Environment Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Ms. Taylor Roy.

We'll go to Madame Pauzé.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of the witnesses here today. We won't be able to ask all of them questions.

I commend Ms. Gomez. In passing, I'd like to point out that the municipality of L'Assomption is a member of the Réseau Environnement. Greetings also to Mr. Brandes. I believe we met in Toronto at a symposium held in the fall.

But my questions will be for Mr. Shapiro.

Mr. Shapiro, in your speaking notes—although you didn't mention it in your address—you described Canada's brand as a global water leader. I was wondering what's involved in this reputation as a global leader. I would imagine that it's not hard to see Canada as having a wealth of water. That's the case because of its enormous freshwater reserves. Nevertheless, I wouldn't consider Canada a global leader in water protection, either in terms of sustainability or accessibility. I'll give you some examples.

In Alberta, there was a toxic waste leak at the Kearl mine. Leaks into watercourses from the oil and mining sectors are having disastrous impacts on the environment and health.

Canada has also given the green light to a radioactive waste facility in Chalk River. It's on the banks of a river that flows to near where I live, which draws water from the St. Lawrence River. Approval came in spite of recommendations stemming from consultations and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Water is not given consideration and I believe that examples like these are only the tip of the iceberg.

From this standpoint, I don't see how Canada can be considered a global leader.

Not only that, but our country is incapable of providing drinking water to thousands of first nations members. Canada has all kinds of opportunities to take action to protect our water reserves, the health of ecosystems, and services being provided. And yet nothing currently shows that there has been any change in direction in terms of dealing with the problems I've just raised.

Several witnesses have told us that there is a dearth of knowledge and access to crucial data that would make it possible to do a better job of planning the work that needs to be done. Last week, for example, a witness told us that the other G20 countries already had detailed databases on the various ways water is being used, but that this is not the case in Canada. According to this witness, there are few watercourses being monitored for water quality and even fewer for toxic waste in farming communities.

What could be done to allow for enhanced planning of what's needed to preserve and protect this resource?

Would you be in favour of the federal government prioritizing resource preservation investments?

[Alan Shapiro]

Thank you for the question, Madame Pauzé. I could not agree with you more.

The context in which I would consider Canada as a leader would be in applied water research and technology development. Internationally, we've got a very strong reputation as a water solutions country for the world. This has been borne out by the Trade Commissioner Service, which has done a really phenomenal job of connecting Canadian solutions to challenges in other countries.

Where we fall completely flat, as you've brought up, is to develop those solutions and apply them at home. We're seeing a lot of lagging technology options at home. We're struggling to finance watersheds adequately at home. We're struggling to provide economic and environmental incentives to get creative with some of our policies, and to get creative with some of our innovation. We need boots on the ground.

Yes, there's absolutely a disconnect between our leadership on a world stage with the kinds of technologies that we're exporting, and our ability to actually tackle water issues at home. It's really interesting to me to work with many water technology companies across Canada and hearing the consistent story that even though their technology was developed to tackle a problem in Canada, they have not yet worked in Canada.

Of the 100-plus water and ocean—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

These ideas are certainly not acted upon in Canada.

I'm also wondering about something else.

The committee welcomes many private sector representatives—that's particularly so today. For example, the organization you represent, the BC Net Zero Innovation Network, was established by Foresight Canada. The Foresight Canada representatives are in the second group of witnesses.

I have trouble distinguishing lobbying from actual knowledge. We would like those who work in the water sector to have the required knowledge and skills, but personally, what I want to see is results. You just pointed out that Canada may have lots of good ideas, but that it doesn't apply them at home.

How do we go about managing all that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, Ms. Pauzé, you've run out of speaking time.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, the interpretation…

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, you're right Ms. Pauzé. I'll give you another 10 or 15 seconds to get an answer to your question.

Go ahead and take about 15 to 20 seconds.

[Alan Shapiro]

Foresight is a non-profit organization and my colleague, Heather Crochetiere, will speak this afternoon.

Absolutely. Federal funding is being put into research and innovation, but not enough federal funding is being put into technology adoption and policy work on the ground.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.

The purpose of today's meeting is also to focus on the problem and find solutions, because we are lagging behind in adopting our own technologies here in Canada.

Ms. Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

My questions are for Dr. Brandes.

You talked about the impacts of the climate crisis and those four horsemen—drought, wildfire, flood and contamination. It really feels like my home province of British Columbia has been hit hard by this. We've seen a federal government that's been really reactive rather than proactive.

The last thing you mentioned in your opening statement was designating a designated water fund. My New Democrat colleagues from B.C. and I have been pushing the government for a $1-billion watershed security fund.

I'm just curious. What difference would this make if the federal government were to partner with the Government of British Columbia and designate this fund?

[Oliver Brandes]

Thank you so much, Ms. Collins. That's a fabulous question.

I'm going to just summarize in three simple points.

Investing locally creates solutions, innovation and gets you a payback in the range of seven to one, to 10 to one. They've demonstrated that in numerous places. I draw the attention of this fine committee to the healthy watersheds initiative as one example.

The second piece is that a lot of the work has to happen locally. That's partnering with provinces that are seeing the sort of challenge ahead in dealing with the four horsemen kind of approach. That means building up natural infrastructure like wetlands, aquifer protection and healthy riparian areas.

These are the cheapest and best forms of infrastructure, but you need the funds to flow through those key partners—those people on the ground who can leverage it—so every dollar spent, because you have local expertise, local capacity and first nation engagement, is very high.

Therefore, the federal government needs to invest in those working models that exist all across the country. B.C. is the leading example.

The third point is that this model that British Columbia is undertaking with the watershed security fund is worth replicating. It's not only worth replicating federally, but it's worth investing in for a number of different pockets and different regions, including the north, the Prairies, the central and the east coast.

B.C. will show us how to do it because they have a leg up. It's partially because we faced some big challenges and partially because we saw some very creative investments post-COVID that have really yielded not only good ecological outcomes, but really significant business and community outcomes that have demonstrated, when the storms hit, that we have a bigger buffer, we have less impact, we lose less infrastructure and we avoid future costs.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much for that.

I think the point...especially about keeping natural infrastructure healthy and how that can help absorb or soak up some of the impacts when we have extreme flooding and atmospheric rivers.

You also mentioned a number of other recommendations for the federal government.

Can you just expand a little bit on what the federal government can do? What useful role can it play when it comes to watershed management and water management generally?

How can the federal government help Canadians prepare for the intense challenges that we know are ahead of us?

[Oliver Brandes]

I've heard a few. I've listened to a number of the former presentations, and I hear a theme wherein we get this sort of tension, and some folks think that we just need government to get out of the way.

I think that it is an inaccurate approach, because, when we talk about water, it requires collaboration. Water doesn't know boundaries; it doesn't know jurisdictions. It moves. We have to find ways to get along.

There are three ways that the federal government can play a very active role. Ms. Collins, you will know well that we've had a very disastrous number of years in British Columbia, yet there has been almost no effective presence of the federal government. That is a real lack. It's a missed opportunity, and it slows the build back component.

There are those kinds of infrastructure we talked about like the wetlands. We all benefit by enabling, investing and working with local community groups to ensure that plans are working and that there is a connection between the mayors, the chiefs, the business leaders and the industry champions. That is one obvious bundle.

There are also very complicated transboundary issues. We talk about transboundary not only within British Columbia. Take the Mackenzie basin as an example. It crosses half a dozen provincial and territorial lines. It needs coordination. It needs governance systems so that we can make decisions in real time in a really functional way. There's a really critical role.

Then, of course, there are international boundaries. Think of the Columbia, think of the Yukon, and think of the Great Lakes basins. These are places where the federal government has been a bit more active, but I think they are lagging. There is a real opportunity. These are very complex because of the many types of boundaries that we are talking about.

Then there is the final kind of boundary, which most Canadians don't think about very often. We also have indigenous nations, indigenous governments, authorities and laws that we have to reconcile with when we deal with that.

Again, these are very active spheres where the federal government should be involved and support those local initiatives. There are a number of simple pieces: the planning, with rules and implications; protecting and ensuring environmental flow, which has really significant implications for fish and has a very significant role for the federal government; and, of course, water quality and the quantity component.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I only have 10 seconds left. I just want to give you a heads-up. I'll be asking about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples next and the disappointment on hearing that the federal government hasn't been investing in B.C. the way it should.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

For the second round, I'm going to reduce it by 25 per cent, just so we don't go too much over. We'll have four and two minutes instead of five and two and a half minutes.

We'll start with Mr. Leslie.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate this panel and your all being here. It's been a meeting about technology. I think it's common sense to focus on technology, not taxes.

I'll start with Ms. Peters.

You mentioned a water quality map. Does anything like that exist in Canada or around the world that we could try to emulate so that consumers have a better understanding of where some of those contaminants may be in their own area?

[Shelley Peters]

Yes, we have a very good example done by the Water Quality Research Foundation in the States and through our sister association. They have many different points, but they predominantly show where arsenic contaminant is within the United States. That is something we think would be extremely helpful in Canada.

Again, with my history, for the length of time that I've been in this, I have watched some of these contaminants like arsenic suddenly come to the forefront, and some of the others like PFAS and things like that. I get many calls from consumers directly to our association who say, “I've just moved to this area. I have this. What is it? How do I do this?"

We see that the water quality map is something that would be beneficial not only to our members but also to consumers and businesses. We're asked constantly about what's in the water in Manitoba; what's in the water in...? It's very different. We don't need to deal with it in B.C the way we deal with it in Nova Scotia. It's so very different.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

You mentioned some of the technologies at home, whether they be for PFAS or any other contaminants and that they would vary on a regional basis. I'm having a quick look online. It looks like a reverse osmosis system at the tap level is going to be cheaper than a larger, commercial variation of that filtration system.

If PFAS, arsenic or any of these other problems are most likely to be dealt with, is that an idea that we need to be looking at from a consumer level, or is it best at a municipal water level? How do you think we would be best able and most affordably to deal with some of these challenges?

[Shelley Peters]

I'll give you my point. Then Jason can likely add to it.

At the municipal level, it's certainly being looked at. However, from a cost perspective, it becomes overwhelming.

For PFAS, as an example, the investment to do this at a municipal level would be very large in terms of the resins alone. I was just watching a webinar today in which they were proposing some technology for putting a PFAS meter on people's taps, so they could watch and see whether they have PFAS coming into their home. That technology has to be built—maybe this is a perfect opportunity for Ms. Gomez—but I think it's easier, quicker and perhaps faster to address it in the home right now. We want to make sure the health of Canadians is looked after.

Jason, do you have anything?

[Jason Jackson, Professor and Education Consultant, Canadian Water Quality Association]

Yes.

I think a blanket statement that we have to treat all water for PFAS is something that is perhaps not true. We can step back to look at individual sources, applications and consumer choices that say, “This is what is best for my needs and my home ownership.” A water quality map or information required nationally in a resource owned by the water agency—something that's easier for Canadians to access—would be a key component of that. To make a choice to install a reverse osmosis.... For technology, we can make that good choice by understanding those aesthetic parameters: how it tastes, looks and smells. That can help consumers make a choice.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Maybe I'll bring Mr. Shapiro in on this, because he mentioned specific water technologies beyond that—ultraviolet disinfection and sensors to detect some of these emerging contaminants.

Mr. Shapiro, do you have any specific examples of where these are currently being used, whether they even are and where they should or could be used in the future?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll give you 15 seconds for that, because we're over time.

[Alan Shapiro]

There are a lot of very interesting developments on the sensor side in particular. That comes back to the data—knowing what's in our water and the environment.

On the treatment side for emerging contaminants, there's a lot more work to be done still in technology development.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

It looks like we have our first project for the Canada water agency with this map idea.

Mr. van Koeverden.