ENBRIDGE: Northern Gateway Pipeline

[Oscar]

. . . some Bad News for Enbridge - Scroll Down . . . Feb. 2014

- - - -


The process . . . .

Hearing Order issued for Northern Gateway Pipeline Project

[ http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/nwsrls/
2011/nwsrls02-eng.html ]

News Release For immediate release 5 May 2011

CALGARY -The Joint Review Panel (Panel) conducting the review of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (Project) has issued a Hearing Order (OH-04-2011) which outlines the ways in which interested persons may participate in the joint review process and the associated timelines for the review.

The Panel will start meeting with participants on 10 January 2012 at locations to be determined.

Those interested in participating in the joint review process can do so in the following ways:

Submit a letter of comment;
Make an oral statement;
Become an Intervenor;
Become a Government Participant.
Further details on each participation option, including deadlines, can be found in the Hearing Order and on the Panel's website at http://www.gatewaypanel.review.gc.ca. Information sessions to help explain how the joint review process will work and the participation options will be held in a number of locations including:

Bruderheim, AB
Grand Prairie, AB
Whitecourt, AB
Bella Bella, BC
Burns Lake, BC
Hartley Bay, BC
Kitimat, BC
Kitkatla, BC
Klemtu, BC
Prince George, BC
Prince Rupert, BC
Queen Charlotte City, BC
Smithers, BC
Tumbler Ridge, BC
Vanderhoof, BC

These sessions are open to anyone who has an interest in the proposed Project. The Panel Secretariat will be available at the information sessions to help answer questions about the joint review process and participation options.

Details on the dates and specific locations of the information sessions will be advertised in local media and a schedule will be posted on the Panel's website at a later date.

A Process Advisory Team is also available to assist interested participants throughout the joint review process and can be contacted toll free at 1-866-582-1884 or by email at
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca.

The proposed Project involves the construction of two 1,170 kilometre long pipelines running from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia and the construction and operation of the Kitimat Marine Terminal.

About the Joint Review Panel

The Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project is an independent body, mandated by the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board. The Panel will assess the environmental effects of the proposed project and review the application under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act.

This news release, the Hearing Order and a question and answer document are available on the Panel's website (http://www.gatewaypanel.review.gc.ca) under What's New!

For further information:
Annie Roy
Manager, Communications
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Telephone: 613-957-0396
annie.roy@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

Jaclyn Silbernagel (jaclyn.silbernagel@neb-one.gc.ca)
Communications Officer
National Energy Board
Telephone: 403-299-3930
Telephone (toll free): 1-800-899-1265
Telecopier: 403-292-5503
Telecopier (toll free): 1-877-288-8803
TTY (Teletype): 1-800-632-1663

[Oscar]

Harper warns pipeline hearings could be 'hijacked'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/01/06/
harper-northern-gateway-hearings.html

Northern Gateway seeks to carry oilsands crude to West Coast
CBC News Posted: Jan 6, 2012 4:35 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 9, 2012 10:17 AM ET

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government will look into measures to prevent the approval process for energy projects from being "hijacked" by opponents of the developments.

Harper told journalists Friday he's heard concerns expressed about the use of foreign money by interveners opposed to an oilsands pipeline proposed for northern B.C. by Calgary-based Enbridge.

The prime minister said the government is prepared to review how public consultations are conducted to ensure they don’t get overloaded for the purpose of slowing down the process.

He said Canada must have hearings that reach decisions in a reasonable amount of time and that can't be unduly influenced.

Harper's comments echoed those of oilsands advocacy groups, which have attacked several Canadian environmental organizations for accepting money from U.S. sources. [ . . .. ]

[Oscar]

Oliver releases open letter, attacking “radicals” for stifling Canadian economy

http://nwcoastenergynews.com/2012/01/09/726/
oliver-releases-open-letter-attacking-radical-environmentalists-stifling-canadian-economy/

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Robin Rowland

The Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, released a stinging open letter on Monday, January 9, 2012, accusing what he called “enviromentaists and other radical groups” of blocking Canada’s opportunity to diversify trade and hijacking the regulatory system.

The release of the letter and an interview with Oliver came day before Joint Review Panel hearings on the Northern Gateway pipeline open in Kitamaat Village.

Text of Oliver’s letter (as posted on the Natural Resources Canada site)

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media-room/news- ... 012/1/3520

Canada is on the edge of an historic choice: to diversify our energy markets away from our traditional trading partner in the United States or to continue with the status quo.

Virtually all our energy exports go to the US. As a country, we must seek new markets for our products and services and the booming Asia-Pacific economies have shown great interest in our oil, gas, metals and minerals. For our government, the choice is clear: we need to diversify our markets in order to create jobs and economic growth for Canadians across this country. We must expand our trade with the fast growing Asian economies. We know that increasing trade will help ensure the financial security of Canadians and their families.

Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources. Finally, if all other avenues have failed, they will take a quintessential American approach: sue everyone and anyone to delay the project even further. They do this because they know it can work. It works because it helps them to achieve their ultimate objective: delay a project to the point it becomes economically unviable.

Anyone looking at the record of approvals for certain major projects across Canada cannot help but come to the conclusion that many of these projects have been delayed too long. In many cases, these projects would create thousands upon thousands of jobs for Canadians, yet they can take years to get started due to the slow, complex and cumbersome regulatory process.

For example, the Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline review took more than nine years to complete. In comparison, the western expansion of the nation-building Canadian Pacific Railway under Sir John A. Macdonald took four years. Under our current system, building a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff required the approval of the federal government. This delayed a decision by two months. Two valuable months to assess something that thousands of Canadians have been doing for over a century.

Our regulatory system must be fair, independent, consider different viewpoints including those of Aboriginal communities, review the evidence dispassionately and then make an objective determination. It must be based on science and the facts. We believe reviews for major projects can be accomplished in a quicker and more streamlined fashion. We do not want projects that are safe, generate thousands of new jobs and open up new export markets, to die in the approval phase due to unnecessary delays.

Unfortunately, the system seems to have lost sight of this balance over the past years. It is broken. It is time to take a look at it.

It is an urgent matter of Canada’s national interest.


In an interview with CBC News, Oliver expanded his comments, saying there was a marked difference between foreign investors and the radicals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/09/
pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html


Oliver said radicals are “a group of people who don’t take into account the facts but are driven by an ideological imperative.”

Not all groups are radical, he says, but some are opposed to any use of hydrocarbons.

While Oliver took aim at foreign funding for environment groups, foreign investment is a major part of the oilsands. American, British, Chinese, French and Norwegian companies have all invested in the oilsands.

The difference, Oliver says, is that Canada needs the foreign capital.

“We don’t have enough capital in Canada to finance it and that’s why there’s a lot of investment from the United States, the U.K., France, and Norway, and other countries, and so we welcome that because we need it,” he said.

[Oscar]

Open Letter in response to Joe Oliver

http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/tar-sands/media/release/
open-letter-response-joe-oliver’s-“open-letter”

By John Bennett, Sierra Club Canada Executive Director
January 9, 2012 (6pm EST)

The Federal Government is engaged in an unprecedented campaign to damage the credibility of the environmental movement. In the latest move, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver (apparently replacing Environment Minister Peter Kent as the chief anti-environmentalist government spokesperson) submitted an “open letter” to the media. In it, he links “radicals and environmental groups” and charges they are against everything.

As a father of three grown daughters and grandfather of one beautiful baby boy, I struggle with being called a radical. It’s true I work for a conservation organization. Sierra Club was founded in 1892 and has a long track record of drawing public attention to environmental issues and, perhaps more importantly, helping governments develop laws and policies to protect Canada’s magnificent natural heritage. Nearly every day I’m am contacted by individuals or groups asking for help with an environmental issue in their neighbourhoods.

I believe the public has adopted some of my “radical” suggestions over the years – that is if the rows of blue boxes and green bins, huge sales of energy-efficient cars and all those big companies touting their green records are any indication. I thought these things were pretty mainstream, but following Mr. Oliver’s logic General Motors and just about every Canadian home owner is a radical!

Why has the Minister resorted to name calling? Apparently he’s upset that 4,300 people have asked to participate in the Northern Gateway environmental assessment joining with 100 First Nations who strongly object to the scheme.

An oil spill in the 1970s resulted in a moratorium on oil tankers off the BC coast. Successive Liberal, NDP, Conservative and even Social Credit governments have kept it in place because the people in BC support it. Building pipelines over mountains to ship Tar Sands oil to China will not only require a lifting the moratorium – it will put some of our most pristine forests, lakes and salmon rivers at risk (not to mention the impact of climate change when the oil is burned).

Risks this big have naturally raised a lot of valid questions and thoughtful objections. People are just exercising their democratic right to be heard on an issue that will impact all Canadians, present and future. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to ask tough questions and hear the answers. Why does Mr. Oliver so strongly object to this? Do we no longer live in a democracy? Do our citizens no longer have the right to ask tough questions and express their opinions?

Mr. Oliver says “environmentalists and radicals” just want to delay the scheme until it becomes economically unviable - an interesting charge. But is that really what’s happening – is that really what we do? Is asking government to make sure development is economically and environmentally sustainable and in the best interest of local residents and Canadians just a delay tactic? Of course not.

Haven’t we already learned the hard way that NOT asking tough questions can lead to devastating unintended environmental consequences? Last week I saw a news report on the reestablishment of eagles in New Jersey. They had dwindled to one pair by 1980. Back then there was no environmental assessment of DDT - just assurances from industry and government that it was safe and good for the economy. The eagles, falcons and other birds of prey are thankfully recovering because of “environmentalists and radicals” like Rachel Carson who used their democratic right raise the alarm and ask tough questions. Thankfully the government listened to, rather than attack, environmentalists and acted before it was too late.

Mr. Oliver’s other point is that foreign foundations are influencing Canadian public dialogue. We are preached to every day that we are in a global market where goods and ideas no longer have borders. Soliciting foreign investment, we are told in the sermons of CEOs and government ministers, is key to our future. The oil industry certainly seeks foreign investment ($100 billion and counting), including from the government of China through its state-owned oil companies.

It’s interesting how Mr. Oliver failed to raise concerns over revelations that Alberta secretly worked with the oil industry to develop a PR campaign and joint messaging to counter Canadians’ well-justified concerns about fracking. Further, recent press reports indicate that oil executives and their lobbyists have had the greatest number of meetings with ministers and government officials (including Mr. Oliver).

I guess that’s why we don’t see any feigned indignation from Mr. Oliver about big oil influencing Canadian policy.

My first interaction with a US foundation resulted in a campaign calling for California emission regulations (the gold standard) for all of North America. They heard Sierra Club Canada was campaigning for better fuel-economy regulations in Canada and asked if they could help. The plan was to pressure Washington and Ottawa to adopt North American standards based on the excellent California regulations. Was helping Canadians get access to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks a bad thing? We think not.

The reality is we share a continent with the United States which includes numerous eco-systems and migratory routes. We also share a largely harmonized regulatory system. We cannot protect our common environment without working together. Just as Canadian businesses work with US and global companies to further their interests, we work US and global organizations (including foundations) to further ours – protecting the planet!

The critical point to make -- and for Mr. Oliver to understand -- is the fact that Sierra Club Canada and other environmental organizations decide on policy and programs and then look for ways to finance them. It’s not the other way around as Mr. Oliver suggests. There is no tail-wagging-the-dog here, although Mr. Oliver would certainly like that to be the case for his misinformation and propaganda purposes.

I guess Sierra Club Canada and other environmental groups are doing a really good job to have gained the attention of the government. The responsible thing for the government to do would be sit down with all stakeholders (including environmentalists and First Nations) and work-out sustainable solutions. This is not a radical approach in my mind.

Unfortunately, bullies rarely compromise even when it’s in their own best interest.

John Bennett, Executive Director
Sierra Club Canada
jb@sierraclub.ca
613-291-6888

[Oscar]

Elizabeth May Takes on Joe Oliver

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/01/10/Ma ... On-Oliver/
?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100112

Green leader responds to resource minister's 'open letter' slamming 'environmentalists and other radicals.'

By Elizabeth May, 10 Jan 2012, TheTyee.ca

"Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth.

"No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

"These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada's national economic interest."

-- From your open letter of today's date, Jan. 9, 2012.

Dear Joe,

Your letter caught my attention. I respect you and like you a lot as a colleague in the House. Unfortunately, I think your role as Minister of Natural Resources has been hijacked by the PMO spin machine. The PMO is, in turn, hijacked by the foreign oil lobby. You are, as Minister of Natural Resources, in a decision-making, judge-like role. You should not have signed such a hyperbolic rant.

I have reproduced a short section of your letter. The idea that First Nations, conservation groups, and individuals opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline are opposed to all forestry, mining, hydro-electric and gas is not supported by the facts. I am one of those opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline. I do not oppose all development; neither does the Green Party; neither do environmental NGOS; neither do First Nations.

I oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that the project requires over-turning the current moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the British Columbia coastline. The federal-provincial oil tanker moratorium has been in place for decades. As former Industry Canada deputy minister Harry Swain pointed out in today's Globe and Mail, moving oil tankers through 300 kilometres of perilous navigation in highly energetic tidal conditions is a bad choice. In Dec. 2010, the government's own Commissioner for the Environment, within the Office of the Auditor General, reported that Canada lacked the tools to respond to an oil spill. These are legitimate concerns.

Furthermore, running a pipeline through British Columbia's northern wilderness, particularly globally significant areas such as the Great Bear Rainforest, is a bad idea. Nearly 1,200 kilometres of pipeline through wilderness and First Nations territory is not something that can be fast-tracked.

Most fundamentally, shipping unprocessed bitumen crude out of Canada has been attacked by the biggest of Canada's energy labour unions, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, as a bad idea. The CEP estimates it means exporting 40,000 jobs out of Canada (figure based on jobs lost through the Keystone Pipeline). They prefer refining the crude here in Canada. (The CEP is also not a group to which your allegation that opponents of Gateway also oppose all forestry, mining, oil, gas, etc. is anything but absurd.)

The repeated attacks on environmental review by your government merit mention. The federal law for environmental review was first introduced under the Mulroney government. Your government has dealt repeated blows to the process, both through legislative changes, shoved through in the 2010 omnibus budget bill, and through budget cuts. In today's letter, you essentially ridicule the process through a misleading example. Your citation of "a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff" requiring federal review was clearly intended to create the impression that the scope of federal review had reached absurd levels. You neglected to mention that the arena was within the National Park. That is the only reason the federal government was involved. It was required by the National Parks Act. The fact that the arena approval took only two months shows the system works quite well.

Perhaps most disturbing in the letter is the description of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline as coming from "environmental and other radical groups." Nowhere in your letter do you mention First Nations. (I notice you mention "Aboriginal communities," but First Nations require the appropriate respect that they represent a level of government, not merely individuals within communities.)

The federal government has a constitutional responsibility to respect First Nations sovereignty and protect their interests. It is a nation to nation relationship. To denigrate their opposition to the project by lumping it in with what you describe (twice) as "radical" groups is as unhelpful to those relationships as it is inaccurate.

"Radical" is defined as "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough." (Merriam Webster.)

By that definition, it is not First Nations, conservation groups or individual opponents that are radical. They seek to protect the fundamental nature of the wilderness of northern British Columbia, the ecological health of British Columbia coastal eco-systems, and the integrity of impartial environmental review. It is your government that is radical by proposing quite radical alteration of those values.

Your government has failed to present an energy strategy to Canada. We have no energy policy. We are still importing more than half of the oil we use. Further, we have no plan to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, even as we sign on to global statements about the need to keep greenhouse gases from rising above 450 ppm in the atmosphere to keep global average temperatures from exceeding a growth of 2 degrees C. The climate crisis imperils our future -- including our economic future -- in fundamental ways which your government ignores.

By characterizing this issue as environmental radicals versus Canada's future prosperity you have done a grave disservice to the development of sensible public policy. There are other ways to diversify Canada's energy markets. There are other routes, other projects, and most fundamentally other forms of energy.

I urge you to protect your good name and refuse to sign such unworthy and inaccurate missives in the future.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.

 Member of Parliament

 Saanich-Gulf Islands

Leader

 Green Party of Canada

[Oscar]

Tories lambasted over pipeline stance

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/
tories-lambasted-over-pipeline-stance-136997283.html

Environmentalists fire back at minister

By: Bob Weber Posted: 01/10/2012 1:00 AM

A poll shows British Columbians are much more concerned about foreign money funding the oilpatch than they are about "radical" environmentalists backed by foreign cash, environmental groups said Monday.

The groups were responding to a letter by federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver that criticized opponents of Canada's attempts to sell oil to new markets through the Northern Gateway pipeline.

And policy experts criticized the letter for singling out Canadians who have concerns and wonder if the government is setting the stage for further attacks on environmentalists and the regulatory process.

"I'm appalled that the minister responsible for the National Energy Board would so brazenly demonize and discredit legitimate Canadian voices in this process," said George Hoberg, a University of British Columbia political scientist who's studied such issues for years.

Oliver says in the letter that foreign-funded environmentalists and jet-setting celebrities are trying to hijack regulatory hearings on Enbridge Inc.'s (TXS:ENB) $5.5-billion proposed pipeline, which are set to begin Tuesday.

"Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydroelectric dams," Oliver wrote.

The letter says pipeline opponents "use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada's national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources."

Oliver's targets shot back Monday.

Environmentalists released an online poll of 830 adults taken last April that found only about 15 per cent of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement: "Environmental issues cross borders, so I'm not concerned that U.S. philanthropic foundations provide funding to Canadian charities working to protect Canada's environment."

The same poll found nearly 75 per cent of respondents were worried about Americans investing in Canadian natural resources.

MORE:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/
tories-lambasted-over-pipeline-stance-136997283.html

[Oscar]

SHIELDS: RE: Enbridge reports leak from U.S. pipeline as Northern Gateway hearings begin

From: Stewart Shields
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:06 AM

As I said with Keystone----we must cheer every leak that happens when raw bitumen exports are on the agenda as an exportable product. How can our Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta be in favour of Gateway, when that system involves the importation INTO Canada of dangerous natural gas condensate necessary to make raw bitumen pump-able as a slurry. Upgrading at source completely eliminates the need of a 16 inch pipeline from Kitimat to northern Alberta, along with the tariff costs of shipping these diluents both ways and twice the volume of slurry than would be the case if synthetic crude was exported.

More important than the Kangaroo hearing on Gateway, is the uselessness of even holding an inquiry when our Prime Minister has already decided the outcome for the Alberta owners and those affected by the pipeline in British Columbia!! Hopefully Canadians will awake to the fact that they indeed own the resources being mismanaged by government ``wobble-wheels``and industry owned regulators! Nothing in petroleum production in Canada has remained as dormant as how the public ownership of petroleum resources are managed. The owning public have been skilfully left completely out of decisions that has major effects on both present-day and future Canadian citizens.

Changing how our public ownership is managed in Alberta must be part of the upcoming election topics. Our leadership must be pressed on the fact Norway with similar population, landmass, and energy production, has left Alberta and it’s owning public light-years behind in wealth accumulation! Where has the wealth in Alberta gone—that we cannot even balance our provincial budget while oil is selling for record profits and energy developers report record profit levels?

Albertans must press our politicians to place our public ownership in petroleum resources into a Crown corporation for professional management, much like Nova operated during it’s hay-day!! No longer can Albertans afford to allow industry owned governments and regulators to manage our petroleum resources and make excuses' why we cannot match the success of Norway is gaining wealth for Alberta’s public!!

Stewart Shields
Lacombe, Alberta
- - - - -- - - - -

Enbridge reports leak from U.S. pipeline as Northern Gateway hearings begin

http://news.africanseer.com/business/
165365-enbridge-reports-leak-from-u-s-pipeline-as-northern-gateway-hearings-begin.html

nathan vanderklippe

KITAMAAT VILLAGE, B.C.— Globe and Mail Update

Published Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012 7:44PM EST

Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012 9:57PM EST


Canadian pipeline builder Enbridge reported a leak from one of its pipelines on the day public hearings began into the company’s planned Northern Gateway pipeline.

U.S. pipeline regulators told Enbridge about the possible leak. A subsequent helicopter over-flight discovered a metre-wide patch of bubbles over the company’s Stingray pipeline, which can carry 560-million cubic feet a day of natural gas from offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The bubbles were found about 100 kilometres from the Louisiana coast.

MORE:

http://news.africanseer.com/business/
165365-enbridge-reports-leak-from-u-s-pipeline-as-northern-gateway-hearings-begin.html

[Oscar]

New Democrats on Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline

----- Original Message -----
From: <Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: New Democrats on Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline

Thank you for your email outlining your concerns with oil tanker traffic on the coast of BC via the Northern Gateway Pipeline. Please know that I share your concerns.

First, let me comment on the Conservatives' recent musings about environmental assessments and funding sources for environmental NGOs. When it comes to an environmental assessment process, many Canadians have a stake in both the process and the outcome. New Democrats recognize that this is entirely legitimate. Interestingly, one must ask themselves: whose interests are the Conservatives representing? Canadians or the interests of the American and Chinese companies who will profit from the pipeline?

Furthermore, while the Conservatives feign concern over foreign d onations to Canadian NGOs, they seem to have no problem with one of their favourite think-tanks, the Fraser Institute, receiving 9% of their funding from foreign sources! (Annual Report, Fraser Institute, 2010 (pg 39):

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/about-us ... ports.aspx)

New Democrats have been consistent in our call for the government to ban oil tanker traffic on the BC coast. Building on NDP past work that included a motion calling on the government to ban oil tanker traffic on the BC coast, in June 2011 NDP MPs Fin Donnelly and Nathan Cullen laid out a legislative proposal for a permanent ban on oil supertanker traffic off the north coast of British Columbia.

We have long felt that these supertankers are all risk and no reward - it's all about shipping raw bitumen from Alberta's tar sands to Asia.

Additionally, banning oil tanker traffic would effectively stop any move by Enbridge to ship oil through its planned $4.5 billion Northern Gateway Pipeline.

You may also be interested to know of our party's efforts to cut subsidies to non-renewable energy producers, and redirect these revenues into clean energy projects. We feel that the Conservative government's irresponsible support for the fossil fuel industry is leaving Canada behind and costing us billions.

(http://www.ndp.ca/platform/tackle-clima ... ection-4-2).

You can read more about our ideas to help achieve a cleaner and healthier environment by visiting:

http://www.ndp.ca/platform/tackle-climate-change

http://meganleslie.ndp.ca/post/
ndp-calls-for-action-against-climate-change

http://www.ndp.ca/press/
climate-change-conservatives-inaction-putting-jobs-risk


Our team of New Democrat MPs remains committed to putting forward practical solutions that will move Canada forward and ensure that we maintain a clean, sustainable Canada for future generations.

Again, I appreciate the time you have taken to voice your concerns. I invite you to visit our website at www.ndp.ca to learn the latest about our team of New Democrats. Also, feel free to pass along my response to our network of friends and family.

All the best,
Nycole Turmel, M.P.
Interim Leader of the Official Opposition
New Democratic Party of Canada

[Oscar]

HIDLEBAUGH: Risk Assessment - Northern Gateway Pipeline

----- Original Message -----
From: "murrayjh" <iet@sasktel.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:41 AM

I was so ticked off at the interview with Joe Oliver on the Current that I sent the following re the Gateway. It is an area that I have been following closely because pipelines are a huge issue in their own right.

Any and all thoughts most appreciated as well as from others who are involved.


Risk Assessment - Northern Gateway Pipeline
By Murray Hidlebaugh January 10, 2012

The public arguments used by the proponents of the Gateway are that the pipeline will reduce Canada's dependency on the market to the States. It will enable Canadian producers to ship 500 thousand b/d to China at a higher price than the Americans pay. And it will have tremendous economic value and minimal environmental impact. These arguments have three significant limitations. One is the conditions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The second is the total amount of Canadian oil available now and in to the future. The third is the long term economic benefit and cost of the development and operation of the pipeline.

Firstly, Canada only produces enough oil to meet current its current obligations under the NAFTA (Chp. 6, Art. 605) of 2.1 million b/d to the States for the next 3 years. A summary of Canada's total oil production from all sources for 2011 was 2.9 million b/d. 1.6 million b/d was produced from the oil sands. Canadian domestic use is about 500 thousand b/d and growing as our economy grows. At the same time Canada's conventional oil production (sources other than oil sands) is declining by about 10% to 15% per year. This means that at 2011 rates we have an export surplus for oil of about 300 thousand b/d. Any projected surplus is based on the assumption that United States oil demands won't increase and that Canadian supplies will.

Secondly, there is no credible evidence that the production in the oil sands will be able to be increased to make up for the energy short fall that is expected to continue to occur in conventional production. This means that there would be about 300 thousand b/d of oil available for export to China.

So unless the Canadian government intends to rescind the NAFTA, the argument that Canada will cut off exports to the States and export 500 thousand b/d to China is simply not credible.

Thirdly, the construction of a pipeline benefits very few people over a very short period of time. On the other hand a pipeline, like any other mechanical device, will break down. It's just a matter of when. So the risk of an oil spill is not only foreseeable it is inevitable. The pipeline will just make it easier, cheaper, and safer to transfer oil through Canada then have it freighted to the under used refineries in California. This looks like Canadian long-term risk with American long-term benefit. And China is
just a convenient diversion.

Murray Hidlebaugh, Saskatoon

[Oscar]

WATCH: Oil in Eden: The Battle to Protect Canada's Pacific Coast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO4s4P7eFk4

Uploaded by PacificWildLive on Dec 9, 2010

It's one of the last bastions of Canadian wilderness: the Great Bear Rainforest, on BC's north and central Pacific coast.

Home to humpback whales, wild salmon, wolves, grizzlies, and the legendary spirit bear - this spectacular place is now threatened by a proposal from Enbridge to bring an oil pipeline and supertankers to this fragile and rugged coast.

The plan is to pump over half a million barrels a day of unrefined bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands over the Rockies, through the heartland of BC - crossing a thousand rivers and streams in the process - to the Port of Kitimat, in the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest.

From there, supertankers would ply the rough and dangerous waters of the BC coast en route to Asia and the United States.

Dubbed the Northern Gateway Pipeline, the project is of concern for three main reasons:

1. It would facilitate the expansion of the Tar Sands, hooking emerging Asian economies on the world's dirtiest oil;
2. the risks from the pipeline itself;
3. the danger of introducing oil supertankers for the first time to this part of the BC coast.

SIGN PETITION: STOP ENBRIDGE PIPELINE:

www.notankers.ca

Then talk to your families , friends , and neighbors about this travesty. If it is not stopped it will be a tragedy - and eventually a disaster for our environment. Birds included.

[Oscar]

WHAT'S RADICAL ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE?

BY Jim Harding

For Publication in R-Town News January 3, 2012

http://www.rtownonline.ca/RTownONLINEJan16.pdf (Page 3)

The Syrian regime blames its domestic uprising on "foreign-supported terrorists". The Harper regime joins the international chorus condemning Syria's suppression of the democracy activists. Then the Harper regime blames "foreign-funded environmentalists" for trying to stop Canadian jobs from Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline. The oppositional activists, whether environmental, Indigenous, or ecumenical are lumped together as being "anti-Canadian radicals".

Such phony nationalist hyperbole has been a steadfast propaganda tool for authoritarian governments and under Harper, Canada is now on a slippery slope.

This skirmish began when Harper's Natural Resources Minister, Oliver, released an open letter attacking those opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline. He tried to backtrack a little when facing the TV cameras, saying he didn't mean all environmentalists and Indigenous people "were radicals", but his letter says otherwise. ".There are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade" it reads, and continues: "Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families and lost jobs and economic growth."

ENEMIES OF.

The Harper government is using the same kind of "attack ads" on Canadian citizens that it has already used to discredit opposition political leaders. Who knows what linguistic twists Harper's propaganda team will come up with next; perhaps those supporting sustainability will soon be called "enemies of economic growth". Or perhaps, "enemies of the nation"!

To defend democracy and sustainability we must deconstruct Harper's manipulation of language. Oliver's letter sets out a complete attack-narrative on pipeline opponents before the review by the National Energy Board had even started. It is reminiscent of Harper's Environment Minister Kent attacking proposals to replace the Kyoto Accord before the international conference to establish a climate treaty had even started. Harper got his majority through such pre-emptive strikes on opposition leaders. He apparently wants to rule the whole country using similar combative tactics.

Oliver's letter says "These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking the public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects." This discredits citizens who have a right to appear before the Panel which reviews and recommends on the pipeline. It discredits a rational, democratic, discussion about the benefits and burdens of the pipeline by attributing hidden motives to all critics. Involvement in the regulatory process is equated with "hijacking" it, which is a means for Harper to discredit the federal environmental review process itself. Oliver's twisting can easily be turned back on his boss, for Harper's preemptive strike can be seen as an attempt to undermine the regulatory process itself, to achieve his "radical ideological agenda".

WHAT IS RADICAL?

David Suzuki and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May were quick to respond, arguing that those opposing the pipeline were the antithesis of "radical". May went so far as to quote the Webster dictionary which says "radical" is "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough". They are right that environmentalists and indigenous communities are actually against "radicalism" in that they don't desire to alter "the fundamental nature" of eco-systems. Harper's quest for Canada to be an Energy Superpower, apparently at any cost including undermining the environmental review process, is what is "radical".

Radical can be defined slightly differently, drawing on the phrase "far-reaching or thorough"; it's about trying to understand something by "going to the roots". In this sense good science is radical. Harper's goal is clearly not towards enhancing intelligent public participation by "going to the roots".

DEFINING NATIONAL INTEREST

Oliver's letter continues its attack, claiming these "radical" groups ".use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada's national economic interest". Think about that, an environmental group like the Sierra Club which exists in both the U.S. and Canada is undermining "Canada's national interest". Meanwhile a multi-national corporation like Enbridge, which wants to export unprocessed bitumen across Western Canada and the Pacific Ocean, is not. As Harper presents himself as the savior of Canadian workers, the biggest energy union estimates that Enbridge's export of unprocessed bitumen will cost us 40,000 jobs. And as Green Party leader May points out, Canada still has "no energy policy. We are still importing more than half the oil we use."

Mindless rhetoric about "economic growth" undercuts the careful weighing of options. In the big picture, as we plan towards a sustainable economy, protecting the Great Bear Rainforest from massive oil spills would be in the fundamental national interest. Perhaps laying a 1,200 km , three foot round pipeline from Edmonton to Kitimat, that moves 250,000 gallons of raw tarsand oil a day across 600 creeks and rivers, including some where threatened salmon spawn, is not in the fundamental national interest. Perhaps, as May says, overturning "the current moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the B.C. coastline", and allowing huge Chinese tankers to use the "300 km of perilous navigation in highly energetic tidal conditions is a bad choice".

MOTIVES REVEALED

Harper is not interested in reasonably reconciling ecological and economic concerns. It's full-steam ahead with his radical agenda to gut environmental protection in the interest of energy corporations like Enbridge. This is why his government has consistently sabotaged international attempts to get an effective climate treaty. His destructive approach will never create sustainable energy or sustainable economic policy.

The motive for Harper's attacks on democratic public participation is becoming clear. On a CBC Power Point panel, Harper spokesperson MP Stella Ambler expressed concern about letting "the environmental process kill the project". It's environmental protection itself, not "radical environmental and indigenous groups" that Harper is targeting. Harper not only wants to side-step the federal responsibility to consider the ecological impacts of mega-energy projects, but the federal "duty to consult" with First Nations who would be directly affected. Environmentalists and First Nations are all marginalized and demonized as opponents to "Canada's national interest". Ambler's reiteration that this decision must be "made by Canada and not foreign interests" is a smack in the face of the many thousands of Canadians who registered to speak at the Gateway Hearings.

KEYSTONE WHISTLE BLOWER

Oliver and Harper are trying to push the Gateway Pipeline through because the proposed Keystone Pipeline from Alberta to the U.S. has been held up due to public concerns about contaminating a huge aquifer in Nebraska. We've already had a warning about how the Keystone Pipeline puts the environment at great risk. On Jan. 20th Canadian Press reported on a pipeline engineer who had been fired by Bechtel Corp for his whistle blowing; he had written of, "Cheap foreign steel that cracked when workers tried to weld it, foundations for pump stations that you would never consider using in your own home, fudged safety tests.short cuts on the steel and rebar that are essential for safe pipeline operation, and siting of facilities on completely inappropriate spots like wetlands."

With the U.S. market now so uncertain, Harper is pushing for Alberta's tarsand oil to go to China, regardless of the risk to our national-environmental interest. China, along with the U.S., is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. That the Kyoto Accord did not require China to meet targeted reductions has always been the main reason Harper used to justify his government not following through with the Kyoto Accord. Now he wants to make China one of our biggest customers of the greenhouse gas-laden tarsand oil. Hopefully connecting these dots will help Canadians better see through Harper's spin-propaganda.

Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who lives in the Qu’Appelle Valley.



MORE: http://jimharding.brinskter.net and www.crowsnestecology.wordpress.com

[Oscar]

WHEN DISTORTED IMAGES DOMINATE

http://edges.canadahomepage.net/category/sharp-edges/

By Jim Taylor Sunday January 15, 2012

Every now and then, the federal government reveals the blindness of its mindset.
As hearings opened into the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline across B.C. to the port of Kitimat, the federal Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, released an open letter criticizing groups opposed to the project.
Here are a few excerpts from that letter:
"Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth.
"No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.
"These groups . exploit any loophole they can find . to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada's national economic interest."
Note his emphasis -- a variety of groups, united against "any major project," sharing a "radical ideological agenda," using funding from "foreign special interest groups.."
He's dead wrong.
The Green Party's Elizabeth May phrased her rebuttal more politely: "The idea that First Nations, conservation groups, and individuals opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline are opposed to all forestry, mining, hydro-electric and gas is not supported by the facts."
The project's opponents include the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers' Union of Canada, an organization whose existence depends on jobs in resource industries. They're hardly against "any major project."
And because the pipeline would export raw crude rather than refined products, the CEP estimates it would also export 40,000 Canadian jobs.
That's hardly in "Canada's national economic interest."
AGAINST TAKING RISKS
I have lived and worked in northern B.C. It's a national treasure.
The highway up the Skeena River from Prince Rupert to Hazelton rivals any scenic drive anywhere in Canada. First Nations communities and white enthusiasts have preserved what's probably Canada's finest collection of original totem poles. Smithers, nestled beneath Hudson's Bay Mountain, may be one of Canada's prettiest towns. East of Smithers, the
Bulkley Valley opens into a paradise of rolling hills, grasslands, and lakes.
The people who live there want incomes that will let them continue to live there, of course. But they don't want anything to destroy the environment they love living in.
That hardly makes them "foreign special interest groups."
And then there's the coast -- commonly called the Great Bear Rain Forest -- which thrives as a tight network of cause and effect. Abundant rain feeds the rivers that bring the salmon that feed the wildlife whose leftovers nourish the great trees that shelter the birds and animals and that filter the rainfall gently back into the rivers.
Damage any element in this delicate equilibrium, and the whole cycle is imperilled.
Joe Oliver's letter suggests that he understands none of this. To him, "Canada's national economic interest" means corporate profits.
Nothing else matters. Not beauty. Not safety. Not even jobs -- just profits.
MIXED BLESSINGS
If, in fact, we're going to transport petroleum products across long distances -- and that's a big IF -- pipelines have some advantages over the alternatives.
Trains, for example, could be considered a very large-diameter pipeline -- the rail cars become a giant pipe that moves along with the oil. But trains derail. Almost every week, somewhere, rail cars topple off the tracks, spilling hazardous fluids.
Tankers run aground and split open. Everyone remembers the Exxon Valdez; we don't hear as often of other marine accidents because they foul someone else's shorelines.
Spillage from ruptured trains and tankers cannot be shut off. Pipelines can.
And because pipelines run underground, moose and bear cannot amble into the path of an onrushing pipeline and get killed or maimed.
I'm not arguing in favour of pipelines, generally. I'm merely pointing out that IF we're going to ship products, there are worse ways to do it.
Unfortunately, not even pipelines are goof-proof. Metal corrodes. Welded joints weaken and split. Leaks develop. And there's always the possibility of human carelessness. Wikipedia lists 11 major oil spills in 2011; 13 the year before, including the huge BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
Accidents happen. They will happen again. Perhaps not in my lifetime. But they will happen. Regardless of the cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die promises made by managers and proponents.
That's why the pipeline critics are speaking out against the project.
IDEOLOGICAL BLINDNESS
But because Joe Oliver works in a world dominated by monetary measurements, he cannot imagine any other values.
And because he works in an authoritarian hierarchy, where power flows from the top down, he cannot imagine his opponents not being similarly organized. He dare not admit that they might independently reach common conclusions, because if he did, he would have to question the entire system he works in.
So he has to paint a picture of foreign interests pulling the strings of local puppets.
Instead of negating the opposition, his diatribe reveals a candid snapshot of the kind to government to which we have entrusted our future.

*****************************************

Copyright © 2011 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; all other rights reserved.
Please encourage your friends to subscribe to these columns.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write to jimt@quixotic.ca

[Oscar]

Northern Gateway pipeline approved by National Energy Board – with more than 200 conditions

[ http://www.mining.com/northern-gateway-39420/ ]

Ana Komnenic | December 19, 2013

- - - -

QUOTE: "Enbridge's share price was up just over 1% minutes ahead of the news, trading at $45.33 per share."

- - - - -

An independent panel appointed by Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) has approved Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, with more than 200 conditions.

The three-member NEB panel will hand over its report and recommendation to the Federal government and Ottawa will issue its decision next year.

"Based on a scientific and precautionary approach to this complex review, the Panel found that the project, if built and operated in compliance with the conditions set out in its report, would be in the public interest," the NEB wrote in a news release.
[ http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1283005 ... ay-project ]

Enbridge (NYSE:ENB), Canada's biggest energy transport company, first proposed the $6.5 billion project in 2004. The company's plan is to build twin lines across 1,177km from northern Alberta to Kitimat, BC, providing a steady stream of oil to tankers and opening Alberta's petroleum industry to Asia's oil-hungry markets.

The westbound portion of the line would carry up to half a million barrels per day, and the eastbound nearly 200,000 barrels of condensate – a product used to thin oil for pipeline transport.

The report

In addition to recommending that the Federal government approved the project – subject to 209 conditions – the NEB has cautioned the government to ensure that the construction and routine operation of the line would "cause no significant adverse environmental effects, with the exception of cumulative effects for certain populations of woodland caribou and grizzly bear."

The panel concluded that the "environmental burdens" of the pipeline could be "effectively mitigated."

Meanwhile, the effects of a large oil spill would be "significant," but "unlikely and not permanent."

The NEB also praised Enbridge for taking steps to minimize the likelihood of a large spill through its "precautionary design approach."

As for economic considerations, the panel found that "opening Pacific Basin markets is important to the Canadian economy and society" and that the project would bring significant benefits.

"After weighing all of the oral and written evidence, the Panel found that Canada and Canadians would be better off with the Enbridge Northern Gateway project than without it," the NEB wrote.

"After weighing all of the oral and written evidence, the Panel found that Canada and Canadians would be better off with the Enbridge Northern Gateway project than without it," the NEB wrote.

MORE:

[ http://www.mining.com/northern-gateway-39420/ ]

[Oscar]

Bad News for Enbridge

[ http://dogwoodinitiative.org/blog/2014- ... tr=0&par=1 ]

Saturday, February 15, 2014 by Will Horter

[ ***NOTE: Numerous LINKS at Original URL above ]

A new poll released on Feb. 5 by Justason Market Intelligence, commissioned by Dogwood Initiative and three other groups, has confirmed the majority of British Columbians are still opposed to Enbridge’s plan to bring crude oil supertankers to B.C.’s northern inside coastal waters.

Enbridge should be worried – very worried. Despite the millions of dollars they and other big oil companies have spent over the years blanketing British Columbia with slick marketing campaigns, the vast majority of British Columbians still oppose their oil tanker and pipeline proposal.

We were pleased, but not surprised, to learn that nearly two out of every three British Columbians oppose Enbridge’s proposal (64 per cent). These results are consistent with a Justason poll from March 2012 that found 66 per cent of British Columbians were opposed to Enbridge’s proposal.

Each poll from 2012 and 2014 show fifty per cent of British Columbians strongly oppose Enbridge’s proposal, while just over ten per cent strongly support it. This enthusiasm gap is huge and bodes well for the No Tankers movement and our efforts to launch the largest organizing effort in British Columbia’s history. (GRAPH)

Last weekend Enbridge released a video aggressively attacking the poll, though they couldn’t find anything of substance to criticize. Our pollster Barb Justason summed it up in her statement: “In one question they object to two words from an array of information provided for respondents to consider in their response. In the other, Enbridge themselves mislead the viewer by sharing half of the argument and none of the question.”

Here’s the video and a Vancouver Sun story about Enbridge’s attack:
[ http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ ... story.html ]

Enbridge’s claims of bias are unfounded. At the end of the poll we actually asked respondents what type of organization they thought sponsored it. More than 50 per cent thought it was a group either in support of Enbridge’s proposal, or neutral. Take a look: (GRAPH)

We’re so confident that the vast majority of British Columbians oppose Enbridge that we invited the company to collaborate with us on a new poll that describes the full scope and location of the proposal. You see, not all polls are created equal when it comes to pipeline and tanker proposals.

Other recent polls about Enbridge’s proposal don’t tell the whole story – they only discuss pipelines with no mention of the crude oil super tankers that would inevitably come with them. When polls ask only about pipelines, opposition drops to between 44 per cent and 47 per cent.

But when British Columbians hear the full story, they are much more strongly opposed. That’s why we’re challenging Enbridge to collaborate on a poll we can both agree on. We’re still waiting to hear back.

Defeatism and its antidote

At first glance, the poll results are an encouraging sign of British Columbians’ strong opposition to expanded oil tanker traffic on our coast. Dig a little deeper though, and the results tell a more complex story about the role British Columbians want to have in deciding the fate of pipeline and oil tanker proposals.

We asked people what role they think the public should have in decision-making about these types of projects, and an overwhelming majority said they think the public should participate. ( GRAPH)

Yet Ottawa’s aggressive pro-pipeline pressure has people concerned. Our poll was the first one released about Enbridge’s proposal since the National Energy Board’s joint review panel (JRP) recommended conditional approval in December. To assess what British Columbians actually thought of it, we asked people whether or not they trusted the review process. Most people are not satisfied with the JRP's public participation process – no surprise given that the panel ignored the strong opposition of the B.C. government, First Nations, and all but two of the British Columbians who spoke before it. (GRAPH)

Unfortunately, British Columbians are pessimistic about their ability to influence whether the project is built. While two-thirds of British Columbians are opposed to Enbridge’s proposal, that same amount of people believe the project is a done deal anyway. (GRAPH)

Many people feel powerless because they don't yet see an avenue for having a meaningful voice in the decision-making processes for such proposals. That’s where our citizen’s initiative strategy comes in. Preparing to launch a citizen’s initiative if Ottawa and Victoria cut a deal provides a democratic channel for people to ensure they have a meaningful say.

Many British Columbians don’t know we have Canada’s only direct democracy tool to hold our provincial leaders to account, or that the province has real power to block oil tanker and pipeline proposals to our coast.

“As previously stated by Premier Clark and (then environment minister Terry Lake), British Columbia has the authority to grant or withhold approximately 60 permits related to pipeline construction.” – Environment Minister Mary Polak in The Globe and Mail, January 21, 2014

I believe that once the campaign gets rolling, the sense of powerlessness will diminish, lifting the shadow of inevitability that some people associate with the project.

By getting our friends, family and neighbours to pledge their support for a citizen’s initiative, we’ll signal to Premier Clark what she’s up against if she betrays her election promise by forcing Enbridge through. She’ll understand there are consequences to ignoring the will of First Nations, the majority of British Columbians and her government’s formal rejection of Enbridge.

It’s time to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work. Together we can make it a political necessity for provincial leaders to stop the expansion of crude oil tanker traffic that threatens our province and coastal economy.

If you’ve not done so already, please sign the pledge to stand up for B.C. if Premier Clark won’t:
[ http://dogwoodinitiative.org/no-tankers/stand-up-for-bc ]

[Oscar]

(June, 2014) First Nations Leadership Council responds to the Federal decision regarding Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Project

[ http://www.fns.bc.ca/pdf/FNLC-NR-re-Fed ... 7-2014.pdf ]

For Immediate Release June 17, 2014

Coast Salish Territory (Vancouver, BC) –On December 19, 2013 the Joint Review Process released its report on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project which included 209 recommended requirements for approval of the project. Today, the federal cabinet announced that it would approve the project. The First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC), which is composed of the BC Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit, and Union of BC Indian Chiefs, is completely disgusted at this decision.

“This was the announcement we expected from the Harper Government. They have continued to blatantly ignore what British Columbians and First Nations citizens have continually and unequivocally stated - the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project cannot go ahead. There is an undeniable and inherent risk attached to this project and the idea of a catastrophic ecological disaster is unacceptable for the people of this Province. Delaying this project will only serve to fortify the opposition to this project,” stated Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. “For First Nations who have unceded Title and Rights over our territories we will do everything necessary and whatever it takes to stop this project. We are prepared to go to unprecedented lengths to conserve and protect our territories and waters from heavy oil.”

“As we have stated time and time again, this project has been yet another prime example of how not to do business in this province. What we have witnessed is government and industry once again ignoring First Nations’ constitutionally-protected Title and Rights in order to push through another resource development project. The necessary consultation standard for any development project in BC, especially those with such a high potential for disastrous impacts, must be to seek the free, prior and informed consent of each and every First Nation whose Aboriginal Title and Rights will be impacted. If we must return to the courts to prove this once again, then that is what we will do”, said Grand Chief Edward John of the First Nations Summit political executive.

BC Assembly of First Nations’ Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould stated, “Though not surprising, it is extremely unfortunate and frustrating that the federal government has seen fit to approve Northern Gateway in the face of overwhelming public opposition including First Nations whose Aboriginal title and rights and other concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed. She added, “This is by no means the end of the conversation. Whether or not Northern Gateway is ultimately built is still very much in doubt and either way, will be a defining moment in Canada’s history and a litmus test for the direction we are heading. As a country, do we want to be an ‘energy superpower’ at any cost or are we ready to look towards a more balanced and diversified economy and becoming a global leader with respect to environmental stewardship, global warming and sustainable economic development?”

The First Nations Leadership Council is comprised of the political executives of the BC Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit, and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.

For further comment please contact:

Grand Chief Edward John, First Nations Summit Executive 778-772-8218
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President, Union of BC Indian Chiefs: 250-490-5314
Courtney Daws, Director of Operations, BC Assembly of First Nations: 604-922-7733