Trust. Respect. Compassion. Food. Oh… and the public interest!

“This panel is here to listen to your personal knowledge and experiences on the potential effects of the Project on you and your community.” Again, a speaker is interrupted and reminded to keep to “Procedural Direction #4”, which defines the range of issues that interveners are allowed to speak to at the Northern Gateway Hearings.  Again, a murmur spreads through the room as some 150 people, young and old, express their discontent with being limited to a process that seems designed to separate their personal values from the decisions we make as a society.  Like them, I find the process quite limiting.  While I work in conservation, and value the integrity of due process, science and a clear-headed assessment of the facts, this process has me thinking about environmental assessments in a whole new way.

Metlakatla Sugyigyet Dancer at the Northern Gateway Hearings in Prince Rupert, BC, Photo credit: Mike Ambach / WWF-Canada

1. Trust.  In the atmosphere of uncertainty and fear created by the Northern Gateway proposal, I keenly feel the need for trust. Do we trust the claims that this project can be safely built and operated, without undue risk to the environment?  Should we place our trust in the company that is proposing it, given their record?   Are we to trust the decision process itself?  Undoubtedly these are tough questions to grapple with.  I trust in the interdependence between First Nations culture and healthy ecosystems on BC’s coast.  I trust absolutely the determination of the First Nations on BC’s coast to act in accordance with their ancestors and with respect to future generations.  I also need to trust that my fellow British Columbians care deeply about the land and sea that is part of our identity.
2. Respect.  The word respect is increasingly in the spotlight at these hearings.  With a resource-rich country like Canada, small wonder we don’t always agree about how to use those resources.  But we can still show respect.  Without respect between people whose views differ, we all suffer, we are all weakened.  Without respect, our relationships, decisions, and ultimately, a shared future are compromised.  Cultural damage is inflicted when respect is eroded.  As toxic as any oil spill, this damage can run deep and take a long, long time to heal.
3. Compassion.  An unusual concept to consider? I don’t think so.  Compassion is fundamentally about seeing beyond my own interests and making room for the values and knowledge of others.  To do this, I have to first accept there’s more to this world than what I claim to understand – ecosystems being more complex than we know, maybe even more complex than we can know. The wise response is to develop an attitude of openness and care towards the environment and those closest to it.  That, I’ll call compassion.
4. Food.  Food security, particularly for First Nations, has emerged as the single most significant factor from the testimonies at these hearings.  The connection of people to the land through food is threatened by this project.  The point is driven home again and again by expressions known up and down the coast: When the tide is low, our table is set.  The ocean is our freezer.  The people don’t make the land, the land makes the people. There is no more integral connection to our living environment than through eating food.  That’s when the health of the ecosystem becomes our health, when nature’s nutrients become part of us and we become part of the food chain.  Expressed with such clarity by First Nations at these hearings, this is a truth we should all recognize.
Ultimately, the decision will be on whether this project is in the public interest – a concept that includes “all Canadians and refers to a balance of economic, environmental and social considerations that change as society’s values and preferences evolve over time.”
Do trust, respect, compassion and food security form part of society’s values?
At these hearings, it strikes me that it’s not the project that is being considered, analyzed, assessed, it is the Public Interest.  In Prince Rupert, the panel heard loud and clear that this interest is very much threatened by the Northern Gateway project.
Does this project reflect your view of the public interest?  Let the panel know by submitting a written comment.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwqGP2Pztt4[/youtube]
Click here to link to video recordings of voices from Prince Rupert.
 
Or here for transcripts of the voices of Aboriginal testimony across the pipeline route.
 
And stay tuned!