Evidence of meeting #21 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 need.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chris McLaughlin  Executive Director, Bay Area Restoration Council
Nancy Goucher  Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
Conrad deBarros  Project Manager, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, Watershed Management, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Thank you.

Your time is up, Mr. Carrie. Maybe we can come back to that at a future time.

We'll move now to Mr. Choquette for seven minutes.

April 8th, 2014 / 4:10 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us today. They have the honour, the privilege and the good fortune of being our last witnesses. Unfortunately, we will already have reached the end of this study after today's hearing.

Ms. Goucher, you said that the Canada-Ontario accord was very important. It was signed in 2007 and came to an end in 2012. It took a long time before it was signed. I don't think it was renewed. Recently, the Government of Ontario told us that everything was going well and that everything had been concluded, but there was no mention of a similar accord in the information bulletins.

Could the fact that that accord has not been signed have consequences on water quality? Could you give us a few pieces of information on that?

4:10 p.m.

Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada

Nancy Goucher

I think there are a couple of things. One is perception. When we're trying to be a good partner to the U.S., and ACOA is part of the Great Lakes water quality protocol, if we're going to demonstrate that we're doing our part then we should have our agreements in place in order to demonstrate to the United States that we are good players.

I also think that having ACOA in place is important in terms of ensuring that groups on the ground that are getting funding and benefiting from this agreement are able to plan in the long term and are able to understand what the priorities are as set out in the agreement. It's very important to have this agreement in place. My understanding is that the agreement is close to being finished and we just have to do the final sign-off, but it hasn't been released yet. I know that because I'm looking for it.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

That is very interesting. I hope it will be signed soon because we need it quickly.

In the same vein, you referred to the International Joint Commission. I believe I understood that there are some vacant seats on that commission. I am surprised and disappointed by that, given that Canada should, as you said, have a very strong presence at the International Joint Commission.

Could you explain to us the importance of the International Joint Commission and of the scientific data regarding the fight against climate change? I read that, among other things, the commission studies water levels and rate of flow, which are related to water quality in the Great Lakes.

4:15 p.m.

Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada

Nancy Goucher

The IJC has a really critical role to play. You guys have heard from Gordon Walker, who is the acting co-chair. It was Joe Comuzzi who left that chair as of January, so we have a vacancy as of January.

The IJC has played an important role in water management since 1909, when the Boundary Waters Treaty was signed. It's been instrumental in getting the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement set up in the first place. It has developed over the years to take a more watershed-based approach. Because the commissioners are looking at science and not just politics, Canada and the U.S. come together on these issues in a more equal way than in other issues.

So I think it's really important that we continue to support the IJC.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

You are absolutely correct when you say that science is essential.

Fortunately, the Experimental Lakes Area was saved just in time. Unfortunately, the federal government is no longer funding those facilities. And yet, people worked very hard, among other things, on phosphorus pollution. I think that that contributed to the improvement in water quality in the Great Lakes. The position of the federal government is really disappointing in that regard.

You also talked about funding. Everyone always wants more money, that is normal, and there is never enough. The Government of Canada itself estimates that it would cost approximately $1.9 billion to restore the Canadian sectors that are problematic. I doubt that it has invested all of that money. Rather, in 2010 the sum in question was $16 million.

What can be suggested in the Great Lakes' Action Plan to improve the situation? Finding money is not always easy, but how can we increase the funding? Would long-term funding be more appropriate?

4:15 p.m.

Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada

Nancy Goucher

Under the Canada Water Act there used to be a fund for water management in Canada, called the Canada water fund, I believe. It was an important amount of money that could be distributed for water management across the country. I don't think there is any more funding available through that fund. Restoring something like that would be the first step.

If you are looking for specific numbers, the Green Budget Coalition has been putting together some numbers and some recommendations in terms of where we should start. They are trying to be reasonable. We would ask for more, if the situation were ideal, but we are trying to be reasonable in terms of what we think is the minimum amount that should be invested in water.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Thank you very much, Mr. Choquette.

We'll move now to Mr. Sopuck.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Thank you.

Ms. Goucher, you talked about staff changes at Environment Canada and so on. People often use the word “cuts”, but again, all that's happened at Environment Canada, and indeed in DFO, is a reallocations of funds. For example, the Randle Reef project, which our government is funding to the tune of $46.3 million a year, is essentially a reallocation from within Environment Canada.

Don't you think spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars on direct environmental remediation that generates real environmental results is a better use of government resources? I'm not going to minimize the role of staff, but again, this spending is perhaps at the expense of process and those other things that in the short term, at least, do not contribute to environmental remediation.

4:20 p.m.

Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada

Nancy Goucher

My response to this is that a research poll that was done by Environics found that two-thirds, or 69%, of Environment Canada's scientists believe it was doing a worse job at protecting the environment than five years ago.

So scientists within Environment Canada believe they're not able to be as effective, and I think that's an important thing to consider.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Okay, I will take you up on that. Name me an environmental indicator that has declined on our watch as a government, and which environmental indicators did those scientists specifically point to as having gotten worse?

4:20 p.m.

Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada

Nancy Goucher

The trick with environmental indicators is that sometimes they need to change to adapt to new circumstances. So our indicator for phosphorus on Lake Erie we may have met under the Great Lakes Water Quality Protocol, but what we're finding now is that we're still seeing algae blooms, and the reason is because the context is changing. We have warmer waters, we have different types of phosphorus.

So we do need to continuously adapt and look at those indicators and improve them with the understanding of new science that becomes available.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. McLaughlin, I was interested in your presentation. What, in your view, do we need to do to deal with non-point source pollution, specifically phosphorus? What would be your answer to non-point source pollution?

4:20 p.m.

Executive Director, Bay Area Restoration Council

Chris McLaughlin

We need green infrastructure, in two words. We need behavioural change—two more words. We need to improve aging infrastructure. There's a host of issues around non-point source in how water is collected and transported across the landscape. Hard surfaces and other forms of development like parking lots and roofs and so forth don't allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. The water is conveyed very quickly, it picks up pollutants, and reaches receiving waters without treatment. We need to slow that water down, we need to hold it back and allow it to travel through the landscape more slowly and release or deposit some of those nutrients like phosphorus, for example, and E. coli and other materials before they reach receiving waters.

A large part of the changes that are going to need to be made are through the citizenry, through behavioural changes. I think that governments are in a good position to support people in communities to champion these efforts, because I think nothing sells them as well as peer-to-peer and neighbour-to-neighbour educational opportunities, and to incentivize people.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Those are aspirational goals, which are fine, and I agree with that, but I want specific projects that you would like to see implemented on the ground that fulfill those goals.

I'll give you one that I am very partial to, and that is constructed wetlands. I think a network of constructed wetlands would be a good idea.

What other specific, on-the-ground actions need to be done to fulfill the goals that you have enunciated?

4:20 p.m.

Executive Director, Bay Area Restoration Council

Chris McLaughlin

They're not so much aspirational as directly related to what you're talking about.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Fair enough.

4:20 p.m.

Executive Director, Bay Area Restoration Council

Chris McLaughlin

On constructed wetlands, I have no problem with constructed wetlands unless they're to make up for a real wetland that has been paved over. But commercial properties could be incentivized to create those types of natural, green infrastructure on their properties through policy mechanisms—monetary policy mechanisms, for example.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Okay.

Mr. deBarros, I was interested in the statement you made earlier in your presentation about the 35 hectares of wetlands and fish habitat that have been remediated on the shores of Lake Ontario; I think that's what you said. How was that done?

4:25 p.m.

Project Manager, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, Watershed Management, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Conrad deBarros

That was done through a multi-partnership group consisting of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Toronto conservation authority, and Toronto Waterfront.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Is that the Rattray Marsh? Is that what we're talking about?

4:25 p.m.

Project Manager, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, Watershed Management, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Conrad deBarros

No, Rattray Marsh is not within the Toronto and region area of concern. It's outside.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

So in terms of the 35 hectares, what on-the-ground work was actually done?

4:25 p.m.

Project Manager, Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan, Watershed Management, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Conrad deBarros

There's Tommy Thompson Park, which has three cells that were developed to handle dredge material from the harbour and from cleaning out Keating Channel. Cell one was filled; they capped it and created a wetland in there. There has been restorative work on other areas in Humber Bay and different areas along the waterfront to help bring back some of the lost wetlands that were originally there in Toronto before they filled them all in.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

What benefits from this 35 hectares are you seeing in terms of improved ecological function?