Like the Joint Review Panel’s recent whitewash of the Northern Gateway
pipeline, the National Energy Board has rubber stamped Enbridge’s Line
9 pipeline. Here are nine reasons to reject their 158-page
decision and continue opposing Line 9.
1. allies of the
Harper government
Even before reading the decision we need to consider the
source. After Prime Minister Harper scrapped environmental legislation, handing
over decision-making on pipelines to the NEB—which it has called an “ally.”
As Keith Stewart from Greenpeace said, “Canadians should be concerned when a
supposedly arms-length agency that is supposed to regulate the oil industry…is
listed as an ‘ally.”
Who are the authors of the report? As Michael
Toledano pointed out, “The government
bureaucrats
who made this decision were Lyne Mercier, a former oil and gas sector
manager, Mike Richmond, a corporate energy lawyer, and Jacques Gauthier, a
former energy sector CEO who has worked closely with Prime Minister Stephen
Harper.”
Ontario’s so-called “social justice” premier Kathleen Wynne
has also proved to be an ally of Harper’s environmental destruction. After
first promising
to address environmental concerns, Wynne refused to conduct an
environmental assessment—leaving the decision to the NEB. As NDP MPP Peter
Tabuns said, “I’m surprised to hear that this government has so much
confidence in the Harper government’s approach to environmental protection.”
Recently dozens of Indigenous, community and labour groups wrote an open
letter demanding an environmental assessment, as part of a campaign that continues.
2. refused to
consider tar sands production
The second page of the NEB decision gives insight into the
content of the following 156 pages when it states that “some concerns were
raised that are not within the Board’s mandate to regulate, such as oilsands
development, energy policy, upstream greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and GHGs related
to the end use of crude oil.”
As the decision goes onto explain, “The NEB does not have
jurisdiction over energy exploration and production within provincial
boundaries, Alberta’s oils sands, for example.” Not only does it refuse to
consider the giga-project that Line 9 will be promoting, which has been termed
“slow industrial
genocide” by Indigenous groups, but it makes the bizarre comment separating
the tar sands from Line 9: “the Project and oil sands production, or other
Canadian oil production potentially supplying the Project, are sufficiently
geographically separated that there is not likely to be any meaningful or
measurable interactions between the likely residual environmental effects of
the Project and those activities.”
3. Dismissed climate
change effects
The NEB refused to consider what goes into Line 9, and what
comes out of it—admitting that “The Board did not consider the environmental
and socioeconomic effects of downstream consumption (ie end use) of oil
transported by Line 9 within the cumulative effects assessment for the Project.”
But the decision goes further, dismissing climate change
effects as speculative and hypothetical: “Any examination of potential
environmental effects from such speculative impacts on the downstream mix or
patterns of energy use in destination markets would be hypothetical and of no
meaningful utility to the Board’s ESA or public interest determination. The
Board finds that the potential for effects of downstream use of oil to act
cumulatively with any potential effects of the Project is too speculative to
merit consideration.”
Those who witnessed the floods in Alberta and Toronto, or
the typhoon in the Philippines, know that climate change is not “speculative”
but real—as are the deaths associated with air pollution. According to the Canadian
Association of Physicians for the Environment, “air pollution kills about
20,000 Canadians a year and with tar sands expansion, it will only get worse.
If we can about our health we need to leave tar sands oil in the ground.” Otherwise,
according to climate scientist James
Hansen, “If Canada proceeds, and we
do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.”
4. Restricted
consultation
After thousands of people intervened in public consultations
against the Northern Gateway pipeline, and Natural Resources Minister Joe
Oliver threw a temper
antrum over people “stacking public hearings with bodies,” the NEB restricted democracy—requiring people to submit a 10-page
application explaining why they personally are affected and why they should
be granted to right to intervene. Those who passed this hurdle and were able to
intervene had complaints against Enbridge—including some public consultation
that happened after the deadline to intervene.
Enbridge simply rejected these concerns (“these comments are
submitted to the Board without proof and should be rejected.”) and NEB agreed: “The
Board is comfortable concluding that the design of he consultation program in
general was adequate for the nature of the Project.”
5. Denied indigenous
sovereignty
The lack of consultation was the most extreme concerning the
18 First Nations whose territories lies within 50km of Line 9. The decision
provides sugar-coating, stating, “the Board takes the interests and concerns of
Aboriginal groups into consideration before it makes a decision that could have
an impact on those interests.” In other words, the NEB usurps all authority to
make the decision that will affect Indigenous communities and their territories,
and after denying their sovereignty it patronizingly claims it will take their
concerns “into consideration.”
The NEB did write down these concerns, including: “Aboriginal
Participants in this proceeding were critical of Enbridge’s efforts to engage
them concerning the Project and also expressed concerns regarding Crown
consultation. Aboriginal Participants argued that because these efforts were
insufficient the potential impacts of the Project on Aboriginal interests are
not fully understood or addressed… Chief Chris Plain stated that Enbridge’s
efforts to engage Aamjiwnaang First Nation about the Project have been
insufficient and did not meaningfully address its concerns about potential
health impacts and impacts on its Aboriginal and treaty rights…Mohawk Council
of Kahnawà:ke asserted that no meaningful engagement or information exchange
occurred between MCK and Enbridge during the period reported in Enbridge’s
summary. MCK also cautioned the Board not to interpret each meeting or exchange
between Enbridge and a First Nation as qualifying as a meaningful
engagement…Chippewas of the Thames First Nation submitted in their written
evidence that Enbridge’s efforts to engage its members about the Project have
not meaningfully addressed their concerns about potential health impacts and
impacts on COTTFN’s Aboriginal and treaty rights…Mississaugas of the New Credit
First Nation stated in their evidence that Enbridge does not actively consult
with or address MNCFN concerns regarding the ongoing operation and management
of Line 9…Mohawk Council of Kanesatake submitted that Enbridge failed to engage
with them meaningfully about Line 9…Grand River Indigenous Solidarity expressed
concerns in its written evidence about Enbridge’s consultation activities,
stating that Enbridge only notified affected Aboriginal groups of the Project
rather than undertaking a process of meaningful consultation…Rising Tide
Toronto stated in its oral final argument that Enbridge had not engaged in
sufficient consultation processes within indigenous communities and, as a
result, Enbridge was not aware of several sacred burial sites, outstanding land
claims, and treaty violations.”
But the NEB cynically used these concerns as substitute for
informed consent, agreeing with Enbridge that “all Aboriginal groups potentially affected by
the Project were provided with sufficient information about the
Project…potential affected Aboriginal groups and individuals had an opportunity
to make their views known to Enbridge and to the Board.” The NEB then dismissed
the content of these concerns, claiming that “any potential Project impacts on
the rights and interests of Aboriginal groups are likely to be minimal and will
be appropriately mitigated.”
6. Minimized risk of
spill
The spill from Enbridge’s Line 6B caused water pollution
that continues after a billion dollars in clean up fees. Enbridge not only
refused to provide $1 billion in insurance but also stated that “if drinking
water is affected Enbridge would provide a safe, temporary supply of drinking
water.” What a reassuring thought, to be given a temporary supply of bottled
water after Enbridge has ruined the natural water source for us and other living
creatures.
For a comprehensive assessment of the risks of Line 9, which
synthesizes information from intervenors, read the new report “Not Worth
the Risk.”
7. Admitted
negligible jobs
There is a common myth
that we need tar sands and pipelines to provide jobs, but Enbridge
inadvertently debunked that myth: “Enbridge submitted that for the majority of
stakeholders, the reversal would have no noticeable impact since it involves
reversing the flow on an existing pipeline, and that any impacts arising from
construction are expected to be temporary and minor in nature…The project is
expected to create a total of 3 permanent positions and may require up to 40
temporary construction workers at each of the existing station the terminal
Project sites.” Three permanent jobs per site, at the cost of destroying the planet
on which all our jobs depend!
8. Ignored green jobs
alternatives
There is growing labour opposition to tar sands pipelines
across the country. On the West coast, Unifor and the BC Teacher’s Association
have signed the Solidarity
Accord in support of First Nations resisting the Northern Gateway pipeline.
As Gavin McGarrigle, Unifor Area Director of BC said, “it’s time for a new
vision for Canada’s energy industries –one that addresses the reality of
aboriginal title and rights, respects our social and environmental commitments,
and generates lasting wealth for all who live here.” According to a report by Blue Green
Canada, the $1.3 billion of federal subsidies to the oil and gas industry
could create 18,000 more jobs in the clean energy sectors.
What alternatives did Enbridge consider in its application?
“No other alternatives to the Project were investigated” other that “an
assessment of the feasibility of using rail, barge, waterborne tanker, other
existing pipelines or trucks, in isolation or in combination, to deliver
western Canadian and/or US produced crude oil to Quebec area refineries.”
And you can guess the response of the NEB: “The Board stated
that making use of existing underused pipeline capacity, such as the capacity
on Line 9, is a sound idea. The Board concludes that the Project represents the
most economically feasible alternatives.”
9. Uses conditions to
shift the debate
Having monopolized and restricted decision-making, refused to consider tar sands or climate change, denied Indigenous sovereignty, minimized risk of spills and ignored green jobs alternatives, the NEB decision has used conditions to shift the debate from “No Line 9” to
“Line 9 if…”. This is designed to undermine the unconditional opposition to
Line 9 and to shift the debate onto pipeline technicalities. But the
unconditional opposition to Line 9 and the reasons for it—opposition to tar
sands and climate change, and support for Indigenous sovereignty and green
jobs—will continue.
