Environment Committee on Feb. 6th, 2024

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay.

Are there any other benefits from irrigation that may not be readily apparent that you could share with the committee?

[Jillian Brown]

That's an excellent question. I really wish I could support that answer a little bit better, but unfortunately I would hate to start pulling that information out without having prepared notes, as it's not my area of specialty. Really, the crop residue, soil quality, increased soil carbon and operationalizing carbon sequestration as a recommended practice in the various agronomic journals are the ones I would like to draw your attention to the most.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay, that's very good.

Let's talk a bit more specifically about the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project, which you mentioned in your statement. You mentioned that this particular project has not been moving forward since 1967, I believe you said. What seems to be the holdup in moving a project like that forward?

[Jillian Brown]

That's a fascinating question.

Irrigation is particularly challenging. Like many infrastructure projects, it has a long-term investment horizon and there are considerable public spillover effects. The federal report “Prairie Prosperity”, for example, has research that has looked at the value of irrigation. Most value from irrigation is actually received outside of the farm. That's because of the jobs, the added production and the spinoff impacts that happen in the community. There's a value to the greater public. Our rationale would be that there's a value for public support and engagement in these major infrastructure projects that can develop the industry.

It's a challenging project to move forward, because it's so massive and requires such a substantial amount of upfront capital investment, requiring public support and engagement when only a few small residents are irrigators. Although the benefit impacts the greater province and the greater country, it's challenging to tell that story to those outside of the farm gate. Although there ultimately would be a major contribution from the public sector in that investment, that's a difficult story to tell and to move forward.

Since these spillover effects affect provincial outcomes and national outcomes, you're requiring partnership between the province and Canada to support a project that's transformational, such as the development of Lake Diefenbaker. We've seen this project visited a minimum of four times since 1967. It's not to say that it hasn't been worked on. Periodically, investment is discussed and we bring forward the idea that this is an important question and we see the value in it, but finding the strength to continue this project to fruition has been one of the challenges.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. We're out of time.

We'll go to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thank you to all the witnesses.

Dr. Parker, it's wonderful to see you at our committee. Thank you for taking the time to be with us.

I have a few questions for you. We've known each other for many years now—you can almost say decades. The work that you've done on our water cluster in Guelph—Guelph having its source water coming from the ground instead of from the rivers or lakes—and the importance of groundwater.... Now that you have the Morwick G360 Groundwater Research Institute, you're doing a lot of work internationally. I'm thinking of the work in the Netherlands around the filtering of groundwater and around using groundwater in heat exchange systems for ground-source geothermal heat pumps in shallow or deep wells.

We're focusing on water as something we consume. Could you maybe comment on water as another way we can heat and cool buildings, and on possibly using groundwater in a different way in terms of filtering the systems or improving our management of groundwater?

[Beth Parker]

As you pointed out, I've been working for a few decades now on groundwater systems in bedrock aquifers, which Canada is very familiar with. Many of our groundwater basins and watersheds are bedrock-relevant, and this has brought us to understand not just how contaminants move through the system, but how heat is transported through the bedrock system. I think what comes to light is the importance of groundwater in many ways or facets, and the multiple uses of groundwater.

In our community here in Guelph, we're actively extracting aggregate and building stone from quarries. That's an example of how we use our aquifers or our subsurface system not just for the water and the conveyance of water or purification of water but also for the materials that we extract from the subsurface.

However, linking to energy or sources of heating and cooling, I think that low-temperature geothermal is possibly capable of providing.... Up to 67% or 70% of our energy needs are for heating and cooling our buildings, so the concept of being able to essentially use the groundwater, which is, more or less, at a constant temperature in the subsurface, to support heating in the winter and cooling in the summer is something that can be managed, perhaps, within a known volume of the subsurface. We would be able to share that groundwater use not just for drinking water but also for offsetting some of our carbon footprint, something that we so desperately want to do. It's a viable technology, and it's being used in many places around the globe.

I guess what we might need to do is invest in infrastructure to know how we can optimize the use of our subsurface system for multiple purposes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

It's not just our subsurface system. Under the surface, we connect across provinces and territories and across national and international boundaries. The work that's being done in Israel is something that I saw. One of the witnesses mentioned the drip irrigation systems, and I saw those used extensively in Israel. I know that we're using them in the wine industry and in apple orchards.

Is it fair to say that groundwater has the potential to do some of what surface water is doing currently, if surface water was to go away?

[Beth Parker]

It is. First of all, it's important to think of groundwater and surface water as one resource. As I mentioned in my statement, groundwater discharges to surface water and sustains those flows throughout the seasons. Surface water can discharge back to groundwater. They're inextricably linked.

I guess the holistic view of fresh water is something I have heard mentioned many times today, and I think that's a really important concept. Whether it's transboundary issues or how we need to share the uses of these freshwater resources for multiple applications in a viable society or healthy community, I think that's the important concept that we're hearing over and over again.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I'm trying to sneak in a final question on the Canada Water Act. It hasn't been renewed since 1970. We have new understanding of water through groundwater in some of the research you're doing. We do have a national water policy that's under review.

What about the Canada Water Act? Could you maybe encourage us...? Is that something we should put in our report as a recommendation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 15 seconds.

[Beth Parker]

One of the things we need to think about as human beings is that our habits have perhaps deleterious impacts on our water quality and quantity aspects. I think it's certainly something that has to be kept fresh.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I am going to have a question for Professor Parker, who talked about PFAS in her opening address.

Before doing that, however, I want to come back to what my colleague Mr. van Koeverden said earlier, that the government wanted to ban certain plastics and PFAS. That is a good thing, but the real problem is that the small municipalities dealing with PFAS-related problems are being left on their own. We know, for example, that military bases use firefighting foams with a high concentration of PFAS. Wherever there are military bases we will probably find these same problems. And yet the government is having trouble acknowledging this problem.

The costs associated with this are substantial. For the city of Saguenay alone, an $11 million agreement was made with the federal government. However, that money is not enough to solve the problem; it will simply give the people affected temporary access to potable water.

Apart from acknowledging the need to ban plastics and PFAS, the government has to be able to acknowledge its responsibility when it is itself involved in events that cause PFAS to be introduced into potable water sources.

With that said, I come back to my question for Professor Parker.

Does she know of any technologies that would let us get rid of PFAS-type contaminants?

[Beth Parker]

I think that was aimed at me. Is that correct?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes.

[Beth Parker]

I'm not directly involved in.... I have a minimal amount of specific research going on with PFAS contaminants. It's a relatively new contaminant, so my entire discipline is on a very steep learning curve.

The engineering colleagues who are focused on remediation are advancing several types of technologies for treatment. From what I understand at conferences and so on, they are making excellent progress with water treatment technologies—above-ground treatment, so what we would maybe refer to as traditional water treatment technologies.

In situ technologies for the treatment of PFAS plumes in the subsurface are lagging behind, but mainly because in situ technologies are more complicated in terms of being able to work with the natural environment and the complexities of the natural environment. However, progress is also being made on that front.

The bigger issue is preventing the contamination, because remediation is expensive, delayed, and complicated. We're learning ways, perhaps, in which we should be managing the use of those substances and trying to minimize or prevent them from getting into the natural environment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand that the best solution is to ban these substances. However, as we know, when these substances are in ecosystems, it is hard to get rid of them, unfortunately.

What concerns me is knowing that small municipalities are facing problems like this and do not have the resources to solve them. From what I have been able to see, pretty substantial sums are needed to be able to decontaminate potable water sources contaminated by PFAS. I don't know whether you have an idea of the costs associated with decontamination technologies for eliminating PFAS. I think that is a responsibility that should rest with both the federal government and the provincial governments, since the costs associated with it are much too high for small municipalities.

I would like to hear what you have to say about the decontamination technologies you are familiar with. This may not be precisely your field of expertise, but I would like you to tell us about the decontamination technologies you are familiar with. Do you have an idea of the costs associated with them?

[Beth Parker]

Unfortunately, I don't know the specific technologies by name or their cost in particular.

I can make an analogy to 40 years ago, or more, when we discovered extensive contamination by chlorinated solvents, which were widely distributed in our society in large and small communities. They're commonly used in tool and dye manufacturing and by dry cleaners. It meant that small communities would have these chlorinated solvent-type plumes.

Once you discover the nature and the extent of the problem with these very toxic chemicals, and that they're in your drinking water supply, the first thing is to stop using them or mitigate their use. Then, I suppose, you need to immediately worry about the quality of the water that's being purveyed to the individuals as a drinking water source and those treatment technologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses.

My first question is for Mike Wei.

There's a massive multi-year drought happening in B.C., Alberta and western Canada. Can you talk a little bit about the impact of that on groundwater and what it means for communities? What can the federal government be doing to address this?

[Mike Wei]

Thank you, Ms. Collins.

Yes, there have been multi-year droughts. It's problematic for water users in British Columbia. Last year, there were three or four watersheds where farmers had to stop irrigating at a time when they'd already planted and fertilized.

I think one issue is allocating more water than what we have for supply, maybe over-allocating water. The other is lack of storage, so that during freshet, when there's lots of water, users are not able to collect it and store it for later use.

I also think that maybe people are taking water without any authorization, at least in British Columbia. Many people do not know that water is a common-pool resource. Rather, they think that if they live on the land, they own all the water underneath it. That is just not the way water is managed in British Columbia or indeed across Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

The oil and gas industry used nearly 12% of water diverted from Alberta's rivers and lakes in 2020.

With respect to the witnesses—I don't want to take any time away from them—I will use my time just to put on notice this motion:

Given that,

The climate crisis is exacerbating drought conditions in western Canada,

Southern Alberta's agriculture sector is suffering economically from multi-year droughts, with impacts to our food supply chains,

Much more must be done by the federal government to ensure healthy watersheds and resilience to droughts,

The oil and gas industry used nearly 12% of water diverted from Alberta's rivers and lakes in 2020,

Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe as global temperatures rise,

The committee express its concerns over the continuous expansion of the oil and gas sector with seemingly no plans to scale down activity and urges the federal government to do more to build drought resilience through watershed investments, and phase out fossil fuels while transitioning workers to sustainable, unionized, and well-paying jobs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You are just giving notice. You're not moving it.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'm just giving notice, absolutely.