spinning out of control
Gateway hearings ended Monday, but many questions linger
there were many times in the past when the people on the banks of the Skeena River wanted to be a part of something bigger.
They were swept up in gold rushes, logging rushes and settlement rushes. The town of Terrace, B.C., was formed in the early 1900s, the result of a campaign for a station along the Grand Trunk railway by settlers eager to be connected to the rest of country. during the First World War, the area’s Sitka spruce was used to build airplanes. during the Second World War, Terrace housed a major army base to guard the Northern Pacific Coast against a Japanese invasion.
Opportunity is knocking again today. It’s coming from Alberta, which is seeking permission to build the Northern Gateway oil sands pipeline from Edmonton to nearby Kitimat to boost Canada’s oil trade with Asia.
But opposition has been mounting since it was first proposed a decade ago.
Much effort and money has been spent to change views. Epic public hearings by the National Energy Board (NEB) and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) that weighed all aspects and all views wound down here on Monday, bringing to an end an 18-month trek on the proposed right of way.
As the three-member panel takes the next six months to weigh mountains of evidence to determine whether the pipeline is in the public interest, questions abound; among them: did the review accomplish what it was supposed to? Has it informed the debate and produced common ground on whether the project should go ahead? How valuable will a recommendation be to the politicians who have final say? Are there lessons for proponents of future projects in this area, where First Nations and their histories loom so large?
As proponents and opponents squared off for a final time, inside the hearings and outside, in demonstrations, in bars, on the airways and in print, the proposed project had the feel of an issue that has spun out of control.
Northern Gateway and its hearings have become a plat- form for all grievances, from unsettled aboriginal land claims, to judgments about the oil sands, from complaints about the bad behaviour of corporations, to lack of trust in government.
Project president John Carruthers said the review, which has cost proponent Enbridge Inc. and the 10 oil companies backing it nearly $500-million so far, has been exhaustive but also worthwhile, and provided the panel with all evidence it requires to make an independent recommendation.
“The people who ultimately have to be persuaded are the Joint Review Panel” of the NEB and CEAA, he said in an interview.
“The real key question is what they are thinking, how their thoughts have evolved in terms of whether it can be built and operated safely, what is the impact on the environment. Though many of us would have maintained our positions, learned a lot and amended them … ultimately it’s the panel whose decision will dictate whether the project goes ahead.”
Enbridge believes it has presented a solid case.
“In fact, the evidence shows there is nothing particularly unique about this project, except the level of mitigation that has been applied,” Richard Neufeld, Enbridge’s lawyer, said in his final arguments.
Even if approved, Enbridge would continue to address outstanding issues through greater information or changes to the project during the construction phase, Mr. Carruthers promised.
In the court of public opinion, however, the project is far from a sure deal.
Views against it have hardened, and trust is in short supply.
“I don’t think anybody in B.C. is against resource development,” said Robert Hart, a social worker in Terrace who joined a demonstration outside the hearings last week waving signs declaring No Need for Corporate Greed and Stop Harper Oil.
“We sell trees to people and we have mines,” Mr. Hart said.
There are some real radicals who don’t want this to happen
“We are against stupid development, and development that has nothing to offer us.”
Pipeline proponents are “crazy” to think that they can put at risk from an oil spill the area’s main source of food — salmon, which abounds in local rivers such as the Skeena.
“It’s hard for people in Toronto to understand this, but we desperately want them to try,” Mr. Hart said.
Robin Austin, the NdP MLA for Skeena, said he hopes the hearings have demonstrated to those making the final decisions that the project isn’t worth doing.
“The process has ignited a lot of interest among people who are not political,” he said. “They have all come together and there is a big sense of com- munity around the issue. And it’s increased the debate at a higher level about what do we do about this giant resource that we call the tar sands.”
But in Kitimat, 60 kilometres to the south, Bill Eynon, president of the pro-pipeline K.T. Industrial development Society, which represents the local business community, reckons a quiet majority supports the project because it wants the jobs and sees the benefits to all of Canada.
“I want this thing done properly,” he said. “And from what I have seen they are doing a really good job.”
But he admitted the project is so controversial, and opponents have become so aggressive, that supporters are afraid to express their views for fear of “persecution.”
“There are some real radicals who don’t want this to happen,” Mr. Eynon said. “It’s a worry to me that people won’t accept what is good and better for the country or for themselves or for their children.”
Kitimat’s municipal government is among those trying to stay above the fray.
It has yet to express any views — even though Kitimat would be greatly affected as the pipeline’s endpoint and the town could use the benefits it promises.
Mayor Joanne Monaghan said the pipeline would likely mean more revenue for the city than the liquefied natural gas terminals also planned for the area, which will be mostly located on aboriginal lands.
Kitimat will carefully assess what the community ultimately wants before expressing its views, Ms. Monaghan said.
“If they want to have their roads redone, and a new bridge, which is going to be many millions of dollars, if they want new council chambers, where do we get the dollars from?” she asked.
Opponents say regulatory approval would not put an end to the battle. With final authority resting with the federal cabinet, they are threatening civil disobedience and court battles to ensure politicians are careful about their choices.
“I don’t think the governments really understand how volatile the situation could become,” said Ellis Ross, chief counselor of the Haisla nation, a pipeline opponent whose reserve near Kitimat overlooks the channel.
“On the ground, in B.C., for First Nations, opposition to Enbridge is getting louder and louder,” he said. “A lot of people are willing to go to that last step right now.”
Mr. Ross said many initial “mistakes” pushed Northern Gateway on the wrong track.
About seven years ago, before anyone knew much about Enbridge or bitumen pipelines, company staff showed up at a First Nations meeting with police escort. The gesture insulted the community, which had looked forward to a friendly meeting.
Then company contractors cut down “culturally modified trees” on traditional lands that had been safeguarded for generations. The trees, which were modified as part of aboriginal traditions, provided evidence of Haisla occupation and were fundamental to its right and title to the land. Enbridge acknowledged the mistake, but there was no follow up, Mr. Ellis complained. Reluctance to engage and consult continued, showing disregard for the special legal standing of aboriginals in B.C., he said.
“If you try and ignore us, or if you try dishonest practices or hide behind review processes or the government, you make a hard road for yourself,” Mr. Ross warned.
But it’s the environment that remains the chief concern about Northern Gateway, and the Haisla no longer trust Enbridge’s promises to safeguard it, he said. In his view, the review process has demonstrated the project is not ready for construction.