Transport Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

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

Is this one, like a thermal coal ban, that would be better dealt with at Environment Canada or at Fisheries and Oceans Canada? Would they also be able to prohibit that? Would this be a way to ensure that a minister of the environment, for instance, couldn't authorize a future discharge of eight billion litres into the St. Lawrence Seaway, as Catherine McKenna did early on when she was the environment minister?

[Sonya Read]

I could only speak to what the waste-water systems effluent regulations cover, which is the deposit of treated sewage from waste-water treatment systems.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is somewhat in the same direction Mr. Strahl was going with the questioning, but I'll be a bit more brief.

What is officially in place, regardless of what department is responsible for it? To your knowledge, is there something in place already to deal with what Mr. Strahl is trying to present? Second, what is it, and who is responsible for it?

[Sonya Read]

My colleague will speak to that.

[Rachel Heft]

Under the vessel pollution and dangerous chemicals regulations, which are regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, there is a prohibition at section 95 that cites:

A person or vessel must not discharge sewage or sewage sludge except in accordance with section 96 or in the circumstances set out in section 5 that apply in respect of the discharge.

Thereafter, in section 96, it limits the discharge in certain circumstances, which are specifically set out. They are fairly lengthy. I could read them if you like.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

No, you don't have to. Thank you. You made your point in terms of their being in place, which is what I was getting at.

The second part of that, to get a bit more granular, is with respect to section 96 or any section that would attach itself the same. You mentioned the vessel pollution and dangerous chemicals regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. I'm assuming that would be discharge coming from a vessel.

The second part—and I think what Mr. Strahl is alluding to, based on his examples in the past—is discharge coming from a treatment plant that would bypass or just be let out of a treatment facility that would otherwise be treating that effluent.

I'll ask the same question. You mentioned the provision under the Canada Shipping Act—I want to be clear here—with respect to discharge from a vessel. However, in terms of discharge from an actual on-land, municipal and/or regional treatment facility, can you expand on that? What is currently in place?

[Sonya Read]

In respect of that, the regulations are found under the Fisheries Act. It's the waste-water systems effluent regulations that are in place.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I guess this is more of a statement than it is a question. The bottom line is that there are regulations in place through the Ministry of the Environment, through DFO and, when it comes to vessels discharging, through the Canada Shipping Act. Is that correct?

[Sonya Read]

Yes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Next we have Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair, this is a topic that I am very interested in. It's been seven years in my riding that we've been trying to get Transport Canada to have a conversation with one of our local municipalities around this topic.

I would really like to see this as a separate study. I would encourage Mr. Strahl to propose a study to this committee to look into vessel pollution and dangerous chemicals. There is no testimony on this topic in relation to the bill we're talking about today, but I would certainly like to have a deeper conversation about it. I hope Mr. Strahl will propose a separate study so that we can get testimony and hear from those who are being impacted by this practice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

I'll go to Mr. Lewis.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

This is a conversation that's very near and dear to my heart. For full disclosure, years and years ago, when I took Dale Carnegie classes, that was the last the thing that I spoke about. It was with regard to the dumping of raw sewage. It was specifically in Vancouver. I wasn't smart enough at the time to realize that it happened in Montreal as well.

I come from a background of almost 30 years in the sewer industry. I'm very much aware of what this looks like. During my four short years as a Kingsville councillor, I also realized that sewer separation has happened across so many municipalities across this country.

I want to take it one step further if I could, Mr. Chair, and I do very much appreciate the remarks from Mr. Strahl and Mr. Badawey. They basically echo mine, but I want to take it a step further because I know we're talking about the dumping of raw sewage into the ports. I want to talk about the Great Lakes for a moment, and the vessels that come into the Great Lakes. I want to talk about the beaches that are, quite frankly, filled with used sanitary products. I know that because I walk the beaches.

Whether it's dumped from a vessel that came in from another country or whether it's dumped because of 10 inches of rain that came out of Detroit, it's still an issue. That effluent that is dumped into our Great Lakes is the same effluent that goes to the St. Lawrence River. There's only one passageway to the ocean. This is a very, very important topic of conversation.

I forget when it was, Mr. Chair, so I'm going to say two or three months ago. Pardon my ignorance for the timing. There were conversations around the orcas and the vessels perhaps suspending for 10 or 14 days off the coast of Vancouver because the orcas were, I believe, moving to the north. Well, if we're going to talk about the vessels, then we better be talking about raw sewage, because I'm sure the orcas are certainly are not overly excited about that either.

I don't know why we wouldn't continue this conversation. I certainly appreciate Ms. Zarrillo's comment that this should be a study. It could potentially be a study in and of its own. I do believe that it's prudent for us to at least have the conversation and bring this forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must admit I'm surprised to see the Conservatives tabling this amendment today. We weren't expecting this debate. If we're going to do it, we need to take the time to do it properly. I don't think anyone is in favour of dumping sewage or untreated water into the river, into the ocean, into a river, or anywhere.

However, before we vote on this, I'd like to have a better idea of what concrete effect the adoption of this amendment would have in municipalities on a daily basis. I can see that it might have an effect, but I haven't had a chance to do an in-depth study of it.

Is there a legal expert who could shed some light on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read]

I think it would require more analysis for us to understand the impacts of this versus the waste-water systems effluent regulations that are already in effect through the Fisheries Act.

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

On a constitutional level, I wonder if there is really no encroachment on areas of jurisdiction other than those of the federal government.

I'm just surprised to see this, because we're talking about the discharge of untreated sewage into waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority.

Who would exercise this control? Would it be the port authorities?

I'd like more clarification, unless we don't know.

[Rachel Heft]

The amendment is drafted so as to require the making of regulations that would prohibit the deposit of raw sewage in waters under the jurisdiction of the port authority. While the waters may be under the proper federal constitutional jurisdiction, the question of who would be responsible for them is not specified here, and there's no regulatory authority using the language we discussed earlier about how the Governor in Council “may make regulations” to allow for that to be specified or for proper provisions to be in place to ensure that we know whose responsibility it is, who would enforce it, etc.

The constitutional jurisdiction may not be the issue so much as the wording of the amendment being rather limited in terms of what could be included in the regulations and the proper responsibility of the parties, or specifically the Department of Transport.

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

If we're going to vote on this, I think it would be important to know which waters fall under the jurisdiction of a port authority.

Can we be provided with a map? Could it be sent to committee members?

[Sonya Read]

The waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority are set out in schedule A of each of their letters patent. I don't have a map right now that would be available immediately.

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

I have no further questions at this time.

Thank you.