Evidence of meeting #38 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was river.
A recording is available from Parliament.
November 14th, 2022 / 4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for their evidence today.
My first question is for the two mayors, Mayor Allaire and Mayor Barthe.
I am curious. What is the composition of the shoreline with respect to private ownership versus commercial ownership versus government ownership of the shorelines that we're talking about within your vicinity?
4:45 p.m.
Mayor, City of Contrecoeur, Member, Cities Initiative, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
We have 22 kilometers of shoreline in the city of Contrecœur, including approximately 8 kilometers in an industrial zone, another 8 in a denser residential zone and 6 kilometers in a more recreational-tourism zone including agricultural land.
The shorelines in Contrecœur are higher at certain places than at others, and don't forget the Îles de Contrecœur archipelago, which is a national wildlife reserve.
Since I'm a kayak and photography enthusiast, I've seen ecosystems erode year after year. Water levels are higher or lower depending on freezes and thaws. When infrastructure can no longer trap water, heavy rains can result in overflow.
There's also the constant presence of boats and other pleasure craft, because we have two marinas and a waterfront on some islands.
I think that various programs need to be established. We mentioned green infrastructure. I think that's a long-term solution. All too often, local residents have cleared their land as though it was a golf course. As a result, there are no root systems to support their properties, which are subsiding or subject to landslides.
I think very strict regulations should be imposed to prohibit the clearing of land to create golf-course-like properties or greens. Citizens must also be assisted through grants in replanting—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Mayor, if I may interrupt for a moment, I'd like to ask you something about private ownership and the logical justification that you would present for why the government should pay to restore the shoreline for private owners.
4:50 p.m.
Mayor, City of Contrecoeur, Member, Cities Initiative, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
I think you're talking about residents.
The shoreline protection program was terminated in 1997. People bought their properties at another time, when they talked even less about climate change and rising temperatures that can kill off biodiversity and certain ecosystems. Temperature increases also kill certain varieties of trees. Citizens therefore need technical advice on how to improve retention of their shorelines, in particular by using aquatic grasses and planting certain types of trees. We should also focus, together with civil engineers, on other options that could be combined with a little grey infrastructure, while ensuring that most of the infrastructure is green.
These people who bought their properties at another time can no longer afford to invest in rebuilding their protective walls. As a result, it's becoming dangerous for them to sell, not to mention the financial loss they would incur. We all want to retain our built heritage and, one day, to be able to retire and live longer in an institution or place where we'll be sheltered and have health care. So I think that all Canadian citizens have a right to assistance when their long-term security is at risk.
We also need to adopt a longer-term vision. Perhaps the decision will be made one day to buy back the properties of those people to ensure that adequate perennial vegetation is planted to offset temperature increases that also threaten the entire ecosystem of the St. Lawrence River.
Lastly, the Îles de Contrecœur would greatly benefit from a tree planting grants program because the trees there have been uprooted throughout the islands.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
May I ask how many homes are in imminent danger of perhaps collapsing into the waterways?
4:50 p.m.
Mayor, City of Contrecoeur, Member, Cities Initiative, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
According to the studies, the situation is worse in Varennes and Verchères. Our shorelines are slightly higher in Contrecœur. The places most affected are the ones that have no direct protection from an archipelago.
There are also a lot of pleasure boats on the water here and near the shorelines. I therefore ask that the federal government regulate pleasure boat speeds and the distance from the shorelines—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
Unfortunately, there is no more time.
Next we have Mr. Badawey.
Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
I'm going to go back to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, because I was, in my former life, part of that group of people for 14 years and I know the great work they do within their communities, especially listening to the folks we have on today's call within those communities.
I have two questions, and then I'm going to let you go, as you did last time.
First, do you agree that the Canada water agency can, in fact, be the lead, I guess the one-stop shop, for what I call the triple bottom line, which is the recognition of economic, environmental and social investments attached to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence based on the recommendations contained within, for example, the action plan for 2020-30?
I want to get a bit more granular. In the recommendations contained within the action plan, there is—on page 10, at paragraph 2.1, to be exact—“Building climate change resiliency in shoreline communities”. If you go into the report—and I'm just looking at it here—on page 28, for example, it speaks about the economic benefits of dealing with these very problems. If you go on to pages 30 and 31, it talks about the costs of doing the work, but more importantly, the costs of doing nothing.
I want to remind you that your testimony is needed, to be included within this report, so I'm doing this deliberately to get on the record a lot of the recommendations that are contained within that action plan 2020-30, so that this committee can actually also recommend, based on your testimony, a lot of the recommendations that are contained within that report.
With that, I'll pass the question on to Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume.
4:55 p.m.
Director of Canadian Policy, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the member for Niagara Centre again for the question.
I would also be remiss if I didn't thank the member from Vimy. I forgot to thank her for participating in our mid-year meeting. I believe it was in January when she had just taken on the portfolio of parliamentary secretary for transport. We appreciated her participation at that meeting and entertaining our board members' questions.
With respect to the Canada water agency, absolutely, an agency that looks at freshwater questions and interior water questions from a triple bottom line approach will ensure its success. Getting buy-in from not only the environmental community, but also the business community would build what I would call a multi-partisan endorsement or support for such an agency.
Understanding that there's also a national adaptation strategy under development by the federal government, there's certainly an important role for the Canada water agency to play with respect to climate adaptation, especially when we look at shoreline resilience. We would hope to see that as part of the mandate.
Given the importance of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, not only to our economy.... If it were to be considered its own country, it would be the third-largest economy in the world, with around $7 trillion in economic activity every year. It's also the source of 20% of the world's surface fresh water. It's a source of drinking water for 40 million Canadians and Americans. It's also a shared resource with our neighbours to the south. That's why we're proud to be a binational organization.
Absolutely, having that approach will ensure that we're making the right investments that will yield environmental benefits and also socio-economic benefits.
We're seeing that in the U.S. with their Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or the GLRI program, which we would like to see adopted and adapted up here in Canada with also a significant level of investment. For every dollar invested in the GLRI, we're seeing approximately a three-dollar payback for those coastal communities that are seeing those GLRI investments.
We're seeing that sound environmental investments targeted towards the right actions—whether that's remediating our waterways or our shorelines, which do have a water quality impact, a quality of life impact and an impact on municipal infrastructure—will yield very large economic results.
I hope that answers the question.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
If I could just reinforce.... I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you mentioned your support for the GLRI. That's comparable to what they are doing in the States.
As a last question, do you find that the big part of the GLRI would in fact be the Great Lakes action plan 2020-30 and, in particular, the recommendations contained therein?
4:55 p.m.
Director of Canadian Policy, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Absolutely. The recommendations in the action plan are science-based. They are community-based. We had a series of consultations done in the development of this action plan. It was an 18-month process.
This is coming from a series of experts who helped lead consultations with communities, with first nations communities and with partners from both an environmental and an economic space. I think the government has a perfect template for creating a GLRI-like program up here in Canada based on those recommendations in the action plan.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much.
Next we have Mr. Strahl.
The floor is yours. You have five minutes.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Like Mr. Bachrach, I am also familiar with erosion issues, etc. Mine are on the Fraser River, not the St. Lawrence or the Great Lakes.
I did want to ask Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume or the Université Laval witnesses if they are aware of how many kilometres of under-protected shoreline we are talking about here. Obviously, the different municipalities know. We heard testimony about certain sections of the waterways that are impacted in their communities.
Do we have an idea of the total number of kilometres that are impacted by erosion and by shipping in the waterways that we're talking about today?
5 p.m.
Director of Canadian Policy, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
I would defer that question to Université Laval. We don't have studies that pertain particularly to the transport industry or its impact on erosion.
As I mentioned earlier, we did do a survey with Ontario and Quebec communities that identified over 300 million dollars' worth of investments over the next five years to address those issues. That was only for around 52 communities covering more than 9,000 kilometres of shoreline in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence basin.
I would defer to Université Laval on your specific question.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Professor, Université Laval
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Jean-François, do you have the numbers with you?
5 p.m.
Research Assistant, Université Laval
I don't have the exact number, but it would be easy to get it from the data we published on the Données Québec website following our last study.
At first glance, I'd say that at least 300 kilometers of shorelines in the fluvial section show signs of erosion as a result of the seaway. I'm sorry, but I can't give you the exact number for the moment.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
If we just want to concentrate on those 300 kilometres—Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume had a figure of $300 million, but let's stick with the 300 kilometres that we're talking about—what is the estimated cost to government? What would the cost be to fully protect those areas or restore those areas to a satisfactory level to prevent this type of erosion from occurring in the future? Do we have a ballpark figure? In an ideal world, where cost is not a concern, how much is it costing to address this issue?
5 p.m.
Research Assistant, Université Laval
Earlier someone mentioned the figures $5,000 to $6,000 per metre. I won't do the calculation, but that amounts to some serious money. I think the valuation would be based on that.
We also have to consider the need to take action on erosion. Lowering the speed limit for boats helped reduce erosion by 50%. If the speed limit for ships were reassessed, perhaps that would be a way to reduce erosion further and to ensure that certain sites are less affected by ship and boat wake. In the long term, certain segments would probably no longer be affected by wake, or else its impact would be minimal. That's a potential intervention strategy instead of establishing structures that would be quite costly, as we've seen.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
My final question is for either of the mayors.
Have you been able to access any of the disaster mitigation and adaptation funds that the Government of Canada has set aside? It's generally to reduce the risk of flooding, but I'm wondering if you've accessed any of those funds and if they have had an impact on erosion almost as a by-product of protecting your communities from flooding.
Go ahead, Mayor Allaire.
5:05 p.m.
Mayor, City of Contrecoeur, Member, Cities Initiative, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
We haven't received any grants to reduce the impact of erosion on shorelines in Contrecœur.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
Mr. Rogers, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today and enlightening this committee and the members on some of the challenges you face in the region where you live with regard to shoreline erosion. It's certainly not something I'm familiar with. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we're surrounded by water, but it's a very rocky coastline, so when we have shoreline erosion, it's primarily from storms and the climate change issues that we're talking about.
I have a couple of questions for the Université Laval representatives today.
First of all, you mentioned a couple of projects. You've been documenting the natural effects on the shorelines of the Great Lakes since 2007. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on how you think climate change has probably been a major part of that erosion and whether or not you've documented, through videos or pictures of any kind, some of the shoreline damages that have been caused.
5:05 p.m.
Professor, Université Laval
Unlike what other teams conducting research in the estuary and Gulf of St. Lawrence have documented, what I'm documenting are other processes and causes that are particular to this section of the river.
The impact of climate change on the St. Lawrence River will especially be seen in water level variations, whether high or low. That's one of the factors associated with climate change that will have a significant impact on changes in the shorelines.