Should the Northern Gateway oil pipeline be approved?

Calgary-based Enbridge wants to build a pipeline that would carry heavy bitumen to Kitimat, B.C., from Bruderheim, Alta. (Enbridge)

Public hearings concerning the Northern Gateway oil pipeline from the Edmonton region to the B.C. coast began Tuesday in the First Nations community of Kitamaat Village, B.C.

More than 4,300 individuals and groups have signed up to speak at the hearings, which are being conducted by a federal review panel and are expected to last until 2013.

The $5.5-billion project linking Bruderheim, Alta., to Kitimat, B.C., has long been a source of controversy. Opponents argue an oil spill is inevitable, while supporters tout the pipeline's promises of boosting Canada's gross domestic product by as much as $270 billion.

Aboriginals across British Columbia have vowed to fight the pipeline, saying it infringes on their traditional territories and the threat of an oil spill on land or along the coast threatens their lifestyle.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in November the pipeline will help Canada "increase its efforts to make sure it can supply its energy outside of the United States and into Asia in particular." (Currently, all of Canada's oil and gas exports currently go south of the border.)

Should the proposed Alberta-B.C. oil pipeline go ahead? Why or why not? Are environmental risks an appropriate trade-off for opening up new markets for Canada's petroleum? Let us know what you think.



(This survey is not scientific. Results are based on readers' responses.)

Related:

• Should Canada export crude oil to Asia?
• Should the Keystone XL pipeline go ahead along a proposed new route?