Environment Committee on Dec. 14th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I call this meeting to order.

My understanding—correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk—is that the sound tests have been done, and everybody conforms to the sound quality standards.

We'd like to welcome Mr. Brad Corson, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Imperial Oil Limited, along with Simon Younger, senior vice-president for upstream.

Mr. Corson, welcome back to the committee. It's a pleasure to have you here today. Thank you for making yourself available. We'll start right away with your five-minute opening statement.

[Brad Corson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Imperial Oil Limited]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Brad Corson. I'm the CEO of Imperial and I'm joined here today by Simon Younger, the senior vice-president of the upstream at Imperial.

Thank you for the invitation to participate today. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the chair and the committee members for their flexibility in accommodating our schedules. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting today in Ottawa on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

In this meeting today and on every day that we carry out our business across the country, we do so on the traditional territories of first nations, Métis and Inuit, who have lived on and cared for these lands for generations. We are all entrusted to care for the land, and that is a responsibility Imperial takes very seriously. We come today fully committed to our reconciliation journey.

As this committee knows, I was here on April 20. At that time I unequivocally apologized for what happened at Kearl, and I remain deeply sorry for the events that occurred and the community fears that stemmed from them.

Since our last appearance, we have focused on three key areas. First, we have been working very hard on our mitigation efforts, and I will say more on those shortly. Second, we are continuing to ensure that the environment is not adversely affected and that communities are safe. Third, we have increased our communication and engagement with our neighbouring communities, and on this last point I want to emphasize that Imperial is communicating with the Athabasca chiefs and presidents on a regular basis by phone, text and email. We also provide a weekly status update on our website.

We have met with communities approximately 70 times and we've arranged more than 20 community site visits to Kearl. I personally have met face to face with several chiefs and presidents as recently as October. I want to emphasize that we are collaborating with indigenous leaders and their communities to align on improved communication protocols to ensure that we are meeting their expectations, and we continue to support independent water and wildlife testing by all communities.

Since we last spoke seven months ago, I'm pleased to report that the measures we had put in place to expand and optimize our seepage, monitoring and collection systems are working, and there continues to be no indication of adverse impacts to human life, wildlife, vegetation or fish populations in nearby river systems. Furthermore, I can confidently report that the seepage has not reached any waterways, including the Firebag River, the Muskeg River, the Athabasca River or any other water bodies, including those in the Northwest Territories. There is no indication of any risk to drinking water for communities downstream.

This has been confirmed by testing done by government and our own testing. which includes more than 2,000 samples taken from more than 500 locations, including along the banks and within the Firebag River. Independent testing, as you are aware, has been undertaken by communities as well.

The focus of our mitigation work has been on expanding and improving our seepage interception system and our monitoring network. We have installed intersection trenches and sumps, along with a well-point vacuum system, and we have added liners to on-site ditches. Over the summer we increased the number of pumping wells from 19 to 27, with an additional 28 to be completed this winter. We have also completed 165 monitoring wells, with an additional 171 to be drilled over the coming months. This brings the total number of monitoring wells to almost 500. They will help us to further our understanding of the geology and hydrogeology at site.

This work is reviewed by a third party, and we share the results with regulators and communities. We're very pleased that these newly installed groundwater mitigations are working as intended and are preventing further off-site migration of impacted water.

Preliminary delineation data indicates that there is no deep seepage found beyond 1.3 kilometres north of the Kearl lease. For context, the Firebag River is an additional two kilometres north beyond that. We test and monitor along the remaining distance of the river, and there is no indication of risk to water or wildlife. Furthermore, there are no drinking water sources in this area.

Ongoing monitoring and sampling are an integral part of all our operations. We continue to provide regular reports to communities, the AER and federal regulators on the work I have just outlined.

Notwithstanding this positive update, we remain committed to enhancing these mitigations if future data demonstrates that they are required.

On behalf of the more than 5,000 employees at Imperial, I want you all to know that this matter continues to have the full attention of our company.

I would like to re-extend my offer to the committee to come to Kearl, where you can all see first-hand the work we are doing to protect the communities and the environment where we operate and to earn back your trust.

Thank you for the invitation to speak with you. I am happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Corson.

Speaking of your offer, I should tell you that the committee actually intends to submit a budget request to the House of Commons, so that we can visit Kearl in the new year, probably in the spring when the weather is better.

Without further ado, we will now begin the first round. Mrs. Goodridge, who is participating remotely, will start things off.

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Mr. Corson for coming back to the committee.

It has been approximately eight months since the last time you guys were at this committee. You gave a recap of the three key areas. I'm wondering if you can go into more specifics around what processes you've changed when it comes to communication engagement with your neighbouring communities.

I understand what you guys are doing with this particular incident and how you're responding. You've laid that out relatively clearly. What have you done as a company to prevent these communication failures as we go forward?

[Brad Corson]

Thanks for the question.

Before I answer, I just want to congratulate you on the birth of your baby since we were last together in committee here.

With respect to the question, we have undertaken a thorough review of our communication procedures and protocols across the whole company, not just those specific to Kearl. We learned that we had very robust and consistent protocols and procedures in place for what I would describe as emergency notifications to communities and surrounding neighbours—regulatory requirements and all of those appropriate notifications.

When it came to other incidents, we found some inconsistencies and some clear gaps related to communities.

Since we last met here, we have been internalizing those learnings and we're now looking for how we can enhance them. As part of that, we have put in place more consistent protocols. We have elevated, if you will, or expanded the types of information we would share with communities. We're obviously demonstrating that with the Kearl incident.

As it relates to Kearl, in our most recent quarterly meetings we've had with each of the communities, we've been sharing those enhanced protocols, seeking feedback from them and ensuring that they meet the communities' expectations as we go forward.

I feel quite good about the steps we've taken. Again, we're going to continue to work with the communities to ensure these steps meet their requirements.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you.

I'm assuming that you have written-down processes and procedures in place that you guys have updated and this is now a company standard. Would you be willing or able to share at least some very specific pieces of what used to happen and what you're doing now? I think that's the crux.

[Brad Corson]

We certainly have that outlined. As I mentioned, we're going through this kind of final step, if you will, to validate that with the communities.

Certainly we can make available what we have. I would prefer to wait until we've gone through that next step to ensure that we are meeting their expectations on what types of incidents they want communicated, as well as the timeliness and to what level in their organizations. Once that's done, we will have finalized that.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

What kinds of procedures and processes have you put in place for internal communications? When an issue becomes a big deal, how can it be communicated faster within your organization, so you have everything in place? I think that's also an important piece, because I believe that was a failure as well the last time.

[Brad Corson]

Yes, it's a critical piece.

What we've found is that we have quite a robust.... I would describe it as a matrix of reporting standards for internal incidents that look at a wide variety of factors around risk considerations. That determines what level it has escalated to in the organization, and in what time frame.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Do these standards exceed government requirements?

[Brad Corson]

Well, certainly they're consistent with government requirements. There are things that get reported internally that don't warrant a government reporting requirement. I would say they're more expansive than government requirements, but they fully meet government requirements.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

You said there were 20 community visits. Can you give an explanation as to who was part of those community visits? How large were those community visits? Were they open to the public?

A bit more information would probably be very helpful.

[Brad Corson]

Thanks for that.

I might ask Simon Younger here to provide a little more context about the visits. However, I would emphasize that we have continued to reach out to the communities to encourage them to visit our site, just as I have with this committee. We want to be very transparent. We believe we have made significant progress. We want to demonstrate it, so we're not limiting anybody.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

[Brad Corson]

However, with respect to the 20 visits, perhaps Simon can offer a few—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to move on to the next questioner.

I understand your external communications protocols are still being finalized.

Would it be possible to submit to the committee, when those are finalized, a list of the changes, so that we can see the before and after? That's as opposed to your just sending us the protocols, then our having to say, “What changed here?” Perhaps you could provide some kind of summary of where the improvements or amendments were made.

Mr. Younger, you'll probably have an opportunity later on to provide that answer.

We have to go now to Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I believe it's Mr. van Koeverden leading for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for joining us today and for coming back to the committee, Mr. Corson.

My first question is to you, Mr. Corson. If you'll indulge me, I have many questions. If you could keep your answers as brief as possible, I'd appreciate it. Perhaps that will allow me to get through my remarks.

Today, Mr. Corson, you suggested that no adverse impacts on wildlife or human life have occurred. You said there was no evidence of toxic tailings leakage into water systems such as the Athabasca River. That claim has been widely refuted by indigenous groups and other scientists who have appeared before this committee since April 20, and by many others online. They are widely claiming that 5.3 million litres of leakage have entered into natural systems like the Athabasca River.

Could you be clear, Mr. Corson? When you apologized for what has been referred to as a communications error, what precisely were you apologizing for, if none of these process-affected waters have impacted natural waterways?

[Brad Corson]

I've been apologizing for the fact that the incidents occurred and all the communications around them—the fact that it created concern and fear in the communities and damaged our trust with indigenous communities. We're working hard to rebuild that trust.

However, I would restate that we are confident none of these incidents impacted the waterways.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay.

I'll repeat again that this claim has been widely refuted by affected communities. In particular, Mr. Corson, data filed to the oil sands monitoring program shows that sulphates at a sampling station in the Muskeg River have been climbing drastically since March 2022. That's within a year. They are 18 times higher than the 2021 average. That sampling station is just south of the Kearl lease. That is where the releases triggered the protection order on the north side.

Does that sound familiar, Mr. Corson?

[Brad Corson]

I'm familiar with the Kearl leases, of course. I'm not familiar with the data that you refer to. I do know that all of our data sampling and analysis has concluded that no process-affected water has made its way to those water bodies.

We also know that sulphates are naturally occurring, and there can be a great amount of variability over time.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay, so it's possibly just a coincidence that sulphates are occurring at 18 times the average just following this release. I understand that to be your position. Thank you.

Mr. Corson, this Kearl site disaster highlights the apparent inability for oil companies such as Imperial to manage their waste. Mr. Pushor was here from the Alberta Energy Regulator, acknowledging that leakage is actually anticipated with these earthen dams, as you referred to them. Contamination of natural waterways and groundwater isn't actually a failure of the system or the regulations, or a communications error, as your organization has consistently called this; leakage is a feature of that.

Since indigenous communities were not notified, we have also seen a rise in some very specific and unique cancers that are linked directly to some contaminants from tailings ponds. People are literally dying from a rare form of cancer that's not seen anywhere else, and your company is claiming that none of these tailings and toxic contaminants are entering natural waterways. This is where indigenous people have hunted and drunk from for generations and generations.

How do we rationalize this stark and rapid rise in rare forms of cancer that are linked directly to effluent from your industry?

[Brad Corson]

I have great empathy for the people who are suffering from cancer. Cancer is a horrible disease that affects many of us in many different ways.

With respect to those specific cases, I'm not aware that they have been directly linked to our operations. I would maintain, again, that there's no indication of contamination from our facility in the waterways. I believe it's important that the local areas and the government work together to better understand the sources of that cancer.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Do you believe that the obligation is incumbent upon indigenous communities, the government, the private sector and activists to prove that these contaminants, even though they are scientifically directly related to the types of cancer we're discussing here, are not related to your industry? Do you think that ought to be the responsibility of an industry that continually profits to the tune of $10 billion a year as a result of what it is taking from the land and leaving behind? Whose obligation is it to clearly identify that these cancers are not linked directly to your activities in the oil sands?