I agree with you on that point.
I have a question, because I do believe in science-based decision-making and decisions that are based on evidence-based data. There was an earlier presenter who made the case that industrial activity should not take place in the oceans or in marine protected areas, but I'll use one example.
If we applied that same reasoning, the Confederation Bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick would never have been constructed, because it did have an impact on the ocean bottom and habitat, but the decision made was based on all the science at the time. All the data said it would have no detrimental impact, and time has proven it has not. In fact, it can be shown that the impact has been positive on some species and habitat. It hasn't been shown to be negative on any.
The earlier presenter said wind farm development should be excluded. Wind farm development would follow construction activity similar to that for the Confederation Bridge. If the science and the evidence-based data say that industrial development can proceed, what's your opinion on that?