Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 2 - Evidence - December 4, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S- 208, An Act to require the Minister of the Environment to establish, in co-operation with the provinces, an agency with the power to identify and protect Canada's watersheds that will constitute sources of drinking water in the future, met this day at 5:26 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: It is my pleasure to welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I am Tommy Banks from Alberta and I have the honour to chair this committee. I would like to introduce the Deputy Chair, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, Quebec; Senator Bert Brown, Alberta; Senator Grant Mitchell, Alberta; Senator Willie Adams, the dean of the Senate representing Nunavut; and, Senator Colin Kenny, who is also the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Today the committee will continue its examination of the subject matter of Bill S-208, an act to require the Minister of the Environment to establish, in co-operation with the provinces, an agency with the power to identify and protect Canada's watersheds that will constitute sources of drinking water in the future. It was presented by Senator Grafstein in the Senate on October 17, 2007.
We have organized a panel of senior officials from two departments to help us understand the perspective of the federal government on these broad issues relating to this bill including the mapping of Canada's waters, the Canada Water Act of 1974, and how to achieve the objectives of Bill S-208 and the Canada Water Act.
Mark Corey, Assistant Deputy Minister, Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you very much. We are with the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada, which is very much on the science side of the department.
[Translation]
On behalf of our minister, the Honourable Gary Lunn, and the Department of Natural Resources, I am very pleased to be here with you this evening. I would also like to introduce David Boerner, Director General, Central and Northern Canada Branch, Geological Survey of Canada. David is a geologist and can answer your detailed technical questions about our research at the Geological Survey.
[English]
What Natural Resources Canada does in earth sciences falls into five areas. The first is assessing and mapping Canada's underground water, our aquifers. More about that work will be explained in a moment.
We also do surface water mapping because we are the topographic mapping agency for the Government of Canada. We have mapped all of Canada at the 1:250,000 scale and 95 per cent of it at the 1:50,000 scale. We have taken all that water information on rivers, lakes and streams and put it together digitally. That digital information is available free on the Internet and many people use it.
The Chair: The mapping to which you refer is of surface water as opposed to aquifers, am I right?
Mr. Corey: It is both. We map underground water in terms of aquifers through the Geological Survey of Canada. Through the Canada Centre for Mapping, we also map the surface; that is roads, cities, contours and all the water features. I was referring to all the water features, which we pulled off into a hydrological layer that is now available. All of the available information on surface water in Canada is available on either of those topographical map scales. They are used for planning purposes — geographic information systems, analyses and so forth.
The Chair: While we are on that subject, are you saying that the aquifers have also been completely mapped? Our information is that they had not been.
Mr. Corey: No, they have not. I will come back to that in more detail as to which ones have been mapped, the priorities and so forth.
The third thing is the natural content of water. The Geological Survey of Canada does work related to health and environmental considerations in terms of what occurs naturally in soil and water and the impact that naturally occurring toxic substances, such as metals and other substances could have on water.
The fourth is environmental assessments. Being the land mass group of the department and of the Government of Canada, we provide the geoscience knowledge for the environmental assessments that are under way and we do a great deal of work in environmental assessments.
Fifth is remote sensing, imaging from satellites. We study Canada from space and provide temporal analysis — that is time series analysis — for things like water conditions, precipitation, changes in wetlands, rivers and lake monitoring, glacier movement and melting and snowpack levels. We do a lot in terms of understanding what is happening out there with our land mass.
Senator, you mentioned our aquifers, and taking an inventory of Canada's groundwater is one of our major contributions. Groundwater is located in porous rock and in pockets and fractures in rock. When an area can yield a usable quantity of groundwater, we consider it to be an aquifer.
About 10 million Canadians rely on groundwater extracted by wells for human use, agriculture and industry. Groundwater in aquifers eventually resurfaces naturally in springs, seeps, wetlands and streams. Right now, part of our job is to catalogue how much groundwater Canada has and where it is located. We are learning more about this each year.
NRCan's involvement in aquifer research or hydrogeology is based on the department's history and expertise in earth sciences. We are the geology and science department of the Government of Canada when you go underground. We have been conducting a wide range of research in this area for many years.
[Translation]
These studies are not new for the Geological Survey of Canada, which is one of the oldest programs of the Government of Canada. The Geological Survey of Canada was founded in 1842, and after 165 years of service, our research and our reputation are well established.
Our expertise in topographical maps began toward the end of the 19th century, and our expertise in the world of remote sensing, satellites, dates back to the 1960s, about 50 years ago.
Today, Natural Resources Canada is a leader in geology and world geography, with leading technologies, data digitizing and service delivery on the Internet.
[English]
We have been moving into the digital world. Studying what is underground and mapping resources are a big part of what we do. Now we are using this expertise to assess and inventory Canada's key aquifers.
It is a huge undertaking and one that requires a considerable commitment of resources over a sustained period of time. This is long-term research. For example, a full assessment of a typical regional scale aquifer covering more than 1,000 square kilometres would take a team of 10 researchers three years to complete and at least $2 million, sometimes more. To date, we have identified about 30 key aquifers across Canada. The focus of most of our attention is on them. These are part of what we call the Groundwater Mapping Program, on which we spend on average about $3 million a year.
I will tell you the things we have accomplished so far with the program, and then cover where the work plan is taking us in the future. First, we have a first-order assessment of all 30 key aquifers and basic information on each. We know where they are and we know their size. We have catalogued this basic information. Second, we have completed a detailed analysis on six of these 30 key inventories. Third, by 2009, we will have completed a detailed analysis on an additional three of these aquifers, bringing us up to nine of the 30 key aquifers with complete assessments. By 2010, we intend to have a fully accessible national groundwater database in place, including a synthesis of the state of NRCan's groundwater mapping. Everything we have will be in a big database online, which anyone can access.
The inventory will show the expanse of each aquifer underground. It will contain information about water quality, the current volume and use and the quantity of the aquifer's existing water resource, to the best of our knowledge.
As well, the inventory will include first-order assessments of the 30 key aquifers we have identified and a detailed assessment of 12. This is the part where in terms of the future, at the current arraignment of expenditure of about $3 million a year and with the partnerships that we have in place, we expect it will take us until 2030 to complete detailed assessments of the remaining eight key aquifers. As I mentioned, this really is long-term research.
The national inventory of key aquifers is an important asset for groundwater management in Canada. Reliable, up- to-date information about underground water resources will be available to decision makers as we produce it.
NRCan's inventory will reduce the risk of overuse of groundwater resources and contamination of aquifers. It will provide information for resolving land use conflicts related to the protection of aquifers and lower the cost normally associated with these types of issues.
We have read your committee's report, Water in the West: Under Pressure. We know you have taken a keen interest in this subject and we would like to answer any questions you might have on the work we are doing and how we can best respond to the needs of Canada in this area.
The Chair: NRCan has said ``over succeeding years'' on succeeding occasions — we will get it done by such and such a date. Is the shortfall simply one of money?
Mr. Corey: No, it is partially resources in that that is the amount we have available. However, there another limiting factor is the lack of appropriate expertise. Canada has limited expertise on groundwater and we are maxing out the amount that we have. Second, we are developing new understandings of how, for example, surface water and groundwater interacts. It is something we are learning as we go along. Third, we have to find new means to develop full characterization of very large aquifers. This is a challenge where you have a large aquifer and large volumes of water moving underground. Finally, we are doing a lot of this in close partnership with others. We are being very opportunistic. We are taking advantage of research being done by the provinces and people in the private sector. We are trying to use as much of this information to stretch out our budget.
By simply saying we are going to shorten it, we may be able to be less opportunistic and the research would actually cost more than just a linear protection of our current costs.
Michael Martin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Environment Canada: It is a pleasure and indeed an honour for me and Mr. Carey to be with you here this evening.
It is our understanding, Mr. Chairman, that you are interested in hearing more about how Environment Canada is managing the authorities provided to us under the Canada Water Act, as well as how those existing authorities and those found in other environmental legislation may overlap with the proposed authorities in Bill S-208.
As the committee may know, the Canada Water Act, which entered into force in 1970, has three parts. Part I covers federal-provincial arrangements related to comprehensive water resource management, Part II covers water quality management, and Part IV covers inspection, enforcement and reporting. The powers under Part III, which provided for regulating the concentration of nutrients and cleaning agents, and was specifically used to limit phosphates in laundry detergent, were transferred to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which we refer to by its acronym CEPA.
Since the Canada Water Act entered into force, other important statutes have been developed that do provide additional powers to the Minister of the Environment related to water, and that includes the Department of the Environment Act of 1972 and CEPA, as I mentioned. As well, the Minister has important authorities for water pollution prevention under section 36 of the Fisheries Act.
I should mention the federal water policy of 1987 was a very important document that still provides an important policy framework for federal engagement in water management in Canada today.
Part I of the Canada Water Act provides the authority for a wide range of collaborative activities and agreements with the provinces. Originally, these activities included funding for major infrastructure projects, such as for flood control. Part I also supported the establishment of governance arrangements to manage water use from interprovincial rivers, such as the Prairie Provinces Water Board, the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement and the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, all of which are bodies that continue today. As well, it provides the authority for joint federal and provincial water quality monitoring agreements and for longstanding agreements for a national water quantity monitoring network managed by the Meteorological Service of Canada.
Part I also provides for the enabling of water management modelling projects such as in the St. Lawrence, as well as water research at many Environment Canada research centres, notably the National Water Research Institute in Burlington, which is headed by my colleague Dr. Carey.
Part II of the Canada Water Act gives powers to the Minister of the Environment in cases of urgent national concern to define water quality management areas and even to issue regulations, and these areas could include the watersheds that Bill S-208 mentions. These powers have never been utilized, but they nevertheless could provide a basis for federal action to assume management of drinking water sources in certain watersheds. However, the general trend in management of water in Canada, at least since 1987, has been to encourage effective local management of water on a watershed basis.
Protecting source water requires effective management of both point and non-point sources of water. Non-point sources significantly often relate to land use and agricultural practices. Effective protection of source water depends on partnerships with the provinces and the active involvement of local communities. Since the 1980s, Environment Canada has worked in partnership with the provinces, with local communities and with other federal departments to improve water quality in priority ecosystems, most notably in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.
One important recent example in this area is the cooperation between the federal and provincial governments in Manitoba in supporting farmers to develop environmental farm plans and to implement beneficial management practices in order to protect water, soil and air.
As the primary water managers in Canada, all provinces and territories use regulations, legislation and other instruments to address water quality issues and are also responsible for many aspects of land use planning and development that can impact water quality and availability.
[Translation]
Senators no doubt know of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment or CCME. With its huge network of collaborators among the officials of various public organizations, the CCME is an important mechanism for conducting joint projects on key environmental issues. Through the CCME, the federal government works with the provinces and territories to draw up Canadian guidelines on water quality and provides scientific advice on source water quality. Health Canada takes part in developing guidelines on drinking water quality in Canada through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water.
[English]
Under the auspices of the CCME, the serious problem of water pollution from municipal waste water is being addressed through a new Canada-wide strategy for the management of municipal waste water effluent, which is in fact the largest source of pollution to source water in Canada.
The Minister of the Environment has recently stated that the Government of Canada will complement this strategy by developing a regulation under the Fisheries Act to enforce new national standards for sewage treatment. The government has taken action in the past to protect water quality with Fisheries Act regulations, for example, for effluents from the pulp and paper and metal mining sectors, as well as addressing pesticides through the Pest Control Products Act. The government will continue to use its powers under CEPA to improve water quality through the government's chemicals management plan.
The federal commitment to clean water is evident in the action plan for clean water, which is evident in recent joint federal-provincial announcements: $30 million to clean up Randle Reef in the Great Lakes, $12 million to clean up Lake Simcoe, and $18 million to address serious algae problems in Lake Winnipeg. At the same time, the government is also providing significant new resources to strengthen water and wastewater infrastructures through the Building Canada Initiative.
I understand my colleague Mr. Henry Schultz appeared before you last week and explained that Part II of the Canada Water Act is based on the peace, order and good government power allotted to the Government of Canada in the Constitution in matters of urgent national concern. As I noted above, this power could be utilized to protect drinking water sources.
Canada is a large country, and local and regional water quality problems do exist. We face some challenges around drinking water in small communities, communities with populations under 5,000, and with First Nations drinking water. The government is taking action on a priority basis to address the situation for First Nations communities. Between March 2006 and March 2007, for example, the number of First Nation communities with significant water issues was cut in half. The reality is that 90 per cent of Canadians have safe access to municipally supplied drinking water.
The federal government is committed to ensuring a system of federal-provincial-territorial actions that promote clean sources of drinking water. Given the powerful tools we have in the Canada Water Act, in CEPA and in the Fisheries Act, and the effective actions of the provinces, we believe we have sufficient tools to respond to any emerging challenges that might impact source water quality in Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Martin, you have read Bill S-208. You understand the purpose of this committee. It is rather unusual, as the chair explained at the beginning of the meeting. The purpose of this committee is to examine the objective of the bill, rather than to conduct an exhaustive review of the bill before adopting it at second reading. Do you see the difference? Would this bill add to existing legislation that already enables you to achieve the same objectives?
[English]
Mr. Martin: We believe we have the powers necessary to act to protect source water. This legislation appears to duplicate powers that already exist in the Canada Water Act.
Senator Nolin: When you say it already exists, are you referring to Part II of the Canada Water Act that the federal authority has not used?
Mr. Martin: Yes, that would include Part II.
Senator Nolin: Why has that authority never been used?
Mr. Martin: Looking back over the 37 year history of this act and what has been learned, the trend has shown that collaboration with provinces and local communities places a priority on local action to establish effective water management. The federal government pursues a range of actives supporting that action but we have not found a reason to have recourse to those powers.
Senator Nolin: You are reaching the same objective through your partnerships with the provinces and local communities. Are you reaching that goal without using the powers that we discussed with your colleagues from Justice Canada?
Mr. Martin: Yes.
Senator Milne: Mr. Martin, you say you have all the powers you need to do these things yet these powers have never been utilized. What sort of comfort can you give us that you might start to use these powers?
Mr. Martin: The powers have been available to all of the ministers since 1970. Ministers have not had the need to have recourse to use them. It would fall to the discretion of the minister to use these powers, but we have not been presented with the circumstances where recourse to those powers has been required.
Senator Milne: Have the ministers not used the powers because the department has not presented them with the need to do so.
Mr. Martin: I could not speak to the past 37 years, but to my knowledge, that is not the case. I believe the ministers are aware of their powers and authorities. The circumstances have been such that they have not been required and they have not made use of them.
Senator Milne: Mr. Corey, you said that 30 key aquifers have been identified but only six of those have been completely assessed. I am sure that was exactly the same statistic we heard in 2005. What happened in 2006 and 2007? Why has nothing more been done? Has your budget been slashed?
Mr. Corey: No, the program has gone on at the same level. Twenty-two people work on water assessments and spend $3 million.
David Boerner, Director General, Central and Northern Canada Branch, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada: This is a phased effort. It takes about an average of three years to assess an aquifer. We are doing an aquifer per year and are working on three simultaneously.
Senator Milne: That leaves 24 to go and probably more key aquifers will be discovered during the process.
Mr. Boerner: By the end of 2009, we will have finished nine aquifers. We are working on three now. Following 2009, there would be 21 of those 30 key aquifers to complete.
Senator Milne: Why were we told that six had been done two years ago?
Mr. Boerner: You were probably given the promise that six would be completed by the end of the phase. Within the program, about three aquifers are complete in each phase. We are currently in the phase where we are going from six to nine.
Senator Milne: What are we almost finished now?
Mr. Boerner: We will be finished nine by the end of 2009.
Mr. Corey: We can come back with a more detailed report on progress made over the last six to eight years if that would be helpful to the committee.
Senator Milne: It would be interesting to know the aquifers that have been completed.
The Chair: Senator Milne is pursuing this because previous governments have told us over the last two years and have made public undertakings to have all this completed. At one point, it was promised by 2010. As time has passed, it was restated and delayed and now it is further delayed. If you could provide a more detailed report, we would have something on which we could rely.
Mr. Corey: We publish the report on plans and priorities tabled for Parliament. You will find that we have been consistent in saying that six are complete and nine will be completed by 2009. The work plan is to complete the aquifer assessments in detail by 2030. We will come back to the committee with more details on what has done in the last few years.
The Chair: Is there a comparison between what successive governments said would happen as opposed to what has happened?
Mr. Corey: We can go back and identify what was promised to Parliament through the report of plans and priorities. To the best of my knowledge we have been consistent on our targets. There could be confusion because it takes three years to do the assessments and sometimes a number will be completed in one year followed by a couple of years where you are still working on them. During that time, we will not have any of them completed, but our 2009 objective is to have nine completed.
The Chair: You responded earlier that the impediment to completing this work faster is not entirely financial resources, but rather the number of people who have the expertise to do the job. Is that correct?
Mr. Corey: Yes, it can be accelerated with more money, but there is limited availability of expertise. Many things are done in partnership to take advantage of what the provinces and private sector are doing in order to tap into that to make our money go further.
Senator Milne: How have you identified that these 30 aquifers are the key aquifers? I am sure there are several hundred.
Mr. Boerner: There are hundreds of aquifers. In 2000-01, the provinces, territories and federal officials, got together and based on current knowledge, identified the aquifers that would be key to Canadians for drinking watering, industry, and agriculture. We can provide a summary report to you from that gathering that lists the 30 key aquifers.
That view is changing now, because the report is seven years old. Some people would add aquifers and some would debate whether they are the right ones. We are still on the right track because we proceed with partnerships all the time where we reaffirm those decisions as we proceed to the next level.
Senator Milne: Hopefully another grouping of aquifers will be added to continue the process after 2030 when I am long gone and they are still not mapped.
Mr. Boerner: It is a big job. The Okanagan Valley has 76 identified aquifers. How they connect and how one aquifer is distinguished from another is a challenge. Not a lot is known about some of the aquifers. You reappraise as you go along and learn things. We try to pick up from what we have learned and adjust our plans. However, I certainly will get you the report and we can give you a list, aquifer by aquifer, of what has been done and when it was completed. It is basically one per year since we started.
Senator Kenny: I am curious about the metrics. How does one determine that an aquifer needs attention? How do you know whether an aquifer has maintained its characteristics?
Mr. Boerner: It is a very interesting question that I could spend a great deal of time answering. The way we can tell aquifers exist is because people are using them.
Senator Kenny: No, I am interested in the metrics.
Mr. Boerner: As I said, the priority setting involves multiple party discussions about the use of the aquifer and its implications in today's society. There are different criteria in different places. For example, in the Great Lakes, there is obviously a lot of pressure from population growth and a lot of demand for new development. Some aquifers that we would not necessarily think are key in other places become key because they are one of the primary sources of water for future development.
You might have heard of the Oak Ridges Moraine study a few years ago. A huge expansion outside of the Toronto area was going to draw on this moraine, which provides a lot of groundwater to local communities. Building on top of it would have prevented the recharge and potentially disturbed the water, affecting all the other people who were local.
Those kinds of criteria determine whether it is a critical aquifer. Is it affecting agriculture or people's drinking water and will it limit industry in a substantial way?
Senator Kenny: There are thousands of people watching this now. Some may know what an aquifer is and some may not. I think it would be constructive if we had a description of how you make some of these decisions. I presume there must be a list of tests that you have to apply to find out how it affects drinking water and agriculture.
Mr. Boerner: An aquifer is basically porous rock. You can think of it in lots of ways. Some people think it is an underground lake, which is not at all true; it is more like a sponge holding water in place. When it is capable of providing water that you can draw out of it, we start to call it an aquifer. There is a lot of water in the ground that does not move far and cannot go places. An aquifer is determined by the fact that you can draw water out of it consistently.
The problem with that is because it is underground; you do not necessarily know how much water you can draw out of it and the implications of doing so. If it is sufficiently large, you can draw water for a long time and not appreciate what it is doing to the aquifer. You see this in the United States, for example. The Ogallala aquifer, which is the big Central Plains aquifer, has had phenomenal water drawn out.
John H. Carey, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada: I believe the level has dropped by 60 feet, which is an immense drop in the water levels given the overall size of that aquifer.
Perhaps I could add a couple of other things that you might consider. In some cases, the water is just trapped underground between layers, in so-called ``confined aquifers.'' Utilizing it is the same as mining it; it probably will not come back unless someone puts it back.
In other cases, the aquifer is unconfined. For those, we have a concept called ``recharge,'' which happens annually during snowmelt as water percolates through the ground. For those aquifers, you want to know the recharge rate because they can be utilized sustainably if you maintain the recharge rate below the rate you are trying to utilize the water.
In the characterization, you would like to know the extent to which the aquifer is liable to be used and for what. You would like to know the possible recharge rate. You would like to know whether there are likely to be development pressures. Obviously, when you pave over your recharge area, you cut down the recharge, so there are development questions. In the Oak Ridges Moraine, one of the concerns was the degree to which development would proceed and interfere with the recharging of that important aquifer. Those are some of the considerations.
In the 1990's prior to the workshop, six provinces did reports, which are available from Environment Canada. The reports looked at what was used with respect to groundwater and what was known about it. They fed into this process to identify the key aquifers at the workshop.
Another important characteristic of some aquifers is that they form the base flow for our surface waters in midsummer when there is not run off. If that is a key consideration, maintaining instream flow needs and preserving our aquatic ecosystem is another component of aquifer management. That could also identify an aquifer as a key one; if there is important surface water dependent on it, that dependency could be threatened by its utilization.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Corey, you have addressed some of the questions I have about the rate of return, because that is really the key. For these six aquifers that you have done, have you done all this work so that you know what they require as a rate of return and you know the interaction with the surface water? As a codicil to that question, is one of those aquifers up in the Fort McMurray area near the oil sands?
Mr. Boerner: For the ones we have done, there is an understanding of the dynamics. We do try to get a sense of how much recharge is happening. It is always a tricky question because even the surface flow that feeds into it is variable from year to year. It is a bit of a long-term study to understand how it is changing; but the ones we have done are understood dynamically, as well as the size. There was not any work done in Northern Alberta for the aquifers for the 2001 workshop.
Senator Spivak: That is interesting. Despite the fact that you are talking about cooperation and lack of expertise, if you had $100 million, would you hire more staff?
Mr. Corey: If we had $100 million, we would do more; that goes without saying, absolutely. We could have a much bigger program.
However, sometimes we have to make do with the resources we have. We do a lot of other things that impact directly on public safety, for example, so we are always making these choices. We run the seismic network for Canada, which is a big part of managing the response if we have a major earthquake in British Columbia. We conduct work in remote sensing, where we are doing a lot of flood modelling in Manitoba. We are always making these choices.
Senator Spivak: Since water is going to be the oil of the 21st century, would it not be desirable for your department to have more staff?
Mr. Corey: There are not too many public servants who would not want to have more resources. We have to deal with the realities of the budgets.
Mr. Carey: Notwithstanding the fact that you can do more with more money, some things require a period of time to do it. If you are looking at seasonal variations of recharge in an aquifer, you need to have several seasons in order to get some confidence that you have actually projected it. There is a joke that I like to say; you could not produce a baby in three months by putting three women on the job.
The Chair: You could produce three babies in nine months.
Mr. Carey: Yes, you could.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Martin, you mentioned that Part III was used for limiting phosphates in laundry detergent. In my province of Manitoba, they are eagerly awaiting a federal government response limiting the phosphates in other things, for example, dishwasher detergents. I have not had a chance to look at it, but they have sort of run out of patience and have tabled some legislation. What is the federal government response to limiting phosphates in dishwasher detergents? It is a clear question.
Mr. Martin: Dr. Carey wants to answer this question keenly, but I would add that one of the important things we have looked at is the extent to which this is actually a contributor to the problem. We believe it accounts for about 1 per cent of the problem.
Mr. Carey: Of course, it is dependent on the individual watershed, and there are some geographical areas of the country, such as on the Canadian Shield, where we do not have a lot of farming or we do not have a lot of municipal inputs but where cottages, for example, might be the significant source for phosphates to some of those shield lakes. A regulation requires it to be enforced. For us, there are other approaches that can be taken, for example, public education and ``protect your lake'' type campaigns, which encourage people to buy non-phosphate products.
Senator Spivak: I have looked for them, but I cannot find them.
Mr. Carey: There are some. They actually, I am told, do not work that well.
When we look at the major sources of phosphorous-causing problems in Winnipeg, it is agriculture, followed by point sources, municipal wastewater. If we really want to solve the problem, we should not be going at the 1 per cent or less, we should be going at the major sources, and we are doing that. We are working in partnership with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to develop the best management practices that Mr. Martin talked about and we are encouraging their implementation through farm stewardship programs. That is one of the things we are trying to doing with respect to agricultural sources, and that is our priority for the coming years. We will be doing that under the Lake Winnipeg initiative for which funding has recently been announced. That will also happen in the Lake of the Woods watershed, which is a sub-component of the Lake Winnipeg basin.
Senator Spivak: I was going to pursue manure, but I am hoping someone else would do that.
The Chair: We will put manure on the second list.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. I am trying to be clear about the lines of responsibility between the federal and the provincial governments. I would love to see a flow chart to see where the federal government has direct responsibility. I notice such words as ``modelling'' and ``encourage'' and ``partnerships'', but I also noted a few places certainly where, if there is an urgent national situation, you can act.
I read on page 4 about Health Canada being involved in the guidelines. Being a health care professional, I am interested in your relationship with Health Canada.
It seems to me that the Canada Water Act covers federal-provincial arrangements, and so does Bill S-208. Where do the First Nations communities fit in all of this? As a comment, I want to say that my hair rose a bit but I saw that you had written, ``We do face some challenges around drinking water in small communities and with First Nations drinking water.'' It seems to me that one of the greatest disgraces of this nation over the past year or two has been the drinking water on First Nations communities. I would say it is more than ``some challenges.''
Am I correct that neither of these apply directly to First Nations communities? They are not mentioned in the preamble. In the preamble of Bill S-208, it says federal provincial, or I think it says that, and it certainly says it in the Canada Water Act.
Mr. Martin: First, I am given to understatement. That is true.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The ``some'' was an understatement.
Mr. Martin: We are not seeking to understate that challenge; it is a federal responsibility.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is it covered by the Canada Water Act?
Mr. Martin: It is the responsibility of Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Chair: It is true to say that First Nations lands are federal lands.
Mr. Martin: That is correct.
The Chair: That is the short answer to the question. The federal government is responsible for what happens on federal lands.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: But not through the Canada Water Act, which does not cover First Nations communities.
Mr. Martin: I would say we do not utilize those powers or need to have recourse through those powers to address issues on federal lands.
The Chair: The act would permit you to do so, though, would it not?
Mr. Martin: The act is focused on watersheds, and I suppose we could clarify and seek some legal advice as to whether there is a case whereby the Canada Water Act could be used, but we would not normally look to the Canada Water Act for authority to address water issues on First Nations lands.
The Chair: In this bill, we are not talking about what comes out of the end of a pipe in either a municipal water supply or that of First Nations. We are talking about watersheds, and there are no First Nations lands that are not part of a watershed.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Bill S-208 just mentions federal and provincial agencies. Is that intentional, or is it an omission?
The Chair: Senator Grafstein is not here, but I think it is assumed that since First Nations lands with only two exceptions are federal lands, that it is covered, because it does not say it is not.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The territories in general are not covered by these bills; is that correct?
The Chair: No, that is not correct, because the territories are still federal lands.
Senator Adams: Not Nunavut.
The Chair: That is a different subject.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Can you cite the examples where you have direct responsibility as a federal government in terms of water management or the watersheds, taking away urgent national situations?
Mr. Carey: Federal waters are defined in the act. Boundary waters are different from inter-jurisdictional; by the way, boundary waters are the Great Lakes and the Lake of the Woods.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: What about the oceans?
Mr. Carey: No. The Red River is certainly federal water, and the St. Croix River, which forms the boundary in New Brunswick, is federal water. There are federal waters defined in the act, but it does not include the tributaries. The Great Lakes are federal waters, whereas the act excludes the tributaries to the Great Lakes, which are provincial waters. Because the provinces have a significant amount of responsibility, the act establishes a framework for the cooperation of managing watersheds. However, national parks, defence bases, Indian reserves, and there may be another one, are areas where the federal government has responsibility for management of water resources. As you point out, they are all in watersheds. It is rather complex.
For example, Ontario has a source water protection act now. They are forming 27 source water protection boards, I think they are calling them, or perhaps councils, and they are asking the question, and we are asking the question: Within those source water protection watersheds, the federal government holds lands, so how will the federal government interact with provincial watershed boards for the protection of source waters? We are not too sure.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: On balance, then, does most of the responsibility lie with the provinces?
Mr. Carey: For water resources management, yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: This bill is about watersheds.
Mr. Carey: I would say so, yes. The federal government is involved either for federal waters as defined or when there is an inter-jurisdictional issue. For example, the Mackenzie River, as mentioned, flows through provinces and territories, and its management on a watershed basis requires a body to coordinate that. The federal government set up under the act the Mackenzie River Basin Board to do that.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It would be very nice to see federal, provincial and First Nations broken down, but I think we are getting some sort of idea.
The Chair: Is it fair to say that one of the things that distinguishes the Canada Water Act from Bill S-208 is that the Canada Water Act says that the federal government, the ministers, ``may'' enter into undertakings to form organizations to do joint monitoring with the provinces, and Bill S-208 says the ministers ``shall'' try to enter into those agreements? Is that fair and correct, in your view?
Mr. Carey: There is certainly a difference.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is there a close cooperation with Health Canada on this? How much interaction is there? It says on page 4 that Health Canada is involved in the development of guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality, and their territory was mentioned through the federal-provincial committee on drinking water. Is that a major involvement, a major source of collaboration, or is it quite incidental in your mind?
Mr. Carey: We do not collaborate directly with the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. We are certainly aware of them, and we participate in the CCME committees under which they are discussed, but Health Canada develops them along with the provinces. They are for finished drinking water; they are not for source water quality.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I see the difference.
Mr. Carey: Through the CCME, we have the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, which are for water in watersheds. They are largely based for the moment on the protection of aquatic life, although we do have some based on other uses.
Recently, within the last two years, we have been discussing with Health Canada the possibility of developing Canadian Source Water Quality Guidelines, but those have not gotten very far.
At the moment, we are still trying to figure out how to define them and what to base them on. We do not have the scientific basis at the moment that we could say these are Canada's source water quality guidelines, but we have been thinking about potential inclusion under the CESI, Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators, where we report on water quality every year.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I noticed there is the Canada Water Act 1970, and then there is mention of a Federal Water Policy of 1987. There must be a lot of regulations connected with the Canada Water Act. How often would those regulations be updated? What would be the last date of updating regulations?
Mr. Martin: I do not think there are a lot of regulations under the Canada Water Act.
The Chair: Should there be?
Mr. Martin: Where we have made regulations to protect water quality we have done so under CEPA since 1988. As I mentioned, we transferred the Part III powers from the Canada Water Act to CEPA at that time. We have made a series of regulations since that time to protect water quality, but that was done under CEPA.
Senator Brown: I have an old friend who has a company in the United States called Groundwater Service and Supply, and I understand he operates in six states now. He is actually turning the company over to his son.
He once told me it was kind of a funny thing in terms of water well witching, which some people believe in strongly and others think is a hoax. He said you can drill anywhere in Alberta and reach water, depending on the volume, the quality and the depth. Is that an understatement, or is it fairly correct?
Mr. Boerner: I would say it is fairly correct. There is an awful lot of water under the surface, but those three factors are critical.
Senator Brown: If that is true in Alberta, it is probably true in many provinces. What we really have are thousands of aquifers. It again depends on the size of the aquifer, the volume and the quality, depending on what kind of chemicals you find in them. For instance, I have a well at home that has so many sulphates in it that if we were to drink it without using a reverse osmosis filtering system, we would get high blood pressure very quickly. We have that throughout rural areas in Alberta. I know you have all kinds of problems with drinking water.
I wanted to say that I would like to be on your side. I think you people have done a fantastic job over the years. I do not see any major outbreaks, other than Walkerton, which is the biggest example we have seen within the last four years. That was not your responsibility but the responsibility of the people who were supposed to be treating water.
Do you see any real reason to have another piece of legislation? You seem to have told us you are pretty well covered now by the legislation where if you need to act you can act. Is that not correct?
Mr. Martin: That is correct.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in the fact that we are getting there, but the question is, how quickly do we need to get there? With respect to the old adage of a job worth doing is worth doing well, it might be said that a job worth doing is worth doing before 2030.
What are the consequences of not getting it done faster, particularly in light of the fact that recharging is an issue, obviously, and becoming more of an issue with climate change? It might be that what does not appear to be a big problem today becomes a very intense problem in another five or 10 years, or it may be a problem now.
Should we not be moving quicker? In a perfect world with the perfect resources and expertise, how quickly would you like to get it done before there are problems?
Mr. Corey: As public servants with the responsibility for understanding aquifers, we obviously would like to get the entire country done by next year. It would be great if we could do that. We agree it is important work.
We have taken 30 aquifers that we think are the biggest and most important. We could have set a more modest goal and said let us do the 10 most important and do those within the next three or four years, in which case we can say we are getting it done. However, we think about this a longer-term research, and that is why we picked the larger number of 30. If we had more money, of course, like any other program in government, we could move more quickly. If we had more expertise out there as well, we could accomplish that quicker. We would like to do all of these things.
Senator Mitchell: I am trying to get at the appropriate sense of urgency. If you do not get some of these done, what are the risks involved? The impression you are giving me, Mr. Corey, is we would like to do it, it would be kind of cool and we need to do that research, but if we wait until 2030, okay.
I am saying if it is of that little importance with no urgency, why are you doing it at all. I want to know what the consequences are if this does not get done within some period of time given the pressures of climate change, given the pressures of drought in Alberta and given the fact there is one aquifer that has been fully and adequately reviewed in Alberta. That is what I am trying to get at.
Mr. Corey: I am not trying to leave the impression that it is not urgent or a priority. Clearly it is.
Senator Mitchell: You do not need to fight for strict budgeting. It is not for you to defend that. It is great for you to do that, but I want to know what you need and how quickly you need to get this done so we do not make mistakes.
Mr. Corey: For me to present what we do, which is what I am trying to do, I must say that this is the money we have in place and this is what we can do with it.
I should talk about prioritization. We work almost all of our stuff on a risk management basis. Again, it is not just groundwater. We deal with a range of issues that deal with public safety, health and things like that. We must do risk management, and when we do so, we prioritize and say we need to do certain items first. That list can change.
I will have Mr. Boerner talk a bit more about the prioritization process. If it turns out that things change, which happens from time to time and often, we have to re-evaluate, and we may well change the order in which we do these aquifers.
Mr. Boerner: Prioritization is another tough question.
Mr. Corey: We do love the support for the program. We do thank you for that. It is very encouraging.
Mr. Boerner: The risks we are facing come from the risk of if we can adequately manage the resource. It is like having a lake and seeing the surface lower every year. It becomes obvious, people become upset, and action happens. As Mr. Carey said, we lost 60 feet in the biggest aquifer on the continent and people are starting to take notice now that maybe we are going too far.
For the most part, Canada is in a good position in terms of our good water resources. We are not seeing huge stresses but local stresses caused by some issues, and we need to move to a sense of how to manage the resource better. This is part of that work. That is the prioritization. We are trying to take those places where the pressure is building to make sure the information exists so that people can use them, and you cannot do it all at once. That is the order.
Mr. Carey: There is another risk, which is oversimplification of what we are looking at. I say that because there is an extensive groundwater monitoring program in Alberta. There is a debate now over folks who have analyzed the records there and compared water level records with utilization and have not found the signal they expected to see. In fact, some scientists are concluding that the groundwater signal in Alberta correlates better with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is a climate oscillation that happens on a 10-year cycle. It correlates better with that than with actual rates of utilization. If that is correct, then a short-term study of even two years could lead us to conclusions that we are in an unsustainable situation whereas the actual driver was something happening in the Pacific Ocean on a 10-year cycle.
Senator Mitchell: It would be interesting to know that sooner rather than later.
I will bet you we have a far better grasp of all of the oil aquifers, if I can put it that way, than of the water aquifers. To further Senator Spivak's point, water will be every bit as valuable and limited probably as oil, if it is not already, and it will be the oil of the future as they say.
I think there is a sense of urgency in this, and I would rather know what you are talking about sooner than later because the consequences of making a mistake here are huge.
Senator Spivak: Is your optimistic view of Alberta offset by the lowering of the rivers, as Dr. Schindler, for one, says the rivers are down 40 per cent?
Mr. Carey: May I respond to that? You have to differentiate eastern flowing rivers from the Rockies and the northern flowing rivers in Alberta. Certainly, in late summer, for the eastern flowing rivers, the levels are quite a bit down over historical levels, but when you look at the total flow in the river, you find it has not changed as much as you would think. The reason is the snow is melting earlier; you have larger run off events with less water in late summer. That will produce, I believe, the push to have artificial recharge and artificial aquifers as a form of storage. If our problem is not the total quantity of water but the season during which it is available and when we want to use it, there will be a drive towards the formation of artificial aquifers.
Just by chance I read today there is a serious drought going on in the Southeastern U.S., as you probably all know, and the town of Greenville, North Carolina, has decided to invest millions of dollars in an artificial aquifer. The city will put treated drinking water into the ground during the winter in hopes of banking it there to have in the summer. We may see future strategies like that in Canada for some areas such as Alberta.
The Chair: Dr. Carey, going back to a combination of what you said, is this a filtration through the ground from the ocean?
Mr. Carey: No, it is related to long-term snowfall records and recharge.
The Chair: Assuming that is so, you said a short-term study might give an entirely wrong result. Do we not need long-term continuing longitudinal studies on all questions having to do with both groundwater and surface water? If there is a problem, and I am not sure there is one, if we do not know the nature of the problem, there is no way on earth to solve it.
Mr. Carey: Correct, and if we do not know the drivers and pressures, it is hard to manage an aquifer, if we do not really know the factors controlling how much water is available over the long term, what is truly sustainable or not.
The Chair: Mr. Boerner is there a point where we look at the aquifer and define where it is and what is in it and then we go away, or do we come back and look at it every couple of years to see if it is being overused or over-recharged? Do we have long-term knowledge?
Mr. Boerner: That is an excellent question, which comes to Senator Trenholme Counsell's comment. We need a first- order understanding of how big these things are and how the water moves in and out. That is the start of trying to manage and monitor them. We are aware that we have to monitor these things and see what happens over time.
The Americans are on the second phase of their water census. They did a water census in 1995 and are starting their second phase to try and understand what climate change and development have done to it since 1995. Have we seen those changes on a big scale that we did not anticipate looking at little scales?
This is partly the boundary between monitoring and management of the resource, which is the more provincial side of the equation. The side we are trying to get to is having a consistent view across boundaries and the country of the big picture of how these things work. We need to make sure those two things fit together. The challenge for the future is continuing to watch it. It has to be adaptive to what is going on.
Mr. Carey: I would like to point out that what Mr. Boerner has described is consistent with the 1987 Federal Water Policy, which established science leadership as one of the federal roles in supporting provinces and their management of water resources. Let us look at Manitoba. On websites in Manitoba for water stewardship you will find aquifer committees and boards. They have characterized some of their aquifers and established committees to report on actual recharge every year that provides them with information on how much they think they can utilize, and they are trying to manage it sustainably.
The role of the federal government in this case is to provide information and science that will help the provinces do the actual management, which is consistent with what we have been saying under the Canada Water Act.
Senator Sibbeston: Senator Grafstein is concerned about the issue of clean water and feels that the governments in our country are not doing enough. He has proposed an approach as outlined in the act of an agency set up with power to identify and protect Canada's watersheds with a view to having clean drinking water into the future.
I have heard officials say that under the present act this can be done. Since water is becoming more of an issue in our country, could the departments not do what the senator is asking for, some evidence that you are on top of the situation, that you have a handle on it and Canadians can feel secure and content that they will have good clean drinking water into the future?
I see this bill emanating from a concern about someone that has looked at the matter and feels our government and the government departments are not doing enough to ensure good quality drinking water into the future.
While you say all that can be done within existing laws, why can you not satisfy the public that you are on top of the situation, that you are monitoring all the watersheds, and that you have an assessment and know the current situation? There is a need to allay fears and give Canadians confidence that you are doing a good job regarding water management.
Mr. Martin: We would like to convey that sense to Canadians.
One of the ways to view the question is to define the important outcomes. Clearly, safe, secure source water is an important outcome. The federal government maintains an ongoing assessment of these issues. We have a continuous discussion of policy challenges and returning to my earlier remarks, we believe that the situation is good. However, a range of views exists in examining perspective stresses and emerging challenges. We work to be ready to respond with the range of powers we have, including those in newer legislation, to act on specific problems in specific ecosystems.
I do not want to give the impression that we are sanguine about the circumstances, but rather the appropriate tools are available to act and that we are organized to address those emerging challenges.
Senator Sibbeston: The federal government has jurisdiction in the Northwest Territories to deal with water. In recent decades, water boards have been establishment pursuant to land claim agreements. Cooperation occurs between boards and the federal government with respect to water. A proposal exists to expand the Nahanni National Park Reserve by seven times its current area to include all the watersheds. I am aware the Geological Survey of Canada has done some assessment of minerals. Have departments also done work on the rivers to be sure that all of the rivers are needed to protect the watershed of the Nahanni?
Mr. Corey: We have been involved in the plans for the expansion of the park. I sit on a steering committee that coordinates the work of the various departments on that. We are responsible under the mineral and energy resource assessment, MERA, whereby we assess the mineral potential of an area. It is one of the factors taken into account when boundaries are being established.
We had an open file that was released in the last month with the results of our mineral assessment in the area. The work done on that was not related to aquifers or underground water. It was done under MERA.
Senator Sibbeston: Was work done by your department with respect to the rivers since the expansion proposed is to take in all the Nahanni River tributaries.
There is debate in the region whether all of the tributaries should be included. It involves a land mass seven times the park's current size. Some people feel that such a large area should not be given to a park and should be left available for economic development. Minerals and other resources in the area could be used in the future.
Mr. Carey: We are working with Parks Canada on water quality in the tributaries and rivers in national parks generally to define tests to monitor environmental quality and protect the aquatic ecosystems. Regarding the specific question of the expansion of Nahanni National Park and whether all the rivers would be necessary for inclusion in the expansion, I would have to check and get back to you. I do not know.
Senator Sibbeston: Has the Geological Survey of Canada found that there could be substantive minerals that could be used for the future economic development of the people in that area?
Mr. Corey: My recollection is that there were a couple of areas with significant potential for mineralization. That was the basis of releasing that report to show where they were and is a factor to be considered when establishing the boundaries. However, it is only one factor in a number of factors under consideration.
Senator Adams: I will support Bill S-208 because it focuses on safety and to make sure the community has good quality water.
There are only two places in the North that have water and sewer systems, Rankin Inlet and Iqaluit. Most of the other communities have reservoirs. Last year in Rankin Inlet, a steel holding tank discharged its water line and bacteria got into the drinking water. I asked the municipality how often the water was checked and was told it was done every three years. Water from the system could not be drunk for about two weeks. People in the community were worried about what was in their water. People do not boil that water. Local people cannot drink the water from the tap. In the winter, they will harvest ice and in the summer, they go up the river to take fresh water.
These are the type of issues we hope to resolve with Bill S-208.
Right now, some of my friends travel up to 10 kilometres; we have fishnets in the ice and they bring the water back to make tea. People there, especially the elders, cannot drink chlorinated water. You cannot make tea or anything with it; you can smell the chlorine right away.
Mr. Martin, you were talking about section 36 of the Fisheries Act, but I think it has nothing to do with the drinking water. It was something to do with fish, and that they have to swim in clean water. Is that true?
Mr. Martin: First, on water and waste water treatment, that is a municipal problem. You are correct that in small communities in Canada, particularly in communities with populations of less than 5,000 people, there are challenges in the management of the water and waste water treatment systems. The federal government's role has been to provide resources, in partnership with the provinces and those municipalities, to improve those systems but there are ongoing management challenges.
The Fisheries Act, section 36, prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance into a waterway in a way that would harm the ecosystem. It is a Fisheries Act provision, but it is a sweeping one. Protecting the aquatic ecosystem is actually a very important intervention that has benefits for source water protection. As I mentioned, we have made regulations under that section for pulp and paper effluent. We are going to use that power to make this new regulation to control municipal wastewater effluent.
Senator Adams: I am concerned about the Hudson Bay area, where I live. Each province and territory drains into Hudson Bay. I believe that water comes from the United States and drains into Hudson's Bay and the sea.
We are living there and we have eight species of mammals swimming there — whales, fish, seals, et cetera. When we eat the animals that swim in that contaminated water it affects our health. I worry about mercury.
We have mentioned those two communities, Rankin and Iqaluit, which discharge their wastes into the seawater. It is supposed to be treated somewhat, but not 100 per cent. Every summer, the ice goes out and people put up their nets along the shore. I put in my fish nets about 500 feet away from the discharge site and I wonder what we are eating.
Senator Spivak mentioned sewer systems earlier and how much of that stuff is in the water. Maybe the damage is different between salt water and fresh water. Sometimes when it is low tide, you see little capelins all over the shore in the sand. It is not far from the discharge and the Arctic char eat the capelins along the shore.
We are not talking just about the water. We eat country food; we cannot really afford to buy beef from the south and bring it in. We still have our meat but it comes from the land and we need to know what is in it. What does Health Canada do about it? I think the Coast Guard, DFO, Transport Canada and Environment Canada, should work together, if fact, since we passed the Canada Water Act all of the departments are supposed to work together.
The Chair: It did not happen, though.
Senator Adams: We have a water board that has nothing to do with our drinking water. It is just the surface rights, water and mining rights and stuff like that for Nunavut and the territory.
Mr. Carey: We do cooperate through a program called the Northern Contaminants Program led by Indian and Northern Affairs. Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Health Canada participate with Indian Affairs to address some of the issues that you raise, particularly the long-range transport of contaminants that build up in marine mammal food chains.
Senator Adams: You do not monitor it every year.
Mr. Carey: We have science programs up there every year. I do not know the extent to which they monitor Rankin.
Senator Adams: Any mammal we get from hunting drinks the water too. It eats the snow in the wintertime and drinks the water in the summertime. I think sometimes we will have to look into it — between our health and the food we eat. Drinking water is like medicine or something; it is not much different.
The Chair: That is a different bill. It is Senator Grafstein's other water bill.
The Canada Water Act, 1970, requires that the department report to Parliament — I cannot remember how often it is. When was the last report presented to Parliament?
Mr. Martin: The last report was issued in 2003, so the department has been delinquent in providing its annual reports.
The Chair: Why? It is an act of Parliament, which requires the department to report to Parliament every year on certain questions having to do with the CWA. Why does the department not report?
Senator Kenny: Are you bringing a motion for contempt?
The Chair: Not yet, but keep the keys ready.
Mr. Martin: The department has the requirement, under the Canada Water Act, to issue an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of the fiscal year. We are delinquent in that. That is a bureaucratic failure that I regret. We are seeking to address that actively and to table all of the reports that are overdue at a very early date.
The Chair: Because we are curious and ignorant, would you explain why or how it is possible that the reports could be four years in arrears? You said it is a failing of the bureaucracy. You are the assistant deputy minister. What is the nature of the failing of the bureaucracy in this case?
Mr. Martin: I assume the answer lies in a failure of the responsible managers to bring those documents forward for approval in a timely fashion. I cannot offer you a compelling excuse; we are delinquent.
The Chair: What level of management would be responsible for that — the director level, ADM level or DM level?
Mr. Martin: In our system of management, the responsibility for this lies with the environmental sustainability board. This is a group of assistant deputy ministers, of which Dr. Carey and I are two. We are responsible for all the activities in a defined area around this strategic outcome of the department's activities. In this area, the board is accountable for ensuring that reports are issued in a timely way. The department went through a significant transformation, and, honestly, I think this fell through the cracks.
The Chair: You will understand just by way of explanation that there are some people in the Senate who think that a good reason for a bill that is mandatory in its language and requirements is to make up for and obviate that kind of delinquency.
Mr. Martin: I perfectly understand that, senator, and again, I very much regret the failure of the department to table those reports. We will address it quickly, and we hope to table those reports very soon.
The Chair: We will be watching anxiously.
Mr. Corey, with respect to surface waters in Canada, most if not all of them are covered, when they are inter- jurisdictional or boundary, by some kind of agreement in which, for example, Alberta says they will not take more than a certain amount out of river before it gets to Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewan say it will not take more out before it goes to Manitoba, et cetera. That applies to most if not all surface waters that drain into the Pacific, the Hudson's Bay, the Arctic, the Great Lakes and the Atlantic. You are now in the process of mapping aquifers. Does anyone know whose jurisdiction into which they fall? For example, aquifers obviously do not observe provincial or national boundaries. Are there agreements in place? Is there a process in place by which agreements might be arrived to determine who owns that resource and whose responsibility it becomes?
Mr. Carey: The very same committees, in many cases, have an interest in aquifers. For example, the one you just mentioned, the Prairie Provinces Water Board involving three Prairie provinces and the federal government, have a subcommittee on ground water that tries to work together with respect to the management of ground water within each jurisdiction. They also focus on inter-jurisdictional aquifers, if they exist, and have asked for federal support in trying to characterize and identify inter-jurisdictional aquifers between those jurisdictions.
The Chair: And also between us and the United States, because the Ogallala goes across the board.
Mr. Carey: It sure does, and even smaller ones. In Abbotsford, B.C., there is a binational committee, even if it is not official, to manage the aquifer. There is a binational committee on science for the Abbotsford aquifer.
The Chair: Is there any place an established jurisdictional fact, and if not, is there a process by which that will be addressed in the same way that it is addressed with surface waters?
Mr. Carey: The federal water policy did contain a section on ground water. It established much the same principles with respect to management, that is, provincial jurisdiction, unless there were significant urgent national concerns, for example. As I said, in some cases, the very same bodies that were set up to manage inter-jurisdictional waters under the Canada Water Act pursuant to the policy would have an interest in ground water, but the process would be the same.
The Chair: I have one last question about the distinction between the Canada Water Act and the bill that is presently before us. This committee observed in its report Water in the West: Under Pressure, that there did not appear to be a central Canadian repository of information about water, whether surface, ground water or any other kind of water. One of the intents of Bill S-208 is that there should be such a repository. It would clearly be more efficient in the minds of some to have it established in one organization that is comprised of the provinces and the federal government rather than in 12 different agreements to cooperate, an arrangement we have found to be less than efficient in ensuring that information is exchanged.
Is there now a place that one could say is a central repository in Canada for water information? Is there a place to which people who are doing seismic work send their information? Is there a place where the geographic survey sends it information and the provincial bodies working on this send their information? Is this information being stored and protected for our use?
Mr. Corey: We have been doing a number of things to bring that information together. The first is that we have developed the Canadian Framework for Collaboration on Ground Water. It is a shared vision that we have with the provinces and other people we work with for the collection and sharing of ground water data. Standards are important, and they do not happen by accident. We have been working on standards as well. We have technical guidelines for ground water assessment and data management standards so we can share it better. This is the first step of the process of bringing it together.
We have worked with Environment Canada and Health Canada to do an online demonstration initiative called RésEau, which it is a project to provide easy access to water information for a number of jurisdictions to demonstrate how it can be done to bring it together.
We also have a program called GeoConnections, which supports the sharing of water related data and provides geospatial information to Canadians. We have taken all the water information off our topographic maps. We also had a change in policy as of April 1 of this year. We used to charge for the information and licence its reproduction and distribution, and we used to charge royalties. We do not do that any more. As of April 1 of this year, we have made all that information, including the hydrological layer, free on the Internet. Usage of that is booming and expanding right now. There is a lot of work to bring this together and standardize it. We have more work to do, but that is the direction we are moving in.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Corey, in your introduction you mentioned that you have mapped all the water in Canada, and that you are now going into detail and trying to understand the various watersheds in more detail? You already know where everything is, but you are getting to the precise detail. That is what you are doing now in a number that we would like to see larger, but you are coping with what you have and the resources you have. Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Corey: I need to distinguish between surface water and underground water. For surface water, on the topographic maps of Canada, we have complete coverage of the water features, lakes, rivers, streams, at the 1:250,000 scale and 95 per cent complete on the 1:50,000. That information is there and is known. It is put into a form that is being used in geographical system. It is vector dated and has intelligence. You can ask questions. If I have pollution in this particular point and it will affect something 50 kilometres downstream, show me all the water in between that will be affected. That is the kind of querying you can do with it; it is a very useful tool for planning. That is available.
When we go underground, it becomes more complex, time consuming and expensive. We are coming back to the fact that we have picked the 30 key aquifers in terms of longer term research to do the detailed ones.
Senator Nolin: You are using the word ``key.'' Bill S-208 talks about ``protected'' watersheds. Have you read Bill S- 208?
Mr. Corey: We do have a copy here, yes.
Senator Nolin: I am trying to see if there is a fit between your understanding of ``key'' and the word ``protected.''
Mr. Corey: I should mention as well that the chair asked us before the meeting if we could talk to the applicability of the technical difference between watersheds and aquifers, so I would get Dr. Boerner to talk about that.
Senator Nolin: Let us have a clear understanding of a key watershed in your view and that of the provinces, the municipalities and any who need the protection.
Mr. Boerner: A key aquifer is one that is of regional scale, which means it is large, from which industry, the population and agriculture draw heavily. There are many other existing aquifers that can feed a small community or are not that important for drinking water. There are hundreds and hundreds of such aquifers and we have not worried about them. We are trying to find the big ones that are most important for Canadians.
Senator Nolin: Has that list been update, corrected and changed?
Mr. Boerner: The list is six years old, having been created in 2001, and has not been changed. We are talking about changing it. We can provide the original report to the committee.
Senator Nolin: Your partners consist of the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments as well as industry.
Mr. Boerner: Yes, but only the provincial and federal governments are partners in the large scale regional key aquifers.
Senator Nolin: Do you have input from the municipal level?
Mr. Boerner: Yes, we try to consult with the municipalities as much as we can. Obviously, it is a huge job to deal with the many Canadian municipalities.
Senator Nolin: Are they asking for information?
Mr. Boerner: They are asking for input into their problems but it is not universal.
Senator Nolin: The word ``cooperation'' is big in your work.
Mr. Boerner: Absolutely. We do not do anything without cooperation.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Martin, have you read Bill S-208?
Mr. Martin: Yes, senator.
Senator Nolin: Am I wrong in assuming that you have more power under the current water act than Bill S-208 proposes? You do not want to use that power because it is contrary to the purpose of having the involvement of the people at the local levels and you do not want to use the big federal hammer to force matters.
Mr. Martin: We have the authority to act under the Canadian Water Act but experience has shown that collaboration with the provinces and communities is essential for effective water management, and that is what we do. It is effective and it is for that reason that we believe we have sufficient tools to do the job.
Senator Nolin: Section 3, paragraph 1, of Bill S-208 orders the minister to consult with the provincial ministers, but we already have that in the Water Act.
Mr. Martin: Yes.
Senator Nolin: The minister does not have to be ordered because he is already doing that through the ministerial council. Is that right?
Mr. Martin: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Nolin: I presume that he is consulting with the minister in charge of those two gentlemen?
Mr. Martin: Yes. In fact, ministers of the environment and ministers of natural resources have held joint meetings for the last two years.
Senator Nolin: Are any provinces, or is any one province, that is reluctant to cooperate with you?
Mr. Martin: I have not had that experience, senator.
Senator Nolin: In your experience, Mr. Boerner?
Mr. Boerner: No.
Senator Nolin: Then, you do not need the federal authority to force a formal agreement to create an agency. We already have the various components of such an agency, do we not?
Mr. Martin: I do not know if we have the components of an agency. Perhaps that would be a definitional question, senator.
Senator Nolin: The chair might have a definition for that already.
Mr. Martin: Over a long time, we have built up patterns and systems of collaboration with the provinces to address this issue, and they are working.
Senator Nolin: If I may, I will read paragraph 3 of section 3, which is probably the part of the bill that will give some meat to your answer and my understanding of this body of effort that would produce the same result. Clause 3 states:
(a) establish a process by which a protected watershed may be defined by agreement between the federal government and the and the government of any province in which it is situated;
Do you have such a process to establish a protected watershed?
Mr. Martin: Yes.
Senator Nolin: From all the answers we have heard over the last two hours, I would agree. Clause 3 also states:
(b) specify the basis for establishing a federal-provincial agency to regulate the proposed or existing use of land within a protected watershed;
That is a key one. Who is in charge of protecting and ordering the protection? Do we need that?
Mr. Martin: I have tried to describe the powers that we have and where we have had recourse to regulatory action. The provinces have taken regulatory action in some instances. As I noted, we have acted in specific ways in the areas of pollution prevention. Of course, we must collaborate with the provinces in the implementation of any such actions.
Senator Nolin: That is why I ask whether you have had any problems with any province? Everyone is collaborating. I will read the full title of Bill S-208:
An Act to require the Minister of the Environment to establish, in co-operation with the provinces, an agency with the power to identify and protect Canada's watersheds that will constitute sources of drinking water in the future.
Are we achieving that already?
Mr. Martin: If we look at the outcomes, yes, we are achieving that.
Senator Nolin: Thank you.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I thought that Senator Nolin was going to read all of clause 3. As a health professional, I am pleased to read about the consultation with the ministers of health. Two or three times today, I have heard that sometimes the minister consults, but not always. This bill brings health right into the process and this is all about health and healthy drinking water and being healthy because of the water we drink. That is a very important clause in the bill.
Senator Kenny: Does it say, ``they shall report to Parliament,'' as well?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: No, I could not find that phrase. You might have found that Senator Kenny but I did not find it.
The Chair: It does say that if the minister fails in establishing that agency, he must explain to Parliament why it is so.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Perhaps the reporting will be added by an amendment. Clause 3(e) strikes me as being more detailed and significant than the Canadian Water Act and states:
(e) establish a process to be administered by the agency to define the anticipated needs of every municipality in Canada for drinking water until the year 2050 and to identify and define the watersheds from which the drinking water will be drawn in each case; and
Do you have that now, or anything close to it?
Mr. Martin: I believe we have the powers to do that.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I did not ask you that. I asked whether you have that now, or anything close to it?
Mr. Carey: We have the concept of integrated water resource management, which goes beyond source water to other uses of water. Certainly, we have in various provinces, such as Saskatchewan, efforts to implement integrated water resource management. It would address that along with other uses of water.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I still do not think that is a very specific answer. It states ``. . . to define the needs of every municipality . . . until the year 2050. . .'' It seems to me that this is good. This is excellent, but it is lofty. Does this bill not go beyond what you are doing in respect of the needs of citizens of this country? After all, the water comes from their communities.
Mr. Martin: In terms of the prescription here, in particular, the requirement to anticipate and do an immense work of foresight out to 2050, no, we are not doing that work. I do not know whether provinces are doing work that extends out to that date. I do not know. We would have to analyze how we would do that work.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It is comprehensive; it is good. I am just challenging you about what you foresee once the bill is passed? Would this be part of what you would be called about to do? Is it an immense task?
Mr. Carey: One of the significant changes in 1987 had to do with this question of needs and provision for needs. Up until that time, we had programs like water supply enhancement programs, and it was generally believed that the philosophy needed to be making more and more water available to address needs. With the 1987 policy, it changed direction and said we have two basic goals: to protect the quality of our water and its wise and efficient use. In some cases, we have the concept such as the so-called soft path for water management resources, which says you need to manage your demand as much you manage your supply, if not more so. Therefore, I would worry if the wording just focused on identifying needs.
I will repeat that much of that analysis happens through the integrated water resource management process that I mentioned. We have processes, and we have characteristics. Your question was whether we have a process to do something like that, and the answer is yes, it is happening now, but it is broader than simple drinking water and has to do with overall management of our water demands in relation to the water that is available.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Within the federal-provincial structures of this country, do you have that?
Mr. Carey: We have a policy that says we want integrated planning and integrated water resource management, and we have activities underway to improve that.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: That is not a definite answer. This is very specific. My impression is that you are not giving me a definite answer, and, therefore, you do not have that capacity right now or are not ascending to that goal.
It looks to me that this is very specific. The needs of every municipality for water and the source of it to 2050 is probably one of the most specific statements in the bill. I applaud it, but having overall plans and visions and so on does not do this. This is specific. This is mapping it out and defining it, as much for my little community of Sackville, New Brunswick, of 5,000 as for Toronto, Vancouver, Fort McMurray or Newfoundland.
Mr. Carey: I do not want to be repetitive, but integrated planning, which is one of the five strategies in the 1987 policy, is meant to address that. It is a crucial component of it.
The Chair: Is the 1987 water policy the current water policy of Canada?
Mr. Carey: It has never been changed.
The Chair: Therefore, it is.
Senator Kenny: Senator Trenholme Counsell's question was: Are you doing it now? Can you bring us a list of the cities that you have projected out into the future in terms of their needs?
Mr. Martin: No.
Senator Kenny: Do you have any plans to do that tomorrow?
Mr. Carey: Many jurisdictions have done that as part of their integrated water resource management. We are working with jurisdictions in Saskatchewan to talk about the federal role in that management.
Senator Kenny: You have mentioned Saskatchewan a couple of times, Mr. Carey, but why not mention some other jurisdictions?
Let the record show he waved his hand at me, but he did not answer me.
Mr. Carey: We can come back with what is happening in integrated water resource management in every province because we have examples in every province, but it is different because jurisdictions are different. If we are going to respect provincial jurisdiction, we have to respect provincial jurisdiction. The Canada Water Act gives us the opportunity to act in matters of urgent national concern, if we have been unable to achieve agreement with provinces. However, it respects provincial jurisdiction. I get the sense that you are asking whether we go in unilaterally and impose things, and the answer is we do not.
Senator Kenny: No, the sense that you should be getting is whether you can demonstrate that the job is being done. I do not think we care who is doing it. Is the job being done, and can you say it is being done for all the communities that we are talking about?
Mr. Carey: I do not have the answer to that question. Can I say that? I cannot say that.
The Chair: You said you could give us some examples of jurisdictions, and, as Senator Kenny said it is immaterial which jurisdiction has done that kind of forecast study. If it is possible to reduce that to a simple thumbnail one-page with bullets, that would be helpful.
Mr. Carey: We could give you some examples of it. We do not have a complete inventory.
The Chair: The Atlas of Canada and I am sure the Geological Survey of Canada have a coloured map of the country that shows the surface drainage systems and where they go, and they are colour coded. Some committee members have them, but could you send the clerk 15 of those, three or four in French and the rest in English, so that we can distribute them to our members?
Senator Nolin: Are they bilingual?
The Chair: No, they are not. It would be helpful if all our members could see exactly what we are talking about when we say ``watershed,'' and you have done that already and those maps are helpful.
Senator Spivak: Perhaps this question cannot be answered immediately, but I would like to know what the status is in Manitoba of the technology to handle animal waste. You mentioned that it is the most important question and that dishwater detergent is only 1 per cent. I knew that, and it is an easy thing to do. In Manitoba, as I am sure you are well aware, there is a huge algae problem in Lake Winnipeg every year, which gets worse each year.
The Chair: Are you talking about animal waste in the sense that it goes into the waste water system?
Senator Spivak: Animal waste, if it is spread in the winter and runs off in the spring, which is what they used to do, is terrible, but there is new technology.
Mr. Carey: By technology, do you mean management practices?
Senator Spivak: Management practices and, apparently, other jurisdictions have found other ways to use animal waste.
Mr. Carey: They use manure for different purposes. In some other jurisdictions they generate energy from it, for example, methane, and burn it rather than spread it on fields.
Senator Spivak: Or leave it in lagoons, which leak. I am curious: If you are working with the province, what is the status of how far you have come with this issue?
Mr. Carey: We are working with Agriculture Canada to develop the beneficial management practices for manure management. The province, in the case of Manitoba, has recently indicated that it wants to expand its manure handling guidelines beyond nitrogen to include phosphorus as well. That will probably end up more restrictive with respect to the amount of manure that can be spread on fields.
Senator Spivak: That does not give me a lot of feeling that this will be solved quickly, and it is a huge problem.
Mr. Martin: There was a statement made last week by Minister Ritz and his Manitoba counterpart on giving an update on the range of farms in Manitoba that have implemented environmental management plans. It runs to many thousands now, I believe, and we could certainly provide that detail to you, senator, if it would be helpful.
Senator Spivak: Is there an executive summary?
Mr. Martin: It is brief. It is statistical. Agriculture Canada could speak about examples of how, particularly in Manitoba, they have used that intervention.
Senator Spivak: If we are talking about protection of watersheds and protection of water, this is a huge problem, everywhere, but especially in Manitoba.
The Chair: Senators, I want to thank our guests for being with us. If we have any further questions that arise during our further discussions, we may send them to you in writing, and I hope you will respond when you can. I look forward very much to getting those maps. They will help us get a graphic handle on this subject. We are in kindergarten as far as some of these things are concerned, and we are grateful for your time.
The committee adjourned.