Dispatches from hearings on Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline

The outcome of the project's review process has serious implications for Canada's environmental & energy future

Click to enlarge. Path of proposed pipeline © Living Oceans

The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project proposes to build two parallel pipelines 1,170 kilometres (727 miles) from Alberta’s Tar Sands to British Columbia’s coast at Kitamaat. If approved, the pipelines would traverse the salmon- bearing Upper Fraser and Skeena watersheds, cross nearly 800 streams and rivers, and would introduce oil tanker traffic to the province’s northern coastal waters. The project is currently undergoing a federal review process. ForestEthics is directly engaged in the review process as an Intervenor, with legal representation from Ecojustice.

Jump to an on-the-ground update from hearings, which are reviewing Enbridge's proposed project:
January 11 - Voices from Kitamaat, BC (Audio) >>
January 16 - Smithers, BC Says "No" (Video) >>
January 17 - "Talking Straight" in Burns Lake >>
April 24 - Community Hearings Begin (Audio) >>
April 25 - Community Hearings Continued (Audio) >>

A brief look at the Environmental Review Process:

What is the "Joint Review Panel"?

Enbridge filed its formal project application to the National Energy Board on May 27, 2010. This triggered a public regulatory review process led by a Joint Review Panel (JRP), consisting of the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). The JRP has been criticized for its lack of transparency, its legal inability to address and accommodate First Nations Rights and Title, and the narrow scope of issues being addressed.

Left to right - Bateman, Legatt, Matthews. © Patt Moss

Who are the panelists?

The JRP panel includes only three members – none of whom are from British Columbia – who will determine the extent to which the project meets the public interest. They are:

• Sheila Leggett, Chair of review, a biologist by training who was a former environmental consultant in Alberta.
• Kenneth Bateman, a Calgary energy lawyer
• Hans Matthews, an aboriginal mining advocate and member of the Wahnapitae First Nation in Ontario.
  

What do the panelists decide?

When the hearings are done, the three panelists will make an assessment based on whether or not the proposed project is in the public interest. Their recommendation will be forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources who eventually signs-off on the decision. The Minister and Cabinet must accept a negative decision but can overturn a positive one.

What's the timeline?

The first set of hearings are for registered intervenors who have argued that their evidence needs to be presented orally. Following them are the beginning of the community hearings – where more than 4,000 people are registered to speak for 10 minutes about their concerns of the project. 80% of those are British Columbians. Community hearings will take place along the proposed pipeline and tanker route from the end of March to July, and in other locations starting in November (subject to change). Formal hearings, where experts are cross-examined, are scheduled to start in September. The final recommendation from the Panel on Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker proposal is scheduled to come at the end of 2013.

Dispatches are brought to you by...

Nikki Skuce is ForestEthics’ Senior Energy Campaigner based out of Smithers, BC. As a registered intervenor in the process, Nikki has questioned Enbridge’s application and sought information requests for clarifications, put forward motions and attempted to get Tar Sands' impacts included in the scope of review, and worked with a variety of experts to put forward our own evidence of environmental risks and lack of need for this project.

"The Enbridge Northern Gateway Tar Sands pipeline and tanker proposal has been a big threat across the northwest for years. While national attention is now being focused on the Enbridge project, the hearings are a way to listen to all the stories and the incredible motivation that northerners in particular have to stop this project. The assets we have here in British Columbia – wild salmon watersheds, abundance of fresh water, diverse wildlife, incredible mountainous terrain, and the ecological treasure of the Great Bear Rainforest and its coastal waters – are not worth risking for a project where such little economic gains are promised. But more than anything, the assets of this region are its people. We are resilient and First Nations communities are strong.

As I sit at the dinner table watching my 3-year old devour smoked wild salmon from the Skeena, I can’t help but be driven. She deserves to be able to eat salmon when she has kids of her own.

Beyond that, we need to be making a transition off fossil fuels so that we are able to build adaptive, resilient communities in the face of global climate change. The Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker project to Asia does not make any sense in the face of climate change or in terms of future energy security. "