The debate over recent changes to the rules governing public participation in regulatory hearings regarding pipelines and other energy projects may have obscured some important facts about the Joint Review Panel hearing on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which concluded in June:
- 215 parties registered as interveners;
- the Panel heard over 1,500 oral statements;
- the Panel received over 9,000 letters of comment; and
- notwithstanding this level of public participation, the hearing process was completed successfully and on schedule.
These facts were highlighted in a talk last Thursday at the U of A Faculty of Law entitled “Public Participation in Energy Regulation Proceedings: Balancing Access, Orderliness and Effectiveness”. Speaker Rowland Harrison holds the TransCanada Chair in Administrative & Regulatory Law at the Faculty. As a permanent member of the National Energy Board from 1997-2011, Mr Harrison sat on pipeline hearings. He noted that while project proponents always want a faster process, they are well-served by an open process that gives all interested (rather than “directly affected”) parties a chance to express their views – and most proponents know this. He pointed out that “Enbridge did not object to any of the participation rights granted by the [Northern Gateway] Panel.”
The facts about public participation in the Northern Gateway hearing seem to demonstrate two things: First, concern regarding pipeline projects is not limited to so-called environmental activists, but is widespread among the public at large. Second, facilitating pipeline expansion does not necessarily imply restricting public participation; rather, it seems more likely that restricting participation will increase pipeline opposition. As Harrison noted, an inclusive process is required to ensure that pipeline and other energy projects obtain not only regulatory approval, but also the necessary “social licence” to proceed. For this reason, Harrison called for a liberal approach to the new restrictions on public participation that continue as much as possible the Board’s tradition of inclusivity, coupled with a “rigorous” approach to the conduct of the hearing itself.
In his talk and the discussion following, Harrison acknowledged that the reason pipeline hearings attract a high level of public participation has less to do with the pipelines themselves and more to do with the upstream implications for extraction and the downstream implications for continued reliance on fossil fuels. Pipeline hearings are not the best forum for debate regarding these implications, but currently, as Harrison pointed out, they are the only “structured forum” for raising these issues. And these issues need to be raised: governments at all levels and politicians of all parties must start balancing the need to create jobs and wealth in the present with the moral obligation to ensure that future generations have sufficient resources – natural or at least monetary – to create wealth for themselves. Striking the appropriate balance will require a genuine conversation in which both sides of the debate show some willingness to listen to the other.
