A3Q1F4 - 13-10-18 - Volume 7 - Office national de l`énergie

Transcription

NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
OFFICE NATIONAL DE L’ÉNERGIE
Hearing Order OH-002-2013
Ordonnance d’audience OH-002-2013
Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project
Application under s.58 of the National Energy Board Act
Pipelines Enbridge Inc.
Projet d’inversion de la canalisation 9B et
d’accroissement de la capacité de la canalisation 9
Demande présentée aux termes de l’article 58 de
la Loi sur l’Office national de l’énergie
VOLUME 7
Hearing held at
L’audience tenue à
Metro Toronto Convention Centre
South Building
222 Bremner Boulevard
Toronto, Ontario
October 18, 2013
Le 18 octobre 2013
International Reporting Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario
(613) 748-6043
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2013
© Sa Majesté du Chef du Canada 2013
as represented by the National Energy Board
représentée par l’Office national de l’énergie
This publication is the recorded verbatim transcript
Cette publication est un compte rendu textuel des
and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the
délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et
official languages, depending on the languages
transcrite dans l’une ou l’autre des deux langues
spoken by the participant at the public hearing.
officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le
participant à l’audience publique.
Printed in Canada
Imprimé au Canada
HEARING ORDER/ORDONNANCE D’AUDIENCE
OH-002-2013
IN THE MATTER OF Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project
Application under s.58 of the National Energy Board Act
HEARING LOCATION/LIEU DE L'AUDIENCE
Hearing held in Toronto (Ontario), Friday, October 18, 2013
Audience tenue à Toronto (Ontario), vendredi, le 18 octobre 2013
BOARD PANEL/COMITÉ D'AUDIENCE DE L'OFFICE
L. Mercier
Chairperson/Présidente
M. Richmond
Member/Membre
J. Gauthier
Member/Membre
Transcript
APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS
(i)
APPLICANT/DEMANDEUR
Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
- Me Ann Bigué
- Mr. Douglas E. Crowther
- Ms. Margery Fowke
- Ms. Kristi Millar
INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS
First Nations/Premières Nations
Aamjiwnaang First Nation
- Mr. Scott A. Smith
- Mr. Paul Seaman
Chippewas of the Thames First Nation
- Mr. Scott A. Smith
- Mr. Paul Seaman
Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke
- Chief Clinton Phillips
- Mr. Francis Walsh
- Mr. Patrick Ragaz
Groups/Groupes
Algonquin to Adirondacks Collaborative
- Ms. Emily Conger
- Mr. Rob McRae
Association Industrielle de l’Est de Montréal
- M. Dimitri Tsingakis
- M. André Brunelle
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
- Me Guy Sarault
- Mr. Nick Schultz
Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada - Unifor
- Mr. Steven Shrybman
Conseil du patronat du Québec
- Mme Norma Kozhaya
- M. Yves-Thomas Dorval
- M. Louis-Paul Lazure
Transcript
(ii)
INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS (Continued/Suite)
Groups/Groupes
Council of Canadians - York University Chapter
- Mr. Amit Praharaj
Durham Citizens Lobby for Environmental Awareness and Responsibility Inc.
DurhamCLEAR
- Mr. Doug Anderson
Équiterre (Coalition)
- Mr. Albert Koehl
- M. Sidney Ribaux
Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec
- M. Jérôme Gaudreault
- M. François-William Simard
Grand River Indigenous Solidarity
- Mr. Dan Kellar
- Ms. Rachel Avery
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
- Ms. Nicola Crawhall
- Mr. Philippe Chenard
Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec
- M. Simon Prévost
- Mme Audrey Azoulay
Ontario Petroleum Institute
- Mr. Jim McIntosh
- Mr. Hugh Moran
Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association
- Mr. John D. Goudy
Ontario Pipeline Probe
- Mr. Darko Matovic
Rising Tide Toronto
- Ms. Amanda Lickers
Stratégies Énergétiques
- Me Dominique Neuman
Transcript
(iii)
Groups/Groupes
Sustainable Trent
- Mr. Julian Tennent-Riddell
Union des producteurs agricoles
- M. Pierre Lemieux
- Mme Isabelle Bouffard
Companies/Compagnies
Suncor Energy Marketing Inc.
- Mr. Lawrence E. Smith, Q.C.
- Mr. Jay Headrick
- Mr. John Van Heyst
Valero Energy Inc. (was Utramar Ltd., Ultramar Ltée)
- Mr. Alan Hollingworth
- Me Julie-Martin Loranger
- Ms. Lisa Jamieson
Governments / Gouvernements
Alberta Department of Energy
- Mr. Colin King
Ontario Ministry of Energy
- Mr. Rick Jennings
City of Toronto
- Mr. Graham Rempe
Municipalité de Rigaud
- Maire Réal Brazeau
- Mme Chantal Lemieux
Municipalité de Sainte-Justine-de Newton
- Mairesse Patricia Domingos
Municipalité de Très-Saint-Rédempteur
- Maire Jean A. Lalonde
Municipalité régionale du comté de Vaudreuil-Soulanges
- M. Guy-Lin Beaudoin
- Dr Gilles Bolduc
- Mr. Simon Richard
Transcript
(iv)
Governments/Gouvernements
Ville de Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines
- M. Guy Charbonneau
- M. Benjamin Plourde
Individuals/Individus
Ms. Catherine Doucet
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
Ms. Emily Ferguson
Dr. Nicole Goodman
Ms. Sarah Harmer
Ms. Louisette Lanteigne
M. Jean Léger
Ms. Carrie Lester
Mr. John Quarterly
National Energy Board/Office national de l’énergie
- Mr. Ryan Rodier
- Mr. Mark Watton
Transcript
ERRATA
(i)
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - Volume 5
Paragraph No.:
4062:
“Enbridge has not been transparent, and
clearly we’re hoping that...”
4104:
“If it does not, we will continue to press for
such an assessment at the provincial level.
As I indicated earlier, one of the questions
we asked the participants...”
4105 and 4106: (split)
“... I understand that Enbridge was touting
such a standard in the hearings for the
Northern Gateway pipeline.
In order to assuage concerns over that line,
I would urge Enbridge and the NEB to
implement those standards...”
4109:
“Let’s be forward; all the benefits of...”
4125:
“The green dots across the end, the little
green diamonds actually,...”
4146:
“In their analysis of the current industry,
well, it turns out it isn't just...”
Should read:
“Enbridge has not been transparent, and
clearly they’re hoping that...”
“If it does not, we will continue to press for
such an assessment at the provincial level.
(New paragraph) As I indicated earlier, one
of the questions we asked the participants...”
“...I understand that Enbridge was touting
such a standard in the hearings for the
Northern Gateway pipeline in order to
assuage concerns over that line.
I would urge Enbridge and the NEB to
implement those standards...”
“Let’s be straight forward; all the benefits
of...”
“The green dots across the top, the little
green diamonds actually,...”
“In their analysis of the current industry,
C12-6-6 - Exhibit E - A3J8F6 - adobe page
28, well, it turns out it isn’t just...”
4151:
Number six:
Number six:
“Brass liquid pipelines,...
“For hazardous liquid pipelines,...
Transcript
ERRATA
(i)
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - Volume 5
Paragraph No.:
4208:
“...whether it's gross or et cetera,...”
Should read:
“...whether it’s corrosive or et cetera,...”
4212:
The section in italics should be in regular font as it was not a quote.
4213:
“In terms of the transported dilbit, essentially
the same is for the increase in -- ah, look at
that -- so in terms of conditions, we have read
the conditions, the proposed conditions of the
Board and we find them basically too weak,
too tentative in a sense -- too tentative in
most cases.”
4217:
“...should be relocated north of the (inaudible)
and...”
Transcript
“In terms of the transported dilbit,
essentially the same is for the increase in
capacity.
(New paragraph) In terms of conditions, we
have read the proposed conditions of the
Board and we find them basically too weak,
too tentative in most cases.
“...should be relocated north of the Oak
Ridges Moraine and...”
TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES
(i)
Description
Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe
Opening remarks by the Chairperson
5344
Final argument by Ms. Sarah Harmer
5350
Final argument by Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5418
Final argument by Équiterre (Coalition)
- Mr. Albert Koehl
5494
Final argument by Council of Canadians - York University Chapter
- Mr. Amit Praharaj
- Ms. Ecaterina Pascariu
- Ms. Gabrielle Demontigny
- Ms. Jennifer Spalton
5652
Final argument by Mr. John Quarterly
5842
Final argument by Ms. Carrie Lester
6044
Final argument by Rising Tide Toronto
- Ms. Amanda Lickers
6195
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Sarah Harmer
--- Upon commencing at 9:03 a.m./L’audience débute à 9h03
5344.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everybody and welcome
back.
We’re starting this morning -- there was no preliminary matter I
5345.
believe.
5346.
MR. WATTON: Just a small request for a change in order. After
Ms. Harmer, Ms. Eriksen is with us this morning. So we would -- with your
leave, we would ask that she be able to present afterwards, and then a slight
reversal of order between Équiterre and the Council of Canadians.
5347.
So it would be Ms. Harmer, Ms. Eriksen, followed by Équiterre
Coalition and then the Council of Canadians - York University. If that’s okay?
5348.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is okay. So thank you very much.
5349.
And now I’ll hear Ms. Harmer.
--- FINAL ARGUMENT BY/ARGUMENTATION FINALE PAR MS. SARAH
HARMER:
5350.
MS. HARMER: Good morning, thank you. Bon matin, Madam
Chair, gentlemen of the Board.
5351.
My name is Sarah Harmer and I am here representing myself and my
family as landowners whose family farm, just an hour or so west of here in North
Burlington, is crossed by Line 9B.
5352.
This place is called Mount Nemo, part of the Niagara Escarpment
which is a Unesco World Biosphere Reserve in Southern Ontario. Mount Nemo
is an outlier, a high point of land that sits above the landscape at the same height,
for example, as the restaurant of the CN Tower, as reference.
5353.
By looking -- by the look of the graph of water crossings used by
DurhamCLEAR a few days ago in their presentation, Mount Nemo, at mile point
1875, appears to be where Line 9B is at its highest elevation.
5354.
Transcript
Mount Nemo is a highly porous geological landscape known for its
Final argument
Ms. Sarah Harmer
caves, sinkholes and springs, and for rock-climbing. It’s also known for its
ancient ecosystems, including white cedar trees that are over 1,000 years old.
Mount Nemo relies entirely on precipitation for replenishing its aquifer and is a
prime source water area. This landscape is also home to areas of natural scientific
interest, ANSIs, including Lake Medad and the Medad Valley.
5355.
If you look to the map in front of us, the Medad Valley is roughly at
the location at which Line 9B does a sharp turn at the northwestern edge of Lake
Ontario, North of Hamilton.
5356.
Oh, that’s all I need. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks.
5357.
This is also the location of an important cultural heritage site. A
neutral Indian village from the early 1600s.
5358.
On our farm and in the surrounding forests and wetlands there are
federally endangered species at risk and many other -- including sorry the
Jefferson salamander and many other species at risk.
5359.
The connected wetlands on our farm and adjacent lands are designated
by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources as provincially significant and
protected. Our farm grows organic feed crops and is an ecological haven for
many plants and animal species.
5360.
As you have heard from many intervenors, Line 9B crosses a vast
amount of important ecological and hydrological areas in Ontario and Quebec.
Many of these areas are rural and rely upon wells for drinking water as we do and
have for the 42 years my family has been there.
5361.
The swath of land and truly precious waterways that this pipeline is
embedded into have so many unique features. So I therefore add my voice to the
recommendation of Conservation Authorities, the A2A Collaborative and many
other intervenors that the Proponent develop watershed specific environmental
plans as part of their application.
5362.
In his final argument, the Proponent’s counsel said that his client
intended to meet personally with each landowner, every three years, along the
right-of-way. In the 38 years of hosting, shall we say, Line 9 on our property, the
only contact we have had with the operator is a rain gauge and a flashlight that we
received in the mail from them many years ago.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Sarah Harmer
5363.
This summer however, a land agent came to the door and informed my
parents that there was an anomaly in the section of Line 9 on our farm. He then
asked them to assist the company in applying to the Provincial Ministry of
Environment for a permit to take water, an interference with wetlands permit, and
an alteration to shorelines and watercourses permit.
5364.
When counsel to Enbridge stated in his argument that there was no
planned ground disturbances in the right-of-way, I think, with all due respect, he
may not be fully aware of his clients programs.
5365.
I would also like the Board to know, that on their mapping of our farm,
Enbridge shows no knowledge of the protected species at risk habitat nor the
provincially significant wetlands, even though these protected areas border and
cross the Line 9 right-of-way.
5366.
In their response to my Information Request, C-51-2, the company
claims to possess a list of species at risk along their right-of-way but have not
applied that data into the mapping that they showed to us.
5367.
This lack of basic but critical detail, especially considering the
presence of a federally endangered species, gives my family and I little
confidence in the Proponent’s ability to knowledgeably and responsibly undertake
this excavation. And it begs the question, what else don’t they know?
5368.
Counsel to the Proponent also stated in Montreal, in paragraph 221 of
the transcript that, quote: “No new line pipe would be installed.” End quote.
Here again, I think some clarity may be needed.
5369.
In my written -- excuse me. In my written evidence, C51-4, and I will
endeavour not to repeat it because I know you have it. So I referenced the
statement given during the Enbridge Northern Gateway hearings. Vice-President
for Pipeline Integrity at Enbridge, a Mr. Kresik stated, quote:
“We’re able to do repairs on the pipeline by applying a repair
sleeve.”
5370.
End quote.
5371.
I then referenced evidence written evidence by welding and
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Sarah Harmer
engineering expert Hugh W. Kerr, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University
of Waterloo Fellow American Welding Society, that he submitted during the same
hearing. It concerns the problems associated with pipe welds and sleeve repairs
and the, quote:
“…sensitive functions of composition and [the mechanical
and] thermal histories of the material.”
5372.
End quote.
5373.
In my words, using new pipe over old pipe.
5374.
With new investigative digs being announced every month and now
numbering into the many hundreds, potential pipe welds and sleeve repairs are an
ongoing concern. Ironically, in attempting to improve pipeline integrity, I fear
these digs may have the potential to open up a whole new set of vulnerabilities.
5375.
As Professor Kerr asserts, quote:
“…the type of product to be carried in the pipeline influences
internal corrosion threats, which also are affected by pipe and
weld properties.”
5376.
End quote.
5377.
What also appears fundamentally flawed, and correct me if I’m wrong,
is that data from all of these integrity digs will not be analyzed by the company
for many months; in fact, until after your decision is likely to be rendered. I do
hope I am wrong in that understanding.
5378.
If I am not, I would respectfully ask that you not put the cart before the
horse, as they say, and instead base your decision-making timeline in having the
necessary facts in front of you.
5379.
For the entire 42 years my family has lived on Mount Nemo in
Burlington; me, for the first 18 years of my life, and my parents still. We have
had a large below water table limestone quarry as our neighbour. Every Tuesday
and Thursday at noon, explosives are detonated at the quarry and a shutter, a wave
goes through the house. Window ornaments rattle and newly plastered walls have
cracked.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Sarah Harmer
5380.
Line 9 lays 600 metres closer to the quarry than our house. The line is
1,200 metres distant from the quarry. What stresses has Line 9 endured from
twice-weekly blasting over all of these years on Mount Nemo?
5381.
Where I live now, north of Kingston in Eastern Ontario, Line 9 is 2
kilometres downstream from me in the Collins Marsh. This is a few minutes
away from intervenor Emily Ferguson's hometown of Glenburnie that she
referenced two days ago. The local quarry here is within 40 metres of Line 9.
5382.
If you look at an aerial map, the quarry right-of-way goes right in
between two extraction areas, within 40 metres. What, if any, impacts are
revealed on the pipeline a metre deep into the same limestone bed that is blasted
on a regular basis? We don't know and vibrational monitoring does not take
place.
5383.
On top of these unknowns comes a new ingredient, or rather, many
new ingredients. The request by the Proponent to transport diluted bitumen and
increase capacity -- diluted bitumen, rather, a much thicker, more abrasive
material, should be, in my submission, a major consideration of the Board.
5384.
During my research as an intervenor, I read the National Resource
Defence Council paper entitled "Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks", found at
www.nrdc.org/energy/files/tarsandssafetyrisk.pdf.
5385.
This well-footnoted document contains a chart of diluted bitumen's
characteristics. Among other characteristics, including viscosity and abrasives,
quartz and silicates, the chart shows both a higher acidic content in diluted
bitumen and a higher sulphuric content than in conventional oil.
5386.
While the issue of increased corrosivity of diluted bitumen may be
contested, there is empirical data, actual rates of releases in U.S. pipelines, that I
hope will help guide your deliberations. I think the Board may also find useful
the 2012 study conducted by Cornell University Global Labour Institute, which I
also reference in my written evidence, C-51-4, that found, quote:
"Between 2007 to 2010, pipelines transporting tar sands oil in
the northern Midwest have spilled three times more oil per mile
than the U.S. national average for conventional crude."
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Sarah Harmer
5387.
End quote.
5388.
As we have heard repeatedly during this hearing, the Enbridge pipeline
that ruptured and gushed for 17 hours in Marshall, Michigan, in July of 2010, was
of the same vintage as Line 9B. Like Line 9B, that pipeline was also built with
the intention to transport conventional oil. It was then redeployed to carry diluted
bitumen and it failed in the most devastating and costly on land spill in U.S.
history.
5389.
Also of significant concern is the extreme difficulty found in cleaning
up a heavy crude or diluted bitumen spill. One very recent example occurred this
past March in Mayflower, Arkansas, when an old pipeline moving diluted
bitumen, heavy crude, ruptured and spilled into a subdivision, into wetlands, and
ultimately into Lake Conway. Clean-up continues in the Kalamazoo River three
years after the spill there.
5390.
As well as the contamination and poisons -- sorry. As well, there is a
concern of contamination and poisoning of airsheds from aromatic hydrocarbons.
And with the dilbit itself, the bitumen itself, rather, the highly fractured limestone
environment in Eastern Ontario for example, compounds the difficulty, perhaps
the impossibility of clean-up in this type of environment and provides increased
conduits to drinking water tables and aquifer contamination.
5391.
I don't know of a worst substance to be pumped at high pressure
through a deteriorating pipeline across so many of our vital living waterways. It
goes without saying that no one wants a spill, of course, including the Proponent.
5392.
Thankfully, you have concrete, in-the-field evidence to guide your
deliberations on this application. I urge you to look at the track record of the
Proponent and recent history of other heavy crude spill events with respect and
not -- sorry, with respect, the inflated confidence and assurances given to you by
the Proponent's counsel.
5393.
You have a company that has many intentions. It has intentions to be
in touch with landowners and municipalities. It has intentions to improve safety
response time and intentions to remedy all vulnerabilities currently outstanding on
Line 9B.
5394.
In her argument, the Proponent's counsel stated that under close
supervision of the National Energy Board, the company has made new changes
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Sarah Harmer
since the Marshall rupture and that many forget, quote:
"We are no longer in 2010."
5395.
End quote.
5396.
This to me is cold comfort. What has not changed in three years is the
age of the pipeline, except that it is three years older. What has not changed in
three years is the primarily quarter-inch thickness of the line. What has not
changed in three years -- oh sorry, I'm sorry. What has not changed -- I'll go
back.
5397.
What has not changed in three years is the primarily quarter-inch
thickness of the line, though some metal loss may have occurred since then. What
has not changed is a reliance on members of the community to be a key part of the
company's leak detection system.
5398.
What has not changed since 2010 are the unacceptable emergency
response times. What has not changed is the same mix of carcinogenic chemicals
and abrasive bitumen proposed for the line.
5399.
While the Proponent may try to assuage alarm by adding response
trailers, booms and equipment to its inventory, it is my submission that the key is
not preparedness, but proactive prevention. We can do better and we must. We
have all seen the horrible tragedy visited upon our neighbours in Quebec only a
few months ago with the incineration of entire city blocks and dozens of lost
lives.
5400.
When applications such as the one before you are met with decisions
to prohibit the high risk transport of heavy diluted crude through our communities
via old infrastructure, you commit to safety, prevention, and prudence. You open
the door for industry to redesign, to go back to the drawing board, to come up
with better, safer, long-term plans.
5401.
It has become apparent to me during this seven-month-long hearing
process that much of the rigour and exhaustive study undertaken in this case has
been done by keen and committed volunteers. They are often the ones that spend
much of the time digging deep to find the crucial details. And, as the City of
Toronto stressed in their argument, the devil is in the details.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Sarah Harmer
5402.
I therefore recommend that you give great weight to the application's
details or lack thereof. I recommend that you focus on the practical and observe
evidence in front of you and not the stated intentions of the Proponent. I
encourage you to judge and predict future performances by past actions.
5403.
I recommend that you do not, with respect, rest on the confident
assurances given to you in Enbridge's counsel's words, but rather rely on the
company's track record and the examples that have come before. We have all
seen the results of reckless business as usual conduct and we have at our disposal
the knowledge to forage more sound development.
5404.
I ask you, with what you know now, would you allow this proposal in
your backyard or in your watershed?
5405.
It is my submission that there are too many unknowns and too many
substantive issues outstanding.
5406.
In closing, I submit that what we do know now is enough to say no to
this application and that it would be well in keeping with the National Energy
Board’s mandate to serve the public interest to do so.
5407.
I further submit that the Board’s finding to dismiss this application
would not be reckless it would rather be prudent, precautionary and appropriate.
5408.
Thank you for your time.
5409.
MEMBER RICHMOND: Thank you, Ms. Harmer.
5410.
I want to ask about integrity digs which you focused on at the
beginning of your remarks. And just to try to get in my head -- get clear in my
head the balance when you and others on the one hand, you want to make sure the
pipeline is as safe as possible as do we, obviously, and part of that involves doing
preventative inspections and fixing problems where they occur. And on the other
hand, integrity digs are disruptive and can cause disturbances and risks to -difficulties for landowners, like your father, and for the environment.
5411.
So how do we balance that? I mean, irrespective of whether this
project goes ahead, the pipeline is there whether it’s flowing east or west so there
are issues. How do you -- how do we balance the need for integrity digs to keep it
safe versus the problems that are caused by these digs?
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5412.
MS. HARMER: Yeah, I’m with you, integrity digs in keeping the
pipeline intact and in good order is paramount. I’m not concerned with the
direction of flow, as far as I understand. I think the alarm is raised when there is a
more abrasive heavy product being pumped at higher capacity and greater
pressure through the line.
5413.
And I also -- through my studying of welding experts and reading
about steel and the composition of steel, I understand that it’s not an inert
substance for a while. You know that it takes a while for steel to settle. I
understand that when tools are developed and built, people in the past would leave
steel out for months or years at a time to acclimatize to the surroundings so then it
would then become more stable and be used to build tools, presses, what have
you. And that, I think, is the concern about all of these new proposed potential
weld zones and the use of a new composition over top of a material that is of a
1975 vintage.
5414.
And so I am less concerned -- even though, of course, I am concerned
that the Proponent understands what’s on the landscape around their right-of-way
so they’re diligent in protecting species at risk habitats, et cetera and they’re not
oblivious to those sensitivities. I think it’s something that I wanted to bring to
light in my studying about the integrity with welding and sleeve repair, that often,
as noted by these welding experts, this can -- the thermal compositions of this
new material on old material, and using even different companies’ steel, so from
different suppliers, is also something that needs to be taken into account and dealt
with and known about, I think. So I think it just raises the level of risk.
5415.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Harmer, we thank you very much for
your participation.
5416.
MS. HARMER: Thank you.
5417.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Now we’ll hear from Ms. Marilyn Eriksen.
--- FINAL ARGUMENT BY/ARGUMENTATION FINALE PAR MS. MARILYN
ERIKSEN:
5418.
MS. ERIKSEN: Madam Chair and Members of the Board, good
morning. And thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns on the
Enbridge pipeline 9B reversal and Line 9 capacity expansion.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5419.
I would also like to thank you for accommodating my order of
presentation and I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Michael
Benson for his assistance throughout this process. He’s been quite helpful
through this rather convoluted and extended public consultation.
5420.
My name is Marilyn Eriksen. I’m a retired public health professional
with industry and government experiences in quality assurance, auditing for
compliance to health and safety standards and assessing risks.
5421.
I have a Bachelor of Science and a certificate in public health
inspection. I’m not affiliated with any companies or organizations with respect to
this public consultation. I represent my family and a few of my friends, who are
identified in my applications, whose properties also are in close proximity to the
pipeline.
5422.
For the last 30 years I’ve been a landowner in close proximity to
pipeline 9 in the Finch and Yonge Street area of the City of Toronto. My family
regularly uses the Finch subway at Yonge and Bishop Avenue that is in close
proximity to the pipeline. My two sons use the subway daily to attend university
and visit friends. I use it to get around town as I did to come here today. My
children went to the Cummer Valley Middle School, also in close proximity to the
pipeline that runs along Bishop Avenue.
5423.
Not only do my family and friends rely on the subway, but we rely on
the several watersheds in the GTA for entertainment and hydration. In the event
of a release of oil from pipeline 9, we and our neighbouring community could
suffer great losses in terms of potable water, property damage, property
devaluation and potentially short and long-term health issues that could further
burden our healthcare system, increasing health and property insurance premiums
and taxes.
5424.
My final argument addresses the following five issues to find in the list
of nine issues pursuant to the National Energy Board Procedural Update Number
1, which are issues 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
5425.
Issue four, the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of
the proposed project, including the potential effects of malfunctions or accidents
that may occur, any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from
the proposed project.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5426.
In my initial information request to Enbridge, Exhibit C48-2-1, Adobe
page 2, Item 3, bottom of the page, I commented on the restrictive scope of the
Enbridge operating risk management pipeline risk assessment model that was
proposed in Appendix B, in that it focused only on the construction phase of the
stations and terminals.
5427.
Similarly, I commented on the scope of the environmental and socioeconomic impact assessment, Attachment 9, in focusing on the local impact
around pumping stations.
5428.
In my information request, I asked to be directed to the risk assessment
that addressed impact on the entire pipeline, impact in the event of a major release
along the pipelines in the areas of homes, schools, businesses, ecological reserves,
waterways, et cetera.
5429.
I was perplexed at Enbridge’s letter of June 25th, 2013 to NEB on this
matter of scope. That was Exhibit B18-1, letter to National Energy Board, which
states:
“…several intervenors [have] asked about the environmental
effects of a Line 9 pipeline rupture. Scenarios concerning
pipeline rupture events are not within the scope of the Project
Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment […]
which is limited to the seven Project Sites identified in Table 11 of the ESEIA Addendum (six existing fenced-in Enbridge
facilities, and one new densitometer site to be located on the
Enbridge Right of Way within a cornfield.) In addition, the
Project will not involve any in-water works or temporary
watercourse crossings.”
5430.
End of quote.
5431.
Clearly, there is some confusion on scope. I know I was confused.
5432.
However, regardless of what Enbridge states, I, like so many
intervenors and commenters, are still awaiting an environmental assessment that
addresses the full scope of the Line 9B reversal, Line 9 capacity expansion, and
the addition of diluted bitumen.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5433.
There is little evidence provided by Enbridge to the socio-economic
benefits for Ontarians. Job creation figures may be overestimated. When
factored annually, more realistic projection of jobs for Ontarians could be as low
as 108 per year for the next 30 years, as indicated in Exhibit D13-2, page 2,
paragraph 4.
5434.
However, with all the integrity digs and repairs that would be needed
over the remaining life of the pipeline, consider the state of deterioration, this
could be much higher. The project benefits will go primarily to Enbridge and its
immediate clients. In the event of a spill, those living with the pipeline will lose.
Line B poses unacceptable risks to urban property owners, farmers, environmental
wetlands, drinking water and human health and safety. The risk outweighs the
benefits.
5435.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board report on the 2010
Enbridge Michigan spill demonstrated that Enbridge had a history of ignoring
safety concerns and infrastructural problems. It cast serious doubt on Enbridge’s
claim that it will implement adequate safety management systems in Ontario -Exhibit D85-2, page 2.
5436.
Although Enbridge states -- attests to learning valuable lessons from
the Michigan catastrophe, implementing several corrective actions, and attesting
to fostering a cultural safety, Enbridge’s recent 2013 corrective action response to
the National Energy Board’s order SO-E101-001-2013 on safety non-compliances
observed by the National Energy Board during an October 2011 inspection,
Exhibit D85-2, page 3, Reference 10, is an example that Enbridge continues to not
take safety issues serious in its choice to delay completing the corrective actions
until the fourth quarter of 2016, roughly five years after the non-compliance was
observed by the National Energy Board.
5437.
I do concur with the National Energy Board in including the correction
of this deficiency to its list of conditions under point 14 that Enbridge shall file
with the Board at least three days prior to applying for LTO confirmation that the
energy -- emergency shutdown system, including backup power supplies of each
facility from Sarnia to Montreal, comply with all requirements of Section 12 of
the Onshore Pipeline Regulations and Section 4.14.3.3 of the CZ-662-11.
Enbridge is also required to provide a description of how its emergency shutdown
systems meet above mentioned requirements.
5438.
Transcript
Although I support this condition being included in the potential
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
conditions, it leads me to believe that without the big stick Line 9 approval held
over Enbridge, that Enbridge would have put off completing these corrective
actions as long as they could get away with doing so.
5439.
Issue 5; the engineering design and integrity of the proposed project.
We have heard that Line 9 is of the same vintage design material and construction
of the pipeline 6B that release more than three million litres of diluted bitumen in
2010 in Michigan where to date about a billion dollars has been spent on cleanup.
Polyethylene tape and outdated technology for preventing corrosion is believed to
have allowed water to reach the pipe and cause corrosion -- Exhibit D18-2, Adobe
page 9. As you know, polyethylene tape is also used on Line 9.
5440.
Line 9 is exempt from the minimum requirements for design material
construction of the Onshore Pipeline Regulations 1999 because it was built in
1975 before the regulations came into force. Not only is the design material and
construction of 1973 standards, but there are also concerns about the effectiveness
of the leak detection system -- D18-2, Adobe page 10. Better leak detection
systems, such as fibre optics, that can detect lower volumes of leak than
Enbridge’s current system exists.
5441.
I beg the question; why should we Canadians be left to the
vulnerability of an ancient pipeline that does not meet current minimum design
and construction standards and in which Enbridge proposes to transport higher
volume and a cruder product than it previously transported?
5442.
Enbridge boasts of its 99.99 percent safe record of delivery of 12
billion barrels of oil for the past decade, even conservatively this amounts to some
120,000 barrels of hazardous waste already spilled into crucial ecologies over the
span of 10 years.
5443.
Enbridge estimates about 20,000 barrels spilled from the failure of its
Line 6B in 2010 while transporting heavy oils from Western Canada. In other
words, roughly 20 percent of Enbridge’s total admitted spills in the past 10 years
leak from a pipeline almost identical age and structure as Line 9 -- Exhibit D54-2,
page 2, paragraph 6.
5444.
When the City of Toronto -- C40-4-2, page 16.2.17 -- asked Enbridge
if it would consider as a condition to the same monitoring requirement outlined in
special condition 34 applicable to the Keystone XL pipeline, Enbridge was not in
favour of providing the same special conditions for Line 9.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5445.
My concern as a Canadian is why are we Canadians’ being treated as
second-class to our neighbours to our south, considering the state-of-the-art
Keystone pipeline project our federal government is proposing for the United
States.
5446.
I do not have confidence in the 13-minute total time that Enbridge
describes it will take to identify a release and activate the control valve to contain
a release. As everyone indicated previously, it took about 18 hours for the firm to
identify and contain the 2010 Kalamazoo release.
5447.
Enbridge did not provide to me in either my Information Request C482, page 3.7-2, and C48-3 follow-up Information Request .3, page 1, evidence of
validation of the critical control and monitoring parameters of its supervisory
control and data acquisition system. Validation is the documented act of proving
that any procedure, process, equipment, material, activity or system will
consistently lead to expected results.
5448.
Enbridge did provide in its responses descriptions of specific
specification verification activities it conducts. However, verification is not the
same as validation. Validation ensures that the system meets the user’s needs and
that the specifications were correct. Both validation and verification are needed
throughout the lifecycle of a product or system.
5449.
I would have felt more confident if Enbridge would at least had given
some guidance as to the type of guides they use, such as the GAMP 4 or 5, which
pertains to validation of automated systems.
5450.
I’m also concerned with the quality systems and the frequency of selfinspection specific to Line 9. With respect to their quality system -- Enbridge
Response B19-18.i, page 2 -- Enbridge’s response was vague. It described
following sound industry practices using inspection and audit protocols provided
by the National Energy Board for onshore pipeline -- certainly some components
of a quality system -- but it did not describe its commitment to safety and
proactive approach to continuous improvement.
5451.
I had concerns about the frequency and scope of self-inspections also,
in that they indicated that only three inspections had been conducted specifically
on Line 9 between 2004 and 2013; they occurred in 2004 and 2009 -- Enbridge
Response B19-18.i.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5452.
Issue 6: the safety security and contingency planning associated with
the construction and operation of the proposed project, including emergency
response planning and third-party damage prevention: The material safety data
sheet -- Exhibit B18-33, Attachment to Information Request 5.17.b, page 10 to 13
and page 104 of 170 pages -- for bitumen and diluted bitumen describe their
chronic health effects.
5453.
Diluted bitumen contains toxic volatile hydrocarbons, including
benzene, and may cause cancer, leukaemia and serious blood disorders. It may
form flammable explosive vapour air mixtures. The MSDS cautions to prevent
run off from entering streams, sewers and drinking water supply. Confined
spaces may accumulate hydrogen sulphide gas that may cause respiratory tract
irritation, nausea, dizziness, pulmonary oedema, loss of consciousness, brain
damage and death.
5454.
Line 9 goes through highly populated areas of the City of Toronto and
other cities. The city is home to about 2.7 million people, a population that puts
great demand on our drinking water and underground infrastructures. Should
diluted bitumen contaminate our drinking waters the benzene cannot be removed
by our municipal drinking water treatment plant.
5455.
Enbridge has no proactive plan in place to ensure that Toronto
residents and businesses, hospitals, et cetera, have access to the 2,365,000 litres
per day of potable water required -- Exhibit C40-4-2, page 33.2
5456.
With respect to underground infrastructure, over the past several years
the City of Toronto has been conducting sewer environmental assessments
throughout the city -- Exhibit C48-5-1, page 3.
5457.
In July this year, our city experienced major basement and subway
flooding as a result of higher than average rainfall -- Exhibit C48-5-1, page 1.
The ongoing basement flooding environmental assessment study posted on the
City of Toronto Web site, and the news article, “Storm Water Management a
Crisis Underfoot”, February 11th, 2011, by Jessica Lemieux, provide insight into
the severity of flooding in Toronto.
5458.
My niece was stranded for about four hours in our flooded subway
during the July 2013 flood. The basement apartment of three of my other young
nieces, who are college students, was flooded.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5459.
A major release of oil could overburden storm sewers and breach
confined spaces such as our subways and basements of homes and businesses. In
such confined spaces toxic substances in the oil could cause severe breathing
problems for people caught in those spaces.
5460.
We are experiencing more frequent severe weather events and
flooding in the city, resulting in erosion that has created sinkholes that have
swallowed up cars in the Finch Avenue culvert. Such flooding and ground
movement could compromise the ground supporting the Line 9 pipeline.
5461.
Despite flooding causing underground shifting and impact to their own
Line 27 earlier this year -- Exhibit C55-2-15 -- Enbridge Line 37 spills after June
2013 flooding, there is no evidence that Enbridge has shown due diligence in
taking proactive action to assess the impact of a pipeline release on Toronto's
sewer infrastructure and the cumulative risk of a pipeline release and extreme
weather flooding.
5462.
Nor has Enbridge committed to developing a proactive tactical
emergency response plan to ensure that emergency responders are prepared to be
-- react in a timely manner in the event of a pipeline rupture released to sewer
infrastructure and subway of Toronto -- Exhibit C40-4-2, City of Toronto, page
31 of 37.
5463.
A number of intervenors have commented on concerns for inadequate
response time for emergency responses. It is disappointing to hear in Enbridge's
final argument, last week in Montreal, Enbridge downplay our concerns on
response time, particularly when Enbridge attests to the fact that there is no
regulatory requirement for spill response times in Canada; and they feel justified
in their 1.5 to 4 hours estimated response times as they fall well within response
times set out in the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration
guidelines in the United States, being 6 hours for a Tier 1 worst case discharge
within a high volume area as defined in the regulations, and 12 hours for a worst
case discharge in any other areas.
5464.
Though it is true there is no regulatory requirement justifying poor
response times and lack of regulatory requirements does not support their culture
of safety claims, it demonstrates Enbridge minimalistic approach. The ingress of
pipeline crude into basements and other underground facilities such as malls and
subways, residential basements could possibly prove fatal to unsuspecting people
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
occupying those spaces. Home insurance rates could increase substantially. A
rapid emergency response is imperative.
5465.
As mentioned earlier, my family uses the Finch subway on a regular
basis. Intervenor Rick Monroe has provided a number of photos -- if you could
please bring up Exhibit 19-4-21, and C19-4-22, showing the pipeline running
along Bishop crossing Yonge Street at the Finch subway station. This is the
subway station I entered this morning to get here.
5466.
Enbridge's response to this -- his information request as to an
estimated volume of crude oil release at the subway assuming a flow of 300,000
would be 4,255 bbls. The volume out is based on Enbridge's claim that its control
centre can identify a leak in 13 minutes. Ten (10) minutes to identify the leak and
3 minutes to close the valve in the case of automatic valve, longer if the valve was
a manual shut-off requiring an Enbridge employee to go to the valve site and
manually close it, which could add another hour and a half, depending on the
location of the Enbridge responder passed with closing the valve.
5467.
As indicated by Rick Monroe, pipeline product flowing into the
subway would certainly cause panic with people slipping on oil as they tried to
escape toxic fumes in such confined spaces, and potential fires from flammable
products -- Exhibit C19-6-1.
5468.
Enbridge's failure to assess the impact of pipeline risks on the city's
sewer structure, subway and other high consequences area, combined with
adverse weather effects, does not comply with Section 6.5 of the Ontario Pipeline
Regulations pertaining to risk assessment.
5469.
Issue 8, consultation activities and potential impacts of the proposed
project on affected landowners and land use. I was disappointed in the lack of
public consultation Enbridge provided prior to the April 2013 application for
participation to comment deadline.
5470.
I saw only one advertisement for the public hearing prior to the
deadline and that was on May 13, 2013, in the Toronto Star. That day I happened
to have picked it up to read. Often I do not. It is apparent that Enbridge did the
minimum advertisement to communicate the public consultation. I can't help but
think that this was a strategic ploy on Enbridge to limit the number of commenter
applications.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5471.
The weekend after the deadline, my husband, my son and I, spent one
afternoon going door-to-door just west of Yonge along the pipeline and found that
not one member of the houses we visited knew about the pipeline or the public
consultation. A few who voiced interest in commenting were surprised to learn
that an application to be considered to comment was required and that the
deadline to do so was past.
5472.
It was only after the efforts of Jan Morrisey of the Bayview Cummer
Neighbourhood Association and Trustee Mari Rutka, who jointly organized the
community information meeting in Willowdale for May29th, did any public
consultation begin in our area -- Exhibit D3-2.
5473.
A number of participants in this National Energy Board process were
disappointed in the lack of access to meaningful public consultation -- Exhibits
D34-2, D3-2, as examples.
5474.
Some were disappointed in the criteria used in the process that resulted
in citizens being declined intervenor status -- Exhibit D12-2 -- for such reasons as
not meeting direct impact criteria. Speaking only for Torontonians, considering
all the watersheds the pipeline crosses in the GTA and potential risk to our
municipal drinking water, every Torontonian who applied should be accepted as
an intervenor.
5475.
I would like to quote one of the commenters final written arguments as
it reflects my feelings on public consultation and the critical need for a full
environmental assessment -- Exhibit D34-2. Quote:
“…I wish to offer a final comment on the central issue as we
see it: the process of community consultation and
environmental review that is being used to evaluate the
proposed project. When the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA) was created, it enshrined the basic
principle of full and meaningful community consultation not
just because it was the right thing to do – but because it
benefited industry as well as communities, supported local buyin for projects, and allowed local knowledge to be
incorporated into project development processes. This
principle has been abandoned by the Conservative government
in the changes brought forward by budget 2012, and it is to the
detriment of all Canadians.”
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
5476.
End quote.
5477.
Impact on potential landowners; my perspective on the impact on
landowners is primarily limited to the City of Toronto dwellers who own land
near the pipeline. Although Enbridge stated at the Bayview Cummer
Neighbourhood Association meeting in May that the company would compensate
landowners for property damage, I am concerned that in light of our high property
values that Enbridge may not have the financial contingency funds in the event of
a rupture given the combined costs of cleanup, remediation and numbers of
homes in the area well over $1 million.
5478.
The average attached home in the Finch and Yonge area is valued
around $900,000. This figure comes from the Community Market Report, City of
Toronto Central, second quarter 2013.
5479.
There is concern also for our property to be devalued by its proximity
to a controversial pipeline. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation,
MPAC, does take such criteria as property to hydro fields, railways, et cetera into
consideration in assessing property value.
5480.
My own property value concerns, however, are petty compared to the
concerns of the First Nation communities and other landowners along the
pipeline. Line 9 passes within 50 kilometres of this estimated 9 million people,
including 18 First Nation communities. The pipeline threatens the rights of
Aboriginal people and threatens their archaeological resources.
5481.
Issue 9, the terms and conditions related to the above issues to be
included in any approval the Board may issue for the proposed project.
5482.
Option 1: based on the following, Enbridge’s poor safety history, their
lack of proactive measures to ensure that the most stringent monitoring and
control practices are implemented, the lack of a full independent environmental
assessment that incorporates all components of the pipeline and all environments
along the pipeline, the request for increased capacity through a pipeline built to
1970s standards with obvious integrity issues.
5483.
The risks associated with this pipeline outweigh the benefits. The
prudent approach is to apply the precautionary principle. As Professor Robert
Korol, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University -- Exhibit D70-3,
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Marilyn Eriksen
page 10 and 11 -- states in his written final argument:
“Enbridge provides […] little insight[s] into how the analysts
arrive at the remaining […] [life of the pipeline]. …the best
solution is a ‘null solution’. …compatible with the
Precautionary Principle, […] in recognition that some projects
are simply too risky, with medium and long term consequences
and short term benefits.”
5484.
Option 2: although I do not support it for ethical reasons associated
with adverse effects of the tar sands on climate control and First Nations, another
option would be to build a new state-of-the-art pipeline to replace Line 9. This
new pipeline system must be equipped with state-of-the-art leak monitoring
detection and control equipment, would still require a full environmental
assessment and many of the expectations already voiced pertaining to adequate
localized emergency response procedures, equipment, tactical responses and
training, and of course a full independent environmental assessment.
5485.
Option 3: should the existing pipeline system conditionally be
approved, a full independent environmental assessment be concluded that covers
the entire scope the project includes, but is not limited to: impact by weather
events to underground infrastructures; it must be shared for review and comment
to stakeholders before any approvals; that outstanding results of integrity digs be
evaluated by the National Energy Board prior to approval and that interested
intervenors have leave to review that data and comment prior to Line 9 approval;
the transport of diluted bitumen be prohibited; that increase in operating capacity
and pressures be prohibited; that Enbridge purchase, validate and implement a
state-of-the-art leak detection and control systems’ replace all manual valves with
state-of-the-art automatic valves; install with consultation of stakeholders many
more such valves to protect high consequence areas and people.
5486.
Enbridge must proactively develop tactical response emergency
procedures in cooperation with municipalities, maintain emergency response
equipment in major cities and ensure that risks in smaller communities are
assessed such that response times and procedures meet the needs of those
communities.
5487.
Enbridge should also be able to ensure that a ready source of potable
drinking water could readily be made available for all residents in the event
Transcript
Final argument
Équiterre Coalition
contamination of our drinking water; all recommendations of the Toronto Region
Conservation Authority be implemented, which is Exhibit C39-4-1; all NEB’s
potential conditions, Appendix 2A47-7 with revision to point 21 where “for the
first three years” should be revised to “for the life of the pipeline”; the full
inspections of the Line 9 pipeline system be conducted at least every two years;
and, Enbridge develop and implement a more effective and timely public
communication practice.
5488.
5489.
This concludes my presentations. Thank you to the Board.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Eriksen, you were very clear so the
Board has no questions and we thank you for your participation.
5490.
MS. ERIKSEN: Thank you.
5491.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
5492.
Now we’ll hear from Équiterre with Mr. Albert Koehl.
5493.
Mr. Koehl, I saw your estimated time. So if you find a moment that
would be accommodating for you to stop around, you know, anytime 10:30, a
quarter to, so we can take a health break, that would be appreciated. But I’ll leave
you the choice.
--- FINAL ARGUMENT BY/ARGUMENTATION FINALE PAR ÉQUITERRE
COALITION:
5494.
MR. KOEHL: Merci. Bonjour, madame la présidente et messieurs
les commissaires. Je vais faire ma présentation en anglais. Mais, comme nous
avons un bureau ici à Toronto, je tiens à vous souhaiter la bienvenue à notre ville.
5495.
My name is Albert Koehl. I’m a staff lawyer with Ecojustice, a nonprofit environmental law group, and the Équiterre Coalition, which I represent, is
made up of seven groups based in Ontario and Quebec, and that includes Sierra
Club Quebec, Jeunesse, Nature Québec, Environmental Defence, Climate Justice
Montreal, L’Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique,
and the lead group Équiterre.
5496.
So, Madam President and Commissioners, we’re the groups that are
sometimes described as being unrealistic in our objectives. This is despite the fact
Transcript
Final argument
that we’re often the ones calling for conservative or cautious policies that respect
research and science aimed at preventing, for example, the perils of climate
change.
5497.
We’re also sometimes described as always opposing things like
pipelines or highways or quarries. In fact, we’re actually for a lot of things and
our groups, for example, are for mass transit and active transportation, for energy
conservation, for better urban planning, for clean energy that harnesses the wind,
the sun, the warmth of the earth and the tides and we’re also, for all of the jobs
that are created from those activities.
5498.
All of these things would provide, in our view, real security for
Canadians, in part by reducing our dependence on oil, and such tragedies, as the
oil spill in Marshall, the Gulf BP spill, and most recently, Lac Mégantic.
5499.
So when someone like the lawyer for Suncor asks why groups like us
oppose this pipeline, but aren’t imposing the import of offshore oil, our answer to
him is, well, you haven’t been listening to our message for the last several
decades.
5500.
We would much rather be here today talking about Canada’s energy
future and building our economy on clean fuels. But we take the opportunities
that present themselves and that’s why we’re here engaged in this process.
5501.
So you’ve heard a little bit about our views but I want to assure you
that in our final argument, we’ve made sure to meticulously direct ourselves to the
issues that are before the Board.
5502.
In terms of outline for my final argument, I'm going to talk about a few
issues I think we can get out of the way that really aren't in dispute. There are a
lot of complex issues here and I'd like to focus on the more difficult ones.
5503.
Secondly, I'm going to review our expert reports, both that of
Accufacts, which looked at the risk of rupture and issues around integrity
management, then move on to the Goodman Group report around the socioeconomic benefits and costs of the reversal.
5504.
And then thirdly, perhaps the most difficult issue, why this application,
as framed, given its serious deficiencies in information that's been put before the
Board, makes the application either premature or incomplete or, in the alternative,
Transcript
Final argument
undermines the Board's ability to make a decision in the public interest, given the
narrow way this application has been crafted.
5505.
So first, what's not an issue; these are things I think broadly most
people can agree on. In terms of the benefits, we appreciate that lower priced
crude for the Quebec refineries is a good thing for those corporations that run the
refineries, Suncor and U.S.-based Valero, for their shareholders and for
governments that collect a share of the taxes on the profits.
5506.
Lower costs for input means better financial situation. We're
environmental groups, but we get the math; when we have lower inputs, good for
our bottom line. But I would say this, when we don't get any lower inputs, we
don't insinuate or suggest we'll be closing our doors very quickly.
5507.
So secondly, Line B has no stops along the way. So it brings crude
from Hamilton to Montreal. The only things connected to the pipeline between
Hamilton and Montreal are the pumping stations and, indirectly, a lot of people,
water bodies, and economic activity.
5508.
So thirdly, there's a significant amount of volatility in the oil sector, as
the Goodman Group report said, as I say, I don't think there's much debate about
this. Crude markets are rapidly evolving, highly dynamic and subject to
substantial volatility and uncertainty, both short and long-term. So five years ago,
we probably wouldn't have been talking about tight oil or oil from regions like the
Bakken, but we certainly have to factor that into our equation today.
5509.
So arising from these things I think we can agree on, first of all is that
when we talk about benefits, and especially when those benefits are based on
predictions about where price is going over the next 30 years, I think we have to
be a little bit suspicious about those sort of 30-year out predictions. And there's
plenty of room for differing opinions and therefore differing viewpoints on the
benefits.
5510.
Now, the fact that we're discussing a portion of the pipeline that only
traverses the area, at least in terms of the reversal, from Hamilton to Montreal, is
that that's because Enbridge decided to divide their applications in that way.
You'll recall in the first hearing, we demanded that the application be one. In
other words, we said we know Enbridge is planning to go to Montreal with this
reversal, let's do it all in one hearing.
Transcript
Final argument
5511.
We didn't succeed on that, that's why we have two hearings, but it has
brought into stark contrast the fact that the Hamilton to Montreal portion of this
pipeline essentially has no stops along the way. So if I'm going to Montreal by
highway, I get on at Hamilton, I can only get off at Montreal, that's my only
option.
5512.
So that's put into stark contrast, the fact that this heavily populated
area between Hamilton and Montreal, which has, you know, gets essentially no
benefits in terms of refining or related benefits, but significant amount of risk, risk
to drinking water, the risk of dramatic evacuations being required. There would
otherwise be no risk to wetlands, no risk to emergency response -- or, no need for
emergency response protocols and training, no need for financial assurances, and
many other related risks would be eliminated.
5513.
So instead of managing the risk, we'd be eliminating the risk. And as I
say, I think this is an opportunity that's actually been presented by Enbridge in the
way it's framed its application.
5514.
It's also important to remember, of course, when we talk about risks, it
isn't simply that the pipeline may fail because of corrosion or other problems with
the pipelines, but also we heard about things like the impacts of violent weather
events on the pipeline from floods or other unexpected weather events or simply a
contractor's negligence around the pipeline. These are all risks that are created
because the pipeline is there.
5515.
And I might also say that if we were today standing here -- and I've
been looking at this map for a number of days, when we look at the map, the
pipeline actually looks like it goes about 20 kilometres north of some of these
cities. And in fact, the pipeline goes directly through these cities, as we heard
again this morning.
5516.
If we were here today debating whether or not a hazardous material
should be shipped through all of these cities, including these heavily populated
areas, I think we wouldn't be considering that because that proposal wouldn't be
made to allow hazardous materials to come through all of these cities with no
benefit to these cities.
5517.
Now thirdly, there is evidence that the refineries in Quebec or, you
know, the insinuation that refineries in Quebec might go out of business if the
pipeline isn't reversed. But I do note from the evidence, and I'm focusing on the
Transcript
Final argument
evidence, neither the Suncor nor the Valero nor the IHS report commissioned by
the refiners or the Demke Reports suggested the refiners would go out of business
if the pipeline was not reversed.
5518.
And I stop there to say, really the strongest evidence on that point
came from our trusted administrator of the Species at Risk and Fisheries Act with
a document that I can only describe as a rather comical. That was the technical
annex, unsigned, undated, unsworn, author unknown, which suggested that these
refineries had the lowest profit margins in North America. No one else went that
far.
5519.
I know Commissioner Richmond asked this question directly to the
Suncor lawyer and said, you know, "Well, tell us what you mean. Is this -- are
these refineries going to go out of business", and I think the best Mr. Smith could
do is sort of agree once he looked at his client that there was a threat to viability.
5520.
I can tell you that if I don't eat my vegetables, there's a threat to my
health. But I'm not going to tell you that I won't be around next Thanksgiving.
So I think these terms are difficult to quantify and that's why they're used. You
know, it's better for their viability. We get that, we understand that, it's -- you
know, they'd be in a better financial situation, have better profits, but making the
leap to suggesting the reversal is crucial to them is not in the evidence.
5521.
So also the Équiterre, over the evidence, the Équiterre IR response
from the Goodman Group to the NEB said -- and I'll simply read this to you, but I
think I've asked Madam Niro, C-13-7-2 is the first document, it's the Goodman
Group report, specifically on this issue of the viability of the refineries. And he
says:
"The viability of Quebec refineries (and thus the continuation
of related employment, other economic activity, and spinoff
effects) is not contingent upon the Project. Quebec refineries
can remain open and competitive even without the Project for
the following reasons..."
5522.
Number one:
"The two refineries have survived and expanded when others
have closed, so these are the most profitable and viable
survivors; They are set up to process light crude and now well-
Transcript
Final argument
positioned given the shale/tight oil boom and abundance of
light crude; Similar refineries in Northeast US now [...] have a
much more viable future due to the flood of shale crude."
5523.
The other observation arising from that is that we've had a lot of sort
of -- you know -- suggestions that the refineries or the contraction of refineries in
Quebec is the result of issues that are before us now: price, the price of inputs.
But in fact, we don't know why there was a contraction in Quebec refineries based
on the evidence. I mean, I think the insinuation has been that they didn't get the
kind of prices that they would profit from with this reversal today.
5524.
But it could also be that there were changes in policy in Quebec. Was
it that Quebec took advantage of -- or focused more on hydroelectric power, for
example, to change the requirement for homes that have home heating fuel. In
other words, I think it's a neutral. We don't know why there are fewer Quebec
refineries, but the suggestion that it's because of the price of crude is not in
evidence.
5525.
And then finally -- and this is the point that I've sort of realized, you
know, watching these hearings over a course of time, the justifications you get
today for reversing the pipeline may no longer be valid a few years from now or
even a few months from now.
5526.
But the pipeline in reversed form is operating, but might be doing
something very different from what the justifications are that you will hear and
have heard from Enbridge and the refiners now.
5527.
One example of that, in the first hearing -- and this is part of the letter
decision of the Board at page 14. I’ll simply read from that, it’s a very short
comment.
“Enbridge indicated that…”
5528.
And this is the Board speaking.
“… in its proposed configuration, Line 9, between Sarnia and
Hamilton could transport heavy crude oil but that it was only
proposing to transport light crude oils.” (As read)
5529.
Transcript
So given at the hearing there was some concern about the corrosive
Final argument
impact of dilbit, the Board said well, if you change your mind, you have to come
back to us and ask us for that change. But what they said is we’re just
anticipating transporting light crudes.
5530.
Well, by that time, July 2012, we know Enbridge was already working
on this application and this application now asks for that change to a heavy crude.
So the things that we hear today, including Valero and Suncor saying well, we’re
really worried about “potentially unreliable” foreign oil. Well, if the price of that
potentially unreliable foreign oil dropped dramatically, we can be sure that the
arguments we hear from Suncor and Valero about Canadian energy independence
and so on, would soon fly be the wayside.
5531.
And then one final observation is simply that it appears in this hearing
the Enbridge and the -- you know -- refiners, have taken a very expansive or
broad view of the benefits, including talking about spinoff benefits and so on. But
when it comes to the risks they like to take a very narrow view. In other words,
you know, if you look at the environmental and socio impact analysis, they’re
looking at just the pumping station or the -- even the parking spots in the pumping
stations and how those might affect species at risk and so on; but a very narrow
and restricted view of the risks but not of the benefits.
5532.
And I’ll have additional comment on that specific issue as a third part
of the presentation.
5533.
So I’m looking enviously at this glass of water and I’m not sure if this
is a ---
5534.
All right, thank you. Thank you.
5535.
So here are the matters -- I’m turning to the matters that are in dispute.
Now, the Accufacts report -- export report, which the Équiterre Coalition
commissioned, comes to the conclusion that Line 9 has a high risk of rupture
within the first several years of reversal.
5536.
And this finding is based on the assessment of the interaction between
stress, corrosion cracking, corrosion fatigue and general corrosion on Line 9, as
well as Enbridge’s integrity management approach which is characterized by an
over-reliance on inline inspection tools and related engineering assessments that
will not prevent rupture under the operating conditions, resulting from the
implementation of the project.
Transcript
Final argument
5537.
So this is clearly a very -- a significant and alarming finding by this
expert so I wanted to take two seconds to look at who the expert is.
5538.
Mr. Kuprewicz, and you see his CV before you, is the principal of
Accufacts. He has 40 years of energy industry experience, including in
management positions, in pipeline and energy companies. His CV articulates that
his expertise in gas and liquid pipeline investigation, risk management,
construction, design, operation, maintenance, leak detection, emergency response
and regulatory development and compliance. He’s also advised the U.S.
government on issues of pipeline safety, including to the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
5539.
And it’s worth remembering that Accufacts prepared a report for the
first hearing. And the report was reviewed by the Board, and I would say in a
complimentary fashion, certainly not a critical fashion, spent at least one page
reviewing that report in a 28-page decision. And Accufacts at the same time
wasn’t particularly harsh of Enbridge’s operating procedures and its integrity
management system.
5540.
So I think the suggestion that there’s some sort of, you know -- this
expert is out to get the company is certainly not founded based on the report filed
in the first hearing.
5541.
Conditions proposed by the expert were also, I believe, adopted by the
Panel in that case. And I should also say that in fact, the expert -- and this is in
his report -- has been significantly influenced by the findings in the Marshall,
Michigan report.
5542.
So now I’m trying to remember when Madam Chair said we would
want to take a break.
5543.
THE CHAIRPERSON: If it’s a good time now. Like I said, anytime
between 10:15 and quarter to 11. So if you want to take the break now it’s fine.
5544.
MR. KOEHL: Okay, thank you very much.
5545.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So we’ll reconvene at 20 to 11.
--- Upon recessing at 10:17 a.m./L’audience est suspendue à 10h17
Transcript
Final argument
--- Upon resuming at 10:42 a.m./L’audience est reprise à 10h42
5546.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, Mr. Koehl.
5547.
So now we’re refreshed and we can listen to you carefully.
5548.
MR. KOEHL: Yes, it was a perfect opportunity because now I will
get into some of the evidence that is a little more “heavy”, I will call it.
5549.
Accufacts, in its report, looked at the credentials of the -- of the
principal of that group, really looks at four distinct factors. And I’m sure -- I
know you’ve read the report, I just want to highlight certain parts of the report
that I think are crucial part of this hearing and that report.
5550.
So first of all, those four distinct factors looked at, number one, the
new information uncovered by the National Transportation Safety Board and its
investigation of Marshall Michigan spill; Enbridge’s failure to -- properly
incorporate those integrity management recommendations after the Marshall; the
serious problems identified in the Line 9B risk assessment; the continual refusal
of Enbridge to prudently integrate stress, corrosion, cracking threats with
corrosion wall loss into its risk assessment, and finally, the difficulty in evaluating
extensive stress, corrosion, cracking across the system and the still in
development and thus unreliable nature of the inline inspection tool.
5551.
So the key points under finding -- underlying the Accufacts report
were, number one, that stress corrosion cracking is prevalent all along Line 9 and
constitutes a major threat on Line 9, so all along Line 9.
5552.
And the finding that the interaction of stress, corrosion, cracking with
general corrosion in certain areas of the pipeline results in fields of stress
corrosion crack colonies or crack fields. And that those colonies can interact or
quickly link up within the area of general corrosion in an unpredictable manner
causing the pipe to rupture well before engineering assessment time estimates.
And this is precisely what caused the rupture on Line 9B in Marshall, Michigan.
5553.
So if I can ask, Madam Niro, to take us to page 26 of the Accufacts
report. And the -- paragraph 5 -- or the section 5 which reads:
“There’s a long history in both Canada and the U.S.
demonstrating that stress corrosion cracking, when it goes to
Transcript
Final argument
failure, will usually fail as rupture, which is one reason why
stress corrosion crack threats command much respect.
The EA has not adequately demonstrated that the ILI tool and
related engineering assessments have reached the level of
confidence that such massive and pervasive stress corrosion
crack threats on Line 9 can be remediated before they reach
rupture limits.”
5554.
So second point then, from Mr. Kuprewicz’s Accufacts report is the
inadequacy of Enbridge’s integrity management program and inability of the
inline inspection crack tools to detect stress corrosion crack threats. And the
expert says that stress corrosion cracks is very difficult to detect with ILA -- ILI
or inline inspection crack tools which are tools used by Enbridge for crack
assessment.
5555.
And he goes through the various reasons why that’s the case. Talks
about these tools still being developed -- in development, these tools are
unreliable for the detection of such threats and they produce results that can be
misapplied if the pipeline operator fails to use the data prudently and as he -- an
additional comment that it’s much inferior to a proper hydrotest when it comes to
evaluating such threats.
5556.
The third point, and this will be at page 25 of the Accufacts report, is
the issue of the reversal and change of crude slates. I think the conclusion of
Enbridge is that there’s no change in risk from changing crude slates. This is
certainly not the finding of the Accufacts’ expert report.
5557.
First he says that the reversal and capacity expansion substantially
change their hydraulic profile of Line 9. And he expresses concern and suggests
there is very little change in the -- or the EA of Enbridge suggests there’s very
little change in the risk from the reversal and the change in the hydraulic profile.
5558.
Here’s what he actually has to say at page 25:
“There are numerous [stress corrosion] crack threats along
Line 9B and these threats are highly susceptible, given their
axial orientation, to operating pressure cycling such as those
associated with changes in a wide range of crudes that are
being proposed for the reversal project. The movement of
Transcript
Final argument
dilbit, given the substantial changes associated with small
variation and composition either in the bitumen or […] diluent
solvent while meeting tariff requirements, merit exceptional
attention on pipelines posing […] cracking risks.”
5559.
And then the fourth point, respecting the failure to properly integrate
this into the integrity management program, he -- his conclusions are that -- and
this follow again, the IM recommendations from the National Transportation
Safety Board following the Marshall rupture, which included their
recommendations:
“…a sufficient margin of safety, appropriate wall thickness,
tool tolerances, use of […] continuous reassessment approach
to incorporate lessons learned, the effects of corrosion on
crack depth sizing, and [the] accelerated crack growth rates
due to corrosion fatigue on corroded pipe with a failed
coating.”
5560.
So as I say, these -- his findings are based, in part, on the findings of
Marshall, Michigan that were carefully integrated into his report, his assessment
also of the evidence before the Board.
5561.
So this would, I would say, is at least a serious cause for concern, if
not alarm, for both Enbridge and therefore for the Board.
5562.
Now, the response of Enbridge to this report has been surprisingly
what I’ll say lacklustre.
5563.
Now, in the final argument really there was very little attempt to
undermine the report. There were no information requests filed of -- for the
Accufacts report. We received no information requests on that from Enbridge.
And of course, their evidence doesn’t deal with the findings of the Enbridge -- the
Accufacts report in a direct fashion.
5564.
So I would call it a very cursory reference in their reply evidence to
the Accufacts report. Their main attack on the report is for them to say, well this,
quote, “high risk that the pipeline will rupture in the early years” -- end quote -was characterized by Enbridge as a sound bite for the media.
5565.
Now, just to give you an analogy, if someone pounds on my door at 3
Transcript
Final argument
a.m. and says, “There’s fire coming out of your basement windows”, I’m not
going to say “Nice sound bite” and go back to bed, I’m going to investigate and
find out what’s really going on. And I think that is the wakeup call for Enbridge
for -- from this report but it certainly hasn’t been treated as a wakeup call.
5566.
I think what Enbridge mainly does is it tries to dispute the importance
of hydrotesting. It doesn’t just try to dispute the importance of the findings of the
Accufacts report but disputes the importance of hydrotesting which a number of
intervenors have commented on, including the Ministry of Energy for the
Province of Ontario.
5567.
Now, you’ve seen the evidence around hydrotesting but I simply
wanted to highlight a couple of points from the Accufacts report, one being the
marked superiority of a proper hydrotest superiority over inline inspection crack
tools for the detection and evaluation of stress corrosion crack threats which are
the major threat on Line 9, so very appropriate to Line 9.
5568.
Now, the fact that these stress corrosion crack threats existed on Line
6B and were not detected by inline inspection crack tools is another reason for
concern by the Board.
5569.
We know, of course, that in 1976 and 1997, hydrotests were, in fact,
performed on Line 9. And all of this again is in the context, number one, a
pipeline that right now is not being used. We’re talking about something like
60,000 barrels a day on an annual basis, and the high proximity which the
Goodman Report calls a unique proximity of this pipeline to high consequences
area, populations, economic activity, water bodies.
5570.
And I’ll conclude this part by saying that of course, on July 24, 2010,
Enbridge would have been able to say, and presumably did say, about its
Marshall, Michigan or the Line 9B going through Marshall, Michigan, that there
was a -- it’s a safe pipeline, no need to worry.
5571.
The world changed, certainly for Enbridge and for the people affected
by that spill on July 25, 2010, and this is why we have to take a report such as that
from Accufacts with a serious caution.
5572.
And the only other comment that Enbridge really makes about the -about its integrity management program in relation to the Accufacts report is that
it points to a letter from the NEB -- and this is B43-4, this is the May, 2013 letter
Transcript
Final argument
from the National Energy Board regarding Line -- the Line 2 safety order.
5573.
And what the letter states -- and I’ll quote from the letter while we
wait for it to go up.
5574.
So what the Board says in that case in paragraph 2 -- and this has to do
with Line 2. It’s not even this line. But it’s sentence 2 of paragraph 2. It says:
“The Board recognizes Enbridge’s efforts in providing
information to demonstrate that it can effectively identify,
assess and mitigate cracking on its Canadian pipelines. The
Board further recognizes Enbridge’s commitments in regards
to continual improvement of its Integrity Management
Program with respect to pipeline cracking on all of its NEBregulated pipelines.”
5575.
Now, I will suggest that that letter was definitely written by a lawyer
wanting to avoid the suggestion that the Board is doing what Enbridge has
suggested or it’s written by a teacher. I mean, the fact that it says the Board
recognizes the efforts of Enbridge and recognizes the commitment to
improvement.
5576.
Now, if my boss tells me that I know I’m not getting a promotion or a
raise but he’s trying to encourage me to continue on a certain path.
5577.
So let me turn then to the Goodman Group Report -- and this is Exhibit
C13-7-2 -- having to do with the relative economic costs and benefits of the Line
9B reversal and Line 9 capacity expansion. And as I say, here again -- okay, here
again, I’m simply going to highlight some of their conclusions.
5578.
The main conclusion of course is that no other crude -- or one of the
conclusions, no other crude oil pipeline in Canada has the same proximity to
human activity, water and economic activity. So in other words, ringing these
alarm bells about the unique nature of this pipeline and therefore the reasons for
taking extreme caution in terms of its regulation.
5579.
So if we can turn to page 8, line 1 of that exhibit, and this is one of the
significant conclusions then of the report.
5580.
Transcript
Page 8, yes. Oh, it’d be in the Adobe page 8.
Final argument
So in paragraph 2, there’s that line 4 then said:
5581.
“Under bad to worst-case scenarios, [The Goodman Group]
concludes that the potential economic costs for a major rupture
in a [high consequence area] but not an urban setting (similar
to Marshall) could start at $1 billion [that’s what they call the]
(bad scenario). If a major accident occurred in a densely
populated area, damaging and disrupting key infrastructure,
these costs could escalate to multi-billion dollar damages
(potentially as high as $5-$10 billion) (worst-case scenario).
Given the hazardous characteristics (notably flammability) of
the proposed new crude slate (which includes both Bakken and
dilbit) to be transported on Line 9B, an accident involving this
pipeline could also involve loss of human life.
Based on our evaluation of economic costs and benefits, [The
Goodman Group] concludes that the potential economic costs
could exceed (and, under a range of malfunction/accident
conditions, greatly exceed) the potential economic benefits.”
5582.
So I’ll simply say, in terms also of this expert report, I’ll take you
briefly to Mr. Goodman’s qualifications. He worked -- he’s co-author on this
report with Brigid Rowan, who is an energy economist of 20 years’ experience,
but in terms of Mr. Goodman’s experience, he’s conducted research and consulted
in the energy regulation and economics for over 35 years and has provided expert
evidence in over 45 regulatory environmental assessment and legal proceedings
across North America and is the author of over 55 publications and major reports
relating to energy industry.
5583.
Now, I’d suggest to you Mr. Goodman and Ms. Rowan don’t try to
oversell the consequences, they’re trying to, as I say, give guidance to the Board.
Certainly the comparison to Line 6B and Marshall, which wasn’t in a big city, is
however a key reference point and we’ve heard the figures of $1 billion for that
clean-up.
5584.
And he looks at -- in terms of his risk assessment, looks at a number of
factors that are outlined in his report at page 15 regarding the uniqueness of the
pipeline’s proximity to people, water, economic activity, the findings of the
Accufacts report and the deficiencies that were found and noted in the Accufacts
Transcript
Final argument
report, and makes particular reference as well, to the fact that the Line 6B rupture
involved multiple small corrosion fatigue cracks that over time grew in size and
linked together creating a gaping breach in pipe measuring over 80 inches long.
5585.
So the only other comment or highlight I wanted to make of the
Goodman Group report is Adobe page 39 where there’s review of that particular
incident and I think some comments in his report and citations from the
investigative body that are useful to us.
5586.
At Line 3, he writes:
“The investigation found that Enbridge failed to accurately
assess the structural integrity of the pipeline, including
correctly analyzing cracks that required repair. The National
Transportation Safety Board […] characterized Enbridge's
control room operations, leak detection, and environmental
response as deficient, and described the event as an
‘organizational accident’. Following the first alarm, Enbridge
controllers restarted Line [9B] twice…”
5587.
And it goes on then to say:
“…pumping an additional 683,000 gallons of crude oil…”
5588.
And the only other citation from that report is the comment by -- the
comment cited in that report about this being a wake-up call. I’ll quote from the
report:
“’This accident is a wake-up call to the industry, the regulator,
and the public. Enbridge knew for years that this section of the
pipeline was vulnerable yet they didn't act on that information’,
said Chairman Hersman. Likewise, for the regulator to
delegate too much authority to the regulated to assess their
own system risks and correct them is tantamount to the fox
guarding the hen house. Regulators need regulations and
practices with teeth, and the resources to enable them to take
corrective action before a spill. Not just after.”
5589.
And I would suggest that, in the same way that Enbridge had very few
questions for the Accufacts author. It had very few questions, and in fact, no
Transcript
Final argument
question by way of information response for the Goodman report.
5590.
So this testing of evidence, which is a key part of the National Energy
Board process and that intervenors have become familiar with in terms of testing
the evidence of Enbridge, there hasn’t been any attempt to test the conclusions
made by the Accufacts group or the Goodman group.
5591.
So my third and last section, and this is a section I’ve entitled “The
Crafting of the Application”. Now, it’s clear that Enbridge has crafted its
application in a very careful and precise way, and I suggest in a way that if the
Board simply answers the question posed, it cannot fully consider the public
interest which is at the core of the Board’s safety function and includes, of course,
public safety.
5592.
Now, we agree that Enbridge can craft its application any way it
wants. We agree with that. We also agree that Enbridge can ask the Board to
give an answer on an application that it submits, but we suggest it doesn’t follow
that when the application or question pre-empts a full examination of key issues
affecting the public interest, that the Board can answer the question in the manner
posed.
5593.
And a simple example, and that’s the -- probably often used by
lawyers in preparing their witnesses is that often lawyers in cross-examination
will say, answer the question, yes or no. So for instance, they might say, “Well,
have you stopped beating your dog”, and they say, you want to say “I never”, and
you’re stopped to say, “yes or no”.
5594.
And that’s an example of the sort of situation where yes or no doesn’t
answer the question. And of course, the questions before the Board aren’t just
whether Enbridge wants to modify its pumping stations and, you know, have
some influence around these tiny patches of land where the pumping stations are.
The questions before the Board require a much more wholesome or much more
fulsome review of the evidence and issues such as public safety.
5595.
So I know Enbridge has crafted its application to say, well, we just
want you to look at modifications and additions to the pumping stations, and
that’s why we get EIA report that includes things like looking at the parking
spaces and how these affect species at risk.
5596.
Transcript
A narrow thing that I think would surprise most people who are really
Final argument
concerned about some of the things you’ve heard the intervenors say, and they’d
also say, well, I want you to look just at the change in capacity -- just the change
in capacity from 240,000 to 300,000 barrels. So it’s not the issue of the 300,000
barrels, just the change in capacity.
5597.
And finally then, they say, they just want you to look at the change in
the crude slate, but not the overall impacts. And this is -- part of this Mr. Goudy
alluded to yesterday in his argument, or didn’t allude to, I think he made his
comments around the Board’s obligation in a very frank way.
5598.
But if we can go to B20-A -- sorry, B20, Document A, B20, and this is
an information request by Ontario to Enbridge.
5599.
So in this case then, the intervenor or the -- in this case, the Ontario
Ministry of Energy says:
“With respect to pipeline risk and integrity: Please clarify
what is meant by a minor increase in assessed risk and identify
the type of risk contemplated.”
5600.
So then the response, it says:
“As a result of the pipeline reversal, risk will increase for those
sections of pipe that are now located at the discharge side of
each pump and decrease for those sections of [the] pipe that
are now at the suction side of each pump. As a result of the
capacity increase, risk will increase as described in the
response to Toronto IR…”
5601.
And then it goes on to say:
“The increase in risk that occurs with the capacity increase
applies to 2.2% of Line 9 as per the Revised Pipeline Risk
Assessment.”
5602.
And then goes on to confirm that particular point. And I believe the
suggestion is that there’s no change in risk from the other element of the project
which is the change in crude slate.
5603.
Transcript
So you’ve heard a lot of very technical information from me now so I
Final argument
wanted to give you an analogy. I’ve been trying to figure out what this really
means. And the analogy that I’ll present to you, it’s like a teenager wanting to
borrow his father’s car. And the father generally says “Oh, you can borrow the
car, there’s no problem with that” and now the son comes to the father and says “I
want to borrow the car to drive 20 kilometres faster than usual”.
5604.
So the dad starts to say “Well, you had an accident last week and I’m a
little bit worried about your driving habits”, and the son says “Whoa, hold on dad,
I didn’t ask you whether I could borrow the car I just wanted to ask you to decide
if I can drive a bit faster, and by the way, if you’re feeling, you know, concerned,
I can tell you that the risk involved in driving 20 percent faster only applies to
about 2.2 percent of the roadway that I’m going to be on. And by the way, I’m
going to have a couple of buddies with me in the car but there’s no extra risk from
that”.
5605.
So in this kind of situation I think that’s the predicament that the
Board has been put in by this question.
5606.
Now, Mr. Goudy I think he played bad cop with you, I’m going to
play good cop, because I say you’ve been put in this predicament where you’re
asked to answer a question that can’t be answered if the Board is to fulfil its duty
to act in the -- make a decision in the public interest.
5607.
So my submission to you is we agree, they can file the application in
the way they want, but if the Board is to look at this application and decided in the
way it’s obliged to do then it can’t make a decision on this application -- can’t
make a positive decision on the application, it can’t say yes.
5608.
So if the Enbridge application does not allow for a full assessment of
Mainline leaks as part of the hearing because of the way the application has been
crafted then, as I say, in my respectful submission, the application must be denied
because it prevents the Board from meaningfully assessing the public interest and
it undermines public confidence in the process and potentially exposes the Board
to ridicule.
5609.
And I would say that in terms of this public process, the fact that we’re
still here after a number of days of hearings -- and I would suggest to the Board
that most of the intervenors still would not be able to articulate what is actually
the question before the Board. Now, I’ve tried to articulate that in my
submissions but when I do that it provokes the kinds of analogy -- the analogy
Transcript
Final argument
that I gave with the teenager and his father.
5610.
Now, the evidence -- of course, there’s lots of evidence why.
Whatever the finding was in the first Phase 1 hearing, there’s lots of evidence or
lots of reasons why the Board can’t simply -- wouldn’t simply reiterate what the
situation was in the first hearing, wouldn’t simply say we’re just going to ignore
this other evidence, which includes evidence such as the Accufacts report about
the spill rupture risk.
5611.
So, first of all, we have the experience of Line 9 -- sorry -- Line 6B in
Marshall. Now, that’s something that is new evidence before the Board that
wasn’t before it in the previous occasion.
5612.
We have new evidence about the risks of heavy crude relating to
pressure cycling, the quote that I gave to you from changes from light to heavy
crudes and back. And we also have evidence about the risk claims and the
credibility or lack of credibility of this 2.2 percent increase in risk along -- well,
2.2 percent of the pipeline.
5613.
The evidence of Accufacts was that stress, corrosion and cracking is
prevalent all along Line 9 and constitutes a major threat on Line 9. We also had
evidence that what Enbridge wants you to look at is simply 60 of these 2,730
sections of a pipeline, and other evidence from those reports that I won’t repeat.
5614.
But I think someone like Mr. Rempe, from the City of Toronto -- if
he’s here -- I mean, the reading that I’ve suggested to you might also suggest that
the City of Toronto really can’t talk to Enbridge about -- or can’t be asking
questions about risk failure along the Mainline because the way the application is
worded they’re talking about the operation of the project, and in Enbridge’s
words, the operation of the project is those modifications and additions to the
pumping stations and the change to the crude slate and the change -- the
increment to the capacity. That’s the way the application has been framed.
5615.
So I think if we say for one thing if Enbridge wants to say well
Mainline risks aren’t part of the equation, well if Mainline risks aren’t part of the
equation that’s before the Board then how does the City of Toronto or all of the
other cities that have intervened, how do they even talk about things like
emergency controls if it doesn’t relate to that incremental risk of 2.2 percent that
Enbridge has told us about.
Transcript
Final argument
5616.
So, as I say, I mean, this is -- the question has been proposed in a
convoluted manner and puts the Board in a very difficult predicament if it is to
fulfil its public interest role in making its decision.
5617.
Now, the alternative -- of course, that would be a ground then to
saying to Enbridge well the question you’ve posed we can’t answer it by fulfilling
-- in fulfilling our duty.
5618.
But the second option is to say simply to Enbridge, well this
application isn’t complete based on the evidence we’ve heard at the hearing,
we’re going to send you back to the drawing board and you can re-file the
application. There’s -- and the instructions -- and these could just be helpful
instructions from the Board -- would be to say to Enbridge when you re-file your
application please consider things such as suggested by the Ministry of Energy,
independent third-party engineering review of Enbridge’s in-house pipeline
engineering risk assessment on the basis of the Line 6B rupture and the -- I think
approach towards Enbridge to say -- or the findings in the 6B hearing that trust us
isn’t good enough anymore at this point.
5619.
The other thing that Enbridge could be doing, which was done for this
pipeline in 1976 and 1997, is doing hydrotests, particularly given the changing
landscape through which this pipeline goes -- and we’ve seen a picture of that this
morning -- and the population growth around the pipeline. And we’ve heard a lot
of evidence about the type of information that hydrotests would provide and the
value of that information.
5620.
The other things, well, -- we’ve heard about from some of the other
intervenors, including the City of Toronto, about sort of the state of these
emergency protocols and manuals in training. These are some of the things that
should be done before the hearing not during or after the hearing.
5621.
Our submission is it’s not the job of the Board to create a proper
application, it’s the job of the Board of course to listen to the evidence, to test the
evidence, for the intervenors to participate in that, and then to fill in the gaps, but
not to create a proper application.
5622.
And one of the other things that a proper application could include is
some of the things we’ve heard now. Well, these -- you know, the inline
inspections that are -- you know -- have gone on recently and that have resulted in
hundreds of verification digs. I mean, that’s the kind of evidence that we want to
Transcript
Final argument
have before the Board to be testing not to find out later on and not for Enbridge to
say trust us.
5623.
If this public hearing process is to have real meaning then the
intervenors as well don’t -- shouldn’t be put in a position where they have to say
well we trust the Board. And that’s not to devalue the Board’s work but simply to
say the public process includes a testing of the evidence that is filed by the
Applicant. That testing allows deficiencies to be exposed, it allows
improvements, but also provides legitimacy for an ultimate decision by the Board
when evidence has been properly and fully tested.
5624.
Now, my last -- my very last comment is something that’s hot off the
press, and I thank counsel from the City of Toronto for providing it to me. It’s
simply a reiteration by the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday in a case called
Castonguay where it talks about the precautionary principle. It says in the
decision -- and we’ll file this with the Board afterwards.
“This emerging international law principle recognizes that
since there are inherent limits in being able to determine and
predict environmental impacts with scientific certainty,
environmental policies must anticipate and prevent
environmental degradation.”
5625.
And I would take from that decision, again, something that's very key
to the Board. I mean, we don't really ever want to be in a situation where we say,
"Well, you know, the pipeline might leak, but we have..." you know, we won't
take any solace from the fact that there's a billion dollars or $3 billion or however
many -- how much insurance coverage there is.
5626.
I mean, those are the monetary, that's, you know, that's a monetary
figure that we can certainly understand and businesses can understand, but the
greater impact is really something that we couldn't possibly present to the Board
in a hearing like this and it must be kept in mind when making a decision based
on the public interest, which includes the risk to safety of people living along the
pipeline.
5627.
Those are my submissions. I'm of course happy to take -- try to
answer any questions the Board has.
5628.
Transcript
THE CHAIRPERSON: Give us a few minutes.
Final argument
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
5629.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Richmond?
5630.
MEMBER RICHMOND: Thank you. I just have one question. If
Enbridge has in fact limited the scope of the project in the way that you suggest,
and I'm not saying that I agree with your take on the application, but based on the
way you have described the way they've chosen to limit the scope, how would
that affect your view of the economic benefits that they have put forward, the
Enbridge, Suncor, Valero and others have put forward for this project?
5631.
MR. KOEHL: Yes, it's a good question. I mean, I suppose the one
way you could look at it is what's the economic benefit of, you know, modifying a
pump. And but I suppose the answer they might give as well, the fact that we've
modified the pump and we're reversing the flow, the refineries couldn't get the oil
unless we modified that.
5632.
But that's where I say they take a -- you know -- very expansive view
of the benefits. But when it comes to the risks, which is, well how about, you
know, the 639 kilometres that the oil flows to get to those pipeline -- to those
refineries and how about any risks, well they say, "Well that's not included", or
only insofar as the reversal or the change in capacity or change in slate.
5633.
So yes, that is a point I've tried to make is that we're very -- you know,
we have a very broad perspective when it comes to the benefits, but if we're going
to restrict it in the same way as we restrict the assessment of risk, then perhaps we
just look at well what are the benefits of having a couple extra parking spots at
one of these pumping stations.
5634.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Koehl, so the Board has read the
submission from Équiterre, and you propose, you know, a few things, hydrotest
and et cetera, but I didn't hear you comment on any of the condition that the
Board has stated, should we decide to approve the proposal.
5635.
And also, all along this hearing, we're toward -- you know, we're
toward the end and we got lots of suggestions, so I was wondering whether you
had anything to add or to comment on or ---
5636.
MR. KOEHL: First of all, I didn't want to -- I mean, our position is
Transcript
Final argument
clear, we oppose this reversal, period. What I have suggested to you is if the
Board sends Enbridge back to the drawing room, then some of the things that I
mentioned would be included, and that would be hydrotesting.
5637.
And I think a key -- our expert reminded us of this -- but a key point in
the hydrotest also is that it is to be done to a particular specified minimum yield
strength. And I think that's between 90 and 100 percent, but that's something that
we would counsel the Board to include, as I say, if Enbridge is sent back to
redraw the application to have a specific SMYS.
5638.
The other things that we include also in our response to the National
Energy Board in your information request to us, we have a lot of comments on
financial assurance. And given our estimates of 3 to $5 billion, we suggest that
even a billion dollars is problematic. And some of the other things that I'd
suggest that if Enbridge is sent back to the drawing board.
5639.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Those are all our questions. We thank you
very much for your participation.
5640.
And also, we want to note the fact that we appreciate when parties get
together to present a common front, it makes for a more efficient process.
5641.
MR. KOEHL: Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
5642.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Now we'll hear from the Council of
Canadians, Mr. Amit Praharaj. I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name.
5643.
MR. PRAHARAJ: That’s all right.
5644.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You can correct me.
5645.
MR. PRAHARAJ: For people of India, I'm from India, so it's
Praharaj. Even my friends can't say it, so ---
--- (Laughter/Rires)
5646.
Transcript
MEMBER GAUTHIER: So you're not offended.
Final argument
5647.
MR. PRAHARAJ: No, I'm not. So ---
5648.
MR. WATTON: Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt, just a small
formality.
5649.
I don't believe your were present when we registered the appearances
at the outset of the hearing, so if I could just -- if you could take a moment to
maybe state and spell your names so that our Court Reporter can make sure it's
entered on the record and we’ll register your appearance at the outset.
5650.
MR. PRAHARAJ: For sure.
5651.
MR. WATTON: Thank you.
--- FINAL ARGUMENT BY/ARGUMENTATION FINALE PAR COUNCIL OF
CANADIANS - YORK UNIVERSITY CHAPTER:
5652.
MR. PRAHARAJ: So we'll start with name. My name is Amit, AM-I-T, and last name Praharaj with a P for Peter, R-A-H-A-R-A-J. And ---
5653.
MS. PASCARIU: I'm Ecaterina Pascariu, E-C-A-T-E-R-I-N-A and
last name is Pascariu, P-A-S-C-A-R-I-U.
5654.
MS. DEMONTIGNY: My name is Gabrielle Demontigny, G-A-B-RI-E-L-L-E, last name is D-E-M-O-N-T-I-G-N-Y.
5655.
MS. SPALTON: My name is Jennifer Spalton, J-E-N-N-I-F-E-R, last
name S-P-A-L-T-O-N.
5656.
MR. WATTON: Thank you.
5657.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Please excuse us, we are a little scattered because
we were prepared for tomorrow and we have midterms going on so if we do seem
unorganized, it's just because of crunch of time.
5658.
But here we are trying to give each of us a chance to present in front of
you. It's a very interesting experience for us so we're excited about it. But we
would start with Ecaterina.
Transcript
Final argument
5659.
THE CHAIRPERSON: If maybe a couple of people could sit down,
it would ---
5660.
MS. PASCARIU: Okay. So good morning. Thank you, Madam
Chair and Board Members, for this opportunity to present the final argument of
the Council of Canadians - York University Chapter, or CoC York U as well as -we call ourselves CYU.
5661.
Before I introduce ourselves, I wish to take this opportunity to thank
Michael Benson for all his help in answering our questions; so thank you,
Michael.
5662.
I'm going to -- bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Je voulais vous
remercier pour nous donner cette chance pour parler avec vous.
5663.
So my name is Ecaterina Pascariu. I'm joined by my fellow members
of CoC York U. We have here Amit, Jennifer and Gabrielle, and we all will like
to present to you with our oral arguments one by one.
5664.
So -- and I should say, as a preliminary, I'd like you to know I'm
putting my phone here to keep an eye on time and my laptop in front of us to read
through the notes. This of course in attempt to save papers.
5665.
So I would like to begin by revising the premise of our concerns in
relation to Enbridge proposal that was submitted in our application to participate.
Enbridge Line 9 pipeline runs in close physical proximity to York University,
which is near Keele Street and Finch Street intersection and poses a threat to
residents and commuters of this area due to its proposed future application of
transporting dilbit.
5666.
In our understanding, transporting dilbit in the vintage pipeline with
low grade insulation exacerbates the risk of rupturing the pipeline due its high
corrosive nature.
5667.
Empirical examples indicate that the Enbridge pipeline, irrespective of
the strong structural integrity, as claimed by Enbridge, are vulnerable to a dilbit
application.
5668.
The most prominent example is the oil spill from Enbridge pipeline,
Line 6B, in year 2010 at Kalamazoo, Michigan. Moreover, the recent oil spills in
Transcript
Final argument
Mayflower, Arkansas is indicative of a spill pattern that confines the application
of dilbit in each pipelines. Therefore, this 38-year old pipeline is vulnerable to
rupturing and force oil to spill.
5669.
The spill in Kalamazoo and Mayflower resulted to various health
effects, both human and wildlife and affected the social well-being of many of its
habitants. The same is feared to transpire all along the path of Line 9, if Enbridge
proposed application to transport dilbit is approved.
5670.
CoC York U is concerned that spill from this pipeline will not only
effect the health of students attending York University but also students residing
on campus and living near York University.
5671.
CoC York U is concerned with the mainly five issues related to this
project. So (a) pipeline integrity; (b) emergency response plan; (c) health and
safety of every member of York U and residents of our communities; (d) impact
of education; and (e) provision of cost and recovery.
5672.
So pipeline integrity. The Chapter’s immediate concern with this
project is that if a spill could occur in Kalamazoo and Mayflower, then spill can
occur at the York University Keele Campus as well. Given that the spill in
Kalamazoo was the outcome of corrosions in Enbridge pipeline of similar
construction and age to Line 9, there is a possibility that there could be a similar
rupture to this pipeline.
5673.
It is indicated in the report, which is the -- the report by NRDC which
is the National Resources Defense Council, that application of dilbit possesses a
risk of corrosion to the pipeline because of its chemistry, its viscosity and its
operating temperature and pressure. Therefore, this 30-year -- 38 year old
pipeline is vulnerable to rupturing and forcing dilbit to spill.
5674.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Hello again. Amit here. I’m going to address the
(b) section which is emergency response plan.
5675.
As mentioned in our written evidence, the current emergency manual
designed by Enbridge is generic and not customed to York University.
5676.
I was informed by Enbridge that it took their responders about an hour
and 30 minutes to respond to a spill drill during testing their emergency response
protocol, which was tested during a full-scale exercise held on the Don River in
Transcript
Final argument
Toronto in 2011. This response time is not sufficient.
5677.
Further on, Enbridge concluded saying that overall, the exercise
successfully demonstrated that any crude oil released on the Don River could be
safely contained. This statement was not supported well by Enbridge -Enbridge’s explanation of existing spill mitigating measures in place.
5678.
In my inquiry about this project to the local fire service ward, I found
that the staff was not informed about this project. I spoke to Nelson Watt, at the
time Acting Captain of Ward 8, who confirmed that she had no knowledge of this
project and Enbridge’s response plan in case of a spill.
5679.
And in addition, I spoke to a few members of the fire station at the
Keele branch near York University, which is Station 141 at 4100 Keele Street.
And the members confirmed that they too were not informed about this project.
5680.
I approached York University officials, spoke to the Vice-President of
York University Finance and they were unaware of the project. They did say that
Enbridge notified them and the way they notified them was by sending them the
link to their Web site.
5681.
When I asked them if they were given an emergency response plan or
given them any indication of if there was any sort of plan in place if there was a
spill, they responded by saying that they are refer to the site again.
5682.
So the manual has no concentration that there is a subway line in
construction. I know this has been in the hot topic out here, which is also in close
proximity to the pipeline in question.
5683.
At this time I request to present the map of B21-4. And again, I’m
sorry because I was going to give the slip to -- it’s B21-4, Attachment 1 to NEB
2.7, and it’s page 21.
5684.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you could just make it a bit bigger if
you can?
5685.
5686.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Yes. Thank you.
So maybe if you zoomed in right at the middle, I wanted to point out
the main intersection.
Transcript
Final argument
5687.
So York University is right on the edge, at the top edge and the
residents are kind of like in the middle. Actually I live -- that’s home for me,
that’s -- one of the houses out there. That main intersection that kind of like
dissects the residents out there is kind of like the reference point that I’m going to
make further on in the presentation.
5688.
As we are all looking at this map I would also -- yeah, that’s the
reference point right at the middle -- the middle part of it. It’s moved a little to
the left now.
5689.
But what I also wanted to indicate is that where the tank farms are
right at the extreme right -- if everybody can see in middle up the right.
5690.
So I’m using the intersection Murray Ross and Sentinel. So this road
is Sentinel and this road is Murray Ross, and that’s going to be my reference
point.
5691.
I also wanted to indicate that there are these tank farms, oil tank farms
which are basically a repository for all the oil companies.
5692.
The TTC subway station is being built -- constructed right here along
this line.
5693.
The fire station that I questioned about whether they were informed
about the Enbridge pipeline are right here; they’re actually on top of the pipeline
and they don’t even know about the pipeline.
5694.
So I’ll ---
5695.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: Could you show me, where’s the
university?
5696.
MR. PRAHARAJ: So they -- oh, I shouldn’t have done that.
5697.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh.
5698.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Should I ---
Transcript
Final argument
5699.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, we’ll fix it.
5700.
MR. PRAHARAJ: I should press it back on.
5701.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: Don’t worry.
5702.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Don’t worry.
5703.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: Don’t worry. Continue your presentation
and ---
5704.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Okay.
5705.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: --- before I get my question I will ---
5706.
MR. PRAHARAJ: That was part of the plan.
5707.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Give me a little breather out here.
5708.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: Keep your computer open.
5709.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What -- so the questions are, you know,
where’s the university?
MR. PRAHARAJ: It’s right on top so it’s ---
5710.
5711.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I know. Where’s Finch Station and where’s
the new proposed subway station?
5712.
5713.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Oh, okay.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Because you mention it but you went fast
with your highlighter.
5714.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Yeah. You can get carried away with this.
Transcript
Final argument
5715.
MR. PRAHARAJ: It’s actually one of the reasons why I got my
glasses. I kept staring at it. True story.
5716.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Not a very good idea.
5717.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Like it never happened.
5718.
So York University is around there. So that's actually where my -- our
sort of faculty is, which is faculty of environmental studies.
5719.
This is kind of like the general area where I live -- most of us live,
around here. All the students who are not living in the residence, they live in
these already privately owned houses, which landowners just rent out to students.
5720.
The construction is going on right here. The whole road is pretty
much dug out, and it's about 30 feet down and it's very intimidating, but you -and it's more scary to know that there's a pipeline running through and nobody
knows about it. And the fire station is right there -- right there, and they don't
know about the pipeline running under them.
5721.
Finch Station is that side. It's not on this map. And the tank farm's
right there. So the pipeline pretty much runs right alongside the tank farms. So if
there was a leak there -- and you know -- a gentleman smoking or something -- I
mean -- you get the idea.
5722.
5723.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Especially close to where students...
MR. PRAHARAJ: Where students -- exactly. When we are not
studying that's exactly what we do.
5724.
MR. PRAHARAJ: So the red -- sort of -- points out on the line -- the
pipeline itself are the controlled shutoff systems. I would like to indicate that the
-- when I did -- and they are all a kilometre -- I think 4 kilometres apart, I think
that's what the legend says.
Transcript
Final argument
5725.
Anyways I did the math, because of the reversal, the closest -- no
actually that's just a kilometre, sorry.
5726.
If you go to 23, if you can go to page 23. What I was trying to say is
that when I did the measurement of how far the closest control valve station was,
it's about 20 kilometres east of that intersection, the reference point I was showing
you before which means even if there was a spill and Enbridge did react and shut
the control valve off, in that 20 kilometre stretch of that pipeline there's going to
be at least 8 million litres of dilbit sitting, trying to gush out of the hole. Keeping
in mind that it's 30 inches in diameter and the length 20 kilometres, so if you do
the math I think it's about 8 million litres.
5727.
So yeah, so just what I was trying to point out here is that there is no
TTC survey construction present in this map. There seems -- which is indicative
of it being absent in their assessment emergency response plan, right? Which is -and that there seems to be no mention of a risk assessment of the subway line in
case of a spill in their emergency response protocol either.
5728.
So according to City of Toronto's findings, as you would have heard
already by the City of Toronto's hearings two days ago, at the Finch subway
station the pipeline runs less than 60 centimetres above the subway structure.
And as it was mentioned before, neither the TTC, Toronto Fire Services nor
Enbridge appear to have any specific contingency plan to manage a leak of
petroleum should this occur near the TTC entrance.
5729.
I did read the transcripts and I understand that they are going to speak
about it next week, which is great, but I would request the Board to see the survey
situation -- as we like to put it -- in our point of view.
5730.
Questions were raised by this Board during the hearings concerning
why the city let Enbridge build the pipeline 38 years ago, and questions are asked
by the Board why -- that why is TTC building a subway system that is on the
path of the pipeline.
5731.
We feel that there was no proper assessment done then, and no proper
assessment done now, which is scary. We are not satisfied that the initial
assessment done with the pipeline was initially put -- when it was initially put in
was any good because of the lower EA standards. And now when we finally are
getting a subway system built all the way to York U, it's viability is questioned.
Transcript
Final argument
5732.
And now we've -- and this subway system is important to York U
community; therefore, its safety should be paramount, which is why we request
the Board to refute Enbridge's proposal and not debate whether the pipeline has
the right-of-way or the TTC subway.
5733.
Another issue that concerns us is that the closest shutoff control station
is 20 kilometres east of the general York U areas we indicated in the map. Again,
indicative of the fact that Enbridge is ignoring the fact that there are 55,000
students attending York.
5734.
Furthermore, there is no mention of options Enbridge has in place
should there be an electricity failure at the control valve station and if redundancy
is built into the system.
5735.
At this point we would like to remind the Board that Enbridge has
proven to be unreliable in its practices.
5736.
In the case of the infamous Kalamazoo spill, the leak was not
identified as such by Enbridge for 17 hours. As a result, more than 3.3 million
litres of dilbit was discharged into waterways in that area, and the cleanup cost, as
you already know, is over a billion dollars, and the remediation is still not
complete.
5737.
The U.S. Regulatory Authority, the National Transportation Safety
Board conducted an investigation which concluded that the spill was a result of
failures of pipeline integrity management, staff training, and public awareness and
education. As such, our chapter has no faith in Enbridge's ability to operate dilbit.
5738.
The Kalamazoo disaster was a result of cumulative negligence. Two
of the prominent negligence’s is discussed below; one, the integrity of the
pipeline was compromised because of poor maintenance and monitoring which
caused the spill to take effect. Two, Enbridge response staff did not arrive onsite
-- as mentioned before -- for 17 hours after the first discharge because of the
misinterpretation of alarms in the Edmonton control centre.
5739.
In addition, Enbridge knew of 15,000 defects in the pipeline before the
spill. So far it has cost nearly 1 billion to clean up completely. This shows
Enbridge's lack of ability to deal with spills and the danger of shipping tar sands
oil. Plus, that pipeline was just as similar to this particular pipeline in age and its
material.
Transcript
Final argument
5740.
I would also like to point out that between 1999 to present, Enbridge
had over 800 spills. Line 9 itself has already suffered 12 spills. What's there to
say that it won't spill near York U?
5741.
Line 9 was found by Environmental Defence fully exposed to into the
Rouge River. Enbridge knew about it for years and didn't address it until
Environmental Defence -- Environment Defence made it public. These are just
some of the points that are indicative of Enbridge's lack of diligence in conducting
a comprehensive environmental assessment of the York University area.
5742.
CoC York U is thereby afraid that if a spill were to occur at the York
University site, then its similar unwarranted response to the spill would increase
the safety risks of York University community and result in another Kalamazoo
disaster.
5743.
I would also like to point out that in my communication with Enbridge
it was indicated to me that training -- that Enbridge provides training to
emergency responders that enables free unlimited access to Enbridge’s emergency
response education program.
5744.
They say that the content of this online training is based on pipeline
emergencies and industry leading pipeline emergency response training program
developed by the National Association of State Fire Marshalls. They further go
one saying that the program also includes information specific to Enbridge’s
pipelines.
5745.
Through the course, emergency responders learn the basics of gas and
liquids pipeline operations, the potential hazards associated with the products
transported by Enbridge, pipeline emergency response tactics and how to apply
the information to real life situations. And I want to emphasize in an online
training program.
5746.
So what I was trying to say is that what’s the point if they don’t know
what a pipe -- if -- even if the fire station that’s right on top of the pipeline doesn’t
know that the pipeline runs right under them; the online program really doesn’t
accommodate such a thing.
5747.
So that’s the end of the Part (b), and then we would start with part C. I
would like to introduce Jennifer -- actually Gabrielle to come forward ---
Transcript
Final argument
5748.
MS. DEMONTIGNY: Hello. Health and safety of every member of
York and residents of the adjacent communities: I implore you to consider a
scenario, wherein York University is in its full capacity, i.e. all 55,000 students
and roughly 5,000 staff members and vendors are present in the campus.
5749.
In this scenario, if a spill had to occur, the existing ERP designed by
Enbridge will be insufficient.
5750.
Regardless of the validity of the argument that dilbit exacerbates the
risk of rupturing the pipeline due to its high corrosive nature, it is important to
note that dilbit is more toxic and therefore more harmful, in comparison to
conventional oil or light crude oil.
5751.
If a spill where to occur in this pipeline, while -- transporting light
crude oil, than the consequences will not be as severe as it would be if the
pipeline were transporting dilbit.
5752.
The spill in Kalamazoo and Mayflower resulted in loss of many lives,
both human and wildlife, and affected the social wellbeing of many of its
inhabitants. The same is feared to transpire all along the path of Line 9 if the
proposed application to transport dilbit is approved.
5753.
Council of Canadians - York University Chapter, is concerned that a
spill form this pipeline will not only affect the health of students attending York
University, but also students residing on campus and living near York University.
5754.
An oil spill from Enbridge Line 9 will adverse -- will adversely affect
the health of individuals living in close proximity of this pipeline. A spill will
contaminate the water reservoirs and air with toxins. This in turn will jeopardize
the health of individuals who intake the polluted water and air.
5755.
The various health issues amongst individuals will incapacitate them
from performing daily operations. This effect inevitably affects the economic
function of the societies living along the line.
5756.
The evidence of this underlining condition is already observed in the
Kalamazoo oil spill disaster. Council of Canadians - York University Chapter
will bring forth this evidence to illustrate the scope of a potential spill disaster at
the York University community.
Transcript
Final argument
5757.
We are afraid that a spill could impede students from continuing their
education, forcing them to flood the already unstable job market. A spill can also
affect the residents of these communities. The bigger concern is the length of
these effects.
5758.
Council of Canadians - York University Chapter will also illustrate the
spatial extent of a spill scenario. We argue that an oil spill from Enbridge Line 9
will adversely affect the health of individuals living elsewhere, irrespective of
their proximity to Line 9.
5759.
The argument is based on the understanding of nature of things. We
recognize water and air to be a medium of transport and therefore, generate a
hypothesis that the contaminated water and air has a potential to transcend into
communities beyond the visions of this hearing. This argument will be supported
by empirical evidence and scientific journals that are in the unanimous consensus
of acclaimed scientists in the field of climate change.
5760.
The complex interconnections between both biophysical and human
environment, extends globally and thus not confined to defined boundary. The
environment in this context has no boundaries. This hearing should therefore go
beyond the defined boundaries it has devised to be.
5761.
And I’d like to finish off my statement by saying that j’ai seulement 21
ans et je suis déjà inquiète pour la santé de mes enfants. I am only 21 years old
and I’m already worried about the health of my children. Thank you.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Again, excuse us. We’re just going to -- thanks.
5762.
5763.
MS. SPALTON: Good morning. So I’m going to be talking about
the threat to drinking water quality. There are real risks to Toronto’s watershed.
The pipeline crosses every major tributary that flows into Lake Ontario. If a
major leak occurs it will contaminate our drinking water and Enbridge is not
accountable to providing us with drinking water in case of an emergency.
5764.
Like I said, Line 9 crosses every major Toronto waterway including
the Don and Rouge Rivers. If a pipeline was to burst oil could be carried down
the lake, polluting the source of our drinking water. A City of Toronto report
Transcript
Final argument
notes that a pipeline break is a potential threat to City of Toronto water treatment
plant intakes.
5765.
In case of a spill, the diluting condensate evaporates creating a toxic
cloud whose effects include rashes, headaches and long-term carcinogenic effects.
5766.
As mentioned before, a similar tar sands pipeline in Michigan ruptured
in 2010 and a waterway was fouled for 40 kilometres. As a result, toxic fumes
could be smelled up to 50 kilometres away. Health providers reported 145
residents with symptoms associated with the spill. More than 7,000 people have
joined the class-action lawsuit against Enbridge. And that was in a sparsely
settled rural area, not an urban area like Toronto. This compares to Toronto,
which has a population of 2.8 million people, all within living 20 kilometres of
Line 9.
5767.
Furthermore, under the Clean Water Act 2006 and CTC, Credit Valley,
Toronto and Conservation Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Committee
developed a source water protection plan to protect drinking water supplies
against the potential future threats.
5768.
The City of Toronto is a member of the CTC Source Protection
Committee. The CTC used a scenario approach to evaluate whether spills from
specific sources could represent a significant threat to lake based intakes. The
scenarios were based on worst case scenarios of real events that occurred in the
past and included the threat from release from gasoline or refined petroleum
product due to failures of large pipelines located under major Lake Ontario
tributaries.
5769.
Computer modelling results showed that a spill of petroleum product
from a pipeline failure is a potential threat to the City of Toronto water treatment
plant intakes.
5770.
The CTC’s source protection plan which, like I mentioned, applies to
the City of Toronto, contains a recommended policy to reduce the risk and/or
impacts of petroleum pipeline breaks.
5771.
At present, the city is aware that a section of Enbridge’s Line 9 is
partially exposed in the Rouge River as a result of natural erosion of the
riverbank. The exposed section of the pipeline was discovered in 2009. Since
that time Enbridge has installed a temporary concrete barrier to protect the
Transcript
Final argument
pipeline and is working on a permanent barrier.
5772.
The Line 9 project is tied to a bigger conservation about Canada’s
energy future. The tar sands are Canada’s biggest source of greenhouse gases and
that has major implications for climate change.
5773.
Where does Council of Canadians fit in with all of this? The Council
of Canadians is a non-government organization that strongly supports rights to
water and sanitation which is ratified into international law by the United Nations
in 2010.
5774.
As such, the Toronto Chapter of Council of Canadians is very
concerned with the threat posed by the Line 9 pipeline spill to the drinking water
quality of our 9,000 members who live in the Greater Toronto Area, as well as
that of the 2.8 million Toronto residents who rely on municipal tap water for their
portable water needs.
5775.
The Line 9 pipeline crosses upwards of 70 potential pathways into the
hydrological system that provides the Toronto area with its drinking water. A
diluted bitumen spill at or near any of these pathways would affect Toronto’s
water source.
5776.
The potential effects of a gasoline or a refined product spill from large
pipelines located under major tributaries to Lake Ontario are examined in the
CTC source protection region approved assessment report. Pipeline breaks
occurring at the Don River, Humber River, Credit River, Rouge River, Etobicoke
Creek and Hyland Creek would result in a significant threat of benzene
contamination of source water at one or more of the Toronto’s four intake
locations. The benzene levels would exceed the Ontario drinking water standards
and would persist for a few days, during which the affected intake locations could
not be used, resulting in Toronto’s reduced capacity to provide water to its
residents.
5777.
Our Council of Canadians members are strong supporters of public
local municipal water systems. They all drink tap water. As such, a spill from
Line 9 would directly affect our members’ access to portable water.
5778.
A deeper look into this report reveals that the spill scenarios is based
on the Kalamazoo River. Spill scenarios using an evidence-based approach based
on actual events to elevate the impact on municipal drinking water intakes are
Transcript
Final argument
highly accurate compared to computer modelling and should be carefully
consulted while deliberating the Line 9 reversal project applications.
5779.
Although not studied by the report, it should be noted that diluted
bitumen, which Line 9 is proposed to carry, is composed of not only benzene but
also polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and n-hexane, toxins that affect the human
central nervous system. The capacity of Toronto’s drinking water treatment plans
to safely eliminate these compounds is unknown. Therefore, a diluted bitumen
spill contaminating Toronto resident source water could affectively result to the
loss of our right to water.
5780.
So basically, in a nutshell, the Council of Canadians firmly supports
the United Nations right to water, whereby each government must supply its
citizens with clean drinking water.
5781.
In the GTA Line 9 crosses every major tributary of Lake Ontario.
Lake Ontario is the sole supply of drinking water in Toronto and the GTA, and
one or more of those water intake locations would be compromised if there was a
dilbit spill near or close to any of the tributaries.
5782.
The City of Toronto would not be able to adequately supply its
residents with drinking water if these intakes were compromised. And York
University receives 100 percent of its water from municipal sources. Therefore, a
dilbit spill from Line 9 resulting in compromising the city’s drinking water would
affectively violate the York University student’s right to water.
5783.
Thank you.
5784.
MR. PRAHARAJ: I want to now move on to the next issue that we
have. I’m also running out of time so I’m just going to try to make it as quick as
possible.
5785.
The next point was impact on education. I just wanted to give our two
cents on that. The spill has the potential to create a toxic environment for the
students and staff of York University. As such, the university will be shut down
for health reasons.
5786.
As I have already spoken to, the members and the staff of York
University have indicated to me that if there was a spill there would be a case
where the university would be shut down. Given that fact that the clean-up at
Transcript
Final argument
Kalamazoo is still not over, it may be similar to a case at York University Keele
Campus, which may result in the closure of the university for a few years, if not
months. This will affect all current and future members of the university.
5787.
I’ll move on to the next point, provision of cost recovery. York
University seeks assurance that Enbridge has adequate financial resources,
including necessary and adequate insurance coverage that are quickly available to
contain the impacts of a large scale spill, and that adequate security is available to
compensate the university and its students for any cost they may incur as a result.
5788.
What we would like to ask the Board is to make Enbridge liable for
any future costs incurred by an individual student if in case there was a spill and
to continue being liable until the spill -- the whole spill and its remedial process
was completed. So for the whole duration of the time that Enbridge would have
to follow on the clean-up process every individual would need to be taken care of,
the tuition fees for the amount of time -- for that duration, also their transportation
and accommodation if it prohibits them from continuing their education.
5789.
We also will like to condition Enbridge to create a site-specific
emergency response plan and assessment for the York University area if the
Board does go ahead in approving this project. And we would like that the Board
gets Enbridge to be in compliance with this emergency response plan and
assessment with the students of York University.
5790.
I believe that every York University student should be aware of this
pipeline; should be aware of the online training, and should be aware of the health
hazards that it poses, and should be also aware of whatever training that would be
required to keep them safe. And also the matters of students’ health and safety
should be taken more to the student level and not being left to be decided to the
York University management level. I say this because I feel that our university
has bias with Enbridge.
5791.
I have lots more to say in these assorted paragraphs and it seems like I
haven’t touched them, but I would really like to conclude by reiterating the three
points.
5792.
One is that we feel that the pipeline should be -- this proposal should
be rejected on the basis that the pipeline runs very close to 55,000 students who
attend York University, and then another 5,000 members who are staff and
vendors at the York University Campus. And there are many residents around the
Transcript
Final argument
York University campus that will definitely get affected by a spill in that area.
5793.
That’s why we should -- I encourage you guys to refute this proposal,
but if you do decide in your wisdom that it needs to be approved, I would really
appreciate if the Board makes Enbridge in compliance with our two conditions.
5794.
One to accommodate -- to make sure that they have money and
resources locked before they -- before you approve this project to accommodate
any liability to an individual student in terms of their education, and whatever
other expenses they would need to incur because of a spill threat.
5795.
And the last condition being that any -- that Enbridge should come up
with a site-specific emergency response plan and assistance for York University
area, and that should be consulted with York University students, and any
advisement from York University students should be taken into consideration and
should be complied with.
5796.
Once again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to come and
present here in front of you. And York University wishes that you all think of our
future in making this decision.
5797.
Thank you.
5798.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Richmond?
5799.
MEMBER RICHMOND: Thank you. I just want to ask about -- you
made significant comments on the drinking water. I think ---
5800.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Jennifer.
5801.
MEMBER RICHMOND: Jennifer. Thank you.
5802.
So you’re concerned about the potential impact on the drinking water
system if there is a leak. In response to a question from an intervenor during the
written questions phase Enbridge provided a response, and we referred to it
yesterday -- I don’t have the number before me -- but they responded that if
something were to occur that would impact the drinking water system of
municipality that Enbridge would work with the municipality to identify an
alternate source of drinking water. I believe that’s the gist of the response.
Transcript
Final argument
5803.
Does that change your view at all or any comment on their response?
5804.
MS. SPALTON: Sorry, just to reiterate, they’re saying that if this
was to happen then they will explore alternative solutions. Like, yeah, I ---
5805.
MEMBER RICHMOND: I don’t have the exact phrasing in front of
me but that’s ---
5806.
MS. SPALTON: Just to try to get a better understanding. I think that
should be something that’s sorted out before it happens as a precautionary
strategy of -- it is a possible -- it is a possibility, regardless of maintenance and
monitoring, and I think that we should definitely have backup plans in place. If
something to this magnitude was to occur, I should hope that there’s an
alternative. So yeah, I guess, having those management alternative plans in place
I think would be a better solution to that.
5807.
MEMBER RICHMOND: And given the thought you’ve put into this
and your backgrounds in environmental science -- it’s okay to say no -- but do
you have any ideas or suggestions on what those alternatives might be that you
could share with us and Enbridge?
5808.
MS. SPALTON: Standing here right now, no. But I mean, I don’t
think any of us would reject sitting down and talking about it and working out
something or -- and I’m sure there’s lots of examples in other situations where
models can be adopted or whatever. But, yeah, the fact that there’s no backup
plan in place that doesn’t make me feel comfortable as a citizen of Toronto.
5809.
MEMBER RICHMOND: I don’t know if there is no backup plan in
place but I’m looking at Mr. Crowther now and I suggest that this might be one of
the things you might want to add to the list for the responses to some more detail
on what those alternatives might be or how they would -- how they’d be
determined.
5810.
Thank you.
5811.
MS. SPALTON: Thank you.
5812.
MS. DEMONTIGNY: If I may add, I think that -- as Jennifer pointed
out, I think it’s really important that we at least get a conversation started with the
students. A lot of students don’t know about this problem. We actually work and
Transcript
Final argument
we try to teach them and educate them about it. Not a lot of people know.
5813.
I live in Newmarket, for example, going home and telling people
around my community about what’s going on they were in shock. I think it’s
really important to open up at least a conversation to try to get the students to talk,
not even our students but our community, and once that conversation is going,
even though we don’t have necessarily the right background, we still can bounce
ideas back and forth, which can give us a better understanding of our community
and about how we can go about with this.
5814.
Like Jen said, we don’t have any ideas right now but we would be
happy to sit down and come up with a solution together, because this is not just a
business this is our future and our community and we are -- we’d like to be part of
that.
5815.
Thank you.
5816.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Those are all our questions. We thank you
very much for your participation.
5817.
And to bring you peace, Mr. Praharaj, you just happen to have three
Board Members who have children so ---
5818.
MR. PRAHARAJ: All right.
5819.
THE CHAIRPERSON: --- we always think of the future.
5820.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Thank you.
5821.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So we thank you for your participation and
we always encourage you to be -- to get involved in the process, and that’s a
testament that we have youth that can get involved. Thank you.
5822.
5823.
MR. PRAHARAJ: Good afternoon. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We might be able to push a little and get
Ms. Carrie Lester to come.
Transcript
Final argument
5824.
MR. WATTON: Actually, Madam Chair, I’m not sure that Ms.
Lester is with us yet.
5825.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, if she is not here, maybe we -- if Mr.
John Quarterly is here maybe we can get a head start and we’ll take a break, you
know, later on when it’s an appropriate time for him to break.
5826.
Mr. Quarterly is not here?
5827.
MR. WATTON: I thought I saw him a moment ago.
5828.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He’s coming. Okay.
5829.
MR. WATTON: Madam Chair, if I might, maybe if it works for
people in the room we might just perhaps taking the lunch break a little earlier
and reconvening a little earlier. If that meets with your approval, then that might
work best for everybody.
5830.
THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s a good suggestion. I was just trying
to get a head start.
5831.
Are you Mr. Quarterly?
5832.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yes, I am.
5833.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And would you rather take the break now or
maybe give us a head start of maybe 20 minutes.
5834.
MR. QUARTERLY: Well, if I could do it all in one go it might be -because I want to do some contextual thing at the beginning, and I think it would
just flow better, if I may.
5835.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Sure. So we’ll reconvene at 1:15 ---
5836.
MR. QUARTERLY: Thank you very much.
5837.
THE CHAIRPERSON: --- and we’ll start with you. Thank you.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
5838.
MR. QUARTERLY: Thank you.
--- Upon recessing at 12:14 p.m./L’audience est suspendue à 12h14
--- Upon resuming at 1:23 p.m./L’audience est reprise à 13h23
5839.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So good afternoon, Mr. Quarterly.
5840.
MR. QUARTERLY: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and gentlemen.
5841.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And I notice that we have quite a bit of time
allotted for you, so we’re ready to listen to you, but just keep in mind that this is -we’re getting towards the end and we’ve heard quite a few reminders of what’s
already in evidence. So just keep that in mind when you deliver your argument.
--- FINAL ARGUMENT BY/ARGUMENTATION FINALE PAR MR. JOHN
QUARTERLY:
MR. QUARTERLY: Thank you. I hope I don’t repeat too much.
5842.
5843.
I’d like to first make note that we’re on First Nations territory. I’d like
to just acknowledge that. And I feel very strongly that we as Canadians,
especially white Canadians, need to respect the indigenous people of this country
and all the Treaties they’ve gone to. So I think that’s something that you should
be overriding in all the negotiations around using land and land claims in this
country. Thank you for that.
5844.
Anyway, I’d like to put some context into my presentation, which I
think is very relevant to where we are today in what’s happening. So I’m going to
firstly do some context then go into my presentation with respect to the stuff
that’s on my -- information I gave. I’ve actually reversed the order.
5845.
The context is to do with -- and thank you for Louise, she’s helped me
with finding something on the internet that I can use -- it’s to do with the
atmospheric instability which is really a lot more relevant than I think people are
understanding at the moment.
5846.
I’m actually in the process of writing a paper on this. I’ve been
studying this all summer because of what’s happening.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
Could you -- the network, the ones that are like this, yeah, that’s it.
5847.
Yes.
5848.
Now, this is the jetstream. I’m quickly going to go through this so you
understand, you know, where I’m coming from this -- the jetstream controls all
the world weather. Normally jetstream undulates up and down very slowly. But
in the last 18 months they’ve been finding it’s been doing great big sign waves
and odd loops. I’ve got different things here. I don’t know if you can see if from
there but it’s doing really strange loops.
5849.
This is really, really very frightening to do with -- this isn’t global
warming, this is climatic instability. The jetstream controls the whole weather in
the world, the way it reacts and interacts.
5850.
Could you go to the Hadley cell, please?
5851.
Now, this is the -- this is the way the world weather system works.
You’ve got the equatorial sensitivity of the -- the hot air rises, goes round and
then comes back down again. And then you’ve got the Polar cell and then you’ve
also got the Ferrel Cell in the middle. The jet stream sits between the Ferrel Cell
and the Polar cell.
5852.
Now, normally it’s very stable but as I’ve pointed out this year it’s
been completely unstable.
5853.
What’s happening with global warming, the equatorial region is
getting bigger and consequently the Hadley cell is then migrating north and south
because there’s the same thing on the north and south of it.
5854.
Consequently, the subpolar -- the subtropical polar is moving upwards
the same as the subtropical area is moving north and south, which is now moving
the deserts further out from where they originally were. So they’re going further
north and south. So that’s causing a lot more problems that people aren’t
understanding.
5855.
So that’s why I’m doing this to make you realize the context. There’s
global warming, whether you agree with it or not the planet is actually increasing
temperature, whether it’s natural or whether it’s man-made is not relevant because
all the records show it’s increasing at this point in time.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
5856.
And so this instability atmosphere is affecting the whole weather
system with respect to the tornadoes they had down in the States this year because
the tornadoes are caused by the jetstream, which is -- when it comes down to the
Gulf, it sucks hot air from the Gulf. You get a land -- the two air masses collide,
one’s hot, one’s cold, it does a 90 degree turn and then it produces a tornado.
5857.
Now, these tornadoes are moving in different places. They’re
becoming much bigger -- sorry, they’re becoming much bigger, much worse.
And also this is also applying so the hurricanes are occurring all over the world.
5858.
So I’m just trying to put in context of, you know, where I’m going to
with my reliability presentation in a minute.
5859.
I didn’t realize until I started doing some studying how dramatic
what’s happening with climatic -- not climatic but atmospheric instability. And
it’s really -- it’s really affecting more than we realize.
5860.
So the Rossby waves which is a jetstream as a controlling factor and
meteorologists all over the world are really confused as to what is happening and
why it’s happening. Nobody knows why. So whether it’s why or whatever it’s
actually happening.
5861.
So to go with that we have problems that -- with the increase in
temperature of the world we’re getting more seismic problems.
5862.
And there was a report the other day that stated that because of the
increase temperature of the crust of the earth there’s becoming more earthquakes
and things like that, which is -- there’s a comment here -- today’s quake deadlier
than the past. There’s lots of different things but I’m just trying to give you an
overview of why I’m going this way with respect to my going into the -- my
actual presentation. So if we bear that in mind with my going into the
presentation with respect to reliability engineering.
5863.
I’d just like to go through maybe a little of my background from
engineering in England. You probably got that there but I worked on high level
electronic engineering for NATO, NASA with a lot of control systems, reliability
engineering. So it was all very high level background and -- oh I had to have
traceability.
5864.
So my background is not consumer electronics but it’s high level stuff.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
So that’s why I’m looking at the whole process of what’s happening with the
pipeline, the pipelines, the system so that we can try and come up with something
that -- there’s going to be some way of making something work in the correct
way.
5865.
I don’t know the answer at the moment but I’m hoping to be able to
give you some information that you can start looking at stuff and maybe if you
had that this little presentation then we can try and go through that.
5866.
Something that I have realized that a lot of engineering these days is
not working on the original stuff to middle specs and now ISOs or standards,
they’re going to more into accounting and risk management, risk assessment.
And risk assessment is only to do with money, not engineering, not science.
5867.
So I think we, as societies, need to look at the transference of where
we used to be -- maybe when I was younger, quite a few years ago, that was more
to do with engineering science to the fact that now things are being driven more
by just pure money. But I think there’s a combination we can put together on the
risk assessment and also on the reliability engineering components that would
actually work at some point.
5868.
With respect to the component of the content of the pipelines, at the
moment you’ve -- I’m assuming you probably know, I don’t mean this rudely -but it’s taking regular crude oil from Europe and that which is completely
different from the dilbit that may be put in there.
5869.
With respect to that, anything that’s going to be put in there I think
that my suggestion would be that you should be mandating that at any point in
time you, we, society knows what exactly is in that pipe as with the problem with
Lac Mégantic, they didn’t know what was in there, it ended up more explosives
than it was, that sort of thing. And these are fundamental things that we really
should know what’s in there for just pure common sense safety in that.
5870.
With respect to the fact that it’s asphalt, asphalt is a solid not a liquid.
I get very frustrated when people are talking about, you know, oil when it’s tar,
when it’s a solid.
5871.
So with respect to if they’re going to put dilbit in there then I think -and I’ll comment to this in a minute -- but we must make sure all the quality
control with respect to system, processes, information must be applied correctly to
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
make sure that the whole network, which stems from end to end, not just the
pipeline but the whole network, is correct with respect to reliability and all the
other component parts.
5872.
The fact that companies tend to talk about the liquid -- am I going all
right for the translators, by the way? Okay, sorry. I just suddenly -- I just
wondered whether I was going too fast. Sorry.
5873.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We had far faster speaker than you.
MR. QUARTERLY: I’m just trying to be considerate, that’s all.
5874.
5875.
So with respect to that, we really need to be totally objective and not
just driven by the short-term money, we have to look at the long-term and my
whole object of doing this today is to try and look at the greater good of what
we’re doing. Not just for the oil companies, not just for my good, but for the
greater good of the whole of Canada and the whole of society, and with respect to
the weather climate conditions, the atmospheric conditions, the whole state of the
world because this is all linked with, you know, CO2 emissions a whole lot.
5876.
And they -- I know it’s not the mandate, but you can’t really separate
anything from anything because it’s like a soccer ball; the patches make the ball.
5877.
So -- and we need to look at that even though some of the mandates
that sometimes we’re given don’t always take account for the other side of the
ball that we’re trying to look at. So that’s with respect to the asphalt and the
crude oil component, of which I personally think we should start labelling
correctly as opposed to calling it crude oil.
5878.
With respect to leaks and spills, a spill is a finite amount for a finite
time. Pipelines don’t work. They’re not spills, they’re leaks. Leaks are
generated by bad engineering and people -- I spoke to many people about this and
people, when I explain it, they click in, but because of the jargon, people, they
don’t click in to what it means.
5879.
And so the amount that would leak would be totally dependent on the
size of the crack or hole or the problem in the pipeline or anywhere and the
pressure it’s got. You’ve got a small crack, you are going to end up with a high
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
pressure; if you’ve got a large hole, it’s going to have low pressure, but you’ll get
much more volume out.
5880.
So that will be a problem with respect to leaks and spills and how we
actually look at them and qualify them. With respect to reliability engineering
and leaks, a leak is caused by bad engineering -- bad engineering. The example
I’m going to use is very obvious when you sit back and look at it.
5881.
What’s happening in Japan at the moment -- see I used to work on
nuclear energy doing reliability engineering. The mandate of reliability
engineering is fail-operational. So that means to say it doesn’t matter what
happens with the whole structure, the operational component is, you must be able
to take the material and then put it away safely.
5882.
Now what they did in Japan, they’re sitting on an earthquake line,
nobody put all the environmental considerations into the reliability engineering
aspect. Having worked on that, I know they didn’t do it properly because it’s
impossible for that to have happened if they’d actually applied the reliability
standards that should be applied.
5883.
Why I’m emphasizing this is because with respect to pipelines, we
must and whether we use pipelines for it or whether -- this isn’t your scope, but
just information, or whether using trains and that, they’ve all got to follow the
same mentality of having correct engineering principles. And we can’t shortcut
them to save money because lives are being killed or lost because of somebody
wants to save money. And you can’t -- you can’t put those people back into Lac
Mégantic.
--- (Applause/Applaudissements)
5884.
MR. QUARTERLY: No, it’s not -- thank you, but it’s not something
to be clapped at, it’s really sad that it happened.
5885.
I’m sorry. I’m just an emotional, caring human being. That’s why I’m
actually here today.
5886.
The -- we can’t carry on doing this in the way we have with money
being the driving force. People want to make money, but we have to respect life
in a different way, and if we do that, then it becomes the greater good for
everybody. And that’s my whole mantra in a lot of stuff I’m involved in. We
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
have to look at the greater good.
5887.
I don’t care if it’s no good for me today. It might be good for me next
week or next year, but I live in a society and the only way to go forward is the
greater good.
5888.
Sorry, I lost track of where I was going with that, my apologies.
5889.
With respect to some of the other problems with some of the other
pipelines, the -- sorry -- with respect to some of the other pipelines that have
leaked, recently there was one last week the farmer found that had been going for
two weeks and it was 20,000 barrels which is, I think, is about, I think it’s
something like 2 million litres of oil that the farmer had in North Dakota because
the pipeline broke.
5890.
Now, it’s becoming the norm, unfortunately, that pipelines are
breaking because we’re not applying the right engineering standards to them,
which I haven’t mentioned that. I think I’ll go into this reliability component.
5891.
Reliability engineering covers -- I don’t know if you know much about
reliability engineering, but it covers the whole system from end to end. It covers
everything that can affect the system, whatever it is. Whether it’s weather,
whether it’s anything, and I don’t know if you remember a few years ago, Chalk
River was closed down and the lady in charge of it wouldn’t relicense it because it
didn’t fit the mandate of fail-operational because they had electrical water in a
pump and it recently had one pump, one water supply and one electrical supply,
and that didn’t follow that mandate. So they had to have two of everything, so the
backup could actually work.
5892.
So that’s just another emphasis of where, you know, everything -reliability looks at all the unknowns, not just those simple knowns as we go
through.
5893.
So with respect to this pipeline or the application and the control
systems and with respect to my initial opening with respect to the weather -- in
Toronto, back in June, you may have known we had that flood that, you know,
tried to clean Toronto up a bit, but that was caused by the problem with the
jetstream with the Rossby wave because what happened, the storm got caught in
it. It came down in a sine wave and stuck at the bottom and that’s why it was so
bad. And the same thing happened in Calgary.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
5894.
So in Calgary, I’ve got a picture here though you probably know, it
was flooded completely. What account is being made on the reliability
components of the control centre that’s in Calgary if they get flooded out again,
which will then affect the control systems down the line at some pumping station.
5895.
And these are totally relevant to where we need to go to make sure that
whatever is happening is going to be correct. With respect to the pipeline, I put in
my request. I have not had any response back, you know, the evidence I
submitted, but I’ve had no response to the questions I asked. What was the -- and
this is really relevant. What was the original criteria that applied to the original
pipeline? I don’t know.
5896.
There may have never been a reliability component to that. So my
question is what would be the mean time to failure? What would be the mean
time between failures? And what would be the preventative plan and
maintenance components of the repair component to make sure that you never get
to the point of failure?
5897.
And this is where -- this is all tied up with the safety and the reliability
components of the system. And to do the reliability properly, you have to
subdivide everything as I laid out in my presentation, every component -- and
that’s why I mentioned about the -- in Chalk River, because all of the
components, environmental, whether you’ve got water, electricity, they’ve all got
to be there so that if we get an earthquake or if there’s a tornado comes through or
something and the pipe gets damaged, what are the shutoff procedures? What
length of pipe is exposed or is vulnerable? Are there any automatic shutdowns?
Because most of the stuff that we’ve seen and reported of most of the -- excuse
me.
5898.
Most of the problems with pipelines being as in -- sorry -- as in
Kalamazoo, for example, the company didn’t know there was a leak. And the
same as the one that happened in North Dakota, they didn’t know the leak was
there.
5899.
So this is a fundamental flaw. Obviously there’s no correct reliability
analysis in the system to control the efficiency and the safety and the quality
assurance -- the quality control of the overall system.
5900.
I’m quite sure that the quality control of the component parts within it,
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
the oil or what, that’s monitored. But obviously the system components, which is
fundamental to safe usage, is obviously not being monitored there.
5901.
With respect to the component within it, dilbit -- it’s known within the
industry that there’s enzymes within oil, especially within dilbit, which eats the
pipeline inside out. That’s known throughout the whole industry.
5902.
So how long does a pipe of X thickness take to be eaten through?
These are all components that should be put in to the reliability analysis of the
way we should be looking at it.
5903.
We should be doing Rockwell tests on the pipeline to see what the
hardness is or the brittleness to work out what’s happening with it.
5904.
With respect to, you know, oil in the pipeline, with sullage in a
pipeline then you get eddies set up, you get vortexing in a pipeline which then on
unsuspended -- if there are any unsuspended, you know, long pieces across a
bridge or something, that could actually set up vibrations. Or what else is there
which hasn’t been adequately looked at with respect to all these reliability
components, what would happen if there’s fracking going on?
5905.
Because people looking -- it’s in the paper that Ontario is looking at
doing fracking and what’s going to happen with the vibrations from fracking with
the pipeline? You know, how close are they allowed to do it?
5906.
These are all these components that need to be addressed to look at
this pipeline as a total unit of a system. The pipeline itself is a subcomponent of
the overall -- sorry, of the overall system so that we need to look at all these
hundreds and hundreds of factors which govern.
5907.
My request when I put it in was for this information to come back,
which none of it’s come back to me and I would have thought that Enbridge
would have come back and sort of said we’ve done this or we’re looking at this.
5908.
Enbridge themselves are saying they’ve got .001 percent failure rate
but that’s a lot of litres of oil when you’re pumping, you know, I think it’s 29
million litres of oil a day and it comes down to the passing through the pipe per -well, per minute, is 33,125 litres per minute through the pipeline and that’s 1.9
million per hour.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
5909.
So if we look at the other things that are going on within the industry
with respect to other problems, then we have to start putting these together as
evidence of we have to look at the overall way we’re transmitting -- we’re moving
oil around the country to make sure it’s safe.
5910.
The fact that it might not be the right way to do stuff is a totally
different -- different argument and I don’t think we’re here today to argue about
that. That’s out of the scope of this thing.
5911.
But there should be fluid statistics, fluid dynamics, to look at the actual
fluid -- how the fluids -- and this is all part reliability. Because we had a pipeline
that’s flowing from east to west so all the smoothness, all the internals, would be
going from east to west.
5912.
What’s happening with the reversal? Are there any glitches there?
These are all unknowns that I don’t know anything about and I don’t know if
anybody knows this. And this all comes back to what I’m on about with the
reliability component, how this affects it.
5913.
I don’t know the answer to this. I just know that these things all need
to be looked at. The same as I mentioned about the mean time to failure, and that
sort of thing, of the system.
5914.
The mandate that should be applied, because it’s a pipeline, is
obviously more towards the fail-operational component. So that if Calgary gets
flooded out then there’s another subsystem that can immediately take place. And
so that, if there is a problem with the pipe somewhere, that those -- those parts of
the pipe there is a problem, the leak can be stopped immediately.
5915.
Also, I don’t know what -- with respect to society and the safety of
people, and the integrity of water systems, what would be the most effective
length of a pipe that could spew oil, whether it’s half a mile or 10 miles because
you’ve got all the component parts within the pipeline that are there. Whether
there’s some way that if there was a break -- and I just saw this on the run -- there
could be a vacuum that applied that would hold the thing and I don’t know -- I
just -- hit me. Sometimes you get good ideas from seemingly off-the-cuff things.
5916.
But that I think is something that Enbridge and we as society need to
start really looking at. Because we can’t have what happened in Mayflower back
in -- I think it was February or March when that whole town was flooded because
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
there was a reverse pipeline that broke. And there’s now too many -- there’s too
much history to say pipelines are safe without the correct level of reliability
engineering being applied to it.
5917.
I noticed on Enbridge’s safe pipelines leaflet here, they talk about
they’re trying to improve spills, but they don’t actually say anything about
improving leaks. Which is quite interesting considering the way I’ve just, you
know, explained the way leaks and spills are different.
5918.
So when I read this I was quite surprised that the -- you know, the way
they hadn’t actually looked at trying to help leaks.
5919.
There’s many things about the weight of the liquid within there, which
is all to do with fluid dynamics which -- it’s not in my area of expertise. I
understand minute about it but it’s all stuff that we need to be really mandating
with your rules, hopefully, your regulations, that will hopefully that you’ll -- I’m
not quite sure how far you can go with mandating certain things so forgive me for
my ignorance, but hopefully that you can set regulations that will help things
work safely and that sort of stuff.
5920.
But having said that, I think maybe with respect to Line 9 itself, given
the fact that I don’t know and I don’t even know whether there are any figures for
the mean time to failure originally on the pipe, that maybe the pipeline without
any modifications on it, maybe it’s time it actually got looked at in a reliability
engineering way to see what actually needs to be done to upgrade it in respect to
fit these mandates to ensure that it is reliable and it is safe.
5921.
Because, you know, the length -- it’s a 38 year old pipe so -- stuff
doesn’t go on forever. It’s obvious but I heard a report that somebody from
Enbridge said well nothing decays in our pipelines so somebody’s trying to wave
a magic wand somewhere. But -- but I, you know, that level of PR I think is
really false and really -- and really bad.
5922.
Another thought, which is a bit way out in left field, but it's to do with
fluid dynamics. And there's something called the coriolis effect, which is to do
with the jetstream and fluid dynamics. And I don't know whether in long
pipelines this actually has any effect with respect to the way the fluid flows down
the pipeline.
5923.
Transcript
It's something I don't know, but I think that maybe should be actually
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
put into or maybe the Enbridge people know the answer to that immediately. I
don't know. But I think it should be something.
5924.
As I said, we need to look at the tensile strength of -- of the testing
rock machines of all the components of all the metal materials and all the
components there to see because no pipe -- what the actual real physical condition
of these pipes are. And this is all mechanical engineering.
5925.
This is not rocket science, it's been around since before I was born and
people know how to do this. But once again, there doesn't seem to be any
feedback coming back from them on anything to do with that.
5926.
Now, the pipeline, if it is used for dilbit, dilbit as I said is a solid, so
they have to heat it, they have to put solvents with it, and then pump it under
pressure. Well, what happens when you got cold days, when you got hot days,
what happens with the -- excuse me -- with the work hardening component of the
pipeline because hot and cold cycles material metal and it work hardens it. That's
a fundamental of metals.
5927.
So what is going to happen in the long-term with respect to the fact it's
hot. We live in a cold climate. There's going to be cycling of the temperature.
What controls -- what is going to happen to ensure that these types don't work
harden and then suddenly you get something happen, fracking goes on somewhere
or there's something happens in the environment that it can't take the shock and
then just breaks. And then that's another component of the reliability that I keep
mentioning back here.
5928.
Now, with -- with respect to what seems to be happening, there seems
to be a lack of governance over what's happening with the pipeline.
5929.
I was at a world energy conference a couple weeks ago with people
from gas, oil, hydro, nuclear, and they were all saying that there's no direction
from government.
5930.
And it was very, very interesting being there, interested in this -- and
hearing people that you might have thought were -- didn't care about the
environment, but actually caring about how do we get a policy that can work for
us as Enbridge or whatever and go forward in a way that we can actually work
and make things work in a way that's safe for the environment.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
5931.
I was actually very impressed with some of the comments that were
being made by people within the industry and how they were trying to look at
going forward in that.
5932.
I don't know whether within your mandate of what you're doing,
whether it's possible to, you know, try and get some form of, you know,
governance or policy from, you know, from government or whatever. Or whether
you can make recommendations that would actually cover these -- this lack of
direction from the government so that we could -- Enbridge can actually do what
they're trying to do without the rest of us thinking this isn't going to work.
5933.
There's got to be a medium, a middle ground on this somehow. It can't
be left, it can't be right. As I said, it's got to be there for the greater good so that
we can all benefit in the long run of stuff.
5934.
With respect to what I put in for other questions for Enbridge, I must
confess that I was a bit surprised they didn't get back to me. But another point
that I think is very pertinent to this inquiry is that I cannot prove the pipeline is
not safe because the information I need is proprietary information. It's all within
Enbridge.
5935.
Now, if I want to design a car and put a car on the road, I have to
ensure that the car is safe, it meets all the parameters. But with respect to this
component then, it doesn't seem to work in the same way because we haven't got
access to the information and we need to be totally objective about this to plug in
all the component parts I'm saying. So I think that's very relevant and something
that we should be looking at.
5936.
To me, the burden of proof should be on the Applicant to actually
prove categorically, and not just through publicity or words, to prove
categorically through both scientific and engineering that the pipeline is safe,
using physics, the whole lot.
5937.
Which is something that I think we should all be really, really wary of
the present trend within this country. It seems to be, without going political, but
it's a statement of fact, that so much is being removed from the physics and the
science and the engineering of where we should be going. I'm not being political,
it just seems to be fact.
5938.
Transcript
And the way, where I grew up with my background, it all worked the
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
other way around with, you know, working on a satellite, you had to make sure
that the stuff was correct there because you couldn't try and send a trained
monkey up to, you know, repair a spacecraft. This also -- sorry -- this also replies
to other stuff with the pipeline because of the dire effect that these pipelines can
have on people's lives.
5939.
So I think the process that, as far as I can make out, you've been
mandated to work within, I think is flawed because it should be the other way
around, they should be coming to us, opposed to us going to them. Or maybe I'm
totally misunderstanding the process that we're in. This is the impression I'm
getting, and if I'm wrong, I'm very sorry, but these are just things I'm throwing out
there from what I'm seeing and what I'm trying to understand and that.
5940.
So with respect to the actual application, the system Line 9, the control
system, the control centres, this is just a list of everything that must be covered in
the requirements for a safe system: control centres, all the instrumentation and
monitoring, pumping stations equipment, control systems, electrical systems and
supplies, all systems, sub-systems used in running an administration of the
pipeline, all supplies used, of communication systems, this is a very important
thing, communications. If they haven't got the right, this would come into the
fail-operational component.
5941.
The communications system must be there regardless whether they've
got a flood and they're down there, we must have some way of -- or if all the cell
towers go out, for some reason, if we get, you know, a burst from the sun. And
that does happen. So you know, that's a very important point. And all the backup
systems must be all going through there.
5942.
Now, I would like to just reference something else that the -- another
lady mentioned the other day, the reference -- where is it? I gave you that other
reference just now, the -- that's it, yes. Thank you.
5943.
With respect to earthquakes, as I vaguely mention earlier on, there's all
these earthquakes that are going on which then comes back to the problem with
the strength of materials and everything. Chalk River actually sits on a fault line
in Ottawa which seems insane. Why would you build -- you know -- a nuclear
energy plant on a fault line.
5944.
But with respect to stupidity, this is a piece of information, they want
to build a dump site up at Tiny Township which has got the most purest water in
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
the world -- so how we start reclaiming some of this silliness I don't know.
5945.
So the context of all this with respect to the climatic warming or
increase in climate with respect to -- as I pointed out, the instability of the
atmosphere on all those problems, which are now becoming constant in their
unknown. And that is all part of this reliability. There are no unknowns in
reliability engineering, because you take into account everything that can possibly
happen.
5946.
So that was where I tried to point out that context to give you some
background of what we're all dealing with, and the unknown is where would this
go?
5947.
One of my concerns is that, as I mentioned, with respect to the lack of
monitoring -- and this may be needed to be totally mandated from you or
somewhere, that they should be able to monitor a loss of the contents of the pipe.
You know if we can send people to the moon and monitor fuel levels that are
dropping down in space with time lags and that through transmission, we maybe
need to do some research or put research dollars into that, so that if the pipeline is
running, has a leak in it, then Enbridge themselves can know instantly.
5948.
I -- this is very -- a personal thought, I think part of the problem may
be with respect to oil -- and this is just a personal thought. Because we used to
dig oil out of the desert, and if we spilt a few gallons or litres or whatever, it didn't
make any difference. Now we're not dealing in deserts, we're dealing under the
water, we're dealing with people's lives where it travels through -- I think I heard
somebody the other day talking about the Finch subway station, if the pipeline
broke there, so there's many things.
5949.
And I think maybe we need to look at the problem in a totally different
way so the oil companies can now not look here, but look here at the problem, so
that we shift focus to a different point, so that we can actually resolve this stuff.
We can move the mentality, the culture of the industry.
5950.
It's the same as culture of manufacturing in North America, I sort of
talked about this last night, and the safety and the quality assurance. A lot of the
problems we have are purely cultural.
5951.
So we have to start looking at the component parts of us as human
beings and the management and the managerial system that will then get the
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
employees, the whole system to change, and look at it differently with respect to
how they're approaching the problem. And that's just a personal thought that may
have some have some validity in it and it may not, but thank you for listening to
that point anyway.
5952.
I'd just like to also make a comment about -- going back to the First
Nations and the lack of, as I see it, the lack of respect we have for their lands, the
way we've treated them.
5953.
I am quite amazed personally, at the forgiveness First Nations have for
white people. I'm blown away. They've got some of their own problems, I know
that, but the way they look at going forward is -- and I've spoken to quite a few
First Nations indigenous people -- is how to resolve this problem.
5954.
Not particularly blaming me as an English person originally for
coming here and robbing their country, they say, we're here today, how do we go
forward. And all I see is too much abuse -- not from you -- but I think it's
something we really need to start paying attention to, so we end up by looking at
where we're going with everybody that lives in this country -- and it's similar to
women's rights -- First Nations rights -- they're all linked. We have to change
direction we look at society. This is just a personal vent that I have on how we
start looking at life and people.
5955.
But I think if we start doing that we actually start resolving -- because
they're all linked, these problems -- Enbridge start looking at us differently, we
start working together, we end up on the same side of the fence and we don't look
at each other as enemies, we look at how can we go forward in a better way.
5956.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Quarterly, you're just about close to half
way through your presentation?
5957.
MR. QUARTERLY: Okay.
5958.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Because I just want to ---
5959.
MR. QUARTERLY: Okay. Thank you.
5960.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Because I know you've got lots of papers, so
I just want to remind ---
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
5961.
5962.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And whenever you can, please refer to the
application -- you know, to the evidence on the file.
5963.
MR. QUARTERLY: Okay. Sorry.
5964.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I know you want to share a lot of things
with us, but whenever you can, link it to something that's on file that's helpful.
5965.
MR. QUARTERLY: Oh Okay. Sorry. Yes. I didn’t -- yes, right. I
didn't want to just go through this verbatim, but maybe I should a little bit more
than I was doing.
5966.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
5967.
Can you just give me a second just to -- thank you.
5968.
THE CHAIRPERSON: No, just take the time you need to gather -because you've got lots of papers, so ---
5969.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yes. Thank you. It's the story of my life.
--- (Laugher/Rires)
5970.
MR. QUARTERLY: One little note I've got here, this comes from -about democracy. Al-Farabi was an Islamic scholar in the ninth century. He said
democracy is the best way of governing, but he said a government that knows the
right thing to do but doesn't do it is a wicked government. Also, another part of
this Quran says that we should be in love with the truth.
5971.
I heard somebody say that the other day, and I immediately thought of
this hearing. And you're here to gather the truth, the best way of looking at stuff
and then go forward within the edicts that you've been given.
5972.
But I think if we all can really start looking -- I'm going to say this
again -- the greater good component -- I'm sorry I keep going on about this. I
learnt this from a friend who I had strong discussions with and I just happened to - he disagrees with me on some things, which is great. But I said something about
the greater good, and he said, there John, that is where we've got to go.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
5973.
And so I've realized in so many things that -- these gentlemen and
ladies from Enbridge, they've got kids, they've got grandkids and we have to do
stuff for tomorrow so that their kids and grandkids can live in a world that is still
a world.
5974.
So being the eternal optimist I am, I know somewhere that these
gentlemen, and I, and you, and everyone in this room can actually work together
to achieve something. I don’t know how at this point, but being the eternal
optimist I know we can. And one reason I know we can is because both these
gentlemen here smiled when I said that.
5975.
And I learned something a few years ago when my nephew died; when
you speak from here people listen because we all work on that level. I’m not here
today to talk about politics, politics floats in and out, but I’m not here to preach,
I’m here to try and make sure that what happens is the best we can possibly
achieve for everybody, regardless of what it is. We live in a world where we have
to make money but we can’t let that money ruin us, and so somehow we have to
get back to that.
5976.
I don’t mean to be preaching I’m just trying to -- there’s many people
down here that are probably on my side, as it were, but I’m not on a side, on my
side with respect to, you know, presenting, that agree with, you know, what I’m
saying, but they also need to look at the greater good as opposed to some people
are only looking for their good.
5977.
I don’t -- I was going to say I don’t care. I do care. That’s why I’m
here, to try and get this -- and I thank you for your patience and your indulgence
and, you know, saying to try and go through this a bit more in a logical fashion.
5978.
I would like to -- I know I mentioned this just now but I would like to
just go back and speak about risk management having been at quite a few talks
about risk management. And it takes what I saw of these gentlemen here, it takes
part of their soul because it applies this money component of the corporation of
we must, we can’t lose money, or this is the price of doing business.
5979.
This pipeline can’t, with respect to society and anything that might
happen with respect to Kalamazoo, or Mayflower, or North Dakota last week, it
can’t become a price of doing business -- or Lac Mégantic. We can’t allow that to
happen as a society. We have to find answers somewhere. We have to stop
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
extremism of the right or the left, but in saying that, we have to go right and left to
go forward. If I hop on my right foot I go around in circles so I have to use both
feet.
5980.
That’s why I’m saying this, because these gentlemen here, and where
we are, we need to get together, maybe through you -- hopefully you’re -- in all
the information you got from First Nations, from other people concerned, might
be able to affect -- and hopefully you can within the edicts you’ve got -- a really
great progressive way of going forward to help all of us with respect to if global
warming is being caused by CO2 emissions and oil so that we can all start using
differently in our brain to go forward in a different way.
5981.
We can’t make oil disappear. Nothing can disappear in life. We have
to transition. We used to have wooden wheels when I was young but now we
have pneumatic wheels, right. Everything changes, it evolves, and if we don’t
apply that philosophy, if we let dogma stop us moving forward we end up arguing
together when we could talk together.
5982.
A question that I do have with respect to my notes here -- additional
information I’ve got here in Section D. I would like to know what, if any,
pipeline testing -- I know they do testing with internals. I’d like to know on the
material science component where they do any rock core testing how do they
guarantee the integrity of the pipeline along its whole length. I know they’re
saying they’re putting whatever they put along to check it, but that’s just a
physical thing and I don’t know, you know, what they’re doing with that
component.
5983.
With respect to the length and the age of the pipe, I would suggest that
we really, regardless of this application, look at what the reliability standards are
of the pipeline at this point in time, regardless of any upgrades they want to do,
because that would be a starting point for Enbridge and for society to see what the
real viability of it is.
5984.
And then stage two would be what are they going to do -- what they
want to do with it. And I think to go forward we must know what they want to do
with it, what they want to put in there, what -- all the other parameters mentioned
with temperature range and stuff like that, how will these components affect the
pipeline so that we can end up with all these reliability standards that work so that
-- I want to know what their PPM is, what their preventative plan maintenance is.
Every industry has a PPM.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
5985.
My question is, does Enbridge have the right level of PPM to ensure
we never get to the point of mean time to failure?
5986.
MR. QUARTERLY: With respect to leak detection, and what I just
mentioned just now about the length that is available to be checked and the speed
with which anything can be isolated, I think that is something that should be
mandated by this Board to make sure that they do actually do that.
5987.
With respect to that, some of your own mandates, I have -- Enbridge
breaks safety rules at pipeline pump stations, and these are rules that the Board
has implied -- put in. There’s many things like this that are so pertinent to once
again reliability. You can’t have this stuff existing. There should never be a
headline like this, never. It’s, as I said earlier on, there’s no such thing as
accidents in engineering it’s bad planning, bad engineering.
5988.
Something that I am really concerned about -- and I don’t know how
this does or doesn’t apply to the edicts and the mandates that you’re having
imposed on you by federal government -- and there’s many people across this
country speaking up about this. It’s the muzzling of climate scientists or all sorts
of scientists. I don’t know where you are in that, whether you have any input into
that at all.
5989.
But I’d just like to, on the record, that I think -- and having been at that
energy conference and I heard some of the comments there, I’m not sure it’s
coming from within the industry. It’s very interesting that I’m not sure some of
the problems we really have are coming from within the industry, which, you
know. But I just wanted that on the record so that it’s there for people to look at.
5990.
Now, I did make my -- there’s something I -- on the -- your regulations
on the onshore pipeline regulations that wasn’t being fulfilled but I didn’t
highlight it unfortunately. But that -- this is the regulations as by the National
Energy Board that it was something like six -- it was under 3-1 which then went
to 6-1 of the management system that the management system wasn’t being
applied correctly, I think, off the cuff. So that’s another note to that.
5991.
Something that I think that also needs to be -- well, this is a little bit
disconcerting, this particular -- Alberta’s whistleblower law isn’t being followed
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
by Alberta. So I don’t know whether within your edicts you can stipulate
regulations that you can set up a process whereby people who know stuff that’s
going on that can funnel into stuff so that we can, you know, not have the Wild
West mentality by some people.
5992.
Now, with respect to -- this is partly political but I think it needs to go
on the record -- riverbeds and rivers and navigable waterways ---
5993.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Quarterly, I understand that you want to
put things on the record but it would be more efficient if we stuck to the scope of
the project and what we’re going to be looking at.
5994.
5995.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yeah, but --THE CHAIRPERSON: A lot of people have tried to make
comments about other scope and we did not let them go so ---
5996.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yeah.
5997.
THE CHAIRPERSON: --- I would ask you to try to stick to ---
5998.
MR. QUARTERLY: Okay. Thank you.
5999.
THE CHAIRPERSON: --- our mandate ---
6000.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yes, yes.
6001.
THE CHAIRPERSON: --- and our regulations.
6002.
MR. QUARTERLY: This was going to be directly to something to
apply to a spill. That’s why I was actually going to get it there because of
navigable waterways and the fact that if a spill occurs or a leak occurs or
whatever we’re going to call it, if the oil gets into the waterway, how much this
will impact on life, wildlife, the whole thing. So that’s why I wanted to mention
that that it really pertinent to the safeguards that must be applied in the reliability
so this can’t actually happen.
6003.
So that’s where I’m trying to go with this to throw all the stuff out so
that hopefully Enbridge can say, okay, we got to look at it. They’re going to -and we can end up with something positive. That’s why I was mentioning this
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
navigable waterways thing, because it’s relevant to if they get contaminated. So
that’s where I was going. I thank you.
6004.
One of my real concerns is -- and this isn’t actually a slight towards
the Board but it’s to do with the process having -- and everything being done with
due diligence. So my point would be that if you don’t use -- sorry, the -- if the
reliability engineering component isn’t applied to the pipeline and all its control
systems, its subsystems and all its total requirements as an isolated unit from other
components so that it becomes, with respect to what I was saying, reliability, then
I don’t think that due diligence is being done with respect to the safety of the
pipeline.
6005.
So that’s where I’m going with that due diligence that I think the onus
and the burden of proof once again is back on the Applicant to ensure that they’re
doing their due diligence and that the burden of proof that this is safe, regardless
of all the considerations that need to be applied, actually it is within that mandate
of due diligence.
6006.
With respect to the laws and edicts that you’ve been mandated to
follow, I think if you’re not being given the scope that you should be given, this is
a fault of bad governance and bad government that your abilities to look at the
whole soccer ball, as I used my analogy earlier on, should be within your purview
and not half the soccer ball.
6007.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please move on.
6008.
MR. QUARTERLY: Sorry?
6009.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please move on.
6010.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yeah.
6011.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We have a mandate and we must ---
6012.
6013.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, we have our mandate and ---
6014.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yeah, yeah.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
6015.
THE CHAIRPERSON: --- other -- there’s other jurisdiction that
look at other aspects of the industry and so we stick to our mandate and they stick
to their mandate.
6016.
MR. QUARTERLY: The question I have, if I may ask, does
anybody look at the interlinking between the two mandates?
6017.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, that’s for politician.
6018.
6019.
THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s for politician to decide. So and today
we’re here to look at specific aspect of the Enbridge proposal and we’re looking
forward to any suggestions or amelioration that you want to see.
6020.
MR. QUARTERLY: Well, having gone through this lot, and I hope
it hasn’t been too boring for you -- I know there’s stuff you must get fed up with
hearing so much going on.
6021.
My suggestions are that due diligence must be done, actually, I think
you made a note of that, with the overall that there cannot be any shortcuts to
reliability engineering components, the quality assurance component of the line
afterwards with respect to the line, not the contents. So all this is about the
context of the application and not just the content of the line itself.
6022.
We must have regulations -- sorry, I’m not trying to be dictatorial but
please don’t take me the wrong way -- but we must have regulations that also
control what is in the pipeline itself at any instant in time.
6023.
I think you probably made a note of that earlier on but so those would
-- might be my suggestions -- with no shortcut. We can’t end up with a parallel to
what’s happening in Japan, as the example I gave. We have to find the right way
of going through this.
6024.
As I said, I’m realizing so much. We have to remove this risk
management. We have to get it straight; science, physics and engineering. And
somehow we, the royal we, we have to achieve that through -- partly through
hopefully what you can do for us as society and the other section as you
mentioned.
Transcript
Final argument
Mr. John Quarterly
6025.
So my great request to you is that you mandate as much as you can or
within your purview that reliability engineering has to be applied, the whole
philosophy on the whole system. If nobody knows how to do it, I’m quite happy
to help them.
6026.
But yes, so the -- they’re all components that all -- everything’s
important. And I think we must look at the original mandate on the pipeline, what
it was -- I think I sort of scribbled that down -- for the meantime of all that
pipeline, the existing pipeline, on what is the new, and we must have this. This is
not maybe, this is a must be done that we must do, all these reliability engineering
components which will also include all the fluid dynamics and all the physics of
the oil and the whole lot. So there's nothing that can be left out. And that way,
we can end up with a safe pipeline and then we might be able to go forward.
6027.
I’ve tried to give a balance, hopefully, as much as one can, from a
subjected point of view. I tried to give a balanced approach with respect to all the
engineering components, and a few personal things thrown in there, which thank
you for your indulgence for listening to me. But I think they're all relevant to us
as society.
6028.
And the fact that these gentlemen have all got grandchildren, they
appreciated the comment I made, he’s still smiling there. Which now I know,
somewhere in this wonderful world, we're going to end up on the same side of the
fence, which is my whole part of life. I don't know how, but I try and do my little
bit to do it and go forward.
6029.
So thank you very much for your indulgence. Thank you for letting
me speak. And I hope I didn't ramble too much or recover my stuff too much. If
there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
6030.
THE CHAIRPERSON: No, we have no questions, but something
that you said that will remain in my book is there is no such thing as accident, but
just bad engineering.
6031.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yes.
6032.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I like that one.
6033.
MR. QUARTERLY: Yes, you made -- thank you.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
6034.
6035.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR. QUARTERLY: No, that's 100 percent true because reliability
engineering, as I said, gets the point before you have the accident.
6036.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You've made your point, sir.
6037.
MR. QUARTERLY: Thank you very much. Thank you for your
indulgence.
6038.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for coming.
6039.
MR. QUARTERLY: And as you said the other day, I disagreed with
you then, I disagree with you now; your English is perfect.
6040.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, good. Thank you.
6041.
MR. QUARTERLY: Thank you very much indeed.
6042.
6043.
Now I think, is Ms. Carrie Lester in the room? Yes. It would be a
good time to have you come up.
--- FINAL ARGUMENT BY/ARGUMENTATION FINALE PAR MS. LESTER:
6044.
MS. LESTER: Hello. Greetings. Segoli. Aaniin to the Members of
the National Energy Board Panel, to the people behind me who may also be
intervenors -- I'm just going to bring this down a little bit -- to the media and to
the communities which surround and will be affected by the proposed re-reversal
plan and capacity expansion project by Enbridge for their Line 9 pipeline, which
lays across Southern Ontario from Sarnia to Montreal, including all the aquatic
and terrestrial and air-dwelling communities along the way.
6045.
I carry this feather as a duty bestowed upon me to protect those who
came before us, our ancestors, who were laid to rest hundreds and thousands of
years ago, right here in the Toronto area and beyond, including along Finch
Avenue, which is where the pipeline currently resides.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
6046.
We have burial mounds all across Southern Ontario. And I now see
that this feather is also meant to remind me that its work continues in that circular
way to include we who are here now and to those faces yet to come.
6047.
So Segoli, Ga’un’ghwa Desa’na:sga’qua gia:jih, Ogwai Osida niwa
geh she dehn, Onondagaega, Kaniekehaka niwa go when iyoh dehn.
6048.
That’s my name, my clan, and my nation. However, my clan that I
said was Bearfoot Onondaga, I am Bearfoot Onondaga from Six Nations Grand
River Territory, through my mother and her mother and her ancestors.
6049.
But our languages are being lost. I know this is not about the pipeline
necessarily. There are less than 10 speakers, fluent speakers in the Onondoga
language right now, five on this side of the border and four on the other side.
6050.
But our language is tied to our land. And I use in place of my clan
Bearfoot, which is one of our groups of the Onondoga. Until I learn what my clan
is, I don’t know because our families have been so torn apart that I’m using it for
now as a placeholder until I do find out. And that is another mission of mine.
6051.
So Carrie gia: jih, Carrie yukyats, Carrie ndizhnikaaz. (Speaking in
native language). In the Ojibway language, it’s my name, my gifted adodum (ph)
or clan, and the fact that I am Onkwehonwe and live in Toronto.
6052.
So my name is Carrie Lester, I am a mother, a sister, an auntie, a
daughter, a daughter to parents who have died from cancer and a granddaughter to
grandparents also no longer with me, some who died from cancer.
6053.
I am Mohawk and Bearfoot Onondoga from Six Nations Grand River
Territory through my mother and my grandmother’s families, as I said, and I live
in Toronto and I’ve lived here all my life.
6054.
My grandmother’s peoples have lived in these regions around Lake
Ontario for thousands of years. I have lived the first 40 years of my life under the
influence of my father’s colonial predecessors who came to this land called
Canada only a couple of generations ago.
6055.
Growing up though, I knew that my mother was Mohawk. But I also
knew there was a deep, deep embarrassment about that. And it was not to be
talked about. It was only with the death of my mother in 2001 that I came to learn
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
that I had family members still living at Six Nations Grand River Territory,
including my grandmother.
6056.
Since then, I have immersed myself in this hidden cultural side of my
mother’s family and I have now been able to connect myself to family on my
grandmother’s father’s side of the family going back to the mid-1700s, coming up
from our territories on the south side of Lake Ontario.
6057.
And for my grandmother’s side, dating back to the early 1800s from
Six Nations Grand River Territory, but in more recent times, some of my family
members grew up in white orphanages in Hamilton and Richmond Hill, keeping
them disconnected from their family ties.
6058.
Some fought and some died in World War I, causing them to lose their
indigenous identity. And before that, some grew up in Indian residential schools,
which twisted their minds and their hearts. Before that, some others fought in the
War of 1812, and before that, they lived in their traditional homes about this land
as the seasons changed from time immemorial.
6059.
Now, one of the first native teachings I have ever received was that of
the Iroquois Thanksgiving address, which is a daily prayer with reminds us to
come together always in a good state of mind and to give thanks for all that is
good and natural around us.
6060.
The people, all of us here, Mother Earth, her waters, the fishes, the
grasses, the food plants, the medicine plants and the trees and animals, the birds,
the winds and the thunders, brother sun and grandmother moon, the star beings
and our four celestial guides and our Creator.
6061.
We give thanks to all these beings because they continue to do the
work that was set out for them from the very beginning of time. And to the
people, we give thanks that we have each other to help look after this place in
which we live for those young faces yet to come and for those who have gone on
before us; and to Mother Earth herself, this place of beauty and wonder, with that
fine balance of danger to keep us on our toes and to the waters, the lifeblood of
Mother Earth, and all living things upon her which cleanse and nourish. To the
fishes and the water plants which cleanse the waters, to the food plants and
medicine plants which nourish us and strengthen our health and nourish our
Mother Earth as well.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
6062.
And to the tree beings, who do so much, it’s hard to know where to
begin with them, they sheltered us, they clothed us, and fed us, they kept us warm
with the energy of the fire as we burnt it, they gave us utensils and share our
breath with their breath.
6063.
To the animals who showed us how to be a family and work together
and look after our young since we humans were the last to come to this place on
earth, this earth we know as Turtle Island.
6064.
They also fed us and clothed us and warned us of danger, and to the
birds who kept our connection to the Creator and gave us beautiful songs and
colours, and warned us of danger.
6065.
To the winds and thunderers and the rains which cleanse our world and
keep those dark dangers deep inside Mother Earth where they need to stay. To
our brother sun and grandmother moon who have kept their daily and nightly
journey across our sky, to light our days and our nights and control our waters.
6066.
To the stars who remind us of our ancestors, and light up our nights.
To the four Celestial guides which help us in our daily lives and finally to the
Creator, who gave us all that we have here on Earth for us to look after and use
respectfully.
6067.
I learned these words to the Thanksgiving Address, also known as The
Words That Come Before All Else. I learned it in the Oneida language, one of my
familial languages of the Iroquois Confederacy. Thanksgiving Address and how
appropriate that Canada has just celebrated their Thanksgiving, which
unfortunately, is actually based on the demise of our peoples all across Turtle
Island, also known as North America, in order to take that land as their own and
to take over her gifts or resources as they call them.
6068.
So the Thanksgiving Address in the Oneida language is this.
6069.
(Thanksgiving Address - speaking in native language)
6070.
So that is what I -- the Oneida language and I’ve already told you in
English what that means.
6071.
So we say these words humbly and with the greatest respect each and
every day to remind ourselves of what is important.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
Get some water. It’s very dry in here. Sorry.
6072.
6073.
So many of us say this every day to ourselves because all things, all
these living things are important to each other, for all life, and we are all
connected because we are all of this earth.
6074.
Another Iroquois teaching that one learns early on is that of Sky
Woman and the story of creation of Mother Earth. Suffice to say that Sky
Woman who fell from a hole in the Sky World was made to rest upon the back of
Turtle with the help of the Flyers, the Geese who soon gave birth to a daughter.
And she grew up to give -- eventually to give birth to twin boys.
6075.
And these boys were of an opposing nature. One created the beautiful
and wondrous things that we see around us while the other created disturbing
things around us that were often meant as protective measures and defence
elements for these beautiful things, such as the thorns on the raspberry bush to
remind us to be careful and to protect it, the stinging -- the sting that’s in the
stinging nettle plant, the quills on a porcupine and the poison in some snakes.
6076.
But both of these elements are necessary to sustain and protect life.
But they must be learned about and understood. And it’s all a question of
balance.
6077.
So it is with the gifts of Mother Earth. And some things were just
meant to be left alone, like the ancient organic matter that makes up the lubricants
of her body. And we, as human beings, are out of balance now.
6078.
Clean air, land and water are not only important to life, they are
essential to all living things. We cannot take any of them for granted. And yet,
some of us do. Some people have forgotten to think about these things every day
and to give thanks for them for the purity and their sacredness.
6079.
Some of us seem to think that the solution to pollution is dilution and
however this does not work because even a child in grade school can see that
when solution is diluted, its strength may have thinned but it is still very much
there. It does not go away.
6080.
When it comes to the lake that we draw our drinking water from, Lake
Ontario, is a Kaniekehaka word, Mohawk word, meaning the great sparkling
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
waters.
6081.
It is all of our duty to protect it and all the waters leading into it. As an
Onkwehonwe Yakukuwe, Iroquois woman, I know that it is my personal duty to
do all I can to protect that water. And once you know this, once you think about
this and you say this to yourself every day it becomes your duty to do this and you
cannot back away from it.
6082.
And I am learning from both my Onkwehonwe Elders and my
Anishinaabe Elders that we cannot risk even the potential for harming the
drinking water for over 40 million people and an untold number of fish, insect,
animal, bird and plant beings.
6083.
Once it’s there, the damage is done. And the removal and remediation
process is unable to bring it back to pre-spill conditions.
6084.
I am reminded of a Haudenosaunee or Iroquois prophecy which tells a
story of a two-headed serpent whose voracious appetite had it consuming
everything in sight until there was nothing left but itself. And then it eats itself
and it’s gone.
6085.
This story often has -- is often referred to the coming of the
newcomers to this land and their insatiable appetite for the gifts, the resources
here, the fish, taken to almost extinction, the animals, I think of the beaver, the
trees -- Southern Ontario was a huge wasteland at one time because of the tree
removal that took place here -- the rocks, the minerals, the water, the land and the
people, man, woman and child for slavery and for souls, for navigation and
military expertise.
6086.
And this story though can now be updated to represent that twoheaded serpent crossing across this country starting out in Alberta as an individual
pipeline, breaking into two separate lines, Enbridge’s Line 9 and the Canada East
Pipeline, voraciously sucking up the lubricants of mother earth and spewing them
out the other end. But with the potential of rupturing anywhere along those lines
in urban, rural and/or watershed areas.
6087.
So one of the reasons I came here today was to let you know how
outraged I am and outraged I truly am that this discussion is even taking place
because I want to see all of you and all of you behind me who represent this
company and other companies like it, to see who is taking responsibility for this
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
potential damage and harm to you and your children and your children’s children
but also to your grandparents and your parents.
6088.
This will affect the lives of the people somewhere along this line and
to the environment surrounding it. It is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when
and where. Who do you choose for this to happen to? Because this is in your
hands. Who are you choosing to have this happen to?
6089.
From intervenors' documents and from media reports, I've come to
learn that this Line 9 crosses all the major watersheds of Southern Ontario leading
into Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and crossing such waterways as the Grindstone
Creek and Bronte Creek, and 16 Mile Creek, which feed into the Hamilton
Harbour and Lake Ontario, and rivers such as the Credit River, and Humber, and
Don, and Rouge Rivers in Toronto, and many other rivers and creeks along the
way heading east across Ontario, such as the Ganaraska River in Port Hope. And
hasn't that had enough damage done to it already?
6090.
And leading to the Kingston area, crossing the Cataraqui River, which
is part of the Rideau Canal system and into the Cornwall area, the pipeline
threatens rivers, such as the Raisin River and the entire St. Lawrence River,
leading out to the Atlantic Ocean.
6091.
These lakes, rivers, all contribute to the drinking water of millions of
people and sustain the life on this land and the waters and aquatic creatures, and
the land and plant species -- aquatic plant species.
6092.
That you can even contemplate this proposal is beyond common sense.
6093.
I want to address a few issues in regards to First Nations before
continuing with the common sense, which in my humble opinion seems to be
lacking in this project.
6094.
So from the submitted First Nations intervenors, I can see that there
has been absolutely no consultation on the part of the Crown with any First
Nations along the breadth of the pipeline. And it is the sworn duty of the Crown
to issue the consultation process for any industrial development which will affect
First Nations territory. The National Energy Board is not the Crown, nor is
Enbridge. So from that perspective, this hearing should not even be taking place
right now. This is a violation of our Treaty rights.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
6095.
Also, in regard to First Nations groups along the pipeline, not all
groups have been represented within these hearings. Some such as Six Nations,
Tyendinaga, Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Ardoch and Akwesasne have been left out.
Is that because they were not even made aware of this project?
6096.
There is also the matter of the free, prior and informed consent. Once
the Crown consultation process has been established and an agreement has been
made to continue -- sorry. There is also the matter of free, prior and informed
consent once the Crown consultation process has been established and agreed -has been made to continue, sorry.
6097.
This is where, in my understanding, that the National Energy Board
and Enbridge take their turn in the process development.
6098.
But this year, 2013, marks the 400th Anniversary of the Guswenta, the
Two Row Wampum, which my ancestors recognized with the Dutch as a treaty of
friendship, righteousness, and respect, respect for each other's lifestyle and
culture. It was used as a way to represent the peace between neighbouring
peoples. In fact, it was used in this way even before the newcomers came. It was
used between nations here.
6099.
And it shows two parallel lines of dark purple shell beads representing
two distinct cultures traveling in their vessels between three rows of white shell
beads representing the river of life, and those three attributes that I mentioned
earlier, righteousness, respect and friendship are what they represent.
6100.
It was later used between two other Nations of people who arrived on
our shores, probably the ancestors of many other people here, the British and the
French.
6101.
Unfortunately, these Nations showed very little respect for treaties and
for other cultures. However, this is a living treaty document, and it must be
recognized and honoured. This pipeline proposal is a direct violation of this
treaty.
6102.
Now, I know there are other treaties which other First Nations groups,
I'm sure, have addressed and will be addressing, although I think this is near the
end of it, so I'm sure they've already said their piece. But suffice to say that even
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes these
treaties internationally recognized, not to mention the statutes laid out in it, such
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
as the rights to traditional lands to be used as each nation sees fit, including the
right to revitalize our cultural traditions and customs; the right to participate fully
in decision-making in matters affecting our lands by others. We have the right to
say "No".
6103.
I would like to now look at an issue that was brought up by an
intervenor named Marko Matovic. He suggested, when he was questioning
Enbridge about spills, he was questioning on -- and they reported back with their
answer, dismissing him, saying he was fishing. So I'll read this out. Enbridge's
project proposal's document title does not seem to jibe with the body of their
application. The title, as we've been all used to seeing for all our submissions,
'Enbridge's proposed Line 9B Reversal' and 'Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project',
we've seen this.
6104.
But according to the discussion between Enbridge and Mr. Matovic,
they stated that their application only had to do with conducting preparatory work
at eight sites, the seven transfer stations and the densitometer site construction in
order to allow for the repurposing of Line B for flow reversal and for increased
flow capacity.
6105.
So if that's the case, then again we shouldn't even be holding these
hearings under these conditions. This is another direct violation of your treaty.
6106.
And I also need to address these hearings themselves and this whole
process of application. It's been one of the most onerous tasks that I have ever
had to take on. I've intervened on nuclear issues before, and they have been
nothing like this. This whole process has been hugely undemocratic.
6107.
MS. LESTER: There is also so little time for people to become
intervenors in the first place once that information was released.
6108.
And because I have become involved in the protection of the health of
our Mother Earth and thereby life itself, I happen to have many friends in the
environmental world who keep track of these issues and keep on top of these
things. And it was they who informed me that, oh, my goodness, we only had a
matter of days to get this application filled out, this 10-page application to see if
we were worthy of your audience. And so to figure out how to fill out this
application with such a narrow scope was just truly unbelievable.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
6109.
Many other worthy people, some of them are behind me, they've
probably been sitting in on the sessions over this past week and perhaps in
Montreal too, they were rejected. And it seems because they mentioned the
upstream side of things, the Tar Sands of Alberta or perhaps the refineries
downstream, perhaps Canadian versus outside-of-country refineries. Others were
rejected because they did not live on the Line or did not have immediate family
members on the Line, which I do, by the way.
6110.
She opposes this project, but she feels she's a voice that would be lost.
She's older. She thinks, "I'll be gone and dead hopefully before any spill happens
in my backyard." She's on the section between Bayview and I guess it's Cummer
on the other side -- no, it's not Cummer -- Leslie, yeah, Bayview and Leslie. She's
on that section there on the north side, and she just throws up her hands going,
what can we do?
6111.
And so in speaking of that, on my application it said that you could not
even be merely opposed to this project in order to become an intervenor. Well
you know, I wasn’t merely opposed; I am vehemently opposed to this project.
6112.
MS. LESTER: In regards to the acceptance of this application, I was
informed by friends that I had been accepted. I had no idea I had even been
accepted for many weeks.
6113.
I get a lot of emails. I subscribe to a lot of different issues. But I
started getting these emails and I didn’t quite know what they were. There was a
lot of mumbo jumbo letters and numerals in the subject heading. And I thought,
“What is this?” And there was French and English. It didn’t really say anything
to me. It was a mumble jumble of just nonsense.
6114.
It didn’t say, “Congratulations, you’re an intervenor. The process has
begun. I am so and so. I am Louise Niro. I am Michael Benson. We will be
keeping in touch with you.” It said nothing like that. It was just a mumble
jumble of I don’t know. I still can’t even tell you now what it says there.
6115.
And then you had to go into these links upon links upon links that
were embedded throughout. And that was onerous as well. To have the time -for anyone to have the time to go through all that to keep on top of it, you would
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
have to make this almost your full-time job, and many of us actually work.
There’s a lot of environmentalists who work, some of them. Some of us don’t
work, but a lot of us do, and to try and keep on top of that plus go to the issues in
the evenings that we are passionate about, it was unbelievable.
6116.
There were also other issues in becoming an intervenor. There was all
these deadlines, that unless you had gone through all these embedded links, you
may not know that there were deadlines passing. I missed two of them. I missed
two questioning, those two questioning deadlines.
6117.
There was nothing on the body of the email that said, “This is your
time to question. This is the deadline.” It was all embedded upon embeddedness.
That needs to change. Although I hope we don’t have to go through this again for
any pipeline because we’re going to stop, right? We’re going to stop using fossil
fuels. That’s what I’m getting at here.
6118.
But there were also the questions that we were able to ask and
restrictions on how these questions could be used, and the Web site crashes and
non-answers coming back to intervenors made you feel like your knuckles had
been rapped by those intolerant teachers, and to be told that you were merely
fishing for information.
6119.
So although we were able to use each other’s research in evidence -and thank for that -- for our own reference, the amount of data that was produced
was so voluminous -- I can’t even say the word -- voluminous that it was next to
impossible to go through. Again, unless you only had that to do in your life.
6120.
So that being said, at least to Michael Benson and Louise Niro,
wherever you are -- are you Louise Niro? Hello, Louise, nice to meet you. These
two people were very helpful to many of us to get through these deadlines and
server crashes.
6121.
However, this past week’s scheduling -- oh my goodness -- leaves
much to be desired. We as intervenors need more than four hours to know that
we’re going to be here. Now, I need to thank Louise and Michael because my
final argument got lost in the ether world, but they got me back in and that was
great. And maybe with the business of yesterday, they didn’t get a hold of me
yesterday to let me know when I’d be intervening. The last I heard, several days
ago, it was going to be late Friday or Saturday morning. And I work, so I need to
have this information to give my work site so they can cover for me and get
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
everyone in place.
6122.
I work at a school. I work with children with autism and they need
that constant supervision. They need that person who’s going to be there for
them. And I had to leave them today, suddenly finding out at 8 o’clock this
morning that I’d be intervening at 11 o’clock was my first information. I couldn’t
do that. I was able to manage getting the afternoon off, but even that was a big
job in itself to find people to cover for me for the rest of the day. Because I didn’t
think I’d have to be here until 6:00.
6123.
So in regards to some common sense, part of my application process
involves a good friend of mine, who I work with, with the Canadian Voice of
Women for Peace. And they had submitted an application, but it also got lost in
the ether world. Her own personal letter of response got through, but not her
Voice of Women application.
6124.
So we got together and we wanted to bring in a speaker for us, who
unfortunately was not able to take on that job because of cancer that is now in her
family; her husband has just been diagnosed. And she grew up knowing at the
age of 21 that she also had cancer. Not that this affects us right now, but she lived
downstream from Dow Chemical in Illinois.
6125.
And you know, we all live downstream. We are all downstream of not
only that pipeline, but the TransCanada East if it goes through and all the other
industry that’s around us.
6126.
So Lyn Adamson and I worked together on this. She put a lot of this
together as our written evidence. And I will read that now.
6127.
So me as Carrie Lester, representing Canadian Voice of Women for
Peace:
6128.
“(We wish) to draw the attention of the Board to the disastrous health
effects that a spill can be expected to have, in the case that diluted bitumen is
transported in Line 9 pipeline, as well as the toxic effects on the water and
associated wildlife;
6129.
We write on behalf of our membership from all across Canada, and in
particular on behalf of our members here in Ontario, and the communities of
which we are a part. We write on behalf of young people, and those not yet born;
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
6130.
We all stand to be directly affected by the consequences of any spill
and note that such spills are likely given the type of product transported, the
length of time the pipeline is likely to be in use and the current age of the
pipeline;
6131.
These risks will be passed on to our children who will be just as much
in need of clean water and air as we are today. We make these decisions which
will impact more than ourselves and therefore must be given the utmost of careful
consideration;
6132.
Aging infrastructure and the likelihood of spills; this pipeline is a
thirty-seven year old pipeline (as everyone has probably stated through these past
two weeks) (which) would transport diluted tar sands bitumen;
6133.
This is a much heavier and more corrosive substance than the crude
oil for which these structures were designed. This increased stress on aging
infrastructure greatly increases the likelihood of a catastrophic event;
6134.
The NRDC (National Resources Defence Council) found that the
Alberta pipeline system -- which routinely carries DilBit -- has [...] about 16
times as many spills due to internal corrosion as the U.S. system;
6135.
Line 9 is covered in the same outdated protective coating called
polyethylene tape or PE-tape as that which caused the Kalamazoo spill. PE-tape
became unglued from Line (9-)6B allowing water to corrode the pipe and
resulting in the pipeline’s rupture. The problems with PE-tape (have been shown
-- sorry) have been known by the pipeline industry for at least six years;
6136.
When raw oilsands are diluted (and) natural gas condensate, to make
pipeline transportation easier, a mixture called diluted bitumen, or DilBit, is
created. (The) NRDC has analyzed this compound, and found it to be highly
corrosive and acidic, posing new and significant risks of (the pipeline).”
6137.
That’s from one of their files, the nrdc.org/energy/files/
tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf.
6138.
“High heat and increased pressure are required to transport the thick
mixture more safely through the pipelines -- yet pipeline companies are using
conventional pipeline technology to transport [this] DilBit and U.S. safety and
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
spill response standards are designed for conventional oil.
6139.
We understand that the use of conventional technology for more
dangerous product is the same in Canada. [And] this is completely unjustifiable
and utterly unacceptable.
6140.
Composition of dilbit and implications for clean-up.
6141.
The Kalamazoo experience has shown us that diluted bitumen is
difficult or impossible to clean up after a spill. It floats briefly in [the] water and
then it sinks causing a much more difficult cleanup.
6142.
‘According to the NTSB’s final report, only two days after the spill the
denser bitumen had separated from the dilutants in the dilbit and sunk to the
bottom of the river bed, covering about 40 kilometres. Meanwhile, the dilutants -The NTSB further found that Enbridge was not prepared for a spill involving oil
which does not float on water. According to [the] National Public Radio […],
“Clean-up crews didn’t [even] know what they were dealing with. They expected
[the dilbit] to act like oil [which] usually [floats] on the water. So they focused
on vacuuming the oil and skimming it from the surface. But about a month into
the cleanup, some fish researchers got a surprise. One of them jumped from a
boat into the river. [And] with each step he took, little globs of black oil popped
up. [And] that kicked off a search for sunken oil,” which they found everywhere
they looked. After two years of extensive dredging of the riverbed, blobs of
bitumen reportedly are still sitting at the bottom of the Kalamazoo. [And this] socalled “clean-up” has already cost more than $800 million -- 40 times more per
barrel of oil than spills of conventional oil.” [Ref: http://www.policyalternatives
.ca/publications/monitor/oil-industrys-dilbit-cover, October 2012]
6143.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Lester, I just want to point out that
you’re reading evidence. So we already read it.
6144.
MS. LESTER: Okay.
6145.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You know, and I’m just pointing it out that
you’re reading it word for word what you filed with the Board. You can keep on
going but we read it already.
6146.
MS. LESTER: Okay, I would like to -- to read it. I think it’s
important. Okay.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
“Risks to natural areas.
6147.
6148.
Line 9 crosses [as I’ve said,] all the rivers leading into Lake Ontario.
The pipeline runs through heavily populated areas and [the] watershed which
provides [of course, water to) millions [of people] drinking water. [It] exposes
North America’s fourth largest urban area, as well as 14 First Nations
communities, and 99 [small] towns and cities to [an] unacceptable risk.
6149.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency […] ordered Enbridge to
dredge three sections of the Kalamazoo River earlier [in the] year citing nearly
720,000 litres of bitumen [that] are still in the riverbed. Upon completion of this
round of dredging [and] at the end of this year the EPA will have to decide if
further dredging is necessary or if the remaining bitumen should be [just be] left
in the river.” [Ref: http://www.epa.gov/enbridgespill/]
And that’s a crime.
6150.
6151.
“We ask: what cost is there in this choice: leaving the river polluted,
or damaging the river trying to get it out? How can we ensure these spills never
happen?
6152.
What specific measures will Enbridge take to ensure the Kalamazoo
River spill will not be repeated in the Don or Humber watersheds? What
advances will there be in pipeline technology, leak detection [and early – sorry]
emergency planning?
Health risks to humans [and animals – humans] and wildlife
6153.
6154.
Aside from presenting an increased risk of pipeline leaks, the NRDC
[…] also found that diluted bitumen poses increased risks to the environment and
human health. The natural gas condensate used to diluted [-- to dilute] bitumen
has a low flash point and high vapour pressure, which causes is it to be explosive
even at sub-zero temperatures. [Ref:http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/
tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf]
6155.
One of the potential toxic products of […] DilBit explosion is
hydrogen sulfide, a gas which can cause suffocation in concentrations over 100
parts per million and is identified by producers as a potential hazard associated
with […] DilBit spill. Enbridge identified hydrogen sulfide as a potential risk to
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
its field personnel during the clean-up of the Kalamazoo River […]. Diluted
bitumen, also contains toxins, such as benzene [and] heavy metals and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons […] which can be dangerous in the short term for […]
human [health – for our] central nervous system and carcinogenic over the long
term. Reports indicate that some of these health effects were demonstrated after
Enbridge’s Michigan spill. Symptoms [like] nausea [and] dizziness, headaches,
coughing, […] fatigue were experienced by 60% of the local population. DilBit
also contains vanadium, nickel, arsenic, and other heavy metals in significantly
larger quantities than occur in conventional crude. These heavy metals (have a
very --) have a variety of toxic effects [and they’re] not biodegradable, and [they]
can accumulate in the environment to become health hazards to wildlife and [to]
people. [Ref: NRDC report as above]
6156.
6157.
Special risks to pregnant women and young children
We know that pregnant women and young children face particular
risks from toxins. The developing systems of a baby in utero and of children mean
that toxins can have maximum effect. According to oil spill expert Rikki Ott [see
Sept.-Oct. Watershed Sentinel] [says that the] micro-PAHs…”
The poly -- poly -- that’s the one, thank you. Yeah.
6158.
6159.
“...are major health hazards, causing cancer, asthma, hormone and
reproductive problems by ‘jamming immune systems and DNA functions.’ We
want to know what health studies have been done on these exposures and how
many would need to be evacuated [and] for how long, and how much damage to
health might be done before evacuation could take place?
6160.
DilBit pipelines leaks can be more difficult to detect because […]
natural gas condensate, the substance used to dilute [the] raw bitumen, can
change from a liquid to a gas, forming a gas bubble or ‘column separation’ in the
pipeline and slowing the flow of oil.
6161.
We note that it took [12 hours for] Enbridge […] to notice that an
apparent ‘column separation’ [had taken place and it] was actually a [200 –
sorry, a] 20,000 barrel leak and shut down the pipeline and [it took] another
seven hours to notify emergency responders.
6162.
We are very concerned that adequate health studies have not been
undertaken to fully inform the NEB commissioners of these risks.
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
6163.
[The] costs of damage: [and how will it be --] how will it be covered?
6164.
While the profits from the Enbridge pipeline flow solely to the
company and their shareholders, the damages from pipeline spills will be borne
by those living nearby, and by the public.
6165.
[And] we believe that we can never cover the cost of […] damage to
the [ecosystem,] and to the people and animals in those ecosystems. Therefore
we must seek alternatives.
6166.
6167.
A renewable energy transition is urgently needed and is possible
Although it is not in the mandate of this NEB heading to consider this,
we draw the attention of the NEB to alternative energy path that is open to us.
There have been several major studies which show that the transition to
renewable energy is possible not only here in Canada but world-wide as well,
without nuclear power, and with a complete phasing out of fossil fuels. [Ref:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energyby-2030 study by Mark Jacobson]
Another article that we have in our evidence is “Investing in Fossil
6168.
Fuels”
6169.
[A] fossil fuel infrastructure would lock us into [the] future reliance
on using this fuel – [and] to pay off that investment -- rather than using this
opportunity now to transition to renewable energy infrastructure. Scientists warn
that we must keep 80% of identified reserves of fossil fuels in the ground of create
the likelihood that temperatures will rise above 2 degrees C in the coming
decades.
6170.
The IEA states [that]: ‘No more than one-third of proven reserves of
fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2 degrees
centigrade goal,’ [which is] the internationally recognized limit to average global
warming in order to prevent a catastrophic climate change. [Ref:
http://priceofoil.org/2012/11/12/iea-acknowledges-fossil-fuel-reserves-climatecrunch/]
6171.
[So we see it’s] irresponsible for the NEB to agree to consider to this
proposal without considering the impacts that can be anticipated, not just the
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
local impacts, but [the] global impacts in terms of out of control climate warming
that threatens the coming generations with the prospect of a hot, dry planet on
which it will be very much more difficult to live out one’s life than it is today.
[It’s unfair to burden -- it’s] an unfair burden to put onto the next generation,
which will not have the opportunity to reverse the decisions that we make today.
Therefore your ruling [representatives -- your ruling] represents an ethical and
moral choice which must be carefully made.
6172.
We urge the NEB to call for a full environmental assessment of all the
options for our energy future because you are the Energy Board, you are not the
petroleum board.”
6173.
MS. LESTER: “In the interim, we urge the NEB to exclude diluted
bitumen from being carried on Line 9. Risks of doing so -- sorry -- of doing
otherwise are simply unacceptable.”
6174.
I was going through this document here, which is an Enbridge
document, it’s called “Enbridge’s Line 9 Pipeline Delivering Energy to Quebec
and Ontario Refiners”, and I was just going over some of these things and I
noticed a section on integrity digs and doing inspections on the pipelines. And
they say if they detect a defect they can repair it, and recoat it, and rebury that
piece of pipeline, but in some cases they cut out the old pipeline and put in a new
one. I’m wondering why a defect would even be there.
6175.
My husband worked as a machinist and they do something called fluor
penetrant, where metal is checked for fatigue or for thinness where it shouldn’t be
or for burns in the metal processing, and they can tell when something is not
worthy of being used in an airplane that we fly in and it’s rejected.
6176.
So I’m wondering why this even says that if they find this -- an area
perhaps of some kind of fatigue or damage that they can take it out and why it
would even be there in the first place.
6177.
I’m concerned also about the pipeline that we have seen in the Rouge
River that crosses on top of the river that seems to have very little support there.
That’s a big concern of mine.
6178.
Transcript
There was some film that came out the other day where it’s up in the --
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
just up by Michigan, where Huron and Michigan meet, and they show the pipeline
that’s under the lake, and it’s got areas of unsupported sections. That’s a concern.
6179.
From the Toronto municipal talks -- I guess they gave their evidence
yesterday -- their final argument, and they stated that in order for insurance to be - for Enbridge to cover this with insurance they would need a billion dollars
liability insurance, and I think at the moment there’s only 750 million. I’m not
sure if that can be accounted for. But already it’s cost Enbridge a billion dollars
in trying to clean up the Kalamazoo River and it’s still not cleaned up. I don’t
know how a billion dollars would even do to clean up, what could happen.
6180.
I know there were a lot of other questions that came up from other
intervenors. I’ll leave it at that. Although I had another page which I can’t find
here, and I think I have it back at my chair, if I could just get that. Okay, I’ll be
right back.
6181.
MS. LESTER: Before I read this, these are just some personal
thoughts of mine and then I’m done, but I also would just like to recognize the
most recent spill. I know it wasn’t Enbridge but the one in North Dakota. These
spills are happening all over. We know that Enbridge has admitted to over 800
spills over the past 15 years, and that in itself is reason to be suspect.
6182.
We were removed from our land, from our ancestors, from our culture.
Children were removed, grandchildren removed, great grandchildren removed.
People said, you remove us from our land, isolating us from everything we know.
You remove the trees, the medicines, you ship them far away from us. You
remove the animals, shipping them away from us too. You remove our men for
your wars, you remove our young children, younger and younger each generation,
to your child labour workhouses. You remove all children from our villages, our
women, our men, our mothers and fathers to your prisons.
6183.
You continue to remove the gifts of creation from the land that you
thought void of your desires where you placed us, and then you go to the
opposite direction, you come for our ancient ones, the grandfathers and
grandmothers, the rocks, the minerals, the lubricants and the oils and gas, and the
waters and the lungs of our Mother Earth, the life blood of our Mother, the
structural body of our Mother, the soul of our Mother, her deep secrets that were
never meant to be brought up to the surface; and you fill her with your poisons,
Transcript
Final argument
Ms. Carrie Lester
but you fail to see that when you pour you poisons into her skin, into her flesh,
into her life blood, into her very breath, you fill all life with these toxins.
6184.
You think you can just flush it away or blow it away and it disappears,
but there is no disappearance, it’s always around us. It circles her body, our
Mother Earth, in her waters, in her air and in her soil.
6185.
Thank you.
6186.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So, Ms. Lester, the Board has no questions,
but we heard your comments about our process and the difficulty you
encountered. We understand your concerns and we’re glad that you were able to
come here today to tell us about the project.
We’ll take a break and reconvene at 10 to four.
6187.
6188.
6189.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, everyone.
Now we’ll hear from Ms. Amanda Lickers for Rising Tide Toronto, if
she is in the room.
6190.
You put on your microphone? Yeah, okay.
6191.
MS. LICKERS: Is it okay if I plug in this machine here?
6192.
MS. LICKERS: Yeah, sure. Thanks. Our computer’s running out of
battery. Yeah, thank you.
6193.
Transcript
MS. LICKERS: Is that working? Okay. Okay. So just go ahead?
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just go ahead. We’re waiting for you.
6194.
--- FINAL ARGUMENT BY/ARGUMENTATION FINALE PAR RISING TIDE
TORONTO:
6195.
MS. LICKERS: Okay.
6196.
Well, (Speaking in native language).
6197.
So hi, greetings everyone. I just introduced myself in Kanien’kéha
which is Mohawk. And I’m actually (speaking in native language) and we’re the
keepers of the western door, but there’s less than 50 language speakers alive in
my Nation.
6198.
So I just said that I don’t know my indigenous name as part of my
experience of colonization and that I’m Turtle Clan of the Seneca Nation of
Haudenosaunee Confederacy. And I’m here for Rising Tide Toronto and I go by
Amanda Lickers.
6199.
And so I just wanted to say thank you to the Board for accommodating
my schedule. I didn’t get a phone call until the morning yesterday when I was
still in Peterborough and I was working. So I was like, okay, I can’t be there at
3:00. So I really appreciate that.
6200.
I also want to say nyawgo to Carrie for that amazing presentation, to
have the Onodowàga open as I came into the building was an incredible pleasure
and honour and she made me a very proud Onkwehonwe today.
6201.
And I also wanted to acknowledge the work of the -- of some of the
people who came before me. Before I do that, I want to also acknowledge that
we’re on occupied and shared territories of the Missisaugii Anishinabe and the
Kaniekehaka Haudenosaunee, so the Mississauga Anishinabe and the Mohawks
of the so-called Iroquois Confederacy because Iroquois is actually a racial slur. It
means killer people.
6202.
And yeah, so I wanted to say that I thought -- I was really inspired by
the lawyers, the legal team who represented Aamjiwnaang First Nation as well as
Chippewa Thames First Nation. I also am very thankful that the Mohawk Council
of Kahnawake was able to present so well and establish a lot of really important
points. I did have the pleasure of being able to meet with them a few times prior
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
to presenting.
6203.
And so I’m here today because I’m part of a grassroots organization
called Rising Tide, and I’m also a young woman, a young indigenous woman, and
so this is a very important matter for me.
6204.
Before I came here today, you know, like a year ago, before this
process started I didn’t think I could be possibly more opposed to the Enbridge
Line 9 pipeline, but then I actually went through this process and got even more
educated as to how incredibly dangerous it is, and I’m actually even more
opposed.
6205.
And so some of the work I’ve been doing has been trying to spread the
word within indigenous communities about these things that are threatening our
territories and how resource extraction is at the expense of indigenous lands and
peoples.
6206.
And so I’ve met with the Chiefs of Ontario, the Iroquois Caucus, you
know, some of those kind of band council kind of entities, as well as the
Haudenosaunee Environmental Taskforce and representatives of the
Haudenosaunee Grand Council, which is actually our traditional governance
system. And so we still have our traditional governance intact and it doesn’t have
a border like this colonial border that we know that’s actually separating the river,
and neither do oil spills. So I’ll get into that a little bit later.
6207.
And so in my work in educating myself and others on these issues, I
understand that diluted bitumen poses a greater risk to waterways because it is
heavier than crude oil, conventional crude oil, and it is more dangerous to
people’s health within the spill zone because of the toxic gases that it releases that
are specific to the transport of bitumen, i.e., the dilutants. They are corrosive
and, you know, in some cases, even frack gas or so-called natural gas is used to
help the dilution process. And sometimes even pipes are heated in order to
process -- in order to transport them, and it has a thicker texture, you know, like
it’s been compared to that consistency of peanut butter, you know. And so it’s
not very viscous naturally and that poses a problem in long-term pipe transport.
6208.
I’m going to quote from Rising Tide’s information request and
Enbridge’s response. And for what I’m about to disclose, found at B18-4-2.
These articles can also be found in written evidence submitted by Sustainable
Trent, C26-2-1.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6209.
And so after the Kalamazoo Spill in Marshall, Michigan:
“State officials surveyed 550 people from communities along
the river and [they] found [that] 53 percent of the residents
reported health problems -- headaches, nausea […]
respiratory ailments.”
6210.
This is found in the press release, “Nurses Oppose Keystone XL
Pipeline, Cite Adverse Effects of Increased Air Pollution Climate Change by the
National Nurses United Press Release, February 5th, 2013.
6211.
While Enbridge claims that crude oils including diluted bitumen or
dilbit are less dense than water and therefore float, in the Kalamazoo spill, which
was a diluted bitumen spill, much more crude sank than was expected,
contributing to more than $1 billion cleanup.
6212.
According to Anthony Swift of the National Resource Defense
Council, diluted bitumen under pressure in a pipeline is lighter than water, but
when that mixture’s exposed to air, as it was in the Kalamazoo River spill, as it is
when a release occurs, the dilutant, often a natural gas condensate, as I was
saying, frack gas -- evaporates leaving behind the much heavier bitumen to sink to
the bottom.
6213.
Swift’s assessment was confirmed by a recently released report by Jeff
Short, a highly respected U.S. environmental chemist who worked with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the NOAA, for decades.
6214.
The scientist’s bitumen study “Susceptibility of Diluted Bitumen from
the Alberta Tar Sands to Sinking in Water” directly contradicts testimony by
Enbridge hard guns during the Northern Gateway hearings.
6215.
In addition to my knowledge about the disastrous consequences of a
dilbit spill, I also understand that the Line 9 pipeline is nearly 40 years old and
therefore has a comprised integrity and more likely to spill.
6216.
This week we’ve heard testimony that clearly demonstrates at -- we’ve
heard testimony that clearly demonstrates, at times using Enbridge’s own
engineering reports, that this pipeline is not safe. The Ontario Ministry of -- the
Ontario Ministry of Energy even suggested that Enbridge has been downplaying
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
risks and recommends independent engineering and risk assessments. And that I
heard just yesterday.
6217.
And we also heard from the Ontario Pipeline and Landowner’s
Association yesterday testify that Enbridge’s inline inspection tools cannot detect
pinhole defects, which in and of themselves directly contaminate the soil and can
have cumulative impacts on water tables, and that this can lead to disastrous
impacts as the pinhole -- pinholes can lead to disastrous impacts such as the recent
Norman Wells leak which resulted in a 1600-barrel spill.
6218.
It is difficult to understand these complex engineering reports and no
doubt Enbridge wants to keep it that way. But with the help of the wonderful
intervenors who have participated in this process, I have come to a greater
understanding of what these reports mean.
6219.
I’d like to direct your attention to Enbridge’s engineering assessment
document B1-15. In their report on crack excavation program, page 61, Section
4.3.5, you can see segments investigated, defined as the areas between the major
pumping stations. So Montreal to Cardinal, Cardinal to Hamilton, Hamilton to
Westover -- or to, sorry Hilton, and Hilton to Westover.
6220.
Enbridge completed a total of 182 excavations involving 1,042
reported features during the four-year excavation program. An additional 52 digs
were issued between 2010 and 2011.
6221.
From Montreal to Cardinal, they found 268 stress corrosion cracking
features. The most severe stress corrosion cracking colony found in the field had
a predicted failure pressure of 783 PSI. It’s really important to keep that number
in our heads. One hundred and forty-five (145) were found to be crack-like
features. The most severe of these had predicted failure of a pressure of 687 PSI.
6222.
I mention this because Enbridge wants to run a pressure of 1,000 PSI.
And the conclusion is obvious, but I can make it clearer, if this pipe is running at
1,000 PSI, there would have been many, many places where according to
Enbridge’s own reporting, this pipeline would have failed.
6223.
And it wasn’t as if this segment of pipe was particularly bad. If you
looked at Cardinal to Hilton, 304 stress corrosion cracking features were found.
The most severe stress corrosion cracking colony found in the field had a
predicted failure pressure of 818 PSI, still very much under 1,000.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6224.
One hundred and forty-nine (149) crack-like features were also found.
The most severe CL indication found in the field had a predicted failure pressure
of 745 PSI.
6225.
And of course, right here in the Hilton to Westover segment, 99 stress
corrosion cracking features were found and the worst predicted failure pressure
was 786 PSI. Additionally, 78 crack-like features were found in this segment
with a predicted failure pressure of 764 PSI.
6226.
That was a lot of numbers, a lot of numbers that indicate predicted
failure at way under 1,000 PSI, as low as 745, and those are self-reported numbers
from Enbridge.
6227.
There might be some optimists out there and you might think that at
least this was found. And it is true that Enbridge dug up the segments of pipe, its
testing found to be worse.
6228.
As was presented in the hearings yesterday, digs are still underway at
this moment in last-minute efforts to instil the confidence of the National Energy
Board that Enbridge has done its best to avoid disaster.
6229.
But what I found particularly troubling is that these tools that found
the corrosion colonies always and always under reported the size of these
dangerous flaws when they could find them.
6230.
For example, in the first segment, Montreal to Cardinal, the deepest
stress corrosion colony found in the field that corresponded to a reported feature
had a depth of 1.6 millimetres, which is 25 percent of the wall thickness.
6231.
The corresponding tool reported depth for this colony was .8
millimetres, which is 12-and-a-half percent of the wall thickness. That is 50
percent of what it actually was. The reporting was only 50 percent of what the
actual measurement was.
6232.
In the next segment, the deepest stress corrosion cracking colony
found in the field that corresponded to reported feature had a depth of two
millimetres, 31 percent of wall thickness.
6233.
Transcript
The corresponding tool reported depth for this SCC colony was 12-
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
and-a-half to 25 percent of a wall thickness. That’s a fairly significant margin of
error when we consider that some of the largest reserves of freshwater are on the
line.
6234.
And finally, in the third segment, the corrosion cracking colony had a
depth of 2.2 millimetres, which is 35 percent of a wall thickness, and the
corresponding tool reported the depth only at 1.6 millimetres.
6235.
I know it sounds like I’m repeating myself a lot here, but very
obviously, what is happening is the reporting of a seriously flawed system, one
that the transportation authority in the United States recognized as a systemic
deficiency in approach to safety.
6236.
But that isn’t all. I want to talk about one of the most disturbing
aspects of this report. But before I do, I want to impart an anecdote from the A2A
Collaborative that is relevant.
6237.
Our group had the honour of meeting Emily from the A2A -- the
Algonquin to Adirondacks Collaborative -- who presented on Wednesday at an
intervenors dinner, and we hosted that night. She taught us to read these
engineering reports and also explained that when she read the charts in these
reports, she noticed that her area, a very important north-south passageway for
animals between the Appalachians and the States and the north -- she noticed that
there was a very high level of corrosion colonies and leaks in her area.
6238.
And while at our dinner, Louisette from Waterloo was also there and
she presented on the Wednesday of the hearings and part of her presentation was
an earthquake mapping. And anyway, it turns out that the Algonquin to
Adirondacks area was an area of heightened seismic activities in Louisette’s
maps.
6239.
This is important to note, but also an aside, you know. I wonder if
there is a correlation between the increased number of corrosion colonies and the
increased volume of seismic activity.
6240.
But I’m going to get back to some of the most troubling aspects of this
report. What I’m talking about now is the false negative features in Section
4.3.5.1. Now, I understand what a false negative is; think about what a false
positive is. Most of you, I’m sure, have heard this term. You get told you have
cancer and you get very upset, and then you find out that it was in fact false
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
positive. That was great. They told you that you had a problem and you didn’t
actually have it. But a false negative is the opposite of that. It’s when they tell
you that everything is okay when in fact you’re sick and maybe you don’t find out
until it’s too late to do anything about it.
6241.
A terrifying analogy if you think about what a spill or a rupture could
mean. Especially when you’re talking about diluted bitumen, which creates a
toxic gas that poisons everyone within miles who can smell it and a sinking toxin
that can destroy waterways.
6242.
So how common are these false negatives? Well, on average, every
single excavation had at least one. Just in this excavation report, there were a
total of 206 unreported features, 193 crack-like features and 13 stress corrosion
cracking colonies. Would you trust that system to your waterways? Why are we
trusting the system now? And what’s more, if a spill happened in Toronto, you’d
expect that maybe $5 billion would be spent. Torontonians would have to import
water for a long time. It would be a logistical and ecological nightmare.
6243.
If a spill happened near an indigenous community, well, given that the
track record of this government and oil companies, they wouldn’t even clean it
up. Make some cosmetic changes here or there.
6244.
As we saw in the instance of the Pegasus pipeline, the tar sands
blockades sent out some photos and they were using tissue paper to clean up that
oil spill.
6245.
They would leave the people to suffer.
6246.
And remember that the Kalamazoo is still not cleaned up, over three
years later. And already so many Indigenous communities do not have access to
clean water. And another pipeline spill will turn our water into poison.
6247.
We must not forget that every segment of pipe, in fact most segments
of this pipe, have not been excavated and perhaps never will be. It’s been nearly
40 years. This pipe should be decommissioned. It needs to be decommissioned.
6248.
MS. LICKERS: And the detection systems, are we supposed to
accept Enbridge’s word on any of this? They initiated their comments to these
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
NEB hearings in Montreal by saying that the Goodman Group is wrong when
they say that there is a high risk that the pipeline will rupture in the early years
without a proper hydrotest.
6249.
Enbridge, in fact, questions hydrostatic testing, saying the reality is
that a successful hydrostatic test does not guarantee that the pipeline in question
will not fail in the future. They even go so far as to say that there are potential
detrimental effects of hydrostatic testing, including the potential to induce or grow
cracks that do not fail during the test but may continue to grow in service.
6250.
Hydrostatic testing that resulted in propagating crack growth would
obviously be counterproductive to the efforts to eliminate pipeline features. So
Enbridge is saying that these tests are dangerous but the Ontario Ministry of
Energy yesterday recommended this test as a requirement. I see a bit of confusion
here and so I want to conclude that the pipeline is not safe and the technology
does not exist to make it safe. And again, it should be decommissioned.
6251.
MS. LICKERS: And I’ll just say that part again, it should be
decommissioned.
6252.
I’m so thankful for all the concerned community members that have
come forward, almost all unpaid. And just because they have the burden of
knowing better than to trust Enbridge, they know better than to trust tar sands oil,
and they know better than to trust the entire oil industry and the government
which supports it.
6253.
MS. LICKERS: We don’t have to wait anymore for a spill in our
own community to know that this industry does not care about us and will cut
corners where they can. As Onkwehonwe people, we’ve known for centuries that
this type of exploitation of the land is not only wrong but so, so dangerous. When
I started this process, I did not believe that I could be more opposed but here I am,
opposed with more facts, more history, more anger and more love for my
community of resistance. And most importantly, more allies in this struggle
against this proposal than I had to begin with and I will continue, as I have for the
past year, to educate my community and other indigenous communities along the
route and the general public about the dangers of this pipeline, regardless of what
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
this decision is.
6254.
And so that was Enbridge’s report. And do you know what’s more
troubling than Enbridge’s own reporting? Independent reports about Line 9 and
about Enbridge more generally.
6255.
You’ve heard evidence from these but it bears repeating that Enbridge
averages one spill every five to six days according to the Polaris report that was
cited by Sustainable Trent that evaluated Enbridge’s own data from ’99 to 2010.
6256.
While this fact seems outrageous, given what I’ve learned about the
inline detection devices, it seems consistent with the reality of these wilfully
inadequate tools. However, it is not only this extremely ineffective monitoring
system or even their alarmingly frequent rates of release that are of grave concern.
6257.
There are many other matters which I will address, but in particular, I
want to reiterate to the Board the extreme risk the communities crossed by this
pipeline are being put in. I want to emphasize the importance of the fact that
three years later, Enbridge has still not cleaned up the infamous Kalamazoo spill.
6258.
I’m going to start referencing Rising Tide written evidence, like
exhibits, so I’m just going to read their numbers. So as seen in Exhibit A53489,
Enbridge’s pattern of disregarding responsibility to the health of ecosystems and
communities is clearly demonstrated in exhibits A3K1L4, A3K1L -- oh that’s 14.
A3K1 -- no, it is an L.
6259.
Yeah, it’s an L, sorry. A3K1L4, A3K1L5, A3K1L6, which is a bunch
of EPA stuff from the Kalamazoo spill, for people who don’t know what those
numbers mean. And they all clearly indicate that Enbridge has failed to
adequately, by the standards of the community, clean up this infamous, 2010,
Kalamazoo oil spill.
6260.
The product which poisoned the river; bitumen, this heavy crude, it’s a
solid, which is why it has to be diluted so that a viscosity suitable for transport in
pipelines can be achieved. And as we have come to learn from the impacts on the
Kalamazoo River, bitumen sinks.
6261.
And the EPA -- which is the Environmental Protection Agency, which
is an American, you know-- thing. In Exhibit A3K1L7, states the following
community impacts:
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
“In March, EPA ordered Enbridge to remove Line 6B oil and
oil containing sediment along parts of the Kalamazoo River
where significant accumulations have been recently found.
The order requires dredging of submerged oil and oil
contaminated sediment within the following areas; upstream of
the Cresco Damn, Mill Ponds area, Morrow Lake, the Morrow
Lake Delta and adjacent areas where sediment traps at two
designed locations -- designated locations.”
6262.
The EPA also states in a media release, Exhibit A3K1L9 that:
“Approximately 350,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment
will be dredged by Enbridge while only 190,000 cubic yards
[of contaminated sediment] have been recovered since 2010.”
6263.
It appears the total area of sediment contamination is actually
unknown. This evidence clearly shows that Enbridge does not act quickly,
effectively or with regard to environmental or human health impacts. As the
noted evidence shows, Enbridge is only now, in 2013, three years after the spill,
making effort to properly remediate their damage.
6264.
The above evidence and details regarding lack of safety, inadequate
monitoring, poor pipeline integrity, records of contamination and environmental
damage and disregard for remediation processes were not appalling enough,
Enbridge has continued its transgressions throughout this very process.
6265.
I’m going to speak frankly about the information requests. In Rising
Tide’s own information request, we asked specifically about how Enbridge had
denied indigenous government’s, band council government’s compensation for
costs they incurred in additional tests following the Kalamazoo spill. Reading our
information request -- I’m going to just read it briefly for everybody:
6266.
“Compensation of regional authorities for clean-up costs in the case
of a spill: Reference: “Enbridge declines to pay for new studies on oil spill
damage.” by the Free Press, and another reference is Enbridge presentation at
community meeting in Cummer Valley Middle School in Toronto, May 29 th,
2013:
“Preamble: On March 4th, 2013, news reports noted that
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
Enbridge had refused to pay $800,000 to complete two new
studies to assess the spill’s damage. This money was requested
by the Trustees of the National Resource Damage Assessment,
a group comprises state and federal agencies, such as the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as two tribal governments.
6267.
The same news reports -- in the states, they use tribal governments.
Up here we say band councils.
“The same news reports noted that Enbridge had refused to
compensate two Tribal governments; the Nottawaseppi Huron
Band and the Potawatomi of Match-E-Be-Nash-Sho-Wish Band
of Potwatomi for other costs that they had incurred, related to
the Kalamazoo spill…”
6268.
When asked about their refusal to pay for these studies at a community
meeting at Cummer Valley Middle School in Toronto on May 29 th, 2013, an
Enbridge representative explained that they only pay the fines of the regulators
and not necessarily anyone else.
6269.
And our request is what exactly are Enbridge’s policies for
compensating municipalities and First Nation governments in the case of a spill?
Is it possible that municipalities of First Nations communities will pay for cleanup
costs if a spill -- pay for cleanup costs of a spill and not be compensated by
Enbridge? Has Enbridge considered the costs that are not of monetary value to
First Nations and municipalities in the event of a spill?
6270.
And Enbridge completely disregarded my questions with respect to
indigenous communities. Given their track record, this is frankly disturbing. But
that is just one example of how Enbridge has disrespected First Nations in this
process. And their reply, which was one sentence long, just referenced to -- just
referred to a response to the TRCA -- the Toronto Regional Conservation
Authority -- which made absolutely no reference, no mention at all of First
Nations communities. There is not a single mention, let alone an answer to the
question.
6271.
In Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, Exhibit A3J7Y5, Chief Clinton
Phillips, he clearly states that the Band Council was not satisfied with Enbridge’s
response to information requests. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke was not
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
the only party who experienced consistent and constant refusal on behalf of
Enbridge to be forthcoming to reasonable requests for information throughout this
process. The continued lack of transparency or accountability, even within this
process wherein an application is put forth to the Board for this review, Enbridge
still fails to undergo due diligence to inform, consult and accommodate First
Nations participants, let alone everyone else.
6272.
Further to this constant and consistent refusal to provide reasonable
information, in Exhibit A3J3V6 in response to Jesse McCormick’s information
requests, Enbridge reveals the following: that Enbridge’s current use of land is
incompatible with traditional indigenous usages; that Enbridge has not reviewed
any treaties -- I’m just going -- Enbridge has not reviewed any treaties -- not one
treaty -- that are impacted by this project, and there are several, and I will talk
about some of them.
6273.
Enbridge is unaware of any title or land claims, outstanding or
otherwise, along the route of the Line 9 pipeline. There are several.
6274.
Enbridge has not conducted -- and this one is particularly offensive -an archaeological assessment of the lands to verify if any important First Nations
heritage sites, spiritual or historical, have or will be disturbed. And, I mean, as we
all know, you know, this is all still our native land and our ancestors keep getting
exhumed or otherwise. You know, it’s pretty constant and consistent, and I think
that is incredibly disrespectful. I think that settlers, all kinds of folks value their
graveyards. We do too.
6275.
Enbridge also revealed that in the event of a pipeline rupture there will
be possible impacts on treaty rights lands. So they had admitted that.
6276.
They also revealed that the project is taking place on prior disturbed
lands, which Enbridge actually lays claim to and has not already consulted with
First Nations parties, and that’s what we call land theft actually.
6277.
Enbridge also denies any cumulative biological or ecological impacts
on aquatic life in the event of a pipeline rupture, which is just completely
illogical. Like, come on. I would love to see them eat some diluted bitumen
poisoned fish.
6278.
Clearly, Enbridge had not engaged in sufficient consultation processes
within indigenous communities, elsewise they would be aware of several sacred
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
and burial sites, outstanding land claims and treaty violations. It’s just really
appalling, you know.
6279.
I make a reference later, but there’s this place near where I live called
Aamjiwnaang, which is so-called Peterborough, Ontario, and it’s the Serpent
Mounds, and it’s a really important sacred site for my Anishinaabe brothers and
sisters, you know. And here in Toronto there’s Haudenosaunee burial grounds,
you know.
6280.
As demonstrated, Enbridge has not consulted or reviewed a single
treaty and may not be aware of the way in which Enbridge by domestic,
international and indigenous law frame the relationship and responsibilities of
those not indigenous to these lands. This also means that Enbridge needs to
consult with all impacted indigenous communities, which means taking into
account the eventuality of downstream contamination as a result of a rupture.
6281.
For instance, several Haudenosaunee communities just along the South
shores of the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, Lake Huron -- for instance, the
Tonawanda Senecas or the Onondaga Nation, those watersheds will be directly
impacted by a bitumen release, and they are not even within Enbridge’s list of 17
communities.
6282.
As part of my work, I also contacted each of those 17 bands listed. It
also included some of the Anishinaabe, like the Union of Ontario Indians, the
Chiefs of Ontario, the Métis Nation of Ontario, and then there was like a tonne of
other, like actual just like band councils because there was some entities that were
like not quite band councils. They were just other kind of governing. And as
part of -- and within this experience, in some cases my phone call was the first
that some of these people had heard of it, in particular Tyendinaga, the Mohawks
of the Bay of Quinte didn’t hear about it until I called them in like June.
6283.
And so I do find it particularly interesting in the case of Tyendinaga
because the pipeline runs very close to their community, and they have an
outstanding active land claim, Exhibit A3K1H5, that will directly impact land
jurisdiction in that region and thus will impact Enbridge’s project.
6284.
It is clear that Enbridge has demonstrated a complete disregard for
indigenous rights and title, including what some may call common courtesy. This
ignorance demonstrated by Enbridge not only disregards the context within which
we live, but also demonstrates a deep disrespect for indigenous stakeholders. It’s
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
not only audacious but a violation of domestic, international and indigenous law.
6285.
So I’m going to talk a little bit about the land claim a little bit later on.
6286.
And so for these reasons I’m going to now review just a few key treaty
agreements that frame indigenous rights and title to land, outline consultation and
accommodation and establish parameters for the relationship that is expected in
matters which impact not only indigenous lands, but also matters which pose the
risk of directly impacting our life ways, chiefly impacts to water and our inherent
and treaty rights to fish, hunt, and practise ceremony.
6287.
Because I am Haudenosaunee, I am going to comment on matters
which I am most familiar, and for this reason, I will focus on treaties which are in
direct relationship with the application submitted by Enbridge and that I am most
familiar with.
6288.
The first Treaty agreement I would like to discuss is the Nanfam
Treaty, Exhibit A3K1G6, wherein which the League of Five Nations outlines
their rights for hunting within the designated Nanfan lands, which include a large
segment of Southern Ontario. This would roughly impact the following segments
of pipe: Sarnia to Westover; Westover to Cardinal.
6289.
The Treaty outlines the imperative nature of the ability to hunt and fish
on outlined lands. And within information requests, Enbridge clearly states on
multiple occasions that their use of the land is not compatible with traditional use.
Enbridge itself admits that the infrastructure of the pipeline, as well as its
accompanying infrastructure, is not compatible with traditional uses of land, as
per Exhibit A3J3V6.
6290.
This is in direct violation of the provisions outlined in the Nanfan
Treaty, which protect beaver hunting grounds across Southern Ontario and into
the U.S. As per the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke written evidence Affidavits
A3J7Y5, A3J7Y8 and A3J7Y7, it is clearly stated that the Haudenosaunee people,
including multiple generations from youth to Elders, have been and continue to
gather, fish, and hunt on traditional territory and relate to the land in traditional
ways.
6291.
These rights are protected by the Nanfan Treaty as well as other
agreements, including our own indigenous law as well as the Canadian
Constitution.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6292.
Additionally, outlined by the above-mentioned affidavits include
important spawning areas, which are within the 50-kilometre radius of impact in
the eventuality of a pipeline rupture, and that this project clearly threatens our
inherent, constitutional, and Treaty rights to hunt, fish, and practise traditional life
ways.
6293.
Also mentioned is the concern for environmental damage, which
would directly impact not only subsistence use of the land but also traditional use
and presents a very serious threat to the continuation of our life ways, of our
traditions, of our ways of being and relating with the land and the impacts of
which are intergenerational.
6294.
Do you all have any questions yet?
6295.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: Depends. Is it your intention to pursue?
6296.
MS. LICKERS: Oh, I'm going to keep going, but I just wondered if
you wanted to take a question.
6297.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: Oh, not yet.
6298.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Not yet.
6299.
MS. LICKERS: You're going to save them? Okay.
6300.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: At the end, yes.
6301.
MS. LICKERS: As Enbridge has not reviewed any Treaties and is
not aware of any outstanding land claims, Enbridge would, therefore, be ignorant
to the Haldimand Proclamation, the Haldimand Tract and the jurisdiction
articulated therein.
6302.
Had there been proper consultation or even simple investigation,
Enbridge would see that the pipeline currently in the ground directly crosses the
Haldimand Tract, violating the Haldimand Proclamation.
6303.
Further to this, Six Nations of the Grand River has an active,
outstanding land claim regarding the Tract, Exhibit ii. However, Enbridge has
failed to educate themselves on the outstanding land claims, both specific and
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
general, that are active along the pipeline route. This again demonstrates
Enbridge’s continued disregard for indigenous communities, and erasure of our
presence.
6304.
To review, Exhibit A3K1G5 is the Haldimand Proclamation. It was
made in 1784 between the Haudenosaunee and the Crown. And it states the
following:
"Six Nation Indians as wish to settle in that quarter to take
possession of and settle upon the Banks of the River commonly
called Ouse or Grand River, running into Lake Erie, allotting
to them for that purpose six miles deep from each side of the
river beginning at Lake Erie and extending in that proportion
to the head of the said river, which them and their posterity are
to enjoy for ever."
6305.
And so, first of all, it's a direct violation of the sovereignty of the Six
Nations of the Grand River, to which I am a member, and by deliberately
avoiding consultation in this matter. The historical precedent here is obvious.
Line 9 already exists; it's in the ground. It's already within the boundaries of the
Haldimand Tract and, therefore, is already in violation of the Haldimand
Proclamation.
6306.
MS. LICKERS: Enbridge has set a precedent of complete and utter
disregard for consultation, due process, and as well we will come to understand
the Canadian Constitution, which outlines duties to consult and accommodate in
matters impacting indigenous peoples' lands and traditional practices. This
pattern of non-consultation has continued with this application, and I urge the
Board to take this matter with the seriousness that it constitutes.
6307.
The National Energy Board does not have the legal authority to
perform consultations. However, it does, as a regulatory body, have the
responsibility to ensure that Crown consultation occurs.
6308.
Further to the physical violation of the boundaries of the tract by the
pipeline itself, and Enbridge's failure to consult or accommodate indigenous
communities, there is the additional concern surrounding the impacts upon the
Grand River itself in the eventuality of a pipeline release.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6309.
I would like to now discuss Exhibit A3K1G8, the Simcoe Deed. This
is a very important agreement made by the Haudenosaunee with King George III,
wherein use of lands designated as “reserve lands” is strictly forbidden by any
non-native.
6310.
This is a very, very important article to review because of the current
outstanding land claim in Tyendinaga territory and it is likely to render Enbridge
in violation of the Simcoe Deed.
6311.
For our review, the boundary of this deed is described as such to say:
"Chiefs, Warriors, Women and People of the said Six Nations,
and their Heirs, the full and entire possession, Use benefit and
advantage of the said District or Territory of Land to be
held…"
6312.
Sorry, that was distracting; was that a police radio?
"Chiefs, Warriors, Women and People of the said Six Nations,
and their Heirs, the full and entire possession, Use benefit and
advantage of the said District or Territory of Land to be held
and enjoyed by them in the most free and ample manner and
according to the several Customs and usages by them the said
Chiefs, Warriors and People of the Six Nations. Provided
always, and be it understood to be the true intent and meaning
of these Presents; that for the purpose of assuring the said
Lands as aforesaid to the said Chiefs, Warriors, Women and
People of the Six Nations and their Heirs and of securing to
them the free and undisturbed possession and enjoyment […]
the same."
6313.
This statement indicates that the land within the deed cannot be
disturbed or degraded as to impact the full extent to which the Kanienkehaka
Haudenosaunee of Tyendinaga and their future generations can enjoy these
territories.
6314.
It is clearly outlined that the full title of the lands within this deed fall
into the jurisdiction of the Haudenosaunee People. How can it be that there is a
hearing now looking to approve or not an application put forward by Enbridge
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
despite the fact crucial steps in the process of consultation have not taken place?
In fact, no consultation has taken place.
6315.
It is clear that Enbridge must not only submit an application to the
satisfaction of the Board, but is legally required, by the law of several treaties,
including the Canadian Constitution, indigenous law and international law, to
consult with indigenous peoples before building pipelines.
6316.
MS. LICKERS: Enbridge clearly does not take this requirement
seriously and has shown little regard to properly engage, as articulated by the
legal council of Aamjiwnaang First Nations and Chippewa of the Thames First
Nations, which opened the hearings in Toronto.
6317.
To return to the Simcoe Deed, there is one final excerpt I would like to
share here:
“...no Transfer, Alienation, Conveyance, Sale, Gift, Exchange,
Lease, Property, or Possession shall at any time be had, made,
or given of the said District or Territory of any part or parcel
thereof by and of the said Chiefs, Warriors, Women and people
of the said Six Nation...”
6318.
MS. LICKERS:
“...whatsoever other than among themselves the said Chiefs,
Warriors, Women and People of the said Six Nations but that
any such Transfer, Alienation, Conveyance, Sale, Gift,
Exchange, Lease or Possession shall be null and void and of no
effect whatever.”
MS. LICKERS: That’s King George’s words, yo.
6319.
6320.
This is an extremely important excerpt. The above states that use of
the Simcoe Deed lands by parties other than the people of Tyendinaga on the
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
people of Tyendinaga’s terms is strictly forbidden. However, it appears that the
Line 9 pipeline is within the boundaries of the Simcoe Deed, the northern
boundaries of which are 26 kilometres north of the Bay of Quinte. And this is a
grave violation of Haudenosaunee sovereignty as well as Crown law, and
constitutes a continued demonstration of utter lack of regard for consultation,
accommodation or consent on behalf of Enbridge Pipelines Incorporated. The
Simcoe Deed makes very clear that any use of the territories that have not been
sanctioned by the people of Tyendinaga is strictly prohibited.
6321.
Enbridge’s Aboriginal and Native American Policy -- and the title
alone speaks volumes -- claims they recognize legal and constitutional rights.
Wow. But Enbridge has not reviewed any treaties in the project area.
6322.
This claim is entirely disingenuous. Further, their policy offers other
community investment, environmental stewardship, training, et cetera. However,
Enbridge has not entered any agreements to support any of these things, nor has
Enbridge entered into any longer term support arrangements with First Nations at
all.
6323.
Enbridge’s policy claims that they recognize heritage sites and the
relationship to the land. But Enbridge has not offered any financial compensation
to First Nations for interference with treaty rights, nor have they conducted
archaeological assessments that are indigenous-led, or at all, and have failed to
identify a single sacred or heritage site such within the radius of impact. And I
have identified a few such sites in Exhibits A3K1H7, A3K1H8, A3K1H9,
A3K1H10. And there are many others.
6324.
Enbridge’s policy is hollow and has no commitment to indigenous
peoples. It has been demonstrated -- which has been demonstrated by Enbridge’s
practices. There appears to be nothing but the constant violation of sovereignty,
inherent and treaty rights and title, and protected status enshrined in various laws,
as well as it begins to seem our basic human dignity.
6325.
So far I’ve outlined how Enbridge is in violation of several treaty
agreements. Their audacious disregard for inherent and treaty indigenous rights
does not end on this level.
6326.
I want to first acknowledge common law duty to consult. The
common law duty to consult is based on judicial interpretation of the obligations
of the Crown -- federal, provincial and territorial governments -- in relation to
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
potential or established, what Canada calls Aboriginal or treaty rights of the
peoples indigenous to these territories.
6327.
It is recognized and affirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution Act,
1982. And this duty cannot be delegated to third parties. Section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982 states:
“(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal
peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed;
(2) In this Act, ‘aboriginal peoples of Canada’ includes the
Indian, [I hate that word], Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada;
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) ‘treaty rights’
includes rights that now exist by way of land claims
agreements or may be so acquired;
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are
guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”
6328.
This section of the Constitution Act clearly affirms our inherent and
treaty rights as indigenous peoples. It also very clearly articulates the duty to
consult on behalf of the Crown. In the case of lack of consultation on behalf of
the Crown, it must be then understood that consultation has not taken place, thus
there is no legal standing to consent or the ceding of lands.
6329.
The Constitution, in Section 25, also enshrines the Royal Proclamation
-- Exhibit A3K1H0 -- which states that all lands are indigenous lands, unless they
are ceded, also acknowledging indigenous self-governance.
6330.
And without consultation, there can be no consent. Without consent
for land use, there can be no legal claim for ceded territory, and thus all use of
indigenous lands without the consultation of those lands’ peoples must be
understood as violating the Canadian Constitution.
6331.
It appears that Enbridge Pipelines Incorporated also disregards even
the Canadian Constitution. By this measure, it also appears that the National
Energy Board is failing to uphold its duty to ensure that Canadian law and due
process are followed.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6332.
Additionally the Crown itself appears to disregard its own law, as lack
of consultation is endemic with resource extractive projects such as these. In the
context of reservation apartheid, it is no wonder that consultation is not being
understood as a paramount priority for all entities occupying indigenous lands.
The ongoing occupation of indigenous territories by corporations like Enbridge
and governments like Canada, which refuse to follow even their own laws is an
appalling travesty.
6333.
In cases such as these, it is not only indigenous peoples who suffer but
all people will feel the impacts of environmental contamination and the
imminence of Line 9 ruptures. The St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes are
some of the most important watersheds in the entire world and their
contamination will impact everyone from Aamjiwnaang to Kanesatake, including
the fish, the land, the animals and all known native peoples.
6334.
To now understand the depth and level to which Enbridge has ignored
indigenous inherent rights and title, as if violating the Canadian Constitution is
not grievous enough of an offence, the sanctions which protect indigenous
inherent and Treaty rights and title go beyond that of the domestic arena. As
outlined by the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People,
quote:
“Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the
rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreement
and other constructed arrangements with States,”
6335.
And, quote:
“Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over
developments affecting them in their lands, territories and
resources [like the Line 9 pipeline] will enable them to
maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and
traditions, and to promote their development in accordance
with their [own] aspirations and needs.”
6336.
I don’t aspire to poison Mother Earth. I don’t need to drink poison
water. As stated in the Grand River Indigenous Solidarity written evidence,
Exhibit A3J8H9, at least 12 articles under the UNDRIP, violating indigenous
sovereignty, rights to land, nationhood and healthy living conditions.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6337.
The actions taken by Enbridge to develop for the interest of capital
gains on indigenous lands without free, prior, informed consent is an attack on our
self-determination and an attack on our sovereignty.
6338.
MS. LICKERS: What this means is this hearing, as a stage for
determining Enbridge’s ability to pursue their application, is complicit in this
colonial act, by not exercising due diligence required by the NEB to ensure proper
consultation and accommodation take place by the Crown.
6339.
In fact, the National Energy Board itself has actively engaged in nonaccommodation within the confines of these hearings alone. In approaching the
deadline for written submissions, the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation
submitted a reasonable request for extension -- for deadline extension, as their
funding had just been approved and they needed additional time to prepare their
reports.
6340.
Without any reasonable consideration or explanation, this modest
request for accommodation was outright denied by the National Energy Board. In
violating Treaty agreements, the settler laws of Canada, your own constitution,
and international law under the UN, there has been an extreme undermining of
indigenous governance, title and rights.
6341.
And in the face of gruesome engineering reports, including Enbridge’s
own self-reporting, with a history of lack of transparency and accountability, and
all the while completely bypassing the required processes for indigenous
engagement, notification, accommodation, consultation, this company is
requesting the application be approved.
6342.
I request that the pipeline be decommissioned.
6343.
MS. LICKERS: Enbridge is asking for permission to poison our
rivers and to illegally enter our territories. I ask that this pipeline be
decommissioned.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6344.
MS. LICKERS: Understanding the impacts of the eventuality of a
pipeline rupture is very important for us all. The route of the pipe, as we all
know, follows along the northern shores of the Great Lakes and snakes along the
St. Lawrence River.
6345.
As mentioned previously, these watershed areas are essential to us. I
ask that the pipeline be decommissioned.
6346.
MS. LICKERS: Water is the life blood of all of creation and if we
destroy our freshwater, there will be nothing left but poison. This means the
aquatic life that we fish, the animals that we hunt, the water that we drink, and the
land that we grow our food upon will be contaminated. And if we are lucky, the
record shows Enbridge might clean it up in about three years.
6347.
Biological accumulation and amplification is the process of acquiring
toxins as a result of increasing concentrations of contaminants as the food chain
moves up. This means that plants that grow in contaminated soil, fish that live in
contaminated water, they absorb these toxins and carcinogens and they build it up
in their bodies -- and they build up in our bodies when we eat them.
6348.
This is the reality of many indigenous peoples already impacted by
Enbridge and companies like them. This is the future we write for ourselves
when we allow applications such as the one before the Board today to be
approved. What this translates to is a direct impact on our ability as indigenous
peoples to practice our inherent or Treaty rights to fish, hunt, gather and live in
traditional ways.
6349.
As affidavits have already testified in the Mohawk Council of
Kahnawà:ke’s written evidence, indigenous peoples, Onkwehonwe peoples, Ilnew
peoples, Anishinaabe peoples, Métis peoples are living indigenous ways and
despite over 500 years of attempted assimilation, to infringe on this is a violation
of our relationship to the land and a direct assault on our identity and our
sovereignty.
6350.
The Line 9 project is such an infringement. And additionally to the
United Nations Declaration for Indigenous Rights, in addition to the Canadian
Constitution, in addition to Treaty agreements, there are indigenous laws on these
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
lands. Carrie mentioned earlier the Guswenta, which is the Two Row Wampum.
With the Two Row Wampum, there’s also the silver covenant chain.
6351.
And these two Treaties -- these two Wampum belts together are
supposed to be the parameters under which we operate as indigenous and nonindigenous peoples on indigenous territory, in particular in Haudenosaunee
territory. And Carrie had briefly described the Two Row, it’s a band of white, a
band of purple, a band of white, a band of purple, a band of white. And they are
supposed to represent two vessels travelling down the river of life, pals not
interfering with each other. It didn’t work out.
6352.
But it’s a living treaty, and that means that there are responsibilities
that you have inherited as settlers on our territories to repair those relationships.
6353.
In the silver covenant chain, it depicts an indigenous Onkwehonwe
person and a non-native holding a silver chain. And the idea is that as friends if
there is a problem on your side of the river you’d shake the chain and we would
hear it, we would know, and we would come and help you, and then if we had an
issue, we would do the same thing. These ideas of mutual aid, friendship and
respect, are deeply engrained in the Haudenosaunee culture. And the reason that
it was a silver chain is because it needed to be polished because relationships take
care and they take work.
6354.
And additionally, there’s another Wampum I’d like to talk about and
it’s called the sewatokwa’sera or the dish with one spoon. And this Wampum
teaching is actually what motivated me to start organizing against the Line 9 river
toll, because I realized that this reversal is actually an act of imperialism because
the sewatokwa’sera, unlike all of the other agreements I have mentioned before,
don’t include settler nations. It’s an agreement between the Haudenosaunee and
the Anishinaabe.
6355.
And my Anishinaabe is not very good, but the word that they have for
this agreement, it means dish. And the reason that they call it a dish is because, as
friends, as brothers, we were to eat from the same dish, we would share. So Lake
Ontario was our dish and you would eat out of it and you would, like, gain
sustenance. And so that’s something that we had to share with each other as well
as non-human nations like bears and deer and all kinds of other animals who also,
you know, eat the berries and wolves that eat the deer. And we call that
agreement the spoon. That’s what sewatokwa’sera means, it means spoon.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6356.
And so the Wampum is kind of like -- it’s sort of like -- it looks like
this with a dot in the middle kind of and the middle is a spoon. And so the idea is
this mutual aid, friendship, respecting where if -- because we were friends, there
were no knives at the table because knives are sharp and they cut, and so we
would share spoons. There was only one spoon and so we would share it if there
was a problem in our community.
6357.
So if something happened with Haudenosaunee with our three sisters,
with the junhekwa (ph), the life sustainers, then we could go knock on the door of
Anishinaabe and ask for some wild rice, you know, some berries, some moose
meat they got and they would help us out and vice versa. If there was something
wrong with -- you know, it wasn’t a good migratory season or something had
happened with their food supply in the middle of the winter, they could come over
to the Haudenosaunee community and ask for some corn, some beans, some
squash. We would share with each other.
6358.
But not only was this international agreement on how to interact with
each other and how to treat each other with respect and camaraderie, but it was
also an agreement to take care of our territories, to ensure that the water and the
woods were clean and available for all other creation, not just humans, as well as
our ancestors and those not yet born. And that life affirmation was a goal, not like
Enbridge.
6359.
And so the Line 9 pipeline reversal is a threat to that agreement and it
is a foreign entity imposing itself on our own laws and breaking our own laws. In
addition to that, as I mentioned earlier, we have the Haudenosaunee Grand
Council, and so that means that our traditional governance is intact and I’m very
thankful for that. And this means that, when consultation happens it needs to
happen with them, it needs to happen with those who originally wrote the treaties
with the Crown, and that is our Grand Council. And they have not been
contacted. They have not been consulted.
6360.
I met with them in Tonawanda, south of the colonial border and told
them about this and they’re very concerned and they’re not very impressed. And
this project continues to show itself as something that attacks our autonomy,
attacks our self-determination and continues to attack the very things that we base
ourselves culturally around.
6361.
But these things also aren’t specific to just Haudenosaunee people or
indigenous people. I think that all human beings base themselves around water. I
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
think that all human beings require uncontaminated soil to grow their food. I
think that that is why there has been such an outrage by largely the, you know,
Ontario population of residents and citizens, non-indigenous as well as indigenous
people and there’s been a lot of participation in these hearings. And a lot of
people have worked really hard, students, community members, all kinds of
different groups have come up and tried really hard to follow all the rules and do
things in a good way and, you know, be heard, and it’s because I think they’re
interested in life affirmation.
6362.
I’m going to read a statement from the Native Youth Sexual Health
Network. I was going to have Krysta Williams with me here today, but
unfortunately, she wasn’t able to attend due to the timing. So just pretend I’m
Krysta.
6363.
I am here today presenting on behalf of a Native Youth Sexual Health
Network, presenting this statement. We are by and for indigenous youth
organization working across issues of sexual and reproductive health, rights and
justice throughout the United States and Canada. Throughout this statement, you
will hear me refer to indigenous peoples, not Indians or Canada’s Aboriginal
people. And for us, this term indigenous is capable of fully recognizing our
humanity, the relationship and stewardship of land and is more globally
understood.
6364.
We also recognize and affirm the right of indigenous peoples to use
our Nation names in our languages which encompasses the more than 650 diverse
First Nations, traditional names for Métis historic and current communities and
territories, as well as the five Inuit regions who have also their own ways of
understanding responsibility to land. We say this to recognize the knowledge,
sovereignty and self-determination that exists for indigenous peoples since time
immemorial not granted by the Canadian state since we pre-date the very
existence of Canada.
6365.
While we recognize that the National Energy Board has been given a
very narrow mandate, and despite the breadth of the Enbridge Line 9 proposal, we
wish to contextualize our voice here today with the understanding that this
proposal and process does not happen in a vacuum. There are impacts and
implications much more far reaching than the mandate of the National Energy
Board and we need to recognize this.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6366.
MS. LICKERS: Additionally, extractive industry development,
whether it be pipeline construction, mining projects, or other projects, also do not
happen without a social context around them which affect the everyday lives of
many, many, people.
6367.
What we are reflecting back to you today is based on the lived and
personal experiences of indigenous youth, women, families, communities and
nations, who are impacted by the extractive industries in their cities, community
and traditional territories.
6368.
It also applies to communities and people directly on the Line 9 who
would be affected, not only by the pipeline itself, but the agenda of swift and
unsafe resource extraction practices and the implications along the way.
6369.
Organizationally, this is also based on our front line of work in
communities on the ground who are dealing with the intergenerational effects,
often of multiple resource development projects in and around their land, schools
and homes.
6370.
Firstly, we would like to refer to evidence that has been submitted and
point out specific realities and implications based on that.
6371.
While the United Nations Declaration on the Indigenous Rights -- or
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is often quickly dismissed by states like
Canada as non-legally binding, we wish to remind the NEB that the rights
enshrined in the Declaration are indeed the same human rights guaranteed to all in
international human rights law to which the Canadian Government is not exempt
and must in fact protect and fulfill those human rights.
6372.
We know that Line 9 is just one example of many projects that directly
violate our right to free, prior and informed consent, in addition to directly
contributing to various health and social impacts for which no responsibility is
taken.
6373.
The foundation of the free, prior and informed consent, when actually
taken seriously, means decisions, making -- means decision making processes
should be led by all indigenous communities who will be affected by any new
project on their territories.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6374.
Free, prior and informed consent is a much different framework than
simply consultation, which still hasn’t happened.
6375.
Consultation is too often rushed, inaccessible to communities, and
limited in its understandings of the relationship of the land to indigenous peoples
and/or engaging in the process itself is seen as consent.
6376.
And in particular, the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke I believe
articulated that exact statement and that it is not consenting engaging in this
process.
6377.
For example, it is our experience that indigenous women and children
often bear the brunt of negative consequences of resource extraction and are
suffering the detrimental, devastating, multigenerational and deadly impacts of
environmental toxins and contaminants.
6378.
This particular impact of environmental racism on indigenous women
and children is increasingly referred to as environmental violence.
6379.
In the work that the Native Youth Sexual Health Network does with
the International Indigenous Women’s Reproductive and Environmental Health
Initiative , they see that the detrimental health effects of toxic contaminants on
indigenous women are not well documented.
6380.
They have been able to identify -- some of these impacts include the
contamination of mother’s breast milk at 4 to 12 times the levels found in the
mother’s body tissue in some indigenous communities; elevated levels of
contaminants such as POPs and heavy metals in infant cord blood;
disproportionate levels of reproductive system cancers in the breasts, ovaries,
uterus, prostate, testicles, including in young people; elevated rates of respiratory
ailments such as asthma, lung disease, high levels of leukemia, other cancers in
infants, children and youth, rare, previously unknown forms of cancer among all
ages in our communities.
6381.
Devastating, and in many cases, fatal birth defects known to be
associated with environmental toxins like nuclear waste, mining, pesticides,
bitumen dilutants, including the increasing birth of “jelly babies” in the most
contaminated areas, developmental delays, learning disabilities, neurological
effects on babies, young children which have lifelong impacts associated with
prenatal exposure to mercury, pesticides.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6382.
We have seen that the introduction of resource extractive industries,
mining, drilling, logging, et cetera, has resulted in increased sexual violence and
sexual exploitation of indigenous women and girls in many communities, as well
as increased alcohol and drug abuse, sexually transmitted infections, divisions
among our families and communities, and a range of other social and health
problems which can also be understood as placing stress or strain on the social
systems of our communities.
6383.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Lickers, the Panel needs to take a break
right now.
6384.
MS. LICKERS: You want to take a break?
6385.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
6386.
MS. LICKERS: Okay.
6387.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Would that be okay? So we’ll reconvene in
a few minutes. Ten minutes.
6388.
MS. LICKERS: Sure. Ten minutes? Okay.
6389.
Oh, why? Everyone wants to know why.
6390.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Because I need to, you know, sometimes we
have emergencies so -- a nature break. I need it. We’ll be back at 5:30.
6391.
MS. LICKERS: I don’t think I can continue unless everyone else ---
6392.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take a break. Ten minutes. We’ll be
back in 10 minutes.
6393.
MS. LICKERS: Okay. I’m not sure we -- I think we should let
everyone inside though. Because they are public hearings.
6394.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What -- we’ll just talk like that.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6395.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So we thank you for your understanding.
Just want to mention that we’ve learned that a lot of people want to attend but for
safety and for fire code reason we had to stop.
6396.
The baby is okay. So we thank you for your understanding. So we’ve
learned that lots of people want to attend but for safety and for fire code reason
there is limited capacity.
6397.
But you -- please ---
6398.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We want to hear from Ms. Lickers, who is
an intervenor. She applied for intervenor status; she was accepted. She prepared
an important text and we want to hear her, and we’d like people to be respectful
and let her deliver her argument.
6399.
So, Ms. Lickers, we want to hear from you. And you’re doing a great
job so far, so please go on.
6400.
MEMBER RICHMOND: And we have asked, and we’ll repeat
again, we would ask security to please let enough people in to fill all the empty
chairs. And security is in the process of doing that, of filling the seats now.
Absolutely.
6401.
6402.
MS. LICKERS: Hi. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And, Ms. Lickers, how long do you
think you still have?
6403.
MS. LICKERS: How long? Maybe about half an hour. Is that okay?
Okay.
6404.
THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s good. And if there is no more
interruptions, I think we should be able to do it.
6405.
Transcript
MS. LICKERS: Okay, cool.
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6406.
So I just wanted to also say I feel like you’ve been listening to me.
Like, I feel that, and I just wanted to say thanks. I didn’t expect it.
6407.
MEMBER GAUTHIER: And as the Chair says, you make a great
job and this is interesting. You made a lot of reference of the evidence and the
exhibits, and so we are very interested to hear you.
MS. LICKERS: Cool. Great. That’s awesome.
6408.
6409.
MS. LICKERS: Cool. And just before I just return, I just -- there
was a request to do an honour song for the women and for Mother Earth, and in
honour of the people who suffered in Elsipogtog at the hands of RCMP violence
yesterday. And so I just -- if we could ---
6410.
MS. LICKERS: And so it’s women singing and it’s a very important
song to myself and to many indigenous women and indigenous people. And so
I’d just like to start with that and then we’ll go in. Okay.
6411.
THE CHAIRPERSON: If you want to use your time for this song,
we’re willing to listen to it, and I ---
6412.
6413.
MS. LICKERS: Excellent.
THE CHAIRPERSON: --- urge everybody to be respectful in
listening to the song.
6414.
6415.
MS. LICKERS: Okay. Come on up, ladies.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is actually in solidarity with the
Mi’kmaq warriors.
6416.
(Traditional song)
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6417.
MS. LICKERS: That was awesome. Cool. So yes, we go -- and as
Kathy said, that was also in solidarity with the Mi’kmaq Warrior Society, who
were raided at 6 a.m. by the RCMP. Colonial violence continues
6418.
And so I’m going to continue back with the youth declaration. And so
I’m just going to continue.
6419.
What we are reflecting back to you today is based on the lived and
personal experiences of indigenous youth -- can you please turn your cellphone
off -- women, families, communities and nations who were impacted by
extractive industries in their cities, community and traditional territories.
6420.
It also applies to communities and people directly on the Line 9 who
would be affected not only by the pipeline itself, but the agenda of swift and
unsafe resource extraction practices and the implications along the way.
6421.
Organizationally, this is also based on our frontline work in
communities on the ground who are dealing with the intergenerational effects
often of multiple resource development projects in and around our land, schools
and homes.
6422.
Firstly, we would like to refer to evidence already been submitted and
point out specific realities and implications based on that.
6423.
When the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples is often quickly dismissed by states like Canada as non legally binding,
we wish to remember the NEB -- we wish to remind the NEB that the rights
enshrined in the Declaration are indeed the same human rights guaranteed to all in
international human rights law to which the Canadian government is not exempt
and must in fact respect, protect and fulfill those human rights.
6424.
We know that the Line 9 is just one example of many projects that
directly violate our free, prior and informed consent in addition to directly
contributing to various health and social impacts for which no responsibility is
taken.
6425.
The foundation of free prior informed consent, when actually taken
seriously, maintains decision-making processes should be led by all the
indigenous communities who would be affected by any project on their territories.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6426.
Free prior informed consent is a much different framework than
simply consultation. Consultation is too often rushed, inaccessible to
communities and limited in its understandings of the relationship of land to
indigenous peoples and are engaging in the process itself as seen as consent.
6427.
For example, it is our experience that indigenous women and children
often bear the brunt of negative consequences of resource extraction and are
suffering the detrimental, devastating, multi-generational and deadly impacts of
environmental toxins and contaminants.
6428.
And this particular impact of environmental racism on indigenous
women and children is increasingly referred to as environmental violence.
6429.
In our work with the International Indigenous Women’s Reproductive
Environmental Health Initiative, we see that the detrimental health effects of toxic
contaminants on indigenous women is not well documented.
6430.
What we can -- what studies have shown is that these impacts include
the contamination of mother’s breast milk at four to 12 times the levels found in a
mother’s body tissue in some indigenous communities: elevated levels of
contaminants such as POPs and heavy metals in infant cord blood;
disproportionate levels of reproductive system cancers of the breast, ovary, uterus,
prostate and testicle, including in young people; elevated rates of respiratory
ailments such as asthma and lung disease; high levels of leukemia and other
cancers in infants, children and youth; rare, previously unknown forms of cancer
among all ages in our communities; devastating and in many cases fatal birth
defects known to be associated with environmental toxins such as nuclear waste,
mining, pesticides, bitumen dilutants, including the increased birth of jelly babies
in the most contaminated areas; developmental delays; learning disabilities and
neurological effects on babies and young children which have lifelong impacts
associated with prenatal exposure to mercury and pesticides.
6431.
We have seen that the introduction of resource extractive industries,
mining, drilling, logging, et cetera, has resulted in increased sexual violence and
sexual exploitation of indigenous women and girls in many communities, as well
as increased alcohol and drug abuse, sexually transmitted infections, divisions
among our families and communities and a range of other social and health
problems which can also be understood as placing stress or strain on the social
systems of our communities.
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6432.
These social stressors cause severe psychological, relational,
emotional and economic damage to mothers, families and communities and that
who are especially concerned and who we are especially concerned about here
today in relationship to the Line 9.
6433.
By approving this project, the National Energy Board and Enbridge
are saying that they’re okay with increasing violence against women, that they are
okay with contaminating breast milk and impeding the reproductive health of
indigenous women.
6434.
This would in fact not come as a surprise as our communities have
grown accustomed to the indifference in apathy from the Canadian government
and their industry partners. This is in the face of the fact that all profits derived
are a direct result of our resources that come from the territories of indigenous
peoples.
6435.
Additionally, environmental contaminants causing disease, birth
defects and death are deliberately released into the environment because they are
toxic to living things, or as a result of industrial processes, like in association with
Line 9, that are judged by governments, corporations and bodies like the National
Energy Board to pose an acceptable risk and allowable harm.
6436.
States and corporations deny provable impacts despite the clear
evidence that they cause a range of serious health and reproductive impacts which
disproportionately affect indigenous women and children.
6437.
This constitutes environmental violence by states and corporations and
must be identified as such by indigenous peoples and human rights bodies.
6438.
In other words, should this project be approved, Enbridge and the
National Energy Board would be complicit as well and the Canadian government
will be directly responsible for enacting environmental violence onto the bodies
of indigenous women, youth and children.
6439.
It also sends the message that because it is our indigenous bodies
specifically that will face the majority of these negative consequences that we are
disposable and it is worth it to risk our lives and well-being.
6440.
Is it any wonder indigenous women face so much violence that we are
six to seven times more likely to die in a violent death than anyone else?
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
6441.
These statistics are human lives and are very real and they reflect the
broader attitude towards us as individuals but also as communities and as nations.
6442.
The disposability of the indigenous body is akin to the disregard that
Enbridge shows by refusing consultation, by refusing education and
understanding land claims, Treaties and consultation with indigenous governance.
It is the same colonial violence that occurs when we are told not to protect our
territories, not to protect our water and not to protect our lands, when we are
forced into submission by entities like the RCMP and other police services.
6443.
We need to be taking note of what happens to communities once
resource extraction happens, and instead of explaining away the negative social
realities like mental health issues, like suicide, like sexual violence and health
problems, instead we must actually take and place responsibility onto all parties
involved, whether they seem themselves as a direct cause or not.
6444.
This is also referred to as the precautionary principle as opposed to
risk management, assessment and mitigation that deems certain kinds of risk as
excusable, as acceptable. Instead, the precautionary approach allows us to more
closely examine potential impacts and actually plan for those realities.
6445.
This principle has been codified in several international Treaties to
which Canada is a signatory. The precautionary principle is not a new concept to
indigenous peoples. Many of our nations have and still consider the impact of our
decisions on the future generations. What Line 9 will risk is that future. Your
decision as the NEB will affect that future.
6446.
I request that the pipeline is decommissioned.
6447.
MS. LICKERS: For example, we know that in areas where there is
concentrated resource extraction, mining, frac gas, refining, et cetera, the process
itself of construction, not just the end product, contribute to our realities.
6448.
In our work, we see certain realities. We see this especially within
local health care systems which are often overworked and overburdened to begin
with. And now imagine a few thousand workers, the majority from outside of our
communities are now living and working in that concentrated area and how
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
corporations like Enbridge often promise an increase in local employment
opportunities, it is rarely the reality of the majority of workers or is short-lived.
6449.
And all of a sudden, health care for locals is impossible to receive,
longer than usual wait times puts a strain on the system and people who already
experience marginalization such as youth and indigenous peoples, and they are
left with the consequences.
6450.
In sexual health this also means an increase in highly communicable
sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, syphilis and gonorrhoea.
6451.
While testing the treatment -- while testing and treatment are widely
available, these present serious consequences when left untreated and are easily
spread throughout a concentrated area, leading to outbreaks or more serious
strains of a virus.
6452.
Incurable STIs, such as HIV, also spread, again affecting the most
vulnerable. Currently, Canada has an HIV epidemic among young indigenous
women that it refuses to recognize, specifically in areas where resource extraction
is the number one activity.
6453.
While we recognize the importance of scientific data and research
studies documenting these links, it’s also important not to discount the evidence
of lived realities and experiences of people who are surviving these impacts every
day.
6454.
There is so much that is still unknown when it comes to the substances
involved in the Line 9 project, in particular the health impacts of bitumen,
contamination in water and dilutant, contamination in the air in the event of
releases, not to mention the refining and not to mention where it came from, that
we must trust and rely on direct observation from affected communities in the
vicinity of this and similar projects.
6455.
Evidence has also been submitted in relation to various toxins that may
or may not be released into the environment, what levels these toxins may or may
not be safe for human consumption. However, this does not take into account
children who will be consuming traditional foods harvested by indigenous peoples
such as fish with high levels of mercury, in addition to consuming breast milk,
also a traditional food. Bioaccumulation is this kind -- of this kind specifically, in
relation to the bodies of children has not been considered, especially when these
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
foods are related to traditional cultural practices inherent to healthy identity
development.
6456.
In conclusion, the Native Youth Sexual Health Network expects that
the NEB will take seriously the considerations of their decision in making the
relationships to environmental violence and the real consequences and impacts to
our bodies that will be, and currently are faced not only by indigenous women and
youth, but by all of us.
6457.
I request that you decommission the pipeline.
6458.
MS. LICKERS: And so that was the letter that was sent to me. I
have a few more -- a few more thoughts to add.
6459.
I just think that it’s really important to include that statement from the
Native Youth Sexual Health Network because they’re drawing on the violence
that is faced by indigenous women in a colonial society and how -- on how that
impacts our nationhood and our identities as indigenous people. And this
relationship of poisoning our food, and poisoning our land, and when we’re living
-- and when we’re working towards decolonization and we’re working to
revitalize our traditions and they’re -- you know, these things that are supposed to
nourish our spirits and nourish our bodies are actually contaminated, it’s a major
issue.
6460.
And, you know, a lot of people have talked way before even I was
born about the relationship between colonial violence against indigenous women
and colonial violence against Mother Earth, and I think that is something that the
National Energy Board should take very seriously and close to heart.
6461.
MS. LICKERS: And I understand that there have been changes to
this process and that if you make a decision it could be overruled by parliament,
whatever decision it is, and so I have to feel like this is an illusion of participation.
6462.
Transcript
MS. LICKERS: And I also feel like a lot of folks aren’t feeling really
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
optimistic and like the NEB’s role is to rubberstamp applications, because we’ve
seen historically that it’s constitutionally required. It is understood in
international law, it is ratified in treaties that consultation with indigenous peoples
must occur for developments on their territories. That doesn’t usually happen.
Yeah, never, you know. And so it’s hard to have confidence in a body like the
National Energy Board when that is the reality, and especially when indigenous
communities are disproportionally impacted by the pollution.
6463.
You know, if we’re going to look at whose communities are where,
let’s take a map of refineries, let’s take a map of mines, one of the biggest mine’s
on the earth in occupied Chippewa and in Cree territory in so-called Alberta, and
who’s living near them and who’s downstream from that water. And we have
corporations like Enbridge who are still cleaning up major spills and are spilling
all the time.
6464.
And so why should we grant them an opportunity to have a pipeline
reversed, have the capacity increased and allow for the possibility of a
transportation of bitumen when we understand it to be a toxin? And we look at
the map and see that Line 9 is right along the Great Lakes and right along the St.
Lawrence River and so many other lakes and streams. And with the Line A
already reversed it’s even more difficult to feel confident in this process.
6465.
MS. LICKERS: Because these applications come from corporations
like Enbridge in the interest of capitalism. Capitalism takes a spirit that itself is a
crude value system -- you like that joke -- ha ha.
6466.
MS. LICKERS: And it takes the familial relationship -- our
relationship with our mother -- and it twists that relationship around applying
these abstract means of measure like monetarism, like dollars, and then
transforms our Mother Earth into resources for extraction.
6467.
The lack of consent and the violence is very real. And the logistical,
the legal, the rational facts, the data itself is clearly against this. Indigenous
peoples have come here to clearly tell you that they have not been consulted.
Citizens have said that this is not democratic. The data shows that this project is
not safe. There are very important subjects that I can’t even talk about in this
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
process that have severe implications that are a genocide that is taking place right
now in Chippewayan and in Cree territories and it’s called the tar sands.
6468.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Lickers, it’s -- you’re a very good
speaker and we understand that you’re talking about this project, and more
projects, but try to keep it to this project.
6469.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It’s Ms. Lickers turn to speak and she’s
doing a really good job so far so we want to hear from her.
6470.
MS. LICKERS: Everyone who has participated in this process,
everyone who has witnessed this process, will only be resolved in our
commitment to stop Line 9.
6471.
MS. LICKERS: I urge the Board to decommission this pipeline.
Yesterday, we saw the RCMP enforce environmental racism against the Mi’kmaq
people in Elsipogtog who refused to have their sovereignty violated by
corporations looking to poison their water.
6472.
And this application is an invitation to social conflict. It is an
invitation to self-defence and a beckoning to land defence.
6473.
6474.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Lickers, is this the end of your speech
or they’re just very enthusiastic?
6475.
MS. LICKERS: A bit of both.
6476.
THE CHAIRPERSON: A bit of both, okay. So are you about to
Transcript
Final argument
Rising Tide Toronto
wrap up, I guess?
MS. LICKERS: No, that is the end. Well, I mean, that’s the end of
6477.
this forum.
6478.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
6479.
MS. LICKERS: But we’re going to continue.
6480.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So this is -- okay.
6481.
MS. LICKERS: So thank you so much.
6482.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have questions?
6483.
MS. LICKERS: Do you have any questions?
6484.
THE CHAIRPERSON: No.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We’re adjourned until 9 o’clock. Thank
6485.
you.
--- Upon adjourning at 6:22 p.m./L’audience est ajournée à 18h22
Transcript

A3Q1F4 - 13-10-18 - Volume 7 - Office national de l`énergie

Transcription

Similar documents

Empalme Gas Pipeline Branch

Samalayuca – Sasabe Gas Pipeline

Exploring the ARUCC PCCAT Transcript and Transfer Guide

Cott Beverages - Enbridge Gas Distribution

S. Ellis - Community Advisory Boards

flyer - Centennial Classic Arms

Saturday, June 26, 2016 Zorinsky Lake Picnic Pavillion