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.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Did you focus more on the ocean floor or the water or the surface?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It was all included. There was information on the geology of the subsea surface, there was information on the biota and there was information on the water column. All the information we had in our holdings was put in the document so that stakeholders could have access to it. It's not meant to be the full dataset; it's meant to be a place to start understanding what knowledge and information we have within DFO.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
That's what I wanted to get at. You've said over and over again that it's not intended to be the full dataset, so my question is, did you take into account how a wind farm is actually built when you were trying to decide what you should put in that wasn't part of the full dataset?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I know that question was discussed, but it was not relevant to the scope of the report. The report was about fishing activity, the sensitive biological systems and the geology within those geographic areas in the context of those areas having been identified as potential offshore areas. There was no intent to look at the impacts of offshore, no intent to do any analysis—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry, Ms. Kronis, but I'm going to ask you to focus on the report, please.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
The question isn't about the impact.
If you have 10 datasets and you're telling me that this report was the starting point, there is the possibility that you included in this report datasets one through seven and number nine, but not eight and 10. My question is, did you take into account what might eventually be built there when you were deciding what to include and what not to include?
With due respect to the Chair and the members opposite, that is exactly relevant to this report.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
My ruling is that it's not, so the point of order is taken.
Let's move on. Please focus your questions on the report.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
In terms of the things you didn't include, why didn't you include them?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It was a question of time to do the analysis of information that was readily available elsewhere. For example, we listed the species at risk that are documented in those areas, but there are other more detailed documents, like the recovery strategy for those species, that are readily available and are not all included in full detail in this report.
Conservative
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
As stated in the report, it is an overview of our main datasets with the intent of orienting anyone who's looking for information on what is in those proposed areas. There are other sets of information that could be available as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you. The time is up.
I'll now move on to Mr. d'Entremont for the Liberals.
You have five minutes, please.
Liberal
Chris d'Entremont Liberal Acadie—Annapolis, NS
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Let me go back to some of my questions.
What was the department's intention in creating this report?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I will turn to my colleagues in aquatic ecosystems management, which mandated us to do the report.
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We were anticipating what the information needs would be for the department and anticipating what information regulators would need. In some cases, the future regulators are people looking at fish and fish habitat as part of DFO or impacts under the Species at Risk Act, which is part of DFO, as well as other regulators.
The report is clear that we've provided the information we had that we thought would be relevant and that we thought we would get requests for. The information is not exhaustive. Not everything that all regulators will need is in the report.
Liberal
Chris d'Entremont Liberal Acadie—Annapolis, NS
Does the creation of this report say anything about the future of offshore wind in Canada?
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No.
Liberal
Chris d'Entremont Liberal Acadie—Annapolis, NS
Since the report is for information and is not actually about the process of creating offshore wind, would other steps, like consultation with industry, the Province of Nova Scotia or other organizations, take place before future projects go forward?
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes.
This report, as we mentioned, responded to the call for information. The fishing industry also responded to the same call. The lead regulators on offshore wind and the offshore energy regulator have had discussions with the fishing industry, some of which DFO facilitated or brought together, but the fishing industry is speaking with the regulators separately from DFO.
Director, Oceans and Aquaculture Management, Maritimes Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
They are the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator.
