Back
Public Input Results: 75% of Canadians and 100% of First Nations Want
Offshore Oil Moratorium Maintained
WCWC calls for Legislated Ban in the place of the Moratorium
[Friday, Nov. 19, 2004] Today, the report from the federal government's Offshore Oil and Gas
Public Review Panel, headed by Roland Priddle, was released. Of the 3700
oral (BC coastal communities) and written (Canada-wide) submissions
during the public commentary period last spring, the report shows a
strong majority of citizens wanting the moratorium to be maintained.
"This even beats the environmental movement's own online tally of the
public input results, where we previously counted over 60% of
submissions being in favour of maintaining the moratorium. In fact,
according to the report, it's actually 75% of the people who want the
moratorium maintained!" says a jubilant Ken Wu of the Western Canada
Wilderness Committee. "Only a measly 23% of the people want it lifted."
In addition, results from the federal government's BC coastal First
Nation's engagement process on Offshore Oil and Gas shows that of over
70 First Nations communities who gave their input, 100% are in favour of
maintaining the moratorium.
Last week, the Wilderness Committee launched a campaign to build
nation-wide support to protect wild BC's Pacific Coast from oil and gas
development, including a new petition that can be signed online at
www.bcoilslick.org.
"We believe that federal Liberal government is obligated to listen to
the results of their own public input process. In particular this
includes John Efford, Minister of Natural Resources, Stephane Dion,
Minister of Environment, David Emerson, Minister of Industry, and of
course, Prime Minister Paul Martin," says Wu. "Now, they should enact a
legislated ban on offshore oil and gas development in BC."
The panel recommends four options to government, including:
- maintain the moratorium, with the possibility of a legislated ban
- maintain the moratorium and fill the knowledge gaps
- lift the moratorium, issue no exploration permits, fill the knowledge
gaps
- lift the moratorium
The WCWC believes in the first option of a legislated ban, since a
moratorium assumes that there could be the possibility of oil and gas
drilling in the future. We believe inherent in coastal oil and gas
development are unavoidable and unacceptable destructive consequences to
the environment that occur regardless of the technologies and filling-in
of knowledge gaps, including:
- Seismic testing, which injures fish and invertebrates, deafens whales,
and drives fish and whales vast distances away from their feeding areas
and migration routes. It could seriously impact the commercial and sport
fishing industries and could also harm the whale-watching industry.
- Daily chronic pollution, through the discharge of toxic drill
cuttings, muds and fluids, and toxic "produced waters", that are the
inevitable by-products of oil and gas drilling.
- Contributing to global warming. Coastal oil and gas drilling would
contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and will contravene
Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Accord
Despite inflated claims by the BC government that unemployed fishermen
and loggers in coastal BC communities will be offered a goldmine of
offshore oil jobs, in reality few direct jobs would be created for
coastal communities. Foreign work crews with the necessary specialized
skills would be brought in from around the world, as happens in oil rigs
world over. NAFTA forbids laws that give local residents first dibs in
employment. In addition, oil rigs would be constructed where labour is
cheapest and where facilities exist, likely in South Korea or China.
The Royal Society of Canada's Science Panel recommendations commissioned
by the federal government last year states that numerous science gaps
exist in our knowledge of the environmental impacts of coastal oil and
gas development and of the Pacific marine ecosystem, and that an
adequate regulatory regime must be in place before the moratorium could
be lifted. Considering the drive of both the provincial and federal
government's towards environmental deregulation, such a regulatory
regime is highly unlikely.
|
|
