Report of the Public Review Panel on the Government of Canada Moratorium on Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Queen Charlotte Region British Columbia Prepared for the Minister of Natural Resources Canada 29 October 2004 National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Report of the Public Review Panel on the Government of Canada Moratorium on Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Queen Charlotte Region British Columbia Catalogue No. M4-13/2004E ISBN 0-662-38469-5 Issued by Natural Resources Canada Issued in French under title: Rapport du Comité d’examen public relativement au moratoire du gouvernement du Canada visant les activités pétrolières et gazières extracôtières dans la région de la Reine-Charlotte, en Colombie-Britannique © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2004 Panel: Roland Priddle, Chair Don Scott, Member Diana Valiela, Member Panel Support: Scott Gedak Kate Glover Ron Broadhead Deborah Imhoff Rachel Kowbell Lesley Taylor Marly Wietzke The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Public Review Panel to provide advice to the Minister of Natural Resources Canada. They are not necessarily the opinion or policy of Natural Resources Canada. 29 October 2004 The Honourable R. John Efford Minister of Natural Resources Canada 580 Booth Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0E4 Review of the British Columbia Offshore Oil and Gas Moratorium Phase 2, Public Hearings The Public Review Panel is pleased to submit the attached report pursuant to the Terms of Reference given to the Panel by Natural Resources Canada. The Public Review Panel, Roland Priddle Don Scott Diana Valiela Chair Member Member ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The Public Review Panel (the Panel) was established to hold public hearings to obtain the views of British Columbians on matters relevant to the federal moratorium on oil and gas activities, focusing on the Queen Charlotte Region (QCR). The Panel’s public process took place between January and August 2004. The Panel’s Terms of Reference (ToR) require it to submit a report to the Minister of Natural Resources Canada, which is to outline the work carried out, summarize the views of participants, provide the Panel’s evaluation of those views and present its conclusions and recommendations. THE WORK CARRIED OUT Section 1 describes how, starting in January 2004, the Panel held planning meetings in communities most likely to be affected, to provide information on the Panel’s process and to receive input to it. The public process consisted of oral presentations at hearings in ten different locations and written submissions from all of B.C. Oral presentations and written submissions were given equal weight. In indicating relative support for views and issues, the Panel conducted a “head count”. Each of the following was considered a single submission: an oral presentation; a written submission including emails; a letter; and each signature on a ballot, petition or letter. Where a participant contributed through more than one submission, these were collectively considered a single submission. The Panel concluded the public phase of its work in August 2004 by receiving written comments on the information previously submitted. THE VIEWS SUMMARIZED Section 2 gives an impression of the views of British Columbians who took part in the Panel’s process, although the only definitive record is the 22 volumes of hearing transcripts and 13 volumes of written submissions. Overall, 75% of all participants wish to keep the moratorium and 23% wish to lift it. The data are broken down by each of three geographical areas of B.C., namely the QCR, other coastal areas (essentially central and southern Vancouver Island including Victoria and the mainland south coast including Vancouver), and other communities in B.C. (essentially all of non-coastal B.C.). Table 2-1 displays the views of all participants. Table 2-2 shows the breakdown between individuals and participants other than individuals. Table 2-3 shows the positions of four groups, namely First Nations, environmental groups, local governments and business interests. There are differences in views as between individuals and among groups by geographical areas. Narrative summaries, necessarily selective, are provided of views heard at each hearing location and of written submissions by each of the three geographical areas. A majority of participants focused on matters of particular concern to them and the major issues raised, for example environmental effects and First Nations matters, are summarized from presentations and submissions under twelve headings in Section 3. ii Report of the Public Review Panel THE VIEWS EVALUATED Section 4 evaluates the views first in general terms; second, in relation to considerations consistent with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); and third, in relation to seven considerations consistent with the principles of Canada’s Oceans Strategy, in both cases as set out in the Panel’s ToR. CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED The Panel concludes in Section 5 that the strongly held and vigorously polarized views it received do not provide a ready basis for any kind of public policy compromise at this time in regard to keeping or lifting the moratorium. It formed the impression that there had been little recent dialogue among stakeholders and that increasing this dialogue could be helpful. The need to address First Nations interests and concerns was the major area of near consensus. Ecosystem protection was a widely shared priority, but there is fundamental disagreement on how it could best be achieved: by keeping the moratorium, or by lifting it and relying on a modern regulatory regime. There was near consensus among participants that there are significant information gaps regarding biophysical data and environmental and socio-economic impacts information for the QCR, were oil and gas activities to proceed. However, participants wishing to keep the moratorium consider it unsafe to lift the moratorium prior to filling those gaps, while participants wishing to lift the moratorium are of the view that the only way to fill those gaps is to lift the moratorium. Information gathering and consensus building activities would serve to reduce areas of disagreement. RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel in Section 6 sets out for the Government of Canada’s consideration options ranging from: keeping the moratorium (Option 1), which would be supported by 75% of those who took part in its process; to keeping the moratorium or deferring the decision on it while undertaking a suite of activities and taking a decision at a future time (Option 2); to lifting the moratorium and undertaking a suite of activities prior to accepting any oil and gas activity applications (Option 3); and to lifting the moratorium (Option 4) which would be supported by 23% of participants. The Panel had not specifically asked participants for views on Options 2 and 3, where the issues in regard to doing further work include: the activities to be pursued; the parties to be involved; and the process for that involvement. In addition to considering these options, the Panel considers that any further studies related to the moratorium should give particular attention to the following matters: environmental effects; fisheries; information issues; technology; hydrocarbon resources; regulatory regime; protected areas; alternative energy sources; the Kyoto Protocol; cultural values; and social and economic impacts. The need to address First Nations concerns is of central importance. Report of the Public Review Panel iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Acknowledgements ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Overview.................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Background................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Public Review Panel Process ................................................................... 2 1.5 Concerns about the Public Hearings (Phase 2) of the Public Review of the Moratorium................................................. 7 2. Views of British Columbians ................................................................. 8 2.1 Overall Summary of Views....................................................................... 8 2.2 Queen Charlotte Region ......................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Queen Charlotte City Hearing ................................................... 11 2.2.2 Village of Masset Hearing ......................................................... 14 2.2.3 Prince Rupert Hearing ............................................................... 17 2.2.4 Kitkatla Hearing ......................................................................... 22 2.2.5 Kitimat Hearing .......................................................................... 24 2.2.6 Bella Coola Hearing................................................................... 27 2.2.7 Alert Bay Hearing ...................................................................... 30 2.2.8 Port Hardy Hearing .................................................................... 32 2.2.9 Written Submissions From the QCR......................................... 38 2.2.10 Oil and Gas Interest Owners ..................................................... 40 2.3 Other Coastal Areas ...............................................................................