Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2024

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I think one reason why it's of interest to folks around this table is that when we think of the federal government and of big IT projects, we tend to think of the Phoenix pay system, the ArriveCAN app and other things that really haven't worked very well.

Seeing that there's already success and there are models out there already that are working is an inspiration. It's one reason why some of us might be more interested in seeing organizations like yours get the resources they need to scale up instead of asking a new federal agency to start from scratch on a new system, with all the financial hazards, among other things, that this represents.

My question is along a similar line.

How do you imagine the relationship between your organization, data collection, and presenting organizations like yours across the country with the new water agency? What kind of relationship do you think would be the best kind, from the point of view of getting that kind of product where people can access that information at their fingertips in a more comprehensive way and also in terms of governance?

What is important to your organization to maintain in terms of its own self-governance, versus a more integrated approach with whatever the new authority might be?

Could you just give us a sense of what you think is important for policy-makers to bear in mind in that process?

[Aislin Livingstone]

Sure. You pointed out some really important elements.

One is the importance of having really strong enabling policies behind the systems before they're developed. Look at who's collecting the data and how, what format it's already stored in, what systems it's already shared on and how those systems could potentially work with each other.

As you said, look at what would be required to scale up these systems that already work, including grading data based on whether it's accessible at all versus already openly accessible and then understanding where to prioritize efforts.

Another thing, which is something we've seen in our own work, is that as we work in different regions across Canada, people are sharing their data in very different ways across jurisdictions. Understanding the contextual nuance and being able to provide supports that are more place-based, depending on how people are sharing their data, whether that's in the Columbia Basin, Atlantic Canada or in Quebec would be important.

One final thing I would say is about looking at using different types of data standards, so that people who want to go and use that data.... It's not just a place for people to put the data they're collecting, but it's that it can be activated and used in things like modelling.

We've heard from Aquanty before. There are other people who really want to harness the data and make sense of it for watershed reporting and that type of thing, so make it as easy as possible for people who want to make the most of the information that's being collected and make the most of the investments that have been put into the monitoring in the first place.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

As someone who has done work with community-led data-gathering exercises, would you say that there are some important principles that should be manifested in the policy?

[Aislin Livingstone]

For data sharing...?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes.

[Aislin Livingstone]

Yes, absolutely. There are different sets of principles for open data. DataStream follows some of them, the FAIR principles for data sharing to ensure that it's findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. There are also principles for the governance of indigenous data.

At DataStream, it's an open data platform. We work with people who want to share their data publicly, so that's a really important distinction to make as well. In some cases, there are data that aren't necessarily appropriate to be shared publicly.

We look at the principles that exist and make sure that they're embedded in the policies as well as in the systems and the technologies. It also goes without saying, in terms of building relationships with data holders, data collectors and the people who are using it, that we apply those principles at every step of the way.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

In Pinawa, Manitoba we have a decommissioned—or it's going to be decommissioned—research reactor. There has been a lot of debate around how best to decommission that reactor.

One of the proposals is to disassemble it and move the waste to Chalk River, I believe. The other is to grout it in situ, and there has been a lot of concern raised about what that could mean for groundwater and ultimately contamination of the Winnipeg river system.

I'm just wondering, given your work, Ms. Holman, if there are any important cautionary tales that we should heed when it comes to figuring out how best to decommission this reactor and how to best care for the groundwater and ultimately the potable water that comes out of that system.

[Larissa Holman]

Rolphton is a reactor that is just upstream from Chalk River, and the proposal is to keep it in situ. There are a lot of concerns around that process and how effective that is.

I would also double-check whether the materials from that site would make it to Chalk River, because we have been assured that no more additional waste would come to Chalk River. Depending on the level of radioactivity of that material, if it's intermediate or high level, it would need to go into a permanent—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Leslie, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'll start with you, Mr. Morrison.

I'd be remiss if I didn't highlight that today is Canada's Agriculture Day and, while some folks want to blame Canadian farmers for any environmental woes, I'd like to say how proud I am of our strides in sustainability across all aspects of our agricultural sector. I know that we will continue to do that and be a world leader on that front.

In terms of the projects with Aquanty, what has been the interest from livestock producers? I assume that there has to be some testing on the ground. Have there been any concerns surrounding that? What has the uptake been in the data outcomes of some of the projects you've had ongoing? Could you explain what the tangible outcomes could be for producers with some of this data and modelling?

[Duncan Morrison]

Absolutely, and thank you for the nod on the Canada's Agriculture Day. I'm very pleased to be here today.

To the uptake of the beef producers, we have beef producers among MFGA, so we're able to access their infrastructure, and we've also had Steve speak to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association as well. There has been tremendous interest.

Where we are with the model right now is that we're just starting to really give it the ability to go into those more tangible results. It was always there. It takes a little bit of time, but we're at that time threshold now. We have a portal running the forecasting tool that allows producers to access our portal on our MFGA.net and be able to tell what the water is coming downstream in both short-term and long-term intervals.

It's a tremendous planning tool in both long and short term, especially in areas of southern Manitoba that are fraught with incredible extremes of water in some parts, and then, of course, with the dryness associated with drought conditions as well.

Those would be the two.

Steve, would you have an answer as well?

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

I can jump in and continue on with you, Mr. Frey.

When you say it's short and long term, is this at a field level? How big of a scale, both in terms of timeline and physical geography, are these models able to provide?

Is an individual farmer going to say, I have this section of land over here and I can anticipate based on this modelling that we are going to be in a continued dry spell, or whatever the data would point to?

[Dr. Steven Frey]

That's exactly where they're going.

One of the strengths of that development we did collaboratively with MFGA was that it was a model designed with the producers in mind. They actually had a seat at the table. When we designed the model, we designed the interface. How are they going to use it? They were there working with us all the way through.

We're at the point now—although we're modelling 155,000 square kilometres of the Assiniboine River basin—where an individual producer can go down into a section, and get insights on changes in soil moisture and changes in groundwater levels over what we would say is a short term, which is seven days. Then 30 days is a longer-term working forecast.

Now, hydrologic forecasts are as accurate as the weather forecasts, and maybe a little less accurate. It's an emerging technology. Weather forecasts get better, and when that happens hydrologic forecasts get better. I think we have to condition producers and work with them to design tools that they can use when climate change has more and more of an impact on their operations.

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

Thank you for that.

I appreciate the recognition that it's in the early phases. I imagine that looking backwards it's tough to tell how accurate you would be.

I have a couple of questions.

Is this a subscription type of service? I know this is a government, provincial-federal, funded project to begin with. I'm sure there are some contributions from other partners. Is this going to be a subscription type of service that farmers can choose to employ?

I think of the benefits. If you're pretty confident you're going into a dry area, you want a drought-resistant seed to plant. Maybe it's outside of the forage side of things, but I think this could be used a little bit more broadly than just forage and grasslands. Is that the model that you see this developing into?

[Dr. Steven Frey]

I'll make a quick comment and then I'll pass it on to Duncan.

At this point, I don't think it's targeted for individual producer subscriptions. It's more if you're a watershed district then you could use this tool and then have your producers access the tool through the watershed district's account.

Obviously, someone has to pay for it. It's running in the cloud as we speak.

Maybe I'll go over to you, Duncan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have about 15 seconds.

[Duncan Morrison]

Okay, I'll do it very quickly.

Our marketing strategy is to get it into the hands of the most producers in the least number of moves. That means we're working with groups like the watershed districts so that they can use it for their staff and also get it to people in their jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's perfect.

Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of the witnesses today for coming.

I apologize for my funny appearance. I'm grateful for the technology that allows me to do this from home, as I recover from my little eye surgery today. I want to say don't worry to my friends on the committee. I'll be back in person on Thursday.

My question's going to be related to the “What We Heard” report, which was the document entitled, “Toward the Creation of a Canada Water Agency”. It's about public and stakeholder engagement.

I'm mostly preoccupied with freshwater protection and conservation from a human and animal health perspective, which obviously includes agriculture and food security. I also want to give a shout-out to farmers and agricultural workers across our country.

Participants highlighted in that “What We Heard” study the need for more baseline data at a watershed scale to support assessments of new development proposals. They also told us that more research, monitoring and modelling is needed to anticipate and track climate change and other threats to freshwater quality, quantity and the health and functioning of ecosystems. This is particularly around fresh water, including floods and drought prediction.

On other panels we've explored the fact that here in Ontario we have the benefit of conservation authorities, which is a unique model in Canada that might be replicated precisely to learn from best practices and reduce some redundancies. Would any of the panellists today like to comment on similar science-gathering groups or agencies, or even a specific conservation authority in your region that has done some particularly exceptional work as it relates to human and animal health in fresh water?

[Larissa Holman]

I would be happy to jump in on that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Of course.

[Larissa Holman]

In the Ottawa River watershed there are conservation authorities. They are present on the Ontario side, but they are not consistent across that side, because it is up to the municipalities to decide whether they're going to fund conservation authorities or not.

In the northern part of the watershed where we have a large agricultural belt around Lake Timiskaming there is no conversation authority, so there is no drought forecasting done in that region. Then on the other side of the river, we have the organismes de bassins versants, which are OBVs for short, which do a lot of research on it, but they don't have similar funding, and they don't have the same powers that conservation authorities have.

I think when looking at these models, even within the models themselves there are some discrepancies about how effective they can be when they are not applied throughout the entire watershed or regions that they are looking at.

In addition to that, with the data availability and the lack of consistent data being collected, it's very difficult to do analysis if you're not collecting data consistently from year to year. We have, within an Ottawa River watershed report we did, this concept of a slipping baseline—the fact that you collect data at a certain time, and if it doesn't exist previously, we have to look at the conditions today as opposed to what they looked like 30 years ago, which would give us a sense of the impacts of climate change and pollution. Therefore that all stems back to this: What are the stresses on the aquatic health of these rivers, and how do we move forward to protect them?

I think it's an excellent observation, and there are some really good models out there. However, of course, we are a watershed organization, and I would really strongly advocate to consider the value of community-based monitoring and citizen and community scientists, who can help gather that data and provide that localized knowledge that is so critical to understanding what might be happening. We can take the time to analyze the data at a watershed scale and provide that feedback, which is not necessarily done just when data is collected.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you for that. Thank you for highlighting the very unique example of the Ottawa River that not only flows through different jurisdictions, but actually has a north shore in one province and a south shore in another.

Is there anybody from another province or territory who would like to comment on an agency or science-gathering group that has done good work outside Ontario?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have about 30 seconds.

[Kat Hartwig]

Okay. That's too bad. I would like to speak to that, just because in the Columbia basin we are moving to semi-arid conditions. We've been working for the last seven years to collect and fill water data gaps to allow for a water budget to be built so that our community decision-makers can have the opportunity for climate adaptation options. We have been working on this for the last seven years, as I say, with an open-source data hub.

Paige, I don't know if you want to speak to how many hydrometric stations we have been able to install.