THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
HALIFAX, Wednesday, April 24, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 12:59 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
My name is Rosa Galvez and I am a senator from Quebec. I am also the chair of this committee. I will now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Mercer: I am Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
Senator Simons: I am Senator Paula Simons from Alberta, and I am proud to say that I am from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Duffy: Mike Duffy from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, Quebec.
The Chair: I would like to take this opportunity also to introduce the two analysts from the Library of the Parliament, Mr. Jesse Good and Ms. Sam Banks, and the clerk of our committee, Ms. Maxime Fortin. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the stenographers and all the staff from Parliament that are making these hearings possible.
Colleagues, today we are continuing our study of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
This afternoon, for our first panel, we welcome, from the Gulf Nova Scotia Herring Federation, Greg Egilsson, Chair. Sorry. He is not here, but he is going to come. We also welcome Percy Hayne, Assistant of the Chairman; and Mary Gorman, Assistant.
From Ecojustice, we have Sarah McDonald, Lawyer; and James Gundvaldsen Klaassen, Lawyer.
From Nova Scotia Power, we have Karen Hutt, President and Chief Executive Officer; Mark Sidebottom, Chief Operating Officer; and Terry Toner, Director, Environmental Services.
Each group will have five minutes for opening remarks, and then we will have a question period.
Mary Gorman, Assistant, Gulf Nova Scotia Herring Foundation: Dear senators, in the 1990s, fishermen on the East Coast of Canada stated concerns about the introduction of seismic blasting and offshore oil and gas exploration on the richest fishing grounds. The fishing industry in southern Nova Scotia organized and was successful in creating the George’s Bank Review Panel.
At that time, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in their Habitat Status Report, stated that there is very little scientific knowledge on the potential impacts of seismic activity on marine organisms. The George’s Bank Review Panel Report, January 1999, states:
The basic issue was the degree of confidence provided by the limited information available on which to base a conclusion.
The available information on the impacts of seismic surveys is . . . sparse; there is some credible evidence that fish catchability can be affected. Caution is called for.
The Panel recommends that action be taken to have the moratorium on petroleum activities on George’s Bank remain in place.
In the late 1990s, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board issued shoreline leases on both sides of beautiful Cape Breton Island, which generated massive public opposition generating a public review. The public review on the effects of oil and gas exploration offshore Cape Breton states, “The scientific knowledge is not clear about whether the effect of seismic testing is greater or less in shallow waters. There is a need for expert examination of the science and experience that is at the root of the remaining uncertainty.”
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, back in November 2001, stated, “The Committee shares the concerns of many of our witnesses that the effect of seismic testing, particularly on larval stages and juveniles of many species, is not sufficiently well documented to provide assurance that damage to important stocks will not occur as a result of oil and gas exploration.”
The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, back in 2001, stated, “Several scientific works have described the detrimental effects of seismic on every life stage of fish.”
Over the last 20 years collectively, the above government-sponsored and/or -sanctioned institutions have documented hundreds of presentations across this country from fishing organizations, First Nations representatives, environmental groups, members of Parliament, provincial members of legislature, municipal councils, mayors, expert witnesses, biologists, et cetera, et cetera. All the committee or department recommendations have referred to the lack of science on seismic testing as being a problem.
Now, 20 years later, we are still protesting the use of seismic blasting, and the federal-provincial offshore petroleum boards are working diligently, rounding up tax dollars from provincial governments, to promote more seismic blasting projects.
In 2014-15, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, in reference to the BP Tangier seismic survey, stated: “The Nova Scotia tax payers expended over $11 million assisting BP with this survey.”
On June 20, 2018, Nova Scotia’s Energy Minister announced another $11.8 million to create seismic images to promote oil and gas development.
To our knowledge, not one significant science project to evaluate the effects seismic blasting has on plankton, krill, larvae, juveniles, fish, invertebrates and their life stages has been commissioned by our provincial or federal government.
A couple of $50,000 literary searches and a small study produced by DFO Gulf Region Science entitled “Potential Impacts of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab” do not fill the gaps in knowledge needed to make well-informed comprehensive decisions.
A study from the Australian University of Tasmania and Curtin University published in 2017 titled “Widely used marine seismic survey air gun operations negatively impact zooplankton” states:
Experimental air gun signal exposure decreasedzooplankton abundance when compared with controls . . . and caused a two- to threefold increase in dead adult and larval zooplankton. Impactswere observed out to the maximum 1.2 km range sampled, which was more than two orders of magnitude greater than thepreviously assumed impact range of 10 m. Although no adult krill were present, all larval krill were killed after air gun passage. There is a significant and unacknowledged potential for ocean ecosystem function and productivity to be negativelyimpacted by present seismic technology.
The above study also stated:
Phytoplankton and their grazers — zooplankton — underpinocean productivity, therefore significant impacts on planktonby anthropogenic sources have enormous implicationsfor ocean ecosystem structure and health. In addition, a significantcomponent of zooplankton communities comprises the larvalstages of many commercial fisheries species. Healthy populations offish, top predators and marine mammals are not possible withoutviable planktonic productivity.
In addition, an article entitled “How Much Do Oceans Add to World’s Oxygen?” states:
Most of Earth’s oxygen comes from tiny ocean plants — called phytoplankton — that live near the water’s surface and drift with the currents.
Like all plants, they photosynthesize — that is, they use sunlight and carbon dioxide to make food. A byproduct of photosynthesis is oxygen.
Scientists agree that there’s oxygen from ocean plants in every breath we take.
The oil and gas industries claim that each seismic blast only impacts a 10-metre range around the air gun blast, creating a 20-metre wide affected path. These blasts have an affected area of 314 square metres per air gun blast. This claim is supported by Canada’s offshore petroleum boards.
But according to this Australian study, the 1.2-kilometre affected range or radius around the air gun blast would cover a 2.4 kilometre wide affected path — 2400 metres as opposed to 314. This is 120 times greater, with an affected area of 4,532,904 square metres, or 4.5 square kilometres, per each air gun blast. That is 14,407 times greater than the 10 metre range we are being governed by.
The above calculations are based on a one-vessel two-dimensional seismic survey, while newer seismic surveys are using up to four vessels, three-dimensional surveys, each blasting their own array of air guns, sailing parallel 1.2 kilometres apart recording blasting echoes from each other. The affected air gun range of four seismic vessels travelling parallel with 1.2 kilometres between each vessel covers a width of 3.6 kilometres, plus 1.2 kilometre range of the seismic air guns on the outer sides of the vessel paths, creating another 2.4 kilometres, for a total affected path width of six kilometres every 10 seconds each vessel alternately blasts their array of air guns. Within 40 seconds, this 3D seismic method has an affected area of over 11 square kilometres.
From the time a seismic vessel blasting every 10 seconds approaching a range of 1.2 kilometres ahead until the vessel or vessels passes 1.2 kilometres —
The Chair: Ms. Gorman, I am so sorry, but you need to start wrapping up.
Ms. Gorman: This 3D seismic method has an affected area of over 11 square kilometres.
All forms of life will be subjected to 88 blasts from 24 to 36 air gun arrays firing simultaneously. All guns expelling air at exactly the same time is known as synchronizing the guns. Seismic vessels continue blasting for weeks and months at a time, covering thousands of square kilometres.
Seismic operators will tell you how they slowly ramp up to allow the fish to escape their 10 metre affected zone. The problem is life forms such as plankton, krill, larvae, juvenile and small fish do not have the ability to move out of a 10 metre affected range, let alone able to move out of a 12 metre range.
There is so much more here. We just cannot even begin to cover all of this.
The Chair: We have your copy.
Ms. Gorman: You do have the copy.
The Chair: We need time to ask you questions. Thank you so much.
Sarah McDonald, Lawyer, Ecojustice: Good afternoon, senators. Thanks for inviting my colleague James and I to discuss Bill C-69 with you today. I am sure you already know about Ecojustice from our colleague Josh Ginsberg, who presented to you in Ottawa.
As James and I mentioned in our brief, Ecojustice just opened up its first office in Atlantic Canada last year. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss issues related to Bill C-69 that will affect communities and the environment in Atlantic Canada.
We acknowledge, of course, that Bill C-69 is not perfect. However, the bill was designed based on thorough consultation and wide-ranging expert knowledge, and it has resulted in a balanced, modern and credible federal impact assessment process.
Fundamentally, Bill C-69 promotes a shift from a system where we are focused only on avoiding or minimizing significant adverse and environmental effects to one where we look more holistically at planning the best ways to use our public lands and resources. The health and sustainability of our communities demands that we make this shift.
But the Council of Atlantic Premiers and others have proposed amendments that would undermine the effectiveness of this bill. Three of the most concerning amendments the premiers have proposed are as follows: one, the exclusion of short-term projects and activities such as offshore exploration wells from the assessment process; two, narrowing the scope of public participation; and three, requiring increased cooperation between the impact assessment agency and life-cycle regulators in assessments for projects regulated by those regulators.
As you know, the project list is intended to be developed as a regulation made under the act. It is crucial that we not exclude certain projects prematurely without the benefit of a full consultation period about the project list as a whole. The issue of adding offshore exploration wells to the list has already been debated and decided. In fact, it was the Harper government that decided to add them to the current project list back in 2013 when they determined that certain types of major projects with high potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction like offshore exploration wells were not covered by the list. Recent incidents like the drilling mud spill by BP’s West Aquarius rig last summer continue to cause significant public concern about these projects.
Amendments to narrow the scope of public participation are unnecessary and would undermine public confidence in the impact assessment process. Public participation under Bill C-69 has not been expanded from what exists under CEAA 2012 with the one exception of the standing test that was only applied during hearings for projects regulated by the NEB. Under Bill C-69, the impact assessment agency and review panels will have access to a range of public engagement tools, including in-person hearings, open houses, online engagement, et cetera. Participation will also have to fall within statutorily mandated timelines. These are tried and true methods of managing public participation and will provide plenty of certainty to proponents and investors. Public participation is also vital to maintaining public confidence in the impact assessment process.
Finally, the premiers have called for amendments requiring increased cooperation between the impact assessment agency and life-cycle regulators such as the offshore petroleum boards. In fact, Bill C-69 already requires a high level of cooperation between the body conducting the impact assessment and the life-cycle regulator. Any additional required cooperation would undermine the independence and accountability of the impact assessment process.
As you heard this morning, many groups in the Atlantic provinces are particularly concerned about the amending provisions in Bill C-69 dedicated to the offshore petroleum boards. We strongly echo the comments made by the East Coast Environmental Law Association, the Ecology Action Centre and others regarding these provisions.
Bill C-69 should be amended to ensure that petroleum board members do not sit on review panels for projects in the Atlantic offshore. Otherwise, the close relationship between the petroleum boards and the impact assessment authority will undermine the independence and credibility of the impact assessment process.
We look forward to your questions and to providing more detail on these comments. Thank you.
Karen Hutt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nova Scotia Power Inc.: Good afternoon, senators. I am pleased to be here along with my colleagues with you this afternoon. My name is Karen Hutt, and I am the President and CEO of Nova Scotia Power.
Nova Scotia Power is a publicly regulated utility that supplies 95 per cent of the electricity generation, transmission, and distribution in the Province of Nova Scotia.
We are also a Canadian leader in reducing carbon emissions. Nova Scotia Power has already surpassed the COP 21 target of 30 per cent reduction in carbon emissions compared to 2005 levels by 2030, and we are on track to almost double that number by the time we reach 2030. We have achieved our results through focused efforts over the past decade to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels that at one time comprised the vast majority of the generation in Nova Scotia. Going forward, we are bringing the same intense focus as we continue to execute our coal to clean strategy.
Looking beyond Nova Scotia, we know the only way for Canada to achieve its carbon reduction goals is through broad-scale electrification. A key enabler to electrification is ensuring that we have infrastructure in place across the country to best optimize large-scale hydro and other renewable generation resources, along with the required transmission infrastructure to deliver energy to communities across the country.
But to build large projects like these, we need large volumes of investment capital, and those investors need clarity and certainty on bringing those projects to fruition. Our concern is that Bill C-69, as currently drafted, could add uncertainty, risk and cost to infrastructure and natural resource projects. This is at a time when it is critical that we collectively focus on ways that will help Canada become more competitive in the global economy.
Strong regulation and a competitive economy are not opposing concepts. Strong regulation can provide clarity, certainty and timeliness to enable infrastructure investment and build a competitive economy.
I have had the honour to be part of the Economic Strategy Table initiative led by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The Government of Canada brought us together as industry leaders to examine our global competitiveness. Our strategy table explored precisely the same issues that we are discussing here today, and I would encourage you to read our “Resources of the Future” report. It highlights that Canada has a wealth of natural resources and exceptional potential for growth, but infrastructure investment, resource development and market expansion are being bottlenecked by cumbersome and outdated regulation.
Nova Scotia Power fully supports the Government of Canada’s stated intent with Bill C-69. The government set out to improve the regulatory system to protect the environment, honour Indigenous rights and enable a more competitive resource and energy sector. We would welcome those improvements. What we ask of you is to ensure that Bill C-69 lives up to its stated intent.
A broad range of stakeholders, such as the Canadian Electricity Association, utilities, energy companies, and provincial governments, have provided detailed submissions on how Bill C-69, in its present form, will create regulatory delay, investor uncertainty and impede growth.
For Nova Scotia and other provinces, the path to a low carbon future can only happen through the types of projects that Bill C-69 could facilitate.
The work just announced on March 1 of this year by the Governments of Canada and the Atlantic provinces as part of the Atlantic Growth Strategy is a perfect example of why Canadians need this bill to enable innovation and to create certainty to move forward with large-scale projects that frankly take years to complete.
The Atlantic Growth Strategy is a collaboration between the federal and provincial governments and, along with the Atlantic utilities, is focused on the need to produce and transport more clean power in the region while ensuring that electricity remains both reliable and affordable for businesses and households across Atlantic Canada.
Governments came together and agreed to develop a clean power road map for Atlantic Canada that will outline a collective vision for how jurisdictions can come together to build a clean power network across the region by creating a system-wide plan that will provide economic and environmental benefits.
When we think about the economics of de-carbonizing the economy and how to achieve that, it is essential that we can develop Canada’s energy resources and move that energy where it can provide the most value to our customers and to Canadians. This can provide us with better energy security and affordability. It can help build the economy, and it goes right to the heart of competitiveness in our towns, in our cities, and provinces and territories and as a nation.
Properly amended to fulfill its intent, Bill C-69 will protect the environment, honour Indigenous rights and ensure that significant projects move forward in a timely fashion so that we can strengthen the economy in every province and territory while meeting our national carbon reduction goals.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear in front of you today. We would welcome any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will start with Senator MacDonald, the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator MacDonald: I thank the witnesses for being here. I guess I will give my first question to Ms. Hutt. It is good to see you again.
You talk about the efforts you have made to reduce your carbon footprint, and it is commendable. You have done a great job at Nova Scotia Power.
But one thing Nova Scotia Power has that other businesses do not have or consumers do not have is that you have the luxury of going to the Utilities Review Board every year and showing them how much your power costs, and you always get a guaranteed return on your investment. Every other company does not have that option.
What difference would it make when it comes to Nova Scotia Power’s ability to serve the public of Nova Scotia? I am referring to natural gas now. We can see what happens here in the winter. We get our natural gas from the U.S. It spikes, and it costs a fortune. The offshore natural gas industry is shutting down. I assume that you would rather be getting your gas from domestic sources in Nova Scotia, I am sure it would be cheaper. What sort of impact would this bill have on the ability of the Nova Scotia gas industry to provide you with this resource in the future? Because most people think we need it here.
Ms. Hutt: Thank you, senator.
First of all, yes, you are right. We are a regulated utility and, through that, we have a process that we are accountable to the Utility and Review Board, and we also have the obligation to provide service to all customers across the province. Through that regulated structure, we have an absolute mandate to demonstrate that everything that we do is in our customers’ best interests, and we work very, very hard at being able to do that. We think about affordability for Nova Scotians every day as we make decisions as we run our organization.
There is no question natural gas is a key issue for us. We are disappointed to see the lack of exploration done certainly in a way that is constructive with the kind of stakeholder input that I think is critical in this regard.
You are also right that, for many instances, our resource has been brought from the United States across the border into Canada. More recently, we are actually looking at bringing gas from Alberta to Nova Scotia.
We think that one of the critical things that we need to be considering as Canadians is how do we promote east-west energy corridors in a way that we can all take advantage of our resources, to the extent that we can create north-south access as well. I think is valuable. It creates more optionality for customers, and that is always good. But fundamentally, we are lacking in the east-west category today. So having more east-west transmission infrastructure that would allow us to move energy across the country, more east-west ability to move Alberta and western gas to this part of the region, is a huge part of what we think needs to be considered as we go forward. We hope that we can enable an ability to do that because we know that we can serve our customers better through that.
Senator MacDonald: I’m going to speak to the transmission of energy, particularly transmission of electrical power.
Yesterday afternoon, as I was coming back from Europe, I ran into the former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Couillard, in the airport in Montreal, and we had a great chat. I talked to him about a national energy corridor, not just for pipelines but also for the transmitting of energy of power.
Of course, there are some challenges transmitting power in terms of its loss of power. Is that manageable? Is there a way we can transmit our power across the country without making it inefficient to the point where it is not viable to do it?
Ms. Hutt: Absolutely, it is possible. That is one of the areas — I talked about the Atlantic Growth Strategy, and we thought about how we can consider what our carbon reduction objectives are going forward.
Certainly from a Nova Scotia perspective, we are on a path that, over time, we will retire 1,200 to 1,300 megawatts of fossil fuel-based generations. So we are very actively engaged in looking how we build additional infrastructure.
There is no question Quebec should play a meaningful part of how we can serve the requirements of customers going forward. We are very pleased that we now have an interconnection with the province of Newfoundland with the Maritime Link, and that will be a key enabler. But frankly, that is not enough. We need more. When we think about what our longer-term solutions are, we do think about Quebec and we think about the role that it can play with the vast hydro resources that can be, I think, available to support Canadian needs versus, as you know the situation today, much of that being exported to the United States.
The Chair: Can I ask you something? We are here in the coastal city and you have oil in the ocean and you have hydro power. Why is it that there is no wind or solar or tidal or hydraulic? We heard earlier that there was a big project that never passed, with funds from the Norwegian pension fund.
Ms. Hutt: I am not familiar with that project. But what I can tell you is we have 600 megawatts of wind in the Province of Nova Scotia. If you look at that on a percentage basis, we have about 2,400 megawatts of our total system. We actually are leading the country on a percentage basis of wind.
We have a fantastic wind resource in Nova Scotia. One of the reasons that you do not see us pursuing offshore wind, as an example, is we do not need to. We have very good onshore wind resources here, so we want to be able to develop those.
But what we need to have in combination with that is the important capacity that goes along with it, because as we know, wind is an energy resource. So when the wind blows, we get the benefit of it, but when it does not blow, we need to be able to supplement that with something else. That is why we continue, on a very strategic basis, to use our fossil fleet over time, because we need to be able to supply the energy needs of Nova Scotians. Until we are able to evolve new technologies like battery storage, we need those resources in place to be able to serve customer requirements.
Senator Woo: I have a question each for Ms. Hutt and Ms. McDonald.
Ms. Hutt, I think you expressed some caution about the bill and how it might not, in fact, lead to greater clarity and predictability and certainty. You encouraged us to make sure the bill does. But I did not actually hear you point to specific areas in the bill that you are concerned about. Could you do that for us?
Ms. Hutt: Thank you, and I will ask my colleague to my left to supplement this.
Certainly there is no question, if we look at anyone who is interested in investing in large-scale projects, they want to understand the timelines for how their projects will progress in a way that they are ultimately able to return back to investors what they are promising, so having certainty around timelines. As the bill is drafted today, there are a number of different opportunities that would allow the minister or the government to delay without certainty on when activity would resume. That is a really difficult place to ask an investor to be in.
The other, I think for us, is transparency around how projects get added to the list. To the extent that there is a fundamental critical need where the minister or the government needs to step in and alter that list, that is something that we could consider. But having it as it is worded today, our concern is more unilateral ability for the minister to be able to add projects. We do not think that is in keeping with the kind of transparency that Canadians are looking for through this process.
Terry Toner, Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power Inc.: There have been two discussion papers, one which has the discussion about project list and one which talks about timelines and criteria for stopping timelines. I think what we are interested in seeing that move forward with more clarity beyond just the discussion paper stage so that we have the clarity from that that marries up properly. Therefore, as Ms. Hutt said, only those real reasons where you need a change that it is really well-defined, that is when it would occur. That gives us more certainty.
Senator Woo: That is very helpful.
Ms. McDonald, there are clear diametrically opposite positions today on the appropriate role of the C-NSOPB. You want less; others want more.
When I asked the Minister for Energy and Mines about the principle of separating the functions of the agency that assesses projects versus the agency that regulates it, the answer we received was that the C-NSOPB is actually structured in such a way that it firewalls the health and safety aspects of the agency from the promotional or so-called, business and commercial aspects of offshore oil. The argument being that is it the government and the ministry that does the promotional stuff and the C-NSOPB does not do any promotional stuff, it is only interested in health and safety and presumably environment as well. Could you comment on that?
Ms. McDonald: Sure. It may be correct that government does the majority of the promotional aspect, but we still have to think about the fact that the act establishing the offshore petroleum boards among their purposes states that the boards should be engaged in the promotion of the industry itself, among the purposes of the act as well. It is part of their mandate stated on their website.
There are also numerous other reasons I would say that they should not be fully engaged in the impact assessment of offshore projects.
We know that the expert panel has noted in its report that these agencies, the offshore boards and other life-cycle regulators, do not have the same type of expertise that is needed in the impact assessment process. They do not have the expertise in this long-term sort of holistic planning that we need to be doing and that the impact assessment act I believe is trying get at. They have expertise in technical regulation of the industry.
There is also the fundamental fact that these offshore petroleum boards do not have the public trust anymore. You have heard from my friends this morning and from others, I am sure, that the public does not trust these boards to make sure that these projects that are going forward are truly in the public interest. So I would say that that is a very important reason that they should be separated from the impact assessment process and contained as regulators.
Senator Simons: I want to follow up first on the chair’s question.
Ms. Hutt, I have long been puzzled by the fact that we do not have tidal power projects in this country — east coast, west coast, north coast. Is it a question that it is the expense? Is it the environmental concerns? Or is that you cannot make it work as a market proposition because you do not have the tie-lines and the transmission capacity to diffuse that electricity to where it needs to go?
Ms. Hutt: I think the right answer is a combination of those things. But fundamentally, it is still an emerging technology. We are still understanding what the commercial viability of that technology looks like and how it needs to look and operate in certain ways.
Our company has been involved in that from a holding company perspective. We have been involved with that, and we took a position in that really to help facilitate more of an industry to hopefully come in and begin its work, and we will continue to do that. But our view is we still have to break through the technology.
Until then, it is incredibly expensive. If you look at the cost of that, we need to consider how we fund that, and that is a policy question for governments to consider. But as it sits today, there is a certain percentage that can be recovered through the cost of electricity. That is very expensive electricity. And when we are thinking more broadly about the importance of affordability, we think that it is important that governments consider both sides of those as they think about the policy development around that.
Senator Simons: I absolutely agree. We can’t green the grid if we can’t connect the grid. I come from Alberta where getting off coal, getting off carbon, is a challenge.
Ms. Gorman, we heard earlier from a professor who is an expert on whales about the impact of seismic on the largest sea creatures. You talked very eloquently about the impact on the smallest sea creatures. My question is, would you want to see seismic exploration on the project list, or do you think it could be handled with regional or more strategic assessments? If there are all these different seismic boats out exploring, rather than putting each one through a regulatory regime, could you have something that sort of looked at the whole scope of them and managed the problem that way?
Percy Hayne, Assistant to the Chairman, Gulf Nova Scotia Herring Federation: One more paragraph out of this document: A spokesman for the C-NSOPB said there are no plans to stray from the current course. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that would damage the approach to authorization of seismic activity.
Leslie Rideout said in an email statement that if science evidence were warranted regularly, changes in the future, that would be the responsibility of the government. The board’s role is regulatory development and advisory and we then provide regulatory oversight of relevant industrial activity. That is just an example. They are all working the same.
In our statement, we have another paragraph where we would have talked the process that they use. The C-NSOPB asked the seismic company if the report from Australia was okay. The seismic company is saying, “Oh, it is okay, and we will just go on as usual.” To us, this really points out that there is a problem with the boards and how they work. Where is all the scientific information from Canada that shows us that it is all right to go? There is no scientific information for Canada. But our regulatory boards are just saying, “Okay, go ahead.” And that is a problem.
I totally hope there are changes in Bill C-69 that will address this. We cannot sit down and go over every line in that because I am not a lawyer and I have not got time to do it. But I am telling you from the bottom of my heart and from a fishermen’s heart that there have got to be changes in this regulatory board from the offshore petroleum board.
Ms. Gorman: Senator Simons, thank you so much for the question. Very simply, from where I am sitting as a volunteer advocate for 30 years trying to protect the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, there should be no seismic blasting in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence at all.
I know that money creates movement. I know you are all here to discuss important businesses and how we can keep our economies rolling. But be clear: Gulf of Saint Lawrence plankton levels are down 50 per cent. They are saying the cod will be extinct in less than 20 years. The bass is in sharp decline. The herring stocks are so low that the guys do not think they are fishing this year. There is nothing to fish. We have a serious crisis happening in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. It is one of the most rapidly deoxygenating bodies of water on this earth. This is science, not me.
We need real leaders who are prepared to make the tough decisions to keep our children and their children alive. And I mean alive on this earth, because that is what we are facing.
It is very difficult for me to go into business as usual, senatorial or House of Commons hearings. I quite frankly do not do it much anymore because there is a real disconnect from reality. You need to get on the ground with those of us that are really fighting and find out how serious — it is tragic. On Twitter, the top scientists on the earth, they do not get re-tweeted. No one is interested in the truth. This is science, and we have to start dealing with it or . . .
Senator Simons: Thank you. I am glad you made an exception and came to testify to us today.
Ms. Gorman: Thank you, Senator Simons.
The Chair: Yes, thank you.
I just want to say that the person who first identified that the Gulf of Saint Lawrence was getting acidic is a professor from Rimouski University. He is a very good colleague.
Senator Carignan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the Nova Scotia Power representatives. Nova Scotia still depends on coal-fired generation for 53 per cent or 54 per cent of its electricity, if I’m not mistaken. That’s despite efforts to maximize the use of renewable energy, which has become significant in recent years.
I think one solution is to import hydroelectricity. In fact, I think that’s one of the features of the power transmission cable agreement negotiated with Newfoundland. Whether through cables or other hydro line transmission infrastructure, do you think consideration should be given to energy corridors for transmission lines or gas pipelines, to keep the environmental footprint to a single area? That way, regardless of whether the power was being transported from north to south or east to west, the bulk of transmission infrastructure would be concentrated within the corridor.
[English]
Ms. Hutt: First of all, my apologies; I cannot reply to you in French.
Absolutely. The work that we have begun to do in conjunction with the Atlantic Growth Strategy is to do just that, to look at what the broader large-scale corridors should look like.
I cannot speak for other parts of the country, but I can certainly speak from an Atlantic Canada perspective. We have all planned for the needs for our own provinces. We have never stepped back and said if you were going to holistically build your system and build your network, how might you do it differently and what are the things that you would do? That is exactly the view that we are taking on this work. There is no possible way to complete that work without including both Newfoundland and Quebec, because we need those corridors to include both of those provinces when you think about what sort of potential is there.
If you think more broadly, from a pipeline perspective, there is no question that Nova Scotians could benefit from Alberta natural gas. There is no question. There is not an easy way to do that today. In fact, the only way that you can get gas from Alberta to Nova Scotia is you have to go down through the United States first and then come back up through. That is a ridiculous path. Looking at ways that we can better streamline that and build corridors that would enable that transport of resources would allow for a better use of our own natural resources and a better cost option for customers.
Senator Mercer: Thank you all for being here.
Ms. Hutt, I am a customer of yours. As you can tell, being a member of the Senate, I make a very good salary, so I can afford your bill that I get every two months. But I have a hard time understanding how an ordinary, hardworking Nova Scotia family can meet the bills, of paying the power bills. We pay the highest power bills in the country. So this is a major concern for all Nova Scotians. Even those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to pay the bill, we are not happy about it. Every time there is a change, it usually costs more.
Anyway, you have talked about a couple things I want to zero in on. You talked a clean power network, and you also talked about east-west energy corridors, and you talked about the Atlantic Growth Strategy. There are a couple of things I would like you to add to those discussions: the jobs that could be created, the future of having security of a supply and the potential for growth.
The tidal power issue is something that all Atlantic Canadians, particularly Nova Scotians, listen to and debate all the time. If you could bring us up to date, how close are we to having the technology to do the job? I live in East Hants, home of the highest tides in the world, and that potential just comes and goes every day. It is in and out, in and out, and we keep missing it because we do not have the technology.
Ms. Hutt: Thank you, senator.
First of all, I would just like to make the point that it is our job as a regulated utility to enact and to implement the policies that the government sets in place for us. Through a combination of federal policy around decarbonization and provincial policy around renewable energy, it is our job to make sure that we put those in place. It has come at a cost. We understand that. We have invested almost $5 billion to be able to comply with both federal and provincial regulations.
I would also add that Nova Scotia Power as an entity has not increased our non-fuel rates since 2014. The only rates that have changed have been fuel driven, and they have been as a result of the policies that we are responsible for executing. On the non-fuel side, we are as concerned about affordability as customers are. We are working very hard to control costs.
I wish that I could tell you we were there on commercial viability of tidal; we are simply not. We hope this is an area where good policy will continue to attract those who bring new technologies, who want to be able to pilot that and test it and eventually find something that can co-exist with the environment in a way that is responsive to stakeholders that play a critical role in this but also takes advantage of a natural resource that has incredible predictability, as you point out. We are not there yet.
From a utility perspective, our job is to find the lowest cost options for customers. At this moment, tidal is not. When we pass the cost of research and development, which is fundamentally where we are, through to customers, it becomes very expensive. That is a concern we continue to raise. We need to find a way to advance the technology. Passing it through on electricity rates is one way. There are other ways we would like us to consider as well.
Senator Massicotte: I noted your interest in getting a pan-Canadian electricity line and also your interest in Quebec Hydro. I’ll make sure to pass that along to the Prime Minister. I’ll also mention how flexible you are in paying whatever price it needs. We’ll pass on that comment. Given your experience with Newfoundland, you are kind of used to that, I gather.
Let me address my comments to Ms. McDonald. I read your work quite a bit, and I congratulate you for providing quality input and so on, specifically given your legal background, because these are all laws, after all. I don’t know if you have kept current, but the Canadian Bar Association issued a submission on the House of Common bills and they made significant amendments to that. The bar also then came back to us — it is a public document — and made further comments to the bill as currently proposed. Are you aware of those amendments and do you feel strongly those amendments are required?
Ms. McDonald: I have read the Canadian Bar Association’s documents, but I cannot remember off the top of my head specifically what they were proposing. If you could remind me, that would be —
Senator Massicotte: They were very oriented to the Indigenous community and how we have to strengthen it. But that is okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Patterson: I would like to ask a question of Ms. Gorman. Basically you are saying there is no or inadequate scientific data on the impact of seismic testing, and yet you have got very strong opinions that seismic testing is wrong and your brief says a crime against humanity and life on earth. You cited one Australian study, but I think what you have said is we do not really know the answer and we need to study this more. Would that be correct?
Ms. Gorman: What we were attempting to say, senator, is there is a lot of international science.
For instance, in our document, which I hope you will all take the time to read — it is tedious, but Mr. Hayne spent four months as a volunteer writing it, so I would hope that you can all spend half an hour or 20 minutes reading it. There is a lot of science.
Here is the problem. The problem is that, for instance, when we were fighting the oil and gas leases off the shore of Cape Breton 20 years ago, we were told unequivocally by the oil industry that seismic was harmless. The president of the company Corridor Resources looked me in the eyes and guaranteed me that the seismic they wanted to do would not hurt anything.
Now, 20 years later, we have an international expert on the impacts of seismic blasting on marine life, Dr. Lindy Weilgart, from Dalhousie University, and she travels all over the world and is privy to all of the science. There is enough science to know that we should not be proceeding with it.
Twenty-eight right whale experts came out in 2016 saying that the widespread use of seismic blasting in the oceans on this earth will push the right whales to extinction. We saw in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence where the fishing industry and shipping strikes were blamed for those right whale deaths. In fact, that may have been their actual cause of death, but those whales were probably not in sound mind when they blundered. The scientists referred to them blundering into whales.
So to try to get back to your question, there is a lot of science, but it is being completely ignored, was our point. It is being completely ignored by the Canadian government and by these appointed offshore petroleum boards. And yet, they refuse to do any Canadian science on the seismic.
I can also tell you, and this is a fact, that if you think these boards are not biased, in 2010, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board allowed seismic blasting to proceed in October of 2010 while endangered blue whales were migrating through. They were informed of that prior to their decision. We begged them, and whale experts wrote to them; they did it anyway.
These are the types of atrocities and crimes that are happening in our oceans.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. You use some strong language, and I respect that, and I thank you for the brief, which I have read and appreciate.
We had a lady from the Sierra Club Foundation this morning, and you repeated it this afternoon, that the impact goes halfway across the Atlantic. That was the quote. Yet you have told us that it is not 314 square metres, as the offshore board has supported, but it is more like 2,400 square metres or 10 square kilometres. Where do we get this halfway across the Atlantic? I mean, that seems to me to be a lot more than 10 square kilometres.
Ms. Gorman: It is not 10 square metres, as we pointed out. That quote that would have been made by Sierra Club Canada Foundation this morning was a direct quote of Dr. Linda Weilgart. They have the science to prove this. The seismic blasting that was happening off the coast of Nova Scotia, it was the loudest background noise over in England. They have the science. This is a fact. Now, does that mean that the species in England are feeling the same impact as those species where the guns are being shot here offshore Nova Scotia?
The point we were trying to make is that when you have those arrays, and he can speak to this better than I, you are killing all the plankton, all the babies. You are killing tomorrow’s marine species, is what you are doing.
And we alleged this, senator. We alleged this 20 years ago when the science had not caught up. After the government shut down the cod fishery and they could not blame the fishermen anymore because there was no more cod fishery, the cod never came back. We alleged when we spoke at the public review in Cape Breton in early 2000 that the cod might be being throwing off their migratory routes and spawning in areas that were not safe for egg maturity.
There are very intricate, complex things happening in our oceans. And because none of us can see it, we assume nothing is going on there. But there is an abundance of life, and it is slowly but surely being destroyed by the human species.
The Chair: Ms. Gorman, I think you have mentioned that the science is there. I think we will appreciate if you can send us some of these scientific articles that you are mentioning.
Ms. Gorman: Absolutely. I can get a hold of Dr. Weilgart, and she will send the science.
The Chair: And send that to the clerk of the committee.
Senator McCallum: Thank you all for your presentations.
I wanted to speak to the topic that Mr. Hayne and Ms. Gorman spoke about because I feel very strongly about environment as well. There has been so much controversy over this bill by industry because it has the ability to slow down the process. I do not see that as a bad thing because we need to see what is happening to the environment.
People keep bringing up scientific knowledge, and the more I hear it, the less I believe that it exists to provide some protection. Scientific knowledge is required on all sides, offshore versus the fishermen as well as the ocean ecosystem, which is the environment, yet none seems to exist. But one group gets power and authority to destroy life that actually provides so much oxygen for us. A lot expertise and money is put towards technology, and I am looking at the drilling part, but little to remediation to look at the toxic waste.
You said at one point we need the Fisheries Act and protection of marine habitat to take precedence over offshore oil and gas development and all other forms of industrial exploitation. Can you clarify that a bit?
Ms. Gorman: I am sure Ms. Hutt would agree with me that without resources, there is no development of anything, and we are getting to that point in history.
I want to address what you mentioned about how frustrating this is for industry, being asked to slow down. May I remind all the senators here today that as far back as 1990, the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity stated that there had to be a precautionary and ecosystem approach to any form of industrial development. The reason for that is because it is so easy to muddy the waters. Basically the precautionary approach is nothing more than if the science is not absolutely definitive, we do not proceed. That is the precautionary approach. That is in our Oceans Act, and that is in our Environment Act. I can tell you to my knowledge it has never ever been implemented.
We all want our good corporations, the ones that function responsibility, but they have had a free ride in precaution for 20 years now in this nation, and it is time. It is past time, and that is the problem. It might even be more difficult for them because we have let things go too far. But if we are not going to protect the ecosystems that enable life on earth, we have nothing. You cannot mitigate dead. You cannot mitigate dead. Dead is dead.
Mr. Hayne: When they talked about the 1,200 metres a minute ago, that was of a study, they reached out of the study. And the other statement came from Linda Weilgart about the tests reaching across the ocean.
Senator Duffy: Ms. Hutt, you talked about the need in Canada for energy corridors. One of the things that this legislation is trying to do is de-clutter and streamline the approval process and so on, make it all more transparent.
But when we look at the big picture, considering the hydro potential, a clean resource in Quebec and the need that we have in Atlantic Canada, are you basically telling us that we need the federal government to step in and use its declaratory power to say that it is in the national interest that Quebec allow Newfoundland power to be wheeled through their territory and to Atlantic Canada in the same way as perhaps we would have a corridor that would allow a pipeline from western Canada to bring clean-burning natural gas to Nova Scotia where it would replace that coal that has already been mentioned? So is it up to the federal government to take this leadership role? Is that what you are telling us?
Ms. Hutt: Thank you. I think what we would say is that there is a role for both the federal government and the provincial governments to play together. As it sits today, this is essentially done through provincial governments in their own regulatory structures. I think that is one of the challenging issues when you think about the pancake and the layering of regulations that can occur as a result of that. We need to find a way to break through this interprovincial issue that allows us to look at the east-west corridors on a broader basis, perhaps on a national basis, even on a regional basis. And we need help doing that because the regulations that are in place today do not do that job. So, yes, I think there is a role for the federal government to play in this.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, colleagues, for your questions.
For the last panel here in sunny Halifax, we receive, from Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia, Peter Byron Rogers, Retired Public Servant, South Shore Chapter; and from the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association, Colin Sproul, President.
Peter Byron Rogers, Retired Public Servant, South Shore Chapter, Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia: Honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on this very important draft legislation.
I am here on behalf of a voluntary advocacy group concerned about offshore development. We call ourselves the Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia, CPONS. We are a project of the South Shore Chapter of this Council of Canadians, but I do not speak on behalf of the national organization the Council of Canadians.
We do not purport to be technical experts. We are concerned citizens who have followed developments, gleaned information from the offshore boards’ website, from published risk assessments and press reports about oil and gas exploratory operations here and abroad. We have presented our concerns to a number of South Shore municipal councils, held public information meetings, prepared discussion papers, met with public officials and added our voice to the Offshore Alliance formed with other groups representing fisheries and environmental groups who share our concerns.
The proposed environmental assessment act and amendments, Bill C-69, in many respects is a great improvement on oversight and accountability, especially with respect to enabling more effective engagement with First Nations. We applaud both orders of government for those numerous positive changes and trust they will remain in place after this process of sober second thought, however unpopular they may appear to be to the petroleum industry and its lobbyists.
Environmental and socioeconomic impacts do not, in our view, fall within the scope of what an offshore regulatory board dedicated to oil and gas project management can credibly assess or exert direct influence upon. The offshore board is focused primarily on the potential for positive oil and gas economic impact, their mandate, while impact assessment, in our view, should encompass the full scope of the risks entailed, ideally on a precautionary basis, along with a thorough consideration of alternatives, the interests of other affected stakeholders, and the opportunity costs involved. Our overall impression of the offshore board is that it is too close to project proponents. Essentially as operational culture, it appears to be strongly influenced by the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Be that as it may, the petroleum boards clearly have an important technical role to play in providing specific expertise relevant to the impact assessment process, the regulation of the industry and on all the related consultations.
At the same time, looking at clause 22 of the bill, factors to be considered in impact assessments and reviews, it is difficult to imagine a credible process managed or strongly influenced by offshore boards that would fully take into account all the factors noted there in clause 22, whether individually or accumulatively as required by those provisions.
Our view is consistent with the recommendations of the 2017 expert panel Building Common Ground, namely that an authority that does not have concurrent regulatory functions can better be held to account by all interests than can entities that are focused on one area or industry and that operate under their own distinct practices.
Mitigation measures for the risks of offshore oil are often mentioned in C-NSOPB reports. However, mitigating the marine impacts from seismic soundings or from major oil spills and blow outs is very much a matter of incomplete or ongoing research. Effective capacity to clean up major spills or deep blow outs in the oceanic environment has not been demonstrated anywhere. There is no proven effective responsive to spills in our offshore waters, as recently shown by the extreme difficulty of even tracking let alone cleaning up the SeaRose spill off Newfoundland and Labrador.
There is a lot of unfinished research yet to be conducted towards understanding the offshore marine environment. I think we have already heard that from other interveners here today. Communities should not be satisfied with bland reassurances such as are often offered by the offshore board when it does meet with them.
In regard to the socioeconomic aspects of impact assessment, it is not clear that an offshore board is the appropriate entity to conduct or influence the conduct of that kind of wide-ranging regional research that would be needed to properly contextualize offshore oil efforts. We take the view that offshore boards, as federal authorities, should have their role limited to providing expert information on the regulatory process within their jurisdiction over projects. Giving them joint authority or greater influence over impact assessments or review panels over and above their existing technical advisory roles would not, in our view, be in the best interests of the communities and other major non-fossil fuel stakeholders dependent on the renewable resources of the Scotian Shelf.
Impact assessment must, above all, be seen to be credible. This is a structural matter; it is not a personal slight against anybody on that board or a characteristic of the personnel necessarily. Credibility requires a degree of independence from industry proponents that simply is not possible given the makeup and history of the offshore boards. The offshore boards already have dual conflicting mandates, regulation and promotion of offshore development, and an all-too-close relationship with their regulatees. These factors reduce their perceived impartiality and independence.
Summing up, while the proposed changes to impact assessment in Bill C-69 tend to curtail the excess of influence of industry proponents on regulators elsewhere in Canada, they appear inexplicably to have the potential to increase their influence in Atlantic Canada.
Honourable senators, we believe that the way forward for impact assessment is to enable and facilitate a greater role for impacted communities and those that depend on the ocean’s renewable resources to have a more direct say in what risks they are willing to tolerate. That, in effect, was what the current federal government promised in the last election: that social licence should be the prerogative of affected communities. With that in mind, we required that Bill C-69 be amended so that offshore boards be kept separate from any role in impact assessment other than their current technical advisory role.
Whatever the ultimate legislative decision, as an advocacy group, we call for a moratorium on further risky deep sea oil and gas development. In view of the deficiencies in how risks and impacts are currently assessed, we also would like to see a public inquiry here in Nova Scotia to reassess the offshore petroleum and development in its entirety. Thank you.
Colin Sproul, President, Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association: Good afternoon, honourable committee members. Thank you very much for the invitation to speak here today. The members of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association are grateful for this opportunity to voice our concerns with Bill C-69.
The association represents nearly 200 family fishing businesses along Nova Scotia’s Fundy coast. For 30 years, we have advocated for sustainable practices and community-based fishing management. We have been a leader in peaceful coexistence between non-Native and First Nations fishers, and we have a long history of cooperation with governments and regulators at all levels. This has given us a reputation as a valuable ally on ocean issues.
Needless to say, our members are proud of their legacy as progressive fishers who embrace a different way of doing things. We are all committed 100 per cent to preserving our way of life for future generations of Nova Scotians.
I came here today in defence of a 400-year-old truly sustainable way of life. Last year, the fishing industry exported well over $2 billion worth of seafood from Nova Scotia. We are not a quaint cottage industry. Fishing is the economic powerhouse of this province. It employs 26,000 people directly and 26,000 people indirectly. That makes our industry the largest employer outside of the public sector in Nova Scotia today.
But these numbers do not tell the whole story. What is important to understand is how that $2 billion is delivered as a diffuse economic benefit into some of our most isolated communities. This is truly the lifeblood of Nova Scotia’s economy, the only bulwark between the current prosperity enjoyed in many coastal communities here and the drastic economic decline evident elsewhere in rural Atlantic Canada.
The fishing industry did not get to this stage by happenstance. It is due to hard work, respect for the environment and the application of the precautionary principle in fisheries management. We have taken care of our inshore fishery, and now it is taking care of us.
However, all of this prosperity is at risk. Last summer, the Scotian Shelf played house to a machine with the power, through mechanical failure or singular human error, to change the course of this province’s future forever. Emerging industries and mega projects like ultra deepwater drilling and unrestrained tidal energy development may have existential consequences for the ocean and for fishers. The risks involved are real. The potential exists to end our way of life.
We have all seen the consequences in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Minas Passage when things go wrong. The fishing industry and Canada’s seas must have adequate protection from and independent assessment of these risks.
Although Bill C-69 is intended to return transparency and credibility to Canada’s impact assessment process, it will fail in its present form to achieve that objective in Canada’s oceans. Provisions within the bill to shift authority for offshore impact assessments to offshore regulators must be removed if this legislation is to be supported by fishers and by coastal communities in Atlantic Canada.
These offshore boards have already been placed in a conflict of interest through their dual roles as regulator and proponent of an industry. They are composed entirely of industry insiders who, while holding the expertise necessary to promote offshore development, do not have the capacity to assess all impacts from their actions. This holds especially true for socioeconomic impacts and impacts to existing industries like fishing, where the boards hold no knowledge. Fishers and, ultimately Canadians, will not place their trust in a new assessment process for our oceans if its authority is delivered to industry proponents.
Offshore science will never deliver the same clarity as its counterpart on land. Canada’s seas are an extremely dynamic environment. The ocean will never give up all of its secrets. This lack of scientific certainty and the absolute interdependence of marine ecosystems calls for precaution in offshore development and precaution in assessing its impacts.
It is important to note that today we have seen Mark Butler, a well-known representative of the conservation community, and Nathan Blades, a well-known representative of the fishery processing sector in Nova Scotia, come in concert with myself to defend our industry. I represent the harvesting sector. We have spent decades at loggerheads with each other over fishery-related issues in Nova Scotia, but we have found common ground on this issue. This is a sentinel moment in ocean protection in Nova Scotia, and it deserves recognition as such, that this issue has brought our three despaired groups together.
The health of our fishery and our coast means more than money. No matter where you hang your hat in this province, we all relate our identity to the water that surrounds us right now and to the fishing families who founded so many of our towns. If you are a Nova Scotian, you belong to the sea.
The executive and membership of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association respectfully asks that Bill C-69 be amended to remove offshore regulatory boards from any role in the impact assessment process other than an advisory one so that we may put our full public support behind this bill.
Honourable members, thank you for this opportunity. I invite your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Simons: Thank you to both you witnesses for some very vehement presentations this afternoon.
Mr. Rogers, one of the issues we are wrestling with as a committee is what to do about a standing test or who should be allowed to testify and bring concerns before an impact advisory panel. There is a range. One could have a standing test that would really narrow the number of people who can speak and could be open to litigation challenge but would keep the questions focused, or the current was C-69 is drafted is that basically there is no limit. The concern with that is that people who are most directly affected might get drowned out by outside lobby groups and outside interests instead of hearing from the people who, as you said in your presentation, are the ones who are the immediate community that has the right to grant the social licence. How would you structure it so that we could, on the one hand, not limit voices who have a right to be heard and, on the other hand, ensure that the people who are most affected are not drowned out?
Mr. Rogers: Not exactly being a management consultant, I am not sure I have an answer for that question, but I do know that we have spoken with municipal councils representing the communities along the South Shore and they have written seeking public inquires or other measures, moratoriums and so on. Not entirely at our behest, but because they are concerned. So I certainly think that the communities at the level of the councils, mayors and so on, reeves, would have something to say about this.
I do not know how you consult the broad public without risking a wide range of views, some of them a little off the wall, perhaps, and some of them perhaps not necessarily all that relevant. It is just a risk you have to take with this. I do not see a litigation risk in doing it, and I did not quite understand your comment about that, but I do think that it should be open as broadly as possible. Certainly the other industries that rely on the oceanic environment around us would have a very important standing, and so would the communities as they are constituted in councils.
Senator Simons: You would not be concerned the local voices would be drowned out?
Mr. Rogers: I guess my notion of a local voice would be the communities and the industries that are involved. There are probably many other NGOs and other interests that would want to have a say, and certainly anybody who has taken the trouble to get organized to have a say should have a say.
Senator C. Deacon: Mr. Sproul, as you pointed out, we heard your argument a lot today, and I am still in a contrast — I do not know if you were here when the minister was here and the deputy — contrast quite starkly with their perspectives, and given that this is federal legislation and the province is saying this is really well covered.
I am not a formal member of this committee; I am sitting in on this meeting. I am just wondering if there are any other ways you have considered to address your very legitimate concern that the ocean is a place that you extract resources from and is very important to our economy and, as you rightly pointed out, disperses a wealth throughout the communities right throughout the province. It is not centred in one area, which is very powerful from an economic standpoint in terms of spreading benefit.
Are there other ways that you have considered addressing your concern, in terms of possible changes to the amendments to the legislation, that could help this committee as it tries to find a solution that might address your concern?
Mr. Sproul: Let me start by making clear that, generally, the association and the executive are very supportive of Bill C-69 and its intent, but these provisions allowing for increased authority to the offshore boards are a poison pill that we will oppose at any level.
In reference to what you said earlier, I think I need to follow up on that. I was extremely taken aback this morning to hear the minister speak for fishers and also to hear the Director of the Offshore Energy Research Association relate the same thing and speak for fishermen. I am elected by my peers after years of fighting for them in the trenches to represent their view point to the provincial and federal governments. For the minister or for the Director to speak for us is less than proper, I would say.
I can tell you from my role as a fishery representative that we have not been consulted, in any fashion, by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and we are certainly at loggerheads with the Department of Energy and Mines over many projects in Nova Scotia. They do not consult with us at any level.
What this leads into is the answer to questions I have heard asked over and over and over again in here today. Why did the Beothuk wind energy project not come to fruition? Why did the Minas Passage project fail? Why is there so much opposition to drilling on the Scotian Shelf?
The key for me, from my fisherman’s perspective, is that there has been zero meaningful consultation from the outset of these processes with fishers. The truth about Beothuk wind energy is that the project was planned from Newfoundland and from Holland using VMS data, which is vessel monitoring system data. It was planned for the Seal Island Lobster Grant. It is the most heavily fished piece of seafloor in all of Canadian waters, but lobster vessels are not required to carry satellite tracking beacons, so when planners looked in Holland, it looked like there was no fishery present there at all. It sounds almost too simple and ridiculous to be true, but that is precisely where that billion dollars’ worth of investment went. There are other appropriate places for offshore energy projects where the project could have come to fruition if they just involved fisher perspectives from start.
Senator C. Deacon: It is the lack of the voice at the table, I think, that we have heard very clearly. As somebody who spent my life in business, that is a recipe for creating problems, because if you are not aware of it, you cannot manage it as a problem. So there really is only one solution, from your standpoint, just to be really clear, in terms of an amendment to Bill C-69, to take into consideration the concern that you are raising?
Mr. Sproul: Yes. Our ask is for the provisions increasing the responsibility of offshore boards in impact assessments to be removed from the bill so that we can support it.
The Chair: Can I continue on the same issue? It is not exactly directed to Bill C-69, but I want to understand the history behind it. As you said you have been fishing for 400 years, and so you were there before this platform, this drilling, this oil industry. But we have heard from a witness before that you have a marked territory where to go and fish, while the people that are drilling can go anywhere. So when did this happen and how did this happen, that you lost your rights and they earned many rights?
Mr. Sproul: I can give you a great example of a recent application of what you just said here in Nova Scotia. It is the EA process surrounding the Minas Passage and the forced tidal energy test site here in Nova Scotia.
Fishermen were not consulted meaningfully on the project in any way. I am the President of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association. Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy, Cape Sharp Tidal Ventures and Emera never reached out to us before we raised opposition to them.
The EA process did not even put anything in stone, so all of the EA conditions and preconditions are best practices or if possible, and what happened is that three times in their environmental assessment approval it calls for these corporations not to operate in our lobster district during the open lobster season, but every operation that took place in the Minas Passage took place during the open lobster season. We had members lose thousands of dollars’ worth of equipment. Technically not in violation of the EA since it is completely unbinding, but the result is that there they are out and the companies that perpetrated this on them are bankrupt and my members are left holding the bag.
So yes, you are right, that our rights as existing stakeholders are walked over by emerging industries time and time again. I think it is important to note that, by name, the Canada-Nova Scotia Petroleum Board is expected by Nova Scotians to represent Nova Scotian’s interests. It is not called the Oil and Gas Lobby Offshore Petroleum Board, but those are the only people that are represented. Where is the First Nations’ representation on the board? Where is the fishing industry representation on the board? Where is the conservation community? The answer is that they are not on there, and that is why our rights are not represented at the table that we do not even sit at.
Senator Massicotte: This morning we had a balance sheet listing of how badly off we are. Cod is down, never came back. Could you give us a summary? Is it disastrous? Are we managing the seas well? What can we learn from this?
Mr. Sproul: I can tell you that here in Nova Scotia last year and the year before and the year before, the industry delivered more economic value, more export value, than at any time in the height of the groundfish boom in the 1980s. We are truly a success story here: lobster, crab, shrimp, scallop. We are just delivering tremendous value back into Nova Scotia. And it is because of sound management.
Senator Massicotte: So it is not over-fishing? There is no threat that 20 years from now we will talk about what we did wrong?
Mr. Sproul: The way that fishing is conducted now for most of these fisheries is vastly different from the practices that were used in the 1970s and 1980s. I represent lobster fishermen and hook and line fishermen, and we have an extremely low rate of bycatch and effect on the ecosystems that we operate in. That is evidenced in our licence values increasing in the district where I represent fishermen from $75,000 in 1995 to $3 million today.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Senator Woo: Thanks to both of you for very succinct presentations.
I am trying to find a solution to what I think is absolutely the core issue in today’s discussions, which is the role of the C-NSOPB. You know already we have heard dramatically opposite positions from different witnesses.
You know, of course, that what the bill proposes is simply to have up to two members out of the five, so it is a minority. Maybe you can comment on why that would be a problem, given that they could be outweighed by representatives from other sectors of society.
But the other more troubling point is that we are discussing this in the framework of a federal provincial agreement, and a lot of the pressure we are getting is sort of pressure from an intergovernmental perspective. Your province is arguing that they should have exclusive jurisdiction, exclusive rights to review projects, and the same for Newfoundland. In some senses, you should be testifying to them rather than to us, if you know what I’m saying. This is not about politics, but give us some sense of how we get through this conundrum because we are really interested in solutions.
The bill appears to try and strike a very fine balance between, on the one hand, having some independence of the agency but not totally excluding this federal-provincial structure. It is not written in the bill, but one obvious solution would be to involve fishers and other constituencies in the offshore boards, but that is not our bill. That is somebody else’s problem. But you can push for that. And there may be other solutions as well.
Mr. Sproul: I think it is important to point out first that Nova Scotia is overstepping its bounds in the offshore, in tidal energy and in aquaculture, and ultimately in oil and gas. We all heard the Minister of Energy come in today and argue for a total exemption for aquaculture from the IA process in Nova Scotia, and we also see that the federal government wields little, if any, power of the EA process in tidal energy development. Both of these are offshore industries. Constitutionally, the federal government is responsible for regulation in the offshore, and Nova Scotia has overstepped its bounds in tidal energy and certainly in aquaculture. I think it was evidenced today by the minister’s request that aquaculture, which can have tremendous impacts on the fishing industry and on ocean ecology, be exempted.
The second part of your question was in terms of two members coming to the board. On the surface, that seems appropriate, but then when you look at the composition of the board and that it is not representative of the Nova Scotia population or existing stakeholders in the offshore, that is where the problem arises for me. If maybe one of those people was a fisherman.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you both for your testimony.
Mr. Sproul, I am interested in your testimony. I am from a fishing community. Well, this whole province is a fishing community. I am a little perplexed by your position in regard to the offshore board, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association. There is a moratorium on George’s Bank. I am curious how the offshore board directly impacts the fishing industry in the Bay of Fundy. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.
Mr. Sproul: Thank you. That is an excellent question and I am asked it very often. It is because of the incredible tidal flow of the Bay of Fundy and the Labrador current. The current lease sites that are proposed and the ones that were drilled on last summer sit directly in the flow of the Labrador current. From there, it flows to George’s Bank, where it intersects the huge tidal flow of the Bay of Fundy. Within two days of an oil spill on the Scotian Shelf, we would see surface oil in the Bay of Fundy because of the tides. I get asked that question a lot, why I would be advocating for something on the South Shore of Nova Scotia, and it is because if liquid oil on the surface of the water enters the tidal estuaries in the Bay of Fundy, it is a worst-case scenario for my community.
Senator MacDonald: Most of the drilling on the offshore Scotian Shelf has been related to gas so far. There has not been much response when it comes to oil and finding oil.
And the other thing is — Senator Massicotte mentioned it — you talked about the lobster and crab industry. We know how much it has boomed. You mentioned the cod industry. I know all kinds of lobster fishermen and crab fishermen, and they do not want the cod back because cod eats small lobster and small crab. One of the reasons we are told that there is such a yield of lobster in Nova Scotia is because the cod stock is down and it has allowed the crab industry to flourish and the lobster industry to flourish. When you reflect on that, what is the position of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association?
Mr. Sproul: I think that attacking one industry in defence of another is probably a poor argument.
Senator MacDonald: That is what we are doing with the oil industry too. Newfoundland, North Sea, all over the world, there are huge fishing grounds that they drill on, and they successfully extract oil and gas and successfully have a fishing industry.
Mr. Sproul: I have to tell you I was really hoping that I would get asked about the comparison between Scandinavian countries and Nova Scotia because it is used very often in defence of the oil industry.
You need to understand the EA process and the application and approval process in Norway and the differences between here and in Canada. In Norway, if Statoil decides that they want to select a place to drill, it goes before a public inquiry and there is a pool of money from the legacy fund, from their royalties, that is equally available to proponents and interveners. Anybody in Norway has equal access to that money, and they can hire independent scientific study to make their arguments before Norway’s regulators so that they can arm themselves with the most objective science that is available today.
And they also follow up with reasonable safety measures, like when they drill adjacent to an important spawning ground, like George’s Bank, they are required to have a capping stack on site and drill a concurrent relief well. These were things that were done on the Grand Banks but are not being used in Nova Scotia last summer.
I think it also bears to point out the irony that Statoil is due to come to Nova Scotia next summer and do exploratory drilling and seismic work, but they are not bringing their capping stack with them. Is that the fault of Statoil’s executives whose job is to generate money for their investors and for Norwegian citizens? No. It is the fault of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board for not taking the responsible decision to bring in the safety equipment here.
Senator MacDonald: I think it is legitimate. Your argument is not necessarily that we cannot have co-development of both; it is just that there is not enough consultation with certain stakeholders. Correct?
Mr. Sproul: I think the easiest way for me to be clear on this is that last spring I spoke publicly in a few places in Nova Scotia about threats from the oil industry, and I was challenged publicly by another person who testified here today. He said, “I am going to ask you publicly, can the fishing industry and the oil and gas industry co-exist on the Scotian Shelf?” I thought long and I thought hard about it, and the answer is that it is not a question for fishers to answer to them; it is a question for them to answer to us. Because time and time again, in Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico, in Angola, the oil industry has proven that they are not willing to co-exist with fishermen.
Nova Scotia is only one accident away from becoming Prince William Sound. Why do you even know where Prince William Sound is? It is because it will forever be synonymous with poison tainted waters and the Exxon Valdez disaster. That is why the risks are so big here. We can never recover from this even if we do environmentally.
Senator Simons: Mr. Sproul, aquaculture is a new area for me. It is not something that anybody before today had talked about in the context of Bill C-69. I wondered if you could tell me, from your fisher’s perspective, what the risks of aquaculture are to the existing wild or inshore fisheries.
Mr. Sproul: There are a number of risks from aquaculture to commercially exploited species and also to protected ones like the Atlantic salmon.
First of all, I think it is important to understand the difference between the fishing industry and its value and the aquaculture industry and its value in Nova Scotia.
The vast majority, approximately 93 per cent of aquaculture in Nova Scotia, is owned by one person, who is not a Nova Scotian. My industry is employing 52,000 people and delivering much more value.
The risks are illegal use of pesticides to kill sea lice on salmon, which also kill larval lobster. Cooke Aquaculture has been prosecuted and convicted of doing this multiple times in Atlantic Canada. There are tremendous risks from the escape of caged salmon and then interbreeding with wild Atlantic salmon, thus hurting their genetics and also delivering diseases borne within the cages into the wild populations.
And then there is the fact of ocean access that fishermen, especially coastal inshore lobster fishermen, are excluded from the areas where salmon cage operations take place in Nova Scotia.
Senator Simons: When people discuss aquaculture here, it is primarily farmed Atlantic salmon. I was in Prince Rupert last week for different Senate hearings where we heard about efforts there to build a scallop industry by seeding scallop beds. But I do not know if that is covered by aquaculture or if that would be just a way of enhancing a natural thing.
Mr. Sproul: Let me be clear. Not all aquaculture is bad. There are responsible aquaculture operators in Nova Scotia, especially in mussel and oyster farming. Actually, their operations clean the rivers that they operate in. But scallop farming was tried and has failed here in Nova Scotia.
Senator McCallum: It has been an honour to meet both of you.
Mr. Sproul, it is the first time that I have heard a non-Indigenous man explain the lifeblood of being connected to the water, first of all, but also to land. I understand that and the close connection that you have, so you make more of an effort to protect and to sustain that life and that you understand and practise sustainability and you are going against a group who does not respect or understand sustainability and that they have unrestrained title in your land.
I wanted to ask you if you receive any of the benefits or any royalties from industry.
Mr. Sproul: No, we do not. I think this is an important time to point out that there are not any provisions for compensation for fishermen in any of these instances. The $1 billion that Minister Mombourquette mentioned would not even get us through the first six months of this year in our fishery value.
I thank you for recognizing my fishers’ connection to the sea. My family has been involved in the fishing industry in a tiny outport of Delaps Cove since the 1840s. We are six generations of my family, and I have my son and five nephews who I intend to see follow along in my footsteps.
If there is one more thing I could say, I think the reason our fishery is still healthy is because we play by a rigid set of rules. Everything that we take, all of our impacts on the sea, are closely monitored and controlled to ensure that we are sustainable. We are only asking for another industry that intends to share the ocean with us to play by the same set of rules. If we do not, there are unintended consequences. It makes it impossible for people like me to sell progressive fishery policy to my members. They say things like, “Why should I give up fishing in the Roseway Basin if British Petroleum is going to drill adjacent to it for oil?” This is the legacy of two sets of rules.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, that ends our journey here in Halifax.
(The committee adjourned.)