Summary

• Farmers in Saskatchewan are dealing with variable weather, exacerbated by climate change. For many, this has meant hotter, drier summers, but the experience is far from universal.
• In some areas of Saskatchewan, growing conditions have improved with a changing climate.
• Farmers are also better equipped to deal with harsh weather, as new technologies and farming practices develop.

Scott Hepworth’s great-grandma used to have to shovel dirt out of the kitchen after dust storms swept across the Prairies.

More than a century later, drought is still a factor on Hepworth’s fifth-generation family farm near Assiniboia, Sask. In fact, it remains a defining feature of the land, which sits within the Palliser Triangle, one of Canada’s driest agricultural regions. 

But despite increasingly volatile weather in recent years, including long dry spells, record heat and sharp swings between extended drought punctuated by patchy rain, Hepworth says his crops aren’t suffering — instead, they’re performing better than expected in these conditions. 

He estimates that since he began farming in 2004, his crop yields during hot, dry summers have roughly doubled compared to what they were a few decades ago. 

It’s come as a surprise to some farmers across the Prairies: they are seeing the impacts of climate change, yes. But those impacts haven’t necessarily been bad for their bottom lines.

Only a few hours away from Hepworth’s farm, in northeast Saskatchewan — a region once considered too cold and wet — warming temperatures and drier conditions have improved growing conditions. 

“We were the worst place in the province to farm when I started farming, and now we’re the best place,” Ted Cawkwell, who owns a farm in the area with a couple partners, says.

On his land, fields that were historically difficult to seed and harvest are now more reliable. And he hasn’t seen damaging early frosts, once common every few years, in decades. 

Cawkwell says yields on his farm have improved dramatically over the past decade. The area overall has seen some of the highest yields in the province in recent years.

While there are several reasons for this — including better crop genetics and farming practices — Cawkwell believes changing weather patterns have been a major factor, too. 

“Twenty years ago, I would have never guessed the climate could change like this. You think of climate change as in tens of thousands, or millions, of years — not twenty. And that’s kind of the scary part of this.”

Farming wins are a combination of changing weather and new practices

Of course, the story is nuanced. On Hepworth’s farm, it’s not just the changing climate that has improved his crops. Conserving moisture has long been a focus for the family. Hepworth’s dad adopted what’s known as minimal-till seeding in the 1980s — essentially, reducing or eliminating the need to plough the soil when planting new seeds. This has improved soil health and reduced erosion. Another practice that Hepworth believes has benefited his farm is called continuous cropping, meaning every acre has a crop on it every year; roots in the ground rather than bare fields help retain moisture and protect the soil.

Advances in crop genetics have also played a big role, Hepworth says. He also serves as a director for SaskWheat, the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission — a farmer-funded organization that invests in wheat research and crop variety development. Over the past several decades, hundreds of millions of dollars in public and farmer funding have gone into developing new wheat and durum varieties in Canada. Hepworth is now able to grow drought-tolerant wheat and durum varieties bred to be shorter and better able to withstand stress.

It’s all helped. Hepworth, now in his early 40s, has his own memories from his childhood, of dust storms so intense he couldn’t see across the yard. Largely because of improved farming practices and soil management, he hasn’t seen one since. 

For Hepworth, a combination of climate, farming methods and technology have led to increased success.

But the experience is anything but universal.

“It’s been quite variable, even within a few kilometres,” he says. 

In parts of southern Saskatchewan, particularly deeper into the Palliser Triangle, recent conditions have had a very different impact.

A few hours southwest of Hepworth’s farm is Climax, Sask. — one of the driest regions in the province. 

Here, farmer Cody Glenn says he has experienced about six consecutive years of drought on his farm. 

In 2021, the worst year for drought in Saskatchewan in two decades, Glenn says 260 acres of barley resulted in almost nothing. The crop couldn’t even be properly harvested, producing just a couple bales of low-quality feed.

In other recent years, his barley yields were around a quarter of what they should be. 

In light of all this, he says his current strategy is just to stay viable. 

Despite changing weather, crop yields overall are holding — and even rising across the province

Even though there’s no question some farmers have struggled under increasingly variable weather across the Prairies, crop production has not declined as sharply as some predicted. 

The reality is far more nuanced, Dave Sauchyn, a leading Canadian climate scientist with a focus on the Prairies, says. 

“There’s no single climate,” he says. “It varies a lot from place to place.” 

Across the Prairies, climate change is showing up most clearly through warmer winters and longer frost-free seasons, rather than consistent increases in extreme summer heat, he says. 

In many areas, peak temperatures still haven’t exceeded those seen in the 1930s, in the “Dust Bowl” era.

Water patterns, however, are shifting in more complex ways, he adds. Snow is generally melting earlier, more precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow and less water is available later in the summer. 

As a result, Sauchyn says, drought remains the main concern. That pressure is most acute in the Palliser Triangle, where dryness has long shaped farming practices. But in recent years, moisture stress has also become more common in parts of the northern and eastern grain belt — areas that historically faced fewer drought constraints.

And not all these changing patterns are bad for farming regions. 

Fewer and shorter cold periods are extending the growing season. In some regions — particularly along the northern and western margins of Saskatchewan — this is actually improving production, as Cawkwell has seen on his farm.

And despite increased variability, overall crop performance has remained relatively strong. Yields for major Saskatchewan crops such as wheat and canola have generally trended upward over the last couple decades, with many recent years coming in at, or above, long-term averages. 

Jeff Schoenau, a soil scientist at the University of Saskatchewan, says this reflects decades of improvements in farming practices.

He says comparisons of Prairie soil samples from 1996 to 2018 show significant gains in key indicators such as microbial biomass, respiration and organic matter — factors that contribute to healthier, more resilient soils. These improvements are the result of smarter farming practices, he says. That includes conservation tillage (avoiding or minimally ploughing a field every year), diverse crop rotations (not planting the same monocrop in the same field year after year) and more precise use of fertilizers.  

Combined with advances in crop genetics and other improved farming strategies, Schoenau says crops today can withstand conditions that would have caused far greater losses in the past.

And while climate scientists like Sauchyn expect continued variability — and potentially more severe drought — Schoenau believes farmers will continue to adapt. 

“Farmers are pretty resilient, and when things change, they adapt and they use all of the resources and ingenuity and expertise available.”

Some scientists and farmers are cautiously optimistic — but not all

Sauchyn is also cautiously optimistic. 

He is clear that prolonged drought would pose serious challenges, particularly in a warmer climate. It will be critical, he says, to understand the difference between what’s a short-term blip and what is a long-term trend. 

But his team’s projections, based on large geospatial datasets of climate, soils and yields, suggest that northern and western margins of the grain belt may continue to benefit. That’s because it’s getting warmer and growing seasons are getting longer.

This offers little hope to farmers like Glenn, who lost the lottery in terms of farm placement. 

He says farmers in his area are displaying their despair.

“There’s more land for sale down here than there is buyers.”

For now, he hopes crop insurance will help carry him through, but if dry conditions persist, the path forward becomes less clear — particularly in areas where irrigation options remain limited. 

“I know I’m an optimist. I always have been, but it’s really hard to see the future currently.”

Hepworth is inspired greatly by his great-grandparents, who persisted through their own tough times.

“We’re in a dry cycle now, but farmers always find ways to adapt, and we’re always looking for ways to improve our soil health and leave our land in better shape for the next generation,” he says. 

“I feel as though every generation on this farm has had it better than the last, and that’s what motivates me.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• Despite the Government of Canada’s requirement for provinces and territories to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2030, Saskatchewan is refurbishing its coal plants.
• Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin has the power to intervene and stop Saskatchewan’s pursuit of coal, but her office would not confirm if she’ll do that.
• Many have argued there are cleaner and more economical options than emissions-heavy coal for generating electricity.

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin will work with Saskatchewan to “ensure” it follows the law, her office reiterated, as the province pushes to keep its coal plants open past Canada’s deadline. But when asked if she would intervene to stop the province’s continued reliance on coal-fired electricity, Dabrusin’s office was mum.

Saskatchewan’s decision to extend the life of its coal plants has put it on a collision course with federal rules to phase them out nationwide by Dec. 31, 2029. The province said last year it will spend $900 million refurbishing its coal plants for “years to come.” As of Feb. 26, the provincial Crown corporation SaskPower reported it was relying on 76 per cent fossil fuels for its electricity supply — 28 per cent coal and 48 per cent natural gas.

Canada wants to phase out coal plants, which burn thermal coal to generate electricity, because they’re the highest-emitting sources of carbon pollution and air pollutants in the country. Not only do they emit carbon dioxide, which is driving climate change, they can also emit nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and mercury, which are all on Canada’s toxic substances list and have been linked with respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases and acid rain. Ontario’s decision to decommission coal plants followed findings that this pollution was costing the province’s health care system $1 billion per year.

But Saskatchewan Crown Investments Corporation Minister Jeremy Harrison has said the province will “not comply” with federal Clean Electricity Regulations, which were finalized in December 2024 and put limits on emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation starting in 2035. Harrison has said they would create a financial burden on the province and lead to job losses. Both the regulations to phase out coal power and to limit power plant emissions are part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which regulates toxic substances and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Dabrusin, as the minister responsible for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, has the power to intervene when a party is about to violate the law or its regulations.

She can seek an injunction, for example, to prevent a violation, and if a government agency is ignoring an injunction, she can seek a court order to comply or a contempt of court ruling, among other options.

The Narwhal asked the minister’s office on Feb. 20 if she plans on using the powers of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to intervene and ensure either or both of the two regulations are followed.

Dabrusin’s press secretary Keean Nembhard pointed to a statement from the minister posted on the social network X six months earlier, which said phasing out coal was essential for cutting emissions, protecting clean air, supporting public health and meeting climate commitments. 

The post reiterated that federal regulations “require the phaseout of all unabated coal-fired power plants by December 31, 2029.” Unabated means emissions that are released into the atmosphere without any technology like carbon capture.

“We will continue to work with provinces and territories to ensure that all legal requirements and climate commitments are met, while supporting a reliable and affordable transition to clean energy,” the minister stated.

Nembhard also sent a statement to The Narwhal featuring the same quotes.

The federal and Saskatchewan governments signed a deal in 2024 that lets the province temporarily avoid the coal phase-out rules, but it expires at the end of this year.

It says Saskatchewan agreed to have a generating capacity made up of at least 30 per cent non-emitting electricity sources by the end of 2024, 34 per cent by 2027 and 40 per cent by 2030. According to SaskPower figures from June 2025, it appears to have met the 2027 target for total capacity, but how much those different sources contribute to the grid fluctuates regularly.

Saskatchewan Environmental Society will be ‘encouraging’ Dabrusin to intervene

Canada and the United Kingdom co-launched the Powering Past Coal Alliance in 2017 with the goal of phasing out coal power worldwide. At the United Nations climate summit in November 2025, Dabrusin said the “coal-to-clean transition is inevitable.”

In January, a Saskatchewan court dismissed a citizen-led legal challenge against the coal-power extension plan, saying it was a matter of government policy.

The applicants — Citizens for Public Justice, the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and three individuals — have filed a notice of appeal. They say the province’s decision, which could see its coal plants still active into the 2040s, violates federal law and was made without sufficient public consultation. 

“We’re going to be encouraging the federal minister to consider getting involved in objecting to the Government of Saskatchewan’s decision to keep its coal-fired power plants running,” Peter Prebble, a member of the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, said in an interview.

“It would be helpful if the federal minister actually intervened and said to Saskatchewan, ‘You can’t do this,’ because she does have that authority.”

Saskatchewan law claims province has ‘autonomy’ over carbon pollution controls

The Saskatchewan legislature passed the Saskatchewan First Act in 2023, which claims the province has “autonomy” over several areas including electricity generation, and any conditions affecting it, such as environmental standards and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The province established a tribunal under that law to examine the federal clean electricity rules. That tribunal produced a report claiming the rules would be a massive financial burden. 

Saskatchewan’s Harrison then used the tribunal’s findings to claim the federal rules were “unconstitutional,” “unaffordable” and “unachievable” and to declare that the province “will not comply with them.”

In 2025, he wrote a letter to SaskPower saying the Government of Saskatchewan had made the decision to extend the life of its coal power plants as a “bridge” to building a new fleet of nuclear power plants. 

“The certainty and security of coal means that it will continue as a pillar of our electrical generation system as we bridge to a nuclear future powered by Saskatchewan uranium,” Harrison wrote in the letter.

That nuclear future will not come until the mid-2030s, and perhaps later. The Crown corporation is planning for a small modular reactor to be built around that time. It also announced in January it was just beginning another process to evaluate large nuclear plants, which take longer to build.

The Narwhal reached out to Harrison’s office and SaskPower but did not receive a response by publication time.

The many alternatives to continuing to rely on coal

Prebble argued there are better and cheaper alternatives to extending the life of coal power. The province could upgrade its grid connections with Manitoba to import more hydropower, generated from dams on the province’s rivers, he said, or invest in electricity efficiency and conservation. He also advocates for boosting renewable capacity in Saskatchewan.

“We’ve got the best solar resource in the country, and we’re barely using it. Less than one per cent of our electricity is coming from solar,” he said. 

“We’ve got an incredible wind resource. Energy storage technologies are improving. There’s lots of potential for co-generation of electricity,” he added. “There were lots of other options.”

The Canada Energy Regulator estimates southern Saskatchewan has some of the highest solar photovoltaic potential in Canada as well as some of the highest wind energy potential.

Prebble also noted the United Nations has asked developed countries to phase out coal power by 2030 and developing countries to follow suit in 2040.

“It’s pretty incredible that a wealthy jurisdiction like Saskatchewan would say that it’s going to keep running its plants, knowing all the dangerous consequences that are associated with climate change,” he said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Bill Prybylski has been farming in southeast Saskatchewan for more than 40 years, but last year he did something he never thought possible. 

“We grew roughly 75 bushels an acre of wheat on three inches of rain,” he says, noting that rainfall was far below average. “That shouldn’t happen.” 

When he told his 96-year-old mother, she nearly fell off her chair — and for good reason. Not long ago, wheat in Saskatchewan would have required far more moisture, delivered at just the right moments, to achieve such high yields and quality. 

Today, that math has changed. New farming practices and improved wheat varieties allow farmers to produce more with less, even under tough conditions. Prybylski credits one factor above all for making that yield possible: applied farm research, the real-life testing of new farming practices and products conducted at federally funded research stations embedded across the country. 

That research, he says, gave him the confidence to adopt new practices related to seeding or fertilizer application techniques that improved efficiency, cut input costs (like fertilizer or herbicides) and helped him manage risk in a dry year. In his case, much of that information came from the research farm at Indian Head, Sask., about an hour and a half drive from his farm near Willowbrook, Sask.  

Which is why Prybylski calls the announcement late last month that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will close seven agricultural research sites — including the one at Indian Head — a “head-scratcher.”

Research farms have long been a place to develop and test new varieties of crops and conduct agriculture research. “We’ve developed some of the highest-quality bread wheat and durum wheat varieties and we’re known for growing the best wheat in the world,” Jocelyn Velestuk, a Saskatchewan farmer and chair of SaskWheat, a farm commission that invests in research and market development, says. The stakes are high: Canada exports roughly 25 million tonnes of wheat each year, worth an estimated $11.5 billion, making it one of the country’s most valuable agricultural exports.  

But the federal government says cutting research farms — and more than 650 staff, roughly 12 per cent of the department’s workforce — is strategic, and will allow it to put resources where they’re most needed. “These choices position Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to sustain strong scientific capacity, improve efficiency and concentrate resources where they will continue to generate scientific, economic and environmental benefits,” a spokesperson said in response to emailed questions from The Narwhal.

The closures affect research sites across the country, from Alberta to Nova Scotia and in between.

The impacts may extend far beyond the farm gate, says Stuart Smyth, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan and agriculture economist.  

“This is going to contribute to higher food prices for all Canadian consumers.” 

Across the Prairies — the heart of Canada’s agriculture industry — the reaction to the federal government’s cuts to research farms has been strikingly consistent. Farm groups say the sector once again feels sidelined, far removed from federal decision-making in Ottawa. 

Prybylski is also a board member with the advocacy group Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, and says the lack of warning was as frustrating as the decision itself — and, unfortunately, a familiar experience. 

“There have been several cases in the past where decisions have been made, and then we find out about them and start looking into the ramifications and start pushing back, and then the government takes a second look at it.” Given that they’ve walked things back before, such as announced changes to federal farm business management programs, he wonders why they wouldn’t learn from that and consult this time.

“That’s probably the most disappointing part — there was no forewarning and no consultation,” he says.

Fast cuts, slow consequences

For Velestuk, the news was also surprising.  

“We didn’t know there would be direct cuts at research stations,” she says. “If we’d been told this was coming, we would have hoped to prepare differently.” 

Velestuk says that while the effects of the cuts may not be immediately visible, the long-term consequences could be significant — particularly for the competitiveness of Canada’s grain sector. Beyond limiting applied research, she says the cuts reduce capacity for developing new crop varieties, a cornerstone of the wheat industry.

Several of the sites slated for closure or wind-down — including facilities in Lacombe, Alta., Guelph, Ont., and Quebec City — have historically housed crop science and breeding teams specializing in variety development and related research. 

Along with other Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada breeding programs, these centres have spent decades developing many of the crop varieties most widely grown by Canadian farmers today, and now in demand from buyers around the world. 

“We need both quality and yield from our wheat grown in the Prairies in order to be able to market our grain to different countries and remain viable on our farms.”

Beyond variety development, Velestuk says applied research carried out at regional research stations plays a critical role for farmers on the ground. 

“One of the biggest strengths of having research stations spread across the Prairies was that research didn’t happen in just one set of conditions. Wheat breeding, other crop breeding and agronomy trials were tested across a wide range of ecozones, allowing researchers to see what actually worked, where and under which conditions,” she says. 

“That kind of regional testing is critical when you’re dealing with challenges like drought, heat or disease — because a practice or crop variety that works in one area may not work the same way in another.”

The impact of this research is measurable. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, many of today’s most common — and valuable — farming practices, including direct seeding and no-till systems, were tested, proven and adapted locally through applied research and extension. These practices are largely credited with being beneficial to farms economically, but also reducing greenhouse gas emissions per bushel and improving the quality of Canadian farmland soils.

Climate goals, cut short?

For many in the agriculture sector, one of the most puzzling aspects of the announcement is how sharply it appears to conflict with the federal government’s stated climate priorities. In recent years, Ottawa has emphasized investments in climate-smart agriculture, precision tools and sustainable production practices — many of which rely directly on applied research, conducted on now-closed research farms, to help farmers reduce emissions while remaining productive.

“On one hand, they’re saying we need to improve our environmental footprint, we need to be more conscientious of things that we do that affect the environment,” Prybylski says. “But we can’t do that if we don’t have the research to show us what we need to do better … where we can make improvements that are beneficial to the environment, to the public good.”

Smyth says the cuts send a troubling signal about agriculture’s role in Canada’s long-term climate strategy — particularly at a time when innovation is increasingly critical.  

“The message I took from last week’s announcement is that the federal government is not interested in having agriculture contribute to mitigating climate change,” he says. Smyth notes that advances allowing crops and livestock to produce more with fewer greenhouse gas emissions — through improved genetics, resilience and efficiency — are among the most practical tools available to help agriculture adapt to climate pressures while meeting emissions targets. Research has made crop varieties better able to withstand pressures from extreme weather and changing environments, and still turn a profit for farmers.

Smyth says the decision is especially difficult to understand given the strong return on investment historically delivered by agricultural research, not only for farmers but for Canadians more broadly.  

“What it says to me is that science and empirical evidence on returns to investment don’t mean anything. These decisions were entirely political.”

Federal government stands by its decision

In response to the backlash, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spokesperson Cameron Newbigging said the cuts were part of a broader effort to reduce costs and refocus on core responsibilities. The department aims to do all of this without compromising the quality or scope of federally funded agricultural research.  

“Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s decisions were guided by a careful review of the Department’s science activities, sector priorities, capacity and infrastructure,” Newbigging said in an emailed response to questions from The Narwhal, adding that the department will continue to operate 17 research centres across Canada. 

“We considered alignment with strategic priorities, capacity in other places, opportunities to strengthen support for the agriculture sector and ways to deliver science more efficiently while maintaining a presence in every province.”

Newbigging also reiterated the department’s commitment to remaining Canada’s largest agricultural research organization.  

“[Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada] will continue to advance high-impact science across key areas, including crop and horticultural production, animal production, food processing, biodiversity and environmental sustainability to address emerging priorities and build a competitive and innovative sector.”

Despite those assurances, many in the industry remain unconvinced the decision makes sense right now, particularly as farmers face growing economic, environmental and climate-related pressures — and continue to rely heavily on field-level, region-specific research. 

Velestuk says federal research and wheat-breeding programs “ultimately affects the sustainability of my farm and farms across Canada.” 

For Prybylski, who is in the process of transitioning his family farm to his son, daughter and two nephews, the concern is what these decisions mean over the long term.  

“There’s going to be some budget savings, no question about it, but the results of these decisions are going to be felt for generations. Once the cuts are made, it’s going to be really, really hard to bring this research back online.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A citizen-led climate justice challenge to the Saskatchewan government’s plan to continue using coal power failed when a court sided with the province last month.

Last summer, the provincial government and SaskPower laid out a plan to continue using coal-fired generation despite federal regulations aimed at phasing out the polluting power source by 2030. Residents and citizen groups responded by filing a judicial challenge, arguing the province’s decision is “unreasonable” and should be reviewed by the courts due to a lack of public consultation, a disregard for Canadian and international law and potential implications on Canadian Charter rights.

A Court of King’s Bench justice sided with the province and dismissed the application on Jan. 12, on the grounds that the court’s role is not to dictate climate policy or direct the day-to-day policy of a government.

The Saskatchewan government said in an emailed statement sent to Canada’s National Observer it is “pleased” with the court’s ruling, which “determined that the issue is essentially one of government policy and, as such, is not for the courts to decide.”

The applicants (the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, Citizens for Public Justice and three individuals from Saskatchewan and Manitoba) say a judicial review is the only means of holding the government to account for its “unprecedented” decision to continue burning coal and ensuring evidence of the government’s decision-making is “justified, transparent, and intelligible,” said Glenn Wright, the lawyer representing the applicants, in a Jan. 16 press release. 

“Saskatchewan has been planning to phase out coal for 15 years, and the coal decision is a marked departure from that long-standing objective. We believe that a near billion-dollar administrative decision to double down on the most polluting form of energy generation — a decision which, we believe, violates the rule of law — is something that the courts can and should review.”

After the lower court disagreed with them, the applicants said they are in discussion with counsel and are considering their options, including a potential appeal of the decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel and produces more planet-warming carbon dioxide when burned than either oil or gas. 

The province’s Saskatchewan First Energy Security Strategy and Supply Plan lays out its strategy to use coal as a bridge to nuclear energy but does not contain any cost estimates, just a demand that the federal government pay for 75 per cent of its first nuclear reactor.

It is going to cost the province an estimated $900 million over four years to extend the lives of its coal power plants. 

“The environmental and health risks posed by extending coal use for many more years remain just as serious as ever,” said Margret Asmuss, president of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, in a press release. “Saskatchewan residents deserve responsible, evidence-based energy planning that protects people, communities, the economy and the environment.”

The group noted the $900 million for coal plant refurbishment could — and should — be going to up-and-coming technology and industries such as battery storage and renewables, but instead the province is choosing to delay these opportunities by doubling down on coal. 

Ontario was the first province to phase out coal-fired electricity, under Premier Kathleen Wynne in 2014. Last summer, Alberta transitioned its last coal plant to natural gas to complete the coal phase-out. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan still use coal-fired electricity.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canola is making headlines again. It’s been the centre of trade negotiations with China since last year, when that country instituted 100 per cent tariffs on canola oil and meal in retaliation for Canadian tariffs on  electric vehicles, instituted at the behest of the United States.

Now, as Prime Minister Mark Carney wraps up his trip to China, there’s a new canola deal, which would see canola seed tariffs drop to 15 per cent (from nearly 76 per cent) by March, and tariffs on canola meal removed completely. The preliminary agreement makes no mention of tariffs on canola oil.

With the U.S. and Canada now frenemies, Carney is trying to expand our trade network, including rejuvenating a long-icy Canada-China relationship. But even if dropping vehicle tariffs to restart the flow of canola makes sense geopolitically, it could be a problem nationally, with Ontario’s auto industry and Prairies canola growers at total disagreement about which trade stream is more important.  

It appears, for the time being at least, the Prairies got their way. The deal for lower canola tariffs also allows close to 50,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market — not great news for Ontario’s auto sector.

“Make no mistake: China now has a foothold in the Canadian market and will use it to their full advantage at the expense of Canadian workers,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford said in response to the news.

But it’s sweet relief in the Prairies, especially for the 40,000 farmers whose crops contribute part of the $43.7 billion the Canola Council of Canada said the industry generated in 2024. 

All this over a — seed? What is canola, exactly? Here’s what you need to know.

What is canola?

Put simply, canola is a plant that produces yellow flowers and oil-rich seeds.

If you’re old enough, you might remember a time when canola was called rapeseed. And if you’re really old enough, you’d remember that rapeseed was first grown in earnest in Canada during the Second World War, for its oil to be used as an emergency replacement for lubricants in naval ships.

Then, at some point along the line, we decided to start eating it. 

But there was one hurdle: rapeseed in its naval engine lubricant form wasn’t all that desirable to ingest.

So, according to a federal government report called “Canola: a Canadian success story,” plant breeders in the Prairies did some tweaking, and in the 1960s, voilà, canola (that’s CAN-ola, short for Canadian oil) was born.

If you’ve ever flown over the Prairies, canola crops are among the most distinct sights. In the patchwork quilt of massive fields, canola is the bold, bright yellow patch — a burst of colour among more subdued fields of wheat or oats.

What is canola used for?

Canola is a versatile crop. You’re likely most familiar with it as an oil used for deep-frying and other cooking, but it can also be used in not-so-tasty-treats including fungicides, sunscreen and something called “mold releasers.”

A canola education website run by the Alberta Canola Producers Commission lists many uses. The same oil used in margarine, cooking sprays, mayonnaise, crackers and cookies (and, of course, a lot of fried stuff) can also be found in plastic wrap, biodiesel, printing inks, lipstick and other cosmetics and as a softening agent for applying plastic casings on window panes.

How big is the canola industry in Canada?

Canola was harvested on more than 21 million acres of Canadian Prairie last year — far exceeding many other well-known crops like oats, barley and soybeans, according to Statistics Canada. Wheat, in all its forms, is the only crop that takes up (slightly) more space on the Prairies landscape. 

The conversion of native grasslands and wetlands into cropland, including for canola, has contributed to much wildlife habitat loss on the Prairies, according to the federal government, and “many areas are of concern.” This threatens animals including the burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, swift fox, greater sage grouse and long-billed curlew, according to the Canadian Wildlife Federation.   

How much glyphosate is used on canola crops?

Modern canola is a product of what’s known as agricultural technology or agri-tech — the big business of maximizing yields (and profits) in farming. By some estimates, 40 per cent of canola grown in Canada is what’s known as “Roundup Ready,” meaning it is genetically engineered to survive the spraying of the popular glyphosate-containing herbicide Roundup.

Roundup is a weedkiller, which made news recently when a 25-year-old report — dubbed a “landmark study” that deemed glyphosate to be safe for human health — was retracted by the scientific journal that published it over concerns that scientists from the company that manufactures Roundup, Monsanto, had played a key role in the study’s conclusions. 

According to The New York Times, that study was “for decades cited by other researchers as evidence of Roundup’s safety. It became the cornerstone of regulations that deemed the weedkiller safe.”

In 2015, the World Health Organization said glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Roundup is still applied on a wide variety of crops using ground sprayers or airplanes that cover an entire field with the herbicide to ensure no other plants can compete. Data on the exact amounts of Roundup used on Canadian canola crops don’t exist, but CBC reported in December that 50 million kilograms of it are sold in Canada each year.

How is canola’s sustainability being improved?

There are ways to decrease the environmental impact of bringing tens of millions of acres of Prairies land into cultivation. One big one is what’s called “zero-till.”

In essence, instead of tilling the soil every year to prepare for seeding a new crop as farmers have done for centuries, farmers opt to leave the remnants of the previous crop in place. Rather than a freshly cultivated field of exposed dirt, the “stubble” of the last crop is left in the soil, along with its roots. Minimizing soil disturbance improves its carbon storage potential.

So, about all this tariff talk. What’s the gist?

Last March, China imposed a 100 per cent tariff on Canadian canola oil and canola meal, as well as tariffs on other products. Then, a few months later, it imposed a 75.8 per cent duty on Canadian canola seed shipments.

Canadian canola farmers — and Prairie governments — were mad. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe called for “immediate action” and, along with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, called on Prime Minister Carney to make a deal with China, including dropping our tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles. But on Jan. 12, as Carney and Moe got set to head to China, Ontario Premier Ford said he was “100 per cent dead set against” any easing of the electric vehicle tariffs.

Meanwhile, Canadians haven’t forgotten China’s nearly three-year detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig between 2018 and 2021, a significant blow to diplomatic relations between the two countries.

This week at least, the tension could be easing. 

“What we heard loud and clear is China is looking for reliable trading partners, trading partners that don’t use energy for coercion,” federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson, who is also in China, said according to The Globe and Mail.

And for Carney, that’s an opportunity, not only to reduce canola tariffs.

“It is expected that within three years, this agreement will drive considerable Chinese investment into Canada’s auto-sector, create good careers in Canada and accelerate our progress towards a net zero future,” he said.

Updated Jan. 16, 2026, at 10:44 MT: This story was updated to include the latest developments in Canada’s trade deal with China.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Internal studies about contamination at a Saskatchewan military base found evidence of dust contaminated with PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often referred to as forever chemicals — and experts who reviewed the data say it could pose a risk to people who work there.

“The sampling results indicate that PFAS [are] present in dust,” the March 2025 study, obtained by The Narwhal, concluded. When The Narwhal asked independent experts to review the findings, one noted the concentrations were in some cases “very high,” while another flagged that several volatile organic compounds associated with increased cancer risk are also present.

The study looked at a building known as Building 143 at CFB Moose Jaw, home of the Snowbirds, where employees have been ringing alarm bells about what they say are concerning numbers of illnesses and deaths among employees and military members on base.

It took place about three months after three employees of the Moose Jaw base went to Ottawa to speak about cancers, infertility, neurological disorders and untimely deaths of colleagues — at a public hearing of the Standing Committee on National Defence in December 2024. At least one of these employees has since had to go on long-term disability insurance, and another submitted an official refusal to work in Building 143 and the base at large for fear of how it is impacting her health.

The concerns of the employees, National Defence told The Narwhal, eventually led the department to initiate the study published in March 2025, in what they called a “a transparent and evidence-based analysis to address the concerns expressed by some employees,” undertaken out “of an abundance of caution.”

The Department of National Defence told The Narwhal it is “committed to the health and safety of personnel and surrounding communities, as well as to responsible environmental management.”

“As part of this commitment, we conduct regular monitoring programs at bases and wings to assess environmental conditions and identify potential concerns,” the department shared, adding the reports are now available for all service members to review.

The department asserts it has “no concerns about the safety of this particular building at this time,” given there is “no evidence to suggest that 15 Wing buildings are unsafe or unfit for occupancy.” (15 Wing refers to the centre of the Royal Canadian Air Force activity at the Moose Jaw base.) But some experts disagree.

PFAS are linked to cancers, infertility and more

Contamination on federal sites is an issue across Canada. There are thousands of contaminated sites listed on the federal contaminated sites inventory. PFAS are found or suspected on more than 100 of them, in large part from firefighting foam National Defence used to train military and civilian firefighters across Canada from the 1970s to the early 2010s.

At CFB Moose Jaw, employees have been concerned for years; they’ve compiled a list of nearly 200 illnesses and dozens of obituaries of colleagues. One building in particular, where at least five women who worked together had emergency hysterectomies, has been at the top of mind — Building 143. It’s a central building housing offices and medical centres for personnel where internal studies confirmed the presence of PFAS.

Here, employees told The Narwhal they were constantly wiping an unusual amount of dust off their coffee mugs and desks daily, and some say they smelled chemical smells wafting past their desks at various times of day.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists potential health risks of exposure to PFAS, including reproductive problems like infertility, developmental effects in children, increased risk of prostate, kidney and testicular cancers and weakening of the body’s immune system, including reduced vaccine response. The Canadian government says PFAS can be transferred through the placenta during pregnancy and infants and children can be exposed through ingestion of human milk.  

Other carcinogens present at Building 143 are a risk no matter what the level: expert

The internal documents obtained by The Narwhal also show “airborne concentrations of several [volatile organic compounds]” — also known as VOCs. Some are associated with increased cancer risk, said Christine Oliver, a professor at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, who reviewed the documents and has studied clusters of illnesses arising from contaminated workplaces for decades.

The carcinogens found in the studies include trichloroethylene (an industrial metal-degreaser), benzene (found in gasoline) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which are produced by incomplete burning of coal, crude oil and gasoline. The Environmental Protection Agency says people can be exposed to mixtures of PAHs by breathing air contaminated with vehicle exhaust, or fumes from asphalt roads. The agency says several individual PAHs and some specific mixtures of PAHs are considered to be cancer-causing.

“That airborne concentrations of the [Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons] are below the [Occupational Exposure Limit] does not mean that they are harmless,” Oliver said. “For carcinogens, the existence of a threshold — i.e., a dose below which there is no cancer risk — is rare. I can think of none.”

The Department of National Defence told The Narwhal that Building 143 is not a suspected contaminated site, and there is “no subsequent environmental sampling required.”

The department did not respond to The Narwhal’s questions for responses to experts who believe the contracted reports are showing concerning levels of contaminants — enough to warrant exposure and health concerns in employees.

Contamination data at other bases found to be ‘incorrect’ and ‘biased’

Oliver is not the only expert who had concerns about the findings, though. 

Meg Sears is chair of the organization Prevent Cancer Now, whose board is composed of physicians, environmental advocates and at least one veteran. For decades, she has been working to help veterans in Gagetown, N.B., receive accurate data about their exposure to Agent Orange — the infamous herbicide mixture used by the American army during the Vietnam War — which was tested on-base in the 1960s.

Sears calls the findings of the federal government studies done at Gagetown “flimsy” — an opinion backed up last year by a commission in Maine, which looked into the health of National Guard members who had trained at the New Brunswick base and called Canada’s data “incorrect” and “biased.” So, despite the assurances provided to CFB Moose Jaw employees by their superiors, Sears is not convinced. 

“If there is some kind of selective choice of analyses being done or types of sampling being done, it’s not the first time that the Government of Canada has chosen to do these kinds of reports in perhaps not the most informing way,” Sears said, pointing to the fact that testing the building’s water supply, groundwater and soil from below the interior footprint of the building was “excluded from the scope of work” by the Department of National Defence.

The Department of National Defence told The Narwhal that the base’s drinking water, including Building 143’s, is supplied by the City of Moose Jaw, adding: “Drinking water is tested at all [Canadian Armed Forces] locations on a regular schedule,” and that current results don’t indicate any of the 25 polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substances listed by Health Canada.

“The question for this study is, ‘What is the exposure to the people who are carefully walking around and just going straight to their work at their desk,” Sears said. “And what this is showing is that, even within the building, there is significant exposure to PFAS just from the dust.”

“Certainly there are significant quantities of PFAS there,” Sears said, adding: “The pattern is indicative of contamination from the Air Force.”

Higher PFAS levels than soil beside chemical manufacturers: expert

When asked to review the studies, Sébastien Sauvé, a professor of environmental chemistry at Université de Montréal, who was called to the standing committee meeting late last year, also saw reasons for concern.

“Some of those concentrations are very high,” he explained. He said some of the dust samples’ PFAS values are higher than what he’s seen in contaminated soils right beside a PFAS chemical manufacturer.

Sauvé is no stranger to contaminated National Defence bases; in his home province of Quebec, he discovered that PFAS had spread from a contaminated military base in Bagotville, Que., to drinking water wells up to 10 kilometres away. 

A spokesperson from the Department of National Defence told The Narwhal that an indoor air assessment and hazardous substance assessment of Building 143 “did not identify any health issues,” and that “National Defence has no concerns about any other buildings across the base.”

“A typical case might be something that people would be focusing on, but that’s resulted in underestimation of people who are at the highest risk,” said Sears. “If we’re going to take precautionary approaches, we’re looking after the most vulnerable and the most exposed.”

Meanwhile, concerned employees are hoping the issue will be brought back to Ottawa this year, since the study has since been dropped when Parliament was prorogued for the election back in April 2025, meaning the planned study was not finalized. 

The Department of National Defence told The Narwhal investigation into contamination at 15 Wing Moose Jaw will be ongoing over the coming year, at Hangars 2 and 6 and the former site of Hangar 5, “ to ascertain the extent and impact of potential petroleum hydrocarbon contamination linked to the historical use of storage tanks.” Additionally, the department said it plans to construct four new buildings on 15 Wing Moose Jaw to support future aircrew training, which “will remove contaminated soil as part of the construction process.”

“I have a lot of hope, because I believe that while systematic issues are challenging, they can be addressed through proper government intervention, transparency and accountability,” said Erin Zimmerman, the former employee of Building 143 who had to take disability leave due to her worsening Parkinson’s symptoms.

Updated on Oct. 6, 2025, at 3:25 p.m MT: This story has been updated to remove photos of the armoury in Moose Jaw, which is not the subject of the reports mentioned.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A variety of crops — millet, ryegrass, clover, hairy vetch, sunflowers and more — grow together in unlikely harmony in a field in south-central Saskatchewan, surrounded by the gentle buzzing of insects and birds on an early August day.

Accompanied by the gentle cacophony, Calvin Gavelin shovels up a sample of dark-coloured topsoil, still damp from the morning’s rain and heavy with thick plant roots, forms it into a rough ball the size of his hand and holds it out.

“That’s carbon!” he says, giddy like a little boy. 

Rich, dark soil is not common in this lonely region of the province, accessible only by single-lane highways lined with wild sunflowers.

If you were to go just down the road, the topsoil probably looks very different: sandier, drier, lighter in colour. That’s the type of soil that fares poorly in drought conditions — which this region has seen a lot of in recent decades.

It was during one of these recent drought years, in 2018, that Gavelin noticed something in the fields that changed the way he and his wife, Marla, managed their fourth-generation farm. 

“Where I had monoculture grass, it was burnt right out. I went to the native grass, and you had the variety of the forbs [flowering plants] and the shrubs [and] when you looked underneath it, everything was alive and green.”

“Our soil biology was dying.”

He came to Marla with his epiphany.

“I’m so stupid,” he told her. “I’ve been doing this process of killing our soil for all these years.”

That same year, Gavelin decided to adopt practices from what is commonly called regenerative agriculture: minimizing soil disturbances, keeping soils covered year-round, maintaining living roots in the soil, integrating livestock and enhancing biodiversity above and below ground.

In 2019, he planted his first cover crop (vegetation used to keep the soil covered, fertile and productive between main crop seasons or on unused land) — a mixture of legumes and cereals. The results, he says, were mind-blowing.

A hailstorm came in July that year that killed everything, and while his monoculture crops didn’t grow back, his one cover crop field did — enough to feed his cows through that fall and into the following spring.

“We’ve never done that before.”

Two years later, he seeded three different forage crop blends, custom-designed for the area. That year turned out to be one of the driest in the last 20 years, but despite the conditions, Gavelin says these three cover crops fed his 200 cows when everything else was dead in June. He also observed increased ovulation levels in the cows grazing on the blends, which generally translates into more calves — and more profits for cattle farmers.

Since then, he has continued to plant diverse cover crops, with some fields containing up to 20 different plants, including cereals, brassicas, legumes and forbs. The diversity is key, he says, as the different crops work together to protect the soil — capturing and retaining moisture and creating a canopy to keep the ground cooler.

And there are many more benefits, he says. The ground cover helps reduce erosion, for one. But having cover over the soil also means animals can graze there during the shoulder season, too. And the soil improves, to boot. Not to mention the biodiversity above ground.

Like Gavelin, many farmers are experimenting with regenerative practices — which are not to be confused with organic farming, though there may be some overlap.

Gavelin still uses synthetic fertilizers in his operations, meaning his regenerative farm is not organic. In Canada, organic farming means growing food without using synthetic chemicals or genetic engineering and following certain ecological practices.

The idea of regenerative farming is to use techniques that can be applied on a small or large scale to make soil healthier — and therefore also help the economics of farming. And while some worry “regenerative agriculture” is just a buzzword, or too impractical to take root, others are jumping at the chance to make changes.

Regenerative farming can be challenging — but even some bigger farms are trying it

It’s tough to say how many Canadian farmers are integrating regenerative practices on their farms. There’s no hard, official definition for the concept, or any accredited certification process in Canada (as there is for organic farming).

And while the majority of Canadian farmers employ methods like no-till farming, which could qualify, many of the other practices commonly considered to be regenerative are much less realistic for modern farming practices, because of biophysical barriers like soil type or climate, or operational barriers like cost. They’re not practical to implement — especially in larger-scale operations. 

But that hasn’t stopped some Saskatchewan farmers. 

A couple hours west of Gavelin’s farm, Mark Hoimyr and his wife Laura have completely revamped the cattle-grazing methods on their 5,500-acre beef operation in line with regenerative practices.

Hoimyr became interested in rotational grazing — moving livestock between different pasture areas to feed instead of the more common practice of using the same spot all season — after the couple took over the operation from his parents. It was a practical decision.

“It was obvious to me that we were going to struggle to purchase our way into expanding, so I wanted to try and expand by improving the efficiency of what we already had,” he says.

After years of trial and error in grazing techniques, he began to graze animals intensively in small areas for a short time, then leave the land to rest for a long period, allowing time for regrowth. He now grazes pastures once a year and native prairie every two years, letting cattle eat most of the grass and trampling the rest to enrich the soil.

So far, they’ve been happy with the results, he says.

“We could see that our land was doing better, and we were really happy with how healthy our cattle were.”

Rob Wunder, who farms in east-central Saskatchewan, is also happy with the results of his outside-the-box efforts.

After watching his parents, who previously ran his farm, adapt their practices to survive some challenging times — including the years of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as “mad cow disease,” which cost Canadian cattle farmers an estimated $2.5 billion in losses — he says that his fourth-generation farm is always open to trying new things.

Wunder started experimenting with regenerative agriculture in 2013.  

“I just kind of got tired of being reliant on and having big bills, as far as input bills,” he says, referring to the various inputs farmers rely on: fertilizers, pesticides, livestock feed, seed, energy and fuels and more.  

He later became interested in the idea of composting — using waste from his farm to fertilize and treat crops.

He now uses a custom compost turner to mix and cool compost made from animals’ bedding, wood chips, straw, oats and more, then spreads it on cropland. He also produces vermicast — nutrient-rich compost made from worm poop — and applies the microbe- and nutrient-rich liquid right into the soil with the seed to boost early growth.

“It didn’t take long to, for lack of a better term, fall in love with it all and start to see some benefits,” he says of the new techniques.

What’s better for the soil can be better for the bottom line, too

Many experts agree widespread adoption of regenerative practices could have substantial environmental and social benefits.

But farmers primarily make decisions based on economics. And while sometimes there’s direct, measurable payoff for adopting regenerative practices on a farm, often it’s more complex.

Gavelin says using cover crops to feed his cattle on pasture costs half as much as feeding them in a pen, saving him about $200 per acre. 

For Hoimyr, the economic payoff is less clear.

“It is really complex — even with all of the positive things that we’ve seen, we’re also constantly learning and trying new things, and with that comes making mistakes,” he says.

For him, the greatest benefit has been the mind shift. For one, he and his wife have started selling their beef directly to consumers as a means of capitalizing on the value they believe they are adding to the finished product. 

“The old adage of ‘you are what you eat’ — well, it applies to the things that we eat, too. It really does just keep snowballing until you become completely overwhelmed with how interconnected everything is,” he says. 

On Wunder’s farm, he says he’s been able to cut back on his input costs by up to 70 per cent as a result of his regenerative practices — and that number could be even higher for other farmers, depending on their practices and goals.  

However, the practices require additional time and effort, he says. On top of his time spent learning and trying new ways of doing things, the compost operation requires one dedicated person working part- or full-time during seeding, which is why he has partnered with a neighbour to run it.  

‘Buzzword’? Agriculture professor argues ‘regenerative’ is yet another marketing ploy

While most agree that regenerative practices have potential benefits for farmers — though they may not be viable for every operation — not everyone is convinced the ideas are actually new. 

For many, like Hoimyr, the term is just a punchier reiteration of an old idea — rebranding previous agriculture trends like “holistic management,” “soil health” and “sustainability.”

“It’s all the same people, all the same concepts. It’s just that ‘regenerative’ is pretty catchy.”

Stuart Smyth, a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Saskatchewan, agrees.

“Everybody wants to brand the latest buzzword to consumers. It was ‘sustainability’ for a while and I think it’s going to be ‘regenerative.’ ”

He believes these types of terms are largely championed by the food-processing sector.

“They’re constantly looking for the words that resonate with consumers, so [they] can brand their products accordingly, and then that ripples back up the supply chain. And really, it’s semantics, because it’s the economics at the farm level that are driving change, nothing else.”

Smyth also believes the term captures something farmers are already doing: making small, incremental improvements on their farms to boost efficiency and productivity — and this might include methods that do not fit tidily into images in consumers’ minds. For example, using crops developed with biotechnology, such as gene editing and genetic engineering.

Smyth also believes the emphasis on trendy concepts like regenerative agriculture can drive distrust of the agriculture sector, and overshadow how progressive Saskatchewan farmers have been in the area of environmental stewardship in recent decades. 

For example, he says a pre-publication study he co-authored shows Saskatchewan soils have seen a 40 per cent increase in soil organic matter over the last 35 years, because of the widespread adoption of no-till farming. Another recent study shows Canadian farmers produce some of the least carbon-intensive crops in the world. 

“I would argue that 97 or 98 per cent of our crop-producing land would align with that regenerative terminology or program,” Smyth says. “It won’t align with organics, but it certainly aligns with sustainable and regenerative.”

‘No farmer wants to be completely dependent on a chemical company’

For the farmers in the trenches, though, the labels don’t matter. They are thinking about economics, taking care of their farms longer-term and how to best balance these two priorities.    

“I think the reason so many of these practices are able to take hold is because most of them make sense,” Hoimyr says. “No farmer wants to be completely dependent on a chemical company or completely helpless as soon as the rainfall doesn’t fall at exactly the right time. These types of things just help move everybody in the right direction. Everyone can do a little bit better.”

For Wunder, regenerative techniques are just another “tool in the toolbox.”

“It’s about building soil health and resiliency for generations to come, and it’s going to look different on every operation. And everybody’s tools are going to be a little different.”

For Gavelin, introducing new practices on his farm was worth it for another reason — one that goes deeper than finances or crop yields. While he’s not sure if his two daughters — Rhys, 13, and Quinn, 12 — will want to take over the farm one day, he says he firmly believes he’s just taking care of the land until the next steward comes along.   

“We’re all worried about our pocketbooks, but we’re all depleting our soils. Our soils are going backwards. I did this for soil health.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

We got rain — so our drought concerns are over, right?

It’s something we hear from readers, family and friends all the time. It’s a fair question. Drought warnings are becoming more common across Canada, and when we get a wet day, week or even month, we may think — or hope — that it’s solved the drought issue. But drought can be a compounding problem, even after the cool relief of rain.

It’s an issue affecting forests, grasslands and coasts. According to the Canadian drought monitor, 71 per cent of the country was in drought as of July 31 and most of Canada had below-average precipitation in July. The government of British Columbia reported snowpack in May was 71 per cent of normal, but by June, that plummeted to 13 per cent of normal, with some areas at zero per cent of normal.

While some areas of Canada have received more rain than normal lately, others are receiving starkly less — like southwestern Saskatchewan, which received less than 25 per cent of typical rainfall in June. Several areas in the province have declared agricultural states of emergency.

Water scarcity is already an increasing risk, and even more pressures are growing. Donald Trump has called Canada a “very large faucet” that could be used to mitigate water shortages in the United States. And companies like Bell Canada are looking to open artificial intelligence (AI) data centres, which guzzle an incredible amount of drinking water, sometimes millions of litres in a single day for large centres.

Many Canadians may be surprised to hear they have no enshrined right to clean water. Residents of Glade, a small B.C. community, mounted a legal challenge against private logging near their water supply, and in 2019 a B.C. Supreme Court judge concluded they did not have any inherent right to this natural resource.

“Do you have a right to clean water?” Justice Mark McEwan said in court. “I’d suggest you don’t. There just is nowhere in the law where you can look and say, ‘There it is — there’s my right, I have a right to clean water.’ ” Canada recognized the UN declaration on the human right to safe drinking water and basic sanitation in 2012, but that is not a legally binding protection.

Many interests want to pull from Canada’s water — while drought already has caused major ecosystem and economic losses.

Crop insurance payouts in Canada ballooned in the past few years, ranging from $3.5 billion to $4.9 billion between 2021 and 2024. For the decade before that, between 2010 to 2020, payouts ranged from $77 million to $1.7 billion. Farmers in the Atlantic provinces have said this year’s drought is the worst in recent memory, decimating both their crops and their livelihoods. 

Drought can also interfere with hydroelectricity generation, making electricity more expensive — B.C. and Manitoba had to import power in 2024 due to low reservoir levels.

Drought isn’t only lack of rain — it’s about water in soil and waterways, and impacts of industrial activity

Drought can’t only be understood in terms of lack of rain — it’s how water is functioning in the whole system, Younes Alila, professor in the University of British Columbia’s department of forest resources management, previously told The Narwhal. In a recent short documentary, Trouble in the Headwaters, he explains how logging has contributed to increased risk of flood and drought by removing tree cover that keeps the ground moist and cool, moderating the speed of melting snow.

“When the snowmelt’s slower, it has a chance to infiltrate into the soil, recharging the groundwater,” he explains in the film.

Without trees, water can rush down slopes, causing flooding and landslides, he says. “This is why we are going to be living under a heightened risk of flooding and droughts for decades to come — because by nature, the recovery is very slow.”

Many wetlands that retain water and mitigate floods have also been cleared for human development. That means soil is more likely to dry out, so it also doesn’t absorb water as well.

Hotter weather exacerbates drought risk by causing more erratic precipitation and earlier, faster snowmelts than normal — and the sudden flows can all wash away over the dry soil rather than getting soaked in.

It’s similar to pouring water on a dried-out potted plant; the parched soil doesn’t absorb the water, and it runs out the bottom of the pot instead.

Hotter weather is causing drought nationwide, posing health risks to humans and lethal risk to animals

As the climate changes, bringing higher temperatures and drier conditions, drought conditions spread and worsen. The impacts are widespread, even if they’re felt at different times to different degrees. 

It may be tempting to not worry about lower levels of drought, but the effects can still branch outwards. B.C. classifies drought severity by levels 0 through 5, going from normal to severe and rare. In the B.C. Interior, much of the area is at Level 2 drought, midway through the scale. But some rivers are low and warm enough already to risk aquatic life like salmon, which rely on cool temperatures.

When plants dry out in drought, it can mean less shade and shelter for animals like ground-nesting birds, as well as less productive growth of nuts and berries for deer and bears, or less lichen for caribou. That can force animals to move in search of food and water, sometimes to urban areas. 

Drought comes with human health risks, too. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, drought can degrade water quality and promote algal blooms — which are increasingly common in Ontario’s Great Lakes — and waterborne diseases. Meanwhile, dusty conditions can worsen respiratory problems.

Explosion of AI data centres will mean more industrial water use — including in the Great Lakes and drought-stricken B.C.

The push to build data centres across the world will put significant pressure on water supply — a Bloomberg investigation found that two-thirds of AI data centres globally are built or planned in places with high water stress. Much of that stress is due to other industries: AI currently uses much less water than, say, mining, but the race by Alberta and other provinces to attract new centres means the water they use is increasingly significant. 

In B.C., Bell plans to build six AI data centres, while Telus plans to launch an AI “factory” in Kamloops, touting the project as something that can bolster Canada’s sovereignty in the face of U.S. tariffs and threats of annexation. Bell’s first data centre is also planned for Kamloops, and the next in Merritt, both in B.C.’s dry Interior.

Merritt is in the Nicola watershed, which is in Level 3 drought. The nearby Coldwater River is having such low flows it is not meeting the needs of salmon, a 2025 study from the Raincoast Conservation Society and Scw’exmx Tribal Council found.

“The Nicola watershed is one of B.C.’s most vulnerable regions to the effects of climate change, particularly as it relates to drought,” Raincoast said in a release.

Meanwhile, in Ontario’s Great Lakes region — which provides water to 70 per cent of the province’s 14 million people — there are at least 108 data centres in the Greater Toronto Area alone.

Data centres use cold water to cool their computers — and they use immense amounts. One study projected global AI demand will withdraw between 4.2 and 6.6 billion cubic meters of water in 2027. That’s more than Canada’s entire manufacturing industry used in 2021. And demand is only growing.

In Newtown Country, Ga., where tech giant Meta built a data centre, the cost of water has soared, with rates set to increase 33 per cent over the next two years, and the county is on track to be in a water deficit by 2030, the New York Times reported. Meta makes up about 10 per cent of the county’s total water use every day.

In Spain’s Aragon region (home to about 1.3 million people and a bit bigger than Vancouver Island), Amazon’s new data centres are predicted to double the entire region’s current electricity use, and the company is asking to increase its water consumption by 48 per cent. 

AI has the ability to increase our efficiency and better monitor our use of natural resources — but its water consumption is on track to outweigh its environmental contributions, three professors from the University of Amsterdam recently argued in The Conversation.

These centres are draining groundwater while “the minimum needs of the world’s poorest to access water and sanitation services have not been met,” they argued, adding that Google’s data centres used over 21 billion litres of drinkable water in 2022, up 20 per cent from 2021. Each year, the computing power used for AI increases.

“We believe there is sufficient evidence for concern that the rapid uptake of AI risks exacerbating the water crises. … As yet, there are no systematic studies on the AI industry and its water consumption,” they concluded.

Unlike the European Union, Canada doesn’t have water use disclosure rules for data centres — in part because water is managed provincially, not federally. 

Communities, experts are already calling for industries to pay more for water

The B.C. non-profit organization Watershed Watch reported this summer that industrial water users in the province pay a maximum of $2.25 per million litres, a rate that hasn’t increased in a decade. In Ontario, the rate is just $3.71 for the first million litres, with commercial water bottlers paying an additional $500 per million litres. 

But industries use billions of litres of water — mining company Rio Tinto used 72.5 billion litres of water in Quebec in 2022 alone. According to the Montreal Gazette, businesses used 800 billion litres of water in the province in 2021 and paid just $3 million, a number the provincial government cited when it increased commercial water rates 900 per cent last year.

Watershed Watch suggests raising industrial water rates and using that revenue to support watershed security. It suggests that revenue could also go to developing regional watershed boards made up of “First Nations, governments, farmers, non-profits and other stakeholders to manage water locally.” 

The non-profit says B.C. sounds “like a broken record” telling residents to “take shorter showers and water their lawn less,” and that while these steps are important, it’s an “unserious solution to a very serious problem.”

“We’re not asking for a radical solution, just a responsible one. The status quo is failing our salmon, our watersheds and everyone who calls B.C. home.”

Prairie droughts add to wildfire and drinking water issues for Indigenous communities

First Nations disproportionately lack access to clean drinking water, and drought exacerbates the issue. Some First Nations have been left waiting years to get access to clean water. Tallcree First Nation in northern Alberta relies on spring runoff to pull water from a nearby creek, and it told the CBC it’s concerned when flows are low, it won’t be able to pull anything.

In 2015, former prime minister Justin Trudeau promised to end long-term boil water advisories in First Nations by 2021. As of July 11, 38 advisories remain in place. But the feds specifically define “long-term” as a single advisory lasting more than one year — so communities that experience many “temporary” boil water advisories for weeks or months at a time are not included. The federal government also does not track advisories in B.C. First Nations. 

First Nations access to clean water is a painfully long-standing issue, which has been condemned by multiple United Nations representatives over the years — and yet, some Canadian politicians are still opposing a First Nations clean water bill.

Meanwhile, drought conditions can also exacerbate wildfires, which have hit the Prairies hard this year. Almost 69,000 square kilometres in Canada have burned — making this Canada’s second-worst wildfire season on record so far. More than half of all areas burned in 2025 are in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

If that surface area was instead one of the Great Lakes, it would be the second biggest one behind Lake Superior and ahead of Lake Huron. If it was an island, it would be twice as big as Vancouver Island.

Manitoba had a dry spring followed by an unusual spring heatwave, contributing to the devastating fires that caused thousands to be evacuated.

Again, Indigenous people are being disproportionately affected by evacuations.

“This will be the largest evacuation Manitoba will have seen in most people’s living memory,” Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said in May. 

Government and industry have the tools to combat persistent drought

Last year, when Alberta was dealing with low water supply, Tricia Stadnyk, a professor of engineering and geography at the University of Calgary who studies hydrology, told The Narwhal Canada as a whole has ignored what’s coming.

“Oh, it’s Canada, we have so much water we don’t know what to do with it, we’re never going to have drought that’s so severe people have to move or can’t survive or we can’t grow crops,” she says, summarizing the common belief that massive, widespread water shortages can’t happen here. 

“It’s just unthinkable for Canadians to think about drought at that scale, but the reality is this is the future of the Canadian Prairies.”

“Unless properly managed, even Canada’s water supplies will eventually run out,” Stadnyk wrote in The Conversation earlier this year.

She calls for more data collection so we can forecast water flows better, and for improved cooperation across municipalities, provinces, Indigenous governments and the feds, along with the United States at transboundary areas. She says the current system has “fragmented oversight” and “privileged licences” for industrial users that shows “little care” for watershed health. She advocates for improved water efficiency by industrial users, along with people curbing their individual use.

“It’s time to challenge our wasteful ways and accept that even in Canada, water must be managed effectively,” she says. 

“The choices we make today will impact our children and their children and will literally mean the difference between them thriving or surviving as a society.”

A diary of drought

B.C. has been dealing with persistent drought since 2022. In April 2024, the province recorded the lowest snowpack since 1970. After a dry, hot summer, much of B.C. remained in drought even through the winter into 2025.

Going through the province’s 2025 drought updates reads as a diary of land struggling to grasp onto water:

• May 15: Significant 30-day precipitation deficits… rapid decline in streamflows… lowest on record streamflow for Kiskatinaw River in the northeast.
• May 22: [Snowmelt] is still tracking earlier than normal.
• June 5: Long-term drought risk persists in the northeast and southeast… Lake storage in the South Peace has not recovered from last summer.
• June 19: Recent rainfall has improved drought conditions in the northeast… but streamflow response was muted in some areas due to long-term dryness. … Chemainus River (Vancouver Island) approaching record low flows.
• July 3: Flows in the Similkameen are at a record low…
• July 10: Declining flows and rising stream temperatures continue to pose a risk to aquatic ecosystems in tributaries across the Okanagan and Vancouver Island.
• July 29: Despite near-normal rainfall in some areas providing short-term drought relief, long-term drought effects persist… reports of fish stranding on Vancouver Island.
• August 5: Flows in the Coquihalla River are at a record low for this time of year.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The slogan for the city of Moose Jaw, Sask., is “Canada’s Most Notorious City,” stemming from historical connections to Al Capone. The Canadian Armed Forces base nearby — home of the Snowbirds — is surrounded by a patchwork of quintessential Saskatchewan cropland and homes. 

As one of the city’s major employers, the base employs about 1,000 active military service members and federal public servants. Over the last year, some of them have begun to testify that they believe the workplace they have dedicated their lives to is making them very sick — in some cases, terminally so. 

These workers have attempted to get answers from their employer, the Department of National Defence, but say they have faced skepticism, criticism and retribution for asking questions and speaking out. Still, they are determined to fight for accountability. 

“Because you sign on that dotted line, the expectation is you’re going to die for your country. Well, dying doesn’t mean I should get sick because of a chemical that [the government] didn’t clean up properly,” one veteran, now undergoing chemotherapy for a rare form of breast cancer, told The Narwhal. Two of her colleagues and her former supervisor have died of breast cancer.

Many questions about the cluster of illnesses remain. Here’s what we know, so far. 

1. There are thousands of contaminated sites on the federal inventory

Contamination on federal sites is an issue across Canada. Thousands are listed on the federal contaminated sites inventory, including military bases with offices, hangars and warehouses on top of unremediated contamination sites.

Last week, The Narwhal published an investigation honing in on one military base: CFB Moose Jaw in southern Saskatchewan.

It’s listed on the federal inventory of contaminated sites and numerous sites on the base — aircraft hangars, former convenience stores and landfills — are polluted. Military bases are also often home to housing for service members and their families.

2. PFAS (forever chemicals) are just one kind of contaminant among many at CFB Moose Jaw

One of the most attention-grabbing classes of chemicals found on some contaminated sites, including CFB Moose Jaw, are PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

PFAS have been making headlines for the last several years for contaminating drinking water near military bases. They are found or suspected on more than 100 federal sites in Canada, in large part from firefighting foam that National Defence used to train military and civilian firefighters across Canada from the 1970s to the early 2010s.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists numerous potential health risks of exposure to PFAS from fertility issues to cancer. The impacts aren’t limited to people. Ecosystems are affected, too, whether through reducing seed germination or building up in the organs of other creatures in the food chain. 

But PFAS aren’t the only concern.

Other chemicals on the long list of contaminants near the CFB Moose Jaw buildings are less widely known. There are BTEXs, a group of petroleum hydrocarbons, including benzene and toluene. They also have a long list of health impacts associated with them, from heart problems to cancers to neurological issues.

Another contaminant found at CFB Moose Jaw is a class of chemicals — present in coal, crude oil and gasoline — called PAHs, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are also considered to be cancer-causing. Oh, and then there’s the asbestos.

3. Canadian Armed Forces employees say dozens of their colleagues have become sick with cancers, neurological issues and more

Shaunna Plourde moved into housing at CFB Moose Jaw when she was pregnant with her first baby. Her husband, an aircraft engine technician, was employed at the base and she got a job there, too.

In December she told a public hearing of the Standing Committee on National Defence that it wasn’t long before she began experiencing medical issues. 

Then, after seven years on base, Plourde was diagnosed with a neurological disorder. In 2017, she had an emergency hysterectomy. 

“Since this time, four other women I work with have all needed to have this procedure. Many of us were employed in the same building — Building 143,” Plourde told the committee. “A simple, yet alarming, question started being discussed in the building I work in: ‘Do you think our building is safe?’ ” 

She’s not alone in her concerns, as other employees — with early-onset Parkinson’s, prostate cancer, a rare form of breast cancer and other diseases — have come forward to ask the same question.

Erin Zimmerman, a Snowbirds veteran who also worked as a civil servant at CFB Moose Jaw, has compiled a list of nearly 200 illnesses and dozens of obituaries of her colleagues. 

“I learned that while I was serving, and even during my pregnancy, I’ve been working on, or next to, a contamination site,” Zimmerman told The Narwhal. “I also heard that others in our building were experiencing serious illnesses.”

4. The Canadian Armed Forces says ‘routine testing had not indicated issues’

For its part, the military says its activities can have effects on soil and water, but it strives “to minimize risks to Canadians and the environment,” adding it is committed to the health and safety of military personnel and surrounding communities, as well as to “responsible environmental management.” 

Responding to questions from The Narwhal, a spokesperson wrote the military “conducts regular monitoring programs at bases and wings to assess environmental conditions and identify potential concerns. Although routine testing had not indicated issues, following community concerns, we undertook extensive testing [in Moose Jaw] to ensure transparency and diligence in addressing concerns.”

The military has been engaging in activities that create contamination for decades, but it’s far from the only source of contamination in Canada — it’s just one with public records. Some experts say the main reason we know so much about the contaminants present on military sites is because the federal government keeps pretty good records.

5. People who live near CFB Moose Jaw fear the contamination spreading

“What is in the workplaces tends to get out,” said Christine Oliver, a doctor who specializes in occupational and environmental health. 

Health Canada says some contaminants can travel long distances through soil, water and air: “PFAS can be found in freshwater and drinking water in areas that are far away from where they entered the environment,” the department says on its website.

It’s impossible to quantify if or how much contamination has seeped off the base without publicly available studies, but some nearby farmers and residents are beginning to worry.

“I have obvious neurological problems,” one resident told The Narwhal. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and both his parents suffer neurological issues. “It just puts more questions into our minds, like, ‘Is that a potential factor?’ … I wouldn’t think a chain link fence would stop contaminants from moving around.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Erin Zimmerman, a 46-year-old mother, wife, artist, public servant and veteran, has called the small city of Moose Jaw, Sask., population 35,000, home for the last 25 years. She joined the Canadian Armed Forces in 2012 and since 2016 has been working as a financial clerk at the Moose Jaw military base, most recently in an office she now fears: Building 143. 

One morning in 2019, three years into her role, Zimmerman woke up with crossed eyes. At first she assumed she was having an odd migraine, but after seeing an eye doctor, it became clear the issue was brain-related, which Zimmerman said was terrifying. Since then, she’s seen neurosurgeons, ophthalmologists and other specialists. In early 2024, she was diagnosed with a rare form of early-onset Parkinson’s disease, a disorder of the brain and nervous system which worsens over time.

Zimmerman said her doctors explained her illness can be caused by a mix of genetic and environmental factors. They laid out the potential causes of a rare early-onset of the disease. One was severe head trauma, which Zimmerman never had. 

The other was exposure to toxic chemicals. For Zimmerman, the latter was “a red flag,” which led her to start investigating contamination and environmental hazards at her workplace.

“I learned that while I was serving, and even during my pregnancy, I’ve been working on, or next to, a contamination site,” Zimmerman said about going through government documents and collecting testimonies of others who had served. “I also heard that others in our building were experiencing serious illnesses.”

Zimmerman said her journey began as a personal health crisis but, since learning of her colleagues’ illnesses including autoimmune diseases, thyroid diseases, cancer and other undiagnosed health issues, has grown into a larger discussion about her workplace safety and her employer: the Department of National Defence. 

Contamination on federal sites is an issue across Canada. There are thousands of contaminated sites listed on the federal contaminated sites inventory, including military bases with busy offices, hangars and warehouses on top of unremediated contamination sites. CFB Moose Jaw is one of them. 

She told The Narwhal her research has exposed gaps in how contamination sites are communicated to those working and living in contaminated areas. She’s compiled a list of nearly 200 illnesses and dozens of obituaries of her colleagues. 

While it’s difficult to pinpoint one cause for the variety of health issues Zimmerman and colleagues report, there are steps experts take to determine environmental causes for illnesses. “You’re talking about wide environmental exposures and … you look for clustering of specific diseases,” said Christine Oliver, a professor at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto who specializes in occupational and environmental health. “[On] one of these military bases, even if they’re office workers, you can look to see if people with similar symptoms or similar diagnoses are performing similar jobs.” 

The Narwhal obtained internal studies of contamination at Moose Jaw released to employees this year by Defence Construction Canada, a Crown corporation. When asked to review the studies, Sébastien Sauvé, a professor of environmental chemistry at Université de Montréal, pointed to reasons for concern.

“Some of those concentrations are very high,” he explained. He said some of the dust samples’ PFAS (sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals”) values are higher than what he’s seen in contaminated soils right beside a PFAS chemical manufacturer, adding that “people working in some of those rooms would be exposed to PFAS from dusts.” In 2022, Suavé and a research team found these forever chemicals had spread from a contaminated military base in Bagotville, Que., to drinking water wells up to 10 kilometres away. 

Zimmerman is adamant something needs to be done on the base, including proactive disclosure by National Defence Canada about contaminants and their potential risks. 

“Not only was I unknowingly exposed, but many others may be at risk with no warning,” she said. “The diagnosis was life-changing, but it also feels like determination to find answers, not just for myself but others who may be affected.” Other employees of the base have begun publicly discussing illnesses they say are linked to the long-standing chemical contamination of the site.

For its part, the military says its activities can have effects on soil and water, but “the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to the health and safety of personnel and surrounding communities,” as well as to “responsible environmental management.” Responding to questions from The Narwhal, a spokesperson wrote in an email the military “conducts regular monitoring programs at bases and wings to assess environmental conditions and identify potential concerns. Although routine testing had not indicated issues, following community concerns, we undertook extensive testing [in Moose Jaw] to ensure transparency and diligence in addressing concerns.”

But for active and former service members like Zimmerman, that’s little assurance when it seems to them that so many of their colleagues are getting sick.

PFAS exposure includes risks from infertility to cancer

Moose Jaw’s slogan is “Canada’s Most Notorious City,” stemming from its historical connections with Al Capone. The Canadian Armed Forces base nearby, 15 Wing, is a smattering of buildings including housing, offices, a gym, hospital and convenience store, alongside hangars and an airstrip surrounded by a patchwork of quintessential Saskatchewan cropland and homes. It’s the workplace for about 1,000 active military service members and also federal public servants. It’s also the home of the Snowbirds, Canada’s military aerobatics flight demonstration team, for which Zimmerman was an administrative clerk before moving to her current job. 

But 15 Wing is listed on the federal inventory of contaminated sites owned by the Canadian government. Sites on the base — aircraft hangars, former convenience stores and landfills — are polluted with several volatile organic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons and PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in the groundwater and soil. Asbestos has also been found in some places on base, according to a 2025 report about testing conducted on the base last year.

PFAS have been making headlines for the last several years for contaminating drinking water near military bases. They are found or suspected on more than 100 federal sites in Canada, in large part from firefighting foam that National Defence used to train military and civilian firefighters across Canada from the 1970s to the early 2010s. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists numerous potential health risks of exposure to PFAS, including issues with fertility or in pregnancy, developmental effects in children, increased risk of prostate, kidney and testicular cancers and weakening of the body’s immune system, including reduced vaccine response. The Canadian government says PFAS can be transferred through the placenta during pregnancy and infants can be exposed through ingestion of human milk.

Ecosystems are affected, too. Studies have shown exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances can cause reduced seed germination, stunted growth and reduced photosynthetic activity in plants. The chemicals can then build up in the organs of other creatures in the food chain. 

Other chemicals on the long list of contaminants near the 15 Wing buildings are less widely known. There are BTEXs, a group of petroleum hydrocarbons consisting of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene that can be found contaminating several sites on CFB Moose Jaw. They are used on military bases for many things, including as components of fuels; they can also be present from spills or leaks. 

They also have a long list of health impacts associated with inhaling them, accidentally ingesting them or making skin contact — including higher risks of respiratory and lung cancers, heart problems and heart failure, blood disorders and cancers, immune dysfunction and increased susceptibility to infections, according to a peer-reviewed study from the Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances. Another study from researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences shows this group of BTEXs can play a role in neurological symptoms like Zimmerman’s headaches, nausea, and vision problems.

Another contaminant found at CFB Moose Jaw is a class of chemicals — present in coal, crude oil and gasoline — called PAHs, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The Environmental Protection Agency says people can be exposed to mixtures of PAHs by breathing air contaminated with vehicle exhaust, or fumes from asphalt roads. The agency says that several individual PAHs and some specific mixtures of PAHs are considered to be cancer-causing. 

The military has been engaging in activities that create contamination for decades, including the firefighting training with PFAS-containing foam. But it’s far from the only organization or industry that’s been contaminating land in Canada — it’s just the one with public records. Some experts say the main reason we know so much about the contaminants present on military sites is because the federal government keeps pretty good records about what land is being used for.

“A lot of this kind of disclosure and transparency relies on institutional memory. With the federal government, the documentation on those sites is probably much better than in other jurisdictions,” Cassie Barker, senior program manager for toxics at the advocacy organization Environmental Defence, said in an interview. “It’s not just on [military] lands that this occurs.” 

A Department of National Defence spokesperson responded to The Narwhal’s questions about contamination in an email. “We are aware that some employees working at 15 Wing Moose Jaw have expressed apprehensions about the health and safety of working within a building at Canadian Forces Base Moose Jaw.”

The email said the department “has no concerns about the safety of this particular building at this particular time” but has still started a “transparent and evidence-based analysis” including air quality monitoring and an ongoing survey of Building 143.

“Based on the contractor reports and feedback from multiple experts, there is no evidence to suggest that 15 Wing buildings are unsafe or unfit for occupancy,” the spokesperson added.

Five women who worked together at CFB Moose Jaw have had hysterectomies: testimony

In December 2024, Zimmerman and two other employees of the Moose Jaw base went to Ottawa to speak about their experiences — including cancers, infertility, neurological disorders and untimely deaths of colleagues — at a public hearing of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Current personnel and veterans from other bases also testified at the four meetings. 

Former NDP Member of Parliament and critic for National Defence Lindsay Mathyssen initiated the hearing after the issue of contamination in her Ontario riding came to her attention. (Mathyssen lost her seat in the April election and the fate of the study is uncertain.)

“Thirty-one years ago, I was a young, married woman full of excitement and hope for my future. My husband was an aircraft engine technician,” Shaunna Plourde, Zimmerman’s colleague, told the committee. 

Plourde explained she was expecting her first baby when the family moved into quarters on the base. She started working as a clerk at the base convenience store, CANEX.

“I felt incredibly proud of the life we were building, one centred on service, community and the Canadian dream,” Plourde testified. “I never imagined this dream would turn into a nightmare from which I cannot wake.”

Plourde told the committee she soon began experiencing medical issues and, after seven years on base, was diagnosed with a neurological disorder. She said her children also struggle with health conditions including chronic lung issues. 

“I have lived and worked in buildings, sent my children to daycares and schools and used facilities that I now know are directly on contamination sites or within areas where contamination sites exist. Despite this, we were never told. … No one told us about the risks we were exposed to daily,” Plourde testified.

Plourde’s own condition has progressively worsened. In 2017, she had an emergency hysterectomy. 

“Since this time, four other women I work with have all needed to have this procedure. Many of us were employed in the same building — Building 143,” Plourde said. “A simple, yet alarming, question started being discussed in the building I work in: ‘Do you think our building is safe?’ ” 

As they began piecing together the puzzle, she said, the employees realized there had been dozens of deaths in short succession of people that had worked in seven buildings listed on the federal public inventory of contaminated sites. 

The chief warrant officer, in charge of morale, welfare and quality of life of personnel at 15 Wing’s Canadian Armed Forces Flying Training School, acknowledged their concerns in an email to employees: “We acknowledge that concerns regarding Building 143 have been ongoing for some time, and we understand that this is a sensitive topic that evokes mixed emotions and concerns for many. The [Wing Commander] is fully aware of this, and is committed to addressing these matters with care and attention.” 

The Union of National Defence Employees told The Narwhal in an email that it is the “employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace,” saying that “Building 143 is not listed as a contaminated site. Further, the employer confirmed that there is no record of unsafe levels of PFAS in the building.”

Meanwhile employees working in the building have struggled to get recognition from their leadership. 

“Those of us who have sought answers have faced skepticism, criticism and, now, retribution, but we persist, for those we have lost, for those who are suffering and for those who may yet be affected,” Plourde told the committee, pointing to what she sees as attempts at silencing concerns and consequences for those speaking out anyway, including social alienation.

Had she known about the contamination, Plourde told The Narwhal, “I most likely never would have lived out there. I never would have worked out there. I probably would have stayed away from it as far as I possibly could.”

Since the three colleagues took to Ottawa, dozens of others have spoken about their own experiences, though some say they are fearful of retribution at work and in their community. 

A spokesperson from National Defence told The Narwhal the “management of contaminated sites generally does not involve communication with employees or the local community until qualified environmental experts identify potential exposure risks.”

But for employees worried about their health, the lack of communication is only the start of their concerns.

‘There’s still people sitting in chairs with toxic waste under their seat and they don’t know about it’

For 12 years, Lynn Point worked on the Moose Jaw base in Building 143, organizing logistics for uniforms and other gear. Now, she is undergoing treatment, including chemotherapy, for a rare form of breast cancer on her chest wall that has spread into her lymph nodes. Point told The Narwhal that two of her colleagues and her former supervisor have all died of breast cancer. “They worked hard … and they didn’t get to retire.”

Point’s husband still works at 15 Wing, which concerns her: “I’m not happy with the fact that he’s still out there. I’d like him to relocate, but it’s not that simple. We need our jobs.”

“I love the job, love the people, but our government failed us,” Point told The Narwhal. “To wear a uniform doesn’t mean that they should be able to abuse you that way. Because you sign on that dotted line, the expectation is you’re going to die for your country. Well, dying doesn’t mean I should get sick because of a chemical that you didn’t clean up properly.”

Another former employee who got cancer worked for a contractor on CFB Moose Jaw in a three-person department. “It changes your life,” he told The Narwhal about his cancer diagnosis and current recovery including surgery, 33 trips to Regina for radiation and two years of hormone therapy treatment. 

The employee, whose identity The Narwhal agreed to keep confidential, said he and both of his colleagues all got prostate cancer within six months of one another.

“There’s still people sitting in chairs with toxic waste under their seat and they don’t know about it,” said the employee, who served nearly 28 years in active duty, and 14 more in an office position on the Moose Jaw Base. “I just would like to make sure that they’ve done something so nobody else gets sick.”

This employee said he was never compensated for his illness, despite his formal requests: “Workplace compensation needed to hear from [my] employer, so they contacted the base. They never got a response from the base,” he said. “So my file was terminated.” 

The Department of National Defence did not answer The Narwhal’s specific questions about workplace compensation at CFB Moose Jaw.

Neighbours to Canadian Armed Forces contamination worry whether it seeped into drinking water

Cities and even provinces do not have much jurisdiction over what occurs on bases. Typically, though air, water and soil contamination falls under the jurisdiction of a province, military sites are different. It is the responsibility of the federal Department of National Defence to monitor and clean up contamination on its sites.

In Moose Jaw, the base is only about 15 kilometres from the city and is one of its major employers, with 15 Wing’s military aviation listed as one of the city’s “target industries,” on its website. When The Narwhal contacted the City of Moose Jaw and Mayor James Murdock, the city responded that since questions about contamination on the base and employees falling ill “pertains to an area outside the boundaries of the City of Moose Jaw,” it was unable to provide a comment. The mayor’s office also declined to respond to The Narwhal’s questions regarding the concerns of citizens living near the base. 

“What is in the workplaces tends to get out,” Oliver, the doctor who specializes in occupational and environmental health, said. “It is workers that are primarily concerned but it won’t be very long, I think, before people who don’t work there are concerned about their exposures.”

Health Canada says some of these contaminants that are dangerous to public health can travel long distances through soil, water and air: “PFAS can be found in freshwater and drinking water in areas that are far away from where they entered the environment,” the department says on its website.

It’s impossible to quantify if or how much contamination has seeped off the base without publicly available studies, but some nearby farmers and residents are beginning to ask questions about what they might be exposed to, like Chey Craik, who lives just over three kilometres away.

“I have obvious neurological problems. My parents both live here on the farm too [in] the house I grew up in,” Craik said. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Both his parents suffer neurological issues as well and have struggled to find diagnosis or cause for their symptoms.

Craik learned about contamination issues on base from employees. “It just puts more questions into our minds, like, ‘Is that a potential factor?’… I wouldn’t think a chain link fence would stop contaminants from moving around.”

When asked by The Narwhal about the scope of the problem at the base and the health issues and concerns of citizens nearby, the Saskatchewan Health Authority said any contamination at CFB Moose Jaw is the responsibility of National Defence to identify and address. The provincial Ministry of Environment declined to comment.

Raising awareness of contamination as a life’s mission

Back at Zimmerman’s family home, she has dedicated her life to helping veterans and other military civil servants who say they have been impacted by contamination on base. She paints portraits of veterans dying of terminal illnesses and collects their testimonies. She has been helping colleagues around the country file claims to get justice, accountability and hopefully, compensation for their illnesses. She has gained a reputation in Moose Jaw for refusing to drop this contamination issue. 

“When I joined [the military], I took an oath that I would risk my life for what Canada stood for,” she told The Narwhal. “I’m not going to stop until I make a change.”

She stressed that she does the work because she loves her neighbours: “Moose Jaw is an incredible community,” Zimmerman said. “The sense of connection and support is strong. It’s a place where people take care of each other, and that’s what makes it super special.”

Earlier this year, Zimmerman went on disability leave from her job without specific compensation for her Parkinson’s symptoms or official acknowledgment of the harms she’s suffered. Meanwhile, she said, she is acutely aware of her doctor’s prognosis that she may only have a decade left to spread the word about this issue.

Updated on Oct. 7, 2025, at 3:25 p.m MT: This story has been updated to remove some photos of the armoury in Moose Jaw, which is not the subject of the contamination concerns outlined in this story.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

Will there be tariffs? Will they be 10 per cent, 25, 50? In a dizzying cycle of unrelenting news, you’d be excused for not being sure anymore.

But the latest round of tariffs could have real implications for an industry they don’t intend to target. 

U.S. President Donald Trump has recently taken aim at steel (and aluminum). These new tariffs will have huge implications for the Canadian steel industry — which sends as much as 99 per cent of its exports to the U.S. — as well as a wide array of Canadian products, far beyond steel itself.

But you don’t (usually) get steel without coal. It’s all part of the complicated web of impacts of a trade war. 

Here’s what you need to know as more Canadian commodities — potash made headlines last week! — get caught up in tariff impacts.

What’s the latest on Trump’s steel tariffs?

The United States has implemented 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum. This is a different executive order from the one targeting all Canadian and Mexican goods that has captured Canadian’s attention for weeks. This metal-focused order was signed Feb. 10, and set the stage for tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to the U.S. beginning March 12.

In a flurry of threats this week, Trump abruptly promised to double the tariffs, meaning there would be 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian steel imported into the country. Then, just as abruptly, he backed down. 

Still, as of Wednesday, 25 per cent tariffs are now in place on steel and aluminum from Canada and the rest of the world. Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, calling Trump’s tariffs “completely unjustified, unfair and unreasonable,” announced dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs in response.

This is not the first time Trump has brought in tariffs like these. Tariffs on Canadian steel also went into effect in 2018 during his first administration (also 25 per cent) and were lifted in 2019.

Back to basics: what’s steel used for?

Steel is one of the world’s most ubiquitous and important building materials, used in nearly every building, vehicle, machine, plane, ship, public transit system and bridge on the planet. 

The International Energy Agency has projected global demand for steel will increase by more than a third by 2050. Steel will, in part, help build new infrastructure such as wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-speed trains in the cleaner, greener global economy envisioned to facilitate the push to net-zero carbon emissions.

But all that production comes with an enormous environmental footprint. According to the International Energy Agency, the steel and iron industry produces more carbon pollution than any other heavy industry. 

The industry is responsible for between seven and nine per cent of the global emissions created from the burning of fossil fuels, according to the World Steel Association.

As much as 99 per cent of Canada’s steel exports head to the U.S., according to the International Trade Administration.

What does coal have to do with steel tariffs?

Coal — known as metallurgical coal — has long been used to manufacture steel.

The steel industry is the world’s largest industrial consumer of coal, according to the International Energy Agency.

Estimates vary, but generally one tonne of steel requires about 0.7 tonnes of coal.

Wait, where does steel come from, exactly?

Steel is an alloy — a mixture of iron and other metals. Coal is used to get pure iron, which is hard to find naturally.

No need to get your chemistry textbooks out, here’s the gist of a very technical process: coal is heated to super-high temperatures (more than 1,000 degrees celsius) to make a carbon-dense substance called coke. The coke is combined with iron ore — iron and oxygen — in what’s known as a blast furnace. So, basic heating, and then a chemical reaction that strips oxygen off the iron ore (which is way more energy intensive) — leaves you with the pure iron needed for steel. 

The majority of steel is produced this way, but some companies have been experimenting with less energy-intensive techniques, like hydrogen.

How much coal in Canada is used to make steel?

Coal mines in Canada produce tens of millions of tonnes of coal annually.

More than half of that is used to make steel — 59 per cent, according to Natural Resources Canada. The remainder is what’s known as thermal coal: coal used to generate electricity. 

The federal and provincial governments have moved quickly to phase out the use of thermal coal to generate electricity, signing on to agreements to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030. Many coal-fired electricity plants have quickly switched to natural gas. But that hasn’t stopped thermal coal from being mined and shipped overseas.

Where is Canadian steel-making coal produced?

Coal is primarily a western product. According to Natural Resources Canada, British Columbia is the hotbed, home to 59 per cent of Canadian coal production. It’s followed by Alberta at just over a quarter of production. Saskatchewan contributes 13 per cent of Canadian coal production.

In B.C., the vast majority of coal — 95 per cent — is used to make steel.

According to the B.C. government, the coal industry in the province employs thousands of people and generates billions of dollars of revenue each year. The province notes that “coal production currently represents over half of the total mineral production revenues in the province.”

Does Canadian coal stay in Canada?

The B.C. government says most of its coal is shipped internationally via coal ports on the West Coast, while a smaller percentage gets shipped to steel mills in eastern Canada.

But since Trump has targeted all of Canada’s metallurgical coal customers around the world with new tariffs on steel, it remains to be seen whether their market could soon dry up.

That could leave the industry — especially in coal-reliant regions — rather exposed to a trade war.

What are the potential impacts of U.S. steel tariffs?

The Canadian Steel Producers Association has recently emphasized how interconnected the U.S. and Canada steel industries are, saying there is $20 billion in annual steel trade between the two countries.

As The Globe and Mail has reported, last time Trump imposed 25 per cent steel tariffs, back in May 2018, Canadian steel exports fell by around 20 per cent (they later rebounded when the tariffs were lifted). And if steel production is decreasing, it follows that the steel industry’s consumption of coal is decreasing, too.

What will happen this time? Only time will tell. But industry advocates are ringing alarm bells. 

“If we can’t get out of the tariffs, we need to hit back hard,” Catherine Cobden, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, told the Financial Post last month, adding the tariffs could quickly lead to a decrease in production at Canadian steel plants — and job losses.

And a decrease in steel production would almost surely impact the Canadian coal industry.

For more coverage on how tariffs are impacting natural resources and the environment around you, check out our page on Canada-U.S. relations.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.