Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[Jason Jackson]

When we look at groundwater resources and regulations across Canada, they do differ in different components. The people who construct those wells have to be put place. Then there are ultimately the ones doing the work mechanically on the wells.

For geothermal—I'll use that as an example—in a lot of provinces and territories a well has to be constructed in a very specific and defined way in order to protect the resource, which is the public resource, and to protect the future of that resource. However, when we look at the regulation or the component of the people installing it for a specific use—for example, geothermal—there really isn't a lot of regulation around that geothermal component while it's being talked about and developed.

Again, I come back to this idea of national training or certification or understanding with regard to the use of geothermal, and then identifying that thermal load, the effect on the geology, and then potentially neighbours' wells if they are not using them for that thermal load. So I think there has to be a bigger discussion around how that's occurring and who is qualified to do that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's terrific. I think that in terms of timing, when we're talking about geothermal as a climate change solution, we need to know the implications of that.

[Jason Jackson]

It's a great opportunity for net zero, and a great opportunity for energy efficiency by using a resource in a way that's a little bit different. We still have to have the same respect for it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

A few years back, I was part of a discussion with the grand chiefs in Ontario and chiefs looking at boil water advisories, and looking at the standards around water and what does a clean water standard look like for different communities?

We had the Walkerton standard that was advanced in Ontario. It's not a national standard. Indigenous peoples said, “Well, we want our own standard. We don't want you to impose a standard. We would like to work together on a standard.”

When we talk about training and what standards we're training to, knowing that we have indigenous and 13 other jurisdictions around water, could you give us a sense of how we could coordinate with that, in terms of the Canada water agency?

[Jason Jackson]

I am also one of the trainers for the Walkerton Clean Water Centre in Ontario. You saw that on my profile.

Actually, in April, we'll be speaking at the first nations symposium that is coming up in Sault Ste. Marie. We'll be doing training for those communities. Oftentimes, the communities want to be involved and apply a technology, so that it's repeatable and sustainable, yet affordable for those communities, as well.

When we look back at whether it's a first nations community or a regular remote community, they still have to have proper access to that technology and ensure that it's repeatable for them to use.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

In the limited time left, we've asked other witnesses for a wish list for the Canada water agency. Could you submit that—and Ms. Gomez, as well—so we could consider that in our report and then make it public and help the agency as it gets going? That would be appreciated.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's the end of the meeting with the first group of witnesses. I would like to thank them for this excellent discussion, in the course of which they suggested many good ideas.

We will now take a short break to allow the second group of witnesses to be seated.

I'd like to thank you all once again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll get started with our second panel. The time is moving on.

We have with us Soula Chronopoulos, president of AquaAction. From the city of Montreal, we have Maja Vodanoc, mayor of the borough of Lachine, and the executive committee member responsible for consultation with boroughs and for waterworks. We have online, from Foresight Canada, Heather Crochetiere, director, industry innovation.

The sound test has been carried out with Ms. Crochetiere, who is attending the meeting virtually.

We are also welcoming Mr. Mathieu Laneuville, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Réseau Environnement.

We'll begin with Ms. Chronopoulos.

Ms. Chronopoulos, you have five minutes for your presentation.

[Soula Chronopoulos, President, AquaAction]

Mr. Chair, and committee members, I'm honoured to join you today on behalf of the Montreal-based water accelerator, AquaAction.

AquaAction's recommendations speak to Canada's strategic national interests at the confluence of fresh water and economic security.

In our view, these practical and common sense suggestions belong in every party's platform. It's time to treat Canada's freshwater protection as both an economic and environmental issue.

Let me be blunt: Canada's water-tech sector must be treated as a core component of our freshwater protection strategy. Right now it's not.

Due to a lack of focus and specific federal support for water technology to address the water crisis, Canada's water innovators are being lured south and abroad by more enticing jurisdictions, along with their start-ups, IP and jobs.

We appreciate the government's important net-zero investments, but we would argue that these measures position Canada for a low-emission economy without adequately positioning us for a water-constrained economy. It's important to remember that the climate crisis is a water crisis. We hear this over and over.

The Canada water agency's coordination mandate and its data and science strategy are important to freshwater protection, but also for it to lead and deliver water security results it needs to be coordinating a whole-of-government approach around Canada water innovation.

What can be done?

First, we recommend that the government must synchronize ISED's clean-tech initiatives with the Canada water agency's watershed protection efforts. Currently, the agency lacks the necessary mandate and resources, which fall under ISED's remit through programs like IRAP, the clean growth hub, SDTC and SIF. It's crucial to align the CWA's science and data strategy on fresh water with ISED's tech programs. It would help if Minister Champagne and Minister Guilbeault issued that direction to their officials.

Part of this challenge is that ISED's clean-tech programs don't specifically focus on water tech, and they should, especially considering Canada's growing water scarcity and related environmental challenges.

On the same point, establishing a partnership between the National Research Council, which is also under ISED, and the CWA would enhance collaboration in water-tech research and industrial innovation.

We suggest that the NRC develop or upgrade its R and D facility specifically for water technology. Accessible, state-of-the-art facilities would enable innovators to conduct testing and validation of their technologies.

Second, we recommend increasing direct support for water-tech accelerators at both the federal and provincial levels. Establish targeted performance-based grant programs for enablers like AquaAction, Cteau, and Foresight across Canada.

We are better positioned to effectively de-risk and allocate resources in line with regional water innovation needs and to demonstrate tangible impact. AquaAction has proven this model in Quebec. The AquaEntrepreneur program, supported by the ministry of economy, innovation and energy, has led to successful adoption of new technologies at the municipal level and industries across Quebec, positively impacting the environment and generating well over $100 million in annual revenue for the economy to address this water crisis. By matching federal support to such provincial investments, Canada can significantly amplify the success of its water tech sector.

Third, we recommend recognizing the importance of local municipalities and the crucial role of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in building climate and water resilience at the city level. The federal government must find ways to incentivize water-tech projects with cities to facilitate young innovators' access to real-world test sites in our own towns and cities. You just heard this from Patricia.

This would allow for quicker market entry and, by extension, our freshwater protection. On this point I would urge this committee to recommend that Canada expand the scope of the green municipal fund to include pilot projects related to water technologies. If budget constraints make it difficult to increase GMF funding, then reallocate funding within the GMF envelope and empower the Canada water agency to facilitate these changes.

Finally, we recommend that Canada expand fiscal measures, like the investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing to specifically include water-tech investment. It does not.

The recently announced fiscal measures should be designed by Finance Canada to ensure broader applicability beyond clean energy or carbon capture or emissions-reducing technology. Targeted fiscal support is crucial for competitiveness. I see this starkly in the Great Lakes region, where AquaAction operates.

To summarize, it's time to treat Canada's freshwater protection as both an economic and environmental issue. Technology is the execution piece we have been ignoring.

Technology is the execution piece we have been ignoring. Without focused programming and fiscal supports for water tech innovation, Canada, water start-ups will keep leaving Canada, along with their IP and jobs. We just heard about this.

Our recommendations will enhance Canada's fresh water protection, nurture innovation and build our competitiveness in a water-constrained economy—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

[Soula Chronopoulos]

They belong in every party's platform.

Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Over to you, Ms. Vodanovic.

[Maja Vodanovic, Mayor of the Borough of Lachine, Executive Committee Member, Responsible for Consultation with the Boroughs and for Waterworks, City of Montréal]

Thank you.

First of all, I want to start by thanking the Liberals and the Conservatives, all of the last governments, because they have created something for municipalities that we really appreciate, which is stable, predictable and long-term funding for water infrastructure.

I am with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence cities initiative, which takes me to Ontario and to visit cities in the States. I see that they do not have this kind of funding. It is a lot harder for them, so I thank you for investing in our water infrastructure. Being responsible for water in the metropolis of Montreal, I can say “thank you”, but it's not enough.

I guess you know everyone always asks for more, but that is not the point here.

The reason I have come here is to talk to you about the technological innovations of the City of Montreal that we've done at the Jean-R. Marcotte sewer plant. Our sewer plant is the third-largest in the world. It filters 45% of our province's water.

When it was built in the 1980s, that plant was built to disinfect the water with chlorine. Even in the eighties, that was deemed a no go. You cannot do that. It is bad for our environment, so we had to figure out how else we were going to disinfect the water. In about 2005, we decided to do it with ozone—not with ultraviolet, but with ozone—because with ozone, once the system is built, we will be able to kill 99.9% of bacteria, 96% of viruses and 75% to 90% of emerging contaminants. That is huge. We are almost there.

You have to know that in 2009, when we sealed the agreement with the federal government to partner with us on this huge, beneficial project.... It's not really beneficial for Montreal, because it's at the tip of our island, but it is good for the St. Lawrence River and for all the cities that are downstream from us. We're doing this for the common good.

The government said it was going to give us $324 million. That was the deal. The project was estimated not too long ago to be $600 million.

There are huge challenges. We have to apply this new technology to ancient infrastructure. It's old. We have to do a retrofit. That was very hard. There were a lot of challenges. I will spare you everything we had to go through, but we are almost there. Certain parts still need to be connected. It will be functioning in a few years.

Right now, its estimated worth is $1 billion, and we only have $300 million. We only get 8¢ per dollar. Our municipalities have very little money, and we're doing this huge project.

This is to say we would like to see it capped. When we do a big, innovative project, maybe you could be our partner and re-evaluate the money you give in the long run. That is our first ask.

The second thing we do at the sewer plant is have four huge incinerators that burn 800 tonnes of pooh every day. We call it sludge. That is something that is done every day, and it creates 40% of the greenhouse gas effect for Montreal. That's 40% done by this. Now we have to change them. They're at their end of life.

We need to do studies for this. We need to study how we can change it. We know, as initial prefeasibility studies are saying, we could reduce this greenhouse gas effect to zero if we did biomethanization, which digests it and produces natural gas. However, we don't have millions of dollars to do this, and the government doesn't fund us to do this research. You fund us just when we do the project.

Cities cannot be in a deficit. We have only a limited operational budget. This is something we need.

People were talking about PFAS. We checked PFAS for Montreal, and we're at the limit. Let's say that the water all of a sudden becomes more concentrated because somebody takes our water away, or climate change...let's say the situation changes and we have too much PFAS in our water. It's almost impossible for the City of Montreal to invest in changing our filtration plant. Right now, we would need 45 tonnes of active carbon a day to take the PFAS out.

I'll say one last thing: It's better not to pollute than to make cities pay to depollute, because it's a huge cost. We spent $700 million in investment in infrastructure. We would need to spend $1.2 billion for the next 10 years and we do not have it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Ms. Crochetiere, who is online.

[Heather Crochetiere, Director, Industry Innovation, Foresight Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to be here today.

I am joining from Toronto, which is the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples.

My name is Heather Crochetiere and I am the director of industry innovation at Foresight Canada. I oversee programs that support both the supply and demand side of clean-tech solutions in Canada, including our sector-specific programming around water.

Prior to my time at Foresight, I spent almost a decade working in freshwater conservation in Canada, so this is a subject near to my heart.

Foresight is Canada's largest clean-tech innovation and adoption accelerator. Our audacious goal is for Canada to be the first G7 country to reach net zero, while helping our industries remain competitive, and our food, energy and water security be sustained.

Since inception, we have made enormous strides in strategy development, ecosystem mapping and partnership-building to position Canada as a global leader in clean-tech innovation. We have supported over 1,100 clean-tech ventures, built relationships with over 300 investors through our access-to-capital programs, and engaged with over 2,000 stakeholders from around the world to secure almost $1.7 billion in capital and support the creation of over 8,000 high-paying jobs for Canadians.

WaterNEXT is Canada's water technology network. It is part of a series of sectoral streams. Through WaterNEXT, we work across multiple water sectors, from resources to utilities, and bring together stakeholders from across the ecosystem to accelerate the commercialization and adoption of innovative technologies to serve the world's most pressing water challenges.

What does Canada's water technology sector look like today?

With a strong track record of innovation, such as the development of ultraviolet disinfection and membrane filtration technology, and with a wide network of organizations, research institutions and supportive governments, Canada is recognized globally for its expertise in the water sector. The importance of water tech is rising as an effective solution and a method of reducing the emissions intensity of water and waste-water treatment processes, as we increasingly feel the effects of climate change.

Water tech is critical in the practical sense, but also has the potential to be positioned as a lucrative opportunity as climate change rises in priority among investment and impact portfolios.

I'll quickly highlight a few key opportunities for the federal government to support Canada's water sector.

We have a major problem with adoption in Canada. The Canadian market is known to be slow to embrace novel solutions. Often, Canadian technology needs to find an export market in order to be developed. To strengthen the sector, we need more local adoption to generate reference cases that can be used to support export efforts. Ultimately, delays in adoption risk both Canada's infrastructure and its ability to be an economic leader in water technology.

The federal government should support initiatives that de-risk novel technologies and lower barriers to adoption.

This includes supporting programs that provide innovators with access to facilities to test and demonstrate emerging technologies for customers, such as the pan-Canadian water innovation network we are building in collaboration with Aqua Action and the Ontario Water Consortium.

End-users of water technologies, like municipalities and utilities, are rightfully very risk averse when it comes to new technologies. With a network of pilot facilities across the country, this initiative will increase local access for both innovators and end-users to participate in innovation. It will bridge gaps in ecosystem coordination, technology development and adoption to drive the commercialization and export of innovative water technologies.

Support from the federal government could look like direct program funding or flexible funding programs for municipal, utility and industrial end-users to participate in these pilots.

Beyond supporting access to testing and pilots, the federal government should provide clear definitions for water priorities and work to streamline and coordinate procurement and policy in support of these priorities.

In parallel, the government should support capacity-building initiatives for local governments and other water technology adopters to move towards those priorities.

We've heard from end-users that they are often given sustainability and climate targets for their facilities without any additional resources. Simply put, they are told what they need to do without any support for how they can get there. Capacity-building programs, such as Foresight's clean-tech adoption program, can help bridge this gap and enable the “how”.

Our platform will provide services such as a database of pilots, specifications, solutions and services; technology mapping and business case studies; networking and training modules for end-users; guidance on funding programs; and sustainability metrics, tracking and reporting. In supporting initiatives such as this, the government will lower barriers for asset managers to deliver climate and performance results.

I want to thank the committee for taking the time to study such an important discussion. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Laneuville, you have the floor.

[Mathieu Laneuville, President and Chief Executive Officer, Réseau Environnement]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a privilege to be with you today.

My name is Mathieu Laneuville. I am the president and chief executive officer of Réseau Environnement. We are proud to represent the largest association of environmental experts in Quebec. The City of Montreal and AquaAction are also members of Réseau Environnement.

We would like to address three major points today: underfunding of water infrastructure, water treatment, and the Canada Water Agency.

First, the underfunding of water infrastructure, to which Ms. Vodanovic has already referred, is not limited to Montreal; it affects all municipalities in Canada. This lack of funding is a major problem. I don't know whether people realize this, but municipal water infrastructure in Canada is one of our greatest collective assets. In Quebec alone, its replacement value is said to amount to over $200 billion.

Unfortunately, there has been a shortage of love for this infrastructure in recent decades, which means that today, the maintenance deficit for these assets represents almost 20% of their value. I should point out that there is an asset maintenance deficit when assets are in poor or very poor condition. Municipal employees in Montreal, Repentigny, Quebec City or Lac-Saint-Louis are working miracles with obsolete infrastructure that is constantly on the verge of breaking down.

We know that water is an essential service. We want water to be top quality at all times, but we are using drinking water to put out fires. There is a huge risk that there will not be enough water if a water main bursts, for example. There are also our hospitals, where many people go for dialysis treatment. If there is no more water, those people will die.

We have to think not only about the quality of our drinking water, but also about how important water infrastructure is for public services. That is why it is important for more to be invested and this asset maintenance deficit eliminated.

At Réseau Environnement, we are also proud to have partnered with HEC Montréal to demonstrate that investments in our water infrastructure are not only desirable, but also profitable. We have shown that for each dollar invested in water there is a return on investment of $1.72, taking into account all benefits for human health. For the young generations, IQ is falling by two to three points per decade because of new endocrine disruptors. We are seeing endocrine disruptors in our fish, but also in the new generations of human beings, like mine, and even in earlier ones. We are seeing how human beings, as well as fish, are finding it harder and harder to reproduce. So underfunding of our municipal water infrastructure has real world consequences.

The second point concerns water treatment, which Ms. Vodanovic talked about. At present, a lot of primary treatment is done in Canada. These wastewater treatment facilities were built 40 years ago. I would point out that 40 years ago, wastewater was not being treated. It was being dumped directly into watercourses. Then primary treatment of this water was started. That is fine, but today, given new technologies, which Ms. Chronopoulos talked about, and given emerging new contaminants, we have to proved public health and the health of our ecosystems better. That is why, at Réseau Environnement, we advocate treatment 2.0. Let's not keep using 40-year old technology. We have to adopt new standards. We could follow the example of Switzerland, for example, which has succeeded in treating 80% of emerging contaminants, unlike Canada, where we do a lot of primary water treatment.

Ms. Vodanovic spoke just now about ozonizing. In Repentigny, at present, primary treatment of wastewater is still being done. A lot of endocrine disruptors are being left in our watercourses. I am also thinking about the terrible floods on the Assomption River. I could also talk to Mr. Deltell about the Saint-Charles River, where there is flooding.

In anticipation of the upheavals caused by climate change, we have to invest massively in these collective assets.

The final point concerns the Canada Water Agency. Earlier, during the meeting with the first group of witnesses, there was talk about reduction at source. That is the best way to eliminate contaminants. We could tell you about good technologies, and the possibility of adding filters at the tap. However, the best solution is not to add filters, it is to eliminate the contamination at the source. We don't need perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and we can regulate them. I think the Government of Canada is demonstrated good leadership in this regard. We have to continue our efforts, but we also have to do this for other families of compounds.

We have to succeed in creating this Canadian agency. Réseau Environnement, as a member of the Coalition québécoise pour des eaux saines and the Canadian Coalition for Healthy Waters, had recommended that this agency be created, and we are pleased with the progress made. However, we now need to back up our ambitions with resources. Réseau Environnement advocates an investment of $1 billion over five years for the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, and revision of the Canada Water Act. We will be paying close attention to the situation over the next few months.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell, the floor is yours.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to your Canadian Parliament, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Laneuville, you mentioned the Saint-Charles River. I come from Château-d'Eau. I was brought up about 500 feet from the Saint-Charles River. I know the place very well, and I know that floods have been happening there for a long time and it is getting worse. Thank you for talking about that region, which I am very familiar with. I will soon be 60 years old, and I have spent my entire life in that area.

You may have heard the testimony given by Ms. Gomez just now, when she talked about her work with the city of L'Assomption on a project involving the use of salt to de-ice roads. That collaboration has been fruitful and fertile for the last four years, but while I don't want to be making jokes in bad taste, let's say that it seems to be running out of gas. It is not getting enough support.

What are your thoughts about a project like this? It really looks good. We are talking about de-icing, which is not unique to this region. This project can be applied everywhere in Canada, in thousands of towns, or even in the hundreds of thousands of driveways where people sometimes spread salt, although that is happening less and less, and that is a good thing.

Why is it that a project like this, which is very attractive and has potential for pretty spectacular expansion, since it could be applied everywhere in Canada, has not managed to be adopted more widely?

[Mathieu Laneuville]

It shows that the Government of Canada needs to demonstrate leadership, for one thing. I am glad you mentioned that you have lived near the Saint-Charles River for almost 60 years, because, while I may look young, Réseau Environnement itself has celebrated its sixtieth anniversary. So it was also there at the time.

Regarding initiatives like the one you refer to, in Réseau Environnement, as in other associations, we definitely want to showcase them, but funding is crucial. Whether we are talking about initiatives relating to salt for de-icing or numerous other initiatives, like the ozonizing that Ms. Vodanovic talked about, we can see that experts from one end of Canada to the other know about the solutions.

What you are talking about is known, but putting large-scale projects into effect calls for funding, and cities already have trouble maintaining their obsolete infrastructure. There are major delays in maintaining that infrastructure, and cities do not have time to think about improving things. They already have trouble plugging the leaks in their own systems.

At Réseau Environnement, we want the provincial and federal governments to give municipalities a hand in order to eliminate the asset maintenance deficit. The cities can work on maintaining the infrastructure, but they need help to deal with the maintenance deficit that has accumulated over recent decades. It is profitable to do it, and that is why we did this study.

There is going to be an agency and some good studies that will showcase projects like the one you are talking about, but after that, it will take political courage to provide money so these initiatives can be implemented and be more widely adopted, so that everyone can draw on them, but, most importantly, to adapt them to as many places as possible.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Can you give us an example of a project that worked, that has been applied in very concrete ways and can be inspiring for a lot of communities?

[Mathieu Laneuville]

Yes, I can give you several.

We were talking earlier about reduction at the source. PFAS are one example. There should not be any more of them in our products, like Teflon-coated frying pans, raincoats, and so on.

We can also talk about conserving water. In Toronto, my Ontario colleagues have been able to do some very good things to reduce water consumption. A lot of work as been done on concentrations of some products coming from industry in water. This is a good thing, but as long as there are large discharges, it will have huge consequences, even if the concentrations are small. So we have to work to reduce these discharges.

There is another example that might affect the average person. During the pandemic, people used a lot of those disposable wipes to disinfect everything. People threw them in toilets, and that caused huge problems. It costs Canadian municipalities $250 million per year, because these wipes are in our sewer systems and clog up the pumping stations. Then they are found in our wastewater treatment plants, like the Jean-R. Marcotte wastewater treatment plant in Montreal. So they have to be taken out for processing, when people could simply put them in the garbage to start with so they could be easily dealt with after that. This example shows that we are able to do good things at the source.

Municipalities have also installed water recirculation systems in water-cooled air conditioning systems in hospitals. Hospitals' water consumption has been reduced by 90%.

Men will also remember those urinals in elementary schools with their automatic flushing systems. Every ten minutes, fresh potable water flowed into the urinals, and that continued even when there was a water shortage, and in the summer, in all our schools. They also kept working at night, when they were not being used. There have been innovations in that regard too.

These are all examples of practices that work. However, as you said, it takes funding to implement them widely.

Thank you.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Laneuville.

[Mathieu Laneuville]

Thank you, Mr. Deltell.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Deltell.

The floor is yours, Ms. Chatel.