Evidence of meeting #79 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was freshwater.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Daniel Wolfish  Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Water Agency, Department of the Environment
Kate Ladell  Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Sumit Gera  Senior Director, Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure, Department of Natural Resources
Isa Gros-Louis  Director General, Indigenous Relations and Navigation Protection, Department of Transport
Cecile Siewe  Director General, Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate, Department of the Environment
Joanne Volk  Director General, Water Science and Technology, Department of the Environment
David Harper  Director General, Monitoring and Data Services Directorate, Department of the Environment
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Natalie Jeanneault
Caroline Blais  Director, Forest Products and Fisheries Act, Department of the Environment

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, everyone.

I'd also like to welcome Ms. Gros-Louis, who comes from Wendake.

Greetings, madam. Welcome to your House of Commons.

Mr. Chair, as you can see, we're very much interested, and rightly so, in waste-water effluent. We're all aware that water is essential to life and that we must make every effort to safeguard it. When we discharge waste-water into the river, that raises a number of issues.

In November 2015, the government authorized the discharge of eight billion litres of waste-water into Canadian waterways.

Would the deputy minister please explain to us the scientific evidence that such discharges do not harm the environment?

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Go ahead, Mr. Wolfish.

12:05 p.m.

Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Water Agency, Department of the Environment

Daniel Wolfish

Since the question referred particularly to waste water, I think that Cecile, who is at the table, would be best to comment.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I'm sorry about that.

Go ahead.

12:05 p.m.

Director General, Industrial Sectors and Chemicals Directorate, Department of the Environment

Cecile Siewe

Yes, I'm sure we can respond to that question.

Caroline, can you answer for us?

12:05 p.m.

Director, Forest Products and Fisheries Act, Department of the Environment

Caroline Blais

First of all, I want to go back to 2015, and you're correct that there was an order that was signed by the minister then. I just want to clarify that the order under section 37 of the Fisheries Act is not a mechanism to authorize the release of a deleterious substance. It did, however, set a number of conditions that the city had to meet if there was a release of a deleterious substance.

There was a panel that was set up before that final order, and there were three academics who looked at information, including the impact on fish and the impact on flora, because there are a lot of plants that are used by—

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

With your permission, Ms. Blais, I'm going to interrupt.

Mr. Chair, I'm thinking of another discharge that occurred near my home in the Quebec City region this past summer. On August 25, Radio-Canada reported that 760 million litres of waste-water had been discharged into the river in the second week of July. That had nothing to do with the discharge authorization that was issued in Montreal, even though it clearly had a very significant impact.

At the time of that discharge, André Bélanger, a citizen involved with Fondation Rivières, said it was a major incident. In addition, Satinder Kaur Brar, an environmental biotechnology and decontamination expert from York University, in Toronto, said that the discharge would have deleterious effects on the river for years to come.

Why does the government authorize things that can have harmful effects on the river in the future?

12:10 p.m.

Director, Forest Products and Fisheries Act, Department of the Environment

Caroline Blais

In the situation…

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I'm going to interrupt you for a moment to clarify a point.

You said there was no authorization, didn't you?

Were there any authorizations or not?

12:10 p.m.

Director, Forest Products and Fisheries Act, Department of the Environment

Caroline Blais

I was referring to a specific example, the discharge in Montreal. I thought that was the focus of the question.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

All right. That's just for my own understanding.

12:10 p.m.

Director, Forest Products and Fisheries Act, Department of the Environment

Caroline Blais

As regards the discharge at Quebec City that Mr. Deltell mentioned, Quebec's sewer systems are governed by Quebec's Regulation respecting municipal wastewater treatment works. According to an equivalency agreement between Quebec and the federal government, it's the Quebec regulation, not the federal one, that applies to Quebec.

Consequently, in the example I'm referring to, the federal government had no approval authority. That waste-water discharge would have been subject to the general prohibitions of the Fisheries Act.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

The fact nevertheless remains that waste-water contains chemical contaminants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, contaminants such as plastic, pathogenic agents, coliform bacteria and other harmful bacteria and that they may be deposited on riverbeds, as mentioned in the section.

Mr. Chair, I wish to introduce the following motion, notice of which was given last week.

That the committee report to the House that the first environmental act by this Liberal government was to approve the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River and that the committee agrees that the dumping of wastewater into our waterways goes against Canadian efforts to promote clean water.

We are very much aware that water is of course a very important part of our ecosystem. The dumping of waste-water into the St. Lawrence River directly threatens the nature and quality of life of the people who may consume that water. Not for no reason do leading Canadian experts, such as the one from York University whom I cited earlier, say that it can have long-term effects. They also say that, in the long run, a large quantity of pollutants may limit access to the river and the number of days during which people can swim in it. These contaminants may be found at the bottom of the river and in the food chain and may be absorbed by fish, microorganisms, animals and human beings.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is studying water management, a fundamental issue. The federal government agreed to allow eight billion—

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

I have a point of order.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

—eight years ago. Furthermore, as stated in the motion, we're talking about the first environmental action taken by this government. That is why we're introducing this motion.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We will suspend because I need to consult the clerk.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We are back.

Mr. Deltell, it's your right to introduce this motion, and we will debate it.

However, since it will take up an hour of meeting time, I will simply add an hour to the meeting and ask the witnesses to come back for another hour at a suitable time.

In the meantime, we will debate your motion.

We have to. Those are the rules.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

We can deal with it in five minutes.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I don't think it's going to happen.

Okay. That's what I'm going to do. Since we've interrupted the meeting, which is Mr. Deltell's right—and quite frankly I think it's an interesting debate—we've basically lost an hour of our 26 hours. What I will do is invite the witnesses back for one hour at some point, and we can now debate Mr. Deltell's motion.

Mr. Deltell, would you like to continue?

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

I think I've said everything I had to say. You missed some good prose, but—

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

All right.

I have Madame Chatel, Mr. Mazier and Mr. Bachrach.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Actually, Mr. Chair, on a point of order, if we could not dismiss the witnesses—

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I agree. We should not dismiss the witnesses, but as I say, we're carving out time here, and we're going to make it up.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I appreciate your allowing me to suggest—

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Witnesses, please remain with us, because we could have some questions. It's a very important topic.

I have Madame Chatel.