Environment Committee on June 17th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lucas.

I neglected to mention earlier that we also have with us, from the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Elizabeth MacDonald.

We're going to go into our rounds of questioning.

Because we have three people with us by way of teleconference, I'm going to ask our committee members to direct their questions to a specific witness, or two if they want, but I don't want just an open question where we wait to see who's going to answer.

Please direct your questions specifically to a witness.

I want to thank our witnesses again for their patience and forbearance with a shortened timeframe. Hopefully, with a question that's posed, you'll be able to get in some of the points you wanted to make in your opening statements.

We're going to begin with Ms. Rempel, who has seven minutes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I'll very briefly but not adequately express the deep respect I have for everyone who has been involved in the development of this legislation over the decades. What we're seeing here tonight is the culmination of years of work, and you're all to be commended. Thank you for allowing us to take a small part in potentially making this legislation happen.

I'll start with Minister Preyra.

At a Senate committee meeting on April 16, 2003, Senator Patterson said this to you: “CPAWS has recommended that we amend the bill to not allow low-impact oil and gas exploration, not allow exploration activity of any kind on the island, and prohibit horizontal drilling under the island.” Basically, he was asking you if you had any comments on that. Your response was: “In a way, it is a deal breaker, or at least it sets us back to square one.”

Would those comments still stand today?

[Leonard Preyra]

I think they still stand, because at the moment what we're seeing is an alignment of different forces.

You have different levels of government agreeing. You have a whole variety. You have new unanimity among the stakeholders. You have the industry involved. Bringing about that alignment has taken a long time.

Yes, it would mean going back to square one. It would mean renegotiating agreements at a variety of different levels, and yes, it would set the process back.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Butler suggested tonight that should any exploration happen within the one nautical mile boundary area, it would feel as though it were right on top of the island. I believe those were his comments.

In developing the one nautical mile boundary, what consultation was used, and what was the feedback as to the adequacy of that boundary to provide ecological integrity for Sable Island?

[Leonard Preyra]

I think there are two different questions there, and Zoe might be in a better position to answer part of it.

The questions around habitat protection and the flora and fauna of Sable Island and the protection of Sable Island itself are separate from any issues relating to oil and gas exploration. As far as I know, there isn't any particular necessity to protect habitat. I think at the moment it's about five or six kilometres offshore, and it hasn't posed any environmental difficulties. I know that aesthetically there will be some, but when you're on the ocean, things loom large generally.

One of the other members here might be in a better position to answer.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Certainly. Go ahead briefly.

[Andrew Barry]

At the moment the closest facility to Sable Island that we have is about nine kilometres off the coast. That's our Venture pipeline.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Pinks.

[Stuart Pinks]

Actually, one of your unmanned platforms is even closer, though. I think the South Venture platform is about six kilometres from the island.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Great.

To continue, clause 3 of this bill, in proposed subsection 41.2(1) says:

Existing leases, easements and licences of occupation in or on Sable Island...are continued under this Act in accordance with their terms and conditions....

What consultation process would be used should any of that need to be amended in the future? My understanding, based on Parks Canada management and on the process that's been developed for this particular part, is that any time we demand a lease related to this, there would be extensive community consultation. Is that correct?

That question is for either Mr. Pinks or Minister Preyra.

[Stuart Pinks]

If I understand the question correctly, what we call SDL, significant discovery licences, were voluntarily amended ahead of this legislation in consultation among government, the regulators, and the interest holders like ExxonMobil.

Everybody has agreed that there would be, within those significant discovery licences, no drilling from the island or within one nautical mile. That was done collaboratively.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Briefly, Mr. Pinks, we've heard a lot of testimony back and forth here, and it's my understanding there may or may not be exploratory drilling happening on Sable Island.

Could you briefly summarize your understanding as per what is proposed in this legislation of what would be allowed on Sable Island?

[Stuart Pinks]

The legislation has a couple of notes in that regard. One is that it would prohibit exploratory drilling for drilling of a well, either an exploration well or a production well. For the purposes of exploring for or producing hydrocarbons, drilling is prohibited on the island and within one nautical mile of the island.

There are activities that could be conducted on the island, and they are the low-impact activities that are identified through the geophysical and the geological seismic-type programs. I can come back to those in a minute.

Access is allowed for maintenance of pre-existing wellheads and for emergency response situations. If you had to evacuate a platform or a drilling rig in close proximity, there would be a place of safe harbour.

The provisions are well spelled out.

With regard to the low-impact activities that are described, as I said in my opening remarks, if those are carried out using the appropriate equipment, appropriate mitigation, and appropriate procedures, really by definition they are low impact. That doesn't mean that we wouldn't—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I'm sorry, but my time is short. Perhaps I could interject very carefully.

Would you and Mr. Barry support the continued discussions, through either the parks management plan development or an MOU, on actually defining what low impact would be in that regard?

[Stuart Pinks]

Along with Parks Canada we have already committed to immediately developing guidance and interpretive notes around what low impact would mean, and we will publicly consult.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Barry.

[Andrew Barry]

We're supportive of that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Excellent.

Very quickly, with the time I have remaining, Ms. Woodley, would you characterize this legislation as a net gain for the ecological integrity of Sable Island?

[Alison Woodley]

Yes, we would.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Would you, Mr. Butler?

[Mark Butler]

Yes, but as I said in my presentation, it's unfortunate we're in this situation of having to choose between delaying the park and limiting or allowing oil and gas activity.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I have the same question for Ms. Lucas.

[Zoe Lucas]

[Inaudible—Editor]...improvement, for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay. We've exhausted our time for Ms. Rempel.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Would it be possible to hear Ms. Lucas' answer again? We couldn't understand it at all.