A new podcast series by CBC Vancouver paints a dramatic picture of what life in British Columbia will look like after 30 years of climate change.

More frequent heat waves, more extreme forest fires, a massive drop in the snow pack and brutal storms are just some of the consequences British Columbians will feel 33 years from now. In other words: say goodbye to skiing and pond hockey and say hello to flooding and air quality advisories.

The series, 2050: Degrees of Change, is divvied up into six episodes, which look at everything from the water cycle and agriculture to forests and what climate change means for our cities.

The series looks at a scenario in which British Columbia has warmed an average of 2.5 degrees and the world has cut its emissions by half.

“We wanted listeners to end off realizing this is a middle of the road scenario and things could be worse and they could be better depending on what we choose to do now,” said Johanna Wagstaffe, podcast host and CBC senior meteorologist.

DeSmog Canada asked Wagstaffe some questions about the making of the series.

What prompted you to create this podcast?

I’ve always been thinking about how to tell the story of climate change, especially as a meteorologist. I see every day how climate change has increased the number of severe weather events and big weather events that impact communities. In the past decade of forecasting I’ve really seen how climate change has impacted my job as a meteorologist and how that has impacted more people around the world.

I spent a lot of time thinking about how to tell the story of climate change and it’s not always the easiest story to pitch. But after doing our first podcast, Faultlines, I immediately knew that that was the format. We could take our time with it, we had this high production level, we could really let scientists be candid. We were really happy to tell what I think can be a hard story to tell sometimes.

Why did you choose to look at the year 2050?

We were trying to think of how to tell the story of British Columbia changing over the years and our original thought was 2100 because that’s when so many of the climate models project out to … but 2100 just seemed a little bit out of reach and 2050 is a year when some of us may actually still be alive. It’s a little bit more tangible when we think about our children. It’s only 33 years away.

Being able to see the changes within a lifetime is powerful.

In the first episode, you talk about how your answer to the question, ‘Was this severe weather event caused by climate change?’ has sort of changed over the years to the point where you want to say ‘yes.’ Can you speak to that evolution?

When I first started forecasting 10 years ago, we were talking about climate change …  but it was always one of the last questions when we were talking about a severe weather event. I think meteorologists were almost scared of that question because as scientists, you never want to take one data point and use it as indication of a trend. We all sort of had this stock answer in the weather centre.

After seeing how much climate change does actually impact every weather event — it shifts that bottom baseline — in the past couple of years, I’ve realized I have a responsibility to communicate that to people.

What do you find surprises people most about the impacts of climate change in British Columbia?

I think one of the biggest reactions is people don’t realize how much their life will change in just three decades. They just didn’t think about it. Everyone’s life will change dramatically.

What did you learn while making the series?

I went in fairly pessimistic about what we were going to learn. I imagined that both scientists and experts would say it was too late, we weren’t fast enough, that we’re headed for catastrophic changes. And we did hear a lot of that.

But I was surprised at how many people are working on it right now. Everyone we talked to had so many other experts to recommend — other movers and shakers who are already incorporating it into their work. People planting our food and our trees and building our dikes and building our condos. They’re all already thinking about it.

Are there ways you can see this series impacting CBC’s reporting going forward?

It’s sometimes a hard story to sell even in a newsroom. There are so many important climate change research papers coming out every day and it’s trying to figure out how to tell those important stories without getting people’s eyes to glaze over.

In a way this podcast has proved that people are hungry for that. I know there are plans to have more conversations in our newsroom about how to keep this story going.

Q&A With the Host of CBC’s Badass New Podcast About #ClimateChange @JWagstaffe https://t.co/nqsgVWLt9j #2050DegreesofChange

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 4, 2017

Image: Johanna Wagstaffe. Photo: Courtesy of CBC

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.

Revelations from DeSmog Canada’s exclusive sit-down interview with Harry Swain, the chair of the panel that reviewed the $8.8 billion Site C dam, were raised during question period in the B.C. legislature on Thursday.

Andrew Weaver, Oak Bay-Gordon Head MLA and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, asked the government about the economics of the Site C dam project in light of Swain’s unprecedented interview.

Swain, a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, is thought to be the first review panel member in Canadian history to speak out about a project in this manner. His comments to DeSmog Canada prompted follow-up by the Globe and Mail, CBC, CKNW and CFAX.

“Mr. Swain was very clear that the government was rushed in approving Site C, and British Columbians will pay for their haste,” Weaver said during question period. “As Mr. Swain said: ‘Wisdom would have been waiting for two, three, four years to see whether the projections they’ — that’s BC Hydro — ‘were making had any basis in fact.’ That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for the fiscal underpinning of Site C.”

The panel that reviewed Site C predicted that the dam will lose $800 million in its first four years of production while it sells excess power for a third of its cost on the export market.

“My goodness, we could use that money to build a state-of-the-art sewage system in Victoria,” Weaver quipped.

Weaver continued during question period:

“Mr. Swain is only the most recent person to suggest waiting a few years to see if electricity demand for the project materializes. We could still build Site C down the road if necessary, but we could use the additional time to properly explore cheaper alternatives like our vast geothermal potential in B.C. We have the time. LNG final investment decisions are delayed or not happening at all or somewhere down the yellow brick road or perhaps in never-never land.”

Weaver asked Bill Bennett, the Minister of Energy and Mines: “Given the massive costs associated with rushing into Site C, will he hit the pause button on construction for two to four years, as recommended by Mr. Swain, and use the time to save British Columbians money and explore viable alternatives?"

Bennett responded saying, “I categorically disagree with the premise of the question” and then went on to say: “Fair enough questions about the need for the electricity, the cost of the project. These are all legitimate issues that we should be debating in this House.”

Bennett then quoted several excerpts from the panel’s report, including that Site C “would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would increase with passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly” and that BC Hydro “has done a responsible job in forecasting.”

The panel's report also said it did not have the information, time or resources to look at the accuracy of cost estimates and recommended that, if the project proceeds, costs and need should be examined in detail by the province’s independent regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission. The panel noted it could not conclude the dam was needed on the schedule presented and said the province had failed to investigate alternatives — something it was instructed to do 32 years ago, when the utilities commission first turned down the Site C dam on the Peace River. 

Swain called this failure to research alternatives a ‘dereliction of duty’ in his interview with DeSmog Canada.

“Those are very strong words from a very highly regarded senior official from the Canadian government,” Weaver said Thursday in the legislature. “To be even more blunt, it’s recklessness on the part of the government.”

Weaver continued:

"What we need right now is a government that is willing to show leadership on this, willing to put good policy ahead of ideological politics. My question to the minister is this. Will he listen to the call from every member of this side of the House, along with the expert opinion of the joint review panel and countless others, to send the Site C project to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for a proper regulatory review?"

Bennett continued his refusal to send the project for a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Bennett responded:

"B.C. Hydro figures that we’re going to need 1,100 megawatts of electricity in 2024. We set about, over the past two years, to determine what’s the best way to get that 1,100 megawatts of electricity. We looked at absolutely everything, and the decision that we made on this side of the House was to honour the ratepayer. We chose the option that is the fairest, lowest cost to the ratepayer, but that side of the House wants us to do something different."

But the panel that reviewed the Site C proposal found the government hadn't looked at "absolutely everything," as Bennett states.

“The panel concludes that a failure to pursue research over the last 30 years into B.C.’s geothermal resources has left BC Hydro without information about a resource that BC Hydro thinks may offer up to 700 megawatts of firm, economic power with low environmental costs,” the panel's report read.

The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA) has argued geothermal can meet all of B.C.’s future energy needs at a lower cost than Site C with fewer environmental impacts. The association has requested meetings with Minister Bennett with no success.

"We welcome him to become more informed and to engage in constructive dialogue with the association and with our members," said Alison Thompson, chair of CanGEA.

In a press release, Weaver said the minister's talking points are missing the point. “This dam didn’t make sense for B.C. thirty years ago, and it doesn’t make sense now.”

“The question that needs to be asked is what’s the rush?” Weaver added. “LNG isn’t materializing along the timeline promised by government. Even if B.C. Hydro’s current projections are true, we still have up to four years before we need to start building the dam. We should use that time to explore alternatives before embarking on the largest infrastructure project in B.C. history.”

The full official transcript of the exchange in the Legislature can be viewed on Hansard.

BC Hydro is scheduled to begin construction on the Site C dam this summer, but the project is facing six legal challenges, including one that alleges that Cabinet erred in dismissing key portions of the joint review panel’s findings on the project.  

The dam would be the third on the Peace River and would flood 83 kilometres of the Peace Valley, impacting 13,000 hectares of agricultural land. The project is opposed by B.C.’s Treaty 8 First Nations, several of which have filed lawsuits.

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 really great analysis just posted by CBC's Senior Business Producer, Don Pittis, looks at why Canada (read: taxpayers) is subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $34 billion.

All this money is being spent on some of the world's richest companies to find more oil, which will subsequently pump more greenhouse gas emissions into our air — a viscious cycle that we as taxpayers are actively promoting with our own hard-earned money.

As Pittis writes:

"Despite saying one thing while doing another, the annoying part for people like me — who believe that the forces of economics are beneficial — is that these multibillion-dollar global subsidies subvert the market. They give false signals about how much we as a society should invest in an industry that many say is endangering the health of our planet."

You can read the entire article here: Why your taxes pay to make climate change worse.

Photo: Kris Krug via Flickr

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

Under new rules announced by Canada’s public broadcaster on April 24, freelance hosts like Rex Murphy will have to disclose their speaking fees to CBC, which will in turn post the information online.

“Starting in May, we'll post regularly online a list of appearances by our reporters and hosts — both paid AND unpaid,” CBC editor-in-chief Jennifer McGuire wrote in a blog post. “This will allow you to judge for yourselves how well we're living up to our commitments.”

Additionally, on-air CBC employees, such as Peter Mansbridge — who came under fire recently for accepting a speaking fee from an oil and gas lobby group — will face stricter rules.

“In the past, when one of our staff reporters or hosts was invited to do a paid speech, we would allow payment as long as the speech was neutral — thoughts about the state of journalism, or about their career,” McGuire wrote. “It was our practice to turn down requests if the event or its sponsor posed a direct conflict to the journalist's everyday work.”

Now, however, on-air CBC employees won’t be able to accept speaking requests from companies, political parties or other groups that lobby or otherwise influence public policy.

Murphy's sponsors included CAPP and Enbridge

Controversy erupted in February after Press Progress analyzed 25 of Murphy’s speaking engagements and found sponsors for his pro-oil public appearances included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Enbridge, TransCanada and Suncor. It was later revealed that Mansbridge also received a speaking fee from CAPP.

Murphy — who hosts Cross Country Checkup on CBC Radio and who appears as a commentator on The National — has been a vocal supporter of the oilsands industry and those who question the science of climate change. (Here's a compilation of some of the articles we have written on Rex Murphy over the years).

When the controversy emerged, CBC initially refused to disclose Murphy’s speaking fees, citing the fact he was a freelancer, not an employee.

“As a freelancer, Rex has the ability to do other work. So yes, he writes opinion pieces for The National Post. And yes, he does speaking engagements,” CBC’s McGuire wrote.

However, under the new rules, freelance hosts’ contracts will be updated so they are compelled to disclose paid events to CBC. Murphy, and other CBC personalities such as David Suzuki and Bob McDonald, will still be able to take payment from anyone they like — but their fees will be made public.

Ombudsman finds "perception of conflict of interest"

The decision followed a review by the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin, which concluded: “The practice of having CBC staff getting payment for speaking or working with groups that could very likely be in the news is inconsistent with CBC’s Conflict of Interest policies because it creates a perception of conflict.”

The ombudsman’s office received more than 70 letters after Murphy’s paid presentations were publicized.

In her review, Enkin noted: “When journalists get paid to speak to powerful advocacy groups, it is hard to argue that this does not lead to a perception of conflict of interest … The issues would be the same had Mr. Murphy or Mr. Mansbridge been paid to give a speech to the Sierra Club, for instance, or other environmental groups.”

Of course, it’s highly unlikely the Sierra Club could afford to cough up the speaking fee for someone of Mansbridge’s ilk.

As always, it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that those working in the public interest don’t have the same kind of cash at hand to buy access to decision-makers and thought leaders as multi-million dollar corporations do — which is precisely why this issue struck such a chord with Canadians in the first place.

Still, CBC’s new rules go a long way to leveling the playing field — and that’s a win both for the public broadcaster’s transparency and for healthy debate in our country.

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 Canadian National (CN) Rail freight train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire Tuesday night near the northwest New Brunswick town of Plaster Rock. No injuries have been reported.

The Transportation Safety Board ((TSB) reports that 17 cars are believed to have derailed, eight carrying dangerous goods and one a locomotive.  According to CN Rail President and CEO Claude Monganu five of the derailed cars were carrying crude oil, and the other four propane.

The 122-car train was heading to the Irving Oil Refinery in St. John from central Canada. The derailment occurred just after 7 pm about five km from Plaster Rock, in Wapske.

Dan Holbrook with the TSB told the CBC the incident was cause by a mechanical failure affecting the train's breaking system. A ruptured airline connecting the cars caused an emergency break application, he said. 

"Trains have a continuous pipe running throughout the train that supplies air to the brake system on every car," he said.

"If that brake pipe comes apart, that causes the brakes throughout the train to go into emergency…and that means the train will stop as fast as it can."

The incident comes just over a week after an accident in North Dakota caused several oil train cars to burst into flames and explode. The North Dakota accident is just one among many high-profile oil train accidents to occur within the last six months, including Lac-Mégantic where 47 people perished as the result of a tanker train derailment.

The TSB has deployed a team of investigators to the scene, where the fires still burn. The site is under the control of authorities with the local fire department.

Premier David Alward attended a news conference this morning to express gratitude there were no injuries and said there appeard to be no serious impact to the environment. 

"Every day we have the movement of goods and services across our country by many different modes of transportation," said Alward. "Every mode of transportation is not without risk.

"What is important to realize is how we are able to respond to situations when they happen really determines how we are able to manage as we go forward."

The TSB will further investigate the site when they determine it is safe to do so.

"The team will evaluate the accident and document the derailment site, inspect the equipment and track infrastructure and identify any items that may require closer inspection. They will examine the maintenance history of the train, operation of the equipment and operation policies, meteorological conditions, and review any human factors," states a TSB press release.

First responders were forced to stay a safe distance from the fire, which was large enough to be seen from a "significant" distance away, reports CBC. A 2km radius including 45 households has been evacuated, said Feeny, director of public and government affairs for CN Rail.

Plaster Rock mayor Alexis Fenner reportedly said all roads were blocked and shut down by the police after the derailment.

"On our balcony, we can just see flames. Every now and then, there's a huge fireball, as if there was an explosion," Plaster Rock resident Carol Jervis told Global News.

Another resident said her husband went to the area and "could see flames shooting in the air from quite far away. He could see it very clearly. It was about 50 to 60 feet he told me he could see."

J.D. Saddler, a resident of Wapske, told CBC that he was driving back there from Plaster Rock when the derailment occurred, and he saw "a great big cloud of orange smoke and the flames were really high in the air, the smoke was really high in the air."

At the time, there was no given time frame for when crews could move in. Feeny said CN Rail senior managers and hazardous materials experts were en route from Moncton, Montreal and Toronto.

An evacuation centre was set up at Plaster Rock, with the Canadian Red Cross dispatching volunteers with supplies to assist local authorities at the centre. Bill Lawlor, Canadian Red Cross director of disaster management for New Brunswick, said that this was a precautionary measure, as the area is sparsely populated and the small numbers impacted by the evacuation would probably stay with friends or family.

Lawlor added that the volunteers were ready with blankets and cots should any residents require shelter, or if circumstances should change.

According to the CBC, another derailment that occurred at Plaster Rock was one of two incidents that led the TSB to issue a summons in 2006, requiring CN Rail to turn in all its records.

The CBC's investigation discovered that CN Rail did not report more than 1,800 derailments and accidents over a six-year period, including 44 derailments and one collision on "key arterial rail tracks."

The derailment comes days after a joint task force announced by BC and Alberta premiers Christy Clark and Alison Redford handed in a report exploring the feasibility of transporting oil by rail as a backup in case pipeline projects fall through.

Image Credit: Andrew Jenkins / Facebook

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 Canadian National (CN) tanker train carrying liquefied petroleum gas and crude oil derailed early Saturday in the community of Gainford, Alberta, about 80 km from Edmonton. The derailment caused a massive explosion and started a fire, prompting the evacuation of about 100 people from the community.

CBC News reports that "13 cars — four carrying petroleum crude oil and nine pressurized containers carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) — left the tracks along Highway 16 and Range Road 61" at around 1 am Saturday, according to the Transportation Safety Board.

Parkland County spokesman Carson Mills said that there was a "significant explosion" at the time of the derailment, followed by a "smaller one." No injuries have been reported.

CN spokesman Louis-Antoine Paquin said three of the tanker cars, all containing liquid petroleum gas, were on fire and leaking, reports the Guardian. The community, and all residences within 1.6 km of the derailment, were evacuated in case of another explosion.

"It's still a risky situation so we need to contain as much as possible and keep people far away," said Mills. Parkland County has declared a state of emergency for the area surrounding Gainford. Residents have been told to keep out of the evacuation zone until further notice.

Jim Phelan, Parkland County fire chief, said they were "better off to allow [the fire] to vent and burn," adding that it was "unsafe to start fire-suppression activities," reports the Calgary Herald. Phelan told the news conference that residents saw a "large fireball" at the time of the derailment, and said that the cause of the explosion is "yet to be determined."

CBC reports that "55 Evansburg RCMP officers and emergency personnel are on hand and are working with CN and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to manage the situation," as well as fire crews from Parkland County and Yellowhead County, and a HAZMAT team from Edmonton.

Alberta Environment spokeswoman Robyn Cochrane said it was too early to assess the damage done by the derailment. "We just won't know the extent, from an environmental point of view, until it's all said and done," Cochrane said. "We'll work with the company on containment and then also remediation."  

Parkland County Mayor Rod Shaigec said that "this could have been worse, given the recent incident in Lac-Mégantic — that certainly does illustrate the threats to residents living along rail tracks. So we're thankful it wasn't of that magnitude."

The July 6 derailment of a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Company tanker train carrying crude oil in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, caused 47 deaths, with about 5.5 million litres of oil burned or contaminating the environment. The tragic incident has put the increasing transport of crude by rail in North America under close scrutiny.

On October 16, just three days before the Gainford derailment, another CN train carrying fertilizer derailed near Sexsmith, Alberta, causing an evacuation of the town.

Greenpeace has spoken out against the Harper government for putting the needs of the oil industry over the safety of Canadians.

"This kind of disaster will become the new normal unless the federal government takes much more effective measures to improve oil transportation safety," said Greenpeace spokesman Mike Hudema.

"The truth is that the Harper government has become such a cheerleader for the petroleum industry that it is failing in its duty to protect our communities and the environment," said Hudema. "This is the third major derailment in Alberta in the last few months. How many more will it take before Ottawa implements transportation safety regulations that were recommended more than a decade ago?"

Documents obtained by Greenpeace recently revealed that CN and Natural Resources Canada were considering a plan last March to move oil by rail from Alberta to BC for export to overseas markets, in capacities matching that proposed for the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The train that derailed in Gainford was travelling from Edmonton to Vancouver, BC, said CN spokesman Paquin.

Whether the Harper government continues to push for the transport of oil by rail despite the numerous safety concerns and growing number of derailments remains to be seen.

Image Credit: Parkland County / Facebook

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.

This past weekend David Ellis, a CTV photo journalist with 28 years' experience, boarded a plane bound for Malaysia with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Last week Ellis was set to be banned from accompanying Stephen Harper on the upcoming trip because he asked the Prime Minister an unwelcome question during a photo op in New York.

Harper's office backed down after a backlash from the major television networks, including CBC, CTV and Global News, which questioned the role the PMO should play in journalistic coverage of Harper's travels abroad.

Harper was in New York last week for a "highly scripted public program, including a business roundtable" according to Tim Harper of the Toronto Star. Included on Prime Minister Harper's schedule was a photo op with the business leaders, a "staged event" to "make the prime minister look good," during which he "smiles and grabs the hand of whomever he is about to meet."

In 2006 Harper instituted strict rules prohibiting journalists from asking questions during photo ops in Canada and abroad. In Britain and Australia, there are no restrictions on journalists asking questions during photo ops. This rule is occasionally broken in the case of breaking news.

At the time of Harper's New York photo op, David Ellis was concerned with the charging of Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro under the Canada Elections Act for exceeding election spending and donation limits. Del Mastro was Harper's parliamentary secretary, though he's now been stripped of that title and is no longer a member of the Conservative caucus.

After clearing it with his Ottawa office, Ellis asked Harper, who has defended Del Mastro while he was being investigated, "Any comment today, sir, about Dean Del Mastro being charged?" Stephen Harper declined to answer, and all journalists were vacated from the room without incident.

Within one week CTV was notified by the PMO that Ellis would not be allowed on Harper's plane for the seven-day trip to Malaysia and Indonesia even though the journalist had received clearance to work as a pool cameraman.

According to the Canadian Press, the main networks CBC, CTV and Global "[pool] resources on prime ministerial trips in order to cut costs," with each sending its own reporter but taking turns sending camera operators, editors and technicians.

Media travelling with the prime minister pay for their own lodging and transportation.

The networks in the pool backed CTV's decision to send Ellis to board Harper's plane despite the the PMO's order.

When news of the ban became public, Jason MacDonald, the Prime Minister's communications director, issued an email, stating "no accredited Canadian media outlet is prevented from joining us for the upcoming trip to the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Summit."

"To suggest otherwise is absolutely false," he added, declining at the time to specify whether Ellis would be allowed on the plane.

Following the backlash from the press gallery, the PMO clarified Ellis would accompany Harper after all. "I'm not going to get into the issue . . . all that matters is he will be on the trip,'' said MacDonald.

"Asking a question of an elected official shouldn't be a punishable offence," Daniel Thibeault, president of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, told the Star.

As Tim Harper of the Star puts it, "picking and choosing who you want on your plane covering an official government foreign visit is one step short of the PMO flying to Malaysia with its own stenographer who would email back tales of the glorious leader's conquests."

Image Credit: World Economic Forum / Wikimedia Commons

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 Canadian Radio-television and Communications Commission (CRTC) has ruled against Sun News Network’s application for mandatory distribution on basic cable TV packages.

Susana Mas writes for CBC News, that “The Quebecor-owned network did not successfully demonstrate to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that it met the criteria for a mandatory distribution order.”

Mandatory carriage means that cable companies would have to include the channel with basic service, instead of providing it as an added-cost option to subscribers.

The CRTC did, however, express concern that Canadian news providers aren’t being given priority in cable packages. CRTC chairman Jean-Pierre Blais said in a release that “under the existing rules, Canadian news services are not being given a pride of place in our broadcasting system.”

The CRTC has proposed a new regulatory framework to address “the systemic issue regarding the distribution of Canadian national news services under equitable and commercially reasonable conditions.” Changes include the following:

• Distributors must-offer all Canadian national news services (not necessarily on basic service)

• Distributors must place Canadian news services in close proximity in their channel lineup

• National news services must be available in a package and on a stand-alone basis

• National news services should be offered in the most appropriate packages according to their content.

CRTC has invited Canadians to comment on the changes online by September 9.

Sun News released a statement saying that they were “disappointed” by the CRTC’s ruling, but “encouraged [that the CRTC] have found merit in the main arguments laid out by Sun News on price, channel placement and distribution.”

Despite earlier comments to CBC by Sun News Network vice-president Kory Teneycke indicating that anything other than mandatory carriage “would inevitably lead to the closure of the station,” the network is not shutting down.

The statement from Sun News said that the network is “glad that our application has acted as a catalyst for this broader review of the framework for national news services,” and added that they “intend to participate fully in those proceedings, and will continue to operate pending an outcome.”

The CRTC also denied 11 other mandatory carriage applications, and approved three new television services including a service operated by the Legislative Assemblies of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Image: Sun News Network

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

Today parliament is set to end debate on the federal omnibus budget bill C-60 — a bill that could prove a serious threat to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's (CBC) journalistic independence from the government.

As the Toronto Star points out, buried in the 111 pages of Bill C-60 are "unprecedented provisions that will allow the government to intervene in the collective bargaining and executive salary negotiations of more than 40 Crown corporations," including the CBC.

Yesterday, during debate in the house, NDP MP Andrew Cash said such interference could make life harder for workers in Canada's cultural sector.

"Too often…we have seen the current government reach into cultural institutions and attempt to compromise their independence. In fact, the Conservative cabinet, if Bill C-60 passes, will attempt to dictate rates of pay for non-unionized workers and terms for collective agreements at many cultural agencies, including the CBC and the Museum of Civilization, or as it will soon be called, the museum of Canadian history.

For the Conservatives, it is always a race to the bottom, though, on the environment, on ethics, on transparency in government and, most importantly, on wages. The government is ideologically committed to pushing wages down, breaking unions and privatizing key cultural institutions. This ideology fails the people of Canada…" he said.

Huffington Post Canada reports that the bill would force the CBC to "get approval from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Treasury Board Committee for any collective bargaining agreement the broadcaster reaches with its employees." It would also give the Treasury Board "power to approve or deny pay and benefits for non-unionized employees."

The bill would also give the government similar powers over the Canada Council for the Arts, the International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre in Ottawa. The Huffington Post quotes Liberal MP Scott Brison as saying that the institutions affected by the bill "represent public broadcasting, culture and scientific research, three areas where the Conservatives have been antagonistic."

Since many of the changes Bill C-60 proposes are non-fiscal in nature, it falls to the House of Commons finance committee to examine even the parts of the bill that it has no expertise on. Furthermore, the Toronto Star points out that the committee was given the "impossibly tight time-frame" of four days to hear expert testimony on the legislation's consequences. And as the amendments in question are at the very end of the 111-page bill, they were given little attention in the committee's hearings.

It's clear that this is another move by the Harper government to assert tighter control over the media, even as it faces accusations of muzzling scientists from speaking out about climate change. The Toronto Star reports that some 173,000 Canadians have already signed a petition urging the government to back down and keep the CBC independent.

The Canadian Press writes in the Tyee that several journalists are also appealing to the Canadian public to write to their MPs and demand changes to Bill C-60. Arnold Amber of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression says that the bill could "skew the CBC's news coverage," and urges "the Canadian people to react as quickly as possible to bring the government to its senses."

The NDP has said that they will table an amendment to exclude the CBC from the bill, "in response to the concerns of Canadians, journalists, unions, civil society and CBC's management, who all feel that Bill C-60 threatens the independence of CBC and violates the Broadcasting Act."

NDP Heritage critic, Pierre Nantel, has called out the bill as "problematic for all Crown corporations, but…particularly critical for a broadcaster that must absolutely remain independent from the government." Nantel challenged the Harper government's need for such brazenly dictatorial tactics, asking, "What do the Conservatives have to hide? Why does the government want to dictate the working conditions of media employees?"

As Nantel observes, if the Conservatives have nothing to hide, they'll accept the NDP's amendment to protect the CBC's independence. In the meanwhile, there's still time for the public to add their voice to petitions both offline and online.

Image Credit: Liam Richards / 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.

If the pipeline giant Enbridge Inc. is content to cower behind a 20-something blog manager rather than acknowledge its role in the recent attack on the patriotism of Canadian environmentalists, what hope have we that the company would ever stand accountable for the accidents that will occur – inevitably – if Northern Gateway ever gets built?

That’s a rhetorical question, but a pressing one, given the environmental time-bomb that Enbridge proposes to lay out between the Canadian tar sands and the pristine B.C. coastline.

We actually don’t know for sure that Enbridge is behind the so-called Ethical Oil Institute, a phony grassroots organization that was established by Ezra Levant and run for most of its first year by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s current Director of Planning, Alykhan Velshi. But you might come to your own conclusions by watching this clip or reading the transcript below.

It comes from an interview on the CBC show Power and Politics, in which the host, Evan Solomon, asks current EthicalOil.org manager Kathryn Marshall a question she just can’t bring herself to answer:

Solomon: Some have said that Enbridge, which is building the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, is a funder of Ethical Oil and that they’re using your group to disempower environmentalists that oppose this. Does Enbridge support or give your organization money?

Marshall: Look, we’re a small grassroots advocacy organization. This is about foreign special interests and their puppet groups who are trying to hijack a Canadian process. … This isn’t about our money, this is about foreign special interests who are trying to hijack the process.

We don’t take any foreign money. We take no foreign money. We are 100 per cent Canadian.

Solomon: Are you taking money from Enbridge?

Marshall: We’re a small grassroots organization. Our average donor is a regular hard-working Canadian who gives us 20 or 30 dollars through our website.

Solomon: I am not trying to disparage your donors. I’m trying to understand if the company that is building the pipeline is also funding you. If we’re talking about who is funding and the influence of that, I think it’s fair to be transparent about that.

Marshall: This is about foreign influence. EthicalOil.org is 100 per cent Canadian. Let’s talk about foreign money.”

[Minutes later, the host asks again.]

Solomon: You keep calling these other groups puppet groups. People will ask, are you a puppet group of Enbridge? Let me ask you again. Does Enbridge fund you to have a campaign against these other groups? Does Enbridge give your organization money?

Marshall: Look Evan, I am not going to respond to conspiracy theories, we are a small grassroots organization.  (Garbled by interruptions)

Solomon: Just to be fair. It’s not a conspiracy theory. If they don’t give you money, you could say they don’t. If they do, fine.

Marshall: I don’t respond to conspiracy theories. But look, this is about foreign interests trying to hijack a Canadian process.

Solomon: Ok, I can’t get an answer. I don’t know why that’s a conspiratorial question. If Enbridge funds Ethical Oil, I’d love to know.

Is this the kind of transparency that would give you confidence in how Enbridge might account for itself in the wake of an out-of-sight oil spill?

For that matter, do Marshall’s well-rehearsed talking points even make sense? The portion of income that any large Canadian environmental groups receive from foreign sources seldom changes – and seldom tops about 10 per cent. Yet Enbridge, which reports more than double that level of foreign ownership (23%) appears to be accusing others of having “special interests” or “foreign influence.”

Here you have a PR person who is prepared to embarrass herself, painfully and repeatedly on national TV rather than answer a simple question about Enbridge funding. We have a $5.5-billion project that has already attracted huge offshore support; we have a tar sand scar across northern Alberta that is increasingly owned by Chinese buyers (who really want this pipeline). And yet everyone from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to this hapless PR professional is saying it’s the Canadian environmental community that is somehow biased by its diversity of support.

Does this conform to your definition of “ethical”?

Take one more moment to think about what Enbridge is proposing. Northern Gateway would stretch 1,172 kilometres through some of the last untouched temperate rainforest in the world. Bearing in mind that Enbridge pipelines have leaked a recorded 132,000 barrels of hydrocarbons in 610 recorded spills between 1999 and 2008, are we convinced that Enbridge would account for every “little oops” that occurs deep in the BC wilderness? Or, after this incident, do you think they might rather hire Kathryn Marshall to tell us that she had no personal evidence of any spill – and that anyone who says different is probably being put up to it by foreigners?

Worse, what would Enbridge or their PR team say when the first oil tanker does an Exxon Valdez in Hecate Strait?

This whole Ethical Oil dodge is just one more reason to slam the door on this whole project.

Image credit: Henrik Lehnerer | Shutterstock

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.