Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Good.

We have gone over time.

I sense Mr. Clarke wants to add a brief note.

I should add that a week from today the committee will hear witnesses who will deal specifically with reclamation. We will have representatives from the Boreal Initiative. Bruce Friesen from Syncrude will be here again to talk about reclamation, probably from both sides of any argument there might be in that regard.

If you could respond, Mr. Clarke, very briefly, we're over our time limit.

[Tony Clarke]

I'm sorry.

Very briefly, I have no doubt that the reclamation projects are initiated. It's what we don't know about reclamation projects that I would hope the committee would take into consideration. There are many ecologists who have been examining the reclamation projects, the capacity of humans to actually put this back together and make it look all good on the surface. But what lies beneath the surface? What kind of destruction and disruption has actually taken place, and what are the impacts of that?

If you look at the studies by the Pembina Institute, in Alberta, or the Natural Resources Defence Council, and other studies, which have been done by reputable scientists in universities, I think you will find there is a great deal of question about what is possible with regard to reclamation projects. We have to keep in mind that when we rip out a fairly significant portion of the boreal forest, we are taking away a chunk of the northern lungs of the planet. What kind of irreparable damage is that actually creating for the long term?

I just want to point out that there are deeper questions that have to be probed before we can simply take at face value the obviously credible initiatives being undertaken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think that's probably true. We have to be careful about taking things at face value.

Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you.

I also want to thank the industry for the hospitality that was shown to us yesterday. That was a very interesting trip. I think we're all worn out from the very long trip back.

I guess the perils of being third on the list to ask a question is that a couple of things I wanted to ask have been answered. Tony asked one of my questions just now.

I am interested in the long-term effects and the remediation aspects. I've been asking other witnesses about what happens. What is left in the soil when it's put back and the lakes are filled in? I understand the water has been used over and over again, and I think it's great that you've been able to recycle and get the volumes down.

I agree, we shouldn't.... That's why I don't want to take it at face value that everything is wonderful and it's back to normal for the forest and the land.

I want to know, when the water has leached through, where does that go? Does it go into the rivers or the lakes in the surrounding area? What, if any, contamination is left in that, and what effect does it have on the rivers? That soil has been contaminated as well, so what effect does that have on the vegetation? If animals are eating that vegetation, what long-term effects are there? I've asked those questions. Basically, the answers were that we don't know. I have some concerns around that.

I'm just wondering, once the land is reclaimed, who owns it? Does it go back to the government? Is the government then responsible for what's left, or is there some onus on the industry to do anything further at that point?

It's a long-term effect, but I think those are the things we have to worry about and to think about. I'd like your thoughts on that.

[Jim Carter]

Just to begin, and I'm sure my colleagues will want to answer as well, we have a very sophisticated water management system in our surface mines in the oil sands. To give you an example of that, at the Syncrude mine site our permit does not allow us to discharge water that has come in contact with the oil sands. You can imagine what that means in terms of a surface mine that's as large as that. It means that we've got to have water that comes in contact with the oil sands flowing in a certain direction and taken into a receiving pond and then captured and contained. Water that doesn't come in contact with the oil sands is allowed to flow into the water systems. So we have a very complex water management system to control all of that, and we do that all the time.

We're continually monitoring our tailings storage, our water storage facilities, probably as much as anything from a geotechnical point of view to make sure that we don't have any concerns around the containment itself. But in the course of doing that, we're also monitoring any seepage that we might have coming from those facilities. All of that is put into weirs and handled in that fashion.

In terms of the final landscape, at the end of the day we turn the land back to the Government of Alberta, but we have to have a reclamation certificate that says they are happy with the outcome of the work we have done. All of that has to be permitted, just as it is when you go to get a development permit to actually start mining. We're in the process right now at Syncrude of getting the first reclaimed land permit for that right on the south end of our facility, where you might have seen the bison statues. That whole area has been completed now, and we're applying to the Alberta government to get a reclamation permit for that, at which point it will revert back to the Crown and they will accept responsibility for it. It's a very rigorous process to do that. We've actually been trying to turn it back to the government now for a while. For some five years we've been in negotiations with them on it. It doesn't come lightly.

[Mark Shaw]

What I would add to that is information on some of the research we do on reclamations. You asked about plants that grow on top of the reclaimed land. We both have plants that have been growing on top of reclaimed land for decades now, and part of the research is to monitor those plants through good science. We work a lot with the University of Alberta and other universities to measure the uptake of any chemicals that could be occurring in those plants. So we're aware of that, and anything we would do to be able to ensure a natural end landscape.

[Rob Seeley]

Maybe just to add on to the concern about hydrology and water contamination, I think just in its simplest form, oil sands mining is removing oil from the sand, using it in market conditions, and then putting the sand back. Then, with respect to the water that's in the sand, the trick is to get the right recipe of putting the sand back. It's sand and clay and water, which are essentially the three components of the recipe, and we need to get that right mix so that it's a stable landscape, and then of course cover it with what we call “overburden”, which is heavy clay, rocks, and heavy materials that are non-sand in nature. The topsoil, which was carefully removed and stockpiled before the mining was done, is then placed back on top of that overburden. So that's the reclamation process in its form.

With respect to hydrology and contamination, all of the operations have monitoring wells around our facilities, around our tailings ponds, between our facilities and water courses, whether it's streams or rivers, and we're monitoring any potential seepage of contaminants into these water courses. So it's something that's part of our licences and part of our operation to ensure that this is not happening.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Clarke, did you want to add anything?

[Tony Clarke]

No. The only question I would ask is whether or not there is an independent process at all at work, both on monitoring and in terms of looking at the overall reclamation process. It's very interesting, the process you go through to reach the point of getting a reclamation certificate, but is that model itself being examined independently? And are there independent monitors at work in terms of what is going on with regard to each of these stages you talked about? By independent, I mean separate from both government and industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That would be independent, would it? I guess it depends on which way you're looking. Thank you.

I should say, on that point, that we are attempting to fill a blank in the schedule in two weeks with Vance MacNichol, who is the chairman of the Oil Sands Multi-stakeholder Committee in Alberta, which is a pretty broad committee. It's independent of any particular group because it's a combination of stakeholders from all interest groups in Alberta. I think it would be a good question, Ms. Bell, to put to that witness as well.

Thank you.

We're going to end round one with Mr. Harris and Mr. Paradis. Mr. Harris, would you like to start?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the insight you're giving us into this most important issue. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make that trip to Fort McMurray, but I will the next time, I'm sure.

Mr. Clarke, I want to go back to something. I think you were advocating that we pull back the production of oil and also our export of oil to the U.S. I think you made that statement earlier, that you thought that would be a good idea to conserve. I think you were talking about conserving our reserves and conserving the resources we have in oil. Am I correct? Did you state something like that?

[Tony Clarke]

I didn't say that we should automatically cut back. I was saying that we need to develop an energy policy and strategy that is truly a made in Canada one, recognizing what our short-term and long-term needs are, and re-examining certain traps that we fall into, such as the proportional sharing agreement or clause built into NAFTA. Those are the kinds of things that I was suggesting.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

But that would probably lead to a cutting back in our exports of oil to America.

[Tony Clarke]

It could.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

If we were to follow that route, I would assume that would lead to an increased dependency by America on, for example, Middle Eastern oil. Their consumption of oil is high, and they're going to try to find it somewhere. If we were to cut back on our export of oil to America, they would need to get it in other ways. Do you think it would be healthy for the stability of the western world, for example, if there were an increasing dependency on Middle Eastern oil by the United States?

[Tony Clarke]

I fully recognize the implications of your question with regard to the Middle East and the question of instability in general with regard to access to secure supplies of oil. And clearly, from the United States' standpoint, from Washington's standpoint, having access to Canadian oil--certainly in terms of the potential reserves that the oil sands project--ensures a secure supply, a safe supply, and a friendly neighbour supply.

But at the same time, in your question you referred to “healthy”. I don't think it's a healthy situation when one nation--namely, the United States--is dependent on securing 25% of the world's oil production and having it to itself. I think we're reaching a point where we've got to re-examine our dependence upon fossil fuels in the future. Therefore, I feel that at this moment, despite the fact that we have this incredible hydrocarbon reserve that exists in Canada through the tar sands, we all owe it, both to ourselves as Canadians and in relation to our friends in the United States, to raise some hard questions about the future and what it means to make a transition away from dependence upon fossil fuels into an energy renewable alternative.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I agree, but those questions have been going on for many years. It's not something new we're talking about. The research and technology to make alternate sources of energy efficient are the big problems. You talked about wind power earlier, and my understanding, from presentations that have been made to us, is that we've got a long way to go before the production of wind power is cost-efficient. So until those alternate sources become efficient, cost-effective ways of creating energy, we do have a dependence on fossil fuels whether we like it or not.

I was curious about your suggestion that we perhaps scale back our production and our export to the States. I think America will find oil wherever it can. The Middle East is the breadbasket of world oil, and it appears to me that would not be too healthy a situation to have so much dependence on one area.

We're probably doing a lot to stabilize the economy and all the other good things we enjoy in the western world by supplying America at this time, while we continue our search for alternate sources.

I have to admit, I'm not fully aware of your organization, although I have heard about it, of course. I'm curious as to where your centre is, where your head office is, and how the Polaris Institute is funded. Where does the funding come from, the operational funding? Who funds your reports, such as the one you just mentioned a little bit earlier? Where does the money come from?

[Tony Clarke]

We're based here in Ottawa. The sources of funding for the institute come mainly from foundations. And for this report itself, it came from all three organizations that co-sponsored that report, namely the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Parkland Institute, and the Polaris Institute.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I see. Okay.

And those are funded by supporters, individual supporters?

[Tony Clarke]

Yes.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There's no government funding for it?

[Tony Clarke]

No.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay.

I'll pass to another colleague, Mr. Paradis.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do I have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Sure. Take your time. You have four minutes.