Evidence of meeting #104 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was projects.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Chair, Environment Committee, Paddle Canada
Yes, as I said in my statement, I do think that is adequate—
5:35 p.m.
Chair, Environment Committee, Paddle Canada
—to include paddle craft, and it's more specific. In the old Navigable Waters Protection Act there was no real definition. There was a common law definition of “float a canoe”. In 2009, when I appeared before the Senate committee, the department at that time was proposing a much more specific definition—i.e., 30 centimetres, but also waters that did not have a certain number of natural obstacles, dams, beaver dams, rapids, etc. in them. It really wasn't workable. I pointed out that you only need four inches of water to float a canoe.
I think this definition will work.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you all for being here today. I'm going to be asking a question each of Mr. Hazell and Mr. Northey.
Mr. Hazell, you brought up the aspect of the four triggers that need to be involved in this, that the application of the IAA just to projects designated by a regulation should be expanded to include other triggers such as federal lands, funds, approvals, and proponency.
Why do you feel this is so important? Also, how do you feel we can actually speed the process up, expedite it, and make it more efficient?
5:35 p.m.
Director of Conservation, Nature Canada
There are two questions.
Why do we need a more expansive project list, or one that would actually include law list regulations?
The bottom line is that federal decisions, under whatever legislation they're made or wherever they are on federal lands, should be based on sustainability criteria. That's the way we have to do business in the future. If we just decide we're not going to do that, then I think we're really missing the boat, and creating even more problems for our children and grandchildren.
There are events like an Olympics. Calgary has now indicated that it wants to host an Olympics in 2026. Are we not going to do an environmental assessment on that? Will we just let Parks Canada do what it has been doing over the past few years, and just work quietly and not involve the public? I don't think we're going to get to sustainable outcomes that way, and I think the evidence is clear from the information that CPAWS had to get by access request. Again, I think that's another issue that we're having to go to access to get information that should be publicly available.
We really have to expand the list. Law list provisions would be our first preference. If we're not going to go there, then we have to really focus on the project list.
One comment that I would make to the committee is, are you not concerned that you are buying a pig in a poke, here? You're being asked to make recommendations for amendments, bring this bill forward for third reading, when you have no idea what's on this project list. The project list is really the primary way in which projects will be assessed. Isn't that a problem? I suggest to you that it is and that you should know. You should at least have a draft list from the government.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Hazell.
Mr. Northey, on the expert panel you had talked about the position of why life-cycle regulators should not lead or chair, or be on the IAA, a part of the agency. Could you explain the importance of that, as to why they should not be in that position and why that recommendation was made?
5:40 p.m.
Partner, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, As an Individual
I'd like to think that we were not quite as absolute as saying they shouldn't have any role. I think what we were really concerned about was the idea that some two of the three legs to environmental assessment right now were largely industry regulators and were, at least in the case of the National Energy Board, in some public controversy over how independent they were of the industry they were regulating.
What we were trying to do was to disentangle the impact assessment component of their mandates from their regulatory components. We were pretty blunt about having an agency lead IA, but I'm not troubled by the idea that they work together with those regulators.
What we're trying to do, though, is to speak to the point that you have to have some independence to do IA that isn't simply covered by the industry mandate, if I could put it that way. That's what we're wrestling with.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'd like to expand—and finish off, I have a bit of time left—where Mr. Amos was going.
I was involved in an Environmental Review Tribunal process in Ontario. I understand the environmental assessment and tribunal process, and I think it was a good process that we went through in Ontario. Would you see that as a good addition to this bill, to bring forward an Environmental Review Tribunal, as an appeal process, and why?
5:40 p.m.
Partner, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, As an Individual
I think I answered that one. Absolutely, I think that is exactly what we need.
The only thing I would say is that the Environmental Review Tribunal might be inappropriately focused on environment, relative to what we're speaking of here, because, as I said earlier, I think one of the most compelling things that needs to be addressed is indigenous rights.
One of the things that's not in the Environmental Review Tribunal mandate but that the panel was very interested in—and I want to emphasize it in light of the industry concern here—is what the timeline is. How do we make sure that regulators, if independent, are responsive to timelines? Ontario's not had a good past in its environmental hearing processes of really mandating controlling timelines.
I would want to make sure we didn't go down that path here, if I were to support your recommendation.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I think Mr. Hazell earlier wanted to make a comment on that as well.
5:40 p.m.
Director of Conservation, Nature Canada
There has been a lot of support for the idea of having a tribunal and doing actual environmental assessments, as Rod was saying. I just want to make sure it's clear that this idea, the CRTC-like body or the tribunal, is different from what others have been talking about. That is the right of appeal, the right to appeal decisions. You have a decision made at the political level, subject to some type of appeal or perhaps a revved-up judicial review process. Those are two separate things, and we need to be careful that they are.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I have to be very careful with the time. We're trying to get one more questioner in before we have to leave for votes.
Go ahead, Ms. Kusie.
April 18th, 2018 / 5:40 p.m.
Stephanie Kusie Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As a proud Albertan, I am very happy to say that we pride ourselves on the steps taken to protect the environment when acquiring our natural resources. The information I am about to share is from some key facts from the Government of Canada as recently as July 2017.
For example, first, per-barrel greenhouse gas emissions have decreased as a result of technological advancements in the oil sands. They have helped to create more energy-efficient practices and to decrease GHG emissions in the oil sands. One of the most important mechanisms used to achieve this is cogeneration, a process where steam and electricity are produced simultaneously. By converting energy and by-product into electricity that would otherwise be waste, cogeneration has contributed significantly to the 30% decrease in per-barrel GHG emissions seen in the oil sands since 1990.
In addition, it would seem that most GHG emissions come from our cars. While GHGs are emitted in the extraction phase of the crude oil production process, most of the life-cycle emissions of fuel actually come from vehicles' tailpipes. Final combustion of gasoline emerging from your tailpipe accounts for approximately 70% to 80% of well-to-wheel life-cycle emissions. These vehicle emissions are the same, of course, regardless of the crude oil from which the gasoline is derived.
The third point would be that, specifically relevant to oil sands, tailing pond technology is improving significantly. Oil sand extraction results in the accumulation of large amounts of residual waste known as “tailings”, which contain a mixture of water, clay, unrecovered bitumen and solvent, and dissolved chemicals, including some organic compounds that are toxic. These tailings are stored in large ponds similar to water dams. The water released from these ponds can be recycled and reused in oil sands processing. However, the majority remains as mud.
5:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
All oil sands land, of course, must be reclaimed. The Government of Alberta requires that companies remediate and reclaim 100% of the land after the oil sands have been extracted. Reclamation means that the land is returned to a self-sustaining ecosystem with local vegetation and wildlife, which, of course, as an Albertan, I'm very proud of, as well.
In the oil sands area, the Government of Alberta has committed to conserving and protecting more than two million hectares of habitat for native species as part of the “Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2012-2022”. In addition, there's almost 4.5 million hectares of federally protected land just north of the oil sands, a significant amount.
The fifth point is that, of course, oil sand water withdrawals are very closely monitored. The Athabasca River water management framework ensures annual withdrawals by oil sand companies never exceed 3% of the Athabasca River flow. In practice, annual withdrawals are often less than 1%.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Ms. Kusie, can you just bring it around to the bill that we're studying? Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
I'm getting there, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Certainly it is relevant. This is specifically relevant to both the environment and the oil sector, which I believe are the two cruxes of Bill C-69. It is all very relevant indeed.
In practice, annual withdrawals are often less than 1%. The framework also limits, monitors, and adjusts withdrawals from the river on a weekly basis.
Finally, point number six is that almost all water in the oil sands is, of course, recycled, so most water used in oil sands development is recycled, 80% in fact, for established mining operations, and approximately 94% for in situ recovery. However, some new water is required and comes from a variety of sources including on-site drainage, collected precipitation, rain and melt water, underground salt water, brackish—I've always liked that word, brackish—aquifers, and local watersheds such as rivers.
I would say, given these incredible improvements that have been made and have been recorded by the Government of Canada most recently as July 2017, as I said, I wonder if Mr. Hazell can still, in fact, agree with Andrew Weaver's comments cited earlier today:
This should concern all Canadians who took the Prime Minister at his word when he said he would build a clean, forward-looking economy. That means providing targeted incentives and support programs for industries who are embracing low-carbon solutions. Instead, the Prime Minister is doubling down on a sunset industry whose expansion puts our climate targets out of reach. We need to be investing in our shared future, not subsidizing the wealth of Texas oil companies.
Mr. Hazell, are you still in agreement with the comment of Mr. Weaver, given the information that I shared with you in regard to the incredible environmental improvements that have been made in regard to oil sands development?
Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
Director of Conservation, Nature Canada
Congratulations to the oil sands industry for reducing their per barrel emissions, but the reality is that the emissions in the oil sands industry and greenhouse gases continue to increase, and they're the largest growing source of GHG emissions in the country. It can't go on. The oil sands industry is a sunset industry. We have to figure out other ways of doing it. We have to decarbonize the economy.
That's going to be tough, and it's going to be tough in Alberta, but we have to figure out a way.
