have three minutes left for the last questioner.

Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to be quick given how little time I have.

Of course, the Canada-Ontario agreement expired in June 2012, I believe. That's a while ago now.

Are you involved in the talks regarding the new agreement? Can we expect to see a new agreement soon? All those concerned about water quality in the Great Lakes say how urgently a Canada-Ontario agreement is needed.

[Chris Forbes]

The answer is yes. We hope it will be ready for public discussion within two or three months, or somewhere in that neighbourhood. That is our goal. Our negotiations with the province are almost done.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

As you know, in the last omnibus budget bill, the government made cuts. Funding for the Experimental Lakes was cut and responsibility for the area was transferred. It's all rather complex.

I'm sure the answer is yes, but have you ever worked on scientific applications? Science is key when you're looking for ways to clean up the Great Lakes and improve water quality.

Will you still have a hand in the Experimental Lakes? How is all that going to work? Could you give me an overview of that?

[Chris Forbes]

I cannot really comment on the Experimental Lakes issue. I can, however, ask Patricia to speak to that in a moment.

It is important to note that we have actually increased science-related spending in the Great Lakes since 2010. A key component of the Great Lakes nutrient initiative centres around science.

I will now turn the floor over to Patricia on the issue of the Experimental Lakes.

[Dr. Patricia Chambers]

On the Experimental Lakes, we have had some scientific involvement over the years, but it has been led through Fisheries and Oceans. A lot of the scientific effort has come through that department.

A lot of our scientific effort on nutrients in the last 10 years, or probably 20 years, has focused on the Great Lakes, and more recently on Lake Simcoe and Lake Winnipeg.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Thank you for your responses to the questions from our committee members.

We're going to suspend for two minutes while we allow our witnesses to leave and our new witnesses to take their seats at the table.

Thank you. We will suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like to call the meeting back to order, please.

We're on a very tight timeline. We have a large number of witnesses, and we want to give them as much time as we possibly can.

We welcome from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Ian Campbell, director. From Infrastructure Canada, we have Jeff Moore and Stephanie Tanton. From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Trevor Swerdfager, David Burden, and Patrice Simon. Welcome.

We're going to start with Dr. Campbell, director of the science coordination division, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Dr. Ian Campbell, Director, Science Coordination Division, Science and Technology Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

My name is Ian Campbell. I'm the director of the science coordination division in the science and technology branch at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's scientific involvement on Great Lakes water quality. Within the context of the committee's study, my comments are confined pretty much to the third area of focus, which is best practices.

The science and technology branch at AAFC conducts research, development, and knowledge transfer, with the goal of developing technologies and farming practices that improve the economic prosperity and sustainability of the sector. To do that, we use an approach based on partnerships, working with industry, universities and colleges, and other science providers to provide science that enhances the sector's resiliency, fosters new areas of opportunity, and supports sector competitiveness.

The Great Lakes cover a large drainage area with a wide range of land uses, including forestry, agriculture, industrial development, and urban areas. The Great Lakes basin includes highly diverse agriculture and agrifood operations.

While jurisdiction for land use decisions or for protecting surface waters, including the Great Lakes, lies with the provinces and to some extent with Environment Canada, the agriculture sector recognizes a need to minimize nutrient losses from its operations and a responsibility towards environmental stewardship. This is evident in efforts by industry, supported by governments, to develop and implement practices to apply the right fertilizer source at the right rate, at the right time, and in the right place.

AAFC has invested over the years in researching, developing, and disseminating information about beneficial management practices, or BMPs, that reduce the loss of nutrients and other forms of environmental impact from farming operations. With respect to Great Lakes water quality, a key issue for agriculture is nutrient management.

From a farmer's perspective, plant nutrients such as commercial fertilizers are an input cost, and they therefore have an incentive to ensure that nutrients are delivered efficiently to the crop and not lost to the surrounding environment. However, agricultural production is part of a complex ecological system, and nutrient loss from farms to the surrounding environment can occur depending on a wide range of factors, such as the type of soil, the level of precipitation, tillage practices, and proximity to sources of water.

AAFC researchers at our centres in Ontario and across the country are investigating strategies to manage nitrogen, phosphorus, and manure in pursuit of improved agricultural practices that improve crop nutrient utilization and reduce losses to the surrounding ecosystem. This research and associated technology transfer efforts will be an important part of AAFC's contribution to the federal government initiatives related to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Canada-Ontario agreement.

For instance, here is what some projects include. At Guelph, we have work on assessing the risk of phosphorus losses of different agricultural landscapes. At Harrow, we have research conducted in the Lake Erie basin on strategies to understand and reduce nitrogen losses from fertilizer and manure application and thereby reduce environmental degradation by enhancing crop utilization of nitrogen and performance. We also have projects on understanding the behaviour of phosphorus in animal manures after land application and on the use of cover crops and organic amendments to reduce agricultural pollution of the Great Lakes. In Quebec City we have work on improving phosphorus use efficiency by farmers under different Canadian agro-ecosystems.

In Ontario specifically, a large number of beneficial management practices, or BMPs, have been adopted by producers. Just a few of the more popular ones include: precision agriculture, which is about applying the right amount of nutrients and varying the amount of nutrients applied within a field; farmland and horticultural facilities runoff control, reducing the nutrients in runoff; improved manure storage and handling to reduce nutrient losses to runoff; nutrient recovery from waste water; erosion control structures in riparian areas; and a number of others.

Our role at AAFC is primarily to provide science knowledge that can be used by the sector, the provinces, and others to enhance sector productivity while minimizing negative environmental impacts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Dr. Campbell. Thank you for being sensitive to our time constraints as well.

We'll move now to Mr. Jeff Moore from Infrastructure Canada.

[Jeff Moore, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Infrastructure Canada]

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address you today.

My name is Jeff Moore and I'm the assistant deputy minister for policy and communications for Infrastructure Canada. Joining me today is Stephanie Tanton, the director of priority initiatives, also from Infrastructure Canada.

In the context of this committee's study on water quality in the Great Lakes basin, I would like to take a few moments to provide you with an overview of the investments Infrastructure Canada has made to date toward waste water infrastructure, in particular in the Great Lakes Basin, and to provide the committee with some context regarding Infrastructure Canada's role, which I believe will be helpful for any subsequent discussion.

The vast majority of Canada's public infrastructure, well over 90%, is owned by provinces, territories, and municipalities. This includes highways, local roads, bridges, public transit systems, and water and waste water infrastructure. Recognizing the essential role public infrastructure plays in supporting economic competitiveness, a cleaner environment, and stronger communities, the federal government provides funding to provinces, territories, and municipalities for the construction, renewal, and rehabilitation of their infrastructure assets.

Established in 2002, Infrastructure Canada has been leading federal efforts in this area, and has been responsible for developing and administering a suite of infrastructure funding programs.

For the most part, these programs have funded a broad range of infrastructure assets, including wastewater infrastructure, and have provided provinces and municipalities with the flexibility to identify their regional needs.

For example, under the green infrastructure fund, which was announced as part of the economic action plan in 2009, funding was specifically targeted to infrastructure projects supporting cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner water. Wastewater infrastructure projects represent the largest investment category under this fund.

Overall, since 2006, the Government of Canada has committed approximately $2.08 billion in direct funding towards 1,590 waste water infrastructure projects across Canada under several building Canada and economic action plan initiatives. This federal funding has leveraged more than $4 billion from other funding partners for a total investment of over $6.1 billion for waste water systems across the country.

The majority of these projects have supported improved management and efficiency of waste water or storm water infrastructure, and the reduction of negative impacts of waste water or storm water effluent on human health and the environment. Among these investments are a significant number that will help improve the quality of waste water effluent being released into the Great Lakes, and five specifically that will contribute towards the delisting of officially designated areas of concern. I would like to tell you about these five.

For instance, in Nipigon Bay near Thunder Bay in northwest Ontario, the federal government contributed $3.45 million towards the Nipigon waste water treatment plant upgrade project. This project, with total eligible costs of $6.9 million, involved adding a secondary waste water treatment process to the plant. The project, which is now complete, has helped improve the quality of effluent being released into the water and will contribute to delisting Nipigon Bay as an area of concern.

Infrastructure Canada is also pleased to be working with the township of Red Rock to upgrade the Red Rock waste water treatment facility. With a federal commitment of $4.5 million, this project will also contribute to the delisting of Nipigon Bay as an area of concern.

The Skyway waste water treatment facility in the Halton region is receiving a federal contribution of $51.5 million to improve its waste water treatment process to reduce the amount of phosphorus discharged into Hamilton harbour. The project has total eligible costs of $158.9 million and once completed in March 2015 will contribute to the delisting of Hamilton harbour as an area of concern. An additional $100 million in federal funding has also been committed towards reducing the amount of contaminants discharged to Hamilton harbour from combined sewer overflows and from the Woodward Avenue waste water treatment plant. With total project costs of just over $300 million, the project will also contribute towards delisting Hamilton harbour as an area of concern once completed in December 2019.

Finally, the $55.5 million Cornwall waste water treatment plant upgrade project received $18.5 million in federal funding to upgrade the treatment of waste water to a secondary level and provide additional treatment capacity. Once completed in July 2014, the project will contribute to delisting the St. Lawrence River as an area of concern.

In addition to investments through direct contribution programs, the Government of Canada has provided significant investments to wastewater infrastructure through the gas tax fund.

Based on reports received from our provincial partners, Ontario municipalities have spent approximately $94 million of their federal gas tax funds on wastewater projects since 2005.

To conclude, I would note that waste water infrastructure will continue to be an eligible category of investment under the new building Canada plan. Recognizing that improving waste water treatment and related infrastructure remains a priority for provinces and municipalities, waste water will be an eligible category under the $10-billion provincial and territorial infrastructure component of the new building Canada plan as well as the renewed gas tax fund.

While program parameters are still being finalized, economic action plan 2014 made a commitment to have the new plan operational by March 31, 2014.

Thank you for your time. My colleague and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

We'll move now to Mr. Trevor Swerdfager of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I hope I pronounced your name correctly.