Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

So I don't run out of time here, I just want to touch base with you on air emissions. I'm interested to know how, first, you monitor air emissions. Are you monitoring stack emissions? Are you taking air samples in the region? Are you monitoring the spread of air emissions outside the Wood Buffalo region?

[Judy Smith]

We have what we call the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association, which was established, I believe, back in 1995 when the first companies were mandated or required under Alberta Environment to set up a regional monitoring program. The program covers the entire regional municipality of Wood Buffalo, and we have a number of air stations that are scattered throughout the region, all the way up to Fort Chipewyan, and certainly around Fort McMurray itself, and around each of the facilities. So the operators designed or established their own ambient air quality monitors, and those are all then donated into the Wood Buffalo region.

Also, each company is required under legislation to do its own stack monitoring as well. So we do direct emissions from each project, we do the ambient trailers, and we do passive monitors throughout the region. It's probably one of the most extensively monitored air sheds in Alberta, and there are several air sheds that are set up using the same CASA, or Clean Air Strategic Alliance, approach.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Are you monitoring outside the regions, though, especially to the east?

[Judy Smith]

Some monitoring stations have been set up in Saskatchewan, across the border. Saskatchewan actually sits on some of our committees.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Nice timing.

We'll move now to Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your presentations.

Mr. Bouchard, I want to focus in on some questions regarding the issue of funding for the groups you had mentioned. You named three, and I'm sure there are more than that.

Over the last five years, say, using annual averaging, approximately how much funding have you provided for groups, particularly in the oil sands project? And approximately how many groups would have been involved on an annual basis?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

We have an annual budget of $1.5 million. If we need more money than that--and the budget has been increasing because of more and more activity--we go back to Treasury Board and eventually get more funding. But it's $1.5 million right now for the whole country.

I could provide you with a list for the oil sands in particular. I don't have it in the notes we've prepared. But the example I gave is typical. In that particular case, $100,000 was allocated and three organizations got it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Yes, I have that, and I wanted to go to that next. There were two first nation groups on that list, I think, with the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition. The $100,000 there is divided up, of course.

What type of due diligence would be done to verify the relevance of their participation and their expertise to participate, to warrant, I guess, this type of funding? And what type of review is done of what they contributed to allow you to make a decision the following year, say, if you wanted to fund them again?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

I'll let Scott answer that one. He's the one overlooking all of that.

We don't fund on an ongoing basis, only for a particular project. Typically, if we say to a particular organization, “You've requested $70,000, but we're giving you $28,000,” it's for that project. We don't fund them to operate.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

But if they came back the next year and said they wanted to participate in that next project, you would have some experience with them from the year before. That's what I was referring to.

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

I would like Scott to explain to you how we decide how much money we give and that type of thing.

[Scott Streiner]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Harris.

Let me start by saying what we do for each of the panels and each of the comprehensive studies.

A public notice goes out and invites anybody from the public to bring forward an application. The process is wide open. Any individual, any organization is welcome to bring forward an application. When the applications come forward, they're assessed by an independent funding review committee that the agency sets up. That committee includes, as Jean-Claude said, several external representatives. That agency will assess each of the applications against the criteria for the program and it will determine exactly the kinds of questions you've posed. Does the group have some kind of relevant interest in the project? Have they proposed or provided information that's relevant to the comprehensive study or the panel? Are the costs the sorts of costs that we can legitimately cover? Those are not day-to-day operating costs of the organization, not lawyers to sue anybody, but expert advice, travel costs, things like that, so that they can actively participate in the panel process. On the basis of the review, the funding review committee submits recommendations, which then go through me to the president. He makes the final determination on the allocation of resources.

I think it's fair to say that the program is well regarded. It's generally accepted by both industry and environmental stakeholders that we do a good job of funding people in a manner that's appropriate. Follow-up on the specific allocations we give is done by requiring the submission of invoices. Where we have questions on whether the money has been used appropriately, we require reports and we require further documentation.

That's the process in a nutshell.

You've raised an interesting question: if there's a certain level of dissatisfaction--I think that's what you're getting at--with the quality of input provided by an organization in one set of hearings or in one process, would that be factored in?

To date that hasn't been the case. We haven't had situations where we've found that the money was used egregiously or was used inappropriately. If we did run into a situation where we felt that moneys had been misspent, first we would try to recover them. We have an obligation to make sure that taxpayers' money is used appropriately. That would be factored in subsequently. But to date we haven't had a situation where we've felt the money was misspent.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I just have a couple of quick questions, I hope. When a proposed project is going to come under an environmental review process, is the developer of that particular project required to pay for the cost of the assessment review?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

Only in the case of a review panel. When the Minister of the Environment appoints a review panel, the cost associated with that review panel is borne by the developer. In other words, we invoice the proponent with the cost of operating that panel.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Could there ever be a scenario in a review panel case that when people or groups were advocating against the project, the proponent would be in fact picking up the tab for those groups to argue against it?

[Scott Streiner]

Do you mean through the participant funding?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

Through the participant funding?

[Scott Streiner]

For the program I've just described?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Yes.

[Scott Streiner]

That's not cost-recovered. When Jean-Claude says that the costs of the review panel are cost-recovered, it's the cost of administering the panel itself. The participant funding, which is awarded, all comes out of a special budget that is allocated by Parliament specifically for this purpose, so it's closed fund allocated for this purpose. The proponent does not pay for those costs, so there's no conflict of interest there.

The other point I would make in terms of cost recovery is that the only place in which the agency is able to recover costs from a proponent is in the case of a panel. But in the case of comprehensive studies, proponents are required to submit a detailed environmental impact statement as part of the environmental assessment process, and they will typically hire consultants to do that. So that's not cost-recovered by the agency or the government, but it's a cost borne by the proponent in bringing forward their request to government.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay, last question, if I have time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You have three minutes.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

One more.

In your experience, have you ever had proponents together on a project who were arguing on both sides of the project, or has it primarily been, for example, environmental groups, first nations groups, and other groups that would be arguing against the project on a singular basis?

[Jean-Claude Bouchard]

I can't recall.