Northern Gateway | Northwest Coast Energy News

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.

Kitimat Council to consider new Enbridge forum after warning about avalanches on pipeline route

Angus McLeod and Margaret Stenson, members of the environmental group Douglas Channel Watch, wear "ocean blue" scarves at a meeting of the District of Kitimat Council, March 5, 2012. The "ocean blue" scarves represent the group's determination to protect the oceans. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

District of Kitimat Council will consider a motion at its next meeting on March 19 to hold a second community forum on the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

The notice of motion was introduced by Councillor Mario Feldhoff after a request for a new forum by the environmental group Douglas Channel Watch.

Murray Minchin called for the forum after a presentation to council about the avalanche dangers at Nimbus Mountain, where Enbridge plans a tunnel through the mountain.

Minchin said Enbridge has not done a forest survey on Nimbus Mountain where the pipeline would emerge from the tunnel. However, a survey by Douglas Channel Watch members of tree growth on Nimbus Mountain, Hoult Creek on the pipeline route and Hunter Creek which are tributaries of the Kitimat River, shows strong evidence of previous avalanches which could cause serious damage to the twin bitumen and condensate pipelines.

Minchin says that documentation filed by Enbridge with the Joint Review Panel shows that while an Enbridge response crew could reach a breached pipeline in that area in four hours, it would also take four hours for as much as two million litres of diluted bitumen spilled in that area to reach the Kitimat River estuary.

The lower slopes in the area have a large population of young, small, closely packed trees and lumpy rock material on the forest floor that show that it is periodically “swept clean by avalanches,” Minchin told the council.

The young trees in the area are small because they are growing on rockfall, and there are no mature trees. There are large boulders on the lower slopes, another indication of avalanche or rock fall, Minchin said.

He showed images of middle aged hemlocks farther up the slope near the proposed tunnel exit that sometime in the past had their tops ripped off. Damage to the spreading branches of the trees on one side indicate that the trees were hit by an avalanche when they were young.

There is evidence of a major rockfall on the mountain about 50 metres above the proposed tunnel exit with rock fall material clearly visible on the forest floor. The curve of the hemlocks in the area indicate that there is still downhill movement on the slope, Minchin said.

That means, he said, that with the plans calling for the twin pipelines to be suspended 200 metres in the air over Hoult Creek, that could be hit by an avalanche.

He said the presence throughout the area of “avalanche alders” combined with the fact that there are no hemlocks, is an indication, Michin said, of regular avalanche activity.

Giant boulder brought to Houlte Creek by an avalanche — This photograph from Douglas Channel Watch shows a giant boulder and a fallen hemlock in area close to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline at Houlte Creek, BC. (Douglas Channel Watch)

He showed a photo of a large boulder, perhaps the size of a carport, 100 metres from the proposed tunnel exit that was brought to the area by an avalanche.

He said a study of the age of young balsam would tell an expert when the last massive avalanche occurred “but it won’t tell us when the next one will occur.” The steep slopes on Mount Houlte, leading to the pipeline route along Houtle creek mean that area which feeds the Kitimat River has seen many avalanches in the past.

The pipeline then goes into the Hunter Creek area, which Minchin says, Enbridge’s own experts have warned is also vulnerable to avalanches. At Hunter Creek, avalanche debris could temporarily dam the creek, and then, when the debris is released by spring melt or water pressure, that could a create a flash flood; a flash flood that could damage the pipelines.

He pointed to the fact the cleanup of the Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan had been shut down for the winter because the bitumen becomes too sticky to move. He then asked how much longer would it take to clean up a spill under the winter conditions of the Kitimat area. Noting that Enbridge has admitted the Kitimat river would be closed for fishing for “at least four years” he asked “How long will the cleanup take…eight twelve? And where would Kitimat get its water?”

Minchin concluded by saying if there is a pipeline breach at Hoult or Hunter Creeks, despite Enbridge’s plans, the Kitimat River downstream from those creeks would be polluted for years.

He then asked that council organize a new public forum, with three representatives, one from the Haisla First Nation, one from Enbridge and one from an environmental group, adding. “The mayor of Dawson Creek has been trotted out at every one of these forums and is irrelevant, which is why we ask that three people speak to the forum.”

Kitimat group launches anti-Enbridge petition/referendum

Danny Nunes, a candidate for mayor of Kitimat in the fall election, together with a group of volunteers, is launching a petition/referendum opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project.

Nunes was a gadfly candidate for Kitimat mayor in the fall election, gaining 85 votes. He is a Kitimat and Terrace based video producer and comedian, also known as Matt Mask.

Nunes pointed to a vote by Kitimat council on January 17, 2012, not to hold any council vote or referendum on the Enbridge project until after the Joint Review Panel has reported, sometime in 2013. In the meantime, Prince Rupert, Terrace and Smithers councils and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District have all had votes opposing the Northern Gateway project.

“If they won’t hold a referendum, I will,” Nunes told Northwest Coast Energy News, referring to the District of Kitimat council.

He plans an old style paper petition, getting signatures by going to events or door to door, making sure that as many signatures as possible can match the voters’ list in the last municipal election. Matching with the voters’ list is one reason why Nunes says he is not going to use an online petition site.

Once he has signatures from all those Kitimat residents who oppose the Northern Gateway project– “we’ll know if the town is opposed or just a small minority” — he plans to present the petition to District of Kitimat Council, probably sometime in April.

Links Enbridge lobbying, Enbridge pipeline, Gateway hearings and more

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

Joint Review Panel issues venues, rules for oral statement phase of Gateway hearings

The Northern Gateway Joint Review panel has announced the venues and the rules for the oral statements phase of the pipeline hearings, tentatively scheduled to begin in November 2012.

Procedural Directive #5 defines what is an oral statement. Those rules appear to be somewhat looser than the continuing controversy over the current “community hearings” where intervenors are permitted to talk about traditional or personal knowledge, but not allowed to make any technical or legal arguments on the pipeline project itself. Panel chair Sheila Leggett has to keep telling the intervenors that those arguments will be heard during the final argument phase, tentatively scheduled for April 2013. The panel has also scheduled a “questioning phase” in September and October 2012, where “where the applicant, intervenors, government participants and the Panel will question those who have presented oral or written evidence. ”

The oral statements must still be based “on personal knowledge.” That means, the panel directive says, unlike presentations by intervenors, visual aids, including electronic presentations such as PowerPoint, will not be permitted.

The communities so far chosen to hear oral statements are

Bella Bella, BC
Hartley Bay, BC
Prince Rupert, BC
Bella Coola, BC
Hazelton, BC
Skidegate, BC
Burns Lake, BC
Kelowna, BC
Smithers, BC
Calgary, AB
Kitamaat Village, BC
Terrace, BC
Comox, BC
Klemtu, BC
Vancouver, BC
Edmonton, AB
Old Massett, BC
Victoria, BC
Fort St. James, BC
Port Hardy, BC
Grande Prairie, AB
Prince George, BC

The JPR defines oral statements this way:

An oral statement is an opportunity for registered participants to provide their personal knowledge, views and concerns regarding the proposed Project to the Panel in their own words during the community hearings. Oral statements are brief and limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. Your oral statement should describe the nature of your interest in the application and provide any relevant information that explains or supports your statement.

People who registered by the Oct. 6. 2011 and who are not intervenors may make an oral statement. They are required to make the statement themselves and cannot be represented. No “walk-ins’ will be permitted.

Like the presentations by intervenors, the witnesses will be under oath. No questions will be permitted except questions of clarification from the panel itself.

Panel-Commission Procedural Direction 5 Community Hearings for Oral Statements (pdf)

“Fake Enbridge” Twitter account joins Gateway pipeline battle

Soon after Enbridge Northern Gateway decided to ramp up its social media campaign, it had a rival, a Twitter account, clearly labelled “satire” called Fake Enbridge, @FakeEnbridge.

Satirical Twitter accounts are becoming more common on the social media service, although many seem to fade away as issues die or the posters lose interest.

The fake account is a bit of a gadfly, poking fun at various players in the Northern Gateway pipeline debate as well as issues such as the Alberta bitumen sands and climate change. There are also digs at figures like Environment Minister Peter Kent, MP Justin Trudeau, Ethical Oil campaigner Ezra Levant, Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

Some postings include:

@albertachambers Remember to keep completely ignoring climate change when discussing how much Canada ‘benefits’ from oil sands.

@justinpjtrudeau – We dig your combative style! You should think about getting a job with the @ezralevant / @Ethical_Oil crowd.

Stephen Hawking and the pope may know a thing or two, but they are wrong to see climate change as a major problem.

@andrew_leach But ‘jobs’ is such a good selling point for us! Especially with politicians terrified about the bad state of the economy.

Anyone planning to swim across the Skeena River: it’s probably wise to do it before the @NorthernGateway pipeline:

@ezralevant Lots of Canadians seem to support these enviro-orgs. Some weird ‘respect for the planet we depend on’ quirk of personality.

@MarcLeeCCPA: Joe Oliver is actually a double-agent with a secret agenda to increase funding for ENGOs and derail #NGP” Cabinet shuffle?

@mpPeterKent Normally, Enviro Mins do a better job of at least pretending to care about the environment.

@mpPeterKent We’re just curious why the Enviro-Min is so pro-bitumen and anti-sea creatures / stable climate / forests / etc.

@BCFerrys All your experience suggests that the waters off Kitimat are safe places for massive oil-filled ships, right? Hundreds a year?

Smithers council votes to oppose Northern Gateway, fourth council within a month

Smithers has become the third northwestern British Columbia municipal council to vote against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, joining Prince Rupert and Terrace. Earlier, one regional district, Skeena Queen Charlotte, also voted against the controversial pipeline and tanker project.

The vote in Smithers was 5-1.

Smithers Councillor Phil Brienesse, in a statement posted on his Facebook page, said

I brought forth a new motion to oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway project. The motion passed 5-1 after careful and considerable debate by council. My decision was based in part on new information that came out from recent decisions made in Terrace, SQCRD, and Prince Rupert that made it clear that local governments had the right and are clearly permitted to provide information to the Joint Review Panel. Since the previous motion was tabled with the reasoning being that it was felt we should not be influencing the JRP it seemed appropriate to bring forth a new motion at this time taking into consideration that we made the decision based on the information currently available.

Brienesse was quoted by CFJW on Tuesday night: “I hope this really brings our community together and in particular what it does, is it brings the north together so now we have Smithers, Terrace, Prince Rupert, and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District all opposing Enbridge, in their own unique ways that makes sense to their community,” said Brienesse, adding “we have a united North, so I am very positive about this.”

CFJW said the only vote against the motion was from Councillor Charlie Northrup, who noted not all councillors were present for last night’s meeting — and he wanted to table it until everyone was there.

Enbridge spokesman Paul Stanway, speaking on CBC Radio, repeated what he said to Northern View after the Prince Rupert vote, that it was better for all communities to wait until the Joint Review Panel had finished the hearings and then make a decision based on all the evidence.

Prince Rupert council votes unanimously to oppose Northern Gateway project

Prince Rupert council has joined Terrace and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District in voting to oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project and associated tanker traffic on the west coast.

The Prince Rupert Council vote was unanimous.

The council has adopted the same resolution that the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District (SQCRD) did over a week ago:

Therefore, be it resolved that the City of Prince Rupert be opposed to any expansion of bulk crude oil tanker traffic as well as bitumen export in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound in British Columbia.

And be it further resolved that the City of Prince Rupert petition the federal government to establish a legislated ban on bulk crude oil tanker traffic and bitumen export through the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound in British Columbia.”

The council debate took place before a packed audience. Council decided to consider the matter after the Prince Rupert Environmental Society that asked the city council to adopt the resolution.

Like some other northern councils, including Kitimat, Prince Rupert had remained neutral on the controversial pipeline.

Councillor Jennifer Rice said it was time for the city to make its position clear. She said the Enbridge Northern Gateway Joint Review panel was asking northern municipalities for their opinion (although actually the opinion and argument phase of the JRP hearings won’t take place until the “final arguments” currently scheduled for sometime around April 2013).

Rice said Prince Rupert’s silence could have been taken as acceptance of the $5.5-billion proposal to pipe Alberta oil across B.C. to Kitimat, where supertankers would carry it to overseas customers.

Other members of council agreed with Rice, expressing concerns about damage that could be caused if a Very Large Crude Carrier (a supertanker) could get into trouble.

The mayor, Jack Mussallem, argued, as have others across the northwest, that council should wait until the Joint Review Panel concludes its hearings, when all appropriate information was available. He did not vote. (After the vote in Terrace, B.C. Energy Minister Rich Coleman said local representatives to follow the provincial government’s lead and remain neutral until a federal environmental review is complete.)

In response to the vote at Prince Rupert, Enbridge Northern Gateway spokesman, Paul Stanway issued a statement to the Northern View which reads.

Prince Rupert city council has expressed a position on the Northern Gateway project and that is their right. Surely the best time to make a decision in the public interest is when all the facts are known?

Northern Gateway is in the midst of an extensive federal review which will examine the project in detail and in public – as it should. We would hope that people will wait until they have an opportunity to hear the facts before making up their minds.

Most of the communities along the corridor have taken a neutral position until this regulatory review has been completed. This is fair to everyone, and it allows elected officials to get a full view of the project with all the facts having been aired through the review process – which then allows them to make an informed decision.

Numerous communities – in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba who have a history of working with Enbridge – have written letters of support for the project and filed them with the Joint Review Panel.

It is our view that the more people learn about the project, the more they tend to support Northern Gateway. A recent Ipsos Reid poll found that, among British Columbians, those in the North are the most familiar with the project, and they are also the most supportive.

(As Northwest Coast Energy News pointed out at the time, that poll had a large margin of error when it came to northern residents and it was unclear if the poll was weighted in favour of one northern region or another)