next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Tip: Your message to SUST-MAR must be html-free. So, BEFORE you hit SEND, please go to your "Format" pull-down menu and select "Plain text." Thanks!
____________________________________________________________________________
.
Forwarded from Ecology North. The MGP is not just a Northern issue. It
affects all Earthlings.
>From: Robert Bromley <bbromley@nt.sympatico.ca>
>To: Ecology North <admin@ecologynorth.ca>
>Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:06:44 -0700
>
>
>*****************************************************************************************************************
>
>PLEASE TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME - THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT IF YOU
>HAVE ANY CONCERNS AT ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE INTEGRITY OF THE NORTHWEST
>TERRITORIES , CANADA'S ENERGY RESOURCES , AND CLIMATE CHANGE
>OK, so this is a long one, but not as long as the proposed pipeline, and
>certainly not nearly as long as we will be feeling the effects of the
>Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP) if it goes ahead without a little bit of effort
>on our parts. And, since those of you who came to the AGM last month were
>unanimous in Ecology North's need to be part of the MGP review, here is
>your chance to help out.
>So, MGP Operation BID (that would be "bog it down") is put forward. If
>we're not going to be given the resources to truly "meaningfully
>participate" in the Joint Review Panel (JRP) and National Energy Board
>(NEB) processes, it is hereby suggested that we as organisations and,
>equally important, if not more, as individuals capable of long-term
>thought, use the free opportunties before us to make some statements - that
>is, APPLY FOR INTERVENOR STATUS TO THE JRP AND NEB PROCESSES!!!!!!!! *AS
>MANY INDIVIDUALS AS POSSIBLE COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE PROCESS*
>1) Some thoughts on WHY - *especially NEB intervenor status* (back-up
>detail provided below):
>- it's FREE!! (even if you have no intention of reading another paragraph
>about the MGP and want to crawl back into a snowbank, an initial influx of
>applications for intervenor status would send an important message - that
>is, we are concerned about this project and despite what they say, we're
>not convinced our public governments will speak for our best interests;
>- it's not onerous (if you apply, become an intervenor, and then opt for
>the snowbank option you won't have MGP review cops appear on your doorstep
>to drag you to a public hearing);
>- at the end of the day the JRP will only be able to make recommendations
>about the project, AND their report will just be one piece (among many) of
>evidence considered by the NEB;
>- the NEB has turned down a project before on the basis of "not being in
>the public interest" - i.e., lots of public outcry - project was Sumas 2 in
>BC in March 2004
>(http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/nr2004/nr0404_e.htm) ;
>- on account of 400 applications for intervenor status for the Sumas 2
>review the NEB adapted its process to accommodate the public interest -
>i.e., we could force NEB hearings to be held in more locations so that we
>could actually participate - this is important regardless of whether you
>wish to stop the project or ensure the review is the most rigorous possible
>- you won't be sure to get either unless the review panels see the public
>interest.
>2) THE *DEADLINES FOR APPLYING* ARE *SOON*: JRP - DEC. 17 AND *NEB - DEC.
>21* - THE NEB IS THE MORE IMPORTANT!!!
>- the applications are simple, THE NEB APPLICATION CAN BE DONE
>ONLINE!!!!!!!!! (http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/efile/IntervenorForm.aspx) and
>the JRP form is available at
>(http://www.ngps.nt.ca/jrp/documents/JRP_NoticetoIntervene_final.doc)
>- assistance for NEB application:
>a) Project Name: Mackenzie Gas Project;
>b) Hearing Order Number: GH-1-2004;
>c) File Number: 3200-J205-1
>d) What is your specific interest in the proceeding? Some examples could
>be: live in an affected community; need for the project; economic
>feasibility; adequacy of proponent's public and Aboriginal consultation;
>national energy strategy; Kyoto committments; suitability of the design of
>the project;
>e) What issues do you wish to add to the list of issues? (NOTE: the NEB has
>identified 12 issues that it will consider (but is open (?) to others) -
>the list is Appendix 1 in the NEB's Hearing Order for the MGP
>(http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/FinalHearingOrder24Nov_E_Efiling.pdf))
>f) Do you intend to appear at the public hearing? Say "YES" - you won't be
>obligated but it may force the NEB to accommodate people in different areas
>g) Do you intend to actively participate in the public hearing? Say "YES" -
>having chatted with Arthur Caldicott, who was active in the grassroots
>coalition that formed against the BC Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX) project,
>intervening only via Letter of Comment is not effective (however, if it's
>the only option it's better than nothing) - if at all possible be present
>and have the opportunity to speak. Speaking before a panel may seem
>intimidating BUT IT IS THE ONLY TRULY EFFECTIVE MANNER TO BE HEARD
>h) Which official language? Seems like some could/should request one of the
>NWT's several Official languages
>i) Participation at the hearing - again, having your voice heard has the
>greatest impact
>j) NEB FAX number - (403) 292-5503
>k) FEEL FREE TO PASS THIS ON TO YOUR RESPECTIVE
>MEMBERSHIPS/FAMILIES/FRIENDS - IT COULD BE A GREAT GREEN CHRISTMAS GIFT!
>3) And a bunch of back-up material:
>
>*04/04
>For release at 11:00 a.m. MT*
>*4 March 2004*
>
>*NEB denies an application from Sumas Energy 2, Inc. to construct an
>international power line in Abbotsford, B.C.*
>
>*CALGARY - *The National Energy Board has denied an application by Sumas
>Energy 2, Inc. (SE2) to construct the Canadian portion of an 8.5 kilometre
>international power line (IPL) originating at the Canada/United States
>international boundary near Sumas, Washington and running to a BC Hydro
>substation in Abbotsford, British Columbia. The IPL would have permitted
>SE2 to transport electricity from a proposed Power Plant to be constructed
>in Sumas to BC Hydro's substation.
>
>The Board decided that it was unable to come to the conclusion that the IPL
>would be in the Canadian public interest and would be required for the
>present and future public convenience and necessity. After identifying and
>weighing the benefits and burdens in Canada of the proposed IPL and Power
>Plant, the Board concluded that, on balance, the burdens of the IPL
>outweigh the benefits.
>
>The Board determined that the benefits of the IPL and Power Plant even if
>they were all realized would not be substantial benefits to Canadians, or
>to the local and regional communities.
>
>The Board found that the burdens in Canada associated with the IPL and
>Power Plant would be many and real. Most would be borne almost entirely by
>the local and regional communities, whereas the benefits would be either
>external to these communities or negligible in value.
>
>The Board considered the application during 39 days of public hearing held
>in Abbotsford.
>
>The National Energy Board is an independent federal agency that regulates
>several aspects of Canada's energy industry. Its purpose is to promote
>safety, environmental protection and economic efficiency in the Canadian
>public interest within the mandate set by Parliament in the regulation of
>pipelines, energy development and trade.
>
>http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/nr2004/nr0404_e.htm
>
>*Excerpts from **NEB** Reasons for Decision on Sumas Energy 2 project in
>BC*
>
>(full pdf available by scrolling down at this link:
>http://www.neb.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/nr2004/nr0404_e.htm)
>
>- *The Board is committed to ensuring that stakeholders are engaged
>effectively in the Board's public processes*
>
>- *As a result of the high level of public interest and the general lack of
>familiarity with the Board’s processes, Board staff held a total of nine
>days of public information sessions to discuss Board processes, but not the
>merits of the application. The Board also adapted its usual practice to
>allow for two levels of intervenor participation.*
>
>*2.1 Public Participation*
>
>SE2’s application attracted the largest public response of any application
>ever filed with the Board. More than 400 parties registered as intervenors
>in the EH-1-2000 hearing and approximately 22 000 Letters of Comment were
>received by the Board. Such a level of public participation in a Board
>hearing is unprecedented. There was also widespread public participation
>during oral portions of the hearing:
>
>• in the January 2001 portion of the hearing, over 90 parties spoke during
>the three hearing days, with over 400 people attending the first evening;
>and
>
>• during the 2003 portion of the hearing, 30 intervenors cross-examined
>various panels; 28 intervenors delivered oral presentations; and 88
>intervenors gave oral final arguments.
>
>As a result of the high level of public interest and the general lack of
>familiarity with the Board’s processes, Board staff held a total of nine
>days of public information sessions to discuss Board processes, but not the
>merits of the application. The Board also adapted its usual practice to
>allow for two levels of intervenor participation. Option 1 intervenors were
>those who desired less than full intervenor status prior to the oral
>portion of the hearing but who still wished to participate throughout the
>hearing process. Option 2 intervenors had all the rights and
>responsibilities of traditional intervenors before the Board. In addition,
>the Board provided several written procedural updates and other information
>bulletins to address common requests for information on the Board’s
>processes or to further explain the hearing process.
>
>It appeared to the Board, however, that a number of misconceptions by some
>intervenors persisted throughout the hearing, particularly with respect to
>the role of the Board and its legal obligation to proceed in accordance
>with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in
>considering SE2’s application. There also appeared to be a widespread
>misunderstanding about the nature and extent of the Applicant’s
>responsibility to provide information to intervenors prior to and during
>the hearing process.
>
>*8.1 The Public Interest*
>
>As noted in Chapter 2 of these Reasons for Decision, the Board has
>described the public interest in the following terms:
>
>/The public interest is inclusive of all Canadians and refers to a balance
>of economic, environmental, and social interests that changes as society's
>values and preferences evolve over time. As a regulator, the Board must
>estimate the overall public good a project may create and its potential
>negative aspects, weigh its various impacts, and make a decision./
>
>When applying the “public convenience and necessity” test in the NEB Act,
>the Board makes a determination of the overall “public interest”. It must
>be re-emphasized that what is in the public interest or in the public
>convenience and necessity may vary with the specific application, the
>location of the project, the commodity involved, the various segments of
>the public affected by the decision and the purpose of the applicable
>sections of the NEB Act. In addition, what is in the public interest or in
>the public convenience and necessity may vary over time; these are not
>static concepts.
>
>*8.5 Role of Intervenors*
>
>The Board is committed to ensuring that stakeholders are engaged
>effectively in the Board's public processes.55 One aspect of this
>commitment is to have effective public participation in oral hearings
>before the Board. In this proceeding, there was an unprecedented level of
>participation by intervenors, many of whom, though unpaid and unrepresented
>by counsel, were well-prepared and knowledgeable about the issues to be
>considered at the hearing. The Board made frequent attempts to provide
>procedural guidance to intervenors with respect to effective participation
>in the Board’s process, and it was clear that many intervenors took
>advantage of this guidance. However, despite this guidance, some
>intervenors continued to rely heavily on uninformed impressions and
>speculation, rather than attempting to provide the Board with proper
>evidence on which it could rely in making its decision. Such impressions
>and speculation are of no assistance to the Board in fulfilling its
>mandate.
>
>The public is entitled and encouraged to participate in the Board’s
>processes; however, such participation carries with it a responsibility.
>That responsibility is to attempt to participate in an effective manner, by
>following the procedures of the Board, being knowledgeable about the issues
>in the proceeding, providing relevant evidence for the Board’s
>consideration, and, even in the face of disagreement with the position that
>a party advocates, showing courtesy and respect to all parties involved in
>the process, as well as the Board and its staff. In the Board’s view, the
>effectiveness of an intervenor’s participation can be greatly undermined
>when that intervenor exhibits discourteous and disrespectful behaviour.
>Unfortunately, in this proceeding there were a few intervenors who did not
>attain the level of decorum and civility the Board expects to see from
>parties appearing in proceedings before it, evincing a clear lack of
>respect for the Board and its processes. This was particularly true of some
>of the comments received by the Board with respect to the ESR, a number of
>which included vulgarities and personal attacks on the ethical values,
>integrity and morality of other parties, and of the Board.
>
>It bears repeating that SE2 was legally entitled to apply to the Board for
>a Certificate for the IPL, even in the face of substantial opposition. SE2
>had a legal right to a full and fair hearing before the Board, and a
>decision by the Board based on the facts and evidence presented at such a
>hearing, in accordance with the statutory requirement on the Board to
>determine whether the IPL is and will be in the present and future public
>convenience and necessity. Further, unless there is proper evidence
>demonstrating otherwise, each party is presumed to be acting in good faith
>in the presentation of its evidence and with respect to the commitments it
>makes during the course of a proceeding. Baseless accusations of immorality
>and unethical conduct on the part of SE2, its counsel and its witnesses,
>for simply submitting its application and evidence to the Board for
>consideration, are not acceptable.
>
____________________________________________________________________________
Did a friend forward this to you? Join sust-mar yourself!
Just send 'subscribe sust-mar' to mailto:majordomo@chebucto.ca
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects