Thank you very much, and good afternoon, everyone. It's a great pleasure to have been invited to speak with you today.
One of the most vexing challenges of our times is how to meet ever-increasing energy needs in a responsible and environmentally sustainable way. I think you'd agree that any analysis of the current state of geopolitics and economic development in a carbon-constrained world reveals a pervasive sense of insecurity about future energy supply. So your study is not only timely but of considerable importance.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that any discussion of Canada’s oil sands could not take place without considering the scientific facts and evidence that must underpin any responsible development of this important resource. That certainly was the fundamental tenet that shaped the analysis and recommendation delivered in December by the independent advisory panel on monitoring the Athabasca River and surrounding waterways.
As you know, at the end of September 2010, the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Jim Prentice, asked a very straightforward question: does Canada have a world-class monitoring system in the oil sands area? And if not, what changes would we recommend to make it so? This was a 60-day charge, a very short time. But the charge to the panel was a direct response, I think, to serious concerns that had been raised by Dr. Schindler and his academic colleagues at the University of Alberta. Conflicting scientific opinions called into question the availability of credible data that are so essential to sound policy decisions and also to the enforcement of legislation and regulation. It was my privilege to chair that panel, to coordinate and oversee the work of five eminent scientists who comprised it.
In the short time we had, we reviewed an extensive catalogue of documentation, including key peer-reviewed scientific publications. The panel was made aware of but did not attempt to duplicate numerous studies of oil sands development that had been or were in various stages of completion. Nor did we undertake original research to validate the observations and conclusions contained in these studies. All of this documentation was supplemented with interviews and discussions with federal and provincial government experts, representatives of selected first nations, recognized academic experts, industry practitioners, and non-governmental organizations, as well as of course a site visit.
The focus of our very brief study was to try to articulate the principles for design and implementation of an effective monitoring system. Then we wanted to determine whether or not the current system actually incorporated those principles. In other words, would the system help decision-makers make correct choices and sound trade-offs, both now and in the future?
The panel was unanimous in finding the current system wanting. We found fragmentation of effort. We found a lack of leadership and coordination. We found that activities were not integrated. We found that activities were not always credible because they lacked scientific rigour. We also found that raw data and information were not transparent and accessible in a timely manner in order to allow parties to draw their own conclusions and make their own basis for the judgments. We did not have confidence that the current approach was or would be sensitive to a very fast-paced, dynamic, and extensive oil sands sector or to changes either in technology or in climate, for example.
We believe that until these significant shortcomings are addressed, there's going to continue to be debate about the data, and about uncertainty and public distrust, both of industry’s environmental performance but also of government’s oversight.
So our principal recommendation, entirely accepted by the federal government through Minister John Baird, was that a shared vision for monitoring, which would align priorities, policies, and programs, be developed collaboratively among stakeholders, and that a holistic and integrated monitoring system and management framework be developed and implemented. Furthermore, we suggested some key elements of the approach.
We were not naive about the challenges of managing in a multi-jurisdictional setting, but it was our view as a panel that this ambitious vision of a very impressive socio-scientific project was simply too big, too complex, and too important to be undertaken by any one jurisdiction or sector. A new, credible, coherent, and collaborative governance model is required to build public trust. The pace and scope of change in the region and the growing expectations of stakeholders require no less.
The panel observed that Environment Canada has considerable credible science capacity and a mindset that recognizes the reality that environmental systems are integrated and holistic, and environmental media like water, air, and wildlife interact and affect each other. Any responsible monitoring system must reflect this reality.
We were pleased that when we delivered our report in December, the government pledged to respond immediately. Specifically, and appropriately, Environment Canada pledged to exercise the visionary leadership we called for to design the first component of a monitoring system with some urgency within the next 90 days, and to do so in collaboration with the Province of Alberta and other stakeholders. I don't claim to know the details of how Environment Canada is reacting, other than to say I understand that the project is well under way and on track to be completed on time.
It was a genuine privilege for the panel to contribute to this evolving dialogue and policy development about such an important issue. We believe that the establishment of a world-class system is absolutely fundamental to not only long-term environmental sustainability but to economic viability and, most importantly, building trust and confidence in the eyes of Albertans, Canadians, and the international community.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.