That also goes for ordinary citizens concerned about projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline but who don’t live or work near the project, he said.
Oliver was defending his government’s plan unveiled a day earlier to “strengthen environmental protection” by limiting participation to members of the public who are “directly affected” by major projects.
“We don’t see the need” to allow testimony from Canadians outside the project areas, or from environmental groups without specific expertise, Oliver said in an interview.
He also said the government won’t set strict rules on who can or can’t participate.
He defended the government’s announcement Tuesday that it will let the federal cabinet overrule the Calgary-based National Energy Board, an quasi-independent agency created by John Diefenbaker in 1959, on major projects considered by Ottawa to be in the “national interest.”
“The rationale is that for large projects that can have a national or regional impact of significance, both environment and economic, we believe the ultimate decision should be in the hands of elected officials and not appointed officials, because ultimately through Parliament elected officials are responsible to the people.”
Oliver said the government isn’t undermining the integrity of the hearing process and suggested that a cabinet override of an NEB decision on Northern Gateway wouldn’t necessarily be easy.
“Now you know, if one goes against a decision you have to consider the public’s reaction to that, of course.”
Neither initiative was mentioned in Oliver’s speech and his news release Tuesday, though they were cited in publicly available background documents.
Oliver said Wednesday his government wasn’t trying to hide its plan to clip the NEB’s wings as the final authority on major projects.
“Look, the whole legislative package is a complicated one and we wanted to emphasize the job-creation aspect of it. We didn’t highlight (the cabinet override) but we certainly didn’t hide it.”
The joint NEB-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency process that began in January has involved testimony primarily from aboriginals in B.C. and Alberta living near Enbridge Inc.’s proposed pipeline route from the Edmonton area to Kitimat on the West Coast.
However, the NEB has also heard from groups like the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union.
And during a four-month period starting in November, the NEB had scheduled hearings for registered participants from cities outside the project area, including Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna and Port Hardy.
Green party Leader Elizabeth May said the environmental assessment agency’s “cornerstone” is public participation, yet the government’s efforts are intended to severely limit that input.
“Many projects with significant environmental impacts may be located in remote locations,” May said.
“Canadians are entitled to be concerned about fragile ecosystems in the Arctic or significant new sources of new pollution, even if they do not live in the immediate vicinity.
“Imagine if the government of Brazil said people living in Rio de Janeiro had no business expressing concern about the destruction of the Amazon. This provision will make Canada a global laughing stock.”
Limiting the NEB’s authority shows that a thumbs-up decision for Northern Gateway is a “forgone conclusion,” May added.
Since the NEB is known for almost always approving industry proposals, May speculated that the Harper government’s main motivation is to send an assuring signal to Northern Gateway’s Chinese investors that the project will proceed.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper “did commit quite forcefully in Beijing that the project would go through. This is likely just to drive the point home,” May said.
The government announced sweeping measures Tuesday that will shorten the duration of environmental reviews of natural resource projects.
Among the initiatives is a proposal that Ottawa accept decisions from provincial governments that run their own project reviews. Ottawa will even give provinces the right to grant companies project authorizations under the federal Fisheries Act.
The government is also expected to water down the Fisheries Act to severely weaken provisions protecting fisheries habitat. The legislation is viewed by environmentalists as the federal government’s top legislative weapon to protect the environment.
Oliver pointed out that cabinet can already override decisions from other federal bodies. He added that the U.S. government also has final authority over major project approvals.
“We’re not telling the NEB what to say, we’re not influencing their decision. They will come their decision independently, objectively, based on science. Then we will draw conclusions from it.”
Oliver added that cabinet won’t be able to ignore conditions imposed on Enbridge by the National Energy Board and environmental assessment agency panel, though it can ask the panellists to reconsider their recommendations.
“We’re not undermining the integrity of the process.”
Oliver, who in January denounced “radical” environmental groups that oppose Canadian resource projects, expressed satisfaction that one such green group – ForestEthics – is splitting into two entities in response to federal pressure.
One will become a non-charitable advocacy group dedicated to opposing government policies that affect the environment. A second, devoted to projects such as ecosystem-based logging, will seek to retain charitable status and therefore hang onto the tax benefits that come from that status.
Groups with charitable status are only allowed to spend up to 10 per cent of their resources on advocacy work, and those efforts must not be partisan.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Peter O'Neil
No comments:
Post a Comment