Natural Resources Committee on March 1st, 2011

[John Carruthers]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm wondering where that social licence comes from when more than 70 first nations, all of the coastal first nations, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the fisheries union, the Wilderness Tourism Association, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, the voices of local government, and hundreds of businesses have all opposed your project. I've never seen a poll in British Columbia with less than three-quarters of residents responding in opposition to the idea of your project. That's a significant portion of the public. If you're looking for social licence, I'm wondering where you're finding it to this point.

[John Carruthers]

It's a very important point that we do build support from all constituents for the pipeline project. That starts with making information available to them and having a dialogue so they have the information necessary to make an informed assessment, have the opportunity to voice their concerns, and have their questions answered, which is our obligation. So certainly over the course of the process we need to engage significantly with the affected people such that we can build that social licence.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Right. With the list I read out so far, I wouldn't say it's necessarily going so well, particularly if more than 50% of the first nations that have territory on the pipeline and tanker routes have directly said they oppose your project—directly, not inferentially, not tangentially, but directly.

Do oil supertankers right now sail into Kitimat harbour?

[John Carruthers]

There would not be any VLCCs going into Kitimat at this time.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The project as proposed over its 40-year to 50-year lifetime would imagine 15,000 sailings of supertankers into Kitimat through the north coast waters.

[John Carruthers]

Well, you would be looking at 220 ships coming in each year over an expected life of 30 years. Now, the project may go past that 30-year life.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You've said publicly that Enbridge, of course, can't guarantee there won't be a spill.

[John Carruthers]

No.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You have not said that?

[John Carruthers]

We cannot guarantee there won't be a spill.

However, we can put in place significant infrastructure processes that will make that remote. In fact, recognizing that's the biggest issue for people, whether the project can be built and operated safely, particularly from the marine environment, we ask that all those affected—be they coastal aboriginal or non-aboriginal communities—join with us in a study of what the chance is of an incident and hire those experts to make that assessment. We recognize that's the most important issue people have.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's an important issue, because take what happened in the Kalamazoo River this past year as an example. You spilled 3.2 million litres of oil into that river. It was 14 hours after the first signs of problems that the pipe was finally turned off—14 hours. Residents were forced to sign liability waivers in order to access the $650 compensation on air filters, and you're being sued for that right now.

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Jim Oberstar, who I'm sure you know, has dispatched investigators in to see how residents in Michigan were treated unfairly by the company. You've seen the testimony in front of Congress of people of very low means, modest means, signing these waivers to gain access to some of these air filters in order to regain access to their homes, because their air and water were polluted.

It seems to me that with 750 pipeline failures in Alberta alone every year, your inability to guarantee there won't be a spill, and the likelihood of a spill over a 50-year timeline.... You had inspected this pipe in Michigan five days before it started leaking and issued a report to the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States that the pipe was safe. You had just investigated it because the Americans asked you to after the disaster of the BP spill in the gulf.

It seems to me that the project you're proposing has inherent and significant risks for the people of British Columbia and the coastal waters, with relatively little benefit.

The point is this. In your proposal to the joint review panel, you don't have responsibility for the tanker traffic. Is that correct?

[John Carruthers]

No, we'll have responsibility to ensure that ships come in and exit safely into Canadian waters.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That is part of your joint review proposal? You will guarantee the safety of ships?

[John Carruthers]

No, I'm not guaranteeing safety or that there won't be a spill. You've said a lot of things in there, Nathan, some of which would be questionable.

But the key part of that is the process we're about to go through, where we've filed significant information. So we've filed almost 20,000 pages of information such that people can make an informed assessment of whether the project can be built and operated safely, of our track record, and of what we're going to do to ensure the chance of an incident is remote.

Certainly, again, I think the tanker issue is a very key one. We'll need to ensure that those ships can come in and out of Kitimat safely, and certainly with what we're doing we would expect that.

Many people think of Norway as a coast that's not unlike British Columbia in terms of its beauty. Today, on an annual basis, you'd see something like ten times the number of ships going in and out of Norway safely, and they have done for 30 years. Again, that's the type of project we're going to replicate in terms of world-class safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen. You're out of time.

We go now to Mr. Harris for up to seven minutes.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish I had more time. A lot of questions have come up. I have some for you, Mr. Carruthers, and then some for Mr. Derrick.

It seems like a back-and-forth act. Those like Mr. Cullen and his followers say there is going to be a spill, with no evidence that there will be a spill in this particular project. They've been able to successfully fuel the anti-pipeline movement with statements like that, which I find a little disturbing. On the other hand, you rightly say that you cannot guarantee there won't be a spill. However, you have the technology to build a pipeline so that the physical structural integrity can go as far as it possibly can to ensure there won't be a spill. You also have the technology and the plan to put the pilot tugs in to guide the tankers in and out of the harbour, with one or two on each side--I can't remember exactly what the plan was--with a minuscule chance that anything could go astray. It's a challenge to go forward with a detailed plan, based on sound technology and sound engineering, for how you're going to do this pipeline exercise. Your battle is against the sky-is-falling type of message coming from the other side.

Can you take a couple of minutes? Can you briefly touch on the structural integrity of the actual pipeline itself and give us a brief refresher on how the tugs are going to play a role getting the tankers in and out of there?

[John Carruthers]

I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to that.

Pipelines have proven to be the safest way to move large volumes of oil over time. They are very safe, and we continually learn how to improve them. Over time, compared to pipelines that were built before, you will have seen stronger steel, better coating, and improved construction practices, such that actually 100% of the welds themselves are X-rayed to ensure they meet the standards set by the National Energy Board. Certainly the steel, the process of building the pipe, and all the materials have been enhanced very much, such that there has not been any significant incident in terms of moving products safely through a pipeline that has been built within the last 35 years. Clearly, history has shown that pipelines are safe and are continually getting safer.

Of course we'll apply all of that learning to this one when we look at the country we are going through to ensure it can be built safely, since we will be crossing many world-class waterways. Certainly we'll go to the extreme to make sure it can be built safely and so that there's a good record about how that can happen.

With respect to the ships, the first thing we did was to model VLCCs--very large crude carriers--going into the Kitimat harbour using experienced B.C. pilots. That proved that the VLCCs could actually go unaided into the Douglas Channel safely. Notwithstanding that, to ensure safety we will make sure the ships are modern. They need to be double-hulled. The ships and crews will have to be vetted by independent agencies. As well, they'll operate under restrictions in terms of the speed they can travel in the normal course and whether they can access the channel if there are any wind, visibility, or wind-wave disruptions. Again, we're putting in operational procedures that will enhance safety.

The biggest thing we're doing is that notwithstanding that ships can go in unaided, we will tether the loaded ships to a tug. Those tugs are very powerful. They can change the course of a ship or stop it if it loses power. So that's the biggest one that reduces.... It takes a safe operation and makes the chance of an incident remote. There will also be a second tug in association with the ships travelling in and out, which will have first-response capacity in case there is ever an incident or to help the first tug. Again, we've gone to great measures to ensure we have a world-class safe operation.

Thank you.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Carruthers.

Mr. Derrick, I want to tell you how much I appreciated your statement that when it comes to the food you're prepared to die on that hill. I really believe—and I'm sure everyone here believes—that you absolutely mean it.

I have to assume you have spent the time you needed with your community, with your nations, to assure yourself there is a distinct possibility that the preservation of the food, particularly the fish in the water, could coexist safely with the pipeline and the oil and the traffic. Am I assuming right, that you've arrived at a position where you see the possibility of coexistence and you're relatively secure in your thoughts?

[Elmer Derrick]

We have had a working agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the past 25 years. We do scientific work for them. We monitor a lot of things that go on, including the operations of commercial sports-fishing activities, which go unmonitored. Both the province and Canada are responsible for that activity, but there are not enough people on the ground to properly monitor what happens from that side of the salmon harvesting.

The other thing we have been involved in as a scientific group is studying what happens with fish farms. That's why as a nation we have opposed fish farms right from the beginning, and we'll continue to fight the operation of fish farms in our area. We believe the lack of monitoring of commercial sports fishing and the operation of fish farms pose a great threat to our food supply.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

So based on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Harris, your time is up.

Thank you, Chief Derrick, hereditary chief of the Gitxsan Nation; and John Carruthers, president of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines. Thank you both. It was helpful information.

Gentlemen, we will suspend for just a minute. If the witnesses could move away from the table as quickly as possible, we'll get right into our short discussion on future business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We reconvene the meeting.

Monsieur Pomerleau, you had indicated that you needed a bit of time. You had some further questions on the meetings we have scheduled for March 10.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a point of order. I know we're trying to get through this, but we have to clear the room if we're going to do it. We're in camera, are we not? Are we not in camera for this?

[A voice]

We're not in camera yet.