Evidence of meeting #30 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 review.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. That's great. Thank you. That's so relieving.
There's no drilling going on right now, but we expect drilling in the next few years, according to the leases that have already been commissioned by the government.
12:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct, and it's INAC that is responsible for the leases. They're the ones who administer it in the north.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You mentioned a moratorium on the west coast. For a number of years, different parties have tried to actually see how that moratorium is written. Do you have a copy of it? Does it exist?
I apologize. I don't know what's causing that feedback noise, Chair.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
12:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Oh, it's the government tap coming in. I'm sorry; we're getting feedback.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Specifically, is there a moratorium written down anywhere? We know the government issued a verbal statement about it back in the 1970s, but we have not been able to actually see a written document anywhere. The provincial government in B.C. actually says that there isn't one, which has created a bit of confusion, as you can well understand.
12:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Chair, the answer to that is that there is a moratorium in place. The moratorium continues to be maintained through government policy. No activity can occur until the government decides otherwise. It is in place, and there is a policy that says that it shall not occur.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. McCurdy, you commented about environmental security being sacrificed on the altar of energy security. There are actually many countries, Norway being one of them, that include environmental security inside energy security. It should be one and the same. One shouldn't be versus the other. I took your point very well.
On the west coast the place that I represent, which might be quite similar to yours, has a $140 million wild salmon industry. There have been proposals to lift the moratorium on the west coast, as Mr. Corey knows, but the risk is being incurred by the fishing community entirely, with virtually no benefit to them--unless there's a spill; then their boats get hired out, I suppose.
Does it sometimes feel in your situation that oil and gas are the big kid on the block politically and economically, and that you folks have been pushed down to the side and virtually off the table in trying to get the interests of the fishing community put forward in these decisions?
12:45 p.m.
President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers
Let me put it this way. I don't think that the extent of the risk taken on by the people who work in the fishing industry as a result of the arrival of the oil and gas industry has been recognized or dealt with, and there is a great deal of risk.
In our province, our fishery is roughly a billion-dollar export industry annually. That is small potatoes compared to the oil and gas industry, but it's sure big potatoes in terms of rural Newfoundland--a province of a half million people--for the rural population and for the ability to maintain rural communities.
We are concerned about the impacts it has and we don't believe there has been adequate.... We're not satisfied with the extent to which that's been recognized and dealt with. Normally when you ask somebody to take a risk, you say that in return for that risk, you're going to provide them with some kind of quid pro quo. That's what has been lacking.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen. Your time is up.
We go now to Mr. Harris. You have up to seven minutes. Go ahead, please.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Labonté, I'm aware that a number of different reviews are going on at the present time. They have been going on probably even more vigorously since the gulf spill. We're all looking for the same things. I'm not sure of the number of reviews, but I know that it's more than one. There are probably three or four different ones.
Is it fair to say that by virtue of the scope of the responsibility and oversight that the NEB has, no matter who is doing these reviews in Canada, you guys are automatically involved? With the sharing and receiving of information, you certainly have a.... There must be an extension there because of your oversight, a passing of information as a result of the findings and things like that.
Is that a fair comment?
12:50 p.m.
Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I think it's a completely fair comment. Natural Resources Canada works closely with, and sets the regulatory framework for, the NEB and the offshore boards, in partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia. Certainly aspects of the motion are covered in the NEB review, but there are a number of other reviews under way. There is the Newfoundland review.
We're certainly monitoring all the reviews, including the ones that are happening outside of Canada. In the United States, there are two or three different reviews under way. The United Kingdom is doing a review. Australia is doing a review. There are a whole number of different aspects being looked at, whether they're focused on the technological aspects, the regulatory aspects, or the safety response.
The sum of all of these reviews is an important factor that helps us monitor and understand what gaps exist or what opportunities there might be for Canada to look at its regime.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Yes, I would suggest that given the scope of the NEB's responsibility, you're pretty much automatically drawn into, in some way, every review that goes on within the area of your responsibility.
12:50 p.m.
Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Indeed.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
We're all laymen at this table, with the exception of you guys, and we're learning about oil spills from the witnesses and from reading what we can about them.
I need to ask a couple of basic questions. Has there ever been an offshore spill in Canada, and if so, when was the last one that resulted from a blowout or an equipment failure?
12:50 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
The answer is yes. I think that was about the first question we answered when we were before the committee last spring. There were two, both involving gas off the east coast of Atlantic Canada.
Jeff, do you have the details?
12:50 p.m.
Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
There was one in the early 1980s on the east coast of Canada, in Nova Scotia, and there was a second one in the same period, more or less, both of which were contained.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
All right.
In the area of preventing a spill or a leakage or blowout, I'm hearing the following three things from the witnesses we've heard.
First, the way to prevent a spill is by increasing the scientific and technical knowledge about how you drill and about what's down there and about how you safely go through the different zones. That would be number one.
The second way is to eliminate the chance of human error, to the highest possible extent, through increased training and safety methods.
The third is to research and develop newer and safer equipment to eliminate the incidence or chance of equipment failure to the highest extent possible.
That's what I am getting on the side of preventing a possible blowout.
What I'm getting in the event of a spill is again the importance of increasing scientific knowledge. You need to be able to deal with the oil in the water and know how to disperse it, and you need to know the technical aspects of how to gather it up and contain it. As well, you need an advance containment remediation plan. Third, you need to have the logistics and the infrastructure to carry out the physical part of cleaning up an accident.
Those things appear to me to be ongoing work. We're always looking to increase our scientific and technical knowledge to find safer ways of doing things and to decrease the chance of human error and equipment failure. Then there's the clean-up side.
Is it fair to say that we have reasons to have all of those as ongoing areas in trying to improve or minimize the chances of a spill?
That's a long question. I'm sorry.
12:55 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Chair, I think that's a fairly good summary of a lot of the problems we've seen.
One of the things that we have seen so far coming out of the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is the first report that BP has issued. The department actually had folks from BP come to the department and brief us. In their report--and again, it's BP's view--they list eight things that happened, and a lot of them pertain to things that you were talking about. There was equipment failure. There were people who did not understand what was happening and what the various readings meant. There were instances in which they just missed things. There was a sequence, in their view, of eight things that happened that would be addressed by a number of the things you've mentioned.
What we're really waiting for is the presidential commission report that will be coming, I believe, in the next month or two months, possibly in January. A number of other reports are ongoing, and you can be certain that all three boards and the Government of Canada will be watching those very closely to see what lessons we can learn.
The other thing I would mention is that we're not alone in this. There's the International Regulators' Forum. The three boards that you had before you earlier belong to this larger international community. They spend a lot of time talking about new trends and regulations, how to regulate better, and how to address a number of the points you've raised. I think it's fair to say that a lot will be happening in that forum as the regulators take stock of what we've learned about how to prevent things like this in the future.