Neutrality of National Energy Board questioned
Energy regulator seen as being too cosy with oil and gas industry
Hearings about the efforts to modernize Canada’s energy regulator hadn’t yet begun Tuesday when a group of protesters entered the room and shouted down the panellists.
How do you “reform the unreformable?” three men yelled as security guards led them out of Montreal’s Delta Hotel and onto the street.
The National Energy Board — which oversees Canada’s pipeline projects — has been accused of having too cosy a relationship with the industry it’s meant to regulate. Following a campaign promise in 2015 to reform the NEB, the Liberal government appointed an independent panel to tour the country and take suggestions about reforming the energy board.
If the panel’s goal is to listen to Canadians and restore trust in the NEB, it might have some work ahead of it.
“(The NEB) is a ramshackle organization,” said Marc-André Toupin, one of the activists kicked out the meeting. “When has it ever said no to a pipeline project?”
Toupin and a few dozen protesters threw a “welcoming party ” outside the hotel lobby on President Kennedy Ave., where they railed against the proposed Energy East pipeline — a structure that would link Alberta’s oilsands to a terminal in New Brunswick.
The environmental groups want to see an inquiry into a scandal they call “L’affaire Charest.”
The scandal refers to a meeting between two of the three NEB board members in charge of the Energy East pipeline hearings and a lobbyist who worked for the company funding the pipeline last year. The lobbyist, former Quebec Premier Jean Charest, reportedly advised NEB panellists Lyne Mercier and Jacques Gauthier on how best to deal with Quebec critics of the pipeline.
After news of the meeting surfaced last summer, the NEB scrapped its Energy East hearings and both panellists had to recuse themselves from the file. Little is known about exactly what transpired during the meeting, a fact that has only heightened calls for a probe into the matter.
Gary Merasty, who sits on the NEB modernization panel, told reporters Tuesday he has heard many requests for an investigation into the Charest meeting. But Merasty said it’s not his job to weigh in on such matters, insisting his mandate is to listen to critics of the NEB and draft a plan to implement their suggestions.
One environmentalist said Tuesday the scandal hints at an inappropriate relationship between the oil and gas sector and the people in charge of policing it.
“Could the NEB be left in charge of (regulating) the energy industry? In theory, yes,” said Carole Dupuis, who works with Regroupement vigilance hydrocarbure Québec. “But its track record suggests it won’t.”
Dupuis suggested Parliament and not the NEB should be in charge of deciding the fate of pipelines and other major energy projects. As for the NEB’s mandate for consulting the public, she argues those duties should belong to an independent body in the vein of Montreal’s Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement.
About half of the NEB’s board members come from Canada’s energy sector and this, Toupin argues, tilts the scales in favour of industry. Members on Tuesday’s panel acknowledged this is a frequent complaint and sought to set the record straight about their own objectivity.
“We all follow a strict ethical code ... I’m lawyer and I take that seriously,” said Hélène Lauzon, cochair of the modernization panel. “I think it’s important to acknowledge that.”
Noticeably absent from Tuesday’s event were the Quebec indigenous leaders who have been fierce critics of both the NEB and the Energy East — a 4,600-kilometre structure that would pass through 150 traditional aboriginal territories.
Last year, Mohawk chiefs from Kahnawake and Kanesatake said they didn’t have faith in the NEB process and wouldn’t participate in its hearings. One of the NEB’s duties is to carry out the federal government’s constitutional obligation to consult with First Nations before approving a project that could affect traditional lands.
But because Ottawa offloads this responsibility onto the NEB, Mohawk leaders like Serge Simon say they’re in breach of Section 35 of the Constitution Act — which outlines the legal relationship between Canada and First Nations.
A particular concern for the Mohawks is the proposal to dig a path for the Energy East pipeline under the Ottawa River. A rupture in the structure could poison the water that feeds traditional hunting grounds and fisheries.
Merasty said the duty to consult with indigenous people is one of the most frequent concerns raised in testimony before the panel. Merasty, a former Liberal MP and Saskatchewan Cree, says the NEB could do more to ensure First Nations participate in its hearings.
One of the chief complaints of many indigenous groups is that they’re expected to present technical evidence at NEB hearings but have little or no funding to prepare it. Those same groups often find themselves negotiating with governments and investing thousands of man-hours assessing the potential impact of a pipeline on their territory.
“If the demand on indigenous people to participate on all those levels is so high, is the level of financial support commensurate for them to actually do that?” Merasty said. “Is the time available for them to do that? That’s certainly come through loud and clear to us as we’ve made our way across the country.”
Tuesday marked the last stop on the panel’s 10-city listening tour. After the second day of hearings Wednesday, the panellists will draft a report and present it to the federal government in May.