Environment Committee on Feb. 13th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That was terrific; thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Mazier for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming out here today.

Mr. Morrison, I'll start with you.

How do we ensure that the water policy is developed from the ground up with farmers and landowners and not from the top down by Ottawa?

[Duncan Morrison]

That's a really good question. It's certainly one that we're constantly dealing with with our farmers. One thing that we do need is data. We need on-farm research. We need a little bit more support to show the great work that farmers are doing and to build up that graph type of knowledge around some of the land use and some of the practices that are being used. Then, we need to feed them into a model like the Aquanty model, which is absolutely powerful.

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

That's great, and it's a nice segue to Mr. Frey.

On your model, Aquanty, I was fortunate enough to be involved with you back in 2011. We discovered in Manitoba that we had no data. The flood of 2011 did a lot of damage. Thankfully, we were still talking about getting data and getting things revved up in 2014 when another flood hit.

Having said all that, I was very impressed with how far Aquanty has come, and I understand that now Manitoba Forage and Grassland has taken that over as well.

Mr. Frey, I wonder if you can describe how Aquanty works. How does your model work, and why is it so different from anything else that's been proposed in Canada?

[Dr. Steven Frey]

When we model the hydrologic system, we start in the groundwater system and work our way up. Our approach is to look at groundwater and surface water in a holistic manner, fully coupled.

Across Canada, groundwater makes up anywhere from 30% to 100% of the water that you see in rivers. A lot of the research effort and modelling efforts have thus far focused only on surface water. It's the water we see. But in times of drought, the water that flows in the rivers is groundwater that's discharging and that supports ecosystems. It supports waste-water assimilation. It supports irrigation demands. It supports municipal drinking water supplies.

So we start from the bottom up, look at the aquifers, look at the aquitards, the groundwater flow systems, and then we layer the land surface on top. That takes tremendous amounts of data. We have to characterize the subsurface digitally, and those data sets are not readily available. It's one of the big missing links in Canada. How do we characterize the subsurface so that we can incorporate it into models? We work very closely with the Geological Survey of Canada. They are one of the few federal organizations actually looking at the groundwater system. I think it fits into what they do in terms of skill sets and expertise, because when we're talking groundwater, we're talking hydrogeology. That's the world of earth system science. It ties into mineral exploration, geophysics and remote sensing.

A lot of the elements for building our models take data sets constructed by federal departments, including Geological Survey of Canada, Ag Canada, Canadian Space Agency and Environment Canada. We just consume data from all these different agencies, not from a single source but from wherever we can source it.

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

You mentioned the groundwater, and I agree with you totally. We often focus on the flooded basement or the houses under water, but in terms of groundwater, you have to consider at least the other half of what's going on with the water.

On the data collection, right now ECCC is really looking at this water agency—everything all water, right? Do you think that's the best approach? Is there something else we can do here to maybe have a second ask or a second look at how we coordinate all this data or at what agencies out there right now would be almost better suited or at least consulted before we make a water plan in Canada?

[Dr. Steven Frey]

That's a good question. Critically, groundwater has to be considered. I haven't seen a lot of groundwater language within the mandate of the Canadian water agency. That may be a limiting factor. I would recommend that groundwater takes a role in the front seat of that conversation.

It will be impossible to duplicate the expertise within all the different government agencies that steward the data that goes into characterizing Canada's water resources and the physical system with which water flows. I think all the government agencies that deal with these data sets need to have a seat at the table, and their expertise can't be pulled out of that agency and rejuvenated in a new agency. I think all those different federal departments do have to work together.

It's not just one or two. It goes all the way from the Canadian Space Agency to deep into the groundwater flow system at the Geological Survey of Canada.

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

Basically, use the resources we already have, but make sure they're coordinated more than anything.

[Dr. Steven Frey]

Absolutely. Don't try to duplicate them.

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

Okay.

I'm wondering about the United States. They have a national water model. Is there anything Canada could learn from the United States on their modelling and maybe something that could go into this study in terms of their framework? How does it work in the United States as compared with Canada?

[Dr. Steven Frey]

The national water model is a federal initiative in the U.S., but to a certain extent it's actually a private-public partnership. A lot of the technology is being executed by entities in the private sector. Lynker technologies, for instance, has a large role to play within the U.S. national water model. I think they do that for efficiency and potentially cost savings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Madam Chatel, go ahead, please.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have questions for Ms. Holman as well as Mr. Frey.

I'll start with Ms. Holman.

First of all, thank you for being here. Ottawa Riverkeeper is absolutely essential to protecting the Ottawa River. You truly are the voice of our communities, so thank you for the great work you've been doing since 2001.

I'm going to move on to a more difficult subject right away, if I may. We've talked a lot about Chalk River in the course of this committee's deliberations. I'm sure Ms. Pauzé saw this coming.

One of the things we don't hear enough about, and something that concerns me, is the radioactive waste that's already there. I was discussing this myself with Ms. Pauzé. Any attempt to put off managing this waste indefinitely really scares me.

We have a solution, which is outlined clearly in your report. The waste is there. It's part of the environmental legacy. The proposal involves burying it safely. The proposed site at Chalk River will contain 90% of the waste that already exists.

However, you have recommendations for improving the project and making it even safer. Could you comment on that?

[Larissa Holman]

Certainly.

It's a pretty complicated subject, so I'll do my best to answer in French, but I may have to switch to English, if that's easier for me.

Most of Chalk River's current waste is real estate, in other words, buildings that need to be rebuilt. A lot of the structures there will have to be rebuilt. These buildings need to be knocked down and replaced. The soil, the sand and the walls of the old buildings make up the bulk of the waste, but there is other waste as well. A lot of it comes from operations outside of Chalk River.

What matters most to us is really the oversight. What will happen, and will the waste be properly recovered when it's removed from the site?

One big concern is how the waste is going to be identified and placed into the near-surface disposal facility and how the waste-water treatment plant is going to be able to properly oversee and treat the leachate that comes off that piece.

One recommendation we had made was to have an additional treatment for the waste water. Chalk River had tested it, but they haven't seen the waste in action, so they've gone with a system that is considered adequate, but it's not necessarily able to treat the waste in an efficient and effective way, should the waste not meet their projections.

We really ask for them to move up to a more secure level of treatment so that any of the waste water that will be placed into Perch Lake and drain into the Ottawa River doesn't reach the threshold.

We also ask for the thresholds to be more conservative and to take into consideration that this is an aquatic environment and it is also the drinking water source for Ottawa, Gatineau and, in many ways, Montreal. The Ottawa River is a major source of water for Montreal. We wanted those thresholds to be a little lower. We also ask that monitoring be done in a more proactive and robust way.

There's a lot of data available about radioactive waste at Chalk River. Unfortunately, it is only available in the environmental reports or through the independent monitoring project that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, puts out. That data is not very robust. It doesn't capture what is happening.

Some good news here is that the City of Ottawa—the municipality—tests the water weekly for radioactive waste. That's where we get some of our best data about the radioactive materials that might pop up in the Ottawa River throughout the years.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for that clarification. I also want to thank you for the extraordinary and very scientific work you have done on this file.

Mr. Frey, there's a lot of talk about agriculture. In my riding, farmers are very aware of climate change and are working hard to fight it. We've talked about cover crops, a practice used in my region. However, a lot of people are worried about the water table and the need for water. We are well aware of what is happening in the United States. There is less and less water in the southwestern part of the U.S.

We talked about the powers of the Canada Water Agency. You mentioned a partnership. I myself am imagining a partnership with farmers, for example—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Chatel, you're over your six minutes. We won't have time for an answer.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

In that case, I'd like a written answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We won't have an answer right now. That said, the answer to your question could be part of the answer to another question asked by another committee member.

Ms. Pauzé, go ahead.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you to all the witnesses for participating in our study.

Ms. Holman, your organization supports the Algonquin Anishinabe communities. They're saying that they were not adequately consulted about the Chalk River site. In fact, they will be protesting on the Hill tomorrow. You wanted assurances and so on.

I'd like to come back to the comments made by the mayor of Lachine, who was here last week. She is responsible for water and is the spokesperson for the metropolitan community. According to her, once it has been established that radioactivity is present, nothing can be done to mitigate or eliminate it. I was thinking about that when you mentioned the water treatment plants. The Assembly of First Nations and 140 municipalities have spoken out against the project.

Do you have a clear message for us about the risks this project poses to the Ottawa River and any possible health risks? Would you like to see some kind of leadership from the government?

[Larissa Holman]

Thank you so much for your question.

I would also like to thank you for recognizing the Algonquin Anishinabe communities on our land. The Ottawa River watershed covers nearly all Algonquin territory. The voices of the Algonquin people are very important. They say they were not adequately consulted. I think we must listen to them, since they are telling us about their experience loud and clear.

I am aware that is not exactly what the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said. In fact, in its decision, the commission said that it had consulted the Algonquin nation, but this does not align with the experience of the Kebaowek community, the Kitigan Zibi community or other communities.

It's not my job to make sure the project succeeds. That's the developer's job. What I can tell you is that you have to look at the rules and make sure they will protect the waters.

People keep saying that those involved must rely on the precautionary principle, but that is certainly not what was done in this project.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

Federal leadership could well be based on the precautionary principle, which is currently not the case.

[Larissa Holman]

For some of the rules and some of the regulations, it's there.

However, that's not used as it should.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The International Atomic Energy Agency also says that the site must not be built near a source of drinking water. So, we're not there.

I will now address Ms. Livingstone.

Considering how long we've been talking about the Canadian Water Agency, maybe we will end up giving it a mandate. You can tell me whether this is possible for your organization, which I find very promising.

Would you be able to come up with a structured plan that would bring together all the available data?

We hear from a large number of witnesses, who provide us with a lot of data. This information comes from federal agencies, universities, academic chairs, non-profit organizations, and some provinces and territories.

The data should now be categorized, for example by watersheds, groundwater, aquifers, substances detected and contaminants. The Canada Water Agency could make the call to bring all this together.

Would your organization have the technical capacity to create a supertool that would be able to categorize the data?

[Aislin Livingstone]

That's a big job.

Inventorying the water data that is either collected by the federal government or commissioned by the federal government to be collected was one of our recommendations for an action that the Canada water agency could undertake in the earlier stages of its development.

Could our organization do this? We would need a lot more resources and a lot more staff. On a smaller scale, we do this to a certain extent when we're building out our open data platform hubs in different regions in Canada. We look at the landscape. We look at who's collecting data—specifically water quality data, I should say—how it's formatted, the level of accessibility that it already has, and what level of effort would be required to format it in a standard way and share it on our open data platforms.

Our recommendation would be to scale this up to a much larger extent at the federal level, looking at all levels of government and jurisdictions, as you said.

We could certainly provide some insight into how we've done this from our experience. In terms of whether we could take this on ourselves, I would say that's a separate conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Blaikie, for six minutes.