Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about a minute and 15 seconds. You don't have to use it all up if you don't want to.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I will.

Just quickly to AquaAction, you mentioned the green municipal fund. This is an amazing initiative that was started by Jack Layton. I actually sat on their board when I was a municipal councillor.

Can you talk a little about the need to reallocate some of those funds or increase some of those funds for water?

[Soula Chronopoulos]

To Heather's point earlier, they just are unable; they block at the pilot phase. A lot of these companies like Patricia's need funds to deploy their technologies, and the municipalities just don't have those funds. This is where we find it stops and they look to adopt their technologies elsewhere. If we could reallocate some funds and give each one the ability to test their technologies, I think that would unleash innovation.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We are now at the second round of questions.

This is for all speakers.

You have four minutes. However, if you do not want to use all your speaking time, do not hesitate to do that.

Mr. Kram, the floor is yours for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. We certainly have lots of interesting ideas and never enough time. I'll see if I can get everyone in very quickly.

Ms. Chronopoulos, you talked about climate and water policy in your opening statement. I've always been of the view that it's good when we can kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Recently, the committee heard about how irrigation projects can increase carbon sequestration in the soil in farmland. Do you have any views on that, and on how that can be a beneficial climate and water policy all in one?

[Soula Chronopoulos]

Absolutely. A lot of the solutions we see emerging in the innovation sector are how to make agriculture more effective. Right now 70% of water usage is by agriculture. We're very cognizant that in Alberta, for example, we have a severe drought. A lot of the solutions our innovators are seeking are on how to use less water. When we reduce the amount of water we use, we reduce the carbon that's released and we reduce the contaminants that need to be treated, etc.

All of it is interrelated. You cannot separate water from carbon.

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

Very good.

Ms. Crochetiere, I wonder whether you have any views on irrigation policy and sequestration of carbon in farmland and soil.

[Heather Crochetiere]

Absolutely.

I would echo what we just heard from Ms. Chronopoulos. There's tremendous opportunity between the water and ag sectors. Where there is opportunity to increase the efficiency of water use, it could also lead to soil health, which can lead to increased carbon sequestration.

I absolutely think policy should be supportive of trying to, as you said, kill two birds with one stone and find ways to support innovative water technologies as well as healthy soil.

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

Ms. Vodanovic, you had a positive comment about the Liberals and the Conservatives in your opening statement. Congratulations. I don't think that's ever happened before at this committee.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Maja Vodanovic]

It's because Canada is good.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

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

You also mentioned that it's better not to pollute than to let cities pay the clean-up costs.

I wonder whether you could elaborate on what the most expensive pollutants to clean up are, and which ones are less of a concern.

[Maja Vodanovic]

PFAS is definitely one that we don't know how to handle. The cost would explode. We would like the Canadian government to keep pushing. I know we banned it in Canada, but we import it. Everything we have or own has PFAS. If we could push for a regulation on that, it would be great. I know we have friends in the States, among the Democrats, who really want to ban it and have this happen. They say they need their Canadian counterparts to come together and do something about this.

I'm just putting that out there.

The other thing is blue algae. We don't know how to handle that, either. Once it gets into our system, we don't know what to do. The big problem is that all of our infrastructure is built. It's very hard to build something new within this old infrastructure. The costs are just huge, as you said. All of our infrastructure is old, so we have to maintain it. We have to adapt to all the flooding and live up to the new regulations. It's hard.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're pretty much out of time.

Here's a little trailer for you, Mr. Kram: next week, Dr. Chandra Madramootoo is coming. He's an expert in irrigation and sequestration. I'm sure he'll give you some good answers.

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everybody, for being here.

I'm very interested in the discussion we've been having about conservation. That's something we haven't addressed yet in this study.

Maybe I'll start with Mayor Vodanovic.

Guelph has a groundwater-fed supply. We've reduced our water consumption from about 330 litres per day per person to 167 litres per day per person.

[Maja Vodanovic]

Congratulations.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

The average in Canada is somewhere around 335. In the EU, it's 144. There's an opportunity for conservation that the federal government could have a role in with national targeting.

In Guelph, it meant we didn't have to increase our wastewater facility. We saved about $26 million in municipal costs there. At our wastewater facility, we're also taking the solid waste and treating it, then using it for fertilizer at the farms around Guelph and creating some methane production. There's an opportunity for net zero on waste water.

When you look at municipal costs, conservation can actually stretch the dollar. Thirty per cent of our losses are in pipeline leakage. We had to address pipes. That's an expensive cost.

Could you talk about the opportunity cost for conservation as it relates to the water study we're doing, as well as to reducing costs for municipalities?

[Maja Vodanovic]

The leaks in our infrastructure are up to 24% right now. It's pretty bad as well. We're the worst. Montreal is the worst consumer of water. We're at the top.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's 367 litres per person per day. That's not terrible.

[Maja Vodanovic]

We're trying to get to the medium bar.

We looked at Toronto. Toronto did a lot to lower it. They have the water meters. They've lowered it, but it hasn't decreased the need for investment so much. It's a small amount. The part that is the production of water is just a couple of percentage points of the need to maintain the whole system. It's not like, if we use less water, we can finance our four incinerators. It's going to be a small amount.

Yes, we have to reduce our water intake, but it will not finance the rest of our needs.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right.

We have population growth, so we're trying to keep our curve flat because we don't have the groundwater to feed that. It also limits us economically if we don't address this. It's different when you're on the St. Lawrence.