Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2024

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—the problem is it's not true because the reality is that—

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

No. It's absolutely true.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—in Bill C-69, the minister has the power to interfere, stop, start or extend the timeline of any project assessment for any condition the minister deems necessary. That's why Bill C-69 causes such uncertainty.

My concern is that the clauses from Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49. I will quote what the Supreme Court said about a section. It said that this section “grants the decision maker a practically untrammelled power to regulate projects...regardless of...jurisdiction”.

This is the problem. It's the issue of political interference being able to set new conditions. Also, there's the impact of being able to unilaterally declare antidevelopment zones. It causes great uncertainty for offshore development on offshore petroleum, but also any private sector proponent who wants to get into developing offshore renewables—

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

In an industry on which my province relies for its prosperity, you managed to change the goalpost from 300 to 900 days. That is political interference. We reduced it to 90. It's as simple as that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Your government has been in power for nine years.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

We did that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

But there are zero bids for projects offshore in Newfoundland.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The time is up.

We will now proceed to our next speaker. From the Liberal Party of Canada, we have Ms. Jones for six minutes.

Go ahead, Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I know you understand the importance of the Atlantic Accord to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia—probably better than most, having lived through a number of processes as they relate to changes to the accord. I have too.

It has not gone unnoticed how important the Atlantic Accord has been to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in building a strong economy and strong workplace. Not only did they lead the way in offshore oil development, but they set in place the trades, the labour component and the skill development—everything you need to build any industry within the province.

Today they're asking to lead in offshore wind, which is a clean energy sector. In fact, Premier Furey has already posted today how important it is that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador see passage of Bill C-49 amendments so they can move forward on the bold path they've carved out for themselves in offshore wind in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Minister, I want to ask you today to bring to light for this committee how important this bill is to Atlantic Canadians, to the labour force, to the families who live there and to the overall economy of Atlantic Canada.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

At home, we just call it “the accord”. It's just called the accord.

When I was Minister of Indigenous Services and, stepping outside of that role, in my role as regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, we were able to find an additional $2.5 billion, using the levers of the accord, for our provincial government and our province's economy. That's astounding, as I know you know, Ms. Jones. That's a lot of money for us. Because it was recurring funding over a number of years, it positively affected the credit rating of the province almost immediately and saved additional hundreds of millions of dollars.

What it did at that time—such a pivotal time in our history—was that it gave us control of our destiny. There is nothing we can do with the Atlantic Accord federally without it being mirrored provincially. Similarly, legislation provincially must be mirrored federally. We have to agree on these things. There's no getting around it. That sort of autonomy gave us such a sense of pride and a sense of prosperity at the time. Some people have called the Atlantic Accord our document of prosperity.

In my lifetime, it has created an industry that we are so proud of. We export our talent and our people all around the world. I sit on a plane, as many of you know, on flights from St. John's to Toronto, and the guy next to me is going to Mongolia at 29 years old because of the things he knows and the things he has learned. This is not something I thought we were capable of doing. Nobody thought we were capable of doing this 30 years ago. We are some of the best in the world at it.

You provide a form of stability and investment that provides training and benefits for a province. You allow them control. You attract investment.

We would have to reproduce something or would have to come up with some new government entity or body in order to embrace the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs that this has the capability of producing. Why would we do that? This works perfectly well. It has been proven and people believe in it. More importantly, the investment community believes in it. Actually, more important than that is that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians believe in it.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Absolutely they do.

We know it's about jobs and it's about labour. It's about Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia really owning the royalties that they create on offshore energy projects.

We also know that it's being done in a supportive way with others who use the ocean. The issue of the interaction with the fishing industry has been raised here. We've developed offshore oil and gas in a great partnership with the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we're looking to do so with offshore wind as well.

Can you inform the committee about what consultations or engagements have taken place with the fisheries and oceans sector within the provinces?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

C-NLOPB, which I think will now be the C-NLOEPB, just to incorporate all forms of energy that we now realize are off our shores, has had mechanisms like One Ocean, for instance, that deal directly with the FFAW and with fishermen to make sure there's no overlap.

It's not always perfect, but people come to an agreement at the end of the day. We have a structure and an environment in which everyone gets along. Everybody can make money and at the same time value these important resources that exist off our shores. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we are all too aware of the fragility of our fishery. We have to make sure that they can all coexist. We have allowed them to coexist over the tenure of this offshore industry that has blossomed over the past three decades.

We're some of the best at it. We'll continue to do it.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I'll make this a short question, in 30 seconds. I want to focus on jobs and the economic value for Atlantic Canada.

There have been so many skilled labour forces and trades developed across these provinces. We know that they're out there looking for new developments and new initiatives.

Can you tell us what the impact on the jobs and the economy will be in Atlantic Canada?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I'll have a much better idea of what the impact will be as soon as we can get this legislation passed because that's what investment is waiting on.

Let's not dilly-dally with this. We have billions of dollars in the offing. We know where investment money is going around the world.

AIMCo in Alberta just announced a new billion-dollar fund. They also added that they've been investing in renewables and energy transition—that's their language—for pretty much the past 10 years.

Let's not miss out on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Thank you, Minister.

We will now proceed to Mr. Simard from the Bloc Québécois for six minutes.

The floor is yours, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you again, Mr. O'Regan. You were the first minister of Natural Resources appointed after I arrived in the House in 2019.

Something you said in your opening remarks struck me. You said that oil saved your province. The problem is that now we have to save the planet from oil, and that means a transition. For me, the transition is quite simple. We need to move from carbon-intensive energy to low-carbon energy. Unfortunately, I get the impression that most of your government's actions are geared toward supporting the oil and gas sector.

You're the Minister of Labour and Seniors. You'll understand what I'm getting at. We have to transition. You may not like the term “just transition”, but workers will have to be supported as the Canadian economy transitions. My feeling is that not enough is being done to move away from fossil fuels. In that sense, I found your opening remarks quite revealing because you said that oil saved your province.

You talked about seeing the German chancellor and CEOs of big companies like Siemens come to your region. I had the opportunity to go to Germany with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and meet with people from Siemens, but those leaders made it clear to us that they thought making blue hydrogen, which is derived from gas, was a non-starter because the technological risk was much too high. In other words, it would cost far too much to ever be profitable.

I want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to come out ahead, and I hope there will be a transition for them. If wind power can make that happen, so much the better, but I get the impression that the oil and gas sector is competing with the clean energy sector, and the government isn't refereeing the game. In other words, you're still giving massive amounts of money to the oil and gas sector. Case in point: the $30‑billion pipeline. I don't see you making courageous decisions, such as supporting clean energy to the same extent as other western countries.

I keep all of that in mind when I look at Bill C‑49. Personally, I am in favour of provincial autonomy. This bill does not contradict that principle, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to see it passed. Why would I vote against this bill? I would be angry if a member from Newfoundland and Labrador came and encouraged us to vote against an agreement between Quebec and Canada. The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that it's still a bill that I feel is designed to support fossil fuels. Why? Because it allows for the authorization of new oil and gas development. In my opinion, the government is not using this bill to do the courageous thing that would enable us to shift from carbon-intensive energy to low-carbon energy.

The purpose of wind, as I understand it, is to make blue hydrogen. Tax credits for hydrogen are also given to folks in the natural gas sector who want to make blue hydrogen, not green hydrogen. Those two sectors will be competing. So I feel that, at the end of the day, this bill is a waste of time. They want to take the word “hydrocarbon” out of the agreement and talk about energy instead. This is actually a kind of greenwashing, because the largest part of the agreement is about fossil fuels.

I don't know if you agree with me.

Sorry, that may have been a long intervention.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Simard.

I wish the transition were easy. It's not going to be easy. It's going to be messy, it's going to be difficult and it's going to be challenging. However, it could be incredibly prosperous for the people of my province and the people of the country as a whole if we get it right. Abrupt stops and starts to whole industries, especially when....

I know that a lot of people in some parts of this country don't appreciate this. In Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta, we appreciate this. We are the fourth-biggest producers of oil in the world and the fifth-biggest producers of gas. That is big. There is no getting to net zero or transitions without those three provinces. It isn't going to happen. Every part of the country benefits from that prosperity.

Having said that, I often say that in my part of the country, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we can't really afford ideology. We don't let that get in the way. Stare opportunities squarely in the face. This is about jobs and money. These are opportunities from investors coming and knocking on our door and German chancellors landing their planes and telling us we are the place they want to invest in for green hydrogen. It's great.

I'll tell you who I find incredibly brave. Don't look necessarily to the politicians. Look to the workers of my province. There is a community in Newfoundland called Argentia. They are building a gravity-based structure for the West White Rose project. If you stand there and look at it, this thing reaches right up to the sky. This was built by men and women using cement driven in wheelbarrows to go to the top of this thing and build it. It is a gravity-based structure for an offshore oil rig. Right next to it, they are building the biggest monopile marshalling port on the eastern seaboard, putting together wind turbines for the entire eastern seaboard.

That's a transition. That is staying out of the way of investment but allowing workers to do the work they do. The same workers and same unions building one are also building the other. This is how it happens. It happens before your eyes. It's not a big “stop one and start the other”. It is going to take time.

I agree with you, Monsieur Simard, that we need to get faster at it. There's no question. However, I'll tell you what: This unnecessary obstruction of legislation that would attract renewable investment isn't helping things much. We need to get busy.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

On that note, thank you, Mr. Simard, and thank you, Minister, for your response.

We'll now go to Mr. Angus from the New Democratic Party.

The floor is yours, sir, for six minutes.

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

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Minister.

I just want to set the record straight. It would be fair to say that you and I have had our scraps over the years.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Yes.

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

If I do interrupt you, because you're full of flight and fancy right now, it's only because I have a bunch of questions.

That being said, I think what really concerns me is that we have a window, and that window will pass us by if we don't move. Since Biden moved on the IRA, with half a trillion dollars in new investments, they're at twice what they said they would get for solar capacity three years ago. They're at 43% more than what they said they would get for wind.

I'm dumbfounded that I'm sitting here at a committee where my Conservative colleagues are going to vote against jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador just out of spite. We have an opportunity. Those projects are going to the United States. They're construction jobs. They're long-term jobs. They're jobs for the communities.

How is it possible that we could sit on the sidelines and let that opportunity go to the United States, China or Europe, leaving us in the dirt?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Angus, I would just say to you, as I've said to members of this committee already, that if we didn't have the Atlantic Accord and the C-NLOPB, we'd have to invent it. That would just take time. Plus, it would take time to build up a reputation as being a safe place for investors to go. We have that.

When I think about our nuclear industry, going back to when I was natural resources minister, that's another industry that is extremely competitive. One thing that really strikes me is that one of our greatest advantages is our regulatory regime. It's one of the best in the world. Investors know it and trust it. People know that it contributes to safe and clean forms of energy. We cannot let that be squandered. We cannot whittle that away. You are absolutely right.

When I was the natural resources minister and Dan Brouillette was the secretary of energy, he and I got along very well, but the Trump administration was not exactly favourable to these things. A 180° has happened. I can tell you that, ultimately, people will follow the money. Renewables have only plummeted in cost, and profits will only rise.

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

Thank you.

On the issue of certainty, investors will not come to a place where the message is that if you're clean and alternative energy, we're going to block development. This is my concern.

Andrew Furey, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, whom I've not personally met—

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

He's a good guy.