:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Gordon Walker, acting chair of the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission. Two of our staff people are here today, our secretary, Camille Mageau, and Nick Heisler, senior adviser. With your permission, they will answer any questions I can't, which are mostly technical and scientific, I'm sure.
In keeping with the focus of the hearings, I will speak to water quality issues from our unique perspective, and particularly our mandate under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
As many of you will know, the commission is an independent treaty-based organization. Commissioners do not represent the positions of their respective governments. They take an oath on appointment to work in the interests of the people of the two countries. My comments are therefore those of the commission, determined by consensus by past and current commissioners.
The IJC was established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 as a permanent independent international organization that prevents and resolves water disputes along and across the entire Canada-United States border. In that context of water quality under the treaty, our role is to investigate, alert, report, monitor, and ultimately advise governments.
Under the treaty, there is complete equality between the six commissioners, three from Canada and three from the United States. Even though the U.S. has 10 times the population, there is complete equality.
With respect to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, there have been some substantial accomplishments. In the 1970s, in 1970 itself, the IJC issued a series of reports on pollution in the Great Lakes, in response to a 1964 request by the governments. The findings of these studies led the two countries to sign the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972.
This agreement, which was most recently updated in 2012 and entered into force in Canada in 2013, commits the governments to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the lakes. It's considered to be one of the most enduring and successful environmental agreements in the world. The agreement assigns the IJC roles in monitoring progress, providing advice, and engaging the public and alerting the governments to emerging issues.
With that background, I want to outline our assessment of water quality and what the IJC sees as priorities for the Great Lakes.
There are, as you know, five great lakes, each could fill today's hearings several times over in the allotted time, but I want to focus on some of the problem areas, particularly Lake Erie. In the Great Lakes, one of the most significant and recent priorities for the IJC has been to try and help, and address the crisis facing Lake Erie. The work meets all of your study criteria. It focuses on an area of environmental concern, it reviews efforts under way now, and it recommends best practices.
Government can take action to correct problems. As I noted, in the 1970s Lake Erie was in great distress. The IJC in its reports to Canada and the United States called for action, and they led to that agreement. Within 10 years of the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement both countries had upgraded and expanded municipal sewage treatment plants, and the phosphorus concentrations in household detergents had been reduced.
By the mid 1980s, Lake Erie phosphorus loadings were reduced by more than half from the 1970s levels, and many of the problems associated with eutrophication had been reduced or eliminated. Around the world it was hailed as a success story, but now, once again, Lake Erie is at risk.
Following the record algal bloom in Lake Erie that covered almost the entire western basin of Lake Erie—some 5,000 square kilometres—in 2011 the commission launched its major effort into the Lake Erie ecosystem priority, also known as LEEP. To address the challenge dozens of scientists from both countries were brought together to examine scientific, socio-economic, and regulatory dimensions of the issues in both countries as part of a comprehensive approach.
The result is a report, which will be released to the public on Thursday this week. It is entitled “A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie: Reducing Phosphorus Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms”.
The timing of my appearance is fortuitous, as some of you may have been able to participate in the embargoed LEEP webinar we held for Canadian and American federal legislators earlier today.
I'm going to give you a preview today, as IJC has already forwarded the report to the U.S. and Canadian governments. My apologies go to staff on Thursday. I hope I haven't scooped them too much by making some comments today.
To summarize, the LEEP study found that in most years, total phosphorus loadings into Lake Erie have been below the target of 11,000 metric tons per year established under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in the 1980s.
The question is, if that's the case—if it's below the level of 11,000 metric tonnes—why is Lake Erie in trouble? The answer is that phosphorus loads to Lake Erie are not distributed equally across the basin. Between 2003 and 2011, the average loads in the western basin were 64%, while the central and eastern basins of Lake Erie received just 26% and 11% respectively. Loads within each basin also may vary among tributaries for both total phosphorus and dissolved reactive phosphorus, with the largest contributions coming from the Maumee, the Sandusky, and Cuyahoga Rivers in the United States, and the Detroit River through Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie.
Phosphorus enrichment is a binational issue. It is not just from those rivers that I've identified, which happen to be mostly in the United States, but is across the board—across the lake itself and its tributaries. We in Canada contribute as well, but quite a bit less, I might say, than the Detroit, the Maumee, and the Sandusky Rivers do. I'm thinking of the Grand River into Lake Erie and the Thames River into Lake St. Clair. The monitoring initiated through Environment Canada's $16 million Great Lakes nutrient initiative along the north shore of Lake Erie and in the Thames River will complement existing and more intensive monitoring efforts in the Ontario Grand River.
The story, though, gets more interesting and complicated. Recall that the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement originally focused on total phosphorus as a measurement by which Lake Erie eutrophication was to be managed, and that those low targets have generally been met. So this is not the same as the 1970s problem. The real problem, recent research has shown, is that the proportion of dissolved reactive phosphorus—the form of total phosphorus that is highly bioavailable and stimulates algal growth—is increasing.
The LEEP report focuses on the Maumee River watershed in the United States, in Ohio, as the highest priority for remedial action. It recommends a targeted 41% reduction in dissolved reactive phosphorus loadings for the spring period, as compared with the 2007 through 2012 average.
To help achieve this goal, the commission recommends that the States of Michigan and Ohio formally list the waters of western Lake Erie as impaired under the U.S. Clean Water Act. That would trigger development of the total maximum daily load or nutrient reduction plan overseen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. A complementary plan using both regulatory and non-regulatory measures could also be used to reduce loadings from Ontario watersheds.
To address the complex challenge of nutrient pollution from diffuse agricultural operations, the IJC recommends that governments throughout the watershed refocus agri-environmental management programs to explicitly address dissolved reactive phosphorus.
The commission also specifically recommends that the Province of Ontario and all the U.S. Great Lakes states ban the application of manure, biosolids, and commercial fertilizer containing phosphorus on frozen ground or ground that is covered by snow.
The IJC recommends that all governments work with municipalities to accelerate the use of green infrastructure, such as rain gardens and green walls, in urban stormwater management. In addition, the IJC recommends that the Province of Ontario and the U.S. States of Ohio and Pennsylvania prohibit the sale and use of phosphorus fertilizers for lawn care except in certain circumstances.
Because wetlands both support wildlife and filter pollutants, the IJC recommends that governments, working with non-government partners, commit to a goal of a 10% or 1,000-acre increase in coastal wetland areas in the western basin of Lake Erie by the year 2030. The IJC further recommends enhancing monitoring networks throughout the Lake Erie basin, including the establishment of a monitoring system at the outlet of the Detroit River that measures phosphorus and other critical nutrient parameters.
The IJC offers its analysis and recommendations in its LEEP report in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that today's challenges to Lake Erie's health are formidable, could be aggravated by climate change for sure, and require the leadership and guidance of the United States and Canadian governments and collaboration by all sectors of society. The IJC believes this teamwork will occur, as citizens and governments care deeply about this lake.
Through such cooperation, the IJC is confident that the recovery of Lake Erie can again become a globally known success story. It is timely to have dwelt on this one subject, Lake Erie, given today's briefings of your colleagues and Thursday's public release. There are, however, many aspects that I could dwell on, but time will not afford me that luxury at this moment during these opening remarks—climate change being one that could take a long time.
But I will mention some aspects. I understand that Environment Canada discussed the areas of concern with you as a committee two weeks ago, so I'm not going to belabour the importance that the IJC places on cleaning up those areas of concern, other than to note that the commission's role in areas of concern is substantial.
It is important to first point out that the governments, along with many public and private partners and agencies, are ultimately responsible for cleanup of hot spots, these “areas of concern”, as they're known. Under the 2012 agreement, the government will consult with the commission if they want to designate new areas of concern. The remedial action plans produced for each site are made available to the commission for review, and governments solicit review and comment from the commission, amongst other agencies, prior to delisting an AOC or designating an area of recovery.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me today. I thank you for letting me do this via video. Being from Canada and working in Michigan, I would have preferred an opportunity to get back home but the schedule didn't permit it, so thank you for allowing me to do this.
I missed a lot of Commissioner Walker's comments because of the video problems, so hopefully that won't plague my few minutes here.
I'll start with an opening statement, as you suggested. I'm not going to start with some of the superlatives that I normally use to describe the Great Lakes. I'm sure you'll hear a lot of those over the course of the coming weeks. But I will point out a couple of facts. It represents 5% of North America's water. It is home to 30% of Canada's entire population. One that you may not hear otherwise is that it houses a $7 billion trade. These are just some of the things that speak to the significance of the Great Lakes.
They are great. However, urban things like urban development, industrialization, globalization, fishing, habitat alterations have all left an imprint on the basin, and in some cases, a considerable legacy that current and future generations will have to address. So while the lakes are great and large enough for abundant resources, they are indeed fragile and require protection. Canada and the United States have for a long time cooperated; they have a cooperative history on the Great Lakes. For instance, in 1954, Canada and the U.S. agreed to the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, which is really what created my organization, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, as a two-way cooperation for the benefit of...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...to combat the most destructive of invasive species, the sea lamprey.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, first signed in 1972, and updated as recently as 2012, is the very mechanism used to help Canada and the U.S. work together to ensure the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin.
It is those two things, the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries and the water quality agreement, that I wanted to focus my comments on today.
First, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement—I believe Commissioner Walker spoke to that in his opening statement. The water quality agreement, as we mentioned, was revised in 2012 to bring greater attention to the basin's ongoing and emerging issues. I believe the revised agreement in 2012, in my estimation, offers an unprecedented opportunity for the commissions to work with other agencies, governments, first nations, and stakeholders to connect fishery issues to overall Great Lakes priorities. In particular, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is deeply engaged in a number of annexes addressing such things as lake-wide management, invasive species, habitat, and science.
I just want to spend a few minutes talking about the role that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is playing on those annexes, which really define the water quality agreement.
First, on annex 2, it focuses on lake-wide management, with a goal of coordinated binational assessment and management of...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...which, due to their nature, are best addressed on a lake-specific basis. Under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, as I mentioned before, my commission is responsible for facilitating...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...arrangements among the fishery management jurisdictions of the Great Lakes Basin. It also went to a non-binding agreement called a joint strategic plan on Great Lakes fisheries. Under the plan the agencies come together to develop, work, and implement fish community objectives, which are shared fishery management goals and environmental objectives that really define the objectives.
Traditionally, and unfortunately, fisheries managers and water quality experts have not worked together as closely as they could have. Annex 2, however, presents a tremendous opportunity for fishery managers to link their objectives to the lake-wide management plan. As such, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is working to provide an active link between the strategic plan signatories and members of annex 2.
Moving on to annex 6, its focus is on aquatic invasive species, which is our major concern from a water quality perspective. It focuses on invasive species with a goal of preventing new introductions, managing existing invasive species, and conducting scientific risk assessments to improve the understanding of those things. Simply put, invasive species must be addressed.
Annex 6 is particularly promising in that it calls for major efforts to detect new invaders early and to respond quickly upon their discovery. It calls for a ballast water discharge program, whereby Canada and the United States would have either identical or at least harmonized ballast water standards sufficient to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem.
It envisions the immediate implementation of proactive, binational programs to prevent new introductions of invasive species like Asian carp, and it commits the nations to scientific understanding of the risk invasive species represent so that prevention, control, and rapid response measures could be supported.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission knows much about invasive species because, after all, we are charged with sea lamprey control, and I'll discuss that briefly in a minute. The commission sees annex 6 as a fantastic opportunity for both nations to make tremendous progress in mitigating the considerable threats that invasive species pose.
The commission has long been involved in invasive species policy and sees annex 6 as a tremendous opportunity for great collaboration and action. By integrating invasive species into the water quality agreement and by demanding swift and aggressive action, the commission, other government agencies, and stakeholders throughout the region have the chance to make real and lasting progress in this area. So we're quite committed to annex 6.
Annex 7 focuses on preventing further loss of critical habitat and native species that contribute so much to the overall integrity of the Great Lakes. The link between quality habitat and thriving fisheries is, of course, strong. Without spawning habitat, for instance, self-sustaining fish populations and the billions of dollars in economic benefit they provide would not be possible. Annex 7 is critical in that it establishes tight timeframes and affords the development and implementation of lake-wide strategies to prevent habitat loss and aid in the restoration of native species.
Annex 10 seeks to establish efficiencies and effectiveness in Great Lakes science. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has always believed that science is essential to manage the resources effectively and to justify the expenditures of public resources. Not only will science indicate how, why, and where to expend resources, it will also inform about progress in achieving objectives. One really important point about annex 10 is that it commits Canada and the U.S. to the development of and adherence to science-based indicators of success. That informs about the health of the Great Lakes and helps direct policies.
Under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, the commission is charged with facilitating the generation of fisheries science. So indeed since the commission was created in 1956, it's led the way in identifying science priorities and native species recovery. To that extent annex 10 really provides the commission with great opportunities to connect its resource priorities with those of the larger priorities of water quality agreement from a water quality perspective.
I'm going to conclude by speaking briefly to sea lamprey because it does speak to invasive species issues in a large way. Sea lamprey is a tremendous threat to the sustainability of the Great Lakes fishery. Sea lamprey is without question the most destructive of the invasive species that we've ever faced. It's a non-native species, has no predators, and attaches itself to fish using its large suction cup mouth. A typical sea lamprey will consume about 20 kilograms of fish during its lifetime. Sea lamprey caused unprecedented ecological and economic harm to the Great Lakes. The Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, 1954, called upon the commission to implement a border-blind, sea lamprey control program. The commission works with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and agencies in the U.S. to deliver sea lamprey control.
The program has been extremely successful. Over the years, we've been able to reduce the population by 90% of what it was in its problematic days of the early 1960s. Now we have a thriving fishery that was once destroyed. The fishery at present is worth $7 billion. So the news is good. We have the technology to control it. But as we've seen a couple of times in the past, when we relaxed control these predators do respond and rebound quickly and start to have the same devastating effect on the fishery.
Canadian currently contributes $8 million to this program, the U.S. in excess of $20 million. Even with the equitable distribution of the formula that was developed for funding this program, Canada still falls short. In fiscal year 2014, it should be contributing about $11 million; it's contributing $8 million. A report last year by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans lauded the sea lamprey control program and recommended that it be fully funded. So I hope that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will follow suit and join the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in recognizing the significance of funding this program fully.
In the interest of time, Mr. Chair, I'll stop there and try to answer any questions. Thank you very much.
:
I think that's a pretty good summation. It wasn't one thing; there were many things.
The Cuyahoga River was on fire, if you can imagine that, in the late 1960s. There were lots of issues. That obviously was not phosphorous. At the same time, the fishing industry was dying, and the lake was deemed to be a dead lake. That was phosphorous. You're quite right that they solved many of the issues by removing the phosphorous as much as possible from the loadings that came from the waste water plants. The billions of dollars invested by the governments of the two countries, and the states, and the provinces, solved a lot of problems by cleaning that up, as did taking phosphorous out of the laundry products. Contrary to what was said by the manufacturers of Rinso and Tide and all those at the time, that we would all have grey shirts, well, some white shirts continued after that.
So it did work, but now it's a different kind of issue. It is mostly agricultural runoff. But there are problems. For instance, there's what the dog does on the front lawn of the home in Toledo, or in Fort Wayne, Indiana. It just washes down into the gutter, goes from there into a sewer, ultimately goes into the river, untreated, and then is in Lake Erie. Those are problems.
There's the concentrating that we now have of the feedlots, and perhaps even the ethanol production where corn requires a different form of fertilizer, a lot more fertilizer, and they run it right up to the edge of the river, with no buffering or anything of that sort. That's creating a great deal of problem.
Something has happened in the past 10 years on the rivers I've identified, rivers like the Maumee and the Sandusky. Something has happened. It was all right 10 or 12 years ago, but not now. What has happened? Something has come in.
Ethanol is probably a good thing to point at, and feedlots that are much more aggressive. As well, there's the continuing, of course, of putting fertilizer onto the frozen ground, where it doesn't sink in. It washes off into the creeks, into the drainage system, into the river, to the point where when you look at the end of the Maumee River, it has created that huge bloom of algae. The only way to stop it is to try to curb those efforts—not necessarily to stop putting the manure on the ground but to stop doing it when the ground is frozen. That's not an easy task. Farmers will give quite a story on that.
:
Good afternoon, and thank you.
As you said, my name is Joe Farwell. I'm the chief administrative officer for the Grand River Conservation Authority and I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to provide input to this study on water quality in the Great Lakes Basin.
The Grand River Conservation Authority is one of 36 conservation authorities in Ontario that manage water, forests, and other natural resources in some of the most populated parts of the province. We are by our very definition a partnership of municipalities in a watershed for the management of water and natural resources across municipal boundaries.
Our watershed is located immediately to the west of the Greater Toronto Area, and at 6,800 square kilometres it's the largest watershed in southern Ontario. It's about the same size as Prince Edward Island.
The Grand River runs 300 kilometres, roughly north to south, and drains into the eastern basin of Lake Erie. There are 39 municipalities in our watershed, with a population of close to one million people. It's also one of the richest farming areas in Canada, with farmers working 70% of the land, producing a very wide variety of products.
I'm pleased to see the three questions that you have asked. l'II speak to them in turn.
When we talk about identifying locations within the Great Lakes Basin that are of environmental concern and about the prioritization of areas to be addressed, we at the Grand River authority immediately think of watersheds that drain into the lake. The conservation authorities were created first and foremost as water management agencies.
Very early in our history, we learned that managing water also means protecting the land. The health of the river and the Great Lakes is directly related to how we treat the land that drains into them. One big part of our success over the years has been that we have adopted an integrated, watershed-wide approach to managing natural resources, both land and water. Through partnerships with watershed farmers, municipalities, the province, and the federal government, great gains have been made in the quality of the Grand River. But there is still much work to be done.
In addition to identifying specific points in the Great Lakes that need special attention, I would encourage the federal government to continue to support the work of agencies that work directly with landowners who manage those lands that drain into the Great Lakes. I would urge you to pay special attention to what is happening in the lands that drain into the lakes.
There are many efforts currently under way to remediate the identifiable areas of environmental concern. The way we treat our land affects the quality of our water. We have recently completed a draft water management plan for the Grand River watershed. The plan addresses the issues of water quality, water quantity, and flood control, and the way these matters are impacted by our growing population and by climate change.
Working with many partners, we have identified several best practices in priority sub-watersheds. These practices include programs to promote cover crops and nutrient management plans in areas with intensive agricultural production.
We've been very fortunate in the Grand to have municipal support to provide financial incentives to farmers to encourage these practices. We've worked closely with operators of waste water treatment plants to build a community of practice that encourages optimization of waste water plants to achieve higher-quality effluent.
In addition, our plan highlights best practices for rural and urban stormwater management. It considers both practices and the physical infrastructure used to manage storm runoff. The water management plan was developed over a four-year period, in cooperation with those people who will implement the required actions. By developing the plan in this way, the partners have created a real spirit of cooperation and a willingness to take action.
Environment Canada has been a strong supporter in the development of the water management plan. The Grand River has a significant impact upon the eastern basin of Lake Erie. We need continuing federal support to implement actions at the ground level. There are a number of specific things the federal government can do to support the water management plan.
We would appreciate help from the federal government to continue working with the Grand River Conservation Authority on our working groups and our committees; to continue with the development of the science required to manage the Great Lakes, including developing nutrient targets and improving water quality and land use models; and assisting with funding the implementation of rural and urban best practices to improve water quality.
With respect to the question of recommending best practices that will facilitate the further remediation of areas of environmental concern within the Great Lakes Basin, again I would like to focus my comments on the watersheds.
It is anticipated that the Grand will be highlighted in the Canada-Ontario agreement as a priority area to address nutrient issues identified in annex 4 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The water quality in the Grand River affects the near shore of the eastern basin of Lake Erie and can promote nuisance weed growth along the shoreline.
This weed growth impacts not only upon the quality of the recreation we've come to enjoy along the shoreline, but also the health of the aquatic ecosystem in the nearshore area. Again we see working with watershed landowners to enhance nutrient management practices and working with municipalities to optimize sewage treatment and stormwater management practices as key elements of a plan to improve water quality in Lake Erie.
We recognize that the lake's ecosystem has fundamentally changed with the introduction of such invasive species as zebra and quagga mussels and the round goby. Science is needed to understand this ecosystem shift. The federal government has a role in developing that science and any measures to reduce the impact of the invasive species on the lake's ecosystem.
The Grand River is recognized as a river with potential for enhancing Lake Erie's walleye stocks. Commercial and recreational walleye fisheries represent a large economic benefit to our communities. The water quality and lack of connectivity of the Grand River is currently a barrier to realizing some of these economic benefits.
In the Grand River watershed, we have an 80-year history of working at a local level to resolve matters that are important to all of us. Along with our watershed municipalities and the Province of Ontario, the federal government has played an important role over the years. We hope that long tradition continues.
When we look to the future, please remember that any discussion of water quality in the Great Lakes should start with a careful look at what's going on in the watershed that drains to them. By continuing to work together, I believe we can make a positive difference in the Great Lakes Basin.
I'll be pleased to respond to your questions after the other speakers.
Thank you.
:
Good evening. I'm Chief April Adams-Phillips from the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne.
The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne welcomes the opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and presents its comments on the water quality of the Great Lakes Basin.
It is important to note that the first nations have a historical and ongoing relationship with the waters of the Great Lakes Basin and can provide an important perspective for this committee's consideration. As such, in making these comments, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne supports the written submission of the Chiefs of Ontario in response to the questions posed by the committee on the Great Lakes Basin.
Akwesasne is geographically in a unique location within the Great Lakes Basin and along the St. Lawrence River in particular. As a first nation community we are located in the southeastern part of Ontario, southwestern part of Quebec, and in northern New York state. Population-wise, we are one of the largest first nations in Canada with membership over 12,000, and an on-reserve population of over 10,000. We have had a presence along the St. Lawrence River for thousands of years.
The environment program within our Department of Tehotiiennawakon was created almost 40 years ago and is one of the most mature and experienced environmental programs among the first nations in Canada. Today it's managed by a staff of seven, including three environmental assessment officers, one science officer, one environmental educator, one forestry technician, and a manager. The environment program was established to help the community deal with the multitude of environmental impacts arising from the industrial development along the St. Lawrence River.
The St. Lawrence River at Akwesasne is one of 43 areas of concern in the Great Lakes Basin, primarily due to mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl, PCB, and other contaminants of concern in the water, sediments, and fish. We have been actively involved in the development of the remedial action plans, one American and one Canadian, that have been developed for the St. Lawrence area of concern. In the process, our environment program staff have developed strong relationships with Environment Canada in both the Ontario and Quebec regions, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and with local conservation authorities in Raisin Region and South Nation.
In terms of identifying locations of environmental concern, we remain concerned about the health of the St. Lawrence River at Akwesasne. While the past 25 years have seen tremendous changes in the environment of the river with the cleanup of numerous hazardous waste sites and the closing of a number of industries that have been a major source of the pollution of the river, no substantive studies have been undertaken to verify that the contaminant levels in the fish, sediments, and plants in and along the river would support the delisting of the St. Lawrence River area of concern.
The fishery of the Great Lakes Basin is reliant on water quality and quantity. As water temperatures increase and water levels decrease, it places the fishery at risk, including the commercial fishery, recreational fishery, and the aboriginal fishery. Historically, the aboriginal fishery has received the least financial support from the Government of Canada in terms of allocating resources to protect it. In fact, since the termination of the aboriginal inland habitat program in 2012, no funds have been available from the federal government to protect or restore local first nation fisheries.
In July 2013, we hosted the International Joint Commission as they were holding hearings related to regulating water levels in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. While council expressed support for efforts to mimic natural flows in the river, environmental concerns remain regarding shoreline erosion and the role ships in the St. Lawrence Seaway contribute to this ongoing environmental problem.
We have submitted a funding proposal to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to develop our own water law and regulatory framework. We understand the drinking water regulatory void faced by first nations as the setting of water standards is a provincial responsibility, and first nations are exempt from those standards. We have been working to be proactive in creating our own water law and regulatory framework, and have been trying to work with Canada in piloting a first nation initiative in this area.
Finally, the impacts of climate change represent one of the greatest challenges facing water quality in the Great Lakes Basin going forward. Extreme weather events and rising water temperatures in particular are a growing concern and have the potential to change the flora and fauna in the basin. It will also continue to contribute to lowering the water levels throughout the basin. Because of our long-term presence throughout the Great Lakes Basin, first nations can contribute positively to this discussion, if given the opportunity.
On prioritization, the impacts of climate change are fast and are becoming the greatest environmental threat to water quality within the Great Lakes Basin. First nations can play a critical role in this monitoring. Creating a first nations water law and regulatory framework is a proactive and responsible endeavour that Canada should support. Evaluating whether levels of contaminants in fish, sediments, and waters have lessened with the cleanup of many hazardous waste sites and the closing of many industrial plants, the source of contaminants, will be key to the delisting of many areas of concern. Improving the fishery of the Great Lakes Basin is important to commercial, recreational, and aboriginal interests. First nations can play an important role in protecting all three interests, but will need financial resources to participate.
Remediation efforts in the Great Lakes Basin represent a challenge for all involved in ensuring a healthy and productive basin. Continuing budget cuts to federal and provincial environmental agencies responsible for water quality in the Great Lakes Basin requires great cooperation and partnerships among basin interests, including first nations.
We have to continue to partner with others with an interest in the Great Lakes Basin, particularly the St. Lawrence River. Respectful and cooperative relationships have been developed, based on focusing on common interests of a healthy river for all. Our environment program is undertaking a three-year species at risk project in partnership with the Ontario and Quebec regions of Environment Canada and in partnership with Ontario Power Generation. The project is focusing on a critical habitat for five turtle species, two bird species, and one frog species in the St. Lawrence River.
We have been coordinating our efforts in creating a first nations water law and regulatory framework with both the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec and with the federal government. It has obtained letters of support from the respective provincial environmental agencies and we continue to pursue the project with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
We have developed a relationship with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have hosted meetings with representatives from the department and other first nations and developed a paper on the importance of sturgeon to the aboriginal fisheries for the department's consideration.
We have been an active participant in the development of Ontario's proposed Great Lakes protection act and have advocated for many of the changes to the proposed legislation that recognize and support first nations involvement in the protection of the Great Lakes. We have also been active in supporting the inclusion of a first nations' annex to the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin that will lead to greater engagement of first nations in basin issues based on the principles of respect and cooperation.
On recommendations for best practices, the strength of our environment program is its ability to integrate a culturally based approach with western science in addressing the environmental challenges facing the Great Lakes Basin. Respectful and cooperative relationships are the key to moving forward together in ensuring a healthy Great Lakes Basin for all.
On a local level, our environment program has developed a culturally based environmental assessment process that meets and exceeds the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It has been used in conducting a harmonized environmental assessment for the Three Nations Bridge Crossing with the Federal Bridge Corporation. It is used in conducting environmental assessments of all projects in Akwesasne.
Within the province of Ontario, the changes to the proposed Great Lakes Protection Act embody how first nations can be meaningfully engaged in efforts to protect the Great Lakes for all people. They include: one, the acknowledgement of existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada as recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; two, invited participation of aboriginal peoples on the proposed Great Lakes guardians' council; three, opportunity for first nations participation in geographic area initiatives; and four, recognition of traditional ecological knowledge as a tool to assist in implementing the act.
The inclusion of a first nations annex in the Canada-Ontario agreement will strengthen the relationship between first nations, the province, and Canada, built around a common interest in protecting the Great Lakes for all peoples.
In this time of fiscal restraint and government cutbacks, engaging first nations in a respectful and cooperative way represents the best approach to the protection of the Great Lakes.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to the witnesses for their evidence today.
Before I begin with the witnesses, I want to mention, Mr. Chair, that there was a comment earlier from one of the members to the effect that the government had not put any money into the budget, currently before the House, for wetlands. That comment, unfortunately, is ill-informed. I want to quote from Ducks Unlimited in relation to the budget to set the record straight. They said:
We’re pleased that the Government of Canada is continuing its investment in aquatic habitat.... Wetlands are critical habitat to many of our fish and wildlife resources and this partnership program directly supports habitat restoration and enhancement—efforts that play a critical role in supporting healthy fish stocks and waterfowl populations in Canada.
Ducks Unlimited, of course, is one of the premier conservation groups in Canada. I was pleased that they had high praise for the budget and the partnership that was mentioned in the budget. I just wanted to set the record straight on that.
Next I would like to say how much I appreciated Chief Adams-Phillips' comments. To be honest, I was very pleasantly surprised at the detail of the very exciting and hopeful optimistic collaborations that you are describing. I wish I had more time than I do, so that I could ask you about them, but I'll ask you to forgive me because Mr. Farwell is from my backyard.
The Grand River is my home, so I need to direct my questions, or many of them, to him. If I have a chance, I may come back to you, but I really did appreciate your comments.
Mr. Farwell, particularly welcome to you from the Grand River and the Kitchener-Waterloo area. I have a very high regard for your efforts and the efforts of GRCA as you know. I am very glad to have you here today to hear about them.
In particular, I'll start with some questions around the water management plan that you have referred to in your remarks. You mentioned that Environment Canada has been a strong supporter in the development of the water management plan. I wonder if you could tell us what contribution, funding, or other resources Environment Canada has made to the development of that water management plan.