Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
NEWS RELEASE · 20th June 2013
MP Nathan Cullen - Ottawa
Nathan Cullen delivered final arguments to the Joint Review Panel today, recommending economic, environmental and social reasons to reject Enbridge’s proposal for a 1,100km twin pipeline and supertanker traffic on British Columbia’s coast.

In his arguments, Cullen highlighted the experience of northwestern British Columbia with environmentally damaging, raw resource export projects. With billions in proposed and existing investments in resource development in northwestern BC, Cullen spoke to an emerging push for long term, sustainable approaches to development. The Northern Gateway proposal, he argued, does not incorporate any of this thinking.

Cullen also fired back at Enbridge’s contention that they had performed extensive consultations with the public and First Nations. Entering consultations, Cullen contended, implied that Enbridge was willing to make accomodations in their project. However, the details of Enbridge’s argument and their proposal do not show that any of the hundreds of meetings and conversations Enbridge held actually changed their minds in any way.

Cullen concluded by noting that, although the Joint Review Panel had placed 199 conditions on a potential approval of the project, one very important condition was missing from the list: the social license to operate. While Enbridge maintained in their final remarks that they had “meaningfully and constructively responded to the concerns expressed” by communities, all evidence points to the contrary. The town councils of Prince Rupert, Smithers, Terrace and Fort St. James have all passed resolutions opposing the project. Just recently, a representative from the Coastal First Nations group told the Canadian Press that they remain “100 per cent opposed to this and we will lay down our lives to stop it.”

Rather than cultivate a social license to operate, Cullen argued that Enbridge has actively worked against acquiring the community consent that the project needs, by holding consultations without actually engaging, or acting on what people tell them.
Well said!
Comment by Maria Luppens on 21st June 2013
Thanks, Nathan.
We all fight for life, so much more important than the superficial wealth of the few, the very few (self absorbed!!) who are willing to wreck anyone else' s future and daily living conditions. I am very grateful you stand up for us! We need more people like you! After all, we want British Columbia to stay beautiful. Isn't that what the license plates tell us? Let's keep it that way. Let's keep life. Possible. Period. Just "life". People can think about it. What does life mean. Fresh water and fresh air for starters. Quality of life. First Nations and other people alike DO stand up to protect their right for life. Everyone should. It would be ABSURD not to! Let's stand together and tell those narrow minded people NO. NO NO NO! I'm wondering what it is they STILL don't understand! The "n" or the "o" ??? We are serious. Dead serious!
Mother natures response
Comment by Terry on 21st June 2013
Seems Mother Nature is not very happy with Calgary . Just a coincidence right ?