Environment Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Dr. Anna Warwick Sears]

I don't work one on one with those groups and their specific things. We have a close relationship with the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

In general, most water things are underfunded here in British Columbia, whether it's wetland restoration or.... There's quite a bit of work and some funding, actually, from the U.S. to restore our salmon fishery. That funding goes to the Okanagan Nation Alliance and its work on the sockeye fishery.

Yes, we would very much welcome more federal involvement in fresh water in the interior of B.C.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Mr. Bureau, I met with Guelph's Local 467 of the International Association of Fire Fighters this week. They were talking about PFAS in terms of firefighting equipment, the foam that's being used and the health impacts on firefighters across Canada.

They're asking for a full class of PFAS chemicals under CEPA part 1 of schedule 1. They're asking for a ban on the use of PFAS, support for the reclamation and safe disposal of firefighting gear and foams containing PFAS, assistance for fire departments and municipalities with the costs of transition to PFAS-free protective gear, and the monitoring of the health of firefighters exposed to PFAS in their workplaces.

One of those items they're asking us to pay attention to is the reclamation and safe disposal of firefighting gear. They described to me how after a fire, when the gear is soaked with foam, that builds up over time. I had an image in my mind of a hockey bag. Sometimes you don't want to put that equipment on.

Is there a way of recovering equipment that's been contaminated with PFAS? Is there technology available that the federal government could be supporting?

[Martin Bureau]

Absolutely. There are many ways of dealing economically with contaminated gear. It depends on what it is exactly and the level that needs to be reached, depending on the exposure of the workers, or firemen in this case.

I would be cautious about textiles because it's not as easy to decontaminate those. Probably those should go to safe, secure landfills or be incinerated. However, for much of the other gear, it's totally doable and possible to do so.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Great. Thank you very much.

Ms. Stiller, I'd like to think about the prairie provinces. I'm also originally from Treaty 1.

I'm thinking of the tensions between the hydro developments off Lake Winnipeg, the Nelson and Churchill rivers, and the Jenpeg generating station that's used to control the lake level in taking hydro power from the lake, and how they impact the indigenous communities of St. Laurent on Lake Manitoba or Norway House on Lake Winnipeg.

Could you comment on how allocations could be used to strike a balance between hydro power needs and the needs of the people living on the lakes?

[Nadine Stiller]

I'm limited to saying that the apportionment calculations are really at the provincial intersect. It's the provincial boundary between Saskatchewan and Manitoba in this example. What Manitoba Hydro does in terms of regulation is really within Manitoba's jurisdiction. The board functions at the provincial boundary intersection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

That concludes the second round. I'd like to thank the witnesses for this fascinating discussion and for being available to us. I hope to see you next time.

We'll take a short break for a few minutes to bring in the next panel.

The meeting is suspended.

[Martin Bureau]

It was a pleasure. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call the meeting back to order.

I'd like to welcome our second panel of witnesses.

First, we have two guests appearing as individuals: Roy Brouwer, professor and director of the Water Institute at the University of Waterloo, and Frédéric Lasserre, full professor at Université Laval.

Then we'll hear from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Professor Lasserre, since Professor Brouwer is not here at the moment, we will turn to you. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Fréderic Lasserre, Full Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everyone.

It's a pleasure to be able to share a few thoughts with you on water governance dynamics.

As has been mentioned in previous testimony, there's been a lot of emphasis in Canada for quite some time on the need to improve water quality. However, everything was happening as if the quantitative problems didn't really apply to the governance of this resource in Canada. In fact, there was a widespread perception that the great abundance of water in Canada made it impossible to think about the need to better manage this resource, and that perception wasn't completely unfounded. It's true that we're blessed in Canada, because we have such great resources. That's not to say we don't need to think about how we manage the amount of water we use.

In terms of quality, what can we already see? First of all, we still have this scandal about very poor water quality in most indigenous communities, even though they have been insisting for decades on the perfectly legitimate need to improve water quality. Even though we live in a developed country, a number of indigenous communities don't have drinking water resources, which is quite scandalous and ironic.

In addition, in the rest of the country, water quality has significantly improved in the major rivers and the Great Lakes as a result of a lot of awareness campaigns and government action at both the federal and provincial levels.

Despite this improvement in quality, we're also seeing persistent pollution problems, mainly caused by agriculture. This type of pollution, also known as diffuse pollution, is harder to deal with than pollution at a very clearly identified point of origin. Many regions in Quebec and the rest of Canada are grappling with the issue of agricultural non-point source pollution.

We're also seeing increasing tensions related to water sharing in many regions. I'm hearing about Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, but also Quebec. This is very surprising to a large segment of the population who, as I said earlier, are not used to the idea that water governance needs to be thought of in quantitative terms.

The farming sector also faces high financial vulnerability, and farmers are increasingly turning to irrigation, even though biologically, it's not necessary per se, since agriculture is largely rain-fed. Eastern Canada is increasingly irrigated, resulting in increased quantities mobilized, harvested and consumed.

At the same time, we're seeing anincrease in the reurbanization phenomenon, and as a result, more and more cities and towns are encroaching on farmland. That changes the flow regime and destroys wetlands, which in turn affects water flow and aquifer fulfillment.

When agriculture contributes to increased water withdrawals of this kind, it sometimes causes more conflicts, like those observed in the Eastern Townships, Beauce, Alberta as mentioned and British Columbia.

Add to that the impact of climate change, and we don't yet know exactly how that will play out. We will only be able to see it through alteration of the precipitation regime. Less snow would accumulate in the mountains because it would come down as rainfall. Temperatures and evapotranspiration could also go up, which would result in a gradual and recurring increase in water deficits during the summer. Obviously, that would change a lot of the water governance dynamics.

For the time being, it's illegal to export water to the United States. We know that it's a matter of intense public debate, given the great fear it's striking in the hearts of Canadians. It's not a hot topic at the moment, but it should be noted that people are still concerned about it, especially since the southern United States is increasingly facing water governance issues in light of the climate change observed there as well.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Lasserre.

Since Mr. Brouwer is now with us, I'll give him the floor for five minutes for his opening remarks.

[Roy Brouwer, Professor and Executive Director, Water Institute, University of Waterloo, As an Individual]

Honourable Chair and members of the standing committee, thank you very much for your invitation to participate in this hearing today.

I'm a professor of economics and director of the Water Institute at the University of Waterloo, one of the largest interdisciplinary water research and innovation centres in Canada.

I'm originally from a seemingly similarly water-abundant country. It's just many times smaller than Canada and has a long history of freshwater challenges. I advised the Dutch water ministry as an economist for several years on national and European water policies, particularly the water framework directive. What sets this directive apart is its emphasis on the use of economic principles, methods and policy instruments such as water pricing to achieve the environmental objectives for freshwater bodies.

It's my view that if we want to solve freshwater challenges in Canada, we have to focus more on the necessary behavioural changes to more sustainable water use and management by making better use of the available methods and instruments that behavioural economics has to offer. This includes appropriate water pricing. Water has value, but no price. In Canada, the existing price of water does not reflect the true cost and value of water.

Canadians are among the largest water users in the world, with an average water use per capita that is almost twice the amount consumed in Europe. Only 10% of this water is used for drinking and cooking. Approximately a third of our drinking water is used to flush our toilets and another third is used for bathing. Water-saving technologies are readily available on the market, but are hardly implemented because water is relatively cheap. Hence, there is no financial incentive to save water.

Many Canadians, if not most, take water for granted, except if you live in a community with a drinking water advisory. Public awareness levels of the value of water, generally speaking, are low. Based on public surveys in Ontario, I find, for example, that only 25% of Ontarians know how much they pay for water through their water bill. In terms of water affordability, most Canadians do not spend more than 1% of their annual income on water and waste-water treatment. This is the same in Europe, where consumer spending on water and sanitation is less than 1% of the GDP in most member states.

The same applies to industry. For example, when they apply for a licence to extract groundwater, industries pay an administrative fee that is not in any way related to the value of the groundwater.

Notwithstanding the complexities around trade and the definition of commodities, the federal government should consider how best to use economic principles and instruments to ensure water users pay for the value of water. The current low level of public awareness and the low price of water affect how we use, over-exploit and waste Canada's valuable freshwater resources.

These freshwater systems serve both as a source and a sink. We tend to focus on the extractive use of water and often forget that, after we use water, it's treated and discharged, free of charge, into rivers and lakes. We pay for the costs of waste-water treatment in treatment facilities, but not for the water system's ecological purification service or the impairment of this service, just as we pay for the treatment costs of water for drinking but not for the source itself. This is crucial if we want to raise people's awareness about the value of water and the increasing pressure on freshwater resources due to overextraction and water pollution. Appropriate pricing of Canada's freshwater resources will incentivize households and industry to use water more efficiently, increase investment in water saving and use fewer water-polluting technologies.

A final observation is that we lack key indicators that help us transition to a more sustainable water economy. There are no national data about how much Canadians pay for essential water services. This information would allow us to assess the impact of water pricing on water use and the level of cost recovery for sustainable delivery of these services. The latter is crucial to address the grand challenge of replacing aging infrastructure across Canada. Water rates have been unable to cover the depreciation costs of this infrastructure. In 2021, losses from the water distribution systems due to leaking accounted for 17% of all water produced in Canada. This is 828 million cubic metres of potable water, enough to meet the needs of 10 million Canadians for a whole year.

Similarly, with a growing population and increasing freshwater contamination by emerging chemicals of high concern, the need for more advanced waste-water treatment is growing. Although more than 80% of Canadian households are connected to a municipal sewer system, there is a wide variation in treatment levels across provinces. New sustainable business models are needed, based on sound economic principles, to build back water infrastructure better in the future, manage our freshwater resources in a sustainable way and secure water for all Canadians.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Professor.

We'll go now to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Ms. Haidy Tadros, the strategic adviser, will speak to us.

You have five minutes. Thank you.

[Haidy Tadros, Strategic Advisor, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to contribute to this committee's freshwater study.

I am a strategic adviser and formerly the director general of the environmental and radiation protection and assessment group at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. With me today is my colleague Melissa Fabian Mendoza, director of environmental risk assessment.

We are joining you from our homes on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

The CNSC recognizes and acknowledges the importance and value of fresh water to Canadians and indigenous nations and communities. While our regulatory requirements apply to a breadth of technical topics and all environmental components, for the purposes of this committee, I will highlight how our regulatory framework and processes ensure protection of fresh water from nuclear facilities and activities.

The CNSC’s regulatory framework provides applicants and licensees with clear requirements and guidance to follow, such as our regulatory documents on environmental protection, in conjunction with the Canadian Standards Association's—or CSA's—suite of standards relevant to environmental protection. These documents are found on the CNSC website. The CSA series N288, for example, includes requirements and guidance related to environmental risk assessments and environmental monitoring programs. We incorporate national and international best practices into our regulatory framework.

For any new project, proponents are required to conduct an environmental assessment under applicable legislation. CNSC staff work with other federal departments, such as Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to technically evaluate submissions based on the best available science and research.

As part of this evaluation, applicants must provide sufficient baseline data, scenarios and programs to demonstrate that there will not be significant adverse effects from the project on the environment, including fresh water. The duty to consult also sets out the legal obligations related to adverse impacts on potential or established constitutional rights of indigenous peoples that the commission must meet. These potential rights must be assessed, considered and, where appropriate, accommodated by the commission.

For existing projects, CNSC staff use ongoing compliance oversight, including inspections of licensees’ environmental protection programs and reviews of cyclical updates to environmental risk assessments and of the environmental monitoring data that must be submitted as per licence requirements.

In addition, the CNSC has an independent environmental monitoring program, or IEMP. This program provides a snapshot of the state of the environment around nuclear facilities. We sample and analyze water, vegetation and air in publicly accessible areas around nuclear facilities. The IEMP sampling plan is also informed by interested indigenous nations to ensure we capture material that is of significance to the community. IEMP results are publicly available on our website, while other data, such as effluent and emissions data reported to the CNSC, can be found on the Open Government portal and the open science and data platform.

Finally, I would like to note that we have a joint initiative with Environment and Climate Change Canada called the regional information and monitoring network for the Ottawa River watershed basin, or RIMNet. The purpose of this initiative is to enhance the availability of publicly accessible environmental monitoring data and indigenous knowledge for the Ottawa River or Kichi Sibi watershed basin.

We recognize the committee’s interest in the commission’s recent authorization for Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to construct a near surface disposal facility for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the Chalk River Laboratories site. Please know that, due to the ongoing judicial review of this decision, we are limited in what we can say in relation to this project. We, as well as the commission, welcome the court’s direction on this file.

In conclusion, the CNSC is committed at all times to ensuring there are no unreasonable risks to Canada’s freshwater resources from Canadian nuclear facilities and activities.

We would be happy to respond to your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll now begin the first round of questions.

Mr. Mazier, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My questions this afternoon are for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

It's around Chalk River, mostly to get some real facts out there. Hopefully, you can clear up the record.

How many years did the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission spend evaluating the safety and environmental impact of the near surface disposal facility at Chalk River?

[Haidy Tadros]

Thank you for the question.

I recognize that there's a lot of interest around Chalk River. As I mentioned in my opening statement, there are several judicial reviews in play right now on the decision, through concerned citizens. I can't speak to the file, specifically. All of this information you're seeking—in terms of when we started, how much engagement and consultation happened, and what the state of the Chalk River site is based on the proposal to build the near surface disposal facility—is found in the commission's decision. I welcome the opportunity to perhaps provide the decision to the committee members for your review as you go through your deliberations and discussions on this study.

I don't want to say anything more on the NSDF, because I think the judicial courts will have a lot of information in hand.

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

Can you submit the safety commission's record of decision for the near surface disposal facility in Chalk River?

[Haidy Tadros]

Absolutely.

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

That would be critical, actually, so the analysts could evaluate that.

I did ask the question, and I don't know if you can answer it or not. How many years did you analyze this? I guess you can't answer that one. Is that correct?

[Haidy Tadros]

What I can share is that the Chalk River site is not a new site. It's a site that has a lot of characterization, a lot of history and a lot of monitoring data, whether that be for water, air, vegetation, animals or ecological sites. There have been a lot of studies at the Chalk River site. All this is to say that it is a very well categorized site from an environmental perspective, whether that be with respect to animals or to other biota.

With regard to the NSDF, the near surface disposal facility, the application we received was in 2016. We have gone through several reviews of this application and, as I said, a lot of information was found in the commission's decision in 2016. All of the technical analyses that have been done on this project are found in there.

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

The committee heard testimony that the near surface disposal facility at Chalk River will threaten drinking water, and “poison...the Ottawa River”.

Are these statements true? How do you respond to them?

[Haidy Tadros]

Thank you for that question. Maybe I'll start and then I'll ask my colleague to share her thoughts on this.

Let's maybe put it into context. Radiation and nuclear substances are regulated. They are hazardous substances. They are regulated for that reason. We don't prohibit them, because we recognize there are benefits from them. That's the difference between regulation and prohibition.

In the regulation of nuclear substances or nuclear activities, we have a very robust regulatory framework. As I mentioned, not only do we look at impacts or effects to fresh water or to the environment, but we look at an all hazards analysis. I know this committee is interested also in climate change analysis and all the rest of it, so maybe we can get into that as well.

Coming to your question about the pollution going into the Ottawa River from the near surface disposal facility, any project and all projects need to demonstrate that any risk to exposure is mitigated. There are mitigation measures that start at the environmental assessment stage. It is looked at to determine what programs are needed and what monitoring is needed. If there is a spill, how do we prevent the spill and how do we clean up the spill, to eliminate, mitigate as much as possible, the risks to the environment and to peoples.

Perhaps I'll stop there and see if my colleague would like to add anything more.

[Melissa Fabian Mendoza, Director, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Thank you.

I would echo the comments that Ms. Tadros has already provided and elaborate a bit further to say that under the CNSC regulatory framework there really is extensive oversight to ensure the environment is protected. This includes, for example, having an environmental risk assessment that evaluates all potential releases and their pathways, an environmental monitoring program and monitoring data provided to the CNSC on a regular basis, which our specialists also look at in great detail. All that is to say that the overall environmental management system as a whole works together to ensure that the environment is protected, and a very key part of the CNSC mandate is to ensure that is done.

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

From your experience, what were the most common misunderstandings or misconceptions raised by Canadians during the assessment for the disposal at Chalk River?