Evidence of meeting #14 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cullen.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the committee for their consideration.
The essential nature of this motion is pretty clear. It spells it out that as the disaster is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico—and it is a disaster by everybody's admission and observance—the U.S. Congress has been holding sessions, not with all of these same partners but with many, to discuss what exactly happened and what the situation will be going forward. In the Canadian context, I think it's important as well that we get these folks in front of us quickly.
I suspect that British Petroleum won't have the results of their investigation yet, because the oil is still leaking. They're going to be trying the cap today. But certainly given the number of leases being proposed or up for submission before the National Energy Board, including a number of wells even deeper than the one in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the nature of the regulations the government and the NEB are considering right now, the thrust of the motion is to have these companies appear before committee. I think it is also important to have the Nunavut and Inuvialuit Game Council before of us, because a lot of the conversation has focused around the Beaufort Sea and the proposed drilling season that's going on there pretty much as we speak.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
To speak to the motion, I have Mr. Tonks, then Mr. Allen, and Madame Brunelle.
Mr. Tonks, go ahead.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I congratulate Mr. Cullen for bringing this type of motion forward. Every so often something occurs that really transcends everything—politics, partisanship, or whatever—and this tragedy is on that scale. This calls for wisdom and the capacity of the whole system to reflect on the events and analyze them in parallel with what actually is occurring and to try to juxtapose those with what the effect would be if those same events happened in another instance.
I have to tell you that I was a little taken aback by the cut and thrust of the discussion in the House, if it was a discussion in question period. I haven't talked with people about this, but it wasn't in the nature of what I think people are looking to us for, as decision-makers. I think people are saying that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. It happened there, and it would be totally in keeping with why we're here and why people look to us, if we tried to appraise the situation and reflect on it and, in a very upfront and professional way, take appropriate action.
I think this is the appropriate action, certainly in relation to the other implications of a spill for ice and oil that I've heard of, and the kinds of things that might occur, and even the implications of the design. I was watching a program on YouTube, where an engineer was saying that even the engineering of the base of the drilling unit wasn't compatible with any emergency interface that they could come up with. They were scrambling in trying to look at the engineering; and now, in retrospect, if they were going to do it again, they wouldn't design the base of that rig, down in the depths of the ocean, the way they did.
So we have a chance to look at this issue, and I take Mr. Cullen's sincerity at face value in putting this motion forward. I know that has been challenged in the past, but on this one, I think he is very—
9:05 a.m.
An hon. member
What do you mean, Alan? What are you getting at?
9:05 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
But in keeping with the spirit of what has happened and the manner in which the motion has been put forward, I would support it if we can improve it, but I hope that we do avail ourselves of the opportunity to act in the public interest totally.
Thanks.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Chair.
Along with Alan, I'm hoping this is not going to become a partisan issue, because I don't think it should be. Anything I've heard in the last couple of days from the Prime Minister and the ministers in the House has been very explicit in noting that we want to make sure that no harm comes to anybody, especially in the environment. We tend to forget about the 17 or so people who lost their lives in that situation, which is a bad thing. So from my perspective, I'm not at all uncomfortable with the motion.
I guess there are a couple of questions I would like clarified—three questions, actually. The north is very much in line with what we had talked about before when looking at new things to talk about. I think we on our side are very interested in looking at the north, and I think there are a lot of things that we could possibly blend into this look at the north, including mining, geomapping, oil discoveries and oil drilling. I think they're all important aspects that we should probably look at. This could be a nice subset to that study.
So my first question with respect to Mr. Cullen's idea and the rest of the committee's ideas is whether this is something we should do as part of something bigger. That's the first question.
The second question is, how many meetings was Mr. Cullen thinking about devoting to this? If we all agree that we want to do something bigger, we can do something bigger.
Then the other question is about a practical start date, because when you're looking at BP, I suspect a lot of resources that would know anything about what we would want to do are probably a little tied up right now for the next week or two. What would be a practical start date for something like this?
I think those are all things we should take into consideration.
Fundamentally, I am certainly not averse to going down this path, but those are the three questions I would have, Chair, to see what the committee's will is and what Mr. Cullen had in mind for those areas.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cullen, maybe I'll just go around and have Madame Brunelle and Mr. Regan first, and if you would like to give your response to those questions after that, please do.
Madame Brunelle.
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
When Mr. Cullen talked to me about his motion, I told him I would have liked to have thought of it myself. To me, this is absolutely not a partisan issue. When faced with such a natural catastrophe, we, as politicians, have to take our responsibilities and work in the public interest. This is why we are here. I think it is urgent to debate this issue.
Mr. Allen is wondering whether we should conduct a bigger study. The question is interesting. I would be inclined to say yes because there are Canadian interests at stake, like Old Harry, the Newfoundland coast and the Hibernia project. Shouldn’t we try to learn more about these projects and determine if present federal legislation can ensure the safety of both the people and the environment?
As to how to organize this agenda, I am open to discussion. People all over the place are asking us to do something. I really think it is important to act.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, after that virulent attack by my colleague Mr. Tonks, I feel compelled to come to the defence of my colleague Mr. Cullen.
I'm sure if we have this kind of a hearing, what the media would take from that probably would be the most active interaction between a member of the committee and the witnesses from BP, or what have you, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to have a discussion and that we wouldn't all learn from this.
I want to say that Nathan less frequently makes a circus of the committee than some of his colleagues do. I think it's unfair what Alan said about him.
9:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'm just having a little fun, Mr. Chairman.
I think it's important to keep this in mind when we're looking at this. What we're talking about is what happens with a producing well. There are issues that relate to exploration, but this is a case where there's a producing oil well offshore that has had an explosion where it has created an unnatural disaster that has a real impact on the natural environment, which we're all concerned about and should be worried about. We have producing oil wells in Canada. I would think Canadians would like to know about how they're designed and how they work on our offshore--off Newfoundland, for example.
In my province it's gas wells, so it isn't quite the same problem, because natural gas will not have the same effect. It isn't good if it all escapes into the atmosphere, but it's not the same.
So to have maybe representatives of a company or two that have offshore oil platforms producing oil off Newfoundland might be a good idea as part of this, to understand how they work here in Canada. Hopefully, it will give reassurance to Canadians that what happened in the gulf won't happen here, and also, in terms of whatever happens in the future, wherever drilling happens, and wherever production of oil happens, that safeguards are built into the system so this can't happen in the future.
What did I have in relation to British Petroleum? I can't recall. I'm sure they are very busy these days, Mr. Chairman, but it would be interesting if they could make it at some point.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, there are several questions. I think there's agreement between two parties that if the committee agrees to look at this issue, it should be broadened out somewhat.
Mr. Cullen, would you like to comment on that and give your thoughts on that? Then we'll put it back to the committee.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll try to quickly go through them one by one.
I think there are two tracks to this. One is what we've heard from our constituents and the public at large about what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. This initiated from a modern-day well.
To be clear, Geoff, I talked to my staff. It was getting ready to produce. It was only seven months old. From what we understand, it was in its first phrase and had not yet become a full-production well. It's a small point, but it may be important.
In terms of the length of time, the number of meetings, and the breadth of it, those are Mike's questions. How much do we open this up? How much do we concentrate on this? My concern would be that it could initiate a very long conversation about the Arctic writ general and about every drilling project on land or in the water. It may be useful for the committee to do that at some point, but it wasn't necessarily the intention of this.
This is pretty specific. For offshore oil and gas developments, what rules are in place? How does it work? What is the Canadian context in reflecting on what happened in the gulf?
Of course, we're not going to hear from the chief engineer of British Petroleum, who is hopefully deeply engaged in trying to fix the meltdown in the gulf. I also know that British Petroleum is an enormous company, and they haven't stopped producing in other wells. I would suspect they have other people available who can speak to how the wells work here in the Canadian context.
That's what I want to know. I don't necessarily want to know what happened in the gulf and what the mistake was, because I don't think we're going to find out, Chair. They'll announce it publicly and in the Congress before they do it here.
My suggestion to the committee is that I want to be very open to other witnesses and other ideas, but I would recommend the following. We could take a look at the specific question in front of us with respect to deep ocean drilling in the Canadian environment and in the Canadian context. What are the rules? What are the plans? What's happening right now? What risks are there? What safeguards are in place in terms of preventing blowouts?
I think the responses would be very important for us as well, particularly when talking about the Beaufort. It's one of the things people in the north most often say to us. What would be the responsibility of Canada right now if there were a blowout?
There are other areas. Of course, there's the east coast. There's a proposal to lift the moratorium on the west coast. The Gulf of St. Lawrence has been in the news as well. It's been proposed as a potential drilling site. Those are all of interest.
It becomes a larger conversation. The idea of what's happening in deep-water wells would become lost in that, because it's very big. It's the national energy direction. I don't want to say the “P” word, but that's what's going on in the national context.
For our sake and for the best interests of the public, we could have a couple of meetings to answer your question, Mike, and to focus on the question before us. If people want to have more witnesses, of course, we'd be open to that. But to get at what happened, what it means for us, and whether it could happen here, I think expediency is important.
The second phase would be to go in depth. David and I, as well as others, have talked about a larger conversation on resource development, the rules that are in place, and all the rest of it.
I want to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I think the start date should be sooner rather than later, to be frank with you. I think if the committee were to have a one-month navel-gazing process to think about this and think about that, it wouldn't necessarily serve the public. They're concerned about this right now.
We can call witnesses who know something about this in very short order. They're out there. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the NEB, British Petroleum, and the Nunavut and Inuvialuit groups are all present. We know where they are. We know where they live. We can call them in short order.
That's my suggestion to the committee. Let's get at this issue first. We can then have a much deeper conversation on energy exploration and development of the offshore for both the shore and deep water. It would be an interesting conversation as well, but I think it would miss the public section of it right now.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Nathan may not appreciate this, but ever since I've been on the committee, there's been a shortage of green tea. I've had to think somebody has been taking tea. We've now seen the phantom tea-snatcher walk in and take a bunch back to his office next door.
With the agreement of the committee, could I ask the clerk to send him a letter to tell him to buy his own bloody tea?
9:20 a.m.
An hon. member
Hear, hear!
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I like green tea, and he takes it every time we're here.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm not sure it's a point of order, Mr. Harris, but your comment has been noted.
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
9:20 a.m.
An hon. member
I beg to disagree. He's not a phantom; he's very obvious.