Environment Committee on May 13th, 2009

[Glen Semenchuk]

I will, but perhaps I can take half a second to qualify the other part.

I believe an effective and efficient multi-stakeholder group is a very valuable part of looking at the sustainable development of the oil sands. It provides a forum for the various groups to come together and exchange their information and their concerns, which leads forward to good recommendations. If you are going to put that effort into a multi-stakeholder group, it is critical for it to be running effectively.

I probably made the wrong assumption and assumed that people understood where CEMA was and some of the criticisms of CEMA that have somewhat taken away from its role of providing good research. To go back to the explanation of how CEMA contributes to the overall picture of achieving sustainability in the oil sands, CEMA facilitates research and studies that are used to formulate these regulations through recommendations to the regulators. The regulators and the CEMA members have given to the CEMA administration the responsibility of designing studies and working with experts from all over the world to try to address some of these tough questions.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Do you have any concrete things to say about the oil sands?

[Glen Semenchuk]

Yes. CEMA has put forward a number of these recommendations. I can undertake to forward these through the committee chair to you.

Over the last ten years, a number of them have gone forward. For example, one of the big areas that we work in is reclamation. We're doing the majority of research on reclamation. We have recently produced a guideline on how you re-establish a wetland. If wetlands are destroyed through the mining operations, the guideline deals with how you reclaim them.

Through our reclamation group we are also looking at one of the issues that was brought up earlier today, the issue of end pit lakes. We're facilitating bringing in experts in modelling and trying to see if that is a viable alternative. In the case of air, we have two working groups looking at some of the factors that will contribute to the establishment of these thresholds and ultimately to what should be monitored. In our trace metals group, we are also looking at things like human health issues. We have just finished a traditional food study with the aboriginal groups in the area.

So we're contributing research in a number of areas towards that goal of sustainability.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Ouellet.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Semenchuk, I'm actually a little surprised at your comment saying that CEMA is unique in being a multi-stakeholder group where government refers matters for review. I sat on the Clean Air Strategic Alliance for seven years. It's 20 years old. We also have the water council of Alberta, and the airsheds of Alberta. All of these organizations are multi-stakeholder and deal with major policy initiatives.

I'm puzzled for you to suggest that CEMA is unique and the only one in Alberta. All of those are also based on consensus.

[Glen Semenchuk]

I did not say it was the only one in Alberta. I said it was unique.

Part of the reshaping of CEMA is to try to emulate some of the ones that you referred to. CEMA was unique in that it had a large membership, where every member was part of the board, and you had about a 44-member board. It was unique in that it was attempting to come to this consensus with such a large group, and the challenges involved in that.

As you may recall, I then alluded to the fact that we needed to do some rethinking, we needed to do some reshaping, and we didn't have to start with a blank page. There were some very good examples here in Alberta.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So you agree that there are other good--

[Glen Semenchuk]

Oh, absolutely. The uniqueness of CEMA is just CEMA itself.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Organizations such as Pembina continue to be involved in those other organizations that are consensus-based and multi-stakeholder.

[Glen Semenchuk]

And as I indicated, when Pembina and the aboriginal groups left, they all left good suggestions. They left the door open and put the challenge back to CEMA.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I wonder if you could clarify something. Who was originally represented on CEMA, and who's left there now?

[Glen Semenchuk]

Right now we have 44 members: 20 industry, 13 government agencies, six aboriginal groups, and five ENGO groups. We lost three first nations and three ENGOs.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So it's by and large an industry-government group now.

[Glen Semenchuk]

That is the majority of members.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

To my understanding, one of the concerns for the first nations--it wasn't peculiar to CEMA--is their frustration with being recognized as an order of government, that they are first nation. For example, in the Clean Air Strategic Alliance, there are three sectors--government, industry, and NGOs. The first nations and Métis representatives added are clearly there as government.

Is it your understanding that part of their frustration is they don't feel they should have to sit and reach consensus with industry or with the provincial government? It's not that they may not think there's some useful research, and so forth, that goes on, but rather that they have a problem with the process. They argue that they have an overriding constitutional right to be consulted and accommodated, and that they should not have to pare back their demands through negotiation and consensus with industry and the provinces.

[Glen Semenchuk]

That is the view of some of the first nations. It's not the view of all first nations.

The Fort McKay First Nation is still part of CEMA, a very active and contributing member of CEMA. So it's not a universally held belief.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

But that is one of the issues that needs to be addressed.

[Glen Semenchuk]

Absolutely. And that's something that cannot be addressed within CEMA.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I can understand your frustration with that.

I'm advised that when a number of the NGOs withdrew, after a long-time involvement with CEMA, they withdrew after a consensus recommendation. It was recommended that 20% to 40% of the boreal area be set aside. That recommendation was rejected by the Alberta government. They felt they couldn't continue in the process.

Can you advise if there's been any breakthrough in that?

[Glen Semenchuk]

First of all, the recommendation wasn't rejected by the Alberta government. It kept it under review. And it was under review in light of its initiation of its land use framework. The terrestrial ecosystem management framework has not been adopted in whole by government, but government has directed its regional advisory council that the document becomes a very important part of the ultimate lower Athabasca regional plan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

But isn't that the issue, that some groups who formerly did not necessarily support a moratorium are now calling for a moratorium? There's a strong feeling that some areas, wetlands and boreal areas, have to be set aside, because once they're mined, there's no chance to do that. Is that not why they're frustrated, that there's just continuing dialogue, and in the meantime there are projects being approved that will clear those areas?

[Glen Semenchuk]

That was one of the major concerns. CEMA thought enough of it that it actually sent two letters to the provincial regulators to clarify that position of calling for delays in the granting of more dispositions in the areas it had designated for potential protected areas.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. Thanks.

Can you explain to me the relationship or the different roles between the Energy Resources Conservation Board and CEMA? You seem to be alluding to the fact that CEMA is the place where there are discussions on setting frameworks for managing impacts and so on and so forth. Is that not the role of the Energy Resources Conservation Board, to review a project, and to impose binding conditions themselves...than through the regulatory agency?

[Glen Semenchuk]

Absolutely that is their role. But as an active member of CEMA, what they participate in is the science and research. How do you arrive at those regulations? How do you arrive at those thresholds? How do you arrive at those indicators? That way, the research and the studies being undertaken to arrive at those things can be conducted by CEMA.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

How do the two come together? Somebody proposes a project, people can intervene. Where does CEMA come into that and what's the timing? Is the CEMA work all done before the ERCB reviews and decides to approve a project?