It feels like an eternity since federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair received the boot from delegates at the party convention in April 2016.

The lengthy leadership race hasn’t exactly helped that feeling.

Most candidates launched their campaigns in February. Nine debates were held between March and September. But we’re almost at the end of the tunnel. Voting for the first ballot, via both mail-in ballots and online, commenced on Sept. 18 and concludes on Oct. 1. If needed, second and third ballots will be collected by Oct. 8 and Oct. 15.

While there are only four candidates left in the race — Guy Caron, Jagmeet Singh, Charlie Angus and Niki Ashton — there are an enormous number of combined proposals related to energy, climate and environmental policies (especially compared to what was discussed during the federal Conservative leadership race).

Let’s take a look at what’s on offer from the NDP candidates.

Moving Past the Pipeline Debate

A central theme throughout the race has been the need to “move past” the pipeline debate.

Sounds easy!

In June, Ontario MP Charlie Angus — previously dubbed “the most pipeline-friendly candidate” by the Hill Times — said that “the only discussion we’ve had on the environment is ‘this pipeline versus that pipeline.’”

Similarly, Ontario MPP and deputy leader Jagmeet Singh states in his platform that “it’s no secret that there are people who would like to narrow our discussions on climate change to a debate about pipelines alone in an attempt to divide Canadians.”

It’s probably a fair point. But the pressure has, at the very least, required candidates to quickly clarify their position on the subject.

Both Manitoba MP Niki Ashton and Quebec MP Guy Caron have indicated that they’re against the country’s major projects: Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East. Enbridge’s controversial Line 3, which received federal approval alongside Trans Mountain, is left unaddressed.

Singh was late to the pipeline party — something Ashton publicly noted.

During a debate in St. John’s in June, Singh stated a desire to communicate with NDP leaders in Alberta and B.C. before declaring a firm decision on the matter.

Surprisingly, Singh’s climate plan dropped only a week later, fully opposing Trans Mountain and Energy East due to conflicts with emissions targets and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).

Angus arguably left the most room open for future projects, often deploying the Alberta government’s language of “social license” and threat of oil-by-rail.

In addition, he suggested that “industry understands that they need social license on the ground” and that government hasn’t sufficiently been “at the table.”

Four’s Company: Where @NDP Leadership Candidates Stand on #Energy and #Climate Policy https://t.co/jDi9nVJnRC #NDPldr #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 27, 2017

Emissions Targets and Carbon Pricing

Every candidate but Angus has specifically committed to accelerating Canada’s reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet international climate targets.

Specifically, the trio of Caron, Singh and Ashton have all committed to cutting the country’s emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025. That’s a full five years earlier than the Liberal government’s current plan — which seeks to hit that number by 2030 — and only six years after an NDP government could conceivably attain power.

That won’t be easy.

To achieve that both Ashton and Angus stated that he will create a five-year “national carbon budget.”

Emissions targets help but the country needs actual mechanisms, like regulations or carbon pricing, to get there.

So far Caron is the sole candidate to propose adjusting the national price on carbon. Currently, the Liberal government requires every province to institute a price on carbon — either via a carbon tax or cap-and-trade framework — that will reach $50/tonne by 2022.

Caron proposed upping that requirement to $50/tonne by 2020, to $100/tonne by 2025 and $150/tonne by 2030.

That’s still below what Mark Jaccard and his research team at Simon Fraser University have calculated would be required if carbon pricing was exclusively relied on to hit Paris Agreement targets: $200/tonne by 2030.

It’s still significantly more specific than anything being offered by any other candidate.

Ushering in a Green Future

Aston, Angus and Singh have each proposed the creation of new government positions or agencies to help Canada usher in a new sustainable economy.

For Ashton, that includes the co-creation of a Crown corporation called Green Canada and a public investment bank. Together, the two institutions would help fund green housing projects, public transit, renewable tech, upskilling jobs in “sunset” industries, national retrofit program and a “young green job guarantee.”

Ashton’s plan for a publicly funded infrastructure bank is a big departure from the Liberal government’s controversial support of private investment in Canada’s $35-billion Infrastructure Bank.

Ashton noted there is a potential for 700,000 clean jobs in the construction and operation of renewable energy by 2050. To foster that potential, Ashton proposed the creation of four new Green Canada Advisory Boards to focus on forestry, agriculture, fishing and energy.

Angus also proposed an alternative to Canada’s Infrastructure Bank in the form of a new Crown corporation designed to facilitate “sustainable development” in energy, transit and “municipal redesigns.”

Meanwhile, Singh pledged to establish a climate change advisory group as well as a climate change action officer to keep track of progress on emissions.

Big Spenders

Only Ashton and Caron mention specific figures when it comes to funding of green programs.

Ashton dedicated a massive $10 billion per year to build 40,000 units of green public housing, amounting to over 150,000 houses in her first mandate.

She noted that she would pay for that and other programs with increased taxation on high-income earners and corporations, as well as deficit spending given low interest rates.

Caron also threw out a $10 billion figure to spur investment into electric high-speed rail in the revered Calgary-Edmonton and Quebec City-Windsor corridors over a 10-year period.

The amount won’t be enough to cover all the expected costs of such a project, however. Estimates for the corridors come in at $6 to $10 billion and $20 billion, respectively.

Caron would also dedicate $18 billion to public transit expenditures over a decade, $4.7 billion to clean drinking water in Indigenous communities and $32 billion in renewable investments (it’s unclear if the latter would be direct investments or grants/subsidies).

Possibly the most extravagant of all, Caron pledged to rebate up to $8,000 per electric vehicle up to a value of $40,000, and a huge $50,000 when purchasing medium- and heavy-duty electric buses or trucks.

Both Angus and Singh were significantly lighter on the details.

Singh has pitched ideas like a national public transit strategy to provide “long-term and predictable funding” and providing tax rebates for zero-emission vehicle purchases. But no particular dollar figures have been assigned to these ideas.

Same goes for his proposal to implement nationwide energy efficiency measures, kick off a renewable heating program and construct a much-needed east-west supergrid to share excess low-carbon electricity to neighbouring provinces.

Meanwhile, Angus provided a mere four bullet points in his climate platform, but one, notably, aims at eliminating Canada’s estimated $3.3 billion in annual subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

The other three priorities are develop a national carbon budget, a carbon budget council and, as mentioned above, a new Crown corporation to spurn sustainable development.

Driving the Electric Car Market

There’s also a fairly consistent support of a transition to electric vehicles among all four candidates.

Ashton stated that her government will phase-out gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles by 2040.

That’s exactly in line with recent commitments by the U.K. and France, and well behind Norway’s pledge to phase out by 2025. Her platform also indicated support for low-income households with interest-free loans to buy electric vehicles in the push to 2040.

Singh announced he will introduce a zero-emission vehicle agenda for Canada, including a levy on high-emitting vehicles and a tax rebate for electric vehicle purchases.

Zero-emission regulations were also promised by Caron in order to help facilitate a push for half of all vehicles on roads to be electric by 2041. His platform added that a regulatory regime would be implemented two years after he reaches office, combined with investments into R&D for ensuring that rare earth minerals and lithium are secured for manufacturing the vehicles.

None of the candidates have yet mentioned a zero-emission vehicle mandate as successfully deployed in jurisdictions like California or Quebec.

Broader, More Specific Policies Needed

Once all the ballots have been counted, there will be another two years for the new leader to refine their platform and mobilize support for the next federal election.

Giving an idea of what’s to come, most candidates have a few extra policies worth mentioning.

Singh shouted out the need to accelerate methane regulations, emphasize carbon price rebates for low-income families and protect Canadian pensions, savings and RRSPs by requiring fossil fuel companies to disclose climate risk.

Ashton advocated the need to “green” data storage and invest more in the international Green Climate Fund in the form of grants rather than loans.

Caron brought up the need to address climate justice, suggesting Canada ease migration barriers for those leaving their homes due to climate impacts. In addition, Caron plans to implement a carbon tariff on imports from other countries that have lower carbon prices, diverting revenue to companies that are impacted because of lower prices.

There are certainly broader questions to be answered around the influence of the oil and gas industry, recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, especially when it comes to the assessment and approval of major projects and Canada’s larger transition to a sustainable, renewable energy economy.

Ballot results will be announced between October 1 and 15.

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.

Justin Trudeau’s government has quietly issued its first batch of permits for the Site C dam — allowing construction to move forward on the $8.8 billion BC Hydro project despite ongoing legal challenges by two First Nations.

The federal-provincial review panel’s report on Site C found the 1,100 megawatt dam will result in significant and irreversible adverse impacts on Treaty 8 First Nations.

Caleb Behn, who is from West Moberly First Nation, one of the nations taking the federal government to court, says Trudeau has broken his promise.

“It’s 19th century technology being permitted with 19th century thinking and I expected more from the Trudeau government,” he said. “These permits were our last best hope to resolve this.”

“These permits suggest very strongly that, at least these ministries, if not Trudeau’s entire cabinet, are unwilling to engage in reconciliation with indigenous peoples. I thought this country could be more.”

Charlie Angus, MP for Timmins-James Bay and NDP critic for Indigenous and Northern Affairs, echoed those sentiments.  

“I think this was a real test of the Trudeau government and they failed the test,” Angus said.

“The Liberals seem to be thinking that if they say the right things, it’s somehow the same as doing the right things.”

Trudeau has emphasized building a new relationship with indigenous peoples since taking office in October. He included the following paragraph in every ministerial mandate letter:

“No relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples. It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.”

But with the issuing of the Site C permits, doubts have been cast on that promise.

“We hear from all the key ministers about the nation-to-nation relationship and then they rubber stamp and go ahead with all the big projects,” Angus said.  

For Behn, who was the subject of a documentary called Fractured Land last year, the sense of disappointment was palpable.

“What do they care about a backwater in northern B.C. that only has 40,000 voters?” he asked. “If you spent $9 billion on solar panels, geothermal … you wouldn’t have to run roughshod over indigenous rights."

Liberals Ignore Calls to Delay Permits

The permits allow BC Hydro to block the flow of the Peace River and disrupt fisheries, activities that require federal permission. Until now, the Liberal government hadn’t issued any permits for the dam (the only federal permits issued were doled out during the last election by former prime minister Stephen Harper).

The Site C dam will flood more than 100 kilometres of river valley and impact 13,000 hectares of agricultural land — including flooding 3,800 hectares of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve, an area nearly twice the size of the city of Victoria.

Groups ranging from Amnesty International to the David Suzuki Foundation to the Royal Society of Canada have called on Trudeau to halt construction of the dam.

“The people of Treaty 8 have said no to Site C. Any government that is truly committed to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, to respecting human rights and to promoting truly clean energy must listen,” stated a letter sent to the federal government in February.

Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May has called Site C the “litmus test” for the federal government’s commitment to a new relationship with indigenous peoples.

“It is agonizing to witness the starting gun for a race between bulldozers and justice,” May said in a statement in which she expressed “deep disappointment” with the federal government.

The Royal Society of Canada described the Site C Joint Review Panel report as the strongest and most negative review to be ignored by government.

In its report, the panel wrote that it couldn’t conclude that the power from Site C was needed on the schedule presented, adding: “Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social and other costs.”

The panel recommended the project be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission — however, the B.C. and federal governments approved the dam without further review in late 2014.

Was Consultation With First Nations Adequate?

West Moberly First Nation and Prophet River First Nation will appear in a federal court in Montreal in September to fight their case.

"Sitting down and consulting with the provincial and federal government is a waste of time," said Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nation. "The only option we have is to challenge them in court."

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans responded to DeSmog Canada’s request for comment on the issuing of Site C permits with the following statement:

"For the past seven months, DFO has consulted potentially affected Indigenous groups on the department’s review of BC Hydro’s application for authorization for the main civil construction works. In particular, DFO contacted the Prophet River and West Moberly First Nations, along with ten other potentially affected indigenous groups. DFO officials have made significant efforts to provide opportunities for input, including a July 18 face-to-face meeting between Minister LeBlanc and West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson and Prophet River First Nation Chief Lynette Tsakoza.

DFO will continue to engage with Indigenous groups that have raised concerns about the project to ensure that their concerns continue to be heard and taken into account."

Willson told DeSmog Canada the July 18th meeting marked the first time in six years that his nation has met with an official federal decision-maker on the Site C file.

"We met in Vancouver for about an hour. They sat there and took their notes and shook their heads in disbelief and then hopped on a plane back to Ottawa," Willson said.

"That whole process was to check the box. They haven’t responded to any one of our concerns. If we don’t go, they get to check the box beside the other box saying that we refuse to consult with them. There’s no box anywhere that says ‘this was meaningful.’ The only box is did we show up or didn’t we."

Willson said the Liberals have forgotten their election promises.

"This Liberal government is no different than the previous Harper government. They’re just sneaky. At least with Harper they were upfront about it."

Democracy group LeadNow has launched a phone action across Canada to encourage citizens to "flood the phone lines before they flood the Peace Valley." They are asking Canadians to call their MPs and let them know it is unacceptable for Trudeau to issue permits while there’s an outstanding First Nations legal challenge about the Site C dam. RAVEN Trust is also raising funds to support the First Nations legal challenge.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Overturned Due to Lack of Consultation

Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the federal government failed to meet even a basic standard of First Nations consultation on another controversial B.C. proposal — the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

With that ruling, the approval of the pipeline was overturned.

“The inadequacies — more than just a handful and more than mere imperfections — left entire subjects of central interest to the affected First Nations, sometimes subjects affecting their subsistence and well-being, entirely ignored,” the judges wrote in their ruling.

“Many impacts of the project — some identified in the Report of the Joint Review Panel, some not — were left undisclosed, undiscussed and unconsidered.”

The question of whether there has been adequate consultation ultimately rests with the courts — but if the Site C dam approval is overturned, a whole lot of public money will be at risk.

.@JustinTrudeau Just Broke His Promise to Canada's #FirstNations https://t.co/RJLo889VNb #SiteC #bcpoli #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/EfwHLHmOcm

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 30, 2016

Muskrat Falls Boondoggle 'Almost Identical' to Site C

We need look no further than the Muskrat Falls debacle in Newfoundland to learn what happens when provinces embark on mega-dam projects without a proven need for the power.

The 824-megawatt Muskrat Falls hydro project now under construction on the Lower Churchill has nearly doubled in cost since first beginning construction (from $6.2 billion to $11.4 billion).

Stan Marshall, the CEO of Nalcor, Newfoundland’s provincial power corporation, has called the project a “boondoggle.”

"It was a gamble and it's gone against us," he told reporters last month.

By 2022, the domestic rate for power in the province is expected to nearly double. For the average homeowner, Nalcor estimates this could mean an extra $150 per month in power costs.

"The generation and transmission project was much too large than was necessary to meet the energy requirements of the province," he said.

"The original capital cost analysis, estimates and schedule was very aggressive and overly optimistic and just didn't account for many of the risks that were known, or should've been known, at the time.”

Muskrat Falls went ahead without review by Newfoundland’s Public Utilities Board and in defiance of the advice of the joint federal-provincial review panel.

Sound familiar?

“It’s almost an identical case,” Marc Eliesen, former CEO of BC Hydro, told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s clear even more so as each day goes by that there really is no business case for Site C, especially with Hydro’s own electricity demand decreasing significantly.”

BC Hydro’s recent annual report shows that demand projections were off by nearly half a Site C dam last year.  

Can The Site C Dam Be Stopped?

With the federal permits in place and B.C. Premier Christy Clark vowing to get the dam “past the point of no return” before the next election, the big question is: can Site C still be stopped?

Eliesen points to examples from other provinces where projects have been halted mid-way.

For instance, in the 1970s, Manitoba Hydro began to build a dam on the Nelson River called the Limestone generating station. After 2.5 years of construction, it became apparent that the long-term power forecasts had changed and construction was suspended.

“They stopped, not withstanding construction for 2.5 years on a generation station that was larger than Site C,” Eliesen said.

“Can you postpone, can you suspend, can you cancel Site C? Basically the experience in other jurisdictions shows that you can if the end result shows that the cost to the ratepayer will be more than if you postpone or suspend.”

The Limestone project resumed seven years later in 1985 once a major export contract was negotiated with Minnesota. Eliesen was chairman of Manitoba Hydro at the time.

“If you want to export the power, you have to make sure it’s exported on a firm power demand basis,” Eliesen said. “Any firm power deal would have to be made in advance on any decision to construct something in British Columbia. It would be folly to think otherwise.”

Selling power at the interruptable rate (often five to six times lower than the firm rate) means you don’t cover the true cost of service.

“You’re going to lose your shirt on it,” Eliesen says. “You’re going to sell power at a price that is less than it cost to create it.”

Image: Caleb Behn via Zack Embree and Fractured Land

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.