Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

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

I'm kind of excited by the fact that they continue to do points of order, because they don't want to hear about how this is an actual problem and an attack on the province of Alberta. Based on my very rough math here, British Columbia returned about 11% of the funds it was allocated under this program. Alberta returned 13% of the funds. We're talking about the difference between British Columbia getting a total, at the beginning, of $120 million and Alberta getting a billion dollars. It's orders of magnitude different, yet they're not to be looked at in this study.

This just goes back to the fact that this government doesn't respect Alberta. That is the relevant point here. I tried to bring forward what I thought was a very common-sense amendment to very cleanly deal with this and make it clear that we understand and respect indigenous reconciliation. This is part of the struggle. The government doesn't want to hear about any idea that isn't their own. They don't want to realize that, perhaps, there are more people who need to be looked at than just the Government of Alberta.

They don't even want to acknowledge that this is some of its own jurisdiction—oil wells on first nations lands. Those are the Government of Canada's responsibility. They don't want to acknowledge the fact that Treaty No. 6, Treaty No. 7 and Treaty No. 8 chiefs have all asked for an extension of time for first nations communities to properly utilize the funds allocated through the orphaned wells program. They don't seem to understand that this is a very big problem.

I'm not here filibustering. I'm not here just to be here. I'm here trying to let this committee realize that this is a very serious issue. I would appreciate it if there were some kind of opportunity to make an amendment in order to make it clear that we're not trying to attack the Government of Alberta, the people of Alberta and the energy workers of Alberta. Frankly, as this is written, it is an attack. Whether you think it is or isn't, I'm telling you, as a proud Albertan, that it is.

Mr. Chair, I would love for you to try reading this motion as amended and see how your constituents take it. I don't believe your constituents are terribly different from the constituents I talk to on a regular basis. I know many of your constituents work in the energy industry, and they would not like Alberta to be singled out while letting B.C. get off with a free pass and letting every other orphaned well be fine: “Let's pick on Alberta, because Alberta is an easy one to pick on.” You've looked at the polls. It's pretty clear that Liberals aren't doing very well in Alberta. They're okay throwing it all out. This is the frustration. This is what Albertans are sitting there thinking, that this must be part of the problem here. I will not continue on this path. I don't think it is reasonable and responsible.

I am trying to get through the fact that this isn't something we can willy-nilly propose and it's just going to be okay. This is part of what the Government of Alberta did when it came to having meaningful engagement with first nations communities. It was about creating lasting impacts for first nations communities, at least from the Government of Alberta's perspective. Not only did it provide a very good environmental piece, it also, very clearly, created meaningful jobs and gave people good training. For instance, the Cold Lake First Nations trained people to have the skills needed to do this work long term.

In 2020, shortly after this was announced.... In Alberta's case, we didn't just give it to first nations communities. The first nations site rehabilitation program was also opened up to the Métis communities in Alberta. Alberta is the only province in Canada to recognize Métis and the Métis settlements. We have a whole structure on that. It was $85 million to first nations and $15 million to Métis communities. This Alberta allocation period ended with 163 first nations submissions that totalled $118 million, which is pretty spectacular. To receive 163 real, wonderful submissions totalling $118.4 million from first nations partners is spectacular. These were first nations or partnerships with indigenous contractors. They cleaned up 2,145 individual sites.

Not all wells are the same. The government in this motion treats them like all of these orphan wells are somehow exactly the same, which just goes to show how little it understands about the industry and how little is actually realized. You can have an orphan well that could still be a producing well. It's not currently being utilized as a well, but you could turn the taps back on and it would be operational. Wells exist in a variety of states for a variety of reasons, and there are a variety of different reasons for that, including the fact that prior to 1978, I believe, they weren't required to do this remediation.

As a country and as a society, we've realized that this is incredibly important and the rules have dramatically changed, but there was a point in time when it wasn't a requirement and that is something that needs to be recognized. It's not that these bad-actor oil companies are skirting their responsibilities. There are many of these wells that existed long before there were ever rules about having to do these cleanups. Companies in Alberta—actually, across the entire country—have been doing this reclamation work because it's the right thing to do. They've been doing it because they know they need to do it to be good stewards of the resource they're extracting.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I would just like to ask for a clarification, Mr. Chair.

I would like to know where my colleague is going with this thought. Maybe she can explain it to me.

She's telling us that this is an all-out attack on Alberta, but the things I see in the motion are factual.

It is a fact that there are 1,600 abandoned oil wells. If that's not true, maybe she can tell us. It's a fact that there are going to be between 1,800 and 2,000 more abandoned wells. If that's not true, perhaps she can present some evidence at the next meeting to prove it. It's also a fact that the Alberta government sent $137 million back to the Government of Canada because it didn't use that money to clean up those wells. If that's not true, maybe she can provide some evidence to prove it. Otherwise, I don't think we can move forward and reach a consensus on this motion.

I would therefore like my colleague to show us that the facts laid out in the motion are not accurate. Once we have that information, we can come up with an amendment that will satisfy everyone. Otherwise, this is simply rhetoric, which my Conservative friends will be entirely free to engage in if they so desire, once we've voted for or against the motion. However, in the meantime, we need to clarify what parts of the motion my colleague considers inaccurate. Otherwise, this won't move our work forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I'm just going to address Monsieur Simard's point of order, and then I'll go right to you on your point of clarification—relevance is what I got in the translation. I was listening very intently to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Thank you for bringing that forward, Monsieur Simard. I would just ask our colleague to focus on the relevance to the motion of the information being provided and to make sure that it's factual and accurate with the information that's provided in your debate.

I see Mr. Dreeshen on a point of order.

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

The point of order has to do with Mario's statement. I'm not sure whether or not.... You said it was a point of clarification, in which case it probably shouldn't....

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The translation....

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

Okay, but one of the things mentioned was that these are facts. They are not facts. It states and goes into the preamble that, “There are 1,600 abandoned and orphaned oil wells...polluting farmland, waterways, and air”. That is not a fact. There might be 1,600 abandoned and orphaned oil wells.

That is the whole argument, and that ties into the end.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Dreeshen, I'm going to cut you off there.

Mr. Angus, before I go to you on a point of order, I'll rule on the point of order.

Mr. Dreeshen, you were getting into debate. If you would like to debate and provide those facts, we can put you on the list and you can fully provide the facts according to the motion at hand.

Do you know what? I know you're referring to Monsieur Simard. Unfortunately, I'm not fluently bilingual and I need to listen carefully to the translation to allow the member to be able to fully participate and so that I have a clear understanding of what he is stating as it comes through translation. I want to give all members the leeway to be able to be heard at this committee, but I also want to rule when there's a ruling to be made.

I have Mr. Angus on a point of order.

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

Thank you. You pretty much summed it up.

Mr. Dreeshen had the floor. Other people are waiting to get the floor, so he can't use his point of supposed interruption to engage in debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order.

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

He has nothing to say. If he wants to say something, he can do that down the road.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I aim to please, and I want everybody to have an opportunity to—

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

You do an excellent job.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Everybody has an opportunity to participate. If you do want to participate, put up your hand. I'll put you on the speaking order.

Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge. We're back to you.

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

Thank you.

It's wonderful to have a little bit of an opportunity to further gather my thoughts on this. It actually raises something that's quite important.

From what I've been able to gather on the number picked, the 1,600 abandoned and orphaned wells, it's based on a news article that was put out. It's actually not the factual information that came from the Government of Alberta. The Alberta Energy Regulator is the place you would go if you wanted to get an accurate assessment. The fact that we're actually talking about a whole bunch of things grouped together is challenging.

This is part of where this becomes a problem:

When an energy company ceases its operations without having properly closed its infrastructure, we will order anyone with a legal or beneficial interest in that infrastructure to close it. These companies are known as working interest participants.

If there are no working interest participants, we—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to know who the member is quoting and reading from. Can she table that document, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

I think your point of order is not on relevance but on clarification, which is not a point of order. However, I think the members have heard your request.

I will go back to the member, and hopefully she'll be able to provide further insight into that.

Go ahead.

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

a Thank you.

If the member would like, all she has to search in Google is “AER orphaned wells”. The first website that pops up explains a little bit about what “orphan” means in this. AER is the Alberta Energy Regulator. That is the source to go to for all the facts and information on this.

Part of why I was reading this is that I actually don't think there is a full understanding from members of this committee that there is actually a difference between abandoned and orphaned wells. About the 1,600 number, we're not quite sure, and then you say, “The number of abandoned wells in Alberta are set to increase by an additional 1,800 to 2,000”. Well, you're saying that there are 1,600 in Alberta, and then it says that the number in Alberta will increase from 1,800 to 2,000. Is it 1,600? Is it 1,800? Is it 2,000? Where are they getting these stats from? It's not from the Alberta Energy Regulator.

It just falls into this space. It doesn't actually recognize the fact that, according to the Government of Alberta and from what I've been able to see, the program that was put forward during COVID to clean up orphan wells actually did clean out orphan wells. According to the Orphan Well Association, in 2023-24 they actually closed—fully closed, not partially closed—622 sites, which was up 44% from the year prior.

I share this because it's important to look at and not assume something based on a news article. This is something that a lot of people who work in the energy industry continually get frustrated with. This is something that has a real impact in my community and I know in the community of my neighbour to the south, Mrs. Stubbs. We have a number of first nations communities. There is heavy oil in the basin that surrounds Lac La Biche and the Municipal District of Bonnyville. Shannon and I actually share the MD of Bonneville. Our riding splits it. I represent part of it and she represents the other part. This is where a large part of the original wells were being drilled when they were trying to find wells.

This isn't something that is so complicated. Back in the 1920s, when they were finding oil just by putting a pipe in the ground in Texas and oil was coming up Beverly Hillbillies style, a whole bunch of speculation and prospecting went on. Some of these wells don't have quite as complex a system as others. Some wells are actually really easy to clean up. They actually require a limited amount of work. Some of these wells do actually exist on first nations land, which has complicated the cleanup process, because the federal government has created layers of red tape that have not necessarily benefited the indigenous communities.

For one of the programs, the way the Government of Alberta chose to roll out its program was to actually consult with first nations, listen to them, listen to the chiefs and pick sites that were of importance to them. It wasn't just “let's clean up the easiest wells to clean up first, and we'll get to the harder ones later.” This was actually a noted point in making sure that what they were putting forward was something that would actually be able to serve communities now and in the long term into the future.

The chiefs wrote very clearly that they were united. The chiefs of treaties 6, 7 and 8, which are rarely united in writing to a government, wrote that they were:

...united in calling for Government of Canada to transfer the $134 million held by Alberta to the [first nations site rehabilitation program] 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 First Nations who require these funds to continue this work.

We are happy to address any specific questions you might have and if you require any additional information, please contact us. We look forward to an immediate resolution to this matter.

This letter was signed by Chief Roy Whitney from Tsuut’ina Nation, Chief Aaron Young from Chiniki Nation, Chief Darcy Dixon from Bearspaw First Nation and Chief Clifford Poucette from Goodstoney First Nation.

This was dated December 20, 2023, and sent to the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. It was copied to the Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, Patty Hajdu, the Premier of Alberta and my colleague on the provincial side, the Honourable Brian Jean, Minister of Energy and Minerals for the Province of Alberta. It's worth noting that Brian Jean is also the legislature member for Fort McMurray-Lac La Biche, which is an area with a large number of the first nations cleanups that happened on the territory. This was something designated as important.

That is part of the frustration with all of this. Just a couple of weeks ago, when the very first meeting on this came forward, the minister wrote a letter saying that the committee on natural resources is basically wrong. However, it doesn't say, “basically wrong”. He actually writes, “factually wrong and frankly nonsensical”. That is incredibly damaging.

The members opposite in the Liberal Party can continue—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Goodridge, we have a point of order by Ms. Dabrusin.

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

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

This has been fascinating, but we don't have much time left for this meeting.

I am curious about whether you could help clarify what the plan is for the Monday meeting. Perhaps that might give us some perspective as to where we go and what we should be doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I was hoping to do that at the end of the meeting, Ms. Dabrusin. Thank you for your point of order.

The ministers will be attending on Monday, so it will be an exciting opportunity to have a lovely conversation with them about the TMX study.

Thank you.

I'm going back to Mrs. Goodridge.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have a point of order.

As you know, since this motion was moved on Monday, I've asked a number of times whether you could let us know the schedule and plan for the meetings from last Monday out to Christmas. Depending on how late we go, there are between 10 to 13 meetings left. What I said was that this is so members are able to make an informed decision on where this all parks in the business, given that we also have two unfinished reports—clean electricity and clean energy studies. I find it curious that you could immediately answer the question about what we're doing on Monday, but, to my knowledge, still haven't provided that sketch-out for the remaining meetings.

Since you are aware of what's happening on Monday, are there other dates you could let us know about, so we could all make an informed vote about how it would fit into our work?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I know what's happening on Monday because the departments provided the clerk with the information that our ministerial colleagues are able to attend on Monday.

Your question was asked and I'm giving you the answer. I was going to do it at the end of today's meeting in order to make sure members are fully aware of what is happening at our next meeting. We will work to hopefully coordinate on further information related to other requests, as well, for meetings after that.

That's all I can provide you with today. Thank you.

It's back to you, Mrs. Goodridge. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is another part of how this is so frustrating, in that it is factually inaccurate, and that is part of the challenge with the preamble as written. The fact that the money.... It wasn't just that this was sitting in some slush fund of the Government of Alberta, gaining interest and just sitting back.... Every single dollar of this federal funding to the site rehabilitation program was actually committed to be spent. They had programs in place, they had worked with the backing of 17 different first nations chiefs to be able to do this and they were working on trying to get an extension. I'm sure that, had it been a different province, perhaps, the answer as to whether they would have been able to get an extension might have been different, depending on the political backing of that particular province. This is part of the frustration.

It's also curious that the decision to have first nations involvement was the decision of the Government of Alberta. This wasn't something where the Government of Canada was like, “Oh, cool, let's do this. This is a great idea.” This was from the amazing and spectacular leadership of one of my good friends and former colleagues, the Minister of Indigenous Relations for the Province of Alberta, Rick Wilson. This was something that Rick actually brought forward because he knew how important it was, how sacred some of these lands were, and he had heard conversations not dissimilar to the conversations that my colleague Mr. Dreeshen, my colleague Mrs. Stubbs and I have all heard when engaging with indigenous communities in our regions, understanding that some of these lands that have been disturbed by these wells are lands that were sacred for a variety of reasons and that this was something of importance. This isn't something, when you're creating something brand new, where you can just snap your fingers and this happens.

It is factually inaccurate, yet there's been no attempt from the Liberals to correct this. We're in a space where it's almost like Schrödinger's cat: Either it's alive in the box or it's dead in the box, and we don't really know until we open the box.

We're sitting here where either the Department of Natural Resources and the Prime Minister's Office directed the parliamentary secretary to bring this forward at this committee, or she decided that she didn't actually care about doing what's right for Canada and brought this forward on her own volition as an affront to Alberta, as a political weapon, and thinks that this is somehow okay. I don't know which one's worse, so this becomes a challenge.

We know that there are at least 24 MLAs who do not support the Prime Minister. Perhaps Ms. Dabrusin has outed herself—

[An hon. member]

MPs....