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.
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.