THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 12, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 8:01 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I’d like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times. Don’t 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.
[Translation]
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are gathering is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
[English]
I am Joan Kingston, senator for New Brunswick and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to welcome everyone here today as well as those listening online at sencanada.ca. Today, 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. On our first panel today, we are pleased to welcome, from Unifor Local 2121, Robert Coady, President. He is joining online. Welcome, and thank you for being here today. We are ready for you to give your opening remarks, which will be followed by a question-and-answer period with the senators.
Mr. Coady, you have the floor.
Robert Coady, President, Unifor Local 2121: Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Honourable senators, first, I would like to say thank you for the invitation to appear and offer my perspective on the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil industry as a union leader and offshore worker. This is an industry that has played a transformative role in our province and continues to be an important contributor to our economy and energy security.
For some background on me, I work offshore on the Hibernia platform, and I am employed by Hibernia Management and Development Company, or HMDC, the owner of Hibernia. I have worked there for the past 15 years.
As you know, I am also the President of Unifor Local 2121, which represents offshore workers on three different installations offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and has roughly 850 members. Our local represents workers on the Hibernia platform, which is operated by ExxonMobil Canada; the Terra Nova FPSO, which is operated by Suncor; and SeaRose FPSO, which is operated by Cenovus.
As an overview of Unifor as an organization, we have our national president, a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Lana Payne, who has played a pivotal role in supporting the offshore energy sector and our local union here in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years. Below Lana, we have Dan Valente, assistant to the national president, who is responsible for local unions of the energy sector, including Local 2121. Jennifer Murray is our Atlantic regional director. Mike MacMullin is our national representative. And myself and all our members have the support from all these layers of Unifor.
I sit on multiple committees, including the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council as an offshore employee representative and also on the Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee on the Hibernia platform as an employee representative.
To offer some of my perspective, Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil industry is unique because it operates at the intersection of extreme geography, high-risk work and a relatively small but highly specialized workforce. Unlike onshore operations elsewhere in Canada or the world, our offshore industry exists over 300 kilometres from land in one of the harshest marine environments in the world. Weather, ice, distance and isolation are not occasional challenges here, but rather defining features of the job.
This reality shapes everything about offshore work in Newfoundland and Labrador. Workers spend weeks away from their families, rely entirely on helicopters and support vessels for transport and live in a closed, high-risk environment where safety culture is not optional but essential. When something goes wrong offshore, help may not be minutes away — it could be hours or days. That fact alone demands stronger safety standards, higher levels of training and a workforce that is both skilled and deeply reliant on one another.
Our industry has had tragedies over the years, with Cougar Flight 491 and the Ocean Ranger disaster. Ironically, today I will be attending the forty-fourth anniversary memorial service of the loss of the Ocean Ranger and those 84 men. Those were the pioneers of this industry, as they were drilling for the Hibernia project at the time.
This industry is also unique because of its importance to the province’s economy and identity. Offshore oil has provided thousands of good-paying jobs in a province with limited industrial opportunities, allowing workers to stay rooted in Newfoundland and Labrador rather than having to leave to work elsewhere. For many families and communities, offshore employment has been a lifeline. This creates a strong sense of pride in the work but also a deep expectation that workers will be treated fairly, safely and with respect.
Our offshore resources are developed under one of the most rigorous regulatory regimes in the world. Safety and environmental protection are not secondary considerations. They are foundational.
The regulatory framework governing Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore is built on joint federal-provincial management, robust environmental assessments, continuous monitoring and a culture of safety shaped by hard-earned experience.
The industry has evolved significantly over past decades, with major advances in spill prevention, emissions management and worker safety.
Finally, Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore industry stands out because of the solidarity among its workers. Living and working together in confined offshore installations creates a culture where people look out for one another. That solidarity naturally aligns with union principles: collective responsibility, shared risk and mutual protection.
Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil industry is not just unique because of where it operates but because of what it demands from workers and what workers, in turn, deserve in terms of safety, fairness and accountability. Unifor may only represent workers on three of five offshore installations, but we advocate for all offshore workers.
I look forward to hearing any questions from you, and I will do my best to answer.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Coady. The senators have questions.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Mr. Coady, for your presentation, your work in the offshore and supporting the economy, the culture and the families of Newfoundland and Labrador through the work that you do. Could I ask just a quick question to start? What’s your job on the Hibernia platform?
Mr. Coady: Thank you, Senator Wells. I work as an electrical technician on Hibernia. I’m with the maintenance department on the production side.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks for that.
Also, thanks for mentioning the Ocean Ranger anniversary, which is coming up on Sunday. I have a statement in the Senate today on that.
Can you talk a little bit about the safety culture and how that’s changed over the years, in particular since the Cougar crash?
Mr. Coady: Yes. I started offshore in 2011, so, obviously, it was post-Cougar 491, but since then, from the Wells inquiry, things have evolved in the offshore, and some changes were made in 2010 with those recommendations.
As I said earlier, the safety culture offshore is good. It’s a high standard. We don’t ever want to go backward on any of the safety culture. We don’t want to create a workplace where there are people getting hurt.
As you know, some of the highest-risk parts of the job are actually getting to work, so it’s either getting on the helicopter or, if the weather is bad, getting on a supply vessel.
As I wasn’t there prior to Cougar 491, I wouldn’t be able to speak to the changes. I was only there after, so that’s probably the best way I can answer that, Senator Wells.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’ve done the basic survival training, or BST, and I’ve travelled offshore, and I know how risky it can be. Anyone who has to fly for a few hours over the North Atlantic to get to work deserves more than a pat on the back.
Can you talk a little about the economic impact that Unifor sees — and in your position at Unifor — with the workers and the revenue that goes back into the communities and to the workers?
Mr. Coady: Yes, absolutely. I am not only a union leader but also from a small community here. I live in Bay Bulls on the southern shore. There are probably 1,500 people here. I’m actually from a smaller community farther up the southern shore, Cape Broyle.
In these communities, you know everybody there, and you know all the people who work in the offshore. It’s not only the offshore installations: It’s the support vessels and the oil tankers. I don’t know if those communities could survive without that; the offshore oil and gas and the fishery keep those small communities alive.
If I go back to the pandemic, we actually had a drilling pause on Hibernia, which led to a layoff of a significant amount of the workforce, and you could just feel it. You would go to the grocery store, and you could hear people talking about it. That is the impact we see in smaller communities.
Another part of that as well is that if you go into the bigger cities here, like St. John’s, when things are thriving in the offshore, you see the restaurants are full. You see people at the mall. They’re spending money. There are new vehicles.
I think, as we’ve seen the past few years with the ups and downs in the industry, you can actually feel that. It doesn’t take long before you see it.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks very much, Mr. Coady. I may have questions in the second round.
Mr. Coady: Thank you.
Senator Fridhandler: I’m going to follow on Senator Wells’s questions. He might have already covered it, but I just want to pose something to you, because there are some people who, if they had their druthers, would see a moratorium similar to the cod moratorium in terms of production of hydrocarbons.
You’ve kind of answered it, but what would happen in the streets of Newfoundland if we saw a moratorium on offshore production?
Mr. Coady: Thank you, senator. I was alive, obviously, when the moratorium happened, but I didn’t feel that. I was too young at the time, so I don’t know if it would have the same impact.
To be honest, I feel as if it would have a greater impact. Knowing how big of an industry it is here for the province — I know we’re not self-reliant on the offshore, but I don’t know what industries these people in the workforce would go to.
Senator Fridhandler: In the same vein, we spend time discussing the coexistence of different industries, such as fishers and offshore workers. I can’t think of others, but in terms of the people of Newfoundland and how these various groups get along — but for the outsiders who look for division and issues — can you comment a bit on how people work together in these different industries?
Mr. Coady: Absolutely. If you look at the fishery here in Newfoundland and the offshore oil, so Unifor Local 2121 — our local — we represent offshore workers in the oil and gas industry. The Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, or FFAW, which is also part of Unifor, they represent the fishermen, the fisherwomen and the plant workers, so there is always collaboration between groups that way. Also, in the same tune, we’re dealing with the same issues with government at different levels.
When we’re at the table, it’s Unifor 2121 and the FFAW, and everybody knows what’s going on. We’re always talking back and forth. I think that’s how you separate the divide. If we allot more land for oil and gas, what happens to the fishery? Or if it’s the fishery saying, “We don’t want this,” there is always good conversation happening in the background.
Senator Fridhandler: Thank you. That’s all for now, Mr. Coady.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to know what the average salary is in general. I don’t want to know your salary — don’t worry — but we know they are good salaries.
Could you give us some idea of the salaries of workers like you on the platforms?
Mr. Coady: Thank you, senator. That could vary, depending on what job or what education you have. If you look at a place like Hibernia, at any given time, there are roughly 270 people on board. We have catering staff. We have drillers. We have production operators. We have maintenance technicians like me.
If we went on the lower end, it would probably be around $110,000, and the higher end would probably be around $230,000.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Those are pretty good salaries, would you say?
Mr. Coady: Yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What about health and safety? You talked about the fact that the ride in the helicopter was probably the most dangerous, but what are the primary issues for worker health and safety specific to the offshore industry?
Mr. Coady: I think the biggest thing is the location. When we talk about health and safety, depending on the weather offshore, if the weather is bad, high-risk jobs are usually pulled back because if you can’t land a helicopter offshore, they can’t get you to a health care facility onshore.
We do have nurses offshore who can treat people, but, for the most part, when the weather is bad, when the seas are really high, or the wind is really high, the high-risk work is reduced, I would say.
If you talk about health and safety offshore, obviously, because of the surroundings, if something happens, it could likely be significant.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: In terms of climate change, have you seen more weather events? How long have you been on the Hibernia, and what have you seen in terms of changes in the climate?
Mr. Coady: I’ve been on Hibernia since spring 2011.
With regard to climate change, we’ve always had rough weather in the winter; I can tell you that hasn’t changed. Specifically, since December 1 this year, it has been storm after storm. We’ve had a lot of people held over during that time, probably more than in other years. However, I don’t know if we’ve seen a significant change in terms of climate change offshore — at least, I haven’t.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What are your thoughts on the future of your industry? Obviously, the oil you’re producing is cleaner than in some other places, but, at the same time, there is a global will to produce less oil for the benefit of the climate. How do you see that going, from your point of view?
Mr. Coady: You are correct in what you say about the low carbon emissions per barrel of oil. That being said, I don’t know when the world is not going to need oil. I know we’re going toward being greener and cleaner, but the demand is still high, so it’s a tough question to answer. Hopefully, Newfoundland and Labrador will be a big player in the industry for years to come. If we do it responsibly and keep doing our part by lowering emissions and looking out for the environment, we can hopefully play a big part of that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Mr. Coady. I’ve had many experiences with Unifor, and it’s nice to meet somebody representing Unifor here with us today. Thank you for your very thoughtful presentation to us.
It’s important for us to understand the offshore industry and Newfoundland and Labrador from the perspective of the people who are working in it. You’ve also represented for us what it means to your community — and particularly smaller ones. You’ve also elaborated as to what it looks like in St. John’s at the restaurants, and then there is that bar scene there.
I believe you said there were maybe 270-odd workers at Hibernia. I apologize; I got pulled into a photo with a youth group visiting the Senate, so I was a few minutes late, but did you mention anything about the full labour force, or were you just speaking about your own on Hibernia?
Mr. Coady: In my opening remarks, I did mention we represent three different installations here in the offshore and roughly 850 members. I talked about Hibernia having 270 people onboard at any given time. You can multiply that by two for the regular workforce, and not all of them are unionized because you do have management positions, as well. Then, the other installations — the SeaRose FPSO and the Terra Nova FPSO — have smaller POBs, which means “persons on board.”
Senator Coyle: Thank you. You’ve told us how valuable these jobs are in dollar amounts, as well.
Is the workforce predominantly Newfoundlanders? I’m from Nova Scotia, so I’m wondering if you have workers coming from other provinces and territories.
Mr. Coady: Yes, we do. They are mostly Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but we do have some people who travel in from the mainland.
Senator Coyle: Is it predominantly a local workforce, though?
Mr. Coady: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Coyle: Would many of the people in that workforce have had work in Alberta previously and are now able to work closer to home, or is this a homegrown labour force?
Mr. Coady: I think it evolved over the years. If you go back to the stories I’ve been told when Hibernia started in 1997, the entire drill crew came from Alberta. There were a few who drilled here on the semis before that, but, at the time, I think there was a bit of a gap from the drilling program offshore before Hibernia was actually towed out there. So you had all the people from Alberta coming here. I think that’s changed a bit now, when you have people who go offshore and then work their way up through different levels.
From what I know, having worked on Hibernia — I mentioned earlier, when we had a drilling pause a few years ago, men and women were laid off. They actually went to Alberta to continue working. However, once the drilling restarted, they came back.
Senator Lewis: Thanks for your comments so far.
In your experience in your own job, how long are you offshore at a time? Is it seven in, seven off? What are your work terms as far as how long you’re on the rig and then your time off?
Mr. Coady: Thank you, Senator Lewis.
We so we work a 21-day rotation out, a 21-day rotation in. It’s funny because people always ask us why our local is 2121, and that’s where it came from. So, my regular schedule is three weeks offshore and three weeks home.
Senator Lewis: If you go to 1414, we’ll know something has changed.
Mr. Coady: Absolutely.
Senator Lewis: Prior witnesses and so on talked about the management level and how many workers have come from Newfoundland and gone really worldwide, working in the industry in other places in the world. Is it typical for workers at your level to also go to spots to work other than Newfoundland, to other offshore spots around the world?
Mr. Coady: We’ve seen here that retention is pretty high. We don’t see a lot of people leaving for what they might think are greener pastures. Prior to me starting offshore, I did hear there were opportunities and better pay overseas, and I think people left for that, but, to be honest, there is not a lot of turnover right now.
Senator Lewis: You talked about the communities and a little bit about the partnership between the companies and the workers. Can you make some comments regarding how the companies support the communities and add to life in Newfoundland as far as donations, community work, et cetera?
Mr. Coady: Yes. Every operator here in the offshore is well known in the community. You’ll always see them giving to various groups and doing different projects in the area. I know they’ll allot so much money to build, for example, an outdoor classroom at a school. That happened up in Ferryland here in 2019 or so. Another project they did was to go help upgrade a trail network where people use ATVs or a walking trail — that kind of thing. Mostly what you’ll see are donations to certain groups and charities.
At our workplace, the workers get to vote on where that money goes; there is a list of registered charities or organizations. The workforce will vote. Everybody will get a turn.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Mr. Coady, thank you for being here.
My question is about recruitment, training and succession with a view to maintaining activities in the coming decades, or simply maintaining projects in the planning stages.
Is the industry attracting enough new skilled workers? You just mentioned that there is no worker turnover.
My question is about strategic succession planning. What structured investments in training do you think are essential right now to ensure that the province has a skilled workforce that can ensure project continuity over the next 20 to 30 years?
[English]
Mr. Coady: Thank you, senator.
With regard to the workforce required, I don’t know for sure, and I couldn’t say for certain that there’s a shortage of skilled tradespeople here in the province. I have heard rumours, but I don’t know factually.
Cenovus just brought a new platform into the offshore here. I don’t know if they had trouble with recruitment. As I mentioned earlier, and as you said, we don’t have a lot of turnover at my workplace, so I don’t see the shortage regarding a skilled workforce.
If you look at the training required for other positions offshore, most of it can be done through on-the-job training, where you start at a lower position, learn different skill sets and work your way up. The basic training requirements, then, are just the BST, or basic survival training, and H2S — those safety courses to get you into the workforce.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you. What kind of commitment would be needed from governments to ensure that continuity, that turnover in skilled labour?
[English]
Mr. Coady: I think the emphasis has to be on the skilled trades here, for sure. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know if there’s an actual shortage right now. Also, I don’t know the plan going forward. I don’t know what government is doing to ensure that we’re going to keep people moving through those programs or if there are incentives to get them to do so.
I remember when I went through trade school, jobs were hard to come by at the time. It was flooded with skilled tradespeople. I don’t know if that’s the same reality we live in now.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator D. M. Wells: I have a couple different questions, Mr. Coady. Are you out on the rig now, or are you in Bay Bulls?
Mr. Coady: No, I’m home in Bay Bulls here.
Senator D. M. Wells: A couple of weeks ago, we had witnesses from the Sierra Club. They suggested that wind farms could — if there were a collapse of the offshore petroleum industry in Newfoundland and Labrador — cover employment, revenues and incomes for families.
I know you mentioned 270 people are on Hibernia. Of course, there are hundreds more on the other rigs, and the companies that serve the offshore industry — I know we have a mutual friend who works in Bay Bulls, Dennis Crane, who has a welding shop there. I don’t know how many employees they have; I know it’s more than 50. Would you think wind farms would supplant the offshore with respect to economic activity in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Coady: I think it could, to a certain degree. I just don’t know if you would get the same, I guess, broader involvement — the spinoff, the supply chain. I’m not as familiar with wind energy and what it requires. I did hear some announcements with the Port of Argentia stuff that created work there, but I don’t know the magnitude with respect to replacing an industry with a new industry.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks for that.
My last question is this: When you’re 21 days on and 21 days off, at the end of that 21 days on, especially in May and June, when there’s thick fog and things we Newfoundlanders are used to, what do you do? Do you stay on the rig until it clears or take one of the vessels in? How does that work for you?
Mr. Coady: During the fog seasons, vessel transfers are common. As long as the sea allows and the winds allow, boats are travelling pretty regularly. It’s kind of planned for, Senator Wells.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks for your testimony today. I really appreciate it.
Mr. Coady: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I’ll try to stick to areas of your expertise. I know we’ve been asking you about climate change and alternative industries. That kind of puts you on the spot, so I’ll try to stick to where you’re working now.
You’ve done a good job of painting the picture for us, which is why you’re not getting more questions. I want to understand what you’ve experienced. You’ve been working in this field for quite some time now. In that period, has the workforce decreased, increased or been pretty much steady state?
Mr. Coady: Thank you, senator. It has been fairly steady. Obviously, with the pandemic, there were layoffs, there was a drilling pause on Hibernia and the Terra Nova FPSO had an asset life extension that was delayed. I guess numbers have fluctuated. Hopefully, we’re in a steady state here now where things are balanced out.
Senator Coyle: Again, in those three minutes I was late, I missed some of what you said, and maybe you got into this, but I’m curious about the workforce itself. I’m sure that many of the workers are from communities like your own. I’m wondering, for instance, how many women might be in these well-earning positions that you’ve told us about.
I know Newfoundland has attracted a lot of skilled immigrants as well. How many newcomer Newfoundlanders might be out on the rigs as well? Is there anything you can tell us about the makeup of the workforce in that way?
Mr. Coady: I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I would guess out of 450 members on Hibernia, we probably have 25 to 30 women; on the Terra Nova, it is probably 5 or 6 out of 120. I don’t know the number of women on the Sea Rose FPSO; I’d have to look it up.
For immigrants or new Canadians, we have seen some in the catering department. Some have advanced their skills with training and applied for other jobs offshore. We have seen some of that, but, to be honest, not a whole lot.
Senator Coyle: I don’t want to dominate here, but I wasn’t on the committee early enough to get in the group going to Newfoundland, so I want to take advantage of talking to people like you.
Do the young people in your communities have this offshore in their sights as a potential future for them? Do you see any evidence of that?
Mr. Coady: There is interest. Actually, almost a year ago, I went to the local school here for a career orientation, and I talked about the offshore. I also talked about unions, which is a separate subject. But you want to explain to those folks, those Grade 11 and 12 students, that these opportunities are there. Everyone is not going to be a doctor or a lawyer. There are jobs that are going to be there forever, and they’re going to need skilled people to do them. As I said, they’re good-paying jobs. Obviously, it comes with sacrifice. When you work, you’re gone half the time, but there’s a reward in your time off: the quality time with your family.
It’s not just about the job. It’s about, maybe, the uniqueness of this job. Obviously, it’s not for everybody. Some people tried it, and it just didn’t work out for them. We’re all different. But I see interest locally here from young people, and mostly it is because they want to make a good living. They want to have their toys, get a house and get ahead while they’re young. It’s a tough world right now, so you try to promote it as much as you can.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to come back to labour relations. You talked about working conditions, but what are the most pressing issues that Unifor members are currently reporting to you? In other words, are the conditions excellent?
[English]
Mr. Coady: Overall, the working conditions are good. The toughest part of the job is being away from your family and friends. So I guess the mental health side of it, that’s probably the biggest concern, with people working away in these environments now. You try to keep ahead of it and make sure everybody has their head in the game, because, as I said earlier, you’re in a place where if something happens, it could be significant. You want to make sure that everybody is healthy.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Do workers feel comfortable reporting fatigue, overload or mental health issues? If so, do you have an example to share with us?
[English]
Mr. Coady: Members are not shy to share concerns, whether that’s with me or with offshore supervisors, when it comes to fatigue or not feeling up to it.
I can say from my experience that supervisors are always promoting that as well. Whether you get offshore late in the day or you’re working the night shift, they tell you, “When you feel tired, stand down and get some rest.” The main thing is you let somebody know that you are gone for a rest in the event of an emergency.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I want to follow up on a question from Senator Wells, but I’ll ask it differently. His question was about other industries and their ability to bring in workers from the offshore industry. I’ll turn the question around. In your example, are your offshore worker skills transferable to other energy sectors?
[English]
Mr. Coady: The department I work with and I, as maintenance technicians, would be able to make that transition because you’re still going to need that skilled labour force. However, if you look at our catering departments and our drilling departments, those skill sets probably don’t transfer the same way. I’m not saying they couldn’t be retrained to fill jobs in other industries. But from my position, yes, I could.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Coyle: I’d like to pick up on a couple of those threads that Senator Youance raised.
I can’t help but ask you if you know somebody else with an Irish last name from Bay Bulls. Do you know any of the O’Briens? Carla O’Brien is a good friend of mine, and I know she and her family worked — maybe they still do — in the tourism industry. Tourism is one of those places where catering and others might find a way in.
You’ve spoken about your own experience. You also live in a community, so you know your neighbours. Are you seeing any other industries — and I’m not going to say necessarily energy because we shouldn’t always expect that energy jobs are going to be replaced with energy jobs when there is a transition. Do you see other types of income-earning opportunities, business or otherwise, coming up or having an opportunity to flourish in communities like your own in Newfoundland?
Mr. Coady: Thanks, senator. On tourism, obviously, tourism is big not only in Bay Bulls but along the southern shore, based on the puffins, the whales and the icebergs. I think that will always be key, but it’s hard to say what the future will look like for other future opportunities. It would be a tough one to speculate on. But tourism is alive and well and, obviously, mostly seasonal.
Senator Coyle: I only asked about that because I knew it was something in your own community as well.
The other thread that I wanted to pick up from Senator Youance — I’m glad to hear that people are very open about the issue of mental health, for the well-being of you and your fellow workers and also for the safety issues that you’ve highlighted. It’s a bad combination, if you’re working in a high-risk environment, to have people who might be at high risk themselves.
I’m curious, though. I know in Nova Scotia, we have a lot of people coming back and forth on these types of arrangements, and it’s really tough on families. As you say, some embrace it and handle it really well and it works well for them. For some, it doesn’t, but they still do it because they’re dependent on that income.
Through your union or through the companies themselves, are there supports for families as well as the workers in these sorts of situations where there may be some hardship?
Mr. Coady: Through the union and through our collective agreements, employers provide Employee Assistance Programs. It’s actually Employee and Family Assistance Programs, so it’s not just for the workers. As I said, some people may struggle with certain things, and it may not even be related to the job. It could be financial. That is also going to cause stress on someone in the workplace. At least those supports are there so someone can get the help they need to get things under control, so it doesn’t affect their job performance or their home life.
Both are equally important, because if one fails, it’s likely going to affect the other.
The Chair: Mr. Coady, thank you for all you have said so far. I have a follow-up question around the demographics of your workforce. You’ve spoken about men and women and newcomers. I’m wondering about the average age of your workers. Also, do you have Indigenous workers from Newfoundland or elsewhere in your workforce?
Mr. Coady: With regard to average age, that could be tough to pinpoint, but I would say between 40 and 50. I don’t know with respect to the other installations.
With regard to the Indigenous workforce, we have some Indigenous people working in the offshore here. I wouldn’t be able to tell you the exact number, but they are from different parts of the province.
The Chair: But they’re basically from Newfoundland and Labrador, not necessarily from Nova Scotia or the other Maritime provinces, for instance?
Mr. Coady: As far as I know, just Newfoundland and Labrador, yes.
The Chair: I think that we’re coming to the end of your time with us, so I’d like to thank you very much for your testimony. It’s been great, and it has helped us to understand what the industry means to the workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you very much, and take care.
Mr. Coady: Thank you very much. I really appreciated being invited to speak to you guys. I look forward to doing it again in the future, hopefully.
The Chair: We hope so, too.
I will now introduce our second panel this morning. I’d like to welcome from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, via video conference, Ray Walsh, Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Newfoundland and Labrador Region; and Jackie Janes, Regional Director, Aquatic Ecosystems, Newfoundland and Labrador Region. Mr. Walsh and Ms. Janes, welcome, and thank you for being here with us.
I understand Ms. Janes will proceed with opening remarks. There will be five minutes to make them. After, we’ll move to questions from the senators. Please begin.
Jackie Janes, Regional Director, Aquatic Ecosystems, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today. My name is Jackie Janes, and I am the Regional Director of Aquatic Ecosystems with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I am joined by my colleague Ray Walsh, the Regional Director of Fisheries Management. We are joining you today from St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. We respectfully acknowledge the island of Newfoundland as ancestral homelands of the Beothuk and the traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq, as well as the Innu and Inuit and their ancestors as the original people of Labrador.
DFO is responsible for the management and protection of Canada’s fisheries, fish habitats, oceans and aquatic ecosystems, and for providing science-based advice to support sustainable resource use. DFO does not regulate the offshore petroleum industry. That responsibility falls to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator, or C-NLOER. It is a joint federal-provincial body and the lead authority responsible for the regulation and management of petroleum activities in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area.
Under the Atlantic Accord Acts, the C-NLOER conducts environmental assessments for proposed petroleum activities for which a federal impact assessment is not required, such as seismic surveys. DFO plays a supporting role in the regulation of the petroleum sector as an expert adviser to the C-NLOER. This collaboration is outlined in a joint DFO-C-NLOER memorandum of understanding.
In addition to advising on environmental assessments, DFO also has an ongoing role in providing advice to the C-NLOER on environmental effects monitoring programs for offshore petroleum-producing projects, as operators are required to undertake environmental effects monitoring programs to meet their environmental assessment conditions.
With respect to federal impact assessments for offshore oil and gas exploratory drilling and development projects, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has the lead responsibility, as those projects are considered designated projects under the Impact Assessment Act. As such, the agency is also responsible for leading on Indigenous and stakeholder consultations.
DFO plays an advisory role to the agency in undertaking its work and is an expert federal authority under the Impact Assessment Act. Once again, our work is guided by a memorandum of understanding. DFO provides scientific information and technical advice to the agency in support of both project-specific impact assessments and regional processes, pursuant to our responsibilities under the Fisheries Act, Oceans Act and Species at Risk Act.
Beyond its advisory role to these lead authorities, DFO has its own direct regulatory responsibilities under the Fisheries Act. DFO assesses whether proposed works, undertakings or activities may result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat or the death of fish. Where such impacts cannot be fully avoided or mitigated, DFO may issue a Fisheries Act authorization, which outlines the required mitigation measures, offsetting plans and monitoring requirements to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act.
Additionally, DFO contributes scientific expertise in the context of oil spill preparedness and response. Although DFO is not the lead agency for spill response, the department supports the relevant responsible authorities, including Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, the C-NLOER and Transport Canada, depending on the incident and its location.
Furthermore, DFO is the lead federal authority responsible for the establishment and management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act and other effective area-based conservation measures under the Fisheries Act to conserve important habitats, species and areas of high ecological value.
Finally, DFO works closely with federal partners, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, industry organizations, Indigenous groups and other stakeholders. One example is our participation as an observer at One Ocean, a liaison organization that brings together the fishing and petroleum sectors to enhance sustainable coexistence and facilitate communication, understanding and cooperation between the two marine industries.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. My colleague and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Janes.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Ms. Janes and Mr. Walsh, for appearing again. I know you appeared before Christmas.
Ms. Janes, regarding permission from the regulatory authority, the C-NLOER, to do seismic, are there restrictions during spawning season or when whales are present in the early summer? How does that work?
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, Senator Wells.
DFO works very closely with the C-NLOER in its capacity as a regulator, so there are guidelines available. There is a document called Statement of Canadian Practice with respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment, and it outlines best practices. We will work with the C-NLOER to ensure that those are put into effect by the operators undertaking seismic, and they will take account of a whole range of issues, as you say, depending on what the spawning season is and the practices applied. The goal, of course, is to minimize adverse impacts on the marine environment and the species.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks for that. The next question is regarding Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, and the national marine conservation areas, or NMCAs. With the presence of those, what restrictions would affect the oil and gas sector?
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question.
First, there are two different types of conservation areas. There are Marine Protected Areas, which exist under the Oceans Act. Under a Marine Protected Area, there would be no exploratory oil or production permitted. That is completely excluded.
There are other types of conservation called other effective area-based conservation measures, which are another possible approach to conserving ocean areas. That’s under the Fisheries Act. Under that particular type of conservation, anything is, in theory, permitted, but the following must be looked at: What are the conservation objectives of that area, and can activities — be they fishing or related to oil and gas — occur in a manner that would not compromise those conservation objectives?
If it’s possible that activities can occur in those other effective marine conservation areas, and they don’t impact the conservation objectives, then, in theory, oil and gas and fishing activities can take place. But everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you for that. Because the substrate in the Grand Banks production areas is essentially gravel and boulders, are there challenges around doing similar assessments in much deeper water, for instance, where Bay du Nord would be in production?
Ms. Janes: Thank you, Senator Wells, for the question.
Clearly, the farther you go from land and the deeper the water, the more challenges there are in terms of gathering scientific information and data to inform the protection of fish habitat and fish.
That said, we work very closely with the proponent and with the C-NLOER to ensure that we have the requisite information and data so that effective decisions can be made about the protection of fish habitat and fish.
Senator D. M. Wells: I have one final question: Did the Coast Guard do the substrate assessments or were private vessels retained to do that? If it is the Coast Guard, does it now being part of the Department of National Defence, or DND, present a challenge?
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, Senator Wells.
With respect to gathering the information necessary to ensure that all the regulatory approvals and conditions can be met, the responsibility lies with the proponent to gather that information and provide it to the regulator, C-NLOER, which works closely with DFO as the expert adviser.
The C-NLOER, as the regulator, is required to ensure all the necessary information is available to ensure effective regulation. In that respect, the Coast Guard is not directly involved. We work very closely with the Coast Guard, and their move to DND does not diminish in any way our very close working relationship with them, but they don’t have a role with respect to this particular component of a project.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m also interested in the seismic testing that is done to find oil deposits and its impact on whales, dolphins and porpoises. What do you do to protect those cetaceans when there seismic testing is being done? Do you think those measures are effective?
Is Fisheries and Oceans Canada present to ensure that those cetaceans can leave the dangerous area before the work begins?
[English]
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator.
I can talk in general terms about seismic. I don’t have deep expertise in that area, but if there is additional information you would like, I can certainly follow up in writing.
To give you a broad overview, yes, obviously — as you’ve correctly said — marine noise can have a negative impact on species, including marine mammals, and seismic is clearly a predominant source of noise in the early stages of offshore oil exploration.
The government — DFO — has two things in place to try to mitigate that. First, we have Statement of Canadian Practice with respect to the Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment, which contains specific guidance to industry and the C-NLOER, as the lead regulator, on how impacts on marine species can be mitigated or avoided. They will include things, for example, like having observers on seismic vessels, who can look out to visually see if there are marine mammals in the area and, if there are, take action to avoid negative impacts, like, perhaps, shutting off the seismic noise until the marine mammals have left the area.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are those observers part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or are they rather independent observers or industry observers?
[English]
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator. I would have to verify this, but I believe independent individuals are recruited for that. I can confirm that and come back to you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: And you wanted to continue. I’m sorry. I did interrupt you there just to have that precision.
Ms. Janes: No problem.
The second thing I was going to allude to is the research that DFO scientists do on the impacts of seismic activities on groundfish. There has been a considerable amount of work done over many years, funded through the Environmental Studies Research Fund. The first piece of work pertained to looking at the impacts of seismic activities on the snow crab, which is obviously an extremely important species for our fish harvesters. It was looking at whether it had a negative impact.
The second piece of work, which is still in progress, pertains to the potential impacts of seismic activities on groundfish. As I said, that work is still under way, but this is work that we do, and we share the findings with the regulator and both the harvesters and the operators to try to better understand the impacts so we can seek to better minimize them.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: When it comes to crab and other mammals, what have you found so far as a conclusion? Is there a perceived or real threat to the crab fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador?
[English]
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator.
With respect to snow crab, there were no appreciable impacts discovered through the research. With respect to groundfish, there were some impacts with respect to Atlantic cod. It was felt that seismic activity could potentially have impacts on their foraging activities.
I’m not an expert on those scientific studies, senator, so if you would like us to submit some detailed information to you on those studies and the findings to date, we would be more than happy to do so.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, thank you; we would like to have a little more on the effect of the seismic tests regarding fish and mammals and what you can tell us about the impacts of oil extraction on life in the sea.
The Chair: So, you will follow up with the documentation that you have? That’s great. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses today. That was extremely helpful. There was a lot there; it was a dense presentation that really gave us a sense of the various players — what DFO does, what the regulator does and of this group that brings together the oil and fisheries sectors. Anyway, there was a lot in that to unpack, but, yes, if you have anything further to provide to us in writing, that would be helpful.
I’m now going to try to unpack a little of that. My first question is about the organization that brings together the oil industry and the fisheries industry. Could you tell us a little bit more about it, what its role is and how that body interacts with the regulator and with you?
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator.
The organization I referred to earlier is One Ocean. It was set up by the oil industry and fish harvesters to improve liaison work and communication between those two industries. Obviously, both industries recognize that their activities can intersect and that it’s really important to have effective communication.
One Ocean does not represent either industry but acts as a forum to bring together the key players from those industries to discuss issues of mutual interest. On that body, there are a number of observers. DFO is one of the observers, as are the C-NLOER, the Marine Institute and the Canadian Coast Guard. We participate as observers to be able to answer questions and share expertise as that body deems to be helpful.
That body, One Ocean — I’ll give you some illustrations of the great work that it does in bringing together harvesters and the oil industry. For example, they’ve developed protocols on how best to communicate if there were to be an oil spill to ensure effective information travels quickly and effectively between those two industry groups. Also, there are protocols pertaining to seismic activities, because, as you can imagine, seismic vessels are very large and cover a significant area. What happens if there are fish harvesters working in the area near seismic operations? Fish harvesters’ gear could be negatively impacted.
It’s really important that these industries communicate effectively on their operations and have good protocols to ensure that can happen in a timely fashion. That organization is really instrumental in supporting that, and DFO, in its capacity as an observer, is also a participant in helping.
Senator Coyle: Last week, we heard from Derek Simon and Dean Vicaire of Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc., or MTI, which is a Mi’kmaw organization; I’m sure you are aware of them. They expressed two related concerns. One of them was the lack of consultation with the Mi’kmaq on the potential Bay du Nord project. What they were specifically referring to were transportation routes intersecting with salmon and therefore affecting the salmon fishery, not just there but in other locations, including New Brunswick, where they were.
Do you have any response to that or information that could help us fully understand, from DFO’s perspective, where that stands and what might be planned to address those needs?
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator.
Yes, I am aware of that evidence that was provided. With respect to the assessment that was done on Bay du Nord, which was led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. DFO is an expert adviser to the agency, but we do not lead that process. So, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada would have determined whom to consult and engage with on that project. I’m not familiar with the strength of that group’s claim with respect to that particular area. However, I am aware that concerns were expressed by Indigenous groups about Atlantic salmon for exactly the reasons you outlined: the migratory routes and whether they would be crossing the Grand Banks or other areas and be negatively affected.
Salmon is a species for which there is always a desire to have more data, expertise and scientific knowledge. Concerns about Atlantic salmon and interactions with offshore petroleum, again, led to a project being initiated through the Environmental Studies Research Fund, involving multiple millions of dollars to tag wild Atlantic salmon — I think over 4,000 fish were tagged — and to put acoustic arrays in place in order to track exactly where they went and better understand those migratory routes. My understanding is that research is drawing to a close now and being analyzed for the findings. I think that will certainly help to better understand those potential interactions and determine what further mitigations, if any, can be put in place.
If you would like more information on that particular piece of research, which is fascinating, we would be more than happy to provide it to you and the committee.
Senator Coyle: I think that would be helpful, because we’ve opened this up and need to know more than what we’ve heard to date.
The Chair: Thank you for agreeing to send that information to the committee when you have it.
Senator Lewis: Building upon the same subject of migratory patterns and fish movement — I’m sure they’re far from exact sciences, but have you seen improvements over the years in being able to measure the movements of fish and the impacts from warming waters or from offshore oil and gas exploration activities? Have you seen improvements with the measurement process that DFO uses to determine if they are impacting fish and wildlife?
Ms. Janes: Thank you, senator. My expertise isn’t the science program, but I will give you a high-level answer. If you would like more information, again, I am happy to provide it.
But absolutely, the Atlantic Ocean, as we all know, is very deep and very big. It’s a hard thing to monitor, but, of course, there is a deep commitment by government to do the best it can with the resources available. As technology improves — for example, gliders that we can send off where we don’t need a vessel — gathering information becomes cheaper and more effective. So as the years go by, first, we are accumulating more information and adding to the sum of our knowledge; and second, we are adding new tools to our toolkit to be able to better and more effectively collect information.
Through our science program, we have a program called the Atlantic Zone Monitoring Program that occurs twice a year. It goes out into the offshore to monitor the ocean and gather scientific information to better understand the trends and what is happening. One of those, as you have identified and which is extremely important, regards climate change and how it is impacting our oceans, the species and the species’ distribution.
So, clearly, this is a key priority for the department and, of course, a challenging issue. Climate change is challenging — understanding it, understanding what the future looks like — but it remains a top priority of the government to try to acquire that information and data to provide the best possible science advice to inform decision making.
Senator Lewis: Does DFO also collaborate with other countries regarding the information that they have as well as, perhaps, private measurements?
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator. DFO prides itself on its collaboration. Obviously, the more you can work closely with others, the more data you can gather, so we have partnerships. Sometimes we partner with industry or fish harvesters, who gather information for us. Sometimes we may collaborate with not-for-profit groups or other countries. My colleague Ray Walsh can speak to the extensive collaboration that we have under the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, with other countries. So, yes, that is a key part of the way we operate.
The Chair: Thank you. Again, anything you could send to elaborate on Senator Lewis’s question would be very much appreciated by the committee.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation. I’ve been on this committee for seven years, and I still do not have a clear picture of what goes on because people say there is one ocean and they are with fish harvesters and where their activities intersect. You said you don’t know about the Mi’kmaq and their concerns. You say this is a case-by-case basis, but is there a combined assessment of all the oil wells in one document?
Regarding what Senator Miville-Dechêne was talking about around the affected marine life, are any of these species on the endangered list right now? What do you do with this information? I work with a hydro-impacted community, and they’ve listed the sturgeon as an endangered species. I’ve been on the committee for three years. Nothing has been done, and I don’t know if it’s because people don’t know what to do with this.
When you look at seismic activity, is it ongoing all the time? Are there specific times it happens? How do you address the cumulative effects assessed across projects in the offshore? Could you send us some of this in a report, with respect to the known impacts of offshore oil on particular animal species, so I could read it and know where the concerns lie?
Ms. Janes: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I totally understand. It is an incredibly complex space, the offshore, with many actors, both government and non-government, who are active there.
Maybe I could try to respond to some components of your question. I’m not sure I have all of the components. It was a very rich question, but we’ll commit to following up. Just to touch on a few of the issues that you raised, to go through the stages of offshore petroleum, up front, the first thing that would happen is seismic vessels going out. It does not happen all the time. Sometimes there is no seismic activity in a year. For seismic activities to occur, there has to be an environmental assessment done, and that is overseen by the C-NLOER as regulators to try to ensure this is done in a way that mitigates impacts as far as possible.
As we’ve already discussed, obviously, one of the negative impacts from seismic is marine noise, and that has the potential to impact marine species. As you mentioned, that could include marine mammals.
Another impact, potentially, from that seismic stage of offshore petroleum development is vessel traffic. There will be more vessels in the area and potential strikes on animals. Those are some of the impacts at that stage.
After seismic, if the seismic activities and the operators believe there is a potential find of oil, they would engage in the next stage of petroleum activities, which would be exploration. Exploration would involve drilling exploratory wells in certain locations. Again, this is regulated and subject to conditions. The environmental impacts of that could be drill cuttings. So when the ocean floor is drilled through, there might be plumes of mud and drill cuttings, and they could disperse and could smother nearby species, particularly benthic species, corals and sponges. That would be a negative impact from exploratory drilling.
Again, there is more vessel traffic as vessels go out to drill wells, and that impacts fish harvesters as well, potentially, because there would be a safety exclusion zone around any drilling. You have to be mindful of potential interactions between exploratory activities and fishing equipment.
If, after exploratory drilling, the operator were to find oil, they would then apply to get authorization to enter into production. So production, in contrast to exploration — exploration is generally short-term in duration, but with production, you’re talking about putting in place infrastructure that is going to be there for many years or decades. Therefore, the impacts are potentially a lot longer in term and of a different nature.
The impacts from production would be the discharges associated with things like drill cuttings and mud and produced water, so the operational discharges from either a fixed platform or a floating platform. Of course, there would be an increased risk of things like oil spills or blowouts from a platform. Clearly, there would be more vessel traffic, as has already been identified, and marine noise.
So, clearly, when you have a long-term production facility, the potential impacts are longer in duration and potentially on a larger scale.
As you mentioned, senator, we don’t just have one offshore producing field; we have four. Bay du Nord would be the fifth. As you correctly say, the more fields you have, the more potential there is for cumulative impacts.
One of the things that DFO does when projects are being assessed, either by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada or the C-NLOER in its capacity as regulator, is look at cumulative effects and provide expertise and knowledge to the regulator so they can better identify conditions to include in the operational authorization for a project to proceed. The operator would then be responsible for ensuring it was in compliance with those conditions. The C-NLOER is the life cycle regulator for the offshore to ensure compliance with those conditions, and DFO provides expert advice to the regulator in doing that job.
One of the things the proponent is responsible for throughout the life cycle of an oil-producing project is an environmental effects monitoring program. The operator — the proponent — has to undertake this on a regular basis. Those programs look at things like water quality, biological impacts, impacts on fish and impacts on the sediments on the ocean floor.
That information goes to the regulator, and the regulator shares it with us at DFO so we can provide our expert analysis on it. It allows us to review whether the project and the way the project is being implemented are in line with the predictions that were made as part of the environmental assessment. If not, and if there are problems, what can be done to address those problems?
That is a very important source of information and advice that comes to government and regulators to ensure that projects respect their conditions.
Senator McCallum: Are they respecting —
The Chair: You are out of time but may ask a question later.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you, Ms. Janes; your answers are very elaborate.
My questions will be supplementary to the questions already asked, as you have done a good job of presenting the current situation and the complexity of the offshore activity, both in terms of stakeholders and in terms of analyzing cumulative impacts. You said it: The ocean is huge.
I’ll ask a very general question about the state of knowledge. How does the department describe the current level of scientific knowledge on marine ecosystems in offshore areas? You will send us the information. However, what is your level of confidence with regard to the scope of current knowledge? Are there any areas where you feel there is still a lack of information?
I am extending my question to regions or periods where you think scientific information is more limited.
[English]
Ms. Janes: Thank you very much, senator, for the question. It’s a great question and a challenging one.
The reality is that there is a vast amount that we do know and a vast amount of documentation, be it project-specific — related to specific petroleum projects and the information required to ensure their effective oversight — or generally about the ocean. However, the ocean is huge and deep, and resources are limited. There is always more we can learn and do, and the government strives to identify where there are gaps in our knowledge and to fill those.
One of the areas, for example, where government is really working hard to improve knowledge and its management is around ecosystem approaches. Often, we do science related to individual species to understand more about, for example, cod or shrimp, their life cycles, their abundance or their distribution. Of course, in a complex environment like the marine environment, all of those species are interconnected. They connect with one another and with ocean conditions, be it salinity or temperature. As we talked about earlier, climate change is obviously impacting all of those. Understanding complex interactions and how one species may be dependent upon another or on a particular environment or temperature zone is challenging. However, we recognize it is a very important area for us to improve our knowledge around so we can better manage our oceans to ensure they are sustainable, not just for environmental reasons but to support the resources the fishing industry and Canadians rely upon.
I would provide that as an illustration of an area where there’s more to be done. It’s complex, but the department is really trying to focus on that so that we can have more of an ecosystem-based management approach.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you very much. How does the department ensure that this technical and environmental information, even if it is not complete, circulates effectively among the various stakeholders regarding offshore development? How does the government ensure that the department’s scientific advice is properly integrated into the decision-making processes for the various projects?
[English]
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator.
The department prides itself on having science advisory processes that have high integrity, are transparent and involve external experts when appropriate. The results of science advice processes are published on the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat website. They are available for all Canadians to see and read.
In addition to that, we ensure information flows effectively to our fellow regulators, because DFO has memoranda of understanding with both the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the C-NLOER, the regulator, to ensure we are working effectively and providing information in a timely fashion to inform regulatory processes.
Then, with respect to external stakeholders, it is absolutely critical for DFO to be able to do its work effectively and to have timely and effective engagement with stakeholders. There are many channels through which we engage with fish harvesters, for example, or through operators to gather information and ensure we have an ear to the ground to know what is happening so we can effectively respond to concerns being raised.
That is a core part of our operations and how we do business.
Senator Coyle: This has been an extremely helpful session. I have a few more questions.
Returning to the MTI situation, one of the things you mentioned was that there’s a very detailed and thorough study on salmon, the results of which should be out soon. Do you know whether Indigenous knowledge was also taken into account as part of that research project? That is something that was raised by the representatives of MTI and something we’ve heard about before.
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator.
I haven’t personally been involved in the development of that study, so when we provide information, we can certainly speak more to that. However, I can say that the impetus for that study really came out of consultations with Indigenous groups. Many of them — I can’t tell you exactly which groups right now — have been intimately involved in the design and rollout of that research. It has been an example of very effective collaboration between government and Indigenous partners. I think there is a very positive narrative on that. Certainly, in providing you with additional information, we can cover that Indigenous engagement in that work.
Senator Coyle: My colleague Senator Youance mentioned gaps and confidence in knowledge that we have, and you spoke about the fast-changing environment, et cetera. I want to get to the knowledge in a minute.
I was fascinated by your description of this overall architecture that’s in place to ensure decisions are well informed regarding the protection of the environment. I’m curious about the architecture itself, with the various players that have been described and the various roles that you each have.
Do you see any gaps or any areas where there’s a need for improvement to ensure that all of the moving parts work well together to ensure the outcome that everybody is responsible for collectively?
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the great question, senator.
It’s a very comprehensive system, and there are very effective partnerships between groups. The challenge is always to do that very thorough work, which we do, to protect the environment and also to do it in a timely fashion because there are economic considerations as well. Government is constantly looking at how it can improve its performance, and, at the moment, DFO has been working through the red tape reduction initiative to ensure that its processes are efficient and effective. Ensuring its processes are efficient and effective and delivering timely advice is in no way to compromise the standard of environmental stewardship or our obligation and duty to Indigenous Peoples.
I suppose my answer is a bit general, but ostensibly, I believe any bureaucracy can always look to improve and do things better. However, do I think the overall architecture has integrity? Yes, I do, and I believe that the goal is to do the very best for Canadians.
Senator Coyle: That’s really important. Thank you for that answer.
So much of what we’re talking about here — approvals, et cetera — is based on assumptions made based on data that is available at the time, trends that have happened before and so on.
I’m curious, though, as you have mentioned the impacts of climate change: How often are these initial assumptions upon which decisions are made revisited in order to update them based on what is actually happening in the environment due to climate change and other factors?
Ms. Janes: Thank you for the question, senator. Maybe I could answer with a specific example.
You’re absolutely right that working in the offshore is very different from working on land. Working on land or on rivers, we can send people to look at the river. We can say that we thought X would have happened as projected, and we’ll look and see whether it did. When we’re working 350 kilometres offshore in water 80 metres deep — or more, if Bay du Nord proceeds — we can’t send a biologist to see what the actual impacts were. We’re very reliant on the projections made and the follow-up monitoring done by the proponent and overseen, effectively, by the C-NLOER.
Let me give you an illustration. Let’s say there was an exploratory well to be drilled by a proponent. We would work with the C-NLOER to say there needs to be a pre-drilling survey. The proponent has to send ROVs to the bottom of the ocean and do a pre-drilling survey. What does the ocean floor look like before the drilling? That video will be analyzed by the proponent and provided to the regulator, who will provide it to us as their expert adviser. We will review that video.
We will look at the ocean floor and determine if there are aggregations of corals and sponges and important species for the benthic environment. If there are and there’s going to be drilling, how can they be avoided or how can impacts be mitigated? We will work with our science colleagues, who will do modelling of what they think the dispersion might be. If drilling occurs on the ocean floor, obviously that will throw up mud and drilling cuttings, and they will get thrown a certain distance and land on the ocean floor. We will do modelling to determine how much is going to come out, where it’s likely to land and whether it is going to smother corals and sponges or impact other species.
With that information, we will work with the regulator and the proponent to try to minimize or avoid negative impacts. That could include asking the operator to move the drilling site because we want to move away from species that are on the ocean floor or high aggregations of those.
Let’s say the drilling then occurs. After the drilling, the proponent is then required to do a post-drilling survey. They will go back out and resurvey that whole area they surveyed prior to the drilling. That information will be analyzed, provided to the regulator and provided to DFO. We will review and analyze it, and through that, we will learn if we were right about our drilling projections and where we thought the impacts would be. Are the actual outcomes consistent with what the predicted outcomes were? Can we learn from that? That helps us, first, understand if the mitigations were effective; and second, learn, so the next time there’s an exploratory drilling project, we have the information and expertise to better protect the ocean and species.
I hope that example helps to illustrate the close collaboration that occurs between the regulator and DFO.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: I have a question for Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh, as a delegate to NAFO — which is the regional fisheries management organization for outside the 200, for the most part — because the operators drill and produce outside the 200, what kinds of interactions are there, cooperative or uncooperative, outside the fisheries jurisdiction of Canada, which is in the NAFO area, and how is that handled?
Ray Walsh, Regional Director, Fisheries Management, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you for the question, Senator Wells.
Going back to the period around 2010 to 2014, there certainly were some interactions that were maybe more challenging between the petroleum sector and the fishing sector of NAFO. These were related to interactions between seismic vessels, research vessels and fishing vessels. However, coming from that process, Canada, in 2015, brought an information exchange protocol to NAFO. The purpose of that was to allow for timely sharing of appropriate information between both the fishing sector, which NAFO regulates, and the petroleum sector. Basically, the purpose of that information exchange, then, was to avoid overlapping activities and mitigate those interactions that were known to be happening at that time.
A key part of that exchange is that NAFO agreed to provide to Canada, for distribution to the C-NLOER and proponents, information on fishing activity in the form of aggregate, anonymized VMS data, which shows where fishing activity is happening. As a reciprocal, Canada — again, through the C-NLOER — is providing NAFO and its members information on planned petroleum activities, oil and gas activities, including seismic, planned drilling and exploration, on a semi-annual basis so they can plan accordingly.
Through that communication, Senator Wells, I can say there’s been very good collaboration around NAFO, and those instances that I’d say we were more challenged with in the early 2010s do not seem to be persisting at this time.
Again, we continue to work with the C-NLOER to enhance that protocol and ensure that information is shared appropriately and timely, and that includes information on assessments or any other upcoming engagements that allow NAFO to provide input. I think we’ve advanced quite well in the past 10 to 15 years in terms of NAFO in cooperation with the sector.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thanks very much for that. You may know that I was a delegate to NAFO during the time prior to that.
Canada’s 200-mile limit jurisdiction is, obviously, within the water column, but anything on the continental shelf, which falls under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is under Canadian control.
Could you provide the committee maps that show the overlay and interactions between what happens at the 200-mile limit and what happens at our continental shelf limit? I think that would be helpful to the committee.
Mr. Walsh: I certainly can, Senator Wells.
As you know, the offshore area extends beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ, and, of course, the mandate of NAFO is regulatory, and that’s the management of fish in the water column. Certainly, we can provide some maps that would help illustrate that for the committee.
Senator McCallum: I had asked what species are affected and if any of them are on the endangered or extinct list, as well as what you do with this information when you are concerned about it. I’m looking at the effective responses that DFO has enacted when concerns have been brought forward.
You look at and learn from the impacts where seismic activity occurred. You learn what it did to the species, but it’s too late for that species there. You’re learning from them, and you’re trying to apply it.
Is there adequate protection of the environment, and can you give us examples? What impact did this have on the oil and gas industry? Has there ever been a time when you’ve been so concerned that production has stopped? Is there an ability to do that? When there are so many processes in place and so many dollars going into this, has there ever been a time that has happened?
Ms. Janes: Thank you, senator, for your question.
First, to respond to your question about species at risk, DFO has responsibility for aquatic species at risk. When a project is proposed in the offshore, we, under the Fisheries Act, have to review whether there could be harmful impacts to fish habitat, the death of fish or impacts on species at risk.
Species at risk could include marine mammals. They could include sea turtles. They could include species like, for example, wolffish.
Part of our responsibility in assessing an activity is to provide a lens of potential impacts on species at risk and mitigation. If there are causes for concern, then conditions would be put in place on the operator to try to mitigate and avoid negative outcomes.
With respect to operations offshore, the regulator, the C-NLOER, is the life cycle regulator for all the offshore petroleum industries. For example, say the Impact Assessment Agency did an impact assessment, like for Bay du Nord, and certain conditions were put in place that the proponent would have to respect in order to move ahead with that project. It would be the C-NLOER that would ensure compliance with those conditions, and DFO would support them, giving them expert advice.
With respect to existing offshore producing projects, it would be that regulator that would take the appropriate action if it felt the conditions of the operation authorization were not being met.
I’m afraid, senator, I don’t have the expertise to answer the question on whether and how operations may have been impacted or stopped by the regulator. That would be a question more for the C-NLOER, who would have the expertise to be able to respond to that.
Senator McCallum: Do you have any fish that are on the endangered list right now?
Ms. Janes: There are species that are considered at risk that frequent that water. For example, the North Atlantic right whale or other marine mammals, wolffish, are species that are found in that geographical location.
Senator McCallum: What are you doing with respect to these species at risk? If you can put that in writing, that would be good. I’m just trying to get at the fact that there’s so much money put toward this.
Thank you. Having it in writing will be good.
Ms. Janes: Thank you, senator. There are legislation, action plans and requirements put in place to protect species at risk, so we can certainly provide you with information pertaining to that.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Janes and Mr. Walsh. You’ve both given very good testimony as well as agreed to provide us with some more documentation to follow up.
Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate your presence. Have a great day.
(The committee adjourned.)