:
I have not been given anything. I have asked for them. There's only so much I can do. I have not heard back.
It's noted that you're requesting the expenses of the 's delegation from the Dubai COP28. You've mentioned it here publicly. We'll see what happens.
[Translation]
I would like to welcome the three witnesses who will appear during the first hour of the meeting.
From the International Institute for Sustainable Development, we have Scott Higgins, senior research scientist, Experimental Lakes Area; Claire Malcolmson, executive director of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition; and André Bélanger, executive director of the Rivers Foundation.
Each witness will have five minutes for their opening remarks.
We will start with Mr. Higgins, who is joining us virtually.
[English]
Go ahead, Mr. Higgins. You have five minutes to give an opening statement.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today.
My name is Dr. Scott Higgins. I am a senior research scientist at the International Institute for Sustainable Development Experimental Lakes Area. I'm pleased to be speaking to you today from Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of Anishinabe, Cree, Ojibwa-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and the homeland of the Métis nation.
I am very honoured to provide testimony to this committee on behalf of my organization. This is a very important topic that affects all sectors and peoples of Canada. The IISD Experimental Lakes Area has played an important role in understanding and providing scientific guidance for policy-makers, managers, industry and the public for over 50 years, first within the federal government and now as a non-profit research-based organization. As our name implies, we focus on freshwater issues that affect Canadians. We have years of experience in research, monitoring and data, which is what I will speak about today.
With respect to the federal responsibility for water, we recommend that a priority of the Canada water agency is to develop a national water strategy that would include facilitating collaboration across jurisdictions and sectors, improving access to national freshwater data and facilitating priority areas of research. Given the importance of water to all sectors and peoples of Canada, a national water strategy is of strong national interest.
With respect to research, I would like to start by highlighting that Canada is recognized as a world leader in freshwater science. Our research at the IISD Experimental Lakes Area and that of our colleagues at Canadian academic and government institutions has made significant global contributions to understanding the impacts and risks to freshwater systems and providing science-based management and policy solutions.
An important driver of my organization's success has been the highly collaborative nature of our research, which includes academic and government researchers, indigenous peoples, industry, NGOs and other stakeholders. We have found that this collaborative model helps break down barriers, is highly cost effective and leads to strong management and policy outcomes. For this reason, we feel that a key role of the Canada water agency should be to facilitate collaboration between government departments at all levels and the many stakeholders in the water sector to undertake activities required for managing the complex nature of Canada's water systems.
We recommend that the federal government, through the Canada water agency, should take a leadership role in identifying issues at the regional and national scales that require further research and facilitate the creation of national collaborative teams to tackle them. This would require coordination of funding from government, private sources and programs, many of which already exist but are fragmented across different agencies.
With respect to monitoring, we recommend that a national water strategy include routine national assessments of lake and stream water and groundwater. Routine national water assessments are an issue of national security and importance. Without them, we are not able to understand the state of our freshwater systems and to identify risks to the public, to our ecosystems and to all sectors of our economy. Further, a national monitoring program would help identify emerging issues of regional and national importance where management and policy interventions, or further research, are needed.
This brings me to my final points, which are about data. Currently, water quality data in Canada is widely dispersed across different levels of government and sectors. It's very challenging to access. Millions and millions of dollars are spent on collecting data, and yet it often sits on shelves gathering dust. Canada needs a national database that is open and accessible to everyone.
In our experience, the public wants to know about water issues where they live. This knowledge can help drive effective stewardship. There are examples from other countries on how this has been achieved. There are also great examples from Canada—DataStream, for one—that bring in data from disparate sources like governments, academics, first nations and community groups and provide it in an accessible way to scientists, managers and the public.
Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to answering your questions.
:
Thank you very much for the very last-minute invitation to join this committee.
[Translation]
Hello.
[English]
I'm the executive director of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition.
Lake Simcoe is in an art map behind me. It's in southern Ontario, an hour north of Toronto. It's the poster child for the impacts of development on a lake. It's the most intensively studied lake in Canada, as far as I know, with the exception, probably, of the experimental lakes.
I'm here to talk about the fact that there are so many interrelated, multi-jurisdictional issues that data alone, although important, cannot solve the problems. We have watershed legislation at Lake Simcoe that should be protecting the lake. However, most of the targets we are trying to achieve continue to get further and further out of our grasp. What I want to impress on the committee here is the very serious need for the federal government to act on the policies you already have. I'm speaking about, in particular, impacts to Lake Simcoe from the Bradford Bypass highway.
That's my overview. I'm going to step back a bit and acknowledge that Lake Simcoe is in the territory of Williams Treaties first nations. There are two first nations that currently reside on the lake. The Georgina Island first nation is one of our 30 member groups. I'm not speaking on their behalf, but we learn from each other and have developed relationships. We have a lot to learn from our first nations and I hope they're coming to this committee, too.
There are a number of things in my brief that I applaud the federal government for taking action on. I think it's very important to recognize that land use affects water more than anything else. I appreciate, in particular, tying affordable housing money to municipal density bylaws. That's because, at Lake Simcoe—where we have 500,000 people living in the watershed, including in the cities of Barrie, Orillia, Newmarket and Bradford—sprawl is the biggest growing impact we have. Of course, it overlaps with another federal priority I appreciate: reducing the impacts of climate change and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We have to do that to save Lake Simcoe, save our climate and protect our water from the impacts of salt pollution, which is a huge issue we've just taken up in a serious way in the last couple of months.
I'm talking about land use planning and how these activities interact with water quality. For the Bradford Bypass highway, for example, we know we didn't get an impact assessment. We tried twice. We know the impact assessment tool is a bit of a hot topic, so leaving that aside, we're still very concerned that our waters are not protected. The Bradford Bypass proponents have identified, in their fisheries information, that they found the American eel. That is a federal jurisdiction: endangered species. This was identified by first nations, another area of federal jurisdiction.
We have reviewed all this information and find it lacking. I'm going to be sending a letter to the DFO. Currently, the DFO says they are going to wait and see if they are asked to review this information. I submit that this is the wrong approach when we have a very big project. It is frankly not appropriate for the 21st century. It's a 16-kilometre highway over 13 water bodies, one of which is currently choked with salt already. It's not appropriate to let a project like that go ahead.
Clearly, everyone in the Government of Ontario has removed the brakes. The guardrails are being dismantled, so we need the federal government to act on the powers it already has to protect the fish. The quality of the water, of course, has a major impact on the fish.
Mr. Chair, esteemed members of the committee, thank you for your invitation. It's a pleasure to be here today.
For 20 years now, the Rivers Foundation has been working on water quality, access to riverbanks and protecting our rivers' natural state. We believe in increasing and expanding the respectful uses of water and waterways so that more people enjoy, care for and protect water.
Among the challenges we are currently facing, the first is to dispel the false perception that urbanized waterways and rivers are dirty and polluted. Our rivers are no longer the dumping grounds they once were, even though there are still major challenges in terms of treating municipal, industrial and agricultural waste water and there are too many microplastics and emerging contaminants. Be that as it may, we have to reclaim our waterways.
In addition, we must dispel the false perception that water can be contained, channelled and controlled. As you know, because of climate change, there is too much water in some places and not enough elsewhere. If we were smart and allowed waterways to flow freely, they could help us better adapt to climate change.
I bring this up because we are mediators in the field of information. We interpret data with the intention of protecting our water sources and rivers. We take knowledge and we act on it. To be able to act, we have to start by taking a balanced, holistic and pragmatic look at the situation. That is what we did when we tackled the issues related to municipal waste water treatment in Quebec. We organized the data that was provided by municipalities and collected for years by the Government of Quebec.
The previous witness mentioned that a lot of data is being collected. Indeed, we are almost obsessed with data. However, no one analyzes the data. Not a lot of people get useful information out of it, but that is precisely what our organization has managed to do. We processed the data using the Microsoft PowerBI platform. We developed an extraordinary diagnostic tool called AuditEAU. This tool enables us to publish annual rankings based on wastewater overflows and a map that allows us to compare how various municipalities in Quebec are performing.
The impact was immediate: The media relayed the information, citizens became involved and, above all, elected officials got on board and made the necessary changes. AuditEAU has become a tool for the public good that enables elected officials, citizens and departmental officials to do their work better. Moreover, the Quebec Ministry of the Environment has acquired a licence for the software to use it with its own data.
The Canada Water Agency needs to be a data exchange facilitator. We talk about data all the time. Protecting water is a complicated business. We have to find solutions that go beyond administrative divisions, solutions that almost always fall under shared jurisdictions.
So how can we get the agency to contribute in the right way to provincial efforts, particularly in Quebec?
First, the agency must have the role of facilitator to foster the intersection of scientific, public, private, citizen and indigenous expertise. It could encourage the development of simple, powerful indicators that work to motivate people. A performance indicator does not have to be perfect. In fact, it must definitely not be left solely in the hands of scientists, because people on the ground have to get involved and ask the right questions. A good indicator makes it possible to measure and take concrete action to protect our waterways.
That's what our annual rankings do. We developed an overflow per capita intensity indicator, which allows us to compare municipalities. We now see that the municipalities are on board. In the Gaspé, we established a direct link between sewage discharges and the ban on shellfish harvesting. Fisheries and Oceans Canada had taken samples far too long ago, and the analysis showed that there were contaminants from water treatment plants. That could enable us to develop indicators.
Second, the agency must facilitate data sharing. Data is collected in Canada and we don't know what to do with it. Why is the data being collected? What are the datasets used for? What kind of picture do they paint? Are there any comparisons to be made?
The agency can and should support the sharing of as much data as possible, develop interoperability mechanisms for open data, and support citizen data mining efforts that might seem to provide different results at first glance.
Third, the agency must facilitate the participation of civil society in the search for solutions. Protecting water requires the active and engaged participation of civil society. Citizen organizations are creative. They are committed and they know how to get governments to act. You are prime witnesses to this effect.
Innovations will emerge from the bottom up, and the agency must support citizen involvement and science initiatives. The Action-Climat Québec funding program, which funds citizen involvement in efforts to fight and adapt to climate change, is a good example.
In its role as a facilitator, the agency must serve as a unifying force. This must be done while respecting each province's jurisdiction, of course, but to succeed collectively, we need this unifying body that will allow information to be shared.
:
The Province of Ontario passed the Lake Simcoe Protection Act in 2008 and the plan in 2009. I was the lead campaigner for environmental defence to get that legislation, with Rescue Lake Simcoe and Ontario Nature.
The main problem we have at Lake Simcoe is phosphorus pollution, so we have a target of reducing the annual phosphorus loads to the lake from, now, about 90 to 100 tonnes, to 44 tonnes a year. When you compare the two most recent 10-year periods, our phosphorus loads are actually going slightly up. This was 100% anticipated by the previous provincial government, in some study that they did at our request as part of multi-stakeholder work to analyze the impacts of growth development on the watershed, so really, it's stormwater and urban development that are driving that increase or the fact that we are not making substantial gains. The only reductions that are known have come from improvements to sewage treatment plants—and thank you very much, as I think there was federal funding for that too—but it's limited. We've picked the low-hanging fruit, so reducing phosphorus at this point is increasingly challenging.
I will just note that I also appreciate that the federal government made a $24-million contribution and really kick-started getting a phosphorus treatment plant on the Holland River built, and the province is now aiming to get that done in this administration.
There are other targets as well: Trying to achieve 40% high-quality natural cover is one of those. That also fits with the 30 by 30 target the federal government has. We have nowhere near 40% high-quality natural cover in the watershed. That's one of those really important indicators for health, and also, of course, it's important for climate change. We're making no progress on that.
:
It was really important to have that fund. Mostly, the conservation authority and the Ontario government used that money. I don't really care which government produces the fund or names the fund. The name of the fund is not important to me, but what's important to the lake and to the people who care about it is the effect.
Again, if you look at the phosphorus loads and compare two recent decades, they're not going down. We have not done enough to control the pollution, and the pollution is stormwater and overland pollution. It comes from farming—and all sorts of sectors as well, of course—but the growing sector is growth, and that, again, is why we come back to fighting sprawl in southern Ontario and in this very delicate watershed. I think it's important to make the connection between land use and water.
What I really don't want is for the government to say, “We'll just keep throwing money at this and it's going to be fine.” I'm here to say that's not enough. We appreciate the money, of course, but to be clear, my organization has never received federal funding for this kind of work. We continue to advocate and to talk about the need to control sprawl for so many reasons. Money's great, but we need enforcement of existing policy and we need teeth.
Thank you to the witnesses.
I'd like to start with Mr. Bélanger.
I know there's been some experience around the Mercier lagoons with PCBs, the contamination of groundwater and the plume that's created, which is a real challenge to drinking water.
Up in Kearl, we met with the representatives around the leak in the tailings pond. I recently spoke with Chief Tuccaro from the Mikisew Cree First Nation about the challenges there, which have naphthenic acid and heavy metals.
You mentioned in your testimony the monitoring and the tools that have been developed to monitor contamination. Could you tell us how those could be modified for areas where naphthenic acid is the concern, or where PCBs would be the concern somewhere else? Is this monitoring adaptable to the different conditions we're trying to monitor?
:
We have the technological tools. They are readily available. Certainly, we've been focusing a lot on fecal coliforms and a little less on chemical pollution. The tools and technologies exist. The challenge we have is to make information available quickly so that it can lead to decision-making.
In the case of the Mercier lagoons, the situation is desperate. The lagoons site is being decontaminated and that work will carry on indefinitely. In Blainville, they are talking about expanding a toxic waste dump. The authorities are claiming that the membrane is watertight, but it will break down over time.
There is the challenge of transparency, of communication. You have to make sure that people are aware of the risks and understand them, and that follow-up work is done based on the information previously communicated.
Again, a lot of information is being collected, but we should be setting targets, including preventative ones.
:
That's helpful. Thank you very much.
I'd like to go to Mr. Higgins next.
The Experimental Lakes Area was near and dear to me. I grew up in Winnipeg. I used to canoe in that area where the experimental lakes are. It was closed under the Harper government. We found ways of keeping it open through the province, through Ontario, and then later on, the federal government stepped in.
I spoke with a chief up in Dryden, who talked about the need to start with clean water. The monitoring of that water is very important, if there's a paper mill nearby, for the indigenous communities to know whether the water is acceptable or not.
Could you comment on whether the experimental lakes have been working with field monitoring and the ability to look at the lakes in real time, or is that an opportunity for the Canada water agency?
:
I think there are a lot of opportunities there.
At the IISD Experimental Lakes Area, especially since we have transferred to being a non-profit agency, we have been reaching out to our first nations partners. Many of them, especially in Treaty No. 3 territory, are developing their own community-based monitoring programs, and we are facilitating that development where we can.
I think you're absolutely right that citizens are concerned about their water quality. Is it safe? Is it drinkable? Is it swimmable? In order for them to know that, not only does the monitoring have to be done but they also need access to the data, and they need it in a rapid fashion.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.
I'll turn to Mr. Higgins now.
Mr. Higgins, I would like to start out by pointing out one small thing.
There's a footnote to your study on oil spills. However, when I click on it, I get "error 404,” as if the page doesn't exist.
Could you send the document to the committee? That is not my question, but rather my request.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development, or IISD, has a plan to help improve information and data collection on freshwater so as to increase research, training and engagement.
You are seeking $37.5 million in federal grants. However, 11 federal facilities are already conducting freshwater research.
Are these labs, these centres, receiving a portion of the $37.5 million?
:
That's a really good question.
There are a number of players in the water sector across Canada, because it integrates into almost every sector in Canada and affects almost every person in Canada.
If you're going to talk about the pitfall side, I think the concern would be issues around red tape and accessibility.
On the benefit side, what we're really missing in the national context is what we recommended, which is this national water strategy, because we really don't understand issues around water quality or water quantity on a national scale. There are some big issues and risks that Canada and Canadians face.
A recent study in the United States indicated that PFAS chemicals—these forever chemicals that are carcinogenic and cause all sorts of human health issues—are widespread across the United States, and were previously unknown. If someone was going to ask me what the status is in Canada, I would say we don't know because we have no system right now that evaluates these sorts of risks on a national scale.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, colleagues.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to your Canadian Parliament.
I'll start with you, Mr. Bélanger. I am very pleased to meet you. Obviously, we all know you. Your organization is very well established in Quebec, as we know. You have over 20 years of service and expertise that should benefit everyone.
Can you walk us through the AuditEAU tool and expand on it? How exactly does the AuditEAU system work? What results have you achieved with this tool? Can you provide some examples of those results?
:
It's clear that salt has a major impact on water quality.
As Ms. Malcolmson mentioned earlier, urban development and soil mineralization are major challenges that are not being sufficiently addressed. Protecting rivers requires land-use planning, in other words, planning that puts limits on the use of land.
We just wrote to the president of Northvolt to remind him that his company is going to mineralize an area that absorbs water, which, by extension, has a direct impact on the river, the water table and the possibility of flooding.
I think this really is the biggest Achilles heel in terms of government decision-making.
I'd like to direct my questions to the executive director of Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition.
Ms. Malcolmson, thank you for being here today and highlighting the challenges we face with Lake Simcoe and the pollution loading up on the lake.
You started by mentioning the Chippewas of Georgina Island. There are other first nations, like the Rama and Beausoleil first nations. It was not too long ago that the first nations under the Williams Treaties actually got back the rights to harvest fish.
Looking at not only the levels of pollution that exist but the new contaminants, like the PFAS and other contaminants we are finding now, it would seem that newly found right could be very difficult to exercise if the fish are in fact contaminated.
When you talked about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, you mentioned that they weren't going to do a review unless asked to do a review on the health of fish.
I am wondering who they are waiting to be asked by. I think you have asked repeatedly for that review. Who needs to ask? Is it the province that has to ask?
:
It's under the Ministry of Transportation Ontario. They exempted themselves from doing a typical environmental assessment. It is a streamlined, self-approved environmental assessment. They're really behaving like it's already approved, and all they really need to do is to mitigate.
I'm here to assert that if we're going to save the water and the things that live in the water, like the bait fish or the fish, we have to actually investigate. This is an example. I have now reviewed all the information. There are a lot of holes.
The information we have that says that the project proponent—in this case, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario—would request a review was from, actually, a petition. We did a formal petition to Jerry DeMarco's office. At the time, was minister of DFO, and her response indicated that they were waiting to be asked.
I have never participated in an environmental assessment before, let alone a very unique, streamlined, self-approved one, so I'm not really sure what the typical process is. I just sent a letter to the project team in Ontario for the Bradford Bypass. I wanted the project team to respond to these concerns, but they're not even monitoring their email, just as an example of guardrails being gone in Ontario. Therefore, I have to wrap this all up as a package for the DFO.
I don't think it's really appropriate that the project proponent would have to ask for a review. Maybe that's a question you can answer for me too. Is it not appropriate for the DFO to request a review? That's what our letter to DFO will say: that we think, given all the evidence I'm giving you about how many holes there are in this information and that multiple layers of federal jurisdiction could be affected by this work, you should request a review.
:
Yes. This sounds like perhaps something the Canada water agency can do in terms of having the federal and provincial levels collaborate.
I was reflecting on what you were saying about the phosphorus levels. The phosphorus levels have gone down over time, but they haven't gone down enough. They're going to increase, obviously, with more development. It seems a little bit like medication in that, rather than addressing the underlying cause, you try to treat the symptom, only to see that there are side effects and that, in fact, the problem is going to persist.
Therefore, I think this issue of how the federal government can work with provincial governments is very important. Thank you for bringing that up.
:
We've been doing work on algal blooms at the Experimental Lakes Area for over 50 years. It started back when it was a federal institution. That's why the Experimental Lakes Area was actually started: to deal with the algal bloom issues in the Laurentian Great Lakes. They're very pervasive now. This is one of the biggest and the most ubiquitous issues around the world for fresh water.
Our position is that phosphorous is really the key element that we need to target. It comes from more than one source: point sources and non-point sources, and treated and untreated. It depends on where you are, which is most important. When we encounter a problem—let's say it's Lake Winnipeg or elsewhere—we say, first, let's target and find out exactly where this phosphorous is coming from, so that we can efficiently and effectively deal with the problem.
In the Lake Winnipeg watershed, for example, only 6% to 9% of the phosphorous is coming from waste-water treatment plants in Winnipeg. The vast majority is coming from non-point sources. In those circumstances, we say, “Focus the effort here on non-point sources because we need to deal with that problem.” In other areas, it's raw sewage or treated sewage.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today and sharing your knowledge and experience with us.
During its meetings in early February, the committee heard concerns from several witnesses about a couple of human resources shortages.
One witness said that hydrogeology graduate programs had trouble finding Canadian graduate students to take advantage of the available research funding opportunities. Several other witnesses informed the committee that there are not enough certified water technicians to meet residential consumer demand.
I have two questions arising from that testimony.
What could the federal government be doing differently to attract Canadians to freshwater fields of study and to keep specialists, both Canadian and international, in Canada?
Are Canadian federal freshwater research facilities and funding opportunities sufficient to retain academics and to attract high-calibre graduate students?
I will start with Mr. Higgins, please.
:
That's a really good question about what we would typically refer to as highly qualified personnel and their training.
I'll say very personally from the Experimental Lakes Area example that, in addition to the research and monitoring that we do, we have a large number of undergraduate and graduate students and even high school students now who come to our facility. We offer them employment for the summer, but through that employment, they gain a lot of expertise. They go on to other jobs in government, consultancies or industry.
We have benefited greatly from a number of federal funding programs that help organizations hire students, specifically in environmental fields. I think that can be a real benefit.
Another thing that we have found very helpful is that a number of universities have co-operative education programs where students not only can do their academic training but also can receive on-the-ground training within industry or partners like ourselves in the water sector. This really benefits them because when they finish their undergraduate degrees, they have experience in the sector and can more easily find jobs in the sector.
:
Thank you to the committee for inviting us. My name is Aislin Livingstone, and I'm honoured to be here today representing DataStream in my capacity as water program manager.
The focus of our testimony today is data. Canada-wide, we have a major problem around access to water data. This is affecting our ability to make evidence-based decisions. At DataStream, we've come to know this challenge intimately through our own work in trying to track down water data across the country.
DataStream is a charity dedicated to advancing freshwater protection through open data and the inclusion of public voices in decision-making. We've been working in this area for about 10 years. In that time, DataStream has dramatically improved the availability of water-quality data in Canada. We have done this through our comprehensive programming, which includes an online data-sharing platform. Over 260 organizations are using DataStream to share almost 40 million data points collected at monitoring locations from coast to coast to coast. We work with community groups, governments, indigenous nations and academics who are sharing data so that it can be put to use for freshwater protection. It's great to see that three monitoring organizations that we have collaborated closely with are also appearing as witnesses today.
While we've made major progress, there is still significant work ahead. Much of this needs to be led by government agencies. The recommendations I am sharing today focus on three areas where we can make progress in addressing Canada's data access issue. These are working with community-based groups, making data openly accessible and improving coordination. These recommendations draw on our 10 years of experience working to improve access to data in Canada.
I'll start with community. Communities are an essential part of Canada's ability to adapt to freshwater issues and climate change. DataStream works with more than 150 community organizations, indigenous and non-indigenous, that are out on their waters, monitoring and responding to environmental changes as they happen.
In Atlantic Canada, where I live, we work with more than 70 watershed groups that are tackling such issues as endangered salmon habitat, pesticides from agricultural runoff, and contamination from gold mining, among many others. There's also an incredible example right here in Ottawa. Over the last 20 years, Ottawa Riverkeeper, whom you'll hear from later, has made major headway in applying the data they collect to finding solutions to issues that range from road salts to sewage overflows.
To realize the full potential of these on-the-ground initiatives and ensure that communities are meaningfully engaged in water decisions, a unified federal approach to community-based monitoring is needed, including resources, investment and cross-sector partnership building. We recommend that the federal government use data collected by communities for informed decision-making, including climate change adaptation, and provide long-term funding support for community-led monitoring and restoration.
I'll move on to open data. Water data needs to be open by default so that policies and decisions are based on the best available evidence. Progress has been made to improve access to federally collected data, but more work is needed. From 2019 to 2020 alone, the Government of Canada invested over $73 million in water-related research. However, the data from this kind of research isn't always shared publicly. Ensuring that this data is openly accessible would maximize these investments by facilitating broader data reuse.
To share another example, despite extensive water monitoring and research, in the 2020 global data drive sustainable development goal 6.3.2—it tracks the health of ambient water quality—Canada reported on the status of rivers but has not reported on groundwater or open water bodies, such as lakes and reservoirs.
We know that a freshwater data strategy is being developed by the Canada water agency, and we're optimistic that it will achieve an integrated, coordinated and standardized approach to freshwater data. This should include both surface water and groundwater. To achieve this, we recommend that the federal government fully implement existing open data policies so that all data collected using public funds are also publicly available; harmonize data across departments, programs and jurisdictions by adopting universal data standards; and invest in sustainable, scalable data systems so that Canada's freshwater data strategy is built to last.
Finally, I'll go to coordination. We consistently hear that it's really hard to figure out who's doing what when it comes to water in Canada. For example, over 20 federal departments have responsibilities related to water. While there's a reason for this complexity—water is involved in everything, from human health to industry—the monitoring groups we work with want to help find solutions, but they're not always sure who to talk to. In our work, we have seen that water data is managed totally differently from one jurisdiction to the next. Better co-operation will allow communities and governments to invest more efficiently in monitoring and respond more quickly to freshwater issues. Ultimately, this will build trust in the institutions that are responsible for water.
Now is a great time to improve transparency and coordination of surface water and groundwater activities in Canada. We recommend that the Canada water agency provide a water concierge service to actively connect people to the appropriate decision-making bodies, both indigenous and non-indigenous.
In closing, thank you again to this committee for the opportunity to share our views with you for your study of fresh water in Canada.
:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
My name is Kat Hartwig. I'm the executive director and co-founder of Living Lakes Canada.
I've worked in the NGO environmental sector for 33 years, with the last 20 focused on freshwater stewardship. I live in Brisco, B.C., which is the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa and Secwepemc nations.
Living Lakes Canada programs include education, research, monitoring, data collection, restoration and policy development for the long-term protection of lakes, rivers, wetlands, aquifers and watersheds in Canada. We work to help people address the impacts of climate change on water quality and quantity and biodiversity in their respective communities.
Joining us today are my colleagues Paige Thurston, manager of our Columbia Basin hydrometric and groundwater program, and Georgia Peck, manager of all of our lakes monitoring programs across Canada. They are here to help answer your questions.
We will provide you with three recommendations for your study on fresh water based on our experience from the last two decades working in freshwater research, monitoring and data.
Our work originates in the Canadian Columbia Basin, which lies between two mountain ranges, the Rockies and the Purcells. This area is considered to be the water towers for our food-growing belts in southeastern B.C., the prairie provinces and parts of the U.S. We are currently experiencing extreme drought conditions from last year with no expected relief and likely worsening conditions this year. The cycle of drought, forest fires and flooding has become our new norm.
Recommendations for the study on fresh water are as follows.
Recommendation one is to include the Canadian Columbia Basin, a watershed of national significance, in the freshwater action plan, with designated funding via the Canada water agency, or other funding mechanisms, that will support the monitoring and data collection needed to inform water allocation and community adaptation options.
Recommendation two is that any coordinated water and climate monitoring networks being implemented in other river basins be built upon existing successful regional efforts, such as the Columbia Basin water monitoring framework and open source data hub or other templates. It is more cost-effective and faster to replicate best practices of successful and tested methodologies from one region to another.
Recommendation three is to advance indigenous knowledge and data sovereignty through water stewardship. Supporting indigenous initiatives for water stewardship then, de facto, land stewardship provides us all the opportunity to learn how applied reconciliation can help us shift into new paradigms that provide action and care for many generations to come.
In closing, I'm going to reiterate what you already know. The Canadian Climate Institute issued a report in 2022 stating that by 2025, over 90% of climate impacts and disasters will involve water and will slow down Canada's economic growth by $25 billion annually.
We commend the efforts for this study on fresh water. We also urge you to rapidly accelerate non-partisan efforts towards water and food security for both indigenous and non-indigenous people living in our amazing country. In doing so, you have the opportunity to become international leaders in freshwater stewardship.
Thank you for your efforts in these very challenging times.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting us to be here. We are extremely grateful.
As a farmer-led non-profit organization with more than 30 years of history, Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association is extremely sensitive to the needs of those farmers who rely on the land for their livelihood.
MFGA staunchly believes that many farmers are doing outstanding work on their farms right now from a soil health, water and healthy ecosystem perspective, and by working with Aquanty, we hope to support that.
Our MFGA rationale is simply vitally important. When you don't have water, you have problems on your farm, and that's every single farm. The flow of water is the key to understanding agricultural prosperity and the incredible potential that farms and farmers can contribute to society.
We'd really appreciate your support.
I will turn it over to Steven Frey.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and other members of the committee.
Thank you for the privilege of participating here today. Land management in our agricultural regions governs hydrologic response to extreme weather and will play a critical role in ensuring Canadian agriculture and ecosystem sustainability under a changing climate.
Beneficial management practices that incorporate wetlands, grasslands, cover crops, minimum tillage and controlled drainage all promote surface water and groundwater availability, improve water quality and resiliency to flood, drought and disease stress.
As climate change continues to impact surface water, groundwater is becoming increasingly important to agriculture and ecosystem productivity, yet initiatives currently proposed to address water resources in Canada ignore groundwater.
To underscore the importance of groundwater, in many rural areas and first nation lands it is often the sole source of water for both people and livestock.
In the face of increasing hydrologic uncertainty, tools that extend traditional weather forecasts into water resource forecasts will become critical. Hydrologic forecasting is already commonplace in the water resources management community, however the most common forecasting tools focus on river flow and overlook the dynamic link between groundwater and surface water. Without groundwater, we are not well suited to look at agricultural drought end points.
An example of an agriculture-focused, hydrologic prediction system that does include groundwater exists in southern Manitoba, where the Manitoba Forage and Grassland Association water forecast portal now generates field-scale weekly and monthly forward-looking hydrologic projections.
It is equally important to enhance our ability to project hydrologic conditions farther out into the future and over much larger areas. This is the objective of the relatively new Canada1Water initiative. Canada1Water is a collaborative government interdepartmental, industry and academic-driven project led by the Geological Survey of Canada and Aquanty and has developed, for the first time ever, a national scale hydrologic modelling framework with open data to project climate change impacts on the surface water and groundwater inventory over the entirety of Canada.
Even though a better understanding of short-term and long-term impacts to water resources is vital to Canada's economic and societal sustainability, projects like those mentioned are challenging to launch and perhaps even more challenging to sustain.
The MFGA water portal was funded by a now discontinued agricultural risk management program and current funding for these tools is difficult to obtain.
Canada1Water was launched with a considerable investment in time and expertise from the Geological Survey of Canada's groundwater geoscience program and $1 million in funding over three years from the Canadian safety and security program, a source of seed money but not sustained funding.
Here we're not talking about the need for tens of millions of dollars per year, but rather budgets on the order of a few million dollars per year and a commitment of government lab resources to help deliver world-class hydrologic insights that meet the needs of a broad range of stakeholders.
In closing, if I could make three recommendations for the committee to consider they would be to, one, support the development of programs that provide economic return to producers who adopt land management practices that promote hydrologic resiliency; two, recognize that decision support tools focused on water resources will become increasingly important to our agricultural community, and Canadian technology is leading the way both in Canada and around the world; and three, look into the Canada1Water project and help it find sustained funding to support this valuable initiative.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for embarking on a comprehensive study of the role of the federal government in protecting and managing Canada's freshwater resources.
In your collective role as the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, you have an opportunity to weigh the various responsibilities for freshwater protection and management throughout Canada.
[Translation]
In my role at Ottawa Riverkeeper, I have seen the challenges and benefits of working across jurisdictions at a watershed scale.
[English]
I am eager to share some of these experiences with you today, here on the unceded unsurrendered Anishinabe Algonquin territory.
Ottawa Riverkeeper is a charitable organization founded in 2001 and we are a champion for swimmable, drinkable, fishable waters throughout the Ottawa River watershed. Our mission is to protect, promote and improve the ecological health of the largest tributary of the St. Lawrence River, the formidable Ottawa River and its tributaries.
[Translation]
Over 23 years, Ottawa Riverkeeper has grown to become a trusted, independent voice for the protection of freshwater within the Ottawa River watershed.
[English]
We are a fully bilingual organization, and we use science-based decision-making to inform how and what we advocate for to protect the ecological health of the river, a river upon which so many of us depend.
Chances are that you are drinking tap water sourced from the Ottawa River today, yet the health of this river is threatened. As we have been told, pollution has no boundaries. Ottawa Riverkeeper has championed a multitude of issues afflicting our water, from microplastic to radioactive waste, from forever chemicals to sewer overflows and from invasive species to endangered species. We Canadians are polluting our waterways. You have an opportunity to fix this.
For Ottawa Riverkeeper, these examples highlight the importance of data collection throughout the watershed, and the data should be shared and analyzed on a watershed scale regardless of which province it is obtained from.
Ottawa Riverkeeper will soon be releasing its first watershed report card that benefited from a number of community-based monitoring programs and community scientists to help fill existing data gaps. We also analyzed publicly available data across the watershed. This report card provides a comprehensive look at the threats to the watershed on a watershed scale.
We look forward to Canada water agency's taking on an important leadership role in Canada to proactively address national and regional transboundary freshwater challenges and opportunities.
As we are fond of saying, you cannot protect half a river.
We would also like to highlight the value that watershed organizations like Ottawa Riverkeeper and those presenting here today can have when trying to address these challenges. Not only do many watershed organizations have a deep understanding of the issues affecting their regions, they often have networks that can provide localized data using a variety of cost-effective techniques. However, to remain effective, watershed organizations require long-term, consistent funding to operate.
Ottawa Riverkeeper has also submitted comments on a number of pollution issues, including reviewing the scope of the risk management for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, and for the development of a non-fuel radioactive waste management and decommissioning policy.
We look to you, members of this committee, to ensure that fresh water will be considered in a more holistic way throughout the development of national policies, not just as an afterthought once these policies have already been drafted.
The protection required for fresh water needs to be front and centre of national policies as well as global agreements.
Thank you for your time and your interest.
:
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?
:
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.
:
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?
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?
[English]
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.
:
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?
:
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.
:
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?
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.
:
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?
:
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.
:
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?
:
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?
:
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.
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?
:
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?
:
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.
I'll start with a few comments for Ms. Holman and Ms. Livingstone, but I'll ask them the same question.
Ms. Livingstone, when I read in your speaking notes that $73 million has been invested in water-related research but “the data generated by this kind of research isn't always shared publicly”, I about fell off my chair. I can't believe that there's money available and we just can't coordinate our efforts. What I understood earlier in answer to my question was that, if you had the resources required, it would be possible to do this huge job of compiling all the data.
Ms. Holman, in your brief to the committee, you say that many data gaps could be filled using collaborative approaches to data collection and sharing.
I have the following question for you both.
Would the Canada Water Agency be a solution to the problems many have raised concerning the lack of data on freshwater?
Would this be a solution?
:
Great. Thank you so much for that question. I think it's an important one.
We don't really have time for the luxury of silos anymore. I think we need to meet communities and groups on the work that's being done, where it's being done, and then augment and work off it. We've already been doing that with some of the data hubs that you hear being spoken about, like DataStream and the Columbia Basin Water Hub. We've worked on these for the past six years to collect data and have a repository for data that's been collected by people in our communities for our communities.
I think that dialogue seems to be taking place.
On the sense of urgency, I can't tell you how concerned we are about droughts, flash droughts and long-term projections.
One of the things we haven't spoken about very much around the Canada water agency is that a data collection strategy is one thing and data standardization is another thing. I think the problem will be when we have multijurisdictional gridlocks on where the rubber is going to hit the road in local communities.
For example, the Columbia River wetlands, where I live, are the most important migratory flyway remaining in North America. They're 150 kilometres long. They're Ramsar-designated wetlands. They have no fewer than 98 management plans and policies that are currently meant to be applied. I feel like that's going to be a challenge. Multisector tables to help problem-solve will be necessary. We need to have these paradigm shifts.
I feel like the Canada water agency is a really good step in that direction. I think it behooves us to look to our neighbours to the south and to the EU for some of the best practices being done there.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Ms. Holman and it has to do with Chalk River.
On the Canadian government site, there's a page on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission stating that, under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the CNSC fulfills its mandate by carrying out certain activities. These include the dissemination of objective scientific, technical and regulatory information on CNSC activities.
Would you say that, in the case of Chalk River, the dissemination of information, as prescribed under the act, is properly done?
Thank you to my colleague for bringing up this important motion. I think the committee and, actually, the witnesses here, can really benefit from this.
On the carbon tax scam, as I guess we're calling it, we're finding out that they're not measuring for the carbon tax the amount that the tax is actually reducing emissions by. I think that was probably the biggest finding that we found out here in the last couple of weeks.
The carbon tax is costing especially rural Canada a billion dollars if they don't cut out the carbon tax for the space heating for barns and for grain drying as well. It is imperative that this carbon tax stop. Canadians can't afford any more taxes. That's quite evident. We have—
Thank you to the witnesses.
I'd like to ask some questions of Ms. Livingstone and Mr. Frey around data and the usability of data. In my previous life, we had remote machine condition monitoring that we put on machines around Canada. We would get a text message if a paper machine in Alberta was running too hot. We would get another message from an oil rig in Dubai to say that the vibration was excessive.
So there are ways to monitor things but to then also get notifications when data is showing that a condition has changed to the point where somebody needs to pay attention.
We asked Imperial Oil to give us data on the wells up in Kearl, where there was a spill. They gave us pages and pages of columns and rows of data—just numbers. It wasn't usable to us or anybody else. The Alberta Energy Regulator was supposed to get a report when things were out of condition. We were supposed to get a report when things were out of condition. No report happened.
When we talk about data and usability, Ms. Livingstone or Ms. Holman, is that something we could reasonably expect if we asked for it—to have usable data?