In June 1969, the Cuyahoga River, slicked with oil, caught fire, again.[1] The Cuyahoga River flows into Lake Erie, which, around the same time as the Cuyahoga caught fire, was experiencing major algal blooms resulting from excessive amounts of phosphorus in the water. The result was dead areas at the bottom of the lake as well as spoiled nearshore areas. A “pervasive plague of toxic chemicals contaminating fish, water and sediment”[2] added to the lake’s problems. These environmental issues were not confined to Lake Erie. Problems with over-enrichment from phosphorus and toxic chemicals existed across the Great Lakes.[3]

The Canadian and United States governments responded to this crisis by negotiating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which the two countries signed in 1972. “The scope was broad and it was based in large part on our scientific efforts. The need for a major cleanup was obvious, and the two countries, Canada and the U.S.A., Ontario, and eight states made clear commitments to pollution control programs in the agreement and in the related Canada-Ontario agreement.”[4]

After the agreement was signed, all levels of government in both countries tackled the Great Lakes’ problems vigorously. Sewage treatment plants for municipalities and industries were built. Phosphorus in detergents was regulated. Farmers adopted conservation tillage practices, and PCBs and DDT[5] were banned in both countries. “This effort had wonderful effects, and by the late 1980s the main body of the lakes was pronounced healthy again.”[6] In 2012, the Government of Canada reaffirmed its commitment to the remediation of the Great Lakes and signed an amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which is “considered to be one of the most enduring and successful environmental agreements in the world.”[7]

 Although great success had been attributed to the remediation efforts of the past, witnesses have highlighted some new challenges. In 2011, an “infamous algal bloom … started in the western basin of Lake Erie and gradually spread and covered a good part of the lake.”[8] “Algal blooms on Lake Erie, especially blue-green algae …, are now seen as worse than before the big clean-up that began in 1972. … For highly toxic mercury, after reductions from 1970 to 2005, we now see concentrations on the rise again in some fish and fish-eating birds, such as loons. … [And] a host of new contaminants, not removed at conventional sewage treatment plants, [are] finding their way to the lakes. These contaminants include dumped or excreted pharmaceuticals. There are small but growing concentrations of anti-inflammatory drugs in Lake Erie's open water, far from shore. Antidepressants have been found in Lake Ontario and antibiotics in the St. Lawrence River. Endocrine-disrupting substances have been found in Lake Huron.”[9]

Recognizing the immense economic, environmental and social importance of clean Great Lakes to the 30% of Canada’s population that lives within the Great Lakes Basin,[10] the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (the Committee) undertook a study on the water quality of the Great Lakes Basin. On 10 December 2013, the Committee agreed to the following motion:

That the committee undertake a ten (10) meeting study on the Water quality of the Great Lakes Basin. This study will focus on three (3) areas: (a) identifying locations within the Great Lakes Basin that are of environmental concern and the prioritization of these areas to be addressed; (b) reviewing the efforts that are planned and/or currently underway to remediate the identifiable areas of environmental concern; and (c) recommending best practices that will facilitate the further remediation of areas of environmental concern within the Great Lakes Basin.[11]

The Committee heard from 31 witnesses over the course of 9 meetings from February to April of 2014 and is now pleased to present this report and recommendations to the Government of Canada on Water Quality of the Great Lakes Basin.

Water Quality and the Great Lakes Basin

Witnesses stressed the importance of water quality in the Great Lakes Basin to Ontario and to Canada as a whole. According to a representative from the provincial government, 80% of Ontarians obtain their drinking water from the Great Lakes.[12] “The Great Lakes Basin is home to 98% of Ontarians”[13] and contains over 90% of Ontario's agricultural land, accounting “for the largest share of the total Canadian GDP in agriculture and food processing, 33.2%, to be exact.”[14] Great Lakes fisheries, including spinoffs, are worth an estimated $8.3 billion.[15]

Clearly, the water in the Great Lakes is essential to millions of people; its preservation is therefore a key priority of the Government of Canada. Historic toxic sediment deposits in the lakes, along with ongoing excessive inputs of phosphorus and new toxic substances represent some of the new challenges. A resurgence of algal blooms alone threatens to increase water treatment costs, degrade ecosystems for fish and wildlife, and have adverse impacts on tourism and fisheries.[16]

One witness referred to a study which suggested that an investment of $26 billion in remediation efforts along the United States Great Lakes shore could yield $50 billion in long-term regional benefits and between $30 billion and $50 billion in short-term benefits.[17] Remediation of water quality should therefore be seen as an investment with potentially high returns. This is particularly true for geographical locations with significant water quality impairment.