Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024

[Jason Stanton]

Based on what the regulator has said, they're still in the process of determining those tolls. In, say, five years under this scenario, based on public statements, you would think that they would be finalized by then, so that would remove some of the uncertainty there.

You would also have some years when the pipeline has been running, so there would be more time that it has been running than right now. You would have more years on which to base what the utilization could be, so that, I think, would reduce some of the risk.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That's exactly why I picked five years. By then, a lot of those things—with the situation down south and all of the government policies around price and pollution—will have been finalized. Then a true value calculation based on known variables or factors will be.... At that time, I believe we will see that the value of this pipeline on its own, as an investment, will be much higher.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to yield the rest of my time to Ms. Dabrusin.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this has been a very interesting conversation today. I very much appreciate the time given to us by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Now I believe it's time we get to some of the other pieces we've been trying to work on. I move to resume debate on my motion on wells.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It's a dilatory motion, so we will proceed to a vote, Mr. Clerk.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now resume debate on the motion.

I will give the floor back to you, Ms. Dabrusin. Go ahead.

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

Well, now that we're moving to the motion, I suggest dismissing the witnesses, unless we believe we can go directly to a vote to pass the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Give me a moment.

I know we previously had a number of folks interested in speaking. I think it would be appropriate to release the witnesses out of respect for the time and consideration they have provided us with today.

Thank you, Mr. Giroux and Mr. Stanton, for joining us today at committee, and for your work.

If the committee proceeds to move, we will release the witnesses. We will suspend so that we can give the witnesses an opportunity to be released. We'll resume in a few minutes.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin, we will turn the floor back to you. We're resuming debate on the motion.

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

Thank you.

Why don't I bring us back to where we are at?

I had brought a motion, and it was amended by Mr. Simard. The amended motion would be as follows:

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 of Natural Resources begin a five-meeting study on the impact of this failure to clean these [abandoned and orphaned] wells [in Canada], the impacts of the pollution of 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.

That is the amended version of the motion that I had brought. I think where we are right now is with an amendment to this motion that was proposed by the Conservatives and that would actually remove the full preamble.

For some reason, the Conservatives want to remove reference to the number—the “1,600 abandoned and orphaned wells [that are] in Alberta”—and to the fact that they're “polluting farmland, waterways, and air”. They are also seeking to remove that “[t]he number of abandoned wells in Alberta are set to increase by...1,800 to 2,000”, as well as the cost of cleaning these abandoned wells, which is the third point: that the “additional abandoned wells will cost more than $200 million to clean up”. They are also seeking to remove the reference to how the Government of Alberta returned the federal funds, the $137 million of federal funds, that had been provided to the province to clean up the abandoned wells.

They're also removing reference to the fact that the “Government of Saskatchewan used [all of] their allocated funds” to clean up the wells and to “create jobs”. They are seeking to remove the reference that “[c]ompanies who abandon wells and fail to pay for their cleanup negatively impact provincial taxpayers and municipalities”, and they are also seeking to remove the reference that “[o]rphaned and abandoned wells present an economic opportunity to support energy solutions like geothermal energy”. All of that would be removed under the proposed amendment.

Furthermore, they would remove reference to “the impact of this failure to clean [up] these [abandoned and orphaned] wells”, reference to “the impacts of the pollution of not cleaning up”, and reference to “the costs of cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells”.

Basically, the motion would be streamlined down to something that wouldn't actually be studying the costs and pollution impacts of these abandoned wells or studying what the federal government has done to try to support Alberta, and did to support Saskatchewan, in actually trying to address this.

That's where we are.

I oppose these proposed amendments because I think that they detract from the real purpose and importance of this study, which is how we support people in our country to clean up farmland, waterways and air with regard to these abandoned wells.

It's my proposal: that we vote against this proposed amendment from the Conservatives. I'm hoping that everyone is ready to vote on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

I'll go to the next speaker on our speaking list.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thought the parliamentary secretary would maybe be willing to accept our amendment because, as we told her numerous times in the past, the preamble, for one, is factually incorrect. It's actually, I would suggest, a little embarrassing that the parliamentary secretary is willing to put things in here that show that she doesn't know what's going on in her own department.

Then there's also the next part about how resource development is actually the sole jurisdiction of the provinces and that therefore this is an issue that falls within the purview of the provincial government. I think we need to get that point noted right off the start.

Again, we also need to make note that the Province of Alberta didn't want to send that money back: They actually said that they want to use the money to clean up wells on reserve land because those wells on reserve land would actually be federal jurisdiction. There are several companies in Alberta and across the country that are indigenous-owned and operated and that have the knowledge and the skill set to do so, but they would like access to these funds. This government said no to that and demanded that Alberta return the money.

It's a bit of a contradiction to sit here and say that the Government of Alberta “failed” to do so when the reality is they were trying to do it. They were asking for an extension to use the funds that were allocated. This government said no. Again, they were trying to use it to clean up wells on reserve land. Again, the federal government said no. It's important to get more of the facts on the table, since the preamble that's been presented by this government doesn't deal with actual facts.

Another part that she mentioned is that if we got rid of the preamble, we wouldn't be able to deal with any of these things. The reality, the meat-and-potato part of it here, talks about cleaning up—or not cleaning up—orphaned and abandoned wells, so the meat and potatoes of the motion are still there. The preamble is just the political posturing by this government, which is based, again, not on facts but on falsehoods. It is incumbent upon the government to be willing to get rid of the preamble, and then we can actually have a scientific, fact-based conversation and study on orphaned and abandoned wells, and then we can deal with that going forward.

I had the benefit of talking to people who actually worked within this program over the last number of years. I'll play ball here for a second:

The Government of Saskatchewan used their allocated funds in their entirety to clean up abandoned wells and create jobs;

Well, it may have created jobs for a couple of months, but at its core this is about eliminating jobs. If it were about creating jobs, they wouldn't be trying to end the use of oil and natural gas in the province of Saskatchewan. Sure, there are orphaned wells that needed to be dealt with, and they did that to some extent, but part of it too was that a lot of the natural gas wells that were being shuttered by this program were wells that were still capable of producing. One guy described them to me as “gushers” because of the amount of pressure and product that was still there and available, but because of the anti-energy policies that are in place and are coming down the pipe from this government, he said it was an absolute shame to kill these wells. There was so much potential there, in having a product that the world needs and that is so easily and readily available, that it would be very easy to have a robust industry and actually create not just a couple of jobs for a couple of months but hundreds if not thousands of long-term, stable jobs in the region and across the country, if only there were a government in place federally that would get out of the province's way in developing their resources and create export infrastructure and capacity to do so.

I think it's good to get that on the record and on the table.

Those are the kinds of things that I'm sure we would want to talk about that during committee studies.

When we look at why the government doesn't want to get rid of the preamble, it's because it's political signalling and political messaging. It's them trying to get a narrative out there to the public that's not based on truth. It's a government that supposedly said that one of the biggest issues it wants to tackle is misinformation. Meanwhile, we have a preamble here that's chock full of it. You would think they would want to be consistent and try to clear that up.

When you talk about the scientific and fact-based nature of things, an abandoned well is actually a heavily regulated process. When you go on the Government of Alberta's website, for example, and look at the process in place that details what you have to do to properly abandon a well, what you have to do to continually monitor a well and what you would have to do if there was a leak from an abandoned well, you see that there is a very significant, substantive and robust policy in place to make sure any kind of a leak stemming from an abandoned well would be dealt with pronto. The company or the proponent has to outline and lay out very clearly what its plan is going to be to fix the problem and how it is going to prevent another leak from happening or prevent that particular leak from becoming a problem again. There are already written-in measures to make sure that is properly dealt with.

In the preamble, I don't see the government acknowledging anywhere that there is actually significant and substantive policy around how to deal with an abandoned well. They're trying to slip this through, hoping that people don't know or that people don't understand. It's quite clear that the government doesn't even understand what it's talking about when it comes to dealing with this issue and this problem. This is something that I know the municipalities in Saskatchewan are keenly aware of and are keenly concerned about when it comes to the orphaned well side of things. They also know what the process is for abandoned wells in Saskatchewan. There is good work done to make sure that abandoned wells are properly taken care of.

There is a very important distinction that does exist between an abandoned well and an orphaned well. It's one that this government clearly does not know and does not want to know. They would rather be ignorant of it and just operate under the assumption that “abandoned” means bad. They're going to just say this is a horrible thing and create a false narrative around it.

Orphaned wells can also be in many different states as well. They could be inactive or they could be suspended or they could actually be abandoned, which means they've been properly taken care of. Orphaned wells can also still be producing and providing a product into the economy and into the industry.

It's important to note that there are many facts that exist that this government is unaware of, does not want to hear and does not want to address. These are things that we will discuss if we're ever able to get to the actual report itself.

The government should move on from this preamble because, again, Canadians want a fact-based argument. They want to know that the government knows its facts, knows the details and is willing to deal with the actual science and truth of the matter. That's not what we're seeing in this preamble. They're trying to gaslight—no pun intended—Canadians on this and assume that Canadians just don't know.

Canadians do know. When you look at how many people work in this sector and how many Canadians from across the entire country work in this sector, particularly in Alberta, but also in Saskatchewan, in B.C. and in Manitoba.... These are folks from Newfoundland. People travel across the country to get to Newfoundland to be able to work in the industry there as well. It's such a vast workforce, and people are quite often looking to explore new opportunities or different skill sets within it. Maybe someone who has worked on land wants to go work offshore or vice versa. There are many different parts to the industry and sector that offer good employment and good wages. Obviously, the community benefits are off the charts.

It's important to note that it's more than just Alberta and Saskatchewan that have orphaned and abandoned wells. It's interesting that the government would avoid talking about other provinces and what the situation is in those provinces as well. We know that Ontario has quite a few as well. I think that they have over 15,000 abandoned wells. The number of orphaned wells they have is quite a bit higher, too. I think that there were over 7,000 orphaned wells the last time I checked.

I think it's important to get facts on the table and note that this is not just an Alberta issue and not a Saskatchewan issue; this is something that's gone on around the entire country, so it's funny that the parliamentary secretary wouldn't talk about this being a national issue. It shows here again that the government would rather seek to divide Canadians or try to pit Saskatchewan and Alberta against each other by going with the comparative numbers here. Well, Alberta didn't spend all their money, but Saskatchewan did.

That's not a compelling argument, and they ignore, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that one province, the Province of Alberta, was trying to get an extension to be able to use the fund, because they got quite a bit more funding than the Province of Saskatchewan did. I think that's also worth noting as well, because it doesn't talk about the dollar value that was allocated to each province. Alberta was given substantially more money to do this work.

When you look at what happened, I believe that there were three different treaty first nation associations that got together and talked about this issue. They talked about their skill set, and I think when you look at the skill set that their workers have and what they could do with the funds, with $134 million or $137 million dollars or whatever the number was that the Province Alberta was trying to allocate to cleaning up wells on reserve, I think it would be important to take note of that.

First nations contractors have successfully reclaimed over 1,600 well sites in the past, and they've done so in a safe, responsible and efficient manner. Having that allocation of money that Alberta was trying to get into the hands of these first nations companies to be able to clean up wells on reserve land, which again, is the jurisdiction of the federal government, would have been an important piece of note to have on the record.

Again, these are facts that the government has not included in the preamble that they should have in the preamble.

Another interesting fact that I think the parliamentary secretary would like to know is that indigenous women earn $115,000 within the oil and gas industry versus about $43,000 in other industries. When you look at the job opportunities that exist, I think that the income discrepancy that exists between the different industries and different sectors is important. Pipeline jobs for women across the sector pay the most, at $151,000 for crude oil and $113,000 if you're working on the gas side of the industry.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order by Mr. Simard.

Mr. Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

It's already one o'clock and, unfortunately, I have something scheduled for today.

I think we're going to have to postpone that until Wednesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Colleagues, thank you. We are at 1:00 p.m. and, because of lack of resources, we will suspend.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:00 p.m., Monday, November 18, 2024]

[The meeting resumed at 4:36 p.m., Wednesday, November 20]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting back to order.

We are resuming meeting number 114 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

Before we begin, I have one small housekeeping item.

As previously mentioned, there was a request to meet with the minister of natural resources for Finland on Monday, November 25. It's an informal meeting for colleagues from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., before our usual meeting time. If the committee wishes to proceed, I would like to give the clerk unanimous consent to make the necessary arrangements to host our guest from Finland.

I'll quickly look around.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It looks like we have unanimous consent, but I will go to Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

Coming from a region with a strong Finnish tradition that has influenced so much of our culture, people and work, I'm very supportive of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for that.

Thank you, colleagues. I look forward to seeing all of you. Hopefully, you can attend on Monday morning at 10:30 a.m. I believe it's right here, in this room.

We will now move forward.

When we suspended on Monday, we were debating the motion by Ms. Dabrusin as amended, and the amendment by Ms. Goodridge.

In terms of the speaking list, when we ended, Mr. Patzer had the floor.

Mr. Patzer, I want to go back to you to continue your debate. The floor is yours, sir.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

How very kind of you, Mr. Chair, to want to come back to me. I really appreciate that.

When I left off last time, I was talking a bit about oil well abandonment and how an abandoned well is generally considered to be an okay thing. The reason for that is there are extensive regulations and requirements around it. I took a few minutes before this meeting to take a quick look at what some of the provinces do.

In front of me, I have the document for the Province of Saskatchewan. This is a 17-page document on well abandonment requirements. Within the 17 pages, there are several other links to go to further energy regulator recommendations for steps on specific things, like dealing with a sour well or an H2S concentration greater than a certain percentage. There are more extensive requirements, and there are links that will take you to what those requirements are.

This is the main point I am trying to make about the requirements for what an abandoned well actually is. When you look through the table of contents in Saskatchewan for the routine well abandonment methods, you see a whole bunch of different portions on that. When you go to the non-routine well abandonments, there's also a whole bunch of other subcategories. There's a very extensive and exhaustive list of requirements in Saskatchewan to be able to abandon a well.

The Province of Alberta has a 62-page document available online. It also contains a series of hyperlinks to be able to access further regulations for all the different types of requirements. These include making sure that your abandoned well is not leaking, but if it is leaking, the regulations tell you what the cleanup methods are, what the plan is, how you're going to deal with that and how you're going to monitor it and make sure that it doesn't continue. It's important to note that.

The Province of British Columbia has 37 pages, as well as many other links to many different regulations for how you deal with an abandoned well.

Of course, all of these provinces have orphaned well requirements and things in place as well, but I wanted to focus more on the abandoned well requirements.

Actually, there is a neat little three-page document from the Province of Alberta about what happens once a well is abandoned. In order to reclaim the land, the well has to first be abandoned. Again, that underscores the whole point that an abandoned well isn't a bad thing, which is partly why we are arguing that the preamble for this motion that the Liberals have put forward contains a lot of misinformation and misleading points.

Another thing that's worth noting, which is missing from the preamble, is that the Province of British Columbia also returned $12.8 million. If it was not a motion intended to divide or if it was not a motion intended to go after a specific province, of course the motion would have contained language about the $12.8 million the Province of British Columbia returned, but we don't see that included. I would hate to speculate as to why the parliamentary secretary's motion didn't contain that language as well. Nevertheless, here we are.

Of course, as I mentioned at the last meeting, there's the issue of wells. There are wells in Manitoba and Ontario. There are wells in numerous provinces that will need to be part of this study if we're going to actually have a serious discussion about the issue of orphaned wells and abandoned wells.

I think getting all that information on the record was very helpful.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will move to adjourn debate on the motion for today.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Ms. Dabrusin, do you have your hand up? Go ahead.

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

I actually also brought a motion to have the Minister of Natural Resources attend on supplementary estimates (B).

I don't know if you need me to read the wording of the full motion—I'd have to pull it up on my screen—but I would move that motion at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. Thank you for moving that motion, Ms. Dabrusin.

Give me a second here.

What I am going to do, just to make colleagues aware of the motion, is have the clerk read it out. It's for the benefit of colleagues so that we have a clear understanding of the motion Ms. Dabrusin has brought forward.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Thomas Bigelow]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As requested, the text of the motion on notice from Ms. Dabrusin reads:

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and Officials from the Department of Natural Resources to testify on the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year 2024-25.