It’s been a full decade since the office of the auditor general turned its spotlight to the country’s 255 mines.

The last time the auditor general looked at mining, Canada’s environment commissioner found the country was essentially failing to protect fish habitat from the impact of mines.

(Wait, what exactly is the office of the auditor general? It’s an independent body that has the responsibility to audit the operations of governments and reports back to Parliament. In other words: it’s a watchdog. The auditor general also appoints the environment commissioner.)

In the past decade, Canada has had time to clean up its act on mining and, according to the auditor general, has made some improvements in protecting fish under the Fisheries Act.

However . . . ahem . . .

There are still some significant and rather startling gaps in Canada’s regulation and monitoring of mines, according to environment commissioner Julie Gelfand’s latest report. The new audit looks specifically at Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to assess how well these departments are doing at protecting fish from mines.

Here are eight key takeaways from Tuesday’s report.

1) There are still no federal regulations for waste from non-metal mines (think oilsands, coal and potash)

That’s right. Canadians have been promised these regulations for years, but their creation has been endlessly drawn out.

That’s why those sprawling metallurgical coal mines contaminating water with selenium in B.C.’s Elk Valley are creating a very awkward situation in Ottawa. While the company that owns and operates the mines, Teck Resources, is in clear violation of B.C.’s pollution guidelines, those are provincial ‘guidelines’ and not law.

While the province has jurisdiction over the extraction of natural resources and resulting pollution, it’s the federal government’s job to protect fish.

I know what you’re thinking: ‘but isn’t Teck Resources polluting fish bearing waters and isn’t that in violation of the Fisheries Act?’ You’re not wrong.

But technically there are no specific regulations for non-metal mines under the Fisheries Act, so it’s difficult (but not entirely impossible) for the federal government to point to which rules the company is breaking.

Because oilsands, potash and coal mines aren’t guided by regulations under the Fisheries Act, they are given no permission (basically no permits) to pollute fish-bearing waters (metal mines are granted this permission).

A flowchart showing no regulations for non-metal mines under Canada’s Fisheries Act. Source: 2019 Spring Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment

For this reason the report states: “Non-metal mines other than diamond mines are not permitted to release any effluent containing harmful substances into a body of water where fish are present. The requirements for non-metal mines are therefore more stringent than those for metal mines.” (emphasis added)

Tell that to people in Fort Chipewyan or Sparwood, why don’t you?

2) Oilsands, potash and coal mines inspected far less than metal mines

The audit found Canada is only likely to inspect a non-metal mine if a spill has occurred.

The auditors note this lack of inspections is not based on a “comprehensive risk analysis.” Mining inspections at non-metal mines are particularly important because non-metal mines are not permitted to release any harmful substances into fish-bearing waters (see above) and yet, some still are.

Between 2013 and 2015 Environment Canada “identified a need to develop a risk-based strategy for non-metal mines, but it did not develop such a strategy,” the report states. Further, during those same years the department hatched a plan to inspect 67 non-metal mines but since then has visited only 44 per cent of those.

The auditors write: “Department officials told us that they had stopped inspections on non-metal mines because they had found a high level of compliance.”

Yet, the auditors found Environment Canada “had no consolidated information about the overall non-metal mining sector… This lack of information made it difficult for the department to understand the overall non-metal sector and to carry out comprehensive risk analyses.”

During the audit period, there were 270 on-site inspections of Canada’s 117 non-metal mines, an average of one inspection per mine every 2.4 years. This is lower than the average inspection of metal mines, which are inspected on average once every 1.5 years.

In a response, Environment Canada said it will develop a risk framework for both metal and non-metal mines by 2020.

3) Canadians don’t know where polluting mines are located

Even though Environment and Climate Change Canada does monitor waste released from metal mines in Canada, the audit found the department did not specify which mine sites it had inspected.

“As a result, Canadians did not know how mining effluent might be affecting their community,” the report states.

“This finding matters because complete and accurate information on the environmental effects of mining effluent is important in assessing how well the regulations protect fish and their habitat.”

4) On-site inspections of mines are infrequent, especially in Ontario

Ontario has the highest number of mines in all of Canada but received the lowest number of inspections from Environment Canada. The average frequency of on-site inspections for mines in Quebec are every 0.9 years, for the Pacific and Yukon regions every 1.5 years and for Ontario every 3.6 years.

The report also found that inspections are not tracked by mine site, but instead by company name, although companies may have several mine sites.

Mine inspections between January 2013 and June 2018. Source: 2019 Spring Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment

Reports generated from these inspections also contained incomplete information, enough so that auditors had to leave some mines out of their report “because of lack of data.” Inspectors also at times relied on company data but didn’t include “controls to ensure the accuracy of companies’ self-reported compliance data.”

Environment Canada responded to the report’s recommendation for better enforcement plans, saying it will “develop a more effective way to track data on metal and non-metal mines at the site” by 2021.

5) Once, Environment Canada used monitoring to strengthen regulations

Environment Canada visited a mine site in 2007, 2012 and 2015 and found metal mining effluent was having a negative effect on the growth and reproduction rates of fish downstream.

Although the report notes the location of this mine isn’t specified (see above), the auditors found the circumstances were used to strengthen regulations by introducing “stricter limits for some substances that already had limits in place.”

The report notes: “Increased transparency is also important to support public confidence in government regulation of the mining industry.” Um, yeah.

6) Canada isn’t monitoring whether companies actually create new fish habitat

Much of the metal mining that is permitted under Canada’s regulations causes harm to waterways and fish habitat. It’s difficult to avoid for projects that use so much water and create such significant amounts of contaminated waste. Many mine tailings ponds are built in or on top of ponds or rivers. (For example, Taseko’s rejected Prosperity Mine proposed using Fish Lake, an area treasured by the Tsilhqot’in First Nation, as a tailings pond.)

The report states that as of June 2018, mine waste was permitted to be dumped in 42 bodies of water, covering a combined surface area of 38 square kilometres. Note this doesn’t include tailings facilities for oilsands, potash or coal mines. There are more than 176 square kilometres of oilsands tailings, which have an estimated clean-up cost of $51 billion.

These giant tailings facilities and their impacts on fish-bearing waters is why, under metal mining effluent regulations, companies that harm fish habitat are required to compensate for that harm.

But the audit found Fisheries and Oceans Canada is often not monitoring companies to ensure their plans to offset fish harm are implemented and or effective. The department agreed, the report notes, stating a revised monitoring program will be implemented April 2020.

7) Companies that are caught breaking rules aren’t tracked

Between April 2014 and June 2018 mining companies were fined $16.6 million in penalties for violations under the Fisheries Act. The report found that in recent years there is a notable trend toward larger penalties.

However, the audit found that Environment Canada “did not track data on alleged violations by mines site . . . This meant that the department could not clearly pinpoint areas for follow-up.”

The report also notes that prior to 2017 the department wasn’t keeping clear track of where violations occurred and so couldn’t assess when repeat violations were occurring by mine site.

A metallurgical coal mine, owned and operated by Teck Resources in B.C.’s Elk Valley. Photo: Jayce Hawkins / The Narwhal

8) 35% of mines didn’t submit complete effluent monitoring data

In 2016 Environment Canada reported a 94 to 99 per cent compliance rate for metal mines and their effluent limits.

However the audit found those rates were based on an incomplete data set, because 35 per cent of companies did not submit complete information on their liquid waste monitoring while other companies submitted no data whatsoever.

The audit also notes that Environment Canada’s reporting ”provided no information about spills and unauthorized effluent discharge . . .  As a result, the department’s report lacked a complete picture of mining sites’ effects on fish and their habitat.”

“We also found that Environment and Climate Change Canada’s reporting was not up to date. For example, the 2016 status report on metal mine compliance was not issued until 2018.”

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.

Remember B.C.’s Clean Energy Act, championed by former Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell to position B.C. as a “world leader” in addressing climate change?

The act exempted hydro undertakings like the Site C dam from independent oversight by the watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC), an independent body set up to ensure that projects proposed by the government are in the public interest, and not promoted for partisan political gain.

The act further set the legal stage for building the Site C dam, a pet project of the B.C. Liberals, by closing the door on energy sources such as the Burrard Thermal natural gas-fired plant and the power to which B.C. is entitled under the Columbia River Treaty.

On Thursday, B.C.’s Auditor General Carol Bellringer — the province’s public interest watchdog — issued a report nudging the NDP government to review and amend the Clean Energy Act’s objectives, which the report describes as “too diverse and in many cases contradictory with each other.”

Bellringer also found the act’s objectives are often in contradiction with the utility commission’s mandate.

“There is a risk that exempting the commission from reviewing large projects can undermine public confidence in those projects and in the regulator [the BCUC] itself,” says the report, noting that regulators are set up to provide a “transparent and evidence-based process.”

The report highlights the Site C dam project as a case in point. “Our office has received many requests to examine government’s decision to build the Site C dam, which government initially excluded from the review process,” the report notes.

“Government’s decisions to exclude the commission from overseeing certain BC Hydro projects is inconsistent with one of the original purposes of the commission — to fully regulate BC Hydro.”

Independence of BCUC a concern

In a teleconference Thursday, Bellringer said the government “already knows how it can make the BCUC more effective.”

Bellringer zeroed in on the commission’s independence as one area that needs attention.

“An effective regulator is in the interests of all the residents of British Columbia,” she said.

“Independence means that regulators are able to make objective decisions based on facts. Independence enables regulators to consider the short and long-term interests of ratepayers, regulated companies and the public.”

By excluding the BCUC from key decisions, Bellringer said the government “loses out on the value of an independent transparent review and expert advice.”

In a later telephone interview, Bellringer said her office continues to look into the $10.7 billion Site C dam project.

“We’re still planning to do an audit,” she told DeSmog Canada. “We’re still trying to figure out what aspect to look at. I know there’s quite a bit of pressure on us from all kinds of people who would like us to do that very quickly but as you know it’s a very large project, so not so easy to narrow down.”

The auditor general also said there is “no question” that on-going Site C oversight by the BCUC would “add to the strength” of the independent review it conducted last fall, which found that the project is behind schedule and over-budget, with a final price tag that could exceed $12.5 billion.

“I just don’t have a view on exactly what it would look like.”

“There is a risk that exempting the commission from reviewing large projects can undermine public confidence in those projects and in the regulator itself.” B.C. Auditor General, Carol Bellringer, on the exemption of the Site C dam from BCUC review https://t.co/Vmnij9jLDQ

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 16, 2018

Oversight lost with Clean Energy Act

Site C was far from the only energy project that the Clean Energy Act removed from independent BCUC review.

The Northwest Transmission Line, an over-budget project that brought power to remote mining operations, was also stripped of oversight, as were BC Hydro’s smart meters plan and power supply proposals from independent power producers, to which BC Hydro is now paying millions of dollars not to produce power because of an electricity surplus in the province.

The operation of Burrard Thermal, a natural gas-fired generating plant on the north shore of Port Moody in the Lower Mainland, was also removed from BCUC scrutiny.

Built in 1963, the plant was refurbished in the 1990s to become the cleanest standby natural-gas fired plant on the continent. It was capable of generating 950 megawatts of electricity, nearly as much as the Site C dam.

The district of Hudson’s Hope, the municipality hardest hit by the Site C dam, has pointed out that Burrard Thermal could have been refurbished for $1 billion to bring it into compliance with the Clean Energy Act, at a fraction of the cost of the Site C dam project.

The BCUC wanted Burrard Thermal to continue operating, to provide emergency backup power, but the BC Liberals shut down the plant in the spring of 2016.

What Is the Clean Energy Act?

Former Premier Gordon Campbell described the act as a legal chisel that would enable B.C. to chip away at its greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy.

“We want British Columbia to become a leading North American supplier of clean, reliable, low carbon energy,” the Campbell declared on the day the act was introduced.

Among other changes, the act positioned B.C. to become a bigger exporter of electricity, with the Site C dam as the cornerstone of new energy experts, although there were no committed buyers for the dam’s power.

There is still no confirmed buyer for the Site C’ dam’s electricity, and energy demand in B.C. has been flat for more than ten years even though the population has grown by 17 per cent.

The act also mandated that B.C. must be almost completely self-sufficient in electricity, shutting the window on electricity imports, including from clean energy sources.

It prohibited B.C. from accepting Columbia River electricity generated in the U.S. — about the same amount of power as Site C would produce — even though a provision for claiming that power is included in the Columbia River Treaty.

Although the Site C dam project received an expedited BCUC review last fall, the NDP government did not allow the BCUC to recommend whether or not the project should proceed, as the commission would have done before the Liberals removed its oversight.

Notably, the BCUC review revealed troubling geotechnical issues and on-going problems with Site C’s major contractors, who are suing BC Hydro for more money. It also determined that energy alternatives such as wind and geothermal could provide the same amount of energy at a lower or equal cost.

Bellringer said her office originally intended to conduct an audit of the BCUC to determine if it is exercising effective oversight of BC Hydro and other organizations it regulates, such as ICBC.

But preliminary planning work for the audit determined that many of the same risks to the BCUC’s effectiveness had already been identified in two task force reviews in 2013 and 2014, and that further audit work would not contribute to a better understanding of the issues.

“We felt that those important areas needed to get attention and so we decided to issue this report instead.”

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 ramshackle regulatory system governing B.C.’s mining industry is profoundly dysfunctional and the public has lost confidence in the province’s ability to protect the environment and communities from poor mining activities, says a new report from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre.

The wide-ranging report, released Wednesday, was commissioned for the Fair Mining Collaborative — a non-profit group that helps First Nations communities assess mining activities — and recommends that the provincial government establish a Commission of Public Inquiry to investigate B.C.’s regulation of the mining industry.

A judicial inquiry is needed because mining is a multi-billion dollar industry that can create jobs and great wealth, but can also create “catastrophic and long-lasting threats to entire watersheds and to critical public assets such as fish, clean water, wildlife and public health,” according to the report, which is signed by ELC legal director Calvin Sandborn and law student Kirsty Broadhead.

The Mount Polley tailings dam disaster, plus the toxic aftermath at old mines such as Sunro at Jordan River and the Tulsequah Chief in northeast B.C., where reclamation and cleanup regulations were not enforced, have created a profound crisis in public confidence, it says.

The mine at Jordan River operated from 1950 to 1974 and is suspected of wiping out salmon runs. The site was never adequately remediated and pollution can still be seen seeping into the Jordan River.

The Tulsequah Chief has been leaking acid mine drainage into a tributary of Alaska’s salmon-rich Taku River for 60 years and, although Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett has promised action and said the leakage is not harming fish, it is a constant source of worry and frustration for Alaskans.

With those types of examples, it is not surprising that public confidence is at a low ebb and a full-scale public inquiry could help set minds at ease, the ELC concludes.

“In the past, public inquiries have been established when the public had lost confidence in the regulation of an important B.C. industry — and those public inquiries have helped to improve regulatory systems and restore public confidence,” says the report, submitted Wednesday to Premier Christy Clark and cabinet.

The ELC is not the only organization to document problems with B.C.’s mining regulatory regime.

Auditor General Carol Bellringer issued a stinging audit of enforcement of mining industry regulations last year and concluded that government’s enforcement efforts were inadequate.

“Almost all of our expectations for a robust compliance and enforcement program were not met,” Bellringer said in her audit.

“The compliance and enforcement activities of both the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment are not set up to protect the province from environmental risks.”

Although the government has acted on some of Bellringer’s recommendations, it has ignored the central recommendation that enforcement should be moved to an independent agency. The audit concluded that the Ministry of Energy and Mines is in a conflict of interest because it promotes mining at the same time as regulating the industry.

The ELC report points out that government has also failed to address the most important recommendation from the Mount Polley Expert Panel, which was to eliminate tailings lakes that, the Panel concluded, pose an unacceptable danger to B.C.’s environment.

“The rules on tailings facilities — and many other mining rules — remain archaic and ineffective,” the report says.

However, Sandborn remains optimistic that the government will establish a public inquiry

“I believe in facts, not alternative facts, and these facts speak for themselves,” he said.

The Energy and Mines Ministry did not return emailed questions from DeSmog Canada.

NDP leader John Horgan said in an interview that, although he is not prepared to commit to a public inquiry before seeing the ELC report, regaining public confidence in mining oversight will be near the top of his agenda if an NDP government is elected in May.

“I am going to look at this area with more intensity than others might because I was the critic for a decade and I know these issues and the players pretty well,” said Horgan who emphasized that he wants to see a robust mining industry in B.C., but that requires public confidence and social licence.

Enforcement, rather than regulation, is the biggest problem and an NDP government would separate promotion of the industry from enforcement, as recommended by the Auditor General, Horgan said.

Government’s decision to allow companies to use their own professionals, rather than government employees, to assess situations, also came under fire by Horgan.

“The move to professional reliance, rather than having independent public servants protecting and enforcing regulations, is the biggest failing of the BC Liberals,” he said.

“The public interest is always protected when you have independent public servants discharging their responsibility on behalf of all British Columbians, not just those that are promoting an economic activity.”

Public confidence and public trust was eroded following the Mount Polley disaster and government’s inaction has made the situation worse, Horgan said.

“We are three years on and there have been no consequences for anybody,” he said.

In addition to the environmental threats, the ELC report urges government to look at economic threats presented by a badly regulated industry and taxpayer liability, which is climbing because government is not demanding bonds that fully cover the cost of mine clean-ups.

Bellringer warned that unfunded taxpayer liability for mine clean-ups now exceeds $1.2 billion and other experts estimate liability at more than $3-billion.

“While some jurisdictions ban any mine that would require long-term water treatment B.C. doesn’t just allow such high-risk mines, B.C. routinely allows them to operate without full security — there’s a $730-million shortfall for these high risk operations alone,” says the report.

“By setting securities at artificially low levels, government has encouraged companies to not spend realistic amounts on environmental protection measures. Higher securities would lead to better mining practices,” it says.

Questions that the report recommends should be addressed by a public inquiry include:

*Do current standards for tailings storage facilities fall short of recommendations by the Mount Polley Expert Panel?

*Do B.C’s mining rules meet global standards for public safety and environmental protection?

*Are environmental assessment requirements adequate?

*Is enforcement of mining laws adequate?

*Should government remove enforcement of mining laws from the Ministry of Energy and Mines?

*Are closed mines being adequately monitored and reclaimed?

*Are mining companies cleaning up their own mess?

*How can the province ensure that mining companies, not taxpayers, pay to reclaim mines?

*Is placer mining being adequately regulated?

*Should the free entry mineral tenure system be reformed to protect private landowners, First Nations and the environment?

BC ramshackle regulatory system governing #BCmining is profoundly dysfunctional https://t.co/hRPrRkumWu @UVicLaw @MiningWatch @LavoieJudith pic.twitter.com/wZQdhzJNdS

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 13, 2017

The call for a public inquiry is being supported by many First Nations and community groups.

Ugo Lapointe, Canada program coordinator for Mining Watch Canada, in a letter of support, said “B.C.’s mining regulatory regime remains, in fact, one of the most problematic — if not the worst — in Canada when it comes to protecting the environment, communities, indigenous peoples and taxpayers.”

B.C. ranks worst in Canada for unsecured environmental liability of contaminated mine site clean-up costs and is the only large jurisdiction that has not modernized its mineral tenure system, Lapointe wrote.

The Mount Polley disaster was the worst mining spill in Canada’s history and can be attributed not only to poor technical and corporate practices, but also to poor regulatory oversight, Lapointe said.

And, with mining companies regularly showing up as generous donors to the B.C. Liberals, there is a fear of undue influence.

“B.C.’s system is subject to severe regulatory capture by the industry, a situation exacerbated by the fact that B.C. remains the only large province in Canada where there are no limits on political donations from corporate interests,” Lapointe wrote.

A letter from Bev Sellars, chair of First Nation Women Advocating Responsible Mining, says many of the group’s members have learned how promises of riches can turn into destroyed lands and limited low-paying jobs.

“It’s past time for B.C. to objectively and fully evaluate their outdated and biased mining laws and policies. We will accept nothing less,” Sellars wrote.

Image: Christy Clark at Copper Mountain mine. 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.

A hard-hitting report by B.C.’s auditor general that concludes the government’s mines monitoring and inspection program is woefully inadequate and does not protect the province from significant environmental risks, is increasing alarm in Southeast Alaska about B.C.’s mining practices.
 
The report, delivered this week by Carol Bellringer, is also sparking renewed calls for transboundary mine development to be referred to the International Joint Commission — an independent body designed to resolve disputes over the use and quality of boundary waters — and raising questions about a cooperation agreement under negotiation between B.C. and Alaska.
 
On the B.C. side of the border there has been a rush of mine development close to the headwaters of the Taku, Stikine and Unuk rivers, Southeast Alaska’s major salmon rivers, with one mine already in operation and about nine others in various stages of permitting and exploration.

“We do feel this report further validates what we’ve been saying all along, including that our concerns about financial guarantees, monitoring in perpetuity and cumulative effects need to be addressed by an independent joint U.S./Canada body,” said Heather Hardcastle of Salmon Beyond Borders.
 
A Salmon Beyond Borders news release adds that B.C. is systemically unable and unwilling to address the risks mining poses to downstream resources.
 
“The ongoing pollution at the Tulsequah Chief mine in the Taku watershed, the opening of Imperial Metals’ Red Chris mine in the Stikine watershed months after (Imperial’s) Mount Polley mine disaster and the approval of North America’s largest open-pit mine, Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) in the Unuk watershed, 19 miles upstream from the border, are more than enough justification for Alaskans to demand immediate federal action,” says the release.

"Decade of Neglect" 

Bellringer, who conducted a two-year investigation, found major gaps in planning, resources and tools and that compliance and enforcement program expectations in the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment were not met after a “decade of neglect.”
 
Her major recommendation is for B.C. to create an independent agency to manage enforcement and compliance, a suggestion that has not been embraced by government.
 
Bellringer said that, to reduce the risk of “unfortunate and preventable incidents like Mount Polley,”compliance and enforcement should be separated from the Energy and Mines Ministry because the ministry’s role to promote mining development is diametrically opposed to compliance and enforcement.
 
“This framework of having both activities within MEM creates an irreconcilable conflict,” she said.
 
“Because compliance and enforcement is the last line of defence against environmental degradation, business as usual cannot continue,” said Bellringer, who added she is disappointed in government’s resistance to the recommendation.
 
Government has not ruled out the suggestion, but indicated it was likely unnecessary and instead has offered to establish a mining compliance and enforcement board to ensure greater integration between ministries.
 
During Bellringer’s audit the topic of mines oversight took on greater urgency because of the failure of the Mount Polley tailings dam.
 
“These risks became a reality and disaster occurred when the tailings dam at Mount Polley failed — releasing approximately 25 million cubic metres of wastewater and tailings into adjacent water systems and lakes. It may be many years before the financial, environmental and social implications are fully known,” she wrote.
 
In another criticism — that has long been a sore point for B.C.’s Alaskan neighbours — Bellringer said mining companies have not provided adequate financial security deposits to cover reclamation costs if a company is unable to pay.

The True Cost of Mining 

The fund is more than $1-billion short — meaning taxpayers could be left picking up the bills, especially as “major mines . . . will likely require long-term or perpetual water treatment.”
 
Chris Zimmer, Alaska campaign director for Rivers Without Borders, said it is apparent the B.C. system does not cover the true costs of mining.
 
“That’s why we need U.S. federal engagement to develop enforceable standards and protections that minimize risks to Alaska’s water, fish and jobs and provide compensation for any harm Alaskans suffer from B.C. mining,” Zimmer said.
 
The Mount Polley disaster was a wakeup call for Alaskans and the audit confirms their concerns are valid, said Zimmer, who is urging the Alaskan government not to sign the final Statement of Cooperation with B.C. until problems identified in the audit are fixed.
 
“The Auditor General notes the critical need for enforcement given the scale of mining in B.C. and the potential for long-term negative effects on water and salmon, but also finds the environmental risks of mining are increasing, while compliance and enforcement are decreasing,” Zimmer said.
 
“How can we have any trust in the B.C. processes?”

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.

"Transparent,” “credible, “world-class” — those are just a few of the words that have been deployed to detail the aspirations of the one-year-old organization tasked with monitoring the air, water, land and wildlife in Alberta.

But there are a lot of questions about whether the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA), funded primarily by industry, has lived up to its goal to track the condition of the province’s environment.*

Unlike the Alberta Energy Regulator, which the new NDP government is considering splitting into two agencies to separate its conflicting responsibilities to both promote and policy energy development, AEMERA hasn’t spent much time in the public spotlight — yet.

Last October, Alberta’s auditor general slammed the agency for releasing its 2012-2013 annual report in June 2014, well after when it should have been released. The auditor general also said the report “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies.”

Many of the agency’s projects were missing several details and the auditor general cautioned such omissions “may jeopardize AEMERA’s ability to monitor the cumulative effects of oil sands development.”

And that’s a pretty big problem. Because if Canada is to feasibly establish a strong environmental record, it’s going to need stringent monitoring in Alberta, especially in the Lower Athabasca region where the bulk of the province’s energy industry operates.

The Birth of A Really Long Acronym: AEMERA

AEMERA was dreamt up in 2011 as a means to coalesce the dozens of monitoring organizations working in the province under one banner, firewalling the result from government and industry to avoid conflicts of interest.

Martin Olszynski, an assistant professor in law at University of Calgary who specializes in environmental law, notes that at the time of the agency’s inception, international pressure was limiting market access for oil.

“When someone went to check on the monitoring system, it turned out it was a mess,” Olsznynski says. “We weren’t getting the data that we needed.”

AEMERA — with the Joint Canada-Alberta Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring serving as the transition agency for the three years prior to its official birth — was crafted to solve that problem.

Yet Bill 31, the piece of legislation that conjured up the arms-length agency in late 2013, faced considerable criticism from the get-go. Opposition parties pleaded for more than a dozen amendments.

Many of the proposed tweaks would have addressed the tight relationship between government and the monitoring agency. Amongst other things, the legislation suggested the environment minister would appoint the board and choose when data was released to the public.

Shaun Fluker, an associate professor of law at the University of Calgary, wrote in a 2014 post that the latter provision “arguably undermines the whole structure and suggests that politics can and will override science and transparency on environmental monitoring and reporting.”

All the proposed amendments were shot down. Lorne Taylor, former environment minister under Ralph Klein and renowned anti-Kyoto Accord activist, was appointed as chair of the board. Little has changed since.

Unlike other agencies, AEMERA doesn’t mandate quotas for groups or interests on the board. As a result, Bigstone Cree elder Mike Beaver is the sole indigenous representative on the agency’s seven-member board.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, a method of integrating indigenous worldviews into policymaking, was listed as a priority in AEMERA’s founding document — yet the auditor generals’ report noted that just three of 38 of AEMERA’s projects surveyed involved Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

Val Mellesmoen, spokesperson for AEMERA, says the organization is working hard to foster strong relationships with indigenous people. In mid-June, the organization appointed a Traditional Ecological Knowledge panel to focus on such issues.

Insufficient Funding for Mobile Air Monitoring Van

Then there’s the overarching issue of funding. Exactly $50 million was decided upon as the max that industry would contribute per year, a number that features a “conspicuously round nature,” Olszynski says.

In late March, news broke that the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association — historically the recipient of the largest amount of money for monitoring — couldn’t afford the $500,000 price tag for a new mobile air monitoring testing van on account of a lack of funding.

Andrew Read, policy analyst at the Pembina Institute, says there’s no public information available as to why $50 million was chosen as the funding cap; he has submitted multiple requests to the federal government (which coordinated the interim monitoring framework prior to AEMERA’s takeover), but hasn’t received any clarification.

Mellesmoen, the agency’s spokesperson, says it was a “gentlemen’s agreement” with the number determined by “an initial estimate that was based on industry providing an overview of what they felt they were currently spending as individual companies.”

Mellesmoen — who previously served as Taylor’s spokesperson when he was an MLA and minister — says there are questions within the agency about the reasoning for the cap.

“Even that funding model needs to be maybe looked at in the long run,” she says.

New NDP Government Could Amend Bill 31

Olszynski says the newly elected NDP could amend Bill 31 to deal with such issues. Prior to being elected as premier, Rachel Notley was an outspoken critic of the monitoring agency, at one point asserting the organization was “nowhere near ready to assume responsibility for the [Lower Athabasca] region.”

The NDP’s platform also pledged to “strengthen environmental standards, inspection, monitoring and enforcement to protect Alberta’s water, land and air.”

This week’s decision to revisit the Alberta Energy Regulator’s mandate represents that focus. The press secretary for Minister of Environment Shannon Phillips didn’t respond to multiple requests for an interview on the subject.

International Experts to Evaluate Oilsands Monitoring

An international panel composed of six scientists will evaluate the performance of the new monitoring system. It plans to “evaluate the extent to which the implementation of the Joint Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) has improved the scientific integrity of environmental monitoring in the oil sands.”

The panel will deliver its report this fall, which will “help determine the next steps on the oilsands monitoring design and implementation.”

Olszynski emphasizes the uniqueness of AEMERA

“It’s an experiment, an innovative one, an important one,” he says.

Yet there’s much more to be done: stable funding must be solidified, the line between cabinet and organization must be clarified and the data must be analyzed and reported on in a way that regular Albertans can understand. AEMERA also has to expand its monitoring province-wide to fulfill its mandate.

“AEMERA needs to step out and demonstrate that they’re acting in the public interest,” Read says. “We want to see a demonstration of AEMERA actively taking and delivering that unbiased information to the government and providing a perspective on the current state of the environment.”

* Clarification Notice: This article originally stated that AEMERA is funded 100 per cent by industry. While AEMERA gets the bulk of its funding from industry, the agency also receives government funding for general operations and monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities in other areas of the province

Image: Kris Krug 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.

According to British Columbia’s auditor general, the province has handed out $1.25 billion in financial incentives to the oil and gas sector since 2009 to encourage production.

Auditor General Carol Bellringer outlined the incentives in her 2013-2014 summary of the province’s financial statements.

“To encourage production of oil and natural gas in B.C., the province provides financial incentives to oil and gas producers,” she said in the report.

“Producers have incurred expenditures that will qualify for $1.25 billion in incentive credits,” she said, “but have not yet produced enough oil or natural gas to claim these amounts.”

That means as producers generate revenue, they can simply claim their incentive credits, reducing how much money the B.C. government collects on the resource.

“In this case,” she notes in the report, “this represents a reduction of $1.25 billion in revenue in future years if all the incentives are used.”

B.C. LNG not the economic saviour premier promises

B.C Premier Christy Clark has portrayed liquefied natural gas, or LNG, as an economic saviour for the province, although her government has consistently made financial and environmental concessions to the natural gas industry to attract business to the province.

In a recent interview with Global News, Clark said: “I will do everything in my power to make LNG work.”

“LNG will transform our economy, pay off debt, and create a better future for our children,” she said.

Clark’s promise of a debt-free future for B.C. rests almost solely on the creation of an LNG export industry. But to date, that industry remains almost entirely speculative in nature. Although several companies have invested large amounts of money for the prospect of exporting B.C.'s natural gas, none have made any final investment commitments.

This summer, major gas developer Apache backed out of a partnership with Chevron to construct an LNG plant in Kitimat, citing a weak gas market. Malaysian gas giant Petronas also recently threatened to back out of its proposed $10-billion LNG plant near Prince Rupert — and perhaps would have had the Clark government not dropped income tax rates for the industry by 50 per cent.

B.C.’s questionable accounting

In her report, Bellringer also noted B.C. has some questionable accounting methods.

“The bottom line is certainly an important element of looking at a set of financial statements, but there’s a huge amount of rich information that can be taken out of the financial statements,” she told The Canada Press.

“I hope that the report does show that, you know, there are lots of things that need to be very carefully looked at in a set of financial statements.”

Bellringer added that the incentives paid to the oil and gas industry “tell an interesting story.”

Since 2009 the province has paid industry, in the form of credits, a total of $1.25 billion with $587 million of that handed out to industry last year alone.

Screen shot of the auditor general report, outlining oil and gas incentives for 2013-2014 fiscal year. Click here for report.

“Of interest,” Bellringer noted in the report, “is how government records the royalty revenues and the incentive expenses. The incentive expenses are deducted from the royalty revenues, and only the net amount is shown in the statement of operations.”

“The incentives claimed are quite large,” she added, “almost 30 per cent of the gross royalty revenue received by government in fiscal 2014.”

“When these producers claim their incentive credits, that money will be deducted from the royalties that they owe, thereby reducing the amount of money government will generate,” Bellringer said in her report.

A 2012 report released by Blue Green Canada, a coalition of environmental and labour groups, noted that Canada’s existing tax incentives for the oil and gas sector frustrates the creation of new jobs in the emerging clean energy sector.

The report, called More Bang for our Buck: How Canada Can Create More Energy Jobs and Less Pollution, stated oil and gas incentives are “the wrong direction if we hope to tap into a growing share of the jobs and opportunity of the global transition towards renewable energy.”

Image Credit: Christy Clark during Encana tour summer 2014 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.

Provincial auditor general Merwan Saher has agreed to conduct an audit of oil pipeline safety in Alberta, responding to requests from a coalition of 54 public interest groups dissatisfied with the provincial government's third-party report released in August.

"We will be auditing the government's monitoring systems to ensure compliance with Alberta's pipeline regulations. Our audit would include inspection and enforcement processes," Saher wrote in a letter to Alberta's Opposition parties Wildrose and the NDP, which were among the groups demanding the review.

The government-commissioned pipeline safety review, conducted by Group 10 Engineering, was announced by Energy Minister Ken Hughes in July 2012 after several major pipeline oil spills in the province, including a 475,000 litre leak from a Plains Midstream Canada pipeline in Central Alberta in June. The final report was made public a year later, in August 2013.

Image Credit: Jasonwoodhead23 / 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.