Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 22
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Environment committee  Yes, you're going to see permanent loss of peatland and the transformation of the landscape. Even if we are successful with reclamation, and I think industry's track record on reclamation thus far is very poor, we're going to see a very different landscape to what exists there cu

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  There are different multi-stakeholder opportunities. There are environmental management opportunities through groups like CEMA and RAMP, which doesn't have a management function but has a monitoring function. I think it's fair to say--you might have heard it speaking to other sta

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  No. I think we can continue to work on solutions and dialogue with industry and government, but we're obviously choosey about where we invest our time.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  That is a projection based on a review of the environmental impact assessment.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  RAMP's focus is not on tailings and seepage.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  Yes, it's on that and river quality.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  Yes. The Pembina Institute has always held the position that oil sands development could proceed responsibly. The key thing is that we should have planned first before we developed it. We should have set environmental rules. We should have dealt with greenhouse gases. We should

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  Based on time constraints, I didn't include in situ in my presentation today. I know you got a lot of information yesterday about groundwater concerns in situ from my former colleague, Mary Griffiths. We often get asked if in situ is a more environmentally friendly way of doing

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  We're not prescriptive about technologies. As Canadians we need to be concerned about the environmental outcomes, and if we can demonstrate we can develop the resource in a responsible way, that is the key question that we have to ask. I think it's--

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  Our perspective is that there should be no approvals, no new expansion of the existing projects, until we fix some of the existing problems. We are not talking about those existing projects; we're talking about not approving new projects that use these old technologies.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  Absolutely.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  We stopped participating before the results of that peer review appeared. The report was published in 2004, I believe.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  First of all, we need to see the data. I think it needs to be clearly demonstrated what the leakage rate from these ponds actually is. There is some data being collected individually by companies and by the Government of Alberta, but we have no sense of what that looks like cumul

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  That is correct, but I got thrown out of school before I completed my PhD.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer

Environment committee  That's correct, yes.

May 13th, 2009Committee meeting

Simon Dyer