Evidence of meeting #18 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.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
We received a map of the areas of concern that were I guess originally designated under the international Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. There seemed to be quite a majority of them on the U.S. side, very few of which have been delisted.
Professor Taylor, do you have any knowledge of what success Canada has had in getting the U.S. to increase its efforts on its side of the Great Lakes?
Professor Emeritus, Biology, University of Waterloo
Well, I don't know whether Canada has pressured the United States in that direction, but I know that recently, starting approximately three years ago or something in that timeframe, the Great Lakes has had a Great Lakes restoration initiative with very major funding. A lot of that funding is going towards trying to achieve delisting or to solve the problems for those areas of concern on the U.S. side.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm told that Environment Canada has, on the Canadian side at least, something called the Great Lakes nutrient initiative. Are you familiar with that, Professor Taylor?
Professor Emeritus, Biology, University of Waterloo
I know of it, but I don't know a great deal about it.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Do any of the other witnesses have some knowledge of Environment Canada's current Great Lakes nutrient initiative that you could describe for us?
Dr. Bruce.
Representative, Forum for Leadership on Water
I understand that it's an attempt, at least in part, to monitor more effectively those washes of nutrients, phosphorus, into the lakes in the runoff events. Up until now we've been monitoring only monthly or weekly, or something like that, and missed the big events that dumped lots of phosphorus into the lakes.
That's one of the objectives of that $16-million program.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
In other words, would you agree that this is a good direction or initiative?
Representative, Forum for Leadership on Water
It's absolutely essential, sir.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Very good. Thank you.
How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Excellent.
I'd like to ask a little bit about the areas of concern approach.
Perhaps I'll start with you, Dr. Bruce, because you were around at the beginning of it, as I understand, in 1972.
Has this approach been showing appropriate benefits? Has it been meeting its goals as they were determined so long ago?
Representative, Forum for Leadership on Water
It's a little less than what we had hoped for, but it has done two things. It has helped to improve most of the highly polluted areas around the lakes and it has engaged local citizens, and local municipalities, in a very extensive way, which I think has been very healthy for support of all Great Lakes initiatives.
It has been a pretty successful dodge, even though only three of all of the AOCs have been delisted.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
As we've heard the evidence, there are concerns obviously about the algal blooms, particularly in western Lake Erie, and today we heard about Georgian Bay and Lake Huron.
Can you tell us, Dr. Bruce, if there are any specific geographic areas of concern that ought to be added to those that have already been identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
In fairness to the other committee members, we'll have to let you come back to that question in a possible future round. Thank you.
We'll move now to Madam Freeman.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to start, I'm interested, Professor Taylor, in something you said. I have the notes in front of me.
You talk about prohibiting phosphorus in dishwashing detergents and in lawn fertilizers.
You mentioned things like that, things we can do to prevent regular household phosphorus from getting into the system, but then you seemed to step back and say that there were also consequences to that.
I'd actually be interested in knowing why we couldn't do that. What's your take on that?
Professor Emeritus, Biology, University of Waterloo
I guess my reservation is that we did set loading targets, we met them, and the concentrations fell to where we thought they needed to fall, yet we still have the problems locally. I am uncertain in my own mind to what extent those problems are because of the changing food web in the Great Lakes and the different pathway the phosphorus is following, and to what extent it is because of diffuse pollution that we haven't dealt with yet.
Certainly for western Lake Erie, there's no doubt in anybody's mind that we have to control phosphorus to solve that problem, but for other parts of the Great Lakes, such as Lake Huron, I'm not so sure this would help the problem.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Is it a question of our not doing enough research, or not doing enough monitoring, or is it because each situation is so unique?
Professor Emeritus, Biology, University of Waterloo
Yes. The lakes are unique, and even the drainage basins are unique.
For example, for the non-point sources, let's take the basin of a river with maybe hundreds of farms in it. Some of those farms could change their practices and it would have almost no effect.
Other farms on tributaries near the mouth should be targeted for best management practices, but how do you do that? That's obviously highly unfair to the farmer you target. He's competing with his neighbours. You hear from farmers in Ohio who ask how they can compete with the folks of Indiana who don't have to do this. You are affecting people's livelihoods.
These aren't actions without consequences for others, although as a user of the lake, I would say, sure, cut the phosphorus back. But that's for politicians to decide and to weigh the pros and cons and make those value judgments.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That's interesting. I'm unclear on what direction you would send us as a committee, as federal legislators.
Professor Emeritus, Biology, University of Waterloo
I would try to break down some of the silos.
I think the fisheries should be managed not only as fisheries, but to improve the quality of the water. Farming policy should include not only the economic value of the produce, but also its impact on the lakes.
The lakes, and the Great Lakes basin, really, need to be managed as an ecosystem with all of these things taken holistically into consideration. We shouldn't be managing the fishery only for its economic value and then trying to fix up the water quality in the lakes only by regulating the amount of phosphorus. To me, it doesn't make sense, and it's not likely to be successful.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That brings me to my next general question, which I think I'm going to open up to all the witnesses to answer.
We hear a lot about protecting and prevention being at a much lower economic cost, and also being a lesser burden, than having to clean up afterwards. Is there any way you can estimate the impact of not protecting our wetlands, of not preventing these kinds of situations from arising, and of strategies at getting there, of the direction we should be going in?
There are so many different things going on and everything is so interconnected. It seems like an overwhelming task and an overwhelming question to ask, but if you could....
Professor, Director of Life Sciences Program, McMaster University, Department of Biology, As an Individual
To give you an example, it cost $4 million to build the structure to exclude carp from the marsh. That was in 1990 dollars. It costs annually still for us to take carp out of there and put good fish back in and that kind of activity.
If you asked the people now if they had known in 1990 that this might happen to the marsh, when it was actually in really good health, and if they would have kept on pumping raw sewage into it, they would say no. They would say that if they had known what it would be 60 years from then, they would definitely not have done it. It's not even that we could return it back to the way it was. It still has only 15% of what it used to have.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Would other witnesses would like to add something?