Evidence of meeting #33 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I think it would be helpful if you read it out. Which motion is it?
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
The motion states:
That,
(a) considering the concerns around the publishing of the report: Four Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) in the Offshore of Nova Scotia: A Description of the Primary Marine Ecosystem Features, Significant and Protected Areas, At-risk and Depleted Species, Fish and Fisheries, Science Surveys, and Other Human Uses that May Occur In and Around the French Bank, Middle Bank, Sable Island Bank, and Sydney Bight Areas (Report) in the Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3312;
(b) pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be ordered to provide to the committee, within 30 days of the adoption of this motion, the following:
(i) all documents, including but not limited to memoranda, briefing notes, and internal communications, related to the decision to produce this report, including any requests for its preparation and associated allocation of resources,
(ii) all documents related to the timing of the report's public release, including any correspondence or briefings concerning its publication in relation to announcements on offshore wind development for the Scotian Shelf,
(iii) all documents relating to internal review processes for the report, including any peer review, inter-branch consultations, or assessments conducted within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, including Science and Fisheries Management,
(iv) all documents relating to consultations, or lack thereof, with the fishing industry in the preparation of the report,
(v) all documents relating to the omission of Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs), Recovery Potential Assessments (RPAs), or SARA-required recovery strategies in the report,
(vi) all internal communications, records of decision, briefing materials, analyses, and other documents relating to the use of this report in departmental decision-making; and
(c) pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertakes one two-hour meeting with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to be held one week after all requested documentation is received by all members of the committee, and the scope of the meeting be on the report.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Small.
Mr. Small has moved the motion he provided notice of two days ago, on April 20. It was just recirculated by the clerk, so all members should have that in front of them if they don't have the hard copy as well.
We're keeping a speaking list here. I see, first, that Mr. Morrissey would like to speak to that.
If any other members would like to speak to the motion, please be sure to raise your hand and I'll recognize you.
After that, we'll go to Mr. Klassen. We'll be keeping a speaking list for that.
Mr. Morrissey, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Chair, I realize the motion is in order to be moved today, but my question for the mover is, why did he choose to move it today, in the middle of a key mackerel study with a clear timeline and for which we brought in witnesses to hear? We could discuss this for the next hour and a half.
What the motion refers to is a study. I have a question for the member who moved it. He can answer, but I still want to go on, Chair.
Has he read the details of this report that he is asking us to do a study on now?
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Mr. Chair, the report isn't public. That's why we're asking for the production of documents on behalf of various stakeholders. Some of them are, in fact, mackerel harvesters who won't be able to harvest mackerel because these wind farms will take over their fishing grounds. They're very concerned.
We could get this out of the way really quickly. We could have a vote. We could say yea or nay and get right back to our meeting.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Chair, we do have the option to debate motions put forward. Clearly, with that answer, the member did not read the report that his study motion is referencing. I want to read a section of the report so that it's clear for anybody:
The description presented herein is intended to be a means for DFO to inform regulatory decision-makers, industry, and members of the public of the primary marine ecosystem features, significant and protected areas, at-risk and depleted species, fish and fisheries, science surveys, and other human uses that may occur in and around each of the WEAs. The description does not assess the WEA sites for offshore wind suitability nor evaluate the risk of offshore wind energy development on the marine ecosystem, marine species, or human uses in each area. As such, it may inform the scope of future risk assessments, but additional detail and analyses on marine ecosystem components, species, and human uses would be needed to inform project-specific assessments.
This is not a decision document from the ministry. It is a compilation of a number of reports' highlights so that the relevant ministries that may approach offshore wind development could use it simply as a resource to identify that if you're looking in this area, what you should be aware of.
Again my question is, why would we devote today, of all days, to debate a motion and then to do a study motion that is a lot to do about naught? That's why I cannot support the motion put forward. I believe it's simply a distraction to take us away from the issue which we brought in the witnesses for. It's a very real issue, and I believe it actually falls more in line with what I suspect probably came out of the office of the leader of the official opposition, who has shown no support for projects in eastern Canada, offshore of eastern Canada, that lead to economic development, so I cannot support this motion.
I don't know why.... I look to my colleague from the Bloc. Wind energy is something that is embraced in Quebec, on the east coast and the Gaspésie.
This document referenced by the member is not a decision document from DFO. It doesn't impart any opinion. Within it is simply a compilation of the marine areas that could be looked at.
With that, Mr. Chair, this is, in my opinion, simply a distraction to take us away from focusing on key issues, decisions that have been made on what's going to happen to the mackerel fishery as well as some of the herring fishery this coming spring. These are priorities that all members of this committee put forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.
Next on the speaking order I have Mr. Klassen. Then we'll go to Mr. Small, then Mr. Cormier, and then we'll have Monsieur Simard.
Mr. Klassen, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Ernie Klassen Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just echo what Mr. Morrissey said. I'm wondering whether Mr. Small could let us know which specific parts of the report he has any concerns with. He talked about a report that wasn't printed, but we have a copy of the report right here. I'm just wondering what areas specifically he has any concerns with.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Klassen.
Next on the speaking order, I have Mr. Small.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Unless there's something to hide here from the fishing industry on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia, I don't see the point for Liberals to be filibustering. We can get on with it. If the motion passes, it passes, or if it fails, it fails, and the witnesses can get back to providing their valuable testimony. It should only take a couple of minutes. It's your study.
Liberal
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chair, I've been listening to my colleague Mr. Small for a while now. What disappoints me is that, although there are people from my region here at the committee who have come to talk about a study on mackerel and the possibility, we hope, of reopening the fishery, Mr. Small is moving a motion that has almost nothing to do with what we're currently studying. There are also witnesses from his region, Newfoundland and Labrador, who are here. We want to hear their comments.
For the witnesses who are listening, I would like to point out that Mr. Small just said he has never seen the report. I would remind you that the report in question was published a year ago. I think we can see what is happening here. My colleague Mr. Small is not proposing this motion today to hear what the witnesses have to say at all, but rather to serve political tactics and play political games.
Personally, I find it very disappointing that we can't hear from the witnesses who are here today. I had some very good questions for them. I find it very disappointing that someone would try to thwart the committee's work by proposing a motion like this, which has almost nothing to do with what we're studying today.
Liberal
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that it's never ideal to debate a motion while we're conducting a study, but that's the principle of democracy; committee members have the right to debate these motions.
I would just like to point out to my colleagues that, yes, I am in favour of wind energy projects, but I am also in favour of having as much information as possible in the decision-making process. What I see in the motion is a request to make public information that can be used in a decision-making process. I think it's entirely natural that the committee would want that kind of information.
The issue that my colleague Mr. Cormier raised earlier can be resolved very quickly. We just have to vote on this motion. We'll move on immediately after we do that. Personally, I'm ready to vote on this motion. Then we can return to the witnesses.
Moreover, if this discussion were to drag on, I encourage the witnesses to provide the committee with written answers to the questions that might be sent to them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
Next we're going to Mr. Morrissey, and I see that Mr. Connors would like to be next on the list.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
I heard the comment “something to hide”, and this report simply analyzed existing structures that would be looked at in the ocean. It's descriptive. It doesn't pass any opinion from DFO on wind farms or anything else. All the information in it is public. It was compiled by the department and outlines the key areas from public expressions on developing wind farms off the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia.
The department compiled a list of the sensitive areas in this area. Anybody who was doing planning, looking into the area, would be able to reference the area they would be going in. However, it doesn't identify obstacles. It doesn't indicate any support measures from the Ministry of Fisheries or indicate any impact on any particular fishery.
Again, why we would devote time to.... I don't know what we're going to hear, because it's a non-decision document. We could bring in the same people to go over it and they would tell us what's in the document, because this reference report does not recommend any direction to the ministry or recommend anything that may relate to any species in that area.
Chair, again, that's the democratic right that was identified as correct, but it's not a study motion that I could support.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.
Next we'll go to Mr. Connors and then Mr. Calkins.
Liberal
Paul Connors Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've done this a number of times. We bring witnesses in to do a study, in this case, on mackerel. We have people here who have prepared to come in for this and now all of a sudden a motion is moved. In my opinion, this is wasting the time of the people we brought in. We could have discussed this later on.
I'm not sure what the urgency is exactly, but I do know what the urgency is for the mackerel season for this year. We have fishermen who have come forward today who would like to see the season open this year. Time is slowly slipping away on getting the season open this year for a lot of people.
As I read through this and look at all the documents that need to be prepared—internal review processes, peer reviews, many documents that need to be reviewed and presented—I think that even the timeline of when it can be presented is very short.
It only asks for one two-hour meeting with DFO to be held one week after all of the requested information has been received. We're not going to bring in any other witnesses to provide testimony or to talk about what's in the report. Is it just going to be DFO representatives? I've only been here a year, but I've been involved with FOPO for a number of years in my previous job. I don't think it's ever only been DFO brought in as the witness, with just one meeting.
I honestly can't see what the urgency is for this. As Mr. Morrissey said, there's no decision to be made in this report. It's a collection of data. We should probably look at how we should appropriately review the data if we're going to do a study on it.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Connors.
Is there anybody else who would like to speak to the motion? We'll go to a vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
With that, we are going to return to our questioning. We're going to continue with a six-minute round with Mr. MacDonald.
You have the floor for six minutes.
Liberal
Kent MacDonald Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses who have taken time out of their busy schedules to come in here. I particularly want to thank Mr. MacIntyre, because he comes from the eastern end of P.E.I. That's the riding I represent.
Mr. MacIntyre, I knew your grandfather. He worked in the fishery his whole life. He was a fisheries officer for many years, so conservation was key in his approach to fishing. He also worked with the wildlife federation as a volunteer. I know that if you started working with him at the age of six, you would have learned a lot of good life lessons in regard to conservation and protecting the fishery for the future.
In your opening statement, you described the effects of the mackerel closure in 2022. You had been fishing mackerel commercially prior to that, according to your testimony.
Can you give us an analysis of how this has hit your bottom line, if we look at the difference between that 75¢ bait and the bait you're catching today, and if there was no bait fishery, where that would end up costing you additional dollars?
Fisherman, As an Individual
If we hadn't had a bait fishery last year, I don't think I would be able to make my annual bank payment. The cost of bait is outrageous right now. It has to be over 50% more what everything cost back in 2022. The price of every gaspereau, redfish, silverside and clam has skyrocketed since the closure of mackerel.
Bait is harder to get, and good bait is very hard to get. You buy bait now that's not taken care of. The quality is not good. This reflects on your catches at the end of the day.
Liberal
Kent MacDonald Liberal Cardigan, PE
I'll ask you something in regard to the U.S. decision to increase their tack. You and your fellow fishers in eastern P.E.I. and indeed all of Atlantic Canada are obviously frustrated by that. We need some type of co-operation agreement that is fair for both countries.
What do you think a practical change would be going forward?
Fisherman, As an Individual
We could have a bait fishery open at a certain time, so harvesters could go out and harvest bait to be frozen in cold storage for their personal use. Then, have an opening for a commercial fishery, so you could make a profit and sell the bait to packers, buyers and other individuals who don't want to participate in a bait fishery.