Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I just wanted to clarify that as well, because it was an interesting line of questioning that seemed to be somewhat circular in terms of the response, and I don't think he intended that.

I had a sense that she was trying to get an answer regarding specific recommendations that you had made to the minister that were or were not taken up. It is the case that you haven't made recommendations that have been declined, I take it.

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

That's right. Maybe, Scott, you can help me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Streiner, could you add to that?

[Scott Streiner, Vice-President, Program Delivery, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

The only thing I would add, as Jean-Claude said, is that the recommendations that come forward from the panels and are processed by the agency and put before the government can include anything that falls within the scope of the panel, including, potentially, air emissions.

The government ultimately makes a response to the panel recommendation. But then--and I think this may be the missing piece to answer the question--the federal departments that have to issue an authorization or a permit to allow the project to proceed can include, will include, those conditions in the permitting process. That's the mechanism by which the federal government can actually ensure the implementation of the panel's recommendations.

In the case of the oil sands, in most cases federal involvement is triggered by the requirement, for example, for a Fisheries Act authorization or an authorization under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. So DFO or Transport Canada will include recommendations from the panel that were approved by the government as conditions of authorization, before issuing the permits. That's the tool the government has to ensure the implementation of a panel's recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Sylvester.

[Peter Sylvester, Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

Just building a bit on that response

as my colleague Mr. Streiner has explained, the mitigation measures to reduce the impacts are included in the permit issued by the department, the responsible authority. There is also a “follow-up” component. Those departments—the responsible authorities—also have an obligation to follow up to ensure that, over time, these mitigation measures have in fact been implemented.

That completes the implementation of that panel’s conclusions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you. That is clearer to me, and I hope to you as well.

Thank you for the questions.

In the course of Madam DeBellefeuille's questioning, she requested a copy of the list of those being funded in relation to oil sands projects and environmental assessments. On behalf of the committee, as Mr. Cullen and Mr. Harris both asked the same question of the chair, could I ask you to submit that information to our clerk, and then he would provide it to all of the committee?

Thank you.

Monsieur Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the members of the panel here today for your presentations.

Prior to 1992, we had a fairly major project, the Al-Pac project, that went through environmental assessment on the Seine River. There were some significant stoppages made to that particular project as it advanced. Maybe your legislation has weakened since then, but certainly the result of the environmental assessment of that project was a complete rebuilding of the project. So there is a bit more to it than that.

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

If I may, I said earlier that the environmental assessment never says—I haven't seen it anyway—no, this project cannot proceed. It says this project can proceed, but if you have 95 complex measures that need to be put in place, or if you need to change the grid from this part of the river to the next one, that makes it uneconomical for a proponent to go ahead with the project. Those are the instances where a project will not proceed.

Maybe I didn't explain myself correctly, and maybe, Peter, you can help me.

[Peter Sylvester]

As a point of clarification, the statute on which most of our comments and interventions are based today is the Environmental Assessment Act, which came into force in 1995. Prior to 1992, this would have been under the previous regime, which was the environmental assessment review process guidelines order, which was similar in some ways to, but markedly different from, the statutory regime we have in place now.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Regarding the process you follow now, I note that you have cooperation plans with the agencies in place. As an agency that judges projects, how do you prejudge the nature of the project, as to its place in the environmental assessment process?

To me that seems like you're putting the cart before the horse in terms of judgment. Even by having a sort of size allocation to a project, putting it in a particular category of assessment, this seems to prejudge the process.

[Scott Streiner]

I assume you're referring to whether a project is subjected to a screening, a comprehensive study, or a panel assessment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes.

[Scott Streiner]

In a sense, that was the wisdom of Parliament. The legislation lays out that there are certain thresholds over which a project shall be assessed through a comprehensive study. The comprehensive study regulations define those thresholds; the agency simply implements them.

The decision on whether or not to move from a comprehensive study to a panel level, which of course is the most public process, rests with the Minister of the Environment. She makes that decision under law, based on recommendations from whichever federal departments need to issue the permit. It's really part of the legislative scheme.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When it comes to the definition of cumulative impact under CEAA, my understanding was that future developments were also included in the definition, so that when you are looking at a project, such as one of the oil sands projects, you can assume that other projects are going to come on stream, and you can set the project into a future of the oil sands industry that may include quite an additional number of projects. Is that correct?

[Scott Streiner]

Yes, that's right.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is that what is commonly done with your projects, then, that you're assessing the environmental impact of the withdrawal of water from the river in conjunction with as many projects as you would see on the horizon for this region?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

We do that—and when I say “we,” I mean the panel typically takes into consideration the work of CEMA and the work of other experts, and what we know of future projects. But again, we don't know all the projects that are being contemplated by this industry. We know some of them. We know what the territory looks like. We know what the prospects are. That's taken into consideration by the panel, getting advice, by the way, from scientists in the provincial government, the federal government, and the private sector.

[Scott Streiner]

The only thing I would add to that is this, and it comes back to Mr. Cullen's question as well. Clearly, the further the work of CEMA gets and the multi-stakeholder committee set up by the Alberta government gets in terms of establishing thresholds and frameworks with respect to a variety of issues—land, water, and air, on a regional basis—the more effectively panels will be able to factor these issues in. So they factor them in already.

But to come back to your question, to the extent that we have management frameworks at a regional level, that will assist panels in conducting that work. The panels very much look to the work of CEMA and other bodies conducting this kind of research.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ms. Smith, would you like to comment, please?

[Judy Smith]

Yes, if I could add to that, when we're developing the regional management systems on air, water, or land disturbance, or whatever it is, we have to determine what the cumulative effects will be. In there, we take into account the effects of existing projects, the ones that have just been approved, and we take into account future projects and their footprints as well.

For example, when we did the in-stream flow needs management system for the Athabasca River, which was in draft form and submitted to the Alberta and federal governments, we did a calculation on what the withdrawals would be, by various projects, from the Athabasca River in relation to the flows--the high flows and the low flows. So we actually do impact assessments within our organizations in order to understand what the maximum footprints are, to understand where we are in relation to the thresholds we're setting.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So would that be characterized by an industry of 3.5 million barrels a day, 5 million barrels a day, or 7 million barrels a day? What did you use as your base for those calculations?

[Judy Smith]

That is a very controversial question. In some of the more recent working groups that I actually worked very closely on, we just went through that very debate. We went to the experts in our region. So we went to the regional infrastructure working group, where all the industry sits, and they provided all their best estimates of what their various footprints are. So they know what their reclamation would be, what their footprints are for clearing, what their water withdrawals are. So industry actually fits there and makes other stakeholders aware of what their footprints will be.

On that particular issue, we had discussions under the sustainable ecosystem working group, which is working on the landscape terrestrial management system for terrestrial resources. I think we finally decided on 4 million.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Barrels a day.

[Judy Smith]

Right. And we did that because that came directly from our experts and we didn't want to second-guess what it should be.