Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the committee allowing us to have the time to go back and do this one again.
I tried to keep the spirit of the language that Ms. Dabrusin proposed in the amendment that the committee adopted, so I hope that you guys will see that it is in there.
I don't know if you'd call it a subamendment or what, but the subamendment I'm proposing would be that motion CPC-12, as amended, proposing to amend clause 147 of Bill C-49 by adding paragraph (c) after line 27 on page 107, be amended by replacing “the consideration of effects on fishing activities” with the following:
“considering the effects of the proposed work or activity on fishing activities and to understanding and maintaining the environmental characteristics of the offshore area that support that industry”
We had some witness testimony that did speak to the characteristics of the ocean floor. That was from Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, Ph.D. in marine ecology, in regard to the development of wind. He did have this to say:
This will change the environment: the sea floor makeup, the current structure, the acoustics both during construction and operation, and the electromagnetic field. All these will impact the associated flora and fauna of the areas. This will happen on the scales of the individual turbine, which is centimetres to kilometres; the wind farm fields, from tens to hundreds of kilometres; and the entire eastern seaboard. It will affect the fisheries.... There is no overall framework to coordinate the different scientific research or push for broader ecosystem understanding.
I suggest that a framework that categorizes information about the ecology, economics and social and institutional effects of each of these two industries, with appropriate spatial and temporal scales, is key to reducing conflict and improving co-operation.
Of course, the two industries he's talking about are fishing and the new wind power industry that is seeking to be developed with the passing of this bill.
There were also some other concerns that were raised by the representative of FFAW around some of the proposals to weaken some of the wording. They were seeking, at the federal level, some adequate language in here to protect and help the fisheries. She made the following comment: “claims that 'where feasible, fishing activities will be able to continue to take place in areas that also have offshore renewable energy activity' are irresponsible, ill-informed and have been made without any consultation to our membership.” She was concerned about some of the impacts that it would have as well.
That's another type of support for an amendment that would provide a bit more certainty, not just to fishing activity but to the environment and the ecosystem that goes along with the development of offshore wind as well.
Those are some of the witness testimonies that I had.