Environment Committee on June 18th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

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

On a point of clarification, when we talk about environmental assessments that are conducted in the context of where there are equivalency agreements between the federal government and the provincial government, as in Quebec, as in Alberta, what does the process look like? Is it just a question of two sets of experts, one federal and one provincial, operating under the provincial guidelines?

[Steve Burgess]

I should clarify.

We have what we call harmonization agreements with the various provinces. Under those agreements, we agree to cooperate in a way that facilitates an efficient and effective environmental assessment process that basically meets the needs of both jurisdictions.

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

What does that mean? Are there two sets of experts--the federal, the provincial?

[Steve Burgess]

In situations where we had a review panel, normally what will happen is we will have one panel that consists of members appointed by both jurisdictions. Very often, if we're working in cooperation with provincial jurisdiction--the Bureau d'audiences publiques, for example, in Quebec--the chair will be appointed principally by the Bureau d'audiences publiques as well as by another member. There will then be a federal member appointed by the Minister of the Environment.

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

And chances are there is no disagreement between the federally appointed and the provincially appointed members.

[Steve Burgess]

It would be very unusual for there to be disagreement between the members that makes its way into the final report.

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

From the sounds of it, all the water that is taken for oil sands mining, whether it be in situ or surface mining, comes from the Athabasca River, basically.

[Steve Chapman]

For the operations in the Athabasca region, the Athabasca River is the principal water body.

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

And the water table isn't affected by all of this activity?

Again, when we listen to Mr. Jean--and I appreciate that he's well informed on this, and he makes interesting and good points--it sounds like a Disney film, quite frankly, where everything is pristine and working wonderfully and everyone is living happily ever after. Maybe that's the case, I don't know, but it doesn't seem to jibe with what I'm hearing and reading in other places. That's why we're having this study, I guess.

Is the water table not affected? First of all, I don't even believe that we've mapped all our aquifers in Canada; I think only 30% are mapped. I can't believe that injecting all this water into the ground is having a negligible impact. That's one point I'd like you to respond to.

With regard to my second question, if the development process of the oil sands is affecting the water table, or even just through the Athabasca River, and those effects are interprovincial, would that trigger another level of federal authority, if you will? Would that give the federal government more right to assess or look into the matter?

I understand that certain things are provincial only, but once you start affecting the groundwater and it's having interprovincial effects, or even if you're just talking about the river systems, would that give us added authority beyond the need to invoke the Fisheries Act or the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

There has to be some point, especially on the prairies, that there are interprovincial effects, especially in the situation of declining water resources. Would that bring the federal environmental assessment power into the process a little more?

[Steve Chapman]

On your question about whether there are effects on groundwater, I would say yes. It's been an issue that review panels and environmental assessments have looked at in the Athabasca region. Certainly before you would look at mining an area, typically they want to depressurize it, which means lowering the water table so it doesn't become an issue. Looking at the effects on groundwater is certainly something that our review panels have done in the past.

[Steve Burgess]

In response to the second part of your question, with respect to whether there is a point at which impacts become so great that the federal government intervenes--I think that's more or less where you were getting--

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

It's because of the fact that we're crossing provincial boundaries, whether below the surface or above.

[Steve Burgess]

The federal environmental assessment process does require that transboundary impacts be considered as part of any project level environmental assessment. But to my knowledge there isn't any authority that exists in legislation or regulation that gives the federal government the ability to intervene in situations such as you described.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would encourage all members, if they have an opportunity, to review Alberta's oil sands opportunity brochure about its vision for responsible development of the oil sands. It refers to many of the questions that have been asked today.

I know the Alberta government has been monitoring the water quality in the oil sands since the early 1970s. In fact, Mr. Scarpaleggia, the reason it's a minimum impact is that they're not allowed to discharge that water into the system. That's why tailings ponds, of course, are the ultimate resource.

I don't know if you're familiar with the economic impact, but my understanding is that Maclean's ran an article recently that said the investment in oil sands will actually be more than $123 billion. But it's going to generate an estimated $885 billion in economic activity, creating 6.6 million person-years of employment, and injecting another $120 billion to $130 billion in federal coffers. That was when oil was at an average price of $32 per barrel. So we're looking at some significant economic impacts.

I know that's not your expertise, but I did want to put that on the record.

I also want to cite this report as well, which indicates that water samples collected since 1990 have shown arsenic levels below provincial guidelines. In fact the report goes on to say that these guidelines and the amounts in this area are consistent with other places throughout the province, and in fact consistent with the average in Alberta.

Is that your information as well? Obviously the water flow is north, into the Northwest Territories, then the Arctic Ocean, and obviously into the ocean and dissipating. But in the southern part, which doesn't have any connection as far as an aquifer, there is the same amount of arsenic in the traditional food supply--moose, deer, elk, etc.--and in the water. It would seem to indicate, to me, that there is no connection between the two. Would that be fair to say?

[Steve Burgess]

That would be speculation really on my part to proclaim on that. Sorry.

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

All right. Those are all my questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

What I suggest to the members is something to consider. First of all, I wish you all the best through the summer, but I think you might seriously consider taking Mr. Jean up on a visit to the oil sands and get the provincial minister there and the officials there, because there is an overlap. That is something this committee should certainly think about. It has been proposed and rejected, but it is something we should reconsider in the fall.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, maybe we could have you invite us to see your project too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's on the way, yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, in Alberta there is no tax, and no Liberal carbon tax either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

On that note, I'd like to thank our guests for being here.

Fortunately, I didn't have to undergo an environmental impact study for my project. It was just too small.

Thank you. Have a good summer.

The meeting is adjourned.