Environment Committee on March 12th, 2009

[Cynthia Wright]

That's correct. We're helping to shape what their research is and participating in executing that research.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Generally speaking, is their work considered to be robust? Is it helpful?

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes, and I think the Alberta government is recognizing that by increasing the demand and the priority they give to that work, so we are increasing our effort to be further engaged in it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I need to ask this, partly on the basis of water and the analysis, because they do have what I guess they call a water working group there.

[Cynthia Wright]

Yes. It's the surface water working group.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

On that surface water working group, partly as a result of a lot of the analysis, I'm led to understand that CEMA wrote to the Alberta government in January 2008 calling, effectively, for a moratorium on the further granting of new resource tenures--basically, licences--until January 1, 2011. CEMA was concerned. They wanted to maintain what they called “the conservation opportunity in the areas identified by CEMA as having high conservation value”.

Is it the position of the Department of the Environment or the Government of Canada that these new resource tenures should now be held back on an interim basis until January 1, 2011?

[Cynthia Wright]

I think, Mr. Chair, the member is referring to a moratorium that was asked for until some work could be completed on what was called the ecosystem management framework. That was in order to keep opportunities for conservation identified.

CEMA works by consensus. There are a number of government departments in it. The practice is for the federal government members to abstain from giving direct advice to the Alberta government, which is where the CEMA recommendations go. It's a view of Environment Canada that that the consensus process should operate, but we don't vote, if you will, on the actual recommendations that flow into the Government of Alberta.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let me ask you, then, from what you know about CEMA's work, which is evidence-based work and research, are the Canadian people supposed to believe CEMA, as a multi-stakeholder group, when they call for this interim moratorium on new resource tenures? Are we supposed to trust that work or not?

[Cynthia Wright]

What I can say is that CEMA is an experts-based group. There is a high degree of expertise from a number of different departments and jurisdictions, which informs CEMA's advice.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You're the official who's implementing and coordinating this, I understand, so what is our position right now with respect to the department and the government on this call for a suspension of new resource tenures until January 1, 2011? Do we support that call?

[Cynthia Wright]

I explained, Mr. Chair, that this is advice that goes to the Government of Alberta folks, so we abstain from commenting on a specific recommendation going to the Government of Alberta.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I don't want to put you on the spot with the Government of Alberta, but what's their position with respect to this call?

[Cynthia Wright]

I don't have the current information right now on where they stand.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So we don't have a position on CEMA's call because it's advisory only, and we don't really respond to it because it's made only to the Government of Alberta?

[Cynthia Wright]

That's correct. Its purpose is to give advice to the Government of Alberta.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Are your water scientists and engineers concerned about what CEMA is saying here?

[Cynthia Wright]

Our scientists are there to provide their technical expertise, which informs the multi-stakeholder analysis that CEMA then provides to the Government of Alberta.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You will have the Government of Alberta at the committee, I would hope, when we're out there with them.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Do I have time remaining?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Actually, time has expired. Thank you, Mr. McGuinty, but we will be able to ask those questions of the Government of Alberta at that time.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses for appearing here today.

I don't know if too much lag time has passed, Mr. Cooper, but I sensed that you wanted to respond to Mr. André's last question. Would you care to add your response in with respect to the issue of cancer and communities?

[John Cooper]

Yes. I want to comment very briefly in respect to the air pollution and that dynamic in terms of the oil sands and how important that is. Certainly we recognize their emissions as a concern. With the oil sands, they are certainly not at the level that we see in southern Ontario, for example, in terms of particulate matter, and that links to trace metals or ozone. But both of these certainly are reasons to be concerned. I just wanted to highlight the importance of addressing air pollution in the overall context in dealing with the oil sands.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you. I wanted to ensure that got on the record as well.

Ms. Wright, earlier when the chair was asking about providing some information of the community, you said that Environment Canada is not involved with the design of tailings ponds in any fashion. I would presume that an environmental assessment has to be done on a project requiring a tailings pond, so there would have to be some knowledge or expertise in the department as a lead agency under the CEAA. So there would have to be some knowledge of design or some concern around that.

Can you reconcile your answer with what my understanding is, or am I off base on that?

[Cynthia Wright]

Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, there are a number of triggers that cause the federal government to carry out an environmental assessment. It could be federal funding or it could be a river crossing or some loss of fish habitat that would trigger the review. So if the tailings pond is not in a fish-bearing water, is not crossing a river, then it wouldn't trigger the federal environmental assessment, and so the federal government wouldn't be directly involved. Of course, all of the scientific knowledge that we have at Environment Canada is publicly available and could be used by the provincial assessment, but we're not directly involved in a provincial environmental assessment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So no tailings pond construction has triggered any environmental assessment that Environment Canada has been involved in?