:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, committee members.
I represent the Business Council of Alberta, which is a public policy organization of Alberta's largest employers and most successful entrepreneurs.
I'm speaking from the traditional territory of Treaty 7 and the Métis Nation of Alberta regions five and six.
I'd like to speak to four key points: economic value, indigenous reconciliation, trade value and building major projects in Canada.
In terms of economic value, the oil and gas sector is Canada's most productive sector and our most important export sector. It's no secret that this country is struggling greatly with productivity and a lower quality of life for Canadians compared to our peer nations. Therefore, further production and export activity in that sector benefits Canada as a whole. EY estimates that between 2024 and 2043, the expanded Trans Mountain system will pay $3.7 billion in wages, generate $9.2 billion in GDP and pay $2.8 billion in government taxes. The Bank of Canada predicts a 0.25% bump in GDP in Q2 of this year due to the expansion.
The CER estimates that the TMX expansion will close the gap between benchmark oil prices and what Canadian producers receive by about nine dollars per barrel. This will result in more royalties and tax revenue for governments. CAPP notes that oil and gas companies paid $34 billion in oil and gas royalties to provincial governments in 2022, so it is reasonable to expect this figure will grow because of the TMX expansion, which will positively support Canada's finances.
We, as a nation, should be actively working to create more opportunities to grow our energy sector's production and export—not to curtail it with layered policy.
In terms of indigenous reconciliation, as has been noted by previous witnesses, the future of the pipeline could be a watershed moment in righting the wrongs of the past by enabling indigenous ownership of the pipeline at some point in the future. One can look at the opportunities for reconciliation being generated through the Cedar LNG project, which is majority-owned by the Haisla first nation. At the final investment decision announcement, Crystal Smith, chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, said, “Cedar LNG will make the most significant mark on economic reconciliation ever in our country. With Cedar LNG, we have proven that Indigenous communities can successfully forge a path to economic independence and generational prosperity.”
There is opportunity for the TMX expansion, at the right time, to do the same through an indigenous equity ownership position. That benefit will be on top of the incomes generated from the estimated $4.9 billion in contracts with indigenous businesses during the construction phase of the project.
From a trade value perspective, Canada's energy sector made up 23% of Canada's total trade export value in 2023. The expansion creates even greater value opportunity. However, Canada is highly reliant on a single trading partner—the United States. Exports to the U.S. account for 77% of Canada's total export trade value. With uncertainty as to the outcome of the looming U.S. election and for diversification of our trade portfolio, the expansion project provides welcome optionality for our energy products to go to other markets that can diversify our portfolio and reduce exposure to risks such as a downturn in the U.S. economy, energy demand or retaliatory trade measures.
Canada should be doing more to support the export of its natural resources to our allies and other nations in need of them, largely in pursuit of their own decarbonization efforts. Whether it is oil, LNG, propane, ammonia or critical minerals, the expansion can and should be the start of further expansion of Canada's resource export capacity.
In terms of building major projects, Canada struggled to get big things built and the TMX expansion project is illustrative of that challenge. We have a lengthy and uncertain regulatory and permitting process in Canada. It's a process with an inappropriate degree of political involvement. We must fix this so we can be recognized globally as a place that can build large projects quickly, efficiently, safely and to the highest environmental and reconciliation standards.
Our 2023 report, “Future Unbuilt”, addressed many of the changes needed in Canada's regulatory and permitting process. The ministerial working group on regulatory efficiency for clean growth projects' action plan made some progress but did not go far enough. Adding to that challenge, concerns remain that the federal government did not go far enough when it amended the Impact Assessment Act in response to last year's Supreme Court decision. We must use the experience of this expansion project and global best practices to further refine and improve Canada's regulatory and permitting process.
In closing, the TMX expansion is an important project for Canada's most productive sector—the energy sector. Even with cost overruns, it will be a huge net positive for our country. In fact, Canada needs more big projects like this one, and we need to build them faster.
Canada has a chance to globally step into the spotlight and deliver things the world needs right now—energy, minerals, food, wood and more. We must seize this moment for Canadians and for the world. We must improve our approvals process in Canada to allow us to build the right things for the world and build them fast. That will help generate prosperity for Canadians and solve global challenges.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon.
I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present to you today regarding the economic benefits of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
I'm a member of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, which includes businesses, large and small, in Calgary.
It's important we look at this project despite the cost overruns and time it took to build and recognize it is important for the country in the long run. We've become too focused on short-term, quarterly results or election cycles without realizing projects that are worthy take time and, yes, sometimes they can be over-budget.
From the perspective of Trans Mountain, failure was not an option. This project needed to proceed to break our entire dependence on the United States as our only export market for crude oil and to increase the amount of money we receive per barrel produced. One of the key measures used in this context is a differential between Western Canadian Select and West Texas Intermediate. For every dollar the differential goes down, it means an additional $1 billion to companies and the economy. It's at $13 now and is expected to narrow to nine dollars because of the Trans Mountain expansion. That's another $4 billion in annual revenues flowing into the country, which translates into $2 billion a year in government revenues, half of which goes directly to the federal government.
We own the resource. We should be getting the highest price for it, but without options for egress to other markets, returns have long been compromised. As a trading nation, the more access we have to new markets, the better it is for us. This pipeline opens new trading routes. No country ever suffered from having more options for trading.
Also important is the context of the market valuations of the energy companies themselves. It bears mention that Canadians from coast to coast, through pension plans and mutual funds, own shares in these energy companies. It's for the benefit of all Canadians that returns are maximized. People are concerned about the costs. That's what gets the headline. Even with the cost overruns, the tolls levied on the shippers will cover approximately 30%, or $9 billion, of the cost of the tolling. While this is more than what was expected, consider that shipping oil by rail, which has been an important source of transportation, costs shippers between $15 and $22 U.S per barrel.
The TMX investment will pay for itself in the next 10 to 12 years. It also has to be noted that the cost overruns are covered by issued and outstanding debt, which will be part of the valuation of the asset when it is sold. It is not for the taxpayers to bear. Beyond that, the numbers show opportunity cost. If the pipeline wasn't built, it would amount to about $240 billion over a 20-year period. Who can afford that, given the fiscal challenges facing the country?
Let's break down the numbers: $34 billion to buy the project, about $8 billion in equity, revenues will reach $3 billion, expenses $500 million, and debt servicing costs are $1.6 billion. Revenues more than cover the servicing costs. Over the next 20 years, the value of revenue generated by Trans Mountain, depending on the discount rate, is between $26 billion and $38 billion. The higher the discount rate, the lower the valuation. During a time of falling interest rates, and as the project is effectively de-risked, the valuation should go up.
Was it worth the price tag? Yes, because of the value that will accrue to Canadians, starting with a 0.25% increase to our GDP in the third quarter. What were the reasons for the overruns? Time is one reason. Approvals that were given were withdrawn. The scope of the project changed and new approvals had to be granted. One hundred and fifty-seven conditions needed to be met. Sixty-nine agencies were involved. One hundred and thirty indigenous communities were consulted. It was technically more challenging than expected, including two mountain ranges and 47 slopes with a more than 15% grade. The pandemic didn't help, nor did weather events such as wildfires or atmospheric rivers that caused flooding. The project was the largest archeological dig in Canadian history, with 255,000 first nation artifacts uncovered at 360 sites, and 27,000 bird nests were monitored. Finally, shipping channels off the B.C. coast were improved as part of the work, which is of net benefit to all export and import activity.
There is no world in which estimating the cost of such a complex project was easy or could be accurate. Instead of being critical, we should think in the context of how Canada has set a new standard for pipeline construction, including the incorporation of ESG metrics and the benefits that will accrue to Canadians over the life of the project.
Here's what's also important: This project set the stage for true economic reconciliation. It included almost $5 billion in procurement deals, and 10% of the workforce came from indigenous communities. This is relevant when we think about who the buyers might be when the government decides to sell the asset. This shouldn't happen until the tolls are decided, because this is critical to the valuation of TMX.
Furthermore, there needs to be clarity on the emissions cap, which is a de facto production cap, and could compromise the barrels entering the pipeline. No project is perfect, but Trans Mountain, despite all its challenges, will prove to be of net benefit to Canadians and the Canadian economy for decades to come.
Thank you for allowing me to present this afternoon. I look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of committee, for the opportunity to address you here this afternoon and speak about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
My name is Sean Strickland. I'm the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions, an affiliation of 14 international unions that represent 60 different trades and 600,000 members from coast to coast. Of our affiliates, four are concerned with pipeline construction: LiUNA, representing labourers and construction craft workers; the United Association, representing welders and pipe trades; Teamsters, who move pipeline equipment and materials; and the International Union of Operating Engineers, who operate and maintain the heavy equipment. Together, our four pipeline unions and signatory contractors constructed nearly 90% of all major federally regulated pipelines in Canada.
Patrick Campbell, who sits on our Canadian executive board for the operating engineers, gave evidence earlier this week. I thank him for sharing his depth of expertise with you.
As you heard from previous witnesses—and which I will reiterate—the construction of the 980-kilometre Trans Mountain pipeline is a major nation-building project, which brings Canadian energy to Pacific markets. The successful completion of this project is an ongoing, fantastic testament to the engineering and construction capability of Canada's pipeline industry. This is a major accomplishment for the benefit of all Canadians. However, as you heard from others, there have been real challenges—foreseen and unforeseen—during this project.
In the clearly predictable category, one foreseen challenge was labour supply. As you heard earlier, the involvement of unionized contractors and workers was not by choice but by necessity, with approximately one-fifth of the project delivered through signatory contractors. This was only once it became apparent, in 2020, that, due to regulatory delays, alternative and non-union contractors simply could not supply sufficient workers in competition with other projects that paid higher wages. This is a common challenge—a tight supply of skilled labour and what's called “project stacking”—and these factors frequently contribute to major project delays. In the future, as we recommended in other venues, strong workforce development planning is critical to ensuring there are enough skilled trades workers available to take on such nation-building and economy-driving projects.
I also reiterate comments that I made previously at other committees. Canada's Building Trades Unions believe that, any time the Government of Canada makes an investment or puts skin in the game, it should come with strong labour conditions—good wages and benefits, prevailing wages, as well as apprenticeship requirements and local and indigenous hiring obligations. These measures aren't “nice to haves”. They are essential to major project delivery. Strong apprenticeship requirements ensure we build the future skilled trades labour supply, and strong wages and benefits ensure that workers are attracted to major projects when and where they are needed. They also ensure that Canadian construction workers see real benefits and are adequately compensated for the work.
You also already heard about the other challenges—the lack of regulatory efficiency that drove up costs and unforeseen events such as the atmospheric rivers, floods, wildfires and a global pandemic, to name a few—all of which disrupted construction operations. Imagine going to work on a construction site, wearing a mask and adhering to the protocol that was in place during COVID. It's very difficult for workers to work in those kinds of environments.
Despite all of these unforeseen and uncontrollable challenges, the men and women of the building trades delivered. They built one of the most complex environmentally protected and safest pipelines ever completed—not just in Canada but in the world. It is a project with an immense legacy beyond what high-level balance sheets show: hundreds of new skilled trades apprenticeship opportunities for Canadians and indigenous peoples, more than 35,000 jobs during the construction, hundreds more for maintenance and environmental monitoring, and downstream multiplier jobs and economic benefits throughout Canada for the input materials in fabrication and welding shops right across our country.
Canadians should be proud of what our skilled trades workers, engineers and contractors managed to accomplish. We should learn important lessons for the future about workforce planning, regulatory efficiency and labour procurement, so that major project delivery can be improved in the future.
I thank you, and I look forward to today's discussion.
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 , 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.
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 ; , the natural resources minister;; 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.
:
Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here today from Fort McMurray.
It's frustrating beyond belief that we're sitting here debating a motion that is so anti-Alberta. I know that members opposite did point of order after point of order the last time we met, trying to justify that having a massive preamble that talks about Alberta only in a negative light is somehow not attacking my province—your province, Mr. Chair. However, it is.
I'm not sure how members opposite can sit there, especially members from the Liberal Party, and continually attack the province of Alberta and just treat it like a cash cow. That's exactly how so many people feel. I know that when I'm home in Alberta, talking to people on the streets, out in the grocery stores and throughout our communities, I hear that they feel like the Liberal government doesn't listen to them. They feel like they are the whipping boy for.... It will very happily take the resource money, but they don't feel like they're supported in any other way by the government.
This motion furthers that, because it continues a negative tone with regard to the province of Alberta, honing in on abandoned and orphaned wells only in Alberta and not even going off fact. It's not like the preamble uses verified facts that came from, perhaps, the Alberta Energy Regulator or other sources. It's literally from a news article, and it has charged language.
However, this is what we've come to expect from a government that shows no mercy when it comes to our province. It's frustrating how it continually puts Alberta in such a negative light. This is one of the challenges that we're going to continue facing on this committee as long as that preamble is part of this motion. It is something that tells every single person in Alberta that they are welcome to work in the energy industry as long as the government is getting some resources revenue from it. However, the government doesn't really respect them.
I don't think that's the kind of message we should be sending to Albertans. That's not the kind of message we should be sending to Canadians. We should be working to unite people, not divide them. This motion, from its very preamble, seeks to divide. It doesn't seek to unite. It's very frustrating as we sit here.
I will continue debating this because, frankly, Mr. Chair, this is an attack on your province. This isn't just an attack on people in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. This is an attack on energy workers who work in Calgary. Many people actually commute regularly from Calgary to the oil sands, whether they be in Fort McMurray, in Cold Lake or in Bonnyville. There are a lot of people who work throughout Alberta in the energy industry and live in Edmonton or Calgary. However, specifically, they live in Calgary. I talk to many of them on a fairly regular basis. This is one of the things that they find so frustrating. They find that this Liberal government, led by , has passed its expiry date and doesn't seem to be interested in finding solutions. Instead, it focuses on dividing Canadians.
This motion here, with the preamble that is such an affront to Alberta, is yet another proof point that this government isn't listening. If Liberal members were really serious, they wouldn't have done point of order after point of order because we were upset that their preamble did, in fact, attack our province of Alberta. They would simply have tried to find some way of not doing it to begin with.
Once you do it, however, you need to apologize, and you need to make things better. There has been none of that from your government, Mr. Chair, which is really sad for the people of Alberta. I think this is one of these places where it is so incumbent on us as legislators to make sure that we are doing things and are keeping in mind the words and the actions we use.
Frankly, this is not something that I can support. This is not something that Conservatives can support. This is not something that Albertans support, because this is a problem.
Until that preamble is removed in its entirety, there is no way we can actually have a fulsome, real conversation on the substance of this motion. The preamble attacks the very province I come from and that you come from, Mr. Chair.
As such, I'm going to cede the floor to my colleagues, but I would urge every single person to vote against this motion. It is not a motion that's been put forward in good faith. If it was put forward in good faith, I'm telling you right now it's not being received in good faith; therefore, it needs to change.
I'm going to cede the floor.
I was wondering if you could confirm what the speaking order is.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's absolutely a pleasure for me to speak today on this motion put forward by my colleague, MP Dabrusin. I know it was amended by MP Simard, and we're happy to support the motion as amended.
My colleague who just spoke, Mrs. Goodridge, spoke last week as well. There are a couple of things in her commentary that I really would like to address.
First of all, whenever we bring a motion to the table, it's never about the preamble; it's about the actual motion. What we're voting on is the last stanza in the motion, which is what is calling for action. The rest of it is basically not as relevant. However, if she's offended by a comment, she should not be, because it's just stating the facts very clearly.
I want to run through that motion to start with, because I think it's important for people to understand the context in which this motion is being brought forward.
First of all, if you remember, during the pandemic and subsequent to that, there were a lot of issues around the oil and gas sector and the impact of it on companies, workers and so on. The Government of Canada did a deal, I guess, with Alberta, or they did a deal to invest in the cleanup of abandoned and orphaned wells in the region.
In Alberta, a number of these wells were identified—up to 1,800 to 2,000. In Saskatchewan, a number of wells were identified. That's why these two provinces are mentioned. They are the only two that received federal government money to do orphaned and abandoned well cleanup, which is a responsibility of the provincial governments, not of the federal government.
First of all, that's why they are mentioned in the preamble. Again, the preamble basically has no influence in terms of what the motion is.
The motion itself is calling on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to:
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.
That's the motion that's before us on the table.
My friend seems to be hung up on the fact that two provinces are mentioned in the preamble. One is Alberta and one is Saskatchewan. I reiterate that they are mentioned because they have the largest number of orphaned and abandoned wells. They also are the only provinces receiving federal government money.
The motion itself is very clear, but the preamble does allude to the fact that Alberta sent back $137 million of federal government money that was provided to it to clean up these abandoned wells and create jobs during the pandemic. The whole idea was to reduce pollution, reduce our environmental footprint, clean up the orphaned and abandoned wells and keep Albertans and people in Saskatchewan working and in jobs.
The Alberta government made a choice that it did not want to spend this money. It did not want to clean up these 1,800 to 2,000 orphaned and abandoned wells. That's why it returned the money.
The purpose of the study is to look at those wells. How important is it that they be cleaned up? How important is it that the right federal regulations be in place to hold these companies accountable? It's to look at what the opportunities are for cleaning up abandoned wells and report those findings back to the House of Commons. It's very simple. There's nothing complicated about any of this whatsoever.
I think my colleague is really bogged down with information that has absolutely nothing to do with it but really is just conceived, at this point, as a speaking point for herself.
You know, if she wants to see what a real attack on a province looks like, I'm going to give her the example of Bill . I sat through this committee for over two months while the Conservative caucus filibustered Bill C-49. They used every second of time they could in this committee to bring forward fictitious motions and to make comments that had no real impact whatsoever on Bill C-49. It was an intentional means to filibuster the bill, to hold Newfoundland and Labrador hostage to this committee and to the House of Commons, simply because they did not want to pass this piece of legislation.
Just like the Harper government before them, they did not believe that Newfoundland and Labrador should have any special agreement or rights when it came to oil and gas. They obviously felt that Bill was going to afford this province once again an opportunity to earn royalties, create real jobs and produce clean offshore wind energy. As a result, they held the bill hostage, and they held our province hostage and our workforce hostage, and they held up big projects.
That, my friend, is what you call holding a province back, and that's exactly what the Conservative Party did. They held back the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they held back the province of Nova Scotia as it relates to wanting to lead clean offshore wind energy in their provinces.
What we are doing today is supporting Alberta, supporting Saskatchewan and supporting a clean environment for Canadians, making sure that when we have abandoned wells that are left behind, there is a mechanism to get those wells cleaned up, to reduce the amount of pollution in the environment but also to create very important, well-paying jobs in these provinces.
No one should be offended by that. I can honestly tell you that there is tremendous support, especially on my side, for Alberta and especially for Fort McMurray, where I have many constituents who live and work. I have family members and close relatives, a sister who lives out there. It's not about being offside with any province.
I take exception to her comments around that. That is not what the motion is asking for at all. The motion is very clear. I don't want to read it over, but I think anyone who can comprehend the language in the bill will see that it is not offensive to any province or territory. Rather, it is a mechanism by which we make sure that abandoned wells, no matter what province they're in—in this case, it happens to be in Alberta—can be cleaned up, and it can be done in a way that is very practical and engaging for the community.
It allows businesses to make money. It allows workers to gain opportunities. It allows the province to be able to talk about the great work they're doing in cleaning up abandoned wells and creating a clean, fresh, new environment to enable other opportunities to proceed. We see this as a win-win situation, so I take great exception to that, because I have a lot of time and a lot of support for the province of Alberta, just like I do for my own province and the other provinces and territories in the country.
Any time we bring forward a motion like this, it is always with the best of intentions. It is never to undermine or to single out any particular region, any particular industry or any particular province. Just like every single day in the Government of Canada and in this country, there are debates around legislation; there are debates around projects, and there are differences of opinion on how we move forward and what is best. I think, at the end of the day, our collective goal is the same, and that is to do the best we can for Canadians.
In this case, the Government of Canada felt that orphaned and abandoned wells, especially when you're looking at up to 2,000 of them in one particular region of the country, are something that we should be addressing as a government. We stepped up to address that and very simply made the funding available so that, when people were displaced during the pandemic, they would have an opportunity to gather other employment, to have new, well-paying jobs created in their economy that they could solicit and work in. They would be able to bring stability to their own income and that of their family and still contribute to their province. This is not a bad thing.
We know it's going to cost over $200 million to clean up these wells, and why the provincial government in Alberta would return $137 million to the federal government without creating those jobs in their own province for their own people, without even putting these contracts out to tender for local companies to do the work.... They were satisfied to allow up to 2,000 abandoned and orphaned wells to just continue to exist, to continue to cause pollution in the economy and in the environment. We know it's having a negative impact, and any scientists or studies that have been done on orphaned and abandoned wells will certainly substantiate that information.
The motion is simple. It's very clear. In my opinion, it's the smart thing to do.
I also want to address a couple of other comments that came up. Obviously, one was with regard to the Alberta piece, so I hope I've been able to clarify that. This has nothing to do with the province of Alberta in terms of giving them a black mark. It has everything to do with giving them a hand up, giving them some assistance on cleaning up orphaned and abandoned wells—which is the right thing to do in Canada—providing them money to create jobs in their local community, to give businesses and contractors opportunities they didn't have.
Again, it comes back to the overarching message that Conservatives refuse to believe in doing anything that is helpful for the environment. They refuse to accept that we are in an environmental crisis. They refuse to accept that reducing pollution is the way forward to a clean economy and to a better world for all of us, and certainly a better Canada. They have only to look in their own province and see what happened in Jasper last year to know that climate change is real and is impacting our communities in a very real way.
When you look at the fact that more than nearly 240 structures were lost in Jasper in that fire, including people's homes, businesses, bridges, roads and other pieces of infrastructure, this is very serious environmental damage that is occurring because of climate pressure. If we don't accept that that is real and start drastically making more changes in society, we're going to see a lot more of it.
In Canada, in 2023, we had 15 million hectares of land destroyed by fire in the environment. This affects animals, plants, communities, people, homes and everything of that nature. Normally in Canada, we would have had fires that would have destroyed probably about 2 million hectares a year, on average. To go to 15 million hectares is huge. It's one of the largest. It is the largest in Canada, and it's a trend that we don't want to see continue. We're also seeing it in other parts of the country, not just in Alberta, but Albertans have had their share of wildfires. Even their firefighters are saying that these fires are different: They're more rapid; they're more aggressive; they require specific and specialized training; they require a response that has not been seen in the past when it comes to these kinds of wildfires.
The experts who are out there in the field fighting these fires are the people who are saying that. That's why, in Canada, we want to set up the fire training facility of excellence. We want to train firefighters across Canada so that they are able to deal with specialized situations and the changing and aggressive wildfires that we're seeing today.
They don't have to look far to know that capping orphan and abandoned wells is a critical part of our response to reducing pollution, to protecting the environment and trying to avoid major wildfires like the ones we saw in Jasper this year. Even in my own riding this year, I've had two communities evacuated, up to 10,000 people at a time. When you live in the north, it's even more complicated. You don't always have a road out, and if you have a road out, it's usually only one road out. That causes serious life-and-death situations in many communities.
Just think: In Canada today, when we are evacuating some of these communities, we're having to do it by air. In my own riding, we evacuated hospitals and long-term care facilities in the middle of the night by aircraft to the nearest other hospitals and facilities. This is what Canadians are dealing with every single day in this country, whether it be floods, fires or major storms. This is what we're dealing with.
We believe firmly, as does the world—except for Conservatives—that this is very much instigated by changes in the environment. We know that our job is to try in every way possible to reduce pollution without having major impacts on the lives of Canadians. I know we're not always going to agree on how we do that. However, surely we can agree that when the Government of Canada gives a province the money to clean up abandoned and orphaned wells that are causing pollution as a means of making the environment a cleaner, more pristine place and to create jobs for people, then the province should at least step up to try to do that.
I'd like to make sure that this is on the record and that people understand that there is a real reason behind doing this. It's partly to create jobs and to give businesses new opportunities, but the huge part of this is the environment, as well, and cleaning the environment, making sure that we have the resources and the potential available that people need.
Mr. Chair, I'm hoping that the motion will pass. I hope that members opposite will see that there's value and importance in this, and that they will not get caught up in the fact that Alberta is singled out. The reality is that Alberta does have these numbers of abandoned and orphaned wells, and the reality is that the Government of Canada is giving Alberta a cheque to deal with it, to create jobs, to give businesses more opportunity, and to clean up these orphaned and abandoned wells.
No one should take offence to it. It is a good program for Alberta, just like it was a good program for Saskatchewan. We want to make sure that it gets implemented and done properly. We don't need to belabour this issue. It's very, very simple; the writing is very clear. I would ask that colleagues support this motion so that we can pass it and move on to the study in committee, where every member will have the opportunity to make whatever points they want to make around this motion. Whether they support it or are against it, they will have the opportunity to lay that out in the committee and to make their points. However, as it is right now, the Government of Canada stands by Alberta. We stand by our policies on the environment. We know that climate change is real. We know that doing the right thing is the way forward. This is the right thing. Including Alberta, supporting Alberta financially, giving Albertans jobs, giving businesses in Alberta a new opportunity for contracts and, at the same time, reducing pollution.... That is a way forward for all of us. It's a win-win.
I would ask all members of the committee to support the motion put forward by MP Dabrusin.
:
I was just getting started, so I'm sure if the member would allow me the time, she would be able to listen and find out what exactly it is I'm about to say. She can derive from that what she will.
What I was getting at was being factual and making sure, if we're going to have motions before us, that they actually be based on fact and on reason.
I'm going to go back to this minister's statement here, because I was just talking about the difference between abandoned wells and orphaned wells.
The minister in 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'd think that an MP sitting on this particular committee would know something about the industry they and their staff are supposed to monitor.”
The reason I read that, Mr. Chair, is that when I was looking on the Alberta Energy Regulator's website, I saw that there is a process in place for how to decommission a well. There's also monitoring that is required for an abandoned well to make sure that there are no leaks. If there are leaks, then it is incumbent upon the company that is responsible for that well to make sure there's a process in place to either stop the leak or continue to monitor it if the levels are below the regulated level of concern.
It's important to know that there is actually already a very strict process in place in Alberta for how to properly deal with an abandoned well.
The difference between an abandoned well and an orphaned well, as you know, is that with an orphaned well there is no longer a company that the liabilities can be attached to. As we know, the Orphan Well Association in the province of Alberta has done quite well at cleaning up the wells. It closed 622 sites in 2023-24 alone, which was up 44% from the year before.
When you look at what they are actually doing in that province, they are doing a good job of getting on top of a very difficult situation. It is one that the province is pushing very hard to make sure is properly taken care of.
Beyond that, we have the issue of jurisdiction. Obviously, natural resources development is provincial jurisdiction. The provinces have their processes in place, as I just outlined, in regard to abandoned and orphaned wells and how to deal with them. They are doing what they need to do on that.
When you look at the money that was allocated to the province of Alberta—they were given $1 billion—every penny of it was allocated for cleanup. I think it's important to note that the minister from Alberta did say that they had asked for an extension from the federal government to be able to get these wells cleaned up and to be able to spend the remaining monies, which was $137 million.
When they've asked for an extension, that means they were told no. That means the federal government didn't want them to spend that remaining $137 million, because it didn't agree with the manner in which the province was looking to spend the money within its own jurisdiction, which was its right to do.
I think it's very interesting to note as well that they were looking to partner with Treaties 6, 7 and 8, to spend that $137 million to make sure that these abandoned and orphaned wells could be cleaned up.
I'm just going to read another quote from a letter that the Treaty 7 First Nation Chiefs' Association wrote to , in which they said:
To date, First Nation contractors and the Nations have successfully reclaimed over 1,600 well sites utilizing the FNSRP funds in a safe, responsible, and efficient manner. The transfer of the $134 million from Alberta to FNSRP is required to allow for a seamless continuation of these successes.
That's who they are looking to partner with. It's an organization that has the skill set, the labour force and the knowledge to be able to properly go through this process.
Now, I suppose the Province of Alberta could have spent $137 million on a bunch of random contractors who don't necessarily have the knowledge, the skill set or the wherewithal to get it done, or a track record of getting it done, which is something that we have continually seen this Liberal government do when it comes to many of the different spending scandals. None rings any truer than that of GC Strategies, which got hundreds of millions of dollars to be an IT company run out of a basement and actually did no IT work. That's just one of several scandals that have happened.
When the province is looking to find contractors of this magnitude and success, you'd think that the federal government would actually listen to that proposal and would be willing to enter into and accept the province's request to have an extension to get it done, particularly since it would be the federal government's responsibility to make sure that these wells are cleaned up on first nations land.
That fact is being ignored by this motion. The fact that the Province of Alberta was the one that was willing to work here to see that they would have funding available to clean up wells on their lands says all that you need to know about the intent and the focus of this particular government.
We heard a lot of talk about the preamble. I mentioned earlier that, in the book of practices, it's recommended to not include a preamble in a motion, but I think that when we look at the context of what is in it, it says a lot about the heart of this government. Division is all that I see in here, because we know that abandoned orphaned wells are not an Alberta problem. They're not a Saskatchewan problem. They exist all across this country. If this were about the government tackling the issue of abandoned wells and orphaned wells and their cleanup or their reclamation, seeing them done properly all throughout the industry, then, of course, the preamble would include mention of the fact that this is a lot more than just an Alberta issue.
However, they're specifically pointing the finger at the province of Alberta. I take great offence to that, because there are many people from Saskatchewan who work in Alberta. We hear the joke regularly, and I've heard it said of a few different provinces in the maritimes, so I'll generalize it, I guess. It's that the second largest city in Newfoundland is Fort McMurray. Now, that's because people from Newfoundland, and also from other provinces in the Atlantic region, regularly fly out there to work. There are a great number of people working in Fort McMurray and the area who are from other parts of this country.
I think it's important to note that this is an industry that supports workers across the country, but the issue of abandoned wells and orphaned wells goes far beyond just the province of Alberta. To deliberately write in here, “Well, Alberta didn't do this, but Saskatchewan did that,” is a way of pitting one province against another, the two provinces that just happen to be the biggest energy-producing provinces in the country.
I think that it's not proper for the government to do that. I think it should be focusing on how it can be productive in a way that would unite the country, and in a way that would speak well of the industry that this committee is actually supposed to be working to support, and that is not what we are seeing from the preamble of this motion by the Liberals.
Now, that's also why, when our colleague from the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to include federal regulations in there, at least that brought a little bit of the scope of this motion to where it should lie, which is actually in federal jurisdiction, federal regulations, and not meddling in the province's jurisdiction. I'm grateful that at least my colleague from the Bloc is mindful of provincial jurisdiction and the important role it plays in the way our country operates.
If the government were serious about trying to do something on this issue, then members would have made sure that the scope of the motion was actually proper, and in the preamble they would have indicated that this was about dealing with a nationwide issue and not just trying to dump on one particular region of the country.
Now, Mr. Chair, part of why we are where we are today is also that you still haven't provided this committee with a schedule for our work going forward. The only way I knew what we were up to today was based on the notice of meeting that was sent out by the clerk.
Thank you, Clerk, for that.
Mr. Chair, what's been requested of you numerous times, looking for clarity going forward, is a way for us to best plan out what we are going to do as a committee. It would be a lot simpler to look at scheduling some of these motions that have been put on notice or that are being debated here today. It would be better to have a sense of where and when we could fit these motions in if we actually knew what our schedule was.
That, Chair, is where your role comes into play. I think it would be incumbent upon you to distribute a schedule of what you have planned going forward for this committee. This is something that I have seen regularly from other committees. In fact, when I was a member of this committee previously, that was a regular practice that the chair at the time undertook. They made sure that a proper schedule was sent out to all members, so that we could focus on the work rather than jumping back and forth to all these different studies.
Then there's the fact that we haven't even finished some reports and some other studies that we've almost gotten through. You could have those scheduled out, but you don't. You haven't bothered to put that in writing for us as a committee to see where we are. I think that would be a great place for you to try to at least attempt to show some leadership of this committee. That would go a long way to helping us be able to do our work.
This is why we proposed an amendment to try to strike the preamble from the motion, but also to indicate that this study shouldn't take place until after a carbon tax election, when Canadians can have a say on who's going to run this country going forward. Based on the way things are going in the House of Commons these days, we know that this Parliament probably isn't long on time here. We probably wouldn't be able to finish this study anyway, so we might as well push it off until after the next election.
That was what we tried to do, Chair, but you ruled it out of order. You said we can't strike the preamble, even though it is a common practice listed in the big green book that we shouldn't include preambles in these motions anyway.
If you could provide us a schedule, Chair, that would be very helpful.
We heard the member opposite talk about how the preamble isn't “relevant”. Well, if it's not relevant, then why was it included in the first place? On what I just said about the preamble not being required, you'd think the government would have accepted our amendment to strike the preamble if it's not relevant. If it's not relevant, then why would you use it deliberately as wording, or why would the government use it deliberately as wording, to deliberately slag on one of the provinces of our country? That's very clear. The government has made it very clear what its intent is. Its intent is to point fingers at the province of Alberta and to try to pit one region against the other, which is something it has continually done for over nine years in government. We are continuing to see that from the government with this motion.
I would like members to be serious. I'd like them to take into consideration the fact that Canadians have pretty firmly let it be known to this government that they're tired of their divisive tactics. They're looking for some unity. They're looking for some knowledge, at least, on some of the topics we're talking about here. I mean, if the parliamentary secretary knew a little about what was going on in natural resources, she would know that the preamble isn't even based on facts or on relevance. I think that would go a long way as well. The preamble would have given her a chance to show that she actually knows what's going on in the industry, but it's been made abundantly clear here, with the misinformation that's in here....
Mr. Chair, there's another point I want to talk about briefly. It's about what happened in Jasper. Now, I think it's important to note for viewers that both the current and the previous environment minister, Catherine McKenna, were told that the forests in and around Jasper, within Jasper National Park, were a tinderbox waiting to ignite. The warning was given a long time ago.
Actually, I believe my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, who opened the meeting.... No. I'm sorry. It was the member from Yellowhead. It was the member from Yellowhead's predecessor who spoke about this particular issue on this committee and in the House of Commons about a decade ago already. He warned this government that the conditions were ripe for the forest to ignite around the townsite of Jasper, and for this type of destruction to occur.
The member mentioned that at the time, and both ministers—the current one and the former one—were warned. They were notified that this was a problem and that they needed to deal with it. Catherine McKenna was asked to come to testify at the environment committee about what she knew about the briefings that she received on this, and she said no. Now, if she was so confident in her decision to ignore the warnings that were coming from both inside and outside, then you'd think she'd be able to come and confidently speak about that and her time as minister. She refuses to do so because she knows that she was wrong to ignore the warnings that were coming to her, both from the opposition and also from government officials.
Then, for them to try to equate abandoned and orphaned wells to the reason that the townsite of Jasper burned to the ground is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous, Mr. Chair. It's quite embarrassing for Canadians and for people who live in Jasper that the government would go to those lengths to try to say that was the reason it happened, when we know, based on emails that were made public, that it's abundantly clear that this government deliberately chose to do nothing because of political optics and what would happen if they actually took seriously the job of making sure our forests were properly managed.
I was on this committee previously when we talked to some people within the forestry industry. One of a number of issues they brought up a couple years ago was cleaning up the dead wood that's fallen on the forest floor and all the undergrowth that's in there. That was something they warned us about in this very committee just a couple of short years ago, Mr. Chair, and nothing was done by the government.
Now, the member opposite also talked about letting the experts do their job. Well, the experts trying to do their job were firefighters. When it came time to put out the fire, Parks Canada wouldn't let the firefighters enter the townsite to do their job, so what more...? For her to talk about letting experts do their job when they literally wouldn't let the experts do their job is absolutely appalling. To let the townsite burn the way they did by not letting firefighters in is absolutely ridiculous. It's important to make sure that we have that record straight.
Now, the other thing she talked about was that Conservatives were pointing fingers at her province and region with Bill . Well, obviously, she didn't quite catch the drift of what we were talking about on Bill C-49, Mr. Chair, because at the time, Bill C-49 had no fewer than 37 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. We firmly believed—and there were many experts within the industry and people in her own province who also agreed—that making sure there was regulatory certainty was of utmost importance.
Bill was the modernization of the Atlantic Accord, which Conservatives supported. However, what we didn't support was the inclusion of the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. At the time that we were debating it here in this committee, the government did nothing to change that and gave no indication as to when it would do so, other than to say, “Well, at a later date we will get to it.” It wasn't until the budget implementation act came through that we finally saw the government take action on changes to the Impact Assessment Act.
Mr. Chair, I assume that you know this, seeing as how you yourself are from Alberta, but the Province of Alberta once again told the government that it is going to be seeking legal action against the federal government because it believes that the Impact Assessment Act is still unconstitutional and that there are still some outstanding issues around standing, ministerial discretion and things like that, amongst other things that are still unconstitutional because they were part of what was ruled unconstitutional before and still haven't been changed.
If the member opposite were concerned about what's happening in her province, then she would want to have absolute certainty in the Impact Assessment Act and not have an unconstitutional element to it still going forward. That's something we wanted to have addressed at that particular time: It's still something we want to have addressed today when it comes to the Impact Assessment Act.
In the study that we were previously on, Mr. Chair, you'll remember that we had multiple witnesses come to this committee and once again tell us that there are still outstanding issues with the Impact Assessment Act. There is no indication that this government is going to take that seriously and seek to have that uncertainty dealt with and resolved in order for private business to have absolute certainty going forward for the next project that they want to build. We know that there is a need and demand for more pipelines to be built in this country. We're going to be at capacity by 2028, and there will be a need for more export capacity in this country.
There are a lot of things going on here that I think ultimately need to be addressed.
Getting back to a different point, Mr. Chair, that's why the schedule would be helpful to this committee. It's so we know where we're at with these things. That way we'll know when our next meeting is going to be on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. I know that it says on the screen that we're debating today, but that's not what we're debating today; we're debating a motion that has to do with orphaned and abandoned wells.
Mr. Chair, I think that is where I'm going to wrap up my remarks at this particular point in time. I know that my colleague from Alberta, Mr. Dreeshen, will have lots to say as well. I look forward to hearing from somebody who's from Alberta talk about what's happening in his province on this issue, and not somebody from downtown Toronto, as the parliamentary secretary is.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I had a few comments previously on this motion. I know that, as you were mentioning, the preamble is something that maybe shouldn't be there. Of course, we've had others who say, well, all we're doing is trying to set the stage.
I have a few points to make on the preamble, and I'll go to the part that was presented in the main motion. It moves that “the Standing Committee on Natural Resources begin a five-meeting study on the impact of this failure”—I don't know which failure we are speaking of—“to clean these wells”. We did have at least a recognition that if we were dealing with national issues, it should be the whole country rather than just in Alberta, so we did cancel that off.
It continues with, “the impacts of the pollution from not cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells”. Of course, we did have that discussion with Mr. Patzer a moment ago about the difference between abandoned wells, which are at that stage because they are safe—they're still on the books but they are safe, at that point—versus the potential with orphaned wells, because they may or may not be safe. This is the aspect that is there.
However, going back to the preamble, it doesn't say that. It says, “There are 1,600 abandoned and orphaned oil wells in Alberta polluting farmland, waterways, and air”. There's an inaccuracy there. Of course, that, then, becomes part of the actual motion. People get the idea that there is something extremely wrong taking place, but that certainly isn't the way it is.
Then they discuss “regulations to hold companies to account for well cleanup”. That's already there. That's what the Alberta energy resources regulatory group is for. It says, “the potential opportunities associated with cleaning up abandoned wells, and report its findings to the House.”
When I look at that, one thing that is significant is the opportunity for cleaning up abandoned wells and the kinds of other things that can be done. There are different choices as to how you're going to deal with that. Are you just going to close them in? Are you going to use them so that you can sequester carbon and then maybe try to regenerate and rejuvenate the pools that are there? That is certainly a discussion that has some merit.
Again, if one can't or doesn't understand what abandoned wells and orphaned wells are, then one is demonizing everything that is taking place.
There's another aspect that I really want to dwell on today. This is where it says, “The Government of Alberta sent back $137 million”—I think it's $136 million, but that's beside the point—“because they failed to use the funds provided by the Government of Canada to clean up abandoned wells and create jobs in the pandemic”. Again, this is a statement that maybe numerically has some sense; however, it doesn't address the true facts. This is what I presented last day: Those dollars that were being discussed, of course, were to have been spent on first nations land. Rather than simply saying that they'd get just anybody to go in there and reclaim it, the Alberta government worked extremely closely with first nations so that they could take on that responsibility.
Of course, it does take a bit of time to make that happen, and therefore it became an issue. One could have said, “We can find some of the other companies that have been doing the rest of it. We can put them into the first nations and push them aside,” but there are two things here. First of all, that isn't how we do things there. Second, it's on federal land. I mean, it's a fact. I know that people are not overly proud of it, but it's a responsibility that the federal government should be dealing with.
Then, if you take a look at the actual numbers, you'll see that it's $133.3 million that was to have been spent out of the $137 million. I guess, if you want to be nitpicky, there's perhaps $3 million that would have been in the fund that the Alberta government could have then maybe cleaned up two wells or something like that with, but that's being pretty nitpicky.
Here, then, you have this government trying to make a point about the irresponsibility of the provincial government, and it all says that. It goes through it. It lays that out constantly in every part of the preamble and in the actual motion, even though we tried to change it a bit—and with you, Mr. Chair, being able to make the change in that motion.
We have all of that, but there is zero recognition for the fact that the government knew that this $137 million was allocated to cleanup on first nations. That in no way, shape or form has come into any of this motion. It comes in only because we know that—
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
We don't see in the main motion that it talks about any recognition of what that money was allocated for, and I think that is significant. Of course, that would indicate that maybe this government isn't paying attention to that, or maybe it just felt that taking this blunt instrument and hitting Alberta with it would be the thing to do at this particular point in time, and failed to understand—and I do agree on this part—that if we were to bring in the experts, they would make this government look ridiculous, because it is not paying attention to this. There is that fact.
Probably we will all get a chance to vote on whether or not we want to bring experts in to make this government look ridiculous. I don't think it will be a problem; however, here is where the problem lies. We have all of the misinformation that is being presented by the government. We have a lack of acknowledgement of where this comes from. However, that isn't going to change. We've heard the comments this morning in the discussion and previously as to why Liberal members think this is such a great idea—so that isn't going to change. They will have people come in to talk, and I'm sure they are great witnesses, but they'll talk about something that is completely unrelated to the $137 million. However, that's not the point. The point is, throw this into the mix and see where we go from there.
I really want to go back again to the actual main motion part, and I'll come back to what first nations were asking and hoping for.
It says, “The Standing Committee of Natural Resources begin a...study on the impact of this failure”. That's why they have to keep a preamble in, because of this failure they are speaking of and “to clean [up] these wells”. Therefore, they have to say, well, no, they don't care about all the abandoned and orphaned wells all over the country; it's just this, because, of course, there were some dollars associated with it—which is an argument, but that's it.
Again, we had previously, with Mr. Simard, taken away the “in Alberta” part to try to make it a pan-Canadian argument, at least.
Again, they still speak to “the impacts of the pollution from not cleaning up abandoned and orphaned wells”, which my colleague, Mr. Patzer, so eloquently described as the difference. If people don't know that, maybe that is again a good thing for us to understand. We have five meetings to deal with this. We could maybe look at the AER's reports and maybe have the Government of Alberta present something to this committee. That's five meetings about how the government doesn't know that it has a responsibility for first nations. Some days I think I wouldn't mind pointing it out for that length of time, but I think it's obvious just in the fact that it was presented this way.
To be perfectly honest, after we had the discussion last week, I believe, on this, I honestly felt that we were going to come here, and the government was going to say that maybe this motion wasn't that important after all, and that maybe they should just take this off, because they were going to look so stupid if they pushed this thing forward. However, that was not the case, and here we are taking a look at this in that way.
It says, “Companies who abandon wells and fail to pay for their cleanup negatively impact provincial taxpayers and municipalities”. That is true, but there are processes in place that deal with that. There always have been. To hear, as Ms. Jones mentioned earlier, about how you would expect Alberta.... They don't have a track record of environmentalism.... That is so much nonsense.
I've mentioned before—and Mrs. Goodridge was speaking earlier about this—that when you go to Fort McMurray and take a look at the the mining site that is there, and then you turn 180 degrees to look at the forest that is there, you think, boy, look at what they're doing. They're taking these terrible forests and they're digging them up. No: They're digging them up and making them then into beautiful forests.
There's a 40-year responsibility for the companies before their responsibility is released. I've been up there. After 20 years, you can't tell the difference. There are no scars. There's nothing like that. It is an amazing type of technology to help in the removal of the natural oil spill, that is, the oil sands, in preventing it from getting to the rivers. I mean, that's the reality of it.
The point is, that's what reclamation is. I know that my good friend, Mr. Angus, has spoken a lot about mining sites. That's what this is—it's a mining site. If you can find a way to reclaim it, then you would think that the people there should stand up and be proud of it. I'm sure that in mining, whether it's in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes or wherever, they are proud of those, where they can make that difference.
Albertans are proud of what they do and the difference they make. We could go down the list of things that we excel at on a worldwide level. I hearken back to when I first got involved in politics, which is now just a little over 16 years ago. One of the guys came to me and said not to let anybody tell me that there's anything wrong with Canada's oil and gas industry. The only country that comes close to the environmental record of Canadian oil and gas is Australia. The only reason they do is that they are implementing the processes that Alberta has. That's what we're dealing with here.
When we talk about the great technology and the opportunities to sell this around the world, what we've been met with by this government is that it doesn't really want to do that. It doesn't want oil and gas development, if there's any way that it can stop that. The world is going this way, we hear from the , and we hear this from other folks who have something to say on the issue. That, too, is nonsense.
All that does is take the hundreds of billions of dollars of potential investment and put it into other countries.
I was just speaking with a gentleman who does business around the world. They're frustrated, but their next project is going to be in Kazakhstan. There's going to be oil coming out of there. It is a Canadian company, but it could have been done by Canadian workers. It could have been done so that the tax dollars go to the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal governments.
That could have been it, but our mindset is that the only things we want to have in the future are windmills and solar panels. That's how we will create that intermittent power that we need. I've heard people say that once we've developed this massive battery storage concept, then we'll be able to deal with that.
In the meantime, the rest of the world, even if they think it's what they want to do and even if they believe that having those particular types of renewables is a good idea, is still using oil and gas. They are cranking it up in other countries. They are still using their coal.
They're cranking it up, because they know that's how they can manufacture.... They know that's how they can get things done. They know that's how they can compete against people such as ourselves, who have handcuffed our industries. They just run over us, so of course, when we say.... Why don't we think about where the future is going to be? We can get where people believe we should be, or could be in decades from now, by becoming more efficient and everything else.
In the meantime, shutting our industry down.... This is just one shot across the bow. I mean, we see this constantly. Us shutting our industry down is simply going to mean that the rest of the world is going to take up the slack. You know, I sometimes think about eventual failures of governments, eventual failures of nations, eventual failures of economic systems. If we lose control over our natural resources, and some other country says, “You know what, we'll take over,” right now, it's simply as investments, so there's competition at least. If you have no more control, and you think that now we'll just stand back, and we'll have another motion at some committee meeting to say, “Oh, that's not a good idea,” well, we won't be able to control that. I think that's one of the main issues.
I'd like just now to go back to the first nations rehabilitation program. This report came from January 29 of this year. Basically, what they're talking about.... I'll read some of it. The Government of Alberta developed the liability management framework to mitigate the risk associated with aging infrastructure and site rehabilitation. With this, it confirmed funding to first nations and Métis communities. There is a list. I'm not going to go through all of it, because I know there are others who would like to make comments.
They go through all of the different first nations and the value of the projects for those communities. One close to myself is Ermineskin Cree—there was $2.6 million for that community. For Louis Bull it was $1.7 million. These are just some of the ones that are close. For Sunchild it was $1.2 million.
This goes through where these many millions of dollars aren't going to be spent. The government chose, for political grandstanding, to pull that money out. Now, it has to live with the fact that it pulled it out of first nations communities. It has to live with the fact that first nations, with the Alberta government's assistance, were trying to build up their capability and to manage these wells and the cleanups on their land.
First nations did not wish to be shell companies, where somebody simply says, “Oh, I think we can check off a box that says that we have a first nation running this,” and then have others come in and reap the benefits. That's not what first nations in my province do. It's not what other first nations...because I've spent many years on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in my time here. That's not what they do. They look after themselves and what is needed there. They don't allow a government to come in and say, “Oh, we need to check off a box that says that we have first nations participation.” I think you're starting to see that now when the discussions are coming in place.
If not, I will tell you that in my discussions with first nations financial organizations, they are livid about the fact that they are being short-shrifted on this, simply for this government to check off a box and to say, “Oh yeah, we had this first nation working with us.”
That's not what's happening in Alberta, because there is a respect for the industriousness of first nations people, certainly in my province, and I think that's very critical.
Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close on this, but I do want to leave us with some of this information, especially when I'm speaking about the first nations. This is from the Treaty 8 First Nations in Alberta and the office of the Grand Chief, in December of last year, to honourable , and it says:
On December 11, 2023, the Chiefs of Treaty 6, 7 and 8, met to discuss the First Nations Site Rehabilitation Program...and the $134-million Site Rehabilitation monies unspent by the Alberta Government, and the request of the Government of Canada for these dollars to be returned as savings, instead of being invested to achieve their intended purpose. The same group of Chiefs have unanimously agreed the federal government should allow the $134 million FSRP monies that the province currently holds to be placed into the FNSR Program, providing much needed funds to continue the successful work that has been accomplished by us—
They're already working. It's not like it's ground zero and we're starting this up. They said:
If we continue status quo, both the provincial government, the federal governments and industry would be leaving over 3,000 sites to be abandoned or reclaimed on First Nations lands and territories.
Three thousand.... Maybe we could take a look at what the preamble says. This is what they are talking about. If the chiefs who sat down and talked with me in my office got a chance to explain what they think of this government and its heavy-handed approach, that might be a very interesting meeting, but it's going to be an embarrassment for this government.
As I've said, there's still time. They could pull, change or get rid of the preamble and talk about just learning something about what abandoned and orphaned wells are. If that's all it said, I think it would be a much easier plan and then maybe.... We probably would point it out anyway, but maybe this government wouldn't be so embarrassed for the actions that it is placing on the table. If members are simply trying to set up some narratives for during the carbon tax election, to say, well, look at what we tried to do, and these guys didn't care.... If that's what their thoughts are, I guess that could be debated at another time.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll try to collect my thoughts again as to where I was going. That's the second or third interruption, by way of a point of order.
I was just saying that just because a Liberal says something is so, it doesn't mean that it is so. The comment is made that these abandoned and orphaned wells are polluting farmland, waterways and air. There's no evidence to suggest that it's actually happening. To make a comment randomly, out of the blue.... To me it's a comment or a point that's made just to create agitation, which it obviously does. We shouldn't, I don't think, include things in our preamble that are intentionally put there to agitate people. I don't think it's helpful or useful for constructive debate and study for a preamble to start off from the perspective of agitating someone. However, I think if there's a legitimate concern, something that's well documented, I think those are the things we should be talking about. Regardless, it doesn't need to be in the preamble; it could be in the actual motion itself.
If we look at the difference between an abandoned and an orphaned well, we can see that abandoned wells actually have lifetime liability for contamination to the environment by the proponent. The company that owns them has a 25-year liability for surface reclamation issues. If there are issues to do with topography, vegetation, soil texture or drainage, the proponent of the well is responsible for those thing for 25 years following the abandonment of that well and, in fact, actually has lifetime liability for that well creating any contamination.
It's something I think the industry has taken very seriously. The Alberta Energy Regulator monitors these abandoned wells very carefully and makes sure that the owners of the wells are actually doing their due diligence and that they're actually maintaining their responsibilities and reducing the liabilities to our environment.
I also find it very interesting that, to a Liberal, a scandal is when somebody repays the federal government. In this case, the Alberta government has repaid the federal government $137 million. I find it interesting that they don't think it's a scandal when there's $400 million in the Sustainable Development Technology Canada program that's been misappropriated. They don't seem to think that's a scandal. In fact, the House has been seized with, for the better part of the last three weeks, debate on exactly that issue of whether documents related to the SDTC scandal, to their board of directors, to the misappropriation of funds and to the 186 conflicts of interest that existed should not be turned over to the RCMP because it certainly reeks of corruption.
The Liberals, for whatever reason, aren't seized with the scandalous nature of that particular occurrence, but they seem to be seized with $137 million that's returned to the federal government. Wow...talk about thinking backwards.
Let's talk about that $137 million. The Government of Alberta was given approximately a billion dollars, which was to be spent in the cleanup, the reclamation, the proper decommissioning of abandoned and orphaned wells. In the time frame that it was allotted, it was not able to complete the expenditures of the full billion dollars, and it asked the federal government for an extension so that it would be able to use the $137 million that remained unspent. The federal government, this Liberal government, Liberal-controlled bureaucracy, said, "No, send us the money. Send us $137 million." Because the Alberta government could not responsibly, from a good stewardship perspective, spend the money to achieve the results that it was supposed to achieve, it sent the money back to the federal government.
Instead of commending Alberta for being good stewards of the money, they now want to conduct a study to find out why it gave $137 million back. “Why didn't you spend it?” Well, I think we should be commending provinces that are good stewards of money and that can responsibly spend money to do this in a way they know they can stand behind, along with the results they have achieved. They issued the money through a tendering process that was fair, open and honest, and that resulted in qualified contractors doing the work. As we heard from Mr. Dreeshen, we know to what extent first nations rehabilitation folks were involved in the decommissioning of some of these wells. They do tremendous work. However, just because money is available doesn't mean it has to be blown out the door and squandered. Yet, this preamble suggests that would have been a better solution than returning the money to the federal government unspent.
I think we should be commending Alberta and saying, “Wow, Premier Smith, you've done a phenomenal job of making sure you responsibly stewarded the money the federal government gave you for a specific purpose. You weren't able to spend the money frivolously and without accountability, so you returned it to the federal government and kindly asked us for an extension to use the money responsibly.” We said no. This Liberal government should be praising Premier Smith for the good work she and her government are doing in Alberta.
The next bullet point talks about Saskatchewan. Again, in my earlier comments, I indicated that this government is one of division, seeking to create disunity right across Canada. Why would a preamble swipe at a neighbouring province to try to create some kind of animosity between the two? Only a Liberal would know the motivation behind that. I don't think there's any good reason to create animosity between provinces. We should, rather, be trying to build unity across this country. That's not something a bullet point like this does.
It also says, “Companies who abandon wells and fail to pay for their cleanup negatively impact provincial taxpayers and municipalities”. That's true. They should. That's why regulatory bodies, including the Alberta Energy Regulator, seek to monitor this carefully and hold individuals to the responsibility they committed to when they drilled the wells, exploited the resources in them and sent them to market. When they choose to no longer have them as productive resource wells, they also have to follow up. If they don't follow up with the owners of these wells to make sure there has been proper remedial action taken, it costs provincial and municipal taxpayers money. That's why the regulator is on top of these things and, I think, doing a good job. To have that as part of the preamble.... I don't think we've been hearing from any provincial or municipal taxpayers who think it's an issue, so why would you put that in a preamble? Again, it's to create animosity among people and to incite divisiveness.
“Orphaned and abandoned wells present an economic opportunity to support energy solutions like geothermal energy.” I'm not sure where that bullet point comes from, but it sounds like they want to repurpose oil wells to be geothermal energy sources. That might be worth studying. It could have been part of the motion, but here it is. We see it in part of the preamble. Who knows if there are opportunities there? I'm not sure how geothermal and oil go together. It's water and oil. I know my experience, Mr. Chair. Whenever I put oil in water, the two don't seem to want to comingle together very well. In fact, they separate. That is part of the process of oil extraction—sending steam down and having the oil come up. I'm not sure about the validity of that. There could be a business case there. Who knows? It probably would be worth a study.
I think the point I want to get back to, again, is found in the first couple of bullet points. It seems as though the province of Alberta has been unfairly targeted by the Liberal government, instead of recognized for the economic prosperity it gives our entire country.
I think there should be commendation shown to Alberta for the good work that it did do in responsibly using over $800 million of the funds given to it to actually fund remediation projects for abandoned and orphaned wells. I think it would have been wise of this Liberal government to have granted the extension to Alberta and to have said: “You've got qualified contractors and we want you to continue to use qualified contractors. We don't want you just throwing this out on the market and hiring contractors that, first of all, may not be properly trained and vetted to do this kind of work and may not be competent in this kind of work.”
I don't think those are necessarily the types of contractors that we want to award projects like this to, to do completion. As we've heard, there are responsible contractors. There are people who are trained. They have good safety programs. They employ indigenous.... Many that complete these remediation projects are actually 100% indigenous-owned contractors. I think that to grant an extension would have been the thing that this level of government should have done, and you know what? It would have been a non-issue, Mr. Chair.
The other problem I have with this motion is that we're currently in the midst of two studies. There's the TMX pipeline project, and Mr. Angus has really promoted studying what exactly happened that took this TMX pipeline project from a cost of what initially was pegged at $9.7 billion. By the time the federal government took it over or purchased it, that grew to just under $13 billion and now has exploded to $34 billion. I think that's a very worthy study and is one that this committee should have been seized with. I don't think we've actually gotten quite to the bottom of it yet, and I think our study will be wrapping up soon as far as hearing from witnesses goes.
We've got a lot of work to do on that study. We've got to give the analysts time to write a report. We've got to give them time to sift through all the data that's being submitted by the witnesses who we've had at committee and those who we weren't able to listen to. They have got to compile all that data and actually put together a report that's going to be cohesive for this committee to study and review. I think it would be important that we get that done before we embark on another study.
Also, then, we've been looking at electricity, at the capacity we have in this country and the grid and whether it's sufficient to meet the demands that, seemingly, right across the country, are increasing for electricity, especially clean electricity. I think that's been a really good study. We've heard from some very good witnesses. They are industry people who understand the situation and understand the economics here in Canada. That's also a report that needs to be written and studied by this committee.
We have a significant workload that we've undertaken at this committee, Mr. Chair. I just think that it would be helpful if you would take some time, together with the clerk, to sit down and prepare a schedule for this committee as to when these different things are going to happen and when we're going to be continuing the study with TMX or jumping back to electricity, rather than having these motions thrown in front of us by Liberal parliamentary secretaries to conduct yet another study when we have two that we're in the middle of and haven't finished.
They're both very important studies, Mr. Chair, and I would really hope that you, as the chair of this committee, would take some time to prepare a schedule that we can review and approve so that at least we know what we're going to be doing here, but I think our plate is full. I think this—especially the preamble—is very sad, and I would question its appropriateness in actually trying to create a cohesive atmosphere around this committee that would lead to doing productive work.
At this time, Mr. Chair, I'll cede my time to you. I'm sure there are other speakers who have opinions as well and who will make them known. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. After all of that drama, it is wonderful to get back to this motion.
It's interesting how the preamble is so anti-Albertan. You, the chair—a fellow Albertan—have been given an opportunity to read this twice and have refused. I think that's partly due to how anti-Albertan the sentiment is in this very motion. Frankly, Mr. Chair, I don't blame you. I wouldn't be reading this if I were you, either. This is part of the frustration Conservatives have with this motion.
It would be different if this had been brought forward by someone who wasn't the parliamentary secretary. However, it is very clear, because it came from the parliamentary secretary, that it came by edict from the . It means it came by edict from the . This is what they want discussed. This wasn't some random person sitting on this committee who decided to bring this forward. This was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.
We know this is one of the most centralized PMOs in Canadian history, so it isn't something that just happened by haphazard. They decided to attack Alberta because they didn't know any better. This is a deliberate attack on Alberta, Alberta's energy industry and Albertan workers.
This program put forward by the federal government was to get energy workers to work during the challenging time of the pandemic. One of the complicating factors the members probably don't understand is that most of the workers who perform oil well cleanup are contractors. During the pandemic, the contract workforce had some struggles, because they normally don't own their own equipment. They lease it. They were in these struggling spaces where, oftentimes, their leases were in challenging circumstances. They had to retool and get new equipment, so this couldn't be operationalized with a snap of the fingers: “Go and clean up a well.”
This required a little more planning because of the dire situation and how long it took the federal government to come up with the money. It wasn't something that was rolled out in the first weeks or months of the pandemic. It was something that came in after a bit of a delay. Frankly, it saved many contractors. It was an opportunity for many contractors who were unemployed to rehire their employees, get their contracts for equipment back and save chunks of this space.
However, it didn't happen at a time when it was absolutely needed. It happened after a little delay. Because of its scope, the program was rolled out. Unlike the federal government, the provincial government that I was a member of at the time decided they weren't going to allow shell companies to do the work and perhaps, at some point, give some crumbs to indigenous partners. They wanted to engage them in meaningful work and make sure indigenous communities benefited in material ways.
There are a number of examples of these programs having massive impacts on a variety of different indigenous communities, whether it be directly in jobs or in different financial impact benefit agreements. It's more complicated than just snapping your fingers and saying, “Here's a whole bunch of money—get this out the door as quickly as possible.” That's not generally the best way to get value for a dollar. However, this government doesn't seem to always abide by getting the best value for Canadian dollars.
One of the pieces that gets to me, as an Albertan and as someone who was very proudly born and raised in Fort McMurray—a community under attack, at every possible opportunity, by this NDP-Liberal government, and one that is at the forefront of not only Alberta's energy industry but also Canada's energy industry.... Many of the benefits we have are the direct results of the amazing and hard work done every single day by the people who put on hard hats and steel-toed boots and go to work in -40°C or 30°C weather. Day in and day out, they miss Christmases, Easters and Thanksgivings. They miss children's dance recitals and hockey games, and they do that to keep the lights on. This NDP-Liberal government continually attacks them.
One of the arguments brought forward by the parliamentary secretary is that they only talk about Alberta and Saskatchewan because only Alberta and Saskatchewan got the money. Fact check: that's not true. Actually, B.C. also got the money, but they casually decided to leave out the NDP government in British Columbia when it was deciding to do their attack on the energy industry because it doesn't serve their narrative.
This is something that Albertans know all too well. This is part of the absolute frustration that so many Albertans come to my office with to share their frustrations—that the government cherry-picks. It comes here saying, “Oh, we only mention those two provinces because those are the only two provinces.” No, there are abandoned oil wells across the entire country. This isn't just an Alberta-Saskatchewan thing. This isn't just an Alberta-Saskatchewan-British Columbia thing. There are wells in Ontario. There are wells in Quebec. There are wells throughout the country. Again, this NDP-Liberal government likes to have its whipping boy be the province of Alberta.
This is something that is exceptionally troubling. It is something that I don't think we can continue doing because this tells Albertans that, to this NDP-Liberal government, they just don't matter. After all of these conversations and all of this space, I hope that this common-sense amendment that I'm going to bring forward will be accepted by the members of this committee because I believe that I and my colleagues have given a number of relevant pieces to this. I would like to amend this motion. I'm going to amend it as follows.
I propose removing the preamble in its entirety and adding this:
The Chiefs of Treaty 6, 7, and 8 have all asked for an extension of time for First Nation communities to properly utilize federal funds allocated for orphan wells;
The Chiefs ask the federal government to return the money to the Alberta government so it can be distributed back to First Nations for the use of cleaning up orphan wells;
It is the legal and jurisdictional responsibility of the federal government to ensure the proper clean up of orphan wells on First Nations land;
The federal government revoked the funds which would be used for remediation and reclamation of more than 3,000 orphan wells on First Nations lands and territories.
Then after “the Standing Committee on Natural Resources”, I suggest striking the following:
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 government regulations to hold companies to account for well cleanup, and the potential opportunities associated with cleaning up...wells, and report its findings to the House....
Then replace it with “report to the House that the federal government should return the money allocated to Alberta for First Nations to use to clean up wells on reserves, which are the responsibility of the federal government.”
Mr. Chair, I think it is incumbent on us to realize that we should not be dividing Canadians. We should be working to provide hope. We shouldn't be continuing to attack the industries and the people who work in those industries, and we shouldn't be pitting one region against another. After nine years, we have, hopefully, learned that pitting one Canadian against another doesn't work long term. It creates hardship. It creates pain. It creates frustration.
I really do believe that this is a very common-sense amendment that shows that this natural resources committee respects Alberta, respects its jurisdiction, respects the jurisdiction of the Government of Alberta and, most importantly, respects having true reconciliation with first nations and indigenous communities when it comes not only to these well cleanups but also to being partners in prosperity.
Mr. Chair, I would urge every single member to consider this motion and to vote in favour of it. I believe that it has been sent to the clerk, and it should be distributed to all members here shortly.
:
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.
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 . It was copied to the , , 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 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—
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
There are a couple of points, I believe, that are important for us to discuss.
First of all, I don't want us to get into a situation later where someone says, “We said five meetings, and now we're talking three.” That's the first substantial change that has taken place here. The rationale that I would use.... Perhaps the government might look at this from the perspective of not having to go through every one of the preambles and adjudicate on those if we are simply dealing with a straightforward motion.
That is not to say that this may not come up, but I am suggesting that we should be staying strictly on this. Therefore, it's two fewer meetings, meetings that perhaps might not need to have the technical experts come in to explain the difference between abandoned and orphaned wells, so that might minimize that.
Because it has a lot to do with wells that are on first nations land, it will be important to hear from them to understand what they do, and how they had tried to get up to speed in order to make this happen. I believe that will be important. That was never in the preamble, but it was, certainly, from my interventions, the main sticking point. The only money they wanted to take back was that which was given to first nations, so maybe we won't have to worry about that quite as much.
Therefore, my belief is that dealing with a three-meeting study on abandoned and orphaned wells in Canada would be significant. I know we've been attempting to get a bit of a schedule to see what we would have before we break for Christmas. Most likely, it would be easier for us to bring that into the schedule. That might be out there somewhere. I'm not 100% sure.
It is, of course, important, according to federal regulations, that companies be held to account for well cleanups. In addition to that, of course, and because it's a federal responsibility, no doubt we will get into the discussions about what the provincial regulators do and what we expect from them. That is the point I have for that.
There are also opportunities associated with cleaning up abandoned wells. We had spoken about one of those opportunities with first nations industries, and the fact that they have been able to get to a critical mass to do a lot of work. However, there are other types of things that can be done with these wells as well. It depends on where they are, and it depends on the infrastructure that is associated with them. I think that is important.
Of course, we have to report the findings to the House. I believe we already have two studies that we need to tidy up, but that can be fairly straightforward.
Some people look at the amount of money set aside to do their projects. I just want to give an example of well cleanups and what is expected.
Basically, in many cases, the actual site of the well, while it is being used, is about the distance that we have in this circular area between us here. That's about how big the well is. However, people may have had a four- or five-acre plot that they needed to have in order to do the construction. That is the part that is being cleaned up. It's not just the little patch that you have.
With that, there are numerous things, depending on the state of the well that they have. Some of it can simply be cutting it off and cementing it all the way down to the bottom to make sure that there are no chances.... With smaller wells, they might even use different techniques in order to sort that out. However, it isn't just a well. You have to get to it.
Therefore, in many cases, there's a massive road that has been built. That, too, is part of the cleanup of the site. That is something that one should be aware of. I've seen them working in our area. There would be trackhoes, caterpillars and massive trucks coming in and out for two or three weeks. When you think about what the cost is to the oil companies—in that case it was oil companies—or to the groups that are going to do this, you find that there's a lot of detail there. That's why getting the expertise is so critical; it's so that they're able to manage that.
Those are the things that I wanted to point out. If you do the math, it could easily be $100,000 to clean up that site.
Somebody mentioned the Clampetts earlier. Not everybody in Alberta who owns the land is in the situation where they have mineral rights. It is just surface rights that you are looking at.
:
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
Maybe I'm buoyed a little by the 's interjection there, if it seems like she would be amenable to this amendment, to this common-sense solution that Conservatives have offered to the motion she brought forward last week. Now she's saying not to put words in her mouth, and I wouldn't dare, but I'm just—
Ms. Viviane Lapointe: She said to put it to a vote.
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: I think we'll do that right after I make my argument. Thanks.
As we have been arguing now, at length, for three of these meetings, I hope that three days would be possible for experts to come to the table. For example, there are many facts that would need to be clarified, like exactly what the government means by orphan wells and whether it means inactive, suspended or terminated wells, and like what it means by abandoned wells and whether it actually means decommissioned wells. Those are the kinds of facts that every single Canadian concerned with these issues, right across the country, I think, would want to see our committee able to clarify with individuals at the table who know what they're talking about and who are experts in the field. Perhaps they can provide some clarity to this motion, given the wording in it that colleagues have, at length, litigated as being misinformation and disinformation.
I certainly support the removal of the preamble that way and support the amendment as suggested by my colleague.
Of course, I would hope, if colleagues are amenable to this solution, that we would prioritize hearing from indigenous contractors, indigenous communities and indigenous workers, who long throughout energy development have been partners, employers, employees and contractors. They are, in ever-increasing numbers, becoming equity owners in resource development and of course right across the supply chain as, by and large, small and medium-sized companies and contractors doing this work.
It seems to me that if the federal government is serious about this objective, then it would support representation by experts and regulators and by the provinces in which this work is being done, primary among them due to the federal failure here, the revocation of the money and the refusal to participate in terms of the extension of time and funding that the Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 chiefs and the Albertan government asked for.
Given that there are 32 communities among which more than $100 million has been split, and given the opportunities available in the future for additional contractors and for indigenous communities to be engaged through the facilitating work by the Indian Resource Council, I think it would behoove members on this committee to hear about the kind of work going on in provinces right across the country, given that this is a reality across the country.
Those are the reasons I support my colleague's amendment, and I hope, in good faith, if every member of this committee is serious about environmental remediation and reclamation, and about indigenous economic opportunities, that this amendment will be supported. Hopefully, we can have an actual productive, informed and fact-based assessment at this committee, again, still knowing that we actually have not yet completed work on two previous studies. That is something I cautioned about from the very beginning—just moving to this work immediately—but I guess every individual member can account to their constituents when they feel they are not doing their jobs on committees and we can't seem to get reports out the door but are being moved on to different topics.