JOINT REVIEW PANEL FOR THE ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT DU PROJET ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY
Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Ordonnance d’audience OH-4-2011
Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Application of 27 May 2010
Demande de Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. du 27 mai 2010 relative au projet Enbridge Northern Gateway
VOLUME 122
Hearing held at Audience tenue à
Delta Victoria Ocean Pointe Hotel & Spa 45 Songhees Road Victoria, British Columbia
January 10, 2013 Le 10 janvier 2013
International Reporting Inc. Ottawa, Ontario (613) 748-6043
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2013 © Sa Majesté du Chef du Canada 2013 as represented by the Minister of the Environment représentée par le Ministre de l’Environnement et and the National Energy Board l’Office national de l’énergie
This publication is the recorded verbatim transcript Cette publication est un compte rendu textuel des and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et official languages, depending on the languages transcrite dans l’une ou l’autre des deux langues spoken by the participant at the public hearing. officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le participant à l’audience publique.
Printed in Canada Imprimé au Canada
HEARING /AUDIENCE OH-4-2011
IN THE MATTER OF an application filed by the Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Board Act, for authorization to construct and operate the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.
HEARING LOCATION/LIEU DE L'AUDIENCE
Hearing held in Victoria (British Columbia), Thursday, January 10, 2013 Audience tenue à Victoria (Colombie-Britannique), jeudi, le 10 janvier 2013
JOINT REVIEW PANEL/LA COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT
S. Leggett Chairperson/Présidente
K. Bateman Member/Membre
H. Matthews Member/Membre
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
ORAL STATEMENTS/EXPOSÉS ORAUX
Don Armstrong Joanna Dudley Cecil Bannister Brian Ferguson Frank Behrens Sam Foster Rita Bijons Bruce Fraser Annie Birchett Rebecca Hansen Esther Callo Marian Hargrove Terry Dance-Bennink Wayne R. Harling Tema Dawn Brent Heath Susan Draper Colette Henegghan Donna Humphries Karen Hurley Lynn Husted Sonya Ignatieff Robert Iverson Nancy Issenman Rachel Mason Elizabeth Kaller Emmy Preston Eva Kerr Joanna Runnells Freda Knott Don Startin John McDonald Jane Sterk Pat McMahon Henry Summerfield Anne Moon Peter Sundberg Michele Murphy John Van Beek Kathy Page Kathleen Wilkins Richard Steel Taren Phillips Catherine Alpha Joan Russow Doug Brubaker Fran Thoburn Jean-Daniel Cusin Heather Thomson Keith Fitzgibbon Lesley Watson Flora Di Cunto Annette Witteman
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
ERRATA (i)
Tuesday, January 8, 2013 - Volume 120
Paragraph No.: Should read: 20524: “...it’s a dance...” “...it’s dense...”
20548: “...provide a total of 1.33 billion per cleanup “...provide a total of 1.33 billion for cleanup and compensation.” and compensation.”
20554: “Enbridge legally covered themselves with “Enbridge legally covered themselves with big language...” vague language...”
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES (i)
Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
Opening remarks by the Chairperson 22425
Oral statement by Don Armstrong 22431 Oral statement by Cecil Bannister 22459 Oral statement by Frank Behrens 22481 Oral statement by Rita Bijons 22495 Oral statement by Annie Birchett 22525 Oral statement by Esther Callo 22535 Oral statement by Tema Dawn 22566 Oral statement by Susan Draper 22604 Oral statement by Terry Dance-Bennink 22631 Oral statement by Donna Humphries 22656 Oral statement by Lynn Husted 22678 Oral statement by Robert Iverson 22699 Oral statement by Rachel Mason 22726 Oral statement by Emmy Preston 22761 Oral statement by Joanna Runnells 22790 Oral statement by Don Startin 22816 Oral statement by Jane Sterk 22841 Oral statement by Henry Summerfield 22872 Oral statement by Peter Sundberg 22887 Oral statement by John Van Beek 22912 Oral statement by Kathleen Wilkins 22932
Oral statement by Wayne R. Harling 22950 Oral statement by Catherine Alpha 22979 Oral statement by Doug Brubaker 23003 Oral statement by Jean-Daniel Cusin 23040 Oral statement by Keith Fitzgibbon 23071 Oral statement by Joan Russow 23106 Oral statement by Flora Di Cunto 23144 Oral statement by Joanna Dudley 23170 Oral statement by Brian Ferguson 23211 Oral statement by Sam Foster 23223 Oral statement by Bruce Fraser 23247 Oral statement by Rebecca Hansen 23272 Oral statement by Marian Hargrove 23290 Oral statement by Brent Heath 23316 Oral statement by Colette Henegghan 23339
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES (ii)
Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
Oral statement by Nancy Issenman 23366 Oral statement by Karen Hurley 23380 Oral statement by Sonya Ignatieff 23399 Oral statement by Freda Knott 23420 Oral statement by Elizabeth Kaller 23442 Oral statement by Pat McMahon 23455 Oral statement by Lesley Watson 23484 Oral statement by Anne Moon 23506 Oral statement by Michele Murphy 23535 Oral statement by Eva Kerr 23543 Oral statement by John McDonald 23573 Oral statement by Kathy Page 23611 Oral statement by Richard Steel 23636 Oral statement by Taren Phillips 23650 Oral statement by Fran Thoburn 23669 Oral statement by Heather Thomson 23694 Oral statement by Annette Witteman 23719
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- Upon commencing at 9:04 a.m./L’audience débute à 9h04
22425. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this morning's session of oral statements in Victoria.
22426. My name is Sheila Leggett, and on my right is Mr. Bateman and ---
22427. MEMBER BATEMAN: Good morning.
22428. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- my left is Mr. Matthews.
22429. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Good morning.
22430. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Armstrong, please begin with your oral statement when you're ready.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR DR. DON ARMSTRONG:
22431. DR. DON ARMSTRONG: My name is Don Armstrong, a retired medical doctor. I am neither an alarmist nor an eco-terrorist. What I am, though, is an extremely concerned citizen.
22432. I am also one of a growing number of people who believes that due to the widespread environmental degradation brought on by reckless resource exploration and development, global warning and climate change, the planet is rushing headlong toward its own cliff. It is imperative for future generations that we begin immediately to make the environment a top priority. Unless we do, the world as we know it will have a grim future.
22433. I am, therefore, strongly opposed to the Northern Gateway Project because of the environmental havoc it threatens.
22434. As the American author, Wendell Barry, wrote, "The care of the earth is our most ancient and most worthy responsibility. To cherish what remains of it and to foster its renewal is our only hope".
22435. This project does not stand alone. It has to be looked at in the context of the larger global picture, and it is that context to which I draw your attention today.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22436. The earth's atmosphere seems vast to a person sheltered beneath it, but various astronauts have noted how tissue-thin it is against the black vastness of space. This is what we are tampering with when we talk about global warming, and that warming is occurring at an increasing rate, caused in large part by the man-made rise in carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels.
22437. As a result of global warming, the climate is changing with rising sea levels, warmer temperatures, fewer cold days and an increase in extreme weather such as floods, droughts and storms. Think polar ice melt, Australian heat waves and wildfires, major flooding in several countries, droughts and record temperatures in the U.S., Hurricane Sandy.
22438. In the entire 20th century, the world as a whole has warmed an average of 1 degree Centigrade, but since 1960 some areas of the Arctic have warmed 4 to 5 degrees. In 2011, Arctic summer ice sea melt -- Arctic Sea ice melt melted over an area greater than the U.S. states east of the Mississippi River.
22439. If the Arctic ice continues to melt, there is a risk that the permafrost which contains an estimated 1,700 tonnes of methane, having 20 times the warming effect of carbon, will be released and a vicious cycle accelerated.
22440. According to the Kofi Annan Foundation, 300,000 people already perish each year from climate change-related causes, mostly in the world's poorest areas.
22441. As conventional oil is running out, the industry has turned to what has been labelled extreme oil, which uses methods that require boring a mile or more below the ground surface to inject chemicals, sand, massive amounts of water and/or heat that separates the oil from rock or shale. These techniques require huge amounts of energy to produce oil and there is documented proof that groundwater contamination does occur.
22442. As the British historian, Arnold Toynbee, said:
"Prospects for the survival of the human race were considerably better when we were defenceless against tigers than they are today when we have become defenceless against ourselves."
22443. What is the evidence that the health of the ocean is deteriorating at an
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux alarming rate? Some of the reasons are, apart from massive overfishing, increased acidity from the absorption of carbon dioxide, the dumping of plastic, unexplained dead zones and oil.
22444. The stronger acidity dissolves the shells of crustaceans and coral, not only killing adults but also destroying their eggs. Gigantic collections of plastic have been discovered floating as well as covering the ocean floor in both the Atlantic and Pacific. These same plastics -- this same plastic has been discovered in the stomachs of both birds and fish.
22445. Dead zones are unexplained areas devoid of oxygen. There are 407 in the world at present, and their number have been doubling every decade since 1960. They move around with the ocean currents, and when they stop for prolonged periods, all the fish within them die.
22446. And then there's oil. Of the 15 largest peacetime marine oil spills from 1967 to 2010, the smallest of those dumped 31 million litres near the Scilly Islands in the U.K., while the largest spread 776 million litres -- that's three- quarters of a billion -- around the Gulf of Mexico courtesy of BP.
22447. It will be noted that the second-largest also occurred in the Gulf from a well blowout in 1967 -- 1979, gushing to the tune of 530 million litres. This suggests the oil companies haven’t learned from their mistakes.
22448. It is of interest that the Exxon Valdez poured 41 million litres into the ocean, for a ranking of only 53rd on the list.
22449. Very little is known as to what happens below the surface and on the ocean bottom after a spill and for how long, if ever, recovery takes, nor do we know how much plankton the foundation of the ocean food web is affected.
22450. Note, for its good work, according to the International Energy Association, the industry's world-wide fossil fuel subsidies in 2011 were $523 billion, six times more than for renewable energy supplies. That is the context of the larger global picture.
22451. At the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 12 year old Severn Suzuki said in a speech to the delegates:
“I am only a child. Yet I know that if all the money spent on
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux war was spent on ending poverty and finding environmental [solutions], […] the world would be a better place. […] I challenge you […] to make your actions reflect your words.”
22452. In 2012, back in Rio, she said:
“[It] is clear that we have not achieved the sustainable world we knew we needed 20 years ago.”
22453. This hearing is all about risk, the risk of an ever-warming atmosphere, extreme oil, a major oil spill, a broken or leaking pipeline, to the loss of jobs dependent on a healthy environment, to the way of life for First Nations, to the survival of the ocean. Do we really want to take these risks? I say no.
22454. In making your decision, I urge the Panel to reject these risks and to invoke the precautionary principle. It states, in part, that if an action or policy has a suspended risk -- a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
22455. If the Panel says no to Enbridge, it will not mean an end to the daunting problems we face. It will, however, send a clear signal to the Canadian people and our government that we want a more active approach to solving these problems. Then, 20 years from now, we can look back with pride in our achievements instead of despair. We can only hope it is not too late.
22456. That ends my submission and I would like to thank the Panel for coming to Victoria.
22457. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong.
--- (Applause/Applaudissements)
22458. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Please, Mr. Bannister, please share your oral statement with the Panel.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. CECIL BANNISTER:
22459. MR. CECIL BANNISTER: Good morning. My name is Cecil Bannister; I’m an engineer. I came to Canada as a young adult. I have two
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux children who are also proudly Canadian, I’m a resident of British Columbia.
22460. When I was a recent immigrant to Canada and as part of my doctorate research project in geophysics, I had the fortunate -- I had the fortune to travel extensively to the most remote places in the coast of British Columbia, the Rockies and western Alberta, collecting geomagnetic data.
22461. With the exception of several places, power by seismic trail, power lines, logging trails or buried pipelines, I was -- it was with awe and admiration that I experienced the beauty, the immensity, the natural richness and the pristine wilderness of this land. It is nature at its best. I experienced the kindness of -- and warmth of the people in small communities and individuals in very remote places. I fell in love with this land and the people I met had for it.
22462. At that time I dreamt this is the place someday I would like to live and see my children grow where people care for and respect the environment. Then, for over two decades, I worked for a large corporation managing large projects where, as in all businesses, successful projects are about profit and managing risk.
22463. The Enbridge proposal to pipe bitumen and concentrate through this land is certainly a profitable proposal for Enbridge. Otherwise it wouldn’t be -- it wouldn’t have been put forward and particularly profitable when this risk has been managed and by managed risk, it means passing the risk to others. In this way, Enbridge profits are not compromised.
22464. So what are some of this -- of the risks of this project that have been managed? To British Columbia, the -- the risk of bleeding poisonous bitumen and concentrate through the land, creeks and rivers, this is not just water that we are talking about, this is poison; a pipeline in a seismically active region.
22465. The risk of bleeding bitumen and concentrate from tankers, these are treacherous waters with passages difficult to navigate in an area of difficult weather and difficult seas and of high seismicity prone to tsunamis.
22466. I’m sure you have heard from other presenters again and again at this hearing about the many risks posed by natural causes and human error, so for the sake of time, I will not dwell on them except for one. After reading the Marine Shipping Quantitative Risk Analysis Technical Data Report from Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, I have to agree with the expert opinion of Master Mariner Captain Walsh about the proposed tanker routes, open quote:
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
“The questions about tanker transits in confined waters and in severe west coast winter weather conditions are too many and the risk to the marine environment too great.” (As read)
22467. Close quote. In fact, the material on Enbridge website doesn’t deny or question that this risk exists, but focuses instead on cleanup. However despite any marine and line on spill response prevention recovery system, it is not if but when a spill will occur and the risk to marine environment is too great.
22468. Just three months ago in the Northern Gateway statement in advance of Prince George technical hearing, Mrs. Holder, Enbridge -- Mrs. Holder, Enbridge Executive -- Executive Vice-President, western access states, open quote:
“Protecting people and the environment is our top priority, which is why we announced enhancements to make what was already a very safe project even safer.”
22469. Close quote. It looks like Enbridge doesn’t get it. They can make an enhancement to make the project safer, but they cannot make the project safe. To keep pushing for this project that is not safe is an insult when the risk and the consequences of a poisonous spillage are imposed on the people and the environment of British Columbia.
22470. So what’s the record of Enbridge? Using data from Enbridge own report, the Polaris Institute, calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. That’s about 73 spills a year. Well, the risk is real and even more real when considering the geographic, environmental and marine conditions for the proposed tanker traffic and pipeline.
22471. The problem is that the risk has been passed to British Columbia and its people. The majority of the people of British Columbia are not willing to take this -- that risk. There’s too much to lose. We value the environment, clean waters and the richness of the land more than wealth.
22472. This arrogance on Enbridge to expect the people of British Columbia to support this bizarre project under the spin of jobs and progress and the promise of an even safer project when the primary objective, as stated on Enbridge website, is to increase revenue by opening a second competitive market as if -- as
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux if the current market wasn’t sufficient and the current profits were dismal.
22473. The Japanese built a national energy strategy around nuclear power. Power plants were engineered and built to meet high standards to minimize the risk. They were built as safe as possible, balancing cost and risk. As always the events that test their systems beyond their design thresholds and disaster occurs.
22474. Following the massive Tokyo earthquake and tsunami of March 2011, the meltdown of not one, not two, but three nuclear reactors at Fukushima nuclear plant took place through a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns and release of radioactive material. The Fukushima nuclear disaster changed the national debate over energy policy almost overnight. Now Japan is considering decommissioning all 54 reactors in order to become nuclear free.
22475. Do we have -- do we have to go through a similar experience with Enbridge pipelines and tankers here in B.C. and find out later that we make a big mistake? We already had our Fukushima with the Exxon Valdez. So let’s learn from that. Leave the land in B.C. coast as is with no tankers and no pipeline. Just don’t mess with B.C.
22476. I will ask you to consider the following, that the financial and political muscle Enbridge is flexing overwhelms the power of the people of British Columbia, that the people of British Columbia did not ask for this pipeline and tankers, that the majority of British Columbia do not want this pipeline and tankers on its coast.
22477. This is starting to look and feel like a rape, one that is about to take place and British Columbia will get stuck with the unwanted baby. The cleanup, the lasting contamination, the damaged environment and the loss of natural resources, oh, and by the way, there’s no morning pill -- there’s no morning-after pill for this disaster.
22478. No, we cannot let this happen. You cannot let this happen. The majority of people of British Columbia are standing up and saying no. Please, protect the environment and reject this project. Oh, and yes, my dream to live in beautiful British Columbia with my family became a reality several years ago and yes, I am proud to stand together with the people of B.C. to protect this environment for the benefit of future generations.
22479. Thank you.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
--- (Applause/Applaudissements)
22480. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Behrens, thank you for taking the time to join us this morning to present your points of view. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. FRANK BEHRENS:
22481. MR. FRANK BEHRENS: Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Frank Behrens; I’ve lived in British Columbia for 23 years.
22482. Over the last few weeks I’ve been struggling with how to present to you. Yesterday, I got lost looking for this hotel because I thought it was over there and happened to see a large ship anchored off the coast. One thing I’ve noticed in all the things that I’ve read is that there is no discussion about where the tankers will anchor and how many will be there at any given time.
22483. On the Enbridge site it talks about them coming and going tethered to a tug when they’re in the channel. One thing about shipping is it’s hurry up and wait. They have to anchor somewhere because they need to make their schedule.
22484. I would propose that on any given day there would be probably four tankers in the area and I think that’s a very low estimate. One would be full of oil getting ready to leave because they’re going two tankers -- sorry, one tanker every two days. In order to meet that schedule you’ve got tankers coming and going on a regular basis and if the weather is bad there will be some full ones that can’t leave.
22485. So let’s say that there’s four tankers in the area on any given day; four tankers, one full of oil, one or two full of the condensate that’s going to be pumped in, and one empty getting ready to go in. There will probably be a few more off the coast somewhere as well, and we have an earthquake such as happened just three months ago. Only instead of down by the Queen Charlotte there, it’s about 100 kilometres in and it’s right at the entrance to the channel.
22486. What kind of a tsunami do you think would be created with a 7.7 Magnitude quake right at the entrance to the channel and four, at least four, tankers sitting there unable to move quickly enough to face the tsunami as it’s coming? It would be utter devastation. For that reason alone I am here to say you
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux must reject this proposal.
22487. The other reasons are that all you’re subjecting this area to is a boom and bust economy. I lived in southern Alberta, I grew up in southern Alberta and central Alberta where I witnessed the boom and bust economy of Alberta and some of what they’re talking about here is to try and get rid of that boom and bust economy. But there are better ways to do it than subject the B.C. coast to a boom and bust economy.
22488. There is nothing to be gained by short term jobs for the people who live in that area just so that a company -- I shouldn’t say a company, a number of companies in Alberta can make huge profits. B.C. will not get much out of this and it is ridiculous that we’re even to this point.
22489. The amount of money that they’re putting forward in advertising which is blatantly untrue, I mean I watched a video of the channel where there are no islands in sight. What happened to them? There’s a number of islands in the way. When the press finally said something about it they changed it and said it was a little oversight.
22490. This whole process has been funded by the Chinese government and it is out of -- it’s just hard to believe that it can even happen. I would urge you to think about the fact that there will be at least four tankers sitting right in the path of a tsunami that cannot move, and I would also urge that you look at their preparations because there is no talk of tankers anchoring anywhere.
22491. On the south coast here you can go up island, you can see tankers parked behind islands all out -- not tankers, but large ships parked behind islands just waiting their turn. It’s a common thing. It’s cheaper than having them cruise around out in the ocean and actually have their fuel being consumed, even though it’s much riskier. So for those reasons and I’m sorry I’m short, but those are the reasons I ask you to reject this project.
22492. Thank you for allowing me to present.
22493. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for presenting your oral statements this morning.
--- (Applause/Applaudissements)
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- (A short pause/Courte pause)
22494. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Bijons, please go ahead with your oral statement when you’re ready.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. RITA BIJONS:
22495. MS. RITA BIJONS: Can you hear me? Okay.
22496. Thank you for this opportunity to address you. My name is Rita Bijons.
22497. I taught young children for most of my teaching career and during those years I always believed my students had a bright future ahead of them. I no longer believe this. I am deeply grieved that we adults are preparing a perilous and painful future for our young people and projects such as this proposed pipeline project are among the instruments of delivering this perilous and painful future. I believe this profoundly.
22498. This Panel has a broad mandate to consider whether the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and if it is in the public interest. The Panel needs to determine whether the project is required by the present and future public convenience and necessity. I’ve read the Panel’s literature that’s -- and the literature that sets regulatory determination involves consideration of supply markets, economic feasibility and other public interest considerations.
22499. I’m not an economist; I’m a teacher. I’ve had the honour to teach young children to be in tune with wonder, with joy and with the sanctity of life, and to be bound in trust to the future of these children and of all children. I cannot be silent when we stand at a crossroads as a species, nor as we in this debate over the Northern Gateway stand before two competing visions for Canada.
22500. It is clear to me that this project is not in the public interest. This Panel has no doubt heard from many others presenting their convictions that the project is not in the public interest.
22501. I understand that people have looked at the small number of jobs created regionally, building and maintaining the pipeline and that these are not
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux worth the risk that oil spills pose to thousands of jobs in fisheries and tourism, and that we know of -- what we know of as Dutch disease would be exacerbated by this pipeline.
22502. Others have pointed out the pipeline will contribute to destabilizing the climate. Others that the pipeline and its spills and leaks would threaten the coast salmon rivers and all waters and soil that bear life; and others we know that over 130 First Nations have joined together to oppose tar sands pipelines and tankers in B.C., as well as the union of B.C. municipalities representing all of B.C.’s cities and towns.
22503. Clearly, the proposed Northern Gateway Project would be in the interest of Enbridge as it stands to reap the huge economic benefits if this project is approved but it is not in the public interest. We have to examine who pays the true cost of such a project.
22504. Like 80 percent of Canadians, I live in an urban area. I live in the largest city of Canada. The last decade that I taught, smog alerts were issued earlier each year and lasted longer into each year. Heat alerts were issued earlier each year and heat waves lasted longer. All of this takes its toll on public health, particularly on the very young and the elderly. We know from studies of the urban heat island effect that big cities such as Chicago and Toronto were afflicted with this resulting in increased morbidity and mortality and that is aggravated by climate change.
22505. I’m talking about this because we share one aerial ocean and what our neighbours do in one part of the world affects those in other parts of the world.
22506. After a terrible one-hour storm in Toronto in 2005 it caused the city 47 million in repairs to infrastructure and cost the insurance industry 600 million in payments to clients for damages to personal property. Faced with this kind of need to plan for the future, to plan for infrastructure that they know will cost billions, the Toronto future weather and -- Toronto’s future weather and climate driver study was commissioned so that they could project into the period 2040 to 2049. A focus was given to extreme weather events, particularly rainfall and heat waves, key concerns in connection with maintaining infrastructure and providing service.
22507. Four projections from the study are that more intense summer storms will occur and the maximum amount of rainfall in any single day and hour
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux doubles. Certain very intense storms will produce much greater amounts of rainfall in short periods than previously seen with clear impacts on city infrastructure and increased potential for flooding.
22508. The number -- secondly, the number of days when the humidex will exceed 40 degrees Celsius is expected to increase four-fold.
22509. Number three, the number of degree days -- that is days that are greater than 24 degrees Celsius for a 24-hour period -- and this measure is used to indicate when air conditioning is required -- the number of degree days will increase six-fold from 32 days per year to 180 days per year; that is air conditioning will be required in Toronto for half the year.
22510. Number four, the number of heat waves -- that is events more than three consecutive days of temperatures greater than 32 Celsius -- is expected to increase nine fold.
22511. And fifthly, the mean maximum daily temperature changes from 33 degrees Celsius to 44 degrees Celsius.
22512. In 2008 the head of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Mark Yalabuski, warned city leaders that cities are doing a poor job of maintaining existing infrastructure and that cities must build to the new engineering standards now determined by climate modelling. He warned that failure to do so will make cities uninsurable. When cities become uninsurable who assumes the costs of breakdown? It’s the public.
22513. Furthermore, two days ago I read in the Vancouver Sun that the Canadian Forces has decided to start charging municipalities and provinces to cover the costs whenever the military is called upon to help in emergencies, such as floods and wildfires. What does this mean to the public? Who pays to deal with extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change, exacerbated by antiquated energy regimes which destabilize our aerial ocean, our ocean, our climate, our life systems, and who assumes the costs of increased load on our healthcare system as our most vulnerable are treated for respiratory and cardiovascular distress, lime disease, et cetera?
22514. We have seen one report after another come out of the insurance industry related to extreme weather. In June 2012 the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction for the Insurance Bureau of Canada released the McBean report.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux This report projects into the next 40 years and projects -- projections include warming, changes in heavy precipitation events, presumably associated with lightning, increases in wildfires are projected. On Canada’s coasts increasing sea level rise will make the impacts of storms and associated storm surges more dangerous. Are these projections considered in the Northern Gateway proposal?
22515. Last year as well Swiss Ray and Munich Ray issued reports telling the terrible costs of climate inaction and a world of 1 degree warming, telling roughly 140 billion for the year 2012. That report -- those reports were accompanied by a report by Price Waterhouse Cooper issuing in November -- last November -- a warning of 6 degree warning, which is hell on earth if no action is taken to mitigate climate change.
22516. The report calls for radical transformations in the ways the global economy currently functions, a rapid uptake of renewable energy, sharp falls in fossil fuel use and removal of industrial emissions and a halt on deforestation.
22517. In September 2012 the climate vulnerability monitor warned that right now five million people per year are killed, including 1,000 children per day, as a result of a combination of carbon pollution and exacerbated problems in the economy, 400,000 due to hunger and communicable diseases aggravated by climate breakdown.
22518. When we choose greed and lay waste to our home we debase ourselves and we betray the trust we have with life now and that of future generations. Let us instead exercise the finest of our human qualities, that of compassion.
22519. It is not in the public interest to build the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. This project in no way contributes to sustainability. Sustained growth on a finite planet is the essence of unsustainability. This project is not required by the present and future public convenience and necessity. More than enough such corridors exist already, one to Vancouver and one to Prince Rupert. As David Schindler points out, both end up in areas less vulnerable than is found at Kitimat.
22520. As for public convenience and necessity, there is nothing convenient about so compromising the climate that we condemn ourselves, our children, our companion species to a world marked by catastrophe, death, disease, hunger, the scarcity of clean water, economic instability and comprised global security. What is in the interest of the public is to refuse the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22521. We need to work together as Canadians through democratic processes and an independent regulatory framework to use our oil resources judiciously and build a forward looking renewable energy economy that ensures a habitable world, sustainability prosperity for generations to come while making Canada a leader in the global struggle for climate security.
22522. Thank you.
22523. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
22524. Ms. Birchett, please go ahead. Thanks.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. ANNIE BIRCHETT:
22525. MS. ANNIE BIRCHETT: Good morning. My name is Annie Birchett and I’m an artist. I was born in -- oh, I don’t have -- sorry, can you hear me -- sorry. I was born in New Westminster and have all of my life, but two years, on this coast. I have a deep love of this place.
22526. I have grave concerns about the Northern Gateway Project. It’s far too risk heavy. There is no guarantee that there won’t be spills and at this point it seems rather inevitable that there will. These are huge tankers. No spill clean-up will ever put things back the way they were. Once the oil hits the water it’s too late. The consequences would be disastrous for the humans, the earth, the oceans and the animals.
22527. We have all seen the pictures of oil soaked birds and seals. What about the salmon, the killer whales, the sea vegetation? Just because things exist in the ocean where we can’t see them doesn’t mean they’re not there or of vital importance; the coastal communities, the quality of life, the livelihood, the connectedness of it all.
22528. This proposal is risking destruction of habitat for all species, including us. This is taking more than giving back. We risk putting future generations in danger, borrowing from a future that does not belong to us but to our children and theirs. We do not have the right to borrow from this future. We are reminded that as individuals and families to live within our means. Sound advice. As a nation we need to do the same.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22529. We live in a major earthquake zone. Just the thought of these massive tankers in these waters during a quake and tsunami should make those in charge think twice about projects like this.
22530. Oil -- spilled oil doesn’t recognize borders. I’ve been reading in the paper and online that the U.S. Coast Guard is now -- wants to research any spill damage that would occur from these tankers into Washington and Oregon. Human -- so oil -- spilled oil does not recognize borders.
22531. Human imagination is not so easily stifled. There are better and more responsible ways to manifest the energy we need than continued fossil fuel extraction and consumption. We need to accept the challenge of climate change and work for clean and sustainable solutions. That is our right and that is our job.
22532. I think I’m paraphrasing David Suzuki when I say this is not about left versus right, it’s not about the environment versus the economy. The environment must come first. Without the environment there is no economy and there is no life.
22533. Thank you.
22534. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Callo, thank you for taking the time to come and present your points of view. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. ESTHER CALLO:
22535. MS. ESTHER CALLO: Thank you and good morning to all of you. Thank you for coming to Victoria. And I’d also like to say hello to all the people watching us this morning out there in TV land.
22536. Before I begin, I really must comment that I understand the need to -- for honesty this morning; we all must be honest in this process. I do however, feel the need to comment that, while I as a citizen must swear an oath on a Bible in order to express my opinion, I see at the same time that our own government, Stephen Harper, has so far gotten away with lying and cheating his way to a majority government. And I’m assuming you’re representing Enbridge?
22537. Right. I’m sorry, but why doesn’t it say it? Applicant. I have my name here twice. You can easily identify me. This is not acceptable, okay? We all need to be honest. You have falsified maps and published them and there has
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux been no consequence to that, okay.
22538. So while we, as citizens, have been asked to swear an oath to honesty, I see little on the part of our government ---
22539. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Callo, I’m just going to interrupt you.
22540. MS. ESTHER CALLO: M’hm.
22541. MEMBER BATEMAN: The time that’s been set aside here is for you to address the Panel.
22542. MS. ESTHER CALLO: M’hm.
22543. MEMBER BATEMAN: What I’m observing is is that you have a broad range of thoughts and feelings directed to other parties. This is not the setting for that, nor the reason for which, you know, you have been invited and we have assembled. What I’d like to do now is redirect you to the purpose of this gathering and have you direct your comments to the Panel with respect to the project.
22544. MS. ESTHER CALLO: Absolutely. I’m happy to do that.
22545. So first of all, thank you again. And good morning, my name is Esther Callo. I was born and raised here in Victoria and I am here today to add my voice to those in opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline.
22546. Not only does this project threaten our coastline and the many waterways that it must pass over, it is another source of CO2 emissions that will erode the biochemical and climate balances of our global ocean.
22547. Most of the information in my oral statement is taken from a book by Alanna Mitchell, an award winning Canadian environmental reporter who travelled the world interviewing top scientists about the state of our oceans. In her book, “Seasick: the Global Ocean in Crisis” -- which I recommend everyone read -- published in 2009, she writes that:
“While we have reached many thresholds especially with regard to overfishing, none compare to the threat of increased ocean acidity and rising temperatures in our global ocean.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Both of these issues are a direct result of increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.” (As read)
22548. The PH in our oceans has remained at 8.2 for millions of years and that level is tied to the carbon cycle. Phytoplankton produced 50 percent of our oxygen. Like plants on land, phytoplankton absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. But our climate is also controlled by the currents of our global ocean, making the oceans true lungs of our planet as well as its life blood.
22549. The global ocean makes up 99 percent of living space on the planet. This is very important. We think of the ocean as covering 7/10 of the planet’s surface, but if we consider the volume of liveable space, our planet is 99 percent ocean water.
22550. If catastrophic changes occurred on land, the ocean would continue to thrive. But if catastrophic changes occur in the ocean, life on land will perish and we will perish. And there’s little profitability in that.
22551. We’ve reached a crisis with our oceans because while plankton have continued to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, we have disturbed the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels and pouring excessive levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.
22552. So the ocean itself has absorbed much of this excess carbon, but at a price. The ocean is becoming more acidic -- and someone mentioned this earlier, one of the other speakers. Increased ocean acidity is a threat to plankton because many species have delicate shells made from calcium carbonate which is -- which dissolves in acidic environments. And if phytoplankton die off, we not only lose part of our planet’s respiratory system, we lose the most basic food source of all marine life.
22553. In other words, we trigger the collapse of our planet’s life support system. And what’s more, with increases in CO2, we can anticipate rising oceanic temperatures which will disturb ocean currents and throw our planetary climate into chaos.
22554. In other words, we need to reduce our use and production of -- or pardon me, our production of CO2, not increase it, which is exactly what the Northern Gateway Project will do. China’s growing economy is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, surpassing the U.S. in 2006, according
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
22555. So really, anybody in -- really interested in making good money that is actually sustainable, should be looking at green technologies. And for heaven’s sake, sell it to China. Get that going. Don’t -- as one person said earlier -- the perfect description of what’s going on here -- rape. Instead of raping this land and undermining the people of this land, let’s get smart. Let’s create green technologies that we can sell to China and feed not only their economy, but ours -- instead of destroying our environment for the profit of a few.
22556. And I’m going to make one more final comment. As far as I’m concerned, Stephen Harper’s our biggest threat -- our most immediate and acute threat. And I recommend that everyone contact their parties, whether it be NDP, the Greens or the Liberals and say work together in the next election so we can stop Stephen Harper ---
22557. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Callo.
22558. MS. ESTHER CALLO: Thank you very much.
22559. MEMBER BATEMAN: I just want to -- for your benefit as well as those who will follow -- this forum is not for individuals to make political aspersions towards others to advocate actions that really don’t relate to this project. So we would have appreciated it had you respected the process and hopefully this will be instructive not only to you, but to others who will participate.
22560. Thank you
22561. MS. ESTHER CALLO: Sir, I must say that with the ---
22562. MEMBER BATEMAN: The time here is finished. Thank you.
22563. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your oral statements.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
22564. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to each of you.
22565. Ms. Dawn, please proceed with your oral statement. Thank you.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. TEMA DAWN:
22566. MS. TEMA DAWN: Okay, thank you.
22567. I would like to say that I’m grateful to be given an opportunity to be here now speaking to this Panel today. I appreciate the time and effort that you have been charged with and hope you are here listening to me speaking from my heart. I can also only hope that the voices of the people from B.C. are respected and both politicians and corporate leaders will recognize that our individual voices represent many more of the collective peoples of this province.
22568. I was moved to participate in this hearing as my own roots go deep into this very land that is at risk. I grew up in both Old Hazelton and Terrace in my early years, born as a third generation B.C. girl where I have lived my entire life.
22569. My parents, both educators, introduced me to the wonders of nature -- wonders of my natural environment as we explored as a family hiking and fishing from the time I can remember. I was deeply impacted by the majesty of the mountains and rivers, as well as the totem poles and the native people in the valleys around me.
22570. I have clear memories of going fishing with my dad, him standing in hip waders bringing in steelhead salmon bigger than myself while I played with the catfish in the pools beside him.
22571. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Dawn, if you could just take your finger away from that button.
22572. MS. TEMA DAWN: Okay.
22573. THE CHAIRPERSON: Every time you press it, it turns your mic off and so we're having trouble following you. Thank you very much.
22574. MS. TEMA DAWN: I'm sorry. Okay. Did you hear? Okay.
22575. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Barbour, at the back is doing his best, but …
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22576. MS. TEMA DAWN: Did you hear? Okay.
22577. THE CHAIRPERSON: We've caught it, yes. Thank you.
22578. MS. TEMA DAWN: Okay. I was in awe of the Skeena River, and still dream about it to this day. I understand that the waterways and watersheds of the Skeena, Stikine and Naas are threatened by this pipeline, and this breaks my heart.
22579. This land is our land. It was here in my early years. My mom shared with me her love of the wildflowers and berries which we collected and harvested. Nature was a part of my life and it shaped the woman that I am today.
22580. When I left home and began to travel the world, it was with such pride that I would share with people in other countries the beauty of my homeland, telling them stories of our great pristine rivers, stunning coastline, vast forests, wild animals, clean air and fresh water. In fact, I took a copy of a "Beautiful British Columbia" magazine with me to show where I came from. The stunning visual images accompanied my words.
22581. Remember beautiful B.C.? That was a phrase that described my home, my province. I soon discovered what a rare and special place I came from and how people from Europe to Asia wish that they could visit our province, how our special and diverse ecosystem untouched, uncontaminated was indeed unique.
22582. That was in 1979 and I was 19 years old. Today, I am 54. I've raised four children to love and appreciate nature, and I have recently become a grandmother.
22583. For years, I volunteered in schools, bringing children into nature and observed their natural achievement and love while playing and learning from the animals and plants. In our Children of the Earth groups, we shared a special bond with one another and the world around us. I watched these kids become teens and then young adults who had a real connection to the earth.
22584. More than ever now, I am determined to protect the land, sea and air of our world, and especially our pristine and diverse province for my grandchildren and future generations.
22585. I am so grateful to have grown up here and to have a highly-developed
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux sense of belonging to this land. As an active community member, I am aware that I represent countless mothers, fathers and children who feel the way that I do.
22586. I am also here to speak for those who cannot, the silent voices of the animals, the fish and all creatures who share this beautiful land.
22587. Recently, there was a full page article in the Vancouver Sun that drew our attention to a very important component of the necessity to protect our coastal waters. Aside from the unimaginable horror of an oil spill and the devastation that would cause to the incredible sanctuary of our coast, there is the very real impact on all undersea life, especially the whales, dolphins and porpoises, from the extreme noise and sonar levels that increased shipping traffic, dredging, pile driving work would cause.
22588. This chronic undersea noise would force these creatures away from their feeding and breeding grounds here and compromise their very survival. This report concluded that ocean noise is a growing concern and its impact must be considered in the management and planning of current and future activities in the marine waters of B.C.
22589. Growing up in B.C. watching my back yard being used and more for resource development, the land and its creatures being exploited at the expense of the environment itself has been heartbreaking. I have witnessed the devastation caused by inappropriate management, slides, fires, displacement of animals and a general disfigurement of what was once considered sacred.
22590. Again and again we must protest the misuse of our natural resources for our future generations. We must employ common sense and a vision that embraces the bigger picture.
22591. Careful planning with communities as well as a commitment to listening to the people will be critical at this time for a sustainable future. This is a transition time where short term corporate profits are not wise. In fact, research by capital management groups have proven excellent results for increased profits for companies who are socially responsible and also that individuals will avoid stocks that are not in line with their values and are choosing to invest in stocks that are.
22592. People care. Society is becoming more and more aware and the writing is on the wall that corporations that are socially responsible and start
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux taking part in the restoration work that needs to be done for already damaged water, air and soil will set trends in motion that improve rather than degrade our world.
22593. Who -- where and who are the real heroes in society today? There is much room for heroics now. We need wise leadership towards a sustainable and ecologically sound future. Please consider my plea.
22594. Last year, I travelled to Costa Rica and saw firsthand what can be accomplished with ecotourism. Years ago, Costa Rica made the decision to protect their wilderness, and this has paid off with amazing results.
22595. Last year, in an atmosphere of world recession, tourists were flocking to Costa Rica to visit their parks and to appreciate their abundant animal and plant species.
22596. Beautiful British Columbia is a desired destination world-wide, and that would only increase with more accessibility to our wilderness areas. More and more people are realizing the importance of children learning from nature and that many of us have lost the connection to our natural world, and now we must wake up and protect it before it is too late.
22597. There is money to be made in the development of ecotourism. B.C. is the perfect place for guides into the wilderness for all kinds of ecological resorts, natural schools, adventure holidays and such that would actually create real jobs for locals that would only build upon themselves in a positive way.
22598. We are at risk now of incurring great and expensive losses, both to our environment and our reputation in the world. This province has an important responsibility to our global community to take care of one of the last pristine diverse natural ecosystems left in the entire world.
22599. We must protect species at risk of disappearing forever. I take this responsibility very seriously now, and I cannot support so-called leaders who avoid social responsibility or even accountability for the damage already done.
22600. Today, I leave you with these questions. What about your grandchildren, and how do you want them to remember you?
22601. Thank you.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22602. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great. Thanks a lot, Ms. Dawn.
22603. Ms. Draper, welcome, and please go ahead and present.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. SUSAN DRAPER:
22604. MS. SUSAN DRAPER: Good morning. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are meeting today on the traditional lands of the Lekwungen Nation. For over 4,000 years, Coast Salish people have lived on and cared for these lands with the knowledge and appreciation that right relationship with the earth is critical to human survival.
22605. This particular piece of land is called the “Place of the Cradle”, for it was along this shoreline that Lekwungen parents would place their newborns in cradles with the hope and belief that these precious babies would be blessed with long lives.
22606. I, on the other hand, have only lived in Victoria for 20 years. That makes me a newcomer, a settler in these parts. Nonetheless, I appreciate Victoria's beauty and the determination of its people, most of whom, as you have surely discovered by this point in these presentations, are keenly interested in protecting the gifts they have been given by virtue of living in this province.
22607. I am speaking today as a settler, but also as a member of a national faith-based social justice umbrella organization known as Kyros. There are 11 national churches and religious organizations that make up the Board of Kyros. Here in Victoria, we have broadened the circle to include people from all faiths who are working to create a world that is more equitable for everyone and who appreciate that the entire earth is our home and must be cherished and protected as such.
22608. Kairos is a Greek word that means a moment in time when change is possible. Because we are a network that examines the critical issues of the day that looks at the big picture and tries to connect the dots, we are always seeking the Kairos moment. A point in time when we can say, ah-ha something new could come from out of this conversation, this situation, transformation is possible now. And then we work to make it so.
22609. There’s an active network of Kairos communities and supporters in
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux B.C., and through a process of consultation we determine that the Northern Gateway and the issues this proposal raises is a Kairos moment for British Columbia, if not for Canada, hence, my presence before you today.
22610. I believe, as does the Kairos network here in B.C., that this project can only be considered a good one in the sense that it is providing us with an opportunity to have a critical conversation about the current path we are walking, as well as to raise questions that do not get asked often enough about the way we pursue development.
22611. Fundamentally ethical in their nature, these are questions that look at the relationship we have with each other as well as humanity’s relationship with the earth itself. And after considering the ethical issues that the Northern Gateway proposal raises we have concluded that it will have no long-term benefits and is decidedly not in the public interest.
22612. First you should know that the national organization of Kairos has produced an ethical reflection paper on Northern Gateway which I will now briefly reference and which supports my own personal opinion about the Northern Gateway proposal. Quote:
“The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat [...] presents intersecting challenges for economy, ecology and Canada’s relations with Indigenous Peoples.
A strong focus on anticipated wealth creation threatens to obscure the magnitude of profound challenges for ecological justice and Indigenous rights - key priorities of KAIROS.
Commitments to human dignity and covenantal right relations inspire KAIROS to work with First Nations communities to pursue Indigenous land and treaty rights [...]. These rights are at stake in the development of the Northern Gateway pipeline.
The integrity of God’s Creation motivates KAIROS to seek respect for Earth’s natural limits and recognition of the ecosystems as inherently valuable, as well as complex and essential parts of our shared existence. The Gateway project poses threats of contamination, and contributions of increased carbon emissions and in turn climate change, that would
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux disrupt eco-systems critical to shared survival.
Ultimately there are concerns that the Northern Gateway project stands counter to two much needed priorities for Canada: [one,] the affirmation of the right of Indigenous People to be self-determining, distinct peoples with an adequate land base [and two] the much needed development of a just, clean and sustainable energy strategy.”
22613. End of quote.
22614. If we were to proceed with this project there is an abundance of evidence that suggests the environmental risk would be too devastating, the financial gains too small and the damage to a unique way of life too great to even consider any terms and conditions that might be applied in order to consider approval.
22615. So much of the wild is already been lost in B.C. but the Kairos network maintains there is a value to wilderness that goes beyond human economic exploitation. We need some new words in this conversation. For words shape meaning and ultimately reflect relationship.
22616. As a child I recall learning about the resources of Canada. In social studies lessons we were required to create colourful maps that located Canada’s timber supplies, wheat fields, minerals, fishing stocks and all the waterways. This was the wealth of Canada we were told. And weren’t we a fortunate country to have so many natural resources just there for the harvesting, mining, picking, scooping, gathering, damming and then of course selling on the global market at the best price possible.
22617. In my child-like mind it did seem amazing. We had been given so much and there didn’t seem to be any end in sight. The environmental degradation that was caused by extractive industries or the displacement of First Nations caused by mining or hydroelectric projects or just the cost of doing business and of generating wealth for our country. These were side issues that were rarely mentioned, if at all.
22618. Decades later I now have a very different appreciation for all those maps and that viewpoint. Fifty (50) years ago many of us were ignorant about the impact of resources exploitation and now we know better. Who knew what
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux ecosystems were back then. Now most of us do. And so there really is nowhere to hide. However, in the name of progress it too often appears that our leaders are still content to exploit these natural resources as quickly as they can rather than manage them for all time and future generations.
22619. Here in Victoria, and throughout this province, we are exploring our connections to the earth and to each other in ways that fill me with hope for the future. Instead of exploiting our natural resources more and more of us are coming to view these resources as the gifts and treasures they really are. Nature may be viewed as a resource for people but that hasn’t prevented us from understanding that nature has a practical, cultural, emotional and even spiritual value, all of which are equally necessary for our wellbeing.
22620. Moreover we appreciate that the treasures nature provides are not just for those who walk on two legs and call themselves the smartest but are assets for all life on the planet. Science is at long last catching up with ancient spiritual teachings that call for more humility and respect for the natural world because everything is connected. Human beings cannot continue to act as the pirates and plunderers of the natural world. We are part of the natural world whether we choose to recognize it or not.
22621. Global warming will force a rebalancing which most believe is already happening as we watch the effects of enormous hurricanes and raging wildfires night after night on our television screens. We may be able to control where we mine or how we construct pipelines but we will not be able to control the natural forces we have now set into motion by our pursuit of material wealth in the name of the good life.
22622. So what about our standard of living? How can we pay for health care, schools and all those other services that we depend on and take for granted in 2013? This is the main argument that is lifted up whenever anyone suggests that we need a moratorium on tar sands development or a re-imagining of our current economic paradigm.
22623. Call me naïve but I believe, as do the people in the Kairos network that I am a part of, that a majority of Canadians would be very willing to walk back on their lifestyles if it meant saving wilderness, investing in alternative energy resources, and keeping carbon in the ground in order to prevent runaway global warming.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22624. What was our province’s slogan not so very long ago? Super Natural B.C. That’s our core narrative if you will. What most citizens from this province expect their government to always be about, defending, preserving and enhancing.
22625. How does this pipeline project fit with this core narrative? Obviously it doesn’t. I can live in a world without a car but I don’t want my grandchildren to grow up and live in a world where the only wild animals that they will be able to see will exist in zoos or in photos from long ago. For that is really what is at stake here.
22626. If we continue with the status quo the wilderness as we understand it today will be lost and along with that the biological diversity which has provided us with our true standard of living for hundreds of thousands of years.
22627. To conclude, may this place of the cradle be for this Review Panel as it was for the indigenous people who lived here for centuries, a place of fresh beginnings and great expectations for our common future. To start down a new path begins with a single step taken in a different direction. Take that step and recommend against this pipeline.
22628. Thank you.
22629. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
22630. Ms. Dance-Bennink, thank you for coming. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. TERRY DANCE- BENNINK:
22631. MS. TERRY DANCE-BENNINK: Thank you.
22632. I’d like to answer three questions. Who am I; how this project impacts me, and whether it’s in Canada’s public interest?
22633. So first, who am I; my name is Terry Dance-Bennink and I’m a retired Vice-President Academic of Sir Sanford Flemming College in Peterborough, Ontario. As Flemming’s VPA, I was also responsible for the School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences so I have a keen interest in the environment.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22634. My husband and I moved to Victoria seven years ago and we live in a condo by Victoria’s harbour. We watch tankers and freighters pass by our home everyday. I’m a breast cancer survivor and a volunteer with the Canadian Cancer Society. I’m also a member of the United Church of Canada and the Sierra Club. I’ve not been active politically for decades but this issue has made me come forward.
22635. So how does the project impact me? As a coastal resident I’m primarily concerned about the risk of oil spills which history shows are inevitable. And even Enbridge’s President has conceded and I quote:
“Whatever industrial activity you have it has some element of risk.” (As read)
22636. Unquote.
22637. I watched our foggy coastline come and go on two cruises to Alaska and was horrified at the thought of 220 supertankers winding their way from Kitimat through 125 kilometres of narrow rocky passage. The Hecate Strait is the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world according to Canada’s Marine Weather Hazards Manual.
22638. I’ve also cruised the Pacific coast from Victoria to Puerto Vallarta in weather described by the captain as a severe gale. I clung to the ship’s railings feeling dizzy and sick and kept thinking of tankers braving waves that have on occasion reached even 100 feet in northern B.C.
22639. Two vessels have run into trouble in heavy weather off our coast just in the last month and as the BC Ferry’s Queen of the North sinking in 2006 points out, human error is always a danger, along with the weather. And when the predicted big earthquake happens and we just had a 7.5 quake last week in Alaska, it will take only one pipeline crack and one tanker oil spill to wreak devastation on our coast.
22640. We live in a ring of fire where oil has no place. The movie “On the Line” shows the proposed inland route for the pipeline that would cross pristine wilderness and 776 fish-bearing waterways. I love to eat salmon and care about the livelihood of those who catch them, but salmon are not the only species endangered by oil spills. The humpback whale, marbled murrelet, Nechako sturgeon and southern mountain caribou are all at risk and deserve to live and
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux flourish as we humans do.
22641. Enbridge assures us that it can contain a major spill which would only occur once in 15,000 years. But I’m sorry to say I don’t trust this company and neither does the B.C. government. Elizabeth Graf, a government lawyer, spoke at one of your hearings and cited a corporate structure that limits Enbridge’s liability in the event of a spill, despite the disastrous 2010 pipeline breach in Michigan.
22642. B.C.’s taxpayers would bear the lion’s share of the risk. B.C.’s Environment Minister flagged many other concerns in its September 2010 discussion paper. It noted 38 catastrophic landslides in northern B.C. since 1973, many of them near the proposed pipeline route and Enbridge pipelines have sprung 31 leaks in the U.S. since 2002, six of the 10 largest were not detected by the company’s leak detection system.
22643. I have tried honestly to put myself in Stephen Harper’s shoes, but cannot for the life of me fathom why he gutted so many of our environmental protections last year, while at the same time promoting this pipeline. You’d think it would be the reverse. Even Carney, a former member of Harper’s caucus criticized his March budget which shut down Coast Guard communication centres and a Search and Rescue Centre on the B.C. coast, weakened fisheries habitat protection laws and slashed the number of fisheries biologists.
22644. To me, that makes me think who’s preparing to do a big cover up? So, for all these reasons, I stand by the 1972 Government of Canada moratorium on offshore oil and gas activities through B.C.’s inner passage. Every Prime Minister since then has honoured this commitment except Stephen Harper.
22645. And lastly, is this project in Canada’s public interest? My answer is no for two reasons. First, it violates First Nations rights under Section 35 of our Constitution. One hundred and thirty (130) First Nations are opposed to the pipeline and B.C. First Nations have not signed away their rights under bogus Treaties. The Idle No More movement is just one sign of their growing anger at centuries of neglect and racism.
22646. The timelines and deadlines for this Panel’s work will be unlikely to survive an inevitable Supreme Court challenge by First Nations. Our ancestors invaded this land 150 years ago and stole property that did not belong to them. We have a precious opportunity today to stop a recurrence of cultural genocide, and as a white person, this time I want to be on the right side. It’s my moral duty.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22647. My last concern in terms of it being whether it is in Canada’s public interest is that I believe it’s not because as a planet we’re on the verge of environmental collapse. I’m aware that your Panel considers global warming to be beyond its scope on the grounds you are concerned with oil transport, not extraction, but if transport is expanded, so is extraction, and the oil sands are a notorious contributor to global warming.
22648. You have included cumulative effects under the topic of environmental effects in your Terms of Reference. I believe an increase in tar sands production and hence global warming is certainly a cumulative effect.
22649. Even the World Bank has raised an unequivocal alarm. In its 2012 report “Turn Down the Heat”, the bank predicts we’re headed towards a 4 degree Celsius world within this century, not the next, our world, that as many people have told you, and you know yourselves, would bring unprecedented heat waves, severe drought and major floods.
22650. Something can be done to stop this, but it requires a bold moral vision. We have a carbon-based economy and we need to decarbonize it. Our whole way of life has to change. I know it will be incredibly hard to wean ourselves off oil, but the first step in breaking an addiction is to admit we have a problem and there are all sorts of healthier green industries that I saw in the college of which I was a VP springing up around the world, and I trust human ingenuity will find a way.
22651. So I’m no longer an armchair critic. I intend to get active in both provincial and federal politics for the first time in decades. I will campaign this spring for whichever party has the strongest no tankers off our coast stance, and so I would urge you to recommend against the pipeline.
22652. Thank you.
22653. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this morning.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
22654. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Good morning.
22655. Ms. Humphries, please begin your oral statement.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. DONNA HUMPHRIES:
22656. MS. DONNA HUMPHRIES: Good morning. My name is Donna Humphries; I was born in B.C. in 1950, I’m a homeowner and taxpayer. I vote and volunteer in my community. I’m the primary caregiver for my elderly father and I would consider myself an average middle-class Canadian, but I’m also one of those radicals labelled by our federal government minister because I oppose the Enbridge oil pipeline proposal.
22657. My career was spent in various aspects of environmental assessment in private industry and in the public service, this included fish and wildlife habitat protection and inventory, land use planning, identification and delineation of protected areas, and in my last year as an environmental emergency response and enforcement.
22658. For many years I worked in the middle north, Smithers to Atland, Dease Lake, Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. Recreationally and professionally I have been fortunate to have lived and visited the big river watersheds, Stikine, Skeena, Upper Fraser, and hiked in the mountain ranges, the northern Rockies, the Coast Range and the Taiga forest of the peace country.
22659. I’ve hiked and explored the lands of the middle north and to know that there are free-flowing rivers, streams, forests and healthy populations of wildlife and wild ecosystem is integral to my well-being and sense of self. The presence and health of wilderness is as much a tissue need as water is to my wellbeing.
22660. I tell you my background so that you know I speak from knowledge and experience. My emotions and passions in opposition to this project, dicite being radical, are based on that experience and knowledge.
22661. I believe the tar sands are symbolic of the destructive nature of globalization, heavy carbon footprint, destruction of watersheds and shameful disregard for First Nations. There was a time when I was proud to call myself Canadian but no longer. I am increasingly ashamed of what we are doing to our land and our resources, our laws and the resulting erosion of our social values and ethos, and thus I felt a need to speak up today.
22662. While I strongly object to increased oil tanker traffic on the coast I will leave it to others who have and can speak more eloquently and knowledgably
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux about the significant risks of the marine aspect of this proposal.
22663. Having worked in environmental emergency program in past years I can say quite confidently that this program is tremendously underfunded and unprepared for response to pipeline spills, let alone marine oil spills. Even if we can assume a spill or break would be reported, the time it takes to access a spill, the availability of appropriate equipment and supplies and experts in the middle north will ensure that that impact will be major and significant.
22664. Attempts to clean-up will be expensive and effects will be downstream and long-term no matter where it occurs. Environmental resources will be lost and the public will pay and the oil company will be protected behind a wall of legal fine print.
22665. I believe that the economic advantages of this pipeline are short-lived and do not represent long-term sustainable contribution to Canada or the Province of B.C. At best, the short term advantages offer transient benefits, temporary wealth and service activities that disappear as the project moves on. We will all take the risks and Enbridge will take the corporate benefit and other countries will benefit from refining the raw product. I fail to see how this benefits our country.
22666. I’m not an economic expert but I have seen the boom and bust of projects, as that earlier gentleman this morning spoke of, that leave little in the way of long-term community values. The last boom in Fort St. John is typified by a bumper sticker that stated “Please God bring us another oil boom and I won’t blow it this time”.
22667. Over the years of working in the middle north I saw forestry operations remove thousands of hectares of trees, build kilometres of roads that washed out and down mountainsides, power lines slashed through wild forests and moor lands pitting the landscape.
22668. I witnessed seismic operations in the peace country that took and wasted more fibre -- wood fibre than forest operations; each of the many companies collecting their own data so that they could all compete for the leasing of resources. I’ve witnessed unmonitored and uncontrolled gas flares contributing to air pollution, trailer camps and oil exploration that left the land and natural resources poisoned and polluted.
22669. And corridors, roads to access well sites, roads to build pipelines,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux pipelines themselves, roads to campsites, roads to borrow pits to build more roads to access more land. Roads and corridors open access to lands beyond, up valleys and behind mountains and across the Taiga and across mountain ridges. Corridors not only open access to the immediate industrial activities but allow four-wheel drives, all-terrain vehicles, motorized vehicles, snow machines to push beyond the immediate site. The impact is not limited to the immediate corridor or site. This area is not the hinterland.
22670. Any efforts to control access, monitor effects on wildlife from increased hunting, recreational activity are borne by the public not the company. The long-term wildlife management, water and soil management, weed control, access control are not costs borne by the company in coming years they’re born by the taxpayers. While profits continue to flow on the pipeline the public continues to bear these long-term costs.
22671. All these developments have had environmental impacts and they accumulate over time and over space. Cumulative effects need special attention because many minor effects can and do accumulate to result in a significant overall effect. The total impact can thus be greater than that simple formula of -- from one project.
22672. We continue to use an impact assessment model that is decades old and out of date, as it does not consider the accumulation of all these effects, nor does it address limits to change. And I want to say that we have to limit our growth. There must be limits to the gutting and gauging of our natural resources. And it’s wrong-headed to continue assessing the impact of these individual projects without seeing it in the context of existing operations and activities.
22673. It’s not just the mitigative measures that a particular company may take but ultimately we must look at the long-term and widespread cumulative impact. The sum of the parts is not sufficient. But instead we need to understand the limits of acceptable change, what we want to protect and conserve and what we need to sustain the quality of our life.
22674. And as a Panel I’m asking you to consider that we may have reached that tipping point in this boreal forest. Please do not approve this proposal it’s not in our best interests.
22675. Thank you.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22676. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you, Ms. Humphries.
22677. Good morning, Ms. Husted. Please go ahead and share your views.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. LYNN HUSTED:
22678. MS. LYNN HUSTED: Good morning, Joint Panel Members. I’ve been retired for four years and public speaking is not something I do very often anymore. I thank you very much for your patience in listening to so many -- from so many people from B.C. who have concerns about this project.
22679. My name is Lynn Husted and I live in Saanich with my husband. We are long time B.C. residents now both retired. I’m a third generation British Columbian who grew up in Vancouver and travelled or worked throughout B.C. as a teacher, forester and also worked for two B.C. ministries in research and policy.
22680. My husband moved from the Prairies 40 years ago to work and live by the ocean. He has been a crew on tow boats, a surveyor and a Coast Guard Ports Manager. Unfortunately he has a bad cold today and could not join us.
22681. I appreciate the opportunity to present my concerns and views about the proposed pipeline. In preparation I did read the daily written record from January 4th to 7th. I’d like to acknowledge the very thoughtful eloquent comments and wonderful stories of previous speakers then and today. It was rather intimidating and humbling to follow them.
22682. My main concerns with the proposed project have already been covered by many speakers. The proposed project carries an unacceptable level of environmental risk to the land, fresh water and ocean resources of B.C. The project carries an unacceptable level of risk to coastal economies of B.C. The probability of a marine spill does exist with enormous consequences for the people, ecosystems and wildlife of B.C. The Proponent, Enbridge, does not have a good safety record and would bear no liability for tanker spills.
22683. In discussing this with my friends and family as to why British Columbia -- the consensus is why should British Columbians accept these risks? It’s not in our public interest at all. One spill would cancel all the economic benefits optimistically forecasted by the oil industry and the federal government. The spill costs would be borne by the public and could amount to billions.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22684. Moreover, in my view, the Government of Alberta, Enbridge and the federal government have not respected the people of British Columbia, particularly the First Nations people. Over 100 First Nations, the people most impacted directly by the proposal, have said that they don’t want a pipeline running across their lands, and I understand they have said this for years, but the message has been ignored.
22685. The pipeline may be in the public interest of Albertans, at least until they retire to coastal B.C. communities. However, Albertans have other pipeline options for exporting raw product if they decide rapid expansion of the oil sands is necessary for provincial revenue and corporate investors, it is very likely that the Keystone XL pipeline will be approved.
22686. On October 30th, 2012, a Globe and Mail article written by Nathan VanderKlippe, TransCanada is quoted as saying an eastern bitumen pipeline is another feasible option with the benefits of using existing pipelines. The raw product could be moved to eastern refineries and offshore to other countries.
22687. As for the national interest, the point I continually hear is that we need to get a better price for that raw bitumen. Surely there are other aspects to national interest such as national security, our international image, our pride in a beautiful, multicultural, democratic country.
22688. I had a hard time getting my -- an understanding of the oil industry in British Columbia and found a 2011 report by J. David Hughes titled "The Northern Gateway Pipeline, An Affront to the Public Interest and Long-Term Energy Security of Canada" as a good starting point. He provides an analysis of current Canadian consumption of oil, imports, exports, production and remaining reserves.
22689. I didn't realize eastern Canada is highly dependent on imported oil. Hughes concludes, and this is a quote:
"An exponential growth in oil sands production and exports will compromise the long-term energy security interests of Canadians as well as their environmental interests. Given the physical footprint of the expanded oil sands operations and their atmospheric emissions, the proposed pipeline is predicated on exponential growth of the oil sands." (As read)
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22690. As a final point based on some of my personal working experience, I find that our society often relies on rules and regulations to manage risk. However, they alone will not reduce or eliminate the risk of an oil spill, as many accidents are caused by human error or equipment failure.
22691. The Exxon Valdez spill was caused by many factors, including crew fatigue, a faulty radar system and a lack of iceberg monitoring equipment promised but not delivered by the oil company. This disaster resulted in international ship management rules, with a common objective of safer ships and cleaner oceans.
22692. However, rules and regulations are only effective as the compliance monitoring and enforcement conducted by lawmakers. I have not yet found an audit of these international rules, but will keep searching. I'm sure they're available.
22693. I did find a 2011 audit of compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which covers oil transport, and the National Energy Board Act. This audit was conducted by the Federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Their conclusions are troubling. I quote:
"Transport Canada has not designed and implemented the management practices needed to effectively monitor compliance with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. We noted that there was little indication that the Department had followed up on identified instances of non-compliance to ensure that regulated organizations transporting dangerous goods had corrected the problems identified. Transport Canada is not adequately reviewing and approving the emergency response assistance plan submitted by regulated organizations.
Some of the issues in this report are not new. A 2006 departmental internal audit identified similar issues. Five years later, the department has yet to address the identified weaknesses in its management practices.
While the National Energy Board's compliance verification processes identified deficiencies in the practices used by
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux regulated companies, in the files we examined there is little indication that the Board takes steps to ensure that the identified deficiencies are corrected." (As read)
22694. The bottom line for me is I don't believe the project is in the B.C. public or national interest and should not be approved. My understanding is that Panel reviewers usually recommend projects subject to a number of conditions. In this case, the only condition that I feel would be appropriate is that the moratorium on tanker traffic be maintained.
22695. Thank you very much for listening.
22696. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Iverson, thank you for joining us today. I see that you have an aid that you're going to refer to. When you reach that point, if you'll describe it and those who are listening in can then visualize what you're showing us.
22697. MR. ROBERT IVERSON: Okay.
22698. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. ROBERT IVERSON:
22699. MR. ROBERT IVERSON: So I'm on, I see.
22700. My name is Robert Iverson, born and raised in New Westminster. And in 1952, at six years old, I would fish for trout in -- at the Horseshoe Creek just west of Annieville River Road, British Columbia. This creek was less than a kilometre long and emptied into the Fraser River. This creek had survived for probably 1,000 years, even the clear-cutting of the land around it in the thirties.
22701. In 1959, the Municipality of Surrey upgraded the road, killed the creek by putting in a culvert and destroying the habitat. I have stopped by to look at it - - at this creek on numerous occasions and find not a living thing in that creek 55 years later.
22702. The same uncaring attitude toward the environment is shown by big companies and all the government -- levels of government in Canada -- of Canada. Environmental risk is real. There never has been a successful clean-up of a major oil spill in a waterway, and there's -- the ones responsible always seem
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux to walk away.
22703. Examples, just at Hartley Bay, 2006, Queen of the North sinking. Liberal government of B.C. said to the people of Hartley Bay removing that ferry is going to cost too much, so we will leave it, an ongoing spill. Federal government of Canada, who has the responsibility to clean up the United States armament ship that sank in 1946 near Hartley Bay, that is even more of an environmental risk with bunker fuel still onboard and leaking today. And Ottawa said to the people of British Columbia and Hartley Bay, "We could care less about you and your environment".
22704. When our own Canadian governments and businesses walk away from the responsibility of the environmental damage, why would a foreign government or business do any different?
22705. In Kitimat, once the oil is loaded onto a ship, the Enbridge responsibility ends, so who is going to be responsible for the spill? The ship owner, the new owner of the oil? Once spilt, history shows that it will stay in the environment and everybody pays but the people responsible.
22706. Exxon Valdez continued effects on Alaskan economy November 2010 by Melanie Dorsett -- I have some information from her -- from her writings. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 was one of the worst environmental disasters in history, and is still harming the Alaska economy today.
22707. Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred at midnight March 24th, 1989 in Prince William Sound. The spill was approximately 40 million litres of crude oil. Two days after the spill, the powerful storm with 70 mile an hour winds spread it over 1,200 kilometres of shoreline. A spill of the same size would contaminate the entire length of British Columbia coast.
22708. Here's your diagram.
22709. Exxon's wildlife massacre was 435,000 seabirds counted dead. May have been twice as many. Twenty-two (22) orca whales, and two surviving pods lost 40 percent of their members shortly after. That put the amount of orcas that died at 50, approximately, directly from the spill that were counted. These killer whales can live as long as we do. They're all dead.
22710. Salmon and herring. In early 1989, Linda O'Toole and her husband,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Kevin, of Cordova, Alaska, purchased a salmon seining permit, which is like a licence that we call it here. The yield of salmon went from 68 million pounds to 9.5 million pounds a few years later. This permit's value fell from -- fell to a low of $13,000 from 300,000 in 2003.
22711. Recently, they sold it for $47,000 and still owe the original purchase price of $300,000. No compensation for them. Kevin is now a deckhand.
22712. This happened to many people in Alaska and financial disaster for the residents, and Exxon is now off the hook.
22713. Twenty-five (25) years later, the herring fishery is estimated to be at 25 percent to prior to the spill. Financial loss, 1990 sports fishery lost 580 million. Value lost for birds and animals put at 7.2 billion. That's if you count the orcas and all the other animals, if you put a price on them.
22714. Predictions for the future. This is a quote from Melanie Dorsett:
"A number of people who have studied the Exxon Valdez oil spill have made predictions for the future of the Sound. Some biologists believe there will be a gradual extinction of the killer whale pods over the next 25 years. Some scientists believe the oil will take decades or even centuries to disappear entirely. The most important thing is for the people to be patient with the coastal environment. That's all they can do. The oil spill has severely hurt food chains in the Sound. Top predators such as whale are especially sensitive to the deterioration of the food chains. The whales can no longer eat herring for their major source of protein because there are not enough herring to be used as a dietary staple.
Oil persistence studies along the south coast of the Alaska coast have proved that the oil decayed rapidly at first, but currently is decaying very slowly. This means the oil will likely remain in the coastline for a very long time. The presence of the oil will continue to harm the intertidal organisms and the animals that consume them. Humans are especially at risk, since we are one of the top predators in the food web of the Alaskan marine ecosystem." (As read)
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22715. And this is a little quote from Wikipedia:
"Exxon's official position is that the punitive damages greater than 25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident and because Exxon has spent an estimated 2 billion cleaning up the spill and a further 1 billion to settle related civil criminal charges." (As read)
22716. Less than 3 percent of the oil was removed, I suspect the contaminated bodies, vegetation, soils dumped in the forests somewhere. There was nowhere to put contaminated material.
22717. Cost to Alaska, 30 billion and counting. Cost to Exxon, 3 billion.
22718. Risk. Why is the risk always falls on the local people and businesses? If the oil industry put up 20 million or 30 million damage deposit that would be lost to the stakeholders on each oil -- major oil spill, then the risk would be shared and the oil industry would be as worried as we are.
22719. One spill, Exxon Valdez, showed that there is no clean-up, only major financial, social and environmental losses for decades. In fact, the resource of the Great Bear Rainforest may never recover.
22720. B.C. will lose sport fishing. That's figured to be $1 billion per year. Commercial fishing, tourist loss, no herring fishery and environmental disaster, a massacre of wildlife, orcas, humpbacks, seals, otters, bears and serious health problems for the residents of B.C.
22721. The Great Bear Rainforest has been a very valuable resource for the people of B.C. for centuries, and it's at risk by transporting a less valuable, non- renewable resource from Alberta. Makes no sense, and now we are going to have to fight to protect it.
22722. Thank you.
22723. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this morning.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22724. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
22725. Ms. Mason, please proceed with your oral statement. Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. RACHEL MASON:
22726. MS. RACHEL MASON: Hello. Thank you for coming to Victoria today to listen to our views. I'd also like to acknowledge that we are on the territory of the Lekwungen First Nation.
22727. My name is Rachel Mason. I am here today to speak against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. I am speaking as a resident of Victoria and a contributing member to the economy and society of British Columbia and a concerned parent.
22728. I have worked all over the province in many roles with many diverse communities and organizations. I’m raising my family here. My husband and I have two young children and we are expecting a third child later this month.
22729. Over the past few years, I have been following the arguments for and against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, and I have tried to keep an open mind about whether the project should go forward. At the end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that the potential costs of building this specific project far outweigh the potential benefits and, therefore, this project should not be approved. Here are some of the reasons for my decision.
22730. Number one, the economic benefits of this project are not significant enough, especially for B.C. The proposed benefits of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project are solely economic benefits, but how significant would these benefits be?
22731. Enbridge and its supporters argue that the project would create jobs and bring increased taxed revenue to B.C. However, the number of long-term permanent jobs in B.C. is projected to be small. Even Enbridge themselves predict only about 500 long-term jobs, and many have claimed that these estimates are highly over-stated.
22732. In addition, the tax benefits to B.C. are not significant enough to outweigh the risk. According to B.C.'s Minister of the Economy, B.C. would receive less than 10 percent of the incremental fiscal benefits, yet 100 percent of
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux the marine risk and 50 percent of the land-based risk sits with the province.
22733. The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is only one choice of infrastructure development to support our economy, but the choice is not between this project and nothing at all. There are many other proposed developments in B.C., including green and alternative energy projects which could also create a number of jobs with far likely far lower risk. Therefore, it is far from clear that the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is the right economic opportunity for B.C. to embrace.
22734. Number two, this project is not supported by the majority of citizens of B.C. or by First Nations whose unceded territory is at risk.
22735. A recent poll shows that over 60 percent of British Columbians are strongly opposed to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, and the majority of those state they would remain opposed even if the province were to get more revenue from the project.
22736. In addition, the majority of First Nations in B.C. are in opposition to the project. Over 130 First Nations Bands have signed the Save the Fraser declaration, which opposes oil sands pipelines through the Fraser watershed and the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon.
22737. In B.C., most First Nations have never signed Treaties ceding their territories and they have Aboriginal rights to their territories which are guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution. A federal government decision to allow the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project to proceed would infringe on Aboriginal rights and title and breach Canadian and international legal obligations.
22738. Reason number three, the risk of an oil spill or leak and the associated economic and environmental costs is too high.
22739. While estimates of how likely an oil spill would be vary widely, often depending on the interests of the group doing the research, there are many risk factors that point to the likelihood that eventually an oil spill would occur. Difficult terrain and ocean passages that include narrow inlets and fjords, notorious weather conditions, the possibility of an earthquake and previous accidents of large ships that were considered to be safe are some of the factors that point to the possibility of an oil spill.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22740. In reality, the question is not if there will be an oil spill, but when. Enough well-researched studies have convinced me that whether this spill occurs in five years or 150 years, damages from the spill could be devastating to the environment and economy of B.C.
22741. An oil spill would threaten the homes, work and health and wellbeing of communities and landowners in proximity to the pipeline. Thousands of jobs in many other sectors such as agriculture, fishing, tourism and recreation could be affected by an oil spill and this negative economic impact would far outweigh the small number of new jobs created.
22742. This risk will never be eliminated, even with Enbridge's proposed safety measures. This ever-present risk is just too severe and the stakes are too high to be outweighed by any potential benefits of the project.
22743. And number four, the natural beauty of British Columbia is one of our greatest assets and one that should be protected as much as possible.
22744. I was drawn to move to Victoria from the United States in 2004 because of the natural beauty of the land here, particularly the coastline. Many other people I know chose to live in B.C. because of its natural environment, the awe-inspiring mountains and forests, the wild and undeveloped beaches. The natural beauty of this province and the lifestyle and recreational opportunities it affords attracts not only residents but tourists from all over the world.
22745. British Columbia is unique and as a resident of B.C. I am proud that I live in a place where many people value the outdoors and spending time in nature. For me and my family enjoying the unspoiled beaches and waters is the reason that we live here and is a large part of what brings us peace and happiness in life and I cannot tolerate the risk that an oil spill would pose to the environment I love so much.
22746. Imagine our beaches and waters sticky with oil, our wildlife diminished and toxic chemicals released into our environment. This is a vision I must take a stand to prevent. This is a risk I cannot justify. With the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project the risk of oil spills occurring that would damage our natural environment is just too high. It is not one that I am willing to accept.
22747. In conclusion, I would like to summarize my reasons for arguing that the Panel should recommend against the project. The Panel has been tasked with,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux according to your website, making an environmental assessment that determines whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and if so, whether such effects are justified in this circumstance.
22748. The answer to the first question, over the long-term, inter- generationally, is likely to be yes. The project has a high risk of causing significant adverse environmental effects.
22749. Yes, Enbridge is planning to take measures to reduce the risk of a spill and we can engage in endless arguments to quantify the exact probability of risk. But the fact is that this is a new project crossing through a large amount of land and marine territory that, because of natural factors, pose a significant increased risk and that risk can be mitigated to a certain extent but by no means eliminated or reduce to inconsequential levels.
22750. The answer to the second question, whether potential adverse environmental effects are justified is a matter of values and the Panel’s decision will be based, in part, on the values of all the people that presented over the past months and years representing the public’s view of whether this project is justified.
22751. The key value-based question at stake is what is more important to us, the potential economic benefits or the potential risk to the environment? While Canada is primarily a resource-based economy, each new project is a decision about risks versus benefits and we have to draw the line somewhere as to what extent of risk we will accept. Ultimately this is a question of what kind of future we want to support.
22752. As a mother of two young children and an expectant parent I think a lot about the future that I want for my children. Decisions we make today must be thought about in the context of those living here now, as well as future generations. I don’t believe that our province needs the potential small increase in revenue or jobs to move in the right direction for our future.
22753. I believe that our province needs to remain a place where children can safely play at the beach and swim in the ocean, where the air, land and waters are pure and unpolluted, where the citizens dream and work to collectively create a world that is better than our current situation rather than accepting a limited view of what is possible or grasping for short term personal gains.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22754. As a rational person, yes, I will admit that the Northern Gateway Project could have some short term benefits to B.C. and to Canada in general. These include a small number of potential additional jobs and tax revenue that in the short term could contribute to quality of life in some communities.
22755. However, I think that we all have a responsibility to think beyond these limited and short term benefits. The possibility of living in a place that has polluted lands and waters, that is further entrenched in the destructive economy of fossil fuels, and that values the profits of this project over the views of the majority of its citizens is not the future I want to create.
22756. Instead, I will focus my efforts on creating a better future, a future that includes protecting one of our most valuable resources, our environment, a future that is based on the hope and belief that we can create a more just and sustainable sources of energy and economic development.
22757. Therefore, I ask you as Members of the Panel, to support a more positive view of our future by making your recommendation against approving the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.
22758. Thank you.
22759. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
22760. Ms. Preston, please go ahead.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. EMMY PRESTON:
22761. MS. EMMY PRESTON: My name is Emmy Preston and I have lived for 34 years in Victoria B.C., I also grew up in Ottawa and in Calgary and I spent three years in London, England and then lived for nine years in a small prairie town called Grandview, Manitoba. So I’ve had a variety of locations.
22762. I’ll begin with a discussion of the Enbridge pipelines; one carrying diluted bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat and the other carrying condensate from Kitimat to Alberta to dilute the bitumen.
22763. Both pipelines will cross 785 rivers and streams, many of which are vital fish-bearing habitats. This includes the watersheds of the Mackenzie, the Fraser and the Skeena. The Fraser and the Skeena are important B.C. salmon
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux rivers. A spill in either river system could have a major impact on B.C.’s salmon stocks. The Skeena is particularly vulnerable because the pipelines run alongside it for a considerable distance.
22764. To reach Kitimat, tankers will traverse the Queen Charlotte Basin, entering and leaving via Dixon Entrance or Queen Charlotte Sound. This is an ecosystem of high biodiversity. It is for this reason that the Government of Canada imposed a moratorium on crude oil tankers in the Basin 40 years ago. It is more urgent today than ever before to protect this area due to the increasing rarity of such systems around the world.
22765. Fisheries are very important to the B.C. economy. Data from Industry Canada and Statistics Canada from 2007 indicates that fish is by far the leading food export from B.C.
22766. In 2007 about $1.3 billion worth of fish were produced in B.C. and $950 million worth were exported. An oil spill in the Skeena or Queen Charlotte Basin which negatively impacts fish stocks would certainly be detrimental to the B.C. economy. Tourism would also suffer as the biodiversity of the Queen Charlotte Basin attracts tourists from around the world.
22767. The important impact of an oil spill on salmon stocks may also go beyond the Basin, depending on when and where it happens. This is because juvenile salmon from all the Pacific Northwest go through the Basin on their northward migration in spring. The expert panel on science issues related to oil and gas activities offshore British Columbia summed it up this way in their 2004 report.
“The QCB therefore represents a critical migratory highway for virtually all of the salmon populations from mainland B.C., the east and west coasts of Vancouver Island, as well as Washington and Oregon.”
22768. End of quote.
22769. What is the likelihood of such a spill? The Queen Charlotte Basin is known for its fierce winter storms with very strong winds and high waves. These storms can develop very quickly, in as little as eight hours, so a tanker could be caught out at sea. The expert panel notes in its report that during the period between November and March, intense storms sweep across the Basin every two
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux to three days.
22770. In future we can expect the intensity of storms to increase as our warming climate leads to higher sea levels and more extreme wet weather events. We are seeing this already happening all around the world.
22771. In such weather conditions it would be impossible to clean up a spill. Even under ideal conditions it would be difficult because diluted bitumen is heavy and sinks. Part of it becomes a toxic cloud which prevents responders from getting near it to attempt a clean-up.
22772. What if there was a catastrophic spill in the Queen Charlotte Basin or Douglas Channel? Who would compensate local fisheries and others for the loss of their livelihoods? To answer this question we need to examine what happened to the fisheries of Cordova, Alaska after a massive oil spill from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989 into Prince William Sound which devastated their fishery.
22773. After the spill 32,000 people launched a class action suit against Exxon and a jury ordered Exxon to pay them 5 million in compensation. Exxon was not happy with the size of the award and took the plaintiffs back to court. There followed the longest legal battle in U.S. history which took 20 years and went all the way to the Supreme Court.
22774. At every level of the court system the amount awarded to the citizens of Cordova was reduced. The final settlement was only one tenth of the amount that was originally awarded. While all of this was going on in the communities, including other communities than Cordova, there were bankruptcies, poverty, a high divorce rate, and even some suicides. A documentary film called “Black Wave” was made of their struggles and is available online.
22775. What would happen if there was a similar tanker spill in B.C. waters? Exxon is a U.S. based corporation, but the tankers taking diluted bitumen from Kitimat would be foreign to Canada. Hopefully a class action suit could be brought using Canadian court system, but that remains to be seen.
22776. I'd like to examine another type -- sorry. And then there are the pipelines. We have to keep in mind these pipelines are expected to last for 30 years and need to be well maintained.
22777. The Enbridge -- failure of an Enbridge pipeline in Michigan in July
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 2010 gives an example of what can happen when diluted bitumen is released into the environment. So our rivers are also a great concern.
22778. I'd like to examine another topic, vessel traffic. Over 200 supertankers per year will be coming up Douglas Channel to the Port of Kitimat. In addition, there will be other ocean-going vessels such as those delivering condensate and supplies and, in future, there may also be LNG tankers. This will make for a very busy channel and port area.
22779. How will this affect First Nations such as the Haisla who live close to Kitimat and depend on fish and other seafood as part of their diet? Will they be able to fish safely?
22780. A similar situation already exists in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, where hundreds of oil tankers come in to visit the oil refinery and storage facility at the end of the bay. The tankers are supposed to stay in designated lanes, but in stormy weather they can't always maintain their positions, and there have been some near misses with the fishing boats in the harbour.
22781. The CBC did a short video on this problem a few years ago, and you can find it on their website.
22782. To conclude, I'd like to pose a couple of questions to the Panel. One, is it in the best interests of Canada to promote the export of Alberta's bitumen at the possible expense of British Columbia's marine resources and tourism industry?
22783. Two, is it in the best interests of Canada to ignore the protests of the majority of First Nations in B.C. who oppose the project? First Nations in B.C. and across Canada are already making their concerns known to the federal government through the Idle No More Movement. If the federal government goes against their wishes and approves this pipeline, I fear there will be an explosion of anger and a prolonged battles that will cost both sides.
22784. And finally, I'd like to invite the Panel to watch -- if you still feel up to it, to watch "The Nature of Things" on CBC at 8 p.m. tonight.
22785. Canada's not the only country which has had to make its choice between protecting its environment and profiting from oil. The people of Ecuador had the same problem. Their country includes the headwaters of the Amazon
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Rainforest, an area with incredible biodiversity like the Queen Charlotte Basin, but underneath the forest is a vast pool of oil worth billions of dollars.
22786. They have come up with a plan to conserve this area and generate revenue from leaving the oil in the ground. Find out how they plan to do this. I invite you to watch the program. It's at 8 p.m. again, on CBC, Channel 2.
22787. Thank you for your attention.
22788. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you, Ms. Preston.
22789. Ms. Runnells, thank you also for choosing to be here today to present your views. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. JOANNA RUNNELLS:
22790. MS. JOANNA RUNNELLS: Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
22791. My name is Joanna Runnells. I live in Victoria, grew up here on Vancouver Island, and have always lived on the Pacific Coast. I’m an avid sea kayaker and I'm currently looking forward to a week and a half long trip on the central coast this summer near the project site.
22792. I have a Bachelor of Science in Earth Science and Environmental Studies and a Masters in Environmental Science. I'm both a professional geoscientist and a certificated environmental professional with designations in water quality and in site assessment and reclamation.
22793. Currently, my job involves cleaning up legacy contaminated sites that are part of our history of industrial development, and there's no responsible parties that can be held accountable for that contamination. I don't want to see that to be part of our future.
22794. I firmly believe that decisions on projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project should be about the balance between risks and benefits and should focus on the long-term public interest. For this project, I don't see the balance being in favour of the public at any level, provincial, federal or global, and I don't see it being in my personal interests.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22795. I agree with many of the concerns raised about pipeline safety and shipping safely by other speakers, and I'm not going to speak to them in any detail.
22796. My biggest concern relates to the basic principles of this project. Extracting the tar sands oil as fast as possible, piping bitumen vast distances across the Canadian wilderness and exporting our precious and finite resources to be processed elsewhere is just plain stupid.
22797. There's also the huge global cost related to the release of fossil carbon to the atmosphere, both from the bitumen itself and from extracting it and from transporting it. There's the risk to our local environment at each stage of the process from extraction through transportation to delivery.
22798. If the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project had been considered from these perspectives in the beginning, instead of from the typical economic perspective, I don't think it would have been considered a viable project in the first place.
22799. I question how long Canada should continue to act like a colony, placing our main value on our ability to export resources. Someone talked this morning about the coloured maps of each Canadian resource. We continue to export raw logs. We've begun selling off our water. Oil is a finite global resource. It's not a renewable resource. What are the risks to Canadians of holding onto it a little longer or using the existing transportation corridors we have?
22800. Considering the costs associated with extraction and not just the financial costs, shouldn't we be maximizing the value Canadians get for each precious barrel? And shouldn't we be managing the resource carefully to ensure it's available for future Canadians?
22801. There has been challenges with developments of the tar sands, and I'm not talking about the environmental challenges right now. The pace of development in the surrounding communities has been unmanageably fast and has created numerous hardships, both locally and regionally, as economies shift to try and accommodate the rapid changes associated with that development.
22802. The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is likely to only exacerbate those problems as providing a transportation corridor will allow increased
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux production. Why should I, as a Canadian, support a project that is in a rush to sell off this limited public resource and that is likely to accelerate the rate of change in an already stressed region? That balance between risks and benefits just isn't there. It's not in favour of the long-term public interest.
22803. I say let's break free of that colonial mindset, focus our energies on becoming cutting edge leaders in new energy economies instead of merely exporters of unprocessed bitumen.
22804. And then there's the most important question to me, and that's the question of how much we're willing to mortgage our future, of how much the short term gain is worth, especially when a portion of that gain flows into the pockets of private or even state-owned corporations.
22805. As has been discussed already this morning, the climate crisis is already upon us. It will have enormous financial cost to British Columbians and to Canadian taxpayers. And that's not to mention the much more important costs, the global costs, the costs to the environment, the costs to the way of life of our Aboriginal people and communities. Costs like the loss of a Canadian icon, the polar bear, represented on our $2 coin, that's likely to occur during my lifetime.
22806. The many, many challenges related to climate change we've all heard about and we've heard details this morning. There's no way to gain from this project, no matter how great they may be, can offset those costs.
22807. So this project starts with a negative balance sheet because it's a contributor to the climate crisis by transporting, delivering bitumen. And that's before you consider the potential costs directly associated with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project's risks such as habitat disruption due to the pipeline tanker spills and all the rest that we’ve heard raised.
22808. The project doesn’t add up. The balance sheet is not in favour of the long-term public interest, not provincially, not federally and not globally, certainly not for me personally.
22809. I’d like to be able to continue to paddle on a coast unpolluted by oil spills in an ocean that hasn’t been acidified by high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. I urge the Panel to strongly recommend against the project in the best interest of all Canadians, myself included.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22810. Thank you.
22811. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this morning.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
22812. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
22813. Mr. Startin, I understand that you have a visual aid. We have people who are listening in -- may be listening in via the webcast and so when we get to -- if you’re going to use your visual aid if you could just describe what it is so they can follow with you.
22814. MR. STARTIN: Where?
22815. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just describe your visual aid when you get there so that they can follow along with you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. DON STARTIN:
22816. MR. DON STARTIN: I might or might not use it, but I had to put my name down to use it.
22817. Okay. Madam Chairman, I would like the Panel staff -- I would like to thank the Panel staff for returning calls, answering questions and exceeding to requests for help. Also thanks to the Dogwood Initiative for helping me to even get here.
22818. I am four square against the transportation of bitumen from the tar sands to the west coast by any means, that includes railway, by the way. In my book -- and this is a value judgment -- all the bitumen in Alberta isn’t worth one blade of seagrass -- one blade -- and should be processed and used by Canadians.
22819. The pipeline crosses the watersheds of rivers flowing into Hudson’s Bay, the Mackenzie watershed, the Fraser watershed and the Skeena watershed. All are at severe risk.
22820. I know I’m not really meant to contact the Panel, but I want you, if you don’t know and can’t recite to yourself all the watersheds that this place --
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux that this thing affects please raise your hand, because I brought a map which I was able to Google up, which shows where the pipeline runs and shows where the pipeline crosses all these watersheds.
22821. I had to make sure I knew about watersheds because, as you can see, I am against the damming of the Peace River and have been active in that campaign rather than this one.
22822. Facts about Enbridge: Between 1999 and 2008 Enbridge listed 610 spills that released approximately 21 million litres of hydrocarbons. Enbridge averages about 60 spills a year, based on Enbridge’s average spill rate between 2004 and 2008, 7.7 barrels per billion barrel miles.
22823. The Northern Gateway pipeline is expected to spill 160,000 litres of oil per year on average. Enbridge’s proposal would carry 525,000 barrels a day and would bring 220 oil tankers to the Great Bear Rainforest.
22824. I spoke to a fisherman about that channel that runs from Kitimat out to the sea. I haven’t been there myself. He tells me -- can you conceive this -- that the channel is narrower in places than the length of a cotton pickin tanker. Now, if anything goes wrong in one of those places all the tugboats in the world aren’t going to be able to sort that one out. You’re going to have a tanker jammed across the channel.
22825. A modern supertanker can carry more than 300 million litres of oil. The Exxon Valdez spilled one-third that much. Oil tankers would have to transit Hecate Strait, which is related by Environment Canada as the fourth most dangerous ocean environment on earth.
22826. Now, we know that you could get a 260 -- sorry, a 26-metre wave. That’s a mighty big wave, as high as a seven-storey building. Now, one of -- in the Benguela current off South Africa such a wave snapped a tanker in half, an oil tanker. Now, that is the power of these waves. It doesn’t matter whether it’s six hull, you could get an almighty foundry right off the coast.
22827. In July 2010, a leaking pipeline spilled more than 30 million litres of crude oil into the Talmadge Creek leading to the Kalamazoo River in Southwest Michigan on Monday July the 26th. In its investigation of the Kalamazoo spill the U.S. Transportation Safety Board said Enbridge ignored safety procedures while suffering pervasive organizational failure.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22828. I’ve worked in heavy industry. I know what happens sometimes in heavy industry. You can get idle, or stupid, or drug addicted people and they -- you know, working, and you can have severe troubles with heavy machinery of all kinds.
22829. Some key findings: The line was not shut down for 17 hours after the spill. Eighty-one (81) percent of the total oil spill was pumped after the initial alarm went off. Enbridge knew at least five years before the leak that the pipeline was corroded and cracked. Roughly 15,000 defects were identified in a 2005 report but only 800 were addressed.
22830. The remote operations of the Gateway pipeline will likely delay detection of spills and clean-up efforts. According to an analysis or 10 years- worth of U.S. federal data on the average remote census only detected 5 percent of oil spills. The general republic reported 22 percent of oil spills during the study period while the pipeline company employees at the scene of accidents reported 62 percent.
22831. In evidence presented to the Joint Review Panel reviewing Enbridge’s proposal on June the 25th, 2012 these facts were tabled. Now, of course, you’ve heard all this before but it stands to be repeated. The mathematical chance of an oil spill at sea is 18.1 percent. The mathematical chance of a spill up to 10,000 litres at the Kitimat Terminal is 47.8 percent and other spill of up to a million litres is 15.6 percent. We’re playing poker now.
22832. Three minutes? There is a 30.8 percent chance of a spill of up to a million litres in the Alberta uplands and a 34.5 percent chance of a similar spill in B.C.’s interior plateau. The probability that at least one of these locations will experience a medium size -- period is 77.54 percent, combining everything, the risk of one or more medium or large spills over the 50 years is 87 percent. This project is a self-dumper. No risk to B.C.’s fragile ecosystem is acceptable.
22833. Five reasons shipping oil to Asia is not in the national interest. If we protect B.C.’s coast, we protect B.C.’s jobs. I won’t go into all the rigmarole. Time’s run out. Canada already got a bad case of Dutch disease. I’m sure you’ve heard all about Dutch disease to the nth degree every day that people come. You know all about that, but we don’t -- we don’t -- it’s not in our national interest to have this pipeline.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22834. Exporting raw bitumen exports Canadian jobs. It’s self-evident. I drive a car -- I don’t drive a car. My wife does, but I really enjoy using our car now that I’m 85, but it’s -- we should process our own stuff, not ship it out and half of Canada’s rely -- relies on foreign oil so why not get us using our own stuff?
22835. In closing, I’d like to thank the Board for personally sitting through testimony that must be very monotonous. I -- I have to point out that much of the hostility you may have encountered was due to the fact that on radio and in the press there was no adequate notice given of how and when to register to speak. I listen to CBC, check the Times Colonist daily. I never saw or heard any announcement of notice of requirements to speak to this Panel.
22836. Also, the Panel could have filled any space time by allowing any registered presenters to have five minutes on a first come-first served basis like they do here. Why shouldn’t oral protesters hand in -- sorry, oral presenters hand in a written brief? Doesn’t make sense.
22837. Lastly, it is creeping fascism the way photo ID must be shown and the public -- and my MP was not allowed to be in this hall and hear what presenters have to say in the flesh. Now, I’m glad to say that there wasn’t a large police presence. Only I saw one policeman, so that wasn’t too bad. I was expecting shoals of them.
22838. Okay, thank you very much.
22839. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great, thank you.
22840. Ms. Sterk, please go ahead and present.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. JANE STERK:
22841. MS. JANE STERK: Good morning. Before I begin my remarks I want to acknowledge that we are on the territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. My name is Jane Sterk; I’m leader of the Green Party of B.C. The Green Party opposes the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline; it is not in the public interest.
22842. While saying no would raise constitutional tension, B.C. Greens expect that the federal and Alberta governments would have to respect the B.C.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux government saying we will not have this pipeline built.
22843. The Green Party is founded on a series of principles that flow from the Global Green Charter, a constitution that unites green parties around the world in the global green movement. These principles are based in common sense and provide our party with the basis for our opposition to this pipeline.
22844. Before I share the principles, I would like to make some observations about the process that has been adopted to review the Enbridge application and the role that this Panel plays.
22845. First, it defies logic that an application for a project of this magnitude would not have as its mandate the requirement to take a holistic and comprehensive look at all parts of the project, from the mining of the bitumen in the tar sands to the piping of the diluted bitumen, and indeed the process of how that bitumen is diluted, to the construction of the terminus of the pipeline to the loading of the dilbit into tankers and to the tanker traffic.
22846. The review of this Panel is limited to the pipeline, and to a limited extent, the tankers, not the bigger question of the expansion of the tar sands.
22847. Second, global warming is at a crisis point. Dealing with and cutting our dependence on fossil fuels is a moral imperative, the moral imperative of our time and a major reason the B.C. Greens believe this project should not be approved.
22848. If approved and built, the consequences of that approval will commit us to uncontrollable and immoral contribution to the increased global greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, increasing our dependence on the extraction and export of fossil fuels delays our necessary transition to a low carbon economy and the associated development of renewable energy.
22849. Now, I recognize that these issues are not within your mandate but they are in the mandate of the Green Party of B.C. and it’s important that you know our position. I want to share the 10 green principles of the Green Party of B.C. The first thing we do at any meeting of our members is to read these principles in aid of reminding ourselves of the meaning of the work that we do as a political party and as a member of the global green movement.
22850. As I describe a principle, I will highlight how it pertains directly to the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux work of this Commission and the reasons behind our opposition. Our core green principles are as follows.
22851. Sustainability, this is really the heart of the British Columbia Green Party’s thinking. We must consider the welfare of our descendants for at least seven generations if we are to be wise stewards of the earth. We define sustainability as a dynamic equilibrium in the processes of interaction between a population and the carrying capacity of an environment, such that the population develops to express its full capacity while remembering our obligation to our grandchildren’s grandchildren.
22852. Your Panel has heard from scientists, biologists, economists, First Nations and ordinary citizens who have provided the evidence that this project cannot and does not meet the test of sustainability.
22853. Social justice, the world-wide increase in poverty and inequity is unacceptable. All must be able to fulfill their potential regardless of gender, race, citizenship or sexual identity. You’ve been hearing from First Nations in communities along the pipeline route and along our fragile coast. Often poverty and inequity are endemic in these communities.
22854. There is nothing in this project that can redress the situation. Even the equity participation offered First Nations requires the equity be paid for over time from the revenue of the pipeline. It does not recognize title and rights. As such, it is employing a neo-colonial practice of using an economic promise to exert socio- economic and political control over already disadvantaged peoples.
22855. Grassroots democracy, every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. We will work to increase public participation at every level by directly including citizens in decision-making processes. This project violates this principle. This Panel does not represent real public participation. The three of you will make the recommendation and none of you British Columbia home.
22856. As well, the decision to exclude the public from sessions in Victoria and Vancouver could be interpreted as an unwillingness to permit the respectful participation of people even those who are only listening.
22857. I think that this project proposal has done two things that are of potential benefit to Canada. First, it has raised the question of who should decide
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux what happens in a jurisdiction. It is a by the people for the people moment in history that may allow us as Canadians to redefine how we make public policy and in whose interests.
22858. Second, it shows how dysfunctional the Canadian federation is and how fragile our ability to work together towards a common goal. It is the opinion of the B.C. Green Party that the people of B.C. should make the decision about this project. We believe that is what the people of B.C. think as well.
22859. Non-violence, we all know that in this complicated world, there are times when we may be called to arms, but we will maintain that violence is almost always self-defeating and always the very, very last choice. We must work to end war and eliminate the root causes of crime.
22860. You may not hear a direct connection between this principle and the decisions to be made on this project but throughout the conduct of these hearings you have witnessed non-violent opposition to inaction.
22861. As well, if you decide in favour of this project, that decision will lead to additional non-violent activities that will demonstrate that it is indeed the people of B.C. who will decide.
22862. Community-based economy: Rather than people being subservient to the economy, the economy should provide for human needs within the natural limits of earth. Local self-reliance to the greatest practical extent is the best way to achieve this goal. This is the heart of the B.C. Green policy. We believe that the new economy is a local economy. Green MLA’s will plan for, and transition to, an economy based in place and community.
22863. We will help create prosperity throughout the province by building self-sufficient sustainable local and regional economies. The new economy puts people and the places they live at its center. This means that people in -- in their local places are best positioned to make decisions about their wellbeing. Our policies will give local communities more control over food, health, education, land and social services. This project is counter to community-based economies.
22864. Gender equality: The ethics of cooperation and understanding must replace the values of domination and control. While this principle is defined in terms of gender the underlying value relates to cooperation and understanding versus domination and control. This project application is founded in the latter.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22865. Diversity: We celebrate the biological diversity of the earth and the cultural, sexual and spiritual diversity of the human race. The development of this pipeline would compromise and diminish the biological diversity along the pipeline route and along the coast. The proposal itself has negatively affected First Nations peoples and British Columbians who hold cultural and spiritual values about the pristine wilderness of the pipeline route, the multiple rivers and streams that would be damaged, the Great Bear Rainforest and our coastal waters.
22866. Decentralization: The people most affected by a problem must have the authority to solve it. Dissent administrations cannot be responsive, power must be returned to local communities. This Panel represents a dissented administration. For B.C. Greens the power to decide must reside in the local communities with the people most affected by the project.
22867. Personal and global responsibility: Global sustainability and international justice can only be achieved when responsibility is shared at all levels of society. Greens take a global view. This project is about making money at the expense of the life support systems of this planet, it’s about exploiting resources for the benefit of a few wealthy corporations. It is globally irresponsible to enable the expansion of our addiction to fossil fuels.
22868. Ecological wisdom: The earth sustains all life forms. Whatever we do to the earth we do to ourselves. Although these principles come from the Global Green Charter they are principles that we all need to live by.
22869. Thank you for your time.
22870. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Summerfield, thank you for taking the time to participate.
22871. Please begin and present your views to the panel.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. HENRY SUMMERFIELD:
22872. MR. HENRY SUMMERFIELD: Thank you.
22873. My name is Henry Summerfield; I lived in Victoria for 46 years. For seven years I’ve been an investor in Enbridge so I’m not against pipelines as such.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux As a retired person I do need dividends that are important to me, but not dividends at any price.
22874. Now this country has two serious problems that we’re concerned with. One is we need to diversify our energy market because it’s a very bad business practice to rely on one market. The second problem is that we need to preserve our environment. The Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat will diversify our market but it’ll be absolutely deadly for the environment.
22875. When I invested in Enbridge I never envisaged that one of its projects would be a threat to so many things. Firstly it threatens destruction of the way of life of First Nations peoples who’ve suffered abominably already. It’s -- it imperils B.C.’s tourist industry; it threatens slaughter of fish and mammals in the sea and the rivers; it threatens exposure of birds to agonizing death; it threatens the desecration of British Columbia’s coastal region.
22876. Given the obstacles in the Douglas Channel and the size of the supertankers that will be passing through it, it’s extremely unlikely that disastrous oil spills could be avoided. Enbridge has been very eloquent about safety measures, and some of them are good and they deserve credit for that. But the one thing they can’t eliminate is human error.
22877. To give some examples of disasters of the past: The fuel barge Nestucca rammed by its -- the tug that was towing it in Washington State in 1988 with a big fuel spill; Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989 that we’ve already heard so much about; the Queen of the North at Hartley Bay between Kitimat and the sea, the very area we’re concerned with, in 2006; the bulk carrier Petersfield that smashed into the side of the Douglas Channel, same area, although a B.C. pilot was aboard, in 2009; the British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico that should never had happened if proper safety measures had been observed; the Enbridge spill in Kalamazoo River, Michigan in 2010, the 17-hour delay that we’ve been hearing about apparently due in part to a disorganized control room.
22878. We have a choice. We can pipe oil to Kitimat for export at very great risk to land and sea and continue importing foreign oil for eastern refineries, much of it from countries with doubtfully stable regimes which -- like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Some of those suppliers could be cut off. Or, second choice, we can send Alberta oil east to refineries many of them in Quebec and New Brunswick who are clamoring for it. And we could probably continue to export the surplus which I understand there will be, to the United States.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22879. Now, I know this is controversial but in November 2012, the International Energy Agency reckoned that in 2025 the U.S.A. would still be importing about a third of its oil and it would still be a net importer in 2035. And I noticed that in the recent Presidential Campaign Governor Romney talked about North American self-sufficiency in energy not United States self-sufficiency in energy.
22880. And we can diversify our energy market by exporting liquid natural gas which seems to have a good safety record and if there is a spill it quickly evaporates. And there’s a considerable demand for it in Asia, for example from Malaysia and Japan.
22881. If we absolutely must export oil to Asia, which as I’ve indicated I think is a bad idea, the best way is probably to send it by rail to Prince Rupert. A calculation cited by the Globe and Mail on the 14th of December, this last December, reckons that bitumen would cost about the same amount to transport bitumen by rail as by pipeline.
22882. The railway line is already there so a lot of disruption would be avoided especially to First Nations and maybe to private landowners. There’d be relatively safe access to the ocean. We could avoid the terrible -- we’d have every chance of avoiding the terrible disaster or disasters that are all but certain with a choice of a pipeline to Kitimat.
22883. So I would urge the Panel to recommend against Northern Gateway.
22884. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this morning.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
22885. THE CHAIRPERSON: I have to check and see if it's still morning. It is. Good morning.
22886. Mr. Sundberg, please proceed with your oral statement when you're ready.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. PETER SUNDBERG:
22887. MR. PETER SUNDBERG: Thank you very much, and thank you for having me here today to speak and for your work on this Panel. I appreciate it.
22888. My name is Peter Sundberg, and I'm a Victoria resident. I'm a father of two children, and I manage a company that provides energy conservation services for buildings. I'm here today to speak in opposition to the Enbridge pipeline.
22889. And while I have so many reasons why I'm in opposition to this pipeline, today I'm going to focus on two reasons, and I'll explain those reasons now, the concepts of them, and then go into further detail.
22890. And the first reason is because I'm from a family of coastal people that's been in the fishing industry for over three generations, and I feel that the threat of an oil spill is simply too great for our fish, for our natural environment, and the people that work within this industry, which is so critical to the economy of British Columbia.
22891. And the second reason I'm -- why I'm speaking to this today is that Canada has no national energy strategy, and we have a valuable national resource that needs to be sustainably managed. And I do not feel that this pipeline represents sustainable management of this valuable resource.
22892. So let me tell you a little bit about my family history in the fishing industry. My grandfather, James, was a commercial fisher. He lived on the -- and worked off the island of Sointula, which is off the northeast coast of Vancouver Island. And he worked up and down the coast from Northern Island up to Haida Gwaii. And at that time, the island of Sointula was a vibrant and thriving fishing community, like one of many vibrant and thriving fishing communities of that era. And today, vibrant fishing communities, like our fish, are an endangered species.
22893. My father was also a commercial fisher throughout his life. He was a logger by trade, but throughout his life he worked in the fishing industry sort of piecemeal work picking up work along all through the years. And he also worked in the same region.
22894. My cousin is First Nations, and has family from the community of
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Alert Bay, which is very close to Sointula. It's a First Nations community that is partly sustained by fish, and he's a commercial fisherman today, and he also fishes for food.
22895. I personally worked in the commercial fishing industry for years in my youth, in my early 20s and my late teens. It was my first job. It helped me earn money to put myself through university, and it also helped me learn my family history on our coast.
22896. I have two children, and I hope that they have every opportunity that was available to me, including working within the fishing industry for a few years, hopefully, to help them put themselves through university as well or for a lifetime.
22897. But there's a big problem in British Columbia. Our fishing industry is already in trouble, has been for 20 years. When I worked in this industry 20 years ago, the old-timer fishers told me, "We don't know how much longer we're going to have a viable fishing industry within this province". This was 20 years ago. And we still have a very threatened fishing industry within our province today.
22898. The Province of British Columbia needs to do everything it can to rebuild our fishing stocks and to protect and enhance the natural environment that sustains our fish and the people that work within our fishing industry and the economy of our province.
22899. An oil spill, either on land, threatening rivers or directly in the ocean, has potential to have devastating and long-term severe consequences on our fish, on our natural environment, on the people who work in the fishing industry and on all the communities up and down our coast that are sustained by the beauty and bounty of our oceans.
22900. The risk of an oil spill is simply too great, and that's why myself and my family do not accept this pipeline.
22901. The second reason that I would like to speak to you today is about the fact that Canada currently has no national energy strategy. We are an energy superpower without a strategy, without a plan. It's completely reckless and irresponsible for us to be developing a pipeline like this with no plan.
22902. What Canada needs is a national energy strategy that looks at this
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux pipeline and all our energy resources and determines what really is in Canada's best interests.
22903. I do not feel this pipeline is in its best interest. I think right now exporting crude oil out of our country is exporting jobs, jobs for today, jobs for 20 years from now and jobs for 50 years from now. This is not in our national best interest.
22904. Shipping oil out of our country as fast as we can today also may leave us with no oil in the future; oil for Canadians, individuals, for businesses. And in the future, this oil is going to be much more valuable resource. Shipping out now is not in our national best interest.
22905. The development and even the discussions on this pipeline without having a national energy strategy is reckless and irresponsible. Canada needs a national energy strategy that looks at this. What really is best for Canada's best interest?
22906. We need to think about how we can use our oil resources to transition to a sustainable energy economy that looks at a long-term economic prosperity of our country.
22907. So in conclusion, I personally am against the Enbridge pipeline. My family is against it. Everyone I know is against it. Everyone I know within the fishing industry in British Columbia is against it. I'm pretty sure the fish are against it, and I know that most of the communities that are sustained by the beauty and bounty of our coast are against it.
22908. I also feel that if Canada did have a national energy strategy that really held Canada's best national interests at heart, it would not call for this pipeline.
22909. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
22910. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you for your presentation.
22911. Welcome, Mr. Van Beek. Please go ahead and share your views with the Panel.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. JOHN VAN BEEK:
22912. MR. JOHN VAN BEEK: Okay, thank you.
22913. First off, thank you very much for having been given the opportunity to speak on the subject and to the Panel and that is a very important part of living a democracy, and I really appreciate that.
22914. I came to Canada back in '49, and I've lived on Vancouver Island for well over 60 years, so I'm well aware of all the ramifications of living on the coast for 60 years and more. I'm well aware of all the hazards of -- navigational hazards and on and on and as many members -- as many speakers have already so eloquently expressed.
22915. I was active in agriculture, forestry, food farming, sawmilling. I've done all kinds of things, so I'm well aware of what goes on on Vancouver Island.
22916. Another thing I'd like to mention is what catapulted me to become an environmentalist was the U.S.A.'s attempt to set off an atomic bomb in the Aleutians. On that occasion the Green -- the Greenpeace organization became active and was created, and I've been a Greenpeace member ever since, as well as other environmental organizations, including the Green Party of Canada and the Green Party of B.C. So I am totally devoted to the environment and it's high up on my list.
22917. And I'm well aware, as an environmentalist, that we are facing a calamity, a calamity of climate change. And we see that -- we see the signs everywhere, extreme weather events.
22918. I just heard a little story from a friend of ours who talked to her sister who lives in Aruba in the West Indies, and she said she's so saddened because the beach has disappeared. The rising ocean water has caused the beach to disappear, and the signs are everywhere that things are changing; tremendous forest fires, floods, slides.
22919. I watched a little segment on -- I don't watch much TV, but I turned on the TV news and there was an extreme weather event in Austria. And this beautiful mountainside just came down into the valley, trees and all, and it was -- it was so sad.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22920. Anyway, there are many -- there are many examples of extreme events going on Australia, all along. I don't need to elaborate too much because people before me have already mentioned so many things.
22921. And now I want to refer directly to the pipeline. It occurred to me that the company has said that they would make it thicker at certain dangerous points by river crossings. But a pipeline, no matter how thick, is no match for the avalanches and slides that are going to occur with climate change. I've seen some -- the other day, another thing on TV, there was this slide -- mudslide came down in the mountain and it wiped out a whole train of boxcars, just wiped them off the map, so to speak.
22922. And so the power behind these natural events are awe-inspiring. And no pipeline can withstand earthquakes and slides and avalanches, et cetera, et cetera. So that's one reason why I'm totally against the Enbridge pipeline.
22923. The other reason why I'm against the pipeline is Enbridge got such a bad reputation, as already mentioned before, hundreds of spills occur with Enbridge pipelines. But to top it all was the Kalamazoo disaster.
22924. The controllers in the control room noticed that the pressure was dropping. Okay, boys, let's increase the pressure. There's something wrong here. We've got to push that stuff through. It took them 17 hours to realize that they were pumping it into Kalamazoo River. And it's just one really bad example why this company is -- has a very bad reputation to build and maintain pipelines.
22925. Okay, another thing I want to mention is, much safer way to move oil would be by rail. And I see Irving Oil in the east is expanding that program, and very successfully and very safely. But even if we did go to a rail-based system, we're still stuck with moving it out from the west coast to the Orient. It just cannot be done.
22926. You've heard all the evidence from the previous speakers. We know the horrendous sea conditions that shipping encounters in that part of the world, and it's just absolutely foolish. And we had a moratorium on that because -- in northern B.C. because of that, because it's too dangerous.
22927. Before I end my little submission here -- okay, yeah. I hear more and more voices saying oil is yesterday's form of energy. There are so many alternatives that should be furthered and looked at. There's geothermal, there's
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux tidal, there's wind, and it goes on and on.
22928. And the only way where we still have a problem would be in aviation, to power the aircraft. That's where we need our oil-based products. But we can do things much better than we are doing right now.
22929. So I've pretty well touched on all the things I wanted to say. Is -- I would like to sum it up by saying this project, proposed project I would like to sum it up in two words. It's a reckless adventure -- a reckless venture, pardon me.
22930. So thank you.
22931. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Wilkins, thank you for joining us today and to take the time to share your views with the Panel. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. KATHLEEN WILKINS:
22932. MS. KATHLEEN WILKINS: Thank you. I will be quite brief.
22933. I'd like to thank you for having the chance to speak my feelings. I won't be speaking from any position of expertise. I am strongly opposed to the proposal for a number of reasons.
22934. Having spent some time considering the -- my sense of the risks and benefits of the proposed project, well, as far as the risks go regarding the piping and shipping and construction of infrastructure required to support that and spill response policies and procedures and all the other documentation that will be put in place to convince the public that this project could be safe for humans and ecosystems and all that live within them, my past experience within the construction industry causes me to have many doubts.
22935. I don't mean to malign the entire industry, as, indeed, there were many who worked with integrity and strove for excellence. However, in my experience as an electrical inspector for the Sea-to-Sky Corridor, I was privileged to have a close look at so many things that were done wrong.
22936. Was there a code in place to operate under? Yes, there was. However, shortcuts, lack of understanding, belief that no one would ever see the work and inadequately supported workers all led to repeated non-compliance with regards to the Act or the Code.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22937. My observations were that human behaviour cannot be governed entirely by rules and regulations, and this fact alone creates an unacceptable level of risk regarding this proposed project. In the end, words are only words.
22938. And how does one mitigate the destruction of a pristine environment? Personally, I don't believe the blueprint is in the hands of humankind.
22939. My thoughts about benefits are as follows. I'm not convinced that there are benefits as I would like to interpret the word. The dictionary defines a benefit as a profit. Well, okay, I guess maybe in that sense some people would benefit from this proposal if it proceeds but not the majority of Canadians, present and future.
22940. I prefer to look at a triple bottom line in terms of benefits that would include social and environmental benefits as well as financial profit.
22941. This proposal would see the oil sands production in northern Alberta expand, much of that increasingly precious oil to be shipped offshore. I don't understand why we need to do this now, or even ever. What about our future generations, should we not be considering the use of this resource over the long- term here at home?
22942. A new study released on January 7th suggests that chemicals from 50 years of oil sands production are showing up in lakes 90 kilometres away, and possibly further. I wouldn't like to see oil sands production increased. I think this resource will increase in scarcity and future generations will need it as they move beyond peak oil to a greener future. Could we save something for them besides a national debt?
22943. Finally, I worry that our First Nations are not being consulted in a respectful manner and that we are doing them a huge disservice. This deeply saddens me, as does the entire proposal, and I'm beseeching you to refuse this proposal.
22944. Thank you.
22945. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this morning.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 22946. That concludes our sitting this morning, and we will sit again at 1 o'clock this afternoon.
22947. Thank you, everyone.
--- Upon recessing at 12:03 p.m./L'audience est suspendue à 12h03 --- Upon resuming at 12:59 p.m./L'audience est suspendue à 12h59
22948. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, everyone. Lovely weather in Victoria today.
22949. Mr. Harling, please proceed with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. WAYNE HARLING:
22950. MR. WAYNE HARLING: Thank you. My name is Wayne Harling and I am representing the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association. Our club was incorporated in 1905 and has about 1,900 members today.
22951. Back in August I sent you a memo regarding the establishment of a single seamless performance bond in the amount of at least $2 billion for this project should it proceed.
22952. My purpose in appearing before you today is to provide you with a brief summation of our proposal and attempt to answer any questions you might have.
22953. Like most citizens of B.C., our members are generally not supportive of the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal for the simple reason that Enbridge does not have an enviable track record with respect to oil spill accidents. And a company that cannot get its act together for 17 hours after a major spill does not warrant support for a pipeline that crosses some 800-plus fish bearing streams to deliver crude oil to tankers sailing in virtually pristine and often treacherous waters on the northern B.C. coast.
22954. However, despite our opposition, our members are not so naïve as to think that tar sands oil will not be shipped to China through a west coast port somewhere. When the Prime Minister, particularly when he’s from the oil producing Province of Alberta, with a majority in Parliament, gives his complete support to a proposal it is in one form or another going to receive government
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux approval. That being so, the preference of our members was to go with the Kinder Morgan proposal.
22955. An oil spill in Vancouver harbour may foul some expensive real estate and fancy yachts but a spill in Douglas Channel will be an environmental disaster. Moreover, there is already an established and a manned navigational system to Buoy Juliette at the western end of Juan de Fuca Strait and beyond. To our knowledge there is nothing similar in the area of the B.C. coast that the oil tankers and LNG vessels to and from Kitimat would traverse.
22956. In the event of a spill who would determine the subsequent clean-up -- when the subsequent clean-up or still when it might reasonably be expected? We suggest that it might be a pre-selected panel of independent experts with experience in oil spill clean-up activities. However, responsibility for cost would remain with the performance bond partner.
22957. Why, you might ask, is such a significant performance bond necessary? Well, by now it should be obvious to all, as it is to our members, that both levels of government have essentially abandoned their responsibility for protection of the marine and freshwater environments. The political decisions have led our organization to come to this conclusion, also forces us to look outside the box for measures that will help to prevent the potential catastrophic impact on sensitive B.C. river and marine environments.
22958. The only environmental protection we have left right now is the ability and the willingness of the participating corporations in mega projects, such as the Northern Gateway pipeline, to act responsibly. However, since the only responsibility of these corporations is to the shareholders is essentially that the way be found that will compel all participants in the project to exercise extreme caution so that the catastrophic spill event never occurs.
22959. In this context we suggest there is one essential component of any pipeline in a similar proposal that must be included if we are to have some confidence that accidents affecting the environment if not prevented are minor in nature. That component, in our opinion, is a single performance bond accepted by all participants in the project. Government responsibility would be limited to setting the conditions for and the amount of the performance bond well in advance of approval of the project.
22960. In consideration of previous spill clean-up costs relative to a worst
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux case scenario along the bitumen route to market, we suggest that for Northern Gateway a performance bond of at least 2 billion is required and that the bond be topped off after each event -- after each spill event by the participating companies in the amount each is contracted to pay as a result of their internal negotiation.
22961. So how would a single performance bond work? Essentially each corporation or company that uses the pipeline or benefits from it would be required by government to negotiate a contract with the other participant to accept a percentage of risk in the event of a spill somewhere in the system.
22962. For discussion purposes, let us assume that Enbridge accepts a 50 percent share of the cost of cleaning up spills while the oil producers collectively agree to pay 40 percent of the clean-up costs and the tanker consortium 10 percent.
22963. Shareholders of Enbridge and Syncrude and other oil producers would not likely tolerate the absence of due diligence on the part of their senior executives if they had to pay 90 percent of the cost of a spill from one of the consortium tankers.
22964. Similarly, the oil producers shareholders would be equally unhappy about paying 40 percent of the clean-up costs of a spill into the Skeena River, particularly if that spill had occurred because the CEO’s of the oil producing partners did not monitor the construction quality of the Enbridge pipeline. On the plus side, however, the oil producers would only have to pay 40 percent of the costs of restoring an aquifer polluted by fracking.
22965. It is a legally binding contract negotiated by all participants that a single large performance bond can really pay dividends for the environment and those who are most adversely affected by the spill. Not only will the corporations involved not want to pay the cost of clean-up on their own turf, they would also be monitoring the turf of their partners in the contract to make certain that they were going -- that they were not going to be penalized because one of their partners was cutting corners.
22966. As I’ve already mentioned we initially recommended a bond of not less than $2 billion. However, recent information suggests that a major spill clean-up could cost 5 billion. Considering the profits to be made from this project over its lifetime, a $5 billion performance bond really doesn’t seem that much out of line.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22967. So what would happen if the participants were not able to reach agreement on a performance bond for Northern Gateway pipeline; that the risk of a spill was just too great to put their shareholder’s investment at risk?
22968. Well perhaps the oil producers and the tanker consortium could find common ground and less risk with Kinder Morgan, for example, or another carrier. The economic benefits from both projects are similar so there is no political imperative to choose one route to another. And government should not become involved beyond setting the conditions and the price of a performance bond.
22969. We think it’s far better that a route be based on a rational and binding business decision rather than on the capricious whims of politicians. As long as the oil gets to market the route should be relatively irrelevant, unless of course public opinion dictates that a particular route is totally unacceptable, and that seems to be the present situation for Northern Gateway.
22970. So that -- unless I missed anything -- in a nutshell is our recommendation. We’ll leave the details, such as sharing the costs of a single seamless performance bond to the corporation executives to work out, that presumably is why they receive their exorbitant salaries.
22971. Notwithstanding our suggestions listed above, we also leave the conditions of a performance bond and the amount of the bond to the resolution of our governments. They may wish to pose an even greater amount, but hopefully not less than we have suggested, respectfully submitted.
22972. Is that my three minute warning?
22973. I have a couple of comments on personal experience with a minor oil spill in Nestucca barge spill off Grays Harbour, Washington. I was charged with the responsibility of going out and testing crab traps to see if they were catching any oil, and lo and behold we found that at about three or four fathoms depth there were balls of oil on these traps, completely smothering the traps, and there was nothing on the surface.
22974. So it depends on the viscosity of the oil, it depends on the temperature and the salinity of the water whether or not that oil is going to come ashore on the surface or whether it’s going to come ashore at some depth. And if it’s at depth
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux then all the booms in the world, the surface booms in the world aren’t going to help you it’s just going to spread.
22975. We pulled the crab trap from three fathoms out on Wickaninnish beach and it was completely a ball of oil. There was some movement in the oil. There was a ball of oil. We put it back over the side, came back a week later, pulled it again, still oiled up. Back over the side, came back two weeks later, pulled it, finally the trap was clean. So we found it took at least a month for the oil to dissipate in an open ocean environment. God knows how long it would take a denser oil, such as bitumen, to break down in sheltered environment such as the channels in the mid-coast area.
22976. So that’s it.
22977. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great. Well thanks a lot for your presentation.
22978. Ms. Alpha, please share your views with us. Thanks.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. CATHERINE ALPHA:
22979. MS. CATHERINE ALPHA: Hello, my name is Catherine Alpha; I’m a grandmother, a mother, a teacher, a school trustee, a member of the B.C. Teachers Federation and a settler in this beautiful land. And thank you for the opportunity to speak with you on this important issue. I oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline.
22980. I have lived on Vancouver Island since 1973. I raised my family here and we have spent many summers on the beaches paddling, hiking and enjoying the beauty of this land. One oil spill -- or which is more likely, a series of oil spills would destroy what is vitally important to me and to my family; the natural beauty of this coast, the wildlife, the ocean and coast ecosystem that supports our fisheries, our tourism and our very way of life. We are a people that live outside for much of every day and we love the beauty of this coast. And you can see why we live outside looking out the windows at the weather.
22981. Allowing tankers on a coast that is infamous for its storms and rocky, rugged coastline with all its fjords is a reckless and dangerous risk that I and my family do not support. Environment Canada’s Marine Weather Hazards Manual states that the Hecate Strait through which the supertankers must pass is the fourth
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux most dangerous body of water in the world. Extreme conditions blow up without warning.
22982. And yet Transport Canada, in its statement to your Review Panel, did not deal adequately with the risk to oil tankers from extreme weather on the tanker route. Transport Canada focussed on water depth and whether or not the tankers could fit through the narrow and twisted fjords.
22983. Kayaks fit in swimming pools, but kayakers -- including my son, know that the Hecate Strait is no swimming pool. Blind rollers come out of nowhere and these waves are so immense, they’ve been known to expose the seabed in places.
22984. Hecate Strait has a unique combination of wind, tide, shoals and shallows that produces a kind of destructive synergy that is unpredictable and dangerous to marine traffic. In my opinion, it is irresponsible behaviour on the part of Transport Canada to minimize this danger by not addressing it in the presentation to the Review Panel. There is a ban on tankers on this coast for a reason and it must be respected. It’s been there since 1972.
22985. Enbridge has no responsibility after the bitumen and dilutant -- a highly toxic mix -- is loaded onto supertankers. Who is going to take responsibility for an oil spill or collisions or other catastrophes? The shipping companies, that’s doubtful and it’s not good enough. No one is taking responsibility here and they are hoping the people of B.C. won’t notice.
22986. The Alberta government has clearly said, “No, not out of our massive tax profits”. So it will be the taxpayers of B.C. cleaning up the mess. And we will be cleaning it up just as we are being impacted economically through loss of tourism and destruction of our fisheries.
22987. Tens of thousands of jobs are on the line. Our beloved land and seas are on the line. And the truth is it can’t be cleaned up. Bitumen sinks and it and the dilutants are horribly toxic. So the beautiful whales and wildlife that I love so much will die and wash up on our beaches.
22988. Taking my grandchildren to play at the beach in Tofino, I could say, “Oh, yes. I remember when all those dead carcasses on the beach were swimming in the sea. I remember seeing humpback whales spy hop. I remember my son speaking of looking into the eyes of an orca, as the pod passed around his kayak --
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux but no longer. Profit became god and we lost everything”. I hope I never have to speak these words. I hope you will listen to me and to all the others who stand against this.
22989. I teach with young people who surf in Tofino as often as they can. They take their families there. This is their love and their passion and it must not be destroyed.
22990. We know the humpbacks are threatened. We know the fin whales are likely to collide with the tankers. We are told there will be whale watchers on the tankers. In the fog, in the dark, in the rough conditions of this coast, that assurance is so foolish and naïve it shocks me. It tells me this whole venture is one big lie, one big sleight of hand so Enbridge and Alberta can profit.
22991. CBC just reported out that the oil and gas industry went to Stephen Harper’s government with a shopping list of environmental laws they wanted destroyed. Harper obliged. We know the oil and gas industry and our federal government are enmeshed and working against the will of the majority of the people of B.C. -- shameful behaviour on the part of our government.
22992. My family came to Canada in 1849. As settlers over the years, I’m sure there were many times we had a negative impact on the Aboriginal people of this land. Today, as a grandmother, a mother and a settler, I stand with the over 130 Aboriginal communities opposing this pipeline. I am supporting the Fraser River First Nations declaration and the Coastal First Nations declaration.
22993. In the event of a leak or a rupture, destruction in the rugged and beautiful land through which this pipeline is planned will be catastrophic. Enbridge does not have a good record on clean-up, nor on prevention. Allowing a pipeline to run through the isolated, rugged and pristine northern lands of B.C. with its many rivers and streams, where there are few people to detect an oil leak is to plan for failure, to plan for the destruction of habitat and the way of life of our Aboriginal communities.
22994. In the Kalamazoo River disaster, in Michigan, the Enbridge employees in Edmonton restarted the pipeline three times pumping 20,082 barrels of crude oil into Talmadge Creek which flows into the Kalamazoo River. They were warned by instruments showing a drop in pressure, but they never investigated. They only stopped restarting the pipeline because the people in the area alerted them to a spill. The clean-up has been pathetic; a total failure.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
22995. There are hundreds of kilometres of isolated terrain through which this pipeline will pass and no one to notice until the disaster is epic in proportion. The pipeline must never be built.
22996. Recently the U.S. government has expressed its concern over increased tanker traffic on this coast. They have asked the Coast Guard to do a study, and we all know how important it is to maintain good relations with our neighbours to the south. The environmental report on the tar -- Alberta tar sands has just come out and it shows that a disaster -- what a disaster this whole project is. Increasing production in piping the bitumen through B.C. will only add to this disaster. It is time to reallocate our resources towards green energy development.
22997. In conclusion, I am 60 years old, but I can promise you I will be there at the border if this is attempted. And I will not be alone, I will be standing with my fellow union members of the B.C. Teacher’s Federation in support of our students and their families and our families. I will be standing in solidarity with the thousands of working people who will lose their jobs in tourism and in fisheries in the event of an oil spill or a pipeline rupture.
22998. I will be standing with my Aboriginal brothers and sisters in defense of our beloved land. And I will be standing for my children, my grandchildren, my students and the many citizens of B.C. who say there will be no pipeline through B.C. and no oil tankers out of Kitimat.
22999. Thank you.
23000. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your oral statement.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23001. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
23002. Mr. Brubaker, please begin with your oral statement when you’re ready.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. DOUG BRUBAKER:
23003. MR. DOUG BRUBAKER: I’d like to thank the Review Panel for the opportunity to speak today. If I can make it through this without crying, it’ll be a
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux good thing. So for 30 years, my wife and I have had the annual privilege to kayak on British Columbia’s wild coast. We usually hire a water taxi or a freight boat to take us to remote areas where we can be away from everyone. It is just us and nature.
23004. We take everything we need with us to camp for two weeks. We usually kayak with a group of close friends who have also enjoyed the experience for decades. Our children would bring along their friends and show them the beauty of the coast.
23005. Our children are all adults now and they’re enjoying this west coast venture with their spouses, and yes, our grandchildren. Three generations of my family now have a love for nature and the fourth generation is not far away.
23006. The experiences we have had are second to none. Last summer we were kayaking from Hesquiat Bay to Flores Island. It was flat calm on the outside, nothing between us and Japan. This day was very magical.
23007. There was a time for about an hour that we were following behind a grey whale that was only 50 metres away. It was casually exploring the kelp for food. It was not worried about us in the slightest.
23008. On the right side of us, about 200 metres away, were two humpback whales feeding on herring and frolicking happy with their full bellies. Seagulls and other seabirds were taking advantage of the leftovers.
23009. Now, if this was not enough, on the beach, there was a mother black bear and her two cubs. Mama’s looking for seafood scraps on the tideline while the cubs played on the beach. We were able to witness this interaction of mom and babes and it was very entertaining. We sat in our kayaks drifting along, not knowing which way to look because there was so much going on. And that was just one day.
23010. That night we camped on a remote white sand beach. This world-class beach did not have a soul on it besides us. After a good night’s sleep, I got up early to the excitement of a fellow camper. She said, “Look, a wolf”.
23011. Down at the extreme end of the beach was a lone coastal wolf. It was walking towards us exploring the tideline. We had the time to wake the other campers to see this rare sight. We stood still and very quiet. This magnificent,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux intelligent creature continued on with its business exploring the water’s edge. It passed us only 25 metres away, never lifting its head and not making eye contact.
23012. The wolf walked to the extreme end of the beach and let out a big howl signalling to the rest of the pack that there was no big supply of dead sea creatures today. It then turned around, came towards us again, this time following the driftwood piled up against the forest by the winter storms. I figured it was looking for mice. Again it passed us 25 metres away, paying no attention to our presence.
23013. West coast wolves are a subspecies of the interior grey wolf. The coastal wolf gets 70 percent of its food from the sea, whether it be salmon, crabs, seals, or a dead whale that may have washed up on the beach. We felt very blessed that we had this close encounter and neither wolf nor human felt threatened. These were truly some of the best days of my life, seriously.
23014. I heard a very knowledgeable university professor speak on the radio the other day. He was talking about the economic cost of an oil spill. He said that the economic cost of a medium sized oil spill to the fishing and tourist industry, coastal communities and First Nations would be in the billions of dollars. He was very scientific and thorough in his analysis.
23015. I was very saddened by the fact that there was no mention of the suffering and death that it would bring to wildlife. So typical of us humans to look at the financial side of things and ignore the fact that we share this planet with other life that needs a clean, safe environment in which to live.
23016. I want to see this habitat preserved for the sake of all the beautiful creatures that live on the coast. They are independent from humans and the only thing they require is a safe home, free of human interference, clean water and air. We must share this beautiful coast with them.
23017. I’m very fearful about bringing misery to all these magnificent creatures. The west coast is home to thousands of life species. Even the life we can’t see supports life all the way up the food chain. We are part of this food chain. We are all one. We must not do anything to disrupt this cycle. This cycle of life would be destroyed by an oil spill. I do not want to trade this ecosystem for corporate profits.
23018. I like to drive my car, take an occasional plane trip, use plastic where
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux appropriate. What I don’t understand is what is the big hurry to liquidate the oil sands? This liquidation requires massive investment from foreign corporations. The profits then leave Canada, along with this valuable resource. These corporations leave all the pollution behind in massive tailing ponds.
23019. Why do we need another pipeline and tankers on the coast? It will only escalate the liquidation of Canada’s petroleum resources.
23020. The politicians always say it creates jobs. I am so tired of this excuse. There already is not enough skilled workers to support this current production of the oil sands. There is a lot of talk these days about bringing in foreign workers to fill this demand. How does this benefit Canada?
23021. I hear Enbridge, and their political allies say that a chance of a tanker accident or pipeline rupture is next to none. They claim that they have invested millions of dollars into their state of art equipment that is infallible. They say that they will have all possibilities of a spill neutralized. The thing that you can never eliminate is the chance of human error.
23022. An example of human error that had dire consequences was the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant near Tokyo. I am sure that at the time it was constructed, it had strong opposition from the population that was in the potential danger zone.
23023. They were told that the state of art safety measures were going to be in place. They said the plant would be protected from tsunamis by a seawall. They would have backup generators if the power ever went out, state-of-the-art monitoring systems, lots of alarms, bells and whistles.
23024. They had thought they had everything covered. Then guess what? Human error comes into play.
23025. The engineers who designed the seawall did not make it high enough. Over the top came the water, into the power plant and drowned the backup generators. Maybe the generators should have been elevated off the ground in the case of a seawall breach. Oops, human error.
23026. Another event that illustrates human error, back in the 1960s in a small farming community in the U.S.A., a nuclear power plant was being built. An elderly farmer would regularly go to the construction site to observe the progress
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux and give his advice.
23027. One day he looked at the nuclear reactor and he noticed that there was a device on top of the oven that fed in the nuclear fuel rods at a very slow rate. He pondered this piece of state-of-the-art technology, then said to the engineer, “Why don’t you feed the nuclear rods into the oven from the bottom, then if there’s ever a power outage or technical malfunction, the rods would fall away out of the oven by gravity”.
23028. Lo and behold the next time he did his visit, the nuclear rods had been switched to be fed in from the bottom. This design flaw, overlooked by the best engineers in America, could have been catastrophic.
23029. It is rumoured that the sinking of the Queen of the North was due to a man and woman at the helm that had their minds focussed on each other rather than on their job. They were in the same treacherous water that the tankers are proposed. New emotion overrides rational thought. Oops again.
23030. There are many human flaws that can foil the best technology, distraction, anger, fatigue, impairment, sexual attraction, resentment, inexperience, and downright stupidity to name a few.
23031. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Brubaker, you are over your time.
23032. I invite you to just wrap up with a summary sentence please.
23033. MR. DOUG BRUBAKER: Okay.
23034. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
23035. MR. DOUG BRUBAKER: The risk of a pipeline or tanker accident in my opinion is much too high.
23036. The west coast is one of the most beautiful places on earth; rich in wildlife and biological diversity. This cannot be replaced. I feel very strong about no tankers, no pipeline.
23037. Thank you.
23038. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23039. Mr. Cusin, please go ahead and present.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. JEAN-DANIEL CUSIN:
23040. MR. JEAN-DANIEL CUSIN: Thank you for having me.
23041. My name is Jean-Daniel Cusin; I am resident of North Saanich. I am a Principal at the firm eliberation.com Inc. And I have worked in the extraction industry as well as in the manufacturing, consulting and software industries over the span of the last 30 years.
23042. Most of the persons who have come before have voiced severe concern about the high risks of spills and the resultant devastation of our lands, streams, shores and ocean ways potentially caused by the construction and operation of the Enbridge pipeline.
23043. As well, it is clear that the government led by Mr. Harper intends to have this pipeline built to meet political, tax revenue, and economic objectives. The difference between the politicians and corporate leadership on one hand and the rest of us on the other hand is that we have a multi-generational outlook on things whereas these powerful persons look to the next election or the next quarters’ profits to maintain their power. This leads to a very sharply different world view.
23044. Enbridge as a company is a corporation that exists to make money. That is what corporations are designed to do. Corporations are also designed to limit their liability with regard to risk and indebtedness. And in this particular case Enbridge has created a corporate structure around the Northern Gateway Project to even further limit the Enbridge mother ship exposure to the consequences and costs of a pipeline disaster.
23045. This is normal. This is what corporations do. And it is folly to expect anything else from them.
23046. So affirmations from Enbridge representatives that they will be diligent and that they will use the best of care must be seen as public relations spin to get this project accepted. This is what marketing departments and lawyers are paid to do. And this is what corporations do.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23047. When we, the people, who view oil spills on our lands and waterways we shudder with apprehension and disgust. For Enbridge it is just another day at the office.
23048. Citing from the well-referenced Wikipedia entry for Enbridge and I quote:
“Using data from Enbridge’s own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately [141 -- 161,475 barrels] 161,475 barrels [...] of crude oil into the environment.”
23049. This represents six spills a month or more than one per week over that whole decade of operation. This is routine. This is a normal part of business for a company like Enbridge.
23050. This tolerance for defect and poor quality is reminiscent of the manufacturing industry in the second half of the last century. Then came the Japanese who showed us by concrete example that better quality was possible. The Total Quality Movement, also called Zero Defect, advocated that a single product defect was too many and that better quality costs less.
23051. Plant workers were empowered to stop the production line if they saw poor quality production happening. They were forbidden to add any value or effort to a defective product.
23052. I am told that at one time Toyota plant workers were implementing 5,000 improvement ideas per day in the Toyota plants around the world. The auto industry from this relatively small country, Japan, proceeded to become a world- class and highly effective competitor in the marketplace -- in the world marketplace. It all starts with an attitude that defects are not tolerated and to find the means to ensure they don’t happen.
23053. This is different from the attitude prevalent at Enbridge. For example on July 26, 2010, a spill of more than 800,000 gallons of oil contaminated the Kalamazoo River in southwest Michigan and that cost $800 million to clean up.
23054. It was later discovered that Enbridge knew about a defect in the pipeline five years before it burst. A full description of this event appears in the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Enbridge entry in Wikipedia which is again well-referenced.
23055. From a corporate perspective this is classical trade-off thinking. What is the risk that this defect will actually burst and cause a spill and potential costs of a clean-up at some future time versus shutting down operations now to do preventive maintenance. My point is that we cannot trust Enbridge that Enbridge will ever adopt a zero defect policy with regards to spills.
23056. However, I am here to tell you that the Northern Pipeline Project is only acceptable if it is executed and operated under a zero defect policy. Spills are not an option. The pressure for zero spills must therefore come from this esteemed panel. It must come from the government and it must come from the people.
23057. In the same way money cannot -- can never compensate for the full human, social, environmental and moral costs of oil spills on land and ocean, in the same way the cost of a spill to the operators and stakeholders of the pipeline must go beyond monetary compensation and include personal accountability on the leadership that authorized the project and operates it.
23058. Let me repeat this in other terms. If there is an oil spill I expect that the pipeline will be shut down and Enbridge criminally prosecuted. If found guilty, I expect the officers of the corporation to be held accountable and to do jail time. I don’t want to see anyone go to jail. I don’t want to have any spills. I want a zero spill policy and operational plan in action.
23059. The cost of a spill must be understood to be so high that it will eliminate the possibility of trade-off thinking. Spills are not acceptable. Not at six spills per month, not at one spill per hundred years.
23060. Spills are caused by such things as leaking gaskets, seam failures, valve failures, pump failures, human error, drain line problems, basically all these causes are wholly under the control of the pipeline operator. There is nothing supernatural or extraordinary about it. These are all manageable. If we cannot trust Enbridge will indeed adopt a zero spill attitude, policy, operational behaviour and get zero spill results, this means that we cannot trust Enbridge to act as a responsible corporate citizen.
23061. We need -- it will be -- it will need to be tightly policed. It is also clear that Enbridge does not know how to design and successfully implement a
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux zero spill policy. Its track record spills volumes to that.
23062. For the Northern Pipeline Project to go ahead I believe that the following two conditions must be met. First, we must pull together the best minds possible to deliberate on and define the implications of a zero spill policy on the Northern Gateway Project. This is a multi-faceted problem with technical, social, cultural and economic implications.
23063. This suggests that this deliberation should include metallurgists and other technical experts, as well as representatives drawn from stakeholders groups and connected with, and impacted by, this project, and of course, Enbridge personnel with technical and operational expertise, but not their lawyers.
23064. The task of the team would be to define zero spill policy and a plan of action. This means the means to monitor the said plan with clearly defined, assigned accountabilities and ongoing reporting to the people of B.C.
23065. Assembling the requisite persons to create this plan adequately may be difficult. As a principal at eliberation.com, which is a social enterprise, I am authorized to offer our site at no charge to enable this deliberation to be done online. So I am offering it to you now.
23066. The second condition that must be met is that Enbridge must formally accept a zero spill policy and warrant to all B.C. residents that Enbridge will not allow spills to happen on land or on the territorial waters of B.C. Enbridge must endorse and pay for the initial and ongoing costs associated with the creation and monitoring of the zero spill plan as described, as well as all the restorative costs associated with any eventual spill without limit.
23067. In closing summary, if the Northern Gateway Project is to go ahead I am formally requesting that the zero spill policy be developed and adopted and pervasively implemented, and that Enbridge -- the Enbridge mother ship corporation be held fully accountable for all spills that happen on B.C. land and territorial waters. The refusal by Enbridge to accept this level of accountability would be confirmation of the risks involved and should be sufficient to shut down this project.
23068. I am also offering the online collaborative deliberation process available on eliberation.com at no charge to assemble the right stakeholders and expertise to design the zero spill policy.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23069. Thank you.
23070. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Fitzgibbon, thank you for being here today. Please proceed.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. KEITH FITZGIBBON:
23071. MR. KEITH FITZGIBBON: Thank you for the opportunity -- is the mic on? Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Keith Fitzgibbon and I’m from Duncan.
23072. I spent most of my working life regenerating B.C.’s coastal forests, mostly as a silviculture contractor. I’ve listened to experts on both sides of the application debate from industry and government to the media, communities, lobbyists, First Nations members, and NGOs. The list is long and the rhetoric is long-winded.
23073. Their messages bring to mind the question a Marx brother famously asked many years ago; “Who do you believe, me or your own eyes”. For the record, I believe that some that some projects are bad ideas and my eyes tell me that the Northern Gateway Project is one of them.
23074. I’ll share my story of a day on B.C.’s north coast, one I’ll come back to later in my presentation. Years ago on a float camp in a remote and uninhabited inlet I stepped into an aluminium skiff and set off for a landing on the other side. The water was flat and it reflected the white mist above it. They were seamless and as I sped over the water I felt motionless, suspended in space. I settled into the smooth ride comforted by my Stanfields and the drone of the outboard motor.
23075. A dorsal fin cut the surface on my port side, rising quickly and close enough to touch with a paddle. Its speed was locked to mine. It was an orca. I was spellbound and warily held my course. The gleaming fin rose beside me, the water surface bending to the contours of the giant body beneath. When the fin towered overhead another fin rose to starboard until it too loomed over me and we became locked into a perfect symmetry, these two giant fins with me in between. I was their captive.
23076. The boat rode high for what seemed an eternity and then slowly
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux descended as a fin slipped below the surface and continued their downward journey. I turned off the motor and I thought about what I’d seen.
23077. For many years I operated crew boats in compliance with federal regulations for boats of their class. Like all responsible skippers, I placed safety above all. On the day that my boat caught fire a kilometre from shore its fire suppression system performed as designed and I sailed another day.
23078. In a recent interview a Gateway spokesperson claimed that a major oil spill would be a one in 1,500 year event. A baffling calculation I thought. It reminded me that I had not calculated the number of years in which I could expect that onboard fire to occur. Why would I? Variables upon which these calculations depend are nearly infinite and in constant flux. Calculations that showed I could expect to encounter an onboard fire once every 600 years, for instance, would only serve to placate a gullible audience, nothing more. I view the quantitative risk assessments submitted by Northern Gateway supporters in a similar way.
23079. Northern Gateway boosters have assured me that I will not see a major spill in my lifetime. I’m invited to believe that transporting crude through Douglas Channel and across the Strait is a virtually flawless exercise, this, due to meticulous crew training, modern navigational aids, superior vessels, and a host of operational checks and balances. Northern Gateway Proponents infer that what separates their tankers skippers from the rest of us, including skippers who rest along the coast in watery graves, is their near incapacity for ever -- for error.
23080. Furthermore, its claim that the infallibility of the machines, technology, and decision making required to shepherd millions of tonnes of crude through unpredictable waterways hundreds of times per year for a minimum of 30 years and as many as 1,500 is virtually guaranteed.
23081. Frankly, this is a fantasy for the deluded. Human error is the primary cause of marine accidents. My errors past, present and future, like other skippers who have suffered the embarrassment of perching their boat on a rock, do not contribute to significant environmental damage.
23082. The same cannot be said, however, of errors on the part of skippers of VLCC class tankers. With our without the insurance of double hulls and state-of- the-art technology an error at the helm of a tanker has the potential to disgorge hundreds of thousands of tonnes of bitumen to the ocean bottom and coastal
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux shores.
23083. Despite assurances from the tanker shipping industry and not withstanding an improved spill record, an average of three major spills occurs globally each year. Between 2007 and 2009, a two-year period, nearly 2,000 incidents involving spills of oil, chemicals and other pollutants from ships into marine waters were reported to the Canadian Coast Guard.
23084. Spilled into rainwaters, diluted bitumen is for all intents irretrievable. The migration characteristics of bitumen in marine waters are unknown. The cumulative effects of smaller spills are unknown. The timelines for damaged ecosystems to recover their health are likewise unknown. We don’t know the consequences for shipping safety if predicted increases in the frequency of extreme weather events come to pass. And the elephant in the room unknown looms as large as ever. We don’t know the clean-up costs of catastrophic spills and who is responsible for paying those costs.
23085. For decades a non-binding moratorium on large tanker traffic has effectively protected north coast waters from pollution. Such moratoriums are adopted when the potential for significant environmental harm is real and the risks are uncertain.
23086. It is precisely for these reasons that B.C. recently elevated a moratorium on development in the headwaters of the Skeena, Naas and Stikine rivers to an outright ban. These precedents strongly indicate that the Canadian government should, at a minimum, strike a Royal Commission to address unanswered questions related to tanker traffic safety on B.C.’s north coast.
23087. We have reached a critical stage in evaluating the export of Canadian petroleum from north coast shores. In principle the proposed project condones the export abroad of petroleum processing and construction jobs. Rapid growth and oil extraction and refining capacity outside of Canada may reduce demand for Canadian heavy crude exports and turn today’s crude oil buyers into tomorrow’s refined product sellers.
23088. Perhaps even more damaging to the Canadian economy is a prospect that much of the oil exported over the life of the project will be repatriated as manufactured goods, reinforcing and already unenviable trade imbalance in Canada’s manufacturing sector.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23089. Upcoming state-owned enterprise agreements, or SOE’s, mandate long-term foreign access to Canada’s oil. Whether or not that access proves over time to work in Canada’s public interest or in the interests of Canadian investors, that illusion of Canada’s sovereignty seen within these agreements is a real ominous threat. The Orcinus orca species is an apex predator. Its arrival in coastal waters signals equilibrium in the food chain and the promise of bountiful harvest. In ancient cultures it marked a time for celebration and thanks. Today those celebrations are remembered more often than shared.
23090. On that day more than 30 years ago when two orcas swam beside my boat northern abalone were beginning to disappear. The Exxon Valdez routinely transported crude to California, and Terry Fox had begun his courageous run, while salmon still returned in great numbers to north coast rivers.
23091. Twenty (20) years later a marine pollution bulletin showed concentrations of PCBs in two costal orca populations to be among the highest of the world’s marine mammals.
23092. Between 2000 and 2004 Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans reported the coastal orca populations had declined by roughly 7 percent, mostly due to water pollution, and a five-year study, released in 2010, determined that a major oil spill would devastate local orca populations. Ironically, 30 years ago as I sped across the water with orca whales to my left and right it was me who was vulnerable.
23093. In closing, I can say that in recent -- that in my years on the north coast I’ve learned much about its unique geography and history. I’ve learned about cultures that subsist on food gathered from ocean waters and how reverence for the land and sea has been passed down through generations. I know that that reverence is alive in coastal communities today.
23094. The Northern Gateway Project carries with it the potential to forfeit traditional ways of life in the pursuit of wealth. The Canadian government has neither the moral nor legal authority to sanction that pursuit if the extirpation of a way of life is a possible outcome.
23095. It’s not for the Canadian government to explain to indigenous people the meanings of wealth and benefits. For them riches are measured in food security and dollar bills of any colour, smoked or baked, simply will never safeguard that security. The real value of north coast waters is not captured on a
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux balance sheet or in job statistics, nor is it reflected in our nation’s GDP or returns on investment. Its real value transcends these measures.
23096. On the weight ---
23097. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Fitzgibbon ---
23098. MR. KEITH FITZGIBBON: --- of evidence presented ---
23099. MEMBER BATEMAN: --- your time is up. Can I have you close in one sentence?
23100. MR. KEITH FITZGIBBON: I am now.
23101. On the weight of evidence presented in these hearings, I am confident that the Government of Canada will come to the same conclusion.
23102. Thank you for your time and thanks for listening.
23103. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this afternoon.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23104. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
23105. Do I say Ms. Russow -- oh, thank you. Please proceed with your oral statement. Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. JOAN RUSSOW:
23106. MS. JOAN RUSSOW: I am speaking on behalf of the Global Compliance Research Project. This project examines the level of state compliance with international law and norms.
23107. The August 2010 submissions to the Joint Review Panel in Kitimat were intended to inform the Panel about the issues that should be addressed in the Terms of Reference. The intervenors raised the following issues; the need to examine the total impact of oil sands pipelines and tankers and the importance of addressing the threats to indigenous rights, to livelihood and subsistence, to
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux marine life and resources to future generations and to culture and natural heritage and to address the question does Canada really need this project.
23108. Under Article 2 of the legally binding UN framework convention on climate change states are to stabilize greenhouse gases below a level of dangerous anthropogenic emissions. The Enbridge pipeline will cause Canada to increase its non-compliance with Article 2 and Canada has already caused a significant move towards this dangerous level.
23109. At the 22 panel the issue of indigenous rights was raised. Chief John Ridsdale from the Wet’suwet’en stated that the United Nations Declaration and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples came out of the recognition of the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. Article 26(1) of the Declaration and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:
“Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,...”
23110. And under Article 26(3) is the obligation to:
“…give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.”
23111. While Canada finally adopted the Declaration the government proceeded to undermine it by claiming that it was only aspirational. The universal adoption, however, of the Declaration has resulted in the provisions becoming international peremptory norms, thus obligation of all states.
23112. Sadly, the spirit and the letter of the Declaration have now been violated by Bill C-45 in which the government has altered a section of the Indian Act to allow First Nations to give up their rights to reserve lands without a majority vote of the community.
23113. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Russow, just while you’re taking a breath, if you could just slow down a little bit it would be helpful. Thank you.
23114. MS. JOAN RUSSOW: Okay.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23115. At the August 2010 panel the issue of the threat to livelihood and subsistence was raised. Gerald Amos from the Haisla First Nation stated:
“The Enbridge project has a huge possibility of wiping out our livelihood.” (As read)
23116. The right to livelihood was recognized as a human right in Article 25 of the Seminole 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
23117. Also under Article 1 of the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the following obligation:
“In no case may a people be deprived of its means of subsistence.”
23118. Alberta First Nations within and around the oil sands have been deprived of their livelihood and subsistence. Melina Lubicon-Massimo, a Lubicon Cree, decried:
“Before the tar sands my community used to live sustainably off the land. Our community was self-sufficient. Before our family was able to drink from the waters.” (As read)
23119. Undoubtedly, B.C. First Nations will also be deprived of their livelihood and subsistence if the Enbridge pipeline proceeds.
23120. At the 2010 panel the issues of threat to source of water was raised. Kelly Marsh from Kitimat stated:
“I hope that the financial interest doesn’t trump the environmental interest. Water is life and without water we don’t live. Are we going to put at risk another 1,000 rivers and streams?” (As read)
23121. In 2010 the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly agreed to a resolution declaring the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation. If the Enbridge pipeline proceeds, the right to water cannot be guaranteed.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23122. At the 2010 panel the issue of the threat to health was raised. Kyle Clifton from the Gitga’at First Nations claimed:
“No one can guarantee us there will be no spills. If the Panel recommends the project then in effect you are forcing us to live in fear, which will have effects on both our health and our economy.” (As read)
23123. Under Article 12 of the legally binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is the obligation to recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the obligation to take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right.
23124. At the 2010 panel the issue of threat to sea resources was raised. Kyle Clifton from the Gitga’at First Nations stated:
“Our future will be ensured through the protection of these precious sea resources because without them we have nothing.” (As read)
23125. In Article 8(j) of the legally binding Convention of Biological Diversity is the following obligation:
“…to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity…”
23126. At the 2010 panel the issue of the threat to migratory species and marine life was raised. Chief John Ridsdale from the Wet’suwet’en First Nations stated:
“We have watched our land being stripped bare. We have seen the destruction of fishing sites and spawning grounds and the extinction of salmon stocks.” (As read)
23127. Under Article 19(4-5) of the legally binding UN Law of the Sea is the obligation to:
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux “…prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment, and to take measures necessary to predict fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of forms of marine life.” (As read)
23128. Under Article 66 of the Convention is the following obligation, states in whose rivers and anadrome stock, such as salmon and sturgeon originate, shall have the primary interest and responsibility for such stocks and shall ensure their conservation.
23129. In the Ominous Bill 38, the Harper government weakened Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. Undoubtedly, the weakening of this section was in contravention of the law, the sea and its agreement.
23130. At the 2010 panel, the issue of the threats to future generations was raised. Chief councillor Dolores Pollard from the Haisla First Nations affirmed:
“We depend on the land for everything, but the most important thing that we depend on the land for is to maintain our connection to our children and future generations.” (As read)
23131. Under the Article 4 of the 1972 legally binding UN Convention on the Protection of Cultural Natural Heritage, there is a duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, preservation and transmission to future generations of cultural, natural heritage. This commitment is -- was also made in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
23132. At the 2010 panel, the issue of living under constant threat was raised. Chief Councillor Dolores Pollard from Haisla’s First Nations stated:
“The scale of activity contemplated, even with no accidents or malfunctions, will drastically alter habitat, fish and wildlife in our territories for years beyond the time when the oil sands have been mined out.” (As read)
23133. Chief Harvey Humchitt from the Heiltsuk expressed concern about increased tanker traffic in the rugged central coast of B.C. Canada is bound by the precautionary principle which reads:
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux “Weather has threats of serious or irreversible damage. Lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as reason for postponing measures to prevent the threat.” (As read)
23134. The principle is also contained in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Climate Change Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
23135. There is sufficient evidence that there could be serious irreversible damage, loss of significant biological diversity, adverse effects of climate change and harm to marine life to justify invoking the precautionary principle in the fossil fuel triad of the oil sands, the pipelines and the tankers.
23136. I raise these issues -- I raise the issue of international law because from my experience at international conferences, the Harper government has caused Canada to be perceived as an international pariah because of its obsession with profiting from the tar sands at any cost while being willing to disregard its duty to guarantee fundamental, indigenous and ecological rights, and to discharge obligations under international law.
23137. If the Enbridge pipeline is permitted to proceed, Canada will demonstrate yet again, its defiance of international law. If the Panel respects the issues raised by the intervenors at the August 2010 Review Panel and wishes to abide by international obligations and norms, the Panel must reject unconditionally the Enbridge pipeline.
23138. Proceeding with the pipeline and the tankers would be grossly negligent. There is sufficient evidence of precedence such as Enbridge spills, regional earthquakes, potential tsunamis, grounding of a drilling rig and widespread pollution of land and water bodies that a prudent or reasonable person would not permit the Enbridge pipeline and tanker traffic.
“Everyone is criminally negligent who is doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that is its duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives, safety of other persons.” (As read)
23139. This comes from Article 216 of the Canadian Criminal Code related to negligence.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23140. At the August 2010 panel, Walter Thorne from Kitimat Valley Naturalists asked the question, “Does Canada really need this project”, the answer from the panel and from Harper must be a categorical no.
23141. Thank you.
23142. MEMBER MATTHEWS: All right. Thank you for your comments.
23143. Ms. Di Cunto, can you please share your views with us?
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. FLORA DI CUNTO:
23144. MS. FLORA DI CUNTO: Greetings to the Panel and all those participating here today.
23145. My name is Flora Di Cunto; I am a student of traditional Chinese medicine. I also have my own gardening business which I have been operating for the last eight years. I originally -- I’m originally from the industrial east end of Montreal and I moved to Victoria about nine years ago.
23146. So I have come here today to state my opposition to the proposed Enbridge North -- Northern Gateway Project and I will explain why.
23147. To begin, as a student in the health sector, I am keenly interested in the wellbeing of body and mind. So it’s obvious to me that the occupational hazard of oil spills create an unwanted and unnecessary health risks on the environment, an environment in which we all depend on. It is well-known that sufficient quantities of certain hydrocarbons are toxic carcinogenic to plants, animals, and humans.
23148. Even the lead speaker at the 8th Annual HSE Forum on Energy, Dr. Qudsia Huda of the World Health Organization, was quoted as saying, based on the assessment of public health risks prevailing in the oil and gas producing areas:
“The health and energy sectors need to come together to raise awareness and safeguard people’s health.” (As read)
23149. End quote.
23150. So why don’t we do this first? Why risk the complexity that such a
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux project entails for the benefit of maybe a few generations of Canadians?
23151. Dr. Huda was also quoted as saying:
“Environmental pollution and pollution in the food chain are also directly associated with oil development, as well as mass casualties in catastrophic events such as oil spills and oil tanker accidents.” (As read)
23152. End of quote.
23153. So this reminds me of an episode on “The Nature of Things” from the CBC back in 2008 entitled, “Arctic Meltdown, The Arctic Passage”. In one of the segments, they interviewed a chemist named Jeff Schwartz, and he was studying the impact on wildlife after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound.
23154. Well, it turns out that it takes a decade or more before wildlife recovers. And still 20 years after the spill, he was able to dig just a few centimetres under the rocks by the shore to find globs of oil. He stated that an estimate 90 tonnes of oil still remained under rocks 20 years later. And according to him, this amount is enough to pollute the entire aquatic food chain, especially the sea otters food chain.
23155. Now, when I think of the Northern Gateway Project running through approximately 700 fish-bearing streams, two of which are the world’s greatest salmon rivers, namely the Fraser and the Stikine, I can only be opposed to this. And when you add the fact that B.C. -- that the B.C. portion of the pipeline is in earthquake zones, it only deepens my resolve to oppose it.
23156. And more still, the fact that -- and I quote:
“The bitumen would be loaded onto tankers much larger than the Exxon Valdez. These vessels then move along a narrow channel known for strong winds, strong tides, dense fog, with many sharp turns, for a distance of 140 kilometres to open water.” (As read)
23157. End quote.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23158. This project cannot possibly be allowed knowing the risks are so high.
23159. Then there is this strange but important fact that I came upon. I was listening to an interview with Tom Gunton, B.C.’s former Deputy Minister of the Environment. It took place on CBC’s “Daybreak” in Kitimat back in October, 2012. He mentioned that Enbridge is, and I quote:
“…unwilling to accept the cost of damages associated with the pipeline, that the cost would instead be borne by the Northern Gateway Project which is being set up as a limited partnership.” (As read)
23160. End quote.
23161. He later continues to say that Enbridge estimates a possible tanker spill to cost between 2 to $4 billion, but that the compensation available to cover these costs, and I quote:
“…is only just over one billion. So there’s a potential for a significant unmet liability that would ultimately be picked up by the taxpayers and the costs estimated do not include the significant environmental damages that these spills may create.”
23162. End quote.
23163. In my view, I do not believe the Northern Gateway Project to be in the public interest. Like any relationship, these must be mutual interest and benefits to both parties, but here the risk outweighs any true, long-lasting benefit to the Canadian people.
23164. All of us may have been or know somebody who may have been in a relationship be it professional or personal where for a while the promise of true mutual, you know, beneficial exchange kept us believing in the possibilities. But when it is obvious that the relationship is in fact unequal, taxing and perhaps insulting and when we are left to clean up after the messes that others deny responsibility for, it is time to rethink, in the name of evolution, where we place our energies. It only requires our determination to seek out those healthy relationships.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23165. Being from the industrial east end of Montreal and now living by the waters here in Victoria, enjoying the easy access to the most spectacular settings that nature has to offer, I do not relish even the remotest possibility that instead of picking up fascinating rocks or digging for clams that me and my beloveds will be picking up goop.
23166. And yes, taxpayers of all sizes will surely be holding their breaths to hear how much it will cost to pick up the mess, not if, but when the time comes. I would much rather see any amount of the same tax dollars, even those being spent here today, going to ingenious minds to puzzle out how a 4.6 billion year old planet as beautiful as ours can remain that way beyond the reign of short term economic constraints, where in considering the bottom line, there should be included the forgotten economy of wellbeing.
23167. That is the very engine that fosters continued ingenuity and progress for all to benefit and anyone here today who loves what they do as I do knows what I mean.
23168. Thank you.
23169. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Dudley, thank you for taking the time to join us this afternoon to share your views. Please begin your presentation.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. JOANNA DUDLEY:
23170. MS. JOANNA DUDLEY: Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Panel, I would like to thank you for accepting my application to be an intervenor at these hearings.
23171. My name is Joanna Dudley. I first came to B.C. in 1978 to this island and I’ve lived elsewhere in B.C., I now live in the Cowichan Valley. I appeared at a former NEB preliminary hearing back in late 2001 on the proposed GSX pipeline and your ruling on that proposal at a time when the National Energy Board enjoyed reasonable autonomy and far more respect from a previous government was the right one.
23172. One day I would so much hope to see the Board renamed the National Sustainable Energy Board, free to make future rulings that include serious criteria to protect the health of Canada’s environmentally threatened areas. I am not, quote, “a radical” and neither is anyone paying me for expensive hotel bills,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux dinners and lunches or to hold up a banner. I consider myself an educated, responsible, long-time citizen of Canada with a deep fondness and love for the amazing province we live in and that’s why I’m here today, to defend our province with its unique, irreplaceable land and marine wildlife, forests, pure water sources, our precious wild salmon and their ancient rivers.
23173. Each of us privileged enough to be allowed entry to these hearings actually speaks for thousands of fellow British Columbians who cannot be at this venue, who are vehemently opposed, as I am, to Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. Their PR and advertising campaign in B.C. is also a ridiculous waste of our time and their money.
23174. When I first arrived in Canada over 40 years ago, I worked for a year in Edmonton for Shell Oil in what was then termed the Exploration and Exploitation Department. During random conversations with engineers, I heard about what was then called the Athabasca oil sands and that it was considered hugely expensive and difficult to get the oil out of there and they were all scratching their heads about it; also, that conventional oil reserves in Alberta could only last until 2020. Obviously that scenario has since changed. One couldn’t even imagine the year 2020 back then. Now, it’s only seven years away.
23175. Before this I had worked overseas in the Caltech’s Oil Overseas Division. So I have some familiarity of how collectively the oil and gas industry thrives in its own exclusive world and plays very powerfully as we know to our dismay, by its own rules.
23176. Yes, we are provided with fuel for our vehicles, homes and businesses and so many other things, but how it’s provided and at what ongoing cost to the earth, a living, breathing planet, and why Canada’s oil energy sector seems so reluctant to seriously reinvest its billions of profit dollars in clean sustainable energy is the argument that never goes away.
23177. This Enbridge Pipeline Project and all it entails is a preposterous nightmare hoping to unfold in what would become a bizarre and ugly transit of central British Columbia, its owners and directors half-baked on the knowledge of our ecology or how to plan for future oil spills, indifferent to communities who already have much to fear.
23178. To Enbridge, and especially the federal government, which also seems to live in its own strange world, B.C.’s coastal and inland communities, our
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux wildlife and marine life and ourselves are merely collateral damage on an economic -- on economic and geopolitical spreadsheets.
23179. The scenario would include pipeline hanging over pristine rivers in known landslide and avalanche areas, ploughing through heavy forest and bush where random forest fires could start naturally, even from a piece of broken glass catching the sun during hot weather at any time, igniting explosive oil vapours that we know seep off our pipelines every mile they go.
23180. Enbridge Northern Gateway even plans to drill its lofty path through a very hard mountain called Mount Nimbus, only to arrive at the head of the torturous Douglas Sea Channel, leading to a wild and wicked ocean in which hundreds of ships have gone down in B.C.’s marine history and not just in winter.
23181. As you have heard loud and clear already, the initial mistake, one of many, including fraudulent illustrations online of the Douglas Channel was that the Enbridge Corporation planned to make a serious incursion by means of a hazardous pipeline through non-ceded First Nations historical lands without even considering the courtesy up front of a consultation process.
23182. Their bland apology for that oversight has come too late. First Nation Bands in these territories have already made clear they will not tolerate the Northern Gateway. I’m sure they mean it and that thousands of British Columbians will support them in moral and practical fashion.
23183. Hopefully, the National Energy Board is beginning to fully understand that the very notion of this pipeline project in all its fantastical ramifications has enraged this province and especially the First Nations people from the get-go.
23184. The foreign market that awaits Canada’s bitumen includes casino gambling cities in China like Macau, lit up for miles around 24/7, copycatting places like Las Vegas. In China, huge empty cities have been built for those who never arrived.
23185. None of this excess waste and poor planning helps ordinary people and rural communities over there improve their lives. But our outrage here is for multiple other reasons, all of which you’ve heard already from scientists, experts, mariners, farmers, nature lovers, professionals, the tourism industry.
23186. You’ve heard again and again about the very real potential danger to
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux our whales, salmon, wildlife and bird life so I won’t take up time repeating those, though I do have certain points of my own to make.
23187. I myself have -- oh ---
23188. MEMBER BATEMAN: Three minutes.
23189. MS. JOANNA DUDLEY: Yeah, I better hurry up.
23190. I would like to outline specific items that really trouble me, not the least of which is that -- and this has already been documented -- there is an oil spill every three days somewhere in the world.
23191. Time and again our media refers back to the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker disaster because it happened closed to British Columbia. But since 1989 there have been thousands more oil tanker spills, accidents and major disasters. The Exxon Valdez spill was followed by three more tanker accidents within a month, the Aegean Sea, the Maersk Navigator and the tanker Braer, though not in Alaskan waters.
23192. One in particular occurred in marine conditions, gale force 9 to 10 winds and raging seas, uncannily similar to those along the upper coast and inland channels of B.C. Winds up and down our coast, especially in the Kitimat area, frequently measure close to hurricane force.
23193. This was the main but not sole factor in the wreck of the tanker Braer, carrying more oil than the Exxon Valdez which drifted for hours onto rocks on the southern Shetland Islands in January 1993 after it lost its engines in the Fair Isle Channel and was unable to lower anchor without crewmen being washed overboard.
23194. What really stood out for me, however, and which could so easily happen on our own coast, is that these near hurricane winds picked up the tonnes of crude oil awash on the rocks, turned the oil into a poisonous brown soup, which was then blown all over southern Shetland Island drenching farms, people, livestock, communities. Children had to be kept indoors for two weeks due to the mess and especially the toxic fumes. Fishers and farms were ruined financially.
23195. A similar occurrence in gale force winds in the Douglas Channel, in which local residents have regularly witnessed over 70-foot high waves, or
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux anywhere along the coast, would obviously devastate communities far and wide. There’s far more to be said about toxic spills and what it does to the human body.
23196. Another point, when a Chinese tanker does run into rocks and trouble and is grounded in the Douglas Channel, wouldn’t that mean that the channel is then blocked to future tanker traffic for weeks or even months? Clean-up would be horrendous enough, and what a financial inconvenience to Enbridge and the tar sands bitumen flow when the other 200 or so other tankers are lined up somewhere and operations are halted.
23197. Meantime, before the first accident occurs, we will be at the mercy of unmonitored vessels and crew pilots and so on, vessels not safety inspected in Canada.
23198. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Dudley ---
23199. MS. JOANNA DUDLEY: Yes.
23200. MEMBER BATEMAN: --- your time is up. I see you have a few pages. I invite you ---
23201. MS. JOANNA DUDLEY: I would like to just ---
23202. MEMBER BATEMAN: --- to take a look and take a moment and just summarize your final comment in a sentence.
23203. MS. JOANNA DUDLEY: I would like to just read my conclusion. I didn’t realize how fast the time goes.
23204. All over the planet and now into the 21st century more than ever there has been a tug of war happening between the stewards of the earth, those who love and care for the natural environment, which tasks should be considered an integral contributor to their domestic economy and those in what is now quaintly termed the global extractive industry by the Harper administration.
23205. There have been too many wars already on this earth. The only battle that should really matter is the one to protect our planet, the only one we have, from further wilful damage.
23206. Thank you for giving me the time to speak to the Panel. I appeal to the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux National Energy Board to do the right thing and put an end to the Enbridge Northern Gateway charade.
23207. Thank you.
23208. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this afternoon.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23209. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
23210. Mr. Ferguson, please go ahead with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. BRIAN FERGUSON:
23211. MR. BRIAN FERGUSON: I’d like to thank the Panel for the privilege of speaking, and I’m going to give you the short version because a lot of the things that I had in my long version have already been said by previous speakers.
23212. My name is Brian Ferguson; I was born here in Victoria in 1949 and have been privileged to reside here and call British Columbia my home all my life.
23213. I believe that the proposed Northern Gateway Project will negatively impact not only myself, should I live another couple of decades, but also my children and other relatives, as well as citizens of this province in general.
23214. I’ve educated myself by reading, listening and viewing as much information as I have found in the news media, on the internet, and by attending various forums and town hall meetings. Some of the facts that I have found and been able to verify; the route for the proposed project passes through a largely pristine wilderness populated by many species of flora and fauna that survive as parts of a delicately balanced ecosystem; the terrain is, in some areas, precipitous and also subject to extreme weather conditions during much of the year.
23215. Much of the land is subject to Treaty governance -- sorry -- Treaty for governance and tradition -- traditional use by our Aboriginal citizens who rely on and form part of the ecosystem. Most, if not all, of the First Nations
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux communities, whose traditional lands lie along the proposed route, have expressed grave concern regarding the potential for disastrous upset to their way of life.
23216. A number of well-known, educated and admitted British Columbians, including David Suzuki, David Anderson and Rafe Mair, to name a few, have made public well-informed arguments regarding the lack of scientific study of the environmental impact of the proposed project.
23217. Enbridge, the corporation that will build and operate the proposed project, has a poor track record, at best, for pollution due to and response to the inevitable spillage or leakage of toxic petroleum product, and I cite the Kalamazoo River incident as probably the largest and most recent.
23218. This corporation has also openly lied to the public in its advertising, and I cite the Photoshop removal of existing islands where supertankers must navigate.
23219. In conclusion, I’m interested in the sustainable preservation of British Columbia’s environmentally sensitive wilderness for the enjoyment of future generations. I am not interested in valuable tax dollars being unnecessarily squandered on government defence of inevitable Supreme Court cases involving Charter and Treaty rights of our Aboriginal citizens. Where is the public -- sorry -- publicly transparent and independent scientific evaluation of the environmental impact of this proposal?
23220. I respectfully submit to the Panel that you reject the Northern Gateway proposal.
23221. Thank you.
23222. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Okay, thanks a lot, Mr. Ferguson.
23223. Mr. Foster, please go ahead and share your views.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. SAM FOSTER:
23224. MR. SAM FOSTER: Good afternoon. My name is Sam Foster and I’m here today to voice my opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline. I’ve lived in B.C. for 22 years and in this time I’ve developed a tremendous appreciation and respect for the natural beauty of this province, which I’ve
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux traveled all over, partly from working as a wildfire fighter and otherwise from curiosity.
23225. In December I completed my Bachelors of Science Honours degree at the University of Victoria. My major was in biology with a specific focus on conservation and ecology. I also completed a minor in applied ethics. With that said, I hope you’ll seriously consider my opinion on these matters.
23226. Building a pipeline through the Great Bear Rainforest to move bitumen to supertankers is a bad and enormously dangerous idea for a number of reasons.
23227. First, it threatens the world’s largest, intact coastal temperate rainforest and the ocean waters adjacent to it, posing risk to a variety of ecosystems and the organisms that depend on them, from plants to animals to people. This concerns me and many others too.
23228. Further, it is a bad idea because it will simply prolong and encourage the use of fossil fuels. This is especially worrisome due to the extremely well- supported case that human caused climate change is occurring. This is a real serious problem and I think it is quite obvious that the solution does not lie in pushing the status quo.
23229. We cannot stop using oil overnight, of course not, but we must consider the outcome that our decisions today will have on future people. Climate change is a serious threat to these people and it is a threat that we have some control over now.
23230. In my opinion, it would be a violation of ethics to not sufficiently consider the wellbeing of these people. And in building the Enbridge pipeline, this important consideration would be pushed to the side, left for other people to deal with later, left for other people to try and reduce our collective impact. That does not seem fair or acceptable to me.
23231. Another problem I have with this project is that it is not clear why untreated bitumen should be exported to another country. It requires much more energy to ship an unfinished product than a finished one -- something I see as an example of this project’s blatant lack of environmental concern.
23232. In exporting raw bitumen, we would be giving away an opportunity for
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux job creation here in Canada as well as economic growth here. Not only could we process the oil here, which would be less wasteful, and create jobs, we could even supply oil to Canada and reduce our need for imported oil from countries such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Doing so might demonstrate that we do have a concern over our environmental impact here but that’s not something that I have seen a lot of from my government.
23233. Honestly, I find it ridiculous that Canada is racing to export its oil while we still import over half of the oil that we use here in Canada. Please, in your final report, recommend that our government acknowledge the tremendous, environmental responsibility that it carries because I feel like it really could use the reminder.
23234. This project poses many ecological dangers in the construction and operation of the pipeline and in the operation of supertankers on our coast. Let’s step back for a moment. Species extinctions and the wonton destruction of the environment are happening globally, right now across the world, especially in developing nations. The reality of this problem is supported in countless articles from scientific journals to the point that it’s often very depressing to read the conservation literature.
23235. With such serious consequences, I believe we have an ethical obligation to reduce our destruction of ecosystems. Canada should lead the conservation effort, not demolish it for short term gain. Imagine the horror we would feel in seeing a white spirit bear covered in oil -- our symbol of B.C. -- or countless seabirds washed up dead or dying on an oiled beach alongside sea lions, salmon and perhaps killer whales or humpback whales.
23236. These are organisms which have evolved over hundreds of millions of years and some of them could be seriously threatened by an oil spill on our coast. We have no right to destroy the plants and animals that an oil spill would cause, especially on a greedy quest for wealth and power, which is exactly what I see this project as -- as a greedy quest for wealth and power.
23237. Further, to build the pipeline across B.C. and Alberta would exemplify a disgraceful lack of concern for the many First Nations peoples who have opposed this project -- people whose lifestyles and lands would be in direct danger from oil spills. Our government must acknowledge the rights of these people and allow them to live peacefully. We can in no way justify the forceful construction of a pipeline through land where the stewards have turned away the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux project. Having said that, I don’t even understand why this project is still on the table because the landowners have turned it away.
23238. There are a number of reasons why you should not approve the Enbridge proposal. I’ve only mentioned a few, but to reiterate, it will prolong and encourage the use of fossil fuels; it is incredibly wasteful to export untreated bitumen to another country while we continue to import refined oil from countries such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia; and this project threatens the largest remaining intact coastal temperate rainforest in the world.
23239. The dangers associated with this project are twofold, as both the pipeline and super tankers will threaten our coast and the livelihoods and rights of the people who live along it. They do not want it and neither do I. Neither has anybody I’ve ever spoken with. The public does not want this project. It is not in our interests. Please do not let this be forced on us.
23240. I’d like to leave you with one final question. Do you think that Enbridge truly believes there will never be a spill -- ever? It seems ridiculous to believe such a thing as hundreds of oil spills have occurred in the past few years in pipelines owned by Enbridge. The claim that a spill will not occur is not well supported.
23241. I have talked with many people, students, professors, family, friends and even strangers about this issue, and nobody has ever argued that oil is not going to spill. The reason; because oil will spill, it is only a matter of time, if not from a pipeline, then from one of the many supertankers that will be moving through the treacherous waters of the inside passage, Hecate Strait and the Dixon Entrance.
23242. Let’s consider the Exxon Valdez or the Queen of the North ferry here in B.C. Both ran aground in conditions that are relatively calm for the waters along the proposed tanker routes. Both crashes were the result of human error. How can we ensure such an accident won’t happen with the supertankers moving bitumen from Kitimat? We can’t. Mistakes happen and there will always be that lingering, persistent probability of catastrophe.
23243. If you can ensure that Enbridge never spills oil, which you cannot, how can you recommend this project? The Enbridge proposal is an enormously, dangerous, bad idea. Please do not support it.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23244. Thank you for listening and providing me with the opportunity to speak here and be a part of this process. Please do the right thing and turn Enbridge away from our coast.
23245. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you for taking the time to come.
23246. Mr. Fraser, we’re here to hear you as well and understand your point of view. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSE ORAL PAR MR. BRUCE FRASER:
23247. MR. BRUCE FRASER: Thank you very much, Ken or is it Kenneth ---
23248. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ken is fine.
23249. MR. BRUCE FRASER: --- and Sheila and Hans, Applicants and media and I just want to thank everybody for creating this opportunity for -- and all the people that came out to do this oral version -- or oral presentation.
23250. And I also wanted to think about the -- all the other people that are not -- haven’t taken advantage to this opportunity or let’s consider all the people that have made written official statements or signed petitions. And I’m talking about the -- not -- I’m speaking of people that are against this proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker traffic off the coast. And I guess it’s clear that I’m -- I am against that.
23251. So thinking about that, I wanted to say I don’t think my argument against this proposal will be very unique or more compelling than anybody else. Listening to the other people that have come in and spoke today, it’s been inspiring the amount of information, self-education and otherwise.
23252. You know, very knowledgeable people expounded on all the negative things -- all the negative possibilities, all the unforeseen -- I don’t know -- accidental -- you know, accidental -- that -- we got to -- I want to stick on that word for a minute because it’s worth noting that, you know, an accident is -- you could say it’s unforeseen. You could say, well, we don’t expect something to happen.
23253. But accidents happen. Accidents happen, you know, everywhere,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux every day. So an accident in a pipeline or a tanker is -- in this case, it’s not a trip and a fall, it’s a catastrophic event that will change people’s lives forever. And it’s -- and people are really -- you know, people being the least of the -- of those affected. It’s the environment that -- and the unforeseen long-term damage we can’t probably -- there’s probably no way to imagine what raw bitumen can do to the environment, to the -- whether it be marine or land.
23254. I -- so those things have all been spoken of and I -- I want to say again that I -- I think -- I don’t know, I shouldn’t say again because I don’t think I’ve mentioned this, but I’m thinking that there’s thousands of people that aren’t involved in this process, not because it’s not available for them, but because they’re -- they’ve grown apathetic to -- to the system that’s available for us the people to participate and -- and use our democratic rights and stand up and speak about things we believe in.
23255. I think there’s thousands and thousands of British Columbians that -- that feel and I shouldn’t just say British Columbians, let’s just say thousands of -- thousands of people throughout the world that feel that they’re so busy just doing their day-to-day life with their immediate family and extended family and their work and everything else that this is just another issue that they have no control over, whether they feel positively or negatively about it, they’ll just shrug their shoulders and say, well, I’m just a little guy and we all know that -- that the big money and corporation will have its way.
23256. And -- and there’s, I think, a growing apathy in -- in the public that -- that government is not run by people, not by the -- not for the public interest, but that it’s continually being diminished and large corporate interest has carefully and one chip at a time taken away the democracy that used to exist.
23257. And that in the last 50 years or, you know -- I am just -- I am just improvising my speech in case you hadn’t figured that out yet, but I do feel strongly about this and I feel that there is a huge amount of the population that are average every day working people that are disenfranchised. They don’t feel that they have any power in expressing their -- their views on what should happen in the world.
23258. And they don’t realize what sort of influence a joint panel like this can have in the, you know, in the -- the conclusions that, or, you know, that will result in -- in a mega-project, that’s not even the right -- that’s not even the right suffix, it’s larger than mega, it’s I don’t know -- in probably the largest project in North
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux America if you consider what’s going to be done.
23259. From beginning to end, extracting oil from -- from sands in my opinion, is -- is far too costly environmentally. The way you have to use an excessive amount of water, the way we have to -- have to have tailing ponds that pollute. On and on and on it goes. Everybody’s talked about this, the environmental hazards. I don’t want to spend a bunch of time on that. There’s a lot more people that are much more well educated about it and would -- would be able to express a more compelling argument against the environmental concerns.
23260. I -- my day-to-day life, my work is in piping; I’m a plumber and gas fitter and I’m self-employed in Victoria. I work with pipes every day. A lot of my work is service work and in service work we repair things that somebody else has built. It’s inevitable. It’s the reason that I’m in this trade is because repair is inevitable in piping.
23261. Nothing lasts forever. If it’s built to the most stringent local rules of inspection through trial and error over the years, people building up standards and saying this is how this has to be built, it will break down. And in the case of somebody’s house, it just means a bit of water on their floor or -- or a water tank exploded and flooded their -- their upper floor and all the way down into the basement and flooded out that place too.
23262. You know, worse things can happen than water damage, but it -- it’s -- it is devastating for some people. Water can injure people. It rarely -- it rarely affects the environment but the other part of my job is gas fitting. Now, gas fitting has obviously a lot more dangerous outcomes if -- not if, but when pipes fail.
23263. We’ve had a couple of pipe ruptures here in Victoria. I’m sure everybody remembers when the Bay Street Bridge was closed because somebody had, the way they had piped their gas line, it went through a sewer line and back out the other side and nobody really knew and the city was -- was drilling up a hole to repair something and boom, they cut into a huge gas line. Well, there was a massive gas leak and panic and they shut off the bridge and they had to shut down the pipe.
23264. Well, it’s -- natural gas is a non-toxic, somewhat -- somewhat harmless substance if it’s -- if it’s just let go into the environment. Because it’s lighter than air, it floats away, it doesn’t have a long-term unknown effect. So
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux you compare that rupture and that -- that’s the sort of stuff that happens every day. It’s inevitable. That -- that was human error. There’s just normal breakdown.
23265. Raw bitumen will -- it will happen. I -- I don’t think, as -- as you said and the fellow before and everybody else, I don’t think anybody believes that there will not be a raw bitumen spill on this pipeline if it was built. It’s -- it’s probably -- I wouldn’t know for sure, but I would think it’s the most rugged terrain, you know, some of the most rugged terrain on the planet.
23266. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Fraser, your 10 minutes have passed. I think that we have an understanding of your view. Thank you for coming.
23267. MR. BRUCE FRASER: Thank you very much again. Really appreciate it and all those people that aren’t involved, I think should be involved.
23268. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your oral statements this afternoon.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23269. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
23270. Ms. Hansen, you look like one of our younger presenters that we’ve seen in Victoria. Welcome and please begin your oral statement.
23271. Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. REBECCA HANSEN:
23272. MS. REBECCA HANSEN: Hi, thank you so much for this chance to speak. I am a 14 year old student at Reynolds Secondary School and I am against this project because I think that it’s not equal to B.C.; B.C. is only going to get 7 percent of the projected money share and it’s going to have almost all the risks.
23273. The jobs that are going to be created by mainly the construction aren’t likely to go to B.C.'ers either. A UBC study showed that 30 percent of northern jobs will be tied -- are tied to the coast which sort of points towards, if a spill were to happen, it would be much worse than any repercussions or any benefits from the original project.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23274. Also, a Raincoast Conservation Foundation study showed that the dozen large oil terminals that were studied don’t go 18 years without an oil spill which really points to the danger of these and that it’s not something that needs to be considered as a small possibility but as something that will happen.
23275. This plan for the pipeline is not being made for B.C., B.C. is being made to fit the plan. When Enbridge had this spill in the Kalamazoo River in 2010, they had easy access. They had people watching and seeing it. This is not going to be the same for what’s happening here. There will be nobody to see what happened and there will be no easy way to get in.
23276. I saw the movie “On the Line” a year ago, I think, and it showed this amazing scene where they were trying to get over a mountain that would have to be tunnelled through for the pipeline. And they couldn’t because the weather was too bad; it was snowing and windy. That shows something about how hard it would be to get into that area, how hard it would be to just get a basic response.
23277. I went up to the north this summer. I actually went down to Kitimat. And I was along the projected -- or the pipeline area. And these -- this is an amazing area. It’s the Great Bear Rainforest, its marshes, its lakes, its rivers, its moss bogs. It’s these places that would be so -- are so valuable and are so fragile that even a tiny little leak that’s looked after immediately would be just awful.
23278. At the same time it’s a really wild place. It’s very unpredictable. There are enormous storms. When I was there it was mid-summer and I couldn’t -- in Kitimat you couldn’t see across the little channel because there was so much fog come in. This just points towards something that just won’t work.
23279. I actually want to be a marine biologist when I grown up. And this really connects me to the ocean. I really want to be teaching people about what is our ocean and how it works, and not how it worked before a spill. I don’t want to talk about it in the past.
23280. We’ve seen the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill. A spill from this pipeline would be the same story. In the Exxon Valdez spill there were nearly 2,000 kilometres impacted. And the loss of the area that was -- is valued at about 7.5 billion. That’s more than we’d get back from the project in 30 years. I mean it just doesn’t equate.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23281. Two hundred and fifty thousand (250,000) sea birds and small marine mammals, including sea otters and harbour seals were killed. This is just devastating to the environment up there.
23282. The thing about the Exxon Valdez spill too is that the waters are still deemed toxic. This is 20 years later, and it’s still not cleaned up. There’s still oil pooling on the beaches. And the Government of Alaska estimates that it could take up to another century before it -- the traces of the spill are gone.
23283. I mean imagine if that happens it’ll be the same idea. But we won’t have the same response because that -- we’re not set up very well for it.
23284. The thing is this is such a unique, amazing place up there. It has some of B.C.’s cultural icons. It’s just when people picture B.C., this is part of what they see. And if this happens here -- we have an example. We’ve seen what could happen. We’ve seen the devastating effects from the Exxon Valdez spill. And I just see that we can’t let this happen when we have such an obvious clear path of what -- what this does.
23285. I mean from the marine biologist’s point of view there are some very neat species. When I was up there I saw a Pacific white-sided dolphins which are one of my favourite animals. And they would be so badly impacted because it’s an ecosystem; one tiny species is affected and the entire thing goes haywire. I just don’t think this is a good idea.
23286. I love our coast. I mean I really do. And if a spill happens we know that it’s not going to turn out well. So please I don’t want to let this to happen. So please stop this.
23287. MEMBER MATTHEWS: That’s well done, Miss Hansen. And I encourage all your colleagues to actively listen in on -- on people like you as well on the webcast just to hear what -- what’s going on here.
23288. So I really appreciate the work that you’ve put into your presentation. Thank you.
23289. So, Ms. Hargrove, please go ahead.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. MARIAN HARGROVE:
23290. MS. MARIAN HARGROVE: Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this afternoon. And it’s an honour to present with all ages and I’m really excited by it.
23291. So my name is Marian Hargrove; I’m a retired health care professional. And I have no vested interest in the pipeline project or experience or training which would equip me to be a consultant or expert advisor.
23292. My presentation is short. It’s a summary of what I have followed very carefully. What I have is enough education to decipher most scientific papers, research skills which I’ve applied to the proposed project for a few years and a naturalist love of what is threatened by this pipeline proposal.
23293. Having followed the hearings since they started, it seems that the inescapable conclusions are that this pipeline is a threat without equal to the natural world through which the pipeline will pass; to the indigenous people who will be affected by the disasters which will occur and to the communities of people who depend on fishing, aquaculture and tourism.
23294. If that threat to the environment and people of B.C. could be justified by a guarantee of safety of the system and economic benefit to its people or if regulations could be put in place which would ensure minimal risk, there would still be no objective justification for its approval.
23295. The number of permanent jobs, and everyone’s familiar with the kind of floating 104 plus 113 positions in associated marine services or 560 is another figure quoted, if the number of permanent jobs promised cannot in any way compare to the potential loss of even a portion of the 7,700 jobs associated with B.C.’s fishing, tourism and marine industries.
23296. The impact on the B.C. economy of increased oil prices of 2 to $3 per year, which is the projection on which the viability of the pipeline rests, this would be an inflationary shock that could hardly be offset by the 1.2 billion benefit to the province. I’m quoting from Robyn Allan’s, the economist report.
23297. This inflationary shock would be felt throughout the province and country in the shape of decreased output, labour, income, net government revenues. This is all without considering the costs of devastating effects of major
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux tanker spills, which, as the UBC study released mid-December, found would outweigh both provincial and federal benefits. And I think Miss Hansen made a reference to that.
23298. The only real beneficiary of this pipeline would be oil investors and the trickle down into the Alberta economy. The building of a pipeline the actual construction phase and results of this are extremely long-lasting. Approximately 50 years ago the Westcoast Transmission Company pipeline crossed our range land and the ranch where I grew up in the caribou.
23299. It crossed the field within 200 metres of our home. The access roads necessary for construction, the heavy equipment used, the clearing of the wide right-of-way changed the countryside irrevocably, with access roads came extra entry points for hunters, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles.
23300. Wildlife movements were affected by all of this which ultimately led to a strain on biodiversity. And for anyone who had lived there from childhood and paid attention this was changed in observable ways; there were decrease of certain wildlife, increase of others.
23301. When construction was completed this infrastructure is still maintained for purposes of ongoing access and maintenance. And to this day, in the caribou area to which I refer, the mutilation of the natural landscape remains.
23302. My point in telling this is that aside from the threat of pipeline ruptures contaminating land and water and damage done to put this pipeline in place is absolutely unimaginable; 800 streambeds, 650 kilometre right-of-way, and all the access roads for heavy equipment necessary to support this construction.
23303. My deepest dreads arising from this pipeline proposal fall into the category of known liability gaps and unknown environmental factors. We are told, and Enbridge tries to convince us through endless advertisements, that they are as concerned about safety as we are. Yet, they have been unable to lay out a plan for assuming liability which would even meet such a crisis since the spill at Kalamazoo.
23304. That spill was accessible, climate-cooperative and they were able to draw on the resources of their other functioning parts to put together the .76 billion needed for what seemed to be inadequate clean-up.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23305. We all realize that Enbridge will be only a 51 percent stakeholder in the limited liability consortium which proposes to build the pipeline. The limited liability means just that. And protection from “excessive” claims will be built in. It is still unknown I believe whether additional insurance will be part of the requirement for approval.
23306. Failure to ensure this could very easily leave taxpayers in B.C. and Canada responsible for portions of damage over the proposed 30-year lifespan of the pipeline.
23307. The unknown environmental factors stretch imagination beyond worst case scenarios. And we’ve all seen those with situations like the Gulf of Mexico. This is because, to my knowledge, no one has ever developed a solution to removing bitumen from oceans or even from fresh water.
23308. Our current approach to cleaning up oil is -- in water is the boom and slick licker developed in the sixties in Victoria. Since -- once the diluents evaporate, or if the bitumen has been separated out for tanker transport, its heavy nature will cause it to sink, so the skimming is impossible.
23309. This, combined with the indecision over whether dilbit causes more pipe erosion increasing failure rate, should be reason enough to reject the pipeline proposal, on the basis of insufficient knowledge and excessive environmental risk to both land and waterways from these unknowns.
23310. In conclusion, as I follow the blue and red -- or the blue or red and yellow lines on maps showing the route of this proposed pipeline, it seems to me to look like a rather innocent rope that you, as a Panel, and we, as a populace, are asked to consider. Yet to consider it separately, without acknowledging the tigers attached to either end of this innocent looking rope is simply not rational.
23311. The Alberta tiger, or tar sands, is not within our mandate, we are told, but yet it stands to affect us all when the more rapidly it is enabled the more our world will be changed by climate change. I think we must consider this enablement and do what we can to decrease the tiger’s rampage.
23312. At the other end of the rope is the gargantuan tanker tiger which will flounder about in the world’s fourth most dangerous body of water in which lives an indescribable richness of marine and shore life.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23313. Again, I feel we must do whatever it takes to keep this tiger from its lethal spill effects. In our deepest selves, I think we know that this project does not have the possibility of a disaster; it has the promise of one.
23314. Thank you.
23315. MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Heath, thank you for coming to present your views to the Panel for consideration. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. BRENT HEATH:
23316. MR. BRENT HEATH: Thank you. Well, you know my name. Just my background, I’m an Emeritus Professor of Biology and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. I mention those simply as evidence that my colleagues over the years have thought that my views have some merit, and thinking has some merit. Whether that is true or not, you will judge.
23317. No, obviously, the mandate of the Committee is simply to deal with the pipeline proposal, but since that is one part of an interdependent continuum, evaluation of all of the components is totally relevant. And I just want to comment on five components.
23318. In the first place, fossil hydrocarbon usage should be reduced in order to slow down the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming -- well- documented issue. Pushing ahead as fast as possible with the extraction and usage of the tar sands is completely contrary to this objective and incidentally, previous promises by assorted Canadian governments.
23319. I should also like to quote from the 2010 Royal Society Expert Panel on the environmental impact of Canada’s oil sands.
“The EIA process relied upon by decision makers to determine whether this or other proposed projects are in the public interest has serious deficiencies in relation to international best practices.” (As read)
23320. This point is also emphasized by the release of the recent research report from Small and colleagues outlining the widespread pollution emanating from the current levels of activity. And of course, the threefold increase is apparently planned.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23321. The second point is that given the finite demand of fossil hydrocarbons in the world, even though usage should be reduced, it’s certainly not going to be eliminated in the immediate future. And as supplies are depleted, it seems highly likely, that the price will indeed increase. It makes no sense to me to rush ahead with usage at current, relatively low prices when future conservative use will be more profitable for the future prosperity of Canada.
23322. The third point is that to my mind, any use of the oil sands should be for the benefit of Canada, not her competitors. Selling her limited reserves to one of her major competitors at bargain prices so that they can continue to produce the products that we import to the detriment of their own national industrial activity amends to shooting your nation in the foot.
23323. Furthermore, irrespective of the final consumer of the problem -- products, I think all refining and processing of the bitumen oil should be done in Canada, using Canadian labour and with all benefits remaining in Canada. The pipeline obviously is going to simply enhance the export process.
23324. Fourth point is that shipping bitumen oil by pipelines and across oceans is inevitably risky. You’ve heard that ad nauseam. Accidents happen and that specific type of oil is difficult to clean up. The -- running the pipeline across countryside heavily populated with rivers and partially seismically active, such as Northern B.C. is likely to make any spill more damaging and irreversible, as again you’ve heard.
23325. The problem is of course, compounded when that pipeline is operated by a company with a very poor record, such as Enbridge. Their record -- for example, between 1999 and 2010, an average of 67 spills per year -- that’s more than one a week -- and an average of about 2,400 barrels per spill. And of course, many of those spills have been much larger.
23326. On a somewhat different tact to, but it’s illustrating the same basic point, Enbridge settled a lawsuit, brought by the State of Wisconsin, for 545 safety violations during construction of the southern access line across Wisconsin alone. Not the sort of situation that gives you confidence in their standards.
23327. And then finally, of course, as you heard just earlier today, the Talmadge Creek Kalamazoo spill was due to a defect detected by Enbridge five years before the problem happened and remained uncorrected. Again, just
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux examples of lousy, corporate culture.
23328. Then the final point is the issue of shipping down the coast of B.C. The coast, especially along the channel out of Kitimat, is heavily populated by rocky islands and is prone to tsunamis. When you get out to the Hecate Strait, that area has been described as having wind and sea conditions among the most severe in Canada. Wind gusts up to 200 kilometres an hour and monster waves greater than 25 metres during extreme storms which can develop within eight hours -- which is really rather little notice to bail out and hope for the best.
23329. As you have heard, again, ad nauseam, shipping disasters happen. But there are other aspects of the shipping issue as well. The guardians of shipping practices are Transport Canada and the Coast Guard. Their funding has been decreased to the point that the Auditor General, as I understand it, has stated that they cannot do their jobs and are not prepared for a spill.
23330. The B.C. coastal waters are very rich in marine life, much of which is of commercial food value. The oil spills obviously have an impact on productivity. But also heavy -- normal heavy ship traffic is increasingly recognized as having a negative impact on the behaviour of marine organisms and presumably on their population dynamics, et cetera.
23331. Third point there is that it’s commonly held that Canada takes good care of its oceans. Researchers at a couple of leading U.S. universities recently constructed an environmental performance index ranking countries on 25 indicators of ocean health and ecosystem vitality. Canada ranked 125 out of 127 on fisheries. We don’t really do that wonderful a job.
23332. Finally, I’d just like to quote from the 2012 Royal Society Expert Panel on Sustaining Canada’s Marine Diversity.
“The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has excessive discretionary power to dictate activities that should be directed by science.” (As read)
23333. I think we know where the current ministry is likely to go.
23334. So those are my main points. I should also just mention perhaps in passing, that whilst it’s outside the mandate of this Panel, many of the points that I’ve just been making are also valid objections to the doubling of the existing
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux pipeline into Vancouver.
23335. Thank you for your attention.
23336. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your oral statements this afternoon.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23337. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
23338. Ms. Henegghan, please proceed with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. COLETTE HENEGGHAN:
23339. MS. COLETTE HENEGGHAN: Thank you.
23340. Firstly, I would like to give thanks and gratitude to Coast Salish people, whose land we are on. My name is Colette Henegghan and I've lived and worked between Victoria and the Great Bear Rainforest for the past 10 years.
23341. I have been continuously listening to these Joint Review Panel hearings online and in person for almost a year now. I'm very proud to stand with the vast majority of British Columbians in taking a stance against the proposed building of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and resulting supertanker traffic carrying raw bitumen through unnavigable waters of the north and central coasts of British Columbia.
23342. Through my work with Pacific Wild focusing on media, social media, film, youth initiatives and interaction with First Nations communities on the coast, I am daily overwhelmed by the continual growth in response against this proposal from our youth to people from all walks of life, both within North America and abroad.
23343. On a daily basis, I hear, see and am personally inspired and motivated by songs and poems that people have written, photographs that people have taken, films and short documentaries people have made and, most importantly, stories people are sharing, stories from a major cross-section of the global public, from First Nations, Elders, youth, friends, family and complete strangers; stories of the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Great Bear Rainforest that are binding us together in a movement of solidarity. Our coast, our call, no tankers.
23344. I'm here today to tell you of our story, my family, not of facts, of pipelines and oil spills, but of community, family and kinsmanship.
23345. I'm the youngest of five siblings. From a very young age, I moved away from B.C. to life, education and travel and work abroad. Ten (10) years ago, I returned as a city slicker to Vancouver and found myself on a slow ferry to visit my brother, Kevin, who lives somewhere in the Great Bear Rainforest.
23346. Since then, I have never really left that area and I'm not a city slicker any more.
23347. Recently, my brother, Kevin Henegghan, has become very ill and I'm proud to read a letter from him to submit to the Panel from his hospital room. So this is from my brother, Kevin. He says:
"Firstly, I would like to tell you a little bit about myself. My name is Kevin Henegghan, and I am a Caucasian male, 44 years old, born and bred in British Columbia. I always feel very grateful to my parents for emigrating here from Europe to give me the Canadian chance, better than they had it. I still bug my mother about her favourite colour growing up in Birmingham, England; concrete. Anyway, I thank my lucky stars for what they did.
After graduating from high school, because of my love for nature I pursued a diploma in Natural Resources, a two-year program at BCIT. I got a job right away and was in the woods, where I lived pretty much for six years straight doing forestry work.
Later, I thought I needed a life change so I got a job in Bella Coola doing silviculture work mainly, and that was good work, hard but healthy. Still I was in the woods.
When the war of the woods came around in the late 1990s, the world started to change. People got out of their cars and walked through the 50-metre buffer zone that surrounds
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux logging slashes. They could see the forest from the logging. I remember differences forming or thinking that just simply the big secret is out. You could see the impact of logging on the souls of the people.
Interfor left Bella Coola, and so did I. I journeyed further west to the unknown to me. I remember I didn't know which way north was in my internal compass for the first time in my life. I guess it was all the islands and ocean just overwhelming me.
In my heart, I felt this is it, the end of my quest for spirituality. I felt complete, as I still do now, 13 years later. I no longer work in the woods. I had to retrain myself, so I got two trades in mechanics and have been working steady with that ever since.
I don't live in the Village of Bella Bella. I live four miles down the channel from it in Lama Pass. I see the lights at night, which makes me feel I am not alone. I have the best friends I have ever had in my life, and the future is positive and friendly. I've lived in this old 70-acre homestead on the water now for 10 years and see nature in yearly cycles, whales in August, Canadian geese in November, fish spawn, birds migrating, just to name a few.
It seems every other day a new species of bird comes to rest or eat, then disappears. I think that's amazing. I built a whale- watching deck to witness this yearly event. I would also like to mention the countless wolf packs wandering through the property on regular intervals.
My sister, Colette [me], who works with Pacific Wild, overheard me saying that we can talk about the beautiful wildlife until we are blue in the face, but what we need are alternative solutions to the pipeline issues. Christy Clark needs to hear solutions to the Kitimat route. I haven't met one person in favour of the pipeline; not one. So let's start giving our government alternatives to the Kitimat route.
The oil business wants access to water so that they can get
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux their extra $30 a barrel more from the Asian markets. Okay, that's business. That's basically it. If they can build an atomic bomb in 1945, they can build a pipeline today.
Our site is okay. Come for a fish dinner and instead of gravy with your dinner, it's going to be oil. Enjoy. Bon appetit.
If the pipeline does rupture, you will have mass migrations of people to our cities, as most of our main food staples come from the ocean.
Now that is said, I would like to give my two cents on alternative solutions to the Kitimat pipeline.
Keep the oil in Alberta. Our natural gas sector in B.C. is strong. Let's make it stronger. And if need be, give it an overhaul. I want Christy Clark to be a leader in B.C.'s getting rid of oil. Let's push electric cars and carbon reduction technology. Let’s get rid of oil dependence and fund businesses to do so.
The pipeline to the west coast is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of in my life. The risk of an oil spill on the coast through the most ecologically dynamic area in the world is asinine and insane. What are we thinking? Does money overrule common sense?
Vancouver's City Council has passed a motion approving the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline facility at the West Ridge Terminal. The West Ridge Terminal handles eight vessels per month. Five of them are oil tankers. Now that will increase to 28 a month, 25 of them oil tankers.
The $4.3 billion project would more than double the capacity of oil coming from Edmonton to Port Moody where the barrels would increase from 300,000 barrels a day to 750,000 a day expected in 2017, thus vastly increasing tanker traffic in the Vancouver Harbour." (As read)
23348. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Henegghan, ---
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23349. MS. COLETTE HENEGGHAN: Yeah.
23350. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- I'm having a little bit of trouble following you. Are you still reading your brother's letter?
23351. MS. COLETTE HENEGGHAN: Yes, I'm almost finished with him.
23352. THE CHAIRPERSON: Because we're here to hear your viewpoints.
23353. MS. COLETTE HENEGGHAN: Okay; I can do that.
23354. THE CHAIRPERSON: And so if you could let us know your viewpoints. And the project that we're here to hear the viewpoints on is the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.
23355. MS. COLETTE HENEGGHAN: Okay. So I'll speak my opinion here.
23356. So my brother wrote of having built a whale-watching deck on his property down Lama Pass from Bella Bella on Dene Island.
23357. On May 21st, 2011, my now husband, Steve, and I were married on that deck. The whole Dene Island community was there, plus friends from Bella Bella, Klemtu, Ocean Falls, Hartley Bay and Bella Coola, plus numerous friends that had travelled up from Victoria.
23358. That whale-watching deck was overflowing with the same people who will shoulder the burden of an inevitable oil spill clean-up, not the Canadian Coast Guard, DFO, definitely not Enbridge, but the local communities whose means of survival is the water Enbridge means to destroy, a way of life and living forever gone.
23359. Personally, I'm proud to know, love, respect and work within and live within the coastal communities of the Great Bear Rainforest, and will stand with them 150 percent further in raising awareness and advocating for the common sense answer of an oil-free coast.
23360. And I brought with me today a little book. It's called "The Salmon Fest Cookbook". It was produced in Bella Bella by the Seas Community
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux Initiative.
23361. The Seas Community Initiative, something I am a part of, is supporting an emerging Aboriginal stewards community initiative. It's an educational program focused on utilizing experimental learning, locally relevant resources and new technology to connect youth with the lands and waters of the traditional territories of the Great Bear Rainforest.
23362. So in this little cookbook, you have recipes from as young as four years old to as old as 98 years old. And for me, it's a -- it shows special reverence to the local communities of Bella Bella and Dene Island and the reverence with what is coming out of the ocean and their survival on it.
23363. Thank you.
23364. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
23365. Ms. Issenman, please go ahead and share your views.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. NANCY ISSENMAN:
23366. MS. NANCY ISSENMAN: Thank you.
23367. My name is Nancy Issenman and I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to express my opinions and feelings about the Enbridge project today. I would also like to acknowledge that we are on unceded Coast Salish territory.
23368. I am opposed to this project for many reasons, which all ultimately speak to the dire need to preserve a sustainable way of life for future generations on this planet. The Enbridge pipelines and tankers project has some very important underlying issues. To me, it represents an emphasis of profit over well- being and health, oil subsidies over alternative energy funding and the will of a few over democracy.
23369. This is a Canada I sadly do not recognize any longer. It is inconceivable to me that my Canada already includes the Alberta tar sands and yet an approval of the Enbridge project would clearly result in expansion of one of the most toxic and polluted places on earth, referred to some -- by some as a carbon bomb.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23370. Last spring, I watched a fantastic video that highlighted the beauty of and a culture dependent on the Great Bear Rainforest in Northern B.C.. The ultimate aim of the video was to expose what would be lost if the pipeline project was approved. My breath was stopped by what I saw. Tears welled up and I said out loud, “I will put my life on the line to stop this from happening”.
23371. I think I surprised myself. I didn’t ever remember feeling so strongly about something that would make me act with my whole being, but beauty and fairness has always been a way that I’ve understood the great mystery of life, and this felt like an extremely serious matter.
23372. Six months later, I found myself traveling up to Northern B.C. to spend 10 days with a First Nations community that has set up a camp on their unceded Wet’suwet’en territory directly in the pathway of the proposed pipelines. It was a life-changing experience for me.
23373. Presented by extremely knowledgeable community leaders were information sessions on all aspects of the proposed pipelines, from the history of resource extraction in that area to stories of people dying from contamination in Fort Chipweya to the industry sub-contracting which results in the community becoming divided.
23374. I felt outraged by so many of the examples of greed and corruption, by the degradation of the environment and blatant disregard for the sanctity of life. Despite my feelings of despair, I was glad to have a clearer picture than I had before I arrived, but what truly, deeply affected me during those 10 days were the stories of a way of life that continues despite an attempt to wipe out its people over the course of hundreds of years.
23375. Elders who grew up maintaining their connection to the land and a younger generation that has reacquainted itself with the traditions talked about the moose, the beaver, the salmon, berries and deer that sustain them still, about the Morice River providing drinking water, still pure, the clean air above them, the trees that hold the earth together. The simple idea that the most important thing any society can do is to protect the environment that gives and sustains our lives became so clear and profound for me at this gathering.
23376. It is obvious our country and our planet is in trouble. We can no longer deny the causes and effects of climate change. We need to protect, not continue to destroy our rivers, lakes, forests and oceans. We need to listen to and
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux learn from those who have a multi-millennial relationship with the land, not the ones who’ve been here for only a short time and are primarily motivated by money.
23377. There are over 130 First Nations in B.C. that oppose the pipeline project, and I stand in complete solidarity with them and their wisdom on this one. I urge you to do the same and reject the project.
23378. Thank you.
23379. MEMBER BATEMAN: Ms. Hurley, thank you for attending with this Panel to present your views. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR DR. KAREN HURLEY:
23380. DR. KAREN HURLEY: Thank you, Chair Leggett and Panel Members for this opportunity to present today and thank you for taking on this role. It’s very demanding, and I acknowledge that. I also thank the Coast Salish who host us today.
23381. My name is Dr. Karen Hurley. I have an inter-disciplinary doctorate from the University of Victoria, where I also have taught Environmental Impact Assessment in the School of Environmental Studies. That was in 2009 and 2010. Prior to my time at UVIC as a doctoral student and instructor, I was the environmental manager for District of Saanich and before that, I was an environmental planner with Inland Waters Directorate of Environment Canada.
23382. My future now is dedicated to exploring and working towards the creation of ecologically sound, diverse and socially just futures. I do not support the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and associated tanker operation. I do not support this project because I care deeply about the land, the streams, the rivers, the watersheds, the fish, the animals, the marine ecosystems that would all be at risk if the project went ahead.
23383. Like so many others, I also stand in solidarity with the First Nation governments who have clearly said no to this project as individual nations and collectively through the Coastal First Nations tanker ban and the Save the Fraser declaration.
23384. I also support the Union of B.C. Municipalities Resolution B139,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux which states that UBCM is opposed to any expansion of bulk crude oil tanker traffic in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. We all recognize the ecological, cultural and economic benefits of our coastal areas and inland lands.
23385. This proposed project, among so many others such as prosperity mine, are providing catalysts to B.C. citizens, both First Peoples and settlers, to come together in defence of what we love and value. We do not have to live directly in an area to be -- sorry, we do not have to live directly in the area potentially affected by the project. We only have to care. We only have to care about the people, the animals, the land, the water that would be directly affected.
23386. We do not have to be First Nations peoples to speak against the injustices that are being perpetuated against them and their lands by hostile industries and blindly supportive governments. As Martin Luther King, Junior, taught us, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
23387. We are caught in an escapable network of mutually -- mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one affects all indirectly.
23388. Many Canadians are joining in solidarity in the face of cultural injustice and ecological harm. We stand for a new Canada and B.C. based on values of ecological care, respect, solidarity and flourishing for all. Environmental impact assessment is, at its core, an application of values.
23389. Historically, EIA processes have placed higher value on industrial commerce and the creation of wealth for a small minority. You have an opportunity as a Panel, perhaps even a responsibility, to make a 21st century decision based on values of care for land, stream and marine environments, among the value of respect and -- in values of respect for First Nations and their preferred way of life.
23390. It is time to shift our country away from harmful resource-based projects and towards an enlightened vision of sustainable and just communities. Environmental impact assessment, as P. Healey argues:
“…has meaningful and effective public involvement only if the public’s expressed concerns have the ability to affect the decision.” (As read)
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23391. Overwhelmingly, the public is telling you they do not want, we do not want the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway project to proceed. I urge you to respect the First Nations governments and peoples, the UBCM, the members of the B.C. public and recommend that this project not be approved. You would be taking a stance for meaningful effective environmental impact assessment processes as well as for ecological and cultural flourishing to be possible.
23392. It seems senseless to think that this project can be approved with pages and pages of conditions, as often happens with large projects. As a result of the federal Conservative government’s recent cuts to scientific and professional staff at Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and years of cuts by the B.C. government to Ministry of Environment staff. There simply are not staff available to ensure that conditions are implemented in an ecologically sound manner.
23393. Again, as a concerned citizen of B.C. and a fellow impact assessment practitioner, I urge you to recommend the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is not approved.
23394. Thank you for your time.
23395. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your oral statements this afternoon.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23396. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
23397. Ms. Ignatieff, please proceed with your oral statement.
23398. Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. SONYA IGNATIEFF:
23399. MS. SONYA IGNATIEFF: Thank you.
23400. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our diverse B.C. voices. My name is Sonya Ignatieff; I am a senior, a mother and a grandmother. I’m a Canadian. And since I retired and moved here 12 years ago I am a devoted British Columbian.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23401. You have asked us to express how the Northern Gateway proposal will affect us personally. Today I will speak as a grandmother and a concerned citizen. Our family has chosen to live in B.C. because we appreciate the extent and magnificent -- magnificence of its wild places.
23402. My grandchildren have spent their childhood being able to explore, camping, biking, hiking, kayaking the lakes, the streams, the mountains, the forests and coastal waters of this province. What legacy I leave to my grandchildren is very important and personal to me.
23403. As you know from your travels in this province, B.C. is blessed with air, land and water that still remain wild and free but only if we are stewards of it for generations to come. This means taking wise decisions that do not benefit the few at the expense of the many.
23404. That is why I feel I must speak up to voice my concerns about proceeding with a proposal that presents potential risks of irretrievable losses to B.C.’s. wild lands and coastal seas.
23405. Enbridge’s 2010 Kalamazoo River spill showed us that very little is known about clean-up of dilbit spills, where unlike conventional oil, the bitumen sinks to the bottom of the riverbed, and in the Kalamazoo case covered about 40 kilometres. The customary clean-up method of skimming the surface just doesn’t work. So even the 15 percent recovery rate, considered a good clean-up, will be unreachable.
23406. It is essential when we’re weighing a decision about development in vulnerable places, whether it is the geotechnical challenge of rockslides, avalanches, erosion and seismicity in building a pipeline or the weather and rugged coast challenges of manoeuvring tankers some three football fields long in water subject to severe storms and earthquakes, to consider wisely the benefits and risks.
23407. Our federal government sees natural resource development as a supplier of our national wealth. Not only is the development of these finite, non- renewable resources unsustainable but any unrestrained development fails to consider the depletion of wealth from degrading nature’s bounty on which our well-being and ultimate survival depends.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23408. The tar sands are our fastest rising source of greenhouse gas emissions. And the Northern Gateway proposal would require a three-fold increase in bitumen production with its accompanying impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
23409. The decision we make on this proposal will indicate how we value nature’s heritage and whether we respect the views of all the Canadians who realize that tar sands development is bad for climate change. We need a national energy policy that has vision and transitions us to more sustainable and self- sufficient options.
23410. In the 1970s, I worked as a non-partisan researcher for Parliament at the time of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearings. It was my job to keep Senators and MPs current with the technical side of the project being reviewed by the National Energy Board, then located in Ottawa. I was impressed with the depth of questioning from the Panel Members and the professionalism they brought to their report.
23411. You may remember however, that that pipeline did not proceed. Not because it wasn’t technically possible but because Judge Berger didn’t think proceeding with it was in the interest of the First Nations along the pipeline route. He recommended a 10-year moratorium which the federal government agreed upon.
23412. First Nations rights also need to be part of the decision-making process of the current proposal.
23413. Public hearings on development projects are crucial to serve the public interest and ensure fair and wise decision-making. We must be sure that they demonstrate our democracy and practice; a benefit our federal government often touts abroad.
23414. But when we hear our Prime Minister coming out in favour of the proposal before these hearings are concluded, we are concerned that the independent hearing process is being compromised. This is not good for our democracy.
23415. Our Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, is said to support a fair, independent and objective regulatory system, and one based on science and the facts. As Panel Members you have a grave responsibility to present an independent view point on the pros and cons of the Northern Gateway proposal.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23416. We appreciate your willingness to listen to us. And depend on you to put forward our views.
23417. In conclusion, thank you for your attention. And I look forward to reading your report.
23418. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
23419. Ms. Knott, please go ahead and present your views.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. FREDA KNOTT:
23420. MS. FREDA KNOTT: Good afternoon.
23421. My name is Freda Knott; I have lived on the west coast for all of my 76 years. Born in Vancouver and residing for the past 45 years in the Victoria area, most of it in the town Metchosin.
23422. I see that -- I first of all want to say that by coincidence I had my grandchildren visiting me this morning. And my four year old brought out “The Lorax” which is very pertinent to this subject. And we read “The Lorax” and had a big discussion about it.
23423. I see the proposal as negatively impacting the climate, lands and waters of this magnificent region. I know you have read -- have heard much regarding this part of the proposal. So I will speak mainly on the employment and economic prospects of the proposal.
23424. I first wish to deal with the suggestions regarding the benefits of the Northern Gateway pipeline. What are these proposed benefits? High profits for Enbridge; federal and Alberta government revenues; job creation most of which is temporary for the construction of the pipeline.
23425. It is my contention that all of the above and more can be obtained through alternate energy. Enbridge would profit from green energy investments which it already has. Government could benefit from higher corporate taxes. I know they don’t like to hear that.
23426. At present, in Canada, I have been given to understand that
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux corporations pay the lowest income tax of the developing countries. Jobs would not be lost in the mainly resource centre and would be expanded to include green energy methods, most of which would be permanent jobs. I wish to deal with the suggestion that the Northern Gateway pipeline will provide many jobs.
23427. Many people when I have talked against it say, well what about the jobs? According to the Enbridge website the proposal would supply 3,000 jobs during the three-year construction period and long-term employment for 560 people. This premise does not deal with the fact that thousands of jobs would be lost if a pipeline ruptured and resulting contamination takes place. Fishing, hunting, forestry, tourism industries would all suffer loss of jobs for an indeterminate period of time.
23428. The building of the pipeline will enable the use of tankers plying the waters along our rugged west coast. It is inevitable that accidents will happen causing oil spills. Complete clean-up of an oil spill is not possible according to scientists. There is still contamination from the 1989 Exxon Valdez relatively smaller tanker spill.
23429. First Nations’ livelihood would be seriously impacted by building of the pipeline and result in oil spills on their traditional land. Even without an oil spill First Nations’ communities would lose use of some of their traditional lands.
23430. If environmental impacts are to be ignored the tar sands bitumen -- and the tar sands bitumen were upgraded and refined in Canada instead of being sent elsewhere, an estimated 26,000 jobs would be created, as stated by the economic consulting firm Informetrica at the National Energy Board meetings.
23431. However, the building of a pipeline from west to east also carries the dangers of ruptures and result in contamination. The oil would remain in Canada serving eastern provinces, that’s true, thus Canada would not have to import oil from despotic regimes in the Middle East.
23432. But environmental issue cannot be ignored. Extraction of non- renewable resources is finite and a very dirty process. The use of this type of energy contributes to global warming. Pipeline ruptures are inevitable due to human error. Enbridge Pipelines have had 31 leaks in the U.S. since 2002. A good recovery is estimated at 15 percent. Production of renewable resources of energy and uses of alternate methods of transportation, public transit, bikes, rapid transit lines, et cetera would, besides being environmentally clean, produce more
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux jobs.
23433. Marc Lee, Senior Economist at the B.C. office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives states that, quote:
“Green investments would create anywhere from three to 34 times the number of jobs per million dollars of new investment compared to oil and gas.”
23434. End of quote.
23435. Thousands of jobs would be created by using clean energy, building better public transit, building energy efficient homes and commercial buildings, better recycling facilities that can produce energy.
23436. Where would the revenue come from alternate energy -- from alternate energy come from; increased corporate income tax on the oil and gas industry, stopping subsidies to the corporations, higher royalties on extraction and export taxes on the processed bitumen, and a carbon tax. Enbridge has a portfolio of green energy investments. It can expand on these industries instead of producing dirty energy and thus show that they are responsible corporate citizens.
23437. Can we afford to jeopardize the future of our planet by extracting the bitumen? Are we not concerned about the world our children and grandchildren will inherit? Should we not consider alternate methods of energy use that would not only create more employment but save our planet from inevitable destruction? I do not believe that our economy would suffer if our government were to govern for the people instead of for big corporations.
23438. I know that I will not give my vote to any party that allows this proposal to proceed. I feel that economically Canada would be better off using alternate methods of energy, thus creating more jobs and keeping the money in Canada to be spent in Canada. Much of the information of the data that I have here comes from “Enbridge Pipelines and Nightmares, the economic costs and benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline” by Marc Lee, Senior Economist at the B.C. office for the Centre for -- for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
23439. Thank you for listening to my concerns and suggestions.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23440. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
23441. Do I pronounce your name Kaller? Ms. Kaller, thank you for joining us today and for presenting your views to the Panel for consideration. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. ELIZABETH KALLER:
23442. MS. ELIZABETH KALLER: Thank you.
23443. In her book “Willful Blindness” that’s published by Doubleday Canada 2011, Margret Heffernan, that’s H-E-F-F-E-R-N-A-N, reports on the thinking of Al Bandura, B-A-N-D-U-R-A, who has been called one of the most influential psychologists of all time and who was born and grew up in Alberta. She quotes:
“People are highly driven to do things that build self worth. You can’t transgress and think of yourself as bad. You need to protect your sense of yourself as good and so people transform harmful practices into worthy ones by coming up with social justification by distancing themselves with euphemisms by ignoring the long term consequences of their actions…”
23444. She goes on:
“One of the most prominent ways in which people justify their harmful practices is by using arguments about money to obscure moral and social issues. Because we can’t and won’t acknowledge that some of our choices are socially and morally harmful, we distance ourselves from them by claiming they’re necessary for the creation of economic wealth.”
23445. She continues that:
“The easiest way to do this for those who, for instance oppose environmental controls, is to represent themselves as good guys because they just want to make everybody better off.”
23446. It’s easy to suspect that the Northern Gateway proposal, touted as in the national interest of an energy superpower, was developed without a thorough
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux look at all the effects. The Proponent has developed a reputation for being less than careful and in and about the proposal there are signs of incompleteness and of haste.
23447. There are reports of data that doesn’t quite fit, inaccurate representation, secrecy regarding supporters, uncertainty regarding customers, even references to the Panel as a kind of focus group that will give guidance moving forward. Most of all, the First Nations along the suggested route and along the coast oppose the pipeline and the tanker traffic that’s part of the package.
23448. There is not yet a place for this pipeline to be put. Should this process -- should this project proceed there would be damage. There would be damage even from access roads, construction, monitoring. The person from caribou who spoke earlier spoke about this. That’s not taking into account the spills from the pipeline and from the tanker traffic that are considered inevitable.
23449. There would be increases in global warming and climate change, encouragement of the use of fossil fuels when the use of fossil fuels should be phased out, and if the federal government were to approve a project that has already been rejected by First Nations along the route think of the effect that approval would have on relations between us newcomers and First Nations. It would indicate, would it not, that we still think Columbus discovered America, a vast and an empty land and we are giving it a use? We’re adding value and we are bringing prosperity.
23450. I hope that a nasty situation can be avoided. I hope that the Panel report will conclude that this project just isn't worth it and will do so so clearly that the Applicant will withdraw. And a request; there is a limit on the Panel's mandate, would you, in the report, include a list of issues that have not yet been examined?
23451. Thank you.
23452. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this afternoon.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23453. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23454. Ms. McMahon, please go ahead with your oral statement.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. PAT McMAHON:
23455. MS. PAT McMAHON: Good afternoon, Panel.
23456. My name is Pat McMahon; I am a retired architect. An architect's job is to coordinate and produce the design for a building, tender it and review the construction. Producing the design requires taking into account thousands of items of input, first the physical site, its contours, orientation to sun and wind, proximity of waterways, noise sources, traffic patterns and so on.
23457. Then the Building Code and local by-laws, fire safety, personal safety, access for the disabled; neighbourly concerns, street lines, roof lines, nearby heritage buildings, the program for the building, a detailed list of activities and equipment in it with priorities for proximity, what needs to be near what.
23458. The program can be as thick as a phone book. Input from structural engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, kitchen designers, interior designers, landscape architects. The ordering principle that coordinates all of this is the aesthetic design, the sculptural stage set for life that is a building.
23459. It strikes me that your job is similar. As you write your recommendations, you have thousands of items of input to consider. Your report must order this information into a cohesive big picture. Your guiding principle is what is in the best interests of Canadians. Your mandate is to be guided by the long-term best interests of all Canadians, not short term political expediency, nor concern for profits for the Proponent's shareholders.
23460. I intend to make three main points. First, this project is not in the long-term interests of Canadians. Second, this project presents unacceptable risk of a ghastly oil spill on our coast. And third, if approved, no infrastructure for this project should be financed from the public purse.
23461. As a citizen of the west coast of Canada and a citizen of the world, I have a direct interest in this pipeline proposal. I want my grandchildren to enjoy a decent life, with peace, order and good government.
23462. I believe that the biggest elephant in the room here is climate change.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux No consideration of the long-term best interests of Canadians can ignore climate change. The whole point of this pipeline is to facilitate increased production in the Alberta oil sands, to accelerate bitumen exports, to increase burning of hydrocarbons in Asia and thus to accelerate climate change.
23463. This is oil that contributes twice to climate change, once in the extraction process and again when it is consumed. If you fail to consider the negative impact of climate change on Canada as a whole, you fail to protect the best interests of Canadians.
23464. This pipeline proposal embodies 20th century business as usual thinking. The consequences of this thinking will be global climate change on a scale that we will find hard to cope with. If you are not convinced that global warming is real, ask the insurance industry. They know that climate change is here now, and we can only hope to lessen its effects.
23465. Canada is a country with a huge coastline and major coastal cities. As seas rise, the infrastructure costs to protect those cities will be enormous, and which parts will have to be abandoned. Northern Canada has towns and cities built on permafrost which is already thawing. What will the infrastructure costs be there?
23466. Central Canada won't be spared. More extreme weather events will come. Drought will be part of the picture as weather patterns change. The City of Calgary, for instance, relies on the Bow River for water which, in turn, relies on retreating glaciers in the Rockies. Connecting the dots from burning hydrocarbons to climate change and its consequences for the Canadian economy is an urgent necessity.
23467. I am not happy to be living in a rogue state that has failed to live up to international Treaty obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My grandchildren are going to suffer the consequences in a world that is political destabilized by more drought, floods, food insecurity and hunger.
23468. They will live with local consequences, too. Greenhouse gases increase the acidification of oceans and, together with warming water temperatures, mean fewer salmon will return from the Pacific. Not only does this affect the price of fish in supermarkets, but fewer salmon returning to die in streams in the forest mean less fish fertilizer nutrients applied to B.C. forests by Mother Nature, this at a time when warming temperatures and associated changes
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux in rainfall patterns will create other challenges for forests.
23469. The recent pine beetle epidemic is just the beginning of negative effects of climate change. Global warming will negatively affect two pillars of the B.C. economy, fisheries and forests.
23470. The proposed project would increase the reliance of the Canadian economy on export of raw materials, namely oil. Many people believe that there is a straight line relationship between a high Canadian petro dollar and loss of manufacturing jobs in eastern Canada. In the globalized economy, heavy focus on resource exports makes Canada vulnerable to swings in economic activity elsewhere.
23471. This proposal is being pushed by the federal government in the context of an absence of an overall energy policy for Canada. We are a cold country with vast distances for transportation, and the sooner we map out a plan for the transition to a sustainable energy future, the better.
23472. We have resources of water and wind energy which would be competitive if subsidies to the oil and gas industry were cut to level the playing field. Efficiency incentives could do a lot. We are one of the least efficient users of energy among developed countries.
23473. A fire sale of hydrocarbons for export should have no part in Canada's energy plan. A risk-benefit analysis must weigh the heavy near-term risk of a devastating oil spill on this coast. The Proponent has done a lot of advertising of the engineering of the pipeline and tanker system that will supposedly make this project safe, tugs accompanying the supertankers and so on.
23474. You have received technical criticism of the risk involved in the tanker route and the details of the system from at least one master mariner. We are talking about a coastline with wild winter weather, mountainous seas and a world heritage natural area in Haida Gwaii. It is hubris to think a foolproof system can be designed.
23475. Human design systems and human control systems are flawed by human nature. There comes a time in the design of every project when decisions have been taken and cannot be changed, but imperfections remain. More imperfections happen during construction because materials are substituted, construction methods are not perfect, workers misinterpret drawings and so on.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23476. In use, the operators of projects defeat the built-in safeguards, retailers lock fire exit doors to control shoplifting, employees block doors open to go out for a smoke and a thief finds a way. No human control system would aim to put a man with a drinking problem in charge of a supertanker, and yet we have the fouling of Prince William Sound as an example of that human failure.
23477. You will have heard that the Proponent’s liability insurance is far less than the actual cost of an oil spill clean-up and they do not have a good track record on their existing pipelines. There is no industry funded clean-up fund for this coast as there is in the Arctic. Canada does not have a seagoing tug that could handle a very large crude carrier in trouble.
23478. The government is cutting back on the Coast Guard. At least require that the company carry liability insurance for the real cost of a supertanker spill, build navigational aids, increase tugs and pilots, and build and maintain a large high-powered salvage tug, 170 tonne bollard pull on standby, all at their expense.
23479. It is amazing that the industry considers recovery of 15 percent a successful clean-up. So after oil spills, there are tar balls under the rocks and on the beach virtually in perpetuity. If you hired someone to clean your office, would you consider it done if they vacuumed and wiped 15 percent and took out 15 percent of the trash? We should not be fooled into thinking there can be a meaningful clean-up of an oil spill.
23480. To summarize, this is a proposed project which would put the B.C. coast at unacceptable risk of a devastating oil spill in the interest of ramping up extraction of tar sands oil, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which exacerbate global warming, with negative long-term impacts on Canada. It should not be approved.
23481. Thank you.
23482. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
23483. Welcome, Ms. Watson. Please go ahead and present.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. LESLEY WATSON:
23484. MS. LESLEY WATSON: Madam Chair and Panel members, thank
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux you for the opportunity to provide my input to this decision-making process.
23485. My name is Lesley Watson. I am a 14-year resident of Victoria and I speak here today as a citizen of British Columbia and of Canada. I am strongly opposed to the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project and I am asking you to recommend against it.
23486. In my view, although the project may be in the short term and narrow economic interests of Enbridge and its shareholders and the government of Alberta, it is clearly not in the interests of British Columbians on any basis. Further, if approved, this will only continue to erode Canada’s already sullied reputation on the international stage as an anti-environmental pariah. I do not want this for my beautiful British Columbia and I do not want this for my Canada.
23487. I have read and listened to many of the articulate and passionate arguments that have been presented to you here in Victoria over the last week in opposition to the pipeline, and I share many of these views. But as suggested in the guidelines given to presenters, I won’t repeat them. But I would like to say a few things about the calculation and acceptance of risk for this project and about values.
23488. Preparing for today, I went back and listened again to a recent two-part program from CBC Radio’s “Ideas” series on the topic of risk. In Part 1, Canadian guru of risk assessment, William Leiss says, “We engage in risk because we have something to gain.” This, of course, is the capitalist model of risk evaluation.
23489. Some who have spoken before this Panel ascribe to a capitalist worldview and others do not, which raises the bigger question of how to adequately incorporate equally legitimate but different value sets in making a decision.
23490. However, even if you accept capitalism as the model in which this decision is based, British Columbia has almost zero to gain from this pipeline enterprise, yet it would face almost all the risk. The small job creation benefit promised by Enbridge is immaterial in comparison to the environmental risk associated with ploughing a pipeline across B.C.’s pristine wilderness and dozens of watersheds.
23491. It is immaterial in comparison with the risk associated with plying our
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux coastal waters with tankers filled with bitumen. These risks are all externalized in the Enbridge proposal, yet they are very real and they do need to be accounted for.
23492. The “Ideas” program also presented research by Dr. Paul Slovic, an American specialist who studies human judgment, decision-making and risk analysis. His research shows that the greater the dread or feeling of dread about a possible consequence, the less acceptable is the risk.
23493. I personally dread the thought of the environmental degradation that this project would bring. I dread the prospect of a pipeline rupture. I dread the possibility of an oil spill from a supertanker leaving Kitimat. So my tolerance for the risk is lower than, say, someone who sees possible consequences more benignly.
23494. Yet my perception and tolerance for the risk is valid, as is the perception and tolerance of risk expressed by so many others who have made oral statements. And I just would like to request that you acknowledge the validity of these perceptions of the risk and take it into consideration in your deliberations.
23495. In Part 2 of the risk program -- the “Ideas” program on risk, ironically titled, “I’m Sure There’s Nothing to Worry About”, Paul Slovic cautions that even so-called objective technical risk assessment is subjective and judgmental because the analysts themselves decide which consequences to evaluate, which metrics to apply to their analysis and how to present it.
23496. So I also urge you to be vigilant in your evaluation of the risk assessment provided by Enbridge in their Application. It is no more valid than the public subjective perception of risk. And if Enbridge is wrong in their assessment of the risk, what might we expect to see? Beyond that, what are the unknown unknowns about this project, that is, the possible negative consequences that Enbridge and the rest of us don’t even know that we don’t know?
23497. Accidents can have completely unpredictable consequences. The grounding of the cruise ship Costa Concordia provides a recent environmental example. As reported in the Globe and Mail on October 15th just last year, the ship’s salvage operation is complex and fraught with problems, including the difficult task of protecting giant clam beds under the wreck while the salvage operation is under way. Who would have thought about giant clams?
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23498. This is just by way of example to make the point that we have no way of predicting the full environmental consequences of a tanker accident. And the Costa Concordia is a relatively minor mishap compared with a bitumen oil spill in the Pacific Northwest.
23499. Although the Panel is only being asked to make recommendations with respect to the pipeline itself, I think it is impossible to ignore the implications for tanker traffic and the risks this poses to our coast. Increased tanker traffic is a direct consequence of this proposal which, in my opinion, needs to be accounted for in the decision-making process.
23500. Ultimately, I would like your decision to reflect not just facts, but also values, to ensure that the values of all the people involved and implicated by the proposal are considered. Robin Gregory, a B.C. consultant who has developed a process called structured decision-making that can be applied to environmental management choices, argues that both facts and values are essential to a sound decision process, as is transparency.
23501. People who will have to live with the consequences of the decision must be at the decision table. Their values are not peripheral, but essential to the deliberations.
23502. My values speak to preserving the integrity of our wilderness and our coast, to protecting the livelihoods of those British Columbians who rely on these rich natural resources, to ensuring the aesthetic, recreational and spiritual benefits that accrue to those who live in and visit our beautiful province, to acknowledging and protecting the vicarious pleasure that many in Canada and around the world take just in knowing that such places exist.
23503. Thank you for your consideration of my perspectives on the risk of the project and the value I place in protecting and preserving our natural environment.
23504. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
23505. Ms. Moon, thank you also for taking time to join us this afternoon and to present your views for consideration. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. ANNE MOON:
23506. MS. ANNE MOON: Thank you. I'd like to acknowledge that we're
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux meeting on unceded territory of the Coast Salish, and I'd like to mention how fitting it is that you're surrounded by Aboriginal art and I'm hoping that it helps guide your wise decision-making.
23507. My name is Anne Moon. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to express my views to the Panel. And I have confidence that you will have genuine input into the Prime Minister's decision.
23508. I'm an old new Canadian. I came to Canada in 1953 from war-ravaged England. But long before our family of four turned up for our TB tests at Canada House in London, Canada had played large in our lives.
23509. A great-aunt had come to the Fraser Valley when she married a Canadian soldier after World War I, so all during the next war, while my dad was away with the Royal Engineers, our dreary rationed food supply was enriched by parcels from Auntie Maggie, as well as tins of butters from the Fraser Valley and bags of raisins. I'm not sure where they came from. She sent fabric for my dresses and she sent letters glorying in the rich countryside that she now called home, quote:
"This is a place of enormous beauty [she wrote]. The land is bounteous and the people are hardworking and so proud of their surroundings." (As read)
23510. So I speak to you about hope, about new beginnings, about the promise of this exciting country, a land of great expectations.
23511. Our first destination was the so-called Golden Triangle in Ontario, and it wasn't until 1986 that I actually made it out to B.C. for the first time, drawn by Expo. By then, Auntie Maggie had been dead for 26 years, so I never did meet her. But I met her landscape, full frontal.
23512. My daughter and I were awed by the height of the trees, the grandeur of the mountains and the wide sweep of the mighty Fraser that had fed Maggie's neighbourhood. But it wasn't until we got to Tofino that I really felt this could be somewhere where I could make my home. It was the eagle's cry.
23513. Remember that scene in "Jerry Maguire", "You had me at hello"; well, B.C. had me with that first sharp cry of the eagle, and I got a souvenir.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23514. It took another 10 years before I could put work behind me and finally move to B.C. My clever daughter had actually never come home from that trip.
23515. Since then, I've reveled in watching the bears near Stuart fishing for salmon. I've trod the soft moss of the graveyard outside Massett and Haida Gwaii. I've thrilled to orcas at Telegraph Cove and visited the First Nations people of Alert Bay. I've traversed the Georgia Strait 100 times, explored the Gulf Islands, thrilled to the sea lions outside Nanaimo, walked the boards of the historic Port Edward cannery.
23516. I've been back to Tofino for the whales and for Cougar Annie's garden, up to Gold River for the historic site of the Cook landing at Friendly Cove. I've bird-watched on Quadra, explored Hague Brown's house by the rushing Campbell River, and have spent dreamy hours on Dallas Road just watching the waves roll in.
23517. All these are coastal activities, nourished by the ocean, source of the rain, home to some of the greatest animals on this planet, and supplier of wonderful fish to eat.
23518. This magnificent coast is what drew me to B.C. and why I'm so passionate about protecting it from the predations of big business that puts far too much faith in men and machines. We know the damage oil spills can do.
23519. There's a pod of orcas up in Prince William Sound that is nearing extinction because of the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. Ingestion of oil interfered with the animal's reproductive systems, so the females no longer give birth. It's no good saying that that drunken skipper was an aberration.
23520. In 2010, a South Korean freighter captain was charged with drunkenness just a few nautical miles from here.
23521. For 42 years, coal-carrying freighters safely navigated Robert's Bank. Then, last month, wham, one miscreant pilot and captain and that safety record was fouled, and so was the sea with tonnes of coal.
23522. Now, in the stormy seas off Alaska, an oil rig has run aground. All the safety measures in the world can't meet a -- beat a winter storm. And do you know why that accident happened? Because Shell was so anxious to get their rig out of there to avoid paying $6 million in taxes that they dared the winter storms.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23523. Those same challenges would face the oil tankers ploughing through our pristine waters to pick up Enbridge's bitumen, a heavy oil product that could soil our coastline for decades to come. We can't have it. There must be a safer, cleaner, greener way to meet our energy needs.
23524. The government that abandoned the Kyoto Protocol must hear loud and clear from this Panel that pushing through the Gateway pipeline would be environmental madness, not only for us British Columbians, but for all the millions of visitors who come for supernatural B.C. Let's live up to our slogan.
23525. Let's remember the Auntie Maggie’s of our lives who deserve to have their faith in B.C. rewarded by wise decision-making, indeed, the only sensible decision. Don't open the Gateway.
23526. Thank you.
23527. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for your oral statements this afternoon.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23528. THE CHAIRPERSON: We've just been told that the -- our webcast is down. I know it went down during a speaker's presentation. I didn't want to interrupt them.
23529. So we'll take a break now and just see if we can't get the webcast back up. Feel free, if you want to, to come and settle in and sit down. I don't anticipate that we'll take longer than about a 10-minute break.
--- Upon recessing at 4:16 p.m./L'audience est suspendue à 16h16 --- Upon resuming at 4:23 p.m./ L'audience est reprise à 16h23
23530. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience.
23531. We're back up and running, and so everybody is able to listen on the webcast again, which is important to us that everybody have access to be able to hear what's being said.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23532. So for those who might have been listening in when the webcast was down, I understand that we were probably down for about 15 minutes, and I would encourage you to go to the printed transcripts that will be available on the website by -- should be by tomorrow to be able to catch up on that piece that you may have missed if you were listening in on the webcast.
23533. So Ms. Murphy, please give us your oral statement.
23534. Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. MICHELLE MURPHY:
23535. MS. MICHELLE MURPHY: I'd like to acknowledge that we're on Coast Salish land.
23536. My name is Michelle Murphy; I've lived here for 54 years -- 52 years, excuse me, on the west coast. I've raised four children here.
23537. The ocean is part of our DNA. It's probably a big part of why we're here. So I stand here to join the over 200 people that have said no, we don't want the pipeline built and we don't want the tankers off our coast.
23538. I haven't prepared a large statement or a case. To tell you the truth, I've got little faith in this process, sadly, so I didn't spend hours figuring out what it is I want to say. What I want to say is no, clearly.
23539. I do, however, want my name on record to say that I have said no. I have grandchildren to answer to, and an ocean.
23540. I will and I have been and I will continue to work hard to defend our coast. I will join the passionate others to see the pipeline is not built and that the tankers are not on our coast. And I hope that you do your duty to the Canadian people and listen to us, and that you don't end up with blood on your hands because I think this is going to be a serious fight if there -- it goes any further.
23541. Thank you.
23542. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Good evening -- afternoon still, Ms. Kerr. Please go ahead and present your statement.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux --- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. EVA KERR:
23543. MS. EVA KERR: Thank you.
23544. Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to speak along with so many others. You must be getting a little weary, I would think.
23545. My name is Eva Kerr, and I live in North Saanich. And as is true for many others, this is a first for me and this is outside my comfort zone. I do not come with scientific credentials or a degree in engineering. I come as a retired early childhood educator, teacher, a mother and a grandmother. Mostly, I come as someone deeply concerned about the future of our country and our planet.
23546. I come to speak for my four little grandchildren, Amira, almost three, Liam, 17 months, Odessa and Edwin, not even a year old, and for all the children so full of beauty and promise and dreams of their own.
23547. I believe our generation has the enormous responsibility of passing on a liveable planet to an ever increasing population. Many of us have lived incredibly privileged lives. We have taken clean air and water for granted, given little thought to the safety of our food and assumed our right to consume more than our share of the Earth’s resources, but in a relatively short period of time, things have changed drastically.
23548. The demise of the cod fishery, extinction of animals and plants, nuclear waste, air pollution, ocean acidification, the list goes on and on.
23549. As John Stone, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize said:
“There is building evidence that in fact climate change is accelerating. It’s closer than we had thought earlier. We are running out of time. We are sabotaging our children’s futures and it’s time to stop. There is no excuse.”
23550. Over 20 years ago, the Earth Charter coming out of the Rio Earth Summit addressed in urgent terms challenges that we have yet to address, challenges like, and I quote from the charter:
“Managing the extraction and use of non-renewable resources
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.”
23551. And recognizing that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations, it’s time our government and oil corporations took note and acted accordingly.
23552. The threat of oil leaks into our rivers and the ocean is real. According to the Watershed Sentinel, between the years 2000 and 2010, over 132,000 barrels of oil have been spilled from Enbridge pipelines. That’s more than half the catastrophic Exxon Valdez spill.
23553. Given the narrow channels and severe weather off our West Coast, promises of double- hulled tankers and pilots do not convince me that a spill will not happen. And no amount of money and trained personnel will be able to restore that ecosystem to its previous state.
23554. A 2001 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study found that a total area of 20 acres of shoreline in Prince William Sound is still contaminated with oil.
23555. They also found that buried or subsurface oil is of greater concern than surface oil because it can remain dormant for many years before being dispersed. And there is still no agreement on how diluted bitumen will behave in the water once it’s spilled.
23556. With so many questions still unanswered, it would be folly to allow this project to proceed.
23557. Our government tells us repeatedly that the reason the Northern Gateway Project must go ahead is because it is in the national interest. I believe this mantra is one that must be challenged. Is gutting and diluting environmental protection laws 30 years in the making in our national interest?
23558. Legislation like the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Act, the 40-year moratorium on oil tanker traffic off the West Coast and the national roundtable on the environment and the economy were all created in the public interest.
23559. And in today’s news, we learn that the dissembling of these acts was at
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux the direct request of the Energy Framework Initiative, a consortium of oil and gas associations. The gutting of these acts is a direct response to EFI’s request for regulatory reform and it is in their interest, not the public’s interest.
23560. Clearly Enbridge’s project and others in the works would not meet the standards we had in place before the passages of Bill C-38 and C-45.
23561. According to David Hughes, one of Canada’s most foremost energy analysts, Enbridge’s radical growth projections will expand the scale of the tar sands project and triple current levels of production by 2035. Such irrational growth far from being in our national interest is actually a threat to the nation in terms of long-term energy security and environmental interests.
23562. Increasingly, Canadians are becoming deeply concerned by the ongoing devastation of our planet. Witness the ever growing number of justice and environmental organizations locally, nationally, online; the Idle No More movement being the latest.
23563. As stated in the Earth Charter, the dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources and a massive extinction of species.
23564. Climate change is here. Glaciers are melting. Weather extremes are becoming more frequent and widespread. All this comes with tremendous environmental and economic costs.
23565. If this project is approved and when the spills happen, how can any of us with clear conscience, tell our grandchildren that we’re sorry but we had to do it for the economy. And when they ask, “But didn’t you know that the rivers would get polluted and tankers could have accidents?” We’d have to reply, “Oh yes, we knew, but we weren’t so much concerned about you as about the money.”
23566. When I pass on stories of my childhood to Amira and Liam, Odessa and Edwin, they will have every right to be filled with rage and sadness at the diminished world they inhabit as compared to that of my childhood.
23567. I believe it’s time we must make a stand for our Earth, to ensure that the decisions made today will not cause serious or irreversible environmental harm to future generations. We must have the courage to say no when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive. We must insist that the basic human
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux right to a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems takes precedence over short-term profit. Economics alone cannot drive these decisions.
23568. This Northern Gateway Project, for me, marks the line in the sand. The time is now. The risks inherent in this project far outweigh any perceived advantages, and while it may be in China’s best interest, it most definitely is not in ours.
23569. I urge you, the Panel, to say no to the Northern Gateway Project and to urge our federal government to reinstate strong environmental safeguards in assessing all future projects.
23570. Thank you for your time.
23571. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
23572. Mr. McDonald, thank you as well for choosing to participate in the hearings to present your view. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. JOHN McDONALD:
23573. MR. JOHN McDONALD: Good afternoon and thank you. My name is John McDonald. I am a physical oceanographer and also a resident of North Saanich. Today I’m going to be speaking to you first as an oceanographer and lastly as a father.
23574. Previous to North Saanich, I lived in Ucluelet, where I where I ran a passenger ferry through the Broken Group Islands and Pacific Rim National Park.
23575. I am also a member of Eco-Cell, a local group here focused on environmental issues and another group called Ecology International, whose focus is on global sustainability.
23576. As an ocean scientist I have helped prepare several environmental impact assessments for industrial projects on B.C.’s North Coast.
23577. In 1980, I testified as part of a technical panel at the NEB hearings into the Foothills Pipeline’s application to export oil from Low Point Washington. My testimony pertained to an alternate proposal by Kitimat Pipeline at that time to transport oil from Kitimat.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23578. In 1983, I also consulted and testified regarding a proposal to export LNG from Port Simpson at Canada’s North Coast.
23579. At that time, lack of good long-term weather and oceanographic data made it difficult to make accurate predictions of occurrence and magnitude of storm events.
23580. For several of the proposed tanker navigation routes, data had to be used from adjacent waterways or from interviews with marine operators in the region. I recall Murphy’s Law. One waterway of interest received two back-to- back storms just before the hearings and each of these storms supposedly had 100-year return periods, according to the predictions made on the basis of available data.
23581. High wind storm events are common in the winter along the outer North Coast, some up to hurricane 3 status with winds in excess of 180 kilometres per hour and several with 8 to 10-metre seas or more.
23582. Severe arctic outflow has also occurred periodically on the longer inside passages. I would reinforce the concern as to how effective the escort tugs that Enbridge proposes will be in assisting the supertankers during these intense winter storms.
23583. The recent grounding just 11 days ago of Shell Oil’s 28,000 tonne Kulluk drill rig in South Alaska doesn’t add much confidence that even large seagoing emergency response tugs, we call ERTs, can be effective in assisting a 330-metre long 320,000 tonne Enbridge supertanker, roughly 10 times larger than the Kulluk, in storm conditions.
23584. Preliminary reports indicated that the Kulluk was being pulled by both a 109-metre seagoing ice breaker and another alert class tug boat with a bollard pull of 150 tonnes before it had to be released because all three were being blown onto the coast. Winds at the time were quoted at about 55 knots and 30-foot seas.
23585. It’s my understanding that there is presently no sea-going emergency response tug based in western Canada with heavy tow capabilities. If this project proceeds I feel a mandatory requirement should be at least two offshore ERT tugs be based in Canada near the Enbridge tanker approach routes to lead assistance if needed.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23586. Through the hearings mariners have testified about their own nautical experiences in this region. I have my own. Early one spring in 1979, after several days of waiting and finally being assured by Coast Guard Canada that forecast winds should not exceed 15 to 20 knots, we headed off in a 45-foot fish boat from Massett on the north Charlottes towards Prince Rupert. Our first difficulty was that wind instruments that could confirm the weather conditions ahead of us were out of commission.
23587. That was the stations at Rose Spit on Graham Island and at Triple Island. After six hours of travelling into Hecate Strait the winds around us had built up steadily to an excess of 35 knots with gusts to 45. Three to five metre haystack-type waves were tossing green water right over our wheelhouse. This continued for another 10 hours. And my presence here today is only a test to my -- to strong stabilizer pulls that didn’t break and a very capable Icelandic skipper who kept us from capsizing.
23588. My major point in bringing this all up is that operational weather predictions in this area, and especially in some of the narrow entrance channels, even with recent weather monitoring improvements, are far from being 100 percent predictable.
23589. If this project should proceed in any fashion reliable, real-time weather monitoring and state-of-the-art nav aids must be an absolute requirement for all the proposed marine transport routes, and especially the narrower tricky navigation areas.
23590. I would also recommend additional conservative increases of at least 20 percent to all design and operational criteria used for this project. This could cover expected future increases in frequency and intensity of extreme storm events due to global warming. Recent events in the United States such as Hurricane Sandy are a testimony to this.
23591. Greenhouse gas emissions from both this project and the proposed rapid tar sands expansion will be a contributing factor to this global warming. As the state of North Carolina did recently in creating its own legislation to ignore the effects of climate change, especially water level increases, our present Canadian government seems to be purposely ignoring and not acting on its global responsibility to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent further runaway climate change.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23592. It seems to me putting forward a less aggressive, longer term development proposal for the tar sands would have been a much more responsible approach, one that improved upon the safety and throughput of existing delivery systems and brought our own oil to the east coast rather than the currently proposed exponential expansion of the tar sands requiring this new pipeline, tankers and an additional extensive new greenhouse gas emissions at a time it’s least required or least needed.
23593. I’m also convinced that human error or human distraction because of unexpected events in the tanker transport routes will always be an issue. Even with the best navigation aids in place and the best Canadian pilots, probably in the world, accidents will and do happen as well-demonstrated by recent events.
23594. Just a few weeks ago you heard about a large bulk carrier with a pilot onboard aground at the entrance to Prince Rupert harbour trying to avoid a collision with a fish boat. And a large bulk carrier entering Delta docks near Vancouver collided with, and destroyed, a section of a coal conveyor. The March 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez with a disastrous oil spill is perhaps the best and worst example. In its final 1990 Exxon Valdez report the Alaska Oil Commission said, quote:
“Eighty percent or more of marine accidents are attributed to human error.” (As read)
23595. As was that one.
23596. If this project proceeds I’m convinced it’s only a question of time until a massive a bitumen oil spill will, not might, occur in which will likely be much larger, more toxic and harder to contain and clean-up than the Exxon Valdez.
23597. Lastly and most important, I believe Canada should acknowledge that Haida Gwaii and these north coast waterways are a unique natural ecological assets that Canada must take global responsibility to help protect for future generations.
23598. As one example, consider the mass migrations of spawning herring that come every late winter/early spring to deposit their roe on the kelp in the near-shore areas. Should there be an oil spill at that time of year all the deposited roe in its path could be destroyed. Future herring which would have resulted from
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux this roe would also be lost and they are the major food base for a majority of animals in that region.
23599. The annual harvesting of the herring and deposited roe by First Nations and local peoples which is essential to the economic survival of many B.C. communities would also be lost. The Exxon Valdez spill confirmed this.
23600. In concluding, let me speak to you as a father. Rest assured that although my wife, myself, our four children, and our four grandchildren don’t reside on the north coast we will all be directly and deeply affected if this project goes ahead.
23601. My wife and I have been fortunate to experience first-hand the wonder and beauty of this wilderness and the spectacular waterways and as well to gain a better understanding of the spiritual connections many First Nations people have with the animals who live there.
23602. Experiences that stood out for me were meeting a black bear in the middle of Douglas Channel, 3 kilometres crossing it was making, and it stopped for awhile and then continued on its journey; a humpback whale that breached by our boat, circled the boat and eyed us, and when I sited a rare Kermode spirit bear.
23603. My wife and I hope we can soon revisit this wilderness and we pray that our children and grandchildren will have the same opportunity. Over Christmas my three year old granddaughter and I were reading a whale book. Whales are her favourite animal. I wondered what she would think if I told her we adults were about to risk spilling thick, gooey, dirty oil onto the ocean that could stop the whales from breathing and poison them at the same time.
23604. So as a father and an ocean scientist, my final recommendation to this Panel is that you unconditionally tell the Government of Canada that they must reject this project. It will never be in the best interests of the peoples of Canada, nor the world, now or into the future.
23605. It’s a sad state of affairs in this country when the Government of Canada labels mothers, fathers and teachers of Canadian families as radicals for being concerned about the wellbeing of their children and the environment in which they live.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23606. Even if huge trust monies can be put in place to cover the clean-up costs for the major oil spills that will occur it is much more than a monetary loss that is at stake here.
23607. Thank you for your time.
23608. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to both of you for being here and presenting your oral statements to us.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23609. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
23610. Ms. Page, please proceed with your oral statement. Thank you.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. KATHY PAGE:
23611. MS. KATHY PAGE: Yes. I’m Kathy Page from Salt Spring Island. And I should be quite brief.
23612. Before I get going though I have to say how very impressed I’ve been with what I’ve heard so far and I hope you are too.
23613. Now, I could use my minutes to reiterate the points that have been made, such as the fact that a leak in any pipeline constructed is more or less inevitable; Enbridge’s poor safety record, the fact that this particular blend of bitumen and solvent that would travel in the pipeline is very hard to clean-up and extremely toxic. More evidence about that is emerging everyday. And that it’s impossible to separate the pipeline question from the matter of tanker traffic in our dangerous waters where spills are again pretty much inevitable.
23614. However, I think we can take those points as well and resoundingly made to you by this time. And instead I would like to speak in very personal terms of the potential impact to the proposed pipeline. It’s an economic and psychological impact on me and my family and on others like us who have chosen to live here or who might be thinking of making a similar move to B.C. from elsewhere.
23615. As you can hear, I’m a relatively new Canadian citizen, having moved here in 2001. I came here with my husband and the two children from a terrace
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux house in London, U.K. to an acreage on Salt Spring Island, a move of 4,730 something miles from a metropolis to what is effectively a floating village. It's a long way however you look at it.
23616. We left family and friends behind and we brought all our assets with us and invested heavily in our new life in B.C.
23617. Eleven (11) years on -- I'm a writer, so I've gone on writing and I also work as an instructor at Vancouver Island University and as a school board trustee for District 64, the Gulf Islands. I also have a small business offering tailor-made writing shops on Salt Spring Island and elsewhere. My husband is a woodworker and manages a gallery.
23618. We grow a fair amount of our own food and we built an energy efficient house. Over a decade, we created a good, relatively sustainable life here, in B.C., and I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak because I feel that this livelihood and way of life is threatened by the pipeline and needs defending.
23619. We are often asked why did we uproot ourselves and travel so far to build a new life. Much as we loved city life in London when we were childless, like many parents, we wanted a safer, healthier, and less stressful environment. Once we had children, we were very much changed.
23620. We wanted to be closer to the elements and to nature and, in particular, to the sea, and we wanted too to live and teach our children a more sustainable lifestyle. Something that we’d become aware of on a visit to B.C. was the existence here still of some wilderness, of areas of wildness which seemed to us, coming from a physically small and very much cultivated country, quite vast.
23621. Now, I enjoy human culture and comforts as much as the next person. I have no desire to live in a tree, do without modern medicine or return to the Stone Age. But it is clear that humanity is exhausting our resources, the planet's resources and that we have to learn to live on this earth without obliterating other species. Leaving some large parts of the earth wild is a vital part of that.
23622. Maintaining species diversity will ultimately benefit all of us and our economies and keeping untouched wilderness is also immensely important to us spiritually and emotionally, something that the First Nations people know all too well.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23623. It's time that we started living smart. After all, we have never known more about the environments that we inhabit and how they work and when we emigrated, it seemed as if that was beginning to happen here.
23624. The image of Canada and specifically of B.C., much promoted by our tourist industry, is of a clean, relatively untouched landscape, and the adjectives that are routinely used include “pristine, untouched, wild, vast, and pure”.
23625. Although we were healthily sceptical of this PR, we were drawn to the idea that although here, as elsewhere, the harvesting of resources has transformed the landscape. There were still these parts that had not been much changed by human use. And we could see that there was a very strong public desire to preserve and sustain the wilderness that remained.
23626. Not long before we arrived, the Clayoquot Sound forest had been successfully defended by activists, and they are now somewhat protected. On our home island, Mount Matsqui Park was expanded five-fold when local people stood together to raise money and defend the forest from unsustainable logging practices.
23627. So we thought that we were coming to a place that valued its wildness. And it seems to me now that this could still be the case but the province stands poised at the turning point, and it's an either/or situation. Either we could nurture our biggest assets, the things that drew me and my family here.
23628. We can be good stewards of what remains of the world and learn how to harvest what we need with less damage caused and, at the same time, continue to grow a multibillion dollar tourist industry based on our pristine lakes, pure ocean, not always as pure is it's thought to be, as we've heard, and vast wild forests, and continue to attract those who, like us, wanted to live in such a place and invest their livelihoods.
23629. Or, we can allow B.C. to be wrecked for the sake of a trade that will benefit virtually none of us here for a very short time and absolutely none of us long-term. We can put in that pipeline and move the bitumen and allow habitats to be destroyed impacting non-human and human species alike, and existing more sustainable economies will be destroyed.
23630. Those of us whose livelihoods are bound up with the tourist industry or the fisheries, and those of us who want to live a traditional or a more
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux sustainable lifestyle and those of us whose property is of value because of its proximity to the wildernesses and oceans for which B.C. is so famous, we're not the only ones who will be negatively impacted if the pipeline goes ahead, but we are very clearly impacted and obliged to speak out.
23631. B.C.'s reputation as a wild and relatively green place -- green I mean in a political sense, ecological sense -- has hitherto been only just deserved. It will not survive the installation of this pipeline and the environmental disasters that will result from it.
23632. Do we want to degrade what we have to turn a great, quote, "pure, wild, untouched, pristine land" into a dirty mess that no one wants to visit and to which no one who has a choice will move? It makes no sense. We cannot afford to let this pipeline go through and I hope you reject this proposal.
23633. Thank you.
23634. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ms. Page.
23635. Mr. Steel, please go ahead and share your views on the project with us.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. RICHARD STEEL:
23636. MR. RICHARD STEEL: Good afternoon. B.C.'s official motto is "Splendour Without Diminishment". Our vehicle registration plates have "Beautiful B.C." emblazoned on them, and all Tourist Information talks about the wild and natural beauty of the province.
23637. On the "Welcome B.C." website for potential immigrants, the first words of introduction to the province are:
23638. "B.C. is Canada's western most province set between the Pacific Ocean in the West and the Rocky Mountains in the East. B.C.'s beautiful scenery and outdoor activities appeal to people from around the country and around the world."
23639. This is how the province is defined and how we present ourselves to the world. These qualities are increasingly rare, increasingly attractive and vital in this increasingly overpopulated world.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23640. Of course, the splendour has already been somewhat diminished but enough still remains to maintain credence to our boasts of beauty and to maintain our clear water supplies, food production, air quality, inland and coastal ecosystems, as well as the wellbeing and history of nations and communities along the route of the proposed pipelines.
23641. These twin pipelines would cross 1,000 life sustaining rivers and streams, including the headwaters of the Fraser and Skeena Rivers. The potential for disaster that could permanently destroy the image of the province and what is at the core of B.C. is far too big a gamble to take.
23642. By building the pipelines, that potential is exacerbated through increased tanker traffic on the coast and an increase in developments in the tar sands region, affecting air quality internationally and water sources in Alberta. The economic benefits of this development seem very short term and too small to seriously consider jeopardizing what we already have.
23643. In 2010, $6.3 billion was brought into the province by tourism and it employed more than 129,000 B.C. residents. Along with tourism, there is still fishing and fish farming industries, food production, and film production as well, as well as other industries that could be adversely affected by the further diminishment of our splendour and possibly wipe that completely when a spill or spills occur.
23644. The pipeline is slated to operate for only about 30 years and even that could be less, depending on the price of oil. It seems a huge backward step to gamble the future and the heritage of B.C. on a declining and soon-to-be redundant fuel source; very short term economic benefits to be enjoyed almost exclusively out of the province and especially for the very small number of full- time jobs left after the pipeline has been constructed.
23645. There are alternatives in sustainable energy sources that would generate more wealth and employment, if developed. But as yet, to my knowledge, there are no alternatives to clean air, earth and water.
23646. My contention therefore is that the Northern Gateway pipelines would have a hugely negative effect environmentally, economically, and even spiritually on B.C., Canada, and the world. There is far, far more to be lost than could be gained from this proposal.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23647. My family and I feel very strongly about this and thank you for the opportunity to express opposition to this project.
23648. MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.
23649. Ms. Phillips, also thank you to you for taking the time to come this evening to share your views. We’re interested in hearing them. Please begin.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MR. TAREN PHILLIPS:
23650. MS. TAREN PHILLIPS: Thank you. My name is Taren Phillips. I was born and raised on Vancouver Island and I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Environmental Science from the University of Calgary. I would like to strongly state my opposition against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.
23651. I was lucky enough to spend a summer working in the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Bear Reserve, north of Prince Rupert and have seen first-hand what is at stake.
23652. The 15-hour ferry trip north gave me ample time to take in the immense greatness of the Great Bear Rainforest. I also have travelled by ferry across Hecate Strait to Haida Gwaii and have felt how terrifying and rough this crossing can be. Unfortunately, an oil spill in these waters would be inevitable.
23653. I feel blessed to live on this coast where it's so easy to get out and appreciate its rugged natural beauty. I've kayaked from Tofino to Maquinna Cove, which is a magical five-day trip where I felt the world -- felt worlds away from anyone and had a chance to watch sea otters playing in the kelp and wolves walking along the pristine beaches.
23654. I've spent my whole life enjoying hiking in our forest and boating and swimming off of the coast. It makes me incredibly sad to imagine the irreversible damage that would occur in the event of an oil spill. The short term economical gain is not worth the long-term environmental loss. There's just no arguing that at all.
23655. B.C.'s old-growth coastal temperate rainforest is the last of its kind in the world. And it is highly dependent on the health of the oceans and they both need to be protected from the risk of oil spills. As a province, I think we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world to ensure that protection of our coast is
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux guaranteed and to prevent the possibility of its destruction due to an oil spill.
23656. We've already seen the impact of an oil spill on our coast when the Exxon Valdez went down and the affected areas are still recovering decades later. We really cannot afford to allow this to happen again.
23657. So I urge you as a Panel to listen to all of the words that have been spoken today and over the past year. I know we speak on behalf of a lot of people out there who are strongly opposed to this because we love our natural environment so much and it would be devastating to see it ruined.
23658. So thank you for having me.
23659. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to each of you for being here this evening to give us your oral statements.
23660. Thank you.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
23661. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good evening. I understand you are our last three speakers this afternoon.
23662. MS. FRAN THOBURN: Are you happy?
--- (Laughter/Rires)
23663. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your patience and still being here this afternoon to speak with us.
23664. Ms. Thoburn, please go ahead with your oral statement.
23665. MS. FRAN THOBURN: Pardon?
23666. THE CHAIRPERSON: Please go ahead with your oral statement.
23667. MS. FRAN THOBURN: Oh, okay.
23668. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, we just -- there we go. Your speaker's on so now we're all set.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. FRAN THOBURN:
23669. MS. FRAN THOBURN: Okay. First, I want to acknowledge that we are on unceded land of the Coast Salish Nation.
23670. I want to welcome you to Victoria, you people on the Panel, hardworking. This is a city that I have come to love since I moved here in 1985. Before that, I have lived in many places, but the one closest to my hearts is 50 acres of woods and swamps where we lived close to the land.
23671. We grew our own food, much of it, and we used blow down wood from our acreage to heat and cook. We cross-country skied in the winter and canoed the many streams and rivers in the summer. So I know what uninterrupted, well-used patches of earth can have to offer.
23672. The most important thing I've done in my 80 years is to give birth to four children who are now in their fifties. I have six grandchildren. All of my family are aware of what is happening to the earth. All realize the long-term results of proposals like Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline.
23673. There are many reasons this proposal from Enbridge should not happen. First of all, those who are involved to -- those who are invited to the table to discuss and plan the pipeline did not include any First Nations people. Not only were they excluded from the planning phase, they were not -- they are not represented here today as a member of this Panel.
23674. Their input is valuable and necessary for this proposal to be evaluated with integrity. I cannot stress how important this is. The First Nations deserve better. The pipeline goes through their land. Enbridge has offered them employment, but this employment will only be short term. And this in no way nullifies the important fact that the First Nations has not been at the table during the initial planning.
23675. I believe that responsible industrial decisions concerning large projects are made after the risk and fallout have been thoroughly and fairly examined. In the case of a Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, it looks like the real risks have not been properly evaluated.
23676. For instance, the pipeline will go through steep areas where landslides
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux and small earth tremors often occur and larger earth tremors also. I assume this will be impossible to know immediately. The exact -- wait a minute, yeah, okay. I assume it will be impossible to know immediately the exact location of a leak. And once the location is determined, it may be difficult to get to the leakage before it fouls the many streams in the area which feed into larger streams that can carry the bitumen far and wide.
23677. Repairs will be slow and costly. Even helicopters cannot land on thickly forested unstable mountainsides. No matter how carefully the pipeline is monitored, or how carefully tankers longer than three football fields are piloted and escorted through the B.C. coastal waters, there will be accidents. It is only a matter of when.
23678. I won't relate here the number of spills that other pipelines have experienced or how long it took for them to be discovered. Nor do we have to go over the number of petroleum-related ocean mishaps that occur far too often. The cost and money is in the billions. We have yet to learn the true costs in environmental terms.
23679. What amazes me is this. When an accident dumps petroleum products onto hectares of land or kilometres of shorelines or vast areas of the ocean, a 15 percent clean up of the toxic material is considered a success.
23680. This is so unacceptable that it boggles my mind how anyone is willing to take the risk that is part and parcel in the Northern Gateway pipeline. Even if 50 percent clean up were possible, that still is unacceptable.
23681. I am not a chemist. I do not know the poisonous qualities of bitumen but we all can agree it is a danger to our health if it leaks into our drinking water or contaminates the fish we eat or the vegetables on our table, which are grown, on contaminated land with contaminated water.
23682. And who would pay for these clean-ups that cost billions of dollars? If bitumen or regular oil spills come from an Enbridge pipe, then Enbridge is responsible for the clean-up costs. The representatives I've spoken with have not been able to say or do not know the amount of money that will be put aside and kept available for a clean-up.
23683. It is a coastal -- no. If it is a coastal disaster, with the bitumen coming from a tanker, the company that owns the tanker is responsible. Who owns the
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux tankers that sail our coastal waters? Who will own the supertankers? Where are they licensed? Are the owners in any way capable of billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars’ worth of clean-up? Has Enbridge in any way considered this situation?
23684. Something that I think of every day is the inability of us First World North American humans to respond sensibly and immediately to the climate change crisis. Many of those in power here in Canada refuse to even call it a crisis -- even to call it a crisis that is already here. As I understand it, the major cause of the warming of the earth is the carbon dioxide that humans have been producing since the industrial revolution.
23685. Today most of the CO2 output comes from those of us living in industrial countries. Let’s look at the U.S., Canada and China, just to name a few of them. In 2009, on average, a Chinese person was responsible for 5.3 metric
tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year. The Chinese CO2 output has been rising sharply every year. The U.S. citizen’s carbon footprint is 17.2 and Canada’s yearly output per person in 2009 was 15.3.
23686. The reasoning for Enbridge’s proposal to build a pipeline from the tar sands to Kitimat on the B.C. is to profit from the rising demand for oil in China as well as other Asian markets. To be sure, as we can see from the yearly increase in
CO2 output in China, there is a strong market there for more energy, namely tar sands oil. If we answer that demand for more oil, we are signing yet another death warrant for millions who will not survive the -- oh gosh, I got to hurry up -- survive the environmental catastrophes such as hurricanes and so on.
23687. These natural disasters we -- are increasing in strength and frequency due to global warming. Fossil fuels can only make more inevitable a worldwide disaster. I’ve raised many questions about the proposal. When asked, the representatives I have dealt with have said it is too early to make these decisions, that this is simply a proposal. I suspect you also are being asked to evaluate this proposal without knowing important information.
23688. Is it the industry’s fault that we use so much oil? What industries are turning their focus from oil to greener products and/or efforts?
23689. Putting the Enbridge pipeline through will bring us closer to inevitable disaster because it will aid and encourage the use of oil. Given the lack -- given the lack of full information, we have to look at this -- we have to look at this pipeline whose main effect will be to increase our dependence on oil as one more
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux ill-informed, money-driven, short-term decision that affects the long-term fate of our earth.
23690. Global warming is due to the burning of fossil fuels, and this is real and accelerating and changing all of the earth’s systems too fast for life to adapt. If we continue to make decisions based on short-term gain, ignoring the long-term inevitable consequences, our disillusioned and dying grandchildren and great- grandchildren will curse our insanity.
23691. Thank you very much for listening.
23692. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Great, thank you.
23693. Ms. Thomson, please share your views with the Panel, thanks.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSÉ ORAL PAR MS. HEATHER THOMSON:
23694. MS. HEATHER THOMSON: Hi. First I would like recognize that we are on unceded Lekwungen and Chilkowetch territory, Coast Salish peoples and that, as a settler, I’m actively seeking to build a more responsible relationship with the land and the people of this area.
23695. My name is Heather Thomson. I’m a settler. I had a big long speech ready, but the little thingamabob, gizmo, that I was going to use to read it off of just died and isn’t working, so I’m going to have to do this a little impromptu, which is good, I think.
23696. So yeah, I am an activist. I’m a student teacher. I was born and raised in Courtenay on Vancouver Island, Comox First Nations territory, and I have spent the past couple of years doing what you’re doing, Panel, right now, listening to people.
23697. From two summers ago, I went on a trip across Canada and had just been at an activist event, an activist workshop for youth around climate change and -- which inspired my trip to have more of a purpose in my trip in talking to people across the country about not only the Northern Gateway pipeline, but about energy projects in their communities.
23698. And everyone was random off the street. I just had random conversations and -- and included some people from the States. And most people,
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux they are like oh, sure, the short-term economic benefits are there, but long term, it’s not worth it. From mines to oil drilling in Newfoundland where I talked to folks who both like worked in the mines or had family who did or on offshore rigs and -- and truly found that it took an outrageous toll on their well-being that could never be -- could never be righted and they were just -- they were decimated by it, essentially, and felt hopeless.
23699. But I also met people who have hope. And in talking with kids, that’s where I see it a lot and it saddens me that processes like this don’t have space for younger people to share their views. It’s almost as if we believe that they are incapable or ineligible -- well, in this case they are ineligible -- to have an opinion when if you explain the raw facts around something like this, they have the most raw answers. They’re honest, truthful and totally valid.
23700. At a rally I helped organize last spring, I had four children from the school that I work at participate and I would like to, before I go on, share a little bit of what they had to say because I think that you would find it interesting and because my experiences are intertwined with everyone else’s and I believe in the kids, the words of these kids.
23701. So there was an eight year old who was Coast Salish -- a child who is Coast Salish named Naviana and she said that she wants to protect the land that her ancestors lived on and recognizes that a tanker three times the size of baseball fields or football fields -- football fields, even bigger, is unmanageable and will lead to huge devastation here.
23702. A young boy, I think he was nine or 10, named Dalton reminded us that ecosystems would not recover in our lifetimes and he doesn’t want our future put at risk just to make oil barons richer.
23703. An intelligent young woman who was probably about -- well, young lady, a young girl, 11 years old named Luanna told us that Kinder Morgan is planning to greatly increase the amount of oil tankers in our waters, coastal waters. Even if one oil tanker spilled, it would take decades, possibly even centuries, to recover.
23704. And Maya, eight and a half last year, so probably almost nine and a half, said that the Pacific Coast of Canada is a very beautiful place to live. She loves so many things about the coast such as starfish, orcas, dolphins, salmon, seals, sea lions, whales, sea gulls and she loves playing at the beaches. So let’s
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux stop the pipeline and oil tankers.
23705. Their wisdom, it's huge. We really -- we have to pay attention to it because -- because not only are they the future, but they’re now. They exist with us here and now. I think maybe I’ll go off about that again, but since I don’t have my notes in order at all, I’ll be kind of scatter-brained, I suppose.
23706. Another thing about this process that really astonishes me is that I kind of feel like it should be the other way around in that the indigenous people whose land this pipeline is supposed to go through and decimate, they have the sovereign right to their -- I believe -- I believe that they have the right and title to their land and because it is unceded and they have not given it up and, in fact, they’re taking it back.
23707. This is demonstrated in the Unist’hot'en people who have built a cabin and are reclaiming their traditional ways in their traditional territory up in Wet’suwet’en territory. And I joined them this summer and tried to contribute to their cause in opposing this pipeline and the other seven pipelines that are proposed by Pembina, Enbridge, Kinder Morgan -- some of which are transporting liquid natural gas, I believe -- yeah, to Kitimat.
23708. And while this is going on, while this process is going on, there’s construction happening in Kitimat. It blows my mind. I’m outraged, totally pissed because like -- so we’re getting all this coverage here -- well, a little bit, anyways. And this isn’t happening up north or here or anywhere that’s being affected by these other pipelines or projects that are hugely impactful.
23709. Front line communities in Alberta and B.C. are facing huge cancer problems, lack of food, traditional foods, and because of that they are forced to eat non-traditional foods which -- what I understand, like, can cause, like, diabetes because their diets have had to -- been changed in the past 150 years.
23710. Did that blinking thing go off already? A minute and a half ago?
23711. MEMBER MATTHEWS: A minute and a half left.
23712. MS. HEATHER THOMSON: Oh, my God. Okay.
23713. Yeah. I’m pretty privileged to be here today. I’m a student at UVIC. I can take the time out to be here instead of, like, being up there, putting my body
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux down on the line and fighting to regain what’s -- what -- like we all deserve, which is a healthy life.
23714. Thank you. Yeah.
23715. I’m grateful for the support of my friends, the community who, despite me often calling them out or what I think is calling them out and, like, impressing my radical -- somewhat radical ways on them, I -- they still encourage me to be myself.
23716. And I really hope that you guys can find it within yourselves to show some responsibility for this planet and the people who are -- you’re going to most strongly affect who I think, as I said, should be the other way around. I think it should be the corporations begging to the Hereditary Chiefs and the communities to put their proposals on the table and their projects out there, but unfortunately that’s not the case. Okay.
23717. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Thank you.
23718. It’s fitting at the end of the day that we have three women representing three living generations here in front of us, three engaged voices. And Ms. Witteman, we are interested in hearing your point of view as well and as our last speaker today.
--- ORAL STATEMENT BY/EXPOSE ORAL PAR MS. ANNETTE WITTEMAN:
23719. MS. ANNETTE WITTEMAN: Yes, lucky me. My last name brings me here and also my convictions.
23720. Thank you for having me here. I’d like to honour first the Lekwungen and the Esquimalt and the West Saanich peoples, First Nations peoples upon whose traditional lands we are sitting today.
23721. And I’d also like to thank you, Mrs. Sheila Leggett and Mr. Kenneth Bateman -- sorry, Mr. Kenneth Bateman and Mr. Hans Matthews, on this most pressing issue of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Proposal by Enbridge.
23722. My name is Annette Witteman and my daughter, Grace, age seven, is my support member here today. I am a self-employed mother of two. I’m a visual artist and an island dweller in the Salish Sea. And as an immigrant from
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux the Netherlands, my family and I are currently stewards on Main Island, on the traditional lands of the Tsartliip First Nations.
23723. There are many reasons why I believe the proposal of the Northern Gateway pipeline should not -- is not in the best interest of me, my family, my community and British Columbians, as well as Canadians and the whole world as well. I believe that there is no recommendations that this Panel can make that will make it a safe and sustainable and economically viable project.
23724. First, the proposed pipeline will not be in the best interest of the numerous First Nations territories that you’ve been speaking of. The wilderness that they relied upon for thousands of years of subsistence will be tainted with unwanted industrial development and the constant threat of dangerous chemical spills. This is not the government’s land and it should not be appropriated for the purpose of Enbridge’s pipeline.
23725. The northern coast of British Columbia is known for its treacherous navigational waters with continuous seismic activities and, even in calm waters, human error can cause a tanker to run aground. In 2006, B.C. Ferries lost the Queen of the North in the Right Sound after one missed turn.
23726. And my fellow -- my friend and fellow artist, Lori Waters, who will be speaking to you tomorrow, I believe, exposed the misleading promotional videos found on Enbridge’s website. The Douglas Channel was falsely depicted with over 1,000 square kilometres of islands missing along the proposed supertanker route to Kitimat. After this lapse, I don’t believe I can trust any information, unfortunately, disseminated by Enbridge. Their public record on pipeline spills, unfortunately, speaks for itself.
23727. My family and I are incredibly distressed after watching a documentary about the catastrophic social, economic and environmental impacts of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. The world’s media was shown a very much of a faux clean-up efforts and the local reality painted a much different picture. Twenty (20) years later, there’s still oil on all the beaches and the fish stocks upon which the local economy depended have yet to be recovered.
23728. The Courts ruled in the Exxon’s favour at the time, and after 18 long years of Court battles, the community received only a fraction of the originally promised settlements. My strong distrust of this whole industry comes from situations like these.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23729. The film also really impacted my children. After the viewing, my young daughter, Grace, sat down and wrote Mr. Harper a letter. She wrote:
“Mr. Harper, do you only care about money, money, money? Not about the fishermen or their children? The otters and the fish need your help.” (As read)
23730. I am still unable to understand -- sorry -- who is going to pay for this clean-up of an inevitable oil spill. The oil tankers are not subject to any of our laws. They come from different nations and the tax -- I think I need a glass of water, which will make me go over my beep time.
23731. Sorry. My children are very much involved in our coast -- on our coastal community. We live in a community of 1,000 people and they’re learning the value of the inter-connected coastal habitats. I think I have a bit of a cold right now, so it’s hitting me a bit hard. I’m sorry.
23732. At their school, they assist the local conservancy society with lots of different things, including an eel grass count every year. They also attend the Gulf Islands Centre for Ecological Learning Camp each summer. And during a two-week day camp on Main Island, they and about 35 other young naturalists are tuned into the importance of our natural world.
23733. They now have a very tangible understanding of all the world’s plants and the creatures and how they are interconnected and how easily they are disrupted by even the slightest change in their environment. This pipeline will produce immeasurable and unimaginable disruption.
23734. I believe there is a systematic process in place by the government of Canada, specifically the Prime Minister’s office, to push through this project based on the perceived economic prospects and, unfortunately, on financial alignments created with some corporations behind closed doors.
23735. Regardless of opposition from First Nations people, oppositions from a vast majority of British Columbia’s public and, finally, regardless of this Panel’s final assessment, Mr. Harper, with the passing of two very much oil industry influenced omnibus bills, has paved the way for this project’s success and, unfortunately, can trump this Panel’s final decision.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux 23736. Via economist Robert Allan, I’ve been made aware that Enbridge has, in its own data, overstated some of the job prospects for the five year building of the project and I’m not quite sure if the manpower will come from anybody that might be of Canadian origin.
23737. PetroChina might be brought in to bring foreign workers which will receive well over 15 percent less than Canadian workers.
23738. In a recent report on Chinese foreign workers, a broadcast on CBC’s The National, I was shocked to hear that some of these applicants were basically extorted into paying the Chinese-based recruiting office large sums of money to even apply and then part of their monthly salaries as well.
23739. Also, the higher oil prices Enbridge would fetch for the oil sold to Asian markets, namely China, would be passed right back to us consumers on the rebound.
23740. Incalculable costs will be this project’s carbon footprint. The production of the tar sands of Alberta shall swell from one million barrels a day to 1,524,000 barrels per day. Our glaciers, permafrost, icebergs are melting at an alarming rate.
23741. Right now, wildfires are burning out of control while temperatures reach record highs. The storm surges -- is that the end -- no, okay -- the storm
surges are getting stronger. The oceans are rising. CO2 emissions and ocean warming will already see the death of most of our ocean’s shellfish within 50 years. That means the death of our oceans because that’s where we get our energy -- or that’s where we get our oxygen. I can’t believe that that -- I mean, these are things that I’m sure can be debated, but scientists are coming up with some pretty alarming facts.
23742. The costs created to these global changes are not calculated into this project, and we are past the point where we can ignore them.
23743. As an artist, I’m painfully aware of the visual impact of the giant scar the proposed pipeline project will create on our virgin British Columbia wilderness.
23744. Two good friends of mine, Glen Clark and Peter Corbett, have been fortunate enough to see these incredible landscapes firsthand. Glen Clark applied
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux for and received a B.C. Arts Council grant this past year for their project “Abandoning Paradise”. Through their talents as plain-air painters, they are immortalizing the still pristine landscapes along the proposed Northern Gateway’s pipeline route. During several seasonal trips over the next year, they plan to create hundreds of oil paintings which will tour the province and hopefully be viewed in Ottawa.
23745. I have brought each of you today a calendar, which I will pass to somebody, and this calendar depicts some of the images of their first painting trip that they took up north, and there’s some beautiful images in there. So I hope you’ll enjoy those.
23746. The proposed pipeline -- I’m going to just pass that part because I think you know a lot of the details.
23747. A fellow main islander, Bill Warning, worked in the oil industry for over 35 years as an analytical chemist. His fears are very much related to his knowledge of the deadly and toxic concoction of dilbit and the problems with the remote monitoring systems. The monitoring systems are most often air sensors detecting a leak in the form of sulphur gases, and the possibility of a stiff wind or generator failure, power failure, could cause a loss to proper function and extend spill damage in a very remote area.
23748. I am also worried that these monitors are also subject to becoming gummed up once the pipeline needs to be stopped at the time of a leak of this highly pressurized and heated diluent. This is a costly problem that could cost Enbridge a lot of money, and I believe this result could be a -- there could be a result of them to have a reluctance to shut down the flow as quickly as possible.
23749. I believe this might have been the case in Enbridge’s Kalamazoo River spill, where there were 17 hours of dilbit flowing while warning bells sounded before the workers were supposedly roused enough to shut it down.
23750. Members of the Panel, all Canadians, oil is worth more to us as a nation than the money that will be made by a few individuals and corporations shipping it abroad. There needs to be no rush to use up this incredible finite resource today. If we wait, if we think, we have a chance to become leaders in new sustainable energy technologies, and in the hands of our future generations, oil will go further and maybe even bring positive solutions for some of the problems that we have created.
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Oral statements Exposés oraux
23751. May we all find the right path to living a meaningful and sustainable existence.
23752. Thank you.
23753. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to each of you for taking the time, and obviously taking the time to both prepare your presentations and also to be present today and to wait until the end of the afternoon to give your presentations. It’s much appreciated.
23754. So with that, we’ll sign off for today and we’ll sit again tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock in the morning. Good night, everyone.
--- Upon adjourning at 5:31 p.m./L'audience est ajournée à 17h31
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011