When the B.C. government announced its promised review of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, earlier this month, it came as a shock to many that it wouldn’t examine human health impacts.

The announcement coincided with the release in the U.S. of the most authoritative study of fracking’s threats to human health ever published, which found “no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health.”

For Caleb Behn, the government’s announcement marked a loss of hope in the less than one-year-old NDP government.

“They’ve shown themselves ready to sacrifice us and the unborn who will come after us in this territory,” Behn told DeSmog Canada.

Behn is Eh-Cho Dene and Dunne Za/Cree from Treaty 8 in northeastern British Columbia, the epicenter of B.C.’s fracking operations. He was the focus of the 2013 documentary Fractured Land.

Since 2010, the B.C. government has authorized the drilling of 4,772 new wells. There are approximately 25,000 wells in B.C., 12,771 of which are reported as active.

We spoke to Behn about his experience of fracking on and near his traditional territory. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The fracking review announced by the NDP last week won’t involve health impacts. What was your reaction to that?

First thing I’ll say, for the NDP to exempt a review of fracking from any health-oriented research is — I don’t know if I have strong enough words — I feel as if it’s criminal hypocrisy.

To give this problematic industry and this problematic technology a pass on health because you’re pro LNG puts Indigenous and rural populations at risk.

Data gaps and knowledge gaps have been acknowledged in every piece of research ever conducted on this issue in British Columbia. The type of research that has been done up to date in B.C. has been entirely inadequate. That’s well known.

The vast majority of original research on fracking — 84 per cent of which has been conducted in the last four or five years — indicates health risks are present or strongly indicated.

More recently I helped facilitate a pilot study looking at muconic acid, amongst other compounds, in the urine of pregnant Indigenous women in northeast B.C.

Muconic acid is a marker of benzene exposure.

The findings are intense.

In essence, rural woman in northeast B.C. have three and a half times the national average of this marker that is likely, but not guaranteed, benzene metabolization.

What’s interesting is Indigenous women within that cohort have six times the national average.

This is the first original research into the potential human health impacts of fracking in northeast B.C. and I’m surprised it hasn’t raised some red flags. It took over two years to conduct.

To avoid addressing these health impacts in a fracking review is hypocrisy of the deepest and most dangerous kind. And it is evident it’s of a very strategic benefit to the LNG industry.

Can you describe the impact fracking has had on your territory and on your people?

Here’s the problem, you’re dealing with chronic or sub-chronic cumulative exposure illnesses that have long latency periods.

In some ways it’s easy to identify certain risks, like a rig blew up and a worker was killed or a rig caught fire and did some damage.

The really troubling bits are the long latency illnesses like cancer, asthma and gestational problems, so things associated with in utero exposure.

As a person with a major birth defect, I am uniquely sensitive to that issue.

It’s things like increased risk of pre-term birth.

Research now indicates that those who live near active gas wells are 1.5 to four times more likely to suffer asthma attacks than those living further away, with the closest groups having the highest risk.

There’s a 2017 study which analyzed birth certificates for infants born in Pennsylvania that found indicators of poor infant health, in this case lower birth weight for babies, born to mothers living near fracking sites.

You combine that finding with our pilot study in northeast of B.C. looking at the markings of benzene exposure in air of pregnant women, you understand why it’s important to use a precautionary approach to these developments.

Is it that we’re poor and colonized that children do poorly in the northeast or is it the consequence of living in a benzene plume? Again without the science and without research, how can we even approach that question?

I can tell you life is hard in the north, kids don’t do well up there. There’s a lot of crime, a lot of abuse. A lot of that comes from colonization, a lot of that comes from racism, from dysfunction in communities.

But what level of that comes from the ambient hydrogen sulfide, ambient benzene?

We don’t have quantifiable numbers.

We also hear about the social impacts, especially for Indigenous women and children, when it comes to industrialization.

Taylor Roades \ DeSmog Canada

What is your experience of those social impacts?

There’s one major issue I can speak to specifically: violence against women.

My aunty has a very successful business in Fort Nelson, working in the oil and gas industry.

It’s confirmed there’s a rise in crime, sexual violence and the trafficking of Indigenous women during booms in the industry.

Research from in 2015 found there is a linear relationship between highly paid shadow populations in industrial camps, a highly masculine culture and a rise in crime and sexual violence and trafficking of Indigenous women.

Fort St. James data from local RCMP shows a 38 per cent increase in sexual assaults in first year of the construction phase of industrial projects, as well as an increase in sex work in areas where there’s increase in industrial traffic.

What I can tell you is that in my experience, it’s a violent, aggressive and competitive world when these industries come in, subject to boom and bust cycles.

The northeast has been made into a sacrifice zone.

The NDP recently announced some big incentives to entice the LNG industry to come to B.C. Combined with a fracking inquiry that won’t study health impacts, what does that new announcement signal to you?

Many of us in the Indigenous community in northeast B.C. in particular had hope in the NDP. But they’ve shown themselves ready to sacrifice us and the unborn who will come after us in this territory.

That is what is on the table, and that’s why it’s really hurtful to hear them exempt public health from the fracking inquiry.

But we do know the NDP assistant deputy minister did inform the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers over a month in advance of them announcing this review, that health would be exempted.

Of course health is the key issue because with health comes massive financial liability. There’s significant power for doctors and medical health advisors in the Public Health Act.

And what you’re seeing in my view is an affirmation that marginal populations far away from the Lower Mainland don’t matter all that much.

In the Indigenous community we don’t have the research dollars to parse out which of this is due to upstream contamination from logging and mining, versus upstream contamination of our air plume by oil and gas.

I think as an Indigenous person from northeast B.C. that is familiar with these issues, that’s why the exemption is so criminally hypocritical.

The current government frequently evokes Indigenous rights and climate change action in the announcements they make, some of which seem at cross-purposes. What is it like to hear government use that language?

It’s eco-imperialism. Because here is what the NDP is doing — they’re adopting the same crass double think politics that the BC Liberals and the federal Liberals have adopted where they mouth the words but even a superficial analysis of their positions and policies identifies the outright lies.

So to claim that somehow Kinder Morgan is going to lead to protecting the coast — it’s not disingenuous, it’s literally double-think.

So in my view as someone from the sacrifice zone, it’s the saddest manifestation of what is worst in the modern colonial state, to not only colonize the land and the water and the children but also the ideas of decolonization.

To take the very terms that were supposed to ameliorate and begin to try to do better and use those terms like reconciliation and decolonization and UNDRIP and the doctrine of free, prior and informed consent, to sully their aspirations with this crass manipulative rhetoric is the saddest reflection of what our province is becoming and what our country is becoming in my view

I really hope your readers think long and hard about the absolute inconsistency with the NDP’s position on Kinder Morgan and fracking and LNG and Site C.

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. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver went from being B.C.’s solitary Green MLA in 2013 to holding the balance of power in the province’s current minority government.

While the transition has had its ups and downs for the climate scientist, public scrutiny of Weaver’s position and what he ought to do with his influence in government hit an all-time high recently with government’s decision to forge ahead with the controversial Site C dam.

We caught up with Weaver at his office in the legislature to ask him to reflect on the last seven months of cooperation with the NDP government and what he anticipates 2018 holds for some of B.C.’s most pressing energy and environment concerns.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

1) It’s been seven months since you signed a confidence and supply agreement with the NDP. Has that arrangement unfolded as you expected?

I’ve been very pleasantly surprised. I went into this agreement very skeptical about our ability to work with the NDP…[but] we recognized that what was critical for us was that we wanted to give people change. We put together this agreement that gave British Columbians certainty, articulated some key values both parties shared…When we started our negotiations it was pretty tense. When we ended it we ended up really getting to know each other and it was quite positive.

It wouldn’t have happened if there wasn’t a general willingness of both parties to put the interest of British Columbians first. There are areas where we disagree, like Site C dam — an obvious one. But in the end we agree to disagree and we understand that’s healthy. We can disagree and move on. It doesn’t mean we have to throw a hissy fit and make government fall.

2) It’s been a raucous time environmentally for this province. There have been some notable highs and lows. What are you most proud of?

One of the things I felt was a deal breaker for me in the negotiations [with the NDP] was climate policy and we all know underpinning any climate mitigation policy is increasing carbon pricing. To me it was a big victory that we had an increase in carbon price of $5 a year, starting in the April budget for four years … which will take us ahead of Trudeau’s target. So we have both leadership and certainty. To me that was a high point.

There were some other good things: we had a ban on grizzly hunting. I know it’s a bit populist and I know there were some people who are concerned because it wasn’t science based and we’ve been advocating for a science-based approach to ecosystem management…but dealing with grizzlies was a good thing.

3) What has emerged as a memorable low point?

Site C.

In addition, we still haven’t seen any action on fish farms. That to me is a critical one and we’re hoping to see something in the spring on that as these tenures come to. We’ll be pressuring government to take a hard look at the renewal of those tenures because they’re on the record saying they’re going to get fish [farms] out of the migratory path of sockeye.

The biggest issue that we’re working on right now is restructuring the professional reliance model to get industry out of the business of policing themselves.

We have a model where industry hires professional consultants to provide the underlying evidence that a proponent of a project will send into the environmental assessment process. We have a problem there.

We’re tackling that. We’ve got that public consultation process going on now. We’re hoping to see some movement going forward in that area.

The [example of professional reliance] that is most personal and relevant and local is of course the Shawnigan case.

The Shawnigan residents believed and frankly rightly so that government was abdicating its role to actually look out for the betterment of all people and letting industry in some sense police itself. So in that particular case we know the professional reliance engineering group were actually partners in the project and there was some conflict there and that’s all before the courts now.

Another example is Mount Polley. Again, when government is not there enforcing compliance and ensuring regulations are met and ensuring public oversight of these projects, things happen and the public loses trust.

Two other projects that stand out are Kinder Morgan and the Ajax mine.

4) On the subject of the Ajax mine, government recently announced it would not issue permits for that project but was cautious to say the decision was not the result of Indigenous veto. What do you make of this government’s promise to uphold Indigenous rights in this province?

We campaigned on this. We would introduce a Natural Resources Board and part of that board’s process would be to ensure when you’re doing an environmental assessment the process is actually modified through legislation to include assessments based on Indigenous values.

We know from the Tsilhqot’in case there are substantive issues with ignoring the wishes of First Nations. So our process would have involved changing the environmental assessment process to ensure as part of that process Indigenous input is there. Not in terms of a veto, and Indigenous peoples don’t talk in terms of a veto either, but in terms of ensuring their collective wisdom is looked at. It’s not that difficult to do: you have an environmental assessment process, you just need to expand the mandate of that but you also have to bring the actual collection of information and oversight into government too so you’re not letting industry choose which First Nation to consult. You’d have a Natural Resources Board that would have a broader oversight that would actually ensure any assessment process went through a process that had indigenous involvement as well.

It’s not easy but it’s what we need to do.

5) We recently put together a list of resource projects that got it right in 2017. What would you put on that list?

The Valemount geothermal project.

I spent ages pushing that project from the inside because there was an MOU sitting on the minister’s desk, waiting and waiting and waiting. All it needed was to get signed but BC Hydro didn’t want the power. So now they’ve got the exploration permit to get going … but it’s not only the Borealis project in Valemount, it’s also Glacier Destinations, which is a ski resort that’s going to happen there. It’s the exact opposite of Jumbo: the First Nations and the town went together to the architects of the Jumbo resort and said ‘we want this.’ And you have community support for geothermal.

Everybody wins.

6) Do you think more small-scale, local energy projects are in store for B.C.?

It’s the way of the future. It’s not only the way of the future, it’s the reason I got into politics.

When you build distributed renewable energy resources you’re putting them in small communities all across B.C. in partnership with First Nations, you’re getting these First Nations off diesel, you’re bringing long-term stable jobs into the communities. You’re not just building construction projects with no jobs at the end. There are so many examples whether in Tofino, Port Alberni, Lytton, where there have been very successful small-scale hydro projects done in partnership with First Nations.

We know right now there’s proposals for solar in Cranbrook, hopefully Borealis geothermal, wind projects all over the place and pumped storage. They’re all ready to go but in B.C. there’s only one purchaser of power: BC Hydro.  So none of them can go ahead unless BC Hydro says we will take that power from you but BC Hydro is building Site C and Site C is taking up any increase in demand for the foreseeable future.

7) What impact do you expect the approval of Site C to have on the renewable energy industry in B.C.?

A few days ago I received an e-mail from a CEO of a renewable energy company that is B.C.-based and they’re essentially saying Site C has killed their industry.

It’s not only him — I’ve heard that time and time again, that people have come to B.C. to invest in the renewable energy potential here and now they feel they have been thrown under the bus. There’s a reason the Canadian Wind Energy Association left B.C., went to Alberta and look what we see: 600 MW of power coming in at 3.7 cents per kilowatt hour. That’s the opportunity we lost.

8) You know a lot of people said the Site C decision should have been the moment the Green party used its position to bring down government. Did you consider that decision and why?

Not for a second.

Even before the decision I let people know that we’re not going to make government fall over whatever decision they made.

The question I would ask people is how would that have changed the outcome? If we caused government to fall on a vote … a budget amendment or confidence vote … government would fall, there would be an election probably by May or June and we’d have spent another $1 billion on Site C.

So what’s the possible results we could get? A majority Liberal government — Site C goes forward. Majority NDP government — Site C goes forward. Minority government — we’re back at the negotiating table.

The reason we didn’t put it in the confidence agreement is that’s not how you develop partnerships. You don’t put a gun to someone’s head … we accepted the NDP’s argument that we would send this to the BCUC. We were comfortable with that because we knew what the BCUC would say. We were delighted with that report. They had everything they needed to cancel it.

9) You’ve said before that with the approval of Site C your party will push for a greater electrification of B.C.’s systems. Is that something you’ll be turning your attention toward in 2018?

We’re already pushing for the introduction of an aggressive zero emission vehicle standard. We need BC Hydro to step up and start to bring in the infrastructure for electric. We need to change legislation and regulatory structure in B.C. to allow people to charge for power in charging stations.

Industry wants to invest in charging stations but they can’t sell the power unless they’re a utility. It starts to become bureaucratic. We will push for electrification. What else can we do?

10) Energy and environment issues are quickly evolving from transitions in energy markets to evolving perspectives on Indigenous rights. One industry that has been affected by these changes is the LNG industry. What is your take on LNG for 2018?

If B.C. starts to focus again on trying to land an LNG industry given all that has happened, I can tell you I am voting government down. I am not standing by no matter when it happens. I am not standing by and watching us give away the farm yet again to land an industry we’re not competitive in. That’s my line in the sand.

LNG is gone because we know global markets, China is over supplied in their contracts. For some time there is no supply gap that needs to be filled.

This is the opportunity to capitalize on the new economy. Given our stable democracy in unstable times, given our access to clean energy and businesses around the world that want to label themselves clean, if we go down this LNG path and start to sign sweet deals again then we might as well have the BC Liberals back in power.

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 NDP government’s arithmetic on Site C cancellation costs is “deeply flawed,” has “no logic at all,” and is “appalling,” according to three project financing experts.

Eoin Finn, a retired partner of KPMG, one of the world’s largest auditing firms, said Premier John Horgan’s claim that terminating Site C would result in an almost immediate 12 per cent hydro rate hike is the “worst rationale I’ve heard since ‘the dog ate my homework’” excuse.  

“I expected better when the new government came in,” said Finn. “They’ve just continued what [former premier] Christy Clark did to hide the true costs of Site C and hope that they get re-elected before the next generation finds out.”

“This is the stupidest capital decision ever made by a B.C. premier. I don’t know who is giving them accounting advice.”

Rob Botterell, legal counsel for the Peace Valley Landowner Association, representing 70 landowners who will lose homes and property to the Site C dam, called on the NDP government to disclose who advised Cabinet on hydro rate increases in the event that Site C were terminated.

“We call on you and your colleagues in Cabinet and Caucus to publicly release the detailed, un-redacted, information and advice and analysis on which you based this finding,” Botterell wrote to Attorney General David Eby and Environment Minister George Heyman.

On Thursday, the landowner association and the Peace Valley Environment Association hand-delivered a letter to B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer, asking her to launch an “urgent examination” of the government’s Site C termination and completion cost figures.

The letter also asked Bellringer to verify the cash impact of both scenarios on British Columbians.

The Auditor General’s office was in the midst of investigating Site C’s finances last summer when the new NDP government asked the watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission to review the project, which will flood the traditional homeland of Treaty 8 First Nations, violate basic human rights, force farming and ranching families from their homes, and destroy critical habitat for rare and endangered species.

The BCUC review disclosed that Site C is over budget, behind schedule, beset with geotechnical issues and embroiled in legal and financial challenges with its main civil works contractor, which lost its Canadian partner earlier this year when Petrowest Corporation slid into receivership.

NDP Not Following Standard Accounting Practices, Experts Say

Horgan told reporters Monday that the only recourse if Site C were cancelled would be to hit BC Hydro customers almost immediately with a 12 per cent rate increase to cover the project’s $2.1 billion in sunk costs and $1.8 billion in reclamation costs.

But Finn, along with U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough and Harry Swain, a retired bank president with expertise in project financing, told DeSmog Canada that standard accounting practice for utilities like BC Hydro is to write off the costs of a discontinued project over many years.

“What’s appalling about this is that Cabinet has been advised by some people who simply don’t understand how the finance system works,” said Swain, the former CEO of Hambros Canada Inc. and a former board member of Hambros Bank Ltd. of London.

“I can’t believe that their arithmetic is that bad,” said Swain, who chaired the Joint Review Panel on Site C for the federal and provincial governments. “It’s all very depressing.”

McCullough, a former officer for a large hydroelectric facility in Portland, Oregon, said Site C’s sunk costs — mainly accrued as former Premier Christy Clark attempted to push the project past the “point of no return” — can be amortized over the 70 years that Site C was expected to produce electricity, in keeping with standard procedure for North American utilities.

“Ratepayers should not be punished for the utility making the correct policy decision, and nor would they be in any normal circumstance,” said McCullough, who was hired by the Peace Valley Landowner Association to provide expert testimony for the BCUC review.

“It’s not at all unusual for a project to stop and start for good reason,” McCullough said, adding that one common reason for terminating an energy project is a change in policy.

Swain said Site C’s sunk costs could be paid off over 30 years “without any heavy breathing at all.”

Finn called the government’s claim that terminating Site C would immediately incur up to $150 million a year in new debt service charges “pure financial fiction,” pointing out that BC Hydro has already borrowed the money and is paying interest on it so cancelling Site C will not make any difference.

“What’s appalling about this is that Cabinet has been advised by some people who simply don’t understand how the finance system works.” https://t.co/ExRvtuoFKn

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 15, 2017

What About Site C’s Reclamation Costs?

McCullough said the reclamation costs could be dealt with swiftly if the government declared the disturbed area of the Peace River Valley a park, making it a provincial asset and removing remediation costs from Site C’s books.

The cost of remediating the valley area already disturbed by clear cutting and bull-dozing for Site C is a matter of contention.

West Moberly First Nations chief Roland Willson has said the NDP’s stated $1.8 billion reclamation cost is greatly exaggerated. He urged BC Hydro and the government to make Site C’s construction site safe and “go home,” allowing natural regeneration of the boreal forest.

Even assuming that $1.8 billion in reclamation costs is factored into the equation, cancelling Site C will result in a 4.9 per cent hydro rate hike starting in 2024, McCullough said.

But that compares very favourably to the 12.4 per cent rate hike that will hit hydro customers that same year if Site C continues, he pointed out.

And that’s top of 30 per cent hydro rate increases already projected by the NDP government over the next 10 years, and also assuming that Site C’s cost does not escalate further.

Site C was announced as a $6.6 billion project in 2010. The price tag jumped to $7.9 billion by 2013, then to $8.8 billion in 2014.

On Monday, the NDP government revealed that the cost has soared to $10.7 billion just two years into a nine-year construction schedule, raising questions about whether Site C will become a boondoggle like Labrador’s Muskrat Falls dam, which will add an average $1,800 to the annual hydro bills of every household in that province.

What Happened to That Independent BCUC Oversight?

The NDP continues to criticize the former Liberal government for failing to send Site C to the BCUC for review before it decided to proceed with the Peace River project.

Yet, according to the three project financing experts, Cabinet neglected to follow proper procedure and allow the BCUC — an independent regulator that makes decisions based on the best financial interests of hydro customers — to decide how Site C’s termination costs could be best distributed to avoid a rate shock.

Swain called the matter an “ordinary regulatory decision,” while Finn said it is “not the government’s business” to decide how Site C’s termination costs would be allocated.

“The government has no right to make that judgment,” said Finn, adding that the only way Cabinet can override BCUC oversight is to pass an Order in Council.

“They’re side-stepping the legal obligation under the Utilities Act to involve the BCUC. They never asked the B.C. Utilities Commission.”

Horgan’s office confirmed to DeSmog Canada on Thursday that Cabinet did not pass an Order in Council.

In puzzling logic, Eby said in a public statement on Thursday that the recovery period for Site C’s costs would only be subject to an independent BCUC review “if, and when these costs are incurred,” meaning that the BCUC would only be able to make that decision after Cabinet decided to cancel Site C.

McCullough, whose testimony to a U.S. Senate Committee helped spark the criminal investigation into Enron, said recovery of an energy project’s termination cost is “a very common practice in the utility business and is addressed in every utility’s annual report.”

What About B.C.’s Credit Rating?

McCullough also pointed out that B.C.’s triple A credit rating has just been confirmed.

Contrary to statements made by the NDP, cancelling Site C does not put the province’s credit rating in jeopardy because Site C’s sunk costs have already been financed with 30-year bonds, he said.

On the other hand, spending at least $8 billion more to complete Site C when its power can be replaced for only $4 billion, “may concern the bond raters,” McCullough wrote in a December 11 memorandum for the landowner association.

He pointed out that the same issue was a factor in the downgrading of Newfoundland and Manitoba’s credit ratings as both provinces grappled with huge cost overruns on large hydro dam projects.

“Even if the inflated $1.8 billion in termination costs are added, cancelling Site C will save ratepayers at least $266 million [a] year or $123 [per] household in 2024,” McCullough wrote in comments the landowner association submitted to Bellringer’s office.

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 full public inquiry, with powers to call witnesses and gather research, is needed to investigate natural gas fracking operations in B.C., says a coalition of 17 community, First Nations and environmental organizations.

The group, which includes the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, David Suzuki Foundation, Public Health Association of B.C. and West Coast Environmental Law, is appealing to the NDP government to call a public inquiry — instead of the scientific review promised during the election campaign — because of mounting evidence of problems caused by fracking.

“We believe that the NDP’s campaign promise to appoint a scientific panel to review fracking won’t be enough to fully address the true risks of deploying this brute force technology throughout northeast B.C.,” said Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, one of the organizations asking for an inquiry.

Fracking — or hydraulic fracturing — involves pumping large volumes of water into the ground at high pressure to break open rocks or fissures and extract oil or gas.

Problems include excessive water usage, induced earthquakes, poor consultation with First Nations and the proliferation of dozens of unlicensed, earthen dams, constructed by companies ignoring provincial water laws.

The BC Greens have called on the NDP to investigate the use of unapproved dams.

The use of fracking in B.C. comes with serious implications, Parfitt said.

“We have significant earthquake activity that is being generated in the northeast of the province, with the largest earthquakes associated with fracking operations occurring in B.C., and we also have strong indications that the amount of water that is being used, and subsequently contaminated, is at a level that is not seen anywhere else on the continent,” Parfitt said in an interview.

At a Progress Energy site near Fort St. John, where, in 2015, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission confirmed a record-setting 4.6 magnitude earthquake was caused by fracking, the company was using eight times more water than used at operations anywhere in the U.S., Parfitt said.

Coalition Calls for Public Inquiry Into B.C. #Fracking https://t.co/wxylk6DXL9 #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 6, 2017

“The water volumes are very, very significant and there is a correlation between the tremendous amount of water being used and the earthquakes that are cropping up,” he said.

BC Hydro has expressed concern about fracking in areas near major dams and a public inquiry could look at whether there should be exclusion zones, he said.

One reason for the excessive use of water in areas such as Montney Basin is to coax valuable gas liquids to the surface. The presence of the gas liquids is one reason fracking operations are increasing even though natural gas prices remain low.

Gas liquids include light oil, condensate, butane and propane. Condensate from the Montney Basin is used to dilute bitumen from the Alberta oilsands.

Air as well as water is affected by fracking and there is compelling evidence from the David Suzuki Foundation that more methane is venting into the atmosphere from oil and gas operations than previously reported.

“That is going to have a serious impact on our greenhouse gas emissions in the province,” Parfitt said.

Peer-reviewed research from the Suzuki Foundation found that methane pollution, largely from fracking operations, is 2.5 times more than reported by the industry and the provincial government.

Ian Bruce, Suzuki Foundation science and policy director, said the province must make controlling methane pollution a priority and then ensure the industry helps come up with solutions.

“Right now, we know that British Columbians are not getting accurate and transparent information about the real environmental damages from oil and gas activities,” Bruce said.

For First Nations, a major concern is unlicensed dams built on First Nations land without consultation.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs president, said the dam-building free-for-all and effects of excessive water use by the industry is deeply troubling.

“There are still no substantive or meaningful opportunities to fully participate in decisions around how water resources are managed in our respective territories,” he said in a news release.

“We need a credible, strong, independent inquiry to get to the bottom of this,” Phillip said.

Among questions that need scrutiny are the public health effects, said Larry Barzelai of the B.C. Chapter of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Recent U.S. studies have shown increases in premature births, asthma and congenital heart disease in people living close to fracking operations, Barzelai said.

“Can we be assured that the same complications will not occur in B.C.? We think that a properly funded public inquiry, with a comprehensive and strong mandate, is needed to answer critical questions such as these,” he said.

Public inquiries in B.C., such as probes into forest industry practices, have produced useful recommendations, but the gas industry has never been subjected to such scrutiny, Parfitt noted.

Among questions the group wants addressed are:

• The extent of consultation with First Nations and whether it meets standards set by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Public health and safety risks.
• Risks to the environment and water resources.
• Risks to critical infrastructure, such as dams.
• Increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
• Whether there is adequate monitoring and transparency by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission.

During this year’s election campaign the NDP acknowledged there are questions about fracking and the party’s election platform said: “With the potential of significant expansion of gas production in the years ahead, we will appoint a scientific panel to review the practice to ensure that gas is produced safely and that our environment is protected.”

The review will include an assessment of the impacts on water and “given recent minor earthquakes in the area,” what role gas production has in seismic activity, it said.

So far, the government has not moved on the scientific review and the mandate letter, given by Premier John Horgan to Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister Michelle Mungall, makes no specific mention of the review, although it could be encompassed in more general endorsements of sustainability and respect for First Nations.

Neither Mungall nor Green Party spokespeople were available to comment by deadline for this story. However, later Monday the Ministry of Energy and Mines sent along a statement from Mungall:

“The provincial government is attentive to the concerns expressed about hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia, and we respect the diversity of opinions shared with us by third parties and stakeholders.

“We will act on our commitment and appoint a scientific panel to review hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia. This will include looking at impacts on water and the relationship to seismic activity. Further details will be announced in the near future.”

In 2016, after a scientific study was published drawing a direct line between fracking and earthquakes in the Western Canada sedimentary basin, on the Alberta/B.C. border, Green Party leader Andrew Weaver called for a “moratorium on horizontal hydraulic fracturing until there is a better understanding of its risks.”

In a September interview with DeSmog Canada, Weaver said the problem was not so much the existence of fracking, but the free-for-all approach.

“The right approach would be to pause and reflect on the cumulative impacts of our wild-west approach to resource extraction here in B.C.” Weaver said.

The Green platform called for creation of a natural resources board, which could take a detailed look at the cumulative effects.

Image: Premier John Horgan tours the AltaGas Ridley Island propane export facility. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

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

In the wee hours of Wednesday morning major news outlets like the CBC made the official call: the B.C. Liberals had won a minority government in the 2017 provincial election.

Except they haven’t … quite … yet.

Here’s how the numbers are currently being reported: B.C. Liberals 43 seats, NDP 41 seats, Greens 3 seats.

These numbers are far from final. As Elections B.C. states right up there on its website, these are primary voting results from an initial count. “Final voting results will not be available until after the conclusion of final count, which will commence on May 22, 2017,” the site states.

There are about 160,000 absentee ballots waiting to be counted and some too-close-to-call ridings like Courtenay-Comox are facing a recount.

But, as Simon Fraser University student Steve Tweedale put it, we don’t need a final count to know it’s false to report the election resulted in a B.C. Liberal minority government.

“Assuming the preliminary count holds up, the outcome of the election is a hung parliament (sometimes called a minority parliament), meaning that no single party has a majority of seats. Under B.C.’s parliamentary system of government, elections determine the composition of the Legislative Assembly; they do not determine the composition of the government,” Tweedale writes.

The B.C. Liberals won 43 seats, just one seat shy of a majority. It is true that Clark will remain premier for the timebeing but she must retain the confidence of the house to continue as premier. If she cannot, one of several things can happen.

In this hung parliament situation, “the norm is the current premier gets the first shot at it, gets the first opportunity to form government,” UBC political scientist Kathryn Harrison told DeSmog Canada.

Clark could try her hand at governing with a minority government but in each act of convening the house she would run the risk of losing its confidence.

“One option would be for the Liberals to take their chances, stake out their positions, the route they would propose to go in government in a throne speech and invite other parties to defeat them which is an interesting option — it’s a bit of a game of chicken,” Harrison said.

“They won’t expect the popular vote.”

Or Clark could choose to step down.

“Sometimes it’s in the interest of a government to control the terms of their defeat,” Harrison said.

If Clark did announce her resignation to the Lieutenant Governor the buck would pass to NDP leader John Horgan to become premier with a minority government. Horgan, like Clark, would need to maintain the confidence of the house to carry this out.

But the B.C. Liberals and the NDP might also jockey for the support of the Green party's three MLAs in the hopes of forming either formal or informal coalitions.

As Clark said last night, “I will work with the other parties to do what needs to be done to keep fighting to protect” B.C.

Here’s where things get very interesting. If you watched coverage of the election last night you may have heard that Andrew Weaver’s Green party “held the balance of power” meaning the Greens have the option to formally (by forming a coalition government) or informally (by maintaining confidence through the support of policy measures and budgets, for example) prop up either the Liberals or the NDP.

“In the days ahead there will be plenty of discussions taking place between all parties,” Weaver told a room of supporters last night.

A BC Liberal Minority Government? Not So Fast https://t.co/CHmRlPXpub #bcpoli #bcelxn2017 @BCGreens #electoralreform @bcndp

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 10, 2017

A Liberal/Green Coalition?

It’s likely Clark will invite the Greens to join her cabinet, which they can do as Greens without crossing the aisle. But it is also likely that there will be some irreconcilable political differences that keep the Liberal and Green MLAs at loggerheads.

Weaver has yet to signal what his intentions are (although he did seem to suggest a preference for working with Clark in a controversial Global News interview) but throughout his campaign he stated banning big money in B.C. politics and electoral reform were up top on his list of priorities.

For years Weaver has campaigned to strengthen B.C.’s political donation rules, which currently allow unlimited amounts of foreign, corporate and union donations. The Green party has taken a strong stance on this issue by refusing to accept any corporate or union funds.

"Without any question, that's a deal breaker,” he said last week. “We've got to get the money out of politics.”

This could make the formation of a coalition government with the Liberals — a party awash in corporate cash — difficult.

The Green party is also committed to electoral reform, pushing for proportional representation in B.C. rather than the current first-past-the-post system.

“We support proportional representation because it is a fairer voting system, which encourages democratic participation and accurately reflects voters’ choices in the make-up of government,” Weaver said.

“It’s not obvious what the deal there would be,” Harrison said. “These are not issues that will be easy for Liberals and Greens to come to agreement upon.”

“Maybe financial reform,” Harrison said, “but electoral reform does not serve the Liberals' interests.”

On election night Weaver also stated his position on LNG is non-negotiable. Two LNG projects are approved in British Columbia — Woodfibre LNG in Howe Sound and Pacific Northwest LNG near Prince Rupert, which is projected to be one of the single largest source points of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, making it impossible for B.C. to meet its climate targets.

The Green party also pledged to cancel the controversial Site C dam, a crowning achievement and non-negotiable project for the B.C. Liberals.

So the differences in the Liberal and Green platforms seem pretty vast.

A NDP/Green Coalition?

As certainly as the Liberals will go courting the Greens, so will the NDP.

At a rally last night, John Horgan said a new government is in order.

“British Columbians have waited 16 years for a government that works for them, and we are going to have to ask you to wait a little bit longer until all the votes are counted and the final results of this election are known,” he said.

“But this is what we do know: A majority of British Columbians voted for a new government and I believe that’s what they deserve.”

A coalition between the NDP and the Greens seems easier to accomplish at least on the surface as the two parties share more general alignment on policies.

Of greatest significance is the NDP-Green alignment on two policies that would change B.C. elections forever. 

The NDP commitment to ban corporate and union donations falls squarely in line with one of the Green’s top priorities.

On electoral form, the NDP have also spoken in favour, vowing to send the issue to a referendum and campaign in favour of reform if if elected — also in line with the Green platform.

The NDP have also explicitly spoken out against the Pacific Northwest LNG project, due to significant greenhouse gas emissions and threats to the Skeena River salmon runs. So the NDP and Greens will likely have an easier time finding common ground when it comes to the LNG industry.

On Site C, the NDP have promised to send the Site C dam for an expedited review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, so it's also not hard to imagine the Greens and NDP finding common ground on this issue.

It’s possible a coalition with the Greens will give the NDP the political cover necessary to make several bold moves including banning big money in politics, moving to some form of proportional representation and possibly even scrapping the Site C dam altogether. 

Coalition a ‘Risky Proposition’ for Greens

The Greens will want to proceed carefully in their discussions with either the Liberals or the NDP, Harrison said.

“Coalitions governments are risky for junior partners,” she said.  

“I think for the Greens to enter a formal or informal coalition with either the NDP or the Liberals is a risky proposition because the junior partners in those coalitions tends to not fare well in the next election.”

The Green party will need to decide what its hardline tradeoff will be for supporting another party.

“Green parties internationally have a tendency to insist on some policy like a carbon tax — we already have one — as a condition for participation in the coalition and then get wiped off the map in the next election.”  

Yet there may be one key condition the Greens could place on their support: the promise of electoral reform.

“In this case I think the big win, the Holy Grail for the Greens would be a commitment to electoral reform for the system,” Harrison said.

The Green vote is depressed by the first-past-the-post system, Harrison said.

“It’s not that they don’t win seats, it’s that a lot of voters aren’t voting Green because they know their vote won’t count.”

A change in B.C.'s electoral system would both transform electoral politics in B.C. and would also change prospects for the Green party in the future, Harrison added.

“But it’s hard for me to imagine the Greens getting that concession from the Liberals because the Liberals have been the biggest beneficiary of the current electoral system.”

Image: Premier Christy Clark and Lieutenant Governor of B.C., the Honourable Judith Guichon, dissolve parliament for the 2017 election period. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

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

Leaked internal documents and theatrical political spin?

Nothing like a little intrigue to spice up your B.C. climate politics, amiright?

Just in case you weren’t aware, the race for political leadership in B.C. is on. With the May 9 election just three months away, it’s time for the mud-slinging to begin, I guess.

The BC Liberals aren’t wasting any time.

This morning the BC Liberals leaked internal NDP documents related to the official opposition’s climate plan — 90 minutes before NDP leader John Horgan was due to release the plan at a Vancouver press conference.

Saucy.

(If you want to read Environment Minister Mary Polak’s bafflegab on the leaked documents, the Vancouver Sun gave her plenty of room here.)

But for those interested in the meat of the NDP’s actual plan to address climate change, there’s a lot in the documents that indicates the party is promising to take B.C. in a very different climate direction.

And in a rather hilarious twist, the very plan the BC Liberals leaked is now being praised by climate experts because it promises to actually reduce carbon pollution — something the current provincial government has consistently failed to do.

The NDP’s climate plan is also being praised precisely because it takes up the recommendations of Premier Christy Clark’s own Climate Leadership Team — a group of experts the premier hired to come up with a solid climate plan and then completely ignored.

One of the most striking aspects of the climate plan is its promise to unfreeze the provincial carbon tax, thereby addressing one of the most highly criticized climate moves of the B.C. government under Christy Clark.

“We are absolutely encouraged by this plan,” Josha MacNab, B.C. director of the Pembina Institute, told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s refreshing to see a commitment to reduce B.C.’s emissions and it’s encouraging to see the NDP take up the Climate Leadership Team’s recommendations because we know those recommendations offer a blueprint to actually meeting those emission reductions.”

The B.C. NDP plan is anchored in five guiding principles: reducing carbon pollution, increasing the carbon tax, keeping those increases affordable, investing in clean energy and regulating emissions on a sector by sector basis.

BC Liberals Criticized for Reversing Province’s Climate Leader Reputation

“B.C. definitely came out strong in 2008 with a climate plan that was put out under the previous premier Gordon Campbell,” MacNab said.

“That’s where we saw a number of productive policies like the carbon tax. But unfortunately since 2011 and 2012 we haven’t seen any new policies put into place to reduce emissions and we’ve seen a freeze on the carbon tax.”

MacNab said the freeze on the carbon tax is part of the reason for B.C.’s steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s a really important instrument for reducing carbon pollution. And one of the things that’s really important about it is that it continues to go up in a predictable way.”

Clark came under fire throughout 2016 for failing to meaningfully implement any of the several recommendations made to her by the leadership team which included an esteemed panel of climate experts.

In May 2016, seven members of the panel penned a scathing open letter criticizing the Premier for ignoring the team’s climate recommendations and delaying the release of a provincial climate action plan.

When the BC Liberals did eventually release a climate plan — six months overdue — it failed to increase the province’s lagging carbon tax or update the province’s greenhouse gas emissions targets, two major recommendations made by the Climate Leadership Team.

Climate Leadership Team member Tzeporah Berman told DeSmog Canada the BC Liberal’s climate plan was essentially a “fake.”

“It allowed pollution to go up,” Berman said.

“Christy Clark’s plan was bought and paid for by oil and gas,” she said. “It was designed in back rooms with no consultation and ignored the recommendations of her own team.”

The B.C. NDP has vowed to issue rebates for low income British Columbians to offset the increase in the carbon tax. Horgan said about 80 per cent of British Columbians would be eligible for rebates.

“John Horgan and the NDP’s climate plan is strong and it ensures affordability [for British Columbians],” Berman added.

BC Liberals Criticized for Reversing Province’s Climate Leader Reputation https://t.co/DiUL2tcsXf #bcpoli #bcelxn17 pic.twitter.com/AHCs9wenea

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 8, 2017

NDP Climate Plan Includes “Concrete Steps” to Emissions Reductions

Berman added she is pleased to see the NDP plan relies on concrete steps towards climate action.

Under Clark the province committed to reducing emissions 80 per cent below 2007 levels by 2050, but failed to outline a pathway to achieving those targets.

Canada’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change estimates B.C.’s emissions will grow 32 per cent between 2013 and 2030.

“It is very encouraging to see a strong commitment to get B.C. back on track to meeting its emissions targets,” MacNab said.

Mark Jaccard, professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University, said he is encouraged by the plan’s focus on “concrete policies.”

“By concrete policies it doesn’t need to be carbon pricing — they’re also talking about emissions reductions in different sectors and smart and flexible regulatory approaches that might achieve that.”

Jaccard added that “compulsory policy” is essential to any meaningful plan.

“It would be things like low carbon fuel standards…B.C.’s electricity policy, or another example would be the California vehicle emissions standards.”

Jaccard said concrete policies like the carbon fuel standard introduced under Premier Gordon Campbell languished under Clark.

“Christy Clark has not tightened the carbon fuel standard. Ever single year from 2011 to 2016 it should have gone up a notch and it never did.”

“The stringency of policies should increase every year and then be mapped onto specific climate targets. So I’m pleased to see the NDP having actual targets that they’re mapping these climate plans on to."

Jeremy Moorhouse, senior analyst at Clean Energy Canada, said in addition to meeting the province’s climate targets, the NDP plan could lead to beneficial jobs growth in the clean energy sector.

“The NDP’s proposed Clean Growth and Climate Action plan targets two critical goals: growing B.C.’s economy and driving down carbon pollution,” he said.

“Our research has found that both these objectives can be met with a well-designed clean growth and climate strategy, one that would add 270,000 jobs to B.C.’s economy by 2025 while cutting carbon pollution.”

Image: B.C. NDP leader John Horgan speaks to the press in Vancovuer in 2014. Photo: BCNDP via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

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.

Allowing wealthy corporations or powerful government agencies to launch baseless court cases against citizens who speak out against them is putting a chill on free expression in B.C. and there is a growing need for legislation against SLAPP suits, says the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

It is time to fight back against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which aim to intimidate and silence critics by landing them with the often-unmanageable cost of defending themselves against an unwarranted lawsuit, said Micheal Vonn, BCCLA policy director, who believes SLAPP suits are undermining B.C.’s democratic health.

BCCLA is aiming to put pressure on the provincial government to bring in anti-SLAPP legislation, similar to changes introduced last year in Ontario, to help those threatened with legal action to defend themselves against those with powerful financial interests and deep pockets.

“We need a concerted movement for people to make their voices heard. We need to explain what SLAPP is, what it does, what devastation it can cause and how it skews and distorts the political process,” Vonn said.

“There is the ability to bring a suit that has zero merit and it could be weeks in court before it comes to the crux of the argument, and by that time, you may have spent your whole life savings,” said Vonn, emphasizing that corporations are careful to frame lawsuits in such a way that basic protections against “frivolous or vexatious” lawsuits do not click in until someone has already mortgaged their house or gone deep into debt.

“It is too late even if you win, because the process is the punishment,” she said.

Other jurisdictions, ranging from Quebec to Texas, have anti-SLAPP legislation and, in 2001, in the dying days of the NDP government, B.C. New Democrats briefly enacted anti-SLAPP legislation that was seen as ground-breaking.

But it was repealed five months later by the newly-elected BC Liberal government who argued it would lead to a “protest culture.”

Laws Needed to Protect Citizens from Industry & Government SLAPP Suits, Says @bccla https://t.co/4VS24Uc8MU #bcpoli #SiteC #KinderMorgan

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 7, 2016

Last year, the NDP again unsuccessfully tried to reintroduce anti-SLAPP legislation and the issue remains on the NDP to-do-list as the province heads into a spring election.

“People must be able to have their voices heard without the threat of expensive legal action,” said New Democrat justice spokesman Leonard Krog, when he introduced the motion.

“The rights of free speech and peaceful assembly are absolutely fundamental to any democratic society.”

A statement from the Justice Ministry, in answer to questions from DeSmog Canada, said the province has existing mechanisms for dealing with improper lawsuits or other abuses of legal process.

“These include court rules allowing for the early dismissal of frivolous claims, summary judgments, security for costs and awards of costs where a lawsuit is found to be without merit,” said the emailed statement.

“These mechanisms work to protect the public from abuses of legal process and ensure British Columbians can participate in public discussion without fear of retribution.”

Vonn disagrees.

“There has been a growing aggressiveness around SLAPPs. It has certainly affected environmental groups — but not just environmental groups — who have found themselves deeply hampered in public participation by having to deal with these suits,” Vonn said.

Recent cases that raised questions include:

• A $6.6-million lawsuit launched by Kinder Morgan against five members of the group Burnaby Residents Opposing Kinder Morgan Expansion — the suit was later dropped with the company picking up court costs;
• Taseko Mines was accused of filing a SLAPP suit against opponents of its proposed tailing plan at the New Prosperity mine;
• BC Hydro is being accused of using SLAPP tactics in civil suits against six protest campers at the Site C dam site — something that BC Hydro denies, saying it supports protests that do not disrupt construction;
• Numerous legal letters were delivered to residents of Shawnigan Lake who oppose a contaminated landfill site operated by South Island Resource Management Ltd.

“These are people like your neighbour, who are speaking their minds about something that affects them deeply,” Vonn said.

BCCLA and others working towards anti-SLAPP legislation envisage rules that would ensure early access to the court system to weed out potential SLAPP suits.

“The ultimate goal here is to basically level the playing field to make sure parties who are the targets of these sorts of suits have access to the courts early and they can present to the court to say why they think it’s a SLAPP suit and what remedy they are seeking,” said Chris Tollefson, Hakai Chair in Environmental Law and Sustainability at the University of Victoria and co-founder of the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation.

With a fast-track procedure it would then be up to the court to give the case special scrutiny and decide whether there should be an early dismissal, he said.

“I think there’s a very significant issue of democracy in play here if we think of democracy as being a system where people are not only protected, but encouraged to express themselves even in ways that might be controversial, in ways that challenge government or private companies. If that is something that we are serious about, we need to take steps to protect that wherever there’s a threat,” Tollefson said.

Enacting legislation should be an issue that crosses party lines, he said.

“This should not be party political. There should be no question really that this is something that one needs to do regardless of what party you support,” Tollefson said.

Image: B.C. legislature. Photo: Jason Baker via Flickr CC by 2.0.

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 2014 financial reports from B.C.’s political parties are out and my face hurts from all of the eyebrow raising.

Donations to political parties from corporations are banned federally, but here in B.C. — the wild west of political donations — the corporate cash is free-flowing.

Here are the Top 5 disconcerting revelations from this year’s disclosures. (Thanks to Integrity BC for drawing my attention to many of these.)

1) Let’s start with the $40,950 that accounting firm KPMG gave to the BC Liberals in 2014. KPMG is the company BC Hydro hired to “independently review” the costs of the $8.8 billion Site C dam. The B.C. government has pointed to the KPMG report to defend its decision to ignore an expert recommendation to send the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review.

Since 2005, KPMG and its related companies have given $284,994 to the BC Liberals and $13,150 to the NDP.

2) In the words of IntegrityBC’s Dermod Travis “the 2014 Award for Incredibly Bad Taste in Donations goes to Imperial Metals, owners of the Mount Polley mine.”

The mining company donated $7,150 to the Liberals, including a $1,500 cheque in October and another for $250 in November, in the months following the company’s enormous Mount Polley tailings dam failure.

“The spill may have been toxic, but Imperial's cash wasn't,” Travis quipped.

3) Oil and gas transportation companies got in on the action, too, with Kinder Morgan ($4,500), TransCanada Pipelines ($5,600), Coastal GasLink Pipeline ($12,500) and Enbridge Northern Gateway ($13,450) all filling up the Liberal’s bank account.

Woodfibre LNG, which is proposing a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Howe Sound, gave $28,000 to the Liberals and $8,000 to the B.C. NDP. Woodfibre also spent more than $18,000 on newspaper and radio ads in Squamish during the November 2014 local election.

4) As the high-stakes Metro Vancouver waste debate raged on last year, BFI Canada gave the Liberals $91,300 and Belkorp Environmental Services gave $37,200.

Those companies didn’t like Metro Vancouver’s garbage plans, so they also hired lobbyists to pressure the provincial government. According to B.C.’s Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Belkorp hired John Les, former MLA for Chilliwack, and BFI hired lobbyist Dimitri Pantazopoulos, who was the Liberals’ chief pollster during the 2013 provincial election.

5) Perhaps the most bizarre donation of all is one for $28,750 from the Alberta Newspaper Group to the Liberals.

Alberta Newspaper Group has no papers in B.C., but is run and partially owned by British Columbian David Radler. Yes, that David Radler. The one who went to jail, along with his business partner Conrad Black, after being convicted of defrauding their company Hollinger Inc.

Alberta Newspaper Group is a subsidiary of Glacier Media, which owns the Victoria Times Colonist. Radler was named the acting publisher of the Victoria Times Colonist a year ago.

Radler also runs Continental Newspapers, which publishes the Kelowna Daily Courier and Penticton Herald.

As traditional media players face unprecedented hardships to stay alive, it’s a wonder how any newspaper company can afford to scrounge up tens of thousands of dollars to curry political favour.

Sadly, this is far from the first time a B.C. media company has donated to a political party. In 2013, Postmedia — which owns the Vancouver Sun and The Province — donated $10,000 to the BC Liberals. In 2009, Glacier Media gave $100,000 to the Liberals. And between 2006 and 2011, Black Press — which owns more than 70 community newspapers in B.C.— contributed $5,430 to the BC Liberals.

It’s exactly the kind of impropriety that would typically set the press off on a feeding frenzy — alas, the only organizations to escape the news media’s often savage scrutiny are the news media themselves.

Photo: Mary Crandall via Flickr

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