Evidence of meeting #82 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 infrastructure.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry. I was just speaking to Madam Chatel about the speaking order.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
On a point of order, I am wondering about the relevance of rural broadband to a water study.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
He's making a parallel, trying to find out whether the same model can be used.
Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think I have 30 seconds left.
I'm looking at partnering on infrastructure projects, as we do with rural broadband. We've had good success there. There might be an opportunity to run similar programs for water.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
That' s the end of our productive discussion with our first group of witnesses. I' d like to thank them, because they provided a lot of information for our report. I also thank them for coming.
We're going to suspend the meeting for a few moments so that we can welcome our next group of witnesses.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I call the meeting back to order.
I'd like to welcome the four witnesses for the second half of today's meeting. Those attending virtually successfully completed the required sound test. I would ask that each witness not exceed five minutes for their opening address.
Professor Barbeau, appearing virtually, you have the floor.
12:10 p.m.
Benoit Barbeau Full Professor, Polytechnique Montréal, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To briefly introduce myself, I've been a professor at the Polytechnique since 2004, co‑chairing a drinking water research chair, and the director of CREDEAU, the Centre for research, development and validation of water technologies. Given my background, I would like to share with the committee my views on major water processing concerns in Canada.
When I was studying in the 1990s at the Polytechnique Montréal, water treatment projects consisted of attempting to meet the standards and coming up with projects that cost as little as possible. Today, we have new performance criteria for projects, which must not only be resilient, but also sustainable.
What do we mean by resilience? It's the capacity of infrastructure to continue to perform under unexpected conditions, whether in terms of the quality or flow of water.
Sustainability requires solutions that go beyond cost to factor in other aspects, like social acceptability and permanence. It also needs to take pollution into account, because one of the great paradoxes of my work is that in order to remove pollution from water, I have to pollute it, consume energy, use chemicals, and factor in all the side effects of my solutions.
These days, it's particularly difficult to achieve all these goals, because the system has too many limitations.
Among other things, I'd like to speak to you briefly about the challenges of climate change, and the challenges of emerging contaminants.
Climate change is, of course, a subject that you have heard about. Extreme climate events are becoming increasingly frequent. What you may not know is that historically, when there are extreme events, the risks of an epidemic caused by drinking water are higher.
Historically, we've seen what has happened in the past when water-related infrastructures have been designed without enough consideration given to the future. In Canada, we need to start reviewing our design criteria, with due regard not only for past information, but also by preparing for the future, which is admittedly difficult.
Canada is experiencing droughts and water shortages. Even in Quebec, which has 500,000 lakes, I am working on projects for municipalities that are having trouble getting access to water.
This summer, there were major forest fires that will have an impact on surface water quality by affecting the flows of nutrients and requiring cleaning up all the ash that will ultimately make its way into our waterways.
We heard about another issue this morning, the huge challenge of emerging micro-pollutants of concern. I would focus particularly on perfluorinated compounds, which have been getting a lot of attention in the media. The industry has been overwhelmed as a result of the new recommended thresholds for the concentration of perfluorinated compounds in drinking water, because it it involves a major change in the paradigm. Unfortunately, eliminating these compounds from drinking water or wastewater is not easy. The existing infrastructures for treating drinking water and wastewater can't effectively eliminate perfluorinated compounds.
The important question for us is whether we should address this problem by improving wastewater treatment, enhancing drinking water treatment, or both at the same time, with due regard, of course, to the costs involved. The bad news for you this morning, unfortunately, is that the major investments currently set aside in Canada to enhance wastewater treatment does not address the challenges of emerging micro-pollutants of concern, including perfluorinated compounds.
Canada is lagging so far behind that there is still a lot to do in other areas, such as eliminating nutrients. We have not yet got…
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
thank you, Professor Barbeau, for your interesting testimony.
Mr. Haller, from the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.
November 2nd, 2023 / 12:20 p.m.
Robert Haller Executive Director, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.
Thank you for inviting us here today.
My name is Robert Haller. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association. We are the national voice of the municipal water sector.
With me here today is Mr. Hiran Sandanayake, the chair of our climate change committee. He's a perfect example of my membership. He is a professional utility water leader who has dedicated his career to ensuring safe drinking water for his customers and then collecting that water back and releasing it to the environment to ensure that we protect the health and economy of every community.
Water and waste water is the most critical service we provide to every community. You can't have hospitals, grocery stores, factories or homes without that water.
Traditionally, our realm has been within an engineering circle. We pipe water from the river or lake, get it to a treatment plant, make sure it's safe to drink and get it to your home safely. We collect it when you're done and you flush it. We take it back to a plant, take out the biosolids, treat the liquids and put it back into the environment.
More and more we're looking at a larger picture here. We have to look outside of our cycle at our source water, for both quantity as far as drought, and for quality, which includes things like algal blooms, which are concerning to all of us.
Legislatively, water and waste water is typically provincially run. That's handed off to the municipal level. That's us. We are also regulated and created by the provincial level, but the federal government's playing a larger role in our sector.
In 2021, we made a submission to this committee that clearly outlined all the work we're doing with every single department of the federal government that we work with. My report listed some 18-plus federal departments and agencies working on water.
We work most closely with Health Canada on the development of the drinking water guidelines for things like lead, manganese and now PFAS. We work with Public Safety Canada on flood risk and cybersecurity. We're working with Environment and Climate Change Canada on things like the waste-water effluent regulations, microplastics and so forth.
This is where I put in a plug for what I call product stewardship over treatment. We can't keep allowing products that are full of plastics and chemicals to enter our sewer systems. Companies unilaterally label their products as flushable, but they ruin our pipes and systems. They cause fatbergs that cause dangerous overflows into our communities, and they add more microplastics to our biosolids and the river. We need federal support to create an enforceable standard in Canada for what is legally labelled as “flushable”.
As for those 20-plus departments and agencies, we've been advocating for many years, asking that the federal government work closely together. I understand that is one of the goals of this committee and I commend you for that effort.
It's also our greatest hope for the Canada water agency. As we were developing that agency, I was one of the advisers who just kept saying, “Let's get started.” We can't wait until it's perfect. We can't wait until everyone is happy. Let's get it started.
First, start with the federal government. Job one is to get all of those departments and agencies working more closely towards common goals.
Job two is to create a central repository where we can collect all of the information they have and share it across Canada. The provinces and other partners can come in as they please.
One of our strongest jobs is advocating to Infrastructure Canada to tell them how critical our need for financial support is to address aging infrastructure and to implement what all the other federal departments need of us. Our major point of concern is the massive cost of maintaining and replacing our infrastructure. You all know that we own most of the infrastructure in Canada, but we get less than 10% of the access to the tax revenues we need.
We're told to be self-sufficient through our rates, but then we're told that access to safe water is a human right. What does that mean?
We're called upon to replace our infrastructure, expand for population growth and plan for climate change, but then we have to keep everything affordable to the consumer.
We need sustainable and reliable funding to do what we need to do. We're looking forward to a renewed Canada infrastructure plan. We support new regulations, but they always come at a huge cost to us. We need Environment Canada talking to Infrastructure Canada when they introduce costly new regulations to us.
Regardless of the cost, we have concerns with the narrow focus of the effluent regulations and the lack of flexibility available to the minister and the ministry to look at local situations to maybe look at a bigger picture and figure out how we could have a larger impact with the same investment—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm going to have to stop you there, Mr. Haller. I'm sure there will be many questions.
We'll go now to Ms. Woodhouse, program manager, freshwater and Great Lakes protections at Environmental Defence Canada, for five minutes, please.
12:25 p.m.
Michelle Woodhouse Program Manager, Freshwater and Great Lakes Protections, Environmental Defence Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to speak today.
I am Michelle Woodhouse, water program manager at Environmental Defence.
Environmental Defence is a leading Canadian environmental advocacy organization that works with government, civil society groups and our supporters to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities.
I am of Métis nation and British Canadian ancestry and a long-time Great Lakes advocate and water protector.
I also hold a master's degree from Toronto Metropolitan University, where I focused my studies on freshwater protection and governance.
Today I will be focusing my comments on two of the biggest threats facing the Great Lakes: harmful algal blooms, which are caused by nutrient pollution, threaten both environmental and human health and have become an annual occurrence in Lake Erie; as well as the ongoing operation of Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline, which crosses the Great Lakes at the Straits of Mackinac and runs through the broader watershed.
Let’s start with harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie.
Agricultural activities are the most significant source of nutrient pollution in Lake Erie. Fertilizers, nutrient-rich waste water or animal waste end up on the land and get washed into the lake, where they feed algae instead of crops. While there are farm-level interventions available to reduce nutrient runoff, voluntary uptake is fragmented and inadequate. There is also a conflict of interest whereby privately hired crop advisers, who work for fertilizer companies and have an incentive to sell more fertilizer, are farmers’ main source of information on how much fertilizer needs to be applied.
To address the threat posed by algal blooms in Lake Erie and other freshwater bodies across the country, we are recommending that the federal government work with provinces to fund independent, certified agronomists and soil testing experts to reduce over-application of fertilizers on agricultural lands.
Second, we recommend that the federal government conduct publicly available studies on fertilizer use and disposal within large greenhouse operations and for commodity crops, such as corn, soy and winter wheat.
Third is that they fund direct subsidies and crop insurance to support farmers as they transition to new, lower-input growing practices, which may require some trial and error to get right.
Fourth is increase funding to farms for cost-sharing programs that support the implementation of best management practices.
This combination of research and federally funded programming has the potential to significantly reduce nutrient pollution and help restore our fresh waters.
Now I'll go on to another threat to Canada’s fresh waters, Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline. Line 5 is a dangerous, 70-year-old pipeline that has already spilled at least 4.5 million litres of oil in its lifetime. As I already mentioned, the pipeline crosses through the heart of the Great Lakes at the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet, a place that, due to its location further upstream in the Great Lakes and the speed and flow of waters, is said to be one of the worst possible places in the world for an oil spill to occur.
It is also at the heart of several legal battles between states, indigenous tribes and Enbridge. Canada has intervened in all of these cases, using a questionable interpretation of a dormant and outdated pipeline treaty that fails to include indigenous rights and title holders. I would hope that such a treaty would never be drafted today without the inclusion of indigenous nations.
Models have shown that a Line 5 pipeline rupture into the Great Lakes would be devastating. It would have far-reaching ecological, social and economic impacts on U.S. and Canadian waters and people and existentially devastating impacts on the indigenous nations of the Great Lakes. The risk of a spill is not imagined. The pipeline has already spilled 29 times. A spill could engulf 1,100 kilometres or more of shoreline, causing billions in economic damage, priceless losses in ecological devastation and would see Canadian shorelines such as Manitoulin Island and Bruce Peninsula offered up as sacrifice zones.
Numerous safety violations have already occurred, including anchor incidents, one of which was a strike in the busy shipping corridor of the Straits of Mackinac. Just this past spring, alarming levels of erosion brought the pipeline close to a fast-moving river on the territory of the Bad River band of the Lake Superior Chippewa tribe in Wisconsin.
Several economic and logistical analyses have demonstrated that we do not need this pipeline to meet our energy needs in the region. This includes a report released just last week by PLG Consulting, an industry leader in oil and gas logistics and supply chains. Its report confirmed what others have said before, that existing infrastructure can accommodate the majority of a Line 5 closure without causing major price spikes at the pumps or job losses.
In order to address the threat posed by the Line 5 pipeline, Canada needs to revoke its use of the 1977 pipeline treaty and work with the United States, other states, tribes, Michigan and Enbridge to implement a smooth and permanent pipeline closure.
The Great Lakes account for 21% of the world's available surface fresh water and 84% of North America's. In this region we have extreme freshwater privilege and we have an important responsibility to protect these water bodies.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
I'm going to have to stop you there.
We'll go to Mr. Ryckman from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
12:30 p.m.
Mark Ryckman Manager of Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Mark Ryckman. I'm the manager of policy with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
The OFAH is the largest non-profit conservation-based fish and wildlife organization in Ontario. We have 100,000 members, supporters and subscribers, and 725 member clubs. We strive to ensure the protection of our hunting and fishing heritage, encourage safe and responsible participation, and champion the conservation of Ontario's fish and wildlife resources.
Of particular relevance is our interest in the management of freshwater fisheries, conservation of aquatic habitats, aquatic species at risk and aquatic invasive species, or AIS. Our team of biologists conducts technical analysis and responds to environmental and fisheries-related legislation, and we coordinate several programs that benefit fish conservation.
For example, for more than 30 years Ontario's invading species awareness program has been a leader in engaging with Ontarians on aquatic invasive species, addressing key pathways contributing to introductions and spread and facilitating monitoring and early detection initiatives. For the last decade, ISAP has partnered with the DFO's Asian carp program and aquatic invasive species prevention fund to deliver a comprehensive outreach campaign for grass carp, high-risk AIS and coordinated AIS messaging.
We are also leading the Lake Ontario Atlantic salmon restoration program. The Lake Ontario population of Atlantic salmon disappeared in the late 1800s due to overfishing, habitat destruction and ecological changes in Lake Ontario. Since 2006, the OFAH and the Ontario government, along with 40 partner organizations, have been working to correct this historic wrong.
The program has four components: fish production and stocking, water quality and habitat enhancement, outreach and education, and research and monitoring. In the past, the program has received funding through DFO's recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program.
We also coordinate the community hatchery program, which supports volunteer-run fish hatcheries that raise and stock fish in public waters. In 2022, over 1,000 volunteers at 35 community-based hatcheries contributed over 73,000 volunteer hours and stocked eight million fish in Ontario waters.
Ontario is home to over 250,000 lakes, countless rivers and streams, and four of the five Laurentian Great Lakes. These water bodies are home to an incredible diversity of fish species, which provide food and support the social, cultural and economic well-being of individuals and communities.
Ontario's 1.4 million licensed anglers contribute $2.2 billion to the provincial economy every year. Across the country, three million people fish, and in 2018, $10 billion was spent on fishing alone. This spending contributed $7 billion to the total GDP, supported an estimated 58,000 jobs across the country and generated $3.5 billion in labour income.
As impressive as those numbers are, they pale in comparison to the intangible values. Recreational fishing is deeply rooted in Canadian culture and tradition. It enhances quality of life, creates a connection to nature and is associated with multiple mental, physical and nutritional health benefits. Healthy fisheries also play a key role in the culture and food security for indigenous peoples across the country.
However, these values are under threat. Healthy and sustainable recreational fisheries are dependent on healthy and sustainable freshwater resources. Development is destroying fish habitat; pollutants like phosphorus are causing harmful algal blooms and massive fish die-offs; contaminants are driving warnings about consuming fish; aquatic invasive species are displacing native species and altering ecosystem function; and microplastics are being increasingly found in fresh water and the fish that rely on it. That is not to mention that climate change is threatening to reorganize entire fish communities across Canada.
Our broad mandate means we interact with all levels of government. At the federal level we interact with DFO and Parks Canada, as well as ECCC and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Some recent examples include our involvement in the modernization of the Fisheries Act and the ongoing consultations related to the fish and fish habitat protection program, as well as our engagement with Parks Canada on proposals for national marine conservation areas.
We look forward to working with the federal government and the Canada water agency to find the best ways to keep our water safe, clean and well managed.
Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone, and a special welcome to Professor Barbeau of the Polytechnique in Montreal. Welcome to Canada's Parliament.
I will start by asking Mr. Haller some questions.
Thank you so much for your testimony.
I want to address the issue of more efficiency. You raised that in your comments.
I'd like to quote the French version of what you have told us. Your French was very good, by the way I'd like to congratulate you on it. In your address, you said that “Job One should be to get all of the 20 plus federal agencies working more closely together toward common goals.”
Without wishing to make any stupid puns, the mere fact that there are 20 such organizations no doubt dilutes their effectiveness. What should be done to reduce the number of government organizations dealing with water in order to provide more effective protection?
12:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association
We're dealing with Health Canada on the regulations, on setting the guidelines for the drinking water. Then we're dealing with Environment Canada on what we release, with part of Public Safety Canada on cybersecurity, with another agency on the flood risk. We're dealing with Agriculture Canada. We're dealing with biosolids with CCME, and there are so many others.
We deal with international boundaries and borders and what we're putting into that. We deal with the joint commission group. It's endless how many we really deal with. Now we've been dealing with the Competition Bureau on flushable wipes, and the industry ministry.
We work with trade commissioners on trying to promote Canadian innovation around the world. We work with SDTC in the development of those. We have an idea for turning the Canada Infrastructure Bank...and using some of that as what I call an innovation insurance that could back up municipalities, help us solve our problems, while also promoting Canadian innovation.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
To what extent does your interaction with so many federal agencies delay the measures you would like to take to protect our waters in Canada?
12:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association
We work very closely with each of them. We have relationships with all of them. They know to go to us as the municipal partners, but sometimes it seems they're not talking to each other, as we say.
In the effluent regulations or the lead guidelines, they come at great costs. There was nothing in the budget, no infrastructure money, no priority setting for the effluent regulations. While the infrastructure plan did identify water, and we were very pleased with how much was set aside for water in the Canadian infrastructure plan, there was nothing specific to say that if you're trying to meet those federal regulations, you can go to this funding and you move to the front of the line. When we introduced lead, that came at a cost, and we were trying to work with Health Canada and Infrastructure Canada on the funding. There are so many other things that the federal government could have done.
We've been asking for a parliamentary secretary for water—or some other body. We're hoping to see that come out of the Canada water agency. We hope to get those groups all talking together through a federal body.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Is it less paperwork, less red tape, less gatekeeper...?
12:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association
It's not about the paperwork as much as the impact that one has, and the other has, and the other has. If they're not talking to each other, they don't know the cumulative impact on a community, and at the end of the day, there's no financing set aside to help us implement that. I've been to so many meetings and round tables with experts from the federal government, provincial government and academics deciding what municipalities should do, but rarely is the municipality there to say how much this is going to cost.