HIGH TREASON OR ONE SEASON? 

    100 Debates on Environment - Avalon 

    Held at Hibernia Manuels River Interpretation Centre on October 3, 2019

    by Jim Shebib

    

    From Left to Right: Greg Malone (Green Party Representative), Ken MacDonald (Liberal) and
    Lea Movelle (New Democrat Party) Photo by GreenPac

100 Debates on Environment is a 'national initiative to hold non-partisan all-candidates debates           on the environment in 100 ridings across Canada.' As posted on the Facebook page managed by GreenPac. Andrew Scheer, the Canadian Conservative Party leader, has shunned the big picture on the environment by many peoples' standards. And the case-closed attitude has been perpetuated by the Conservative representative for our riding in Avalon not attending the debate. For whatever reason, Matthew Chapman (who had not accepted the invitation) is also implied missing in the above photo.

Mr. Chapman's party profile states:

'Matthew is determined to see people of Newfoundland and Labrador be given the opportunity to thrive. Life is getting too expensive and the Conservative Party of Canada seeks to make it more affordable through initiatives such as scrapping the carbon tax and removing the GST from home heating. He also seeks to maximize the development of our natural resources, in particular, oil and gas, while ensuring responsibility to our environment. Matthew believes building a National Energy Corridor and pipelines will unite and benefit all Canadians.'

The lack of presence at the community level by the party official signifies a critical gap in the Conservative Party's ability to see other points of view on matters of the environment. However, the core message of the slogan is implicitly contradictory to alternative views on local issues. Despite, Mr. Chapman's community involvement as a teacher, coach and familyman, its disappointing to not see this panel completed. It is without resolve on the issues not cited. So accordingly, this is an open and shut case on environment politics.

But, not so shut. In fact, it's wide open and the group does not need the Conservative Rep to continue. At least not in these parameters. But, the debate was definitely a channelling of some deep mistrusts that are being exacerbated by these types of dismissal. There were many topics covered during the debate including the fairness of company use of land and indigenous lands, mine tailing ponds, sewage in small towns, transportation and salmon farming practices. However, the topic I will discuss in this article will be the venting of frustration over the Hibernia Offshore Oil Platform and Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans Marine Protected Areas.

Time and again in Newfoundland we are seeing a global scale problem with a local face. To put it bluntly as to paraphrase Greg Malone, 'They are out there still overfishing and polluting the waters.' Referring to both the exploitation of Capelin and the simultaneous drilling for oil. Up until this year, oil companies were allowed to explore in Marine Protected Areas. According to Narwhal magazine, after years of requests it took an onslaught of 70,000 letters from Canadians to finally place a ban on the practice. Despite encouragement by Nova Scotia and Newfoundland Premiers to keep Marine Protected Areas open to drilling while being remained closed for fisheries. The double standards, uncertainty and anger suggested by Malone was a kind of drastic outlook based on an unofficial source identified as, "the fishermen."

It is so hard to tell what the reality of activities on the open water are and who is pushing for what. I do know as a Fisheries Observer out of Victoria, BC, I was constantly met with contention and hatred for Marine Protected Areas and skippers would almost ubiquitously ride the edges of MPA's and allow their gear to be hauled through the edge waters of the areas. Oil platforms and seismic vessels both require observers. However, if neglect of MPAs had already been a practice it still just speculation to suggest its still being done. The question put upon the group was in fact why is that seismic operations are still happening despite the passing of Bill C-68 referred to in the group as activities occurring in 'no go areas". It would have gone unnoticed if Ken MacDonald had not responded to Munroe with a confusing rebuttal following this statement:

"The fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has sustained this province for generations and will continue to sustain more communities in our province. No one needs to tell me the importance of the fishing industry in my riding. Communities like Port aux Grave, St. Bride's, Harbour Grace, and many more depend on the fishery for their very success. The criticism surrounding Marine Protected Areas and the permitted activities that take place in those areas have certainly been brought to my attention and by my constituents. Harvesters certainly have a legitimate concern where there is seismic activities in areas where no fishing activity is permitted. However, sometimes the facts surrounding these areas are not presented to represent the circumstances as they exist. For example, some portions of a Marine Protected Area have such deep water that fishing activity does not take place in those areas. In addition, there are many Marine Protected Areas where no seismic activity would ever take place. I want to say that I share many of the concerns that fishers are raising about the marine protected areas and the related seismic activity. I can tell you that all seven of Newfoundland and Labrador MP's have had discussions about those same concerns and have discussed them with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment. I will continue to work with fishers in my riding and bring those concerns forward. We must not let one industry be negatively impacted by the actions of another. I would hope that all stake holders could work cooperatively to overcome these differences. Bill C-68 reflects the views of Canadians and will help ensure our fishers can continue to grow Canada's economy, protect our eco system, sustain coastal communities. For our communities it will keep the benefits of fishing in the hands of independent fish harvesters and the local area. I'm confident that with all industry stakeholders working together and with the guidance of Bill C-68 both our Offshore fishery and oil industry can work together for the protection and success of both industries. Thank You."

The discussion about fisheries gets diverted to the seal hunt for a moment. Greg Malone takes an improvisational approach on all his responses. Lea Movelle asserts a stronger kick back for harvesters and producers. But, the elephant in the corner that has pulled the wool over our eyes is the argument Ken MacDonald uses to establish a precedence for EXXON to be conducting seismic blasts in Marine Protected Areas. We would need a panel discussion of Environmental engineers and Ocean Science Representatives to evaluate this question. But from the laymen point of view, and that of environmental protection, it is in the name. The essence of protection from man made activity on these areas is there for a reason. It is the oil and gas industry that is working around every possible loop hole to fill every niche in the environment possible. If the gas can't be got directly from there, information is retrieved and from my point of view where there is a will there is a way. If the company wants to make money they will find a way. My confusion arises in why there would even be a discussion of activity taking place in the areas if there didn't need to be. But, counter arguing that some Marine protected areas are not fit for seismic activity does not make any sense. The objective is to have no activity. It requires further consideration.