Environment Committee on May 14th, 2015

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Miltenberger for this information. The fact that there is only one meeting a year is quite troubling, given all the work that is needed on the water issue. That issue, of course, is vital for all Canadians.

I would like to ask Mr. Fox a question about it.

You mentioned the importance of safety in relation to water, and everyone in Canada is in agreement. You also mentioned the quite serious impact that climate change is having on the cycle of flood and drought.

In that connection, I am wondering about melting glaciers. According to a report by the National Climate Assessment in the United States, the acceleration in glacier melt is troubling. In British Columbia, there is concern about the Lloyd George Glacier, west of Fort Nelson, the Castle Creek Glacier, near McBride, and the Tiedermann Glacier, in the Coast Mountains, as well as those in the Columbia River basin.

Of the 200,000 glaciers on the planet, 17,000 of them are in British Columbia and 800 are in Alberta. They are very important for our water resources.

Are you looking at the impact of glacier melt as part of your study on climate change?

[Don Fox]

Right now the group that is dealing with flood and drought, climate change, and water security is scoping out what can be done in the future. I do know that flood and drought are key items that folks are interested in all across Canada.

There is concern that things are going to get serious in the future, with perhaps more flooding in certain areas of Canada and perhaps more drought in other areas, so there will be work under that particular topic, but I cannot tell you today that, for example, they are specifically looking at glaciers or melting glaciers. We are looking at things that can be used nationally that would help to prepare for and determine risk to flood areas, for example.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Miltenberger, you mentioned the integrated monitoring plan for the oil sands. Two days ago, I introduced a motion about a study that we should conduct on the joint oil sands monitoring program. If I am not mistaken, you said that it would be good to have more information on the subject.

Can you tell us what additional information you would need in order to better understand the impacts on the Mackenzie basin?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

With regard to the oil sands, in the past there was considerable controversy about the quality of the information, its impartiality, and its validity, so the federal government stepped in. I believe Mr. Baird was the environment minister at the time, and he committed to setting up this additional water monitoring that was going to be seen to be objective, unbiased, and more intense in monitoring things like naphthenic substances, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals—more monitoring that would be seen to have scientific validity and wasn't tampered with.

It's critical that we have that information to tie into all the other water monitoring that's there. We have water monitoring stations along the border in our territory and we want to hook in with Alberta and the federal government's water monitoring. The interest for us is to have the federal government remain a significant presence in that area.

Thank you.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger.

Given that we are going to deal with committee business later, I would like to make the following motion now:

That the Committee conduct a study on the impacts of climate change and resulting new resource development and transportation routes on the Arctic, its environment, species, and ecological balance.

The motion was first made on February 5, 2014. We can come back to it at the end of this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

We'll move then to Mr. Toet for five minutes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Miltenberger, in your opening statement and in one of your answers, you said—and this is a bit of a paraphrase of what you said—that most other places in the world fight over, or litigate on, transborder water issues. In Canada, we have many bilateral and multilateral agreements. I take it that you see this as a very positive step, a positive sign, and a movement forward to water quality and quantity controls here in Canada.

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Absolutely.

Politically, it is one of the thorniest issues for jurisdictions, for sure. In Canada, in Alberta and the Northwest Territories for example, we have different approaches to many things. We came to a table and over a period of three or three and a half years came to what I think is a very progressive agreement. It bodes well if that approach is used and we continue to use it in other areas as well.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

You spoke of some frustrations with a number of meetings. We've seen progress, though, moving forward on a lot of different fronts. You also talked about the federal government stepping in to make sure that the oil sands water monitoring program was a transparent and credible program, and that there was a clear understanding of what was being done so that, for the Northwest Territories as well, you can look at that and be able to say that the data coming out of that monitoring is actually something that you can use in a positive manner.

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

Yes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

You also spoke of the need for an assessment of data from Environment Canada. Can you expand on what type of data you are accessing from Environment Canada and how the Government of the Northwest Territories is using this data?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

The federal government has a long history with water in the north. There are quality and quantity indicators that they measure at the border and at different sites—they have different sites in Alberta—as does Alberta.

Now that we are doing aquatic ecosystem management through these bilateral agreements, all these indicators are critical, not just at the border but also what's happening farther into Alberta, in the Mackenzie basin for example, and B.C. There is a need for good information, because you can't manage what you can't count and can't see.

We are looking at biological indicators, all the quality indicators, the types of substances. What we are measuring for in the water is not just coliform counts and such, but a lot of these exotic metals and chemicals. As for the quantities, we are dealing with groundwater now, as well as air monitoring. We all have a collective responsibility, and we want to make sure that the federal government continues to play a key role in that area and doesn't vacate the field for whatever reason.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Continuation of the great work that has been done is very important to you, and that's appreciated.

Mr. Fox, you were talking about six different projects that were undertaken by the water management committee. One of the projects that really intrigued me was about nutrients as a resource, the recovering and recycling of nutrients. Could you give us a little more detail on that particular project? What is the progress on that? I think you were also looking at some international jurisdictions on some of that work. Could you give us some detail on that?

[Don Fox]

Not being the expert on that particular topic, I can just tell you what I know about how it started.

It started approximately three to four years ago as an idea. I believe it came specifically from folks in Manitoba who, of course, are very concerned about nutrients. It was proposed as a project to the water management committee. How we do business is this: when a project is proposed, the rest of the groups across Canada determine if this is something on a national level, of national interest. It was accepted as a project. It started as a project with a budget given by CCME.

Unfortunately, the specific person who proposed it and who was to be the project lead moved on to another position and was no longer associated with CCME. The project stalled for a period of time, and now it appears that there is another person who is stepping in to carry it on. Overall, it has moved a bit slowly, but it is going forward. It is designed as something that's a little bit new and unique. This is not done routinely; you don't capture nutrients routinely in Canada. What is being looked at is whether it is possible to implement this in Canada, or in specific jurisdictions.

That's about my level of knowledge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Toet.

Ms. Leslie for the last questions, then we'll move into committee business.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Miltenberger, I want to pick up on the frustration you expressed about these meetings with CCME. It caught my attention because recently here in Parliament we actually passed an NDP motion about microbeads and their impacts on our ecosystems in our lakes, rivers, and oceans. When I heard you express your frustration about what's accomplished at these meetings, it worried me, because I've been told by government that they're not actually doing anything on microbeads right now, but not to worry because the issue will be on the agenda for the ministerial meetings this summer. Now I'm worried that this issue probably isn't going to be dealt with.

What do you think the chances are of a new issue being adequately dealt with at a meeting this summer?

[J. Michael Miltenberger]

If you consider the timing of the political landscape, there are about six jurisdictions that will be going into election mode, so we'll see. I haven't seen the proposed agenda yet, but it will be interesting to see .

I would point out as well, just to give you a broader sense of scale here, that a few months back we had the first ever meeting of the environment ministers on the issue of biodiversity. It's a time when it's a very, very big issue, but it was our first ever meeting.

Earlier this year I went to a meeting, the first one in three years, with forestry ministers. I asked how we could say in any kind of way, shape, or form that we're managing the forest when we haven't met for three years. There are climate change issues, there are manufacturing issues, there are invasive species issues, and we were there for a day—in three years. It brings into question how valuable and how sincere we are and what our ability, realistically, is to do things.

If you're meeting regularly, it's once a year. If you meet once for the first time ever on biodiversity, and I'm not sure if we'll have another meeting again, those types of things.... How we split up the environment is very problematic.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That's really helpful for our understanding because I'm not at those meetings. While the sincerity and passion of someone like you isn't questioned, when you point out that it is just one day and there are all these important topics, that's important for us to know. Thank you.

I guess, then, I have a question for Mr. Fox on water scarcity. I know that CCME is analyzing Canadian and international approaches to water scarcity and flood management as a first step to water management approaches. Can you share with us what CCME has learned on this file? Are there best practices out there within Canada or internationally? Are there approaches to avoid?

I'd like to understand how Canada's actually doing on this.

[Don Fox]

I would really like to help on that. I guess what I would say is that this particular item is handled by a group of experts who deal with flood and drought. I can only give you the high level right now. There is a very nice document submitted to CCME and it will be on the web page.

Thanks.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Sorry, did you say there's a document on the web page?

[Don Fox]

Under any of these projects, when a project is done—for example, when they scoped out what is done across Canada or what is done around the world—it's submitted as a document. Eventually that will be made public and put on the CCME web page. I can certainly point you in the direction of where you can find detailed information on that.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

You just said the word “eventually”, so is this research not completed yet? I'm on the web page and I've been looking at that piece and I've not seen a document, so has the work not been done yet on this particular file?

[Don Fox]

On that particular file, there are two things done. Number one, there was an implementation framework for climate change adaptation planning. That was done, and my understanding is that it is to be made public very soon. I believe it's in translation now.

That particular group—under the rubric of climate change, flood, and drought—is currently scoping out a new project. They have gone down the road of looking at a particular item in detail. Right now, they're re-evaluating what they can contribute on that particular item. All I can tell you today is that it's under the general topic of flood and drought.

They're in a little bit of a re-evaluation and what the next project will be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

The Conservative side is up for the next question. No one is on the list. So I'm going to use the chair's prerogative, which I haven't done to this point, ever.

Dr. Fox, you pointed out in your comments that there are eight subgroups that are working. You're a part of the water management committee. There are seven others. I would assume that in addition to the one-day meeting by the Council of Ministers, much of the actual legwork, preparation, reporting, and so on would be done at frequent intervals by these subgroups. Could you identify how often you meet and what kinds of proposals you bring back to the larger group in the Council of Ministers when they meet for that one-day meeting?

[Don Fox]

Sure. I'll give you just a little bit of further detail on CCME in general.

There are three senior groups. Of course, there's the Council of Ministers, the deputy ministers' committee, and the environmental planning and protection committee. Although those groups may only meet face to face, say, one day a year, they will also use conference calls throughout the year as need be. Those groups basically brainstorm on what type of work is to be done and what specific projects are to be done.

For example, water pricing was a project that was directed to the water management committee by the Council of Ministers. That particular one came to my committee and we put together a project team and carried out that task. My particular group would have conference calls in the order of once a month and, as a matter of fact, we're meeting next week in Yukon. Our meeting is a two-and-a-half-day meeting and we have two face-to-face meetings a year. So, yes, there is a lot of legwork being done by other committees.