Evidence of meeting #85 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 line.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Sal Iannello  General Manager, Infrastructure and Development Services, City of Welland
Stephen Craik  Director, Water Quality Assurance and Environment, EPCOR Utilities Inc.
Marie-Claude Guérin  Specialist in drinking water, Public Works, Ville de Trois-Rivières
Michèle Prévost  Professor, École Polytechnique de Montréal and Industrial Research Chair, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, As an Individual

3:55 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

3:55 p.m.

Professor, École Polytechnique de Montréal and Industrial Research Chair, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, As an Individual

Michèle Prévost

Putting on the hat of a mother and grandmother, I would like to be sure that young children across Canada are not exposed to lead. Whatever shape and form every regulation takes, I don't really care, but I would like the local regulator and provincial regulations to address the high-risk sites certainly.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Across Canada, in the 10 provincial jurisdictions, who has the highest water quality standards generally, in particular with respect to lead? Who's the model to look to?

3:55 p.m.

Professor, École Polytechnique de Montréal and Industrial Research Chair, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, As an Individual

Michèle Prévost

I would argue that Ontario should be considered as a model. They went ahead with a more recent regulation. It's very similar to the one being used in Europe. The new guidance from Health Canada is somewhere on the next step to that, and it's very similar as well. I would certainly say that the best in the class is Ontario.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Okay.

I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Badawey.

November 30th, 2017 / 3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to attempt to get to the crux of the matter here. The reason that Mr. Bratina from the Hamilton riding brought this forward is all based on the challenge we have with lead, and of course the challenge it poses to our youngsters especially. I have a personal attachment to it. In my community we had a human health risk assessment done. It identified many contaminants of concern within our soils and grounds throughout the city. With that, lead was identified. Digging a bit deeper into the weeds, we recognized the impacts of lead, especially, once again, on our youngsters.

With that, I'm going to try to zero in on a resolve or a solution to this. I believe a lot of it boils down to one thing, and that's sustainable funding. We know it is a problem. Regardless of what province we're from, lead is simply not good to be contained within our drinking water. Coming from the pipes, whether it be on the public side or the private side, it has to be dealt with.

Let's zero in on the private side. This is a question for all of you, but I'll go to Mr. Iannello first, with the municipal experience he's had.

Sal, it's great to see you, by the way. It's been a while. In terms of your experience with respect to trying to come up with a sustainable funding formula, what are your thoughts on moving forward and how we can achieve that, not always by going to the taxpayer and/or the water and waste-water ratepayer, but other recommendations that you, or on behalf of the Canadian Public Works Association, can put forward in terms of what the federal government can actually participate in?

3:55 p.m.

General Manager, Infrastructure and Development Services, City of Welland

Sal Iannello

I think the bottom line with sustainable is that “predictable” is always the key word. That way we don't have to scrape together some amount of money every year to figure out what we're going to do and have a plan in place. As I believe my colleagues from Edmonton and the professor pointed out, the biggest problem is on the private side. The public side could be worked at.

Of course, as you are well aware, both Port Colborne and your home municipality in Welland, where I work, are older municipalities that have suffered huge industrial losses and therefore have problems with affordability of the water as it is. Anything we add to the cost takes it to the point where many of our households find it difficult. Any kind of sustainable and predictable funding would be fantastic, absolutely.

On this particular issue, as has been mentioned by others, the real crux of the problem is the private side. Many, many people do not understand the dangers of lead or feel they're not susceptible and use avoidance methods—i.e., that the percentage of water they actually drink is small. Those are the people we're having trouble selling it to. That's why, as I said, we've historically tried to create programs and increase the amount of money we put in. That's why I mentioned the one where we discussed with counsel the possibility of paying 100%. However, that then becomes difficult for the municipality to bear from a cost point of view. Certainly any federal or provincial support would be greatly appreciated. That's basically the bottom line.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Essentially this is actually a national problem. We recognize that, and there's only so much money available to tackle the problem with the biggest impact possible. We have announced a $184-billion infrastructure fund, and the provinces have announced their infrastructure funds throughout the country. Again, it's about getting the biggest bang for the buck.

From your end, from the municipal end, has there been consideration, for example, that the city could take on a debenture and pay for the private side 100%? The city could carry that debenture for 10, 20, or maybe even 30 years, and with that, look at the possibility of payback by the residents to the city over the same period of time through the water and waste-water rates or the tax rate. This would have less of an impact on the yearly case over that period of time, and there's the possibility of the municipalities applying to the infrastructure fund to cover simply the interest that would otherwise be accrued over the time of the debenture. Has that thought been entertained by the municipalities?

4 p.m.

General Manager, Infrastructure and Development Services, City of Welland

Sal Iannello

I can't speak for all municipalities, but I'm sure it may have occurred to one or some.

In our case, we tried to fund it ourselves. As you're well aware, we have two tiers; there are two levels of government. The region has stepped up with some funding too, because they treat the water. Despite the fact that the water leaves their plant in good shape, through our program, they've provided a fair bit of funding. We've tried to operate in that way. We think it's doable. The funds in fact have remained unspent by the private side in many years. That's why I reiterate that from our side, absolutely, unlike some other municipalities, we have gone with partial replacement. That's why you see the two different numbers. When we get money, federal or provincial, for any kind of capital projects, and we do a lot of water projects, as you're well aware, we go in and replace the main. If we're replacing a main, we replace all the lead services. Our sampling after the fact has shown that there is no increase in the lead going into the home. We are focused. That's why absolutely any federal or provincial funding that allows us to replace water mains will aid us in getting rid of the public side of the services. Again, I'm going to reiterate that the public side [Technical difficulty—Editor].

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much.

We go now to Mr. Aubin.

4 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses who are with us this afternoon.

There is no doubt that the members of this committee are more and more aware of the inherent dangers of lead water pipes.

I would like to put my first question to Ms. Guérin, from Trois-Rivières.

If I understood what you said at the beginning of your presentation correctly, the results of the great majority of tests you conducted met the Canadian standard, with a few exceptions. You realized that you had not allowed enough time to let the water run before you took the sample. You redid the tests after letting the water run for longer and the results were within the standard. Do I have that right?

4:05 p.m.

Specialist in drinking water, Public Works, Ville de Trois-Rivières

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Here is where I have a problem. I will ask you the question not knowing whether you have an answer.

The Canadian standard for a maximum concentration of lead in drinking water is 10 micrograms per litre. Ms. Prévost tells us that, according to the protocol in effect in Quebec, you have to let the water run for five minutes before taking a sample. Now, I know very few people who let the water run for five minutes before their first glass of water in the morning. In fact, we have been encouraged for years not to waste drinking water and to turn the water off when we brush our teeth.

How can that test be considered credible if the water is left to run for five minutes before a sample is taken?

4:05 p.m.

Specialist in drinking water, Public Works, Ville de Trois-Rivières

Marie-Claude Guérin

All test protocols have a standard flow time of five minutes. In the past, we actually did other studies, when the sample was taken as soon as the tap was turned on in the morning. In those conditions, the results of the lead concentration tests certainly showed a higher concentration than those from the tests that required a five-minute flow time.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Do you have an idea of the difference between the concentration in the first flow and the one taken after a five-minute flow?

4:05 p.m.

Specialist in drinking water, Public Works, Ville de Trois-Rivières

Marie-Claude Guérin

The difference is quite considerable. In places where the results were already outside the standard after a five-minute flow, the concentration was perhaps not twice as high, but it was not far off.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Thank you.

Ms. Prévost—

4:05 p.m.

Specialist in drinking water, Public Works, Ville de Trois-Rivières

Marie-Claude Guérin

Ms. Prévost would be in a better position to answer that question.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Okay. So I will let her explain.

Go ahead, Ms. Prévost.

4:05 p.m.

Professor, École Polytechnique de Montréal and Industrial Research Chair, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, As an Individual

Michèle Prévost

Last year, Ms. Deshommes published the results after a five-minute flush and after the water stood for 30 minutes and 6 hours. The simulation took place during one night. The differences are considerable: the concentration can be almost double.

A sample taken after a five-minute flow certainly does not detect the concentration to which users are typically exposed, as you mentioned just now.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Thank you.

My next question is likely for the municipal officials.

Most major municipalities treat the water before it goes into the drinking water system. When that is so, the water contains no lead when it comes out of the filtration plant.

If owners of private systems do not change their part of their pipes and they let the water flow from the taps in the bathroom, from the shower, or from anywhere else in the house, they are returning water containing lead to the public system. But over the years, have you seen a drop in the concentration of lead in the water to be treated before it is put into the drinking water system?

Mr. Craik, can you answer that?

4:05 p.m.

Director, Water Quality Assurance and Environment, EPCOR Utilities Inc.

Stephen Craik

Just on the question of whether water returning to our treatment plant has lead in it, our supply is a river supply, so upstream of us there is very little development. The water that comes into our treatment plant is generally fairly low in lead and not impacted by our discharges from the waste-water plant. Our waste-water treatment plant discharges further downstream. That's often the case for utilities—not always, but often. Our waste water could become another municipality's source water; however, I think the volumes of lead from the homes that we have would probably not add substantially to the waste-water lead burden to the next municipality. Really, the source of the lead is the lead service lines and the plumbing materials within the buildings.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Thank you.

Do you see the same thing in Ontario, Mr. Iannello?

4:05 p.m.

General Manager, Infrastructure and Development Services, City of Welland

Sal Iannello

Yes, I would have to agree with what has been said. Basically, here in Ontario, at least in our area, we are on the Great Lakes. All our water is from the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes water does not have any initial lead in it of any measurable amount. The water leaving the plant, again, does not have any real measurable amount of lead in it. Almost all of the lead is taken up from the services and some older fixtures, which have lead components.

I was in charge of the waste-water system for quite some time in the region of Niagara, too. It's not really a number that is of any concern, what comes into the plant or what the leaves the plant. Again, once it gets back into Lake Ontario—although many other municipalities are using the water again and again—there, it's negligible. Even in our case, the Great Lakes, a lot of other municipalities put their waste water into Lake Erie and, as I said, the lead in our source water is negligible, and the effect that we have is negligible also.