:
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome, everyone, to the second meeting of our study on federal freshwater policy.
I want to thank all the departmental officials for being here. We had our first meeting on Tuesday and heard from four departments. I guess you sense what we're trying to accomplish here, which is better coordination among departments that deal with freshwater issues at the federal level.
I'm very pleased to see the departments we have today; I think it'll be very interesting. We have the Department of Health, the Department of Indigenous Services, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Global Affairs Canada.
On that note, I'd like to say that personally I've always felt that as a water nation and as a country seen as a water nation by the rest of the world, we have a role to play internationally in terms of helping the world achieve global water security. In fact, I almost see that as the new Canadian peacekeeping, in a way. We're really looking forward to hearing what Global Affairs has to say among the others here today.
Each department has seven minutes to make a statement, and then we'll go to rounds of questioning for about an hour and a half. I really look forward to what everyone has to say. Thank you again for being here.
We'll start with the Department of Health. Greg Carreau, welcome back. We've had you here before.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's my pleasure to be here today to speak to you about the role that Health Canada plays in fresh water. My name is Greg Carreau, and I am the director general of the safe environments directorate at Health Canada.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are meeting today is the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin Nation.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss Health Canada's role with respect to improving water quality in Canada.
[Translation]
Health Canada is the federal government lead for human health matters related to drinking and recreational water and is responsible for pesticide regulation.
[English]
All drinking water and many recreational water sites originate from fresh water. For this reason, freshwater quality affects the quality of drinking water and recreational water. Under the Department of Health Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Health Canada developed science-based guidelines for contaminants that could be found in drinking water and recreational water.
Health Canada also regulates pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act to prevent unacceptable risks to individuals and the environment from their use. Protection of the environment under the act includes assessing and preventing unacceptable risks to fresh water. Pesticides are approved for use in Canada only after stringent, science-based evaluation that ensures risks are acceptable.
In delivering this important mandate related to fresh water, Health Canada collaborates with other federal departments and all levels of government. With respect to drinking water and recreational water, Health Canada works closely with provinces, territories and other federal departments to develop the water quality guidelines. These guidelines are non-regulatory and used by provinces, territories and other government departments to establish and implement their regulations and policies. Federal departments with responsibilities for water safety, like the Department of National Defence and the Correctional Service of Canada use the guidelines to meet their obligations.
[Translation]
When requested, Health Canada also advises jurisdictions on the potential health effects of contaminants in fresh water following spills and other contamination events.
Though not involved in the provision of drinking water in first nations communities, Health Canada provides Indigenous Services Canada with source-to-tap advice on drinking water issues.
[English]
Health Canada also supports the Public Health Agency of Canada in determining the burden of waterborne disease.
Regarding the management of pesticides, Health Canada's pest management regulatory agency closely collaborates with provinces, territories and other federal departments; non-government organizations; academic institutions; and the private sector on freshwater challenges that relate to pesticides.
Health Canada collaborates with its international partners on activities and agreements related to chemical management that lead to protection of fresh water as well, such as the Stockholm Convention and the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes water quality agreement. The department also works with international governmental and non-governmental organizations such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization on water quality issues.
[Translation]
Sound science is critical for Health Canada to meet its responsibilities related to freshwater, including an understanding of the drinking water supply from the source to the consumer's tap in order to promote clean, safe and reliable drinking water.
[English]
A sound scientific understanding of the presence of chemicals, pesticides and other substances in fresh water is needed to understand their potential impact on human health. The department has identified a number of emerging science issues related to fresh water, including the health effects and water treatment options of perfluorinated substances, or PFAS for short; the causes of cyanobacterial blooms, also known as blue-green algae, in source water; the presence of bacteria, viruses and parasites in groundwater; and the presence of pesticides in source water.
To address these emerging areas, Health Canada is investing in research and monitoring and is collaborating with academics, other government departments, different levels of government and the international community.
Health Canada welcomes the creation of the Canada water agency and sees it as complementary to our work on drinking and recreational water quality as well as on pesticides. The agency’s role to further scientific research and support water quality monitoring will contribute to preventing the contamination of drinking water from source to tap, thereby reducing risks to health.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
[English]
Kwe. Good afternoon. Bonjour.
Before I begin, I would like to note that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.
My name is Nelson Barbosa. I am the director general of the community infrastructure branch within Indigenous Services Canada.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today.
The responsibility of managing drinking water in first nations is shared between first nations communities and Indigenous Services Canada. Indigenous Services Canada provides support for the delivery of safe, clean drinking water through its first nation water and waste-water enhancement program. The department provides advice and financial support to first nations to upgrade, repair, replace and operate first nations water and waste-water systems in order to meet established water and waste-water standards.
From 2016 onward, by 2024 Canada will have committed over $5.6 billion to build, repair, manage and maintain water systems on reserve. Between 2016 and June of this year, more than $3.45 billion of targeted funding was invested to support 1,213 water and waste-water projects, of which 541 are now complete and 672 are ongoing. These projects will serve 471,000 people in 591 first nation communities.
First nation communities are responsible for the planning, procurement, design, construction, commissioning and day-to-day operation and maintenance of their water and waste-water systems. Although ISC financially supports first nations to upgrade, repair and replace their water systems, ISC programs and policies play a minimal role with respect to freshwater management and protection.
However, they intersect as they relate to source water protection on reserve. Source water protection measures are an integral component of a multi-barrier approach toward the management of safe drinking water. The department's mandate focuses on improving the health and quality of life of first nations on reserve, and the department's focus has been on helping communities provide better water and waste-water services to their residents.
In terms of waste water, the department also provides funding and support to first nations to construct, operate and manage waste-water treatment systems on reserve. The key federal regulations overseeing the release of treated waste water are the “wastewater systems effluent regulations”, or WSER. These regulations are administered and enforced by Environment and Climate Change Canada under the authorities of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances in fish-bearing waters.
The department is actively engaged in activities that contribute to Canada's achievement of United Nations sustainable development goal number 3 of good health and well-being, and goal number 6 of clean water and sanitation. Continued work to resolve all long-term drinking water advisories directly contributes to goal number 6, which aims to ensure that all Canadians have access to clean drinking water. In turn, this also contributes to the overall betterment of health and well-being in first nations communities.
To accomplish both goals, the department works closely with first nation partners on the operation and maintenance of their water systems. By providing adequate long-term funding and technical support, the department is actively ensuring that first nations' drinking water systems meet established standards. To report on Canada's progress in achieving these commitments, the department works closely with its partners at ECCC.
In terms of collaboration with other federal agencies, the department also works closely with Health Canada, which is responsible for the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. These guidelines were developed in partnership with the provinces and territories through the federal-provincial-territorial committee on drinking water and are used by most jurisdictions as the basis for establishing drinking water quality requirements in order to protect the health of people residing in Canada.
Currently there are no federal regulations governing drinking water or waste water on reserve. The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, which came into force in 2013, was repealed in June 2022 due to first nations' concerns. Significant efforts are now under way to replace this act. Since the summer of 2022, the department has met with more than 140 first nations and first nations organizations to share information with, listen to and work with first nation partners to explore how to address their needs and priorities in the new proposed drinking water and waste-water legislation. The department continues to work directly with rights holders, including modern treaty and self-governing first nations, through their own representative institutions and first nations organizations, as well as the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Advisory Committee on Safe Drinking Water. These efforts aim to ensure that the new proposed legislation will be responsive to first nations' priorities in terms of drinking water.
ISC remains committed to ensuring sustainable access to clean drinking water and effectively treating waste water in order to build a sustainable foundation for water now and into the future.
I look forward to our dialogue and questions.
Meegwetch. Nakurmiik. Qujannamiik. Merci. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting my department to speak to the committee's study on fresh water in Canada.
My name is Kevin Norris, and I am the director of the resilient agriculture policy division, which is located in the strategic policy branch at AAFC. I'm joined by my colleague Catherine Champagne, who is an environmental scientist and the manager of earth observations in the science and technology branch.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I'm speaking to you today from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people here in Ottawa.
As members are aware, Canada's fresh water is becoming an increasingly precious resource. It plays an essential role in the well-being of Canadians and in the health and sustainability of the environment and the economy. Farmers across the country are keenly aware of how critical having a reliable, good-quality water supply is to their operations for producing high-quality food and other agricultural products, and how important it is to protect that resource.
Water management issues in agriculture tend to vary by region and by industry. For example, irrigation is essential for agriculture in areas where natural precipitation is low or variable, such as in the Prairies, whereas issues of excess moisture and the need for drainage are more pertinent in areas of eastern Canada.
The challenges associated with increasing temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns and extreme climate-related events becoming more frequent and intense provide opportunities to see how we can better manage water in Canada's rural landscape. For example, this can be witnessed through recent events across the country during the 2021-to-2023 growing seasons, including impacts from droughts, extreme heat, wildfires and flooding. Region-specific challenges such as these are expected to grow in intensity and generate additional costs. Addressing them can be difficult, as potential solutions often involve multiple jurisdictions.
Canadian farms depend on a clean and reliable source of water. Nevertheless, the sector realizes the impacts it can have on freshwater quality and quantity. Agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides play an essential role in food security by helping to drive increases in crop yields over time, while also providing social and economic benefits to Canadians. However, when these inputs are used to excess or improperly managed, agricultural production can impact the quality of water through sediment loading, runoff and leaching of excess nutrients, pathogens and pesticides. We have seen the impact of such practices on agricultural land in several areas of the country where large-scale lake and ecosystem health has been impaired, including in the Great Lakes and around Lake Winnipeg. Use of poor-quality water on farms also poses risks to food safety and animal health.
Impacts from climate change are also expected to influence production and increase risks to water quantity and quality. Anticipated seasonal shifts in temperature and precipitation impact water quantity and risk creating insecurity in on-farm water supplies. This could result in greater competition for this resource and increased reliance on costly irrigation and require effective risk management strategies and water resource management.
As a result of climate change, wetter than normal winters and springs in combination with hotter, drier summers increase the movement of nutrients, such as those from fertilizers, to surface water and groundwater. This increases the risk of algal blooms and eutrophication of surface waters and has a direct impact on water quality.
The use of beneficial management practices on farms can help mitigate these environmental impacts to water, enhance sustainable agricultural production and support climate resiliency. There are management practices that improve nutrient management or improve water use efficiency, such as precision technology, cover crops and the expansion of riparian areas. These can all contribute to reducing agriculture's environmental impact on Canada's fresh water.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has a long history of researching, developing and promoting sustainable management of water resources. We conduct and fund collaborative agricultural research and technology development, provide timely data and analysis on agro-climatic conditions through the “Canadian Drought Monitor”, and work with provinces and territories to accelerate the adoption of practices and programming that support climate change adaptation and water management.
The department's renewed strategic plan for science provides a vision on how future research and development will help to ensure a sustainable, resilient and profitable agriculture and agri-food sector by 2050. One of the key priorities under the strategy is to increase the resiliency of agro-ecosystems and improve soil health and water quality. For example, our current research includes improving water use efficiency through the development of more climate-resilient crop varieties and on-farm technologies.
We are also exploring nature-based solutions, such as protecting and restoring wetlands and buffers to manage water supply and agricultural runoff.
Additionally, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's living lab initiative is bringing together farmers, scientists and other stakeholders to co-develop, test, implement and monitor new climate-smart and sustainable agricultural practices and technologies. This will have important co-benefits for conserving water resources.
In addition to AAFC's research on fresh water, we support the adoption of beneficial management practices that reduce agriculture runoff and promote the sustainable use and management of on-farm water resources in several of our programs. This includes the agricultural clean technology program and the on-farm climate action fund.
The sustainable Canadian agriculture partnership is a new five-year, $3.5-billion investment, which includes $2.5 billion in programs and activities that are cost-shared among the federal and provincial and territorial governments. These are critical to protecting water resources and are designed to raise producers' awareness of environmental risks and accelerate the adoption of regionally appropriate on-farm technologies and practices to reduce these risks.
AAFC is also developing a sustainable agriculture strategy to set a shared direction for collective action in improved environmental performance of the sector and to support farmer livelihoods and maintain the business vitality of the sector over the long term.
Water is one of five priority focus areas under the strategy. The strategy will create connections between environmental programming and policy in agriculture—including the Canada water agency—to provide more clarity and less overlap and to fill policy gaps while considering farming realities.
AAFC is not responsible for any legislation or regulations related to fresh water. However, our continued leadership in agricultural science and innovation, as well as our ongoing collaboration with other government departments, provinces and territories, indigenous peoples and stakeholders will be essential to supporting the sustainable management of Canada’s freshwater resources.
AAFC remains committed to helping the agriculture sector contribute to the protection and sustainable management of Canada’s water resources, to adapt effectively to climate change and to continue to feed Canada and a growing global population.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
My name is Niall Cronin. Since September 2022, I have been executive director of the U.S. transboundary affairs division at Global Affairs Canada.
Like my colleagues, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishnaabeg people.
[English]
The division where I work provides a broad range of analysis and advice to Global Affairs senior officials and ministers, as well as to other federal departments, on water and other issues affecting Canada's bilateral relations with the United States.
Canada’s relationship with the United States is of primordial importance. As President Biden said in his address to Parliament last March, “No two nations on earth are bound by such close ties of friendship, family, commerce and culture.” The President’s in-person visit and the joint statement that followed confirm that our two nations stand united in this moment, finding solutions to global challenges side by side.
As noted in the March 24 statement from and President Biden, the Government of Canada announced a new, historic $420-million commitment to “protect and restore” the Great Lakes, which make up the “world's largest freshwater ecosystem.” In conjunction with U.S. funding announced in the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, our combined contributions represent “the largest single investment in the Great Lakes in history”.
Canada-U.S. co-operation in this area is long-standing. Over a century ago, our nations signed the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which sets out the rights and obligations of both Canada and the United States with respect to the use, protection and management of waters through which the international boundary passes, as well as waters that flow across the boundary.
The Boundary Waters Treaty established the International Joint Commission, or IJC, which is an independent binational organization consisting of six commissioners, with three appointed by each country. Through its boards, the IJC oversees the operation of dams, diversions and bridges that affect the natural level and flow of water across the boundary.
The IJC also assists with the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The two governments can refer issues to the IJC to study and make recommendations.
My team also provides advice on other Canada-U.S. treaties related to transboundary waters. These include the Columbia River Treaty, the agreement for water supply and flood control in the Souris River basin, and the 1950 Niagara treaty, which established minimum flows over Niagara Falls.
Managing transboundary watersheds is complex and spans multiple jurisdictions. My team and I regularly work with federal and provincial counterparts, indigenous peoples, and officials from the State Department and the U.S. embassy. We collaborate closely with other federal departments and agencies that work directly on fresh water-related issues in Canada. It is through these engagements, binational agreements and our support for the International Joint Commission that we are able to address important transboundary water issues with the United States.
With that, I will be pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you again.
:
Thank you for the question.
One long-term drinking water advisory is too many. I would say there are currently 28 long-term drinking water advisories in 26 communities, as you mentioned. All of those drinking water advisories have a plan in place in order to lift them. Since 2015, there have been 143 long-term drinking water advisories lifted, and another 259 short-term water advisories—which are water advisories under a year—that have been lifted.
To the question on modalities or reasons, there are largely two principal reasons that these long-term drinking water advisories are in place, and there are plans and actions to see them come to an end.
The first is infrastructure. I mentioned that by the end of next year, this department will have provided $5.6 billion, largely in infrastructure funding to support the end of these long-term drinking water advisories, but also to support the administration of water affairs in all 634 first nations across Canada. Infrastructure is increasingly expensive. These systems, in some cases, take years to develop, plan and replace. We are committed to working in partnership with first nations in order to see the best pieces of infrastructure meet the best health and water outcomes for any particular community.
The second modality—to answer your question of “Why?”—is largely about the operations and maintenance of water systems. The operations of these facilities are managed by first nations, but they are truly complex pieces of infrastructure. We have several programs to support first nations in the administration of their water affairs.
We recognize that there are currently 28 long-term drinking water advisories. We are pleased that we have seen success over the last number of years, but we are by no means at the end of this process. We continue to work in partnership with first nations in order to see that progress come to an end.
:
In terms of leadership in the water space, first nations, as I mentioned in my remarks, ultimately bring water advisories into place and lift them. In order to do that, they oversee procurement, infrastructure and the operation and delivery of their water systems.
Partnership is critical, and I think that's why we've seen success since 2015. As you've mentioned, we've supported the first nations in administering their own affairs and lifting 143 long-term drinking water advisories and preventing more long-term drinking water advisories by lifting 259 short-term water advisories. Partnership is where we're seeing success, and I think we can really point to that in terms of the progress made to date.
Ultimately, the plans being put in place are plans that are being put forth by first nations and rights holders themselves, and the role of ISC is multi-faceted. Funding is one of those things, which the previous line of questions really got to. However, it's also technical expertise in ensuring that the right piece of infrastructure meets the service needs of a particular community, as well as partnership with colleagues that are around the table here today to support, kind of, the guidelines, safety and regulations for that water.
In totality, partnership is critical now more than ever. Partnership is really why we've seen success, and I think that partnership will hopefully get us to the point where one day we can be in front of you here at this table and say that we have reached zero in terms of long-term drinking water advisories.
I thank the witnesses very much for being here.
Mr. Barbosa, I may have a question for you later. Not so long ago, I listened to a report that said that 10 kilometres from Edmonton, so really close to this city, lives a first nation that doesn't have access to drinking water. You can even see the big buildings in Edmonton from there, but there's still no water coming out of the taps. This concerns me. I'll come back to it shortly.
For now, I'll talk to Mr. Carreau from Health Canada instead.
In your opening remarks, you all said there was collaboration. If that's the case, I don't understand why we want to create a Canadian water agency that's supposed to improve collaboration. There's a problem here. In fact, several examples illustrate the lack of communication and collaboration between government departments.
I'll give you a very concrete example. Last July, we learned that drinking water in the borough of La Baie was contaminated with PFAS, which we were talking about earlier. Activities at the Bagotville military base were the cause. We're talking here about more than 3,000 homes and 8,000 people exposed to these contaminants.
Military bases are the responsibility of the federal government, as is Health Canada. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Health Canada may be concerned about this risk to human health. However, the federal government has not shown its nose in this matter. If it has, it's only very recently. It was the municipality of Saguenay that took matters into its own hands, releasing $6 million.
I find this a good example of the lack of coordination.
If, in this framework, federal departments don't feel involved when they are directly involved, how can you say that a Canadian water agency is going to do better?
:
Yes, I'm talking about PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
Not long ago, a few months after the fact, we were made aware of a lack of transparency, rules that were absolutely ineffective, a committee whose co‑chair had resigned and a refusal by the agency to listen to researchers while consulting lobbyists. Indeed, the newspapers started talking about the “Tiger Team”. In the end, the PMRA was more concerned with protecting pesticide manufacturers than health. This was the conclusion reached in the various articles I consulted.
Basically, it's also a matter for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, because industry is said to be recommending higher thresholds for certain insecticides and pesticides, such as neonicotinoids.
If the experts leave the advisory committee table, how do your respective departments plan to participate in the mission to protect riparian buffer strips and watersheds in agricultural areas?
:
Thank you all for being here today. I don't normally sit on this committee, so it's been wonderful to hear about this topic of water, which is obviously a very big and complicated subject, but also a very important one. I wish I had all day to talk to every one of you.
I'll start with Mr. Cronin, because he mentioned the mighty Columbia River, which is very important, certainly in the western context. All of my riding basically drains into the Columbia River. The Columbia River Treaty is a huge issue there. It's being renegotiated. It has been renegotiated for years now, with climate change, with increasing thoughts around ecosystem function, and with indigenous knowledge and indigenous partnerships.
However, this year, with climate change, we saw the Arrow Lakes basically dry up because all that water had to be sent to the United States under the treaty, so citizens of Nakusp, for instance.... You know, all that area was flooded in the sixties. It caused great pain and hardship then, but at least they got a functioning lake out of it for recreation. This year, that disappeared, more or less.
I'm wondering how Global Affairs is dealing with this question of climate change and ecosystem function with regard to that renegotiation. Where are we at with the whole renegotiation process?
Quickly, I'll turn to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
My father worked for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for his whole career, so I'm very thankful for the work that you do, especially in the research department. There's a big research station just next to my riding, in Summerland.
In the Okanagan Valley, where I live, the big issue is climate change. One of the big issues, other than wildfires, is the availability of water. We have an agricultural land reserve in British Columbia. Now the orchard owners, the vineyard owners, the farmers are suggesting that maybe we need an agricultural water reserve, because they're very concerned that water availability is very restricted in one of the best agricultural areas of Canada.
I'm wondering what Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is looking at on that issue, because it's of real and critical importance.
I'll stick with the Department of Health.
On PMRA, you've had a pilot program for the last couple of years on water monitoring, working with some agricultural groups and stakeholders, which I think is very important.
I think there was a loss of trust when Environment and Climate Change Canada was on private land last summer with black SUVs without invitation. As you look forward, there seems to be a movement towards citizen science for water monitoring.
Recognizing that the limits of detection are so small and that the chain of custody for proper procedures in water monitoring is so vital, how can you expect to expand the water monitoring program without using paid professionals? How much would that cost? Is it really reasonable to rely on trusted agronomists to work with farmers on their privately owned land versus focusing on citizen scientists?
:
One moment, Mr. Chair. I'll just check my notes. I was briefed by colleagues who work in the human rights division before coming.
Mr. Chair, Canada recognizes the human right of everyone to safe drinking water and basic sanitation as essential to the right to an adequate standard of living, and therefore implicit under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Canada interprets the right to safe drinking water and basic sanitation as the right to a sufficient quantity and safe quality of reasonably affordable and accessible water for personal and domestic uses.
Water and sanitation services should be physically and economically accessible on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
Canada recognizes that a lack of water, sanitation and hygiene affects women disproportionately, as they often have the primary responsibility to collect and manage water resources.
Canada works through multilateral fora like the Group of Friends of Water at the UN and also through the G20 to advance this right.
Thank you.
:
Can I just...? I'll stop your time.
I don't know if that really answered the question. It was valuable information, but I think what Mr. Ali was asking about—and correct me if I'm wrong—is the evolution of Canada's position on the international human right to water, because for a while, it didn't recognize that right at the UN but then changed its position, and so on.
However, I understand that you might not have that information on hand, so I would ask that the department submit a briefing note on the evolution of Canada's position on this issue and the reasons that it changed at one point. I would just request that this information be submitted in writing.
You made an interesting point about how ensuring that the human right to water, or water security, dovetails with Canada's feminist foreign policy. That's why I've always thought that if we could create a foreign policy pillar for water, it would be very consistent with the feminist component in our global foreign policy.
I'm sorry to interrupt. I couldn't help myself, Mr. Ali, but I didn't take any time away from you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the first point about the evolution of Canada's position, I can certainly take that back, but I really do want to, if I may, with respect, manage the committee's expectations. We're certainly in a position to talk about our position today and what we're advancing, rather than debating previous policy positions the government took.
To the question of how Canada works bilaterally and multilaterally with other states on freshwater issues, I can certainly speak to our experience with the United States, the close collaboration we have with the State Department and our engagement with the International Joint Commission. I think the International Joint Commission has been recognized as a world model for how two nations can effectively manage transboundary water issues.
I mentioned the UN Group of Friends of Water. There was also the UN Water Conference last March, where Canada played a prominent role. Also, the IJC commissioners participated in that conference, which was another great way to show the world the strength of the Canada-U.S. relationship and the model that, in some areas, can serve for other countries.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the House of Commons. We thank you very much for your service to Canada, each in your own department. We greatly appreciate it.
A little while ago, we talked about the water problem at Bagotville, which is of concern to all of us. I would like to remind you that, on October 6, the MP for had a summit meeting with the person who can act directly in this situation, namely the . Following this meeting between the MP and the minister, it was agreed that a decision would be announced as soon as possible. But it's already been three weeks. We are following the matter very closely, to ensure that it is followed up and, above all, that the problem is resolved. That's why the Conservative MP for has referred the matter to the person who makes the decisions, namely the .
You'll recall that two days ago, we tabled a motion to debate the problem of waste water discharge into the St. Lawrence River in Montreal, among other places. We started the debate, but unfortunately our other colleagues decided to put an end to it. But just because they decided not to talk about it doesn't mean we won't. It's a very worrying subject. It's a very worrying subject, especially as this problem is increasing quite significantly in Quebec.
In Quebec, there were over 36,000 spills by municipalities in 2021 and over 57,000 last year. If, unfortunately, the trend continues, this bad habit of ours will continue.
On this subject, there was a spill in Quebec City. We know full well that this is the responsibility of the province, which has an agreement with the municipalities, and we respect that, but the reality is this. In a Radio-Canada report, an expert in environmental biotechnology and decontamination at Toronto's York University said: “There will be adverse effects on the river in the years to come.”
My question is for Mr. Carreau, from the Department of Health.
Do you agree with the York University expert that waste water dumping will have long-term effects?
I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Barbosa, particularly in terms of the progress on boil water advisories.
I believe we started our term in 2015 with about 108 boil water advisories. They then went up to 143, probably because we tightened up regulations, I'm going to guess. You can maybe comment on that.
It's also to say that in 2023, we had nine boil water advisories added and six lifted; in 2022, we had seven added and 11 lifted; in 2021, we had seven added and 28 lifted. We continue to have long-term boil water advisories being introduced.
Could you comment on the dynamic nature of boil water advisories and what we're doing to try to prevent them in the future?
:
Thank you for the question. That's a great question.
On part one of the question, in terms of the totality of lifts, in 2015, there were approximately 110 long-term drinking water advisories, and each of the long-term drinking water advisories is very fluid; some are added over time and some are removed. The overall intent is to see a net reduction, and we're seeing a historic level of progress and a historic level of funding in recent years.
In terms of the reason there might be advisories added or removed, in some cases, as I mentioned, we're seeing that there can be quick repairs to systems in order to permit longer-term responses.
There are two major factors in terms of lifts, but I think there are two static numbers that I would really want to point to. One is to ensure that the short-term lifts do not become long term. We're seeing approximately 260 since 2015. Those numbers matter, and those numbers add up to impact many Canadians in terms of their quality of living and their quality of life.
:
I would point to two immediate responses.
One is the importance of source water protection and having source water protection plans that extend beyond the current jurisdiction of Canada's confederation. Water flows, and the need for that water to be safe transcends jurisdiction. There is source water and there are sources of water on reserve, and those should be as clean as sources of water that are off reserve. Partnership is critical. There are many source water protection plans that first nations have with local municipalities in order to talk about the shared jurisdiction and shared prosperity over water.
On the second point, in terms of contamination, this was a huge part of the engagement we've had with hundreds of first nations in bringing forth new legislation to have a robust regulatory and standards regime on reserve. This talks about the shared jurisdiction and the shared prosperity over water, but it also talks about legal mechanisms that first nations can have over their own affairs based on their rights over their lands.
We continue to have this dialogue with first nations in order to build the most robust legislation possible prior to bringing it forward, but certainly source water protection, the availability of appropriate resources and the interactions between provinces, territories and rights holders are critical.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
Thanks again to all of the witnesses for joining today. Thank you for your work and for your expertise on these very important issues.
Again, on boil water advisories, Mr. Barbosa, if I could go to you first, according to the ISC website, as has been mentioned, the project is complete, and the advisory is lifted in 84% of communities that had a boil water advisory. For a further 9%, that lift is pending, but there's clean water flowing from the tap, which leaves 7% for either the projects under construction or the studies under way.
As you said at the very top, and I agree with you, even one boil water advisory, particularly a long-term one, is one too many. Could you give us a sense of how many people this is impacting? I know the website is quite detailed, but do you have an idea, even just a ballpark number, of how many people are still in that 7% group?
I just want to highlight that 93% of those communities now have clean water, which is great progress. The job is not done yet, but quite a lot of progress has been made. Give us a ballpark number of how many first nations are still impacted.
:
Based on what I read online, percentages for the reason there's a boil water advisory in municipalities are available, but the number isn't. I think that I did access numbers from the previous decades.
Concerning drought and climate change.... This is really to anybody who's interested in talking about food security. I have one more small question, so please give me a moment, if that's okay.
Food costs are rising, and the main reason is climate change. It's irrefutable. Other people might want to say that there are other reasons for expensive food in Canada, but there's expensive food in the United States as well and around the world, and one of the main reasons is climate change. The main thing that is required for crops is irrigation or rain. When that's not available, crops fail. When pests are allowed to run rampant, crops fail, and food costs go up.
Can somebody just briefly touch on the importance of fighting climate change and of irrigation in the context of food security and making sure that food continues to be affordable for Canadians?
:
Thank you for the question.
[English]
On the $6 billion related to infrastructure, those resources are factored into the plans on long-term drinking water advisories, but I would like to bring to the attention of the committee that the reduction of long-term drinking water advisories and seeing them get to zero is one fabric or one element of the work we do.
There are many communities, and each of them has different water systems and different water realities. There is a lot of focus put on long-term drinking water advisories, but ISC's role is to support the establishment in getting to zero and supporting all water systems across this country, of which there are certainly more than 28.
On the interrelationship between the Canada water agency and ISC, we have regular contact with Mr. Wolfish, with whom you spoke earlier this week, on the establishment of that agency and also on the engagement modalities and the co-development of the CWA.
Thank you so much.
I'd like to pose this question to Mr. Carreau.
This spring we passed the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act here, which included, for the first time, the right for Canadians to live in a clean and healthy environment, but that only extended to the confines of CEPA.
I have a private member's bill, Bill , on the Canadian environmental bill of rights, which would extend that to all other federal pieces of legislation that deal with a clean environment.
I'm just wondering if you could comment on those other pieces of legislation that Health Canada or others might deal with and help regulate clean water in Canada. What other pieces of legislation, besides CEPA, would that encompass, and why is it important to extend that right to those pieces of legislation?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll be sharing my speaking time with my colleague Mr. van Koeverden, if possible.
As chair of the Liberal rural caucus, I talk to a lot of farmers in Canada, and I know that climate change has a huge impact on agricultural production and projections. In fact, I found what Ms. Champagne was saying earlier about drought projections and the agreements with the United States and Mexico on the subject very interesting.
Water shortages are a major concern for farmers, but there are various other phenomena that affect their productivity. These include heat waves and droughts, of course, but also the emergence of new diseases and insects, deteriorating soil quality, depleted water tables and increased competition for water supplies.
As we know, Canadian households rely heavily on farming done in the southwestern United States. I was reading some very worrying studies about the level of drought there for the next decade. So we won't be able to rely on U.S. agricultural production to fill our grocery baskets. I'm very concerned about that.
Ms. Champagne and Mr. Cronin, in the face of these significant challenges, how do your departments intend to address climate risks impacting agriculture and food security, plan accordingly and ensure that Canada is well positioned to deal with them?