Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Thank you. You have my apologies.

Again, this demonstrates legislation that is rushed without due consideration of the situation and the approach to the development being undertaken. We have tried to raise these issues with your senior officials and have been told to take it to the committee and discuss it directly with you.

Here we are, and I sincerely hope you listen to our advice.

In short, the legislation before you has clearly been rushed in its development. While it may be well suited for its original purpose of ensuring that offshore petroleum development is conducted in a fair and environmentally safe manner, it is not appropriate for offshore wind development.

We intend to provide a more fulsome brief to this committee that includes the shared perspective of others in the fishing industry; however, given that we only received our invite scant days ago, we haven't been able to complete this in time for today.

Let us be clear. We have the time to develop good legislation and a gold standard for offshore energy development. We have the responsibility to do it right for our members, our communities and the marine environment they depend on for survival. We implore you to take that time and use it wisely.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening statement.

We will now go to Ian MacPherson from Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Ian MacPherson, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association and the 1,360 captains we represent, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for the opportunity to present today on aspects of Bill C-49.

We understand the purpose of the proposed legislation is threefold: form a new regulatory scheme, establish a ministerial decision-making process and make regulations to prohibit commencement or continuation of petroleum or renewable energy projects.

Although the current jurisdictions referenced in the bill refer to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, it is important to note that other Atlantic provinces, such as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, can be directly impacted by damage to the marine environment or marine aquatic life in the gulf region.

It is critical that an overarching board be aware of the following concerns that must be addressed when assessing either ocean-based petroleum or energy projects. The following is a list of preliminary concerns around offshore wind development. We suggest this level of detail be included in documents related to offshore projects so important areas do not get missed or minimized. This can happen when federal and provincial jurisdiction overlaps or environmental studies do not have the same terms of reference.

The challenge for first-time and new projects is the lack of historical and baseline data for an area under consideration for development. For example, negative impacts on North American lobster may not be felt for five to seven years in the future.

In terms of fishing interactions, what types of gear restrictions may be applied within offshore wind farm areas? Some European offshore wind farms have prohibitions on bottom trawling due to concerns about interactions that may occur between trawl gear and the offshore sea-floor infrastructure. Do offshore wind companies plan to continue to allow fishing within lease areas? How are they going to minimize these interactions while ensuring the safety and livelihoods of fishers in these areas?

In Ireland, where fishing remains permitted, fishing effort has been shown to decrease due to fisher concerns about safety. In current marine spatial planning in the gulf region, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is using adjacency estimates for catch locations, not factual data. What process will ensure data is reviewed with fishers to confirm that DFO's assumptions are correct?

There are concerns about acoustic impacts during the planning and construction phases of a farm or turbine construction, depending on the technology used—fixed or floating. What data is available on this? Acoustic noise from pile driving has been shown to have a wide range of negative impacts on many species. How will this be assessed? Disrupted behaviour among marine mammals occurs at ranges of many kilometres when interactions occur near noise sources. How will this be tracked?

How will acoustic noise from pile driving impacts on the health and behaviour of marine animals, including American lobster and various species of demersal fish, be assessed? How will the effects of increased shipping noise during construction be assessed? What types of tools will be incorporated into sea-floor mapping at lease sites? What is the lifespan of these units and who is responsible for dismantling and decommissioning costs?

We are very concerned about the use of seismic testing. It has been shown, both regionally and globally, to negatively impact various aspects of marine invertebrates' health and behaviour. Data is lacking on the long-term effects on reproduction and how future stocks could be affected by the development of offshore wind farms.

Electromagnetic fields, like those produced by the sea-floor cables used to transfer power from offshore wind farms to land, have the potential to negatively affect the early development of larval crustaceans in their vicinity. How will this be assessed?

Last but not least, the fishing industry has been working tirelessly to protect North Atlantic right whales with mitigation measures. Fishers have spearheaded the testing of lower breaking-strength ropes and surface rope. We've been asked to move our gear out of areas where right whales have been spotted. This will not be possible for floating turbines. How will collisions [Technical difficulty—Editor] be minimized? Shipping traffic will also increase during construction and maintenance. How will that density be assessed?

In summation, we currently know the value of our fisheries from both a monetary and community contribution perspective. It is critical that policies and decision-makers understand that large-scale ocean-based projects can have immediate and far-reaching negative aspects on our fisheries. Electric power is important. Food is more important. No project should proceed if our valuable Canadian food resources are put at risk.

Thank you.

I'm sorry I was a little over there, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening statement.

If anyone would like to provide more information, you do have until February 16 at 5 p.m. to provide a brief. I know that was mentioned in a few opening statements.

We will now proceed to our first round of questions. We may get through only one full round.

We will begin with Mr. Small from the Conservative Party of Canada, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for taking part in the study and second reading of this bill.

I will start with you, Mr. Vascotto. Do you think the Conservatives are trying to hang up this legislation, or do you think we're simply wanting to give stakeholders like you...? You are a stakeholder when wind energy and the fishing industry compete for the same territory.

What's your opinion on that?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

To be honest, as we've been sitting back trying to engage in this process, we've actually been very welcoming of the opportunity to come to committee and make these statements. In many respects, this is democracy in action. You have been able to hear our concerns. You have been able to hear Mike's concerns. You have been able to hear concerns about labour.

The hope is that these conversations that are happening at this committee will then be taken back to help shape a better piece of legislation that better shapes the landscape. To be honest, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be able to come forward and have these discussions.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Vascotto, had this bill gone from first to second to third reading without entering committee for review, where would that have left you with your concerns?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

As we have been having these discussions internally about offshore energy development and offshore wind energy in particular, we would have been at the end point of having to see this get delivered to us. Then you would have seen us being forced to come back to try to find an avenue of recourse to be able to solve these problems before they became legislated in law. We would have been working closely with the CNSOER under its new name brand, but really, this is a question about trying to solve the problem before it becomes a problem. This is what we view this process as being all about.

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

Would you say that this process will lend more certainty to those who want to eventually invest in our offshore? Could a process like this put the framework in place that your industry needs to make sure your concerns are looked after?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Yes. I would say that this process of being able to provide our perspective and see it come out in the legislation inspires confidence in the fishing industry. You become much less obstructive toward any sort of ocean development that's ongoing if you know that your concerns are being mindfully cared for during the development of the legislation and during the implementation of the regulations.

I also would suggest that a proponent would be in a much better position of understanding that the fishing industry had confidence in what was being done as opposed to taking another perspective.

Thank you.

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

Again, Mr. Vascotto, on February 29 Minister Wilkinson said, and I quote, that he sees the bill as standing as is, in response to our questioning about whether or not he would be open to amendments or changes.

If this bill doesn't change to address the framework that you're looking for as a fishing industry stakeholder and for the 20 groups that you represent, where does that leave you?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Thank you. That's a great question. An intractable position always generates some degree of push-back. I can envision the discussions we'll have: What are we going to do now that we don't have confidence that our interests and our concerns are being upheld?

I hope that there will be wisdom in what has been discussed at this committee by all parties and that everybody's perspective will be seen in what develops as the final product.

Thank you.

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

If we can't get a final product out of this bill that builds in the framework for consultation that your industry needs, could that breed conflict and could that cause investors to be less certain about investing in wind energy in Atlantic Canada?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Thank you.

I would say it wouldn't just be investors who are concerned about investing in wind energy. I think the fishing communities would be concerned about providing investment for much-needed fleet renewals and much-needed plant renewals. Really, this becomes a larger question if there's a lack of confidence.

Thank you.

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

You mentioned earlier that vast areas of ocean will go off-line. What does that look like to you in terms of the economic impacts on the fishing industry?

Would it also affect the conducting of DFO science within wind farms, based on your knowledge?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Yes, very much so. If we look at an idea of five gigawatts of power, which is industry accepted, and about five megawatts per kilometre, you're looking at about a thousand square kilometres of ocean that will be immediately taken out. What that means is that scientific surveys can't be done in those areas, which means we no longer have confidence in the type of stock dynamics occurring within those areas.

It begins to undermine the science, depending on where these areas were placed. Michael put this very clearly by saying, if you go to those less than 30-metre depths and put it entirely within the lobster producing area, you're taking one of the most valuable exports out of Nova Scotia and knocking a hole in its ability to land that wild fish and seafood. At the same time, fishers can't just adjust once you take these areas out. Because it piles more effort into a smaller area, we can actually do more damage to the stock.

There are a lot of pieces and a lot of strings that you can pull at with this ball. You start to see that this is a far more difficult question than simply talking about one small piece of ground.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening round of questions and answers.

We'll now go to Mr. Sorbara for six minutes.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Parliamentary Secretary Jones in this round.

One question goes over to Mr. Schumann. Steve, your union represents workers across the country. They would be employed in the renewable energy sector—in this case, offshore wind.

We have put forward a number of measures here with our government, including in budget 2022, budget 2023 and the fall economic statement, with the tax credits and the ITCs. These will require us to make sure that we pay prevailing union wages and provide apprenticeship training opportunities to be met in order to receive the maximum credit rate for the clean technology, clean hydrogen, clean electricity and CCUS investment tax credits.

In your eyes, along with Bill C-49 and what we've laid out in ITCs, how important is it to you—and, more importantly, to your members and for future apprenticeships—for Bill C-49 to pass and to have the ITCs come into effect?

[Steven Schumann]

Thank you for the question.

Obviously, we build it all and we see that renewable energy is necessary not only for climate change but for us to get ahead of it. I think it's very important in the sense that it will provide us with opportunities, but we need to make sure now, through the tax credits, that those opportunities really do exist. This is because a company can do a project and choose to either meet the prevailing wage to get the full tax credit or just to use cheaper labour, not meet the standards and not get the tax credit.

I want to make sure that we benefit at all ends. If we can ensure that the work is met with prevailing wages and that Canadians can do it, it's a win-win for us.

However, I am somewhat concerned. I see what's happening in the U.S. and how much other work is being done globally on offshore wind. You'll see lots of offshore work being done by foreign companies, with foreign workers from Denmark and Norway, and we'll lose some of that opportunity.

We'll fight for that work and we'll push for it, but I think we need to have more safeguards in place to ensure that we can maximize it.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Schumann, for that answer.

Mr. Chair, I'll turn my remaining time to Parliamentary Secretary Jones. Thank you.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

I want to thank all the witnesses. You've made some very important points as they relate to the bill.

First of all, I'm happy to see you're not opposed to the bill, and I think your concerns are very legitimate, especially in terms of the workers and ensuring Canadian workers have jobs. I agree with Mr. Schumann. I also agree that any development we do in the ocean needs to have as minimal an impact—or no impact—on fish stocks as we possibly can.

I know there's not enough time for everyone to answer questions. However, I do want to acknowledge the work of Mr. Nicholson and his contribution to our committee today.

I'm going to start with the fisheries piece. In terms of what we're doing in the offshore right now with oil and gas, for example, how have the relationships been between fisheries organizations in Nova Scotia—Prince Edward Island is appearing here as well, so feel free to jump in—and the offshore oil industry in moving that piece of energy forward? How is it different in terms of what's being looked at in the offshore wind sector and other renewables? If there's a duplication of models that work, we want to hear about it. Maybe it wasn't in previous legislation. Maybe it's not in this legislation, but maybe there are best practices that have worked. I'd like to hear about that, and how you've been able to get around it.

If there's enough time, I want to go to Mr. Schumann, because it goes without saying that everything we do in energy development has to be done to maintain not just the best environmental protections for fish and other species but also to ensure maximum employment and opportunities for communities and workers in Canada. I'd like to take a few minutes to hear what his suggestions would be around this bill to maximize the incentives and benefits for Canadian workers and communities.

Maybe we can start with Mr. Barron, who presented first on the fisheries piece.

[Michael Barron]

Kris, you'd be more versed to answer the oil and gas piece, so if you don't mind, I would ask you to answer that.

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Thank you for the opportunity to address this one.

We see it has been an evolving relationship between fisheries and oil and gas developers. Really, it's one that has matured over time. I like to think those relationships have been greatly improved as we've had improved communications. Fisheries observers have been on board for oil and gas work, and that's been ongoing. In many respects, we've gone past that point in time of just being obstructionists. It is a shared marine environment, and it's about finding the solutions that work for both sides.

I'll take a pause, because I can see the red. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you. Time is up for this round.

As mentioned earlier, if you'd like to answer that, you can put it in a brief and provide that information.

I will move to the next speaker.

Monsieur Simard, you have six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mousseau, I want to follow up on something you said in your presentation.

You flagged an inconsistency in Bill C-49, the fact that renewable energy projects and oil projects are treated the same way. I think that's an important point for the analysts to note in light of the answer Minister O'Regan gave the committee when he was here last week. As I understood it, he said that the government didn't have a genuine desire to draw a distinction between the two. That is, however, an essential step to achieve the energy transition.

That is a political matter, so I'm not looking for you to weigh in. Instead, I'd like to talk about the second part of your presentation. I'd say you are surprisingly adept at taking the wind out of the sails of certain politicians, who occasionally talk about energy without really understanding the situation.

What you said earlier about wind energy, electricity and the use of clean electricity to produce hydrogen suggests that certain types of modelling may not have been done already.

Are the government's aspirations to supply hydrogen to Germany achievable in the short-to-medium term?