Resources and responsibility

Re: “Proceed on Northern Gateway responsibly” (Editorial, June 21)

The Gazette has, for several years, dug out information on the environment that our government did not want us to know but in its editorial it has come up short.

I refer to this sentence: “A principled Canadian solution, with responsibly harvested and transported oil, would show true international citizenship.”

It is not oil that is harvested, it is bitumen, and apart from a very small percentage, it is bitumen that is transported. The harvesting of bitumen produces thousands of tons of particulate matter and bitumen is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, some of which are human carcinogens, yielding dangerous pollution.

The only conclusion that can be reached is that there is no way that the product of the oilsands can be harvested responsibly.

Ian Robinson Vaudreuil-Dorion

Your editorial makes a solid case for building the pipelines from Alberta westward and eastward in a responsible manner. As you state, the economic and fiscal benefits are clear.

This is true for pipelines, but also for all energy and mining/metals projects. Our standard of living depends largely on exports, including those from the energy and mining/metals industries. This has been historically the case, and so it will continue.

We also need to realize that these industries tend to be more and more in the North, on lands where aboriginal treaty rights have an impact on any development. In addition, the environmental groups and provinces want to have a major say. On pipelines, neither of these have much standing. The environmentalists seem to want to keep the oil in the ground, which is conceptually unthinkable, and the provinces have to deal with the federal government, the latter having full jurisdiction, with the National Energy Board, on inter-provincial energy transfers.

As pipelines and mining move farther north, the First Nations are becoming the major stakeholders in these. There seems to be some differences of opinion in the communities on whether to become more receptive to mining and energy projects on their lands, or keep the lands environmentally pristine.

It seems that the living conditions of First Nations would be vastly improved if they would welcome investment and projects on their lands. They should invite energy and mining companies to explore, and negotiate directly with these companies the conditions for development. These negotiations could involve environmental controls, some percentage of ownership, jobs and training for the workers, and even housing and community facilities — all paid for by the project.

In this negotiating process, the governments should be basically absent and the two parties would jointly do any negotiation with the governments after basic agreements have been reached. Henno Lattik

Montreal