Scientific knowledge and expertise is fundamental to all best practices to remediate or protect water quality, in local or holistic contexts. Such expertise is needed to define problems, identify remediation options, monitor results of remediation efforts and plan for future developments. As the Committee heard, governments are a source of much of this knowledge and expertise.

The need for scientific knowledge and expertise was driven home in much of the testimony. Regarding the development and implementation of remedial action plans, for instance, one witness noted:

We couldn't have moved forward without that scientific expertise [of the federal government]. We couldn't have even begun the task. … The one thing, when it comes to recommendations to this committee, that I can't stress enough is the importance of that scientific base, which needs to continue to be there. And it needs to be throughout the Great Lakes system, so that they're not just looking at the Hamilton harbours and the Torontos, but at the other, smaller [areas of concern].[250]

Understanding the effectiveness of remedial actions also requires research. In some cases, witnesses felt that this research is lacking. As expressed by one witness, “some of this basic science data [on the effects of wetland remediation on fish habitat and coastal water quality] is missing, mostly on the Canadian side. There are various ways to get this information, including remote sensing technologies such as light radar, but this requires the resources of the federal government, and not just for today but to inform Canadian decisions in the coming centuries.”[251] Other witnesses suggested that there is a lack of funding for basic research into measuring success because limited research dollars get concentrated in studying restoration.[252]

Monitoring is an important component of scientific knowledge that was stressed many times throughout the Committee’s study. A number of witnesses felt that monitoring is largely the obligation of governments at all levels,[253] since monitoring needs to be long term and it needs to be continuous to be most useful.[254]

Knowledge and information about what changes may come in the future is also important. For instance, one witness mentioned the need for access to information on population growth scenarios and climate change predictions to “demonstrate what we need to manage and adapt to. Watershed and shoreline managers need to be able to access climate change data and information specific to the Great Lakes region, and that is not something we can do locally.”[255]

The federal government is already involved in both conducting and funding scientific research. Various federal research initiatives relevant to Great Lakes water quality were mentioned during testimony. In particular, the 2012 federal investment of $16 million into the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative “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.”[256] A witness noted that monitoring under this program “along the north shore of Lake Erie and in the Thames River will complement existing and more intensive monitoring efforts in the Ontario Grand River.”[257]

A representative from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada also noted that department’s programs to “investigat[e] 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.”[258]

Clearly, scientific research and expertise is needed in all aspects of improving and maintaining water quality throughout the Great Lakes Basin.