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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Ms. Northrup, I'd ask you to be very brief, please, because our time is at the end of the questioning.
Staff Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law
If it has to be brief, I can say only that it is a question requiring a few seconds to answer. I might ask if somebody agreeable to hearing a more fulsome answer might rephrase or reform the question, because I don't think I could answer that quickly.
I'd just say that we support the bill in principle, but we actually think better assessment processes need to be built into it to address some of the issues that witnesses like Ms. Brady and Ms. Inniss have been raising tonight.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you.
We will now go to Monsieur Simard from the Bloc Québécois for six minutes.
Go ahead, sir.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I’d like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. I especially thank them for their patience.
Generally, the work done at committee aims to improve bills and hear from experts, who have prepared testimony. Sometimes, unfortunately, following a skewed idea of common sense, certain people foster cynicism in politics. That’s what we witnessed today. I hope you won’t hold it against parliamentarians who want to do their job constructively. Those at home following committee work are able to ascertain various people’s good faith.
Ms. Northrup, during your speech, you spoke at length about impact studies. Personally, I know a little about how things work in Quebec. In fact, the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement is the organization that carries out impact studies for the majority of economic development projects. However, in the context of the agreement in question, that remains a little more nebulous for me.
You mentioned the possibility of minimizing user conflicts, which could be done through better consultation.
Do you have any possible solutions for the Committee regarding the implementation of useful impact studies and the reduction of these conflicts?
Staff Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law
Thank you for that question.
What I would say in response—and I think this picks up on a comment Ms. Brady was making a few moments ago—is that there is a need for consistent high-level assessment and project-specific assessment.
There should be thorough assessment at the high level to take into account not only necessary assessments, such as the assessment of cumulative effects, which is more easily, efficiently and meaningfully done at the high level. There should also be the kind of assessment that allows for a big-picture view of competing uses of an area. What exists in an area already? What is desired or is at least being envisioned for introduction into the area? Then we can look at these things and ask whether these activities could coexist.
If not—if there are conflicts—how are we going to make decisions about the best places to balance and to site? You need that high-level assessment process to be done consistently for every relevant area before you go in and just start doing project-specific impact assessments, but you also then need the project-specific impact assessment as well so you can look at the specifics of any site.
That is our position and what we recommend be built into this bill.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Northrup, I invite you to provide us with documents and suggested amendments, should you have any. We would be pleased to receive them.
Mr. Crosbie, can you hear me?
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
You made a statement that surprised me somewhat. You spoke about a radical anti-carbon ideology.
I have a very simple question for you: do you believe in climate change?
As an Individual
This is my personal view, my own opinion: The climate changes all the time.
Personally, having looked into the whole subject matter, I think that the theory that carbon output caused by humans is causing catastrophic climate change is bogus. That's my answer.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
All right.
If we follow that line of logic, the energy transition, in your opinion, is all smoke and mirrors.
Is that so?
As an Individual
It's a heavily government-subsidized program to cure a problem that doesn't exist.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Crosbie.
That makes me laugh.
I’ll stop there, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Monsieur Simard.
You had time left on the clock, so that's very generous of you.
Mr. Angus from the New Democratic Party, the floor is yours for six minutes. Go ahead, sir.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you very much.
It's certainly interesting to see the Conservative witnesses who come forward. Climate change deniers, I think, fit very well with Mr. Poilievre's caucus.
Ms. Northrup, I want to speak with you.
To put this in context, I noticed that a group of scientists just warned us after the hottest temperatures in memory in the North Atlantic at the beginning of the year. Those numbers were literally said to be off the charts in terms of temperature. They've never seen anything like that.
How important is it that we get legislation that puts in a renewable energy strategy to deal with the increasing impacts on our oceans, while also protecting them? How do we do that?
Staff Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law
I think it's vital to have legislation come in that will enable a sustainable, renewable energy transition, certainly. It's also vital to have good laws in place that allow for meaningful protection of marine environments. I would just say that.
I think I've made it clear in my comments already tonight that we support the government bringing in a bill that's going to open doors to renewable energy development in the marine spaces in Atlantic Canada. However, we want to see those processes be good processes that are going to allow for genuine good governance in the space.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
The last oil permitting attempt off Nova Scotia was for Sable Island. It received a huge outpouring of public opposition, because this is such a fragile, world-renowned heritage area. The oil companies were trying to get their hands on it.
Do you believe this legislation between the federal government and the provincial government will give them the tools necessary to protect marine spaces from either offshore oil and gas or offshore wind? Is there an ability, based on what came out of the Sable Island fiasco? How do we make sure we reassure the public that areas are being protected?
Staff Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law
If you're speaking about the Inceptio licence that was set aside in the autumn, those set-aside powers exist already under the accord acts as they stand now. They certainly are important powers, but they're not powers that exist specifically to deal with marine conservation and protection issues. Certainly, new powers being brought in through Bill C-49 are important in that regard.
However, I would say that powers to prohibit licensing in certain areas, or powers to cancel licences, although important, cannot do the full job of marine conservation and protection if you don't also have, built into the law, good processes for informed decision-making and informed planning at a high level, with public participation and the participation of all stakeholders who can bring the information and knowledge needed to help make good decisions in the space.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you for that.
Mr. Barnes, what we were told by officials from the provincial government of Nova Scotia is that, since Sable Island, there have been no other oil permits put forward off of Nova Scotia.
Is that correct?
Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
I'm assuming that, when you say “since Sable Island”, you mean after the last offshore land sale.
February 12th, 2024 / 6:25 p.m.
Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
To my knowledge, industry has not put forward any additional land parcels.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Bay du Nord was approved. It's a big thing getting a project approved—300 million barrels—yet, after the approval, the company walked away. They said the economics weren't there.
What does that mean for your industry?
Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
It certainly caused us concern and still does. On this project—while not cancelled outright—there is a three-year delay. Any time there is a delay when it comes to new developments, especially for offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, it means a delay in economic benefits that can come from our industry.
The very reason there is a delay and the very issue there is a delay certainly are concerning to us.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I see.
As you know, the International Energy Agency's latest report is that they see oil demand dropping by 25% in the next six years, leading to a potential 80% drop by 2050. If the markets are shifting that dramatically, three years from now would make it even more difficult. Do you recognize the importance, then, of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia being able to diversify? If the IEA analysis is correct, we're going to need to start to diversify so that we're not losing those jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Yes, certainly. I know that the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are trying to diversify their economies for such time as when oil and gas, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador, may no longer be bringing in the benefits or revenues that it brings in now, but our industry still believes in the prospectivity of the offshore, still believes in investment opportunities and, hopefully, will invest there for the foreseeable future.