Environment Committee on March 5th, 2009

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The CEMA was struck to examine the watershed, first and foremost?

[Ian Matheson]

Cumulative effects writ large, one of those being water.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Maybe the CEAA folks are best placed to answer the question, but do we actually have nomenclature design systems where we can meaningfully pursue something called cumulative effects measurement management? Do we actually know what that means?

[Ian Matheson]

I think that the water management framework is a good illustration of how you can grapple with the question of cumulative effects. Essentially, the question is how much development can an ecosystem sustain? What a model looks at is, if you introduce certain disturbances into an ecosystem, what effect does that have on the ecosystem overall.

In this example of the lower Athabasca River, the impact is withdrawing water, let's say. So what we're really studying here is what happens if we take out water at different rates, how does that change in the volume affect the flow, and what effect does that have on the organisms that rely on the water? It gives us a tool to then use in our decision-making process on a project-by-project basis.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

But that's restricted to water.

[Ian Matheson]

Right.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I always understood cumulative effects to be emissions, tailings ponds, the dislocation of wildlife, the disappearance of boreal forest, and that these things in combination constituted cumulative effects. You're saying that cumulative effects is water-based management--

[Ian Matheson]

It's an addition of each project.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Does CEMA actually have a cumulative effects system in place that transcends just water?

[Ian Matheson]

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It does?

[Ian Matheson]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have about 20 seconds left.

[Ian Matheson]

Sure. I don't know if CEAA knows more about this than I do, but--

Steve.

[Steve Burgess]

I'm not sure I can describe it in 20 seconds or less.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Take a bit more time than that.

[Steve Burgess]

Okay.

Certainly CEMA looks at more than just water. The CEMA springs out of what is called the regional sustainable development strategy that Alberta developed back in the late 1990s. Essentially, there were three main areas of investigation that CEMA was to follow up on; for example, sustainable ecosystems was one, cumulative effects on wildlife, and so forth. So it is much broader than just water, certainly.

It has taken more time than I think most of us originally anticipated for CEMA to produce tangible results and information. Essentially, I wouldn't characterize CEMA as the vehicle for addressing completely the issue of cumulative effects related to oil sands. It's really meant to provide information in order for regulators, if you will, Alberta, perhaps the federal government, to make those assessments.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. Is there much to add to that? like to go to Mr. Bigras. Maybe you can work that into another answer.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I also thank the witnesses for their presentations this morning before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Before moving to my questions, I would like to obtain some clarifications, in particular with regard to the document supplied by Natural Resources Canada. When I read page 14 of the deck, dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, I nearly fell off my chair. It is quite something to be told, especially in the context of a presentation on oil sands, that as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned we have made progress in Canada. You are telling us that GHG intensity reduced on average by 32 percent between 1990 and 2006. You are not wrong; you are absolutely right. However, might I be given the numbers in absolute terms? Could you tell us by how much GHG emissions in the oil sands sector increased between 1990 and 2006?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes, I believe I have those numbers with me. I will find them before the end of today's session.

I would say the issue of intensity has decreased by 32%, but your point, as I understand it, is that with the increase in the growth of the oil sands overall, it has outstripped significantly the improvements we've been able to make in terms of—

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

When you take the volume, you are comparing emission volumes.

[Kevin Stringer]

That's correct.

With the growth of the oils sands, it's outstripped the improvements we've made in terms of intensity. The overall GHG emissions have gone up, and I'll get you those specific figures. It is, at this point, in the range of 5% of Canada's overall GHG emissions, and that's up from around 1% or 2% a number of years ago when this all started. So indeed, the overall amount has increased.

That said, on the intensity, they are making improvements on a case-by-case basis; it is accurate. Your point about an increase is accurate, and we'll get you the specific numbers.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Very well, thank you.

Could you tell me in what year the very first environmental assessments were carried out under Canadian law? Perhaps Mr. Burgess could provide the answer.

[Steve Burgess]

It was...

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I am talking about environmental assessments generally, and not just those pertaining to the oil sands.