Feature Article – Toward a National Freshwater Policy Framework

NOTE: Hyperlinks

  All links were valid as of date of publication.

Ian Campbell
Policy Research Initiative
Government of Canada

Ian Campbell, Senior Project Director, Policy Research Initiative, Government of Canada


In 1987, the then Minister of the Environment Tom McMillan signed the Federal Water Policy (see text box below). Based on the 1985 report of the Pearse Inquiry (Pearse et al., 1985), this remarkable forward-looking document laid a course for the federal government’s management of water resources.

The 1987 policy identified pricing as a means to manage water demand; it acknowledged the federal government’s role in providing science for water management, the need for integrated planning, raising public awareness, and the need for specific pieces of legislation at the federal level. Although the federal government has been criticized for failing to implement some aspects of the policy, most critics acknowledge that the policy itself was, and still is, an excellent document.

A major shortcoming of the Federal Water Policy is signalled by its name: it is federal, not national. As a natural resource, water is managed mainly by the provinces and territories, not the federal government. The federal government’s role in freshwater includes navigable waterways, fish habitat, scientific research and advice, and a few other more specific roles, such as ensuring the provision of drinking water on reserves and boundary water issues. For any water policy to be truly effective, it must include all relevant jurisdictions.

Water is a multifaceted issue. It infiltrates every aspect of our lives and economy. From maintaining drinking water quality to maintaining dandelion-free lawns, from ensuring sufficient water for industrial uses to guaranteeing minimum river flows for fish spawning, nearly every possible use of water precludes or at least affects other possible uses. A panCanadian freshwater policy framework would need to be correspondingly robust, recognizing the diverse uses and environmental needs, as well as the enormous geographic variability of water issues in Canada.

What Might a Pan-Canadian Freshwater Policy Framework Look Like?

Like politics, all water is local. Unlike politics, however, water does not respect national, provincial or municipal boundaries. Co-ordinating these diverse interests has long been a complex dance, and as our water resources become stretched closer to their limits, and the issues become more critical, the pace will only grow more harrowing. We are already past the time when we could manage with a simple dance card – telling us who was in charge of what and when. We need a common understanding of the steps of the dance, where we want to go, what we want to achieve, and how we will achieve it.


The 1987 Federal Water Policy (Environment Canada, 1987) had one objective, two goals, and five strategies to achieve them.

The Federal Water Policy encourages the use of freshwater in an efficient and equitable manner consistent with the social, economic, and environmental needs of present and future generations.

The goals are to protect and enhance the quality of the water resource, and promote the wise and efficient management and use of our water. To accomplish this, the Policy sets  out five strategies: water pricing, science leadership, integrated planning, legislation, and public awareness.


The Policy Research Initiative has been conducting research for two and a half years on various aspects of water policy. This has brought us in contact with a wide range of individuals and groups in Canada and around the world, with wide-ranging interests and concerns. This has not magically given us a pan-Canadian policy framework waiting to be revealed, but it has pointed out some of the major issues that such a framework would need to address.

Water Demand Management

Canadians are the world’s second largest per capita users of water (OECD, nd). This simple statistic is often presented as a matter of shame, begging an immediate and draconian response to correct this miscreant behaviour. The reality, however, is more subtle.

While the basic statistic is true, instead of immediately reacting to reduce our water use, we should perhaps first ask: Why? And, perhaps, even at the risk of being taken as heretics: Who cares?

The reality is that in much of Canada, water is abundant, and our high use of it is not really a problem. It might be difficult to convince Montréalers that the St. Lawrence River flowing past and around them is at risk from their use of its water. And indeed, if water use is the concern, they would be right: like most Canadian cities, Montréal probably returns about as much water to the river as it removes.


Toronto Weather and National Use Data

What Drives Water Demand?

Environment Canada maintains the Municipal Water-Use Database (MUD, recently renamed Municipal Water-Use and Pricing Survey, or MWUPS) (Environment Canada, 2004). With data voluntarily submitted by most municipalities with populations over 5,000 every two to three years, MUD is an invaluable resource.

Using MUD, Environment Canada estimated the per capita municipal water use in Canada for several years over recent decades. This allows us to examine some of the drivers of municipal water demand.

Although the changes in per capita water use have been interpreted as being driven by changes in metering and pricing structures (e.g., the decline from 1999 to 2001 was hailed as a result of increased metering and progressive pricing) (Environment Canada, 2004), we can see that there is also a significant effect from weather. The Toronto temperature/rainfall curve is a very simplistic index of dry weather in southern Ontario, and shows a remarkable correlation with national water use. Nevertheless, there is an apparent overall decline through time. While this decline may be due to weather in other parts of the country (that possibility has not yet been investigated), it may also be due to increased metering, pricing, and the introduction of low-flush toilets and other water-saving technologies.

Figure 1

Standardized normalized national per capita residential water use and standardized normalized crude dry weather index for Toronto. With southern Ontario accounting for about one third of Canada’s population, the fit of these curves suggests weather is a major driver for changes in water use.

Standardized normalized national per capita residential water use and standardized normalized crude dry weather index for Toronto. With southern Ontario accounting for about one third of Canada’s population, the fit of these curves suggests weather is a major driver for changes in water use.


Of course, some cities (like Calgary or Victoria) may have water shortages, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Municipal water use is largely nonconsumptive, that is, the water is used for washing, cooking, flushing toilets, and so on, and is largely returned to the river it came from via the sewer system. It is of course no longer clean, but using less water will not necessarily reduce the pollution load to the rivers; the same amount of shampoo will go down your drain whether or not you have a low-flow shower head. Using less water might simply increase the concentration of pollutants.

Some municipal water use is consumptive. Watering the lawn on a hot summer day may send more water into the air as water vapour than it applies to the roots of the plants. However, our cities also receive rain and snowfall, which are eventually collected by storm sewers; the overall water balance of most cities in Canada is therefore neutral.

The real issue with excess water demand in Canadian cities is the issue of treatment plant and distribution system capacity. Many of our treatment plants are old, many of them built at a time when no one imagined the cities they serve would grow as big as they have, or that the people in those cities would become as water loving as they have. So far, the model in most cities has been to build new treatment capacity to keep up with demand. Managing the demand to keep it within the limits of treatment capacity has only recently become fashionable. Water use in excess of our infrastructure capacity is a real issue – and a money issue – that will be faced sooner or later by all Canadian cities unless water demand management programs are put in place sooner rather than later.

Water pricing for municipal users is one such strategy. While one report suggests the elasticity of municipal water use demand (the rate at which demand declines as prices rise) may be on the order of 0.25 (i.e., doubling the price will result in about 25 percent less use), the same study shows that demand is more responsive to the price structure (whether flat rate or volume based, and if volume based, then whether it increases or decreases as the volume used rises) than to the price itself (Reynaud et al., 2005). Also, that study was unable to take climate and weather into account; it may be that demand follows weather more than it does price.


Pricing municipal water services for cost recovery could help ease that burden at the same time that it may have a minor benefit in reducing water demand.


Perhaps a better argument in favour of municipal water pricing would be cost recovery: the municipal infrastructure deficit is in the tens of billions of dollars and rising; the largest part of the deficit may be for transportation networks, but a substantial portion is also for water and sewerage.1 Pricing municipal water services for cost recovery could help ease that burden at the same time that it may have a minor benefit in reducing water demand.

The largest water consumers in Canada are found in the agricultural sector, where water is used to irrigate crops and raise livestock. Much of the water used in irrigation may be lost to the watershed it came from, through evapotranspiration and through the selling of harvested water-rich crops like tomatoes. Industry also uses water in various, often consumptive ways, particularly the beverage industry. Would pricing help control agricultural and industrial water demand? Undoubtedly, if the prices are set high enough.

However, in Europe, a recent study indicated that high water prices (generally much higher than in Canada) do not affect the competitiveness of agriculture or industry, because these sectors are often given preferential rates or outright exemptions (Speck, 2005). Here in Canada, one bold experiment in pricing of irrigation water has not had a strong impact on agricultural water use, again presumably because the price is too low to have much effect on decision making.2 Indeed, a simple thought experiment suggests that for the price to be high enough to affect use significantly, it would have to be high enough to affect a company or householder’s bottom line noticeably – and most jurisdictions in Canada would be very unwilling to do that.

So, should a national freshwater policy framework promote the use of pricing for demand management, as the 1987 federal policy did? Perhaps, but it should do so eyes open, knowing that it is only one tool in the kit, and perhaps not even the most effective one in many circumstances. By providing municipalities with revenue to pay for their systems, pricing may address the fiscal imbalance more than it affects water demand.

Protecting Source Water Quality

Water pollution has been in the news a great deal in recent years. Walkerton, North Battleford, the Sydney Tar Ponds, and Kashechewan are just some of the places that have suffered from polluted water. Protecting drinking water through filtration and treatment is one option, but it is clearly better – and in the long run cheaper – to ensure the source water itself is clean. This is often referred to as a source-to-tap approach.

Water pollution from major industry can be controlled with reasonable effectiveness through end-of-pipe regulation, although there may also be a place for other policy instruments. End-of-pipe regulation in Canada is most often the regulation of pollutant concentrations. Regulations are typically set to limit the concentration of a pollutant at a level that will not endanger aquatic life. Essentially, if a fish can’t live in it, you can’t dump it in the river. This does not always mean the total load of pollution is reduced; sometimes, it may simply mean more water is used to dilute the pollution before it leaves the pipe. In the United States, a different system has been adopted. Referred to as total maximum daily load (TMDL), it seeks to first identify how much pollutant a system can tolerate, then limit the total pollution from all sources to that quantity or less (EPA, nd). Total maximum daily load differs from end-of-pipe in several important respects. Foremost among them is that individual polluters may dump large quantities of pollution, as long as the total load from all sources is limited. This means that a given polluter may pay to reduce its own loading or someone else’s, whichever is more cost effective.

More diffuse sources of pollution, such as agriculture, roads, and golf courses, are difficult to regulate, because there is no convenient pipe to monitor. Nevertheless, such non-point sources must be controlled; they may be the main culprits in a number of water pollution issues in Canada, including the gradual eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg (which is now almost as bad as Lake Erie was when it was dying from phosphate detergent poisoning).3

Water quality trading (WQT) may hold some promise for cleaning up these sources of pollution (PRI, 2006). By helping farmers cover the cost of implementing best management practices, such as buffer strips or lined manure ponds, municipalities can ensure the source water they rely on will be cleaner and therefore require less treatment. Going one step further, WQT allows end-of pipe polluters to exceed their normal permit limitations if they pay for a greater reduction in pollution from other sources. Implemented as part of a policy toolkit in the South Nation River Watershed in Ontario, this may be one of the most innovative policy tools for addressing agricultural pollu tion, and deserves closer investigation. Like other tools, however, it will probably not be effective in isolation or in all circumstances.

Integrated Water Resources Management

Clearly, managing Canada’s water is not just about managing individual projects on a one-at-a-time basis. Integrated water resources management (IWRM) seeks, like sustainable development generally, to ensure that the overall impact of development in a watershed does not threaten future access to water and its services (PRI, 2004). The concept can be extended to integrated landscape management (ILM), which allows the management of all land uses, not just those that significantly affect water resources.

The difficulty with IWRM or ILM is in the trade-offs required. A high level of stakeholder consultation is needed for it to work. To work well, the community must understand and value the resources being managed.

Stakeholders are not only those with an immediate stake in a particular project, but also those whose interests may seem more diffuse: those who live downstream, or where groundwater use or contamination may be an issue in the same aquifer; those whose water uses may be affected by dams or canals; conservation groups that may represent endangered species and rare habitats; and many others. Critically, it includes federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal/regional/local governments as the representatives of these stakeholder groups and broader societal interests.

Integrated water resources management also provides a framework to move beyond piecemeal decision making. While few individual wetland drainage projects that will lead to disaster, the cumulative impact of wetland drainages is to increase the flood hazard and reduce water quality. Similarly, a single well drilled into an aquifer is unlikely to deplete it, but enough wells can cause an aquifer to die the death of a thousand straws. Integrated water resources management allows us to view each of these small projects as part of a larger context, and manage the cumulative impacts accordingly.

One way of disentangling the complex relationships between land-use decisions and their environmental consequences is through integrated landscape management modelling. Canada has the capacity to become a world leader in this field, should we choose to make the required investment.

Governance Issues

Many of the policy complexities surrounding water stem from the multiple layers of governance that regulate and manage water in North America. Most Canadians live in watersheds that cross the Canada-US border, and are therefore affected by, or affect, Americans and their use of this shared resource. More Canadians live in watersheds that cross provincial boundaries, and relatively few live in watersheds that do not cross at least a municipal or regional government boundary.

In December 2005, Alberta’s former premier, Peter Lougheed, warned of the dangers of opening the taps to the United States. Canadians are concerned that water is not explicitly excluded from the North American Free Trade Agreement, and worry that Americans might be able to force the export of our water. The Devil’s Lake diversion went ahead without a full and proper study, and Canadian pollution from Trail, British Columbia, continues to flow into the United States. Despite these irritants, the International Joint Commission, created by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, is routinely held up as a shining example of international co-ordination and collaboration.

Clearly, there is a need to renovate our relationship with the Americans on boundary waters.

There is also a need to get our own house in order. Within the federal government, interdepartmental coordination on freshwater issues has improved somewhat over the past few years, but remains weak. The same can undoubtedly be said of some provincial governments, where water issues are typically found in multiple departments, as they are federally. The exception is Manitoba, which appointed its first Minister of Water Stewardship, in recognition of the importance of water issues to Manitobans, and specifically to overcome the balkanization of the issue. Time will tell if this example should be followed by other jurisdictions.

Intergovernmentally, water is discussed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), by the Ministers of Natural Resources, by the Council of Energy Ministers, the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, and by others. And, of course, much of the on-theground management of Canada’s water resources is carried out by municipalities. But municipal boundaries rarely follow watershed boundaries, which are the natural management units for water issues.

Some provinces have developed a layer of government specifically for managing water issues, such as Ontario’s conservation authorities or

Quebec’s less empowered comités de bassins versants. These sorts of initiatives are notable for their boundaries as well as their inclusiveness; they typically work with all stakeholders in a watershed to ensure the best possible outcomes. They are, in effect, vehicles for IWRM.

The Road Ahead

A pan-Canadian policy framework will not be easy to achieve. All governments agree on a number of issues: it is better to avoid polluting water, it is better to not use more than you have, it is better to preserve natural ecosystem functions. But all governments also agree that human welfare and the economic development required for human welfare matter as much or even more. With all levels of government making policies and engaging in programs that affect Canada’s water, we need to ensure that we balance these competing goals in the same way.

In most of Canada, water falls under several government departments (environment, natural resources, health, agriculture, etc.). Only Manitoba has a department dedicated to water issues (Department of Water Stewardship). This reflects the diverse nature of water issues. It is itself a resource, but it is also habitat, transport medium, hazard, energy source, waste disposal, wild and farmed food source, coolant, travel impediment, and tourist attraction. Too much or too little causes problems, often in the same place at different times, and qualities that are often invisible make it suitable or unsuitable for various uses.

Integrated management, and therefore water policy, cannot be the domain of a single government, or even all governments together. A panCanadian policy must engage and speak to all stakeholders, including environmental non-governmental organizations, industry associations, and members of civil society.

So what might such a policy framework look like? The POLIS project at the University of Victoria produced one possible outline (Brandes et al., 2005); another is under development by Pollution Probe. The question has also been discussed in other forums, from conferences and workshops to informal water-cooler chats. Some common elements emerge.


A pan-Canadian policy must engage and speak to all stakeholders, including environmental non-governmental organizations,industry associations, and members of civil society.


First and foremost, a pan-Canadian freshwater policy framework must recognize the diversity of Canada, and of its needs and constraints. It must allow each province, territory, and region to address its own problems in its own way. At the same time, it must provide a coherent approach wherever that is appropriate, and recognize that there are some values all Canadians hold in common.

The framework will need to address drinking water as both distinct from other water issues, and affected by other issues. There are few places in Canada where the basic water supply is so short that drinking water availability is an issue. More commonly, it is the quality of the water that is at issue, and often the capacity of the infrastructure to deliver it to consumers. Clear standards for drinking water are already provided by a federal-provincial committee (Health Canada, 1987). These standards need continued development as we learn more about the various toxins in our source water, but more importantly, we need to provide all Canadians with water that meets these standards.

The framework will need to identify roles and responsibilities for the federal government and for the provincial and territorial governments. One clear federal role is scientific research, including meteorology, groundwater, wetlands, ecology, and toxicology. Another is managing international (and to a degree interprovincial/territorial) boundary waters. At the same time, provincial and territorial governments also have an interest in boundary waters, and may need help with the uptake of some of the science results.

The framework could usefully identify policies that could be found in the toolkits for all levels of government. For example, while volumetric pricing may slightly reduce water demand in some settings, in others, the cost of volumetric pricing (installation of meters, transaction costs) may outweigh the benefit. In such settings, regulation of bathroom fixtures and consumer education may be more useful. From pricing and other market-based instruments to regulations, voluntary guidelines and consumer education, all policy instruments should be available to water managers, and it would be a mistake to prescribe specific tools for all settings. At the same time, repeating past mistakes is wasteful. We need to put better mechanisms in place for evaluating and sharing the results of policy experiments.

The framework could address coordination of all governments in Canada. A possible scenario would be the creation of a Canadian freshwater commission, perhaps modelled loosely after the Interna tional Joint Commission. Such a commission could receive references from governments to examine and make recommendations on issues of mutual interest to two or more governments in Canada. It could play a vital role in ensuring all stakeholders’ needs are considered both in internal Canadian issues and in boundary waters issues.

The framework could include varying degrees of detail, depending on the consensus on each issue. It would provide a guidebook for Canadians. Its development would in itself be a rewarding exercise in dialogue and mutual understanding.

In 1987, in the preface to the Federal Water Policy, then-Minister of the Environment Tom McMillan noted:

“We must manage water like any other natural resource – with care. The object should be to use it in our own time in a way that leaves it unimpaired for our children and their children after them.”

The time has come to bring all governments in Canada together to agree on a blueprint for making this vision a reality.



  1. The estimated investment needed for water and wastewater infrastructure in Canada over this 15-year period is $88.5 billion. CWWA (1997).
  2. The Southeast Kelowna Irrigation District instituted metering and volumetric pricing for its users. Water use per irrigated hectare was in decline prior to metering, and continued at much the same rate of decline afterwards (PRI, forthcoming).
  3. Dr. David Schindler cited in Climate Change Connection Manitoba (2004).



Brandes, O.M., K. Ferguson, M. M’Gonigle, and C. Sandborn. 2005. At a Watershed: Ecological Governance and Sustainable Water Management in Canada. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, Victoria. <www.waterdsm.org>.

Canada, Environment Canada. 2004. “Municipal Water Use 2001 Statistics.”

———. nd. “Federal Water Policy.”

Canada, Health Canada, Environmental and Workplace Health. nd. “Drinking Water Guidelines.” <www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/guide-recomm_e.html>.

Canada, PRI (Policy Research Initiative).2004. “Integrated Water Resources Management.” PRI Briefing Note. <www.policyresearch.gc.ca>.

———. 2005. “Integrated Landscape Management Modelling.” PRI Briefing Note.

———. 2006. Water Quality Trading: Project Report. <www.policyresearch.gc.ca>.

Climate Change Connection Manitoba. 2004. “Lake Winnipeg Faces Many Threats.” Press release. <www.climatechange connection.org/pages/news2004/ lwpg04_jan29.html>.

CWWA (Canadian Water and Wastewater Association). 1997. “Municipal Water and Wastewater Infrastructure: Estimated Investment Needs 1997-2012.”

Lougheed, Peter. 2005. Speech to the Calgary branch of the Canadian Club, Wednesday December 14, 2005.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). nd. “Water Quality of Selected Lakes Annual Mean Concentrations 1980-1999.” <www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/50/6358733.xls>.

Pearse, P.H., F. Bertrand, and J.W. MacLaren. 1985. Currents of Change: Final Report, Inquiry on Federal Water Policy. Inquiry on Federal Water Policy, Ottawa.

Reynaud, A., S. Renzetti, and M. Villeneuve. 2005. “Residential Water Demand with Endogenous Pricing: The Canadian Case.” Water Resources Research 41:1-11 (doi:

Speck, S. 2005. “Do European Water Abstraction Taxes Affect Competitiveness?” Briefing Note, Policy Research Initiative, Ottawa. <www.policyresearch.gc.ca>.

United States, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). nd. “Total Maximum Daily Loads.” <www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/intro.html>.


Water by the Numbers

Sound policy must be based on evidence. Here are some basic numbers relating to freshwater in Canada.

  • 7%: Canadian share of the World’s renewable water supply.
  • 9%: Area of Canada covered by freshwater.
  • 14%: Area of Canada covered by wetlands.
  • 60%: Canada’s freshwater draining north.
  • 90%: population living within 100 km of southern border.
  • $322,000,000: Value of water goods and services exports in 2001.
  • $7 billion: value of cargo shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway in 2004.
  • 5,000 tonnes: Amount of toxic chemical released into the Great Lakes in 2001 from reporting sources only (mainly major industrial plants).
  • 24,000,000: Number of people drawing drinking water from the Great Lakes.
  • 100 years mean residence time of water in the Great Lakes.
  • More than 5,000: Known shipwrecks on the Great Lakes.
  • 44 billion m3: Amount of water withdrawn for use in Canada in 1996.
  • 61%: Houses with water meters in 2001.
  • $33.13: National average price for 25 m3/month of municipal water in 2001.
  • 335 litres: Canadian average per capita daily water use in 2001.
  • 26%: Canadians reliant on groundwater for municipal purposes.
  • Less than 3%: Portion of water treated in municipal plants estimated to be used in cooking, washing food, drinking or brushing teeth.
  • 163: Number of freshwater alien invasive species known in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Basin.
  • 3,500: Number of Canadians employed in commercial freshwater fisheries in 1997.
  • $6.7 billion: Estimated value of recreational fishing in Canada in 2000.
  • 85: Number of chemical, physical, and biological parameters covered by the Canadian drinking water guidelines.
  • 90,000 illnesses, 90 deaths: Estimated annual toll of waterborne diseases in Canada.
  • $300 million: Estimated health care costs related to water contamination.
  • 163: Number of freshwater alien invasive species known in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Basin.
  • 3,500: Number of Canadians employed in commercial freshwater fisheries in 1997.
  • $6.7 billion: Estimated value of recreational fishing in Canada in 2000.
  • 85: Number of chemical, physical, and biological parameters covered by the Canadian drinking water guidelines.
  • 90,000 illnesses, 90 deaths: Estimated annual toll of waterborne diseases in Canada.
  • $300 million: Estimated health care costs related to water contamination.
  • More than 50%: Estimated amount of water supply lines in need of repair.
  • 14%-30%: Water loss in municipal systems due to leaking pipes.
  • $5.9 billion: Estimated 1994 operational costs of water and wastewater services.
1996 Canadian
Water Withdrawal
Millions of m3 % Wastewater
% of Intake
Thermal 28,750 64.29 28,242 98.23
Total manufacturing 6,038 13.51 5,487 90.87
Mineral extraction 518 1.16 672 129.7
Agriculture 4,098 9.16    
Municipal 4,334 9.7    


% 2001
Water Area
Surface Water Taking (million m3) Municipal Water Taking (million m3) Industrial Water Taking (million m3)
Pacific Coastal & Yukon 4.67 667,358 869 193 598
Columbia and Okanagan Similkameen 1.49 102,824 409 72 109
Peace Athabasca 1.15 485,146 219 28 170
Lower Mackenzie and Arctic Coast Islands 0.21 3,094,760 12 7 6
North Saskatchewan 4.36 150,151 1,686 142 1,457
South Saskatchewan, Missouri, Assiniboine Red 10.49 395,425 4,081 436 754
Winnipeg 0.28 107,654 210 11 197
Churchill 0.29 313,572 18 6 3
Keewatin Southern Baffin 0.04 939,568 0 0 0
Northern Ontario 0.48 691,811 100 12 87
Northern Quebec 0.35 940,194 66 6 60
Great Lakes St. Lawrence 58.98 582,945 30,587 3,087 27,229
North Shore Gaspé 1.68 369,094 216 78 134
Saint John St. Croix 1.34 41,904 210 97 110
Maritime Coastal 5.02 122,056 283 140 132
Newfoundland and Labrador 1.71 380,355 309 114 193
Total 92.54 9,384,817 39,276 4,430 31,239



Canada, Environment Canada. Various pages. <www.ec.gc.ca>.

Canada, Health Canada. “Drinking Water Quality Guidelines.” <www.hc-sc.gc.ca>.

Canada, Statistics Canada. 2002. Environment Industry Survey  Business Sector.
No. 15F0008XIE.

———. 2003. Human Activity and the  Environment Annual Statistics. No. 16-201-XPB.

Canadian Environmental Law Association.<www.cela.org>.

de Lafontaine, Y., and G. Costan. 2003. “Introduction and Transfer of Alien Aquatic Species  in the  Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Drainage Basin.”

Edge, T., J.M. Byrne,  R. Johnson, W. Robertson,  and R. Stevenson. 2001. “Waterborne pathogens”, p. 1-3. In Threats to Sources of Drinking Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Health in Canada.  Environment Canada. National Water Research Institute, Burlington, Ontario. NWRI Scientific Assessment Report Series No. 1.

Great Lakes Shipwreck Research. <www.baillod.com/shipwreck/swayze>.

Great lakes–St.  Lawrence Seaway  System.

Laycock, A.H. 1987. “The  Amount of Canadian Water and Its Distribution.” Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. No. 215.  Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, pp.  13-42.

Scharf,  D. et al. 2002. Industrial  Water Use Survey, 1996. Environmental Economics Branch, Environment Canada. No. En40-669/2002E.