David Suzuki
We Canadians love the wilderness. Whether we’re talking to visitors here or people we meet in our travels, our conversations almost always end up about our great outdoors and pristine natural spaces. Caring about the environment is one of the ways we define ourselves.
But how good are we at protecting what’s at the core of our identity?
Despite national parks that act as natural wildlife reserves, and bold policies adopted by some of our most progressive provinces to combat climate change, the fact remains that our environmental regulatory system is being downgraded by a federal government that gives some industrial interests priority over the environment and the overall long-term economy that depends on it.
This is especially dangerous when it comes to preserving ecosystems that rely on strong policies and regulations to thrive. For example, Canada has the longest coastline of any nation but only protects one per cent of its ocean and marine environments—well under the 10 percent recommended by the Convention on Biological Diversity of the United Nations.
Proposed regulatory changes make it look like the environment is not a priority. The federal government recently signaled its intention to gut the Fisheries Act by stripping down habitat protection provisions, and it plans to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) in a way that would make it easier for mining and oil companies, for example, to jump through regulatory hoops and get projects up and running faster than the time required to evaluate all their impacts on nature.
These legislative changes could have serious repercussions for the health of marine environments, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Oil and gas reserves there have industry and governments eyeing the economic opportunities. Softening environmental laws could have a direct impact on the Gulf’s health and future by allowing the oil industry access to this fragile and complex ecosystem.
I had the chance to visit the Magdalen Islands, in the heart of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in spring 2011 with my friend George Stroumboulopoulos. We were filming a web segment to raise awareness of the Gulf’s importance and the risks associated with oil and gas drilling. The natural beauty there so inspired me that I wrote “The Declaration of the Defenders of the Gulf.” It says, among other things, “Now, exploding human numbers, technological power, consumptive demand, and the global economy are putting the Gulf under multiple stresses. We understand that our economic and social well-being depend on a healthy Gulf ecosystem.”
It’s a call to slow down and consider the values of nature and the importance of the area to the people who have lived there for generations and, indeed, to all of us. Now is the time to defend one of the planet’s most precious and unique ecosystems from industrial development.
There’s been a lot of buzz around possible oil and gas development in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, including a proposal to drill in the Old Harry area. The stakes are high. According to the Quebec government, the Old Harry prospect alone is twice the size of the Hibernia oil field, with about two billion barrels of oil and up to five trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
We must reflect on the long-term impacts of industrial development—from an environmental perspective and in consideration of the communities that have depended on the Gulf’s bountiful resources for thousands of years. The David Suzuki Foundation and its friends and partners are committed to raising awareness about the consequences of today’s choices on the people of tomorrow.
Scientists say we need to know more about the Gulf’s ecosystems and the complex relationships people have developed with them over millennia. That’s why we must invest in science-based research and strengthen our knowledge before doing anything that could jeopardize the health of the Gulf’s ecosystems. The Fisheries Act and the CEAA are based on sound scientific information. It is of utmost importance that any changes to these laws be informed by the same scientific knowledge.
The Gulf of St. Lawrence and all of Canada’s marine ecosystems are invaluable to us all. We need to keep strong laws to ensure we protect these places that give us so much and help define us as Canadians.
——–
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Sustainable Fisheries Analyst Scott Wallace.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
I fully agree with David Suzuki. And doing a Web search shows that there are plenty of online articles about the Old Harry area prospect for oil and gas, and also indicates that this definitely isn’t a new topic. To see the location with Google Maps, search using “Old Harry” and Quebec for search terms, for while Wikipedia says this archipelago is closer to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scota, the islands are part of the province of Quebec.
Old Harry is part of the Magdalen Islands archipelago between Anticosti Island, Quebec, and Newfoundland, a little north of Prince Edward Island and a little northwest of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. In other words, this group of is right in the middle of the Gulf. (It’s nice to have the zoom-in and -out feature of Google Maps.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_Islands
Actually, the exact area where exploration has been agreed to apparently isn’t part of the Magdalen Islands, though Old Harry is on the end closest to the agreed area, according to the Google map and the map in the following article.
“Quebec strikes oil deal in Gulf of St. Lawrence
Deal could fuel dispute with N.L. over deposit that straddles subsea boundary”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/03/24/nl-old-harry-324.html
David Suzuki is very right about the beauty of the Magdalen Islands, and the Gulf is considerably rich in or with sea life, so it’s an area that environmentally should be very preserved. And there already is far too much toxic pollution in the St. Lawrence River, the freshwater part of it anyway.
The following page, link obtained from the Wikipedia page, shows some good pictures of the beautiful environment, and the Discover the Archipelago menu provides more pictures, plus videos.
http://www.tourismeilesdelamadeleine.com/magdalen-islands/atrim-ang-696-home.cfm
The Gulf should be highly or extremely protected, but the federal government and the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland are favouring money at a risk of damaging the extremely important Gulf.
I have read a little over the past several years about the possibility that the Gulf would be used for setting up a considerable number of wind mills or turbines for generating electricity, but don’t know how far this has been explored. It’s always concerned me a little, due to fearing many birds would likely be killed flying into these mills, but I imagine that there would be a way to make these safe for birds.
A local bus driver told me a couple of months ago that the city of Sherbrooke, Quebec, was going to buy and use electric buses for municipal transit and that the plan was to buy more over a certain number of years. If recalling correctly, he said all of the city’s buses for public transportation are supposed to be electric by 2020, or maybe it’s 2030; something like that anyway. If this works well, then perhaps all cities with public transportation services by bus could come to use only electric buses and maybe this could work for the long distance buses. Also, if it works well for buses, then why not make motor vehicles people own also run on electricity?
Many residences and possibly also businesses, government facilities, … not only have electricity-based lighting, stoves/ovens, …, but also heat using electricity. And from what I’ve heard, Quebec sells a lot of electricity to some states of the USA.
So what’s the supposedly good argument for risking serious destruction to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for oil and natural gas exploitation? Business without sense?