Standing Up for Nature and Democracy

This week Forest Ethics Advocacy, launched a constitutional challenge to new requirements in the National Energy Board Act that have the effect of silencing citizens concerned about tar sands pipelines. As pointed out by West Coast Environmental the severe restrictions placed upon public comment by Bill C-38 whereby any citizen wishing to comment upon such projects, even those directly affected, are effectively prevented from doing so. Whilst SOME restrictions MAY be necessary in the interests of such hearing not going on forever, the restrictions now in place are clearly undemocratic. I will let WCEL take it from here.......

“We have previously written about these undemocratic limits on public comment, which were introduced last year in Bill C-38, and how the National Energy Board (NEB) has relied on them to create substantial procedural hurdles for citizens who wish to participate the review of pipeline projects –in particular with respect to an application by Enbridge to reverse a portion of “Line 9” in order to transport of bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to the east.

As we previously reported, concerned citizens were required to complete a lengthy form applying to the NEB before they could submit even a letter of comment, which the NEB retained the discretion to deny. Furthermore, the Notice of Application to the Federal Court in the recently launched challenge details how individuals and groups who applied and disclosed that they intended to make submissions on matters related to the tar sands were denied the right to participate or were downgraded from intervenor to commenter status. This is because, according to the form, the NEB had already closed its mind to considering the relationship between the pipeline and the development of the tar sands, despite the fact that increased pipeline capacity is a key enabling factor for tar sands expansion. As Forest Ethics Advocacy notes:

Comments by people who live up or downstream from the tar sands and are experiencing serious health impacts, or people who are concerned about health risks posed by increased toxic emissions at tar sands refineries, or people who want to expose the link between the tar sands and climate change are forbidden from expressing any analysis of a project's impacts.

Information about health and environmental impacts from citizens and scientists have therefore been excluded by law from the analysis of a project's impact.

The applicants in the federal court case, Forest Ethics Advocacy and two citizens who were impacted by the new NEB rules, submit that the new section NEB Act (s.55.2) violated their freedom of expression under the Charter and should be struck down.
This court case is an important test of the constitutionality of steps taken last year by the federal government to silence citizens concerned about tar sands pipelines, and one that the West Coast Environmental Law Association is pleased to support. Please consider doing so as well.”

- Remember that this Environmental Advocacy group is one that the Harper Regime has called “enemies of the state” for their work in making us aware of the risks and possible ecological disasters associated with the oil industry’s plans.

RE Bill-C38

Bill C-38 repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and replaced it with a new Act (CEAA 2012).  CEAA 2012 introduces the new rule that, for certain environmental assessments, only “interested parties” will be able to participate.  Interestingly, CEAA 2012 says that the NEB (unlike other government bodies conducting assessments) is not required to consider written comments received from the general public.
The NEB Act was also amended.  Section 55.2 of the Act say:

... the Board shall consider the representations of any person who, in the Board’s opinion, is directly affected by the granting or refusing of the application, and it may consider the representations of any person who, in its opinion, has relevant information or expertise. A decision of the Board as to whether it will consider the representations of any person is conclusive.

It’s pretty clear that the NEB – through its new 10 page application procedure – is implementing the definition of “interested party” and directly affected found in the new CEAA 2012 and in the amended NEB Act.  So the procedure is clearly intended to address the changes in C-38.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers