There are further reasons for these issues to be carefully reviewed by this Panel. Any negative impact on the health (whether mental or physical) of our population - or even a portion of that population - is a socio-economic impact. This is as true in relation to the costs to society of those who will become addicted to gambling - when reviewing whether or not to allow video gambling machines in corner stores, bars or lounges - as it is in relation to the costs to society of those whose health may be negatively impacted when examining the distribution and ultimate use of natural gas.
The process is legally flawed since the economic effects and social effects of the project upon the people of Nova Scotia have not been adequately addressed. The intervenors raising this issue have not been adequately funded in light of the necessary level of scientific exploration of this issue and the formality of the hearing process. The intervenors have not been afforded due process by this Panel. Both proponents and Panel appear to be studiously ignoring this issue.
The power of expropriation should not be granted to the proponents, future undefined laterals from the main line should not be approved without specific and full environmental assessment nor should uses of gas not specifically defined and fully assessed be allowed.
Should this project be approved a fund should be created for further research and for treatment of persons suffering from environmentally-induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and /or allergies resulting from, or aggravated by, the implementation of this project.
The proposed Project should not be approved by this environmental assessment not only due to serious deficiencies in the assessment process but also due to the lack of sufficient information to reliably assess the environmental and socio-economic effects.
Until detailed information is available to assess precisely which, if any, uses of natural gas and which, if any, configuration of a project will not cause harm to those with environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity, there can be no legal basis for the release of any project introducing additional natural gas into Nova Scotian or New Brunswick neighborhoods and workplaces.
Research into these questions should begin immediately and it should include full participation of the community of environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity and its representatives.
An Act Respecting The Transmission of Oil and Gas, and
An Act Respecting Gas Utilities,
Both these statutes were enacted a decade ago and were intended to address the Venture Gas Project of Mobil Oil which consisted primarily of a proposed natural gas pipeline to the USA. In Nova Scotia this project was not approved and did not even reach the stage of public hearings. This legislation has, therefore, never been utilized or implemented and is badly in need of revision. That fact has apparently not escaped the notice of the Province of Nova Scotia as it is our understanding that redrafting of these
statutes is currently underway.
Our report will assess the existing Provincial legislation and Federal statutes in terms of their adequacy in addressing:
a) the protection of residents of Nova Scotia from the creation of, or of increased levels of, environmentally-induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and allergy;
b) the protection of the environment - including the health of Nova Scotians- during construction, operations and abandonment of gas pipelines;
c) the need for long-term monitoring and regulation of gas pipelines;
d) investigative procedures in the case of accidents; and
e) the public interest in the issuance and renewal of gas distribution licences.
Our organization, and its associated organizations, should have full access to legal counsel. The participant funding which has been provided is inadequate for this task.
In addition, the hearing process is being conducted in a fashion akin to a full-fledged trial in a court of law. The proponents as well as other corporate parties and government agencies have lawyers representing them and advising them. Our funding level does not allow us a similar level of representation and therefore puts us at a distinct disadvantage.
Since the rulings of the Panel to date in this process have consistently favored a strict interpretation of the legalistic rules of procedure and terms of reference, community-based intervenors are further severely restricted in their opportunity for input.
The rulings of the Panel have been consistently negative to requests of environmental group intervenors, including refusing to allow extensions of deadlines and so forth. Yet the proponents were allowed to table some of their required evidence - of an important nature - late, without permission. These experiences certainly raise the appearance of bias.
The onus should be on the proponents to prove the health and other environmental safety of all aspects of the proposed pipeline project, rather than us as intervenors having to prove lack of safety. We are not the ones requesting approval and are not the ones to gain ( in fact quite the opposite ) by the project going ahead. It is unfair that the onus of proof be downloaded onto those with the least resources.
Both the proponents and the Panel have ignored this health issue despite its having been properly identified as a deficiency at the Scoping Session of 3 December 1996 in Halifax Nova Scotia.
Health issues are not being specifically addressed by the panel, nor are the proponents responding to our questions. Our queries have failed to divulge relevant information, eg. the precise composition of the gas from each well and other information.
Given the refusal of the proponents to provide full and adequate response to questions properly posed by a registered intervenor who has conformed to all intervenor procedure, the Panel - by its passive aquiescence to this behavior - creates an impression of bias.
The due process of researching our case and presenting our evidence is violated when our questions are left unanswered. This violates both the spirit and letter of established and agreed-upon rules of procedure. We are denied access to information which violates our right to a full and fair process.
(1) Whether the Panel has the power to order the proponents to divulge the actual physical and chemical composition of the natural gas;
(2) Whether the Panel has the power to grant the proponents the power of expropriation;
(3) Whether the Panel can allow - by way of these hearings - any number of lateral pipelines to be constructed by the proponents without the necessity of further hearings; and
(4) Whether the Panel has the power to attach any legally binding conditions to approval of future laterals and uses of piped natural gas.
Even for the lateral lines, the power to expropriate will surely be requested by the proponents. Landowners and community residents must have the right to be legally protected from being forced to poptentially cause harm to themselves!
Permitting of the main pipeline must not be taken to permit lateral pipelines and projects since these are not being assessed. Environmental assessments of a more local nature, but with full intervenor funding, must be mandated before any laterals may be constructed. The same should be true of any uses of natural gas not specifically defined and fully assessed during these hearings.
a) A potential increase in the number of Nova Scotians whose access to public places may be severely restricted because of their levels of allergies or related sensitivities. Aren't all people entitled to full and free access to public places? If that access is taken away is that not a form of infringement of their freedom of association or freedom of movement ?
b) We need legally-guaranteed access to in-depth research on the topic of sensitivities that may result from the transmission or consumption of natural gas.
(1) There is a body of scientific research and clinical experience that suggests that residential and industrial-commercial-institutional consumption of natural gas leads to, or aggravates, environmentally-induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and /or allergies;
(2) This issue therefore comes within the meaning of “environmental effect” and thus should be thoroughly explored by this Panel;
(3) This issue is of serious socio-economic concern to the government and taxpayers of this Province not only because of its potential impact on the costs of health care and loss of productivity but, in addition, because of the further human suffering and loss of quality of life which may be visited upon individuals in this Province;
(4) To date this issue has neither been taken seriously, nor sufficiently explored, by this Panel;
(5) Our organization has been inadequately funded in light of the necessary level of scientific exploration of this issue and the formality of the hearing process;
(6) Our organization and its presentation have not been afforded due process by this Panel;
(7) The proponent should not be granted the power of expropriation;
(8) This Panel should not approve future undefined laterals from the main line nor uses of gas not specifically defined and fully assessed;
(9) A Fund should be created for further research and for treatment of persons suffering from environmentally-induced illness/chemical sensitivity, asthma and /or allergies resulting from, or aggravated by, the implementation of this project; and
(10) The proposed Project should not be approved due to legal flaws in the present assessment process; the assessment process must be reconfigured to address these deficiencies and begun again before any release of the project can be warranted.