NEWS RELEASE · 13th February 2012
MLA Gary Coons
Attention: Ms. Louise George, Acting Secretary to the Joint Review Panel
Enbridge Northern Gateway Project
National Energy Board
444 Seventh Avenue SW
Calgary, AB T2P 0X8
Dear Ms. George,
Re: Northern Gateway Pipelines Application to the National Energy Board
Enbridge Northern Gateway Project OH-4-2011
NEB File No: OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01
Prince Rupert - Hearing Schedule for Oral Evidence
I am disappointed and concerned that Enbridge is attempting to silence voices from the North Coast riding by limiting the time for oral evidence that is allocated to non-aboriginal participants to 10 minutes.
I can assure those concerned with my oral evidence that I have done my due diligence, I’ve studied the Procedural Direction for giving evidence (Procedural Direction #4), and will fall within the parameters of such. I believe I have a responsibility, and a right, as a resident of Prince Rupert for 35 years, to share my “personal knowledge, my experiences and the potential effects of the project on me and my community" and I will, as requested, “briefly share my point of view regarding the decision the Panel should make on the Project.”
More importantly, I have an obligation as MLA to submit oral evidence on behalf my constituents and of all communities that I have been entrusted to represent. As MLA, my “community” covers the North Coast riding. I have spent the last 6 months preparing for my presentation, knowing that there is criteria set out by the panel.
It does a great disservice to me and many others for Enbridge to attempt to change the rules at this point in the process and seek to limit the participation of those of us who are non-aboriginal to ten minutes. On July 30, 2011, I applied for and received from the panel 60 minutes to present oral evidence. Is Enbridge suggesting that the panel is not experienced enough to determine who may give oral evidence and how much time should be allocated to each participant? Surely these are decisions that should be made by the independent members of the panel, rather than lobbied for by those who stand to benefit by silencing the voices of those who would be most affected by this project.
The Joint Review Panel has done their due diligence by informing all interveners through written directions and in their opening remarks at each community hearing about the nature of their role as participants in the oral hearing and the directions they need to follow. The Panel is more than able to ensure that participants abide by these directions, and have been freely doing so throughout the process thus far. There are mechanisms in place which would allow Enbridge to object to testimony that they don't believe meets the requirements of the Panel, and the Panel themselves should be responsible for ruling on objections as they arise.
Please take this response as a request to refuse the proposal put forward by Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited.
MLA North Coast