Speeding up Northern Gateway review risks ‘battle’
By Max Paris, CBC News, April 30, 2012
B.C. First Nations are reacting with anger to the government's decision to retroactively shorten the regulatory review for the Northern Gateway pipeline project in British Columbia.
"This incredibly stupid move on the part of the Harper government will only serve to expedite the battle in the courtrooms and on the land itself," said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. He described the situation between B.C. aboriginals and the federal and provincial governments as "volatile."
This "pipeline is going to traverse the territories of literally dozens and dozens of First Nations. And all of them have said very clearly that they do not support the Northern Gateway project and that they will do everything that they can to stop this project," added Phillip.
In Thursday's budget, the government announced a streamlining of environmental assessments so that major projects receive only one review lasting no longer than 24 months. The new, shortened deadlines would be applied retroactively to projects that are already being reviewed.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty confirmed this includes Northern Gateway, which is before a Joint Review Panel (JRP) of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Under the new rules, a review panel would have to be finished within 24 months.
That could mean the Northern Gateway review would have to wrap up in May of this year. That is a full year-and-a-half before it was scheduled to end.
"What it does is it completely eclipses any hope or opportunity for reconciliation," said Phillip.
Enbridge, the company proposing to build Northern Gateway, would be happy if the remaining 18 months in the JRP process were cut in half.
"There is demand for both gas and oil in the far east. The clock is ticking, though, quite clearly. So I think there's a need for the country to move forward here and to make best use of these opportunities while they exist," argues Enbridge spokesman, Paul Stanway.
Once the law is passed, the government will begin a transition process that will decide how best to speed up each individual review that is already underway.
"We have to see what makes sense in terms of specific projects so we don't undermine the ability of the regulator to complete the regulatory review in a comprehensive way," Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told CBC News.
On CBC-TV's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon, Oliver also hinted that only certain people and groups would be allowed to speak at future reviews.
"We want to allow everyone who has a direct interest in a particular project to have the time. What we don't need, frankly, is thousands of people belonging to the same organization coming and repeating the same packaged presentation."
The opposition claims the government's plan will erode the public's confidence in the project's safety.
"We have one pipeline incident in Canada per week. Once a week there is an incident somewhere on our pipeline system. We need to take those kinds of issues into account, especially when this pipeline is going through people's backyards," said Megan Leslie, the NDP's environment critic.
Budget’s new rules unfairly target environmental groups
The Globe and Mail, April 30, 2012
The Conservatives are continuing their dishonourable attack meant to intimidate environmental groups, in a budget item that stands out for adding a needless new cost.
Non-profit groups will be required to “provide more information on their political activities, including the extent to which these are funded by foreign sources,” budget documents say. And somehow the government has found $8-million, at a time of restraint, for the Canada Revenue Agency to spend on “education and compliance,” $3-million of which is for extra audits to ensure the existing 10-per-cent rule is maintained (no more than 10 per cent of funds can be spent on advocacy). Witch-hunts don’t come cheap.
Foreign sources? It’s not illegal for Canadian charities to take money from outside the country. And why should it be? If a Canadian cancer researcher, or a program to keep inner-city youth in school, receives money from a foreign foundation, is anything wrong with that? Why, then, is it wrong for an environmental group?
We live in a globalized world – the phrase is nearly as ubiquitous as what it represents. The Canadian government is only too happy to solicit foreign capital, foreign students (it has special scholarships for them), foreign culture, foreign labour. But foreign charitable donations for advocacy? Why, they’re a threat to the Canadian way of life!
The real target is obvious – environmental groups, especially those opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed to run from Alberta through British Columbia, to take oil-sands bitumen to ocean tankers for delivery to Asia. In January, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver issued a public letter – diatribe, more like – denouncing “environmental and other radical groups” who “hijack” regulatory bodies and “use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.”
Environmentalists have every right to seek out foreign donations, just as foreign oil companies have every right to make their views known on the perceived benefits of the Gateway pipeline. The pipeline may turn out to have great benefits for Canada, but the environmental risks need to be discussed, and the federal government ought to respect the rights of Canadian charities to raise money abroad and express, in a non-partisan way, their concerns. Who is the hijacker here?
Oliver defends limiting participation to environmental review hearings
Vancouver Province, April 23, 2012
OTTAWA — Environmental groups that don't have particular expertise to offer, and ordinary citizens concerned about projects like the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline but who don't live or work near the project, shouldn't be able to participate in environmental review hearings, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Wednesday.
Oliver was defending his government's plan unveiled a day earlier to "strengthen environmental protection" by limiting participation only to members of the public who are "directly affected" by major projects.
"We don't see the need" to allow testimony from Canadians outside the project areas, or from environmental groups without specific expertise, Oliver said in an interview.
Oliver also defended the government's announcement Tuesday that it will let the federal cabinet overrule the Calgary-based National Energy Board, a quasi-independent agency created by John Diefenbaker in 1959, on major projects considered to be in the "national interest" by Ottawa.
"The rationale is that for large projects that can have a national or regional impact of significance, both environment and economic, we believe the ultimate decision should be in the hands of elected officials and not appointed officials because ultimately through Parliament elected officials are responsible to the people."
Oliver said the government isn't undermining the integrity of the hearing process and suggested that a cabinet override of an NEB decision on Northern Gateway wouldn't necessarily be easy.
"Now you know, if one goes against a decision you have to consider the public's reaction to that of course."
Neither initiative was mentioned in Oliver's speech and his news release Tuesday, though they were cited in publicly-available background documents. Oliver said Wednesday his government wasn't trying to hide its plan to clip the NEB's wings as the final authority on major projects.
"Look, the whole legislative package is a complicated one and we wanted to emphasize the job creation aspect of it. We didn't highlight (the cabinet override) but we certainly didn't hide it."
The joint NEB-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency process that began in January has involved testimony primarily from aboriginal Canadians in B.C. and Alberta living near Enbridge Inc.'s proposed pipeline route from the Edmonton area to Kitimat, B.C. on the West Coast.
However, the NEB has also heard from groups like the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union.
And during a four-month period starting in November the NEB had scheduled hearings for registered participants from cities outside the project area, including Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna and Port Hardy.
Green party leader Elizabeth May said the CEAA's "cornerstone" is public participation, yet the government's efforts are intended to severely limit that input.
"Many projects with significant environmental impacts may be located in remote locations," May said.
"Canadians are entitled to be concerned about fragile ecosystems in the Arctic or significant new sources of new pollution, even if they do not live in the immediate vicinity.
"Imagine if the government of Brazil said people living in Rio de Janeiro had no business expressing concern about the destruction of the Amazon. This provision will make Canada a global laughing stock."
The government's actions on limiting the NEB's authority show that a thumbs-up decision for Northern Gateway is a "forgone conclusion," May added.
Since the NEB is known for almost always approving industry proposals, May speculated that the Harper government's main motivation is to send an assuring signal to Northern Gateway's Chinese investors that the project will proceed.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper "did commit quite forcefully in Beijing that the project would go through. This is likely just to drive the point home," May said.
The government announced sweeping measures Tuesday that will shorten the time frame for environmental reviews of natural resource projects.
Among the initiatives is a proposition that Ottawa will accept decisions from provincial governments that run their own project reviews. Ottawa will even give provinces the right to grant companies project authorizations under the federal Fisheries Act.
The government is also expected to water down the Fisheries Act to severely weaken provisions protecting fisheries habitat. The act is viewed by environmentalists as the federal government's top legislative weapon to protect the environment.
Oliver pointed out that cabinet already has the ability to override decisions from other federal bodies like the CEAA. He added that the U.S. government also has final authority over major project approvals.
"We're not telling the NEB what to say, we're not influencing their decision. They will come their decision independently, objectively, based on science. Then we will draw conclusions from it.
Oliver, who acknowledged that the NEB has only rarely turned down industry applications, added that cabinet won't be able to ignore conditions imposed on Enbridge by the NEB-CEAA panel, though it can ask the panelists to reconsider their recommendations.
"We're not undermining the integrity of the process."
Oliver said the government won't set strict rules on who can or can't participate in hearings, but said there's no need for people "who don't physically live or work near the pipeline" or who "have no particular expertise" to be allowed time to testify.
Oliver, who in January denounced "radical" environmental groups that oppose Canadian resource projects, expressed satisfaction that one such green group — ForestEthics — is splitting into two entities in response to federal pressure.
One will become a non-charitable advocacy group dedicated to opposing government policies that impact the environment. A second, devoted to projects such as ecosystem-based logging, will seek to retain charitable status and therefore hang on to the tax benefits that come from that status.
"I guess we have accomplished something, which is compliance with the law," Oliver said.
Groups with charitable status are only allowed to spend up to 10 per cent of their resources on advocacy work, and those efforts must not be partisan.
Tories shouldn’t try to silence eco-dissent
Vancouver Province, April 23, 2012
The federal government badly needs to rethink its proposed retooling of Canada's environmental review process.
While there's nothing wrong with improving the efficiency of the reviews, which at the moment are notorious for being unnecessarily lengthy, expensive, disproportionate and at times redundant, the Tory initiatives go too far.
The plan to download nearly all eco-oversight to the provinces risks leading to a patchwork of decisions and a weakening of national standards for environmental protection.
And Environment Minister Joe Oliver's comments Wednesday that the Conservatives plan to block participation in the reviews by "environmental groups without specific expertise" or Canadian citizens who don't live near projects is undemocratic. The government should not ever limit who can participate in important policy debates, especially when it's done to, as in this case, silence political dissent. That is the beginnings of totalitarianism.
Take the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline: people in the Lower Mainland may not live near its route, but it affects the B.C. Coast, which most of us cherish. Everyone must have a reasonable right to express their views.
Ottawa elbows regulators in quest for final word on pipeline approvals
By SHAWN McCARTHY, Globe and Mail, April 23, 2012
The federal government is asserting its control over pipelines – including the proposed Northern Gateway oil-sands project – taking from regulators the final word on approvals and limiting the ability of opponents to intervene in environmental assessments.
In proposed legislation unveiled by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver on Tuesday, the Harper government will clear away regulatory hurdles to the rapid development of Canada’s natural resource bounty.
Ottawa is aiming to reduce the number of projects that undergo federal environmental assessment by exempting smaller developments completely and by handing over many large ones to the provinces. It will also bring in new measures to prevent project opponents from delaying the assessment process by flooding hearings with individuals who face no direct impacts but want to speak against the development.
At a Toronto press conference, Mr. Oliver said the proposed changes are aimed at providing quicker reviews in order to reduce regulatory uncertainty and thereby create more jobs and investment in Canada’s booming resource sector.
“We are at a critical juncture because the global economy is now presenting Canada with an historic opportunity to take full advantage of our immense resources,” he said. “But we must seize the moment. These opportunities won’t last forever.”
Resource-rich western provinces greeted the proposed changes warmly, saying they are eager to take over environmental assessments. Mr. Oliver said Ottawa will only transfer authority for project reviews to provinces that have similar standards as the federal government.
Provinces in central and Atlantic Canada were more cautious, wanting to know more details before drawing conclusions.
Environmental groups and some aboriginal leaders said the government is sacrificing environmental protection for development, and is intent on railroading all opposition to its vision of rapid development of oil sands and other resources.
A key flash point is the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry oil-sands bitumen to the British Columbia coast for export to Asia by supertanker. The Harper government has insisted that it is a national priority to expand pipeline access for energy producers to access fast-growing Asian markets.
Mr. Oliver confirmed that the Northern Gateway project would fall under the new legislation which, according to federal background documents, would move the final decision on pipeline projects from the National Energy Board to the federal cabinet.
Under current rules, the board can reject an application that is deemed to have unacceptable environmental impacts, though it rarely has done so. Under new legislation, the cabinet has the final say, on advice from the regulatory board.
In addition to Enbridge Inc.’s Gateway project, Kinder Morgan Inc. is proposing an expansion of its TransMountain pipeline to bring 800,000 barrels per day of crude from Alberta to Vancouver harbour.
First nations communities in B.C. have vowed to challenge any federal approval of the Gateway project in the courts, arguing that Ottawa failed to properly consult them and had prejudged the review process by indicating its determination to proceed.
“We’ve always hoped that the panel was blessed with integrity but we haven’t had a lot of evidence of that,” said Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations group, which represents nine Indian nations in B.C.
As part of the legislative package, the government says it will improve its consultations with first nations by integrating them into the new environmental assessment act; providing more funding to help the communities participate, and working with the provinces to reduce duplicative efforts.
Mr. Sterritt said those goals sound worthwhile, but are being undermined by budget cuts in key departments like Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada, and by the government’s insistence that, at the end of the day, first nations have no veto over projects.
In its regulatory overhaul, Ottawa also intends to impose strict timelines for environmental assessments – two years for a panel like the one now reviewing the Gateway application.
The new rules will apply to the Northern Gateway pipeline project, and will likely result in a truncated hearings schedule, though the government has yet to spell out precisely how it will proceed with existing reviews. Officials could not rule out the possibility that people who are currently scheduled to appear before the review panel would be eliminated from the process under the new regulations.
After railing for months against radical environmentalists bent on blocking resource development, the minister signalled Tuesday that the government will cut environmentalists out of the assessment process unless they can prove that they would be directly affected by the project or have specific expertise needed by the panel.
Simon Dyer, policy director at Calgary-based Pembina Institute, said the government will be tilting the playing field tremendously in favour of the companies by limiting the participation of environmental groups in project reviews.
“The Alberta government has been very tightly enforcing this ‘directly affected’ status to the point where it is very difficult for anyone with an opposing view to an opponent to have their views aired at hearings,” Mr. Dyer said.
“The process is already highly inequitable and this will make it far worse.”
More than half of B.C. residents oppose pipeline: poll
By Gordon Hoekstra, The Vancouver Sun, April 13, 2012
Opposition to Enbridge's proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline is growing and has topped 50 per cent in British Columbia, according to an independent survey released Thursday.
Opposition to the project was 52 per cent among 1,069 adults in a random telephone survey conducted on April 11 - up from 46 per cent in January and 45 per cent in December, according to the Forum Research Inc. poll.
The new survey also showed the proportion of British Columbians who support the pipeline declined to 37 per cent in April from 41 per cent in January and December.
Another 11 per cent had no opinion, down from 14 per cent in January and 13 per cent in December.
Support for a law banning oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coast has also risen to 46 per cent from 40 per cent in January and December.
"It looks like the federal government has not been that successful in swaying public opinion on Northern Gateway, that's for sure," said Forum Research Inc. president Lorne Bozinoff.
Bozinoff noted the federal government announced in its budget that it will streamline the environmental review process for projects like Northern Gateway.
"[That move] has not impacted public opinion. In fact, it's turned the other way on it," he observed. Increased awareness of tankers needed to export the oil, and local community and first nations' opposition, also appears to have fed growing opposition, said Bozinoff. He said the poll was not commissioned by anyone, but that his Toronto-based firm is tracking support of the project as an issue of interest. Forum Research will likely conduct more polls on Northern Gate-way, he said.
The controversial project is meant to open up new markets in Asia for Alberta oilsands crude. Virtually all Canadian oil is now shipped to the United States.
Some northern B.C. communities and numerous first nations and environmental groups have aligned themselves against the project, arguing any economic benefits are not worth the risks and effects of an oil spill from the pipeline or ocean tankers.
Calgary-based Enbridge has said they can build and operate the project safely, also pointing to the economic benefits of accessing new markets. The federal and Alberta governments also support accessing new markets for Canada's oil.
Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway had not seen the results of the new Forum Research poll, but said the company remains confident it can build public support. He pointed to a poll recently commissioned by the company that found 48 per cent support for the project.
Stanway said the company will get a "big" opportunity to make a case for the project in September, when the formal part of federal panel hearings begin.
Since its inception in January, the panel has largely heard opposition in oral statements.
Prince Rupert city councillor Jennifer Rice, who also works for the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, said the recent poll results mirror the growing opposition she sees in northern B.C.
"As time goes by and people digest more and more information, they've already decided for themselves - it's not really in our best interests," she said.
The latest survey from Forum Research has a margin of error of plus or minus three per cent, 19 times out of 20.
Oliver comfortable with Northern Gateway timelines
By DIRK MEISSNER , The Canadian Press , April 09, 2012
VICTORIA —The federal government’s decision to put a cap on how long environmental assessment hearings can drag on isn’t expected to affect the Northern Gateway pipeline project, but aboriginal reaction to the change probably will.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver says Ottawa isn’t planning to fast-track the approval process for the proposed $5.5-billion pipeline, despite his government’s announcement in last month’s budget they would limit project reviews to 24 months.
The Gateway assessment was always scheduled to be completed within that time frame.
But aboriginal leaders in British Columbia say they are becoming increasingly dismayed with the public hearing process and are now seriously considering bypassing the hearings and heading straight to court.
Coastal First Nations spokesman Art Sterritt said the cancellation of a day-and-a-half of scheduled review panel hearings in the central B.C. coastal community of Bella Bella last week signalled to many aboriginals that Ottawa has already heard enough from Northern Gateway’s opponents.
"My guess is they are now going to try and shut it down by the fall," said Sterritt, whose organization is an alliance of about a dozen First Nations along B.C.’s north and central coasts and Haida Gwaii.
"We are not now going to try and educate the panel as well as we had hoped we would. We are now going to review our legal options because that’s where we are going to end up, no doubt about it. Let’s just have at it. There’s no sense waiting around."
The three-member panel, which held its first public hearings at Kitamaat Village in January, is assessing the environmental effects of the project and is reviewing the Enbridge Inc. application under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act.
Under the National Energy Board Act, the panel will decide if the project is in the public interest. It will assess its environmental effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and make recommendations to the Conservative government.
"We’re not ramming anything through," Oliver told The Canadian Press. "We don’t want any project to proceed unless it’s safe for the environment and safe for Canadians."
He said the Conservatives have not spoken to the panel members about altering the hearing process. But he said he believed they are aware of the government’s plans to modernize the regulatory review process, including keeping project reviews to two years.
"We’ve had no direct communications with them," he said. "I’m assuming they are aware of where we intend to go with this legislation."
The panel estimates hearings — including oral evidence, statements and final arguments from intervenors, government participants and Enbridge — will conclude in April 2013, with the release of the Environmental Assessment Report in the fall of 2013 and the final decision on the project at the end of 2013.
The hearings process began last January and if it wraps on schedule, it will come in just under 24 months. More than 4,300 individuals and groups have registered to speak at the hearings across British Columbia and Alberta.
Enbridge, which filed its application for regulatory approval in 2010, plans to construct an 1,170-kilometre twin pipeline from Bruderheim, Alta., to Kitimat on the northwest B.C. coast. The pipeline will carry Alberta crude oil to the West Coast for export to Asia on board huge tanker ships.
"The new rules, after they get royal assent, will apply to existing projects," said Oliver, confirming that the 24-month reviews will be applied retroactively to Northern Gateway and other projects currently under environmental review.
"There will be transitional measures to deal with them and that will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, because some projects started some time ago and others more recently," he said. "We think the timelines we’re proposing are reasonable and adequate to do the scientific review and to hear people out, and we’ll take those timelines into account when we take a look at how much time has elapsed."
Any future aboriginal court challenge to the Northern Gateway project will involve arguments over the extent and interpretation of the federal government’s efforts to consult with aboriginals on the project.
Chief Coun. Andrew Andy of the Bella Coola area Nuxalk First Nation formally withdrew Friday from the panel hearing process, saying Ottawa isn’t doing enough to consult directly with aboriginals about Northern Gateway.
Chief Coun. Marilyn Slett of Bella Bella’s Heiltsuk Nation said her community, located about 300 kilometres south of Prince Rupert, prepared for months to address the panel, but lost almost two days of hearings because the three panel members were intimidated by the reception they received at the local airport.
Local school children carrying placards and on a 48-hour hunger strike to protest Northern Gateway were at the airport and along community streets. Aboriginal dancers in traditional regalia were also at the airport.
The RCMP said the protest greeting was peaceful and there were no incident reports.
"To be portrayed in this way has been really insulting to us," Slett said. . "We’re a peaceful and respectful people. We’re known up and down the coast as a welcoming community."
Six B.C. and Yukon Anglican bishops demand fairness in Northern Gateway pipeline hearings
By Mike Hager, The Vancouver Sun, April 06, 2012
In a letter posted today - Good Friday - six Anglican bishops from across British Columbia and the Yukon have called on the ongoing environmental review hearings for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to demonstrate integrity and remain fair and free from federal political pressure.
"Recent public statements by various officials of the federal government, including the announcement last week of the streamlining of environmental assessment reviews, have raised concerns that NEB hearings may become subject to improper time constrictions and industry influence," said the bishops in the letter.
The bishops call on the National Energy Board review to hear the views of all people who live along the intended route of the pipeline, and pay close attention to the concerns of First Nations communities.
"In a project of this magnitude, it is imperative that the final NEB Report on Northern Gateway be thorough and credible and command wide public support," the letter stated.
More to come . . .
http://www.twitter.com/MikePHager
The text of the letter sent:
As bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada in British Columbia and Yukon we write to express our hope that the National Energy Board (NEB) hearings into the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline will demonstrate integrity, fairness, and freedom from political pressure.
Recent public statements by various officials of the federal government, including the announcement last week of the streamlining of environmental assessment reviews, have raised concerns that NEB hearings may become subject to improper time constrictions and industry influence.
In a project of this magnitude, it is imperative that the final NEB Report on Northern Gateway be thorough and credible and command wide public support. To this end, it will be critical to hear the views of all people who live along the intended route of the pipeline. In particular, we call upon the Board to pay close attention to the concerns expressed by First Nations communities whose traditional territories and waters the proposed pipeline and the marine supertanker traffic would cross.
We urge serious study of these concerns as expressed in the Save the Fraser Declaration [1] of indigenous communities, and by the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. [2] We also draw attention to the statement by KAIROS,[3] a national ecumenical research group of Canadian Churches, and commend its analysis of the Northern Gateway project to careful study by all people of faith.
In the Christian year, this is the season of Holy Week. Throughout the nations, churches of every kind are recalling the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our prayer is that the created world, which flows from his life, will be respected and safeguarded by all
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Gateway pipeline-review process hits another snag as second native band pulls out
By JUSTINE HUNTER, Globe and Mail, April 06, 2012
The federal review of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline has hit another setback this week after a coastal first nation community withdrew from the process, saying the Harper government has predetermined the outcome.
The hearings were temporarily derailed when the panel was greeted by protests in the remote native community of Bella Bella on Sunday. The panel ended up holding abridged hearings in Bella Bella.
On Thursday, the Nuxalk First Nation of Bella Coola cancelled its status as an intervener, vowing to find other ways to oppose the project.
“Our intention was to be part of the process, but just seeing how they treated our neighbouring community, it was disheartening,” Nuxalk hereditary Chief Charlie Nelson said. It was last week’s announcement from the federal government that the process will be fast-tracked, however, that persuaded the band’s leadership to withdraw.
Mr. Nelson said it is clear the federal government intends to approve the project, adding that the new time limits only serve to further compromise the independence of the panel.
The proposed pipeline would cross northern B.C. to move Alberta’s oil-sands crude to reach markets in Asia and California. Much of the land is still open to aboriginal land claims.
Sparked by environmental concerns about both the pipeline and the increase in tanker traffic off the coast, strong opposition to the project has come particularly from first nations communities in B.C. that are now threatening legal action if the project wins federal regulatory approval.
Although there are still 46 first nations with intervenor standing, the cancellation will provide further ammunition for legal action against the project, said Ed John, grand chief of the First Nations Summit.
“It lays the groundwork for a court challenge, when the government does not consult with first nations,” he said.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has said Ottawa will fulfill its constitutional duty to consult with first nations affected by the pipeline but, Mr. John said, the review does not meet that obligation. “The panel cannot discharge the government’s responsibility,” he said.
Mr. Oliver also said the project will be decided based on the national interest, a point that rankled Mr. John. “If that energy strategy built on the tar sands and the pipeline and that tanker traffic is in the national interest, surely to God the resolution of the land question in B.C. should be in the national interest as well,” he said.
Mr. John met with Mr. Oliver in January and urged him to tour the pipeline route and meet with people who live in those northern communities.
“Rather than making the decision from their lofty perch in Ottawa,” he said in an interview, “they ought to come out and look for themselves – they need to make an informed decision.”
The mayor of Smithers, Taylor Bachrach, said he would love to have the opportunity to play host to the key federal ministers who will be making the final decision. “We’ll take them out Steelhead fishing, maybe help them understand why people up in our neck of the woods are so concerned about the project,” he said.
Mr. Bachrach is registered to make a submission to the hearing when it moves to Smithers later this month. He is speaking not as mayor, however, but as a resident. “I want to tell them that the natural resource industries are important to this part of the world but it’s not oil country. There are some things we are not willing to sacrifice.”
The joint panel of the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is expected to wrap up hearings in the spring of 2013, but that timeline is now in doubt after Ottawa promised to streamline the major project review process. It will be retroactive but it is not yet clear how it will be applied to these hearings.
Whister Council opposes Northern Gateway
By Christopher Poon, The Whistler Question, April 05, 2012
In a surprise move, Whistler council introduced and passed a motion officially declaring its opposition to the Northern Gateway oil pipeline project on Tuesday (April 3).
The motion comes after discussions at previous council meetings where some members of council voiced their opposition to the project, while others requested more time to research the project before committing to a stance. The announcement also follows much discussion within the community about what impact such a project may have on Whistler should an oil tanker spill its load while sailing past the coast.
“Any kind of catastrophe in the inside passage would have a serious effect on tourism (in Whistler),” said Coun. Roger McCarthy. “A big piece of the business that gets on that ship to Vancouver gets off those ships and come up here. So there’s an impact from a business standpoint as well as an impact environmentally.”
Coun. Crompton agreed.
“I have received some feedback saying ‘Stick to your knitting, focus on taking care of what’s important in Whistler,’ and I think this does that,” said Crompton. “It says to the federal government, the provincial government and the world that environmental disasters on our coasts would significantly damage us and our community.
“I’m hopeful our stance adds something to the conversation.”
With that, council voted unanimously to pass the motion which not only expressed Whistler’s opposition to the project, but the RMOW’s opposition to the federal government’s relaxing of the rivers and fisheries laws to allow the building of the pipeline.
“The RMOW also expresses its solidarity and supports the position of other communities in their position to stand against the building of this project and its impacts,” read part of the motion.
Nuxalk First Nation pulling out of Northern gateway pipeline review
By GORDON HOEKSTRA, The Vancouver Sun, April 05, 2012
The Nuxalk First Nation of Bella Coola announced Thursday it is pulling out of the federal review process of Enbridge's proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline.
The Nuxalk, who had signed on as interveners but had yet to provide evidence, say they are withdrawing because of the federal government's recent pronouncement to shorten the review, and the review panel's handling of recent hearings in the neighbouring community of Bella Bella.
The hearings in Bella Bella were cancelled last Monday after the Heiltsuk Tribal Council greeted panel members with a protest. The hearings were reinstated Tuesday, but the community lost a day and a half to provide evidence.
The Nuxalk's home community is east of Bella Bella. The Nuxalk have about 1,600 members, 900 of which live in Bella Coola.
Nuxalk hereditary chief Charles Nelson said the band has also taken exception to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver referring to first nations as "socially dysfunctional" in a recent speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade.
Another issue is the panel's lack of mandate to consult with First Nations on their unresolved treaty rights, he said.
"With all the [negatives] that have been accumulating, we've decided not to [participate]," said Nelson.
Like other coastal first nations, the Nuxalk are concerned about the threat and effect of an oil tanker spill on their way of life, which still depends on salmon, said Nelson.
Some first nations have accepted federal funding to participate in the hearing, but Nelson said the Nuxalk had not.
The federal review panel is hearing testimony from communities throughout B.C. and Alberta on the proposed 1,173-kilometre pipeline, which begins just north of Edmonton and terminates on B.C.'s northwest coast. Bella Coola is located about 200 kilometres south of Kitimat.
The pipeline is meant to open new markets in Asia for crude from the Alberta oilsands. Virtually all of Canada's oil exports are shipped to the United States.
Enbridge has said the pipeline can be built and operated safely, and will be an economic boon to Canada.
B.C. students battle pipeline in Christy Clark’s backyard
By GORDON HOEKSTRA, The Vancouver Sun, April 01, 2012
VANCOUVER -- University of B.C. students Roasalind Sadowski and Allison Stocks want nothing less than a fundamental change in Canada with a shift away from an economy fuelled by oil.
Their goal is a very personal one: They are fearful of a climate future of increasing temperatures, droughts and rising oceans..
It’s why they were out Saturday morning, collecting a dozen hard-won petition signatures by knocking on doors of well-kept, expensive homes in the UBC Endowment Lands.
They were among 150 university and local high school students who fanned out in Christy Clark’s Vancouver-Point Grey riding to ask for support on a petition that calls for the premier to oppose the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline.
While first nations, environmentalists and some communities that protest the pipeline are concerned with the risk and effects of an oil spill, the UBC and high school students argue the oil flowing through the pipeline will produce more carbon emissions than already produced in British Columbia. The students say they don’t like that Canada is exporting greenhouse gas emissions.
UBC professor Kathryn Harrison has estimated the 525,000 barrels of oil per day that would be transported by the Northern Gateway pipeline will release 82.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year when eventually burned, more than the 67 million tonnes of greenhouse gases from all sources within B.C. in 2009.
“It’s not that we have a choice about whether we will take action on climate change, it’s about how long we are going to delay that action and what negative consequences that is going to have on our generation,” says Sadowski, a fourth-year student studying environmental policy.
“I tell my parents I’m terrified thinking about what my life is going to be like when I’m their age,” she said.
“That’s not something they want to hear, but that’s the kind of message we are trying to bring to people.”
At one doorstep, the students argue climate change has brought on African drought that has displaced millions of people.
But UBC Endowment Lands resident Philip Hill, who does not sign the petition, says these kinds of climate events that cause droughts have happened in the past.
Hill, a retired UBC engineering professor, does not believe that science has proved increased carbon concentrations in the atmosphere will harm the environment.
It’s a “dubious” claim, says Hill, who nevertheless applauds the students’ efforts.
His neighbour Edith Anderson, however, does sign the petition.
Anderson who grew up in Prince Rupert on the northwest coast, said she is concerned the project will harm the “pristine” coastline. “There’s probably going to be problems. That would be sad,” she says of the pipeline project.
Some environmentalists have argued that carbon emissions from the Alberta oilsands and from the oil that will be produced overseas should be a factor in a federal review.
However, the review is expected to focus on safety issues and the pipeline’s economic merit.
Calgary-based Enbridge is adamant the 1,173-kilometre pipeline — meant to open up new markets in China for Canada’s oil — can be built and operated safely.
The project will also be an economic boon to Canada, says the company.
While the Alberta and Canadian governments support accessing new markets for oil in Asia, B.C.’s premier, Clark, has not taken a position on the pipeline.
She says she will wait until the environmental review is complete, not expected until late this year or early in 2013.
Organizers of the petition say Clark declined to meet with them.
On Saturday, about half of the people in the UBC endowment land residences said no to signing the petition.
Those results are not too different than results from a recent federal NDP-commissioned poll that showed a slim majority of people support the pipeline.
UBC professor George Hoberg says a rough estimate pegs the number of signatures collected Saturday in Clark’s riding at about 1,800.
Hoberg, a member of the provincial and federal NDP parties, notes that many people were not home, as is the case in the UBC Endowment Lands.
Stocks, a fourth-year student studying environmental science, is not discouraged despite the effort needed to collect the handful of signatures.
She says they want to create an attitude shift, where the “human race” finally decides to turn to renewable energy like wind and solar.
“There are times when I feel why don’t I give up and get a job where I make a ton of money, and live my life for fun,” says Stocks.
“But at the end of the day, this is what I want to live for, and this is something I truly believe in and it is what matters.”
Opposition to oilsands pipeline growing in B.C., poll finds Result up 10 points in three months,
By Peter O'Neil, Edmonton Journal, March 28, 2012
OTTAWA – A slim majority of British Columbians support a proposed $5.5-billion oilsands pipeline to the B.C. coast, but opposition to the megaproject is growing, according to a new poll.
The poll also found that an overwhelming majority of B.C. Conservative party supporters, and two-thirds of B.C. Liberal supporters, favour the controversial plan by Calgary-based Enbridge Inc.
NDP MP Kennedy Stewart, who commissioned the poll, said the results suggest it will become increasingly difficult for Christy Clark, B.C.’s Liberal premier, to continue to straddle the fence on the issue.
“It shows Clark will be offside with her base if she doesn’t support this,” said Stewart, MP for the Burnaby-Douglas riding.
Clark argues her government can’t take a position until after the National Energy Board rules on the issue, which is expected several months after next spring’s scheduled provincial election.
The telephone poll of 518 British Columbians, done March 5 to 19 by Mustel Group, found 50.1 per cent were in favour and 41.7 per cent opposed. The margin of error for a poll of that size is 4.4 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, Mustel says.
The poll showed divisions along political lines, with New Democrat Party supporters opposing Northern Gateway by a 58-34 margin and Green backers against the project by an overwhelming 72-24 margin.
Supporters of John Cummins’ Conservative party favoured the project by a 67-22 margin, while B.C. Liberal backers support it by a 64-34 margin.
Mustel’s poll question was identical to one posed to 1,000 British Columbians in December in an Enbridge-commissioned online poll by Ipsos-Reid. That poll found 48 per cent in favour and 32 per cent opposed, with a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
While growth in support for the pipeline was tiny and within the margin of error, there was a 10-point gain in the proportion of British Columbians against the pipelines, Stewart noted.
“This polling confirms opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is growing and solidifying.”
He said greater awareness of the issue is behind the increased opposition. In the December Ipsos poll 20 per cent had no opinion, but in the Mustel survey that figure was down to eight per cent.
Stewart used his MP office budget to pay for the main question in the poll, but funded out of his own pocket an additional political question probing respondents’ party preferences.
The poll clashes sharply with another survey released Tuesday and funded by a handful of environmental groups.
The Justason Market Intelligence survey found that 66 per cent opposed the Enbridge proposal and just 22 per cent in favour. The combined telephone and online poll of 611 British Columbians, between Feb. 24 and March 7, had an margin of error of four percentage points. It was sponsored by the Dogwood Initiative, Forest Ethics, Living Oceans Society and West Coast Environmental Law.
Stewart said he was comfortable using the Ipsos question, which asked: “As you may know, Enbridge is the company leading the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, which is a proposal to build an underground pipeline system between near Edmonton, Alberta, and Kitimat, in northern B.C. One pipeline will transport oil to Kitimat for export by tanker to China and other Asian markets. A second pipeline will be used to import condensate (a product used to thin oil products for pipeline transport) to Alberta. Based on what you know to date, would you say that you generally support or oppose the Northern Gateway pipelines project? Is that strongly or somewhat?”
The Justason poll funded by environmentalists first asked: “One of the world’s largest oil transport companies, Enbridge, has asked Ottawa to approve a plan to allow crude oil to be transported from Alberta’s oil sands across British Columbia, where it would be loaded onto oil supertankers en route to refineries in Asia. This would bring crude oil supertankers to the coastal inlets of the Great Bear Rainforest for the first time. Have you heard of this plan?”
It then asked: “Up until now, crude oil supertankers have not entered B.C.’s inside coastal passage because of concerns about oil spills. Ottawa is now considering allowing crude oil supertankers to transport crude oil through these waters. Do you support or oppose allowing crude oil supertankers through B.C.’s inside coastal waters?”
Native-led oil pipeline protest draws hundreds to Vancouver Art Gallery
By Ian Austin, The Province, March 26, 2012
Protesters marching through downtown Vancouver Monday promised to fight big oil and big government and put a stop to proposed pipeline expansions in B.C.
Chanting native elders wearing button blankets and pounding drums led more than 300 marchers to the Vancouver Art Gallery for a noon rally where they were joined by hundreds more.
Pipelines proposed by Kinder Morgan and Enbridge require First Nations support, and if Monday’s rally is any indication there is plenty of opposition in that camp.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip was one of many high-powered native leaders who said Prime Minister Stephen Harper has bitten off more than he can chew if he thinks more oil tankers will be allowed on B.C.’s west coast.
“We all know this government is a few clowns short of a circus, and that this fight will intensify,” said
Phillip. “I will tell my grandchildren that you were here today, and we will win this, and we will make this a better world.”
Coastal First Nations president Art Sterritt said First Nations are not prepared to risk their ancestral homelands to deliver profits to greedy oil companies.
“We’ve been here for over 10,000 years, and we will never leave,” said Sterritt. “Democracy is alive and well in British Columbia.
“We will stop this black plague from saturating our province.
“We cannot fail . . . we will not fail.”
Bill McKibben of 350.org said the U.S. moratorium on the controversial Keystone oil pipeline shows the potential of people power.
“We had 1253 people arrested in the biggest display of civil disobedience in 30 years,” said McKibben. “Big oil has all the money in the world, so we need a different currency — passion, spirit, and creativity. “This is one of the great issues of our generation.”
Rueben George of the Tsleil-Waututh said First Nations rely on clean water as an essential part of their everyday life.
“I played in the water, I swam in the water, I canoed in the water, and I eat from the water,” said George, speaking for children from all walks of life - even the pipeline proponents’ kids.
“This is for your children, this is for my children. We’re doing it for Kinder Morgan’s children, so they can have clean air and clean water.”
The federal and B.C. governments both seem supportive of pipeline expansions as a means of building job opportunities, but persistent opposition has decried building a pipeline over the Rocky Mountains and the prospect of more oil supertankers on B.C.’s largely unspoiled coastline.
Cutting Up Canada’s Environmental Safety Net
By Jessica Clogg, THe Hill Times, March 26, 2012
Like rules that prevent smoking in the office or putting your kid in a car without a seatbelt, protecting citizens' health and livelihoods from a polluted environment is a Canadian social norm. Will this week's budget roll back established legal protections for our environment and put public health and safety at risk?
VANCOUVER, B.C.—Canadians once let corporations dump whatever they wanted into our air and water, and dig and destroy forests, rivers and lakes without consideration of what species might be living there.
Think of the Sidney Tar Ponds, where a steel mill was allowed to fill an entire estuary with toxic sludge, including cancer-causing PCBs. The local community is still paying for that mess with elevated cancer rates, and Canadian taxpayers are still paying to clean it up decades later. Think of the First Nations communities in northwestern Ontario that were poisoned because a chemical company dumped 9,000 kg of mercury into the river system people fished in. The list can go on and on—Lake Erie dying, the acid rain crisis, flooding communities for dam reservoirs, the collapse of the cod fishery, the toxic waste lying at the bottom of Hamilton Harbour.
The point in dredging up these environmental disasters is to show that we learned some lessons: a polluted environment hurts us humans as well as other critters. And cleaning up after the fact (assuming it is even possible) is extremely costly, making strong environmental laws a smart financial investment for taxpayers who can be left footing the bill.
Over the decades, Canada has developed an environmental safety net of laws intended to protect habitat and species. Limits have been put on what factories can put into the air and water. Environmental assessment, through which potential impacts are addressed before a project is allowed to go ahead, has become an established part of our democratic process. (Of course there are a few gaps in the net—one need only look at the continued decline of species at risk like woodland caribou and the rapid expansion of water-polluting tar sands mines). But, across many sectors, damage to the environment and health has decreased because our governments saw the long term value of putting in place rules to protect the environment.
We learned our lesson. Or did we? This week’s budget will be instructive.
Like rules that prevent smoking in the office or putting your kid in a car without a seatbelt, protecting citizens’ health and livelihoods from a polluted environment is now an accepted social norm. Yet over the last few months, there have been strong signals that legislation will soon roll back established protections for our environment. And like driving without a seatbelt, this would be a reckless move that puts public health and safety at risk.
Why? So Canada can ship unprocessed natural resources overseas as fast as we can, and earn oil companies a few dollars more per barrel of oil? Anticipated legislative changes to weaken environmental assessment may have been spurred by unprecedented public concern about the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline and supertanker project, but they could impact industries nationwide. There is even talk that habitat protection for fish and species at risk could be on the chopping block. (A key factor that these protections have in common is that they are common triggers of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act).
Strong environmental laws matter for our ecosystems, our economy and the democratic process. Canada’s key federal environmental laws like the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Species at Risk Act have made tangible improvements to our ability to promote a sustainable economy, protect us from toxics and pollutants, save species from extinction and hold polluters accountable.
What should we be working toward? First and foremost, we need to be able to count on governments to make sure the air we breathe and the water we drink is safe, not poisoned, and that our rivers, lakes, farmland and forests stay healthy enough to support our economy and be there for future generations. We can’t risk an Exxon Valdez-like oil spill on our coasts, nor can we allow another Sidney Tar Ponds to happen. There’s ample evidence that our existing laws need to be strengthened, not weakened, to protect humans from pollution. Take, for example, the leaking toxic tailings ponds in Northern Alberta and the elevated cancer rate found in First Nations communities living downstream.
Second, a credible decision-making process that gives citizens a voice is crucial for industries to obtain a social licence for their activities. Smearing people who have legitimate concerns about new projects like pipelines and cutting off their right to have a say won’t quiet the critics. It will just mean that the fight goes elsewhere, to where the products are being sold, to the courts and to investors. Again, the social licence for the oil industry in particular has already eroded given the failure to limit the impacts of tar sands development and deal honourably with First Nations. Canada has more to do on this front, and should not be contemplating doing less.
Third, it’s a few big companies that would benefit from weakening our environmental laws, yet all Canadians that would pay the price, in terms of impacts on our health and quality of life as well as the actual tax dollars to clean up environmental disasters. An oil tanker spill off the North Pacific Coast, for example, could leave citizens on the hook for billions.
Canadians want strong environmental laws to ensure a clean, secure, and sustainable future for ourselves and our children.50 organizations nationwide have endorsed a common set of principles that outline how; see www.envirolawmatters.ca, and which have been submitted to the federal government. We’ll find out on budget day if they have been listening.
© Friends of Wild Salmon 2008
