NEWS RELEASE · 22nd September 2010
Friends of Wild Salmon
Enbridge’s refusal to attend public forums raises questions about how the company would work with communities if its Northern Gateway pipeline were to go ahead, say concerned residents with the group Friends of Wild Salmon.
Enbridge spokesperson Michelle Perett recently informed the City of Terrace it would not attend open community forums.
“Communities deserve fair, balanced dialogue, not just one-sided public relations exercises,” said Pat Moss with Friends of Wild Salmon. “If this is how Enbridge’s people are going to behave in the assessment phase, what does it say about how they will treat our communities down the road?”
The groups say having a balanced forum is important because the information Enbridge is presenting to communities is at times inconsistent with that presented by independent third parties.
“The way Enbridge characterizes its project is heavily biased in favour of its own corporate goals. Our communities deserve to have this corporate message balanced with independent research and first-hand accounts,” said Moss.
“Enbridge needs to demonstrate a greater degree of integrity and respect for the people who live in this region,” said Julia Hill, a member of the Friends of Wild Salmon steering committee. “We live here, we know this area, and we will be the ones who have to live with the consequences of our development decisions.”
In a letter to the City of Terrace, Enbridge stated it would not attend the forums because they felt they would not be “a setting where productive communication and dialogue can take place.”
“Suggesting municipalities can’t host productive dialogues is ridiculous,” said Hill. “In our experience, the vast majority of people in our communities value civility and personal respect, and will ensure these are upheld in public forums. What is it that Enbridge is afraid of?”
The groups say they will work with municipalities to ensure community forums go ahead regardless of Enbridge’s attendance.
Thank you Stacey
Comment by Barry English on 24th September 2010
Thank you Stacey for the most succinct comment I've read in a long time. I am not a "jobs at any cost" proponent, but I am also not a "caver", and I actually resent it when I am denigrated for opposing the Enbridge pipeline.
Yes, I lost my job when the forest industry shut down, but that doesn't mean I want something else, far worse, to come in and temporarily replace it.
Comment by Stacey Tyers on 23rd September 2010
There NEEDS to be a middle ground.
But I don't believe you, Steve, see that middle ground either.
There needs to be jobs created that are sustainable. We need to respect environment while we create those jobs. We need to accept not every risk is worth a job or two.
The pipeline creates very limited long term jobs for the risk it carries. However, there has been little opposition to the bio-coal project. The only thing I have heard from people is "they'd rather it wasn't in the middle of town". That's a fair comment but not one person have I heard say they don't want them here.
In fact the CAVE* people, you refer to, have said the contrary, they are so happy to be able to say yes to something and not feel like they are not abandoning their moral and ethical beliefs.
Though you think people "need" a cause, there are some, but there are some of us who just feel we should stand up for what we believe in. We actually get EXHAUSTED and invest a lot of personal energy and heart into these 'causes'. These causes which we hope in the long run make our world a better place by whatever means we can contribute.
It's not a matter of needing causes, it's a matter of there's so many causes to be addressed and concerned with that we want to help. We aren't LOOKING for causes or creating them, they are there and they need the goodness of people to address them.
So yes, we do need middle ground, which means the "jobs at all cost" people might need to compromise a few of those jobs for the sake of our communities future. And those that actively look to say no, may need to accept good projects to increase our community sustainability.
As opposed to ...
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 23rd September 2010
...Citizens that Approve Virtually Everything?
Comment by Steve Smythe on 22nd September 2010
the odds are good that it will not be built here but somewhere else-perhaps on an already existing right of way.
If I were a betting man, which my Mom always told me not to be, I'd almost garauntee that this project, as its planned is dead in the water. My only fear is now the CAVE* people will turn their attention to whatever project is next....Prosperity, Site C, 37 Powerline, AltaGas because most of them need a project to protest against, because thats what they do and thats how they generate their fund raising dollars.
There are those (not everybody, mind you) who will not be content until all of Northern BC is parkland, nature preserve or in a museum. I think that these people will be very surprised when they discover that the tax dollars that drive their pet projects and social programs come from the very developments that they are trying to kill. What happens when the miners, loggers, developers, welders and construction workers move away? Schools continue to close, stores go bankrupt, hospitals close--and all those good paying jobs dissapear with them as well. It all becomes a race for the bottom of the toilet with no one left behind. Then the protestors all go back where they came from to save the world somewhere else.
Somewhere in here folks, there MUST be a middle ground. If we can't find it, we will be living in a run down gas stop between Prince George and the coast.
*Citizens Against Virtually Everything
could it be...
Comment by Bill Braam on 22nd September 2010
could it be that the pipeline or one of ten other will be built no matter how much we object and no matter how much damage it will eventually do to our wilderness.