Environment Committee on April 20th, 2023

[Brad Corson]

First, I haven't seen the article you refer to.

With respect to those principles and those values, those are the guiding principles of our company. We consistently strive to perform at the highest level of safety and environmental performance. That is core to who we are as a company.

This particular incident is a big disappointment for us. We are learning from it. We're going to improve as we go forward.

I think there are many examples of positive things we've done, as we've established the best—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We're not here necessarily to listen to the positive examples. I think we're all here very much because of the negative examples. If you were to ask any of the first nations and Métis communities impacted by the Kearl spill, they may suggest that $17.3 million a year is inappropriate for the performance that you have provided for Imperial Oil.

I have one other question for you. You knew that the location of this particular tailings pond was prone to seepage. The berm is constructed of porous materials. There are at least four seeps in the evidence of seepage being detected beyond the seepage interception system. Given these problems and that future incidents are possible, if not likely, do you believe that this is still a safe structure?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Respond briefly, please, Mr. Corson.

[Brad Corson]

Yes, I do believe it is a safe structure. We have built the tailings pond to all of the appropriate construction standards. We have installed all of these wells, as I mentioned, and we will be monitoring the data from those wells on an ongoing basis. We have confidence in the structure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. McLean is next.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's one aspect that I didn't fully understand from my last round of questioning. The initial seepage was discovered on May 19, 2022, and you weren't aware of the chemistry until August 16, 2022. What takes so long in understanding the composition of your industrial water that's been released through seepage?

That's open to anybody who can give me a technical answer.

[Brad Corson]

I'll ask Simon to comment on that.

[Simon Younger, Senior Vice-President, Upstream, Imperial Oil Limited]

I'd be happy to provide a bit more information there. Thanks, Brad.

To give you a bit more of a sense of the timeline in how we investigated the seepage incident after the first discovery of the discoloured water in the—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Quickly, please, Mr. Younger, what takes three months?

[Simon Younger]

As an example, one of the things we had to do was undertake a geochemistry study. We had to drill a series of monitoring wells. The geochemistry study took about five months. We drew up a series of monitoring wells. That was all directed at identifying the source of—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I've only got so much time here, Mr. Younger, so I'm going to ask a direct question.

In testing water, what took three months to determine what this water was made of?

[Simon Younger]

As I just explained, it's a very complex question of source and pathway and understanding the geochemistry of what we were measuring from the monitoring wells—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Let me move on, please.

I'm having an issue here with regard to the responsibility for communication to everybody—to the public and obviously to the indigenous bands that were there. I've got a muddle right now. I'm getting responses from this panel that are different from the ones I got from the panel that presented earlier this week. I imagine I might get different responses from the panel that will present next week.

What I want to know, out of this muddle....We're going to have to come up with communication clarity that shows there's confidence in this system going forward and that you can continue to operate without people literally looking over their shoulders about whether their water is safe or not.

Part of what we're looking at here is a mix-up between governments, or between parts of government, as in Alberta's case. The Government of Alberta didn't find out about this until the Government of Canada found out about it. The AER wasn't reporting, it seems, to the Government of Alberta on time. There does seem to be a lack of communication ability.

Ms. Shield, you talked about this EDGE and your responsibility to put it to EDGE. Do you know if there's a communication standard from there about where it goes as far as the various other government bodies are concerned, because I'm telling you, something here failed?

[Helga Shield]

I'm sorry. I can't speak about the Alberta regulator, which runs EDGE.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

You can't say what happens. EDGE is the Government of Alberta body, and doesn't it report up to the Minister of Environment of Alberta?

[Helga Shield]

I'm sorry. I just can't speak for the government.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay, thank you.

Given the fact that there's a muddle here in that the regulator, which is a quasi-judicial body of Alberta, doesn't communicate regularly with the Government of Alberta, do you think that introducing another government body into this is going to clear up the muddle, or is it just going to make it more of a buck-passing exercise going forward?

[Helga Shield]

Whichever way we go forward, it's going to be critical that we are very clear on what those communication paths are and who's responsible for what.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, we're obviously looking here for clear lines of communication and responsibility for people's safety going forward.

Thank you very much.

I will pass the rest of my time to my next round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Next we have Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be giving some of my time to Ms. May.

I want to start with the testimony you heard on Monday. Thank you for coming and for your apologies.

Right now, given the way that first nations and the Métis nations people are feeling, I don't think that apologies are enough. What specific actions are you going to be taking? We say we can't go back and fix what's happened in the past, but we can certainly change processes moving forward.

One of the things that became very clear in the testimony on Monday, which you heard as well, was that these chiefs and representatives of the Métis nations did not feel included. They did not feel included or at the table all along. I'm sure you've heard them talking about the duty to consult and how it's been passed down from one to another. This lack of involvement was exemplified by the fact that this investigation went on for so long, yet despite the relationship you spent years to build, they weren't involved.

I find it very hard to sit here and to say we can go back to the way things were, because I don't think this is.... Although the regulators are at fault, it's not only that; it's the fact that these first nations and Métis nations were not sufficiently involved in these decisions and processes.

How will you change that?

[Brad Corson]

I agree with you completely. We cannot revert to how we operated with our communications and our engagements as we go forward. We have to improve on that, and we're committed to that.

We have already expanded our communication processes with each of the communities. As we've talked about, trust is critical to us and it's going to take a long time to rebuild that trust, so we are taking actions of extensive communications and learning and listening.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay, but it's more than communications. I want to know about more than communications, because I think the process has to be changed to include the first nations and the Métis representatives of these communities as you're going along, rather than deciding whether you're going to consult.... It seems like the conversation is between the regulators in Alberta and yourselves, and not with the people whose land it is. How concretely will they be more involved, not just communicated to? Can you change the process in some way so that they feel more a part of what is happening and are at the table in making these decisions?

[Brad Corson]

Well, I think it does tie back to these community benefit agreements that we've established with each of the communities, which outline not just communication protocols but regular engagement protocols, and we're going further, as we have to build capacity in those communities to help them establish companies and provide services that get them fully engaged in our operations.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I appreciate that, and the agreements, but obviously the trust in those agreements has been broken by what happened—