Douglas Channel | Northwest Coast Energy News

Douglas Channel Watch calls on Kitimat council to “get off the fence”

The environmental group, Douglas Channel Watch, Monday, Feb. 20, called on the District of Kitimat Council to “get off the fence” and oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

Dieter Wagner, spokesman for Douglas Channel Watch, addressed the council at its regular meeting. His call came after both Terrace Council and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District voted to oppose the controversial pipeline that would carry bitumen from Alberta to the port of Kitimat and condensate back to Alberta.

The council listened to Wagner’s presentation but took no action, despite calls at the close for a referendum on the issue.

“Our group and many others can’t quite comprehend why our mayor and council hold the position of neutrality regarding the Northern Gateway. We are requesting you to abandon this position and officially oppose this project,” Wagner said. “Few places tend to lose as much as Kitimat does from the inevitable dilbt spill, either in our river system or our marine environment.”

(“Dilbit” is the industry term for “diluted bitumen.” The pipeline from Alberta will carry oil sands bitumen but for it flow through the pipeline, it must be diluted using a form of refined natural gas called condensate.)

Wagner said that most of the “massive amount of information available on everything concerning this project” is negative. He warned that some documents said there is even a risk of death and injury if humans are exposed to dilbit. He also said that in his view, neither Enbridge nor any level of government have given people enough warning and education abut the effects of a dilbit spill.

Wagner returned to a point made time and time again by Douglas Channel Watch, that is often the local people who detect pipeline spills, sometimes by smelling them, not the sensors used by Enbridge. He cited the case of the Enbridge pipeline breach at Kalamazoo, Michigan, where the spill was reported by calling 911 to local police, rather than by Enbridge’s Edmonton control centre.

Wagner pondered who would detect such a spill on the Kitimat River where there is nobody to report it.

“We are concerned who would detect a spill along the Kitimat River, especially in winter time,” he said. “If there is a spill in the upper Kitimat River, no one will know about it until it gets way down here.”

He maintained that the Gateway project has not adequately addressed the issue of emergency response along the water courses, a point that Enbridge would certainly dispute, given the thousands of pages of documents it has filed with the Joint Review Panel concerning emergency procedures and contingency plans. (For example, Douglas Channel Watch recently objected to an Enbridge plan to burn the Kitimat estuary if there was an oil spill there)

Wagner then turned to the sinking of the cruise ship Costa Concordia off Italy. “The latest technology is no absolute safeguard against a shipping disaster,” he told the councillors. “Cruise ships are normally really well equipped to take care of thousands of people. No technology has yet been invented to deal with human error. Many of these things are due to human error, not equipment failure.”

He quoted the Polaris Institute which he said has found there were 204 spills in Enbridge pipelines from 1999 to 2010, spills which leaked 169,000 barrels of oil into the environment.

Wagner then turned to the growing controversy over the credibility of the Joint Review Process, especially due to political interference by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and members of his cabinet.

“We believe it is better to be proactive to influence the JRP, rather than wait for their decision,” he said’ “When they have made their decision, it is no good, it [ a decision by Kitimat] has to be done before, by making it known that our community does not support this project.”

“The impartiality of the JRP is already threatened by the federal and provincial government officials. Mr Harper in China has already said this project is gong to go ahead and you’re going to get yours, so why are we having the JRP hearings?

“We believe that the management of large corporations and foreign political interests are not in the best interest of our community; the environmental movement has been labelled as enemies of the state by Prime Minister Harper and [Natural Resources] Minister [Joe] Oliver.

Wagner added that support “for these so called radicals, so called enemies” is growing, as seen through growing contributions to the environmental groups.

“When our government labels every day citizens who are actively participating in democracy and its processes, we feel that we need to speak out against that and to address the serious levels of interference we face on the issue,” Wagner said.

“We believe not in the risk of a spill we believe that a spill is a certainty.”

He concluded by saying that in the pre-election all candidates meeting last fall, new councillors Mary Murphy and Edwin Empinado had backed calls for a referendum on the pipeline issue.

Wagner then pointed to the vote by council not to take any decisions until after the JRP report, adding: [New councillors] “Edwin Empinado and Mary Murphy backed down from this promise at the last council meeting. I wonder if this is something they learned from Ex-Premier Gordon Campbell; that this intended to be a promise not kept.

“We ask you to abandon the official position of neutrality.”

(Wagner was referring to an election promise by former premier Campbell not to introduce the HST, which lead to a political campaign to rescind the tax, ending a successful anti-tax referendum and the end of Campbell’s tenure as premier of British Columbia)

The partisan audience, many members of Douglas Channel Watch or supporters, applauded, while Mayor Joan Monaghan admonished Wagner for “knocking down our council.”

Murphy then responded by saying.“ We all debate. Once we became councillors, we represent everybody in the town, not just one particular group,” she said. “We represent every citizen in Kitimat now so personal opinions,” Murphy said.

She then pointed that Haisila Chief Counsellor Ellis Ross told the JRP on the first day of hearings that he would wait for the JRP to make their decision. What Murphy did not mention was that the federal government has told the Haisla and other First Nations that the constitutional mandated consultation with First Nations will not take place until after the JRP report. That means that it would be a bad tactic for First Nations directly affected by the pipeline to make any decision until after the report that could affect those consultations.

As the council moved on to other business, there murmurs of dissatisfaction from the audience with cries of “referendum” and “why did I vote for her?” (referring to Murphy). Most of the Douglas Channel Watch supporters then left the chambers.

The Cullen confrontation at the Joint Review hearings: Transcripts

The Member of Parliament for Skeena Bulkley Valley, Nathan Cullen had a fiery debate Friday, Feb. 17. 2012, in Prince Rupert with the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel over a subject that has been vexing the panel since the first day of hearings at Kitamaat Village, the exact definition of what constitutes personal or traditional knowledge in this round which the panel calls “Community Hearings.”

This is an edited transcript of the proceedings where Cullen was testifying.

Chair Sheila Leggett repeated at the opening on Friday:

So as I’ve stated, we’re here today to listen to the oral evidence from
intervenors that have previously registered with the Panel. Oral evidence is only
that information which is relevant to the matters the Panel will be considering and
cannot be presented as written evidence.

In order to assist parties regarding the types of information that
intervenors may provide as oral evidence during the community hearings, the
Panel issued Procedural Direction Number 4.

Parties will not be able to provide information orally here that could be
provided in writing or at a later stage in the process. This would include
information such as technical information, questions to the Applicant, or
argument and opinion on the decisions you would like the Panel to make. This is
not what we are here to listen to today.

Sharing your traditional knowledge and your personal knowledge and
experiences on the impacts that the proposed project may have on you and your
community, and how any impacts could be eliminated or reduced, is of great help
to us. This is the type of information we’re here to listen to today. We appreciate

Nathan Cullen then began his testimony, with an acknowledgment that it was taking place on the traditional territory of the Tsimshian Nation

Cullen. I think it does the entire process a level of respect that is actually quite
indicative of how we, in the Northwest, like to treat visitors, with respect and
understanding and an open heart. I also thank the Metlakatla Nation for allowing
me to switch times with them to make this available — I’m a little preoccup ied
with some other endeavors right now.

I think in the best tradition of Justice Berger, this Panel is attempting to
establish a balance between traditional knowledge, rights and title and the laws of
this land, and the importance of hearing oral testimony and oral evidence and
giving it the weight and circumstance that we do to technical briefings and to
other sources that upon which you will make your decision.

And let me say that I have no envy for you in the chairs that you are in.

This is an incredibly complicated matter. It weaves together many of the most
fundamental factors and decisions that exist within any nation and potentially has
an impact on many people, both here in the Northwest of British Columbia but
right across Canada and perhaps around the world.

I will also, as I’ve expressed to you privately, Panel, do my level best to
adhere to Procedural Direction Number 4 and follow in the guidelines that you’ve
set forth. It’s somewhat out of practice for serving politician to find themselves
restricted in particular ways when we are speaking but it’s good practice anyways.

Let me say that politics is my vocation, a calling, and politics ultimately at
its best is about story. It is about collecting the stories of people that we seek to
represent and then relaying those stories to a broader audience.

I see that my testimony here today is certainly on my behalf as an
independent Canadian citizen, as a resident of the Northwest, but also on behalf of
many people who either can’t speak or are intimidated by the process to be here,
who have relayed many of their concerns and thoughts and hopes through me to
you.

This is about telling our story. This proposal of a pipeline and the super
tankers that are connected to it asks us to ask questions of ourselves, as a people,
as region, and as a country. And I believe, fundamentally, if I attempt to
summarize where the concerns lay, it is a question of trust. And I will break that
down into four particular segments because I think there are elements in this
question that are important for you to consider.

First and foremost is trust of this particular company. They are the one
making the proposal through you to the Canadian Government and through you to
the people that I represent here in the Northwest. Can the company be trusted?
Has the company’s record in the past shown it to be worthy of trust? I think this
is also a technical question, although I won’t — I will refer away from the
technical aspects of trust of pipelines themselves and of the capacity to keep them
safe and of the tankers that are associated to this project in the particular area that
we are talking about, and can we trust that that will also be safe?

In some ways, this very process is the third area of trust. Can the people
that I represent trust what’s happening here? Is it as you said in your introduction,

Chairwoman — and I think it’s accurate — as established as an independent arm ofgovernment? Is it free in the way that we have designed it to come to a decision and is that decision going to be respected? That is a question that many of the people that I represent — that is a question that I ask.

And, lastly, and perhaps most fundamentally, the question of trust of the
Federal Government, the Government of Canada to honour the commitments that
they make in law and by statute, that will be actually be adhered to.

And I think as we watch the current government in action, there is a
certain amount of mistrust over the particular issue of energy and over the
particular industry of oil; that many of my constituents feel that there is not a level
playing in the conversation; that they feel that perhaps we are an afterthought to
the interests of the oil sector and that we should have a respect for a fundamental
idea as Canadians; that we live in a democratic society and that the government of
the day goes well beyond its mandate and its ethics to attempt to bully or silence
Canadians when they seek to raise their voice at Panels like this or anywhere else
across the country.

Let me start first with the companies and I will relate my personal
experience because I think that’s what you’re seeking.

It’s been a number of years since I’ve been dealing with Enbridge. This is
not new to me, this is a company that I have been dealing with for quite some
time and, upon their invitation, met them some years ago — Chairman, I think you
may have that —

Sheila Leggett interrupts and says:: Mr. Cullen, I just want to make sure that we
were going to be — you were going to be talking to us about your personal
knowledge and experience about the potential effects of the project.

Cullen: Absolutely.
Leggett. THE CHAIRPERSON: Terrific.
Cullen: Absolutely. Allow me to relate –
Leggett: On you or your community.

Cullen That’s right.

Leggett: Thank you.
Cullen: So allow me to relate to this. So my first personal interaction with the company outside of some emails and some telephone calls, was a meeting that was held in Vancouver talking about how the company would interact with my community and what the effects would be of that interaction.

And the first thing that the company wanted me to know was that they had
been able to successfully raise a $100 million in the effort to promote this project;
a $100 million that was received in $10 million allotments that was from
undeclared sources.

I asked who is behind that and they neglected to reveal that, which is fine.
Since that meeting a number of years ago, we do know now who some of those
companies are. The reason this is relevant is that we have been unable to
encounter any project in Canadian or U.S. history that has had that type of money
and support behind just the promotion and engagement of citizens. It’s an
extraordinary amount of money and that money bares influence and it can’t be
ignored.

I thought it was an extraordinary claim for them to make, to be the first
thing that I should know, and it led to the second conversation; this is relevant to
your intervention that I sought with Enbridge to conduct community forums to
inform people as to the risks and benefits as perceived by both the Proponent and
opponent of the project. I thought that was a worthwhile role for a Member of
Parliament to play to facilitate that engagement.

I had not taken any public stand on the project. I had not made any public
utterances and thought my best engagement is what you’re essentially attempting
to do right here, which is to find out the various views about moving raw bitumen
1,100 kilometres in a 36-inch pipe and a corresponding pipe coming from the
coast into the interior.

For more than 18 months that conversation went on and on and on, to the
point where I realized that it was never going to happen, that the company had notentered into good-faith negotiations with me and felt that by being in those negotiations I was unable to declare myself publicly one way or the other.

I now turn to my experience with the Gitxsan Nation —

After Cullen’s statement about the lack of good faith negotiations, Laura Estep, one of the lawyers for the Enbridge Northern Gateway objected.

We would like to express an objection to this presentation. We believe that it is argument. It is argumentative. It is a political agenda. This is nothing more than a political speech and we object on that basis.

Mr. Cullen has been directed on numerous occasions, in writing and
otherwise, by the Panel as to what constitutes appropriate oral evidence. We’ve
been listening this morning and have yet to hear that.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to continue waiting for something appropriate
to be provided in terms of oral evidence. It’s not oral evidence what he’s been
giving so far.

At this point, the transcript dryly notes “Reaction from the public” and Leggett calls for order in the room, going on to say:

This is a serious proceeding and we need to be able to have it unfold in a way that shows the kind of respect that we’ve all gathered here to be a part of. So I’d ask the audience to please refrain from verbally expressing or by handclapping or anything like that your perspectives.

Legget then asks, Mr. Cullen, any comments in reply?

Cullen: I’m surprised it took 10 minutes.
(Laughter/Applause)

Leggett: Excuse me —

Cullen: The notion — Madam Chair, I think it’s your comments about the audience.

Leggett: No —

Cullen: I also referenced those questions and those opinions.
I think it is critical for us to show as much decorum and respect and I’ve
attempted to, in my comments, to show that respect.

I looked very carefully at this Procedural Direction Number 4 and what is
oral evidence; it’s in the second bullet:

“Personal knowledge and experience about the potential effects of
the project on you and your community.”

My initial intervention in this was to describe the approach that was taken
and is being taken by the company to engage with my communities in the
promotion of the project and to describe the merits from the company’s
perspective.

I then described my intervention with the company to attempt to have as
much public engagement and disclosure as possible around the project and was
denied that.

I think both of those references directly speak to how the company seeks
to engage the people that I represent, which speaks to my personal knowledge
about the potential effects on the project and the community. How a company
engages a community is also linked to how the project will be manifest.

I will seek to speak to the personal references that I have and the
experience that I have with this company, but it shows some umbrage from the
company who attempted to limit my ability to even speak here at all today to then
suggest that they have the interests of the Panel at heart when they intervene
within eight and a half minutes to attempt to limit my testimony further.

Legett: Mr. Cullen, this is not a political statement.

Cullen: Absolutely.

Legett: And you’ve recognized as a politician it’s difficult from that aspect of it. I would ask you to please talk to us about your personal knowledge and experiences on the potential effects of the project.

Cullen: Absolutely.

Leggett: So if we could get straight to that point.

Cullen: Absolutely.
Leggett So if we could get straight to that point.

Cullen: Sure.
Leggett The Panel doesn’t need to hear the preamble and the setup of that. We’re interested in just getting straight to your personal knowledge and experiences about the potential effects.There are other stages in the process for argument —

Cullen: Sure.

Leggett —as you’re well aware, and as an intervenor you’ll have that opportunity at the appropriate place. But the concept of the oral evidence is to hear directly from you on yourpersonal knowledge and experiences on the potential effects of the project.

Cullen: So may I ask a procedural question then?

Leggett Go ahead.

Cullen: The point I was getting to before being interrupted was
my experience with the Gitxsan Nation and spending time with people in the
Hazeltons immediately following the impacts of a deal that had been publicly
reported to be signed between the Gitxsan Nation and the Enbridge company and
the local community effects.

I think it may be overly restrictive to suggest that only once a pipeline in
the ground and the effects of a potential spill are the only impacts. I would argue,
and respectfully argue to the Panel, that the engagement with the communities
that I represent is also an impact of the project, that the First Nations’
engagement, the engagement at the community level is part and parcel of what this project is.

To suggest that it’s only an engineering question full stop seems like it
would limit the ability of people presenting, as I am, to relate who this company is
and what they seek to do through the course of the implementation of this project.

The way a company conducts itself with a community in advance of a
project is also indicative of maybe how they will conduct themselves with a
community after the project is in the ground, if you follow my line of reasoning.

Leggett Again, I would remind you that we’re not here to hear argument.

Cullen: I understand.

Leggett We’re not here to hear the case from that perspective. And so I would ask you to continue to bear in mind that I will interrupt you —

Cullen: Of course.

Leggett —and we need to hear your personal knowledge and your experiences about the potential effects of the project.

Cullen: Yeah.

Leggett And so within that context, I’d ask you to
proceed so that we don’t end up spending your time on this. I know you have 45
minutes —

Cullen: Sure. So —
Leggett — and I know you probably have a busy schedule, so let’s listen to you again and see how this works.

Cullen: Let me try this and you’ll interrupt again if I’m offline. Inherent in the project is the ability to have agreements with First Nations. That is in the Application. That is in the nature and design of the project.

In my personal experiences, particularly in dealing with the Elders andHereditary Chiefs of Gitxsan, the project has been, to this point — in the attempt to sign a negotiated agreement to enable the project, the impact has been incredibly negative on the people within that nation.

I met with Enbridge some weeks ago in Ottawa, asked the company representatives if they would take responsibility for any of those upfront impacts of the way they were treating the First Nations people that I represent. I was told “No”. I think that’s wrong.

I think we cannot simply say that the impacts are only in the prospective
idea of a pipeline breaking upon the land or a super tanker running into an island
and leaking into the ocean. I think those are real. Those are perceived and
accurate.

But I think in the nature of the communities that we represent — that I
represent and that you will be visiting, it is also inherent in the way that we have
relationship. We started today off with relationship. We talked about respect.
You thanked the people who came in for their honouring of today. That is what
we are in fact also talking about.

I don’t know if I’m within the bounds of Procedural Direction Number 4,
but it feels to me that the two cannot be separated, that the way the company
conducts itself within the local communities and the First Nations is inherent to
the way the company will conduct themselves in the engineering and the cleanups
if there is an accident. Those two things seem to me indivisible.

Before I continue, I want to seek if I’m at all on the right track.

At this point the three members of the panel confer among themselves.

Leggett Mr. Cullen, you started your presentation by saying that you had stories to tell.

Cullen: That’s right.

Leggett And the stories that you are hopefully going to tell us about the land and the history of the land; that’s what oral evidence is about.

As far as potentially discussing what you believe is the credibility of the
company and those types of things is not within the framework of oral evidence.

As I said before, there is a different time in the proceeding for argument,
to present your views, to present the thoughts on how you think things have
unfolded, but the oral evidence is particularly to — as we’ve mentioned time and
time again, the Aboriginal traditional knowledge is a good indication of —

Cullen: Sure.

Leggett –what oral evidence is. So if you could constrain yourself to the stories, for example, of the land, of the history of the land, that would be the information that would be mosthelpful to us at this point.

Cullen: I appreciate the Panel’s comment. I was going to impugn that on the question of credibility. If the company has none, I won’t approach it in my testimony today.

Leggett Mr. Cullen, please, that’s not appropriate. Could you please proceed if you have stories about land use and the history of the land?

Cullen: So —

Leggett: If you don’t have –

Cullen: Absolutely.

Leggett —that, then I’m afraid it won’t be a good time
for us to listen to you.

Cullen: The history of the land is implicitly connected to the people who live here. The history of the land, the traditional knowledge that has been accumulated of this land, we have an expression here that says “The land makes the people. The people don’t make the land”.

— (Applause/Applaudissements)

Cullen: And it seems —

Leggett Excuse me, for people listening in over the
internet and also for the Panel, it’s very difficult when tthere continue to be
interruptions from the audience.

So could I ask you for your cooperation in helping us be able to proceed
here in a way that we can all hear and appreciate the oral evidence that’s being
provided?

Thank you.

Cullen: It’s tough. These are emotional and powerful issues for
people, and they — it’s tough to tell folks in the North to restrain themselves
emotionally sometimes. We are a passionate people, particularly when it comes
to the land.

The history of this land is connected to the people. The stewards of this
land have been the First Nations people for millennia.

The impact that I have seen to this point on the stewards of the land, by
even just the proposal of this project, has been to — so discord and a great division
within some of the communities that I represent. This is at a very personal level.

You asked for personal stories in which Elders have felt that expressing
their opinions one way or the other on a project has exposed them to abuse and
criticism, that it has divided communities, some of whom are very small and
intimate places to live.

The question that we have before us is: What impacts will this project
have on the land and the people which it sustains?

The proposal that a 36-inch pipeline carrying 525,000 litres of oil -barrelsof oil per day across some of the most rugged and difficult land to traverse, and the inherent risk that is associated to such an endeavour has affected people at their core because unlike some places in this world, the connection of people to that land is implicit, is inherent, and is in fact defended by the very Supreme Court of this country, that when a project comes along under the lawsand guise that are developed here in Canada, the law is not on our side. And so the impact on people at a personal level, the impact on people’s ability to imagine a viable economy, to remain stewards of both the ocean and the land is what is being put at risk.

Before we started our hearings today, I spent some time looking out at the
ocean and wondering, are there any decisions — is there anything that we are
doing here today to put that at risk? And that is true.

It is impossible for me, as somebody who represents 300,000 square
kilometres of north-western B.C. to suggest that the imminent threat of super
tankers, bigger than the Empire State Building, ploughing some of the most
difficult waters to plough does not have implicit threat to the people I represent.

When I visit the communities of Hartley Bay and Bella Coola, Metlakatla,
Lax Kw’alaams, the connection people have to the ocean environment is second
to none. It may be in fact difficult for some Canadians to understand that don’t
live in such communities.

You have the great fortune of visiting some of these places. You will eat
the food that they will generously provide for you. There’s an expression that
says, “When the tide goes out, the table is set”. And the people that I represent
and the impacts upon their very way of life cannot be measured only in dollars
and cents but in the very cultural fabric that holds people together.

You asked me for my personal experiences and what the potential impacts
of this project are. Before even a shovel has hit the ground the impacts have been
felt. I understand you don’t want that kind of testimony today. You want
something more implicit to the proposed actual building of the pipeline, but if
something starts off so badly at a human level, at a community level, how can we
expect it to turn out well in the end?

Ms. Estep: Madam Chair, I’m sorry to interrupt — interject again, but Icontinue to — Northern Gateway continues to maintain its objection that this is argument, not oral evidence.

The views he’s providing are argument, and we will be hearing directly
from the Metlakatla and the Gitxsan. Those parties can speak for themselves as to
the cultural impacts and their oral traditional knowledge. They’ll provide that
directly to the Panel.

Leggett Mr. Cullen, again, if we could get you to focus
in on the stories that —

Cullen: Sure.

Leggett —you’re bringing today to us about the history of the land and the land, and to stay away — I mean, it’s not that we don’t want to hear your argument.

Cullen: I understand.

Leggett But it’s just not the right place.

Cullen: I understand.

Leggett And it’s the oral evidence piece that we’re here to hear from you today. So again, I would direct you to come back to that aspect.

Cullen: M’hm.

Leggett If you would like a little bit of time, we’d be happy to take a bit of a break for you to rethink where you want to talk to the Panel today or, you know, just proceed on that basis, but —

Cullen: I think best while talking, so I’ll keep on talking.

Leggett But while you talk, would you please contain yourself to the oral evidence, please?

Cullen: Yeah, absolutely. If I come, Madam Chair, to the point of objection that was raised, I take some significant umbrage with the idea that is suggested by the company that Ihave ever at this point, or any point in my political career —

Leggett Mr. Cullen —

Cullen: — attempted to speak on behalf of — Madam Chair, you
have to allow — there’s been — when interjections like this come there’s a certain
impugning of reputation that happens. To not be able to address the point of order
that is being raised by Enbridge seems to leave me at a certain disadvantage, that I
am only being accused of certain things and not being able to defend myself of
those accusations, and that, to me, seems somehow unfair.

Leggett Mr. Cullen, the objection that’s been raised is in
terms of the content of the material that you’re presenting —

Cullen: That’s right.

Leggett — in terms of oral evidence. The Panel is continuing to remind you and ask you, please, to go to the personal knowledge and experience about the potential effects.

Cullen: So —

Leggett If you can’t do that —

Cullen: Okay. Allow me to —

Leggett — then we will have to —

Cullen: Let me try this.

Leggett — we’ll have to tell you that, you know, we’ll look forward to your argument at the right time, but the oral evidence piece will be finished for today.

Cullen: Let me try this. I met with a company, one of the leading companies globally who deals with spills from tankers. They’re the best of the best. I asked them for what the recovery rate was considered a success on a marine accident. I was told that in ideal conditions, anywhere approaching 10 per cent recovery of the total spill was considered successful.

I have lived by these waters. I represent the people who depend on these
waters. That knowledge and the potential impacts of a spill within the marine
environment and the inability to clean those up is a personal experience and a
knowledge — we cannot forbade the idea that we have to have actually sat in an
oil spill in order to comment on what the effects are going to be to the coastal
environment here.

We have knowledge at our hands in terms of what these impacts can be. The communities I represent are deeply concerned about this. My experience with them has been, in the past, when there have been accidents, the Queen of the North, for example, that the promises that have been made by both government and the private sector alike are only made when the cameras are rolling, but when the attention disappears the cleanup isn’t there.

And that is real and important in terms of the experience that we have had in the North Coast in dealing with government and in dealing with the private sector when commitments are made in the proposal of an idea that are not followed up in the actual implication and implementation of that idea. That is real experience; that is knowledge.

Leggett And, Mr. Cullen, you’re again referring to
technical information and scientific information, and again that’s a piece that will
come forward —

Cullen: Okay.

Leggett –in the cross-examination phase. I would still –

Cullen: Sure.

Leggett –ask you to focus on the stories that you told you were bringing us today —

Cullen: Sure.

Leggett — about your personal knowledge and experiences about the potential effects of the project on you and your community.

You’ve — you and I are having this discussion on a regular basis now. If
the information you’re bringing just doesn’t fit within that scope today, then I
would — you may be asked to stop and we’ll hear from you at the appropriate time
when —

Cullen: So, may I ask a question before I proceed?

Leggett If you would proceed with your evidence that would be helpful and we will continue to go from there. Mr. Cullen, this is a very important process and —

Cullen: I absolutely understand, Madam Chair.

Leggett –it’s very important that we deal with the aspects that are in front of us, and right now we’re in the oral evidence collection phase.

Cullen: That’s right.

Leggett: And as we’ve said many times, a good reference
point for that is the Aboriginal traditional knowledge. That’s the aspect of oral
evidence that is pertinent to this point of the review.

Cullen: As has also been declared, the personal knowledge and
experience about the potential effects of the project on you and your community.

Leggett: Correct.

Cullen: I’m simply trying —

Leggett: That’s absolutely correct.

Cullen: — to follow the rules that you’ve been given out to the
witnesses. I find — I hold this Panel in respect. I attempt in every angle and word to adhere to the guidance that you’ve given me, the personal knowledge and experience about the potential impacts/effects of the project on me and my community.

I feel at this point somewhat disheartened that, in effect, the interpretation
of the guidelines being allowed and permitted at this stage so encumber the ability
of someone from the north, someone who represents people to actually present
what my experience has been with this company and what my experience has
been with the people that I represent and the implications of this project on those
people and on me and my family.

I find that through whatever course of angle I take the words that you gave
me and I seek to apply them to my evidence and I feel that it’s near to impossible
— near to impossible in the restrictions that have been offered and the
interpretation of that one line, that one sentence, that in fact you’re looking for
something entirely different.

Leggett: What we’re looking for is your evidence not
your argument.

Cullen: The evidence that I have is that, in fact, this process
suffers under a certain amount of intimidation from the Prime Minister of this
country.

Ms. Estep: Madam Chair, we continue to object. This is completely
inappropriate.

You’ve reminded Mr. Cullen numerous times now and he quite clearly has
a very different interpretation of what personal experience and oral evidence is.
And that just simply is not within the scope of what we are trying to do here
today, as you have pointed out numerous times.

Leggett: Mr. Cullen, at this point I’m going to suggest that we take a 10-minute break and —

Cullen: Five is good, if you don’t want to waste your time.

Leggett: I beg your pardon?

Cullen: Five is okay?

Leggett: Five is just great. Thank you.

Cullen: Good.

Leggett: And again I want to make sure that you understand that it’s not that we don’t want to hear from you —

Cullen: I understand.

Leggett: — it’s just the time and place and the content, and so final argument would be the place for the type of information that you’ve been providing to the Panel today.

Cullen: Absolutely.

Leggett: And if you do have other information that relates to evidence as far as your personal experiences and knowledge, that’s what we’d like to hear about today. At a different point, which is the final argument, that’s where we’ll want to hear further in terms of the way you’re speaking today.

Cullen: Absolutely. So five minutes?

Leggett: Thank you. Five minutes.

— Upon recessing at 10:01 a.m.
— Upon resuming at 10:08 a.m.

Leggett: We’d like to get underway, please.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Attention.

Leggett: Thank you for your help. That’s terrific. So
we’ll get back underway.

I just wanted to start off by saying, from the perspective of the Panel it’s an interpretation aspect. Your interpretation of what oral evidence is falls within our expectations of what argument is. And so I want to be clear that the stage and place for that is at a later time. And the oral evidence piece that we’re here to talk about is as you started to talk earlier on about your stories about the land and the historical land use. And so with that we’ll turn it back over to you.Thank you.

Cullen: You’re inviting me back for later, is what you’re saying.

Leggett: You’re an intervenor in the process, Mr. Cullen;we welcome you at all the appropriate times.

Cullen: Just keeping it friendly. Let me allow this; I wasn’t born here, I was born in Ontario and I chose to live here. I can remember coming off the ferry here in Prince Rupert with a beat-up ’86 Tercel and driving across the northwest to what I thought was an eight-month experience to do a contract in Smithers B.C. I had no expectations that this would become my home. I had no expectations that this would become my family.

I think the experience that I had driving across the north that day — it was a beautiful morning, going over the rivers and by the lakes and seeing the mountains — the most clear thought I had that day was if we mess this up there’s not much hope for us because everything’s here.

I’ve lived around the world. I’ve worked in countries that do not have the fortune that we have. And I realized that while this place is incredibly powerful -and I’m sure you share those feelings, having spent some time here — it will only continue with us if we respect the land.

The interconnectivity that I’ve seen between people and the land — my interconnectivity has increased enormously since living here. When I attend the feast halls of various nations across the north from Haida Gwaii to Fort St. James all the way to the Taku River Tlingit in the far north down to the Bella Bella and Bella Bella Coola people in the south, all of which is contained within this one federal riding.

It has been one consistent factor, and that is the land supports us and we must defend the land. That my ability, not just as a representative but as a citizen and resident of this place, to speak up when necessary in defence of this place is my responsibility and it will not be curtailed or shut down by anything. I think it is incumbent upon all of us when we live here.

I took a trip with some friends, who are also elected representatives, down the Douglas Channel two summers ago — and I hope this bears relevance to what we’re talking here today — and it was in a fishing boat. We like to fish up here. And it was not a big boat, 30, 35 feet. And I wanted to take the actual route that is being proposed by the Proponent. I wanted to see the waters. I wanted to see the channels. I wanted to understand what the challenge was in moving these incredibly large vessels through these particular waters.

And it was a beautiful day, it was a sunny day, it was summertime, and I was most struck coming out of the Douglas Channel going towards the ocean by the incredible sharpness of the turns that are required and having done at least a little bit of research on what the capacities and capabilities of super tankers are to manoeuver and to move.

I was asked this question that over the course of this project there will be approximately 15,000 sailings through that route, and I have to ask myself, and I ask this Panel, what the perspective is of perfection when humans are involved; that can we sail that narrow channel 15,000 times through all kinds of weather, all kinds of circumstances, both human and environmental, with never having made a mistake once, because we can’t make a mistake once.

When I stay in Hartley Bay people who this country celebrated as heroes,
as you’ll remember, after the sinking of the Queen of the North, they risked their
own lives to go out and save people.

And when I’m in Hartley Bay you have to hit the day right in order to see anybody because if it’s a day when you can go out and collect food, if it’s a good day for getting clams or sea urchin, you’re not going to find anybody around.

11018. And in my vocation as a politician what I’m trying to do when I visit a community is see people, but I don’t despair when I end up Hartley Bay or Bella Coola and everybody’s gone, and they’re out fishing and they’re out collecting, and they’re out sustaining themselves and sustaining the land. And I’m reminded of that inherent connection every time.

And so when the Panel seeks to understand what’s being put at risk here, it’s not simply a meal, it’s not even just a job, but it’s an entire culture and way of live.

We sometimes say we are a salmon people, and you live here long enough you understand the inherent connection of that one species to our vitality as people. And we cannot survive without it.

So in your deliberations and your understanding of what the merits and the implications are of this particular project, you have to understand what the implications are for us. And it’s everything, it’s everything.

You’ll spend some time looking at this project. Maybe it seems like a long time to you but it’s very short for us. And you’ll move on and you’ll do other things.

I hope you’re impacted, as I have been by the people, because I know we’re supposed to talk about the rivers and the oceans and the trees, and all those things are important, but it’s the people that I think of when I’m here today.

And when I’m in the feast hall and we celebrate, we celebrate culture, we celebrate the bounty of this land, we celebrate coming together and forming nation. And I think what wealth we have and how generous people are here in sharing that wealth.

Thank you for your time.

— (Applause/Applaudisement)

Leggett Thank you, Mr. Cullen. The Panel has no questions.

— (Applause/Applaudisement)

Leggett: Thank you, Mr. Cullen. You’ve left the table now, but the Panel has no questions of clarification

Analysis: John Wayne and Northern Gateway. How the movie star economy is vital to northwestern British Columbia

When I was a kid in Kitimat, for the sake of this argument let’s say it was 1960 and I was ten, my friends were all abuzz.

“John Wayne is in town,” says one friend.

“No way,” says a second.

“Yes,” says a third. “My Dad says John Wayne came in a couple of days ago and went down the Channel to fish.”

John Wayne on his boat — John Wayne at the helm of his boat The Wild Goose, now a US National Historic Landmark

None of my friends ever confirmed that “the Duke” had come into town. The adults did say that “everyone knew” that John Wayne had come up from Vancouver Island, gone to Kitamaat Village, hired a Haisla guide and then had gone fishing on Douglas Channel.

John Wayne’s fishing trips were famous. He was Hollywood’s most avid fisherman. He was a frequent visitor to the British Columbia coast throughout his life. (He also fished in other areas such as Acapulco.)

There’s a secret economy in northern British Columbia. The movie star economy. For more than a century the rich and famous have been coming to northern BC to fish and to hunt and to hike. Sometimes the stars and the millionaires are open about their stay. More often they slip in and no one is the wiser.

One of the lodges along the coast that caters to those members of the one per cent who like to fish, hunt, kayak or hike is Painter’s Lodge in Campbell River. On its website, Painter’s Lodge proudly numbers among its previous guests John Wayne, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Susan Hayward, Julie Andrews and Goldie Hawn.

The King Pacific floating lodge also has movie stars among its guests each summer, and CEOs and billionaires, not just from the United States but around the world. King Pacific is well known for its tight confidentiality policy to protect the identity and privacy of its guests.

Not all the rich and famous opt for the well-known luxury resorts.

They slip in to the north incognito. Perhaps they drive up Highway 16.

These days if a movie star’s private jet lands at Terrace Kitimat International Airport, that jet would be unnoticed among all the other private jets coming and going with energy executive passengers.

A guide’s van waits close to the landing area, the star walks, unnoticed, from the plane to the van, and disappears into a small, but comfortable, lodge somewhere in the bush. A float plane lands at a secluded cove or near a river estuary. The man who gets out, unshaven, in jeans and a checked shirt could be an Oscar winner or one of the world’s successful entrepreneurs or even one of the exploitative Wall Street one per cent. Perhaps even a top of executive of a major energy company.

The guide will never tell. That’s part of the business.

So as Prime Minister Stephen Harper, contemptuously told Peter Mansbridge, when asked about the Northern Gateway pipeline: “Just because certain people in the United States would like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America, I don’t think that’s part of what our review process is all about.”

Harper also said: “It’s one thing in terms of whether Canadians, you know, want jobs, to what degree Canadians want environmental protection.”

The prime minster, with his masters degree in economics obviously doesn’t get it. What’s wrong with a national park that supports thousands of jobs?

So let’s add up the jobs.

Enbridge’s official estimates say Kitimat will get between 30 to 40 permanent jobs from the bitumen terminal. (Other documents filed with the Joint Review say 104 permanent jobs). At the moment, Cenovus imports condensate to Kitimat, processes it at the old Methanex site and ships the condensate by rail to the Alberta bitumen sands. That means, according to local business leaders, that when the current Cenovus jobs are absorbed by the Enbridge project, Kitimat may get as few as 25 net jobs.

The jobs along the pipeline route, at least from Prince George to Kitimat, you can probably count on the fingers of one hand.

The temporary construction jobs will be in the northwest for a couple of years and then they’ll be gone.

Now what about the movie star economy? It’s been supporting British Columbia for a century.

Seven luxury lodges belonging to the Oak Bay Marine Group. King Pacific Lodge. Other smaller, luxurious lodges that aren’t as well-known or publicized.

Hundreds of small lodges up and down the BC Coast, along the Skeena River and the Nass. The lodges and resorts at Babine Lake, close to the pipeline route.

Then’s there’s the tackle shops, ranging from mom and pop operations to all those Canadian Tire stores in the northwest.

Guides and outfitters. Campsites. Gas stations (yes people up here drive using gasoline). Restaurants.

With the Harper government’s message control, and its unfortunately brilliant political tactics, Northern Gateway is no longer an argument about jobs and pipelines.

For conservatives, the pipeline debates are now a litmus test of ideological purity. Facts don’t matter.

Take for example, Margaret Wente in today’s Globe and Mail when she says: “These environmentalists don’t really care about safety matters such as oil leaks or possible pollution of the aquifers.”

Or Peter Foster in the Financial Post, who says: “Promoters of oil and gas development are in the business of creating jobs; radical environmentalists are in the business of destroying them.”

That latter statement is the now consistent refrain among the idealogues, the answer for them to why Chinese and American energy money is acceptable but money from American or other environmental foundations isn’t acceptable. And it’s false.

An oil spill, whether from a tanker or a pipeline breach would destroy thousands of jobs in northwestern British Columbia. For Wente to say that environmentalists don’t care about oil spills, simply shows she is so narrow minded that she doesn’t read the news pages of her own newspaper, much less doing some real reporting and reading the transcripts of the Joint Review Hearings where up until now all the testimony has been about safety matters and oil leaks.

So who produces more jobs in northwestern British Columbia? Movie stars? The Alberta oil patch?

Answer: the environment, the fish and the wilderness create the jobs.

The movie star economy creates the jobs.

So movie stars. Come on up. Your secret is safe with us. Enjoy the fishing.

(And I’ll bet that if John Wayne, American conservative, and life long fisherman, were alive today, he’d be standing beside Robert Redford and the other stars who are opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline).

Kitimat voices at the Joint Review: Peter G. King

Northwest Coast Energy News will use selected testimony from the Joint Review hearings, where that testimony can easily turned into a web post. Testimony referring to documents, diagrams or photographs will usually not be posted if such references are required. Depending on workload, testimony may be posted sometime after it originally occurred. Posting will be on the sole editorial judgment of the editor.

I’ve been a resident of Kitimat for 53 years and the issues, as I see them, are economic diversity and challenges. One of the problems we face is urbanization. We end up with whole populations centred in large areas. This may work fine when things are going well, but it doesn’t work fine when things break down. does it work?

In the Vancouver area, people live in Delta and work in North Vancouver or go to university in UBC and live in Abbotsford. This would involve a two-hour commute both ways, totalling four hours in travel.

Then there’s the cost of travel to and from work, counting vehicles, fuel, parking and all extras that go along with it. The commute can cost $40 a day, on average. Of course, this is — there is mass transit, but the problem with mass transit is it sets up in the most economical way for obvious reasons.

But by doing this, it adds an hour to the commute on either end, so now the commute is three hours each way, so there is a trade-off, but it’s equal in the end.

For both people to work with and the same amount of cash out of pocket, the person who drives to work ends up having to work two hours a day more to pay for the commute but by the time — the way home would work out to be the same.

Of course, you could live closer to work, but that involves the same financial trade-off; if you live near your work, your residence will cost more. If you work close to where you live, your job may not pay as well.

Social diversity. Let’s pick up where the home/work example left off. If you live in a small area, without trying, a person’s quality of life increases by adding three hours to their home or leisure time. Since everyone lives within 15-minute drive to work or 30-minute bus ride away, no parking.

Crime is a major social problem in large centralized areas. If there is a crime in Vancouver, there’s thousands of possible suspects over hundreds of square miles and it could take weeks and months to solve the crime. In a small area, you have three possible suspects; one was in the hospital, one was at work, leaving you with one suspect; crime takes eight hours to solve in small areas.

Violence, for instance, if you see a fight in the street in Vancouver area, you do not know either person, so you’re isolated from it. In small areas, there’s a good chance you know both parties; this gives you a greater need to get involved and help solve the issue.

Children. When you go to Vancouver, you seldom see children playing in the street. For one, traffic is so much higher, but making friendship bonds is a problem as well. In small areas, children on the street will go to the same school, play on the same hockey team, shop at the same grocery store, go to the same church. The odds of this happening in a large area is very remote.

Thirty minutes after leaving the Vancouver Airport Terminal, your sinuses plug up. The reason is the concentration of car, truck and industrial pollution in the air. Nature has the ability to clean itself if the concentration levels are not too high, but in large centres we always suffer from bad air quality and water quality from what we have seen earlier with many commuters, most of which is with engines idling.

If I went to a local river and put a teaspoon of oil in a rural river, it would not be noticed by anyone, not by the river, not by the wildlife, but in a large centre you could have the equivalent of one million teaspoons of oil put in river waterways just from the storm sewers.

The concentration of human, chemical waste in the septic sewer systems going into the waterways in Vancouver is evidenced from these problems.

This is why there’s the discussions of dead zones at the mouths of waterways of large populated areas in the world. A horse can carry 10 tonnes on its back as long as it’s done in small amounts over long periods of time. If you put a whole 10 tonnes on a horse’s back at one time, you would kill it, and you don’t have to be a scientist to understand why.

If you’re sitting down and drink four litres of bleach, you would die, but if you diluted it one-part-per-million in water and then drank it over a lifetime, you could drink four litres of bleach and there would be no effects on your body at all because you’d probably have — you’ve not overwhelmed your body. It may have benefits by preventing harmful bacteria’s from increasing in the water.

Chances of a spill. The busiest waterway in the world is the Suez Canal.
There were 7,987 ships of all descriptions passing through it in 2010; that is 22 ships a day. The channel is 24 metres deep and 205 metres wide in 2010. The channel is a single lane and passes at — I hope I pronounce it — Ballah bypass, and in the greater Bitter Lake contains no locks and seawater flows privy through the channel.

Some supertankers are too large to traverse the channel. Others can offload part of their cargo into channel boats, reducing their draft, then transit to reload at the other end of the channel.
The Douglas Channel is 1,400 metres wide at its narrowest part. That is seven times wider than the Suez Canal. The Douglas Channel is also 200 metres deep, that is eight times deeper than the Suez Canal.

Piracy off the Coast of Somalia has been a threat in the Suez Canal since the 21st century. Piracy is not a problem in the Douglas Channel.

War zones. The Suez Canal was a target in World War I, World War II, and a few regional wars, and probably is a target in the near future. Being in a war zone is not a problem for the Douglas Channel.

Global diversity. My family and I are very blessed. We are healthy, wealthy and happy. Do I, as a person, have the right to deny other people in the world the same dreams and blessing? If this permit is denied, people in other areas of the world will have to pay more for energy for different reasons. We see the tsunami, earthquakes putting pressure on Japan and its nuclear power program.

If it is denied, I will be able to pay less for our energy. Globally, is this fair?

If I have all the food and I refuse to sell it to 100 starving people, should I be surprised when they take it from me for force? Should I have the ability to stop other people in the world from getting energy? No. But I have the ability to control how the energy is used in an economic, social, environmentally responsible way.

In conclusion, I would like to encourage the approval of the export licence at Kitimat for economic, social, environmental diversification locally and worldwide.

Kitimat voices at Joint Review: Murray Minchin Douglas Channel Watch

By Murray Minchin

I’ve been here since I was about four years old. I’m 52-ish now so I’ve been here for 48 years. I’ve left for school, went to college. I would go travelling and then — but I always came back. Like the power of this place always drew me back.

I’ve hiked almost every mountain in the region and I’ve hiked the rivers and particularly the little tiny side creeks that run down the mountain sides here. And as you drive in there’s a little tiny creek that runs into the marina at Minette Bay.

So if you’re ever back, there’s a hint to you, there’s about 12 waterfalls on that little tiny inconsequential creek that nobody ever even thinks about. I suggest you take a walk up there because it’s incredibly beautiful. This area is loaded with places like that, that are singularly beautiful on a really small scale when you step back from the whole and you go into these little tiny spots. They’re just amazing.

I’ve sea kayaked quite a bit. My wife and I spent six months sea kayaking down the whole coast of British Columbia. We did two months in the winter, two months in the spring and fall and two months in the summer. So we did six months over the whole year.

It takes about two weeks when you’re out there for just the mess — the extra stuff in your head from our society and our way of life to just kind of drop away, and after about three weeks then you begin to open your eyes and you begin to feel comfortable in a place. Like you become essentially really comfortable in the environment.

When we got to Port Hardy we booked a motel room and walked in the motel room and we sat down on the floor and we started going through our gear and started talking.

It took about 15 minutes before we realized that there were chairs in the room and we could sit on them. Like we were just so in tune with being out in the bush and — like that really changes your perception of the world. You know, like you become a little more aware.

Now, like for me, when I walk into the forest here it’s like an embrace.
There’s — it’s a palpable feeling to me that I feel completely embraced and at home in this environment.

I dropped over in the Mount Madden or into the Skeena watershed into a cirque that was surrounded by waterfalls dropping into it. So I couldn’t hear anything but the waterfalls, and as I came around the lake I heard the sound of a grizzly bear just screaming his head off and I couldn’t tell where it was coming from because the sound was echoing off the rock walls.

You know, I had to hunker down under trees and then just stop and think,
okay, like take it easy, don’t do anything too fast, take your time, make the right
choice. Experiences like that sort of show you that you — our place in the environment isn’t as strong as we think we — as it is. Like the environment has a lot more drastic effect on us than we realize.

Oh, and it was a couple of decades later I was listening to the CBC radio and I heard that sound again, and evidently it was older mature cubs fighting over a kill, cause I recognized that sound right away. But when I was out there I didn’t know, I thought it was directed towards me, possibly.

My daughter was two or three years old when I began taking her into the forest. Just past here there’s the marina, and then if you take a trail past the marina, there’s a totem pole in the forest, and you take a walk past the totem pole, you follow this trail that goes along the shoreline. So she was on my hip and we were walking through the forest.

I walked off to the side and I picked a red huckleberry off the bush and then gave it to her, and she popped it in her mouth and then, like her eyes lit up and she started jumping, you know, because she started pointing and now I had to walk through the forest to every red huckleberry bush so that she could get a taste of the red huckleberries. Now that’s part of her life and that will be part of her oral history.

On part of that trip we had a couple experiences, — on our kayak trip we had some experiences- just trying to figure a way to frame this — like yesterday at Haisla we were saying that in particular with the whales, like they’re here but in the past there was a great number of them, you know.

On our kayak trip after leaving Bishop Bay we came out on to three sleeping humpback whales, which was an amazing experience for us. But as I understand now, in the past, there would have been a lot more. And I’m really — fills me with hope to hear that they’re coming back. And it’s some disconcerting to think that that could be jeopardized in any way.

Kanoona Falls. It’s just above Butedale. Like here water is everything. we got stuck there for four days in big storms near hurricane force storms and it was raining really hard. This river was in flood; it was up into the trees on either bank and it was running completely pure, like there was no sediment in it. There It wasn’t muddy. It was just a pure river running
wild. And this is what the Kitimat River must have looked like in the past, you know, running pure in flood and no sediment.

There’s so much rain here that in mid-channel — like a channel could be two or three miles wide and there’s so much rain coming off the mountains, through the rivers and streams into the ocean that the seagulls take freshwater baths at mid-channel. It makes me wonder, scientists being who they are, engineering being who they are, the Proponent trusting their advice, has made estimations on spill response and stuff with materials and saltwater.

In the winter here you’d have to go down a foot, probably, before you find saltwater and in fact we had the sea kayak 140 kilometres south from Kitimat before salted to encrust on our decks. That’s how much freshwater is out there.

So any of the Proponent’s estimations on spill response times in saltwater, which is denser of course, should be looked at or refigured because saltwater being denser would hold the product underneath the level of the freshwater on top.

Here it rains like crazy, just suggested by the moss that you can barely see in the contrasting photograph but the forest here filters the rain so that it enters
into the rivers and the rivers run clean and the salmon and the eulachon spawn in the clean river which brings the bears; the bears carry the fish into the forest, don’t eat all of the fish and then it feeds the forest when then filters the rains for the next — for the next salmon coming up.

It snows like crazy here, like I said, you guys are really lucky that you dodged one by coming here when you did. Like four-foot snowfalls are an amazing thing to you. You know, it’s not a snowfall it’s a force of nature.

If you catch a snowflake on your tongue, one of those snowflakes on your tongue you wait for it to melt, it doesn’t and you have to chew it; like they’re twice the size of a toonie, you know, and a quarter inch thick. It’s hard to imagine but it’s a force of nature when it’s snowing like that which brings concerns about access issues, obviously.

[There are] access issues, just daily access issues anywhere, particularly on to logging roads or access roads into the wilderness, there are going to be of a great concern and even more so in emergencies when equipment and materials have to be moved anywhere.

Another problem we have here in thinking about liquid petroleum product moving through this territory is the length of out winters. The average night time low is below freezing for five months of the year and for another one of those months it’s just one degree above freezing; so things can lock up and be under ice for months at a time.

If there is any slow leak — for lack of a better term — which we haven’t been able to iron out through the information request process, you know, a spill could go for weeks without being recognized, even if the weather is good enough to get a helicopter up to fly over the area. Things could be under the ice and invisible until it gets to Kitimat and somebody notices that there is a spill happening.

This is a sapling that is growing in an estuary and it tried, I mean it tried everything it had, it had branches ripped off, the prevailing winds and it struggled but eventually it just got pushed over and died because it was in the wrong place, which I think much like this proposal and this attempt to get tar sands, bitumen from Alberta to Asia and California is — it’s just in the wrong place.

So this, to me, this is in the wrong place and this is just the first such proposal that’s reached this level of inquiry or to reach the Joint Review Panel stage, it doesn’t necessarily make it the right one and that’s really important, especially considering how much — how many forces they’re being applied to use. Well, to buy different entities to approve this project.

It’s really important to remain cognisant of the fact that this is just the first
one; it doesn’t make it the right one.

Getting back to the environmental aspect of this; this is a nurse log. You can’t see it because of the contrast of the projector. But it’s a nurse log with little tiny seedlings of more hemlock trying to grow through it. The fungus is breaking down the log. And this natural system, if it’s allowed to play out, will recover.

If we give this place a chance to recover, it will; the cumulative effects of all the industry that’s been in here and the damage it’s done over time.

It’s shocking to think in 60 years you can kill a river. And that’s what’s happened here. We’ve almost done it. Like the salmon are hanging on because of the hatchery. The eulachon are almost gone.

If we give it a chance, it can recover. The humpback whales are coming back this far into the channel. Like we saw one in front of the — I don’t know if you’ve eaten at that — the restaurant here, but last year we were here and there was one feeding right outside on the beach, just off — about 100 feet off the beach.

So if we give it a chance, it will recover. And to threaten that in any way is — morally, for me, it’s just wrong. To risk so much for so little short term gain is not part of my mindset. I can’t comprehend that.

Like this spruce on Haida Gwaii; it’s on the Hecate Strait side of Haida Gwaii. You know, it’s in from the beach a little bit but, you know, with the 120 kilometre an hour, 100-whatever an hour kilometre an hour with northerly outflow winds we have around here, even a place like this would get spray from bitumen that’s coming in at high tide.

This is a tree that’s just barely hanging on, on Cape George. It’s on the southern end of Porcher Island with Hecate Strait in the background. And it’s just an example of what things have to do here when — to try and survive when the environment is so severe.

We paddled up into here on our sea kayaking trip, we came in at high tide and we were looking up at the rocks and then back into the distance and there was still nothing growing. It was just incredible to think.

So after we set up camp, I came around here and then took this photograph because where the water is, is high tide and beach logs are normally pushed up down the line along the shoreline, you know, nice and neatly tucked against the forest by the high tides.

these are just scattered all over the rocks, and that’s because the waves there are so big in the wintertime when the southeast storms come in that, I mean, like there’s nothing living for 10 feet up and, I don’t know, 70, 80 feet back because of the continual, every year storms coming in and pushing these logs and rolling them around.

Huckleberries, beach grasses, hemlock trees, anything will — if there’s any available space for something to grow, it’s going to grow. So this just speaks to the fact that the storms here are so continual and so severe that it’s a recipe for disaster.

You get waves crashing in on — so high onto a ship that the spray is getting down into the air ducts and down into the mechanics of the ship and then you’re adrift.

It’s a different — like after you — from travelling east, once you come into the Skeena Valley and you cross over that coast Range Mountains, everything is different. All your precepts from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, don’t matter here. There are severe environmental risks here beyond anything else in Canada.

I mean, the mountains are so young. The seismicity of the area is the area is questionable because there hasn’t been that much accumulated evidence over time. So it’s just something to be aware of.

It’s a place called Cape George on Porcher Island, which is just above Kitkatla.

There is Cape George, and this is just a storm that happened to miss us, but we were stormbound there for about four days.

I ask of you that you really consider that responsibility. You know, obviously you do, but it’s important for us to know that you, that you take that responsibility really seriously because like the — in t he Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office Reference Guide, as a guide to determining whether a project is likely to cause a significant environmental effect or not, it’s quoted as saying:

The Act is clear that the project may be allowed to proceed if any likely significant adverse environmental effects can be justified in the circumstances.

So what possible circumstances are there to risk such a place and to risk so many First Nations cultures?

So what I was saying was if you give nature a chance to heal, it will heal itself, and that’s what’s happening here and that’s what the Haisla elders were telling us yesterday, that this place wants to heal itself and it can if we give it a chance.

You know, to add more risk to the cumulative damage that’s already been done here, I think, would be essentially a crime. It should be given a chance to heal.

Another thing that Mr. Ellis Ross said yesterday was, you know, much like he’s making his own history, his oral history today and in his life, like you are as Panel Members making your own history as well and your ancestors are going to speak of what decision you made and the consequences of that decision.

Costa Concordia followed course similar to Queen of the North

Costa Concordia course track — The track of the Costa Concordia before it ran aground, based on data from Lloyd's List and posted on the BBC News website.

Tracking data obtained by the definitive British shipping news service, Lloyd’s List (subscription required) and posted on both the Lloyd’s and the BBC News websites show that the cruise ship Costa Concordia was far off its assigned and programmed course before it ran aground near the island of Giglio.

The BBC reports:

Costa Cruises boss Pier Luigi Foschi accused Capt Francesco Schettino of sailing too close to a nearby island in order to show the ship to locals.

The captain blames the disaster on rocks which were not on his chart.

The data shows that the Costa Concordia, with 4200 passengers and crew on board veered close to the island of Giglio before hitting rocks just 150 metres from shore. The closest any cruise ship has ever been authorized to come close to the island is 500 metres.

The course of the Costa Concordia, heading straight for an island, looks similar to the course taken by the Queen of the North when it hit Gill Island. The difference, of course, is that while the Queen of the North failed to make a course correction at Wright Sound, the Costa Concordia was apparently deliberately taken off course.

Bloomberg News reported:

The captain of a Carnival Corp. cruise liner ordered the ship off its programmed route, an “error” that caused it to hit rocks off Italy’s coast in an accident that killed at least six people, the chairman of the cruise ship’s operator said.

The Costa Concordia’s route was set electronically before it left Civitavecchia near Rome…and the ship shouldn’t have been so close to the Giglio island where it struck rocks, ripping a hole through its hull, Costa Crociere Chairman Pier Luigi Foschi said at a press conference in Genoa…

“We can’t deny that there was a human error,” he said. “The route had been properly programmed in Civitavecchia. The fact that the ship strayed from that course can only be due to a maneuver that was not approved, not authorized nor communicated to Costa Crociere by the captain of the ship.”

According to Reuters and other news reports, the danger is a devastating oil spill from the capsized ship. Italy risks environmental disaster if ship fuel leaks.

As the Costa Concordia shifted dangerously on Monday, Italy’s environment minister raised the prospect of an environmental disaster if the 2,300 tonnes of fuel on the half-submerged cruise ship leaks.

The ship’s fuel tanks were full, having just left the port of Civitavecchia, north of Rome, for a week-long Mediterranean cruise, when it ran aground on Friday…

The area where the ship capsized, off the island of Giglio, is a natural maritime park noted for its pristine waters, varied marine life and coral. It is known as an excellent diving site.

“The environmental risk for the island of Giglio is very, very high,” Environment Minister Corrado Clini told reporters. “The aim is to prevent the fuel leaking out of the ship. We are working to avoid this. It is urgent and time is running out.”