Environment Committee on June 18th, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

—and of course we're not supporting the carbon tax. But also, I think the general public is very concerned about what we now see in the oil sands, the surface mining.

Over the years since 2003, I think you said, there's been the process of the environmental assessment. I have visited the hardworking, incredible MP from that area, Mr. Jean, and he took me on a tour. I saw the bitumen oozing out of the rocks right along the shore. But I was also looking for reclaimed sites, sites where they've taken the bitumen out of the sand and the sand has been put back in place and there are trees growing and you have a healthy ecosystem that has been reintroduced—it might be different, but again a healthy ecosystem.

My question to you is about success stories among projects for which you've done an assessment and which have developed as they presented in the assessment, and in which now the site has been reclaimed and you're happy with the results.

Maybe there could be a quick story on.... Well, if you go to something that's been very disappointing, it's difficult to put you in a position of giving specifics. But maybe you can share a success story in which you're happy with the results and which is a good example of how future projects need to be developed.

[Steve Chapman]

Certainly I'd say that site reclamation has been one of the primary focuses of review panels.

One thing I should mention with these truck-and-shovel operations, these large mining projects, is that they certainly have a long life span. Seeing that they just went through the environmental assessment process in 2003, they're really just ramping up into production mode and finishing construction, for the ones that went through in 2003. More recently, of course, the committee is aware of the Kearl oil sands project; they are just in site preparation.

Typically, site reclamation wouldn't happen until midway or three-quarters of the way through the project. With those particular projects, although they certainly in the EA process looked at site reclamation and their plans, we haven't seen yet, for the projects that went under environmental assessment by review panel, that they've actually progressed to the stage where they could be looking at full-scale site reclamation.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How far down the road would it be? Is it years?

[Steve Chapman]

I'd have to check.

It's safe to say, certainly, that they mine in segments through the area, and typically once they're done mining in one particular location, they'd look at the potential for using that area for site reclamation. So yes, I think years is....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa. Your time is up.

We'll go to the second round, to Mr. Tonks, former chair of the environment committee. Welcome, Mr. Tonks.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm absolutely delighted to be here.

The document that I read, similar to Mr. Warawa, was by Pembina. I think it was EAs for dummies. I wonder if I could borrow that. I forgot most of.... I'm just kidding, Mark.

There are two issues that I'd like to address.

I was also given the tour by the hardworking member from Wood Buffalo in the Fort McMurray region. When we were there, various industry proponents and those who were active made it clear that they wanted to know what the rules would be in terms of what Mr. Warawa has referred to, in terms of mitigation, sequestration, and the full gamut of legislative regimes that would be in place.

It occurred to me, and it occurs to me from what you've said, that the regional strategic sustainable study is in the process of being updated by the Alberta government. Am I correct in assuming that the agency, along with its role in terms of its knowledge of the mitigation issues related to climate change, which have been mentioned, and also in relation to the mandate of the regional plan that deals with acids, metals, organics.... But you didn't mention water. You mentioned water a little later in your deposition.

Would it be your role to make sure that both the latest mitigation techniques and the issue with respect to cumulative impacts, such as on water, would be part of the updated plan, part of the updated Wood Buffalo regional plan? I ask this because that seems to be a template that is very important with respect to both cumulative and mitigation initiatives and restrictions.

[Steve Burgess]

Perhaps I should say that our role in that would be really more of an advisory nature. Our specific jurisdiction, if you will, relates to the oversight and administration of the Environmental Assessment Act, so our job is to make sure that departments respect the requirements of the legislation.

With respect to these sorts of issues related to oil sands or otherwise, we have a very keen interest in ensuring that environmental assessments are done properly. There's always room for improvement, in our view.

One way to do that is to encourage the kinds of initiatives that we see happening in the oil sands, under CEMA, with respect to the regional sustainable development strategy, and under the water management framework that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Alberta are developing or have developed. Our role in those is really one of providing whatever advice we can, within our areas of expertise, to encourage others to participate and so forth. But we don't have any authority, if you will, to make it happen. I think I can put it that way.

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

I see that as a little problematic, but that's something we can maybe talk about later.

I have a second question, if I have a minute, Mr. Chairman.

From time to time there's the notion of an environmental assessment bump-up. Could you outline for the committee how many screenings actually become bumped up, joint review panels?

The reason I ask that question is that there is no intervenor funding provided for in the screening, yet it could be that participation of aboriginal communities or simply those who are interested regionally, in terms of the impact, might be denied the opportunity of having intervenor funding.

Can that be clarified, in terms of how that process clicks in? What are the triggers, and who decides how the intervenor funding is going to be provided and to whom?

[Steve Burgess]

I can speak to the generalities, and Steve might be able to give you some details on the numbers of projects.

The way that works is that the vast majority of projects that are assessed undergo screening-type assessments, probably in the order of 6,000 to 7,000 projects a year across government.

For the most part, those are relatively small projects with relatively minor environmental effects. They can range, at the lowest level, if you will, from park benches in a national park, or something along those lines, to what I would consider to be fairly important projects, and in some cases to certain types of mining projects, and so forth.

The decision as to whether or not a project is a screening-type assessment or a comprehensive study type of assessment, which is the more rigorous version of the assessment process, is set out in regulation. Where a project meets the criteria set out in regulation, a comprehensive study would be required--so mining projects above a certain production capacity, hydro-electric projects above a certain production capacity, roads longer than a certain distance, and so forth.

In the case of comprehensive studies, there is participant funding available and funding for aboriginal groups to participate. And if I'm not mistaken, there will probably be, at any one time, a couple of dozen, or perhaps more, comprehensive studies being assessed at a given time--so 25 to 40, perhaps, at any one time.

As well, in situations where, as a result of a screening-type assessment, or when it's determined that the effects resulting from the project could be significant, the project could be referred to a review panel. And participant funding is available for those as well. Those can be stand-alone review panels, federal-only review panels, or joint review panels with another jurisdiction. And we have one active right now. There are others coming, we expect.

That gives you a sense of how we arrive at whether or not a project is a comprehensive study or a panel, whether or not funding is available, and an order of magnitude, at least, of the numbers of projects we're talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of very simple questions. I want to get some answers or clarification on them before I move to my bigger question here.

You made reference at one point to tailings ponds. Can you describe for me what we mean by “tailings” and “ponds”? It's been in the news a bit. It was on the CBC the other night. Maybe you can give us some insight on that.

[Steve Chapman]

Typically, with a truck-and-shovel operation, when they're extracting the bitumen from the ground, it's combined with all the sand, cobble, and gravel. Essentially the tailings are the leftover waste after the bitumen is extracted. So tailings typically are wet as a result of the extraction process, and it's a mixture of sand, larger particles, water, and other contaminants potentially that go into these holding areas.

The goal is that through a settling process, the heavier solids would settle out to the bottom and the water on top would then be available for recycling through the operation. That's typically what the tailings pond would be.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

You speak in reference, obviously, to oil sands at that point. If it's tailings for something else, it's the leftover rocks. The minerals, the metals are already extracted. So we just have, in some cases, rocks. No contaminants? Nothing?

[Steve Chapman]

My example is specifically with oil sands. But in a mining operation certainly the tailings would be the fines as a result of the crushing or refining processing, say, for a gold mining operation.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

It would be the rocks--the metals, the minerals removed, and we have rocks left over that are put in water. Is that what you would describe it as?

[Steve Chapman]

Sure. I think rocks.... Typically they are much finer particles, so sand and silt-sized particles typically would make up tailings.

[Steve Burgess]

And I should add, too, that these tailings are very often contaminated with heavy metals and other contaminants that are exposed and released as a result of the crushing process and so forth.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Then I need to ask this question. Maybe you could walk us through what it might look like hypothetically. In Saskatchewan, for example, we have a fair number of oil sands towards the Alberta border and elsewhere in the province, and also uranium. We've talked here mostly about oil sands to this point.

Could you give this committee a bit of the sense of the process for uranium, which we have in the north? You might recall some years ago some major public issues were raised in the Saskatoon area, in Warman. I'm not sure if either of you were in your particular positions at that time. But what would it look like if we had a typical environmental assessment process with respect to uranium development, through to refinement? What would that look like? Would it look different from oil sands?

[Steve Burgess]

From a process perspective?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Yes.

[Steve Burgess]

Certainly the main regulator with respect to uranium mining and the nuclear industry generally is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They have a very complete regulatory process that would apply not just to nuclear power projects, but also to uranium mining projects.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

So you're not involved in that at all?

[Steve Burgess]

At the same time, though, before the CNSC issues certain permits with respect to uranium mines, for example, they first have to do an environmental assessment to deal with the environmental effects. I can't speak to specifics, but normally the Nuclear Safety Commission would undertake the assessment as part of its normal regulatory process and then ultimately make a decision at the end of the day.

In some cases there could be a joint review panel that might be established, as we might see for some of the generating projects in Ontario, for example. In that case, it would be a joint review panel consisting of a member or members appointed by the Minister of the Environment, as well as regular members of the CNSC. It would look very much like a joint review panel that you would see in other situations.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Right. And then they'd carry it the rest of the way, with uranium, for example?

[Steve Burgess]

That's right.