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.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Clerk, we have a motion to adjourn debate.
Please, go ahead.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Before I begin the second panel, I would like to provide some opening remarks for our witnesses who have joined us today.
Thank you for your patience.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. In terms of interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of the screen, of the floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.
In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.
With us today for the second panel, we have Ches Crosbie, as an individual. From the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, we have Mr. Paul Barnes, director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic. From the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, we have Bonnie Brady, executive director, by video conference. Also by video conference, from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, we have Ruth Inniss, fisheries adviser; and Mr. Duane Boudreau, fish harvester.
We will now proceed to opening statements for five minutes each. We will start with Ches Crosbie.
The floor is yours, sir.
5:35 p.m.
Ches Crosbie As an Individual
Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to express my concerns about Bill C-49.
I oppose the bill both as a citizen of Canada and as a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, because it is a death blow to my province's ability to remain a contributing member of Canada.
Honourable members, in my respectful submission, Bill C-49 deserves to be known as the “no more offshore act.”
I'm a long-time member of the bar of Newfoundland and Labrador and a sometime leader of the legislative opposition. Now a non-practising member of the bar and retired from elected life, I'm involved in pro bono work for organizations like the National Citizens Inquiry.
My interest in Bill C-49, the “no more offshore act”, is not that of an industry spokesperson, of a fisher whose livelihood is affected or of a proponent or businessperson who hopes to profit. My interest is solely that of a citizen who wants a better Newfoundland and Labrador and, thereby, a better Canada.
In 1985, Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Peckford came together over a deal enshrined in mirrored federal and provincial legislation to make Newfoundland and Labrador the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources of the subsea areas of our provincial shores to the 200-mile limit. This historic accommodation enabled Premier Peckford to proclaim that, “have-not will be no more.” This was the historic meaning of the Atlantic accord, that have-not will be no more.
The proposed change of title from Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act to the “Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act” tells us that a radical transformation of the Atlantic accord, the mainstay of jobs and prosperity in Newfoundland and Labrador for 30 years, is about to occur.
This radical transformation creates uncertainty about the viability of exploration permits and fishing rights over huge areas of the offshore and uncertainty even as to the availability of compensation for the expropriation it enables. As all know, uncertainty kills investment, prosperity and jobs. Uncertainty creates impoverishment.
The bill ensures that have-not will return, and have-not will return to stay because offshore natural resource development is drill bits in bedrock, but offshore wind-to-hydrogen heavily subsidized by government is pie in the sky.
Have-not will return because proposed section 56 of the bill imposes a reign of fear of the unknown on traditional energy developers, which will inevitably drive them away along with the jobs and tax revenues they generate. It has already driven them away. In 2023, these energy developers decided not to make a single bid for exploration—zero. Have-not will return because clause 8 of the bill says that the Atlantic accord does not apply to offshore renewable energy resources, which means that the principal beneficiary status of Newfoundland and Labrador, my home province, will not apply either.
The current federal government embraces a radical anti-carbon ideology to the exclusion of economics, so it may consider that killing the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore resource industry and the 25% of the provincial economy it generates is acceptable collateral damage. It may consider that ousting commercial fishermen from thousands of square kilometres of traditional fishing grounds is acceptable collateral damage.
More perplexing is the response of Newfoundland and Labrador legislators, provincial and those federal members not bound by cabinet solidarity. Only they can explain why they failed to defend the Atlantic accord and the jobs and prosperity it brings and could yet bring. Only they can explain to fishers why they failed to protect their livelihoods. Only they can explain why “have-not will be no more” will become “have-not will be again”.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Crosbie, for your opening statement.
We'll now proceed to Mr. Paul Barnes, director from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Mr. Barnes, you have five minutes.
I just want to remind everybody that I'll try not to interrupt you, but the yellow card is a 30-second warning and the red card means the time's up.
Mr. Barnes, go ahead. The floor is yours.
February 12th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.
Paul Barnes Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide comments related to Bill C-49.
As the chair mentioned, my name is Paul Barnes, and I am director of Atlantic Canada and Arctic with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or CAPP. I am based in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. I have over 30 years' experience in the offshore oil and gas industry and have worked extensively during that time with the Atlantic accord legislation, which is being amended with this bill.
CAPP is a non-partisan, research-based industry association that advocates on behalf of our member companies that explore for, develop and produce oil and natural gas throughout Canada. CAPP's members include several that are active in the Atlantic Canada offshore area and that will therefore be directly impacted by any accord act amendments.
One main driver behind Bill C-49 is to provide authority to the offshore petroleum boards in both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to regulate offshore renewable energy. My remarks are not specifically focused on this aspect of the bill, as it falls outside of CAPP's oil and gas industry mandate.
My remarks will instead focus on the aspects of Bill C-49 that directly impact offshore exploration, development and production activities.
Before moving into my specific remarks, I want to note that there are several positive changes included in the bill that our industry supports, including providing clarity in the role of the offshore petroleum boards in the regional impact assessment process. Natural Resources Canada staff have also been extremely helpful in providing clarity to CAPP and our members on aspects of the bill that we highlighted in a letter to Minister Wilkinson in August 2023, which we provided a copy of to the committee on February 2, 2024.
To begin, clause 36 of the bill introduces a significant change for the oil and gas industry, which is the move to a 25-year, fixed term, significant discovery licence on future licences. CAPP recognizes the desire of the governments to find new ways to encourage the development of discoveries in a timely manner, but cautions that moving to a fixed term without adequate flexibility to extend the term could have unintended consequences.
The Atlantic Canada offshore is one of the most challenging operating environments in the world. Current projects have taken up to 30 years to develop. There may be unique cases in the future where more than 25 years are necessary to move from exploration to production. Flexibility in the fixed-term licence is critical in a jurisdiction with such challenges. Specifically, legal language on the ability to extend the term if an operator can demonstrate that they are diligently pursuing development should be included in the bill.
Should governments move towards a fixed-term licence, CAPP suggests they direct the offshore boards to remove escalating rentals in the terms and conditions of the licence.
Clause 28 of the bill, which proposes to amend section 56 of the accord act, leads to the prohibition of oil and gas activities in a marine protection, environmental or wildlife conservation area. CAPP and its members had concern with this section when we wrote our original submission to the NRCan minister in August 2023, as we viewed it as expanding the prohibition of oil and gas activities to other conservation or protection areas outside of the Oceans Act marine protected areas or national conservation areas. However, following discussions with NRCan staff and provincial Government of Newfoundland staff, we now better interpret the intent of the section and the role of both the federal and provincial natural resource ministers if there is to be any prohibition of oil and gas activities in any area.
Clause 71 of the bill allows government to make regulations to regulate access to offshore infrastructure, including to enforce tolls and tariffs. It is CAPP's view that in such a small operating basin in Newfoundland and Labrador, where all current offshore oil and gas activities are focused, access to infrastructure is not an issue that requires additional regulation, nor should it be included in this bill.
Offshore facility owners are open to considering adding production from others that wish to access their facilities. If a facility has extra capacity, allowing others to have access to it can reduce costs and extend the commercial life of a project provided, however, that those others share the responsibility of all related costs and liabilities, plus provide a fair return on risk investment.
Access to infrastructure is a commercial issue and is best left to facility owners and those wanting to access the facility to manage and negotiate. Moving towards a system whereby governments can regulate access and enforce tolls and tariffs adds uncertainty in an environment where there are a limited number of projects and where facility owners are open to negotiating directly with others.
As I see that I'm coming rather close to the end of my time, we will provide specific written remarks to elaborate on a couple of other issues that I wanted to bring to the committee's attention.
Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Barnes.
We will now proceed to Bonnie Brady from the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, for five minutes.
The floor is yours.
5:45 p.m.
Bonnie Brady Executive Director, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for allowing me to join you virtually to offer my experience from the U.S. as you discuss Bill C-49.
My name is Bonnie Brady. I am the executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, which represents all gear types of commercial fishermen on Long Island in New York.
In 2003, we became involved with offshore wind, when 100 offshore turbines were slated for our state waters. That project was killed when the real cost of the project to ratepayers was revealed in 2006.
I am here to join the chorus of warnings about offshore wind. No matter what you have been told about Canada being the new Saudi Arabia of wind, there are far more threats lurking ahead from offshore wind to commercial fishing and its coastal communities, your domestic seafood production and infrastructure, mariner safety, national security and the ocean itself. I implore you to not move rapidly without being aware of the pitfalls.
To begin, you must protect commercial fishing, fisheries and benthic habitat by removing fishing grounds from offshore wind lease areas, including where cables are placed. Without having specific language within your fisheries law, and perhaps also in Bill C-49, you may be unwittingly signing an economic death warrant for fishing communities and possibly the ocean's productivity itself.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has had minimal to no contact with commercial fishing experts in the siting process here in the U.S. It only included them after the project design was locked in via state power purchase agreements. Best management practices are a mirage.
The consolidation of federal decision-making power under BOEM means that other agencies have been ignored and fisheries are considered at the last stages of its federal review. By then, alternatives are severely limited by developer and state decisions, even though the lease is in federal waters. Our NOAA fisheries—which is our main regulator, like your DFO—is not a lead agency. As such, it cannot say no to a project. BOEM has full authority.
Federal agencies are instead deferring to multinational or foreign government-owned energy companies, advertising the permanent installation of turbines as solely a good thing for our oceans, and prioritizing build-out goals at the expense of our nation's wild-caught seafood security. By losing access to fishing grounds for multiple fisheries and direct access to ports throughout our coastlines, our entire commercial fishing industry and its infrastructure will be gutted.
As of late, we've seen procurement agreements cancelled, but with new mandates and rebidding right around the corner, development is all but guaranteed, shutting out ways to protect our industry and the environment. As Ms. Lapp mentioned, our only recourse is to sue.
The U.S. has no language to protect or compensate commercial fishermen for the taking of their fishing grounds for offshore wind, unlike Denmark, whose law states, “No obstacles may be placed in the way of legally practiced fishing.” They will tell you that compensation was only because, in Denmark, they closed wind lease areas to fishing and here you won't be prevented. What they won't tell you is that it's dangerous to enter wind farms because marine radar will not work.
Fishermen from Thanet, England, told us the same in 2014. Their 10-metre boats are now forced to travel around the Ørsted-built offshore wind farm to cod grounds much farther from port because the cod are no longer in the lease area. In 2016, we began telling U.S. regulators about false ghost targets on radar, using the example of the Block Island wind farm, which is a small, five-turbine, six-megawatt site off Rhode Island. We were ignored. In the spring of 2022, the National Academy of Sciences corroborated fishermen's long-standing radar interference concerns.
As Ms. Lapp mentioned in earlier testimony, Rhode Island lost the fishing vessel Mistress and two of its three crew in the early hours of New Year's Day in 2019. The U.S. Coast Guard report described clearly that the Sikorsky Jayhawk helicopter that was sent to look for survivors returned to base after arriving offshore, as they were “unable to conduct search due to high winds, low [visibility], hazards (windmills) and low ceiling”.
That's for five turbines far smaller than the more than 3,000-plus U.S. offshore wind turbine planned assault on the Atlantic Ocean.
In 2020, the offshore wind turbine radar mitigation workshop webinars made clear that a one-foot error in ocean current height based on high-frequency radar will become a 24-kilometre error in the search zone for a lost soul. The entire search and rescue operations' SAROPS model, which is used to predict search zones, will be rendered useless.
Another reason that Thanet fishermen must travel farther is that their former fishing grounds, now the Thanet wind farm, are churning up constant underwater sediment plumes up to six kilometres long and over 150 metres wide 24-7, with scour pits up to 40 metres deep behind each turbine. Those sediment plumes can be seen from space. I'm not kidding. NASA did a paper on it in 2014.
We do know, through European research, that offshore wind farms warm the sea surface temperature, mimicking climate change. They affect ocean circulation patterns, produce a substantial loss of wind for up to 60 miles past a lease area and impact upwelling and downwelling, which feed the ocean and all of its denizens.
Please do not rush forward as the U.S. has. If you do, you risk it all.
I look forward to any questions the committee may have.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you for your opening statement. It was right on time.
We'll now go to the Maritime Fishermen's Union.
Ruth Inniss, you have five minutes for your opening statement. Please, go ahead.
5:55 p.m.
Ruth Inniss Fisheries Advisor, Maritime Fishermen's Union
Thank you very much. I'm very happy to follow Bonnie on this, as I represent a fishing organization that's quite afraid.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak this evening and to provide our testimony to the natural resources committee on Bill C-49. We, Duane and I, are here tonight on behalf of the 1,300 multispecies harvesters who make up the Maritime Fishermen's Union. Our members fish lobster, crab, tuna, scallops and herring, along with many other commercially viable species along the shores of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Currently, the fishing industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick accounts for a combined $5 billion in revenue and well over 30,000 direct jobs, which help to fuel the economies of many coastal communities. Our membership is gravely concerned about the impact that rushed legislation, inadequate consultation and the lack of wind energy science will have on the fishing industry. The fishing industry has long been a partner in the marine space, sharing waters with each other, other industries and other nations.
The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry. The legislation, as drafted, covers damages to gear and equipment resulting only from safety incidents or infrastructure failure, as well as damage from the release of materials or spills. There is no consideration of damages that may be incurred based on changes, resulting from water temperature changes, electrical pollution and displacement from traditional fishing grounds, should the wind energy industry have a detrimental effect on dispersal, productivity or availability of the species we depend on—in short, the livelihood of our members.
Harvesters cannot respond to industrial developments of this magnitude by simply moving from one area to another. Restrictions established by DFO for boundaries, gear and other regulations restrict the ability of harvesters to adapt, confounded further by the unknown impacts of wind energy on the very resources that they access.
Additionally, while harvester groups have joined together to identify a number of areas as “low impact” to the fishing industry as part of the regional assessment process, there have been no guarantees that the results of our efforts will be considered when evaluating areas for wind energy development. Wind energy developments will require vast tracts of ocean area, and there is no guarantee that the fishing industry will be consulted on the complex task of spatial planning.
Moving a bill through that could potentially harm the fishery is irresponsible without proper consultation, proper science and a collaborative approach with all the stakeholders affected. The industry has consulted, partnered with and, in many instances, led efforts in conducting science when working with government agencies. Our organization has a world-class science arm called Homarus, which frequently leads or is consulted on matters of marine conservation.
Our industry is facing profound challenges related to climate change. Fisheries and stock migration patterns are changing and evolving, and we do not have enough scientific evidence of what this will look like in the future. Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.
There are fundamental differences between the offshore petroleum industry—which this legislation was originally intended to apply to—and the burgeoning offshore wind industry, which is dramatically different in structure, function and effects. We are extremely concerned that the redrafted legislation fails to account for or to even consider this fact. In short, decisions that affect the fishery must include the individuals who harvest the fish and provide the protein and the economic drivers in communities.
We have a process in place to share information and receive input from our members. We conduct meetings, pass resolutions, conduct workshops and convene annual conventions to engage our membership. The timing required to have fulsome discussions and deliberations on this extremely important bill, Bill C-49, is woefully lacking.
We have the time to collectively develop good legislation and a responsible world standard for offshore wind development. We have the responsibility to make it the best possible legislation for our members, the marine environment that supports them and the communities that depend on this successful industry.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, we ask you, number one, do you think it is responsible to push legislation through that does not consider the effects on historical and current stakeholders? Do you fully understand how this legislation will affect the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada? Have you considered—
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Ms. Inniss, I ask you to wrap up. I apologize, but you're out of time.
6 p.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Maritime Fishermen's Union
Have you considered endangered species?
I'll leave it at that, and thank you very much. I'm sorry for going over time. I had almost finished.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
That's okay. Thank you.
We will now proceed to our first round of questions—
6 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Chair, point of order.
Since Ms. Northrup is still with us, may we have unanimous consent for her to join us at the table? It would be nice if we could ask her questions too, since she wasn’t here for the last round of questions.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Colleagues, yes, Ms. Northrup is here. If there's unanimous consent we can ask Ms. Northrup to come join us at the table and answer any questions that may come forward. Do we have unanimous consent?
6 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Ms. Northrup, if you'd like to join us, you can come forward, please. Thank you, Ms. Northrup.
We will now proceed with our first round of questions with Mr. Small.
Mr. Small, you have six minutes.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming out to take part in our very important study of this legislation. I'm going to try to spread my questions around, and I'd like the witnesses to be brief in their answers. If there's more they'd like to add that they don't get out in their responses to me, they could get that across in written submissions. Thank you.
First of all, Ms. Inniss—just briefly here—I heard you say that there's no guarantee of consultation on spatial planning. Has your organization had experiences in the past in negotiating areas where fishing activity has been prohibited? For example, in the development of marine protected areas, what's been your experience?
6 p.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Maritime Fishermen's Union
We've had a number of experiences working with spatial planning around MPAs. Years ago, we were strong members of—I don't know if you'll remember—the eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management plan, ESSIM. The point I'm making is that spatial planning is very complex, and we believe that every stakeholder that's going to be affected in the decision-making for that part of the ocean's space needs to be at the table and part of the discussion.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
In the past, in the development of MPAs, were your concerns reflected in the rollout of the final product and the layout of the MPAs? Were your concerns listened to or not?
6 p.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Maritime Fishermen's Union
That's a black-and-white question, and the answer is grey. Some of them were. Some of the MPAs or areas of interest were still open to certain types of fishing, so that was a success because—and I don't know for sure but I would say—without our voice they would have been completely closed.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Is it fair to say that may be the basis of your concern with this bill?
6 p.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Maritime Fishermen's Union
Do you mean that we wouldn't be listened to?
6 p.m.
Fisheries Advisor, Maritime Fishermen's Union
Yes. I'm always concerned that the fishing industry is not being listened to. It doesn't matter what file it is, but yes—
6 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you very much. You can submit some more.