Evidence of meeting #20 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 chemicals.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Theresa McClenaghan  Executive Director and Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Fe de Leon  Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Robert Florean  Council Member and Technical Advisor, Manitoulin Area Stewardship Council
Bernadette Conant  Executive Director, Canadian Water Network
Jules Blais  Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Megan Leslie  Halifax, NDP

5 p.m.

Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association

Fe de Leon

Yes, I think the emphasis was around making sure public participation was key with respect to making decisions around Great Lakes management. Certainly from the perspective of specific regulations, quite a few of them may need to be reviewed, phosphorus being one.

There are other issues with respect to even emerging chemicals that we've just scratched the surface on with respect to how our current federal legislation or approach deals with challenges to the Great Lakes. In my own involvement in those initiatives, particularly around implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, there are some question marks. Certainly, flags may need to be raised that the chemicals management plan, which is what we're relying on right now to identify the chemicals of concern in the Great Lakes and to manage those chemicals, may not be adequate for challenges the Great Lakes are facing. I do open up the opportunity with you to do some follow-up on some of those issues, absolutely.

5 p.m.

Halifax, NDP

Megan Leslie

Thanks very much.

There's a lot to chew on there with the recommendations you made and I look forward to doing that.

Madam Conant, I want to continue with the low-hanging fruit theme from earlier.

For more complicated and more integrated issues, do we need, for example, studies or action plans? Do we need a political will? Is money the issue?

Where do we go with those complicated, integrated, nuanced issues that will just be tougher? Is it just that we need an action plan? Is it just that we need money? Is it just that politicians need to wake up?

It's probably all those things.

5 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Water Network

Bernadette Conant

Yes. My answer is that it would be nice if it were simply one of those things.

This is not the only government around the globe that's struggling with these kinds of complex issues. It takes all of those things.

You've heard eloquent testimony about how difficult and challenging it can be working in a multi-bureaucratic group and trying to find your way through. Nothing that we're talking about here is specific to the Great Lakes in terms of the challenge of the complexity of the issues. For scientists, in terms of dealing with the systems, it's the biology, the chemistry, the transport process. It's equally complicated in terms of who the best people are to do the implementing. By and large it's on-the-ground implementers, either at conservation authorities, stewardship councils, or municipalities.

The answer is that it's a little bit of both. What I have suggested, because it seems too big to get your hands around in just presenting to this committee, is that what is needed, in my view, is leadership to take the instruments and the institutions you have, IJC, COA, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and use them to hammer out—it's not an easy process, but it's an important and doable process—what the agreed goals should be and what is stated that we want in the Great Lakes.

One of the points I wanted to make earlier is that it's people's perception, if we're going to protect the environment, that we're going to go back to nature, or we're going to go back to wilderness. We're very much in a working, developed landscape, so it's a matter of making clear decisions about what the end points are. If you have shared end points and shared goals, as you see at the stewardship level, I think that's what you need at the national, or in this case the binational, level.

5:05 p.m.

Halifax, NDP

Megan Leslie

We're out of time, I think, Mr. Chair.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Yes, but we will have one more round here, if you care to take it.

Mr. Storseth.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As it's so great to see Ms. Leslie here, I'm willing to share with her any of the time I don't use.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Will you be as generous as last time?

5:05 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Thank you very much.

I'd like to get back into a discussion with regard to monitoring, Ms. Conant. One of the things we've heard constantly is the issue of.... Witnesses have come before us and talked about the problems of the change in the temperature of the water but have not had any real codifying examples of what the change in water temperature has been.

From what you're talking about, with some of the best practices and looking forward—I like that, looking forward instead of just talking about, as you said, legacy cleanups—how important will proper monitoring tools be? As well, do you have a view as to what that would look like?

5:05 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Water Network

Bernadette Conant

A vision for a monitoring plan.... Well, monitoring is critical. It's complicated, but it's critical because we can't really say anything about how well we are doing, and to do what I referred to as this term “adaptive management”, which really means that you commit to a process, you do it, and then you look at it in a way that you can actually say, “I got what I thought I was going to get, or something different, and I'm going to change my actions because of that.” It's a monitoring framework that allows you to do that. It also allows this connection to determine what the farm community needs are, what the goods and services or the ecology needs are. You need a monitoring program that ideally serves both of those needs.

In terms of vision, one of the things that we're doing right now, I mentioned that we have a national research consortium. It is called the Canadian Watershed Research Consortium. We're working with six, hopefully soon to be seven watersheds across Canada. The focus on each of those watersheds is we ask the end users to come around to the desire to have our research funds invested there. So it wasn't to the research community. The first ask was, “If you're a watershed that really wants this, and your collective users and industry investors want us to put our money here, put up your hand.”

Each of those six watersheds is working on how to develop what is referred to as a cumulative effects monitoring framework. Basically it's a monitoring framework that makes sense to land use planner questions, to stewardship council questions, and to local or provincial regulatory questions. Basically, what's the canary in the mine shaft, if we're in Tobacco Creek, and it's an agriculturally dominated watershed, or if we work with the Muskoka watershed, where they're looking at a basin where it doesn't actually look like phosphorus is a target, but they're actually looking at calcium levels. So in each case they are customizing what it is that needs to be looked at in their systems, but they're developing a monitoring system that would better inform those land use planning decisions and all the decisions around them.

Going back to Ms. Leslie's question, there really isn't a simple answer to it, other than trying to create structures in which you're clear about the questions you want to ask and trying to get the players around the table who can design it. We are actually looking at a vision of cumulative effects monitoring frameworks that have the same strategic purpose and the same philosophy across Canada, but they're each developed within those local settings. Frankly, the phosphorus-loading actions in the Red River aren't going to affect the Great Lakes basin, and they may be different systems, but they both want to look at whether nutrients are the driver there, what the impacts are that they can see in the ecosystem, so they are all following the same kind of questioning and developing those.

My vision is that more watersheds across Canada join forces to develop a common approach to cumulative effects monitoring, but yes, it's critical because they can't decide what they need to do and they can't decide how well they're doing until they have a monitoring framework they can rely on.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

It thus makes it difficult to make proper choices with the land use frameworks without having proper information ahead of time to establish—

5:10 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadian Water Network

Bernadette Conant

Absolutely. What happens is sometimes you get really good work done by groups looking to achieve some goal: trying to revive the wolf population in an area; trying to save this fisheries; trying to look at endocrine-disrupting chemicals and see if they can be reduced. As I said earlier, if you're just focusing on one of those goals, the implementer should be doing that, but you need a higher framework in which they are participating to make sure that those are interrelated and appropriate for the priorities in your area. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals may not be the priority for your area.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Thank you.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

You're very consistent, Mr. Storseth.

We'll go now to Ms. Hughes.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Florean, did you want to add something?

Did you want do it in French or in English?

5:10 p.m.

Council Member and Technical Advisor, Manitoulin Area Stewardship Council

Robert Florean

I'm “franglais” but not—

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Florean, you wanted to add something while answering the question of my colleague, Ms. Leslie.

In your opinion, did Ms. Conant answer the question to your satisfaction or did you want to add something to that?

5:10 p.m.

Council Member and Technical Advisor, Manitoulin Area Stewardship Council

Robert Florean

I can't remember now.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

It was about the measures that should be taken. Was there a particular measure that should be considered?

It's fine if you don't remember. If it comes back to you, raise your hand and the question will be asked of you again.

5:10 p.m.

Council Member and Technical Advisor, Manitoulin Area Stewardship Council

Robert Florean

I'll think about it, because right now I'm—

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

I had another question about invasive species. These species cause us a great deal of concern.

Why should we act aggressively to control them? As an example, I'm thinking of the Asian carp, common reed grass or microplastics.

5:10 p.m.

Council Member and Technical Advisor, Manitoulin Area Stewardship Council

Robert Florean

No translation happened, but the question has to do with invasive species, if I'm not mistaken.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

You're right. There was no translation.

5:10 p.m.

Council Member and Technical Advisor, Manitoulin Area Stewardship Council

Robert Florean

There was no translation, but that's okay.

The bottom line here is what's happening in the Great Lakes today. We have 184 new species that never existed before.

We have some that are of urgent and pressing concern. We've already had our economies, especially the rural economies, devastated by the sea lamprey, and everybody is familiar with that. Asian carp is poised to enter the Great Lakes. I think we're moving a little too slow on that front, not just us but also on the U.S. side, obviously.

Right now we have some phragmites. Are you familiar with that plant? It's taking over entire coastal areas. It's becoming a wall of vegetation. It's also becoming a fire hazard as we're seeing in southern Lake Michigan right now. They have to remove it, otherwise it burns more intensively than forests do. There's a decline of use. You can't even see the water right now. Property values drop, as does tourism. Can you imagine Sauble Beach? Who's familiar with Sauble Beach? It's a massive beach on Lake Huron. All of a sudden there's a massive wall 12 feet or more high that's so dense you can't get through it.

These things are emerging instantly, today. Our council is undertaking this. I didn't even talk about this earlier, but that's one of the aspects we're dealing with. We're working with municipalities to try to tackle it while we still can, but we need support.

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Chair, I'm going to share my time with Ms. Leslie.