Transport Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

We know, of course, that shorelines are different. From what I heard today, different sections of the shorelines are different in the Great Lakes. Which ones are especially affected by the operations of commercial vessels, and how so?

[Jean-François Bernier]

You actually have to go way back in time. What explains erosion and the fact that the situation is critical in the fluvial section is that most of the shorelines consist of the same type of surface deposit, a slightly more loamy clay that reacts strongly to wake phases, causing alternating humidity and dryness, as a result of which it falls apart in sheets. In scientific terms, this is called the desiccation of clay soils. Nearly all the shorelines in the fluvial section are formed from this type of deposit.

Land use planning can have consequences. Sometimes these zones consist mainly of cohesionless material, a much more vulnerable deposit.

These two types of deposits are found in the fluvial section covering the zone where ship and boat wake occurs, between Lake Saint Pierre and Montreal.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Some of the witnesses today made reference to some of the green alternatives.

I'm not sure who, but one of the witnesses said that the shoreline in front of some people's properties is like a golf course. I guess they've cut all the trees and planted grass of some kind and turned it into a very green area, which obviously impacts the protection you get from the natural elements.

In addition to changing the speed limits that you talked about, what are some of the other ways we can prevent shoreline erosion? Is it planting more trees and doing more things that make the landscape more resilient to this kind of coastal erosion?

[Patrick Lajeunesse]

In some cases, you have to let nature recover, in particular by using vegetation.

As Mr. Bernier said earlier, that would help reduce wave friction on certain types of infrastructure. It would also enable the capture of sediments, that is mud or sand, along the shoreline. That will also help reduce friction.

To improve the situation, we should promote natural revegetation. In other words, we should let trees grow rather than cut them down.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Building man-made water breaks would not necessarily be a good solution, as some of you have referenced. I'm assuming, then, that the green option would be much preferred by the residents who live along the coastline.

[Patrick Lajeunesse]

Mr. Chair, I have to say that we aren't infrastructure experts or engineers. We can observe the impacts of climate change or anthropic phenomena on infrastructure, but we can't determine what the best solution would be.

However, going back to the idea that sediments must be allowed to be transported along the shoreline so they can travel, as Ms. Lagarde said, you have to permit exchanges between land and water. Sediments have to be constantly transported along the shoreline; this will help reduce friction along established infrastructure.

I think that's a fairly important element that could be implemented by various means.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lajeunesse.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers, for your line of questioning.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll go once again to Mr. Lajeunesse and Mr. Bernier.

The St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes are respectively the most densely populated areas in Quebec and Canada. I imagine that has artificially changed many shorelines over the years and had a major anthropic effect, along with shipping, on shorelines and occupied lands. Ultimately, this also means there has been a significant impact on the ecological environment over the years, since now there is necessarily less vegetation and biodiversity and fewer animals on the shorelines.

You also mentioned that shoreline erosion seemed to be greater in places where there were no protective works and where more features had been left in their natural state. How do you reconcile the two? There appears to be less erosion in places that have artificial protection, and thus where the shoreline has been artificially altered, but at the same time, from an ecological standpoint, it would be preferable to leave them more in their natural state.

We talked about a shoreline protection program. Are you in favour of that?

What form should it take?

What would happen if we decided not to introduce such a program?

[Patrick Lajeunesse]

First, you have to look at the present infrastructure situation. If the infrastructure is obsolete, that may already be part of the answer. Perhaps we should examine the situation and improve it to make the shorelines more resilient.

On the other hand, we're seeing receding natural shorelines that aren't protected. However, they nevertheless meet certain ecosystem objectives, contributing, in particular, to sediment transport along the shoreline. That prevents a certain upstream deficit.

So the response isn't perfect, but our knowledge of the situation isn't perfect either.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Ms. Allaire, it was you who put a resolution on this subject before the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. Perhaps you could conclude by telling us about your reasons for introducing such a request.

[Maud Allaire]

Of course.

I've met with Ms. Lagarde for years now; she comes to see me with one of my fellow citizens, and I direct them to the representatives of the various orders of government so they can contact and meet with them.

I don't think I've ever denied that climate change is the challenge of the future. Many scientists have conducted many studies on the subject, and I will always fight for us to do more for the residents, communities, wildlife reserves and all the islands in the St. Lawrence Seaway. We must reforest them because, with global warming, temperatures will rise many degrees and many species of trees will perish. Some of our islands will ultimately have only aquatic plants and hay. However, we know that those islands harbour many bird species and that they are islands where fish, northern map turtles and sand martins, in particular, reproduce.

Consequently, long-term investments must be made in this part of the seaway to ensure the survival of our ecosystems and all the species living in them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Allaire.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours. You have two and a half minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We heard earlier in this meeting about the voluntary speed reduction that was suggested—I won't say “imposed”—by the federal government. I'm wondering if any of the witnesses have a sense of whether there has been substantial compliance monitoring to see whether the shipping companies are obeying or following the voluntary speed reductions, and then effectiveness monitoring to see whether the reduction of speed limits is having any impact on reducing the amount of shoreline erosion that's been seen.

Mr. Grégoire, I think you most recently referenced the speed limit reduction, so perhaps we can start with you.

I'm not sure if any other witnesses would like to jump in with their thoughts, but that would be appreciated.

[Roy Grégoire]

Yes, the speed limits are mostly respected, but in some cases, it's been observed that at certain times, at nighttime, some of the ships are going faster than they should be.

You know, there's a lot of traffic, so it's hard to.... It's been observed by certain sites where you can see the ships and the speeds they're going. I know that recently there were at least two ships, maybe a week or two ago, that were going much faster than they should have been. We can't stay up all night to watch for that, so it's hard to say how many ships are not respecting the speed limits. However, it has an impact.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It sounds like anecdotal evidence that some ships aren't respecting the speed limits.

Is anyone aware of any systematic, quantitative approach to compliance monitoring? I guess if it's voluntary there's no punishment if they don't follow it.

[Carine Durocher]

The Corporation des pilotes du Saint-Laurent central, which represents the pilots that guide the ships in our region, previously conducted an analysis of this and came to the conclusion that 95% of ships were complying with the recommended voluntary lower speed limit.

In my area, that speed limit is helping to reduce shoreline recession rates but hasn't stopped the erosion. Instead of losing two metres a year, we may lose just one where a speed limit is in effect. The limit applies on only certain sections of the river. It's a commendable measure but, on its own, won't be enough to protect riparian habitats.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Durocher.

We will conclude with Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for both Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume and Mayor Allaire with respect to their work on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.

For those who don't know, that initiative is a binational organization that has involvement from the federal, provincial, and primarily the municipal levels of government to work on Great Lakes and St. Lawrence issues. With that said, the U.S. has invested in and embarked on an extremely aggressive Great Lakes agenda, primarily with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

The first question for Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume is this: Can you elaborate, with your experience and work with your U.S. partners, on established partnerships? Second, can you elaborate on the achievements and benefits to date of this initiative that the U.S. has embarked on so aggressively, including, of course, what we're discussing today, shoreline preservation?

[Phillipe Murphy-Rhéaume]

In terms of partnerships, part of our GLRI formation was through a coalition of concerned organizations in the Great Lakes on the U.S. side that came together and put pressure on the federal government to bring funding along that would help address a multitude of issues, whether addressing water pollution or the attenuation of impacts from climate change on our waterways and the shoreline.

The GLRI came out as a bipartisan effort. It has bipartisan support across the Great Lakes region. In fact, when the previous U.S. president threatened to pull GLRI funding, the community at large, but also the members of both parties pushed back and ensured that the funding was not only maintained, but also enhanced. Then, with the recent passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in the U.S., we're seeing an even larger top-up of the GLRI funding on the U.S. side.

We do have some catching up to do, I would say, on the Canadian side now that our federal neighbours are investing so heavily into the Great Lakes. They may have different priorities, but that being said, whether it's through the GLRI or other programming through that Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we're seeing a lot of funding going towards shoreline resilience in the Great Lakes. In fact, through a partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the eight Great Lakes states, and funding through U.S. Congress, they are going to be undertaking a large Great Lakes resiliency study that will determine what the different hazards are across the region and what types of solutions could be implemented. They will work towards that implementation.

It's certainly a model that we would like to see here, and I think we saw this talk of a regional approach reflected in the action plan 2020-30 as well. I think some of those themes have come up on multiple occasions tonight through different members' questioning. We need to look at this issue collectively, to work across entire regions and littoral cells, because whatever measures one community or one individual landowner takes to attenuate the impacts, whether of climate change or of wave activity from passing ships or pleasure boats or craft, whatever measures they may take at that individual level will have impacts downstream or on their neighbours. We need to come together collectively to address those issues.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume.

I'll go over to Mayor Allaire.

I would like to hear your comments on the same question, Mayor.

[Maud Allaire]

It's hard to define the programs. We would always like to do more for our fellow citizens and really get to know them. We would also like the federal government to ask us at times if we're aware we can apply to such and such a program.

Does the government take care of federal wildlife reserves? Does it conduct audits? Is it doing its job as a manager? Is it making sure it's providing enough funding to restore these ecosystems in order to ensure they survive for future generations? I must say I very much doubt it.

I'm absolutely prepared to work with the federal and provincial governments, but I have to be aware of the grant programs. I must also call upon the government, as I am doing now, to provide support to all these citizens and cities that are forced to invest increasing amounts of money in their water supply and infrastructure to subsidize their costs and guarantee long-term shoreline development for future generations and for the animals on those shorelines.

I call on everyone to work together. Beyond merely conducting research, we need to act. We know the statistics. We discuss them and discuss them again, but we need to be on the ground and to act.

Over the next few years, we will be working hard to establish the Contrecœur terminal, which will add to the infrastructure of the Port of Montreal.

Over the next few years, there will be successes thanks to the investments that have been made to establish walls with nesting boxes—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madame Allaire.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

Thanks to the witnesses for their time and for providing us with their expertise and feedback.

With that, colleagues, we're going to adjourn.

Before I do that, I believe the clerk has had discussions with all of you about the need to approve the budget for the next two studies.

Do I see any objection to that?

Yes, Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

The funds that are allocated for witnesses, those are just placeholder amounts. Is that right?

Excellent. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Are there any objections, colleagues?

(Motion agreed to)

With that, this meeting is adjourned.