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.