The Root Word: ForestEthics Blog

Fall leaves, Suskwa River, British Columbia-Enbridge's project could impact hundreds of streams in the province

This week, while northern British Columbia enjoys its final days of late summer sun, I’ve been pasted to my computer, listening in to Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) hearings on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.

I have to say that, in comparison to the golden light flowing through my window, the atmosphere in the Edmonton, Alberta hearing room seems rather dreary.

What are these Enbridge pipeline technical hearings, anyway?

The controversial pipeline, which would carry unrefined bitumen from the Alberta’s tar sands 1,170 kilometres (730 miles) through northern BC to Canada’s northwest coast at Kitimat, has been under review by the NEB’s Joint Review Panel since January. Over 18 months, the panel will hear testimony before making a recommendation to the Federal Government in December 2013.

The hearings in Edmonton aren’t as sexy as the ones that took place in small communities across the North, where impassioned residents gave at times tearful pleas to the panel, the vast majority asking them to reject the proposal that threatens our northern lifestyle. No, Edmonton’s hearings are technical, dry and often times difficult to follow. Numbers and data are thrown around, in an attempt to discredit witnesses. But it’s also some of the most important testimony we’ll hear.

Cut through the legalese: you’ll hear big-picture issues facing Canadians

At the hearings, which started in Edmonton and will also sit in northern BC’s Prince George and Prince Rupert between now and late December, lawyers cross-examine witnesses on evidence they provided — in the form of written reports — previously to the NEB’s Joint Review Panel. It’s a strange situation of extracting information in the negative: a mirror image of truth. For example, a standard exchange coming through the webcast sounds something like this:

“But isn’t it true, Mr. So-and-so, that your report states blah-blah-blah.”

“No, that’s not true.”

“But can’t we assume from your report that you want this and that.”

“No, that’s not a correct characterization of our position.”

In this way, lawyers and witnesses engage in a dance with one trying to frame an answer while the other tries not to stick a foot in it. But cut through the legalese and what you hear are some of the big-picture issues facing Canadians and, in fact, the world. Behind those hundreds of hours of testimony, the melody behind the music goes something like this:

The economic projections used to justify the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline assume unrestricted tar sands development, which isn’t environmentally or economically sound and, it seems, isn’t even legal. Enbridge would have us believe that selling out our most valuable resources—such as our salmon economy or eco-tourism—over the short-term is in Canadians’ best interest.

Ariel view of Kitimat, British Columbia--proposed port for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project

Enbridge, shippers grill ForestEthics Advocacy witnesses

This week, ForestEthics Advocacy witnesses Nathan Lemphers and David Hughes stepped before the firing line to be cross-examined by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, a coalition of oil shippers led by Cenovus Energy, and Enbridge Northern Gateway. There were some shining moments for each, despite Neufeld’s leading them into red herring conspiracy theories — rather than attempting to provide a rationale for the pipeline. Nothing says “oily” more than an underhanded lawyer.

Here are a few key points that have come out this week:

• Currently, no shippers — including ten funding partners — have signed transportation service agreements with Northern Gateway. Nathan Lemphers’ report also notes that the existing export pipeline system to the United States is only operating at 59 per cent of capacity. “Considering the gravity of this pipeline, which we all know, the onus is on Enbridge to provide a very strong case that there is a proven demand,” Lemphers said.
• David Hughes reiterated the need for a National Energy Strategy that would ensure the long-term viability of Canada’s energy resources. “Unchecked growth in the oilsands puts Canada’s energy security at risk,” he said.
• On Wednesday morning, ForestEthics Advocacy lawyer Barry Robinson cross-examined the Government of Alberta about its economic projections for tar sands expansion. The province recently passed the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, a water and air quality framework that places emissions limits below those set out in its own projections. Forecasts indicate that air emission limits may be exceeded if all existing, approved and proposed tar sands projects proceed; however, the tar sands production estimates prepared for the Government of Alberta assume that all existing and approved projects will proceed, despite these limits.

I’m not very familiar with Edmonton or the view — if there is one — from the Best Western Westwood Inn’s meeting room. I don’t know if the three-member NEB panel sits wistfully, as I do, and wishes they could be standing in the late summer sun under golden aspen leaves. I do know that my home, the one threatened by the Enbridge pipeline, is one of the most beautiful, untouched places on Earth. I invite them to come experience the Bulkley River in September and understand what is truly in Canada’s best interest.