Environment Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023

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

On October 9, the AER reported a leak of 662 cubic metres from the Fort Hills site. That is a site, of course, that you've approved to expand despite the impact it's going to have on incredibly ecologically important wetlands.

Just a few days ago, the AER noted, “Further investigation of this matter indicated the unplanned release volume may have been closer to 10,000 cubic metres”, and that Suncor had informed the AER that the “unplanned release may have been in effect since June 2022 and believe the cause of the release is likely to be a faulty valve.”

Mr. Pushor, forgive me if this sounds familiar, but it seems to me that the design of many of these tailings ponds is much like a sieve. Could you tell this committee how much leakage from tailings ponds into the environment does the AER find acceptable?

[Laurie Pushor]

The standards are that tailings ponds should contain tailings.

I would note and I want to clarify that the Suncor pond you were referring to was not a tailings pond. It was a containment pond, one of the ponds designed to collect runoff and snow melt and so on.

The initial report in October was that there had been a release. What they discovered and what we are continuing to review is that the source is probably a faulty valve. They talk about the last time they actually released from that pond was the 2022 date that you referred to, and therefore, they think it could have been that the faulty valve wasn't operational since the last time they released.

It's important to note that when testing the water in October that was being released as a result of this faulty valve, all of the release criteria for water release from those types of ponds were met with that water.

We continue to review that incident, and we'll do our best to be transparent with everyone involved. I would also note that all of that information has been communicated directly to communities in the area.

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

Thank you.

Of course, there are two issues we're talking about with the Kearl oil sands site. One, of course, is the consistent seepage, and the other one is the overflow. We know that thousands of cubic metres of this problematic fluid poured into the Muskeg and Athabasca rivers because of what seems to be a failure that could have been avoided. It sounds very similar to this with the Suncor site.

Could you tell this committee if those events were preventable? If so, does the AER have a plan that will prevent these occurrences from happening again?

[Laurie Pushor]

I really want to correct what you just said.

The overflow of the containment pond at Kearl that occurred in February occurred at -30 temperatures. That water was contained. Most of it froze very swiftly, and there is no evidence that any of that water made its way into either the Firebag or Muskeg rivers.

I think it's important we note that.

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

Were these events preventable? If so, what is the AER doing to ensure these events don't happen again?

[Laurie Pushor]

Certainly an event of that magnitude constitutes an issue that we would investigate. There is an open and active investigation into that incident and we will await the results of that.

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

I understand that this release was three times above the approved levels for suspended solids. I would ask that the AER submit their response to this to give the public confidence that these types of events, which sound very similar from two separate sites, will not be happening again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Of course, operations of this kind, with spills—let’s call a spade a spade—like the one we’re discussing today, have significant health repercussions for neighbouring Indigenous nations. For example, we spoke earlier of a relative of Grand Chief Adam suffering from biliary cancer. The University of Alberta investigated the links between oil extraction and the health of people in the area between 1995 and 2006, and the findings are troubling.

To please my colleague Mrs. Goodridge, I’ll mention that, among the people who know where oil sands are located and who’ve seen them before, are the members of the Fort Chipewyan Indigenous Nation, who have asked for light to be shed on the matter.

Mr. Pushor, you began several of your sentences by talking about your role as a regulatory agency. You seem to take your role very seriously. Yet, as Mrs. Chatel aptly pointed out, the public perception is that, in many ways, you’re an industry regulatory agency that’s governed by and for the industry, and little else. You can agree or disagree, but that’s the perception of many people.

Do you think major regulatory reforms are needed so that you’re better able to do your job and the public has more confidence in you?

[Laurie Pushor]

The regulatory standards we have some influence on and some independent authority over those, and we'll continue to take whatever action we deem appropriate to ensure that the systems are operated to the best of their ability.

I would note that when you get into the standards you are talking, in large part, about the standards that were created and developed by the Government of Alberta. It would be perhaps of value for this committee to have a discussion with representatives from the Government of Alberta as it relates to any thoughts the committee might have on further strengthening those legislative or regulatory expectations as are presented in Alberta through the legislative assembly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pushor, you mentioned that the plume of contamination has been defined. I would highly encourage you to share the data from that definition of the plume with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. They haven't yet received the definition of the plume. I think a map and the data associated with it would be very important for them to receive as quickly as possible.

I want to touch on Suncor's proposed expansion on top of the McClelland wetlands complex. This is an ecologically valuable wetland that, until 1996, was protected from development. Now Suncor is going to be allowed to mine half of it and store tailings in that area that has been mined. The number I've seen is 60 square kilometres of tailings ponds on top of the former wetland. To prevent seepage from the tailings facility into the remainder of the wetland, they are proposing to build a 70 metre deep impermeable wall down into the soil to prevent the groundwater from migrating from one side of the wetland to the other.

Have you heard of this approach being used elsewhere in the oil sands or elsewhere in Canada for managing the migration of groundwater between a tailings facility and a wetland?

[Laurie Pushor]

I would reiterate that the mining of this part of the McClelland Lake wetlands was approved in the original federal-provincial mine approval. What was approved a year ago was the strategy by which that mining would be conducted. It was approved after an extensive engineering design by the company but also an extensive review by our technical experts to ensure we could have confidence that the mining operations would operate within the standards as outlined in the legislation and regulations.

We did an extra review in response to requests to reconsider that and had an independent group within our organization go back and revisit all of that information. They concluded that the approval was appropriate and should continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, there has been a bit of a theme here. MPs are asking very specific questions. In this case, my specific question was on whether a similar approach has been used elsewhere in Canada, but no answer was provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, I understand.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I just want to voice my frustration. We're trying to get answers on behalf of Canadians and first nations downstream, but no answer is forthcoming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It will be in the transcript.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's frustrating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Deltell.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pushor, thank you very much for being with the committee. You were here seven months ago and now you are back. Thank you; your input is vital.

It can be said in general that there is no environment without water. It is the key element, the basis for all life forms and for the quality of the environment. Obviously, water is essential. We have to be careful with it. When there are unfortunate leaks such as at the Kearl site, we want to measure the impact on the water immediately, because water affects everything else.

In the present case, I understand that you took action when the leak occurred.

What are your water testing protocols under normal circumstances around oil and gas operations?

[Laurie Pushor]

We have an extensive team of technical experts who come to work every day to diligently review and assess what's happening across the landscape. We have certainly deployed a wide-ranging team to the Kearl site, as an example. We saw and identified issues. We will continue to deploy those resources to the best of our ability.

However, it's important that we learn, understand what is happening and build the best strategies to mitigate, continuing on.

I would note that—

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

Mr. Pushor—

[Laurie Pushor]

—the monitoring of rivers and streams around the Firebag, Muskeg and Athabasca rivers continues to show no evidence of impacts from the Kearl incident.

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

Mr. Pushor, my question is not about the incident at the Kearl site. We know you took action; that's fine.

I am talking about preventative testing, before serious incidents occur. Even without major leaks, there can be seepage that pollutes the water, whether that is rain water, groundwater or simply the water in our rivers, lakes and other waterways.

What tests does your organization do on a regular basis, before dramatic incidents such as the one at the Kearl site occur? What does your organization do to test water quality near oil extraction sites?