Environment Committee on March 12th, 2009

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

But if it has an impact on waters like those in the Athabasca River, then it becomes our problem, especially for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

[Albin Tremblay]

And for Environment Canada, under section 36. That's why we want to obtain the results of the inspections done on the monitoring wells, to ensure that there is no seepage.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

So these monitoring wells are inspected under the authority of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The department trusts them to perform these inspections properly.

[Albin Tremblay]

In fact, it is the Alberta Environment Department that inspects these wells under the permits it has issued to the companies that operate these ponds, and the results are provided to us under an administrative agreement that we have with the province for the application of the Fisheries Act.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Okay. So these are inspectors who are qualified to perform inspections under the Fisheries Act.

[Albin Tremblay]

That is a somewhat technical point. I will check and get back to you with the right answer.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I would appreciate that. If that means that the Fisheries Act is protected, verified or followed by Alberta or, more importantly, by the companies themselves which then report to Alberta, I would like to make sure that the Fisheries and Oceans standards are currently being followed and that inspectors' qualifications meet departmental standards.

[Albin Tremblay]

There again, there are no specific standards. As Ms. Right mentioned, there are no regulations containing standards which authorize a specific level. There is a total ban under the principle of section 36. The direct toxic effect on the fish must be measured. There are no authorized levels.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Calkins.

I just want to remind all members that even though we don't always enforce the rules of the House in committee, we are still expected to address questions and comments through the chair, and the same stands for witnesses.

Mr. Calkins, you're on.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The approach I'm going to take is to basically try to establish baseline information. I have a question for either the Health Canada or Environment Canada officials.

What do we know about the natural versus unnatural or anthropogenic causes of different toxins or other substances that might appear, or that have appeared historically, in the Athabasca River? From a fisheries perspective, we talk about the bioaccumulation of various toxins, particularly mercury. The Athabasca River is not the only river in Canada that has advisories on it as far as fish consumption is concerned.

I would like some clarification on what we know about these levels of contaminants, whether natural or anthropogenic. Do we know what they were before 1965? Do we know what they've been? Have we been monitoring them all along? And relative to other drainage systems we have in Canada, is the Athabasca River normal in what we would expect to see, given that the river does flow through some very interesting geography? Are there any other drainage systems in Canada that have similar levels of heavy metals and other things that occur naturally?

[Cynthia Wright]

Mr. Chair, if I could, I think Dr. Wrona could describe the extensive baseline research that Environment Canada did to answer those kinds of questions.

[Fred Wrona]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our department has been involved in numerous technical studies since the early 1990s involving quantification of the ecological state, contaminant levels, and sources of contamination in the Athabasca system. As the committee members know, the Athabasca River flows through a geographic area with multiple developments and municipalities. In that basin we have pulp and paper development, forestry, oil sands development, and other activities.

The studies we've been involved in, along with other departmental colleagues and university collaborators over the years, have improved our understanding of baseline conditions of these particular types of contaminants. Over the years, through our research efforts and the various monitoring programs, we have seen improvements in levels of contamination, particularly related to processes such as pulp and paper development in the area, and so on.

The complication we have related to the oil sands was mentioned. We have conducted research as part of these initiatives, trying to assess the role of natural hydrocarbons and the effects on the environment, as opposed to ones that are from actual oil sands activities. We published some preliminary results in this vein in 2003 and during the northern rivers ecosystem initiative, showing the potential effects of natural hydrocarbons on fish health and ecosystem health.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Is there anybody from Health Canada who can add to that?

[John Cooper]

I'm sorry, this is an area that is managed more by Environment Canada.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay. So let me take it a step toward where Health Canada would become involved. Just so the committee is very clear, we heard testimony that the water used by the residents of Fort Chip is all surface water. They're not using groundwater; they're not drilling water wells or anything like that for human consumption in the area.

What can you tell us about the state of the water treatment facilities in all first nation communities downstream of the oil sands? Fort Chip is not the only one that's downstream. What do we know about the state of water treatment facilities throughout the entire basin?

[Roy Kwiatkowski, Director, Environmental Health Research Division, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Department of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Fort Chip is not an Indian reserve; it has an Alberta municipal water system, so if you want information on that, you would ask them. Our understanding is that the water quality there is good.

At Health Canada we indeed monitor water quality on all the Indian reserves. We do it consistent with the Canadian drinking water guidelines in terms of the parameters, frequency, etc. As soon as we get that information, it is passed on to the chief and band council. In the last five years--I've had the region check--the water quality has never exceeded any of the guidelines that exist with regard to heavy metals or toxic organics. So I would say the water quality in all the reserves downstream is good.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

When were those guidelines published?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Your time has expired, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. André.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you.

Good morning. I am happy that you're here today. I'm going to go back to some questions that were asked earlier.

You do not seem to be saying that there is a causal link between extracting the oil sands and cancer. There may be an increase in Fort Chipewyan, for example, but that could be coincidence. You say that there is no direct link. I am wondering how I, myself, would react if someone were to say “perhaps” or “we may be”. That is not very reassuring for the local population. I would like to hear your comments on that.

Your mandate includes protecting public health. I would like to know if you put in place an action plan when the effect of the oil sands on public health was raised. Were the people living in the vicinity of oil sands operations screened? Do you have an action plan to prevent disease that may occur? Has Health Canada planned measures to reassure the population?

[Dr. Wadieh Yacoub]

Thank you for the question.

The Alberta Cancer Board study was a study to describe the incidence of cancer and not the risk of cancer. That's a major difference, because it's not conclusive at all about why the cancer has occurred.

I agree with you that it is of utmost importance to follow up, and it is our intent in Health Canada to work with the Alberta Cancer Board and the Fort Chipewyan Nunee Health Board Society to continue monitoring the incidence of cancer.

In all the situations that have been reviewed, especially the rare cancers, in its report the board reviewed the medical charts, and all the risk factors contained in those two cases were the known risk factors. We are not saying there is no relationship to the environment or anything like that; we're just saying this requires further monitoring.

Our plan of action is to concur and work with the Alberta Cancer Board in continuing to monitor the incidence of these cancers. We will ensure that the cases of cancer that are identified in the community by the physicians are followed up. We will ensure the continuation of the health promotion and disease prevention activities to prevent cancer and promote healthy lifestyles, because lifestyles could very well be part of the picture of the cancer incidence in the community.

We concur with the actions proposed by the Alberta Cancer Board, and we will work with the community and collaborate wherever we can.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Lifestyle could well be part of the picture, but so could oil sands operations. I agree that it could be one or the other, but the fact remains the processing of the tar sands releases massive amounts of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere. There are other risks for public health, and you are undoubtedly aware of that. Other studies show that people could develop respiratory problems linked to the air quality, as well as multiple sclerosis.

Do you have data showing that tar sands operations could in fact cause other diseases?

[Dr. Wadieh Yacoub]

Health Canada has not seen any other studies related to the exposure in the community to any of the environmental factors to health. Going back to the notion of environmental exposure, one of the things the Alberta Cancer Board points to is the absence of any childhood cancers in the community. Childhood cancers would be one of the strong signals of environmental exposure. The second factor the report points to is that communities that are closer to the oil sands have not seen any elevation in their rates of cancer. These communities were compared in the report as well.

So we are not saying there is no environmental exposure. We are saying we need to look at both environmental and other exposures, including occupational exposures, because you would expect that the people working in the oil sands would also have elevated rates of cancer. We need to look into that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much. Your time is up.

Mr. Braid, the floor is yours.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Cooper wanted to add something to that last comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Unfortunately, the time allocated for Monsieur André has expired, so we have to move on in order to be fair to all members.

Mr. Braid, you have the floor.