THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 8:01 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry.
Senator Joan Kingston (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, colleagues.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Finally, please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each seat. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
My name is Joan Kingston. I am a senator from New Brunswick and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis, Saskatchewan.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to everyone with us today as well as those listening online and at sencanada.ca.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on October 8, we are pursuing our study on the Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore petroleum industry.
We are pleased to welcome today on our first panel: from Sierra Club Canada, Gretchen Fitzgerald, Executive Director, by videoconference; and with her, Shauna Kelly, Offshore Wind Coordinator, Newfoundland and Labrador, also by videoconference. Welcome, and thank you for being with us tonight.
We are ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by a question period with senators. Ms. Fitzgerald, I understand that you will give the remarks. You now have the floor.
Gretchen Fitzgerald, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada: Yes, thank you. I am pleased to be here and to have Shauna Kelly, Offshore Wind Coordinator, Newfoundland and Labrador with us. As an organization, we have been involved in offshore and oil and gas issues in Newfoundland and Labrador for over 25 years.
My main argument to you today is that continued reliance on the offshore oil and gas industry in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador places Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada at great risk: risks from accelerated climate change impacts, risks from decreased fossil fuel demand, risks from the failure to support communities in building out renewable energy sources and risks from placing precious ocean ecosystems and marine life in danger. We know from working with communities and people on the ground faced with growing climate disasters that they are ready and able to take on the challenge to become more resilient at this time of global rupture. According to Prime Minister Carney, nostalgia is not a strategy. We hope and recommend that the report from this committee confronts the risks of Newfoundland’s oil and gas dependence head-on.
Images of Newfoundlanders storming the hotel ball room when then Fisheries Minister John Crosbie announced the cod moratorium are not something we want to recreate. The heartbreak and lasting losses across the province, Canada and the world should not be allowed to be repeated. They need not be.
Statistics provided to this committee from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers show oil exploration and production in Newfoundland and Labrador are on a consistent decline. The Canada Energy Regulator’s report, Canada’s Energy Future 2023, predicts a rapid decline in offshore oil production in the coming decades.
An analysis published in Nature in 2021 illustrates how the high cost of extraction of oil and gas will make Newfoundland and Labrador’s oil and gas less competitive regardless of any understanding you may have about the emissions associated with its extraction. Meanwhile, renewable energy such as solar, wind and energy storage is on the uprise. It will create job opportunities and affordable electricity for people in Atlantic Canada.
Recent modelling conducted by Navius Research on the Wind West Atlantic Canada’s transmission line suggests that Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick could lower electricity rates at a time of an affordability crisis and boost GDP across these provinces by as much as $8 billion, while achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
Imagine if a province like Newfoundland and Labrador joined this party. Because Nova Scotia has embraced this opportunity and is moving toward Canada’s first offshore wind developments, a company has raised its hand recently. Not only have they illustrated their interest in the offshore wind industry, they have created an understanding with Nova Scotia’s community college to support a workforce to train people to work in this new energy industry. The provincial and federal governments have a regional assessment for offshore wind in Newfoundland and Labrador in their hands. The offshore regulator has indicated to this committee its readiness to engage in oversight of the offshore renewable energy space.
We know Newfoundland and Labrador needs local, reliable energy sources, such as wind, solar and storage, to ensure local people are safe going forward, both from growing climate change impacts like hurricanes and wildfires and storm events such as we have had over the last couple of weeks and from growing economic and geopolitical risks.
Our work in Newfoundland with communities has shown that people want to work together to build solutions that will make communities less vulnerable to climate change. With the existing oil platforms operating for decades into the future in Newfoundland, we still need assurances that risks from accidents and spills have been addressed. And our experience in assessments of oil and gas projects in the past means we know that this has not been the case.
We will be leaving with this committee five recommendations that we hope you will take up as recommendations yourselves. First, we want the federal, provincial and Indigenous governments to act immediately to create an agreement in Atlantic Canada to create an electricity grid that will be the backbone for local and national scale energy projects. We think the federal and provincial governments should act immediately to collaborate to develop upskilling and certification programs for people who now work in the offshore so they are ready to seize these opportunities.
We further recommend that a portion of oil revenues be earmarked to future-proof Newfoundland and Labrador from the declines in fossil fuel demand.
Fourthly, we believe that oil companies should take on the risk of oil and gas development, not Canadians and not Newfoundland and Labradorians. There should be no further subsidies to this increasingly risky industry.
Finally, we call for an arm’s-length review on the impacts of oil and gas activity on ocean life and oil spill readiness for existing oil projects and that the creation of science-based rules for oil and gas exploration, production and drilling be created as soon as possible so that ocean life remains protected.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to address the committee, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fitzgerald, for your opening statement.
Senator D. M. Wells: Ms. Fitzgerald, you had mentioned that Newfoundland and Labrador should wean itself off the dependency on oil and gas. I assume you are familiar with the economic situation in Newfoundland and Labrador. What do you think would be a good replacement for these jobs and the income for the province?
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes, and I’m sure Ms. Kelly can back me up here. I think it is two-pronged. I think there are communities we are working with now that want to get smaller-scale energy built up so that they are more resilient in the face of hurricanes and wildfires and can start generating and benefiting small-scale energy sources that are in line with their values and needs. Then, on a bigger scale, there is massive potential for offshore wind. Peter Nicholson, former deputy minister, has estimated that Canada’s offshore wind potential in Eastern Canada is on the scale of something that could power 6.5 million Canadian homes. This is transformative.
I grew up in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the ethos and that the workforce is capable and can easily adapt. Not seizing this opportunity and hanging back when Nova Scotia is coming to the table, it feels like a missed opportunity. I feel there is an opportunity for smaller-scale sources that can make communities resilient and generate revenue and jobs, but then there is this massive opportunity that is right there in front of us.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you. I’m not so much talking about sources of energy for smaller communities. I asked you about the economic opportunities. Obviously, the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador employs thousands of people and generates billions of dollars, not just for the workers but for their families and the communities in which they live, not only the provincial tax base. That was not the essence of my question; that was my question. Could you answer that, please?
Ms. Fitzgerald: Are you talking about revenue to the government?
Senator D. M. Wells: Revenue to the workers, to their families, to the communities in which they live, and the government.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. The workers, if they are transferring their skills to new industries, they would be earning income from those jobs.
For the government, I think we want to have that conversation. There are places around the world where they have set up requirements that this is a public resource if you want to think about wind in that way, and they are required to contribute. Companies that want to play in this field, similar to the offshore oil and gas industry, have to pay to play. We need to have those conversations with communities and stakeholder groups in Newfoundland and Labrador, what that would look like sensibly, and the reasonable rate of return for the ability to work in that sector.
Ms. Kelly, you might want to chip in a bit on this.
Senator D. M. Wells: I could ask the question. The International Energy Agency suggests that there will be significant growth in oil production to 2050. Given that Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil sector is low-cost per rail production, has direct access to global markets by vessel, is well regulated and commands the highest price, as opposed to West Texas Intermediate crude oil, or discounted prices in other parts of Canada. Given that, do you think that Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas sector should not be participants in the continued growth of oil to at least 2050?
Ms. Fitzgerald: I think, senator, you have a time problem with regard to how long it takes to build up a new oil drilling program, which history shows could be 20 to 30 years. We are in 2025 now. There just isn’t the time.
The secondary argument I would make is that, relative to other sources of oil globally, and articles published in Nature are peer reviewed and other reports from the International Energy Agency analysis, some of that shows it will be those lower-cost oil sources, not oil drilled out of the dangerous waters of the North Atlantic that will compete with declining, softening demand.
Regardless, if you believe my two arguments there, having all our eggs in one basket at a time of global rupture is not wise.
Senator D. M. Wells: We heard from other witnesses during this study that the decline in bids for the offshore was due to regulatory burden and not demand or certainly not supply. What’s your comment on this?
Ms. Fitzgerald: I think it is false.
Senator D. M. Wells: From the industry experts that testified at committee?
Ms. Fitzgerald: Well, name me an industry expert that likes regulation. No. I think Newfoundland and Labrador has participated in international climate change conferences to promote oil and gas. There is not a place where this industry is not being promoted. The reason people are not bidding is because the money is not there, and they don’t see it.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Welcome to our witnesses today. Thank you for your testimony.
This is my first day on this study, so I am catching up, but I appreciated the question of my colleague. The economic one is a serious one, and you have addressed it in a different way in terms of the risks of putting the eggs in this basket for the long-term. I am curious, though, to build on my colleague’s question about beyond the energy supply for the province and for the region.
I am very excited, as a Nova Scotian, to see the development of wind in my own province. One of the things we are also doing in Nova Scotia, which is meeting with some controversy, is looking at wind-powered hydrogen for export. I know this has been looked at for Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that something that you or your colleague could comment on in terms of a possible export market to contribute to the Newfoundland economy?
Shauna Kelly, Offshore Wind Coordinator, Newfoundland and Labrador Sierra Club Canada: It has been explored in Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have seen recently is that companies are drawing back from that initial proposal because the market has not materialized for hydrogen. I would recognize that, in this current moment, it is not a viable option for Newfoundland and Labrador to be pursuing hydrogen further economically.
Ms. Fitzgerald: To add to that, if we’re talking about how to prioritize such a beautiful and massive resource, such as offshore wind, the primary thing should be, particularly right now, creating energy security and affordability for Canadians. That would be the primary use. If hydrogen can be done safely and without creating more emissions, that might be a secondary off put, but it should not be the primary reason why we are investing.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for that. Let’s get back to the regulators question. Here we are at this moment. I don’t think anybody will argue that we will be living with oil and gas for ever and ever as an industry. There are arguments about the timing of that, and we’ve heard different sides of that. You’ve cited some very important sources.
The regulators, and we are looking at Newfoundland and Labrador here, it’s real. The economic reliance on oil and gas in Labrador right now is absolutely real. How would you see our federal regulators balancing that short-term economic reliance — the food on the table reality of Newfoundlanders right now — on that offshore oil with Canada’s long-term climate commitments and our net-zero obligations, which we absolutely have to get to?
You, yourself, have made a very strong case, and it is a no-brainer. We have to meet our net-zero commitments, as do other countries around the world, in order to avert the disasters that you have spoken to. How do you see our federal regulators balancing that?
Ms. Fitzgerald: I’m not sure it would be the job of the regulators — who are focused on the industries they are regulating — but definitely I see for political leaders there is a real opportunity here to create a plan for the transition.
Similar to how we transitioned off of coal nationally, different bodies could be created and activated to work quickly to create that plan.
It’s very clear that as production has declined, so have revenues to the provincial governments in Newfoundland and Labrador. How can that revenue be compensated for? By building up other industries, such as offshore wind. That is something that this committee — if you could kick off that conversation, it would be wonderful. I think there is potential. But not having a plan is a plan to fail, and that’s what I’m seeing right now.
Senator Coyle: At the policy level, yes, that’s right. You’ve said there should be absolutely no more financial inducements or supports to offshore oil and, in fact, they should be creating funds to deal with their impacts, et cetera.
What do you see the federal government doing to support offshore wind, to encourage it to really flourish in a place like Newfoundland and Labrador?
Ms. Fitzgerald: Three things; the convening power to get everyone to the table to talk about transmission links, including Indigenous partners, but, of course, the provinces. Get some folks on the dance floor and get them to dance.
Second, I think the federal government has a unique role with regard to relationships with Indigenous communities and leaders, and I think there’s something that the federal government could be doing there.
Third, of course, money. There is a lot of talk of projects of national interest. I cannot think of a project that would be more transformative in a positive way than investing in this.
I think talking and thinking seriously about that kind of investment — your previous question was about revenues and displacement of revenues from declining revenues from the offshore. Beginning and instigating that level of investment in this opportunity is the third thing the federal government could be doing right now.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for being here today to answer our questions.
[English]
Senator Galvez: Ms. Fitzgerald, you seem to have followed the history of the offshore oil industry in Newfoundland, but you also seem to know a lot about renewable energy.
I would like to pick your brain to compare and see advantages and disadvantages. As I think you have grasped, the interest in this committee is also very much directed to the economic impact.
We have our Prime Minister going and visiting many places looking for new markets. He is saying that we need to have nation-building projects. Everybody seems to agree we have to increase competitiveness and innovation and more creativity.
Last year renewable energy investments were $2.1 trillion, where less than 0.5 came to Canada. I think that tells us a lot.
My question is: If we are looking for competitiveness and innovation, should we look to the in-decline industries or to the one where you say there is a big opportunity and where there is a race and we are late to the party?
Also, can you comment on the issue of the difference between exporting raw materials, as we have been doing all the time, and adding value to the different products and materials that we export. Thank you so much.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes, and thank you for that question. Those advantages and disadvantages make up a big part of what we do when we think about climate change and centring nature in our society at Sierra Club Canada. The interesting thing about renewable energy is it’s not one and done. It will be an ongoing economic engine for the country.
Once those oil and gas resources are extracted, those public benefits are gone and, unfortunately, Canada did not create an oil fund similar to Norway’s so that future generations would benefit from those revenues. That ship has sailed. But there is a new ship on the horizon, which is such a wonderful thing to think about in this moment.
Definitely there are advantages with respect to ongoing revenue, jobs, energy security and reduced energy rates. These are cheaper energy sources for people, so their actual electricity bills will go down. Those are some of the advantages.
In terms of local industries and local innovation, Nova Scotia is home to some great work on energy storage. Done correctly, we could be working on ways to recycle oil rigs. Believe it or not, this is being done in Norway, I hear, to make wind turbines. There are ways we can be building out our expertise using our know-how and resources so that we are actually building some of these products and innovating. Again, keeping that know-how, that knowledge here in Canada is a benefit that we should be seizing as well.
This is a time of change, and I think individual people and communities recognize that. But they also, in my experience, want to participate in the solutions. That’s what is going to get us through. And I think there is a real opportunity to invest in that type of innovation within the country, technological advancement and scientific advancement, so that we are building some of these new energy sources here at home.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation. The first question I have is how long is it going to take to set up solar and wind energy so we can see the reality? Because right now we have nothing.
When we did Bill C-49 ,they told us it would be 10 years. So you’re making a presentation. Well, this is going to be possible, and trying to get rid of the only dependable source of energy that we have. And you put electricity as a solution.
Well, I work with hydro-impacted communities, and it is not clean, nor is it green. It produces a lot of toxins. It’s not reliable. During Christmas in northern Manitoba, Cross Lake, the hydro went down for five days in minus 40 weather. And they were told by the community, this is going to happen again. They did nothing.
I look at the toxins. I look at the land displacement and what it has done to First Nations. And then you look at Labrador, you look at all the electrical Site C dam. Well, they are not producing the electricity that everyone proclaims is here.
When we look at what you are proposing, shouldn’t we see how reliable the wind source and the electric grid are before you place them as a replacement for oil and gas? How do you address the group of people that drive dependence in oil and gas, who are Canadians? They do the driving. Combustion is one of the highest gas emissions, and nothing has been done about it.
I can’t rely on solar and wind. How long will it take so we can see the reality?
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. Thank you for that question.
I feel the frustration as well that this has not been implemented faster. Sierra Club Canada shares your concerns about mega hydro, its impact on communities and river ecosystems, and the toxins that are freed up when we flood land.
With regard to timeline and standing up new energy resources, we’re working with folks in Port aux Basques, and we hope to get some solar panels up this year. Scale matters. We know that communities in Newfoundland and Labrador in particular have stood up solar to decrease reliance on diesel, for instance. A wind turbine can go up in a year or two if there is community consent and a will to do it.
The scale of offshore wind means that we are talking about several years, perhaps a decade — correct me if I’m wrong, Ms. Kelly — before we see it stood up, and by “stood up” I mean stood up with community consent, buy-in and done correctly.
It depends on scale. A smaller scale, we could do tomorrow. Who is stopping us? Usually, it is corporate power from the oil and gas sector. Let’s be honest. That is why there has been such a delay in the uptake of this. It does not matter now because the price has gone down so much that, without factoring in the climate impact that the fossil fuel industry is responsible for, the price alone at the meter is lower, so they are outcompeting, and we’ll be submitting studies to this report to show how that surge is happening. It will displace fossil fuels, which is wonderful. But, yes, on a smaller scale, we can do it now. Let’s do it. Let’s not let the oil industry stop us.
With regard to reliability and questions like, “What if the wind does not blow?” and “What if the sun does not shine?” that is where energy storage and having investments in a grid come in, which we suggest this committee recommend in its report.
There have been few advancements in our electricity grids since basically Edison invented the lightbulb. We can do more to shunt energy around and to be smart about it and to take things up.
I think the third part of your question had to do with individual responsibility. That is something we all should be proponents of, whether it is when there is a storm, as there have been in the last couple of weeks in Atlantic Canada, and there is a potential that your neighbouring province is going to run out of energy. On Newfoundland, it was because of a hydrodam going down. There was ice, and it could not function, so electrons were coming from Nova Scotia over to Newfoundland and Labrador. Even so, I understand there were rolling brownouts.
We need to get better at being more conscious of our energy use, investing in energy efficiency so that people, particularly low-income folks who are paying proportionally so much higher for these energy bills, have safer, secure homes in those times of cold, which we experience, so we’re more efficient. With regard to cars and transportation use, again, it is investing in electric vehicles that will rely on renewable energy from the grid that is going to drive that. For individuals, it is still so important, and that is what good neighbours do.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Lewis: I question the perception that oil and gas cannot work at the same time as renewable energy. I come from a jurisdiction in Saskatchewan, and as a landowner in Saskatchewan, I have been approached by a proponent who wants to put up a wind farm to, if they were able to get a contract, supply power to the provincial power authority. Never once have I ever heard them say that we need to shut down all of the oil and gas in Saskatchewan before we can build a windmill. Why can’t we have both? It would seem to me that new energy sources, like windmills, are fine as we transition to that, but to say that the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland should be shut down and that it is in the way of wind farms, I do not see the connection.
Further to that, it would be nice if the people in those communities that rely on oil and gas so much as an economic driver would be able to afford the new energy that is coming from these wind farms as it is being made.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. If I have created the perception that the two cannot coexist, that is not what I am contending. There are rigs out there. I anticipate they will be out there for the next two decades. I think that is what the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ presentation to the committee suggested.
What I’m suggesting —
Senator Lewis: I have heard that, thank you. I have another question —
Ms. Fitzgerald: If I could answer the question, this needs to be a priority, and that is not what I’m seeing. Do you understand?
Senator Lewis: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Fitzgerald: For government, with regard to subsidies, they should be going to renewal energy sources of the future and, like you say, for those workers, getting them affordable energy in their homes or getting them upscaled so they can be a part of this future because —
The Chair: Senator Lewis has some more points to make.
Senator Lewis: Yes, in a jurisdiction like Saskatchewan, there is a common power provider across the whole province. It’s comparable to Newfoundland. There’s a small population and a large area to provide power to. Their experience with wind power and solar panels is that they are great, but if you are looking to increase your power needs, which, as we go forward in the new economy, everybody is going to be using more electricity. For every kilowatt generated by either solar or wind, you need backup as base power. That is the reality. We just recently went through a 40-below period where the weather was that cold for, I think, ten days in a row. Production at wind farms and with solar panels goes down to almost zero. You have to have backup power based either on oil and gas or natural gas or hydro, but you have to have that base power to provide the power when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
We can say that isn’t something, but it is reality when you are talking about energy production from these sources. It is a nice source to add to our power grids, but right now, with the available technology, you mentioned batteries, but we’re a long way away from being able to have a battery system and a power system and a grid that would support using solar and wind as base power.
Ms. Fitzgerald: I would argue that is not the case. We’re actually having that debate here in Atlantic Canada right now with proposed new, expensive gas plants. There is a player in the region who is contending that their storage option would be more reliable in terms of cost because we know if you are going to do fossil fuels, it is going to fluctuate with the market, but it’s overall more affordable.
I think we are there. To go back to Senator Galvez’s question to me, it is about investing in and prioritizing those types of invasions locally to create that reliability because I completely agree. We need that reliability. The technology is there. The cost is there. That is where it comes back to my argument about priority setting and listening to different players.
Senator Lewis: In western Canada, the people who are in charge whose duty it is to provide power have not found that.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes.
Senator Lewis: It will be interesting as time goes on, but we are not seeing that in a jurisdiction like Saskatchewan. That technology does not exist. With the weather conditions we have and the variability in temperatures, -40 in the winter and +40 in the summer, battery power, as it sits right now, is very questionable.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. I would not question your experience in your home province, but I would ask you to look for independent research on that, aside from your utility.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I would like to come back to the fact that witnesses have told us that demand for oil or hydrocarbons will diminish. Perhaps not as much as was indicated in the initial studies or observations, because there will be a strong demand for energy, particularly for all the IT service centres or technology itself, but there will be a need for other types of hydrocarbon products.
I understand your concerns and your position on renewable energy, but what we are currently studying is hydrocarbons or the possibility of offshore development in the context of the Bay du Nord project. A study was conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in 2023. Steven Guilbeault, then Minister of Environment and Climate Change, indicated that it was possible to proceed with this development in accordance with this environmental study, while following fairly strict conditions. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that quickly, and then I have a second question.
[English]
Ms. Fitzgerald: I want to ensure that I understand the question. Are you speaking with regard to the Bay du Nord project and the environmental assessment of that?
Senator Aucoin: Yes.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. We challenge, of course, the findings of that assessment. Even the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ report on that, which was only released after the assessment was complete, showed that there were impacts with regard to oil spills. The risk there was underestimated drastically. Equinor contended it was a low risk, and, in fact, over the lifetime of the project, it is a 16% risk, which is not low in any scientific interpretation. We’re talking about some of the most dangerous ocean waters in the world, with ice floes and icebergs going through them at times.
The global consequences of a massive spill out there that could go on for over a month without any hope of stopping the oil spill. It would be catastrophic to our reputation, to ocean industries and, of course, to ocean life: whales, fish and deep-sea coral. That report also showed that the long-term effects of this project on sensitive ocean life, regardless of a massive spill, were underestimated, and those vulnerable ocean ecosystems will be damaged permanently.
This was not included in the assessment of that project. When people talk about how overregulated this industry is, it infuriates me, frankly.
Your second question is about, I think, how we can study different energy sources better. I want to ensure that I understand the question.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Absolutely not. Instead, I would like to focus on the oil and gas study and the Bay du Nord project.
I understand your point of view on the project, but according to the information I read today, operating the Bay du Nord project would have a lower environmental impact. I also understand what you said about a possible spill, but the average emissions would be much lower than those from the oil sands in Alberta.
I understand Sierra Club Canada’s position that perhaps we shouldn’t go ahead with this project, but we still need the oil industry. If this project did go ahead, would you think it’s better than the oil sands, which are more harmful to the environment?
[English]
Ms. Fitzgerald: The global scientific consensus is, and has been for many years, that no new oil projects are compatible with a safe climate going forward. So, no, the Bay du Nord project is not safe. It is not what is needed now.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: More specifically, I wanted to know if you could compare the project with the oil sands. According to your data, is the Bay du Nord project less dangerous for the environment?
[English]
Ms. Fitzgerald: At the extraction phase relative to extracting oil sands oil, it would be lower. However, the majority of emissions associated with the project are, of course, from burning the fuel extracted. The emissions from that will be significant.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: As a committee, we understand that.
[English]
Ms. Fitzgerald: Particularly in the context of alternatives, such as offshore wind, that are here now and we need to start investing in.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I agree, but we’re looking at something else today in this context. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Fridhandler: I found your opening remarks quite alarming because you spoke solely of risks and the downsides associated with offshore Newfoundland. I believe that, since the early 1990s, this has been the saviour of the Newfoundland economy, and I am quite pleased to see the good that has come to Newfoundland from the offshore development.
Having said that, can we revisit all the negatives? Do you see any positives to Newfoundland in offshore oil production? I am not asking for global comparatives. I’m asking to Newfoundland.
Ms. Fitzgerald: I don’t think it can be argued that the revenue has been helpful. What I’m arguing is that the revenue is going to dry up, and it is time to face the music.
Senator Fridhandler: We all have different crystal balls on that.
I don’t see, when we start talking to move on about wind and solar in the face of the fog in Newfoundland that exists from time to time and other renewables, that those are going to generate revenue for the economy as opposed to maybe sustenance for small communities from time to time.
Do you have any studies that you can refer me to that show that this is net surplus revenue that would flow to the government’s operating budget from year-to-year that Newfoundlanders could rely on to have a sustainable economy over time?
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. Perhaps I could get Ms. Kelly to answer that because we are looking around the world to see what benefits could flow from something like an investment in —
Senator Fridhandler: For Newfoundlanders. I’m concerned about the future of Newfoundlanders and that there be something that is there for them in the future.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. We certainly share that concern and are very concerned that, as with the cod fishery, there will be no plan until it is too late.
Senator Fridhandler: Right now, you cannot point me to studies that show surplus revenue for offshore wind, solar or even maybe nuclear?
Ms. Fitzgerald: I will get Ms. Kelly to respond.
Senator Fridhandler: It is in there someplace.
Ms. Kelly: I would say that, at this point in time, we don’t have that current study for Newfoundland and Labrador specifically. But for our neighbours in Atlantic Canada — for Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick — the most recent study that we’ve seen did project as much as $8 billion to boost GDP. So that does exist here in Atlantic Canada.
Senator Fridhandler: Can we confine it to Newfoundland? I understand there is always talk about a regional grid, but we all know that Newfoundland is far removed from the Maritime provinces as much as it is part of the Atlantic provinces, and it is not so easy that kind of infrastructure. I want Newfoundland to be sustainable on its own.
Go ahead if you can tell me about studies that show that this is going to lead to a sustainable economy.
Ms. Kelly: Yes. I would say to a specific study, we don’t currently have that, but I would also bring forward that I share the concern of wanting to see Newfoundland, as an island, have reliable and affordable energy. However, we currently do rely on Labrador, and, in our most recent storm, relied on Nova Scotia for that energy. While we may seem an island removed, we are actually already connected, and it is possible to expand and enhance that for not only the island of Newfoundland and Labrador but all of Atlantic Canada by investing in the transmission of renewable energy now.
Senator Fridhandler: You seem to be warm and cozy where you are. I’m assuming that you are in Newfoundland. May I assume that you are not using hydrocarbons to stay warm?
Ms. Kelly: You are correct. I have a heat pump and electric baseboard hearing.
Senator Fridhandler: Ms. Fitzgerald, how are you staying warm indoors there?
Ms. Fitzgerald: Similarly, we have solar panels on the roof and a heat pump.
Unfortunately, Nova Scotia has not moved as quickly to get off coal and gas as Newfoundland and Labrador, but, yes, primarily, we are shifting toward greater wind sources in Nova Scotia.
Senator Fridhandler: You are in Nova Scotia then, not in Newfoundland?
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes, I’m based in Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you for your comments, Ms. Fitzgerald. You argue that it would be wiser to redirect investments to wind energy and other energy sources. You talked about a period of time over the next two years, and you also said that the offshore operations are no longer economically viable. In your opinion, what would be the main indicator that should convince decision-makers to move on?
[English]
Ms. Fitzgerald: For major offshore wind development, we’re predicting more. We would see that we would get more like a seven- to ten-year build-out, but on a smaller scale, it can happen rather quickly — energy sources and storage.
For me, as a mom, frankly, the biggest indicator is looking into my kids’ eyes. It is scary to think that we have an opportunity to do better, and we’re potentially not going to seize it.
The second thing is looking around and seeing communities impacted by wildfires, hurricanes and storm events, which increased unpredictably because of the lack of ice in places like Labrador in the winter, and knowing the science shows that every bit of climate pollution we prevent will save lives, communities and money and will create a more secure future for all.
The third thing — and this is why I’m more hopeful than when the cod fishery collapsed — is that we have such a beautiful opportunity for clean, healthy energy sources that are affordable for people. There was no replacing cod fish and its cultural and ecological importance.
Here we have a positive opportunity. We need leaders such as yourselves to see that, to seize it and to prioritize it. I am begging you as a mother to take on this challenge.
We may not have an opportunity like this again, ever. Please seize it.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you, Ms. Fitzgerald. I hope I will ask a question that will provoke less emotion. How do you assess the ability of the various levels of government to coordinate their efforts towards the transition, while maintaining operations as is, precisely to advance the local economy?
[English]
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. As I mentioned in some of my answers, there is a model for this when we build down coal, and there are sustainable jobs. There were processes that were created. They just need to be put on steroids — however you want to put it. They need to be built up quickly. This is a moment of global rupture. This is a moment when people are hungering for solutions, action and tangible, real things to happen to protect them.
Yes, building up a task force that would upscale people and put resources and money into the clean energy future and energy security, and I will mention here the youth climate corps, which was funded to a small degree — $40 million in the last budget — but let’s get that out there. Let’s get young people involved and enhance the budget item for that, but let’s engage the youth early as well and give them the skills and resources they need to take part.
There is a lot of hopelessness out there. One way you deal with hopelessness is by taking action, and we have some great opportunities to do that by working together and perhaps modelling on the idea of the coal task force idea.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Coyle: First of all, I want to sincerely thank our witnesses for all of your hard work. It is very much appreciated. I hope that you are feeling some appreciation from this group, not just for your testimony today, but for everything that you are doing.
I’m curious. You mentioned the issue of the projects of national interest that Canada is looking at here. For projects of national interest, we need proponents. I am curious, in terms of the offshore wind that we’re talking about as a possibility for Newfoundland and Labrador, do you know of proponents, companies, communities and others who are interested in coming together to be a proponent for this type of new industry?
Ms. Kelly: I can speak to that. I would say that, specific to Newfoundland and Labrador, we’re not aware of those proponents because the call to say that we are moving toward offshore wind has not happened here.
For Nova Scotia, where they just closed their prequalification, those results aren’t public, but there were — as Ms. Fitzgerald mentioned — two companies in a joint venture, one from France and one from South Korea, that did announce that they put in for prequalification and have already taken steps to start building out their benefits agreements locally, including training programs for Nova Scotians.
Senator Galvez: It is easy to become emotional. I appreciate that. I’m a grandmother of four. The future is very important for my grandchildren.
To calm down, I always go to data and technical aspects. I have participated in many environmental impact assessments of energy projects, and I have studied many. At the very beginning of an impact assessment, we ask this question: Why do we need this project? Is it to create an economy? To create jobs? Because I’m a politician who wants to get votes? Or do we have an energy need in the community?
For me, up until now, when we talk about these projects, I really do not know what the ultimate purpose is. Is it to create revenues for the province? If it is that, then there are many other ways of creating that. Is it to provide energy capacity that is not there? Well, now there are many other ways of producing that. Is it to create jobs so somebody wins an election?
What is your opinion on that? I ask because my colleague is right: We are talking specifically about oil and rigs and the expansion of oil in Newfoundland.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Yes. Excuse me for becoming emotional.
Senator Galvez: You do not need to apologize.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Thank you for your understanding. I find that, with impact assessments, often those statements about the need for the project tend to be very self-referential. Usually, the proponents are saying that we need this project because we need this project. There is no real valid justification.
For Newfoundland and Labrador, obviously, it has been the need to fill the gap that was created when the cod fishery collapsed and for the creation of jobs and royalties.
What we’re trying to argue in this committee is that those jobs and revenues are declining, and yet there is another industry waiting in the wings, and it needs focus. It needs consistent attention from elected leaders. Yes, when it comes to the grid, there may need to be public investments. There could even be public joint ownership for some of these wind projects. That’s for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and other communities to discuss, and we hope to have those conversations with them in the year ahead. I hope the government and senators will engage in those conversations, too. When you talk about the benefits of renewable energy sources, it’s very clear that there are many other benefits aside from potential profits to a proponent. It is not that self-referential: “We need this project because we need to profit from these projects. Thank you very much.”
The benefits are, in addition to jobs, potential revenue for the government and helping participate in climate solutions, which, in terms of Canadian resilience, Canadian sovereignty and Canadian patriotism, could be significant. It’s creating energy security for Canada. It is combatting increasing climate impacts, which I think we all know are increasing.
There are so many other benefits that the need could be easily justified, including those benefits, not just benefits to proponents.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ve almost run out of time, but we will give the last question to Senator Wells.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, Ms. Fitzgerald. You mentioned community consent. In Newfoundland and Labrador, I’m aware there is quite a large percentage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who give consent to the oil and gas sector. In Germany, of course, there was no community consent for nuclear power, so they banned it.
Given that renewables as a global supply of electricity amount to less than 5% and petroleum amounts to around 60%, my question is about the trend lines for the near future. One of the first things that Ms. Kelly said in her testimony was that wind hydrogen is not a viable alternative. Given that today Prime Minister Carney will announce dropping the EV mandate and your comments that EV use will drive growth, are you concerned about the trend lines of increased petroleum, as detailed by the International Energy Agency, growth to 2050 and the reduction in things like nuclear in the economic engine of Europe, in Germany, and now in Canada with the dropping of the EV mandate and the failure of the battery plant’s funding having moved to the U.S.?
Ms. Fitzgerald: To answer your question, no. Of course, I wish those things were not happening, but some of the information we’ll be submitting to the committee includes information about the projected surge in global power. They are saying that wind and solar alone are predicted to account for 32% of global power by 2030, surging to over 50% by 2040. Even in the United States, where we know the federal administration, at least, is pushing back on climate action and actively dismantling efforts to deal with climate change, wind and solar have outpaced coal on the grid. Why is this happening? These are cheaper energy sources. Solar and wind storage are cheaper than their fossil fuel alternatives, so we have that happening.
I agree with Prime Minister Carney to some degree on his speech in Davos, where he was talking about coalitions of the willing, basically, being so important right now. The countries that I predict Canada will be looking to collaborate with, such as China and potentially South Korea — which is the home of one of the companies that wants to operate here in the offshore in Nova Scotia — and the European bloc. Some of those countries are surging ahead on climate action themselves, whether it is through EVs or renewables. If we want to be part of those coalitions of the willing and in the Global South, where climate change is so much more staggering and unjust, if we want to be working with those folks, being active in this space will be more important than ever.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fitzgerald. We’ve come to the end of our time together. I want to thank both you and Ms. Kelly for being with us here today. We turn now to our second panel.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Thank you, senators. We will be submitting some information to hopefully support our arguments and answer any questions we could not answer adequately today. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you.
I would like to welcome our second panel now. From Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc., we have Derek Simon, Legal Counsel, by video conference, and Dean Vicaire, Executive Director, by video conference.
Welcome. Thank you for being with us. You have five minutes to make opening remarks after which we will move on to a question-and-answer session with the senators.
Dean Vicaire, Executive Director, Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc.: Thank you, senators. It is good to see you again. It was a pleasure breaking bread with you last week.
[Indigenous language spoken.]
Good morning, everyone. At Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc., or MTI, which is a not-for-profit organization created by the nine Mi’kmaq First Nations in New Brunswick, and we represent eight communities on consultation matters. Its objectives include promoting and supporting the recognition, affirmation and implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights and the right to self-determination of our nations.
I’m happy to explain to you why MTI joined environmental groups to launch a legal challenge against the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Nature for the approval of the $16-billion Bay du Nord oil and gas project.
First, you must understand, as L’nu or Mi’kmaq, the cultural significance of plamu, which is salmon, is that we are salmon, and our traditional fishing practices must guide our actions.
Mi’kmaq territory extends throughout Atlantic Canada. Even activity outside of New Brunswick can have impacts on the ability of the Mi’kmaq to carry on our rights. The project area is essential for the migration route of Atlantic salmon, which are already recognized as a species at risk and categorized as being in the critical zone by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. A single oil spill could decimate species that migrate through the spill area.
We have a profound responsibility to protect the salmon, other species and habitats that are essential to maintaining a balanced marine ecosystem for future generations. We could and cannot ignore the threat this project could have on salmon and other marine species. We were not given the opportunity to have our concerns conveyed in the assessment of this project, so we felt we had no choice but to take a stand and join the Sierra Club Canada and EcoJustice in the legal action for the following reasons: There was a lack of meaningful consultation with our communities on this project; the federal government ignored their constitutional responsibility to meaningfully consult with our Indigenous nations; the real potential for negative environmental effects, especially the threat of oil spills; and, finally, the real threats to marine life, in particular salmon, this project could cause.
These concerns, of course, remain today. We will do whatever we can to protect the waters and species that are culturally significant to our nations. I want to be clear that we are not against economic development. We just want to make sure it is done responsibly and in a sustainable manner.
I look forward to discussing this in more detail throughout the session. My colleague, Derek Simon, will provide more on the flawed consultation process.
Thank you so much. Wela’lioq. Thank you for hearing me.
Derek Simon, Legal Counsel, Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc.: [Indigenous language spoken]. Good morning, senators. My name is Derek Simon. I am legal counsel to Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn.
The flawed consultation process undertaken by the federal government in this case involved rushed timelines, inadequate funding, and significant problems with how project impacts were scoped. Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc. communities located in New Brunswick were initially scoped out of the impact assessment for oil and gas projects in eastern Newfoundland. However, MTI provided Indigenous knowledge regarding the migratory routes for salmon, which was confirmed by DFO. Ultimately, CM scoped MTI communities into the impact assessment. However, there were still concerns about how activities with significant potential impacts on Mi’kmaq rights were scoped out of the process and the failure to meaningfully include Indigenous knowledge, or IK.
For the Bay du Nord project, CEAA chose to scope marine shipping out of the impact assessment despite clear evidence. It is a direct result of the project and should be included in any impact assessment. Because of this decision, the Mi’kmaq were never actually consulted about the impacts of marine shipping on Mi’kmaq rights.
While Equinor Canada has pledged to support the Environmental Studies Research Fund to study Atlantic salmon migration, these studies should have been initiated well before any decisions regarding the environmental assessment were made, and should have been informed by Indigenous knowledge. The lack of meaningful participation in the consultation process means the main concerns identified by the Mi’kmaq were not addressed.
Fortunately, this problem has a solution. Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc. has adopted the Mi’gmaq Rights Impact Assessment Framework, or MRIA, which is a rigorous Indigenous-led process for determining the impact of any project on Mi’kmaq rights. Coupled with MTI’s Indigenous knowledge research process, it provides clear, evidence-based decisions regarding project impacts on Mi’kmaq rights, which, in turn, inform the duty-to-consult process.
We strongly encourage the committee to encourage the Crown and proponents to recognize Indigenous-led impact assessment processes and Indigenous knowledge. We look forward to answering any questions the senators may have.
The Chair: We will begin with the questioning.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you, witnesses, for appearing. You are based in New Brunswick, representing Mi’kmaq bands in New Brunswick. You can help me understand what the link is to offshore oil and gas development in Newfoundland from the New Brunswick bands?
Mr. Vicaire: Thank you for the question, Senator Wells. As I previously stated, the migratory pattern of salmon could be potentially decimated if there is an oil spill. The migratory pattern is well within our Indigenous knowledge. The idea that this could be impacted has a profound impact and will have a profound impact on our existence as a people. Rightfully or wrongfully — and many would argue this — we refer to ourselves as Mi’kmaq, but the more adept term would be L’nu. L’nu means that we are from the earth, from the water. We are here because of salmon, not even to discuss the other species. Specifically in response to your question, that’s indeed what the potential impact would be to our salmon.
Mr. Simon: I would emphasize as well, senator, that Mi’kmaq territory extends throughout Atlantic Canada, including portions of Newfoundland, and that most Mi’kmaq people have ties to all parts of the territory.
When MTI chose to get involved in the judicial review, we reached out to the cousins and relatives in Newfoundland. We spoke to the folks in Conne River because it is their district, and said that we were planning on involving MTI in this challenge, and they were fine with that. They understood the need as well to protect the territory.
As my colleague, Mr. Vicaire, emphasized, the migratory patterns of species that people depend on do not recognize our colonial or provincial boundaries. They migrate where they will migrate. The salmon do go through that area. In addition, a number of our communities fish in areas that are fairly proximal to oil and gas development, so there were a number of potential impacts on the rights of communities in New Brunswick.
It is a comment on how interconnected the territory and the people really are.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you. I will note that the Mi’kmaq didn’t come to Newfoundland until the 1880s.
We had Chief Benoit from Miawpukek First Nation in Conne River as one of our witnesses last month, and he didn’t mention this at all. Was Miawpukek part of the MTI submission?
Mr. Simon: They were not, but we spoke to Miawpukek before involving ourselves in the process.
I do feel a need to address the comment that the Mi’kmaq did not arrive in Newfoundland until the 1880s. I recognize that that is something that was taught in schools in Newfoundland and Labrador for a long time. I also acknowledge that current historical scholarship and Indigenous knowledge entirely discredit that claim. There are places in western Newfoundland with names such as Wigwam Point, with Mi’kmaq place names. When you look at the historical records, the first Europeans to show up talk about seeing Mi’kmaq villages in western Newfoundland. The evidence is there, as well as in the oral history, that the Mi’kmaq occupied western Newfoundland long before Europeans arrived. Thank you.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you for that. I was just speaking about the Mi’kmaq in Miawpukek.
Are the issues from MTI more about the consultation process as opposed to specifically oil and gas development? Would that be accurate?
Mr. Simon: I think that’s correct. Our concern is about how the projects are scoped. It is difficult. As Mr. Vicaire emphasized, we are not against economic development, and we are not even against oil and gas development per se. It is about scoping the impacts of that and ensuring you have taken all the impacts into account.
The main concern advanced by MTI about the lack of consultation was the fact that they scoped out marine shipping with the end result that MTI was never — in fact, no First Nation was ever consulted regarding the impacts of marine shipping and the potential impacts that would have on species that migrate through that area as well as throughout the fisheries.
That is the main concern that when looking at these types of projects, if you are trying to weigh the pros and cons and you scope it in such a way that you have ignored some of the cons or ignored some of the valid concerns, those concerns can’t be addressed. That was the perspective we advanced in court; that the Mi’kmaq were never consulted, that that factor was never properly weighed in the impact assessment process.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you very much for the clarity of your responses. I appreciate it.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I will ask my questions in French. If I understand correctly, you are not against the development project, but you would have preferred that MTI be consulted, particularly on marine shipping. I’m assuming that when you use that term, you are talking about the increased marine traffic from the development project, transporting oil from the platform or the equipment to get there. Am I right in thinking that’s where you’re at?
You did a study; where are you at? Has it been completed? Are you waiting for the government to review it? Would you like to sit down with the government again? What is the current situation?
Mr. Simon: I think I understood the question in French, senator, but I will answer it in English.
[English]
One of the concerns with this project also was that neither the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or CEAA, nor the proponents provided adequate funding to do a fulsome Indigenous knowledge study, senator. We were never really properly in a position to ascertain exactly what the project impacts on salmon might be. We had a degree of Indigenous knowledge for that area and conducted a very limited Indigenous knowledge study that allowed us to determine the migratory route of the salmon and, at a very high level, what the impacts would be. But no one was willing to fund a comprehensive Indigenous knowledge study that would have allowed us to look at the impacts in any detail.
That’s certainly a concern with how the process unfolded as well. It is really important. I emphasize its importance, because for a consultation to be meaningful, either the proponents or the Crown have to provide capacity for First Nations to be able to participate meaningfully in that process. That includes properly funding Indigenous knowledge studies. Indigenous knowledge does not sit in a book on a shelf in someone’s office. It resides with community members. It resides with community members who are out on the lands and waters. We need to go and ask them the right questions about their knowledge of that particular area.
In this case — as I said — we were able to get some high-level knowledge that spoke to the migratory routes, which spoke at a high level to some of the impacts, but a more detailed Indigenous knowledge study would have told us a lot more about, for example, specifically, how marine shipping might impact those rights. Again, I emphasize the importance of providing capacity support to First Nations to participate in these processes in a meaningful way. I hope that addresses the question. If not, I am happy to receive a follow-up.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you. I have another question with respect to salmon.
I understand that this is a very important commodity for Mi’kmaq peoples, not only in terms of food, but also symbolically and historically. I thought the salmon migration routes were along the coast. I understand that if there were a spill and if it went to the coast, it could be a problem. However, since it’s 500 kilometres offshore, would a potential spill have an impact on salmon or other species? Since you mainly mentioned salmon, can you talk about that?
[English]
Mr. Simon: It’s a very good question, senator. First of all, the science on what happens to salmon at sea is extremely limited. It is a bit of a black box. They go into the ocean. We know that Atlantic salmon are currently suffering very high mortality rates, but we don’t know why this is, with a high degree of certainty. We talk about the impact of things like Greenland fishery and what the different impacts might be, but there is still a lot of debate about what, precisely, salmon do when they go to sea.
One of our knowledge holders, Fred Metallic, who is from Mr. Vicaire’s community of Listuguj, talk about how the salmon go, and they have a mawiomi — which means “a gathering” in Mi’kmaw — off of Greenland, and they meet up with the salmon from Europe, and they exchange knowledge. Knowledge like that helps inform our perspective, but from a scientific perspective, there is limited knowledge. We had confirmation from knowledge holders about where the migratory routes were, and that was subsequently confirmed by DFO. It fell within the project’s footprint. The Department of Fisheries absolutely confirmed that the information falls within the project’s footprint.
Again, the marine shipping passes through the migratory route as well. It is not just about where the rigs themselves are located, but also where the ships transporting the gear and the oil are going to go. That crosses the migratory route as well. I can say that, based on Indigenous knowledge and then subsequently confirmed by DFO science, we were able to establish that the migratory routes of salmon would be impacted by this oil and gas development, one way or another. I hope that answers your question.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Thanks to both witnesses for you are presentations. It is very interesting. You talked earlier in your presentation about a court challenge. Has that been completed? Within the challenge, was the duty to consult, and all the things you are talking about, addressed?
Mr. Simon: We are currently waiting for a decision from the Federal Court of Appeal, senator, and lack of consultation is the central issue in that challenge.
Senator Lewis: So, in many ways, a lot of it could be determined by what the court says.
Mr. Simon: It is still before the courts. I would emphasize that, even as a lawyer, I prefer not to have the courts tell us how to resolve these issues. These issues are best addressed through meaningful dialogue between the Crown and First Nations. As I emphasized earlier, when this project went through, the Mi’kmaq rights assessment process was not yet in place, so we didn’t have a particular process that we were asking the Crown to follow in terms of impact assessment. That process is now in place, and we’re asking the Crown to respect that.
It is a very straightforward process. It is about a 30‑page guide. It is based on eight steps and 11 principles, and it basically tells you how the Mi’kmaq are going to determine impacts on their rights and how they want to be consulted about projects like this. It has been very well received by proponents. The general feedback from proponents is that this is much clearer than anything the Crown gives them in terms of how to carry out the duty to consult. Proponents like Port Saint John have stood up and said that this is one of the best processes they’ve ever been through, in terms of how it is structured and organized.
We worked with a software company and developed software to automate the process. A proponent can go in, enter the information about the project, and once that project information is complete, it assigns the appropriate staff. The process is initiated. We can pull in our Indigenous knowledge data for that area. So it is a very straightforward process from a proponent’s standpoint.
It sometimes takes a little longer than they would like, but we are working on ways to speed up those timelines. Again, back to Mr. Vicaire’s point, the Mi’kmaq of New Brunswick are not anti-development. We are saying that this is a process you can go through to achieve Mi’kmaq consent for your project. It will lay out very clear conditions, accommodations that are required and that sort of thing. I probably went a little beyond the scope of your question.
Mr. Vicaire: If I could add to that, with this process, there have been, and continue to be, proponents that are abiding by it. As a result, as any profitable organization can attest to, when you follow up the Mi’gmaq Rights Impact Assessment Framework, or MRIA, process, you are on time and on budget, despite the fact that it may take a little longer. But there are no hurdles along the way to disrupt the process of conducting business. It’s something we’re pushing to any and all proponents and levels of government.
I apologize earlier for not being able to respond to the French question. For some reason, the translation was not coming through. I just wanted to make that point. Thank you.
Senator Lewis: Congratulations on the strides that you have made. As it goes forward and if there are more opportunities for consultation, it sounds like you have a system in place that sounds greatly improved over where it has been in the past.
Mr. Vicaire: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to both of our witnesses, Mr. Vicaire and Mr. Simon.
I, too, am encouraged to hear about the guidelines that you have established for consultation on significant projects with Mi’kmaw people. This is something that has been much needed, as you well know, forever. I have sat for many years on the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, and it is something that is always getting in the way of moving forward for anybody. Kudos to you on that.
I understand that the main issue here is a concern about oil tanker shipping routes, possibly impacting salmon migration routes, with salmon being such an essential entity, being a source of nutrition, a source of cultural relevance and an economic source for Mi’kmaw people. I’m from Mi’kma’ki, from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, right next to Paqtnkek, so I know what you are talking about.
What I am curious about is whether what you would like is for the government to follow these guidelines on the consultation necessary for the impact assessment. Have you seen in other locations in Canada, maybe on the West Coast, or other places around the world, an interaction between oil tanker shipping and migration routes for either salmon or other important species of fish, and what results might have come from those interactions or those impact assessments?
Mr. Vicaire: Yes. That is a very good question. I’m sure that that question is still out there for people to participate in answering. I personally do not know of any. I know out in New Zealand there have been discussions and agreements made there, but anywhere here in Canada, we are really looking for the Mi’gmaq Rights Impact Assessment Framework process to be the model.
Without coming across as an organization trying to sell something, we are trying to convince people to open their eyes and ears and embrace this process because, again, it is on time, on budget and done in a way where it is sustainable and respects Mother Earth and, at the same time, prevents any potential hurdles that could be in the way, as you and the other senators mentioned in the past, where it limits the speed at which business is to occur. If the federal government embraced it, then shipping magnates would, certainly, have to embrace it as well and learn more about it.
I’m not sure if my colleague is aware of any others, but I, personally, am not.
Mr. Simon: Yes. That is something that, under our current process, would be looked at. MTI is always happy to talk to other Indigenous Peoples, particularly in other parts of the country or even other parts of the world, as Mr. Vicaire alluded to, about their experience with these types of things.
Sometimes, you do not just want to get the studies, you want to get the on-the-ground reality and lived experience of the people who are on the land. Unfortunately, the scope of this process was such that this did not occur.
I think that, for a project where a proper Indigenous knowledge case study and the MRIA process were followed, that would definitely occur.
The Chair: We were wondering if you might send this framework to the committee so we could have it as part of our evidence. Obviously, some senators have found it to be intriguing and a possible solution for more than just the Mi’kmaw people. Do you think that you might be able to provide us with that?
Mr. Vicaire: I can respond to that with a resounding, yes. Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I want to make a remark about how you said that provincial boundaries are colonial boundaries, and we didn’t have them as First Nations people, that the territory expanded more. It was huge.
When we implemented the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord, their Indigenous representative was a Chief from Saskatchewan. They had not involved any Mi’kmaw people. I had a letter from the Chiefs of Mi’kmaw to say they were not consulted. I wanted to put that on the table. It is not right for the government to bring in people who think like them to make it easier.
I also wanted to extend an invitation. We’re doing a duty to consult in the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, and that is our next study. If you could forward your information, I will put your name down to come as witnesses.
When you have not been consulted, decisions have been made and the project is under way then the accommodation to the people impacted, to MTI, would need to be greater, right? Accommodation after. What would accommodation look like now?
I can’t see what consultation after everything has been done would accomplish. What accommodations are you looking for, considering that it is being built, the tankers are going to go in? What is it that you would like to make an impact on or a change to?
Mr. Vicaire: That is a very good question, senator. With all due respect to leadership and the Chiefs in communities which MTI represents, that would have to be taken back and discussed individually with each of their councillors and, probably most importantly, their community members.
Throwing money at something is never the solution. We have seen that time and again. Taking a more holistic approach to accommodation through education and understanding, as well as sharing an opportunity at a level table, so to speak, to share Indigenous knowledge where it is welcomed and ultimately understood, will pay dividends in terms of preventing this sort of conduct from big business at any given time. That I can answer with certainty.
How it will look individually is not my place to respond to, but it is something that my colleague and I will bring back to leadership.
Mr. Simon: It is hard to comment, senator, on what accommodation might have flowed from a flawed consultation process. The MRIA process is geared toward obtaining Mi’kmaw consent, and that consent is based on certain conditions. Typical conditions we have seen for other projects of this type are ones that involve shipping or transportation impacts. Monitoring is a common measure that is undertaken. Sometimes, there are time of day or time of year restrictions with respect to when certain activities occur. There might be some limits on how, when and where shipping occurs to ensure that it has a minimal impact on the migratory season. You would look at what time of year the salmon are migrating through that footprint. Are there limitations or restrictions that could be put in place that might limit the impacts on salmon? Those are the types of things we would look at.
I should emphasize, because you spoke about impacts, the process scales up and down, and the types of accommodations are always tied to the scale of the impacts of the project. Obviously, something like a park bench is going to attract a much less rigorous level of consultation and types of accommodation measures than a pipeline. Many projects are deemed to have a minimal impact, and therefore, they are scoped out after step two of the process. The process does have some flexibility to scale up or down, but I think we come back to the fact that we would still want a proper IK study to be conducted for this project to precisely determine what the impacts are and what knowledge is out there with respect to salmon, and that would, in turn, inform the accommodations that are necessary.
Senator Galvez: I want to congratulate you for your efforts on creating new materials, ways, guidelines and approaches for consultation, and to encourage you to keep educating people about regional impacts.
I remember at the beginning, when we assessed projects, we saw it as a dot, a piece of punctuation. It was just that. It did not impact anything else. We just looked at that one thing, which was completely incoherent with the way the world works.
Listening to you, it reminds me of Anticosti Island, where there was a project to exploit gas. Exactly the same thing happened. Nobody wanted to talk about shipping, even though they were going to produce a lot of gas. Maybe they thought that they were going to fly it to wherever the market was.
I remember looking at the issues with salmon. What I found at that time was that the intercoastal waters of Newfoundland and Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, move through near-shore marine corridors into the Gulf of St Lawrence where Anticosti Island and the Îles de la Madeleine, which are tourist attractions, are. From there they pass through the Cabot Strait or the Strait of Belle Isle into the North Atlantic.
It is not impossible for scientists to map all of that, but it takes a lot of time. This is where Indigenous knowledge comes in handy to establish this. I want to encourage you to keep showing us the bigger picture to help us see the regional and cumulative impacts.
My question is: Can you help us envision the whole thing? Because when I was looking at Anticosti Island, we were just talking about belugas. You just opened my eyes by saying salmon are there too. I know that salmon is very important for you and your culture. Could you educate me about other relationships in the biofood web and how it could be impacted if there is, God forbid, an oil spill?
Mr. Vicaire: Yes. Absolutely. I’m from Listuguj, which sits on the famous Restigouche River, world-renowned for angling salmon. Just this summer my young children and my wife were biking on a trail along the river, and we saw three beluga whales in the river. That is bizarre even to me. I have never seen that in my life, but I shared that with elders, and they said that they were here in plenty back in time. The elders said, in our language, the idea that the whales are here again is like a warning because they shouldn’t really be here at this time, but they are. It was not just one. It was a pod of them in a very small area in our river.
I love to share this knowledge. This is the type of knowledge that I would bring to our elders here, our Indigenous knowledge holders, and share that.
When I mentioned earlier about other marine life, it is not just salmon, obviously. We talk about the endangered North Atlantic. Fisheries and Oceans Canada are now learning about communicating with us in a meaningful way that, and it has been used out west, this idea of whale-safe gear. To put that industry out in the middle of an ocean, smack dab in the middle of their migratory patterns, this is challenging, to say the least.
This process is built upon and supported by Indigenous knowledge holders, elders and fishermen who have a long history within the family of fishing and being on the rivers and the oceans. It is all built upon that. All we have been asking for — demanding, to be frank — is a seat at the table where our information can be shared, which generates knowledge, which will ultimately assist the scientists and the Two-Eyed Seeing approach, where you have Indigenous knowledge and Western scientific knowledge. It doesn’t have to be separated. It could be going together in tandem, which will pay dividends for all of us and generations to come.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I want to go to cultural heritage. When we look at cultural heritage in this situation, we are looking at the salmon. When we look at what lies below the salmon, it is intangible cultural heritage. You cannot see it. That falls with the fishing. I went to Haida Gwaii and worked with other groups looking at sturgeon. The culture involves knowledge translation. It is about building kinship when you are practising that ceremony or that activity. It is about the oral history that encompasses fishing and the connection between grandfathers, fathers and children. There is a huge host of culture that is being decimated at the same time when you get limited chances to practise that culture.
Can you talk to us about the cultural heritage that exists there and what it brings? Because when we look at what is happening, the consultation isn’t happening. It is all across Canada. It is a form of cultural genocide. Can you speak a little bit about that?
Mr. Vicaire: Absolutely. There’s so much to say. I will do my best to condense it and provide a Coles Notes version of it.
As I mentioned in my opening statements, plamu, or salmon, is conducive to our existence. Without it, we would not be here, much like Haida Gwaii out west. Take away those trees, and the Haida Gwaii would not be there. Our ancestors will quite often say, “Are you on the land or from the land? Are you on the water or from the water?” The English language can be helpful at times to distinguish that.
It is everything to us. Without the salmon existing, the L’nu will suffer greatly.
Not to mention, the introduced species of the striped bass and the damage that this is causing to the salmon population up in our tributaries. It is decimating the salmon. As an apex predator, the striped bass does not just decimate the salmon but everything else below it, in accordance with the definition of an apex predator.
The gauntlet that salmon has to go through is baffling, but it is conducive to our existence. The resiliency of the salmon is the resiliency of our people. The success of salmon is the success of our people. In Listuguj we have our own fisheries plant, which has been celebrated by Canadian governments and received an award.
If you allow us to be at the table with an open heart and an open mind to get things done, then certainly we can have that ability to share our knowledge. It is not only about the idea of cultural genocide and that negative impact: We all know that history.
As a former educator, I would beg and plead with anyone and any of you to provide the guidance where that history should be embedded within the pedagogy and curriculum of the schools, because out here on this side of Turtle Island, it is still not in the schools. We still find ourselves dealing, generation after generation — I’m old enough to say that — we’re just repeating ourselves. Groundhog Day just passed, but this is Groundhog Day for us every day.
To speak of that cultural impact that the salmon and the whales have for us, with us, for us and all about us. It is immeasurable. I could continue, but to give my colleague, Mr. Simon, here an opportunity to comment, his wife is a Mi’kmaw woman who lives and breathes with the land. He has input there as well. I would like to provide an opportunity to Mr. Simon.
Mr. Simon: Yes. I think this ties in nicely to the question Senator Galvez raised as well, which is that the relationship is not just with the salmon; it is with the territory and all of the marine species as a whole. They are all interrelated, and you can’t isolate any particular one of them.
One of the fundamental issues MTI has always had with how, for example, DFO manages the fisheries is that it is done in a very siloed, species-specific way. So you have people who focus on the salmon nothing but the salmon, and people that focus on the striped bass and nothing but the striped bass. And those people are not talking to one another, and there is a huge interaction — as Mr. Vicaire alluded to — between salmon and striped bass, where a rebound in the striped bass population is now negatively impacting the salmon population, and the salmon are already facing a number of stressors from striped bass to climate change, which is a huge factor, because they are a cold-water species.
They do not like the temperatures that we’re seeing in the New Brunswick rivers as well as elsewhere throughout the territory. We are seeing the negative impacts that warming waters are having on salmon, to the point where it looks like DFO is ready to abandon efforts to protect the Inner Bay of Fundy salmon. So, a decision like that is, in effect, an act of cultural genocide.
This is a species that the Mi’kmaq have had a relationship with for 15,000 years, and all of a sudden DFO says that, due to a variety of factors, including financial considerations, we can no longer support efforts to restock, resuscitate and bring back the salmon in southwestern New Brunswick in a critical part of our territory near Amlamgog First Nation. That destroys, and we don’t want to see that happen to the other salmon populations in the region, be it the population in the Miramichi, the Restigouche, or elsewhere.
Projects like the oil and gas development in eastern Newfoundland are just one more factor that has the potential to negatively impact the salmon population. We want to ensure that those impacts are appropriately addressed, accommodated and mitigated because they don’t need one more stressor.
The Chair: Thank you. We are almost at the end of our time. Is there one short comment left?
Senator Galvez: Very quickly, because, hearing you, I’m tempted to ask you this question: In western society, we don’t see how nature relates to economy. When I talk to land trust people or Indigenous people defending nature, I like saying that my province of Quebec wouldn’t be what it is without nature. We have hydroelectric power because of the mighty rivers in Quebec. We have a billion-dollar industry based on maple syrup because we own this market in the world, and we rely on critical minerals to export, and those are our natural resources. I would say that 90% of our Quebec GDP is based on ecological services.
However, not many people agree with me about this. So I have to show the numbers, and then people say, “Ah, okay. I see it.”
How do you see this? In three minutes. Yes, please.
Mr. Vicaire: Yes. This is forever and always the challenge, right?
Again, MTI is in a position where we have nine communities, and together we’re stronger, at least to demand a seat at the table. Once provided that seat, we’re able to share this information. This is what we do on a daily basis, Senator. It is forever and always happening. I will turn to Mr. Simon here for the minute-and-a-half remaining.
Mr. Simon: Yes. Again, the Mi’kmaq have been in their territory since at least the end of the last ice age and have seen shifts in climate, have seen changes in how the territory has unfolded and have lived through all of that, and the culture and language very much come from the land.
Nobody knows better than the Mi’kmaq the importance of ecosystem services of the natural environment in terms of providing for the people. One of the concerns with the decline of salmon is that it literally puts food on the plates of people in our communities. If you lose that, and you lose it forever. It is a cultural loss but also an economic loss, because now you have to find a way to replace that food source with something else. What is it going to be?
At the end of the day, we talk about the economy and people, but it comes down to a question of people being able to feed their families, people being able to put food on their plates in a way that has sustained their ancestors for 15,000 years or more.
To lose that is an immeasurable cultural loss, as well as a loss in an economic sense, because now you have to find another way to feed your family. That is the very practical reality that we face.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Mr. Vicaire: From a big business standpoint, it is going to decimate the Atlantic Salmon Federation and the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, which have been benefiting from this for quite some time. We’re in the range of billions of dollars. It is not just going to impact us; it is going to impact everyone. There is no better way to end this session than by that statement.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. Mr. Vicaire, it was very nice to see you again so soon.
Mr. Vicaire: Yes, for sure.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Simon, as well, for the evidence that you gave and the insight that we have gained from both of your testimonies.
Mr. Simon: Thank you, senators.
The Chair: Thank you. Our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 10 at 6:30 p.m.
(The committee adjourned.)