Natural Resources Committee on March 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for inviting committee members for input.

We would need something in writing if you are prepared to move forward, but we will go to other members to comment.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Maybe I will go back to where I started in this conversation. It was that we actually have letters from two provincial ministers that specifically address the amendment that had been proposed by the Conservatives, including.... The language is a little bit easier for me to quote in the context of the one from the minister from Newfoundland and Labrador. It specifically deals with the environmental piece. We all have a copy of this letter.

The minister says that “This amendment...fails to recognize the evaluation of potential impact from energy projects is already assessed through spatial planning, such as Regional Assessments, and regulatory review processes outlined in the existing Accord Acts and Bill C-49.”

It goes on in a lot more detail; there are a couple of pages here. The main point is that the bill is negotiated with the provinces, respecting the provinces and their input into how this is done. I would like us to take into account the correspondence that we've received from the ministers from Nova Scotia and from Newfoundland and Labrador and respect their champs de compétence.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Patzer.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you.

Now, I guess this would go into my comments that I was going to save for later, but I think the reason this is important is that the existing accord deals with offshore petroleum development. We're talking about one platform that's confined to a smaller area. When you're talking about offshore renewables, you're talking about multiple points across a vast area and a vast landscape. That's why the concerns around the environmental characteristics of the ocean floor all of a sudden become a much bigger factor. Now you're dealing with tens if not hundreds of square kilometres that will be taken out of fishing activities. Also, now we'll be at risk of significantly altering the environmental characteristics of that ocean floor.

That's why I'm talking about the environmental characteristics of that offshore area. As I said, with petroleum, it's one platform. It may have multiple points down. It will have the cables, the guy wires, to help support it, yes, but when you factor in a wind farm and what that entails, it's so much more than what one petroleum platform would be. You can't compare the two. They're not the same. There are some principles that do apply, but when you apply it, broadly speaking, to several individual turbines....

It does depend on whether it's a floating wind farm. I'm not sure how widely deployed those are at this point, but there still is an anchoring system that goes in there. There will be multiple aspects to that floating wind farm. It's not just one floating apparatus. There will be several of them, which means several points of tie-down to the ocean floor. We are still talking about multiple interactions with the ocean floor. Again, having significant alterance to the environmental characteristics of the floor has a direct impact on the various species that live on or near the bottom of the ocean floor. That's why I think this is an important piece to consider.

Again, we did hear that from witness testimony. If the committee wants to have a hard-copy proposal, I'd be happy to get the text of the intervention that we had from a witness. Being that we had only a couple of minutes to do all this, I don't have that immediately in front of me. I do know that it was mentioned in the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Before I move to Mrs. Stubbs, I just want to let you know that, if you do want to propose another subamendment, you'll need to prepare something in writing for the clerk so that we can get it out. If you do decide you want to do that, that's something that you may want to prepare.

In the interim, I will go to Mrs. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to thank MP Patzer for the points he has made regarding our Conservative intention to insert the consideration of environmental characteristics through the process of issuing submerged land licences.

Of course, the whole point of Bill C-49, I would remind all colleagues and Canadians, is precisely to expand the scope, the deliverables and the mandate of the regulators through the bill. The regulators, of course, have decades of history and expertise and a skill set dealing with offshore petroleum development. The entire point of Bill C-49 is to add the regulatory scope, mandate and enforcement powers around offshore renewable development.

For the life of me, I certainly would not understand why a Liberal or Bloc or NDP MP would vote against including the principle of the regulator in addition to the other improvements that have been made through the subamendments, or why an MP of any party would vote against inserting the importance of the regulator, under the new scope of its mandate for offshore renewables, considering the protection of environmental characteristics, in particular, as MP Patzer and other Conservative MPs have said here, and as we heard in the witness testimony during the albeit rushed and shortened timeline that the Liberals and NDP forced on the bill.

The amendment, of course, just reflects those principles, which witnesses have also said. It seems to me that we can achieve all of the things that we appear to agree on, or that I think we appear to agree on, by keeping in, as Conservatives already just did, the support of the subamendments dealing with points (a) and (b). Certainly, I would urge colleagues to accept this subamendment, if MP Patzer is able to provide it to us, which would maintain the Conservative inclusion that the regulator maintain the environmental characteristics in consideration of issuing submerged land licences for offshore renewable development.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm just trying to follow the bouncing ball here. The Conservatives had an amendment, and then they supported a subamendment that they said improved their amendment, but now they're not happy with the amendment and they're going back to their amendment.

Are they actually giving us a subamendment, or are we talking in circles? Until we see a subamendment, I don't know what we're talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I know I'm repeating this several times, but I do think I should keep pointing out that the ministers from the provincial governments—including a Conservative minister—with whom this has all been negotiated, have specifically stated that they do not want to see the changes the Conservatives are proposing. They have talked about how they place great importance on their fishing industries and that they also want to make sure that they will be working to minimize any impacts on our fisheries. That is the wording that's coming from Minister Rushton.

Just to help move this along, I will ask the officials.

We've heard now the concerns that are being raised by the Conservatives. What, within this bill, do we have that would be responding to some of the concerns that they're raising within this whole regime?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Thank you for the question.

To reiterate, governments have an important role to play in undertaking research in advance of a “call for bids” process to help identify where suitable areas for offshore renewable energy development can be located, taking into consideration such factors as existing uses of the sea.

Throughout the land tenure process, there are numerous opportunities to engage with stakeholders, including the fisheries sector, on those site assessment decisions. Then when we are at the point of a specific project, through the impact assessment and other regulatory steps, the impacts—including the environmental impacts of those projects—will be assessed and the regulator can impose terms and conditions through its authorization process.

In addition to and outside of the accord acts, governments still have an important role to play in research, data collection and cumulative effects assessment to understand the impacts of energy development in the offshore. There certainly is a growing body of evidence from international jurisdictions that have had offshore renewable energy in their offshore for decades that is helping to inform government decisions and the environmental assessment process in terms of the impacts of renewables on the fishing sector and the ecosystem at large.

Those are the types of things we're drawing on and the provinces are drawing on to support the fishing sector in particular.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That was very helpful. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I will go to Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you.

To pick up on what Ms. Lixfeld just mentioned, I'm curious to know...because this would then become a no-trawler zone. You have to make sure that's not part of what you're dealing with if your electrical transmission lines are going to be on the ocean floor.

That, then, would have to be, I assume, one of those conditions that is put on the industry. You would probably have, in the discussions, information from Europe and other places that would indicate what types of restrictions they've had to put in those zones where you see hundreds of hectares of ocean that have these structures.

We know that, if it is an oil derrick or whatever, there are restrictions around that particular...but that isn't this massive zone where you might see many dozens or hundreds of structures. Is that what you are referencing?

That's why, when we talk about “environmental characteristics”, we're trying to say, it has to fit in with the way the fishers fish and the way things are done. Is that being taken into consideration with the wording that you see in...? Let's start with CPC-12 and then tie in the subamendment, if we need to.

Is that not being shown and looked at when we talk about environmental characteristics?

I believe that's what we're trying to do with the subamendment, which hopefully we will have the time to be able to expand and let everybody look at.

Can you tell me what you have seen, what other jurisdictions have done and whether they speak to the environmental characteristics of the region where these renewable energy projects are located?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

In general, terms and conditions speak to the mitigation of the effects of a specific project. They are not necessarily oriented towards preserving an ecosystem, for example.

One thing that is challenging is that the decision to move forward with a renewable energy project is a decision that is taken by government on the recommendation of the regulator. It is up to government to decide the balance of effects and to ensure that the regulator has the ability to impose terms and conditions that mitigate and manage any potential effects to the extent possible and to ensure that projects are developed and implemented safely and with environmental safety and protection in mind. Ultimately, that is what we feel the subamendment reinforces, and it is consistent with the role of the regulator in carrying out its activities and carrying out the instructions of government with respect to where and how development of these resources should occur.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

May I just respond?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, go ahead.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

It seems like we're caught up on this term of “environmental characteristics” as though we have to take that out of it because that wasn't a term that was used when we were talking with the various provinces and so on. However, is that not exactly what you're saying—that we look at environmental characteristics and have to make decisions, and that the regulators are going to make decisions based on the environmental characteristics?

I'm just having trouble trying to figure out why we don't just include that. Again, if we know we're on the right track and it really is “environmental characteristics” and that's what regulators have to deal with, why can't we take the time to include that and find the wording that Mr. Patzer is attempting to put together? Is it not the “environmental characteristics” that each of those regulators have to pay attention to?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Certainly, assessing environmental considerations and environmental characteristics is a way of describing the regulatory process. I think there was some concern with the original amendment as proposed and the language around developing “measures to assist in the preservation of the fishing industry, including measures to assist in understanding and maintaining the environmental characteristics”. It's hard to parse out just the word “characteristics”.

When we looked at the original amendment that was proposed, it was read in a particular context, which is hard to place in the context of the accord acts and the regulatory decisions that need to be taken. A different characterization or a different wording of the subamendment might lead us to a different perspective. However, again, we do feel that the subamendment that was proposed by the provinces does address—in a way that is consistent with the purpose and the mandate of the regulators and with the purpose of the accord acts—and acknowledge the importance of the fishing sector and the importance of mitigating and managing potential impacts of development on the offshore environment and the broader ecosystem.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you.

Perhaps that would make it easier, then, with those parameters set for us, to come up with the proper wording of a subamendment.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. I think we've asked and answered a lot of questions on this.

Mr. Patzer, I'm going to go back to you. Do you have a subamendment that you would like to present, or would you like to continue and vote on the amendment as amended?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, obviously, we want to propose something like that. I had a quick chat with the clerk about some wording here.

Also, I still haven't seen the new wording of the amendment after we voted on the subamendment. Once I get the actual new wording of the amendment, it will be easier to try to insert something in at that point.

I want to go back to the point on how we heard repeatedly throughout the process with witnesses that this was rushed. That's why we are focused on trying to have a piece of legislation—with the addition of this new piece—that is going to actually take into consideration the environmental characteristics of the offshore area. The reason is that, when we put in a new piece of legislation or add a substantive chunk to an existing one, as we're doing with the Atlantic accords here, it's important that we take this opportunity to make sure that we do it right.

If you set the standard now in legislation for what they need to do, rather than just wait to do this process when the SLL application happens.... I mean, it kind of comes down to a lot of other government bills that we have seen where there's a change to the Criminal Code or whatever, but it's so vague that there is actually no certainty and it's left to the courts to decide and determine what's actually going to happen and go on. This causes more uncertainty and delay, and then we get some crazy court rulings that end up happening that nobody agrees with.

Therefore, I think it's important that we legislate to make sure that we set the parameters that we want as legislators, because we're the ones who are responsible for doing that work. That's our job. I'm not saying that the provinces haven't considered these things. However, when we hear from all these other witnesses about how rushed the process was or about the fact that they were only given a couple of days to prepare their witness testimony because they weren't consulted, that's where it becomes problematic. Because they weren't given the time to adequately prepare what they would like to see in the consultation phase, it becomes problematic. That's why we are going to bat for some of these key issues that came up during limited witness testimony on another rushed piece of Liberal government legislation.

I think it's important that we take the time to make sure that we get it right and that we raise up these specific points that, again, we heard throughout witness testimony. That's why this has become a bit of a sticking point here.

We definitely agreed to what the government proposed as a subamendment. I do think it did help provide a little bit more.... It kind of tightened it up a little bit, which is good, which is fine. The reason I wanted to let that pass was that I thought, okay, maybe we could tweak a few things here rather than try to do a whole massive thing at once. I thought we could agree on a basis point, and if there was a way to tweak that, to get the certainty around the environmental characteristics.... I just think it was important to do one, and then we can do the other.

That kind of answers Charlie's point about what the heck we're doing here.

My initial ask was whether there was a will from the committee to include “environmental characteristic” in this. That way I would be able to come back to this committee with a hard proposal for the wording around that. If we can do that on the fly here, that's great, but I was just trying to gauge the feeling in the room to see if there was a willingness to do something on this. I think we've outlined the reason and the case for why we should do that with regard to the characteristics of the offshore area.

If “characteristics” is too broad and vague of a term.... Well, I think “characteristics” is actually a good descriptive word because we know that the ocean floor is active and changing. It doesn't just stay exactly the same. It shifts. It changes. It moves. There are ocean currents and different things like that. There are different species there. They all play a role in the environmental characteristics of the ocean floor. It's a moving thing. It's a constant. It's not ever just completely stationary and idle like, say, a mountainside. However, even that changes. We know that.

Therefore, it's important that we have wording in here that is going to properly reflect what will provide the most certainty for investors and proponents and for the courts. There's a reason that the Department of Justice is here. We're trying to make sure that we have things that are legally going to work.

As legislators, it is our job to make sure that we have everything in the bill that needs to be there. Again, I'm not saying that the provinces are wrong. I'm just saying that I think that, while we have this bill in front of us, it is important to take the time to make inclusions that possibly were missed or were skipped over.

Again, we get back to the point that the bill was rushed, and here we are. We look at the long, extensive list of amendments that have been proposed here. I mean, I've only ever had one or two bills before me in committee over my four years as an elected MP, and I think this has the most amendments that I've ever seen proposed to a piece of legislation.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

What about the 20,000?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Well....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!