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.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Yes, I'm sorry. This motion doesn't say why it was rejected. It just says that it was rejected. That's a fact. Part of the discovery goes to the issue as to why DFO rejected issuing the secondary permit that was required to keep the project going. It's a fact that DFO wouldn't issue the permit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have Mr. Longfield, Mr. van Koeverden, Mr. Deltell and Mr. Bachrach.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I think the way the motion is written and then amended is opening up the discussion to see what the situation is and how we might improve in the future. I don't think there's a conclusion there, other than that we don't have a project, which is a fact.
Having a discussion in the environment committee is a good place to have it. It does relate to Fisheries and Oceans, which might also have looked at this. It could also be for Natural Resources Canada, but because we are trying to make alternate energy projects in Canada successful, I think it's a good thing for our committee to look at the reasons a project isn't successful. It might be a legitimate reason, but I think we would know that once we've had a study to see whether there's anything we could be doing better or differently.
We might come to the conclusion that, no, everything was done properly and the reasons this project was cancelled follow a proper course of governance, but I think it's very good for us to look at it as a committee. It's three meetings and it does take away from other time, but I think that because it is in the media and because people are discussing it, it would be good for us to get some facts on the table.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Before we continue, the interpreters have asked me to mention that the members should not play with their earpiece close to the mike. I'm not quite sure what that means, but—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
This is a request from the interpreters.
I now give the floor to Mr. van Koeverden.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's not my intention to belabour this issue at all. I'm new to this committee, and I'm new to this issue. When I looked it up and read a bit about it, it was apparent to me that the project was withdrawn. There were a lot of factors involved, but suggesting that it was cancelled by DFO is not telling the whole story. I would just like that to be on the record.
Like everybody else who is new on this committee, I'm catching up and learning about the issue and the project, but I don't think it's accurate to state that this project was cancelled by DFO.
Conservative
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
What’s coming up is very interesting. We’re going to look at something that’s not too well known in the world of the environment and energy creation. You said yourself, Mr. Chair, that you’d learned a new word today. All the better, we are constantly learning. That said, tidal power has been around since the dawn of time. Where there are tides, there is the creation of motion, and therefore a source of potential energy.
As I reminded you, in Quebec, about ten or fifteen years ago, a project was launched on the St. Lawrence River in the Trois-Rivières region, if memory serves, but it didn’t yield conclusive results. However, as Mr. Perkins so aptly put it, the most powerful tides in Canada, if not the world, are in his neck of the woods, in the Bay of Fundy. This has true potential as a new source of energy, and God knows the people of Nova Scotia need it. Unfortunately, they are constrained by their geographic location and lack access to large rivers where hydroelectric dams can be built. As a result, they are forced to rely on fossil fuels such as coal, to a certain extent. They have to work to find new sources of clean energy. That’s great, because they have one: tidal power. Unfortunately, the project with the greatest future and hope has been abandoned.
Who’s responsible? I’ll just read you a CBC article from March 21, quoting the head of Sustainable Marine Energy. Mr. Mazier already read it very well earlier, but unfortunately it bears repeating. Here’s the passage in question:
The CEO...says his company is stepping back from its application for a site with the non-profit Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy...near Parrsboro, N.S.
The following statement is the most revealing as to why the company ended its project:
“We have notified [the Department of Fisheries and Oceans] that we are withdrawing, what is now our third application, for an authorization,” said Jason Hayman. “We have been working for about three years to get an authorization from DFO to deliver our project, but we are basically coming up against a brick wall.”
So whomever was behind the project said that, for three years, he’d been trying as hard as he could to make it work, but he’d run up against a brick wall. As a result, the project went belly-up, even though it had exceptional potential.
This committee has a duty and a responsibility to find out what happened. I don’t think I’m going overboard in mentioning this project directly, because, historically speaking, it’s the most forward-looking project we’ve had in Canada. However, the initiator of the project ran into a brick wall for three years. This is not the way to develop new green technologies. On the contrary, now more than ever, we need to speed up the process and give the green light to green energy projects. This is a great project with extraordinary potential for the people of Nova Scotia. Let’s move forward, try to understand why it didn’t work and make sure we don’t repeat the same mistakes.
Liberal
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm highly motivated to bring this to a head, and it seems like there's broad agreement from the committee to hold hearings and study this in greater depth. Really, where we disagree is on any language that presupposes what the reasons were for the termination of the project.
I think the goal is to have the hearings. The goal is not to have a motion that can somehow be used as a political tool. The goal is to get the information so that the committee can arrive at some conclusions about what the circumstances were that led to the loss of this investment, and how we move forward together to promote and ensure that we have renewable energy investment in Canada.
I think we're very close. With the subamendment that's been offered, the aim of it—if I understand it—is to refer specifically to the project. It's not to make it about tidal power in general, but to zero in on and at least include in the scope the circumstances surrounding this specific project.
I think the word that perhaps triggered Mr. van Koeverden's concerns is the word “shutdown”. Of course, the project can be shut down by the proponent or it can be shut down by the regulator. In this case, we don't know much about those circumstances, so I would offer that if we removed the word “shutdown” and simply had the name of the project—so that it said, “including, but not limited to, the Sustainable Marine Energy project”—we could probably all get together around that wording, draw this debate to a close and move on to having some hearings.
I'll offer that. I don't know whether offering it formally as a subamendment is going to raise the hackles of committee members, but I'll offer the observation that if we got rid of the word “shutdown”, I think we would be there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let me look around the room to see if there's an appetite for an amendment by Mr. Bachrach, if he's willing to just remove the words “the shutdown of the” so that it reads properly.
Mr. Bachrach, could you propose that? I don't think we even need to go to a vote if you propose it.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I would be happy to propose that we remove the word “shutdown” so that it would read, “including, but not limited to, the Sustainable Marine Energy project”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We actually have to remove the comma and remove “shutdown of the” so that it reads properly, but I think everyone gets that.
Are we good, everyone?
Ms. Pauzé, go ahead.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
No, now that an amendment has been proposed, I no longer need to comment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will go back to Mr. Longfield's amendment.
Would anyone like to speak to Mr. Longfield's amendment as amended, where we are adding “including, but not limited to, the Sustainable Marine Energy project”?
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I think Mr. Longfield’s amendment is good and I will be voting in favour of it.
I do wonder about one thing. I feel we are heading off in all directions. Three meetings would be scheduled for this, in addition to those already scheduled to discuss what happened in Alberta and the motion dealing with water. I’m having a bit of trouble figuring all this out, time-wise. In my opinion, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure could help us establish the schedule. If, every time a motion is tabled, we discuss how many meetings to devote to it, we tend to lose track of what we need to do.
Liberal
