Province seeking public input on plan for region
By Shaun Polczer
The Alberta government is looking for public input as it moves to come up with a land-use policy for the Lower Athabasca watershed that could see a fifth of the area set aside for conservation.
Speaking at a news conference from Edmonton on Thursday, Sustainable Resource Minister Mel Knight said the province will solicit the views of people across the province during September with an eye to balancing environmental protection and economic growth in an area that is becoming increasingly important to the government’s bottom line.
Treasury documents released Wednesday indicate that the oilsands are the largest contributor to provincial coffers and are expected to generate some $3.5 billion in royalties during the current fiscal year.
Recognizing that the oilsands are a primary industry for the region, Knight said the terms of reference of the “vision document” will consider options for addressing industry growth while also looking to increase conservation areas and enhance recreation and tourism.
“These plans that we’re going to put in place, and the land use framework itself, is not about stopping development or industry in the province of Alberta,” he said.
Knight said Thursday’s announcement is the culmination of 18 months of discussion and more than 100 stakeholder submissions. The regional advisory council’s 17 members included representatives from agriculture, municipalities, environmental interests, energy, forestry, First Nations and Metis, he added.
In addition to a web page containing feedback forms, consultations will be held in local communities as well as in Edmonton and Calgary.
The province is keen to avoid the kind of free-for-all environment that prevailed during the last oilsands boom, when the blistering pace of development outstripped the government’s capacity to build critical infrastructure like roads and provide essential services like health care and education.
Critics on both sides of the issue said the province will be forced to walk an increasingly tight rope trying to balance the needs of industry and local residents.
Don Thompson, the head of the Fort McMurray-based Oilsands Developers Group, said he is in favour of setting land aside for conservation as long as the rights of the original leaseholders are preserved.
Thompson suggested that as much as 40 per cent of northeastern Alberta could be off limits to oilsands development after factoring in land set aside for Wood Buffalo National Park. “I have no problem with them doing that as long as they honour their commitments to the original leaseholders,” he said.
Greenpeace activist Mike Hudema, who along with other members have been arrested at protests at oilsands sites, called Thursday’s announcement “completely absurd” and “more hot air from the government’s PR machine.”
Dustin Johnson, a campaigner with the Sierra Club’s prairie chapter accused the government in an e-mail of trying to “justify a business as usual path in the interests of tarsands.”
In response to reporters’ questions, Knight admitted that land designated for conservation doesn’t necessarily mean it’s free from development. He said development in protected places such as Jasper and Banff is allowed if it meets the appropriate regulations.
“There are different levels of conservation … there always has been and there always will be.”
But Liberal environment critic Laurie Blakeman blasted the province for what she said is a double standard that promises a return to laissez-faire development policies. All Albertans have a stake in reaping the benefits that come from oilsands development in the Fort McMurray region and ultimately pay the costs associated with runaway growth in the form of higher taxes and higher prices from inflation.
“We don’t want a sliding scale of conservation,” she said. “Rather than taking a focus of managing development, this seems to be taking a line of accelerating development. I am by no means saying shut it down but I’m not saying full steam ahead either. Is that what Albertans want? I think the answer is no.”
