Environment Committee on Feb. 27th, 2014

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

I thought they were good plants.

[John Hall]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I need to admit that was probably the most bizarre point of order I've ever had to deal with but it was very educational.

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Shipley, I'm not going to take your time off Mr. McKay's we'll take it off his next time.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

That I understand. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just visiting so we have a farmer talking to a lawyer. I would like just to chat with you, Mr. Ullrich.

I'm glad that you brought up phragmites. My riding comes along Lake Huron and before it gets to the St. Clair River it goes into my colleague's riding. I pick up a little bit of the St. Clair River before it gets to Lake St. Clair. The phragmites, particularly in Lake Huron in one of my areas, are a huge concern. Roundup does get it but it's the process you've got to go through to get it. I was just going to ask you how you're working with municipalities and the provinces to be able to expedite some process, because it's doing just as you said, it is choking everything out. This stuff can grow 20 feet high. It is a very invasive species. I'll leave that right now, you can talk to that.

In terms of the International Joint Commission, there was a blue-ribbon commission. I was involved municipally for a number a years and so I understand Ms. Freeman's concerns. I come from a very small rural riding, large, small towns, and mostly agriculture. One of the things we found in dealing between Canada and the United States was that we have different rules. When we talk about quality, obviously along the beach area, which is very well established on Lake Huron—it's a beautiful resort area—we have high density. A number of those cottage residences are in municipalities that don't have full services in, so we have septic tanks that are in sand. It makes a great system of moving product towards the water.

Then, obviously, I'm in a large and very tense agriculture area. We work with those two in terms of best management in agriculture, in terms of cropping and obviously in terms of livestock. With that we found with nutrient management planning, for example, in discussion with the blue-ribbon, there was quite a disparity between the United States and Canada. I can only speak for Ontario, where there were significantly more safeguards in place, I would say, province-wide than there were statewide at that time. Maybe you can help me with that, in terms of where that is now.

The third part I guess would be, in terms of municipalities. I had the privilege of being a mayor of a municipality for likely longer than I should have. It was a great experience. You learn a lot, not only about the agriculture but about how we have to work, and do work, with federal, municipal, and provincial, and our partners within the commodity organizations, and livestock, and farming, and industry. How are you working with municipalities to help coordinate quality management for our Great Lakes, because all our streams around in my area end up going to a main river or to the Great Lakes?

I know that's three, Mr. Chair, but I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Good thing. We've got a very short time for your answer, about a minute and a half.

[David Ullrich]

I'll do my best.

Even though I am a recovering lawyer I grew up in a county in Wisconsin that had more cows than people, and they were often in my backyard in the morning. And I worked on a farm at one point.

In terms of being able to expedite the process, dealing with phragmites or whatever, we have not, as an organization, directly engaged in that. We're very small. To service 112 communities across the way, if we can engage possibly, through the memorandum of understanding that we have and will redevelop with Ontario under the Canada-Ontario agreement, that would be a good thing to do. I will take that idea back and see if we can focus on that to see if there can be some expediting of processes. Having worked for the federal government for 30 years, I fully appreciate that.

Second, in terms of federal, provincial, and municipal collaboration, I spend a lot of my life doing that. Just as an example, next week I will be out in Washington. We have Great Lakes Week every year, and by the way we are bringing a group of probably 15 mayors to Ottawa April 2 and 3 to engage more with members of Parliament and we look forward to that. I will be meeting specifically with Department of Agriculture people. As was alluded to before, this issue of how much reduction you get from a municipality versus how much from the agricultural areas, this is a potential huge battle brewing. I'm going to try to see if I can cut that one off at the pass and see whether or not we can start talking before we start fighting on this. There are some good projects under way, the Fox River in Wisconsin—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Ullrich. Hopefully we will come back to that, but we have to honour our time commitments.

I have to move now to Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, as I mentioned earlier, I want to reiterate how important the Great Lakes are for all Canadians. They supply nearly 35 million people with drinking water and account for some $4.4 billion economically speaking. That's huge.

We have received two letters on the issue. The first is from Fe de Leon, of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. In the letter, she indicates that she has spent more than 40 years working on issues related to the protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem and that she wishes to appear before the committee. We, the NDP, consider her to be a key witness who the committee should give priority to.

Nancy Goucher, a water program manager, is another person who would like to speak to the committee. She is going to send the committee a letter, and we think her request should be given priority.

We feel the committee should make hearing from both of those organizations a top priority. And we also want to point out how important it is that the committee hear from all stakeholders, municipalities as well as environmental groups. These groups have spent years examining these issues and are backed by very important scientists.

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

I have a point of order. We have witnesses who are here to share their expertise, and I would request that the member ask questions that pertain to their expertise, and not go on about something that has nothing to do with their expertise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I didn't think that was a real point of order. No matter, I finished what I had to say on the subject, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me back the floor.

Coming back to you, gentlemen, I want to thank you once again for joining us today.

I want to discuss a topic we touched on, the wetlands situation. How are wetlands faring in your cities? I know the situation is serious in Quebec. Every year, we lose some. Wetlands filter water that ends up in the Great Lakes. In your regions, what shape are wetlands in? Are they in decline? Are they stable? Are you taking measures to address the situation? I'll turn things over to all of you.

[David Ullrich]

I would be happy to start, Mr. Chair. Your question is very timely, and your observation is very accurate.

Wetlands are a tremendously underappreciated part of the ecosystem. It's really where the water and the land interact the most. In terms of habitat for fish, birds, other wildlife, water cleansing, and helping to deal with the flooding problems, it's critically important. Obviously, the development pressures, particularly in urban areas, have resulted in the loss of a lot of wetlands over the years.

A report was released on the U.S. side in November, and I think it covered the Canadian side as well, but I am not certain. It stated that the Great Lakes region was the only area where there had been an increase in wetlands over the previous five years. The Gulf coast and the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts had all continued to lose wetlands. Within the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence community, there is a much greater appreciation for this, and this is recognized in a variety of programs. There's a really conscious effort not only to prevent the destruction of additional wetlands, but to restore ones that had been harmed.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I'd like to quickly throw it back to you.

You were very clear, and I am glad to hear that wetlands are doing well or, at least, that the situation around the Great Lakes is improving.

Should the federal government have a hand in restoring or protecting wetlands? Is the federal regulatory framework helping you? Could it help you?

[David Ullrich]

I am not familiar enough with the federal and provincial regulatory system on the Canadian side to speak to it. The federal government does have a role on the U.S. side, although it's a very controversial point. It's a long-debated legal question as to what constitutes a water of the United States and adjacent wetlands. One way or another, they need to be protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

We'll move now to Mr. Sopuck for five minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I have a report here from Environment Canada that's just a little thing off their website. It's entitled How Are the Great Lakes Doing?. Under the section that says, “Can we eat the fish?”, the first sentence says “Contaminant levels in Great Lakes fish have declined significantly from their historic peaks.”

If the contaminant levels in fish are a proxy for contaminants in the ecosystem itself, it appears to me in terms of contaminants we're actually not doing a bad job in toxics and so on, and we're continuing that work with the Randle Reef.

I heard phosphorus mentioned a lot. We seem to have a toxics management plan in place. It will play out its course. So, Mr. Ullrich, are we now, from this point on, looking at the long term primarily as an issue of phosphorus in the Great Lakes and remediating that?

[David Ullrich]

I believe phosphorus is probably the most significant and dominant concern right now.

You are correct. We have made very good progress on toxics, and a lot of that had to do with the banning of PCBs and DDTs so we stopped the flow into the system. With projects like Hamilton harbour, where the legacy pollutants that are there already are taken away and secured, that is a further improvement.

We still have to be concerned about air deposition of toxics, believe it or not. That's the largest source now through air deposition—mercury.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mercury, then? Is it mercury?

[David Ullrich]

Yes, mercury from coal-fired power plants. But then there are emerging chemicals of concern, and Canada and the U.S. are working very closely on that to try to make sure we don't recreate the problem we had.

That is an area where we have made good progress. Really, phosphorus is not a toxin. It's a nutrient, but of the day it is the primary concern.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I asked the question last time of witnesses, and I'll ask you again, Mr. Ullrich, or any one of you who has knowledge about this.

Anecdotal evidence suggests even though the zebra mussels are a negative for the Great Lakes and an invasive species, they have had some impact on water quality.

Can one of you talk to that issue?

[David Ullrich]

Again I am not an expert in this area, but this is what I hear experts say about it. The answer is no. Although water clarity has improved because of the zebra mussels, you need to understand the quagga mussels are quickly “out-muscling”, if you will, the zebra mussels. I'm sorry, that wasn't intended.

They are processing many nutrients through their systems, and in some instances they are actually magnifying the effects of the nutrients once they process themselves through the system.

The other thing is they are having a negative effect on some of the other critical biota, in particular, diaporia. Especially in Lake Michigan and I believe Lake Huron, those levels have gone down dramatically. It's felt that is the responsibility of the zebra and quagga mussels. That's the base of the food chain for the sport and commercial fishery.

So I don't think anyone thinks they've had a positive effect on water quality, although some people say, “Oh, I can see deeper. It must be better.” Not so.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I appreciate that.

Mr. D'Andrea, I was interested when you talked about the issue of fish habitat. Just to let you know, in my remaining time, our government in the latest budget approved $50 million for something called the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program.

Of special relevance to you, there was a project in a marsh in the Mississauga area called Rattray Marsh—actually, I think right in town. The rehabilitation of that marsh was partially funded by the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program. I would recommend you have your staff have a look at that program because it's a partnership program, and it will fund up to $100,000 in terms of actual on-the-ground habitat improvement work. I certainly would be happy to discuss that with you offline at some point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

We move now to Mr. Toet for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had a question for Mr. D'Andrea. That's essentially regarding your 70 stormwater holding ponds and wetlands you spoke about as part of your plan. These wetlands, I'm taking it, are going to be in some of your new urban development areas.

We had heard in a previous study, when we had done quite a bit of work on urban habitat.... Some of our witnesses were telling us that actually there's a real interest in those areas for both a developer and for those who are looking to move into those areas. There's actually a real attraction, and people are willing to pay even an additional price to have this wetland habitat in close proximity to their homes.

Is this something you're seeing as being taken up by developers in your area?

[Michael D'Andrea]

Maybe just as a point of reference, I need to acknowledge the work that we do with the conservation authority to get back to the wetland area, and I apologize for that. But also critically important to your question and the fact that when we're looking to develop greenfield, I'll say, Toronto has very little greenfield left. It's pretty much all urbanized. But to your point, in terms of meeting stormwater quality management requirements, inherently if it's a large enough subdivision, as part of the stormwater management plan the developer through their engineering firm will propose a stormwater pond/wetland. So it's inherent within the makeup of that subdivision to manage stormwater runoff twofold. One is to control flow to minimize erosion in the stream to which it discharges; and second is the water quality component, which is critically important.

In Toronto's context, we have developed wet weather flow management guidelines. What we're seeing an awful lot of is redevelopment, and so we've imposed stringent criteria to developers who are developing in the city to actually provide on-site stormwater controls, and we prescribe a level of flow as well as water quality control.