WHO WRITES THE RULES?A Report on Oil Industry Influence, Government Laws, and the Corrosion of Public Process

A D V O C A C Y

“While all [Energy Policy Institute of Canada] recommendations were presented as a work in progress, some were so compelling that they were accepted and acted upon. Notably, the Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, announced significant improvements to the country’s regulatory framework, much of which was reflective of our regulatory document and recommendations.”

— August 2012 Report published by the Energy Policy Institute of Canada

WHO WRITES THE RULES?A Report on Oil Industry Influence, Government Laws and the Corrosion of Public Process

Executive Summary

ForestEthics Advocacy Association’s research into industry and government documents confirms what many concerned Canadians may have feared—that the oil industry has helped write the rules that now restrict public participation on the environmental impacts of tar sands expansion projects. While official postings on federal government websites pay lip service to the importance of seeking public input, anyone who has tried to participate recently knows that the opportunities to do so are diminishing.

An examination of new restrictions on what can be said at National Energy Board (NEB) hearings and the practical effects of new provisions in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) reaffirm that the concerns of ordinary Canadians are consistently trumped by oil industry demands and goals.

The Energy Policy Institute of Canada (EPIC) is an industry lobby group whose membership includes dozens of companies. All the major oil companies and industry associations—like Suncor, TransCanada, Enbridge, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers—are represented. With a mandate to “develop a comprehensive, pan-Canadian approach to energy which will provide the foundation for recommendations to federal, provincial and territorial government authorities responsible for energy and environment policy,” EPIC has aggressively pushed for new rules to benefit its membership.

Judging by the contents of an August 2012 report that have come to light, that mandate has succeeded. The report, written by EPIC and entitled “Canadian Energy Strategy Framework: A Guide to Building Canada’s Future as a Global Energy Leader,” is the product of three years of discussions and meetings among the industry’s largest energy producers, transporters and consumers.

A comparison of the report and the new rules demonstrates that the Conservative government has adopted many of EPIC’s recommendations—either verbatim or in substance.

The intention of the report is clear—to remove obstacles that stand in the way of tar sands and other energy development proposals. It also sheds light on the extent of the access that industry CEOs and lobbyists have had to government officials, Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs). While 11 charities working on oil and gas issues have collectively been able to meet or communicate with the government 485 times during the period from July 2008 to November 2012, the oil industry has had 2,733 meetings or communications on energy issues. In total, for every ministerial meeting a charitable organization was granted to talk about tar sands development, the industry got nearly six.1

1 Polaris report titled “Big Oil’s Oily Grasp, pages 4 and 6.

... the oil industry has helped write the rules that now restrict public participation on the environmental impacts of tar sands expansion projects.

Canadians will inevitably bear the financial and personal costs—in spills, explosions, and poisoned watersheds—of the government’s reckless pursuit of tar sands expansion. For that reason, they have a real stake in the debate, and they deserve to be heard. Yet a review of the evidence shows that ordinary Canadians are systematically sidelined in the deliberations over Canada’s energy future.

That has to change.

ForestEthics Advocacy Association (FEAA) has launched a lawsuit against the federal government, the National Energy Board (NEB) and Enbridge Pipelines Inc. to overturn new NEB rules that restrict public participation in NEB pipeline project hearings. We maintain that these new rules are a violation of Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If FEAA is successful in the Federal Court of Appeal, this case will set precedent. It will affirm that the federal government cannot curb participation in matters before a tribunal or federal board on the basis of arbitrary criteria. Such an outcome would be huge as there has never been a case like this.

Our lawsuit is focused on the Enbridge Line 9b reversal pipeline, but the outcome will impact public participation in ALL proposed tar sands pipeline projects across Canada, like the TransCanada Energy East line from Alberta to New Brunswick or the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline in British Columbia.

We are documenting the most conspicuous similarities between industry’s wish list and the federal government’s rule changes to show Canadians that this is a live issue. Our democracy is being eroded, slowly but steadily, and this presents real dangers to our future health and well-being.

The Prime Minister Harper’s government may not agree, but we believe Canadians have a right to know—and a right to talk about it.

Key Report Findings

•  The EPIC report recommends that the “federal government must develop regulations that restrict participation in federal environmental assessment reviews to those parties that are ‘directly and adversely affected’ by the proposal in question.”1 They also recommend that “the relevance and credibility of evidence presented for environmental assessments must be explained.”2 This is precisely the language that is now found in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012,3 on the National Energy Board’s website4, and on the National Energy Board Application to Participate Form.5

•  EPIC states that public input on larger issues like climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and upstream and downstream impacts from tar sands projects should only be provided when formulating government energy policy, and not in the context of specific projects.6 While

1 EPIC Report entitled “A Canadian Energy Strategy Framework”, page 48.2 EPIC Report, page 15.3 CEAA, 2012, Interested Party, sub-section 2 (a) and (b), page 54 National Energy Board Website: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pblcprtcptn/pblchrng/pblchrngpm-phlt-eng.html#s3_15 National Energy Board Application to Participate Form (for Enbridge Line 9b re-versal pipeline project), page 5: https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/92263/790736/890819/918701/941089/A5-3_-_Application_Form_to_Participate_in_a_Hearing_-_A3G6L3_.pdf?nodeid=941615&vernum=-26 Epic Report, paragraph C.2, page 48.

this recommendation significantly constrains the public’s ability to provide any meaningful input on these key issues, it was nevertheless adopted by the federal government. The list of issues that the public could address in their comments on Enbridge Line 9b specifically forbid “discussion of the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline.” The NEB also stated that “discussion or consideration of alternatives to fossil fuels, or to the development of the oil sands, bear on broader policy questions that are beyond the jurisdiction of the Board and separate from the proposed project.”1

•  EPIC argues that environmental assessments should be completed as early as is practicable in the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made2. It declares that for cost and timeliness reasons, environmental assessments (EA) should not require the submission of detailed monitoring reports and studies and that instead these should only be required at the permitting stage following the EA decision.3 Furthermore, EPIC states that “absolute certainty about how a project might affect the environment can never be achieved and should not be the goal of this preliminary process. The EA should be directed at whether or not the project will likely result in types of effects that are unique relative to other projects in the past, whether the types of effects associated with the project are capable of being mitigated, and, if the project will likely result in significant unique effects that cannot be mitigated, whether there are alternative ways of carrying out the project that would reduce these effects.” In the CEAA 2012 what we now find are provisions that allow for environmental assessments to be conducted only on the basis of the project proponent’s application and other documentation that the NEB may deem necessary in drafting its environmental assessment report.4 That’s it. Moreover, the list of issues that the EA should address is almost identical to what industry recommends with reference to mitigation, unique effects and alternative approaches to project development.5

•  Twenty-seven oil companies—some of the largest in the world—and eight well-financed industry associations registered 2,733 communications with designated public office-holders in the Government of Canada between July 2008 and November 2012. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., whose Line 9b hearings were the first to be held under the new rules, ranked eighth with 143 communications.6

•  In the 12-month period 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.7

1 National Energy Board List of Issues for the Enbridge Line 9b pipeline proposal, page 7: https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/92263/790736/890819/918701/941089/A5-1_-_Procedural_Update_No._1_-_List_of_Issues_and_Application_to_Participate_Form_Hearing_Or-der_OH-002-2013_Line_9B_Reversal_and_Line_9_Capacity_Expansion_Project_Enbridge_Pipelines_Inc._-A3G6J4_?nodeid=941090&vernum=0Matters%20not%20Included%20in%20the%20List%20of%20Issues2 EPIC Report, page 14.3 EPIC Report, paragraph B.1, page 43.4 CEAA 2012, Section on General Rules, sections 21-24, pages 14 and 15.5 CEAA 2012, section 19, paragraphs (b), (d) and (g), pages 12 and 13.6 Polaris Institute report, page 4.7 Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/clntSmmry?clientNumber=4543&sMdKy=1386455442493

[The energy industry’s]recommendation significantly constrains the public’s ability to provide any meaningful input on these key issues—and was directly adopted by the federal government.

WHO WRITES THE RULES?An Analysis of Industry Recommendations and Government Actions

“Directly Affected” – A Way to Discourage Public Participation

On November 29, 2012 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. filed an application to reverse the flow of oil in its Line 9b pipeline—running east to west from Montreal to Sarnia—so that it could transport tar sands bitumen from the Alberta oil sands to refineries in Montreal. This was the first pipeline proposal to fall under new NEB public participation rules enacted under Section 55.2 of the National Energy Board Act. That section says:

“On an application for a certificate, the Board shall consider the representations of any person who, in the Board’s opinion, is directly affected by the granting or refusing of the application, and it may consider the representations of any person who, in its opinion, has relevant information or expertise. A decision of the Board as to whether it will consider the representations of any person is conclusive.”

Before this measure was enacted, any Canadian could submit comments on pipeline projects, and many did. But that simple change to the rules drastically reduced the number of potential participants who were able to comment on the Enbridge Line 9b project:

Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Proposal (prior to new rules)1:

# of Intervenors (citizens, cities and other government jurisdictions, non-profits, and industry associations):

228

# of Letters of comment from Canadian citizens (roughly 4,000 of which were submitted on behalf of Canadians by ForestEthics Advocacy):

9,644

# of Citizens who gave oral testimony at public hearings: 1,239

Total # of Participants: 11,111

Enbridge Line 9B Project Proposal (after new rules)2:

# of Intervenors: 61

# of Letters of comment: 111

Total # of Participants: 172

1 Letters of Comment: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=625023&objAction=browse&sort=name; Oral Testimony by Public Citizens before the JRP: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384192/620327/624909/804725/A136-1_-_Order_of_Appearances_-_Oral_State-ments_-_A2R7F5.pdf?nodeid=804726&vernum=0; List of Intervenors: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/live-link.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384192/620327/624909/703235/A41-1_-_Letter_and_List_of_Parties_OH-4-2011_dated_20_July_2011_A2A7J7.pdf?nodeid=703301&vernum=0&redirect=32 List of Intervenors: https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/92263/790736/890819/918701/956466/A11-5_-_Appendix_II_-_List_of_Parties_up-dated_23_October_2013-_A3H8K3.pdf?nodeid=956278&vernum=-2;List of Commenters: https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/92263/790736/890819/918701/956466/A11-7_-_Appendix_III_-_List_of_Com-menters_-_A3H8K5.pdf?nodeid=956389&vernum=-2

What prompted the rule changes?

Over and over again in its report, EPIC criticizes the degree of regulatory scrutiny applied to project proposals. It argues that such scrutiny discourages investment and is not warranted. EPIC takes particular issue with Joint Review Panels that were originally designed to provide the public with the opportunity to weigh in with their concerns. Panel members, according to EPIC “often lack the expertise and experience necessary to adequately conduct the review and interpret and apply legislation in such a way as to create considerable uncertainty for prospective developers and prevent an efficient, streamlined regulatory process.” 1

EPIC then goes on to discuss the large volume of public input provided by way of Joint Review Panel hearings for the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline proposal in British Columbia. Its report notes that there were no restrictions under the CEAA or the National Energy Board Act requiring participants to be “directly or adversely affected” by a proposed project at the time of the Northern Gateway hearings. EPIC wanted to see this changed.

They protest that the rules in place at the time have “increasingly led to extensive involvement by individuals and organizations with no connection to the land in question.” In EPIC’s view, such participation “rarely adds value, as the interveners (the public) often focus on broader policy issues that have either already been decided or that are irrelevant for the specific project being considered.”2 It provides no explanation or background for its definition of relevance.

In its recommendations, EPIC explicitly states that “the federal government must develop regulations that restrict participation in federal EA (environmental assessment) reviews to those parties that are directly and adversely affected by the proposal in question.” This is precisely the language that is now found in the CEAA 20123, on the National Energy Board’s website4, and on the National Energy Board Application to Participate Form. 5

In this context, how can the public truly participate in the decisions that affect them?

1 EPIC report, page 16.2 EPIC report, page 46.3 CEAA, 2012, “Interested Party”, sub-section 2(a) and (b), page 54 National Energy Board Website: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pblcprtcptn/pblchrng/pblchrngpm-phlt-eng.html#s3_15 National Energy Board Application to Participate Form (for Enbridge Line 9b re-versal pipeline project), page 5: https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/92263/790736/890819/918701/941089/A5-3_-_Application_Form_to_Participate_in_a_Hearing_-_A3G6L3_.pdf?nodeid=941615&vernum=-2

In its recommendations, EPIC explicitly states that “the federal government must develop regulations that restrict participation in federal EA (environmental assessment) reviews to those parties that are directly and adversely affected by the proposal in question.” This is precisely the language that is now found in the CEAA and on the National Energy Board’s website.

Upstream and Downstream Impacts

In its report, EPIC claims that “the scope of environmental assessments should be more clearly defined within the existing regulatory framework” and asserts that “environmental assessments should focus on whether the project introduces unique risks compared to previous projects.” If not, it says, regulators “should assume that existing mitigations are acceptable.”1 This is certainly one way to narrow the scope of an environmental assessment.

In the language of the new CEAA 2012, one finds repeatedly that issues addressed during environmental assessments should be limited to the “designated project” impacts with no discussion of a project’s upstream or downstream impacts.2 According to industry, rigorous assessments of projects are not necessary if the risks associated with those projects are relatively similar to earlier approved projects. Close enough is good enough, it seems.

Moreover, with the Enbridge Line 9B reversal project, the NEB set out a “List of Issues” that could be addressed through public comment during the hearings process. In that document, they state unequivocally: “The Board will not consider the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline.”3 The NEB takes the approach that pipeline projects simply operate in a vacuum, with no relationship to the extraction, refining, or possible tanker shipment of tar sands crude.

This is absurd.

Professor Danny Harvey, who is a Professor of Geology at the University of Toronto and a renowned climate change and global warming expert, had this to say in his Affidavit submitted on behalf of FEAA’s lawsuit:

“Tar sands oil entails 5-60% more greenhouse gas emissions on a life-cycle basis than conventional oil (based on peer-reviewed studies) and represents an enormous potential additional CO2 emission (rivaling total global oil-related emissions to date based on resource estimates). Long-lasting and expensive infrastructure investment, such as pipelines, that permit further expansion in the exploitation of this resource could therefore greatly increase cumulative CO2 emissions, future global warming, and the associated risks to the well-being of all life on Earth.”

Dr. Marc Jaccard who is a leading authority on energy economics and policy at Simon Fraser University and who has also been retained as an expert witness on behalf of FEAA in its lawsuit further substantiates Dr. Harvey’s conclusion. In his Affidavit he asserts that:

“If dramatic expansion of oil sands is inconsistent with keeping the global temperature increase below 2° C, then this development must be, by logical inference, part of a 3° C, 4° C, or even greater temperature increase, which, according to the world’s leading earth scientists, will cause significant ecological disruption to the earth systems on which the human economy and human health depend. And 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.”

1 EPIC report, page 13.2 CEAA 2012, definition of “environmental assessment”, page 2.3 NEB List of Issues and Application to Participate Form, page 7: https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/92263/790736/890819/918701/941089/A5-1_-_Procedural_Update_No._1_-_List_of_Issues_and_Application_to_Participate_Form_Hearing_Order_OH-002-2013_Line_9B_Reversal_and_Line_9_Capacity_Expansion_Project_Enbridge_Pipelines_Inc._-A3G6J4_?nodeid=941090&vernum=0Matters%20not%20Included%20in%20the%20List%20of%20Issues

The federal government ignores the overwhelming body of scientific evidence about tar sands extraction and climate change at our peril. And it has made it impossible for Canadians to say anything meaningful about upstream or downstream impacts under its new restrictive content guidelines.

What does this say about the government’s purported claims to be acting in the interests of the public?

Short Timelines, Weaker Environmental Assessments, and Limited Notice to the Public

Some of the most profound changes to the way in which environmental assessments are conducted come directly from pages 12 and 13 of the EPIC report. These changes are now reflected in the CEAA 2012.1

The industry calls for a binding “go/no go” decision by the federal government that supersedes all subsequent review and public input on a project’s environmental impacts. Arguing that EAs must be conducted as early as possible in the review process, the industry further pushes for lesser information requirements for project proponents. According to EPIC, approval for major project proposals takes too long and is too costly to the industry due to requirements of environmental baseline studies, engineering and design analyses, and monitoring reports.

Industry asserts that, “Once the development right (approval) has been granted, regulatory focus should be on ensuring the project is conducted in an environmentally responsible way, not on revisiting the development right itself.”2

These recommendations have by and large been adopted in the CCEA 2012, and the review process has been significantly shortened. Notably, public comment is only invited after the draft environmental assessment report has been prepared by the NEB.

The following is a quick outline of what the process now looks like for many NEB projects today.

1. Notice that an environmental assessment for a specific project is underway is posted on the NEB website.

2. The environmental assessment is conducted largely on the basis of the proponent’s project application and any additional information that the NEB deems necessary to help it prepare its draft assessment report. There is no public input during this phase.

3. Only after the assessment report has been drafted is the public invited to participate in the review process by submitting an Application to Participate form. Under provisions of the CEAA 2012, this invitation need only be posted on the NEB website—so the public must be constantly vigilant to avoid missing the submission deadline. Once notice is published, citizens must fill out a complex and time-consuming nine-page application form, which they can submit online, by fax, or by mail. In the case of the Enbridge Line 9b project, applicants were told to mail 25 copies of their Application to Participate form to the NEB and only had 16 days to submit it.

4. Applicants then await the decision of the NEB as to whether or not they are, in fact, able to submit comments—i.e., whether their expertise or opinions are considered relevant and legitimate.

1 CEAA 2012, Section Entitled “Environmental Assessment by Responsible Authority, sections 22-25, pages 14-15; section 29 (3), page 17.2 EPIC report, page 12.

5. The NEB then conducts public hearings at which only approved participants are permitted to speak and provide input on the draft environmental assessment report.

6. The NEB then issues its decision within no more than 15 months of the initial issuance of the notice that an environmental assessment has commenced.

Once the decision is rendered, there is no going back. If subsequent analyses and studies conducted by the project proponent for the purposes of obtaining permits show significant adverse environmental effects, the project still moves forward. Or, in the words of EPIC, “once a preliminary decision has been made, the regulatory process should focus on how the development should occur in a socially and environmentally responsible manner, not whether it should occur at all.”1

In view of the new NEB rules and provisions under the CEAA 2012, it is hard not to conclude that industry is establishing the rules of the game and the federal government is fulfilling their wishes. Regulations have been “streamlined.” The public’s role has been vastly diminished by restrictions on who can participate, what they can say, and when they can say it. The environmental assessment is based largely on the project proponent’s application and there seems to be little if any room for a project to be rejected. Industry made its case to the government and the government took action to realize its recommendations.

Does anyone really think these rules benefit the public?

Oil Industry Lobbying

The oil industry’s goal is to promote policies that will increase the potential for profit, while subverting anything that will impede business as usual. From July 2008 to November 2012, 27 out of a total of 36 major oil corporations and industry associations lobbied the federal government on climate change policies and regulations. Six corporations—TransCanada, Enbridge, Suncor, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Imperial Oil—discussed topics with public office-holders that can be directly linked with recent policy decisions.2

Last year’s Omnibus Budget Bill C-38 included changes to many environmental and regulatory laws (including the CEAA 2012) that clearly benefitted the industry. These included gutting protection measures in the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Act and the Species-At-Risk Act.

In addition to in-house lobbyists, oil companies also seek out the services of consultant lobbyists who have had previous careers with the government of Canada. The lobbyist registry shows 45 such individuals have been hired by big oil companies. In some cases, consultant lobbyists have revolved between jobs with the government and the petroleum industry. Several who have actively lobbied the government on behalf of the industry since July 2008 have strong links to the current Harper government.3

For example: Ken Boessenkool, former Chief of Staff for B.C. Premier Christy has lobbied on behalf of Suncor and Enbridge while working for Hill + Knowlton Strategies, and previously worked as policy advisor for Stephen Harper while he was Opposition Leader from 2002-2004. More recently he worked in the Harper campaign war room during three consecutive elections, reportedly playing a key role in the 2011 federal election.4

1 EPIC report, page 33.2 Polaris report, page 6.3 Polaris report, page 7.4 Polaris report, pages 7-8.

Regulations have been “streamlined.” The public’s role has been vastly diminished by restrictions on who can participate, what they can say, and when they can say it.

In another example of the revolving door, six Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers employees and executives have held positions, often high ranking, at the National Energy Board whose stated purpose is to regulate pipelines, energy development and trade in the Canadian public interest.

Brenda Kenny spent nearly ten years at the National Energy Board (1996 to 2006) as Business Leader of Planning, Policy and Coordination before becoming President of the Canadian Energy Pipelines Association. It is worth noting that Ms. Kenny “was charged with strategic planning and regulatory development as well as advancing new ways of approaching the Board’s mandate.”1

Lastly, it’s worth mentioning that ForestEthics Advocacy Association attempted to meet with the Ministers of the Department of Environment, Natural Resources, Aboriginal Affairs, and Fisheries and Oceans in March 2012 to discuss the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. Our requests to meet were flatly denied. Yet between April 18 and 26 of 2012, there were five meetings or communications between Enbridge and various designated public office-holders to discuss energy, the environment, aboriginal affairs, employment and training, and infrastructure.

More specifically, the content of these communications included Canada’s energy strategy, regulatory streamlining, improved efficiencies in the government’s secondary permitting processes for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Permits, Transport Canada permits for pipeline construction, and improved efficiencies in the environmental assessment processes.2

With government and big oil companies working hand-in-glove, who is looking out for the public interest?

Enbridge Lobbying

Enbridge Pipelines Inc.’s Line 9b reversal project is the subject of the lawsuit brought by FEAA. Enbridge has lobbied the federal government extensively, including 106 times in 20113 alone, when many of the EPIC recommendations were being shared with government officials.

More recently, records from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada show that in the 12-month period 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 the Enbridge Northern Gateway and Enbridge Line 9b reversal pipeline project.4

Was Enbridge’s CEO briefed on the status of the Joint Review Panel decision for Enbridge Northern Gateway or the NEB decision on Line 9b? What kinds of deals or trade-offs were being made to ensure that both projects receive a green light? Is Enbridge’s CEO receiving confidential information that he can use to the company’s advantage?

These are questions that all Canadians should be asking.

1 Polaris report, pages 8-9.2 Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/advSrch3 Polaris report, page 5.4 Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/clntSmmry?clientNumber=4543&sMdKy=1386455442493

For Government and Industry, Public Interest is Just a Charade

This report shows that the Harper government has an “open-door” policy for the oil industry to push its agenda in formulating the nation’s energy policies, rules and regulations. The clear intent is to limit public participation in any comprehensive environmental review of the entire chain of tar sands extraction and export projects. Because of this, there can be no objective analysis of the cumulative impacts upon communities, the environment, and resulting global impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, which will significantly impact the health and welfare of Canadians.

As evidenced in the excerpts from the EPIC report, lobbying records, the CEAA 2012 provisions and the new NEB rules, the Harper government and the petroleum industry are joined at the hip in their march to clear the way for global corporate profits. Their actions are irreversibly condemning Canadians and their environment to an unsustainable and undeniably dangerous future. They are also subverting democracy—especially the right to free speech in a fair and open forum.

Government office-holders are public servants. We must demand that they stand up and represent the public’s interests when it comes to tar sands expansion. And we must also ask our elected officials, especially the opposition leaders of all the federal parties, to put some very tough questions before the Harper government in Parliament. What is at stake demands no less.

ForestEthicsAdvocacy.orginfo@ForestEthicsAdvocacy.org604.331.6201

ForestEthics Advocacy Association was founded in April 2012 to conserve and protect the natural environments of Canada while allowing for their sustainable use.