Environment Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Mandy Olsgard, Senior Toxicologist and Risk Assessor, As an Individual]

Thank you.

As a professional biologist and toxicologist who has worked for the Alberta Energy Regulator and as an independent consultant assessing health risks in Alberta for the past 17 years, I have the privilege of working closely with Métis and first nations communities upstream and downstream of oil sands mine development.

I don't sit in an ivory tower. I sit in planes flying over the oil sands, experiencing the nauseating air emissions first-hand, and on the backs of ski-doos and in boats, skirting across the northern boreal, listening to indigenous people share their knowledge of the land and water and how it has changed over time. I sit at kitchen tables and listen to their health concerns. Then, reflecting on this knowledge, I conduct community-based monitoring and health risk studies.

I will touch on three issues I've identified through this research as outlined in my brief.

First, I will discuss how provincial and federal surface water quality guidelines do not consider the toxicity of chemical substances to humans.

These surface water quality guidelines focus on the protection of aquatic life and were established using data for fish and other aquatic species. Therefore, the use of these guidelines to assess surface water quality and risks does not consider human health end points or the potential for chemicals to cause cancer.

In the development of indigenous criteria, we compared published surface and drinking water quality guidelines for each chemical monitored in surface water programs across the lower Athabasca region and found that 50% of all chemical substances monitored for in these waters are more toxic to humans than to aquatic receptors. I note this as statements by representatives of Imperial and the AER asserted there were no risks to human health from the Kearl releases. However, the information available on their respective websites indicates surface water quality guidelines were relied on to assess data at impacted wetlands and surface water bodies and, as such, would not have considered human health.

Second, my review of reports submitted by oil sands operators to the AER identified a source of contamination that is not well documented: over 40 approved releases of industrial waste water from oil sands mines, even though federal effluent regulations for oil sands mines are not yet available under the Fisheries Act. Industrial waste water is not tailings pond water. It is effluent from non-contact sources such as cooling towers and surface runoff—an important distinction—and these releases are not the focus of ongoing tailings water treatment and release discussions.

Year over year, operators report to the AER that the quality of these releases to local rivers and tributaries exceeds surface water quality guidelines for salts, metals and nutrients, and is at times chronically toxic. The most recent surface water monitoring report by the Government of Alberta, the backstop for assessing change in this region, reported that concentrations of lithium, uranium and sulfate were significantly different than historical conditions and exceeded compliance triggers.

Based on this information, the AER is aware that waste water released from oil sands mines is exceeding provincial and federal surface water quality guidelines and that the provincial government has identified changing conditions in the lower Athabasca River downstream from oil sands development, yet there is no evidence the AER has identified regulatory actions for oil sands operators. It is unclear whether these releases are in contravention of the federal Fisheries Act through deposition of deleterious substances to surface waters in the lower Athabasca region.

Third, I would like to talk about the current and future risks to human and environmental health from tailings ponds.

Understanding the extent of potential health risks is limited as oil sands operators control access to all information related to tailings. I was able to access reports submitted to the AER by request and by payment of a fee. From a review of these, I've identified several issues, but due to time constraints, I will emphasize two points.

First, my review of the Imperial Kearl groundwater monitoring data led me to conclude in November 2022 what we all learned in February 2023: the tailings-contaminated groundwater from the Kearl mine was seeping off lease. It was also evident that at least three years prior to the issuance of the EPO, Imperial was reporting groundwater contamination and seepage to the AER, but delayed turning the seepage interception system on. However, the Imperial Kearl release is a symptom of a larger regulatory oversight problem: industry designs unlined ponds and then requests seepage from these tailings ponds to groundwater, which the AER approves. The contamination of groundwater in proximity to tailings ponds is occurring at each oil sands mine.

The extent in off-site impacts can be verified by review of annual groundwater monitoring submissions—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. Unfortunately, I have to stop you there for now.

Professor Wrona, it's nice to see you.

The professor is the Svare research chair in integrated watershed processes at the University of Calgary.

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Frederick Wrona, Professor, Svare Research Chair, Integrated Watershed Processes, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and committee, thank you very much. It gives me great pleasure to provide you with a brief on monitoring, evaluation and reporting challenges for freshwater systems in Canada.

In Canada and globally, surface and groundwater resources are under increasing environmental threats associated with anthropogenic environmental stressors. Quantifying, understanding and predicting the changes in water quantity, quality and aquatic biota in response to these multiple stressors require a coordinated, integrated and credible monitoring, evaluation and reporting system—I refer to this as an MER system—to inform what actions are necessary to ensure the conservation, protection, security and sustainability of our water resources.

Effective design and implementation of an integrated system requires the acquisition and timely reporting of relevant environmental information. Moreover, integrated watershed management requires the ability to define appropriate baseline conditions against which to assess change, as well as identify and track any environmental impacts, and the capacity to assess and predict any cumulative effects.

In addition, a critical and ongoing gap has been associated with the recognition of and the need to use multiple knowledge systems and ways of knowing in monitoring, evaluation and reporting program design and in integrating indigenous knowledge holders in the codesign and implementation of such programs.

Using the Athabasca River basin as a case example, I would like to highlight some of the challenges and possible solutions associated with implementing an integrated and effective monitoring program.

The Athabasca River basin and associated larger Mackenzie River basin have become one of the most monitored and studied freshwater systems in Canada. However, there are substantial knowledge gaps and uncertainties in how the basin and downstream ecosystems are changing in relation to increasing environmental stressors associated with regional development and population growth.

Coupled with economic growth are increasing indigenous community concerns in living in and downstream of these developments. The committee has already had other presentations from indigenous community leaders and other representatives identifying growing concerns regarding whether the current environmental regulatory frameworks are adequate in protecting the environment upon which their way of life depends.

Where are we now?

Previous government-led and independent expert reviews of regional oil sands monitoring in the Athabasca basin found that despite long-term and long-standing commitments to implement integrated monitoring and related cumulative effects assessment, there was little tangible progress in advancing the assessment and related regulatory policies. After decades and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on environmental monitoring and research in the Athabasca basin, significant challenges remain in providing open, transparent and accessible data, which are used to only a fraction of their potential to inform “state/condition of environment” reporting and relevant environmental management decision-making and actions.

There are currently at least 10 different types of monitoring programs conducted in the basin. Open access to the data collected under many of these programs remains difficult to obtain, if not impossible. Moreover, these data have different assurance quality control practices, including analytical standards and inconsistent forms of public recording. We simply don't need another website collating fragmented data. We need systemic change in how we design and implement an effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting system.

Finally, for many monitoring programs, there are no clearly defined decision criteria and there is no on-off switch for ratcheting up or down or increasing the intensity and frequency of monitoring, which is a core principle of adaptive monitoring.

In closing, with the right commitment and expertise, it is possible to develop an adaptive framework with defined criteria for changing monitoring intensity and related reporting, thereby ensuring the best cost-effective use of scientific and technical resources.

A previous presentation made to this committee by Drs. Pietroniro and Clark from the University of Calgary provided the rationale for and recommendations on the need for a new, unified, national environmental prediction system for Canada, built on an interoperable computational framework and related data management system.

Correspondingly, properly designed monitoring, evaluation and reporting systems would provide the data necessary to support such a prediction system for fresh waters. Defragmentation of current approaches and enhancing the application of new automated monitoring and reporting technologies could provide more standardized, cost-effective and timely information to focus future efforts on areas of priority.

It is crucial to forge new partnerships to develop the next generation of monitoring and evaluation systems. Linkages with such programs as the new United Nations transdisciplinary water hub at the University of Calgary and other university-based programs can serve as incubators and accelerators to forge a national and international collaborative pathway to connect research advances to management and policy actions to environmental monitoring and prediction initiatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry, Professor Wrona. I have to stop you there. That was fascinating. I was so riveted by what you were saying, we went over time a little bit. We'll come back to you with questions.

We'll go now to Ryan Beierbach, chair of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

[Ryan Beierbach, Chair, Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, and Director for Saskatchewan, Canadian Cattle Association]

I'll let Duane start, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

As you wish. You have five minutes in total.

[Duane Thompson, Co-Chair, Environment Committee, Canadian Cattle Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Good afternoon. My name is Duane Thompson. I'm a rancher from Saskatchewan. I have the pleasure of chairing the Canadian Cattle Association environment committee. Joining me today is fellow rancher and chair of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, Ryan Beierbach.

We are pleased to participate in your committee's freshwater study. CCA represents 60,000 beef producers across Canada. We are world leaders in sustainable production for high-quality beef, with one of the lowest greenhouse gas footprints in the world per unit of production, at roughly half the global average. While contributing significantly to the Canadian economy and environment, the beef industry accounts for only 2.45% of the country's total greenhouse gas footprint. Beef producers steward over 44 million acres of grasslands, which store at least 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon and contribute to the largest portion of wildlife habitat and biodiversity, comprising 68% of wildlife habitat on just 33% of total agricultural land in Canada.

As the committee has heard from us before, we take our commitments to environmental stewardship seriously. Water management is a key part of the stewardship. We have made strong progress, but we're not about to rest on our laurels. The Canadian beef industry has created ambitious goals toward 2030 that look at the whole picture of an environment, from emissions intensity reduction to conservation of grasslands and other considerations, including fresh water. Water and water security is critical to continued agriculture production but also to ensuring animal health, soil health and infrastructure, both on farms and in surrounding habitats. Our commitment focuses on how beef producers rely on fresh water, the infrastructure that surrounds fresh water and how that impacts food production and our environmental goals regarding fresh water.

With the new Canadian water agency in development and further attention being placed on fresh water, we need to ensure that farmers and ranchers are a key part of the conversation. We take into account the landscapes, how fresh water interacts with agriculture production and where key infrastructure support is needed. Beef farms and ranches operate across immense open and forested landscapes. Much of our lands, such as pastures, riparian areas and forest ranges, are natural water storage and filtration systems. Because of the need for water, our beef farms and ranches are established in large part in close proximity to water sources. Water needs to be accessed in many cases—moved or directed for drainage, crop irrigation and livestock watering—to manage ranch operations. While irrigation is mostly a provincial jurisdiction, the access to irrigation for cattle producers is important to note for your study's consideration.

Given the role that farmers and ranchers play in food production while conserving ecosystems surrounding the beef operations, we need to ensure that agriculture-related activities are taken into account when making policies and regulations. We pay particular attention to how the federal government's policies on water can unintentionally impact agriculture practices, infrastructure and food production.

On this point, I'd like to mention minor works and minor freshwater policy regulations. While these policies are not a focal point of the freshwater study, we have general concerns about routine activities and small projects on beef operations in relation to fresh water. We ask that members of Parliament consider the potential impacts of future and existing legislation and regulation on agriculture operations. Exemptions for agriculturally related routine activities should always be a consideration so as not to negatively impact fresh water and food production.

Further, beef producers have concerns about private bodies of fresh water on their land and how government policy may impact agriculture production. For example, where a normally self-contained lake on a farm or ranch experiences runoff or flooding, in the event of substantial overflow, the overflow runs downslope. It exists on private property and can branch into public areas. There is considerable concern that during such a situation, the public could claim navigable access rights to the albeit temporary flowing and possibly now navigable waters. We need to remove the ambiguity around that to prevent the misuse of these waters by the general public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Duane Thompson]

We feel policy-makers should consider these sorts of scenarios and their potential impacts on agriculture operations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. That's good. You hit on a number of points that I think are quite interesting.

We'll go now to Chief Lance Haymond of the Kebaowek First Nation.

Go ahead, please. You have five minutes.

[Chief Lance Haymond, Kebaowek First Nation]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Lance Haymond and I represent the Algonquin community of Kebaowek. I'd like to talk to you today about nuclear waste poisoning the Ottawa River as a result of the near-surface disposal facility project that will be built at the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in Chalk River, Ontario.

The Kichi Sibi, as we call it—or the Ottawa River—has been our home and highway since time immemorial. For thousands of years, the Algonquin nation respected this waterway. Today, the Kichi Sibi is a water source that provides drinking water for over 10 million people. For this reason, I will outline our concerns about the short- and long-lived radionuclides proposed for Chalk River, the above-ground nuclear disposal mound and the potential for radioactive leakage and nuclear waste poisoning the Ottawa River.

Chalk River continues to play an important role in international nuclear development. In 1944, it was part of the Manhattan project to produce the world's first heavy-water reactors and plutonium for bombs. Two hundred and fifty kilograms of plutonium was sold to the American military for use in nuclear weapons. Chalk River began as a very secretive establishment in 1944. Algonquin communities were never consulted.

You have to understand that, in 1944, my ancestors were struggling to survive because of the onslaught of colonization that was pushing them further north along the Ottawa River. The result is that the Chalk River side is very heavily contaminated with lots of radioactive waste materials: 21 tanks of liquid waste, and five or six different waste areas containing intermediate- to high-level waste. There's also waste from two reactor accidents that took place in 1952 and 1958. The world's first nuclear meltdown took place at Chalk River in 1952.

In 2006, the Government of Canada initiated the nuclear legacy liabilities program to clean up the waste. In 2015, it hired a consortium of multinational corporations to carry out this work. The consortium conveniently decided to build a waste dump seven storeys high one kilometre from the Ottawa River, which feeds down into the St. Lawrence. A hundred and forty municipalities along the watershed have expressed opposition to the permanent disposal site. Over 3,000 people recently signed a House of Commons petition requesting the Government of Canada stop the project.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approved project construction in January 2024, despite 10 of the 11 Algonquin communities expressing strong opposition. The project is at a land height that drains into the wetlands, which drain into the Ottawa River. The waste is going to leak into the Ottawa River. That is our complaint. Why was this site selected? We believe it's simply a matter of convenience. In this view, it's easiest to push the waste to the perimeter of the property.

In our view, this has the potential to poison our water supply and immediately destroy an old-growth forest with active bear dens and other species at risk. The project is the wrong technology in the wrong location. It's not a temporary project. This dump would be a permanent facility—19 of the 29 radionuclides listed in the disposal inventory have half-lives of more than 1,000 years. This is long-lived radioactivity. On-site water treatment is only planned to be continued for 30 years. After that, it's up to whatever synthetic liner holds the waste-water material in place.

Kebaowek has been very clear to Canada: You should not dump garbage where you draw your water. Canada should not have approved a permanent nuclear waste dump on Algonquin sacred territory. According to article 29 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there should be “no storage or disposal of [toxic] materials” on indigenous lands without the “free, prior and informed consent” of indigenous people. I know this government takes pride in its adoption of UNDRIP. The problem is that its actions don't necessarily correlate with its words.

The Kichi Sibi is in the bloodline of the Algonquin people. It feeds all living things. If you poison the lifeblood, you poison everything. We are faced today with an intergenerational challenge at Chalk River. We have to think of it in those terms and consider whether the NSDF project is the best solution to keep nuclear waste out of our food chain and drinking water. Kebaowek has been clear that the NSDF is not the best solution, while Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility notes that a solution would mean we know how to neutralize it or render it harmless.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and the consortium do not know how to do that. That is why Kebaowek and others are seeking and have filed a judicial review with the Federal Court to annul the licensing decision—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Chief.

I want to leave time for questions, because I think you will get many questions.

We'll start the six-minute round with Mr. Kram.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to start with the witnesses from the Canadian Cattle Association.

Mr. Thompson, in your opening statement, I believe you said that Canadian cattle producers have a carbon footprint about one-half of the global average. Could you explain to the committee how Canadian cattle producers are able to do that? How do they have such a low carbon footprint?

[Duane Thompson]

Thank you for the question.

The Canadian cattle industry has long taken a serious effort to quantify and do the research necessary to find out just what our footprint is. Through that research—Ryan's on the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, and a lot of that research has happened through that—what they've come up with is that our system, with the efficiencies we've managed to put in place over, probably, the last 50 years, has made it so that we're one of the most efficient producers of high-quality protein.

[Ryan Beierbach]

I can add a bit to that.

When you look at a lot of other parts of the world, the resources may be cheap, so they're not as concerned about wasting them, whereas in Canada, our resources are relatively expensive, so when we look at making them economically viable for production, we have to do a really good job. We put a lot of money into research that helps improve our efficiencies. When you can produce more pounds of beef with the same number of resources, that's where we really see that carbon footprint shrink.

We did our first national beef sustainability assessment seven years ago, and we've just finished our second one. We saw that our footprint went down 15%. When we look at what drove that, it was things like growing cattle more quickly with the same amount of feed. In a lot of cases, it was genetics, the feed we feed the cattle, balancing the rations and making sure that we really take care of the resources we have. That's what has really helped us reduce our footprint.

In North America, we do a way better job than many parts of the world. In Canada, we devote a lot of money and resources from the cattle industry to make sure that we can keep improving.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Has anyone from the federal government ever approached your organization about sharing these best practices with other countries and counting those activities toward Canada's emissions reduction targets?

[Ryan Beierbach]

There's not really been anyone from the federal government. I sit on the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, so we share our production practices with other parts of the world so that we can help bring the entire beef industry up.

We do a really good job of measuring emissions, but we don't measure the carbon sequestration we do, so we're only really getting half of the equation when we look at the carbon footprint on the beef side. We've done a lot of research in Canada to quantify what we put into the soil, because if you manage it properly, that carbon comes out of the air and is stored in the soil. We see organic matter come up, so it also helps with fertility and biodiversity. It's a benefit to ranchers.

Until we can get that research recognized internationally, we don't get credit for the carbon we store, and if we don't get it internationally, Canada won't recognize it. It's really been a focus for our industry to get that accounted for and quantified so that we have the full picture when we are looking at the carbon footprint. That way, we can make sure we're doing the best job we can at sequestering it and reducing it on the emissions side, but also by sequestering as much as we can.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Can you elaborate a bit on the benefits of irrigation and irrigation projects, and how they can lead to more carbon sequestration in the soil?

[Duane Thompson]

Irrigation has long been a very good way to ensure your water source in southern Alberta, and it is not as.... It is drought mitigation, and if you need it, it's there to use. The current plan is to develop it more in Saskatchewan. We're looking forward to that, because you're always at the mercy of the weatherman, otherwise.

Having the irrigation opportunity is a really good thing for the cattle industry to mitigate the.... In Canada, it's a given that a good percentage of the time, you're going to have to feed your animals, so to be able to grow feed and minimize the risk is pretty important.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

On the other side of that coin, if a lack of irrigation makes ranchers more susceptible to drought, can you give the committee an idea of what types of federal government programs are available to ranchers who find themselves in that situation?

[Ryan Beierbach]

In a lot of cases, the federal government will implement a tax deferral, because if you want to take good care of your ranch, in a lot of cases you have to destock when it gets dry so you can take care of your pasture. We see tax deferrals so we can rebuild without having to pay tax on the money we got from selling the animals, but in a lot of cases, it's almost too late by the time we know about the ability to do a tax deferral. If you're on the edge of what is classified as a tax-deferral zone, you don't qualify, and droughts don't end at our RM line.

We have to change it so it's kind of all-encompassing, and the producer can decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Longfield for six minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I would like to start with Dr. Wrona. I'm really interested in your presentation and the monitoring discussion that you were giving us. This morning I spoke with the water movement, with the indigenous water operators who were in Ottawa. We talked about getting the right information to the operator level so the operators would know when they had to make changes to the system.

You talked about open data and the availability of data and getting that data to the right place at the right time. I'm wondering about things like naphthenic acid or PFAS, things that could be in the data. Would those things be picked up in the monitoring and included in the open data you were talking about?

[Frederick Wrona]

Thank you for the question.

It depends on the basin and the system. This is what I was referring to, about trying to at least have standardization across watersheds and basins of what core water quality information should be reported and at what time. Surely in the oil sands area, naphthenic acids and those types of contaminants are very critical. They have monitoring programs in place to actually measure those types of chemicals. Those are not ubiquitous in other parts of the country.

The same thing is true with respect to municipal waste-water effluent and the complex mixtures there. We don't have, necessarily, a consistency. We have some core parameters, such as biological oxygen demand, E. coli and a few other things that are measured, including nitrogen and phosphorous, but there are many other compounds, as has been mentioned by many others, that are not necessarily ubiquitously monitored.

I think the compelling argument would be that, unlike the case with other frameworks in Europe and other areas, we should be developing, from a basin management perspective, some standardization in terms of what we expect, what we monitor and how we report on it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I was thinking of governance around this and who makes those decisions. For water, the Alberta Energy Regulator may be on one panel, and Ontario might be on another panel, because water is provincial in a lot of cases.

How would we recommend, through our report, having a governance structure under which those decisions could be made after discussions and public consultation? Would that be the Canada water agency? What are you thinking?