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.
4:50 p.m.
Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Well, it's come down. PFOS has become dramatically reduced since then, but it was the company that produced it that willingly took it off the market.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
What about TFA, trifluoroacetic acid? It's more in the water than in....
4:50 p.m.
Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Right. I don't currently know the situation for TFA.
4:50 p.m.
Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association
I'm sorry, I don't think so. I'm thinking of the perfluorinated acids, which I'm more familiar with. I know the emerging issue with a lot of these persistent toxic chemicals is that even once there's a regulation in place to eliminate and phase them out, the issue then becomes around stockpiles or POPs-containing waste, so the chemicals are still in the environment and they build up in the environment. It's not specific to the chemical you're referring to, but certainly with regard to perfluorinated chemicals, it's an issue that's emerging.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Are those airborne contaminants that can come from long-range transport anywhere in the world?
4:50 p.m.
Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
If I'm recalling it correctly, I think TFA is trifluoroacetate. When, under the Montreal protocol, we eliminated the CFCs and replaced them with HCFCs, trifluoroacetate started becoming detectable in rain because of what we replaced the CFCs with in refrigerants. So I believe it comes from refrigerants, and it is on the rise. Its effects are not too well understood, if I'm recalling correctly.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
In my understanding. That is my recollection, but I would want to confirm that.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Getting back to nutrient loading, because I think this is one of the more serious problems that everyone's trying to deal with, it just seems that we have a voluntary method of dealing with agriculture right now, in terms of encouraging.... Do you think that is ultimately going to be successful in dealing with the problem we have with nutrient loading in the Great Lakes, or should we be moving to a system where there's regulation, where there's polluter pay, and where there's an analysis of farm practices to determine those types of things?
I'll open it up to anyone.
4:50 p.m.
Council Member and Technical Advisor, Manitoulin Area Stewardship Council
If I might just give one example, there's a number of ALUS trials happening across Canada. ALUS means alternate land use services. Some members from out west would be familiar with them.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Council Member and Technical Advisor, Manitoulin Area Stewardship Council
Yes. What these programs are doing.... Mostly, they started out in western Canada, with respect to duck production and wetland protection. There's a great trial happening in Norfolk County just south of your riding, where they are compensating agricultural producers to retire enough land adjacent to waterways that are feeding into Lake Huron and to change their practices. Some of them are switching to tall grass prairie species, for example, versus the alfalfa clover types, and even changing to types of longhorn cattle, Texas longhorns.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you. You can pick up on that with a future questioner, maybe, but we are well over time.
We're going to move now to Mr. Toet.
First, I should mention that Ms. McClenaghan will have to leave at around five, I think, so if she leaves, it's not because she's offended by any questions.
Thank you, Ms. McClenaghan, for being with us today.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director and Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Ms. de Leon will continue in case there are questions directed your way.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director and Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
That's right.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Indeed, we are quite familiar with ALUS and actually studied that quite comprehensively when we were working on the national conservation plan study that we brought forward. I'm looking forward to that coming through in the next little bit. It definitely plays a role and has a place in anything to do with habitat stewardship, but it also has a major role to play in some of the things we can do with the Great Lakes and their rehabilitation and protection.
Ms. Conant, in your briefing to us, you talked about the importance of the Great Lakes region. You talked about the GDP and the size of the economy that it contributes, etc., which is all very true, but is not a large part of the challenge this area is facing because of this?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Water Network
Sure. The idea of contamination where there's a lot of development and there's a lot of activity is what's facing us and facing Manitoulin Island in terms of this development. It's a matter of scale, so absolutely.
To go to your earlier question about the increase in population and increased pressures, more activity in the same carrying capacity of the environment, of the water, of the land, brings those pressures. I guess what I would point to is that it is not more densely developed than many other areas of the globe, so it's really an area of opportunity, and we have to determine how we are going to deal with it. The way I look at it is that it's really a reason, instead of everything being that the sky is falling....
I think it's important to keep our eye on the ball about the protection of the environment, but it brings it more home to people, not so much to this committee but into people's living rooms, if they recognize that management. Part of the stewardship principles and why these stewardship efforts are so successful is that there's a recognition of the importance of the maintenance of that environment. I think all the pressures we're speaking of in terms of that economy are there, but there is every opportunity to manage it well.
In all these cases, most of these things can be managed. They can be cleaned up and they can be managed. Most industries or economies could be run well. As I said, it's a matter of being very clear in the leadership for what you want of that future state, what level of protection you want, and how you want to achieve it. We're getting at this combination of regulatory and incentive-based programs.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I really do appreciate your optimistic outlook on it. I think we can look to what has been accomplished through the International Joint Commission as an example of some of the things that can be done. As you say, it's a challenge but it's also an opportunity, and I like that approach.
In your presentation you talked about the low-hanging fruit, which is basically what we have with the areas of concern; we have areas of low-hanging fruit. I just wanted to be clear because I don't think you meant this, but I got the sense of kind of an abandonment of those areas of concern and to have a much broader scope. I agree that we have to look at every area, but I would hope you wouldn't be bringing forward the idea that we kind of abandon what we've brought so far through so much great work.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Water Network
I appreciate your question and letting me re-articulate that. Perhaps, it was due in part to my not pacing myself well and missing some comments.
The point to be made in my notes was that was low-hanging fruit but it's critical and it's important and one must stay the course in terms of dealing with that. That is first and foremost. But having had some focus on that, it's now, whether it's lifting the veil slightly by that progress or it's simply that the other factors have become more apparent and we're seeing them now, and it may be a mixture, it's just the other more systemic factors are now upon us or becoming more apparent. My point was only that a doubling down on the cleanup of location-specific areas of concern was not an approach that was likely to get us back in this room 10 years later saying that we're doing well now on the systemic pieces.
In no way am I suggesting that we not stay the course and finish those cleanups. That was the priority and it was an appropriate priority. We need to stay the course on that. But now we have to recognize that just staying the course is highly unlikely to help us progress. You have to look to the science to prove this, but we're starting to see some of the signs that were referred to earlier. We saw a lot of progress in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. Now we're starting to see plateauing. We're starting to see the re-emergence of some of the issues we talked about before, which I think overall is a signal that another step needs to be taken.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I think we can also say that through that process and by approaching it on that basis we have learned a lot. There's a lot of science that we have learned. I know there's still lots of uncertainty, which we've heard over the testimony of those hearings. But we have learned a lot that we are able to apply now to some of these other areas. So it is important that—
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you, Mr. Toet. Again, your time is up.
I will move now to Ms. Leslie, for five minutes.
5 p.m.
Halifax, NDP
Thank you to all of the witnesses. This has been really good.
Ms. de Leon, I really appreciated the testimony from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, because you had very concrete suggestions, whether it was about changing CEPA about the phosphorus regulations or.... They were really concrete and I appreciated that.
That being said, it's hard for me to ask questions about it because I don't have them all right here in front of me. I think it's one of those cases where I'm going to have to go back through the testimony, look at what your suggestions were and then maybe explore them in another meeting.
Is there anything you wanted to add that you felt wasn't covered when Ms. McClenaghan made those really specific recommendations?