5ea to 5anJs Conservation Alliance

Ph. (250) 964-2476 E-mail: sea2sands(EJgmail.com Blogsite: s2sca.blogspot.com

January 26, 2010 C.)

The Honourable Jim Prentice — - Minister of Environment Government of Canada By Email Correspondence to: Jim.Prenticeec.gc.ca cc Dear Sir: C

Re: Enbridge Northern Gateway Project — Final Agreement on Joint Review Process

This letter is to state the opinions of the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance with regards to the terms of the Final Agreement on the Joint Review Panel process for the Enbridge Northern Gateway crude oil/ condensate twin pipelines.

We are a group of concerned citizens based out of Prince George, with support from across western Canada. Prince George is a community that lies in close proximity to the proposed Enbridge pipelines route, and is inhabited by people that are closely tied to the surrounding land. We recently formed the Sea to Sands Conservation Alliance to express our concern for this rnega-project. Interest in our group has been considerable and our groups already have well over 600 supporters; opposition to this pipeline project is increasing daily throughout British Columbia. We count ourselves as part of a broader network of concerned citizens.

Our reasons for opposing the terms of the final agreement on the Joint Review Panel are as follows:

1. We seriously question whether a three-member panel comprised of two National Energy Board members and one Environment Minister appointed member will be adequate to evaluate this process. This is because of the magnitude of this project, its broad-sweeping implications and the number of communities and stakeholders that will be affected by it. 2. The mandate of the National Energy Board seems to be too narrow to properly allow panel members to address the variety of issues at stake. Of particular concern is the panel’s decision to exclude the environmental impacts of the tar sands expansion in its environmental assessment. This is very disconcerting because the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline could result in up to 30 percent increase in oil

1 sands production. It seems short-sighted and inappropriate to disregard direct broader impacts of a project in an assessment. 3. Other pipelines in Canada of a similar magnitude have had more involved and sophisticated review processes. For example, the Mackenzie gas pipeline joint review panel terms of reference were drafted in conjunction with First Nations and were much more comprehensive. The scope of this review included, among other things, questions about whether the project would contribute to sustainability within the region. 4. The concerns of the public, submitted during the public consultation process leading up to finalizing the agreement, have not been adequately addressed in the terms of this agreement. For instance, many members of the public noted the issue of the moratorium on oil tanker traffic on this part of the coast. There has been a long standing moratorium on oil tanker traffic through the coastal inland waters of northern British Columbia, initiated in 1972 and confirmed by Natural Resources Canada in 2003. The terms of the Joint Review Panel do not provide for adequate dialogue about whether British Columbians want this long-standing moratorium against oil tanker traffic lifted. 5. Aboriginal rights are not sufficiently addressed, particularly their right to consultation confirmed by the Constitution and the common law. Several local First Nations in our area (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, Takla First Nation and Nadleh Whut’en) have already issued media releases in response to the finalization of the Joint Review Process. These groups state that their Aboriginal rights are being violated. We fully support the position of First Nations groups from our area concerning this issue. 6. We are concerned about the potential for lack of administrative fairness on the panel. We do acknowledge that it is stated in the agreement that the members are to be “unbiased and free from any conflict of interest in relation to the project”. However, we remain concerned that in your capacity as Environment Minister, you are selecting one of the three panel members. Our reason for concern is that you have been quoted many times as being in support of oil sands production and increasing markets for same, Mr. Prentice. Some examples: • “Prentice defends oilsands following National Geographic article,” retrieved on January 15, 2010 from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/storv/2009/02/25/oiFsands-articles.html. • “Speaking Points of Jim Prentice” (as Minister of Industry) retrieved on January 15, 2010 from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icl.nsf/engJOlg7O.html. • “Prentice won’t rule out oilsands emissions breaks” retrieved on January 15, 2010 from

htt p ://www . cbc .ca/po lit i cs/storvI2009/1 2/15/prentice-oil-sands. html. • “Alberta to US: Use the oil sands or lose them,” retrieved on January 15, 2010, from

2 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/3 1/alberta-to-u-s-use-the-oilsands-or-Iose-them.aspx.

During your previous portfolio as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (May 23, 2006), you are quoted on a federal government website iii an address to the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association in Calgary, Alberta, as follows: “1 understand the enormous potential that oil and gas development will bring to the country... Growing global demano for energy and upward pressure on prices have made new projects feasible. The Gateway pipeline project is another priority.”

In this same address, you emphasized a Conservative government ‘concerted and coordinated federal response on major pipeline projects [that] will allow [your government] to focus multi-departmental resources on critical impediments that threaten projects’

Finally, you also spoke of your mandate at the time offering opportunities to ‘create powerful synergies to realize the potential of pipeline development.”

The above quotes retrieved January 15, 2010, from bttp://www.ainc inac.gc.ca/aifmr/spchf200&/cepaad-eng.asn.

We question whether through your various statements referenced here and elsewhere, you have expressed support for this pipeline project proceeding?

Our concerns about this review panel are not alleviated by the inclusion of two National Energy Board members. The vast majority of energy projects reviewed by the National Energy Board are approved (see for instance “environmentalists say scope of hearings is too narrow,’ Victoria Times Colonist, December 5, 2009, retrieved from www.timescolonist.com on December 5, 2009).

While the National Energy Board certainly has a role to play, we are concerned that they comprise two thirds of the panel, given the broad scope of the issues at stake relating to this project.

In closing, the terms set in the Final Agreement on the Joint Review Panel process do not reflect the concerns of the citizens and First Nations that would be directly impacted by the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. An impartial review is necessary, which includes an appropriate scope that allows for the relevant issues to be discussed and addressed. There have been numerous calls from the public for a comprehensive public inquiry into this project (several of which were articulated during the public input time frame leading up to the formulation of this finalized agreement). We would like you to consider those calls and establish a comprehensive review process that would have the support of the First Nations and citizens of Canada that you represent.

3 This project has far reaching negative implications on our First Nations rights, the sustainable use of resources, our environment, our international reputation and our natural and cultural heritage. Please contact us at [email protected] if you would ike to discuss any of the foregoing concerns.

On behalf of Sea to Sandsc - on Affiance:

• - L—4ZirjVi tyK) Josh DeLeenheer ary MacDohid Spokesperson Spokesperson

CC: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Hon. , Prime Minister of Canada Hon. Tony Clement, Minister of Industry Hon. Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources Hon. , Minister of International trade and the Asia-Pacific Gateway Hon Jay Full, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and MP, Dick Harris, MP, , MP, Bulkleyskeena Gaetan Caron, Chair, National Energy Board Carrier Sekani Tribal Council

Media

4