Evidence of meeting #83 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was utilities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Maybe you can get some of those comments in with one of the other questioners.
Mr. Fraser is next.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thanks very much.
Just as you were wrapping up, I couldn't help but be moderately troubled, as I'm an alumnus of Dalhousie University. I drank out of those fountains a number of times.
I'd like to pick up where Mr. Lobb left off. Given that program delivery at the federal level through Infrastructure Canada traditionally has a focus on public infrastructure, I'm wondering if there's a way we can design a program that will prioritize existing public lead service lines if they're going to a public building, for example, or am I off base here? I find that municipalities are usually best positioned to determine what their priorities are, but is there a way for us to make this happen so that we're prioritizing the infrastructure that will impact the largest number of people on a given day?
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Graham Gagnon
Most public buildings would not necessarily have a service line that would be lead. A public building like this one is large, so it would not have a lead service line, which is small. Lead service lines tend to be very focused on the home and smaller public buildings that would almost resemble homes.
With the infrastructure program, one of the opportunities, I think, much like Michèle talked about in terms of an energy savings program, is that it creates very localized construction opportunities for homeowners or streets or neighbourhoods that would have lead service lines. Certainly in many municipalities these areas or neighbourhoods are fairly well known, or well defined, at least. Health Canada's document explicitly calls these neighbourhoods out and asks utilities to measure in exactly these neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods would be fairly well known to the municipality.
As to how the federal government could roll that out to homeowners, it could be through a number of financial mechanisms—through the banking system, through their tax rebates, or through whatever program could be conceived.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
On that, I will switch to you, Ms. Grenier. The Energy Star program is something that I'm familiar with just as a general member of the public, so I found that interesting. Are municipalities or provinces doing something similar today that's working? Is there a model we can look to whereby if we were to help with the cost, it would work and everybody would replace them, or are we just going to make a program out there that won't be taken up?
3:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Water Works Association
We used the Energy Star program as an example in the sense that we were made aware that it was very successful in getting people to turn over their older appliances.
In this situation we would propose, or we would like to see, essentially a matching grant program for homeowners, in the sense that the municipality could approach you as a homeowner and advise you that they'd be replacing all of the lead service lines on your street, and if you participated in the renewal, you'd be eligible for a federal rebate or federal grant for your portion of that bill.
It's much more cost-effective for the homeowner to replace their portion of the lead service line at the same time as the municipality is doing the public side. You have one contractor who comes on site one time, digs up your front lawn and your sidewalk one time, and does all the restoration at the same time. The key is getting the homeowner on board at the time the public side is being replaced.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Do we have any idea of the scope of the national infrastructure deficit when we talk about lead service lines? In dollar figures, how big is this problem?
4 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Water Works Association
I think the figure that's been thrown around in the U.S. is close to $1 trillion on lead service lines, so if we divide by a factor of nine or 10—
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Are there regional differences?
I know that out east our buildings are older. They were put up at a different time. I've lived in both Alberta and Nova Scotia, and there are a lot more new builds out west. Is there a regional discrepancy in the prevalence of lead pipe service lines?
4 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Water Works Association
Lead service lines were installed with great frequency mainly during the Second World War, so any homes built prior to 1950 are likely to have lead service lines.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Gagnon, you suggested that a partial line service replacement can actually make the problem worse. Why is that the case?
4 p.m.
Prof. Graham Gagnon
There are a number of different theories or ideas as to why that's the case. One of the theories is, first—
4 p.m.
Prof. Graham Gagnon
It's the lead service lines. You can imagine a piece of pipe. The utility is responsible for one side and the other side is the homeowner's responsibility. If the utility cuts their side—and because it's a continuous pipe, they will physically cut it—you can imagine that there are going to be particles and debris as a result of that cut.
There's also the potential for a dissimilar metal. If the utility chooses to use copper, there's a potential to have copper and lead, which would be almost like a battery cell, and you'd actually get more lead coming off your pipe.
Finally, there are just disturbances. The lead pipe itself is a very pliable pipe. That's why it was used by the Romans and why it was used early on. By just cutting it, you're essentially disturbing the other side. You'll create vibrations, and all kinds of other debris will come off the pipe. We looked at homes at as long as 12 months after the construction, and they still had higher lead than they did when the utility started the project.
4 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I also want to thank them for their testimony although, after hearing them, I don't know how to look at a pitcher of water anymore. I don't know if I should see it as something healthy or something to fear.
My first question is as follows. Is there a broad consensus in the scientific community, or are further studies needed in one area or another, studies that could be supported by the Government of Canada and that could give us a more complete picture of the situation?
Mr. Gagnon or Ms. Grenier may answer my question.
4 p.m.
Prof. Graham Gagnon
I'm an NSERC chairholder. NSERC funds our research program, along with Halifax Water.
Very detailed lead studies are still required on a utility-by-utility basis, but there is broad consensus among the scientific community that, first of all, lead is a public health concern. It affects mental health in children, and it's a legacy contaminant that stays with the child until they're in their thirties and forties. That is well accepted in the scientific community. The detailed research activities are really fine-tuning the case study for a specific utility or for a specific situation.
