Many in Ontario and other eastern provinces may not have followed the ongoing story/scandal that broke this summer in Alberta, but it’s one we could take lessons from.
It seems that the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB), during quasi-public hearings over a major transmission line between Calgary and Edmonton, hired private investigators to infiltrate the landowner groups who were fighting the line, posing as landowners to gain access and even going so far as to sit in on a conference call between the landowners and their lawyers. (I say quasi-public since the EUB barred the public from attendance on the basis of fear that violence would break out.)
As discussed when the police posed as protesters during the SPP protest in Montebello, Quebec, the authorities may, under certain circumstances, have reason to believe that violence may erupt from these protests, and may believe that they are protecting the public by infiltrating, so that they are aware of the trouble makers and closer to the action should something occur. And in such circumstances I can reluctantly understand the need for them to pose as protesters to mix with the crowd.
But in the case of Montebello, it was the police themselves who were trying to incite violence, not the protesters. And in the case of Alberta, the EUB clearly overstepped it’s bounds and broke laws, violating the lawyer-client privacy.
In Ontario, we have a similar, if not-so-extreme case wherein Joyce Rowlands, candidate for the Ontario Liberal Party in the Toronto-Danforth riding attended a private meeting of the group Transforming Toronto which is trying to organize to fight the East Toronto Transmission Line. Apparently, without identifying herself, she tried to steer the meeting away from the groups purpose.
For the record, the group Transforming Toronto is also a strong advocate of small, local power generation and conservation, and are totally opposed to large, central generation which require transmission lines. Joyce Rowlands, on the other hand, is a member of the Portlands Energy Centre Community Liason Committee and, by the way, editor of the Canadian Nuclear Worker Newsletter, two groups decidedly in support of large, central generation options.
Citizens Right-of-Assembly is fundamental. We must have the ability to gather, organize, and protest. But that’s only one of the issues here. It’s also obvious that the deck is stacked against the public in the review and approval process by our government bodies.
On Wednesday night, I was a guest on Insights, a local Rogers Cable program in Newmarket along with Stephen Somerville, co-chair of the Frank Klees campaign. The program was highlighting environmental and energy issues leading up to the provincial election on October 10.
As the discussion went on, I mentioned my belief, based on my experience working in the energy industry and consulting engineering, that the Environmental Assessment process was pretty much a sham that dealt with, at best, mitigation and, at worst, rubber stamped a development without questioning it’s need at all. Stephen disagreed, but unfortunately there was no time to explore this issue. To be fair, Stephen is also employed in the energy sector, but he must have had different experiences from me.
From my experience, an environmental assessment, along with it’s required public consultation, is conducted long after the project proponent has gone through preliminary engineering and economic analysis and determined that the project is required, makes money, whatever. The EA is then a necessary hurdle that must be passed, with the public input generating some changes, but never being allowed to question the need for the project in the first place.
The government often goes further by exempting their project from the EA process. Private developers, for their part, merely follow the process laid out by the government. It’s small wonder to me that the public doesn’t trust developers or politicians.
