Environment Committee on April 24th, 2023

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pushor, it seems that in the past your organization, the Alberta Energy Regulator, has often been described as captive to oil interests. I understand that there may have been something resembling a willingness to change course since your arrival, or at least to increase transparency. I would like to be convinced of that.

We have some important data, like the fact that there were 1.4 billion litres of toxic tailings in tailings ponds in 2020, but we don't know if that's real data, because it is self-reported by industry.

It's the same thing, for example, with respect to the requirement that companies had set for themselves to treat and clean up 50% of the tailings. In fact, that's only half the job; it's not even the whole job. It seems that companies have decided to stop doing that.

Earlier, representatives of indigenous groups who appeared before the committee mentioned that they felt they had been kept in the dark and that a complete breakdown in trust has occurred.

Your organization, which already has a poor reputation to begin with, has not shared information with the federal government, at least until very recently, nor has it communicated with the community. How can your organization expect us to believe that it is independent when everything looks like you have been working to try to hide the problem so that people wouldn't know about it? How will you restore your credibility?

[Laurie Pushor]

Thank you.

The tailings management plans I outlined earlier require annual reporting, and that documentation is reviewed. We have technical experts on our team who spend a great deal of time and energy doing their best to verify the accuracy of that information.

In addition to that, companies are expected to communicate with communities, subject to the instructions in their approval, from the start.

Finally, the five-year renewals, which are part of our approval processes, require public notification that those plans are open and under review. That affords an opportunity, in Alberta's system, for statements of concern to be raised by any interested party. Every five years, as those plans are renewed and updated to take into account new technology and all of those things, there's a public opportunity there as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

We now go to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the last round of questioning, Mr. Pushor, I asked you about whether indigenous communities have been notified of the deep water monitoring you've been doing. I've been told that they have not been told about that. In fact, your testifying that they have been told and my getting information that they have not seem very contradictive.

In addition to that, I have to say that I asked you to tell me when the Alberta government was aware of this spill and you refused to do so. We are going to have an election in Alberta that will be called in one week. Do you not think it is irresponsible to be leaving this so that Albertans won't even know what role the provincial government played in the destruction of indigenous communities and indigenous lands?

I have some questions for you. Environment Canada has said that the Kearl incidents have had negative impacts on fish habitat and fish, but Premier Danielle Smith said on March 6 that there were no environmental impacts. Given the environmental toxins you found through your deep water monitoring and Environment Canada's findings, is the premier correct?

[Laurie Pushor]

The premier is correct.

Let me come back to your indication that I had not shared. I want to correct that. We received a positive test for F2 hydrocarbons at a deep water monitoring well two weeks ago. That's been shared on our website. I have communicated—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

With all due respect, I have just received information from indigenous communities that says they have not been informed of the deep water monitoring that the AER is conducting.

I have another question for you, since I have limited time. What information did you provide to the minister and the premier that would lead her to decide that there were no impacts, despite the fact that we've heard differently from Environment Canada?

[Laurie Pushor]

The analysis of the sampling in and around the impacted area has, I am advised, delineated the reaches of this contamination. That information has been shared with ECCC. We have very strong collaborative relationships in the field with ECCC officials. We have shared all of that data transparently.

We have compelled Imperial to do some testing of the tributaries and both the Firebag River and the Muskeg River. Those test results have also shown no indication of those hydrocarbons. That's been verified. Regional water monitoring has provided results that show no variation in the testing results for the Firebag River and Muskeg River, nor for the Athabasca River, throughout this period of time—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

If there are no environmental impacts, why did you release an environmental protection order for both of those incidents?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Give a very brief response, please.

[Laurie Pushor]

Because of the risk that this seep posed if it continued without proper interception improvements being made, it needed to be attended to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. McLean.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Pushor.

On this communication that was supposed to happen—or maybe not supposed to happen—with the provincial government, the Minister of Environment was notified in March or February 2023, long after the May seepage happened, that there was a potential of something going into the water that would have gone up to the Northwest Territories watershed. The Government of Northwest Territories is here saying that there is an intergovernmental agreement stating that if there is any potential risk to its water, the Government of Alberta had to notify the Government of Northwest Territories.

How would the minister find this out if your protocols aren't getting to the minister to inform the other governments?

[Laurie Pushor]

As I indicated, the monitoring that was being done in and around the Kearl site had delineated the reach of the contamination. In addition to that, they were testing into the tributaries of both the Firebag River and Muskeg River and were finding no indications of contamination in those tributaries or those rivers. At that time—and this will be part of the review and investigation, and very fundamental to it is the veracity of that—there was no evidence of impact into those water bodies.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada has put forth an idea that we need a joint federal-provincial-indigenous group to look at how we actually solve this.

My opinion at the outset is that the more direct we make this communication and the more direct we make the responsibility for communication and the more “on the ground” we make the responsibility for the communication, then the more accountable that body is going to be. I think we water it down by putting a whole bunch of different bodies in here. However, making sure those communities are informed is a must at all points in time.

Let me ask this to our representatives here from Environment and Climate Change Canada. Do you think you have the ability, given your current resources, to actually fulfill more consultations with various groups because your budget's up 24% in the past two years? Money is money, but health is health, and we're going to have to make sure we allocate something to this. Does this lead to a direct solution, in your opinion, or is this just more consultation, as opposed to direct communication?

[Megan Nichols, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment]

I think Minister Guilbeault has made it clear that this issue is a priority at this time for our department.

As you mentioned, he has proposed the creation of a working group that could address the need for improvements to the notification and monitoring systems. We are very much looking forward to what will come out of that proposed working group. At this point, I think it is fair to say that all options are on the table for ways to improve going forward.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

The question I would have on that is that under your department's oversight, the Giant Mine in the Northwest Territories is the most toxic site in Canada, so I don't see you as having much expertise at this point in time.

My opinion, for this committee's sake, is that this situation is much more easily and directly dealt with by the people on the ground dealing, not from afar. More resources and more paper resources aren't going to solve this. A clear line of communication on the ground from the responsible government is exactly what communities are expecting here, so that they know immediately and forthrightly exactly what is happening with their water resources.

Thank you. I will pass the rest of my time here.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. McLean.

We'll go now to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I have a couple of areas that I want to explore. One is around governance. It's pretty clear, hearing from indigenous Métis and the Dene, that significant groups are being left out of conversations.

Mr. Bowman, I'll start with you. I was part of a citizens' overview of Guelph's waste-water system. That included people with expertise and people who would be impacted by our groundwater's being affected. Guelph gets its water supply from groundwater.

There seems to be a gap in having indigenous people or the partners that we've heard from involved in the oversight and governance. Could you comment on that?

Mr. Pushor, could you follow up?

[Sandy Bowman]

I can tell you what I know from my experience in this situation.

We first became aware of this situation, I believe, through the ATC, the Athabasca Tribal Council, in February. I immediately reached out to the AER to find out what was going on. Our municipality at that time closed off the raw water that is taken out of Lake Athabasca for our treatment centres. We closed the supply at that time to look into the situation.

At that time, I also had very close conversations with Chief Adam, Chief Tuccaro and President Cardinal. We were all on the board, and the AER was communicating with us that way. The AER actually drove from Edmonton to Fort Chipewyan on the winter road to meet with first nations the very next day.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Pushor, is that something that could be embedded in the governance of the AER?

[Laurie Pushor]

Well, we're very keen to do everything we can to make the communications systems around issues like this much more effective. We will be communicating regularly and diligently with affected parties anywhere in Alberta, depending on the region.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

This committee has just finished a review of CEPA, or portions of CEPA, and a risk-based approach is something we kept going back to.

I had a question in a previous meeting about how there are 27 sites that Imperial Oil oversees. We have a problem on one. I would say that the risk has just gone up on the other 26. How do we accommodate the risk here in terms of doing testing on the 27 properties, doing proper auditing?

Maybe this is for Environment and Climate Change Canada. Is this something that the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development needs to be involved with, or is it something that the working group that is being put together could be looking at?

[Megan Nichols]

I think I'll defer the question on who is best positioned to look at that and whether it's the commissioner of the environment. However, I would say that ECCC does conduct routine inspections to check for seepage from oil sands tailings ponds throughout the Athabasca regions. We respond to any releases that occur in contravention of the Fisheries Act and we will be conducting some additional inspections this year. For the last 10 years or so, we have collected hundreds of samples from various tailings ponds to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act.

I would also say, in terms of the risk that you have mentioned, that we are working right now with a Crown-indigenous working group to look exactly at options to address the risk from the accumulation of oil sands processed water in tailings ponds, recognizing that this does pose an important threat to nearby communities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Great. Thank you for that.

Mr. Pushor, the regulations are focused on water, but we've heard through Mr. McLeod's questioning and testimony and we've heard from others, Chief Adam being one, that we need to be looking at cumulative effects.

Are the regulations causing diseases within animals and the people who feed on the animals? How do regulations address cumulative effects? Is that an opportunity we need to look at?

[Laurie Pushor]

That's a very broad and wide-ranging conversation, and it has been active and under way in Alberta for some time.

First and foremost, there is a lower Athabasca regional plan. That plan was developed by and led by the Alberta Ministry of Environment and Protected Areas. It is under review as we speak. It is engaged in consultations around that issue. It is the first vehicle Alberta uses to begin the conversation around cumulative effects. That will be an ongoing conversation.