Natural Resources Committee on June 10th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to committee. We're here to do clause-by-clause study of Bill C-22, an act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

With us today to give us guidance and to answer any questions members may have, we have witnesses from the Department of Natural Resources.

We have Mr. Labonté here again. Thank you very much.

We have Tyler Cummings, deputy director, frontier lands management division, petroleum resources branch. Welcome.

We have Dave McCauley, director, uranium and radioactive waste division, electricity resources branch, energy sector. Welcome.

We have Jean-François Roman, legal counsel, legal services. Welcome.

Also, there is Joanne Kellerman, general counsel and executive director, legal services. She will be here, will she?

[Jeff Labonté, Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

She'll be here in a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's perfect.

From the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we have Michel Chenier, director, petroleum and mineral resources management directorate, natural resources and environment branch, northern affairs.

Thanks very much to all of you for being here. We know there will be questions.

We will now start the clause-by-clause study.

We will start by standing the title until the end, but before I go there, actually, I do want to say that there is a package of amendments. I guess they're not separated, but the independent Green member has presented a package. Yesterday, she withdrew three of the proposed amendments, so they will not be brought forward today. They're not considered moved. They are PV-8, PV-15, and PV-16. They are removed from the package. If you could just strike those so you remember that.

We have an e-mail noting that the independent member from the Green Party will be arriving late. I think we have to continue in the process here. I just want to remind members that we've agreed to go until we're finished, whatever time that takes. We have the meeting room beyond the normal time of 11 o'clock.

Mr. Regan, did you have a question?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

What are the numbers for those amendments that are not being put forward?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

They are PV-8, PV-15, and—

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

And PV-16?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's right. They are removed from the package and they will not be moved.

Have you found those amendments, or do you want me to give you the page numbers?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

PV-1 and PV-2 are the first ones.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

PV-8, PV-15, and PV-16 are the three that are removed from the package.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Pages 30 and 31 are the last two...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, and the first one is on page 11.

As usual, we will start by postponing the title, clause 1, until later, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

(On clause 2)

Are there any proposed amendments for clause 2?

This one is deemed moved. We don't really....

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

They're deemed moved?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Well, all of them that have been presented and haven't been removed by the time we deal with clause 1, even though it is moving it to later....

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

So PV-1 has been moved. Is that how this works?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This is clause 2, with any proposed amendments.

Is there any debate on PV-1? I guess the member isn't here. Is there discussion on PV-1?

Go ahead, please, Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We clearly support this proposed amendment. There are very strong objections stated by the Government of British Columbia that this provision potentially would allow for the use of dispersants that they're deeply concerned about and that could be illegal under the federal Fisheries Act. They simply don't support the way the bill is drafted. They would support this amendment, I understand.

It seems reasonable to us as well. Since the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there are increasingly deep concerns about the effect of these dispersants. Having personally witnessed the disastrous response by the Alberta and federal governments to the bunker C spill in Alberta, I can attest to the fact that when you use the wrong substance, you end up with a disaster. In that case, they used sawdust, and the bunker C sank to the bottom of the lake, which causes greater damage.

The concern with a lot of these dispersants is that they in fact do cause the sinking and more biological damage. I've taken a close look at this amendment and it seems to be a very sensible one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further discussion on that?

Ms. Crockatt.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I spoke on this in the House. I have some familiarity with dispersants. I'm sure the member opposite has read the bill and understands that dispersants and all spill-treating agents in this bill will only be used in the event that there's a net environmental benefit. In fact, that is the test.

Are we ready for questions? I'm sure that our officials from Natural Resources could speak further to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Would one of you or more like to make a comment on that?

[Jeff Labonté]

Our read of this particular amendment would be that it removes “except in section 25.4” of the bill, which is a section that references the ability to conduct research on STAs, spill-treating agents, to demonstrate and to understand how they would be affected in the natural environment and how they work.

To the honourable member, the rest of the clause that remains would still permit the use of STAs under the conditions in which the bill spells it out. STAs can only be used when there's a net environmental benefit. They can only be used if the STAs are listed on regulations that are posted by the Minister of the Environment. They can only then be considered for use when the company puts them in their plan and lays out all of the conditions under which the plan would allow for their use. They can only be used when the conservation officer of the offshore board then approves that the plan may be used and invoked with the STA that's listed in the regulation because there's a net environmental benefit.

This amendment would still permit the use of STAs. It would not allow for the research on STAs to occur. That's at least according to the read that we have of the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good, thank you.

Ms. May, so you're aware, we're dealing with your first proposed amendment. The officials have just given an explanation as to how the issue of various spill-treating agents are handled in the bill. I don't know whether you heard the explanation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

No, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, I have to apologize. We were having a session in the Centre Block which I was chairing, and I left before it was over. I apologize for being late to committee for clause-by-clause consideration of this bill and my specific amendments. Quite honestly, I didn't get here in time to hear the official's explanation.

The reason we've brought forward this amendment is based on evidence that the committee has heard, particularly from Ecojustice, that by exempting the effects of spill dispersers that are used in response to an environmental emergency, we can actually have other environmental damage. It was the lawyer for Ecojustice, Will Amos, who expressed the concern about the elimination of the relief from liability of the dumping of these particular toxic chemicals.

I understand how they're treated in the bill, and I understand the rationale behind it; however, the reality is that spill-dispersing agents are also toxic chemicals that can have negative impacts on the marine environment. Even though their purpose is to avoid environmental damage, they can in fact add to it. It's a question of exemption from liability. The Green Party is recommending, based on the evidence that the committee has heard, and through my first amendment, that we remove the exemption for spill-treating agents.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Regan.