NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD OFFICE NATIONAL DE L’ÉNERGIE
Hearing MH-3-2007 Audience MH-3-2007
EMERA BRUNSWICK PIPELINE COMPANY LTD.
Detailed Route Hearing for Brunswick Pipeline Project Certificate GC-110 Audience visant le tracé détaillé du projet de gazoduc Brunswick - Certificat GC-110
VOLUME 3
Hearing held at L’audience tenue à
Fort Howe Hotel & Convention Centre 10 Portland Street Saint John, New Brunswick
January 30, 2008 le 30 janvier 2008
International Reporting Inc. Ottawa, Ontario (613) 748-6043
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2008 © Sa Majesté du Chef du Canada 2008 as represented by the National Energy Board représentée par 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 MH-3-2007
IN THE MATTER OF the Detailed Route Hearing for Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. (Brunswick Pipeline) Brunswick Pipeline Project Certificate GC-110 Pursuant to Section 35 of the National Energy Board Act
HEARING LOCATION/LIEU DE L'AUDIENCE
Hearing held at Saint John (New Brunswick), Wednesday, January 30, 2008 Audience tenue à Saint-Jean (Nouveau-Brunswick), Mercredi, le 30 janvier 2008
BOARD PANEL/COMITÉ D'AUDIENCE DE L'OFFICE
K. Bateman Chairman/Président
S. Crowfoot Member/Membre
D. Hamilton Member/Membre
Transcript Order MH-3-2007
APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS
Company Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. - Mr. N. Gretener - Mr. P. Zed
Landowners Galbraith Construction Ltd. - Mr. S. Horgan
Intervenors Mr. Wallace Nason and Ms. Heather Richard - Mr. W. Nason
New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Limited - Ms. L. Gallivan
Saint John and Maine Railway Co. - Ms. L. Gallivan
Mr. Clayton Edward Poley and Ms. Deborah Marie Poley - Mr. C.E. Poley
Mr. William Thompson - Mr. W. Thompson
Mr. Samuel Wilkes and Ms. Vicki Wilkes - Mr. S. Wilkes - Ms. V. Wilkes
National Energy Board/Office national de l’énergie - Ms. M. Fowke - Ms. J. Saunders
Transcript Order MH-3-2007
ERRATA
Monday, January 28, 2008 - Volume 1:
Paragraph No.: Should read:
Paragraphs 138 to 145 - to be ignored Duplicate of Paragraphs 130 to 137
191: …this mapping, the north aerial, … …this mapping, the north arrow, …
192: …which is the to the south. …which is to the south.
195: …that are regularly shaped… …that are irregularly shaped…
226: So we’ve chosen to -- our pipeline… So we’ve chosen to route our pipeline…
825: …the route Bay lay up to the edge… …the route may lay up to the edge…
1129: …at approximate chain of 2,500 where… …at approximately 25 + 500 where…
1138: …more east of 25-500 and then… …more west of 25 + 500 and then…
1210: …approximately 24 plus 400, the desire… …approximately 25 plus 400, the desire…
1287: The fact that the soil meeting here is… The fact that the soil medium here is…
1515: …rock face to float water over… …rock face to flow water over…
1520: …no salmons were caught, no trout… …no salmonids were caught, no trout…
1547: …would require a -- had authorization… …would require a HADD authorization…
Transcript Order MH-3-2007
ERRATA
Monday, January 28, 2008 - Volume 1:
Paragraph No.: Will read:
1130: …to go under the train bridge and that… …to go under the railway and that…
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - Volume 2:
Paragraph No.: Should read:
1623: …my name is Stewart Alexander Ramsay. …my name is Stuart Alexander Ramsay.
1720: …the tow of the slope… …the toe of the slope…
1726: …following the tow of the slope… …following the toe of the slope…
1732: …to the side, to the tow, it would… …to the side, to the toe, it would…
1746: …this was the 1975 Nelsonville plan… …this was the 1975 Nelson Vale plan…
1748: …this is a 1975 Nelsonville subdivision… …this is a 1975 Nelson Vale subdivision…
1766: …for the Galbraith track… …for the Galbraith tract…
1772: …across the tracks in this direction. …across the tracts in this direction.
1928: …indicate that west side of States,… …indicate that West Side Estates,…
Transcript Order MH-3-2007
ERRATA
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - Volume 2:
Paragraph No.: Should read:
2854: …crosses along the railway. …crosses along the right-of-way.
3328: There’s -- there’s the flower (ph) mowing There’s -- there’s the flail mowing which is used… which is used…
Transcript Order MH-3-2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION BY MR. MELVIN HANNAN AND MS. BEATRICE LATOUR
Opening remarks by the Chairman 3431
Preliminary matters brought forward by Ms. M. Fowke 3435
Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Panel: Mr. C. Blair Mr. P. Seheult Mr. R. Mayer Mr. R. MacDonald
- Examination by Mr. N. Gretener 3455 - Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3487
Final argument by Mr. N. Gretener 3525
Transcript Order MH-3-2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION BY GALBRAITH CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND GALBRAITH EQUIPMENT LTD.: (Continued/Suite)
Opening remarks by the Chairman 3535
New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Limited and Saint John and Maine Railway Co. Mr. J. Murphy
- Examination by Ms. L. Gallivan 3547 - Examination by Mr. S. Horgan 3569 - Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3737
Mr. Wallace Nason and Ms. Heather Richard: Mr. W. Nason
- Opening statement by Mr. W. Nason 3820 - Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3840
Mr. William Thompson:
- Opening statement by Mr. W. Thompson 3907 - Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3931
Mr. Samuel Wilkes and Ms. Vicki Wilkes: Mr. S. Wilkes
- Opening statement by Mr. S. Wilkes 3966 - Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3996
Procedural matter brought forward by the Chairman 4010
Procedural matter brought forward by Ms. J. Saunders 4029
Closing remarks by the Chairman 4034
Transcript Order MH-3-2007
LIST OF EXHIBITS/LISTE DES PIÈCES
No. Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
D-1-5 East Point Inc. - Notice of Withdrawal from MH-3-2007 proceeding 3440
A-29 NEB - Information request to Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. (re Mr. Tuddenham) 4032
Transcript Order MH-3-2007
UNDERTAKINGS/ENGAGEMENTS
No. Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
U-3 For Mr. Murphy to find out if the request by Brunswick Pipeline to New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Ltd. or Saint John and Maine Railway for their consent to allow a pipeline on New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Ltd. property was a written or verbal request and the date of the request 3581
U-4 For Mr. Murphy to find out if there was a written request by Brunswick Pipeline for consent from New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Ltd. or Saint John and Maine Railway to allow a pipeline on property PID number 415687, the date and form of any such written request, and whether there were any verbal requests of the same nature either before or after the written request 3581
U-5 For Mr. Murphy to provide the general plan of installation for the culvert, including any detailed or specific information, if available 3610
U-6 For Mr. Murphy to determine if there is an excavation permit for the NB Southern property adjacent to the Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. property 3625
U-7 For Mr. Murphy to provide the exact date of discussions between JD Irving and Brunswick Pipeline regarding approximately 40 properties involved in the corridor and right-of-ways 3659
U-8 For Mr. Murphy to indicate whether the person referred to as being in charge of the file was aware that other landowners could apply for variances to the court order 3678
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Preliminary matters Ms. M. Fowke --- Upon commencing at 8:43 a.m./L’audience débute à 8h43
3431. THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. Thank you everyone for coming this morning.
3432. The witnesses intended for the examination and questioning this morning are not here and, as such, we will deal quickly with a preliminary matter.
3433. I will remind the witness panel that you’re under oath and you’ll be subjected to a few very short questions from the Board.
R. MAYER: Resumed P. SEHEULT: Resumed C. BLAIR: Resumed B. MacDONALD: Resumed
3434. THE CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.
3435. MS. FOWKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3436. I have one preliminary matter and that is I received a fax yesterday from counsel for East Point Inc., Mr. Robert Creamer, advising that his client is withdrawing the proceedings as the outstanding issues with Brunswick Pipeline have been satisfactorily resolved.
3437. And so I’ll enter -- I printed that fax and I’ll have it entered on the record.
3438. And I’d just like to, for the record, indicate that Mr. Creamer sent a nice comment about Mr. Zed and Mr. Gretener saying that it was nice to deal with such high-calibre and professional counsel and they facilitated communication between experts so as to allow an appropriate resolution of the matter.
3439. So it’s nice to see that and I thought they were sort of like the Travelocity garden gnomes, just assisting everywhere they could. So it was nice to see.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
3440. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: That will be Exhibit D-1-5.
--- EXHIBIT NO./PIÈCE No. D-1-5:
East Point Inc. - Notice of Withdrawal from MH-3-2007 proceeding
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Examination by Mr. N. Gretener
3441. MS. FOWKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3442. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gretener …?
3443. MR. GRETENER: Travel gnome’s turn, Mr. Chairman.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
3444. MR. GRETENER: Would you have us, Mr. Chairman, just have the witnesses provide an overview of the route in this area or did you intend to just go straight into Board questions?
3445. THE CHAIRMAN: It’s in your discretion. If you would like to have an overview provided, we would be happy to listen. Otherwise, we will go directly to the questions.
3446. MR. GRETENER: Okay. Perhaps for completeness of the record and perhaps also -- I know the hearing starts at 8:30 this morning. It did start at 9:00 on the first day. We’re thinking, potentially, that the other people interested in appearing might still show up at 9:00.
3447. So I think we might as well take a bit of time and explain, for your benefit, why the route was chosen in the area it was.
3448. So, gentlemen, I will remind you, you’re still under oath.
3449. And if you could, Mr. Seheult, briefly -- I think, you can be fairly brief on this -- explain for us why you chose the route you did in the area that traverses the lands that are subject to the Latour objection.
3450. THE CHAIRMAN: Before you begin, I think, Mr. Gretener, you’ve raised a good point of the possibility that there has been a miscommunication and the parties will arrive at nine o’clock.
3451. I would like to propose that we just adjourn until 9:00 and at that point we’ll continue on and hear from the witness panel.
3452. MR. GRETENER: Good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3453. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
--- Upon recessing at 8:47 a.m./ L’audience est suspendue à 8h47
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Examination by Mr. N. Gretener --- Upon resuming at 9:03 a.m./L’audience est reprise à 9h03
3454. THE CHAIRMAN: It’s 9:00 a.m. and Mr. Hannan and Ms. Latour are not present. We will proceed now with counsel’s questions -- pardon me, with the presentation.
R. MAYER: Resumed P. SEHEULT: Resumed C. BLAIR: Resumed B. MacDONALD: Resumed
--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MR. N. GRETENER:
3455. MR. GRETENER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3456. Gentlemen, I remind you that you are all still under oath.
3457. And if we could have the map B-14H brought up on the screen, please? Oh, it’s up on the screen; I guess I should look first.
3458. Mr. Seheult, could you please provide us with a high-level explanation of why the route through this area was chosen by Brunswick Pipeline?
3459. MR. SEHEULT: Certainly.
3460. So what we have before us is an aerial photograph of a portion of East Saint John and more specifically the area that our pipeline route crosses between Westmorland Road and Rothesay Avenue.
3461. So Westmorland Road is located at approximately our chainage 13 plus 000 and that’s at this location here as I’m pointing on the screen. And then Rothesay Avenue is a heavily travelled city street. It’s four lanes wide and that is at this location which is at approximately kilometre post 13 plus 800. And those features were significant in the selection of the best pipeline location through this area.
3462. We have on this map -- the north arrow is just at the top left-hand side of the map and it’s pointing, generally, towards the top of the map and to the left. So for purposes of this map, north is to the top of this sheet and south is to the bottom.
3463. As you can see, this is a heavily developed area in the City of Saint John and so that weighed heavily in our route selection. In fact, the aerial photograph is a little out-of-date and in fact this whole area has now been developed.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Examination by Mr. N. Gretener 3464. We’ve actually sent our surveyors out and they have picked up corners of stores that don’t appear on the aerial photograph but actually exist and so those are -- I’m pointing to the outlines in black lines that are just west of Westmorland Road. There’s also a hotel that has been constructed in this area just above chainage marker 13 plus 000.
3465. So you can see that throughout this area there is a twin high-voltage transmission line that stretches from the right-hand side of the page to the left-hand side, entirely within the corridor, and represented by the grey straight lines.
3466. And so at the right-hand side of the map, the east side of the map, you can see we are following alongside that corridor and as we exit the map on the left-hand side, we are also following that corridor, in keeping with our secondary principle of following existing utility and transportation corridors.
3467. But as it’s obvious here, our yellow line, which represents our proposed pipeline route in-between these two points, is unable to consistently follow that line because there are other features that came into play.
3468. On this particular portion of our route, we have two significant control points that are located relatively close together and they are shown on the map. And the first is the western-most control point which is our preferred location for the pipeline route at kilometre post 13.6.
3469. And you will notice that why that was a control point is that there are -- it’s a very dense area of commercial development along Rothesay Avenue and there’s a building to the north of the pipeline route and there are buildings to the south of the pipeline route and so that basically established a control point at 13.6. So that’s the western control point.
3470. The eastern control point on this map is the control point at kilometre post 12.95 and that is the crossing of the Westmorland Road.
3471. And if we just kind of look at this in different segments and if we look first of all -- the detailed route team looked for the best crossing of Westmorland Road within the widened corridor at this area. And we did widen the corridor here to give us some more options and we found this location where our yellow line crosses Westmorland Road was the best location for our pipeline route.
3472. We have a cemetery to the north of the corridor along Westmorland Road and to the east which actually extends within the corridor, and as the cemetery is a Class 1 constraint, that eliminated that area for consideration.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Examination by Mr. N. Gretener 3473. And as I had mentioned, we also have new commercial stores in this area and the new hotel along with the parking lot that goes with it, as well as existing homes in this area. This home by the hotel is no longer there but there are other homes in the area and that meant that anything to the north of our proposed pipeline location, there was not a feasible crossing of Westmorland Road.
3474. We also looked to the south of our proposed crossing location to see if there was a superior crossing location for Westmorland Road and we were unable to find one.
3475. Again, we have the cemetery that extends from the south along the west side of Westmorland Road and you can see that that actually comes within the corridor and that, along with the apartment buildings and homes in this area, took this southern part of the corridor out of consideration for an appropriate crossing location.
3476. We also looked at the area just to the north of that which is along Ellerdale Street and because of the location of Ellerdale Street and the structures that exist in this area for the high-voltage transmission line -- pardon me -- north, sorry -- north and south of Ellerdale, that took that area out of consideration as well.
3477. And as you can see, we have a series of apartment buildings through here and we also have existing homes on this side and so it confirmed that the appropriate crossing location of Westmorland Road and it is as it’s shown.
3478. So between these two control points we tried to find the best pipeline route. And so that’s what we’ve done with the yellow line. This area just along where these crosshatched in white properties are, that’s a hill that runs -- the pipeline route approaches it and climbs the hill on a perpendicular angle and so there are no side slopes.
3479. We also found that the southern portion of the transmission line at kilometre post 13 plus 200 was the proper location before we bend to actually head further west and meet our control point, and that is because there are sheer rock walls through this area as a result of the development and so it was not possible to locate our pipeline to the north of these transmission line towers.
3480. So, in effect, we are routing our pipeline between the transmission line towers at kilometre post 13 plus 300 and the communication tower that’s located just south of the pipeline at the same chainage.
3481. And that concludes the overview of the pipeline route to the south.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Examination by Ms. M. Fowke --- (A short pause/Courte pause)
3482. MR. SEHEULT: Perhaps I could add just as a point of clarification that we are crossing a piece of property just west of Westmorland Road which is a property owned by the Clayton Estate.
3483. We have an option for an easement signed with the Clayton Estate and that is the property that has a right-of-way owned by Ms. Latour and Saint John Energy, as well as Aliant and Fern Hill Cemetery.
3484. MR. GRETENER: Thank you, Mr. Seheult.
3485. The witnesses are available for the Board’s questions, Mr. Chairman.
3486. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. M. FOWKE:
3487. MS. FOWKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3488. I just have questions on a couple of areas for you.
3489. So the Latour right-of-way that you’ve marked and you have just shown -- you have marked it as a Latour right-of-way and you just showed us. That is the laneway that you believe that Ms. Latour and Mr. Hannan are concerned about when they filed their letter of objection. Is that correct?
3490. MR. SEHEULT: That’s correct.
3491. MS. FOWKE: And would this laneway be unusable during construction?
3492. MR. SEHEULT: It’ll be temporarily interrupted during portions of the construction, but access will be maintained so that it’s accessible at the end of the working day.
3493. MS. FOWKE: Okay. Do you know whether that’s the only access to their barns and gardens?
3494. MR. SEHEULT: I believe that there is another access which comes off Westmorland Road and which is very difficult to see because it’s part of the properties that they own. So it’s been crosshatched in white but it’s in this area just west of Westmorland Road and south of our pipeline.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3495. And the barn that you referenced is in this area here in the largest of the Latour properties at the back.
3496. MS. FOWKE: And do you know where their gardens are that they’re referring to?
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
3497. MR. SEHEULT: We believe the gardens are in the backyard of the home that is here at Westmorland Road.
3498. MS. FOWKE: Okay. Do you know, are they talking about commercial gardens or personal gardens? Do you know that?
3499. MR. MacDONALD: My belief is that they are just personal gardens.
3500. MS. FOWKE: And do they have animals in their barns?
3501. MR. MacDONALD: I’m not 100 percent sure but I don’t think they do because they don’t live onsite. There’s tenants that live in those properties.
3502. MS. FOWKE: Okay. And just to confirm that Brunswick Pipeline will do whatever is necessary so that these people have access? If they need access to their barns during the day, you’ll ensure that they do have access to their property for whatever they need during construction and after?
3503. MR. MacDONALD: Yes, we’ll work with them. We have contacted our construction contractor to provide a schedule but, you know, like Mr. Seheult has said, there will be access established at the end of each working day.
3504. MS. FOWKE: My concern, I guess, is if they had animals in their barns, they might need access during the day. So if that was the case, you would make sure that they could either access it through another way or that you would ensure that they would somehow have access; right?
3505. MR. MacDONALD: That’s correct, yes.
3506. MS. FOWKE: Yeah, thanks.
3507. I’d just like to talk now a little bit about the swampy lands and drainage culvert that Mr. Latour and Ms. Hannan -- sorry -- Ms. Latour and Mr. Hannan referred to in their letter of objection. And you did note in your evidence -- you talked about the drainage and access and stated you would restore the lane.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. Examination by Ms. M. Fowke
3508. But just with respect to the drainage culvert and swampy lands, do you know where the swampy lands are that they were referring to?
3509. MR. SEHEULT: The drainage culvert that they’re referring to is in this area right here.
3510. MS. FOWKE: So just for the record ---
3511. MR. SEHEULT: Chainage 13 plus 100 approximately, and you can see the blue line that is basically the former outlet of that drainage. That water of course no longer exists at that location with the development here. So there is -- we do cross a relatively small culvert pipe at this location at 13 plus 100.
3512. MS. FOWKE: And they referred to swampy lands. Do you know where those would be?
3513. MR. SEHEULT: I think the swampy lands are in the area upstream of the drainage culvert in this location here. It appears from the contour lines that that is the low area and that is the area just south of our pipeline route around the Westmorland Road; kilometre 13 plus 00.
3514. MS. FOWKE: And what are the potential impacts to the drainage culvert of the construction of the pipeline?
3515. MR. SEHEULT: The likely impact is only temporary in that we would have to temporarily remove it and in all likelihood replace it with a new culvert piece of pipe while we install our pipeline underneath the culvert.
3516. MS. FOWKE: Do you know whether the swampy land that -- that’s not a wetland, a specified wetland. It’s just a swampy area as far as you know, Mr. Blair?
3517. MR. BLAIR: No, that is not a wetland. It’s just an area where some water has been backed up and is held.
3518. MS. FOWKE: So are there any environmental considerations that you take into account when you’re constructing, given the fact that there seems to be a drainage from a swampy land?
3519. MR. BLAIR: The pipeline construction won’t actually be in the wet area. So the only real environmental consideration would be to maintain drainage across the area during and after construction activities.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Final argument Mr. N. Gretener
3520. MS. FOWKE: Right, okay. And you would do that by maintaining the culverts; is that what you’re saying?
3521. MR. BLAIR: Correct.
3522. MS. FOWKE: Right. Thank you, gentlemen. Those are all my questions.
3523. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3524. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gretener …?
--- FINAL ARGUMENT BY/ARGUMENTATION PAR MR. N. GRETENER:
3525. MR. GRETENER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief. I have no re-direct.
3526. Ms. Latour and Mr. Hannan did not propose an alternate route in this area and they have raised concerns with respect to methods of construction and specifically, in their letter of objection, they’re concerned with existing infrastructure in the area such as water mains and power transmission lines.
3527. Brunswick Pipeline has testified that it works with the city and with New Brunswick Power with respect to such infrastructure and, indeed, Brunswick has testified that it has reached an agreement with both the city and with New Brunswick Power on the proposed crossing methods and timing in this area.
3528. Ms. Latour and Mr. Hannan also raised concerns with respect to the impact of the construction on their right-of-way and, in that regard, Brunswick Pipeline has committed to restoring the right-of-way that is subject to -- restoring the lane that’s subject to their right-of-way to the satisfaction of the property owner.
3529. So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the issues raised by Ms. Latour and Mr. Hannan do not raise a doubt as to the appropriateness of the pipeline’s proposed route in this area. The issues go to methods of construction which are properly addressed by the evidence and the commitments of Brunswick Pipeline which are on the record.
3530. As such, we would respectfully request the Board’s approval of the applied-for route, along with the associated PPBoR sheets at the Board’s earliest convenience. And, again, we’d request a decision without reasons that that will
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Opening remarks Chairman expedite the matter.
3531. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3532. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Gretener.
3533. Those are all the matters that we will address this morning.
3534. Again, thank you to the panel for your attendance. You are released and we will resume this hearing this evening at 6:00 p.m.
--- (The witnesses are excused/Les témoins sont libérés)
--- Upon recessing at 9:23 a.m./L’audience est suspendue à 9h23 --- Upon resuming at 6:32 p.m./L’audience est reprise à 18h02
--- STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION BY BY GALBRAITH CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND GALBRAITH EQUIPMENT LTD.: (Continued/Suite) ---
W. NASON: Resumed W. THOMPSON: Resumed S. WILKES: Resumed R. MAYER: Resumed P. SEHEULT, Resumed C. BLAIR: Resumed B. MacDONALD: Resumed R.L. GALBRAITH: Resumed A. RAMSAY: Resumed R. RIDGWAY: Resumed J. MURPHY: Resumed
3535. THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are here this evening to hear the oral statements and allow questioning of the intervenors in the objection from Galbraith Construction Ltd.
3536. There is one exception to this. Mr. Poley has informed Board counsel that he is ill and will not be able to attend tonight. We will, therefore, hear from him tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m.
3537. We will call each of the intervenors individually to take the stand. Your lawyer or Board counsel will ask you questions in order to have your evidence adopted on the record. You will be allowed to make an opening statement and then
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Ms. L. Gallivan other parties will be allowed to ask you questions.
3538. Will be having written argument for this objection.
3539. Brunswick Pipeline will be required to file its written argument and serve a copy on all parties to the Galbraith construction objection by noon, New Brunswick time, Tuesday, 5 February 2008.
3540. Galbraith will then have until noon Friday, 8 February 2008. Galbraith will then have until noon -- pardon me -- will have until Tuesday, 12 February, to file their submissions.
3541. And, finally, Brunswick Pipeline with file its reply, if any, by Thursday, 14 February.
3542. If any of the intervenors would prefer to make their final submissions orally tonight instead of in writing, we will provide you with that opportunity. We wish you to note that if you do so, you will not be allowed to file written argument. You will, therefore, be proceeding tonight without hearing the argument of Brunswick Pipeline or Galbraith Construction.
3543. I would remind all witness that have been formally sworn, that you are still under oath.
3544. If you have any questions, as always, please ask Board counsel, Ms. Fowke.
3545. We will commence with New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Ltd. and Saint John and Maine Railway Co.
3546. Ms. Gallivan, please.
---EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. L. GALLIVAN
3547. MS. GALLIVAN: Mr. Murphy, can I get you to state your full name for the record, please?
3548. MR. MURPHY: John Anthony Murphy.
3549. MS. GALLIVAN: And was the evidence, which can be found at Exhibit D-4-3 and D-4-6, prepared under the direction of NB Southern Railway Company and Saint John and Maine Railway?
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Ms. L. Gallivan 3550. MR. MURPHY: Yes, it was.
3551. MS. GALLIVAN: Do you have any correction to this evidence?
3552. MR. MURPHY: No, it was prepared by someone other than myself, but it was prepared on behalf of the Railway.
3553. MS. GALLIVAN: Okay. And is the evidence, therefore, correct, to the best of your knowledge?
3554. MR. MURPHY: Yes, it is.
3555. MS. GALLIVAN: Do you adopt that evidence as your evidence in this proceeding today?
3556. MR. MURPHY: Yes, I do.
3557. MS. GALLIVAN: Do you have an opening statement?
3558. MR. MURPHY: No, I do not.
3559. MS. GALLIVAN: Mr. Chair, the witness is now available for questions.
3560. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3561. Mr. Gretener …?
3562. MR. GRETENER: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3563. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horgan …?
3564. MR. HORGAN: Yes, Mr. Chair.
3565. Yesterday, Mr. Chair, it was unavoidable but I do apologize for that.
3566. Perhaps, first before I ask any question of Mr. Murphy, I believe there was an undertaking that was given yesterday by Mr. Ridgway; U-2. I would just like to give that -- the answer for the Board.
3567. I believe the undertaking was for Mr. Ridgway to provide numbers of metres referred to in the survey results for the aggregate loss, and what he has provided is that it was on the 30-metre wide easement, and it did not include any
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan safety or buffer zone.
3568. MS. FOWKE: Thank you, Mr. Horgan.
---EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MR. S. HORGAN :
3569. MR. HORGAN: Mr. Murphy, can you tell me if at any time Brunswick Pipeline approached NB Southern or Saint John and Maine Railway for their consent to allow a pipeline on the subject property, which is, I believe, the NB Southern property, PID number 415687?
3570. MR. MURPHY: I was not involved directly in the conversations but I understand that there was a request to accommodate.
3571. MR. HORGAN: And do you know when that request was put forward?
3572. MR. MURPHY: I do not know the exact date, sir, no.
3573. MR. HORGAN: Is this something that you could undertake to provide to give that information?
3574. MR. MURPHY: Yes, I could.
3575. MR. HORGAN: And do you know whether this was a verbal request or a formal one -- a written one, sorry?
3576. MR. MURPHY: I don’t know the answer to that, sir.
3577. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And could you undertake to provide that information as to whether -- if there was a written one, the date and form of it, and if there were any verbal requests either before or after that?
3578. THE CHAIRMAN: Counsel, would you please identify each of these undertakings, please, for the record?
3579. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: Excuse me. That will be Undertaking U-3.
3580. THE CHAIRMAN: There are two. So is this 3 and 4?
3581. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: Okay. Yes. I’m sorry. Undertaking U-3 and Undertaking U-4.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan 3582. Thank you.
--- UNDERTAKING NO./ENGAGEMENT No. U-3:
For Mr. Murphy to find out if the request by Brunswick Pipeline to New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Ltd. or Saint John and Maine Railway for their consent to allow a pipeline on New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Ltd. property was a written or verbal request and the date of the request
--- UNDERTAKING NO./ENGAGEMENT No. U-4:
For Mr. Murphy to find out if there was a written request by Brunswick Pipeline for consent from New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Ltd. or Saint John and Maine Railway to allow a pipeline on property PID number 415687, the date and form of any such written request, and whether there were any verbal requests of the same nature either before or after the written request
3583. MR. HORGAN: And just ask for Exhibit B-14C to be put up, please.
3584. Mr. Murphy, are you aware of plans for a culvert to be put up on -- or to be installed on a portion of the corridor that is shown on the -- the corridor is the red- lined diagram or marking on the map?
3585. I believe it’s on the Saint John and Maine property, that there are some plans with the City of Saint John to install a culvert under the railway, in around the mile, I believe it’s 25 plus 200 location.
3586. MR. MURPHY: Could you point it out to me, please?
3587. MR. HORGAN: I’m sorry. I don’t have the -- sort of in -- right around that area.
3588. MR. MURPHY: There’s an existing culvert that has been a railway culvert for some years that needs to be replaced. So, yes, there is a plan. There’s no agreement as of yet to do it; there’s no agreement with the City. We’ve said we’ll look at repairing.
3589. MR. HORGAN: And do you know that work was expected to be done?
3590. MR. MURPHY: There’s no -- there’s no agreement on the date as to when that will be done, as of this point in time.
3591. MR. HORGAN: But that -- it will be done; is that correct?
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan
3592. MR. MURPHY: We have not entered into an agreement with the City of Saint John to complete as of yet.
3593. MR. HORGAN: Okay. There was some recent news coverage with respect to that, but that coverage indicated that the work was to be done. That’s something that is incorrect?
3594. MR. MURPHY: We have not entered into an agreement with the City of Saint John as of this point to undertake that work, sir.
3595. MR. HORGAN: But there are plans in effect -- in the works to put that culvert in?
3596. MR. MURPHY: We’ve certainly had discussions with the city about that culvert, correct.
3597. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And do you know in general terms how that culvert would be installed, what the general plan of installation is?
3598. MR. MURPHY: I don’t know the technical details, sir, no.
3599. MR. HORGAN: Okay. Could you perhaps -- could you undertake to provide those details?
3600. MR. MURPHY: I’m not sure those details exist. I know there’s been some engineering review of the possible ways of doing it, but there’s been no final decision as of this point- in-time.
3601. MR. HORGAN: Well, just whatever the engineer plans are -- or the options to date that exist from an engineering perspective as to the installation methods for that -- the possible installation methods for that culvert?
3602. MR. MURPHY: I’m aware of two, sir. One would be a cut where you expose the pipe and replace it, and the second would be a bore where you bore through and replace the pipe.
3603. MR. HORGAN: Okay. So those are the two identified methods to date?
3604. MR. MURPHY: I’m not an engineer and those are the two I’m aware of, sir.
3605. MR. HORGAN: Okay. Thank you.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan
3606. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horgan, for clarity, is there an undertaking that you are placing on the record?
3607. MR. HORGAN: Well, I believe in general Mr. Murphy did provide the response that it was to be either a bore or a cut and I believe that is satisfactory, if that is the extent of the information available.
3608. If there is more detailed or specific information available, I think we would like to have that, but if there isn’t, then maybe the undertaking could be phrased that way that if there is additional information available that Mr. Murphy would arrange for that to be provided, but if not his answer would be sufficient.
3609. THE CHAIRMAN: The record will show as a fifth undertaking.
3610. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: That will be Undertaking U-5.
---UNDERTAKING NO./ENGAGEMENT No. U-5:
For Mr. Murphy to provide the general plan of installation for the culvert, including any detailed or specific information, if available
3611. MR. HORGAN: And, as well, in terms of another exhibit, if it would be possible to put up C-2-8A, which is Mr. Ramsay’s report, and I believe at page 35.
3612. That exhibit, Mr. Murphy, is a particular photograph that is up there. It’s photograph number 7 and it’s a photo of the rail storage yard on the NB Southern property.
3613. Are you familiar with the property?
3614. MR. MURPHY: Generally, I’m familiar with the property, yes.
3615. MR. HORGAN: And what is that equipment that is shown there? Can you identify those -- what that is, off to the left of the photograph?
3616. MR. MURPHY: I believe they’re either centre beam boxes for rail freight or chassis containers. I’m not sure which.
3617. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And those -- that type of equipment can be moved. Is that correct?
3618. MR. MURPHY: Yes, it can.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan
3619. MR. HORGAN: Okay. They’re not permanent structures?
3620. MR. MURPHY: No, sir, they are not.
3621. MR. HORGAN: And do you know if NB Southern has an excavation permit for the NB Southern property which is adjacent to the Galbraith property?
3622. MR. MURPHY: No, I do not know, sir.
3623. MR. HORGAN: Could you undertake to find that out?
3624. MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir.
3625. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: That will be undertaking U-6.
--- UNDERTAKING NO./ENGAGEMENT No. U-6:
For Mr. Murphy to determine if there is an excavation permit for the NB Southern property adjacent to the Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. property
3626. MR. HORGAN: On the NB Southern property, Mr. Murphy, are there -- and I guess when I say NB Southern property for the purposes of these questions, I’m referring to that property which is adjacent to the Galbraith Equipment Co. Ltd. property and which is identified as PID Number 415687.
3627. Are there any occupied buildings or offices on that property?
3628. MR. MURPHY: Not to my knowledge, sir, no.
3629. MR. HORGAN: And are there any buildings or offices at all on that property?
3630. MR. MURPHY: Not to my knowledge, no.
3631. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And do you have the evidence -- the filed evidence of NB Southern Railway and Saint John and Maine Railway Co. with you?
3632. MR. MURPHY: I have my copy, yes.
3633. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And is that -- that evidence is essentially the same for each of the companies with the appropriate name change. Is that correct?
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan 3634. MR. MURPHY: I don’t understand the question, sir.
3635. MR. HORGAN: Well, isn’t it -- essentially the evidence is identical in each of your -- in each of the filed -- each of the two-page evidence that is filed for each of the separate companies. It’s pretty much exactly the same except where NB Southern is replaced for Saint John and Maine where appropriate?
3636. MR. MURPHY: I mean, it’s just both companies are affiliated companies; so my understanding is it’s the same information.
3637. MR. HORGAN: Yeah, so it’s essentially the same evidence for both companies. Is that correct?
3638. MR. MURPHY: That’s my understanding, sir, yes.
3639. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And there’s a -- in the first part of the evidence for each company there’s a section titled “Background” and in each there’s a paragraph number 4 and that paragraph states that:
“All other land issues of New Brunswick Southern Railway Company Limited and its affiliated and related companies were resolved previously on the understanding that these lands impacted by the proposed alternative route would not be impacted.”
3640. Can you state what that sentence means?
3641. MR. MURPHY: I wasn’t directly involved in the conversations but my understanding, and I satisfied myself with the conversation, there were approximately 40 properties of J.D. Irving that were involved in the corridor and in rights-of-way, et cetera, and that all these were dealt with by a group at the same time and they were all completed as a package, and it was our understanding that that was the extent of our involvement in the pipeline routing.
3642. MR. HORGAN: I’m not sure what you mean when you say they were all done as a package. What exactly does that entail?
3643. MR. MURPHY: One group worked on all these issues with Brunswick. So we had 40 different properties that were impacted and there was one group that actually went through and dealt with all the issues on those properties.
3644. MR. HORGAN: But that statement says that all other land issues were resolved on the understanding that the lands of NB Southern -- that the PID number that was previously referred to -- that that land would not be impacted. I’m not sure I
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan follow how that would work.
3645. MR. MURPHY: Clearly this land was already impacted, sir. Based on the routing at the bottom part of the property, it was already impacted.
3646. Our understanding was that there were 40 properties and the specifics of those properties and the corridor were already part of what was requested as the approved routing and we dealt with all of those and that they were -- basically that was the end of discussion with the J.D. Irving group on their properties.
3647. MR. HORGAN: So what you’re saying is that because the corridor -- to the extent that the corridor doesn’t cross the NB Southern property, then that was the understanding that the corridor would not be expanded any further?
3648. MR. MURPHY: I can’t comment on that, sir. All I can comment on is the conversation I had with the individual who was leading our discussions on these easements.
3649. MR. HORGAN: And to what -- what efforts did you undertake or make to familiarize yourself with the evidence that is contained in the filed evidence of NB Southern and Saint John and Maine?
3650. MR. MURPHY: I reviewed it with the individual who prepared it and had a discussion with him, although he’s overseas at the moment.
3651. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And do you know when these discussions took place between the various companies and Brunswick Pipeline?
3652. MR. MURPHY: I don’t know the exact duration from all the discussions. I understand they were concluded before Christmas.
3653. MR. HORGAN: So that would be before December of 2007?
3654. MR. MURPHY: Before Christmas of 2007, yes.
3655. MR. HORGAN: But you don’t know when they started?
3656. MR. MURPHY: I do not know the exact dates. No, sir, I do not.
3657. MR. HORGAN: Okay. Could you undertake to find that date and to provide it to us?
3658. MR. MURPHY: Yes, I could.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan
3659. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: That will be Undertaking U-7.
--- UNDERTAKING NO./ENGAGEMENT No. U-7:
For Mr. Murphy to provide the exact date of discussions between JD Irving and Brunswick Pipeline regarding approximately 40 properties involved in the corridor and right-of-ways
3660. MR. HORGAN: And perhaps you can answer this one, Mr. Murphy, but are you -- or are you now or were you aware that under the National Energy Board Act there is a provision for affected landowners to apply for a variance to the corridor?
3661. MR. MURPHY: Based on my presence here over the last couple of days I am aware at this point, yes.
3662. MR. HORGAN: Okay. So in terms of any understanding that you might have had that this land was not impacted or wouldn’t be impacted any further, then there was always the prospect that it could be if an affected landowner made an application to vary the corridor.
3663. MR. MURPHY: The understanding of the rules of the Act, or the rules of the Act, sir, as I understand them.
3664. MR. HORGAN: Okay. Well, that wasn’t my question; so I’ll ask it again.
3665. So given that you were aware -- or it just doesn’t appear as if you were directly involved in a lot of this, Mr. Murphy. So I am just wondering if there might have been a better person available to ask these questions to.
3666. But if I can put it to you this way and if you object to it, well you can, but is it not reasonable to assume then that NB Southern Railway and Saint John and Maine Railway -- and I’m not sure when you say it’s affiliated and related companies -- I guess you would have said previously there was about 30 or 40 companies that were included in that group?
3667. MR. MURPHY: There are approximately 40 pieces of land.
3668. MR. HORGAN: Oh, sorry. And how many companies would that be, just roughly?
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan 3669. MR. MURPHY: I don’t know the answer to that, sir.
3670. MR. HORGAN: Okay. But in any event, all of those properties -- all those properties, in general, the people working on that file on behalf of -- I refer to it loosely as the Irving group -- they would have been aware of the fact that there is the possibility of variances being applied for?
3671. MR. MURPHY: I’ll answer your first point you raised. The gentleman who led this activity on our behalf is in China on business; so unfortunately he can’t be with us this week. And I’m not aware of what his level of knowledge was. He is a lawyer; so I’m assuming he is competent in the rules and regulations of the Board.
3672. MR. HORGAN: Okay. Well, it’s -- perhaps we could get an undertaking to determine whether he was -- that person was aware that variances could be applied. I don’t mean to weigh this matter down with undertakings but it’s just -- it seems that unfortunately that person is not available or someone else isn’t available that really has that knowledge that it’s necessary to get the information in this fashion.
3673. So could you undertake to provide that answer to that undertaking?
3674. MR. MURPHY: Could you repeat the request, please?
3675. MR. HORGAN: Whether the person who you refer to as being in charge of that file was aware that there was -- that other landowners could apply for variances to the court order?
3676. MR. MURPHY: I will.
3677. MR. HORGAN: Thank you.
3678. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: That will be Undertaking U-8.
--- UNDERTAKING NO./ENGAGEMENT No. U-8:
For Mr. Murphy to indicate whether the person referred to as being in charge of the file was aware that other landowners could apply for variances to the court order
3679. MR. HORGAN: Now, you also state in -- sorry, not necessarily you, but it’s in the evidence of the railway companies that -- in paragraph 1 of your -- in the background it states that:
“The location of the pipeline...”
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan
3680. And this is in reference to the NB Southern property -- that:
“The location of the pipeline unreasonably interferes with a substantial commercial and residential development.”
3681. Would that be because if the pipeline was located on the NB Southern property, the pipeline easement and any required buffer or safety zone would reduce the number of lots that would be available or the property that would be available for development?
3682. MR. MURPHY: It’s currently partially being used as a rail yard and it has -- and is, as you are aware, I’m sure -- it’s zoned residential and, obviously, any encroachment on that would reduce the development potential of the land.
3683. MR. HORGAN: Is that because of the width of the -- the pipeline width and any buffer zone would eat up other property that would be used for residential or commercial property?
3684. MR. MURPHY: Could you repeat the question, please?
3685. MR. HORGAN: You state that -- it is stated in number 1 that:
“The location of the pipeline unreasonable interferes with a substantial commercial and residential development.”
3686. And my question was, is that statement made because with the pipeline going through the property it will reduce the property that would otherwise be available for commercial or residential development?
3687. MR. MURPHY: There are certainly restrictions on the property and buffer zones, et cetera. So, yes, that would impact it.
3688. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And would that reasoning not apply to almost any other residential or commercial development whether it was on NB Southern property or any other property?
3689. MR. MURPHY: Could you repeat the question, please?
3690. MR. HORGAN: So if on your particular property the existence of the pipeline would reduce the amount of land available for commercial or residential development, that same principle or logic would also apply to another landowner’s property if they had plans for residential development?
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan
3691. MR. MURPHY: Depending on the layout of the property and whether it was using a usable place that could actually be developed for that. I wouldn’t argue with that comment.
3692. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And there is a statement towards the -- it’s on page 2 of the evidence towards the end that loss of residential land use is a compensatory item that is more appropriately dealt with outside the scope of a detailed route hearing.
3693. Do you see that statement?
3694. MR. MURPHY: I do see it, sir. Yes.
3695. MR. HORGAN: Yes. And wouldn’t that same statement or principle also apply to the property of NB Southern Railway if it was in the corridor?
3696. MR. MURPHY: My understanding is that where items can be dealt with on the basis of compensation that that is subject to a -- subject to compensation as opposed to a variance in the corridor.
3697. MR. HORGAN: That would apply to NB Southern property as well, right?
3698. MR. MURPHY: NB Southern property in this case is not in the corridor, sir.
3699. MR. HORGAN: No, I said if it was in the corridor.
3700. MR. MURPHY: If it was in the corridor ---
3701. MR. HORGAN: Yeah.
3702. MR. MURPHY: --- which it isn’t, sir.
3703. MR. HORGAN: No, but if it was that principle would apply to is as well, right?
3704. MR. MURPHY: My understanding is that loss of residential use is a compensatory item.
3705. MR. HORGAN: Okay. And Mr. Murphy, would you agree with this statement that for a construction company to have its own supply of aggregate close
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan to the location of job sites that would be an economic advantage in the tendering process; is that correct?
3706. MR. MURPHY: You’re asking me to speculate whether that’s an advantage versus -- versus what, sir?
3707. MR. HORGAN: Well, not versus. It says in your résumé that -- or in your present position and qualifications, that you have worked in various businesses for the last 20 years in the engineering and construction, shipbuilding and transportation industries.
3708. And my question was, is not having your own supply of aggregate over which you would have control and if that supply of aggregate is in close physical proximity to the location where you’re bidding on jobs or tendering on jobs, that would be an advantage for that business, would it not?
3709. MR. MURPHY: It depends on who your competition is, sir. But I’ve never been in the civil construction business; I’ve been in the mechanical/heavy mechanical business. So I can’t speak specifically to aggregate, but in the law of supply and demand, things that are closer to the market tend to be cost-efficient.
3710. MR. HORGAN: And things that you have control over also -- it’s not subject to pricing changes out of your control; is that correct?
3711. MR. MURPHY: Assuming you’re a lot-cost producer, sir.
3712. MR. HORGAN: Pardon?
3713. MR. MURPHY: Assuming you’re a lost-cost producer, which is not always the case.
3714. MR. HORGAN: Okay ---
3715. MR. MURPHY: Often times we buy things from others that are cheaper than us doing it ourselves.
3716. MR. HORGAN: Let’s assume that we are, that someone is; that would be an advantage then, wouldn’t it?
3717. MR. MURPHY: If you’re cheaper than the alternative ---
3718. MR. HORGAN: Yes.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Mr. S. Horgan 3719. MR. MURPHY: --- then typically that’s a cost-advantage.
3720. MR. HORGAN: Okay.
3721. If I could just have a brief moment with my client, Mr. Chairma n?
3722. THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
3723. MR. HORGAN: Just one other question or possibly a few other questions, Mr. Murphy.
3724. But are you aware of any companies with the Irving Group that would be competitors of Galbraith Construction or Galbraith Equipment?
3725. MR. MURPHY: We have an aggregate company called Gulf Operators.
3726. MR. HORGAN: That would be a competitor?
3727. MR. MURPHY: I don’t run that business, sir, so -- but they’re in the similar sort of industry so I would assume they do compete on jobs.
3728. MR. HORGAN: Okay.
3729. Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.
3730. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3731. I see that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Wilkes are here. Do either gentlemen intend to ask questions of this witness?
3732. MR. WILKES: No.
3733. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other named individuals in the list of intervenors who would like to ask questions?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
3734. THE CHAIRMAN: Any redirect?
3735. Oh, pardon me.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Ms. M. Fowke
3736. MS. FOWKE: Yeah, just me. I just have a couple of questions, please, Mr. Chairman.
--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. M. FOWKE:
3737. MS. FOWKE: Mr. Murphy, if we could look at the Saint John and Maine -- it is Saint John and Maine, right? Yes.
3738. MR. MURPHY: Correct.
3739. MS. FOWKE: It’s been both names on the record at different places.
3740. Lands first; so that the lands that are to the north of the proposed right-of- way by -- the route proposed by Emera. In your objection and in your evidence you stated that the location of the pipeline unreasonably interferes with a substantial commercial and residential development.
3741. Can you describe for me the work that you’ve done to develop this property to date?
3742. MR. MURPHY: It’s currently being used as a rail yard; so it’s where we turn our trains. We use it for storage and lay-down of project cargos and developments. We have not commenced a residential development phase at this point.
3743. MS. FOWKE: And do you have any idea what the possible timelines would be for such a development?
3744. MR. MURPHY: Not as a sit here today, ma’am, no.
3745. MS. FOWKE: I’m sorry?
3746. MR. MURPHY: Not as I sit here today, no.
3747. MS. FOWKE: Thank you. And the same question with respect to the New Brunswick and Southern lands to the west of the proposed route; Brunswick’s – well, Brunswick’s proposed route and the -- where the northwest alternate would go, have you -- could you describe the work that you’ve done to develop the property there?
3748. MR. MURPHY: Can I clarify please? Which was the first property you’re referring to because that’s the one I was just referring to?
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Ms. M. Fowke
3749. MS. FOWKE: Sorry, the first property I was referring to was the property to the north of the easement which I believe is Saint John and Rail Company. Where the hand is; am I correct, that was the Saint John and Rail Company was my first question.
3750. MR. MURPHY: Okay, that particular property is the rail line and the rail bed and it’s not particularly suitable for development.
3751. MS. FOWKE: Okay, so when I asked my question the first time you answered it for the New Brunswick and Southern, is that correct?
3752. MR. MURPHY: That’s correct.
3753. MS. FOWKE: And that’s where you have the -- sorry, you have the rail yard and you use it for trains.
3754. Okay. In your evidence for Saint John and Maine, which is to the north of the proposed route, you indicated that you have -- that the location of the pipeline would interfere with commercial and residential development; is that correct?
3755. MR. MURPHY: Sorry, I’m confused on the properties here again.
3756. MS. FOWKE: Okay, just a moment please.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
3757. MS. FOWKE: Okay. Mr. Murphy, this property where the railway is, is Saint John and Maine; is that correct?
3758. MR. MURPHY: It’s my understanding, correct.
3759. MS. FOWKE: And that’s to the north of the proposed route -- Brunswick Pipeline’s proposed route; correct?
3760. MR. MURPHY: That’s on Brunswick Pipeline’s route I thought.
3761. MS. FOWKE: Okay, right. Sorry. The pipeline is ---
3762. MR. MURPHY: In yellow.
3763. MS. FOWKE: --- in yellow, yes. And in your objection to the alternate route that -- sorry if I’ve got the wrong piece of property. In your objection that you
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Ms. M. Fowke filed in Exhibit D-6-1, you are objecting to the route in relation to property 5807; the last four digits being 5807; if we could go back to the map please.
3764. That is this property, is it not, sir, the one that’s the northern -- along the north part of the corridor, just south of Bay Street?
3765. MR. MURPHY: Sorry, the number was five? Sorry, 85807?
3766. MS. FOWKE: Your objection says it is with respect to 5508-5807.
3767. MR. MURPHY: That is that property, correct.
3768. MS. FOWKE: And so your objection, as I understand it, is this portion that is just the extension that Galbraith has suggested that the pipeline continue in a -- I guess if north is on an angle on this map that Galbraith has suggested that the pipeline continue in a westernly fashion before jogging down a little bit more, instead of jogging a little bit farther east, according to Brunswick.
3769. Is that correct?
3770. MR. MURPHY: That’s correct.
3771. MS. FOWKE: Okay. And in your intervention and in your evidence you stated:
“The location of the pipeline unreasonably interferes with a substantial commercial and residential development.”
3772. What were you referring to when you said “a substantial commercial and residential development” with respect to this land?
3773. MR. MURPHY: Basically the land is currently used, as I said, for our rail operations. It has -- we use it for project lay-down; we use it for transfers at times, and other railway-type businesses. It is zoned residential and it is surrounded and growing by neighbourhoods surrounded by residential bases and will be, in due time, very attractive for residential development.
3774. MS. FOWKE: And when would that be, that it would be attractive for residential development.
3775. MR. MURPHY: You’d asked me that question earlier, ma’am, and I don’t have an exact date on that.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3776. MS. FOWKE: But it’s currently being used for an active railway; is that correct?
3777. MR. MURPHY: That’s correct.
3778. MS. FOWKE: So it’s not any time in the very near future?
3779. MR. MURPHY: Well, we could, I mean, we don’t have a plan today, ma’am, to develop it. That’s correct.
3780. MS. FOWKE: Okay. And you have no plan today with respect to the lands to the west that are owned by New Brunswick Southern. That’s correct?
3781. MR. MURPHY: That’s correct.
3782. MS. FOWKE: Thank you.
3783. The route, as was put on this map, you’ve been in the room I think most of the hearing, Mr. Murphy, and the route that was placed on this map, it was agreed by both Brunswick Pipeline and by the Galbraiths, would need to be moved a little bit to the west and I’m talking about the north/south portion of the pipeline that runs right now on the left-hand property of the Galbraiths and they’ve suggested -- they placed a route on their alternative when they proposed it.
3784. But during discussions in the hearing, it’s been agreed by both of them that it would have to be moved a little bit to the west if that route was to be followed because of the slope considerations.
3785. Would there be any additional impact on New Brunswick Southern if the pipeline were to be moved additionally farther to the west?
3786. MR. MURPHY: Same issue, just a bigger impact.
3787. MS. FOWKE: Right. Thank you.
3788. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, those are all my questions.
3789. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3790. Ms. Gallivan, do you have any re-direct?
3791. MS. GALLIVAN: No re-direct, sir.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. John Murphy Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3792. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3793. Just in the interests of time and because we do have a few additional faces, I am going to read through the list of intervenors to ask if any of these individuals are in the room.
3794. Mr. and Mrs. Garfield …?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
3795. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mydean …?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
3796. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nason or Ms. Richard …?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
3797. THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. O’Hara …?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
3798. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Thompson, I see you.
3799. Mr. or Ms. Watson …?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
3800. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilkes, I see you. And Mr. Poley is away ill.
3801. My understanding is that neither Mr. Nason, Mr. Thompson, or Mr. Wilkes have evidence that will be sworn. Am I correct?
3802. Please raise your hand if that is not the case.
3803. MR. THOMPSON: (Off mic).
3804. THE CHAIRMAN: Then your closing argument is what I’m moving toward.
3805. MS. FOWKE: Mr. Chairman, each of those people will be allowed to take the stand and make an opening statement and if anyone has questions for them,
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Wallace Nason Opening Statement we will be able to ask questions?
3806. So maybe we could just start with -- start and go down the list and ask them to come and take the stand.
3807. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murphy, thank you.
--- (The witness is excused/Le témoin est libéré)
3808. THE CHAIRMAN: We will invite then Mr. Nason to come forward.
3809. MR. NASON: As I understand it, this is the closing argument section now is it?
3810. MS. FOWKE: No, Mr. Nason. If you wouldn’t mind sitting over where the witnesses sit. This is an opportunity for anybody -- for you to make an opening statement if you’d like and for anybody to ask questions of you if they have any questions.
3811. Mr. Nason, I’ll just ask a few questions to get your evidence on the record. Just for the record, could you state your name?
3812. MR. NASON: Wallace Nason.
3813. MS. FOWKE: And you filed a Letter of Intervention in this hearing and that can be found at Exhibit D-3-1. Was that prepared by you?
3814. MR. NASON: Yes.
3815. MS. FOWKE: And is it true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
3816. MR. NASON: Yes.
3817. MS. FOWKE: And do you adopt that as your evidence in this hearing?
3818. MR. NASON: Yes.
3819. MS. FOWKE: And do you have an opening statement that you’d like to make, Mr. Nason?
--- OPENING STATEMENT/ DISCOURS D’OUVERTURE BY MR. W. NASON:
3820. MR. NASON: My concern is as a nearby landowner, and my initial
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Wallace Nason Opening Statement concern was not with the approved corridor; I was quite comfortable where that was. I did not attend the hearings on that matter because of that.
3821. In a flurry of activity from Brunswick Pipeline around -- on or about the 27th of December, we were all served a whole stack of papers as you’re all aware because it was required and there was very little, if any, information in it which aroused our concerns. And when I say ours, it is the residents of Bay Street as well as myself.
3822. After a few days and a few phone calls, we got to actually look at what the proposed northwest alternative route by the Galbraith Company was. My objection to this whole route is that it introduces a bunch of landowners who are, you know, just working people who have their home sites there. It’s totally unnecessary.
3823. If I were able to make this statement, I would be quite happy for the pipeline to cross the railway where the Emera people want it to go; go right up the yellow line in a westerly direction and continue over to the Southern New Brunswick property if they want to.
3824. But I did take the opportunity last night to go for a walk on these railway tracks right behind the several Bay Street properties and it seems to me to be quite a bit more apparent after listening to some of the arguments here Monday. I wasn’t able to come yesterday, I’m sorry, so I didn’t hear them.
3825. This ravine that forms the western side of the Galbraith property along the line of the Southern New Brunswick Railway property is a very pronounced ravine, very deep, very long.
3826. In fact, right now there’s water laying in it rather than it being frozen. There’s a culvert apparently under the tracks which transects myself and Mr. Wilkes’ underground which I wasn’t aware of.
3827. Now, I’m concerned that any change in the topography of that gulley will perhaps cause some back-up water flowage and turn that good drainage that’s there now into a black swamp.
3828. This goes down -- I’m going to say -- 40 feet directly from the railroad bed and it’s just at the very edge of that, that Mr. Galbraith has proposed the railway crossing be, under the northwest alternative. It’s just not acceptable to me.
3829. Further, the southeast route, alternate route, I found the objections of Brunswick Pipeline and Emera to that route quite astounding, and one of the
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Wallace Nason Examination by Ms. M. Fowke objections was the angle of crossing of the railroad at 69 degrees I believe it was.
3830. I see in all of these routes 90-degree turns. Why can’t that be tweaked 20 degrees so it crosses the railway at 90 degrees and that concern is gone? Obviously, we don’t want it down in that little brook or in that swamp around the brook and moving it to the west 50 or a 100 metres solves that entire problem. I don’t see any reason why that can’t be considered as the preferred route.
3831. And that’s my statement.
3832. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will now proceed to ask if any parties have questions at this point.
3833. Mr. Gretener …?
3834. MR. GRETENER: No, thank you.
3835. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horgan …?
3836. MR. HORGAN: No, sir.
3837. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other parties who are in the room who would like to ask any questions other than Board counsel?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
3838. THE CHAIRMAN: Board counsel.
3839. MS. FOWKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. M. FOWKE:
3840. MS. FOWKE: Mr. Horgan -- Mr. Nason, I’m sorry.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
3841. MS. FOWKE: If you could just push the button on that, you’d be able to use it as a pointer, Mr. Nason. And could you point out for clarification where the ravine is you were referring to?
3842. MR. NASON: It starts right there and runs approximately there.
3843. MS. FOWKE: So ---
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Wallace Nason Examination by Ms. M. Fowke
3844. MR. NASON: This ravine runs way back up in this way and widens as it approaches the south side of the tracks.
3845. MS. FOWKE: So, for the record, you were pointing to, starting just to the south of the Grahams’ property -- the Garfields’ property? Would that be correct?
3846. MR. NASON: I’m pointing right now at my property.
3847. MS. FOWKE: Right.
3848. And you said where did it start, sir?
3849. MR. NASON: Right about at my eastern boundary.
3850. MS. FOWKE: Okay.
3851. MR. NASON: And it goes, I would suggest, three-quarters of the way across Mr. Wilkes’ property, which is adjacent to mine.
3852. MS. FOWKE: Okay.
3853. MR. NASON: Sharply on both sides of the tracks.
3854. MS. FOWKE: Okay.
3855. MR. NASON: There’s a 40-foot dip there and probably 30-foot on Mr. Wilkes’ property.
3856. MS. FOWKE: Okay.
3857. MR. NASON: This is wide, a couple a hundred feet wide, and goes back way up here until it comes -- it gradually goes uphill and gets less of a gouge up through there, but it is obviously -- all that water drainage comes right down through there.
3858. And either of those northern routes, either the Emera route or the Galbraith proposed alternative route, are going to cause problems with that drainage field. And I believe that’s the portion of the property Mr. Poley spoke of Monday.
3859. MS. FOWKE: Okay. And could you give us specifics about -- do you have a well, sir?
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Wallace Nason Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3860. MR. NASON: Yes.
3861. MS. FOWKE: And could you give us specifics about where it is on your property, just by describing ---
3862. MR. NASON: It’s approximately 70 feet from the middle of the railroad track to the north.
3863. MS. FO WKE: And is it in the middle of your property or in the west or east side?
3864. MR. NASON: It’s a little more westerly ---
3865. MS. FOWKE: Okay.
3866. MR. NASON: --- than centre.
3867. MS. FOWKE: Okay. Thank you.
3868. And, Mr. Nason, in your Letter of Comment you stated that there may be some question as to the exact property boundary between your property and the Saint John and Maine property, and you’ve suggested that the railway tracks infringe on your property. And you said that the resolution of this alone could affect the Galbraith alternative route proposal.
3869. Could you give us some details about what that issue is?
3870. MR. NASON: I don’t have any direct proof that that’s so. I was supplied a map by the City of Saint John when an appraisal was done on my home in, I believe it was, August or September of ’06 and I was quite shocked.
3871. And this is the new land registry by the Province of New Brunswick which was instituted, I think, three to five years ago and shows that my western -- south- western corner actually goes up, right up, and abuts on the actual railroad track itself rather than back farther where I thought it was.
3872. I don’t know legally who takes precedence here. I haven’t had it surveyed, so I don’t know. I probably shouldn’t be speaking about that part of my letter right now because I don’t -- I don’t have any proof that it’s so.
3873. MS. FOWKE: Okay.
3874. MR. NASON: That’s what they’ve shown. They’ve shown the right-of-
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Wallace Nason Examination by Ms. M. Fowke way which is between myself and Mr. Poley, a very thin line right there. It’s not where the properties have historically been supposed to be divided. So how accurate it is, I don’t know, and what would take precedence, I don’t know.
3875. MS. FOWKE: Okay. And why did you think that it would affect the Galbraith proposal if it was ---
3876. MR. NASON: Well, if I own farther to the south than is generally accepted, then that would have to move the railway farther to the south, if they had so many feet.
3877. MS. FOWKE: Oh, I see.
3878. MR. NASON: Somebody’s got to give here. That’s all I’m saying.
3879. MS. FOWKE: Okay. All right.
3880. MR. NASON: But I do not have a sound legal opinion as to that.
3881. MS. FOWKE: Right.
3882. MR. NASON: It’s just something I saw on a map.
3883. MS. FOWKE: Okay. And how deep is your well?
3884. MR. NASON: I’m not sure; 80 or 90 feet, I would say.
3885. MS. FOWKE: Okay.
3886. MR. NASON: And it’s a very good one, I might add.
3887. MS. FOWKE: I’m glad to hear it. Thank you, Mr. Nason.
3888. Mr. Chairman, those are all my questions for Mr. Nason.
3889. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3890. Thank you, Mr. Nason.
3891. Is Ms. O’Hara in the room?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. William Thompson Opening statement
3892. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Thompson, please come forward.
3893. MS. FOWKE: Mr. Thompson, for the record, can you state your name, please?
3894. MR. THOMPSON: William Thompson.
3895. MS. FOWKE: And you filed evidence, an Application for Intervenor Status and comments on the Galbraith proposal which can be found at Exhibits D-10- 1 and D-10-2. Is that correct?
3896. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, it is.
3897. MS. FOWKE: And was that evidence prepared by you or under your control and direction?
3898. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, it was.
3899. MS. FOWKE: And do you have any corrections to that evidence?
3900. MR. THOMPSON: No, I don’t.
3901. MS. FOWKE: And is it true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
3902. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, it is.
3903. MS. FOWKE: And do you adopt that evidence as your evidence in this proceeding?
3904. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I do.
3905. MS. FOWKE: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson is available.
3906. Would you like to make an opening statement, Mr. Thompson?
--- OPENING STATEMENT BY/DISCOURS D’OUVERTURE PAR MR. W. THOMPSON:
3907. MR. THOMPSON: A very short one.
3908. Like all the residents of Bay Street, we’re here with a concern. Our area faces a large number of challenges. Mr. Nason brought some forward, Mr. Poley has,
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. William Thompson Opening statement and Galbraith Construction when they mention that there’s an overburden of about 20 or 25 feet of clay. Most of our homes are built on clay, which has resulted in water issues. As you know, clay is a great carrier of water and not a great place to have water go through.
3909. In our area, we are all on wells, without sceptic. Sceptic systems that are built in our area or replaced or upgraded are now above-ground, which requires residents to build mounds in their yard of anywhere from three to five feet high so that the drainage will work properly.
3910. Our wells are anywhere from I know as low as 60 feet up to 175 feet. The water is good, but there is a concern. We have got the bay on one side and clay, and a concern brought on by industrial use in the area which was there. So there’s no getting around it.
3911. A large landfill further up the road. There’s test wells in our area to ensure that there’s no, let’s say, contamination from the landfill.
3912. So the introduction of another watercourse alteration is of major concern, particularly to myself. My house has flooded probably 15 times in the last 25 years from surface water, and that is when -- particular in the winter when we have a freeze and then a rain. A lot of water runs that way, runs in and penetrates the foundation of the house.
3913. I’ve done a lot of, let’s say, work by ditching on the property and I am concerned that introduction of a pipeline any closer -- or close to my property will result in additional water which will result in additional problems.
3914. The challenges, as I say, are numerous. The introduction of another one is an issue and I have a concern about it.
3915. As mentioned by Mr. Nason and Mr. Poley the other day, there are large gullies that run the water towards our property, and if the pipeline -- I have no problem with respect -- I’ll be honest -- with respect to safety from the pipeline.
3916. I’m confident that the way it’s being constructed, it’s not posing a safety issue. There’s always the safety issue if a train derails, of course, and lands on the pipeline; that can, you know, cause a problem.
3917. But I do have a problem with the northwest route of Galbraith’s because it moves the pipeline closer to the rail line, which removes the option of ditching and trenching to move water away from coming into our properties.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. William Thompson Opening statement 3918. As mentioned by Mr. Nason, there is a major ditch -- or not a ditch, a culvert running between his property and his neighbour’s. There’s also one running between Mr. Garfield’s and Mr. Poley’s, which is directly across from my driveway, which results, if there’s sufficient water, sometimes that water choosing to come into my property.
3919. And also I have a concern with respect to the pipe running up on the north side of the rail line or -- yes, on the north side of the rail line but I am comfortable that Emera will ensure that there is proper ditching of that, that any water created by installation there will run into a municipal ditch and away from the properties.
3920. But again, back to the northwest alternative as it reflects on the Bay Street area, I would not want to see the pipe any closer to the rail line than the Emera pipeline proposal. And like everybody I mean we’d prefer it not to be in my neighbourhood.
3921. I have no problem or no concern with respect to the confirmed route as it runs along the -- let’s say the south side of the rail track close to Bay Street but I’d prefer the southwest alternative, of course, as it’s further away from the property. Everybody has that same mentality, “Not in my backyard.”
3922. That’s it.
3923. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
3924. We’ll move now to determine whether there are individuals who would like to ask you questions.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
3925. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gretener …?
3926. MR. GRETENER: No, thank you, sir.
3927. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horgan …?
3928. MR. HORGAN: No, Mr. Chairman.
3929. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other intervenors in the hearing who wish to ask questions of Mr. Thompson?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. William Thompson Examination by Ms. M. Fowke
3930. THE CHAIRMAN: Board counsel …?
--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. M. FOWKE:
3931. MS. FOWKE: Just two quick questions, Mr. Thompson.
3932. Can you tell me where on your property your well is?
3933. MR. THOMPSON: Believe it or not, the well is not on my property. I share a well with my neighbour to the east of my property.
3934. MS. FOWKE: Would that be the property of the Watsons?
3935. MR. THOMPSON: No, it would be ---
3936. MS. FOWKE: Sorry, the other east?
3937. MR. THOMPSON: The other east right there. That’s the Craft’s property.
3938. MS. FOWKE: Okay.
3939. MR. THOMPSON: We share a well and septic.
3940. MS. FOWKE: And where is their well -- where is that well located?
3941. MR. THOMPSON: Directly between the two properties about midway down the property line.
3942. MS. FOWKE: Okay, thank you.
3943. And do you know how deep your well is? You mentioned that they vary between 60 and 175 feet. Do you ---
3944. MR. THOMPSON: Ours is 175 feet.
3945. MS. FOWKE: Thank you, sir. Those are all my questions.
3946. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3947. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Samuel Wilkes Opening Statement
3948. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
3949. Are Mr. or Ms. Watson in the room?
--- (No response/Aucune réponse)
3950. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilkes, would you come forward, please?
3951. MS. FOWKE: Good evening. For the record could you state your name? Push the button. There you go.
3952. MR. WILKES: Samuel Wilkes.
3953. MS. FOWKE: And Mr. Wilkes, you filed two documents in this hearing, that being your opposition which was dated January 7th, and your written evidence and both of those were marked as Exhibit D-7-1 and D-7-2. Is that correct?
3954. MR. WILKES: Yes.
3955. MS. FOWKE: And were those documents prepared by you or under your control and direction? Did you prepare them, sir?
3956. MR. WILKES: Yes.
3957. MS. FOWKE: And do you have any corrections to them?
3958. MR. WILKES: No.
3959. MS. FOWKE: And is the evidence correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
3960. MR. WILKES: Yes.
3961. MS. FOWKE: And you adopt that evidence as your evidence in this proceeding?
3962. MR. WILKES: Yes.
3963. MS. FOWKE: Do you have an opening statement that you would like to make, Mr. Wilkes?
3964. MR. WILKES: Yes.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Samuel Wilkes Opening Statement
3965. MS. FOWKE: Thank you, sir.
--- OPENING STATEMENT BY/DISCOURS D’OUVERTURE PAR MR. S. WILKES:
3966. MR. WILKES: I must preface this statement, perhaps, giving you a background on who I am. Maybe it doesn’t matter but I’m married and I have a three-year old son and you met my daughter, Dominique.
3967. I bought the property four years ago because of the land and the illusion of being in the country yet five minutes from the mall or 10 minutes from town.
3968. I work as an automotive technician by trade and I found the formality of this hearing and the presence of the lawyers and their talk a little bit intimidating. So I hope you’ll permit a little humour in my remarks and accept the reality that this pipeline affects real people, not just business owners, companies or, I quote, “landowners”.
3969. You’ll be pleased that I will refrain from the colourful language I might be prone to in my workplace.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
3970. MR. WILKES: I am a simple man and, quite frankly, although I found the last few days very enlightening, all the roundabout lawyer talk was quite boring and a little irritating at times. But you do what you have to do.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
3971. MR. WILKES: I have been aware since the news about the pipeline began to be revealed last fall -- I refer to September ’07. I knew at that time the pipeline would cross behind my property or in or through the pit which Galbraith Construction owns.
3972. Just perhaps a note about that, I don’t receive the newspaper and I might watch a few hours of TV. As you can tell, my life is pretty busy with my family. So word about the pipeline was kind of an afterthought.
3973. I thought at the time that this pipeline could not affect me and I ignored the public meetings. I felt it was just as good to let those guys fight it out. I also knew that it would pass through Milford area and certainly near the mill and then eventually end up at Canaport. I felt somewhat immune to the proceedings being sheltered in my
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Samuel Wilkes Opening Statement little paradise.
3974. I was quite shocked to receive the letter delivered by one of Emera or Brunswick Pipeline’s representatives personally to my house on December 27th, 2007. As I read the first paragraph -- I don’t know if that needs to be in evidence. Do you have this letter?
3975. MS. FOWKE: The letter that you -- the letter that you filed with us, sir?
3976. MR. WILKES: No, it’s a letter addressed to myself from Brunswick Pipeline.
3977. MS. FOWKE: I don’t think that letter is in evidence but you can read from it, sir.
3978. MR. WILKES: I’ll just talk about it anyway.
3979. It gave details about a hearing and I was just about to file it away when I glanced at the last sentence. It said that an alternate route has been submitted which brings the pipeline route outside the approved corridor and I quote “could have an impact on my property”.
3980. I immediately wondered what a corridor, knowing what a corridor is in a building had to do with a pipe but I focused on the part about my property. I thought to myself that I knew what an impact was and being involved in some myself I knew it wasn’t a good thing.
3981. I immediately called the number of the person who left me the package even before I had my supper that night. I inquired about the meaning of the statement and immediately jumped to the point. I asked if it meant that my house will be bulldozed. He assured me that it would not.
3982. In this package was all the correspondence of the Galbraith company in opposition to the pipeline coming through many of his properties. As I read through. I was able to visualize quite vaguely the land nearby. I further insisted that they give me some kind of sketch or map to make it more real.
3983. After receiving a photocopy of the map I still needed more details, especially with respect to my own property so I could deem the impact myself if any that the pipeline would have on my property. The representative from Brunswick Pipeline assured me that he would, and he did a week later.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Samuel Wilkes Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3984. I further inquired about the letter of intervention mentioned in the opening letter and what that was and how about the hearing evidence. This all sounded a bit too serious to me. I only saw hearings on TV and they weren’t real anyway.
3985. So he referred me to Ms. Margery Fowke and she was the most helpful to guide me to the proper way to have my change to object to the routing near my property. And so here I am.
3986. I found at the time, the timeline, the deadlines and the means to get prepared for this hearing was quite onerous.
3987. As I stated earlier, I work from eight in the morning until five and then home to my wife and two young children which usually takes me until eight o’clock; so what kind of time do you suppose I had to find information, read it and reply to it within a ridiculously short period of time.
3988. I have been gracious to my employer to allow me to be here for the past two days and even more gracious to my wife for encouraging me to come and speak again, perhaps to get this all over with, so here I am and you can ask your questions now.
3989. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilkes.
3990. Mr. Gretener, do you have any questions?
3991. MR. GRETENER: No questions, sir.
3992. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Horgan …?
3993. MR. HORGAN: No, Mr. Chairman.
3994. Are there any other intervenors in the hearing who wish to ask questions at this time or counsel?
3995. MS. FOWKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MS. M. FOWKE:
3996. MS. FOWKE: Mr. Wilkes, you may have been nervous, but you did a very good job ---
3997. MR. WILKES: Thank you.
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Mr. Samuel Wilkes Examination by Ms. M. Fowke 3998. MS. FOWKE: --- and we know we’re boring, that’s not a -- not news.
3999. Could you tell me where on the map, where on your land is your well? You can just describe it. Is it ---
4000. MR. WILKES: From the scale, I’m guessing 30 metres if you drew a perpendicular line in the middle of my southern -- or whatever direction it is -- property boundary.
4001. MS. FOWKE: Okay. And in the middle -- it’s in the middle of your property?
4002. MR. WILKES: From that picture, yes, it would be.
4003. MS. FOWKE: Okay. And how deep is your well?
4004. MR. WILKES: I don’t know. I don’t know.
4005. MS. FOWKE: Okay, that’s fine.
4006. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are all the questions that I have.
4007. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4008. Thank you, Mr. Wilkes.
4009. MR. WILKES: Okay.
4010. THE CHAIRMAN: As I indicated when we began this evening, any party who wishes to argue orally instead of filing written evidence may do so at this time.
4011. When I call your name, if you would prefer to file written argument, please indicate so, or if you would like to make oral submissions, please make -- approach the microphone and do so.
4012. For the benefit of the intervenors who have participated this evening, maybe I can explain what the purpose and the distinction of oral argument is.
4013. That is the last portion of your direct participation in the proceeding. It’s an opportunity for you to summarize any conclusions or observations that you have drawn through this process, as well as to indicate directly to the Panel if you have
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Procedural matters
something that you would like us to particularly reflect upon or a conclusion you would like to have us draw, and we then will note that and take that into consideration as we will all of the evidence that has been brought forward during this hearing.
4014. Mr. Gretener and Mr. Horgan, I understand though you will be filing a written argument and will not be providing oral argument?
4015. MR. GRETENER: That’s correct, sir.
4016. MR. HORGAN: Correct.
4017. THE CHAIRMAN: We’ll then proceed through the names of the individuals who participated this evening, where I’m now inviting you to come forward and to present an oral argument as I’ve explained.
4018. Ms. Gallivan on behalf of Southern and Saint John and Maine?
4019. MS. GALLIVAN: No, Mr. Chairman.
4020. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nason …?
4021. MR. NASON: No, Mr. Commissioner.
4022. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4023. Mr. Thompson …?
4024. MR. THOMPSON: No, Mr. Chairman.
4025. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4026. And Mr. Wilkes …?
4027. MR. WILKES: No.
4028. THE CHAIRMAN: We have one procedural matter that we’ll address before closing.
4029. MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4030. Arising out of our file this morning with respect to Mr. Tuddenham’s property, the Board has one additional information request for Emera Brunswick and
Transcript Order MH-3-2007 Closing remarks Chairman we have copies of that here we’ll make available to Mr. Gretener and have that e-filed as well.
4031. If we could have an exhibit number for that, please?
4032. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: Exhibit A-29.
--- EXHIBIT NO./PIÈCE No. A-29:
NEB - Information request to Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. (re Mr. Tuddenham)
4033. MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you.
4034. THE CHAIRMAN: In closing the hearing today, we will begin tomorrow at 8:00 a.m.
4035. Mr. Poley will present, having been unable to attend this evening.
4036. I would also like on behalf of the panel to thank, particularly, the intervenors who have taken the time to participate. It is an important aspect of a hearing for the Panel to hear from individuals the concerns that you are bringing forward. We do listen very carefully to them.
4037. We have found the evidence and the comments that have been brought forward to be helpful. We will reflect on them and include them in our deliberations. We appreciate that your families have supported you, that you have taken time from your employers and if you would extend our appreciation for the time you have taken.
4038. With that, we will close the evening and resume again tomorrow.
--- Upon adjourning at 7:17 p.m./L’audience est ajournée à 19h17
Transcript Order MH-3-2007