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
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
The member's questioning is not relevant to what this committee is studying, which is a report from the department that was submitted and was a compilation of existing information that's been public for ad nauseam.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Madam Chair, with all due respect, right whales were mentioned 18 times in the documents that we've had produced. The impact on right whales of offshore wind development is very serious. Fishermen get blamed for the demise of right whales, so I'm asking Mr. Vigneault if he thinks that this matter was adequately addressed in the report.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Vigneault, this is on the issue of right whales. I think you spoke to that earlier about other species, but go ahead and answer the question quickly, because we're running out of time in this session.
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'd like to remind Member Small that risks or impacts are not part of this report. That's out of scope. However, we have properly described all the information we have collected to date on the North Atlantic right whale as part of the report. The report is correct...as part of the scope. We are doing additional work to make sure we understand where they are.
I share the member's concern regarding continuing to support the successful effort in recovering that species. Whale strikes from increased traffic in the offshore are an example of potential impacts. We need to know and to have detailed information on how they use the proposed area. That work is ongoing.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Getting back to the future marine-protected areas that are being identified and that are part of these four areas, I'll note that it's bewildering that areas are to be shut down or have been shut down to fishing where simply a baited hook for halibut hasn't been allowed to make bottom contact. There's nothing in this report that cautions against allowing areas that were shut down for fishing to protect benthic habitat to be turned into offshore wind areas.
Ms. Williams might be able to shed some light on why there wasn't something stronger in this report about that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Before I go to Ms. Williams, I would say that, while I was not here for any of this discussion originally, I heard clearly from Mr. Vigneault many times that the issue here is that this is a compilation of information they already had. Any new analysis or research is obviously something to be done, so that's not meant to be in this report at all.
Go ahead, Ms. Williams, if you want to answer quickly. You have four seconds to answer.
Regional Director, Aquatic Ecosystems, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We did provide information in the report on conservation areas that already exist.
Liberal
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Chair, I'm going to yield my time to Ms. Kronis.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Vigneault, was this report prepared in response to “Science support for offshore wind activity in Nova Scotia”, with request ID 1753?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes. As context, this was the initial request. It doesn't reflect the full status of the discussion that followed on what the precise need was of our client's sector, which in this case was the aquatic ecosystems sector. It was a general request for advice.
As we alluded to earlier, in terms of providing science advice for a specific risk, specific project location or specific technologies, that will be part of the future evaluation of the project proposals.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I understand that. The question I have, though.... The issue requiring science information and/or advice that was outlined in the document specifically references this:
The development of an offshore wind industry in Atlantic Canada is likely to impact marine ecosystems and species in new ways that have not been investigated in a Canadian context. Consequently, there is need for science advice to inform anticipated project-specific Impact Assessments, as well as science advice to inform more general knowledge gaps regarding potential impacts of OSW development on aquatic ecosystems....
My question is, did you seek to understand how offshore wind works before you went to gather the data?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That was a parallel effort, as I mentioned earlier. This was to share with all stakeholders the information we had in terms of data and current spatial analysis. At the same time, in parallel, we have a body of research to address the gap we identified.
This is a new industry. It will have an impact that we haven't seen before on the ocean environment and on our aquatic resources, so there's ongoing research. This includes better documenting of the environment and resource before development. Also, there's a modelling component where, through the use of an oceanographic model and an ecosystem model, we will try to see what the impact will be of different types of structure construction, for example.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
In deciding what to include in this report and what not to include in this report, did you think at all about the infrastructure that would be required?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We did not do that specifically for this report, because it was on the state of the environment and the state of the fishery. This would necessarily be required for future steps of the reviews, when we'll get actual detailed proposals.
I don't know if my colleague from the Maritimes region wants to add to that.
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I will add that the regional assessment process that was led by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and its report would have informed the types of information that DFO was anticipating would be needed. That would have informed what we decided to include in this report.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Given the way the ocean works, when you have a geographic area, are the fish generally unaware of the boundaries of it?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
[Inaudible—Editor] for currents and oceans.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Did you think about the fact that the people doing this assessment might actually need information from outside of the area, given the impact that offshore wind has outside of the immediate location where it's located?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Absolutely, this is part of the report. In many of the analyses, we talk about the adjacent areas, adjacent information on fisheries and fish stocks and so on.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
When it comes to a report like this, is the precautionary principle relevant at all? Do you think about the precautionary principle and the mandate of DFO?