Any day now, Enbridge
could begin using the 40-year old Line 9 pipeline to pump toxic tar sands to
the east coast. While Line 9 ends in Montreal and Enbridge claims it is for
domestic use only, residents in Maine have exposed Big Oil’s ultimate goal of
export. Meanwhile, an upcoming legal appeal by the Chippewas of the Thames
First Nation has highlighted the lack of consultation and violation of
their rights.
When the pro-oil National Energy Board
approved
Enbridge’s Line 9 plan last year, they refused to consider tar sands
production upstream, dismissed climate change effects downstream, restricted
consultation, denied indigenous sovereignty, minimized the risk of a spill,
admitted negligible jobs, and ignored climate job alternatives. But there’s a
persisting myth that Line 9 will be for domestic use and not export—leading
some to counterpose support for the “domestic pipeline” Line 9 while opposing
the “export pipelines” like Northern Gateway and Keystone XL. But Enbridge’s
claims around Line 9’s purpose are as sincere as their approach to consulting
First Nations whose territories their pipelines cross.
Trailbreaker
Enbridge's “Trailbreaker” project proposed to reverse the
flow of two pipelines: first use the 40 year old Line 9 (owned by Enbridge) to
pump tar sands from Sarnia to Montreal; and then use the 64-year old
Portland-Montreal Pipeline (owned
by Imperial Oil and Suncor, who have major stakes in the tar sands) to pump tar
sands from Montreal to Portland, Maine for export.
As the Globe
& Mail reported in 2011:
“Critics are worried the Westover plan – which Enbridge calls ‘Phase I’ – is
only an initial foray, a notion supported by industry sources who on Thursday
confirmed that discussions are underway toward expanding the Enbridge proposal
to potentially carry Alberta oil to Atlantic tidewater. That idea, which was
contemplated in 2008 but shelved during the economic downturn, could
substantially extend the breadth of North American refineries – both on the
East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico – accessible to Western crude producers.
Doing so would also require flipping the direction of another pipe, the
Portland Montreal Pipe Line, which currently transports crude from Maine to
Quebec. Officials with Portland Montreal say they are in talks to do just that.
‘We’re still very much interested in reversing the flow of one of our two
pipelines to move Western Canadian crude to the eastern seaboard,’ said company
treasurer Dave Cyr. ‘We’re having discussions with Enbridge on their Line 9 and
what it means to us.’”
In 2012 a number
of environmental organizations published the report Going in
Reverse: the Tar Sands Threat to Central Canada and New England. As they documented: “While Enbridge now seems to have
dropped the ‘Trailbreaker’ name, it appears to be approaching the project
section by section, still with an effort to bring tarsands eastward...There are
several reasons to believe that Enbridge may also pursue reversing the flow
direction for at least one of the Portland-Montreal pipelines in order to bring
tar sands from Alberta to the Maine coast: 1) previous public comments by oil
industry executives; 2) permit applications at associated pumping stations and
pipelines; and 3) the shifting dynamics of the oil market.”
Because
they want to win support for Phase I of the reversal by selling it as a
“domestic pipeline,” Enbridge has denied the ultimate goal of export. But
actions south of the border speak louder than words.
Protect South Portland
For more than
two years residents of South Portland, Maine (terminal to the Portland Montreal
Pipeline) have been mobilizing against tar sands, and exposing Big Oil. As
Mary-Jane Ferrier, spokesperson for Protect South Portland, explained
in an interview: “In 2009 the pipeline had applied for permit for reversal,
which lapsed in 2013. The lapsing of this permit became public. We realized
they got the permit from the city without any kind of scrutiny. Someone found
the design drawings showing 70-foot smokestacks built on our waterfront. It
really exploded on the public. The Natural Resources Council and 350 Maine had
a big march in Maine in January 2013 against bringing tar sands through the
pipeline. We then got 4,000 signatures for a citizens’ initiative on the
ballot, when we only needed 900.”
Using familiar
tactics, Big Oil argued that opposing tar sands would destroy jobs and the
economy, and spent three quarters of a million dollars to defeat the vote. But
the campaign continued—despite threats from the American Petroleum Institute to
sue the city, and attempts to stack meetings to quash votes. In July 2014, City
Council voted in favour of a Clear Skies Ordinance, which bans the loading of
crude oil onto tankers in South Portland’s harbor.
As Mary-Jane
Ferrier wrote,
“A year and a half of planning, strategizing, mobilizing, persuading and
doggedly attending meetings was about to come down to an end. On July 21, we
packed the auditorium again. Long lines of people who wanted to speak formed.
The meeting seemed to go on forever as, one after another, people went to the
podium, some in wheelchairs, or with walkers, some with babes in arms, boys and
girls who, to get to the mike, needed a chair to stand on. It was as if they
wanted to bear testimony to something sacred happening. This city was about to
speak up for the earth. When the 6-1 vote in favor was announced the auditorium
erupted in cheers, hoots, laughter, even some dancing and a lot of hugging. I
found myself in tears.”
There
have been similar campaigns along the east coast of the US. After the NEB
approved Line 9 last year, more than a dozen
communities in Vermont voted against the reversal of the Portland-Montreal
pipeline. While continuing
to deny its intentions to pump tar sands to Maine for export, Big Oil is continuing
to fight local communities. In February of this year Portland Pipe Line
Corporation filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the City of South
Portland—and a legal
defense campaign is under way.
Chippewas of the
Thames
Regardless
of the ultimate destination of oil going through Line 9, it and other tar sands projects violate indigenous rights. The Chippewas of the Thames First Nation have appealed the NEB’s approval
of Line 9 because they were not consulted—a problem as old as the pipeline
itself. As Myeengun Henry of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation explains,
“Line 9 has been flowing light crude oil through Chippewas of the Thames
traditional territory for 40 years without our consent. It is time for industry
and governments to honour the treaties and wampum belt agreements. Indigenous
nations and all residents of Canada are responsible for the safety of our Mother
Earth!”
Enbridge
appears prepared to start pumping toxic tar sands through Line 9 even before
the result of the legal appeal. So last month the Chippewas of the Thames filed
an application
to stay order, explaining “The Applicant will suffer irreparable harm as a result of
losing its opportunity to reasonably participate in consultations regarding
their constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights if the stay is
not granted.” Reinforcing how little it
cares about consent, Enbridge responded that “this lack of expedition on the
part of COTTFN is manifestly prejudicial to Enbridge and provides sufficient
reason along for the Board to dismiss the Application…Equity comes to the aid
of those who are vigilant and not those who, like COTTFN, sleep on their
rights.” As part of its patronizing and colonial response, Enbridge cited
decisions against the KI and Musqueam nations—and the NEB shamefully, but not
surprisingly, sided with Enbridge. As Ontario
Regional Chief Stan Beardy responded, “First Nations rights are not subject
to industry or government timelines. Enbridge position alienates First Nation
partners and makes it impossible to work together in a mutually respectful way…The
problem with Line 9 is not unique.”
Indeed,
the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission includes a specific call to action for
corporations to respect Indigenous land rights: “We call upon the corporate
sector in Canada to adopt the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation
framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy
and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their land and
resources. This would include, but not be limited to, the following: Commit to
meaningful consultation, building respectful relationships, and obtaining free,
prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before proceeding with
economic development projects.”
Climate action
Despite attempts by Big Oil to trample on local communities
and Indigenous rights, the climate justice movement is continuing to grow—led
by Indigenous communities defending their land, and with growing support from
the labour movement demanding a new kind of economy.
As the Toronto and York Region Labour Council recently
wrote,
“We don’t have to choose between the economy or the environment. Real climate action
means investing in mass public transit, clean energy infrastructure and
affordable housing. It means expanding low-carbon sectors like health,
education and sustainable agriculture. By taking real climate action, we can
create an economy that is more fair and equal and offers hundreds of thousands
f good new jobs. We want an economy where workers win, communities have more
democratic control, and those most impacted and impoverished are the first in
line to benefit. An economy that honours Indigenous peoples’ rights and
recognizes their role in protecting the land, air and water for everyone. An
economy that respects the limits of the environment made clear by climate
science.”
Take action:
* on June 15 hear a
panel of speakers
from the Chippewas of the Thames, 7pm at Friends House (60 Lowther)
* on June 16 join the
court support rally,
at 180 Queen Street West: 9:30am pack and courts (7th floor) and 11am join the support rally outside
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOS1S9_ppjg
