THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 18, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.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: Good evening, everyone. My name is Paul J. Massicotte, I’m a senator from Quebec and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other participants attending in person to consult the cards on the tables for information on the guidelines for preventing audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following precautionary measures introduced to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
Whenever possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that creates as much distance as possible between microphones.
Use only the approved black earpiece. Do not use the former grey earpieces. Keep your earpiece away from all other microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker affixed to the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to ask my committee colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, the committee continues 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, as an individual, Bill Montevecchi, Professor of Ocean Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland; Ian McIsaac, President of Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia, joining us via video conference; and Elisa Obermann, Executive Director of Marine Renewables Canada.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation.
You have five minutes for your opening remarks. Mr. Montevecchi, please proceed, followed by Mr. McIsaac and Ms. Obermann.
[English]
Bill Montevecchi, Professor of Ocean Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be here, and thank you, Senator Wells, for the invitation.
I have presented my speaking notes. I’m not sure it will take five minutes. I will read them for the committee, and if there are any questions afterwards, we can discuss them.
I study seabirds, and I have been doing that for a long time at Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will present an overview for the committee.
The Eastern Canadian ocean is a global hot spot for seabirds. Forty to fifty million seabirds occupy the area during the course of a year.
The development of marine wind energy projects will impose new risks. The ecological risks of a resource development are determined in very large part by its location and its size. These are upfront decisions that can outweigh considerations for mitigation in the post-construction phase.
These factors can determine the risk of turbine collision for birds, but also displacements and movements of birds from their marine habitats and hot spots. Seabirds in Eastern Canada are exposed to numerous risks, including oil and plastic pollution, bycatch in fishing gear, overfishing, hunting and the pervasive influences of avian influenzas and climate change.
While many seabirds — including species at risk — are vulnerable to wind energy development, I’m focusing on a single species here tonight that may be highly vulnerable to offshore development. I’ve been working on this for days to try to make sure I get it all right, and I didn’t get it all right. But I want to point out that there are many vulnerable species, and there’s another species we might discuss that is highly vulnerable as well. I have a lot of experience with the gannet, so it took my focus.
The gannet is the largest seabird that breeds in the North Atlantic. It is highly associated and vulnerable to wind turbines. All of the Northern Gannet colonies in North America are in Eastern Canada. Three are in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and three are off the east coast of Newfoundland. There’s a small map there, which can be enlarged, but you can see where those colonies are.
The Canadian population has plateaued. Their reproductive success has been poor for more than a decade. Northern Gannets were highly impacted more than 10 years ago by the Deepwater Horizon blowout in 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico where many gannets that breed in Canada spend the non-breeding season.
In 2022, Northern Gannets were devastated by hyperpathogenic avian influenza, the highly pathogenic avian influenza, or HPAI, H5N1 virus. More than 26,000 breeding adults succumbed in Quebec and Newfoundland. That represents more than 10% of their North American population.
I also added some other documents because this has been a long-term thing for me. My students and I pay attention to environmental assessments, and so I was very concerned about risks to seabirds when the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, or CEAA, shifted to the Impact Assessment Agency, or IAA, for assessments.
As part of the public participation funding program, my lab students and I provided feedback on IAA assessment of offshore exploratory drilling, a review of the geographic information system decision tool that they developed and a recent review of the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia offshore wind development agreements and terms of reference.
I sent these reports individually to each of you, so if you have the time, you can look at them. I think I am okay with that amount of information unless anybody wants something more immediately.
The Chair: We will come back to you later on with some questions.
Elisa Obermann, Executive Director, Marine Renewables Canada: Good evening and thank you very much for inviting me to today’s meeting. I’m very grateful for the opportunity to provide some insight on the importance of Bill C-49 for the offshore wind industry and the members I represent.
My name is Elisa Obermann. I’m the Executive Director at Marine Renewables Canada, or MRC, which is the national industry association for offshore wind, tidal, wave and river current energy.
We represent 180 members, and many of them are focused on realizing offshore wind development opportunities in Canada, including companies already developing offshore wind projects internationally as well as numerous suppliers with decades of experience working in Canada’s ocean industries.
MRC is fully supportive of Bill C-49, and we urge the committee to ensure its swift passage. Developing Atlantic Canada’s offshore wind resources is an opportunity that we cannot let pass us by. It is an opportunity to produce clean electricity that can help decarbonize our grid and play a major role in producing green hydrogen for local and export use. It also holds tremendous potential for creating local jobs, grow the economy and establish an industry that will yield benefits for generations to come.
Globally, the offshore wind market is experiencing rapid growth with over 380 gigawatts of new offshore wind capacity forecasted to be added over the next decade. Estimates show that this growth represents a $1 trillion market by 2040.
Jurisdictions that have been active in offshore wind are a prime example of why it is important to advance the sector. For example, studies of the United Kingdom’s offshore wind industry show that 1500 jobs are created per gigawatt during the construction phase alone.
Closer to home, a recent study led by the Atlantic Economic Council estimated that during the early stages of offshore wind development in Atlantic Canada — so, over the next six years — the total construction value could be about $7 billion with much of the work supported by local suppliers.
But it’s not all about jobs, and I want to make that very clear. We also know that for this industry to be successful, it must be developed responsibly with the scientific rigour required to maintain the integrity of marine ecosystems and with the respect for the inherent, legal and treaty rights of our Indigenous communities. That same respect must be extended to local residents and other ocean users.
Marine Renewables Canada and its members are deeply committed to these principles and believe in early and proactive engagement. That is why even before federal and provincial governments publicly announced their intention to amend the Accord Acts in April 2022, we had been working to foster an early two-way dialogue with fisheries, communities, suppliers, environmental organizations and Indigenous groups to understand concerns, share information about offshore wind and find areas of cooperation and collaboration.
We are at the very early stages of establishing an offshore wind industry in Canada. Amendments to the Accord Acts are an important first step, laying the foundation for much more work ahead to build a responsible, sustainable and inclusive industry.
This is not the only step. Regulations and policies must be developed. Engagement about specific projects and the sector as a whole will need to be ongoing. Development of best practices for mitigation and coexistence are essential. However, without this initial regulatory path and certainty under the Accord Acts, Canada risks missing its opportunity to establish an offshore wind sector.
Delays to enacting this law have ramifications on parallel initiatives, including Nova Scotia’s target to begin leasing offshore wind in 2025. Time is of the essence. A regulatory framework is critical to give certainty and confidence to investors. They will go to the countries that have a clear regulatory path. Canada is already competing against many other jurisdictions that have mature regulatory frameworks for offshore wind in place. The 18 countries that currently produce offshore wind power are set to be joined by another 17 by 2030. We need to ensure that Canada is one of them.
From the planning stage to the time an offshore wind project is commissioned can take 7 to 10 years. Delays in establishing a regulatory framework will delay this timeline even further.
If Canada is truly serious about fighting climate change and serious about supporting and growing our local economy, we need to come together to move the Accord Acts amendments forward in a timely manner. MRC and its members are committed to working with all entities to make that happen, and that is why I am truly appreciative of the opportunity to be here today. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ian McIsaac, President, Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening and thank you for having me testify before this committee.
The Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia, or SPANS, has represented seafood companies in Nova Scotia for over 80 years with a particular focus on the offshore fisheries.
We are supporters of the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, and we adopt their submissions, especially regarding the importance of regional impact assessment. But for the purposes of this panel, I would like to draw your attention to two narrow but important errors in Bill C-49 that have not been addressed to date.
If you pass Bill C-49 as it is currently written, you will, by omission, effectively greenlight the development of industrial-scale renewable energy on both Georges Bank and Sable Island, contrary to decades of legislative policy. These errors are set out in more detail in my written brief, but I will summarize these issues for you today.
I’ll start with Georges Bank. Georges Bank is a prolific fishing area in the North Atlantic located about 100 miles from Nova Scotia’s South Shore. It is prolific in part because of its oceanographic features which promote abundant phytoplankton and distribute the larvae of commercial fish species. As a result, it has formed a significant part of the financial background of numerous fishing communities along Nova Scotia’s South Shore and, more recently, supports numerous First Nations in the province as well.
Georges Bank is protected from petroleum development through section 140 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and is often referred to as the Georges Bank moratorium. Section 140 has been part of the act since its inception in 1988. Georges Bank was specially protected in part because of concerns about the natural features of the bank and how they could amplify the impacts of a spill or blowout.
Section 140 was last amended in 2015 through the Georges Bank Protection Act, but the purpose of this section has always been to protect Georges Bank from development.
Yet Bill C-49, by omission, changes 40 years of legislative policy towards Georges Bank without notice. While the bill may appear neutral on its face, by omission it makes one of the biggest legislative changes affecting the fisheries in decades by enabling development on Georges Bank.
The bank has been intensively studied over the years, and we have a good understanding of the relationship between the oceanography, ecosystem and commercial fisheries. Yet before making this major legislative change, the government has not undertaken any special studies adding to this base of knowledge or to justify this significant change in policy.
Perhaps they think that the industrial-scale development of renewable energy will not affect the oceanography and ecosystem of Georges Bank, but if this is the case, one would think they would disclose that to Parliament. Why in the process of updating the regulators role are they planning on undermining the moratorium in section 140? If there’s no justification for making this change, as appears to be the case, SPANS urges you to honour the promise of section 140 and maintain the existing limits on the regulator.
The same category of issue exists for Sable Island, which is specially protected by section 140.1 of the act, but Bill C-49 is likewise not updating this provision to include offshore renewables.
Special protection for Sable Island is needed in part because of section 4 of the Accord Act which gives precedence to the act over other pieces of legislation, including the Canada National Parks Act which establishes the Sable Island National Park Reserve. Without updating this, you will effectively be opening not just Sable Island but the one nautical mile buffer zone around Sable Island, which is not part of the Canada National Parks Act, to development by the regulator.
Finally, it is worth noting that development on Georges Bank or Sable Island is not needed to meet Nova Scotia’s renewable energy goals. The Committee for the Regional Assessment of Offshore Wind Development in Nova Scotia, in its interim report, has identified 10 times what is needed to meet these goals without touching Georges Bank or Sable Island.
Senators, the climate crisis is real, and we understand the urgency of the provincial and federal governments in needing to meet their renewable energy goals. But these goals, while pressing, do not justify hasty legislation that removes long-standing protection for Georges Bank and Sable Island.
We urge you to fix these mistakes, and we are happy to assist the committee in doing so. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We turn to our questions.
Senator Manning: Thank you to all the witnesses. The first question is for Professor Montevecchi.
You talked about the risk locations and the sizes of the wind turbines. I know of your work. I live next door to Cape St. Mary’s, so your years of work have been great for that area.
Have you had the opportunity to do any research on other wind turbine developments in other regions and the effects on the bird population? I will go with that one first.
You talked about the wind development agreements in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. In these agreements, do you see any protection in regard to the bird population? Are there some ways to protect the birds under those agreements? I’m more interested in other wind turbine developments and where, if you have seen it, are the bird populations being negatively affected?
Mr. Montevecchi: Yes is the answer to your question. Most of the research comes from Europe. There’s a recent study in the Journal of Science. There is the size of the development and the placement, but in this case, it has displaced loons and waterfowl in German waters in the North Sea.
Yes, there has been massive displacements of birds. It’s due to the size, and the sizes are increasing. There don’t seem to be any particularly tight regulations on that. We’re talking about Germany right now, but I don’t see tight regulations.
What’s really concerning for me is, first, the location. That’s really critical, and it doesn’t seem to get much attention. When we talk about this, it’s almost all about mitigation and turbine collisions, which are really important to mitigate, but if you put them in the wrong place, you’re not going to mitigate it very well. If you put them in the right place, you’ll have less of a problem.
I don’t think we spend enough time on the front end of it, and I don’t know if that’s sufficient for you. Yes, there’s evidence from Europe, and yes, it really is important about location and size. It’s critical. Those are the decisions that can be made before we get into it.
Senator Manning: My next question is for Mr. McIsaac. In regard to Sable Island and Georges Bank, and I certainly heard what you had to say, but you have a buffer zone around Sable Island, and Georges Bank is 100 miles offshore. Does your organization envision wind turbines 100 miles offshore?
In regard to Sable Island, the buffer zone protects it from development at the present time. Would that still be in place under wind turbine development?
Mr. McIsaac: Thank you for the question. Certainly, the Regional Assessment Committee is identifying areas up to and exceeding 100 miles from shore. Some of the other witnesses might be better suited to answer the particulars of that question, but in relation to Sable Island and the one nautical mile limit, that is quite important. I’d like to make clear that the one nautical mile buffer zone around the island is not included in the Canada National Parks Act. It’s not part of the national park itself. It’s a special add-on in the Accord Acts itself. It’s found nowhere else except for the Accord Acts.
It currently only applies to petroleum drilling. There are some other allowances for historic petroleum interests on Sable Island itself, but they are limited to low impact, and that was done through a 2013 amending act.
To answer your question directly, there would be nothing prohibiting the development of offshore renewables within that buffer zone, unless you correct this omission, and I’m not certain that regulatory powers within the act could actually cure this defect either. As I said earlier, it’s not within a conserved area. It’s not within a park at this moment.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Dr. Montevecchi. Sir, is there any chance for a pathway forward to protect both the seabird population and support an offshore wind development? You have talked about placement and size as variables. Are there regulations that you could foresee that would balance both and protect the bird population?
Mr. Montevecchi: Certainly, senator, that is the hope, and there would be ways to minimize impacts. The most productive thing we can do is at the front end and think about where they are and what their size is because that is critical.
We have obvious examples of terrestrial developments that are too big and in the wrong place, and they are obvious, but somehow they make it through the system.
We don’t want to go there and — yes, I do. Nobody is arguing against wind energy.
The one paper I read a couple of times is from Norway. They tried to do a sensitivity analysis of where a wind development site would have the most impact, and the simple conclusion was the closer to shore it was, the greater the potential impact, and it’s because of bird traffic close to the coast. That’s not a lot of information, but it’s a starter. So I think it’s true.
I would also say we clearly know in the offshore about hot spots, on the shelf edge of the Grand Banks, where there is lots of upwelling. Definite hot spots. We could identify those. The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada would be well aware of those.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
To Ms. Obermann and Mr. McIsaac, if there’s anything you’d like to say about what strategies should be employed under Bill C-49 to balance the development of the offshore renewable wind energies and the need to conserve marine biodiversity and protect the seafood industry.
Ms. Obermann: I can answer that. One of the important things, when we look at Bill C-49 — and I alluded to it in my remarks — is that it’s not the only piece of legislation. There isn’t going to be just one set of regulations. All of the projects that will go forward in terms of offshore wind will also be subject to other environmental legislation, for example, Species at Risk Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act, Fisheries Act, and we know this now, and we’re talking with those regulators.
There are already mechanisms in place to address that, but from an industry perspective, there will be a lot of onus on industry to develop environmental management plans, safety plans, things that will protect the environment.
Those mechanisms are there, but, again, why this legislation is so important is because it’s the first step that will then get us to the point where we can start talking about what that will look like, what best practices and guidance will look like.
Senator Wells: Thank you, witnesses. Ms. Obermann, what pushback have you had — your organization, Marine Renewables Canada — from fishermen or other people who work off the land and the sea or near the coastline in the development of wind farms?
Ms. Obermann: We actually haven’t had, I would say, pushback at this point. We know there are concerns, and that is completely legitimate when we are looking at using a space that other ocean users have been using for decades.
We have taken an approach of very early engagement with the groups that we know could be impacted by development. I had mentioned, even before these Accord Acts came forward in 2022 — or were announced — we had already begun discussions with a lot of these groups, and we have currently been meeting frequently with different fisheries organizations. We have been doing things like, for example, “Offshore Wind 101” educational workshops, things like that to start an early dialogue.
We know that there will likely be concerns — possibly opposition — in the future, and we understand that.
Our biggest goal with this is to have that dialogue, understand those concerns and to work with our members to understand how we can get to a solution by working collaboratively with other industries.
Senator Wells: Thank you for that.
Dr. Montevecchi, I assume that any developments for wind farms in Newfoundland would be on the south coast? It’s ice-free. There are fewer obstacles for the physical infrastructure of turbines. Is the south coast particularly vulnerable with respect to seabird populations?
Mr. Montevecchi: That’s a really interesting question. Certainly, the northeast coast and the east coast are the hot spots for colonies. There are a lot of birds on the south coast, and it would definitely depend on location.
I wouldn’t want to generalize, but I would say that’s a really perceptive question because most of our breeding birds happen to be on the northeast and the east coast of Newfoundland.
We often get birds, and particularly gannets, coming in from the Magdalen Islands and coming in from the west sometimes, on the south coast.
If I was going to make a guess — and I hate to do this — but yes, it will be different, for sure. I think it will be different.
Senator Wells: When I think about a wind turbine, it might go up 80 metres or 120 metres. I’m not sure, but that seems to be what it would be. Is that essentially the height that seabirds fly or are there some real soaring birds? I know puffins are along the water. We see those all the time. What about gannets, for instance, or murres?
Mr. Montevecchi: For full transparency here, like I said, I’ve been working on this a lot. I do it all the time, but gannets wouldn’t necessarily get within that — the sensitivity analyses are done — you get the turbine diameter and its height above the water, and the sensitivity analyses are, in fact, other birds within that zone.
Birds travel differently when they migrate. They travel differently when they travel. They travel higher when they forage. Gannets can fall within that range, but what struck me — I should say this because we did some — gannets from Newfoundland, and mostly young gannets, we tracked them from Newfoundland, and they winter off the east coast of the U.S., so we did this research with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We compared gannets with a loon and with a sea duck, and there’s no development there, but they know the development sites. Mostly, they are in the Gulf of Maine and a little bit south of that, off of Long Island in New York.
Of those three species, which would be indicative of groups of birds — loons, ducks, seabirds — the gannets, by far, were the ones who were the most in the area where the proposal was to develop the wind. It loaded gannets as being vulnerable because of a location consideration in that case.
What you say is absolutely right. Most of the studies are in Europe, and they are done specifically on height and travel distance, then comparing that with the turbine diameter. That is true.
Did that answer your question?
Senator Wells: It did, thank you. I will go on a second round, please, chair.
Senator Galvez: In the context of this study, we are not conducting an environmental impact assessment. Even though we are discussing that, we are not —
Mr. Montevecchi: No, I understand that.
Senator Galvez: Let me continue.
We are deciding whether it is important that we open the business of offshore wind energy in that area.
According to your specific experience and expertise, will you accept that there is equal, similar or higher risk of producing energy from wind turbines or from the oil that is present there? That is what I want to know.
If you have information on the overlapping presence of vulnerable species in the ocean and inland with the birds, I would appreciate that.
I would like the three witnesses to answer that question for me, starting with Mr. McIsaac.
Mr. McIsaac: Thank you. I am not sure that I could understand the question fully. I will defer for the moment.
Ms. Obermann: I think you are asking which is a bigger risk. I would not be able to say which is a bigger risk.
There are positive attributes from offshore wind development, as we know. The production of clean electricity will help us reduce emissions, which is a positive thing. We know that Canada will need two to three times more clean electricity than we currently have in order to meet our net-zero targets but also for the demand for clean electricity that electrification will create. Offshore winds can help with that on a large scale as well.
In terms of risks versus benefits, we have not done a complete analysis of that, but there are many things that make it positive. Obviously, economic opportunities are a part of it as well.
Senator Galvez: That is a good way of asking my question — risk versus benefit. Which is better, according to the three of you?
Mr. Montevecchi: It’s a cumulative effect, right, which is the concern. So if we keep adding on, there is also something more. There is the fishery.
To answer your question, bluntly, we had grave concerns about oil. The species I could talk about is the most abundant breeding — I know it is not an environmental assessment; I cannot help my bias there — the species we are probably most concerned about in terms of population is the Leach’s storm-petrel. It is a tiny bird. It is the most abundant bird in Eastern Canada. Millions of them have disappeared in the past four decades, completely coincident with offshore oil. What that problem might be is light pollution in the offshore that was formally opaque. That is a concern.
If you wanted me to bluntly rank them one and two, which I wouldn’t do, because it does depend on scale. There are ways to reduce light on offshore platforms, but as things now exist, oil is the greater concern. Although, most of the concern we’re looking at these days is light pollution.
Senator Petten: Dr. Montevecchi, the recently launched regional assessments for offshore wind development will be examining the potential impacts of offshore renewable energy on wildlife, like marine mammals and birds, through the independent review committees, which will publicly present their findings to the federal and provincial governments.
Furthermore, as part of the announcements made in Budget 2023, the Government of Canada will also be conducting marine data collection campaigns to further its understanding of the wildlife and environmental considerations that could help to inform the regulatory reviews of the offshore wind projects. All future projects would be subject to a regulatory project review by the regulators and other federal authorities, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment and Climate Change Canada, and would very likely be subject to an impact assessment.
As in the case with the offshore petroleum projects, authorized offshore wind projects would be subject to conditions to mitigate potential effects.
Does all of that not satisfy your concerns regarding the impact on marine mammals and birds?
Mr. Montevecchi: “No” is the answer to your question, to be forthright. When you read this, there is a structural bias for industry. That structural bias is basically for fast-tracking. That is most of what we’ve seen in the environmental assessments, “We have to get it out there quicker; we have to beat all of the other countries.”
What we have to do is to get it right. I worry about that. I see a structural bias in those assessments that was actually imposed when we went from the CEAA to the IAA. So I do worry about it.
Obviously, the impact assessments are important, but I do not think that they always match up to what we need. There is huge pressure. We want wind, and we want jobs. I’m not against those, but I am concerned because “we’re doing it too slowly; we have to do it faster.”
The minister here actually said:
. . . many of the potential effects of routine exploratory drilling activities in this area are relatively well understood and may be managed through rather generic mitigation measures that are often based in regulation or other guidelines and are thus relatively standard industry practices. . . .
So he is actually ready to waive environmental assessments. So yes, I do worry about it.
Senator Petten: I have a question for Mr. McIsaac. Thank you for your testimony.
With regard to Georges Bank, we had Minister Rushton testify last week. He said:
. . . 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, many times that we will build offshore wind without harming our traditional industries or our environment. . . .
Does that not relieve some of your concerns?
Mr. McIsaac: Thank you for the question. No, it does not.
We take the legislation as we find it today. The legislation currently contains special protection in it for Georges Bank. Bill C-49 updates the authority of the regulator to regulate not just petroleum but also renewable energy. But in doing so, they are actually extending the powers of the regulator more significantly for renewable energy than for petroleum.
If we’re so certain that Georges Bank will be protected, why not do the simple thing that is within the Senate’s powers and update that prohibition on Georges Bank to include renewable energies at this time while it is in your control?
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
I wanted to go to the unique set of challenges that wind turbines have. I was looking at Europe and what is happening there.
In Canada, where are the turbines and their components manufactured?
Ms. Obermann: We don’t have projects being developed yet with offshore wind, so there is nothing being manufactured.
However, my understanding is that in Quebec, General Electric, or GE, is a company that is manufacturing different components and turbines for offshore wind projects in the United States. There is an opportunity there as well.
Maybe the question you are also getting at is how much work would actually be done in Canada, or how do we benefit from supply chain development? I would say probably 80% of our members are suppliers, so we have done a lot of work with them to understand where could they fit in within the supply chain. We think most of them probably could.
We are leading a larger study on exactly that to understand what the capabilities are currently in Atlantic Canada specifically, where are the gaps and how can we strengthen them. Because we are at this very early stage where we have this opportunity to develop a strategy to ensure we do have competitive advantage and that as much work can happen in Canada as possible.
Senator McCallum: In Europe, the manufacturers had a hard time getting supplies, and it led to project delays and abandonment.
You also need access to raw materials like copper, rare earth materials, steel, nickel, fibreglass and silicon to do the manufacturing. You said you are going to be internationally competitive. With the reading I did, China is a supplier, and it has become a very serious competitor. It creates an uneven playing field. It can produce more cheaply and more quickly. I wonder how that might impact the supply chains in Canada.
When I look at the two farms in Manitoba — where I’m from — both of them received their turbines, one from South America and one from the United States. I wonder how all of this is going to work out. China is severely undermining European companies right now because of the uneven playing field.
Then there is the availability of skilled workers, when you look at skilled operators of vessels, cranes or heavy lifts, engineers and tradespeople — when you look at all of that, when will you be able to say, “Okay, we are going to start”?
Ms. Obermann: That is a very good question.
The study I had mentioned that we are going to be commissioning soon, one of the key drivers of that is exactly what you are talking about where some things will be done in other places, and we will have to import them. We want to understand what those key components are or what the parts of the supply chain are where it does not make sense for us to try to move forward with in Canada.
One of the key things in ensuring that we have the components and vessels that we need — all the aspects of the supply chain — is legislation. As soon as we have predictability, developers are able to start developing their plans. Suppliers also get a signal that, yes, we need to start ramping up, and we need to build capacity. That predictability and certainty are key.
That is also what happened in some jurisdictions where something happened, and they no longer had that certainty. That can create a ripple effect throughout the supply chain as well.
Senator McCallum: When do you think you would be able to start building? What year?
Ms. Obermann: A project can typically take, from the time you start planning it — very early phases, planning and permitting, that type of thing — to the time it is actually commissioned and constructed, it can take 7 to 10 years.
We are still pretty far away, which is why a lot of the early strategies that have to be developed for supply chain and other aspects, this is really the time that we need to do it.
The Chair: To add to that, could you tell us about how many units we can expect to put up? What does that represent? It can satisfy X number of homes? Give us a sense of the importance and size.
Ms. Obermann: Sure. I can only speak to, right now, the fact that Nova Scotia has a target for 5 gigawatts. To put it in perspective, within Nova Scotia right now, the amount of electricity that is currently needed is about 2.5 gigawatts, so 5 gigawatts of offshore wind could power us two times over.
The Chair: Double times —
Ms. Obermann: It would be more than what Nova Scotia would need. That is the simple way to put it.
The Chair: What is the plan? How many units are we going to see, say, 20 years from now?
Ms. Obermann: It depends on the size of the projects. I can give you some statistics. This is a key component as well.
Turbines are different sizes. They have been growing and evolving in size. Some were 12 megawatts each. Now, we are looking at those that are typically 15 or 20 megawatts. That really dictates how many turbines we would see.
In terms of a 1 gigawatt project — that is the scale that I will talk about right now — you could see maybe 60 to 100 turbines. It really depends on that size. The larger the turbine size, the more efficient that project is going to be, and the turbines would need to be spaced further apart, but you would have further turbines in place.
Senator Manning: Returning to the plan for the protection of seabirds — so back to Dr. Montevecchi — in the oil industry development, I know you have been part of the discussions over the years.
When we talk about developing wind turbines off Newfoundland and Labrador, I wonder about the consultation process that may happen under the regulatory regime that is in place now for oil and gas, whether this piece of legislation will be added to that or a whole new piece of legislation.
But where do you come into the discussions on that? Do you foresee being part and parcel of the discussions in relation to — you talked about the series of locations, for example, and I wonder if you are going to have an opportunity — with oil and gas. Now, we are going to have wind energy. Where do you see your part?
Mr. Montevecchi: I don’t think it is actually any different. Our focus is on environmental assessment and conservation of seabirds. To the extent that those animals are impacted, it almost doesn’t matter whether it is one or the other. It is probably a cumulative process.
There are a lot of things that are different, obviously. There is the light pollution aspect with oil. People were thinking about collision. There are ways — though they have not been tested yet — to highlight the rotor tips with black and white stripes and things like that, and that could maybe make a seabird aware of it and maybe induce an avoidance. There are a lot of possible things to do.
For me, personally, and the students I work with, we are just looking at conservation. It is all of it. It is the fishery, plastic pollution — we can’t do everything, but our focus is there.
Whatever it is, it is the purview for us. We do worry about more and more happening in the ocean.
Senator Manning: I had another question, but something you commented on a few moments ago released something else for me.
One gigawatt has the possibility of 60 to 100 turbines. Did I take it correctly?
Ms. Obermann: Probably closer to 60. I probably went overboard with that.
Senator Manning: If Nova Scotia is looking at 5 gigawatts, we could be talking about 300 plus turbines?
Earlier you made a comment — if memory serves me correctly from your opening remarks — in relation to fostering a two-way dialogue with the fishing industry, Indigenous groups and so on and so forth. How much of that has your organization been doing and to what extent? Not necessarily negativity, but what feedback have you received? I’m wondering how intense is that?
We have an issue with consultation now in relation to some of the groups in Nova Scotia who feel that they were not consulted enough in this process. I wonder, from your organization, how are you doing that? Maybe that is something that the governments should learn from.
Ms. Obermann: As I said, we felt it necessary with a new industry like this to start early.
We had been doing one-on-one meetings. We have had several workshops. We have also provided educational webinars and are really hoping and inviting fisheries groups, Indigenous communities and organizations to be a part of that. We have had one-on-one meeting with those groups as well.
We have also tried, as much as possible, to engage at conferences and events they are holding to be able to provide information.
One of the key things we have been cognizant of is that it is early and, because of that, we do not want to overwhelm some of these organizations because we know that they do not necessarily have the capacity or time to be constantly talking offshore wind with us. We have tried to strike a balance in terms of how we engage.
My impression so far with the relationship we have is that it has been quite positive. We understand there are concerns. That is a part of why we wanted to engage early. We have many offshore wind developer members who have been working internationally. They have a lot of experience to bring to bear. That has been helpful in terms of relaying lessons learned from other jurisdictions, best practices.
Again, I come back to the fact that it is an early stage so we can build on these relationships we have. That was our goal, to develop these relationships early and build some trust which can be challenging in these circumstances.
Senator Wells: My first question is for Mr. McIsaac. Are you aware of a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government regarding exclusion areas for offshore renewable energy?
Mr. McIsaac: I am not aware of that.
Senator Wells: There is an MOU which is related to the bill, and it excludes 16 bays where the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board currently has jurisdiction. But for the purpose of offshore renewable energy, the federal government has an agreement with the provincial government that they are excluded from offshore energy board regulation. I am assuming that if you do not know that there is a Newfoundland and Labrador one, you are not aware of a similar one in Nova Scotia which has an exclusion zone?
Mr. McIsaac: No, I am not familiar with any exclusion zones similar to that.
Senator Wells: It may be something you might want to look into, to have an exclusion zone around traditional, historic, lucrative fisheries where you might not want — in your first response to Senator Manning — an exclusion zone where the old regulations under the petroleum board would take precedence over any other regulations, especially if there is a significant change for your sector, industry or the association you represent for Georges Bank or other areas where there’s traditional fishing activity.
Mr. McIsaac: I appreciate the suggestion.
The position of Nova Scotia fisheries in terms of planning of the offshore is to put a lot of faith in the regional assessment process. By extension, we would ask that the regional assessment process be given greater meaning, at least in the Atlantic Accord Acts. We would hope to see regional assessment becoming part of the call for bids process. Right now, impact assessment only happens after the call for bids process once we’re getting into specific authorizations for activities.
We feel that the bill could be strengthened broadly by incorporating the results of regional studies into the call for bids decision, that threshold decision on where exactly to develop the offshore. The reason being, in part, is it is ideal to have exclusion by regulations in some senses. But the regional assessment, we are hoping, will take into account a holistic understanding of the ocean environment in making decisions and come to principled decisions as to where development should go and, therefore, that should be honoured in the act, we would say.
More to my point too, regulations are nice for creating exclusion zones, but I return to the fact that Georges Bank and Sable Island are both protected specially in legislation by statute. That is the highest form of protection there is. There is a good reason for that. It is because of the special nature of Georges Bank and Sable Island. I would urge the Senate strongly, despite other approaches that seem viable, to give honour to the purpose of the sections that established the Georges Bank moratorium and that establish protection for Sable Island in particular.
Senator Wells: Thank you. One more comment, not a question.
While we are in public and available to the world, I want to thank Dr. Montevecchi for his body of work that you have contributed to, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, but to the global knowledge of marine seabirds. When we began this study, you are the first person who came to mind that I wanted to have in front of the committee to share your knowledge. I want to thank you for what you have done for that.
The Chair: If I could add my own comments, we met one another — we were talking earlier — about 15 years ago and we were disappointed last time that we met you came to the meeting with one of your birds, I understand.
Mr. Montevecchi: A gannet is too big.
It is curious because I did not realize that would have such an impact. I brought it for a reason because it is such a little, tough bird, it is like a little tiny albatross and it has everything going for it except what we are doing to it. Yes, I wish that I had thought about that. Next time.
Senator Galvez: Dr. Montevecchi, I got you. I understand when you say that there is a structural bias, yes, and that we are always in the reaction to an impact and not in preventing it.
But following the idea of Mr. McIsaac on extending the provisions to protect Georges Bank and Sable Island, are there other areas that, for you, should be protected? I’m thinking of the promises of the other government of 30 by 30, protecting 30% by 2030.
Are there other specific areas that you would like to have the same status as Georges Bank or Sable Island?
Mr. McIsaac: Thank you. Was that question for me?
Senator Galvez: You can comment after Professor Montevecchi.
Mr. Montevecchi: What we do to look for hot spots for birds, we now put Global Positioning System, or GPS, on them. We track them. As Senator Wells said, these sites might be off the south coast, but I would not light up anything until I knew where the study sites would be.
There are things that we can do, yes. We track birds, we know where they go to feed. There are birds from the south coast, I am trying to think, from Lawn Bay on the south coast and Placentia Bay, actually, that goes to the south of the island.
What we would do, what Environment Canada would do, they would look at those tracks and for concentrations of birds at sea. You could — they do, this is not new. It is not just me, believe it or not. Everybody who studies seabirds is looking at this, and the federal government is. They are concerned. They spend a lot of time trying to light up hot spots.
Once those study areas come into play, they would be all over it and we would be looking at it, yes.
Senator Petten: This question is for Ms. Obermann.
As we know, Bill C-49 establishes a regulatory framework for the offshore wind. As you know, we are going to need mirror legislation in both provinces as well.
Have you had discussions with the provincial counterparts, looking at where they are going? Could you tell us about that?
Ms. Obermann: In terms of next steps?
Senator Petten: Yes.
Ms. Obermann: My understanding is that the intention was to table the mirror legislation in the fall. It is also one of the reasons that I am urging that we try to move this along in a way that will still be possible.
One of the reasons we are concerned that it may not line up is because globally there is a lot of offshore wind investment at play. We have a number of developer members who are actively looking at Canada. But other than Europe, there are other countries that are investing in offshore wind and developing regulatory frameworks — Brazil, Colombia, Australia.
My point is that we have a lot to lose if we miss this window of opportunity. We have been in close touch with both provinces in terms of how they are progressing with their plans as well.
Senator Petten: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. McIsaac, earlier, you were going to make a comment on the question of Senator Galvez. Did you want to add your comments to that?
Mr. McIsaac: Yes. Just to answer the question that was posed, there are many lucrative and important fisheries banks on the offshore and inshore of Nova Scotia. The approach that we would advocate for protecting these areas is through robust regional assessment and ensuring that regional assessments are considered at the threshold of the decision-making process through the call for bids stage of things.
To answer the other part of the senator’s question, this bill does include regulation-making power for marine conservation areas as well, which can be protected in that fashion. I would reiterate that Georges Bank and Sable Island have special statutory protection that takes precedence over any other piece of legislation within the Canadian statute book. We should be giving honour to the purpose of those sections.
Senator McCallum: I want to ask a question on purchase agreements. Would you have purchase agreements, and with whom? Who would benefit from them? Would the local people benefit, including First Nations?
Ms. Obermann: As I mentioned, we are at a very early stage. We do not know exactly what the market design is going to look like. That is how early we are right now.
In terms of power purchase agreements, that would be something that industry would be liaising with the utility on, for example.
As I mentioned also, if we are looking at Nova Scotia, for example, a small population, we would not necessarily need the amount of electricity coming from offshore winds projects for the grid.
The other market that is being looked at and presents a huge opportunity is green hydrogen. We have a number of members who are looking at using offshore wind to progress green hydrogen that could be used locally or potentially exported. That is a bit different than a power purchase agreement, but there would be other types of agreements that would be put in place to facilitate that.
Senator McCallum: Or even given to Canada because Canada needs a lot of energy.
Ms. Obermann: Yes.
Senator McCallum: I notice that there is much being exported, and we are left with a deficit. My concern is that, with hydro, it is always on Indigenous lands, with all the destruction. Now all of the hydro plants have said they need more hydro. Meanwhile, they are exporting as well. That is why I asked the question.
Ms. Obermann: Yes. I would say that in terms of using offshore wind for other areas of the country, it is possible. There is enough electricity that could be produced that could help other areas of Canada. The limitation is the grid and inter-regional connections. Once that is addressed, there could be more opportunities. We also have some members who are actually looking at export to the United States, when that could potentially become possible.
One thing I wanted to touch on is your question around local benefits and benefits to Indigenous peoples. I know already of a number of our members who are having those conversations and trying to understand how the positive benefits from their project could positively benefit those communities. All I can say to that right now is that I hope we do see that and that there are plans and strategies to ensure that does happen.
Senator Manning: Thank you. As I touched on earlier, I live very close to the Cape St. Mary’s Ecological Reserve that Dr. Montevecchi is very familiar with. We have the second-largest bird colony in North America, the only one accessible by land if anyone wants to visit. There aren’t many gannets or storm-petrels there.
Thirty-five years ago, discussions in Newfoundland and Labrador were all around oil and petroleum development. Over the years, we’ve had our ups and downs with that, but we have found a way to coexist with the fishing industry and other industries that operate on the water.
From the perspective of the bird population that you have studied now for a number of decades, what do you believe the petroleum industry has contributed to the decimation of some of these species? We are talking about another major development now on the water, in the path of the bird population. What have you seen in terms of oil and gas development, and what you touched on earlier in relation to the location and those things? I’m trying to get perspective of what you have seen over the last 30 years.
Mr. Montevecchi: The most striking thing is this small bird that we’re talking about, Leach’s Storm-Petrels. They do not nest at Cape St. Mary’s, but there are millions of them in Newfoundland, and millions have disappeared since offshore oil came online.
I think that a lot of that is because of the light on the platforms. There is a flare. There is no attenuation, no efforts reduce any of that light. It is a formerly opaque environment. These birds are nocturnal and hunt for bioluminescent prey.
If we look for one thing to say that here is a potential impact — I would emphasize “potential,” there are many things happening out there — but I would say that it is definitely having an impact that can be mitigated by reducing light. That is the greatest concern. We have had a lot of oiled seabirds.
We have not talked about it tonight, but what we know is that when we get a climate effect — we just had this virus. What is that? We just had this horrific virus in Newfoundland. That killed more birds than any oil pollution. That killed more birds than any offshore lighting. It killed 10% of the gannet population in Canada; a one-off.
When you go to Cape St. Mary’s now and look at where those birds are nesting, you will see big brown spots where there were birds that are just dead. It would normally be white and covered with gannets.
There is a lot out there, but what it comes back to is the only things that we can do anything about are the things we do. It is oil, wind, the fishery. Climate change is far removed from what we do on an everyday basis. That is why we have to focus on human effects because that is what we have to play with.
Senator Wells: Dr. Montevecchi, you mentioned, in an answer to a question from Senator Galvez, oiled birds. Would that be from ship discharge or from the platforms?
Mr. Montevecchi: There is a problem solved. Most of that was from ship discharges. Through the efforts of Environment Canada, Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, the university, that problem has been solved. That was solved with big fines for ships going to the south of Newfoundland. That was most of the mortality that we saw.
The thing with the offshore, we often do not see it. That is part of the problem. We do not see the chronic pollution.
That is really encouraging to think about. That was a huge problem that went on for decades. To everyone’s credit here, that problem is solved. We do not get that. Every once in a while, something will happen, but that was a massive problem every winter in Newfoundland and that is gone.
Every winter, I would take my students to the beaches on the Cape Shore, and we would always come back with piles of oiled seabirds no matter when we went. We just stopped doing it because, thank God, there are no more oiled seabirds there. It is possible to solve problems, yes.
Senator Wells: That’s good to know.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today. You did a very good job of participating, managing your expectations and allowing us to better understand all the science involved. We thank you very much.
To our committee members, I want to note that this is the last meeting we are going to have before we come back in the fall and do a clause-by-clause. We will have an information session, and then move quickly to our intercession.
Thank you. I declare this meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)