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.
4:30 p.m.
Research Assistant, Université Laval
If I understand correctly, the question is about research on established structures. Is that correct? Is it about recommendations for building green structures?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Just in consideration of your research and the design of your research, and from your expertise in this area, are you aware of what other jurisdictions are doing to address this particular issue and how that might inform the committee?
4:30 p.m.
Research Assistant, Université Laval
I believe Ms. Lagarde or Ms. Durocher mentioned that. They mentioned the study that Diane Dauphin and Denis Lehoux conducted in the 2000s. They did an excellent study on erosion of the seaway shorelines. We can say that we're the ones continuing that work.
They had been talking about lower ship speeds since 2000, but their work stopped a few years later, in 2002. They didn't mention whether that reduced the effects of erosion. It was hard to see clearly whether erosion or the trend continued or not.
In the follow-up studies we're now conducting on Île Marie and Île des Barques in the Archipelago of Lake Saint Pierre, we can see that erosion is continuing in the various archipelagos in the fluvial section of the St. Lawrence.
Based on our studies, we feel that priority at the regional level, on which we're working, should be given to the areas experiencing the most erosion. Those are mainly the natural shorelines because they respond most quickly to ship and boat wake and other processes of the St. Lawrence. We can accurately target the sections most exposed to waves caused by ship and boat wake and can see that those natural environments continue to erode. There has been a 50% reduction. Certain islands can lose an average of one to two metres of land per year, as the Comité pour la protection des berges du Saint-Laurent mentioned earlier.
That's all I can say for the moment.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Perhaps I could ask a question of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. There's been discussion of the different levels of government, municipalities, citizens, property owners and the IJC all having a stake in this and a collaborative approach. In an ideal world, who would do what, and what might that look like? What should each level of government be looking at?
4:30 p.m.
Director of Canadian Policy, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Thank you for the question.
I'll go back to the action plan for 2020-30. Our recommendation is for the federal government to take a leadership position on this file and work with the provinces and other stakeholders, like cities and individual landowners, to come up with regional or local plans to address issues, or the phenomena, in a localized manner.
One thing we are noticing—and I think everyone at the table would agree—is that you can't have a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire Great Lakes and St. Lawrence, or the entire country for that matter. The action plan identified priority zones where those investments could take place.
Of course, municipalities, as the local governments or the governments that are closest to their citizens, have a role to play, but their resources are quite limited. We are talking about a fiscal framework that doesn't really favour municipalities to take those on as a responsibility, even though they have a growing set of responsibilities, in fact.
Something else we're hearing is that a lot of the programming that's available—
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume, we have no time left for that round of questioning. We've gone over the time already.
Thank you very much, Mr. Muys.
Next we have Ms. Koutrakis.
Ms. Koutrakis, the floor is yours and you have five minutes.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses for being with us this afternoon.
My first question is for Mayor Allaire or Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume.
What kind of consultations have you conducted with your communities on the changes they would like to see made to the regulations?
4:35 p.m.
Director of Canadian Policy, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
That's a very good question.
I admit we haven't yet begun consultations with our members on regulatory issues affecting their ability to introduce coastal resilience solutions. That's an issue that comes up increasingly frequently.
We also noticed that one of our members, the City of Varennes, had to do some urgent work because the provincial Ministry of the Environment was too slow in taking action. That forced the city to start the work without getting the necessary approvals, which put it at risk.
We want to continue our discussions on the subject with our members next year. We also want to get a clearer understanding of how we can establish a new regulatory framework to facilitate matters for the municipalities and citizens in taking measures to protect their shorelines. The environmental assessment takes a lot of time and is a costly process. We could see if there are any ways to expedite the process, especially when it comes to improving infrastructure naturally.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
It seems to me that, before adopting any regulatory changes, the federal government must assess a number of factors such as the social and environmental repercussions of potential economic effects.
Is that your understanding?
Does that seem reasonable to you, Mr. Murphy-Rhéaume?
4:35 p.m.
Director of Canadian Policy, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
It seems absolutely reasonable to me.
We're ultimately an environmental organization and therefore can't overlook the environmental impact. One of our organization's basic pillars is water equity, so socioeconomic issues are very important for us.
I can't discuss the exact details of the regulatory issues, but we see that our municipalities are subjected to significant delays when they need to implement solutions. We're talking about properties that are losing at least one metre of shoreline a year. These delays are a serious problem when we're trying to protect public lands and private property.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Any witness may answer my final question.
Do you know whether the federal or provincial governments have implemented any programs to protect shorelines from erosion?
Have you contacted Environment Canada to see whether such programs exist?
Ms. Lagarde, I don't know if you'd like to answer my question.
4:40 p.m.
Vice-Chair, Comité pour la protection des berges du Saint-Laurent
I can answer that question.
In marine areas in Quebec, such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence estuary, shoreline protection programs and initiatives are under way, mainly in connection with climate change.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC
Have you contacted Environment Canada or just the provincial level?
4:40 p.m.
Vice-Chair, Comité pour la protection des berges du Saint-Laurent
We've contacted Environment Canada. We submitted requests, to Minister Guilbeault, in particular, but we haven't officially met with him yet.
The programs that have been implemented are mainly funded by the provincial government, as far as I know. To my knowledge, Environment Canada doesn't offer any programs. Perhaps one of you may have more information on the subject.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis and Ms. Durocher.
I now give the floor to Mr. Barsalou-Duval for two and a half minutes.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My next questions will be for Mr. Bernier and Mr. Lajeunesse.
You are experts in the field of erosion of the St. Lawrence shorelines because you study the situation extensively. Citizens have previously taken action and requested that a program be introduced to protect the shorelines. They were told that the matter wasn't their responsibility, that it concerned climate change and that Transport Canada therefore had nothing to do with it.
In comparing various situations, such as those of the Magdalen Islands and Est du Québec, it's apparent that erosion is due, in particular, to the tides. We know that wind and melting ice have an impact, as does shipping.
How can we isolate each of those factors and determine whether anthropic forces or commercial shipping has an impact? I'm talking here about the specific case of the municipalities of Varennes, Verchères and Contrecœur and the section from Montreal to Lake Saint Pierre, from which I hear more complaints.
I'd like to hear your comments on the subject and to know where the situation stands from a scientific point of view.
4:40 p.m.
Research Assistant, Université Laval
The events that have an impact on water levels and climate change are definitely not the same in the Magdalen Islands, which are exposed to storms, as they are in the section of the St. Lawrence including Contrecœur and the archipelagos. Consequently, it's very hard to attribute clear consequences in that respect. Water levels in the river are very much controlled by the various dams in the St. Lawrence system. Furthermore, since the channel is narrow, winds and storms necessarily play a less important role there than you might see in the lower estuary. The gigantic waves of two or three metres that can be observed in the Magdalen Islands don't break in the fluvial section of the St. Lawrence.
Ship and boat wake thus creates waves in a system where waves otherwise are few. It's important to understand that, and some of our data shows that wake is of quite significant importance. In the spring, for example, floating ice combined with waves created by boat wake also cause considerable abrasion. That's all we can explain now regarding ship and boat wake based on the data we have.
Natural processes have a role to play, but the presence of the seaway adds to the river's natural perturbation regime and also tends to leave certain shorelines more vulnerable. Now, with lower speed limits, many factors are changing because human behaviour is hard to predict.
That's all I can explain for the moment.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Bernier and Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
Next we have Mr. Bachrach.
Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours. You have two and a half minutes.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Lajeunesse or Mr. Bernier. It relates to the infrastructure that's already in existence along the St. Lawrence.
I know that in other river environments when you harden part of the bank, it can result in unintended consequences downstream; it can transfer the energy of the river and cause bigger problems somewhere else.
Has your research shown that that's occurring in this situation with this old infrastructure that was built in the 1960s and 1970s? Has it had unintended consequences elsewhere along the river corridor?
4:45 p.m.
Professor, Université Laval
Mr. Chair, I'll begin, and Mr. Bernier can supplement what I say, should there be any further information to add.
Yes, we're observing those kinds of changes. Earlier Ms. Lagarde mentioned an earth-water continuum, but there also has to be a continuum along the shorelines. There has to be sediment transport along the shorelines. Infrastructure sometimes prevents sediment from being transported that way, which, in some instances, causes erosion downstream from those structures. The phenomenon is known and documented.
Furthermore, I can say that infrastructure is sometimes damaged in spots, which also triggers other geomorphological processes that cause erosion. For example, you can see those processes at work undermining structures. In some instances, when water levels are high, erosion occurs under the infrastructure, combined with ice. A host of phenomena occur and can interfere.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay.
Maybe picking up on that.... It seems like there's a bit of a debate around the relative merits of hard, grey infrastructure—like what was built in the 1960s and 1970s, the old “army corps of engineers” style of armouring the banks of rivers—and this newer way of thinking around natural infrastructure and how to use ecosystems.
Could you talk about the relative merits? Maybe you could start on that topic, and then we can pick it up next round, given that we only have 10 more seconds.
4:45 p.m.
Professor, Université Laval
Jean-François, you can start. You have better knowledge on this than I do.
4:45 p.m.
Research Assistant, Université Laval
One of the negative effects of hard, grey infrastructure, as you said, is increased current speed and less friction than in the case of infrastructure that includes vegetation. This type of infrastructure makes it possible to develop habitats and to retain sediments in order to create ecosystems, such as wetlands, which are conducive to fish habitat. Green infrastructure has shown that it offers many benefits.
In some cases, impermeable infrastructure, such as walls, increase the energy of waves, which is a much more perverse effect for the environment and is even more pronounced where a sawtooth surface is involved.
Various types of infrastructure have been built at various times and this type of infrastructure obviously has more harmful consequences.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you Mr. Bernier.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.
Next we have Dr. Lewis.
Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.