Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
NEWS RELEASE · 7th December 2010
MP Nathan Cullen - Ottawa
One more marker along path to shut down Enbridge threat

British Columbia is one step closer to having a full legislated ban on supertankers off its north and central coasts after a motion introduced by MP Nathan Cullen received the support of Parliament just minutes ago.

“Banning tankers would protect the BC coast from Enbridge’s risky venture,” said an ecstatic Cullen following today’s vote which passed the House of Commons 143 to 138. “This is absolutely one more marker along the path to defending the Northwest against the threat to our environment and way of life.”

“For years the people of British Columbia and concerned Canadians have been calling on the federal government to protect their coast from the risk posed by oil tankers,” echoed New Democrat Leader Jack Layton.

“Now the government has clear direction from this House to move forward and bring in this much needed legislation.”

For Cullen, New Democrat Natural Resources and Energy critic, today’s victory is the culmination of years of hard work and consultation with communities, First Nations, and other stakeholders.

“First Nations have led the fight to protect our environment and ocean economy every step of the way,” he said.

“They have been joined by the municipalities of BC, concerned citizens and now by a majority of elected MPs. The government must respect the will of the House and wishes of Canadians by immediately introducing a bill to stop these tankers once and for all. If they need help, they can use our bill that we have already drafted.”

Since Cullen tabled and led debate on the NDP motion last Thursday, thousands of Canadians have stepped up to support the tanker ban online, through email and petitions and lobbying their MPs.

“The out pouring of support has been outstanding,” said Cullen. “I think it shows people are engaged with what is happening politically, especially when it affects such an important part of Canada’s natural heritage as the BC coast.
comments
Comment by Martin Holzbauer on 13th December 2010
Yes I did read all the comments.I also went and listened to the speakers about what Enbridge promised in the past and what they delivered.
A fine for infractions (500+) of 1. 1 million seems to be a big disincentive for a company making x million a year.
As well as for the spill this year in the US (Enbridge pipeline) they stopped the clean up because the weather (winter).
Martin..
Comment by Kory Yamashita on 13th December 2010
Didn't you read the comments below? James has already informed us that we don't need to worry about human error because Enbridge has learned from past mistakes.

I guess they will be hiring an error-proof construction, maintenance, and operational workforce. Just like they are promising that whoever ships the oil will use spill-proof tankers.
Oil spills
Comment by Martin Holzbauer on 12th December 2010
Do any of the other commenters remember the oil spill of the Kinder Morgan pipeline in the lower mainland. Yes it was not a pipeline failure but rather human error, but the cause is irrelevant to the people affected. as a mater of fact most accidents are caused by human error.

Copy this into your browser bar to read details on this spill in Burnaby - http://www.terracedaily.ca/cgi-bin/show_articles.cgi?ID=4830&TOPIC=0
No Jim!
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 12th December 2010
I haven't classified you at all. I was just pointing out, or rather Barry was, what a good domestic solution and use of the resource would be.
To Jim, Again
Comment by Barry English on 12th December 2010
Jim, I'm sorry for offending you, but next time, don't admit that you refuse to check your facts.
Thank you Karen, Helmut, & Barry
Comment by James Ippel on 11th December 2010
You all classify me as some gullible son of a bitch who is mentally challendged. I give you the quote in the Terrace Standard: "National Enery Board statistics show that for all the liquid pipelines that they regulate in Canada, no pipline rupture has occurred on a pipeline constucted over the past 30 years."
Of course, this does not agree with your warped sense of rightenous.
As for your comments lableing me as gullible Karen, blow it out of where ever. You would be very surprised as to how many people think like I do. We are getting sick and tired of the flower children of the world. Those who think the world owes them a life. Get real, get a job, and get your ass off welfare.
Barry and Helmut, get your act together and work towards the building of a refinery in Fort McMurray, and just maybe you won't be paying $1.o9 a litre for gas.

Put your money where your mouth is.
Thanks Barry
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 11th December 2010
You gave what would have been my response to James.
James
Comment by Karen Dedosenco on 11th December 2010
Since you don't have the time to do your own research and verify such statements such as "there has not been a spill from any oil pipeline built in Canada in the last 30 years.", how do you know that they are true? You seem to pick out comments that you agree with and then make assumptions that they are fact. Such gullibillity has labeled you as someone who is not to be taken seriously.

Sadly, you are not alone. Most people with your mind-set have refused to take any time to learn the facts and blindly take the word of like-minded dimwits or biased media releases by Enbridge.

The quote you refered to would have been more accurate if the writer had stated that there had been no spill in pipelines less than 12 years old.

Check out:

http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthnvrnmnt/sfty/pplnrptrs/nlssrptrtrndmjrcndnppln-eng.pdf - a report done by the NEB.

Oh right, I forgot, you don't read links.



Pipeline, or refinery?
Comment by Barry English on 11th December 2010
Why build a pipeline from Fort MacMurray to Terrace? Why not build a refinery in Fort MacMurray and do away with the need for a pipeline? Not many jobs for Terrace I agree, but any new jobs, anywhere in Canada makes more sense than shipping out a raw resource and buying back the finished product.
Helmut
Comment by James Ippel on 10th December 2010
Thank you for your observation. My question to you would be: How many people would oppose an Oil Refinery in Northern BC?
Hypothetically, Shell Canada wants to build a Refinery on the Airport Lands, but this would entail the building of a pipeline from Fort McMurray to Terrace. Would you and Barry be in the forefront agreeing with this venture? Methinks you would both be against anything like this, regardless of how many jobs it would create in the northwest, and how it would benefit your grandchildren financially in the advancement of their future.
Yes Kory, the Exxon Valdez spill was caused by a Captain not in control of his facilties. The guy was drunk on the bridge (proven in court) and did'nt have a clue as to what he was doing. Do you honetly believe that companies are not looking much closer as to the quality of their Captains? I will go out on a limb: yes, in my opinion, the sinking of the Queen of the North was caused by the lack of attention by the Officers on the Bridge.
Barry, you still have'nt answered my question. What percentage of shipping accidents opposed to safe delivery has happened in the last 10 years? I also notice that there were no adverse comments to my post that in the last 30 years of pipeline building in Canada, there has not been a pipeline fracture of a line carrying liquid oil.
Reply to Jim
Comment by Barry English on 10th December 2010
Even if you have no time, go to c4tx.org. just type that into your address bar, it takes very little time. This is the website for the center for tankship excellence.

It is an easily searchable website for listing shipping accidents. I have no idea about drunken skipper incidents, but it took about 4 minutes to find out that in the last 10 years there have been approximately 100 tanker accidents in the Pacific ocean (A lot caused by human error), spilling about 237 million litres of various types of oil.

Nuff said?
Drunk Captains
Comment by Kory Yamashita on 10th December 2010
James - let me get this straight. Your argument is that the Exxon Valdez spill was caused by a drunk captain and consequently oil shipping companies no longer employ captains who intend on getting drunk on the job?? And that the Queen of the North sinking was caused by the officers on the bridge indulging in some distracting behaviour and consequently oil companies no longer employ officers who intend on being distracted on the job? And you argue that, as a result of these two lessons and some flowery promises about pilot boats and double-hulled tankers, an oil spill will not happen??

Please tell me you're joking.

Two lessons have been learned from two past catastrophic failures. Lets make sure the third big lesson in the area doesn't kill the Douglas channel.
JIm
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 9th December 2010
Not to comment but just to say that I can not recall ever seeing an application to build a refinery any where in the north of B.C. that was opposed by all those environmental agencies you mentioned. Correct me if you have some examples.

This continued export or our non renewable resources so we become "the hat of the U.S.of A." is offensive to most people. I get that even from my right of center friends down south.
If I may
Comment by James Ippel on 9th December 2010
I have read the comments posted in oppostion to my opinion, and accept that they are valid to a point.
I agree with Brian that any spill is to costly, but the Tankers that will carry the oil will be new, double hulled, tethered to a minimum of two ocean going tugs, and captained by BC Coastal Pilots. These pilots have a stellar reputation.
Richard asks a very valid question as to why the bitumen cannot be processed in Canada, and the answer is simple. Environmentalists, Green Peace,The Sierra Club, The Sierra Defence League, and the list goes on, do not want refineries in Canada, and will do everygthing within their power to stop the building of refineries in order for us to process our own raw materials. They are supported by high profile Hollywood people who lack the ability to make simple decisions, but are easily led to appear for high profile media news conferances put on by the aforementioned groups. These people could,nt tell the difference between diesel fuel and kerosene, but in all probablilty could rate the quality of maryjane with no problem-and yet the ordinary people put faith in what they say.
Yes Helmut, we pay dearly, and Barry, we buy back the processed raw material because as I just said, The loud mouthed minorities with mega bucks undermine every application by the oil companies to build refineries here. And as an afterthought Barry, I don't go to links, I don't have time. As you seem to, please give me the statistics of how many oil tankers are on the open seas at any one time, how many have drunk skippers, and how many have been involved in oil spills. I would venture to say that there are minimal or no spills.
Read an interesting comment in the Standard today. It said that there has not been a spill from any oil pipeline built in Canada in the last 30 years.
Kind of interesting isn't it. Technology seems to be improving.
Oh Glorious day
Comment by Rudi Peters on 9th December 2010
I for one will support Mr. Cullon on this, even though I am not an NDP supporter, I think they are all crooks. How much money is our environment worth, how many jobs makes an oil spill ok. It is not a question of if there will be an oil spill but rather when and how much. Anyone of thinks otherwise is not think clearly.

Whatever it takes to stop this pipeline and those tankers, we cannot afford them.
To Jim
Comment by Barry English on 9th December 2010
How much have the shipping companies learned Jim? About 2 months ago, a Tanker captain was sentenced to 14 days, in Seattle for being drunk while in control of his ship.

Worse than the fact that the captain was drunk, was the fact, released in the story, that the ship was carrying fuel oil, processed in the far east and, again according to the story, exported back to us.

The whole pipeline idea was bad enough when we thought that it was to feed the appetites in China. Now that we have seen that they intend to process it, and send it back, it just makes the whole concept even worse.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/tom-hawthorn/drunk-skipper-of-fuel-oil-freighter-gets-14-days-in-prison/article1783431/
Process it in Canada
Comment by R1chard jenn1ss on 8th December 2010

Why can't we process the bitumen in Canada?
Question.
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 8th December 2010
So we are risking our beautiful and resource rich coast line for (how many jobs?) to export a Canadian resource to a foreign country which is competing with us and I pay 1.09 per litre at the pump and we export the stuff. All the profit goes to investors elsewhere and out of the country. Does this make sense?
No Tankers, No Enbridge
Comment by Brian Grant on 8th December 2010
James, Sorry to Burst your Bubble..But many locals that support Enbridge, dont see the entire picture. And us Natives that go with the flow...We see the Lands and waters more care free, and the costs of an Oil spill..weather it be minimal or not...is too costly.

Sure monies will help, but thats not the picture, we want the Oceans to be Kept clean and keep it that way, to us its our Farmland.

Brian Grant - HAISLA NATION
huh?
Comment by mb.weston on 8th December 2010
What does "die heard" mean?
A sad day indeed.
Comment by James Ippel on 8th December 2010
Once again we must accept the views of the minority, and lose mega dollars, and mega jobs. This motion would never have passed without the Bloc. We all know that had the Bloc been given some money for some Quebec project they were endorsing they would have voted with the Gov't on this issue.
Lets look at the vote. Had three MPs voted otherwise, the motion would have been defeated. There are three MPs who voted just because.
One of the underlying arguements surrounding this contraversy seems to be the grounding of the Exon Valdez in Alaska a numer of years ago. The main item that is always left out of the story by the Environmentalists is the fact the the Captain was "DRUNK", and in control of the ship at the time of the grounding. Do you not think think that Oil Companies have learned from this disaster and taken steps to avoid future and similar incidents????
We have other disidents blaming BC Ferries for the grounding of a Ferry on Gull Island, and the release of oil into a sensitive area. BC Ferries had no control over the actions of the individuals on the Bridge that tragic night. There have been a number of questions raised as to the actions of the Crew Members in control of the ship at the time. Where they multi-tasking??????
When is Nathan Cullen going to accept that maybe that those people transporting Oil in SuperTankers may have learned something, and will take ever avenue available to them to to avoid tragedies like the Exon Valdez.
Unfortunately, I don't think Mr Cullen, and his die heard supporters have the intestinal fortitude to accept reality. In my opinion the Natives will go with the flow, if it is financially advantages for them they will support the Enbridge proposal. I guess we have'nt reached that stage yet.

Respectfully submitted......
James B
Harper & Conservatives ,SHAME!!
Comment by brian Grant on 7th December 2010
Prime Minister Harper & Conservatives, shame! you voted against this Bill, but you were Defeated..Thanks to Our MLA Nathan Cullen and the rest of the House parties that Voted on this Bill:) A Positive start, No Tankers!! on Northern BC waters...save our Headwaters & Oceans