Two ravens crested the longhouse and caused me to look into the cold rain. They cawed almost mournfully as they alighted on the roof of the church. Hours before, three black fish had appeared out of a foggy mist to cross the bow of the boat. We had also seen bald eagles pause from eulachon hunting earlier on the Skeena River, to watch us steam by on our way to Hartley Bay. The arrival of the ravens had completed an homage to an honored triumvirate.

The appearance of the three reflected the clans of the Gitga’at nation — blackfish, eagle and raven.  This was appropriate for the occasion. A great Tsimshian Chief had left us.  It was March 2004.

Smoogit Wahmoodmx, Johnny Clifton, Blackfish Chief of the Gitga’at — my chief — died only hours after seeing Joe Morita (the owner of King Pacific Lodge) and me.  Johnny had taken time to show me the traditional Gitga’at territory that surrounds King Pacific Lodge.  From the ancient fish trap in Cameron Bay to some of the stands of medicinal trees in secret valleys on Princess Royal Island, Johnny unearthed the stories of the land for me and made it live.  What we think of as “wilderness” is often a product of careful, long-term stewardship of the land and its resources.

He had asked me to help in any way I could to protect the land and the culture of Gitga'at Nation.  I had no idea what a tall order that would be.  It was easy to keep such a promise in the heady days right after the establishment of the Great Bear Rainforest, a time when so many disparate parties came together in a moment of clarity to establish what the World Wildlife Fund would later award its Gift to the Earth prize to.

It the last few years, protecting Wahmoodmx's world has become far more fraught with uncertainty.  The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and tanker project seeks to ship 525,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil on more than 200 supertankers.  These ships are twice the size of the Exxon Valdez and they will attempt to ply waters half as narrow as Prince William Sound.  Even in the interval before a catastrophic oil spill, the land and sea of the Great Bear will change.  Commercial and subsistence fishing may be stopped all together. Tourism would be finished.  I cannot envision the juxtaposition of remote wilderness tourism and oil tankers.  And though I will battle to keep my business viable, I recognize that in the greater scheme of things, this loss would pale in comparison to the destruction of Gitga'at culture.

The enduring lesson Wahmoodmx left me with is that we are all part of that stewardship.  Under his guidance, King Pacific Lodge signed the first-ever protocol between a First Nation and a tourism operator in British Columbia.  In this unique agreement, King Pacific has pledged to act as a good steward of the land.  We have also become members of the Hartley Bay community and take our role as individual and corporate citizens very seriously.

From this perspective, it is clear we must change the calculus. The current metrics invariably cast culture, environment and nature as boxes that can be checked off as impediments which are dealt with as so-called public reviews move inexorably to the approval of corporate plans.  We seem entranced by a wayward pedagogy that informs the zeitgeist with foolish choices like progress over environment, market forces over ancient cultures and, perhaps the most insidious false equation, profits over balance, over respect, over history, over happiness, over  humanity itself.

Our blithe acceptance of these "truths" forces a cruel portrait of our times. Here intact First Nations' cultures must justify their existence somewhere in the language of the corporate balance sheet.  And along with them, we are all asked to calculate how many trees, streams, fish, bears, whales and cultures are we willing to sacrifice to accommodate a private economic plan.

Put simply:  this cannot be right.

What if the equation was flipped?  What if the question was: given that we will honor ancient cultures and the legacy of Wahmoodmx and protect the nature and environment of his territory, what are the possible activities allowed to enrich our material well-being?  What then would our answer be?

All small ways of bringing attention to the plight of the Great Bear are important.  Protecting the area will be about many of us establishing our own ties to it.  Cooking for a Cause on May 11 at the Gulf of Georgia Cannery in Richmond is a celebration of Gitga’at Culture and the Great Bear Rainforest, an area called the “Wildest Place in North America” by National Geographic Magazine.

The reception will feature an intimate evening of entertainment, including a solo acoustic performance by Matthew Good, and a culinary adventure of wine and cuisine, featuring ingredients from the Great Bear Rainforest and prepared by renowned chefs. Our hope is that by introducing you to this part of the world and the people that call it home, you too will understand why it is so important that we do everything possible to protect it.

I would like to give special thanks to the Gitga’at Nation for all that they have done and continue to do. In an area the world wishes to call the Great Bear, we know there has always been — and always will be — an even greater people. Our hope is that attendees will leave Cooking for a Cause on Friday night with a deeper understanding of what is really at stake and a desire to join the fight to protect our coasts — Wahmoodmx's coast — and everything that means.

In March, dozens of people got to spend some time underwater for the first time thanks to a 24-hour Scuba relay hosted by the UVic Scuba Club. Better yet, the event raised nearly $4,000 for Dogwood’s No Tankers campaign to keep B.C. waters free from the threat of oil supertankers and oil spills.

“Once they have experienced Scuba diving first hand, their concern for the marine environment becomes a passion, which is why supporting the No Tankers campaign was a logical choice for our club members,” explains Tyler Preston, president of the UVic Scuba Club.

The group’s substantial generosity is testament to the depth of feelings on campus about the urgency of the threat oil tankers pose to the future health and prosperity of B.C. Participants collected pledges for their time underwater, which was spent taking part in buoyancy challenges, pool poker, a dance party and even underwater movies. Instructors with the club volunteered their time and skills to offer “pay-what-you-can” introductory scuba classes.

The Scuba Club partnered with the Ocean Students Society, which offered a series of seminars and films highlighting ocean research being undertaken at University of Victoria and the serious environmental challenges facing our oceans. The event combined action, awareness and fun all directed towards making positive change.

Preston, who studies environmental psychology, knows the importance of experience in shaping our views. “I’m a firm believer that getting people underwater helps them to take care of the ocean,” he says. Divers have a visceral fear of the impact that even a “minor” spill would have and for these young divers their ocean experience propels them to take a stand against oil tankers.

Dogwood Initiative is grateful for the support we receive from campuses across B.C. and for the very special efforts made by the divers of the UVic Scuba Club.

UVic Scuba Club has prepared this video celebrating the 24-hour Relay.

Remember it was Prime Minister Trudeau’s despised National Energy Program that spurred “western alienation,” “The West wants in” and ultimately the creation of Harpers’ Reform party.

The seminal provincial/federal tensions of the 1980s National Energy Program fable are worth noting: An aggressive prime minister responds to perceived (but debatable) national interest by imposing an unwanted national energy program on an unwilling province over the province’s strenuous objection. Political impacts reverberate for decades.

It’s amazing to watch Harper making the same mistakes as his historic antagonist. Over the last few months we’ve seen Harper and his appointed minister bully their way into a supposedly independent process, attack and attempt to demonize any opponents (including the 4,000 concerned Canadians who signed up for the public hearings on Enbridge’s proposal), then undermine the consultation with affected First Nations by asserting his government would “justify infringement.” Just for good measure, then Harper flew off to communist China with Enbridge’s CEO in tow to negotiate energy deals and give press conferences, and he is now vowing to cut the Enbridge Northern Gateway hearings mid-way through the process.

Talk about heavyhanded! What ever happened to Harper, the champion of decentralized federalism? What happened to Harper’s promise that Ottawa would listen to the provinces? What happened to the new way of doing politics that spurred the Reform party? I guess they quickly disappear when one gets hooked on becoming an energy superpower.

The questions now are:

1. Is Harper willing to try to force an unwanted oil tanker and pipeline project on an unwilling British Columbia?
2. Will this oil tanker and pipeline project become Harper’s re-enactment of Trudeau’s vilified National Energy Program?

Fortunately for British Columbians, despite Harper’s majority he can’t just snap his fingers and make the pipeline happen. There are many avenues that concerned British Columbians, especially First Nations, can take to kibosh Harper’s plans.

The fight will be tough, and protracted. Harper and his Big Oil buddies will play dirty — they’ve already started — but the collective efforts of British Columbians acting together strategically are a force that can’t be overcome.

British Columbians have beat back unwanted oil tanker and pipeline proposals about every decade since the 1970s. The groundswell in opposition indicates Harper is going to have to relearn the National Energy Program lesson the hard way.

Dogwood staffer Charles Campbell was messing around with the P.A. system. Bill Gannon and Rod Marining –  both veterans of the oil supertanker battles from the ’70s – had arrived and were mingling at the front. Bill had his ukulele and copies of his song “BC Waters,” which the Gettin’ Higher Choir was going to help us sing to kick things off.

Full disclosure: I don’t sing so I made sure to hang at the back.

The most powerful moment of that sunny afternoon, for me, was when former Shell Oil advisor Anita Burke took to the microphone. She told us of the moment when her and a small crew of first-responders stepped off a helicopter on a beach oiled by the Exxon Valdez spill.

Immediately, she said, they had to run into the forest and bend over sick because of the smell. “I didn’t know how to fix it,” she said. “I had all the technology in the world, Exxon was going to give us a billion dollars, and we didn’t know how to fix it.”

That’s when it really hit home for me what we were up against. At the end of the day an accident could happen, like they sometimes do and the veil of corporate promises would lift to reveal the reality of oil spills: shovels, buckets and people getting sick.

I think most British Columbians understand rightly, in their gut, the folly of allowing crude oil tankers on our coast.

They understood it back in the ‘70s and they understand it now. B.C.’s coast, its magic and its bounty has imprinted itself onto our collective provincial and national identity.

That deep-seated, gut instinct to protect our coastal waters is one of the reasons the No Tankers petition has grown from that sunny launch on the legislature steps through two main iterations to include over 100,000 signatories nation-wide.

The No Tankers petition is not some stale stack of paper. Yes, we do submit them (thanks to MPs Denise Savoie and Joyce Murray for presenting our first petition to the House of Commons!), however the power of the petition does not lie in it's official submission. Signing it is a springboard.

It’s a petition’s ability to create an active and engaged network that’s truly powerful. In Dogwood Initiative’s case, those who sign the No Tankers petition are given the opportunity to participate in or organize their own local actions. These additional actions then combine to produce an overall impact that far exceeds that one initial signature.

For example, the weight of so many connected and coordinated people helped convince the federal NDP, Liberals and Bloc Quebecois to work together one exciting December morning to pass a motion seeking to block oil tankers off our north coast. 

And as this sentence is being written, thousands of petition signatories in B.C. are contacting their own local Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) to push for the B.C. government to flex some muscle over oil tanker plans for our coast.

A lot has happened since I stood on those legislature steps and pretended to sing along. We’ve had successes and failures, moments of joy and moments of dread, but overall I can tell you that this big, diverse, collective network of people is slowly becoming unstoppable.

Victory is creeping up on us. You can help it find us that much quicker by sharing the petition with everyone you know.

Louis, a listener from Chilliwack who works in the pipeline industry said he was firmly opposed to Kinder Morgan’s expansion.

We also hosted a telephone townhall in Cilliwack-Hope last Tuesday. I was reminded how diverse the opposition to the Enbridge and Kinder Morgan proposals is everywhere in B.C. by the kinds of questions and comments we received from speakers during the hour-long discussion.

4752 people opted into the townhall with guest panelists Rafe Mair, former ICBC CEO Robyn Allan, and Fraser Valley advocate John Vissers.

Louis, a listener from Chilliwack who works in the pipeline industry said he was firmly opposed to Kinder Morgan’s expansion. So did Steve from Hope, who works in the oil fields and Ed, who is three houses down from Kinder Morgan’s existing pipeline and a fly fisherman.

That opposition to oil tankers extends beyond greenies is not news to most people who live in B.C.

We’ve been doing polling for several years to quantify this political and cultural reality. Most recently, a poll by Justason Market Intelligence found that overall opposition to crude oil supertankers outstrips support 3:1 in B.C. New Democrats oppose the proposal in the highest numbers, but even among B.C. Liberal and B.C. Conservative voters, opposition to tankers exceeds support.

Opposition to oil tankers crosses the political spectrum. But is it a provincial voting issue?

We asked our telephone town hall listeners what they thought. Was oil pipelines and tankers a voting issue for them?
68% of responders said yes.

Who were they going to vote for?
Conservatives 16%
NDP 41%
Liberal 20%
Undecided 22%

Near the end of the telephone townhall we asked listeners if the discussion they’d participated in had changed who they were going to vote for?
35% said yes.

Mike’s formerly preferred BC Liberal candidate, taking the lead from Premier Christy Clark, held the party line during the by-election campaign by pointing to the federal environmental review process instead of confronting the issue of oil pipelines and tankers head-on.

I wonder how long the BC Liberal dodge is going to hold up, particularly with repeated announcements and fiery rhetoric from the federal government that undermine any crumb of credibility these processes have left.

Chilliwack-Hope’s BC Conservative candidate John Martin is probably right in regards to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion through the Fraser Valley: “I think we have a hell of a fight on our hands. Decidedly this is going to be an issue that dominates this riding for years and years to come. This is serious.”

In B.C., the real certainty that’s needed is a resolution to the question of ownership. No tinkering with the environmental review process will make B.C. attractive to investors as long as First Nations’ rights and title issues remain unresolved. Until this fundamental question of ownership of the resources is addressed, B.C. will never be the safe haven for investors the BC Liberals claim it to be. Projects that manage to make it through an environmental review in a timely manner and with a positive outcome will still be subjected to protests and court challenges if the rights and title to the resources remain contested.

The other justification for streamlining the environmental review process is that Canada has high environmental standards that are stringently enforced. This is simply not true.

The same federal budget that proposes to put time constraints on the environmental review process and make it more efficient also proposes to further gut environmental regulations and reduce the number of people on the ground that would enforce the minimalist regulations that remain. We’ve seen this story play out in B.C. over the last decade as the B.C. government gutted its Environmental Assessment Office process and budget, privatized our public forests, dramatically reduced compliance and enforcement activity, opened up the northeast to unplanned and unfettered development, and cut the budgets of every “dirt” ministry to the point that we no longer have the capacity to manage B.C.’s public resources in the public interest.

I’m not opposed to taking a “one project, one review” approach to major resource projects; it does not make sense to have duplicate processes. However, in order to ensure that we gain the efficiencies a single window approach would allow, we must address the outstanding rights and title issues, ensure we have high environmental standards that guarantee best practices to protect environmental and social values, and we must have a substantial compliance and enforcement regime that ensures these best practices are used by every company that’s given the right to develop our public resources.

Unfortunately, the current federal and the current B.C. government have not demonstrated that this is the framework they intend to build around a streamlined and time limited environmental review process. Instead, it’s evident that both governments simply want to facilitate access to public resources as quickly as possible while minimizing the opportunity for public debate and dialogue about the best use of those resources and the environmental and social implications of their extraction.

That’s why the efforts of both the federal and provincial governments to gut both the environmental assessment process and environmental regulations must be resisted by anyone who is concerned about the wise use of our public resources for current and future generations.

Overall, two-thirds (66 per cent) of B.C. residents oppose plans to transport crude oil from Alberta through B.C.’s inside coastal waters. One-half (50 per cent) strongly oppose this plan, indicating it will be a key voting issue in the 2013 B.C. provincial election. One in five (22 per cent) support allowing oil supertankers in the inside coastal waters, including 11 per cent who strongly support.

The survey was conducted by Justason Market Intelligence on behalf of Dogwood Initiative, Forest Ethics, Living Oceans Society and West Coast Environmental Law.

The results indicate the more British Columbians know about Enbridge’s pipeline and supertanker proposal, the more likely they are to oppose it. In Northwest B.C., nearly all residents were aware of the Enbridge proposal (94 per cent), compared to 78 per cent province-wide, and seven in ten (69 per cent) oppose, including 64 per cent who strongly oppose.

Respondents were asked: Up until now, crude oil supertankers have not entered B.C.’s inside passage because of concerns about oil spills. Ottawa is now considering allowing crude oil supertankers to transport crude oil through these waters. Do you support or oppose allowing crude oil supertankers through B.C.’s inside coastal waters?

Opposition to oil tankers in B.C.’s inside coastal waters surpasses support across all political affiliations and in all areas of the province. This might explain why the federal Conservatives have fallen a staggering 16 points in popularity in B.C. in the past year, while they’ve ramped up their push for oil tankers on our coast. It is also an insight into the B.C. Liberals’ plunge in support at a time when they refuse to take a position on the Enbridge proposal.

The Justason results contrast sharply with polling commissioned by Enbridge, which uses a project description that doesn’t mention supertankers or the Great Bear Rainforest.

A question on the Justason survey shed some light on how British Columbians feel about the Great Bear Rainforest. A strong majority (82 per cent) agreed that protecting the Great Bear Rainforest is like protecting the Amazon or the Great Barrier Reef. Six in ten British Columbians strongly agree. It’s no wonder Enbridge doesn’t want to mention the area its proposal would put at risk.

The truth is that when British Columbians are provided with key information on the geographic location of the project and the fact the proposal would lead to oil supertankers travelling through the the Great Bear Rainforest for the first time, they are strongly opposed to the Enbridge proposal.

For now, the battle of the polls will continue, but the longer this debate drags on, the more British Columbians who are going to realize Enbridge’s pipelines mean oil supertankers — and the more they’re not going to like it.

If the federal government decides to shut down the public hearings, the opposition to Enbridge will only strengthen and the calls on the provincial government to stand up for our coast will grow louder by the day.

Justason Market Intelligence surveyed 611 adult British Columbians between Feb. 24 and March 7, 2012. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 per cent, 95 per cent of the time.

All of the other parties have more measured policies on oilsands expansion than the Conservatives. The new leader of the NDP, Thomas Mulcair, has already been vocal about Dutch Disease. In between election cycles, platforms can be hard to pin down, but at election time, we will be sure to communicate with our supporters about which parties have the strongest positions on oil tankers.

The B.C. provincial election in May 2013 will also be a key moment for the No Tankers campaign — so far the B.C. Liberals are on the fence about Enbridge, the NDP are opposed and the Conservatives are in favour.

People are saying there is no power in petitions. Is there truth to that also?

Petitions in and of themselves are of limited effectiveness. It’s their ability to create an active and engaged network that’s truly powerful. In Dogwood Initiative’s case, those who sign the No Tankers petition are given the opportunity to participate in or organize their own local actions. These additional actions then combine to produce an overall impact that far exceeds that one initial petition signature. For example, those who signed the No Tankers petition in the Capital Regional District were recently asked to encourage their local governments to pass motions opposing the expansion of oil tankers — and some of them did! This means the campaign now has new and influential allies at the local government level.

Is it legally possible for the B.C. government to levy a carbon tax on the carbon flowing through B.C. pipelines? I know it gets added if B.C. citizens burn it, but could a B.C. government require a carbon tax on carbon passing through B.C.? A $30 per tonne carbon tax would return more than $100 billion over the 30 years of this pipeline.

It is feasible that the government could charge a carbon content export fee, which would be a step in the right direction, especially as it related to the export of coal. But it would not alleviate the risk of oil supertankers plying B.C.’s waters.

How can I address the Enbridge Joint Review Panel?

The deadline to register to speak to the panel was last October, but you can still file a written comment until Aug. 31, 2012.

How close are we to winning or losing?

The nature of politics is such that we could feasibly win or lose at any moment, with the caveat that First Nations are likely to tie the project up in court for years. The fluid nature of politics is why we need to keep up the momentum every single day. That being said, we’re about one year away from the next predictably decisive moment in our struggle: the 2013 B.C. election. After all the votes are cast we will know whether we have a government that will stand up for our coast. If we do, then we’re within a stone’s throw of victory. If we don’t, then we’re considering launching a provincial initiative that would trigger a referendum. Overall, the momentum is on our side and we’re closer to victory than defeat.

What would happen if there was a condensate spill, either from a tanker or a pipeline rupture on land? There is no discussion around this and I doubt that many realize there two pipelines side by side being proposed.

You are correct to be concerned about a spill of condensate, as it contains a nasty mix of toxic substances. Studies elsewhere in the world suggest that a spill of condensate into the ocean or a river from a tanker, terminal or pipeline could kill a lot of living organisms very quickly in the spill area and downstream through acute toxicity. However, the spilled condensate would not persist in the environment the same way that the heavy, gooey components of crude oil does. A worst-case scenario condensate spill might involve a spill into a river, sending a toxic pulse down its entire length during a major salmon run or a spill into the ocean in an area of marine mammal congregation or herring spawning.

Curious what routes the tankers would take — would they vary? What do navigation charts tell us about the difficulties of getting supertankers in and out of the deep-water port which would have to be constructed?

The Globe and Mail recently published a great article on this subject with a really helpful infographic outlining the different perils along the three proposed approaches to Kitimat.

I recently read in the business section that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates were buying up shares in CP Rail. CP rail has recently talked about shipping more oil by rail, first to the U.S., but what about the West Coast?  They do have a direct rail line to Prince Rupert or Kitimat.

There have been talks of shipping oil via rail to Prince Rupert for export to China, however, this does not get around the fundamental stumbling block that all western oil export proposals share -— bringing more and larger oil tankers to B.C.’s coast.. That’s where a big chunk of the risk is, and that’s where a lot of British Columbians draw the line. We oppose all expansion of oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s coast, and so do the 100,000 people who have signed our No Tankers petition and more than 70 B.C. First Nations.

Has there been a discussion around the imminent earthquakes that will (and are) happening along the coast?

The risk of a devastating earthquake has been raised in submissions to the joint review panel. It has been pointed out that that the Pacific Coast is “the most earthquake-prone region of Canada.”

According to Natural Resources Canada, the concentration of earthquakes along the west coast is related to the presence of active faults, or breaks in the earth's crust. The surface of the earth is always changing, as the earth's crust is made up of "plates" (like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle) that are constantly moving relative to one another at speeds of about 2-10 cm/year (about how fast your fingernails grow). The plates can either slide past one another, or they can collide, or they can diverge (or move apart) . . . The west coast of Canada is one of the few areas in the world where all three of these types of plate movements take place, resulting in significant earthquake activity.

What is Dogwood Initiative’s position on the export of natural gas from Kitimat? Are any scientists talking about the probable effects (noise, stress, collisions) of tanker traffic on marine life, including whales?

The north coast tanker ban Dogwood Initiative is currently advocating for applies solely to the bulk transport of crude oil. This is largely because local First Nations and local governments have supported LNG proposals and one of our founding principles is to advocate for local control over resources. However, there are definitely risks to LNG traffic, including all three of those mentioned: noise and the stress it causes, and collisions.

There is a great animation on this topic called Cetaceans of the Great Bear Rainforest. Also check out the wonderful work of our friends at Cetacealab.

Although a spill of LNG would be less damaging to the environment than a spill of crude oil, there are worst-case scenarios involving large explosions from LNG facilities. Additionally, we are concerned about the ‘upstream’ impacts of natural gas development in B.C., including fracking, the massive amounts of electricity required to transport and liquefy the gas, and the substantial greenhouse gas pollution associated with the industry.

If you’re looking for some background information on LNG, check out our 2009 Citizen’s Guide to Liquefied Natural Gas in British Columbia.

The public hearings are required by law. But what does the law say about how the input to the hearings is considered or weighted in making a decision about the pipeline?

There are few hard rules directing the Panel in how to consider and or weigh input. Unlike in the United States where state and federal Administrative Procedures Acts require decision makers to provide rationales and back up their decisions with evidence that can be contested, in Canada there is much deference to the discretion of decision makers. The legal test will be “reasonableness.”

This means that the Panel’s decision could be challenged if they based their decision on something patently outrageous such as a claim that no one made submissions opposing the proposal. That said, a failure to properly weigh evidence would be difficult to challenge.

The exception to this rule is aboriginal issues. In fact, the JRP is on very shaky legal ground in relation to a lot of First Nations issues and we would expect that both the process and their findings will be vigorously challenged by impacted First Nations.

Ironically, the fast-tracking of the process as a result of changes flowing from Harper’s 2012 budget could add significant delays to the process as it gets tied up by legal challenges.

How joint is the joint review panel? It reportedly combines assessments by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.  I take it that once upon a time there were two federal assessments going, and that the joint panel is a fast-track. Then there is the decision by Gordon Campbell to combine the provincial assessment with the federal.  Is there a provincial assessment incorporated into the federal, or did Gordon Campbell surrender assessment authority to the federal government?

You are correct.  The Joint Review Panel (JRP) is supposed to be “an independent body” struck to “assess the environmental effects of the proposed project (like Enbridge’s pipeline –supertanker proposal) and determine whether the proposal meets the requirements of both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act.

The decision about whether or not to appoint a Joint Review panel lies with the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board. Some projects undergo two separate processes; others, such as Enbridge’s oil tanker and pipeline project, are combined into a JRP. Although there are attempts underway to combine separate provincial and federal assessment into a “one review” process, the JRP on this project is not combined with provincial assessments.  The Enbridge proposal is undergoing a JRP because it is a large interprovincial pipeline oil tanker project.

Although the JRP is supposed to be “an independent panel,” recent statements and budget measures indicate that Harper’s government has their thumb on the scale of justice.

Ultimately the JRP can reject the proposal (albeit they seldom do so), make a conditional approval, or approve it outright. What few people understand is that the JRP’s decision is not binding, government can ignore the JRP’s recommendations as they did with all but a few of the 176 recommendations made by the JRP in the Mackenzie Gas Project. In other words, ultimately the decision is political, and concerned citizens are wise not to be fooled by politicians hiding behind references to the process.

Bonus: 5 Reasons shipping oil to Asia is not in Canada's economic interest

What this means is that if a tanker accident occurred at sea, if “oil and water mixed,” the best protection at our disposal would leave at least 85 per cent of the spilled oil on our coast.  And that’s if we were actually prepared.

It turns out we’re not. In 2010, Canada’s Office of the Auditor General definitively found that the Government is “not ready to respond to a major oil spill.”

John goes on to list statistics on the number and size of marine protected areas in Canada, apparently in an attempt to argue that Canada is doing a good job at protecting the marine environment so we don't need to worry about tankers.

Marine Protected Areas are great news for our oceans and we should create more of them and manage them properly. For example, we shouldn't expose them to increased risk of catastrophic oil spills. Oil spills, unfortunately, don't stop at boundaries drawn on a map.

All in all, John’s essay serves up little more than platitudes that do nothing for our marine environments or the communities and jobs that depend on them.

That’s why the Liberal, NDP, and Green party of Canada, and 100,000 British Columbians and Canadians support banning bulk crude oil tankers on Canada’s Pacific north coast.

Both Art and Jim were directors of Forest Futures — Dogwood Initiative’s original name — before I was hired. Their early involvement in Forest Futures was one of the things that attracted me to the organization and convinced me to leave a relatively secure funded position as a lawyer at Sierra Legal Defence Fund (now Ecojustice) and take a mostly unfunded job at a new organization that was little more than an idea.

I met them both a few times over the years, but can’t say I really knew them except by reputation — and what reputations they were.

I had heard of Art because of his feature role in the Gitxsan standoff with the B.C. government over title and resources, which was recorded in the incredible documentary Blockade chronicling the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs’ fight for control of almost 57,000 square kilometres in northern B.C.

The film documents how Art, a Gitxsan, a wing chief of the Eagle clan and experienced logger, blockaded logging crews from cutting trees on the Eagle’s hereditary lands and later the Canadian National Railway, halting all shipments of coal, grain, and lumber to the coast. The Gitxsan hardball efforts on the ground changed the face of First Nations-Crown relations in B.C., along with their seminal aboriginal land claims victory with the Wet’suwet’en recognizing aboriginal title to the land for the first time.

The path Art and other Gitxsan leaders set out on has played out in logging towns and native villages across Canada ever since and continues to evolve in courtrooms, boardrooms, legislature and stock markets around the world today.

The First Nations, environmental and community activists fighting Enbridge’s oil tanker pipeline proposal and Taseko’s Prosperity mine owe Art a debt of gratitude. Their efforts would likely not be possible without Art’s courage.

Art was tragically killed in a logging accident just a few weeks before Jim Green died from cancer.

Although I hardly knew Jim, I admired him from afar. I felt an affinity for him not just because of his role in helping get Dogwood Initiative — the organization I have dedicated the last dozen years to — off the ground, but because he was, at least by reputation, a polarizer (a reputation I’m told we share). Folks either loved Jim or hated him. Everyone who met him had an opinion and a story. But regardless of which side one fell on, people respected him because he was formidable and got things done.

Jim’s career was diverse: poverty advocate, housing developer, councillor, culture lover, great friend, formidable opponent and ideas generator. But he is best known for being a tireless activist and champion of social justice, and for not accepting the world the way it was but for imagining and changing how it could be.

Jim’s most memorable legacies are:

• Turning the Woodward’s building into a megaproject that combined social and market housing, a university building, shops and offices;
• The Four Corners Bank he created for the poor in the Downtown Eastside in the 1990s; and
• The hundreds of units of social housing he got built during the 1980s as head of Downtown Eastside Residents advocacy organization.

Jim died suddenly just 36 hours after he was presented with the Freedom of the City award by Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson.

Dogwood Initiative, British Columbia and the world lost two courageous men in February. Their legacies will continue to inspire me to dream big, fight hard and never give up.

One I keep getting asked is: “Yes, but what’s the alternative realistically? They have to get that oil exported somehow.” I know a lot of people say keep it and refine it, but that is a whole other issue that wouldn't be resolved in the time of the Northern Gateway decision by the panel.

To answer that, you have to understand that Enbridge’s application is predicated on a tripling of oilsands production in the next 20 years. That projection surpasses even the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ projections for growth. It took 45 years to get to the current level of production in the oilsands (1.7 million barrels per day) and only just this month was the groundwork for a credible scientific monitoring program announced. Until monitoring is in place and the data is used to improve how oilsands are managed, it’s irresponsible to argue in favour of unprecedented expansion.

In the meantime, the oilsands are producing 1.7 million barrels per day and there’s enough existing pipeline capacity to handle projected oilsands growth until 2022 (3.5 million barrels per day).

So, the real question is: should we liquidate our oil reserves as quickly as possible to send crude oil on supertankers to Asia through one of the last pristine places on Earth? Or should we hold our horses, get environmental impacts under control and look at more measured growth in the oilsands?  For more on this topic, read our blog: Five reasons shipping oil to Asia is not in the national interest.

I'm registered to speak at the public hearings, but I have received no information on where the hearings are. Where do I go and when?

No specific dates have been set yet for oral statements at the public hearings. What you’ve been seeing in the news is the first round of hearings, during which the panel is only hearing from intervenors. If you registered through Dogwood to make a presentation to the panel, you are a “participant,” not an “intervenor.” The estimated schedule for oral statements from people who don’t live on or near the proposed route is between November 2012 and March 2013. For those who do live on or near the proposed route, the panel will be hearing oral statements between March and July 2012. We'll keep registrants updated as the dates are set and will also be holding more webinars to help people get prepared.

Does anyone know why the port at Kitimat was chosen? Isn’t the entrance to this port quite a difficult stretch of water? Did Enbridge choose it because they would save money with this being the shortest pipeline route? While I don't support this project in any way, I just started thinking, why not Vancouver?

In their application to the National Energy Board, Enbridge stated that the final two ports it considered were Prince Rupert and Kitimat. They wrote that the route to Prince Rupert is “characterized by steep topography and narrow river valleys, which constrain large diameter pipeline construction and heighten operational issues. Pipelines constructed along these rivers would be exposed to challenging hydrotechnical issues, and to avalanches and rock slides in the narrow valleys.”

In choosing Kitimat, they wrote: “The pipeline route southward to Kitimat through the Kitimat River valley would possibly encounter slide-prone marine clays and would likely require watercourse crossings in potentially boulder-prone material. However, this pipeline route alternative was determined to be viable and preferable.”

Building the pipeline to Prince Rupert would also mean more liability risk for Enbridge. Once the oil leaves their pipeline, Enbridge is absolved from all legal requirements in terms of a spill. So while the tanker route is shorter out of Rupert, Enbridge would have to tack on an additional 120 kilometres of extended liability and construction costs related to the pipeline. To get in and out of Kitimat the tankers will have to traverse the Hecate Strait, rated as the fourth most dangerous ocean environment on earth by Environment Canada, and then enter a 140 kilometre long fjord, riddled with navigational hazards. Check out this great infographic on the hazards of the proposed route.

As for Vancouver as an option, Enbridge’s competitor Kinder Morgan already has a pipeline to Vancouver, which it is proposing to expand and which we also oppose (see next question).

The bottom line is any of these proposals would bring more oil tankers to B.C.’s coast in the name of increasing oil company profits.

What is Dogwood’s stand on Kinder Morgan’s proposal to twin the Trans Mountain?

We oppose the expansion of all bulk crude oil tanker traffic on B.C.’s coast and have been working to organize local opposition to the proposed Kinder Morgan expansion. In the coming weeks, we will be encouraging citizens on southern Vancouver Island to write to their local elected officials to ask them to continue to oppose the Kinder Morgan expansion. To find out more about what Kinder Morgan is proposing and why we oppose it, check out this backgrounder.

There was a demand, some years ago I think, by David Anderson, that all tankers be double bottomed.  My questions are: Did this initiative become law? And if so, is it enforced? Are all tankers operating off the West Coast double bottomed? And finally, did the Exxon Valdez have a double bottom?

It is international marine law that all oil tankers must be double-hulled. However, double-hulled tankers only help in low-energy groundings or collisions. If they’re going fast enough or get struck by something, they can still spill. In fact, a double-hulled barge just spilled oil in the Mississippi River last week. The Exxon Valdez was single-hulled. However, in August 1989, the U.S. Coast Guard testified to Congress that even if the Exxon Valdez had been double hulled, millions of gallons of oil still would have leaked into Prince William Sound.

Is there another natural resource that is as cheap as oil but won’t affect the environment as much as oil?

Great question. First, it’s always good to acknowledge that when we’re talking about oil tankers and pipelines in B.C., we’re talking about ramping up oilsands production to feed Asian markets — it’s not about North American demand for oil, which is actually decreasing.

Oil is primarily used as a transportation fuel, and there are a number of things that can be done to further reduce demand, from designing more walkable communities and improving public transit to building more fuel-efficient vehicles and making the choice to leave the car at home.

Electric cars are also now being sold in B.C., and we could see one million of these cars on the road in B.C. by 2020. While there are still some drawbacks to this technology, it’s definitely a step in the right direction because there are several ways to create clean electricity.

How many kilometers of shoreline, including all the Islands and Haida Gwaii, are threatened between North Vancouver Island, including the Alaska Panhandle?

There are many different calculations based on the size and location of a spill, but here’s a map illustrating one example. If an Exxon Valdez-sized spill happened at the entrance to the Kitimat fjord and travelled the same linear distance as the Exxon Valdez spill, 25,407 kilometres of B.C. coastline would be affected. In actuality, the tankers will be much larger than the Exxon Valdez, so the damage could be even worse.

I have read recently that China does not yet have the capability of actually refining the crude bitumen that would be piped from Alberta to Kitimat. This means the tankers would have to first go to Texas, through the Panama Canal and then back to China.  Is this true?

We haven't read anything referring to that scenario and it seems unlikely. However, the Pembina Institute has raised concerns about whether there is proven commercial demand and refinery capacity for heavy oil in China in their report: Pipeline to Nowhere?

Why can’t Canada build its own refineries to deal with the tarsands and send the oil back east? (There is a lot of rhetoric about this, but I would like to know the “real” reasons.)

It’s a matter of choice. Canada could choose to encourage this, but there is more profit to be made by oil companies if they ship oil to Asia. Right now, it seems the federal government is more concerned with corporate interests than with what’s in the best interests of Canadians. There are lots of options to keep more Canadian oil on home soil, given that we are currently importing half of our oil from volatile and declining reserves in places like the Middle East and Venezuela. However, until adequate environmental limits are set in the oilsands, it is not responsible to advocate for expanding production and new infrastructure.

I am just wondering how wide the right-of-way is proposed to be for the two pipelines?
The proposed right-of-way for the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines is 25 metres wide.

Is the film On The Line, which shows the whole route from Alberta to Kitimat (travelled by two fellows hiking, biking, rafting and kayaking, Frank Wolf and Todd McGowen), available for purchase?

On the Line is available at Mountain Equipment Co-op stores across Canada and you can also order it online.

Are there any respectable academic studies about the relationship between the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar and the volume of oil exported, and the price of oil exported?

This University of Ottawa study looks at the relationship between the exchange rate and petroleum exports and estimates 42 per cent of the jobs lost due to the rising Canadian currency are linked to rising oil exports — that’s an estimated 196,000 to 220,000 manufacturing jobs lost to Dutch Disease between 2002 and 2007.

Geoff Mann is the chair of the Dogwood Initiative Board of Directors and a professor in the Department of Geography at Simon Fraser University. He has a PhD in Environmental Policy from the University of California, Berkeley.

Strangely, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s plans for West Coast oil tanker and pipeline projects to serve Chinese interests are starting to resemble my daughter’s favourite nighttime fables. Headlines screaming, “Canada PM vows to ensure key oil pipeline is built” look like lots of huffing, and way too much puffing with the Prime Minster looking more like a Big Bad Wolf than the public servant sworn to protect the interests of all Canadians, not the interests of state-owned Chinese oil companies.

Unfortunately for Harper and his Alberta oil buddies, widespread opposition to crude oil supertankers from the public, municipalities and First Nations creates a brick wall no amount of huffing and puffing can tumble. The simple fact is the vast majority of British Columbians oppose oil supertankers and there is no way to ship oilsands crude to China without bringing Exxon Valdez-sized oil tankers to B.C.’s inside coastal waters.  Attempts to force British Columbians to accept supertanker projects will be met with stiff resistance — in the courts, in the streets and ultimately at the polls.

Harper’s claims about the supposed benefits of West Coast pipelines and oil tankers increasingly appear to be made of straw and sticks, rather than hard facts. Economist and former Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) CEO Robyn Allan has come out against Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and oil tanker proposal saying that, “the higher price Canadian oil is expected to command if the pipeline is built will have negative consequences … in the form of an inflationary price shock, which will have a negative and prolonged impact on the Canadian economy by reducing output, employment, labour income and government revenues.”

Fortunately, no amount of huffing and puffing can overcome the brick wall we are building against this project.

A recent University of Ottawa study also blows holes in Harper’s national interest straw man. The study found the rapid expansion of Canadian oil exports has already resulted in a hollowing out of Canada’s manufacturing sector, due to the increase in the Canadian dollar as it tracks the price of oil. This dynamic —sometimes referred to as “Dutch Disease” — was responsible for 42 per cent of currency-related job losses in Canada between 2002 and 2007. That works out to about 140,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector because of the rapid expansion of the oilsands — and the disease would be exacerbated by Harper’s much touted pipelines.

Harper’s Big Bad Wolf persona is also visible in his attempts to demonize Dogwood Initiative and other community and environmental groups (as well as First Nations) that are opposing West Coast oil tanker and pipeline proposals. Harper’s efforts to distract attention from his bully tactics with labels like “radical” are reminiscent of the wolf’s attempts to entice Little Red Riding Hood by dressing up like grandma. The costume didn’t fool Little Red Riding Hood, and the wolf’s true intentions quickly became clear.

Just as the fairy tale’s wolves would do just about anything to get what they wanted, Harper appears willing to go to any length to fight for the interests of oil companies. Democracy, indigenous rights, fair and independent processes and British Columbians’ wishes all seem expendable in Harper’s quest to expand oilsands production.

Fortunately, no amount of huffing and puffing can overcome the brick wall we are building against this project. While Harper’s arrogance is understandable given he has finally achieved his yearned-for majority, he ignores history’s fables at his peril.

When you cut through all the huffing and puffing and attempted disguises, the question is becoming: Is Harper willing to try to force the risk of an oil spill onto unwilling British Columbians?

If he is, I am convinced my daughter will be reading about his defeat in the history books, not in fairy tales.

Thanks to annaadi+ on Flickr for the image. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Today I felt compelled to put my money where my mouth is and join with the “radicals” who value a clean environment over dirty oil. The Conservative Minister of Natural Resources, who has lost any semblance of impartiality he may have had with his comments today … has laid down the gauntlet — this is a fight to the finish. If I had more money I would give more, but you and any other group working against this pipeline will get every penny I can afford to give.
— Janis from Montreal, Quebec

Joe Oliver's letter made my blood boil, and I am tremendously grateful for Dogwood's rebuttal and ongoing campaign against the Northern Gateway pipeline.
— Emily from the Northern Gulf Islands, B.C.

In honour of Joe Oliver. Thank you for fighting against the northern pipeline.
— Kate from Victoria, B.C.

I am not a “billionaire socialist.” However, I am a concerned British Columbian and Canadian and so therefore I am doubling my usual donation. It’s going to be a long hard road but protecting our environment is well worth the effort! Thanks for all your hard work on the pipeline and tanker file.
— Rob from Victoria, B.C.

We will all be radicals before Harper is done.
— Jean from Fort St. John, B.C.

If there’s one thing I really don't like, it’s a bully! Hope this helps the cause.
— Virginia from Vancouver, B.C.

This is how I stand up to bullies, Mr.Harper.
— Karl from Burnaby, B.C.

Thank you for giving me, a 73-year-old radical, a voice.
— Stella Ann from Ponoka, Alberta

The “radicals” news coverage is the trail that led me to you.
— Bruce from Toronto, Ontario

Thank you to jjpacres on Flickr for the image. Used under a creative commons license.

Note: Technical issues with our website are causing all comments to be posted as Anonymous. Our apologies - we are working to fix this as soon as possible.