Press release

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

The pumping station project in Dunham

Many of you may have heard of the pumping station project planned for the corner of Favreau and Childerhouse in Dunham. The project consists in the construction of a new pumping station in order to inverse and increase the flow of petroleum. In so doing, the petroleum will flow only North to South towards Portland, Maine, in order to then be shipped for refining in Texas. Here is a brief chronology of key events and some arguments raised by concerned citizens.

Chronology:

· August 5^th 2008: The citizens of Dunham are invited to an information session regarding the project given by the project promoter, Portland-Montreal Pipe Line (PMPL).

· Subsequently citizen opposition to the project resulted in a petition signed by over 1000 Dunham residents.

· September 2^nd 2008: Dunham Town Council, with the opposition of one councillor, signifies it’s approval of the project on the grounds that it conforms to town by-laws.

· November 18^th 2008: The MRC Brome-Missisquoi signifies its approval of the project on the grounds that it complies with the Regional development Plan.

· Several citizens rally around Dunham’s environmental committee in order to acquire information on a case of a petroleum spill at a pumping station in Saint- Césaire in 1999 belonging to PMPL. They acquire documents from the Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs describing that the breaking of a valve resulted in a spill of 45 000 litres of raw petroleum and that traces of the hydrocarbons C10-C50 are still present in 2003.

· Radio-Canada television airs two shows on PMPL and the spill in Saint-Césaire. Local papers report the concerns of several citizens. Letters of opinion are published in order to inform of the potential risks of the project in Dunham.

· Fall 2008: The Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (CPTAQ) takes note of the project and schedules a public audience for February 2009, thus delaying the commencement of the project.

· February 24^th 2009: The public audience of the CPTAQ is held with the participation of several Dunham citizens and other interested parties. The decision is rendered on May 26^th, 2009 and can be consulted on the CPTAQ Website at www.cptaq.gouv.qc.ca by searching for the file 359030. The decision is favourable to the project on the grounds that the mandate of the CPTAQ is limited to the explicit protection of agricultural land, but lists the concerns of citizens.

· June 25^th 2009: A citizen who is part owner of property on Childerhouse contests the decision of the CPTAQ on the grounds that PMPL refused to explain the reason for the location of the pumping station, claiming that this was a trade secret. The lawyers of PMPL counter this challenge by attempting to claim that this citizen is not an “interested party”. The Administrative Tribunal of Quebec renders judgement in favour of the citizen on November 26^th 2009, confirming that the citizen’s contestation of the CPTAQ’s decision is receivable.

· November 9^th 2009: Dunham’s newly elected Town Council votes by majority against the project.

· December 3^rd 2009: The previously informal citizens’ group, Comité environnemental Dunham (CEDunham), is officially constituted with a president and secretary. On December 7^th this group forwards a request for a Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE). This request and other information can be consulted on the CEDunham website at www.cedunham.org. The CEDunham holds regular meetings and citizens can become regular members, invited members or sympathisers and receive regular information from the group.

· December 15^th 2009: All the mayors of the MRC support a resolution at the Council of Mayors to support the Town of Dunham in their request for the BAPE in the pumping station file.

· December 18^th 2009: With the aid of access to information legislation, Radio-Canada acquires additional information regarding twenty minor incidents and spills along the pipeline in Quebec owned by PMPL.

There are several arguments against the pumping station project. Here are a few that have arisen in the course of this file:

1. Environmental argument: Oil sands petroleum is being exploited in an unsustainable fashion and a moratorium on its’ exploitation should be envisaged until more sustainable development plans are in place.

2. Environmental security argument: The risk of a possible incident could contaminate soil and water, most alarmingly Lake Davignon which is the water supply for the city of Cowansville which is immediately downstream from the proposed construction site.

3. Lack of adequate environmental legislation argument: BAPE decisions at the Quebec level have been overridden, as was the case with the Rabaska project. Additionally, the National Energy Board at the Canadian level has NEVER refused a pipeline or pumping station project in its history. To this effect, the CEDunham will be meeting with a citizens’ group in East end Montreal called AGIIRR who are also concerned by this project and are supported by an MNA who is looking into a Bill regarding environmental risk for Quebec’s National Assembly.

4. Energy security argument: The inversion of flow from Montreal to Portland cuts off Eastern Canada from the supply of petroleum other than from the oil sands. Since Eastern Canada imports 85 % of it’s petroleum products, it makes no sense to limit its capacity to acquire petroleum from different sources.

5. Economic argument: Exported raw petroleum is not taxable and thus being sold at a loss to Canadians, specifically Quebecers who are losing refining jobs in the petroleum sector in Montreal.

6. Agrico-tourism argument: The possibility of water contamination due to the project will reduce tourism in the area. This can be considered a pertinent argument when one considers the impact of Public Health warnings regarding blue-green algal blooms on Brome Lake and a decrease in revenues from tourism.

Interesting arguments abound, but one ultimate certainty is that citizen engagement in this file will be decisive. An interesting example of jurisprudence pertinent to the pumping station file would be the Supreme Court judgement in favour of the Town of Hudson in 2001: 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v. Hudson (Town). So please get informed and involved!

Christelle Bogosta

Nominated candidate for the NDP for Brome-Missisquoi

Invited member of the CEDunham

Bedford resident