Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Parfitt.

You tell us the situation in British Columbia is very different from that of Quebec. Can you tell us what those differences are? Are they extraction areas, ways of doing things? You also tell us that governments should fund studies on the fracturing industry. What should those studies be about?

[Ben Parfitt]

The point I was trying to make about British Columbia being different from Quebec is that the shale resources that are being developed in British Columbia right now are in a remote region where the human population is quite small, compared to what could be happening in Quebec between Montreal and Quebec City and the lowlands, where there is obviously a much higher population and population density.

The second question you raised is a significant one. I believe we must see leadership on the part of the federal and provincial governments to ensure that we have a very good understanding of groundwater resources prior to gas exploration and development activities taking place.

I would say in this regard that if you go back to 2002, for example, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment pointedly recommended that baseline hydrological investigations ought to be completed prior to unconventional gas drilling in order to recognize and track potential groundwater contamination. To date, I don't see any evidence of any province having honoured that critical recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Madam Brunelle.

We now go to the NDP, with Ms. Duncan, for up to seven minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Liepert, we have been hearing from a good number of delegations coming to Ottawa and seeking our support on open public dialogue in the Canadian energy strategy. I'm wondering if your government supports this call for an open public dialogue on the Canadian energy strategy towards a secure sustainable supply in the interest of Canada.

[Ronald Liepert]

My answer is very short: absolutely.

I attended my first ever federal-provincial-territorial energy ministers meeting last September in Montreal. I wasn't all that impressed with the content of it. I sat down with Minister Paradis and said that for our conference next year in Alberta we need to have a focus. It has to have a goal. There is a lot of call for a national energy strategy. We support that, so we have agreed that's going to be the focus of our conference next fall.

We're not going to get to a national energy strategy overnight, but I believe there are a number of common goals and objectives we can agree to across this country that can certainly lead us in the direction of getting to a national energy strategy. So we are absolutely supportive of it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Liepert, you spoke very glowingly about the regulatory agencies in Alberta. I'd have to agree with you. We have a long history, and the Alberta energy board has been stellar over time in providing opportunity for the public and impacted communities to have a say.

You're probably aware of the motion I tabled last May, which received the unanimous support of the House. It called for an independent review of the adequacy of federal environmental and safety regulation for unconventional oil and gas, which includes shale gas, deep offshore oil, and the oil sands.

Would you support the idea of a review, which could potentially not just engage the NEB, which is legally mandated to conduct such a review, but be in tandem with the regulatory agencies with respect to jurisdictions?

[Ronald Liepert]

To some degree, that was one of the reasons why we felt it was important to appear before this committee. In some ways, it's my understanding that what this committee is considering here is an extension of that.

I go back to my first comments. There are clear jurisdictional responsibilities between provinces, territories, and the federal government; there are also overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities. I don't think anyone is served by reduplicative efforts. We have a very good working relationship with the federal Department of the Environment, as I mentioned, and there are a number of areas that we're working together on. The most recent one, as I said, was the review of the water.

I would like to see more specifics on exactly what might be referenced in the motion, but in Alberta, when it comes to shale gas, our Energy Resources Conservation Board, as I said, is adaptable. We have made some significant changes to accommodate the formations.

Fracturing has been around for a long time, especially in Alberta. It's just that we're talking, in shale, about different formations. I know that especially in Quebec, but to some degree in B.C., some of this work is new. I have made the offer to the minister, my counterpart in Quebec, that whatever help we can provide them with in developing the legislative framework they need and that they can learn from us, we're more than happy to cooperate on.

I guess it really comes down to what particular area you're referring to, but we have to be, in this country of ours, respectful of jurisdictional responsibilities.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Alberta, after being persuaded by the wonderful departed and greatly missed Dr. Martha Kostuch, initiated a two-year very intensive review of the oil sands industry. It included the federal government, and it was completed, I believe, in about 2006. This natural resources committee did a review of the oil sands industry in, I believe, 2007. My committee, the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, did a two-year review, and I and the Liberal Party issued reports.

My question to you is this. We've had review after review, report after report, and all the recommendations are the same: on filling gaps in monitoring and not leaving the discretion by and large to the industry to be doing the monitoring but having more intervention by the government; expanded regulation on very specifically identified contaminants; action on the Mackenzie Basin. In our review, the deputy premier of the Northwest Territories spoke very strongly. He was very upset by the lack of commitment by the federal government to move on the Mackenzie Basin.

We heard lots of evidence, including some from industry, admitting that the ponds are leaking. You say that the results are pretty good. The results that, for example, Dr. Schindler is showing indicate that perhaps the containment of these contaminants, particularly the airborne ones, is not good enough.

So I'm wondering, could you advise us what can be done to move the federal and provincial governments to act on these recommendations, these same recommendations that keep coming forward to both levels of government?

[Ronald Liepert]

I don't have in front of me.... First of all, I'm not the Minister of Environment, but we could spend a lot of time here, and I could debate an awful lot of the comments you made in your preamble, and just about all of them I don't agree with you on.

We have a significant track record that we're very proud of. One of your comments was that the monitoring is done by industry. You're wrong. The monitoring is not done by industry. The monitoring is done by Department of Environment officials; it is done by the Energy Resources Conservation Board. When your federal Department of Environment came in and did a review of what we did in reviewing the implications around leaking tailings ponds, they found no evidence of it.

So I do not agree with what you're saying. Our track record is, I would say, not just okay; it's darned good.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Liepert, it's not what I am saying; it is the evidence that appeared before our committee. I'll be happy to send you personally the report.

In testimony, representatives of the oil sands sector spoke to the fact that their ponds are leaking. It's not I who am saying that; I'm not doing the monitoring.

Unfortunately, we're at a disadvantage, because despite invitations, we did not have the Government of Alberta or the energy board testifying; we could only go on the basis of industry witnesses—and we had some federal authorities. So based on the evidence that we heard, we were told that there are a number of problems, including those mentioned in the testimony by Dr. Schindler and the testimony on potential problems with groundwater.

I would be happy to share my report, and of course you are party to...it is, I think, the Department of Energy that sponsored the review of the oil sands. And the former deputy minister of environment did a background report advising that pacing may be a problem—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Duncan, you're over time, so I have to cut you off. I'm sorry about that.

Ms. Gallant, you have up to seven minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Hansard isn't out from the last committee meeting, so the questions I have require a bit of background information for the witnesses today, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to say from the outset that I believe environmental groups are necessary, that they perform a very important function in ensuring that our environment is taken care of and that large corporations that are taking our natural resources from the air, the ground, etc., are doing so in a respectful way that is not going to cause harm to people.

What puzzled me last day was that when I quite innocently asked a question as to how one of the witnesses received their revenues—that was Environmental Defence—she was very defensive and suggested that I go to her website. So I did, and to understand how the environment works and what's really at play here, even the reason why we have the oil sands as an unconventional source of oil as our subject matter, this does come into play.

What I learned was that one of the donors for Environmental Defence is called Tides Canada. I had never heard of Tides Canada, so I looked up a bit about Tides Canada and found out that Tides Canada is actually funded through the U.S. Tides Foundation, of California, and that its Canadian counterpart has paid millions to at least 36 campaign organizations. Tides U.S. isn't alone; they have other charity bases as well, in California and New York, and they have had $50 million since 2003 specifically for campaigns against Alberta oil and against oil tanker traffic and pipelines through British Columbia.

The purposes for these grants are clearly outlined in the tax filings. For example, Tides U.S. received U.S.—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

This is background information and is very important—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Gallant, order, please.

Monsieur Coderre, proceed on your point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to anyone telling the story of his life, the research he has done or what he found on the Internet last night, but what is sad is that we have a government minister here who deserves respect. It seems to me we have other things to do than examine the research report of a member of some political party.

I don't know whether this is an admissible point of order, but I believe this has nothing to do with the people who are here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

As you know, Mr. Coderre, the members of this committee are free to make comments on the subject we're dealing with or to ask questions to the witnesses, and Ms. Gallant is certainly on topic.

You may continue, Ms. Gallant. You certainly decide how you will use your time.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I'm just trying to follow the dollars so that everybody understands who's trying to do what and perhaps understands why.

Tides U.S. received $700,000 U.S. in 2009 from the Oak Foundation of San Francisco to raise the visibility of the “tar sands” issue and slow the expansion of tar sands production by stopping new infrastructure development.

Now, I could go through the explanation of why “tar sands” is an inaccurate description of the oil sands, but I think just about everybody here was present last week, so I won't repeat that.

The Oak Foundation was created by a duty free shop founder, an American, and he in turn paid Greenpeace Canada an undisclosed sum of money to leverage the growing interest of ranchers and landowners in limiting unbridled oil and gas exploration and production in southern Alberta. Apparently, Greenpeace was also funded to conduct specialized opinion research and media work and to identify messaging for maximum information value among Albertans.

Even the World Wildlife Fund has kicked in. World Wildlife Fund Canada was paid an unreported amount by the Oak Foundation for a campaign to mobilize Canadians and send a politically compelling message.

The U.S. tax returns show that Tides and Tides Canada have paid $4.3 million for a “tar sands” campaign. The top recipients were: the Sierra Club, which was U.S. $909,000, approximately; Corporate Ethics International, with U.S. $750,000; the Natural Resources Defense Council, with half a million U.S. dollars; and ForestEthics, with U.S. $400,000.

Many of these grants that were put forth for the tar sands campaign are far larger than the grants for the other important causes. For example, a rape intervention project in sub-Saharan Africa got $9,000, and a project to support people with HIV in Indonesia, who were on the Hill yesterday, got $9,098. In comparison, Greenpeace got U.S. $186,000, and the World Wildlife Fund got $160,000.

Unlike many of the charitable foundations, Tides U.S. doesn't have a large endowment. In practice—and this is what is being reported now in different media—it behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise, taking money from other foundations and spending as the donor requires.

What that means is that we have situations in which we have a witness such as we had last day, Environmental Defence. Right on their website they have Tides Canada Foundation and the Tides Foundation listed as their donors. Tides Canada in turn get their money, $56 million since 2000, from Tides U.S.

When Tides U.S. funnels money to Tides Canada, it tells them how they want to spend the money. The Oak Foundation gives money to Tides U.S., and what we don't know are who the foreign contributors to the Oak Foundation are. We don't know whether they're companies competing with the oil companies in Alberta, whether it's offshore, whether it's Middle East, or some other group, but what we do know is that there's an active, well-oiled campaign against the industry in Canada, specifically in Alberta, and actually against Canadians in general—a campaign against jobs here.

My question, first of all to Mr. Liepert, is—

[An hon. member]

Time's up.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

It's just a yes or no.

Prior to applying for a charitable tax status, an organization must be either federally or provincially incorporated. Do you know whether or not Alberta has any anti-oil sands organizations provincially incorporated?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I will require a short answer, Minister.

[Ronald Liepert]

I guess it depends on what your description of “anti-oil sands organizations” is. There are organizations that have expressed concern about the development of the oil sands, such as the Pembina Institute, which I believe is based out of Alberta.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

And they get money from Tides as well.

[Ronald Liepert]

I don't know that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Your time is up, Ms. Gallant. Thank you.

On the second round, we have about two minutes each, basically one question and a short answer.

Mr. Coderre, go ahead, please.