Justin Trudeau science Trans Mountain pipeline

Ottawa’s call for new science review says a lot about Trans Mountain safety claims

In the absence of sound science on the risks of the pipeline, government has a duty to delay construction, and err on the side of coastal protection and climate progress

For 18 months, the federal government has claimed that its support for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is science-based.

Despite pledges to increase transparency and elevate science in policy decisions — which earned kudos during the 2015 election — it’s hard to find the scientific basis for their science-based decision.

Some in the Trudeau government seem to be getting the message.

Less than three weeks ago, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna called for the creation of a new scientific advisory panel to reconsider concerns about the environmental risks of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. Many scientists — including ourselves — are eager to contribute.

An advisory panel of independent experts could address the deficiencies of a National Energy Board process that is widely acknowledged to have been both industry-biased and insufficient.

However, this begs an important question: if concerns are sufficient to convene a new science panel to address the NEB’s failures regarding the risks of diluted bitumen in B.C.’s coastal waters, shouldn’t the decision to approve the pipeline have waited for just this kind of information?

Prior to the November 2016 pipeline approval, we shared with government a peer-reviewed study that evaluated scientific understanding of 15 types of environmental impact to the oceans caused by the production and transport of diluted bitumen.

This heavy petroleum product would be pumped through the Trans Mountain pipeline at three times the current volume and create a seven-fold increase in tanker transport through Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet.

Our research found large gaps in scientific understanding of the toxicity of diluted bitumen products to marine species and how the products will behave in the ocean. Filling both gaps is necessary before determining whether the Trans Mountain pipeline is in Canada’s best interests.

In fact, our study was one of at least five major scientific reviews, published by the Royal Society of Canada and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Office of Response, among others, in the lead up to the approval of the Trans Mountain project.

All five identified major gaps in scientific understanding and preparedness for environmental impacts generated by the coastal transport of diluted bitumen.

The gaps in knowledge, combined with incomplete risk assessment and insufficient baseline data, make it impossible to address the full suite of threats to ocean species and their habitats, or to assess the effectiveness of emergency actions, including spill response.

Given the paucity of information on these key issues, the B.C. government’s call for additional scientific review and research, made last January, was well grounded, and has proven to be prescient.

McKenna’s proposal for a new look at the science followed on the heels of reports that a high-ranking government official had instructed public servants to find a “legally-sound basis to say ‘yes'” to the Trans Mountain project, while discouraging them from raising concerns identified by independent research, including our own.

A credible review, by a panel of independent scientists, at arm’s length from influence by industry or government, is long overdue.

In the absence of sound science, government has a duty to delay construction, and err on the side of coastal protection and climate progress.

Prime Minister Trudeau’s public commitment to transparency and evidence-based policy demands no less.

New title

You’ve read all the way to the bottom of this article. That makes you some serious Narwhal material.

And since you’re here, we have a favour to ask. Our independent, ad-free journalism is made possible because the people who value our work also support it (did we mention our stories are free for all to read, not just those who can afford to pay?).

As a non-profit, reader-funded news organization, our goal isn’t to sell advertising or to please corporate bigwigs — it’s to bring evidence-based news and analysis to the surface for all Canadians. And at a time when most news organizations have been laying off reporters, we’ve hired five journalists over the past year.

Not only are we filling a void in environment coverage, but we’re also telling stories differently — by centring Indigenous voices, by building community and by doing it all as a people-powered, non-profit outlet supported by more than 3,100 members

The truth is we wouldn’t be here without you. Every single one of you who reads and shares our articles is a crucial part of building a new model for Canadian journalism that puts people before profit.

We know that these days the world’s problems can feel a *touch* overwhelming. It’s easy to feel like what we do doesn’t make any difference, but becoming a member of The Narwhal is one small way you truly can make a difference.

We’ve drafted a plan to make 2021 our biggest year yet, but we need your support to make it all happen.

If you believe news organizations should report to their readers, not advertisers or shareholders, please become a monthly member of The Narwhal today for any amount you can afford.

B.C. ranchers, loggers unite in fight against plan to log rare inland old-growth rainforest

Dave Salayka has been a professional forester and tree faller for most of his working life. He’s laid out cutblocks, worked in Alberta’s oilsands and...

Continue reading

Recent Posts

Join our birthday celebrations!

We’re marking our third birthday with an exclusive, limited-time offer! Sign up as a monthly member of The Narwhal today and we’ll send you one of the remaining copies of our 2021 print edition.

Help power our ad-free, non‑profit journalism