Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[Chris Forbes]

Just to comment, that's our objective, 2025, and obviously as I think Mike has mentioned, we have to make sure we take the learning we have from current projects and apply that where we can.

The 2025 target is for the areas of concern that were identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Certainly from that standpoint we would hope that by 2025 we're at or close to the finish line on those.

That doesn't mean we won't see other challenges emerge. Indeed one of the jobs we have at Environment Canada is to make sure we're monitoring and looking into other challenges. For example, the algae challenge is one which we talked about already, so we're certainly mindful that there may be other issues we have to keep a watch on.

Mike mentioned, under the chemical management plan, watching for whatever else, what new information or new science we have about what might be harmful, and making sure we keep an eye on that.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

As far as the phosphorus aspect of it goes, I'm a little more familiar, being from Manitoba, with the Lake Winnipeg basin area and some of the work that's being done there. I would assume there's some sharing of knowledge back and forth on this.

You talked about the nearshore rehabilitation work, but I know in Lake Winnipeg they're really starting to extend that look in the basin further out, looking at a lot of the wetland rehabilitation as a solution here.

How far are you moving into the actual basin to look for solutions on the phosphorus loading?

[Michael Goffin]

We actually work throughout the entire Great Lakes basin. The sources of the phosphorus are largely from land sources. They're urban, such as waste water treatment plants, stormwater, even household fertilizers that people use, but they're also agricultural. We work throughout the basins, often through conservation authorities in Ontario.

As well as the sources coming from within the basins, some of the solutions, as you mentioned, come from within the basins. You can attenuate the phosphorus; you can stop it before it reaches the lake, by building wetlands, by naturalizing streams, or by taking other measures.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Are those measures that are being looked at, or that are being implemented at this time?

[Michael Goffin]

Yes, they are. We do have our Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay cleanup fund, which is actually federal funding that was renewed in budget 2012. It's $30 million over five years. That helps stimulate action on the ground to demonstrate projects to reduce phosphorus from entering Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Goffin and Mr. Toet.

We'll move now to Mr. McKay for seven minutes.

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

I just want to endorse the comment that Mr. Forbes made about the friends of various basins, rivers, watersheds, and things of that nature. They are an integral and very important part of stimulating public awareness.

I want to move to Mr. Goffin's comments about legacy chemicals and talk not so much about the legacy chemicals as about the chemicals that are associated with fracking. The environment commissioner said there will be a review of these reporting requirements that will be completed in March.

Could you give the committee an update on where the department is on that?

[Chris Forbes]

That's something I'll have to get back to you on. That's not something I'm aware of. That may be outside of our area. It may be a Natural Resources Canada issue, or....

I'll have to check into that for you.

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

Okay. I'm just quoting directly from the environment commissioner.

[Chris Forbes]

Right. I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's more that—

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

I'll just leave it there, that you'll get back to us.

[Chris Forbes]

Yes.

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

The second issue is with regard to your last comment, Mr. Forbes, about the Great Lakes agreement. That would involve first nations, municipalities, the province, and the federal government.

I'm given to understand that the province, the municipalities, and the first nations have all signed off, all 133 first nations. Is that right?

[Chris Forbes]

The agreement is between the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario, with some undertakings and some annexes related to various other groups that may be implicated. Certainly our engagement with stakeholders and with first nations groups I think is covered.

The negotiations happen between the two governments. As I think I said in my remarks, we think we're close to finalizing that. The process, obviously, once that gets done—there are a number of implicated federal departments and a number of implicated provincial ministries—would be to seek approvals and post for—

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

What does “close” mean?

[Chris Forbes]

Well, we'd hope in the coming months. I don't control the process myself, but we'd ideally, I think, be done in the coming months and have something that we would post for public comment.

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

So 2014 is reasonable.

[Chris Forbes]

Oh, yes, for sure, I guess just on the approval of first nations and others. I mean, over the course of the negotiations, and Mike can certainly provide some colour commentary, we do engage, obviously, as we go through the preparation, with implicated stakeholders, including first nations, municipalities, and others.

Whether they may have the precise wording or not, they're certainly aware of a lot of the issues, and their views have been, I think, extensively communicated to us.

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

They don't have any sign-off rights as such.

[Chris Forbes]

No. It's an agreement between the two governments.

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

Okay.

In a report, now a bit old actually, by the International Joint Commission, they talked about a conflict, in their final recommendation, between the Great Lakes Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan and the Great Lakes Quality Agreement. One agreement says that wherever the pollution originates, that's the country responsible for it. The other agreement says that it's joint, regardless of the origin of the pollution.

Can you tell me whether that conflict has been resolved?

[Michael Goffin]

Yes.

I would suspect that the report predates the amendment to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a Canada-U.S agreement that occurred in 2012. The newly amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement simply references the marine contingency agreement and addresses notification.

The response is as outlined in the marine contingency—

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

Who is responsible for it?

[Michael Goffin]

That means that the first response is the originating country where the spill happens, and there are notification requirements.

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

If something happens in Canada, and of course water flows, who is the responsible entity? Is it Canada?