Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call the meeting to order.

We have some committee business to attend to before we move forward with our draft report.

Last week Mr. Donnelly served a notice of motion. You have the motion in front of you.

I will ask Mr. Donnelly to move his motion at this point in time.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move the motion that's in front of you. I believe it has been circulated, and everyone has a copy in both French and English.

Do you want me to read out the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Sure.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

The motion reads as follows:That, in light of the federal government's plan to explore for oil and gas in Arctic waters, the Fisheries and Oceans Standing Committee conduct a study on that matter at its earliest opportunity, calling witnesses to comment on, among other things, the recent audit of the Canadian Coast Guard that identifies the Department's need for training and up-to-date equipment necessary to properly handle oil spills and offshore pollution in Arctic waters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

You've all heard the motion. You have the wording in front of you in both official languages. On the motion, is there any discussion?

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It will be a surprise to no one here that I'm going to say that I will not be supporting the motion as presented, for three major reasons.

First, there's a little bit of inaccuracy in the actual motion as its worded.

Second is the scope of this motion and where it possibly would go, especially as it relates to committee business, since we have a lot of committee business on hand, including our crab report.

Third is the duplication with what I believe is already going on with the National Energy Board, Mr. Chair, as we found out in some natural resources testimony of November 2, 2010.

With respect to the inaccuracies, the first line says “in light of the federal government's plan to explore for oil and gas”, but I don't think it's the federal government that's going to be exploring or doing natural gas exploitation. Between INAC and the NEB, of course there will be a decision on whether they will approve it or not, or whether they'll let any company go forward in Arctic waters, so I don't think that is really accurate.

The motion also says we'd be “calling witnesses to comment on, among other things”, which is, I think, a little bit of a scope statement that could open this up to a fairly broad hearing, as opposed to the next line, which says “the recent audit of the Canadian Coast Guard”. If we were looking at this from a fisheries committee that dealt specifically with the coast guard aspects of this, then I could probably be convinced to send it to the subcommittee to actually deal with it as part of our future agenda.

The third thing relates to the testimony of Mr. Gaétan Caron, chair and chief executive of the National Energy Board, given on November 2, 2010, to the natural resources committee. He talked about how the NEB is now undertaking an Arctic review that would be conducted in three phases. I will quote from his testimony in a few places:

On September 20 the NEB announced that the Arctic review would be conducted in three phases. The purpose of phase one, which is in progress, is to gather the best available knowledge about offshore drilling in an Arctic environment.

Phase two of the review will give the participants an opportunity to examine the information collected, to ask questions, and to provide their comments on the information. Then there will be meetings, and then the NEB will be proposing a set of requirements.

Finally, we announced that we would make up to $300,000 in funding available to assist participants with travel costs related to attending phase two meetings.

So it will be a very inclusive process.

One of the topics the NEB will examine during the review is the area of emergency response.

So this review is going to be undertaken. As committee members are aware, the permitting process includes INAC and it includes NEB for anything Arctic. This review is going on, which will be much more comprehensive than anything we could ever undertake as a fisheries committee.

So unless Fin wants to tailor this a little bit to say that we look strictly at something from the coast guard perspective, and look at it as a very tight scope, then I think all we're doing is muddying the waters for our work plan as the fisheries committee, and I suggest that we vote this down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to raise two points. A resident of my riding has already shown a great deal of interest in fishing in the Arctic Ocean. When we were researching it, we learned that a great many departments have jurisdiction in this area, including the Privy Council Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Department of the Environment, the Department of National Defence, and Natural Resources Canada. Of course, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans also has some jurisdiction in the matter, but it's only a small part of the whole.

I also think that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans does not have the authority to act on a lot of the issues presented here, even though I am really interested in the Arctic issue. I do not think that it's up to us to do this kind of research.

Regretfully, I will not support Mr. Donnelly's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I was going to try to speak in English, but I don't want to upset you at this point. I would like to applaud the fine efforts that Mr. Weston and others, like Mr. Allen, have made in speaking French. I appreciate it very much.

I can accept the way the content is being delivered, but the content itself is something else. We can agree on the format, but the content is another story.

I am willing to support Mr. Donnelly's motion, for various reasons, and I invite the committee members to expand its scope. The Arctic waters are one thing, but we also need to consider the ecosystem of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There, too, we are talking about exploring and developing everything oil- and gas-related. It's not an environmental concern, but simply the concern of one member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It worries me a lot.

The day before yesterday, I was watching a show on Radio-Canada called Découverte, which I recommend you watch. Every time I do, I learn something about our planet, how it works, and so on. In this episode of Découverte, they were talking about the issue of exploring for and developing oil and gas. The person representing the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board candidly, and very simply, explained that, for them, there is no question of drilling or requiring a relief well when oil development is being done. He said quite simply that it wasn't necessary.

But I don't live on another planet. I suppose that this person and the board do not live on another planet, either. They must surely be aware of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. The catastrophe happened precisely because of the lax attitude of government organizations, the lax attitude of the private company that, claiming to have the best technology, worries very little about what might happen in the event of a catastrophe. Those responsible say that their instruments and tools are the best in the world, and that there is no need for a backup plan should an accident happen.

Furthermore, we visited a fish hatchery on Vancouver Island quite recently, a very small, family-run business with limited means. We're not talking about the same means as BP that, through its lax attitude, allowed a catastrophe to occur. No, this small company not only has an A system of generators, since it doesn't have electricity at its facilities, it also has a B system, a C system and a D system; in other words, it has four systems in case one of them fails. This just shows that small is beautiful.

I would like big businesses to share this concern. Unfortunately, a big business's reason for being is to make more and more money, and one way to make more and more money is to take short cuts.

With fishery resources, when we take environmental shortcuts, we find ourselves in situations like the one we're in now. As for British Petroleum's well and the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the excuse given was that they were saving $200 million. But that incident led to a catastrophe that was like an earthquake, a world war, or I don't know what, for the resources and the fishers. That's what really gets my goat.

I hate to say it, but it's undoubtedly a good thing that this catastrophe happened because it gave us a wake-up call. It let us see what could happen. We know it, and everyone else knows it very well too: the Gulf of St. Lawrence is much smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. It's scientifically proven. So an incident like this, one that we are not immune to, would have huge repercussions.

I can't talk much about the actions of the previous government because I don't know much about it. I am more familiar with the current government, and I have the impression that it is eager to develop our Arctic resources. I'm thinking here about the Arctic waters. This eagerness really sets my teeth on edge. It's like someone who comes in saying that something must be done immediately, that there is no time to wait because of this or that. Taking shortcuts is dangerous. I am going to listen to the debate, but I am telling you right now that I am in favour of this motion and that I intend to broaden its scope so that it also covers the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The National Energy Board has a job to do. In my opinion, it is not doing its job very well. We also have a job to do, specifically thinking about everything that might happen, checking that we have the right tools to handle the situation, to help our communities, and protecting sustainable fishing and the principle of resource conservation. We need to be concerned about all these issues. But the National Energy Board doesn't have them in its sights or on its radar, not in the slightest. What's its role? I think that it wants to provide conditions that will allow us to chip away at the resources more and more. What am I going to do? I'm going to fight with all my might against sacrificing the fish industry for the benefit of the petroleum industry, for all the reasons you well know. There is no doubt about it.

I'm also wondering about the Coast Guard, about its tools and how it proceeds. You'll recall that this committee has had the opportunity to have some witnesses testify in the past few months. After the incidents in the Gulf of Mexico, I asked, as you did, I think, the people from the Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans what contingency plan had been prepared for an incident like that. Unfortunately, the answer was far from satisfactory. By and large, these people told us that they already have all kinds of tools to deal with this kind of situation. But these tools don't measure up.

Surely you know what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. As you can see, the methods used by the government of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, whose means are far greater than those of Canada, were, shall we say, prehistoric. We'd do just as well using shovels on the beach to clean up the oil. What are we coming to?

We set up devices or something to protect the shoreline. We tried to contain the oil spill. We put dispersant and chemicals in the water to make sure that the oil was less harmful. It doesn't make sense to have gotten to this point.

For all these reasons, I am strongly in favour of a motion like that one. I sort of regret not having proposed it before. I feel it is important to have a debate on the issue. Despite what Mr. Weston might think, the National Energy Board is not God almighty, far from it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Merci, monsieur Blais.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will follow the example of John Weston, my colleague from West Vancouver, by trying to present my point of view in French.

I want to say that I support the motion presented by Mr. Fin Donnelly. It's something that the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Ignatieff, had already…

This morning, it's still too early to continue in French.

Mr. Ignatieff has already committed to a moratorium on oil and gas exploration in the Arctic for just the reason

that the protection is not quite reliable enough, that the experience in the Gulf of Mexico showed us that the methods of cleaning up pollution caused by oil haven't really changed in the past 10 years.

We haven't managed to move forward with better means and mechanisms to clean up the oil and to protect from this kind of blowout and spill. That became clear in the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

So in June Mr. Ignatieff committed to holding off on oil and gas exploration and activities in the Arctic until such time as we can be assured that the risks are negligible. We need to always keep in mind that if we were to have a disaster in the Arctic or on the north Pacific coast of British Columbia as serious as the one that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, or in Prince William Sound in Alaska, the Exxon Valdez, we would never be able to go back. We will have changed our shoreline, our coast, our environment forever, and we will have changed Canada for the worse.

That risk is far too huge to take without being very cautious.

Developing natural resources is a Canadian right and privilege. It is important for our current and future economy. But it is important not to be in a hurry about it. It needs to be done gently and slowly to protect the environment and all the coastal jobs that depend on a healthy environment. Oil spills are very harmful to maintaining a region's jobs and sustainable economy. We are still witnessing this in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska. Jobs are being lost as we speak, and they can never be restored because of the water pollution and oil spills.

For all these reasons, I will support the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just very concerned about where this committee is going in terms of a lack of focus. I haven't been on the committee very long, but we've been trying to work on this snow crab report for as long as I've been here. It hasn't been going very fast, and I'm concerned about the fishing industry. It seems like whatever the issue of the day is, another resolution or motion comes forward to study it.

I'm concerned, first of all, about what direction of the committee we're going to stay focused on. If the opposition parties in the coalition get together and vote whatever motion they want to bring forward, that's fine, but I'm simply trying to think of the productivity of the industry we're supposed to be focused on. That's my first point.

Second is the issue of going to the subcommittee. I don't know if they'll decide where the priority is, because I know that Ms. Murray has a motion that's been put forward. I don't know whether that is to be debated, so we have to figure out what our work schedule is.

Third, if we're worried about tanker traffic, then why aren't we studying it on the east coast as well? I think it's pretty hypocritical to say only the west coast. If you're coming from British Columbia and are concerned about the economy, you should be concerned about the environment on the east coast as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I thought about trying to speak in French. Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with some of the words.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

At any rate, I do have a couple of quick comments on this.

To my understanding, the federal government has not specifically laid out any plans to explore oil in the Arctic yet.

On the other issue, when the motion says “among other things”, that confuses me a little bit more. What are those “other things”? To my understanding, it would be wide open to any and every kind of discussion in any area that we could imagine. I don't know if we'd be able to finish this study in years if we started talking about other things.

Maybe it would help me to understand it better if Fin made it some specific study--for example, if he says he is concerned about Canadian Coast Guard problems; that would help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments or questions?

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would comment on the last point, about what the study is focused on.

It does refer to “on that matter”, referring to the first part of the sentence, which talks about the plan to “explore for oil and gas in Arctic waters”.

This motion is about the department's ability to address any particular spills, environmental spills, oil and gas spills. It's just in terms of calling witnesses to comment on “among other things”; that specifically relates to that study.

Hopefully that clarifies the concern about what the study would focus on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Given what I just said, I would like to present an amendment. I also recognize the value of Mr. Allen's argument—I think it was him. It's true that it is not the federal government as such that is developing the deposit. So, I would cross out "federal government". Also, following "in Arctic waters", I would add "and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence". In addition, at the end of the motion, where it says "in Arctic waters", I would add "and the Gulf of St. Lawrence".

My amendment aims to clarify the motion and broaden its scope, of course. So, we would remove the reference to the federal government and add the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the appropriate places.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais, we'll just hold for a second here while the clerk finishes making the changes and we make sure they're accurate.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

It's less complicated than the last time, with our table. I hope that the amendment that I am presenting is much less complicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Yes.

It has been moved by Monsieur Blais that the motion be amended by deleting the words “federal government”, and adding the words “and the Gulf of St. Lawrence” after the words “Arctic waters”. And we have to add an “s” to make “plan” plural, otherwise the context would not be proper.

So the amended motion would read as follows:

That, in light of the plans to explore for oil and gas in Arctic waters and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Fisheries and Oceans Standing Committee conduct a study on that matter at its earliest opportunity, calling witnesses to comment on, among other things, the recent audit of the Canadian Coast Guard that identifies the Department's need for training and up-to-date equipment necessary to properly handle oil spills and offshore pollution in Arctic waters and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

You've heard the amendment brought forward by Monsieur Blais.

Are there any comments or questions on the amended motion?

Mr. Kamp, and then Mr. Cuzner.