ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, March 22, 2004

1535

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mrs. Karen Brown (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Conservation Service, Department of the Environment)

1540

Ms. Susan Fletcher (Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health)

1545

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC)

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Bob Mills

1550

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Bob Mills

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

1555

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Karen Brown

1600

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. John Carey (Director General, National Water Research Institute, Department of the Environment)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. John Carey

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. John Carey

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

1605

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Julian Reed

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mrs. Karen Brown

1610

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Paul Szabo

1615

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Mrs. Karen Brown

Ms. Susan Fletcher

Mrs. Karen Brown

Ms. Susan Fletcher

1620

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.)

Mrs. Karen Brown

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Mrs. Karen Brown

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Mrs. Karen Brown

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Mrs. Karen Brown

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Mrs. Karen Brown

1625

The Chair

Ms. Susan Fletcher

Mr. John Cooper (Director, Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health)

The Chair

1630

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Mr. John Cooper

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. John Cooper

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

1635

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Ms. Susan Fletcher

The Chair

Ms. Susan Fletcher

The Chair

Mr. John Cooper

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

1640

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. John Carey

1645

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Bob Mills

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1650

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mrs. Karen Brown

1655

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Julian Reed

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1700

Mrs. Karen Brown

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Ms. Susan Fletcher

1705

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Ms. Susan Fletcher

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Ms. Susan Fletcher

Mr. John Cooper

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Mr. John Cooper

Hon. Stéphane Dion

Ms. Susan Fletcher

Hon. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Ms. Susan Fletcher

The Chair

1710

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

1715

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

1720

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Brown

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 007

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 22, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome our witnesses to today's proceedings.

The focus of today's meeting is water quality.

[English]

It brings back memories of a famous report, which perhaps is not collecting dust, namely, the 1987 Peter Pearse report. Perhaps the witnesses will give us the good news that it is being fully implemented in all of its aspects.

Before introducing the witnesses, I would like to congratulate them on the water initiative they have launched, which is good news.

We welcome Ms. Brown, the assistant deputy minister for the Department of the Environment. From the Department of Health, we welcome Ms. Fletcher, and John Cooper, the director of water quality. And we have Jennifer Moore from Environment Canada.

I would like to give you a sense of the meeting. If you would like to summarize your presentations, there will be more time for a couple of rounds of questions. We will try to give five minutes to every member for the first round, and then we will have the second round as well, which usually adds to the quality of the dialogue and the exchange.

Again, we are very happy to have you here. The floor is yours.

Mrs. Karen Brown (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Conservation Service, Department of the Environment): Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear, especially today, on World Water Day.

We've provided some background materials for each of the committee members, and we will just keep our opening remarks very brief so that we can actually have a conversation.

As Mr. Caccia just indicated, I am Karen Brown, the assistant deputy minister of the Environmental Conservation Service at Environment Canada, responsible for water. With me is Susan Fletcher, assistant deputy minister of the healthy environments and consumer protection branch at Health Canada; John Cooper, director of the water quality and health bureau in Health Canada; and Jennifer Moore, who is the director general of the water policy and coordination directorate at Environment Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I think all of the committee members recognize very clearly that water has emerged on the global agenda. The World Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002, the third World Water Forum and ministerial conference in March 2003, and the G8 leaders' summit in June 2003 have each taken an active role in advancing the water-related WSSD and millennium development goals. Water has also been a key aspect of international focus in the conservation of nature.

Many heads of state in the developed and developing worlds have taken note of the importance of water-related issues. Water and sanitation have been simultaneously situated as environment, economic, and development issues.

In 2004-05, that momentum is being carried forward, as the 12th session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development—CSD-12—will focus on water, sanitation, and human settlements in April in New York later this year.

Environment Canada, CIDA, and DFAIT are working together with other departments to ensure that Canada makes the strongest possible contribution to the achievement of the millennium development goals and WSSD targets on water and sanitation. Our focus is on developing capacity for governance, science, development, and on promoting Canadian technology and expertise.

Domestically, water remains a major concern to Canadians, as it relates to human health and environmental and economic sustainability. Provincial governments have been moving to deliver on their roles as the primary managers of water and in applying the principles of integrated water resource management. For instance, Alberta is implementing its water for life strategy; Manitoba is following close behind; Ontario continues its commitment to implement all of the Walkerton inquiry recommendations, most recently with its White Paper on Watershed-based Source Protection Planning; and Quebec has recently moved to an entirely watershed-based system of water management.

These developments reinforce the need for the federal government to ensure that we are making the strongest possible contribution to national water management. Our contributions include leadership in science.

I have with me today, Mr. Chairman, a copy of the newly released Threats to Water Availability In Canada, which we will leave for the committee. It is a companion to Threats to Sources of Drinking Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Health in Canada, which was released two years ago. These are helping to define the scientific challenges that water managers face.

Our contributions also include developing guidelines for both drinking water quality and ambient environmental quality, which form the basis of much of Canada's water management. They include ensuring that the monitoring capacity required to develop science and information and the systems needed to ensure the timely delivery of that information in useful ways to decision-makers are put into place, and they include our regulatory roles for toxics and habitat protection.

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

There have been a number of significant developments within federal programming in the past year. The $600 million First Nations Water Management Strategy was announced in last year's budget. Water issues are a major component of agricultural policy. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and their provincial counterparts are making substantial investments in mitigating risk to water from agricultural operations, and in helping to improve access to, and use of water by the Agricultural Community.

I understand that the Minister for Infrastructure will be meeting you soon, but would note that Infrastructure Canada has made major investments, totalling almost $1 billion since 2001, in water and wastewater infrastructure. This investment is being levered to further other federal government policy objectives such as sustainability through full cost recovery for municipal water systems, a key objective of the Federal Water Policy.

Finally, departments that have a significant role in delivering drinking water, including PWGSC, Parks Canada and DND, are working together to ensure that we show leadership by maintaining the safety of drinking water within the federal government's direct jurisdiction.

Ms. Susan Fletcher (Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health): Water-related issues directly engage the mandates of many, indeed most, federal departments: Environment Canada, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, Agriculture Canada, Natural Resources Canada, National Defence, to name just a few.

Therefore, achieving many water results requires a comprehensive horizontal approach, something that one member of our working group referred to as a “virtual department of water”, within which we can define common objectives and collaborative work plans, and against which we can establish accountabilities and plan resource investments. To achieve this, the Environment and Sustainable Development Coordinating Committee of Deputy Ministers established an Interdepartmental Water Assistant Deputy Ministers' Committee, which we co-chair. The Interdepartmental Water ADMs Committee has several key roles, as outlined in our Terms of Reference: firstly, to advise the Environment and Sustainable Development Coordinating Committee and/or other relevant senior committees on national and international water issues, including strategic approaches to federal water policy; secondly, to provide for the effective horizontal management of key water-related federal priorities, activities and responsibilities; and finally, to promote the adoption of integrated approaches to water management across all Canadian jurisdictions.

[English]

Deputies asked that we establish a framework for the management of water in the federal government. The deck you have in front of you today outlines the framework we have developed. In short, the framework is a matrix indicating how five interrelated water outcomes are supported by 13 types of government activities that fall broadly into the categories of science, information, governance, and instruments and tools.

The five water-related outcomes are: for human health, Canadians have access to safe drinking water and human health is protected from water-quality-related threats; for ecosystem health, aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity are conserved and protected; for sustainable use in the economy, economic, social, and environmental benefits accrue to Canadians through sustainable and productive use of water resources; for hazards and environmental prediction, health, safety, and socio-economic impacts from floods, droughts, and other water-related hazards are minimized; and finally, for the global dimension, Canadian water-related interests are protected and promoted globally, commitments are met, and Canadian assistance is provided.

This framework will allow us to develop a comprehensive understanding of what we currently do across the federal government in support of these five outcomes. The framework will also prove useful as a strategic planning tool to define future requirements. The comparison of before and after pictures will provide a kind of gap analysis that will enable us to reallocate effort to where it is needed most.

All departments are strongly committed to the framework and to working together in its application. Our committee is working to develop a short list of water-related priorities for horizontal management; that is, the major strategic areas that require interdepartmental coordination and a work plan to support those priorities.

We will be focusing on four: ensuring clean water; protecting our water supply and supporting our economy through sustainable water use; meeting our global commitments to water and sanitation while protecting Canada's international interests; and protecting the security of our national water resources. We will build on our strengths in science and information for decision-making domestically, as well as working to build capacity around the world.

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

One of the key international water commitments in the WSSD Plan of Implementation is that countries, including Canada, are to develop national Integrated Water Resource Management and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005. We are working to develop and apply integrated water resource management approaches in the federal government. As my colleague mentioned, several provinces, including Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, already have IWRM-related policies or processes underway. The federal water framework will provide a solid federal foundation on which to build partnerships with other levels of government toward this goal.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mills, followed by Mr. Bigras, Mr. Comartin, and Mr. Reed.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Thank you.

I'd like to thank our guests for being here. I have visited with some of you before on the water issue.

I guess I would like an update. As I've been working on this portfolio and looking at water, I have found there's a real lack of understanding of our aquifers and the positive and negative charge situation of those aquifers. It became most obvious in the Washington State and B.C. situation, where an aquifer was going to be drawn upon by Washington State. We didn't really know where it was for sure, but we thought it was mostly under Canada. We didn't know whether it was a positive or a negative, and so on.

Where are we at in terms of that? Have we progressed?

I believe, Ms. Brown, you and I talked about this a year or so ago. How far have we progressed in the last year?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

The work is underway, under the leadership of Natural Resources Canada in their geological survey and mapping group. They have taken a fairly strategic approach across the country, identifying key areas and identifying key groundwater reservoirs. I think they are making good progress. They won't have all of the answers to the questions we need in any one year--it's a longer-term commitment--but they're working on key groundwater aquifer delineation recharge zones across the country.

If you'd like more specifics, we can certainly provide them. The work is underway; it's a start. It will take us a little bit of time to get there, but we are working on it.

Mr. Bob Mills: I think it would be good if the committee were updated on where we're at. If we're talking about a resource, we obviously have to know where we're at--whether we're gaining or losing, where we are losing, and what we can do about it.

On my second question, a really controversial issue in our area is putting fresh water down deep oil wells to force gas and oil out of those reserves. It has become a very controversial subject because that water is lost forever. People are asking why we don't use saline water that's brought up from these wells, and so on.

What is your position on the use of fresh water in oil recovery, for the record?

¹ (1550)

Mrs. Karen Brown: We're certainly aware of the issue and the challenges the Province of Alberta is facing in that regard. The whole water allocation and use issue is a really important one. I don't know very much about the kind of research required to see what alternatives exist for that, but I will certainly undertake to get more information if that is appropriate.

Mr. Bob Mills: That brings me to my third question on the provincial-federal conflict that exists over water. It seems to me it's not very well delineated. If you ask a provincial person, they'll tell you it's all our responsibility. If we had the aquifers map we could prove that it isn't, etc. It seems to me it's very important to clarify who has jurisdiction over water and to cooperatively come up with solutions.

I guess I'd like your comments on where we're at with that one.

Mrs. Karen Brown: Certainly we work very closely with the provincial and territorial governments, and we have for many years. You're quite right that the Constitution doesn't delineate responsibilities for water across the country; however, there are some very well understood areas of federal jurisdiction, including the fisheries waters under the Fisheries Act, as well as navigable waters and interprovincial.... There are a number of areas where the federal government does have responsibility.

We have been trying to work together to achieve results through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and that work is progressing very well. We have a whole group of folks who are focusing on water quality, working on guidelines, indices, and monitoring. We have another group that's just now studying the sustainable water use issues. It's dealing with some of the issues you raised a minute ago, and it's trying to scope out where the federal and provincial governments need to work together more effectively.

We're also working through that group on the municipal waste water effluent strategy, which is a critically important piece of that puzzle. On the Meteorological Service of Canada side, we have a very important federal-provincial relationship on hydrometry and measuring water flow.

So we have a multi-pronged approach to try to work collaboratively. Obviously our objective is to achieve results, rather than fight over whose responsibility is what. At this stage, I think it's going fairly well.

As I indicated earlier in my remarks, provincial governments have really started to pay attention and update their provincial water strategies. They're trying to deal with the current realities, including some of the very important issues we'll be facing with respect to water availability. To their credit, they're doing a really good job of trying to understand some of the challenges they have inside their own boundaries.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras, second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier, Ms. Brown, you alluded to a report entitled Threats to Water Availability in Canada. I'd also like to discuss the threat to water availability in Quebec, particularly in Montreal. Last week, in conjunction with an environmental technology fair in Montreal, a researcher from École Polytechnique de Montreal, Mr. Benoît Barbeau, who also happens to work for the International Joint Commission, released a rather alarming report.

As you know, over two million Quebecers draw their water from the St. Lawrence River. In Montreal, waterworks intakes are located between the Lachine Canal and the Mercier Bridge. While conducting his study, he observed that there was but a mere 2.6 metres of water covering the 30 waterworks intakes located between Montreal and Cornwall.

To the extent we know that water flow management is directly tied to the management of the Great Lakes, what measures to you intend to put in place to ensure that Montreal continues to receive an adequate supply of drinking water? As you well know, the rate at which water flows in the St. Lawrence is directly tied to water levels in the Great Lakes. What are you waiting for to take steps to prevent the Montreal area from being plagued by serious problems?

¹ (1555)

[English]

Mrs. Karen Brown: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

The issue you raise is an extremely important one. The International Joint Commission has been examining that very issue for the last several years. Clearly, one of the key objectives for many years was the amount of water that was available in the St. Lawrence River for both navigation and other purposes. Now that we have experienced and are certain to experience much more severe shortages of water in the Great Lakes Basin, the IJC and others have been looking at what are some of the objectives that are required for the amount of water in the St. Lawrence system below the Great Lakes. They've identified and are working on biological attributes, because in addition to the requirement for drinking water for the city of Montreal, there are clearly really important requirements for biodiversity, as well as other types of issues in the lower St. Lawrence. The IJC is very seized of this.

I'm not familiar at all with the research you quote. However, I suspect it is related to the very important work the IJC has underway, and it has commissioned a number of researchers to actually help them identify what the challenges are and then provide some advice back to both Canada and the U.S. with respect to how we can change the management system in the Great Lakes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I appreciate what you're saying, Ms. Brown, but we need to face a certain number of facts. For example, the main water intakes and emergency water intakes were no longer operating on August 7 and 8 of 2001. The City of Montreal had no choice but to invest $3 million to maintain water supplies. Aside from conducting studies which, by your own account, could take seven years, what measures could be taken or what recommendations could we make, since we do sit on the International Joint Commission? For example, would it be possible to open up the locks at certain times? How are the Great Lakes managed? How are the locks managed? This is a source of some concern because we are dependant on Great Lakes management. The danger is real in Lavaltrie, in Berthierville and in other regions of the province. Over two million Quebecers depend on the St. Lawrence for their water supply and the flow of water is dictated by how the Great Lakes are managed. Can you give me at least two recommendations that you've made in recent years with a view to improving this situation?

[English]

Mrs. Karen Brown: Let me try just one more time. The Great Lakes issues you're talking about are the responsibility of the IJC, the International Joint Commission, and they are very seized of those questions.

I am really not very familiar at all with the issues you raise about the city of Montreal. Certainly, I think it's very indicative of the challenge we face with the water shortages in the Great Lakes Basin. The IJC is still in the process of doing the necessary technical and scientific work in order to provide that recommendation to the Government of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I understand that Canada has not made any representations to the International Joint Commission. We have a seat on the IJC, we have the right to representation and we have the right to make recommendations. Have any concrete recommendations in fact been made to the IJC? I realize we're dealing with the IJC, but we have a seat on the commission, do we not?

[English]

Mrs. Karen Brown: Oh, absolutely. We are very much a party in the IJC. We have experts who work with the IJC, and Canada has representatives who represent our interests. It is a body that then in turn commissions the technical and scientific work that is required in order to advise governments, and the commission itself then advises governments as to what measures need to be taken.

The study I described is an extremely important one, because we didn't have that kind of scientific and technical issue information before. We'd never had the kinds of water shortages we're experiencing now in a chronic way over time. We're very much engaged in that process, and we're looking to the IJC to provide its recommendations, hopefully this year.

º (1600)

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brown, I've just been flipping through the longer report you tabled with us today. It appears to me, anyway, that a good deal of the data is six or eight years old, that is, the timeframes you were looking at. I was looking at the chapter on water flow in particular. Is there more recent data available?

The reason I'm asking is that I was at a conference briefly this morning and I was seeing river flow data that was much more recent, up to 2000. In fact, they were just preparing the report on the 2001 period. The data showed a much more disturbing trend than one would get from this chapter on the deviation in the flow, both increase and decrease.

Mrs. Karen Brown: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would ask Dr. John Carey, the director general of the National Water Research Institute and one of the key people responsible for this report, who's with us here, to answer that question, if that's okay.

Mr. John Carey (Director General, National Water Research Institute, Department of the Environment) Thank you very much. There is, indeed, more recent data available. First of all, the report was written by a group of scientists who we brought together as panels; each chapter was written by different panels and they used the data that was available to them to write their chapters. We continue to collect monitoring data on both water availability and water quality each year, and that data is not always available to the scientific community immediately because particularly the water quantity data goes through quality assurance/quality control checks so you can always rely on the direct measurements. So there's a one- to two-year gap between what data is actually available and published and raw data. I don't know if the individual you're talking about was using raw data or not, but there's always a one- to two-year gap between the validated data we use for our assessments and the raw data.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Is the same true of their rate of evaporation, the data on that? Does it have to be validated? Is it always a year or two behind?

Mr. John Carey: The rate of evaporation from our water bodies is generally based on models and climate data, so I'm not sure that we actually go out and measure rates of evaporation as part of our monitoring program. I'm not aware of them if we do.

Mr. Joe Comartin: The other thing, and I'm going to be critical about it, is there's a comment in here--I can't find it right now--on climate change, and the comment was that it might have an impact on our water supply. I have to say to you that I think we're well beyond talking about climate change having a “might” affect. Whether it's Dr. Schindler's work or that of any number of other Canadian and international scientists, they've stated that we are well beyond the “might” stage, that we definitely are having impact and that's already being shown.

Mr. John Carey: We understand very well that as our climate changes it is having a major impact on water, both in terms of the geographical distribution of water, which is changing regionally, and the seasonal distribution of water. In some cases, such as Alberta, we know that about the same amount of water is flowing down the river each year, but it has changed quite drastically in the seasonal distribution, so that much more is flowing down in the spring and the base flows in summer are critically low. Many people in Canada believe that climate change is a temperature issue, but really where we think major impacts are going to be felt in our country is clearly in water.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin. We now have Mr. Reed, followed by Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I happen to have the dubious distinction of living in what is currently the fastest urbanizing part of Canada at the moment. In the north end of the riding, groundwater is still used to supply domestic use, and in the southern end, one of those wonderful, wise decisions was made a very few years ago that we'll put another pipe into the lake. We got yet another double pipe. So now we bring the water out, we use it, and we send the sewage affluent back in, as with so many communities all around the Great Lakes.

Through it all, the closest thing to conservation that has been done in that area is putting meters in, in the town. There's nothing in development to conserve water, absolutely zero. There is no grey water recycling; there is no rain water harvesting; there's nothing. As a result, it's no wonder they decided to put a pipe into the lake, because they wouldn't have enough groundwater to accommodate this growth, unless, of course, they adopted some conservation measures, which have not been adopted.

My question is, how in the name of goodness can we persuade municipalities, planners, and people who apply the building code or make the building code to address those questions from that perspective, instead of going back to using 1906 technology to supply us with water?

º (1605)

Mrs. Karen Brown: Thank you. The issues you raise are extremely important ones for us. I think there are a couple of things that we're undertaking, that we have undertaken, that we continue to try to undertake.

We've been working for a couple of years now through the National Research Council in updating the building codes and standards so that we can start to incorporate, as part of the fundamental codes, better water usage, and that's a really important piece of work, as you can imagine, for the construction that goes on in this country. That funding was provided through the Infrastructure Canada fund, and it's a really important piece of work.

Infrastructure Canada is also funding quite a bit of research in terms of how we actually improve the current facilities we have. What is the sewage treatment facility of the year 3000, shall we say, and we're looking at ways to improve that.

We're also working very much in the infrastructure funding program to look at ways we can ensure that some of the other policy objectives are met as we deliver infrastructure funding. So we are looking at trying to enhance full-cost recovery in that kind of context as we fund some of that infrastructure, not just for the current but for future needs when you're starting to look at how you replace some of this infrastructure that is going to eventually need to be replaced.

Mr. Julian Reed: Pardon my frustration, but there's a car wash just a little bit west of my farm that advertises “fresh water only”. They don't even recycle the water they use. We still use potable water to wash our cars and to water our lawns, and perhaps some of the results.... I don't know whether this pertains to Walkerton or not, or whether if Walkerton had a progressive water utilization program they would have been subjected to the contamination they were, and so on, but I'll tell you, I'm glad you're doing what you're doing, and maybe we should have started to do this 20 years ago. I just don't know how we're going to get into the new mode in time to capture what we have to capture.

Mrs. Karen Brown: Agreed, and we are working, as I said earlier, with the provincial governments through the CCME to identify where we need to move more quickly with respect to conservation of water and sustainable use. We're also starting to design a review by sector of the various ways in which we can actually reduce the amount of water. That includes some of the big industrial sectors.

Those are some of the things we know we have to do, and I couldn't agree with you more that it would be nice if we could do it a whole lot faster than we are doing it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Szabo, Madam Neville, Mr. Dion, the chair.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brown, is there anyone who you're aware of in the management of the Government of Canada who would disagree that water is our most important resource?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Probably not, no. Not in the world I work in anyway.

º (1610)

Mr. Paul Szabo: I think there is strong argument that our water is our most important asset. It is at the root of all things.

It then concerns me why in your opening comments you shared with us the concept of a virtual department of water, because the responsibilities and the areas of work are in fact spread throughout a number of departments. I would have thought your most important asset would have been under the secure and strong leadership of a focal point, and it's not there, apparently. Why is that?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I think the leadership is, as you will see by myself and Susan chairing this committee at the request of our deputies, really starting to re-emerge, and there's no doubt that over a period of time, during which the government had to make some very difficult decisions about the size of government, we didn't have as much of a focus as we would have liked.

We are now engaged in a very active and very intensive review horizontally across all of those 15 departments to identify exactly what is being done, what programs are being delivered on water, what's being spent, how we can make sure those efforts and those programs are better aligned to the result statements. I think if you look at the deck, that's the framework we're using. This is the number one priority for the deputy ministers' sustainable development coordinating committee.

So there's a very large and renewed effort going into that work, and I think we will see in the not-too-distant future that we will start to determine where we need to realign our efforts, where we need to reallocate, if necessary, how we can make better and more efficient use towards the results that are identified, and in time identify policy areas that will need to be addressed.

But the work is pretty fundamental, and it's rather important at this point and a very high priority for the government.

Mr. Paul Szabo: From that I glean that you would agree we should have a focal point for water management but we can't because of fiscal restraint or other reasons.

That's an issue that should be addressed more specifically, it seems to me, as to whether or not you're going to be able to achieve any of the results that maybe there is a consensus on that should be pursued.

I thought about this same problem when we had the IJC before us with regard to what kind of influence they have. I think we came to the conclusion that the IJC basically did not have the teeth to be able to affect anything, but they were simply an advisory body representing both Canada and the U.S. and that they could only recommend.

And even down to such things as ballast control, we have voluntary guidelines, not mandatory regulations. Why is that? Those are fundamentals that I would think would be important to be able to address, not just to make recommendations but to require the development of an implementation plan over a reasonable period of time.

What can we do? I think Mr. Reed is correct. This is a long-term proposition in terms of protecting water quality and the source of water, the availability of fresh potable water. We may be in a particular structure right now of addressing it, which may be a longer road to achieving some of those objectives than if we took a step back and restructured the management of water quality issues in a more focused fashion.

Do you think we should consider, as a committee, whether or not the framework that has been established, the relationships, and the ability to deal effectively with the provinces--with whom one must deal on virtually all matters to do with water--could be better dealt with if in fact there was a more focused...maybe not a virtual department, but a real department, responsible for water quality and health issues?

º (1615)

Mrs. Karen Brown: I think, first of all, the issues we're facing are much larger than just water quality, so let me just start there. Water quality clearly is a big issue, and I'm not trying to diminish its importance. But we also have issues of water quantity, water availability, some of which we talked just briefly about. We also want to make sure that as we develop agricultural programs, we're cognizant of some of the water-related issues. By its virtual nature it is an important part of the activities of a lot of government departments.

I'm not a strong believer that one necessarily needs to create a “department of” to achieve the results we're setting out to achieve. The emphasis in this government with respect to improving horizontal management of key policy files I think is a really important first step.

The proof, obviously, will be in the pudding, but I think the work we're doing right now is probably the most comprehensive and the most fundamental we've done in some time, working with all our colleagues, trying to very much identify all the programs--and the investments that are made in those--and making sure they are all trying to come together in a synchronized way to achieve the results Canadians expect. That's a very important first step. We wouldn't know exactly what we would be reorganizing to achieve unless we complete this work.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Madame Neville, s'il vous plaît.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

Very briefly, I think I've been somewhat pre-empted by Mr. Szabo and Mr. Reed in my questioning. I read with interest your horizontal approach in the plan you have. This area is somewhat new to me but of much importance.

Can you assign some timelines? There's a lot you want to do within this framework--and I think you've answered it in part in Mr. Szabo's questions--a lot of “we will do” in this report. How will you do it, or when will you do it, and what is required for you to move this agenda along?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Well, I think you're right, there's a lot of “we will do”. We are working very hard on this, but the first and important step is to get the information into the database on the programs, and, I might add, to finalize the results management and accountability framework. The accountability part is critically important so that we can actually make sure we're all working on those very important results.

At the same time, the deputy ministers have asked us to identify the priority areas for attention. We are working on that as well. I think Susan identified those at the beginning. They include the broader issues around water quality, drinking water--

Ms. Susan Fletcher: Clean water.

Mrs. Karen Brown: — clean water, water security—

So we're working on those areas as well to identify where we actually need to do more, where there may be a policy gap, where we actually need to really improve our interdepartmental coordination. Those we're expecting to finalize with the deputy ministers within the next several months. We've had one discussion around the deputy's table, but they've asked us for more information and to do a little bit more work on that, and we will be moving ahead.

At the same time, we're working on a timeframe of the next year to work on the sustainable water use issues with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and the work is progressing apace on the other areas.

It's going to be a continual improvement process, but over the next couple of years, and particularly in the next coming year, we should probably see some great improvement in the results management framework and our ability to coordinate interdepartmentally.

Ms. Susan Fletcher: Perhaps I can add to the answer that in the area of clean drinking water, we're not starting from scratch, obviously. You referred, I think, to Walkerton earlier. Certainly before that, and certainly since, we've been working very closely with our provincial counterparts in developing a source-to-tap approach to clean drinking water. Many provinces have clearly moved ahead, and we have a strategy for developing guidelines and working with them that looks at not just the guideline development but how they work in assuring clean water, certification and training of operators, and the reporting and the monitoring that we're doing together. So in each of the priority areas, some work is going on. What we're trying to do with our framework is to bring it together--the other honourable gentleman spoke about a coordinated focus--to actually have a focus for the water work so that everybody is working toward the same priorities and we know how the priorities link.

º (1620)

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Dion.

[English]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.): Merci.

When we speak about an integrated plan, one thing that is important is to have deadlines. I hear a lot about studies, studies, studies, and we need to know what we have done, what we will do, and where we will go. But one day you need to say, this is what we will achieve and when.

You just spoke about the demand management aspect that you are working on with the

[Translation]

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, or CCME.

[English]

They did a study with 150 recommendations, a lot of which were about the quality of water. Where are we on the demand management aspect? What do we want to achieve in the coming years? What about water metering pricing? It's so much a municipal and provincial role.

[Translation]

That was my first question.

My second question is as follows.

[English]

It's about in-depth information. In order to have effective information, we need to have a full set of water use best practices in Canada, in agriculture, energy, municipalities, and industry.

We also need to have a second thing: the development of drinking water guidelines. Where are we now, and when will we have that? As long as we don't have that...we, the federal government, are not the first managers of all this, except on jurisdiction, but we certainly have a key role to provide that to Canadians.

[Translation]

The third of four topics I'd like to discuss is the Infrastructure Program. Of course, we'll know more tomorrow when the budget is tabled. It's a fact that 60 per cent of a municipality's energy costs are linked to water pumping and filtration. I don't think past infrastructure programs have placed enough emphasis on this critical issue.

[English]

I think we need to have a much more important innovation fund to help municipalities go to the highest financing level.

[Translation]

Furthermore, we need some assurances that the municipalities which receive funding jointly from the federal and provincial governments use adequate technologies and do not simply make do with old systems.

The last point I want to discuss was raised by the professor and alluded to in a question from Mr. Comartin. It concerns the effect of global warming. Earlier, my colleague mentioned water levels as they affect Montreal. It's clear Great Lakes management significantly impacts the St. Lawrence, but climate change will also have an effect on water levels in the Great Lakes.

I'm curious as to whether forecast models currently in development take into account what is currently known about the effects of climate change. If each party works alone and there's no communication, if your department is responsible for the Kyoto Accord while another department looks after other matters and the two parties do not discuss forecast models, I think they're making a serious mistake.

[English]

That's it--for now.

[Translation]

Mrs. Karen Brown: Thank you.

I'll answer the first, third and fourth questions, and let Susan take the second one.

[English]

On the demand management, you're quite right, the study in the early nineties was done through the CCME at that time, I think led by the Province of New Brunswick, which was looking at what provincial governments should or could be doing on demand management.

Right now through the CCME we're undertaking to take a look at what has been accomplished and what can be done to enhance—

Hon. Stéphane Dion: But what has been accomplished? This is my question.

Mrs. Karen Brown: The study has just started. No, seriously, it has just started. It was approved by the ministers at their last meeting and the work is well underway. Hopefully we'll have some answers for you in the next—

Hon. Stéphane Dion: A study on the study.

Mrs. Karen Brown: The study is under way.

Hon. Stéphane Dion: So a study on the study.

Mrs. Karen Brown: Well, a lot of things have been accomplished. A lot of things have changed over the last several years.

Hon. Stéphane Dion: Yes, this is what I want to know.

Mrs. Karen Brown: The individual provincial governments, in their water strategies, have in fact enhanced and put a special emphasis on managing demand and also on water use and allocation. That very much is a provincial responsibility, within their own areas. Clearly, what we want to try to do, as you point out, I think, in the next part, is to take a look at what the best practices are. That's key for us, and we are very much engaged in that as well. I'll let Susan answer the drinking water guidelines question in a second.

On the infrastructure side, as I mentioned a bit earlier, in fact there is work underway through the infrastructure program to take a look at and research ways in which municipalities can take the right kind of direction with respect to new ways, new systems, and new infrastructure in trying to reduce the amount of water used.

Again, Dr. John Carey last year did a full workshop with all the provinces to look at water reuse and recycling, especially for small communities where it doesn't make sense to put a lot of money into big infrastructure, and to look at how we can improve water reuse and recycling so that the costs associated, and the energy costs associated, are minimized.

Finally, in our projections and all our provisions we very much take into account the climate change effects. It's an integrated system. It takes a look at the rainfall and precipitation and it goes into the hydrologic model, to measure the flows, the lakes, and the evaporation part as well. So it's a very integrated overview within each of the watersheds.

Susan.

º (1625)

The Chair: Madam Fletcher.

Ms. Susan Fletcher: Thank you very much.

You mentioned best practices in terms of water guidelines. There's no such thing as a single water guideline. In fact, we already have 160 guidelines in place that we're using actively across Canada. We have a guideline for every kind of chemical, microbiological, or radiological issue that has been identified as a possible water contaminant, and more are being identified all the time. We continue working with our provincial counterparts to put in place the guidelines they need to activate those guidelines to ensure safe water across the country.

From the point of view of best practices, there are many of them out there. The one that comes to my mind is the one for small municipalities on how to assess the vulnerability of their water treatment systems in case of a security breach, and how they would deal with those.

As members probably know, I'm rather new to this file. I've brought with me John Cooper, who can probably give a lot more detail.

If you'll bear with me, I'll turn the floor over to John.

Mr. John Cooper (Director, Water Quality and Health Bureau, Safe Environments Programme, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health): Mr. Chair, I think I would just add that we are seeing some of these best practices in federal programs at the moment. For instance, the agricultural policy framework looks at water efficiency in terms of the development of farm plans, better technology for irrigation, and other programs like that because of the concern with regard to a sustainable water supply.

As well, best management practices are very much linked, as Susan Fletcher mentioned, to the source-to-tap approach that was developed jointly with the provinces and the federal government. That looks at the full range of practices that must be put in place to actually ensure the safety of drinking water.

Traditionally, there's been a focus on ensuring we have drinking water guidelines in place, and the treatment to provide safe drinking water, but now it's recognized that equally important is protecting the sources of water—the lakes, rivers, and aquifers—from pollution in the first place. This is why we need to work through committees like IWAC and with our provincial and territorial colleagues to ensure we have measures in place for best management practices that are always under development and implemented to prevent pollution in the first place.

I'd also like to say that we are initiating work with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the development of water reuse and recycling guidelines, because clearly, as the issue of water availability becomes more of a concern, and we have circumstances like car washes advertising the use of fresh water, we need to have something in place that says water that's been used for showers could be used for something else, such as a car wash. It could go through a slight filtration process and be reused.

So there are many best management practices and processes being put in place as we speak.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

º (1630)

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It's certainly consoling to find that people are really studying this issue so big time. I remember that way back in grade school we started this water cycle thing, and all of us felt that the amount of water in the world wasn't finite, and was always going to be there. But of course we're worried today--aren't we, Roy--about who uses it, how it gets to the ocean, and how many contaminants are in it on the way.

I'd like to follow up just a little bit in terms of what you just mentioned there, Mr. Cooper. You know, we're amazed that cities of four million or five million people, and some cities in the tens of millions, can provide water to their people, and provide it in a fairly safe way. It's amazing when you see where some of that water comes from, and how, through various good technologies that our Canadian people use, we can make it acceptable such that you don't get sick when you drink it.

There was a question just a minute ago in terms of our cities and in terms of CMHC and other agencies that have to look at these as part of their overall development of certain cities in certain areas. Has there ever been any case where a situation has arisen where you've said no, enough housing in this area, we can't provide more opportunities for greater numbers of people to live here because the water supply is not adequate? Or do we simply chase that water supply somewhere up the river, up the bay, where they can pipe water into that community? How big a factor is it, Mr. Cooper, in terms of providing money to further enhance and develop ever-greater cities?

Mr. John Cooper: I guess I would have to start by saying that this would not generally be in the area of federal jurisdiction. That said, we do work very closely with provinces to protect water resources. Recently, laws have been put in place to prevent bulk water removal from watersheds. We're also moving to a watershed-based management approach, which is part of the integrated water resource management approach that this committee has adopted.

This means you need to look at all the needs and uses of water within a watershed and at all the potential impacts of these uses, and pollution, before you make the decisions on land use planning, industry, or what have you.

Just to wrap it up quickly, since Walkerton, all provinces have put in place new strategies and policies and legislation that have adopted the watershed approach. Now, this is being implemented not immediately, but all provinces are taking steps to implement it. For example, Quebec has identified 33 watersheds they will set up councils for. Alberta has done the same thing. Ontario is looking at source-water protection plans.

So the management of water to ensure that the development is appropriate for that watershed is now being considered before the decisions are taken.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We hear about how New York State and California have major initiatives to deal with water supply. In our own country, with its tremendous resources, we've never really had to come grips with saying it is a factor in economic development or it is a factor in our cities' development.

Mr. John Cooper: In the prairies, it is a very important factor that they're considering. I believe it's actually written into the new “Water for Life” strategy of Alberta that development, including community development, will have to look at available water supplies. Certainly in areas that are short of water, this is a very important issue to consider.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. I think we could spend a full day on your question alone.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: In parts of Alberta, don't they buy their water and bring it in by truck?

The Chair: Can you tell us whether Canada will ever have a minimum standard for drinking water, instead of guidelines? There's a big difference, as we all know, between guidelines and standards.

Mr. John Cooper: When we consider standards, we assume they are legislated and enforceable. I think since Walkerton there's been significance progress there.

The Chair: Give me an answer as to whether we will ever have a minimum standard for drinking water.

º (1635)

Mr. John Cooper: We have not had minimum standards, although six provinces currently have standards instead of guidelines. They are enforceable. Before Walkerton, only two provinces had enforceable standards.

The Chair: Do you know which provinces don't have them?

Mr. John Cooper: I believe the ones currently without enforceable standards are Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and.... B.C. actually has enforceable standards for microbiological contaminants. The majority of provinces are moving in that direction.

The Chair: Which is the missing one?

Mr. John Cooper: Sorry, it's Prince Edward Island.

The Chair: What about the territories?

Mr. John Cooper: The standards are not enforceable in the territories.

The Chair: Do they have their own water standards?

Mr. John Cooper: No, sir.

The Chair: What is the difficulty in adopting standards, as far as your experience goes?

Ms. Susan Fletcher: As John has said, the drinking water is really a provincial jurisdiction, so it's up to them to put in place the legislation for the standards.

The Chair: We realize that, but within the province, what is the difficulty?

Ms. Susan Fletcher: Do you mean why have some provinces not moved to put standards in place?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Cooper: I don't think I can answer for the provinces and express a view on why they haven't. All I can say is they have all moved with strategies, policies, or legislation to strengthen the protection of drinking water from source to tap--and not just with guidelines. Transparency and reporting to the public are part of that process.

The Chair: Thank you.

In 2001 the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development conducted an audit on the Great Lakes. Is that audit being adopted and considered in your deliberations?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Yes, it very much is. We will be implementing a lot of the recommendations, particularly around accountability and the management structure in the Great Lakes, through the renewal of the Great Lakes action plan of 2000, as well as through our consideration of a binational review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We've moved on many of the issues very quickly, and have adjusted the management structure so it is clear in terms of accountability within the federal family, and also between the federal government and the Province of Ontario.

Likewise, there was a very important observation that we needed a better linkage to the St. Lawrence action plan. The two teams have been working much more closely together, and have put in place a new management structure to deal with those issues.

The Chair: Following on Mr. Dion's question, when do you expect your ADM committee to complete its work and to report?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I don't expect our ADM committee to complete its work, perhaps ever. I think it's an ongoing management approach. We're talking about horizontal management of a very broad suite of issues. It will require, I think, continual work to coordinate and to keep a results focus. We certainly expect to be able to report to deputy ministers in the not-too-distant future with respect to the key priorities that we should be addressing.

The Chair: Are you conducting any public consultations? In your evolving process without a deadline, are you consulting the public at a certain point, or do you plan to consult the public?

Mrs. Karen Brown: We are not currently conducting any public consultations. We are simply at this stage trying to get the federal house in order and trying to make sure that we have a very strong horizontal management system within the federal government. From there it will be up to the government to determine whether it wants to have a broader dialogue. Also, we're working on some key national--

º (1640)

The Chair: In the government, which minister do you mean?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I think the Minister of the Environment is the key minister in this regard, and he will be providing some advice in terms of what we should be doing next and where we should go from here. But we're at this stage still trying to get the federal story together.

The Chair: So the present public consultation is not included in your mandate?

Mrs. Karen Brown: No, it's not.

The Chair: Thank you.

You are probably familiar with the standard published last June by the United Nations Environment Programme on groundwater. Since you are so keen on conducting studies, are you conducting a study on a survey on groundwater in Canada?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Yes, we are. We started doing that work over the last year or so.

The Chair: When will that be completed and made available to the public?

Mrs. Karen Brown: It's a year-over-year program at this point. They're creating the inventory and identifying the regional...and doing aquifer assessments. If my memory serves me well, they're looking at about five key watersheds this year, and then there's a plan for the ongoing years. We can certainly provide that information to the committee.

The Chair: You said “watershed”, but how about a national survey?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Oh, sorry, aquifer, groundwater.

The Chair: When will that be completed?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I'm not sure exactly when it's going to be completed.

The Chair: Can you confirm it perhaps by way of a communication to the members of the committee?

Mrs. Karen Brown: We can certainly do that. We can provide you with details.

The Chair: Thank you.

Second round, Mr. Bailey, please.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Following on the chairman's remarks, I notice that you have in the book that a fair number of the population of Canada makes use through the groundwater, not through dams and so on.

Coming from the prairies, most of our smaller points rely almost totally on the groundwater. Over the years I've noticed a significant difference in the quality of that water. The quality 50 years ago was crystal clear; you didn't have to worry about the purity of the water at all. We find now with testing that water out of the same aquifer is no longer drinkable without boiling and so on.

I can't prove this, and I wonder if you could help me. In that last 50 years, the last five decades, we've seen a massive increase in the use of fertilizers. Many of those fertilizers contain huge amounts of salt. When the prairies have a drought, the earth opens up and then when it rains everything goes this way. Then, on top of that, you have the huge increase in the use of herbicides. And herbicides also stay there until they get huge amounts of water, and I am convinced that this also goes into the aquifer.

Those are two things. I could mention more, but I'll just stay with them. Do we have any scientific work going on or proving that these two things, the fertilizers and the herbicides, are in fact the problem in ruining some of the aquifers in the last 50 years?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I'll ask Dr. John Carey to help us out with that question.

Mr. John Carey We have some work going on and can say that in some areas, particularly where the aquifers are quite shallow and are under the influence of the surface, we have managed to contaminate many of them with salts like nitrates and nitrites from overuse of fertilizers. That's a fact.

We believe one of the key areas where our science can contribute is to conduct vulnerability assessments of those groundwater aquifers to determine the degree to which they're under the influence of the surface. Many of the aquifers in parts of the country are using glacial water—10,000-year-old water—and these are much less likely to be contaminated. We believe this would be important in conducting the assessment of aquifers.

The assessment is not happening on a national scale; the assessment is happening aquifer by aquifer at the moment. As my colleague mentioned, there are five assessments underway at the moment.

Part of the assessment will be not just to look at how much water is there and identify where the recharge areas are—so that we can keep development, and not pave them, and things like that—but also to determine, if we have some aquifers being used that are quite vulnerable to surface contamination, that we'll focus our monitoring on those to ensure that the quality remains high.

There is scientific work underway now between the Geological Survey and Environment Canada and the provinces.

º (1645)

The Chair: Monsieur Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: We've heard from people talking to us about invasive species and the problems with the Great Lakes particularly, and so on. The Americans have, I understand, three pieces of legislation to control or try to stop invasive species. We have no legislation.

Along with that question, I wonder what other kind of legislation you might consider necessary from the federal government perspective. I think of things such as small toilet bowls, which will obviously make a huge difference in water consumption, or the type of irrigation we have—whether we use drip irrigation rather than the other kind. There are so many things we could do to conserve water and utilize it better.

I don't quite know where to start, because again I come back to the provincial-federal problem. I just wonder what we can do at the federal level that might help in those kinds of things, and I've given you a couple of examples.

Mrs. Karen Brown: With respect to your first question, about invasive species, we're working right now on a new national plan to control and eradicate—hopefully eradicate, but certainly control—entries of new species. That plan should be—

An hon. member: What is it?

Mrs. Karen Brown: It's a new invasive alien species plan we're working on, a national plan that we're working on with the provinces and territories.

An hon. member:— [Inaudible—Editor]—

Mrs. Karen Brown: No, it would be to control and eradicate. We put a lot of money into eradicating year over year the sea lampreys—that kind of control program. There may be opportunities where we can eradicate, but mostly we are going to be looking at how we can prevent new entries.

That national plan will hopefully be approved by the federal-provincial wildlife ministers in September.

We haven't at this stage done an assessment as to what legislative changes will be required, but a big part of what we're working on is to see whether the legislative tools we currently have are adequate to the task, whether they need to be amended, whether there's a gap of some sort that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Bob Mills: Am I right that there is no legislation in this area at this time?

Mrs. Karen Brown: There's no piece of legislation that says “Invasive Alien Species Act”. You're right; there isn't one of those. There are controls through a variety of other pieces of legislation under the auspices of CFIA, and we can put in place regulations under the Fisheries Act or under WAPPRIITA to control some of those imports.

Some of them are deliberate. When we're talking about invasives, there are aquatics—which are a very difficult challenge with respect to ballast water, as you know—but we're also talking about plants and plant introductions that often come intentionally through horticultural exchanges across borders. We're taking a look at the whole range, trying to identify where the most important issues are.

With respect to some of the other issues around water conservation, clearly it's not within our legislative mandate for the federal government to act, but I think committee members themselves... We've talked a bit about how we can encourage better conservation practices in particular. Largely, we are trying to identify on a sector-by-sector basis where we can make an enhancement and try to provide advice and direction to our provincial colleagues. That's what we're trying to do collectively.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

You have the floor, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Regarding Canada's international commitments with respect to water, the United Nations is focussing on this subject this year, while the UN Commission on Sustainable Development has made this one of its priorities. Many colleagues attended the Earth Summit along with the Prime Minister and Canada made a number of commitments with respect to water. I was surprised to hear you say to Mr. Szabo earlier that no one was denying the importance of this issue. Yet, in 2002 and 2003, at meetings of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, 52 countries voted in favour of a resolution stipulating that the right to water was a fundamental human right. Canada on the other hand refused to endorse this resolution.

How do you reconcile the commitments made by Canada at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg with the way in which Canada voted at the UN Human Rights Commission meeting? Can you explain this to me?

º (1650)

[English]

Mrs. Karen Brown: Mr. Chairman, I really can't answer the questions with respect to water as a human right. It's a very complex international legal discussion, and I would very much encourage you to ask the Department of Foreign Affairs to provide an explanation and discuss it with you. But I think it's important to understand that Canada does in fact identify addressing the millennium development goals internationally as a very important undertaking. We have quite a lot of work underway and a lot of things we are doing as a country to try to address some of the international challenges. They are very large indeed.

We are working with CIDA and our Foreign Affairs colleagues to implement programs abroad, with respect to official development assistance in the first instance—particularly in Africa under the NEPAD program. We're also working to assist in transferring technologies, and on governance, and we're trying to enhance watershed management through the Nile basin initiative. There are many things we are doing, but I really can't answer the question about the international law aspects of water as a human right—my apologies.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I want to bring up the US army study into the infrastructure requirements of the St. Lawrence Seaway. As you know, one of the possible options being considered is the expansion of the Seaway and the lock system to allow larger vessels to transit from the Atlantic Ocean through the Great Lakes to the United States. The government hasn't said that it does not support the proposed expansion.

I'm wondering if you've done any model building for this proposal which does not appear to have been rejected by the Canadian government. Do you feel the project could have an adverse affect on the St. Lawrence ecosystem, and in particular on the quality of drinking water? As I was saying earlier, over two million Quebecers rely on the St. Lawrence for their drinking water. Do you think the proposed expansion could have a negative impact on the St. Lawrence?

[English]

Mrs. Karen Brown: Mr. Chairman, the study that has been referred to is a joint Canada-U.S. study that is actually taking a look at what we need to do to renew the considerable investments we have made in the St. Lawrence Seaway and to see what infrastructure requirements there are into the future. I'm assured that in fact the enlargement of la voie maritime is not under discussion. It is at this stage simply a joint review of what the current challenges are, what the infrastructure state is, what will be required into the future, but it is not studying the enlargement of the maritime channel.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, if the expansion wasn't being considered, then it wouldn't be included in the first phase. I don't quite understand you. You're taking the same stand as the Deputy Minister of Transport. Something isn't right. The Deputy Minister of the Environment should be telling us that her department is working to ensure that if the project does get off the ground, the impact will be minimal. That's the least we should expect to hear from the Deputy Minister of the Environment. It seems that she is following the same directives as the Deputy Minister of Transport. Has she had any discussions with the Deputy Minister of Transport to obtain assurances that Environment Canada will be there to protect ecosystems? Has any model building begun? We're not interested in hearing Transport Canada directives. We're more interested in the position of the Deputy Minister of the Environment.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Brown: Absolutely, and we are very much a part of the steering committee. Environment Canada is on the steering committee that's looking at all of the aspects that are currently under review. Our job is to make sure we understand completely what the environmental implications of the various studies that are underway and any of the options they may be looking at into the future might be. We are very much a part of the steering committee.

º (1655)

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wondered if we could spend a few minutes on the groundwater contamination issue, given the shock we all had in Ontario over Walkerton. I'm wondering if your department connects with other departments at all in order to look seriously at that direct kind of contamination. That was, as you know, caused by a feedlot being subject to heavy rainfall and a well that wasn't sealed, etc. There are ways of dealing with that sort of thing, but we don't apply that technology in Canada that I know of. I think there is one pilot operation being built at the moment up in Thunder Bay that will take liquid manure and process it to make energy and fertilizer. In the rest of Ontario there has been nothing, yet in Europe those technologies are in common use.

I'm just wondering this. We can't get rid of the cattle; we're going to have cattle, we're going to have pigs, we're going to have people, and so on. There are ways of dealing with them, but we haven't done anything. Has there been any thought given by your department to dealing with that potential contamination or any progress made on that?

Mrs. Karen Brown: We're working very closely with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the agricultural policy framework as a start to actually develop standards on nutrients and runoff issues with them. We're working very closely with the Province of Ontario as well, but we don't get into the technologies associated with manure handling. That's not the business we're in, but we are very engaged in working with them. In the case of Ontario in particular, they're just developing their new source water protection regime, and we're working very closely with them in that regard.

We have a number of really important programs and other tools that come to bear in those discussions. We spend quite a bit of money through the habitat stewardship program for species at risk to fence off access for cattle, to provide compensation, to provide money to farmers to be able to do that, and to protect riparian zones. All of those things are contributing in a very real way to source water protection, and we're very engaged with the Province of Ontario, as we speak, as they develop their new regime.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The issue of alien invasive species has been addressed by this committee a number of times, particularly during visits from representatives from the International Joint Commission. One of the representations that was made to us had to do with the costs of alien invasive species to our economy as well. I don't know what the latest numbers are, but there are something like 135 different alien invasive species in the Great Lakes. For every one we eliminate, a new one appears, so in recent history the number of species that are causing problems has not gone down.

They also said that the annual cost to our economy, whether it be to the tourism industry or to other industries that depend on the Great Lakes, was greater than the cost of SARS to Canada. This is significant, so I start to wonder why, again, as I raised with you earlier, this does not seem to be as high a priority in terms of water quality, availability, treatment, safety, and health as I would think Canadians would like to see.

Once you link the health aspects, that's good enough, but if you put in the economic aspects, all of a sudden it would seem to me that the stakeholders would be virtually every Canadian: individuals, organizations, businesses, etc. Then there would be a common bond of association to the effect that we should do something about these things and that there should not just be a virtual framework where we have lots of programs. We actually have targets we could achieve that would be to the benefit of virtually every Canadian--and American, for that matter--so why isn't it a priority?

» (1700)

Mrs. Karen Brown: It's a very high priority.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But we're not making any progress, that's the problem.

Mrs. Karen Brown: We have a national plan that is going to be, hopefully, approved by ministers in the fall. Public consultations on various parts of the elements of the strategy are underway. In Montreal, about three weeks ago, we had consultations on the aquatic invasive aspect. We are trying to finalize the plans and strategies. The ministers responsible, including the provincial ministers of wildlife and forestry and others, will be approving that in the fall.

There are three elements to the plan. Aquatic invasives is one. It's a key one that includes not only the invasives from ballast water, but also some of the fish penetration issues that we've heard so much about, particularly in the Great Lakes, on Asian carp and the like. It will look at strategies for that.

On the terrestrial plant side and the plant side, in particular, we're looking at the pathways of introduction and trying to figure out how to manage those or close them off. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, on the plant side, one of the biggest pathways for introduction is deliberate introduction, as people bring plants in for their gardens.

We're looking in the pet trade business as well, where a lot of fish and other aquatic organisms come in through the pet trade business, and are trying to identify how we need to make improvements there.

It's a fairly comprehensive overview. We will certainly be making recommendations to ministers in the fall to launch that plan.

The Chair: Monsieur Dion.

[Translation]

Hon. Stéphane Dion: I'd like to focus on something you alluded to earlier, namely provincial and federal standards.

[English]

First, to what extent are these provincial standards released and endorsed in the guidelines? To what extent are they enforceable?

Secondly, what about federal standards in our own jurisdiction? Where are we, if we compare with the provinces?

Thirdly, what is the link between these standards, federally and provincially, and the guidelines?

I was a bit worried when you said that we have hundreds of guidelines. At the end of the day, how can you have any accountability, public accountability of governance, if it's too complex to understand where we are?

Is it possible to have a kind of best practices annual report of standards in Canada to know which government is ahead and which one is behind, so the voters will know it when they have to choose their government?

Ms. Susan Fletcher: Thank you very much.

As we pointed out earlier, the federal guidelines are used by all jurisdictions, whether they use them as standards in their legislation or whether they use them as a policy. They do recognize the levels that we have identified.

When I said that we had 160 guidelines, that's because there are 160 different kinds of possible contaminants. Each one might have a different level, a different standard, a different norm, or a different guideline as to what can be acceptable or not.

What I can assure you is at this point in time, insofar as the provinces and the federal jurisdictions know, they are aware and they all implement the guidelines we have all agreed on. Not only the provinces, but the 11 departments that have responsibilities for purveying water and for giving water, whether it's to inmates, the Department of National Defence, DFAIT overseas, Corrections Canada, or whatever, each provides water that meets all the guidelines.

Everybody uses the guidelines that we have. Some provinces, as we've said, have taken those guidelines and made them into standards through legislation, and others have implemented them on the basis of policy.

At the federal level, we implement on the basis of policy. We're working together right now with all the departments to make sure that we're implementing them in consistent and collaborative ways.

» (1705)

Hon. Stéphane Dion: We don't have any enforceable standards. We are like the four provinces that you mentioned. If a guideline is not met as you say it's supposed to be met, then we don't have any enforceable standards that could give, for example, an aboriginal band the capacity to sue us.

Ms. Susan Fletcher: If a guideline is not being met, the recourse is to make it known to everybody that it is not being met. We do this through posting. We do it through notifying medical officers of health, and we then suggest boiled water or the provision of bottled water.

Hon. Stéphane Dion: Okay, but in the provinces where you have unenforceable standards, what is the difference? Is it that the people, the municipalities, or somebody has the capacity to go to court to protest or to make a correction of the situation?

Ms. Susan Fletcher: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to defer to Mr. Cooper.

Mr. John Cooper: Just to be clear, where they don't enforce, they do ensure compliance. They do test the water. They monitor it on a regular basis. The guidelines also give indications of how frequently they should be monitored. So just not enforcing it doesn't mean they're not complying with the regulations.

In the matter of whether they could be taken to court, I'm not a lawyer, and I can't answer that question.

Hon. Stéphane Dion: What's the difference, then, between an enforceable standard and a guideline, if there is no legal aspect?

Mr. John Cooper: Well, there are penalties applied to the treatment plants, and there will be fines. There are performance standards they will be judged against, and there will be follow-up assessments that are more stringent. That applies under a voluntary system too.

But I must reiterate that one of the important things has always been a focus on ensuring that the guidelines are met. Certainly that is a key aspect, but we must look beyond the guidelines and also have compliance in terms of other things, like operator training, use of accredited labs, which has been a problem in the past, and operator certification. All these things are very important. Source water protection is important, and reporting to the public on the quality of drinking water.

As I've said, many of the provinces have moved already to put that into policy or legislation, and others are following suit.

[Translation]

Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Chairman, I would very much appreciate it if committee members could get some information about these standards which would be

[English]

enforceable. I would like to have information on how it works, in which province, and what the legal consequences are for governments when a government accepts to have enforceable guidelines.

Ms. Susan Fletcher: We'll undertake to try to find that information out for you.

Hon. Stéphane Dion: Thank you.

The Chair: Also, it would be helpful in the context of Monsieur Dion's questions if you could indicate to this committee the differences between regulations, guidelines, and standards.

Ms. Susan Fletcher: Certainly we will do that as well.

The Chair: Now, going back to the earlier exchange on groundwater, I'm a bit troubled. Your reply was very clear, and it seems to me that there is a danger here that while you are conducting all this fine work, interdepartmentally speaking, if you have the groundwater findings and the national survey available, then later on, downstream, so to speak, that report will not be taken into account in your recommendations.

The reason for attributing so much importance to groundwater is that we are told by native people, by farmers, by hydrologists, and so on that there is a constantly receding level of groundwater being measured and that the groundwater is becoming more and more difficult to reach. These are in-the-field observations, and at this stage in Canada we are not blessed with the knowledge and the information as to what exactly is the status of groundwater. But the signals that are being registered are alarming, and it seems to me that your work would be more focused, so to speak, if you had that knowledge--hence the necessity, perhaps, of accelerating the national survey on groundwater so that you are not taken by surprise.

Does that make sense?

» (1710)

Mrs. Karen Brown: By all means, we would like to accelerate that kind of research, but it's fairly intensive, and I'm just not sure we actually have the resources to be able to accelerate it. There's a fairly deliberate three-year program underway, Mr. Chairman, and by that point we'll have fully assessed twelve regional aquifer systems.

The Chair: It's not five, it's twelve?

Mrs. Karen Brown: It's a three-year program at the moment, and we will have done twelve regional aquifer systems. I think we're doing five this year. It's a fairly deliberate program over time, and the information will be made available each year.

The Chair: How many aquifers have been left out?

Mrs. Karen Brown: After the twelve, there are still quite a few, but these are the key large ones.

The Chair: Don't you think that knowledge of groundwater is essential to your work?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Absolutely.

The Chair: Otherwise you would be flying by the seat of your pants.

Mrs. Karen Brown: We are very cognizant that we need to have a better understanding of the groundwater resource. We have a much better understanding of the surface water challenges that we have, although we had a conversation today that tells us we need to continue to monitor that. We're doing as much as we can at the moment to identify big groundwater aquifers, the key ones, and do the full vulnerability assessment to try to understand where the recharge zones are and how to protect them.

So we're in complete agreement. It's very important information.

The Chair: You will be reporting your work, your findings, to the deputy minister eventually. Eventually the deputy minister of the day will report to the Minister of the Environment of the day. Is that correct?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Yes.

The Chair: Now, when will the public be made aware of the findings in this process?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I think the kind of information we're collecting and the kind of work we're doing in the horizontal review of water that we're conducting right now will probably be made available through the regular reporting systems of the federal government reporting on its programs over the course of the next year. That will give us the basic information on the programs, what we're investing, that kind of baseline information. From there we will start to determine what we need to do in terms of the various policy options. At that stage we would certainly recommend to ministers that they engage the public in terms of what we should be doing and how we should be going about doing it.

The Chair: Is that a matter of months or a matter of years?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I would say that's probably a year from now.

The Chair: Thank you.

The last key role outlined in your paper today reads as follows: “To promote the adoption of integrated approaches to water management across all Canadian jurisdictions.” In your presentation today there is no reference to water conservation. Does that mean you intend to introduce water conservation as one of the integrated approaches? Does it mean something else? In other words, why is water conservation not one of your major pillars?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Mr. Chairman, I think if you take a look at the federal water framework in the deck, the result area--sustainable use--is where a large majority of the water conservation focus will be. If you take a look at the federal water framework in general, it in itself is an integrated water resource management view. It is very much bringing that focus to the discussions across all our departmental efforts. Water conservation is in the third result area.

» (1715)

The Chair: Is conservation management on that chart?

Mrs. Karen Brown: “Sustainable use” is the heading.

The Chair: Sustainable use and conservation are two different things.

Mrs. Karen Brown: Sustainable use assumes that there's conservation.

The Chair: I'm sorry, not necessarily.

I think the emphasis on conservation may be central to sustainable use, but unless it is spelled out and made abundantly clear that it is the central element or central theme of sustainable use, it will not be registered.

Mrs. Karen Brown: That's a very valid point. Water conservation and water efficiency are absolutely fundamental to that result area, and if it's not explained--

The Chair: For instance, let me ask you this question, which you will tell me is not a federal responsibility, but nevertheless, the industrial use of water in Ontario and in other provinces is considerable. It is also a drawing of a natural resource at virtually no cost to the industries concerned. Are we satisfied that the industrial use of water at the present time is sustainable?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I think that is a major piece of work that we are undertaking. As I indicated earlier, under the sustainable use and conservation heading, what we are looking to do is a sector-by-sector review of how we can actually encourage a reduction in the amount of water, industry by industry.

The Chair: That's reassuring.

A year or so ago, 16 kilometres to the west of here in the Perth area, a company called OMYA applied to the Ontario government to draw five times its industrial existing-user water. The application was approved by the then provincial government, despite considerable public opposition. This decision was confirmed by the Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario, Ms. Pauline Browes being the chair. One of the first things carried out by the newly elected government was to cancel that particular project.

Would you like to comment on that?

Mrs. Karen Brown: No, thank you.

The Chair: It shows how dangerous this business can be.

Mrs. Karen Brown: It's a very important decision. I think each province is grappling with it in terms of water use and allocation.

As John said earlier, a big part of the challenge of what all the provincial governments are now trying to implement is the watershed basis for a lot of the work we are doing, recognizing that it isn't simply at the end of a tap that you can ensure quality, that you need to go back to the source, that you actually need water in the river to be able to do these things. Those are the kinds of really important decisions provinces grapple with daily and weekly.

The Chair: But I thought your third key role, on page 2 of your opening statement, would cover this: “To promote the adoption of integrated approaches to water management across all Canadian jurisdictions”.

Mrs. Karen Brown: Yes, it certainly would. The whole federal framework is in fact an integrated water resource management frame. From within the federal house, in particular, we want to make sure that we are aligning our programs and our work in that vein. At the same time, we are working very closely with the provinces to implement and integrate water resource management, because the federal government has many tools and programs, as you know, that interact directly with some of those resources on the land.

» (1720)

The Chair: Thank you.

I have two brief final questions.

Can you give this committee assurance that water is not included in NAFTA?

Mrs. Karen Brown: It is not included in NAFTA.

The Chair: My final question has to do with the international aspects of water. In other words, have you, in your ADM committee, identified the international aspects of water policies, and if so, which are they?

Mrs. Karen Brown: The international and global aspects of the water issue is in fact one of the five pillars you see in that framework. As well, it is one of the priorities being identified through our work. You see on the far right-hand side of the slide the heading “Global Dimension”.

The Chair: Which page are you reading from?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I'm on slide 7 again, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Oh, we are back in the framework. On which page?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I'm on slide 7, the “Global Dimension”. The result statement below that is “Canadian water-related interests are protected and promoted globally, commitments are met, and Canadian assistance is provided.” We are working internally to harness the work to achieve that result as well. Under the work we're doing, that area is emerging as a priority for action.

As you will know, Mr. Chairman, we are going to the CSD meetings at the end of April in New York City. In that first round of a two-year cycle for the Commission on Sustainable Development, the world will be taking a look at what progress has been made and what the new policy direction should be for the second round under the CSD.

We're identifying basically three key areas for Canada, including some of the international environmental governance challenges. You will be aware that there is no United Nations convention on water as such. Clearly, one of the things people are looking at is how we can better utilize existing conventions to ensure that we are implementing the very important water agenda.

We obviously are trying very hard to provide assistance to other countries with regard to our experience in managing shared waters. The International Joint Commission has done a lot of work in that regard and continues to provide a great deal of insight for other parts of the world in terms of what can be done.

We're also working from the point of view of providing science. The water quality guidelines and the drinking water quality guidelines have been adopted by about 60 countries.

As well, we are the host, with Dr. Carey, at the National Water Research Institute of the UNEP GEMS/Water program, which is international water quality work we've been doing since 1977. We're doing quite a bit of capacity building as well, and we'd be happy to share information on that with this committee.

Those are the three main areas where we're trying to coordinate our efforts and enhance our presence: capacity building, using official development assistance, and working through CIDA on a number of big transboundary projects, such as the Nile River basin.

The Chair: Is Canada supportive of the resolution before the UN proposing water rights?

Mrs. Karen Brown: I don't know the answer to that question.

The Chair: Does your ADM committee also include a representative from IDRC and CIDA?

Mrs. Karen Brown: Yes, it does, as well as Infrastructure Canada, CMHC, and the regular line departments.

The Chair: Can you supply the members of this committee with a list of your committee members?

Mrs. Karen Brown: It's attached to the terms of reference, I believe, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

On behalf of the members of the committee, thank you very much for a smooth presentation and session.

The meeting is adjourned.