Is Christy Clark Flip Flopping on the Enbridge Pipeline?

Is Christy Clark Flip Flopping on the Enbridge Pipeline?

Evidence that the pipeline should be stopped is as black and white as a killer whale RELEASE DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2013

Introduction Where does BC Premier Christy Clark stand on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker project? Her government clearly rejected the pipeline in their official submission to the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel (JRP).

That should mean the “gateway” is firmly closed on Enbridge in BC. However, in recent public statements, Premier Clark and her BC Liberal government appear to have opened the gate and may in fact be “flip flopping” on their position on this vital issue. [1] Premier Clark and her Alberta counterpart, Premier Alison Redford, recently announced the terms of reference for an intergovernmental task force to explore how to address the issues Premier Clark has raised.

With the National Energy Board due to release its decision regarding the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline by the end of 2013, the time is now for BC’s Premier to stop flip flopping on this issue and stand firm against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline proposal. The BC government acknowledged in its evidence to the JRP that there is nothing new that a task force, Enbridge, or the federal government could do that would change the fact that this project is a non-starter in BC. Not only does this proposed project put at risk our iconic whales and the precious jewel that is our beautiful province, but it also endangers our local communities, our local economies and ultimately the global climate. The rejection of the Enbridge pipeline is an issue as black and white as a killer whale.

The Premier must stand up for the people of BC and stop this pipeline from being built.

In this summary, we highlight how BC’s five conditions cannot be met and the concrete steps the BC Government can take to ensure Northern Gateway is never built.

Premier Clark's “Five Conditions” Cannot Be Met With the majority of British Columbians opposing Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline project and the introduction of oil supertankers to the province’s north coast, and after the release of a report from the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) slamming Enbridge for their response to a major oil spill in the Kalamazoo River, Premier Christy Clark and her government came out with five conditions for BC to approve heavy-oil pipelines. [2] Evidence from the JRP and government spill preparedness reports make it clear that these conditions can never be met. Here is a point-by-point analysis of BC’s “five conditions.”

1. Completing the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed.

The Province of BC formally submitted its opposition to the pipeline as part of the JRP, stating, “...it is not clear from the evidence that NG [Enbridge Northern Gateway] will in fact be able to respond effectively to spills either from the pipeline itself, or from tankers transporting diluted bitumen from the proposed Kitimat terminal.” The Province’s submission concluded, “The project before the JRP is not a typical pipeline. For example: the behavior in water of the material to be transported is incompletely understood; the terrain the pipeline would cross is not only remote, it is in many places extremely difficult to access; the impact of spills into pristine river environments would be profound. In these particular and unique circumstances...it is respectfully submitted, for the reasons set out below, NG has not met that standard.” [3] The JRP panel is making their decision based on all information that was presented up to the end of June 2013. BC weighed all of the evidence (and nonanswers by Enbridge) and concluded firmly in its final arguments that “the Province is not able to support approval of the project”. While it will be difficult for the JRP to approve the project, what is not clear is whether or not the federal government will push a project through a province that has firmly rejected it.

2. Deploying world-leading marine oil-spill response, prevention and recovery systems for BC's coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments.

2

In an interview earlier this year, BC Premier Clark stated, “we are woefully underresourced” to deal with a major spill on the BC coast. [4] Her statement was backed by a report commissioned by her government which clearly showed that regardless of the location it would only be possible to recover three to four per cent of a moderate oil spill on the north coast.

Despite rhetoric about developing “world-class” marine protection and safety measures, the Harper government has cut coast guard facilities, including closing down the marine communications centre in Vancouver as well as the emergency responders responsible for oil spills in BC. Despite “world-leading” lacking definition, the province through its JRP submission partially defined this by demanding “effective oil spill response and recovery”. Throughout their final arguments to the JRP, BC was clear that Enbridge has not proved it can adequately respond and clean up an oil spill, which would not only adversely impact the marine environment, but also the livelihoods of those who depend on it.

In the JRP process the BC government drew upon the Exxon Valdez experience to highlight the potential risks of a spill to marine life. Studies carried out after the Exxon Valdez spill found that affected orca pods had a ten times higher than normal mortality rate. [5] Transient killer whales are already considered a species of concern under Canada's federal Species At Risk legislation. The Enbridge Northern Gateway project would put this iconic species in grave danger.

Given that regular 120 km/h winds, 20 foot tides (6 metres), rocky steep shorelines, and storms along one of our most precious ecological treasures (the Great Bear Rainforest), and no conceivable amount of resources could clean up an oil spill along our north coast and satisfy British Columbians.

One of the many alarming things highlighted by the Province in their submission to the JRP was that Enbridge has admitted that “doing nothing is a possible response to a spill,” relying only on “natural attenuation” of damages. [6]

3. Using world-leading practices for land oil-spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines.

The BC Premier’s government highlighted in their own submission to the JRP: “Enbridge has not demonstrated its ability to learn from its mistakes in order to avoid spills. There are serious reasons for concern that the commitments it has made in this proceeding will be hollow.”

3

A recent study, reported by the CBC, found that pipeline safety incidents had doubled in the past decade alone, with BC faring worse than other regions. [7] Not only is Enbridge not world-leading in this area, their record on oil spills is notorious.

Annually Enbridge has a minimum of 59 to over 100 oil spill incidents. In 2010 Enbridge spilled over three million litres of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River.

[8] The US National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) was scathing in its assessment of Enbridge's negligence, “Enbridge knew for years that this section of the pipeline was vulnerable yet they didn't act on that information.” [9] The fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is still making demands on Enbridge in its clean-up of the Kalamazoo River oil spill more than three years later is proof enough that Enbridge is definitely not “world-leading” or effective. Add to that Enbridge’s arguments during the hearings that dilbit (diluted tar sands oil) floats despite having to dredge oil off the Kalamazoo River floor, and confidence deteriorates further. [10] The NTSB report emphasized the lack of preparedness specifically for dealing with a spill a toxic dilbit. Last year, the New York Times reported, “After the dilbit gushed into the river, it began separating into its constituent parts. The heavy bitumen sank to the river bottom, leaving a mess that is still being cleaned up.

Meanwhile, the chemical additives evaporated, creating a foul smell that lingered for days. People reported headaches, dizziness and nausea.” Seemingly even more harmful than a conventional crude oil spill, the fact is there is still a major deficit of knowledge about the dangers of dilbit and about techniques for cleaning it up and dealing with the health and environmental consequences.

An oil spill would also be catastrophic for wild salmon, a species that is an important part of the province's economy and an integral component of First Nations' livelihoods and cultures along the proposed route. Pembina research concluded, “A significant [pipeline] failure near salmon habitat in the Skeena, Kitimat or Upper Fraser river watersheds could be catastrophic and irreparable.”

[11] BC’s own submission stated that the effects on fish could span several generations and may simply not recover. Those are risks too great for British Columbians.

4. Addressing legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights, and ensuring First Nations provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project.

4

Potentially impacted First Nations have been provided with plenty of information, and the answer from the majority is an emphatic ‘No’. The First Nations of BC, along the Northern Gateway route, have repeatedly and passionately indicated their opposition to this project. They have been joined by an unprecedented alliance, which includes First Nations across BC, the US Pacific Northwest, Alberta, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Currently over 160 First Nations have now signed the Save the Fraser Declaration opposing tar sands export pipelines across their territories. [12] The Coastal First Nations have declared a tar sands tanker ban in their territories.

Unlike in the rest of Canada, most of these First Nations are not under treaty and have unceded rights and title. Several court cases are already being prepped should the project receive approval. As Wet’suwet’en Chief Na’mox told the Enbridge CEO at their Annual General Meeting, they spent 20 years on the landmark Delgamuukw case to prove their rights and are a very patient people.

As the recent onslaught of cabinet ministers and deputy ministers to meet with First Nations in BC shows, they have undeniably failed to win over First Nations in this province, let alone meet their constitutional duty as outlined in Section 35 and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

5. Ensuring British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

Premier Redford reacted immediately against Premier Clark’s demand for larger financial share of heavy oil pipelines by denying any potential royalty revenuesharing. Media has recently reported that “positive steps” have been made between the two provinces on a framework to address these concerns. Even this condition will be negotiated and hammered out by the premier, no additional trickle of funds to BC could make up for the enormous economic and environmental risks associated with this mega-project. And no shifting around of money could possibly negate the fact that the other conditions cannot be met.

Former federal Environment Minister David Anderson sums it up well: “No amount of money can protect our coast, and no amount of money can repair the damage of a spill of heavy Alberta crude oil.” [13]

Social License

5

British Columbia has repeatedly said no to tar sands pipelines. Polls have shown 80% opposition to the tankers off the coast that would be the result of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. [14] It’s been said that politicians issue permits but the people give permission.

Regardless of Premier Clark’s conditions, there is one critical thing she is not accounting for and that is the wishes of the people of BC. In the case of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, the public has clearly not given the company permission to allow this pipeline to be built. In fact quite the contrary, the people of BC have only grown in opposition in BC has only grown as time has gone on.

The people of BC are asking nicely -- for now. They want the Premier to follow through on her commitments to stand up for BC. Many thousands of people have made it clear they will do everything in their power to stop the pipeline. This issue is already shaping up to be the Clayoquot Sound stand off of this generation. The Premier still has it in her power to reject this pipeline before this situation escalates.

Obama’s Climate Change Condition - The Elephant in the Room The President of the United States has changed the conversation around tar sands pipelines by saying, “The net effects of the [Keystone XL] pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.” [15] Climate change impacts were not amongst the conditions addressed by Premier Clark, who presides over the only jurisdiction in North America with a carbon tax.

The BC government has committed to science-based emission reduction targets under the BC climate plan and reaffirmed this commitment last week by signing the Pacific Coast Action Plan with West Coast governors. Meanwhile tar sands release 22% more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. [16] There is a stark contrast between the climate commitments shown by this province to date and the hypocrisy of becoming a tar sands oil gateway to global warming.

Conclusion Despite all the evidence, and their own “five conditions,” the Christy Clark's BC government is sounding more and more like it is open to flip flopping on its opposition to the Enbridge pipeline.

6

Sometime after the BC government formally submitted its official 'No' to Enbridge as part of the JRP, then Environment Minister Terry Lake left some wriggle room, telling an Alberta journalist there was still “a pathway to yes.” [17] Perhaps the clearest indication of this was a recent statement by Environment Minister Mary Polak, “[We are] not the ministry of No," she said. "We believe the five conditions can be met." [18] Astonishingly, this comment by Polak came barely a week after a BC study pointed to severely inadequate marine oil spill response systems. At the time she said "As it stands the proposal is there as it was presented, it's not one that we support and we made that clear in our submission," Polak said. [19] While some recent events have muddied the waters on the government’s position, to the majority of British Columbians, the issue of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is as black and white as the killer whales that are threatened by the proposed pipeline and tankers. Premier Christy Clark's five conditions cannot be met by Enbridge and this project must be rejected.

Recommendations There are a number of things the Premier can do to stop Enbridge Northern Gateway.

The first step for the Premier’s office should be to announce that no new permits related to this project will be issued. It should also identify permits that are within its jurisdiction that can be denied regardless of whether the JRP and federal government approve the project, such as providing BC Hydro power.

The Premier has a short window left to pull out of the equivalency agreement with the federal government. In effect, this ensures that BC has the legislative power to say no to the project even if the JRP or Harper government approve it. Partway through the environmental review process, Bill C-38 changed environmental legislation so that Cabinet can overturn any decision made by the National Energy Board. Given the risks and impacts to BC, we need to reclaim our power in the final decision.

The BC government needs to make it clear to the federal and Alberta governments that it cannot support Enbridge’s pipeline and tanker projects. The conditions have not been met.

Should the JRP recommend approval and the Federal government accept this, BC should consider a judicial review of the findings of the JRP.

7

The province of BC should formally support the legal challenges of First Nations people standing up against Enbridge should it be approved by the federal government.

Finally, Premier Christy Clark, like all of us, has a voice and a network of friends and contacts in the region. She has to decide which side of history she wants to be on. To say she doesn’t have the power to stop this pipeline dis-empowers all of us. We all have the ability to make a difference. In Premier Christy Clark’s case she has a lot of power in this regard and therefore she also has a lot of responsibility.

The time is now Premier Clark, to do the right thing, and use the provincial powers to ensure that the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline never crosses BC.

Citations [1] ‘Clark, Redford move closer to pipeline agreement.’ Globe and Mail. Sept. 29, 2013. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/clark-redford-move-closerto-pipeline-agreement/article14598725/ [2 ] ‘B.C. seeks ‘fair share' in new Gateway pipeline deal.’ CBC.ca. July 23, 2012. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-seeks-fair-share-in-newgateway-pipeline-deal-1.1205829 [3] Official Government of BC submission to JRP. May 31, 2013. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/main/docs/2013/BC-Submission-to-NGPJointReviewPanel_130531.pdf [4] ‘Christy Clark warns Canada unprepared for tanker oil spills.’ CBC.ca.

October 2, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christy-clark-warns-canadaunprepared-for-tanker-oil-spills-1.1876514 [5] ‘West Coast oil spill would be a killer for whales’. Victoria Times-Colonist.

October 26, 2013. http://www.timescolonist.com/comment-west-coast-oil-spillwould-be-a-killer-for-whales-1.672877 [6] Official Government of BC submission to JRP. May 31, 2013. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/main/docs/2013/BC-Submission-to-NGPJointReviewPanel_130531.pdf [7] ‘Pipeline safety incident rate doubled in past decade.’ CBC.ca. October 28, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/pipeline-safety-incident-rate-doubled-in-pastdecade-1.2251771

8

[8] ‘Enbridge is still cleaning up three years after Kalamazoo River oil spill’.

TheSpec.com. http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4157147-three-years-after-big-oil-spillenbridge-is-still-cleaning-up/ [9] Enbridge Incorporated Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Rupture and Release.

National Transportation Safety Board. July 25, 2010. http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/marshall_mi/index.html [10] ‘Enbridge Northern Gateway website: "diluted bitumen floats". Vancouver Observer. February 7, 2013. http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/enbridge-northern-gatewaywebsite-diluted-bitumen-floats [12] http://savethefraser.ca/ [13] BC "not for sale" to Enbridge Northern Gateway, say aboriginal and former government leaders. Vancouver Observer. Jul 30, 2012 http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/bc-not-sale-enbridge-northerngateway-say-aboriginal-and-former-government-leaders [14] ForestEthics: Opposition to B.C. Oil Tankers on the Rise. ForestEthics Press Release. May 26, 2010 http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/forestethics-opposition-to-bc-oiltankers-on-the-rise-1266656.htm [15] ‘Keystone XL Fails the Climate Test -- See the Proof for Yourself’. Alternet.

October 17, 2013. http://www.alternet.org/environment/keystone-xl-fails-climate-test [16] Top 10 facts about the Alberta oil sands. Desmog Blog. February 2013. http://www.desmogblog.com/top-10-facts-canada-alberta-oil-sands-information [17] ‘Christy Clark’s so-called ‘rejection’ of the Enbridge pipeline’, Vancouver Metro, June 3, 2013. http://metronews.ca/voices/urban-compass2/692943/christy-clarks-so-called-rejection-of-the-enbridge-pipeline/ [18] Why B.C., Alberta are ending their pipeline standoff. CBC.ca. Oct 21, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.2126176 [19] B.C. study points to inadequate oil spill response system. The Vancouver Sun. October 10, 2013.

9

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/study+points+inadequate+spill+response+sy stem/9021869/story.html

10