Citizen Action Monitor

Pembina Institute takes Alberta Gov. to court for blocking its participation at oilsands hearings

Alberta government fails to honour already restrictive provincial rules limiting participation at hearings

No 846 Posted by fw, September 5, 2013

“…documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests suggest that Pembina’s “recent oilsands publications,” along with the government’s perception that Pembina was ‘less inclined to work cooperatively’ may have been reasons for rejecting the Institute’s statement of concern related to this project, and others.”Pembina Institute

Pembina Institute takes province to court over right to speak at oilsands hearings, by Pembina Institute, September 5, 2013

Government documents show precedent of province blocking Pembina’s participation in oilsands hearings because of critical analysis of government policies

EDMONTON — The Pembina Institute was in court today appealing a Government of Alberta decision not to allow the energy policy think tank to participate in the regulatory review of a proposed in situ oilsands project, arguing the government broke provincial rules for public participation in the review of energy projects.

Also backing the Institute’s appeal are newly released government documents showing the province may have barred Pembina’s participation in a 2009 oilsands hearing after the Institute published reports critical of the government’s environmental management of the oilsands.

The Institute, as a member of the Oilsands Environmental Coalition (OSEC), filed a statement of concern with the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (now the Alberta Energy Regulator) to gain standing to participate in a hearing into Southern Pacific Resource Corp’s proposed oilsands project on the MacKay River near Fort McMurray. The hearing is the only means for those who are concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed project to raise those concerns with decision makers.

The proposed Southern Pacific Resource Corp in situ oilsands project would require up to 1.7 million litres of fresh groundwater every day and contribute to declining regional air quality. Further, the project would be located in the habitat of a declining caribou herd where disturbance already exceeds the threshold identified in the Federal Recovery Strategy for woodland caribou.

Yet documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests suggest that Pembina’s “recent oilsands publications,” along with the government’s perception that Pembina was “less inclined to work cooperatively” may have been reasons for rejecting the Institute’s statement of concern related to this project, and others.

“The Institute has provided credible research and analysis to support responsible oilsands development for over 20 years,” said Simon Dyer, policy director at Pembina Institute. “Pembina’s evidence and expert testimony at previous oilsands environmental hearings has resulted in better decision making, stronger operating conditions for oilsands companies and higher standards of environmental protection.”

Yet, in rejecting the Institute’s statement of concern about the proposed Southern Pacific Corp. project, the Alberta government has failed to honour already restrictive provincial rules limiting participation in energy project hearings to those who would be “directly affected” by the proposed projects.

“At a time when evidence is mounting that cumulative environmental impacts from oilsands are exceeding regional thresholds its essential that directly affected stakeholders with credible information get a fair hearing” Dyer said.

For more information, read the Pembina Institute Judicial Review Brief,  and the Government of Alberta briefing note on reasons for rejection of Statement of Concern of Oil Sands Environmental Coalition.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on September 5, 2013 by in evidence based counterpower, legal counterpower, NGO counterpower and tagged , .
%d bloggers like this: