Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Bill Wareham]

On the macro scale the biggest impact we're having on the ocean is through climate change warming oceans and acidification, so you could say that's land-based; it's human activity. Aside from the pollution element of what we do to our oceans the single largest affect on our oceans is the removal of biomass from the system. We take hundreds of millions of tonnes of biomass out of the ocean on a regular basis. As we know, we've done that to great extremes. That's a massive impact that we have to temper if we're hoping to maintain functioning ecosystems.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

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?

[Nikki Macdonald]

Science doesn't replace decision-making. Remember you're bringing—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

But I said the decision is based on science.

[Nikki Macdonald]

Science is an input into decision-making. It sounds to me as though what you're really asking is how we go about making the trade-offs between industrial use and protection of the environment.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Wait now, no. I know what I asked. I was not stating that there's a trade-off. Where the science and the evidence-based data say this industrial development, whatever it may be, will have no detrimental impact on habitat or the environment, should it automatically be excluded from marine protected areas?

[Nikki Macdonald]

Science is only one input into that decision.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I said evidence-based fact as well.

[Nikki Macdonald]

Again, define what evidence would be put in there. I'm being hesitant there, because I think that in the past, one, science has been very narrowly defined in these processes and, two, I think it's important to take broader impacts into the evidence and those include the social, cultural, traditional, and ecological impacts, and to bring that knowledge as evidence into this decision-making.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Wareham, I'd be curious to hear your point of view.

[Bill Wareham]

I believe we have to look at this from a risk-assessment point of view. In the context of fisheries, we could have a bottom-trawling fishery that we know has a high probability of damaging bottom habitats. It may not always go to—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I'm talking about an industrial activity, that science and the evidence base say would have no negative impact. Should it be automatically excluded?

[Bill Wareham]

We view fisheries as an industrial activity. If you're looking at mining or oil and gas or those other things, we've looked at them through the lenses, and we know there is a probability of risk of a catastrophic event if it does go wrong. As we've seen with recent oil spills of the XL pipeline, which was built only seven years ago and which we were told had no risk, when a catastrophic risk from the major industry happens, you have to decide whether you want to bear that risk in the context of a marine protected area or not. That's where the precautionary principle—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I don't think I was advocating for oil. It was a reference to including wind farms within the category as well. When I look at the construction technology of wind farms in Europe, it's similar to the construction methodology that was used in the Confederation Bridge, and no negative effect of that has been documented. In fact, the documented evidence would show that it enhanced the habitat of certain fish species.

[Bill Wareham]

In the marine context, it depends on what your objectives are. If you're in an area of a high intensity of marine birds, those windmills may not be very amenable to the long-term survival of marine birds that migrate through those areas.

In the marine context, we found that with regard to windmills, the biggest challenge came from the fishing sector, from the crab fishing sector, which felt that its biggest challenge was that operating in the context of those wind farms would impede its fishing opportunities at a level that was unacceptable. There are various socio-economic considerations as well.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Wareham, thank you very much.

Now, I'm pushing the envelope here. Mr. Arnold, you have five minutes. We have 23 minutes until the vote. We agreed, so you have five minutes, quickly. Go ahead.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be as quick as I can. If I get cut off, I get cut off.

Quickly, to both of you, do you feel there's been enough time to identify specifically what it is that we need to protect and want to protect in order for Bill C-55 to move forward to reach these targets in 2020? Has there been enough time to identify what needs to be protected or what we want to protect?

[Nikki Macdonald]

Again, I remind you that, from my perspective, Bill C-55 is enabling legislation that sets out a framework through which we make decisions on what we intend to protect. To use again the term “adaptive management”, for me it's implementation. What exactly are we going to be protecting? That's an ongoing process that will be decided upon separate of the passage of Bill C-55.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Wareham.

[Bill Wareham]

Yes, I can speak most specifically to the west coast where we've done extensive analysis with both government, non-profit organizations, and other sectors on opportunities for protection. A lot of that information is there. What we're lacking are the drivers to get the process to analyze those in a decision context and move forward.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

One part that we've heard is troubling about Bill C-55 is proposed section 35.2:

The Governor in Council and the Minister shall not use lack of scientific certainty regarding the risks posed by any activity that may be carried out in certain areas of the sea as a reason to postpone or refrain from exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions under subsection 35(3) or 35.1(2).

This is why I asked if we have the science. Do we know what's there that we're needing to protect? This bill would seem to want to give power to the minister to be able to impose these protected areas with a lack of science.

[Nikki Macdonald]

My reading of that particular clause is that it's an expression of the precautionary approach. That was my understanding of it.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Wareham.

[Bill Wareham]

I don't think we as a nation or any nation has the money to do all the science that will answer all the questions. At some point we have to play that assessment of risk and what our objectives are in conservation and make decisions based on risk and probability. In some cases we won't know everything, but we know enough, I propose, that we can move forward on many areas in a productive way.