Natural Resources Committee on May 6th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, that's why I'm trying to get the will of the committee first. The normal procedure at this committee, which seems to have worked very well, is that each party submits a prioritized list of witnesses they would like to come and then the clerk invites them in the order they're on the list.

I will hear from the rest of the committee.

Again, we haven't agreed yet to go ahead with this. There seems to be consensus, if it can be agreed on how we proceed.

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was listening to Nathan talk about different Inuit groups we may be inviting. In the interest of saving taxpayers' dollars, I would mention that the defence committee did a study recently of Arctic sovereignty and this subject matter was discussed ad nauseam.

I thought this study was more towards the mitigation and prevention of such a spill. The people who are best positioned, and who I would want to hear from, are the ones our respective governments have dispatched to the area to help out. I really want to hear from them, and my concern is that they might not be available next week. The people you're proposing have put their position on the record. I don't want to duplicate that; I want to hear from new people instead.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I want to argue back a little bit with respect to David's point.

Again, I think there are two tracks available to us. There's the national scope, with three coasts to deal with and different regulatory bodies and such. Obviously within this motion, we're very much concentrated on the Beaufort, because the west coast doesn't have drilling, and the east coast already has drilling, but the Beaufort is proposing to drill and is drilling exploratory wells right now. That's the point. I don't think bringing in the regulatory body of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia right now necessarily is a bad idea, but I think this is just very concentrated and specific. We're going to have a drilling season right now through the summer, right? That's what's proposed for the Beaufort.

There have been concerns raised as to what the implications are and what the rules are. The NEB is also considering rule changes right now. That's what's poignant about this.

On that topic, if folks think there are other witnesses to bring, that's great. But I think we're totally open to the second piece that David and you, Chair, referred to about bringing witnesses and vetting the list and all that. We want to have a broader study. Again, that's the second track.

The first track is on what's happening in the Beaufort, the plans, and the rules that are in place. That's why, Cheryl, I think your point about the Arctic sovereignty question is totally valid. Because of this treaty, there's another government to deal with in the north, in the Beaufort. That's why we put these folks down. They seem to be the lead coming out of that government, wanting to talk about the regulations. If there's another group from the Inuit, fine.

If we were mostly talking about Newfoundland, we'd probably want to talk to the Newfoundland government. That's why they're on the list. This isn't representative of all offshore drilling in Canada. This is representative of drilling in the Beaufort, which is the one that's most quickly in line, the one from my perspective of most interest, simply because the context is totally new for us as a country. We haven't done it before. We just had a major blowout in the gulf, and it's worth exploring.

I'm in agreement with the committee. I don't want to wreck our process, because you're right, Chair, it works for us when we take all witnesses and try to balance the witness list. But on this specific topic, I guess I want to know from committee members, if we're looking at the Beaufort, if there is anybody else at first blush for our first meeting who we'd want to talk to. It seems to me that it should be the NEB, the industry, British Petroleum in particular—because they're most implicated in this case—and maybe somebody from the Inuvialuit government. Those seem to be the usual suspects on this question.

On the larger question, absolutely let's get witnesses in and balance out the list and do our usual. But I think there is a call for expediency. I take a little umbrage with David's point about striking while the media iron's hot. I think there's a legitimate concern here. We don't want to be dismissive of that concern. Something happened that was never supposed to happen, by all industry standards and expectations, under rules that are very similar to Canada's. I think it's incumbent upon us to move as quickly as we can without being irresponsible. I don't think this list is irresponsible. We've tried to balance. We have the energy groups, the oil groups, and the main regulator. We didn't put Greenpeace on the list. We didn't call in Ducks Unlimited. We focused on the people who know this best to get the best answers for the Canadian public. We're asking if this could happen here. To this point, it's difficult to answer the question, because it's not supposed to happen anywhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I have two other people to be recognized.

Mr. Cullen, I thought we were reaching some consensus until you started focusing on the Beaufort, which isn't in your motion. I don't know if it had even been mentioned before. In fact, we'd heard suggestions that offshore drilling on the east coast be considered as well. So I'm not sure there is consensus here any more.

Let's see where we go with Mr. Allen and Mr. Anderson.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I guess I'm a little bit confused now. When the motion was originally being introduced, it talked about deep ocean drilling in the Canadian context. To me, the Canadian context means deep ocean drilling anywhere. It could be offshore, in the north, or anywhere. I guess my concern is that before we finish something like this, if we have only British Petroleum, we have only British Petroleum's viewpoint on the world. There are many other companies doing deep ocean drilling. Maybe some of the principles and practices being used by some of these other companies are worthy of our consideration, and the companies would be worthy parts of the witness list. That's one of my concerns about not having a complete witness list. That's the first thing.

The second thing is, as part of this, what does the committee intend to produce out of this, or what does Mr. Cullen think we would produce out of this? Is it going to be a report? Is it just going to be testimony from a couple of days' worth of witnesses that we would bring in?

Until I can feel we have this nailed down, it's going to be a little bit hard for me to agree to that. If we are dealing with deep ocean drilling in Canada--and response mechanisms, because different companies could have different response mechanisms as well--I think we need to take that into consideration and have at least a few different companies in here that we can propose.

I agree with the NEB. That's not a big problem. I agree with that. But I think we should be looking at a little bit broader context with regard to witnesses, and should at least consider some others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Would the committee agree to have Mr. Cullen respond to that before we go to the next question? Is that okay?

All right. Seeing no disagreement, go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Very briefly, in terms of product, Mike, I haven't really thought that through. The committee might see the testimony and say a report is what's required or the testimony is good enough in and of itself.

I think we can answer both things, Mr. Chair. I think this is not meant to be a full, encompassing, and complete project, what I've proposed here.

Certainly the initiation of this committee to get into the offshore oil and drilling question has been prompted by the incident in the gulf. That's given us all a new energy to focus on this. We can focus on lots of different things, but this one is important. So if this is just a first initial meeting... That's why we included CAPP, by the way, Mike. We didn't want to just hear from BP, but BP Is obviously of relevance. CAPP represents all of the energy groups and I'm sure would bring some of those perspectives. If this is just the first meeting and we can pull it together for next Thursday, I think we'd be doing okay.

This place moves so slowly sometimes, you know. Sometimes it's for a good reason. You don't want to necessarily make laws up on the spot. We're not talking about making up a law here. We're not talking a radical shift. We're talking about an initial meeting about a very relevant topic that is at play in Canada.

This is meeting one. And expanding to the east coast implications, expanding to other questions that committee members have raised--absolutely. Of course I suspect that is what's going to happen for all of us in our minds when we hear the first witnesses. We'll have a question about that, or have a question about this mechanism, or what they do in Norway. Those are all good things. We're inquisitive people. That's what we should do.

But as the first one, I don't necessarily see the problem with this. I guess you're right, Mr. Chair, that the Beaufort isn't named, but I guess the implication in the witness list we drew is to connect it towards the north more than it is towards the west coast or the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the east coast, just by who we drew up in here.

So while we didn't name the particular body of water, that is what we're talking about. Again because of what I said earlier, this is the one that is most at play. They're not about to send rigs out on the west coast, as far as I know.

The east coast has a different paradigm entirely. Some are drilling. Nova Scotia wants to do more. So this is focused certainly towards the north, because that's the one next up on the block. That's the one that's not just being discussed, but is being acted upon.

So is it not incumbent upon us if we can...? I guess I'm not hearing from anybody that there is anything wrong with any of the witnesses to discuss that question. If there isn't, why don't we say yes to this, or take one off and add one today, and then see if the clerk can invite them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

What I have heard is that other parties would like a chance to present a witness list too, prior to--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, just to be clear, let me just finish that thought.

The witness list, if there are larger questions and larger considerations, absolutely. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm saying let's get started with this and bring our witnesses and talk about other meetings and expand it out all we want. I think that's great. If we hold this whole process up until we have a complete, universal picture of oil and gas drilling in every nook and cranny of Canada, it will be three weeks before we hear anybody.

That's just a consideration committee wants to make, if you want to wait three weeks for that or if we want to give it a start. I think these witnesses are solid, and I think that they're going to be balanced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Anderson, hopefully you can try to come up with some position the committee can move forward with. If not, it will be Mr. Tonks who gets the floor after you.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Oh geez. I hope he does.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I don't know if I can. I just think we're in the middle of doing a report. It looked like we were going to be able to have the text of that done. I don't want to speak out of camera here, but it will be probably before the break. We spent a couple of meetings on that.

It looks like we can get that done and set that aside. We're at a different stage with that. It would be finished. In the context of this, if I were Mr. Cullen I would like to go ahead with this as well, because he's the one who presented the motion with his list of witnesses that he wants to bring.

I understand and respect his argument. He wants to bring that list forward. But I think in order to be fair--unless we're only going to hear those witnesses, have one meeting with those witnesses and that would be good enough--I think it's fair to the other members of the committee to say get your witness list and let's see what we can do.

He said that nobody is opposed to the witnesses. We don't operate that way here. If people want to bring witnesses forward--whether we agree with the witnesses or not--we don't stop them from coming or object to them coming to the committee.

I just think it's fair for everyone else to be able to bring their witnesses forward, put a witness list together, have our--I think it's two--meetings that we want to have. They'll be that same week and that will give some continuity to it as well. Then we can go back to what we were doing in an hour.

I guess my other question is if it's two meetings, it's probably just hearings. If we're going to be extending this out... I think Mr. Cullen has actually expanded the discussion here, because he's talked about offshore drilling and he talked about mainly focusing on the Beaufort. His motion talks about drilling and production in all of Canada. So I don't think that the motion is so focused that we don't stand a chance of really wandering off in a number of directions here before we're done.

So I think we should get our witness list in. There are other companies who are working in the gulf already. There are Canadian companies down there who may want to have an opportunity to come and speak to us as well. I just think that we should all be able to get our witness list before the committee moves. We'll certainly try to do that as quickly as we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

As far as witnesses, I hear what you're saying, but what about where the study goes? The motion gives some direction, but are you suggesting you would be comfortable with a couple of meetings to determine where we might want to go? Or what are you suggesting?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I think he's suggesting we have two meetings on this hearing. The main focus seems to be the Beaufort, but that's not particularly what the motion says. So if we're going to agree to focus on the north and what's happening there, we can do that. I think we can cover it in a couple of meetings. If we want to talk about the regulatory regime in Canada and the emergency response assets to offshore drilling in general--Nathan mentioned offshore drilling across Canada--and do it in two meetings, we're going to have some short, quick testimony.

We're willing to do this, but what is the focus specifically? Do we want to just focus on the Beaufort? I think we can decide that in the next five minutes. Do we want to focus on offshore drilling across Canada? As Geoff pointed out, we have different regulatory regimes and supervisory organizations across the country. So if it's just the Beaufort I think we can do that in a couple of meetings, but we need to get our lists in first. If it's wider than that and we want to spend a couple of extra meetings on it, we can decide to do that as well. We'd just like to know what we're doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Tonks, we're looking for you to provide some final suggestions around which the committee can coalesce.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I bow to the collective wisdom of this group--always have.

There's no question about what Mr. Allen has said. It's kind of interesting, the whole uniqueness of the Arctic. There's really a renaissance of thought on that, which is extremely welcome. There's no question that the motion is part of something bigger--the huge issues.

When I was sitting at my desk the other night reading the motion I didn't see it in that very broad context. I saw it first in terms of the status of emergency assets and what's out there. Cheryl is right that I have had the privilege of sitting on a couple of meetings where the defence committee has been going through its report on military responses and regimes in the north. The new territorial imperative and the implications of emerging issues on whether the definitions of “strait” and “territorial waters” are encompassed in our protection--those things have come up. But the second part has also come up, which is the military and its capacity to be part of those assets that respond to natural or other occurrences.

So I saw this as a very specific opportunity. What's the status of emergency response, and what's the present legislative regime? Those were the two things. When I looked at it I thought we could start off by just bringing in the witnesses who are fundamentally involved in that.

I think this is also a learning opportunity for the committee. We should have those people in to discuss those two things as soon as possible. If anybody thinks there are additional individuals or organizations that should be part of this specific thing, put them forward.

Geoff has talked about the territorial issues with respect to the offshore petroleum boards. Maybe that's something we should look into, because they're part of the assets, and that's what we're focusing on.

My suggestion is that we set a date one week from Thursday and all provide witnesses for that specific discussion. I suggest the offshore petroleum boards--whoever would be appropriate--for a general discussion. If the committee in its wisdom feels we should have a broader study, at least we'll have a background of information to make those decisions and give thought to that, along the lines that everybody has contributed.

I think we're at a point where we can run two parallel courses. It's always a challenge for the committee. We can deal with the report, which is totally relevant to the issues of the medical isotope situation, and so on. But we can also run a parallel track with a focused discussion, with input, on the status of emergency response and what the legislative framework is. Those are the two issues.

Let's not make it hugely more broad than that at this point. Let's deal with the witnesses who have been suggested and any others that the committee, in its wisdom, wants to put forward. Let's set a date a week from Thursday for those specific witnesses. The challenge is for the clerk to try to get them, but because of the emergency nature and the trauma associated with the event in the gulf, we'll probably be able to scramble to get that meeting with appropriate witnesses to focus on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

We have the motion before us. We've had considerable discussion on the motion. The motion as it is won't allow for any witnesses other than the ones who are actually named in the motion.

If there's no further discussion, we'll have to go to a vote on the motion as it is, which precludes any witnesses other than those who are listed in Mr. Cullen's motion.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It leaves it wide open. It says “other involved proponents.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It does. So how do we determine that? I guess we have to deal with the motion here pretty quickly.

Mr. Harris, were you asking to be recognized?

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

If I understand Mr. Tonks, we would have our witness lists in by Tuesday, and then next Thursday we're going to carry on with the isotope and then deal with this after the break. Is that what he's suggesting?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I'm not sure. Maybe the committee can help me on the process. There are others who are better at that than I am, certainly, but what I thought we would do is... I think we're pretty close in terms of the witnesses for this focused discussion, and yes, by next Tuesday... We know the ones who we can have our clerk go ahead with. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to those.

That meeting on Thursday is going to be well attended, hopefully, by the witnesses who have been suggested here, and by Tuesday, if there are any additional witnesses, we could have them on for a following meeting, maybe the following Tuesday, for part of it. Maybe it's not the whole meeting; maybe we'd have two panels. We could continue for half the meeting with our isotope paper, then the second half have the additional witnesses who have been put forward by the committee.

I guess I'm trying to find some comfortable parallel path by which we can start on a very focused discussion, leave it a little open-ended for additional witnesses but not expand it until we've had the benefit of listening to the front end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cullen, then Mr. Regan.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I think Mr. Tonks' suggestion is very helpful. If folks want to focus more on the issue rather than the geography, that might give some ease. The issue is, as Mr. Tonks has rightly said, the emergency response assets and the current regulatory regime.

This motion does not preclude other witnesses being there. I think we could very easily have the National Energy Board, if David says the department needs to be there. I think the oil producers is a good example to start. I think British Petroleum... I don't want to make these guys uncomfortable, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts these guys don't mind testifying, to be honest. If I were their public relations manager, I'd send them here on the Thursday for sure, because no answers... British Petroleum is out in London today, for example, talking about this very publicly as to their plans and their estimates, and the relief well, and all the rest of that. I suspect British Petroleum will be beating our door down to get here, but I can't speak for the company.

Why not go ahead and see if the clerk can get them for Thursday, and include—either on Tuesday or at some other point—a deadline in which we have witness lists for a much more expanded conversation? I think it satisfies this motion, and I thank Alan for the suggestion. I think it satisfies the concerns that David, Mike, Dick, and others have raised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Again, you know, the vote on the motion is one thing, and that really is what we're debating. What we do with the rest of it is another thing. There's been some discussion, no agreement. There doesn't have to be agreement before we go to the motion, but it might affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. Anderson, do you have any suggestion on this?