Environment Committee on March 5th, 2009

[Steve Burgess]

The act came into force in 1995.

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

Very well, but when were the very first assessments of all projects, including hydro development projects, carried out?

[Steve Burgess]

Nationally, yes.

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

In what year were the first environmental assessments of projects carried out in accordance with the law?

[Steve Burgess]

In 1995.

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

What were the first oil sands projects to be assessed?

[Steve Burgess]

I do not have that information with me.

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

Is it possible that they began in 2003?

[Steve Burgess]

Yes, those assessments probably began around that time.

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

How do you explain that hydro development projects were assessed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and that all of a sudden in 2003 the first oil sands environmental assessments began?

[Steve Burgess]

As I explained in my presentation, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is triggered when the government makes decisions regarding a given project. These are the triggers leading to our decision of whether or not there should be an assessment. I would not say that there was a delay in the assessment of oil sands extraction projects, but the only reason for any delay is that the assessment process relies entirely on these triggers.

As I explained, it is not all oil sands projects that require an assessment, given that there is not necessarily a federal decision to be made regarding these projects. In the case of hydro development projects, there will clearly be an impact on fish habitat, for example, and this is why we consistently have triggers.

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

Hydro development projects must therefore obviously undergo an environmental assessment given that they impact upon fish. However, oil sands projects do not necessarily require an environmental assessment because, in your view, there is no federal or international responsibility with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.

However, Imperial Oil's Kearl project is a $7 billion project aimed at producing 300,000 barrels of oil per day during the next 50 years. That is the equivalent of approximately 800,000 cars on the road. This project was challenged before the Federal Court, that was of the view that the review panel, in its report, did not provide much substantiation of its conclusions with regard to the greenhouse gas emissions related to that undertaking.

Therefore, how can you state today that hydro development projects have an environmental impact and must undergo environmental assessments, but that it should not be the case for certain other projects. Even you current assessments do not take into account the impact of climate change.

How can you state before the Federal Court that you have done an assessment of the project, but that the conclusions and reports relating to greenhouse gases are not quite complete.

It is at the end of 1990 that you understood that the assessment of the cumulative effects of oil sands projects on a case by case basis was relatively inefficient and had serious limitations. That is what you told us, here, in committee, as recently as in June 2008. This is why, as Mr. McGuinty stated, CEMA was established in 2000.

Do you therefore recognize that even in areas that come under your jurisdiction, the information pertaining to oil sands projects and the reports tabled by the review panels are incomplete? I am not the one who is saying this; it is the Federal Court.

[Le vice-président, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Burgess, would you provide a quick answer, please.

[Steve Burgess]

First of all, even if the federal government does not conduct assessments of oil sands projects, that does not mean that no assessment is being done. In fact, these projects fall under provincial jurisdiction. These projects should be assessed.

As I stated earlier, our process is dependent upon a federal decision being made pertaining to these projects. In the absence of a federal decision, federal authorities are not entitled to carry out an assessment.

In the case of the Kearl project, the court did indeed state that the panel had not sufficiently justified its conclusions with regard to the effects of the project as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned. And the review panel redid its work in response to the demands of the Federal Court.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Burgess.

We will now move on to Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll go back to Mr. Burgess.

Mr. Burgess, there have been successive court cases brought against the federal government for failure to apply and enforce the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Kearl case being one of the most recent, one in which the federal Department of Fisheries had to withdraw its permit. What kinds of actions is the CEAA office taking to respond to this continued filing of court actions and in many cases of serious findings showing flaws in the application of federal laws on the tar sands projects?

[Steve Burgess]

Some of the challenges in the application of the act that have arisen over the years have revolved around project scoping, for example. Many of the court cases that have arisen in the past have had to do with questions around whether the projects considered in environmental assessments have been scoped appropriately. Over the course of time, the courts have clarified what the responsible authorities' responsibilities are with respect to that issue.

In order to provide some clarity and consistency with respect to how projects are scoped, we've developed a cabinet directive on scoping for purposes of environmental assessment. That's one example of how we're addressing that kind of issue.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Can I ask you, Mr. Burgess--or maybe Mr. Stringer can answer this--is the coordination of the environmental assessment and the regulation between the Alberta and federal governments being coordinated by the CEAA office or the new MPMO in NRCan?

[Steve Burgess]

The actual coordination of environmental assessments, in the case of a joint review panel, for example, or in the case of a screening where both the federal and provincial processes apply is still being conducted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The role of Major Project Management Office is to provide oversight, if you will, with regard to both the environmental assessment and the regulatory processes that apply to these projects. So the MPMO would be one window into the process, should there be issues that arise during the course of the review—mainly for proponents, but for others as well.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Can you tell me, Mr. Burgess, what is the regulatory trigger for NRCan to be involved in an environmental review of tar sands projects?

[Steve Burgess]

They are not a responsible authority for environmental assessments. They have been given by cabinet the role of providing some oversight of the environmental review and regulatory review of major resource projects broadly.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So we are actually moving toward some duplication, where we now have the CEAA office and MPMO. I'm very confused about how this is actually making things more efficient.

[Kevin Stringer]

To answer your first question, CEAA does a coordination with the province. MPMO is responsible when there is a large project—and there is a definition for a major project. It is to try to have a one-window approach for the federal government, involving all of the responsible agencies, as I think they're called, but also all the other players who would be involved in that. So it's to set up a specific group for coordinating that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Who, for example, would the other players be?

[Kevin Stringer]

You would see Indian and Northern Affairs at the table, and there are other departments that don't necessarily have an environmental review responsibility for a major project. It's to understand all of the issues around the major project. This was set up largely for efficiency and to try to ensure that we're more comprehensive than we have been.