 Okay, it looks like it's 10 o'clock. Everybody has joined us from the waiting room on the zoom and welcome for joining us on Facebook live. So thank you for joining us for the press conference for the release of the report regulating the West Coast cruise industry rules at the low watermark and investigation into rules and regulations to control cruise ship pollution on Canada's West Coast waters. My name is support. I'm the international program director of stand out earth and I'm speaking to you today from the unseated territory of the slaywood tooth squamish and muskвam first nations. At stand out earth. We encourage you to consider who is here before contact and what giving back of the land and ocean and decision making power looks like. If you don't know whose territory you're on a great resource is native dash land.ca. So I want to just do a quick overview of the flow of this morning. We have three speakers today, then we'll be moving to a short Q&A and we ask that you share your name and outlet along with your question typed into the Q&A box at the bottom of your screen. You can also ask questions on the Facebook live and we'll pull them into the press conference. So let me start by introducing our speakers. Our first speaker is Anna Barford. She is the shipping Canada shipping campaigner at stand out earth. She grew up in the traditional ancestral and unseated Coast Salish territories of the muskвam squamish and slaywood tooth peoples known as Vancouver. She has an undergraduate degree in environmental engineering and a graduate degree in environmental management and policy. The second speaker will be Michael Bissonette. Michael is a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, where he focuses on protecting coastal and marine areas. Prior to joining West Coast, Michael worked at an Aboriginal law firm for eight years assisting indigenous nations and obtaining compensation for historical wrongs from ground governments. We'll hear from Dr. Judith Sayers. Dr. Sayers is a member of the Proposeth First Nation and mother of two. She was elected as the new president of the Nechon of Tribal Council in September 2017. Dr. Sayers has worked as a strategic advisor to First Nations and corporations and is an adjunct professor at the Peter Gustafsson School of Business and Environmental Studies at the University of Victoria. She was elected chief of the Proposeth First Nation for 14 years and the chief negotiator for 15 years. Dr. Sayers educational background includes a business and law degree and an honorary doctor of laws from Queens University. So now I'm going to turn the floor over to Anna Darfur. Thanks so much, Sephora. I'm here to give an overview of the urgent issues that need to be addressed. A brief introduction to the rules and to explain our recommendations. We are potentially at the end of the reprieve from West Coast cruise pollution. We know that over 31 billion leaders of ocean pollution was prevented when cruise ships stopped being allowed to come into Canadian jurisdiction early on in the pandemic. Now, as vaccines are rolling out all over the world and industry and tourism starts to hope to be able to return in 2021, we need to ask the follow up question. What does a return to cruising mean for the West Coast? And what are governments doing about it? The shocking findings of this report are that Canada has the weakest regulations along the West Coast. And as a result, we are the cruise ship toilet bowl. While our neighbors are using strict limits, no discharge zones and ongoing monitoring. We are trusting of the industry and allow them to dump more contaminated waste than our neighbors. This low water market regulations incentivizes ships to hold their ways to dump here instead of following the rules other places, making us the toilet bowl. We are putting at risk sensitive and thriving ecosystems, species already threatened and human health. The most urgent issues are with the three big waste strings of sewage, greywater and scrubber wastewater. Scrubber wastewater is 95% of the waste from cruise ships. It is laden with carcinogens, heavy metals, and many other contaminants. This is the waste product from a pollution cheat system called scrubbers, which allows ships to get around the sulfur fuel standard and use the bottom of the barrel fossil fuel known as heavy fuel oil or bunker oil. As long as the ship is operating with that fuel, they turn toxic air pollution into acidic thermal water pollution. The really cruel aspect of these devices, as identified by an environment and climate change Canada Commission report, is that they ignore other air pollutants like small particulate matter, large soot or black carbon and greenhouse gases. So not only are they manufacturing a water pollution problem, they are perpetuating the air pollution problem by selectively tackling sulfur and ignoring other harmful aspects of the exhaust bloom. The next step is wastewater, basically from anything that is in the toilet or industrial process. It is laden with pathogens, nutrients just like sewage, but also grease and cleaning products, which can suffocate marine life and impact fish fertility. Sewage is pretty familiar, it's what goes down to the toilet. When dumped the nutrients and sewage cause algae blooms which decay creating oxygen free marine dead zones. In sewage such as E. Coli and viruses are dangerous to wildlife and humans and can cause recreation and harvest enclosures. The pharmaceuticals in our waste are harmful to important species like Chinook salmon, a key source of food for southern resident killer whales. To give you a sense of the volumes of these concerning waste drains. If the 2020 cruise season had gone ahead along the BC coast alone, cruise ships would have dumped 220 million liters of sewage, 1.8 billion liters of grey water, and a dominating 31 billion liters of scrubber wastewater, just off the coast of BC. Let us not forget that 95% of the wastewater would have been completely preventable and would not even have been created if we had the equivalent to California's regulation, the use of cleaner fuel oils, like marine gas oil. We have a very large volume of very problematic waste it is mobile and sensitive ecosystems are unprotected from ships flushing out their tanks. Okay, now I've mentioned California's regulations so let's do a brief overview of the rules. Michael will get more in depth in a moment, but what I need for you to understand so that I can explain our recommendations goes as follows. California does not allow scarvers to use cheat systems to get around the sulfur fuel standards. So instead of dealing with environmental toxic water pollution problem. They require vessels to use cleaner fuels like marine gas oil and stop both air and water pollution right at the source. Their entire coast is also no discharge zone for both untreated and treated grey water and sewage. Washington State has used both a large no discharge zone and a voluntary agreement with the cruise industry to prevent pollution and go beyond minimum standards of treatment. Canada does not require monitoring or publicly available self reporting are regulated discharge areas are miniscule in comparison to the equivalent in Alaska, and nothing compares to the coverage offered in Puget Sound and California. Not only is cruise tourism rapidly expanding, but cargo ships are also adopting scarvers putting ports previously unaffected a direct and imminently increasing risks, unless transport Canada steps in. So, getting to what we recommend doing about it. Transport Canada must prohibit ships from using scubbers to comply with sulfur fuel standard limits as California and a laundry list of other countries and jurisdictions do. Ships need to be using cleaner fuels. No exceptions. Canada must work with other departments to set performance and ecosystem based standards for treated sewage and grey water equivalent to or stronger than the Alaska regime through the entire Canadian territorial sea and exclusive economic zone on the west coast. No discharge zones as is in Puget Sound must be designated in both marine protected areas and sensitive areas to protect human health and environmental features such as shellfish beds, aquaculture sites and critical habitat for species at risk. And finally, we must work with the US federal government, Pacific Coast state and provincial governments and indigenous nations and tribes to create a harmonized world class regulatory regime, including a regular independent third party monitoring scheme on board ships that are underway to ensure environmental and marine discharge requirements are met. We can fund this program with a per passenger fee. This kind of clarity of regulation is precisely what we need for these waste streams to close the toilet bowl and protect the coast. 32 billion liters of waste is simply too much pollution to invite back. Back to you, Sephora. Thank you, Anna, that's quite a figure 32 billion liters of waste that was prevented during COVID just on the west coast. Okay, well, now we're going to turn to Michael Visana of West Coast Environmental Law. Michael. Thank you very much. Again, my name is Michael Bisonette, and I am a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, and we collaborated with stand out earth in producing this new report on cruise ship pollution. As Anna mentioned, in researching this report we reviewed the cruise ship pollution regulations of a number of jurisdictions along the Pacific Coast, starting down in California to the south and going all the way up to Alaska. And it was quite striking to see how much more stringent the regulations were in the Pacific Coast US states than here in Canada. So we're just going to take a few minutes minutes to discuss some of these lax Canadian regulations and why they create significant incentives for cruise ships to hold their waste while in American waters and discharge this polluting waste off the coast of BC. So first, while Canadian regulations do impose requirements for cruise ships to treat wastewater. Compared to their American counterparts these regulations are somewhat inadequate and leave significant gaps in the regulations. For example, within 12 nautical miles of the BC coastline ships can discharge sewage with up to 18 times higher fecal coliform counts than would be permitted in Alaskan waters. For gray water, the situation is even worse. While the US requires that gray water be treated and restricts its fecal coliform count. Canadian regulations do not require that gray water be treated at all for ships built prior to 2013. So we have why that is a significant gap in the regulations during the 2019 cruise ship season 22 of the 25 cruise ships which were applying the waters off of the west coast of BC were built prior to 2013. And so these ships could continue to discharge untreated wastewater or gray water sorry, as they travel along the coast. As Anna mentioned, unlike in the US and most notably in California and impuget sound in Washington, Canada does not protect sensitive areas with no discharge zones. No discharge zones are zones where cruise ships cannot discharge any wastewater whatsoever, whether it is treated or untreated wastewater. It's quite surprising that we don't have similar protections in British Columbia. There are some incredibly important and sensitive ecosystems here, many of which we have committed to protecting as marine protected areas. But surprisingly cruise ships can still discharge their wastewater in these sensitive areas. Lastly, Canada lacks a monitoring program to ensure that even our relatively lax regulations are being complied with in Alaska through their ocean ranger program. They have independent observers on board vessels monitoring discharges to ensure that the regulations are being complied with. We don't have an equivalent program in Canada. And what that details is that it's very hard to ensure that even our lax regulations are being complied with. So as you can see, these differences in the regulations and the lax regulations in Canada provides significant incentives for cruise ships traveling between Washington State, British Columbia and Alaska to hold their wastewater while in their waters and discharge it off of British Columbia. This is a situation that that should be very concerning to Canadians, especially those living in coastal communities. And this is why we are calling on Canada to immediately update and strengthen regulations that protect our cruise ships before cruise ships are allowed back. It's been successfully done in the US, and there's no reason we can't do it here. Thank you. Thank you Michael. And finally, we'll turn now to Dr. Judith Sayers, the President of the New Chalmouth Tribal Council. Dr. Sayers. Thank you Zapora, and thank you to Stand Earth and West Coast Environmental Law for doing this very important research. And welcome to everyone who is showing an interest in an area that needs some light shone on. You know, I've been listening to the West Coast of our wonderful Pacific Ocean being described as the toilet bowl and the dumping zone. And what great disrespect to a bountiful ocean that the new channels have relied on since time immemorial. This is where we get our food. This is where we get our healthy food that keeps us strong as people and our elders as often referred to it as our bread basket. And when we think about all of these 3.1 billion liters of inadequately treated waste from these cruise ships being dumped upon those ecosystems. It just is something that just kills me thinking that our resources are being subject to all of these pollutants and you know I'm not going to go into these pollutants because they've been well described already and we have to exercise our rights and if we do we need to have sufficient stocks and we need to have healthy stock. We've already seen reduction in our, our run sizes. You know, and part of this is due to climate change and the warming of oceans, but adding all these pollutants and making it more acidic is not helping to have a healthy return of these stocks. In New John if we have a stewardship responsibility, and as part of that responsibility we are calling on the government of Canada to change their laws and regulations to at least meet or beat California, Washington, Alaska and leading the way they're leading the way and we have to follow and you know be better if we were even had higher environmental standards and they did. They did were calling on the Canadian government to work with us to decide on protected areas to work on higher standards for cruise ship. All Canadians should be concerned with this. The ocean is where we get our seafood. And if it's being tainted polluted and we can't eat it anymore it affects all of us. And people should be insisting to all the cruise ship industry, do not go on cruise ships until they address this. They should have done it anyway, but they haven't. And so they have to be forced by law, then so be it. They have to watch the return of orcas along the West Coast of Vancouver Island and up the coast, and it's amazing to watch those animals they've come back they haven't been seen in some places for 20 years. And now with the stoppage of these cruise ships due to the pandemic. They are returning because it's something there's cleaner waters, and we need to continue to do it we have to it now. Our rights depend upon it. And we need to. We need to do this here, and then you know we're only looking at the West Coast of Turtle Island. What about in the outer oceans, where other where the cruise ships go what are they doing out there. What are they going to affect in here so we'll look at this get this changed and then go on to the greater challenge. So, you know I really look forward to working with all of you to ensure that the cruise ship industry has a hired standard and they have the vehicle on fees to the passenger ticket says and Anna said, and so it's not going to cost them much more. And so I really look forward to having some positive changes in Canadian law to regulate cruise ships. Thank you. Thank you very much Dr. Sayers we're going to open up the floor now to questions I see we have a number of reporters have joined us not just from BC, but across the country. So please put questions into the Q&A function in the bottom of your screen. When you ask a question, please let us know also if you are what I'll let you're with. If you're calling in, you can send questions to can media can media at stand out earth. You can also tweet questions to us at stand out earth or put them in the Facebook live stream. And then I'm going to somehow be magically brought into me, and I will ask them for you. Okay, so moving now to our first question. There's a question Anna about the 95% and you said 95% of this pollution this sum over 31 32 billion leaders that was prevented during COVID on the West Coast wouldn't have been created. If we had laws as strong as California. So, if that is in place, the question is where does that waste go what's the alternative to these waste streams. That waste doesn't go anywhere what it is is prevented. Remember wastewater is a choice made by vessels, when they choose heavy fuel oil the bottom of the barrel fossil fuel, which is basically a refinery waste product that if we didn't use as a marine fuel would have to be disposed as hazardous waste on land. And so what happens when we say when as California has done use marine gas oil is we have a more refined product on on the seas and that waste is simply prevented. Thank you. A follow up question from Carla Wilson from the Times colonists would you please explain how you came up with the numbers regarding the leaders of pollution. Yeah, and we used readily available data from the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as some numbers with passengers and crew that came through with estimates of what would have been in the 2020 season. And we've looked at the 2017 cruise season which is very heavily studied for wastewater and gray water. And we simply did a little bit of math to look at the increase in passengers as to what would have had what would have been in 2020 and that's how we came to those numbers. Thank you. Question from Mike from the hushel sub new channel newspaper, asking, how, how has Canada NBC fallen so far behind neighboring jurisdictions. Michael maybe over to you on the jurisdictional question. Yeah, so that it's the federal government that's been given constitutional powers under the Constitution for navigation and shipping, and, and the federal government has enacted regulations. As we mentioned about cruise ships and wastewater pollution. But what we've seen is, is other places with large cruise ship traffic such as Alaska, Washington and California, being very alarmed by the pollution sources and essentially, they've been continually updating their regulations so that they are, for most part, you know, quite world class and leaders, and we haven't had that same legislative push in Canada to ensure that our regulations are keeping up. And I think, I think, you know, the main thing missing is just public outcry about this and a real push to make sure that we do comply with this. And the federal government's kind of allowing this difference in regulations that continue and we can't allow that to continue. Thank you. I'm going to follow up question also from Mike on, can you explain the hard evidence. I think the cruise industry is using the BC coast as a dumping ground. So the data from cruise ships but also the evidence that they're holding on to their pollution and then dumping it in BC. Yeah, sure. So I'll say a couple things about that. The first one is unfortunately we don't have a monitoring program on the BC coast, which would be not only would it ensure that our regulations would be complied with but it would give us great data on exactly, you know, where these dumping initiatives are taking place. But to just to point out, when cruise ships leave the port of Seattle, as many of these cruise ships do to go up to Alaska. Until they get to the Canadian border as they're leaving Seattle, they are in a no discharge zone so they are legally not allowed during that entire part of the trip. They're not allowed to discharge into the waters of Puget Sound in Washington. And so their first opportunity to do so is when they get to British Columbia, and they have a window where the standards are much more lax in British Columbia until they get to Alaska that again has higher standards. So while we can't provide exact data about when and where they are doing that dumping, you can see how the legal regime is incentivizing it to happen in British Columbia. Thank you. A question coming in from the Facebook live. What can be done about dumping further offshore. Yes, so good question so under international law, Canada can enact regulations up to 200 miles offshore 200 nautical miles offshore which is the exclusive economic zone of Canada under international law. So within these greater areas, you need to do so with the approval of the international maritime organization. Once you are past that zone, if there were going to be restrictions, further restrictions on on pollution from ships, that would need to come from international agreement and treaties. Canada, over to you on the, is there more that you wanted to add on the jurisdiction or the evidence question. I would add to what Michael said about evidence for dumping that in Alaska, you need to apply to be able to discharge. And of 40 ships that went up in 2019. They do not receive permission to discharge in the Alaska waters. So between the no discharge zone in Puget Sound, and their effective no discharge zone in the Alaskan archipelago BC's sort of the only waters that are left. And so it's fairly simple deduction to say that by following the rules in Washington and Alaska. It's treating us like a toilet wall. So a follow up question from Carla Wilson given that you can't provide hard data about where the dumping is taking place. How can you say how much is being dumped off British Columbia. Also how much do you think is being dumped within and outside the 200 mile zone. So we know from AIS data which is global vessel tracking data that cruise ships don't often go outside of the 200 mile zone unless they're on route somewhere. In fact I will say we have found no cruise ships that have gone outside of the 200 mile zone unless they're on route somewhere. We have found plenty that have come through BC, and through the Great Bear sea, that are going through donut holes, and where we allow this kind of dumping. And so when we look at where cruise ships travel it's easy to see which regulations they're really sort of targeting to go under. And the pollution rates are based off of pollution generation rates. So it's what we know is the waste generation on cruise ships. And so it's what it's what we know their tank should be full of. Thank you. A question from Donna from Spaulding from the Gulf Islands. The Washington State and DZ only applies to sewage, greywater and scrubber water are not permitted prohibited. Are you consulting with Washington State on their initiatives to change these regulations. Yeah, so the no discharge zone legally applies to sewage and what covers greywater is a voluntary MOU and voluntary agreement between the state and the Port of Seattle, and the Industry Association for cruise ships, which allows the state to do other things like come on board and do monitoring and do inspections, and it pertains specifically to greywater, it extends beyond Puget Sound treats Puget Sound as a no discharge zone, and it also extends into other Washington waters. And so that's why we say that no greywater can be discharged in Puget Sound is because of that additional voluntary agreement the state's gone above and beyond what is in the Clean Water Act. I don't know Michael if you want to add anything. If you want to add to that. I mean, only to say, with respect to the scrubber issue, you know, California has successfully outlawed it and has provided a great example and we would, you know, welcome that example being followed by all jurisdictions. And just to be clear on the scrubber issues questions to you. So if the scrubbers are outlawed, that means the ships have to use a cleaner fuel is that correct. That's correct. And they don't want to do that because the dirtier fuel is cheaper. Is that correct. It's cheaper sort of at the pump, there is an energy cost to the use of scrubbers and also, you know, a maintenance cost and insulation costs. And so you need to have a significant fuel spread. So during the pandemic running a scrubber actually has been more expensive. And as we see sort of, you know, moving potentially out of COVID times that that may may change and certainly in 2019. It was a cheaper expense for cruise ships to use to use heavy fuel oil. So you're advocating the use of a lower distillate fuel. Is that correct. Precisely correct. There is no reason why ships cannot use marine gas oil, it is readily available on the market. And it complies with emissions control areas and sulfur fuel standards. It also reduces other air pollutants, like particulate matter, soot, and greenhouse gases. And, and it, yeah, it's readily available on the market all over the world. So the question coming in about LNG is an LNG, a cleaner fuel that could be used to replace heavy fuel. Fract gas will never be a climate solution. LNG as a marine fuel results in an up to an 80% increase in greenhouse gases as compared with marine gas oil, because it leaks. There are a lot of fugitive emissions, all the way from well to wake. And, and so it will not, it's not a climate solution. This is a myth that fracked gas will be a climate solution. Thank you. Question, asking for a resource for the LNG question. I know from press conference we did last year that Stan has produced a global report on the use of LNG fuels perhaps the link to that could be put in the chat for all the attendees. And I could move on to the other questions. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so link there. The cruise ships unload any of the polluted waste once they're in port in either the US or BC. Does anyone want to answer the court question. Yeah, so we know that in Port of Seattle through their voluntary agreement with the cruise industry that they look to support that kind of offload, where they can accept waste so that it doesn't even if you don't have treatment or treatment you can unload as part of the no discharge zone and part of the MOU. We don't know that any ports in Canada can receive that kind of waste we're not we're simply not, or we can't confirm that we're providing that option at the port level. Senator Sears is a, there's two questions here about the current processes and laws. So I will. Let me take this one first, which is our Canada has an ocean protection plan that was released with quite a lot of fanfare over the last couple of years, as well as many processes that include indigenous nations being consulted in the designing of current regulations and laws. No, I'm not that I'm aware of. We like I don't think there's been any recent changes to the acts. And so, until there is, I don't think they would talk to us. We certainly, you know, have been trying to work with the government, for instance on the marine protected area off of Vancouver Island, and trying to negotiate a joint decision making model so that we can have a say in what happens because even in these protected areas. There's a lot of things that can happen and I think Michael mentioned that they can dump the waste there as well. So there's a lot of work to be done. You know, and if, you know, the well Canada has agreed to implement under it and if they pass their bill C 15. Hopefully we can push them to be changing these kinds of laws. But DFO is one of the more difficult departments to work with I think in trying to achieve changes. Thank you. Then a follow up question on the processes. Fort Lewis manning president of the Chamber of Shipping asks there's considerable effort associated with marine conservation protection and restoration of BC coastal waters through federal and provincial and indigenous initiatives. Will stand out or begin to participate in these processes to provide both data and expertise. I attend whatever processes I'm invited to I've been to the Marine Council of Canada, and I email various ministers, all the time I am doing absolutely everything I can to deliver this data and this information, and I really haven't received many applications to come back or much response. And so that's, that's really what we're sort of looking for with this report is to see the response to what we've delivered and increase protections for the ocean. Follow up to that question. What can the everyday person do to ensure these laws are stricter. Stand Earth supporters received an email this morning or sometime today with a fun tool that makes it easy to email your representative your local MP and let them know about how ocean issues are concerning to you and that you would like to see stronger regulations. You can come on over to stand out earth or West Coast website where we've got ongoing reports and you can follow our campaigns. And if you are someone who takes cruises, as Dr says is asked you can ask these hard questions of your travel agent of the cruise companies and say, I chip in $4 for monitoring scheme. Why aren't we protecting the ocean. This is beautiful. We need to protect it. A question here with a lot of information, which we can forward to you and then a question specifically about the IMO the IML has recently reported that shipping is installed 4000 scrubber systems. The IMO sees this technology as a success story in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Have you considered these numbers and findings in your report and your response to the IMO. So we know that from report commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada, and that came out at the end of November that the use of scrubbers increases greenhouse gases when compared to marine gas oil and that was report authored by the International Council on Clean Transportation. And so scrubbers are what happens when we selectively deal with sulfur, and we ignore the other pollutants they are not something that is reducing greenhouse gases they are not a win for air pollution and they are manufacturing a water pollution. Thank you. Question from the Facebook live. Why is any of this waste allowed to be discharged if we care about the waters as being the home of the other life forms why is any pollution allowed at all, given the return of the orcas that speaks to the health of the waters right now. So why is the pollution being allowed to be discharged. Michael. Yeah, I mean, that's a good question. I mean, the point of our report is there are jurisdictions very close to us with the same ships flying through their waters, who have much, much stronger regulations who are limiting this pollution to a much higher level so. And in these jurisdictions, for example, if we talk about Alaska, and we talk about California and Washington they have, you know, very busy cruise ship seasons. It's clearly these higher regulations are compatible with with cruise ship still operating. So, yeah, it is a good question why we're allowing the pollution that we have. Our, our stance is we need to be regulating this at least to what our American counterparts are doing. So a follow up question coming through on what are the barriers to that. Why hasn't Canada updated its regulations. You know, I assume that they don't know, and that so when we kind of come here to engage and raise the issues on the West Coast, we act in good faith and say, you know, we're here. We can do this we have jurisdictions right next door that have thriving cruise industries and strong protections, and we don't need to choose between a cruise ship and the environment, we can regulate, and we can protect our ocean. Thank you. A follow up question, are there any cruise lines using electric power from Carla Wilson, your thoughts on electrification of shipping, Anna. I don't know of any ships that are 100% electric that would be coming along the West Coast. I know that in Vancouver, there is shore power installed I know that in Victoria, it is not yet installed so if you as a cruise ship at birth. They are potentially using a scrubber right next to where folks live, and while their passengers are exploring in the port. And, you know, that's absolutely something that we need to see investment from renewables and electrification of the cruise industry. That's why we ask for marine gas oil now it's readily available and renewables and electrification needs to come as the next step this is where we need to go to get where we need to be from a climate perspective. Can I add to that support. Yeah, there aren't enough large batteries for these huge ships, and we, there needs to be further development in order for there to be more electrification, you might do a small amount of electrification but there's still a lot of innovation that's going to be required. As Anna mentioned, putting in the shore infrastructure is very expensive. And we need to figure out how that can happen, and as well ensure that BC hydro has enough electricity to be powering that because it does take a lot of electricity to do this. So I, I, while I think it's on everybody's radar and there's developments going on that we still have a ways to go to be all electric, but it definitely is a good way to go for sure and I'm certainly supporting that. Thank you. I have a question coming in about what other, what about other vessel types we have so many vessels coming and going cargo curses seem like just a small number of vessels could someone speak to the other shipping vessels, and how the regulations impact them. Is that Michael or Anna. I can speak to that. Yeah. So we know that when it comes to scrubber wash water cruise ships were early adopters in 2017, more than three quarters more than 75% of the ships that came, or the ships that came to BC with scrubbers were cruise ships, and they had an even outsized impact 90% of the wash water that was dumped into BC off of BC's waters were from cruise ships and so you know three quarters was creating 90% of the way so they have an outsized impact. And when terms come when it comes to gray water and sewage cruise ships are a luxury travel experience and so they are creating far more dining experiences and their passengers are probably having a shower before, before dinner, or after they've come back from port as cargo ships that are carrying soybeans or chickpeas or whatever other product are not creating these waste streams in the same volume, and because they're not luxury travel experiences. I will note that cargo ships are quickly uptake, bringing in scrubbers into their fleet and so while cruise ships have been the problem with scrubbers, we expect that if transport Canada doesn't do something and new ports will become threatened with scrubber wastewater. So I'm going to follow up question on the Washington State issue. Michael, maybe you could clarify what the MOU does and doesn't apply to. Yeah, absolutely. So, just to clarify the, the no discharge zone for wastewater in Washington State for Puget Sound up to the Canadian border requires that no sewage whether it's treated or untreated be dumped in that area. And that's, that's an application for sewage and for gray water the MOU requires devices called ATQS's that are to treat that gray water if it's going to be issued in any of those areas. We don't have a similar high standard here in Canada for gray water. I see. Thank you. Just a question on jurisdiction. We've been talking here about the federal government is a question about what the BC government can do for its own coast. Yeah, absolutely. The BC government has been vocal in support of protecting coastal areas off British Columbia, and right now is committing to developing a coastal strategy to manage to better manage and work with federal governments and indigenous governments on coastal issues. The issue of regulating cruise ships is something that under the Constitution navigation and shipping is something that's a responsibility of the federal government subject to the rights and title of indigenous nations. However, you know, it would be great if the British, if British Columbia government was supportive of updating these regulations and if the government would work with the federal government to ensure that we do have consistent regulations with our neighboring jurisdictions in the United States. Thank you. One minute when we check the other platforms. It's a question about municipal municipalities. If you municipalities aren't treating their ways. What's the point of ships treating theirs. Yeah, one source of pollution does not make another all right. The ocean already has a high burden of nutrients and pathogens and pollutants and we need to be addressing all sources of them. I also note that there is legislation and a scheme to increase municipal treatment and so the days are numbered for communities for without municipal treatment, and there's no such movement to create that pressure on marine vessels and cruise ships and we need to really be bringing in stronger regulations and preventing this pollution to protect our oceans. Thank you. There are some comments in the q amp a I asked our panelists information from participants and asked our panelists just to take a look at those coming in they don't seem to be questions though. There is some scrubber issue. Does your report assume that all cruise ships are discharging scrubber wash water, or have you considered that some have systems that don't discharge in the volumes you've calculated. We know that even in closed loop scrubbers are so called closed loop scrubbers there is bleed off and there is sludge created. And so we know that there are other waste streams that are coming out and they're still discharges, even if they're using this word so called closed loop scrubbers. We know that there's discharge coming out from all of them. I think there's a number of areas that have been identified on the coast, the Great Great Rainforest and other areas that are significant for food source etc for indigenous nations and and and also treaty rights. Are those areas that have been identified off limits for dumping. I don't believe so. I think that I think this issue kind of remains unaddressed, and that there are many areas on surrounding Vancouver Island up the coast, where everyone is working towards keeping those waters more pristine and that's why you see, you know, the slave coast and squamish fighting against the TMX. So I think there's still needs to be a lot more security in protecting the marine resources for First Nations people, and I don't believe in the Great Bering Forest agreement that this is addressed I could be wrong but I don't think so. And I can you speak to the potential for ships dumping in the Great Bersie. Is that currently happening. Yeah, absolutely. And as they transit across the Great Bersie there are enormous donut holes in our regulations that you know, I believe if we were in Washington or Alaska jurisdiction they have specific bills or policies to cover areas. That are in between protections, whereas Canada does not and that absolutely is top priority to protect these incredible thriving areas that are important to First Nations that are important for an ocean economy and that are important for the ecosystem and species already threatened or at risk. Well, thank you very much everyone I know we went over time for a usual press conference but there were so many questions coming in. I thought we would just continue to take them and I see many reporters hung in there with us over this time it's a complicated question it's a new issue in some ways that's being raised in Canada right now. Yes, we have time and but time is running out at what point this, do we know when cruise ships will come back do is there a decision on that. Michael and we're waiting. The current crew stoppage in Canada, I believe expires February 28 of this year, and the minister has ample time to extend that, depending on a number of public health factors, and but no decision has been made so we're, we're cautiously waiting until that cruise companies are canceling their sailings in early spring. And we'll we'll just sort of wait and see which really creates urgency for these regulations, because we don't, we don't it's not really up to us right now, whether our coast is protected or not and we need to change that. So in terms of jurisdiction, we need to take protection seriously we need to take ocean seriously at work with First Nations, and bring in stronger regulations so that we're not dealing with these issues. And what happens now will this report then be delivered to members of parliament and and and MLAs in order to provide the information. Absolutely. And we have delivered the report directly to the ministers in the federal government digitally because of coven, and we're waiting for their response and to meet with them we've asked to, we've asked our supporters to help us with that delivery. And by letting their local representatives know that this is an area of concern that these issues are preventable, and that we have options, and we'll move forward from there. Thank you. As we wind up any final words from our panelists, Michael. No, I just want to thank everyone for taking the time today I think it's great to see interest in this issue that's often been overlooked on our coast and I hope that this is the beginning of no longer overlooking the impacts of cruise ships on our coast. Thank you Michael. Dr stairs. I just like to add that you know it doesn't make sense to protect half the sailor see that you know whatever is happening in Canadian waters is going to flow to the Washington waters and it has to be more of an international meeting. You know, it reminds me of that principle and the channel that he should just walk everything is connected everything is one, you know what's happening in the oceans is going to affect us eventually. So we need to have the vision to protect all of the ocean waters and starting at home and then moving out I still think that's important to do and the cruise ship industry is one and you're right there other vessels out there but we need to have a small bite and and then go bigger. So, thank you all for listening today. Thank you very much and I do want to know what there were some further and deeper questions about the IMO and scrubbers in the Q&A. And we also have with us today the director of our shipping program Kendra Ilrich, who has replied to them in the chat function. So please take a look at the chat function for those answers you can also follow up with any of our panelists you can reach out to them by sending an email to can see and media at stand dot earth and we'll direct you from there to follow the campaign and and hear about the responses from our elected decision makers. Please head over to stand dot earth navigate to the Canadian shipping page, or find stand dot earth on Twitter. For those who may have missed the beginning we encourage everyone to find out who's territory you are on native dash land dot CA will give you the information that you need. Thank you all so much for joining us. Thank you very much to all of our panelists and for this tremendous research and everyone. Stay safe.