Follow us on:
Who's in the room at Northern Gateway hearings?
Jan
10
2012
Today marks the first day of hearings of the Joint Review Panel tasked with assessing the environmental impacts of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline. An oil industry front group and the federal government wasted no time ...
photo credit:
Today marks the first day of hearings of the Joint Review Panel tasked with assessing the environmental impacts of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline. An oil industry front group and the federal government wasted no time in trying to undermine the process by smearing those who want to voice objection to the project. Central to their attack has been that the allegation that radical environmental groups want to hijack our regulatory system using funding from foreign sources.
What the pipeline pushers have failed to do is provide any real break down of who exactly is involved in the hearings. So, let’s try to get to the bottom of this.
There are different levels of participation open to the public in this type of process. The most intensive involvement is to become an intervenor. Intervenors are allowed to submit written and oral evidence, submit written questions and question the company, Enbridge, as well as other intervenors. In other words, intervenor status gives a group or individual quasi-legal standing in the process.
The official public registry lists 216 intervenors, including businesses, First Nations, non-governmental organizations and others. A breakdown of the main groups is as follows:
· 26 B.C. First Nations groups
· 14 Alberta First Nations
· 18 organizations in B.C. with an interest in environmental and land issues
· 16 oil companies, 10 of which are headquartered in foreign countries (US, China, Japan, Korea, France, UK)
· 4 oil industry lobby groups
While there are 10 foreign oil companies registered as intervenors, there is not a single environmental organizations from outside the country on the list. In fact, most if not all are B.C.-based organizations including many from northern B.C.
Short of becoming a full-fledged intervenor, individuals and organizations can request to make a ten-minute oral presentation to the joint review panel. Much noise has been made about the 4,522 people who have registered in this category, more than any other process in Canada.
A search of the registry indicates that 3,587 of these people, or 79% of the total, are from British Columbia. A search for United States turns up less than 20 people. These are rough numbers because the search may not turn up registrants by location with 100% accuracy, but at a broad level, it’s clear that the vast majority of people signed up to make presentation are from B.C. And, again, these are people who want 10 minutes or less to voice their opinions on this issue of national importance. That hardly constitutes hijacking a process.
What this shows is that a move to squash the regulatory review of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline will only serve the interests big multinational oil companies at the expense of a process that, while not perfect, is at least open to public involvement.
leave a comment
Jan
10
2012
Northern Gateway pipeline
Eugene Eklund says:
First, let me say that I am in favour of a pipeline to the west coast. We have to open up the market for our oil/gas exports. I hope we have all seen the folly of having only one customer.
Having said that, I have serious moral issues with China and I would like to see us pursueing other customers as well. In fact, while the whole SE Asia area represents a huge new market, there are moral issues with most of these emerging countries. We have to ask ourselves, is it only about the money (including personal income from jobs)?
I also wonder why we are not shipping more oil and gas to our own east coast?
Lastly, I wonder if Harper et al aren't trying to sabotage this pipeline in order to keep all our exports for the US. As far as this pipeline is concerned, they are becoming their own worst enemy (if they are indeed in favour of it). Radicals!!! Hmmm.
Jan
10
2012
I think that all those people
Rebecca Fabian says:
I think that all those people that are for this pipeline really need to go out on the land and take a look at why the first nations people are against it. Mother nature is there for us to clothe feed and shelter us and by putting this pipeline in may take some of those needs away. Hasn't there been enough taken from mother nature. Our air and water is polluted and the vegetation has been altered drastically. Please enough is enough find another way. The future generations still need to learn about their culture. Please do not put this pipeline in. Save what little forest we have left.
Jan
10
2012
pipeline
Mark Taliano says:
The pipeline needs to be stopped. And then the Tar Sands need to be stopped. Canada is already an international environmental pariah. If these pipelines go through, Anthropogenic Global Warming effects will destroy us. Already as many as 300,000 people per year are perishing due to climate change (Suzuki source). The madness has to stop. Alternate energy NOW.
Jan
10
2012
Pipeline
Lee Norton says:
Canada should take the big picture. If we place all our hopes and resources in fossil fuel energy, we will have an immediate influx of money, but the long term effect will be disastrous. Eventually, and maybe too late, the world powers (i.e. politicians) will see that Global Warming must be stopped for humanity to survive. At that point efforts will be to renewable energy and the countries that have a lead here will prosper. Canada will not. We will have raped out country for a few cents and will be left with the results.
Jan
10
2012
We dont need anymore
Calvin says:
We dont need anymore pipelines. We cannot grow an economy that spells disaster for future generations. We need to expand the wind and solar energy industries. This will create thousands of jobs and boost the economy while at the same time help in the fight against climate change.
Jan
18
2012
Reply to Eugene
Liz Harries says:
I am not saying that we do or don't need to open up our oil/gas exports. But do you truly believe that this is the way to do it? A pipeline across all of B.C. through very important and rare ecological landmarks and covering the area of our entire pacific coast line - when a spill is certain to happen? I'm just saying apart from where you politically stand on this issue, you must truly know deep down that this project is 100 kinds of wrong.
Jan
10
2012
Gateway Pipeline
Finn Larsen / BSC says:
I am in full support of this pipline, I have lived in Kitimat , Fort Nelson, Prince George, Terrace as well have spent many days in the northern wilderness. I feel that alot of folks find it easier to say NO, than to be proactive in seeking a positive outcome to this very positive project. Yes there are world wide investors in such projects. Folks look closely, most large corporations and banks have forgien investors. It also seems to me that alot of the negative folks have no need of any income , so they think. The tax dollars and jobs this creates will keep those tax free monthly allotments of funds to those folks and everyone else will be paying taxes , that is if they have any work. . I do agree that enviroment should not suffer for work , however this can be minimized. If you think that this project will save the world then please get a reality check.
I also am in the strong opinion that most of the pro pipline are not conservatives that the folks that believe that they are, are very disallusioned. Ask the unions if they would support the jobs for their memberships, which are unemployed and may not be earning nor obtaining any assistance outside of welfare.
Jan
10
2012
Who's in the room?
Neil Kitson says:
Precisely my question and you've answered it. I'm glad you're there and hope you will be throughout.
Jan
11
2012
what's the goal?
matthew kemshaw says:
Seems to me that this pipeline is raising a larger issue, namely what is our goal as a nation "Canada?" Those who are promoting this pipeline seem rapt in a monological obsession with the goal of constant economic growth. Our federal government seems to see this growth as necessarily tied to the export of crude oil (don't be fooled, oil IS dirty - try rubbing some on your face). What if our goal as a nation were something else? What if our primary goal was community and individual health? Or a clean energy future? Canadians should really pause on this. Consider cancer. Think about what our true goal is and recognize that change is constant. The current economic order in the world hasn't been around for very long and it will change. Imagine a clean energy future. Imagine a truly healthy community. What are people doing?
Jan
14
2012
A simple question
Donna says:
Now that I know who will be making presentation etc. I would like to know more about the make up of the committee hearing those presentation
Comments
We would love to hear from you - leave a comment below, or reply to a previous comment. We have a comments policy