A lawyer who challenged two federal officials to recuse themselves from a review of a major Canadian pipeline project for showing bias is pleased that Canada’s energy regulator is going to review his motion.

“That’s the right thing to do,” said Charles Hatt, a Toronto-based lawyer from Ecojustice, an environmental law firm that is representing an Ontario group in ongoing federal hearings about the proposed Energy East pipeline.

Hatt made the comments one day after the regulator, Canada’s National Energy Board, invited all participants in its hearings on the proposed Energy East pipeline to submit written comments on his motion. Hatt requested the recusal of two NEB panelists in the wake of revelations, uncovered by National Observer, that they held a private meeting with a representative of the company, former Quebec premier Jean Charest, in January of 2015. Notes from the meeting show that the Charest gave them political advice about how to gain public support for approval of the Energy East project, a proposed 4,500 kilometre crude oil pipeline between Alberta and New Brunswick.

The two panelists who participated in the meetings, Jacques Gauthier and Lyne Mercier, have not publicly commented on the controversy.

TransCanada has repeatedly declined requests to comment on whether any of its employees knew about the meeting. The company also declined to say whether it would submit any recommendations to the NEB about the request for the recusals.

“Not to my knowledge,” TransCanada spokesman Tim Duboyce told National Observer in an email on Wednesday. “Our focus is on preparing for the sessions in Montreal next week which are an opportunity to hear from members of the public and stakeholders, and address the questions and issues they raise.”

New Democratic Party ethics critic Alexandre Boulerice has sent two letters to the federal lobbying commissioner, Karen Shepherd, asking her to investigate whether the meeting violated any rules.

The NEB has defended its actions, noting on its website that it has been “criticized” for what it believes were efforts to engage “more effectively” with a wide range of stakeholders in Quebec.

Hatt said that the NEB needs to accept that the actions of its members leaves the public with an appearance of bias, which requires them to recuse themselves in order to ensure that people have confidence in the process.

“What we’re concerned about are the actual facts,” Hatt said in an interview. “Energy East was discussed and in ways that are pretty clearly inappropriate. We don't think that spinning it one way or the other can change what the facts show.”

Participants will have until Sept. 7 to submit their comments about Hatt’s motion, which is also being combined with a similar request from Montreal lawyer, Dominique Neuman, who is representing Stratégies Énergétiques and the Association québecoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique at the hearings.

The NEB said it would decide what to do after reviewing the written submissions, but it has noted that participants must address the issue in writing and will not be allowed to speak publicly about their views during hearings next week in Montreal.

Investigative journalism has never been more important. Will you help?

Subscribe

Comments

Bias can almost be assumed in these hearings. Right wing governments prefer to govern behind closed doors....in meetings of the 'like minded, and well heeled.'. Because if the door is closed, how can any of the general public claim it was anything but a friendly gathering where the smart folks get together to figure out what's best for the country??

For financial elites, these pipelines make economic sense; so why not be listening to interveners AND looking for ways to sway opinion toward the pipeline, at the same time.?? We all know the people are too ignorant and over worked to know what's best for them; and corporate elites are in the best position to decide whats good for our country. We all know pipelines are safer than railroads, yes? We've all passed the true or false quiz on the right answer to all of this, surely? So the NEB hearings, where apparently now one 'hears' anything, because it has to all be put in writing, are essentially a formality, yes? A sop thrown to the quaint archaic idea of pubic participation???

We can trust our rivers and streams, our arable lands, certainly our wilderness forests and our tidewater bays to TransCanada. Whats good for big oil is what's good for all of us is it not?

So what is this poor lawyer squaking about? Does he still believe we live in a democracy instead of a form of Corporate Fascism??

The Kinder Morgan oil-industry-biased National Energy Board deserves condemnation and total dismissal.
Economist and expert intervenor, Robyn Allan, devoted "pro bono and in good faith" her "professional expertise for more than a year; before withdrawaing from the NEB review of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. "Continued participation endorses a broken system and enables the pretense of due process where none exists."
Ms. Allan's seven-plus page withdrawal letter details explicitly the NEB's lack of a "level playing field," intentional failure of the NEB Panel being an "impartial referee" i.e. "The game is rigged" with a "pre-determined" outcome. Canadians have been and continue to be "unconscionably betrayed" by the NEB. NEB's actions are putting "the health and safety of the Canadian econmy, society and environment in harm's way."
For example: the NEB's limited its "scope of practice;" thereby violating the "rules of procedural fairness and natural justice"...biased in favour of, yes, you guessed it, USA based Kinder Morgan.
The NEB is not concerned for "the cumulative impact and risk of the entire system." Excluded from the NEB assessment is the "impact and risk of the 60-yr old legacy line, existing terminals and storage tanks." NEB says: "outside the scope of (our) review." NEB's "dangerous limitation in scope is how Kinder Morgan successfully argued that its exising Emergency Management Plan (EMP) documents 'are not releveant to the Board's consideration of the project'" How serious are they about their mandated "in the public interest?" Not in the least!
This is the veritable tip of Ms. Allan's withdrawal letter to Secretary Sherri Young of the NEB. If interested request the letter from Ms. Young at 517 10th Ave SW Calgary Alberta.

Nike Air Max Thea Mens
Rice and beans, when put together collectively, create a near best protein resource. If you are a vegan, this could be especially significant. Simply make these two points ahead of time and give a tiny cheeses for more flavor. It really is a cheap and easy way to obtain the great nourishment that you desire.

https://www.stasi-live-haft.de/images/sta2/2146-adidas-gloro-blackout.jpg

Take into account purchasing a vino from a lower-recognized place on the planet. When every person gravitates to wine from France or California, you will find excellent types available most almost everywhere! You can definitely find a lovely reddish colored wines in North Carolina or even a never ever noticed winery around australia. Give you a handful of a try, and enjoy the variety, they bring to your dinner table.

https://www.yderepentetu.es/images/puma-2pics/11464-puma-zapatillas-muje...

Today's must read