Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Gilbert Bennett]

It's not just the Fisheries Act. It's the wildlife regulations, the investment tax credits and the clean electricity regulations. All of those have elements that are infinitely detailed, create regulatory risk and make it harder to get things done.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

If the regulatory regime that was enabled by the act was fully and correctly implemented, would that solve the problems or are changes needed to the act?

[Gilbert Bennett]

If the mindset was to deal with objective views of risk and the potential impacts on fisheries and fish populations and those decision criteria were effectively used, the concerns I outlined would be mitigated. Right now, there's no clear policy within the department that sees those questions and factors as important ones in decision-making.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Is there anything further that anybody wants to add? I have about 20 seconds left in my time.

[Lorena Patterson]

I'm just reiterating that we would prefer a balanced system that's fair and that takes into account every aspect of this, as opposed to the situation we have now. Clarity would help everyone on both sides.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. You're right on time.

Mr. Morrissey, go ahead for five minutes or less.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one question, and then I'm going to turn my time to Mr. Cormier. My question is for Ms. Patterson.

You referenced clarity over and over again—on numerous occasions. I would ask you to provide examples to the committee of clarity that you would recommend, because this process is about providing recommendations for change. Without going into them, as time is limited, could you be specific on, let's say, five areas where you think clarity would make it easier to determine what is defined?

[Lorena Patterson]

I think the—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

No, I don't want them now. Would you provide them in writing to the committee?

[Lorena Patterson]

Absolutely.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

The other question is about the changed definition of “fish”. Could you provide to the committee a number where there's ambiguity now? We need clarity in those areas.

I was on the original committee with members here when the act came in. Intent and implementation sometimes deliver differently. The intent in some areas, especially as to the changed definition of “fish”, where we went to finding each one.... Quite frankly, I don't think anybody could verify if we killed one fish someplace and had to find it. I would like you to provide to the committee in writing very detailed recommendations that would address the issues you've referenced here.

Go ahead, Mr. Cormier.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you.

I didn't have any questions today, but because of the discussion.... You're all electricity experts.

Mr. Gregg, I'm from northeast New Brunswick. You probably know that the Belledune power plant there, a coal-fired generation station, needs to be phased out by 2030. As it relates to the Fisheries Act, we're trying to find a fuel replacement, as you know, for this. It's essential. Let's say we find something—hydroelectricity, for example—and replace it. We'll definitely need an environmental impact assessment and all the things you were just saying.

Is it realistic to think that by 2030, with all the things you guys need to do under the act, under the law, we will have a new station with some kind of new power if we start the process, let's say, tomorrow? Is it realistic to think that with all of the requirements, we will be able to achieve that?

[Peter Gregg]

It depends, Mr. Cormier, on the type of facility, but the time is getting very tight to achieve that by 2030.

I'll expand on that from a Nova Scotia perspective. How we're replacing coal-fired generation in Nova Scotia is primarily through onshore wind. We'll be adding another thousand megawatts—perhaps a little more—of onshore wind, and the province will procure that through various tranches between now and 2029.

If you're looking at wind farms, I believe there is sufficient time to enable that transition to happen by 2030. We're also installing grid-scale batteries on the system to allow for a greater penetration of wind. We're actively in construction of those projects now.

If you want to start to build a new hydro facility, there is not enough time to get that done. I heard Mr. Bennett talk about the fact that he'd get a nuclear plant approved more quickly than a hydro facility, so getting a hydro facility approved before 2030.... I don't even think you'd get it approved, let alone built.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

What about hydrogen projects? There's one in Newfoundland. There are going to be some in Quebec. There's even a project in Belledune, in my area. Those will all need impact assessments.

[Peter Gregg]

They will. The hydrogen facilities I'm familiar with are going to rely on wind. They'll be building their own wind projects to generate the power to—

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The wind is the same on the water—for example, with those turbines—so under the Fisheries Act, they will have to have a—

[Peter Gregg]

The hydrogen projects that are planned in Nova Scotia will rely on onshore wind, not offshore wind. If they relied on offshore wind, they would take a lot longer to develop.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

What I'm trying to say is—and I'm not sure “soften” is the right word in English—if we try to make sure that the measures don't delay things, because we want to achieve net zero....

When it comes to power, if my residents don't find a fuel replacement for their coal power plant, the rates will go up, so if we're not ready and cannot do this fast enough, we're going to be in a tough position. What I'm hearing from you guys is let's make sure that good protection measures are there, but we can do this in a faster time and won't even need to protect fish habitat. Is that right?

[Peter Gregg]

I think what you're getting at is predictability, and Ms. Patterson was just speaking about that. Knowing what the requirements are and what a reasonable timeline is for meeting those requirements is essential for the transition to happen.

We work really closely with our friends at NB Power and have transmission interconnections. We're all trying to achieve the same 2030 goals, but really what we're looking for.... We are in this industry and we've been running hydroelectricity plants for over 100 years. We do care about the fish populations. We are stewards of the environment. We're fully supportive of getting off coal by 2030, but we need clear regulations with predictable outcomes and reasonable timelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I listened to you answer other members' questions, I thought that your requests were pretty clear. I say this with all seriousness: it is very clear to us that you need more clarity and that a national biodiversity protection strategy is the key. That is something that could probably be incorporated into the Fisheries Act, but I'm not sure it falls entirely within the scope of the act. Nevertheless, the reality is you have to start somewhere.

A predictable framework is necessary, a clear strategy and clear standards that can be applied to different areas, depending on the species and whether it is in danger of extinction. The actions to take would be clear while being tailored to those different realities. You would have a basis to work with when bringing forward your projects. You would have a predictable framework going forward. You would have access to tools and scientific opinions. Perhaps you could even contribute to our collective understanding of biodiversity protection.

Is that a recommendation you would like the committee to make as part of its study?

[Lorena Patterson]

Yes, we would agree with that for new projects, but it's also important to distinguish between projects that are already operating and have been operating for 100 years...and not forcing them to go through the same thing.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Yes, the two are quite different.

[Lorena Patterson]

That's right.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.