When is a moratorium not a moratorium?
June 2nd’s Times Colonist broke the news that Enbridge claims both the federal and BC government have assured them that “there is no legislated moratorium on oil tankers entering BC ports.”
Enbridge hopes to gain permits to run a pipeline for bitumen from the tar sands to the port of Kitimat, and from there, to tanker traffic to China. The over-land pipeline route through pristine wilderness of northern BC is opposed by every First Nation along the route, as well as by environmental groups, the federal NDP and, of course, the Green Party.
The moratorium against oil and gas exploration and development and tanker traffic along BC’s coastline has been in place since 1972.
I was in the House today and at Question Period. Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis referred to the moratorium issue, saying that there was a moratorium against oil and gas development offshore BC, and a “voluntary moratorium against oil tanker traffic.”
What on earth is a “voluntary moratorium?” Clearly, the oil tankers are not staying away voluntarily. For nearly the last 40 years, the BC coastline has been protected by a government enforced policy that barred access to the BC coast by tankers. The moratorium was a matter of policy and not legislated, but that hardly makes it “voluntary.”
While Paradis repeated his stock answer to Jack Layton (and thanks to Jack for raising this), John Baird, Minister of Transport heckled loudly across the space “How many cars on Vancouver Island run on gas?” Yuck yuck, said his grin. “How you going to get a plane to BC with no gas?”
The government’s position was clearer in Baird’s heckling than in Paradis’ parsing of language.
So as the oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico, the only thing protecting the BC coastline is an engaged and informed citizenry. We need a law.
- Elizabeth May's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Français
Blogs are personal opinions, and may not reflect the position of the Green Party of Canada. For official party policy please visit the policy and press release sections.
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson | 09-Feb-2012
- Rick Shea | 09-Feb-2012
- Bram Kivenko | 09-Feb-2012
- Rick Shea | 09-Feb-2012
- David Barclay | 09-Feb-2012
- 1 of 2171
- ››





Comments
Canada is on the front line
Canada is on the front line in terms of the fight for environmental protection, having enormous regions of untouched wilderness at risk. We have a huge battle on our hands with Big Oil and their compatriots in government - here and in the States. There is no one in government with the power to fight this steady drive to sell our oil to the world - environmental risks be damned. A voluntary moratorium is a joke. BTW was that the parliamentarian of the year you quoted? Another joke.
The chinese are to blame.
We can reduce oil imports and exports all we want, but until we are ready to tax imported goods and even services based on the dirtiness of their provision, there will be only stunted progress.
Only when it becomes no cheaper for a company to import a dirty product from China, will we be able to take control of this problem. This may run afoul of WTO rules, but so be it. We need to adopt a strategy that Canadians will get behind.
"legislated" moratorium.
It is my understanding the moratorium is an order in council, and can be rescinded at any time in full or in part. Currently, tankers over 40,000 tons carrying chemicals or oil cannot legally use the inside passage. It is under transport Canada's authority.
I don't see them removing it entirely, but it is likely that certain companies will be given permits for crude as well as natural gas.
The same holds true in the US. The president has authority over off shore drilling and can remove or expand moratoriums independently of congress. Although, it only really every changed with agreement of the states themselves.