Environment Committee on Oct. 24th, 2023

[Daniel Wolfish]

Actually, I'll be meeting with the Quebec government on that matter next week, and I intend to address those issues.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

As I understand it, the Canadian water agency was created without the government knowing Quebec's position on the matter. As I told you, Mr. Charette wrote to Mr. Wilkinson two years ago to tell him it encroached on Quebec's jurisdiction.

I therefore conclude that this hasn't been done yet.

[Daniel Wolfish]

The agency is a branch within the Department of the Environment and Climate Change. It isn't currently an independent agency.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I see. If that's the case, when will we know what the Canada water agency's actual responsibilities are? It's administered by a number of departments. What responsibilities will be assigned to the agency so it can carry out the mission that it thinks it can accomplish?

[Daniel Wolfish]

There's an agreement between Quebec and Canada, the St. Lawrence River Action Plan. The Canada water agency team, cooperating closely with Quebec, is responsible for implementing that agreement. We intend to renew it over time together with the Quebec government.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Here's another example, Mr. Wolfish.

I met some people in Quebec who work in river basins, and they told us that $650 million has been allocated to the agency over 10 years. They said that $150 million of that amount was earmarked for seven transboundary basins, and they couldn't understand why none of those basins were in Quebec.

They think there won't be any money for those in Quebec. And yet Lake Memphremagog and Lake Champlain are transboundary freshwater basins in located in Quebec.

Why has Quebec not received a share of that $650 million?

[Daniel Wolfish]

That's a good question.

Efforts are currently focused on the St. Lawrence River, with the St. Lawrence River Action Plan. We want to talk to Quebec and the other stakeholders about implementing the Freshwater Action Plan, which is a federal plan.

We'll be able to assess and modify our activities going forward in close cooperation with Quebec and our other partners.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

As you can see, my questions definitely concern constitutional jurisdictions. I don't think that comes as a surprise to you.

Does the Canada water agency have any plans to establish mechanisms to ensure effective governance consistent with constitutional jurisdictions?

[Daniel Wolfish]

The aim is to comply with the constitutional framework.

We want to use existing mechanisms, such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. We also want to use bilateral mechanisms to coordinate our programs and activities with those of Quebec and other authorities in accordance with the jurisdictions of each level of government.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

How will the money be allocated? I mentioned the $650 million to you earlier.

What programs and protective measures are concerned?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please answer briefly.

[Daniel Wolfish]

Thank you for your question.

First of all, the government has made a commitment with the United States to protect the Great Lakes. A large portion of that investment will be allocated to those programs. We are allocating the rest of that funding to the other seven initiatives across the country, including the St. Lawrence Action Plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

It's your turn, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses. We apologize for the technical difficulties.

I think this is an important study. It's a very broad topic, and as you may be able to tell, I think the committee is struggling a bit to define the scope and focus in, because we have only 13 meetings to look into what is a very broad topic and series of subtopics.

I'm going to start by diving into this issue around waste-water effluent, because it's something that hits close to home for communities in the region I represent in northwest B.C. My home community of Smithers is a town of about 5,000 people. Its waste-water effluent goes into the Bulkley River, which is part of the Skeena watershed. This is British Columbia's second-greatest wild salmon watershed. It's home to a world-renowned steelhead fishery.

Smithers has been getting letters from Environment Canada saying it's not in compliance and that it's violating the Fisheries Act. The town has done its due diligence. It's created a plan. It's submitted it to the federal government for funding, and the federal government has been sitting on it for a year and a half. It won't give them an answer as to whether they're going to get the funding. There's a very short construction season in northern B.C., because the ground freezes and gets covered in snow, so every year that goes by and every construction season that gets missed means another year that the fish in the river and the water quality of the river are potentially compromised by the effluent.

The question here is really around the communication between ECCC and Infrastructure Canada, whether ECCC creates a priority list of waste-water projects that it feels should be prioritized for funding, and how we break down those silos so that we don't have communities that rightfully feel frustrated because they want to address this very serious situation. Rather than getting support from the federal government, they're actually getting threatening letters saying that they're contravening the federal legislation.

Perhaps one of the witnesses could speak to this and help us understand how ECCC works to ensure that Infrastructure Canada gets the money to the projects that are the most important for protecting fresh water in our country.

[Cecile Siewe]

I will start, and then I will allow my colleague Caroline Blais to add any details that she's available to add at this point in time.

Infrastructure Canada has jurisdiction over its budget, so we can be invited to provide input as to some of the projects that they have. With respect to a prioritization list, I will have to undertake to get back to you on that, if one exists. It would not reside with us; it would probably reside with Infrastructure Canada.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Does Infrastructure Canada solicit input from ECCC as to priority projects or particularly serious situations?

[Caroline Blais, Director, Forest Products and Fisheries Act, Department of the Environment]

Yes, we do have communications with our colleagues at Infrastructure Canada. We provide them with information as to which communities are not complying and, if they have a transitional authorization, how much time they have. Our colleagues at Infrastructure Canada then do their own analysis, so we do not have control over where they send the money, but we do provide information.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Do you provide recommendations along with that information, in terms of where the greatest risk to fresh water might be?

[Caroline Blais]

At this point we don't provide recommendations; we provide only the information.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay.

Do you know if the federal government has a dedicated fund for ameliorating these waste-water issues?

[Caroline Blais]

Environment and Climate Change Canada does not have a fund for that. Infrastructure Canada has a number of funds, and some of them go to waste water, so it would be in a better position to answer that question.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I think the frustration that communities are feeling is a result of the silos we've built up in government and the fact that they aren't talking to each other about priorities. The communities themselves are the ones that are caught in the crossfire, because they want to address this issue; they have a plan; they've invested money in the design of the project, yet the federal government is sitting on their application and hasn't gotten back to them and can't provide any information about where the project stands or when something might get fixed.

How do we do a better job of approaching these kinds of situations, which are happening all across Canada in communities of all sizes? The federal government doesn't have a dedicated fund for waste-water infrastructure, so waste-water projects are having to compete with every other kind of infrastructure project you can think of.

From a clean water perspective, from a fresh-water perspective, from an aquatic ecosystem perspective, how do we do a better job of addressing this issue? It seems as though right now the system isn't working. It's not working for Smithers, because they can't tell where the funding is or whether they're going to get it or whether they're going to be able to fix the problem.

[Caroline Blais]

That's a good question. I think that breaking the silos between the funding and the regulation would be something we would take into account and look into. For today, I don't have anything else to add.

[Cecile Siewe]

If I could add to that, I think you've just highlighted for us an important point that we will definitely be discussing internally, as well as with our colleagues in Infrastructure Canada. It's how we can create a working group or some mechanism for ensuring that we have line of sight, paying attention to prioritization and impacts on freshwater bodies that may be impacted.

I thank you for raising the point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. That was an excellent question, Mr. Bachrach. It's precisely the kind of thing we're trying to discover through this study, as far as I'm concerned.

We'll go to our second round now and Mr. Deltell.