Dear editor,
In a recent CBC radio interview, our MP John Duncan was asked about his views on the Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review Panel and the Conservative government's plans to shorten the process. He replied 鈥�4,300 people from all over the world signed up as intervenors. This has made somewhat of a mockery of the process. Many of those intervenors are legitimate but many of them are not.鈥�
I attended all but the last two hours of the hearings that were held in Comox on March 30 and 31. If Mr. Duncan had attended, he would have heard from a wide variety of British Columbians providing well-researched, logical, and passionate submissions to the panel.
Who are the illegitimate intervenors, Mr. Duncan?
I heard from an accountant who advised that the project is not in the best interests of business and job creation. She commented on the vast number of aquaculture jobs that would be at risk with huge supertankers along the coast. Is she one of the illegitimate intervenors?
I heard compelling evidence from a retired professor emeritus now living in Comox, who told of her experience in 2005 attempting to clean birds after an oil spill in Alberta. Of the 1,000 birds carefully cleaned and treated for toxins, only 101 were able to be released again. She provided a photo of an extremely distressed rescue worker with an equally distressed bird. Is her experience and evidence legitimate, Mr. Duncan?
I heard from the mother of a seven year old who runs an eco-tourism business in Lund. She is able to support her family by showing our stunning B.C. landscapes to people from all over the world. She also questioned the legitimacy of the Joint Review Process but her concerns were based upon the view that recent comments from the Conservative government seem to indicate that this is a 鈥渄one deal.鈥� Many other eco-tourist operators have also signed up to express their concerns about the very real risks of an oil spill for the environment and for their work opportunities. Are they to be dismissed as illegitimate?
I heard a former negotiator who, at various times, worked on land claim issues on behalf of the federal government, the B.C. government, and First Nations, advise the panel that true consultation with First Nations is not taking place in this process and the whole project might be overturned in the courts as a result.
Who, among the scientists, fishers, retired priests and ministers, former Members of Parliament, young environmentalists concerned about their future, boaters and kayakers who know the treacherous Hecate Straits, and a myriad of others with unique experiences, are to be deemed worthy to be heard, Mr. Duncan?
I heard them all and found their evidence compelling, informative, and inspiring. It is unfortunate that Mr. Duncan has so summarily dismissed these people and failed to take advantage of hearing his constituents on this critical matter.
The intervenors speak for me; Mr. Duncan does not.
Janet Fairbanks
Courtenay
