Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sincerely grateful to all the witnesses here today for providing expert opinions and information. It's not just opinions, certainly. This is data and evidence. I really appreciate you coming all this way or appearing virtually.

My first question is on the Canada water agency and it's for Mr. Brandes.

I read one of your articles in Policy Options regarding implementation. Granted, it was written quite a few years ago. I perked up a bit when you talked about how the water crisis is fundamentally a climate change issue and that the things we put into the air ultimately end up in water systems.

I read the section on data collection. I always reflect on how lucky we are in Ontario to have conservation authorities that gather data and do science locally across our entire province. I think it is a model that could be repeated across the other 12 jurisdictions in Canada, which don't have the same historical benefit. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20, but conservation authorities do good work. When I award funding in my riding to a group that's going to do great environmental science, 99% of the time it's to our great conservation authority.

Out in B.C. and across the country, are there other examples of ways we might be able to stand up—perhaps through the Canada water agency—organizations that could do similar science?

[Oliver Brandes]

That's a great question.

I know conservation authorities well, since I grew up in the Ontario area and studied them in quite a bit of detail. What they represent in terms of value is local capacity. That manifests very differently in different parts of the country. I think you're right to recognize that this is how you get to water solutions. You have issues like climate change that feel like a national or broad problem, but it shows up in the water—and in very specific ways.

We talked a lot in today's panel about technology. Well, technology is often to fix a problem that has occurred. It is exponentially cheaper to avoid the problem. To know about avoiding the problem, you have to understand the patient, as it were. We have to understand the water bodies, how they are operating and who's using how much. That kind of science and technology are required, and you have to build them on this foundation of understanding the local conditions, needs and impacts.

You're very correct to say that local bodies are going to be the best ones to do that. It might be conservation authorities, as you understand, but there are many different examples. In B.C., we have a thing called the Cowichan Watershed Board. I can give you a big, long list. You don't need to hear that. The point is that we need this. You need the Canada water agency to tee up to target those investments and maximize them. There are some things that, when learned in one place, can be applied in many. There are other things that we have to fine-tune based on the local conditions and requirements, the aquifer mapping, the environmental flow regime, etc., which are quite distinct.

You have to marry the general knowledge with the very specific to have maximum impact.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Brandes.

You mentioned that there would be a list of other organizations. In addition to submitting that to the committee for this study's purpose, it would be great if you could also send your wish list on what the Canada water agency ought to do. I know you've been looking into this for a very long time. This committee works very well because we have great experts to rely on for that expertise, so please feel free to submit a wish list, in terms of the list of organizations that might be useful, in addition to the conservation authorities.

Do I have any more time, Mr. Chair?

[Le président, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No. Your speaking time is up.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

That's all. Thanks very much, Mr. Brandes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now giving the floor to Ms. Pauzé for two minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm going to ask Ms. Gomez and Mr. Brandes the same question.

Mr. Brandes, as I mentioned earlier, I met you at Massey College in the fall. In your remarks, you said that the Canada Water Agency had some recommendations for dealing with the national climate crisis by identifying vulnerabilities and promoting mitigation and adaptation measures for flooding and droughts, as well as for reducing pollution.

The mandate seems to have been drawn up by the Agency itself, because we, the elected representatives, didn't have any input. Many witnesses have appeared before us and they all want to put their own stamp on what the Canada Water Agency should be doing. That might be an interesting approach. For the time being, many see water as a driver of economic prosperity and job creation. And yet, when you spoke about prevention, it really caught my attention.

Are you unperturbed about the fact that no policy process was implemented to specify the key objectives and principles of the Canada Water Agency prior to its establishment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please be brief so that you can both answer the question.

[Oliver Brandes]

My quick answer is that the federal government has a very distinct and strong role in dealing with water because it cross-cuts all of the many issues we talked about. The Canada water agency is one way to organize.

I believe the way the federal government has organized itself on water is insufficient for the challenges ahead, so I am supportive of organizing themselves to be successful, which means dealing with water as it shows up as a local problem. However, using this top-down and bottom-up approach so that we are....You can't have businesses and technology if the water isn't in a healthy state, and the Canada water agency will be one of the few institutions that can have that national perspective to say, “Where are the priorities? Where do we start?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we've run out of time, even after factoring in the interpretation delay. However, that won't prevent you from answering the question on another occasion, Ms. Gomez.

Ms. Collins, it's over to you for two minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Dr. Brandes, can you talk a bit about how the Canada water agency can implement and recognize indigenous legal systems? B.C. was the first jurisdiction to pass legislation on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I'm curious as to how you see the implementation of this going when it comes to water governance, and what we at the federal level can learn.

[Oliver Brandes]

That's a big question for the one or two minutes remaining, but I'm going to summarize it by saying that the way you implement UNDRIP is that you build relationships and trust in an ongoing relationship. The federal government has a role because you need the necessary science and information, and the kinds of processes in which you have not just one decision, one big mind and one big development, but you have many decisions over time. You have to have a process to do that.

British Columbia is taking positive steps, but it's slow.

My big answer is that we can learn. There are many positives—the Koksilah, the Cowichan, for example—and there are a number of examples. We just need to do them at a much faster pace—how about at the pace that the climate is changing? We see it happening very rapidly, and you know that from your very own riding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Kram, go ahead.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Let's start with the Canadian Water Quality Association. Ms. Peters, in your opening statement you referred to how “recruiting and retaining water quality specialists is a barrier to providing better services to more Canadians.” I wonder, could you elaborate on how one becomes a water quality specialist? Does one go to university or a technical college, and is there a certification or a governing body? If you could elaborate, that would be very helpful.

[Shelley Peters]

Sure. Actually, I'm going to defer it to my education consultant.

[Jason Jackson]

Again, I'm a professor, but I also teach tradespeople in apprenticeships across Canada.

With the way the education is structured, there isn't really a network set up for a water treatment specialist, particularly on the residential side in Canada. There are a lot of corporations and companies that have people who have, by virtue of time spent, become very good at what they do, but who don't have the specific licence. I say that with a bit of malice, because I actually have every licence sourced to tap and water across Canada. I purposely went out and got that. Water treatment isn't one of those that are specifically defined.

Now, within the Canadian Water Quality Association, we have an education platform that serves our members and anyone else who's interested in understanding water in terms of a residential or commercial and industrial resource. It's available both online and in person for competencies. Getting that to be recognized nationally has been an ongoing discussion for more than the 20 years that I have been in the industry.

Having a national concept of education with respect to having people certified so that people would understand that when someone came to their door and told them they needed a water softener, they could have confidence in the data and would be able to make a proper choice as a consumer would lead to having efficiency, protecting the resource and getting the best benefit for that consumer.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay, just so I'm clear, would you be in favour of a national standard for a professional designation?

[Jason Jackson]

Absolutely.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay.

We've heard many times at this committee that, for better or for worse, watershed boundaries do not match up with international boundaries. I wonder if you could speak to some of the challenges or some of the benefits of standardizing freshwater policies with those of the United States.

[Shelley Peters]

Sure. Thank you for that.

I think one of the biggest things, obviously, is that we, as an association, quite often try to work on that cross-boundary with other associations, but similarly right now we're waiting to hear what level of PFAS is going to be acceptable for us to treat in Canada. They've had it in the States, and they've even lowered it there. It is also very prevalent where it's been given a limit in Europe and things like that, but we seem to be sort of lagging behind when it comes to having that emerging contaminant quantified for us within Canada.

[Jason Jackson]

Also—and I'll use Ontario as an example—looking back at regulation 903, which is a wells regulation, we haven't really talked about or the committee hasn't heard a lot about groundwater other than yesterday or the day before when there was a very good witness on that. I think looking at some of the data that can come from that would help take away some of those watershed boundaries for groundwater and surface waters, which could be tested and managed, and then that data could be made available on both sides of, say, the national borders and it would go from there. At that point, we could all make good evidence-based choices using that data and make sure that we have the right choice for people as we go through. So, looking back at that, the resources could be there, but we're not quite there yet.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Very quickly, could you speak to some of the challenges in water quality for urban versus rural Canadians?

[Jason Jackson]

Yes, sure.

Again, for the information around resource or source information, I'll use an Ontario example as well.

I'm a class 4 well technician working on groundwater wells. We have to fill out what is called a “wells record”. In that wells record, we put down the geology, the aquifer. Water quality is actually part of the concept, but rarely is that water quality piece filled out. We gather data from the frontline people—those who are drilling the well or testing the water or installing the treatment system, they gather that data from them so when treatment technology for consumers are applied, they're done properly and efficiently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield, go ahead.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you to the witnesses.

Funnily enough, I was going to ask about groundwater, so maybe you're leading into that.

We had a witness here, Dr. Parker, who was talking about groundwater. I wasn't able to get too far into geothermal or some of the heat loads on groundwater and whether those are a risk, or fracking or mining, or risks for groundwater that are below the surface and that aren't being monitored. Could you talk about the need for quality management service for groundwater in anything that could happen in our report here? Could you be fairly brief, if that's possible?