Environment Committee on June 18th, 2008

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It doesn't shepherd any one particular project through the process.

[Steve Burgess]

No. It's meant to provide advice and information in support of environmental assessments for oil sands projects.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

How do you get around...? I'm going to step into the realm of cumulative impacts and cumulative effects, which you talk about with respect to one project, the Kearl oil sands project. What's the cumulative...?

From my understanding of CEAA--and I'm no expert--there's no way to also assess the cumulative impact of the projects in the area, even within the same watershed.

We've noticed that with some mining projects in B.C. it's almost like they exist in their own separate universes, even though they might all occupy the same watershed. They say that there's a certain amount of effect from this mine, and it's of a low enough standard that the mine can go ahead. And it's the same for that one. And then you have three or four or five of them proposed within one area, and there is nothing within the law to say that it's common sense to take the assessment of all of these on this one watershed, because it's only one watershed.

This is not rocket science. There must be some consideration of this.

[Steve Burgess]

There is. In the case of the oil sands, the main purpose of CEMA is to take a look at cumulative effects more broadly, rather than on a project-by-project basis.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

But you folks do it project by project.

[Steve Burgess]

We do it project by project. And I agree that there are challenges, on a project-by-project basis, in assessing the cumulative effects of a whole range of projects, particularly when we're talking about projects that might occur sometime in the future, for which we have very little information.

One of the approaches we're looking at to help us address those sorts of issues is the use of regional sustainable development strategies.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Let me ask you this: Is there no way, if a few oil sands projects were being proposed, for you to actually identify the carrying capacity of that ecosystem for these types of projects and say that the amount of contaminated water that could be absorbed in this type of ecosystem is this much, the project we just approved takes 80% of that, and what remains is thus? Is there any way for you to note to the public, to note to government, that in this area, with this type of ecosystem, we are going to have an assessment of what the immediate environment can actually handle? That is as opposed to, again, having these snapshots and saying “Yes, you're approved, because you're within the limit”.

The total cumulative effect you would never allow in one project. If they were all mushed together and then given to you folks for the go-ahead, there would be no way. There would just be way too much impact. But because they're done separately, they somehow get through. I don't understand how that can be.

[Steve Burgess]

Steve may have more to add to this, perhaps, but we have a real challenge, I would agree. It's very difficult to understand the overall carrying capacity, if you will, of an ecosystem, a drainage basin, or an airshed in the context of individual environmental assessments.

What we do is require proponents to look at past history to determine the extent to which impacts have occurred in the area already. We ask proponents to look at the future, to the extent that we know what the future is and whether or not there are other projects being proposed. Finally, we try to ensure that proponents minimize impacts to the extent possible to avoid reaching thresholds.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have one last question.

You mentioned the Kemess North project. In the assessment you handed down, the first nations component was significant in terms of the impact on their lives and the environment they use. It was quite an extraordinary panel review and assessment; shock waves went through the industry. Is there any sort of new adaptation to the strength of litigation on the books right now in terms of first nations consultation, authority, or direction? It was a surprise to the mining company. It was a surprise to many people in the region. Is this some potential new trend or new effect in terms of the consultations for first nations people?

[Steve Burgess]

Steve's probably closer to that project than I am. I would say, though, that I don't think it reflects a trend. I think it reflects a new reality, though, which is that both proponents and governments need to pay attention to aboriginal rights, and particularly governments need to ensure that appropriate consultation occurs in relation to development projects that occur in areas where first nations and aboriginal people have interests.

So if the question is whether turning down mining projects is a trend, I would say no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to focus on the process initially. The environmental assessment process has evolved over the years. How long did it take, in the initial stages, to do an assessment? Now, it depends on the type of assessment, but let's go to a review panel, which is the most stringent type, and that's likely what we'd be looking at if it were in the oil sands, and I think that's the purpose of the meeting today: to look at the oil sands and the process. So if a project was proposed for the oil sands ten years ago—1998, or even 1995—how long did it take to go through that process?

[Steve Burgess]

I could answer that question generically, and perhaps Steve can answer it more specifically.

I should stress that for oil sands projects in particular, but in many other situations as well where both a provincial and a federal process applies, we work very closely with our provincial counterparts to conduct what we would call a joint review. Typically, those reviews would largely follow the provincial process. So from the standpoint of timing we would try to follow that, as best we could, and in fact in the case of panels we would definitely work to match the provincial process for the conduct of the review. In the case of the oil sands, we worked with the energy utilities board in the past and now with the energy resources conservation board to ensure that our process matches their process.

So whatever timing the province has for its process is the same timing we would have for our process.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The federal government has equivalency agreements with a number of provinces and territories. We do with Alberta. But my question is about the process. My question was how long did it take 10 to 15 years ago. So you know my next question will be what is it now. Is the process longer or shorter?

[Steve Chapman]

I'd say that 2003 marked the first time we actually had oil sands developments go before a review panel, so that was essentially the starting point for us. It's difficult to look at trends, since we've had only four projects go before review panels since the act came into force. We have one current proposal, the Joslyn North project, that's been referred to the review panel. I don't see a difference in timelines between the projects that were assessed in 2003 versus the projects that were assessed in 2005.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That's interesting.

You're aware of the government's “Turning the Corner” plan. By regulation we're requiring mandatory reductions within the oil sands. Future projects will require carbon capture and storage. So if that will now be part of the requirement, do you think it will lengthen the time or make any difference? It's just a requirement, and it will be a requirement for you to recommend it to go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Do you understand my question?

On the new requirement from the government to have absolute reductions of 20% by 2020, that is what the industy will have to do when they build that infrastructure, that project. Is that going to lengthen the project, or do you see that having no impact on the timeframe?

[Steve Burgess]

You're asking us to speculate a little, and it may be difficult to do. Generically, I would say that any time the requirements are clear for a proponent as to what mitigation measures are going to be required and what the environmental assessment process is going to be--what the expectations are of the proponent--that facilitates both the design of projects by the proponents and the assessment of projects by the regulators.

The other side of that, of course, is technically how simple or easy it will be for a proponent to design such a facility. But from a process perspective, that would facilitate the environmental assessment process. Whether it would make it shorter is a matter of speculation.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The two types of mining are surface mining and in situ. I think Mr. Scarpaleggia was asking some questions about that. I want to ask about the timeframe. Is there a difference between an environmental assessment for open mining as opposed to in situ? There will be different environmental impacts.

[Steve Burgess]

Those are key. Our experience is that the in situ projects have fewer environmental effects. In fact, they very often don't trigger the federal environmental assessment, because no federal decisions related to those projects are required. But in the case of oil sands mines, very often they have important effects on surface water, water courses, fish habitat, and so forth.

If there is a trigger with an in situ project, it would typically be conducted at the screening level, as opposed to having a public review through a panel review. So the environmental assessment process in the case of a screening would be a little more straightforward than in the case of a review panel.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You have three and a half minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Hindsight is often 20/20. I pulled out one of my old briefing books, which I had picked up about two and a half years ago—November 2005—from Pembina. Of the ENGOs, they seem to be one of the dominant advisers on the environment from that perspective, so for great entertainment last night, I reread it, and it was really quite interesting.

This was written two and a half years ago. They said that oil sands production more than doubled, to approximately 1.1 million barrels per day, between 1995 and 2004. That was 16 years before the time anticipated for coming to production of a million barrels of oil a day. Because of the driving force of transportation needs to get oil, and also the increased price of crude, suddenly it grew very quickly, and within that short period of time, 1995 to 2004, they were producing their million barrels of oil a day.

They went on to say that through 1999-2004, Suncor and Syncrude both expanded their surface mining operations. Four new surface mines and seven new in situ operations were also approved. They also said that more recently the Government of Canada—referring to the previous government—envisioned producing six million barrels per day by 2030.

They quoted the then-environment minister, now the leader of the Liberals, who said:

There is no environment minister on earth who can stop [the oil from coming out of the sand]...because the money is too big.

It was very interesting reading, to hear that perspective. But this government is very committed to making sure it's done in an environmentally friendly way—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!