Environment Committee on Nov. 21st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Hello everyone.

Welcome, Ms. Vien. I hope you are going to like the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Our work is very interesting, as you will see.

We are starting a study on federal freshwater policy. Today we have two panels of witnesses. I would first like to point out, for Ms. Pauzé in particular, that all witnesses in the first group who are with us virtually have passed the sound quality tests.

We have with us in person Alexandre Lillo, who is a law professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

Mr. Lillo, thank you for being here. We are very happy to have you.

We also have with us, online, from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, executive director Jesse Zeman; the founder of The EcoAmbassador—non-profit, I assume—Ms. Luxmy Begum; and from Wildsight, which is another NGO, Wyatt Petryshen, science policy adviser.

Each witness will have a five-minute opening statement. Then we'll proceed to a couple of rounds of questioning. I hope we can get in two rounds. Actually, I guess it's going to be one round.

We are going to start with Professor Lillo.

I have Mr. Bachrach.

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

Before we begin the testimony, I wonder if we could just briefly discuss the committee business that's set for the end of the meeting. I think we're set to go to 1:30 and I believe some members have other commitments at one o'clock. I wonder if we could break 10 minutes earlier for committee business at 12:50 and have a very short committee business session so that we can still get out of here at one o'clock, or if we could postpone the committee business to another meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's up to the committee to decide. Why don't you table a motion?

What's your motion?

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

I move that we adjourn to committee business at 12:50. It reduces our meeting....

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Put up your hand if you agree.

Who doesn't agree?

(Motion adopted)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So we will do what was proposed.

In the circumstances, since we are losing time, I think—

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

Are we breaking at 12:50, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, at 12:50 to do future business, but we're losing time on the study. We're going to try to make it up somehow.

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

Mr. Chair, what are we doing with the first...? Are there two rounds on the first round?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll see how it goes. I doubt that there will be two rounds, because we have opening statements.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll start with Professor Lillo for five minutes, please.

[Alexandre Lillo, Law Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.

My name is Alexandre Lillo and I am a professor in the law department of the Université du Québec à Montréal. My specific expertise is in legal and water governance issues, which I have been working on for 10 years now. I actually did my doctorate and my postdoctoral studies at the University of Ottawa, so it is a pleasure to be back in the region. I do not know whether there are any Pokémon fans here, but I feel like a Squirtl who has come back to Kanto.

Members of the committee, joking aside, we are at a crossroads. Water-related problems have never been as frequent, intense and complex. This is a fact. While water governance tools have not yet been adapted to grasp the implications of these problems, we are living in a time of political and legal transformation that has not been seen in Canada for almost 50 years. The creation of the Canada Water Agency, the implementation of the freshwater action plan, and the modernization of the Canada Water Act are all initiatives that may make it possible to remodel the legal and political water governance landscape.

There is no guarantee that we will win this battle, however, and it will be crucial that we leave the beaten path. Today, I want to draw your attention not only to the importance of a coordinated approach as between the orders of government, but also to the role of the federal government within that approach.

From the beginning of your freshwater study, you have observed the full range of the issues and actors involved with water. The difficulty, you will agree, is that we are dealing with a situation with thoroughgoing transboundary, intersectoral and interagency aspects. For those reasons, coordinated intergovernment action is unavoidable if we want to fully understand these mounting challenges. On that point, a Canada-wide effort would be particularly desirable if we want to be equipped, collectively, to manage water everywhere in the country in a spirit of cooperative federalism.

In addition, I believe that intergovernment cooperation in respect of water should be a reflection of several transformative considerations. First, it should allow for decisions made by non-governmental actors present on the ground to be implemented. This cooperation should also enable us to imagine the possibility of a representation of water as an autonomous entity, as a fully-fledged actor in itself: water influences our ways of life and our ways of doing things, just as we influence its nature and composition. And this cooperation should enable us to seize the opportunity to take a step forward in the process of reconciliation with the first nations, both by incorporating an indigenous representation and by applying their governance modes.

It is from this perspective that the federal government plays an essential role. Of course, the federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction over a subject matter as vast as water, although water does have a significant intergovernmental dimension. On the other hand, the federal government is the only order of government capable of catalyzing a dynamic of intergovernment cooperation everywhere in Canada, an undertaking that the provinces alone could not accomplish. Its role is therefore to initiate action in this area, but also to facilitate the adoption of a common approach and coordinate the implementation of that approach.

It must be noted that there are legal strategies to support Canada-wide management of water. Examples are administrative interdelegation or bilateral agreements. However, their existence is not sufficient in itself. They must be accompanied by human, financial and material resources and by strong political will, which is an essential element. This will not be an easy task, but Canadian federalism allows us to imagine a cooperation model that is both harmonized and capable of preserving regional diversity and richness. In fact, it is somewhat ironic to say that these considerations are not new in themselves. There were structuring reports on water law and governance in Canada that were already calling for this over 50 years ago. What is new, however, is the context: a context of urgency in the face of problems that are increasingly acute, but also a context of opportunity in which the profile of the law and governance of water are undergoing rapid change.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Professor Lillo.

We will now go to Mr. Zeman, who is the executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

[Jesse Zeman, Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation]

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to be a witness.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation is British Columbia's leading conservation organization. We're also the largest and oldest conservation organization, with over 41,000 members and 100 clubs across the province.

As it relates to fish, watersheds and wetlands, our clubs and members put hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours and dollars into conducting wetland fish habitat restoration across the province and advocating legislative, regulatory and policy changes for a future that includes healthy watersheds and vibrant fish populations.

Over the past two years, in the world of fish, water and wetlands, the B.C. Wildlife Federation has delivered over 100 projects totalling over $5.5 million while partnering with over 49 first nations communities. Since 2021, we've delivered over 230 projects and over $10 million worth of on-the-ground restoration. Our partners include first nations, ENGOs, local communities, private landholders, the Government of Canada and the Province of B.C.

In British Columbia, spring freshet comes earlier and it's happening faster, which means floods, erosion, sedimentation and sometimes even landslides. In the summers we have watersheds with chronic low flows, rivers that are too hot to support native species and, of course, catastrophic wildfires. Wildfires only exacerbate future issues with sustainable watersheds in subsequent years and decades. To make the point, this summer the Province of British Columbia declared a state of emergency, as did a number of its communities across the province, for drought and wildfire. Nearly 80% of B.C.'s water basins were in level four or five drought. It's now November, and we still have communities affected by this summer's drought and at least two communities still in a state of local emergency as of yesterday. Two years ago at this exact same time, we were dealing with the atmospheric river, which was the most costly weather event in B.C.'s history.

As it relates to taking care of our watershed, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Today I'm going to touch on two topics: funding and regulation.

On funding, the environment, including water, is the first thing to get cut during an economic downturn and the last thing to receive a bump when the economy is strong. Our fish and watersheds operate on time scales of years, decades and centuries, not four-year cycles when—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Just a moment, please. We'll pause.

Ms. Pauzé would like to say something.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think there is a problem with the microphone, because the interpreter is no longer able to do their work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm wondering if it's the placement of the mike. Should it be higher or lower? Can we find out what the problem is?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The interpreter says the sound is not clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could you lower your boom? Can we just test it?

[Jesse Zeman]

Is this helpful? Is it a better placement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, it doesn't seem to be good. It passed the sound test, though.

Maybe we'll go to Dr. Begum, and we'll come back to you, please, Mr. Zeman. I don't know how we'll solve the problem. Maybe the technicians will do another sound test.

We were at 2:28. I'm sorry; I apologize, but we have to protect the health and safety of the interpreters.

Dr. Begum, can we go to you for five minutes?

[Dr. Luxmy Begum, Founder, The EcoAmbassador]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for inviting me to this committee meeting.

I'm Luxmy Begum, and I'm here today as an individual expert to share my knowledge and perspective.

I have more than 20 years of experience in the water, waste water and waste management sectors. I have worked for the federal government, the provincial government and several major consulting engineering firms in Ontario. My experience includes water and waste-water treatment plant updates, technology selection, program development and project delivery.

I'm also the founder of TheEcoAmbassador.com, whose focus is to create environmental protection and prevention awareness. I am also an active member of the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association and the Water Environment Association of Ontario.

The focus of my statement today is different contaminants of emerging concern found in waste water and biosolids. A detailed brief was submitted to this committee earlier regarding this study, outlining those contaminants along with their available removal technologies. Today I will leave out those technical parts and go directly to the findings and suggestions regarding them.

The different groups of contaminants in waste water and biosolids that are getting recent attention are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS; pharmaceuticals and personal care products; microplastics; and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The removal of these contaminants from source water and waste water is a necessity, as they may have a considerable effect on the biophysical environment and living organisms, depending on their concentration.

These contaminants generally cannot be successfully eliminated by conventional treatment methods. Advanced treatment technologies, sometimes in combination, are required to remove them to some extent, depending on the contaminants and their concentration. A multiple barrier approach is more effective than a single advanced technology for their elimination.

Usually, these treatment technologies are expensive, with higher capital and operating costs, and are complex to operate. Upgrading existing treatment plants with advanced technologies will require extensive capital and operating costs. In such cases, the focus should be shifted to source control and product elimination or replacement with suitable alternative products that are not leaking those contaminants.

Polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS—also known as “forever chemicals”, due to their long-lasting chemical bond—are a group of more than 12,000 chemicals that are raising concerns due to their potential hazard to human health and the environment. PFAS are used in different consumer and industrial products and are ubiquitous in nature, as they can enter the environment via many different pathways in air, water and land.

PFAS have been detected in waste water and biosolids too, because of their widespread nature, which raises concerns about biosolids' suitability for land application. As PFAS are mainly a chemical compound commonly used in many different consumer products, they end up in trace amounts in waste water, biosolids and other residuals. If the treatment plant receives PFAS-contaminated sewage in the collection system from nearby sources, such as industry, the concentration of PFAS in sewage and sludge will be much higher than the ambient concentration.

Many areas have implemented industrial pre-treatment, such as Michigan in the U.S.A., and thus prevented those contaminants from entering the environment and waste-water treatment plants in a high concentration.

Currently there is extensive research going on regarding PFAS—their quantification protocol, detection limit, exposure impacts and health risks—among various research and scientific committees. Regulators and decision-makers should closely follow those research and scientific findings and make them the basis of their law and enforcement tools.

So far, source reduction of PFAS compounds and phasing out their usage were the most efficient in reducing risks and potential concerns related to PFAS in waste water and biosolids.

Recent research also found that levels of PFAS in rainwater sometimes exceed levels deemed safe by different health and environmental advisory agencies. PFAS can travel through rainwater, potentially contaminating water sources around the world. In such a case, a global agreement on source control and product elimination is a must.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Petryshen from Wildsight for five minutes, please.

[Wyatt Petryshen, Science Policy Advisor, Wildsight]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

As you said, my name is Wyatt Petryshen. I'm currently the science policy adviser for Wildsight, a volunteer position that I've held since the fall of this year, and this precedes my role as Wildsight's planning, policy and impacts researcher.

Before beginning, I do want to thank the committee for accommodating my ability to appear virtually from New Haven, Connecticut.

Within the Elk Valley of southeastern British Columbia, coal mining has occurred for over 100 years. Initially operating as underground mines, in the later part of the 20th century, these mines have transitioned into the large mountaintop-removal coal mines we see today. They have become a major supplier of high-grade steel-making coal to Asia-Pacific countries. Overshadowing the expansion of mountaintop-removal coal mines in the Elk Valley, with current production estimates between 26.5 million and 28.7 million short tons of coal annually, has been the worsening water quality that threatens other aspects of the economy, ways of life and watershed security.

From 1985 to 2022, selenium concentrations have increased by 443%, nitrates by 697% and sulfates by 129% in the Elk River at Highway 93. This is at a federal-provincial monitoring station located approximately 74 kilometres downstream from the nearest coal mines. Selenium is known to cause reproductive failure in fish, which can lead to the collapse of freshwater ecosystems. Contamination released from these mines has become a chronic problem, as exceedances occur frequently to British Columbia's water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic health and for drinking water.

Through the almost three decades of known selenium contamination leaching into the watershed, numerous task forces and panels have failed to take meaningful action to solve the problem, which has occurred alongside the worsening water quality and coal mine expansion. The Auditor General of British Columbia's May 2016 report, entitled “An Audit of Compliance and Enforcement of the Mining Sector”, provides a succinct summary of this history.

We are currently at a crossroads in the management of water resources in Canada. We acknowledge the critical importance of clean water both for society and within ecosystems, but we've typically followed a path that maintains the status quo that is endangering these resources in the first place.

Wildsight has been actively engaged with the federal government on the creation of the proposed coal mining effluent regulations, which we believe is a positive step in helping to remedy the contamination crisis unfolding in the Elk Valley. However, these regulations have not yet been released. Furthermore, action by the Province of British Columbia under Ministerial Order No. M113, requiring Teck Resources to stabilize and reduce contamination entering the watershed, has been an abject failure, amplifying the ineffectiveness of provincial and federal fines to force the mines into compliance. The sale of Teck Resources coal mining business to Glencore may likely worsen the situation.

To remedy these concerns, Wildsight is recommending to this committee that the implementation of co-governance frameworks is one of the best tools that can be collectively deployed to address the ongoing mismanagement of water resources in both the Elk Valley and beyond. Co-governance frameworks would enable decision-making to be shared across all levels of government, local communities, and first nations, encompassing entire ecological systems and thereby providing the structure required for effective management, monitoring and prioritization of local objectives that rely on direct community involvement, but also inclusion of the nation-state to supplement capacity and provide the tools required to address multi-faceted issues.

Furthermore, watershed-scale co-governance is the only framework whereby diverse value systems can be brought together to support pluralistic decision-making. Traditionally, resource extraction has superseded other values in the Elk Valley, but under a co-governance framework, decisions can be made to support a diverse set of stakeholder values, like watershed security, ecological intactness and sustainable development, which in the past have been marginalized.

Actionable items by the Canadian government include the immediate formation of indigenous-led watershed boards for watersheds along transboundary regions and the development of similar co-government structures elsewhere in Canada.

Furthermore, the federal government needs to move to finalize the proposed coal mining effluent regulations and ensure that federal agencies undertake strict enforcement action for industries that are in non-compliance with Canada's existing laws that protect water resources and aquatic health.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'll be happy to answer any questions.