Ecojustice – Competition Bureau Inquiry The Competition Bureau has discontinued the inquiry into Friends of Science Society that Ecojustice publicly called for on Dec. 3, 2015.

Just received this.  Nice comprehensive piece.  ~ctm

[UPDATE 11:18 PM PDT]

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT AND RELATED LINKS

Some people have requested a transcript of the video. Here it is. Also, just noticed that Ecojustice has posted the following:
https://www.ecojustice.ca/competition-bureau-drops-climate-denier-investigation/

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
Hi, I’m Michelle Stirling for Friends of Science Society.

Perhaps you recall a couple of years ago, Ecojustice Canada publicly issued a request for inquiry into Friends of Science Society via the Competition Bureau. Essentially, they objected to our billboards and website, claiming that our words were somehow blocking viable economic development of clean tech and that we were misleading the public. They claimed that they wanted an ‘honest debate’ but even though we posted one on line, they never responded.
This became quite a story in the press.

Ecojustice repeatedly referred to their call for inquiry as a ‘victory’ in many online postings and publications – even though no decision had been made.

In the public interest, we are revealing the current status.

The Competition Bureau notified us recently that they have discontinued their inquiry.
Ironically, as I was about to leave the office for the studio today, someone sent me this, from Ecojustice.

Ecojustice is demanding people write their MP about the National Energy Board – or NEB.
They claim that Canadians have little trust in the NEB – but provide no evidence to support that.
Since the NEB has been approving pipelines for about half a century in Canada, seems there’s not much to complain about.

In the letter Ecojustice tell people to say that “the NEB must not be an assessment authority or pipeline decider anymore.”

That’s pretty funny since the NEB has done an excellent job for about 50 years.
Pipelines criss-cross Canada. No one even noticed them until these various foreign funded environmental groups started blocking them
So, Who else SHOULD approve pipelines
Town council?
A bunch of lawyers?

Ecojustice claims the review process makes it impossible for community voices to be heard…

Ecojustice claims the NEB has ‘FAR too much power’
Part of pipeline approvals deals with highly technical details that, by law, can only be done by Professional Engineers and certain industry experts who are qualified and permitted to review to sign off on such work….as well the NEB addresses the broader socio-economic, trade and energy factors, important for Canada’s economy.

Here’s how important.

For the Kinder Morgan TransMountain pipeline that was just approved, with 157 conditions, Canada would benefit with BILLIONS of dollars of income and hundreds of thousands of person hours of work.

Robert Lyman, Ottawa energy policy consultant, former public servant of 27 years and former diplomat for 10 years, summarized the NEB review in a blog post for us.

· $7.4 billion in investment in Canada

· More than 800,000 person-years of employment during construction and the 20-year operation of the project

· $46.7 billion in federal and provincial government tax revenues to fund a wide range of public programs

· $23.2 million per year in increased municipal property taxes in British Columbia

· $3.7 billion more for Canadian oil producers as a result of increased export sales

To facilitate the participation of aboriginal groups, landowners, individuals and groups, associations and non-profit organizations, the NEB made $1.5 million available to eligible intervenors to participate in the Trans Mountain Expansion Project hearing. (See: “Trans Mount” section in blog post)

There was also special participant funding offered in September 2015 for up to $10,000 per applicant to cover eligible evidence. In all, the Participant Funding Program offered funding valued at $3,085,370 to 72 eligible intervenors; 79 per cent of this funding was offered to aboriginal groups.

With the exception of oral “traditional evidence” received from Aboriginal groups, evidence was presented in writing, and testing of that evidence was carried out through written questions, known as Information Requests. Intervenors submitted over 15,000 questions to Trans Mountain over two rounds of IRs. Hundreds of other questions were asked, and answered, over six additional rounds of IRs. As there were 400 intervenors and legislated time limits, the Board decided that it was best to test the evidence through written processes. With the participation of about 400 intervenors and 1,250 commenters, the Board received significant information about the pipeline corridor. There were over 1,600 participants in the hearing.

Ecojustice further claim in their form letter to MPs that the NEB should respect the rights and authority of indigenous peoples.

In response to requests from aboriginal groups, the Board heard oral evidence based on “oral tradition” from 49 groups.

Ecojustice says the NEB should be transparent, accountable and have meaningful public participation…During the hearings, there were 291 motions and review applications, and the Board responded to each of these. In each case, it provided reasons for its decisions on the motions.

The Board completed a review of all the issues related to the public interest in the proposed pipeline. In addition to the economic, social, financial, and safety issues traditional to its mandate, the Board completed a comprehensive environmental assessment of the project in accordance with its authority under the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

In May 2016, two and a half years after receipt of the project application, the NEB issued its reasons for decision with respect to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. It found that the Trans Mountain Expansion project was in Canada’s public interest and recommended that the Governor-in-Council (i.e. the federal Cabinet) approve the project and direct the Board to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity. It also recommended that, if the Cabinet approved the project, it impose 157 conditions dealing with safety, the environment and other issues.

The full text of the NEB’s 530-page decision is available for all to read on the Board’s website. (In English and French)

All 530 pages of their report is posted on line.

Ecojustice says the NEB should work for the people, not industry…
thousands of jobs and billions of dollars FROM industry will be FOR the people of Canada. Who else?

They also say should provide energy information consistent with the Paris Agreement. We invite you to read ‘Just the Facts’ and see what a bad deal Paris is for Canada and the US.

So, having heard this, I want to ask you who is making false and misleading statements?
Who is blocking economic development in Canada?
Who is misleading the public?

Please share this information.
Please join Friends of Science Society and donate to help us keep presenting the evidence over the ideology.
For Friends of Science Society – I’m Michelle Stirling

Here are the source materials:
The original complaint in the press:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/12/03/news/breaking-ecojustice-files-complaint-competition-bureau-against-climate-denial-groups

Our response to Ecojustice: “An Honest Debate” (report linked within blog post)
http://blog.friendsofscience.org/2016/05/26/an-honest-debate-on-climate-science-its-time/

Our appeal to human rights and free speech advocate, VP of PEN Int’l, Margaret Atwood was unanswered. She is an honorary board member of Ecojustice.
http://blog.friendsofscience.org/2015/12/10/an-open-letter-to-margaret-atwood-vice-president-pen-international/

Facts incorporated in the video can be found at:
Economic value to Canada:”BRITISH COLUMBIA’S CHALLENGE TO THE RULE OF LAW”
http://blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/06/01/british-columbias-challenge-to-the-rule-of-law/

NEB process (quite long and detailed):
“National Energy Board (NEB) – Implications of Proposed Changes: A Review” (See section on Trans Mountain Expansion)
http://blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/05/17/national-energy-board-neb-implications-of-proposed-changes-a-review/

COP21 Paris Agreement – Just the Facts
http://blog.friendsofscience.org/?s=just+the+facts

A key point is that P. Engineers and related experts are legally and ethically bound to be accountable in their work to ensure public safety. Their reporting must be factual, verifiable, evidence-based. By contrast ENGOs can say anything they want and typically choose hyperbole and the more inflammatory route. They are unelected and unaccountable in anyway, yet they have huge impacts on economic developments that are required, by law, to have experts submit complex technical, economic and environmental analyses, and review and sign off on them.
Michelle Stirling
Friends of Science Society

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Ecojustice – Competition Bureau Inquiry The Competition Bureau has discontinued the inquiry into Friends of Science Society that Ecojustice publicly called for on Dec. 3, 2015.

  1. It’s good to see that the crazed giant Eco-Blob is being rolled back a bit in Canada. It is a very nice calm balanced presentation of the facts on the video too.

    • Yes, very calm and well argued. I had a job working out who was who in all this for a while since “Friends of Science” sounds like a name an alarmist group would chose.

    • Sadly, it’s not being rolled back. The Liberal government and Prime Minister Trudeau are true believers in AGW. A national carbon tax is being implemented. Some provinces already have a carbon market. The mainstream media offers very little visibility to climate realists. Canada is as much to the Left as California.

  2. EcoJustice appears to be a stereotypical green group, automatically opposed to any development no matter the benefits. I do wonder if the “foreign funding” is Soros, the Rockefeller brothers fund, or Steyer.

    • Vancouver researcher, Vivian Krause, found that Ecojustice has received grants from the Tides Foundation which receives donations from George Soros. Ecojustice is also part of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s “Tar Sands Campaign” which attempts to demonize the Canadian oil sands and its pipelines.

  3. Very good except for the computer generated background visuals and music. The automatic subtitles are pretty good so you can at least turn down the music. Pray for Resolute and Cabot.

    ‘If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
    It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
    Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
    And, but for you, possess the field.’

    • Nigel is this a show and tell for your production skills or your poetry? LOL Given the virtually non-existant budget the Friends have they do what they can to get the message out. Most don’t try.

      • Not my poetry Edith (see below), I thought everybody would recognise it. Just my reaction trying to listen to and understand the important message. I found both background and music distracting and made a suggestion for people who had a similar reaction.

        ‘‘Say Not the Struggle Nought Availeth’ is one of two poems by the Victorian poet Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-61) which are still widely read, anthologised, and analysed …’ not at your school apparently (or the spelling of existent although I admit to my own issues with spelling).

    • Very good except for the computer generated background visuals and music.

      You’re being too kind. “Background NOISE” describes it all. I have hearing issues, and couldn’t make it all the way through the presentation due to the background noise.

  4. I have a reaction to the thought of a Competition Bureau, let alone a group called Ecojustice. But at least it looks like the Bureau is susceptible to fact and reason – more than the Canadian Human Rights Commission examples of partisan bureaucracy.

  5. How many people have actually seen this? The environwackadoodles have lots of foreign cash to splash their anti-energy screeds all over media, these guys need equal access. Hey, the left is always about equal this and that, perhaps Canadian broadcasting authorities should reallocate some of Ecojustice’s advertising money to Friends Of Science? Just to make everything equal, don’t ya know.

  6. Friends of Science is a highly credible organization made up of REAL scientists – including many experienced earth scientists, who know a lot more about paleoclimate than almost any of the global warming alarmist gang.

    They know that Earth was much warmer in the distant and recent past, long before fossil fuel combustion accelerated circa 1940.

    In fact, the ~35-year global cooling period that commenced in ~1940 adequately falsifies the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming. The global warming hypothesis is further falsified by the current ~20-year “Pause” in global temperatures.

    That is why the warmists have been falsifying the temperature data records to minimize the ~35-year cooling period and increase their alleged warming during the Pause.

    Conclusion:
    Since 1940 there has been ~22 years of positive correlation of temperature with CO2, and ~55 years of negative or ~zero correlation. The global warming hypo is contradicted by a full-Earth-scale test since 1940. CO2 is NOT a significant driver of global warming.

    Global warming alarmism is the greatest sc@m, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity. Trillions of dollars have been squandered and millions of lives have been wasted.

    Regards, Allan

    Post script:

    Friends of Science is a small organization that needs your financial support. Every little bit helps.

    Donate to Friends of Science at https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=160

  7. I placed a request under the Canadian federal government’s Access to Information Act for copies of the documentation surrounding the Bureau of Competition Policy’s review of the Ecojustice request for an investigation. I received very little more than a copy of the initial Ecojustice request and a notice that the Bureau had decided not to continue its investigation. Further disclosure was denied on the grounds that Information on enquiries under the Canadian Competition Act are exempt from release under the Access to Information Act. I am considering whether to appeal this. The point here is that the Competition Bureau decided after review that there were insufficient grounds to mount an enquiry based on Ecojustice’s claims that a private organization funded by volunteers was in fact using false advertising to favour a specific industry. I think the public has the right to know exactly why there were insufficient grounds. Ecojustice, true to its usual style, is posting advertisements that the Competition Bureau “let the deniers off”. I think the real reason is that Ecojustice claims are absurd and it would be a waste of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars to explore them further.

Comments are closed.