<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_4865"><br></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_4869" style="display: block;"><div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_4868"><div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_4867"><div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_4871"><div id="yiv8195025002"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_4873"><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_4872" dir="ltr"><pre id="yiv8195025002yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_2885">There are three Line 10 permit applications underway. Below is the comment I provided re: EBR Registry Number: 0130371
Comment ID 209454</pre><pre id="yiv8195025002yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_2885">Lulu </pre><pre id="yiv8195025002yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_2885">_______________________________________________________________________________________________</pre><pre id="yiv8195025002yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_2885"><br></pre><pre id="yiv8195025002yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1495820337197_2885">First off I'd like to state that on this format there is no mechanism to include attachments and that is insufficient to secure reasonably public comment if we can't even submit supporting documents. It is a very limited process and in my view irrational. This isn't a form of personal opinions. It is designed to mitigate risk and to support the mandate of the EBR Act. I recommend giving the public the right to add attachments.
In spite of the limitations of this website format, I do have sworn evidence to submit in regards to the Line 10 pipeline which I previously submitted to the NEB. I was a delegate of the Line 10 hearings and my affidavit directly relates to the issues I still have which in my view, remain unresolved. My letter of comment was submitted as a sworn affidavit with supporting documents and it can be viewed online at the NEB website here:
https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/3025064
Please attach that affidavit and supporting documents as part of this EBR response.
The geology of the area of Line 10 is unique. It sits in the Galt Paris Moraine system which has karst, a geological feature where caves are formed due to limestone being dissolved with water . The Westover Terminal is sitting on karst and the pipelines cross over it but the land itself might not be providing enough structural support for the infrastructure proposed. There are major fault lines in the area including the Central Metasedimentary and the Hamilton–Presqu'ile fault line that intersect in the area of Line 10. There is a history of seismic activity in this area and these features need to be considered during the design process otherwise we risk pipeline ruptures. Seismic risk mapping is available in my sworn affidavit.
There is an underground valley system in Copetown that discharges into Lake Ontario so if spills happen in that zone, you could see adverse impacts of chemical contamination reaching intakes along Lake Ontario. The currents in the lake flow counter clockwise and data on this is noted in my affidavit and in the Source Water Protection Act as noted in my affidavit.
I have personally gone to the pipe and looked at the geology of the area. There are many wetlands and kettle ponds and the presence of Jefferson Salamanders is noted in Species At Risk Maps and in Enbridge's own reports. These are indicator species for good quality water sources and primary recharge. The salamanders breath through their skin. They cannot survive without a moist habitats and these areas provide it.
The NEB process identified the fact that there are Western Chorus Frogs, Jefferson Salamanders and Brown Bats along the route but to date there has been no critical habitat delineation for the Line 10 project. This is noted in the NEB decision on page 113 (page 129 of the PDF) which can be viewed at this link:
https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A81483
The Board is of the view that no harm will happen to the habitat or species yet they lack the critical data to support that theory and they lack permits to comply with ESA s.17(2)(c). How can we plan remediation without this?
Here is an example of Enbridge using the Environmental Registry previously to secure ESA s.17(2)(c) in relation to a gas line project. https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTI0ODgw&statusId=MTg4MDYy&language=en
This tells me that they know how to do this. They understand their corporate duty to abide by both Species At Risk laws and the Endangered Species Act. They understand how to seek the permit so why are they not acting on it to protect the Jefferson Salamanders and other species regarding Line 10? They have no plausible deniability here.
The Ontario Ministry of Environment has Species At Risk mapping already available online. The data is in the public domain. This isn't a situation of "commercial confidentiality".
https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-region
In my view, this issue warrants a review regarding their "Non disclosure of risks" and the actual impacts their activities are having on endangered species along the route.
The presence of endangered species is valuable in indicating the location of primary recharge zones, cold water fisheries etc. but we cannot reasonably plan mitigation strategies or remediation unless we have the disclosure of where these animals are as part of the public process and it is the duty of Enbridge to provide that data. To negate this process violates the intent and purpose of the Species At Risk Act and the Ontario Endangered Species Act.
Here are three cases I can cite quickly to illustrate how the Canadian courts have a history of supporting habitat protections when it comes to pipeline projects.
The first case involves Sage Grouse https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlife/sage-grouse/
The second case involves Caribou http://www.pembina.org/blog/558
The third involves Killer Whales http://www.davidsuzuki.org/media/news/2010/12/decisive-killer-whale-court-win-offers-hope-for-at-risk-species/
If the presence of these species alters the costs of the proposed project or delays the construction or perhaps leads to court challenges, investors need to be reasonably informed of those risks ahead of time. In other words, by negating disclosure of the Species At Risk along this route, shows a lack of fiscal prudence, lack of judicial prudence (knowing there is existing case history that demands these measures be taken) and lack of transparency with both regulators and shareholders. The Province has the duty to comply with Provincial laws and fiscal laws as they issue permits like this. If Provincial or Federal agencies bypass permit requirements for ESA s.17(2)(c) in spite of the court history that proves the need to apply it, this could go to court. Either the job is done in compliance to the laws or it's not. There is no wiggle room for this. The priority is to protect biodiversity.
When it comes to environmental damages it is often difficult to prove absolute causality and tort harm linked with specific emissions, or specific contaminates in given areas where there are multiple sources of the same contaminates but when it comes to fiscal issues and disclosure responsibilities, this situation is very specific to the conduct of Enbridge and the Provincial and Federal Government. Personally I find negating critical habitat delineations to be unreasonable, immoral and in my view, illegal. We can't reasonably protect our environment, our natural capital assets or Canada's biodiversity for the long term with the absence of such critical information.
Canada was the first industrialized country to sign and ratify the UN Convention on Biological Diversity on June 11 1993. It was ratified on December 4th of the same year and came into force December 29, 1993. Here is a link to the policy and it's mandate. http://www.biodivcanada.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=BBFC5974-1
We have the moral obligation to secure the protection of biodiversity. It is not a matter of commercial confidentiality, it is a matter of survival of the species and the natural capital they protect such as primary water recharge needed by our communities. How can our economy thrive for the long term without a viable water supply? Why put pipeline infrastructure in a place where it could contaminate Lake Ontario. We need to look at the big picture.
As a witness to the NEB hearings, I watched Enbridge's Engineers under oath, admit the fact that only 10% of the Engineering reports were completed and 20% was in the works. That hearing took place October 18 and 19, 2017.
What evidence is there to suggest that the competition of engineering reports is done to the standards of the Ontario Planning Act or Professional Engineers Act or Ontario Building Code Act . If the pipe connects to Westover Terminal what data is there to suggest the facility is compliant with existing laws and safety codes? Any work on Line 10 that connects to that facility is unjustified unless the facility itself is up to code otherwise the EBR Process would send a pipe to a potentially non compliant facility. If you review my affidavit evidence as submitted to the NEB, you will see sworn evidence on the outstanding safety issues regarding Westover Terminal. My question to you is this. Have all the safety issues been resolved? What evidence is there to prove that work has been done?
The NEB itself has no duty to comply with Provincial Planning law, Professional Engineers Act and Ontario Building Codes but if ANY engineer is doing work in Ontario on Line 10, they do. If any regulator works for the Province of Ontario they hold an obligation to make sure the engineering reports are reasonably completed prior to issuance of license or permits and this applies to the duty of Municipalities, Hydro, and all Provincial regulators without exception. Has the Environmental Commissioner's Office even reviewed the completion of the engineering data of Line 10 which requires the water permit application? If the work isn't done to code now as we issue such permits does that make the Province liable?
This review puts the burden of due diligence on the Province. The job needs to be done right and done legally or not at all. Just because Enbridge is an oil pipeline firm doesn't give them permission to behave in a way where it's abuse of dominance. It doesn't give them the right to negate protocols for protecting endangered species and it doesn't negate their duty to build to code. Hold them it. </pre></div></div></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>