A highly anticipated review of B.C.’s Site C dam has found the project is likely to be over budget and behind schedule and alternative energy sources could be built for an equal or lower unit energy cost.

The report from the B.C. Utilities Commission released Wednesday confirmed many of the concerns that have been raised about the project for years.

The panel found BC Hydro’s mid-load forecast for electricity demand in B.C. “excessively optimistic” and noted there are risks that could result in demand being less than even BC Hydro’s lowest demand scenario.

The panel was “not persuaded that the Site C project will remain on schedule” and found “the project is not within the proposed budget of $8.335 billion.”

Currently, completion costs may be in excess of $10 billion, the report read.

The panel concluded it would be too costly to suspend the dam and potentially re-start construction later and focused its efforts on laying out in detail the consequences of either abandoning or completing the dam. The decision now rests with the B.C. government.

Site C, the third dam on the Peace River, has been controversial for many reasons — but perhaps most of all because the project was exempted from review by the province’s independent utility regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission.

After coming to power this July, B.C.’s new NDP government immediately sent Site C — which has been under construction for two years — for an expedited review by the commission.

The commission considered 620 written submissions and 304 oral submissions from experts and members of the public in preparing its report.

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Michelle Mungall said the government plans on making a final decision on the project by the end of the year.

“Now it is our turn, as government, to determine whether Site C is in the best interests of British Columbians, after considering the BCUC’s findings and other issues outside the scope of this review,” Mungall said in a statement.

“This will be an extremely difficult decision. We inherited a project that was advanced by the previous government without proper regulatory oversight, is now more than two years into construction, employs more than 2,000 people, and on which about $2 billion has already been spent.”

The government will meet with First Nations before making a decision, Mungall said.

Energy analyst Robert McCullough, working on behalf of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, said he believes the BCUC report spells the beginning of the end for Site C.

He called the report “courageous” because it basically rejects every part of BC Hydro’s submission, McCullough said.

Site C Dam Over Budget, Behind Schedule and Could be Replaced by Alternatives: BCUC Report https://t.co/u1Mh7hGwVv #SiteC #Hydro #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/9aycFzvRWg

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 1, 2017

Faulty Demand Forecasting Used to Justify Site C

The panel’s report finds BC Hydro has continued a historical pattern of over-forecasting electricity demand and notes the accuracy of BC Hydro’s industrial forecasts has been “considerably below industry benchmarks.”

The failure of an LNG export industry to materialize in B.C. has significantly reduced the likelihood that BC Hydro’s load forecasts will be accurate, the panel found.

The panel also found BC Hydro failed to accurately account for the impact that rising electricity costs have on consumption.

Additionally, given current low market prices and the likelihood of increasing supply, the panel found that BC Hydro’s proposed export price forecast “should not be relied upon.”

An independent analysis provided to the BCUC by the auditing firm Deloitte found between 1964 and 2016, BC Hydro overestimated future electricity demand in B.C. 77 per cent of the time.

The panel’s critique of BC Hydro’s demand forecasting falls in line with the analyses and opinions of numerous experts who have pointed out the crown corporation’s long history of inaccurate forecasting and the potential for costly oversupply.

Alternative Energy “Increasingly Viable,” Panel Finds

The panel critiqued BC Hydro’s modelling of alternatives as unreliable, saying it is “opaque in its assumptions” and uses out-of-date cost estimates for wind and solar.

The panel stated it found a pairing of alternative energy sources and conservation efforts “increasingly viable” at an equal or lower cost than Site C

During two days of technical briefings by experts, the panel heard BC Hydro consistently ignored or over-inflated the costs of wind, solar and geothermal.

In a submission prepared for the BCUC, North American hydroelectric expert Robert McCullough noted the price of renewables has dropped dramatically since 2010, when the Site C project was resuscitated by the B.C. government. During the last seven years the price of solar dropped 74 per cent, while wind dropped 65 per cent.

In August, BC Hydro submitted to the BCUC that it had screened out solar energy on the basis of a cost estimate in 2025 of $97/MWh. In response to a follow-up question from the commission, BC Hydro provided updated cost estimates of $48/MWh.

Marc Lee, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, is calling for a public inquiry into how BC Hydro and the former Liberal government made the case for the project.

“It’s amazing. I would like to see a full inquiry to investigate how BC Hydro executives and the previous government essentially conspired to manufacture the case for Site C,” Lee said.

“As someone who strongly believes in public sector institutions and Crown corporations, to have our electricity utility lying to us, making up numbers and doing all sorts of spurious comparisons between its preferred option and the alternative is shameful,” he said.

ICYMI: Geothermal Would Create 15 Times More Permanent Jobs Than Site C, Panel Told

The panel developed its own model for assessing Site C alternatives and found “it is possible to design an alternative portfolio of commercially feasible generating projects and demand-side management initiatives that could provide similar benefits to ratepayers as Site C.”

Further still, the panel found B.C. could pursue alternative energy and swallow the estimated $1.8 billion cost of terminating Site C and still end up with overall electricity costs comparable to building Site C.

The advantage of alternative energy, the panel states, is its incremental nature.

Combining energy conservation efforts with “smaller scale renewable projects provides flexibility to better match generation with demand.”

Conservation programs and smaller scale projects built by independent power producers “have project completion times in the range of months to a few years, and each project (or energy contract if it is contracted through an IPP) is much lower in price than Site C,” the panel found.

Site C Behind Schedule and Over Budget

Construction of Site C has been plagued with costly setbacks, the most significant of which occurred with the appearance of tension cracks along the left bank of the Peace River.

In October, the new CEO of BC Hydro, Chris O’Riley, wrote a letter to the BCUC, acknowledging the crown corporation would not meet its own timeline for river diversion due to “geotechnical and construction challenges” — a setback that would add an additional $610 million to the project’s budget.

An independent audit conducted by the firm Deliotte on behalf of the BCUC also identified the risk of construction setbacks inflating the Site C budget.

DeSmog Canada first reported on June 30, 2016, that the Site C dam was behind schedule and over budget. Documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation later revealed a co-ordinated attempt by BC Hydro and Premier Christy Clark’s Office to discredit the story.

Because Site C is in the early stages of construction and due to “the lack of certainty” around persistent geotechnical issues, “the additional $610 million may just be the first in what could be a continuing series of additional risk events occurring, resulting in further cost overruns,” the panel stated.

Infringement of Treaty 8 Rights Still a Question

In addition to cost overruns from construction delays, the panel found unresolved questions regarding the infringement of Treaty 8 First Nations’ rights could further add to Site C costs.

The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations maintain the Site C dam represents an infringement of their rights guaranteed under Treaty 8. Although the two nations have brought and lost legal challenges in B.C. courts, the question of rights infringement is far from settled, the panel found.

“The courts have addressed administrative law issues including the Crown’s duty to consult but have not addressed whether the Crown, by approving Site C has unjustifiably infringed the Treaty 8 rights. West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations submit that the Crown bears the risk that in the event a lawsuit is commenced, the court will find in favour of Treaty 8 First Nations.”

Under Treaty 8, the government of Canada promised to guarantee the rights of local First Nations to hunt, trap, fish and continue their traditional way of life on their land.

The option remains for Treaty 8 nations to file a civil case for damages caused by Site C, a possibility the panel considered.

The panel also noted the protection of Indigenous rights and reconciliation were present as a “major sub-theme” in its community input sessions.

“The termination of Site C would be interpreted as a positive and meaningful step in the reconciliation process for those First Nations who did not reach an agreement with BC Hydro,” the panel stated in its report.

So what now?

The panel’s alternative portfolio indicated that under the low-load forecast, new power supply wouldn’t be needed until 2039 and could be met by the addition of 444 MW of wind and demand-side management initiatives, such as increased energy efficiency and optional time-of-use rates.

“The cost to ratepayers of Site C and the Illustrative Alternative Portfolio are virtually equivalent,” the panel states.

But, regardless of the comparative costs, there are other issues to consider when comparing the completion and termination cases, the panel notes.

“Both scenarios involve risk that is not easy to quantify. The major risk of Site C in the short term is whether there will be further construction cost overruns. Site C is a major construction project and therefore inherently at risk of larger cost overruns than a smaller project. It has already exceeded its budget, only two years into a nine-year schedule. There are tension cracks and disputes with its contractors both of which remain unresolved,” the report reads.

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver said he was encouraged by the report’s finding about alternative energy sources.

“I have long argued that the plummeting cost of alternative renewables makes Site C the unequivocal wrong direction for B.C.’s energy future,” Weaver said in a statement. “Supporting the development of smaller renewable projects presents a significant economic opportunity for all corners of British Columbia.”

It will take leadership to cancel Site C, but it is the right decision, according to Weaver.

“It is unconscionable that the BC Liberals demonstrated such reckless disregard for British Columbians and for sound fiscal management by pushing through such a substantial megaproject without proper due diligence and oversight,” he said.

The panel also notes that there are other ways to meet future energy needs that include changes to government policy. These include re-patriating some or all of the Columbia River Treaty entitlement.

“This energy is generated from water stored behind BC Hydro dams in British Columbia and is as firm and flexible as the energy from Site C,” the panel notes.

Ultimately though, the panel doesn’t take a position on which of the termination or completion scenarios has the greatest cost to ratepayers.

Galen Armstrong, Peace Valley campaigner with the Sierra Club BC, said the case for Site C fell apart “at the hands of BC Utilities Commission.”

“The government is faced with two options: continue with an unnecessary boondoggle, leaving taxpayers and ratepayers on the hook for decades to come, or pivot to a lower-cost alternative energy portfolio including wind and geothermal that would provide jobs for British Columbians at a lower cost,” Armstrong said.

Update Notice: This story was updated at 5:30 p.m. to include additional comment.

– With files from Judith Lavoie

Image: Site C dam construction September 2016. Photo: Garth Lenz | DeSmog Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Judges for the Canadian Online Publishing Awards have announced the 2017 finalists and DeSmog Canada has made the cut in two categories.

In the category of “Best Continuing Coverage of a News Story” DeSmog Canada was selected as a finalist for its reporting on the Site C dam, alongside Maclean’s, VICE News, The Tyee/Discourse Media and the National Observer.

With so much happening on the Site C dam file in the last year, it was hard to select just five stories to submit, so we highlighted a variety of multimedia storytelling, as well as in-depth investigative work.

The submission included award-winning aerial photographer Garth Lenz’ photo essay of the B.C. government’s push to get Site C past the “point of no return.” That photo essay was funded by DeSmog Canada readers who gave more than $5,000 to support the project.

“DeSmog Canada is making critical on-the-ground journalism possible at a time that other news outlets are slashing budgets,” Lenz said. “The fact that readers made this project possible makes this recognition even sweeter.”

Another part of the submission was an article by Sarah Cox that used a Freedom of Information request to reveal how closely the premier’s office and BC Hydro worked together to try to discredit DeSmog Canada’s critical coverage of the Site C dam.

Honoured to receive a nod for our #SiteC dam coverage from #COPAwards https://t.co/LWHcaBbngD #bcpoli #cdnpoli #cdnmedia pic.twitter.com/OxomG0NuYG

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 20, 2017

Readers played a key role in another part of the submission, which highlighted independent public opinion research that was funded by reader donations. The polling told a starkly different story than polling conducted by BC Hydro and indicated 73 per cent of British Columbians supported sending the Site C dam for a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission — a review that is now underway.

Rounding out the submission was a story by Judith Lavoie about BC Hydro being let off the hook for breaking the conditions of its environmental assessment certificate …. again. And another story by Sarah Cox on BC Hydro’s plans to expropriate the home of Peace Valley farmers Ken and Arlene Boon before last Christmas.

Best Video Content

In the “Best Video Content” category DeSmog Canada was selected as a finalist alongside the Global Reporting Centre, Maclean’s, VICE News and Indie88, for three explainer videos.

Our one-on-one interview with Harry Swain, chair of the Joint Review Panel for Site C, cuts through the confusion surrounding the need for the mega dam and has now been viewed more than 1.6 million times.

Another video interrogates the question of whether the Site C dam makes economic sense, with an interview with UBC’s Karen Bakker. That video has been viewed nearly 400,000 times.

We also performed some quirky, back-of-the-napkin math to debunk government talking points about Site C jobs and their benefit to British Columbians, in a video we're told was equal parts informative and hilarious.

The award winners will be announced at a ceremony on November 13 in Toronto.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

On Monday, the British Columbia government introduced new legislation that proposes to ban corporate, union and foreign donations in a move that will dramatically change B.C.’s political landscape and bring the province in line with other Canadian jurisdictions.

“This legislation will make sure 2017 was the last big-money election in our province,” said Attorney General David Eby. “The days of limitless donations, a lack of transparency and foreign and corporate influence over our elections are history.”

Here are your Top 5 questions on the ban answered:

1) What will be different now?

Everything. This is probably the most game-changing moment in B.C. politics in living memory. Up until now, corporations and unions could donate as much money as they wanted to B.C. political parties, even though such donations are banned federally and in most provinces.

Individuals anywhere in the world were also allowed to give unlimited amounts of dough to B.C. politicians, but not any more. Now donations will be limited to B.C. residents, with a limit of $1,200 a year —  the second-lowest limit in Canada behind Quebec.

“Any time you change a system that places no limitations on donations to a system that does, you’re going to see big, big changes,” University of British Columbia political scientists Max Cameron told DeSmog Canada.

“I think this is going to change how parties work, how campaigns work and change our system to make it more attentive to the preference of ordinary voters.”

Political parties will also have to publicly report all fundraisers attended by party leaders, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. And those fancy-pants dinners can no longer come at a ticket price of $10,000 (a la Christy Clark). Fundraisers at private residences are still allowed, but tickets can be sold for a max of $100.

2) When will the changes apply?

Well, first the bill needs to pass, but that’s very likely because it’s the product of the agreement between the Green Party and the NDP and together they have enough seats to win a vote in the legislature.

The changes will then apply retroactively to the date of the last election, which means parties won't be able to spend any donations they’ve received from corporations and unions since May 9 during the next election. That’s going to come as a big blow to the BC Liberals who deposited $1 million in donations just three days after the last election.

Seven of the 10 largest donations came from developers. Other donors included Chevron Canada, Encana and Enbridge. Once this bill is passed, those donations will not be allowed to be used in future elections.

3) Why is this such a big deal?

Basically, up until now anyone with deep pockets has been able to buy access to B.C. politicians. The latest example is how a bunch of oil and gas companies re-wrote B.C.’s so-called climate plan in a Calgary boardroom.

Before that there was the case of Imperial Metals, the company responsible for the Mount Polley mine disaster. Imperial was a major donor to the BC Liberal party and was never charged or fined for the disaster.

Many British Columbians have also been concerned that the NDP is too beholden to unions because of large donations to the party. Now that’s all about to come to a stop.

4) So how will political parties fund election campaigns?

Well, first of all, campaign spending limits have been decreased by about 25 per cent, so less money will be spent overall in elections. For instance, candidates used to be able to spend about $78,000 per riding, but that limit is now reduced to $58,000.

Still, elections cost money, so where will that come from? The bill introduced a plan for a per-vote subsidy intended to assist in transitioning to the new rules. The move mirrors a similar temporary transition plan at the federal level but was not expected to form a part of the NDP’s electoral reform plan.

The subsidies are expected to cost B.C. taxpayers an estimated $27.5 million over the next four years.

According to the bill, a special legislative committee will evaluate the annual allowances to parties and determine if changes should be made. If no amendments are made to the bill once it is put into place, it means an expiration of allowances will take place in 2022.

Some reimbursements for election expenses will remain in place permanently.

While the BC Liberals have already stated publicly they will vote against the bill, saying the public should not pay parties directly, UBC political scientist Max Cameron says money for elections has to come from somewhere.

“We’re already publicly funding parties, but because it’s not visible, you don’t hear people being upset about it,” Cameron said. “Tax returns for political donations — that’s coming from the taxpayer, it’s a form of publicly subsidizing political parties.”

“Parties have to be funded from somewhere and I actually think political parties are providing a vital public service,” he said.

5 Things You Need to Know About BC's Ban on Big Money https://t.co/X750XZPxOU @bcndp #banbigmoney @bcliberals @bcgreens #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 20, 2017

5) What about loopholes?

Goooooood question.

The government tried to get out ahead of the game by applying the restrictions to third-party election advertisers, who've taken advantage of campaign finance rules in other jurisdictions. The restrictions aim to prevent external organizations from becoming fundraising proxies, like Super PACS have in the U.S. However, just what constitutes a third-party advertiser has been the subject of some debate and a lack of clarity on this issue remains a controversy at the federal level.

Election fundraising rules are only ever as good as their watchdogs. In the last few decades, politicians have been caught spending beyond campaign limits, misreporting financials and violating conflict of interest rules.

Some people have raised concerns about the $1,200 limit, saying businesses and unions can funnel donations through executives, employees and their relatives.

In September 2016, it was discovered that between 2004 and 2011, executives of SNC Lavalin Group Inc. funnelled $118,000 in donations to the federal Liberals and Conservatives— $110,000 and $8,000, respectively — disguised as donations from individuals who worked at SNC or their family members.

Cameron said the $1,200 limit provides a good protective measure against circumventing the rules.

“With the cap as it is, I think it gets a lot harder to see the bundling of donations that we’ve seen elsewhere.”

Image: Green party leader Andrew Weaver and Premier John Horgan annouce campaign finance reform. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The election of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named south of the border is leaving many Canadians with a case of the climate doldrums as 2016 winds to a close — but here’s the thing: 2016 was actually the most promising year Canada has had on climate action in more than a decade.

To be sure, us Canucks have had some not-awesome news on the climate and energy front lately, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s approval of the enormously polluting Pacific Northwest LNG terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C., Enbridge’s Line 3 from Alberta to Wisconsin and the hotly contested Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain oil pipeline to Vancouver.

Many had higher hopes of climate leadership from Trudeau and they’re not wrong to be disappointed. However, as this year comes to a close, it’s also worth looking back on some of the significant steps forward that were made in 2016 — victories that in many cases were unimaginable even two years ago.

1. Dawning of New Age in Alberta

Where better to start than Alberta? In 2016, that province, home to the oilsands and heaps of coal-fired power, legislated a price on carbon and passed a law that requires at least 30 per cent renewable electricity by 2030.

Getting off coal is a clear win in Alberta, where air quality is consistently worse than Toronto due to emissions from coal-fired power plants. Those emissions annually result in an estimated 107 premature deaths, 80 hospital visits and almost 5,000 asthma-related sick days in Alberta, costing the province around $300 million a year.

Better yet, Alberta has loosened the regulations around citizens being able to generate their own electricity — a move that ought to speak to the free-wheeling spirit of Albertans.

2. Ratified Paris Agreement

With negative or even downright scary climate news dominating the headlines it’s easy to forget that a historic climate treaty was just ratified by nearly every country on the planet.

The Paris Agreement, a global pact to keep temperature increases as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible, has been ratified by more than 114 nations in 2016 representing more than 80 per cent of global emissions.

Now major polluting countries like China (responsible for a whopping 20 per cent of global emissions), Brazil, India and the U.S. are having some of the most productive and concrete conversations about climate action ever in the history of the planet.

And while president-elect you-know-who previously promised to pull out of the Paris Agreement there are early signs he may back down from that position. But even if he doesn’t, and the U.S. goes hog wild with its emissions, there are a lot of reasons why that doesn’t mean game over for the planet.

3. Arctic Drilling Ban

Perhaps one of the most unexpected announcements coming out of the last days of the Obama administration, the recent ban on Arctic and Atlantic drilling is huge, celebration-worthy news.

The ban in U.S. owned waters is permanent, meaning these areas will be indefinitely protected from future oil and gas development. Canada also banned offshore Arctic activity, subject to periodic reviews.

Climate change is being experience more severely in the Arctic, where food and life systems rely heavily on ice. So protecting sensitive polar regions from both climate change and further fossil fuel extraction is critically important.

4. Tanker Ban and End of Northern Gateway Pipeline

At long last, a crude oil tanker ban will be implemented on the north coast of B.C., according to an announcement by Trudeau in late November.

“The Great Bear Rainforest is no place for a pipeline and the Douglas Channel is no place for oil tanker traffic,” Trudeau said in making the announcement.

At the same time, Trudeau officially rejected Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal that would have brought more than 200 oil tankers a year into B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest.

The announcement marks a monumental victory in a fight that’s gone on for more than a decade.

5. Canada's National Climate Plan

Despite much posturing from Canada’s premiers, a national framework on fighting climate change was reached. It’s not perfect, but it does take us a long way toward meeting our 2030 climate target. From stronger building codes to electric vehicles to a price on carbon, there’s a lot to be hopeful about in the document.

For the first time ever, Canada’s premiers and prime minister are committed to working together to reducing our carbon emissions — seems worth raising a toast to, doesn’t it?

Bonus Good News: Federal Review of Environmental Assessment

Sure the federal government has broken some of its promises this year, but one of the promises it has kept is to review the way we assess major energy projects. The federal government has initated reviews of the environmental assessment process, the Fisheries Act and the National Energy  Board. All of these reviews hold the potential to create positive long-term change in terms of how Canada considers energy projects — and could help get us out of the myopic gridlock we often find ourselves in. Huzzah!

Image: Rally against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline in Vancouver, March 2014. Photo: Zack Embree

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Vivian Krause has spent years scrutinizing how Canadian environmental groups are funded, claiming she's just asking "fair questions."

But as the blogger-turned-newspaper-columnist has run rampant with her conspiracy theory that American charitable foundations' support of Canadian environmental groups is nefarious, she has continually avoided seeking a fair answer.

If Krause were seeking a fair answer, she'd quickly learn that both investment dollars and philanthropic dollars cross borders all the time. There isn’t anything special or surprising about environmental groups receiving funding from U.S. foundations that share their goals — especially when the increasingly global nature of environmental challenges, particularly climate change, is taken into consideration.

Despite this common-sense answer, Krause’s strategy has effectively diverted attention away from genuine debate of environmental issues, while simultaneously undermining the important role environmental groups play in Canadian society.

Creating Diversions a Trademark of Oil Industry Strategy

This diversion strategy is a well-known tactic of the oil industry. A strategy document leaked yesterday details how one of the world’s most powerful PR firms, Edelman, advised TransCanada to undermine opponents to the Energy East pipeline.

Edelman recommended TransCanada apply pressure to opponents by “distracting them from their mission and causing them to redirect their resources.” To achieve that, Edelman advises TransCanada to work with “supportive third parties who can in turn put the pressure on, particularly when TransCanada can’t.”

Sound familiar?

In Vivian Krause's resume, she proudly takes credit for spawning a Senate inquiry and Canada Revenue Agency audit — distractions that forced environmental groups to spend time defending themselves, rather than doing their important work as watchdogs and advocates for environmental protection.

While Krause has been busy maligning the funding of Canadian environmental groups, very little attention has been paid to where Krause gets her bread buttered.

Krause Receives 90% of Income From Resource Industries

Krause frequently claims her research is independent (PDF) and that her work is unaffiliated with any industry — yet she has admitted that since 2012, more than 90 per cent of her income has come from oil, gas and mining interests through honorariums and speaking fees.

Krause has been paid as much as $10,000 to speak to energy executives. While she may not be directly employed by the fossil fuel industry, her work certainly aligns with that industry’s interests.

Groups paying Krause speaker’s fees included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Large speaking fees are increasingly being used as a handy way to support the work of industry allies without directly employing them.

To see just how contentious speaking fees can be, take a gander at the recent Rex Murphy or Peter Mansbridge controversies. CBC ended up adjusting its policy, requiring hosts to disclose their speaking fees.

What Was Vivian Krause’s Argument Again?

So let’s get this straight: Krause, who has relied on speaking fees from the multinational resource sector for 90 per cent of her income for the past three years, argues that Canada’s environmental organizations are fronts for U.S. interests because they receive a portion of their funding from across the border?

Despite the spurious logic, Krause is still given a platform to spread her misleading information in the Postmedia chain of newspapers, including the Financial Post and The Province, as well as on Global News shows where she's a regular panelist on Unfiltered with Jill Krop.

While Krause may spin a mysterious tale, the answer is simple: philanthropic dollars crossing borders to support work on global issues is the norm. And Canadian charities are required to disclose all significant donations from foreign sources annually.

The Real Debate Canada Needs

The continued debate over the funding sources of the environmental community is simply a diversion tactic that favours the fossil fuel industry's desire to avoid having the real debate about Canada’s energy future.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges nations to phase out fossil fuels immediately to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

The report puts responsibility squarely on the shoulders of our elected leaders, saying they can “either put policies in place to achieve this essential shift, or they can spend the rest of their careers dealing with climate disaster after climate disaster.”

But Canada won’t meet its 2020 international climate target, according to Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand.

“The federal government does not have an overall plan that maps out how Canada will achieve this target. Canadians have not been given the details about which regulations will be developed, when, nor what greenhouse gas reductions will be expected,” Gelfand wrote in a report last month.

Now that China and the U.S. have signed a deal agreeing to cut emissions, Canada is left with even fewer excuses not to act.

Meantime, the federal government’s mandate to advance an energy superpower agenda marches forth, resulting in controversy across the country — from the Kinder Morgan fiasco on Burnaby Mountain, to the First Nations legal battle against Enbridge Northern Gateway, to the Athabasca Chipewyan and Beaver Lake Cree First Nations’ fight to prevent oilsands expansion on their territory, to efforts to ban fracking in Nova Scotia.

These efforts are not the outcome of foreign conspiracy — they’re the outcome of a lack of any sensible national conversation about how to develop our natural resources while meeting our international climate change commitments.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Today Vivian Krause published an opinion piece in The Province claiming “a vote for Vision is a vote for U.S. oil interests.” So, you might be wondering: just who is Vivian Krause? We’re so glad you asked…

An essential component of all public relations campaigns is having the right messenger— a credible, impassioned champion of your cause.

While many PR pushes fail to get off the ground, those that really catch on — the ones that gain political attention and result in debates and senate inquiries — almost always have precisely the right poster child.

And in the federal government and oil industry’s plight to discredit environmental groups, the perfect poster child just so happens to be Vivian Krause.

Krause describes herself as an “independent” researcher and a single mom asking “fair questions” about American funding of Canadian environmental groups. She blogged for many years in relative obscurity before becoming the federal Conservatives’ favourite attack dog.

Krause’s moment in the sun came in January 2012 when Joe Oliver, Canada’s then Natural Resources Minister, released his infamous letter decrying “foreign-funded radical” environmentalists for “hijacking” the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline review process.

Krause had primed the pump for the Conservatives to swoop in and achieve their goal — to discredit environmental groups by building a public narrative about them acting nefariously, thereby justifying spending millions of dollars on audits of charities’ political activities.

Never mind that philanthropic dollars cross international borders all the time. Never mind that the Northern Gateway proposal is sponsored by China’s state-owned oil company Sinopec, along with many other foreign oil companies. Never mind that there’s probably no more legitimate participation in a democracy than citizens signing up to speak at public hearings.

No, once you have a vendetta, inconvenient facts don’t matter. And Krause’s vendetta against environmental groups has been in the works for a long time — ever since she worked in public relations for the farmed salmon industry.

The Salmon Farming Industry and the Birth of a Vendetta

It was due to her interest in promoting salmon farming that Krause started rifling through the tax returns of large American foundations supporting wild salmon advocacy in Canada.

It didn’t take long for Vivian Krause to cook up a conspiracy theory involving American foundations working to undermine Canadian interests — and then to expand that theory to any number of conservation issues in Canada, with a special focus on conservation campaigns that were inconvenient for the oil industry.

To Krause, it seemed suspicious that foundations from across the border were giving money to Canadian groups working on Canadian conservation and energy issues. It must be, Krause surmised, that these big foundations are spending their dollars to manipulate Canadian energy and environment politics to further American interests. And, she went further to suggest, these Canadian groups are acting as pawns of these suspicious foundations.

Speaking of suspicious, by early 2013, Krause had admitted that more than 90 per cent of her income for 2012 had come from oil, gas and mining interests. Groups paying Krause speaker’s fees included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Vivian Krause's Convenient Aversion to Climate Change Facts

Fast forward to this week when Krause couldn’t resist weighing into the Vancouver election campaign, claiming that: “For Canada, there is no single economic issue that is more important than getting Alberta oil to global markets.”

While oil is no doubt an important part of the Canadian economy, Krause’s statement overlooks two inconvenient facts:

1) According to Statistics Canada, the oilsands account for only two per cent of the national GDP.

2) A study by Simon Fraser University and The Goodman Group Ltd released this week finds Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain jobs promises are overblown and recommends the proposed expansion be rejected as it is neither in the economic nor public interest of B.C. and Metro Vancouver.

The argument that continued oilsands expansion is a positive for the Canadian economy — and more to the point, the Metro Vancouver economy — is far from a slam dunk.

While Krause enjoys spinning another of her clandestine tales in linking Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson to U.S. foundations, it’s increasingly clear that it’s all a convenient cover story for her to push her own view that the fossil fuel industry should be allowed to expand.

“Voting for Gregor Robertson means voting to support a U.S.-funded, anti-pipeline campaign that continues the U.S. monopoly on Canadian oil, keeping Canada over a barrel,” Krause writes. “When you go to the poll, don’t vote for Gregor Robertson. Vote for Canada.”

Perhaps Krause missed the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which states that governments need to peak emissions, rapidly phase out fossil fuels and transition to 100 per cent renewable energy pronto? Rapidly expanding the oilsands and building new pipelines to serve that expansion doesn’t actually fit into any plans to have an inhabitable earth — not to mention the terrifying consequences an oil spill could reap on Vancouver.

If Krause’s modus operandi is climate change denial, it would be nice if she just stated that right up front, instead of conveniently ignoring it.

(If you want to know where we’re coming from at DeSmog Canada, mosey on over to our About Us page, where you can find out. Hint: we agree with 97 per cent of scientists about climate change, we’re proud to accept donations from anyone who supports our mission and we’re not going to tell you how to vote because that’s not our thing.)

In a recent op-ed in the Calgary Herald, Barry Cooper, a University of Calgary professor and known climate skeptic called on Alberta Premier Jim Prentice to use Krause as an attack dog against environmental groups.

“[Prentice] knows from his work with Enbridge and B.C. First Nations that the real source of opposition to Northern Gateway are the enviros and the deep-pocketed American foundations that fund them,” Cooper wrote. “So, Jim, hire Vivian Krause, who has done a lot of work on this problem, and use the government megaphone to publicize her analyses of the pernicious sources of enviro funding.”

Which raises the question: did someone hire Krause to weigh in — clumsy as it may be — on the Vancouver election?

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.