Read this story from Watershed Sentinel on oil spill expert Dr. Ricki Ott’s recent speech in Courtenay, BC, on Enbridge, the impact of oil spills on people and the environment, and how British Columbians can rise up to defend their province from these calamities. (August 2012)
On a hot Friday evening in August, a packed audience at the Native Sons Hall in Courtenay BC listened spell bound and sometimes close to tears to marine toxicologist Dr. Riki Ott. In an event sponsored by World Community, Ott was describing the long term impacts to fish, mammals, and humans from the Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Gulf, and Kalamazoo River oil spills.
Ott, who was a commercial fisher in Cordova Alaska as well as a trained scientist, was in a unique position when Prince William Sound was hit by the Exxon Valdez oil spill 23 years ago. She described how the response to the spill was nothing like what had been promised by the oil companies before the port was opened.
She talked about how any spill response actually collects, at the most, 15% of the spilled oil, which continues to cycle through the ecosystem with every tide. “They said it was cleaned up,” she said, “but two years later the pink salmon run failed, and four years later the herring disappeared. The herring fishery is now closed indefinitely.” Herring eggs fail when exposed to oil at one part per trillion.
The most poignant – and pungent – witness to the impossibility of “clean up” were two small jars Ott circulated through the hall. They were filled with sand and beach stones from a beach that had been considered “cleaned up” for two decades. The jars stank of oil, and the woman next to me, who touched the stones, scrambled for a tissue to clean her fingers.”We can respond to an oil spill,” declared Dr. Ott, “We can never clean it up.”
Worst of all, Ott said, was the impact on the community, which was in chaos, as debt and despair ate at family and social life. The small fishing community of Cordova had to pull together and revision its values. It has managed to resuscitate itself, with the help of local economic development such as niche marketing of a salmon run from the Copper River, which was not impacted by the spill…
…In all this, insisted Ott, over and over again, whether 23 years ago or two, the communities find themselves alone, with ruined environments, ruined industries, and lingering but unrecognised personal health impacts. Citizens, she said, are the victims of ‘lies and betrayal,” being sacrificed for the economy. Her response, especially to the issue of the proposed dilbit pipelines facing BC, is that crisis provides the opportunity to reorganize, decide what wealth means in your community, and develop democratically-driven local economies, such as those championed by the Transition Town movement. “Protect your local wealth with local laws,” and work for real democracy. “We can believe in it. We can work for it. It’s not a goal, it’s a journey.”
Riki Ott told the Watershed Sentinel that the recent upsurge in organizing activity through the Occupy movement is a massive opportunity for movement building, with three and four generations of people coming together for social change. When asked, she suggested that the role of the experienced grassroots of the environmental movement now is to help these “new recruits”: “Empower these folks,” sharing skills and historical knowledge.
It’s time Canadians and in particular British Columbians prepare for a crude awakening.
In a recent poll exclusive to the Globe and Mail, Canada’s most prominent and respected newspaper of record, these stunning results were reported in their online edition:
The online survey of 804 adults found the recent pipeline discussion had no immediate effect on the political landscape. Of those polled, 25 per cent said the economy was the most critical issue, while 19 per cent said health care. Twelve per cent chose leadership.
Energy – which scored 1 per cent in an Angus Reid poll in early July – remained at that figure, tied with aboriginal affairs and daycare. “Other” scored 4 per cent. (emphasis added)
At 4%, “Other” issues inconceivably scored 400% higher than Energy issues in terms of priorities for British Columbians.
This is not just some freak accident either, as the same result has been registered in two separate polls this summer. Energy issues registered at 1% before Christy’s EPIC roll-out as newly minted champion of British Columbia, with her pathetic and duplicitous BC First campaign, and then once again precisely at 1% immediately thereafter. (Note that the title of Christy’s Putting BC First campaign “coincidentally” lifts the name of the BC First independent MLA initiative)
While it is no surprise that Christy’s hollow mid-summer stunt has reaped little political benefit for her doomed government, it is incomprehensible that energy issues do not register on the radar screen of British Columbian voters, when in fact they are at the very epicenter of contemporary politics in Canada. It is quite possible people in British Columbia are under the misconception that Alberta is the entire Oil and Gas story, but they would be sorely mistaken, as BC is a huge player and no other jurisdiction besides Alberta has more skin in the game.
The traditional concerns with the economy and healthcare register as top priorities, but it would seem there is a deep disconnect prevalent in these numbers which suggest British Columbians do not fully comprehend the importance of energy issues and there impact on things like the economy and healthcare. In fact, all of the issues registered as concerns in this poll, including leadership, aboriginal affairs and even daycare, are almost entirely dependent on how we manage the energy portfolio in this country and it is time we give our collective head a shake and get with the program.
These polls illustrate that average Canadians do not fully appreciate what is involved and what is at stake. It is barely ever reported in this manner, but Oil and Gas is a multi-trillion dollar resource – the Tar Sands alone is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It is what is responsible for propelling Harper into power and it dominates the entire political and policy agenda of his government, not simply on the domestic front, but also in terms of foreign policy, as the Oil and Gas agenda has reshaped our role in the international community just as drastically as it has altered the very fabric of the country. It has budget ramifications that dwarf any other single contributing factor, is the single most heavily subsidized undertaking in the country, and it reaches into the pockets of each and everyone on of us and those of our children.
At no other time have our politicians been so utterly irresponsible in terms of their most fundamental purpose. Representing the citizens of this great country while protecting and forwarding what is in our best interest is the most basic function of a politician in a representative democracy such as ours and the current crop has failed in EPIC proportions. That a mere 1% of British Columbians believe “energy” is a priority reflects the fact that we have been given the old mushroom treatment – left in the dark and fed a lot of a manure – for if our politicians had properly communicated the importance of what we face at this time and with these issues it would undoubtedly be on top of everyone’s agenda. This is one instance where we cannot simply point the finger at the media – we must take a long hard look at our entire system in light of such an EPIC fail in terms of having the tools required to properly manage ourselves as citizens, our province and the most pivotal agenda we have ever experienced as a country.
When I sat down to carry out the research for a detailed piece about Canada’s EPIC “National Energy Strategy” – my fifth installment for the Common Sense Canadian on Energy Issues in British Columbia – I came across this stunning Globe and Mail story with their most recent poll. I will carry on with my original intention of detailing the all-encompassing, far reaching, essential aspects of the energy strategy and its implications for us all, however that will now have to wait for my sixth installment.
For now I will leave you with this brief synopsis of just a few of the main points underscoring the depth and breadth of these vital energy issues currently reshaping our country and province:
Canada’s largest Tar Sands operator Suncor amongst other Canadian energy interests – most notably SNC Lavalin – were the major benefactors in the Libyan “humanitarian mission.” Canadian taxpayers, on the other hand, were handed the near-million dollar bill for the celebration upon the return of our service people.
This barely scratches the surface of what has been a never-ending barrage of energy related issues that have dominated the agenda and altered the very fabric of this nation, all the while massively escalating oil and gas production with an equally massive escalation in public debt, as Harper filed the largest deficit in history the same year Tar Sands production hit its peak.
It is very possible you may have missed it, what with the it being mid-summer and with the grand spectacle of the Olympics – not to mention Clark’s BC First campaign – but our Finance minister Kevin Falcon released a quiet little update stating that, whoops, he was wrong and in fact The B.C. Government posted a deficit of $1.84 billion last year, higher than the $925 million originally communicated, doubling the most recent deficit numbers this government filed, which has contributed to the stunning $24 Billion in total debt the Liberals project they will have shoveled onto our backs during their time in office by by this budget’s end. This comes on top of an additional $50-plus Billionof other hidden liabilities, slammed by BC’s Auditor General.
This despite record-breaking activity in the natural gas sector and coming on the heels of the 200 million dollar “dent” in the budgetFalcon reported a mere three weeks earlier as a result of a dip in natural gas prices, underscoring how vulnerable the Liberal royalty regime leaves us to the whims of the “energy” market.
As you can see, Energy Issues are pivotal to British Columbians and therefore should be pivotal to the success of our politicians. We must not only ensure that British Columbians fully appreciate the importance of the oil and gas agenda, but also understand the importance of the political agenda and its impact on all of us – our future depends on it. I will explore these points in depth along with the National Energy Strategy in my next installment for the Common Sense Canadian.
Read this story from CBC.ca on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit to BC amid his government’s apparent shifting stance on its favoured Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Contrary to previous assertions that he would push the pipeline through regardless of the Joint Review Panel’s findings, the PM is now assuring British Columbians that he will listen to science and maintains the panel’s independence. (August 7, 2012)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending the independence of the environmental review process underway for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, telling reporters in Vancouver the project will be evaluated scientifically and a green light to proceed would not be based on politics.
“Decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project. And that’s how we conduct our business,” Harper said.
“The only way that governments can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis scientifically and not simply on political criteria,” the prime minister added.
On Friday, the federal government announced a firm deadline to ensure the joint review panel charged with evaluating the pipeline completes its work by the end of 2013, without further delays. But Harper’s cabinet will have the final say on the project.
“The government does not pick and choose particular projects,” Harper said, “the projects have to be evaluated on their own merits.”
Enbridge’s proposed pipeline, to move bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands across B.C. to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C., for export to Asia, has been identified by the Harper government as beneficial to its international trade strategy.
The prime minister reiterated his government’s position that trade with the Asia-Pacific region is of “vital interest” to Canada and British Columbia, as the country’s Asia-Pacific Gateway.
Harper also reminded reporters of investments in last spring’s budget to bolster federal government inspection and monitoring for resource development projects such as this one.
Journalists in B.C. were keen to get questions to the prime minister after sharp criticism of Enbridge from the prime minister’s senior cabinet minister for B.C., James Moore, last week. Harper did not contradict Moore directly, but appeared to offer a somewhat softened version of the government’s previous position on the pipeline.
Reporters were kept well back from Harper and Moore on Monday when they attended Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain’s annual summer barbecue.
Public Opinion Set Against Pipeline
Harper’s stops on the West Coast this week come at a challenging time for supporters of the pipeline.
Enbridge’s efforts to garner approval for the project have been set back by recent oil spills along other Enbridge pipelines, including damaging revelations about the way Enbridge handled its 2010 spill in Michigan.
Last spring’s budget implementation bill streamlined the regulatory approval process for major natural resources development projects like Gateway. A firm deadline has now been set to ensure the joint review panel charged with evaluating the pipeline completes its work by the end of 2013, without further delays.
Cabinet will have the final say on the project. A statement from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s office Friday continued to emphasize its potential to create jobs and economic growth.
But last Wednesday, Harper’s senior minister in B.C. James Moore told a private radio program in Vancouver that Enbridge had put a “sour taste in the mouth” with its past actions and wasn’t doing enough to win the confidence of British Columbians generally, and its First Nations specifically.
Moore said doubts about the Enbridge pipeline were “widespread” and repeatedly denied the Harper government would simply ram through approval for the pipeline, despite recent changes to streamline the approval process.
It was not immediately clear from Moore’s remarks whether he was speaking only for himself as a senior minister representing the province’s concerns, or whether his dressing down of Enbridge was an early signal of a still-evolving position from the federal government.
Read this story from Yahoo News on the ramifications for Canada and the Alberta Tar Sands of the Obama Administration’s obstruction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas. (July 25)
China is in the process of acquiring a stake in Canada’s valuable Alberta oil sands, months after Obama suspended a plan to invest in the region.
Has China swooped in to claim a prize the U.S. forfeited? This week, China’s state-run energy giant CNOOC announced that it was buying Canadian oil producer Nexen for $15 billion, the largest-ever acquisition by a Chinese company. The deal would give China control over Nexen’s oil sands operations in the Canadian province of Alberta (among other Nexen oil properties around the world), a huge win for the energy-hungry nation. The purchase still needs to be approved by Canada’s parliament, which has blocked foreign takeovers of domestic businesses in the past. However, analysts say the odds look good, partly because oil-rich Canada has been forced to turn to other investors after President Obama suspended the Keystone Pipeline, a massive project that would have delivered oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, over environmental concerns. Did Obama push Canada into China’s arms?
Yes. Canada has to sell its oil to someone: When Obama stalled the Keystone Pipeline, “it spurred Canada to look to China as a new partner,” says Nathan Vardi at Forbes, and now “Canada’s vital oil industry appears to be drifting to China.” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded to Obama’s “snub” by immediately “heading to China to start negotiating energy deals.” If Canada continues “to diversify its economic dependence away from the U.S.,” it could be a “strategic setback for the U.S., which has been searching for years for secure sources of oil that are free from the political uncertainty that exists in Venezuela and the Middle East.”
And Obama’s environmental objections are now moot: “The lesson for America, and especially Democrats, is that Canada’s oil sands will be [further] developed,” despite objections over the environmental impact, says The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. “If the U.S. doesn’t want the oil, China and the rest of Asia will gladly take it.” China is trying to “replace the U.S. as Canada’s biggest energy investor and market,” and Obama is letting it happen over the most meaningless of objections. “China’s Canadian energy play”
Let’s not get carried away. Nexen’s Canadian presence is small: While CNOOC will win a stake in the Alberta oil sands, Nexen’s holdings in Canada are relatively small, say Lee Chyen Yee and Jeffrey Jones at Reuters. Canadian lawmakers are hardly enthusiastic about having their natural resources owned by communist China, but “most of Nexen’s assets lie outside Canada, making it less likely that it would be seen as a national champion falling into Chinese hands.” The deal is unlikely to spark a wave of Chinese acquisitions in the U.S.’s backyard, and the U.S. still enjoys a healthy advantage in its trade relations with Canada.
I recently attended the one-day hearing for the Joint Review Panel into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in the small community of Shearwater – the umpteenth meeting of this sort I’ve documented over the past 6 years covering environmental politics in BC. At the end of the meeting, throughout which I recorded the continued disrespect of the public and Heiltsuk First Nations people – in whose traditional territory the meeting took place – by the National Energy Board panel running the show, I was assaulted by panel staff. But we’ll get to that in a moment.
Listen to exclusive audio from the July 27 Enbridge hearing and Damien’s interview with Rae Kornberger of CHLY 101.7 FM in Nanaimo on the Bella Bella and Shearwater hearings:
First, a little background. The July 27 meeting was a make-up for the lost day of hearings in nearby Bella Bella this past April, which I also documented thoroughly in these pages and through the national mainstream media. I was, in fact, essentially the only media in attendance at that hearing. I helped, along with a small team of terrific people from the Heiltsuk Nation, to correct the record when the panel attempted to cancel the whole week of scheduled testimony over bogus insinuations that a peaceful greeting at the airport, largely by schoolchildren, First Nations chiefs and elders in regalia, turned violent.
Representatives of the panel implied the group was an unruly mob that threatened the very safety of the panel. As our footage clearly displayed on everything from CBC’sThe Nationalto Global TV and CTV, the reality was nothing of the sort.
The RCMP, who were supervising the whole thing, later put out a statement affirming it was indeed a “peaceful demonstration and there were no incidents to report.” Yet within a few hours of Sunday’s greeting at the airport, the panel had sent an email to the band’s chief, Marilyn Slett, informing her they were cancelling the week’s hearings.
By Monday afternoon, however, following a barrage of provincial and national media stories which scoffed at the panel’s story, the hearings were back on. No apology, of course, and the story had changed – now it was simply a matter of “logistical difficulties”, a bold-faced lie given the email they sent to the chief, which stated:
The panel cannot be in a situation where it is unsure whether the crowd will be peaceful…Based on our experiences this afternoon, the panel is concerned that a meaningful hearing cannot be achieved.
The Heiltsuk went on to acquit themselves brilliantly at the reinstated hearings, in spite of the atmosphere of disrespect they were forced to operate within in their own territory – producing speech after speech of powerful material for the panel to consider, such as the testimony of young William Housty or this compilation of statements.
That brings us to July 27 – a day of testimony to make up for the lost hearings the last time around. Only, this meeting was held in the largely non-aboriginal community of Shearwater, across the water from Bella Bella, in a hall not nearly big enough to accommodate the community that wished to attend. Nor was it easy for media to reach – only myself, Kai Nagata of The Tyee, and perhaps one print journalist managed to make it.
None of this was surprising, based on my experiences with the panel to date, nor was their lack of contrition for their appalling behaviour in April, or their continued rudeness and adherence to invented, stifling protocols.
At one point, panel member Kenneth Bateman cut off Ingmar Lee of Shearwater, mid-testimony, issuing the following lecture:
This is not an opportunity to provide a personal political statement or to make disparaging remarks of any party. We want this to be respectful of all parties. It also needs to relate directly to the project and not to Canadian affairs at broad…I will stop you if you continue in the vein that you have because it is not consistent with the respectful approach that we have taken and have require from all parties.
Listen to the back-and-forth between presenter Ingmar Lee and panel member Kenneth Bateman:
Just how respectfully does this bunch conduct itself? At meeting’s conclusion, the panelists leapt from their seats and darted out the back door. When I pursued them with my camera to capture their escape, I was immediately physically obstructed by two unidentified panel staff, knocking the microphone off my camera in the process. I was told by a woman who refused to identify herself to me but whom I was later informed provided “secretarial services to the panel” that I had “crossed the line” – evidently an invisible one somewhere near the front of the room, of which I was never informed.
We can argue about who crossed what line.
I chose not to take any action, even though the incident occurred in full view of the audience and a local citizen journalist with another camera and despite the platoon of police officers stationed outside the venue – I have more important things to focus my energies on. I did, however, take the opportunity to speak to the panel’s facilitator, Ruth Mills, telling her that in all my years of documenting these sorts of processes, this panel has conducted itself with less class than any I’ve witnessed.
Yet in spite of the obvious futility of the process, I’ve had the great privilege to witness and document moving testimony from British Columbians and First Nations, which has given me a whole new appreciation for this land and its people – and a much deeper understanding of the history of our province and nation. And for that, it has proven an immensely rewarding experience.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that I’ve documented more environmental assessment meetings, judicial inquiries, and “public” open houses relating to industrial projects throughout this province over the past five or six years than anyone – so these Enbridge hearings call to mind a number of similarly negative experiences. I will relate just a select few below.
To borrow a line from my colleague Rafe Mair, “I’d rather have a root canal without anaesthetic than attend another one of these things.” But I believe someone needs to do it.
The Cohen Inquiry into Disappearing Fraser Sockeye
At the Cohen Commission last year, I, along with all other media, was forbidden from bringing a camera into the proceedings. On some days, there was one camera permitted to a gentleman working on a documentary – that being connected to a video feed in a separate media room. I was initially granted access to this room by the the Inquiry’s media liaison, Carla Shore, but told I couldn’t patch into the video feed because the 30-year old beta deck had been rented by the CBC and I did not have their permission to use it. I gladly offered to: A. pay for my use of the machine; B. provide my own machine; C. contact the CBC and obtain permission from them to use their equipment. None of these was acceptable to her.
Fed up with this runaround, I plugged a video recorder into the deck, thus unleashing the fury of Ms. Shore. Little did she know, the recorder for the livestream audio feed, due to technical issues, had been placed directly in front of a small speaker inside the media room which was playing the audio from the hearings. That meant the microphone would pick up any noise in the room and stream it live on the Commission’s website, along with the testimony inside.
I was later told by a number of people who were listening to the livestream that they figured a riot had broken out right in the midst of the Cohen Inquiry.
Listen to Damien’s run-in with media liaison Carla Shore at the Cohen Commission last September:
Having later discovered the whole thing had been inadvertently captured, Ms. Shore sheepishly apologized to me for the incident and revoked the ban she had since instated on my use of the media room.
In the end, it emerged through our conversations that the reason she was so obstructive towards me was that she’d read my editorial earlier that morning and deemed me to be too opinionated, thus disqualifying me as a journalist.
I reminded her that my publication had produced a significant amount of well-read coverage on the Cohen Inquiry, that my colleague Rafe Mair was in the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Hall of Fame and had won every major journalistic award in the country, and that together we had likely done more to document the salmon farming industry and salmon issues in general than any media team in BC over the past decade…and yet, somehow, this one woman’s arbitrary opinion as to the worthiness of my credentials impeded my ability to report on a “public” Judicial Inquiry of enormous import.
Private River Power Environmental Assessment Hearings
Rafe and I have had far too many run-ins with the “run of river” assessment people over the years to mention. Suffice it to say, the entire process has been an affront to the public interest. Not one meeting is designed to hear whether citizens want these projects, and when a speaker goes there, they are promptly ruled out of order. The companies clearly control the process, choosing the most out-of-the-way, inconvenient locations and times for the meetings.
On several occasions, this blew up in their face – such as the famous Pitt River meeting where so many people crammed into a tiny room the proponent had booked that the fire marshal had to be called and the meeting rescheduled to a much larger venue. This was again packed – this time with 1,400 people – and the day after, the project was essentially killed.
The same thing happened in the tiny town of Kaslo (pop. 1,000), where 1,100 people turned out to oppose the Glacier-Howser projects in the Kootenays. They had to take over the meeting from the proponent – who was intent on wasting everyone’s time with a half-hour, glossy powerpoint – and one-by-one they delivered the message that this thing was not going to happen.
But my most heated private power run-ins involved GE’s proposed Bute Inlet mega-project, particularly with the head of the Canadian Environmental Assessment team there, Ms. Kathy Eichenburger. Needless to say, Kathy and I got off to a rocky start when she insisted I not film the first round of proceedings in Powell River. I held my ground after 4 or 5 attempts by different staff to convince me to stow my camera. Rafe got in trouble once or twice too for his less-than-diplomatic language, as I recall.
Then, in Campbell River, Ms. Eichenburger continued to overlook me as a speaker, as I waited to voice my concerns about the project. In a side bar, she told me that since I’d spoken already in Powell River, I wouldn’t be getting a turn tonight. I informed her that Campbell River was my hometown, that I’d traveled a whole day to be there and I was bloody well going to say my piece, even if that meant grabbing the microphone off its stand. To which she threatened she would call the police on me. To which I quoted Clint Eastwood.
Needless to say, I got my turn at the microphone and also fully documented both hearings, produced a short documentary on the project and continued to work with Rafe and many others to see it shelved, where it thankfully remains (though not certainly forevermore).
This is just a small sampling of the many colourful experiences I’ve had with these “public” meetings deciding the fate of our public resources.
Neither Rafe nor I are reporters; and we are only “journalists” if you accept Mike Smyth or Vaughn Palmer or Barbara Yaffe or any other editorialist as a journalist. We are in the business of expressing ourselves and the views of others, where it regards the environment and public interest in Canada, and particularly BC. We strive, above all, to get to the bottom of and speak the truth about these largely destructive projects.
In the course of our work around these meetings, we have found ourselves deeply frustrated by the process, for the above reasons. But these events are scarcely a waste of time – on the contrary, they have proven to be a focal point in the battle over our precious resources, even our very democracy. And so Rafe and I go to them – and we will not be told what to report on, how to go about it, nor how to express or not express ourselves at the microphone.
In all my days of witnessing these farcical stage-plays that masquerade as “public” hearings, The Enbridge JRP takes the cake. As I told the panel’s facilitator after my run-in with her team, the harder you try to impede the public will, the ruder you are to the citizens and First Nations of this province, the more you help their cause.
Read this story from CBC.ca on the Harper’s Government’s new deadline for the completion of the ongoing Joint Review Panel into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, amid concerns raised about the proponent and the project raised by BC Conservative MP James Moore. (Aug. 3, 2012)
The federal government has set a firm deadline of Dec. 31, 2013, for the review panel deciding the future of the Northern Gateway pipeline, shutting down the possibility of further extensions and putting into place the expedited assessment process pledged in its budget implementation bill.
But the written notice issued by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Friday comes on the heels of comments from the senior Harper government minister in B.C., James Moore, who told a radio program in Vancouver on Wednesday that doubts about the Northern Gateway project are “widespread, given the behaviour of Enbridge recently.”
Moore denied repeatedly that the federal government’s goal is to “ram through the pipeline.” But he did not reply to interview requests Friday seeking clarification as to whether his comments reflected a possible change in direction or message for federal Conservatives.
In an emailed statement provided to CBC News in response to an interview request seeking clarification of the government’s position, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s office repeated well-used lines about the federal government’s “critical strategic objective” of “diversification of our energy markets” in order to “create jobs and economic growth.”
“We will continue to work in partnership with the provincial governments to encourage achieving this objective,” the statement said. “In particular to the Northern Gateway project, it is currently before the Joint Review Panel who are reviewing all the environmental considerations to make sure it is safe for the environment and Canadians. We look forward to reviewing their report once it is completed.”
In an interview Friday on CBC News Network’s Power & Politics, Peter Julian, the NDP Natural Resources critic who represents the B.C. riding of Burnaby-New Westminster, said the federal government’s doublespeak just isn’t going to fly with Canadians.
“The Conservatives are playing this dangerous game where in B.C. they’re acknowledging the widespread negative reaction of the Northern Gateway proposal, and at the same time in Ottawa they’re trying to impose and move forward on something that British Columbians will simply not accept,” Julian told guest host Hannah Thibedeau.
Friday’s notice from the federal assessment agency confirmed the changes implemented in the government’s budget bill, which came into force on July 6. The changes to the joint review panel’s mandate set a maximum time limit for the panel’s work, concluding at the end of 2013 without further extensions.
Under the changes, the joint review panel can’t reject the pipeline project for only environmental reasons.
Once the review panel submits its report, the federal government will make the final decision on the pipeline within 180 days (approximately six months), before the end of June 2014.
The competition has been tight, but I think Christy Clark has finally won the prize for the Canadian Leader most out of touch with her constituents.
On her new 5-point criteria regarding the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, she strikes out on 4 out of the 5 points.
First, Clark says we must wait for approval from the Enbridge Joint Review Panel (the federal review process currently underway, and in limbo with Harper’s Bill C-38). Well that’s the one she got right – at least she didn’t join the likes of Harper and publicly state her support for the proposal before the process plays out.
Second, Clark indicates that more money would seal the deal for the Provincial government! Excuse me; hasn’t our illustrious Premier heard anything at all this year? When did the 130 First Nations unequivocally opposed to the Northern Gateway, in addition to a majority of British Columbians, ever say “we’re against the project, unless we get more money out of the deal?” Money has NEVER been the issue, and for Clark to think that’s what the people of this province value, then she’s had her head in the sand for the past 10 months or she’s been preoccupied strategizing her latest publicity stunts and secret rendezvous (personally, I think it’s the latter).
Third, Clark insists we must have “world-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline”. I have to wonder, does she mean like the ones at Kalamazoo, or maybe the BP ones in the Gulf, or how about the 800+ spills in the Enbridge system over 10 years? Exactly where does Clark figure this new “world-leading…spill prevention and recovery” will come from? To clean up more than 15% of a spill is impossible and to clean up bitumen is harder and has many unknowns. Pretending that there is a “recovery system” out there that will suddenly solve this issue is why she wins the competition – she’s the only one who thinks this is a reality.
If there were ever an oil spill in Hecate Strait there is no cleanup system. I repeat, there would be no recovery system in place. The only one you’re impressing with this rhetoric is Enbridge – I’m sure she’s won their support with the provincial government’s token requirements.
Fourth, Clark wants to ensure the “Legal and Treaty Rights of FN are addressed”. If you hadn’t noticed, there are over 130 First Nations standing together that are adamantly against this project and most of what they’re saying is about the land, sea and environment and not some legal point that must be “addressed”.
Finally, “Enbridge must make every effort to engage First Nations to provide them with opportunities”. And, we’re back to the money again. The loud and clear message I’ve been hearing is that there isn’t enough money that could offset the risk of an oil spill on our ecosystems and the natural environment that sustains us. Does Clark figure the people of Kalamazoo would be fine now if only they’d loaded up on the benefits earlier in the decade? No means no. Fortunately for British Columbians, the Liberals aren’t fairing well in recent polls. Clark should have taken a lesson from NDP Leader Dix, who took a firm stance against the Northern Gateway a while back.
John Disney is the economic development officer of the The Old Massett Village Council, a band government of the Haida people.
I’ll say this for Fraser Institute “Fellow” Fazil Mihlar, in charge with the Vancouver Sun’s op-ed page: he certainly knows where to find the bottom-feeders to support his ultra-right wing views. Earlier this week, it was right wing zealot Herb Grubel, today it’s some deep thinker, I don’t think, from SNC Lavalin and a director of HSBC, named Gwyn Morgan.
Perhaps Postmedia, which owns the Sun and the Province, aghast at stands taken from the recent columns by Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth, has been under pressure to make amends by ensuring the op-ed page remains the bulletin board for fish farms, independent power producers and pipeline/tanker enthusiasts.
Morgan states, “how difficult it can be for ‘big business’ to be heard over the doom-laden exaggerations of environmental zealots…and powerful international groups…stopping Gateway is part of a large strategy to stymie further oil sands (sic) development.”
Sticks and stones, Mr. Morgan; sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me!
Morgan’s article is full of praise for the safety of pipelines and tankers and deals with none of the points raised by groups like The Wilderness Committee and The Common Sense Canadian.
One can be untruthful in two ways – telling lies or ignoring the facts.
Enbridge has an appalling record which over the past decade has had a spill of more than one per week. How can you possibly defend their building two pipelines (one bitumen, one condensate) in BC?
Their record for cleanups, as exemplified by the Kalamazoo spill, forces the question: given that there will be spills in BC, why should we trust Enbridge’s ability to clean them up?
The pipelines would cross the Rockies, the Rocky Mountain trench, the Coast Range and through the Great Bear Rainforest – how would Enbridge get men and equipment to the spill?
The stuff being shipped is not traditional crude oil but the highly toxic bitumen which, when spilled on water, sinks like a rock and is virtually impossible to clean up. Why, Mr. Morgan, should British Columbia run the certainty of spills of highly toxic tar sands that cannot be reached and could not be cleaned up, even if Enbridge could get to them?
Mr. Morgan, because these spills cannot be cleaned up, we’re dealing with serial spills adding ongoing environmental damage to previous uncleaned spills.
The overall problem of pipelines/tankers is not just the certainty of spills but the high, long-living toxicity of the substance spilled. It’s rather like having a revolver with 100 chambers with one bullet – if you start pulling that trigger, sooner or later you’ll blow your brains out. If, however, the bullet is simply marshmallow, who cares? The risk of hitting the loaded chamber is still a certainty but there is no damage.
Bitumen is not marshmallow, Mr. Morgan.
I have not mentioned jobs and money, so I’ll close with them.
The pipeline would be built by experienced crews from outside BC and there would be less than 100 jobs remaining on a full time basis.
As to the money, Mr. Morgan, BC is not for sale. We who love this province want to preserve it.
You and the corporate industry in general, in Oscar Wilde’s words, “know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”
And so it begins.The spin to jettison Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline in favour supposedly “safer” alternatives.
This narrative will play out in two ways. The first was demonstrated by Conservative MP James Moore on CKNW’s Bill Good Show earlier this week (read the full interview here). After slagging Enbridge for its poor public engagement and safety record, the MP for Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam moved onto what he presented as the superior alternative.
And I think, you asked the question, who else is there out there? I think if you look at the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the way in which they are very judiciously and responsibly engaging with British Columbia’s First Nations, the way in which they’re taking environmental challenges seriously, they way in which they’ve operated for 60 years without any spill—there’s one on land that had nothing to do with Kinder Morgan, but had to do with contractors who were tearing up the streets in Burnaby. There’s a difference, I think, night and day between a company that gets public engagement, Aboriginal engagement, environmental stewardship and Enbridge, which I think their track record is not one that I think any other company should follow if they want to do business in BC.
Bear a few things in mind when you read these extraordinary statements by Mr. Moore. First, Moore, the Federal Heritage Minister, is a rising young star in the Consetvative Party – particularly in BC.
Second, nobody but nobody in Stephen Harper’s button-down caucus opens his mouth – especially about something so key to the Prime Minister’s agenda, not to mention such a hot button issue – without having first received explicit directions to do so from the very highest echelon. What this clearly means is that Moore has been tapped to do Harper’s Enbridge damage control in BC – and the choice of the Bill Good Show to debut this new framing was as calculated as a Catholic Sunday Mass.
The second alternative to the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat is one that will only work if Enbridge’s reputation is deemed salvageable – and let’s face it, at a spill a week, that’s looking increasingly doubtful. Neverheless, there may well yet be a move to reroute the Kitimat line to Prince Rupert, dumping the perilous planned port at the end of Douglas Channel in favour of a safer harbour just up the coast.
In many ways, Rupert is the more sensible choice, although the pipeline route itself is potentially riskier in this case, transiting several hundred km down the Skeena Valley – a vital salmon artery, rife with geological instability. It is for this reason the Prince Rupert option lost out to Kitimat back in 2005 when both were still on the table.
No matter the comparative safety of the Port of Prince Rupert, many other concerns about the pipeline, the Tar Sands it would carry and whose expansion it would facilitate, and the dangers of a spill in BC’s rugged coastal waters – particularly in Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait, which the tankers from Prince Rupert would still transit – remain unchanged in this scenario.
Moreover, Enbridge’s credibility remains a major obstacle no matter what. The choice could be made to switch to a different pipeline company altogether, such as TransCanada or Kinder Morgan (the company from whom Kinder bought the Trans Mountain Pipeline, Terasen, had a rival bid to build a pipeline to Rupert in the early 2000s)…but I wouldn’t bet on the Prince Rupert option, for all of the above reasons.
Rather, as James Moore predictably indicated, the twinned Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline to Vancouver would seem to be the alternative the powers that be will most likely glom onto to salvage their dreams of expanding the Alberta Tar Sands and accessing new Asian markets.
It is for that reason Mr. Moore needs a refresher on Kinder Morgan, the Texas-based energy giant that has indicated it wants to boost its bitumen pipeline capacity through BC from 300,000 barrels a day to 850,000, meaning a five-fold increase in tanker traffic through Burrard Inlet, the Gulf Islands and Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Moore was wrong on everything he told Bill Good about Kinder Morgan’s track record.
First, to his claim of good aboriginal engagement on the part of the company, just ask the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, in whose territory the pipeline terminus lies and the tankers would transit. They came out last month, along with their neighbours the Squamish First Nation, to sign the “Save the Fraser Declaration”, joining over 60 BC First nations who’ve already declared their opposition to oil pipelines and tankers through BC.
The Musqueam First Nation of Vancouver, who also have a big say in the company’s plans, had already signed onto the declaration.
The Tsleil-Waututh have voiced their concern about the lack of consultation they’ve recieved on this matter from the BC Liberal Government and stated in April after the company made its plans official, “We want to make it crystal clear that we will oppose any and all increased oil tanker traffic in the Inlet and we oppose the notion of Kinder Morgan turning Vancouver into an oil port city.”
To Moore’s point that Kinder Morgan wasn’t to blame for the rupturing of its line in Burnaby in 2007, he must not be aware that the company plead guilty in 2011 in provincial court for the spill. The court heard that the pipeline’s owner should have done a better job of monitoring work near the line that tore into it, as this Global TV report shows.
Moreover, with drastically increased bitumen flow and tanker traffic – up to nearly 400 a year from the company’s port in Burnaby, if it gets its way – comes vastly increased risk; or, as my colleague Rafe Mair and many others remind us, certain calamities. And with such a disaster in the waters of Vancouver or the Salish Sea come enormous consequences, both environmental and economic, as Rex Weyler has illustrated in these pages.
Kinder Morgan may not have faced the same scale of public opposition to its plans as Enbridge has seen – but that’s only because it just made its plans official a few months ago. Campaigns are already developing to target the Texas company (full disclosure: I’m part of one of them) and with the likes of Moore shaping this new narrative – dumping Enbridge for a supposedly “safer” Trans Mountain option to Vancouver – the spotlight will increasingly be on Kinder Morgan.
Either Mr. Moore is deliberately deceiving the public about Kinder Morgan’s track record or he’s simply ignorant of it – and being from Vancouver, frankly, he should know better.
Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Provincetook on Adrian Dix this morning for not applying the same principles in his stance on the proposed Enbridge pipeline and consequent tanker traffic to the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning.
Mike is absolutely right. Dix has shown a political wimpishness which puts him, on this issue at any rate, right there alongside Premier Christy Clark.
The proposed lines both go through wild, inaccessible areas of BC, will carry the same gunk (bitumen), with the same certainty of disaster. Bitumen is impossible to clean up at the best of times (see Kalamazoo/Enbridge) and spills will be out of reach of any spill cleanup attempted. As I say, that doesn’t much matter because they can’t be cleaned up anyway.
We will have, along side the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline, the same pattern of serial spills, growing with each spill, with the same deadly results.
Dix’s cowardice comes out of the recent Chilliwack by-election when he felt it unwise to be against Kinder Morgan because it would look like the NDP was against everything. He came up with the weasel explanation that he hadn’t yet seen the Kinder Morgan environmental plan.
Why are those “weasel” words?
Because Dix knows as much about Kinder Morgan as he does about Enbridge. The argument has been proved. Both pipelines go through a hugely sensitive environment with fish bearing rivers and streams and Kinder Morgan’s threatens the Fraser River directly. The bitumen is the same, the spills a certainty and impossible to clean up.
Get your act together, Mr. Dix or, on this issue at any rate, you aren’t much of an improvement over Premier Clark.
The Angus Reid poll on Enbridge published today shows a majority of British Columbians against the project. It must have been commissioned by Enbridge – at least that’s the suspicion when the story in both morning papers emphasizes that 24% might change their minds if Premier Clark gets her demands met. That sounds to me like “if the dog hadn’t stopped to pee he’d have caught the cat.”
As I’ve said before in these pages, Premier Clark’s demand for better environmental oversight and money from Alberta are going nowhere. No matter what environmental safeguards are put in place there will be spills on land and sea on a serial basis. And there is no such thing as a “minor” spill of bitumen.
Finally, in my view as on octogenarian native of British Columbia, I say that our wilderness and coastlines are not for sale and I think that’s a view supported by most of us.
This barely scratches the surface of what has been a never-ending barrage of energy related issues that have dominated the agenda and altered the very fabric of this nation, all the while massively escalating oil and gas production with an equally 
