Skip to content

Opens in a new window Parliament of Canada

Visit Parliament

Visit

Français

Senators

Senators

Canada’s 105 senators give regions and underrepresented groups a strong voice in Parliament.

Go to Senators

List of Senators

Contact Information

Standings

Parliamentary Diplomacy

The Speaker

Biography

Role of the Speaker

Rulings and Statements

News & Events

Contact

Chamber

Chamber

Read or watch the latest Senate debates and see how senators represent you in Parliament.

Go to Chamber

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Journals of the Senate

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Votes

LEGISinfo

Watch & Listen

Calendar

Procedural References

Rules of the Senate

Companion to the Rules of the Senate

Procedural Notes

Speaker's Rulings

Senate Procedure in Practice

Committees

Committees

Senate committees perform in-depth studies of bills and investigate issues that matter to you.

Go to Committees

Business

Schedule of All Meetings

Studies & Bills

Reports

Members of Subcommittees on Agenda and Procedure

Get Involved

For Witnesses

Media Centre

Committee Alerts

eNewsletter

Resources

About Committees

Watch & Listen

LEGISinfo

Procedural References

News

News

Stay up to date with Senate activities and find articles about the Senate’s people, history and procedure.

Go to News

News Releases

Media Advisories

Media Centre

SenCA+

People

News

Opinion

How & Why

About

About

Find procedural references, financial reports and information about the rehabilitation of Parliament Hill.

Go to About

The Senate Explained

Art & Architecture

Artwork & Heritage

Online Collection

Architecture & Rehabilitation

Transparency & Accountability

Financial Reports

Senators' Attendance

Administration & Support

Accessibility

Visit

Virtual tours

Careers

Page Program

Student Employment Program

Resources

Publications

Photo Gallery

Procedural References

Publications

Participate

Participate

Find out how you can visit the Senate, engage with its work and follow Senate proceedings.

Go to Participate

SENgage

Model Senate

Visit

Virtual tours

Watch & Listen

LEGISinfo

Committee Witnesses

Committee Alerts

eNewsletter

Contact Us

Search

ENEV - Standing Committee

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Menu - ENEV

Home

About

Membership

Meetings

Business

Business

Studies & Bills

Briefs & other documents

Reports

Search transcripts

Witnesses

News

Past Session:

44-1

44 th Parliament, 1 st Session

(November 22, 2021 - January 6, 2025)

Select a different session

45 th Parliament

1 st Session

(May 26, 2025 - Present)

44 th Parliament

1 st Session

(November 22, 2021 - January 6, 2025)

43 rd Parliament

2 nd Session

(September 23, 2020 - August 15, 2021)

1 st Session

(December 5, 2019 - August 18, 2020)

42 nd Parliament

1 st Session

(December 3, 2015 - September 11, 2019)

41 st Parliament

2 nd Session

(October 16, 2013 - August 2, 2015)

1 st Session

(June 2, 2011 - September 13, 2013)

40 th Parliament

3 rd Session

(March 3, 2010 - March 26, 2011)

2 nd Session

(January 26, 2009 - December 30, 2009)

1 st Session

(November 18, 2008 - December 4, 2008)

39 th Parliament

2 nd Session

(October 16, 2007 - September 7, 2008)

1 st Session

(April 3, 2006 - September 14, 2007)

38 th Parliament

1 st Session

(October 4, 2004 - November 28, 2005)

37 th Parliament

3 rd Session

(February 2, 2004 - May 23, 2004)

2 nd Session

(September 30, 2002 - November 12, 2003)

1 st Session

(January 29, 2001 - September 16, 2002)

36 th Parliament

2 nd Session

(October 12, 1999 - October 22, 2000)

1 st Session

(September 22, 1997 - September 18, 1999)

35 th Parliament

2 nd Session

(February 27, 1996 - April 27, 1997)

1 st Session

(January 17, 1994 - February 2, 1996)

Download as PDF

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Thursday, June 13, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to study 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.

Senator Paul J. Massicotte ( Chair ) in the chair.

[ Translation ]

The Chair: My name is Paul J. Massicotte, I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the committee.

Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in‑person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones.

Use only a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

I will ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves, beginning on my right.

Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.

[ English ]

Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.

Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.

[ Translation ]

Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.

[ English ]

Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson, Prince Edward Island.

Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.

Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.

[ Translation ]

Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.

The Chair: Today, the committee is continuing its examination 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.

For our first panel, we welcome, by video conference, Jennifer Josenhans, National Director, SeaBlue Canada. We are also welcoming by video conference Kris Vascotto, Manager, Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement.

Also by video conference, we are hearing from Mike Kofahl, Staff Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law Association. Finally, joining us by video conference, we have Katie Power, Industry Relations Representative, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union.

Welcome, and thank you for being with us. Five minutes are reserved for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, Ms. Josenhans, followed by Mr. Vascotto, Mr. Kofahl and Ms. Power.

[ English ]

Jennifer Josenhans, National Director, SeaBlue Canada: Thank you, chair. Good morning, everyone. On behalf of SeaBlue Canada, I would also like to respectfully thank the committee for the opportunity to provide input on Bill C-49. We are very pleased to see the progression of this important legislation.

SeaBlue is a coalition of eight of Canada’s most active and well-respected environmental non-government organizations. We work collaboratively to ensure that the targets for Canada’s Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, are ambitious, equitable and ultimately provide meaningful protection to marine species and habitats. This is not only for the health of the animals and plants within the ocean but also for the people on the coast and beyond who rely on the ocean for their well-being.

Today, I will speak on behalf of the coalition, outlining key points from our written submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources from February of this year.

While I’m here to provide input through the lens of a coalition working on supporting the delivery of the government’s marine protection targets, on a personal note, I am also a resident of Nova Scotia — more specifically, the small coastal town of Lunenburg — and have a vested personal interest in maintaining the health of the ocean in Atlantic Canada and beyond. Many livelihoods within my town rely on a healthy ocean, and our community can only prosper when the seas around us thrive.

Let me preface by saying that SeaBlue Canada supports the development of marine renewable energy as part of the clean energy response to the climate crisis. However, marine renewable energy projects must be managed responsibly and sustainably to minimize impacts to the marine environment and in a way that benefits local communities. Furthermore, to address the climate crisis, the introduction of marine renewable energy in Canada must be complemented by an equitable transition away from offshore oil and gas production.

SeaBlue Canada supports the amendments, specifically those amendments proposed under clauses 26 to 28 and 135 to 137, in the bill that would protect the marine environment by enabling the prevention of offshore oil and gas and renewable energy activities within areas that have been identified for conservation or protection. These amendments are essential to protect marine biodiversity and will also help to facilitate the clean energy transition through the development of offshore renewable energy while supporting the health, adaptability and abundance of marine wildlife. We strongly believe that these two priorities can coexist and are indeed compatible.

Bill C-49 and the offshore Accord Acts that it amends form an important part of Canada’s ocean management framework and will contribute to achieving Canada’s conservation goals on the Atlantic coast. As you will know, Canada has committed to protecting 25% of the ocean by 2025, working toward protecting 30% by 2030 and working to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

In line with the minimum protection standard, the federal government has committed to prohibiting oil and gas activities within all new federal MPAs and avoiding or mitigating industrial activities that pose risks to biodiversity outcomes within other effective area-based conservation measures such as marine refuges.

There is significant evidence to support that oil and gas activities are incompatible with marine conservation, as well as a growing body of evidence indicating that offshore renewable energy products also have the potential to impact marine ecosystems without careful management. Notably, there is no legal mechanism under the current offshore Accord Acts to allow for the surrender or cancellation of oil and gas leases within areas set aside for environmental protection or conservation.

Bill C-49 would address this gap by enabling the federal and provincial governments to pass regulations that prohibit offshore oil and gas or renewable energy products within areas identified for protection. It would also allow the government to negotiate for the surrender of interests within these areas.

The passing of this legislation with these provisions will allow the Government of Canada and provincial governments to demonstrate their strong commitments to marine protection and assure stakeholders that the government has the legal tools required to ensure that protected areas are truly protected.

There is currently no explicit or clear law or policy in Canada that addresses offshore renewable energy in protected areas. Bill C-49 would provide Canada and the Atlantic provinces with the legal tools to sustainably and responsibly manage offshore renewable energy in the offshore Accord Acts areas and set a precedent for a similar legislative framework in the rest of Canada’s ocean estate.

In conclusion, SeaBlue Canada recommends that Bill C-49 be passed in a timely manner, to ensure that these marine conservation provisions may be implemented as soon as possible, and in time for Canada to achieve its conservation targets for 2025.

SeaBlue Canada would like to reiterate our thanks to the Senate committee for the opportunity to present our views. We look forward to seeing the proposed offshore renewable energy provisions in Bill C-49 passed into law and to a future of clean energy and a healthy ocean in Canada. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Kris Vascotto, Manager, Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement: Thank you very much for the invitation to appear today to provide the perspective of the Nova Scotia seafood industry on this foundational piece of legislation.

The members of the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement include associations that represent the majority of the harvesting, buying and processing sectors in Nova Scotia. Cooperation among all sectors in the fishing industry is unique and our united perspective is important for you to hear. For this, I thank you.

The traditional fishing industry is the lifeblood of the coastal communities integral to the fabric of this province, sustainably plying the waters and supporting families for generations. Throughout, countless marine industries have come and gone, but the fishery has remained.

We are not opposed to sharing the marine space with other users, but simply ask that it be done in a respectful manner that allows all to gainfully coexist by ensuring that incoming industries do not negatively impact the resources that livelihoods rely upon.

Sharing marine space requires appropriate legislation underpinning robust regulations to govern development. This is why the conversations today are so important to coexistence between the fishing industry and offshore tidal, wind and hydrocarbon development.

We appreciate amendments to Bill C-49 during the legislative process but question why further action was not taken. While the activities of the fishing sector are now acknowledged as a principle, this ignores ecosystem impacts of large-scale development and how they may impact the resources harvesters rely on for their livelihoods.

Robust legislation must incorporate the differences between activities which it intends to regulate and ensure that potential loopholes are closed. For instance, recovery of damages to fishing resources due to hydrocarbon release is directed to the Fisheries Act, but for industries such as offshore wind, there is no such complementary legislation. Bill C-49 must be amended to include this important piece.

Legislation should be aligned with existing protections and other legislative vehicles. For example, it appears that Bill C-49 inadvertently lifts statutory spatial protections for Georges Bank and Sable Island and allows for the issuance of licences for development. We suspect this was unintended.

Legislation must also be consistent with the maturity of the industry being regulated. Again, Bill C-49 falls short.

Offshore wind farms in waters typical of Eastern Canada are a global novelty. In other jurisdictions, the act of harvesting wind energy has disrupted nutrient transport, mixing and thermal conditions. These all underpin important ecosystems and fisheries.

Furthermore, a rapidly evolving offshore wind industry clouds any precision on what a deployment may look like in size, type and scope, meaning that we are providing authorizations for activities with little understanding of long-term implications to marine life, creating a giant industrial experiment in our offshore areas. Perhaps this is the most concerning piece of all.

The harvesting sector needs the security that in the event of unforeseen impacts, there will be continued support of families and communities that rely on those marine resources. For instance, should scallop stocks disappear because the spread of their larvae is paused because wind energy is harvested and no longer available to distribute them, there must be something in place aside from an insistence that they adjust their activities. The same is true for pelagic fleets left ashore because of gear interactions or of haddock spawning areas no longer functioning because of a failure of key gyres.

In short, some assurances that industry participants and their families will be able to survive must be provided.

This would be best achieved through the establishment of a royalty reserve fund ensconced in Bill C-49, which would provide a long-term insurance policy to be accessed only if unforeseen impacts of operations are determined.

Furthermore, good legislation should provide comfort in the process through which areas are selected for future development. Our members are being bombarded by multiple processes for site selection that began with a government-supported regional assessment committee which, after releasing their interim report providing much-needed spatial focus and important recommendations for coexistence, appears to now be set aside in favour of other provincial and federal selection processes. In short, we are left asking to whom we should be talking.

We encourage that the employment of a single process to identify potential future development areas, as per the original process suggested by this government, be included in this legislation. Our clear preference is via the regional assessment process that we have worked with cooperatively and collaboratively since its inception.

We must turn our attention to end-of-life programs. Wind assets are being demobilized worldwide as equipment life cycles expire. We must learn from our experience with oil and gas developments to establish required reserves funded by royalties to ensure that demobilization efforts can be appropriately supported should proponents become insolvent.

Finally, it is important to note that we have the time to develop good legislation. As a province and a country, we are committed to reducing emissions to mitigate climate change but must acknowledge that standing up offshore wind turbines at an industrial scale and establishing large-scale tidal arrays remain years, if not decades, away. Let’s take the time to develop a robust legislative and regulatory framework that will facilitate good development undertaken without expense to existing marine users.

Thank you very much. We intend to follow up with a written submission to this important committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mike Kofahl, Staff Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all the members of the committee, Senate staff and the other witnesses attending this panel.

I’m participating in the hearing today from the rural coastal community of Margaree, which is located in Unama’ki, part of the unceded and traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq.

East Coast Environmental Law is a non-profit organization engaging on matters of public environmental law and policy throughout Atlantic Canada. We advocate for provincial and federal law reform touching on environmental health and sustainable development. We recognize the urgent need for global transition away from fossil fuels to sources of clean and renewable energy. We also recognize the need for good law and process that ensure a fair and equitable transition that improves our stewardship of the environment we all depend on.

In the context of Bill C-49, that means we support a clear and robust regulatory regime for offshore renewable energy that contributes to long-term sustainable management of our marine ecosystems and resources, and to the healthy coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We have conducted considerable research on offshore wind regulation in other jurisdictions and are also active participants in the two ongoing regional assessments of offshore wind.

We support Bill C-49 in principle because we understand the benefit of a jointly managed provincial-federal regime to plan, assess and authorize renewable energy projects in the offshore areas of both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We recognize that the bill represents a considerable amount of federal-provincial cooperation and a significant step toward Canada’s energy transition. However, we do think that the bill can be made stronger.

We have submitted a brief to the committee providing further details about some of the targeted amendments we recommend for Bill C-49, so I want to focus my remarks particularly on the need for tiered planning and assessment that can inform decision-making stages at all levels of the offshore renewable energy regime.

By “tiered assessment and planning,” we really mean the combination and coordination of high-level planning and assessment processes with lower-level, project-specific assessment. Our research has indicated that tiered planning and assessment is a best practice. It has the potential to enable sustainable development of offshore renewable energy in a way that considers, weighs and minimizes conflict with marine ecosystems, ocean users and coastal communities, and maximizes potential for sustainable use of our renewable resources.

Bill C-49 does gesture to the need for tiered planning and assessment. For example, it empowers the offshore energy regulators to conduct regional and strategic assessments and sets out their roles and responsibilities as they intersect with the federal Impact Assessment Act. However, the bill gives the offshore energy regulators complete discretion to conduct those regional and strategic assessments. It’s silent about their responsibilities to conduct project-level assessments when impact assessments under the federal Impact Assessment Act are not required.

We believe that offshore areas should not be open to renewable energy development unless they have first been assessed at a regional and strategic level. Therefore, we recommend that Bill C-49 be amended to require that a regional or strategic environmental assessment first be used to study the impacts of introducing any offshore renewable energy projects in any area before it’s open to a call for bids.

We also believe that all offshore renewable energy development, especially as an emerging new industry in Canada, must undergo project-level assessment; and we recommend that Bill C-49 be amended to require that each renewable energy project undergo a project-level environmental impact assessment conducted by the regulators when a federal impact assessment is not required.

So given the size, duration and value of the opportunities presented by the development of offshore renewable energy, it’s really important to get it right, and we can do that by using identified best practices.

Amending Bill C-49 to require tiered assessment and planning will contribute to a strong regulatory regime that facilitates strong relationships among ocean users and communities, builds public trust and social licence, provides greater regulatory certainty for industry and promotes prudent stewardship of our marine ecosystems. Touching on that last point, I would emphasize that while I have focused my remarks on the need for tiered planning and assessment, we support many of the bill’s provisions.

We welcome enhanced federal and provincial powers to protect ecosystems that were highlighted by my colleague at SeaBlue Canada, Jen. We also support recommendations from the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement to extend existing protections to Sable Island and Georges Bank.

Thank you for this opportunity. I welcome your questions.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Power?

Katie Power, Industry Relations Representative, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW-Unifor): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of our over 14,000 members from Newfoundland and Labrador, thank you for the opportunity to address the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources on Bill C-49. The Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, or FFAW, represents every inshore fish harvester in our province, encompassing approximately 3,000 owner-operator enterprises and their over 7,000 crew members.

As the union representing fish harvesters and processing workers, FFAW is a primary advocate for the economic and social growth of coastal communities throughout our province. FFAW does not support the haste with which the Senate is expected to process this bill. Informed and responsible decision making takes time, and one would expect this to be especially true for a bill intended to pioneer a new industry. In FFAW meetings with our provincial government, they too have expressed concerns with federal pressure to pursue this industry too quickly.

Our inshore fishery contributes over $1 billion annually to the provincial economy from a renewable, historically significant marine resource. Offshore wind energy expansion has a direct impact on fish harvesters, who will be faced with competition for ocean space and absolutely affected by new infrastructure.

In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework — which is not currently built into this bill for adherence — undue conflict among fishery stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind is inevitable.

The fishing industry is sustainable, increasingly profitable and successful; yet, year after year, fishing activities and patterns are forced to change because of new developments offshore. This is frustrating for commercial harvesters, who regularly see oil and gas-related expansion proceed without their due consideration. Substantial ocean real estate has already been claimed in the Jeanne D’Arc region by oil companies. Four oil fields within this region are located on traditional prime cod fishing grounds.

There is no economic opportunity to fish in areas the oil industry has acquired offshore, or in marine conservation areas where fishing is prohibited, and our members are justifiably concerned offshore wind will further reduce their economically viable areas.

FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. However, this assessment so far, and near completion, is deeply flawed and consultation and community engagement wholly insufficient.

The regional assessment committee has no mandate to consider the impacts of subsea cable-to-shore systems and the increased navigational challenges and dangers associated with transiting through wind farms with proven radar deficiencies. It will give no consideration to the lost livelihoods of commercial fishers when their designated fishing areas are completely abandoned due to offshore wind.

Fishing industry representatives in the U.S. have publicly stated offshore wind farms in their jurisdiction become de facto exclusionary zones for commercial fishing, and in their cases, improper consideration and rushed legislation all but guarantees litigation.

The impossible timelines imposed on the regional assessment committee and government committees are rushed, dismissive and do not allow sufficient time to appropriately engage and thoughtfully consider. The regional assessment mandate renders itself ineffective in capturing fisheries impacts, such as historical fishing patterns and long-term oceanographic changes. FFAW members in small coastal communities will be disproportionately negatively affected if their fishing grounds are displaced by offshore wind. Without a robust plan for potential workforce transitions, these communities risk collapse.

While we appreciate the acceptance of amendments thus far acknowledging fisheries, more robust safeguards and assurances are necessary. The impacts of offshore wind are already being felt by our membership. Fish harvesters are anxious about the unknown longevity of their industry. Young harvesters are apprehensive about the risk of purchasing new enterprises. I myself have significantly reduced bandwidth since taking on this offshore wind file, and it leaves fewer resources available for other equally important fisheries issues.

Our province is unique in many ways, perhaps the most prolific being our geography as an island. Our rural coastal communities have relied on fish harvesting to provide sustenance and economic stability for generations, and this practice continues as a vibrant industry today. As government officials, you have a fundamental responsibility to protect valuable resources. Insights and experiential knowledge provided by fish harvesters will serve as an invaluable resource throughout the planning process to mitigate risk and ensure sound implementation.

It is therefore reckless and irresponsible to jeopardize rural reliance on renewable seafood resources given the vast uncertainty of potential negative effects.

FFAW has met with existing players in offshore wind to better understand the realities of fisheries interactions. FFAW met with Xodus Group, a global energy consultancy, with interests in Boston and Scotland. Their take-home message was entirely in hindsight, explaining that they had done things wrong and we in Canada have a great opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

They emphasized the fishing industry must be deeply engaged in the earliest phases of offshore wind to increase trust and understanding and to ensure all avoidance mitigation can proceed.

The fishing industry will be the most disrupted, and the succession of the industry relies on sustainable practices that preserve biodiversity and sensitive habitat conditions. Subversion of this habitat, which is often irrevocable, will directly cause the displacement of valuable fisheries.

FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, was not consulted or engaged by governments, or otherwise, on the proposed legislation in question ahead of the bill’s first reading. Since sounding this alarm, there has been a reactive approach from federal and provincial governments to engage with our membership. The fishing industry cannot and will not be an afterthought.

Lastly, FFAW does not oppose the development of renewable industries; our union opposes any harmful impacts imposed on our industry. We fear the committee may pass this bill without sufficient and necessary consultations. As a key stakeholder, FFAW is committed to all consultation required moving forward in support of a just transition to greener, less fossil fuel‑dependent technologies; however, the growth of one industry cannot be at the expense of another. We support productive partnerships and a goal of coexistence that thoughtfully and meaningfully considers fisheries as a priority. Thank you.

[ Translation ]

The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll now move on to questions.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: My question is for Mr. Kofahl. You mentioned a possible amendment, if I understood correctly, to make it mandatory for the Impact Assessment Act to contain an assessment of all wind projects off the Maritimes.

I admit that I’m having a bit of trouble following you, as it seems to me that the Impact Assessment Act is itself a way of assessing all projects considered to represent a significant environmental risk. The act itself provides fairly strong mechanisms — too strong, according to some — for assessing all projects. That is not my opinion. So I’m trying to understand why you want to include an obligation that takes away any latitude for making progress on renewable energies, which are important for the future of our planet after all.

[ English ]

Mr. Kofahl: Thank you for the question. Under the federal Impact Assessment Act, currently the requirement for an environmental assessment is for a project with 10 or more turbines or an expansion to an existing wind turbine project where there are 10 or more turbines or a 50% increase in capacity. It doesn’t capture all projects, but it captures a lot of offshore wind projects. It doesn’t capture other marine renewable projects, but it does specifically capture wind, which is currently the interest.

In the existing practice of the Offshore Petroleum Board, which would eventually become the offshore energy regulators under the bill if the amendments go forward — those offshore boards already have a practice of conducting environmental assessments of projects. This would be codifying that existing practice. It wouldn’t be introducing additional layers of bureaucracy or new process. It is just codifying and providing certainty about the processes already undertaken by those regulators.

[ Translation ]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Very good.

I have a short question now for Ms. Josenhans. You talked a lot about protected areas. I’m not from the Maritimes. I’d like to know if any protected areas have already been identified around the Maritimes. Is there talk of adding more? I understand from the federal government and public servants that there are two types of protected areas: those where nothing should happen and others where certain things can be done. Here are my questions: Has this already been mapped? Have protected areas where wind turbines are not allowed already been determined?

[ English ]

Ms. Josenhans: Thank you so much for your question. Because this is an emerging industry, there are no provisions under any of the federal legislation that expressly prohibit offshore renewable development. There are only two designations subject to the minimum protection standard: those under Parks Canada and those under Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The protected areas themselves, aside from those blanket restrictions, are actually quite complex when it comes to the fishing activity allowed. That’s done on an individual basis depending on the voices of a number of different stakeholders and rights holders. It is generally done through a kind of zoning mechanism.

The urgency, through the coalition’s very specific lens of ensuring the integrity of Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, is because this is uncharted territory and because there are no mechanisms under the existing legislation to prohibit these new industrial activities. That’s why we have a sense of urgency, through this very specific lens of the protected area targets, in line with the government’s promises. I hoped that answered your question.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much.

Senator Arnot: This question is for Mr. Kofahl. You are advocating for tiered assessment and planning and say it is a best practice. You recommended two very specific critical amendments. Will those amendments cure the deficiencies in the act? And, critically, will failing to make these amendments create a significant litigation risk concerning future projects? Second, is the shift toward performance-based regulation in Bill C-49 effective for environmental protection? If so, why? And if not, why?

Mr. Kofahl: Thank you for those two questions. In terms of the amendments for regional assessment and strategic assessment and then the project-level assessments, those targeted, very small amendments requiring what is already a practice of the offshore and is considered a best practice in other jurisdictions will provide more certainty for stakeholders. It will provide opportunities for participants and industries, including the fisheries industry, to engage in the planning. Planning is really important in this new emerging industry to essentially get it right.

So, yes, that will help alleviate some of the concerns we have with providing the regulators with discretion. We don’t want to have discretion. We want to have certainty. We’ve heard that from everyone we’ve spoken with. There must be certainty in this industry. That can help provide some of that and alleviate some of those concerns.

With respect to the second question, I’m not sure what you mean by “performance-based” provisions under the act. Could you clarify that for me?

Senator Arnot: Well, I won’t. That’s okay. I will leave that question. Thank you.

Senator Manning: My question is for Ms. Power from FFAW. I listened intently to your testimony. We had Premier Furey come out in support of this bill and ask that it be passed, and this morning we heard from you that in your conversations or meetings with the provincial government, they seem to feel pressure from the federal government to support this bill and get it passed. Did I understand you correctly?

Ms. Power: Yes. I had a conversation with the Department of Industry, Energy and Technology, and that was passed to us, of course.

I’ve had conversations with our provincial government where they have said there are federal pressures they feel are pushing this forward too quickly.

This emphasizes a disconnect we have in government and fisheries engagement; there are silos operating whereby the same conversations are not being completely passed along to our level.

Senator Manning: Thank you. We have Minister Parsons appearing on our next panel. I will pose the same question to him when the time comes.

Ms. Power: Certainly.

Senator Manning: Oil was first discovered offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1979, with the first oil production occurring in 1997. At that time, I was in the House of Assembly and there was great concern raised by people involved in the fishing industry in my hometown of St. Bride’s — a fear of the unknown, I would say. We found a way over the many years that have passed to coexist — that might be the best way to put it — with respect to the oil and gas and fishing industries.

We are in the same boat, pardon the pun, today with respect to wind energy. How do your members feel about the coexistence of the fishing industry with the proposed projects that will come someday down the road regarding wind energy?

Ms. Power: Thank you for the question.

First, I want to highlight the point you made: The first discovery was during the 1970s and the first production was not until the 1990s. There was a large time gap between the discovery and when things actually got moving.

If this is the emergence of a new industry, there is significant time we can take to develop things responsibly for the sake of other ocean users.

Speaking as an advocate for my members in the inshore fishery, they are threatened by the risk of further diminishing the offshore area they have to pursue fishing.

Again, I mentioned in my speech that there are areas closed to fishing all over. We have an oil and gas industry that has taken over certain areas that are no longer economically feasible for our industry.

There are marine conservation areas. We have refuges we cannot pursue but oil and gas industries can. The economic area for our fishing industry offshore is being further and further reduced.

We have specific areas we can pursue as a fishing industry, sir, such as Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, fishing areas; there are even smaller subareas, such as crab fishing areas and lobster fishing areas. We are contained in where we can fish and particularly what season we can fish. To have that economic area even further reduced by another industry is, of course, terrifying for our members.

That’s not to say it can’t be achieved in a way where we can coexist and find co-location. It is completely contingent on the meaningful inclusion of our members from the onset of this industry. We can’t jeopardize or risk the fishing population in our own industry.

Once a species leaves a certain area, it’s no longer there, can no longer be caught and we can no longer profit from it. This is livelihood at risk, so it is critical that our fishing industry is considered a priority.

Senator Wells: Thank you to the witnesses.

I have a question for Ms. Power from the FFAW. Thank you for your testimony.

You may recall that when the Confederation Bridge was built between Prince Edward Island and mainland Canada — and also when the Long Harbour hydromet facility in Placentia Bay was built — there were compensation programs developed for fisheries interests because of the disturbance of their traditional and commercial fishing activities where those two developments occurred.

Would you be supportive or in favour of such a compensation program for any installation of wind farms?

Ms. Power: Of course. In the absence of absolute mitigation, there must be a mechanism in place for compensation for displacement, among other things.

Direct displacement by wind turbines or installations is one layer of this complex situation. The displacement of fisheries can also result in oceanographic changes; we will see changes in currents and different biological changes. These are certainly things that need to be acknowledged in legislation.

We need these safeguards in place because we will undoubtedly be affected by the installation of turbines in the offshore wind industry.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Ms. Power.

I have one follow-up question.

Section 17 in Bill C-49 states there must be consultation with Indigenous Peoples. It says at the end, regarding Indigenous people:

. . . and the Regulator may, on behalf of His Majesty, if appropriate, accommodate any adverse impacts on those rights.

There is no such

section regarding fisheries in the bill. Would you be supportive of an amendment to the bill that included that reference?

Ms. Power: Absolutely, yes.

Senator Petten: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

My question is to Mr. Kofahl. Have you spoken with either province regarding your requested amendments, given both provinces must introduce and pass mirror legislation?

Mr. Kofahl: Thank you for your question.

No, we have not directly engaged with the provinces at this point, primarily because this stage of Bill C-49 is at the federal level.

We intend to engage at the provincial level and recognize the hard work that has been done between the federal and provincial levels. However, no, we have not directly engaged with either of the provinces with our amendments, although we made our recommendations clear to the federal minister and engaged indirectly through correspondence with the provinces but haven’t received a response.

Senator Petten: I appreciate your comments and that, overall, you support the legislation.

Regarding offshore renewable energy projects, could you give examples of projects you foresee not triggering the Impact Assessment Act?

Mr. Kofahl: Yes. I mentioned the regional assessments of offshore wind that are happening now in both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia’s offshore.

One mechanism under the federal impact assessment that can be used as a result of a regional or strategic assessment is the ability to exempt future projects that have undergone regional assessments from impact assessments.

We saw this occur in Newfoundland’s offshore through the first regional assessment. There was a regional assessment of offshore exploratory line gas drilling. Once that regional assessment concluded, a ministerial regulation was created; it exempted all of those projects from any future impact assessment. We are worried that will occur for offshore wind.

There could also potentially be a situation with a project with nine or fewer turbines. Those are not usually commercially viable projects; however, there is the potential for a pilot project or some kind of exploratory technology using three or four turbines. This has happened in early stages of wind development in other jurisdictions, where they decided to put a couple of turbines in. Because of the trigger in the Impact Assessment Act requiring 10 or more turbines, that could be another situation where an impact assessment may not be required.

Senator Petten: Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you to all of the witnesses for your presentations.

My question is for Ms. Power. You acknowledged that earlier provisions were incorporated as part of Bill C-49 during the legislative process in the House, particularly those that indicated that importance shall be given to considering effects on fishing activities during the land tenure process for an offshore renewable energy project as a matter of principle.

It’s my understanding that potential impacts on fishing activities stemming from future offshore renewable energy projects will be identified and mitigated outside of the land tenure process for those processes as well; that is under

Part 3 of the bill.

Do you not therefore believe that the concerns and the unique and important needs of fishers and the fishing industry were considered by the government in drafting this bill and reflected within the principles of this legislation?

In that sense, does it not to some large degree address the concerns that were raised in the latter question by my colleague Senator Wells?

Ms. Power: Thank you for your question. Given the statements fellow fishery stakeholders — including Mr. Vascotto — and I have made, it’s clear that the magnitude of fisheries impacts is massive. The spillover effects of those impacts are largely unknown.

Given the massive unknowns and the magnitude of impacts, there need to be more substantial and robust guarantees embedded in the legislation to protect our important and prosperous industry. There are not sufficient amendments in the bill as it presently stands to reflect the magnitude of potential impacts our industry will undoubtedly see as a result of irresponsible and rushed legislation; that serves to risk our industry.

Senator Gold: It’s really more of a comment. Ms. Power — and anybody else who wants to comment on this, frankly — given the history of the Atlantic Accord and the close collaboration between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province of Nova Scotia and the federal government in this area and the work that would be done — and was done — to develop this legislation, don’t you think the needs and interests of the fisheries in both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia — critical industries for so many citizens of both provinces — were duly considered by the governments in developing this legislation?

Ms. Power: I can speak to that. We do, of course, appreciate the acknowledgement so far that the fishing industry is critical. Of course it is. But historically, we have compromised with industry. We have been pushed off our valuable fishing grounds. We have had some success but also some challenges in finding compromise with the oil and gas industry, and the offshore renewable industry presents another instance where we may be pushed, forced out and forced to compromise.

Again, we are a traditional, sustainable industry. We really feel this is a time to prioritize and value us and work productively and cooperatively to find a way forward without jeopardizing one or the other. We need to do this responsibly.

Senator Cordy: Thanks to all the witnesses for being here. I’m not a regular member of the committee, but I’m pleased to be here, since I’m from Nova Scotia.

My first question is to Ms. Josenhans from beautiful downtown Lunenburg. You spoke about the transition from offshore oil and gas to renewable energy and the protection of marine biodiversity. You also spoke at length about the need to protect the biodiversity of the coastline and offshore.

Does this bill strike a balance between environmental issues and offshore energy?

Ms. Josenhans: Probably not comprehensively, but the few clauses within Bill C-49 that allow for the rescinding of existing oil and gas leases within protected areas is very relevant to closing an existing legislative gap.

Also, we cannot ask Bill C-49 to enable all the things we need in order to sufficiently protect the marine environment. However, it is a positive step in the right direction.

Senator Cordy: I believe what you’re saying is that we should be supportive of it.

Ms. Josenhans: We do indicate our support for Bill C-49 for the reasons I stated.

Thank you very much.

Senator Cordy: Thank you.

The Chair: That ends this portion of our question-and-answer session. I thank the witnesses very much for accepting our invitation and sharing their knowledge with us. It’s much appreciated. It’s somewhat complicated, but we’re trying very hard to make it transparent and to have good results. So thank you very much.

Senator McCallum: I wanted to go back to the statement about the massive unknowns and the potential impacts of wind. Have you looked at other countries that have wind power now? If so, what did you find out about the impact it had on the fishing industry?

The Chair: Who is this addressed to?

Senator McCallum: Any of the presenters.

The Chair: Would anybody like to take that up?

Mr. Vascotto: Thank you for the question. It’s a really unique situation wherever you look in these various jurisdictions. If you’re trying to look for something comparable to some of what is being proposed in the far offshore areas, you’re really looking at Scotland — the Dogger Bank. There is a complete exclusion of fishing activity from those offshore wind development areas. Areas that were formerly highly productive can no longer be accessed.

At the same time, if you look at the underpinning research for those areas, there are substantial oceanographic changes that have impacts right down to the bottom, where many of these little beasties seem to live. Where we see expanding development on the East Coast of the U.S., there has been ample evidence to suggest that the harvesting and removal of wind energy prior to its entering the ocean prevents large-scale distribution of larvae that are vitally important to the long-term production of various fishery resources. This relates to this larger cumulative context, which I believe Ms. Power was coming to.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Kofahl, did you want to add anything?

Mr. Kofahl: I’ll add that in our brief to the Senate committee, we have included reference to a number of jurisdictional reviews and legal analyses we have done. Some of those comparative analyses have looked at Scotland, England, Germany, Denmark and the United States. I would point to those as additional resources.

The Chair: Thank you again to the witnesses.

[ Translation ]

For our second panel, we are welcoming by video conference the Honourable Andrew Parsons, K.C., Minister, Industry, Energy and Technology, and the Honourable Tory Rushton, Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation. You will have 10 minutes for your opening remarks.

[ English ]

Hon. Andrew Parsons, K.C., Minister, Industry, Energy and Technology, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador: Good morning. Thank you for invitation to present to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources today with respect to amendments to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act through Bill C-49.

Newfoundland and Labrador are supportive of this legislation. We are pleased that the proposed legislative amendments to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act will ensure joint management of our valuable offshore wind resources, recognize exclusive jurisdiction of waters lying between the jaws of the land and certain coastal waters and modernize provisions relating to the offshore oil industry.

Our government is committed to supporting offshore renewable energy projects that have the potential to contribute toward the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Electrification and increasing opportunities to support decarbonization of the economy are essential to achieving these goals.

I would be remiss if I didn’t state early in my remarks that as the world transitions from hydrocarbons to renewable energy resources during the global transition to a net-zero economy, it will continue to require non-renewable energy sources such as oil and gas. Our offshore oil and gas sector is a major contributor to the provincial economy. As our premier said at the Energy NL Conference last week in St. John’s, “We will be all in on oil and gas for decades and decades to come.” He continued, saying, “Because the world needs us to be.”

We have made significant progress in positioning the oil and gas sector to meet the world’s energy needs during the energy transition while taking steps to decrease the carbon intensity of the sector by participating in projects, initiatives and groups focused on decreasing carbon sector emissions.

With high environmental, social and governance, or ESG, standards and performance, the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore region is an important, reliable supplier during the energy transition. At the same time, we have much to offer as a province when it comes to renewable energy resources, whether it’s meeting net-zero commitments, mitigating the impacts of climate change or growing clean energy jobs and supporting economic development.

The proposed legislative amendments to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act are significant for our province as we work to develop our renewable energy offshore.

They will ensure necessary measures are in place to support offshore renewable energy opportunities; allow for a fiscal regime that provides maximum economic returns to Newfoundland and Labrador; rename the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, or C‑NLOPB, as the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator; and expand its mandate to become the lead regulatory body for offshore energy in the offshore area. This furthers joint management of the area and builds on extensive expertise that the C-NLOPB has in managing offshore projects.

It will define the offshore area for offshore renewable energy that excludes areas within provincial jurisdiction, to ensure that the provincial government can move forward to regulate developments within provincial jurisdictional waters. Finally, it will modernize provisions relating to the regulation of our offshore oil industry.

Speaking of the fishery, we recognize that historically, it was the backbone of our economy and continues to be a major contributor. As such, we have met with the FFAW and will continue to work with them on this legislation. The fishery is both economically and culturally important to our province.

Using our wind resources, we have an opportunity to develop some of the first large-scale projects that will produce green hydrogen for export to global demand and for some of our own commercial operations as well.

Onshore, as early adopters, we are moving into the emerging and evolving green hydrogen industry as our province takes every measure to put our best foot forward. Newfoundland and Labrador have the key ingredients to competitively produce and export green hydrogen — including strong wind, fresh water, deep-sea ports and proximity to markets.

This has been demonstrated onshore with five wind hydrogen projects currently under development. There is a growing global demand for green energy to meet net-zero goals and ensure security of energy supply. This demand has created a generational opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Look no further than every major resource project in our province, which have all been built by a highly skilled workforce, strengthened by a world-class supply and service sector and supported by our internationally recognized offshore education and training. We can take an abundant renewable resource like our wind resource and build a new sector that will both create jobs and reduce carbon emissions.

As I already noted, we have already moved forward with onshore wind development, and this legislation is a significant step in allowing our province to move forward with the development of offshore renewable energy. Enabling a new provincial green hydrogen production industry will increase jobs and grow the economy while providing clean renewable energy that is in demand globally. We are building a green energy economy for the long-term benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the rest of the world. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to questions.

The Chair: Thank you. From Nova Scotia, Minister Rushton.

Hon. Tory Rushton, Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables, Government of Nova Scotia: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here to talk about the important subject of Bill C-49 for Nova Scotia’s sustainable and prosperous future.

I was pleased to speak about this legislation at the House Standing Committee on Natural Resources in February. The fact that I am speaking again, this time in person, should underscore the importance of this bill to my province.

It is fundamental for the development of offshore wind, and we need swift passage through the Senate for us to keep our work in progress.

My message to you today is reinforced by a group of clean energy leaders who are joining us here to show their support.

If I may, I’ll take just a moment to introduce and welcome them: Darryl McDonald, CEO of Potlotek Development Corporation, on behalf of Chief Wilbert Marshall; Jennifer Deleskie, VP of Business Development and Public Affairs at the Membertou Development Corporation, on behalf of Chief Terry Paul; Warden Amanda Mombourquette of the Municipality of Richmond County; Gordon MacDonald, Director of Economic Development of the Municipality of the District of Guysborough; and Elisa Obermann — no stranger here — Executive Director of Marine Renewables Canada.

Wela’lin , thank you all for making the journey for this important issue.

These leaders have made an effort to come from Nova Scotia to Ottawa today because they believe in the promise of offshore wind. They support this bill and they echo my call for its timely passage.

Like me and my government, they all believe that offshore wind is pivotal for Nova Scotia’s transition to a clean, sustainable future. Like us, they know it is our greatest economic opportunity since the age of sail. Offshore wind and green hydrogen combined are game changers for Nova Scotia. They are key to helping us meet our climate change goals for 2050. Together, they will help us decarbonize, bring more green jobs to our province and potentially make Nova Scotia a net exporter of clean energy.

Nova Scotia’s climate change goals are among the most ambitious in the country and are enshrined in legislation: the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. A key tenet of this legislation is that our environment and our economy go hand in hand. We don’t sacrifice one for the other. We advance all opportunities for a green economy and our clean environment because that’s the only way to secure a sustainable, prosperous future for our children and grandchildren to come.

By 2030, we will be off coal and will have at least 80% renewables on our electricity system. By 2050, we will be net zero. There is no silver bullet to achieve this. It will take a suite of solutions to make this a reality. We focus on made-in-Nova Scotia solutions as much as possible.

We’ve released a number of plans to help us reach our targets. The Clean Power Plan focuses primarily on greening our grid, the Offshore Wind Roadmap focuses on harnessing the power of world-class offshore wind that our province offers and the Green Hydrogen Action Plan focuses on this clean fuel that can help with the transition both at home and abroad. They all work together to move us toward a sustainable future.

To pursue made-in-Nova Scotia solutions, we’re looking at what role our natural resources can play. Nova Scotia offers some of the best offshore wind resources in the world. Come visit us if you don’t believe me.

Our winds rival those of the North Sea, where the world’s offshore wind sector started. Harnessing that power in our backyard is one of the main solutions to help fight climate change and grow our green economy. We will use our geography to our advantage in our pursuit of offshore wind.

We have ample capacity to serve both local and international green hydrogen markets. We have an incredible opportunity here, and it’s an exciting time for Nova Scotia.

We’re on the verge of change that generations of Nova Scotians will benefit from. There’s a lot of work to be done, and done quickly, to make all this a reality.

I mentioned our Offshore Wind Roadmap. We’re continuing to build it in consultation with our partners. We plan to release the second module this summer. It will focus on building the supply chain for our industry, and we aim to offer licences for five gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, with the first call for bids next year. To do that, we need Bill C-49 to pass, and we also need to pass our own mirror legislation in Nova Scotia. There is not a lot of time, so, again, I urge our federal partners to pass this bill.

New industries need strong regulations. As I said to the House committee, we have complete faith in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, or CNSOPB, to regulate offshore renewables. With an expanded mandate and a new name to match, they will help us safely and responsibly reach our climate change goals. The existing board has 30 years of experience regulating in complex marine environments. Their skills and experience are easily transferred to offshore renewables. They are well positioned to expand their scope.

We’re also building our regulatory framework, and Bill C-49 and our mirror legislation are the cornerstones. With those in place, we’ll continue building our framework through good relationships and continuous communication with our partners. That includes dialogue with fishing and other industries, as well as our Mi’kmaq partners, about where offshore wind will be sited and how it will be managed.

Part of that discussion is through the regional assessment that we’re now doing in collaboration with our federal partners. It focuses on identifying where and how these projects can be optimally developed. It will inform governments on the future planning for this sector. It’s an opportunity for Nova Scotians to have their say in how the sector and projects should be planned, and we’re listening to their feedback.

That’s why we, as a province, made the decision last fall to pause any consideration of wind development in our provincial waters until we have a framework in place to jointly manage these waters.

We have an interim report from the assessment committee that is starting to paint a picture for us. There is still time for Nova Scotians to participate, and I encourage everyone to have their say. We look forward to the final report this coming January.

However, the conversations won’t stop there. We’ll continue to seek input as we develop our approach. For example, I know there are questions about Georges Bank. I’ve said many times that we will build offshore wind without harming our traditional industries or our environment. But we can’t put the cart before the horse. We need regulatory authority through Bill C-49 and our mirror legislation before we can consider options.

Passing this legislation will get us one step closer to giving people the clarity and certainty they need in this sector.

I want to acknowledge that the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia are strong leaders, supporters and partners in our transition to clean energy. Just look at the number of projects where they are co‑owners — from onshore wind and batteries to green hydrogen and more. Their voices are important and we value our nation‑to‑nation relationship.

We will absolutely uphold our duty to consult and, where required, accommodate. We already have a process to carry out that duty through the regulator in collaboration with Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan.

The bill will be amended to acknowledge it, and I would venture that it will work well.

Chief Terry Paul of Membertou First Nation wasn’t able to be here today. He did ask me to share an excerpt from his written submission to this committee.

He says that Membertou is:

. . . very familiar with the consultation process, and after outreach takes place and there is no follow-up from communities, the process moves forward.

Should the communities feel they need additional information to the outreach and consultation that has already taken place, Membertou is more than willing to be part of meetings with our partners.

I’ve witnessed the dedication of Chief Paul and other Mi’kmaq chiefs in this process, and I appreciate the show of support from our Mi’kmaq partners here today.

To conclude, I will state that my premier, my government and I fully support Bill C-49. It is key to advancing our climate change goals and growing our green economy in Nova Scotia, and we cannot afford to lose these opportunities and let them pass us by. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our province and our country. We need to seize it to build our bright, sustainable future. We urge the speedy passage of this bill to make history in Canada with Canada’s first offshore wind projects.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will go directly to questions.

Senator Arnot: Minister Rushton, thank you for coming today, and thank you for bringing the Mi’kmaq communities that you are working with here today. It is very important.

I’m very interested in finding out more about the partnership with the three First Nations. This partnership offers a very exciting opportunity, and I believe it is a very good example. I’d like to know more about the development of the partnership, the progress and the expectations. I assume it is founded on the principles of mutual benefit and mutual respect and expands on the Peace and Friendship Treaties of the 1700s, using those principles that underlie those treaties and their spirit and intent. This is a very positive, proactive relationship in a modern context and a good example of not only the consultation but the cooperation and co-ownership that underlies the work.

Your model is actually a model for the rest of Canada, so I’m very interested. Could you expand on that, please, sir?

Mr. Rushton: Thank you very much.

Yes, in Nova Scotia, we have another department — the Office of L’nu Affairs — that would lead consultations and things. Having said that, even before that consultation began — and it speaks volumes that our partners are here today — there was communication that took place. When these conversations started a few years ago, our Mi’kmaq partners were some of the first we had conversations with, to lead us down a path where there is openness and a willingness to move forward together.

I can’t speak much to this process because it’s not my department that does the consultations. But my department is very entrenched in the conversations, which I think are two key differences — both very important to roll out.

The relationship the Government of Nova Scotia currently has with all of the Mi’kmaq nations in Nova Scotia is such that we don’t require a formal consultation process. I firmly believe in the chiefs with whom I communicate. There is an open-door process. A phone can be picked up tomorrow or today to have conversations that are important and that may have to lead to consultation through the control of the Office of L’nu Affairs.

I appreciate the recognition. There is a good pathway forward there.

Senator Arnot: Thank you, sir. Thank you for the good work you are doing. I believe Nova Scotia is a great model for the rest of Canada because of the way you work in terms of partnerships and the relationships you have built over time, obviously, to get to this point.

Congratulations.

Senator Manning: Welcome, Minister Parsons and Minister Rushton.

My question is for Minister Parsons. I’m not sure if you had the opportunity to view our first panel this morning, but during that panel, we had testimony from a representative from the FFAW, Ms. Katie Power. In her testimony, she stated in regard to meetings she has had with members of the provincial government, the provincial government feels pressure from the federal government to have this bill passed.

You stated in your testimony that the government is supportive of the bill. I’m trying to get clarity on exactly where we are. Would your government like to see the bill passed as it is written today? Is your government interested in amendments to the bill? I’m trying to clarify the situation because it certainly muddies the waters for me.

Mr. Parsons: Thank you, senator. What I can say is that there is no muddying of the waters from the perspective of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have been and are supportive of this legislation, and we have worked with the federal government on it. We would like to see it passed.

I have personally met with the FFAW, and that was not a concern mentioned in my meeting. In fact, I did hear the commentary, and my staff — who were also part of the consultations with the FFAW — came to me to say that was not part of any conversation we have had.

I don’t want to get caught up in a situation of one side versus the other. All I can say is that it is the provincial government’s perspective that we have been working on this legislation for some time. We were part of the House of Commons standing committee. We have been supportive of an amendment and want to continue to move forward. Mirroring the comments of my colleague from Nova Scotia, time is of the essence here. In fact, we may be a little more behind than they are in the sense that we don’t have any offshore projects currently under way.

Most offshore operators are looking toward the certainty that would come from legislation, although offshore wind has been talked about in our province for well over a decade now. There have been conversations. We just want to get the regulatory certainty from this federal bill. Hopefully, we will follow through with our provincial mirror legislation in the fall session of our legislature.

Senator Manning: Thank you, minister, for clarifying that.

The fishing industry, as you are fully aware, is a very important industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and concerns about other developments such as oil and gas and with respect to wind energy are there from the industry.

You stated in your comments this morning — again, I stand to be corrected — that you have worked with and continue to work with the FFAW. Therefore, I am a little concerned about the issues that were raised by Ms. Power this morning, and how you see the concerns that the fishing industry seems to have as being dealt with from a provincial perspective.

Mr. Parsons: During this process, in fact, the province has supported one of the amendments made to the bill coming out of the House committee, which was that “during the submerged land licence issuance process, importance shall be given to the consideration of effects on fishing activities.” That was one amendment that we supported and wanted to see.

I have met with the FFAW upon request. I have sat down with Ms. Power and other individuals, and officials within our department will actually be engaging on a quarterly basis.

Here’s the big thing: Having been a legislator from our province for some time, senator, we know the impact of offshore energy developments, and there is no overstating the importance of the fishery to the history as well as the future of this province. However, there will and must be a way to coexist. That can happen.

I cannot speak to the comments of any of the presenters here, except to say that our department — as well as multiple other departments, including the premier’s office — is always open to engage and have these consultations. In fact, as we move forward after this, that will be part of the process. We also have a regulator who engages on this and has been doing so for almost four decades when it comes to offshore oil. We see no change here. Consultation will be a major part of this. We want to find a way to mitigate any impacts there will be.

That’s the best way I can put it, senator.

Senator Manning: Thank you, minister.

Senator Cordy: Thank you, Ministers Rushton and Parsons, for being with us today and explaining to the committee as a whole and others who are listening how important this legislation is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. I appreciate that.

Minister Rushton, your comments about Chief Terry Paul were wonderful. I am from Cape Breton. He has not only dramatically changed Membertou, but Membertou has been an economic driver for Cape Breton and the whole province. Thank you very much for speaking about that.

Clearly, I am from Nova Scotia. I will be supporting the bill. I would like to talk about things just beyond the bill, maybe regulations and what things should be there.

Something that has been expressed to me is the job impact of these projects coming on board. What will be the impact on jobs in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador? I have heard that when Americans were doing these things, only 40% of those hired were Americans. The others were from countries outside the U.S. Can we have some reassurance that the majority of the jobs that will be coming due to this will be going to Nova Scotians and Canadians?

Minister Rushton?

Mr. Rushton: Thank you very much, senator. Thank you for recognizing that. As a government, this is a job we have already tackled because we want Nova Scotians to be working in the green economy.

For many years, Nova Scotians have taken pride in training and education components of ocean tech and sharing our people with those doing different things in the ocean in the rest of the world. Here is an opportunity for us to bring those people home. Through that, we are enhancing educational processes and conversations with places likes Nova Scotia Community College, or NSCC, and our academia. We need to plan for the future.

There has been a number thrown around that we may need upwards of 3,200 more tradespeople in the province to build out this sector as this rolls out — 3,200 on top of everything else that’s going on with the new home builds, the new grid system we’re looking at in our province and everything else. We take this very seriously.

We are also looking at transitioning away from coal. How can we work with our counterparts in electricity energy reform as Nova Scotia Power? How can we have those people cross‑trained to move into the green sectors as things transition into more renewables?

We take this very seriously. We want Nova Scotians to stay in Nova Scotia. We also want the door to open for more people to come to Nova Scotia, to be able to put their roots down and call Nova Scotia their home.

We are already working with Nova Scotia community colleges to have those training aspects already put into place.

Senator Cordy: Minister Parsons?

Mr. Parsons: Thank you. I wasn’t asked this specifically, but since Mr. Rushton did such a good job of highlighting the importance of Indigenous involvement in these projects, I can say that we are lucky in Newfoundland and Labrador that both the Qalipu First Nation and Miawpukek First Nation are partners on many of our onshore projects, and consultation was a mandatory part of our Crown Lands Call for Bids process. It is without any doubt that there will be significant Indigenous consultation and partnerships when it comes to our offshore.

As it relates to the question, we are very lucky in Newfoundland and Labrador that we have seen the impact of offshore developments on our province and our workforce. When it started here, we did not have offshore oil industry or sector expertise, but it has now been built to the point where our expertise is exported around the world on very complex projects. We have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians everywhere. As well, we have benefits agreements in place for everybody. There are certain expectations as it relates to jobs that must go to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, full and fair opportunities, as well as Canadians.

There is a built-in expectation in our province that if we are looking at resource development, there will be a significant Newfoundland and Labrador component as well as a Canadian component to that. At this juncture, we do not have any projects. It is premature to say what the actual impact will be because we need to negotiate those, and it will depend on the projects. Again, going by the experience of multiple ongoing offshore oil projects, where in many cases we have upwards of 90% Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians, we have shown that we understand the importance of having that.

Again, there is a strong feeling that we have the men and women who can do the work here. Also, our post-secondary institutions are currently moving into new offerings to deal with this new industry, with respect to wind technicians, electrolyzers, hydrogen and things like that. We are confident there. There is still work left to be done when it comes to the actual specifics of that, but we do have precedent.

Senator Gold: Ministers, thank you so much for being here. Much obliged. This is a question for you, Minister Rushton.

Minister, I know you are aware the committee has heard some concerns around the duty to consult provisions and particularly the consultation and engagement processes involving affected Indigenous groups in the development of Bill C-49. From your perspective and that of your government, were the tripartite Terms of Reference for a Mi’kmaq–Nova Scotia–Canada Consultation Process adhered to and respected? Were the consultation processes and engagement processes followed by your government and the Government of Canada done properly and respectfully, consistent with the joint management regime outlined in the Accord Acts?

In addition, could you speak to any additional engagement that the Government of Nova Scotia may have undertaken with Indigenous communities and groups?

Mr. Rushton: Thank you, senator. Our relationship with the Mi’kmaq is very important. The words that I would use are those that Chief Terry Paul shared. He believed the engagement went to what was needed. In a previous answer, I stated that our province looks at it as more than just an engagement. It is an ongoing conversation that we have with our Mi’kmaq friends.

When this legislation was being drafted, from our point of view, there were conversations going on with our Mi’kmaq partners, and the ones that showed. At no time did I hear any resistance around that. There was one nation that wrote a letter to our department; we responded by answering some concerns and so on. However, I believe that we’ve gone hand in hand with our Mi’kmaq partners, and we are here today.

We share the echo that this is very important for our province, for the Mi’kmaq nations in our province and for the country as a whole.

Senator Gold: Thank you, minister, for your answer.

Minister, this committee did receive submissions yesterday signed by the chiefs of the Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw Nation and the Potlotek First Nation, both of which are also members of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs, calling for swift passage of this bill. Why it is important that the Senate adopt this bill in its present, unamended form in a timely fashion? As you stated already, your province would like to enact your own mirror legislation in the early fall.

Mr. Rushton: Thank you very much. Yes, we have to enact our mirror legislation. We very much want to do that early this fall, as quickly as possible.

It is important for both the province and our Mi’kmaq partners. If this is delayed past the fall and we cannot do our mirror legislation — and Newfoundland may not be able to do their mirror legislation in their sessions in the fall — we will lose a whole year of investments from these investors and projects. Quite frankly, they will leave Canadian-Nova Scotian and Canadian-Newfoundland waters and go somewhere like the North Sea.

I sit here today because I feel that is very important. There are billions of dollars of investments that could come to the waters of Nova Scotia with this legislation, as we roll out the regulatory framework and allow it to start its work.

As a minister of Nova Scotia, I don’t want to see this investment leave Nova Scotia. We have the ability with this legislation to have a safe pathway forward for existing industry and for our environment to build this sector out hand in hand with all of our partners, whether they be federal, provincial, municipal, our Mi’kmaq partners or the investors that are coming to Nova Scotia. I can’t stress how important this investment would be, not only to Nova Scotia but Canada as a whole.

The Chair: I presume that question also applies to the Newfoundland minister.

Senator Gold: I would be pleased to hear the minister respond as well. Thank you.

Mr. Parsons: Thank you. I won’t go on too long because I think the minister from Nova Scotia covered a lot of the same points. We have been working on this for some time. We are in a global competition. One could say we are even in competition with our colleagues in Nova Scotia, but the reality is I think there is a strong path forward for both provinces and it will have a national impact here.

I can talk about the projected impact that our onshore is going to have. I will give you some of these numbers, which are pretty staggering to a province like Newfoundland and Labrador with just over half a million people. When you’re talking about over a $66-billion capital spend, almost 12,000 full-time equivalent jobs during construction and almost $12 billion in revenue to our province just from our onshore, the reality is that we need to move into this space. However, capital needs to be expended soon.

This money will go elsewhere, even though we feel we have all the things in Newfoundland and Labrador to make us, if not the best jurisdiction, one of the best jurisdictions in the world. The capital will go elsewhere, so we need the regulatory framework and legislation in place so we can move forward with our own.

There is some uncertainty when it comes to something new to us, but this is not new to the world. We have consulted with multiple other jurisdictions on a global basis. A full team of public servants here is working, believe me, around the clock to try to get this moving forward because they realize that it will be a huge benefit to our province. Again, there is work left to be done, but we want to move this forward and have been working for some time.

Senator Petten: Thank you, ministers, for being here.

Minister Parsons, how does Bill C-49 fit into Newfoundland and Labrador’s Hydrogen Development Action Plan?

Mr. Parsons: Thank you. Again, the Hydrogen Development Action Plan is something we put out quite recently. It fits into our Renewable Energy Plan, which has been out for about three years now. A standard part of it is regulatory certainty.

Having travelled around our country and the world talking to investors and other jurisdictions, I know that capital wants certainty. They won’t go somewhere if they don’t have that certainty on the investment they are willing to make. We must be able to give that to them. We are lucky in that we have an offshore regulator with decades of experience and safety that is second to none. We feel quite comfortable as a province that this board will be able to build the expertise to continue to do its amazing job.

That’s how it ties into our action plan — namely, by providing certainty to people who come here so they know what they are getting into. These are multimillion-dollar projects and no investor — no matter how deep their pockets are — wants uncertainty in investment. That’s why we need this.

Then our provincial legislation will mirror this legislation, but we need this bill before we can move on to that. We have certain windows of time. Our next window is in the fall session of the house. As Minister Rushton has said, we are anxious to move this forward. This has been in the works for months and years. There has been a significant amount of planning and it is all starting to fit together into different blocks to provide the regulation and certainty that we need.

Senator Petten: Thank you. Minister Rushton, you used a term with us this morning: “swift passage.” You also mentioned the urgency regarding this legislation. Can you tell the committee a bit more about why the province is hoping this bill will pass sooner rather than later? I understand you are in a different position than Newfoundland and Labrador and further ahead on investors wanting to come.

Mr. Rushton: Yes. Thank you, senator. It is important for Nova Scotia. As I said a few minutes ago, investment is ready to come to Nova Scotia, but they need the certainty.

I spoke about how the education and training for our Nova Scotia green jobs will take place. Some of it has already taken place. People are already coming home to work with these companies that are coming to Nova Scotia.

When I sat as minister for the first time in the summer of 2021, offshore wind was not in the context. However, as the world changed, jurisdictions began to look at Nova Scotia because of their wind paths. Quickly, green hydrogen became an idea for Nova Scotia. We now have investors on the ground, spending time to build relationships, build capital and invest in this province.

The swift passage of this bill is important to us because that capital is ready to go, but they need certainty. In order to have certainty for this year’s capital expenditure, there is a whole jurisdiction of offshore wind, green hydrogen and renewable energy investors watching today to see what Canada, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will do. I’m not prepared to close the door on that capital investment that could come to our province and our country. It is very important for us. As it’s a new industry, it’s important for us to get the regulatory body into the framework. We need to put the next steps in motion to move forward.

[ Translation ]

Senator Aucoin: I thank the two ministers for being here. Since I’m from Chéticamp, I really understand what wind is.

I am really worried, although Minister Parsons answered Senator Manning’s question. I am really concerned about the position of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union regarding fishers. According to what Ms. Power told us earlier this morning, the bill the government wanted to pass came too quickly and too soon. Their members also want to propose numerous amendments.

My question is for the two ministers: Can you give us any further guarantees that these fishers will not delay the passage of this bill for the province? What is the position of the fishers in Nova Scotia? You haven’t said much about it, and I’d like an explanation from Minister Parsons. Thank you.

[ English ]

Mr. Parsons: Thank you. I come from Port aux Basques, a small community on the southwest coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. In this province and my communities, we have been dependent for centuries on fishing. The reality is — similar to oil after that — that being dependent on one industry has not done us any good as a province.

We have an opportunity in the future for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to benefit from a strong fishery that will continue to grow in size, strength and productivity; an oil industry that still has a lifespan left; and a new industry that will have a return to our treasury that will help pay for the services that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rely on — namely, health care, housing and education. Those costs are not going down any time soon. They continue to rise.

I have never turned down a meeting with the FFAW, nor would I ever. I believe that Ms. Power and the membership would say that I’m always willing to sit, talk and listen. I thought the last meeting I had with them was quite productive.

I am also engaged in my riding, in my district, which is located in a marine conversation area. We are talking about similar things; that is, the ability to not only protect the ecosystem but also allow for economic activity. It is a balancing act that requires consultation. I was a strong part of that. For almost 14 years now, I’ve been working on that with the community, Indigenous partners, recreational fishers, commercial fishers — you name it. There is a way to coexist.

I know we will be successful and willing to listen because over the last 30-plus years, we have continued to have a successful oil industry producing benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador and a fishing industry that continues to grow. I see no reason why we can’t continue to have the same productive relationship and continue to work together to allow for another offshore development.

Again, in our offshore wind process, we are fully aware of the need for mitigation and conservation. When projects did not align with caribou habitats, traditional hunting grounds, mating paths and flora and fauna, we worked around it to find a way to protect while allowing development. We have demonstrated a successful process there. It took 18 months, but the reality in this case is to continue to move forward in the offshore space. Our staff have worked months and years on this. We need to move forward, but that doesn’t mean that consultation and communication stop; in fact, they probably have to heighten and increase. My door has always been open.

[ Translation ]

Senator Aucoin: I would also like to have Minister Rushton’s answer.

[ English ]

Mr. Rushton: Thank you, senator. I would echo some of Minister Parsons’ comments. My departmental staff have met with our board’s fishery advisory committee at different times. We have had exchanges and communication with different fishers in our province.

Offshore development in Nova Scotia is nothing new. I’ve been clear from day one: We are not going to jeopardize one industry for a new industry or another industry. Nova Scotia was built on three Fs: fishing, farming and forestry. Fishing has a strong future ahead in Nova Scotia once the regulatory pathway is in place and with the communication happening now with regional assessments. We are listening to the fishers.

I said this in my opening remarks: We heard loud and clear when they said they didn’t want the inner waters, the provincial waters, to be harnessing wind until we had a regulatory pathway in place. We are listening as a province and will continue to listen. Once the bill is passed, many more conversations must take place. Fishing is very important to the province of Nova Scotia. Every fisher I’ve spoken with — alongside our Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which is involved in this process and communicating with the fishers as well — is important. We are not looking to jeopardize that industry one bit.

Senator McCallum: Welcome to the Senate. I will go back to what Senator Arnot said regarding the Mi’kmaq chiefs.

I have two letters that were shared with me. The first letter states:

After speaking with officials, ministerial senior staff for Minister Wilkinson and Mi’kmaq leadership, I can confirm that the consultation terms of reference that should be guiding all legislative and policy discussions in Nova Scotia have not been followed with this bill. Mi’kmaq leadership were not aware of the bill and could not assess, provide feedback or meaningfully participate in something that will significantly impact them and their territory.

There was an assembly in May 2024 with the chiefs. With that came this letter from the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs:

Given the significance and magnitude of this bill and its far‑reaching consequences for the assessment of offshore renewable energy projects, we have serious concerns at the prospect of it being unduly rushed through committee deliberations at the Senate.

They were requesting additional time. It says:

This would provide us an opportunity to complete our analysis of the bill and its potential implications for our constitutionally protected rights and waters of Mi’kma’ki.

We’re getting conflicting statements. We need to hear from the chiefs. I need to know which story is true. This letter from the chiefs came on June 4. Did you have discussions with them after that? I’m trying to make sense of these conflicting statements.

The Chair: Do you want to add to the comments?

Mr. Rushton: Thank you, senator.

I can honestly say I have not laid eyes on that letter. Without further ado, that’s a concern I hear right now. That is a concern I would address head-on with my department, the Office of L’nu Affairs, in Nova Scotia. If that’s a concern from the chiefs, then we absolutely need to have further conversations.

However, I have had conversations with some chiefs since June 4; I have had conversations with chiefs as of late this week. That was never raised with me. Today is the first I’m hearing of that letter, to be very honest. It does suggest that some conversations are needed.

However, other Mi’kmaq partners have indicated their urgency about this bill as well. Some conversations must be had. I do think some conversations have taken place.

This is new information to me. Our relationship is certainly something I take very seriously. We’ll certainly be taking that back with us.

Senator McCallum: Thank you.

The Chair: Do you have something to add, Minister Parsons?

Mr. Parsons: Yes, though I’m not sure if the question was actually referenced to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Chair: I gather not.

Senator McCallum: I want to make a comment about Indigenous rights holders: There is a lot of identity theft and fraud happening regarding First Nations, Inuit and Métis rights. It must be verified that they are, indeed, First Nations or Inuit when you consult.

I’ll ask my second question.

The Chair: The letter was addressed to me relative to the delays and frustration.

Senator McCallum: Okay.

The Chair: As a consequence, we scheduled our meetings and delayed this meeting somewhat so we could hear completely from the Mi’kmaq, what their opinions are, in early September, before we proceed with the clause by clause. They will get a full hearing because we will have a meeting just for that purpose. There has already been some information and contact. We hear their complaint loud and clear. It’s not something we like to hear, so we’ll spend some time looking at that issue in particular.

You had a second question.

Senator McCallum: Yes. How would the development of offshore renewable energy affect First Nations and Inuit fishing rights?

Mr. Rushton: Thank you, senator.

It will not affect them. I’ve been clear from the onset of this conversation in our province. Our fishing industry, whether Mi’kmaq or non-Indigenous, cannot be jeopardized for the sake new industry. We did it with offshore petroleum. I’m certain we can coexist with our Mi’kmaq partners as we move forward with offshore wind developments.

[ Translation ]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m a very practical person. You talked about fantastic development in Nova Scotia. What does that mean in terms of the number of wind turbines you expect to see around your shores?

Do you have some idea of how many billions of dollars are being invested and how many wind turbines are being installed?

[ English ]

Mr. Rushton: Thank you, senator. We have announced we are interested in five gigawatts. I learned very quickly, in the two short years we have been sitting here as a government talking about this, that the development of the technology increases every single day we have these conversations.

Do we look at 100 turbines for five gigawatts or, with new technology, 70? It’s a number that has been juggled around by different investors when they have conversations with me on what that looks like.

I will be very honest: Five gigawatts is a starting point we are looking at in Nova Scotia. With respect to how many turbines would be in the offshore in the distant site, I wouldn’t hazard to put a number on that today.

[ Translation ]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand that wind turbines need to be relatively close to the shore or, at least, at a visible distance so that they would not be submerged. There will obviously be issues; you say that the environment and your development will be taken into account.

On the other hand, wind turbines make a lot of noise. The ones I’ve seen are quite noisy, and this is a problem that affects whales in some cases — at least on the west coast, which I’m more familiar with.

How do we reconcile these interests? It’s not true that wind turbines of this size, as they’re huge, aren’t going to change what happens in the sea, especially with marine mammals.

It’s not possible to keep everything as it was, even with wind turbines. We have to think about the potential impact on fish and wildlife.

[ English ]

Mr. Rushton: Yes, senator, we recognize that. Regarding how close they would be to shore, what has been proposed to me in conversations with different experts is that there will be a bit of a silhouette that you could see from the shoreline looking out.

To your question, that’s the exact reason why we need the regulatory pathway put in place: so the environmental assessments and impacts can be reviewed through the right process. I was very clear in my statements — I’ve been very clear today — that we are not looking to jeopardize our environment.

Hand over hand, if somebody wants to come to our Nova Scotian waters that are shared with our federal counterparts, they must meet the requirements, the environmental standards, the fishing standards and those goal lines in order to do business there.

We’re not looking to jeopardize any whale movements, fish passages, special marine areas or fishing areas.

It’s also why we have the regional assessments going out right now: to have these conversations. I look forward to that report in January. With that regulatory pathway and the reports that we look forward to, we can have things coexist without jeopardizing the environment or fisheries, and have a robust, green energy spectrum in Nova Scotia.

[ Translation ]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are your investments coming from elsewhere, from the rest of Canada? Do Indigenous peoples want to invest, too? Who is promising you investment?

[ English ]

Mr. Rushton: Thank you, senator. The easiest answer would be, “It’s mixed.”

We have had people come to my table. It’s foreign, North American and Canadian investment. I might not be privy to all the Mi’kmaq partners’ conversations, so I wouldn’t hazard to answer that question for those of them involved with some of these investors. However, it would certainly be a mix.

We’re looking at it as a mix because, in order to use the green hydrogen, for example, we need to develop the green hydrogen with onshore wind for it to have a true green hydrogen aspect. Investors are looking at that, but in order to scale it up for worldwide demand, the offshore wind must come into effect. Looking at it as a Nova Scotian, a minister and someone representing the Province of Nova Scotia, when they scale it up for a global economy, that’s when we can utilize it domestically and Nova Scotians will start to reap the benefits as well.

These investments are coming into the province, but they’re for the betterment of our province and Canada as a whole as we “green” our environment.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Minister Rushton and Minister Parsons, for your testimony so far. I also want to welcome a special guest, Molly Tessier from my hometown of St. John’s, who is here in committee today.

Minister Parsons, first, I’m fully supportive of the hydrogen projects in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I have no issue with them being onshore or offshore. I recognize the great potential they have.

Minister Parsons, there are provisions in Bill C-49 that are not related to hydrogen but to oil and gas only. They give the federal minister, in concert with the provincial minister, the right to cancel existing licences — the operators in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore who are producing — under a provision that references “. . . environmental or wildlife conservation or protection . . .” which is a loose term that can be applied to almost anything.

What do you think that ability for the federal minister to cancel a licence — and there is also a provision in the legislation that says, “Compensation — surrender,” as well as another provision called “No compensation.” They are in proposed

section 56 of the bill.

What does that say to potential investors regarding our offshore oil and gas sector? You know there are interests that might apply for gas licences. What does that provision for what I would call “arbitrary cancellation of existing or new licences without compensation” say about the potential for incentivizing companies to come to Newfoundland and Labrador for petroleum resources?

Mr. Parsons: Thank you for the question, senator.

Part of this has obviously been the changing of these Accord Acts, which have been largely unchanged for some time — as you know, having a background in this industry.

The biggest assurance of safety that I can provide is this: Nothing can be done unilaterally here. The provincial government will continue to have a say in this; when it comes to the principles of joint management, a clear requirement for provincial approval in any of these decisions is upheld. So, as long as the provincial government continues to support the industry, which we have and will, that does not appear to be an issue. We’ll see where that goes in the future, but it’s not a concern we have right now.

Again, having had staff from multiple departments, including Industry, Energy and Technology, or IET, Justice and Finance — you name it — have a look at it, we feel the regulatory processes of the former C-NLOPB, soon to be the energy regulator, will still be in check. It will still have the same duties to consult Indigenous peoples and groups. That has been in place.

It’s not a worry I have. That’s not to say that there aren’t sometimes philosophical differences when it comes to that industry, but again, I’m not concerned that anything is going to change. We do have a joint right in our offshore oil.

Senator Wells: Thank you. This is a question for Minister Rushton. Are you supportive of oil and gas development off Nova Scotia?

Mr. Rushton: We said as a government that natural gas is a piece of the puzzle to 2050, so yes, our government is supportive of natural gas offshore.

The changes in this legislation will allow the regulatory body to look at multiple projects. Where are natural gas or petroleum projects a good fit for the offshore, and where are renewable projects a good fit for offshore? The Province of Nova Scotia is supportive of petroleum projects.

Senator Wells: Minister Parsons, if we can strengthen the provisions of this legislation with amendments, would you be supportive of that?

Mr. Parsons: The staff, solicitors and certainly the premier’s office have all been working on this for some time. We are very comfortable with the bill as it is, including the amendment I mentioned earlier. We want to move forward with this.

Again, the first reading of this bill was over a year ago. I can only speak to this with a provincial base, but this has taken some time. We are happy where we are. That does not mean we can’t continue to converse, but we want to move this forward. We are happy and supportive of the bill as it is.

Senator McBean: I know we’re getting close to time. It’s not lost on me that both ministers here today are from departments around industry and natural resources and not fisheries or environment. I’m hearing and am excited for the financial upside for both provinces. I’m hearing the words “conversation” and “recognizing” a lot. However, in conversation, there is sometimes a difference between when we’re listening to the conversation and when we’re waiting to talk. I got a sense from Ms. Power in the last panel that the FFAW felt that people were waiting to talk to them.

They heard from the provinces, but they also heard from other people in the provinces who felt they were rushing this through.

Balancing efficiency and the environment, Bill C-49 aims to streamline all the approvals, but you could argue that comes at the expense of thorough environmental assessments. How can you both ensure that a balance is being struck between efficient project approvals and robust environmental reviews?

Additionally, in the previous panel, the East Coast Environmental Law Association proposed amendments that make an impact assessment mandatory for every project, regardless of its size, before the bidding process.

Because you both need to approve the exact same thing, can you both speak to how you’re balancing this? Also, if an amendment like this came in, how would that impact your approval of it?

Mr. Rushton: Thank you, senator.

I can only speak for our board in Nova Scotia, but we have a 30-year positive track record with our board. Our province has a lot of trust in our board. As the assessments come through, there is a deep dive into each application, if you will.

We expect no difference as we work with our board to get them to where they are today to be ready for the transition into offshore renewables. As we look at those assessments, we expect nothing less than the standard that they have already set for themselves over the past 30 years.

In terms of not jeopardizing one industry over the other, as well as the environment, that will all be part of what our board does in Nova Scotia, in partnership with both the federal government and provincial governments sitting at the table with input as well.

Senator McBean: I will interrupt a little there. I understand that it’s going for 30 years, but I would say that in the last 5 years, business is being done differently with respect to the inclusion of our Indigenous partners. Is that board currently listening to a modern idea of inclusion of all voices?

Mr. Rushton: From my point of view as a minister they report to, absolutely. But I believe you may have an opportunity later this afternoon; the board may actually appear and have a conversation.

But we have the utmost respect for and trust in our board here in Nova Scotia.

Senator McBean: How about the suggested amendments from the East Coast Environmental Law Association?

Mr. Rushton: My premier, my government and I have been very clear: We are happy with where the bill is today. To echo the comments of Minister Parsons in Newfoundland and Labrador, once the bill passes, there is still a need for ongoing conversation as to how to improve things as we move forward. That is not just with respect to this bill but for any piece of legislation at the federal and provincial levels.

I think Minister Parsons was waiting to answer.

Senator McBean: Thank you.

Mr. Parsons: Yes. First, thank you, senator, for the question. You’re correct, I am the Minister for Industry, Energy and Technology, but prior to this, I was the Minister for Environment for a short period of time. Prior to that, I was the Attorney General and Minister of Justice for Newfoundland and Labrador for five years, so I’m very well versed in the duty to consult. I also believe that there is something to be said — I agree with you there — on communication.

I would leave it to the Indigenous leaders I had a chance to meet with and talk to. I think they would tell you that they have a very strong relationship with us, echoed by the fact that the premier holds literally weekly meetings with Indigenous leaders. I do not believe the Indigenous leaders this bill would affect — I’m not aware if they have made representation. They certainly have to me. However, they attend literally all the same shows and meetings that we do, whether it’s in Rotterdam at the world’s biggest hydrogen show or elsewhere. Both Chief Brake and former Chief Joe would attend these meetings with us and be a part of them. They are supportive of the industry.

With respect to the FFAW, again, they are a well-known force within Newfoundland and Labrador. I have literally entertained every meeting I have been asked to, but sometimes there is a difference of opinion on what is needed. What gives me assurance, though, is that we have a regulator with over 30 years of experience with actual offshore projects. Again, you can say that offshore oil has an impact on offshore life. In fact, onshore, we have gone through very strong, specific processes, both federally and provincially, when it comes to industrial projects.

Beyond what is legally necessitated, as a small province, we have strong relationships. It’s very easy to get a hold of us and for us to sit down and express our thoughts and feelings on what is needed for our respective constituents. As someone who plans to reside in Newfoundland and Labrador long after I’ve left this position, I want to leave something behind that my children will be proud of. I’m going to have relationships with all these individuals going forward; that’s why I have these talks and will continue to do so.

However, the bill as it is has been talked about for multiple years now — in fact, it has been introduced for over a year — and we are supportive of it.

The Chair: Thank you very much to our two witnesses.

[ Translation ]

For our third panel, we are welcoming Christine Bonnell-Eisnor, Chief Executive Officer, Registrar, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board; Scott Tessier, Chief Executive Officer, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board; and Steven Schumann, Director, Canadian Government Affairs, the International Union of Operating Engineers.

Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation.

Five minutes are reserved for your opening remarks. I’d like to mention that we have to leave the room at 12:15 p.m. I will have to rush you occasionally, if necessary, to condense the presentations and satisfy our obligation to give up the room.

The floor is yours, Ms. Bonnell-Eisnor.

[ English ]

Christine Bonnell-Eisnor, Chief Executive Officer, Registrar, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board: Thank you and hello. I am delivering my remarks from Ottawa, and I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am on the traditional, unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.

Thank you for the invitation to come and speak to you today about Bill C-49, which outlines the Accord Acts amendments required for the expansion of our mandate to include the regulation of offshore renewable energy. We support these amendments and are actively preparing for the completion of the bill and becoming the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator.

The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is the independent joint agency created by the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia. We work federally with Natural Resources Canada and provincially with the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Renewables. We have more than 30 years of experience regulating offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities in the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area. We are the lead and life cycle regulator and oversee all activities of an oil and gas project, from land tenure to exploration through development and, finally, to abandonment.

We do this by recognizing that safety and environmental protection are paramount, and we ensure the operators who work in our offshore area do too.

When it comes to any oil and gas activity that an operator proposes to conduct in our offshore area, we go to great lengths to ensure that regulatory requirements are met before granting an authorization that would allow activities to commence. We implement effective monitoring programs to confirm that operators comply with these requirements during the execution of a program. We also ensure compliance with legislated requirements so that exploration and development of our offshore resources are completed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. We will do the same with offshore wind and other offshore renewable energy activities.

Leveraging the similarities and managing the differences between oil and gas and offshore wind is critical to the success of delivering on this expanded mandate to regulate the broader energy industry in our offshore area.

There are similarities in the geotechnical studies, assessment of metocean conditions, risk assessment and the need to coexist with Indigenous communities, fisheries and other industries. The majority of what we do now is directly transferable to offshore wind. We recognize that each

section of the ocean and each project is unique.

We have the technical and regulatory experience and expertise necessary to regulate offshore renewable energy. We are committed to continuous improvement and investing in building and maintaining the technical competencies and expertise of our staff. We work closely and are regularly in contact with the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, the Canada Energy Regulator, other government departments and international regulators, and we continue to learn from our regulatory peers, many of whom are already regulating offshore wind.

In anticipation of our expanded mandate, we have developed a five-year strategic plan that describes our strategic priorities and reviewed our organizational structure and skills to determine required changes for the future growth, development and success of our organization. This work will ensure that we continue to focus and deliver on our current mandate and properly prepare for taking on these important new regulatory responsibilities.

As we have over the past 30 years, we will continue to work with Indigenous communities, fishers, the public and other stakeholders to provide information about our regulatory role and to understand their unique and specific insights that should be taken into consideration before we make any decisions. We have our own active and long-standing fisheries advisory committee, which is composed of Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishers. We value our relationships with Indigenous groups and the fishing sector and the input received from them.

Our relationship with each of these groups remains a commitment as we transition. We are committed and will be ready to be the lead and life cycle regulator and deliver on this new and expanded mandate. We are trusted and recognized for the high standards to which we hold the oil and gas industry accountable and will continue to deliver regulatory excellence as our mandate is expanded to include offshore renewable energy. Thank you.

Scott Tessier, Chief Executive Officer, Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board: Thank you for inviting me to be here to represent our staff and our board. We are all very excited by the proposed expansion of our mandate.

I begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people. My home, Newfoundland and Labrador, is located in the traditional territories of diverse Indigenous groups, and I acknowledge with respect the histories and cultures of the Beothuk, Mi’kmaq, Innu and Inuit.

Bill C-49 proposes that governments can rely on the C‑NLOPB and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to meaningfully engage with Indigenous groups as part of our regulatory administration and oversight. We will work closely with the federal and provincial governments and Indigenous communities to fully define and deliver on our responsibilities in this regard.

I was able to be in Ottawa when Bill C-49 was first introduced last year, and I appeared virtually as a witness before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources earlier this year. I am very pleased to be with you in person today to share our continued preparations for and thoughts about the regulation of offshore renewable energy projects and other elements of the proposed legislation.

Last week, I attended and spoke at the annual Energy NL Conference in St. John’s. There was considerable optimism and determination about the energy transition among the many participants and distinguished presenters, with a recognition that there are important challenges to be addressed and work to be done. The conference featured attendees and delegations from a number of other countries from around the world that are interested in what Canada has to offer.

My colleagues and I have been working closely with governments and our counterparts at the CNSOPB, as well as the International Regulators’ Forum, the International Offshore Environmental Petroleum Regulators forum, the North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum and the Global Offshore Wind Regulators Forum.

Regulators in Australia, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States and many other countries are undergoing the same expansion of their mandates as proposed for ours under Bill C-49, from petroleum to energy. Our strong relationships with them enable us to share lessons learned and best practices in offshore renewable energy, as we have done for many years in the regulation of oil and gas.

We are also engaging with Canadian entities, including fisheries stakeholders, the committee conducting the Regional Assessment of Offshore Wind Development in Newfoundland and Labrador, Marine Renewables Canada, Canada’s Ocean Supercluster and the aforementioned Energy NL.

We fully appreciate the importance of meaningful engagement with fishing interests as an offshore renewables industry emerges in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our fishery is critical to our economy, and we will continue to do our part to work with them, listen to them and meet their needs and expectations throughout our regulatory planning and oversight. Offshore renewable energy proponents will also need to demonstrate the extent and success with which they have engaged with Indigenous groups and fishing interests prior to receiving a licence, approval or authorization.

We have provided regulatory advice to the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on land tenure and other considerations. We have been consulted throughout the development of the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act amendments and continue to be appropriately engaged as details of the regulatory framework are developed.

We are building renewable energy into our internal work and training plans and are prepared to rebrand to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator once the legislation is passed by the federal government and mirrored by the provincial government.

For 40 years, the C-NLOPB has provided world-class regulatory oversight of the oil and gas industry in the Newfoundland and Labrador with a mandate that includes safety, environmental protection, resource management and industrial benefits. Our experience, technical excellence and collaborative and transparent approach are transferable to the offshore renewable energy sector. We support Bill C-49, which we view as instrumental to an orderly energy transition through joint management and the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada.

In closing, I am proud to inform you that my daughter Molly, who is 12 years old, made the trip to Ottawa with me and is with us today. Molly embodies the