Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
NEWS RELEASE · 18th January 2012
MP Nathan Cullen - Ottawa
Today’s rejection by the US government of the Keystone XL pipeline project is a victory for the environment and sends a clear signal to Stephen Harper that Enbridge must be vetted via a full and unfettered assessment process, says MP Nathan Cullen.

“The Keystone decision is a victory for the environment, for Canadians, and for the democratic process,” said MP Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley). “The Obama administration cited the rushed deadline imposed by Republicans that made a full assessment of Keystone impossible, as the main reason for the rejection.”

Today’s Keystone decision occurs just one week after the Canadian government publicly attacked opponents of the Northern Gateway Pipeline and pressured the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel to speed up the hearing process.

“We see in the Keystone decision an affirmation of the need for the public to be consulted and concerned citizens to be heard,” Cullen said.

“We can’t just push these projects through. There are too many environmental and economic considerations.”

Cullen pointed to how the Keystone decision is good news for the Canadian economy as well.

“18,000 of the best refining value-added jobs would have been shipped to Texas with this project. This is a victory for those Canadians who want secure employment.”

TransCanada must now decide if it wants to put forward another application.

Oilsands advocates will be turning all their attention to the Northern Gateway Pipeline, which runs through Cullen’s riding. Cullen will appear before the Joint Review Panel, which began hearings on Enbridge last week, next month.

“We’ve got one victory with Keystone. Now let’s move on to the next,” Cullen said
Comment by Paul Repstock on 19th January 2012
I agree 100%. "Lets have the facts."
Opinion is fine, we all have at least one, in most cases many. (Mostly on subjects we don't know enough about.)

The solutions we need are not to be found in publically funded study groups, where those with the loudest voices get the most air time from what we call 'The News".

What we need is personal accountability from government and corporate figures. And in the case of those opposing the various activities, we also need personal accountability from the people blocking economic activity.

I know that "Personal Accountability" is not popular in our modern world. All the lawyers would be out of work, insurance companies would be bankrupt, and Politicians would finally have to tell the truth or quit..OH Darn!
who is qualified?
Comment by ron wilton on 19th January 2012

In the matter of KXL, there actually are state and federal agencies that make scientific and engineering assessments of the viability, credibility, feasabilty, sensibility and suitability of the project from an environmental as well as a business perspective.

Is that the case with the Enbridge proposal?

The JRP is hearing little more than opinion from both sides with virtually no critical hands on, field supported evidence for or against.

The Enbridge 'observers' must be secretly gleeful in what they have heard so far.

They will simply identify the presence of existing and successful similar operations already in place in BC.

As much as I agree with the rightness of the overwhelming anecdotal opposition, the JRP , in the absence of cold , hard, verifiable geologic and environmental evidence,WILL make a determination for Enbridge.

Hopefully a goodly number of the intervenors who oppose this insane project will have something stronger than public sentiment and personal opinion to present to the governmentally loaded JRP.

The JRP will not consider the terrible track record of Enbridge in Michigan, Columbia, the Gulf and elsewhere; they want proof that Enbridge will not be able to avoid calamity crossing the Rocky and Coast mountains period.

As much as I applaud First Nation's for their stand and their property rights, they will be ignored by the JRP.

Comment by James Ippel on 18th January 2012
Please, Mr. Cullen, start working towards having refineries built at the source of the natural resource, so 18,000 value added jobs can remain in Canada. Please stomp on the Nimbys, support the processing the the crude without 10 years of hearings, assessments, etc, ad naseum.

You made the statement that you want these jobs to remain in Canada, now please support the building of refineries "HERE ."

The same applies to the Northern Gateway. To stop it in its tracks, start lobbying for the processing of our resources "HERE". Build 'REFINERIES" without a lot of

The alternative to refineries is the pipeline, and tanker traffic, and don't even think you can stop it without an alternative. Canada needs money to service our debt, and supply the every increasing demands of our citizens for services such as Health Care & Education.

The average citizen does'nt have the benefits of an MP. For every dollar you contribute to your pension, the taxpayer contributes in excess of twenty dollars ( I believe the figure is $23).

Either we sell the raw material to try and service the electorate, or we process and sell the finished product. The latter has more appeal to me as it creates local employment.