Honourable senators, I rise to speak on what I think is a technical oversight in the work that the subcommittee of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources did, which I spoke of earlier on this bill.

I am rising to support an amendment that I understand Senator Manning is going to make.

Is that a problem?

I want to talk a bit about the testimony we heard regarding the consequences of this bill on the Atlantic offshore industry, which was extremely concerning. Our committee adopted a number of amendments to address this crucial issue, but we missed this one.

You raise an interesting point, Senator Dalphond, but I believe what Senator Patterson did was refer to what he thinks will be an amendment, which he is perfectly entitled to speak to. Whether or not that occurs is another question.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Provincial governments have advocated for an amendment with respect to the offshore panel, but I would like to relay some of the testimony that we heard from industry in relation to this issue.

Imperial Oil, one of Canada’s largest energy companies and a long-time operator in the Atlantic, wrote:

. . . under the current proposals in Bill C-69, offshore oil and gas activities regulated under the Accord Acts would in future have to be referred to a review panel — a process that will take several years (including time for initial description and review, 180 days early planning, 45 days for referral, time for proponent to prepare an impact statement, 600 days review and 90 days for decision). This is not acceptable.

Government must take into account the investment community’s need for consistency, predictability and effectiveness if our industry is going to continue to exist in Canada.

Husky Energy, another major Canadian energy firm operating in the Atlantic, testified to our committee:

A panel review should not be the only assessment option for designated offshore oil and gas activities. As currently drafted, the proposed act requires a full panel review for designated offshore oil and gas activities. In so doing, it blocks other assessment options, such as agency reviews, substitutions and joint review panels.

Honourable senators, one of the problems with the hearings that we held in Atlantic Canada was that we did not hear from the offshore boards. The reason we didn’t hear from the offshore boards, I understood, was, first, that there was an election going on in Newfoundland at the time. Second, these offshore boards, being quasi-judicial, independent regulatory bodies, do not like to mix themselves up with the political process. I think it was unfortunate we didn’t hear from the offshore boards, however, because there were criticisms of those offshore boards from various witnesses, some of which were not substantiated with facts, and we didn’t get to hear the other side of the story.

In fact, it wasn’t until we heard from Wade Locke, Professor and Head of Economics at Memorial University of Newfoundland, as an individual, that we heard about the good work of offshore boards, with particular reference to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said:

According to the most recent information available on the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board website, nearly $60 billion has been invested in exploration and development and production activities associated with Newfoundland offshore oil and gas activities. There have been 1.85 billion barrels of oil produced and 470 wells drilled in Newfoundland and Labrador offshore, 171 exploration wells, 57 delineation wells and 240 development wells. No major environmental problems have been linked to these activities, indicating the environmental oversight of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has been working.

Senator Manning may speak to this issue with more authority than I do, being a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I do know that the good work of these boards, at its peak, resulted in oil and gas projects that accounted for 36 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador’s gross domestic product and over 5,000 jobs. Without demeaning the fishery in Newfoundland, it accounted for 1.7 per cent of GDP and about 7,600 jobs.

Professor Locke told us:

Currently, the offshore industry accounts for 15.6 per cent of the provincial GDP, which compares to 2.5 per cent for the fish harvesting and processing industry.

Oil and gas has accounted for nearly 30 per cent of provincial government revenues at the peak, and this fell to 13.6 per cent due to low oil prices. . . .

. . . nearly 5 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians worked in the oil and gas industry in Alberta.

So oil and gas is very important to the provincial economy.

Honourable senators, what is needed to improve the bill, in my respectful opinion, would be to give the Minister of Environment the discretion to appoint a majority of members from the roster of the Newfoundland and Labrador or the Nova Scotia offshore boards to the assessment review panel that would be set up under the Bill C-69.

Right now, the problem with the legislation is that, unlike what we did with the impact assessment panels to be set up in conjunction with the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, we did not correct a provision in Bill C-69 that stated that the persons appointed from the roster to these offshore boards in Atlantic Canada must not constitute a majority of the members of the panel.

Let’s take advantage of the expertise and the good record they have. Let’s respect the hard-won negotiations which led to the creation of the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland offshore boards. Let’s accept that they’re doing important work in safeguarding the economy and allowing oil and gas activities to co-exist with the fishery in a delicate environment. Let’s take advantage of that experience and corporate memory, if the minister decides that a majority of the panel could come from the current roster.

That is the concern I have, Your Honour.

I think we did a very good job of producing a package of 187 amendments, but the Premier of Newfoundland and the Minister of Energy of Newfoundland and Labrador will ask why we amended the bill with respect to the nuclear industry and the National Energy Board but overlooked their life-cycle regulators in allowing, in the discretion of the minister, members of those panels to be a majority of the impact review panels. I think this is a technical matter that should be corrected.

Otherwise, I want to say that I think the Senate did very good work in collaborating on a consensus which was not reached easily on a package of amendments. We’ve left out this one technical matter in the challenge of assembling 187 amendments, but this can be addressed. I think it would show the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Energy Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador that the Senate did listen to their concerns following the assembling of the bill as amended, which is before us now.

Your Honour, I just want you to know that I will be moving an amendment when I finish speaking this evening.

To follow up on some of Senator Patterson’s comments, this issue was raised by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister of Energy of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were also concerns within the Government of Nova Scotia.

If I could, I want to read into the record part of a letter sent to Senator Mitchell by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador on May 30, 2019. I want to preface my remarks by saying this is not a non-partisan issue to me. As everyone knows, we have a Liberal premier in Newfoundland and Labrador. He raised this issue with his energy minister here when they presented to the committee and in the form of a letter. It’s very important to the people of my province and to the people of Nova Scotia. Certainly a decision will be made on what you want to do with it when I finish speaking tonight.

As I said, I want to read into the record part of the letter that Premier Dwight Ball sent to Senator Mitchell. He copied it to several other senators.

The Atlantic Accord Agreement between Canada and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, dated February 11, 1985, is critically important to Newfoundland and Labrador. The joint management regime that it establishes has been foundational to the success of the province’s offshore oil industry. The agreement and the legislation that implements it emphasizes Newfoundland and Labrador’s and Canada’s commitment to jointly manage resources in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area.

The Atlantic Accord recognizes the equality of both governments in the management of resources in the C-NL offshore. The Accord Acts also to jointly establish the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board —

 — well known in Newfoundland and Labrador as the C‑NLOPB —

 — to administer the relevant provisions of the Accord Act and other relevant legislation, including the administration of technical regulations related to environmental protection.

The key principles of joint management were further affirmed in the recent Atlantic Accord Review Agreement dated April 1, 2019, in which the federal government committed to deepening joint management in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil.

For some people who may not be aware, it is different for resources underground in provinces such as Alberta. Newfoundland and Labrador does not have total ownership of its resources. Administration of its resources is done through this Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

To give some idea of what the oil and gas industry means to our province, in 2003 the offshore oil and gas industry accounted for 36 per cent of the province’s GDP. For several years, it contributed to similar levels. In 2017, it remained high at 23 per cent. In 2017, the industry accounted for 23,500 jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, resulting in $2 billion worth of labour income and $1.4 billion in consumer spending. There were over 10,000 jobs in the rest of Canada due to the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore industry.

Using data from reliable sources such as Statistics Canada, a conservative number of 2.2 billion barrels is forecast for future benefits. Should such development occur, by 2045 Newfoundland and Labrador has the potential to receive over $100 billion in royalties and taxes. This is a game changer for a province of 525,000 people.

The amendment I am putting forward tonight seeks to delete two portions of amendments made to the bill at committee in the other place. The two specific proposed subsections we’d like to delete are 46.1(4) and 48.1(4). These subsections are found on page 94 and 95 of the proposed impact assessment act. Subsection 46.1(4) comes up under clause 6.

The subsection reads:

The persons appointed from the roster must not constitute a majority of the members of the panel.

The context for this is in the earlier subsection 46.1(1) which provides :

When the Minister refers an impact assessment of a designated project that includes activities regulated under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to a review panel, the Minister must . . . .

This is the same for the Newfoundland and Labrador situation.

— within 45 days after the day on which the notice referred to in subsection 19(4) with respect to the designated project is posted on the Internet site — establish the panel’s terms of reference and appoint the chairperson and at least four other members.

The second subsection to be deleted, 48.1(4), comes up under clause 7. It is the mirror image of the subsection I have already described, except this one applies to review panels for projects in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area as opposed to Nova Scotia. The two Atlantic accords, the Nova Scotia accord and the Newfoundland and Labrador accord, are pretty well along the same lines. They just refer to each province in a particular situation.

Colleagues, both of these amendments were asked for by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia. In their letter asking for this amendment, among many others, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote:

Subsection 48.1(4) minimizes the involvement of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board as the lifecycle regulator and minimizes the expertise of the board.

They went on to say that the act describes the review panels conducted jointly with lifecycle regulators but only includes them as minority representation on the panel. This does not fully incorporate the expertise of the C-NLOPB in the process. In fact, in cases of a review panel involving a lifecycle regulator such as the C-NLOPB, Bill C-69 requires that review panel members selected from the C-NLOPB’s roster cannot constitute the majority of the members from the panel. The limitation is unreasonable and counterproductive, in our government’s view.

That’s from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is also endorsing deleting 46.1(4), which applies only to Nova Scotia on principle.

Furthermore, the Honourable Derek Mombourquette, Minister of Energy and Mines in the Government of Nova Scotia, told the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources:

We would also echo the amendments suggested by others, including our neighbours in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I fully support the role of the offshore boards as independent expert regulators. We do not think, and I certainly don’t think, it’s appropriate to minimize their role or to mandate that they cannot form the majority of a review panel.

What my amendment is doing is putting forward an opportunity for — the minister will still have say on who sits on the panel. We don’t want to tie his or her hands behind their back and say if they want to take from the roster of the boards that are already in place and put them on the review panel, he or she can certainly go ahead and do that. If we follow what’s in the bill today, the minister won’t have a choice on who they want to appoint to the review panel.

By removing this, both governments, in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, are saying the minister will still have total discretion over who sits on the review panel. He or she will appoint who sits on the review panel, but their hands will be tied behind their backs in relation to taking people who have in some cases been there for years, who have great expertise, experience, and in my humble opinion, have the best interests of their provinces at hand when they sit around the board, whether in Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia.

I would like to emphasize that the C-NLOPB has been highly successful and well regarded since its inception in 1985. When you look back at the original Atlantic Accord in 1985, 34 years ago now, that really started the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. The agreement was to have this joint management of our offshore resources. Pretty well everybody, several federal governments over time and provincial governments, worked side by side in ensuring that the best possible revenue streams and economic activity can happen, and offshore boards play a very important part in that, in my opinion.

I believe that the Government of Newfoundland does not see the rationale for this provision. I believe the Government of Nova Scotia does not either because they have brought forward the same concerns. We don’t want in a bill, in my view — and certainly the views of both governments, as I see it — to take away the minister’s discretion to appoint to the panel who he or she sees as the most beneficial person to put there.

Just another quote from the letter of Premier Ball in relation to my amendment, which I would like to read into the record:

A significant oversight in the amendments recommended in the committee report to the Senate is the composition of review panels for projects in our offshore area. The amendments now require the C-NLOPB to be consulted on a panel’s terms of reference and allow a member of the C‑NLOPB to act as the chair. These are clearly positive developments, for further recommended amendments allow lifecycle regulators other than the C-NLOPB to constitute a majority on review panels.

Multiple conversations with senators, Senate officials and our colleagues have indicated that this was an inadvertent oversight. This should be corrected by deleting section 48.1(4). This extremely important change goes a long way towards respecting the joint management regime in our offshore and its critically needed fix.

These are not my words, colleagues. These are the words from Premier Ball of Newfoundland and Labrador. It gives me pleasure tonight to be able to stand here in a nonpartisan way and ask that my amendments be considered for the betterment of the people of my province and the people of Nova Scotia. Certainly we can continue to operate under a joint management regime that benefits both our provinces, and therefore, benefits our country.