Environment Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

I feel like the lesson is that, for every dollar we spend up front on building climate resilience, the amount we save is astronomical.

Maybe we'll just start with a bit on the PFAS.

This week I tabled a motion in the House calling on the federal government to treat PFAS as a class to regulate under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to combat some of the misinformation that the industry has put forward around PFAS and to ensure that PFAS are phased out of firefighting turnout gear as quickly as possible, but also to fast-track the process to list PFAS as a class on part 1 of schedule 1 in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I'll have another two minutes, so we'll probably get an answer in that time, but I'd love to hear a bit more about how we can align with the European Union and the U.S. in establishing a timeline for phasing out PFAS in products, and especially that European road map for phasing out PFAS.

[Martin Bureau]

I'm not an expert on all those laws in Europe and the United States. However, I know quite a bit.

The Europeans have taken a long time to deal with PFAS. As a matter of fact, they still don't have criteria for their treatment as of now. However, they have taken a very interesting way to address the issue. They have started surveying all suspected sites of PFAS throughout Europe. It's not all countries, but Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, France, etc., are doing that, so they're gathering data. This is a very rapid process. It started last year—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Bureau.

Unfortunately, time is up. I gave you a few extra minutes. We will have a second round of questions, and you may have a chance to expand on that.

We'll go to the second round. It's going to be a little truncated because of time. We'll do three minutes, three minutes, one and a half minutes, one and a half minutes, three minutes and three minutes.

We go now to Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to follow up with Ms. Warwick Sears.

Why do you think the federal government's resources are not going to western Canada?

[Dr. Anna Warwick Sears]

You guys are in the House of Commons. I don't know. I don't understand it. It doesn't seem logical. It doesn't seem fair. It's been this way for a long time.

I think I would ask your committee to look into it. Really, it seems like our costs, the costs of the damage, will ultimately go to the feet of the federal government with big federal government disaster funding. Frankly, the mitigation from the invasive mussels is going to be a huge cost as well. I don't know why the federal government wouldn't want to provide funding up front and lower the cost to all Canadian taxpayers in the future.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I think you're kind of in agreement that you want a more proactive or conservation type of approach.

[Dr. Anna Warwick Sears]

Yes, absolutely. This is true for all manner of water issues. I think all of the panellists here would agree on that.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Ms. Stiller, how is the Prairie Provinces Water Board dealing with falling water volumes, basically drought, and does this stress the water sharing model?

[Nadine Stiller]

A couple of years ago, the Prairie Provinces Water Board did a drought simulation exercise to evaluate the resiliency of the master agreements. That was an excellent learning opportunity for the provincial regulators to take away considerations in a real situation. Fundamentally, the board doesn't take action directly towards managing drought, but through augmented hydrometric monitoring, we are able to provide additional data to help the provincial regulators better anticipate the implications of drought.

I would just close by adding that the Prairies naturally experience drought on a cyclical basis and, indeed, that is exacerbated by the effects of climate change. The Prairie Provinces Water Board presents a forum to help collaborate across the jurisdictions to address those challenges more effectively.

I'll close by saying that the master agreement, regardless of the cyclical variability that happens in the Prairies, has always been complied with, so we have been able to maintain equitable sharing thus far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. van Koeverden, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's clear to most people that we need to do more to limit the release of potentially harmful and toxic chemicals like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, that go into our environment, particularly as they are biomagnifying in our bodies and bloodstreams. This has been described.

Human beings almost waited too long to act on chlorofluorocarbons. Our ozone is finally starting to repair itself, but we've definitely waited too long to fully appreciate the warming impacts of excessive carbon dioxide emissions. We need to do more, not less, to limit the manufacture, use, import, export and release of these harmful chemicals.

There are a lot of stakeholders asking for PFAS to be fully classed as a toxic chemical under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which we'll tie to our study. However, at the same time, big plastic, which is a large group of multinational oil and gas companies that convert oil and gas to plastic in order to produce items like single-use plastic bags, straws and packaging, much of which contain harmful PFAS, seems to have gotten to some Conservative members.

Conservative MP from Saskatchewan Corey Tochor has used his private member's bill to try to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to remove all plastic manufactured items from the list of toxic substances in schedule 1 of that act. Conservative MP Tochor trivializes the importance of having a comprehensive list of class A toxic chemicals, saying that he's bringing back the plastic straw.

My question is for Mr. Bureau.

It's clear to me that the Conservatives opposite are also supportive of this legislation, and they'd love to see more PFAS and more plastic pollution in our waterways and in our bodies. That's great. It's not limited to straws, but anyway.

Mr. Bureau, would eliminating the legislative basis for underpinning the regulatory ability to prevent plastic and PFAS pollution undermine action to prevent further contamination of our waterways, environments and bodies?

[Martin Bureau]

I don't do politics. I'm a scientist, and I'll start by doing that.

The key to success in remediation and impactful measures has a few arms, one of which is regulatory constraints. That's the wind that makes the boat move. That's the most important thing. If regulatory constraints are not in place, and in a meaningful or addressable way—because it could go too far too—then there's simply no action.

If the CEPA bans PFAS and calls PFAS hazardous substances wherever they are, including at federal sites, the industry will stop doing anything. It's going to go to court, and it's going to last for 10 years. That's an example of going too far, and there are examples of doing too little. It's clear that we need to divulge the PFAS presence in components that we manufacture.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Pauzé, you have a minute and a half, enough time to ask a question.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Okay.

My question is for any of the witnesses.

We always get the impression that, water-wise, everything is going well here in Canada, particularly in Quebec. We have millions of lakes and so on. However, we blithely use that water and have a false perception of its abundance and quality. It's as if we're ignoring PFAS, invasive species, plastic pollution, the polyester in our clothing and droughts.

Do any of the witnesses have any thoughts on what role the federal government could play in combatting this false perception of water?

[Martin Bureau]

Dr. Sears or Ms. Stiller, you're better placed than I am to answer.

[Dr. Anna Warwick Sears]

What can the federal government do to change the perception of water in Canada? It's hard to say. It's a really deeply embedded misperception that is down at the level of the public. It is an issue, because we're rightly proud of our water. When water issues occur they tend to occur relatively locally, I'd say, with the exception, perhaps, of the prairie provinces, where they are experiencing a multi-year deep drought.

I think the federal government is more engaged in water and more at the forefront of talking about water, and this is something that the Canada water agency could potentially do, by reaching out and publicizing more information about water.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm going to stop you with regard to the Canada Water Agency, especially if we want to respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll have to move on to Ms. Collins.

That's what we're trying to do on this committee with this study: to be at the forefront of a new level of engagement, policy-wise, on water.

Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I just want to give Mr. Bureau the opportunity to explain a little bit about that road map, the mapping out of sites in some of those European countries and what we could have as lessons learned.

[Martin Bureau]

Europe and the States now with “Plan 15”—I don't have time to explain, but you can refer to it—are listing all the sources of PFAS and putting a number onto each of those. Then there will be a plan for action, and the road map is very clear with dates like 2025 and 2026 being the moment when those remediations start, depending on the types of sources, with landfill being at the forefront of that list.

As a class, Canada has still not listed PFAS as a class. We're right now looking at the sum of 28 or 18, depending, on the list. The States has done the same—still with individual PFAS, but not the class—whereas in Europe they're looking at action on the full class of PFAS, which is definitely the way to go.

I heard that the drinking water guidelines might include a class, but as far as I know it has not been done so far. Among thousands and thousands, 28 PFAS is really nothing—let's face it.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Leslie, you have three minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with Ms. Warwick Sears.

You mentioned wine. Obviously, the Okanagan is notable for producing some great wine. I'm just kind of curious. Is there a lot of reliance on irrigation in that area? What is the usage compared to other users?

Secondarily, I know that internationally there's a bit of a shift towards dry farming, which is the idea of using less water, so the roots go deeper and create a more flavourful grape. Is that being adopted within the region as a means of reducing the amount of water use?

[Dr. Anna Warwick Sears]

Yes, definitely the wine industry is one of the more progressive of all the agricultural industries that are here in the valley. Most of them have moved to highly efficient drip irrigation and are definitely managing water for grape quality. Our wine has an emphasis on high quality, rather than volume.

Right now, we are struggling because 90% of the grape vines were killed this last winter when an extreme cold event happened right after an extreme warming event and the plants couldn't take it. There's a big replant program going on. We anticipate that the irrigation systems will be further upgraded with that replant program.

With respect to irrigation in general, many of the farmers of the other perennial crops, like cherries, peaches and apples, still need to upgrade their irrigation systems. I mention it to you because a lot of that funding historically has come from Agriculture Canada to help the farmers replace their systems. By helping the farmers, we help maintain food security in British Columbia and Canada.

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

Thank you for that.

Switching gears a little bit, one of the first things the Liberal government did when it came to power was to cancel the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program, which supported habitat restoration across the country and worked with recreational and angling groups.

In your neck of the woods, do you feel the federal government is doing enough to support those on-the-ground groups that are trying to enhance fisheries populations?