Evidence of meeting #12 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was phosphorus.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chris Forbes  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch and Regional Directors General Offices, Department of the Environment
Patricia Chambers  Section Head, Watershed Stressors and Nutrients, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
Michael Goffin  Regional Director General, Ontario Region, Department of the Environment
Ian Campbell  Director, Science Coordination Division, Science and Technology Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Jeff Moore  Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Infrastructure Canada
Trevor Swerdfager  Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
David Burden  Acting Regional Director General, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Patrice Simon  Director, Environment and Biodiversity Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

February 13th, 2014 / 3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

I'd like to call to order meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I will remind committee members of the mandate of the study we're embarking on:

That the committee undertake a ten (10) meeting study on the Water quality of the Great Lakes Basin. This study will focus on three (3) areas: (a) identifying locations within the Great Lakes Basin that are of environmental concern and the prioritization of these areas to be addressed; (b) reviewing the efforts that are planned and/or currently underway to remediate the identifiable areas of environmental concern; and (c) recommending best practices that will facilitate the further remediation of areas of environmental concern within the Great Lakes Basin.

Some of us at this table are old enough to remember some of the concerns of the 1960s within the Great Lakes and have seen some significant improvement since that time, and we're happy about that, but we all know as well that we can continue to move forward on helping to increase that water quality to a greater degree.

We're happy to have with us witnesses from the Department of the Environment: Chris Forbes, assistant deputy minister; Michael Goffin, regional director general; and Patricia Chamber, section head of watershed stressors and nutrients, science and technology branch.

I understand, Mr. Forbes, you have an opening statement, so we welcome you to proceed with that at this point.

3:30 p.m.

Chris Forbes Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch and Regional Directors General Offices, Department of the Environment

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for inviting us here today.

We are pleased to be here to kick off your study on the Great Lakes water quality, and in particular, to talk about specific locations of environmental concern.

As you mentioned, l am joined by my colleague, Michael Goffin, who is the regional director general of our Ontario office, and Dr. Patricia Chambers, who is from our water science and technology directorate.

As is evidenced in the Great Lakes and across the entire country, there is a clear recognition of the critical importance of a safe and secure water supply to human health, the environment and the economy.

The Government of Canada is working across the country, and in the Great Lakes region, with the United States, provinces, and community stakeholders to ensure that Canadians have access to clean, safe and secure water.

To guide Canada and the United States in addressing challenges to water quality, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed in 1972 and was most recently amended in 2012. The agreement lays out clear obligations by both governments to restore and protect the Great Lakes. It also establishes Canada-U.S. mechanisms for cooperation, which is essential to our success.

Environment Canada leads Canada's efforts under the agreement, coordinating efforts with other federal departments, the Province of Ontario, municipalities, business, first nations, non-government organizations and the public.

I would like to focus my remarks today on two important agreement commitments that address geographic areas of environmental concern: the remediation of areas of concern and the effort to address toxic and nuisance algae.

Starting on the first point, the 2012 agreement reaffirms Canada's commitment to restore water quality and ecosystem health in designated areas of concern. These are specific locations, such as harbours and embayments, where water quality and ecosystem health have been severely degraded by human activity at the local level.

Of the 43 areas of concern designated by Canada and the United States, 17 are in Canada. Three of these areas have been fully remediated, and water quality and ecosystem health have been restored, leading to delisting. In a further two areas of concern, all remedial actions have been completed, but additional time is required for the environment to recover. Once restoration of environmental quality is confirmed, these sites will also be delisted.

Over the next five years we project completion of all remedial actions in a further five Canadian areas of concern. Work will continue on the remaining seven Canadian areas of concern.

The remediation process has involved significant scientific investment by Environment Canada and our partners, to define and characterize the nature, extent and causes of the environmental degradation, and to identify and recommend options for remediation.

In each Canadian area of concern, the local community has been engaged in the development of a comprehensive remedial action plan to document remedial measures required and identify the parties responsible for implementation.

To stimulate action, Environment Canada provides funding to local community-led environmental remediation projects. Since 1989, approximately $100 million has been provided by Environment Canada, leveraging over $350 million from other sources and supporting more than 900 partnered projects.

One of our main projects that we are currently leading right now is the remediation of Canada's largest contaminated sediment site in the Great Lakes, at Randle Reef in Hamilton harbour. The federal contribution to this project is $46.3 million, with similar amounts contributed by the Province of Ontario, and also by the local community.

Despite significant progress, continued effort is required to complete the remediation of Canadian areas of concern. In some instances, such as the remediation of remaining contaminated sediment sites in Thunder Bay, St. Marys River, and St. Clair River, new approaches and financial partnerships will be required.

No new Canadian areas of concern have been identified since sites were designated in 1987. It's recognized, however, that many nearshore areas are under stress from a range of factors, such as population growth and development, harmful pollutants, and invasive species.

Accordingly, Canada and the United States have committed to develop by 2016 a binational nearshore framework that will provide an overall assessment of nearshore waters, and establish priorities for nearshore restoration and protection.

The second key 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement commitment, which focuses on geographic areas of environmental concern, is the commitment to address toxic and nuisance algae.

Algae blooms in the Great Lakes were successfully faced in the past. In the 1960s and 1970s, algae development resulted in fish kills, the degradation of beaches and the clogging of water intake pipes. Phosphorus reductions were achieved through improvements to municipal wastewater treatment, limitations on phosphorus in detergents, and adoption of conservation tillage practices by farmers.

This problem has returned 40 years later and new science now shows certain species of algae are harmful to fish, wildlife, and humans.

While Lake Erie is the most affected, the shorelines of Lake Ontario and southeastern Georgian Bay and Lake Huron also experience adverse impacts. Potential impacts include threats to drinking water safety, increasing water treatment costs, degraded fish and wildlife habitat, and adverse impacts on tourism and commercial and recreational fisheries.

Reasons for the resurgence of the algae are complex and not completely understood. Phosphorus levels have declined significantly and are currently stable; however, the proportion of phosphorus in dissolved form is increasing, and this is believed to be contributing to increased algae growth. Climate change and the presence of aquatic invasive species may also play a role.

The 2012 agreement commits Canada and the United States to establish revised binational phosphorus reduction targets and management plans for the Great Lakes. Owing to the magnitude of the problem in Lake Erie, the agreement specifies completion dates of 2016 for the establishment of phosphorus reduction targets, and 2018 for establishment of phosphorus reduction plans.

Environment Canada is leading the Government of Canada response. Through the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, $16 million is being directed to research and monitoring to better understand the causes of toxic and nuisance algae growth, and to provide data and information necessary to establish new phosphorus reduction targets.

At the same time, Environment Canada is taking action to reduce phosphorus discharges. The Lake Simcoe and Southeastern Georgian Bay cleanup fund has allocated $32 million and leveraged $51 million to support nearly 200 phosphorus reduction projects. We are also working with conservation authorities in key watersheds to demonstrate best practices in watershed planning and management.

Depending on the scale of phosphorus reductions required to achieve a healthy ecosystem, new approaches and techniques may be needed. However, we've demonstrated in the past that this problem can be successfully addressed through a combination of national, regional, and local strategies.

In summary, Great Lakes water quality remains a priority for Environment Canada. The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement lays out specific commitments for restoration and protection. We are investing in both science and actions on the ground necessary to implement this new agreement. Partnerships, both binational and domestic, are a very important component of this success.

We are making progress on remediation of the designated areas of concern and are starting to focus on understanding and addressing the problem of toxic and nuisance algae in the Great Lakes.

Finally, I'd also like to note that Canada and Ontario are nearing the conclusion of negotiations for a new Canada-Ontario agreement respecting Great Lakes water quality and ecosystem health. This agreement was first signed in 1971 and has been renewed six times. It's a very important mechanism for coordinating federal and provincial actions to restore and protect the Great Lakes.

The most recent agreement, for example, was signed in 2007 and engaged three Ontario ministries and eight federal departments, and resulted in 176 specific commitments being successfully implemented over a five-year period.

That ends my opening remarks. My colleagues and I would be happy to take any questions.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Thank you very much, Mr. Forbes.

We're going to move to the opening rounds of seven minutes each.

We'll start with Mr. Woodworth.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thanks to the witnesses for attending today.

My riding is Kitchener Centre, which is in the heart of southern Ontario. Consequently, I have a great interest in this area.

It's hard for me to know where to start, because I have so many questions, but I think I'd like to begin with the issue of phosphorus reductions in Lake Erie and ask you to go over that a little more closely.

You mentioned, for example, that dissolved form phosphorus is increasing. I don't know what that is. I have a general idea that phosphorus can be a discharge from farming activities and that we're trying to address that along the Grand River.

Perhaps you could expand on that a little bit and tell me what is involved in the target setting that will take another two years to accomplish. I don't really understand who you are consulting with or how you are going to achieve those targets.

3:40 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch and Regional Directors General Offices, Department of the Environment

Chris Forbes

Maybe I'll start with the second part of the question, and then I'll turn to Patricia to talk about dissolved phosphorus.

Right now, through the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, we're doing a fair bit of research in the Great Lakes into the causes of the problem we're seeing with algae. We're trying to get a better understanding of the causes and the factors that are influencing the increase we're seeing in algae.

Certainly we need to work with partners, such as the Province of Ontario, the U.S. obviously as a partner that has to take on a target going forward, and local communities, to understand what is driving this increase, and what kinds of targets are necessary and how we might achieve them.

There are a number of parties involved. We want to get the science right before we start setting targets, and that's part of what's going on now, certainly as well as working with partners to make sure we have a common understanding of goals and objectives.

I'll turn to Patricia to talk about the dissolved phosphorus.

3:40 p.m.

Dr. Patricia Chambers Section Head, Watershed Stressors and Nutrients, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment

Maybe I'll start by being a little bit technical, but then I'll bring it to a higher level.

Basically, as scientists, we look at dissolved and particulate phosphorus. These are technical terms; it depends on what passes through one of our laboratory filters, a very fine filter, a very fine mesh.

If it passes through this fine mesh, it's called “dissolved”. That means very small molecules. Because they're small, the algae can take them up, and that fuels their growth.

The other forms of phosphorus are the particulate ones, which don't pass through this very fine filter. They tend to be particles that are sediment associated. They're ones that are associated with soils or particles like that. This type of phosphorus isn't immediately available to fuel the growth of the algae. If you think of the fertilizers you use on your plants or your lawn, you're using pellets, usually, that have the soluble phosphorus bound onto them and can come off quickly and feed the grass and the plants.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

What's the source of the dissolved form phosphorus, and why does it seem to be increasing or recurring as a problem in Lake Erie?

3:40 p.m.

Section Head, Watershed Stressors and Nutrients, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment

Dr. Patricia Chambers

There are still a number of questions about that one.

Part of it seems to be changing farm practices. Initially we used farm practices where there was a lot of tillage on the land, and that tillage resulted in the soil particles being loosened. When we had a heavy snowfall and that melted or we had a rain event, these heavy particles were carried into the streams, the soil particles with the phosphorus fairly tightly bound onto them.

In some cases, because we've changed our farming practices to what's now referred to as “no till”, we have more liquid forms of phosphorus, these dissolved ones seeping.... That's not to say that's the only source of dissolved phosphorus, because a lot of what comes in from pipes, be they industrial or sewage, is also in dissolved form.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

I heard an interesting interview a day or two ago with an official from the New York environment department, or one of them, about an issue of little plastic pellets, or something of that nature, in the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie area.

Could you tell me what was being talked about and what the impact is, please? Does it have to do with the algae?

3:45 p.m.

Michael Goffin Regional Director General, Ontario Region, Department of the Environment

No, it's a separate issue. It's microplastics. It's been an area of study in the oceans, where they're finding zones of concentrations of plastic. One of the sources is our plastic bags and all the plastics we use that get ground up and persist in the environment.

Interestingly, with microplastics, some are used in health and beauty products, so those nice skin scrubs that we all use contain actual plastics. Some companies are taking voluntary measures to stop using those now.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Aside from stopping them at the source, is there any other thinking about how to deal with that?

3:45 p.m.

Regional Director General, Ontario Region, Department of the Environment

Michael Goffin

That's the big challenge, how you would do that, either in sewage treatment or in other measures. Right now, I think the area of research is the impact of those microplastics and how important they are in the Great Lakes, but I think that already companies are starting to take proactive action.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

I have one last question. Were there any non-governmental agencies involved in the cleanup of Randle Reef with Environment Canada?

3:45 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch and Regional Directors General Offices, Department of the Environment

Chris Forbes

Our partners would be the cities of Burlington and Hamilton, the Province of Ontario, and the Hamilton Port Authority, and I guess U.S. Steel is there, helping in kind.

3:45 p.m.

Regional Director General, Ontario Region, Department of the Environment

Michael Goffin

If I could add to that, though, Hamilton may be a best practice in terms of community involvement. They have a group called the Bay Area Restoration Council that has been absolutely wonderful in bringing people down to the harbour and creating recreational facilities for them along the harbour, so that people are there and are questioning why they can't use the water more. That's been a major driver of action to clean up the harbour. There is very active local community support.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

We're going to move now to Mr. Choquette, for seven minutes, please.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Forbes, thank you for your presentation. I was happy to hear you mention climate change. In order to deal with water pollution in the Great Lakes, it's necessary to examine the whole issue of climate change. And that is true despite the fact that the budget released on February 11 made no mention of it.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Excuse me, Mr. Choquette. I want to remind you that I specifically read out the parameters of our study when we opened this meeting, and I would encourage you to keep to this topic that this committee agreed to study.

We're not studying climate change. We're studying Great Lakes water pollution.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Is that a point of order, Mr. Chair? I thought it was up to the members of the committee to do that, not the chair. No big deal. I will carry on.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

I am quite sure that the chair is able to draw attention to the parameters the committee agreed to, but I'll go to Mr. Woodworth.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

I may have missed it. I thought I was listening very intently, but to be honest with you, I don't think I heard the witness speak about climate change. If I missed it, I apologize.

I think that what we're really here to talk about is water quality. That's what the witness spent most of his time talking about, and that's what I'd ask us to keep on.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Mr. Choquette.

Mr. Bevington, do you have a point of order?

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

On the same point of order, if you're talking about algae bloom, I don't know if you can avoid talking about changing water temperature or levels of water in different places in the Great Lakes. These things are all related, Mr. Chair.