Environment Committee on March 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Thank you for being here a little earlier today. I called the meeting 15 minutes earlier than usual because of a vote that's supposed to take place in the House at 5:45 p.m. The bells will start ringing around 5:15 p.m., so I wanted to make sure we have two hours for the meeting. That's why I asked you to arrive a little earlier.

We are welcoming our first panel of witnesses. I won't name them all. I normally do this out of politeness, but I want to save a bit of time.

We're going to start with Professor Sébastien Sauvé, who is here today as an individual.

Professor Sauvé, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Sébastien Sauvé, Full Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to meet you.

I would like to talk to you about perfluoroalkylated and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals”. It's a family of over 10,000 molecules that are synthesized in labs by chemists. So if PFAS are found in nature, it must be because humans intervened and put them there.

PFAS are everywhere in our day‑to‑day lives, such as in Teflon, non‑stick pans, water‑resistant sportswear, stain‑resistant treatments, Scotchgard products, firefighting foams, disposable cutlery, and so on. When paper or cardboard is water‑resistant or grease‑resistant and it looks a bit magical, it's because it contains PFASs. They are also found in a number of cosmetics. So there are a lot of them, and as a result, we are somewhat unable to do without them. There's a challenge with battery manufacturing for electric cars, though, and that may be a valid use. However, we could certainly do without them when it comes to making cosmetics or paper cups, or wrapping hamburgers.

The widespread use of PFAS has resulted in water contamination across Canada as a result of poor or virtually no industry regulation. To get an idea of the role the industry played in this large‑scale contamination, I would invite you to watch the film Dark Waters, a kind of documentary disguised as a Hollywood movie, or the other way around; I'll let you be the judge. In this case, the industry led us to believe that there were two PFAS that were harmless: perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS. We ended up signing a $13 billion U.S. agreement to help treat drinking water contaminated by these two PFAS alone, and that's just in the United States. There's no equivalent in Canada.

We enjoy doing research in my lab. We've collected approximately 500 samples of drinking water, or tap water, from all over Quebec, and there are only two in which we haven't been able to detect PFAS. You could say that no sample was free of PFAS, because if we improved our methods, we'd probably be able to find it in those two samples as well. I repeat that, in its normal state, water can't contain PFAS, since they are only synthetic substances.

Through this research project, we were able to identify municipalities where people were consuming water in which the concentration of these substances exceeded acceptable standards or standards that are beginning to be accepted. Is it normal that one of my students, working on a research project out of scientific interest, should have identified water pollution problems in La Baie, Val-d'Or and Sainte-Cécile-de-Milton? Depending on the case, the source of contamination may be a military base, a landfill site, an industrial site, or the use of foams containing PFAS in fire drills that were carried out improperly.

When it comes to PFAS in drinking water, Health Canada made recommendations in February 2023 that I thought were reasonable. They were a bit bolder than what had been established before, but they were still reasonable, given the difficulties and costs involved. However, a year later, those recommendations have still not been adopted. There have been comments, but we're still waiting.

Addressing PFAS and emerging contaminants of interest, such as plastics, requires better upstream control. When nothing is done, these substances end up in our rivers, lakes, drinking water, food and air. They are all over the place.

These are difficult challenges. When I try to inform the stakeholders I work with in government, I get confused, because there are too many departments, agencies and groups. Each has its own territory, prerogatives, powers and mandate. This makes it very difficult to inform people or move things forward, especially as it involves provincial, federal and municipal authorities. In all of this, I deplore the lack of communication, which makes things more difficult.

Furthermore, since these substances are everywhere, our waste water contains a lot of them. Waste water treatment plants retain a portion of PFAS in biosolids—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Professor Sauvé, your testimony is fascinating, and I'm sure the committee members will ask you a lot of questions, but your time is up. We will come back to you once the other witnesses have made their opening remarks.

We will continue with Ms. Cassie Baker from Environmental Defence Canada, for five minutes, please.

[Cassie Barker, Senior Program Manager, Toxics, Environmental Defence Canada]

Good afternoon, and thank you.

I'm Cassie Barker with Environmental Defence.

Thank you for including PFAS in your study. As mentioned, this class of chemicals poses a significant danger to freshwater ecosystems, source waters and human and environmental health. This committee has heard from municipal leaders who have not had the resources to upgrade their water treatment facilities to filter out PFAS and who are also unable to address the causes of source-water contamination in their own communities.

The government states that 98.5% of Canadians have PFAS in their blood. Drinking water and freshwater consumption as well as product-based exposures are significant sources of ongoing PFAS exposure.

These forever chemicals don't break down. They make us sick, and other jurisdictions have already taken action. Scientists, firefighters, northern indigenous health experts, environmental health organizations and some of the world's leading product brands are pushing for class-based PFAS phase-outs.

Recent polling from Abacus found that four out of five Canadians want to see federal government action on PFAS. We ask the committee to protect fresh water and ensure all PFAS are included in the government's class-based listing under CEPA and that regulations align with the EU and U.S. states to move quickly and impose a product-based phase-out.

These chemicals persist because PFAS have a strong fluorine-carbon bond, the strongest bond in organic chemistry. Because of this, once PFAS are formed they don't break down. Instead, they persist forever and accumulate in the environment and in our bodies. For years, stain-proof and waterproof “forever chemicals” have been used in industry, pulp and paper production, fracking fluid, plastics, electronics manufacturing and in hundreds of product types, as mentioned earlier. There are now thousands of PFAS on the market in over 200 product categories. Scientists with expertise in PFAS state that all well-studied PFAS show human health harms and that the health and environmental risks of PFAS, coupled with their extreme environmental persistence, require a class-based approach.

The OECD definition of PFAS used in the government's own risk assessment further reinforces regulating PFAS as a class. Cancers, kidney disease and reproductive harms are just a few of the many ways that PFAS can impact our health at relatively low levels of exposure as they mimic fatty acids in our bodies, disrupt hormones and suppress our immune systems.

Northern indigenous people are particularly impacted by PFAS contamination, and leaders have been calling for the urgent need to act. Firefighters are also highly exposed through firefighting gear and foams. Firefighters now die more from exposure-related cancers than they do from fighting fires.

PFAS cleanup costs, as mentioned, are in the range of billions of dollars, and this should not be borne by municipalities attempting to depollute their source water. It is the chemical companies that have known about and concealed the toxicity of PFAS for decades that must be held liable for this cleanup. In fact, as mentioned, we're seeing municipalities in the U.S. sue chemical companies over the costs to depollute their source water and drinking water, and these settlements have just begun.

Other jurisdictions are protecting their fresh water by regulating and prohibiting PFAS. Canada needs to do the same. The U.S. is in the midst of implementing its three-year PFAS strategy, and they have established a binding drinking water standard for some PFAS. Many U.S. states, including California, Washington, New York and Maine, are bringing in drinking water standards and product-based phase-outs in cosmetics, textiles and food packaging.

The EU has a road map for phasing out PFAS in products, starting quickly with the product types with existing safer substitutions. Denmark has also started taking action to get this class of chemicals out of their paper products.

Urgent action is needed to address this growing PFAS threat in Canada. The Canadian government must support municipalities that need federal leadership to prohibit the sources of PFAS. The federal government recently proposed a municipal drinking water objective, but until it prohibits PFAS contamination of our waters from products and industrial releases, this objective will do little to reduce PFAS contamination in our drinking water.

This government can and must do more to advance PFAS regulatory action and set strong rules to drive reformulation of products away from PFAS to switch to existing safer alternatives and push industry to invest in innovation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much. I think we're going to have a fascinating discussion this morning.

Commissioner DeMarco, thank you for being with us and contributing to our water study today. We really appreciate it.

Please, go ahead with your opening statement.

[Jerry V. DeMarco, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here today to contribute to the committee's study on the federal government's role in the protection and management of Canada's freshwater resources.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am accompanied by James McKenzie and Milan Duvnjak, who are both principals in our office.

Today I will focus on three areas where we have recommended improvements to freshwater management. These areas are maintaining a relevant knowledge base on freshwater resources, enforcing laws and regulations to protect freshwater resources, and enhancing collaboration. My statement is based on three audit reports: our 2022 report on protecting aquatic species at risk, our 2021 report on scientific activities in certain watersheds and our 2019 report on protecting fish from mining effluent.

I will begin by talking about maintaining a relevant knowledge base on freshwater resources.

Such a base includes research and monitoring of water quality, volume, and status. It also includes research and monitoring for risks associated with water bodies, such as excess nutrients and algae blooms, as well as the effectiveness of measures to protect freshwater resources.

In our audit on the protection of aquatic species at risk, we found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had undertaken research on aquatic species, but had focused its knowledge acquisition activities on species of commercial value. This has left significant gaps in its knowledge of other species and has had a direct impact on their protection.

Knowledge development is critical to assessing the status of species and developing strategies to protect aquatic species. Many of Canada's fully extinct species were found in freshwater.

This brings me to my second area of focus: enforcing laws and regulations protecting Canada's freshwater resources. The Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act provide the legal basis for protecting and conserving fish, fish habitat and aquatic species at risk. However, laws and regulations are not sufficient on their own. They need to be administered and enforced fairly, predictably and consistently.

In our audit of protecting aquatic species at risk, we found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not have enough staff to enforce compliance. This was particularly evident in Ontario and the prairie region, which are responsible for managing most of the freshwater species at risk.

In our audit of protecting fish from mining effluent, we found that Environment and Climate Change Canada reported high compliance with effluent limits by metal mines. However, the department's reporting was not comprehensive, because it did not have complete information for roughly a third of the mines. We also found that non-metal mines such as potash, coal and oil sands mines were inspected less frequently than metal mines. In our view, regularly inspecting non-metal mines is important, because these mines are not authorized to release any effluent that is harmful to fish or their habitat.

Finally, I'd like to discuss fostering collaboration. In our audit of scientific activities in selected water basins, we found that Environment and Climate Change Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada were moving in the right direction in terms of collaborating on scientific activities. However, we found that their work could have a greater impact on improving water quality if they further coordinated their scientific efforts. The departments would also benefit from making better use of existing watershed science coordination committees and by establishing a national science coordination steering committee to address freshwater concerns.

In conclusion, Canada is still facing water quality issues caused by excess nutrients and industrial pollution. As well, it has a long list of aquatic species at risk that rely on healthy freshwater ecosystems. The federal government plays an essential role in protecting and managing Canada's freshwater resources.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

We'll go now to Mr. Paul West-Sells from Western Copper and Gold, who is on screen via video conference.

Go ahead, Mr. West-Sells.

[Paul West-Sells, President and Chief Executive Officer, Western Copper and Gold]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation and honour to speak today.

My name is Paul West-Sells and I am the president of Western Copper and Gold. I'm accompanied by our vice-president of environmental and community affairs, Ms. Shena Shaw.

Our flagship Casino copper-gold project—a copper, gold, molybdenum and silver deposit— is located approximately 300 kilometres northwest of Whitehorse in the Yukon. The Casino project ranks among the largest copper, gold and molybdenum projects in Canada, and once operational, it will be the largest critical minerals project in Canada by annual revenue.

Rio Tinto has been a strategic investor in the project since 2021 and currently owns approximately 10% of the company. Mitsubishi Materials purchased a 5% stake in the company in early 2023.

It is anticipated that the Casino project will produce approximately 4.3 billion pounds of copper, seven million ounces of gold, 36 million ounces of silver and 350 million pounds of molybdenum over the 27-year life of the mine and will significantly contribute to the Yukon's, Canada's and the world's transition to a green economy.

While we say now that this mine has a 27-year life, the known resource could in fact sustain operations for almost 100 years, making ours a project that would bring generational prosperity, jobs and development to Canada's north.

Water is the foundation of an ecosystem. It supports and maintains healthy ecological processes for fish, wildlife and humans. Our priority is to be a responsible steward of the water we share through future operational efficiencies and conservation.

For Canada's responsible mining companies like Western, the federal government's role in safeguarding and managing the nation's freshwater resources is critical, especially in the context of increasing water scarcity. That's why we have designed a project with industry-leading best practices.

We have been conducting baseline studies for geochemistry, hydrology, surface water quality and groundwater for almost 15 years to ensure that our project is planned and developed in a way that achieves minimal impact to the environment and ecosystems. Western understands the importance of watershed management, and we are committed to contributing positively to the areas in which we operate.

Opening and operating a mine in the Yukon has different legislative and regulatory requirements than does doing the same in southern Canada. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or YESAA, is the legislation that has come from modern treaties between federal, territorial and first nation governments. The assessment is open, accountable and transparent, and it is based on fundamental principles of comanagement of resources, as was enshrined in these treaties.

At Western Copper and Gold, we are dedicated to building strong, respectful and mutually beneficial relationships with all stakeholders, particularly indigenous communities, and to ensuring that their rights, traditions and knowledge are at the forefront of our water management strategies.

For projects such as ours, we believe that regulatory certainty is just as important as a speedy approval time. We value the principles of the Yukon first nations' final agreements and of the YESAA process, and we want to stress that any legislative or regulatory changes to the process should be considered carefully, as changes in the process in the Yukon could have impacts on first nation treaty rights and hurt the long-term trust that the process has come to embody.

We are excited to be part of Canada's critical minerals infrastructure and to be building an engine of economic prosperity while at the same time being strong stewards for the environment.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective and comments. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. West-Sells. We'll go now to the first round of questions.

Mr. Leslie will lead off for six minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start with the environment commissioner.

In your opening remarks, you mentioned excessive nutrients. I know you have a study coming up in 2024 on fertilizer emissions, but you also mentioned the coordination between Environment and Climate Change Canada and Agriculture Canada in particular. Having worked previously in agriculture, I thought back to the time when we had the environment department show up in black SUVs and trespass to take water samples. I think it was a good example of neither coordinating with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada nor working with stakeholders.

Part of the discussion regarding fresh water is about the products that farmers are putting on their fields, particularly fertilizer. Have you looked at that piece as it relates to water as part of your upcoming, yet-to-be-released study, or is it more about emissions?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'm glad to see that you're keeping an eye on our upcoming reports.

We disclose on our website what's coming in the next couple of rounds of reports, including this spring's, which is about agriculture and climate change mitigation. That's the focus of that report, although nutrients from agriculture were one of the key foci of the water basins report that we spoke about just a few minutes ago.

That upcoming report will not look at the interaction between nutrient runoff and water because we did address that in the water basins report just two years ago.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

In terms of the emissions calculations from, in particular, nitrogen, it's a very complex calculation to come to what is still a very rough estimate and still doesn't take into account our nutrient stewardship practices adoption, for example.

Have you any consideration on how we can try to improve the methodology of better understanding what N2O emissions we actually have here in Canada as it relates to what we need to submit to our national inventory reporting requirements? We're not at a point where we can actually measure the ground level or field level. Is there a way that you think we can try to improve that?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Yes, as you've heard from me before, there are a few areas in Canada where the data and the measurements are not as reliable as I'd like to see and as I'm sure you'd like to see. This includes methane and a variety of ones relating to land use, land use change and forestry, including agriculture.

All I can say is to please stay tuned for our spring report on agriculture and climate change. We do look at the trends in emissions in that sector. It's not as important a sector in terms of total emissions saved, for example, compared to oil and gas or transportation, but it is still a significant contributor. It's also a potential solution because good agricultural practices can help sequester carbon.

I'll leave it at that because I don't want to let the cat out of the bag in terms of our spring tabling and respect for Parliament.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I appreciate that.

Obviously, the government's stated objective is a 30% reduction in emissions from fertilizer, but it's also going to have a major impact on yields, as noted in the Meyers Norris Penny report, costing about $10.4 billion per year by 2030 if that target is hit.

I'm just curious. From your assessment, is the government needing to take into consideration the economic impact of this objective of a 30% reduction?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

As I've said in several other reports, including the “Lessons Learned” report when we talked about oil and gas, or even the mining effluent report that I just mentioned earlier.... We often preface our reports with both the positive economic impacts associated with an industry—as well as any social benefits associated with it—and the environmental consequences that need to be managed.

A full cost-accounting approach is really at the forefront of the sustainable development monitoring work that we do on an ongoing basis. Therefore, yes, I very much agree that the social, economic and environmental factors all need to be looked at together in finding solutions so that we don't just squeeze the balloon and cause one problem to be transferred to another location without solving the larger issue.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Commissioner.

I'll move to Mr. West-Sells from Western Copper and Gold.

You mentioned some of the world-leading best practices that you, as a company, have been undertaking related to water over the past 15 years. I'm wondering if you could expand on what, exactly, those practices are, why you're doing them and what value you think they have to the legitimacy of the project and the protection of the environment.

[Paul West-Sells]

Sure. One of the things that we can do as a modern mine is have water and water quality at the forefront of our design. For example, one of the things that we've done with our project is.... Our project is located about 20 kilometres away from the Yukon River, and—for those of you who haven't been up to the Yukon—the Yukon River is the lifeblood of the Yukon. It's very important to the first nations and, really, to all Yukoners.

What we've been able to do is design our mine so that all of the drainage from the mine itself will drain away from the Yukon River. That's just a series of small steps that have been put into place to make sure that the drainage goes away. The other thing that we do in the operation of our mine is try to absolutely minimize the use of fresh water. We recycle as much water as possible within the process so that our reliance on any new fresh water is minimized.

The last thing that we do is really try to minimize any discharge from the mine. Right now, during operations, there will be minimal discharge from the mine, so to absolutely ensure.... Of course, any discharge that does come from the mine is treated and meets the discharge requirements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We'll go to Mr. van Koeverden now.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses and experts for attending today. This is a really remarkable panel.

My question is related to water scarcity and climate change.

As the weather changes and as the climate warms, and as we've seen in southwestern Ontario and Alberta this year, there are water scarcity concerns. Oftentimes, around this time of year, we see really elevated water levels in the Great Lakes and the tributaries that lead into them. My anecdotal evidence and what's been observed by people who do this sort of observational work is that the water levels are really low.

Canada is blessed with a plentiful and abundant supply of fresh water, particularly compared to other countries. However, in the context of the solutions to prevent water scarcity and to prevent global water scarcity from impacting Canada, with respect to our being a large steward of it, what considerations ought the federal government take under advisement with respect to water scarcity? Certainly, if PFAS apply, I'd love to hear that context as well.

The question is for anybody.

Monsieur Sauvé.

[Sébastien Sauvé]

Thank you.

In terms of scarcity and PFAS, making the link is not necessarily obvious, but clearly, when there is less water, whatever is left will have a higher concentration. PFAS don't degrade—well, they degrade a bit, but very slowly. There is the potential for the aggravation of pollution problems because there is going to be less water. The same amount of contaminants in a lower amount of water will cause issues. In terms of contamination, that's definitely one of the issues.

The other issue I see is related more to the variations. There are some periods when there's going to be too much water and there is going to be flooding, and there is going to be a spread of the contamination. However, that doesn't prevent the fact that later in the summer there is going to be scarcity.

It's not just less and lower. It's a higher variation that is going to cause a lot more trouble.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to greenhouse gas emissions, would anybody like to speak to the considerations around acidification and pH concerns as they apply to more traditionally waterborne pollutants?

I'll tell you where I'm going with this, because I might run out of time. Plastic pollution in water has always been considered to be something you can see. People walk by a stream or on a beach, and they'll pick up plastic pollution. CO2 is very different. Other emissions, like methane, are invisible. We don't see them, but they have a really negative impact on our natural environment and on climate change.

PFAS are the worst of both. They're invisible, they have a really negative impact and they're much more difficult to clean up. They may be as hard to clean up as CO2 is to remove from the atmosphere.

Do you have any reflections on that relationship?

[Cassie Barker]

I would say there is an important relationship between microplastics and PFAS.

Microplastics can often transport PFAS through the environment. Often, how we see that is by accumulation occurring within fish, which is when we can see that consuming a serving of freshwater fish can expose you to as much PFAS as you would consume drinking a month's worth of contaminated drinking water. This is an interesting analogy in that, as plastics become invisible, they also create a much bigger toxics problem, being a vector for transporting these substances in our environment.

I'll defer to our colleagues about the climate piece, if they want to refer to it.

[Sébastien Sauvé]

I will just add quickly that it's not well known, but some of the PFAS are volatile if you eat them up, and some of the degradation by-products can also be released through the air. Some of the contamination in faraway lakes, which should be pristine, by PFAS is from aerial deposition of PFAS by-products.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Would anybody online like to reflect on any of those things? I recognize that being online doesn't always provide you with the same opportunity to interject.

[Paul West-Sells]

In terms of greenhouse gas and acidification.... In our mining project, obviously, we don't see acidification as a big impact.

Your previous comment on drought and climate change is very interesting in that one of the key components of our regulatory review is the impact of climate change on our project. Echoing some of the other comments, we will need to look at not only drought but also increased precipitation—rainfall and snow, of course. I've been up in Yukon. A key change I've seen over my career is that this is an important part of what will be reviewed as we go through the regulatory process.