THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 28, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone.
Before we begin, I would ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Finally, please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I wish to begin by acknowledging the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I am Joan Kingston, a senator from New Brunswick and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I would ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Arnot: My name is David Arnot. I am a senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance, Quebec.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10 territory, Manitoba region.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin, Nova Scotia.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I welcome everyone here today, as well as those listening to us online.
Pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on October 8, we are pursuing our study on Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry.
We are pleased to welcome our first panel. From the Canada‑Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator, we have, by video conference, Scott Tessier, Chief Executive Officer; Jill Mackey, Chief Safety Officer. From Transport Canada we have Sean Rogers, Executive Director, Legislative, Regulatory and International Affairs; and François Marier, Director, International Marine Policy.
Welcome, all. Mr. Tessier, you may proceed with your statement.
Scott Tessier, Chief Executive Officer, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator: Honourable senators, I am pleased to appear before you once again, joined this evening by our Chief Safety Officer, Jill Mackey. Jill and I will share the time allotted for our opening remarks.
We acknowledge that the lands on which both C-NLOER facilities are located are in the traditional territories of diverse Indigenous peoples. We acknowledge with respect the histories and cultures of the Beothuk, Mi’kmaq, Innu and Inuit.
Since I last appeared before your committee, we have welcomed an expanded mandate with a new name through federal and provincial amendments to the Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts. As well, Canada’s First Ministers have renewed their focus on building projects and strengthening our economy. With that comes what I hear to be a clear call to regulators, to which our organization stands ready to respond.
Clear and predictable regulatory pathways have always been necessary to attract capital and encourage investment, but it has been recognized and accepted that Canada’s performance and the corresponding results — including those in the Canada‑Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area — have been uneven at best. Regulatory stability and certainty are no longer enough. While our organization does not have the power to make legislation or regulations, we know we must do our part to deliver our mandate more efficiently, that is to say, more quickly but no less robustly or effectively.
Last year, governments delivered new, performance-based framework regulations that are less prescriptive and more enabling, but performance-based regulations only achieve their desired results if they are administered through performance-based regulating, so we have embarked upon a more risk-focused and collaborative approach than ever before, through transformative work to pursue innovative digital solutions and reduce red tape.
Specifically, we are committed to enhancing inter-agency coordination as we modernize and expedite our permitting systems through streamlined approvals and authorizations, with optimized decision points, conduct risk-based compliance verification activities, collaborate with industry on guidance and other regulatory instruments, and pursue digital solutions, including those that can harness the power of artificial intelligence. All of this will enable us to deliver our mandate faster, better and, eventually, cheaper.
While we are undergoing significant transformation, we continue to value meaningful engagement with our fishing industry, understanding the fishing sector is also critical to our economy. We remain committed to working with and listening to these and other stakeholders, Indigenous communities and the offshore workforce throughout our regulatory planning and oversight. We are also working closely with our Canadian counterparts and those in other countries in an effort to stay at the leading edge of the dynamic and rapidly evolving sector we regulate.
Jill will now speak about some of our recent efforts in this regard.
Jill Mackey, Chief Safety Officer, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator: Good evening. Over the past year, we have undertaken a proactive approach throughout our organization to better understand Canadian and global approaches to performance-based and risk-based regulating practices.
We have had continual, productive and enlightening discussions with other Canadian regulators and working groups, including the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the BC Energy Regulator, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator, the Canada Energy Regulator and the North American Regulators Working Group on Safety Culture.
To take into account global perspectives on offshore safety, we have regular engagements with regulators from other countries, most notably through the International Regulators’ Forum, known as the IRF; the IRF Offshore Renewables Energy Subcommittee; the North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum, and the International Diving Regulators and Certifiers Forum. Through these groups, our organization works with other jurisdictions including Australia, Brazil, Denmark, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States and others.
Valuable insights come from comparing methodologies for risk-based approaches to compliance verification and monitoring, discussing ways to improve and optimize our oversight procedures and sharing information across project life cycles.
Working closely with our national and global counterparts across high-hazard industries has also informed our self‑assessment and improvement initiatives.
Mr. Tessier: Thank you, Jill.
Earlier this month, we proudly hosted offshore regulators and stakeholders from around the world here in St. John’s for a highly successful IRF Offshore Safety Conference, with nearly 300 participants from 13 countries. The IRF is focused on matters including digitalization and artificial intelligence, well control, learning from incidents, aging assets, abandonment and decommissioning and renewable energy. We also hosted a series of productive meetings with our international counterparts in environmental protection, resource management, well control and leasing and rights administration.
Looking ahead, our current calls for bids close on November 5. There are 19 parcels available in the Eastern Newfoundland Region and 17 more offered in the Labrador South Region. Those results will provide a sense of how globally competitive our offshore area currently is in terms of exploration.
We appreciate your study of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area and thank you for accommodating our virtual participation this evening. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you both.
I suggest now that for the first round, the members will take five minutes, including question and answer. If time permits, we will have a second round.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: This is a question for Scott Tessier. The regulator reported five petroleum spills last year. How important were these petroleum spills? Can you tell us if oil spills increased or decreased in the last years?
Mr. Tessier: Any oil spill or unauthorized discharge is important. They pale in comparison to what we saw in the 2018-19 timeframe when we saw a much greater volume of unauthorized discharges in our offshore. There has been improvement in terms of industry performance in the seven years since those incidents, and we are generally trending in the right direction with respect to unauthorized discharges, but again, any oil or pollutant in the ocean is too much from our perspective.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What are the volumes? Can we have an idea of the volumes of those spills?
Mr. Tessier: That information is readily available in our reporting on our website. I can follow up with the exact volumes. I don’t have that at my fingertips.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The regulator released a report stating that offshore drilling could all but disappear in 2050, noting that even if Canada announces no new measures and misses its net zero target, production in Newfoundland would still drop by 80%. Have you already noticed a decrease in new project approval requests, or not?
Mr. Tessier: That report was not ours so I cannot speak to its content. I would suggest that, even if oil is not being used as fuel in 2050, there will still be a significant demand for petroleum products in our society. We are not seeing drilling activity this year. We do not anticipate any drilling activity next year, but there are a number of significant proposals in the works, so the future remains to be seen and written.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are you saying the report by the Canada Energy Regulator is wrong?
Mr. Tessier: I would suggest it’s highly speculative. I’m not sure I agree with it.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses.
I have three questions for Mr. Tessier and two for Ms. Mackey. I realize they will not be able to answer them if full, so I would ask that the answers be put in writing to the clerk.
Mr. Tessier, given the federal emissions cap is proposed but not yet in force, what emissions constraint are you, the regulator, actually using in today’s decisions, and how will you revise approval if the final cap is tighter?
Second question: Under Bill C-49, will you, the regulator, publish mapped no-go conservation zones before calls for bids go out so that conflicts are not pushed to project-by-project panels?
Third: After the 2018 SeaRose spill and the 2024 fines, what new mandatory public reporting on spill metrics and wildlife mortality will the regulator require in the near future?
Ms. Mackey, what specific standard operating procedure changes — for instance, flow line integrity checks, weather windows, restart criteria — are now standard since 2018, and how do you audit operator compliance?
Second question: How do you verify that prime contractor safety systems actually govern subcontractors offshore? What are your fuel-level verification checks? How do they work, and how do you accomplish them?
Mr. Tessier: On the emissions, the framework that governs the offshore is the product of governments. The provincial government has its emissions-reduction plan, as does the federal government with its backstop. We monitor upstream emissions from offshore facilities on behalf of the provincial government, and we provide those reports to them for follow up and compliance verification and enforcement where need be.
On reporting, we are always open to enhanced transparency, so we provide information with respect to environmental performance. In the case of offshore drilling and production, those conditions are stipulated by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, and we provide the compliance verification and monitoring. We do report in concert with those conditions.
With respect to no-go zones, no-go zones are the product of federal — and in some cases provincial but mainly federal — legislation and regulations, so no-go zones are currently confined to MPA, marine protected areas. Those are well established, and there is no offshore activity in those areas.
I’ll turn to Jill for your other two responses.
Ms. Mackey: Thank you, senator.
With respect to some of the questions you asked regarding the spills since 2018, that event was primarily environmental in nature, so that would be under the purview of our environmental protection department largely. However, the safety department has involvement from the safety case and the review of procedures and protocols in the event of adverse weather. Several things happened since that event. We now have effected an adverse weather communications protocol where we require that the operators heavily monitor due to impending weather. The storm that led to that incident at the time, there were a number of learnings that came out of that event. One of the things also is to make sure that the design criteria of all the facilities were followed up on after that storm. I would gladly be able to provide you with a more fulsome response to that in writing.
With respect to monitoring of contractors, that is part of what we do. There are specific regulations carved out under part 3.1 of the act, and that would be the OHS Regulations, Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, for the offshore. There are differences in the actual employer in charge of the area and the operators who would be generally your big well-known super major companies. We do have processes in place to monitor and to conduct safety assessments with respect to these actions.
In terms of our field-level verification, we conduct regular compliance verification and monitoring activities throughout the year. As Scott mentioned, we are working towards fine-tuning our performance and risk-based approach to this to help guide us on the proper subject matters that we look more closely at when we conduct verification activity, depending on the facility and the type of work they are doing and the risk at hand.
Senator Galvez: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Tessier and one for Ms. Mackey.
In this committee, we study the amendments to the federal act in order to extend the mandate of your agency. Now you also have to take care of the wind offshore renewable energy. Mr. Tessier, first of all, I would like to know how much time you dedicate to promoting or studying the potential for wind energy in the area. Second, I would like to know how many owners operate an oil rig and if you now have new expertise with respect to your new mandate.
Ms. Mackey, we now know that storms and hurricanes form and hit your location more frequently and with more strength than before. What are your studies showing with respect to these changes due to global warming?
Mr. Tessier: Thank you, senator.
We are excited about our expanded mandates. There isn’t much happening with respect to interest from operators in the renewable energy space in our offshore area right now. There is a little more activity next door offshore Nova Scotia. We are working actively with governments and other regulators in preparation for the new legislative and regulatory framework. I would estimate that we spend probably 5% of our time and budget right now on offshore renewables. It is important to note that we do not promote. It is beyond the remit of the regulator to serve in that promotional role.
You asked how many operators of offshore facilities we have. We currently have four operators. Now, that’s a bit complicated because there are interest holders beyond the four operators. There are seven or eight companies active in our offshore right now in terms of the soon-to-be five producing facilities.
The expertise from the offshore petroleum regulatory oversight transfers really favourably to the offshore renewable space, as best we can tell so far. We are working closely with our international counterparts through some of the fora we talked about recently. The International Regulators’ Forum, or IRF, has expanded, and a number of its members have expanded their remit as well to include offshore renewables. We are working closely with regulators in other countries, along with our Canadian counterparts, to better understand what sort of expertise we may require down the road. For now, we think we are well equipped to serve the regulatory oversight in the offshore renewable energy space.
The other questions are for Jill, so I’ll pass the mic to her.
Ms. Mackey: Thank you, senator.
One of the key things I mentioned, which has been a big change since the storm of 2018, was the code of practice, which is a piece of guidance that has been authorized under our legislation. It is a joint industry document. It is a best practice that was put together by ourselves, CAP and the operators. This has been developed to enhance planning, communication and collaboration amongst operators, with a primary focus on operating in adverse weather conditions in order to reduce risk and harm to the offshore workers. That is one piece. I cannot speak to us conducting studies on the effects of any global warming or climate change because we do not have the enforcement arm or the academic arm to do that. However, we stay in close contact with other regulators.
Since the 2018 storm, when we know there is weather coming, there is always a conversation with all of the operators in the offshore asking them, “What are you doing? Are you implementing your adverse weather protocols? Are you checking the forecasts?” Another item we also have as a requirement for each operator to submit is ice management plans, because we have issues with icebergs coming down through the area where the facilities are located. We also have requirements that all the operators must have emergency response plans in which there are different types of scenarios they have to be able to effect in order to protect workers, facilities and the environment.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Mr. Tessier and Ms. Mackey.
Mr. Tessier, you mentioned earlier that there was no drilling. Could you define that? I ask because I know there is production. Could you go through the process from seismic to exploratory to drilling to production so that we are clear on the terminology?
Mr. Tessier: Thank you, senator. Certainly, yours is the voice of experience.
I should differentiate between exploratory drilling, which is the wildcat trying to discover new reservoirs that would ultimately lead to production. When I say there is no drilling, that’s my lazy shorthand for exploratory drilling. There is, of course, production from our offshore facilities, which entails drilling for production. So there is drilling activity.
Seismic activity is the key to unlock new discoveries, and in recent years we have seen significant seismic activity in our offshore, leading to some significant discoveries. It remains to be seen what is in store for seismic activity for the next couple of years. There are no firm projects on the books, although one seismic operator has filed an environmental assessment, and that is often a precursor to seeing activity. It remains to be seen what that will look like in 2026 and beyond.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you for that.
You mentioned earlier unauthorized discharges. That wouldn’t be a wellhead spill. What is typically an unauthorized discharge?
Mr. Tessier: It could be something as relatively innocuous as hydraulic fluid from a remote operated vehicle. It could be something like produced water, which is a byproduct of production, beyond the specified allowable limits. There is a variety of types of unauthorized discharges.
Senator D. M. Wells: What happens when there is an unauthorized discharge from produced water causing a sheen or something like that? Do you use oil skimmers to remove that or booms to contain it? How is that typically dealt with?
Mr. Tessier: There is remarkable technology now in offshore monitoring through satellite imagery. We will typically receive a notice of a sheen from an offshore facility. In following up on it, it is nearly all of the time produced water within spec, within allowable authorized limits. The detection technology is so sophisticated right now that even produced water in spec will be detected when there are calm conditions offshore. It is very difficult to get away with anything in our offshore area right now. Nearly 99.9% of the reports we receive on a late Friday night are produced water in spec, within limits.
Senator D. M. Wells: The ones that are within limits, how are they dealt with? Does it just dissipate through wave action?
Mr. Tessier: That’s right. They are authorized, so there are allowable limits that do not result in significant environmental damage. They dissipate; they dissolve; they disperse; they dilute — the four Ds.
Senator D. M. Wells: Mr. Tessier, in the four requirements under the Atlantic Accord Acts that fall under the remit of the regulator — which would be industrial benefits, health and safety, environmental and resource management — I know they are not prioritized in the legislation, but do you prioritize them within the organization?
Mr. Tessier: We absolutely do. Safety is paramount. Safety is our first priority. Then environmental protection is 1(b). The only thing more important than the environment is offshore safety. Tied for third and fourth are resource management and industrial benefits.
Senator D. M. Wells: All right. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I will continue along the same lines as the question from Senator Arnot. According to the weather forecast, Melissa could reach as far as Newfoundland.
We still need to follow the data. What preparations need to be made to secure offshore employees and platforms in such circumstances? In other words, who does what and what protocols are in place, in the event of an evacuation?
[English]
Mr. Tessier: Jill spoke earlier to our adverse weather protocols. Jill, a really good example is we’re all watching the situation in Jamaica tonight. Could you speak to what’s going to happen in the next couple of days with our offshore and your engagement with operators?
Ms. Mackey: There would be continual conversation for us to get an understanding that they are monitoring the weather that’s impending. There are processes involved to help determine what stage of preparation do the offshore facilities need to be as the weather approaches. If a storm is approaching and they need to make it safe, they have special checklists to follow as that gets closer.
Two of our facilities out there, plus a new one, are concrete, gravity-based structures that cannot move. They have their own set. Each facility has its own set of what to do as pending weather gets close.
The other two facilities out there are floating, production, storage. In a nutshell, they’re basically big boats with little refineries on them. They can actually disconnect. There’s storm and iceberg criteria for them to do certain things they have committed to as weather or ice approaches. In some cases, they may need to shut down production, stop drilling. They may need to secure the facility. They may need to send people to land; “down-man” is the term we use. There are strict requirements to follow for these plans.
As I mentioned, the adverse weather communication protocol that came out of 2018 really helped us work with the production and drilling operators in our jurisdiction to help articulate what they need to tell us, as the regulator, they are doing at the time. Clearly, while the regulations are out there, they aren’t fine‑tuned enough to outline exactly the type of things we would expect.
Also, I have to acknowledge the fact that the facilities have significant structures, redundancies and capabilities onboard for emergency situations, if they arise.
Our emergency response plans are critical. They could come into effect if weather is coming onboard. There are aspects of their emergency response plan that they have to have defined. For example, what are the duties of the crew? What are they going to do to down-man? Do they have the layout drawings for being able to safely evacuate? Are there first-aid kits onboard? Are there emergency suits there? There are regular lifeboat testing requirements in order to ensure lifeboats can leave, if it comes to that. What are the means of evacuation? Emergency energy, if there is a power outage during these scenarios. What’s the alert? Every person who goes offshore has to be trained when they go to that facility for understanding these kinds of measures when they go out on the facility, if it comes to this.
I’m probably going a little further down the emergency response chain, but since 2018, we’ve made it critical to have these close conversations with all of the operators offshore to verify they are doing as they’ve committed to do to ensure that their workers are safe.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McCallum: When we looked at Bill C-49, the regulator is now empowered to conduct regional and strategic assessments for petroleum offshore. There are new sections. One section provides the Crown may rely on the regulator to consult with Indigenous Peoples respecting any potential adverse impact of work or activity in the offshore area. Bill C-49 makes this policy explicit, enshrining it into law. It now makes it clear that the Crown may rely on the regulator to consult with Indigenous Peoples.
I want to go back to the Bay du Nord project. A major point of contention is the lack of environmental assessment for the approximately 78 annual oil tanker trips, totalling 2,340 throughout the project’s lifespan, that will traverse through and around critical Indigenous fishing zones and risk harm to species such as the endangered Atlantic salmon, whales and vulnerable marine ecosystems. These severe threats to biodiversity and Indigenous rights in the area should have been assessed.
I remember, when we did Bill C-49, that I read a letter from the 12 Mi’kmaq Chiefs who said they were not consulted. It seems like that has gone on. The litigants in the case argue the assessment did not properly evaluate the risk of oil tankers. MTI argues the government did not adequately consult with the affected Mi’kmaq communities despite concerns being raised. The government allegedly gave the duty to consult a low designation due to the project’s distance from land, an assessment MTI never agreed with. Some have said consultations were thorough, but MTI never agreed to that designation and maintained that it was not given enough time and resources to weigh in and get information on how marine shipping could impact the environment.
The duty to consult was given a low designation due to the project’s distance from land. Can you explain how and why the distinction is made between high and low designation when it comes to the duty to consult?
Mr. Tessier: I’m not sure who the question is directed towards. I can speak to it to a degree.
Senator McCallum: The regulator.
Mr. Tessier: It’s important to differentiate. The assessment of the Bay du Nord project was carried out by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. Tanker traffic is also beyond our remit. I can’t speak with authority or particular knowledge as to how the strength of claim was assessed. Some of the details of the question are well beyond our remit.
Senator McCallum: Even though you are the one who is in charge of consultation, the regulator?
Mr. Tessier: No. The amendments under Bill C-49 gave the governments the ability to rely on the regulator for the purpose of engagement with Indigenous communities. Prior to that, we were not considered an agent of the Crown for that purpose. It is a new power for us, only coming into force when Bill C-49 came into force. It’s brand new to us.
Senator McCallum: So you’re not actioning it? I don’t understand.
Mr. Tessier: The assessment you spoke of was conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. We were not privy to the decisions with respect to strength of claim and so on.
Senator McCallum: Do you possibly think the same thing could happen in your area? Would that still be under the impact assessment?
Mr. Tessier: The new legislation does give us the power to carry out a regional assessment. We always did have the power to carry out a strategic environmental assessment, which we’ve done in the past. It is just that specific instance was led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Senator Fridhandler: I believe this might be directed to Mr. Tessier. Speaking about your role as a regulator and what you might see, can you tell me whether you can give me any numbers on the percentage of reserve recovery, the potential for recovery beyond primary methods and what your role would be on looking at secondary or other methods of recovery beyond primary?
Mr. Tessier: We do have a mandate for resource management. That’s essentially the responsibility to ensure that there isn’t waste or that there’s optimal recovery from the resources that are being exploited by the operators. We do have this mandate.
I’m not able to speak off the top of my head with authority in terms of typical rates of recovery, but I can tell you that there is significant research under way, including at Memorial University, on enhanced oil recovery. It’s not an emerging field, it’s an established field, but there is a lot of new technology and innovation happening in that space. I would expect we would see recovery rates increase. That’s good in terms of reducing emissions and ultimately — it’s a bit counterintuitive that enhanced oil recovery is good for the fight against climate change, but it actually is because, depending on what you’re recovering, the facilities and infrastructure is already established, so enhanced oil recovery is actually a key to lowering emissions.
Senator Fridhandler: On another matter, you spoke about a call for licences or permits or whatever the steps in the process are, but you didn’t seem overly optimistic about where we’re going in the near term. Maybe this is beyond your role as a regulator, but would you be able to give us some opinion on what your beliefs are on the competitive nature relative to incentives or impairments of success in terms of advancing offshore Newfoundland production?
Mr. Tessier: Sure. Again, I tread lightly here as the regulator, but I can speak to the facts. We have not seen successful bid rounds the last couple of years. We’ve had zero bid rounds. We haven’t attracted new investment on those parcels in those prospects. As to what’s going to happen in a couple of weeks, I really don’t know. I would be a fool to try to speculate. All will be revealed on November 5.
I can tell you, again speaking to the facts, one thing we have heard in the past is those who would typically invest have expressed frustration about the time it takes to get from discovery to production in Canada. That’s something that I think governments are seized with, that we as the regulator are seized with, and it’s something we’re going to have to address in order to attract capital on investment in our offshore and in Canada writ large. We’re competing against Africa and the United States and Norway and Guyana, countries that are very aggressive in terms of trying to attract capital investment. We have not shown the same level of aggression in Canada in recent years.
Senator Fridhandler: When you say “we,” provincial, federal or both? Business enterprises generally?
Mr. Tessier: All of the above, I would suggest, yes.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Given Canada’s commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, how does the board reconcile its responsibility to promote and develop the offshore oil industry with its mandate to protect the environment? The measures you have described to us since the beginning seem quite interesting. Do you think they are sufficient to guarantee the safety of the environment?
[English]
Mr. Tessier: That’s a complex question.
We regulate in the public interest. Obviously, emissions reduction is in the public interest. Investment in the dispensation of capital in Canada is in the public interest. Royalties and revenues are in the public interest. We as regulators work with governments in trying to reconcile all of those interests.
It’s well established that if the world were magically able to stop using petroleum for fuel, there would still be a need for petroleum exploration and production for the foreseeable future, so that’s how we square it being in the public interest.
As I mentioned in response to Senator Wells, I believe it was, the safety of offshore workers and facilities is clearly our top priority. It is first and foremost in everything we do, and the protection of the environment is right there with it.
We think we can do all of the above. I’ve never accepted the assertion that somehow our broad mandate is in conflict because all of those elements interplay and are integrated and serve the public interest.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
On November 5, 19 parcels will apparently be available. If I make the link to my first question, if you were fortunate enough to get multiple bids for these parcels, would the board be able to protect the environment if there was significant demand right away for exploratory projects?
[English]
Mr. Tessier: There are 36 parcels closing on November 5, 19 in Eastern Newfoundland and 17 offered in the Labrador South Region. I would suggest that we would not put 36 parcels out if we were not prepared to regulate 36 compliant bids. It is highly unlikely that that will be the result on November 5, but we have to be prepared to regulate the worst- or best-case scenario, depending on how you define it.
Senator Lewis: On the safety side, 2018 has been mentioned many times. Statistically, how big a storm was that? Is that a one in 100 years, once in 1,000? What improvements have been made since then to mitigate against another incident like that?
Mr. Tessier: I’m going from memory. and Jill may have a better memory than I. I believe it was a one-in-1000-year storm, if memory serves, but I might be wrong on that. It was a significant storm. Going from memory, I’m fairly sure it was the worst storm we saw in our offshore since the loss of the Ocean Ranger in 1982. It was significant. I’d suggest it was an outlier, although those things seem to be more frequent these days.
There have been significant improvements made with respect to adverse weather protocols. The focus has to be on prevention. If we’re into a case of a spill, we’re in a really bad space. The focus is certainly on prevention. The industry has made a concerted effort to improve with respect to environmental and safety performance arising out of a series of incidents from 2018-19. We’re relatively satisfied with what we’ve seen in response to those incidents. There was significant work done in particular with respect to adverse weather protocols following the November 2018 spill.
Ms. Mackey: I can’t confirm that this was a one-in-1000-year event. I have a briefing note — it might be a little dated — that says it was in alignment with a critical storm for a 100-year storm. For example, 80 knots was forecasted, significant wave heights of 11 metres and maximum wave heights of 23. What we actually saw was 95 knot winds, 14 metre significant waves and maximum wave heights up to 30 metres.
As I noted earlier, one of the key things after that was we asked that an analysis be conducted on all the design storm loads. The storm impact criteria had to be compared against the design loads for all the facilities out there. We requested that the operators do this in alignment with the certifying authorities. The certifying authorities is similar to what the marine world would see as a class society. There was a lot of work done on that aspect, big learnings from that storm.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a couple of questions for Transport Canada that are really a follow-up to what we’ve been talking about.
Transport Canada sets the guidelines and regulatory structure for the preparedness and response to marine oil spills. What is the frequency of oil spills in the offshore?
Sean Rogers, Executive Director, Transport Canada: Thank you for the question.
I should note that Transport Canada doesn’t track oil spills when it comes to spills from platforms. What we do have is a program known as the National Aerial Surveillance Program that tracks offshore spills emanating from vessels.
In 2024-25, on a fiscal-year basis, there were a total of three suspected offshore spills in the amount of about 240 litres in total. There were no unknown offshore spills. These are trails that can be tied in some cases to a specific vessel. In those cases, the matter would be referred to marine safety inspectors for follow-up with the vessel. Generally, I think 2020-21 was the year in which there were about 12 spills, for example, with 914 litres in total volume and about three unknown spills of about 43 litres.
There have been significant improvements in ship construction and design and the equipment onboard as well as the regulatory environment that have greatly reduced these spills over time.
The Chair: Could you expand a little bit on the regulatory environment? Do you think what’s in place now is reducing the frequency of these spills?
Mr. Rogers: That’s a good question.
Especially following some incidents in the 1990s, such as the Exxon Valdez, there was a significant effort undertaken at the International Maritime Organization, which is the UN specialized agency responsible for developing standards and conventions that define the requirements for ship design and construction. It’s contained in a convention called the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, and it’s associated codes, guidelines and practices that are often implemented by class societies. These basically form the requirements.
At the same time, there has also been the amendments to what’s known as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; in particular, annex 1 of that convention that is incorporated into what we call the Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemical Regulations here in Canada. This also pertains to ship design and construction and equipment requirements pertaining to oil and oil tankers.
These standards have been progressively ratcheted up over time or become more stringent over time and are often in response to incidents. One of the more notable changes would have been the shift in design from single-hull to double‑hull construction. As well, ships, especially those flagged internationally, are required to have an International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate that shows that they’ve been inspected and the equipment is performing to specification in terms of water separators and other equipment onboard that deals with the operation of the vessel.
Through this kind of layered approach, the ship design and construction, operational practices, training onboard for seafarers, safety management systems and other practices, the level of safety has been rising over time. We’ve seen a concomitant decline in the number of pollution incidents over time that are at least accidental in nature.
The Chair: What actions are in place for the proper cleanup of these types of spills?
Mr. Rogers: The responsibility for cleanup is multi-faceted in Canada. If there is a significant incident, the Coast Guard assumes responsibility for incident command and management. Under Part 8 of the Canada Shipping Act, we have in place currently what’s called the Response Organizations Regulations and the Environmental Response Regulations. The response organizations, which are funded by industry, are based on the polluter pay principle. These organizations are essentially the first responder when there is a significant pollution event. In some case, they have the capacity to deal with spills up to 10,000 tonnes in size, which approximately, depending on the type of oil involved, can range from several hundred thousand gallons to over a million. The response organizations must maintain minimum capacity and must have response plans. They have prescribed equipment and resources. They must provide training and training exercises, tabletop exercises and simulation. These organizations are certified by Transport Canada and inspected every three years.
I should note that, on the East Coast, there are three in particular. There’s the Eastern Canada Response Corporation, the Point Tupper Marine Services and the Atlantic Environmental Response Team.
These regulations are undergoing amendments right now in order to update and reflect faster response times, for instance, as well as to streamline their design.
The Chair: Thank you.
There is interest in a second round, but, sadly, there is not enough time for a second round. I’d like to thank our witnesses tonight, Mr. Tessier, Ms. Mackey, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Marier. You didn’t get a chance to speak, but we really appreciate your presence. Thank you for coming, everyone.
We now welcome our second panel. From the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, we have Mr. Brent Parker, Director General, Review Panels and Regional/Strategic Assessment; and by video conference, we have Anjala Puvananathan, Director General, Projects (East). Also from Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have Clare Demerse, Director, Oil, Gas and Alternative Energy, Environmental Protection Branch.
Welcome and thank you for being here this evening.
Brent Parker, Director General, Review Panels and Regional/Strategic Assessment, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada: Thank you very much for having us here this evening. I would like to acknowledge we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
We are pleased to appear before the committee today to talk about the work of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
[English]
The agency’s main responsibility is to conduct impact assessments of major projects. We also undertake regional assessments that look at prospective development on a regional basis to identify issues in advance, including cumulative effects.
Impact assessment is a project planning tool, and the act provides an open and transparent process and forum to address the effects of projects, coordinate Crown consultation and meet the duty to consult while obtaining public input.
[Translation]
Assessments ensure that issues are identified in advance so that adverse effects in federal areas can be prevented or mitigated.
[English]
The act applies to major projects like large mines, nuclear facilities and ports. Projects subject to the act are identified in the regulations, which set out the types and sizes of projects the act applies to.
Since the coming into force in 2019, approximately nine projects per year have entered the process. Individual projects are subject to an initial assessment, which includes consultations with Indigenous groups and the public, identification of key issues and then a determination by the agency as to whether to complete a comprehensive impact assessment.
Approximately 40% of projects have completed the process at this stage, with early decisions well within six months. Only the most complex projects with the potential for serious adverse effects in federal jurisdiction require a more comprehensive assessment.
[Translation]
For these projects, the agency is reforming its processes to complete assessments within two years.
[English]
There is flexibility in our current framework to do this through a number of measures, such as focusing on key issues in federal jurisdiction and reducing information requirements on proponents by relying on and deferring to provincial processes where they exist.
[Translation]
Co-operation with provinces is also key to meeting accelerated timelines and is a major focus for the agency. We have been working with provincial counterparts to develop agreements to implement a “one project, one review” approach.
[English]
In light of the focus of your study, I will take a moment to highlight regional assessment as a tool that the Impact Assessment Agency has used to support more efficient and effective processes.
In 2019, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change launched the Regional Assessment of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador. Its purpose was to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the federal assessment process for future offshore drilling projects specifically.
Regional assessments can generally support more focused project-specific impact assessments or, in specific circumstances, can enable the exclusion of certain projects from an impact assessment altogether. This is what has happened here. A ministerial regulation was created which excludes exploratory drilling projects that meet conditions set out in the regulation from the requirement to undergo a specific federal impact assessment.
[Translation]
This approach provides industry with predictability and certainty while maintaining our marine conservation and protection objectives.
[English]
Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, offshore projects required a project specific assessment, taking between two to three years to complete. The regional assessment enabled us to look at the issues once, consult once and put in place standard mitigation measures, thereby providing greater certainty and a much more efficient process overall without any reduction in environmental protection.
[Translation]
As a result of the regional assessment and exemption regulation, offshore exploratory drilling projects can proceed through review as quickly as 90 days.
[English]
Any proposed offshore production activities are still required to enter the impact assessment process and would not be excluded by these regulations. For such projects, IAAC works closely with the regulator to ensure an efficient assessment process, implementing the measures I mentioned to get assessments completed within two years.
Thank you for the opportunity, and we are happy to take questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
In the first round, there will be five minutes for questions and answers.
Senator Arnot: I have three questions for each of the witnesses. I will provide the questions and you can respond in writing, please, because I don’t want to take more time, which is very precious.
Ms. Demerse, question one: The oil and gas emissions cap is not yet enacted. What binding interim expectation does your agency have in communicating to offshore proponents for the 2026 to 2030 window?
Second: Will Environment and Climate Change Canada require project-level emissions budgets aligned to the sector cap? What happens if the actuals exceed the projections after first oil?
Third: When will the ECCC mandate public release of baseline and follow-up wildlife ecosystem monitoring data sets for offshore operations?
Mr. Parker, with respect to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, will IAAC commit to regional cumulative effects assessment for Newfoundland offshore — for instance, noise, discharges and traffic — that precede and therefore guide individual project reviews?
Second: The emissions cap is only proposed. How will panels treat greenhouse gas significance and mitigation credibility so approvals are resilient if, in fact, the final cap is tighter?
Third: How will IAAC track post-decision conditions, wildlife, spill response, Indigenous knowledge integration and escalating when performance lags?
To Ms. Puvananathan, what is your policy when a proponent seeks schedule certainty but baseline data — for instance, seabirds, marine mammals — are seasonally incomplete? Do you pause the clock?
Second: This is important for me. Can you point to recent decisions made by IAAC where Indigenous knowledge changed the scope, routing or conditions for an offshore project?
Third: What percentage of follow-up programs for East Coast offshore files meet reporting deadlines? How do you make those metrics public?
Thank you. If I get the answers in writing, that is fine.
The Chair: For each witness, there are three questions for written answers. Usually, a couple of weeks is what we would like to see as far as the answers coming in. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I do not know whether I should address the Impact Assessment Agency or Environment and Climate Change Canada, so you will need to let me know.
Offshore oil and gas platforms have a significant footprint at all stages, from exploration to decommissioning, due to greenhouse gas emissions from gas flaring, methane leaks, offshore infrastructure and the massive amounts of power needed to run their operations.
I would like you to give me an idea of the emissions. How many megatonnes of carbon dioxide are being emitted? Is that number going up or down? Are the thresholds being respected? What can you tell us about this? People always say that offshore oil is cleaner than oil from Alberta. How can you measure the difference?
Clare Demerse, Director, Oil, Gas and Alternative Energy, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Thank you very much for the question. It is an excellent question.
With regard to the numbers, I will provide you with a written response.
[English]
I will speak to some of the questions you have raised. In terms of the numbers and whether or not it is growing in the offshore, we’ll get you some specifics in writing. Thank you for that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Can you speak about trends?
Ms. Demerse: I will speak about a couple of things.
First, in terms of my role — since I did not make opening comments — I am the Director of the Oil, Gas and Alternative Energy division in the Environmental Protection Branch at ECCC. That means I am responsible for the management of air emissions from the upstream, including offshore, and downstream oil and gas sector.
We have a number of regulations that are relevant, some of which you mentioned, in our current existing regulations. We have regulation, for example, to manage methane emissions from oil and gas. Those have been in effect since 2018. The 2018 regulations do apply currently to the offshore, although they were designed for when there were equivalent provisions provided under the offshore regulatory regime that you have been hearing about in your first panel through the Accord Acts that our regulations would then stand down. We have deemed in 2024 that these changes made through the Accord Acts have been such that we feel they have met equivalent provisions and our regulations could stand down. We have not done that yet because we are in the process of developing enhanced oil and gas methane regulations that are designed to work towards a government target of a 75% reduction in oil and gas methane in 2030. We published draft regulations in December 2023 which would not apply to the offshore because of the changes that have been made and because of the approach that is now in place under the offshore framework regulations.
That is a long way to say methane regulation and the methane thing you pointed to is an important part of the question. We also have air pollution regulations, regulations involving organic compounds, et cetera.
You mentioned the performance of the offshore from an emissions perspective relative to other types of oil and gas in Canada. That is generally correct. The offshore is less emissions intensive than other types. Let me send you that in writing as well to make sure. We do have a team at ECCC that produces the national inventory report of emissions every year. They use many techniques, surveys and other types of monitoring to determine emissions. I want to go to that team and get you the best data. They are tracking at a subsector level. We have very good data according to international UNFCCC requirements. We are happy to provide that to the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I tried to follow your comments about methane. Does that mean we have not met our targets and are unable to control methane emissions or leaks? You say you want to cut them by 75%. Where are we with that?
Ms. Demerse: This is an excellent question.
[English]
We have two levels of methane emissions that we have been working towards. The 2018 regulations we put in place are aiming to reduce methane emissions by 40% to 45% below the 2012 level in 2025. Our assessment is that we are on track. Emissions data always lags, so even though it is 2025, we are working with 2023 data, but we are confident we are on track to achieve those requirements. This is for the oil and gas sector as a whole. Those include the offshore sector.
However, because those regulations have been successful and they have been implemented in three jurisdictions through provincial equivalency agreements in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan, and because we have seen low-cost and very effective methane reduction performance, we are now working towards stronger methane regulations that would increase both the environmental ambition in terms of moving from 40% to 45% to 75% as well as the scope of the methane emissions that are covered.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I await your written responses. Please make sure to send them to our clerk.
The Chair: With the numbers.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: With the numbers.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Madam Chair, let me try one more time.
Bill C-49 makes clear that the Crown may rely on the regulator. It says that the Crown
may rely on the regulator to consult with Indigenous peoples respecting any potential adverse impact of a work or activity in the offshore area on existing Aboriginal and treaty rights.
I had asked this to the first panel. When we did Bill C-49, the Mi’kmaq communities told us that they had not been consulted. I see now that they have taken the case to Federal Court. A major point of contention is the lack of environmental assessment for the approximately 78 annual oil tanker trips, totalling 2,340 throughout the project’s lifespan. One question here is, is that just for one project, and are there more tankers than this?
These tankers will traverse through and around critical Indigenous fishing zones and risk harm to species such as the endangered Atlantic salmon, whales and vulnerable marine ecosystems. The litigants in the case argued that the assessment did not properly evaluate the risk of oil tankers shipping oil through critical Indigenous fishing grounds.
The government allegedly gave the duty to consult a low designation due to the project’s distance from land. Some have said consultations were thorough, but MTI never agreed to that designation and maintained it was not given enough time and resources to weigh in and get information on how marine shipping could impact the environment, especially the Atlantic salmon that migrates between the Bay of Fundy and Bay du Nord.
How are cumulative effects assessed across all the projects that exist? They don’t only affect little local areas; they go throughout. Who does that cumulative impact when we look at seismic activity and the emissions from the tankers? I understand that they emit a lot of gas. When you are consulting with the different groups and different projects, do you bring to them all the cumulative impacts so they can make an informed decision? How does that all work? How many regulators are there anyway?
Mr. Parker: Thank you for the questions. There are a lot of different layers to that question. I’ll start off, but I’ll ask my colleague Ms. Puvananathan to fill in some of the details on the Bay du Nord project.
In general, I think everybody here will know that our consultation obligations are grounded in the Constitution and the duty to consult obligations that fall under that due to the potential for adverse effects from the development of projects or the Crown conduct. That’s our starting place. Then, as you say, there is an approach that the agency puts in place for each project to look at how could potential impacts from a project move through a pathway of effect to impact an Aboriginal treaty or right?
In the case of offshore, I think the example that you use is critical, because Atlantic salmon is one of the key migratory species that potentially could be impacted through the potential effects of a project that is very far away from the traditional territories of First Nations that we have consulted with.
When you look at the approach that was taken, just generally, there are a number of different ways in which we will look at the potential pathways of effects. But then, as you touched on, there are also the cumulative effects from different projects in the region. So on the regional assessment that was undertaken, that’s one of the ways.
I spoke in my opening remarks largely to the regulation that was put in place, but another major outcome from that assessment was to put in place a steering committee that does an annual report on all of the different follow-up actions that are happening from the regional assessment. That includes looking at cumulative effects. There are specific elements there that touch on migratory species like Atlantic salmon. There is an annual report that we put out. It is on our registry site at the Impact Assessment Agency. All of that information is publicly available for any participants in project-specific reviews like the Bay du Nord, but it also is required that the agency look at cumulative effects under each project’s specific impact assessment. So all of that information is brought forward.
Specifically on the project, maybe this is where I will turn to you, Anjala, to speak to Bay du Nord and how that assessment and consultation process was actually run.
Anjala Puvananathan, Director General, Projects (East), Impact Assessment Agency of Canada: Thank you, senator, and thank you, Brent.
Senator, I think what I will add is that in relation to a Crown conduct such as an environmental assessment or impact assessment process, we are assessing the specific project proposed. We are also looking at cumulative effects in terms of other projects.
In this particular instance, there were concerns expressed about downstream effects such as shipping and transportation of oil. As you will recall from the first panel, there are regulatory frameworks in place to manage effects associated with the shipping. The assessment was focused on the proposed project, and the decision was made around the project that was essentially for extracting oil and gas off the coast as opposed to the entire life cycle of the project because there are other regulatory frameworks in place to manage those other issues.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: My question is for Mr. Parker. I think that we will all agree that marine and coastal ecosystems sustain abundant life and uphold the lives and livelihoods of millions of people who depend on them for essential human rights, including access to food, a decent standard of living, health, employment, a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and preservation of cultural heritage. Yet, each phase of offshore oil and gas activities poses a serious threat to these vital marine and coastal ecosystems and the rights they support.
We were in this committee when we agreed and passed the modifications, the modernization of the impact assessment so that we will consider regional assessment, cumulative effects and the impacts of global warming. We just heard from the previous panel that there will be 17, in total 36, parcels waiting for bids for exploitation. You just said that the exploratory actions are put aside and we’re not going to study the impacts because we will go directly to extraction and shipping.
Can you please walk me through how you are going to conduct regional cumulative global warming for 36 parcels of exploitation in two months? Specifically, given the fact that most of the environmental variables come from satellites that we rent from the Americans but now we don’t have access to them and we don’t have our own satellites, how are we going to do this, to do the one evaluation quickly, stop red tape and get a permit in two months?
Mr. Parker: I’ll take that question. Thank you.
Just to clarify the different layers of regulation that we’re talking about, I’ll just go back to clarify something in my remarks. The regulation that I mentioned that the minister put in place for exploratory drilling is essentially an exemption for just the exploratory drilling dimension, which is an ephemeral activity. It’s sort of —
Senator Galvez: It’s similar to fracking, so there is impacts.
Mr. Parker: There is impact, but what we found and the reason that the regulation was put in place was because of all of the exploratory drilling projects that have happened up to date, they essentially had the same standard mitigation measures applied to them. When we looked at the regional assessment that was done, it was done by an independent, five-member committee that was set up in 2023. They took two years to do the study, and they had 41 recommendations that came out. There were different types of recommendations, and one set of recommendations related to the fact that all of these exploratory drilling projects had standard mitigations, and those could be applied across the board to other exploratory drilling in that particular region because of the geology and the similar conditions that are there. That’s why that regulation was put in place. It’s certainly not to say that there are not marine or conservation objectives within those conditions.
There’s the annual report that I mentioned earlier that is done by a steering committee of different departments that have responsibilities in those areas. I know the committee has already heard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They’re one of the members of that committee that has learned through the research that came through the regional assessment. There are measures that they’re following up on that came out of that particular work that when we do the review of the regulation will be fed back in. There is a feedback mechanism to improve that regulation.
To your point about the extraction, those would all go through a project-specific impact assessment. That’s where they would get assessed versus the exclusion regulation that I mentioned for the exploratory drilling.
Senator Galvez: That’s an incomplete answer because I asked you to walk me through the process. If you cannot do it now, I would appreciate it if you provide a written response through the clerk.
Mr. Parker: I will gladly do that.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I am a little confused. You talked about a nine-month regional environmental assessment process, if I am not mistaken. Did I understand correctly that more complex projects fall under federal jurisdiction and that the process could take two years? Could you explain and clarify this point, please?
[English]
Mr. Parker: Absolutely. I can try to clarify that.
There’s an impact assessment process that any project will come into, and there’s an initial assessment that currently is slated to take about 60 days. If, in the course of doing that initial assessment, we determine that they are not likely significant adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and there are other regulatory frameworks that can manage those, such as the Fisheries Act or other federal tools that are in place, then there’s a decision within that initial period of time that there’s no further comprehensive assessment that’s done. That was what I meant when I said a large percentage of projects are decided at that initial assessment.
If it’s a more complex project with more potential for adverse impacts, then it undergoes what we refer to as a comprehensive assessment. That is currently on a timeline of two years. We’re committed to a two-year timeline. We’re doing a fair bit of engagement around that because, under the Impact Assessment Act, like I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are additional tools for us to be able to undertake assessments in a more focused manner in terms of the key issues that we focus in on around federal jurisdiction. In particular, we are really focusing with provinces on how to better collaborate and cooperate with them. We have some cooperation agreements that currently exist with provinces, and we’re pursuing those with all provinces over this fall and hoping to land those in the near term. We have a consultation under way currently that is out there publicly on our approach to that. That’s another tool that we’re using to try to reduce the timelines that projects have taken in the past to this two-year commitment that the current government has made.
Senator McCallum: In 2019-20, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conducted the first-ever regional assessment of impacts of exploratory drilling in the offshore. Exploratory drilling projects are now excluded from project-specific federal impact assessment if they occur within the area examined and respect certain conditions.
In 2020, CBC News reported that the regional assessment committee noted in a letter to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change that the assessment’s short timeline and the size of the study area limited the committee’s ability in preparing the report but also reduced public confidence in the committee’s work.
What lessons did the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada learn from this first regional assessment? How have they applied that to any subsequent regional assessments? Will the regional assessment of the offshore be re-examined to take into account the assessment committee’s own concerns?
Mr. Parker: Thank you for that question.
You’re quite right that that was the first regional assessment that the agency conducted. There was a lot that we learned. I think one of the main challenges was, because it was the first one, we didn’t have any sort of experience in how long it would take to do the engagement associated with that, which is sort of an interesting dimension because, like you raised earlier, there was a lot of interest in the species, in the area, in the issues, even if there were individuals or groups that weren’t necessarily in those areas and using those areas specifically. There was a lot of connection.
One of the things that we always do is a debrief with committees, whether they’re regional assessment committees or panel reviews on other projects. When we do those exit interviews, they always give us feedback on how to do things better. We have a lessons learned exercise that we go through.
One of the things that we found there was they set up a large number of different community engagement sessions, which was really important at the outset. I think that was helpful in understanding what the issues were, but perhaps at the outset we didn’t know how extensive the engagement would be because there was a very long lead time in terms of being able to arrange those meetings and then also create different roles that people identified they wanted to be involved in.
A really good example is that when it came to the Indigenous groups, there was extensive engagement — a lot of workshops with groups — and they decided they wanted to write one of the chapters of the report. The chapter on Indigenous knowledge became a standalone chapter, and that was something that was drafted by the group they established with the Indigenous communities. That was something that we hadn’t anticipated. We didn’t think we would be going down that road, so we needed to put additional resources and even additional time into that. I know they went to the minister and requested additional time for the review, and in the end, there was some that was provided.
The other thing that I think is key in this case that was interesting and unique to this first one was that they wanted to do more work, but they weren’t able to do that once the committee was disbanded after the two years. One thing they did was establish a geographic information system, which is now housed with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator that was here before us. They housed that as an evergreen system that all of the members of the ongoing steering committee contribute data into. A legacy has been built from that. That’s another thing that we learned that we hadn’t anticipated, but it’s become a key thing for us. What is the legacy that these regional assessments are creating for both the organizations that are responsible as regulators but also the communities? There are communities and different stakeholders that continue to be involved and want to be involved in these exercises, particularly from the perspective of cumulative effects and how better to manage those over time.
Senator Galvez: My question is for Ms. Demerse. According to the International Energy Agency, half of the world’s economies are already transitioning away from fossil fuels and are at least five years past the peak in power generation from fossil fuels. According to Environment Canada and its mandate, in what way does expanding and growing Canada’s offshore oil — we heard before you appeared about 36 parcels being exploited for oil. In what way will this promote clean growth and a sustainable environment?
Ms. Demerse: That’s obviously a big question. I think I’ll answer just in terms of talking about jurisdiction.
For the federal government, our involvement in oil and gas at Environment and Climate Change Canada and in environmental protection is on emissions. Environment and Climate Change Canada plays some other roles, which I’m happy to talk about, in terms of specifically working with the regulator, the Canada‑Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator.
In terms of greenhouse gases, which is what your question is about, our role is about emissions and reducing the impact from a GHG perspective from oil and gas as opposed to production, which is a role that is within provincial jurisdiction. We are careful to work in that area of reducing the environmental impact as opposed to having a role to play on production, since that falls to provinces.
Senator Galvez: Is Canada the only G7 country that has not reduced its emissions?
Ms. Demerse: In terms of oil and gas or overall?
Senator Galvez: Overall.
Ms. Demerse: I don’t have that data in front of me, but I’m sure you’re right, senator.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to go back to regional assessments. One of the guiding principles of regional assessments is to promote sustainability. Let me quickly read this: “Regional assessments can help contribute to sustainability by supporting a better understanding of the positive and negative effects…” and sustainability is defined as “the ability to protect the environment…and preserve its health, in the interests of current and future generations.”
My question is similar to Senator Galvez’s: can you share with us the main conclusions that support protecting current resources for future generations, in the national interest?
Ms. Demerse: That is another great question.
[English]
Again, going to what I just mentioned in terms of Senator Galvez’s question, I think it is very important that we do our work at ECCC, Environment and Climate Change Canada, in terms of reducing the environmental impacts of industrial sectors, for example, or when we’re talking about greenhouse gases or oil and gas in my particular role.
Also, in terms of the offshore more specifically, one of the things that was mentioned in the last panel is that role in terms of adding renewable energy into the mandate of the offshore regulators so that it is, yes, petroleum, but also that move to consider renewable electricity as part of their mandate. Maybe that’s something we can think about in terms of your question about future generations.
The Chair: Are there any other questioners? There are nine questions to be answered in written format. We may have come to the end of our time here tonight.
Thank you so much, all of you, for coming this evening and answering our questions.
That concludes our meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)