Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Good afternoon. Thank you for your attendance.

To our guests, I'm sorry we're a little late, but I guess you understand, having been through this process before. We've just had a vote in the House.

I'd like to welcome, from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Jean-Claude Bouchard, Scott Streiner, and Peter Sylvester. Thank you for coming.

I'd like to welcome as well, from the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Judy Smith and John McEachern. Thank you for coming.

I think you're aware of the proceedings we have been following in recent times. This is really just an information session. We'd like you to provide the committee with some background and then respond to questions on it. I think you'll find that there is a great interest in these matters subsequent to our visit to Fort McMurray. If there is any sort of specific direction to your testimony today, it might be in relation to our current study, which is about the oil sands and the federal government's role in the ongoing development of those oil sands.

Without further ado, I'd like to begin by asking you to give a short presentation, perhaps one from each side. I'll leave it to you to decide how you want to divide that time. Then we'll follow with questions.

Have you discussed among yourselves who will begin, or would you like me to choose?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard, President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

I thought you would tell us who would start.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The agenda has it that we're starting with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, so perhaps you would like to begin, Mr. Bouchard.

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

All right.

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to talk to you about the work of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and in particular the work we do on the oil sands.

We've prepared a presentation that shouldn't take too long. It was distributed to you. I'll do the first part en français and the rest of it in English. Later my colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

The presentation that we prepared for you is essentially going to cover three subjects. To start with, I will be talking to you about the general meaning of the term “environmental assessment,” including the federal environmental assessment process and the role of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Then I will be talking to you about our cooperation agreement with the Government of Alberta and, finally, our experience to date with environmental assessments and oil sands projects.

I should begin by telling you that the Agency is involved in the major projects. Each year in Canada, various federal departments perform 6,000 environmental assessments, and the Agency is very closely involved in the biggest ones.

The purpose of an environmental assessment, as you know, is to determine a project’s potential negative effects on the environment. That allows us, before the work begins, to decide how to mitigate or avoid those negative effects. In the case of a mining project, for example, simply relocating a road to avoid crossing wetlands can have very positive effects on the environment.

At the federal level, the environmental assessment allows the public to have a say. This is an important component. It gives interested Canadians the opportunity to say what they think about a project and to inform the Agency and federal ministers of the effects it may have.

A good environmental assessment allows us to avoid major environmental damage. At the Agency, we often use the following example: if there had been a good environmental assessment process at the turn of the last century, that is, in 1900, we would not have to spend $400 million or $500 million today to clean up the Sydney tar ponds in Cape Breton.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was adopted by Parliament in 1992. It came into force in 1995, and was amended in 2003. The biggest amendment that year was to confirm the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s role as the coordinator of environmental assessments.

It is important to note that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is very similar to the American act adopted in 1970. The basic principles are the same. The environmental assessment process and the roles of the various federal organizations are similar.

The Act applies to project proposals requiring a federal decision. A federal environmental assessment must be performed in the four following cases: first, when the federal government is the promoter, when it is building a structure, for example; next, if it is funding all or part of the project, municipal infrastructures, for example; then, if the project is being carried out on crown lands, in other words, if the promoter is using lands that belong to the federal government; and, finally, in all cases where a permit issued by a federal body is required, such as when the use of explosives requires a permit from Natural Resources Canada.

The responsibility for environmental assessments, as I said earlier, lies with the federal department involved. In the case of the oil sands, the decisions that serve as the trigger often involve the Fisheries Act. That is the case when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans feels that the project could have a negative impact on fish habitats. On other occasions, is the Department of Transport that sets off the environmental assessment because it must issue a permit to use a waterway under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

There are three types of environmental assessment. First, there is what is known as screening. This involves small projects, known as ordinary projects, and represents 95% or 96% of all federal environmental assessments.

The second category is known as a comprehensive study. These are much bigger and more complex projects. Projects of this type are included in a list in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Finally, the third category involves very large projects that are likely to have a major environmental impact or that are controversial and about which there is a great deal of concern. In those case, the Minister of the Environment, most of the time on the agency’s recommendation, appoints a panel to review these projects.

Slides 5 and 6 list some of the agency's responsibilities and duties relevant to oil sands environmental assessments but also relevant to all projects.

A lot of effort at the agency goes into supporting independent review panels, which are appointed by the Minister of the Environment. Those are for the big projects, and sometimes the controversial ones.

For projects assessed through a screening or a comprehensive study, the role of the agency is as a coordinator. When you have more than one federal authority or department involved, we're responsible for making sure they're well coordinated and are working well together. That's basically what we do.

As indicated on slide 6, we have a participant fund, and that's a characteristic of the federal process that you don't find in most, I would say, of the provinces or in other jurisdictions. Our participant fund supports individuals and non-profit organizations that are interested in a project and want to testify or make a contribution. It helps ensure that our review panels get community, aboriginal, and expert knowledge about the possible effects of a proposed project.

In the case of the Muskeg River mine expansion project, which I'm sure you're familiar with, we have allocated $100,000 in participant funding for three organizations. First, there's $23,000 for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation industrial relations corporation; $41,000 for the Mikisew Cree First Nation; and finally, a little bit more than $34,000 for the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition.

The agency also negotiates agreements with provinces and territories to prevent duplication and hopefully achieve our goal of “one project, one assessment”. This is relevant to the way we work with Alberta in the case of the oil sands, and I'll give a few more examples later.

Turning to slide 7, the Canada-Alberta Environmental Assessment Cooperation Agreement was first signed in 1993, but it was amended and revised and renewed in 1999 and in 2005.

The fundamental principle behind those agreements, and the one with Alberta in particular, is that we want a single cooperative assessment that will meet the requirements of both the federal and the provincial legislation. There's no point, if we can avoid it, in subjecting a project or a proponent to two different, separate, independent processes. We're trying to do it together.

For example, under this agreement, we set integrated information requirements for the proponent and we can establish joint review panels where both governments appoint panel members. In the case of Alberta, the Minister of the Environment at the federal level appoints members, who are in turn appointed by the provincial cabinet, and vice versa. Each jurisdiction then takes the results of that cooperative environmental assessment to make its own decision about the project.

On slide 8, in the case of Alberta, what we typically do is work with the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, which holds hearings. The Minister of the Environment appoints a representative to be on the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, who in turn is appointed by the provincial cabinet, and vice versa.

The hearings are conducted by this joint panel. But then there's the participant funding, which is a characteristic of the federal process, that kicks in. So we allocate some funding, which again is managed by the joint panel.

Again, the joint process determines what kinds of mitigation measures are necessary for that project to go ahead, and then both governments make their respective decisions on going ahead or not going ahead. Actually, I shouldn't say going ahead or not going ahead with a project. The answer is never not to go ahead with a project; it is to list a series of mitigation measures. On a few occasions, the mitigation measures are so demanding that the project will not proceed, but we have only very few examples of that, I would say.

Cumulative effect is a challenging part of what we have to do. We're assessing project by project, and yet it is a requirement of the federal legislation to take into account cumulative effect. Joint panels have in their terms of reference and mandate the necessity to deal with cumulative effects. The difficulty with cumulative effects is that there is no cookie-cutter approach. There is no textbook approach to assessing all that, but it is being done to some extent, and to a great extent in some cases.

On slide number 9, finally, at the federal level, an environmental assessment informs the decision that departments need to take. So with a good environmental assessment, Transport Canada will then decide, yes, you can go ahead with that project but you have to do such and such a modification so that it doesn't interfere with navigation on that body of water. Fisheries and oceans will make a decision on the project, but also include some mitigation measures so that it doesn't have a negative impact on fish habitat.

When the project is at the panel level, the Ministry of the Environment receives a report from the panel, and then the various departments involved have a look at this report and prepare a proposed response for cabinet, for the government, and that's done jointly.

Projects assessed through a comprehensive study or review panel also require a follow-up program. So it's one thing to do the environmental assessment, but as the project is being done or completed, you have to follow up. We have to do a couple of things. One of them is first of all to verify that our predictions about the impact on the environment or the result of the mitigation measures is really what is taking place. The second part is to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures and see if we have to modify what we do. It's the concept of adaptive management. After the fact, as we monitor, we may go back to the proponent and say, given what's happening, you may have to modify this, that, or the other thing.

On slide 10, I give you a list of the major oil sands projects that have undergone a federal assessment. I'm talking about the big ones here. Some oil sands projects also have been assessed through screenings, the lowest level of environmental assessment. A couple of examples are True North's Fort Hills and Suncor's Voyageur, which were two projects assessed mainly by Fisheries and Oceans at the screening level.

On page 11, I've tried to give you some idea of the outcomes--what kinds of conditions we impose on a proponent. When we put that slide together, I said to my colleagues, first of all, some of you will have to explain to me some of the terminology here. If I had a problem, I decided I would at least explain to you, respectfully, what some of the words mean.

On the benthic zone, I'm referring to the Jackpine project, where we talk about the benthic macroinvertebrates and monitoring that. The benthic zone is the lowest level of a body of water, and it's inhabited by organisms that tolerate cool temperatures and low oxygen levels, called benthos or benthic organisms. A macroinvertebrate includes snails, worms, crustaceans, and leeches. The presence of pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrates indicates that the body of water is healthy. In other words, if those creatures that are sensitive to pollution live there, it means that the water is okay. On the other hand, if you have excessive presence of pollutant-tolerant macroinvertebrates, then that means that the water is probably very polluted because they're the only ones that can live there. So that's the type of monitoring program that we've asked to have done on the Jackpine project.

On the next one, Horizon, we refer to fish-tainting compounds. By-products of oil sands extractions that enter into water bodies typically alter the taste and odour of fish, making them not very attractive. So the minute you find that, then you know you've had an impact.

Those were a few examples, and there are many others, but I thought I would do that.

The last slide, number 12, is entitled, “The way ahead”. There are a number of things happening that we need to pay attention to at the agency, and our colleagues at the more active departments on environmental assessments are paying attention to them.

First, Natural Resources Canada is forecasting $60 billion of oil sands projects between now and 2013. This is a lot of work for us and for key departments, and we're going to have to find a way to face that volume of work.

Two, there's the Government of Alberta's multi-stakeholder oil sands consultation that was launched, and we're participating in it. It's a higher-level regional environmental assessment, if you wish. The Government of Alberta is trying to assess what's going to be the impact of all the development in northern Alberta. We have a couple of representatives on that committee. We were invited by the provincial government, and we're very active on it.

A third issue, which is increasingly complex, is the approach for consulting aboriginals. There are various court decisions that say that we have to consult aboriginals very early in projects. As a federal family, we need to develop a coordinated approach and the policies that go with it. If we don't work diligently, this could be a showstopper.

Finally, you probably know that our legislation, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, is due for an automatic review in 2010. I would like to think that the committee that is going to be managing this review will be interested in the experience we've had, particularly with oil sands.

I'll stop here, and I will be pleased to answer your questions later with my colleagues. Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. That was very comprehensive. I appreciate it, and I'm sure you will have caused our members to have a number of questions to ask you.

Before we do that, we're going to hear the next presentation.

I wanted to mention that in your closing remarks you mentioned the Government of Alberta multi-stakeholder oil sands consultation. We had hoped to have Vance MacNichol here today as well, but they were not able to conclude with sufficient time that he's able to announce it. He thought that perhaps you would like to announce the results of their consultations in Alberta, before we get it in front of our committee, so we can understand that.

Mr. MacNichol and the Alberta government multi-stakeholder program will not be appearing today, and it's unlikely we'll be able to hear them before Christmas. I just want to let the committee know that. But as soon as it's completed, we will receive a copy of the Alberta multi-stakeholder report.

With that, I would like to proceed.

Ms. Smith, are you going to lead off?

[Judy Smith, Vice-President, Cumulative Environmental Management Association]

I will, thank you.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for inviting us to share with you the important work that the Cumulative Environmental Management Association is doing in the Wood Buffalo area.

My name is Judy Smith. I am currently the vice-president of CEMA, and I'm one of the original founders of the organization, which started back in 1997. With me is John McEachern, who is the executive director of the association.

Today I will provide you with three sets of information: first, some background on our organization to help you understand what we do; second, the current focus of our work; and finally, in conclusion, some comments on the challenges we face and what we are doing to address these challenges.

I have brought a brochure with me that we will be sending you electronically. It has more information on CEMA, and also the website, which you can look at, which will give you even further information.

First, let me tell you a little bit about our background, the mandate, and the organization of CEMA.

CEMA is a registered not-for-profit non-governmental organization established in Alberta in June 2000, although the work of this group officially began in 1997. CEMA provides a forum for stakeholders to discuss and resolve environmental issues related to development.

Note that when I say “development”, I'm not talking only about oil sands development or oil and gas. It includes other types of development, such as forestry, gravel pits, and linear disturbances. More specifically, the mandate of CEMA is to make recommendations on how best to manage cumulative impacts from development, and hence protect the environment and the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo.

These recommendations and management frameworks are based on scientifically founded limits, on the values of the regional stakeholders, and we use information from existing scientific research as well as traditional environmental knowledge. Where information for decision-making is lacking, CEMA funds experienced researchers from around the world, and frequently over several years, to fill knowledge gaps.

CEMA has made excellent progress. To date, more than 150 technical reports have been prepared and over 20 workshops have been held by CEMA, the findings of which form the basis of management recommendations that are provided to provincial governments and to industry on approaches to protect the environment.

CEMA uses consensus-based decision-making at all levels of our organization. This process results in scientifically based recommendations that are acceptable to all CEMA members.

CEMA's member board consists of 47 organizations. The organizations represent six environmental groups, nine first nation and Métis groups, seventeen industries, and fifteen government groups at the local, provincial, and federal levels.

The primary products of CEMA include recommendations on management systems and management objectives to address concerns related to air, land and reclamation, and water. Five working groups and three committees of CEMA develop these recommendations that are referred to the appropriate regulatory body for implementation. Such agencies include Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

Now I'd like to say a few words about the work we have completed, the work that is under way, and the work that's planned at CEMA.

The regional sustainable development strategy developed by Alberta Environment in 1999 has largely guided CEMA's work plans for the Athabasca oil sands region. This initiative identified 72 priority environmental issues in the region. CEMA is responsible for addressing 35 of these issues. Other RSDS issues are being addressed through other regional committees or by the provincial government.

In 2004, CEMA established a five-year strategic plan to provide better focus and direction for our work. At this time, industry also established a five-year, $20 million budget to provide long-term funding for the establishment of regional management systems.

Since the inception of CEMA, six final recommendations and a seventh draft management framework have been forwarded to the Alberta regulators. This work has covered air missions, land disturbances and reclamation, and in-stream flow needs.

I'll list for you the six final recommendations for the oil sands regions: a trace heavy metals management framework in 2001; an acid deposition management framework in 2004; a landscape design checklist in 2004, ecosystem management tools to minimize habitat fragmentation in 2004, the third edition of the landscape capability classification for forest ecosystems in 2006, and an ozone management framework in 2006. In addition, a significant body of work and draft recommendations on an in-stream flow needs management system for the lower Athabasca River were provided to the Alberta government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at the end of 2005. This information is being used by the governments to develop a water management framework for the lower reaches of this northern river system.

As I noted, CEMA's work is accomplished through five technical working groups and through the traditional environmental knowledge committee, the communication committee, and the management committee. I won't go into the details on each of these groups. Suffice it to say, we have a significant amount of work on our table.

Key projects currently being completed include the following: developing a management system for terrestrial ecosystems and landscapes; designing a management framework for trace air contaminants; setting water quality objectives for the lower Athabasca River; developing a watershed integrity management system for the Muskeg River; developing a nitrogen management framework for eutrophication; revising existing reclamation practice guidelines; and creating new predictive models for reclamation activities, such as the design event at lakes. Some of this work is expected to be completed by 2007, while other projects will extend into 2008 and beyond. Much of the work we do in the area of reclamation best practices and guidelines will continue for several years, as new research is completed and new technologies are developed.

The traditional ecological knowledge committee was established to guide the work of CEMA in the integration and use of traditional knowledge in our baseline studies and in our management systems. We know the incorporation of this traditional knowledge is key to developing best products and will result in the strengthened recommendations for the protection of the environment.

The last topic I'd like to talk about is the challenges and opportunities for our organization. As I said in the introduction, CEMA is a non-profit organization. The strategic direction of CEMA is set by our members board and is crafted by including input from all of the members. As I'm sure you can appreciate, finding balance and consensus amongst 47 members with a wide diversity of views and interests is a challenge in itself.

I would like to speak to four challenges we are facing with our organization. They are, first, developing clarity of our mandate with other parties, and indeed within our group; revalidating environmental priorities in the oil sands region; the complexity of our work and timeframe expectations; and lastly, communication.

I'll just say a few words about each of these four items. On developing clarity of our mandate, I need to be clear here. CEMA is an organization that brings together a diversity of stakeholders, as I described a few minutes ago. The strength of our work lies in the involvement of this diverse membership in designing regional environmental management systems. We have active participation by government departments working alongside industry, environmental, and aboriginal groups. CEMA's role is complementary and supportive to the role of government and developing policies and regulation but is not meant to replace the responsibility and accountabilities of the various levels of government. CEMA makes recommendations on ways to improve existing management systems. The government is responsible for reviewing, revising if need be, and implementing and enforcing the management recommendations.

The next challenge we face is revalidating environmental priorities. The regional sustainable development strategy and the environmental priorities in the oil sands region were set back in 1999. It is now time to revisit this strategic framework, update regional environmental issues, and reset priorities in the regional municipality of Wood Buffalo. For example, groundwater is a higher-profile issue now amongst the aboriginal groups, and greenhouse gases and climate change are not being managed under CEMA's mandate. The revision of this strategy has already been recommended to Alberta Environment by CEMA.

The third challenge I'd like to speak about is the complexity of CEMA's work and the timeline expectations. The original thinking was that the RSDS issues could be addressed over a five-year period. Six years into CEMA's work schedule, we can declare that the time estimate was unrealistically short.

We also know that the work we are undertaking is paradigm-shifting. We are also dealing with groundbreaking scientific work that integrates traditional ecological or environmental knowledge. It takes time to do this right, and doing it right is extremely important.

The design of the CEMA process, with a consensus-based board of 47 members, adds to the complexity and timeline to move work forward. You may ask if it is worth the extra time. My emphatic answer would be yes. The recommendations that we have completed are built on a solid foundation of involvement by our stakeholders and on consensus. We believe the additional time taken for public discussions through the CEMA process will be time saved during the implementation phase of the recommendations by the government.

We have many pressures on our time and resources. I am pleased to say that we have tremendous support from our funding community: the oil sands industry. Many of our members, including government departments, contribute significant amounts of in-kind resources, through staff assigned to various CEMA working groups. All of our members participate, though from many of their perspectives they do not have the capacity to participate at the level they would desire.

At the same time, we experience constraints on our ability to move projects as quickly as some parties may want. To continue to increase the rate at which we develop environmental management frameworks, CEMA is implementing an improved goal-setting and performance-tracking system, providing training in project management, requesting increased participation by senior government representatives, and pursuing methods to increase levels of accountability and participation by all organizations on CEMA. In addition, the use of regulatory backstops to ensure the completion of key management systems on set timelines is being reviewed.

The last topic I'd like to speak to is communication, which is our fourth challenge. One of our shortcomings at CEMA has been our failure to communicate adequately about the extensive groundbreaking work we have done in developing regional environmental management systems for the Wood Buffalo region. To correct this important oversight, we have hired a communication officer and re-established a communication committee. We are developing a communication plan for both internal and external stakeholders.

In closing, I would like to say that CEMA is conducting paradigm-shifting work that is producing robust management recommendations that are supported by multi-stakeholders and are based on science and traditional environmental knowledge. CEMA has a pivotal role in designing regional world-class management systems to address the cumulative effects of development and to protect the air, water, and land in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the brief from CEMA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Smith.

Well, again there's lots of information to absorb, and we've just begun.

Who will we start off with today? I will now move to questions, and I'm going to ask Mr. Cullen to begin the questioning today.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all the witnesses today.

The notion of cumulative impact is something that I find very interesting and intriguing. Now, to the Cumulative Environmental Management Association, you're a not-for-profit; you would identify projects or areas to review based on your board of directors and the priorities that you see. You would write reports, and you would input them into various processes that are going on, but you don't really have a decision-making capability. But I accept and I appreciate the fact that you're doing a lot of excellent work.

To the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the part that concerns me—we were just up there—is that if you look at what's there to date, I think you could make an argument that it may not be sustainable currently, especially as it relates to the water resources, the impacts on the Athabasca River Basin, etc. But if you look at what's coming, which is alluded to here in both presentations, there are 40-odd projects. And I gather that CEMA's mandate does not extend to climate change or CO2; I presume the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency would be seized of issues like that. I'm not sure. Maybe Mr. Bouchard, when I've finished, you could respond to that. My concern is in terms of cumulative impact.

Mr. Bouchard, could you tell me what triggers an assessment? You talked about certain more junior-level assessments, or minor assessments. Is it a dollar figure? Is it something that is set by other criteria? And who decides which agency would have an interest or a lead? For example, in two of the projects that you looked at, you talked about Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans. Who would be concerned with issues around CO2 production, around the impact on the water resources in the area? Who would decide who is going to be the lead on the assessment? Is there a danger—that's the other question I have—of a number of smaller incremental projects getting under the radar and our missing out on the cumulative impacts?

I see that there is this multi-stakeholder exercise, but I presume that would have been initiated by the Alberta government, I'm not sure--maybe with your encouragement, hopefully. How do we make sure as we move forward that this is sustainable, and that we don't miss the big picture in terms of cumulative impacts, not only in terms of water, in terms of CO2...?

I don't know if you would be interested at all—it would be included in either of your mandates—in looking at the way we're using our natural gas resources. I think there is an issue around whether this is the most efficient use of our natural gas resources.

I'll stop there. Maybe, Mr. Bouchard, you could start, and then, Ms. Smith, you could comment on that.

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

You've asked a lot of questions, and I'll do my best to answer them. If you don't mind, I'll ask my colleague Scott Streiner to give me a hand as well. He was taking copious notes here.

First, the obligation to do an environmental assessment is triggered by a number of factors. We can't decide not to do one because we don't like it.

For example, if the federal government is the proponent, if it's something the federal government builds, you automatically have to have a federal environmental assessment. If we transfer a piece of crown land to a proponent or to another government, whatever that proponent does with the piece of land triggers the necessity to have a federal environmental assessment. If we fund a project in total or in part, there's the obligation to have a federal environmental assessment.

Finally, in any circumstance where a federal department issues an authorization or a permit.... I gave the example of the use of explosives. What we find more often is that if you want to build something that will have an impact on the water or on fish habitat, automatically Fisheries and Oceans gets in there.

At any rate, the federal government issues lot of permits, and in all of those circumstances there is an environmental assessment. Typically there are 6,000 every year, and that number is growing.

So it's not a question of deciding that we're going to have one or not going to have one. It's in our legislation. We have to perform them.

There are different levels, as I explained. Screening is for the small projects. You also asked who decides if there's a comprehensive study. There's a list attached to our legislation that says a hydroelectric project of such-and-such a magnitude requires automatically a comprehensive study, which is a very detailed environmental assessment. Then the Minister of the Environment has the authority to bump that up to the creation of an independent panel of experts to review a project. That's the way it works.

Now, what about the cumulative effect? As I said in my presentation, it's not always simple. Our legislation is structured to evaluate project by project, not necessarily to look at the whole of northern Alberta. But our act also says that we need to take into consideration cumulative effect. For example, the effect on the Athabasca River has been very much considered by every one of the panels that has been appointed in the recent past.

So yes, that is being monitored, assessed by scientists, and considered by the panel.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Mr. Bouchard, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I want to give Ms. Smith an opportunity to respond as well on the cumulative effects, if I may.

Ms. Smith, please.

[Judy Smith]

Certainly, thank you.

There were a lot of questions asked in that one series of questions at the beginning, but I will say this. I think there's very much a general consensus among our members that on the air, water, and land side we're actually not near the levels or thresholds where emissions or water withdrawals, for example, would damage the environment.

The intent of CEMA is to design management systems for the future that will prevent damage either to the ecosystems or to the air or to the water. We are being proactive before the level of development would reach those management objectives or thresholds. I'm sure everyone around our CEMA table would support that statement, that we are being proactive to set up those management systems before we do have major damage in the region. I think that's a really important point that you need to remember.

I would also say that we are not decision-makers; we are helping to provide the tools for the decision-makers. So we are providing management recommendations that would be translated into policies or regulations that could be used by regulators as more development comes on board.

We do not have within our mandate right now the issue to address CO2 and climate change, but it is one of the issues on the RSDS strategy that I talked about. When we go through our clarification of mandate and reprioritization of environmental issues in the Wood Buffalo region, that is one that may come to a higher profile and be set as a priority.

The last thing I would say is that when cumulative effects assessments are done in environmental impact assessments in the region, they do take into account all the projects in the region. You were talking about a “death by a thousand cuts” concept, and this is well known and it's being addressed at CEMA by setting in place these management systems. But when cumulative effects are done within environmental impact assessments for various developments in the region, we do look at not only existing projects and the applications but proposed projects in the region.

So we are looking at the maximum conservative levels of damage that could be caused to the environment, and CEMA is responsible now to help set the management systems and then provide those to the government to implement.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you. I'm sure my colleagues will pick up on some of that.

Probably my time is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It is.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Ms. Smith, just for clarity, further to Mr. Cullen's question, you mentioned that you're not decision-makers. But did I sense from your presentation that you do have some authority for the implementation of these recommendations or monitoring of the effects?

[Judy Smith]

I can answer those separately. We do not have decision-making authority. We make recommendations and those recommendations go to the government. The government then has the choice to take those recommendations and implement them as they are, which they actually have for the six recommendations that we've given them, or they can take the recommendations and revise the recommendations before they implement them. So we do not.

We do have some recommendations that we've made to industry members, and the industry members have volunteered without regulatory implementation to use the tools that we provided at CEMA, but that's been on a voluntary basis.

There are two other regional committees in the area, called the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program and the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association, that are responsible for regional monitoring programs for air and water and aquatic resources, but those are two separate organizations. CEMA, through the development of management systems, can make recommendations to those monitoring committees on future programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

I don't mean to take time from the questioners, so I will move now to Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you very much for your presentations.

I want to ask a few technical questions about the agency, because I don’t know a lot about its role.

You report to the Minister of the Environment. Can she disregard the agency’s recommendations?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

First of all, I report directly to the Minister of the Environment. To my knowledge, it has never happened that a Minister of the Environment has... It has never happened. So it’s hypothetical.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

That’s fine. I just wanted to compare your autonomy to that of the environmental consultation structures in Quebec.

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

Which I know well, by the way.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Which you know well.

I imagine that the oil sands development involved more review panels than comprehensive studies.

I also imagine that it is in the third category, given the development’s environmental impact.

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

More and more, the Minister of the Environment is appointing review panels, but not just for the oil sands. It’s a very strong trend.

Previously, a Minister of the Environment would appoint one or two review panels a year. This year, if the trend continues, by the end of the month, she will have appointed some ten or twelve. That is the case with respect to the oil sands.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

How many environmental assessments were performed by panels for the oil sands project in Alberta? Earlier you mentioned 6,000 environmental assessments. How many review panels were there in connection with the oil sands?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

There have been only two to date, but there will be many others. So there have been two projects for which the Minister of the Environment has appointed a joint review panel with Alberta.