Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I want to hear the point of order from Ms. Jones.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I'll ask you once again—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have the reference point.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I will ask you not to turn on your mics. I will ask you to speak when you are acknowledged by the chair.

I've addressed this before. Our interpreters can't interpret when we have multiple microphones on. It's very difficult.

Mr. Patzer, if you let me finish hearing the point of order, then I can rule on the point of order.

Ms. Jones, I would ask you, on your point of order, not to use it as debate but to provide the procedural relevance when you or anybody else on the committee around the committee table has a point of order in future.

Colleagues, I would appreciate it if you not interrupt until I can hear enough to make a ruling on the point of order.

Now, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead on the point of order.

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

Thank you, Chair. You just answered my question. I couldn't hear whether it was a point of order.

I've heard a lot of non-points of order. I couldn't actually hear whether it was or was not. I was asking you to let it be heard so that we could hear whether it was a point of order or not.

I appreciate—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll remind everybody once again to use a point of order for procedural relevance and also to let the member speak enough so I can determine whether it is a point of order and whether or not it's relevant.

Thank you.

We'll now go back to the point we were at with Mr. Small.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's no question about how the oil and gas industry feels about the stability of regulations now in our offshore oil and gas industry, at least among those who would invest, because they invested nothing last year.

We have a lack of stability and clarity with respect to where the future lies for offshore oil and gas. When you don't bring in the fishing industry and build in a framework that makes them comfortable, don't you think they will be protesting if they're not consulted properly?

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

I answered that question before. I'd be happy to answer it again.

As part of the regional impact assessment that is being conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, we have been meeting on a regular basis with a number of stakeholders. I took part in some of those consultations myself, including—obviously—those with fishermen from Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia.

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

Minister, how do you identify where the prime fishing grounds are?

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

We work with a number of different federal departments, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We work with fishermen and fishermen's organizations.

That's what the regional impact assessment is about, to look at where fishing is currently happening—

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

It's doing vessel monitoring.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm going to speak in French. That'll make it easier for me to express myself, if I can answer the question.

What I was trying to explain was that the work of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is obviously to work with all stakeholders, in particular—

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

You've gone way over the length of time that I took to ask you a question, Minister.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't know if it's up to you to decide whether I can answer the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I will ask you, Minister, to finish your answer, because I know you did go into French as well, and it takes a moment for the interpreters to kick in. Please go ahead.

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

What I was saying was that the business of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is to define existing fishing zones and areas where energy development projects—offshore wind, in this instance—could be carried out to determine whether there are any conflicts and, if so, to figure out how to resolve them.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to our next round of questioning. We will go to Ms. Lapointe.

Ms. Lapointe, you have five minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister.

Many Canadians have shared their concerns with me about the capacity of our electrical grids, particularly in view of our objectives for electric vehicles. So I was happy to hear witnesses say this past Monday that offshore wind energy could power Atlantic Canada's grids from there to Ontario. That came as a surprise to me, but it also made me very happy.

Would you please tell us more about how offshore energy will make electricity more available? How would Bill C-49 help further decarbonize the grid while increasing capacity?

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

Thank you for your question, Ms. Lapointe.

Yes, we anticipate that we will at least have to double the production, transmission and distribution of Canada's grid. That's more or less true of most of our G7 partners, whether it be the United States, Europe or Japan. And as I said earlier, according to the International Energy Agency, most of that new energy capacity, 80%, will come from renewables. Which is why the offshore wind potential of the Atlantic provinces, particularly Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, is so promising.

We will obviously see what happens in the next few years, but potential offshore wind production could far outstrip local and even regional electricity needs. So it could be possible for those provinces to export clean electricity to other provinces such as Quebec, in addition to Ontario, which you mentioned.

That's why, in addition to all the effort the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has made to lay the groundwork for wind energy development, we are also working with several Atlantic provinces, notably Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, to reinforce power grids in order to expand capacity to transmit power to those provinces or from the Atlantic provinces to provinces more to the west.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Outside Atlantic Canada, would Bill C-49 have any positive impact on the economic development of Canada as a whole, more specifically on supply chain issues?

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

Yes, it would. That's a good question because the offshore wind development we're anticipating in Atlantic Canada will generate economic benefits for many other regions of Canada, such as Gaspésie, for example, which already has significant manufacturing capacity in the wind field and is located near prominent seaports as well as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Engineering work will obviously be done in those provinces but will involve talent from various Canadian provinces.

In short, the economic benefits will be felt far beyond the borders of the Atlantic provinces.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

We know the move to clean energy is necessary, and we know that the world will move ahead without us. We've talked about that a lot at this committee. I think it is imperative for Canada to lead and define our clean energy future.

If Canada doesn't increase clean energy projects like the offshore projects in Atlantic Canada, what do we stand to lose in terms of jobs and economic opportunities for future generations?

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

The potential economic and job loss fallout for not moving to a cleaner electricity grid.... We already have a pretty clean one, and that's a competitive advantage, but the reality is that.... Wayne Gretzky used to say that you need to skate where the puck will be and not where the puck is. Right now this is a competitive advantage, but everyone is investing to decarbonize their grids, so we need to continue doing that.

The reason we've been able to attract, in Canada, business deals like Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt is because of our clean grid. That's one of the main reasons why these companies are saying they're coming to Canada. However, unless we continue to invest in the decarbonization of our grid, we will lose that competitive advantage to some of our economic competitors, because they are also making this move. Potentially, we could put at risk tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You're right on time. The time is up.

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Thank you, Mr. Guilbeault, for answering the questions.

We'll now go to Mr. Simard for two and half minutes.