Evidence of meeting #41 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.
Liberal
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We have an MOU whereby we provide data and information. Much of the analysis that is contained in this report we would have also provided to them.
Liberal
Chris d'Entremont Liberal Acadie—Annapolis, NS
Does this report make claims about the suitability of these four areas to offshore wind projects?
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No.
Liberal
Chris d'Entremont Liberal Acadie—Annapolis, NS
I have a few more minutes. Can you explain what the peer review process is and what it means in the context of this report?
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
For the peer review, I might turn back to my colleague from science.
If I could, I'll clarify something. In some of DFO's analysis of, say, where fishing occurs, we did look at what areas were suitable for offshore wind from an industry point of view. That wasn't a DFO decision around what areas are suitable, but we did layer that with where fishing occurs. The data we provided was just on where fishing occurs.
I'm sorry for making that correction.
I'll turn to my colleague from science.
Liberal
Chris d'Entremont Liberal Acadie—Annapolis, NS
Maybe I can continue there and ask the last question again. Who identified these four areas? If I remember correctly, when the province was looking at this, they were looking at far more than four different areas, but it came down to these four. I think that's what helped prescribe the department in providing the data on these four banks.
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's correct.
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
My understanding is that the decision stems from the regional assessment that was completed. DFO science provided input into that exercise.
On your earlier question about the peer review of this report, for a technical report like this, we do a peer review. It's internal to DFO, but other independent experts who have not drafted the document review it and provide comments on errors or, for instance, missing key datasets that they would propose adding.
Liberal
Chris d'Entremont Liberal Acadie—Annapolis, NS
In the future, if we're looking forward, what would be the next step? If the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator—I want to call it CNSOPB, because for a long time that's what it was called, but it's now CNSOER—makes another request of the department, will they be providing further study or further information as times goes on?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The next step for the science sector will be to share the data collected, with ongoing work to address the gaps that have been identified by the regulator. That's with funding from Natural Resources Canada.
I'll let my colleagues from the Maritimes region speak to the management side of the next steps.
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We continue to provide them with data that will inform exactly where the call for bids will be.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry, Chris. You've finished your time. Thank you.
I will now go to the next round, starting with the Conservatives.
Mr. Small, you have five minutes, please.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question is for Mr. Vigneault again.
Given that Emerald Bank—I know it's not included in this report, but it's a marine protected area—and parts of Sable Island Bank are to be protected, what features of the ocean floor are being protected at Sable Island Bank?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Once again, Mr. Small, I would ask you to stick to the report. It's very clear in the motion that led to this that you should stick to the report. If they didn't do anything about Sable Island Bank, then we shouldn't be discussing it.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Okay.
Let's talk a bit about transparency. We have emails from the department where a reference is made to not using all the information supplied by the fishing industry, and that this might be “uncomfortable”. What would be so uncomfortable about providing all the information that was supplied by the fishing industry in creating this report?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'm not sure what the member is referring to. We have provided all the information we got on fisheries through our colleagues at fisheries management regarding the landings. There's a recognition that it's incomplete information, as I described earlier, and there is a need to continue to engage the fishing industry to provide more granularity on the information.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
I'm referring to an email from Manon Cassista-Da Ros, where she said the following:
My concern is that, so far, we’ve only incorporated internal input, which may limit the completeness of the documents. They could be much stronger if the fishing industry were given an opportunity to review and provide feedback.
I understand that my suggestion may be somewhat uncomfortable, but the fishing industry is uniquely positioned to offer valuable context and insights that we may not fully capture internally. I just don’t want us, as DFO, to miss the opportunity to give this fair consideration.
It's indicated in the internal documents we've obtained that there were people involved in creating this report who held back information because they were uncomfortable. What do you have to say about that?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
There's no reference to anything being held back. The email exchange refers to the process about further engaging the industry. We at science—and you made the point yourself, Member Small—saw the value of further engaging the industry. The Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement has been kept abreast of this report and is using it, as are other associations—
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The point there is that the industry would perceive that it's just part of the information and they have additional inputs to provide.
My understanding is that that wasn't the scope of this exercise. Again, it was about basic DFO information on the fisheries. My colleagues from the Maritimes region could speak more broadly on the engagement process and the next steps.
Conservative
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Although it wasn't produced specifically for the report, there's an analysis of where fishing occurs, comparing it with what areas are suitable for offshore wind. It's called the Marxan analysis with zones in the report. There was extensive consultation with the fishing industry on that analysis.
As my colleague mentioned, the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement was consulted on that analysis and had an opportunity to provide input.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
You have areas there that are already protected areas. Sable Island Bank is about to be protected. Why did you not have in the report that areas that are now marine protected areas should remain protected areas, given what the fishing industry has sacrificed? Why are you not saying that protected areas are unsuitable for wind development?