Evidence of meeting #75 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was dfo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I put myself on the speakers list quite a while back, with the expectation that I would have something to say. I'll just offer a few reflections on where we are.
First of all, I share many of the views that Mr. Perkins has expressed, particularly around the need for renewable energy generation and the need for a regulatory environment that supports renewable energy generation. Although I'm not familiar with the specifics of this particular project that he's highlighted or the regulatory process that led up to the withdrawal of the project, I would, in general, share his disappointment that we see an investment that seemed quite promising leaving the province of Nova Scotia and taking the potential of renewable energy with it.
The challenge that I have is not knowing on what basis DFO revoked or chose not to grant the permit. It makes it difficult to express in such strong terms that the government's regulatory environment was to blame.
There may be other routes for the committee to take that would allow us to gain more insights into what DFO's concerns were. If there was an initiative from the committee to look further into this, that would be something I could support.
As it is, I don't have enough information about the specifics of the regulatory decision to express such strong disappointment as this motion does.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
I have Mr. Longfield and then Mr. Mazier.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Thanks to Mr. Bachrach. I think there's a way of doing this whereby we can reach the objective of having the discussion on tidal power projects but do it in a more formal way. Therefore, I have an amendment, and maybe I could ask the clerk if she could circulate it in both official languages. That would be that we have three meetings to look into this and invite some people to discuss where the roadblocks are and how we can move forward on behalf of these types of projects. It is disappointing for sure that we haven't landed where we need to land, and maybe this committee can help us to get to that place.
My amendment would read: “That the committee”—and strike out “express our disappointment with the government which has led to”—“undertake a three-meeting study on tidal power projects”—strike out “pulling out of”—“in Atlantic Canada pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)”—strike out “acknowledges that one of”—“that the committee examine the primary factors”—strike out “contributing to the departure of”—“in decisions relating to these capital investments”, and strike out “has been recent changes that have created an intricate”. We could say: “primary factors, including the regulatory landscape”. Then it's “that the committee invite relevant federal officials, tidal power industry representatives, fisheries representatives, indigenous representatives and provincial government representatives; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”
That way, we would do more than just throw blame around. We actually would get to the root of the discussion of how we can improve the regulatory landscape. How can we make sure that the industry lands in the right place to get projects like these built?
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That was a mouthful, so we're going to try to get something in writing and distribute it to everybody. I'm going to break for a few minutes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The meeting is resumed.
Colleagues, you should have before you the wording of the motion with the changes proposed by Mr. Longfield, which should be highlighted in yellow. I’ll read it to you anyway:
That the committee undertake a three-meeting study on tidal power projects in Atlantic Canada, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2); that the committee examine the primary factors in decisions relating to these capital investments, including the regulatory landscape; that the committee invite relevant federal officials, tidal power industry representatives, fisheries representatives, Indigenous representatives and provincial government representatives, and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
So that is the motion that would be voted on by the committee should Mr. Longfield’s amendment be adopted.
Mr. Perkins, you have the floor.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Longfield, for the motion.
I think we're supportive of the motion if I can propose a friendly amendment, which I think we've sent to the clerk. After discussions with Mr. Longfield, we think it fits perhaps best about halfway down, where it says “including the regulatory landscape”. I think that after that is where it would say—it probably doesn't need to say “including” again—“but not limited to the shutdown of the Sustainable Marine Energy project”.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I just want to make sure that everyone understands what Mr. Perkins is proposing.
After “including the regulatory landscape”, we would add “but not limited to, the shutdown of the Sustainable Energy project”, is that right?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
It should say “Marine”. It doesn't say “Marine”.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
It should also say “including” or “not limited to”, whichever way you'd like to go.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
“Including” or “not limited to”....
So it would read “including but not limited to, the shutdown of the Sustainable Marine Energy project”.
We are now debating this subamendment, in other words, the proposed change to Mr. Longfield’s amendment.
Does anyone wish to speak or may we proceed to a vote?
Mr. van Koeverden, you have the floor.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
My concern with an amendment like that and the original motion is that this kind of presumes to know why, and we don't know exactly why. We would like to know exactly why. We all would like to see more renewable energy projects, but I don't think that a proper motion should presume that it's due to some factor, any one factor, before we actually investigate.
We can listen to one group or another group, but it shouldn't be in the motion, because the motion should be accepted by all members. We should work on it together, and we should identify the reasons for it.
I want to look into this. I'm eager to know more, but I don't think the preface of a motion should include a conclusion.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Basically we're speaking now to this amendment, which reads “including, but not limited to, the shutdown of the Sustainable Marine Energy project”, and you spoke against that subamendment.
We'll go to Mr. Mazier.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Mr. Chair, I think I'll just bring everybody back to when I opened up the meeting here. I read it right from the CBC article: This is the reason they backed out. I can reread it into the record if you want, but it is very particular. We need that language in there, because we want to find out why they backed out.
They had by far the most experience in this field. I think it would be very good for all of us as parliamentarians to really understand why this project.... There were millions and millions of dollars put into it by private industry, and now they're gone. I think it would be of the utmost importance that we name them in this amendment. I would support this, and I ask the other members of the committee to please support this.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I appreciate what Mr. van Koeverden said. I don't think this calls for any conclusion about why the project was cancelled. It is a fact that the project was cancelled.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Well, it is. DFO wouldn't renew the permit, so the project was disassembled. The project is over. That particular project is over.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
There was no way to continue to keep it in the ocean without a DFO permit. I mean, that's a fact—