Environment Committee on Feb. 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Wei, your hand is up. I don't know if that means you have a comment that you want to make.

[Mike Wei]

Yes. I didn't totally answer Ms. Collins' question about where Canada would fit.

I think that if Canada, through the Canada water agency or through other agencies, is able to help British Columbia and other provinces build their capacity, and if we have provinces that are more capable, we will in return have a more capable Canada.

As a British Columbian, I am not so nervous about interference from the federal government. I think we're all part of a team, if we look at it in the best sense of the word. If Canada can help us, even when we're leading in our role in water allocation and protecting water quality, and if it is done in the right way, it will be of benefit to the provinces, the territories and the nation.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

I also have a question for Ms. Parker.

We heard from our witnesses in the previous session about the Kearl tailings pond site. It's been one year since news of that leak was made public. Can you talk a little bit about how, when tailings ponds containment systems fail, that affects groundwater and what you see as some of the solutions?

[Beth Parker]

I think the issue with tailings ponds would be the hydrochemistry of the water and how that can mobilize certain heavy metals or trace constituents into the groundwater system. I think the release of water from these ponds becomes a major recharge event, and that water can enter into the system, contaminate these freshwater systems and cause toxic effects, I suppose, to the ecosystem that is being impacted.

The concern is with the situation of the hydraulics of this tailings pond. The nature and extent of that impact would be associated with both the quantity of the water and the water chemistry and all the reactions that are going to be happening along those transport pathways. Those can happen over multiple time and distance scales.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We're going to a second round, which I'm going to reduce by 25% so that we don't go over too much.

Mr. Leslie, you have four minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brown, I'd just like to ask a few questions regarding the irrigation in Saskatchewan. I appreciate that you have recognized the obvious benefits, such as yield gains, but I think some of the less obvious ones that we'll see are the expansion of crop rotation, the availability of new varieties to be produced and the improvements in soil health, which in turn allow for even further continued benefits from that.

I wasn't familiar with the numbers you mentioned, so I'd just like to clarify. You said there was somewhere between 11% and 35% increase in carbon sequestration from non-irrigated to irrigated lands.

[Jillian Brown]

Trost, in 2013, in the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development, reviewed 22 studies looking at carbon sequestration and rotation that considered irrigated versus dry land and found that the irrigated land, given the capacity for improved crop rotation and the resulting soil health and stubble development, resulted in an average of 11% to 35% increase in soil carbon sequestration capacity in semi-arid regions such as Canada.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It makes sense, and I think that, from the agricultural perspective, the cropping sector is one of the areas in which we can enhance our sequestration and reduce our overall net emissions.

It's something that, from my perspective, is certainly worthy of government investment. Being from Manitoba, we saw major ones with Premier Duff Roblin way back in the day. I think we're at a point in time where we're going to see more of that, probably similar to the Lake Diefenbaker project, which, as you mentioned, is obviously underutilized.

My understanding is that it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to expand that. What is the cost? It's something that's very cost-prohibitive to the farmers individually. What is the cost per mile, or on whatever basis you'd like, to lay pipe? Obviously, Saskatchewan is 60 million acres. It's a massive area you'd have to lay pipe for, so what would be the cost to a producer to do a major project like that?

[Jillian Brown]

It's really challenging to pin down a number. I've reviewed several studies that have estimated costs. Since COVID, we've seen a substantial increase in costs. Obviously, the cost of pipe has experienced significant inflation.

For a producer without pipe, if they have water right up to the edge of their yard, it's upwards of $2,000 per acre to invest on the farm. Every mile of pipe that's in the ground can cost thousands and thousands of dollars per acre for irrigation. It can be astronomical. With some of the numbers, it would just not be feasible. It would be really challenging to try to pin that down. Obviously, the cost would increase with every mile you are away from the water.

We're seeing a lot of development in Saskatchewan through private and individual irrigators who are doing smaller projects closer to a water source, but without that cohesive and co-operative larger project development, there is greater environmental impact. Having 17 different farmers putting pipe in the lake, versus having one coordinated project that's working to develop and optimize the number of acres, ultimately just means additional inefficiencies.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you for that. I understand that it will be difficult to quantify. It is a major investment.

I appreciate that you mentioned the need for partnerships with the federal government, in this case for Saskatchewan. When you look at it collectively, because you also touched on the drought and flood control that can emerge from this, I think that investment towards adaptation and resiliency to climate change is one of the best things we could be doing, particularly in prairie Canada, on that privately owned farm landscape. Combine that with, of course, the yield gains, the speciality crops that can emerge and all the value-added opportunities for some of those smaller communities that are at times struggling, and the opportunity for them to thrive.

I know that there were some deliberations between the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal government in terms of possible investments and through which avenues. I'm wondering if you could explain where that process was, where it is, and where you think it's going, because it's my understanding that it would be a forced loan rather than any sort of actual investment from the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we have five seconds left, and that would be a long answer. Maybe you could save it for the next questioner.

Ms. Taylor Roy, you have four minutes, please.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

There are two elements that I'd like to address. One is the use or the allocation of scarce resources, in this case water. The second is how we reduce the demand for water.

While we've talked a lot about irrigation and increasing irrigation, we know that there are some environmental costs to irrigation as well. Earlier in our committee, there was a professor who was very impassioned about the impacts on the hydrological cycle and the fact that rainfall can be impacted for quite a large area, beyond the area that is being changed through irrigation.

While that is a necessary thing to have, and the gains that have been made in reducing the use of water I think are laudable, in that there have been great reductions, we haven't really looked at changing the way we eat. I'm wondering if you could comment on how an increase in plant-based diets actually reduces the demand for water in agriculture.

Either of you, I suppose, could answer that question. I'm not sure who would know most about that. I've just been looking at some research. It takes an average of 1,800 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef, whereas for tofu it's 300 gallons. If we're looking at feeding the world, world hunger and scarce water resources, I'm wondering whether there's been a conversation about actually trying to move more to plant-based diets.

Does anyone have any comments on that?

[Jillian Brown]

I could provide a little bit of a comment on that, I guess from a producer perspective.

The focus has not necessarily been on shifting diets so much, or changing how we eat.

One additional dimension to this conversation with regard to our food system is that in Saskatchewan particularly, our system is exporters and processors. When we're talking about water use, I guess the first note is that pulse crops are significant ones that are grown on irrigated land. You need the irrigation and the water sustainability for most varieties of pulse crops.

Two, in Saskatchewan we've consistently, for the last 10 years, exported 70% of what we produce. Obviously, we produce more than we can eat, but we are exporting it, processing it and then bringing it back. We have no oversight into the regulatory environments or environmental environments that we're sending that away into.

Irrigation allows for higher-value crop development and attracts processors. We've seen that in Alberta with potato processing. It allows us to bring that home and have real impact on our industry producers and their utilization of water or their regulatory stances on various—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you. I think the processing part is important too. I just wanted to get to Mike Wei with that before my time is up.

You talked about the licensing of groundwater use, Mike. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about how you see that being done and whether you see that as something that the Canada water agency would be involved in.

[Mike Wei]

Thank you so much for the question.

I don't know about the actual decision on the licensing, but as other researchers have said, our understanding of groundwater in Canada and in British Columbia is pretty minimal. Do we know what the extraction limits are for the aquifers? We don't. Do we know why water levels are falling? Well, maybe.

I think where the federal government can really give us a hand is in increasing scientific and monitoring infrastructure and helping us with things like sustainability indicators.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Yes, and the permitting is definitely provincial.

Ms. Brown, before I go to Mr. Simard, if you could provide a written answer to Mr. Leslie's last question, it would be helpful. That's what he's requested.

Mr. Simard, you have two minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

That's too generous, thank you.

Professor Parker, Ms. Larocque was asked earlier what the priority mandates of the Canada Water Agency should be and she talked about compiling certain data and about knowledge transfer.

I would like to ask you the same question: what should the priority mandates of the Canada Water Agency be?

[Beth Parker]

That's a very broad question.

I also listened to Jay Famiglietti making a comment about the fact that there's perhaps an important role at the federal level to set a certain minimum standard. It can be very useful, because it's a shared resource and water doesn't know these provincial or territorial boundaries in the way the natural system works and so on. I think there's value in a nested approach in managing a public resource like fresh water.

There was the mention, though, of infrastructure for monitoring and being able to understand the quantity and quality of our freshwater resources more holistically. The relationship between our ground watersheds and our surface watersheds is a very important unknown. It's well within technology's ability to understand that more fully, and I suppose these abilities to monitor and track the dynamic nature of these systems so that we can react and adapt to the things that are being learned from monitoring those systems are key.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Collins for two minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I direct this question to Dr. Parker.

You mentioned in your opening statement that we need increased training and expertise in these areas. One of the things I've been pushing for in Parliament is a youth climate corps, and the Climate Emergency Unit has done a lot of work on this. It's about engaging young people in the kinds of jobs we know are going to be needed now and in the future. One of the things it talks about is ensuring that these people are being trained up in monitoring, tracking, groundwater management and ecosystem restoration.

Can you speak to the need to ensure that young people are joining these fields and getting the right training, and that we're doing everything we can to support them moving into this work?

[Beth Parker]

Yes. It's a really important issue.

I'm struggling to find graduate students from Canada interested in doing the research that I have excellent funding for. A lot of my students are international students, but I'm wondering where all the Canadians are. Meanwhile, we have empty positions that need to be filled by these young people. That's a challenge.

I was awarded a synergy award from NSERC, and there were some passionate discussions about the importance of implementing increased funding for the research that's much needed. I think the funding also serves to encourage youth to join the professions that are currently undersupported. I think of the University of Guelph as an example, and at Waterloo we have underpopulated undergraduate programs in water resources.

Our youth aren't going into these professions right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Mazier, you have four minutes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Professor Parker, in your opening statements, you talked about how 30% of Canadians rely on groundwater for drinking. Was that just a number—like, there were so many million Canadians and it was just rounded off by population—or do you have specific studies of how many people in rural Canada are actually reliant on groundwater for drinking?

[Beth Parker]

That's a very old number. It's the only number we have. It's one reported by Environment Canada and hasn't changed since 1999, I think, when it was first reported. I don't think the number is very well informed.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

So you're not aware of how many people in rural Canada are drinking.... Is it 100% or 90% of rural Canada? You're not aware of any studies on that. Is that correct?