1.4.1 Project description
In May of 2010, Enbridge
2submitted an application to the NEB for its Northern Gateway Project [NGP]. This project has three components:
-
an oil export pipeline,
-
a condensate import pipeline, and
-
a tank farm and marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia [BC].
The twinned pipeline would run 1,177 km from Bruderheim, AB, across the Rocky Mountains and through several First Nations territories, to Kitimat, BC (Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership, 2010). Figure 3 illustrates the route proposed for the NGP.
Figure 3 – NGP Route Map
Image source: (Canadian Press, 2014)2 The proponent of the Northern Gateway Project is more accurately Northern Gateway Pipelines LP, a limited partnership including Enbridge Inc. and others. I have chosen, in this thesis, to identify the proponent of the NGP as “Enbridge” to avoid confusion between different possible meanings for the term “Northern Gateway”.
10
When it was proposed, the NGP triggered an environmental assessment under both the
NEB Act and the CEAA. To satisfy both of these requirements, the CEA Agency and the NEB formeda Joint Review Panel [JRP] which would represent both organizations in reviewing the project.
1.4.2 Public participation
In May of 2011, the JRP issued its Hearing Order for the NGP (NEB, 2011) which invited the public to participate in the hearing in four capacities:
Letter of Comment – These participants could submit a letter of comment [LOC] expressing their knowledge, views, and concerns about the proposed project. They were neither allowed to question the evidence of others, nor to make a final argument.
Making an oral statement – These participants could make an in-person statement at one of the community hearings along the proposed pipeline route, expressing their knowledge, views, and concerns about the proposed project. Such statements were sworn testaments and could be up to 10 minutes long.
Intervenor – These participants could submit written or sworn oral evidence, submit information requests about the written evidence of others, participate in oral cross-examination at the final hearings, participate in notices of motion submitted, and submit a final argument.
Government Participant – These participants were government representatives at the federal, provincial, territorial, or municipal levels. This level of participation was essentially equivalent to Intervenor status, albeit requiring prior approval from the Board for certain actions.
Although the latter three options required a prior registration, none of these methods required an
application, resulting in no member of the public being denied participation in the NGPhearings.
The public review process for the NGP drew an unprecedented amount of public attention and
participation. The oral portions of the hearing were held in cities and towns along the proposed
pipeline route, beginning in January, 2012 and concluding in June, 2013 – almost a full year
longer than originally anticipated by the NEB. Over the course of the NGP review, the JRP
heard cross-examined oral evidence from 393 participants, untested oral statements from 1,179
people, and read over 9,000 letters of comment (NEB, 2013b).
11
1.4.3 Approval
In December, 2013, the JRP published its report ultimately recommending the NGP for approval, albeit with 209 conditions (NEB, 2013b). In this report the JRP revealed that most of the 9,000 letters it received had in fact argued against approving the project, although it did not quantify this statement. Rather, it emphasized that its recommendations were “based on technical and scientific analysis rather than the on (sic) number of participants sharing common views either for or against the project” (NEB, 2013b: 14). The only published tally of the support and opposition to the project comes from Dogwood Initiative (2013) who counted two oral statements in favour of the project, and 1,159 against it.
3Despite it receiving federal approval in June, 2014, construction has not yet begun on Enbridge’s NGP, and there has been much speculation that it never will. The project faces numerous court challenges by environmental groups and First Nations – one of which recently concluded with the Supreme Court of BC ruling that the province had failed in its duty to consult with First Nations (CBC News, 2016). Also, since being elected in October of 2015, PM Justin Trudeau (Liberal Party of Canada) has ordered a tanker ban on BC’s North Coast which would prevent tankers from reaching Kitimat, where the NGP’s export terminal was to be built (CBC News, 2015).
With these and numerous other obstacles precluding construction, it is increasingly unlikely that the Northern Gateway Pipeline will ever be built. Even the chief executive officer [CEO]
of Enbridge has publically stated that the likelihood of construction starting before the end of 2016 – which is one of the NEB’s 209 conditions – is “really quite remote” (Bickis, 2016).
3 I have included this tally not as a point of fact, but rather as a rough indicator of the strength of opposition to the NGP. In their press release, Dogwood does not provide definitions for the terms
“opposed” and “in favour” nor do they elaborate on their counting methods.