Environment Committee on June 18th, 2008

[Steve Burgess]

I can offer a view. I think the office is not related specifically to oil sands projects but more to the resource sector as a whole--mining, oil and gas, hydroelectric developments, and other forms of energy projects.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you. I don't mean to interrupt, but we have limited time.

In terms of projects--this may be a bit off topic--you assess GHG emissions, but against what? There are no regulations.

[Steve Burgess]

Yes. This is a significant challenge, I have to say.

The approach we've recommended in our guidance material is that in the absence of specific regulation or policy direction, we feel that it's nonetheless important to consider the greenhouse gas component as one of the environmental effects of concern. So we ask that the environmental assessments include analyses of the amount of emissions that will occur as a result of a project and compare them with any policies, regulations, or whatever form of direction exists in order to see whether or not they're acceptable.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

In terms of the oil sands, the impression we were given at the last meeting was that when it comes to water there's nothing to worry about. We have tailings ponds for the surface mining projects, which are on their way out anyway because things are moving toward in situ production. We've been told also that between 70% and 90% of the water is recycled.

Based on the environmental assessments that your office has been responsible for with respect to the oil sands, have they identified problematic situations involving the oil sands and water? If so, what remediation measures were recommended?

[Steve Chapman]

Certainly all four of the recent review panels that produced reports on developments in the oil sands had water use as a primary focus in their reports, recognizing that, from a cumulative effects standpoint, there continued to be issues associated with water withdrawal, particularly from the Athabasca River.

In terms of mitigation measures, it was suggested by the review panels that work be done by CEMA, which is the Cumulative Effects Management Association, to determine essentially the baseline--

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Sorry to interrupt you again, but is that association, CEMA, the one that you said was funded by industry?

[Steve Burgess]

Correct, and by governments as well.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Just Alberta, just federal, or both? You know, many people will say that the Alberta government and industry are one and the same. I don't mean to be inflammatory or cynical, but.... So is it just the federal government, maybe NRCan?

[Steve Chapman]

I'd have to check on that. Certainly the federal government has membership on the committee, but as to whether or not there's direct funding, I'd have to check.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay, could you?

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I understand that a former Liberal staffer--Mr. Tonks' former staffer--is actually one of the senior people at CEMA in Fort McMurray now. It's Kyle something; I don't remember his last name. If Mr. Tonks would like to, he could get in contact with him directly and find out the funding.

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

That's not a point of order.

[An hon. member]

No, that's a point of information.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I won't go there.

Anyway, if he worked for Mr. Tonks, I'm sure he's been well trained on how to keep the interests of the environment first and foremost.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

That was exactly my point.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I taught him everything he knows--and he still doesn't know much, I think.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

On that note, I'll go on to Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the representatives from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for explaining the process to us.

However, I would like to come back to the Imperial Oil project. I think we have no choice but to come back to this project, which is worth $7 billion and is designed to produce 300,000 barrels of oil per day for the next 50 years. Unless I am mistaken, and you may correct me if I am wrong, that is roughly the equivalent of 800,000 cars on the road.

This project has gone to the Federal Court. I have been a member of Parliament for 11 years, and I was involved in the amendments to CEPA, the Species at Risk Act, the Community and Environmental Assessment Act, to mention just a few—Mr. Tonks was the chair at the time—and I think there was an amendment made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Am I mistaken in saying that projects must be assessed for greenhouse gas emissions? Am I wrong in saying that the act provides there must be an assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions the projects will entail?

[Steve Chapman]

The amendments put forward under Bill C-9 did not include a specific amendment for greenhouse gas emissions. Notwithstanding that, I can confirm that the review panel that was struck to conduct an environmental assessment of the Kearl oil sands projects did look at the environmental impacts associated with air quality and particular greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Given that, can you tell me why—and once again I may be mistaken—Federal Court Justice Douglas Campbell, whom you probably know and whose decision you have probably read, said that in the case of the project we are talking about, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency recommended that a permit be granted, but neglected to check on the greenhouse gas emissions, and consequently did not comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

Is that incorrect information, or is that what Justice Campbell of the Federal Court said in his ruling?

[Steve Chapman]

Generally what I would say is that you are correct, that in fact we did have a review panel. The report was found to be incomplete by the Federal Court, and in particular the Federal Court found that the review panel did not provide enough rationale to support its conclusion that there would be insignificant effects associated with the emissions related to air quality. The review panel in the case of Kearl was therefore reconvened, and it provided additional rationale to support its conclusion that there would be no significant adverse environmental effects associated with air quality.

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

tar

But how do you explain that a Federal Court justice would make such a ruling? You tell us that the agency's role is to be the watchdog of the process. That is what you told us. You also said on three occasions that the issue of climate change was a challenge.

Tell us why there was this Federal Court ruling. Is there a problem in the process? I understand when you say there are no regulations—you said it and I can understand that—but there have been some problems with the review of this project as regards the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

What I understand as well is that following the Federal Court decision, the project was sent back to the federal-provincial committee for authorization to complete it.

First of all, are you on this federal-provincial committee? And what argument did the proponent put forward to ensure that it will meet the Federal Court's requirements?

[Steve Burgess]

I will start by answering your question, and ask Mr. Chapman to add to it perhaps.

The joint review panel had looked at the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. The judge decided there was inadequate justification for the conclusion that the impacts of these two considerations would not be significant. There was no detailed justification given in the panel's report.

In the end, the panel reviewed these issues and backed up its findings with some justifications. This included, among other things, information that was submitted to the original panel, most of which came from the proponent. So this aspect was taken into account.

At the outset, the judge found that the report did not contain enough justification, but that does not mean the information was not available.

In the end, the report was revised and information was added to it. Finally, the report was submitted to cabinet for approval. I must add that the final decision is not made by our agency.