Why is Ecojustice threatened by fact-gathering?

By Lethbridge Herald Opinion on June 19, 2021.

‘ve helped finance Canadian energy businesses most of my career. I’m proud of our industry and its global leadership. I couldn’t just stand by and watch Ecojustice, an environmental charity, seek to pre-emptively shut down Alberta’s public inquiry into allegations of foreign funding of anti-Alberta energy campaigns.
In July 2019, the Alberta government appointed Steve Allan, a respected forensic accountant and Calgary community leader, to lead an inquiry to simply “understand the facts about foreign funding of anti-Alberta energy campaigns.”
A few months later, Ecojustice Canada Society applied to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to halt the inquiry. Ecojustice argued, among other things, that the Inquiry was launched for the improper purpose of causing reputational and economic harm to organizations that disagree with the United Conservative Party on oil and gas development and that the entire inquiry is outside the jurisdiction of the Government of Alberta.
In March 2020, I joined together with the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (EPAC) and the Indian Resource Council to obtain intervenor status in the Ecojustice court challenge. EPAC has been promoting the Canadian oil and gas industry and advocating on behalf of junior and midsized oil and gas companies since 1986. The Indian Resource Council represents the interests of approximately 130 First Nations with oil and gas rights on their lands, ensuring that First Nations’ interests and perspectives are represented, heard, and incorporated into the development of public policy. Together as intervenors, we represented diverse industry constituencies, with a common interest in the responsible development of Alberta’s oil and gas industry.
Fortunately, the Hon. Justice Horner of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently dismissed Ecojustice’s request to pre-emptively shut down the inquiry.
The court agreed with us that the purpose of the inquiry is to gather information on a subject that cabinet considered to be in the public interest. There is nothing unlawful or unethical about information gathering on an issue that our elected representatives have found to be a matter of public interest and concern.
The court found that the inquiry’s purpose is to “find facts about attempts to delay or frustrate the timely, economic, efficient, and responsible development of Alberta’s oil and gas resources and the transportation of those resources to commercial markets.”
The court also found that no reasonable person would believe Commissioner Allan to be biased as Ecojustice had claimed. In fact, the Court found that Commissioner Allan’s past work with politicians of various political stripes indicates “nothing more than the real concerns of an engaged citizen on the economic development of his city, homelessness and initiatives to curb it, and most important given the timing, flood mitigation for the future.” The court went on to note Mr. Allan’s “exceptional qualifications for the role of Commissioner” and that it “cannot be doubted that Commissioner Allan has the ability to manage a public inquiry of this nature while adhering to the highest standards of impartiality and integrity both personally and in overseeing the infrastructure of the process.”
At the end of the day, the inquiry is clearly a fact gathering process. Why is Ecojustice so threatened by a fact gathering process? Facts inform government policy and decisions as well as public opinion.
If the inquiry concludes there is no significant foreign funding or unusual support of the attacks on Canada’s energy industry, we all need to know that and be done with it and move on. If the facts reveal that foreign influence/financial support is a material thing, we need to understand that too. What the Alberta government chooses to do with the facts and the recommendations that emerge from the inquiry is another thing entirely. But challenging the fact gathering process was both premature and, frankly, further contributed to the public interest concern that industry detractors/challengers (like EcoJustice) don’t want the public to understand all of the facts. If there is nothing to be concerned about, one would expect that EcoJustice would support the collection of these facts. The inquiry continues and I look forward to its conclusion.