Evidence of meeting #33 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offshore.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
This is legislation for offshore development, offshore platforms, offshore drilling. It doesn't capture or cover tankers or movement of oil.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Doesn't the government imagine drilling off the west coast in its proposals?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Not with the moratoria we have in place, not at this time.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Interesting.
Let's talk about that deposit. You said $100 million is what goes in. That sounds like a lot until you start looking at what happens with oil spills.
Let's go back to the consultations for a second. Were first nations consulted as well?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Yes. In the north we consulted with the groups. My colleague from AANDC can speak to those issues.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I want to make sure we're talking about the same north, is it far north? North is such a relative thing.
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
North of 60°.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Prospects around inland spills and whatnot, will that be covered under other legislation or is that all under provincial jurisdiction?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
It's a mix. It would be predominantly provincial jurisdiction, depending on what aspect of the environment or whether land or property were impacted. This would be for offshore areas of federal jurisdiction, generally speaking, beyond the near coast or near shoreline.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
When was the last time we updated legislation with regard to liability?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
This liability in this particular piece, it would have been the late eighties.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Not to my knowledge, no.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is there any reason why not? A lot has changed since the late eighties—
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Indeed.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—with respect to oil development and where it is seen as a viable place to seek oil. Every 25 years is not very often for such a developing industry.
How come it's so infrequently?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I can't really answer the how come.
Certainly, the legislation was last updated in the late eighties, but the regulations within the legislation have been updated fairly regularly. There is a suite of regulations related to offshore diving, for example, or offshore safety operations, and a number of things. Those have been updated more frequently than the late eighties.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Why move the liability limits up at all? What's the reason for that?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
There are a number of factors. We looked at the legislation and we looked at the liability in view of the activities that were going on, in view of the applications that were being made, in view of a review that was conducted following the number of incidents around the world, and to recognize that our liability levels were less than our peers and thus, we wanted to keep up.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Why is that a problem, if our liability limits are less than those of our peers?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Why is it a problem?
It's something you'd want to expect, that Canada's recognition of how liability will be handled will be commensurate with the activities that are under way and that are reasoned within the community within which we work, and the peers that we keep.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
What I'm getting at is, what's the challenge with a too low liability limit? The one we have right now on the books that the federal government deems as too low, why is that a problem?
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I guess it's not inherently a problem in the sense that if there is not an incident and there is not an issue, then there is no problem.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I know we don't want to imagine incidents, accidents, and oil spills, but the only reason we're talking about this is in the imagination of a spill.
9:05 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Right, so in the imagination of a spill, I think providing for higher levels of liability provides a better level of protection. The higher the level of liability, the more likely that industry and actors within the community will take broader measures to be more preventative to help ingrain the safety culture that's expected of the operations.