Hearing on Enbridge’s controversial pipeline project begins October 1
Opponents of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project will finally get their day in court. Or, to be more precise, six days in court.
Ecojustice lawyers will be there, on behalf of ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation, to make a case for why the Federal Court of Appeal should revoke the federal government’s approval of the project.
Eighteen lawsuits, including ones brought by our clients, have been filed and consolidated in to one mega-hearing that begins in Vancouver tomorrow. In the courtroom, Enbridge and the federal government will be up against steadfast, unwavering opposition from a diverse set of interest that includes First Nations communities, environmental groups and organized labour.
The legal case
A staggering 96 per cent of the groups and people who participated in the review process oppose Northern Gateway. The 1,177-km project would cut across many First Nations territories, cross hundreds of fish-bearing waterways, and increase tanker traffic off of B.C.’s unpredictable north coast, which is prone to stormy conditions and massive wave swells. Our clients remain concerned that this project poses a risk of an in-land pipeline rupture (see: Enbridge’s Kalamazoo River oil spill) or a tanker spill at sea (see: Exxon Valdez oil spill), both of which could have devastating long-term impacts on the communities and ecosystems along the Northern Gateway route.
Despite this, the Joint Review Panel tasked with assessing the project recommended that the federal Cabinet approve the pipeline. “Canadians will be better off with this project than without it,” the panel concluded in its final report.
Respectfully, our clients disagree. The panel’s final report is flawed and contains several legal errors. Therefore, it cannot be used as the basis for the federal government’s approval of Northern Gateway.
Our clients argue that the environmental assessment for the project was not complete. They allege that the review panel report erred by (among other things):
- failing to comply with the Species at Risk Act with respect to humpback whales;
- failing to balance Northern Gateway’s economic benefits and environment impacts; and
- failing to complete a lawful assessment of how bitumen reacts in marine environment.
(Read the full factum)
Any decision about Northern Gateway must be based on the best available science, especially when there is so much at stake. The panel’s flawed report cannot, and should not, stand as the final word on whether Northern Gateway is in the national interest.
The bigger picture
Pipeline projects like Northern Gateway have a single purpose: To move huge quantities of dirty fossil fuels from the landlocked tar sands to overseas markets. New pipeline infrastructure will facilitate tar sands expansion — already Canada’s fastest growing source of carbon emissions — and unleash more carbon into a world already battered by the effects of climate change. A report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates that if built, the Northern Gateway project would trigger the release of an additional 80-100 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere each year.
Climate change impacts were excluded from Northern Gateway’s scope of review, but the numbers make it clear that the project is a one-way ticket in the wrong direction on climate change and totally out of step with the need to reduce global carbon emissions — now. At the very least, these figures cast doubt on the assertion that pipelines and the baggage they come with are in the national interest.
Here’s what is in the national interest: A clean, low-carbon economy. One that recognizes that economic stability and resiliency is incompatible with a strategy that doubles-down on tar sands expansion. One that recognizes that a strong economy and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand.
Instead of debating new pipeline infrastructure that will lock us into a fossil fuel economy for the next 50 years, we need to have a real conversation about how to prepare Canada to thrive in a low-carbon future.
It’s a future within our reach. Research from a group of Canadian scholars, released earlier this year, confirmed that through a series of practical steps, like adopting successful provincial carbon-reduction initiatives at the national level — think B.C.’s carbon tax and Ontario’s phase-out of coal-fired power plants — Canada could dramatically cut its emissions and reach 100 per cent reliance on low-carbon electricity by 2035.
And in the meantime, the Ecojustice team will go to court to stand up against projects that threaten to lock us into the status quo, like Northern Gateway. With your support, we can build the case for a better earth.
re: https://ecojustice.ca/northern-gateway-battle-lands-in-court/
It would be a good thing if you’d use a different photo to highlight the idea of tanker traffic in Vancouver’s harbour.
The ship shown here is a bulk freighter. Tankers don’t need cranes, and (except for the few largest on the planet – to which Vancouver is completely inaccessible) they *do* need quite a bit of top-deck pumping equipment and conduit.
Please get it right: the credibility of your message depends on details like this.
Hi Michael,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have updated the photo on the blog to more accurately reflect the tanker traffic we’re describing.
Best,
Allison
What an excuse! They say it will be ” in Canada’s interests?It will only be in the interests of the pipeline company’s ! Their greed knows no boundaries ! There are currently many books and popular novels featuring stories about the terrible impact on communities from corporations ignoring the health and welfare of the people affected. Obviously, THEY DON’T CARE! Not when it comes to lining THEIR pockets! Hope we environmentalists win! good luck!
Thank you for your comment Pat. It was lovely to talk to you on the phone today as well. We really appreciate your insights and opinions about our work. Please keep the comments coming and call us anytime 🙂
Best,
Megan
That pipeline absolutely must not be permitted.
Megan is so right . The pipeline companies care
nothing for the health nor property of people or animals,
they care only about how much more their bank accounts increase. Isn’t it sad that there are this kind
of people running businesses in Canada!
Hi Marian,
Thanks for your comment. We really appreciate your support and encouragement.
We’re working hard to ensure that our right to clean water and clean air, alongside the health of people and animals, are protected now and in the future.
Best,
Allison
The northern Gateway is more environmentally friendly than the current rail and truck transportation in use… It’s funny that people don’t realize that until the world stops using things like computers, cell phones, cars, airplanes… All petroleum products… They will still be produced and transported… And at the moment pipelines are the safest way to transport crude oil… I’m in support of our environment and because of that I’m a proud supporter of most pipeline initiatives. Trains derail, trucks crash. Both of which release greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Pipelines are truly the best option. It’s sad people can’t see that. Tackling the oil companies is the wrong route. Educating people and having the masses reduce, reuse, recycle. As well as stop using ALL petroleum products is the only way to end the use of fossil fuels. That includes the keyboard I used to type this. Why do people think the oil companies are big bad and evil? Everyone reading this post are the ones to blame. They are the consumers driving the demand for oil. Please wake up.