Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Mark Corey]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off and then I will pass it over to Jeff Labonté, who is the director general of the petroleum resources branch, who can talk to it in more detail.

The answer is yes. We are actually participating in the NEB review, and we're going to be watching it very closely. We'll be working with them. In Mr. Caron's testimony to you earlier, he made it clear that they will make recommendations on regulations that need to be changed. Then it's the department's role to work with them and to advise the minister, because eventually it's the minister who makes recommendations for the order in council that would change the regulations.

So the answer is yes, we will be working with them and watching closely, but we always underline that they are an independent arm's-length regulator, and we are just one participant with them.

Jeff, did you want to add a bit to that?

[Jeff Labonté, Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

Yes. Thank you very much for the question.

As Mark has indicated, NRCan is a participant in the NEB review, and of course we're watching actively as it gets under way.

In terms of the comment about safety measures that exist for emergency preparedness and offshore drilling, in Canada at this point each of the arm's-length regulators has a requirement that obligates operators to put in place a number of measures in advance of moving forward. Those measures have to be put in place and approved by the regulator before operators can receive an authorization to move forward with any drilling activity.

Those measures include a safety plan, an environmental protection plan, an emergency response plan, and a contingency plan. Each of those aspects is documented in great detail and to the satisfaction of the regulator before they can go forward.

Canada's structure around the safety measures is an important foundation for the work the regulators do, and it is done in advance of providing authorizations to companies.

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

My hope was that it wouldn't be just the United States with respect to gaps that occurred, and that we would be looking much further than that. I was a little concerned with respect to the inference that was drawn, the inference that we're way ahead of that. I think we should be very careful on that.

I'll pass it over, if there's any time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have about two minutes, Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions for you, Mr. McCurdy.

First, when it comes to seismic testing and the impact on the fishery--the groundfish stocks and the shellfish--has any research been done that impact? Is seismic testing on the ocean floor a concern of yours or of your organization?

Second, has your organization ever objected to any offshore oil and development testing or drilling in the last few years?

[Earle McCurdy]

On the seismic issue, I think the unknown with that issue is the long-term impact. I'm not an expert in the area by a long shot, but intuitively, I don't think it's a great thing for the species that live there.

It's a bit like having a jackhammer in your kitchen when you're trying to cook supper. It really is intrusive, and who knows what impact that might have on reproduction? I don't know--

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So there has been no research done that you know of?

[Earle McCurdy]

I can't say there's been no research done. I'm not an expert on any research that has been done. Some degree of immediate dispersal of fish has been shown, but then over a relatively short period of time that impact seems to have diminished.

I'm not aware of any research that has looked at the long-term implications in terms of the impact on reproduction, migration, spawning behaviour, and that kind of thing. It has been a source of concern for some time.

On the issue of input on various developments, we haven't opposed offshore oil development taking place because, first of all, we feel it wouldn't be very productive in the sense that it wouldn't have any outcome to it, and it is an important industry for our economy. However, we're not satisfied it's being done in a manner that fully mitigates the impacts on the fishery or anticipates them and deals with them to the extent it should.

We've also been successful in having some adjustment to things such as the timing of particular activities--for example, seismic work--in relation to the timing of the fishing season or spawning behaviour. We have made representations and have had seismic activity delayed to avoid adverse impacts to the extent possible.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

So you've had a cooperative relationship?

[Earle McCurdy]

We try to work with the oil industry on the basis that we understand they're there trying to make a living in the same ocean, but we expect them to understand we've been there for a long time and that their activities shouldn't undermine our industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Your time is up.

We go now to the Bloc Québécois. Monsieur Pomerleau, you have up to seven minutes.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

As you may have seen from our questions to the previous witnesses--and this has been raised many times in the past--people are generally not reassured by the present situation. It may be why Americans refuse to eat fish from the Gulf of Mexico. We really need a better and transparent regulation regime. People have to be informed about the regulations, which they do not seem to be at this time. At the very least, people do not feel that they have enough information.

I would like to have your opinion about this. I would like you to tell us what is being done, at this time, for people to feel safer.

[Mark Corey]

Mr. Chair, I will start answering the question and then ask Eric Landry, our director for this area, to complete my answer.

This is one of our concerns, especially since the events of last April in the Gulf. It is something that we are reviewing. If I remember correctly, another minister who was part of the Committee of the whole said that we would draw lessons from what happened in the Gulf. I can assure you that we are looking very closely at the reports on these events to see what can be learned from that.

Do you want to add something, Mr. Landry?

[Eric Landry, Director, Frontier Lands Management Division, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

I would like to clarify a few things. Authorizing the various activities is the responsibility of the offshore Boards or of the NEB. Environmental assessments have to be carried out before work can proceed. They also have to be done by the private sector. Typically, they include public consultations.

In the case of the Boards, they publish documents so that people can participate and submit their comments about the various projects that have been proposed.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have the feeling that it is what is being done at this time but that does not make people feel any safer. That is my point.

What does the NEB intend to do about the changes made to the regulations? Is it going to monitor what is going to happen, so that people feel the problem has been resolved? We all know that there will always be some risk but it has to be minimized as much as possible. People want to know that all the steps have been taken to solve this problem.

[Eric Landry]

As Mr. Corey mentioned, we are closely monitoring the review. My people will be involved in the Arctic review. My group is also following the various studies and reviews currently undertaken in the US in order to see what can be learned to improve the regulations and, later, to provide advice to our officials and to the Minister about...

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

When will the reports be published in the US?

[Eric Landry]

The various reports have different timetables but are not expected before the end of the year. The report of the commission...

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You mean the end of 2010?

[Mark Corey]

Yes.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I have another question.

Someone mentioned earlier, quite accurately, that emergency plans should be prepared in peacetime. Someone else had indicated previously that it would appear that no competent people are looking at the issue of Arctic drilling at this time. We are in peacetime and there is no drilling going on, so that would be the right time to plan for emergencies. However, it seems that nobody is doing so.

Is that true? What do you intend to do about it?

[Mark Corey]

I will answer part of the question. That is really the purpose of the National Energy Board review. We need more information about safety and environmental issues. We all know that the Arctic environment is very fragile, or at least more so than in other parts of Canada. That is a good question. It is something that we are currently looking at. We have lots of information but we need more.

Do you want to add something, Mr. Labonté?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Monsieur Labonté.

[Jeff Labonté]

Thank you.

Certainly there's an expectation that the findings in the NEB hearings, as well as a number of the persons and groups seeking status, will address that issue. As you probably heard from Gaétan Caron earlier in the week, there are four areas. One of those is how to respond when things go wrong. That would present a number of different approaches and methods and levels of understanding of the competence for how a response might occur should something go wrong.

At this point in time I think it's fair to say this is an active area of discussion, debate, and interest, and I'm looking forward to some of those findings and information.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Do I have enough time for another question, Mr. Benoit?