Arguments in the aquaculture case are flawed
I dropped by the Court of Appeal recently to hear the arguments in the Grieg aquaculture case. Both Grieg and our government argued that the project should not have been stopped because all the negative environmental aspects of the project could be mitigated as the project proceeded.
How scary and shortsighted is that type of argument when it comes to our environment?
Firstly, not all the Grieg problems can be mitigated. Take, for example, pack ice in Placentia Bay. In their proposal, Grieg stated that Placentia Bay is an ice-free bay. Well, any glance at Canada Coast Guard’s ice maps from April 2017 will show just how wrong they were. The pack ice was so bad last April that even the lobster fishermen delayed putting their pots out. Make no mistake about it, had the Grieg pens been in the bay at that time, we would have had 7 million fake salmon swimming freely in Placentia Bay, no jobs at all for the area residents and a loss of $45 million of our taxpayers’ dollars. And oh, by the way, can anyone tell Grieg and our government how to mitigate pack ice?
And the second fundamental problem with the Grieg/government argument is that if we don’t do further study we may miss something new and important. Heaven forbid we should find out the truth! The whole purpose of an environmental impact statement is to fully study all potential problems of any new project. What about if the new Grieg foreign strain of salmon doesn’t adapt well to our waters? What about if their new escape-proof nets can’t even hold up to our wind and tides? And what about…
The list of potential problems goes on and on.
Can someone in government please tell me what is wrong with a little further study of this project?