SCANDAL REPORT: Gov in Cahoots with Oil Co (Enbridge)

[Oscar]

Margaret Atwood : SCANDAL REPORT: Gov in Cahoots with Oil Co (Enbridge)

(Background below . . )

----- Original Message -----
From: Margaret Atwood
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 11:04 AM
Subject: SCANDAL REPORT: Gov in Cahoots with Oil Co

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! The new National Energy Board (NEB) rules that all but shut out public participation in pipeline project hearings come straight out of a report published by industry in August, 2012. This is surely clear evidence that the oil industry and the highest echelons of the Harper government are joined at the hip.

To have an industry writing the rules about who can speak at regulatory hearings about that industry’s projects strikes at the heart of our democracy, and our right to participatory free speech.

Gutting legislation, muzzling scientists, intimidating critics, and excluding testimony from all but the pre-approved: ENOUGH! The courtroom must now be the battleground in the fight to expose the government’s crony relationship with big oil.

ForestEthics Advocacy's lawsuit against PM Harper — and Enbridge — represents the best chance we now have to overcome the government’s systematic efforts to silence your voice and the voices of others who take exception to their policies.

In August, when Clayton Ruby launched this lawsuit, I asked for your financial help and the response was overwhelming—we raised $85,000 in just 72 hours. I am sincerely grateful for your amazing generosity.

But now we must re-double our efforts so I am asking for your help again.

Enbridge has plenty of money to bankroll its legal strategy to try and defeat this suit. And the small Ruby team now faces corporate and government lawyers, the latter paid for by taxpayers – who are being disbarred from speaking at NEB hearings. Our goal is to raise $250,000 by year-end and this goal is already in sight, thanks to your earlier gift and other fundraising efforts.

Please make a donation today. As you think about the size of your gift consider this:
1. Our report shows that industry told the federal government to limit your input at NEB pipeline hearings. They also recommended that key issues like upstream and downstream impacts from tar sands projects should not be discussed at these hearings. The government fulfilled their wishes.1

2. The government has decided not to submit any evidence by way of Affidavit in response to our lawsuit application. This is highly unusual. But now, thanks to our report, we know what they've got to hide.2

3. Beginning December 11, 2012, Enbridge CEO Al Monaco met or communicated with Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, several MPs and various Directors and Advisors from the Prime Minister’s Office a total of 28 times. Subjects discussed included climate change policy, greenhouse gas regulations, regulatory streamlining and the status and government’s position on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and Line 9b pipeline projects.3

Make no mistake, we face formidable foes. But we can prevail in the Federal Court of Appeal. Clayton and his team are ready for this fight and are building the strongest case possible to defeat the government and Enbridge. Their goal is to restore your right to speak freely at NEB hearings about ALL issues related to pipeline projects—and not just the few now authorized by the NEB.

Supporting this lawsuit with your gift is an easy choice to make: free speech vs. silence; transparency vs. concealment; and public interest vs. corporate special interests. But more than that, it is a choice about the future our children and their children will inherit.

Please be generous and make a donation today. This is the best chance you and I have to reveal what is really going on in the halls of Parliament and restore our right to free speech. Thank you!

Yours sincerely,
Margaret Atwood
Writer & Activist

[ http://forestethics.org/tzeporah-berman ]

- - - -

P.S. The new NEB rules are a thinly-disguised attempt to silence Canadians who are concerned about the risks of oil spills and the impacts of rapid tar sands expansion. Our federal government is working with industry to protect their interests and discourage public debate. Please make a gift to support our lawsuit against the federal government and Enbridge Pipelines Inc. so we can restore your right to speak openly about these all-important issues.

1) Energy Policy Institute of Canada report Titled "A Canadian Energy Strategy Framework, August 2012, paragraph C.2, page 48.
[ http://forestethics.org/sites/foresteth ... _rules.pdf ]

2) A Canadian Energy Strategy Framework published by the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, August 2012.
[ http://www.canadasenergy.ca/canadian-energy-strategy/ ]

3) Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying:
[ https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/advSrch ]
- - - -


BACKGROUND:

Damning statements in Forest Ethics Advocacy vs. Harper government, Enbridge, NEB case

[ http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/d ... e-neb-case ]

Affadavits cite Canadian Charter of Human Rights violations, government favoritism towards Enbridge, and an application designed to deter participation.

Mike Chisholm Posted: Dec 5th, 2013

The first shots have been filed in a court case that pits a BC environmental group against the National Energy Board of Canada, the Stephen Harper government and Enbridge over who can participate in publicly-funded energy hearings. A behavioral scientist says the new rules are too onerous, while two climate scientists say hearings are skewed to benefit oil and gas companies. But government and Enbridge laywers are only cross-examining one person, and that is Tzeporah Berman tomorrow in Toronto.

In an affidavit filed in the Federal Court of Canada in September, and recently obtained by The Vancouver Observer, a University of Toronto behavioral expert says, in her opinion, new rules to screen public participation in National Energy Board (NEB) hearings are designed to deter people from having their voices heard, which is a contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Dr. Claire Tsai of the U. Of T. Rotman School of Management [ http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/ ] says a new requirement to fill out a lengthy and complex application form has “an immediate deterrent effect” on public-participation.

In her affidavit, Tsai says, “The form is 9 pages long. It includes legal jargon, cross-references statutes, regulations and NEB policy documents. It makes very significant demands on the applicant. Many individuals will find the Form overly complex and time-consuming and will become less willing to apply to participate....”

One of Canada’s best known climate scientist has also weighed in on the case. Former Harper adviser, Mark Jaccard, of the SFU School of Resource and Environmental Management, swore an affidavit in the case, "The environmental and social impacts of projects that facilitate expanded oil sands production, and therefore increased GHG emissions, are likely to be profound, perhaps catastrophic.

“It is my view that the exclusion of these issues skews its (NEB) regulatory assessment in favour of pipeline approval and ignores the most important costs and non-costed impacts that every responsible and honest society should be considering on behalf of people living today and in future.”

The court case was launched last August by Forest Ethics Advocacy Association against the National Energy Board of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada. Forest Ethics argues “that every Canadian has the right to give their opinion and that these bureaucratic barriers directly violate section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Forest Ethics launched its legal action in August following the passage of the federal omnibus Bill C-38. The legislation included a buried passage that changed the way Canadians could voice their opinions at NEB hearings. Instead of showing up and providing an opinion or letter, the public must now fill out a multi-page application justifying their right to speak. The NEB can accept or refuse the application.

“These were changes that were made as part of the overhaul back in July 2012 and it impacted the NEB as well,” says NEB spokesperson Carole Léger-Kubeczek in Calgary. “It’s to try and focus the participation of people who are directly impacted by an application for a proposed project.”

During the Enbridge Northern Gateway Hearings, and before the new regulations were established, more than 1,500 people testified at public hearings around BC. Under the new rules, that number would have been severely limited. The Harper government has indicated that it wants the public hearing aspect of major oil and gas development projects to be more efficient.

Forest Ethics co-founder Tzeporah Berman says the real reason is much more ominous. “The federal government is trying to restrict this process so we don’t have a discussion in Canada about climate change or the expansion of the tar sands and all of the impacts that expansion is having on communities, on human health, on our water, on our climate.”

The first application of the new regulations are in place for current NEB public hearing into the Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project [ http://www.enbridge.com/ECRAI/Line9BRev ... oject.aspx ] from Montreal to Sarnia, Ontario. Enbridge has applied to reverse its existing 639 km oil pipeline to accommodate heavy crude oil, including Alberta diluted bitumen.

“It will deter people who are not impacted and do not necessarily have a lot of relevant information,” says Léger-Kubeczek. “If they have relevant information and they apply, they stand a chance of getting standing. But if their information is ‘oh, I just don’t agree with the project’, that’s not really relevant because you need to provide expertise and that is not what I consider expertise.”

As a behavioral scientist, Clair Tsai examined the new process and concludes that the length and complexity of the form has a “significant deterrent effect on participation.” She says applicants must first find the form, review lengthy instructions and documents, interpret legal terms and submit the form via website, fax or mail 25 copies all within 16 days.

“It makes very significant demands on the applicant,” says Tsai.

- - - SNIP - - -

Two other affidavits from climate scientists in the same case argue that exclusion of evidence about the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with the development of oil sands or the downstream use of the oil transported by oil pipelines “skews the debate in favour of oil sands extraction and pipeline construction.” One scientist says the impact of projects that facilitate oil sands production “are likely to be profound, perhaps catastrophic.”

Forest Ethics is challenging the refusal of NEB to consider the downstream impact of major oil and gas projects. Bill C-38 restricts what people can say at an NEB hearing, rejecting applicants who, according to Forest Ethics, “are experiencing serious health impacts, or people who are concerned about health risks posed by increased toxic emissions at tar sands refineries, or people who want to expose the link between the tar sands and climate change are forbidden from expressing any analysis of a project’s impact.”

“They are defining impacted and relevant information to exclude Canadian concerns about climate pollution and the impact of the tar sands,” says Berman. “So they are trying to separate a decision over a pipeline with a decision to expand the tar sands and the implications of tar sands expansion being the primary reason Canada will not meet its climate targets. By trying to create such a narrow definition, they are silencing a critical discussion that should be happening in this country.”

“These issues are necessary to a proper consideration of the environmental impacts of the pipeline,” says University of Toronto climate expert Dr. Danny Harvey in another affidavit filed on September 18. “The exclusion of these issues skews the debate in favour of oil sands extraction and pipeline construction.”

Jaccard says it’s impossible to separate the two issues of oil sands development and the infrastructure needed to support that development.

“Since oil sands production cannot expand without an equivalent expansion of the means to transport the product to market, an oil pipeline is thus a direct contributor to the harmful climate change that the government of Canada has promised to work to prevent.”

Tzeporah Berman says five affidavits in total have been filed in the case. Enbridge has also joined the action but so far, only two individuals, Berman and Ontario resident Donna Sinclair, have been asked to be cross-examined. That cross-examination is expected to take place on Friday in Toronto.

- - - -

MIKE CHISHOLM

[ http://www.vancouverobserver.com/contri ... e-chisholm ]

Mike Chisholm has worked across the country as a broadcast journalist and producer with CBC television and radio, CTV and as the national Atlantic correspondent for Global TV. He is a recipient of both a Jack Webster Journalism Award and an RTNDA award for his reporting. His focus with The Vancouver Observer is environmental and political reporting.