We will.
Evidence of meeting #85 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #85 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
To Mr. Crosbie, in the development of a bill like Bill C-49 to change the Atlantic accord, is the tone and messaging as important as the legal jargon that's in it, in terms of potential investment in wind energy and petroleum energy projects?
February 12th, 2024 / 6:05 p.m.
As an Individual
That's a pretty hefty question.
Mr. Small, as you're aware, I took a high-level approach to the bill. There's plenty of scope for getting into what might be more technical legal problems.
One of them would be that we've just seen the Supreme Court of Canada—last year—shred Bill C-69. This piece of legislation, Bill C-49, in dozens of places wants to coordinate itself with the statutory scheme and regime of Bill C-69, yet how can it do that when Bill C-69 is lying in tatters on the cutting-room floor? That is a major legal problem that perhaps some other people with legal backgrounds might want to express an opinion on.
Otherwise, as I've said, I just tried to take a high-level view of things. To my mind, this is an abrogation: an abrogation of the historic Atlantic accord, the accord between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, which has served Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada so well for 30 years.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you, Mr. Crosbie.
Just to be fair and to spread it around a little bit, Ms. Brady, you gave some very powerful statements a little while ago. What kind of framework in terms of fishing industry involvement in the process would prevent uncertainty both to the fishing industry and to potential investors in offshore wind, based on your experience on the eastern seaboard?
6:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
I can't speak on behalf of the developers, but I know that no matter how many times we've gone to the table—and I've been doing this on the present U.S. offshore wind structure since 2014—we haven't been heard at all.
Basically, we have no option. BOEM makes the final decisions. For any socio-economic or fisheries data—anything we brought to the table—they said at the time when they leased the area, “Oh well, we can do it when we get to our construction and operation plan.” However, by the time they submit that, they've spent so much money surveying the area, etc., and the state-purchased power agreements have been put in place, and they're not going to suddenly shut down the area.
For example, the Empire Wind 1, which is Equinor—which is Statoil—had a lease in the New York Bight. We actually sued. We gave them all the information about where we fish. The director's memo had four choices for Abby Hopper at the time. It was 2016. You could remove section A due to offshore fishing grounds, remove section B due to offshore fishing grounds, remove A and B or open it all up. She opened it all up, and it has been that way ever since.
Thank you.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you.
The time is up for our first round.
We'll now proceed to Ms. Jones from the Liberal Party of Canada, for six minutes.
Go ahead, Ms. Jones.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here today.
Unfortunately, we've missed two hours of committee time because of filibustering by the Conservatives. They've filibustered this bill for five months, because we know the Conservatives do not support Atlantic Canadians. They do not support the Atlantic accord.
Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Crosbie. Perhaps you remember when Stephen Harper tried to axe the Atlantic accord for Newfoundland and Labrador.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Ms. Jones, can I ask you to hold for a second? We have a point of order from Mr. Small.
Mr. Small, go ahead on your point of order.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Colleagues and Mr. Small, the proceedings at this committee are quite public. Everybody knows what's occurred in recent history and what hasn't. I would ask and encourage all members not to use a point of order for debate. When you do have time, when you have the floor, then you can add your comments with the questions you ask.
I will go back to Ms. Jones.
Ms. Jones, please go ahead from where you left off.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the record, Conservatives filibustered Bill C-50 for months in committee as well.
Mr. Crosbie, do you remember when Stephen Harper offered the ultimatum to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on the Atlantic accord in 2006, when they wanted to axe the accord because we were already getting benefits under equalization?
6:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Vaguely.... I'm not saying that the Atlantic accord can't be improved. There are areas where it could be improved for the benefit of the province and the country—
6:10 p.m.
As an Individual
—but this is not going to improve it. It's going to shred it and abrogate the Atlantic accord, and that's not in the interest of the country.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
That is not the intent of the bill. This is a regulatory bill.
You were a former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. Are you against this bill just because you want to side with the Conservatives in Ottawa and the Poilievre government—like the Stephen Harper government—which is now trying to get rid of any regulatory body around offshore wind or the Atlantic accord?
6:10 p.m.
As an Individual
That's somewhat of a rhetorical question. I'm against it because I'm a Canadian patriot.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you.
You also said in your testimony that you didn't see any benefits in this agreement for Newfoundland and Labrador. Did you see any benefits in the Atlantic accord for Newfoundland and Labrador under the regulatory body of the C-NLOPB?
6:10 p.m.
As an Individual
The accord has functioned more or less as intended, with some disputes along the way, which did get resolved. I think you—
6:10 p.m.
As an Individual
—referred earlier to the one between Prime Minister Harper and Premier Williams. That's not to say it can't be improved. I don't argue with that.
This is not an improvement. This is an abrogation.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
Mr. Chair, I'd like to note for the record that the MOU between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada has been signed. I want witnesses to know that.
I also want them to understand that this is a regulatory bill, and this bill does not openly sanction any offshore wind development without going through the proper environmental processes. I'm not sure if the three witnesses we've had today from the United States understand how that process works in Canada. Obviously, it's much different from how it works in their states. I want to note that for the record.
I would like to turn my questioning to the Canada offshore petroleum board. We heard testimony in the committee from Mr. Small that CAPP may be opposed to this legislation. I didn't hear that in your testimony.
Could you clarify for us where CAPP stands on Bill C-49?
6:10 p.m.
Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Sure. Thank you.
As I mentioned in my comments, most of this bill is directed towards the renewable sector side of the industry, so we're not opposed to the bill. We have some clauses of the bill that we would like to propose some improvements or amendments to, to make the bill even clearer and more predictable for our industry. That's what we plan to do, not only through my testimony today but in a written submission that we'll provide in a few days.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you very much.
I'd like to ask the witnesses who testified from the United States.... I don't know which one you are right now on the screen. I'm sorry.
Okay. Thank you for waving.
Can you tell me how familiar you are with the environmental assessment process in Canada and what the regulatory process would be to see any offshore wind developed in our country? It's very different from the legislation that exists in the United States.
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
I do know—you were speaking about that before—that for all of the wind lease areas they do only an environmental assessment and they do only an individual assessment. They don't do any sort cumulative study.
That's different from the environmental impact statement. That goes through a full EIS process with a draft and comments throughout and involves an act that we call the NEPA, which is the national environmental protection act. They do the leases with only an EA, with only basically the idea that “we're going to put a buoy out there and we're going to do some work here and we'll let you know”. There's no point in the process where as fishermen we can say, “Wait a minute—these are active grounds.”
BOEM is the lead on any of this regulatory environment, so even if the National Marine Fisheries Service said, “Don't do this here because it's important, because it's a central fish habitat”, or whatever, they would not allow it.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you.
Obviously, it's a different environmental assessment process that we go through. I think Ms. Northrup mentioned this in her testimony and how different planning and procedure pieces could be better informed through the legislation or at different stages of the project.
I'd like to go to you, Ms. Northrup, to fill that out for us in terms of how that can appear in the bill. We know you support the legislation, but we want to make it as good as we possibly can to service the people of Atlantic Canada.