Environment Committee on March 12th, 2009

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I won't get my next question in, but go ahead, please.

[Fred Wrona]

We have had studies actually quantifying the amount of both naturally occurring and other industrial-related contaminants in that system. The monitoring of many of those is done by the Province of Alberta. As I mentioned, we have one water quality station near Wood Buffalo National Park that looks at standard nutrient and other water quality parameters. We have research studies that have assessed contamination levels both in sediment and in water over a number of years within this basin.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. That completes our second round. We're going to kick off our third round.

Mr. McGuinty, you have five minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to my last series of questions for Environment Canada. I'm having a very hard time squaring the circle.

We have a multi-stakeholder group set up by different orders of government, which has as its membership governments, aboriginal elders, non-governmental environmental organizations, scientists, and university representatives. I can't remember how large the group is. A year and a half ago they issued an urgent letter to, as Ms. Wright has pointed out rightly so, the Province of Alberta.

The federal government may not fund CEMA now, but I understand it used to. It certainly must be helping with research. It must be sharing its data and its analysis. But 83% of CEMA's budget is funded by industry itself, and a letter is issued saying we want to put a hold on this. We want a moratorium on new resource tenures until January 1, 2011. In fact, it's so serious that, four months later, CEMA sent a second letter to the Government of Alberta, again calling for an interim moratorium on new resource tenures.

The federal government, as I understand, Ms. Wright, has a representative on CEMA.

[Cynthia Wright]

We participate in the working groups on CEMA. CEMA was created by the Alberta government and has invited all these partners that the member has listed to be part of it. So yes, Environment Canada participates in the working groups.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Did Environment Canada participate in the letter calling for a moratorium?

[Cynthia Wright]

Environment Canada participated in the working group that drafted that report and the letter. But as I said, the position of the government is that we don't want to be seen to be voting on what advice goes back to the Government of Alberta. We're there as technical advisers to provide the best quality information we have into this multi-stakeholder process.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I do point out, Mr. McGuinty, that according to chapter 20 in Marleau and Montpetit, at the top of page 864, “The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be.” So I'd just ask that you keep your questioning based upon what the department is doing, rather than whether or not they should be influencing the policy of the government.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Which government?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The Government of Canada, and I'm concerned that you're trying to put the officials into a position where they're going to be dictating to the province or wanting to reach into another jurisdiction in which they have no constitutional right.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I hear you, Chair, loud and clear, and I'm going nowhere near that. What I'm trying to find out for Canadians is how we square the circle. How is it possible that the multi-stakeholder group set up to examine the development of the oil sands, the tar sands, has recommended a moratorium until January 1, 2011, obviously saying that not everything is all right. They pull together a terrestrial ecosystem management framework, which the federal government has officials contributing to, and all of a sudden all I'm hearing today is that everything is okay.

How can Canadians square this? Do we have a position? That's a fair question for the officials. Do we have a position on the CEMA report?

[Cynthia Wright]

What I'm trying to say is that we don't take a position. We provide our technical information, our science, and our knowledge.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is that technical information and science and knowledge that you have provided to CEMA, which has led them to conclude that we should have a moratorium until January 1, 2011, disclosable? Can we have that information?

[Cynthia Wright]

CEMA would have taken multiple sources of information. So our information with respect to the ecosystems working group would have been related to wildlife issues under our authority and under species at risk, migratory birds, water quality issues, air quality issues--a whole host of issues. There would have been expertise from a number of other federal and provincial departments, as well as external expertise.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm still at a loss. How do we explain this to working Canadians? How do we distinguish between two different jurisdictions, two different groups of scientists who are working together, aboriginal elders, environmental NGOs, all the industry groups that are actually mandated...? Many of the industries are mandated through their licensing to sit on CEMA. It's a condition of licensing. They fund it to 83% or 84%. How are we supposed to explain it to Canadians?

I'm just trying to figure out what's going on here. Can someone at the table help me understand?

[Cynthia Wright]

I think, if I can, Mr. Chair, that the advice to CEMA is consensus based. So all those who voted on it--and they record that--support the advice. So it was mixed. Some industries supported it; some didn't. If I recall, all the NGOs supported it. But the federal government is trying to avoid stepping into the jurisdiction of the Alberta government by abstaining--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has expired. I thank you for that answer.

Monsieur Bigras, cinq minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Wright, I can understand the answers you have given Mr. McGuinty, but you do have regulatory and fiscal tools available to you. That is the reality. The principle of ecoconditionality exists. I do not know if you are familiar with it, but it involves requiring industry to comply with a number of conditions prior to providing assistance. You can talk about a moratorium and licences because the Province of Alberta has jurisdiction over them, but bear in mind that between 1996 and 2002, the federal government gave the oil industry $1.2 billion which contributed to increasing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. That represents $200 million per year for one industry.

In light of the federal funding for this industry which is not helping improve the environment, you must surely have a strategic environmental assessment. Does this industry meet the environmental assessment criteria?

[Cynthia Wright]

When there is a federal policy, there is a strategic environmental assessment done on that broad policy. If there is federal funding in a project, it triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, so then there is a federal role in assessment. That's when Environment Canada would bring in its expertise. The lead federal department would be either the department whose legislative or regulatory tool was triggered or the one that was doing the funding. Environment Canada has not been a trigger for any of the oil sands development, but we provide expertise if the federal authorities--

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

I want this to be clear. Strategic environmental assessments exist for this type of project. The Department of Finance provides financial assistance to the industry. Were you consulted? I understand that you did not want to give the Government of Alberta advice. You do not want to be perceived as trying to exert influence, but are you in a position to advise the Department of Finance which, for its part, contributes to this industry by way of tax incentives? Have you issued a notice on assistance provided to this industry as part of the strategic environmental assessment?

[Cynthia Wright]

I'd have to confirm whether or not we provided direct advice to the Minister of Finance in those areas. I don't know that from my head.

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

The National Energy Board has said that over the next few years we would see an increase of two to five million barrels of oil per day. I do not know if the figure is accurate; so it is subject to correction. Nevertheless, I would like to know if your assessments of the project take this increase into account. That will certainly have a direct impact on the amount of water pumped. In fact, if it takes four barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil and there is a significant increase expected in the number of barrels of oil per day, more water will have to be pumped.

Have you assessed the impact of this increase in production anticipated by 2012?

[Cynthia Wright]

In terms of Environment Canada's advice into environmental assessments, yes, we do give advice with respect to the impact on water quantity and the potential impact of that water quantity on the ecology and health of river ecosystems.

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

The figures are released in National Energy Board reports. You could perhaps confirm them for me. How much of an increase is expected by 2012, in terms of the number of barrels per day? If daily oil production quadruples, what consequences should we expect in terms of the removal and use of water resources? We must be in a position to assess that.