Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to the members for having us. It's a real privilege to be speaking on behalf of Ecojustice. Certainly the topic you have embarked upon is one of primary importance to Canadians, as it is this committee, despite the fact that there is a steep learning curve right now.
I'll say just a couple of words to introduce you to Ecojustice. Ecojustice is Canada's premier public-interest environmental law organization. In shorthand, we're the environmental movement's lawyers. We do pro bono work. We don't accept funds from the Canadian government or any other government. We have a very tight corporate funding screen. Effectively we are a charitable organization that chooses cases and law reform projects on the basis of the strategic importance to the protection of Canadians' environment. We get a lot of requests for representation and for assistance and engagement on federal and provincial-territorial law reform projects. We're very picky. This is a file that's of primary importance to us; offshore oil has been identified as something that's very relevant to the environmental movement, and we will be investing in that regard.
To achieve that objective, we will be representing environmental groups in the context of the National Energy Board's Arctic offshore hearing. Our presence will be felt there, but we think the discussion of energy security extends beyond the Arctic offshore. As the previous witness indicated, this issue of energy security extends to the Atlantic, goes into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and, despite the de facto moratorium, is still a major issue on the west coast. This is an issue that is really multi-faceted, and it's difficult to present all the most important facets in seven minutes.
I will start off with the big-picture comment, though. From Ecojustice's perspective--and I think it's safe to say from the environmental movement's perspective--any notion that energy security is to be defined in terms of ensuring an adequate supply alone, without ensuring that conservation goals are set or that cultural, social, and environmental security risks are addressed, would be inadequate.
I don't use those words lightly. Cultural security is of primary importance in the context of the National Energy Board's Arctic offshore review. If there is a BP-like spill in the Arctic, there will be cultural loss, and that is a fact. As well, if there is a catastrophic spill off the east coast--or in the gulf, for that matter--there will be cultural loss. Communities that have been based for many years on tourism and fisheries industries could be decimated.
So the context of energy security is a broad one, and I urge this committee to take on that mantle and to look at these issues as broadly as possible.
First off, I'd like to say that the federal government's primary response in the post-BP era to the issue of energy security has been the National Energy Board's Arctic offshore review. When questions are raised in the House of Commons, the response is typically that the National Energy Board is looking into these issues.
There is certainly merit in having the National Energy Board examine issues related to Arctic offshore safety and environmental requirements. There is nothing wrong with that. However, as has been articulated on many occasions by civil society groups and by first nations groups, there is a need to look more broadly at this issue, and I'm thinking particularly of the offshore issue. I'm focusing primarily on the offshore aspect, not on other unconventional sources, although those are also important to Ecojustice. We are certainly doing lots of work in the area of tar sands, or oil sands, as the individual chooses to define it.
I'd like to raise a few cautionary flags. First, I think it's fair to say that many Canadians are becoming more and more familiar with this issue of offshore energy and more and more concerned about the levels of transparency regarding the federal government's policy responses post-BP. It's only now becoming clear that there are discussions between the Government of Quebec, the Government of New Brunswick, the Government of P.E.I., and the federal government over shared jurisdiction. As these are matters of fundamental national importance, they ought to be debated publicly, but we don't feel that this debate is happening right now.
While the response seems to have been that there's a National Energy Board hearing, there certainly are issues that have been raised about the appropriateness of the current regulatory regime that have not been addressed publicly. The National Energy Board hearing is not mandated to look into the entire regulatory structure for the offshore. What they are mandated to look at is far more restricted. What we need right now is a full-blown examination of the offshore regulatory regime in this country--and not just for the Arctic, but for the east coast as well. The jurisdictional issues complicate this situation, but there are many good reasons for looking at it more broadly than the National Energy Board hearing is doing.
Much has certainly been done in the U.S. as regards a gap analysis, identifying the potential regulatory weaknesses that exist and comparing those weaknesses and strengths with those of other countries. I'm not certain that's being done here in Canada, and that's a matter of major concern.
To conclude, I want to highlight two key issues that I think go to how—