Environment Committee on March 30th, 2010

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Dr. Schindler.

When we started this oil sands and water study, the real concern was going to be tailings ponds leakage, which you've indicated happened and which industry has indicated has happened.

Your study clearly highlights that the danger to water and in the system is much more through airborne contaminants. What I'd like to know is what other studies have corroborated your discovery or demonstration or findings and/or what studies have disproved them. Is there enough science around it? You mentioned the need for long-term monitoring by Environment Canada, but are there other studies out there that either corroborate or disprove what you've managed to develop?

[Dr. David Schindler]

There were other studies in 1978 and 1981 that were published as reports under AOSERP. Other than that, no one has addressed the contaminants in snow. But they dovetail well with the “emissions to the atmosphere” reports, as I pointed out, as part of Environment Canada's NPRI study. What we're hoping is that they will get some renewed attention as a result of our study.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses.

Of course, there's emerging consensus around the importance of greater oil sands development, so much so that political leaders are stating their support for it. We have the current Liberal leader speaking in Alberta; it's been clear that he supports greater oil sands development. We have Liberal premiers in Ontario and Quebec recently on the record acknowledging the importance of oil sands development to their economic recovery, post-recession. Of course, it's been recently reported that the Bloc leader has invested, for more than a tidy return, in oil sands development himself. So we know how important this—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Order, please.

Mr. Bigras?

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

Mr. Chair, I think we are getting away from the subject. I don't think that that is being studied right now. I would urge you perhaps to remind members that we are studying the project, and also of what the Standing Orders stipulate with regard to sticking to the topic at hand. It is certainly not the accounts and personal finances of each of the members. People might be surprised to learn what is going the other side.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Do you wish to speak on that point of order, Mr. Warawa?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On that point of order, I think my honourable colleague is pointing out the balance—sustainability. We have to have a development that is done in an environmental way, but there has to be also a sustainable approach. What he was pointing out is that in fact the Bloc leader supports personally the oil sands, by investment. I think it shows a confidence and sustainability.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm going to rule you, Mr. Watson, out of order and ask that in our role as parliamentarians we not make disparaging remarks about other members.

I'm also going to rule it out of order on grounds of relevance, in that I don't believe it adds anything to the debate on the questions we have right now.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, you never allowed me to even speak to the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Did you want to speak to the point of order?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Well, you've already ruled now, Mr. Chair, so I'm not sure that I can speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Well, I found your comments offensive.

Carry on. I'll give you an extra minute.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much. I was talking about the importance of oil sands development. So the work of this committee obviously being important....

Turning to our witnesses, I'd like to start, Dr. Gibbins, with you.

In a 2007 policy paper titled “Getting It Right: A Canadian Energy Strategy for a Carbon-Constrained Future”, you recognized that “climate change is a global challenge that requires a proactive and creative public policy response by all Canadians”. Your paper focuses on the supply side of the energy question and has suggested that “getting It right” means “seeking policy options that are principled, regionally balanced, economically viable, and effective over time”.

Specifically, and with respect to the oil sands development, what does “getting It right” mean to this sector?

[Dr. Roger Gibbins]

It's clear that any discussion about oil sands development will have to be folded into a broader strategy on climate change/global warming that the Government of Canada and Canadians adopt. What we're trying to say is that rather than focus exclusively on a legitimate set of environmental concerns, we also have to consider the energy concerns that Canadians have in terms of security of supply, price of supply, and so on. We're just trying to argue that the oil sands are part of a very complex energy mix in Canada: it's nuclear in Ontario, it's hydro in Quebec and British Columbia, it's hydrocarbons in other parts.

We need some kind of policy integration that looks at that set of energy sources and doesn't cherry-pick and say we're going to focus on the oil sands alone, because they're “out of sight, out of mind” for the rest of the country.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Remaining with the oil sands sector and your comments on energy mix, what role do you see the oil sands playing in Canada's future energy mix?

[Dr. Roger Gibbins]

My guess would be that in the short term they will be an increased component of that mix and over the long term a diminishing component. We will move toward more carbon-constrained, carbon-neutral energy sources. It's going to take a long time to get there, and we're not going to have the kinds of massive hydro developments we've had in the past. So we're going to change that energy mix, but in the short term, that is 10 to 15 years, hydrocarbons are going to remain important. The oil sands are going to remain an important part of that. I don't see how we can escape that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I want to move to a question on water usage now, and, Mr. Gibbins, you can answer this, or perhaps Ms. Farrell. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Alberta Environment have jointly developed an interim water management framework. That was created to ensure ongoing oversight that can react to changes in water availability in the Athabasca River basin. The interim framework, as you all know, sets maximum water withdrawals for each week of the year.

Given that oil sands production goes on 24/7 almost 365 days a year, what challenges do these water limits pose for industry, and how is the industry managing the limitations? And if I could pose a further follow-up--I may not get a chance to--what are the prospects for further reductions in water use?

[Dr. Roger Gibbins]

I don't think I'm the appropriate person to address that.

[Dawn Farrell]

The only thing I can say on the Athabasca is it would be important, if the committee is interested in a discussion on that, to look at some of the work being done in Alberta on the storage mechanisms that are required to ensure you have the ability to have the water at a steady state. Those are the kinds of discussions that are going on here in Alberta.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you. Time has expired.

For the committee's information, O'Brien and Bosc, chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, page 614: “Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order.”

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to speak to that, if I could, when you're done.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It further states, “A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.”

Also, there are questions of relevance, whether or not the point you raised is relevant to the overall debate we're sharing today.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Fair enough, if you want to question the relevance, but you raised this as a disparaging remark, and I want the record to show that certainly I was not phrasing it as a disparaging remark. In fact, one's personal investment in the development of the oil sands is a positive development. I was simply stating that if we have political consensus among leaders, that's a positive development. We're recognizing the significance of oil sands development. That in no way is a disparaging remark, Mr. Chair. I was not critical of his investments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Point taken. With that....