Tag: Politics & Government

Haisla outline conditions, concerns for Northern Gateway project

Haisla NationIn its extensive document filed with the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel, the Haisla Nation emphasize their opposition to the project.

However, the Haisla are anticipating that the project will be approved and  therefore submitted a lengthy series of conditions for that project, should it be imposed on the northwest by the federal government.

Nevertheless, if the project were to be approved AFTER the Crown meaningfully consulted and accommodated the Haisla Nation with respect to the impacts of the proposed project on its aboriginal title and rights, and if that consultation were meaningful yet did not result in changes to the proposed project, the following conditions would, at a minimum, have to be attached to the project.

 

1. Conditions Precedent: The following conditions precedent should be met prior to any field investigations, pre-construction activities or construction activities as well as during and subsequent to such investigations or activities. These conditions are necessary to ensure that potential effects of the project can be avoided or mitigated to reduce the likelihood of habitat damage or destruction:

Comprehensive seasonal water quality monitoring throughout the Kitimat River watershed, Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel that account for seasonal variations in flow, tidal cycles, snowmelt, rainfall, etc.

Parameters for measurement would be have to be agreed upon by the
Haisla Nation prior to certification of the project;

Comprehensive seasonal fisheries surveys of fish habitat utilization  throughout the Kitimat River watershed, Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel that account for where species and life stages are at different times of the year and accurately define sensitive habitats;

Comprehensive seasonal wildlife and bird surveys of habitat utilization throughout the Kitimat River watershed, Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel that account for where species and life stages are at different times of the year and accurately define sensitive habitats;

Comprehensive seasonal vegetation surveys of habitat utilization throughout the Kitimat River watershed, Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel that accounts for the distribution of species and life stages at different times of the year and accurately define sensitive habitats;

Development of comprehensive spill response capability based on a realistic assessment of spill containment, spill response and spill capacity requirements throughout the Kitimat River Valley, Kitmat Arm and Douglas Channel. The Haisla Nation’s past experience has shown that relying onpromises is not good enough. This spill response capability must be demonstrated prior to project approval;

Verification that the proposed project would result in real benefits, economic or otherwise, that would flow to the Haisla Nation, to other First Nations, and to British Columbia.

Whenever any field investigations or activities are proposed, the proposal or permit application would have to include the following environmental protections:

Soil and erosion control plans;

Surface water management and treatment plans;

Groundwater monitoring plans;

Control and storage plans for fuels, lubricants and other potential contaminants;

Equipment deployment, access and use plans;

Habitat reclamation of disturbed or cleared areas.

Prior to any pre-construction or construction activities the following detailed studies would have to be undertaken and provided to the Haisla Nation for review and approval, to ensure that the best design and construction approaches are being used, so that potential effects of the project can be avoided or mitigated to reduce the likelihood of habitat damage or destruction:

Detailed analysis of terrain stability and slide potential throughout the pipeline corridor and at the storage tank and terminal site;

Detailed engineering design to mitigate seismic risk and local weather extremes;

.Development of pipeline integrity specifications and procedures including
best practices for leak detection;

Development of storage tank integrity specifications and maintenance and monitoring procedures;

Assessment of spill containment, spill response and spill capacity requirements throughout the Kitimat River watershed, Kitimat Arm and Douglas Channel;

.Development of detailed tanker acceptance program specifications and
procedures;

Development of detailed tanker and tug traffic management specifications and procedures;

Development of detailed port management specifications and procedures including operating limits for tanker operation, movement and docking.

2. Ongoing Consultation: A commitment to ongoing consultation with and accommodation of the Haisla Nation on all of the activities set out above.

3. Ongoing process for variance, waiver or discharge of conditions: A commitment to ongoing meaningful involvement of the Haisla Nation by the National Energy Board prior to any decision on any changes to or sign off on conditions and commitments to any certificate that is issued.

4. Third Party Oversight of Construction: A requirement that NorthernGateway fund a third party oversight committee, which should include a Haisla Nation representative, to monitor certificate compliance during construction of the marine terminal and the pipeline. This committee would have the ability to monitor and inspect construction and should be provided with copies of allcompliance documents submitted by Northern Gateway to the National Energy Board.

5. Operational Conditions: A number of operational conditions should beincorporated into the certificate, including but not limited to:

The requirement to monitor terrain along the pipeline so that breaches based on earth movements can be anticipated and prevented;

The requirement to implement automatic pipeline shutdown whenever a leak detection alarm occurs;

Conditions on the disposal of any contamination that must be removed as a result of an accident or malfunction resulting in a spill that will minimize additional habitat destruction and maximize the potential for regeneration of habitat and resources damaged by the spill;

Parameters for terminal and tanker operations (including standards for tankers allowed to transport cargo; tanker inspection requirements and schedules; escort tug specifications, standards, maintenance and inspection; pilotage protocols and procedures; environmental conditions and operating limits; etc.) as well as other parameters set out in and reliedon for the TERMPOL review to become conditions of any certificate issued by the National Energy Board, with a provision that the Haisla Nation’s approval of any changes to these conditions is required.

Answering the questions from Enbridge Northern Gateway, the Haisla also outline a long series of concerns.

1. Physical and Jurisdictional Impacts

1.1 Construction

The Haisla Nation is concerned about the direct physical and jurisdictional impacts that the construction of the proposed project will have. These concerns are set out for each of the marine terminal, the pipeline, and tanker traffic, below:

Marine Terminal:

a. The proposed marine terminal will require the alienation of 220-275
hectares (554-680 acres) of land from Haisla Nation Territory, land
to which the Haisla Nation claims aboriginal title.

b. The terminal will require the additional alienation of land for
ancillary infrastructure and development, including:

i. road upgrades,

ii. perimeter access roads and roads within the terminal area,

iii. a potential public bypass road,

iv. an impoundment reservoir,

v. a disposal site for excess cut material outside the terminal
area,

vi. a new 10km long transmission powerline, and

vii. a 100-m waterlot with a 150-m “safety zone”.

c. The terminal proposes to use Haisla Nation aboriginal title land,
including foreshore and waters, in a way that is inconsistent with
Haisla Nation stewardship of its lands, waters and resources and
with the Haisla Nation’s own aspirations for the use of this land.
Since aboriginal title is a constitutionally protected right to use the
aboriginal title land for the purposes the Haisla Nation sees fit, this
adverse use would fundamentally infringe the aboriginal title of the
Haisla Nation.

d. The terminal will require the destruction and removal of
documented culturally modified trees, some with modifications
dating back to 1754. These culturally modified trees are living
monuments to the history of the Haisla people.

e. The terminal will expose two Haisla Nation cultural heritage sites to
increased risk of vandalism and chemical weathering.

f. The terminal will result in the direct loss of 4.85 hectares (11.98
acres) of freshwater fish habitat (harmful alteration, disruption or
destruction (HADD) under the Fisheries Act).

g. The terminal will require dredging, underwater blasting, and
placement of piles and berthing foundations, resulting in an as yet
un-quantified loss of intertidal and subtidal marine habitat.

Pipeline:

a. The proposed pipeline construction right-of-way will require the
alienation of 9,200 hectares (22,734 acres) of Haisla Nation
Territory – land to which the Haisla Nation claims aboriginal title –
and will put this land to a use that is inconsistent with Haisla Nation
stewardship of its lands, waters and resources and with the Haisla
Nation’s own aspirations for the use of this land.

b. The pipeline will require 127 watercourse crossings in Haisla Nation
Territory. Seven of these are categorized as high risk, 5 as
medium high risk, and 7 are medium or medium low risk for harmful
alternation, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. This
risk is just from pipeline construction and does not address the
issue of spills.

c. The pipeline is estimated to result in temporary or permanent
destruction of freshwater fish habitat of 3.1 hectares (7.68 acres) in
Haisla Nation Territory.

d. The pipeline will require the clearing of land and vegetation and the
destruction of wetlands. The extent of this is yet to be quantified.

Tanker Traffic:

a. Although Northern Gateway has not made any submission on this
point, it is clear that having adequate spill response capability at
Kitimat will require additional infrastructure upgrades in and around
Kitimat, as well as potential spill response equipment cache sites.
None of this has been considered or addressed in Northern
Gateway’s application material – as such the material is
incomplete.

b. The construction for this additional infrastructure could result
impacts to ecosystems, plants, wildlife and fish, and in additional
HADD or fish mortality from accidents.

All of the land alienations required for the proposed project would profoundly
infringe Haisla Nation aboriginal title which is, in effect, a constitutionally
protected ownership right. The proposed project would use Haisla Nation
aboriginal title land in a way that is inconsistent with Haisla Nation stewardship of
its lands, waters and resources and with the Haisla Nation’s own aspirations for
the use of this land. Since aboriginal title is a constitutionally protected right to
use the aboriginal title land for the purposes the Haisla Nation sees fit, this
adverse use would fundamentally infringe the aboriginal title of the Haisla Nation.

The Haisla Nation is also concerned about the socio-economic and health
impacts of the proposed project. Northern Gateway has yet to file its Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Further, the socio-economic impact
analysis submitted as part of the application provides only a limited assessment
of the potential impacts of the project on the Haisla Nation at a socio-economic
level.

Haisla Nation society and economy must be understood within the cultural
context of a people who have lived off the lands, waters and resources of their
Territory since long before European arrival. To limit a socio-economic impact
assessment to direct impacts and to ignore consequential impacts flowing from
those impacts fails to capture the potential impacts of the proposed project on the
Haisla Nation at a socio-economic level.

1.2 Operation

The proposed marine terminal, pipeline corridor and shipping lanes will be
located in highly sensitive habitats for fish, wildlife and plants. Any accident of
malfunction at the wrong time in the wrong place can be devastating ecologically.
The Haisla Nation has identified the following concerns relating to physical
impacts from the operation of the proposed project:

Marine Terminal:

a. Intertidal and subtidal marine habitat impacts as a result of marine
vessels.
b. The likelihood of spills from the marine terminal as a result of operational
mistakes or geohazards.

c. The effects and consequences of a spill from the marine terminal. This
includes impacts on the terrestrial and intertidal and subtidal marine
environment and fish, marine mammals, birds, and other wildlife, as well
as impacts on Haisla Nation culture and cultural heritage that could result
from such impacts.

d. Response to a spill from the marine terminal, including concerns about
spill response knowledge, planning and capability, as well as impacts
flowing from response measures themselves.

Pipeline:

a. The likelihood of spills from the pipeline as a result of pipeline failure,
resulting from inherent pipeline integrity issues or external risks to pipeline
integrity, such as geohazards.

b. The effects and consequences of a spill from the pipelines. This includes
impacts on the terrestrial environment and freshwater environment, and
on plants, fish, birds, and other wildlife, as well as impacts on Haisla
Nation culture and cultural heritage that could result from such impacts.

c. Response to a spill from the pipelines, including concerns about spill
response knowledge, planning and capability, as well as impacts flowing
from response measures themselves.

Tanker Traffic:

a. Increased vessel traffic in waters used by Haisla Nation members for
commercial fishing and for traditional fishing, hunting and food gathering.

b. The likelihood of spills, including condensate, diluted bitumen, synthetic
crude, and bunker C fuel and other service fuels, from the tankers at sea
and at the marine terminal.

c. The effects and consequences of a spill. This includes impacts on the
marine environment and fish, marine mammals, birds, and other wildlife,
as well as impacts on Haisla Nation culture and cultural heritage that could
result from such impacts.

d. Response to a spill, including concerns about spill response knowledge,
planning and capability, as well as impacts flowing from response
measures themselves.

e. Potential releases of bilge water, with concerns about oily product and
foreign organisms.
These issues are important. They go to the very heart of Haisla Nation culture.
They go to the Haisla Nation relationship with the lands, waters, and resources of
its Territory. A major spill from the pipeline at the marine terminal or from a
tanker threatens to sever us from or damage our lifestyle built on harvesting and
gathering seafood and resources throughout our Territory.

Northern Gateway proposes a pipeline across numerous tributaries to the Kitimat
River. A spill into these watercourses is likely to eventually occur. The evidence
before the Panel shows that pipeline leaks or spills occur with depressing
regularity.

One of Enbridge’s own experiences, when it dumped 3,785,400 liters of diluted
bitumen into the Kalamazoo River, shows that the concern of a spill is real and
not hypothetical. A thorough understanding of this incident is critical to the
current environmental assessment since diluted bitumen is what Northern
Gateway proposes to transport. However, nothing was provided in the application
materials to address the scope of impact, the level of effort required for cleanup
and the prolonged effort required to restore the river. An analysis of this incident
would provide a basis for determining what should be in place to maintain
pipeline integrity as well as what should be in place locally to respond to any spill.

The Kalamazoo spill was aggravated by an inability to detect the spill, by an
inability to respond quickly and effectively, and by an inability to predict the fate
of the diluted bitumen in the environment. As a result, the Kalamazoo River has
suffered significant environmental damage. The long-term cumulative
environmental damage from this spill is yet to be determined.

Further, the Haisla Nation is also concerned about health impacts of the
proposed project and awaits the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
which Northern Gateway has promised to provide.

1.3 Decommissioning

Northern Gateway has not provided information on decommissioning that is detailed enough to allow the Haisla Nation to set out all its concerns about the potential impacts from decommissioning at this point in time. This is not good enough. The Haisla Nation needs to know how Northern Gateway proposes to undertake decommissioning, what the impacts will be, and that there will be financial security in place to ensure this is done properly.

2. Lack of Consultation

 

Broadly, the Haisla Nation has concerns about all three physical aspects of the
proposed project – the pipeline, the marine terminal and tanker traffic – during all
three phases of the project – construction, operation and decommissioning.
These concerns have not been captured or addressed by Northern Gateway’s
proposed mitigation. The Haisla Nation acknowledges that a number of these
concerns can only be addressed through meaningful consultation with the
Crown. The Haisla Nation has therefore repeatedly asked federal decision-
makers to commit to the joint development of a meaningful consultation process
with the Haisla Nation. The federal Crown decision-makers have made it very
clear that they have no intention of meeting with the Haisla Nation until the Joint
Review Panel’s review of the proposed project is complete.

The federal Crown has also stated that it is relying on consultation by NorthernGateway to the extent possible. The federal Crown has failed to provide anyclarity, however, about what procedural aspects of consultation it has delegated to Northern Gateway. Northern Gateway has not consulted with the Haisla Nation and has not advised the Haisla Nation that Canada has delegated any aspects of the consultation process.

The Haisla Nation asserts aboriginal title to its Territory. Since the essence of

aboriginal title is the right of the aboriginal title holder to use land according to its
own discretion, Haisla Nation aboriginal title entails a constitutionally protected
ability of the Haisla Nation to make decisions concerning land and resource use
within Haisla Nation Territory. Any government decision concerning lands,
waters, and resource use within Haisla Nation Territory that conflicts with a
Haisla lands, waters or resources use decision is only valid to the extent that the
government can justify this infringement of Haisla Nation aboriginal title.

The Supreme Court of Canada has established that infringements of aboriginal
title can only be justified if there has been, in the case of relatively minor
infringements, consultation with the First Nation. Most infringements will require
something much deeper than consultation if the infringement is to be justified.
The Supreme Court has noted that in certain circumstances the consent of the
aboriginal nation may be required. Further, compensation will ordinarily be
required if an infringement of aboriginal title is to be justified [Delgamuukw].

The Haisla Nation has a chosen use for the proposed terminal site. This land
was selected in the Haisla Nation’s treaty land offer submitted to British Columbia
and Canada in 2005, as part of the BC Treaty Negotiation process, as lands
earmarked for Haisla Nation economic development.

The Haisla Nation has had discussions with the provincial Crown seeking to
acquire these lands for economic development purposes for a liquefied natural
gas project. The Haisla Nation has had discussions with potential partners about
locating a liquefied natural gas facility on the site that Northern Gateway
proposes to acquire for the marine terminal. The Haisla Nation sees these lands
as appropriate for a liquefied natural gas project as such a project is not nearly
as detrimental to the environment as a diluted bitumen export project. This use,
therefore, is far more compatible with Haisla Nation stewardship of its lands,
waters and resources.

By proposing to use Haisla Nation aboriginal title land in a manner that is
inconsistent with Haisla Nation stewardship of its lands, waters and resources,
and that interferes with the Haisla Nation’s own proposed reasonable economic
development aspirations for the land, the proposed project would result in a
fundamental breach of the Haisla Nation’s constitutionally protected aboriginal
title.

Similarly, Haisla Nation aboriginal rights are constitutionally protected rights to
engage in certain activities (e.g. hunting, fishing, gathering) within Haisla Nation
Territory. Government decisions that infringe Haisla Nation aboriginal rights will
be illegal unless the Crown can meet the stringent test for justifying an
infringement.
Main story Haisla Nation confirms it opposes Northern Gateway, demands Ottawa veto Enbridge pipeline; First Nation also outlines “minimum conditions” if Ottawa approves the project

Haisla Nation Response to NGP Information Request  (pdf)

The Enbridge Empire Strikes Back II: The Haisla “fishing expedition”

Kitamaat Village dock
The Kitamaat Village dock seen on June 27, 2012. Enbridge has filed questions asking the Haisla what they know about current vessel traffic on Douglas Channel. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

A series of questions filed by Enbridge Northern Gateway with the Joint Review Panel appear to be a “fishing expedition” to find out not only what the Haisla Nation feel about the Northern Gateway project but also seeks details of Haisla agreements with the various Kitimat liquified natural gas projects.

In its May filing, Enbridge asks the Haisla Nation 28 pages of questions, many of them political, and also try to find out the sources of funding the Haisla Nation is using for its participation in the Northern Gateway Joint Review process, questioning the credentials of the experts hired by the Haisla and are likely setting up the First Nation for Enbridge’s propaganda campaigns about current vessel traffic on the Douglas Channel.

( See: The Empire Strikes Back I: Enbridge takes on First Nations, small intervenors )

On May 11, Enbridge filed a series of questions with 24 intervenors and First Nations asking detailed questions not only about the technical issues raised by those groups but also their funding sources and their political actvity.

In its questions to the Haisla Nation, Enbridge asks a series of technical questions around the questions of “acceptable risk” and it appears, despite the fact Enbridge officials have listened to the Haisla official presentation at Kitamaat Village last January (and the speeches of Haisla members this week at the pubic comment hearings) that Enbridge is preparing to use a paper-based or Alberta-based concept of “acceptable risk,” as opposed to listening to the First Nation that will be most directly affected by any disaster in the Kitimat harbour or estuary.

The first questions Enbridge asks the Haisla Nation are blunt, and again, appear to contradict what Enbridge has been saying about First Nations agreeing to back the pipeline.

(a) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation opposes the approval of Northern Gateway’s Application for the Project.(b) If the Haisla Nation opposes the approval of the Application, please advise as to whether there are conditions of approval that would nonetheless address, in whole or in part, the Nation’s concerns.

(c) If so, please elaborate on the nature of any conditions that the Haisla Nation would suggest be imposed on the Project, should it be approved.

(d) Please summarize the effects that the Haisla Nation considers would be created by the Project, should it be approved and constructed. Include both positive and negative effects.

(e) Please describe the mitigation measures proposed by the Haisla Nation (if any) to reduce potentially adverse Project effects on the Haisla Nation’s rights and interests.

Another section of questions asks about the funding Haisla may or not be receiving.
The Haisla Nation has expressed the view that inadequate funding has been provided to participate in this proceeding.

Request:
(a) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation has received participant funding from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to participate in this proceeding.
(b) Please advise as to the amount of participant funding received to date from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
(c) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation has received significant funding from the Northern Gateway Project for the purpose of preparing traditional use studies in relation to this Project.
(d) Please advise as to the amount of funding received by the Haisla Nation from any other external sources to participate in this proceeding, or otherwise oppose the Northern Gateway Project.
(e) Is the Haisla Nation a member of the Turning Point/Great Bear Initiative?
(f) Has the Haisla Nation received funding, directly or indirectly, from the Turning Point/Great Bear Initiative for the purpose of participating in this proceeding, or otherwise opposing the Northern Gateway Project? If so, how much funding was received?
(g) Has the Haisla Nation received funding from Tides Canada or any similar organization for the purpose of participating in this proceeding or otherwise opposing the Northern Gateway Project? If so, how much funding was received and from whom?
(h)Have any members of the Kitimaat Village Council received funding from Tides Canada or similar organizations to participate in this proceeding or to otherwise oppose the Northern Gateway Project, either directly or indirectly? If so, how much funding was received and by whom? Please include funding received by the Headwaters Initiative in this response.
(i) Are there agreements or understandings in place as between coastal First Nations whereby no
coastal First Nation will oppose LNG development supported by the Haisla First Nation, and no coastal First Nation, including the Haisla First Nation, will support the Northern Gateway Project?

Enbridge then goes on a fishing expedition to find out more about their agreements with the LNG projects.

Position Regarding LNG Projects 1.5
Reference:
(i)
Kitimat LNG, News Release, “Canada, BC, Join Haisla Nation and Kitimat LNG Partners in Marking
Project Go-Ahead; ‘A Very Big Day for Our People’ Says Chief Councillor Pollard” (9 March
2011)
online: Kitimat LNG
<http://mediacenter.kitimatlngfacility.com/Mediacenter/view_press_release.as
px?PressRelease.ItemID=2807>.
(ii) Dina O’Meara, “National regulator approves BC LNG export licence Co-operative
a partnership with Haisla First Nation”, The Calgary Herald (3 February 2012) online The Calgary Herald <http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/National+regulator+approves+export+
licence/6093310/story.html>.

Preamble:
Northern Gateway would like to confirm the Haisla Nation’s position with respect to certain liquefied
natural gas (“LNG”) projects.

Request: (a) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation supports construction and operation of the Kitimat LNG Project (also known as the KM LNG Project).
(b) Please confirm that Kitimat LNG holds an export licence to ship 200 million tonnes of LNG over  20 years from the Kitimat LNG Terminal, to be located at Bish Cove, near the Port of Kitimat, BC, to Pacific Rim markets by marine vessel.

(Note since the National Energy Board approved the export licence, and that is available on the NEB site, why is Enbridge asking the Haisla and the NEB to provide information that is so readily available?)


(c)Please provide copies of all environmental assessment studies, risk assessments, TERMPOL review studies and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (“ATK”) studies pertaining to the Kitimat LNG Project. If such studies do not currently exist, please advise when they will be completed and provided. If confidentiality concerns exist in respect of the ATK study, please indicate whether the Haisla Nation is prepared to provide it to the Panel in confidence.
(d) Please provide copies of all agreements that the Haisla Nation has entered into with Kitimat LNG including, impact benefit agreements and lease agreements.
(e) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation supports construction and operation of the BC LNG Export Cooperative Project.
(f) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation is a joint venturer or partner with LNG Partners of Houston, in the BC LNG Export Cooperative.
(g) Please confirm that the BC LNG Export Cooperative holds an export licence to ship 36 million
tonnes of supercooled natural gas over 20 years from floating terminal off Kitimat, BC to
Pacific Rim markets by marine vessel.
(Again this information is publicly available on the NEB website, so why is Enbridge asking the question?)
(h) Please provide copies of all environmental assessment studies, risk assessments, TERMPOL review studies and ATK studies pertaining to the BC LNG Export Cooperative Project. If such studies do not currently exist, please advise when they will be completed and provided. If  confidentiality concerns exist in respect of the ATK study, please indicate whether the Haisla Nation is prepared to provide it to the Panel in confidence.
Position Regarding Kitimat – Summit Lake Pipeline Looping Project
1.6  Reference: (i) BC Environmental Assessment Office, “Kitimat
–
Summit Lake Pipeline Looping Project Assessment Report With Respect to Review of the Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate Pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 43” (12 May 2008) at page 7, online: BC Environmental Assessment Office
<http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p270/1214599791218_8e248
a8d30d995f6590f6f694d7789f6e20e141ef52b.pdf>.

(i) states: “The Haisla Nation wrote to the EAO indicating that they support the Project receiving a Provincial EA Certificate, subject to certain conditions (which are being
met).” Reference (ii) provides a First Nations Consultation Report in respect of the Haisla Nation.
Request:
(a) Please confirm that the Haisla First Nation supports the construction and operation of the Pacific Trails Pipeline Project (also known as the Kitimat-Summit Lake Looping Project).
(b)
Please confirm that Reference (ii) accurately describes the nature and strength of claim by the Haisla First Nation in respect of those portions of the Kitimat-Summit Lake Looping Project that will traverse Haisla traditional territory.
(c) Please confirm that
(ci) Reference (ii) lists the mitigation measures proposed by the Kitimat-Summit Lake Looping Project to address construction-related impacts on Haisla First Nation traditional territory, and that such measures are acceptable to the Haisla First Nation. If any such measures are not acceptable, please identify them and advise as to modifications considered appropriate by the Haisla First Nation.

(d) Please advise as to whether similar measures would be requested by the Haisla First Nation to deal with construction-related impacts of the Northern Gateway Project.
(e) Please file a copy of the report entitled Haisla Traditional Use and Occupancy of the Proposed PNG Pipeline Corridor through the lower Kitimat River Valley cited on page 124 of Reference
(ii).] If confidentiality concerns exist in respect of the study, please indicate whether the Haisla are prepared to provide it to the Panel in confidence.

Enbridge also asks the Haisla to provide examples of how the Haisla Nation currently regulates,
or purports to regulate, vessel movements within its Traditional Territory.

(c) Please confirm that the Haisla Nation is aware of existing and proposed marine vessel activity within its Traditional Territory, including:
(i) fuel barges
(ii) cargo/container ships
(iii) commercial fishing vessels
(iv) condensate tankers
(v) liquefied natural gas tankers

On its website Northern Gateway claims

According to numbers from the Port of Kitimat, not only have vessels carrying industrial products been travelling the channels safely for some 35 years, but so too have ships carrying petroleum products—like the one featured arriving in the Port of Kitimat through the Douglas Channel in the picture above.
In fact, some 1,560 vessels carrying methanol and condensate called on Kitimat port from 1982 to 2009 – that’s over 3,100 transits of vessels dedicated to the transport of petroleum products.
When you add vessel traffic of all industrial activity into Kitimat port, the number jumps to 6,112.
To be clear…the number of ships servicing industry arriving at Kitimat port between 1978 and 2009 is 6,112. That’s 12,224 transits!

This Enbridge propaganda campaign has been quite successful in Alberta, leading to constant tweets over the past year, mostly from Albertans such as this one from

@jeffreylowes “Tanker traffic in Kitimat today” So I wonder what the problem is? #northerngateway #cdnpoli http://t.co/w38dt7KA

(Lowes’ Twitter profile describes him as Director of Government & Industrial Relations at MREP Communications A Social Conservative, Opinions are my own. RTs not necessarily endorsements.)

That page is frequently cited on Twitter, again mostly by tweeters from Alberta and Saskatchewan who have never been within 1,000 kilometres of the the BC coast as justification for the increased tanker traffic.

Ellis Ross
Haisla Nation Chief Counselor Ellis Ross testifies before the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel at Kitamaat Village, January 10, 2012 (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Countering the Enbridge propaganda, at least in BC, but largely ignored in the rest of Canada,  was the eloquence of the Haisla elders at the January 2012 hearings in Kitimat which described the destruction of the local environment by 60 years of industrial development and the testimony of Haisla Chief Counsellor Ellis Ross about the major problems caused by a relatively minor spill in Kitimat harbour.

In addition, many of those who testified at this week’s public comment hearings, noted the difference between the current vessel traffic—no supertankers or Very Large Crude Carriers have yet sailed Douglas Channel and the fears of the vast increase in tanker traffic that will happen if all the various projects including LNG and Enbridge go ahead.

Many of the remaining questions to the Haisla are highly technical responses to their questions or filings with the Joint Review Panel.

 

Enbridge Information request to the Haisla (pdf)

 

The Empire Strikes Back I: Enbridge takes on First Nations, small intervenors

Douglas Channel
Douglas Channel at the site of the proposed Enbridge marine terminal, June 27, 2012. (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Enbridge is striking back against the First Nations and intervenors who oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline and marine terminal projects by filing questions that those groups must answer as part of the Joint Review Process.

On May 11, 2012, Enbridge filed questions with 24 organizations,  and from the questions, it appears that Enbridge isn’t  just building a strictly legal case in their favour but are preparing to try and discredit opponents.

Enbridge’s questions are part of the legal process. For months, First Nations and intervenors have been filing a whole series of questions asking for clarification of items in the Enbridge’s filings on the project with Joint Review Process and Enbridge has the legal right to ask the First Nations and intervenors to clarify their positions.

However, the difference is that Enbridge is a giant corporation which can afford to spend millions of dollars on both the approval process as well as the current nationwide advertising process, while some of the intervenors are made up of volunteers or retirees working on their own time. Sources among the intervenors have been saying for months that they believe that Enbridge is following a perceived policy of working to wear down the opponents so much they burn out and drop out of the process.

A large proportion of the questions Enbridge is demanding that First Nations and intervenors answer are overtly political, rather than technical responses to their filings.

In an apparent escalation of its campaign against its opponents, Enbridge is using the Joint Review process to ask intervenors about funding, naming such hot button organizations such as Tides Canada, which is under attack by the Harper government.  Enbridge is also  questioning  the “academic credentials” of numerous intervenors and commenters, even though the Joint Review Panel has spent most of the past seven months asking people to comment based on “local knowledge,” leaving the technical questions to the documents filed with the JRP

Some key questions directed at both the Haisla and Wet’suwet’en First Nations seem to indicate that Enbridge is preparing to build both a legal and probably a public relations case questioning the general, but not unanimous support for liquified natural gas projects in northwestern BC, by saying “Why not Northern Gateway,” as seen in this question to the Haisla Nation.

Please advise as to whether similar measures would be requested by the Haisla First Nation to deal with construction-related impacts of the Northern Gateway Project.

Black Swan

A series of questions to the coalition known as the Coastal First Nations questions the often heard assertion that an oil spill on the BC coast is “inevitable,” and Enbridge appears to be prepared to argue that spills are not inevitable. Enbridge asks Coastal First Nations about a study that compared the bitumen that could be shipped along the coast with the proposed LNG projects.

Please provide all environmental and risk assessment studies, including studies of “Black Swan” events, conducted by the Coastal First Nations or any of its members in respect of the LNG projects referred to.

Enbridge is referring to Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s now widely known “theory of high-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance and technology.”

It is Black Swan events that most of the people of the northwest coast fear when it comes to all the major energy projects, but if as Taleb says they are hard-to-predict and rare, how can the studies Enbridge is requesting actually predict those disasters?

Enbridge’s questions to the Haisla Nation runs for 28 pages and many of those questions are political, not technical, including asking for details of the Haisla support for the various Kitimat liquified natural gas projects and who may be funding the Haisla participation in the Joint Review Process. Many technical questions around the questions of “acceptable risk” and it appears, despite the fact Enbridge officials have listened to the Haisla official presentation at Kitamaat Village last January and the speeches of Haisla members this week at the pubic comment hearings, that Enbridge is preparing to use a paper-based or Alberta-based concept of acceptable risk as opposed to listening to the First Nation that will be most directly affected by any disaster in the Kitimat harbour or estuary.

(See The Enbridge Empire Strikes Back II The Haisla “fishing expedition”)

A series of questions seems to negate Enbridge’s claim that it has the support of many First Nations along the pipeline route because Enbridge is asking for details of agreements that First Nations have reached with the Pacific Trails Pipeline. Enbridge has consistently refused to release a list of the First Nations it claims has agreements with the company, but in the questions filed with the JRP, Enbridge is asking for details of agreements First Nations in northern BC have reached with the Pacific Trails Pipeline.

Funding demands

For example, while Enbridge is refusing to name all the backers of the pipeline for reasons of corporate confidentiality, the company is asking who may be funding the Wet’suwet’en First Nation in its appearances before the Joint Review Panel, including the US-based foundations named by right-wing blogger Vivian Krause,  (note Krause recently declared victory and suspended her blog) right-wing columnists and the Harper cabinet:

Please confirm that the Office of the Wet’suwet’en has received participant funding from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to participate in the Joint Review Panel (“JRP”) proceeding.

Please advise as to the amount of participant funding received to date from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Please advise whether or not the Office of the Wet’suwet’en has received funding within the
last 5 years from Tides Canada, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, or any other similar foundations, to oppose the Northern Gateway Project or to oppose oil sands projects in general.

If so, please provide the amount of funding received from each foundation.

In the case of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Enbridge is asking for details, including a membership list.

Please provide a description of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Does the Raincoast Conservation Foundation prepare Annual Reports? If so, please provide the most recently published Annual report available.

If the Raincoast Conservation Foundation is a collection of like-minded individuals, please list its members.

Did the Raincoast Conservation Foundation apply for and receive participant funding in this proceeding? If so, how much was received?

While many of Enbridge’s question to the RainCoast Foundation are technical, the company which is currently conducting a multi-million dollar public relations campaign in favour of the pipeline, asks:

Please confirm that the “What’s at Stake? study” was prepared for use as a public relations tool, to advocate against approval of the Northern Gateway.

Enbridge also appears to be gearing up for personal attacks on two of the most vocal members of Kitimat’s Douglas Channel Watch, Murray Minchin and Cheryl Brown, who have been appearing regularly before District of Kitimat council to oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline.

 

Murray Minchin
Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch addresses protesters at Kitimat City Centre Mall, Sunday, June 24, 2012, He talked about how he has learned as he goes along in examining Enbridge documents (Robin Rowland/Northwest Coast Energy News)

Credentials

On Murray Minchin, Enbridge asks:

Written Evidence Regarding Proposed Liquid Petroleum Pipelines from the proposed Nimbus Mountain West Portal to the Kitimat River Estuary submitted by Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch…. Supplemental Written Evidence Photographic Evidence Regarding Proposed Liquid Petroleum Pipelines from Nimbus Mountain to the Kitimat River Estuary submitted by Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch….

Mr. Minchin provides extensive opinion relative to geotechnical and other technical matters. Request: Please provide Mr. Minchin’s curriculum vitae which includes his education, training and employment history, to demonstrate his qualifications to provide geotechnical and other technical opinions that appear….

Minchin is one of Enbridge’s strongest opponents in Kitimat and in his various appearances (the latest at the anti-Enbridge demonstration in Kitimat on Sunday, June 24, 2012, Minchin has told the audiences that he is self-taught and has spent much of his spare time over the past few years studying the documents Enbridge has filed with the JRP.

As for Cheryl Brown, a vocal critic of the Enbridge Community Advisory Board process, Enbridge has filed a long series of questions about her involvement with the CAB, including asking how many meetings she has attended (see document below)

Two of Enbridge’s questions about Brown stand out

Has Ms. Brown offered a suggestion for a speaker that would have provided a differing viewpoint from those of Northern Gateway?

Many people in Kitimat, not just the outspoken members of Douglas Channel Watch, say they do not trust the Community Advisory Board process. When the CAB held a meeting recently to discuss marine safety, a meeting that was heavily advertised in Kitimat Terrace area, the CAB facilitators ( from a Vancouver -based company) attempted to bar the media, including this reporter, from this “public” meeting, until apparently overruled by Enbridge’s own pubic relations staff. On the other hand, everytime Douglas Channel Watch has appeared before the District of Kitimat Council to request a public forum on Gateway issues, DCW has always insisted that Enbridge be invited to any forum, along with DCW and independent third parties.

Ms. Brown states that Enbridge has not addressed the hard questions. Please confirm that Northern Gateway responded to questions put forth by the Douglas Channel Watch in Letters to the Editor in both the Kitimat Northern Sentinel and Terrace Standard in August of 2009.

Here Enbridge appears to be basing its case on one letter to the editor that appeared in local papers three years ago. During the public comment hearings that the JRP held at Kitamaat Village earlier this week, numerous people testified time and time again that Enbridge was failing to answer major questions about the pipeline and terminal, by saying that those questions would be answered later, once the project is approved.

Bird watching

In one series of questions, Enbridge is demanding a professional level database from the Kitimat Valley Naturalists, the local birdwatching group. Quoting a submission by the naturalists group, Enbridge asks

Paragraph 2.2, indicates that the Kitimat Valley Naturalists has birding records for the estuary for over 40 years and that Kitimat Valley Naturalists visits the estuary at least 100 times per year.

Paragraph 2.3 indicates the Kitimat Valley Naturalists have local expertise in birds of the Kitimat River estuary as well as other plants and animals that utilize those habitats.

Request: To contribute to baseline information for the Kitimat River estuary and facilitate a detailed and comprehensive environmental monitoring strategy, please provide the long term database of marine birds in and adjacent to the Kitimat River estuary, with a focus on data collected by the Kitimat Valley Naturalists in recent years, and where possible, the methodology or survey design, dates, weather and assumptions for the data collection.

Today the Kitimat Valley Naturalists, three local retirees, Walter Thorne, Dennis Horwood and April Macleod filed this response with the JRP:

Northern Gateway has specifically requested the long-term database of birds occurring over many years within the Kitimat River Estuary. The data we have collected includes monthly British Columbia Coastal Water Survey (BC CWS) and yearly Christmas Bird Counts (CBC). The data from
these bird counts are available on the web or in print form.

For access to BC CWS enter http://www.bsc-eoc.org

For access to CBC data, enter http://birds.audubon.org

Historical results for CBC counts have also been published by the journal American Birds. The earliest CBC count for Kitimat was 1974.

In regard to the long-term database, we have significant numbers of records for the foreshore of the Kitimat River Estuary. The number increases when the larger estuary perimeter is considered. These cover a 40-year period with the majority in the last 20 years. We would be willing to provide this information in a meaningful format.

The Kitimat Valley Naturalists, however, lack the expertise or financial ability to convert the data into a format that would address Northern Gateway’s interest in methodology, survey design, dates, weather, and assumptions for data collection.

Alternatively, we do have access to a consulting firm, which is willing to analyze our data and convert it to a useable and practical design. We assume, since this is a considerable undertaking in both time and cost, that Northern Gateway would be willing to cover the associated fees.

We look forward to hearing back from Northern Gateway and pursuing this with a budget proposal.

Northwest Coast Energy News consulted data management experts who estimated that complying with the Enbridge request would likely cost between $100,000 and $150,000.

First Nations

Some Wet’suwet’en houses have opposed the Pacific Trails Pipeline, and while negotiations with Apache Corporation are continuing, Enbridge is asking the First Nation for details of what is happening with that pipeline.

Is it the position of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en that each First Nation whose traditional territory is traversed by the proposed pipeline has a veto on whether it is approved or refused?

Please confirm that the Office of the Wet’suwet’en opposed approval of the Pacific Trails Pipeline (also known as the Kitimat Summit Lake Looping Project).

Does the Office of the Wet’suwet’en continue to oppose construction of the Pacific Trails Pipeline?

Have the First Nations who are proposing to participate as equity owners in the Pacific Trails Pipeline Project advised the Office of the Wet’suwet’en that they accept that the Office of the Wet’suwet’en has a right to veto approval and construction of that Project?

Please confirm that the First Nations holding an equity ownership position or entitlement in the Pacific Trails Pipeline Project (also known as the Kitimat-Summit Lake Looping Project) include:
• Haisla First Nation
•Kitselas First Nation
•Lax Kw’alaams Band
•Lheidli T’enneh Band
•McLeod Lake Indian Band
•Metlakatla First Nation
•Nadleh Whut’en First Nation
•Nak’azdli Band
•Nee Tahi Buhn Band
•Saik’uz First Nation
•Skin Tyee First Nation
•Stellat’en First Nation
•Ts’il Kaz Koh First Nation
•West Moberly First Nation
•Wet’suwet’en First Nation

The majority of questions filed with the Coast First Nations are technical challenges to studies filed by the coalition. Enbridge also filed questions with the Gitga’at, Gitxaala, Heiltsuk Nations and the Metis Nation of Alberta.

(Disclosure: The author, who is also a photographer, sometimes accompanies members of the Kitimat Valley Naturalists to photograph birds during the time they are doing the counts)

Enbridge Cover letter to JRP Information Requests to Intervenors (pdf)

Information Request Coastal First Nations (pdf)

Information Request Haisla (pdf)

Information Request Douglas Channel Watch (pdf)

Information Request Living Oceans Society (pdf)

Information Request Raincoast Conservation (pdf)

Information Request Wet’suwet’en (pdf)

Information Request Kitimat Valley Naturalists (pdf)

Kitimat Valley Naturalists response to Enbridge (pdf)

 

Enbridge pipeline controversy now on both coasts, Maine residents object to plan to send bitumen to Portland

It didn’t take long for the plans to send bitumen eastbound, perhaps as an alternative to Kitimat, to start controversy. The bitumen would go through the Montreal-Portland pipeline, thus the terminal could be at Portland, Maine.

The Maine coast is likely even more delicate than the British Columbia coast, and environmental groups are already gearing up to fight the pipeline as reported in the Kennebec (Maine) Journal, in tomorrow’s edition, June 21, 2012.

Tar sands oil transit meets objections

As speculation grows about the possibility of tar sands oil flowing from Canada through Maine, environmental advocates are banding together to oppose what they see as a risky proposition.

On Tuesday at Portland City Hall, [fisher Brooke] Hidell joined representatives from the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the local chapter of the Sierra Club to protest what they say is a growing threat to Maine’s quality of life.

Enbridge Corp., a major petroleum company in Canada, has applied for a permit to reverse the flow of oil between Ontario and Montreal. Dylan Voorhees of the Natural Resources Council of Maine and others predict a similar reversal of the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line, so Canadian oil could be loaded onto tankers in Casco Bay, then shipped to refineries.

Voorhees said that would provide no real benefits to Maine but would threaten the environment while increasing profits for oil companies.

If Enbridge thinks the fight in British Columbia was a headache, it is likely that any plan to use Maine as a conduit for bitumen, will be as equal, if not more controversial.

The area is often home to prominent members of the American establishment.  The Bush family compound, summer retreat for presidents George W and George H. W. Bush, is in nearby Kennebunkport.

The state is also home to a large, vibrant and vocal artistic community.

Editor’s note:  Thirty years ago, in 1983, I took an Outward Bound course on the coast of Maine at the Hurricane Island School (it has since closed).  Unlike the rugged islands of the coast of British Columbia, the offshore islands where I sailed in Maine, are considered environmentally delicate and there are restrictions on the number of visitors and use of the island.

 

 

Coastal First Nations files motion with JRP to compel province of British Columbia to participate in Gateway hearings

Coastal First Nations have filed a notice of motion with the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel, which, in effect, would compel the province of British Columbia to participate in the proceedings considering the future of the controversial Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project.

So far the province, from Premier Christy Clark and Environment Minister Terry Lake down to the lawyer representing the province at the JRP, Christopher Jones, have refused to take part.

In the motion, Art Sterritt, executive director of Coastal First Nations, refers to a story by Justine Hunter in The Globe and Mail, In B.C., energy policy becomes a political battleground which says:

A 30-page technical report containing the B.C. government’s assessment of the proposed Northern Gateway project sits on Environment Minister Terry Lake’s desk. Still, his government remains silent on the plan to build a pipeline across northern B.C. to get Alberta oil to Asian markets.

The motion requests an order from the JRP that would have:

a) The JRP to compel the Intervenor, the Province of British Columbia, to file
the technical report containing the B.C. government’s assessment of the
proposed Northern Gateway project reported on in The Globe and Mail
newspaper on Sunday June 3, 2012.

b) The JRP to compel the Province of British Columbia to file any other reports
or assessments it has done on the Project.

c) The JRP to allow Intervenors an opportunity to file Information Requests on
any evidence filed by the Province of British Columbia.

d) The JRP to compel the Province of British Columbia to indicate whether or
not it will issue a Certificate for the Project pursuant to the BC Environmental
Assessment Act.

e) The JRP to compel the Province of British Columbia to indicate whether it
intends to consult with First Nations on the Project, and if so, how and when?

The motion was filed June 8, but only posted recently on the JRP website.  Three days later, on June 11, Jones, representing the province, filed the latest letter refusing to take part in the JRP proceedings.   Since all filings are sent to intervenors and government participants, it is likely that the provincial ministry of Justice in Victoria was aware of the motion from Coastal First Nations.  The province is yet to file a response to the motion.

Earlier, on May 28, the province filed a notice with the Joint Review Panel, refusing to answer questions from the Kitimat environmental group, Douglas Channel Watch.

If the Joint Review Panel does compel British Columbia to release documents and therefore participate in the hearings, it would make the Northern Gateway issue even more front and centre in provincial politics, something Premier Christy Clark, who is in trouble in the polls, has been trying to avoid.

 

Coastal First Nations filed this statement of facts with its motion:

Statement of Facts

1.
The Province of British Columbia is an Intervenor in the JRP process but has not filed
any evidence with the JRP.
2.
The Province of British Columbia has prepared a technical report containing the B.C.
government’s assessment of the proposed Northern Gateway Project (reported on in
the Globe and Mail newspaper on Sunday June 3, 2012).1
3.
The proposed Project [both the plant at Kitimat (energy storage facility) and the
pipeline (transmission pipeline)] is a reviewable project under the B.C.
Environmental Assessment Act, Reviewable Projects Regulation, [includes
amendments up to B.C. Reg. 4/2010, January 14, 2010].

4.
The Project has the potential to significantly affect in an adverse manner the interests of CFN and its members’ Aboriginal Rights and Title.
Grounds for the Motion

5.
The Province of British Columbia has economic and environmental interests that are
potentially affected by the Project.
6.
The Province of British Columbia will be required to issue a variety of approvals for
the Project including Crown tenures and leases.
7.
The Province of British Columbia has legal obligations to consult First Nations about
the proposed project.
8.
The Province of British Columbia plays a significant role in oil spill responses and is
a member of the Pacific States – BC Oil Spill Task Force established to develop
coordinated programs for oil pollution prevention, abatement, and response.
Decision or Order Sought

9.
CFN respectfully requests the following relief:
a)
The JRP to compel the Intervenor, the Province of British Columbia, to file the
technical report containing the B.C. government’s assessment of the proposed
Northern Gateway project (reported on in the Globe and Mail newspaper on
Sunday June 3, 2012).

1 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/in-bc-energy-policy-becomes-a-politicalbattleground/
article4227695/

b)
The JRP to compel the Province of British Columbia to file any other reports or
assessments it has done on the Project.

c) The JRP to allow Intervenors an opportunity to file Information Requests on any
evidence filed by the Province of British Columbia.

d)
The JRP to compel the British Columbia to indicate whether or not it will issue a
Certificate for the Project.

e)
The JRP to compel the Province of British Columbia, to indicate whether it
intends to consult with First Nations on the Project, and if so, when?

Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative FN_Motion_4_-_A2T9V4  (pdf)

Province of BC won’t provide witnesses for Gateway Joint Review hearings

The province of British Columbia has told the Northern Gateway Joint Review that it will not provide witnesses for cross-examination during the questioning phase of the hearings.

That announcement came today, June 12, 2012, in a letter from Christopher Jones, lawyer for the province, saying that since the province “did not adduce evidence in this proceeding, it would not be presenting witnesses for cross-examination.”

The letter also suggests that those who have questions on the provincial role in the Enbridge Northern Gateway “to contact counsel for the JRP and Northern Gateway for clarification.”

The letter means that the province still has no input into the process concerning one of the largest industrial projects in BC history.

On May 10, 2012, in an story by Canadian Press reporter Dirk Meissner BC environment minister Terry Lake said the province would stay out:

B.C.’s environment minister acknowledges he’s feeling the pressure to take a stand on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project, but he says his government is determined to keep quiet until federal environmental reviews are completed.

Environment Minister Terry Lake said Thursday the province’s silence on the pipeline decision created a demand for clarity that the government was willing to withstand.

But he added: “We feel the pressure, of course we do, but it’s not responsible to take a position before all that evidence is before us and then we can make the best decision in the interests of all British Columbians.”

On Monday, Global TV’s Keith Baldry asked premier Christy Clark why the province is keeping out of the Joint Review Process. In her response, Clark repeated the provincial position that her government would not take a position on the pipeline and tanker project until the conclusion of the JRP. (Video of the item is not on the Global website).

In late May, the province told the Joint Review Panel it would not provide answers to questions from the Kitimat environment group Douglas Channel Watch about items that DCW felt was in provincial jurisdiction.

Province of BC Response to Procedural Conference Draft Report  (pdf)

 

Gitxsan lift Hazelton blockade to allow forensic audit of treaty office, repeat there is no deal with Enbridge on pipeline

A news release issued late this afternoon, June 11, 2012, by the Gitxsan Unity Movement says the group has lifted the blockade of the boarded up treaty office in Hazelton.

Gitxsan Unity says the group took down the blockade, remoiving the plywood and lumber blocking all access to allow an “enforced forensic audit” from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) Special Investigations office. According the release, the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive, Anne Scotton, from Departmental Audit and Evaluation Branch, arrived at the office, once known as Gitxsan Treaty Society, now called the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs Office, accompanied by two auditors from the Ottawa branch of Deloitte and Touche

Access to the office was negotiated in collaboration with the RCMP over the past two weeks. The release says GTS staff were permitted to enter the building to assist the auditors to locate material related to the forensic audit.

The release says

Scotton advised the auditors will be mirroring (copying) the hard drives of all the computers as well as scanning all the files and paperwork in the offices. They will also attend all the satellite offices and the off site accountants offices in Smithers to ensure they secure all the documentation for their investigations.

The release goes onto say the movement appreciates the help of Aboriginal Affairs and the RCMP “in securing all financial statements and material relative to the operations of the GTS. It will show accountability to the money received in the name of the Gitxsan people.”

it adds:

GUM remains open to and extends an invitation to the GTS Gimlitxwit to meet and settle unresolved issues pertaining to transparency and the return of authority and jurisdiction back to its’ rightful place, the Gitxsan Simgigyet and the Gitxsan Nation.

 

The release then goes to the heart of the issue  when on Dec. 2, 2011, Elmer Derrick signed an agreement with Enbridge for a stake in the Northern Gateway Pipeline. That agreement was repudiated by Gitxsan leaders the following day and the office blockaded that weekend. While there was a court injunction ordering an end to the blockade, negotiations continued for months for a peaceful end to the dispute.  Last week, on June 5, 2012, when Enbridge claimed it has the support of 60 per cent of First Nations along the route of the controversial pipeline, Enbridge repeated its contention that the agreement signed by Derrick is valid.

However the Gitxsan Unity Movement says:

TAKE NOTICE that the Gitxsan Treaty Society and terminated staff, Gordon Sebastian, Elmer Derrick and Beverley Clifton-Percival, are not authorized representatives of the Gitxsan people. Any act engaged in by this entity or individuals representing themselves as authorized representative is invalid and of no force and effect as against the Gitxsan people. Any Government, entity or individual who engages in negotiation or business transactions with GTS or terminated staff, do so at their own risk

GUM has moved a step closer, but also realizes the real work has just begun. Our goal is to bring harmony between the Gitxsan government and the values, law and will of the Gitxsan.

 

Tony Clement’s statement that Joint Review Panels cover “irrelevant issues” angers Ontario First Nations

Last Monday, the government of Stephen Harper sent cabinet ministers across the country to counter that day’s anti-censorship Blackout Speakout campaign by talking up “responsible resource development.”

That move now appears to be backfiring, at least in the case of Treasury Board minister Tony Clement, whose  reported remarks in Thunder Bay that Joint Review Panels allow “individuals to use the assessment to discuss irrelevant issues that delay projects from mining to oil and gas that create jobs” have brought a swift and angry response from local First Nations.

Clement had come to Thunder Bay to promote what is called Ontario’s “Ring of Fire” an area of extensive mining exploration and development.

On a local Thunder Bay news site, tbnewswatch, reporter Jamie Smith covered Clement’s speech at a company called Coastal Steel. Smith’s report says:

Current joint-panel review environmental assessments are duplicating the process and allowing individuals to use the assessment to discuss irrelevant issues that delay projects from mining to oil and gas that create jobs.

“Before you know it it’s going to take a decade or more if the project is a viable project that we want to go ahead with it takes a decade or more to get to a stage where you can actually get it done. That’s inexcusable,” he said.

Those words are not in Clement’s speech as posted on his website. That speech simply repeats the current government line on resource development:

We need to ensure timely, efficient and effective project reviews. This will keep us competitive with other resource-producing nations.

We need a system that promotes business confidence and attracts investment while strengthening our world-class environmental standards.

Here’s what this new legislation will achieve:

• First, it will make project reviews more predictable and timely;
• Second, it will reduce duplication of project reviews;
• Third, this bill will strengthen environmental protection; and
• Fourth, it will enhance consultations with Aboriginal peoples.

To streamline and modernize our outdated regulatory system, we will take a whole-of-government approach. We want to put in place a new system of “one project, one review” that operates within a clearly defined time period…

The fact is, our new plan will strengthen environmental safeguards, including tanker and pipeline safety. And for the first time, it will provide enforcement of environmental assessment conditions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It will also strengthen pipeline inspections and introduce tough new monetary penalties for violations of National Energy Board conditions on new pipeline projects.

(So far, no one in the Harper government has been able to explain how it is “strengthening environmental safeguards, including tanker and pipelne safety” while severely cutting the staff and resources of Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard).

According to a second northwestern Ontario news site, netnewsledger, a number of local First Nations quickly expressed their anger at Clement’s remarks about the irrelevancy of a JRP.

Chief Roger Wesley of Constance Lake First Nation took aim at the Federal Government today saying Minister Clement’s comments in Thunder Bay this week signal a new and unfortunate turn in the Government’s relationship with First Nation Peoples.

“I am worried, but also saddened,” said Wesley….

“A Joint Review Panel EA would give time for appropriate consultation and a serious look at the impacts on the land, but also on our people. Impacts to our culture, our communities, our land and way of life are not irrelevant!” said Chief Wesley….

“And as far as First Nations not having a veto, legal precedents have already been set in this country that indicate the government must seek First Nation consent if there is the possibility of serious negative impact from development on our traditional lands. They clearly do not respect their own constitution. It is a sad and frightening day when the Canadian government makes such outrageous comments.

A second northwestern Ontario chief, Sonny Gagnon of Aroland First Nation is quoted as saying:

“When a federal minister states publicly that First Nation concerns are irrelevant, everyone in this country should be worried. Today it our rights, tomorrow it could be yours. Don’t get in the way of the Government’s resource development expansion or your rights will be deemed irrelevant.”

“Furthermore the Government is using some pretty creative accounting procedures if they believe they have provided our First Nations with the finances to respond to the Ring of Fire developments.

Tony Clement has just set our Treaty Relationship back 100 years to the time when railway expansion led to the displacement and brutal mistreatment of our people, leaving a legacy of suffering.”

Northwest Coast Energy News could not independently verify whether Clement departed from his prepared text or later told reporters that a Joint Review covers “irrelevant issues.” However, now with Ontario First Nations objecting to the reports of the speech, this controversy is yet another blow to the credibility of all Joint Reviews. including the Northern Gateway Joint Review which will be here in Kitimat in couple of weeks to hear oral comments.  In the past few weeks, the Northern Gateway Joint Review has cut short its scheduled oral comment hearings in several BC communities, because those who registered are not showing up.  Reports in local media across northwestern BC say that the dropouts believe the Enbridge pipeline is now a foregone conclusion and that commenting before the JRP will have no affect on the outcome.

According to Wikipedia, the Ring of Fire is an area in the James Bay lowlands where there is growing mineral exploration. In his speech, Clement said:

The development of the Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario holds the potential for billions in mineral wealth. Private sector estimates indicate that the chromite resources there could be worth as much as $50 billion. There are estimates for deposits of base metals and platinum-group metals worth as much as $10 billion. And there may also be deposits of gold, iron and other minerals in the region.

DFO report to JRP says Northern Gateway pipeline will cross “high-risk” streams but releases only two examples on Kitimat watershed

A Department of Fisheries and Oceans report filed Wednesday, June 6, 2012, with Joint Review Panel says the department has identified streams on the Northern Gateway Pipeline route that Enbridge identified as “low risk” but which DFO considers “high risk.” However, in the filing, DFO says it can’t release a comprehensive list of the high risk streams, preferring instead to give two examples on the Kitimat River watershed.

The DFO report comes at a time when the Conservative government is about to pass Bill C-38, which will severely cut back DFO’s monitoring of the majority of streams. It appears that the anonymous DFO officials who wrote the report acknowledge that they may soon have much less monitoring power because the report says:

Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.

Note the phrase “under the current regulatory regime.”

The report also identifies possible threats to humpback whales from tanker traffic.

In the report, DFO notes that Northern Gateway’s “risk management framework” is based on DFO’s own Habitat Risk Management Framework, and DFO, notes “the approach appears to be suitable for most pipeline crossings.”

However, DFO further remarks that it has identified

some examples where crossings of important anadromous fish habitat have received a lower risk rating using Northern Gateway’s framework than DFO would have assigned. In addition, DFO has identified some instances where the proposed crossing method could be reconsidered to better reflect the risk rating.

In bureaucratic language, the Department says “DFO reviews impacts to fish and fish habitat and proposed mitigation measures through the lens of its legislative and policy framework” again a strong hint that the legislative and policy framework is about to change.

It goes on to say:

The appropriate approach to managing risks to fish and fish habitat is based on the risk categorization. For example, where high risks are anticipated DFO may prefer that the Proponent use a method that avoids or reduces the risk such as directional drilling beneath a watercourse to install the pipeline. If low risks are anticipated other methods such as open-cut trenching across the watercourse may be appropriate.

While DFO is “generally satisfied” with Northern Gateway’s proposed approach, it says “DFO has identified some crossings where we may categorize the risk higher than Northern Gateway’s assessment.”

DFO then gives Enbridge the benefit of the doubt because:

Northern Gateway continues to refine the pipeline route and we anticipate that assessment of risk will be an iterative process and, if the project is approved and moves to the regulatory permitting phase, DFO will continue to work with Northern Gateway to determine the appropriate method and mitigation for each watercourse crossing. In DFO’s view, Northern Gateway’s approach is flexible enough to be updated if new information becomes available.

DFO then says it

has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase. While there may be differences in opinion regarding the risk categorization for some proposed watercourse crossings, DFO will continue to work with Northern Gateway to determine the appropriate risk rating and level of mitigation required.

Here is where DFO points to current, not future policy, when it says:

DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures. Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.

The report then gives two examples of high risk streams both in the Kitimat River watershed

 

Example 1) Tributary to the Kitimat River, KP 1158.4 (Rev R), Site 1269

Northern Gateway Rating: RMF: Low Risk

DFO Rating: RMF: Medium to High Risk

Rationale: This is a coastal coho salmon spawning stream that is quite short in length. It has several historic culverts in poor repair which are already impacting the reported run of approximately 100 spawning salmon. Works can be completed in the dry as this stream dries up during the summer. DFO is of the opinion that the risk rating is higher than that proposed by Northern Gateway due to the sensitivity of incubating eggs and juveniles of coho salmon to sediment and the importance of riparian vegetation for this type of habitat.

 

Example 2) Tributary to the Kitimat River, KP 1111.795 (Rev R), Site 1207

Northern Gateway Rating: RMF: Medium Low Risk

DFO Rating: RMF: Medium to High Risk

Rationale: In DFO’s view the risk rating for this watercourse is higher than that proposed by Northern Gateway because this stream is high value off-river rearing habitat for juvenile salmon such as coho salmon. This type of fish habitat is vulnerable to effects of sedimentation and loss of riparian vegetation.

 

Humpback Whales

The Joint Review Panel also asked DFO for a comment on the status of the humpback whale, especially in the shipping area in the Confined Channel Assessment Area Between Wright Sound and Caamaño Sound.

DFO responds

Four areas of critical habitat were proposed for humpback whales in coastal British Columbia in the Draft Recovery Strategy released in 2010, including the Confined Channel Assessment Area from Wright Sound to Caamaño Sound. However, humpback whales have recently been re-assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and were redesignated ‘Special Concern’ but remain ‘Threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). A draft recovery strategy for the humpback whale has been prepared.
It is unclear if humpback whales are still protected as a Schedule 1 status species under the SARA and whether a recovery strategy has been finalized.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Response to the JRPs IR Request  (pdf)

Editorial: Support free speech in Canada for a proper debate on the country’s future

Blackout speak logo

On Monday, June 4, 2012, many web sites across Canada (and some in the United States)  will “black out” to protest the draconian provisions of Bill C-38, the huge omnibus bill that threatens to remake this country without proper debate either in Parliament or with the public and the news media.

As a news site, Northwest Coast Energy News will not “black out” as we have an obligation to continue to cover the news. However, make no mistake, this site supports the BlackOut SpeakOut campaign for free speech in Canada. Without free speech, the Canadian people cannot come to any informed decision on the vital issues of economic development and environment protection and climate change. Without free speech, the future of this country will be decided by the whims of the prime minister and a few of his cronies in the federal cabinet.

The word “Parliament” means to speak.  Now Stephen Harper and the operatives in the Prime Minister’s Office have gone so far as to forbid members of the Conservative Party itself to represent their constituents and actually express that representation in public, in the media and even in Parliament.

Not only is the Conservative government of Stephen Harper putting unprecedented amounts of  legislation which should be in separate bills in to the budget act and limiting debate on the bill, the government is doing everything it can to stifle debate on the issues within the massive bill.

Even before it got its majority last spring, Stephen Harper and his government stifled scientists and other officials in the government’s employ from discussing even the most minor of issues.  The government now acts like a Third World dictatorship by sending “minders” along with the scientists when they go to international conferences. You have to wonder what the world thinks when Canada sends minders to watch over this country’s scientists, just as Iraq under Saddam or Syria today use minders to watch over visiting journalists.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are cutting funding for world-class  scientific monitoring across Canada on marine pollution, studies on the changes in the ozone layer and the state of fresh water lakes. Bill C-38 will gut fisheries protection, based on the strange belief that you can protect large rivers without protecting smaller spawning streams. If the government believes that these cuts will save the taxpayer money, will reduce the deficit, they live in a fantasy world.  These cuts mean that future generations will be paying and paying to clean up the cross-country enviromental disaster that will be the legacy Conservative policies. One also has to wonder if the resource companies, which throughout history, (or at least up until now), have used that scientific research are now blinded by political ideology.

Here on the west coast, the cuts to Coast Guard protection will have a devastating effect on the safety and lives of mariners who work the BC coast and all the spin about future coast guard vessels that may be launched years from now does not change that.

We have seen the government attack environmental groups that may receive part of their funding from foreign foundations (and why not, we all live on the same planet?) while apparently accepting foreign funding to so-called “think tanks,” like the Fraser Institute, which support the Conservative Party. The Conservatives also see nothing wrong with billions in foreign investment in the energy sector, much of it from China, and the money those companies put into lobbying.  Apparently if you “invest” you have free speech, if you are not an “investor,” your free speech rights are not as important.

If the energy and other resource development companies think that Conservative policy will fast-track their plans and project, then think again. Talk of civil disobedience across British Columbia is increasing day by day. The cuts to marine pollution monitoring and Coast Guard protection mean that more people who were neutral or even supportive of those projects are now moving toward the opposition.

The freedom to speak in the media and in the public sphere remain in Canada (for now).  Parliament, however, under the contemptuous gaze of Stephen Harper, is fast becoming nothing more than a puppet show, with Harper pulling the strings.

The Blackout Speakout campaign  shows how much democracy in Canada has decayed since Harper won his majority last May.  Who would have believed a year ago that this country would need to have a campaign for free speech?

In the years before Confederation in 1867, Canadian politicians campaigned for what was called “responsible government.”  It is now time to fight that battle all over again.