Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 1 - Evidence, March 22, 2001
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 22, 2001
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 9:15 a.m. to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to energy, the environment and natural resources, including the continuation and completion of the study on Nuclear Reactor Safety (Water Policy).
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the committee is studying Canada's water policy, if we have one, the federal mandate with respect to water, federal-provincial resources, the management of drinking water, bulk exports, the treatment of water as a commodity, and other relevant matters and issues. Our first witnesses are from Environment Canada.
Please proceed.
Ms Jennifer Moore, Director General, Ecosystems and Environmental Resources Directorate, Environmental Conservation Service: Mr. Chairman, on my immediate left is Cynthia Wright, Director General of Strategic Policy in our Environmental Protection Service. On my far right is Mr. Mike Wong, who is one of the guidelines experts in our department.
The Chairman: As you know, these are free-wheeling committees. You will see the unique system we follow as you make your presentation. When you finish, we will ask some questions in an orderly fashion. This is not a confrontational committee; we are hunting for information.
Ms Moore: I will provide some highlights, overview comments, and then we will be pleased to answer questions of the committee members.
We feel privileged to be here this morning on behalf of Environment Canada and the Government of Canada. I thank the chairman and the clerk for extending their invitation for us to come.
Water management in Canada is a complex, multi-dimensional public policy issue. Canadians are increasingly concerned about the health and sustainability of our water resources, particularly the safety of our drinking water and the protection of our source water, which we are seeing in the news on almost a daily basis.
Governments across the country are acting on these concerns through public consultations and the development of tools, regulations, policies and strategies. There is a fair bit of concern and focus on water quality right now, which translates into a great opportunity to build on experiences and work toward integrated solution.
Some of you may know that today, March 22, is World Water Day, so it is appropriate that you are beginning your discussions on this day. World Water Day dates back to the early 1990s and was established by the United Nations. The particular theme this year is water and health. Again, that is very much where our thinking is right now. The theme of today's World Water Day provides us with food for thought, both in a domestic as well as a global context.
On a global scale, water is viewed as one of the great environmental challenges of this century. A look at the statistics and the numbers emerging from our various international bodies tells us that more than 1 billion people do not have access to safe, clean drinking water.
Fifty per cent of people really do not have adequate sanitation for their own needs. Globally, approximately 5 million people die annually from diseases that are directly linked to water-borne pathogens. In a sense, water is included with cancer and other health concerns of global citizens. World Water Day is a day to reflect on such things.
From another perspective, conflicts around water are increasingly known, and that has very much to do with issues of environmental safety and security.
Where does Canada fit into all of this? Canada provides 9 per cent of the renewal of the world's surface fresh water supply. That ranks behind Brazil, which is at 18 per cent, China, which is at 9 per cent, and the United States, which provides 8 per cent. In the context of the global water supply, Canada provides a lot of water.
We need to think about certain water issues in Canada: Is it where we want it to be; in which direction does it flow? Indeed, about 60 per cent of our rivers drain north; that is, they drain away from where our population needs it for residential, industrial, agricultural or other activities. As we all know, the majority of our population lives in a band along the border to the south.
There are challenges in the availability of our own water in the country as we look to the prairies and other areas. About 26 per cent of Canadians rely on groundwater for their daily needs in domestic use. Groundwater runs underneath the ground and eventually finds its way into rivers and lakes, but it is the water we put our wells into to provide drinking water. Certain areas of the country such as Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Southern Ontario are extremely dependent on ground water. It is something we are paying increasing attention to from a public policy perspective.
From a global perspective, we are big users of water. The last statistic, which was noted in the spring of 2000 in an OECD report, noted that Canadian households use about 326 litres of water per day. This is second only to the U.S. We are the second worst consumer per capita of water of all the nations in the world, about double the European average and orders of magnitude greater than many other countries.
Mr. Chairman, in your opening comments, you mentioned that part of what the committee is interested in is the governance issue and how we manage water. We see water as something in which we all play a role.
Our constitution lays out the management of water so that the provinces are the primary managers. They are responsible for the day-to-day and long-term management of water, including infrastructure, water quality, water use and licensing. Increasingly, as we work through the devolution process in the northern territories, we see these territories gaining some of the provincial-like responsibilities for water management.
Municipalities derive their roles from provincial governments. They have key roles in providing drinking and waste-water services. They implement very important activities for water, such as land use planning policies, which certainly impact on ground water and surface water policy.
From a federal government perspective, we have very important roles in this governance network. Indeed, across the federal organizational structure, 14 separate departments carry out our federal responsibilities. Direct responsibilities are in the areas of federal lands, on reserves, in the North for the moment, in the international arena, boundary waters, fisheries and navigation. We perform a leadership role in the area of research on aquatic water systems and the impact of contaminants, toxins and land-use practices. We have shared responsibility with the provinces in the areas of agriculture and health. Beyond that, we have individuals and Aboriginal peoples. Collectively, that is our water governance structure.
We can refer to the recent Speech from the Throne to learn about key federal initiatives on water. The Government of Canada highlighted its commitment to safeguard Canadians from toxic substances and contaminants, and talked about showing leadership in terms of guidelines on water quality, investment in research and development, and advanced information systems.
The federal government, together with the provinces, recently announced its renewing of infrastructure. That was in the February 2000 budget. We have announced funds available in excess of $2 billion for infrastructure programs to be matched by provincial and municipal funding. Some of this money will go to renewing water and waste-water management infrastructures.
As part of the budget announcement, a contribution arrangement has been set up with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to provide loans to municipalities to improve and to develop new and exciting innovative practices to do with both water and air quality and targeting efficiencies in water use. As part again of the infrastructure announcement, the National Research Council, on the research side, is working to develop a national guide to sustainable municipal infrastructure: innovations and best practices. This will be helpful to municipalities and others in terms of investment planning and decision making about the best and the latest water treatment technologies. Those are some of the recent activities on the infrastructure side.
The federal government is also engaged with the development of guidelines. Provinces and territories generally implement the guidelines, but we work in a federal-provincial community network to create drinking water quality guidelines, as well as guidelines aimed more at our source protection, which we do through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. That is a very broad-based federal-provincial territory network on guidelines development.
For water research, the National Water Research Institute within Environment Canada is very much our main source of water quality science in this country. Examples of current and ongoing themes are in the areas of land use impacts on aquatic ecosystems, climate change and freshwater resources, urban water management and ecosystem health assessment. Other priorities include research into nutrients, municipal waste effluent and so forth. The institute employs about 320 scientists who are world-renowned in a number of areas relating to fresh water research.
There are numerous pieces of federal legislation to do with water. From Environment Canada's perspective, the main statutes flow from the pollution prevention and toxic management provisions of the Canadian Environment Protection Act and the administration of section 36 of the Fisheries Act. We also provide scientific and technical guidelines through the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, which is administered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The committee has been provided background briefing notes on federal roles and statutes. I hope that will provide some background on our federal legislative framework.
Beyond legislative tools, we are working as a government on a range of community-based activities. One activity is a series of ecosystem initiatives that focus on the Great Lakes, Atlantic Canada, British Columbia and the North. We are trying to develop solutions by working with communities around a range of water management activities.
Another area of interest identified in your opening comments, Mr. Chairman, had to do with bulk water removal. I have been speaking up to this point mainly about water quality and that aspect of resource management. Clearly, there is great interest on the demand use side. One of the recent federal initiatives was the bulk water removal strategy announced by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1999. It contains three main elements. We developed an environmentally-based strategy that is trade consistent, that respects jurisdictional responsibilities and that looks to amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. These amendments were reintroduced last month in the House of Commons and are aimed at prohibiting bulk water removals in the Great Lakes area, which is one of the act's prime areas of interest. There are also provisions to do with licensing on other rivers.
With respect to bulk water removal, a law to reinforce our national policy prohibiting bulk water removal is now working its way through the system. In addition, given an increased interest in understanding our ecosystems and our responsibilities, we asked the International Joint Commission to look at the effects of consumption diversion and removal of boundary waters. A year ago, it produced a report, which I will leave for the committee, concerning the protection of Great Lakes water, an area of intense interest. This report was very well received by the public, and the governments of Canada and the United States are now studying it.
Beyond working on the bulk water removal issue, there is a lot of federal-provincial-territorial collaboration. When we think about governance of water in Canada, it is actually governance at a number of different levels. Through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, we worked on strategies relating to bulk water removal and are now actively engaged in finding some common interest, particularly in the areas of research, guidelines and monitoring.
Honourable senators, the aim of this presentation was to give you an overview of water and water management from the supply side, where Canada sits in the global stage, some of the broader global areas of interest, and a sense of how our water management systems are set up and structured in this country. I will stop there and try to answer your questions.
Senator Spivak: I have three questions. Why do we have only guidelines in Canada, whereas in the United States there is a national water policy law? They have a law; we only have guidelines. A major problem with most of our laws is provincial enforcement. I am thinking specifically of our national transportation safety code, which has been around since 1988. Only two sections of the 16 sections in the code are implemented by all the provinces. Enforcement is a major issue.
The second question I have is about the federal government role regarding agricultural runoff, which occurs everywhere but is a major source of water pollution in Quebec. The problem is getting even worse because of massive hog operations.
Logging could be included in this area. Our watersheds very often are logged. Again, we are talking about enforcement. One of our Senate committees produced a report on the boreal forest. We learned a great deal on this subject. In that respect, the federal government does have triggers. You mentioned navigation and fisheries.
My third question concerns the export of bulk water. I know that a law is in the works, and I have read various opinions, but on every other issue where we were told that NAFTA will protect us, there are now new negotiations taking place at the WTO and the FTAA. We do not really know the position of the government on this issue. Can you give us the government position on bulk water export in those negotiations, which we have not yet had a chance to look at?
Ms Moore: The first question was why Canadian guidelines are not implemented into law as in the United States.
In the United States there is the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Constitution is quite different from ours. From the perspective of federal responsibility, in Canada we provide the science and the knowledge that goes into the preparation of guidelines. For drinking water quality guidelines, Health Canada is the secretariat to that whole committee structure which prepares guidelines on drinking water quality. It is then up to the provinces to implement them. There is a range of guidelines, but provinces implement them in terms of the law. Certain provinces have implemented them into law; other provinces have not. That is basically how it works in Canada. The federal government provides leadership in the areas of science and drafting guidelines.
The basis of the difference lies in our constitutional powers. I am not an expert on the Constitution, so if you really want to explore that area, someone would have to come and speak to it.
Senator Spivak: I would like those constitutional powers cited.
Senator Kenny: We have seen all too often that even where we have laws, we do not have sufficient capacity to enforce them. The laws look terrific, but no one is going around checking. If we are to have someone come back and talk to us about the constitutional aspect of the question, perhaps we could have someone come back and talk to us about how many people there are with the capacity to enforce compliance of the laws.
Senator Spivak: If someone is coming back to speak about this issue, then I would like them to pay particular attention to CEPA as a method of enforcement. We were going to have the minister back anyway.
The Chairman: Senator Spivak pointed out that surface runoff and pollution, not only from agriculture but from small towns that are not treating sewage appropriately, can flow across provincial boundaries. Is that a concern of yours? It is one thing to say that the province is responsible for drinking water, but this is a situation where aquifers and surface water cross provincial boundaries. When we see a case involving natural gas or oil, we simply step in and exercise federal control, but what is the procedure for fresh water?
Ms Moore: I will ask Cynthia Wright to comment on CEPA.
In terms of water crossing provincial boundaries, one concept we have not talked about is integrated water management. In Canada, a number of boards think about water more broadly. The Prairie Provinces Water Board is one example of that. It examines water on an ecosystem basis that does not respect the political boundaries of provinces. That is a way to share knowledge and to ensure that the upstream provinces as well as the downstream provinces are protected by how we collectively manage water. Fundamentally, we manage water on a shared basis, meaning separate roles and responsibilities.
The Chairman: You say that the PFRA and the joints administrations, particularly in the West, that the federal government put together in the 1930s were a cooperative effort, that they were not pushed on to the provinces by the federal government?
Ms Moore: They have evolved to be fairly cooperative in terms of the matters and the issues being looked at now. The PFRA and the Prairie Provinces Water Board are getting into the Mackenzie basin, where there is Aboriginal representation as well as territorial and provincial governments. I am saying that as a mechanism of integrated watershed management, these entities are trying to bring their provinces, rules, regulations and policies to the table and are looking at the needs of the water basin in that broader perspective.
Ms Cynthia Wright, Director General, Strategic Priorities Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada: Perhaps I can add to some of my colleague's remarks, particularly with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Your question was about guidelines coming into law. Our approach tends to be that guidelines are one approach for influencing water standards. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act allows us to manage substances that are declared toxins, so we must demonstrate that a substance is toxic under the CEPA.
We deal with a number of substances found in water. In this way, we protect water sources and maintain good drinking water quality or water quality for a number of different uses. However, our process is driven under CEPA by the scientific basis of declaring a substance toxic. Once we have done that, then we move to control measures, which can require regulation and enforcement. The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act gives us a number of other tools to achieve those ends.
There have been recent increases in our enforcement budget. Our resources will be increased by 50 per cent over and above what we received prior to the CEPA in 1999. You may wish to look into that area in more detail.
Senator Kenny: Fifty per cent of zero is still zero.
Ms Wright: It is somewhat higher than zero. We will be doubling the number of enforcement officers over the next four or five years.
Senator Kenny: Tell us what you are doubling it from.
Ms Wright: For inspection and enforcement, I think it is around 80. I do not have the exact number.
The Chairman: The second question Senator Spivak asked was on logging and watersheds.
Ms Moore: In terms of the federal government's role with respect to land use practices in the agriculture and forestry sectors, we are doing a fair bit on the research side to understand the effect of activities on watersheds and also on the species that live on the land, in the air and under the water. Again, the federal role is on the research side.
On the question of agricultural runoff, I would defer to our colleagues at Agriculture Canada; but, there again, the framework for addressing these issues increasingly centres around working collaboratively with the provinces in developing environmental plans.
In terms of federal tools, we have talked about CEPA here today and about some of those relationships. That is how I would frame the federal influence. It is on the research side; it is on the science side.
The third question related to the export of bulk water and the federal government's position on negotiations. Our federal strategy on bulk water removal was developed on the basis that we wanted to think about water as a resource and the ecosystem around it. We are saying that bulk water in a drainage basin must be protected, and we want to ensure that we have a framework in place to address the issue of water at its source.
We introduced our policy on bulk water removal in 1999. Given the federal government's constitutional approach to managing water, virtually all provinces have put in place strategies to prohibit the removal of water from one drainage basin to another. Those are, as I say, strategies. The provinces have implemented regulations, laws and, in one or two cases, policies. From a Canada-wide perspective, there is a common objective to prohibit the removal of bulk water.
Senator Banks: Is that only for boundary water?
Ms Moore: The policy relates to drainage from one basin to another. There are six major drainage basins in Canada, such as the Pacific, the Hudson Bay, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence in the east. Protection is now in place that was not there two years ago.
With respect to the NAFTA and linkages to trade, our approach on water has been to treat it as a resource and to protect it as a resource, not necessarily when it becomes a good idea to do so.
If you want to delve into the details of NAFTA agreements, I would defer to trade experts. Policies beyond bottled water were not mentioned in the NAFTA. There was an agreement at the time where all parties said that water was outside of the scope of NAFTA. In thinking about the importance of water in Canada and our bulk water strategy, we tried to ensure that there a prohibition is in place whereby we will not remove water from drainage basins because it is important that water stays in the drainage basin that it comes from. We then pay attention to the hydrological cycle within a basin. That focus forms the basis of our policies.
In terms of the amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act where we find a federal jurisdiction over boundary waters, we are bringing the same objectives into law. These amendments are working their way through the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Perhaps we can line up a NAFTA expert on the transfer of bulk water because we will want to examine that subject. We could spend an entire session on it.
Senator Spivak: It is not just related to the NAFTA, but also to the FTAA and WTO negotiations. We need that information.
Senator Banks: I understood you to say that there is now a legal prohibition against the removal of bulk water from all of our main drainage systems. I am delighted to hear that because I thought it was only limited to the boundary systems. I am thrilled to hear about that prohibition.
The Chairman: Senator Banks, perhaps I could make a small correction. There are no laws against the removal of water, such as water needed for irrigation and that type of thing. The new laws relate to the transference of water from one basin to another. You can remove water within the basin, but you cannot transfer it to another basin, like from the North Saskatchewan River to the Red Deer River to the South Saskatchewan River.
Senator Spivak: What about bulk water?
Senator Banks: That is my question. The heading of this background piece is "Bulk Water Removals." I understand why we do not want to have a prohibition against bulk water export because that admits that it is a good practice. Rather, let us have a law which says you cannot remove large amounts of water from a river. I hope that is what the new law says. Is that what it says?
If a company sets up a bottling plant on an obscure river in northern Alberta, I would hope that it would be transgressing a federal law if it started removing that water and selling it. Is that so? I believe that Canadians wish that to be so.
The Chairman: Senator Banks, without interfering, I think we reached the conclusion that the whole transfer and removal of water would be the subject of another meeting because Ms Moore said that she is not a legal and trade expert in that area. I think your question is out of order at this time, but there will be a time. Keep your ammunition dry.
Senator Banks: I will ask my next question. The witness also said that she perhaps did not want to talk about this, but I want her impression. I believe all of us are worried about efficiency. The problems that attach to water these days are of wide-spread, general and legitimate concern.
We keep bumping into the jurisdictional question. I believe the thrust of the chairman's comment was that when we go across boundaries, sometimes matters should be removed from the provincial jurisdiction.
My question is with respect to the application of measures that ought to be taken as a result of your research. I assume that tensions would arise between the federal government and the provinces -- and perhaps among provinces themselves -- which, because of the bureaucratic questions involved, are impediments to the efficient application of your research. Is that so? I am concerned about the fact that aside from underground waters, rivers also flow between provinces. If a town in a province is mismanaging a river in some way, what will happen when it reaches the next province? At what point is the federal government able to recognize this as a problem that has taken on a national characteristic because it is interprovincial?
Perhaps this question should be answered by someone else subsequently, but am I right in assuming that those tensions exist?
Ms Moore: First, all jurisdictions want an efficient water management regime. All jurisdictions understand Canadians want to improve systems and make them stronger.
The provinces are very interested in research. We work through two long-term mechanisms with respect to guidelines for drinking water quality, all of which is based on our knowledge. All the provinces are at the table creating those guidelines. There is a strong interest in collaboration in those areas, both in terms of what we know and in areas that require more work.
On the source protection side of our environmental federal-provincial-territorial network, there is a very strong interest in working together toward ambient standards and guidelines.
As to how that translates into provincial laws, that is very much a provincial responsibility. The provinces issue permits to use water and the provinces work at the municipal level.
My sense is that in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, there is strong interest by the provinces in the research being done, and we are communicating more with the provinces about research. We are working hard to ensure that translates into the efficient, Canada-wide water management system that we all seek.
Mechanisms are in place on the research side to improve and strengthen our knowledge base and to find ways to ensure that knowledge is transmitted to decision makers, to Canadians and to other scientists.
Mr. Michael Wong, Director, Environmental Quality Branch, Environment Canada: From the guidelines development perspective, under the umbrella of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, there is a very efficient process in the development of water quality guidelines. It was initiated in the mid-1980s and has resulted in the publication of some extremely useful documents that are recognized worldwide as some of the best scientific documents on water quality guidelines. In fact, some of these documents are being used by many countries around the world for their water management programs.
The last survey indicated that well over 40 countries within the United Nations are using the Canadian water quality guidelines for their management programs. With respect to efficiencies in providing the scientific information necessary to develop these guidelines, I believe the process is there.
Senator Banks: I believe the process is there, too. I think that Canadians are sometimes, perhaps wrongly, frustrated with the process, questioning when it will happen and when it will get done.
I will ask you a colloquial question, Mr. Wong. If you were the king, would you be satisfied that the scientific information, the process and the consultation is leading to the correct, prudent, timely application of the research into Canada's water systems? If the answer is yes, then I will be extremely pleased.
Mr. Wong: Ms Moore touched on some of the emerging water issues and stressors, such as climate change, various land uses, different agricultural practices and the new toxic chemicals that we are finding in the environment. We have big challenges in front of us in conducting the needed research to develop new management tools and other guidelines, and we must speed that process along.
Senator Christensen: Water is very important to all of us. I have a particular concern about this critical area.
We talk about "managing" water. It scares me when we talk about managing water. Protecting water is one thing, but when we get into the area of managing, many things can happen.
In one of your comments, you implied that it was unfortunate that all of our rivers in Canada run north. Being from the Yukon, I think that is a great idea: All rivers should run north. At one time in the 1950s, the Frobisher project looked at turning the Yukon River and draining it south. Lands were withheld. You could not get cottage lots or anything else because the whole river was going to go south. Fortunately, that did not happen.
What federal legislative protection do our rivers have if, in fact, management enters into the equation? I do not mean management in the sense of stopping the rivers from running in a certain direction, but deviating them so that they meander and are used up more before they flow north. Does strong federal legislation exist, or is that still in the policy stages?
Ms Moore: The issue of changing the course of rivers within provinces is really is for the provinces to tackle. Our bulk water removal strategy deals with the transfer of water out of basins, and reversing the flow of water in the watersheds would belong within that purview. Beyond the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, which includes international rivers, the International Rivers Improvement Act covers waters coming the other way.
However, protection is a federal policy. It is good science to have practices for the protection of our watersheds. As well, it is within the realm of provincial laws and rules to ensure that protection is in place.
The work we are doing in terms of better understanding rivers and the changing flow of water courses has a significant impact with respect to invasive species and a whole host of other things we are extremely concerned about. Having a knowledge base is a very important first step to ensuring that we receive the ultimate protection.
John Cooper may want to add a few thoughts about the required tools.
Mr. John Cooper, Director, National Water Issues, Ecosystems and Environmental Resources Directorate, Environmental Conservation Service, Environment Canada: Two pieces of legislation are quite effective federally in looking at major water management projects: the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act, both of which are triggers for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. When a major project that could impact navigation or fisheries is proposed, it is looked at very carefully for its potential impact on the environment and the surrounding communities. These acts provide a safety net.
Concerns about rivers flowing north or flowing across different boundaries and the impacts downstream have resulted in a number of ecosystem initiatives over the past decade. The Northern Rivers Basin Study was designed to look at the impact of development -- pulp and paper, mining or what have you -- in upstream areas and provincial parks in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and what the cumulative impact of those developments would be further north. That study evolved into the Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative, which will continue this work to ensure that upstream development does not have a significant impact on residents, communities and ecosystems in a northern area.
In a similar way, the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement with the territories, Saskatchewan, B.C., Alberta and the federal government relates to managing these shared waters, most of which flow north into the Mackenzie. It ensures that impacts upstream do not negatively affect downstream communities.
Senator Christensen: That does not offer me much comfort because it seems to be a patchwork system. Some international experts tell us that we only have 20 years to get a handle on this issue or we will run into more major problems than we have now. I question whether we are doing enough.
Senator Watt: You are well aware that our land mass in the Arctic and Subarctic is covered with either water or snow. Two basic problems exist in the Arctic and Subarctic. One is the surface water which, of course, does not recognize boundaries. It goes from one lake to another lake. We ended up with a mass of toxic pollution that goes up and comes down because of the magnetic field in the Arctic.
The second problem, or factor, is as a result of climate change. There has been a very noticeable effect in the last three years. The military leftovers from the Cold War have been sitting on top of the permafrost. The permafrost is starting to melt or to seep underground into the drainage systems and into the lakes, causing all kinds of problems in the North. Our people are dying left and right from cancer.
I believe a nation-wide problem is that we do not have the appropriate technology at this point in time for verifying water and filtering water. We are still utilizing chemicals such as chlorine to kill bacteria in our drinking water. I believe that chlorine is also a carcinogen.
The federal government has looked into how to better manage our water. In the Northwest-Territories, they have tried to involve Aboriginal people in the water management board. This is a new approach. The government is trying to harness the traditional knowledge of the Aboriginal people to see whether it can be put to use. That is very welcome, but there are still many problems. We must find some way of containing these problems and identifying solutions. If we do not, we will not see the end of these problems; they will get worse.
Groups of individuals are trying to find some way of accessing better drinking water. They are drilling deep down through the permafrost to gain access to fresh water. Those groups are not regulated. There is no provincial involvement and there is no federal involvement. Those individuals are taking things into their own hands in an attempt to access better drinking water because cancer deaths are on the increase from the chlorine that we drink. This incidence has become highly noticeable in the last three years. Most of the cancers involve the liver, which must have something to do with what is being consumed.
Is the federal government moving in the direction of finding a proper solution for verifying and filtering drinking water? Up to this point, I have not heard whether the Government of Canada is creating a department or whether it has a department concerned with how to improve drinking water with new technology. Technologies are being developed now. I hope something in that area will be out on the market soon because it is heavily needed. Could you just outline your thoughts on that issue?
Ms Moore: In terms of the North from a research and a governance perspective, there is increasing interest. Listening to the CBC news the last couple of days, there is a conference in Whitehorse on climate change. Some of our scientists and policymakers are in attendance. We are hearing about some of the linkages and concerns.
All three territories are completely engaged in the drinking water policy guidelines process as well as the water protection guidelines process. That involves understanding the latest science and research and trying to move that to the guidelines stage.
Increasingly, people are talking about technologies and their application. Last week, the Minister of Industry announced a centre of excellence for clean water and a $15 million infusion in a university-industry network across the country that will focus exclusively on clean water issues and the science and the technology of clean water.
We must ensure that within that context the needs and interests of the northern communities are considered in an effort to find solutions to the problems. On the issues affecting the North, Canada has shown leadership internationally in the work that is going on at the POPs convention. There has been a great sharing of knowledge and a movement forward to try to attain some collaborative solutions.
As you are well aware, an Arctic Council representing the polar regions meets regularly. It is creating a sustainable development strategy to address various needs and interests, including water, in terms of its path forward. My sense is that there is a recognition of some of the northern perspectives and the unique needs of the northern ecosystem. We using our research to move forward on obtaining these technologies and implementing them where they are needed.
Senator Watt: I have been involved to a certain extent with those various instruments, such as the Arctic Council, that have been set up by the Government of Canada along with the other Arctic countries. There seems to be a good deal of talk about a willingness to move forward and talk about what is involved in trying to find solutions. I am afraid to say that there is nothing more than talk at this point, as has been the case for a good number of years.
I have been involved in the Arctic Council for the last five years. I do not think it is close to the point of finding a solution. What is needed in the Arctic is the direct involvement of the federal government itself rather than looking to a next-door neighbour or someone else for solutions. That idea should be abandoned. The federal government must definitely become more involved in getting people up there to police these areas because they are totally out of control.
Senator Buchanan: I want to turn the subject to the most beautiful lake system in Canada, maybe in North America or perhaps even in the world, which is Bras d'Or Lake. What is your department doing with regard to the preservation of Bras d'Or Lake?
I realize that there are jurisdictional problems, but Bras d'Or Lake is unique in that it is a brackish lake. Unfortunately, for the last 10 or 12 years, pollution has been a problem in the lake. This is most unfortunate because it had been, and continues to be, probably the most pristine lake system in Eastern Canada.
I know of two Cape Breton organizations involved in preserving Bras d'Or Lake. One is the Bras d'Or Preservation Society and the other is the Bras Stewardship Society. One operates out of Baddeck and the other out of the Whycocomagh area down at the lower end of the lake. I meet with them from time to time, and I have been indirectly involved since the 1980s through government and then through the Senate.
There is a lot of concern about the Bras d'Or Lake system. I know that the federal government has been involved in working with these societies, as has the province. There are some problems with local people who want to preserve the lake but, at the same time, do not want too much interference from government.
What do you know about the situation with Bras d'Or Lake?
Ms Moore: I am not familiar with those two associations and the mechanisms that you mentioned.
Senator Buchanan: The president of one of them is the great grandson of Alexander Graham Bell. Does that help you?
Ms Moore: No. I would presume the situation involving brackish water and the other effects are related to sewage and various activities around the lake, but I do not have the expertise nor am I familiar enough with what is happening on the ground.
I am aware, too, that it is a beautiful lake, a beautiful network. We see the image of the Bras d'Or Lake system internationally from time to time, and that is the image that we carry.
Through Environment Canada and our community programs, we do offer out-project activities at the local level. I cannot comment on the specifics of what is happening at Bras d'Or Lake right now, but I can make sure that we inform the clerk of what is happening in that area.
Senator Buchanan: Could you find out within the department who or which group is involved and maybe send some information to me?
Ms Moore: I would be delighted to do that, senator. Our Halifax operation administers regional programs. I will ensure that we make you aware of what is happening in that area.
Senator Kenny: I am not curious about the cleanliness of water, which has been canvassed at this meeting, but rather at the volume of water. You talked about drainage basins. Presumably, the volume of water in those basins varies quite a bit. It is a seasonal occurrence. When people talk about not taking water out of those basins, the presumption in my mind, or what I assume, is that it takes a long time to replace that water. How long does it take to replace water when it is removed from a basin? If a significant quantity of water is removed, does it come back or does the basin suffer ill effects for a period of time? What happens exactly?
Ms Moore: I will defer that question to my colleague, John Cooper.
Mr. Cooper: A good example would be the IJC, the International Joint Commission, and its study on the Great Lakes. It reported that, on average, only 1 per cent of the Great Lakes' water volume is replaced each year. Most of the water there was left over from the Ice Age. On average, there is a 1 per cent turnover per year.
Again, if I can use the Great Lakes as an example, of all the water uses within the basin, only about 5 per cent are for "consumptive" uses. Those are uses where the water does not come back into the system.
Senator Kenny: Just so I understand, Mr. Cooper, water is something that reaches an equilibrium. If we are only taking out 1 per cent, then it sounds reasonable that 1 per cent goes back in. What happens if we take out 10 per cent? If 10 per cent of the water were removed, do we have any scientific understanding that the lower level would then cause more water to come back to that basin?
Mr. Cooper: You are assuming that we are taking that 10 per cent.
Senator Kenny: I am assuming that we put it in tank cars and take it to Arizona.
Mr. Cooper: In that sense, we are taking the capital out rather than the interest. That water will not come back.
Senator Kenny: How do you know that?
Mr. Cooper: We assess the renewable flow of a water body, and that amount is the amount that will be replaced each year. Most of the amount of water used within the basin returns to the basin after it has been treated, or what have you. However, 5 per cent of the water used in the Great Lakes -- not the total volume, but just 5 per cent of the water withdrawn from the Great Lakes -- is actually lost to the system. This is a very small fraction of that 1 per cent, but we depend on precipitation in the form of rainfall or snowfall to replace the water in the basin.
Senator Kenny: If a water table drops because people are using water, are you telling me that water from other places does not move in and eventually raise that water table back up?
Mr. Cooper: Yes. If we are talking about an aquifer, there is a recharge rate. If we start withdrawing water in volumes greater than the recharge rate, then the water table will drop. This is happening in many areas of the United States.
Senator Kenny: I hear you. However, if there is more water in the area than normal from a heavy winter snow and the melt-off is significant, then there is not the same recharge rate at all. The water goes someplace else because the levels are higher in that particular basin.
Mr. Cooper: That water will eventually flow to the oceans or to Hudson Bay.
Senator Kenny: Right, but it will not necessarily follow the same route. I mean, water goes to the lowest level available to it. If the level is raised, then that is not an attractive place for water to go. Likewise, if the level is dropped below what we expect, it becomes a more attractive place for water to go.
Mr. Cooper: Yes, but it is still limited to the input to that system. We are still constrained by the amount of water that will go into the system. Certainly, it will flow to the low area, but it depends on the basin. We are not getting water crossing the basin from another basin.
The Chairman: Water will flow within a basin, but Mr. Cooper is explaining that a basin only gets so much water from the air, and so on. Therefore, if the water table drops within a basin, there is nothing to recharge it. That is why it is called a basin, because a basin is not connected.
Ms Moore: There are interactions. There is a hydrological cycle between the atmosphere, precipitation and the natural recharge rate.
The Chairman: However, there is no interaction between basins, really. That is why we call it a basin.
Ms Moore: There is a very active hydrometric monitoring system across the country that provides information on this subject. The federal government works with the provinces, but we provide the information to the provinces, who use it in terms of their conservation management strategies, permit applications and so forth.
The principle is that because water is drawn out of a certain watershed, depending on recharge rates and other environmental factors, it may not come back to historic levels. In terms of a basic integrated watershed framework, therefore, we need to think about the relationship to adjacent land use activity, to nature's needs in terms of animal uses and species, and so forth. These factors are all related and complicated.
The bottom line, as I understand from our scientific experts, is that one cannot assume, based on various elements, that the water will go back to what we consider as lay people to be its historic level.
The Chairman: I think possibly you would agree that water in a basin may shift between the surface and the subsurface.
Ms Moore: It is also interesting to note that as water shifts from the surface to the subsurface, surface waters are showing contaminants. The question then becomes how much of that is going down into the subsurface level? As we mentioned, many people depend on groundwater supplies. Our scientists, again, are doing work to understand that interrelationship.
Senator Kenny: I have difficulty when I hear people saying "no exports" and that they will not consider or tolerate idea of water exports. Politically, it sounds awfully neat to me -- too neat. It is too precise to satisfy me. I wonder at what point the neat political argument eventually gives way to us becoming pigs and saying that this water is ours and that we will not share it with needier places. At what point do we have region pitted against region or us pitted against our neighbours to the south? There are a whole lot of natural resources that we would like to send south and that we work very hard at sending south.
I can understand our obligation as Canadian politicians to be concerned about the needs of Canada, but I do not see any flexibility. I am uncomfortable with something that arbitrarily says this is too precious a commodity that we would ever let it go elsewhere. Do you have any reaction to that?
Mr. Cooper: We certainly wrestled with this problem. The solution that we feel is best in the interest of protecting the ecosystem and the communities within a basin is to prohibit bulk water removal.
This country has diverted water approximately 54 times between sub-basins. In most cases, it was for two hydro-electric projects. We have learned from those diversions that there can be significant impacts in terms of increasing turbidity, sedimentation, displacement of Aboriginal communities, introduction of non-native species, pollution through mercury, and many other environmental and social problems.
The basis for our approach is that ecosystems and communities depend on a natural supply of water within a basin. As soon as we start taking the capital, the water within that basin, out of the basin, we start to experience those impacts. If we look at the impact and the climate change where we know the availability and distribution of water will change, it becomes much more of a concern.
We also have to consider industrial population and urban growth in areas like the Great Lakes, for example, and the low water levels experienced in the Great Lakes last year. This is not infinite resource and is very important to the ecosystem.
It makes much more sense that conservation techniques and technology such as desalinization are implemented in water-short areas in the U.S. where they are changing desert to grassland golf courses. They need to look at conservation and other measures to provide a sustainable water supply.
The approach the federal government has put forward is that some water removal could be contemplated over the short term based on humanitarian grounds, where it is not for profit and where water could be provided in an enforcement situation.
Senator Kenny: When you talked about the transfers that had taken place to date, you listed a series of negatives. You did not identify any positives. I cannot believe that there were no positives. Huge areas of the country benefit from irrigation projects, for example. Obviously, there are significant improvements in the life of the people receiving that water.
Mr. Cooper: Absolutely, but one must factor into the equation the donor and the receiver basin.
Senator Kenny: I did not hear you talk about the benefits. I wonder if you could share with the committee some of the benefits when water moves from one place to another.
Ms Moore: We need to distinguish the difference between inter-basin transfers, which are between major watersheds, and diversions within basins in terms of agriculture. There is a huge difference. Even in the United States, where they have had many more inter-basin transfers than in the past, scientists are increasingly looking at these impacts because they are becoming a major concern. There is a lot of work going on with respect to what has happened in the past and the various impacts.
Senator Kenny: So it is all negative.
Ms Moore: It is in the sense that when water moves from one major drainage basin into another, we see the negative environmental effects.
Senator Kenny: You are saying that there are no positive effects.
Ms Moore: I think we are talking about environmental effects. They tend to be ones that have created many unknowns in terms of the exchange of species and related problems.
Senator Finnerty: Coming from Northern Ontario, I am frustrated that economic development seems to take priority over water. Over the years, I have been watching our pristine water being polluted by mining companies, and so on. Then we sit back and watch an open pit mine in Kirkland Lake proposed as a landfill for garbage brought up from Toronto. Then we watch as two provinces, the Department of Indian Affairs, and our federal government step back to let it sort itself out. It took a tremendous fight on the part of citizens -- there were a bunch of us -- to stop that proposal temporarily. I would like to see the federal government take a stronger stance in cases like that.
The Chairman: You can gather from the committee that, although we are happy with your evidence, we are not pleased that the federal government is only in the position of being a Sunday preacher, giving a sermon and then hoping like the dickens that the provinces will follow the guidelines you have set out. There is a feeling on the committee that we should further explore the issue of whether the federal government is lax or is backing off.
After the Walkerton water scandal and other incidents, there is a strong feeling across the land that maybe there is too much lecturing and not enough actual administration taking place. We would be very interested in hearing about the actual constitutional limits.
I thank you for appearing here today. You have helped open our eyes. If you do not mind, we might call on you to return.
Ms Moore: That would be our pleasure. I want to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to talk this morning. I have a number of documents and technical information surrounding some of the subjects we talked about this morning. I would be very pleased to leave copies with the clerk.
Remember, it is World Water Day.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The committee adjourned.