Joint Review Panel Hearings Prince George, July 9 and 10, 2012

The National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) community hearings were held in Prince George on July 9 and 10, 2012. In an attempt to provide you with a sense of what is being said at these hearings, we have selected excerpts from the presentations and will continue to do so through to the end of the community hearings in July. For those of you wishing to read the complete text of a statement, it is available on the JRP website: gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/prtcptngprcss/hrng-eng.html

“I also feel qualified to speak today on the matter of the Northern Gateway Pipeline on a professional level. Originally from Saskatoon, I have a Ph. D. in Plant and Soil Biology from the University of California - Berkeley, and I’m now a tenured and full professor in the Ecosystems Science and Management Program at UNBC. This is a position I’ve held continuously for 17-plus years. My teaching, research, and service at UNBC are almost all anchored in a well-supported understanding that if we don’t begin to make environmental and resource decisions that favour the long-term survival of our species and all other life forms that we depend on for our survival, we will remain on our collision course with disaster. Incidentally, my ethos is very much in keeping with our university’s motto; “‘En Cha Hunà”, which is an old Carrier elder saying that roughly translates into “respecting all forms of life”. First Nations and biodiversity experts alike are raising enormous concerns about a range of threats to local and to global biodiversity. In fact, the data suggests that we are now in a major mass extinction event, of which this would be the sixth such event in Earth’s history -- 4.5 billion years or so -- but which in this case would be resulting almost entirely from human activities.” – Art Fredeen

“When I graduated from forestry in 1978, foresters were well on the way to realizing that we could no longer afford tunnel vision. We now recognize that the forests that we manage are complex natural systems that impart a multitude of resource values across a spectrum of socioeconomic interests. While we sometimes stumble in pursuit of that goal, we do try. However, I question whether the oil industry, of which the Northern Gateway pipeline is a symptom, fully appreciates or recognizes that it too is part of these complex natural systems and that as an industry it must be held accountable for more than just economic bottom lines. Whereas the forest industry has undergone land use planning processes with a diversity of stakeholders, where is the oil industry’s recognition and acknowledgement of multiple uses? The one-off extractive nature of the industry does not seem to lend itself to coordination, cooperation and collaboration. They do not seem to have to play by the same set of rules as other natural resource sectors, yet the industry’s impact can be severe. In addition, this myopic attitude of single-use resource extraction by its very nature is the antithesis of sustainability.” – Barbara Coupe

“But even if there is no pipeline failure there will be constant increase spillage of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Even if there is no tanker spill the waterways that use -- that are used for the tankers will have constant noise pollution, along with other pollution that falls off and drips off of ships. This is bound to disrupt the whales, the orcas, the salmon in areas which will impact -- and this will impact fishing and tourism. So, I see this Northern Gateway Pipeline Project endangering some of our food supplies, endangering some of our industries, endangering the beauty of our province, undermining our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases; all this in return for very few jobs and scant contributions to our public purse. If you weigh that against the costs of global warming we are way behind.” – Richard Demontigny

“I’ve lived in this area, Mackenzie and Prince George, for almost 40 years. My children and my grandson were born here, and we live here on purpose, part of the 5 percent of Canadians that don’t live within an hour’s drive of the U.S. border. We love it here. We have wonderful memories, unexpectedly spotting wildlife while you’re driving down the road; stopping to watch otters playing on the ice in the Crooked River; counting the swans; watching cow and baby moose interacting. We have a huge number of tourists that come through just for that purpose. I remember meeting some Swedish gentlemen and driving them up towards Bear Lake and we saw a cow and a baby moose in the Crooked River and they were just amazed. They thought that was fabulous. And what kind of opportunity would they have if there was a pipeline and there was an accidental spill and there was no more otters, there was no more swans, there’s no more moose at the Crooked River?” – Cathy Fortin

“While it is true that there are laws about tankers dumping their foreign water ballast within the 200 kilometre zone, how is this enforced? When you consider the traffic over 20 to 30 years of tankers dumping their foreign ballast laden with micro organisms, bacteria and pollutants, the exhaust and other ship discharges, including the toxic chemicals which are regularly painted on their hulls to prevent barnacle growth, the change in marine ecology would be significant. The highly prized fishery would be irrevocably altered. You would not require a spill. The ecological damage would be complete -- thank you -- we would succeed in converting our Douglas Channel, which I’ve worked on, into something of a dead zone. Not immediately, but over a 15-year period I can guarantee you that the ecology of the Douglas Narrows would be forever altered and what would remain, most of us wouldn’t want to eat.” – Diane Gerdenits

“I’m here today as I cannot rely on either my current elected officials or my current provincial or federal governments to represent or even consider my views and opinions on this matter. I oppose the development of this pipeline. I am deeply concerned about the irreversible negative impacts it will have on northern B.C.’s economy, environment, lifestyles and cultures, as well as on Canada’s international reputation and credibility. This pipeline is not in the public interest and does not contribute to national security, quite the opposite. This pipeline in an embarrassing proposition, it is unnecessary, and unwanted. There is a better way forward.” – Kelly Giesbrecht

“I’m a visitor when it comes to being in this community, this territory. I’m speaking here on -- as a member of the Tsimshian Nation, the Hartley Bay Nation, Kitkatla is my village. I’m currently doing my Masters on political identity and self-governance on our people at the university here. Enbridge talks about creating relationships, building relationships with communities and First Nations people. And, by all means, this isn’t just a First Nations issue. This is for First Nations and non-First Nations, any person in a community that this pipeline is going through or the tankers are passing by. But for us, we know that they are not hearing us. They are not building a true relationship. When we speak of relationships, we take them seriously. We honour them. If they understood what it meant to be in a relationship with our village, they wouldn’t consider this pipeline. They wouldn’t fathom anything to do with that. They are taking a risk that will wipe out our territory. Simply by proposing this and considering this, this is what the government is saying to our people: ‘Your way of life, your culture, everything that makes up your society, is inferior. We are willing to put that on the line for this project, a short-term project.’” – Spencer Greening

“I rode and worked in Banff and Yoho Parks for 16 years as a trail hand and packer and a park warden. I’ve seen the avalanches that come down and just tear mountainsides apart. When I lived in Field -- it was a Sunday afternoon, we’d all get our lawn chairs out and watch avalanches come off of Mount Burgess and Mount Dennis and Mount Stephen. And the potential to tear out a pipeline is just incredible.” – Peter Applejohn

“I’ve been to other meetings in Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, Prince George, and they described to me that -- I asked one of the fellows there that was doing it in Fort St. James if there was any fault lines he was crossing. He said, ‘Just a minute’, he says, ‘Our geotechnical specialist’ll answer that’. So he came up and he asked me again, ‘What was your concern, sir’ and I said, ‘I’m just wondering how many fault lines are you crossing from Fort McMurray to Kitimat’ and he says, ‘None’. And I said, ‘How many wetlands are you crossing’ and he said, ‘None’ and I said, ‘Well, it’s wrong’. And he said, ‘Well, why is that?’ I said, ‘Because I’ve packed all through that country. I’ve packed all -- right clean across Northern B.C. to -- to Iskut, Dease Lake country, all the southern part of B.C. through from Williams Lake West, and I’ve been all through that country and I’ve travelled every part of that country and there’s wetlands -- the country’s full of water. Full of water’.” – Ian Hickman

Enbridge is the largest transporter of fossil fuels by pipeline in North America and has been in business since 1949. You would hope that a longstanding company like this could put their success up to being at the forefront of innovation in industry standards and a consistent commitment to excellence in all aspects of their work. Unfortunately, this is not the case. If you were to assume this of Enbridge, it would be like saying that Walmart is the forefront of home -- quality home products, or McDonald’s being the leader in proper nutrition. Between 1999 and 2010, 804 spills occurred along pipelines owned and operated by Enbridge.” – Michael Houg

“I am not going to quote employment numbers for the Northern Gateway Project because they keep changing and, quite frankly, I’m starting to become annoyed with what appears to be a numbers game. When discussion about the pipeline first began several years ago, job numbers were quoted in the hundreds. As the debate heated up, suddenly those jobs opportunities were in the thousands. Lately, I’ve been reading something new. Job numbers are now quoted in person years and the numbers just keep getting larger. A recent article stated there would be more than 5,000 person years of employment. What exactly is a person year? Does Enbridge really think we’re that gullible? It’s insulting.” – Megan Homan

“In its advertisements, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway claims to be the path to the future. But what future is envisaged for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren? They will see not only inevitable contamination of land and water with oil spilled from breached pipes, but also global warming, wholesale loss of animal and plant species, and probably the eventual loss of our own species, the human race. Many experts are now certain that 90 percent of fossil fuels should be left in the ground, and we should be seeking and using other forms of energy. For the sake of our future generations, I also believe this is so. I don’t see any wisdom in this Northern Gateway Pipeline project.” – Carolyn McGhee

“In the course that I teach about environmental justice, we focus on how governing bodies implement biased policies, practices and procedures that tend to, whether purposefully or not, disproportionately adversely impact already marginalized peoples. How will I explain to my students, many of whom place their trust in the government, what went wrong? Did we know the likely distributions of cost and benefits would be skewed? Yes. Did we know that B.C. First Nations and other northern communities would bear the brunt of potential costs while the product would largely be sold elsewhere, largely benefiting shareholders and others outside the path of the pipeline? Yes. Did we fail to recognize and ensure funding the necessary evaluative, mitigation-related, and compensatory measures to deal with potential lapses in so-called proven technologies related to pipelines? Yes. Did we commit the ultimate environmental injustice by sacrificing one set of areas and peoples and resources for the limited benefits of others? Yes. Did we choose to recommend a pipeline likely to lead to Aboriginal uprisings, direct action, and violence on the land? Yes. Wasn’t it known that all of this could potentially lead to environmental justices big and small across our lands and waters? Yes. You see my problem? I will have no good way of explaining this compelling set of circumstances as reasons for endorsing the pipeline.” – Zoe Meletis

“I have seen the Enbridge ads that have been infiltrating our community. Enbridge is right. This is more than a pipeline. At the local level, it is a threat to the livelihoods and cultures of First Nations and non-First Nations along the proposed pipeline route. At the regional level, it is an indicator of how this province and nation regards its Northern places and peoples. At the national level, it is a continuation of our petro-state mentality which believes that the natural interest is to bow down to large oil companies and continue down a trajectory of raw resource export that reduces the number of jobs for Canadians and creates boom-bust economies and social challenges in some of Canada’s most vulnerable communities.” – Nadia Nowak

“I have so many concerns about this project, but my greatest concern about the Northern Gateway Pipeline project is the threat it poses to the food security of B.C.’s First Nations. In my research, I’ve been working with Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, and they always share with me their food and their appreciation for the land that supports them. And something that I hear constantly is the concern about protecting those resources so that they can continue to eat the food from the land and from the water, but also that future generations will have that opportunity, and the fact that it’s so important to keep these country foods safe to eat. And the reason I hear about that is because I study contaminants, but in this case, the pipeline spills that would happen if this pipeline were built would not just contaminate, but would actually destroy the food that people rely on.” – Sonja Ostertag

“I’m a professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Northern B.C. I’ve been here since 1995. One of my areas of specialization is the study of climate and climate change and also air pollution. I do know quite a bit about the weather and meteorology of the north coast and it’s one of the stormiest places on earth. The Hecate Strait, just outside of the inlets, is prone to some of the highest wave heights that we have in the world. So it’s a very dangerous coastline in terms of tanker traffic. Climate change, as an atmospheric scientist, I can say that climate change is happening, the earth is warming. That’s pretty well undisputed. The impacts of this are a gradual warming in temperatures but also an increase in the variability of weather, so more extremes in precipitation, so more droughts, more severe storms and more heat waves, et cetera. The impacts of climate change are disproportionally felt in the Polar Regions; so in the far north and the far south. So Canada will see some of the biggest impacts of climate change.” – Peter Jackson

“Our property is not on a direct route of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, but I’m here today to let you know that I feel deep sympathy for farmers whose properties will be crossed or nearby and for all the people who feed themselves with hunting or fishing on the land and rivers that could be affected if a spill was to happen. A pipeline will generate a bit of money and jobs to Northern British Columbians for some time but the thing is that we will always have to realize that we cannot eat neither oil nor money. We will not always have access to cheap energy to import food, therefore, I strongly believe that we must not compromise our ability to feed ourselves and the future generations to come by allowing -- allowing a pipeline that could leak and poison our food pantry.” – Janie Roberge

“Prince George is already considering and responding to ecosystem changes, most notably those associated with the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and there are also established links between climate change and increased river flooding and increased freeze-thaw cycles and their effects on infrastructure. I don’t know if you’ve done any driving during your stay here but the -- the roads are interesting, to say the least. This brings me to my first points that I would like to make. My research shows that the -- shows me that the Enbridge pipeline is designed for the current climatic conditions. This does not -- and does not consider the projected future conditions and impacts that these changes will have on its design or its life. Therefore, the effects of the environment on this project, in my mind, are not properly considered. The project has a design year of -- design life of 30 years which will bring us to nearly 2050. Increases in wildfires, slope failures, floods, avalanches, severe storms and extreme precipitation events, freeze-thaw cycles, and others are already occurring. These will all pose serious threats to the pipeline structure and the activities at either end of the pipeline. They greatly increase the risk of accidents and spills and also the ability for people to effectively respond to them.” – Ian Picketts

“Over the past months, I’ve spent many hours thinking about what I could say to you that might make a difference. We sometimes feel insignificant out here on the edge of the continent when the high rollers in Alberta and in Ottawa make decisions that will change our lives and the lives of the generations that will follow us, but I am convinced that my opinion does matter and that my small voice is one of a chorus of voices and that together we will be heard and we will be heeded. As a species, humans are transformers and exploiters. It seems to be in our nature to change our environment to our advantage. However, we’re not very good at foreseeing the unintended consequences of our actions, and we’re also pretty good at ignoring the obvious when it suits us ideologically. There will be environmental degradation from this project, and Enbridge’s efforts to deny it and gloss over that fact are, at best, disingenuous. We have enough examples from ocean spills and pipeline breaks to know that it can range from relatively localized destruction to vast swaths of irreversible ecological disaster.” – Robert Watt

“The Canadian government’s behaviour in this project has really scared me. I’ve seen increasingly blatant attempts by elected officials that are supposed to be serving Canadians to push through this agenda, in spite of a long list of very good reasons not to, and a very short list of good reasons to do it. As a scientist, I’ve seen, in the last 10 years -- more so, recently -- what seems to be increasingly an actual campaign by the government against scientists, against government-funded scientists to try to muzzle them regarding the state of the science.” – Doug Streifel

“The proposed Northern Gateway pipelines which will convert the ecosystems they pass directly through and degrade the ecosystems surrounding them pose an unacceptable environmental threat to Northern B.C. In addition to the high likelihood of an oil spill along its 1100 kilometre route to the Coast, this pipeline will create a permanent linear disturbance that will disrupt wildlife movements, increase the susceptibility of ecosystems to invasive plants and alienate the habitat of the many plants and animals that use these lands to survive and reproduce. The pipeline will worsen the fragmentation of a landscape that already bears the cumulative burden of industrial developments. Considering the effects of industrial projects, such as the Northern Gateway Pipelines independently rather than cumulatively is part of the reason we are facing some of the ecological problems we have.” – Michelle Connoly

“Those that seek to build a pipeline and those who intend to allow it do not even have rights to this land. We are settlers on stolen Native land and both the government and corporate entities involved in this project have no rights to that land that they wish to further mar. As you are hearing again and again, there is a never-ending list of reasons why this proposed pipeline will have a detrimental and long-lasting impact on every community, human and non-human alike, that lives anywhere in the vicinity. The most impacted communities are the most marginalized and silenced, while those reaping the benefits from this environmental destruction feel almost none of the impact. The powerful benefactors only have interest in capital and colonizing. We are granted no power in this so-called democracy. This process is a further example of that.” – Chelsea Cox

“I am a human being, a Canadian citizen, a dweller in the north, and this is what I have to say. Taking for granted the animals, the rivers and the ocean, the air, the food -- taking that all for granted is taking our connectivity for granted. We belong to each other and we belong to this land. We are connected. For a company to come to this pristine land, this sacred wilderness, this spawning ground, this First Nations cultural context, for a company to come to this and say their project is a worthwhile business venture is ignorant. It is disrespectful, but what is respect to capitalism? We have to show respect for money, for investors, for job creation. Well, don’t think we care about foreign investors or the rich getting richer, because we will not desecrate our land for that.” – Robyn Ocean

“I am a member of the Kwikwasut’inuxw First Nation; it’s a coastal First Nation in Vancouver Island. However, I’ve resided here in Prince George in the last 10 years. I’m very close to my families on the coast and I still eat many foods from the coast. And these foods would include various types of salmon. They would include -- they would include seal and halibut, sea urchin, sea cucumber, clams, cockles, seagull eggs, octopus, crab, to name a few. I bring forth some of these foods from the coast and trade with the -- not only the Carrier Sekani peoples here in the Prince George area but also with non-First Nations peoples in regards to the various foods that I and my people and my family enjoy. And I just really wanted to let you know that I would not want to see the -- the sustenance of our peoples and these trade routes with other people here in the interior put at risk.” – Patrick Coon

“The expanded oil sands production needed to supply the Enbridge pipeline would require 74 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year, equivalent to 34 percent of B.C.’s annual natural gas consumption. These statistics are from the Pembina Institute. This expansion will produce an extra 6.5 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions each year, equivalent to putting 1.6 million more cars on the road. Vast quantities of water from the Athabasca River with its receding glacier are required for this project; all these drastic effects just to supply China with our dirty oil and to increase the income of the big oil companies. How can we condone this when we’re meant to be reducing our carbon footprint to mitigate the obvious effects of climate change? ” – Hilary Crowley

“I’m a retired former employee of West Coast Energy, which is a pipeline company that’s been pumping gas and oil the length of British Columbia for the last -- more than 50 years. Our president and other members of our senior staff would remind us on a regular basis to be diligent in everything that we do in the operation of the pipeline to prevent spills, to prevent accidents because the privilege to exist was at the goodwill of the communities that we operate in and that the licences that we operate came from the NEB as well as the provincial British Columbia and Alberta provincial governments. Here we are in the 21st century and the process seems to be turned on its head. What seems to be the way things work these days is (a) the corporation tells the Prime Minister what they want to do with the peoples’ resources, and (b) the Prime Minister tells his Environment Minister to keep the public input to a minimum and let’s get the project on the go with the green light as quickly as you can. Well, from where I stand, Enbridge is the last corporation in North America you would want to have build a pipeline and operate a pipeline in this part of the country. Enbridge’s own corporate social responsibility report states that they have an average between 60 and 80 spills per year. This equates to more than one spill a week. In 2008, they had 93 spills, which is nearly two spills a week, totalling more than 2 million litres of oil.” – Floyd Crowley

“What is the connection that I want to make between sandhill cranes, swans, pelicans, auklets, and indeed all birds, and between birds and humans? It is water. Clean water. Be it in the streams and rivers or in the ocean. Without clean water none of us can live. I am certain that if the Enbridge pipeline goes through there will be ruptures and spills. When those occur there will be birds, fish, other wildlife, and humans negatively affected. The spill will, if it occurs in water, coat the birds and kill fish. If it occurs on land it will soak into the soil and make its way to the water. These risks are unacceptable in my opinion.” – Heather Sapergia

“Considering these high environmental costs, B.C. seems to be risking a lot for little in return. Apart from some job creation in B.C., it seems to me that the big winners will be the Province of Alberta and the federal government while B.C. assumes the majority of the risk and costs. The benefits to Alberta and the federal government of exporting this oil are short-term in comparison to the long-term benefits to B.C. of healthy oceans, forests, lakes and rivers. I would be more willing to accept the risks if these oil resources were destined for domestic use. As it stands now, the majority is bound for international markets and I’m not willing to risk my home for that. I’d like to finish by reminding the Panel of B.C.’s official motto: Splendour without Diminishment.” – Alex Koiter

“I am particularly concerned about this pipeline crossing on the Stewart River as I have learned that the Nechako River into which the Stewart flows, feeds the city of Prince George’s drinking water aquifer system. To learn that an oil pipeline crossing was planned for upriver of our city’s water supply certainly alarmed me particularly as this is a shallow aquifer system which I understand is easily susceptible to contamination. Large questions loom and remain unaddressed by the written material submitted by Enbridge. What happens if there is an oil or condensate spill at that crossing into this watershed?” – M. MacDonald

‘I stand before you, an accumulation of cells forming blood and bone. Each one of my cells a collection of what I voluntarily and involuntarily take in through water, food and my environment. By approving this pipeline, this government is saying that our bodies are expendable. This government is saying that my family is worth less than the money that can be reaped from this dirty oil.” – Natasha Thorne

“This project will mean compromised sea life, shores, fisheries, health, safety, jobs and recreation. You know this. You must know how many billions of dollars come to supernatural B.C. for our natural scenery. How many billions of dollars are spent by tourists in the small communities that line the highway to the Coast? Who will come when it’s ruined? This project will cost us the archaeological evidence of thousands of years of human habitation on this Coast; it will cost us the clam gardens and the fishing weirs. It will damage and reduce access to hundreds of traditionally used areas. How will we learn about the human cultures who lived there if the evidence of those lives are destroyed?” – Gillian Wigmore

“I’m a journeyman carpenter. I have been a carpenter since 1994 and, in 2002, I took up industrial scaffolding and I now teach scaffolding, and one of the things that I’ve seen change over the years in construction is the emphasis on safety; there’s so much more emphasis on safety. And I feel like the analysis for Enbridge hasn’t been done sufficiently. I don’t feel as though -- I don’t feel as though the controls have been put in place to cope with very remote areas that the pipeline traverses; dealing with things like very deep snow and very deep ice and very cold temperatures in times when it will be very hard to get in. I also am concerned about the tanker -- possible tanker damage. Enbridge has said they won’t be responsible for anything that happens on the water and the government has said that it is not capable of responding to anything that’s on the water. And, not only that, they’ve now moved the B.C. Spill Response Unit all the way to Quebec and so getting out here from Quebec is going to be difficult, and I don’t think that this has been properly dealt with. Honestly, if this was a scaffolding job, there’s no way WorkSafeBC would let us continue. It just wouldn’t be allowed to; there’s not enough controls in place.” – Karen Anderson

“An oil spill would be devastating to the salmon stocks in these rivers. The bitumen would not only be on the top surface but it would also settle into the gravels and be very difficult to remove. Removing the gravel so you’d be essentially removing the spawning habitat for the salmon and the different embryonic stages of the salmon are very sensitive to any contamination whatsoever. It’s just a fact, and it’s a pretty basic fact of ecology that, if you’re removing the base of a food web, the entire food web suffers. So it’s not just the animals that you would have to be pulling out of the rivers and marine systems that are doused in oil, it’s the entire ecosystem around it that’s going to suffer.” – Becky Cadsand

“I’ve lived in B.C., northern B.C., long enough to have met some of the people who depend on the surroundings for clean food and clean land, and to know that having clean food and clean land directly affects their happiness and their wellbeing. I have come to know whom this project threatens and it scares me, and it makes me feel sick and angry. And if I had to watch my own land be transformed this way I know that a part of me would be saddened and die, really. I identify with the land as I know many others do along this proposed pipeline route and tanker route. It is their home and I think it’s time that we respect that.” – April Haubold

“And even in the best safety systems, such as those practiced by airlines, there is still human error and/or natural disaster. Witness Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Kalamazoo River in Michigan, and the Mississippi River in Minnesota, not the mention the birds that flew into the aircraft in New York. And when cleanups are done, how will -- how -- how clean will the contaminated area really be? Will the powers that be at Enbridge swim in the cleaned up rivers, lakes, or inlets, let alone raise a glass of the same water to their lips? How about a fillet of fish? What is the half-life of a dilbit spill? Can the ecosystem recover? Can the people? There comes a time when the career industry has run its course. Many in this province have felt this. This moment is an opportunity to invest in a different future -- a new path.” – Andreas Hahn

“When you review these oral statements, please consider how few people actually think this pipeline will benefit them. Apart from some job creation in B.C., all the economic benefit goes to the other major players. B.C.’s expected to assume to the majority of the risks and the costs but next to none of the benefits. It is not even as if the oil is coming to B.C. to fulfil the domestic demand. How can we be told to give up the long-term benefits of healthy oceans, forests, lakes, and rivers for so little? I cannot risk my home for that and I ask that you don’t risk it either.” – Stephanie Lazerte

I was at the laundromat the other day in Prince George, and as I came out of the parking lot, there was a man by my vehicle looking at the sticker I have that says, ‘Say no to Enbridge oil.’ One never knows what to expect, but he looked at me and he said, ‘Thank you.’ We began a conversation about the proposed pipeline and I asked him if he had signed up to speak before this Panel. He said he was from a small coastal town and the hearings weren’t coming to his community, so we spoke for a while and he told me this story. He was hired for quality assurance on a pipeline and he said the work he saw was so shoddy, he was outraged. His wife, who was with him, said she was hired as a worker on the pipeline and the first day of work, she was already being taught how to cut corners. They decided that they couldn’t work this way and they quit. And I need to say this because the jobs weren’t worth it. We spoke a bit more and as they were leaving, I looked at them and I thanked them for their integrity. The man paused, looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘Well, we have morals, and this industry is simply about greed.’ – Margaret Lacheki

“I’ve worked for the oil industry before, on the East Coast, and one thing they do is they do a lot of shortcuts. Things are bound to get damaged. You’re going to destroy -- where that line goes, you’re going to destroy a lot of land.” – Don Melanson

“Everywhere you look, there’s evidence of B.C.’s beauty encapsulated in photographs. The high quantities of stunning nature photography that comes out of B.C. is not due to any great photography schools or an abundance of amazing photographers, but it’s attributed to the fact that any person that has ability to work a camera can’t help but be sucked in to trying to capture it’s fascinating natural world surrounding us. And those -- and of those people, many are hooked for life, always searching for the perfect tree, a perched osprey, an un-startled fox, or the sun hitting the mountains in just the right way. I fear that construction of the Northern Gateway Pipeline puts all of these treasures in inevitable peril. The National Energy Board estimates a pipeline of this length will experience a spill once every 16 years. So I feel I speak the truth that if this pipeline is approved, we must not speak of if there’s a spill, but when. It will be an inevitability. A looming disaster waiting to poison our rivers, lakes, streams, and coast, endanger our wildlife, wipe out our forest health, and forever change the lives of all people living in beautiful British Columbia.” – Chelsea Miller

“I do a lot of business plan evaluation on a small scale and it’s clear that Enbridge is not responsible for the risk in this situation. In talking about -- I think you received Robin Allen’s Report on the Risk Analysis in insurance coverage that this pipeline may have in the case of an accident. In 2010, Enbridge reported to its shareholders that it ‘can make no assurance the insurance coverage we maintain will be available or adequate for any particular loss, or that we will be able to maintain an adequate insurance in the future or at the way we consider be reasonable.’ To accept at face value the promise that Enbridge will take responsibility for spills, accidents or losses as a result of this project, is clearly -- it would be silly. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that they would be responsible, liability wise. And, it’s certainly not written into their financial statements.” – Jillian Merrick

“Speaking particularly of oil, everyday there is 80 million barrels less than there was the day before. Some day we will not be pumping more oil each year than we did the year before. Some day we will need more pipelines than we did the year before. This will be a big change. How can we ready society for these inevitable, non-expansive times? Well, someone has to be the grown up. Someone has to say, let’s save some oil for later. There’s no need to rush. There’s no need to take these risks. The oil doesn’t need to come out and be sold by the end of this fiscal year. Oil is patient; it has been down there a long time and can wait another 20 years. As long as there is oil, there will people to buy it, there’s no need to cross oceans recruiting customers. We need mature voices to speak of restraint and patience to Proponents of this enthusiastic pumping frenzy. The ambition of eternal growth would destroy us. It has already destroyed so much.” – Jason Sanders

“An obvious alternative to us being proposed is to refine the bitumen at the site or near the site and that would reduce a lot of the dangers I’m talking about. It would also be a value-added project with a lot of advantages to Canadians, lot more jobs. Informetrica has done a study of that approach, as you know and -- well, it was an add-on study to what they did for the Keystone -- but they found the concept to be sound and including in that the reduction in the social costs, environmental costs and health costs, makes it look even better.” – Chris Purton

“The construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline will change what it means to be Canadian. The decision to construct this pipeline demonstrates to Canadians and to the world that we as a society do not care about our home because all Canadians identify with the society in which we live. If this pipeline is built, which is supposedly a reflection of society itself, citizens will degrade the belief that environment is good and, consequently, behave in ways which reflect that belief. Decades of work from everyday people, environmental activists, and even the government, who attempted to incorporate respect for the environment as a component of the Canadian national identity with great success. The Gateway Pipeline is a direct slap in the face to Canadian social development.” – Ian Newcombe

“And what really captured me about the north was not necessarily -- although I love the city -- but I grew to just love the outdoor experiences, and I definitely would love that to be available for my grown children and their children to come. So definitely, I am against the Northern Gateway Project and agree with the speakers that it is very important that we change our thinking about how to gain resources, or gain energy, in a way that will keep our environment safe.” – Elaine Yorston

“Our family moved to Haida Gwaii, the Queen Charlotte Islands, when I was seven and I lived there for 25 years on and off. In a modern world where everything is a commodity, has a price, is being used up, this place is remarkable. Here, the oceans are still clear and deep. There are no oil slicks on the surface. Here, the food can still be eaten. The waters are not filled with the poison of human progress. Here, the communities are integrally connected to the land and the sea and the peoples’ spirits burn brighter. Here, you cannot trick people into believing they would be richer to take money over the wealth of the land and the sea. How could you risk all this for short-term gain?” – Lisa Bland

“I am not a Native person but I strongly believe that when one person or group have their basic human rights trampled on, we are all affected. If I do not act in whatever way I can to prevent such abuses, I am implicated. As a concerned human being, I feel the need to speak out about what I see as the injustices against our Aboriginal brothers and sisters that will follow if the pipeline is built. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Government of Canada finally acceded to this Declaration years later. Bearing in mind that First Nations peoples across the pipeline route have not ceded their traditional lands through treaties or other means, I read to you part of the Declaration with respect to development. This is from Article 32:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources;

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”

As many First Nations along the pipeline route and on the B.C. Coast where tankers carrying diluted bitumen will sail have strongly voiced their opposition to this pipeline, obviously free, prior and informed consent of the concerned First Nations has not been nor will be attained. Therefore, if the pipeline goes ahead, their right to control their traditional territories will have been grossly violated with many detrimental, environmental, social and cultural effects to follow. I believe that the fact that First Nations along the route have refused to give their free, prior and informed consent to this project and are actively opposing it is sufficient reason to reject it.” – George Harding

“In my talking with people over the years, I found that there are a lot of people at risk in our communities, in our First Nations communities, in our small towns and they’re at risk because they utilize the environment in a real way, in a tangible way. A way that people in cities don’t really understand. They’re eating the animals off the territories. They’re drinking the water. Their life depends on these territories and I think that being reckless, in other words, building this pipeline, we are putting people who are most at risk into further risk. I don’t think that that can be understated in any way. We need to be able to protect them. We -- not just now, but into the future, we have a responsibility. You three and all of us here have a responsibility to not kill our grandchildren; to not poison our great-grandchildren. We have a responsibility.” – Stephen St. Laurent

“I’m a professor and now acting chair of First Nation Studies at UNBC. Yesterday, one of our students, Pat Coon, spoke here about his concerns about all the -- the kinds of life forms that -- that have -- that have fed his people for a very, very, very long time. All of these peoples have a deep concern for the interrelatedness of all life forms. The fish -- all forms of fish -- all the animals, the birds and humans, they’re all -- they’re all interrelated. They see this very, very deeply. They experience this very, very, very deeply. The impact of a spill of bitumen in any three of these -- these rivers systems, you know, the Dunne-za, the Beaver Indians, live on the one that goes up into the Arctic Ocean, you know, from Peace River on up. The Lheidli T’enneh, the people in this area, live on the Fraser and the Chilko system where the salmon come all the way up from the mouth of the Fraser River. The Wet’suwet’en for whom I work with live on the Morice -- the Bulkley -- which flows into the -- the Skeena River. All of these areas have a potential to be hugely, hugely, hugely impacted by spills on these river systems.” – Antonia Mills

“Enbridge proposes to ship Canadian oil to foreign ports, namely the U.S. and China. This scheme ignores shipping the bitumen through existing and underutilized pipelines to Canadian refineries in the East and prevents securing a completely domestic oil supply. How is this good for Canadians? Pipeline oil spills emit hydrocarbons polluting air and water. The bitumen transported in the pipeline is facilitated by corrosive chemicals which weaken the integrity of the pipes. The Enbridge pipeline route is over a vast area of unstable ground. Such a leak would poison air and water and have a toxic, possibly deadly affect on plants, animals, and humans. How is this good for Canadians?” – Ellen Loughery

“I’m not vain enough to believe that I have fresh facts or insights to add to those you’ve heard repeatedly, time and again. But I have fervent wish that, at the conclusion of these hearings, you will submit a comprehensive, unbiased report of all the arguments, pro and con, which you have heard -- that this report be made available to all British Columbians to become the basis for a simple, binding referendum -- yes or no -- do we want this project to proceed. The fate of our beloved project, its peoples and its lands, should not lie solely in the hands of transient politicians in Ottawa, or Alberta, nor even British -- nor even Victoria.” – James Loughery

“Make no mistake. Whether or not an oil spill happens, the money and relatively few jobs created by the Northern Gateway pipeline in northern B.C. will always depend on the exploitation of petroleum resources that contribute to global warming that destroy and poison ecosystems in northern Alberta, British Columbia and the Territories. This is not development. I’m not willing to support the short-sighted exploitation. The benefits will flow to Enbridge and distant jurisdictions, and the risk will pool across northern B.C.” – Phil Mullins

“The economic benefits that Enbridge has been trying to sell to us are silly. I see little or no economic benefit to this pipeline, besides a handful of long-term jobs and some tax revenues which, I should note, we have all gotten by without just fine. We the B.C. residents will have to endure potential hikes in gas prices, possible inflation, and increases in interest rates.” – Hanna Posselt

“For northern British Columbia to thrive and prosper we need our environment and our economy to be healthy and sustainable. We have a responsibility as northern residents to contribute to both collaboratively. We also have a responsibility to our children and future generations to create a legacy that will ensure that they too may benefit from and enjoy the wealth of natural resources that this region offers. To consent to the Northern Gateway Project is to ignore that responsibility. To sit idly by and not express your concerns and make known your opposition is to passively enable it.” – Josh DeLeenheer

“I have struggled to find hope that what I do, and that what everybody does, to protect their communities, to protect their land and the wildlife, will make a difference. But being here today, to speak to you, is a demonstration that I have found hope. Hope that when people come together to speak up, that their voices will be heard. I’m going to briefly share with you what I think and feel about health, and its relationship to the proposed Northern Enbridge Pipeline. When I speak about this relationship, I’m referring to the impacts that I believe will exist if Enbridge attempts to push this pipeline through. These impacts include, but are not limited to: natural destruction caused by expansion of the tar sands; the contamination of water along the proposed pipeline route during construction and when there are spills; interruption of ecosystems during construction, and when there are spills; depletion of jobs and fisheries when there are spills; loss of sustainable local food systems and security; loss of culture; loss of relationships, and loss of democracy.” – Amber Van Den Biggelaar

“Over the centuries, trappers have had to adapt to constantly changing environment and social conditions. As the population of Canada increases, the wilderness land decreases. Therefore, those species that depend upon wilderness also decrease. We must do everything reasonable to ensure that the land left for wildlife remains in the best condition to support those animals. The construction of a large pipeline will disturb those animals that live along the path. The corridor created will place a barrier in the way of movement and reduce possible denning sites.” – Don Wilkins

“I have wanted to believe that even though the mounting evidence screams otherwise, the people of the oil industry are reasonable and that we share a common bond that we are living together and sharing mutually the benefits and the profits of this incredibly bountiful planet we call earth. I chose to attend as many community hearings as I could before I speak to you, knowing that I would hear the truth from my fellow Canadians. I have heard what you have heard; I implore you to hear the reason. I beg you to stop this proposal. You have had the privileged opportunity to hear the wisdom of my fellow Canadians and I have heard well-learned and well-researched appeals to stop this proposal for a new pipeline, when there is already a pipeline in place that more than meets the need of the current oil industry.” – Gale Inkster

“The fact of the matter is that northern B.C. is consistently faced with booms, busts, and is extremely susceptible to outside market shifts. And I can vouch for that, I’ve been in Prince George for nearly 20 years now. This pipeline does not help the situation. In fact, it has the ability to perhaps make it a lot worse. More short term jobs, more external shifts, more temporary workers in field camps, less community and less security potentially. Also, the people who live in the north are the ones who will deal with the inevitable consequences of this project. Spills, leaks, mistakes, they happen.” – Sarah Boyd

“Another layer of hazards are man-made such as those created by existing and past industrial activity, such failing tailings ponds and industrial explosions. In this environment, comprehensive emergency management is already complex,uncertain and highly challenging. Against this backdrop, we must now consider the many new hazards and risks associated with the proposed project. Oil and hazardous material spills are a high-profile hazard. Diluted bitumen and condensates are new. There are others though. For example, those created in the preparation and maintenance of the pipeline routes, including the poisoning of vegetation and the landscape and habitat destruction that goes with it. Perhaps most important to consider are combinations of hazards and cumulative effect of risks. The combination of natural hazards and man-made hazards could create a major disaster. A small example, but a powerful one, would be a powerful earthquake in Kitimat or in Fort Nelson. Such events should be anticipated rather than wished away. Wildfires along the pipeline route in pine beetle-damaged forests are also something we should expect and respect, rather than hope it won’t happen.” – Homaida Razack

Produced by Northwest Institute