The first two parts of the Committee’s study involved identifying locations of environmental concern within the Great Lakes Basin and reviewing related remediation efforts that are either planned or underway. The Committee is aware that specific pollution hotspots, known as “areas of concern,” have already been identified under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Committee heard from witnesses regarding several of these areas of concern as well as from witnesses concerned about some other locations of environmental concern within the Great Lakes Basin. For all these locations, the environmental concerns and remediation efforts described by witnesses are summarized below.

Areas of Concern

Under the 1987 version of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 43 pollution hotspots within the Great Lakes were designated “areas of concern.” Twelve areas of concern are in Canada, and another five straddle the border and are therefore termed “binational” areas of concern. All of these areas were designated on the basis that “significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level.”[18] The degree of water quality degradation was measured using a list of 14 possible “beneficial use impairments.” For example, impairments such as “restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption” and “beach closings” are included on the list.[19]

For each area of concern, a remedial action plan has been developed (two plans for binational areas) to guide the restoration of beneficial uses, taking into account local conditions. In practice, remedial action plans are “carried out by dozens of organizations, including federal, … provincial and local governments and volunteer groups and businesses, among others. Funding mechanisms are equally complex.”[20] As the Committee was informed, “once the remedial action plans were developed, each of these areas of concern developed restoration councils, which involved a number of federal and provincial agencies, but also involved members of the community from the first nations, industry, municipalities, conservation authorities, non-profits, and other members of the public.”[21]

An area of concern is “delisted” when “environmental monitoring confirms that beneficial uses have been restored in accordance with the criteria established in the [remedial action plan].”[22] To date, five areas of concern have been delisted: three in Canada and two in the United States. Two additional Canadian areas of concern are classified as “in recovery” on the basis of all remedial actions having been completed, but more time is needed for the environment to recover sufficiently for the area to be delisted. In addition, many beneficial uses have been restored at other areas of concern that have not yet been fully remediated.

The Committee heard from a number of organizations involved in remedial action plans and restoration of three of Canada’s remaining areas of concern as well as several binational areas of concern.

A. Hamilton Harbour

Prior to the designation of areas of concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Hamilton Harbour had already been identified as a “pollution hotspot.”[23] In fact, historically it had been deemed the most polluted of all the Canadian hotspots.[24] The pollution in Hamilton Harbour is largely the legacy of steel and iron industries, which dominated the harbour, although the region remains 50% agricultural.[25] In addition, pollution has been caused by three wastewater plants that discharge into the harbour. The resultant coal tar deposits and raw sewage have severely degraded the water quality in the harbour and impaired associated ecosystem functions.[26] Regulated high water levels have also damaged wetlands in the harbour.[27]

The remedial action plan for Hamilton Harbour was developed by a stakeholder group of more than 40 organizations representing industry, governments and citizens of the region. It has been implemented by a group of 18 stakeholders known as the Bay Area Implementation Team, which is co-chaired by Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The public has a significant role in the harbour’s remediation through a second organization, the Bay Area Restoration Council. It was acknowledged that over the past 30 years, a considerable amount of work has been undertaken and, thanks to the support of the federal government, Hamilton Harbour will likely begin the delisting process by 2020.[28]

In addition to providing funding for clean-up efforts, Environment Canada staff at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters research facility, located on the harbour, have played an “essential”[29] role in developing the remedial action plan for Hamilton Harbour, providing scientific expertise and working with other levels of government and community stakeholders to develop the remedial action plan.[30]

While many small projects have been undertaken, a fundamental priority has been to upgrade wastewater facilities that discharge into the harbour. Between 1990 and 2010, about $1.2 billion was invested in remediation efforts, $800 million of which has funded upgrades to wastewater facilities to provide for tertiary treatment. Industry contributed approximately 80% of the total amount spent to date, with the remainder coming from the Ontario and federal governments.

The other priority for the harbour is to remediate Randle Reef, a coal tar deposit within the harbour equivalent in size to the deposit of the Sydney Tar Ponds in Cape Breton.[31] Work to contain the Randle Reef sediment is to start next year and will take approximately 10 years to complete at a cost of about $140 million, to be split equally among the Ontario and federal governments and the community.[32]

Phosphorus also remains a problem in Hamilton Harbour. Although phosphorus inputs to the harbour have been reduced by half as a result of the wastewater treatment upgrades, phosphorus continues to enter the harbour from rain and melted snow runoff from the agricultural and urban landscape, necessitating a further 50% reduction in phosphorus entering the watershed.[33] Pollution entering the Great Lakes from such diffuse locations and origins is termed “non-point source” pollution. Now that phosphorus inputs from the wastewater treatment plants are being addressed through infrastructure upgrades, efforts are being refocused to address non-point source phosphorus pollution into Hamilton Harbour.[34]

Through such large-scale projects to improve water quality in the harbour and a “record of many small victories,”[35] the goal is to delist Hamilton Harbour as an area of concern by about 2020.[36] However, tackling non-point sources of pollution in the Hamilton region will be essential to meeting this goal and ultimately, delisting will depend on how the environment responds to all these efforts.

B. Toronto and Region

The Toronto and Region area of concern encompasses six watersheds from the Rouge River in the east to Etobicoke Creek in the west. It includes 42 km of waterfront, 11 municipal jurisdictions, and over 4 million residents.[37]

Population growth and urbanization, in combination with wet weather events, contribute to water quality issues in the Toronto region.[38] From the late 1800s to about 1950, drainage systems were built to carry both sewage and storm water in a single pipe. During heavy rains, the volume of water overwhelms the system in what is known as a combined sewer overflow. The result is that a mix of raw sewage and rain water is discharged through 34 outfalls into Lake Ontario, and through another 46 outfalls to streams and rivers throughout the city. New sewers built since about 1950, however, have separate storm and sanitary pipes.[39]

The Committee heard that the water quality of stormwater and combined sewer overflows is surprisingly similar, except for some differences in nutrient and bacterial counts. Combined sewer overflows and direct stormwater runoff both have three to four orders of magnitude higher E. coli counts than the provincial water quality objective for beaches designated for swimming. The replacement of combined sewer systems with separate sewers for storm water and sewage will therefore not be sufficient to protect beaches. A massive infrastructure upgrade is required to manage stormwater.[40]

Toronto has responded by developing the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan. The plan includes: mandatory disconnection of downspouts from the sewer system; maintenance of current roadside ditches; installation of leaky pipe systems;[41] identification of 170 opportunities for green facilities or stormwater ponds or wetland areas; and where space is limited, underground water storage systems, tanks and tunnels.

An expert witness representing the city stressed the need for sewer infrastructure by recounting the events of a storm that occurred in August 2005 during which 150 mm of rain fell in 3 hours. He expressed support for green infrastructure, but explained that it could only “intercept maybe 5 mm to 10 mm of rainfall… so you need much more than green.”[42] Because major storms are occurring more frequently, Toronto’s leadership is of the view that it is incumbent upon them “to do something about it.”[43]

Part of the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan is the most significant project intended to help delist the Toronto region as an area of concern. A 23 km-long tunnel is to be built along the Don River and central waterfront, including 15 underground storage shafts measuring 30 metres in diameter and 50 metres deep. Eventually, the system will be hooked up to a high-speed treatment plant being tested in partnership with Environment Canada.[44]

Implementing the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan is truly a massive, expensive and disruptive undertaking. Neighbourhoods “look like war zones”[45] as streets are ripped up to put in place the underground storage. All told, the project will take 25 years to construct and cost $1.5 billion, to be paid with revenues generated by the City of Toronto over that time frame through the sale of water.[46]

C. Bay of Quinte

The Bay of Quinte is a shallow, 100 km-long bay on the north-eastern shore of Lake Ontario. The bay is separated from Lake Ontario by Prince Edward County and Amherst Island. Three major watersheds drain into the bay via the Trent, Moira and Napanee Rivers.[47] The bay was identified as an area of concern because of water quality impairments caused by excess nutrients, persistent toxic contamination, bacterial pollution and the loss or destruction of fish and wildlife habitat.[48]

The Committee heard from a representative from Quinte Conservation, one of the two conservation authorities responsible for watershed management in the Bay of Quinte, who discussed two of the bay’s principal issues: arsenic contamination and nutrient loads.

Arsenic contamination is a legacy of the Deloro Mine, which began as a gold mine in 1866 and was transformed into a cobalt smelter after 1901. Mining and smelter operations involved removing arsenic from the ore, and the site became heavily contaminated. Arsenic was transported to the Bay of Quinte via the Moira River, which runs through the site.[49]

As one witness explained, thousands of tonnes of arsenic made it downriver to the Bay of Quinte because of “years of not knowing what people were doing when we were dumping pollution into the rivers draining directly into the bay.”[50] Arsenic loading into the Moira River has been stopped through filtration, and arsenic at the old mine site is being contained. The arsenic that polluted the bay is now contained within the sediment, and dredging is banned in order that the sediment not be disturbed.

Of the initial 80 concerns requiring action in the bay, 50 have been addressed. The remaining 30 concerns are all related to phosphorus levels. As the Committee heard, if phosphorus levels can be contained, the rest of the problems can be controlled, and the Bay of Quinte area of concern can be delisted.[51]

Approximately $20 million has been spent to “protect wetlands, to restore shorelines, to put in alternate watering holes for cattle, and for manure storage and that type of thing, to prevent runoff into the creeks and to try to control the phosphorus problems.”[52] Half of that $20 million was provided through government funding to Quinte Conservation, and the other half came from private industry and the agricultural community. The agricultural community in particular was noted for spending millions of dollars to create buffer zones to control runoff, even in the absence of incentive programs.

Despite these efforts, more research and action is required. Quinte Conservation “does have the expertise, but [not] the financial capability for doing all the work that's required.”[53] Nonetheless, the goal is to complete remedial activities for the Bay of Quinte area of concern by 2017, with delisting occurring several years later depending on how long it takes for the environment to recover.[54]

D. St. Lawrence River

The St. Lawrence River is a binational area of concern that has been divided into two parts: the Cornwall area of concern in Canada and the Massena area of concern in the United States. Separate remedial action plans have been developed to address each part. The Cornwall area of concern is approximately 80 km long, extending from the Moses-Saunders power dam to the eastern outlet of Lake St. Francis.[55] Remediation of this area of concern is significantly different than in other areas, not only due to its international aspect, but also because it crosses the Ontario–Quebec provincial border and because the Akwesasne Mohawk First Nation is significantly involved.

Like many of the other areas of concern, the St. Lawrence River area of concern is the legacy of historic, long-term industrial activity. In this case, primary pollutants in the area are mercury and PCBs. Continued contamination to the area comes from industrial and municipal effluent, non-point sources such as urban storm water and agricultural runoff and air deposition. Being downstream of all the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River area of concern is also the recipient of pollution from across the system, via Lake Ontario. In addition, land-use practices, shipping and the extensive shoreline and water flow alterations made during the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway have altered the natural features of the area.[56]

Similar to the Hamilton Harbour remedial action plan, a group has been formed to act as a liaison between the remedial action plan implementing council and the public. This group is led by the St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences, a unique organization that grew from the public process during the early years after the area of concern was designated. The Institute is based on a partnership of the local municipalities, the Mohawks of Akwesasne and leading citizens. It undertakes research “to provide expertise for the local scientists in an area of concern like Cornwall.”[57] Experience the Institute gains is shared with other areas of concern, notably the Bay of Quinte.[58] The institute has its own facility, built exclusively with local funding on land provided free by the local college. The genesis and accomplishments of the Institute are a source of pride within the local community.

Considerable progress has been made in remediating the St. Lawrence area of concern.[59] Industrial and municipal discharges have been abated, including through sewage treatment plant upgrades. Habitat is being restored and municipalities have developed long-term anti-pollution plans. As of 2010, there were three remaining beneficial use impairments in the area: eutrophication or undesirable algae,[60] loss of fish habitat and restrictions on fish consumption.[61] These impairments are of particular concern to the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, which stated that “no substantive studies have been undertaken to verify that the contaminant levels in the fish, sediments, and plants in and along the river would support the delisting of the St. Lawrence River area of concern.”[62]

Phosphorus inputs to the river from agricultural sources continue to pose a problem. Accordingly, best management practices need to be implemented to control erosion, improve septic systems, contain manure effectively and generally address non-point source phosphorus pollution. [63]

E. Other Binational Areas of Concern

The St. Lawrence River is one of five binational areas of concern. Three other binational areas of concern discussed during the Committee’s study — St. Marys River, St. Clair River and Detroit River — were noted for having the “most impairment.”[64] Another witness described these areas of concern as having “very challenging contaminated sediment problems.”[65]

The St. Marys River, which joins Lake Superior with Lake Huron, is contaminated with oil from steel manufacturing. The St. Clair River, which is the primary outflow from Lake Huron toward Lake Erie via Lake St. Clair, is contaminated from 27 industrial facilities, including petrochemical plants, in Sarnia, Ontario, and 6 in the United States.[66] The Detroit River starts at Lake St. Clair and finishes the connection from Lake Huron to Lake Erie. Seventy-six industries and 10 municipalities discharge wastewater into the Detroit River watershed. Combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows and municipal and industrial discharges have degraded the river itself as well as made it the single largest source of contamination in Lake Erie.[67]

In the case of all three of these binational areas of concern, progress has been made in reducing pollution inputs and in cleaning up legacy contamination. However, as one witness put it, it will “require a great deal of cooperation and collaboration to accomplish the ultimate delisting.”[68] Because of the significance of the challenges faced, delisting is projected for 2025.[69]

F. Areas of Concern — Summary

The Committee heard that progress is being made to remediate and delist all of Canada’s areas of concern in the Great Lakes system. Of the 12 Canadian areas of concern, 3 have been fully remediated and delisted, and 2 others are classified as being “in recovery” on the basis of clean-up activities being complete, but more time is needed for the ecosystem to recover. While it has been noted that much of this progress was made in the early years following the designation of areas of concern under the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,[70] Environment Canada testified that the seven remaining Canadian areas of concern are likely to be remediated by 2025.[71]

No new areas of concern have been designated in recent years. The continuing significant contamination at areas of concern is largely the legacy of historic industrial, municipal and urban practices. These practices were carried out before society appreciated the negative impact they would have on the environment, human health and the economy.

With a good deal of research and remedial action, water quality in the Great Lakes, particularly in the areas of concern, has greatly improved over the years. In addition, nuisance algae which, in the 1970s, “resulted in dead areas at the bottom of Lake Erie, and nearshore problems in practically all the lakes,”[72] were largely addressed in the 1980s and 1990s. As described by one witness, these problems of toxic chemicals and nuisance algae were “tackled vigorously by building sewage treatment plants for all municipalities and industries, and regulating phosphorus in detergents and some toxics, such as PCBs and the pesticide DDT.”[73]

While many witnesses who appeared before the Committee believe that remediation of Canada’s areas of concern and regulatory measures that reduced certain inputs to the lakes are important and significant, some complex and persistent issues are now emerging as priorities. More specifically, it is now apparent that non-point source pollution is a significant threat to the water quality in certain locations of the Great Lakes Basin.

Non-point source pollution is the cumulative result of contaminants being washed off fields, lawns, streets and other paved areas, either directly into the Great Lakes or their tributaries, or via sewage systems before being discharged into the Great Lakes or their tributaries. Contaminants originate in both rural and urban locations. They include manure and other fertilizers, pesticides and animal waste washed off fields and residential lawns. They result from stormwater runoff in towns and cities, as well as combined sewer overflows.[74]

The chemicals implicated in non-point source pollution include “a host of new contaminants, [such as pharmaceuticals], not removed at conventional sewage treatment plants, finding their way to the lakes.”[75] However, many witnesses concurred that the contaminant currently of “dominant concern” is phosphorus.[76]

Problems related to non-point source pollution in the Great Lakes are complicated by the introduction of new invasive species that are changing the food web, by changes in land use and other human interventions as well as by climate change. One witness referred to these factors as “game changers.”[77]

Accordingly, it is time to look beyond the areas of concern that have already been identified and to consider the effects of non-point source pollution in the context of other game changing factors and in other locations within the Great Lakes system.

Other Locations of Environmental Concern

Algal blooms, as discussed below, have once again made Lake Erie the “poster child” of water quality issues in the Great Lakes. Two other Great Lakes — Lake Ontario and Lake Huron, along with Georgian Bay — were also identified as locations of environmental concern during this study. Each lake is discussed in turn, below, with a summary of the efforts that are planned or underway to remediate water quality problems in these lakes.

A. Lake Erie

Despite the fact that, in most years, phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie have been below the target established under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and have been reduced by more than half from the 1970s levels, algal blooms are once again fouling the nearshore areas of the lake. Following a severe thunderstorm in June 2011, a record-breaking algal bloom covered almost the entire western basin of the lake, an area of approximately 5,000 km².[78]

Excessive algae in the lake poses a threat to the safety of drinking water, increases water treatment costs and clogs water intakes.[79] It degrades fish and wildlife habitat with resulting “adverse impacts on tourism and commercial and recreational fisheries,”[80] and it fouls beaches and shorelines, affecting swimming and boating on the lake.

The Committee heard that the “reasons for the resurgence of the algae are complex and not completely understood. Phosphorus levels have declined significantly and are currently stable; however, the proportion of phosphorus in dissolved form is increasing, and this is believed to be contributing to increased algae growth.”[81]

Unlike particulate phosphorus, which historically posed problems in Lake Erie, dissolved phosphorus is readily available to be taken up by algae.[82] The increase in the proportion of dissolved phosphorus in the lake appears to be partially attributable to changing farm practices, including “no till” farming, which results in increased amounts of dissolved phosphorus seeping in the waterways.[83] Point sources, such as industrial and sewage discharges, also contribute dissolved phosphorus to the lakes.[84]

In addition to changes in farming practices, new aquatic invasive species may play a role in increasing the amount of dissolved phosphorus in the lake.[85] It is thought that zebra mussels and now quagga mussels, which dominate nearshore areas of Lake Erie and other Great Lakes, are filtering particles, such a phytoplankton, and releasing nutrients in forms more easily used by bloom-forming algae. The mussels also improve water clarity and therefore light penetration, and act as a substrate for certain types of algae to bind to the lake bottom.[86]

Finally, climate change also appears to be exacerbating the situation. Warming weather causes more evaporation from the lakes, including during winter months if there is not enough ice cover.[87] Increased evaporation leads to lower water levels, particularly in the shallow nearshore areas, which warm faster, promoting algal growth. In addition, more dissolved phosphorus is entering waterways as a result of “more runoff with increased frequency of heavy rain and snowmelt periods in the changing climate.”[88]

While numerous witnesses identified Lake Erie — and in particular the western basin of Lake Erie — as a location of concern within the Great Lakes Basin, they pointed out that the watersheds that drain into the lake must also be considered.[89] It has been determined that the Maumee River in Ohio is responsible for about 80% of the water quality impairment in the Western Lake Erie Basin.[90] On the Canadian side, “the Thames River has been recognized, sadly, as the area of greatest contribution. … Other watersheds, including the Grand River watershed, have been mentioned as having significant input into Lake Erie, and what would apply in the Lower Thames would be applicable in the Grand as well.”[91] Accordingly, these tributaries, and the watersheds they drain, might be considered locations of concern within the Great Lakes Basin.[92]

1. Remedial Efforts Underway for Lake Erie

Local authorities and organizations, as well as governments at all levels, are taking action to decrease phosphorus inputs from non-point sources to Lake Erie.

Currently, remedial actions to change agricultural practices are occurring largely at the local level. Conservation authorities, which are responsible for managing the water and resources on a watershed basis, develop and implement a range of local conservation programs, improving water quality and creating green jobs. “For example, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority’s clean water program secures funding from foundations, the private sector, municipalities, and provincial and federal partners to offer incentives to private landowners for water quality best management practices. Examples of eligible projects include erosion control measures, remediation of faulty septic systems, restriction of livestock from watercourses, clean water diversions, and nutrient management plans.”[93]

A representative from the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority described for the Committee that organization’s new partnership arrangement with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food to enhance understanding of how phosphorus travels over land, including mechanisms, times of year and factors that influence its transport. Recently, the four conservation authorities responsible for the western basin of Lake Erie — the Essex Region, Lower Thames Valley, St. Clair Region, and Upper Thames River conservation authorities — have “agreed to collaborate to pursue enhanced and stronger implementation measures for this critical area of Lake Erie.”[94] The Committee also heard from a representative from the Grand River Conservation Authority, who stated that the federal government has been a strong supporter in the development of its water management plan and described some of the initiatives underway at that organization in support of improved water quality of the Grand River, which flows into the eastern end of Lake Erie.[95]

The Canada-Ontario Farm Stewardship Program, which is colloquially referred to as the “environmental farm plan,”[96] is also contributing to a reduction in phosphorus inputs to the lake. This cost-shared program helps “to change farmers' attitudes toward the environment, raising the awareness of regulatory requirements, and promoting the adoption of best practices to address on-farm risks.”[97] Projects funded under the environmental farm plan include those aimed at improving manure storage and handling, enhancing well water protection, establishing buffer strips around streams and controlling soil erosion. Of the approximately 59,000 farms in Ontario, 13,000 different farms have been funded under the program to implement 23,000 best practices.[98]

Despite these efforts, too much phosphorus is still finding its way into Lake Erie. As one witness noted, “if actual lake and tributary water quality is our true outcome measure, [the programs of Conservation Authorities] have been inadequate.”[99] Accordingly, governments at all levels are engaged in finding and implementing solutions.

At the binational level, following the 2011 record algal bloom, the International Joint Commission “launched its major effort into the Lake Erie ecosystem priority, also known as LEEP. To address the challenge, dozens of scientists from both countries were brought together to examine scientific, socio-economic, and regulatory dimensions of the issues in both countries as part of a comprehensive approach.”[100]

The final LEEP report was published in February 2014.[101] It contains 16 recommendations, the first of which is for the Canadian and United States governments to “adopt new targets for maximum acceptable phosphorus loadings in Lake Erie.”[102] Other recommendations include:

• Refocus agri-environmental management programs to explicitly address dissolved reactive phosphorus…;
• Ban the application of manure, biosolids, and commercial fertilizer containing phosphorus on frozen ground or ground that is covered by snow…;
• Accelerate the use of green infrastructure, such as rain gardens and green walls, in urban stormwater management…;
• Prohibit the sale and use of phosphorus fertilizers for lawn care except in certain circumstances…;
• Increase … coastal wetland areas in the western basin of Lake Erie by the year 2030…; and
• Enhanc[e] monitoring networks throughout the Lake Erie basin, including the establishment of a monitoring system at the outlet of the Detroit River that measures phosphorus and other critical nutrient parameters.[103]

At the federal level, representatives from Environment Canada testified that under the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the governments of Canada and the United States are committed to establishing revised binational phosphorus reduction targets by 2016, and to establishing phosphorus reduction plans by 2018.[104] “Through the Great Lakes nutrient initiative, $16 million is being directed to research and monitoring to better understand the causes of toxic and nuisance algae growth, and to provide data and information necessary to establish new phosphorus reduction targets.”[105] As described by one witness:

The Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative has provided funds to monitor 12 of the Canadian tributaries flowing into Lake Erie that haven't been sampled for about five or six years previously. That includes the Grand, the Sydenham, the Thames, and the Detroit River, which is being monitored for 24 hours a day throughout the year, in winter as well as in summer. It is a major impetus of the nutrient initiative to understand what is the linkage between the phosphorus loading and the manifestations of these algal blooms that we're seeing.[106]

Environment Canada is also “working with conservation authorities in key watersheds to demonstrate best practices in watershed planning and management.”[107]

Other federal departments are also involved in the effort to improve water quality in Lake Erie. Researchers with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada “are investigating strategies to manage nitrogen, phosphorus, and manure in pursuit of improved agricultural practices that improve crop nutrient utilization and reduce losses to the surrounding ecosystem.”[108] Fisheries and Oceans Canada “supports the restoration, rebuilding and rehabilitating of recreational fisheries habitat through the Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnerships Program, which in 2013 allocated approximately $1.3 million of eligible funds for recreational fisheries enhancement work in the Great Lakes watershed.”[109] Additional funding for this program was offered in the 2014 budget.[110]

A representative of the Ontario provincial government described for the Committee the province’s three main initiatives to protect, monitor and remediate water quality of the Great Lakes, including Lake Erie. First, Ontario’s Great Lakes strategy “provides a road map to focus tools and resources across ministries as well as priorities for action and collaboration with the broader Great Lakes community.”[111] Second, Ontario's proposed Great Lakes Protection Act, which is currently before the legislature, “would provide the Government of Ontario with a more comprehensive suite of tools to address the combined stresses on the Great Lakes at a multiple watershed scale.”[112] Third, under the Canada-Ontario Agreement — the eighth version of which the federal government has recently signed on to and is currently available for public comment prior to finalization — Ontario works with the federal government to address Great Lake issues, including cleanup of the five remaining areas of concern.[113]

Ontario’s Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Rural Affairs are also involved in improving Great Lakes water quality, focussing on research, education and awareness, and stewardship practices to support Ontario’s Great Lakes strategy.[114] With regards to research, the province provides funding through a variety of partnerships and academic institutions to develop effective best-management practices. Under the best practices verification and demonstration program, field testing is performed on new practices to address challenges such as extreme weather events.[115]

Lake Erie is the shallowest and warmest of all the Great Lakes, and its basin “is the most densely populated of the five Great Lake basins, with 17 metropolitan areas with populations of more than 50,000 and a total population of 11.6 million.”[116] Accordingly, Lake Erie is the most affected by problem algal blooms. However, “the shorelines of Lake Ontario and southeastern Georgian Bay and Lake Huron also experience adverse impacts [of nuisance algal blooms],”[117] as well as other water quality issues, which led witnesses to describe those other lakes as locations of environmental concern as well.

B. Lake Ontario

Lake Ontario, and in particular the western end of Lake Ontario rimmed by the Golden Horseshoe — the highly populated area that stretches from Niagara around the western end of Lake Ontario through Hamilton to the eastern edge of the Greater Toronto Area, and perhaps as far as Port Hope — was identified as a location of environmental concern within the Great Lakes Basin.[118] Lake Ontario currently has four Canadian areas of concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement undergoing remediation.[119] Two, or arguably three, of these areas of concern are within the Golden Horseshoe. However, even once the historical pollution in these areas of concern is fully remediated, the western end of Lake Ontario will remain a location of concern owing to its location as the “downstream recipient of pollution from the other Great Lakes and the Niagara River”[120] and its strong population growth with concomitant urbanization and pollution that threatens water quality.

The Golden Horseshoe has one of the fastest growing populations in North America. “By 2031 the population in this area is expected to increase by almost 4 million people above the 2001 census to 11.5 million people, accounting for over 80% of Ontario's growth.”[121]

As one witness explained, “urbanization is causing stress on loss of natural cover and habitat, which affects the hydrologic cycle and water quality.”[122] The development of natural areas, including protective coastal wetlands, for residential and commercial purposes, and specifically the paving over of natural ground, results in runoff reaching the lake faster.

Even water that is treated at a conventional sewage treatment plant before being discharged into the environment contains certain toxic chemicals that have not been removed. As one witness explained, when Canada and the United States banned PCBs and other chlorinated chemicals, they were replaced by new chemicals, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers and other flame retardants and perfluorinated chemicals, which are now being found in increasing quantities in the environment.[123] Pharmaceuticals are also finding their way into the lakes.[124]

Phosphorus is also degrading water quality in Lake Ontario and in Lake Erie. Excessive algal growth in nearshore areas of the lake “threatens water quality, clogs water intakes at power plants, potentially resulting in unscheduled shutdowns, and when this algae breaks off from the bottom, it washes up onto shore and forms unsightly and very foul-smelling piles.”[125] This algal growth is fuelled by tributary phosphorus loading, which was measured at 234% higher than that of wastewater treatment plants in 2008. Exacerbating factors include the invasion of zebra and quagga mussels.[126]

These next generation water quality concerns of Lake Ontario and of the other Great Lakes — including toxic chemicals and phosphorus — affect drinking water quality, disrupt food webs and ecosystems and generally impair beneficial uses of the lake.

1. Remedial Efforts Underway for Lake Ontario

Around the Golden Horseshoe, municipalities are improving their management of storm- and wastewater. The City of Toronto has embarked on a $1.5 billion Wet Weather Flow Master Plan to address storm sewer and combined sewer overflow discharges to the lake, as discussed earlier in this report.[127] As a second example, the City of Hamilton is making major upgrades and adding tertiary treatment to its wastewater facilities.[128]

The federal government is contributing funding to support wastewater projects. A representative from Infrastructure Canada testified that, since 2006, the department has supported 173 projects in the Great Lakes Basin, committing $631 million out of $1.8 billion in wastewater projects.[129] He also explained that, “in addition to investments through direct contribution programs, the Government of Canada has provided significant investments to wastewater infrastructure through the Gas Tax Fund. Based on reports received from our provincial partners, Ontario municipalities have spent approximately $94 million of their federal gas tax funds on wastewater projects since 2005.”[130] Finally, he testified that “wastewater infrastructure will continue to be an eligible category of investment under the New Building Canada Plan. Recognizing that improving wastewater treatment and related infrastructure remains a priority for provinces and municipalities, wastewater will be an eligible category under the $10-billion provincial and territorial infrastructure component of the New Building Canada Plan as well as the renewed federal Gas Tax Fund.”[131]

Efforts to expand green infrastructure and remediate natural areas around the Golden Horseshoe are also under way. A partnership of municipal, provincial and federal agencies, termed Aquatic Habitat Toronto, is responsible for “the Toronto waterfront aquatic habitat restoration strategy, which involves habitat mitigation, restoration and supporting science.”[132] The Committee heard that “about 35 hectares of wetland and fish habitat along the waterfront that have been restored” in Toronto, with still more to be done.[133]

C. Lake Huron

Lake Huron, and Georgian Bay in particular, were also mentioned by witnesses as a location of environmental concern. Similar to lakes Erie and Ontario, over-enrichment due to phosphorus inputs is a problem in nearshore environments of Lake Huron. In some areas, such as Sturgeon Bay in the Pointe au Baril area of eastern Georgian Bay, “water cannot be touched let alone used for drinking due to smell, taste, and possible toxicity.”[134]

However, distinct from the other Canadian Great Lakes, for about 14 or 15 years, Lake Huron has been experiencing the complicating factor of sustained low water levels.[135] Low water levels pose certain obvious problems for shipping and recreation, but they also may affect water quality. As explained by one witness, “when wetlands become cut off from Georgian Bay because of the low water levels, we also see significant changes in the nutrient chemistry and overall water-quality conditions in the bay.”[136] Another witness gave the example of Sturgeon Bay, where low water levels impede exchanges with the open water that would ordinarily dilute phosphorus concentrations. This results in “the right conditions … for … blue-green algae blooms, which then degrade the use of the water.”[137]

Low water levels degrade coastal wetlands, which in turn impedes the natural water purification and other ecosystems services those wetlands provide.[138] Even if water levels do not drop to the point where a coastal wetland dries up or gets cut off from the open water, lower water levels may result in higher water temperatures,[139] with potentially dangerous consequences for certain species.[140] The Committee learned that “the eastern Georgian Bay coastal area has among the most diverse and most productive fish habitat in the Great Lakes” but that they were being severely degraded by low water levels.[141]

There appear to be multiple causes of sustained low water levels in Lake Huron, along with Lake Michigan, which are lobes of the same lake. One cause is dredging of the St. Clair River in the 1950s and 1960s, and subsequent erosion in the same area, which has resulted in water flowing out of the system at a greater rate. Another cause of low water levels that a number of witnesses pointed to is climate change. Climate change is linked to increased runoff as a result of more frequent extreme storms,[142] but also has been causing less ice cover in winter, which increases evaporation and lowers water levels.

1. Remedial Actions Underway for Georgian Bay

Many of the same programs and strategies being deployed to address phosphorus inputs to the other lakes also apply in the context of Lake Huron. Specific to the Georgian Bay area, a local charity called Georgian Bay Forever has worked “with coastal municipalities to establish common protocols for water quality testing, which townships around the bay can use to monitor the quality of water in their areas.”[143] Further, that group is “building on this work by adding new diagnostic tools, such as microbial source tracking, to better understand the origins of contaminants and inform better management decisions.”[144]

The federal government has established the Lake Simcoe and South-eastern Georgian Bay Clean-Up Fund, which has “allocated $32 million and leveraged $51 million to support nearly 200 phosphorus reduction projects.”[145] The Committee heard from representatives from Ducks Unlimited Canada, which is receiving $370,000 of this funding for a project “to increase the overall awareness of wetlands and wetland conservation issues [in the Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe area].”[146] Elements of the project include wetland restoration activities, wetland mapping and outreach to “land planners and partners on the landscape, so that they can begin to understand and incorporate wetlands conservation in their official planning processes and in their overall municipal planning.”[147]

Representatives from the Government of Ontario also discussed efforts underway to protect wetlands, not just in the Georgian Bay area, but across the province. Specifically, they referenced a provincial policy statement whose goal is to protect the most significant wetlands in Ontario, “particularly those that have an impact on things like water quality and the quantity of the Great Lakes.”[148]