Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that you are in a difficult situation. I would say that you are between a rock and a hard place. I am going to give you an example. I was quite friendly with some people who worked at Hydro-Québec and who, for some time, were doing environmental assessments a lot like the ones you do. The type of report they produced inevitably varied depending on the vice-president who was there. As you say, the minister has never refused your reports because you are smart enough to adjust yourself to her level. At one point, they decided that it didn’t make sense to always do the studies internally and they decided to have the reports done by outside people, in order to reduce the level of criticism. They confided the task to outside engineers. What happened? When they were asked to do a study for a project that was to cross wetlands, they didn’t say not to do it, because they would never have got another contract. When an important study was done for the Hertel-Des Cantons line, engineers, the people responsible, did it. They said that the project should go ahead, and yet that was criticized.
In your case, when you are asked to do a study on the oil sands, you know that there are significant greenhouse gas emissions, and your definition of the word “acceptable” will inevitably come into play. The groups may very well all come to testify before you, but yours will be there, and it’s very variable. It can vary from none to all. You are obliged to set the bar at a certain height so that a given minister will accept it. It is a project that must be done. You cannot take the responsibility of stopping a project like the oil sands.
Power plants are another example. Nuclear power could replace natural gas, which is used to produce oil from the oil sands. What is your position on this? Nuclear does not produce GHG, but that is not where the problem lies. The issue is what to do with the nuclear waste. What will your position be?