Doug’s Oral Presentation to the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Pipeline

JOINT REVIEW PANEL FOR THE ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT
VOLUME 3

Panel Sessions held at Riverlodge Recreation Centre
654 Columbia Avenue West
Kitimat, British Columbia
August 31, 2010

JOINT REVIEW PANEL
S. Leggett Chairperson
K. Bateman Member
H. Matthews Member

MEMBER BATEMAN: Mr. Donaldson, thank you for attending today. Will you please spell your name for the record?

MR. DONALDSON: Doug Donaldson, MLA, Hazelton, B.C. D-O-N-A-L-D-S-O-N.

MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you.

And do you have any comments on the topics that we’re here to discuss today?

MR. DONALDSON: I sure do. In fact, I’ve got comments on all three, so I’ll just proceed.

First of all, I want to say thank you to the Panel and to the three of you for showing up, and the staff. I’m on the Select Standing Committee on Finance for the province so I know the kind of attention it takes to be a panellist and so I congratulate you on that.

I thank the District of Kitimat for having us here today and thank the Haisla Nation on whose traditional territories we hold this meeting, and it’s a privilege and an honour to be speaking here and being allowed to speak on their traditional territories.

As I said, I’m the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Stikine and the constituency of Stikine, that is a little to the east and the north of here. I’m from Hazelton — is where I reside, and Stikine constituency is one of the biggest in the province.

It begins on Hungry Hill which is just east of Houston, runs along Highway 16 to Cedarvale which is just after the Highway 37/16 junction and then runs up Highway 37 to the Yukon border and, in fact, to get to parts of the constituency, we have to drive into the Yukon and then back down into B.C. So it’s a huge constituency and I represent it as Member of the Official Opposition in Victoria.

Although I’ve closely looked at the maps and although the oil pipeline does not — it doesn’t appear to directly pass through the constituency of Stikine, it’s just south, the potential impacts are many for the people who live in the constituency I represent and, potentially, on the connection that people have to the land and to extended family.

We call ourselves “members of the fish nation”, both non-First Nations and First Nations in Stikine. We’re very dependent on the salmon resource for our own well-being, for economic well-being, for ecological well-being.

I understand and I know this a procedural direction forum and I’m very happy to show up to that. A former mayor of Smithers once told me — I was on municipal counsel in Hazelton and he was the major of Smithers at the time and I think this has been said before, but it was the first time I heard it was from him — the world is run by those who show up.

So I’m happy — and I’d like to think that that is the case. I hope that’s the case and it’s not in — behind closed doors and in back rooms that runs the world, but by those who actually participate and engage. So I’m happy to participate and engage in this forum.

I would like to put it in the context though of what I’ve said and what I’ve heard from the North Coast First Nations and the Wet’suwet’en and others upstream who’ve done their due diligence over the last four years on this project, as well as other non-First Nations in my constituency and further afield in the province who’ve said the risks are too high for this particular project, compared to the benefits for the people who live here.

I’ve said that in the legislature during — bringing up this topic in the spring sitting of the session, so I’ll say it again here, but I realize that those comments perhaps will be more apt for later in the process and I’m going to direct my comments today to the three topics for discussion.

I have to apologize that perhaps some of my comments might overlap between one and two and that was somewhat because the Northern Gateway submission was a bit overwhelming. It was very, very extensive and I understand that it’s over 10,000 pages and that Enbridge Northern Gateway has used that and said that as a sign of their seriousness.

And I acknowledge that, but I also acknowledge that, you know, the number of pages isn’t necessarily the defining criteria. I mean, if that was the case then, we’d see — every novel we would see written would be like War and Peace, right, it would be gigantic. It’s not just the size but it’s the content, and it also reminded me of — I used to be in the field around consultation, a consultant, and sometimes when a big report would get delivered, there would be jokes about “oh, you’re getting paid by the pound here of your report” not the content.

But that’s not to take away that there is some good material in there and I’ll try to address that today.

The Draft List of Issues I want to address are quite specific and I’ll start with — I believe a comprehension cost-benefit analysis on the local economy — meaning the northwest — needs to be more fleshed out as a list of issues, and that should include the value that the local economy relies on, which is the value of the wild salmon resource, and that’s put at risk by this project.

It’s a sustainable resource and the value economically lies — and I think this needs to be part of the issues — is in the sport fishery, the inland commercial fishery that’s been established and is ongoing, the commercial fishery — coastal and also the traditional use of fish that’s often overlooked in economic considerations just because oftentimes there’s not monetary value associated with it. In other words, not necessarily exchanging of dollars but the traditional use of fish is definitely a large part of the economic makeup of what we are.

Also, the value of clean water I think needs to be one of the draft — or one of the list issues looked at by the Panel and the value of clean water to all aspects of the local economy and liveability of the region. And in fact, I believe that was a determining factor in the decision that a Joint Review Panel made on the Kemess North Mine application of a couple of years ago. So water, clean value of water — that needs to be an issue.

Another issue that I think needs to be included is alternatives. Alternatives to the project is one of the considerations that the Panel, I see here, is supposed to look at and I think we need to look at routes that already exist for the transportation of the oil resource; that would mean not creating new disturbances on the landscape and not just alternatives to what the Proponent says is to the route that they are proposing but the existing alternatives for transporting oil from Alberta to ports — and those exist today and what could be done with those routes that perhaps could be an alternative to the model being proposed.

Cumulative effects — they’ve been touched on but I have a science background and I think the cumulative effects issue needs to be further addressed in the Panel. And that’s cumulative effects on the entire watershed.

Precautionary approach is mentioned in the Proponent’s application but that’s just in regards to their proposed activities. I think as a Panel you need to broaden out your view and look at activities on the land-base that have occurred, are planned to occur and are occurring now that will affect the ecosystem. So whether it’s through logging, mining, power lines, these have to be brought into the issues as a total approach to looking at this project as well.

So, you know, there’s a threshold principle that’s well established in ecology and that’s looking at — well how far can we go before the system crashes and often times that’s a difficult line to draw but the precautionary principle would be to draw that line far enough back from the threshold to ensure that we have healthy ecosystems that we all depend on in the Northwest.

There’s one concern I have about — and it’s not obviously about you as panellists but it’s the constraints you have as the Panel and I would typify it as a reductionist approach. And I know the Chair has a science background so that would be the Baconian-Cartesian tradition, Richard Bacon and René Descartes who, founders of the modern scientific approach but their founding ideas are still — we see now and it’s around reducing everything in nature to — for instance, the makings of a small pocket watch. And if you could just dissect everything down to the smallest possible item then you would understand the entire system.

I think we’ve become a little bit better informed about how ecosystems work in that approach and that there’s interaction synergies is what biologists call it. And I think, you know, we know that in traditional knowledge because we’ve — we know the saying the whole is greater than the parts and so just by analyzing particular parts doesn’t mean that you will have a definitive answer on what the whole is.

And the way I see that infused into the Panel’s mandate is — for instance, I think the tar sands development has to be part of the issues, not just the pipeline, not simply how the oil is transported once it reaches the port but also the head end.

And if you just use a magnifying glass on the pipeline alone, again, it’s not going to give the entire picture of what’s going on. So I think the tar sands development has to be part of the issues. As well, we have a federal government and a provincial government who’ve made some pretty strong commitments around greenhouse gas emissions.

We haven’t seen the action following up on those commitments but if they’re truly — if we’re truly to take them at their word then I think this project — you have to take a step back and look at what are the impacts to the stated mandates around greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and B.C., because if we don’t do that we know we live in a biosphere where we can’t limit our greenhouse gas emissions just to our own neighbourhoods that were impacts by others and others impact us.

And I think that that bigger picture has to be an issue if we really want to believe what the current federal and provincial governments are saying about greenhouse gas emissions.

There’s also something going on called the review of the Provincial Water Act. This is an Act that’s 20 to 30 years old. It definitely needs revision and the current government has undertaken that process by starting public consultations this year, in the winter. Those will be ongoing into next year and I would guess — I’m not in charge of the legislative agenda — but I would guess that we’ll see legislation on that, perhaps in 2011.

So revisions to the Water Act are going to be widespread. I mean water is part of every ministry almost, you know, whether you’re using it in industrial applications or drinking it for health or whatever. But the new Water Act will be, you know, addressing issues of use and protection and I think that — again, the Panel on the list of issues needs to be aware of that and decide timing-wise, is it more prudent to wait for the results of that Act before furthering this process because it’s going to have implications on this process. Water is a big part of the Proponent’s impact on the route.

You’ve heard about Aboriginal title. The Proponent has included in there, the efforts they’ve made, consultation through various decisions since 1997, the Delgamuukw decision which was part of the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en going to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Haisla decision, the Ts’ilhqot’in decision, more recently laid out that it’s a government to government role.

You know, companies such as the Proponent find it in their best interest to take on some of these efforts and I think it’s because there’s a void there but I believe that Aboriginal title as a government to government role — that’s not something people have made up. It’s the Supreme Court has said — this is what governments need to do; it’s not part of a Proponent’s responsibility.

So I think that needs to be addressed in the draft — or in the list of issues and you’ll no doubt be hearing more about that later on.

I also wanted to point out as a potential issue is the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. When they were conducting their reviews — oh gee, I don’t know what was that, probably 30 years ago now, right — they had a sustainability framework that wasn’t based on a single lens. And I think in these times we often get focused on the economic lens, and rightly so because of the media and the issues around the economy.

However, there’s more than one lens to looking at a project and I think — I know in the Mackenzie Valley proposal — a lens was used around maximizing health benefits. Like that’s another lens, is the health lens on a project for instance and the interplay between a project and health of the people who live in the region, not just from minimizing environmental impacts but maximizing a benefit.

So I think, again, that’s — I would encourage the Panel to use more than the predominant lenses that are being used within — within looking at this proposal.

So that was it on Draft List of Issues. I have some specifics about additional info that I believe Northern Gateway should provide. The first is an analysis of a large spill on the Maurice River system.

I was able to find their example of a spill on a coastal system and that was Hunter Creek but I believe — I believe that it’s incumbent upon the Proponent to provide information on what many would think of as worst case scenario when it comes to the oil pipeline. And the Maurice River, I believe, has the conditions, the topography, the coarse woody debris in the riverbed that would — would qualify for a worst case scenario if there was a significant oil spill.

They use a 2,000-cubic-metre criterion for a large spill. I’m not sure what that translates to into the Imperial system. I know that in Michigan recently was an 800,000 gallon spill and I’m not sure if this was the — as reported today in the Detroit Free Press, a front-page article and that’s in Michigan as you know.

So I don’t know what 2,000 cubic metres relates to in Imperial gallons or U.S. gallons but I would like to see an analysis of a large spill on the Maurice River in the worst case scenario, so something that has happened to Enbridge before which is an 800,000 gallon spill. That would be a worthwhile analysis because I think to make an informed decision people need to see what the worst case scenario could be.

Similarly, I think an analysis of a large tanker spill in the entrances of Douglas Channel from the Hecate Strait, I didn’t find that analysis in the documents provided by the Proponent, so I think that’s important for people to know and to do a proper cost-benefit analysis — is to see — or an impact-benefit analysis is to see the worst-case scenario, so there’s nothing to hide. I’m sure they can run the numbers and show us what that would like immediately after the spill and into the future.

Additional information required, again, by the Proponent is oil spill and oil recovery specific, so they talk about a general oil spill response plan and a pipeline oil spill response plan. However, the Proponents outline that:
“…before operation of the pipeline Northern Gateway will complete a project-specific oil spill response plan for NEB review.”

Well, I would submit that I think for people in the northwest especially to make an informed decision on this project and for the Panel members too, that those kind of oil spill response plans need to be in place before the operation of the pipeline. In fact, they have to be in place before I would think that the Panel can do its work to any significant degree.

Those strategies, the oil recovery strategies that are in the report right now, appear to be off-the-shelf kind of things. I would like to see a much more detailed one and that’s why the analysis of a large spill on the Maurice River or at the inlets between Douglas Channel and Hecate Strait would be good examples.

You know, they talk about shoreline clean-up strategies, mechanical flooding, flushing, vegetation cutting. Let’s paint the picture of what that would actually look like in a real scenario and then we can decide a little bit more informed-wise about what would be the response and if it’s possible.

Location for oil hearings. Well, I would suggest that you go to as many communities as possible and especially in Stikine, the constituency I represent. I would say Telkwa, Smithers, Moricetown, Hazeltons — there’s several communities in the Hazeltons that could be accommodated with one location.

And then I just want to point out that villages like Gitsegukla, Kitwanga, Gitanyow, Kispiox — these are Gitxsan villages in the area I represent — people don’t have transportation oftentimes, very limited access to vehicles. There is virtually no public transit.

So I would think that if one of the factors and matters that you’re considering is community knowledge, then I would encourage you to go to as many of the small communities as possible where these transportation issues are a problem.

Finally, I looked through the material that the Panel — that was presented. One of the quotes that jumped out at me was that you, as the Panel, is to assess whether significant information in the application — whether there was significant enough information in the application to initiate the joint review process.

I’d submit that the gaps that I’ve indicated with the Proponent’s submissions, as well as the bigger issues — the parallel processes that are going on, whether it’s Aboriginal title, whether it’s the Water Act, whether it’s, you know, bigger pictures on the tar sands development; they point out that there’s enough significant gaps for me to say that I don’t think you need to proceed to issue a Hearing Order.

I appreciate that you’ve taken your own route to getting there by doing this Panel first, but I don’t see a rush to get to the Hearing Order. I think there’s a lot of information that needs to be supplied and a lot of the issues that need to be analyzed a bit more before we get to the Hearing Order stage, and especially if you want that community knowledge factor, as is part of the criteria that I see.

So that’s my submission today.

MEMBER BATEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Donaldson.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Donaldson.