Hundreds of people gathered in Kitimat B.C in opposition of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. This was the first public meeting that allowed community members to voice their concerns and questions regarding the proposal. It also gave Government officials such as our local MLA Gary Coons to talk about his concerns and the risks involved in the project. Other attendees such as First Nations, environmental groups, fisherman and all other community members spoke passionately about their opposition to the project.
“The opposition to this project is massive and growing everyday”, “We have drawn a line in the sand. There will be no Enbridge Pipeline and there will be no crude oil tankers in our waters. This is not a battle that we intend to lose.” Gerald Amos, MC at protest.
North Coast MLA Gary Coons, addressed some of the concerns regarding the project. Here is the public discussion.
Transcript of presentation to JRP
1217. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Good afternoon, Mr. Coons. Thanks a lot for jumping ahead and we welcome your comments. So if you would care to state your name and spell your last name for the record, please?
1218. MR. COONS: Thank you. Gary Coons. G-A-R-Y C-O-O-N-S.
1219. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Now, if you could proceed and help us answer those three questions, that would be great. Thanks.
— ORAL PRESENTATION BY MR. GARY COONS:
1220. MR. COONS: Thank you so much, and I sort of planned a summary of what I’m going to try to relate to and it’s in front of you. Thank you.
Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions
1221. And I’d like to acknowledge that we’re on Haisla territory and thank the Haisla for this opportunity, and thank the Panel for coming here and giving all of us an opportunity to look at some of the issues relating to the Northern Gateway Pipeline project.
1222. I’m Gary Coons. I’m the MLA for the North Coast; I live in Prince Rupert. And in the agenda it says I’m the B.C. Government representative and I represent the government but in the Official Opposition – and proud of it.
1223. And if you look at the riding I represent, it’s Prince Rupert/Port Ed, the four villages Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla, Hartley Bay, Kitkatla, Haida Gwaii, the Central Coast from Klemtu, Bella Bella, Bella Coola Rivers Inlet. A wide diverse region that’s fairly dependent on the resources — the vital resources that our waters and land supply us.
1224. As stated in the terms of reference for the project and just to clarify with people, you know, the application is filed, the Panel determines if there’s sufficient information and, if so, a Hearing Order is put forward. If not, the process will not proceed until the required information is filed.
1225. In my brief presentation today, I’ll look at a number of the issues; information that I believe is incomplete and data that needs filing to ensure a fair and thorough understanding of this project.
1226. And I’m sure you have had quite a day today with the opening ceremony and going through the honourable and respectful nature of First Nations tradition and culture. And there’s a lot of emotion, a lot of passion, a lot of concern about this project and so I’d like to start off with looking at the VECs.
1227. Basically, the valued, environmental and socio-economic components and in Volume 6(c), in Section 3.32 on page 319 — and just for people out there that aren’t too sure what VECs are, VECs are the valued environmental and socio-economic components — and the application states the following:
“VECs related to the regional economic and social effects of the project will be made available at a later date.”
1228. And I have a real concern that this deficiency has to be addressed in this — in the documents before us and the VECs that have to be available are the regional population changes; regional employment opportunities; effects on well-being and delivery of protection and social services, community services and infrastructure;
Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions
health conditions and health care services; traditional culture; and regional transportation.
1229. And so my first point is I believe that in Volume 6(c) that the VECs have to be put before the public before we can make an informed decision.
1230. The second part I’d like to look at in Volume 6(c) are the cumulative effects, and on page 480 in Volume 6(c) under “Socio-economic Conditions” in 4.2.9, it says — there’s a paragraph in there talking about:
“In terms of cumulative effects, the project is expected to increase human health risks, but the assessment shows that the increases will be minor and indistinguishable from the current risk levels.”
1231. And the application says:
“Therefore, the cumulative effect is not significant.”
1232. And I beg to differ with that, and I’m sure a lot of people out there who are concerned about this project have a concern about cumulative effect, especially when part of the process for you to consider as a Joint Panel during the Joint Review.
1233. As far as under Section 16 of the CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it says — and this is part of the information that we got –
“The environmental effects of the project including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project, and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.”
1234. And as a Panel, you need to look at the significance of the effects referred to above. I believe that you need to look at that and I don’t think the concern about cumulative effects and upstream effects are taken into account with the application before us.
1235. And as we know, or most of us know, you know, and question whether this review is taking into account the cumulative environmental effects associated with increasing oil sands productions which is another project or activity that is going on in conjunction with the pipeline and tankers on our coast.
1236. You know, and we need to know what are the upstream impacts of tar sands development with this project. And I have read and I’ve been told that this
Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions
project — it’s calculated that production associated with this project in front of us would produce 25 million barrels of toxic tailings, consume the same volume of natural gas as 1.3 million households do in a year, and consume the same amount of water annually as a city of 250,000 people.
1237. And I honestly believe that we cannot ignore — and you as a Panel cannot ignore — the impacts and the increased greenhouse gas emissions that will result from these other projects or activities that are in combination with the project before us, especially when in B.C. we have the B.C. Climate Action Charter which 178 communities have signed onto. So it seems like a real yin-yang situation where we are concerned about the environment but we’re supposedly proceeding with projects that are on the contrary.
1238. My second part are First Nations issues and I believe there are a few concerns about ATK, Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. And as far as the project before us, it will be and will traverse Crown land and traditional territory and what we’ve noticed is that there is a real problem.
1239. What I’ve noticed in the application before us — that there is a concern with the Proponent getting and moving forward on Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. And at this point in time, it seems that there’s been over 60 Aboriginal groups identified for engagement and only 17 studies are available in the package before us.
1240. I believe that before we move forward there has to be — it’s incumbent on the Panel and on the Proponent to ensure that all of the First Nations, all 60 First Nations, have the opportunity and the funding to move forward with the ATK program.
1241. And as required by the filing manual, Northern Gateway must incorporate Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the application and must exercise due diligence in obtaining and incorporating such reports. So I see that this section with ATK is lacking and it must be dealt with in a comprehensive manner.
1242. I’m going on to Volume 7C and as we all know there’s 8,000 pages and many volumes and so I’ve given you a summary and trying to keep my comments hopefully directed towards where I want to go.
1243. And in Section 7, basically the concern that we have is with the food, social and ceremony fisheries. And it says on page 716 in the report that FSC fisheries are important to coastal Aboriginal communities and are often a major component of their diet. Targeted species include — and it lists a bunch of them. FSC fishing occurs throughout Kitimat Arm. Exact locations and relative importance of the locations are not known.
1244. And I believe again that it’s incumbent on the Proponent and on the Panel to ensure that we do know the exact locations and relative importance of FSC fisheries to First Nations up and down the coast that might be impacted by this project.
1245. I’m moving on to Traditional Marine Use, and I’m going to look at Section — I’m still in Volume 7C. I’m looking at Section 8.31, page 8.4. And again it looks like there is unfinished business in here and deficiencies that must be addressed before a hearing order is issued.
1246. If we look at the baseline conditions of traditional marine resource use and this is a quote from page 8.4,
“There is currently very limited information on Aboriginal use of fish, wildlife, and vegetation resources for communities in the region.”
1247. And again, there’s very limited information and I believe that we have to know what that information is and it’s incumbent for the Proponent to do their due diligence on that.
1248. Okay. I’m now looking at page 910 in Volume 7C which is Section 9.5.32 and it’s on Mitigated Effects on the Human Environment. And it talks about heritage resources and traditional marine uses in the intertidal and shoreline regions could be affected during summer. And it talks about, and I’m reading right from page 910 –
“Aboriginal groups would be particularly sensitive because of their long association with and dependence on the sea for food, transportation, social and ceremonial purposes…”
1249. And this is a quote,
“…because detailed information regarding traditional use in these areas has not yet been provided, conclusions regarding effects on harvesting and cultural resources have not been reached.”
1250. And again I believe under the legislation and under the Act that it’s incumbent on the proponent to do their due diligence and work closely with First Nations to ensure that everything that is necessary for us to make decisions is included. So I believe this is — this deficiency precludes one from properly assessing
Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions
the application.
1251. The next volume I’d like to get into — and I’m going into Volume 8A. And I’m going to look at TERMPOL. And just for people out there, TERMPOL stands for Technical Review of Marine Terminal Systems in Transshipment Sites.
1252. And on page 1.1 in the introduction to 8A, it basically says Northern Gateway is completing a wide range of studies for review under the TERMPOL review process and this volume provides in summary form the results of the studies. And again, what we have before us are summarized studies and analysis and I think that it’s incomplete and there should be a full documentation of what studies were reviewed.
1253. Also on page 1.6 in Volume 8A it says,
“Northern Gateway informed Transport Canada in March of 2009 of its intent to complete detailed TERMPOL studies in support of marine transportation associated with the project.”
1254. And these will be submitted to the TRC in Q2 of 2010. And it talks about several additional studies and documents will be prepared before the start of the terminal operations.
1255. And I think this project is too vital, too important to those that live on the coast and First Nations that depend on the resources to have studies that are currently underway and several additional studies and documents that will be prepared. And we need them before us in order for us to ensure that we have the information to make wise decisions.
1256. I’m continuing with 8A and I’m going to look at the OPEP which is the Oil Pollution Emergency Plan and the OPPP which is the Oil Pollution Prevention Plan.
1257. So as I said I’m in Volume 8A under “Overview and General Information” about marine transportation on page 470. And it says under 4.7.12.1:
“The Kitimat terminal will be an oil handling facility as defined in Section 2 of the Canada Shipping Act and will need to develop an oil pollution emergency plan and an oil pollution prevention plan to comply with the Act.”
1258. And further down on page 470 its says:
Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions
“Northern Gateway intends to further develop a marine OSRP” which is an Oil Spill Response Plan “and a Kitimat terminal Oil Spill Response Plan as umbrella documents that is needed for their plan.”
1259. So we’re missing vital information concerning pollution emergency plans, pollution prevention plans and oil response plans and I think it’s incumbent as I have stressed previously that this must be dealt with in a comprehensive — in a comprehensive order for people to make wise decisions.
1260. And on page 4.72, — of Volume 8A it says:
“Northern Gateway intends to submit the terminal OSRP (Oil Spill Response Plan) including the OPEP (the emergency plan) and the OPPP documents to Transport Canada and to the NEB at least six months before the Kitimat terminal begins handling bulk oil.”
1261. I personally believe that’s unacceptable that we — the Proponent is going to submit documents about vital components of marine safety six months before operations start, especially when on page 487 it says: “The cornerstone of the contingency planning process is a general oil spill response plan” and it is not available to us.
1262. On page 489 it says:
“A detailed marine OSRP (Oil Spill Response Plan) has not yet been prepared.”
1263. And it goes on — you know — in this volume about the deficiencies and the information that is necessary before we move forward to a hearing and I believe the — you as a Panel — you’re required to consider the OPPP, the OPEP, the OSRP, yet these are not provided in the application before us and they must be prior to proceeding to a hearing.
1264. Again I got — I’m going into Volume 8C, the last volume that I’ve had the opportunity to glance at and I’m going to be looking at the QRA which is the quantitative risk analysis and this is in the preface to Volume 8C and it talks about the quantitative risk analysis and that it will be finalized in Q2 of 2010.
1265. And again, I believe that that is something that must be in this documentation before us before we move on to a hearing.
1266. And again, I do have to — as I’m going through Volume 8C and looking at
Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions
some of the additional information that they should be required to file I go into the next volume, Volume 8C, compared to Volume 8D where Volume 8A — you know, I talked about the OPPP and the OPEP and again it says in Section 1.1 in Volume 8C,
“An oil pollution prevention plan, an oil pollution emergency plan are being prepared and would be implemented to manage risk relating to hydrocarbon spills that might occur during vessel transport in Canadian waters.”
1267. And, you know, we cannot sit here, we cannot be in a position to make decisions when there are incomplete documentation provided in the proposal before us.
1268. They talk about, on page 5.1, in Section 8C, Incident Prevention and Response:
“Northern Gateway has developed an OSRP (Oil Spill Response Plan) concept founded on the vision of creating a model for response capability for the project-related activities.”
1269. I believe that those of us that live on the Coast, the First Nations whose original territories, the pipeline and tankers are going to be travelling through deserve more than a concept, an oil spill response plan concept and they need the concept before us and you know, before a Hearing Order is issued.
1270. The last point I want to bring up that needs some more clarification and should be required to be filed is dealing with emergency response plans and I’m still in Volume 8C, 5.2 on page 53. It says:
“The title response approaches and capabilities prior to commencement of marine transportation associated with the project Northern Gateway will complete project-specific emergency response plans for review by the National Energy Board and Transport Canada.”
1271. So prior to the commencement of marine transportation we’re going to get an emergency response plan for the project. I believe that’s totally unacceptable and that is something that is missing from this and must be identified and be addressed.
1272. So I guess those are additional information that I believe need to be filed by the Proponent prior to going to a hearing but I do have some comments and some thoughts about broader policy questions and issues within the draft list that I’ve got before me and that you’ve given us.
Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions
1273. And I believe that the Panel should not make a decision without considering the broader policy questions such as our energy future — you know — where are we going with the development of tar sands? Is it wise and prudent to pursue a crude oil pipeline to ship tar sands oil when we should be on a transition mode away from dirty fossil fuels?
1274. I think it’s incumbent on the Review Panel and the Proponent to look at the impact of this project, the cumulative impacts. I think there’s significant risks posted by lifting the existing moratorium on oil tanker traffic. Even though it’s a policy it’s not a written — it’s not a legislative document; it’s a policy that’s been going on for decades, through many Prime Ministers and Premiers.
1275. Even a minor oil spill on the Coast could dramatically affect coastal communities, the fishing and tourism economies, human health, cause severe and lasting damage to wildlife environment. And we’ve heard this concern earlier today. What about the — what about the liability for oil spills from tankers and pipelines; who is actually responsible?
1276. The last broader policy question and issues within the draft list I believe is First Nations. Many First Nations affected by the Enbridge project strongly oppose it. The 10 First Nations that are encompassed within the North Coast riding all oppose tankers on our coast line and the Enbridge project.
1277. Many people have mentioned to me that the JRP was developed without First Nations having any choice to the process. The JRP disregards First Nations’ right to govern, manage and make decisions in their territories and before this project can be approved in their territories it is believed international law affirms that Canada must have consent of First Nations.
1278. As I move forward to my conclusion — I’m sure a lot of people are looking forward to that — I’d like to look at Number 3, the locations for the oral hearings. And I believe, as we’ve heard before, from the health sec in Bella Bella, from Hartley Bay that there must be a wide — a wide stretch of region and territory to hold hearings in, as many places as possible, in the north, in the south, otherwise the process may shut people out.
1279. In building the Northern Gateway Pipeline, it affects all British Columbians, the majority of whom do not live within reasonable travelling distances. So I believe hearings should be held — numerous hearings should be held in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, up and down watersheds that could be affected, including the Skeena, Fraser and Mackenzie rivers, who would be affected by downstream and upstream effects of pipeline construction and spills.
Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions
1280. I believe on central and northern Vancouver Island communities there will be exposed to the risk of oil spills, and up and down the coast throughout Haida Gwaii, both along the tanker route, and I believe in smaller communities and First Nations communities it’s incumbent to have hearings in Nisga’a territory, Tsimshian, Haida, Kitasoo, Heiltsuk, Nuxalk, Wuikinuxv — those within my riding — and obviously Prince Rupert. I believe that there must be a hearing in that community.
1281. And in conclusion, I hope I have put forward some thought-provoking issues that I thought that needed to be filed, and I thank you for the opportunity in travelling to Haisla territory and to the northwest, and I hope I’m clear in my position on the status of the application as filed.
1282. It is not complete in the areas that I have identified to you, and I do believe that you, the Panel, must consider this application, the cumulative effects of this project and especially with the combination of other projects or activities that are being carried out.
1283. It’s imperative that the people of British Columbia, the First Nations whose traditional territories will be impacted and the communities who are concerned are listened to. They are the ones that are taking all the risk and seeing no benefit. And once again, thank you so much.
1284. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Coons. We certainly appreciate your comprehensive description of your views on the application and I especially liked the specific references to sections of the application. That really helps us out as a Panel in taking another look at those sections and reviewing the application.