Line 9 assessment process is undemocratic

In the critical negotiation between Canada’s short-term economic interests and the preservation of our natural bounty, democracy dictates that citizens get a say. So why, as the National Energy Board considers a proposal to increase and reverse the flow of Enbridge’s Line 9, an oil pipeline that crosses the GTA, are concerned Canadians finding themselves unable to weigh in?

In April, the NEB announced that anyone wishing to speak at its public hearing on Line 9, or even write a letter on the subject, had to apply to do so, within a two-week period, by filling out a prolix nine-page form that resembled something out of Kafka. Those who became aware of the new rules early enough, and could spare the hours to complete the form, were asked to parse paragraphs like this: “Before you continue with this form, refer to the Board’s Guidance Document on Section 55.2 and Participation in a Facilities Hearing attached to the Hearing Order OH-002-2013 as Appendix VI . . . ” And even if you managed to wade through the form, the board might still reject your application.

This daunting new barrier to participation complies with measures in Bill C-38, the 2012 federal omnibus budget bill, which limited the scope of certain environmental assessments. Whether it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the other hand, is another matter.

ForestEthics Advocacy, a British Columbia-based NGO, has filed a suit against the government, claiming the assessment process violates the Charter-protected right to free speech. “We live in a country today where . . . concerned Canadians can’t talk to their own government decision-makers about risks to the environment,” argues lawyer and ForestEthics chair Clayton Ruby on the page opposite. “It’s not just unconstitutional; it’s wrong.” Whether or not the court agrees on the first point, Ruby is right on the second.

The undemocratic Line 9 assessment process is just the latest example of the Harper government attempting to stifle public debate on the ideal balance between resource extraction and environmental protection. It has defunded research organizations, killed environmental agencies and muzzled scientists whose data and advice run counter to its agenda of aggressive development. And now it doesn’t want to hear the concerns of citizens who will be directly affected if Enbridge’s proposal is accepted.

But that proposal’s merits — and the resource debate more generally — is inextricable from the concerns of Canadians, who will both reap the rewards and bear the costs. It’s unacceptable for the government not to listen.

Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Editorial