Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, I'll ask you just to....

Colleagues, let's avoid the cross chatter, the cross debate and interrupting each other so that we can continue on and ensure that things run smoothly here today.

Now, I apologize. I'm just going to....

Mr. Angus, before we went to a vote, you had a point of order. Was that to release the witnesses? Was that what you were saying?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, I think they've given us a lot of their time and their expertise. For them to have to sit and watch us beat each other with cardboard sticks is probably.... They have better things to do.

I think, in fairness, our witnesses should be able to get on with their important work, and we'll carry on with our committee work.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Dreeshen?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

I would like the witnesses to stay as long as they possibly can. It would be very important for them to hear what is being presented in the debate that is going to take place. I would welcome them to continue to stay as long as they possibly can so that they can understand what is going on here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Witnesses online, just so you know what's going on, I will let you know that we have a motion that's been moved on the floor. If you so choose to remain for the rest of the meeting, for our allotted time, you can do so. You're welcome to stay. If the motion does pass, then we would come back to you, but debate on the motion could also continue. There's no timeline to that. I will leave it up to you, witnesses, to decide what you would like to do. You can proceed from there.

The only thing I would mention is that if there is anything, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Legge and Ms. Yedlin, that you may have missed answering in today's meeting or if you don't feel like you gave a complete answer, you can provide a briefing to the clerk and send that in directly.

I hope that clarifies where we're at procedurally in today's meeting. If you do choose to leave, I want to thank you for taking the time to provide important testimony for our study. I look forward to seeing you again.

I'll leave that up to you. Thank you so much.

Now we're going to go to Ms. Dabrusin.

The motion is on the floor, Ms. Dabrusin. You have the floor. Please continue.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, the motion was discussed at the last meeting and at another meeting before that. However, the text was amended by an amendment, so I will read the amended motion to ensure everyone has a good idea of what we are talking about:

Given that: There are 1,600 abandoned and orphaned oil wells in Alberta polluting farmland, waterways, and air; The number of abandoned wells in Alberta are set to increase by an additional 1,800 to 2,000; These additional abandoned wells will cost more than $200 million to clean up; The Government of Alberta sent back $137 million because they failed to use the funds provided by the Government of Canada to clean up abandoned wells and create jobs in the pandemic; The Government of Saskatchewan used their allocated funds in their entirety to clean abandoned wells and create jobs; Companies who abandon wells and fail to pay for their cleanup negatively impact provincial taxpayers and municipalities; Orphaned and abandoned wells present an economic opportunity to support energy solutions like geothermal energy. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources begin a five-meeting study on the impact of this failure to clean these wells, the impacts of the pollution from not cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells, the costs of cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells, the federal regulations to hold companies to account for well cleanup, and the potential opportunities associated with cleaning up abandoned wells, and report its findings to the House of Commons.

I've already stated the reasons why I think this motion is important, and everyone seemed to agree, based on what I heard, so I hope we can vote on this fairly quickly.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes. I'm sorry, Mrs. Goodridge. Go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I was just wondering if we could have the motion circulated to members in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge, for that suggestion. It has been circulated, and the clerk can send you a copy so that you have it.

Ms. Dabrusin, are you done?

You are. Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

I want to go to you, Mrs. Stubbs. You have the floor.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

It's certainly a fair comment and request from my colleague Laila, since she's not a permanent member of this committee but is joining us today.

We did discuss this issue at the last meeting. I, of course, as an Albertan who lives among and with resource development, have expressed that Albertans have long cared about this issue and that all Albertans who live near, with and around resource development—development that provides great benefit to our own communities and indigenous communities and great, significant outsized benefits to the entire country—are all concerned with these issues.

Since this motion was moved, of course the Alberta government did respond. I will read that response into the record so that people can hear it. The Minister of Energy from the Government of Alberta said:

The motion being debated by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources earlier today was factually wrong and frankly nonsensical. It's extremely concerning that Liberal and New Democrat Members of Parliament sitting on the Natural Resources committee don't appear to understand what an abandoned well is. For their enlightenment, a properly abandoned well is a good thing—it means the well has been properly decommissioned and does not pose risk of polluting any land. You would think that an MP sitting on this particular committee would know something about the industry they and their staff are supposed to monitor.

He went on to say:

The Liberals and the NDP need to get their facts straight before setting forth on these expeditions to shame Alberta. Alberta is properly decommissioning more wells than ever before, we are also remediating and reclaiming oil and gas sites faster than ever. Over the last five years, the Orphan Well Association (OWA), which looks after cleaning up wells and sites belonging to bankrupt companies, decommissioned more wells and completed more reclamation projects than any other time in their history. The OWA fully closed 622 sites in 2023-24, up 44 per cent from the year before.

Further, every single dollar of federal funding through the Site Rehabilitation Program was committed to be spent, and we successfully spent about $864 million of the $1 billion provided. We fought hard for two years, with the backing of 17 First Nations chiefs, for an extension to allow private industry and indigenous companies to clean up wells on reserve—which happened to be the responsibility of the federal government.

That, colleagues, as we all know, is distinctly, explicitly and solely federal jurisdiction.

These funds would have been spent for remediation on First Nations land, but Ottawa refused. We reluctantly returned the remainder of the funds when we had no other choice.

This is an issue that has been kicked down the road by previous governments of all stripes. Alberta has a premier and an energy minister with the courage to prioritize fixing this problem, and that is what we will do. NDP and Liberal MPs, who end up demonstrating their ignorance in an effort to score political points, do nothing to move this important work forward.

I will remind colleagues of what I said in this first debate. In 2020, or earlier, I, on behalf of all Conservatives, put forward Bill C-221, the environmental restoration incentive act, which would have allowed the creation of a tax credit for flow-through share provisions for small and medium-sized oil and gas producers who could no longer access capital as a result of the Redwater Supreme Court decision. That bill had a sunset clause in it. It deliberately targeted producers of 100,000 barrels per day or less and was a potential real federal tool. It did not interfere in provincial jurisdiction—which all of this actually is—except for the wells on first nations.

Colleagues, as I reminded everyone, I know we might have made strange bedfellows, but the common-sense Conservatives supported that bill, and so did members of the Bloc, the Green Party and the NDP. In fact, it was the Liberal government that defeated that bill.

It was an applicable, surgical, targeted, sunset-claused tool that could have helped with access to capital for companies that were literally going bankrupt because of the anti-private-sector, anti-energy decade of darkness over which this government has presided, leading to situations that deeply concern Albertans all across the province.

I also brought that forward because this is a challenge not only in Alberta; the recovery of wells is significant throughout the country—especially, I would note, in southern Ontario.

That, of course, is why I had brought that bill forward at that point. It would have just allowed more capital in the private sector to complete their requirements of environmental remediation. That, of course, is exactly what Albertans and every Canadian expects when their resources are developed, because that's the social contract with proponents: It is that they can develop these resources to the grand benefit of a province—and in this case, of the entire country—but they must meet their environmental remediation, reclamation and expectations after that.

That's in part why Alberta is the first jurisdiction in all of North America to set targets for emissions reductions, to report on them, to monitor them, and this includes an innovative tool from more than 17 years ago that actually is an example of revenue going from private sector companies directly into innovation and clean tech, unlike the models that others have experimented with since.

Now, on the subject of this motion, as you all know, in Lakeland I represent nine indigenous communities, and I'm very proud to do so, just as is the story of Alberta and the relationships between indigenous companies, indigenous leaders, indigenous community members and private sector proponents who develop resources in Alberta. Those partnerships have been long-standing. It is so inspiring to see so many of the indigenous leaders and entrepreneurs speaking out more and more about the benefit, and they do so also, by the way, in major challenges to doing that. What champions they are for the best interests of their communities, which actually, in this case, also serve the best interests of all Canadians.

To the point of my colleague's motion, here is what I would like to read from the Treaty 6, 7, and 8 first nations, the ones that represent all of the first nations communities across Canada, across Alberta, on this exact issue.

There is a letter, of course, about the unanimous decision among chiefs to tell the federal government to ensure that extension and make sure that the money could be spent in their communities. Let me just read the last paragraph in particular.

This is from the chief of Treaty 7, but it should be noted that the chiefs of all Treaty 7, 6, and 8 nations are in support of this. What his letter says is:

In closing, the Chiefs have united in calling for Government of Canada to transfer the $134 million held by Alberta to the FNSRP in order for us to continue the extraordinary work and economic benefits to Treaty 6, 7 & 8 Nations in Alberta. We ask that you set political considerations aside to rekindle the spirit of collaboration, and to do the right thing for the environment, for First Nation economies, and for the lands that our Nations hold sacred. We implore your government to work with Alberta to ensure that the $134 million dollars is made available to the First Nations who require these funds to continue this work.

That letter was dated December 20, 2023.

I have already read the clarification statement that the Government of Alberta put out this week in response to the initiation of this motion, but perhaps it bears repeating, because there seem to be so many misunderstandings here, even when the facts and truths are spoken straight up. The statement said:

Further, every single dollar of federal funding through the Site Rehabilitation Program was committed to be spent, and we successfully spent about $864 million of the $1 billion provided. We fought hard for two years, with the backing of 17 First Nations chiefs, for an extension to allow private industry and indigenous companies to clean up wells on reserve — which happened to be the responsibility of the federal government. These funds would have been spent for remediation on First Nations land, but Ottawa refused. We reluctantly returned the remainder of the funds when we had no other choice.

If my NDP-Liberal colleagues really want to debate this motion on this issue, in particular on their federal responsibility and the way that they have failed first nations people, whom I and all the Alberta representatives across our province proudly represent, just as we do every single other non-indigenous Canadian in our communities.... We proudly represent the Métis people and the first nations and all of the diverse communities who live and work and have helped to build our provinces with private sector proponents to develop our resources responsibly and effectively, matched second to none by any energy-producing jurisdiction in the world, long before this government came into power and agonizingly, it seems, a long and dark nine years ago.

If my colleagues want to have this debate, first of all, Chair, we ask you to provide us with the schedule up until Christmas so that we can demonstrate to Canadians that we're going to get our job done here, that we're not just going to sit around and say things like, “No, there are a bunch of studies, a bunch of reports, that we haven't done anything on, so let's now go on to this study.”

This is exactly why Canadians are losing confidence, trust and faith in politicians, in bureaucracies, in government and in parliamentary committees. It's because we sit here and we study the same things over and over. We produce the same reports over and over.

Stakeholders participate in good faith, like these people here today and all others. Ted Falk and I sat on this committee when we did this study on electricity. This government hasn't been able to get the interties done, and now here we are, back here on this committee, doing the study again to put out yet another report, and the government doesn't even have the first things first yet, as is the case on almost every single thing they do and say.

Colleagues, we certainly support having this debate. We certainly support setting the record straight and we certainly support that every single Canadian is probably concerned about these issues in all of their communities and all of their provinces right across the country.

Again, members here cannot make an informed decision on whether or not to move forward to this study until, as we requested, we see the daily schedule and then agree to finish the work of previous studies, of ongoing studies, and get these reports out the door so that Canadians can see that we're worth the paycheques they give us for doing our jobs.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

I'll now go to Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, you have the floor.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As a follow-up to my colleague, who worries that we're putting out all these reports, it is the role of the committee to get testimony, to get witnesses across the different points of view and to come forward with recommendations to present to Parliament and then to the Canadian people so that they can make informed decisions.

In terms of our work schedule now, I believe we have finished the electricity grid study, on which we had really interesting testimony, which I hope will help move government policy forward. We are finishing TMX now. I believe what's outstanding is that we've asked to hear from the environment minister; Mr. Wilkinson, the natural resources minister; Deputy Prime Minister Freeland; and my colleague Mr. Simard has asked for the PBO.

I think that puts us in a good position to make recommendations, and one thing about committees is that we don't all have to agree on the recommendations. We can have minority reports, contradictory information. However, those reports are essential. That's what we do.

I'm hearing from my Alberta colleague that she's more than willing to have a debate. I don't know what the debate's about. If all the evidence she has is that good, I'm up to having the witnesses. Let's look at this issue, because the issue of abandoned wells has been something that has been of concern, so we need to get numbers.

The numbers are all over the map. I've crunched numbers on abandoned wells and federal liability, provincial liability and corporate liability, and it's incumbent upon us to get witnesses to come forward. Then we can explain to Canadians where we're at.

I had agreed in the previous meeting that I felt it was important to get where the abandoned wells are across Canada, because we can compare jurisdictions. Certainly the first oil wells ever drilled were in southern Ontario in Petrolia. What is the situation there? We know that Saskatchewan, according to my colleague Ms. Dabrusin, had spent the money and had dealt with theirs. Was there a difference between what Saskatchewan did and what Alberta did?

At the end of the day, coming from mining country, it is for me fundamental. You have to clean up your mess. No community has mess in mining like my community, because we were one of the first, although I would point out to my honourable colleague Ms. Lapointe that her industry, for decades, was poisoning our lakes. We were pretty good-natured about it, but we fortunately brought in changes that cut the sulfuric acid emissions coming out of the Sudbury stack, and now I believe the big stack is coming down, and they are actually more efficient than ever. All that pollution that used to go up in the air for free is now captured and sold.

There are lessons to be learned. In the mining sector, we set rules for cleanup and rules for liability so that industries couldn't walk away, because that was a standard thing that used to always happen. They would construct a mine and make the money, and then they would pitch it off to a junior company or a shell company and then walk away. The hills of northern Ontario are full of those sites.

You can't do that anymore. The issue of what the liability situations that we as taxpayers are on the hook for is pretty straightforward.

Given what I've heard from my colleague Ms. Stubbs, I believe we should be ready to go ahead and vote on this. We are pretty much done the one study. We have three or four witnesses in the next one. We can debate this forever, but I actually think it would be good if Ms. Stubbs, who is really raring to go and ready for a fight—which she always is—would bring her witnesses. We'll get the witnesses. We'll get a cross-section. We'll hear testimony and then we'll make recommendations, and yes, we will create another report. That's what committees do. They create reports to Parliament and the people of Canada.

I'm ready to vote on this and move ahead, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

As you're ready, I think there are many others who aren't, because we have a list of speakers to go through.

We will go to our next speaker, Mrs. Goodridge.

Welcome to committee, and you have the floor.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It's wonderful to be here at the natural resources committee.

It's a shame that although we had Alberta witnesses here talking about how TMX impacted my home province of Alberta as well as some of the impacts on jobs in Ontario and Quebec, their testimony was cut short so that we could bring forward this motion and discuss it.

The part that frustrates me as an Albertan—Mr. Chair, you're also an Albertan, so I'm not sure how you feel about this—is that this government continually attacks Alberta and singles Alberta out as if somehow everything would be fine if only Alberta did this or if only Alberta did that. There are actually abandoned wells right across the country. There are abandoned wells in most provinces that have had oil, yet we're not even talking about that. This motion is only looking at Alberta.

This process that was brought forward in the $1.7-billion program that was brought in during COVID was as much about job creation—as per an Auditor General's report from the Province of Alberta—as it was about cleaning up orphaned wells.

There were some unique challenges in the energy industry as a direct result of struggles around COVID. This was an innovative way of changing things up and doing things a bit differently.

I was actually an MLA at that point. This is where this becomes really interesting, because we had all kinds of conversations, and one of the things that Alberta did that was really interesting—although it wasn't as simple as, perhaps, Saskatchewan's solution to this—was working with the first nations and having the first nations site rehabilitation program. The program really involved first nations. It did things in a very innovative way, allowing them to be partners in prosperity. There were direct impacts to indigenous communities.

It's interesting: I know that at the government operations committee is currently looking at indigenous procurement. The program that the Government of Alberta put forward met all of the indigenous procurement requirements and exceeded them, and there were many benefits to communities as a result of this. There were environmental benefits, but there were also benefits to many communities.

I'm going to read off some of the community benefits here. This wasn't something the Government of Alberta had to do; this was something the Government of Alberta chose to do because it was the right thing to do. It wasn't within its jurisdiction; it was actually within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The federal government didn't require this, but the Government of Alberta knew that it was the right thing to do, so it chose to do it.

In the Cold Lake First Nations, they utilized several nations—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Goodridge, we have a point of order. I'll ask you to hold on for one second.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead on your point of order.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

What I've been finding very interesting is that all of this is the type of thing that could be brought into the study in testimony. It seems to me that this is no longer debate about the motion; it's actually trying to figure out the evidence that could be called.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin. The point of order is not a reference to a standing order or a point of order.

I'm going to go back to Mrs. Goodridge on what I think your concern is, which is about focusing on the motion.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have a point of order as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for advising us.

I'm going to go to you, Monsieur Simard, on a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Just to clarify, and because I want my colleague to talk about the motion as it is currently worded, I would remind everyone that we amended it to specify that the study would focus solely on federal regulations.

It's interesting to see what Alberta has done, and I'm quite prepared to hear what it has to say. However, the committee adopted an amendment to the motion to specify that the study in question would, on the one hand, focus on federal regulations and, on the other, would not apply solely to Alberta's orphan wells, but to all such wells.

Earlier, my colleague called this a direct attack on Alberta. I don't think that's the intention. I just want to reframe her remarks. I think we need to stick to the motion at hand and what it says.

I myself would like to know what will happen to orphan wells and what's happening with the federal money, some of which come from Quebec, that's being used to solve this problem.

I think we need to refocus on the motion. People can disagree on the motion. If so, all they have to do is vote accordingly. Regardless, we need to refocus on the motion.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm going to address Mr. Simard's point of order. I apologize, but I have to wait for interpretation to hear your point of order because I can't hear it, even though the interpreters are doing a tremendous job.

Once again, Mr. Simard, on your point of order about getting back to the motion, I think it's partly a point of clarification. Through a point of order, you were saying that there was an amendment brought forward that changed the motion—and I'm summarizing, just to make sure Ms. Goodridge knows that it's broader and not just an Alberta initiative. Thank you for providing that clarification, but it's not a point of order.

I just want to let you know as well that I think Ms. Goodridge has a copy of the new amended motion, I believe, or should have it. If not, we can make sure she gets it.

Now, you have a—

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

I have a point of order.

Very specifically, at the beginning of this conversation I asked to have the motion sent to me so that I had it, and I did not have an amended version sent to me.

It was very much an attack on Alberta. I understand that my colleague Shannon Stubbs provided an amendment the last time, but the one that was sent to me at the beginning of this meeting, after I asked specifically for it, was one that was a direct attack on Alberta, and so I do think that this was very wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, can you hold for a moment, please? I will go to you. I just want to address Ms. Goodridge's point of order.

Ms. Goodridge, we will rectify it to make sure that you do have the correct amended motion and so that there's no more miscommunication. I apologize on behalf of the committee if the wrong one was sent to you. We will get that back over to you momentarily while I hear the point of order from Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead on the point of order.