Oliver | Northwest Coast Energy News

Oliver confirms Kitimat to become a public port

Joe Oliver, the Minister of Natural Resources, has confirmed that the federal government intends to make Kitimat a public port.

Oliver was in Terrace, March 19, 2013, to announce the appointment of Vancouver lawyer Douglas Eyford as “Special Federal Representative on West Coast Energy Infrastructure.” Eyford’s job will be to “engage aboriginal communities in British Columbia and Alberta that are most likely to have an interest in West Coast energy infrastructure.”

Oliver was asked to confirm statements on the Transport Canada website that Kitimat would become a public port.

Oliver replied: “The news release was accurate. What the purpose is to make sure that the absolute highest standards of marine safety apply in the port of Kitimat. And we have as I announced yesterday and I had spoken about before at the port of Vancouver we have an extremely robust marine safety regime in place but we want to make sure that as resource development continues and as technology improves, we are at the world class level. As I also mentioned there has never been off the coast of British Columbia a major tanker spill and we want to keep that perfect record.”

No visit to Kitimat

Oliver was also asked if he intended to visit Kitimat during his visit to the northwest (Kitimat is a 40 minute drive from Terrace). Oliver replied, “Not in this particular visit, I have to get back [to Ottawa] There’s a budget coming and I have to be in the House for that but I certainly expect to be going up there.”

The federal budget will be released on Thursday.

At Monday’s meeting of District of Kitimat council, some members quietly expressed frustration, to say the least, that Oliver, the man responsible for pushing the Northern Gateway pipeline through British Columbia to Kitimat had not bothered to include the town in his visit to the northwest.

Members of the District of Kitimat council, which on paper at least, is responsible for the port of Kitimat (even though it is really run by Rio Tinto Alcan) also expressed frustration that no one in Ottawa gave the council advance notice of the government decision to take the port public.

Asked for comment on Oliver’s statement, Rio Tinto Alcan officials in Kitimat also seemed unaware of the government announcement and promised a statement in the near future.

Oliver’s announcement in Vancouver Monday about a “world class” marine safety system and today’s announcement about the appointment of Douglas Eyford, appear to be a campaign by the Harper government to establish a stake in the middle ground in the pipeline debates, in hopes of undermining the opponents of the projects.

Skeena Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen, in a news release, expressed reservations about Eyford’s appointment.

“The primary concern with the appointment, Cullen said, is that Mr. Eyford will report to the Prime Minister, not to Parliament or the public. “So, if Mr. Eyford’s report is in any way unfavourable to the Conservative pipeline agenda, what assurances do we have that his report will make its way into the public eye?

“It is also unclear how the appointment would affect Eyford’s work as the chief government negotiator for the federal government’s comprehensive land claims process, and what kind of effect his absence will have on that process.”

Harper government outlines new tanker safety measures for west coast

The federal government outlined new tanker safety measures in Vancouver Monday, measures aimed at increasing support for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project and the Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning projects.

The detailed announcement as it appears on the Transport Canada website (as of 2250 PT Monday March 18) seems to redesignate the port of Kitimat, which has been private since the town was built 60 years ago, as a public port, saying (and misspelling the town’s name)

Public port designations: More ports will be designated for traffic control measures, starting with Kimitat.

The Transport Canada news release which also says Kitimat will be a public port does spell the name correctly.

Bill C-57 which was introduced in the House of Commons on Monday makes no mention of redesignating Kitimat as a public port. Bill C-57 is the bill needed to implement the measures announced by the government on Monday.

Other measures as outlined in the news release are:

Today, the government has also tabled the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, which is amending the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. The proposed amendments will:

strengthen the current requirements for pollution prevention and response at oil handling facilities;
increase Transport Canada’s oversight and enforcement capacity by equipping marine safety inspectors with the tools to enforce compliance;
introduce new offences for contraventions of the Act and extend penalties relating to pollution; and
enhance response to oil spill incidents by removing legal barriers that could otherwise block agents of Canadian response organizations from participating in clean-up operations.
In addition, the Ministers announced eight measures to strengthen Canada’s tanker safety system:

Tanker inspections: The number of inspections will increase to ensure that all foreign tankers are inspected on their first visit to Canada, and annually thereafter, to ensure they comply with rules and regulations, especially with respect to double hulls.

Systematic surveillance and monitoring of ships: The government will expand the National Aerial Surveillance Program.

Incident Command System: The government will establish a Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) Incident Command System, which will allow it to respond more effectively to an incident and integrate its operations with key partners.

Pilotage programs: We will review existing pilotage and tug escort requirements to see what more will be needed in the future.

Public port designations: More ports will be designated for traffic control measures, starting with Kitimat.

Scientific research: The government will conduct scientific research on non-conventional petroleum products, such as diluted bitumen, to enhance understanding of these substances and how they behave when spilled in the marine environment.

New and modified aids to navigation: The CCG will ensure that a system of aids to navigation comprised of buoys, lights and other devices to warn of obstructions and to mark the location of preferred shipping routes is installed and maintained.

Modern navigation system: The CCG will develop options for enhancing Canada’s current navigation system (e.g. aids to navigation, hydrographic charts, etc) by fall 2013 for government consideration.

Skeena Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen called the statement by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Transport Minister Denis Lebel as “greenwash.”

Cullen called the announcement in Vancouver “another attempt to distract from the real and serious environmental, social and economic threat the Northern Gateway pipeline poses to British Columbia.”

The government’s announcement that it will take new steps to increase inspections and aerial surveillance of tankers does not come close to addressing the real concerns that British Columbians and Canadians have about oil spills on the majestic BC coast, said Cullen.

“I think concerned citizens will look at these proposals and, like we have, conclude they’re half-measures,” said Cullen. “People have credible fears about the project,” noting a recent study from the University of British Columbia which pegged the potential costs of a major oil spill on BC’s north coast at $9.6 billion, and the fact that Northern Gateway hasn’t provided convincing real-world evidence that their primary spill response mechanisms – booms, skimmers and dispersants – will be able to work along the BC coast. Cullen also pointed to calculations by a 25-year veteran in the oil spill response industry, which used Enbridge’s own research to show a 8.7% to 14.1% chance of a major oil spill in the project’s first fifty years.

“The risks are enormous, and the consequences of a spill would be devastating,” Cullen noted. “But the prime minister and his cabinet appear to have already made up their minds about the project, so rather than actually listen and respond to the concerns of British Columbians, they’ll resort to half-measures and playing the public relations game.

“Since they came to a majority, the government has taken every opportunity to undermine our environmental assessment process, muzzle scientists, and slash protections for our lakes and rivers. And now they’re realizing they’ve axed their own credibility on the environment and public engagement. If the government were serious about convincing the public that this is a safe project, they’d take the time to sit down with the communities and address the big picture facts about this project, instead of going for the low-hanging fruit like they’ve done today.”

Links to Transport Canada backgrounders

Creation of the Tanker Safety Expert Panel

World-Class Tanker Safety System: Amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act)

World-Class Tanker Safety System: Safe tankers through rigorous inspection and prevention

World-Class Tanker Safety System: liability and compensation

MORE TO COME

BC, Haisla, file objections to JRP bypassing of Kitimat; Enbridge likes venues, avoids the tanker problem

Both the province of British Columbia and the Haisla Nation have filed strong objections with the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel about the panel’s plans to bypass Kitimat for the questioning and final argument phases of its examination of the controversial pipeline project.

At present, the Joint Review Panel plans to hold questioning hearings in Prince Rupert, Prince George and either Calgary or Edmonton and final arguments in Prince Rupert and Calgary/Edmonton.

And if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver wanted to speed up the hearings and therefore approval of the Northern Gateway project, filings from all sides indicate more time is needed than the two months allocated by the JRP.

The JRP secreteriat plan a meeting in Calgary on May 30 to consider the procedures. The three panel members will not attend. A large number of intervenors or government participants will be represented in person or take part in a conference call.

The lawyer for the Haisla Nation, Jennifer Griffiths, points out in her filing with the JPR, “Prince Rupert is not a logical location for any of the hearings.”

Updated: The District of Kitimat, which is registered as a “government intervenor” will participate in the conference call.

The law firm representing the Enbridge Northern Gateway, agrees with the JRP preliminary decision to hold the hearings in Prince Rupert, Prince George and Calgary or Edmonton. However, Enbridge’s lawyer Richard Neufeld, of Fraser, Milner, Casgrain, makes it clear that for those hearings they are not involved in the operation of tankers carrying the bitumen they sell to customers.

This includes a marine terminal at Kitimat. Northern Gateway recognizes the interest of the public, government, and First Nations in respect of the potential effects of ships calling on the proposed marine terminal, but it is important to bear in mind that Northern Gateway will not own or operate any marine vessels. No approvals are sought, or required, for such operations, as they are subject only to laws of general application which apply to all shipping into or out of Canadian ports.

The Ecojustice group, also known as the Sustainability Coalition, an alliance of the Living Oceans Society, Raincoast Conservation and ForestEthicsAdvocacy wants hearings in Vancouver. The Coastal First Nations also want the hearings in Vancouver.

The Wet’suwet’en want more hearing locations especially in the areas of the proposed route to address those most affected, telling the JRP:

The Office of the Wet’suwet’en (OW) is localized in Smithers, BC, our territory is 22,000 square kilometres and 170 kilometres is proposed to be crossed by NGP prior to crossing the coastal mountain range. The OW requests that hearings be held in Smithers or Burns Lake for full days rather than half days to reduce travel and accommodation costs for intervenors.

In the provincial filing, Christopher Jones, counsel for British Columbia says:

the Province submits that it is essential for a portion of the final hearings to take place in Kitimat. Kitimat is the proposed location of one terminus of the proposed pipeline, and of the proposed marine terminal. As a result, that locality has a particular interest in these proceedings. There are sufficient facilities and transport access to Kitimat to allow the hearings to take place there…..

The letter from Jones goes on to stay that BC believes “the Province would again submit that certain issues should be dealt with at Kitimat” rather than Prince Rupert.

Griffith, of the Vancouver law firm, Donavan and Company, filing on behalf of the Haisla Nation says:

The Haisla Nation questions why no final hearings are proposed for Kitimat. Given the significant new infrastructure associated with the project that is proposed to be located in the Kitimat area, Kitimat is a logical location for hearings. Kitimat is serviced by the Terrace airport, which is only 56 km away. Kitimat also has dock facilities for parties who may be travelling to the hearings by boat. Finally, there is ample accommodation in the Kitimat I Terrace area. Prince Rupert is not a logical location for any of the hearings. The proposed pipeline does not go near Prince Rupert, the terminal is far from Prince Rupert, the tankers would go through Douglas Channel, not past Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert is not accessible to the Haisla Nation by way of a direct flight.

Griffith also says the final arguments should be held either in Kitimat or Vancouver.

The Haisla Nation will have to participate in every aspect of the hearings. Yet the Panel is currently not proposing to hold any of the questioning phase or final hearings in Kitimat. As set out in the comments below, the Haisla Nation is of the view that the questioning and final hearing locations slated for the western terminus of the project should be held in Kitimat, not in Prince Rupert.

Enbridge, on the other hand, through its lawyer, Richard Neufeld, says:

Northern Gateway agrees with the Panel’s observations regarding the need to select hearing venues that are centrally located, have adequate facilities and reasonable transportation access for the large numbers of witnesses and back-up support personal required. Northern Gateway also agrees that Prince Rupert, Prince George and Calgary/Edmonton meet these criteria. Northern Gateway also agrees that if economic issues are to be dealt with in a single venue, it would be appropriate to do so in Calgary or Edmonton. Of the two, Calgary would be a more logical location given its convenience for those participating in that aspect of the proceeding.

Enbridge also has reservations about the process, while it wants the hearings “streamlined,” the company is concerned about the plan to split the hearings into various issues could be “prejudicial” to the project.

Northern Gateway expects that the Panel is considering an issues-based hearing in an effort to streamline the hearing process, and to make the process more accessible to those who want to participate only when specific issues or topics are under discussion. Both objectives are laudable.

However, an issues-based hearing format has the effect of forcing the Applicant to split its case into multiple parts. This is potentially prejudicial to the Applicant – especially if the issues identified for litigation do not correspond to the manner in which the Application has been structured.

The EcoJustice group wants hearings in Vancouver, largely because many of its members are there, with staff lawyer Barry Robinson, saying to the JRP:

The Coalition recommends that the Panel consider adding a fourth hearing location in Vancouver. The Coalition notes that, logistically, many of the witnesses and counsel that would appear in Prince Rupert would travel through Vancouver. If the vast majority of the witnesses and counsel to appear on any given issue will be required to travel from or through Vancouver, the Coalition recommends that the issue be heard in Vancouver to reduce travel costs and related greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the Coalition is sensitive to the needs of local intervenors in the Prince Rupert area and would ask that the Panel use its discretion in allocating topics to be heard in Prince Rupert and Vancouver.

And later:

The Coalition recommends that the Panel consider hearing final argument in Vancouver as a third location. The Coalition is supportive of the Panel providing an option for remote participation.

Coastal First Nations have a similar proposal. Art Sterritt, Executive Director says:

the JRP should consider holding hearings on marine issues in Vancouver with video links to Prince Rupert and Kitimat as a way of reducing the costs to Intervenors (many experts and legal and technical representatives live in the lower mainland) and in recognition that Kitimat is the proposed site of the Marine Terminal and that there are many people in the lower mainland who use the area for recreational, commercial fishing and other uses.

It appears that there will soon be controversy over the time allotted both for questioning and final arguments. The Haisla, other First Nations and Ecojustice and even Northern Gateway appear to want more time for questioning and cross-examination, while, for example, the Canadian Association of Petroluem Producers, the industry representative says it:

is still considering the scope and extent of its participation in questioning during the final hearings. CAPP will work with other intervenors in order to minimize the overall time required for cross examination.

It is clear that Enbridge Northern Gateway is planning tough cross-examination of the intervenors and their evidence:

Northern Gateway intends to cross-examine each of the authors of reports prepared for Interveners opposing the Project, and filed as written evidence. In some cases, the evidence filed with the Panel does not identify authorship, which makes it impossible to specify who will be cross-examined. Materials filed by certain interveners also include information collected through means such as access to information requests, which also makes it impossible to identify who might speak to such evidence if it is allowed to remain on the record.

Northern Gateway’s review of the written evidence filed by interveners has identified approximately forty five detailed reports that have been prepared for this proceeding. Reports of a more basic variety, those that provide general information on traditional use matters and reports of marginal relevance need not be subject to extensive cross-examination by Northern Gateway (if at all). Although no final decision has been made, for planning purposes the Panel should allot approximately twenty hearing days for cross-examination by Northern Gateway. Once a decision has been made on hearing venues and format, we will provide a more definitive estimate to Panel counsel and to counsel for the interveners involved. Where Northern Gateway does not consider it necessary to cross-examine a particular author, we will advise others of that so as to avoid unnecessary expense and inconvenience.

The Coastal First Nations are also planning tough cross-examination:

Coastal First Nations intends to cross-examine NGP, Transport Canada, Canadian Coast Guard, DFO, CEAA (as crown consultation coordinator and expert on environmental assessment methodology) and possibly the Government of B.C. These cross examinations will focus on risk assessment, spill response, measures to prevent incidents, and reduce risk of spills, consequences of spills, and Aboriginal consultation. Naturally, until the JRP approves the government participants we wish to cross-examine, and NGP identifies the witnesses they will present, it is difficult to determine the amount of time needed for cross-examination. It would likely take several hours of cross-examination for each party.

The Hasila say:

The Haisla Nation does not have any input into the proposed general schedule as set out above, but does question the two-month period provisionally allotted for the questioning phase in accordance with the revised Hearing Order. The Haisla Nation anticipates that the questioning phase will require substantially more than two months.

The Wet’suwet’en also object to the short notice given for the May 30 procedural meeting:

The estab!ishment of this regulatory process is insufficient to afford meaningful consultation to the Wet’suwet’en. We are hard pressed to try and prepare our hereditary leaders and clan speakers in such short notice, especially with a long weekend within the timeframe, some of our leaders and speakers are out on the territories preparing themselves for their summer traditional food gathering, and cultural activities. There is insufficient time given to the Wet’suwet’en for this process.

The Wet’suwet’en say (and this likely applies to other BC First Nations) that hearings as proposed could make it difficult to consult with elders saying “discussions with hereditary leaders and elders must take place, as per our custom…”

All of this comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resoures minister Joe Oliver and many in the right-wing media want the hearings sped up, which means the May 30 meeting may be heated and any decision politically charged.

JRP filings from

Province of British Columbia (pdf)

Haisla Nation (pdf)

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines (pdf)

EcoJustice (Living Oceans Society, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, ForestEthics Advocacy Sustainability Coalition) (pdf)

CAPP (pdf)

Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative (pdf)

Office of the Wet’suwet’en (pdf)

Government of Canada (pdf)

Northern Gateway Joint Review questioning and final argument hearings skip Kitimat, most of the northwest BC pipeline route

The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel questioning hearings and final arguments will bypass Kitimat and most of the communities along the proposed pipeline route, according to a letter to all intervenors from the JRP prompted by questions from the Gitxaala Nation.

The Joint Review Panel has not yet issued an official and final procedural directive concerning the final hearings, and in response to the Gitxaala letter, the JRP secreteriat will convene a conference on May 30, in Calgary to set up that procedure. The three panel members will not be present at the conference.

In the letter to the intervenors, the JRP proposes:

Final hearings for questioning will take place in three locations. The Panel intends to hold these hearings in Prince Rupert, BC, Prince George, BC and either Edmonton or Calgary, AB. These locations are centrally located, have adequate facilities and reasonable transportation access. Would fewer than three locations be appropriate? What are your comments on the locations chosen by the Panel?

As for the final argument hearings, the Joint Review Panel says:

The Panel anticipates allowing parties to present final argument either: (i) orally;
or (ii) in writing. On an exception basis, parties may request permission of the
Panel to allow final argument on a specific topic both in writing and orally.
The Panel anticipates holding hearings for final argument in two locations;
namely Prince Rupert, BC and either Edmonton or Calgary, AB. Mechanisms will
be established to allow parties to participate remotely (i.e. via telephone or other
electronic means). Do you have any input on these locations?

For the questioning period, the Joint Review Panel says it anticipates that it will sit from Monday to Saturday for two week periods, followed by a one week break. Standard sitting hours would be from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Cheryl Brown, representing the Kitimat group Douglas Channel Watch, has already objected to the fact the Joint Review Panel has apparently decided to bypass Kitimat.

The location of the panel should include Kitimat as it is the community
experiencing the highest impact from the project -land and marine. The citizens
of Kitimat need to have the opportunity to hear the proceedings and how it will
potentially impact their future. Accommodations can be provided in Terrace with
bus transportation provided if needed and this is standard practice for other large
events. Air travel into Terrace/Kitimat is reasonable with good transportation to
Kitimat. Rupert has some exposure to the project but to justify that the hearings
take place there due to adequate facilities, that it is central and has reasonable
transportation access is not valid. Rupert is not central for the Northwest and the
issue of getting from the terminal to the city by ferry is hardly reasonable.

The proposed schedule seems adequate. For intervenors with limited financial
resources any length of stay outside their own area can be difficult.

Note that in its letter the JRP asks: “Would fewer than three locations be appropriate?” There is no suggestion that the number of locations be expanded.

This is despite the fact throughout the hearings, Sheila Leggett, the chair has repeatedly told intervenors in each location to hold back their comments until the final hearings. In addition, during the intervenor phase of the hearings, questioning was not permitted, only statements on local or traditional knowledge.

The JRP letter to intervenors goes on to say

The Panel intends to have questioning on oral evidence completed prior to
questioning based on written evidence pertaining to the List of Issues.
Questioning of witness panels will proceed at each location based on issues.
These issues largely mirror the List of Issues set out in the Hearing Order (dated
5 May 2011) and discussed in the Panel Session Results and Decision (dated
19 January 2011). The Panel intends to address each issue listed below in
relation to the entire Project at only one location. The location for each issue is
as follows:

Prince Rupert

(a) Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project on Aboriginal Interests
(socio-economic matters; asserted and proven Aboriginal and treaty
rights)
(b) Environmental Effects
(c) Socioeconomic Effects
(d) Consultation (with the public and Aboriginal groups)
(e) Safety, Accident Prevention and Response (related to the marine
terminal and marine transportation)

Prince George

(a) Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project on Landowners and Land
Use (pipeline crossings; depth of cover; impacts on agricultural soils)
(b) Routing (general route of the pipeline and route selection criteria).
General location of the facilities and siting of a marine terminal.
(c) Design, Construction and Operation
(d) Follow up and monitoring
(e) Safety, Accident Prevention and Response (related to the pipeline)

Edmonton or Calgary

(a) Need for the Proposed Project (supply and markets; commercial
support; economic feasibility)
(b) Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project on commercial interests
(c) Financial and Tolling Matters (tolling structure and methodology;
proposed financing; financial responsibility of the applicant)

The letter asks, “Do you have any additional issues for each hearing location or any input on the general format identified?”

It also asks intervenors questions like: “What parties’ witnesses do you anticipate questioning during the final hearings? What issues do you anticipate you will ask questions about? How much time do you anticipate you will require for questioning for each issue?

The panel says it is considering a process for expert witnesses which would entail having expert witnesses for parties with conflicting opinions seated together in a single witness panel and questioned at the same time, mainly about issues that “are highly technical in nature” so the panel can “assess complex expert evidence, understand differences, and focus on certain technical issues in an efficient manner.”

The letter goes on to say that the panel intends to permit “questioning of witnesses by telephone and is exploring other remote means.”

However, the letter to the Joint Review Panel from Cheryl Brown of Douglas Channel Watch clearly shows the kind of problems faced by those “directly affected” by the pipeline if they live in rural northwestern British Columbia.

Technology is limited as I am rural and do not have high speed internet. Could
the use of local video conferencing facilities be utilized. The panel needs to consider that there are many intervenors that are independent in the process and do not have resources to participate that others may have. It bears on the JRP
to ensure there is the ability of all to participate in the process in a reasonably fair and equitable way and the panel needs to consider other ways to configure the hearings

Telephone questioning during the NEB KMLNG (Kitimat LNG) hearings in Kitimat in June was awkward to say the least, and often plagued by technical problems in getting lines up and staying connected. Telephone questioning also meant that the energy industry lawyers actually in the hearing room at Riverlodge had a distinct advantage over the remote questioners.

The letter of the Joint Review Panel by Cheryl Brown of Douglas Channel Watch also outlines the issues the environmental group will be trying to bring before the panel:

Here are issues that need to be addressed within the communities highly affected
i.e. Kitimat
•Routing: through the tunnel and the difficult terrain of the Kitimat River,
•Siting of the marine terminal,
•Safety, accident prevention response related to the terminal and marine
transportation, environmental effects on the estuary, Douglas Channel
and marine route.
•Socioeconomic and environmental effects are different across the entire
pipeline. To address then in one place does not allow for adequate
participation by intervenors from other areas to address the areas that are
of concern. A significant number of intervenors are without funding and
are privately involved in the process. The hearings have to acknowledge
this.
•Aboriginal interests are unique to different areas and the costs for travel to
one place would be a burden.
•Consultation with the public needs to be represented in more locations.
The public that has been involved as intervenors do not have resources to
travel. The panel needs to consider this.

Brown goes on to say that the use of expert panels “sounds interesting” but she adds she is “not sure how one would interact with the panel. More details are required.”

The Joint Review Panel’s proposed schedule, which basically eliminates effective participation by those most affected by the pipeline, raises a key question at the national political level. Is the fact the panel is skipping most of the communities involved a return to the National Energy Board tradition that it is nothing more than a private club for Calgary energy lawyers or is it a result of pressure from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver to speed things up?

The controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway twin pipelines, if approved, will transport bitumen from Alberta to the port of Kitimat and condensate from Kitimat to Alberta. Although there is significant opposition to the pipeline in British Columbia, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made clear the pipeline is a national priority. Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver has repeatedly condemned people who oppose the pipeline as “radicals.”

Update: District of Kitimat, Haisla Nation to question JRP schedules bypassing Kitimat

In separate e-mails to Northwest Coast Energy News, Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan and Haisla Nation Chief Counselor Ellis Ross both say they will be file objections with the Joint Review Panel questioning the JRP’s position in bypassing Kitimat in both the questioning round and final arguments.

JRP Procedural Direction No 7 (pdf)

JRP letter to all parties Procedural Conference on Final Hearings (pdf)

Letter to JRP from Cheryl Brown of Douglas Channel Watch (pdf)

Analysis: The Murdoch inquiry’s lessons for the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel

The members of the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel and Stephen Harper’s cabinet, especially Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, should take a lesson from the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster and today’s parliamentary debate on the Leveson inquiry into the phone hacking scandal centered around Rupert Murdoch’s News International.

Fortunately for the United Kingdom, by and large, the House of Commons there still features rigorous debate by (mostly) intelligent Members of Parliament, unlike the current Parliament in Ottawa, where it appears that the members on the government benches are not even the “trained seals” they used to be, but mindless robots reading scripts prepared by operatives in the prime minister’s office.

(Although as the honourable Speaker at Westminster observed today, like Ottawa, debate can get out of hand at times. “Whatever strong views Members hold on this subject—as on many others—let me just remind them of the importance… of moderation in the use of language in this House. )

So what is the connection between Rupert Murdoch and the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel? Simple. The debate in the UK House of Commons on Wednesday, April 25, 2012, was all about inappropriate political interference in a “quasi-judicial” proceeding.

In the case of the UK, we’re talking about inappropriate political interference in Rupert Murdoch’s application to own all of the the satellite broadcaster, BSkyB.

In Canada, we’re talking about the ongoing interference by Stephen Harper and Joe Oliver and other members of the Conservative cabinet in the proceedings of the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel, which is also a quasi-judicial proceeding and should be independent of the government and should hear all sides of a debate, and come to a fair recommendation for the government.

Yet it is increasingly obvious, that up until now, the Joint Review Process is pre-determined to find the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in the “national interest” and even if the Joint Review Panel puts a large number of environmental restrictions and conditions on the pipeline, it is highly likely that the Harper cabinet will overrule those conditions. If the members and staff of the JRP read today’s UK Hansard, (See note on links below) perhaps it will give them some motivation and backbone to come up with an independent ruling and recommendation or if they can’t, they should do the honourable thing and resign.

So what happened in the UK? Yesterday’s testimony at the phone hacking inquiry by Lord Justice Brian Levenson showed that the UK Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt had a series of meetings in the United States with News International executives prior to the Murdoch announcement that company was going to bid for full control of BSkyB. A special assistant to Hunt, a man named Adam Smith, also had meetings with News International officials and exchanged alleged “back channel” information. Smith has resigned. Hunt, for now, remains UK cultural secretary, with the Opposition demanding his head (not on London Bridge as a few centuries ago, just his resignation)

In a statement to the Commons, Hunt said

As part of this process, my officials and I have engaged with News Corporation and its representatives, as well as other interested parties—both supporters and opponents of the merger. Transcripts of conversations and texts published yesterday between my special adviser, Adam Smith, and a News Corporation representative have been alleged to indicate that there was a back channel through which News Corporation was able to influence my decisions. That is categorically not the case—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker:
Order. The House must calm down a bit. The statement must be heard. There will be a full opportunity for questioning of the Secretary of State, as he would expect. Whether he expects it or not, that is what will happen. That is right and proper, but it is also right and proper that the statement should be heard with courtesy.
Mr Hunt:
However, the volume and tone of those communications were clearly not appropriate in a quasi-judicial process, and today Adam Smith has resigned as my special adviser. Although he accepts that he overstepped the mark on this occasion, I want to set on record that I believe that he did so unintentionally and did not believe that he was doing anything more than giving advice on process. I believe him to be someone of integrity and decency, and it is a matter of huge regret to me that this has happened.

So the volume and tone of communications between News International and the minister responsible for looking over the BskyB bid were “not appropriate.”

Here in Canada, Enbridge has been lobbying the Conservative government for years to tilt the process in their favour. As exposed by reporting by both PostMedia News and Canadian Press, Enbridge lobbying occurred just before the government pulled out of the PNCIMA– the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area, which was to safeguard the environment of the Pacific coast of BC.

At the same time the government continues to attack the other side, the environmentalists, as “radicals.” Hardly a fair approach.

Just today, Post Media News pointed to a report from the lobbying commission of a meeting between Enbridge and Fred Nott, chief of staff for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Pat Daniel, outgoing CEO of Enbridge, on Dec. 8, 2011 and now we have changes to the Fisheries Act that are clearly in Enbridge’s favour.

Back to the Mother of Parliaments. In response to Hunt, Harriet Harman of the Labour Party talked about ministers making up their minds on a major economic issue before a report is finished.

Everyone recognises that the £8 billion News Corp bid for BSkyB was of huge commercial importance and that it had profound implications for newspapers and for all of broadcasting, including the BBC. The Business Secretary had been stripped of his responsibility for deciding on the bid because he had already made up his mind against it, but the Culture Secretary too had made up his mind, in favour of the bid, so how could he have thought it proper to take on that decision? Of course he could take advice, but the decision as to whether he should do it, and could do it fairly, was a matter for him and him alone.

The Secretary of State took on the responsibility, and assured the House that he would be acting in a quasi-judicial role, like a judge, and that he would be transparent, impartial and fair. However, is it not the case that James Murdoch was receiving information in advance about what the Secretary of State was going to do and what he was going to say—information that was given to only one side, which had not been given to those who were opposed to the bid, and before it was given to this House…

When it comes to the transparency that the Secretary of State promised, there appears to have been a great deal of transparency for Murdoch, but precious little for opponents of the bid or for this House. If, as suggested on the right hon. Gentleman’s behalf in the media, he was negotiating with Murdoch, why did he not tell the opponents of the bid and why did he not tell the House? Will he tell us now whether he believed himself to have been negotiating? Is that what was going on?

Chris Bryant, Labour member for Rhondda, could perhaps give the Canadian House of Commons, or at least the Canadian Conservative members, a lesson in the meaning of “quasi-judicial.”

Chris Bryant
Every councillor in the land knows what “quasi-judicial” means. They know that it means that if they are on the planning committee, they cannot tip the wink to anybody on one side or the other, and that they have to be cleaner than clean, whiter than white.

In the United Kingdom, as in Canadian Parliament, the underlinings take the fall for the Minister, but in a quote widely reprinted in the media today, one honourable member from the UK objecting to the minister’s action put it much better than anyone in Canada.

Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab):
The Culture Secretary’s adviser has now lost his job. Does that not prove the theory that when posh boys are in trouble, they sack the servants? Why doesn’t the Secretary of State do the decent thing: tell dodgy Dave and Gideon, and get out and resign?
Mr Hunt:
Adam Smith’s resignation is a matter of huge regret to me. I believe him to be a person of integrity and decency, but my responsibility to this House is to the integrity of this process—the objectivity and impartiality with which this process was conducted—and I believe I have presented evidence to the House that demonstrates that I behaved in a judiciously impartial way throughout.

One other key difference between the House of Commons in Ottawa and the House of Commons at Westminster is that the Speaker actually tries to get ministers to answer the questions put to them by the Oppositon and also comes down hard on irrelevancies.

Mr Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question that is completely irrelevant to the terms of the statement. [Interruption.] It is simply not relevant. The hon. Gentleman should go and do his homework.

Jeremy Hunt asked to testify before the Leveson inquiry to tell his side of the story, so to be fair, until he has completed his testimony, the public will not know all that transpired between the Murdoch’s News International and the Conservative government in the UK.

It also should be noted that Hunt had a dual role, both as a cabinet minister and the quasi-judicial action of deciding on the BskyB application, which certainly seems to be a conflict of interest, while the Joint Review Panel is made up of three nominally independent individuals.

However, the fact remains, that statements from Stephen Harper, Joe Oliver and Peter Kent, with their open support for the Enbridge Northern Gatway pipeline while the JRP proceedings continue, are in the words of a much more honourable member than they are: “the volume and tone of those communications were clearly not appropriate in a quasi-judicial process.”

This also means that Canadians, especially the people of British Columbia, and the national media, should, from now on, be paying closer attention to the Leveson Inquiry. As of this week, the inquiry goes beyond the Shakespearean nature of the Murdoch clan, the titillation of the scandal of hacking the phones of Royals, celebrities, footballers and murder victims, not to mention the excesses of the British tabloids. Political interference in supposedly independent quasi-judicial proceedings is a threat to the checks and balances of any democracy and we should watch the testimony in London and be on guard for the future of Canada’s already shaky democracy.

Hansard Links

I have taken the debate from Today’s Debates. It does not yet appear on the main menu

After April 25, you can search UK debates by date

Official site: Leveson Inquiry Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press

Government move has “utterly destroyed” JRP, no excuse to wait for final report on Gateway, Cullen says

MP Nathan Cullen makes a point during an NDP leadership campaign stop in Kitimat, Nov. 11. 2011 (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

The Northern Gateway Joint Review process has been “utterly destroyed” by the Conservative government, Skeena Bulkley Valley NDP MP Nathan Cullen told reporters Friday, April 20, adding a warning those who were waiting for the JRP to complete its hearings before making up their minds, “all those people like the premier and others who said there’s a good process in place, that excuse has been ripped away.”

Earlier that week, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver announced that the government that would introduce legislation to “streamline” the review process for major resource developments that would include such provisions as limiting the time and the number of participants and allowing the cabinet to overrule any decision or recommendation from the National Energy Board.

Cullen, who was just named Opposition House Leader, was holding his regular conference call with northwest BC reporters.

He called the changes proposed by the Conservative government for environmental assessment, ”brutal,” adding, “the already weakened rules have become fundamentally more weak.” He said it seems that the government is going to further weaken the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in checking environmental impacts.

The bill, which has yet to be tabled in the Commons, will download federal responsibility for the environment to the provinces, which Cullen said could be subject to a constitutional challenge.

On the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway project, which would see twin bitumen and condensate pipelines from Alberta to Kitimat, Cullen said, while the government’s Northern Gateway policy was not mentioned in the news conference or briefing documents, it was buried deep on the website and that indicated “it will not be up to the NEB anymore, they will retroactively apply these new rules it will now become a purely political decision. The prime minister, with all his wisdom, is going to make the final decision on the pipeline, totally undermining the process we are in now across the region.”

(The key bureaucratic phrase actually reads: “Establish clearer accountability for decisions on major pipeline projects in the national interest by giving government authority to make the “go/no go” decisions, based on the recommendations of the National Energy Board.” )

Cullen said he is already hearing that people in the northwest are frustrated and angry by the announcement. “They feel that they’ve been duped and the credibility of the panel has been destroyed by this government. And so all those people like the premier, who said the process was what they were waiting for, that process has now been utterly, utterly, destroyed.”

Cullen was inferring any decision to support or oppose the pipeline is now back in the courts of BC Premier Christy Clark and groups like District of Kitimat Council and Terrace Chamber of Commerce who have, up until now, remained neutral, waiting for the final report from the Joint Review Panel.

The Terrace Chamber of Commerce, for example, said:

We want the objective panel of experts to assess the concerns of affected parties and contrast them with procedures and equipment being positioned to mitigate any and all perceived risks. It is important that all voices are heard and all questions are asked and answered.

“The process was always threatened, a lot of people suspected that Stephen Harper would not accept a ‘no’ when it comes to this pipeline and now that’s been made explicit. And all those people like the premier and others who said there’s a good process in place that excuse has been ripped away,” Cullen said.

Cullen said he believes that people should still participate in the hearings but the panel now has to justify its existence.

“At the same time.“ Cullen said, “the government has shut down the oil response group in Vancouver and moved it 5,000 kilometres to Quebec, they’ve cut funding on our ability to protect the coast, even after the auditor general has pointed out that the current ability to protect our waters is lacking, so it looks that they are going to do everything and anything to approve this pipeline and put at risk so much of what we care about. It’s a shame but I don’t think it will lessen the resolve of people.”

Cullen called Joe Oliver’s statement that there would be more money for enforcement of environmental regulations a “shell game.”

“They cut they cut $80 million and put back $13 million and tried to pretend that’s an increase.
There is less protection for our ocean environment. At the same time, they’re pushing two major pipelines to the west coast and increasing the risk dramatically. Shutting down the operations in Vancouver, while trying to put a pipeline right into Vancouver, smacks of some sort of hypocrisy or arrogance. I mean they’re claiming budget cuts, but the prime minister is spending more on is own office, and they’re not making a single dollar cut to the F-35, which are in the billions. It’s peanuts they’re pretending to save here and it’s putting very important things at risk in our oceans.”

He expects the bill changing the rules for resource development to be introduced next week. But, Cullen added, that it is clear that government has been planning this for sometime, a fact that further undermines the credibility of the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel. “What the government has just said is, ‘We simply don’t care. We’ve already made up our minds before hearing any testimony.’ I think they’ve made up their minds in advance of this but now it’s obvious that it was always true. You don’t put legislation like this together in a week. The bill that they are going to introduce and the press conference they had last weekend were months in the making. I know how Ottawa works. This has been around for a long time and they knew this for a long time. It’s entirely cynical.”

He expects the government will try and ram the legislation through the House and one of his jobs as NDP and Opposition House leader will be to slow it down.

“I think the very cynical anti-democratic move by the government is only going to increase the number of Canadians that will be opposed to this. So getting the message out specifically, getting people rallied around this cause and letting the government know they’re not going to steamroll us…. Continuing to try to bully us into submission is about the dumbest tactic imaginable, but I guess that’s the only one available to them. If the only tool you have the toolbox is a hammer, I guess every problem is a nail.

“Fundamentally this is a question of trust, do we trust that this government will protect the environment when it comes to oil and gas projects? And I can’t imagine an oil pipeline that Steven Harper doesn’t love. Maybe if the project went right through his living room, he may have some questions about it, but outside of that, there isn’t been a single thing that the oil industry has wanted from this government that they haven’t got, not one thing. So do you trust them to protect fisheries, do you expect them to protect us from oil spills? The answer has got to be no.”

Reports say Shell near deal for Kitimat LNG project, as Oliver approves the BC LNG

The Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, has confirmed the approval of the 20 year export licence for the BC LNG Export Cooperative. The National Energy Board had approved the licence in February.

Earlier the government had also approved the export for the KM LNG project.

In a statement, Oliver said, “This export licence is another example of our Government’s commitment to diversifying our energy export markets and strengthening our trading partnership with Asia. Canada is a safe, responsible, and reliable supplier of energy contributing to global energy security.”

“Canada is well positioned to grow as a global energy superpower. Projects such as this will show the world that we are serious about getting our energy resources to market.”

The liquefied natural gas facility would be located on the west bank of the Douglas Channel at small cove near Kitimat. BC LNG Export Co-operative intends to ship up to 1.8 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas annually to markets in Asia.

Natural gas would be transported to the proposed Douglas Channel terminal on the existing Pacific Northern Gas Pipeline and potentially on the proposed Pacific Trail Pipeline. The proposed liquefied natural gas facility is undergoing an environmental assessment in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The initial phase of the facility is expected to be in operation by late 2013 or early 2014 and, if it proceeds, would represent the very first liquefied natural gas exports from Canada.

Meanwhile, Reuters quoting the Japanese Nikkei, reported that Royal Dutch Shell together with Mitsubishi Corp, China National Petroleum Corp and Korea Gas Corp are in the final stages of negotiations to build a US$12.35-billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Kitimat.
The companies will ship gas from their Canadian fields for the project and expect to begin production around 2020 at an annual rate of 12 million tons, Nikkei reported.

Nikkei said a broad agreement is expected as early as this month, after which the four companies will start seeking approval for the project.

Shell brought the old Methanex site and marine terminal in Kitimat last fall.

Editorial: Calgary Herald calls Northern Gateway opponents “eco-pests”

You can expect a newspaper in Alberta to support the oil-patch, that’s a major part of its audience, its advertising market, its mandate. A newspaper supporting local industry is perfectly fine in a free and democratic society.

The question has to be asked: does that support include juvenile name calling, worthy of a spoiled 13-year-old? In an editorial Friday, The Calgary Herald calls the opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline “eco-pests.”

Note I said “spoiled” 13-year-old. There are many 13-year-olds across Canada who are clearly more mature than The Calgary Herald editorial board.

Editorial: Eco-pests force government to streamline hearings

The editorial goes goes over the same old line that environmentalists are “stacking” or “hijacking” the hearings. The Herald, like the rest of the Alberta media, trumpets the expose that two people out of the more than 4,000 who signed up for the hearings are from Brazil.

Those two people from Brazil, who may have signed up inadvertently, are just .005 per cent of the total number who want speak, either as intervenors or present 10-minute comments.

So far no foreign billionaires have appeared before the hearings. Why not? After all, foreign billionaires can afford to hire all the fancy energy lawyers they need from the glass towers in downtown Calgary if they wanted to be real intervenors.

So far everyone who has appeared before what the Joint Review Panel is now calling “Community Hearings” are, to use a shopworn but applicable phrase, “ordinary people,” most of them members of First Nations directly affected by the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

The Herald says:

Regulatory reviews must be efficient and credible, and the government must not sacrifice sound environmental review for the sake of haste. But when the process becomes so cumbersome that Canada becomes uncompetitive, the federal government is rightfully forced to act.

That paragraph is typical of the coverage from The Calgary Herald going back years. Up until recently, every story in The Calgary Herald added a mandatory paragraph about “First Nations and environmentalists” opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline, without ever going into details, without ever bothering to send a reporter across the Rockies into British Columbia. Only now that there is widespread opposition to the pipeline across British Columbia is the Herald paying condescending attention. That sentence “must not sacrifice sound environmental review” is just another meaningless example of an obligatory journalistic catch phrase, added to the editorial in a vain attempt to achieve “balance.”

No wonder the media is losing credibility at warp speed.

Do you realize that while Calgary may be the headquarters of the energy industry in Alberta, Calgary itself is no where near the route of the Northern Gateway pipeline? That means that while Calgary gets let’s say 98 per cent of the benefits from the Northern Gateway pipeline, it takes absolutely none of the risk.

So while the Herald says

Warning that lengthy reviews cause investment dollars to leave Canada, [Natural Resources Minister Joe] Oliver properly enunciated a simple goal: “one project, one review in a clearly defined time period.” Imagine a process where each side presents its facts and a decision is rendered.

One has to wonder if the attitude would be any different if a major pipeline breach would mean that the entire city of Calgary would have to exist on bottled water for two or more years, a scenario for Kitimat if there is bitumen pipeline breach along our water supply, the Kitimat River (entirely possible given all the landslides here). If the Calgary water supply was threatened, how many people in Calgary would sign up to speak to a Joint Review Panel?

One has to wonder how quickly the Herald editorial board and its oil-patch loving columnists would change their minds after say just two or three weeks of lining up for those water bottles?

The problem is much deeper than that. The Calgary Herald editorial is only reflecting an attitude that seems to be widespread in the city. Over the past several weeks, there have been numerous posts on Twitter hashtagged #Kitimat, saying that because Kitimat is not within the actual boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest, we apparently don’t live in the rainforest. Some tweets suggest that if you actually say that Kitimat is in the middle of a vast coastal rainforest, you are lying, anti-Conservative (highly likely) and (here quoting the Herald, not the tweet) an “eco-pest.”

The political agenda on the Northern Gateway pipeline is being driven by people in Alberta who live far from the pipeline route itself even in Alberta, are at least 2,000 kilometres from Kitimat, have never been to Kitimat, make up their minds by looking at maps (apparently they don’t even bother to look at Google Earth which would show all the forest around Kitimat) and won’t have to lift a finger to clean up after a pipeline breach or tanker disaster. Given attitude of many in Alberta toward taxes, they certainly wouldn’t want to help pay for the clean up either. They’ll leave it to the taxpayers of British Columbia and the people of northwestern British Columbia to deal with the mess, while again, reaping all the benefits from the energy industry.

This attitude ranges from twits on Twitter to the academic community.

About century ago, there was a similar attitude seen in academia, in the newspapers, and with the “man on the street” (since women didn’t count back then). It was the attitude in Europe toward African colonies, that the colonies existed for the sole benefit of the “mother country.”

Alberta, it seems, increasingly sees northern British Columbia as a colony, existing for the sole benefit of that province. It is likely that if some Calgary academic did some research, that academic could find a nineteenth century editorial referring to revolting colonials or rebelling natives as “pests.”

Elizabeth May issues open letter to counter Joe Oliver

Green Party leader Elizabeth May has issued her own open letter, countering one issued earlier by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, where Oliver claimed that “radicals” opposing the Northern Gateway pipeline were a threat to the Canadian economy. May calls Oliver’s letter a “hyperbolic rant” and says his office has been “hijacked” by the Prime Minister’s Office’s “spin machine.”

May writes (text from the Green Party website)

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 km of perilous navigation in highly energetic tidal conditions is a bad choice. In December 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 kilometers 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

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

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)

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.

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.