environment | Northwest Coast Energy News

Kitimat council calls on Joint Review Panel, Enbridge to ensure viability of town water supply

District of Kitimat council votes on JRP motion — District of Kitimat Council votes unanimously Apr. 2 to inform the Joint Review Panel about concerns about the town's water supply. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

District of Kitimat council voted on Monday, April 2, to ask the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel to ensure that the town’s water supply is protected if the controversial pipeline is built. A second motion called on Enbridge to give the district a detailed and public presentation on its provisions to protect the water supply in the case of a pipeline breach along the Kitimat River.

That second motion was passed after a motion from Councillor Phil Germuth holding Enbridge responsible for any disruption to the water supply was defeated by a vote of 4-3. However, council’s new motion did not preclude Germuth asking Enbridge his original questions about liability.

Germuth had presented council with the two original motions, after a presentation in March
by Douglas Channel Watch about the dangers avalanches could present to the Enbridge twin pipelines along the Kitimat River watershed.

The first motion called on the District of Kitimat to present a written position to the Joint Review Panel based on the district’s status as a government participant emphasizing the potential dangers to the water supply and noting that the mayor and council are “legally responsible to make every effort to ensure the city of Kitimat’s water supply is uninterrupted and of the highest quality.”

Councillor Phil Germuth (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

After introducing the motion, Germuth said he believed the motion went along with council’s position to remain neutral because nothing in the motion took a position for or against the project.
Councillor Mario Feldhoff said he supported the motion without supporting all the details of Germuth’s full statement, a indication of the more intense debate to come over the second motion.

Mary Murphy also supported the motion, pointing to the potential problems of “transporting hydrocarbons” by both tanker and pipeline.

Mayor Joanne Monaghan said she had a problem with the motion because had earlier passed a motion saying it would wait to take a position until after the Joint Review Panel had reported.

Councillor Corinne Scott said she would speak for the motion, agreeing that this was a request for information and not saying council was for or against the project, adding “we are all concerned about the potential of what could happen to our water supply.”

Read Councillor Phil Germuth’s motions (pdf)

Feldhoff agreed that a letter to the JRP was not taking a position, adding, that on receipt of a letter the Joint Review Panel should take a very serious look at the issue of the water supply of Kitimat. Monaghan agreed but said if the council was to write the letter that it be accurate.

Feldhoff then proposed a friendly amendment calling on District staff to write a draft letter to the Joint Review Panel that council could then examine and agree to.

With the amendment, the motion passed unanimously.

Germuth’s second motion was more contentious, calling on Enbridge to provide detailed plans for ensuring the quality of water for the District of Kitimat and accepting “full liability” for the restoration of the Kitimat’s “entire water system” in case of a pipeline breach. Although some councilors had reservations about Germuth’s list of items, they agreed that Enbridge be called to meet council “face to face,” as Monaghan put it, by responding in person rather than by letter.

Enbridge had already responded to the motion from the previous meeting, calling on it to respond to the concerns raised by Douglas Channel Watch about the possibility of avalanche danger in the Nimbus Mountain area.

In an e-mail to council, Michele Perrett of Enbridge maintained that most of the issue had been addressed by Enbridge in either its original filing with the Joint Review Panel or by subsequent responses to information requests to the JRP, adding

Specifically we have filed geotechnical studies and responded to information requests that include information on avalanches, rock fall, glaciomarine clay slides, debris flows and avulsion in the Kitimat area and have reviewed information filed on this subject by intervenors.

The e-mail said that Drum Cavers, a geotechnical specialist would be making a presentation to council on Monday, April 16.

Enbridge e-mail to District of Kitimat Council (pdf)

Monaghan noted that Douglas Channel Watch and other groups are limited by council policy to 10 minutes and that Murray Minchin had told council that to be fair, Enbridge’s response should also be limited to 10 minutes. Council agreed that the 10 minute limit is needed to make sure that council meetings finish on time and there was some discussion of allowing Enbridge to make a more lengthy presentation outside of a regular council meeting. That would allow Enbridge to not only respond to the earlier concerns about the Nimbus Mountain avalanche danger but also to the concerns about the town’s water supply.

Some members of council, led by Feldhoff, also expressed reservations about the seven points raised by Germuth; others wanted to possibly add their own concerns to any questions for Enbridge. Feldhoff was not prepared to vote for the original motion without more information.

Feldhoff then asked that the district administration prepare a report on the water supply, saying “I think the concerns may be somewhat overstated at the moment.” Councillor Rob Goffinet also called for a report from district staff on the “ramifications for our water supply,” adding that council should not “engage with Enbridge” until that report was ready.

Germuth’s motion, with all of the original questions, along with the invitation for Enbridge to make a public presentation, was then defeated by a vote of 4-3.

Councillor Scott then moved as part of the presentation that Enbridge was earlier invited to present that water issues be added to the list and that council draft a list of questions for the company, that could include Germuth’s original questions.

Germuth asked if the council could put a time limit on Enbridge’s response because the federal budget calls for limiting to the Joint Review Panel. Feldhoff responded that the new motion concerned council’s concerns just with Enbridge and that council should be respectful of Enbridge and hopefully the company could integrate those questions as well.

Goffinet said he wanted Enbridge to know all of the district’s concerns and so, in effect, this motion would get what Councillor Germuth wanted but by a different route, adding that if Cavers, Enbridge’s geotechnical expert, was unable to answer the question, Enbridge would be asked to return and answer the questions at a later date at a public meeting.

That motion passed unanimously.

Update:

Mary Murphy clarified her remarks in an e-mail by saying

I stated I had concerns with all hydro carbons transported along the river coastline…like CN Rail and transporting hydro carbons and the likelihood of a derailment etc, andhow that would also effect our waters. CN Rail is and has been transporting hydro carbons, etc for some time, and have had severe derailments.

Editorial: Pipeline politics are now hyperlocal. Government and energy companies must deal with it.

There’s a glaring misconception in the move by Stephen Harper’s government in Thursday’s budget to speed up the review of resource projects, including the Northern Gateway Pipeline. The government wants reviews to last between 12 and 24 months and to avoid duplication between the federal and provincial governments. The buzzword is “one project, one review.”

The misconception is that natural resource reviews can go on as they have since the 1980s when the deregulation craze made any kind of resource hearing, especially those before the National Energy Board, into a private club for the oil patch, government and energy lawyers. NEB hearings are plagued by arcane rules of procedure and evidence that were, probably in an “out of mind out of sight” way, created to exclude the public. The public, despite the consultation mandates of the review agencies, didn’t really matter a damn. It is likely with the changes brought in by the Harper government, with its vocal hostility to the environmental, the public will matter even less.

A second misconception promoted by the government, by right-wing think tanks and supported by a lot of the media is that the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel has been sort of hijacked by the green movement with sole purpose of delay, delay, delay.

The problem is that none of these people, not Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, not the Prime Minister, not the columnists, nor academics for universities or think tanks have attended many (or any) of the hearings or read the transcripts. They don’t look at the lists of intervenors, those who have said they want the opportunity for a 10 minute comment or filed letters of comments.

What has changed in just the last five years or so, just as Northern Gateway was getting underway, was the rise of social media, blogging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. The widespread use of social media means that despite the efforts of Stephen Harper to stifle opposition, pipeline hearings now and in the future will be governed by —let’s call it the “British Columbia Spring.” If the hearings are curtailed by the government, social media isn’t going away and those opposed to the pipeline will simply find ways to escalate their protests.

It’s not green manipulation that is delaying the hearings, it is that pipeline hearings have become “hyperlocal”* as social media makes everyone aware of what’s going on. That means that each neighbourhood, each village, each block, each wharf now know how a pipeline will affect their lives. This applies to the First Nations across the pipeline route and down the coast; anyone who drives BC’s highways and sees avalanche gates and avalanche warnings; commercial salmon, halibut and herring fishers; the ailing forestry industry. It’s not just BC, it’s a farmer in Nebraska, a rancher in Texas, a homeowner in Michigan, a shrimp fisher in Louisiana. Their worries are available on Google, Facebook, Twitter in a way that wasn’t possible just a few years ago, when stories about NEB hearings were buried in small paragraphs on the back pages of the business section of a newspaper.

Although the right-wing media loves to concentrate on a couple of people from Brazil who may or may not have signed up inadvertently, the vast majority of the 4,000 people who are scheduled to speak before the Joint Review Panel are vitally concerned about strictly local issues. Scheduled to speak is now the operative term because it is likely that the Harper government will cut off the opportunity to speak, and that will only further decrease the already shaky credibility of the Joint Review Panel with the people of British Columbia directly affected by the Northern Gateway.

One of the most perceptive academics in the energy field, economist Andrew Leach (albeit based at the University of Alberta) led a discussion on Twitter opening it with this question

Can anyone provide a single piece of evidence that longer environmental processes, beyond a certain point, yield higher quality evaluation?

Again, no evidence of this beyond a certain pt. Long process often cited as evidence of sound analysis, but two are not same.

IMO, there’s no reason that, w proper resources, you could not fully assess impacts & set appropriate conditions for major projects in 2yrs.

Context: NGP JRP decision is expected now at the end of 2013, roughly 4 years after hearing order issued, but <2 yrs after first hearings.

Leach makes two shaky assumptions.

The first assumption is that the hearings can come up with a quality evaluation and sound analysis. But a quality evaluation, sound analysis for whom? For the private club that the NEB has been for the past quarter century? Sound analysis from a government that muzzles its own scientists and cuts funding for proper research and now wants to have the Canada Revenue Agency harass its environmental opponents? As the responses by First Nations and local groups to the filings by Enbridge show, counter analysis often takes years of research and lots of money. Sound analysis if the opponents are given limited opportunity to respond to a proposal?

The second assumption is that the current and future hearings are going to be fair, independent and transparent. In his conference call yesterday with local reporters, Skeena Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen said the Joint Review and future hearings are “rigged,” predicting that “people won’t stand for this” and it “will only hurt the company it’s supposed to protect.”

The panel has already heard a large number of intervenors in various communities across the northwest tell them directly that the process has no credibility. The decision by the Harper government to speed things can only increase the belief that the hearings are unfair, are rigged, that building the pipeline is a foregone conclusion.

Or quality evaluation for the people directly affected?

Testimony before the Joint Review Panel has been about hyperlocal issues, the state of an estuary, the legacy of the poisoning of a stream by now defunct paper mills, one aboriginal family’s traditional trapline, the shellfish beds polluted by the Queen of the North sinking, the danger to culturally modified trees, the fact that the pipeline will bring no more than a handful of jobs to British Columbia, while endangering thousands fishing and tourism jobs. You might want to call that “Not In My Back Yard” but then the Calgary water supply won’t be out of operation for four years as could happen in a worst case scenario for the Kitimat River in case of a pipeline breach along the river or its tributaries.

If the public believes that future hearings are not “quality evaluation” but rigged in favour of the energy industry, then there will be resistance there as well. What kind of resistance the decision will bring remains to be seen. But that resistance, whatever form it takes will likely also be a factor in any future resource hearings.

Then there is the question of jobs. There just aren’t going to be that many jobs in British Columbia from the Northern Gateway pipeline. First Nations communities, in the unlikely event they agreed to a pipeline, will see no long term benefit from temporary construction jobs. How many Canadian jobs will there be, if the rumours that been circulating in Kitimat for months now are true that PetroChina will build the pipeline? ( recently somewhat confirmed by the Financial Post, although also characterized by Enbridge as speculation)

Don Cayo, writing this morning in the Vancouver Sun says

But the biggest deal in the budget by far, at least as far as the West is concerned, has nothing to do with spending. It is the intention to clean up, at long last, the snarl of red tape that has become such an impediment to development in the resource sector….

it’s a spurious argument to try to link the efficiency of the regulatory process and the fairness of it. “Slow” is not a synonym for “good” nor is “faster” another word for “worse.” It does immense harm to the economy and no good to anyone at all, as history proves, to have a Byzantine process that is obscenely expensive for both the public and private sectors.

Nor is the pipeline the only project in need of fair and reasonably fast assessment. The West in general and B.C. in particular are awash in potential projects — mines, energy developments and more — and we’ll all be better off knowing sooner rather than later which ones are appropriate to move forward.

This simply shows that the advocates of the fast track process don’t get it. They are stuck in the small c conservative mantra of cutting “red tape.” There have been no recent changes in the red tape. The National Energy Board procedures, as I said, are already unfriendly to the ordinary public.

What has changed is that with the web, with social media, the people directly affected, who in the past would have been frozen out of the procedures by lack of communication, are now participating to the fullest extent possible, using information gleaned from the web and empowered by social networks. That isn’t going to change.

As much as the Conservative government believes it control the agenda, and the procedures of the resource hearings, it can’t. All it takes for a hearing to be overwhelmed is a lot of concerned residents, acting on their own, not pushed by ENGOs, prodded by a single e-mail, Tweet or Facebook post.

It may be that the energy industry, a decade from now, will regret what they wished for, a fast track process that is actually bogged down in all the kinds of court challenges that lawyers can work up, regional and municipal zoning barriers, sympathetic bureaucratic delays at the provincial level, civil disobedience, including blockades on land and sea bringing Canada a growing international media black eye, beyond the current impression of the bitumen sands as Mordor. As much as Harper may not like it, if an Oscar-winning star is arrested at a pipeline blockade it will be international news.

To use a a current analogy, with the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic approaching, the Steerage passengers are now demanding a place at the First Class table, along with the haughty oil barons, the high priced lawyers and holier than thou consultants. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty may close some of the gates between Steerage and First Class, but eventually the Third Class passengers will find a way to the upper decks.

(Every time someone from Enbridge at a Kitimat meeting says how safe the oil tankers and their escorts will be, one audience member always brings up the Titanic in a question and answer session)

Notes

1. *What is hyperlocal?

Hyperlocal is usually a term in online journalism, referring to coverage of a specific neighbourhood. In some ways, Northwest Coast Energy News, based in Kitimat is a hyperlocal site. That is why it is easy to recognize the hyperlocal nature of those who testify at the Joint Review Hearings. It can be as hyper hyper local as the pipeline crossing a skiing/hiking trail.

For a longer, somewhat academic definition of hyperlocal, the Wikipedia entry may be valuable.

2. Scope creep and dismissing local concerns

In a paper for the conservative C. D. Howe Institute, Leach’s colleague Joseph Doucet, Interim Dean of the University of Alberta School of Business, UnClogging the Pipes; Pipeline Reviews and Energy Policy, complains about what he calls “scope creep” in NEB hearings and says:

It is not simply not efficient or effective to attempt to solve broad, far-reaching societal challenges such as First Nations land claims or greenhouse gas emissions policy through individual project reviews.

and concludes

Regulatory review should focus on relatively narrow project definitions consistent with the impacts of the project , including its relevant costs and benefits and the scope of the activity of the proponent, Other issues, broader and more general in nature should be dealt with in statue or in policy, not in regulatory review.

There is one thing missing in Doucet’s analysis. The “scope of activity” of people directly affected by a pipeline project. What he calls “scope creep” has occurred due to the rise of public awareness due to the web and social media. In his paper, the lives of the local residents and hyperlocal issues are simply written off.

Doucet ignores that fact this government’s policy, while spinning respect for the environmental issues in single paragraphs, is to bulldoze the pipeline across BC, no matter what the consequences. On one hand, the Harper government pushes the pipeline as a gateway to Asian markets. On the other hand, with the $80 million cut to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with cuts to Environment Canada and support for independent environmental research, cuts to the Canadian Coast Guard, the policy is clear, the Harper government is ignoring the potential catastrophe from an oil pipeline breach or tanker disaster.

Enbridge Northern Gateway, on the other hand, does have contingency plans for such events, but at meetings in Kitimat, even Enbridge officials have expressed public scepticism about how much government support there could be in the event of a disaster. In fact, if the Harper government had more respect for the environment and actually had plans to counter a potential disaster, there likely would be less opposition to the Northern Gateway.

The only way to have any check and balance on the Harper bulldozer is to have an effective, thoroughly independent and wide ranging inquiry process, not a narrow one aimed at tweaking regulations.

Kitimat Council invites Enbridge to respond to avalanche worries

District of Kitimat Council voted unanimously Monday, March 19, 2012, to invite Enbridge to make a presentation to council about the concerns about avalanches along the Northern Gateway pipeline route that could threaten the town’s drinking water.

Two weeks earlier Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch gave a detailed presentation that he said showed evidence of major avalanches in the past on the bitumen and condensate pipelines route. Minchin said at the time a major avalanche could breach the diluted bitumen pipeline and quickly threaten Kitimat’s drinking water.

At the time, Minchin asked that council sponsor a new public forum that would include representatives from Enbridge, the Haisla First Nation and an environmental group.

However, Monday’s motion from Councillor Mario Feldhoff read:

That we invite Enbridge to make a presentation to Council addressing issues raised by Douglas Channel Watch in Mr Minchin’s March 5, 2012, presentation to Council entitled Nimbus Mountain area.

The motion was quickly carried with almost no discussion.

The water supply problem is worrying some members of council. Councillor Phil Germuth said that in the future he will be introducing a motion that will call attention to worries that, in case of a pipeline breach, that Kitimat would not have a water supply for months or even years.

At the opening of the meeting, Veronica Bilash, of Douglas Channel Watch, gave a presentation, based on information from West Coast Environmental Law on the responsibilities of municipalities when it comes to the proposed pipeline and presentations to the Northern Gateway Joint Review process.

Bilash criticized council for not participating in the Joint Review panel.

Administrator Ron Poole said Kitimat is an intervenor in the process, but, so far, Kitimat has not formally taken part in the Joint Review. Kitimat is actually listed as a “government participant.” The district has not filed any documents with the JRP.

Veronica Bilash speaks to Kitimat Counci about municipal responsibilities. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

The council has voted to remain neutral and not take any position until the JRP has issued its report. Bilash said that this position is preventing Kitimat from making any views based on municipal responsibilities until it is too late.

In the presentation, written by West Coast Environmental Law staff lawyer, Josh Patterson, points out that municipal governments have responsibility for

human occupancy and resource use, social and cultural well-being, health, infrastructure and services, and employment and the economy
infrastructure and services for construction-related traffic and transient population
Patterson noted that local governments will bear the burden “for any emergency response and clean-up and lasting economic, employment, health, environmental and social impacts form a potential large oil spill.”

Bilash said that Kitimat would face major impacts in these areas and that by remaining neutral, council was not facing its responsibilities.

Minister issues non-denial denial on taking habitat protection out of the Fisheries Act

On Friday, March 16, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield released a brief statement denying that the government had made a decision to take habitat protection for fish out of the Fisheries Act (Earlier in the week reports had leaked saying that government intended to take protections for fish habitat out of the act, as way of clearing the way for industry.)

Ashfield’s statement, which came at 4:40 p.m. Eastern Time appeared to be the classic buried government news release issued late on a Friday. The release actually did not deny facts of the leak, making it also a classic non-denial denial.

Ottawa (Ontario) – The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today issued the following statement:

“The government is reviewing fish and fish habitat protection policies to ensure they do not go beyond their intended conservation goals. Recent speculation about the current review is inaccurate. No decision has been made.

“The government has been clear that the existing policies do not reflect the priorities of Canadians.

“We want to focus our activities on protecting natural waterways that are home to the fish Canadians value most instead of on flooded fields and ditches.”

It is clear that Conservative policy, such as proposed changes to the Environmental Assessment Act and budget cuts at Environment Canada, is to eliminate as many environmental protections as possible, and so the sentence that policies “do not go beyond their intended conservation goals” must be interpreted in light of the environmental record of the Conservative government.

On March 13, media including The Globe and Mail Ottawa wants to bow out of regulating fish habitat, documents show and The Vancouver Sun, Canada poised to ‘gut’ fish protection laws, biologist claims reported that the Conservatives want to get government out of the job of regulating fish habitat, so projects such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline can be fast tracked.

Otto Langer, an aquatic ecologist who worked for the federal government for 32 years, obtained the documents and made them available to the media.

He said the documents show that the government intends to remove the requirement in the Canada Fisheries Act to protect fish habitats for any fish that is not of “economic, cultural or ecological value.”

Langer told The Globe and Mail: “Probably the main reason why the oil industry, especially in the Prairie provinces, wants it out of the act is its use triggers [a review under] the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. If you are going to do harm to habitat, you have to do an environmental review and that takes time and money.”

Speaking to The Vancouver Sun Langer asked how the government could define
“what is a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value?”

Documents obtained by PostMedia news, as reported in The Vancouver Sun story, say that energy and other industries consider the Fisheries Act a irritant that holds up projects. One of the documents say:

“Some of the largest and most complex natural resource and industrial development projects across the country are affected by Fisheries Act requirements, which are consistently identified as one of the top federal regulatory irritants by stakeholders across the country,”

In his bi-weekly conference call with northwestern reporters, earlier Friday, before Ashfield issued his statement, Skeena Bulkley Valley NDP MP Nathan Cullen said he has heard the “the government is planning to take the word ‘habitat’ of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act and then ram that potential change into a budget bill.

“This is what the fisheries act is for, to protect habitat,” Cullen said. “Protecting habitat is one of the most crucial factors in protecting fish stocks. If you can’t protect habitat, then how do you protect fish?

If they do this,” Cullen said, “They’ll rip the very heart out of the Fisheries Act. The heart and soul of the act is that if you want to protect fish, you must consider habitat. You don’t have to be a genius or a fish biologist to know that if the fish don’t have anywhere to spawn, you’ll kill the fishery.”

Cullen said if the government does go ahead with the changes, “it will further compound all the problems and stresses we’ve been putting on the fishery. Essentially the government is saying that wild fish populations will not matter, that oil and gas is going to trump them every single time.

He went to say, “They did this with the Navigable Waters Act a few years ago They killed off a one hundred year old act that was designed to protect waterways in Canada. You know who it upset, and this is something the government is going to have to be paying attention to is the BC Wildlife Federation, the anglers and hunters associations, any of those groups that likes the go out into nature and actually see some nature. All of those groups got upset last time and now its going to be that times ten.“

Ashfield’s statement about flooding referred to a couple of incidents where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would not allow draining of flooded areas. He told the House of Commons “Last year in Saskatchewan, a long-running country jamboree was nearly cancelled after newly flooded fields were deemed fish habitat by fisheries officials. In Richelieu, the application of rules blocked a farmer from draining his flooded field.”

In response, The Globe and Mail quoted Adam Matichuk, fisheries project co-ordinator for the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, said that, during high-water events, many fish species move into flooded areas to feed and reproduce.

“The Craven area is basically a flood plain,” he said. “It doesn’t flood every year, but, when it does, fish take advantage of it. There were hundreds of thousands of young fish, mostly pike and walleye, in there when they turned on those pumps,” he said.

Enbridge presents strong case for marine safety planning

Enbridge made its strongest public case yet Tuesday, March 13, that improvements in marine safety worldwide since the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989, make the chances of an accident involving ships carrying bitumen and condensate in Douglas Channel and the BC Coast highly unlikely.

But one of Enbridge’s own invited experts somewhat undermined the case by pointing out that in the event of a major tanker incident (as unlikely as Enbridge believes it may be) the resources of the federal and provincial governments are spread far too thin to deal with a major disaster.

The Enbridge Community Advisory Board held a public meeting Tuesday at Mt. Elizabeth Theatre, with three guests presenting a case that they also gave to the regular meeting of the advisory board earlier in the day.

The three guests were Capt. Stephen Brown, of the BC Chamber of Shipping, Capt. Fred Denning, of British Columbia Coast Pilots and Norm Fallows, an emergency response officer with the BC Ministry of the Environment, based in Smithers.

There were only a few dozen people in the theatre for the presentation, compared the full house for last year’s community forum that was sponsored by the District of Kitimat. One reason may be that many Kitimat residents preferred being in the stands for the Coy Cup hockey championships at Tamitik Arena rather than sitting through yet another presentation on the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Denning opened the presentations by explaining the role of the BC Coast Pilots. The BC Coast Pilots is a private firm that contracts with government’s Pacific Pilotage Authority to provide pilots to ships plying the coast of British Columbia. By law all vessels larger than 350 gross registered tonnes are required to use a marine pilot.

Both in his presentation and in the question and answer period, Denning stressed that pilots are traditionally independent from government and industry, with the responsibility to ensure the safety of shipping.

In the question and answer period, when an audience member pointed out that under the Transport Canada TERMPOL process, use of tugs in Douglas Channel and use of tethered tugs was “voluntary,” Denning replied that the pilots would be insisting on tethered escort tugs for tankers on Douglas Channel.

He explained that BC pilots are highly experienced mariners, usually with 25 years or more experience on the coast, the majority of that time as a ship’s officer. An applicant to become a pilot is put on a waiting list, and if accepted, then is trained both on ships and simulators and serves a six to 12 month apprenticeship.

He said that BC coastal pilots have a 99.89 per cent incident safety record.

BC pilots now carry a large laptop called a Portable Pilot Unit, which operates independent of the ship’s navigation and computer systems gathering navigation and other data, as a redundant safety system.

Denning expects that marine traffic on the BC coast will continue to increase because the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert are the closest to Asia by the Great Circle routes. Both cargo and the energy projects, whether the Enbridge Northern Gateway or the the liquified natural gas terminals will mean more ships and more work for the pilots.

The pilots are always consulted in the development of any new traffic or terminal projects in BC. Including design, testing the ship’s courses in simulators, recommending new navigational aides and training for the pilots. Pilots were consulted during the development of Deltaport and Fairiew container terminals as well as the cruise ship terminals in Victoria, Nanaimo and Campbell River.

The pilots are being consulted on both the Enbridge and LNG projects at Kitimat as well as the proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan facility in Vancouver. For the existing Kinder Morgan terminal, pilots were involved in creating navigation aides and tug procedures for the Second Narrows.

Stephen Brown is a member of the Community Advisory Board as well as representing the Bureau of Shipping. He began with a detailed timeline of how shipping regulations have been tightened over the years since what is now the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency, was founded in 1948. He said the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989 triggered even tighter regulations, including the 1990 US Oil Pollution Act passed by Congress which required all ships have containment capability and a spill clean up plan. The act also ordered US shippers to phase out single hulled tankers beginning in 1995. In 1992, the IMO adopted a similar measure.
Since the 1990s, there have been new regulations preventing the dumping of ballast and creating higher standards for crew and officer training, including hours of work, watch keeping standards and environmental awareness.

Brown then went on to discuss shipping in narrow waterways which he said were similar to Douglas Channel, including the Straits of Dover between Britain and France, the Straits of Malacca between Singapore and Malaysia and the island of Sumatra, the Dardanelles and Bosporus Strait in Turkey (which traditionally are said to join Europe with Asia) and the Panama Canal. All those areas, he said, see heavy shipping traffic, including tankers, each year.

The narrowest passage is in the Bosporus, which is 698 metres wide, a little less than one half nautical mile.

Comparing the Bosporus with Douglas Channel, Brown said Douglas Channel is much wider, about three kilometres, meaning that inbound and outbound ships can pass a half kilometre apart.
He went over how tanker management has improved with double hulls and better overall construction standards,vetting of ships and crews, and creating “a culture of safety and respect for the environment.”

The final speaker Norm Fallows, from the BC Ministry of the Environment Emergency Management, outlined the current emergency response system in the province. Central to any response to a oil spill or any other hazard materials problem is the “incident command system.” also used most often for fighting forest fires. The incident command system ensures that all public agencies and the private sector are cooperating and coordinating with one overall person in charge.

The province has a “polluter pay” policy, Fallows said, meaning that the “responsible party” must pay for all the cost involved. Sometimes, int he case of a meth lab, it is the unfortunate owner of a house that may have been rented by drug dealers.

Fallows said he is one of only 10 emergency response officers stationed across the province of British Columbia, In contrast, the State of Washington, with a much smaller land area than BC, has 79.

Any response to a spill has to do the best possible in the situation, Fallows said. He gave the example of burning off an oil spill in some circumstances because that was both the most cost effective solution that at the same time in those circumstances did the least harm to the environment.

In the early part of the first decade, Fallows said, some staff at the environment department were proposing what was called “Geographic Response Planning,” which involved surveying an area for both potential hazards and solutions, and bringing in local responders including fire, police and local industry. Planning for the GRP program had minimal funding, which was later dropped by the province.

In contrast, Fallows said, the state of Washington has spent millions of dollars creating a geographic response program for that state.

In response to questions from the audience, Fallows said that adequate emergency response in British Columbia needed “more resources” from both the provincial and federal governments.

BC understands Gateway won’t create long term jobs, poll for Cullen shows

A poll released by Skeena Bulkley Valley MP and NDP leadership candidate, Nathan Cullen, shows that the majority of B.C. residents understand that the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project will not create long-term employment.

A release from Cullen’s office says that 61% of respondents to the Mustel poll believe that “most jobs are short-term and many long-term jobs will be lost because unrefined oil is being shipped to other countries for refining.”

This result contradicts an earlier Ipsos Reid poll conducted in December 2011. In that poll, respondents cited employment and economic reasons to be the main benefit.

“People get that the project will not create permanent jobs,” said Cullen said. “We certainly want jobs in my riding, but people are not going to settle for short-term cash instead of long-term value-added jobs.”

It its initial submission to the Joint Review Panel, Enbridge states that the project will offer less than 80 direct permanent jobs in B.C., Cullen’s release says.

“Most have understood that this project poses major risks to the environment. These poll results show that British Columbians see that there would be economic losses as well.”

The poll also showed that the majority of B.C. residents are aware of the proposed pipeline project, and that opposition outweighs support for the project.

A total of 87% are familiar with the proposal and have read or heard something about it. 46% oppose the construction of a pipeline in contrast to 37% who support it. The remaining 17% are undecided or do not have an opinion.

“The results convey what I’ve already heard on the ground,” said Cullen, who commissioned the survey. “There is simply too much at risk to push the project through.”

These findings also contradict the earlier Ipsos Reid poll where only 42% of respondents were somewhat or very familiar with the project. It also showed that only 32% opposed the pipeline.

“It appears that at the same time knowledge of the project is growing, so is opposition,” said Cullen.

The Mustel survey was based on 500 interviews completed by telephone (landlines and cellular) January 25 to February 8, 2012 with a margin of error of +/-4.4% at the 95% level of confidence.

Joint Review Panel refuses to consider possible Enbridge plans for a natural gas Northern Gateway

The Joint Review Panel has ruled that it doesn’t have to include possible plans by Enbridge to add a natural gas pipeline to to the Northern Gateway project in its consideration of the bitumen pipeline.

Since the JRP has no evidence at the moment to suggest that Enbridge has such a project “in sufficient planning stages to warrant inclusionwithin Northern Gateway’s cumulative effects assessment,” the Panel considers that it is inappropriate to consider a possible natural gas pipeline. If Enbridge did want to build a natural gas pipeline along the route, it would be subject to new and separate hearings.

Last fall there were reports in the media that Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel (who is now about to retire) wanted to join the natural gas rush to the Pacific coast by adding a natural gas pipeline to the Northern Gateway bitumen project (there was also some speculation that Enbridge might want to replace the bitumen pipeline with a natural gas pipeline).

One of the JRP intervenors, Dr. Josette Weir of Smithers filed a motion in December with the JRP asking that the Joint Review Panel:
.

a. order Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership (“NGPLP”) to confirm if it plans a gas pipeline in the same right-of-way as the tar sands and condensate proposed pipelines;
b. order NGPLP to confirm if such gas pipeline is planned to be constructed during the same time as the two proposed pipelines under review;

Weir also asked the JRP to include possible plans for a gas pipeline in its overall assessment of the cumulative affects of the Northern Gateway pipeline.

In response to the motion, Ken MacDonald Vice President, Law and Regulatory Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership replied that Gateway confirms that it is not currently proposing to construct a gas pipeline in the right-of-way that would be required for the construction of the Northern Gateway Project and, making a legal point, called an Enbridge natural gas pipeline along the same route as “hypothetical.”

However, the next sentence in MacDonald’s letter could be a problem for the existing Pacific Trails Pipelines plans for their own natural gas pipeline, which some in the region fear is paving the way for the Northern Gateway pipeline. The letter reads: “Northern Gateway
has been attempting to engage the proponents of the Pacific Trails Pipeline for an extended
period of time regarding collaboration on routing, construction and access management, and will
continue to do so in the future.”

Last fall, members of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation blockaded an Apache/Pacific Trails Pipeline survey crew and one reason for the blockade was the possible use of the Pacific Trail survey for the Northern Gateway. PTP and Apache, both in a report to the BC Environmental Assessment Office, and at a public meeting in Terrace on Thursday, March 1, say they continue to consult with the Wet’suwet’en houses and the Office of the Wet’suwet’en on the issue.

MacDonald’s letter to the JRP goes on to complain about the time it is taking for the review process

The project inclusion list for the Northern Gateway cumulative effects assessment was determined at the time of finalizing the Terms of Reference established for the Project’s environmental assessment. This was more than 2-years ago. Northern Gateway’s Application has been under review for over a year and a half with the information request phase of the proceeding on the Application having been completed. It would be impossible to ever complete an environmental assessment for a major project if the project proponent had to continually update its cumulative effects assessment for projects announced during the course of the review
proceedings on regulatory applications. In the case of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, it may end up taking four years to complete the regulatory approvals process. During such an extended period of time, new projects will inevitably be planned and announced. Northern Gateway cannot be expected to revise its cumulative effects assessment to take into account projects announced during the course of the current regulatory review.

Enbridge pointed to earlier legal rulings on “hypothetical projects”

with respect to other projects to consider in a cumulative environmental effects assessment, the NEB has ruled in the past that the other projects considered in a cumulative effects assessment cannot be hypothetical. The Courts have said that the decisions of RAs are not required to “consider fanciful projects by imagined parties producing purely hypothetical effects”. The Board is of the view that EBPC’s methods for identifying other projects for consideration in the cumulative effects assessment were appropriate.
Northern Gateway submits that, at this point, any natural gas pipelines beyond the Pacific Trails Pipeline are hypothetical. Requiring Northern Gateway to include such hypothetical projects in its cumulative environmental impact assessment would be inconsistent with previous practice and NEB decisions and would result in further delay to what has already become a protracted regulatory process.

The Joint Review Panel agreed, ruling

The Panel acknowledges the media statements by Enbridge that you noted in your motion. However, based on Northern Gateway’s comments and the fact that the Panel has no other evidence to indicate that such a project is in sufficient planning stages to warrant inclusion within Northern Gateway’s cumulative effects assessment, the Panel is of the view that it would not be appropriate to order Northern Gateway to do so. Further, the Panel notes that should Northern Gateway or any other proponent propose a gas pipeline to the west coast in the future,
that project would be subject at that time to the relevant environmental assessment and regulatory requirements.

Panel Commission Ruling on Enbridge natural gas pipeline

Northern Gateway Pipelines response to motion

TERMPOL report on Enbridge marine operations sees “no regulatory concerns,” tankers could be “unassisted” by tugs

A report from TERMPOL for the the Joint Review Panel on Enbridge’s proposed marine operations for the Northern Gateway pipeline project, finds

While there will always be residual risk in any project, after reviewing the proponent’s studies and taking into account the proponent’s commitments, no regulatory concerns have been identified for the vessels, vessel operations, the proposed routes, navigability, other waterway users and the marine terminal operations associated with vessels supporting the Northern Gateway Project. Commitments by the proponent will help ensure safety is maintained at a level beyond the regulatory requirements.

Even though Enbridge has promised that tankers would have escort tugs, the report goes to so far as to suggest that super tankers could come and go along Douglas Channel “unassisted.”

TERMPOL has taken all the assurances from Enbridge at face value, including the use of escort tankers, and takes into consideration the company’s proposed “environmental limits (weather and sea conditions) on oil tanker navigation,” and “commitment to use industry best practices and standards.”

The report says:

The overall increase in marine traffic levels is not considered to be an issue for the shared safe use of the project’s preferred shipping routes. The proponent has also committed to including safe speeds for oil tankers and tugs in its terminal rules and requirements. It will also include safety limits for environmental and marine conditions for both vessels and terminal operations.

With the increase in shipping activity, there may be an increased threat to the well-being of marine mammal populations along the shipping route. To address this risk, the proponent has proposed measures to avoid contact with mammals. The proponent is encouraged to develop appropriate procedures to help minimize harmful effects on marine mammals.

Read the report: Transport Canada Process Report on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (PDF)

In a news release, Enbridge welcomed the findings, quoting Janet Holder, Enbridge’s Executive Vice-President of Western Access and the senior executive with responsibility for Northern Gateway, as saying: “It is important for the public, particularly BC residents, to know that we’ve done our homework and that our marine plan has been thoroughly reviewed. I think the TERMPOL review underlines that what we are proposing is well planned and safe – and indeed would enhance safety for all shipping on BC’s north coast.”

The release says “Northern Gateway is encouraged by the positive conclusions of this technical review of the marine components of the project – including the safe operation of the Kitimat terminal and safe passage of tankers to and from the facility through Canadian waters.”

TERMPOL is an intergovernmental agency made up of officials from Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard and the Pacific Pilotage Authority. It can make recommendations and compliance with the recommendations is “voluntary.” So far companies contemplating tanker operations along the northwest coast have agreed to follow the TERMPOL recommendations.

Marine safety simulator — A marine safety simulator (Enbridge Northern Gateway)

All of the conclusions depend on Enbridge’s commitment to implement and monitor practices for safer shipping for the Northern Gateway Project. “Tankers and shipping operations, like any other vessel operations, will have to comply fully with national and international regulatory frameworks. Through the proponent’s oil tanker vetting and acceptance process, ship operators will have to follow the proponent’s additional safety enhancements, which are designed to reduce the risks during operations.”

Termpol did note that with up “to 250 additional tankers per year arriving in Kitimat, there will be an impact on Transport Canada’s compliance monitoring programs.” This comes at a time the government of Stephen Harper is already drastically cutting the resources for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard on the west coast and is making across the board cutbacks at Environment Canada.

The simulations show that the largest proposed oil tankers are capable of safely navigating the entire proposed shipping route, unassisted. The route includes an S-curve where the channel widths are between 3,500 and 5,000 metres. Navigation simulations carried out by the proponent have demonstrated that a typical 320,000 tonne crude oil tanker loaded, or in ballast, can safely negotiate this area.
TERMPOL report

Based on reviews by the Canadian Coast Guard and computer simulations of bridge operations, the teports says the waterways comply with all Canadian and international regulations and says:

The proposed routes provide the required clearances for good vessel manoeuvrability and allowances for very large crude oil tankers to safely navigate…

The simulations showed that tankers of the largest design are capable of navigating the entire route un-assisted. This is also consistent with opinions of Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada and the British Columbia Coast Pilots. The British Columbia Coast Pilots identified some narrow sections of the waterways as warranting caution for two-way traffic. The Canadian Coast Guard identified that the Lewis Passage-Wright Sound area warrants caution as a result of multi-directional traffic. In practice, the British Columbia Coast Pilots, supported by information from Marine Communications and Traffic Services, would adjust a vessel’s speed to avoid meeting other vessels in these areas. Transit speeds may also have to be adjusted to take into account traffic in the Wright Sound area.

TERMPOL says the “proposed shipping routes are appropriate for the oil tankers that will be used at the proposed terminal,” largely because Douglas Channel is so deep.

The next sentence says “there are no charted obstructions that would pose a safety hazard to fully loaded oil tankers,” which was pretty well known by people who sail Douglas Channel.

Testimony at the Joint Review hearings in Kitimat, presentations to District of Kitimat council and the history of the region, as related by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal sailors, show that there are concerns about dangerous storms, general heavy weather, tricky winds off the mountains and currents from the rivers meeting the ocean.

The report also says the Canadian Hydrographic Service is in the process of updating several charts of the area to ensure the most accurate information is available for safe navigation.

The report does acknowledge that there could be a tanker collision in certain areas of the British Columbia coast, saying: “The narrower passages along the North and South routes, each with charted depths of 36 m (20 fathoms) or more are all wide enough for two-way navigation by the largest design vessel,” but adds that while “the proposed channels meet the specified requirements for two-way marine traffic, the BC pilots “may choose to ensure that passing and overtaking situations do not occur in the narrowest sections, by good traffic management.”

It says that in certain areas “that the meeting of two large ships …. should, in general, be avoided, particularly during severe (wind 30 knots or above) weather conditions. The reason for this restriction is that the margins for safe navigation are limited in case of an emergency situation where the engine is lost or the rudder is locked at an angle different from ‘mid ship’.”

According to the pilots, the meeting of ships at these locations can easily be avoided through oroper planning and pilot to pilot communication and available navigation and ship tracking data.

It adds, as Enbridge has proposed, “In order to mitigate risk, all laden tankers will have a tethered escort tug throughout the Confined Channel sections (from Browning Entrance or Caamaño Sound to the Kitimat Terminal).

The report adds:

It is important to keep in mind that the emergency situations described rarely occur, but that it is necessary for the Pilots and Tug Masters to rehearse these situations on a regular basis in order to be prepared in case an incident actually occurs.

Related TERMPOL

More pipeline debate coming to the Northwest: Changes to the Pacific Trails natural gas Pipeline

Pacific Trail Pipelines map — The Pacific Trails Pipeline map as of Feb. 2012. (PTP/BCEAO)

Another pipeline debate is about to open in the northwest. This time for changes to the Pacific Trails (natural gas) Pipeline, that will run from Summit Lake, just outside Prince George, to Kitimat.

Public information meetings will be held in Terrace, Houston, Burns Lake and Vanderhoof in the next couple of weeks.

The PTP runs entirely within British Columbia, and so comes under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Assessment Office of British Columbia. The application to build the PTP was filed in 2005 and approved in 2008 which means the process for the amendments will go much faster than the current Northern Gateway Joint Review hearings for the Enbridge twin bitumen/condenseate pipeline which are expected to last at least another eighteen months.

Pacific Trails is asking to

Change the location of the compressor station;
Establish two new temporary stockpile sites;
Make pipeline route modifications

The period for commenting on the Pacific Trails Pipeline amendments opens on February 27 and closes March 28. The public meeting on the changes to the compressor station were held in Summit Lake last September.

The documents filed with the BCEAO say that Pacific Trails Pipelines is in ongoing negotiations with First Nations where the PTP will cross their traditional territory.

The natural gas project has general support in northwestern BC, and the relations between First Nations and PTP, and Apache, the main backer of the Kitimat LNG project are much better than those with Enbridge. (The PTP would supply the liquified natural gas terminals in Kitimat)

Significantly, the documents show that the PTP is trying to enter separate negotiations with the Wet’suwet’en houses that are now objecting to the pipeline route through their traditional territory.

The filing says:

In addition, PTP is now consulting, or making all reasonable efforts to consult, with one of the 13 Wet’suwet’en Houses as a discrete entity. PTP was informed in February 2011 that Chief Knedebeas’s House, the Dark House, was no longer part of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en although the latter still maintains responsibility for the welfare of all Wet’suwet’en lands and resources. Consultation that took place prior to this year with the Office of the Wet’suwet’en included consultation with the Dark House. PTP has been diligent in seeking to consult with the Dark House since April 2011. The spokesperson for Chief Knedebeas of the Dark House, Freda Huson, states that she also represents a group called Unist’ot’en.

But it’s Enbridge that is the sticking point, and could bring controversy to this amendment request. The Wet’suwet’en houses that blockaded a PTP survey crew last fall said they were worried that the Northern Gateway pipeline follows roughly the same route as the PTP. The PTP application was filed and approved long before the controversy over the Enbridge Northern Gateway began to heat up.

One reason is that original approval was for a pipeline to import natural gas before the shale gas boom changed the energy industry. As PTP says in the application to change the compressor station.

When the original purpose of the PTP Project was to transport natural gas from an LNG import facility at Kitimat to the Spectra Energy Transmission pipeline facilities at Summit Lake, the design called for the installation of a mid-point compressor station to enable the required throughput of natural gas. This compressor station was sited at the hydraulic mid-point of the pipeline. The location of the compressor station in 2007 was south of Burns Lake and just east of Highway 35.

Now that the PTP Project is designed to move natural gas from Summit Lake to Kitimat, or east to west, a compressor station is required at Summit Lake rather than at the hydraulic mid-point of the pipeline. The new Summit Lake compressor station is required in order to increase the pressure of the natural gas from where it is sourced at the Spectra Energy Transmission pipeline facilities.

The EAO will hold open house meetings on the pipeline route changes from 4 pm to 8 pm at each location at

Monday, February 27, 2012
Nechako Senior Friendship Centre, 219
Victoria Street East
Vanderhoof, BC

Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Island Gospel Gymnasium
810 Highway #35
Burns Lake, BC

Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Houston Senior Centre
3250 – 14th Street W
Houston, BC

Thursday, March 1, 2012
Best Western Plus Terrace Inn
4553 Greig Avenue
Terrace, BC

The EAO says: Displays containing information on the proposed amendments will be available for public viewing. The EAO will be available to answer questions on the amendment process. The Proponent will be available to answer questions on the Project and proposed amendments.

The documents show there are route changes to the pipeline route along the Kitimat River, but those are considered “minor route adjustments” so no meetings are planned for Kitimat.

Documents

PTP meeting schedule

Complete filing documents from PTP are available on the BCEAO site here.

Pacific Trails Pipeline

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