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.

freshwaterfisheries and oceansenvironment and climate

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

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm delighted with my colleague's motion. Being a Montreal native myself, I grew up near the river and am aware of its importance. All Quebeckers agree that the river is a true gem and that this study is an important step toward protecting this Quebec jewel, among other things. In recent decades, much has been done to protect our rivers, streams and lakes, as a result of which I've seen increasing numbers of beaches previously forced to close opening up again.

I'm also concerned about certain problems, and I would like to know what else can be done. We can't deny that it's our responsibility to leave our children healthier aquatic environments than what we have now. That's our duty, which is why this study it is so important.

Being a Montreal native, I witnessed the dumping of wastewater into the river in 2015, although it actually started in 2014. This is a concern for all Quebeckers, particularly those living along the river.

I know that it's for Quebec to decide, but I'd like to know what would have happened if the City of Montreal hadn't received that authorization in 2015. What were the issues?

Translated

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Pardon me; I have a point of order.

Translated

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Yes, I don't understand what we're doing here.

Translated

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We are debating a motion.

Translated

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

We're debating a motion, but the witnesses are here.

Translated

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Yes, because debate might raise some questions.

I would like to point out that an authorization in 2015 has been mentioned twice, but from what I understand from Ms. Blais, it wasn't an authorization.

Translated

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

My question concerns the Government of Quebec. As I understand it, Quebec's environment ministry gave the City of Montreal that authorization.

Was that in fact the case?

Translated

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I don't know. Perhaps Ms. Blais could answer the question.

Translated

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

Whatever the case may be, the City of Montreal had options, such as repairing the infrastructure network. I'd like to get a clear understanding of the circumstances. Montrealers and everyone living along the river may not understand either.

Would you please tell us more about that, Ms. Blais?

Translated

12:20 p.m.

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

Caroline Blais

Of course.

Going back to 2015, I'll start with the part about the Quebec government's authorization.

Yes, the City of Montreal was in possession at the time of permits issued by the provincial government. That was 10 years ago, and the federal regulations had been in force for only a few months. It wasn't yet clear to the municipalities that they had to contact the federal government to acquaint themselves with the regulations.

A stop-work order had been issued so the federal government could form a clear idea of what was going on in Montreal.

Translated

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is this—

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Yes, this is extremely relevant, Mr. Mazier, to Mr. Deltell's motion, and I'm going to listen to Madam Blais.

As spoken

12:20 p.m.

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

Caroline Blais

The other part of the question concerns what happened and the city's choices. The City of Montreal had some work to do because the pipes where all the sewers converged were damaged. A lot of debris had built up and the city had to discharge water in order to clear the pipes and remove the debris.

The city had its works planned at the time, had all the necessary labour and equipment and was able, for example, to control the number of days to be allocated to the work. Failure to perform that work would have been risky because any breakage would have resulted in a spill in any case, and the city wouldn't know how much time was needed and wouldn't necessarily have the required equipment.

As regards the third part of the question, the final order, which the government issued under section 31 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, included conditions that the City of Montreal had to meet if it decided to proceed with the discharge. It wasn't an authorization to proceed with the discharge.

Translated

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Please continue, Ms. Chatel.

Translated

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

The department amended the waste-water regulations to permit certain repairs to the sewers, as you mentioned.

Would you please explain the reasons for the amendments to the regulations and the current state of those amendments?

Translated

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

We are supposed to be debating the motion and whether we want to have the motion or not. If we're all in violent agreement, let's have a vote on it and let's continue with interviewing our witnesses who are here today.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Well, I think—

As spoken

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

It doesn't matter if it's relevant or not. This is a committee discussion.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Yes, but when we're discussing a motion, there is no time limit. Madame Chatel can take—

As spoken

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

We're supposed to talk amongst committee members, not with witnesses who happen to be here from the street.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I think the witnesses can enable us to make a more informed and enlightened decision. This is why I want them to stay.

Is this a point of order?

As spoken

Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

It's in response to that.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Well, I don't think I can entertain a response to Mr. Mazier's point of order.

It's your right to raise a point of order, Mr. Mazier. I acknowledge that.

Madame Chatel, could you finish with Madam Blais? Then, we have Mr. Mazier, Mr. Bachrach, Madame Pauzé and so on.

As spoken

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I still have a question. I'm asking my colleagues for a little patience. I want to make sure I really understand the nature of the motion that's been introduced.

I'd like to know whether, since that incident in 2015—

Translated

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

I have a point of order.

As spoken