JOINT REVIEW PANEL FOR THE ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT DU PROJET ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY
Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Ordonnance d’audience OH-4-2011
Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Application of 27 May 2010
Demande de Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. du 27 mai 2010 relative au projet Enbridge Northern Gateway
VOLUME 126
Hearing held at Audience tenue à
Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre 1088 Burrard Street Vancouver, British Columbia
January 16, 2013 Le 16 janvier 2013
International Reporting Inc. Ottawa, Ontario (613) 748-6043
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2013 © Sa Majesté du Chef du Canada 2013 as represented by the Minister of the Environment représentée par le Ministre de l’Environnement et and the National Energy Board l’Office national de l’énergie
This publication is the recorded verbatim transcript Cette publication est un compte rendu textuel des and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et official languages, depending on the languages transcrite dans l’une ou l’autre des deux langues spoken by the participant at the public hearing. officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l’audience publique.
Printed in Canada Imprimé au Canada
HEARING /AUDIENCE OH-4-2011
IN THE MATTER OF an application filed by the Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Board Act, for authorization to construct and operate the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.
HEARING LOCATION/LIEU DE L'AUDIENCE
Hearing held in Vancouver (British Columbia), Wednesday, January 16, 2013 Audience tenue à Vancouver (Colombie-Britannique), mercredi, le 16 janvier 2013
JOINT REVIEW PANEL/LA COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT
S. Leggett Chairperson/Présidente
K. Bateman Member/Membre
H. Matthews Member/Membre
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
ORAL STATEMENTS/EXPOSÉS ORAUX
Farah Shroff Ingrid Tamboline Kevin Afanasiff Johannah Wetzel Mike Gildersleeve Caitlin Birdsall Jeanette Ageson Urs Boxler Jenna Hunt Bill Darnell John Irwin Betty Davison Alan James Charles Easton Mary Ann Kae Rob Fleming Steve Lloyd Lorraine Fralin Hilary Mackey Myrna Franke Caitlin Meggs Elizabeth Haan Sebastian Merz Bryan Joe David Mivasair Gillian Darling-Kovanic Stan Proboszcz Eyal Lebel Nicholas Read Marc Lee Shelley Sorensen Karl Perrin Helga Sussmann Sheila Pratt Cornelia Sussmann Bev Ramey Andrea Sussmann Frances Sharpe Brianna Wright George Smith Kim Wright Marilyn Suddaby
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
ERRATA (i)
Monday, January 14, 2013 - Volume 124
Paragraph No.: Should read: 24484: “...systems that make up our plant.” “...systems that make up our planet.”
24497: “...the dangerously unknown territory...” “...the dangerous, unknown territory...”
24498: “A recent study in The Journal of Nature “A recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change shows...” Climate Change shows...”
24500: “...to keep fossil hydrocarbon out...” “...to keep fossil hydrocarbons out...”
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES (i)
Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
Opening remarks by the Chairperson 26134
Oral statement by Farah Shroff 26153 Oral statement by Marilyn Suddaby 26190 Oral statement by Kevin Afanasiff 26207 Oral statement by Mike Gildersleeve 26238 Oral statement by Bev Ramey 26266 Oral statement by Caitlin Birdsall 26277 Oral statement by Urs Boxler 26317 Oral statement by Bill Darnell 26357 Oral statement by Betty Davison 26393 Oral statement by Rob Fleming 26429 Oral statement by Charles Easton 26471 Oral statement by Lorraine Fralin 26491 Oral statement by Myrna Franke 26504 Oral statement by Elizabeth Haan 26546 Oral statement by Bryan Joe 26577 Oral statement by Gillian Darling-Kovanic 26599 Oral statement by Eyal Lebel 26632 Oral statement by Marc Lee 26650 Oral statement by Karl Perrin 26678 Oral statement by Sheila Pratt 26704 Oral statement by Frances Sharpe 26734 Oral statement by George Smith 26748 Oral statement by Ingrid Tamboline 26796 Oral statement by Johannah Wetzel 26818 Oral statement by Melissa Nelson 26841
Oral statement by Jeanette Ageson 26877 Oral statement by Alan James 26893 Oral statement by Mary Ann Kae 26916 Oral statement by Jenna Hunt 26935 Oral statement by John Irwin 26960 Oral statement by Hilary Mackey 26993 Oral statement by Steve Lloyd 27019 Oral statement by Caitlin Meggs 27040 Oral statement by Sebastian Merz 27054 Oral statement by David Mivasair 27085 Oral statement by Nicholas Read 27098 Oral statement by Stan Proboszcz 27112 Oral statement by Helga Sussmann 27149 Oral statement by Andrea Sussmann 27157 Oral statement by Cornelia Sussmann 27171
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES (ii)
Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
Oral statement by Brianna Wright 27190 Oral statement by Kim Wright 27219 Oral statement by Shelley Sorensen 27243
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- Upon commencing at 1:00 p.m./L’audience débute à 13h00
26134. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, everybody.
26135. My name is Sheila Leggett; on my right is Mr. Hans -- no, Mr. Kenneth Bateman ---
26136. MEMBER BATEMAN: Hello.
26137. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- and on my left is Mr. Hans Matthews.
26138. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Hi.
26139. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just before we get underway, I just have some brief opening remarks I'd like to make.
26140. The Panel welcomes the participation of individuals who have and are taking the time to present thoughtful oral statements presenting relevant views on aspects of this application not previously expressed is helpful to us.
26141. People have expressed their views and recommendations about the application in front of the Joint Review Panel. Kenneth, Hans and I take our responsibilities to this process and the public seriously.
26142. Yesterday we had a disruption that caused a brief delay in our ability to hear oral statements from registered speakers who came here prepared to share their views with the Panel. Our experience has shown us that this venue is optimal for listening to the views delivered in a respectful manner from registered speakers. It's our role to have a venue and a process where this can occur and that can be respectfully observed by both the public and the media.
26143. In order to minimize potential disturbances in Vancouver, the Panel decided to create a viewing room separate from the hearing room. We will continue with this approach for the reasons outlined previously.
26144. We're confident that we can continue to hear oral statements in Vancouver by those registered to speak without any disruptions, delays or need for further changes to the process.
26145. So with that, let's get underway and listen to you because that’s what
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux we're here to do.
26146. So Mr. Afanasiff, please proceed with your oral statement.
26147. MR. KEVIN AFANASIFF: I didn’t realize I was going first. I wasn’t first on the list but I'm okay with that.
26148. DR. FARAH SHROFF: I thought I was first so I you ---
26149. MR. KEVIN AFANASIFF: Whatever, it's ---
26150. DR. FARAH SHROFF: Do you want me to speak first, because I was first on the list?
26151. THE CHAIRPERSON: You sound like you're ready to speak, so why don’t you go ahead.
26152. Thank you. Thanks for your flexibility, Mr. Afanasiff.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR DR. FARAH SHROFF:
26153. DR. FARAH SHROFF: Yeah, great. Good afternoon, it's a pleasure to be here. I’m Farah Shroff -- Dr. Farah Shroff.
26154. I want to acknowledge that we are here on the land that has been beautifully stewarded by the First Nations, the Musqueams and other Coast Salish Nations and how lucky we are for their beautiful stewardship. I've lived here most of my life and I feel like I've benefited a great deal from their stewardship.
26155. So who am I? I'm a university professor; I'm a researcher, a scientist, and an educator. I'm also a mother and my husband and I are raising a third generation in West Point Grey which is on Musqueam land.
26156. And I also lived in the Northwest Territories where Justice Tom Berger led an inquiry which is very similar to the one that you're charged with leading and I was really pleased that democracy worked that time, that that pipeline inquiry was able to really listen to the people and actually heard the voices and put those into action and I’m hoping that your inquiry is going to do a very similar thing. So I hope that the history books, many years to come, will talk about this inquiry in a very similar tone to that of the Berger Inquiry.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26157. I believe that you know that there's a very strong and active people's movement against this pipeline and I'm here to speak as one of the members of that movement. I believe that this pipeline is not in the public interest and I think it's been shown many, many times how clearly Canadians have spoken out against the pipeline. Indigenous groups have spoken out very, very strongly. We know that more than 130 First Nations' bands are against this pipeline crossing over and near their lands.
26158. We also know that there's a very, very exciting movement going on right now called the “Idle No More Movement” and they also expressed a very strong interest in keeping their lands clear and clean just like their ancestors. We know that youths have spoken out against it. I can tell you as a resident in my neighbourhood that my neighbours in West Point Grey are also very strongly against it and that people from all over Canada are against it.
26159. In fact, it's really interesting to me because I've never really seen this kind of unity, almost everybody I've spoken to -- and it doesn’t matter where I go -- is completely against this pipeline and the tankers. It's an incredible strong sense of real interest to keep this coastline clear and clean.
26160. And we know -- and I'm a researcher so I'm just going to speak a little bit to a few surveys. The majority of British Columbians clearly -- thank you, thanks, can you hear me better? Yeah, I was wondering -- it sounded a bit soft.
26161. So, the majority of British Columbians have spoken out also in scientific surveys. The ForestEthics survey showed that 80 percent of British Columbians don’t support the project and an Enbridge-sponsored study show that 55 percent of the respondents opposed the project.
26162. And another survey done December 11th last year shows that 60 percent oppose it and 9 percent are not sure and 31 percent support it. So, from all these sources we really do learn that the majority of British Columbians oppose this project.
26163. I told you earlier that I'm a mother and I think what I've seen as a researcher is that the evidence is really clear, it's quite conclusive. The environmental scientists, as well as the economists, have told us that we're not going to gain very much from this.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26164. So I thought that what I would do is read to you an essay that my 14- year old son Zubin wrote and it was on this exact topic. So I'm just going to read a portion of this essay, he's a grade nine student at Point Grey Mini School and he's -- this is a section of his essay called “After the Spill.”
“Looking around all you can see is a dark hideous blanket of petroleum covering the once picturesque landscape of northern British Columbia. As you journey past the Douglas Channel where the tankers used to trudge, the sickly black water brings devastation to mind. A mother duck tries to lead her goslings out of the sludge but they're all covered in bitumen. They cannot fly because their feathers are stuck together. They're trying to clean their wings with their beaks but all they're doing is poisoning themselves more. Many other animals are also distraught since several ecosystems have been destroyed due to the spills. Biologists found many missing links in the food chain such as decreased numbers of salmon. Partly due to this, animals such as the mystical spirit bears are now extinct. People in this area have also been drastically impacted. Those who helped clean up and others exposed to the bitumen through food or water are suffering from terrible health consequences such as cancers. Many have lost fishing and other similar jobs proving that the damage to environment hurts the economy. All the local communities have been poorly compensated and Enbridge, the company which caused the problem, is trying to walk away from this disaster as they have done in the past. The bitumen was sold by supporters to be like black gold, it would only bring us prosperity. Now, we see the truth we feared. The bitumen is only a deathly poison that is slowly killing British Columbia." (As read)
26165. End of quote. By my son, Zubin Shroff.
26166. So I alluded earlier to the reality that there is conclusive scientific evidence of the harms that this pipeline and the tankers will cause to ecosystems and therefore to human health. So it is not in the public interest, and I'm going to repeat that point a few times. This pipeline and the tankers are not in the public interest.
26167. Scientists from many disciplines have studied the path of the pipeline
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux and the tankers and have told us that it is 100 percent certain that environmental devastation will occur.
26168. Now, predictability, as a scientist I have to say, is a very difficult thing to do. So when scientists from different disciplines and different ways of looking at this ecosystem can come up with a 100 percent prediction that we're going to have either a pipeline spill or a tanker spill or both, which is probably much more likely, that's actually saying a lot.
26169. For myself as a scientist, that's the kind of evidence that we use, in my field, in public health, as alarming, and we would apply what we call in my field, the precautionary principle, which means don't do it if you know there's going to -- if there's a very high chance of causing problems.
26170. We also know that beyond the problems of a potential spill or a tanker problem is that the chronic impact of low levels of oil seepage will also cause a lot of problems. So beyond the traumatic kind of a spill is just the chronic seepage problems that exist.
26171. Is that my three minutes? Okay. All right.
26172. So I just want to say that a short-term financial gain for the oil and gas industry does not warrant this potentially lethal disaster.
26173. I had a little bit more to say about the economic impacts, and maybe I can say it quickly in three minutes. So there have been some researchers in my university who have studied this and they've shown that the cost of cleaning up a coastal spill in Northern B.C. could be as high as $9.6 billion. That cost is much greater than the economic benefits that British Columbia would accrue. So just looking at it very purely from a profit perspective, this is not a -- this is a bad deal, it's a bad deal for British Columbia.
26174. So we, in British Columbia, will lose the most because we know that Enbridge has got a very poor track record and shows minimal respect or care for nature when they do business.
26175. So combined with their poor track record is the difficult geographical problems that are posed by B.C.'s terrain. We have, as you well know as British Columbians, that we have a very high chance of earthquakes and a big earthquake happening in the next 100 years. Our seismologists have told us that. If we had a
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux big earthquake in the next years while that pipeline was there, the chance of a spill would be increased very high.
26176. So I want to say one more time, this pipeline is not in the public interest. And I started by acknowledging the stewardship of the indigenous people on this land and I want to say that I believe it could be indigenous peoples' court challenges, which are indubitably costly and time-consuming, but those may be the way that are going to save the animals, the waters, the soil and air in the area where the pipeline and the tankers are planned, and I'm very grateful again to native people for taking that effort up.
26177. I also learned from my friend who's here that Enbridge sent some of their representatives to Haida Gwaii to market their pipeline and tankers and told people that they could train the Haida to clean up after the inevitable oil spill. Apparently, the only sound in the room was the Haida's jaws dropping.
26178. So hopefully the force of the peoples' opposition will convince you to recommend no pipelines, no tankers to the Harper government and hopefully the Harper government will listen to you and halt the plans to build this pipeline. I really do believe, again, that this is not in the public interest and that the environmental and economic facts are conclusive.
26179. Beyond the environmental and economic facts is also a moral and ethical imperative, and I think all of us in this room, from industry, from government, and from the citizenry have to ask ourselves a very important question of what kind of a legacy we wish to leave future generations. Do we wish to leave our great grandchildren with the opportunity to have a clean environment?
26180. I'm going to read one last poem. I'm going to read one last thing for you. It's an 11-year-old poem.
26181. THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, one last sentence, please, in summary.
26182. MS. FARAH SHROFF: Sure. Eleven-year-old Ta’Kaiya Blaney of Sliammon First Nation wrote this song called "Shallow Waters".
26183. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That's your last sentence. Thank you very much.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26184. MS. FARAH SHROFF: It's just ---
26185. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Shroff, no. Thank you very much.
26186. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Sorry about that. You're over your time there. We have to allow other people to speak.
26187. Okay. Good afternoon, Ms. Suddaby.
26188. MS. MARILYN SUDDABY: Good afternoon.
26189. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Please go ahead and share your comments with us.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. MARILYN SUDDABY:
26190. MS. MARILYN SUDDABY: Thank you. I'm here to speak against the Enbridge pipeline, and I come as a concerned senior citizen of British Columbia, of Canada, and of the world. I come because I've lost faith in the politicians to do their job of protecting our environment for future generations and from further degradation.
26191. It seems to be up to us individual citizens, the ones of us who are aware and care, to try to make our voices heard. We want the government to get busy and make our environment their top priority. The state of our environment is serious worry to me.
26192. I've watched, and listened, and read about the consequences of continuing on the same path using carbon-based energy. Yet I read that our government has weakened existing environmental laws, and I presume that's to make it easier for companies like Enbridge to further risk our future wellbeing.
26193. I can listen to Enbridge and the Prime Minister or I can listen to scientists and some of the brightest minds of our time of the day that say wake up; we're running out of time to prevent further disasters. To me, it's a no brainer.
26194. I've been to 70 countries, including China and India. I just returned from India where air quality in Delhi was almost as bad as it was in China in 1998. Back then, when we were there for three weeks, the sun everywhere in
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux China looked like a faint ghost behind the smog. A photo in yesterday's Sun paper showed that the situation there is getting worse.
26195. Enbridge wants to ship China more carbon-based energy. Wouldn't it be great if Canada had become a leader in renewable energy and could help them clean up their country instead? We had that opportunity to go in that direction 25 years ago. It's been 25 years at least since scientists warned of the danger of continuing with the status quo.
26196. To quote David Suzuki:
"In 1988, the environment was a top public concern. Scientists spoke out and the politicians said the right things. Global warming was a pressing and present issue. Now, 25 years later, carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, and we're already seeing the consequences: more extreme weather events, melting glaciers and arctic ice, rising sea levels, reduced water flows and rivers and climate-related illness and death, among others. It's driven in part by rapid economic growth in countries like China, India and Brazil. At the same time, most industrialized nations, whose use of fossil fuels created the problems of excess greenhouse gases, have done little to reduce emissions."
26197. To me, promoting oil pipelines in 2013 is like promoting blacksmiths in 1913. New technology had no place for them then and today our world has no place to accept more pollution. We have new technology to achieve cleaner energy. We can't afford an antiquated system.
26198. Life as we know it hangs in the balance. I think people are ready to put their money where their mouth is. We're planning, my husband and I, to buy an electric car this year, even though we're not sure we'll be able to visit my sister in Abbottsford and have enough battery left to get home.
26199. Of all the beautiful places we’ve seen in this world, we always say, “Yes but British Columbia is just as beautiful”. When I think of the risks to this beauty, by playing Russian roulette with a pipeline across it and oil tankers down the coast, I feel a deep sadness. It’s not necessary.
26200. Another pipeline is of no ultimate value to anyone if it contributes to
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux the stress on our environment. I read in the newspaper that Enbridge has formed a separate company to accept responsibility for the pipeline. This makes me think that Enbridge doesn’t feel confident that all will be well and they’re getting their insurance under a separate entity rather than risk their main company’s money. This is not reassuring.
26201. I’m still hoping to have grandchildren and it’s possible that they could live in the 22nd century, and I don’t want to have to say to them, “We’re sorry we didn’t protect the world for you”.
26202. Instead, I’d rather say, “You know things were getting pretty dicey before you were born but people finally smartened up and began to value quality of life over the economy”. And look, like when we stopped using blacksmiths, stopping reliance on carbon energy did not end life as we know it. The new economy does just fine, thank you.
26203. So I say, no to another pipeline. It’s time to make the change. I know you have heard all of this before many times over but I felt I had to take the opportunity to be counted. The changes I’ve seen in my lifetime are scary. Please say no to Enbridge.
26204. Thank you.
26205. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
26206. Mr. Afanasiff, thank you for participating today. Please share your views with the panel.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. KEVIN AFANASIFF:
26207. MR. KEVIN AFANASIFF: Actually I’d like to start -- do you mind if I read that poem you didn’t get a chance to read?
26208. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Afanasiff, please put the paper down and you’ve been invited to share your views. There have been individuals from time to time who have sought to have others’ views presented.
26209. It’s inappropriate and it’s not the purpose that’s here. So while you have extended that gesture, please hand the paper back and then we would like to hear your views.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26210. MR. KEVIN AFANASIFF: I’m sorry, it’s really sad that you guys won’t let an 11 year olds poem be ready because of -- like -- the regulations around it but that’s okay.
26211. You know, actually the reason I’m here is to sing you guys a song anyways but it deserves a little preamble before it.
26212. I can guarantee you it’s going to be a little bit different than what the 11 year old wrote. It’s not necessarily a happy thing. It comes from this perspective of a 30 year old man who wants to have family and wants to have children but is worried that when they grow up you know, I’m going to have to explain to them why they can’t swim the ocean, right.
26213. Or you know, why their forests are cut down and full of garbage, right. You know, and they’re going to ask me like, what did you do, so I want to say that I like actually took some legitimate steps and tried my best to get my point heard.
26214. But the problem with that is is that if I just come up here and give another speech about economics or politics or the social or cultural effects about this, I’m just going to be saying the exact same thing that you’ve already heard from a thousand other people, right?
26215. And they’ve said it more eloquently than I can. I mean you both did a great job about speaking about those issues. I don’t need to just reiterate that. If I want to make an honest attempt to get my point across then I need to think a little bit outside the box. I need to do something a little bit creative right, and leverage my strengths in order to say things in a different way than everybody else is saying.
26216. So with that ---
26217. MEMBER BATEMAN: You’re welcome to sing, as long as your message, as we expect from all parties, is respectful. Feel free to present it in whatever creative ways.
26218. Thank you.
26219. MR. KEVIN AFANASIFF: It has no swears in it but I’ll say that it is
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux a religious song because this is a -- as soon as we start involving Aboriginal affairs in something, that’s essentially -- I’m going to say it’s a pagan religion; they believe and they worship the earth right? From a pagan’s perspective this is sacrilegious, right; it’s destructive to the earth.
26220. So I mean, from a religious perspective, you’re going to have to understand that, you know, the narrator of the poem is understandably upset about it, right, and believes it’s sacrilegious but it’s not -- there’s no swears, I don’t think it’s disrespectful. It’s just a song, right.
26221. It’s written in Patois English which is an English slang. So if you don’t understand it, that’s okay. To the transcriber, I’m sorry if you can’t transcribe it like don’t worry right. You can do your best. I’ve got a transcript of it for you if you want after.
26222. But to be fair, like this is going to be embarrassing for me you know, like, I’m coming up here and sort of putting myself out there. Doing something like this you know, like I could end up on like “Fails 2013” you know, like I -- this could be a professional time bomb for me right.
26223. To express like what some people are going to see as extreme views in a public forum but -- like -- hopefully by embarrassing myself or you know, at least making an attempt, I can --like -- bring some more exposure to the issue and some people can maybe be inspired by that or whatever.
26224. So anyway, I guess I will do this and get it over with and sing this. It’s written under the title -- artist title, “Son of Gideon” which I’ve written about 48 songs in the last year and I’ve never -- like -- actually sang any of them publicly and I sincerely hope this is the last one that I write. It was written in the third attempt at something to say here and we’ll see.
26225. So I’m going to take a drink of water. And also, forgive me, this is going to be a little hoarse. I’m a writer, not a singer but since I can’t have someone else represent my views for me, it’s left to me to do this.
26226. MEMBER BATEMAN: Take a deep breath and we’re genuinely interested.
26227. MR. KEVIN AFANASIFF: Excellent.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux “Bi nothing left ta say as mi write today Na other moves to play under Shamash ray Hyperion reign make fa all a ya wrongs make pay Hi strip a shi shroud an cast fi far away
Mi da fi di key ba di answer still bi Wi fi take ta heart risk a da fast rising sea Wi fi bi stuck in tree o on mountain slope scree Weep like mi Niobe fa wounds Cybele
Mi Cybele queen shi Earth sister unseen Bi hold a mother a fi tri trinity trine Na pollute shi blood na acidify spleen Ocean filter a world bi best keep shi clean
Fi many enemy de rapt bi na free Wan hurt fi mother sister brother in spree ---“
26228. You know I have it written down. Maybe I should just read it off. I’m not a big public speaker so let’s try this again.
“Fi many enemy de rapt bi na free Want hurt fi mother sister brother in spree Oil flow thru fi lands an drown roots a ti tree Sa need ask fi self wa future ya wan si
Wi si many signs a fi ti troubling times Si ya wan make slaves ta assist wi ya crimes Ba hear Gideon son chimes up halfway tree climbs Ta Babylon branches wer fi ti minds primes
Fi si di truth a ya unholy intent Rape Gaea fa just ya mas money bi spent Na escape wi rent di mother tri event Ta Gaea Dione Nemesis repent
Cybele mother a fi dryads satyrs Ti sons an daughters climb di diving ladders Reach fa mountain heights start a major landslide Ya bi coming round as fi turning di tide
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Si all fi ti peoples na more stay inside Bi take ta ti streets an fi forests each night Peaceful power loud shout wi all ti fi might Wi chants Rapt Swell Urge Rend Unit an Sway Rite”
26229. Now I know that doesn’t make a lot of sense and it’s insane right, but this is the kind of thing that I’ve been writing for the last year as I’ve been dealing as like a middle aged person with a Harper administration that’s just getting rid of environmental laws, getting rid of environmental protections that I’ve had -- that I’ve seen my whole life and national parks that I grew up with which are being threatened, right.
26230. So I think when people get stressed they end up -- like -- coming out with an outlet for things that is creative and hopefully gets a message across because I think what a lot of people don't understand is that I'm not -- some of my best friends are Aboriginal, right, and for them, it doesn't matter how complicated or compelling the economics arguments -- the economic argument of something is.
26231. When it's -- when it's sacrilegious, when it undermines their religion, right, they can never even -- like -- consider those arguments because, you know, you can't make up for wrongs by pouring money at something or throwing money at something or making money -- like -- from something.
26232. So that's just -- I guess it's a voice. It's a religious voice, and pagans around the world, they'd be offended by this. And hopefully by doing that I was able to get across their voice and, you know, people in Southeast Asia whose islands are being swamped by the pollution that we pump into the atmosphere by dirty extraction of oil sands energy -- right -- and then shipping it across the entire -- the entire ocean, you know, hopefully they can see that and see in it -- like reflected some of their, you know, distress and duress at what's happening.
26233. So I'm done.
26234. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you. Your passionate approach was appreciated. If you would like to have the words on the transcript, would you leave the copy with our process advisor as you leave?
26235. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for stepping forward and presenting your own unique views on the project.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
26236. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
26237. Mr. Gildersleeve, please go ahead with your oral statement when you're ready.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. MIKE GILDERSLEEVE:
26238. MR. MIKE GILDERSLEEVE: Yes, hi. Good afternoon. I appreciate being here. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views about this project.
26239. I don't have a song for you but I have a lot of concern about this project. When it was first proposed certainly that was my first effort, was to sign up and -- when we realized we had the opportunity to speak out because I think that is the time we are living in now with what we see, these projects that are -- that seem to be ramping up all across the planet.
26240. And so I'm here as a father of two adult kids now. I live out in Mission. My reason, really, for being here is thinking about the future generations, thinking about -- you know, wanting to be able to answer the question, you know, you knew this was proposed and you did what. You let that happen or you didn't speak out.
26241. You know, if we listen to the Chair of Enbridge, he would say this is a highly strategic project for Canada, one of the most trade-dependent of the G8 nations, and oil is our most important export. It certainly makes sense if you're the Chair of Enbridge to be talking that way.
26242. We're looking at -- and again, I want to speak out clearly against that thinking because I think we're living in an age when we know better.
26243. If I go back to -- I guess I can start with Greenpeace and the introduction of the term "ecology". And that's what I want to be thinking of. That's what I know we all need to be thinking about, is how our activities are -- impact the environment and the ecology and the ecosystems that support our life.
26244. We hear that by 2020 there will be 3.5 million barrels a day produced
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux from this one project. With this project that -- with the Enbridge project, we know that it is setting our course for continued exploitation, dependency on fossil fuel when, really, if we're -- like Mr. Harper, our Prime Minister, says, science will determine the outcome or the decision on this project.
26245. If we really are listening to science, the scientists at -- the majority of scientists out there are saying we have to wake up, we have to -- the time for change is now. We cannot continue down this road of fossil fuel exploitation.
26246. The scary part for me is we now are with a government that is changing the laws as we sit here, and -- which are essentially stripping and dismantling the environmental protection that we have -- that were hard earned and hard work for, recognizing that our natural environment is what will sustain us in the end.
26247. So I'm referring to Bill C-38 and C-45, which essentially, what we're hearing, certainly, are the result of a very strong oil and gas lobby in Ottawa. Clearly, there's been so much in the last year that is evidence, the -- what these laws will result in that it's really so these projects can happen, legally.
26248. What we've seen is right from the outset is a strong First Nation reaction, and that really is also what fuels me being here today. I'm wearing the colours of the Fort Nelson First Nation, who came down to Vancouver to express concern about the liquefied natural gas.
26249. You've heard of that as another project up northeast of B.C. that is what's being termed a feeding frenzy of water licences and exploitation of the natural environment with -- for the rivers and their lakes. They're seeing now the impacts of that.
26250. And I refer to that because that's -- it's the cumulative effects that we're seeing now. This is one project that we're here today to talk about which is very much like many of these other projects, whether you're referencing Kinder Morgan or the liquefied natural gas. When we hear our own Premier talking about trillions of dollars, you know, it's almost like out of an Austin Powers movie, you know, who can relate to a trillion dollars?
26251. But it's setting sights on pursuing, in the long-term, these kind of projects without any kind of due diligence, without any kind of meaningful consultation with First Nation.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26252. If we can't do that, we can't show that respect when we signed on for the rights of indigenous -- the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we've -- you know, it's empty talk, and that really disturbs me.
26253. We've got the evidence already. We've got the Exxon Valdez still sitting -- still lying there. We know that, you know -- they talk about cleaning up an oil spill, well, you don't clean up an oil spill, 10 or 15 percent, if you can even get that and that -- and the residue of that is left for who knows, centuries.
26254. All it will take is one spill for this -- for the livelihood of the Coastal First Nation, you know -- where else are they going to go and shop, you know? Their shorelines, their food, their lifestyle is totally dependent on being able to have food from the shoreline, from the lands. If that's not there, what kind of a catastrophe will that be, one spill?
26255. This is a risk we cannot afford to take. We've seen with Enbridge the spills, the long history of spills. You've heard them all before, I'm sure, but you know, obviously the Kalamazoo.
26256. We had a spill in Abbotsford, a small spill Kinder Morgan, that was again inattention. They didn’t know how to respond. It’s -- this is madness to continue down this road. We know better, we must start -- we’re all wanting to see some efforts at moving towards a green economy which we know needs to happen.
26257. I mean, I’m dating myself a bit, but you know, the turnaround decade is what followed the -- the Rio Summit when we were recognizing the problems with -- with global -- how we were behaving on the planet, exploitation of natural resources.
26258. Now that was the nineties, now we’re 2013 and we seem to be -- it’s just like because, you know, it’s this ramping up is a total ignorance of the realities of today where we’re behaving such -- it’s just like, this is more than -- this is worse than a roll of the dice in my view because we know better. We know better than to continue pursuing, if it’s not this project, it’s another project.
26259. We’re seeing with Kinder Morgan, after going through a whole series of public information meetings, they’re now expanding what they want, 950,000 barrels a day. This is -- it just shows there’s a total disconnect with the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux community and hearing what all of us in B.C. what a -- what a majority and a growing message from people that -- how many times do you need to hear it; this is not welcome here. This puts everything that we treasure at risk and we need to have a future.
26260. We can do that. We share this, all of us here, whether it’s kids or family or whatever we’re looking -- we need to be thinking about the impacts of what we do today on the generations of the future, on our future generations.
26261. So again, I appreciate being able to come here and talk with you, even with these changes of the legislation. We’re hearing this may be a rare opportunity because what we’re seeing is an extreme lack of consultation, public participation, meaningful consultation with our First Nation. That’s where it starts for me.
26262. If we can’t start there and get it right, then we know we’re on the wrong track. Let’s make decisions that we know in our gut are the right decisions. That’s me and you and all of us here.
26263. I urge you to recommend that this project not go ahead. Thank you.
26264. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great, thanks for your comments.
26265. Ms. Ramey, please go ahead and -- sure that’s fine, just -- if you could check the mic once you start just to make sure we hear everything.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. BEV RAMEY:
26266. MS. BEV RAMEY: Okay, I think that’s on.
26267. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great, thank you.
26268. MS. BEV RAMEY: Thank you. When I signed up to speak in these oral hearings, my intent had been to come before you and oppose this project in terms of, first of all the pipeline itself being built through the rugged terrain and potential spills; second, the oil tanker traffic and spills; third, the economics which I think for B.C., this is not a good case. The very few jobs are offered through this project put at risk the many already-existing jobs that are based on our natural environment. And lastly, for Canada, I do not think in the long-term, this is a good project in terms of exporting raw fossil fuels.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26269. So that had been my intent, but I’m aware that you Panel Members have heard many people speak along these lines and in great detail so I’m not going to repeat.
26270. After I signed up I became aware through the media that the character of people signing up to make oral statements had been cast in doubt, so I am very pleased to stand before you today to say that I am Canadian and, in fact, I’m a third generation British Columbia. I care very deeply about this province.
26271. I also, in talking to my family, my relatives, my friends, I’m aware that very few of the people I know are actually speaking before you. I think -- I’m aware -- I know about four people who are making presentations, so I plead with you to weigh fairly the statements that people are making before you and that there’s many similar-minded people who are not here speaking to you.
26272. And I trust that you will not be swayed by the -- the extensive, well- funded ads that Enbridge -- that were seen on the TV and in the newspaper.
26273. So I’m keeping my presentation short, but I -- I do urge you to recommend against approval of this project.
26274. Thank you.
26275. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
26276. Ms. Birdsall, thank you for choosing to participate and share your views. Please present them to the Panel.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. CAITLIN BIRDSALL:
26277. MS. CAITLIN BIRDSALL: Great, I have a loud voice, so hopefully this should pick up.
26278. Good afternoon. I want to start off by thanking you for granting me the time and the venue to voice my opinion. I spent a lot of time mulling over how to best express the feelings about -- my feelings about the proposed Northern Gateway Project. I wish I could just share with you that deep-seated gut feeling that overcomes me every time I think about this proposed pipeline being approved.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26279. To describe it, it’s not anger and it’s not sadness; I would describe it closest to terror. I am absolutely so frightened of this proposal. But since I can’t pass on the shivers and the worry that I feel really acutely and physically, I’ll try the best to explain where these feelings are coming from. For me, this is an issue that is personal, professional, and philosophical all at once.
26280. So let’s start with the personal. My name is Caitlin Birdsall and I am a lifelong British Columbian. I grew up in the suburbs of the lower mainland and luckily for me my family owned an escape from the city. We have a small piece of land on Saturna Island and I spent much of my summers exploring the rocky shores of the Gulf Islands.
26281. The absolute most formative moments of my youth were the exceptional and exciting occasions where we would sit on the beach watching killer whales swim by. I was captivated and as the saying goes, the rest is history. I think we are truly lucky when we find a place in the world where we feel right and where we feel we belong. For me, this place is on the ocean, particularly on the ocean along the coast of B.C.
26282. I’m very fortunate that while I’m a south coaster, I have spent a considerable amount of time on northern Vancouver Island, as well as the central coast of B.C.
26283. The risk associated with increased tanker traffic that would be caused by the pipeline threaten the very place in the world where I feel most right and the place I extract much of my identity.
26284. Just as a side note, I actually, I do a huge amount of public speaking for my job and my voice doesn’t normally do this, so I -- I say that only to underscore how passionate I feel about this.
26285. So as I mentioned, this issue is also a professional one for me. I’m here today simply as an individual and I’m not representing any organization I have or do work for. However, the truth is your career influences your experiences and your knowledge.
26286. For the last eight years I have worked in various aspects of marine mammal conservation, education and research, the end product of that little girl who was so fascinated by killer whales off Saturna.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26287. My job currently has me overseeing a coast-wide citizen science project. I’m essentially a story collector, amassing information about cetaceans -- that’s whales, dolphins and porpoises -- from a network of coastal citizens and mariners. In this regard, I understand better than most British Columbians, the occurrence, diversity, and distribution of the 23 species of cetaceans that have been spotted in B.C.
26288. My job is simply to gather information and the organization I work for takes no stand on this proposal. However I can tell you that the collective data shows that the areas in which the tankers are proposed to run are awash with cetacean activity. It’s home to humpback, fin, grey, resident, transient, and even offshore killer whales, Pacific white-sided dolphins, harbour and Dall’s porpoise and even more.
26289. I want to share with you a few stories from my career to help illustrate some of what we’d be risking in this proposal -- if this proposal was approved. This summer, on a common grey misty afternoon, I was sitting on board a boat in Queen’s Sound on the central coast, just south of the area where the tankers would run through. We were taking photos of northern resident killer whales for identification purposes.
26290. There were two mature lines, that is female-based families present. They belonged to a population listed as threatened. As the families had each grouped up and begun to rest. Now, resting whales position themselves abreast of each other, pectoral flipper to pectoral flipper in a long line and they rise to the surface slowly in unison. The "pfff" from that synchronized breathing echoes all across the surface.
26291. As far as science understands, resting tooth cetaceans are only semi- conscious; they shut off half their brain. On this day, the match line we were closest to was comprised of 10 whales all moving as one, slowly weaving their way through kelp beds, past a preening sea otter and among eyelets.
26292. While I found it pretty incredible that resting whales can still navigate so diligently while only partially conscious, what really struck me at that moment was the one thing that they would not avoid whether awake or at rest is oil. And we know this from experience.
26293. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, two groups of killer
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux whales were seen swimming through the slick. Without a developed sense of smell, and unable to detect hydrocarbons on the water, cetaceans will travel directly through these spills.
26294. Those two families, the AT1 transients and the AB Pod of residents, suffered incredible blows because of their mistake. Within one year, they suffered mortality of 40 and 33 percents, respectively. The normal rate would have been 2.5 percent. One of these groups, the genetically distinct AT1, has never had a calf since. They will eventually cease to exist. They are a sad footnote on the tragic tale of a spill.
26295. There have been a lot of numbers tossed around by a variety of experts spouting how big or small the risk of a spill would be. Regardless of the number, the fact is it will never be zero if there are tankers carrying large amounts of bitumen through these waters.
26296. We know that this area is navigationally treacherous, that even vessels like the Queen of the North that ply those waters every single day still make mistakes and run aground. We know that, in the last three months, there have been two large earthquakes in the area with the resulting tsunami warnings. We know from the Kalamazoo spill that cleaning bitumen is very, very hard.
26297. All these factors, I believe, make it foolhardy to export oil through this area. A spill would be devastating to the whales, potentially exposing large numbers of at risk cetaceans to deadly hydrocarbon exposure.
26298. Unfortunately, a spill is not the only risk to marine mammals associated with this project, so here’s a second story from my time working on the north end of Vancouver Island. There in a sleepy resort community of Telegraph Cove is a small museum. Hung from the ceiling is a nearly 20 metre long skeleton of a young fin whale aptly named Finny. Standing under it makes you feel very, very small.
26299. And as you gaze up, what you will notice is that some of those hulking bones are cracked and crushed. Finny was hit and killed by a cruise ship in 1999. And while it isn’t understood why, fin whales are the most commonly struck cetacean in the world.
26300. How often this happen is hard to discern. In fact, the ship that hit Finny didn’t even know they had done so until they arrived in port. Many more
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux whales are likely struck, but do not stick and, therefore, are never discovered.
26301. This proposal would bring at least 220 enormous vessels a year through prime habitat for both fin whales and humpbacks, drastically increasing the chance of collision. Both species, each listed as threatened, are just starting to recover after decades of persecution by whaling fleets.
26302. I’ve read closely the documents on marine mammal mitigation and I will agree that Enbridge has promised quite a bit, but much of it means very little because the promises of slower speeds and route diversions to accommodate marine mammals are all appended by the statement “unless otherwise required for safe navigation”.
26303. The fact is, in this area there will be little room to adjust without comprising -- compromising safe navigation. And those negate the mitigation measures.
26304. Whether you believe that saving whales is important or not, what I hope you realize is that they are just ambassadors for the ocean. What affects them affects the whole ocean ecosystem. In the public interest, this healthy ocean ecosystem supports 26,000 direct and indirect ecotourism jobs, a struggling fishing industry, shellfish aquaculture and vibrant communities.
26305. The last point I’d like to make is a philosophical one. Should this proposal be approved, we as Canadians would be committing ourselves to continue being a nation of unsustainable resource extraction and exportation.
26306. It had started with sea otters, which we exturpated for their fur, and has continued with cod, raw timber and minerals. By approving this pipeline, we go down that same path.
26307. By rejecting this proposal, we open ourselves to be a nation that chooses a novel future of greener economies and creative solutions. We don’t have to be sea otter traders any more. Philosophically, the decision to recommend the Enbridge Pipeline is not -- is much bigger than this one project. It’s about our future as well.
26308. I imagine that much of what I’ve had to say is similar to many testimonies you have heard throughout the process. I don’t think this repetition is a waste of time, however. In it, I hope you hear the resounding, echoing message
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux of no.
26309. This is our home and we aren’t willing to risk it. This proposal has aroused our protective instincts and allowed us to band together using our voices collectively. I hope you have felt this in your travels through the province and I hope you feel that from me today.
26310. Personally, professionally, philosophically this proposal doesn’t make sense to me. The risks are too great. I’m ready for a direction -- new direction. I’m sure the whales are, too.
26311. I implore you to reject the Northern Gateway Project. Thank you.
26312. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you, Ms. Birdsall. As you gather your stories about cetaceans, I hope you have had the opportunity to review the transcripts of the traditional oral evidence. There have been some touching stories of individuals' recent and historic interactions with cetaceans.
26313. MS. CAITLIN BIRDSALL: Absolutely.
26314. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
26315. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to each of you.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
26316. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. Mr. Boxler, please go ahead with your oral statement when you’re ready.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. URS BOXLER:
26317. MR. URS BOXLER: Esteemed Joint Review Panel, thank you for the opportunity to present my oral statement.
26318. My name is Urs Boxler, together with my wife, Judy. I have been cruising the coast of British Columbia and Alaska with our sailboat for the past 13 years for many months every summer. We have acquired extensive knowledge and deep appreciation of the beauty of this coast.
26319. We have explored the Great Bear Rainforest many times. We have
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux sailed all the routes of the proposed tanker traffic. We have watched dozens of humpback whales in Camaano Sound.
26320. We have come up close to sea lions, seals, dolphins, orcas, porpoises. We have caught fish. We have watched grizzly bears and black bears with their cubs. We have stood on a grassy flat in an estuary and had a Kermode bear watch -- and walk past us within 10 metres. I am sure you can appreciate our position on the proposed Northern Gateway project.
26321. As a nation, instead of debating whether to allow the destruction of all this with a massively polluting industrial project, we should decide to create a Great Bear Rainforest National Park.
26322. I’m very concerned about the risks posed to the B.C. Coast by the proposed tanker traffic. I have identified the major risks of tanker traffic in my letter of comment of August last year. My presentation today provides additional information.
26323. I know that risk analysis studies have indicated that the probability of a major spill from this project is low, but it is not zero. And I emphasize a low probability is not an argument to downgrade the potential severity of a major spill.
26324. How do accidents happen? Accidents are often the result of multiple mishaps in combination with human error occurring at an unfortunate conjunction.
26325. I will now present to you a scenario that is entirely hypothetical, but entirely possible.
26326. Here is the scenario. Assume we are some years after the tanker traffic has been initiated. We have a weather situation. It's late fall. Severe storms are approaching the B.C. coast one after the other. This is normal. It happens every year.
26327. A deep low is now approaching and another low is following. The forecasters are considering whether they should issue a storm warning, which will be the second-last notch before a hurricane force warning.
26328. Okay. Here we are in Kitimat. One of the supertankers, the Golden Pearl, is being loaded. Departure is scheduled for late afternoon tomorrow. The
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux captain is monitoring the weather situation constantly. He concludes that he can likely take the tanker out between the two lows. After all, his job is to keep the tanker traffic going.
26329. Meanwhile, out in Hecate Strait, a mystery ship, the Hanuman, is struggling through the building seas. It is a rusty hulk of an old freighter from Asia. The people -- it's a people smuggling ship. The captain is very tired and worried. They have already had engine trouble and steering system trouble and are much delayed. But now their digital charting system has broken down and nobody on board can fix it. He has only a few outdated small scale charts of the B.C. coast that show little detail.
26330. At the Coast Guard Station in Prince Rupert, officials have seen the mystery ship on their coastal radar but have not been able to contact it. Radio calls have not been responded to and the Hanuman does not have AIS, which is satellite-based Automatic Identification System.
26331. On the mystery ship, the Hanuman, it is night now and the storm rages. The seas have become unexpectedly rough. The captain has slowed the ship down and is struggling to keep steerage through the heaving ocean. He has decided that his only salvation will be to escape the open sea into the inner channels via Caamano Sound.
26332. On board the supertanker, the Golden Pearl, the tanker is on its way after the passage of the first low. The two B.C. coast pilots are on board and have concurred with the decision to depart. One tug is leading the way. The other tug is following pedaled by a big house to the stern of the tanker as per prescribed routine.
26333. The captain is following the usual route. Everything is routine. The plan is to cross Caamano Sound toward the open ocean in 10 hours. That will be 3 o'clock in the morning. The ship is well equipped with multiple digital charting systems, GPS receivers, AIS transceivers, VHF radios, radars, depth sounders and everything that is required to make such a ship as safe as possible.
26334. Some hours later, while they are approaching Caamano Sound, the marine weather radio is announcing an upgrade from the existing gale warning to a storm warning. On the mystery ship, the Hanuman, things have turned for the worse. Visibility is terrible; the seas are heaving and confused. The stressed captain hopes that they can make Caamano Sound some time after midnight.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26335. On the supertanker, the Golden Pearl, the weather has become much worse than expected. The captain now thinks to himself that it would have been better to delay departure.
26336. The Golden Pearl is steadily steaming into Caamano Sound through huge swells. From here, they have about 16 nautical miles to the more open waters of Hecate Strait, but these are the most dangerous miles of the whole route, with the biggest trails and underwater reefs. At least they're going into the weather head on and can maintain good steerage.
26337. As they pass the tiny Dupont Island, they suddenly see a faint intermittent light to starboard where none is supposed to be. What could it be? Now they also have a radar echo showing up on the radar screen. It is an unexpectedly -- it has unexpectedly appeared from behind Dupont Island. “Damn it! It is some kind of ship”, the captain screams.
26338. The captain signals to the engine room for a reduction of power and, at the same time, pulls the steering joystick hard to port to avoid a collision. He also calls the tethered tug for steering assistance by pulling the stern to starboard. This tug swings out to starboard and begins to pull hard on the hawser. The tanker responds slowly.
26339. The tug now faces increasingly large swells because it is now more fully exposed to the direction from which the swells come in. The strain on the hawser becomes excessive whenever a heaving swell pulls hard on the tug. The hawser suddenly breaks and the tug is no longer tethered.
26340. The mystery ship is dangerously close. The captain calls for full rudder and full power to make a desperate turn to port. So far, the supertanker has successfully avoided a collision, but it has also given up its intended course along the north side of Aranzazu Bank. They have altered course by 45 degrees to port and are headed for the vicinity of two potentially dangerous rocks, Cliffe Rock and Evans Rock, to the west of Rennison Island. There is a clear channel between these two underwater obstructions, but it is tight and it's a zigzag course.
26341. The tanker is no longer meeting the weather head on. The effects of wind and the heaving seas as well as the inflowing tide work in unison to cause the tanker to make significant leeway to port and to the vicinity of Cliffe Rock.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26342. The captain calls the tugs to stand by on the tanker's port side. The tugs go into position but cannot help while the tanker is making forward motion. Everybody in the wheelhouse of the tanker is in near panic. They find themselves in the worse nightmare scenario surrounded by reefs in a major storm in one of the worst bodies of water the world knows. On top of that, they find themselves nearly broadside to the severe weather in a tight channel.
26343. Cliffe Rock rises from a depth of over 100 fathoms to just two fathoms under the surface. While the rock can't be seen, the whitewater surrounding it is clearly visible, even in the dark night. The mighty tanker drifts ever closer. A collision seems unavoidable. The captain cuts power and calls for the tugs to initiate their pushing action.
26344. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Boxler, you are well over time at this point. Could we get your last two summary sentences, please? I'm enjoying your ---
26345. MR. URS BOXLER: In summary, I would like to say that the tanker hit the rock, got stuck on the rock. The high tide that was following could not carry the tanker off.
26346. As the tide is falling, the tanker becomes unevenly supported and it begins to break and oil is beginning to flow out.
26347. And if I could have two more sentences?
26348. THE CHAIRPERSON: One.
26349. MR. URS BOXLER: One; okay.
26350. We have had three incidences within the last few weeks on the B.C. coast that have outlined that incidences like that are happening and they have happened. And I include in this the running aground of a container ship outside of Prince Rupert Harbour as well as ---
26351. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Boxler. Thank you very much.
26352. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great. Thanks, Mr. Boxler, for your scenario. It's great. Thank you.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26353. Talk to our process advisor if you wish.
26354. Mr. Darnell, you don’t have to stand. It's just -- you can sit and relax and share your views with us.
26355. MR. BILL DARNELL: Thank you very much.
26356. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thanks.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. BILL DARNELL:
26357. MR. BILL DARNELL: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Darnell, and I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak here this afternoon. And I also want to appreciate that -- I imagine you've been on the road for many, many months doing this and I appreciate the kind of time and effort that you've put into this.
26358. And I want to speak on the proposal to build a pipeline across Northern British Columbia and to sail oil tankers on B.C. coast waters.
26359. I am a father, a grandfather, a husband, a retired teacher and carpenter and I've lived all my adult life in British Columbia. I'm also a founding member of Green Peace, although I am not speaking on behalf of the organization today.
26360. I will begin by stating that I am posed to the -- I'm opposed to the plans to build fossil fuel pipelines across British Columbia and to sail oil and natural gas tankers in the coastal waters. I stand in solidarity with the signatory nations of the Coastal First Nations Declaration and the Save the Fraser Declaration. I commend their leadership in this area.
26361. I'm also proud to be part of this courageous group of intervenors from all parts of the province who have appeared before this Panel.
26362. First, I have to say that I find the arrangements for this quasi-judicial hearing profoundly undemocratic and offensive to Canada's foundation principles of natural justice and democratic decision-making. These matters must be open to the public. People need to be able to witness in person that the process is fair and just.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26363. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Mr. Darnell, this is an opportunity for you to share your views with us. Okay.
26364. MR. BILL DARNELL: Right.
26365. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Could you look at us, please, with -- when you're ---
26366. MR. BILL DARNELL: Okay.
26367. MEMBER MATTHEWS: --- presenting. Thanks.
26368. MR. BILL DARNELL: Keeping presenters isolated and separate from those who want to listen, not allowing fellow presenters and the public to watch and not allowing presenters to remain, creates an atmosphere that is -- calls into question the just and impartial requirements of this hearing and creates an adversarial atmosphere. In addition, I feel that it does not support good decision- making.
26369. We come with strong views, but I expect to be treated with respect, not treated as someone to be feared and restrained. And I'm not indicating you in particular, but I think the way this organization -- the way these have developed, and more often to this particular situation is what I'm referring to.
26370. When Justice Thomas Berger conducted the pipeline hearings for the Mackenzie Valley in the early 1970s, he stopped at every community along the river as well as large cities. All were invited and welcomed. He created an atmosphere of respect and collective wisdom. He made recommendations that reflected the wishes of the people of the Mackenzie River.
26371. I urge the organizers of the Joint Review Panel to adopt a similar constructive approach.
26372. I would like to continue to look at the strong parallels between British Columbia in the 1970s and today, and being 66, I have that perspective. In 1971, I was one of the 12 crewmembers of the first Greenpeace vessel that sailed to Amchitka to protest the testing of nuclear weapons.
26373. At that time, people around the world lived in fear of death and destruction from nuclear war. I remember it very well. It was a constant
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux low-grade terror. We feared that a war would be fought in the skies above Canada and would bring destruction and a nuclear winter.
26374. Today, Canadians and all people live with a background fear of climate change. I heard that earlier as I was listening in the other room. We worry constantly about damage to the global environment and whether humans will be able to survive.
26375. Forty (40) years ago, the likelihood of nuclear war increased as the United States military and the government tested nuclear weapons on the Alaska island of Amchitka. These tests threatened people living on the Pacific Northwest with earthquakes, tsunamis, leaked radiation and environmental damage.
26376. Today, people on this planet live with the fear of catastrophic changes to our climate. The likelihood of this coming to pass increases as the oil and gas industry, aided by the Canadian government, plans to build pipelines across B.C. and remove a 40-year-old moratorium so that oil tankers can sail the coastal waters. Oil and gas spills from pipelines and tankers threaten the forests, the waters, the wildlife of the interior, and the coast of B.C.
26377. The parallels continue. In the late sixties and early seventies, hearings were held by the United States government concerning nuclear weapons testing, and thousands of people voiced their opposition to the tests. There were petitions, demonstrations, non-violent blockades by thousands of people in both Canada and the United States.
26378. The sailing of the Greenpeace to the Aleutian Islands to bear witness to the folly of weapons testing and the war was the most well known of these actions. Ultimately, the collective voices' actions were effective. The tests on Amchitka Island were cancelled, and since then the world has very slowly retreated from the insanity of nuclear war.
26379. In British Columbia, we continue to increase our use and export of fossil fuels in the greenhouse gases arms race. The majority of British Columbians are opposed to this escalation. We are trying to avoid a calamity of climate change, but the oil and gas industry and the Canadian government are intransigent as the U.S. government and the military were in the early 1970s.
26380. At present, the struggle to stop the pipelines and oil tankers is still at the stage of hearings, petitions, and demonstrations, but it will not stop here.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux British Columbians and the people in the rest of Canada and North America continue to show their opposition to the export of fossil fuels from British Columbia. We can learn from the efforts to prevent nuclear war. We can see that there is a better way.
26381. We can see that a sustainable future does not rely on fossil fuels. We can make a decision to step back from increasing our use and export of fossil fuels and energy and begin an energy descent to a more sustainable future.
26382. We can all understand that people will not give -- we can also understand that people will not give up on creating sustainable conditions for humanity. It is my belief that the people of the province will not allow the pipeline to be built. I am fairly well known for my role in Greenpeace and people have stopped to tell me:
"If they start construction on that pipeline [I'm quoting] my wife and I will be packing our sleeping bags and getting on the bus and heading north to peacefully sit in front of the bulldozers." (As read)
26383. There is a history in this province of people acting together to physically protect the environment that supports all of us. At Clayoquot Sound, almost 1,000 people peacefully put themselves in the way of a logging operation to protect our ancient forests.
26384. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Mr. Darnell, you know, the references to civil disobedience don't really help us. We would like to hear more about your views on the project.
26385. MR. BILL DARNELL: Well, I think that the -- what I'm trying to paint, I guess, is the sort of the political aspect of it, and if it proceeds, that you will find that the people of North America will not allow the pipeline, that there will be civil disobedience. It'll be peaceful, but people will put themselves in the way.
26386. We have a history of doing that, around nuclear war, around ancient forests, and I think that would -- I know that you're fairly constrained in -- well, this whole thing is very constrained, but I think that -- and there aren't very many venues with the government's ear to say this, and so I'm taking this opportunity.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26387. I have one more -- I guess, I would just finish by saying that in Greenpeace, when we came back 40 years after -- 40 years ago after that and we thought we had failed, we thought that weapons testing was going to go on and we were all probably going to die at some point, but I want to -- but it stopped. They cancelled the tests, and we have moved away, and we played a significant role in that.
26388. And I want to be -- 40 years from now, 40 years on when I'm a grandfather and I have -- my grandchildren have children and I'm a great grandfather and I'm hopefully still here, I want to be able to say that the Enbridge hearings were the start of something where we started backing away from putting ourselves into a -- continue on this crazy path, and that it was noticed as a time that we really backed away from continuing this fossil fuel acceleration and de-escalated and moved to a sustainable future that didn't depend on fossil fuels.
26389. So thank you very much.
26390. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
26391. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
26392. Ms. Davison, thank you for choosing to come and present your views to the Panel. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. BETTY DAVISON:
26393. MS. BETTY DAVISON: Good afternoon and thank you for seeing me and hearing me.
26394. My time and my point of view in front of you today is my ode to my grandson, Mr. Keaton. My name is Betty Davison. I'm a first generation Canadian since 1963. I am a mother, a grandmother, a wife, a daughter, a sister- in-law, an aunt, and a cousin to many.
26395. In 1963, my parents chose to emigrate from Europe for a better quality of life for their family. They packed up their growing family of five and moved to Vancouver. My parents have chosen wisely. We had been fortunate in that our parents made sure that we were exposed to beautiful, supernatural B.C. throughout our upbringing.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26396. We have travelled to all areas of this beautiful province, from West Coast Vancouver Island, to Prince Rupert, to the Kootenays. We left no map unwrinkled in our quest to visit all corners of B.C. to see what mysteries these areas held for us, and summer after summer five children, two adults, the family dog, and a friend or two packed into a station wagon loaded with tents, sleeping bags, coolers; we traversed the province.
26397. This most basic North American right has now been passed down to us from our parents, albeit, in our case, with a marine twist.
26398. For the past 38 years, my husband and my son and myself have enjoyed travelling the B.C. coast via pleasure boat. We have spent the last 10 to 15 years of our boating life travelling extensively throughout the inside passage, also known as the Northern Marine Highway.
26399. We have travelled the awe-inspiring area with the same curiosity about what was around the next corner that our parents had instilled in us. We have lived with the motto “Take nothing but photographs and leave nothing but footprints.”
26400. To date, with my own family and our boat we have logged over 3,000 hours of sea time, which equates to approximately 30,000 miles. The last 15 years we have spent our time mid-coast, traversing the inside passage through all the islands, inlets, coves that we could. We have spent much time in places such as Bella Bella, Hartley Bay, Kitimat, Klemtu, Prince Rupert, and we have enjoyed every single minute of what we have seen and experienced.
26401. We have met and made many new friends and have enjoyed and experienced nature in all of its splendour and glory, including watching nursing grizzly bears, a chance encounter with a bent ear Kermode spirit bear. We have seen and heard the majestic coastal wolves, viewed breaching humpback whales, feeding groups of orcas, pods of grey whales, sea lions, pilot whales, pacific white-side dolphins and a myriad of seabirds, including tufted puffins.
26402. We have been able to see all forms of sea life on our shores as much as we have seen native middens, clam gardens, and we have seen jaw-dropping gorgeous old-growth forests and many, many more wonderful sights on our B.C. coast. What a blessed person I have been. All of these wondrous sights and experiences have prompted me to come to you today to express my definitive no to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26403. Our son, who now also owns his own boat, has recently blessed us with a grandson. who is a mere three months old. We affectionately call him Mr. Keaton. We would like, very much, as grandparents that when he is older that Mr. Keaton experiences all that we have been lucky to experience. It is his inherent right as a British Columbian, as it was ours.
26404. The mere thought of running into tankers on one of these narrow channels or a possible bitumen spill frightens the heck out of us, and it also tromps on our right of enjoyment to life in coastal B.C.
26405. We have 37 years of experience on the water, more specifically the ocean. We are prudent and we are knowledgeable boaters, and I’ve come to know and respect both the weather and ocean on our coast, more specifically, on the inside passage.
26406. Our travels have taken us to Prince Rupert many times, Kitimat, Gardner Canal, Banks Island, Aristabal, and many trips circumnavigating Princess Royal looking for the spirit bear.
26407. These are some of the same waterways that are proposed as supertanker routes should the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project be approved. These waterways can be both beautiful and treacherous at the same time, dependant on weather, even for small boats like ourselves, a mere 20 tonnes. What will it be like for 140,000 tonne supertanker?
26408. We at least have the luxury of dropping anchor in a secluded, protected cove and waiting weather and water out. Not so for the tankers.
26409. What will the conditions be like in the waterways such as Wright Sound, Whale or Douglas Channel in storm force winds, which are 48 to 63 knot winds, coupled with opposing tide?
26410. Tide changes occur four times a day and with Prince Rupert having tide swings of 20 to 25 feet in the summer, the rush of water in and out of some of these narrow inlets can be quite severe. Even with the use of two tugs to guide these behemoth tankers out to open waters, it will be a challenge to all concerned.
26411. The channels leaving Kitimat or Prince Rupert hold uncharted rocks, shallow areas from reefs and sandbars, winds called outflow winds, which are
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux warm headland winds channelled out through narrow inlets. All of these weather and ocean events occur on the proposed bitumen tanker route.
26412. As of late, we have also come to worry about tsunamis, as the seismic activity in our area has become increasingly active. Wouldn’t an earthquake or a tsunami play havoc on the proposed bitumen tanker route? What about the shore structures like pipelines and bitumen holding tanks in Kitimat? We all watched with horror what happened with the Japanese tsunami two years ago.
26413. Seismologists keep hammering home to the B.C. public that the big one is coming. Most people think of the havoc caused by the large earthquakes as land-based disasters on our coast. We have seen the havoc tsunamis can cause. We have but to only view our coastal beaches in the upcoming years for all the flotsam and jetsam coming in from the Japanese tsunami. Natural events, such as strong winds, strong currents, storms, fogs, tsunamis are but a few natural marine obstacles that all marine traffic must be wary of.
26414. I have empathy for the indigenous population on our coast, as I, too, do not want a pipeline in my backyard or a supertanker going through by my house every day or having to live with the fear of the potential contamination of my food and water source, or my way of life disrupted and destroyed due to situations beyond my control.
26415. Comparantly -- comparatively, on a more selfish and minute basis, I have empathy for my next two generations, my son and my grandson, and all that will be lost to them in this most beautiful part of British Columbia should the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project be allowed to proceed.
26416. The eminent threat of disasters and the increased traffic by the supertankers will disrupt not only the ecological life on our coast, but the people that live and work and visit in the area. Will my offspring and their offspring be able to see nursing grizzly bears on the shore or the Kermode bear?
26417. I’m running short of time, so I’m just going to head straight to my conclusion.
26418. You have heard from many qualified biologists and other scientists on the effects of tanker traffic and the potential of bitumen spill on our marine life such as whales, dolphins and seabirds on the inside passage. But what of the shore effects?
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26419. The erosion factor is huge from what they call wake. Wake is the propeller wash caused by the large propellers on tankers and tugs that can very easily take away a shoreline. What of life on the shore?
26420. In closing, my rights and the rights of those that cannot speak are being trampled on by the eminent threat of the Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal.
26421. Please add my resounding no to the list of those opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project and a larger no to the proposed tanker shipping of bitumen on any of our B.C. coast. For my family, for my grandson, Mr. Keaton, and for the bent ear Kermode that I have come to see so that they may continue to have the enjoyment and the quality of life on the inside passage that I have come to know.
26422. Thank you, and I can respectfully submit this for the rest of the presentation.
26423. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to each of you for sharing your views and your experiences with us.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
26424. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. Just as we get under way, I want to clarify for people.
26425. A couple of people have mentioned that they maybe didn’t get through their presentation and that they would just hand it in for the court reporter. Actually, the only thing that the Panel will take into account is what you have spoken.
26426. Previously, when we were hearing oral statements, the deadline had not passed for letters of comment so people could still submit additional text if they maybe didn’t get through a letter or comment.
26427. However, that deadline has passed now. So it’s just what you speak to us that goes in the transcript and that’s what we take into account when we’re doing our deliberations. So I just wanted to make sure that we clarified that for everybody on the record.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26428. So with that, good afternoon to each of you. Mr. Fleming, please proceed with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. ROB FLEMING:
26429. MR. ROB FLEMING: Thank you very much to the Chair and to all the Members of the Panel for the opportunity to make this statement this afternoon.
26430. On this project application, I’m here as a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and also as the Environment Critic for the official Opposition.
26431. I want to say at the outset I appreciate the commitment of the Panel Members to their considerable task. I know that you have travelled all around British Columbia and Alberta and listened to a number of citizens and experts and you have a significant volume of information that has been presented to you.
26432. And I also appreciate that during the course of your work as a Panel in this review, that British Columbians and Canadians, and all of the Members of this Panel learned during the middle of this process that there were significant amendments to a large number of key federal environmental statutes including the National Energy Board Act and how it conducts its business and whether its recommendations are, in fact, binding on the Prime Minister and federal cabinet.
26433. In my brief amount of time here today, I want to outline several key reasons why, after careful consideration of the information submitted during this process, our Opposition caucus opposes the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. This view is ---
26434. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fleming, I just interrupt you to say that we’re here to listen to your personal views, and so we look forward to hearing your personal views as opposed to political statements.
26435. MR. ROB FLEMING: It’s not a political statement, but as a legislator I want to outline a number of reasons why I think the Opposition caucus’ views amount to why this is not in the provincial interest or the national interest. So if you’ll bear with me, some of these views were ---
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26436. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fleming, again, the purpose for oral statements is to present your personal views. So if you could give us your views expressed from your perspective as opposed to a larger group, that’s what we’re here to listen to.
26437. MR. ROB FLEMING: Let me outline my principal concerns. The lifting of the current tanker moratorium I believe will put B.C.’s coastline at unacceptable and serious risks that will expose it to devastating environmental and economic damage due to oil spills.
26438. There is a reason why since 1971 and again reaffirmed in 1983, and again affirmed very recently by the Royal Society of Canada in 2004, why there has been a moratorium in place for bulk oil tanker vessels on the North and Central Coast of British Columbia.
26439. And those reasons are centrally because those coastlines and the Haida Gwaii region in particular contain wilderness ecosystems that have high ecological, cultural and economic value. There are a number of direct market use values related to fishing, seafood processing, aquaculture, tourism, marine transportation and other economic activities in the area that total sum $386 million annually.
26440. The fjords and channels and the topography of the proposed route of the Enbridge Northern Gateway line for marine traffic is an area that features poor and unpredictable weather conditions and makes these waters a very dangerous navigational route.
26441. British Columbians also live in the shadow and the indelible memory of the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989 of our Alaskan neighbours, and today those effects are still in evidence. Shore habitats remain contaminated. The Pacific herring fishery has been closed for 15 seasons since the spill and the herring population still has not recovered. Those are risks that are posed similarly to British Columbia.
26442. Cleanup costs in Alaska has been estimated to be 3.7 billion and the economic costs and losses run from 8.5 billion to as high as 100 billion, but I think the thing that resonates with British Columbians like myself are the stories that we grew up with from the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez of how communities were destroyed by that oil disaster. The rates of divorce, even suicide, the erosion of those communities, the economic losses and the cultural
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux devastation in Alaska is something that resonates very strongly with coastal communities in British Columbia.
26443. We agree -- or I agree, I should say, with the Federal Official Opposition that Canada should work and develop on a legislative permanent moratorium on oil tankers and drilling activity in order to protect B.C.’ North Coast, which was the will of Parliament in 2010.
26444. The pipeline and the overland route is also a concern to me. It traverses highly valued areas of B.C., crossing almost 800 streams, putting valuable environments and species such as salmon at risk.
26445. We know that that was reaffirmed recently with Justice Cohen’s study of the Fraser River in particular about the viability of wild salmon in British Columbia. I think that is something that hopefully the panelists will bear in mind because it’s a significant body of work that was done while you have been undergoing your deliberations and your hearings.
26446. The other thing that I think is directly relevant is a piece of information, and your Panel validated this by submitting the National Transportation Safety Board of the U.S. report, is the Enbridge Kalamazoo disaster, the 2010 pipeline spill. The costs are still mounting. They are double what they were originally estimated to me. They exceed now $900 million of mostly taxpayer money going to fund that cleanup effort.
26447. The ecosystem damage is significant. Two years later there’s an absolute prohibition on recreational activity and, of course, any fishing in that area is prohibited as well.
26448. I think what really stands with British Columbians is the examination that was done by the regulator that shows that the company that now we are being asked to trust in British Columbia was warned on several occasions, dating back to 2005, about corrosion in its line, possible defects and extreme risks of leaks and significant spills. And yet, there was no compliance activity to fulfill the warnings by government in that case to do right by those inspections.
26449. Now the very same company who’s giving all kinds of world-class leading safety assurances to British Columbians is saying, “Trust us” in the very same manner that they said that to regulators and citizens of Michigan. 26450.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux That’s a concern for us here in British Columbia and I know it’s one that is obviously a concern for you because you have admitted the findings of that Safety Board report into evidence.
26451. The fact is, First Nations communities in British Columbia, frontline communities, would be devastated and probably most adversely affected among all British Columbians by an oil leak or spill.
26452. First Nations communities depend on land and waters and their traditional territories for their economic, social and cultural wellbeing, and it has been commented that First Nations have not been consulted effectively. That may be part of a legal action outside of and following this process that we’re dealing with today, but that the honour of the Crown has not been kept in the manner that has repeatedly been asserted by the Supreme Court of Canada and the duty to consult First Nations as set out in law. That’s a problem that relates to this application.
26453. Now, the other point I wanted to make was around greenhouse gas production associated with the oil sands. I understand that that isn’t something that you’re reviewing directly, but I think of course it is directly relevant to this application.
26454. And the build-out and scale-up and the pace and scale issues of oil sands development in Canada and our ability to control greenhouse gas emissions and the economic costs of that in any future international agreement that obligates us to do so is something that will be borne not by Albertans but all Canadians and members of all provinces.
26455. So that’s a British Columbian perspective, I think, that is important for you to consider as a province that is merely a transit point for this commodity through British Columbia.
26456. I want to make a couple of points about my disappointment with the Province of British Columbia. I think perhaps the only person who has, in recent months, flown back and forth to Edmonton perhaps as many times as you is our own Premier of B.C., but it has not made her position and her government’s position about this project application any clearer.
26457. And I think what is disappointing, from my perspective, about how the Province of B.C. has conducted itself or really failed to fully engage in this review
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux process which you are the Tribunal for, I think that’s really illustrated firstly by its failure to register as a government intervenor, something the Province of Alberta did, something that something like six municipalities in British Columbia also registered as, and they chose a lesser status of intervenor in this process. But having done that, they have failed to utilize their intervenor status fully.
26458. It’s incredible to believe but, in fact, did occur that the Province of British Columbia failed to produce to you, for your consideration, written evidence by the deadline that was passed almost a year ago today.
26459. A province like British Columbia with a civil service and expert scientists across many ministries and organizations like the environmental assessment office and other government agencies, now, all of that at its disposal, baseline data that you would expect would be submitted to this process, it’s incredible to me that that wasn’t done.
26460. And I think that really -- it really shows -- it’s probably the best example that shows why the conduct of the province in this process simply hasn’t been serious enough or in the interests of British Columbians.
26461. B.C. of course has jurisdiction as a province over wildlife management, over air and water quality and even inter-tidal areas. One would expect that the province would provide wildlife data, baseline studies on the pipeline route, give its own risk assessments perhaps do its own economic modelling as well to examine the so-called benefits of the project and that wasn’t done. It didn’t happen.
26462. In fact, it was third-party organizations that unearthed B.C. taxpayer- funded science and asked to submit it to you and not the government itself. And I think that speaks for volumes. But because ---
26463. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fleming, sorry. Your time is up. Can you give us one last sentence and summary please.
26464. MR. ROB FLEMING: Yeah. I think because British Columbia did not provide written evidence to this Panel that is a serious gap in the information that you’ve received and it’s almost as serious as the gaps that Enbridge itself has acknowledged in this application.
26465. They have said ---
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26466. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Fleming, your time has finished.
26467. Thank you.
26468. MR. ROB FLEMING: Thank you.
26469. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great, thanks.
26470. Mr. Easton, welcome. Share your views with us please.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. CHARLES EASTON:
26471. MR. CHARLES EASTON: Thank you very much and thank you for hearing me today.
26472. I’m a businessman, an artist, a kayaker, and as you can tell from the accent I’m originally a foreigner to B.C. But I’m now in the process of making my nationality Canadian. And I’m here today to say that I’m really concerned about the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. And I’m really concerned -- I’m really keen to have my concerns heard. So I thank you for this opportunity.
26473. This project has been marketed as being in the national interest of Canada. But from the reading that I’ve done and from the places that I have seen it does not seem that it is in my interest nor in the interests of the many, many people that I’ve spoken to about the project over the last few months.
26474. Over the first few years I’ve had the extreme pleasure of visiting and kayaking and hiking on Vancouver Island around the Sunshine Coast in the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida heritage site. And I have seen sites that many tourists, as I originally was when I first came to this extraordinary province, I’ve seen sights that many other visitors simply have never seen.
26475. Trumpeter swans taking a migratory break near Courtenay on Vancouver Island; the rainbow colourings of sea anemones and sea stars in the Gulf Islands; oysters beds the size of football pitches in Desolation Sound; Dungeness crab scuttling on the north shore of Haida Gwaii. And hundred of
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux thousands of spawning pink salmon near Windy Bay in Gwaii Haanas. I have been privileged to see these very few examples of the amazing flora and fauna that we share this province with.
26476. I’m aware that this is just an oral statement but what I’ve seen with my eyes and felt in my bones when I visited these places cannot be expressed in words. And I am concerned that the people that are ultimately responsible for balancing the merit and the risks of this project have not had the same exposure that I have.
26477. I fully believe that every risk assessment that could be conducted on this project would detect at least some risk of a spill. And from what I have read, any spill would be catastrophic to the local and regional environment, especially if the spill was in the form of a tanker sinking to hundreds of metres below the surface with hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil on board.
26478. I’m also concerned that the people that are currently prepared to take this risk, the Albertan oil companies, the Albertan pipeline builders, the Ottawa- based Ministers and the Chinese oil buyers are not the ones that will be adversely affected if or when a spill occurs. The people who will be in the direct firing line at that point will be the coastal communities, many of which depend on the beauty and the abundance that I’ve already described.
26479. Indeed, I’m also deeply concerned that the laws and the ways of the Aboriginal peoples that are being -- are being violated again. And with the vast majority of the Coastal Nations and peoples that stand to be hugely impacted by a spill standing against this pipeline.
26480. In Gwaii Haanas at the end of last year there was a series of earthquakes. The shifting earth damned up a sacred source of thermal waters at Hot Springs Island. After the springs dried up I spoke to some Haida friends with whom we had shared the incredible and moving experience of those hot springs. And despite the earthquake having an impact on their livelihood, their culture and their economy, they were surprisingly calm about the series of events.
26481. This is because the earthquakes were entirely out of their control and caused by the earth itself. It was natural in a sense.
26482. The decision that we’re debating today of whether to allow the transport of billions of barrels of oil through rare and untouched waters is
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux absolutely within our control, and if we decide to allow this pipeline to go ahead and there is a spill in the form of a pipeline failure or the grounding of a tanker this will not be a natural event. And we will be responsible for priceless damage to an area that has huge importance to me and to the lives, traditional practices, and health of many, many others.
26483. I say that it has a huge importance to me. Let me explain a little bit further. I have already spoken of the emotional impact that this area has made upon me. But it has also made a significant impact on the way that I now make my living.
26484. As I mentioned in my introduction, I am an artist, an emerging professional landscape painter now represented by three galleries here in B.C., one in Alberta, one in Ontario and two in the United Kingdom. And I make my living painting scenes that would be severely changed and compromised by a spill.
26485. I sell a lot of my Canadian seascape paintings to the U.K. and to European buyers who are blown away by the scenes that I depict. I’d like to think that this is because of the quality of my painting but I know that it’s the amazing nature that I’m sharing with them.
26486. These scenes that I depict and that many fantastic Canadian artists have been depicting for years, they tell the world about Canada and in many peoples’ eyes our Canada, untouched, dramatic, and a must-see before I die type of destination. And I fear that increasingly Canada is gaining a reputation for gambling this unparalleled resource for economic gain and the Northern Gateway decision is another such gamble.
26487. I feel that this pipeline is literally betting the house, our Canadian house. And I hope that you see the risks that are in play here and that you agree with me that no matter what the financial upside of a pipeline is, the bet is just not worth making.
26488. Thanks for your time. And good luck with your decision.
26489. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Easton.
26490. Ms. Fralin, thank you for choosing to participate and express your views to the Panel. We’re interested in your point of view. Please begin.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. LORRAINE FRALIN:
26491. MS. LORRAINE FRALIN: I think we should all begin by standing and just taking a stretch. You three have been sitting for hours. Come on.
26492. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Fralin, if you’d please sit down and we are here to hear your point of view. And we need you to present it in the way that has been outlined. With that in mind, please begin.
26493. MS. LORRAINE FRALIN: Okay. I was just taking you all into consideration here.
26494. Hi. My name’s Lorraine; born and raised Vancouverite; lived here all my life. And very emotional about this.
26495. I strongly oppose any of it, all of it. And the reason I guess that I really wanted to come here today was to speak on behalf of those that can’t speak. And I’m going to read just one paragraph of this book that was read to me when I was just four years old. And pretty much read to me every night for years. And I should have it memorized because of that but I don’t.
26496. And it’s called, “Pookie in Search of a Home”, and you may have heard of it.
“Pookie was flying homeward. And as he flew, he saw two strange men standing in Bluebell Glade, far, far below. The men had big tape measures in their hands, and notebooks and pencils. And when he heard what they were saying, Pookie’s little heart almost stopped beating with fright and his eyes almost popped out with fear.
‘The new road will come right straight through this glade’, said the first man. ‘And go straight through the valley and join the main road there. All these trees will be chopped down and cleared away with tractors. We’ll mark the ones to come down with a cross of red paint and start tomorrow’.
Pookie sat, dazed with horror, on his branch. They were going to put a road right through Bluebell Wood. Right through the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux glade where all the woodland folk held their spring feasts in bluebell time, and trees would all be sawed down and a loss of tiny loved tree homes would come crashing down or little ground homes would be crushed flat.
‘No, no, no’, thought Pookie. ‘We must stop this dreadful thing from happening. We must do something’.” (As read)
26497. And we must. And it’s really up to you Kenneth, and you Sheila, and you Hans; you’re our voice. You are truly the voice of every single person that has sat in front of you and spoken.
26498. You are the only ones that can say, “Don’t do it, don’t risk it. Don’t take the lives of all of these small creatures that scurry through the forest when there’s a fire or when the pine beetle comes along. Don’t take their homes, don’t take their lives. Don’t take their beauty from our eyes. Leave it, just leave it. Let it be. Let it stay as beautiful and soft and gorgeous as it’s been for thousands and thousands of years”.
26499. Please, what I really do is I beg of you, hold dear to your heart what you believe is true. And I can’t imagine that anything outside of leaving things as they are would be any other truth that any of the three of you would hold dear to you.
26500. Thanks.
26501. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for expressing your views and passions with us today.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
26502. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, looks like everyone’s all settled in.
26503. Ms. Franke, please go ahead with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. MYRNA FRANKE:
26504. MS. MYRNA FRANKE: Good afternoon. My name is Myrna Franke. As a resident, concerned citizen, taxpayer, and especially as a mother and
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux grandmother, I recognize the privilege and responsibility of living here for 60 years. My life experiences and my research inform my opinion that the Northern Gateway Proposal is flawed, dangerous, and should be rejected.
26505. I’ve come here to speak about the coast I love and show gratitude to my parents who brought us here from Calgary in 1952. I have been an elementary school teacher. My teaching in Vancouver was from 1970 to 2001, mainly part- time as I was a busy mom of two sons.
26506. I brought today, a newspaper clipping that I noticed in the paper in 2008. This newspaper clipping is titled “Council of the Haida Nation Objects to the Oil Pipeline Plans”. The First Nations objected at their summit that they had met and said that the federal government and Enbridge do not meet a standard of genuine engagement with First Nations.
26507. I was shocked and appalled that a proposal of oil supertankers threading through the hazardous channels of our northern coast could ever be considered. Haida Gwaii, the world treasure, UNESCO site, and Haida Gwaii National Park Reserve have been saved from logging and oil drilling. They have protection from oil spills through present regulations. These two protections are in effect on the coast -- the tanker exclusion zone since 1972, restated various times since, and the oil drilling moratorium off Haida Gwaii.
26508. I knew about the oil drilling history and the proposal for Haida Gwaii waters which resulted in the government moratorium. So when I read this I thought, our governments, don’t they respect these regulations, as well as warnings from First Nations, fishing industry, and environmentalists. Four years and a month later, I’m still wondering.
26509. My history on this coast informs my objections. I grew up with many recreational adventures and advantages on this coast, with accompanying respect for its dangers.
26510. In my childhood, we stayed at Gower Point in a rustic log cabin built in 1902. I remember waiting nervously during sudden storms for my father to return from fishing in a small boat. I learned that local knowledge and experience is compulsory if you venture onto these waters.
26511. There are specific weather and ocean conditions, such as winds funneling into inlets creating unique local weather, tidal effects, currents, surges,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux hazardous rocky shoals, wind, rain, snow and fog, and combinations of all the above. Sometimes human error or failure will combine to greatly affect your chances for survival.
26512. I’ve experienced close calls, such as trying to keep a boat from slamming into rocks and gale force wind in November in the middle of the night. That storm had just been predicted several hours earlier.
26513. Another time, due to human error in chart and tide reading, a boat I was on hit rocks in good weather, ripping a hole in the hull. I have seen repeated damage to our community dock in the Gulf Islands, rich -- ripped apart by currents, waves and storm winds. In stormy circumstances on our coast, and in remote areas on land, we do not depend on emergency assistance. The conditions are much too risky.
26514. So do we believe -- do I believe that tug power, rescue or oil spill response technology has improved enough to mitigate risks and respond to storm- related accidents as has been suggested in Enbridge’s proposal? I suggest not, noting the epic failure with the Shell Oil drilling rig which recently ran aground on an Alaskan Island. Tragedies, like the Queen of the North sinking and the Exxon Valdez, caused by human error are important warnings.
26515. As to double-hulled tankers, no, again. They’re not enough to protect from spill disasters. Take for example, in 2010, the Eagle Otome, double-hulled -- I’ll just get my papers -- and at slow speed and in protected waters, was in a collision spilling 462,000 gallons of oil at Port Arthur, Texas.
26516. Actually, doubled-hulled tankers might increase factors of hull corrosion and they don’t address human error and circumstances of geography and weather, of course.
26517. It seems odd that the Northern Gateway Proposal has evaded crucial disclosure. What is exactly precisely the composition of toxic bitumen crude and condensate they plan to transport?
26518. I have read many of these hearings transcripts, many, and many submitted reports, government energy reports, environmental studies and, of course, highlights of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board report on the Kalamazoo spill, which condemns Enbridge's record.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26519. The number of Enbridge oil spills is dismal, estimated at over 800 between 1999 and 2010. How do we put our trust in a company that faced 545 environmental violations in Wisconsin?
26520. As to the pipeline route, Enbridge's modifications to mitigate hazards by increasing pipeline's thickness, I've read this through on the transcripts and cross-examination of Enbridge, but they're not sufficient. Weather events and geological events can damage the pipeline, threatening the wildlife, salmon, rivers and residents.
26521. Are residents who live near the pipeline willing to train for oil spill emergencies or evacuation jobs? Enbridge has not worked before in the kind of rugged terrain -- I believe rugged was mentioned during their cross-examination. No, they have not worked in rugged terrain.
26522. The exhaustive evidence of extreme geological hazards which I bring here today in this report from the B.C. Government called, "Flooding and Landslide Events Northern British Columbia, 1820 to 2006", is 215 pages of detailed evidence of extreme geological hazards such as rock, land, snow avalanches causing massive debris flows on mountainsides, rivers which have ice jams, enormous unexpected flood levels. These are documented and studied.
26523. I have personal experience of this type, being up close to an enormous and unpredictable disaster. In 1981, we were stranded between Whistler and Pemberton after a torrential rain triggered avalanches, raging rivers and many road washouts with massive flood damage. It's truly frightening and humbling to see road and houses crushed and buried.
26524. We passed along a highway several hours prior to a debris torrent that raged down a steep mountainside at night, destroying homes and causing loss of life. Monumental damage from these natural disasters is well documented, and I emphasize again, Enbridge has no previous experience building pipelines through rugged mountainous geography.
26525. Enbridge has unsuccessfully tried to give monetary inducements to get agreement from communities. In making its case for tanker transport of bitumen, Enbridge has failed. We are not fooled by ads that erase inconvenient islands or double-hulled tankers. To smooth the way, the federal government has met the petroleum industry's demands by removing environmental protection measures on thousands of rivers and lakes through Bill C-45 and C-38.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26526. My teaching career influenced another perspective on this proposal. I taught the social studies program of B.C. First Nations culture to Grades 3-4 classes. I was in awe as I taught and learned First Nations culture traditions.
26527. I respect the customs, rights and traditions of First Nations, the people of salmon and cedar. I'm sure you recognize the importance of the environment to their culture, having visited First Nations communities. Perhaps you might possibly visit the Museum of Anthropology at UBC. This museum has the record of B.C. First Nation habitation going back 12,000 years, from evidence found in Haida Gwaii.
26528. Our B.C. social studies First Nations curriculum is updated to reflect many recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. I support First Nations' right to a sustainable life.
26529. It seems that small communities are in a David and Goliath-style contest over this proposal. The arguments given by Enbridge for accepting the risks of oil pollution are not convincing.
26530. Also, my teaching experience included environmental studies, taking students to UBC Demonstration Forest, Pacific Spirit Park, Camp Capilano and salmon hatcheries. In 1999-2000, we participated in the provincial Salmon Enhancement Program. Our Primary classes were involved in raising salmon from egg to release. Then, four years later, the salmon returned to Spanish Banks Creek here in Vancouver.
26531. I felt I was a small part of the great cycle of salmon migration, and this experience is so amazing. Such experiences enrich us city residents, but are tiny glimpses of B.C.'s wilderness, salmon rivers, forests and the sweeping abundant coast.
26532. My SCUBA diving experiences opened my eyes to the fantastic world of marine life on this coast, the Emerald Sea. The diversity from intertidal to depth is staggering. Also, I've seen firsthand the effects of damaging industrial techniques and pollution. Wreck diving gave me an understanding of the marine hazards on this coast. Our maritime shipwreck history speaks to this subject.
26533. At the UBC, University of British Columbia, Botanical Garden Shop where I'm a volunteer, we meet tourists who come to enjoy our unique geography
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux and First Nations culture. Tourism is a crucial and a sustainable part of our economy in the north.
26534. So many people -- for so many people it is a dream come true to see wildlife such as whale, salmon, wolves, spirit bear, grizzly, otters inhabiting the Coastal Rainforest. Orca and cetaceans are part of this great ecosystem and it's a great concern that increased marine traffic will impact them.
26535. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Franke?
26536. MS. MYRNA FRANKE: Yes.
26537. THE CHAIRPERSON: Take a breath and give us one summary sentence, please.
26538. MS. MYRNA FRANKE: I hope you're advised by truths of the people of British Columbia to keep our coast oil tanker free, our land and salmon rivers protected, and hope you will recognize your role in protecting the coast, wilderness and residents in our province.
26539. MEMBER BATEMAN: Great. Thanks a lot, Ms. Franke.
26540. Can I confirm the name of the author for that report?
26541. MS. MYRNA FRANKE: It's D. Septer.
26542. MEMBER BATEMAN: Septer. Okay, great.
26543. MS. MYRNA FRANKE: S-e-p-t-e-r.
26544. MEMBER BATEMAN: Okay, thanks.
26545. Good afternoon, Ms. Haan. Please go ahead and share your comments. Thanks.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. ELIZABETH HAAN:
26546. MS. ELIZABETH HAAN: Members of the Joint Review Panel, let me introduce myself. I am Elizabeth -- is it on?
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26547. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah.
26548. MS. ELIZABETH HAAN: I am Elizabeth Haan, a long-time resident of Vancouver with a deep love of this magnificent province.
26549. My family goes back quite a long way. All of my grandparents moved to British Columbia prior to 1922. My paternal grandparents homesteaded north of Oliver. They created an orchard in the desert.
26550. My father was the bucket brigade until irrigation flumes arrived. Interestingly, my father was tied to Kitimat, too. He was onsite there before Alcan purchased the land. He and his team were responsible for all the engineering work for the town site and smelter. I grew up hearing all about Kitimat. This part of the world is very important to me.
26551. Two years ago, I never would have dreamed that I would be presenting to you today. I welcomed this opportunity even though I have no illusions. Bill C-38, the political rhetoric before the hearings even started, and this very restrictive, clumsy, and unCanadian hearing process have undermined the hearing's credibility. In spite of this, I will proceed.
26552. I am an ecotourist. Over the years, I have made six trips into this area, including two to the Great Bear Rainforest. I know how magical this land is. I've seen it. I'm not alone.
26553. National Geographic has just recommended the Great Bear Rainforest as a must visit for 2013 because of this and the threat it is under. This area is important to B.C.'s and First Nations' economies. This is the basis of thriving First Nations communities. All will be lost if the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline goes ahead.
26554. People are not going to travel long distances and spend $1,000 a day to experience pristine wilderness if they are subjected to tanker, supertanker freeways or oil slicks. The King Pacific Lodge will have to move and the Gitga'at people employed will be impacted. These are local jobs and good jobs, gone with Northern Gateway.
26555. For the record, I have no personal financial ties to the Northern Gateway decision. I never earned a salary or fees from either the oil industry or the environmental organizations. I never will. I also sold all of my Enbridge
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux stocks last May.
26556. My thoughts and concerns are not tainted by personal gain. As a taxpayer, though, I am very concerned with this proposal.
26557. I made my decision to sell all my stock when I learned what revenue numbers Enbridge had submitted to you. They were all based on the Canadian dollar being worth $0.85 U.S. for the full 30 years. These revenue numbers are all grossly inflated. This was not an honest mistake.
26558. In addition, Environment Canada can't complete a proper environmental assessment because Enbridge won't provide the data. Now the U.S. government is stepping in to do it, at least for the saltwater portion. So we have an organization which withholds and misrepresents important data. I did not want to do business with such an organization, nor should the Canadian -- or nor should Canadians be forced to.
26559. Some time later, I learned that Northern Gateway Pipeline had been set up as a separate company with limited liability for Enbridge and the other unnamed mysterious partners. The argument that they want to do it right because they have to pay for the clean-up is not valid.
26560. So who does pay when there's a pipeline spill? If it's a big one, Enbridge and the partners will walk and the taxpayer will pay.
26561. We know from Kalamazoo that Enbridge has a dismal operational record. They say they'll do it right the next time, but unfortunately, this spill wasn’t their first. They had three previous large spills which they should have learned from, and didn’t.
26562. So what we have is dismal performance coupled with an inability to learn and topped with limited liability. This is a recipe for disaster. Any and all proposals limiting the liability of the pipeline owner should be rejected immediately, including this one.
26563. Northern Gateway Pipeline has no liability for tanker spills. Realistically, in this proposal it will be the Canadian and B.C. taxpayers who will pay. These mysterious partners and tanker owners might be sue-proof with insufficient assets in Canada to attach.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26564. Canadians need to be protected. Insurance from a viable company is a realistic requirement. Apparently, Enbridge has not gone to the marketplace to identify potential insurers and gain commitment to ensure against major spills. In fact, after Kalamazoo in 2010, they were unable to renew their insurance, a telling denial from that industry.
26565. The cost to clean up the Kalamazoo River following the Enbridge spill was 767 million and climbing. Enbridge estimates a total insurance policy for Northern Gateway of $60 million is all that is required. It's unrealistic.
26566. On the water, BP has just set aside $42 billion for damages. They will soon pay 7.8 billion to private plaintiffs for economic and medical damages. These are the kinds of numbers we have a one in seven chance to see, too. What Canadians are getting is zero protection. This is a terrible deal for Canadians, a great deal for the Chinese and for Enbridge and their partners.
26567. How anyone can champion this as being in the national best interest is beyond me. For the nation of China, yes; for Canada, no.
26568. Clean-up costs are high and success is limited. Exxon is still removing oil from the Valdez spill after 23 years. Their subsurface oil removal rate was approximately 55 percent. Heavy bitumen sinks. It has never been shipped at sea, so recovery rates are unknown. But leaving 45 percent or more behind is unacceptable.
26569. Enbridge has not provided recovery rates for bitumen in the fresh water environment, either. Kalamazoo has taken over two years of efforts so far and recovery continues at four sites. Two years of salmon runs would be impacted. Enbridge's recovery rates based on diesel and light crude are misleading. Penalties need to be implemented on oil left behind.
26570. The bottom line is that the taxpayer should not be left to pay and the people directly affected, those living in the middle of the disaster, shouldn’t either. Canadians need a made in Canada energy policy. We don’t need one made in foreign boardrooms and by foreign governments.
26571. If we must increase extraction, that oil should be upgraded in Alberta and then shipped to Eastern Canada. China and the U.S. have the goal of removing their dependency on Arab oil and they are using our oil to do it. Why are we helping them at our cost?
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26572. We should be using our oil to eliminate our dependency. This should be Canada's goal. Instead, we're increasing our dependency. We're exporting jobs, gutting our industrial capacity, putting thousands of others -- other jobs in the fishing and tourism industry at high risk, and potentially destroying the largest pristine temperate wilderness area in the world. Not to mention what this will do to the communities in the path of the spills.
26573. We risk all this and, in spite of the high risk, we are still vulnerable to upheavals in an unstable part of the world. Northern Gateway pipeline is not in Canada's interest.
26574. I urge you to reject this proposal.
26575. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you, Ms. Haan.
26576. Mr. Joe, thank you for choosing to participate. Welcome. Please begin and present your view to the Panel.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. BRYAN JOE:
26577. MR. BRYAN JOE: Thank you. (Speaking in native language)
26578. My First Nation's name is Twowihwuluk and my gifted Hawaiian name is Ka wa'a koa and my HST name is Bryan Joe. I'm here to speak on behalf of everything and every living being that this project could potentially destroy.
26579. As First Nations, we put value in everything that the Creator has given us. We are awake now. We idle no now. Chief Theresa Spence's actions are clear examples that we will no longer be sombre.
26580. These bills and proposals violate the Coastal First Nations Declaration, the Save the Fraser Declaration, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Permanent Tanker Ban and the Canadian endorsed United Nations Indigenous Rights Declaration.
26581. I will camp and block Enbridge construction sites, I will get on my canoe and ---
26582. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Joe, I'm just going to review with you
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux something that we review with many participants.
26583. We know that many people feel strongly and they have views of what they would be prepared to do should the process unfold in a way that they are not comfortable or cannot support.
26584. Having said that, it is not appropriate or accepted for any individual to use this time to declare their intention to ignore or to disrespect civil law, meaning civil disobedience.
26585. We are interested in what you would like to say, but that particular aspect is not appropriate for this hearing and my direction to you is to not pursue that so that I don’t need to interrupt and stop you from being able to present other perspectives that are important and which we are here to listen to.
26586. So I'll invite you to continue, but please, with respect to disobedience or breaking of law, eliminate that from this particular hearing.
26587. Thank you.
26588. MR. BRYAN JOE: The government and engineering companies can invest in a sustainable future. If Enbridge can afford radio, television and cineplex advertisements, they can afford a research team that can ensure no oil spills.
26589. I've been to a community dialogue where Kinder Morgan participated and watched people like Damian Gillis and attorney Karen Campbell inquire about concerns that Kinder Morgan fails to answer.
26590. I never want to dip my paddle in oil. I want the future of First Nations to experience of what is left of our culture and to be able to regain what has been taken from us. Therefore, Kinder Morgan, Enbridge and tankers are not welcome in the Coast Salish territory.
26591. I come from Comeakin, Lehen, Sangees and Tchaelis, and you can hear the drums outside that they will agree with me to send a message to the Panel that to recommend -- to not recommend this project on our Nations.
26592. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for sharing your views and experiences with us.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26593. We're just going to take a brief 10-minute break this afternoon and then be ready for the next panel.
26594. We're actually -- I think that our best plan is to go ahead with the next panel and then take our break after that. Sorry; I misspoke.
26595. Thank you.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
26596. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. Ms. Darling-Kovanic, I hope I’m saying your name right.
26597. MS. GILLIAN DARLING-KOVANIC: Yes, Darling-Kovanic.
26598. THE CHAIRPERSON: Kovanic? Please proceed with your oral statement. Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. GILLIAN DARLING- KOVANIC:
26599. MS. GILLIAN DARLING-KOVANIC: Thank you.
26600. My name is Gillian Darling-Kovanic and, like my father, I was born and have lived on the B.C. Coast all my life. My family’s been in Canada since 1823 and I’m speaking today as an independent Canadian.
26601. I’m extremely distressed about the direction that my country is heading and being here today is one small step in trying to address my deep sense of loss and discontent.
26602. On June the 11th, 2008, Mr. Harper stood in Parliament in front of former residential school students, church reps, Chiefs, indigenous peoples from across Canada and offered an apology for the residential school system that our government recognized was a profoundly negative policy that’s had lasting and damaging impact on Aboriginal culture, heritage and language. Speaking on behalf of all Canadians, he said, “We are sorry.” Thankfully, those dark, colonial days of ethnicide are behind us, or are they?
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26603. B.C. is the ancestral home to 200 indigenous peoples, the majority of whom oppose this Gateway pipeline. Since 2010, 130 of these nations have signed the Save the Fraser Declaration, a legal document banning tar sands pipelines and tankers in the Fraser River watershed that’s in the Gateway’s proposed pathway.
26604. Building the Gateway is dependent upon permits to traverse through or adjacent to more than 30 B.C. indigenous peoples’ territories, most of them untreated and unceded. Enbridge claims they have sought approval from all nations affected, but none have publicly affirmed their support.
26605. What we are witnessing is a non-renewable industry from another province trying to bully and overwhelm the indigenous peoples of B.C.
26606. In a historic 1997 Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that Aboriginal title lands must not be used in a way that is irreconcilable with the nature of the groups’ attachment to the land. If this Panel recommends the Gateway be built and if the federal cabinet overrules B.C.’s indigenous peoples’ legal rights and title by ramming it through their territories, this will render the PM’s 2008 apology hollow and meaningless.
26607. If Mr. Harper enforces this singularly narrow agenda, it will expose his total failure to anticipate the fallout when indigenous peoples recognize the limitations of their current relationship with Canada. At the least, it will unleash a torrent of legal challenges, but also public protests that will be heard around the globe. The gaining momentum of Idle No More tells us that the future is already here.
26608. Currently, B.C.’s North Coast communities depend upon renewable ocean-based industries that employ about 45,000 people annually, worth about 1.2 billion. Enbridge claims the pipeline will create about 4,000 jobs during construction and 1,150 long-term jobs including 560 in B.C.
26609. A tanker spill potentially risks over 80 sustainable B.C. jobs for every one Enbridge calculates the area stands to gain if the pipeline is built.
26610. Given the ambitious timeline of the construction phase and China’s expanding ownership of the project, it’s more likely that foreign work crews will be brought in to ensure the Gateway’s timely completion. The recent failed attempt of B.C.’s Labour Union court challenges to try and stop HD Mining from
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux hiring only Chinese workers for the first four and a half years before hiring a single Canadian miner sets the precedent.
26611. Are we prepared to write off jobs belonging to the people of B.C. and Canada in favour of an unsustainable oil industry that extracts bitumen with the highest carbon footprint in the world and one increasingly operated for the benefit of foreign state-owned companies?
26612. The government’s 2012 decision to allow CNOOC to acquire Nexen is Canada’s largest foreign takeover. With its conclusion, CNOOC will join Sinopec, the Communist Government of China’s largest oil company as partners in the Gateway Pipeline Project.
26613. This corrupt government employs virtual slaves in its factories, jails, dissidents and artists, is complicit in serious environmental degradation, disparages our democratic values and flouts the rule of law nationally and internationally and it’s not just B.C. jobs at risk. Our petro dollar has already created several hundred thousand job losses in Canada’s manufacturing sector.
26614. Over 80 percent of Albertans would rather see tar sands bitumen refined in their province including the Alberta Federation of Labour, who have spoken out against the Gateway because it would export unrefined bitumen and 50,000 high quality jobs to China and meanwhile, most of Canada -- most of Eastern Canada depends on imported oil from declining or volatile reserves in the North Sea and Middle East.
26615. The Gateway proposes to cross remote and sensitive ecosystems and 850 waterways, including the Fraser River watershed, the world’s most valuable salmon run. This Panel’s already ruled that Enbridge has failed to provide adequate information on the risks of pipeline spills; no small matter given that since 1999 Enbridge has caused more than 800 pipeline spills.
26616. Once raw bitumen reaches Kitimat, it arrives in Canada’s most active earthquake zone. According to Environment Canada, the North Coast’s extreme maritime weather and rocky narrow passages makes the proposed oil tanker shipping route the fourth most treacherous waters in the world for navigation. The B.C. Coast has the highest biological diversity in Canada, home to hundreds of species at risk.
26617. Marine waters around Douglas Channel are critical feeding grounds
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux for orcas, endangered fin and threatened humpback whales, the latter two species hunted to near extinction. As the producer of the documentary Island of Whales narrated by Gregory Peck in 1989, our crew set sail off B.C.’s Coast searching for days for the sight of a single whale. Arriving mostly from Hawaii, now there’s about 2,000 humpbacks here every May to October, including the Douglas Channel population that genetic research indicates is a distinct sub-population.
26618. Threats to whales include ship strikes, engine noise and sonar, ballast pumping and construction, but by far the biggest risks are tanker spills from the proposed 220 condensate and crude oil laden tankers slated to traverse our coast annually and 140 kilometres up the narrow island-streamed fjord to Kitimat.
26619. The monthly four to five VLCCs have a capacity 10 times greater than the now infamous Exxon Valdez spill that after more than 20 years is still causing environmental damage. It’s estimated that if Chevron Apache and other planned LNG pipelines become operational and if Gateway spilled, there will be over 1,000 ship transits a year, three a day navigating Douglas Channel.
26620. There’s a bulk crude oil tanker ban on B.C.’s coast and most British Columbians want to see it strengthened, not abandoned.
26621. In 2011, Enbridge met repeatedly with senior officials in the PM’s office lobbying the government to relax Canada’s environmental protection laws. With the 2012 omnibus Bill C-38 and 45, Enbridge’s dreams came true when the government slashed these laws, giving them and the Alberta tar sands a free pass to degrade Canada’s rich natural legacy.
26622. As NASA climatologist James Hansen wrote in the New York Times in 2012:
“Global warming isn’t a prediction. It’s happening.” (As read)
26623. All the issues I’ve enumerated are reasons enough to never build the Gateway, but Gateway and the other proposed pipelines are the arteries of the tar sands and the overriding issue is that building this pipeline will expand the fossil fuel industry that’s pumping carbon dioxide into this atmosphere. Gateway alone is projected to expand tar sands production by 30 percent.
26624. Globally, we have five times as much oil, coal and gas reserves as
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux climate scientists think safe to burn and will have to keep 80 percent locked away underground to have any hope of staying within a safe 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise.
26625. The unmined bitumen in Alberta’s tar sands contain enough carbon that when added to carbon from the U.S. tar shale beds, there won’t be a hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 parts per million, a level that would lead -- leave our children a climate system out of their control, putting our planet and civilization in peril.
26626. The decision about Gateway will have far-reaching consequences. In Canada’s future there are two scenarios: In one, our federal government works with oil industry interest to spend billions of public tax dollars subsidizing burning of fossil fuels to exploit the tar sands for the fastest maximum short term profit, trashing Canada’s environment, ruining our international reputation, killing sustainable industries and long-term jobs, eroding our democracy well underway and ensuring catastrophic climate change.
26627. I just have a closing sentence.
26628. In other words, all Canadians, politicians, environmentalists and business will work together through democratic processes and develop a national plan using our oil resources to build an energy economy based on sustainability. Phase out our addition to fossil fuels for our children’s children sake and restore Canada’s place as a leader in the global struggle for climate security.
26629. This is the real battle of the 21st century and building the Enbridge Gateway pipeline would be a giant step in the wrong direction.
26630. Thank you.
26631. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Good afternoon Mr. Lebel, please go ahead and share your oral statement with us.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. EYAL LEBEL:
26632. MR. EYAL LEBEL: Good afternoon for the Panel and thank you for giving me the opportunity to present and give my opinion to this project, the pipeline. I am strongly opposed the proposal of the Northern Gate pipeline because of many different reason.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26633. And something that I’m not going to go into is what all the other presenters that I have heard, and I’ve heard many, have presented with all the numbers and the document, which is amazing, and I will just go through a lot of the different issues that I think that are very important.
26634. I am very concerned about the environment in general, in the world, the environment in B.C. and on our -- in our northern part of B.C. and the coast and agreeing or letting Enbridge build a pipeline would dramatically -- increase dramatically the chance of severe damage both because of pipe spill -- oil spill on the northern coast and pollution to the whole, and to the whole planet.
26635. The pipeline that goes through the northern part of B.C. is going through a very delicate area. You, the Panel that have sat in Alberta and other places in B.C., and have listened to Enbridge themselves and have asked them and the B.C. government have asked them to answer specific questions in regards to safety, in regards to an oil spill and how are they going to be able to contain it, and you have heard that they were not able to answer many of those questions.
26636. Some of the answers were, “When we would start building it, we would know how to do it” and that’s not an answer. The issue of the coast, we -- you have heard it many times and I have heard it as well, about how limited or how shallow the bottom of those huge tankers are going to be in low tide in case of high seas.
26637. I have kayaked in those areas, I know what a cruise ship that passes right now in that area looks like in some of those very narrow passages and those tankers are going to be much bigger, much bigger and heavier and I don’t have any doubt.
26638. And from what I heard, Enbridge did not have an answer for the possibility or the -- now there’s a lot of percentages of possible accident. If it’s going to happen in the next -- in the first month or year or 10 year, the accident is going to happen because the coast that those tankers will have to go through is so, so rough and rugged, and the possibility of accident is just way too high for me as a Canadian citizen and B.C. citizen to accept at all.
26639. I’m aware that some people, maybe the Canadian government and some people in Alberta and a few people in B.C. will gain some money but it’s not even close to a similar worth in -- for our environment in B.C. in general.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26640. The next subject that I want to raise is the native issue. Many of the presenters before me have given all the different details and the different Treaties and the different agreements. Most native nations disagree and oppose that pipeline. That by itself, in my opinion, is good enough reason to not to go through it and it’s going to go into the Supreme Court of Canada.
26641. And the Supreme Court of Canada, in general, have agreed in the past that the native nations that are living on -- anywhere, but specifically in this case, on the northern part of B.C. have rights on their land, and if they oppose it, that by itself is a good reason why this pipeline should not be build.
26642. I would just add that in my opinion, the Canadian government keep on promising and saying general things, but they’re not going forward in giving and agreeing with the native nations and giving them the rights that they have never signed off to anyone. Back -- and this is one more example where if the pipeline is going to be built, it’s going to be a huge stepping on native rights in B.C., and in general. So that’s, in my opinion, a very important subject in not accepting the pipeline.
26643. General -- I’ve just mentioned the water navigation issue. Even though Enbridge is saying that it’s going to use double-hulled tankers and being towed by tugboats, this is not -- I have been there. I have seen what a storm looks like in the northern waters. I have -- I know what it might look like in low tide in those waters and the experts are saying that there is no chance that there’s not going to be -- that there’s not going to be an accident.
26644. I have read yesterday in one of the newspapers that they’re talking about a 14 percent chance in the next 50 years. In my opinion, even that number which I think is way too low is unacceptable.
26645. In general, the gamble that all of us are going to take if this project is going to be approved is much higher than anyone of us can accept, both in B.C and in Canada. The information is not showing that Canadian or B.C. citizens are going to stand to earn or to profit that much from the whole project.
26646. The risk is just way too high. The risks to the environment, of our coast, the risks of the environment of our northern B.C. land area, and the risk to the planet in regards to environmental issues is just too high and I am asking you to recommend that a project like that is just not acceptable. It's just way too high
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux a risk, and that's what I have to say.
26647. I came to -- not to give numbers, but to present myself as a citizen of B.C. and Canada in -- that is very concerned with environment, with the health of the coast, the fisheries, the native people, the animals and -- both on land and sea that are definitely standing to be hurt by a project like that.
26648. Thank you very much.
26649. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you for coming. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. MARC LEE:
26650. MR. MARC LEE: Thank you.
26651. My name's Marc Lee, and I've served as an economist for the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives for more than 14 years. Most recently, I've been a senior economist and the Co-Director of the Climate Justice Project, a multi-year, strict funded research project with the University of British Columbia in collaboration with a large team of academics and community groups.
26652. A year ago, Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver's open letter stated that the Northern Gateway pipeline was in the national interest and would substantially boost our GDP and employment.
26653. I decided to evaluate those claims and published my findings in a report for the CCPA called, "Enbridge Pipedreams and Nightmares: The Economic Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline". I believe that the government's job should not to be cheerleaders for proposals, but should make a ruling in the public interest by carefully weighing both benefits and costs. And on those grounds, I conclude that the Northern Gateway pipeline fails the public interest test.
26654. Enbridge's claims about tens of thousands of jobs are grossly overstated, in part because person-years of employment are not the same as jobs, but mostly because those large numbers are based on flawed input-output modelling that makes many unjustified assumptions. A closer look at Enbridge's own numbers reveals a different story when it comes to job creation.
26655. While there are clearly large profits that would accrue to the oil and
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux gas industry and governments will get a share of those profits through taxes and royalties, for ordinary Canadians the harsh reality is that very few jobs would be created by the pipeline. The vast bulk of work associated with the pipeline would come during the three-year construction phase. In terms of jobs, we can bank on no more than 3,000 jobs per year for those three years during the construction phase.
26656. Enbridge's submission states 1,850 jobs per year for three years building the pipeline. If we assume that the steel and pipe will be manufactured in Canada, something that Enbridge has not committed to, that would lead to another 1,000 jobs for three years maximum.
26657. Once complete, Enbridge estimates a mere 217 direct jobs in pipeline operations and the port. This isn't surprising because the oil and gas industry is one of the most capital intensive in the world, employing less than one percent of Canadian workers. The share of total income generated by the Northern Gateway pipeline going to workers at 18 percent is very small by historical standards.
26658. Labour shortages in the construction industry imply that if the pipeline is not built, the vast majority of workers would likely be working somewhere else. This is an important point because the modelling invoked by Enbridge essentially assumes that workers would otherwise be unemployed. In addition, the growing tens of thousands of temporary workers in the oil and gas industry suggest that jobs that are created may not even go to Canadians.
26659. Similarly, Enbridge's claim that Aboriginal employment will fill more than one-third of regional labour requirements is questionable. No commitment to training local residents is specified, so skilled work would only go to workers who already have the qualifications required, thus it's likely that any Aboriginal workers will be more present in low-skilled, low wage employment, while temporary skilled labour will come in from outside the region.
26660. There are other problems with Enbridge's input-output modelling, some of which seem to be endemic problems with that kind of approach, while others seem to be a misapplication of the modelling. More than two-fifths of Enbridge's stated employment gains come from induced job creation, the local economic impact of expenditures by workers and governments. These impacts are very difficult to estimate and can easily be overstated.
26661. Overall, implausibly large numbers derived from input-output
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux modelling, more than 60 -- about 63,000 jobs during construction and 1,146 permanent jobs when complete -- once complete, those numbers simply cannot be justified and should be dismissed as evidence in favour of the pipeline. Set against the employment fiction created by this modelling exercise, the Enbridge proposal instead passes up value-added employment creation opportunities from upgrading and refining in Canada.
26662. Another missing element from input-output models is the alternative uses of funds. While the pipeline will create temporary and some permanent jobs, the choice for policymakers is not between the Northern Gateway pipeline and nothing.
26663. My report considers alternative investments of $5 billion, particularly in green economic development that would also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels. Spending $5 billion on public transit, building retrofits, renewable energy and so forth would generate anywhere from three to 36 times the number of jobs than investing in the pipeline. A modest carbon tax of $10 a tonne applied nationally would generate $5 billion per year every year that could facilitate such investments.
26664. Finally, there are economic costs of moving forward. Having 220 supertankers up the inlet into Kitimat in addition to hundreds of LNG tankers also being pursued in that area will have a negative impact on commercial and traditional fishing in the region, even if there are no spills. Ecotourism as an alternative industry and employer in the region would suffer if the pipeline is built.
26665. Pipeline spills are an obvious environmental and economic cost. Given the track record of the industry in general and Enbridge in particular, the question is not if there will be a spill, but when and how bad it is. Diluted bitumen is highly corrosive and breaks the pipes it travels through.
26666. Enbridge alone has had more than 800 leaks in its pipeline network going back just over a decade. In the United States, there have been more than 5,000 pipeline spills going back to 1990. Spills are just a routine aspect of doing business from a corporate perspective.
26667. In the B.C. development region of North Coast and Nechako, there were about 5,500 jobs in 2010 in categories that would most likely be affected by an oil spill, such as tourism and fishing, and 12,670 jobs in the caribou
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux development region.
26668. Even if one in 10 of those jobs were affected by a spill, the job losses that would result from the spill would be larger than new permanent jobs created by the pipeline. Not counted in these statistics is the subsistence economy of fishing and trapping, an important source of non-market food for people in rural areas. The submission by the Gitga'at, whose territory covers the tanker route out of Kitimat, notes that these sources account for about two-fifths of their food supply.
26669. While spills are more of a probabilistic matter, greenhouse gas
emissions are not. The pipeline would facilitate 80 to 100 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, more than B.C. currently emits in total.
26670. Recent estimates of the external costs of carbon emissions are typically in the range of $50 to $200 per tonne, which implies some $4 to $20 billion in economic costs from greenhouse gas emissions facilitated by the pipeline. Given that the pipeline is anticipated to create about $4 billion per year in profits to Enbridge shareholders and oil sands producers, these should be considered odious profits that come at the expense of people in other countries and into the future.
26671. Already the world is seeing growing economic costs resulting from historical greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists agree that action is needed to rapidly shift off fossil fuels, and such a commitment will hopefully be reflected in a new international treaty. Locking in a multi-billion dollar piece of fossil fuel infrastructure runs the risk of becoming a stranded asset as the world inevitably transitions to clean energy sources.
26672. In sum, there are few economic benefits of the pipeline outside the gains that accrue to shareholders and, at the same time, there are massive costs that will be imposed on people and nature from the pipeline. The Northern Gateway pipeline, therefore, fails the cost benefit test and the Joint Review Panel should not approve it.
26673. Thank you.
26674. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for taking the time to be here and to present your oral statements to us.
26675. We'll take a five-minute break, so we'll be back at 3:55.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
--- Upon recessing at 3:47 p.m./L'audience est suspendue à 15h47 --- Upon resuming at 3:55 p.m./L’audience est reprise à 15h55
26676. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
26677. Mr. Perrin, please begin with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. KARL PERRIN:
26678. MR. KARL PERRIN: I’d like to acknowledge the First Nations who have kept this land so healthy and beautiful for thousands of years. I believe that we have a commitment to continue that legacy.
26679. I have been the Chair of the Environment Committee of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver for 17 years. The Unitarian Church of Vancouver has a 100-year history as a contributor to the social and environmental justice strength of Vancouver.
26680. Greenpeace was born at our church. We have over 400 voting members plus 200 adherents. Our membership is our ultimate authority. I presented my views to our membership in the form of a resolution and that resolution was passed by the membership by 74 percent, with 11 percent abstaining and 15 percent opposed.
26681. Subject: Opposition to proposed pipelines. At an extraordinary general meeting on 10 June, 2012, the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver voted in support of our resolution expressing opposition to the construction of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline from northern Alberta to Kitimat, B.C. And the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from northern Alberta to Burnaby, B.C.
26682. Our opposition was based on Unitarian principles that affirm and promote, quote:
“Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part, justice, equity and compassion in human relations and the use of the democratic process within our congregation and in society at large.” (As read)
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26683. The seriousness of our members’ concerns about the proposed pipelines is highlighted by the fact that it is highly unusual for the Unitarian Church of Vancouver as an organization to endorse resolutions on public policy issues.
26684. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Perrin, I had understood when you started that -- that you have brought a resolution of your views; is that correct?
26685. MR. KARL PERRIN: The resolution is -- is six pages. I -- it’s too long ---
26686. THE CHAIRPERSON: It’s of your view -- yes, it’s of your views.
26687. MR. KARL PERRIN: Yeah.
26688. THE CHAIRPERSON: We’re just interested in hearing your views. And so that if you could provide us with your views rather than a groups’ views that would be helpful to us.
26689. MR. KARL PERRIN: Yeah. What I’ve presented was reasons why the Enbridge Company is not to be trusted as a company which would follow through on what it says it will do.
26690. And of course we’ve seen the relevance of that in terms of what happened in Kalamazoo. And the objective was to -- my objective was that our church and its members would withdraw their financial support of Enbridge. And in order to do that I mentioned the obligations under the U.N. Charter of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for governments to consider the -- I’ll just read that one section.
26691. This is the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 32, Section 2:
“States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26692. And one of the key phrases there is “in good faith”. And so far it appears that the Government of Canada has not operated in good faith with First Nations. There was a Minister of the Crown who referred to some First Nations as “socially dysfunctional”, and they took that with great offence and dropped out of this process of the Joint Review Panel.
26693. And so that has had -- that’s one of the aspects that I mentioned that the good faith was not there. And the other aspect is the -- that in the Constitution, 1982, Section 35, that it’s been interpreted that First Nations have a right to their traditional food gathering sources, fish and wildlife, and that that cannot be abridged, and yet it looks as though that would be overrun, that -- without the consent of those First Nations that are in the pathway of the pipeline as well as those that would be affected on the coast, that that Constitutional right would be abridged.
26694. So our church had about $60,000 in ethical funds that were partly owning Enbridge shares, and so we began to look at that and see that the -- that other ethical funds that we would transfer money to were also containing a lot of Enbridge shares. And this was something that I discovered by going to my financial advisor at VanCity about over a year ago. So that all the ethical funds did contain Enbridge shares and so there was nowhere to move your money to from the ones that contained Enbridge shares.
26695. So we -- that’s why we began a program of divestment. And after this resolution passed, then our church did divest of ethical funds that contained Enbridge shares and after that, I was surprised, things started to catch on.
26696. The Anglican Church, United Church of Canada both began to divest or consider divesting of any of their funds that contained Enbridge shares. And then in August, VanCity Investments, with a man named Dermot Foley who advises them, decided that they would also divest.
26697. And Clarington Enhance, one of those ethical funds that had been at the shareholders' meeting of Enbridge and had been one of the groups that determined that Enbridge was no longer a good risk, that they weren’t actually following their environmental, social and governance practices that they said they were following. And that after the news came out about the Kalamazoo spill and their -- the fact that they said they were being environmentally responsible but hadn’t been, that they took another look at it and found that they weren’t meeting
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux those criteria. And so then VanCity divested and, along with that, all of the other ethical funds soon followed suit.
26698. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Perrin, you have under two minutes and so I just want to make sure that we get to hear your personal views on the project before your time is up.
26699. MR. PERRIN: Okay. So the issue has been whether or not Enbridge can be trusted to do what they say they will do. And the ethical funds are -- and my own ethical funds are invested in companies where there’s a likelihood of a good return or some return and also that are following ethical, social and governance guidelines.
26700. So in that case, it looked as though they had failed to keep their word, and the advisor from VanCity said that was probably because they had grown too fast and that they weren’t able to keep up with their own intentions. That they had convinced the ethical funds that they had good intentions, but that they hadn’t actually been able to keep up with their own intentions and so that they were no longer to be trusted.
26701. So I’m just indicating that sometimes the scout or the body which is looking at ethical funds is also one that is careful about the economic viability of the company. And so that -- because ethical funds have shown that they can predict, fairly accurately, the best economic interests to invest in. So that the fact that Enbridge has not been able to keep its word may mean that they will not be able to do so in case of building the pipeline and so then somebody else would be left holding the bag.
26702. MEMEBER MATTHEWS: Great. Thanks a lot.
26703. Ms. Pratt, please go ahead and share your oral statement with us.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. SHEILA PRATT:
26704. MS. SHEILA PRATT: I’m here because I’m concerned about media misinformation and manipulation as well as consequences of approving this pipeline.
26705. I have read that, in making the decision to approve this pipeline, Stephen Harper will consider not only the JRP’s findings, but also the National
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Energy Board’s interpretation of the national public interest, which is:
“Inclusive of all Canadians and refers to a balance of economic, environmental, and social interests that changes as society’s values and preferences evolve over time. As a regulator, the Board must estimate the overall public good a project may create and its potential negative aspects, weigh its various impacts, and make a decision.”
26706. But of course, we all know that Stephen Harper needs to take direction from no one except his handpicked Cabinet to make this decision. I wonder how the NEB will define changing values and changing social interests and preferences as they have evolved over time. If the NEB’s decision is going to be made in part by using these guidelines, we need to know how they arrived at these guidelines.
26707. The NEB’s interpretation of the public interest refers to a “balance of economic, environmental, and social interests”. Since this balance mentions economic interests first, three questions come to my mind.
26708. First, are economic interests more important than environmental interests? Second, are social interests considered to be synonymous with economic interests? And third, I wonder whose economics will be considered.
26709. Is it the Chinese who will be refining the dilbit and perhaps building the pipeline, depending on FIPA? Or will it be the fishing industry that needs unpolluted habitat for the wild fish to develop in? Is it the tourist industry that depends on our pristine natural environment? Perhaps the Aboriginal people who depend on the natural environment for their food.
26710. Could it be the clean-up industry? After all, the Kalmazoo clean-up is part of the economy even though it’s not cleaned up and even though it’s not making headlines.
26711. And of course, the 1989 Exxon Valdez is still not cleaned up. Or is the farmers' economic interests who rely on unpolluted land and water for agriculture? Or perhaps the only economic interests that will be considered are the multinationals who explore for, drill for and transport fossil fuels to satisfy their shareholders.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26712. We have heard endless vague messages about the jobs that will be created and the families that will be supported when this pipeline is approved. But once again, I have questions.
26713. How many jobs will be created? For how long and how sustainable will the jobs be? And why has the government failed to tell us how many sustainable jobs already exist because of the pristine environment in this area and how the marine economy will be affected by a spill? There have been no TV ads and we’ve been given no information about this.
26714. I can understand Enbridge promoting their position, but when they erase islands and hundreds of kilometres of coastline, I know I can’t trust them. And they don’t understand why our government isn’t giving us a more balanced set of facts on which to base our opinion.
26715. We don’t hear a lot about the controversy surrounding B.C. Hydro’s proposed Site C dam development. A large part of this controversy seems to exist because its power will be used for the pipeline. Little is mentioned about environmental damage created by flooding farmlands and ecosystems.
26716. Of course, the environmental threats posed by this project can only be suspected. With at least 1,000 kilometres of pipelines crossing over more than 800 fish-bearing streams and rivers, three of which are major salmon spawning rivers, there is bound to be a leak.
26717. After all, when Enbridge talks about managing leaks, they are not denying the inevitability of leaks. They may have been humbled, to quote Janet Holder, by the incident in the Kalamazoo River.
26718. Were they humbled by the other 804 spills between 1999 and 2010 and did “being humbled” cleanup their messes? Does Enbridge or anyone else know when and where the next earthquake will be? And are the pipelines going to be immune to damage from earthquakes? Has Enbridge shown they can eliminate leaks by avoiding stress, corrosion and cracking? Have all weather considerations been accounted for? And when leaks do occur, how will they overcome the challenging conditions to reach the leak sites quickly?
26719. Leaks and environmental issues will affect economic considerations. If the Kalamazoo is an example, we will have problems. The economic environmental and aesthetic values of the river have been lost. Homeowners have
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux lost their properties and people with health issues were affected, to name but a few problems. As of last July, cleanup had exceeded the 650 million insurance protection by more than 150 million and that cost is rising, of course. Who will pay these extra cleanup costs?
26720. To complicate the matter, it's my understanding that the proposed pipeline being considered is to be built by Enbridge, but it will be owned by Northern Gateway Pipeline Limited Partnership, a company with limited liability assets. Under these circumstances, should there be a spill, it is my guess that taxpayers will have to pay for cleanup costs.
26721. We know, however, that environmental damage is never completely cleaned up. Adverse health effects are often not repairable, so the cost of a so- called cleanup cannot really be measured in dollars and it can only be measured in part by immediate social impact, only in part.
26722. Since the NEB is considering our evolving values and preferences, is there any indication that Canadians are willing to give up a sustainable economy that currently exists for a project that will create a number of short-term and unsustainable jobs and only a very few long-term jobs?
26723. Were our values and preferences supported or reassured by Enbridge's illustrative elimination of islands in the Douglas Channel in their attempt to promote this project? Is there any indication that Canadians value Enbridge culture, a culture that has not complied with nor conformed to regulations on pipeline integrity and safety in Canada?
26724. Evan Vokes, former TransCanada metallurgical engineer said that the industry does not have the will to do things correctly.
26725. I'm concerned with a dysfunctional corporation whose behaviour has been compared to the Keystone cops even if the JRP does not want to recognize the events leading up to that characterization. I'm concerned that a corporation that uses a completely erroneous visual representation of Douglas Channel, a corporation that fails to give us accurate information about other leaks and the Kalamazoo cleanup is even being given legitimate consideration.
26726. Do Canadian values support the expenditure of millions in taxpayer dollars to present biased advertisements in favour of this project? Has our government considered the research into fuels based on synthetic biology and safe
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux thorium-based nuclear energy that could soon make oil from the tar sands even less attractive than it is now? Why is this government so set on building this pipeline to transport tar sands oil that is creating an environmental disaster?
26727. Finally, Gordon Campbell signed away B.C.’s right to conduct an environmental assessment under B.C.'s Environmental Assessment Act and the Harper government has destroyed the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Changing the words on paper will not mitigate environmental damage; it will allow more environmental destruction.
26728. Is there any indication that Canadians value the name calling that the Harper government participated in when environmental groups were labelled enemies of the Government of Canada and enemies of the people of Canada?
26729. As Andrew Frank said in a whistleblower's open letter to Canadians:
“It is a language of bullying. It is a language that is violent and above the law.”
26730. It doesn’t sound Canadian to me and approving this pipeline doesn’t sound very Canadian to me either.
26731. Thank you very much.
26732. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
26733. Ms. Sharpe, you are our next speaker. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. FRANCES SHARPE:
26734. MS. FRANCES SHARPE: Hi. I live in Vancouver currently, but I grew up in Smithers.
26735. I think this project isn’t in the public interest mainly because of the adverse environmental impacts. These include the possibilities of the diluted bitumen spills from both the pipeline and the tanker ships, as well impacts on wildlife from pipeline construction and tanker operation in the remote wilderness areas of the coast.
26736. My personal interest in keeping this project out of B.C. stems from an
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux appreciation and love of the natural environment that growing up in and around Smithers helped to create for me. I have memories of a multi-family canoe trip on the Kitlope River and I would like my future family to be able to experience the same relatively untainted wilderness as I was so fortunate to experience.
26737. I'm also a teacher and I worry about the further limiting of the options for young people to experience and also gain appreciations from natural areas.
26738. To me, the enormous consequences of a tanker or pipeline spill far outweigh any potential economic gain. I also think that there are no measures that Enbridge or another company could take to sufficiently mitigate the risks of this project, and that’s why I urge the Panel to reject the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
26739. Thank you.
26740. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for being here today to present your views and perspectives.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
26741. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Good afternoon, Mr. Smith. Welcome. Please go ahead and share your views on the project with us.
26742. MR. GEORGE SMITH: Thanks. I may have to beg your indulgence a little bit. I had my presentation down to pretty much exactly 10 minutes and then last night I acquired a cough and headache that’s just going kaboom, so I will -- I think I might be able to get it in there, but I may have to stop and hoof some water down, so ---
26743. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Okay.
26744. MR. GEORGE SMITH: --- please give me a little ---
26745. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Okay. We have some water there for you. All right. Okay.
26746. MR. GEORGE SMITH: You betcha.
26747. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Okay, there you go.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. GEORGE SMITH:
26748. MR. GEORGE SMITH: My name is George Smith. I appreciate this opportunity to present my perspective on the Northern Gateway pipeline.
26749. To begin, I'd like to recognize that I am on Coast Salish First Nations’ traditional territory. I have serious concerns about ecosystem integrity, respect for First Nations’ governments and abuse of democracy.
26750. However, many of these concerns have been aptly described to you by prior presenters. I will add a few reflections on these subjects and comment on the implications that Gateway holds for the energy infrastructure and economic future of British Columbia.
26751. To set the context for my comments, I'm a 64-year old Canadian who lives on B.C.’ Sunshine Coast at the edge of the Salish Sea on the Pacific Ocean. I spent most of my life living and working in British Columbia, but grew up in a forest industry family in the upper Ottawa Valley. In my early years, I earned my wages at several jobs in forestry, then my working educational volunteering career led me in several directions, some of which I believe have relevance to the matter at hand.
26752. In the 1970s I sailed across the Pacific to Japan and back on a tramp steamer as a deckhand on the SS Neelos. I also served as a deckhand on the commercial salmon troller out of Prince Rupert. I sailed as a passenger on various vessels on the Atlantic, off the East Coast of the U.S., on the Mediterranean between Africa and France and off the coast of West Africa.
26753. My relationship with B.C.'s West Coast included spending considerable time in a kayak over the years and initiating the Marine Protected Areas' Program for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
26754. I know firsthand the beauty, striking biodiversity, tranquillity and sometimes absolute ferocity of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of British Columbia. Not all seas are equal and the Northern Pacific is ridiculously named. It's one of the world's most volatile oceans.
26755. Navigating tides, gales, winds, currents and fog of its waters has been very challenging for fishers and sailors and oil transporters over the years. Others have described the treacherous navigational hazards of the northern B.C. coast
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux and the inevitability of what could prove to be a disastrous tanker accident.
26756. I can simply add that I hope you have some idea of the power of that ocean, of what it is like to face giant waves for days on end, hoping that the rivets in your vessel are up to the job. Or what it is like to grope your way through narrow channels relying only on instruments to make it through the dense fog.
26757. Given the imperfect nature of oil tankers, their human handlers, and the potential impact of a large spill of bitumen on the coast, I suggest that you follow the precautionary principle and recommend against approving the project.
26758. In the mid-1970s I worked with the federal civil service as a manager in Ottawa. I helped manage the core funding program within the Native Citizens Directorate of the Secretary State Department. That fund provided money directly to First Nations federal, provincial and territorial political organizations to help improve their capacity to represent their people.
26759. There, I came face-to-face with the imbalanced power dynamic between First Nations governments on the one hand and the senior governments and industry on the other.
26760. Today there is certainly greater leadership capacity within the Aboriginal communities -- governments rather, yet the imbalance in power for the most part remains.
26761. I believe that we all need to question why the federal government feels free to diminish environmental protection laws and regulations for our rivers, fisheries and land base to suit the extraction industries without prior consultation with other the political parties, with environmental organizations, the general public and of course the First Nations on whose land and waterways large energy projects are proposed.
26762. Like, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper can promote the Northern Gateway Project before your Panel has provided its advice and over the formal objections of so many B.C. First Nations is quite astounding. There is -- this is not the kind of democracy my father fought for during the Second World War.
26763. I later worked as a manager with the Office of Energy Conservation of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. There I watched the federal
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux government of the day give lip service to energy conservation but make few substantive changes to energy policy.
26764. As a senior manager I still remember when a political assistant from the Minister’s office tried to force me to fire one of our west coast contractors and one of my staff because a fossil fuel provider was concerned that a local woodlot project might diminish his profits.
26765. That sad instance seems rather trivial in light of today’s governmental/energy industry push to quickly suck up as much oil and gas as possible and ship it out of the country regardless of impact on creating a sustainable green energy future or on climate change.
26766. Starting in 1991 I served as a National Conservation Director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society for nearly 14 years. I worked on biodiversity and wilderness issues throughout Canada and spent many years engaged in B.C. and Alberta on land use planning.
26767. Other presenters have described the potential for environmental damage from the pipeline on the biological -- to the biological diversity of the land, rivers and coastal waters of B.C. I will not repeat those messages, rather I would like to point to the unhealthy compact in this province and country between governments and the energy sector and suggest how they might change. Let me give four examples.
26768. My work led me to -- into negotiating northern land issues within -- with senior members of the oil and gas industry. At one point I was appointed by the B.C. government to join a small group of industry and governmental people in designing the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission.
26769. Halfway.
26770. I then watched as the Oil and Gas Commission was transformed from an independent regulatory body to a politicized and polarized agency; pushing industry interests over all else.
26771. For example, the industry friendly Fort Nelson First Nation, late last year, had to come to Victoria to attract some attention to stop the OGC from quietly leasing billions, billions of litres annually from their rivers in their territory to an energy company to frack gas. That’s billions.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26772. Through a Freedom of Information Request I learned that almost before the ink dried, a major Albertan energy company successfully got the B.C. liberal government to break a land use agreement achieved after four -- over four years of broad public process and compromise.
26773. Quietly through omnibus legislation, that company gained the deletion of park status in a 2-kilometre wide swath through a newly protected park in B.C.’s northeast. Other participants of land use process were ignored.
26774. More recently, I responded to an invitation by Kinder Morgan to participate in their Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion public process in the phase of the project that went through Jasper National Park and Mount Robson Provincial Park.
26775. The committee and environmental people at the table understood that we had no opportunity to stop this project. The governmental representatives were clear about that. However, we stayed at the table to try to ensure minimal damage. Somehow, well into the process, we learned that the size of the twin pipeline was to increase significantly in size. Now, months later, we learn that Kinder Morgan intends to ship diluted bitumen for foreign sales through its upgraded system to Vancouver.
26776. As virtually everyone now knows from Enbridge’s Kalamazoo River disaster the impact from diluted bitumen spills is serious and even more threatening than releases of crude oil.
26777. We must ask why government allows this incremental changing of the goalpost to suit industry and we must stop it.
26778. Recently I’ve been acting as a conservation consultant helping northern farmers, biologists, conservationists and First Nations in their effort to stop the Site C dam proposal of B.C.’s Hydro from inundating the Peace River Valley. In so doing I learned that the dam is anything but an independent hydro project.
26779. B.C. Hydro and the B.C. government initially said the dam was required to power up 450,000 B.C. homes. Then, perhaps when confronted with falling energy demand from B.C. businesses and households, they said that the dam was to backstop their independent power project dams proposed for several
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux hundred B.C. rivers.
26780. However California, their desired market for premium so-called green and clean hydro power, told them that they did not consider IPP generated power to be environmentally acceptable, for good reason.
26781. B.C. Hydro and the B.C. government then unveiled justifications for three and four for building Site C. Enter Enbridge.
26782. They proposed a new pipeline to be built from the Site C dam, several hundred kilometres to the Horn River gas play in the extreme North Eastern corner of B.C. to make it cheaper for the energy industry to frack and refine B.C. natural gas.
26783. A new gas pipeline from the Horn River to the Alberta oil sands would make it cheaper to extract bitumen. The diluted bitumen would then be moved to the coast via Enbridge or Kinder Morgan pipelines.
26784. Thus, water power would be utilized to develop gas which would help extract bitumen. This would all be to the benefit of the oil and gas industry not the B.C. public who pay a staggering 8 to $12 billion in construction and borrowing costs for Site C.
26785. Rational number four surfaced early last year when Premier Christy Clarke said all the Site C energy would be required to power a shallow liquid natural gas line in Kitimat. The LNG plant would continue to receive hydro power at preferred rates compared to citizens and small businesses. Meanwhile they’ve not dropped the idea of the Horn River gas and oil plan.
26786. The point of that is that the Enbridge pipeline is not an insulated stand- alone energy project. Its potential construction is connected to the oil sands, to the long-term abuse of the energy and economic future of B.C., Canada, Alberta. It is connected to the use of our precious water resources, to the health of our land and wildlife and our human population.
26787. There is nothing conservative about the current practice of giving away our sovereignty and cheaply shipping our resources for other nations to refine.
26788. If our country is at all serious about attacking climate change while
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux developing a thriving and sustainable green economy, we need to create a real national energy policy that protects Canadian resources, that invests in real alternative energy options.
26789. Current energy climate and economic policies favour large corporations extracting and transporting fossil fuels through fragile environments at unacceptable risks getting out of the country as fast as possible. Canada must learn from proven jurisdictions like Denmark and Germany about how to move away from fossil fuels.
26790. If we examine the opportunity cost dynamic, just imagine how many creative, useful, permanent and environmentally sustainable jobs could be created by developing a Canadian power house of alternate technologies rather than continuing to endorse the tired energy infrastructure that the Northern Gateway epitomizes.
26791. In closing, I reiterate my appreciation for the opportunity to speak here today. Thank you.
26792. I am opposed to the Northern Gateway Pipeline Proposal and I urge the Panel to reject approval of the project.
26793. Sorry for going over a little.
26794. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you Mr. Smith.
26795. Ms. Tamboline, thank you for attending today. Please present your views to the Panel.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. INGRID TAMBOLINE:
26796. MS. INGRID TAMBOLINE: Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Leggett, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Matthews.
26797. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Panel. And before I begin I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Musqueam people whose ancestry goes back thousands of years in the Fraser River estuary.
26798. My name is Ingrid Tamboline. I love the waters that travel like
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux ribbons up and down this coast and across the oceans that connect all of us. I love the land and its waterways that supports all creatures. 26799. I’m a child of habitat forum 1976 where my ideas of an unpolluted world powered by renewable resources such as sun, wind and water were seeded.
26800. I was born and raised in beautiful British Columbia and I want the best for future generations. I’m not convinced that there’s a need for the proposed pipelines. According to David Hughes, the current infrastructure is capable of handling up to a 150 percent tar sands growth. The proposed Keystone and Kinder Morgan pipelines could handle additional growth. As well, refining in Canada as opposed to shipping raw bitumen to China would create jobs domestically.
26801. The proposed 1,177 kilometre pipelines that would cross traditional First Nations territories would have a capacity of transporting 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen and 193,000 barrels of natural gas condensate a day. A spill anywhere along the line would result in certain environmental harm to the delicately balanced ecosystems it crosses. Not unlike Enbridge’s oil spill in the Kalamazoo River in 2010. Over two years later, and at great cost and effort, the clean-up attempts are ongoing.
26802. Among the many concerns about increased tanker traffic along the northern shipping routes is the noise increase in the oceans and the adverse effects it will have on whales. Very large crude carriers are capable of carrying about 2 billion barrels of oil.
26803. Should there be a spill along the coast Enbridge will not be responsible for clean-up. This will fall to the federal, provincial, and local governments who, due to steady cut backs over the years, don’t have the resources to manage a spill. Therefore, it is questionable how quick and effective the response will be.
26804. The technology for cleaning up a spill hasn’t improved since the eighties. A spill would contaminate the environment with chemicals. Chemicals are used to aid with clean-up. This results is a poisonous chemical soup and will have negative and long-term effects on the environment.
26805. Aboriginal communities expanding shellfish farming and ecotourism in the area near Prince Rupert are also at risk from this project. They are receiving Canadian and offshore investments and the risk of increased tanker
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux traffic and/or an oil spill would devastate this renewable resource economy.
26806. It seems from what I’ve read, the question that is being asked isn’t if the pipelines should be built or not but rather how the natural gas condensate should be transported from B.C. to Alberta, added to the tar sands crude, transported from Alberta to B.C., loaded onto VLCCs and shipped to China for refinement.
26807. Nevertheless, in my opinion it is not in public’s best interest to see these pipelines built. I believe it would be in the public’s best interest to increase the value of the diverse sustainable local economies along the coast and across B.C. to protect the national -- natural environment because in the not too distant future there won’t be much of it left on earth and to listen to the majority of British Columbians who support not following through with the project.
26808. Thinking of the future I worry. I think of my nieces and their children, their kids, and their kids’ kids. I can only imagine ahead seven generations. What kind of world will they inherit? Sure there will be lots of oil, gas and petroleum for a while but we are a part of the earth, we need the earth to sustain us, to feed us, protect us, and I fear a day will come when that won’t be possible.
26809. I’m reminded of the book “A Short History of Progress” by Ronald Wright. In it he writes about Easter Island called Rapa Nui by the Polynesians. By 1400, this once forested island became desolate. Every last tree had been cut down in order to build and erect the giant stone statues known as Moai. He wonders what went through the islanders’ minds as they chopped down the last tree. Surely they must have noticed it was their last tree.
26810. Today our God is the economy and in Canada alone we’re digging about 262 trillion 800 million tonnes of tar sands a year to yield 700 -- 720 million barrels of oil. That’s a lot of sand and oil and money. Although relative to the amount of sand extracted it’s not much oil. But in the future people will still need clean drinking water, fresh air and food to eat in order to live. Money, oil and sand won’t be enough.
26811. If we don’t preserve our environment for the generations of tomorrow there will be great suffering and loss. And like Easter Island, all that will be left is the scarred and sterile earth littered with relics of a bygone era.
26812. You may be familiar with the parable of the hummingbird. There was
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux a great forest fire and all the animals fled the fire. They stood at the edge of the forest and watched as their home burned. They were scarred and felt helpless. But as they sat and watched the hummingbird flew past them to a nearby stream and picked up a drop of water in its tiny beak. It flew back to the forest and threw the water onto the fire. Back and forth it flew, picking up a drop of water at a time and throwing it onto the fire. The rest of the animals stood there transfixed by the fire and they called out, “Little hummingbird what are you doing”, she replied without stopping, “I’m doing what I can”.
26813. This story inspires us to never give up despite overwhelming odds. But there are questions to this story as well. Why was there a fire in the first place, what could have been done to prevent it, and what were the long-term effects of it.
26814. It matters when things go wrong. Trying to fix something that has gone wrong despite the overwhelming odds that it can’t be fixed is not an option. The best option is to not have it happen ever. How; by not creating the problem in the first place.
26815. And I thank you very much for this opportunity and for your time.
26816. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to each of you for taking the time to prepare and present your oral statements to us.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
26817. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Good afternoon, Ms. Wetzel. Please go ahead and share your oral statement with us.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. JOHANNAH WETZEL:
26818. MS. JOHANNAH WETZEL: Good afternoon, Ms. Leggett, Mr. Bateman and Mr. Matthews.
26819. This afternoon I would like to start my statement by reading a poem from this book. It expresses my views, and as a writer I wish I had written it myself. I am a resident -- I speak as a resident of Vancouver.
“Space/time/outcome
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Ladies and gentlemen we are gathered here today to celebrate the great edifice of mankind. In […] honor of this special day allow me to start my speech with a personal anecdote, you would not believe it. I was only three years old. I used to gaze at rivers and tiny little streams and compose poems in my head dear all little did I know that the seeds of my long-dormant passion for poetry and wilderness were being planted.
I remember clearly sitting by the edge of a rock envisioning full-bodied salmon swimming up river, swiftly rubbing tails against wet steel pipes nestled in soft glamorous sand as if drumming then floating back down slowly onto their sediment beds for eternal sleep as wilderness breeds new species truly what is more wild than jet black geese.
Dear person if you are one to say Jesus once walked on these waters but I ain’t no prophet let me tell you wait no more than a decade once the riverbeds turn into bulky deserts of golden colour the colour of that most precious stone much like the beautiful sand dunes of Africa we will all be able to march on hand in hand on metres-thick methane, the miraculous walk of humanity toward a sustainable corporation.
Allow me to clarify, this is about opportunities. We need to be able to evaluate the full spectrum here, the potentials and cumulative profits; I mean impacts, of pipelines on future generations, on our present community of humans, animals, earth alike.
The same lines that transport crude oil from tar sands to civilization today will one day carry the disoriented peoples of traditional territories to the heart of meaningful economy, much like migratory birds, for we know how to return a favour. We take; we give.
Dear gentlemen and their sons, one day you will find yourselves waking up in a treeless toxic swamp, much like the enigmatic wetlands of Brazil, and will whisper to yourselves, I had time in my hands and I had space, so I used it all to engender refined products, tar mats, tar balls, tar patties,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux moose. Imagine, if we are lucky enough we shall soon be able to consumer ourselves entirely, for nothing is impossible. Thank you.”
26820. As you can tell by my choice to begin my statement with this poem, I am not in support of the Enbridge pipeline. My concerns centre around three main questions, questions, which I believe are at the heart of this issue and also at the heart of what it means to live wisely, and wisdom is my hope for you as a Panel.
26821. My questions are: Are we looking back and learning from our history? Are we looking forward with a long-term vision, and are we willing to live creatively and courageously?
26822. First question: Are we looking back and learning from our history? One of my main concerns surrounding this project is the lack of First Nations support. As the Idle No More Movement is currently showing us, and as the Save the Fraser Declaration has clearly stated, the First Nations of our land will no longer tolerate a white settler mentality. The 130 nations that have signed the Fraser Declaration are not in support of the Enbridge project and they are asking us to truly hear their voices.
26823. It is interesting to me that later this year Vancouver will host the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This taskforce has as its mandate to help Canadians acknowledge residential school experiences, impacts, and consequences. While at first there seems no connection between the TRC and the Enbridge pipeline, when one studies the history of why residential schools were instituted, one uncovers the same kinds of conflicts over land use and economic development.
26824. The documentary, "The Fallen Feather", helps dispel the myth that residential schools were established simply out of the government's goodwill to educate Native children. Jessica Hoskins, director and narrator of the film, argues that essentially the government took native children as hostages so that, quote:
"Land could be expropriated, treaties could be rolled back, and the railway could be built." (As read)
26825. While it might be easy to dismiss this as a disgruntled reading of history, Hoskins has historical evidence. In a letter to the MacDonald
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Government discussing the issue of Native unrest in conflicts over land use and development, Edgar Dewdney, Indian Commissioner of the Northwest Territories in 1885 writes:
"The Indians would regard them [their children] as hostages given to the Whites and would hesitate to commit any hostile acts that [would] endanger their children's well being."
26826. Essentially, the residential school system was set up in order to subdue and pacify a people who were in conflict with the government over land use policies.
26827. While I am fully aware of the differences that exist between 1885 and 2013, and I am not suggesting that we are about to repeat the human atrocities of the residential school system, I do believe we need to ask ourselves this question carefully: Are we repeating history? Are we White settlers repeating our colonial history of taking over and exploiting land that does not belong to us? What environmental atrocities will we need to apologize for in 128 years?
26828. For these reasons, we need to look back and learn from our history.
26829. The second question: Are we looking forward with a long-term vision? As many people have already raised, this is the question of what kind of world we are leaving to our children. Enbridge's records of past oil spills does not give us long-term confidence.
26830. Again, as has been stated many times today, from 2007 to 2010, Enbridge self-reported a total of 720 spills and leaks that equalled 132,715 barrels of oil spilled into the environment. That is more than half of the Exxon Valdez spill. Enbridge does not have high enough standards of safety. However, even if they did, bitumen will one day run out. Sure, exploiting the tar sands will bring financial gain in this decade and the next, but what happens when oil is gone?
26831. On the other hand, if we manage the fisheries and fishing industry rightly, they can keep feeding us well into the future, but what happens if we destroy the fishing industry? Enbridge is not a trustworthy holder of the long- term future of British Columbia's natural resources. We need to look forward with a longer-term vision than just the immediate financial gain and the extraction of non-renewable resources.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26832. My third question: Are we willing to live creatively and courageously? In 2007, the country of Ecuador made an unprecedented decision. They decided to leave 900 million barrels of oil in the ground. This oil, worth $7 billion, lies under one of the most biodiverse areas of the world, a pristine rainforest, Yasuni National Park. Daring to do things differently, for the first time in history, an oil-producing country where one-third of the state's revenue comes from oil, decided to renounce this income in order to conserve nature.
26833. You can learn more about this if you Google at Yasuni-ITT or watch David Suzuki's the Nature of Things. Not only that -- Ecuador's economy depends on oil, but in response to the global climate crisis they are offering to leave this oil in the ground forever if the global community will respond in kind. Not only that, but in 2008, Ecuador also amended its constitution to give nature constitutional rights. They call this living well.
26834. It takes courage and creativity to start living this way, but a triple bottom line, people, planet, profit, must be our new bottom line as we face the future. We must start thinking like Ecuador. We must stop seeing nature as something to be consumed and start realizing it is a gift to be stewarded.
26835. We must make decisions to protect the vulnerable in our midst, the salmon spawning in the Fraser River, and the children born at B.C. Women's Hospital today. We must let our desire for more, more money, more stuff, more ease, be submitted to our need for community and communion. These kinds of choices take courage, and in our day and age, they also require much creativity.
26836. Are we willing to make these kinds of choices? We must say no to short-term solutions and start creating new long-term resolutions.
26837. So I leave you with the three questions I began with: Are we looking back and learning from our history? Are we looking forward with a long-term vision, and are we willing to creatively and courageous -- are we willing to live creatively and courageously?
26838. These are the questions I believe you, the Joint Review Panel, must answer. These are the questions of wisdom and it is my prayer that we all, you and I, and Enbridge executives, and government officials, and our First Nations brothers and sisters, that all of us would be empowered to live wisely.
“Dear gentlemen and their sons, one day you will find
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux yourselves waking up in a treeless toxic swamp, much like the enigmatic wetlands of Brazil, and will whisper to yourselves, I had time in my hands and I had space, so I used it all to engender refined products, tar mats, tar balls, tar patties, moose. Imagine, if we are lucky enough we shall soon be able to consume ourselves entirely, for nothing is impossible. Thank you.”
26839. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you, Ms. Wetzel.
26840. Ms. Nelson, thank you for coming today. You'll be our last speaker in this session. We look forward to hearing from you. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. MELISSA NELSON:
26841. MS. MELISSA NELSON: To the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel and everyone else to whom this may concern, I thank you for hosting these hearings and listening to what I have to say, finally.
26842. My name is Melissa Nelson. I am a student at Quest University Canada in Squamish. I'm a resident of B.C., lifetime of B.C. I'm a concerned citizen, and I am one of only many of the stakeholders in our supernatural British Columbia. I'm not usually one to make public appearances, nor am I comfortable at all being in the spotlight. However, this project and its implications are hardly something that I am able to remain silent about. So here I am, shaking, stuttering and hoping that my voice will be heard among the rest.
26843. To begin with, we live in one of the most spectacular places on Earth. Our province has even trademarked our brand of supernatural British Columbia and has its unique -- has unique characters -- has unique qualities among any other place in the world.
26844. With the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project proposed to make such a drastic impact on our province, I wonder how supernatural we will be once the Enbridge pipeline is approved should it go through. Hopefully not.
26845. I feel this project will come -- will create far too many negative impacts to be seriously considered for approval. The Enbridge Northern Gateway proposal is guaranteed to have negative effects on the social, economic, and ecological wellbeing of British Columbia.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26846. The main focus of this project is to promote international increase in Canada's economic standing by shipping crude oil and bitumen to the coast, where it will be loaded onto ships bound for Asia and abroad.
26847. My worry is that this project will not provide communities with sufficient long-term employment opportunities for such an invasive project. I also worry that British Columbia will not see many of the profits and benefits that would come from this project should it go through operation.
26848. Beginning at the notoriously dirty Alberta tar sands, the proposed pipeline will carve a scar through northern B.C. and the pristine Great Bear Rainforest, one of the largest temperate rainforests in the world, and the exclusive home of the Kermode bear, or the spirit bear. The spirit bear is not only an ecological wonder, but it represents the mystery and magnificence of the Pacific Northwest wilderness. It is a powerful reminder of what kind of culture is at stake should this pipeline go through.
26849. The white spirit bear is a charismatic symbol and -- is a charismatic creature which symbolizes the uniqueness and beauty of the Aboriginal cultures in the Great Bear Rainforest. I worry that the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline will not only destroy critical habitat of the spirit bear, but will ultimately lead to the destruction and loss of what remaining Aboriginal culture we have.
26850. We often forget how integral a role this culture plays in the identity of British Columbia.
26851. I have never travelled to the Great Bear Rainforest, yet the lure of its wild nature has always kept me hoping that I will one day visit this magnificent world of vibrant ecosystems and local traditional heritage. I have seen my fair share of B.C., yet this is one place that I hope to see in pristine intact -- in pristine -- sorry, intact.
26852. Losing this traditional culture is not a risk worth taking. We need to rekindle our appreciation and respect for the cultural diversity.
26853. Enbridge has relentlessly attempted to buy out First Nations communities affected by the proposed pipeline route and along the coast. This atrocious behaviour belittles the First Nations peoples and clearly illustrates how
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux ignorant and inconsiderate the Enbridge Company is when it comes to values outside of economic dollars.
26854. There is no monetary price that can be put on a way of life. There is no figure that can quantify the worth of a watershed.
26855. These values cannot be measured as marketplace commodities. We have no currency which can buy out the ecosystem services that the watersheds and temperate rainforests provide for us. Perhaps we will be paying with our futures.
26856. So again I ask, how do we allow a company such as Enbridge to put a price tag on our futures? I am far from okay with the idea of letting Enbridge build a pipeline through such a complex and fundamentally valuable landscape.
26857. The company's track record of oil spills and pipeline leaks can speak for itself. Their emergency clean-up response is far from acceptable, and we only have to look at the pipeline disaster in Michigan of 2010.
26858. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered Enbridge to continue their clean-up work and restoration progress along the Kalamazoo River system. This oil spill has taken two and a half years to clean up, and the job is still not done.
26859. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board reported that the Enbridge control room monitoring staff failed to act based -- failed to act on alarms that indicated a leak in the pipeline. Is this the kind of unorganized, unprofessional, and irresponsible action we want to deal with when an accident occurs somewhere along the pipeline in the remote wilderness of B.C.?
26860. This is certainly not my ideal line-up of emergency oil response crew. I want superheroes, not a Homer Simpson.
26861. An oil spill along the pipeline would pose to be a difficult task to clean up due to the remoteness and complexity of its locations. An oil spill would also jeopardize B.C.'s waterways and terrestrial ecosystems.
26862. Should our waters become polluted with toxic oil and bitumen, there is no telling how severe the impacts may be to the entire network of a watershed and to freshwater waterways and all ecosystems related. The risk of an oil spill is
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux simply too high, whether it is a pipeline leak or a tanker spill on B.C.'s coast.
26863. B.C.'s economy is greatly benefited from the salmon fisheries. The coastal fishing industry -- salmon fishing is a coastal fishing industry, and a spill could leave long-term negative impacts on the overall health of Pacific salmon stocks as well as severely degrade the natural habitats and ecosystems on which these salmon depend.
26864. Salmon are not only a benefit to our B.C. economy, but are a keystone species that are essential to the maintenance of the nitrogen cycle. So should Enbridge encounter a spill along the pipelines that jeopardizes these waterways, we could be facing a more severe crisis beyond just polluted water.
26865. British Columbia is lucky to be one of the most abundant freshwater sources on earth. We cannot take this for granted. With outrageous government cuts to the Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Act, I worry that the health of our precious freshwater will be given second tier priority to corporate powers and the services the environment provides for us will take a back seat to privatized, capitalistic greed.
26866. So to conclude my statement and summarize my concerns, I will say this. I oppose the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project. The impacts of the pipeline construction would fragment northern B.C.'s pristine wilderness and endanger many species that rely on this habitat.
26867. The pipeline path journeys through rugged mountain ranges and through countless watersheds. The remote access to this pipeline would make the clean-up response to a leak dangerous and difficult. The construction would also mean building numerous back-country access roads, which could promote greater human presence in this untouched land.
26868. The proposed terminal in Kitimat would host oversized oil tankers, which would then be expected to manoeuvre through a maze of fjords and technical channels between the Kitimat Terminal and open waters on a daily basis. This concerns me that we still have a sunken ferry to clean up. How are we expected to have large supertankers manoeuvring the same channels?
26869. So my final question is, what do we see in the future? I don't know. I hope that there is a future because if the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline goes through, my future is unclear. I’m not sure what to expect.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26870. I can only go forward with hope and determination and courage, and I strongly encourage you to say no to the Enbridge proposal for the Northern Gateway pipeline.
26871. Thank you.
26872. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to both of you for coming forward to both prepare and then present your views to us.
26873. This concludes this afternoon's session. We'll sit again this evening at 7:00.
26874. Thank you.
--- Upon recessing at 4:57 p.m./L'audience est suspendue à 16h57 --- Upon resuming at 6:59 p.m./L'audience est reprise à 18h59
26875. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening. Thanks very much for being here tonight.
26876. Ms. Ageson, we'll start with you with your oral statement, please.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. JEANETTE AGESON:
26877. MS. JEANETTE AGESON: Sure. Good evening.
26878. I'm here tonight to register my opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil pipelines and tankers proposal. There are, in my opinion, many reasons to oppose this project, which I imagine you have heard over and over again as you've gone through this process.
26879. The risk of a catastrophic oil spill off the coast and the long-term effects of much smaller, regular spills into the coastal waters and to our watersheds, the weak prospects of supposed economic benefits that British Columbians will receive, which I understand would be completely wiped out if we were forced to pay for the clean-up efforts after a large spill all lead me to my opposition.
26880. On paper, very simply, if one makes a column containing the risks of
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux the project and another of the benefits, it's clear that the risks heavily outweigh the benefits.
26881. I also stand in support of the First Nations who have already decided that this project is not going to happen in their territories, as expressed in the Save the Fraser and Coastal First Nations Declarations.
26882. In addition to coming to my opposition through this rational approach of weighing costs and benefits, I also come to my opposition from an emotional place, which I don't believe is any less valid.
26883. I was born and raised in the Vancouver area, and have no plans to leave. I have done some travelling, and my partner and I have found that we enjoy nothing more than exploring the beautiful wild places of B.C. And we plan to spend our time getting to know our home province better instead of travelling to other far-flung places in the world.
26884. This is our home, and as such, we want to take good care of it, to make sure that we and everyone else who calls B.C. home gets to enjoy it for as long as possible.
26885. When British Columbians have been marketed to about this project on TV, in the newspaper, in online ads, the selling point is money. That is the only thing we are being promised in exchange for our blessing. But what I don't think has been considered is the cost of our worry.
26886. One of the best things that money can do for us, I think, is to give us the freedom from worry. This is why I save up several months' living expenses, this is why we all buy insurance policies. It is to be able to rest easy and not to have to spend energy and stress worrying about the bad things that can happen over which we have no control.
26887. By asking us to invite this project into our home, by issuing a Certificate of Public Convenience for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, it is foisting onto the people who live here the burden of worry that we are giving over control of our home to a company with a proven track record of devastating errors to build a project that they cannot guarantee will not cause long-term damage and which no amount of money could reverse. And that, to me, is a bad deal.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26888. Thank you.
26889. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thanks for your comments.
26890. Good evening, Mr. James. Please share your views on the project with us.
26891. MR. ALAN JAMES: I shall, yes.
26892. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Okay.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. ALAN JAMES:
26893. MR. ALAN JAMES: My name is Alan James and I currently live in Burnaby and I'm nervous.
26894. I urge you to totally reject the proposed Enbridge Gateway pipeline for three main reasons. First, the risk of tanker spills in the ocean is too great. Second, exporting raw bitumen to China is not in Canada's best interest. And three, the risk of spills into the many creeks this pipeline would cross is too great.
26895. First, the risk of tanker collisions and spills in the ocean is too much. The sinking of the Queen of the North in March of 2006 should be a wake-up call to us all. The B.C. Ferries internal investigation concluded that human factors were the primary cause of the sinking. Although the Queen of the North was a much smaller vessel than any of the proposed tankers, the human factors and the risks will be the same.
26896. I grew up in Point Grey, went to Queen Elizabeth Elementary School, Lord Byng High School and UBC. During the summers I'd swim at Spanish Banks and go with my father out fishing from Horseshoe Bay. I caught my first salmon when I was seven years old.
26897. In later years, I've hiked the West Coast Trail. I've kayaked around the Broken Group out of Port Alberni and I've camped on many of the Gulf islands and in Haida Gwaii. This is my coast. It's my grandson's coast. It's my grandson's grandson's coast and I do not want any tankers to foul it up.
26898. Of course, keeping tankers from our coast is not just about me and my family; it's also about protecting B.C. jobs. According to a B.C. government
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux report, more than 45,000 people are permanently employed by B.C. coastal seafood and recreational industries. Enbridge's pipeline and the tanker project might create some 560 long-term jobs in B.C., but an oil spill could wipe out those 45,000 jobs in an instant.
26899. In other words, B.C. would be risking 80 jobs for every one it stands to gain.
26900. Next, exporting raw bitumen to China is not in Canada's best interest. We need to address climate change by reducing the use of all fossil fuels.
26901. Last Friday, the 60-person U.S. National -- this is a long title -- the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee released a draft of the National Climate Assessment Report. It states:
“Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depth of the oceans. This evidence has been compiled by scientists and engineers from around the world using satellites, weather balloons, thermometers, buoys and other observing systems. The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming. The majority of the warming can only be explained by the effects of human influences, especially the emissions from burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas.” (As read)
26902. If we are going to avoid any climate catastrophe, the use of fossil fuels must be well on its way out by 2025. This pipeline is a greedy, short-sighted plan from a dying industry.
26903. Producing energy from tar sands also depends on the availability of adequate and sustainable supplies of water. Climate change is expected to reduce the water available for tar sands extraction so the amount of bitumen extraction planned for this pipeline may not be sustainable.
26904. And if we are going to exploit this valuable non-renewable resource we should at least do it in Canada for Canadians and reduce our need for foreign oil imports. Exporting unrefined bitumen to China would also export some 50,000 high-quality jobs in refining.
26905. Let's use the tar sands in the best interest of Canadians, not for the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux short-term gain of multinational oil companies.
26906. So because exporting raw bitumen to China is not in Canada's best interest, I urge you to reject this project in total.
26907. Last, the risk of spills into the many creeks this pipeline would cross is too great. It would only take one earthquake or one landslide to break the pipeline. The resulting spill may not be large but many small spills are as damaging as one large one.
26908. As Commissioner Bruce Cohen says in his report on sockeye salmon:
“On the evidence, I find that human impact is one of the key factors that negatively affect fish habitat.” (As read)
26909. I've been a volunteer stream keeper in Northeast Burnaby for nine years and I'm passionate about saving the six species of salmon that live in our urban creek. I'm here today before you because my government has let me down. It has let our salmon down too.
26910. The undemocratic Bill C-38 gave the oil and gas industry special treatment beyond what any other industry in Canada receives. It dismembered the strong legislation we had for protecting salmon habitat. At the same time, Bill C- 38 cut necessary funding to Fisheries and Oceans that provided the science needed to manage our fisheries well. Bill C-38 also removed much needed environmental oversight of large projects such as this pipeline.
26911. You, as Panel Members, share my experience of having the federal government take power away. With Bill C-38, stream keepers throughout the province have lost the fish habitat protection from the Fisheries Act, but that will not deter me from working to protect the salmon in Stoney Creek. With Bill C- 38, after spending many months of deliberation, you may have your recommendations to Cabinet totally ignored.
26912. Don’t let that deter you, though, from rejecting all parts of this Enbridge Gateway Project.
26913. Thank you.
26914. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
26915. Ms. Kae, thank you for joining us this evening to present your points of view to the Panel. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. MARY ANN KAE:
26916. MS. MARY ANN KAE: Thank you, Panel Members, for this opportunity to speak for the record.
26917. The aspects of the Enbridge proposal that I can speak to with some insight come from my personal experiences as a mariner and a recreational boater. While employed for seven years on the research vessels of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I made numerous crossings of the Gulf of Alaska.
26918. I also voyaged numerous times between Cape Horn and Antarctica. As a recreational boater I've travelled the length of the B.C. Coast by sailboat, crossed Hecate Strait to Haida Gwaii and sailed parts of the same routes that the tankers would follow. So I have experienced some of the weather, sea and navigation conditions firsthand.
26919. I wish to add my voice to those of the maritime experts who have already weighed in on the complexity of what it would take to adequately mitigate the risks of tanker traffic along the proposed routes. Because there's little margin for error, Northern B.C. is a poor location for super tanker traffic.
26920. Having experienced the treacherous mix of wind, current and the rocky shorelines of Northern B.C.'s foggy inland passages, I don’t have to speculate about the probabilities of an accident when these conditions meet huge vessels in close quarters.
26921. Tug escorts are not guarantees. Towropes are not indestructible. There's the potential for engine and generator failure and the human frailties of bad judgement. From personal experience, I know how easy it is to make a navigation error.
26922. One day in the Bering Sea I was on watch and I was tired. The deck officer gave a course change order which I repeated and then executed. But in my fatigue, something went wrong and in the connection between my brain and hands I transposed the digits. After a few minutes I thought why are we heading so
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux close to that island? The deck officer never noticed until I questioned it, even though it was broad daylight. Fortunately we have lots of room to right the course without consequences.
26923. Enbridge realizes the extreme hazards also. You perhaps know that they downplayed the risks by significantly altering the topography of Douglas Channel in their PR materials.
26924. I was deeply moved and surprised by what I experienced during my vacation trips through the Great Bear Rainforest. I didn’t know that it was a sanctuary for humpback whales. I lost count of the number I saw between Fitz Hugh Sound and the northern tip of Banks Island where we waited for lighter winds so we could cross to Haida Gwaii. One morning while anchored there in tiny Larson Harbour, we heard a wolf pack howling. It’s an experience that just engraves itself in your soul.
26925. While on that trip I read a little book called “The Living Shore” by Rowan Jacobsen. In it, he tells of a B.C. government project in the nineties to document the entire coast for identifying potential shellfish farm sites.
26926. During that survey, marine biologist Brian Kingzett discovered huge drifts of the Olympic oyster, the only native oyster of our coast. It once carpeted bays from southeast Alaska to Panama. Now it’s practically extinct, but it’s still here in B.C. That’s one of the many examples of how unique this coast is now.
26927. It would be hard also, to overstate the complex dependency of the terrestrial ecosystem on the marine environment. That’s why it’s called the salmon forest. If a tanker accidentally wipes out the fish populations and the edible shoreline resources, there go the wolves, the bears, salmon, and the First Nations’ people. Is Canada willing to allow the final extinction of all these cultures?
26928. I always believed Canada to be better than my own country in many ways, in its defence of human rights, in its habit of travelling comparatively lightly on the world. I pray that Canadians not be like Americans. Please do not give these precious resources over to be destroyed by the petroleum industry.
26929. Unlike Alberta, I hope the people of B.C. will not allow this province to transform into a petrochemical version of a banana republic and all that the term represents. It’s disturbing to know that the recommendations of this body,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux and the wishes of those whose lives depend on this coast, may be ignored by the Harper government. The public debts incurred by the private exploitation of this commons is too great.
26930. Thank you.
26931. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to each of you for coming this evening and sharing your views and your own experiences in your oral statements.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
26932. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening.
26933. Ms. Hunt, we’ll start with you if you’re ready. Please go ahead with your oral statement.
26934. Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. JENNA HUNT:
26935. MS. JENNA HUNT: Thank you very much. Well, thank you Panel, for letting me speak here. I would like to relate to you what I find dear in this great province, that’s all its great beauty. Keeping it like this is -- I feel is my duty.
26936. I don’t want to sound glib or insincere, and I know you must be tired of what you may hear, that’s why I composed this with my little time, but now I must stop with this attempt to rhyme.
26937. My name is Jenna Hunt; I was born in Vancouver over half a century ago. Right now I’m attending school full-time and changing my career direction. I’ve had many careers in my lifetime and I’m looking forward to my next one.
26938. When I grew up in Vancouver, there used to be wild pheasants, large trees on every block, sound of birds singing and an absence of the constant hum of automobile traffic. But the only thing for sure in life is change. And I still love this city and plan to spend my life here.
26939. This Northern Gateway Project is a bad change. I’ve heard many of
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux the previous speakers, and I don’t want to repeat what’s already been said. I mean, you have my admiration for doing this difficult job.
26940. I signed up to speak here almost two years ago, and the reason is, like Margaret Mead, I believe that:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
26941. Although for me the environmental issues are the most important, to most Canadians it seems to be their families, their jobs, how long it takes to travel to work and how much the price of gasoline is. And so on that basis, I’m going to talk about the Northern Gateway, because on an economic basis, this project makes no sense.
26942. Robyn Allan is a former President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of B.C., and I’m sure you’ve heard him quote that:
“This project poses a serious threat to Canada’s economic growth and long-term development. It is neither needed nor is it in the public interest.” (As read)
26943. And even Enbridge’s own website says that it only creates 3,000 short term jobs and a little over 500 full-time jobs. That’s enough to fill two secondary schools. It’s supposed to give us 1.2 billion in benefits over 30 years. And that would build about one quarter of the Port Mann Bridge. That’s hardly enough for the risk to this province.
26944. Every day, the pipeline and these tankers could leak a minute amount of bitumen and that would ruin our land and our oceans. Moreover, if the project was built, it would raise the price of oil by 2 to $3 in Canada over the next 30 years -- that’s a small estimate -- and thereby create an inflationary price shock that would have a negative and prolonged impact on employment, labour, income and government revenues.
26945. This is an article in The Tyee, written by Andrew Nikiforuk -- who also wrote many books on the tar sands -- and he quoted Robyn Allan saying that:
“I assume it would be a wealth generating project, but when I
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux started digging, none of these assumptions hold true.” (As read)
26946. This project only is a benefit to Canada if it secures the so-called Asian premium, or a higher crude oil price. By capturing this premium for crude oil, it will effectively raise Canadian oil prices for the next 30 years.
26947. And this also coincides with what Dave Hughes, a retired senior analyst with Natural Resources Canada said. He described the pipeline as “a risk to Canada’s economic and energy security”. He said, “Ninety (90) percent of the benefits all come from substantial increases in oil prices”.
26948. The upshot is the Canadian refinery demand will have the market price determined as if the transactions would take place in the Asian market, but yet the Chinese government heavily subsidizes the price of oil in the economy.
26949. And I’ll also talk about the fact that most of the investments in the oil sands are now either directly or indirectly owned by China. And so the expectation is that they can use Enbridge’s pipeline to ship the oil home. Maybe not most of them, but Sinopec is there, Nexen was recently acquired, and Husky has some ownership from people that have links to Asia.
26950. And yet here in China, we have a picture of what happened in Beijing on Saturday with the oil -- I mean, with the air pollution hitting 700 parts per million. Anyway, this is 28 times the acceptable level of what air pollution should be. And Chinese people have only recently been told about the danger to their health. Seven hundred (700) times per million and then the amount of particles that are safe is 25.
26951. How can we in good conscience, want to send oil to China? China has a growing industry making bikes, but how can their citizens ride with this pollution? So this is to convey that I’m not anti-Chinese, but that this project is flawed on every level except to Enbridge and the oil company’s short term earning projections.
26952. It is difficult to understand how the oil industry, publicly supported by the federal government, can use free market arguments to support the need for pipeline capacity expansion in order to access this Chinese market, where deliberate, non-free market forces are at work. It would be one thing to argue that providing supply -- oh dear -- I knew that I was going to have problems with this
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux because I’m in school. But I’ll have a few sidelines too.
26953. There’s a few other things too. There’s a documentary by Frank Wolfe called “On the Line”. And him and a friend travelled the route to the Northern pipe -- the Northern Gateway will go through. And there’s a lot of pristine farmland -- here, I’ll read this here:
"It's 1,170 kilometres of pipeline from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Kitimat B.C. It would cross 773 watercourses and bring supertankers to B.C.'s pristine north coast for the first time ever. There's never been supertankers in Hecate Strait in order to deliver tar sands bitumen to Asian markets".
26954. And this is from Frank Wolf's website. So he travelled through farmland, up through the mountains and across all the rivers on skis, snowshoes and walking. And it was just beautiful and, of course, he went through the Great Bear Rainforest, and that alone is enough reason to stop this. This area is unique on all the planet and to go through there and disturb it, it would be irreplaceable harm.
26955. And I have two more sidelines. That just today on a website too, there was an oil leak off the coast of Scotland I think. A pipeline servicing up to 27 oil fields has been shut down after a leak on the Cormorant Alpha Platform northeast of Shetland. Hydrocarbons were detected inside the leg of a Cormorant Alpha Platform, and it was currently -- and the company was currently evaluating plans to restore the through put of an estimated 80,000 barrels per day in the Brent Pipeline.
26956. So, you know, there are many realities of oil and pipelines leaking and I'll end with a quote. This is a lady who used to be on a TV show, Lucie Lawless. I can't remember the TV show she was on but it's a beautiful, beautiful quote. And she says:
“I desire that you grow up in a world where polar bears and the magical narwhal still exist, where forests thrive, the air is pure, food nutritious […] clean water is available to every form of life. What we now know is that our current practice of burning fossil fuels will guarantee you none of these things. It is unthinkable that we who claim to love our children would knowingly choose to furnish them with a degraded and volatile
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux environment in which to grow. Our unwillingness to move away from fossil fuels is sowing the seeds of a terrible harvest [and] we will [be] neglectful of our duty to you.”
26957. So I hope that is one day when we can say “no” to this pipeline and start by refurnish -- replenishing the earth's resources.
26958. Thank you.
26959. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thanks a lot, Ms. Hunt.
26960. Good evening, Mr. Irwin. Please go ahead and share your views on the project with us.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR DR. JOHN IRWIN:
26961. DR. JOHN IRWIN: Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Members of the Panel, fellow speakers.
26962. I’m Dr. John Irwin; a lecturer in geography and resource and environmental management in the Faculty of Environment, at Simon Fraser University.
26963. Most of my work is centred around sustainable development and planning. So for instances, I worked on Vancouver's 2010 Athletes Village area, reducing residents' needs for transportation and increasing the energy efficiency of urban areas to mitigate air quality issues and climate change.
26964. I have some global scale issues I would like to raise first. Climate change, of course, we know is occurring. It's pretty well intracontravertable now. There's results of this that affect us in Canada and in B.C., and locally. The most rapidly warming part of the planet is the Western Arctic and there are fears that this will result in massive methane release and kick the system into a -- you know -- a rapidly warming condition as a result of that.
26965. The B.C. interior experienced the mountain pine beetle epidemic, which is a natural epidemic, but the lack of cold winters accelerated the growth of that species. We used to have kill-offs due to the cold winters, and it's basically decimated B.C.'s interior pine forest and affected the forest industry gravely.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26966. It doesn't seem like much but a report recently released noted there's 11 millimetres in ocean level rise since 1990, which doesn't seem very much. But if you think of the vast extent of the ocean, it's a huge volume of water we're talking about there. And of course, with I think something around 66,000 kilometres of coastline, a place like B.C. is impacted by sea level change.
26967. Canada is now 17 percent over 1990 levels in emission, according to Environment Canada, and has committed to reduce by 17 percent from 2000 levels at Copenhagen.
26968. So the bitumen exported by Canada will help to increase the CO2 emissions in both Canada due to extraction and sort of primary processes, and in the importing countries due to their direct use.
26969. I would argue, even they don't, that NEB Guidelines should be revised to include climate change impacts both nationally and globally in all its deliberations, that that needs to be a revision and change to NEB practices.
26970. Issues of the nature of the material and the spills. According to some literature, in the event of a spill, the fuel could strand in the sediments -- you know, and -- like fall, it wouldn't necessary float because it's quite heavy.
26971. Work by Proctor in 2001, and they were doing work on heavy oils coming from Venezuela through the Gulf of Mexico around Florida, indicates that only about .6 to 2.7 percent of the bitumen would degrade in long incubations in marine sediments. And I would argue this material could likely reside even longer in colder marine waters or freshwater systems.
26972. Due to where I'm from, I grew up in another part of the route, the foothills area in Alberta, just south of where the route is going to run. It's a very marshy, boggy area with a lot of underground lakes and wetland systems that are very complex and the route must go through some of that to get to the Rockies.
26973. And so I am concerned that if there's a spill there, it will be even that much more difficult to "clean up". And remember, our notions of cleaning up after spills, I think, are a little bit misguided. There's still residue in Prince William Sound all these years after the Exxon Valdez incident.
26974. Another example I could cite is, people may not know this but in B.C. in the summer of 2000, the Pembina Pipeline Corporation had a spill of roughly
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 6,200 barrels of oil into the river 110 kilometres upstream from Chetswynd. This is a B.C. government source I'm using.
26975. The oil slick was reported to be 21 kilometres long at one point, tens of thousands of fish died, as well as many birds and beavers. The spill cost the firm $30 million and made it one of the most expensive inland spills up to that point in Canadian history. I think some others in Alberta may have reached that. Local government and provincial agencies were also heavily impacted.
26976. According to the Alberta Energy and Utility Board's Pipeline Performance Report of 1990 to 2005 -- between 1990 and 2005 there were 5,033 reported hazardous liquid incidents. And of these, multi-phased pipelines had 4,726 and crude oil pipelines had 411.
26977. And it's important to remember, because I think people have maybe lost track of the condensate or the surfactant or whatever it's called that's going to be shipped. So it's a dual pipeline. So it almost doubles the risk of spills because it's like two pipelines running together, one going each direction.
26978. I would also argue the geo-hazard level of risk associated with this project seems very high and poorly addressed. Looking at a map of these hazards that I think I found on your website, it seems as if they appear all along the coastal mountain part of the route, except for the tunnelled areas. Kitimat and coastal B.C. are both very prone to earthquakes, and these quakes have set off massive landslides in the past.
26979. The October 2012 Haida Gwaii earthquake is another example; it hit 7.8 on the Richter scale. It seems very questionable to route a pipeline in ultra large crude carrier tankers through such an area.
26980. I also have issues with the export of relatively unrefined product. I'll say openly, and I'm not afraid to put this on the record, that I'm against oil sand expansion as both a former Albertan and a Canadian, and part of this is based on my concerns for landscape change but also water quality. And there's a recent report regarding water pollution in this area.
26981. However, if people are going to go ahead with this and it seems like a bunch of folks want to go ahead with this, a much more value-added employment and economic benefit would be derived by refining the product within Alberta and exporting the value-added fuels and materials to emerging economies. And I
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux think the Alberta labour movement is sort of behind that as well, and they've opposed as far as I have read so far.
26982. I have issues with the lack of a process to value other transportation options, mainly rail, which is flexible and can be used to import/export other goods and provide a lower carbon intensive transport system overall. So it's more of a future building type system, I’d argue than a pipeline system is.
26983. And remember, our pipeline infrastructures, as you all know from other processes you've been in, is ageing and is suffering, and I think that's part of the reason for all of these failures. Because these pipes are pipes, and pipes corrode and erode and -- you know -- are subject to breakdowns. It's just part of the natural order of things.
26984. I also have concerns that this process will override First Nations' opposition to the pipeline and the process and exacerbate the tensions that the First Nations people rightly feel regarding their land claims and Treaty rights in Canada and B.C.
26985. I hope you won’t take this personally and I hope it’s not the truth, but I also have some niggling concerns with the 1991 change in the way the NEB is funded. The NEB now gets 90 percent of its money from industry levies from about 160 energy-based companies.
26986. One wants to remain confident about the Board’s independence and objectivity, however some have concerns that the NEB is a captured regulator and a captured regulator tends to not do its job well one could argue.
26987. In the United States, in the wake of the -- you know -- Horizon Deepwater incidents, they’ve actually broken up their entity and split it into different divisions to deal with this issue of capture and influence by the energy industry.
26988. So I’d leave with three full, well four -- four recommendations which I’ve already said so maybe I’ll skip the -- the last one. I would argue you should fully incorporate possible climate impacts in your deliberations, reject this poorly planned proposal, I don’t think it’s well thought out or well planned for.
26989. Apparently the spill response is for regular conventional oil and not this diluted bitumen and, you know, please consider before you override First
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Nations land and Treaty rights and, you know, maybe even a system where you consult them more fully individually after this process might be applicable.
26990. Thank you for your time.
26991. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Irwin.
26992. Ms. Mackey, thank you for coming this evening. We’re interested in your point of view as well. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. HILARY MACKEY:
26993. MS. HILARY MACKEY: Thank you Members of the Panel, fellow speakers and other ladies and gentlemen here and wherever you’re listening.
26994. My name is Hilary Mackey and I value the opportunity to speak in person enough to come here today from Victoria. I hope that the other speakers from Victoria whose February dates to speak were cancelled are able to rework their lives to speak here in person.
26995. As the momentum of the Enbridge proposal has built there’s a lot of people who would like to be speaking here, who wish they’d gotten on the list before they were cut off over a year ago. Myself, I’ve told a lot of people that I’m speaking. I thought I was speaking in February. I’m speaking now, but I’ve told a lot of people every time I get a chance and I’ve never met anybody myself who thinks the suggestion of two pipelines through the Rockies and across 800 rivers and streams and through pristine wilderness, much of it unceded First Nations land is a good idea.
26996. I’ve never met anyone who believes that supertankers can navigate the proposed water route which, according to Environment Canada is the world’s fourth most dangerous ocean environment without having massive oil spills which will destroy the west coast ecosystem, home to so many land, air and water species that they haven’t all been catalogued.
26997. I know there are some people who want this to happen, but it isn’t just young -- you know -- people or, you know, environmentalists, there’s like, you know, dentists and, you know, the people that I meet, all kinds of business people that I meet everywhere are against it.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 26998. The federal government is unfortunately legally entitled to pass an omnibus bill without public consent that limits its obligation to consider the people’s will and resolve to protect our environment.
26999. I feel a moral obligation to speak here on behalf of the ocean, marine life, the coastal people, birds and animals, and the vast majority of British Columbians, to state my total opposition to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project and associated tanker traffic on the B.C. coast. I ask the Panel to say no to this ill-conceived project.
27000. If it’s allowed to proceed it’s only a matter of time before there’ll be a spill, a massive oil spill. I stand with the majority of First Nations in B.C., most of who have never signed Treaties of the Crown and who claim the legal right to make decisions about the use of their lands and waters as protected under Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution and under international law.
27001. I’m grateful to these first people for maintaining their ownership and sense of responsibility to be stewards of the lands and waters that our people have lived in harmony with for millennia.
27002. I grew up in Ontario where I developed a love of nature through years of hiking, camping and canoeing. After university I taught school for a year on small island off the west coast of Norway above the Arctic Circle amongst people who fished and foraged in nature for generations. I so loved living by the ocean that I moved to B.C. in ’79 with a job as a sales rep for an educational publishing company.
27003. My territory included B.C., Alberta, the Yukon and what was then the Northwest Territories, and I met many people living in communities with the same relationship to the ocean and land environment as the coastal and island people of Norway, people who fed their families from and stewarded the land and the waters for the next generations, for many generations. And all these people from coastal communities in Norway and Canada and many other countries understand that their and our lives depend on the ongoing viability of the ocean and marine life as well as the land and mammal and bird life.
27004. In the summer of ’93 I stood on a logging road with over 800 people from all walks of life who were willing to be arrested rather than allow the clear- cutting of Clayoquot Sound, one of the last old-growth rainforests on the planet to continue. I was under house arrest with electronic monitoring for two weeks, and
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux another arrestee and I received a Canada Council grant and made a documentary video about women arrested at Clayoquot Sound.
27005. We travelled the B.C. coastline to talk to people about their motivation to defend the rainforest ecosystems. Again, I had direct experience of people living close to the land and water, taking the stewardship of the land and waters as their need and obligation and it seems to me that it’s the same -- it’s the same situation, the people that were trying to defend the rainforest and the people that are trying to defend the coastal watersheds.
27006. I’ve kayaked and canoed and sailed on some of B.C.’s coastal waters and been on most B.C. ferry routes, and many B.C. communities and can remember countless beautiful sights of life along our coastal waterways and surrounding rainforests. All of this and more is at terrible risk of destruction and death if we allow this proposal to go through.
27007. The Rainforest Conservation Foundation is renowned for its cutting edge scientific research along the B.C. coast has reported to this Panel that Enbridge’s own Environmental Impact Assessment is fatally flawed as it substantially underestimates the impact of tanker traffic on seabirds and marine mammals. Enbridge itself has a poor track record in terms of the incidents of pipeline failures and their response to spills that have occurred.
27008. I’m grateful to the thousands of British Columbians, and the numbers are growing all the time, who are stepping up to say that we do not support this grab for cash by the federal government. We do not agree to let China own our natural resources and we do not intend to stand by and watch a way of life that has continued for many generations be destroyed by this greedy and ill-conceived project.
27009. I understand a number of people were arrested here on Monday while demonstrating their peaceful opposition to the proposal. I’m grateful for their courage and willingness to step out of their comfort zone so that all the sentient beings who have no voice in the process, which includes many thousands of British Columbians as well as the oceans, forests and marine mammals and bird life, so that they can have a voice as each of us stand here and use our voice to say we don’t want this.
27010. If this project goes through you can count on me to be there in whatever way I can to mitigate as much damage as one person can, which could
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux include picking up seabirds and wiping the oil off their wings. It might include peacefully being arrested again. I’m not sure what it will include. I know that I -- I just think it’s totally the wrong decision and as everyone else has said, it’s not -- we’re not going to get a whole lot of money, which is not a bad reason to be doing it anyway.
27011. I think that we -- I would, I implore you to say no so that we can continue to enjoy the Pacific coast and that all people and all sentient beings can continue to live and that we can hopefully reverse the environmental degradation we’ve already -- you know -- put on the planet instead of adding to it.
27012. Thank you to everyone listening here in this room and to the people at the Weston Bayshore who I know are listening as well.
27013. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you.
27014. Also, we would expect that people are listening through the webcast, just so you know. I think we’ve had a fair bit of interest of people listening via webcast as well.
27015. Thank you very much to each of you for taking the time to come and preparing to present your oral statements.
27016. Ms. Mackey, thank you very much for travelling from Victoria to be here and safe travels home.
27017. MS. HILARY MACKEY: Thank you.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
27018. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening. Mr. Lloyd, we'll listen to your oral statement first, please. So please go ahead when you're ready.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. STEVE LLOYD:
27019. MR. STEVE LLOYD: This is on? You can hear me? Okay, good.
27020. Good evening, Ms. Leggett, Mr. Bateman, and Mr. Matthews. I have no professional affiliations with any group related to this hearing, but I do claim to speak for more than just myself, including my son who's sitting here in the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux audience.
27021. I have a background in the area under our interest tonight. I did a Master's degree in environmental studies completed over 20 years ago called "Seeking Sustainability" and I've been working in that area as a volunteer with the city and at a provincial level for 22 years now, and over 20 years teaching in B.C. secondary schools, speaking in part for my students, both indigenous and those becoming indigenous to B.C. who are filled with anxiety and often hopelessness about the future. I've been hearing that since I began teaching two decades ago.
27022. You and I, all of us, have a responsibility to begin to restore hope by trying to do the things through this process and others that can restore it. One of the key things that an educator must do before speaking is to -- or in the beginning of trying to communicate is to check for understanding, check for prior understanding because we don't like to teach people things that they already know.
27023. Fortunately, I looked at your web site last night and looked at some -- at the records of what people have said to you in the past, and I don't really want to, nor could I possibly cover the same kind of information that you have heard already.
27024. You have been inundated, and I admire your stamina for being -- for listening to a million facts from thousands of people who are proving to you night in and night out that the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline is a gigantic error.
27025. I wouldn't begin to start to try and give you more facts. I think you've heard them all. I do want to refer to your mandate, however, to make a report on the potential effects of the project's significance, and I think you've heard enough information by now that even the Enbridge representatives I'm sure are now against the project. What I'm going to come back to is, is the project in the public interest at the very end.
27026. I am now going to give you the two-minute version of a presentation I've given to classes at UBC, SFU, graduate and undergraduate classes, to the World Planners Congress, to planners and engineers at city hall. I'm encouraged to do so by the professor emeritus at UBC's School of Community and Regional Planning telling me after I gave it, that's what I was telling them before you got here.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27027. When I went to an environmental studies faculty in 1987 there was only one full -- complete environmental faculty in the country. It was at York University. There were minors available elsewhere, but it was the only graduate faculty aside from Dalhousie in Halifax, which was mainly focused on the ocean alone.
27028. Since that time, we have seen the explosion of environmental studies across the planet. There is no university, no faculty, not even a school that doesn't have an environmental focus. And what that means is that we are now producing thousands of people every year with a great deal of expertise and a great deal of knowledge about environmental issues, and you probably feel like you've heard from all of them, but there are many, many thousands and millions more.
27029. In the meantime, science itself has developed a grand respect for traditional ecological knowledge, and what that means is that both the knowledge of local indigenous people, but local people who have been in place for lengthy periods of time have more to tell science than science has to tell them about how things actually function in local ecosystems.
27030. Thirdly, citizens of all walks, whether they've gone to university ever or not, are vastly more knowledgeable today about environmental issues and, again, looking through the transcripts of presentations that you've heard, I still haven't found one that's for this pipeline, but I mustn't have looked hard enough.
27031. The reason to have said all that to graduating planners and to the World Planners Congress was to make the point that no planning for sustainability any longer can be done by experts for people anywhere. The people won't put up with it. They're too knowledgeable, too aware of their own environment to allow for people to come in and tell them what's going to happen on their land. It's simply a fact of the world today that's changed so dramatically since I went off to school in 1987.
27032. This Review Panel exists to give people a small voice in plans being made for them, made for us all, and for mountainsides, watersheds, ocean waterways, air, and the global climate, though your mandate may not mention either of the latter two. We all have a responsibility to all of these things, which physics and biochemistry, in our intimacy with the lands and waters, all tell us are not merely things but indeed are relations, parts now in the past and in the future of our very selves.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27033. The Gateway Project ignores the will of the people in its path and of the majority of the people of Canada. It physically endangers the lands and the waters it will cross, and through its ultimately massive contribution to global warming, the Earth's climate.
27034. I've recently seen some terrible information about where climate scientists now believe the global warming is headed with the release of plumes of methane that NASA -- is registering on NASA's instruments.
27035. In 1983, I wrote my first paper on what was then called the "Greenhouse Effect" and NASA's information then and its predictions for the future have all borne out. We're now seeing plumes of methane being reduced -- released in arctic waters, and climate scientists are having conferences and are trying not to freak out.
27036. So I ask you, in honour of my friend, Corinne, who has written a book about her creation of the Olympic medals for the Vancouver Olympics, and who comes from Alert Bay, that we not just honour native people in the word but that we honour their unceded territories and their claims on this land for thousands of years in our decisions about what happens here on the West Coast of Canada.
27037. Thank you.
27038. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great. Thanks a lot, Mr. Lloyd.
27039. Good evening, Ms. Meggs. Can you please share your views on the project with us?
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. CAITLIN MEGGS:
27040. MS. CAITLIN MEGGS: Hi, yeah. My name's Caitlin Meggs. I am 28 years old and I was born and raised here in Vancouver.
27041. And I know you guys have heard from many experts and environmental organizations and all about the technical details of the pipeline, and many other concerned citizens who maybe live closer to the places that will be affected by a spill or even where they might get a job, but I just wanted to come and make my comment in opposition to the pipeline very brief, seeing as you've heard from so many people already.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27042. I am hoping that by being here tonight and taking the time out of my day and building up the courage to speak publicly it will add my voice as one small extra voice to the opposition to this pipeline.
27043. I've never spoken at a public hearing before, but this issue was important enough for me to take a stab at it and I'm just hoping the fact that me and so many other non-experts are willing to come and stand before you will make an impression.
27044. As I said, I grew up in Vancouver and I hope to make it my home for many years to come. I was lucky enough to spend my summers and winters in the mountains and swimming and sailing off the coast of B.C. and it's a unique and special place in the world and it would be a terrible shame to put it at risk of an oil spill.
27045. The Northern Gateway pipeline will mean lifting the current tanker moratorium and putting the coast at an unacceptable risk of an oil spill that could devastate both the environment and the economy.
27046. The pipeline itself will traverse almost 800 streams, putting those valuable environments and species such as salmon at risk and create very few long-term jobs in the areas where it could cause such drastic environmental problems.
27047. In the bigger picture -- and some other people have mentioned this to you -- I don’t agree with creating a huge amount of infrastructure that will support Alberta's tar sands, which to me is a form of resource extraction that we should actually be moving away from and not sort of creating more infrastructure for.
27048. Greenhouse gas -- greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Northern Gateway pipeline related oil sands development will of course contribute huge costs to climate change.
27049. I truly believe that this pipeline will work against interest of British Columbians and Canadians. And I guess what I was trying to say is that this pipeline doesn’t fit what I think most of us as British Columbians or Canadians want for our home to become or what we see our future to be.
27050. And so I just hope by taking this time to say this to you in person it will make a small difference.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27051. So thank you for listening.
27052. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you for your comments.
27053. Mr. Merz, thank you for coming this evening to present your views to the Panel, we're interested in hearing them. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. SEBASTIAN MERZ:
27054. MR. SEBASTIAN MERZ: Thank you very much, esteemed Panel Members.
27055. I'd like to start my statement with a quote.
“We walked the beaches, but instead of gathering life we gathered death: dead birds, dead otters, dead seaweed. Before we have a chance to hold each other and share our tears, our sorrow and our loss, we suffer yet another devastation. We are invaded by the oil companies offering jobs, high pay, lots of money. We don't have a choice but to take what is offered. So we take the jobs, we take the orders, we take the disruption, we participate in the senseless busywork. The oil companies lied about preventing the spill [and] now they lie about the clean-up. Our people know what happens on the beaches. [They] spend all day cleaning one huge rock and the tide comes in and it’s covered with oil again. [They] spend a week wiping and spraying the surface, but pick up a rock and there’s four inches of oil underneath. What will happen to our lives in the next five years? What will happen this fall when the cleaning stops and [when] the money stops?”
27056. These are the words by Chief Walter Meganack from Port Graham, Alaska, written in 1989. Port Graham was one of the communities heavily affected by the Exxon Valdez disaster.
27057. I decided to include these words in my statement because they are words from real people, real people that are affected by real spills, like the ones that will happen if the proposed pipeline project is approved and built.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27058. And I'd like to thank you for listening to the many voices of the people today and during this entire process.
27059. I'm here today because I'm a concerned citizen and as a person who calls this great country and this beautiful province home. And I also speak on behalf of many of my friends and colleagues who are also opposed to this project.
27060. I've personally travelled the coast of B.C. along the Great Bear Rainforest to Haida Gwaii up the Skeena and Bulkley Valleys. And I don’t think you really have to be an expert to recognize that the fragility and vulnerability of these ecosystems, to recognize that narrow and traitorous channels of pristine coastal waters flanked by the last intact temperate rainforest do not go together with supertanker traffic.
27061. And when I first heard about this project I knew that it was up to us, the people of B.C., to stop the project and preserve our coast for all Canadians now and in the future.
27062. Part of my concern with the project is how aggressively -- is with how aggressively this project has been pushed. The Proponents of the project do not hesitate to misrepresent facts and reality to try and sway public opinion in their favour.
27063. You will remember the islands -- we can see them on the map here that they edited out of Douglas Channel in the promotion material. They did that because they knew that in reality they can't make them disappear. And that is just one example.
27064. And I think perhaps they felt encouraged because they know that they can count of high level -- they can count on high level support. The Harper government -- even though it says it respects the review process -- tried to undermine the credibility of the citizens who decided to get involved when it became obvious how many people were actually concerned about this project. And in a reaction to the public concern about the Enbridge Pipeline Project, they have also made sure that citizens in the future will have fewer opportunities to speak in review processes.
27065. Now, these issues are relevant for the review but they're clearly too large to be addressed here. But I think what they suggest is that we have to be extra skeptical, extra cautious and extra critical about this project because they
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux suggest that the Proponents of the project are well aware of the risks that are associated with the project and they're well aware that the risks are too large for the people -- for what the people would be willing to accept.
27066. Now, why are those risks too large to accept in my view? I like to ski in the back country and the back country is avalanche terrain. And when your life depends on a few small decisions that you make then you really understand the importance of risk management. And the risk is defined by (a) the chances that something bad will happen; (b) by how bad it will be; and (c) by what the consequences will be if something bad happens.
27067. So when you're skiing you choose your terrain according to the avalanche danger. And when you know that there's a significant risk of an avalanche for a certain slope, you don’t want that slope to be -- to end in a cliff over which the avalanche will push you.
27068. But unlike when you're back country skiing, with this project we can be absolutely certain that bad things will be happening. Oil spills along the pipeline and small leaks that are too small to detect are basically a reality and they will be a reality. Pinhole leaks are virtually impossible to detect. The loss of pressure due to such a small leak is hardly identifiable because it's smaller that the measurement error of all the detection systems in place. But such a small leak can add up over time.
27069. In 2010 Enbridge's Norman Wells pipeline leaked over one quarter of a million litres of oil through a pinhole size leak. All of Enbridge’s leak detection systems failed and the leak was eventually discovered by local residents.
27070. The everyday environmental and social costs that the proposed project will have, I think do not receive enough attention in this debate and I'd like to highlight them for this reason.
27071. But even a large tanker accident is practically a certainty. I have spoken to Coast Guards who work in the area and they have told me if the project goes ahead, the question is not if but when a large tanker accident will happen. And some of the people who have spoken today have underlined this fact.
27072. So how bad will it be? The Proponents of the project will try to make you believe that precautions will limit the scale of a disaster. The problem is however, we've heard all this before. The greatest precautions and safety
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux measures are only ever reliable until that unexpected accident occurs, something that was previously deemed unlikely or simply that we couldn’t imagine until it actually happened.
27073. I think we all know that history is full of examples of false belief in our ability to control all dangers, from Prince William Sound to Fukushima to the Gulf Coast. Let's not add Kitimat to that list.
27074. As for the consequences, a pipeline and supertanker traffic through some of the last intact salmon habitats, through the last stretch of tempered rain forest, a refuge for large marine mammals and the exclusive habitat of rare species, that frankly is like setting up camp at the top of that cliff that I mentioned and you're waiting for disaster to strike. When the avalanche is finally released, the consequences will be massive.
27075. Now, it's clear and obvious to me that no infrastructure project is without costs and risks and if we were to avoid all costs and risks, we wouldn’t be building anything. But this review is meant to determine whether the risks of the proposed pipeline are too high to bear. And I think the facts presented to you today and previously demonstrated that this project would mean an unprecedented level of risk with maximum negative consequences. The damage to these unique and threatened ecosystems will be certain and they will be irreversible.
27076. It's clearly in Canada's national interest to preserve the relatively untouched ecosystems of B.C. But together with people across the country, with experts and the Members of the Panel, it must be the people of B.C. who have a say in whether this risk is worth taking.
27077. It's our home that is at stake, our health and our livelihoods. It's us who will suffer the consequences of the project. The people of B.C. have come to speak before this Panel in large numbers which shows their extraordinary level of concern, their opposition to the project, and it also shows their faith in this process. May their voices be heard and understood.
27078. Thank you.
27079. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for taking the time to be here tonight and to present your oral statements to us.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27080. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening. Do I say it Mr. Mivasair?
27081. MR. DAVID MIVASAIR: Mivasair.
27082. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mivasair. Sorry about that.
27083. MR. DAVID MIVASAIR: It’s okay.
27084. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening, Mr. Mivasair. Please go ahead with your oral statement when you’re ready.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. DAVID MIVASAIR:
27085. MR. DAVID MIVASAIR: Okay. I’ll just start off by introducing myself. My name is David Mivasair. I’m a rabbi in Vancouver. I’ve been here about 17 years. I’m a rabbi of a synagogue here and I know you’ve heard many, many speakers.
27086. I doubt that there is anything that I can add factually or practically, so I want to bring something from ancient Jewish Earth wisdom written down after the Bible, but perhaps 2000 years ago, wisdom from people who lived in an agrarian society long before the industrial age. And they had a story that’s written down, and that’s how I know it, that says when God created Adam in the Garden of Eden, God took Adam around, showed Adam all the trees and said to Adam, “Behold, how beautiful my creation. Do not ruin it, for if you do, there’s no one to come after you to repair it.”
27087. And to think that people that long ago had that kind of wisdom before they even had the capacity to ruin Creation is kind of astounding to me, and we’re living in a time now where we do have that capacity and I’m bringing that story because I think it applies very directly to the topic of the hearings this evening.
27088. The proposed pipeline is not just a pipeline, but as you’ve heard from so many other people and of course you know very well, it involves shipping large quantities of dangerous materials. And I’ll be very brief because I’m sure you’ve heard it all before. 27089. The likelihood of spills and accidents is almost an inevitability. I mean, just during the timespan that we’ve been having these hearings over the recent weeks and months, there have already been accidents and spills and ships
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux running aground. It’s unimaginable that this could go on without having industrial accidents that would be absolutely disastrous.
27090. And the other point about ruining this Creation has to do with the whole project of digging up the oil sands, squeezing oil out of them, refining it and then shipping it across the world, and then burning it which only increases pollution and global warming and everything else.
27091. So as a society, we really need to be devoting our resources to finding ways not to have to do that.
27092. So I’m going to be short. I don’t have anything more to add. I’d just like to leave you and anyone else reading these comments or listening to them with that kind of wisdom that comes from a very long time ago.
27093. Thank you.
27094. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, thanks a lot.
27095. Mr. Read, please share your views.
27096. MR. NICHOLAS READ: Hello.
27097. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thanks.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. NICHOLAS READ:
27098. MR. NICHOLAS READ: My name is Nicholas Read. I live here in Vancouver. I teach journalism at Langara College and I have written several books, children’s books, for Orca Book Publishers of Victoria. Three of those books have been about the Great Bear Rainforest, so I do have a vested interest in the rainforest remaining as it is and so does my publisher.
27099. I’m also 57 years old. Well, you’re wondering why I’m telling you my age. The reason is that when you are 57 years old, you’ve reached an age where you realize that very few things in life are all or nothing; all good, all bad, black or white. However, to coin another cliché, there is always an exception that tests the rule and this pipeline project is that exception. It is all bad. It is all wrong.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27100. And I’m not going to bore you, frankly, with more reasons why that’s so. You’ve heard them over and over and over and over again. You’ve heard about the -- not just the possibility but the inevitability of a major oil spill.
27101. You’ve heard about the economic implications of an oil spill like that, that if there are any economic benefits to come from this pipeline, they will be eliminated when, not if -- when an oil spill occurs. And do we really want the Keystone cops, as the U.S. Transportation Safety Board called them, managing a project of this magnitude?
27102. So instead, in deference to the rabbi sitting next to me, I’m going to introduce or remind you of an old Yiddish proverb and I hope I have this right. “If six people tell you that you’re sick, lie down.” So if six people, or 60 people, or 600, or 6,000 people tell you that a project is a bad idea, it’s a bad idea.
27103. You have -- the Prime Minister and his cabinet have said many, many times that this project is in the national interest. Well, I’m a member of the nation and this is not in my interest, nor is this in the interest of my fellow speakers, I daresay. Most of the speakers, perhaps all of the speakers who have spoken to you so far, we are all members of this nation and this is not in our interest.
27104. What makes me proud to be a Canadian is to think about how much that we still have that so many other nations have lost, and I’m speaking in particular of our wilderness areas.
27105. I’m going to stop short of saying pristine wilderness areas because I don’t think there is such a thing anymore in the world, but nevertheless, we still do have vast tracks of land where wildlife is still allowed to be wild, where air is comparatively clean, where the ocean is still comparatively clean and when other people -- when other nations think about Canada, boring as that might seem, that’s what they think about.
27106. Well, that’s what makes me proud to be a Canadian. What would make me ashamed to be a Canadian would be if we threw all of that away for the sake of a few bucks, which is what’s at stake here; all of that, all of our national heritage versus a few bucks.
27107. So like my fellow panel member here, I’m going to be fairly brief. I just want to appeal to you as one human being to another.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27108. Frankly, I can’t imagine what it would be like to do the job that you’ve been asked to do. I think it must be a very onerous task. I suspect that there are certain expectations placed on you. I suspect that there are, and that must make your job even more difficult.
27109. However, I know that if I were sitting in one of those chairs and it was up to me to reach a decision this important and I reached the wrong decision, which was to recommend that this pipeline be allowed to go forward, and then, later on, after the building of the pipeline I saw the consequences of that, the inevitable oil spill, the inevitable catastrophic oil spill, the oil-soaked seas, the deaths of thousands and thousands of marine mammals, birds and the ruination of who knows how many First Nations cultures up and down the coast, I would find that extremely difficult to bear as a human being.
27110. If I thought that I could have stopped that and didn’t, I don’t know how I’d live with myself. So I’d just like to leave you with that thought, for what that’s worth.
27111. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Mr. Proboszcz, thank you for coming this evening to share your views as well. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. STAN PROBOSZCZ:
27112. MR. STAN PROBOSZCZ: Good evening, Panel. I’d like to first recognize the Coast Salish peoples on whose lands we’re currently on. I’m educated as a biologist and I’ve worked in B.C. for seven years. For the majority of that time I’ve worked on projects relating to fish, water and habitat conservation for an environmental, non-government organization.
27113. Although I currently work for an NGO, today I speak to you on my own time. Hence, these are my personal perspectives on Northern Gateway.
27114. My first concern has to do with environmental consulting firms that are hired by clients such as Enbridge to collect environmental information, produce proposals, data reports and arguments in favour of the development of projects such as Northern Gateway.
27115. Prior to my current position with an NGO, I worked for a large environmental consulting firm, but I resigned after a short time because I was very uncomfortable with how client expectations had the potential to shape
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux certain outputs like data reports, project proposals and other work.
27116. Let’s take the example of Enbridge which is the environmental consulting firm’s client. The client wants a project like Northern Gateway to move forward and the environmental consulting firm who’s been hired by Enbridge likely wants to please their client. The consulting firm also wants return business. I think these inherent incentives have the potential to result in biased information and compromised arguments that are not necessarily in the public’s primary interest.
27117. So I think we risk starting off with a body of information in the form of a project proposal and collection of data reports that are at best biased in favour of the client’s interests.
27118. As an example, take Enbridge’s report 6B which describes the environmental effects of routine activities of the marine terminal that is proposed for Douglas Channel. This document purports to examine the potential environmental effects of the project on various ecological components such as marine invertebrates, fish, mammals, birds, et cetera.
27119. When you look at how this proposal discusses each of these ecological components, a pattern emerges whereby a few concerns resulting from the project are acknowledged. These are typically followed by mitigation strategies that may be used, if practical, and lastly comes a predetermined conclusion that attempts to resolve the original concern.
27120. These conclusions frequently and conveniently align with the interests of the client and the project. Using the example of marine mammals, these statements generally sound something like this. “Given the mitigation measures, the project is unlikely to adversely affect the viability or sustainability of marine mammal populations.”
27121. So in general, we see this pattern repeat itself over and over again with regards to marine birds, fish, fisheries, wildlife, et cetera, in relation to this whole project.
27122. If this proposal were based on independently collected robust data and analyzed in an objective manner for each of the ecological components, I think you’d likely see conclusions about the potential effects that range all over the map, not just conclusions that typically align to move the project forward.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27123. Regarding Northern Gateway, I’m not aware of any convincing data they’ve provided that show the project’s effects won’t have significant negative effects on the ecological components at risk here.
27124. Even in cases where habitat will be destroyed via the project’s footprint, the proposal argues the creation or restoration of new habitat elsewhere will make up for this lost habitat. This practice is commonly termed habitat compensation and the driver for Gateway’s habitat compensation plans is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans no net loss of habitat policy.
27125. Although the replacement of destroyed habitat with the creation or restoration of habitat elsewhere may sound reasonable, in the real world habitat compensations usually end up resulting in a net loss of habitat.
27126. I’ve studied and worked on habitat restoration projects in the past and I know there are many problems with the notion of habitat compensation. It’s extremely difficult to recreate good quality habitat. There are several studies by DFO staff, specifically Harper and Quigley, who have looked into whether the habitat compensation program employed by DFO is working. In short, it’s not working.
27127. Despite one of DFO’s guiding principles, the no net loss of habitat principle, there has been a net loss of habitat in British Columbia and across Canada as a result of development projects like Gateway.
27128. One study reviewed 103 compensation projects, most of which were in B.C. and the authors found that over half the projects audited had smaller compensation areas than the originally altered or destroyed habitat by the project, and over one-third of projects clearly did not achieve no net loss of habitat.
27129. A compliance audit involving field visits conducted on 124 project authorizations, most of which were in B.C., showed that two-thirds of audited projects resulted in a net loss of habitat area.
27130. Those same DFO authors went further in another study to analyze 16 of those projects and they showed that 63 percent of authorizations resulted in net losses of habitat productivity, which suggests higher quality habitat is destroyed or degraded and replaced by poorer quality habitat via these compensations.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27131. So despite Gateway’s commitment to avoiding loss of habitat through compensations by following the no net loss policy, DFO audits show these compensations don’t work.
27132. So in my view, we start off this whole Gateway process on a shaky foundation, a potentially biased proposal with predetermined conclusions not founded in robust data.
27133. This leads me to my second overarching concern, the government agencies that review this proposal. And I’d like to use DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as the example.
27134. Over the last year DFO has lost much capacity due to federal cuts and reorganization, including cuts to the Department, the team’s fisheries biologists and support staff which are responsible for analyzing potential threats to fisheries and their habitat.
27135. It was recently reported that the B.C. branch of the Fisheries Protection Program would lose a third of its staff with operations being consolidated, mostly in Vancouver, Nanaimo and Kamloops. Several offices close to Gateway will apparently be closed. Given the cuts of on-the-ground biologists, I question whether this project’s effects on freshwater and marine habitats will be critically and thoroughly reviewed and monitored by experienced staff.
27136. So while the people on the ground in DFO are being cut, I’m not comforted by statements addressed to the Joint Review Panel from the upper echelons of DFO in a letter dated June 6th, 2012 which states:
“DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures.”
27137. Although there are many tried and true biologists in DFO, this agency as a whole is unfortunately biased. It’s been my experience, working for over six years alongside DFO, that they are a textbook example of a captured agency, captured by industry.
27138. In 2012, the prestigious Royal Society of Canada completed an extensive analysis of the state of Canada’s marine biodiversity and concluded that
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux protection of our marine:
“…biodiversity is impeded by the regulatory conflict within DFO to simultaneously promote industrial development and ocean conservation.”
27139. Just a few months ago, we also saw the conclusion of a three-year, $26 million Cohen inquiry examining the decline of sockeye. Justice Cohen commented on DFO’s paramount regulatory objective and the fact that he heard evidence that suggests confusion on the part of DFO respecting its paramount regulatory objective to conserve the health of wild fish stocks.
27140. In the hearings and as reported in Cohen’s final report, DFO witnesses testified about the need for the agency to provide advice to its clients rather than focusing on research to support the department’s conservation mandate. This evidence is in part foundational for his second recommendation which states:
“In relation to wild fisheries, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should act in accordance to its paramount regulatory objective to conserve wild fish”
27141. Unfortunately, this recommendation highlights the fact that DFO is failing its primary mandate, that’s conservation.
27142. In summary, I think the Northern Gateway Project Proposal is a weak foundation to be assessed by a compromised agency. Hence, I am opposed to the Northern Gateway Proposal.
27143. Thank you.
27144. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your comments, your perspectives, and your views this evening.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
27145. THE CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t that great, yes, mom and two daughters. Welcome. And I see that mom is going to lead off.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27146. THE CHAIRPERSON: So ---
27147. MS. HELGA SUSSMAN: As always.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
27148. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Sussmann, thank you for being here with your daughters, and please proceed with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. HELGA SUSSMANN:
27149. MS. HELGA SUSSMANN: My name is Helga Sussmann; I’m from Gibsons on the Sunshine Coast. I lived in Kitimat from 1958 to 2003, and my three children grew up there. My oldest daughter and my grandchildren still live there.
27150. Moving to the north coast, I developed a deep appreciation for the environment which is unique to the Kitimat region. I’m deeply troubled by the rapid and unsustainable development of the tar sands, and especially the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project bringing bitumen to Kitimat, as well as tankers into the Douglas Channel.
27151. The increased shipping traffic could have a detrimental effect on marine life and an eventual oil spill, even if it doesn’t happen for the next 20 or 30 years, would have lasting negative effects on marine and plant life.
27152. Ecotourism is a flourishing industry and will eventually develop more stable and sustainable jobs in the north -- on the north coast than the permanent jobs offered from the Northern Gateway Project.
27153. I do urge the Panel not to recommend the approval of the pipeline because of the many sensitive areas it would cross in B.C.
27154. Thank you.
27155. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thanks for your comments.
27156. Ms. Sussmann, go ahead, please.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR DR. ANDREA SUSSMANN:
27157. DR. ANDREA SUSSMANN: My name is Doctor Andrea Sussmann. I grew up in Kitimat and have many fond memories fishing the rivers with my dad and spending time near the ocean.
27158. I too developed a deep appreciation and love for nature growing up in Kitimat. I now try to share this with my students as their ecology instructor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
27159. I was saddened to learn of the Enbridge proposal for an oil pipeline to Kitimat and the associated oil tanker traffic. Such a project would undoubtedly impact the region negatively. Sooner or later, an oil spill will happen. That’s a given. Enbridge’s track record for oil -- for oil spills is abysmal and the company cannot guarantee their supertanker -- that supertanker accidents would not happen off the B.C. coast.
27160. Countless watersheds in the B.C. interior and in Alberta, as well as the ecosystems of coastal B.C., not to mention the recently protected and world renowned Great Bear Rainforest, will be threatened if this project proceeds.
27161. These regions attract huge numbers of tourists, provide First Nations with their way of life, and support some of the world’s greatest biodiversity. How can we risk this for the benefit of so few?
27162. This brings me to my next point; namely, that only a few would actually benefit from this project, contrary to what the federal government and Enbridge would have us believe. British Columbians would benefit very little. After the initial construction phase, there would be few full-time, long-term jobs. And an oil spill would be extremely costly, most certainly negating any revenue from royalties.
27163. The Harper government is very vocal regarding the economic benefits for all Canadians. Again, there seems to be disagreement on this point. Economist Robyn Allan -- mentioned earlier tonight -- conducted a detailed study on the Northern Gateway Project that was submitted to the National Energy Board. The findings unequivocally revealed that the average Canadian will not benefit, and in fact, will be negatively affected, for example, with higher gas prices at the pump.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27164. I urge this Review Panel to consider this and other such studies when determining if this project is in the best interests of all Canadians.
27165. And finally, I also reject the Enbridge Pipeline Project on the principle that Canada must be a leader in transitioning away from hydrocarbon fuels and investing in new, clean energy alternatives.
27166. This reckless race to extract the very last of our hydrocarbon stores, with no regard for the fact we are squandering valuable water, destroying Alberta’s boreal forest ecosystem, poisoning First Nations’ people, and contributing to global greenhouse gas emissions, is, in my opinion, not the path for Canada’s future or for the world’s future.
27167. Perhaps we could learn something from the people of Ecuador, who have chosen to keep the Yasuni Forest sacred and leave the oil below it in the ground.
27168. Given what’s at stake for British Columbia and the growing opposition to the project, I strongly urge the Review Panel to reject the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.
27169. Thank you.
27170. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Sussmann, thank you also for being here to present your views. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSE ORAL PAR DR. CORNELIA SUSSMANN:
27171. DR. CORNELIA SUSSMANN: Thank you and good evening, Panel. My name is Dr. Cornelia Sussmann. In my work, I research ecological sustainability for communities and regions in British Columbia.
27172. I have a special connection to Kitimat, the proposed terminus of the Enbridge pipeline. It’s the town in which I was born and raised and members of my family and my friends still live there.
27173. I share the concerns of many about potential dangers to the ecosystems through which the proposed pipeline would run, and to the Douglas Channel through which the bitumen laden tankers will travel. But those dangers are not the only reason I’m here tonight.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27174. Growing up in Kitimat, the livelihoods of most people I knew, including my own family, relied upon the town’s resource based industries, aluminium smelting and pulp and paper. I’m well acquainted with the benefits industry can bring to a community and I believe in progress and development.
27175. Climate science reveals that progress in the 2010s requires moving rapidly and decisively away from fossil fuel based industries. For this reason I’m opposed to the Gateway Project.
27176. I obtained my PhD at the University of British Columbia under the supervision of Dr. William Rees, creator of the ecological footprint concept. The science of the ecological footprint and of climate change shows convincingly that the global human enterprise is producing wastes -- in particular carbon emissions -- at a rate that exceeds the earth’s capacity to absorb them.
27177. A May 2012 report of the International Energy Agency found that global greenhouse gas emissions for 2011 exceeded projections and marked an all-time high.
27178. The proposed Enbridge pipeline, if approved, will contribute directly to climate change by transporting bitumen that will be refined and burned. Arguments about the small contribution of emissions from combustion of Alberta tar sands oils to aggregate global emissions are irrelevant in a world where atmospheric carbon levels are critically high, and where every tonne of combusted fossil fuel only adds to the burden.
27179. The extraction of bitumen is also fossil fuel intensive. Natural Resources Canada quantifies tar sands emissions as 6.5 percent of Canada’s annual total. Environment Canada’s August 2012 report on Canadian emissions trends, projects that expansion of the tar sands will increase Canada’s oil and gas emissions by 28 percent by 2020.
27180. The Enbridge pipeline, if approved, will be part of that expansion. It will play a critical role in tar sands industry infrastructure. But we might also view it as infrastructure for climate change.
27181. If we accept the data from the international climate science, the Canadian and global reductions in fossil fuel use must begin now, not once all the tar sands oil in Alberta has been extracted, transported by pipelines, refined and
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux burned.
27182. This Review Panel is charged with determining whether the proposed pipeline is in the public interest. The risks are many; to ecosystems through which the pipeline would travel, to existing and future sustainable economic enterprises for those regions, to the marine systems of the Douglas Channel and beyond, and some outcomes are certain, such as its contribution to global atmospheric carbon.
27183. I submit that any short-term financial benefits from this project will be outweighed by the longer term costs. I urge the Panel to take a long-range view of the public interest, a view that recognizes the pipeline is a roadblock to progress when what we most need are leadership investments and innovation toward a clean energy, clean economy and sustainable future.
27184. I urge the Panel to not recommend approval of the Enbridge pipeline.
27185. Thank you.
27186. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to each of you. You’re the first family, I believe, that we’ve had come together in a panel of three like this. Thank you very much for being here this evening and for your comments and your views.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
27187. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening. We understand that you’re our last panel that we’re going to hear from this evening.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
27188. THE CHAIRPERSON: So thank you for your perseverance and for being here this evening.
27189. Ms. Wright, please go ahead with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. BRIANNA WRIGHT:
27190. MS. BRIANNA WRIGHT: Thank you. I am a graduate student studying zoology at the University of British Columbia and my statement is a
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux reflection of my personal opinion based on all that I have learned from my numerous mentors over the years. The focus of my scientific research is killer whale biology and I have been studying marine mammals in B.C. since 2006.
27191. While that is a relatively short period of time in a scientist’s career, I’ve been lucky enough to have traveled this coast from Victoria to Prince Rupert and to Haida Gwaii on numerous occasions. I’ve seen how extensive and complex our coastal ecosystem is and I’ve come to appreciate what an amazing and beautiful place we live in and what we stand to lose should the Northern Gateway Project be approved.
27192. I am in firm support of the First Nations communities and all the other people that have come forward from diverse backgrounds to oppose this pipeline and the tankers that it will bring to our waters.
27193. I am sure you have heard many well-reasoned arguments this week about why this pipeline should not be built. For the sake of being brief, I will focus my statement on my own area of knowledge. Although I am relatively early in my career and I am still many years of study away from hoping to be considered an expert, I would like to speak briefly about the threats this project poses to whale populations.
27194. The impact of a spill on the Northern and Central B.C. Coast would be catastrophic and irreparable for these vulnerable species. They are long-lived and slow to reproduce.
27195. As many other people have mentioned, there is no such thing as a successful oil spill cleanup, especially when considering a spill similar in magnitude to the Exxon Valdez. I believe that such a spill is inevitable given the rugged nature of the proposed tanker route, the unpredictable and often harsh weather in the region, which I have witnessed firsthand and the sheer size, speed and frequency with which tankers would move through the confines of the inside passage.
27196. Killer whale populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska have yet to recover from the spill that happened there over 20 years ago. A long-term scientific study published in 2008 found that the Alaskan resident AB pod had suffered a population decline of 33 percent and that the Alaskan AT1 transient pod had suffered a decline of 41 percent in just one year following the spill. This is more than 10 times the natural mortality rate for these populations.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27197. Since 1989, the AB population -- those are the fish-eating residents -- have been slower to recover than expected and the AT1 transients continue to decline and are thought by experts to face extinction in the near future. This is the legacy of destruction that oil leaves on the natural environment and which remains long after cleanup efforts have ended.
27198. Do we really want to risk that here in our province? We have been shown time and time again that despite the modern safety technology, massive oil spills continue to occur around the world. All of the killer whale populations in B.C. are northern residents, southern residents, transients or killer whales and offshore killer whales are listed on Canada’s Species at Risk Act. These populations are small, numbering only a few hundred individuals at each or less and the loss of even a small number of reproductive-aged individuals is going to have a disproportionate impact on their long-term population viability.
27199. As a biologist, I have learned that whales facing exposure to oil are going to face detriments on many fronts. They would have to inhale toxic fumes and their skin would be coated in oil when they surface to breathe. They would also ingest large quantities of these toxins by eating oiled prey.
27200. Furthermore, the federal government’s recent decision to terminate most of the Pacific Coast’s DFO Contaminant Research Program has crippled our ability to understand the biological impacts of such a spill.
27201. In addition to marine oil spills, terrestrial spills along the pipeline portion of the route also pose risks for whales which might not be initially apparent. So these pipelines are going to cross hundreds of salmon-bearing streams and rivers and a spill contaminating these watersheds would spell disaster for Pacific salmon and the resident killer whales who rely on these fish for their survival.
27202. More than 90 percent of resident killer whale diet is comprised of Pacific salmon species and they’re also an important prey item for coastal wolves, bears, dolphins, seals and sea lions, not to mention the commercial, traditional, and recreational salmon fisheries so many human livelihoods will rely upon.
27203. This pipeline will cause further declines for already-vulnerable salmon stocks which in turn will damage the entire coastal ecosystem. So even if no spills were to occur, which I deem as quite unlikely, allowing tankers through the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux waters of the Great Bear Rainforest will still cause irreparable harm to whales in the area. Ship strikes are especially likely in confined waterways such as Douglas Channel.
27204. Super tankers have extremely limited manoeuverability and large whales are often not able to avoid being struck. Whales engaged in surface behaviour such as lunch-feeding, which is something fin whales do, and bubble net feeding which is something that humpback whales engage in, have been shown to be especially vulnerable to strikes, and I have observed whales engaged in both these behaviours in the middle of the proposed tanker route.
27205. Super tanker traffic will also cause disruption to whale behaviour due to underwater noise pollution. Eco-locating species such as killer whales and Pacific white-sided dolphins would not be able to feed and move through their environment because they could not hear the returning eco-location clicks. Most whale species are also highly social and engine noise often masks their ability to communicate with one another.
27206. I have spent many hours attempting to listen for whale calls on an underwater microphone over the engine noise of ships like cruise ships and ferries, and these vessels would be dwarfed in size by a super tanker and the noise from their engines readily obliterates any other sounds underwater and will carry for many kilometres.
27207. Even once tankers reach open water, the negative impacts on whales that I have described would still be occurring. Ships would have to cross Hecate Strait and pass either to the north of Haida Gwaii through Dixon entrance or to the south past Cape St. James. Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait have recently been identified as a major migration corridor for grey whales traveling to and from Mexico to breed.
27208. The Learmonth Bank area and Dixon Entrance is used by both feeding offshore killer whales and by fin whales. To the south of Cape St. James, blue whales and sperm whales are now being seen again in areas they were extirpated from by commercial whaling in the mid 20th century.
27209. I have been lucky enough to experience the thrill of watching wild whales in many remote corners of our coast. Because I have been given this privilege, I feel I cannot be silent in my opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27210. Two summers ago, I spent an evening on the water near Camaano Sound in the path of the proposed tanker route. I sat and watched about half a dozen fin whales feeding in the entrance to the inside passage. Their blows went up from behind by the fading light.
27211. This moment and others like it are some of the most meaningful experiences I have had in my life. They are why I decided to pursue a career in biology. I find it a horrifying prospect to imagine the tranquility of such a moment being shattered by a super tanker.
27212. The environmental damage we risk by allowing this project to proceed would affect everyone, while the economic gain would be short-lived and to the benefit of only a few. Clean air, clean water, a safe marine food supply and a sense of belonging to a place and to a community, these are the things we cannot live without.
27213. I am not against economic development as a rule, but it must be done responsibly and with consideration for long-term impacts. The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline threatens the integrity of our essential natural resources, which are too often taken for granted by those in political power.
27214. I implore you to stop corporate greed from destroying the natural beauty of this coast. No pipeline and no tankers in the Great Bear Rainforest is the only responsible and ethical path forward. Please do everything in your power to protect our future.
27215. Thank you.
27216. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ms. Wright.
27217. Welcome, Ms. Wright, and ---
--- (Laughter/Rires)
27218. MEMBER MATTHEWS: --- please share your views with us. Thanks.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. KIM WRIGHT:
27219. MS. KIM WRIGHT: My name is Kim Wright. I was born in Prince Rupert and I live and work in Vancouver. I have spent my whole life on the coast. I'm an environmental and social scientist, educated and employed in the field of environmental conflict analysis and management.
27220. Tonight, I wish to speak to you about what is in the public interest and how one might approach making that determination.
27221. My personal perspective is informed by many years of working with Canadians who come together to make decisions about the natural resources they share. I have witnessed the positive benefits of collaboration and stakeholder engagement in marine and land use planning.
27222. There are many examples from across Canada where sustainable resource use that is compatible with the needs and values of local communities and the environment has resulted from such processes. They are critical for establishing the public interest for current and future generations of Canadians.
27223. I have also been witness to changes in British Columbia's coastal communities over the last 40 years: the industrialization of the fishing fleet; the boom and bust of local economies; declining opportunities for employment and; the movement of youth away from their families and hometowns to the cities for education and work.
27224. I'm sympathetic to the need for economic opportunities for all Canadians, including those in smaller coastal communities. My friends and colleagues in these communities will agree that stronger, more diverse economic opportunities that are embedded in healthy ecosystems are the long-term solution. They believe, and I agree, that these are their interests.
27225. The National Energy Board defines the public interest as:
"…inclusive of all Canadians and refers to a balance of economic, environmental and social considerations that changes as society's values and preferences evolve over time."
27226. The real problem is in how what is in the public interest is established. How are the values and preferences of those who live and work in coastal British
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Columbia weighed against Canadians at large? When speaking of Canadians at large or even coastal residents, defining society's values is a challenge.
27227. For the past four years, I've been working as the representative of the conservation sector at the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area Process, otherwise known by its acronym, PNCIMA. All levels of government, including regional districts and First Nations, along with business sectors, that operate on the coast met to discuss how to create an integrated plan for Haida Gwaii and the North and Central Coasts of B.C. This process was designed to allow those who live and work in the region to have a say in how it would be managed.
27228. We did not agree on many things at the start, but we were working together to find a path forward and the process of building understanding between us to define common interests was slowly unfolding. What we were doing was jointly identifying ways that we could work together with a spatial plan and ecosystem-based management so that all of our interests could be met, be they conservation, alternative energy, the livelihoods of coastal communities, fishing, recreation, or shipping. There would be some compromise on all of our parts, but we were becoming more hopeful that solutions would be found as the process progressed.
27229. In my experience, when working at multi-stakeholder tables with a diversity of perspectives and worldviews represented with people from different cultures, education levels, and life experiences, nothing can be assumed. Every individual is unique with unique needs, desires and interests.
27230. The importance of process, like this Joint Review Panel, for example, that allows individuals to express their values, is imperative. In a truly democratic society, there is a level playing field with the views and needs of common citizens considered side by side with those of the rich or the powerful. Every voice and vote is counted.
27231. The public interest must be established through mandatory, democratic collaborative processes that include stakeholder engagement. Otherwise, the possibility that it will be dictated by the few and the powerful to meet their own needs is real and true.
27232. I experienced this within the PNCIMA process firsthand. In 2011, one of the sectors within the PNCIMA advisory committee did not follow the rules of
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux engagement, sidestepped the process, and PNCIMA was truncated prior to completing its work. Those of us who remained committed to collaborative planning must now attempt to find ways to articulate our common interests through processes that are not holistic or integrated across all sectors that utilize the oceans.
27233. Establishing the public interest on a case-by-case basis as each sector puts an individual project forward is not an effective approach. This eliminates the opportunity for all activities proposed or existing in an area to be weighed according to jointly established criteria, allowing for decisions to be made by all stakeholders with all the possibilities and information on the table and allowing for assessments of cumulative impacts.
27234. What is needed is more collaboration and integrated process to identify the common public interests for the Canadians living in British Columbia.
27235. Another consideration that can be paradoxical when identifying the public interest is the one of temporal scale. The evolution of society's values over time will include future generations of Canadians in our definition of the public. The long-term impacts of our decisions need to be considered alongside those of the shorter term.
27236. Coastal British Columbian wealth and the wellbeing of the individuals who live there are dependent on the marine environment and the ecosystem services it provides. The economic value of these services is often obvious, such as the provision of food, energy, or protection from storms, but the oceans of British Columbia also regulate the climate, provide oxygen, and will be there and of value for future generations.
27237. In decisions such as this one, regarding whether the Enbridge pipeline and shipping of bitumen in tankers to China is in the public interest, the need for a healthy environment that will provide for the public's interests in terms of economic, environmental, and social value must be considered for current residents, Canadians at large, and future generations.
27238. In my estimation, this pipeline and the resulting tanker traffic will not be in the public interest, as what has been heard at these review panels is that the risk of environmental impacts, the resulting social and economic damage that such impacts would inflict on neighbouring communities and future generations of Canadians is too high.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27239. We have heard the collective voice of Canadians speaking out for their interests, be they economic, environmental, or social, and what we hear is that the costs are far more significant and the benefits few or none for these coastal residents of B.C. I believe the numbers of people who have come to these hearings to speak out against this development is evidence in itself of the public interest, as represented by those Canadians who stand to lose the most.
27240. Thank you.
27241. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you for sharing that.
27242. Ms. Sorenson, I understand that you are our last speaker for this particular Panel session. We look forward to hearing your point of view and are ready to listen.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. SHELLEY SORENSON:
27243. MS. SHELLEY SORENSON: Thank you. Good evening, esteemed Panel Members.
27244. My name is Shelley Sorenson, as you know. I have lived on the South Coast of B.C. all my life. I'm the fourth of six generations to live here. My family has always appreciated the benefits and natural wealth and wild diverse beauty of British Columbia. We place great value in our amenities.
27245. As a British Columbian of my age, I have grown up surrounded by an amazing variety of environmental speakers, writers, activists, and unique world- renowned organizations. These people are highly intelligent, dedicated, and of great integrity.
27246. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Sorenson?
27247. MS. SHELLEY SORENSON: Yes.
27248. MEMBER BATEMAN: Sorry to interrupt you. Could you pull the mic a little bit closer, and the reason is is that the transcription is not picking up your voice and we do want to have the transcript. I think we're okay to where we are, but just as you carry on ---
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27249. MS. SHELLEY SORENSON: Okay.
27250. MEMBER BATEMAN: --- if you'll just speak into the mic.
27251. MS. SHELLEY SORENSON: These people are highly intelligent, dedicated and of great integrity and they are reasonable, not radical. I have accepted their message that our planet is at risk.
27252. I am a horticulturist, an organic gardener by trade. Food security is an issue that I understand and I am concerned about. I recognize the importance of local food production, the potential harm from this pipeline if there are failures with diminished local food systems and local cultural values and uses. It is not difficult for me to see this province is a huge food web; everything is connected.
27253. If this bitumen spills into our waters, it would cause significant, adverse, social, environmental, and economic harms. Habitats will be damaged, the food chain diminished for decades. Our wilderness environments in B.C. are already stressed.
27254. Here we would be adding to the under -- unending industrial access to wilderness combined -- combing this and the toxic risks involved with this project tell me that there must be a better way. This project proposes to pipe bitumen and condensate, both highly poisonous substances through three vital river damages -- drainages; two of them in B.C., the Fraser, the Skeena.
27255. Both of these river systems are at the heart of B.C.’s fishing and agricultural wealth. Many thousands of jobs and families rely on the gifts that these healthy river systems provide. The benefits from our rivers include the -- a vast variety of industrial, recreational and tourism jobs.
27256. All of these jobs are vulnerable to spills. Only a very few comes -- only a very few come -- jobs come from this project proposed. The potential of this pipeline have done -- oh, sorry, the Proponents of this pipeline have done much over the past couple of years to demonstrate a capacity for incompetence.
27257. Also, they have a very troubling preference for feel good over veracity in their public advertising. They say that they are aspire to be a high quality operator but admit that they still have a way further -- a way -- years away from their goal.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 27258. This route has some of the most savage and formidable geography and weather in North America, and indeed on the planet. This is not a slow paddle down the Missouri.
27259. The Proponents are already -- has already improved the monitoring and shut off abilities of the pipes in response to public concerns. Nonetheless, whether damaged by weather, winter conditions, earthquakes, wear and tear or poor welding, access to make these repairs will be very difficult. This puts wilderness at risk of a contamination for long periods of time.
27260. The clean-up in the event of a failure, in particular near any lakes and/or rivers will be much more difficult than with traditional crude oil. Apparently bitumen sinks. The negative effects are likely to last much longer, perhaps for many decades at least.
27261. As the pipeline reaches its terminus at Kitimat, at the end of the Douglas Channel, the risk of harm to the local ecology greatly increases. Like it or not, this is the Great Bear Rainforest.
27262. I was in my thirties when I travelled to Clayoquot Sound to help clean up oil from the barge accident off the Washington coast. Bunker C oil drifted north for many miles down the coastline. The oil was a nightmare to look at, very difficult to pick up and a persistent harm to the habitat.
27263. Only a few months later, the Exxon Valdez sank. This incident gave us insight into corporate behaviours as well. Exxon has spent all of its time and most of its money since the incident denying its responsibilities. Prince William Sound has not -- has still not recovered its environmental integrity, its food productive capacity or its employment opportunities. The damage from the spill has diminished the local cultures, suicides are very common.
27264. Robyn Allan has established that the bitumen producers or the shippers do not have the wealth or the insurance protection to afford to clean up anything near a worst-case scenario. Any remaining costs from the clean-up would come from the public purse. The assumption of these risks is a central aspect of B.C.’s concern. Would the insurance be enough to replace our livelihood? Some things are not replaceable.
27265. Although I am aware that this may be beyond the mandate of this Panel, I have to mention that Douglas Channel has significant hazards and opens
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux into Hecate Strait, one of the most violent and dangerous sections of the Pacific Ocean.
27266. Any confidence I have in double-hulls, radar stations and tugboat escorts is offset by my understanding of what happened to cause the sinking of the Queen of the North and the Valdez; human failure.
27267. Our cetacean population relies on sound to source their food and to maintain their communities. Vessel traffic, tankers destroy this communication. Clearly this increasing tanker traffic is inhumane.
27268. By now this Panel will have seen much of our province. You were hearing from a full and diverse cross-section of our population. I’m sure you have come to realize that you are definitely no longer in Alberta.
27269. During this short time this Panel has been at work, we have continued to learn about how toxic the extraction of bitumen is to our surroundings. We are being asked to ship a very toxic substance.
27270. In recent months, many powerful respect -- in recent months many powerful, respected and sobering -- sober organizations have warned us of the costs and damages of continued fossil fuel use. I refer to the IEA, the IMF, the World Bank, the insurance companies, the client scientists and even the Pentagon.
27271. How much longer will insurance companies consider fossil fuel projects? Halfway through the Northern Gateway Project, will insurance companies soon consider themselves to be culpable for downstream harm?
27272. Having done my due diligence, I can see no indication that this project offers any benefits to the public interest. I believe that the national energy strategy -- I believe that a national energy strategy has been necessary for decades. Such a strategy would let us put this project alongside alternative choices and make better informed decisions for all of Canada.
27273. If you are asking us to tell you how this project will affect us locally, I say along with the points that have already been mentioned, these two ways come to mind. First, my friends and neighbors are becoming united to -- in opposition to this issue. Second, nothing is turning out to be more local than climate change. I strongly -- a strong majority of Canadians now accept that climate change wears a human face.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27274. If the submission allows -- allowed by this Panel are much more narrow and focused then the actual challenges of the project, then the final reports may suffer a loss of credibility.
27275. Construction of this pipeline without the willing consent of British Columbians would probably come with significant consequences. The contractors and Proponents of this pipeline would face native and non-native protest, obstruction, disobedience, and possibly direct action opposition. This is British Columbia after all.
27276. We have accepted the math of carbon use. We need to follow the leads of Germany, Japan and others in redirecting our energy -- our energy future. Then let’s become the new leaders. Alberta could learn a great deal how Norway charges oil royalties and how it uses the -- and saves that great non-sustainable wealth.
27277. Of course resource extraction is often necessary but it’s not sustainable. Six years in a row as climate dinosaurs doesn’t demonstrate that we have informed leadership. A good future for -- with British Columbians -- a good future where British Columbians are in a broader education and have better quality jobs that -- than is to be found in resource extraction is available to us.
27278. These jobs -- these good jobs won’t flow from this pipeline. This pipeline will lead the way to global devastation. If there is a spill, it will destroy our First Nations people’s traditional ways, coastal communities, many people’s way of life, their way to make a living and food, their recreation, our incredible wildlife, our marine ecosystem, it will affect our tourism industry, our marine -- our marinas, our food chain. It will break our hearts.
27279. It would kill our coastal waters and this is a crime to humanity. Please advise against this project.
27280. I don’t think I’m quite finished here.
27281. I have stood here ---
27282. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Ms. Sorensen ---
27283. MS. SHELLEY SORENSEN: Yes.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
27284. MEMBER MATTHEWS: --- you are out of time.
27285. MS. SHELLEY SORENSEN: Okay.
27286. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Can I invite you to summarize with one final sentence.
27287. MS. SHELLEY SORENSEN: I have stood here tonight and voiced my opinions, my opinions shares with many friends, co-workers, and my family. I strongly encourage this Panel to reject this pipeline application.
27288. Thank you very much.
27289. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to each of you for taking the time to prepare your oral statements and to be here and share your views and your experiences with us.
27290. This concludes this evening’s session and we will sit again tomorrow morning at 9:00.
27291. Thank you, everyone. Good night.
--- Upon adjourning at 9:01 p.m./L’audience est ajournée à 21h01
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011