Evidence of meeting #55 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 data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We'll continue our discussion until roughly 10:30, and we'll leave some time at the end of the meeting to discuss your motion.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you very much.
It is really important to study and analyze the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands monitoring.
Mr. Moffet, the commissioners report questions the importance of greater participation by stakeholders, particularly by First Nations and Métis, in monitoring activities.
Has any follow-up been done on this concern that was raised in the commissioner's report?
Executive Director, Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance, Department of the Environment
We definitely reviewed, commented on, and responded to the commissioner's report. We were quite pleased with their conclusions that work plans were effectively being implemented across the monitoring program. We continue to work within those work plans, and every year we try to improve the process of monitoring, and the accountability and governance of monitoring going forward.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, we are currently in the process of organizing an independent expert review of the monitoring that took place under the joint oil sands monitoring program, which ran from 2012 to 2015. It ended in March 2015 and we are now in a new relationship with Alberta to continue the monitoring according to the same types of work plans that we've had in the past. So as I mentioned, in 2015-16 monitoring is continuing without interruption.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Ms. Gelfand, you spoke during your presentation about the importance of allowing stakeholders like First Nations and Métis to take part in monitoring activities.
Could you give us more details and explain your concerns in that regard?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
In our 2014 audit, we noticed in looking at the monitoring governance system that many First Nations and Métis groups were removed from the table. They were still participating in specific monitoring projects, on the ground, for which they were still at the table, but they were no longer at the big table for planning the joint Canada-Alberta implementation plan for oil sands monitoring. They were withdrawn, as were several NGOs.
We noted that one of the goals of the monitoring program was to obtain stakeholder involvement. But that isn't what we saw when we went to make observations. No, we saw that several stakeholders had been withdrawn from the table. To find out why, you'd have to ask the governments of Alberta and Canada.
So we recommended that Environment Canada — and, in fact, we can make recommendations only to that department, not to Alberta — work hard to reintegrate these stakeholders.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We'll move to Mr. Braid for five minutes please.
Welcome, Mr. Braid.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning, and further to the comments from a couple of my colleagues, I'm not a lawyer, so I am pleased to report that I am frustration-free.
Mr. Moffet, I wanted to start with a question relating to page 10 of your presentation with respect to water quantity. I just wanted to ask if either you or one of your colleagues could just unpack the information, the data, on this slide. Could you perhaps pick one of the regions and just explain what the bar graph is telling us with respect to either a specific region or nationally or both?
Director General, Monitoring and Data Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
I'll just explain a little bit about how these normals were looked at. To be able to look at the trends.... We were talking earlier about the Great Lakes and how, yes, you actually need to look over a few decades. These are over 30 years.
What we've wanted to do with these is to say that if over 30 years this is what was a normal trend for an area, then what does this year look like? When you're looking at the lows or the highs and comparing to what was the normal of the 30 years from 1980 to 2010, what does 2014 look like when we're comparing it to those 30 years?
If it's a high or a low, you may want to go in and actually look at the actual data, and then those living in that area can look at whether they need to take measures to adapt. Is the trend going to continue and, if so, do they need to take action? It's really an information tool so that you can know where you would want to start looking at specific issues.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
That's great. Then are the data on the bar graph 2014 only?
Director General, Monitoring and Data Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
The data on this bar graph are from 2011.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
It's 2011. Okay.
In a region where we're seeing lows, normals, and highs—and there are a number—what's going on there?
Director General, Monitoring and Data Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
I think for the most part the general trend is that we're looking at normals. Again, if we go to 2011, I guess I would have to come back to you for that specific year, and I don't have the data for last year to see if that actually was maintained.
This was a new tool that we were developing to actually be able to inform the public as part of the suite of sustainable environmental indicators. It was a way for folks to see how they were doing versus longer-term trends, but if you have a specific area that you're interested in, we could actually come back to you on that.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
If I might add to that as a non-scientist, I would nonetheless repeat the caution that has been made to me many times, which is that this data provides a snapshot. On the one hand, it's comparing against a long-term trend, and then we have a snapshot.
The question is, then, is that something to worry about? It's important data. We can look into the issue. Is it something to worry about? What was the cause? Was the cause something that needs to be addressed? Was it simply a statistical variation? Is it something we need to monitor over time?
But I'd caution all readers against saying, “Okay, red means bad and means there's a problem.” It might. It means we should look at it. That's all it means.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
That's helpful to start with. It's a 2011 snapshot. Thank you.
Mr. Goetze, you mentioned Lake Erie. As we know, there are water quality issues in Lake Erie. Could you bring us up to date with respect to what those issues are, what we're doing about that, and what we're doing jointly with the U.S.?
Executive Director, Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance, Department of the Environment
The principal or most prominent issue that Lake Erie is facing right at the moment is related to nutrients—phosphorus and nitrogen—that cause algal blooms that are quite prominent. Many of you may have seen pictures on the NOAA website, which takes pictures from space of these algal blooms. They are very large and very prominent.
What we're trying to do, in partnership with our colleagues on the American side, is to understand, first of all, how nutrients are coming into the lake from both sides of the river. It is a problem, I would say, and an issue that is predominantly related to the American side. The corn belt is south of Lake Erie, but there are sources of nutrients on the Canadian side as well.
We're trying to look at the tributaries. We're monitoring them and understanding what the inputs to the lake actually are. We're understanding how levels of nutrients are changing in the lake. We're studying and doing research on the nature of the algal blooms, where they occur, under what conditions they occur, how big they get, and what kinds of species are involved.
With all of the data we've collected, we're trying to set some targets for phosphorus and nitrogen reduction in Lake Erie. We are building computer models that will allow us to simulate what will happen if you reduce levels of nutrients in the lake. This will allow policy-makers to then implement measures on both sides of the border that will reduce the inputs of nutrients to the lake and hopefully address the algal problem over time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you, Mr. Braid.
I would just remind committee members and others who may be listening that this committee just concluded an extensive study on water quality in the Great Lakes, and some of those issues were addressed in the testimony at those meetings. That may be a good resource to feed back too.
Mr. Woodworth, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to continue with some of Mr. Braid's questioning regarding the issue of water quantity. I'll begin by just confirming that there are close to 2,800 active hydrometric gauges measuring flow of waterways across Canada.
Do I have that right?
Director General, Monitoring and Data Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
We have sites at which we take different types of measurements including gauging.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Of those approximately 2,800 gages measuring flow, about 2,100 are operated by the Government of Canada as I understand it. Is that correct?
Director General, Monitoring and Data Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
That's correct.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Are you able to tell me whether the number of hydrometric gauges measuring flow in waterways across Canada has gone up or down or stayed the same over the least 10 years?
Director General, Monitoring and Data Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
It's fairly stable. The way it works is that we have some stations at which we take measurements specifically for our own use, so they're designated federal stations. We do some at the request of the provinces or the territories. Then there are some that we're both interested in, so we cost-share.
We review the list each year and the agreement regarding what the specific stations are. On the federal side, it's fairly stable. The provinces and territories will adjust depending on what specific activity there is. For example, if there's a new mine, they might ask us to add a couple of stations, but that's their decision.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
These stations have been monitoring for long enough that you've been able to determine what a 30-year normal flow is. Am I understanding that correctly?
