Editor’s note Nov. 17: Following a judicial recount, on Nov. 17 the BC Liberal incumbent was found to have won the West Vancouver-Sea to Sky riding by just 60 votes. Although the B.C. Green party candidate was declared the winner on election night, with a 604-vote lead, mail-in ballots tipped the scales. Upon final count, the BC Liberals took 37.54 per cent of the vote, while the Greens took 37.30 per cent.

On the night of the B.C. election, Jeremy Valeriote, the Green Party candidate in West Vancouver-Sea to Sky, was watching the results in the living room of the Whistler home he shared with his wife Ginny and their twin six-year old girls. 

They were joined by Ginny’s parents and Valeriote’s sister and brother-in-law, who were keen to pop the cork on a bottle of champagne to celebrate a hard-fought campaign, no matter the outcome. “Let’s wait until 10,” Valeriote convinced them. 

As the clock neared 10, the networks flashed up a checkmark beside Valeriote’s name and the room erupted in noisy celebration. For the first time, the sizable riding — which includes Howe Sound communities, Whistler and Pemberton — had gone Green. 

“It was a tremendous feeling,” Valeriote tells The Narwhal. “I was still kind of in a state of shock. There was a lot of cheering … It was quite festive. I was in a little bit of disbelief, and also aware that the results were not final.”

Valeriote, a geo-environmental engineer who is about to complete a master’s degree in leadership at Royal Roads University, won’t know for certain until Nov. 6 if he’ll be taking a seat in the B.C. legislature alongside BC Green Party leader Sonia Furstenau and Green MLA Adam Olsen. 

He’s 604 votes ahead of Liberal incumbent Jordan Sturdy, with an unknown number of mail-in ballots — about 7,700 were requested — yet to be tallied. 

Until the final count arrives, Valeriote plans to spend time with his family (he’s the primary caregiver for twins Nina and Rose), sleep (he finally managed eight hours of shut-eye for the first time in a month), unpack (the family moved house two days after the election) and consider that he might soon be a MLA.

“I’m having initial conversations about what it will look like if I become MLA elect and just getting prepared, but certainly not acting as though the results are final,” said Valeriote, who was a municipal councillor in Gibsons for four years before moving to Whistler two years ago for his wife’s career. 

Jeremy Valeriote with his wife, Ginny, and twin daughters, Nina and Rose. Photo: Jeremy Valeriote

Woodfibre LNG opposition a factor in election

The riding of West Vancouver-Sea to Sky has seen various boundary and name changes over the past 50 years, but it’s always been held by the BC Liberals or the now defunct Social Credit party. 

So why did the Greens have a breakout election, snagging what will likely be their first seat outside Vancouver Island, even though the odds were stacked against them with a snap election called one year before the fixed election date, only days after Furstenau was elected party leader?  

Valeriote credits his tentative victory to rising concerns about intertwined environmental issues, including opposition to the planned Woodfibre LNG project owned by Indonesian billionaire Sukanto Tanoto. 

The Woodfibre liquefied natural gas export facility would see LNG offloaded from floating storage tanks near Squamish to carriers an average length of three football fields that would traverse the island-studded waterways of Howe Sound. 

The mouth of Howe Sound viewed from West Vancouver. Photo: Aditya Chinchure

The location of the Woodfibre LNG project in Howe Sound. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

According to the Pembina Institute, carbon emissions from the Woodfibre LNG project would add the equivalent of 170,000 new cars to B.C. roads each year, while the project would use the same amount of freshwater annually as 5,500 households.

The Greens are the only elected party opposed to LNG projects, which will significantly increase carbon emissions at a time when the world faces a climate emergency. 

“The overall consciousness around the climate crisis, and the action we urgently need to take on it, was probably at the forefront of most people’s minds,” Valeriote says.

“It shows up in Woodfibre LNG and discomfort with government subsidies [for LNG and other fossil fuels] and the alternative things we could do with that public money. It shows up in the climate emissions aspect of Woodfibre LNG.”

“And Howe Sound is really the marine jewel of the southern B.C. coast. It’s close to Vancouver, and people get to experience it. It was over industrialized for a time and it’s slowly recovering but it still has critical species and critical habitats.”

A related issue for voters, Valeriote says, is how climate change will affect the region’s robust winter tourism industry. 

“That’s a key one for Whistler and the whole corridor, the future of our winters,” he says. 

“The overall picture is a very strong consciousness that our impact on the environment needs to change, and I think that’s expressed in all these different issues.” 

Green vote steadily increased with each election

Tracey Saxby, executive director of the Howe Sound group My Sea to Sky, believes local opposition to the Woodfibre LNG project and deepening concerns about climate change made Valeriote the only choice for many voters. 

The Green vote in the riding has increased steadily, Saxby notes. It rose from 11 per cent in 2013 to 29 per cent in 2017 to 40 per cent in the Oct. 24 election.

“If this project goes ahead, it’s going to create more than double the emissions of the entire community of Squamish — and that’s just the locally produced greenhouse gas emissions,” Saxby, a marine scientist, says in an interview. 

“That doesn’t even account for upstream emissions from fracking or the downstream emissions from shipping and regasification and when the product is finally used by the end user.”

In May, the district of Squamish said it would only support an extension of B.C.’s environmental certificate for Woodfibre LNG, which was due to expire on Oct. 26, if the project’s operation within the district of Squamish met emissions targets set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

That would compel Woodfibre LNG to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 45 per cent by 2030 and be at net zero by 2050. 

The Woodfibre LNG project would see 70 to 100 LNG carriers travel through Howe Sound each year. Photo: Shutterstock

Similar resolutions were passed by the district of West Vancouver, the town of Gibsons and the Squamish Lillooet regional district, while the municipality of Bowen Island went a step further, expressing its continuing opposition to the project.

But on Oct. 25 — the day after the election — the B.C. environmental assessment office granted Woodfibre LNG a 5-year extension on its environmental assessment certificate, with no conditions. Reasons for the decision are expected to be released during the first week of November, according to an email from the B.C. environment ministry. 

Saxby calls the decision “irresponsible and reckless.”

“LNG is not clean or green; it’s been green-washed,” she says. “The science is very clear that we cannot develop new fossil fuel infrastructure in a climate emergency that will lock in emissions for another forty years.”

Granting the certificate extension with no conditions is just one example of how the B.C government has “dismissed and ignored local governments and the public time and time again, and continue to rubber stamp this project,” Saxby says, noting more than 20,000 people around Howe Sound have signed a declaration in opposition to Woodfibre LNG. 

“We have made Woodfibre LNG an election issue since 2014, and we’ve seen the shift happen,” Saxby says. “The BC Greens are the only party that is opposed to LNG and that recognizes the impacts of LNG.”

Local issues like Woodfibre LNG can ‘tip the balance’

UBC professor Kai Chan says it’s one thing for people to think about climate change in the abstract and quite another when they face a climate change issue in their own community.  

“Risk perception for sure is felt most keenly close to home,” says Chan, who teaches in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. “Those kinds of local issues are motivating in a way that can tip the balance, whereas global concerns sometimes don’t.”

The BC Greens came second in 14 ridings in the Oct. 24 provincial election, compared to four ridings in the 2017 election, Chan points out. 

And that’s despite the snap election, which Chan says was “super tough” for the Greens’ small party and likely why their share of the popular vote dipped slightly, from almost 17 per cent in 2017 to just over 15 per cent.

Kai Chan, professor in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, said local issues can tip the balance when it comes to votes. Photo: UBC

“They didn’t have candidates lined up in most of the ridings until the election was called. That kind of scrambling is a huge challenge. If you’ve never heard of the candidate before the last few weeks, the chances of lots of people voting for that person are pretty slim, whereas last time around there was much more time to organize.” 

SFU political science professor Cara Camcastle has been studying the Green Party for years and is the author of a forthcoming book about the Greens.

She says the Green breakthrough in West Vancouver-Sea to Sky is not a surprise given that the party’s share of the popular vote in the riding has jumped with each election.

The BC Liberals garnered 36 per cent of the popular vote on Oct. 24, compared with the Green’s 40 per cent and 24 per cent for the NDP.

Camcastle points to the NDP and Liberal’s “lack of responsiveness” to key issues for voters in the riding, including Woodfibre LNG, as a significant factor in the Green’s healthy showing. 

There’s a strong correlation between B.C. voters who do not want LNG projects and people who vote Green, says Camcastle, who studies party ideologies and policies, including those related to the environment.

“The opposition to the buying of the [Trans Mountain] pipeline [by the federal government] is another issue. The same people who oppose these projects — also the Site C dam — want to see the government doing more to incentivize greener projects.”  

The NDP were also criticized during the election campaign for not doing enough to support small businesses in the tourism sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, Camcastle points out. 

“There are many B&Bs and other small businesses that depend on a pristine environment in Howe Sound and which are affected by COVID and are having difficulties, and who want the government to move quickly to assist them.”

Then there’s what Camcastle calls “the strength of the Green environmental consciousness in the riding.”

“Jeremy Valeriote indicated he is deeply concerned about the environment and he has young children, so he’s thinking about the long-term.”

Strategic voting has tended to work against the Greens for many years, Camcastle says. 

“This time it looks like finally something happened. People might have wanted to vote Green before and held back because they think the Greens don’t stand a chance of winning in their riding. But things are changing and that’s good for the Greens. It could be because they started to win seats.” 

Valeriote said other issues of concern to West Vancouver-Sea to Sky voters also come with a climate change lens, including highway congestion, a lack of mass transit options and old-growth logging. 

The Greens said they would immediately move to fully implement the recommendations of the old-growth strategic review panel, which called for a paradigm shift in the way B.C. manages old-growth forests. 

The party also said it would immediately end logging of old-growth forests in high risk ecosystems across the province and enact legislation to conserve ecosystem health and biodiversity as an overarching priority. 

“The general opinion I heard is that we should protect what little remaining old-growth we have, for the most part,” Valeriote says. “There’s lots of people that care deeply about preserving the forests we still have.” 

Assuming he becomes the MLA-elect, Valeriote says a priority, in addition to representing his constituents, will be working with his Green colleagues to make sure initiatives started under the CleanBC plan continue and pushing for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. 

“I’m just looking forward to being involved in public service again and working for the public good.”

Update October 29, 2020 at 12:19 p.m. PST: This article was updated to remove reference to the Sunshine Coast, which is not a part of the West Vancouver-Sea to Sky riding as previously stated. The Sunshine Coast is a part of the federal, but not provincial, Sea to Sky riding. Updated November 12, 2020 at 10:08 a.m. PST: This article was updated to correct a reference to the length of LNG carriers. They are an average of three American football fields in length and not six as previously reported. This piece was also updated to note the riding has not been won by the B.C. Greens and will undergo a recount. 

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 results are (partially) in and British Columbians have spoken: we’re headed for the first NDP majority government in nearly two decades.

While the record-high number of roughly 480,000 mail-in ballots means we likely won’t have the final tally for a few weeks, John Horgan’s NDP is on track to pick up 55 seats, with Andrew Wilkinson’s BC Liberals on pace for 29 seats and Sonia Furstenau’s Greens expected to win three seats.

The resounding victory will mean Horgan no longer has to count on the support of the Greens to govern. The 2017 vote, you might recall, saw the BC Liberals edge out the NDP 44 seats to 43 seats, leaving the balance of power in the hands of Andrew Weaver’s Greens. His party, which won three seats, negotiated a confidence and supply agreement with the NDP, which included several major commitments on environmental policy. 

The decision by Horgan to call an election a year ahead of schedule — and amid the COVID-19 pandemic — was criticized by his opponents as opportunistic. But the NDP Leader defended the move, saying a clear mandate from voters was needed to tackle the health crisis. 

Regardless of the motivations, the calculation clearly paid off in spades. The last time the BC NDP pulled off a majority? You’d have to go back to the 1996 election, when the NDP — under the leadership of Glen Clark — staved off future premier Gordon Campbell’s BC Liberals despite losing the popular vote. That was followed by a 16-year BC Liberal reign from 2001 to 2017.

So what do these 2020 B.C. election results mean for environment and climate issues in the province? Read on.

The B.C. Greens will have a lot less influence

Green Leader Sonia Furstenau. Photo: BC Green Party / Handout

Despite drawing about 16 per cent of the preliminary vote, the Green Party is set to win no more than three seats in this B.C. election. While that’s the same number of seats the party won in the 2017 election, the NDP no longer needs the support of the Greens to govern — resulting in a dramatic loss of influence for Furstenau’s party.

Still, the steady Green support sends a signal about the desire for action on environmental issues among British Columbians.

The fate of the Site C dam remains uncertain

When Horgan formed government in 2017, he sent Site C for an expedited review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, but ultimately decided to push ahead with the controversial BC Hydro project, saying Christy Clark’s BC Liberals had pushed the dam past the point of no return.

The NDP government proceeded to create a Site C assurance board while adding $2 billion to the project’s budget, for an estimated total cost of $10.7 billion.

But the assurance board’s work was largely kept under wraps until an investigation published by The Narwhal on Oct. 21 revealed the board was told in May 2019 that Site C faced “significant risk due to the weak foundation” of the dam.

Site C construction is seen along the Peace River in B.C. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Two top civil servants are among those who sit on the assurance board, raising questions about why the public wasn’t informed of Site C’s serious geotechnical problems until July of this year.

The government has tapped former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special advisor to provide an independent report on the project’s geotechnical issues and cost overruns. Milburn’s findings are expected to come in November or December, but it’s not clear if the report will be made public.

During the election campaign, Horgan defended his 2017 decision to proceed with Site C, but left open room to change course depending on what Milburn’s report reveals.

“If the science tells us and the economics tells us that it’s the wrong way to proceed, we will take appropriate action,” Horgan said during an Oct. 16 leaders’ radio debate.

Some experts are estimating that the Site C budget could exceed $12 billion, and a new report from a U.S. energy economist found that B.C. taxpayers could save $116 million a year if the project is cancelled.

Full steam ahead on the CleanBC climate plan

If re-elected, the NDP has committed to enacting legislation requiring B.C. to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, meaning that any greenhouse gas emissions would have to be offset by carbon sinks, carbon capture and storage or other technology.

It’s a lofty goal given that, so far, B.C. has only released a plan to get the province to 79 per cent of its emissions targets for 2030. 

To help B.C. reach its climate goal, the NDP say they would invest in B.C. entrepreneurs working on carbon capture technology, use incentives to spur energy efficiency building retrofits, make additional investments in the CleanBC industrial emissions strategy to help mines, pulp mills, oil and gas processing plants and other industrial operations reduce their emissions, and work to reduce methane emissions. 

The NDP has also re-committed to reviewing oil and gas subsidies — handouts the Greens want to see scrapped.

George Heyman, who served as the NDP’s minister of environment and climate change strategy since 2017, said in an Oct. 15 debate that his party has “committed to put an environmental lens on all the oil and gas royalty credits and take a good, hard, comprehensive look at them.”

LNG Canada and B.C.’s liquefied natural gas ambitions

B.C. Premier John Horgan tours the site of the LNG Canada project in Kitimat, B.C., in January 2020. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

B.C. has continually promoted having the “cleanest LNG in the world.” But experts have questioned whether the industry is compatible with the province’s climate plans, including a recent report which found B.C. could exceed its 2050 target by 227 per cent if it proceeds with all proposed LNG projects.

There are seven proposed LNG facilities in B.C., but so far — amid a global surplus in natural gas — LNG Canada is the only one that has seen construction move forward. 

Horgan has promised to monitor LNG Canada to ensure it falls within B.C.’s climate targets, but when it comes online in 2024, the project will be one of the country’s single largest sources of carbon pollution.

B.C. forests, logging and endangered species

The province still has no standalone endangered species legislation despite an NDP vow in the 2017 election campaign to enact a law to protect more than 2,000 species at risk of extinction.

The 2020 NDP platform only included a vague promise to develop “new strategies” that would better protect wildlife.

Meanwhile, questions linger over how far the new government will go to add further protections for old growth forests. In September, the NDP responded to a report on the dire state of B.C.’s old-growth forests by announcing it was deferring logging in nine areas. In reality, though, those areas contained very little old growth and will only be saved from logging for two years. 

The government also plans to auction off logging permits in the Kootenays, a move that threatens to destroy habitat for an endangered caribou herd said to have the best chance of survival in the region. 

And in B.C.’s Spuzzum Valley, a pair of breeding spotted owls — a species that had been presumed extinct in Canada — were recently discovered in an area slated for imminent logging.

B.C. salmon and coastal habitat

The NDP have promised to increase processing of wild fish caught in B.C., to work to double funding for the BC Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund (a joint effort with the federal government) and to develop new plans to protect wild salmon.

During the election, Horgan said that if the salmon farming industry doesn’t have support from local communities by 2022, he would look to phase out farms in the Broughton Archipelago, an important migratory route for wild salmon. 

The NDP has also promised to develop a new strategy to protect coastal habitat, specifically committing to look at freighter traffic management around southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. 

Reforming mining regulations in B.C.

Water contaminated with acid mine drainage flows into a containment pond near the Tulsequah River. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

The NDP has said it would create a mining innovation hub to work toward stronger regulations and low-carbon approaches to mining, and has also promised to hold mining companies financially responsible for environmental clean-up if a project is abandoned.

The First Nations Energy and Mining Council said recent reforms to B.C.’s mining laws fall short in several areas, including updates to safety requirements around tailings facilities.    

Mining companies are theoretically required to pay the province money up front to cover the costs of reclamation and closure in case they go bankrupt. But according to a 2018 report from B.C.’s chief inspector of mines, the province is running a deficit of about $1.2 billion to cover reclamation costs. More than 30 mining advocacy and law organizations have lobbied the government for years to change its laws and hold mining companies financially accountable. 

Electric vehicles and entrepreneurship

The NDP has promised new incentives for both new and used zero-emission vehicles to make them more accessible to people with lower incomes and increase the number of vehicle charging stations with incentives and legislation. They’re also pledging to cut the provincial sales tax on e-bikes.

Horgan’s party also wants to make B.C. a global producer of low-carbon products and services. To get there, they’ve committed to investing in high-speed internet across the province, supporting innovative clusters that bring companies, researchers and entrepreneurs together and working with the federal government and BC Hydro to expand electrification infrastructure.

— With files from Ainslie Cruickshank, Matt Simmons and Emma Gilchrist

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.

About half of Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island voters said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who would support changing mining laws and regulations to improve environmental protection and mandate consent from First Nations, according to a new poll.

The survey was done by Insights West on behalf of the BC Mining Law Reform Network and Northern Confluence. 

“There’s been a reluctance from B.C. to move forward on mining reforms, and I think it’s important for candidates to know that there’s strong support for a mandate to do so,” Nikki Skuce, director at Northern Confluence and co-founder of the BC Mining Law Reform Network, said in an interview.

Skuce said mining will continue to contribute to the B.C. economy for decades and the transition to a low-carbon future is dependent on the industry, as demand increases for minerals used to produce technologies like electric vehicles, battery storage and solar and wind energy. 

But the Mining Law Reform Network — a coalition of citizen and community groups, First Nations, academics and social justice and environmental organizations — says changes are needed to make the industry more sustainable.

The survey questioned British Columbians on a few key points related to the mining legislation, protected areas and land use plans.   

The Mineral Tenure Act, created in the 1800s, allows any individual or company to stake a claim anywhere not already claimed or set aside for parks or reserves without getting permission from landowners or First Nations. The process is online and inexpensive — a mineral claim the size of an average city block costs less than $5.

“That needs to be updated and that is what gets in the way of increasing protected areas,” Skuce said.

The site of the KSM mine site with a view of Brucejack Lake and the Brucejack mine site in the background. These mines are located in a watershed that extends down across the border with Alaska. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Over 80 per cent of survey respondents said mining companies should be required to obtain consent from landowners, municipalities and Indigenous communities before conducting any mineral exploration. 

The survey also found that 80 per cent of British Columbians are in favour of the government working with Indigenous communities to create more protected areas to meet the federal government’s target of protecting 30 per cent of the land and water by 2030 “even if that means reducing areas available for mining and forestry.” 

But Skuce explained that existing claims on the landscape have to be bought out by the government and companies can demand prices based on the projected value of a future project. Skuce called some of the requests “outrageous” for their inflated price. If the government wants the land, it has to pay what the claim holder is asking or negotiate a better deal. 

In Quebec, mining laws were changed in 2013 to set limits on what claim holders can charge. “In most cases, [the Quebec government] will only pay for the costs that somebody has incurred to pay for the lease and any work that they did that they have receipts for,” she said. 

B.C.’s regulations on mines’ potential impacts on water and fish habitat are also in need of an overhaul, Skuce said. Mines can be approved even if they’re located near important watersheds. For example, the approved KSM mine, if built, would have a tailings pond held behind a 239-metre dam above the Nass River watershed. 

“There is no silver bullet for mine waste and water, but there are better practices,” Skuce said. “There should be no-go zones where we shouldn’t put communities or watersheds at risk.” 

Voters agreed. According to the survey, 81 per cent of British Columbians think land use plans should be updated to ensure the protection of watersheds. 

A recent report by UN special rapporteur Baskut Tuncak said Canada has the second highest number of tailings dams in the world and the fifth highest number of high-risk upstream dams like the tailings dam at Mount Polley that breached in 2014, spilling 25 million cubic metres of contaminated materials into a salmon watershed and a source of drinking water for local communities.   

Yet when a disaster like that occurs or an abandoned mine slowly leaks toxic materials into the environment over many years, it’s often taxpayers who end up footing the bill for the clean-up. According to the poll, 90 per cent of British Columbians agree that mining companies should be held financially responsible for the cost of cleaning up any environmental damage caused by their operations.

As voters head to the ballot boxes this weekend, political parties’ platforms on mining reform may play a critical role in how they vote. BC Mining Law Reform Network asked the three main parties how they plan to deal with the key mining issues in the province. Here’s what they had to say.

Water contaminated with acid mine drainage flows into a containment pond near the Tulsequah River. Contamination from the mine has been leaching into the river for more than 60 years. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

Consent first

In 2019, B.C. became the first province to officially adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into legislation, but the Mineral Tenure Act still allows companies to conduct mineral exploration activities without obtaining First Nations consent.

NDP: promised to review the legislation as part of its commitment to Indigenous Rights. 

Liberals: said they would also work to define how the legislation on Indigenous Rights relates to land use decisions but would cut permit processing time in half.

Greens: promised to modernize the Mineral Tenure Act and the Mines Act.

Safety of communities and watersheds

Mining watchdogs and conservation groups say certain areas such as important salmon watersheds should be off-limits to mining operations. They say land use planning could set aside areas where mines have the highest risk to impact watersheds. 

NDP: referenced recent amendments to the provincial environmental assessment legislation that ensure major industrial projects assess “environmental, economic, social, cultural and health effects” and said they would create a watershed security strategy to protect local watersheds.

Liberals: said they would review land use plans and create protection for wetlands, salmon and steelhead. 

Greens: promised to allocate $50 million to create a watershed security fund and work on land use plans by implementing the Water Sustainability Act.

Polluter pays

Mining companies are required to pay the province the estimated cost of reclamation in case the company goes bankrupt. But B.C. has not collected enough money from companies past and present. According to the B.C. Chief Inspector of Mines, the province is about $1.2 billion short. 

The Tulsequah Chief mine in the far northwest has been leaking contaminated water into a salmon watershed for more than 60 years. The clean-up could cost as much as $100 million and taxpayers might have to foot the bill.

NDP: promised to make sure mining companies pay the full cost of environmental clean-up if their projects are abandoned.

Liberals: said the Mines Act already addresses the costs of reclamation.

Greens: said the lack of sufficient bonding is “an unacceptable situation and needs to change” and they would support changes to regulations to ensure the polluter pays.

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.

Since the last B.C. election in 2017, the youth environmental movement has taken off. Tens of thousands of young people across the province have participated in Fridays For Future, a global climate strike movement started by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg. Fifteen children and youth, including four from B.C., have filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government, claiming its lack of action on climate change is harming their health and well-being. And dozens more have formed organizations like Sustainabiliteens to fight for environmental justice.

Meanwhile, industrial projects in the province, from LNG development to Site C, have pushed forward. 

Now, for those 18 and older, it’s voting time — and how the parties plan to tackle climate change is top of mind. 

According to an Angus Reid survey, the top four election issues among B.C. voters are the COVID-19 response, health care, housing affordability and climate change. But among younger voters ages 18 to 24, climate change takes on a heightened priority, according to the survey.

The survey also found that 72 per cent of people who ranked climate change as a top issue thought the BC Green Party would do the best job of addressing it. This is part of the reason why Kate O’Connor decided to run as the Green candidate for the Saanich South riding.  

O’Connor — who just turned 18 this month and is likely the youngest person to ever seek office in B.C.’s history — was also inspired to run because she believes young people are traditionally disengaged from politics because they don’t see any representatives who are their age or who they can easily relate to.

“When we’re facing a climate crisis, young people know that we will be the ones who have to live through this crisis and face the consequences of the actions that are taken today,” O’Connor said in an interview.

The Narwhal spoke with four young climate leaders about the election issues that matter most to them. 

Saanich Coun. Ned Taylor says older generations haven’t done enough to address climate change. Photo: Saanich campaign team

Ned Taylor, 21, Saanich councillor and CRD director  

We need more aggressive action on climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some key environmental issues in B.C. are the continued logging of old-growth forests, which I do not support, the continued expansion of LNG and other projects in the oil and gas industry.

Overall, I think that young people around the world are really getting fed up with political parties and politicians talking about climate change but continuing to support these different [projects]. I think if more young people vote and get involved in politics, we will hopefully see more action on [climate change], but we are not there yet.

“We need to stand up for our future now because we don’t have time to wait.”

It’s important for young people to get involved because it is our future on the line. Evidence has been in front of us for some time now that climate change is real and it’s getting worse. The generations that are older than us haven’t done enough to address it and are still not doing enough. We need to stand up for our future now because we don’t have time to wait.

We’re very privileged to be able to have the right to vote in this country. It’s something that many people around the world still do not have. We have to get out and vote because every vote does count. We can’t take it for granted. There are a lot of important issues affecting all of us. It’s important that we have our say and that we make sure that our next leader in this province, and then in this country, is the leader who is elected by the people.

It seems like more young people are getting involved in having an impact on our election, and that’s a good thing. Young people are getting sick and tired of waiting for older generations to address the issues that will affect our future and that are affecting us right now. It’s inspiring to see so many more young people get involved in politics. That’s exactly what we need. I hope that young people get out and vote in this election because it is our future.

Farmer and climate activist Sierra Robinson is concerned that old-growth logging, fracking and fossil fuel projects are contributing to climate change. Photo: Jeremy Koreski

Sierra Robinson, 18, plaintiff in the La Rose youth climate lawsuit

B.C. has an abundance of environmental issues and things to tackle. A lot of these are caused by people. I’m affected every day by climate change in B.C., and my friends across Canada are affected by climate change every day.

[In B.C.] we have [the] Site C dam, we have old-growth logging, fracking and fossil fuel projects, fish farming, offshore oil and gas exploration. There’s so much contributing to the bigger issue of climate change. 

Our premier and other people who’ve been in office throughout the years say, ‘Oh, we want to start becoming more carbon neutral by 2050.’ It’s a little bit scary because it’s 2020 right now [and] already we’re feeling the effects of climate change every single day, and it’s affecting me and my life in countless ways.

“It’s important that we invest in clean energy and a clean future.”

We were seeing wildfire smoke coming in from the States. We’re seeing droughts, storms and flooding, [which makes] it really hard for food security on Vancouver Island, where I live. 

[It’s] hard to have a consistent water supply to feed crops or animals when droughts are so bad and unpredictable.

Two or three years ago, we had to decide whether we wanted to give water to our cows or if we wanted to give water to our crops. Of course, we chose the animals. But the fact that we had to make a decision like that is sad because you lose crops. Lots of farmers will talk about how the weather is unstable. This has nothing to do with the weather and everything to do with these unpredictable events and climate change patterns.

It’s scary to see people in these positions of power not utilizing those spaces to actually support people and communities that are being impacted by these issues. 

I really think that it’s important that we invest in clean energy and a clean future, which is totally possible and could create more jobs for people in an industry that is better for us.

Smiely Khurana believes there should be more people of colour in positions of power. Photo: Wonderful Ida

Smiely Khurana, 22, host and producer of The Sustainable Act podcast

For me, fighting COVID-19 is a priority, but also housing affordability and climate change. We need to change things going forward, and it needs to come from the upper level. 

People that are in these political parties are often older and white. We need to consider that. So, having more diverse voices — putting Indigenous people, Black people and people of colour on the forefront of these issues — [will bring] solutions forward.

Something that we’ve all been experiencing, especially in the summer, is forest fires. That’s especially when I experienced climate anxiety. You are actually seeing it, you’re feeling it, you’re witnessing what’s happening to the Earth.

“Putting Indigenous people, Black people and people of colour on the forefront of these issues — [will bring] solutions forward.”

Another environmental issue that I noticed we need to change is plastic pollution. I think it’s important to make composting and recycling mandatory for all businesses and residents. 

If we’re proposing the banning of single-use plastics, what is our alternative? Is it greener? Is it more sustainable? And how do we work toward the future that is reducing our consumption [and] reducing production?

Esmé Decker says British Columbians should be listening to Indigenous leaders on how to care for the land. Photo: Conrad Decker

Esmé Decker, 18, youth climate ambassador at the UBC Climate Hub and member of Sustainabiliteens

Cracking down on fossil fuel subsidies and climate issues, in general, is really important to me and looking at all issues through a climate lens. For my riding [Vancouver-Kingsway], I think that the main issues are education, designing more educational curriculums that have climate lenses and racial justice lenses ingrained in them.

I’m pretty concerned about what the education system is doing right now in terms of keeping students safe. With COVID, school boards are doing different plans. It’s all kind of haphazardly put together.  

“[We should be] listening to Indigenous leaders about how to take care of the land.” 

[I would like to see the new government] making transit free for people 13 to 18 to encourage more car-less transportation. Decriminalizing drugs and trying to fix the opioid crisis, because that is a really big issue. Specifically with climate justice, dealing with the Site C dam issues. 

We still have wildfires in B.C. [We should be] listening to Indigenous leaders about how to take care of the land. They’ve had that knowledge passed down for generations. Listening to their guidance and also [using] lots of science-based solutions is a great approach. In general, I think [we should be] striving towards working on more renewable energy projects and [ideas] for the green economy.

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.

Two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation,” according to documents obtained by The Narwhal.

Energy ministry assistant deputy minister Les MacLaren and deputy finance minister Lori Wanamaker also knew the following month that the over-budget project had almost exhausted its $858 million contingency fund, a likely sign of another cost overrun, according to the documents, which were released under B.C.’s freedom of information act.

Yet British Columbians — the owners of the publicly funded dam on the Peace River — didn’t learn about the project’s escalating troubles for more than a year, until Energy Minister Bruce Ralston held a brief press conference on July 31, the same day BC Hydro released overdue Site C dam reports. 

The belated BC Hydro reports said the Site C dam faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is now classified as “red” — meaning it is in serious trouble. 

In late January, The Narwhal submitted a freedom of information request to BC Hydro, asking for all Site C project assurance board agendas, minutes, reports and recommendations.

Premier John Horgan created the project assurance board in December 2017 after his government approved the dam and added another $2 billion to the project budget. But the NDP government subsequently refused to release any of the board’s findings or a list of its members. 

Following an appeal to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner after BC Hydro missed a legal deadline for responding, we received 2,247 pages of documents almost seven months after filing the request.

(The Narwhal is releasing the FOI response in its entirety to the public and it can be accessed at the following links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.)

The documents reveal new information about the dam’s geotechnical struggles and raise troubling questions about who in government knew about the project’s climbing costs and deepening geotechnical woes, when they knew it and why the information was not made public.

Key sections of the documents, including information pertaining to rising cost pressures and the severity of key project risks from January 2018 to January 2020, are redacted. 

Even so, the documents paint a picture of a project rife with growing geotechnical issues and risks as well as safety and quality concerns — and facing a rising risk of cost overruns and schedule delays — long before the COVID-19 pandemic shut down much of the province and temporarily scaled back the Site C dam workforce in mid-March. 

On Sept. 1, 2019, for instance, nearly one year before the public learned of significant problems and a soaring price tag for the Site C dam, BC Hydro submitted a weekly status report to the assurance board listing the overall health and cost of the dam’s main civil works as “red,” meaning the civil works — the dam structure, generating station and spillways — were in deep trouble.

 ‘A matter of grave public concern’ 

Harry Swain, who chaired the joint review panel that examined the Site C project for the federal and provincial governments, said it is “anomalous” that project assurance board reports have been kept secret by the B.C. government until now and key information is still being withheld. 

“This project is proceeding in doggone secrecy that just is not at all common in large public projects of any kind,” Swain, a former federal deputy minister, told The Narwhal. 

“This is a matter of grave public concern and we, as taxpayers or ratepayers, are going to wind up paying a heck of a lot of money for it,” said Swain, who was also Canada’s director general for electricity and the country’s first senior advisor for renewable energy.

“It looks like we’re going to lose $10.7 billion on this project. That would take care of the homelessness problem, unequitable incomes, First Nations health and several other things, all at once.” 

In July, when BC Hydro released the overdue reports, the public utility said it didn’t know when the Site C dam — slated for completion in 2024 — will be finished or how much it will cost beyond its current $10.7 billion budget. 

BC Hydro also said it hasn’t figured out how to resolve grave geotechnical issues, which require shoring up the unstable foundation of the earthen dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

Site C project assurance board documents reveal an important meeting took place at the end of May 2019, when the Site C dam technical advisory board — a panel of engineering and construction experts — convened in Fort St. John and Vancouver over a three-day period. 

A list of the meeting attendees is redacted, but the documents show a de-briefing was conducted with BC Hydro executives and project assurance board members on May 31, 2019. 

Premier John Horgan created the Site C project assurance board in December 2017. But the NDP government subsequently refused to release any of the board’s findings or a list of its members. In late January, The Narwhal submitted a freedom of information request to BC Hydro, asking for all Site C project assurance board agendas, minutes, reports and recommendations and received 2,247 pages of documents about seven months later. Photo: Jayce Hawkins / The Narwhal

Stability of the dam ‘a significant risk’ 

The main objective of the three-day meeting was to assess progress and performance on the Site C project, as well as to assess design-related risks. The primary area of focus was the main civil works — the dam structure, powerhouse and spillways — according to the documents. 

The technical advisory board found the stability of the dam is “a significant risk and the hazards associated with the weak foundation have been adequately recognized.” 

“We’re talking about a possible lack of stability under the dam itself,” U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough said in an interview.

“Literally, if we look at some of the academic articles that have been written about this, we could be talking about a dam that’s going to crack or slide in the case of an earthquake,” said McCullough, a former officer for a large hydroelectric facility in Portland, Oregon, who has studied the Site C project extensively. “Since there are earthquakes in this part of the world, this is a very important issue.” 

The Site C project is located in a geographical area filled with faults that can become critically stressed during fracking operations, which are poised to expand significantly in the region to supply gas for the LNG Canada export project. In 2017 and 2018, more than 10,000 earthquakes occurred in the wider area, including one that shook the Site C dam construction site in November 2018, forcing workers to evacuate. 

The advisory board also said the Site C dam’s design — changed to an unconventional L-shape, much to the concern of retired BC Hydro engineer Vern Ruskin — needed to be checked. 

It outlined seven steps for BC Hydro to follow, including calculating “the factor of safety” at the end of construction and again at the end of reservoir filling, and requested an update at its next meeting. 

“They’ve gotten pretty het up over this,” McCullough said. “This is a tone that says ‘you’ve got to do a ton of work right now, and we want to hear back that you’re doing it.’ Some of these things are pretty major.”

B.C. ministers likely aware of escalating problems

According to the documents, the Site C project assurance board has an “oversight function to help ensure that the project is completed on time and on budget, and that risks are appropriately identified, managed and reported on an ongoing basis.” 

Swain said the assurance board, despite its moniker, is not an oversight board. He described it as “pretty much an emanation of BC Hydro, with a few additions.”  

“That is a management board,” he said. “If you’re going to have some kind of oversight or project assurance you want some really independent people. You want to have a few experts — particularly geotechnical ones — who have a lot of experience around the world and have no interest in further employment by BC Hydro. They’re really independent in that sense.”

MacLaren, the long-time assistant deputy energy minister who prepares Site C documents for cabinet and reviews BC Hydro’s quarterly Site C progress reports to the B.C. Utilities Commission, is one of two government representatives on the board. 

The other representative is Wanamaker, who in 2017 challenged the commission’s final findings about the Site C project in a six-page letter to the commission that seemed to suggest the new NDP government was searching for a rationale to continue the project.  

The independent commission found the Site C dam’s final price tag could exceed $12 billion and the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind, for $8.8 billion or less. It also found that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of over-forecasting energy demand. 

According to documents on BC Hydro’s website, the project assurance board is at the centre of Site C dam communications among BC Hydro’s board of directors, the energy ministry, and treasury board and/or the finance ministry. 

Swain said it would be “strange” if MacLaren and Wanamaker had failed to inform their ministers — then Energy Minister Michelle Mungall and Finance Minister Carole James — about mounting problems with the Site C project during 2019.

“It strikes me as highly unlikely that the most senior officials in those departments and the ministers would be unaware of the developing difficulties,” Swain said. 

Harry Swain chaired the panel that reviewed the Site C dam on behalf of the provincial and federal governments. He says it’s “highly unlikely” that government the ministers would have been unaware of the escalating construction difficulties at the Site C dam. Photo: Jayce Hawkins / The Narwhal

An ‘egregious’ problem with oversight for Site C and Muskrat Falls dams

For David Vardy, the retired chair of Newfoundland’s public utilities board, the Site C project’s lack of transparency and escalating costs create a sense of déjà-vu.

The failure to disclose the Muskrat Falls dam’s rising costs to ratepayers was a front-and-centre issue in Newfoundland, where the over budget dam on Labrador’s Churchill River will require a bail-out from federal taxpayers to avoid a minimum 50 per cent increase in provincial hydro rates.  

An inquiry into the $12.7 billion Muskrat Falls project examined why the provincial government didn’t cancel the uneconomic project when there was still time. 

The inquiry’s scathing report, released in March, found executives at the Crown corporation responsible for building the dam “frequently took unprincipled steps” to secure approval of the project, while governments were “determined to proceed” through a lens of political bias.

Since the inquiry, the cost of the Muskrat Falls dam has climbed again, to $13.1 billion, and Vardy predicts another $1 billion will be added to the tab before the dam becomes operational at least three years behind schedule.  

“I think there’s an egregious problem with oversight on the two projects,” Vardy said in an interview. “If anything, it almost appears in some respects that Site C oversight is not as good as what we’ve had here.”

Vardy said it would have made “all the difference in the world” if ratepayers in both provinces had been apprised of rising costs earlier. “They [Crown corporations] are in the same camp of misrepresenting their costs to the public and misrepresenting to the public what’s going to happen at the end of the day. It’s bad public policy because you don’t have transparency.” 

The Site C project assurance board documents beg the question of who has been looking out for the public interest in B.C. since the board began meeting in January 2018, using weekly information from BC Hydro to review expenditures and progress on the dam. 

The Muskrat Falls Dam pictured here under construction in April 2018 was the subject of a public inquiry due to the project’s high costs. “If anything, it almost appears in some respects that Site C oversight is not as good as what we’ve had here,” said David Vardy, the former chair of Newfoundland’s public utilities board. Photo: Nalcor Energy

Project assurance board voted to increase SNC Lavalin’s contract 

The assurance board is chaired by John Nunn, the former chief project engineer for the Site C dam and a BC Hydro director since January 2020.

Nunn worked for the Vancouver-based engineering and consulting firm Klohn Crippen Berger, a major donor to the BC Liberal Party.  

Along with embattled engineering giant SNC Lavalin, also a major donor to the BC Liberal Party, Klohn Crippen began to receive direct award Site C contracts after former Premier Gordon Campbell announced in 2010 that the project would proceed to review. (Donations to political parties by corporations and unions were banned in B.C. after the NDP took power in 2017.)

Direct award contracts — which are prohibited by the federal government if they are larger than $25,000, unless they are needed for special justifications such as a national emergency — allow BC Hydro to decide which companies get contracts instead of going through a more transparent and competitive tender process. 

The documents show the BC Hydro board of directors approved the retention of the two firms to design core components of the Site C dam in November 2014, the month before the former BC Liberal government announced the project would proceed. 

Klohn Crippen was given a direct-award Site C contract for $104 million to design essential components of the dam, including the main civil works, generating station and spillways, according to the documents. 

SNC Lavalin received a direct award contract for $131 million, also to design core components of the dam. 

The core components of the dam are now in question due to the lack of solid ground on which to anchor the dam structure, powerhouse and spillways — an issue flagged years ago by both SNC Lavalin and Klohn Crippen as a potential project risk. 

In February 2019, with geotechnical issues an ongoing concern, the project assurance board authorized an “increase” to the Site C engineering design service agreements with Klohn Crippen and SNC Lavalin, the documents disclose.

The amount of the increase is redacted from the documents, which show Nunn abstained from the vote due to his prior working relationship with Klohn Crippen. 

On July 31, well over a year after the assurance board approved additional funds for SNC Lavalin and Klohn Crippen, BC Hydro reported to the B.C. Utilities Commission that “the foundation enhancement costs are expected to be much higher than initially expected.” 

The third-generation Boon family farm sits within the 128 kilometres of river valley that is set to be flooded for the Site C dam. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Assurance board hired ‘independent’ engineer from company represented on board

Also on the Site C project assurance board is Joe Ehasz, the California-based program manager for AECOM Energy & Construction, a company that had received $225,000 in Site C dam contracts by May 2017. 

In August 2019, according to records obtained by The Narwhal through a separate freedom of information request, the company’s subsidiary AECOM Technical Services also received a $132,000 Site C dam contract to provide an “independent construction advisor” for the project.

Board members include three other BC Hydro directors, Concert Properties CEO David Podmore and Lorne Sivertson, an energy consultant and the author of a pro-Site C report for B.C. construction trade unions that was used to discredit the utility commission’s findings.

The documents show MacLaren and Wanamaker were privy to a January 2018 report from the project’s technical advisory board that described construction schedules as “aspirational” and identified geotechnical stability issues as a risk that could further impede progress building the dam.

In a report for the project assurance board one year later, covering the week ending Jan. 25, 2019, BC Hydro points to the most serious geotechnical issue plaguing the project today — the lack of solid ground on which to anchor the dam structure, powerhouse and spillways — as a topic of discussion in a conference call with the project’s technical advisory board.

Site C dam construction on the Peace River. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The design team presented information on the “small amount of movement on a bedding plane” and “the compression of the foundation from powerhouse buttress loading,” the report noted.

The site where the dam is being built contains “bedding planes” between layers of sedimentary shale that have poor shear strength, meaning they could suddenly shift under modest amounts of force. The site, in Swain’s words, is composed of “relatively youthful and unpetrified sediments, some of which appear in the form of weak shales, mudstones, siltstones and some of which appear in the form of clay.” 

“Those sedimentary muds and rocks and clays and whatnot are known to react quite alarmingly either in the presence of a lot of water or a lot of dryness,” Swain said. 

“They swell and shrink. They move around. It’s not the sort of geology that you’d really want to go out and put a multi-million tonne dam on, or even a roller compacted concrete powerhouse.” 

Swain said he was puzzled by BC Hydro’s re-design of the dam to an L-shape after the joint review panel assessed the project.

“I think we’re finally seeing some kind of response to the question of why the heck did they [decide to] build an L-shaped dam when nobody’s ever done that in the world before.” (BC Hydro has pointed to several examples of L-shaped dams around the world, but those dams are not earthfilled like the Site C dam.) 

“The suspicion is that the initial placement of the powerhouse was found to be over an especially weak spot,” Swain said. “By turning it 90 degrees, they thought they would avoid the problem. It appears that they may not have.”

Site C dam’s civil works in serious trouble almost one year before public disclosures  

On Sept. 12, 2019, nearly one year before the public learned of the project’s rising price tag, BC Hydro informed the assurance board that geotechnical risks were “likely,” potentially increasing costs and causing a schedule delay. BC Hydro also warned of the “likely” risk of additional engineering costs. 

The severity and probability of those costs were redacted from the documents, along with contingency cost pressure items. But by Sept. 1, 2019, according to the documents, the entire contingency fund had been spent, with five years of construction still ahead. 

BC Hydro also said there was a “likely” risk that Highway 29 budgets are “based on incomplete designs, with limited construction market data.” To accommodate the Site C dam’s reservoir, about 30 kilometres of the highway in six different sections, including four bridges, will have to be relocated.

Dam spillway costs would increase materially due to design changes and reservoir clearing costs would be higher than allocated for in the budget, the assurance board also learned. The severity, probability and cost of those risks were redacted from the documents.

Nine days later, a Sept. 21, 2019 report from Steve Summy, the AECOM “independent construction advisor” — a position created by the project assurance board — flagged safety, quality, schedule and cost issues on the project’s left bank. 

Key parts of Summy’s conclusions are redacted from the documents. However, Summy zeroed in on the “poor” quality of the finished surface in the river diversion tunnels, recommending a finishing crew begin work as soon as possible. He cautioned against “pressure to accept a substandard product to finish on time” and noted the application of shotcrete — sprayed concrete — in the tunnels was “inconsistent.” 

By Sept. 1, 2019, the Site C dam’s entire contingency fund had been spent, with five years of construction still ahead, according to documents obtained by The Narwhal. Photo: Jayce Hawkins

Six ‘significant’ technical risks identified 

The May 2019 report from the technical advisory board — shared with BC Hydro executives and the project assurance board members on May 31 of that year — identifies six “significant” technical risks. 

They include the “stability of the earthfill dam and tailrace wall,” described as a “significant risk due to the weak foundation” in a 15-page report that recommended seven steps to check the project’s design and calculate the factor of safety. 

A second risk is the right bank foundation, which forms the shorter arm of the radically re-designed L-shaped structure. Structures on the right, or south, bank of the Peace River include the power house, spillways and earthfill dam. 

The technical advisory board noted “the hazards associated with various ground defects affecting stability have been correctly identified” on the south bank “as have risk mitigation efforts based on seepage control and drainage.” 

But a greater effort was required, the board said. Those efforts should include making it a “high priority” to develop a hydrogeological model of the right bank to determine how the bank would respond to reservoir filling, the board said. 

The technical advisory board also flagged the earthfill dam foundation and grouting as a significant risk.  

The stability of slopes and foundation at the dam site could potentially be “decisively” affected by hydrogeological conditions and phenomena, the technical advisory board noted. 

“Simple flushing of a borehole has immediately raised the groundwater levels in an extensive section of the right abutment and has caused displacements on bedding planes. Rainfall has triggered similar effects.”

The Site C dam is being built in an area that contains “bedding planes” between layers of sedimentary shale that have poor shear strength, meaning they could suddenly shift under modest amounts of force. Photo: Jayce Hawkins

For the grout, “options for responses to approaching risks are more limited,” the board noted. “Especially in the right abutment, groundwater levels rising with the lake are capable of jacking open the existing stress relief features and, in this process, not only raising the hydraulic load on the curtain but also, in the worst case, damaging the curtain by hydrojacking.”

As a precaution, the board says grouting could be performed to obtain a “safe pre-stressing of the rock mass against the hazard of hydrojacking.” 

“Such measure has positive precedent but meets with difficulties imposed by the geological and geotechnical conditions prevailing at Site C…” the board noted.

A further risk is the thermal performance of roller compacted concrete and cracking. Cracks in the roller compacted concrete have “been recognized and studies are underway to evaluate their extent and significance,” the board noted.   

“If, ultimately, substantial grouting is necessary to repair such cracks, a complex and costly program could result,” the board said, adding it wished to be kept informed on progress “associated with managing this risk.”

Neither BC Hydro nor the B.C. government are responding to media questions during the provincial election campaign, unless inquiries pertain to health and safety or statutory requirements. 

Calls for independent safety review, cancellation

If completed, the Site C dam will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, putting Indigenous burial sites and traditional hunting and trapping grounds, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species at risk of extinction under up to 50 metres of water. 

Swain and others — including members of the Peace Valley Landowner Association and residents of the community of Old Fort, downstream from the Site C dam  — are calling for an independent safety review of the project. Swain said the safety review should follow investigations by independent geotechnical engineering experts. 

“I strongly believe that BC Hydro and the government should pause the construction, do that work and then take another decision,” Swain said. 

“That’s entirely aside from the economics of the case which have been abysmal for some time and are getting worse.” 

Forest in the Peace River valley in the Site C dam flood zone. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Two new expert reports, including one written by McCullough, conclude British Columbians will save money if the Site C dam is immediately cancelled by the new provincial government following the Oct. 24 election. 

McCullough’s report, commissioned by the Peace Valley Landowner Association, said the dam will conservatively cost an additional $2.1 billion and ratepayers will save an initial $116 million a year if the project is scrapped and the same amount of energy is procured from other sources. 

An “intelligence memo” from the C.D. Howe Institute, addressed to B.C.’s upcoming new government, says the case for the Site C dam is “getting weaker” and any meaningful cost increase makes cancellation the best choice.

The documents show the Site C project had spent $3.5 billion of its budget by March 31, 2019. The latest figures show $5 billion has been spent. But McCullough, Swain and Vardy all point out the only cost the government should consider is the one to come.

Ralston announced in July that the government has appointed Peter Milburn, a former deputy minister of finance and secretary to the Treasury Board, as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

But whether or not Milburn’s findings will be made public remains to be seen. 

McCullough said Milburn’s appointment underscores the problem of “who guards the guards.” 

“Normally, in a construction project, you want as clean a chain of command as possible,” he said. “In this case it would be the premier at the top, then the chairman of the board of BC Hydro and then the engineers at the bottom.” 

But in the case of the Site C dam, McCullough said there’s “a cloud of committees and cross-committees watching each other.” 

McCullough said the Site C dam’s geotechnical challenges call for “the simplest and most direct and most hands-on management, and what we have is a committee of committees.” 

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.

As Coastal GasLink workers prepared for test drilling under the Wedzin Kwa river in northwest B.C. while salmon were spawning last week, Wet’suwet’en land defenders gathered in the area to show their opposition to the controversial pipeline that is planned to transport fracked gas across the province to be shipped to Asia. 

The workers read the land defenders the B.C. Supreme Court injunction that prohibits them from stopping work along the pipeline right of way. In response, the land defenders re-served the workers with an eviction notice from the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs. The RCMP were called to the site, but no arrests were made. 

At a rally in Smithers in support of the land defenders, Gidimt’en camp media coordinator Jennifer Wickham fought back tears as she said the whole province should know and care about the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which threatens the health of plants, animals and humans. 

“It’s just a … devastating time for us right now,” she said.

The confrontation put the key election issue in northwest B.C. into sharp focus: how to balance industrial development and environmental protection while respecting Indigenous Rights. The Narwhal spoke with four of the region’s conservation leaders about that balance and the key issues northwest candidates face this election. 

The majority of candidates in Northwest B.C.’s ridings — North Coast, Skeena, Stikine and Nechako — either declined interview requests or did not reply by publication time. The ridings are primarily contested by NDP and Liberal candidates and there are no Green candidates.    

The impacts of climate change

Over the past century, temperatures have increased about 1 C globally, 2 C in B.C. and 3 C in northern B.C., according to a B.C. government research climatologist. As northern landscapes lose snowpack and glacier cover, the exposed land absorbs more solar energy, amplifying the effects of the changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns we need to stay below 1.5 C warming above pre-industrial levels to reduce impacts on ecosystems and human health.

SkeenaWild Conservation Trust executive director Greg Knox said climate change should be the top priority for any politician hoping to represent the region.

“It’s already here and impacting our fish and our water and our glaciers and our forests,” he said in an interview. “We have fewer salmon coming back due to climate impacts on the ocean and there are more floods and droughts in river systems. We see disease outbreaks in our forests and forest fires are increasing.”

The Bear Glacier near Stewart, B.C., is one of many in northwest B.C. that are retreating. Photo: phoca2004 / Flickr

Given the impacts of climate change, Knox said local politicians need to explore how to reduce other pressures on the landscape.

“They should be talking about how they’re going to improve resource extraction, like mining and forestry and development, in the face of climate change,” he said. “They have to be reducing the pressures on the landscape and they need to be putting forward ideas and election platforms that reflect that.”

Where the parties stand on climate: The NDP, BC Liberals and Greens agree greenhouse gases must be reduced to address climate change. The NDP has promised to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, while the Greens have committed to net-zero by 2045. The BC Liberals’ platform doesn’t include reduction targets.

Unsustainable forestry practices

The forestry industry represents about one in five jobs in northwest B.C. Logging trucks hauling trees to mills in places like Smithers and Houston are ubiquitous on the highways and back roads.

The province says the forestry industry will help it achieve its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, based on the claim that logging is carbon neutral because new trees are planted to replace those that are cut down. But Shannon McPhail, director of Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, said there are a lot of holes in the government narrative and logging in the region is unsustainable. 

“We’re gonna take out this old growth tree or this massive forest and we’re gonna replant it with things the size of a pencil and think that that’s going to suck up carbon?” she said. “What a hunk of malarkey! The return on carbon investment is a couple of generations away, especially when you recognize that a massive amount of carbon isn’t stored in the wood, it’s stored in the soil. And when you log it or cut it, you release that carbon.”

She said the logging industry is being overlooked in B.C.’s climate plan and, despite what the government says, “forestry is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in B.C.” 

According to a 2019 Sierra Club report, logging in B.C. is responsible for around 42 million tonnes of carbon emissions every year. These emissions are not counted in the province’s inventory. 

In 2018, B.C. reported a total of 67.9 million tonnes, with oil, gas and mining emitting around 10 million tonnes  — about a quarter of what forestry emits, according to the Sierra Club report. The report also said clearcutting forests removes trees that would suck up 26.5 million tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year. 

Conservation North director and ecologist Michelle Connolly sits in front of B.C.’s rare inland rainforest, which it set to be logged for pellets this winter. Photo: Sean O’Rourke

On top of that, slash burning — burning piles of unwanted or unusable wood in cutblocks, purportedly to reduce the risk of wildfires — emits around four million tonnes of carbon emissions annually, according to a Sierra Club analysis of provincial data. 

In 2017, the NDP government promised to extend its carbon tax to include slash burning to encourage forestry companies to find alternative ways to deal with wood waste. Three years later, slash is still being burned and the carbon tax has not been applied to those emissions. 

According to McPhail, many of the logs being burned are in fact good quality wood that could be used for lumber, pulp or pellet production.

“So much of that wood is completely usable,” McPhail said. “It’s just not fetching very nice prices right now. These beautiful, gorgeous logs — that you can’t even buck up for firewood because that’s illegal — are getting burned in these massive slash piles.”

The province is funding projects that turn wood waste into pellets, which are burned for fuel overseas, but it is also permitting companies to log old-growth forests for pellet production. 

McPhail — who facilitates a group called Talkin’ Logging that brings together loggers, farmers, civil servants, tree planters, mill owners and Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs — said there are solutions, but they require an overhaul of the way our forests are managed. 

Those solutions include government funding for small-scale operations that selectively log forests over decades and small mills that process wood that larger operations would otherwise burn or discard, McPhail said. 

“Logging is going to be here for many generations to come, so why don’t we make it super-efficient, sustainable, culturally appropriate and maintain biodiversity and ecosystem integrity?”

Where the parties stand on forestry: The NDP has promised to continue investing in programs that reduce wildfire risks and allocate part of the annual allowable cut to forestry companies that create new jobs. The Green Party has committed to focusing on conservation and developing the tree planting industry, as well as transferring a portion of annual harvest allocations from major companies to First Nations and communities. The Liberals have also promised to invest in tree planting and said they would develop legislation to protect commercial forests in part by reducing the cost of production.

Insufficient mining legislation

Northwest B.C. is home to the so-called Golden Triangle, a vast stretch of mineral-rich land. Mining is deeply embedded in the culture and economics of the region, yet outdated mining laws put the region at risk.

“While other provinces have updated their mineral staking laws to reflect rights of First Nations, land use plans, protection of watersheds and municipal drinking water, B.C.’s mining laws have seen little reform,” said Nikki Skuce, director of Northern Confluence.

“COVID-19 has created a bit of a gold rush with soaring prices while the transition to a clean energy economy will also increase demand for B.C.’s minerals and metals,” she said. (Mining products are used to make electric cars, solar arrays and efficient batteries.) “At the same time, we have yet to reform our mining laws to put the safety of communities and watersheds first from tailings waste dumps and risks like the Mount Polley disaster.”

In 2014, the Mount Polley tailings dam cracked open and 25 billion litres of contaminated materials spilled into creeks and lakes, including major spawning grounds for sockeye salmon. As The Narwhal reported earlier this year, a panel appointed to review the breach made recommendations to the province, many of which have still not been implemented. 

The First Nations Energy and Mining Council said recent reforms to B.C.’s mining laws fall short in several areas, including updates to safety requirements around tailings facilities.    

There are also dozens of abandoned mines across northwest B.C. some of which are leaking toxic materials into the surrounding environment. The Tulsequah Chief mine, for instance, has been leaking acid rock drainage into a salmon watershed for over 60 years. The mine was abandoned in the 1950s and subsequently went through several owners before its most recent went into receivership, potentially putting B.C. taxpayers on the hook for the cleanup costs.

Water contaminated with acid mine drainage flows into a containment pond near the Tulsequah River. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

As The Narwhal reported in August, the reclamation and final closure of the mine is projected to cost at least $48.7 million and cost an additional $1 million per year for monitoring and maintenance.

Mining companies are required to pay the province money up front to cover the costs of reclamation and closure in case they go bankrupt. But according to a 2018 report from B.C.’s chief inspector of mines, the province is running a deficit of about $1.2 billion to cover reclamation costs. More than 30 mining advocacy and law organizations have lobbied the government for years to change its laws and hold mining companies financially accountable. 

“Where are the political parties at in terms of making sure the polluter actually pays?” Skuce asked. “[We need] financial assurances for the mining sector and maybe an industry fund for disasters or bankruptcy.” 

Not only that, anyone with a computer and a few dollars can stake a claim. In the northwest, nearly 37,000 square kilometres are staked for mineral exploration. That’s over 11 per cent of the region’s landscape.

Where the parties stand on mining reforms: The NDP has said it would create a mining innovation hub to work toward stronger regulations and low-carbon approaches to mining, and has also promised to hold mining companies financially responsible for environmental clean-up if a project is abandoned. The Liberals have promised they would cut the mine permitting process time in half and improve the processes for development, permitting, inspection and remediation. The Green platform does not include mining. 

LNG development

The push to export B.C.’s natural gas reserves is dividing the northwest figuratively and literally as the Coastal GasLink pipeline is being built through Wet’suwet’en territory and the LNG Canada terminal in Kitimat takes shape. When Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs first served Coastal GasLink the eviction notice in January, the conflict escalated as militarized RCMP enforced the injunction, arresting more than 80 land defenders. 

This summer, Coastal GasLink was ordered to halt construction after failing to meet its environmental requirements around wetlands and whitebark pine, an endangered species. 

At the LNG terminal on the Kitimat estuary, important salmon habitat has already been destroyed, McPhail said. Once the terminal is up and running, the impacts to the Kitimat River watershed will be profound. 

“When the project is fully built out, 70,000 cubic metres of water a day will be sucked out of the Kitimat River,” she said. “That’s the equivalent of what the city of Maple Ridge uses every day, coming from our tiny little Kitimat River, which, in 2018, was in Stage 4 drought.” 

The Kitimat River supports Chinook, pink, chum and coho salmon, as well as steelhead and other trout.

Premier John Horgan tours the LNG Canada site in Kitimat, B.C., in January 2020. Photo: Province of British Columbia / Flickr

Pat Moss, executive director at Northwest Institute, said provincial land use plans need to be updated to include the potential impacts of LNG projects on the landscape. Land use plans are guidance documents on resource management that inform government decision-makers of core values like recreation, wildlife and ecosystems at a landscape level. The majority of the province’s land use plans were developed in the 1990s and haven’t been revised since. In northwest B.C., that means they focus on forestry and mining and don’t take LNG into consideration. 

“Nobody was thinking about oil and gas pipelines crisscrossing the region,” she said.  “And then, of course, it became a huge issue with Enbridge and it’s an ongoing issue with [Coastal GasLink] and all the gazillion projects still out there on the books.” 

She said most of the proposed projects will likely never see the light of day, which presents an opportunity to revise those land use plans to include the fossil fuel industry. 

“If the cost of oil or gas goes up enough, then there will be the incentive to try and push forward on some of these things. In a way we have the luxury now to do some planning before that happens.”

In 2018, the province committed $16 million over three years to update its land use plans in collaboration with First Nations, an outcome of B.C. becoming the first province to officially adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into legislation. 

However, many First Nations in the northwest still struggle with poverty, food insecurity and racism and are forced to watch as irreversible environmental damage is done to their territories. 

Where the platforms stand on LNG: The BC Liberals have said they would accelerate the review and approval process for LNG projects, including Indigenous-led LNG export projects. The NDP has promised to monitor the LNG Canada project to ensure it meets climate targets. The Greens have long been opposed to LNG development. 

What happens in northwest B.C. doesn’t stay in northwest B.C.

For most B.C. voters, the northwest is a long way from home, but Knox said the fate of the northwest is tied to the fate of the province.

“The rest of the province benefits off of what happens here,” he said. “If we’re not doing things sustainably, that puts the economic sustainability at risk, in addition, of course, to the environmental impacts. We’ve seen how wildfires, for example, impact everybody in the province, not just people living in rural areas. And a lot of people living in the Lower Mainland like to use the northwest for their playground, so they should care about what’s going on up here.”

Climate change is contributing to more frequent forest fires in northwest B.C. Photo: B.C. Wildfire Service

Moss agreed and said the best way forward is to engage in the political arena. “Ultimately the decision will be based on politics, rather than on science. As much as I want to see us move away from that, I think the reality, for the near future anyway, is that will continue to be the case.” 

Knox said northwest B.C. in many ways represents how the province portrays itself to the world. “B.C. isn’t Beautiful B.C. unless we take care of the whole province,” he said. “The northwest is a quarter of British Columbia. If we want to maintain our image and enjoy what it offers, then we should be thinking about these things.”

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 version of this piece previously appeared in The Tyee.

Seth Klein is an adjunct professor with Simon Fraser University’s Urban Studies program and the former B.C. director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. His book A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency (ECW Press) was published in September.

All of us who heed the warnings of climate scientists are increasingly alarmed, as we stare down the harrowing gap between what the science says is necessary and what our politics seems prepared to entertain. Despite decades of calls to action, our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not on a path to stave off a horrific future for our children and future generations.

Case in point: The accompanying chart tracks British Columbia’s GHG emissions going back to the year 2000. What is evident is that, in the face of the defining challenge of our time, our politics are not rising to the task at hand.

Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada. Tables: IPCC Sector Canada.

Let this deeply disturbing chart sink in. And then let us all agree — political leaders, civil servants, environmental organizations, academics and policy wonks, labour leaders, socially responsible business leaders — that what we have been doing is simply not working. We have run out the clock with distracting debates about incremental changes.

But where it matters most — actual GHG emissions — we have accomplished precious little, and have frequently slipped backwards. 2018 is the last year for which we have GHG data, and granted B.C.’s new Clean BC climate plan was only introduced late that year, so it may yet show some progress, but our track record leaves much to be desired.

B.C. is lauded for its introduction of a carbon tax in 2008, and I support the tax. But a distressing truth is that B.C.’s GHG emissions in 2018 stood at about 66 megatonnes, four megatonnes higher than in 2007, the year before the carbon tax was introduced.

True, emissions might have been higher still without the carbon tax. But that’s ten years with no progress to show. Ultimately, the planet does not care if our GHG emissions are relatively lower than might have occurred under status quo conditions.

At least things have more or less flatlined, you might say; our emissions are no longer rising. But as the great climate change warrior and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben has said, “Winning slowly on climate change is just another way of losing.”

Politics, as the saying goes, might be all about compromise and the art of the possible. But there is no bargaining with the laws of nature, and nature is now telling us something fierce, the latest smoke-filled weeks but the latest example of “attacks on our soil.” It’s time to dramatically bend the curve.

And so, a new approach is needed. We need a “wartime” mindset and political/policy agenda to tackle the climate emergency.

What would a real ‘wartime’ B.C. climate emergency plan look like?

As we’ve all experienced in this pandemic, emergency responses need to look, sound and feel like emergencies. And they need to align with that the science says we must do. I have spent the last year and a half writing a book about Canada’s Second World War experience, searching for lessons for how to confront the climate crisis and quickly transition off fossil fuels (A Good War: Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency, ECW Press). Based on that, here are some markers of what one would expect to see when a government shifts to a wartime footing:

1. Adopt an emergency mindset. As we’ve witnessed in recent months, something powerful happens when we approach a crisis by naming the emergency and the need for wartime-scale action. It creates a new sense of shared purpose and liberates a level of political and economic action that seemed previously impossible.
2. Shift from voluntary measures to mandatory policies. Why have we made so little progress on lowering our GHG emissions? Because our governments have mainly sought to encourage and incentivize change, employing price signals and rebates, etc. But that’s not what one does in an emergency. In an emergency we require certain actions, using clear timelines and regulatory fiat. Notably, the City of Vancouver, which has a much more ambitious climate plan than the province, is requiring that all new buildings cease using natural gas or any other fossil fuel for space and water heating by 2021, more than a decade sooner than the province. That date should be province-wide. The province has said all new vehicles will need to be zero-emission by 2040. That should be 2025.
3. Rally the public at every turn. It takes leadership to mobilize the public. In frequency and tone, in words and in action, our government needs to communicate a sense of urgency as we mobilize to confront this emergency. Health Minister Adrian Dix and Dr. Bonnie Henry have now shown us what that looks like with respect to the pandemic, but this stands in stark contrast to the lackadaisical communications on climate. If our governments are not behaving as if the situation is an emergency – or they send contradictory messages by approving new fossil fuel infrastructure like LNG – then they are effectively communicating to the public that it is not. And why not ban the advertising of fossil fuel vehicles and gas stations, just as we do tobacco products? Their continued presence also sends a confusing message.
4. Create the economic institutions needed to get the job done. During WWII, starting from a base of virtually nothing, the Canadian economy and its labour force pumped out planes, military vehicles, ships and armaments at a speed and scale that is simply mind-blowing, much of which occurred right here in B.C. (where we produced about 350 ships in the space of six years). Remarkably, the Canadian government established 28 crown corporations to meet the supply and munitions requirements of the war effort. The climate emergency demands a similar approach. We must conduct an inventory of conversion needs, determining how many heat pumps, solar arrays, wind farms, electric buses, etc., we will need to electrify virtually everything and end our reliance on fossil fuels. And we will need a new generation of crown corporations to then ensure those items are manufactured and deployed at the requisite scale. So far, however, in response to the climate emergency, we have created no new crown enterprises.
5. Spend what it takes to win. A benefit of an emergency mentality is that it forces governments out of an austerity mindset and liberates the public purse. That is what we have all witnessed in response to the COVID emergency. But with respect to the climate emergency…not yet. In order to finance the war effort in WWII, governments issued new public Victory Bonds and new forms of progressive taxation were instituted. As we confront the climate emergency, financing the transformation before us requires that we employ similar tools. And when we undertake public investments at the scale the climate crisis demands, we can and will put to rest the employment anxieties of those who’s economic security is currently tied to the fossil fuel sector — there will be too much work to do.
6. Stop trying to appease those who seek to block necessary action. The B.C. government’s current Climate Solutions Advisory Council includes a representative from Shell Canada. Previous iterations of this council have included other reps from major fossil fuel corporations. The government is keen to have a climate plan these companies will endorse. But the hour is much too late to be seeking such approval. If our governmental climate plans aren’t making the members of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers deeply anxious, then they aren’t climate plans worth having.

A year and a half into the term of B.C.’s NDP government, in December 2018, the province released its new climate plan — Clean BC. The plan contains many welcome elements, and it is a great improvement over what the province had seen to that point. The plan was enthusiastically endorsed by the B.C. Green Party and widely praised by key B.C. environmental groups. Core elements include:

• Maintaining annual increases to B.C.’s flagship carbon tax (although this has been paused this pandemic year), along with enhancements to the offsetting carbon tax credit for low-income households. But, refreshingly, the plan de-emphasizes the role and importance of the carbon tax and focuses instead on regulatory policy measures.
• Specific dates by which certain things will be banned or required. For example, the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles will be banned as of 2040, and all new buildings must be net carbon-zero by 2032. Firm dates are good, but as noted, these dates are set much too far into the future. (The B.C. Greens now propose to bump forward the date for all new vehicles to be zero-emission to 2035 – an improvement, but still too late.)
• Promises to continue expanding the electric vehicle charging network and to subsidize EV purchases.
• Increased spending for building retrofits, and new rebates for those switching to electric heat-pumps.
• The requirement that all natural gas used in buildings must be 15 per cent “renewable” gas by 2030, meaning, the gas must be captured from landfills or agriculture rather than extracted from the earth, although it is frustrating that this 15 per cent target is so modest.

Clean BC is, quite likely, the most aggressive and comprehensive provincial or federal climate plan in Canada. And yet, sadly, it does not constitute a real climate emergency plan.

The B.C. government’s targets are not aligned with what the latest report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we must do. B.C.’s legislated targets are to reduce GHG emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 (from 2007 levels), and by 80 per cent by 2050. The IPCC now says we need to hit at least 50 per cent by 2030 and be carbon-zero by 2050.

The difference between a 2050 target of carbon-zero versus reducing GHGs by 80 per cent may feel largely academic, given the extended time frame. But the difference matters greatly. The problem with a target of 80 per cent reductions by 2050 is that so many of us — both individuals and businesses — falsely presume that what we do or plan to do can be made to fit in the remaining 20 per cent of emissions room. A carbon-zero target disabuses us of this notion.

In this election campaign, the NDP announced it would shift the legislative target to net carbon-zero by 2050 (while the Greens committed to meet that target by 2045). That’s an improvement, but such long-term targets lack credibility, given the track-record and their mathematical incompatibility with fossil fuel expansion plans.

The site of the LNG Canada project in Kitimat B.C. in 2017. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

It would seem the NDP are counting on a massive reliance on carbon-offsets and/or methods to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. We will indeed need both technological innovations and natural eco-systems enhancements to pull GHGs out of the air, but such drawdown efforts must be in addition to ending GHG emissions, not a substitute, if we are to get CO2 accumulations back to safe levels.

The current B.C. plan only purports to lay out steps to get three-quarters of the way to the province’s 2030 GHG reduction target (although operationalizing and funding many of these measures remains to be seen). The government had committed to outline how to close the remaining 25 per cent gap by December 2020. So far, that updated plan has yet to arrive.

The lofty commitments of Clean BC are not yet reflected in the B.C. Budget, where one must always see if fine words are backed up with real dollars. When the B.C. government tabled its February 2019 three-year budget plan (the first since Clean BC was introduced), Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives senior economist Marc Lee, a long-time analyst of B.C. climate and fiscal policies, calculated the plan would see the province spend only about 0.1 per cent of provincial GDP on climate-related expenditures. Climate investments are similarly lacking from the COVID recovery plan, where the climate transition gets only passing reference.

The framing of the plan is very positive — Clean BC! It rightly says our future can look nice, with plentiful employment opportunities as we tackle climate change. The plan does not, however, communicate that we face a climate emergency. Indeed, Clean BC never once uses the terms “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” or “climate breakdown.”

Most significantly, B.C.’s climate plan is fundamentally at odds with the province’s LNG plans. Earlier in the same year that the plan was unveiled, the provincial and federal governments celebrated the final investment decision of LNG Canada, an international consortium led by PetroChina and Shell that is building a massive new LNG plant in Kitimat, B.C. “The largest private-sector investment in Canadian history,” both governments repeated ad nauseam.

The problem is that the project represents another huge “carbon bomb” — a massive new source of domestic GHG emissions. Just phase one of the LNG Canada project, along with its “upstream” impacts from extracting and transporting fracked gas, will add between 4 and 6 megatonnes of GHGs to B.C.’s annual emissions. All this when the government has committed to reduce total provincial GHGs to 12 megatonnes by 2050. These folks aren’t making their job any easier.

Given the climate crisis before us, the ambition of the current B.C. climate plan is simply not where we need it to be. Even putting aside the reluctance to speak some hard truths on the future of fossil fuels, nothing is stopping the governments from substantially staffing up its climate action team (B.C.’s Climate Action Secretariat within the Ministry of Environment has about 75 staff), from undertaking much higher levels of climate infrastructure investment and, vitally, from using the regulatory power of the state to drive faster change. The net impact on job numbers would undoubtedly be positive. Yet they have not. The current plan — which, again, represents the most determined climate program in Canada to date — is painfully slow. It does not reflect or communicate a sense of urgency.

Explainer: B.C. election: where the NDP, Greens and Liberals stand on climate and environment issues

The B.C. Green Party platform is more ambitious on climate, and they party’s positions are not riddled with the contradictions that plague the NDP platform. The Greens have been clear that they do not support LNG and are opposed to fossil fuel subsidies.

When Green leader Sonia Furstenau speaks, she uses the language of climate emergency. Yet during the term of the last government, the Greens proved unable to use their position in the minority government and its Confidence and Supply Agreement to extract commitments to end the expansion of fossil fuels. And the targets, timelines and modest climate-related spending commitments in the Green platform still do not constitute a climate emergency plan. (As for the BC Liberals … there is really not much one can say. Their platform contains no targets nor any climate-related spending commitments of any note, and their commitment to LNG remains firmly intact.)

There are climate champions in the current government, among the NDP and Green Party candidates, along with the two Green MLAs (who surely deserve to be returned). Now is the time for them all to flex their muscle. And we need all of our leaders to reflect on the leaders who saw us through the Second World War and to consider who they want to be, and how they wish to be remembered, as we undertake this defining task of our lives.

If our current leaders believe we face a climate emergency, then they need to act and speak like it’s a damn emergency. We need them to name it, speak continually about it, and rally us at every turn. Because that’s what you do in a crisis.

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 government British Columbians elect Oct. 24 will come to power in the middle of multiple emergencies: the COVID-19 pandemic, an economic recession as well as climate and biodiversity crises.

NDP Leader John Horgan, BC Liberal Leader Andrew Wilkinson and Green Leader Sonia Furstenau all say stimulus spending is needed to guide B.C. through the current economic downturn — and some observers see it as an opportunity to make major headway on the transition to a sustainable economy.

The three major parties vying for seats in the B.C. legislature agree climate change is a threat, that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced and that ultimately our economy’s reliance on oil is coming to end.

“That is something that we can’t take for granted,” said Karen Tam Wu, the regional director of British Columbia at the Pembina Institute, who noted in other jurisdictions, those basics are often up for debate. 

“It really is an opportunity to build for a safe, more resilient future,” she said.

The NDP, BC Liberals and Greens have all made some form of pledge to increase the number of charging stations for electric vehicles, to invest in transit and to encourage energy retrofits in homes and other buildings.

When it comes to the scale of these investments and other issues, however, they don’t quite see eye to eye.

The NDP is building on its 2018 CleanBC plan, with a commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Green platform commits to a more ambitious target of net-zero emissions by 2045, in line with California.

Meanwhile, the BC Liberals have said they want to rebuild B.C. as a climate leader, but haven’t committed to specific emissions reductions targets.

As voters weigh their options in the 2020 B.C. election, here’s where the parties stand on environmental issues.

Where B.C.’s political parties stand on climate change

In CleanBC, the NDP’s 2018 climate plan, Horgan’s government committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030 and 80 per cent below by 2050. But new measures are needed to meet that goal. Modelling in the 2019 Climate Change Accountability Report shows B.C. is expected to fall 5.5 million tonnes short of its 2030 target without additional steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

If re-elected, the NDP has committed to enacting legislation requiring B.C. to have net-zero emissions by 2050, meaning that any greenhouse gas emissions would have to be offset by carbon sinks, carbon capture and storage or other technology.

To help B.C. reach that goal, the NDP say they would invest in B.C. entrepreneurs working on carbon capture technology, use incentives to spur energy efficiency building retrofits, make additional investments in the CleanBC industrial emissions strategy to help mines, pulp mills, oil and gas processing plants and other industrial operations reduce their emissions, and work to reduce methane emissions. The NDP has also re-committed to reviewing oil and gas subsidies.

Read more: ‘I don’t think we will ever catch up’: B.C. methane targets out of reach amid growing LNG, fracking

Furstenau’s Greens, meanwhile, are aiming for net-zero emissions five years earlier, by 2045. The party says it will set interim 2025 targets and develop an accountability framework to make sure B.C. meets its legislated goals. The Greens have also committed to setting specific targets for industrial sectors, ending oil and gas subsidies, restoring forests and wetlands that serve as carbon sinks and strengthening energy efficiency requirements in buildings.

“We cannot transition our economy away from fossil fuels at the same time as governments increasing subsidies to fossil fuel companies. It simply doesn’t make any sense,” Furstenau said during an online climate and environment debate hosted by Organizing for Change on Oct. 15.

In response, George Heyman, who served as the NDP’s minister of environment and climate change strategy since 2017, said “we know we have to do more to deal with the climate crisis.”

“We’ve introduced accountability legislation that requires reports by the minister every year on our progress including commentary by an independent climate council and we have committed to put an environmental lens on all the oil and gas royalty credits and take a good, hard, comprehensive look at them,” Heyman said.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a climate warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide on a 100-year timescale. Global efforts are underway to curtail methane emissions, and as a part of Canada’s international commitments, B.C. set a goal of reducing provincial methane emissions 45 per cent by 2025, compared to 2014 levels. But trying to meet that target at the same time as pursuing B.C.’s LNG ambitions is something the experts are skeptical the province can accomplish. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The Greens have also committed to immediately bring back scheduled carbon tax increases, which the NDP put on hold due to the pandemic.

While the BC Liberals pledge to make B.C. a climate policy leader and to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions, the party’s platform doesn’t include any specific reduction targets. 

The BC Liberals say B.C.’s next challenge is addressing emissions from buildings and transportation. The party says it would encourage building retrofits and update the building code to address energy efficiency requirements while respecting regional differences. Wilkinson has also committed to investing in renewable energy and research into new technologies, including carbon capture.  

The BC Liberals would work with the federal government to review carbon tax increases in light of the recession.

“In terms of the fossil fuel subsidies, we’ve made no secret that we feel that we need to make sure that we’re invigorating the economy in ways to get people back working and start to drive down the greenhouse gas emissions at the same time,” said Peter Milobar, the BC Liberals candidate for Kamloops-North Thompson and the party’s former environment critic, during the Oct. 15 online environment debate.

“We need to make sure that any subsidies that are there need to be worked on, to be phased out over time to make sure as we start to transition away from a fossil fuel economy — which I think we all agree is going to happen over the next short term — that we are there making sure that we are moving forward in a way that as a government people are supported at the the same time that we’re making that transition happen,” he said.

Where B.C.’s political parties stand on reducing transportation emissions 

The BC Liberals, Greens and NDP have all committed to take action on transportation, which accounts for almost 40 per cent of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The NDP has promised new incentives for both new and used zero-emission vehicles to make them more accessible to people with lower incomes and increase the number of vehicle charging stations with incentives and legislation. They’re also pledging to cut the provincial sales tax on e-bikes.

The NDP would also work with communities to improve transit connections across southern Vancouver Island, between Surrey and Langley and in other communities. The party also wants to expand Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley.

The Greens have committed to developing climate and sustainability criteria for all future capital projects, including those in the transportation sector. Like the NDP, the Greens say they will invest in southern Vancouver Island transit. The party wants to work with local governments to develop long-term stable funding for transit, including for TransLink, BC Transit and BC Ferries, and speed up the transition to zero-emission vehicles by requiring all new non-commercial vehicles sold in B.C. to be zero-emission by 2035.

The Greens have committed to removing the PST on used electric vehicles to make them more affordable, investing in electrifying transit systems and expanding charging infrastructure.

The BC Liberals have promised to boost the number of electric vehicle charging stations and to continue expanding public transit south of the Fraser River, in the Fraser Valley and in North Vancouver. The party has also pledged longer transit hours in the Interior, the North and on Vancouver Island and to reviewing ferry schedules with an eye toward hourly service on busy routes.

Where B.C.’s parties stand on the Site C dam

During the televised leaders debate Oct. 13, Horgan said he would wait to make a decision on the future of the controversial Site C dam until he has received the results of a report from Peter Milburn on the geotechnical issues and economics of the project. Milburn, a retired deputy minister of finance with the B.C. government, was appointed in July to review the project.

According to a new report from a U.S. energy economist BC Hydro customers could initially save more than $100 million a year if the project is cancelled.

In late September, Furstenau called for the province to stop construction of the dam until the geotechnical issues are reviewed.

“The future of clean power in B.C. is small scale, renewable energy that provides good jobs and economic opportunities throughout the province,” she said in a press release.

Mike Bernier, the BC Liberal candidate for Peace River South and the party’s co-critic for transportation and infrastructure, said cancelling the project would be irresponsible.

“If the project was cancelled now, you could imagine, if it was three, four billion dollars (in sunk costs) three years ago, would it be double that now? Who knows,” Bernier told Business in Vancouver.

Site C dam construction in 2018 along the banks of the Peace River. A recent report from a U.S. energy economist found BC Hydro customers will save an initial $116 million a year if the B.C. government cancels construction of the Site C dam and the savings will only grow over time. The report comes at a critical time for politicians making promises about the fate of the publicly funded project. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

How B.C.’s political parties plan to build a green economy

The NDP say they want to make B.C. a global producer of low-carbon products and services. To get there, they’ve committed to investing in high-speed internet across the province, supporting innovative clusters that bring companies, researchers and entrepreneurs together and working with the federal government and BC Hydro to expand electrification infrastructure.

The NDP has committed to creating a mining innovation hub to support training, better regulations, environmental management and low-carbon approaches to mining.

Read more: Fact check: are B.C.’s LNG ambitions compatible with its climate goals?

Alongside continued investment in forest revitalization and wildfire protection, the NDP is promising “more logs for job creators” and plans to direct a portion of the annual allowable cut to companies that create new jobs. 

The Greens have promised a $1 billion strategic investment fund to support business innovations that shift B.C. toward a zero-carbon economy as well as a $500 million fund to support sustainable jobs. The party has committed to developing a clean jobs program focused on areas such as tree planting, conservation, environmental remediation and climate adaptation — and to implement a just transition for oil and gas workers. The party says it would support the creation of a biofuel and clean hydrogen strategy to help replace fossil fuels for transportation.

The party has further committed to changes in the forestry industry, including to redistribute tenures from a few major companies to First Nations and communities, and to shift forest management from a focus on timber to managing for all forest values.

The BC Liberals have promised to cut the timeline for mine permitting in half, advance hydro exports to the U.S. and other provinces, create new environmental work experience opportunities in provincial parks, and invest in tree planting.

The party says it will develop legislation to protect the working forest to provide more certainty, work to improve forest management and reduce the cost of production.

Where B.C.’s political parties stand on LNG

The BC Liberals say they will expedite Indigenous-led LNG export projects and accelerate the review and approval process for LNG projects.

While the BC Liberal platform doesn’t provide details about the scale of LNG development, Tam Wu cautions that Pembina’s analysis shows there’s very little room for additional LNG development that would increase carbon emissions if B.C. wants to meet its existing 2050 targets.

Horgan meanwhile, has promised to monitor the LNG Canada project to ensure it falls within climate targets. The NDP platform says the project shows B.C. “can balance our economic environment, social and reconciliation priorities.”

The Greens, which have long opposed LNG, have promised to shift away from fossil fuels and end all fossil fuel subsidies. Instead the party supports developing biofuel and hydrogen strategies to help replace fossil fuels in transportation.

With the approval of LNG Canada, there is expected to be an explosion of hydraulic fracturing operations in northeastern B.C., like this one near Farmington. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Where B.C.’s political parties stand on fish farms and wild salmon

The NDP have promised to support innovation in fish hatcheries, to increase processing of wild fish caught in B.C., to work to double funding for the BC Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund, a joint effort with the federal government and to develop new plans to protect wild salmon.

The Greens meanwhile have committed to transitioning the fish farming industry to land in an effort to protect wild salmon. The party promises to cancel tenures for open-net pen fish farms and to work with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and industry to develop a land-based industry. 

The Greens have also promised to bring forward a new coastal law to protect coastal ecosystems.

The BC Liberals have promised to appoint a minister for fisheries and coastlines focused on enhancing and protecting fish resources and coastal ecosystems. The party has also promised more robust measures to protect salmon and steelhead.

Where B.C.’s political parties stand on Indigenous rights

In its 2020 platform, the NDP committed to creating a dedicated secretariat to ensure all new legislation and policies align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was recognized in provincial law in 2019.

The party also promised to move toward long-term agreements with Indigenous Nations that “support reconciliation, self-determination, and economic independence.”

The Greens have promised to ensure an action plan for implementing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is adopted and supported with enough resources and to work with First Nations toward energy independence.

The BC Liberals have promised to work with Indigenous Nations to resolve outstanding issues of rights and title, to work to define how UNDRIP relates to land-use decisions, to provide new funding to support First Nations to negotiate economic benefits and new funding for First Nations to invest in economic opportunities.

Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson, an environmental and Indigenous lawyer and member of the Haida Nation, said governments still have work to do to make space for the Indigenous jurisdiction that arises from unextinguished title. 

Projects, such as  the Site C dam and LNG developments, are still proceeding without consent of Indigenous nations, she noted.

Treaty 8 First Nations have long been opposed to the Site C project, which will have considerable impacts on fish, wildlife, cultural sites and treaty rights. 

Some First Nations have also raised significant concerns about liquefied natural gas projects. In 2015, the legislative body of the Haida Nation passed a resolution calling for the mass export of fossil fuels through its territory to be banned and opposing B.C.’s plans to develop an LNG industry. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which would carry natural gas from northeast B.C. to the LNG terminal in Kitimat, has also faced considerable opposition by the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and their supporters.

“A good step is recognizing a role for Indigenous peoples in joint decision making. That is something that the Haida Nation has done for over 30 years with the Government of Canada in relation to Gwaii Haanas and we’ve taken steps with British Columbia for managing the lands outside of Gwaii Haanas jointly,” she said.

“But there are still problems in joint decision-making when the Crown believes they have the ultimate authority to approve or not [approve] proposals to proceed with resource extraction without the consent of Indigenous Peoples, with believing that there is only an obligation to consult and not to substantially address the concerns of Indigenous Peoples,” she said.

Freda Huson, centre, and her sister, Brenda Michell, stand in ceremony while they wait for police to enforce an injunction to remove Wet’suwet’en pipeline opponents along the route of the Coastal GasLink pipeline in Feb. 2020. Both women were arrested by the RCMP. Photo: Amber Bracken / The Narwhal

How B.C.’s political parties would address the biodiversity crisis

Alongside a climate emergency, the world is facing a biodiversity crisis. B.C. remains one of only three provinces in Canada without provincial legislation to protect endangered species, despite an NDP promise in the 2017 campaign to develop such a law.

While the NDP has not renewed that commitment, the Greens have promised to enact endangered species legislation. 

Read more: British Columbia’s looming extinction crisis

For its part, the NDP is vowing to work with neighbouring jurisdictions to protect shared wildlife corridors, to protect more old growth forests, to create a watershed security strategy and to ensure large industrial projects are fully bonded going forward so that industry pays the full cost of environmental clean-up. 

The NDP has also promised to develop a new strategy to protect coastal habitat, specifically committing to look at freighter traffic management around southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. and to develop new plans to protect wild salmon.

The Greens have committed to a B.C. environmental charter establishing rights to clear air, clean water and healthy ecosystems as well as information rights to ensure transparency around decisions that affect the environment. The party has also committed to end old-growth logging in high risk ecosystems, to undertake comprehensive watershed planning and, develop a wetlands strategy. and to bring forward a new coastal law to protect coastal ecosystems.

The Greens have further promised to shift responsibility for fish and wildlife management to the environment ministry and to increase funding for wildlife and habitat conservation.

The BC Liberals have committed to ensuring there is no net loss of wetlands, to accelerate reforestation and to work with First Nations, the federal government and communities to restore wildlife populations. The party has also promised to appoint a minister for fisheries and coastlines focused on protecting fish and coastal ecosystems.

Read more: ‘You’re out there alone’: whistleblowers say workplace abuse hides true impacts of B.C.’s trawl fishery

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.

BC Hydro customers will save an initial $116 million a year if the B.C. government cancels construction of the Site C dam and the savings will only grow over time, according to a new report from U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough.  

McCullough, who provided expert advice on the Site C project to B.C. cabinet in 2017, says stopping the Peace River hydro project now will also avoid significant geotechnical risks that BC Hydro hasn’t been able to resolve. Those risks were only disclosed to British Columbians on July 31. 

Profound geotechnical problems, related to the dam’s faulty foundation, mean BC Hydro does not know how much it will cost to complete the publicly funded project, which is already billions of dollars over budget, or when it might be finished. 

“Site C started on the wrong foot and has stayed on that foot ever since,” McCullough told The Narwhal. 

Unlike other major hydro dams in B.C. and in U.S. west coast states, which were built in narrow rocky canyons, the Site C dam is being constructed on far less reliable shale, noted McCullough, who wrote the report for the Peace Valley Landowner Association, representing landowners who will lose their homes and farmland to the dam’s reservoir.

Arlene Boon harvesting vegetables in her market garden. The Site C dam would flood valuable northern agricultural land in a valley that has some of Canada’s richest soil. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

“The banks are unstable and there is substantial tectonic activity in that area. The surface under the structure is shale — which adds significant risk as well,” wrote McCullough, an expert on power projects and former officer for a large hydroelectric facility in Portland, Oregon.

McCullough conservatively estimated it will cost $2.1 billion more to complete the dam, for a total price tag of almost $13 billion. That makes the project uneconomical, he said. 

“The people of B.C. have a giant fiasco on their hands with Site C,” Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, told The Narwhal. 

“I think we have to hold the government’s feet to the fire, to put politics and their own special interests aside and just look out for the interests of the public.”

Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, in the kitchen of the third generation farmhouse he shares with his wife, Arlene. The Boon’s fields will be flooded by the Site C dam or lost to the relocation of a provincial highway out of the flood zone. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Energy economist asked to answer one question

Boon said new information about the Site C dam’s rising cost and unresolved geotechnical issues prompted the association to ask McCullough to reassess the financial viability of continuing the project.

In December 2017, the NDP government said its top two decision criteria for deciding to proceed with dam construction were the impact on ratepayers and the fiscal impacts and risks.

So the association asked McCullough to answer one question: “Is it in the best interests of British Columbians to immediately cancel or continue construction of Site C?”

The answer, McCullough said in an interview, is unequivocal: even though BC Hydro has spent $5 billion on the dam, the public utility will save money if the project is stopped and energy is procured from other sources. Those sources include wind and solar power, whose costs are dropping all the time. 

McCullough urged the B.C. government not to fall into what economists call the “sunk cost fallacy,” equating it to buying an old car that needs constant, expensive repairs. 

“The explanation about why you have to spend more and more money in keeping it running is that you’ve already spent so much money on it,” McCullough said. “At some point, it’s just cheaper to buy a new car.”

“We’re in this situation of having sunk a huge amount of money into a project that is not panning out — when we could simply close this book, open a new one, have the same amount of energy and far less risk.”

Clearing along the Peace River in preparation for Site C dam construction, July 12, 2018. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

McCullough’s report was dovetailed by a C.D. Howe Institute “Intelligence Memo” to “British Columbia’s next government.” The memo says the costs of the Site C dam likely exceeded the cost of alternative “carbon-cost adjusted” natural gas turbines as of January 2019 and the case for the project is “getting weaker.” 

The project’s new geotechnical and operational challenges suggest that “a significant budget increase can be expected,” says the memo, written by A. J. Goulding, president of London Economics International and an advisor to provincially owned hydro companies, and Mugwe Kiragu, a senior consultant at London Economics International who has a wide range of experience in modelling power system costs. 

“Even assuming a conservative estimate of budget increases, the economics still favour cancellation and replacement with an equivalent carbon-cost adjusted CCGT [combined cycled natural gas turbines],” the memo says. It notes that replacement with storage-backed wind capacity “becomes more cost-competitive the longer the project is delayed.” 

The Site C dam is “marginally economic” at current costs, according to the memo. “Our analysis shows that any meaningful cost increase makes cancellation a better choice,” Goulding and Kiragu state.

Site C dam concrete a potential problem

The Site C dam is set to flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying some of Canada’s best farmland, habitat for more than 100 species at risk of extinction, and Indigenous gravesites and traditional hunting and trapping grounds.

The dam was announced in 2010 as a $6.6 billion project. It was given final approval in 2014 with a $8.7 billion budget and greenlighted in 2017 by the new NDP government with a $10.7 billion budget. 

At a new price tag of $12.8 billion, McCullough calculates power from the Site C dam will cost $94 per megawatt hour to produce. 

The power will most likely be sold to the U.S. for $40 per megawatt hour given B.C.’s significant energy surplus, McCullough said. 

“In this case, BC Hydro loses 57.7 per cent on each megawatt hour produced by Site C.” 

McCullough’s report zeroes in on a number of project risks, including the use of roller compacted concrete in construction, which he described as a “cost effective alternative to traditional construction methods.”

Instead of building the dam with cement that is cast in place, “roller compressed cement more closely resembles a layer cake, with layers being laid down sequentially and compressed,” the report said.

Although the use of roller-compacted concrete is an accepted construction practice, McCullough said a number of articles have questioned the reliability of the concrete if exposed to tectonic shocks, such as the earthquake that shook the Site C dam construction site in November 2018, forcing workers to evacuate. 

The Site C project is located in a wider area known to be filled with faults that can become critically stressed during fracking operations for gas. In 2017 and 2018, more than 10,000 earthquakes occurred in the wider area, where fracking is prevalent and known to be triggering earthquakes. 

The Old Fort road, crumpled by a November 2018 landslide on the notoriously unstable slopes of the Peace River. Photo: Jayce Hawkins / The Narwhal

McCullough said the articles’ authors found a significant risk of sliding or cracking, depending on the nature and preparation of the surface under the roller compacted concrete.

There is also a potential for leaks between the layers.  

“We have added another component to this, which is the surface we’re building this on is itself slippery,” McCullough said.

“The shale is not a solid rocky valley, like we’re looking at with the other major British Columbian dams, but something that can liquify or solidify, depending on geological conditions … we’ve taken a layer cake and put it on top of an uneven and slippery surface.”

‘It doesn’t make sense economically to proceed’

A number of factors make it uneconomical to finish the dam, even though 48 per cent of the project has officially been completed, McCullough said. That number drops to 43 per cent when the currently identified geotechnical problems are addressed, he said, noting there may be even bigger problems that have not yet been publicly disclosed. 

Factors include escalating construction costs, unresolved geotechnical issues and risks with seismic activity, falling costs for wind and solar power, dropping interest rates and “the deterioration of Site C’s ability to compete in energy markets.” 

Boon said the landowners were shocked to discover “how poor the economics of Site C still are.”

“Even if you discount all the money that has been spent already, and moving ahead with the money that has to be spent to complete the project — not including possible massive overruns because of foundation problems — it still doesn’t make sense economically to proceed.”

To write the report, McCullough said he had to comb through numerical data dating back to the beginning of the project because there is “astonishingly little information” publicly available. 

He said it is very strange that BC Hydro hasn’t mentioned what percentage of the project has been completed by particular dates, because that information is part of software used for all major infrastructure projects.

“A decision like this in a U.S. state would have been far more public.” 

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Boon said he was encouraged by Horgan’s comment during the Oct. 13 leaders’ debate for the provincial election, when the NDP leader was asked by moderator Shachi Kurl if the Site C project is the NDP’s “dumpster fire,” and if he would cancel the project. (The NDP have repeatedly characterized the BC Liberals’ handling of financially troubled ICBC as a dumpster fire.) 

Horgan told debate viewers he is awaiting the results of a report from Peter Milburn, whom he appointed in July to examine the geotechnical issues and economics of the Site C project.

“When we see that report we’ll make a decision,” Horgan said. “I’m not going to foreclose anything at this point in time.” 

But, pressed by Green Party leader Sonia Furstenau on Thursday during a CKNW leaders’ debate, Horgan refused to commit to cancelling the project if experts determine that it should not go ahead.

“I am disappointed John Horgan is continuing to ignore the evidence and refusing to provide British Columbians with a clear answer about his party’s plan in regards to Site C,” Furstenau said in a news release. 

“To me, it is very clear that the job of elected officials is to listen to experts and make decisions that are in the best interest of all British Columbians, not just your political party.”

Boon said he wants to see Milburn’s entire report when it is complete, not a “polished, condensed version.” 

“Economically, the people of British Columbia have lost a lot of money on the Site C project, no matter what happens moving forward,” Boon said.

“It might seem very bizarre to people to have all this work done and to scrap it, but at the end of the day that’s the only choice we may have economically.” 

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.

Eddie Petryshen was backcountry camping with his brother in the Argonaut Creek drainage, north of Revelstoke, B.C., when they spotted “a twinkle of movement” on a ridge high above the old-growth rainforest.

The next morning, the brothers packed up their tent and followed a stream to the ridge, where they photographed fresh caribou tracks in the squishy mud.  

For Petryshen, a conservation specialist for the non-profit group Wildsight, the rare sighting in August was a poignant reminder of the Argonaut valley’s importance to the endangered Columbia North caribou herd. 

At 147 animals, the deep-snow herd is by far the largest southern mountain caribou population left in the Kootenays, in southeast B.C., and the one with the best chance of persisting in the long term. 

Since 2006, five Kootenay herds have become extirpated, or locally extinct, including the South Selkirk and Purcells South herds, which winked out last year following years of decline. 

The other three Kootenay caribou herds — the Central Selkirk, Frisby-Boulder and Columbia South populations — are struggling to survive, with only 26, 6 and 4 animals, respectively, according to 2020 data from the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, which was released to The Narwhal upon request. 

Charlotte Dawe with the Wilderness Committee and Thomas Knowles with Echo Conservation Society walk the new logging road in the Argonaut valley. Photo: Casey Dubois Media and Echo Conservation Society

Eddie Petryshen, a conservation specialist with Wildsight, spotted these fresh caribou tracks when he was backcountry camping with his brother in the Argonaut Creek drainage in August. Photo: Eddie Petryshen

“The North Columbia is the place where we have to decide if we want to keep these caribou or not,” Petryshen said in an interview. “We’re running up against the clock because we’re still logging tons of old-growth in their habitat.” 

Now the Columbia North herd faces a new threat.

BC Timber Sales, the government agency responsible for auctioning off logging permits, has planned 14 cutblocks in or near the Argonaut Creek drainage. Twelve of the cutblocks overlap federally designated core critical habitat for the herd. If the cutblocks are approved, they will result in the destruction of 300 hectares of what biologist Rob Serrouya calls “high-quality summer and early-winter habitat” for the herd.

Five of the 14 cutblocks are poised to be auctioned off in the near future, while long-term development will see most of the intact drainage roaded and logged.

In preparation for logging, the agency recently punched a five-kilometre road through the old-growth cedar and hemlock forest around Argonaut Creek, one of the last remaining unlogged valleys in the area. 

In March, Serrouya, director of the caribou monitoring unit at the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute, and his colleagues conducted a preliminary analysis for the B.C. government and found that habitat alteration was accelerating for all caribou ecotypes in the province, despite recovery planning. 

“This logging would contribute to that trend,” Serrouya told The Narwhal. 

B.C. Timber sales plans to auction off most of the Argonaut Creek drainage, with 12 of 14 cutblocks in federally designated core critical habitat for the Columbia North herd. Photo: Wildsight

Conservation groups call on province to cancel ‘egregious plan’

Like other mountain caribou, the Columbia North herd depends on nutritious lichen found on old-growth trees.

Petryshen, who bushwhacked through the Argonaut valley on his August trip, describes it as “rugged, incredible country” with inland temperate rainforest “like nowhere else” and individual trees 50 metres tall, the height of a 17-storey residential building.  

“It’s a place that a lot of people don’t want to see logged,” Petryshen said. “It’s one of those drainages where you get a lot of critters because a lot of the [surrounding] landscape has been disturbed. … It’s a pretty wild place.”  

On Oct. 6, Wildsight and seven other conservation groups sent a letter to Deputy Forests Minister John Allan and BC Timber Sales executive director Ray Luchkow, calling on them to cancel the “egregious plan” to auction off cutblocks in the Argonaut Creek drainage.  

Some of the old-growth trees marked for logging in the Argonaut valley are 50 metres tall. Photo: Wilderness Committee

“We’re at a critical time right now,” Petryshen said. “It’s a good time for those blocks to be scrapped.” 

The groups are asking the government to fully rehabilitate the new Argonaut valley road to secure habitat for caribou, grizzly bear and other species at risk of extinction. Logging plans call for the road to be extended by another 10 to 15 kilometres, according to the groups, which include the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Wilderness Committee.

“A new road would increase the access for predators,” Serrouya pointed out. 

Human disturbances, including road building, logging and oil and gas development, have destroyed or fragmented caribou habitat and given natural predators such as wolves easy access to herds with disastrous consequences for once-robust populations in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada.

The ministry said it could not comment on the Argonaut Creek auction by BC Timber Sales. “During the election period, all government of B.C. communications are limited to health and public safety information, as well as statutory requirements,” the ministry wrote in response to an email from The Narwhal.

Only three of 48 B.C. caribou herds have stable populations, new government data shows

Unlike six other provinces, B.C. does not have stand-alone legislation to protect caribou and other endangered species. The NDP government promised to enact such legislation during the 2017 election campaign — a pledge upheld in Premier John Horgan’s mandate letter for Environment Minister George Heyman.  

But, once elected, the party reneged on its commitment. 

Endangered species legislation is not mentioned in the 2020 NDP election platform, released on Oct. 6. Instead, the party vaguely says it will “work with neighbouring jurisdictions to cooperatively develop and invest in new strategies aimed at better protecting our shared wildlife and habitat corridors.”

The about-face on endangered species legislation comes as new information on the province’s 48 caribou herds highlights their perilous status and scientists around the world warn we are witnessing the sixth mass extinction event in the planet’s four-billion-year history. Scientists estimate as many as half of all species may be headed toward extinction in the next 30 years, largely due to habitat destruction.

“If you have a continuous trend of decreasing, that can only end in one way — and that is zero animals.” 

Twenty-eight B.C. caribou herds are projected to decrease in size in the long term, according to a spreadsheet from the Forests Ministry, which lists each herd, the date the herd was last surveyed, the number of animals in the herd and the government’s projections for long-term trends. 

“If you have a continuous trend of decreasing, that can only end in one way — and that is zero animals,” said Chris Johnson, an ecology professor at the University of Northern British Columbia who sits on committees advising the federal government on caribou recovery. 

Johnson called the new data on B.C.’s caribou populations “very sad news.”

“[It’s] somewhat depressing for those of us who have worked for many years to try to maintain caribou in Canada,” Johnson told The Narwhal. “But not surprising.” 

A caribou cow stands watch over its two-day old calf at a pen in B.C.’s Peace region run by the Saulteau First Nations and West Moberly First Nations. Photo: Ryan Dickie / The Narwhal

Four B.C. caribou herds have fewer than 25 animals, according to the ministry, signalling they are headed toward almost certain local extinction in the absence of immediate and intensive recovery measures. Eight herds have fewer than 50 animals.

Only three B.C. caribou herds, including the Columbia North herd, have stable populations, according to the ministry.

The ministry projects that just two B.C. herds — the Atlin and Carcross herds in the province’s far north — will increase in number in the long term. (A 2019 population estimate for the Carcross herd, last surveyed in 2008, is not yet complete.) 

Joining five Kootenay herds on the lengthening list of local extinctions are the Burnt Pine herd in B.C.’s Peace region and the George Mountain herd, whose former hilly habitat Johnson can almost glimpse from his office window in Prince George.

“It’s a classic example, where you see the declines, you see small numbers of animals. You go back, and they’re not there. And they don’t come back,” Johnson said. 

“Small populations typically get smaller faster. So we need to be really concerned about those populations that are less than 25. Those are the ones we could see disappear in a few short years.”

B.C. government has long track record of sanctioning logging in critical habitat for endangered caribou

News about the Argonaut valley auction follows the release of an old-growth strategic review report commissioned by the B.C. government.  

The report, written by B.C. foresters Al Gorley and Garry Merkel, calls for a paradigm shift in the way B.C. manages old-growth forests and lays out a blueprint for change.  

The report says old forests have intrinsic value for all living things and should be managed for ecosystem health, not for timber. It also says many old forests are not renewable, which counters the prevailing notion that trees, no matter how old, will always grow back. 

In response, the government announced it will temporarily defer logging in nine areas in the province, but it’s business as usual everywhere else.

One of the largest temporary deferrals from development consists of 40,000 hectares in the Incomappleux Valley east of Revelstoke, an inland rainforest with trees up to 1,500 years old. But Valhalla Wilderness Society director Craig Pettitt said the deferral areas “appear to cover a lot of inoperable forest, or forest that’s already been clear cut.” 

The society said the government should allocate 32,000 hectares of the Incomappleux deferral unit “to actual endangered forest elsewhere, instead of protecting inoperable or clear-cut areas outside of the ancient forest.”

In its 2020 election platform, the NDP falsely asserts that the nine areas with deferred logging for two years are “protected.” The party promises to implement recommendations of the old-growth strategic review “to further protect old-growth stands.” 

Old-growth cedar and hemlock around Argonaut Creek were cut to make way for a logging road. Photo: Wildsight

The auction of old-growth in the Argonaut Creek drainage, also part of the inland temperate rainforest, is by no means the first time the B.C. government has sanctioned logging in primary forests that provide critical habitat for highly endangered mountain caribou herds. 

From October 2018 to July 2019, the government approved 78 logging cutblocks in the critical habitat of the Hart Ranges herd in B.C.’s interior, allowing industrial logging in an area almost three times the size of the city of Victoria. 

And the government approved the removal or disturbance of 2,750 hectares of Hart Ranges caribou habitat for the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which will supply fracked gas from northeast B.C. for the LNG Canada project. The pipeline eliminates old-growth forest the B.C. government had set aside for the Hart Ranges herd’s recovery and cuts through two designated caribou migration corridors, according to project documents.

The Hart Ranges herd, estimated to be 408 animals in 2020, is one of the province’s most robust caribou populations. But the Forests Ministry predicts the herd, which 10 years ago had 600 animals, will decrease in the long term.

Proposed Indigenous protected area offers hope for northeast herds

In northeast B.C., the Kaska Dena First Nation aims to create an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area that would protect caribou and other endangered species, while helping to preserve the Kaska way of life.  

The proposed protection area — which received federal government funding last year but needs approval from the B.C. government to proceed — includes habitat for seven caribou herds. The Rabbit and Frog herds would have 86 and 84 per cent of their habitat protected, respectively. Four other herds — the Muskwa, Gataga, Horseranch and Liard Plateau — would have between 24 and 53 per cent of their habitat protected.

The B.C. government knows little about the status of caribou herds in the region. While it periodically does surveys, it says those numbers represent observed caribou and are not population estimates.

The proposed Kaska Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area is home to seven caribou herds. Photo: Taylor Roades / The Narwhal

Two herds whose habitat would be conserved in the Kaska protected area haven’t been surveyed since 1999, while the other populations were surveyed between 2004 and 2007. The exception is the Frog herd, which was observed during a sheep survey in 2020, when 114 caribou were spotted.

The long-term trend for most caribou populations in the proposed Kaska protected area is listed by the ministry as “unknown.” Only the Muskwa herd is listed as “stable.” It was last surveyed in 2004, when it had 738 animals, and herd numbers are projected to decrease in the long term. 

Johnson said surveying caribou is often challenging because they are spread out over large areas, including in dense forests. 

The last time the B.C. government surveyed the province’s five boreal caribou populations was in 2010. All five populations, which ranged between 79 and 360 animals at last count, are projected to decrease over the long term. 

“We have to assume that they’re still decreasing and have to hope that the rate of decrease has not accelerated in the past 10 years,” Johnson said. “Some will be more stable than others, and it would be helpful to know which are having the most challenges so range planning processes can speed up.” 

“When we look at the north this is a place where we can hopefully intervene and prevent the drastic declines and extirpations we’ve seen in the south,” Johnson said. “So again, monitoring is important for knowing when these things are starting to tip over the edge and potentially head towards extirpation.” 

Update Friday, October 16, 2020 at 12:15 p.m. PST: This article was slightly updated to note that the Frog Herd was not surveyed itself in 2020, as previously stated, but was incidentally observed during a sheep survey that didn’t expand to the herd’s entire range. We owe this clarification to a provincial wildlife biologist who wrote in to tell The Narwhal that the next survey of the Frog Herd is planned for 2021.

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.

B.C.’s NDP government came to power in 2017 promising to protect the environment. 

“[Former Premier] Christy Clark and the BC Liberals have chosen to pit jobs against the environment,” the party’s election platform said. “It shouldn’t be that way.”

From protecting drinking water sources to reducing carbon emissions, the BC NDP’s platform detailed the actions it would take to protect the province’s environment and create jobs. 

“B.C. was an early champion of a price on carbon and other green policies,” Ecojustice Executive Director Devon Page pointed out in a statement following the election call today. 

“Yet the province’s laws and policies haven’t always lived up to its green reputation,” Page said. “Greenhouse gases rose under the NDP-Green coalition, and the government failed to live up to its commitment to introduce endangered species legislation.”

What environmental promises did the NDP make? And, once in power, how many pledges did the party keep? 

The Narwhal dove in. Here’s what we found.

Stopping the Trans Mountain pipeline

The NDP pledged to use “every tool in the toolbox” to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline from going ahead, saying the project was not in B.C.’s interest and would result in a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic. 

“It doesn’t, and won’t, meet the necessary conditions of providing benefits to British Columbia without putting our environment and our economy at unreasonable risk,” the election platform stated.

In 2018, the government announced its intention to explore restricting the transport of diluted bitumen across the province. (Alberta Premier Rachel Notley responded with a brief boycott of B.C. wine.) 

In January 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the B.C. government does not have jurisdiction to regulate the flow of bitumen through the province.

The NDP government opted not to order a “made in B.C.” environmental assessment of the project. It could have done that following a 2016 Supreme Court decision that found the former BC Liberal government’s decision to hand over responsibility for the project’s environmental assessment to the National Energy Board was not legal and the provincial government has a duty to represent the best interests of British Columbians. 

Protecting endangered species 

B.C. has more species at risk of going extinct than anywhere else in Canada. “Yet, we’re one of the only provinces in the country without stand-alone species at risk legislation,” the NDP noted in its election platform. 

The party promised to enact endangered species legislation, reiterating its pledge in Premier John Horgan’s mandate letter to Environment Minister George Heyman. 

After more than three years in power, the NDP government has failed to keep its election promise.

Almost 1,340 species are now on B.C.’s red and blue lists of species at risk of extinction. Another 1,037 species meet the provincial status requirements for red and blue listings but have not yet been added. 

Scientists like UBC biologist Sally Otto, who sits on the federal species at risk advisory committee, have urged the NDP to take action to protect endangered species.

“The bottom line for caribou and many other wildlife species is crystal clear: without timely and meaningful protection and restoration measures, including a provincial endangered species law, these creatures will be lost forever,” wrote Otto and a dozen other scientists in an opinion piece published in The Narwhal.  

Improving management of old-growth forests

The NDP promised to modernize land-use planning “to effectively and sustainably manage” B.C.’s old-growth forests. 

“We will take an evidence-based scientific approach and use the ecosystem-based management of the Great Bear Rainforest as a model,” the party said in its election platform. 

In 2019, the NDP government commissioned foresters Al Gorley and Garry Merkel to conduct an old-growth strategic review. 

In their report, submitted to the government at the end of April, Gorley and Merkel called for a paradigm shift in the way B.C. manages old-growth. They said old forests should be managed for ecosystem health, not for timber.

The duo provided 14 recommendations for the government and called for an immediate deferral of logging in areas at risk of irreversible biodiversity loss. 

In response, the government said it would defer logging in nine areas and would provide a more fulsome update in the spring of 2021. 

None of the nine areas, which total almost 353,000 hectares, was slated for immediate logging. Some have a notable absence of old-growth, while others have already experienced clear cutting.

It’s business as usual everywhere else in the province, including in the old-growth forests in the central Walbran and Fairy Creek on southern Vancouver Island, in endangered caribou habitat in the Anzac Valley north of Prince George and on the Sunshine Coast.

Judy Thomas surveys clear cut logging in the Anzac Valley with journalist Sarah Cox. Photo: Taylor Roades / The Narwhal

Banning grizzly bear trophy hunting 

The NDP promised to ban the grizzly trophy hunt. “It’s not just wrong, it’s bad for the economy,” the party’s election platform said. “The trophy hunting of grizzly bears delivers fewer jobs than wildlife viewing operations, and is opposed by most hunters.”

The new government moved quickly to fulfill its pledge, and a ban on grizzly bear trophy hunting came into effect on Nov. 30, 2017. 

Taking action on climate change

The NDP pledged to implement a “comprehensive” climate action plan to reduce carbon pollution and get the province back on track to meet its climate targets.

In 2018, the government released the CleanBC plan to encourage the use of more clean and renewable energy. By the end of 2019, the government had spent $3.17 million to promote the plan.

But B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. From 2017 to 2018, carbon emissions in the province rose by 3.5 per cent, to 65.5 million tonnes. 

B.C. missed an emission reduction target to cut greenhouse gases 33 per cent from 2007 figures by 2020. The NDP government revised the target, saying it will slash emissions 40 per cent by 2030. It’s unclear how the new goal will be achieved. 

The NDP’s election platform said the party would phase in the federally mandated $50 a tonne carbon price by 2022 over three years, starting in 2020. On April 1, 2019, B.C.’s carbon tax rose from $35 a tonne to $40 a tonne. Following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the B.C. government announced the carbon tax will remain at $40 a tonne until further notice. 

In 2018, the NDP government approved the LNG Canada export project, which will generate about four megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year in the first of two planned phases. That’s equivalent to putting more than 800,000 cars on the road for a year. 

The four megatonnes will account for 10 per cent of B.C.’s entire carbon budget by 2050, placing massive pressure on other sectors — such as transportation, building and industry — to undergo a rapid decarbonization. 

B.C. Premier John Horgan tours the site of the LNG Canada project in Kitimat, B.C., in January 2020. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

The government says CleanBC will take the province 75 per cent of the way to the 2030 target. But the NDP hasn’t identified how it will close the 25 per cent gap.

Earth scientist David Hughes, who was a scientific researcher for 32 years at the Geological Survey of Canada, examined the B.C. government’s emissions math in a recent report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

When the LNG Canada project is factored in, Hughes found that emissions from oil and gas production will exceed the province’s 2050 target by 160 per cent, even if all other emissions are reduced to zero by 2035.  

LNG Canada is one of seven liquified natural gas projects in various stages of proposal, planning and construction in B.C. 

Reviewing fracking

The NDP said it would appoint a scientific panel to review the practice of hydraulic fracturing “to ensure that gas is produced safely, and that our environment is protected.” The panel assessment would include impacts on water and the role gas production plays in seismic activity.

The government followed through and appointed a three-member, independent panel. The panel submitted its final report to Michelle Mungall, former minister of energy, mines and petroleum resources, in February 2019. 

But whether or not the government will implement the majority of the panel’s recommendations remains to be seen. And despite the NDP’s commitment to ensure the gas “is produced safely,” the scientific review did not include an examination of the public health implications of fracking, in keeping with the government’s quiet assurance to the industry lobby group Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that the hot button issue would not be included in the panel’s mandate. 

Even so, the panel found that fracking entails numerous unknown risks to human health and the environment. Panel members cautioned that the severity of those risks is unknown due to a lack of data, noting they were not aware of any health-related studies being conducted in northeast B.C., which is covered with thousands of fracking wells, including in the middle of communities and on farmland.

A natural gas well pad with numerous wells is readied for fracking north of Farmington, B.C. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The panel also found a “profound absence of knowledge” about the presence and migration of fracking fluids — a proprietary mix of chemicals — below the ground.

The panel’s report raised concerns about the thousands of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal wells in northeastern B.C. It found that “the maximum magnitude of an event that could be induced in [northeastern B.C.] is unknown.” 

The government’s response, quietly posted on its website but not sent to media, said new groundwater observation wells near Fort Nelson had been installed, mapping of more than 55 aquifers had been completed and that it would map zones likely to experience greater ground motion from seismic events. It said it had also established a cross-government working group to develop “short-term and long-term action plans” for implementing the panel’s recommendations.

Northeast B.C. is poised for a fracking boom to supply the LNG Canada project. 

Adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The NDP promised to adopt the UN declaration, which outlines global standards for upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The government kept its commitment, passing legislation in November 2019 to enshrine the declaration in B.C. law. The declaration states that large resource projects require the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples on whose territories the projects will be built.

How the declaration is going to be implemented remains an open question and the Wet’suwet’en conflict in early 2020 illustrated the complexity of this commitment. 

Indigenous youth occupy the B.C. legislature in a solidarity action with Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs on Feb. 11. Photo: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Banning political donations from corporations and unions

Saying it would “take big money out of politics,” the NDP promised to ban corporate and union donations to bring B.C. in line with other Canadian jurisdictions. The party moved quickly once in power, passing a law in November 2017, and donations are now limited to B.C. residents, with a cap of $1,200 a year. 

Prior to the new law, corporations such as Imperial Metals, the owner of the Mount Polley mine, and mining titan Teck Resources Ltd., whose coal operations have polluted a transboundary waterway with selenium, donated more than $1 million to political parties.

Banning fish farming on wild salmon migration routes

The NDP pledged to implement the recommendations of the Cohen Commission, “keeping farm sites out of important salmon migration routes, and supporting research and transparent monitoring to minimize the risk of disease transfer from captive to wild fish.” 

It also promised to provide incentives to help the aquaculture industry transition to closed containment where possible. 

A salmon farm at Sonora Point in the Discovery Islands of B.C. Credit: Tavish Campbell

In December 2018, the government announced that salmon farms in the Broughton archipelago would be closed or moved by 2023, following an agreement among the B.C. and federal governments, First Nations and two fish farm companies, Marine Harvest Canada and Cermaq Canada.

Salmon farms remain along wild salmon migration routes in Clayoquot Sound, the Discovery Islands and elsewhere. 

The NDP does not appear to have made any announcements about supporting research and transparent monitoring to minimize the risk of disease transfer from captive to wild fish. Nor has it provided incentives for a transition to closed containment farming. 

Improving wildlife management

The NDP’s election platform said B.C.’s biodiversity, fish and wildlife populations, and the habitat upon which they depend, were under threat due to lack of funding, government cuts to staff and ineffective policies. 

The party pledged to ensure dedicated funding for wildlife and habitat conservation.

Instead, the government has cut spending on matters related to fish, wildlife and the environment, according to Jesse Zeman, director of the fish and wildlife restoration program for the BC Wildlife Federation. 

“The government has publicly announced it’s increasing investment, but behind the scenes it has clawed back base budgets and it has cut funding from the Forest Enhancement Society of BC,” Zeman told The Narwhal. 

“Given B.C.’s biodiversity, we still [have] the most underfunded fish and wildlife agency in North America.”

The government also did not follow through on its election promise to dedicate all hunting fees to fish and wildlife management, Zeman said. 

A caribou cow stands watch over its two-day old calf. Photo: Ryan Dickie / The Narwhal

Increasing the budget for BC Parks

The NDP said it would restore funding for BC Parks, and hire additional park rangers and conservation officers.

The party’s election platform said it aimed to boost the BC Parks budget by $10 million in each of 2018-19 and 2019-20 to restore parks and hire additional park rangers and conservation officers.

The BC Parks budget has only increased by $416,000 since 2017-18, according to budget documents. It’s now $49.7 million. 

The Narwhal asked the B.C. Environment Ministry for the number of conservation officers and park rangers in 2017, as well as for today’s numbers. The ministry did not respond by press time, more than two business days after we put in the request. 

Updating environmental assessment legislation

The NDP said it would update B.C.’s environment assessment legislation and processes for major resource projects to ensure they respect the legal rights of First Nations and “meet the public’s expectations of a strong, transparent process.” 

The government passed Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act, in late 2018. 

Scientists commended the NDP for overhauling the act, calling the bill a “good start” and noting it allows First Nations communities to be involved at the start of assessments.

But an open letter from 180 academic scientists identified three “deficiencies” in the new legislation: a lack of scientific independence, peer-review and transparency.

One of the main deficiencies of the legislation, according to the scientists, is that it still allows project proponents to oversee, collect and present the vast majority of evidence for environmental assessments.

The legislation also has no requirement that all data generated by the project proponent, or gathered by a technical advisory committee, be made public. Nor does it include criteria for how the government’s final assessment decisions will be made. 

Ensuring clean, safe drinking water 

The NDP singled out the former Liberal government for leaving British Columbians in dozens of communities under ongoing boil water advisories. 

The party said it would work with the federal government to improve drinking water quality in B.C. communities and ensure the permitting process prioritizes local drinking water needs. It also said it would review the Water Sustainability Act to ensure drinking water sources are protected. 

In July 2019, B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer found the B.C. government is failing to protect drinking water from increased risks that include climate change and industrial activities such as logging, saying accountability measures for safeguarding drinking water are “of grave concern.”

‘You can’t drink money’: Kootenay communities fight logging to protect their drinking water

The health ministry and the Provincial Health Officer are “not sufficiently protecting drinking water for British Columbians,” Bellringer told reporters.

The audit came as communities around B.C. grappled with imminent plans for logging and other industrial activities in watersheds that supply their drinking, irrigation and, in some cases, fire-fighting water. B.C. currently has 200 boil water advisories and five do not consume water advisories, according to the website Water Today. 

Bringing back investment in clean energy

Saying the Liberal government had made B.C. “unfriendly” to investments in wind and solar projects, the NDP pledged to bring investment in wind, solar and other clean energy projects back to B.C. 

Instead, faced with a growing glut of energy in the province — even before the hugely over budget Site C dam comes online at some unknown point in the future — the government indicated it would shut the door on most new wind and solar projects. It introduced Bill 17 to amend the Clean Energy Act, eliminating the requirement that B.C. be self-sufficient in new power and allowing the province to import cheap power from the U.S., potentially including coal and gas-fired power. 

The NDP government also said it would not renew contracts with independent power producers, leaving family-run, green and clean power projects facing bankruptcy after supplying power to the grid and remote communities for decades. 

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.