Environment Committee on March 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good morning, honourable members.

The first half of our meeting is being held in public, not in camera. We need to adopt the report that came out of Friday's meeting of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

You've all received the report to be approved. Are there any comments before we proceed with the vote?

Go ahead, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the subcommittee for their work on this. I'm wondering if we can include, as an amendment to the subcommittee's report, the Kearl Lake testimony in the water study that's coming up. It would be useful testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We haven't yet adopted the motion for the Kearl study, and we don't need permission to use testimony from other committee meetings in a report, but seeing that if we do go ahead with the Kearl study this relates directly to our water study and we in fact had probably envisaged having a segment on the Athabasca River watershed, it would make sense.

For clarification purposes, I think it makes sense to maybe amend the report to say—can we do that?—that any evidence and/or testimony in a possible study of events involving Imperial Oil in the Athabasca River watershed can be used when drafting the report of the water study. Anyone...?

It's already sort of in there, okay, but we didn't pass the motion on Imperial Oil. Before we adopt this, we have to move the motion.

It's mentioned in the report of the subcommittee, this idea of having a study of these events in the Athabasca watershed; however, adopting this report doesn't adopt the motion. It just allows debate on the motion or introduces debate on the motion, which we would vote on after adopting this.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much.

You commented on how it is regular practice for committees to expand evidence. It seems to be out of order—not out of order in terms of procedure but out of order to ask for testimony on a study that has not been conducted to be included in a report that we have not yet given drafting instructions on.

Although I understand the intent—and certainly I think there is a lot of relevance to the proposed motion and the proposed study that will likely be undertaken here at some point before this committee—I'm not sure it's something that needs to be articulated at this point in time, when we have a motion that hasn't yet been passed and a study that hasn't yet been completed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's a little confusing.

Before I go to Madame Pauzé, just to make sure I understand, the subcommittee report here doesn't adopt the motion to do the study of events in the Athabasca watershed. It basically says that, provisionally, if we adopt that motion, we will use the testimony for the water study.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In the report, the subcommittee references Mr. Weiler's motion as amended. I had moved an amendment that the committee also hear from Department of the Environment officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, we are going to debate the motion and make any necessary amendments. Right now, though, we need to adopt the subcommittee's report.

Does anyone have amendments to propose to the report, itself, before we begin discussing Mr. Weiler's motion?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but I have another question.

Didn't we also talk about the renewable energy report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you mean the report on clean energy?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I was told that we would be receiving the first draft of the report.

The report actually doesn't mention that the committee is continuing its review of the report on fossil fuel subsidies, but it's part of future business. Apparently, the report doesn't necessarily need to state that, because it's understood that the committee is continuing to review the reports on the two studies.

Now for the freshwater report, committee members are being asked to provide the clerk with any proposals for travel and witness suggestions.

Everything is covered, then.

Is the committee ready to adopt the report and then proceed with the debate on Mr. Weiler's motion?

Go ahead, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I had trouble getting on, so I'm catching up with the conversation.

I'm hoping the interpreters can hear me.

I wonder if, because I joined late, you could summarize where we are, so that I know what I'm voting on. Fortunately, or unfortunately for me, I'm always the first to vote, as you know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're voting on the subcommittee report. The subcommittee report is very simple. Do you still want me to go through it?

Mr. Kurek says let's pass it on division, so you don't have to actually vote.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. I'm just trying to save a little time here. It's pretty self-evident. We hadn't gone beyond referring to the subcommittee report.

Is there anyone else?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

I see Mr. Weiler on his motion.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We brought this up in the subcommittee, but I'd like to move this motion as part of our full committee today. This motion is with respect to at least two significant incidents where it has been found that there was seepage of toxic water from a tailings pond from the Kearl oil sands project. This was, of course, not communicated for over nine months in the first case.

For this motion, I'm proposing that we invite the head of the Alberta Energy Regulator to speak for two hours as part of our committee. We'd also invite the CEO of Imperial Oil to speak for two hours with our committee, as well as the three impacted first nations that are continually being impacted by the toxic tailings that are being spilled into the Athabasca River.

Obviously, in this case, there are some major concerns about the lack of communication, not only with Imperial Oil and the indigenous groups, but also with the Alberta Energy Regulator, as this has gone on for many months. Whenever there's a report of such a spill, it's supposed to be communicated in 24 hours. I think what we're seeing here is a major breakdown of communication, and the indigenous groups have really spoken to a lack of trust involved in this.

Therefore, I believe it's important that the many questions Canadians have be answered, and I'm putting forward this motion so that we can get this information as part of this committee and be able to share it with Canadians more broadly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have Mr. Deltell, Madame Pauzé and Mr. Kurek.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a very serious issue that the committee should consider carefully. We need to understand what happened, figure out what went wrong and make sure these types of accidents don't happen again, for the sake of all Canadians and all industries that depend on the environment.

We wholeheartedly support the spirit of the motion, and we even want to go further and hear from more witnesses.

In a moment, my fellow member and one of the committee's vice-chairs Mr. Kurek will lay out the other witnesses we would like to invite. The point of the motion is to hear from a lot more people.

Can he put forward that motion now, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé wanted to say something.

Is it a separate motion?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

No. We actually want to add witnesses, provincial and federal ministers, as well as representatives from every indigenous community affected by the accident. We want to hear from more witnesses to get to the bottom of the situation and give the committee more time to examine what happened.

We can go through the motion paragraph by paragraph and propose amendments, or we can propose another motion. I'll leave it to you to decide the best way to proceed, Mr. Chair.

Basically, we'd like to add provincial and federal ministers to the witness list, as well as people from the indigenous communities. Seven indigenous communities were affected, and under the motion, representatives from three of them are being invited to appear. That's good, but we'd like to hear from representatives of all seven affected communities.

In short, we want to add people to the witness list, to better understand everyone's responsibilities. That way, everyone involved, whether before, during or after the events, will get the opportunity to have their say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Did you have something to say, Ms. Pauzé?

Mr. McLean, do you have a point of order? I have a speaking list.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

On a point of order, can we take a quick pause here for one second?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We've heard what Mr. Deltell had to say. Now we will hear from Ms. Pauzé. After that, we'll go to Mr. Kurek, followed by Mr. Longfield.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering whether I should wait for the Conservatives to move their motion. As I told the subcommittee, I wanted to invite representatives from the Department of the Environment to appear. I had suggested that we dedicate three meetings in a row to the study, April 17, 20 and 24. Basically, I'd like to suggest that again.