Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening statement.

Colleagues, I'll remind everybody that I'll be using these cards. The yellow is the 30-second warning, and the red means time is up.

We will start. I think we'll get through one round, starting with Mr. Small from the Conservative Party of Canada for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Josenhans.

Ms. Josenhans, are you in favour of wind farms going inside marine protected areas?

[Jennifer Josenhans]

Thank you very much for the question, first of all.

Speaking on behalf of the—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Just give a short answer, because I only have a few minutes here.

[Jennifer Josenhans]

Thank you.

We believe offshore energy should be scoped out of marine protected areas. We believe these two things can coexist with proper marine spatial planning.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you for that answer.

I am going to direct my next question to Katie Power.

Katie, you just heard Ms. Josenhans' testimony, and you heard the minister earlier.

How do you compare the interaction between the fishing industry and oil and gas offshore with what you see going on worldwide with the fishing industry and offshore renewables?

[Katie Power]

Thank you for the question.

If I understood it correctly, my response is this: Compared with our experience with fisheries and the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have been forced out of traditional fishing grounds. As an example, we can look at the Grand Banks, a traditional cod ground we no longer have access to. It's very similar to areas in the offshore near Scotland and other places we've consulted with. It's global. Fishing grounds where wind turbines now stand are not accessible to fisheries. The gear is not compatible with the turbines. Access to the grounds for fishing activity has been totally lost in a lot of instances.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I'll ask you this: When you look at spatial considerations, how does the scale of ground coverage for wind energy compare with that of an oil production platform?

[Katie Power]

Wind farms are vastly larger. They take up an immense.... It's thousands of square kilometres of space offshore.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Have you heard how prime fishing grounds are being identified? Have you heard anything coming from your counterparts in the Maritimes about how areas of interest are being sorted out?

[Katie Power]

I'm not entirely familiar. I have been wholly focused on the Newfoundland and Labrador process. We haven't even been given an opportunity to do that in Newfoundland and Labrador, so I wouldn't be able to answer with certainty on how processes are going elsewhere.

However, in my experience, we're not even that far yet.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

What we're told by the fishing industry in Nova Scotia is that VMS data is being used to identify areas of high-intensity fishing.

Do inshore lobster and halibut boats use VMS data?

[Katie Power]

Using VMS data to identify areas of high fishing concentration is not helpful, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will miss, essentially, our entire membership, since we are representative of the inshore fleets, which are small boats—35 feet or less. Those vessels are not required to have AIS technology, so none of their fishing activity is recorded through DFO fishing science data.

There will be no record to use, of course, when you're spatially planning to overlap these fishing areas. There is no way to capture that data if you use VMS.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Ms. Power, if this is not done right, do you foresee some conflict between the fishing industry and renewables?

[Katie Power]

I think that, without proper consultation processes and the enhanced measures that are clearly required—which are not being conducted right now—conflict is inevitable, because there are complete fisheries that are being dismissed and not acknowledged in these processes. They are, frankly, being ignored. That is the sentiment of our membership.

It's scary for them, because their voices and concerns are not being heard. They want to be engaged. They want to be involved, but an enhanced level of communication with our industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is not happening.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

You may want to provide a written submission on this, but I'm going to ask you this: What would you and your stakeholders like to see in terms of consultation and a compensation framework built into C-49? What does that need to look like? If we're to have amendments to this bill that give stability to offshore wind and to the fishing industry, I think it's going to be very important for you to be involved in creating some amendments, which I would support.

Thank you.

[Katie Power]

First, I'll say this—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Ms. Power, time is up. As the member stated, it might be a lengthy brief to provide lots of context there, so you're free to provide that.

We'll go to Ms. Jones for six minutes.

Ms. Jones, go ahead.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses today for their tremendous presentations. I think you all gave us lots of great insights and information, and we certainly appreciate that.

I'm going to start my questions with you, Katie, from my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As you know, I grew up in the fishery, and I understand it very well.

I'm really disappointed to learn the FFAW was not consulted in a much more in-depth way. It does disappoint me, I'll be honest with you. I really believe that the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has been a strong support for the offshore oil and gas industry, and they've worked very well together as ocean industries to see those developments go in different directions. I understand the important role that the FFAW plays, and I want to note that for the record here in committee today and to say that I agree that you should have been consulted in a much more in-depth way.

I know you're at the table with the regional assessments, and I know it's not the same as being consulted on the bill or being consulted on a project down the road. First of all, were you aware of the bill? Have there been discussions with your members in FFAW about it?

[Katie Power]

I was made aware of the bill. I believe that we received an overview presentation in October. I think that was my first introduction to what was going on. Then, of course, there are these proceedings. That's essentially what's been brought to FFAW as an organization in terms of what's happening and where it's going. I was aware that processes were ongoing and that the bill was being written, but in terms of anything else, I'll echo your sentiment of disappointment in that we very much have felt like an afterthought in a lot of the planning for this legislation.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Obviously, I can't change what has happened, but as a member on the committee, I'm happy to work with the government to set up any kind of consultations or briefings that your organization might like to have in advance of any votes that take place in the House of Commons. I make that offer to you, and I'm happy to do my best as one MP to try to arrange that.

My other questions are around the regional assessment process. I understand that the regional assessment process, although a different platform, was a good opportunity for a number of stakeholders to feed into what the initial piece would look like in offshore wind. Have you been engaged at that level at all? Are you a part of that process?

[Katie Power]

Yes, we've been deeply engaged in that process from the very beginning, as it's really been our only opportunity to provide feedback on offshore wind and to ask questions.

There have also been some challenges within the regional assessment process due to the unique demographic of Newfoundland and Labrador, our coastal communities and these rural outport communities where people with concerns about offshore wind live. The virtual meetings and computer literacy needed have presented as very challenging for our membership. That's been a major concern.

The overall lack of trust and transparency that's been given by governments has hindered the collection process as well. We've been getting a lot of apprehension from our membership in terms of being more forthcoming with information, because they don't know how it's going to be used or what it's going to be used for. There's a clear lack of understanding of the intentions of the regional assessment and how it will be used because there's been no transparency. We've been very much left in the dark in this process, and I really think that it's doing the regional assessment and perhaps this legislation a disservice and a discredit, because it's really unfortunate how it has unfolded.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

In Bill C-49, the amendments are around the regulatory process. We had the offshore oil and gas industry. We had a regulatory process that we set up, the C-NLOPB, in which they set up the One Ocean concept—of which you are a part of—and they consult back and forth.

This bill is basically focused on offshore wind. I know that, and there may be different factors. However, we are looking, again, at the regulatory process. You might want to have this discussion with them, but my understanding is that the reason the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador want the amendments in the bill is so that, if they decide to move forward with offshore wind at some point, there will be a regulatory body in place that can work with all the different groups and organizations to ensure that people's interests are protected.

In passing this bill, we're not saying that we are going to put a wind farm in Bonavista Bay tomorrow or in the gulf. I think what we're doing is laying a regulatory process, so that any wind development would still go through an environmental assessment process.

One of the things I want to bring up today is that there will be some amendments coming in the bill to ensure some stakeholder engagement. If there are other amendments that you'd like to look at for your members, we'll be happy to entertain those as well. We are open to suggestions and to making sure that we make it strong and protect the interests of fishers, as well as those who want to see clean energy grids and offshore wind developed.

I just wanted to let you know that and to let you know that there are other opportunities to strengthen this to ensure that your members are protected.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones, for this round of questions, and, Ms. Power, for your answers.

We'll now go to our next member, Mr. Simard.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Power, I understand that your group wasn't adequately consulted in the context of this bill. I find that appalling. Since I come from Quebec, I may not understand all the subtleties of your sector. However, I appreciate what you said at the end of your presentation, that the growth of one industry can't be at the expense of another. I understand why you feel we're going to develop the wind industry at the expense of the fishing industry.

In that connection, I can only encourage you to send us suggestions for amending the bill. I don't know whether you've had any consultations within the group you represent, but you could also send us the results of those consultations and the impressions of the members of your group. I promise I will consider any documentation you can send us, and we will definitely be able to make certain amendments to the bill. However, I can't deny that it's a bit late and that it's really unfortunate that the government didn't bother to consult you. I wanted to tell you that because your voice has been heard.

I don't know whether you want to add anything.