The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.

BC Signed Away Its Right to Stop Northern Gateway

In 2010 it gave the NEB final say over the environmental assessment process. But we can still get it back.

By Robyn Allan 28 Oct 2013 |

Robyn Allan is an economist and the former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. She was an expert witness at the National Energy Board Northern Gateway Hearings.

image atom
On pipeline environmental assessments, it should be -- and could be -- B.C.'s sovereign right to decide.

[Editor's note: Back in early 2012, in her analytical submission to the National Energy Board, independent economist Robyn Allan characterized the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal as a "serious threat" to Canada's economic growth and long-term development. Since then she's closely tracked the political struggle over Gateway, taking apart revenue claims and calling out dubious pipeline economics. Today, Allan takes a closer look at the B.C. government's first "condition" for Gateway to meet its approval. Expect analysis of the other four in coming weeks.]

More than a year ago, in response to growing political heat over the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, Christy Clark's government released five requirements oil pipeline projects must fulfill for British Columbia to consider supporting them.

The focus was on oil pipeline companies and holding them accountable for their environmental impact, spill preparedness and response, consultations with First Nations and ensuring a fair share of business benefits made their way into the provincial treasury. Details of the five requirements are contained in a technical report aptly titled Requirements for British Columbia to Consider Support for Heavy Oil Pipelines.

The five conditions have figured prominently in discussions concerning oil sands transportation issues, the extensive environmental risk posed by diluted bitumen, and the potential for an erosion of B.C.'s economic prosperity as the province becomes a tanker terminal for Alberta. British Columbians are regularly assured that unless these five conditions are fulfilled, no heavy oil pipelines will be built.

The first condition requires "the successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel (JRP) that the project proceed."

What has not been made clear about this particular hurdle is that the right to decide whether the Northern Gateway environmental assessment process is satisfactory for B.C. has been handed over to the National Energy Board when it should be -- and could be -- B.C.'s sovereign right to decide.

The government's position paper makes no mention of the fact that B.C. would have had the right to determine the adequacy of the process if it had not signed an Equivalency Agreement in 2010 promising to accept the National Energy Board's decision.

One month to reclaim BC's right

The province was very clear in closing arguments to the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel in May 2013 that B.C. could not recommend approval of the project because Enbridge failed to show it met environmental requirements embedded in the province's conditions.

The province was adamant the panel not approve Northern Gateway, not only because Enbridge cannot be trusted -- "'trust me' is not good enough" -- but also because the environmental risk of the project to our lands and waterways, under any operator, is too great.

The text of the closing argument makes clear the province does not want to expose us to the environmental spill risk Northern Gateway represents:

"NG's (Northern Gateway's) plans for terrestrial and marine spill response remain preliminary, and that it cannot, today, provide assurance that it will be able to respond effectively to all spills. Given the absence of a credible assurance in this regard, the Province cannot support the approval of, or a positive recommendation from the JRP regarding, this project as it was presented to the JRP."

The B.C. government does not believe the environmental process is complete because it could not recommend to the JRP that the project proceed, and yet the Clark government is leaving the decision -- the ability for Enbridge to easily leap over condition #1 -- in the hands of the National Energy Board. This makes little sense if the province is serious about its position.

With the JRP's report expected by mid to late December, B.C. has little over a month to cancel the Equivalency Agreement because there is a 30-day notice clause -- and the 30 days must come before the release of the report. B.C.'s position was given under oath at the hearings. Time is running out to efficiently and effectively protect it.  [Tyee]

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free


The Barometer

Tyee Poll: Are You Preparing for the Next Climate Disaster?

Take this week's poll