Environment Committee on Dec. 14th, 2023

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. If I have some time at the end, I'll share some with Mr. Van Koeverden, but I also know that he wants to try to get up next as well.

I'll get straight to it with Mr. Corson, and thank you again for coming back. I know these are very difficult discussions to have, particularly in this type of forum.

I come from industry myself. I supplied into the oil and gas sector and the steel sector in heavy industry across Canada, the mining sector. Part of quality assurance is looking for root causes, and my question has two aspects to it: How many tailings ponds does Imperial have? Are the lessons being learned from Kearl being applied to other tailings ponds installations?

[Brad Corson]

We have one main tailings pond that serves that purpose. Over time we will look to expand that as necessary to support our operations. This is the only Imperial operation of its type for which we have tailings ponds, but through other industry associations, we have been very deliberate about sharing our learning with our colleague companies in the industry, and we participate in several networks.

It's quite important that we all learn and that we all endeavour to get better and ensure that this doesn't happen again, not for us or for anybody.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's a great answer. Thank you. As we know, the risk on one is the risk on all.

We've heard some testimony about the design of the berms and whether they included clay or not, and they didn't. They were using basic substrates. There wasn't a liner being used. You're installing liners now.

On the technology that's being used as we work with the AER and Environment Canada, I think we need some more oversight on regulations in terms of tailings ponds design. Is that something you could acknowledge? Do you have an opinion on that?

[Brad Corson]

Well, certainly we want to employ best practices. As I said, we participate in several industry forums to ensure we are applying best practices, and those even go beyond just oil sands but to other mining industries.

I'll defer to the regulators on whether more regulatory oversight is needed. I am aware that there are initiatives under way, both by the federal government and by the provincial government, to put in place some working groups to explore other enhancements or different approaches to managing tailings. We very much want to be a part of that, because we endeavour to make this better.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I'll now pivot over to the health concerns.

We've had 17 people die of rare bile duct cancer. The normal incidence is one in 100,000. We don't have 100,000 people and we don't have 10,000 people. We have a fraction of that number who are being affected by bile duct cancer. The energy regulator who spoke to us said, “Well, that's another department: Go to Health Canada.”

When you're working with the Chippewas of the Athabasca, in terms of monitoring and in taking some of the $11 billion in profits to be reinvested into communities such as the Chippewas to see whether they could be involved in monitoring to look into the health concerns they have, could you talk about the investments you're making, both in financial terms and also in discussions with the impacts on their way of life and their society?

[Brad Corson]

Certainly. We—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Then I'll turn it over to Mr. van Koeverden.

[Brad Corson]

We place high priority and value on the relationships with the indigenous communities—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

But are you spending that money?

[Brad Corson]

We are definitely spending money with them. I think last year we spent over half a billion dollars with indigenous communities—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Are they involved in the oversight?

[Brad Corson]

The oversight of what?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Could they be involved in monitoring? Are they involved with monitoring? Do they want to be involved with monitoring?

[Brad Corson]

They're absolutely involved in the monitoring.

All of the sampling we do is undertaken by indigenous-owned companies. We work very hard to build capacity in the indigenous communities. That is a key tenet of ours.

I would also comment that since we were last together, obviously mental health was a key consideration and key concern with this situation, so I'm pleased to say that we donated $250,000 to the Canadian Mental Health Association in Wood Buffalo, requesting that it be specifically directed to the seven communities.

Those are just a couple of examples. There are many more.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé, please go ahead. You have two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Two and a half minutes isn't much, Mr. Corson.

Earlier, a member accused the Bloc Québécois of vilifying the industry. I think you would agree that talking about contaminated water and extremely rare cancers isn't vilifying anything. I'm sure we can agree on that. The member also said that the truth was complicated. I say, repeating a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true.

Why do I say that? I'll tell you. The results of independent testing show the opposite of what you said in the answers you offered up.

This is my question. In your opening statement, you said you remained committed to enhancing mitigations if future data demonstrated they were required. Which data are you speaking of? If you decide you need to do more, which data will you base that decision on?

[Brad Corson]

Well, I base it on our commitment to correct the situation and make it right. We have been putting in place all these additional mitigations, and if we identify through—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

No, I'm sorry, Mr. Corson. I'm talking about data. In your opening statement, you refer to future data. I don't want to hear about your good intentions again. I want to hear about the data.

Which data are you going to rely on? Your data? The government's data? Independent testing data? Which data will you look to?

[Brad Corson]

We're taking on board all data. As I mentioned earlier, we've gathered more than 2,000 samples from 500 locations over the last several months. We've hired a third party consultant to help analyze that. They have recently produced a report approximately 24,000 pages in length that contains all of this data and conclusions, and we're going to continue with those sorts of processes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Where are you going to get the future data you refer to? It seems to me that you keep trying to give us the same answers.

I am again going to refer back to your opening statement. You say that you continue to support independent water and wildlife testing by all communities. Who pays for that testing?

Surely you understand from my question that I don't think indigenous communities should have to pay for what happened. How are you continuing to support independent testing, as you say? Are you paying for it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please keep your answer short.

[Brad Corson]

Yes, the sampling is paid for by our company. These 2,000 samples were paid for by our company.

We have an approved program with the AER that addresses the frequency for testing. For all of these 500 monitoring wells that we have put in place, we will pay for that. We'll use third party indigenous companies to do that.

We're going to continue. We're not doing it just for the short term. This will be a long-term undertaking and a long-term commitment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's great. Thank you.

We now go to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You know, the Kearl site is not the only site that's problematic. All of the tailings ponds—all of them—as far back as 2009 have shown that they are leaking. We've seen that the Athabasca River is polluted with toxins from tailings ponds. The seepage at Kearl should be that final moment for us to realize that we shouldn't be building next to wetlands.

Unfortunately, right now, Alberta's approved a mine to sit right on top of the McClelland wetlands. There is no way to stop the leakage from going into those wetlands.

I have two questions for you, Mr. Corson.

According to your operating licence and government approvals, how far off-site are tailings or process-affected waters allowed to seep? Is it more or less than 1.3 kilometres?

If you have 2,000 sites that you are monitoring and a strong commitment to protecting wildlife, why did you need to euthanize a black bear yesterday?