Our Current Blog

Writing Democracy. Or not. by Donna Sinclair When social justice types run out of new ways to make our voices heard, we can always fall back on writing letters. I like this approach. It gives me a chance to do research and offers the recipient a chance to read and reflect on my argument carefully. Well we could always fall back on writing letters until now that is. This is the first time for me in almost 60 years of environmental awareness and activism (if you count lobbying my parents for a bike when I was ten) that even writing a letter is problematic. It’s one (more?) signal that Canada is plunging into a significant democratic deficit. Here’s what happened: When I heard that Enbridge was looking for National Energy Board approval to reverse one of its pipelines in order to carry tar sands bitumen to Eastern Canada, I thought I should write to the board. Enbridge, after all, brought the American Midwest its biggest oil spill ever – over a million gallons of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. It took Enbridge 18 hours to turn off the flow. They’re still cleaning it up. As a citizen of Canada, and a person of faith who believes in the holiness of Creation, I thought I could help the NEB with their deliberations by bringing the other-than-material values attached to the land by many Canadians to their attention. It is my right as a Canadian. Always has been. But under the new rules about communicating with the NEB, I was now required to fill out a multi-page form requesting permission to comment in writing on the subject of Hearing Order OH-002-2013 -Enbridge Pipelines Inc. It took me four days of reflecting and looking up terms, along with some computer skills I’ve never needed before, to ask permission simply to write a letter. This seems a deliberate effort to disconnect us ordinary folk from a crucial aspect of a democratic state. It is spring. I am a gardener. I have other things to do than figure out what “the application to participate form described in paragraph 29 of the Hearing Order is provided in Appendix II of this procedural update” actually means, and where to find it. It’s disheartening to see the complexity of bureaucracy that has fallen like a net over the public participation process. I managed to fire my application into the electronic ether. Then I mailed a hard copy of the 11 pages to the NEB. Then I informed Enbridge (three different people) that my application was on file with the board. A polite process advisor at the NEB began addressing me by my first name. (I admit I took some pleasure in flinging about phrases like “consider this email as notification that my Application to Participate is on the NEB’s repository.” I might write a poem, I thought; I have never used the word “repository” before.) Thirty-five days later, on May 23, I heard back from the National Energy Board. I am not allowed to comment. Not even a letter. My efforts to persuade the board that the land is sacred and we shouldn’t mess with it came to naught because in Northern Ontario I am too far away from Southern Ontario and Quebec (the land in question) to be affected. Also, my well-honed knowledge (70 years of Sunday worship, for starters) about some-things-being-holy isn’t an area of expertise the board finds helpful. Here is their ruling: Ms Sinclair applied to participate on the basis of being both directly affected by the proposed Project and having relevant information or expertise. Ms Sinclair supported these assertions on the basis of her religious beliefs and her Canadian citizenship in general. The Board is of the view that this is only a general public interest in the proposed Project. Further, Ms Sinclair lives in North Bay, Ontario, which is not in the vicinity of the Project. The Board’s Ruling In the Board’s view, these individuals did not demonstrate how they would be directly affected by the Project, nor did they demonstrate that they had relevant information or expertise that would assist the Board in its assessment. Accordingly, the Board has denied standing to these individuals in this proceeding. This is a harsher blow to our democracy than you might think. The criteria for public participation in this matter of pipelines have been narrowed to a point where we cannot comment on climate change or water contamination emanating from the tar sands operations that produce the bitumen. We cannot express affection or principled care for any land beyond our own area. We cannot discuss the dangers of tanker traffic should the augmented line eventually make it to tidewater. We are silenced on a matter of urgent importance. Copyright© 2013-14, Donna Sinclair Photo courtesy of Liz Lott Writing Democracy. Or Not. was originally published on Wood Lake Publishing Blog, May 29, 2013. It is published here with permission of the author. A journalist for more than 30 years, Donna Sinclair is an award-winning writer who has traveled widely in Canada, Africa, Central America, Britain, and Eastern Europe. She is the author of The Spirituality of Bread, The Spirituality of Gardening, A Woman’s Book of Days, A Woman’s Book of Days 2, and numerous other titles. Donna lives with her husband Jim in North Bay, Ontario. Her most recent book is The Long View: An Elderwoman’s Book of Wisdom (2011).

Copyright© 2014, The Integrity in Politics Choir
Last Updated:

January 21, 2014