Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[Terence Hubbard, President, Impact Assessment Agency of Canada]

And they continue.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

They continue, so we have been engaging with many stakeholders, including the fisheries industry, on the development of offshore wind.

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

We were told that, in creating this bill, the fishing industry was consulted and well consulted, but we're finding out that's not the case. FFAW-Unifor has told us basically that it was not talked to at all prior to the tabling of this legislation, versus what your colleagues told this committee.

Why is your government misleading the public and this committee by talking about how good the consultations were?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

As you rightly point out, it wasn't me who made those statements. It was my colleagues, the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister O'Regan. I would be happy to take your comments back to them and ensure that a response is provided to the committee.

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

If we don't get the framework that the fishing industry wants in this bill, what kind of message is that going to send out to the investors in the wind energy world?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I have spoken with many potential investors who are interested in investing in offshore wind either off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova—

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

I'm sure you're aware of the conflicts that exist worldwide.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

They're very interested.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister, for your answers.

Thank you, Mr. Small, for your time and questioning. Your time is up.

We will now proceed to Ms. Jones from the Liberal Party of Canada for six minutes.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you, Minister, for appearing before committee today and for the great work you do in energy transition in Canada.

First of all, the amendments to the Atlantic accord that we're dealing with today impact only two provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The amendments are before the committee today because these provinces asked for them. Any other provinces or territories that are looking for offshore wind development would take a completely different process. That is my understanding, Minister.

On the bill that we're dealing with, we're dealing with it today and not eight years ago because this is when the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are seeing an opportunity to develop offshore wind. They want to change the regulatory process to include it in their provinces, under their bodies' regulatory regimes. That is my understanding.

Can you confirm that this is the case and that, if this were not the case, we probably wouldn't be sitting here with this bill today?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question, MP Jones.

It is a fact that, in Canada, energy development is a provincial and territorial constitutional power. It's not the federal government that decides what gets built and where and by whom.

You're absolutely right that it's those two provinces that came to the federal government to say that they wanted to work with us on the development of the offshore wind resource.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Next, we've heard a lot about the fishing industry and the impact on the fishing industry. It's a huge concern for us. It's a huge concern for me. I'm a former fisheries minister. I grew up in a fishing region. I also know that a lot of good industries can coexist in the ocean. We've seen that with oil and gas in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, and the consultations, the networking and the working together with the fisheries union and the fisheries enterprises themselves.

Minister, is there anything in this bill that you think compromises the fishing industry? My understanding from reading the legislation is that, if Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia were to develop an offshore wind project, they would be subject to all the environmental regulations that exist in the country today. They would be subject to all the regulatory processes under the Fisheries Act as well as the environmental assessment process. They would not be able to develop these projects without the full consultation of the fishing sector.

Can you confirm that this is the process that has to occur for consultation before we ever get to an offshore wind project?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question.

In essence, what we're trying to do for offshore wind is what we're already doing on land, where we already have to tackle these issues of different users wanting to use the land for different activities. We can think of forestry, mining, energy development and conservation. We weigh those and we do consultations when we evaluate energy projects on land. We've done that for a great many years.

It's no different. We will basically be transposing the system to offshore. You're absolutely right that the laws and regulations we have for the development of energy projects will apply offshore, as they apply onshore.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Minister, you're a staunch environmentalist. I've gotten to learn that from you. I know that when you look at development of any sort, you look very heavily at what the impact is on the land, on the ocean and on all creatures and species that occupy the planet on which this is happening.

Can you outline for me whether the department has looked at any particular data that would help fishers feel a bit more comfortable? We know that offshore wind is happening in other places. I know that fishers have expressed concerns over what it means to the marine ecosystem. I'm just wondering if you or your department has any data or information that you might be able to share with us around that.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question.

You're right that I have been interested in environmental issues for a very long time. The first time the organization I worked with published a report on offshore wind, it was in 1997 in front of the Quebec energy board. I've been paying very close attention to the development of this file in both Canada and around the world.

I was talking earlier about the regional impact assessment that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has undertaken. It is examining these specific questions thoroughly. It is looking at potential impacts and mitigation measures and gathering data on offshore wind projects around the world. The findings of IAAC will be presented publicly.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party voted against funding to conduct marine data collection to further our understanding of wildlife and environmental considerations. That being said, you rightly pointed out that we see in a number of countries in the world, as MP Small was talking about, the blooming of offshore wind energy. For example, in Europe, in the United Kingdom and in other North Sea countries, we've seen lots of offshore wind development, and we're still seeing a thriving fishery industry.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I have only five seconds, so maybe I'll take the time to.... Is that it?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That was about five seconds. Thank you, Ms. Jones.

We'll now go to Monsieur Simard for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, Ms. Jones wanted to yield the rest of her time to me because we appreciate each other.

Mr. Guilbeault, I'm glad to see you here. I'm going to ask you a similar question to the one I put to your colleagues.

Personally, I don't think Bill C-49 is about the energy transition. As far as I'm concerned, the energy transition is about switching from high carbon-intensive energies to low carbon-intensive energies.

To explain to you what I see in Bill C-49, I'm going to paraphrase what Normand Mousseau said when he testified before us. I'm sure you know him. Ultimately, Bill C-49 would put renewable energy sources and fossil fuel sources on the same footing. Nothing in this bill suggests that we're looking for a fossil fuel reduction plan. Instead we're seeking to develop wind, which is a good thing, despite all the stumbling blocks that entails. The experts we've spoken to, such as Mr. Mousseau, have told us that many elements weren't taken into consideration.

I don't believe that Bill C-49 is genuinely about the energy transition. Apart from the superficial amendment to change the name of the Offshore Petroleum Board to the Energy Regulator, I see no genuine willingness on the government's part to get out of fossil fuels.

I don't know whether you agree with me on that.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Simard.

I don't think my answer will surprise you. I don't agree with you.

Bill C-49 doesn't exist in a vacuum in a closed universe. It's part of a suite of policies and measures, financial measures in particular, that our government has put in place to promote the development of clean technologies and renewable energy and increasingly to reduce federal government support for the development of fossil fuels.

As you know, we are the first and only G20 country that has eliminated fossil fuel subsidies; no other country has done so. And yet we are the fourth largest oil producer in the world. We are the only oil-producing country that's in the process of introducing a plan to limit, cap and cut greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas industry.

Going back to Mr. Mousseau's comments about stumbling blocks, as I told Ms. Jones, the development of offshore wind, like that of wind generally speaking and land-based renewable energy sources, must be conducted in a context of trade-offs in which we need to examine a set of factors and land uses for which decisions have to be made. That, incidentally, is the business of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm going to add to what you just said.

From an energy standpoint, Canada is unfortunately a prisoner of its own fossil fuel resources. I say that because you said your government had eliminated fossil fuel subsidies. However, that's not true; you've eliminated the subsidies you considered inefficient. I even perceive a definition problem here since I still don't understand what you mean by inefficient subsidies.

In addition, your government constantly exploits a new hobgoblin, reducing the carbon intensity of oil. We're talking here about reducing the carbon intensity of oil using carbon capture strategies. So we're going to invest billions of dollars in projects that are technically very hard to carry out. When I was in Berlin with Mr. Wilkinson, we visited the Siemens corporation, and its officers told us it was so technically risky to produce hydrogen based on a carbon capture strategy that the company would never do it. And yet your government is headed in that direction.

Furthermore, what really bothers me is that your government is making clean energy compete with fossil energy. That's also what Normand Mousseau told us.

My impression when I look at the budget is that fossil fuels are getting the lion's share. You invested more than $30 billion in a pipeline. When I look at this bill, what I see is a kind of greenwashing. I know what it costs to build the infrastructure to distribute clean electricity. Quebec is really good at that. In my region, Rio Tinto is able to do it to produce clean hydroelectricity. However, if you put dirty fossil fuels in competition with clean energy sources, I don't see how we can develop that industry.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

It's a fact that Canada is a major oil and gas producer. The energy transition isn't a revolution. It's something that will happen over time. There will be less and less government support and more and more investment in clean and renewable energy sources. Federal funding for those sectors has quintupled in the past few years. You may tell me we started off from not much after 10 years of Conservative government, but the fact remains that we're committed to the energy transition.

I don't agree with you on carbon capture and storage. It won't solve all our problems, but even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency refer to it as an essential technology in achieving our carbon neutrality objectives.

As for fossil fuel subsidies, it's really quite simple. According to the World Trade Organisation, we have to wonder whether those subsidies favour one sector over others. However, we've eliminated all direct subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Carbon capture and storage is good for steel, it's good for cement, and it's good for oil and gas too, but it isn't a subsidy that's intended for any single sector.

I never refer to reducing the the intensity of our emissions; I talk about reducing our emissions in absolute terms, and that's what we're doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Time is up, so maybe you'll get another opportunity.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Guilbeault. You seem like you belong at our committee, and we'll have a permanent seat for you. We'd love to have you come, so we could ask you all manner of questions.

On the issue of the transition, five years ago, it seemed it was hopeful, and there were a bunch of ideas. The fact that it has moved so fast is really, I think, the surprising factor. The Biden administration is now going to have twice the solar capacity by 2030 than was predicted three years ago. The wind capacity will be 43% higher. This is what the Americans thought was possible, and it's happening.

My concern is that when I look at what's happening in Europe, in Aberdeen—where my people are from—there were 42,000 new jobs, and 1,500 last year were in offshore wind. We've lost 45,000 jobs in the oil sector, and we lost 1,500 this year at Suncor alone. There is a real sense from some of the people I'm talking to that we're sitting at the side of the road while the rest of the world is moving ahead.

How urgent is it for Canada to actually get in the game with our competitors on clean energy?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I agree with you. The transition is happening faster than many had anticipated.

Definitely, the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with inflation but has a whole lot to do with the transition, is an international game-changer. Everyone has had to adapt their investment plan and fiscal plan in light of it. We've had to do that in Canada, as have the Europeans, the Japanese and so many others. It is creating an acceleration towards clean tech and renewable energy.

We want to be part of that, which is why we're investing massive, historic amounts in Canada in new technologies, in renewable electricity production and in the transmission grids that we will need to decarbonize in many parts of the country.

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

The issue here is the scope of the offshore projects in the Atlantic, which are by our nearest competitors in the United States. These are massive projects. One project could power 700,000 homes, and we're still talking. We have our Conservative colleagues who don't want this bill to pass.

Why would investors come to Canada if they don't see these projects moving ahead? We still don't have our tax credits in place. There are so many places you can go to invest, so why here, if we can't get this up and running now?